(Trade Union Because it corresponds to what we are - the left wing of trade unionism. The IS sets out an alternative vision of unionism to that of the traditional reformist union leaderships. It aims to be more combative and also more democratic. A sector critical of reformism emerged as a part of the reorganization of the union movement in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Workers Commissions (CCOO), which have always been pluralist since their formation as a big sociopolitical anti-Francoist movement, there has always been a left wing. Our current represents the continuity of this left.
The point when this current appeared most clearly was in the third congress of the CCOO in 1984, when, for the first time, the left opposition presented an alternative list for the election of the Executive Commissions, obtaining 2.5% of the vote and one place on the executive. Three years later, in the fourth congress, the current consolidated itself with 8% of the vote and four places on the confederal executive. • During this time, how has this unionism, of which you are speak-
At the end of the dictatorship, there was a clear choice confronting the left — we were for a radical break while the reformist forces defended a process of gradual reform. This process of reform shaped the transition from the dictatorship. It was characterized by a consensus between the right and reformism which also had its trade union aspect — the social pacts. It should be remembered that, at the end of the dictatorship, there was a big mass movement on the rise, which had to be demobilized in order to stabilize the reformist regime.
This was also the sharpest period of the economic crisis, which meant that the workers were to accept sacrifices and take co-responsibility for the austerity policy. This was the double role of the social pacts. The attitude to these pacts divided trade unionists between those for and those against. The trademark of the trade union left during the decade from the end of the 1970s to the end of the 80s was its opposition to the pacts and to austerity, offering as an alternative a line of fighting back against the aggressive policies of the government and the bosses.
A whole section of trade union activists and cadres were separated out by these positions. The position in relation to the pacts was one of the reasons for the split in the Spanish Communist Party and the majority current of the CCO at the beginning of the 1980s. One of the reasons that led the leadership to propose to the fourth congress in 1987 the abandonment of the policy of pacts was the need
A left alternative in the Workers
SPANISH STATE it could not get the trade unions to take co-responsibility for its socio-economic policy it was seeking to at least demobilize the confrontation.
The trade union-government agreements thus meant some important gains for the workers, the most relevant being the right to collective negotiation for the 1.3 million government employees, who
Commissions had not previously had this right, with a clause on revising wages which is a type of annual sliding scale. These gains were made without giving anything in return, that is to say, without having to accept
WE PUBLISH below an interview with Jaoquin Nieto, a leading member of the Corriente de Izquierda Sindical (IS), a left current inside one of the main trade union movements inside the Spanish State, the Workers Commissions
(Comisiones Obreras, known as the CCOO). The interview was conducted in April 1990.
Nieto is a member of the Federal Executive Commission of the Workers Commissions.
to improve the internal climate and to overcome the contradictions contained in the policy of "national solidarity", which was the official name for the policy of supporting pacts.
Our balance sheet of this stage is positive, because on the one hand it made it possible for us to accumulate forces and on the other to exercise a real pressure on the whole of the trade union movement.
We demanded that it give up the policy of pacts, and actively participate in all the struggles of resistance, some of which were very radical. Now, fortunately, times have changed - there are no longer social pacts as such and the trade union left has other concerns.
• Before going into the present profile of the current, let us talk about the split in the PCE. The section which called itself pro-Soviet, which left the CP, was also opposed to the social pacts, but did not in any way consider itself a part of the trade
What happened was that the trade unions abandoned the defence of elementary demands — to maintain them would have meant becoming a sector critical of the leadership. Thus the CCOO divided those who defended these between demands, who were against the pacts and for a line of fighting back, and those who abandoned them and were for the pacts and "national solidarity". When I say elementary I am talking about things as simple as whether or not to defend the purchasing power of the workers.
To pose the struggle in such limited terms made it easier to link up with others who were critical.
There was thus a lot of convergence, which was very positive because it made possible a very broad and opposition. But these convergences did not mean we shared the same conception of trade unionism. When the situation changed and the CCOO leadership abandoned the policy of social pacts, adopting a more combative position, this made it easy to recuperate the great majority of the pro-Soviet activists and cadres who returned to the PCE. • After the social pacts were abandoned, the CCO became more active and militant. First it called, by itself, a general strike in 1985, and later, on December 14, 1988, it called another jointly with the UGT (General Workers' Union, the social democratic union confederation). One year later negotiations began again and the government seemed to have made some concessions to trade union demands. Why? Is this a question of new pacts?
The change is due precisely to the fact that there had been a general strike and the result was a greater attrition of the government and a more combative spirit among the workers. The government thought that something would have to change for everything to remain the
Before it had only been ready to concede some crumbs in return for the trade unions taking co-responsibility for its social and economic policy, but the result was a big confrontation with the trade union movement. Therefore it changed its tactics. It preferred to have the trade unions negotiating than organizing general strikes, although this required some concessions. It thus wanted to buy a climate of social peace and as sacrifices. This is what makes them different from the social pacts. • A complex situation for the trade union left, which either had to reject the agreements, thus marginalizing itself from the workers who saw them as a gain, or welcome the line of the majority of the trade union leaderships.
I think that the trade union left has been able to see the trees without losing sight of the wood, to see the positive side of the agreements without forgetting the gaps and problems. Where is the problem in these agreements? It lies in that they gained only a part of the trade union demands, that fundamentally the socioeconomic policy of the goverment remains in place, and, at the same time, since December 14 they have gained an undertaking from the trade union leaderships to maintain social peace, which may be prolonged indefinitely.
In short, the gains are a product of the general strike and what has not been won is because of the social truce. If we want to win all the demands, there will have to be new mobilizations and a turn to a global confrontation with government policy. This is our position, which is easy to understand. There is currently a second phase of negotiations starting which things will be much more difficult for the trade unions. Our call to return to the path of mobilization could find a broader echo.
What is the profile of the left in the CCOOs today?
The first thing which identifies us is our position in relation to mobilization by workplace, by sector or general strikes. Reformism always claims to avoid them. We are always organizing them or making pressure for them to be organized, because we are conscious of their value not simply for taking forward immediate demands but as a sort of apprenticeship for the workers and a path for changing the relationship of forces.
When they are called, reformism always tries to have them as short and as much under control as possible. We always try to have them as militant and as long-
CC.00. 11
CC.00.
SPANISH STATE lasting as possible. We also have our own profile in terms of the more radical content of demands, as much as regards a thoroughgoing economic transformation as on the more basic demands: the 35 hours, elimination of temporary contracts and other questions that the reformist leaderships do not take up as immediate questions.
Participation from below and trade union democracy is another key element defining us. The reformists, when they talk about participation, mean passive participation. We want it to be active. Thus the leadership would like informative meetings where only the leaders talk. We would like everybody to be able to talk and decide and the decisions to be respected. We have had experiences like that of the bankworkers, with 150,000 workers, where the workers, following the call of all the sectors of the trade union left to vote no, rejected in a referendum the signing of a contract which was however signed by the trade union
And finally there is our socio-political conception of trade unionism. Faced with institutionalized reformist trade unionism, which is loyal to the system, which sees the trade unions as one more cog in the state machinery, considers the trade union base as an electoral clientele, the trade union left wants a transforming
We think that the trade unions should be active on all emancipatory questions. Therefore we should be involved in the feminist and eco-pacifist struggles. In these fields, our current has been a real vanguard in the Workers Commissions, because it was open to feminism, anti-nuclear criticism and defence of the environment, to anti-NATO pacifism and the anti-militarism of the conscientious objectors and to active and not simply diplomatic solidarity with Nicaragua and El Salvador.
In the Spanish state there is a particular aspect which defines us. The trade union left unlike the trade union leadership doesn't recognize the reformist government or the Spanish constitution, because left wing trade unionism should intransidemocratic freedoms the right to national self• When you talk about left-wing trade unionism, sometimes it seems as if you are talking about your current, the Izquierda Sindical, and sometimes about something broader.
Left-wing trade unionism, as distinct from reformist positions, cannot be reduced to our current within the CCOOs. This is particularly true in some oppressed nationalities, including Euskadi, Galicia or the Canaries, where the 12 , majority of radical combative trade unionists are in trade union currents International Viewpoint #185 • May 21, 1990 linked to radical nationalism. There are workplaces or branches which do not see to work in the majority trade unions, a phenomenon similar to that in many other countries.
There is also a small organization which comes from the historic CNT (the anarchist trade union federation). Thus there is a big dispersion of forces. The big advantage of the trade union left in this panorama is that it brings together a very significant sector of left-wing trade unionists, active in a big trade union, which in its turn organizes the majority of combative trade unionists, and enjoys big prestige in the working class.
perspective of regrouping these dispersed forces?
No. If it was possible we would be working towards it. What is possible -and is positive — is practical convergences in times of struggle. If, for example, the CCOOs abandon a struggle, the people of the IS and these other groups support it together. But there is no possibility of forming a group of all these people, given the diversity of these trade union some for working in the CCOOs, others against - and political • Coming back to the IS of the cCOOs, what is its implantation?
To give objective data: our representation in the fourth confederal congress was 8%. In the main industrial zones, and in the most important bastions of trade unionism, implantation is solid: Madrid, Catalonia, Euskadi, engineering and transport. We are present in almost all the executives of the regional organizations and sectoral and branch federations of the confederation.
Our representation is growing through the presentation of alternative lists in the different congresses, which win around 10% support. Recently, in a conference of the public sector (which coordinates the teaching, health, public administration and postal federations), our represenwas around 15%. These figures have an implantation throughout the trade union.
Another objective fact is the support for the manifesto that, on the eve of Mayday 1989, was signed by 2000 cadres of the CCOOs, to demand that the union leadership put an end to the truce made with the government and that there should be new mobilizations, including a repetition of the general strike. 2000 cadres, activists with leadership responsibilities in trade union, is small in relation to the whole of the trade union movement, but significant. A good number of these cadres are not new, but hardened through many struggles and recognized as leaders by the workers in the workplaces. • In 1991, the fifth congress of the
CCOOs will take place. Do you think that the current will maintain the growth of 1987?
The IS will maintain its implantation and its militants and its standing in the eyes of the workers. In addition, sensitive as we are to the specific situation of young workers, we have led some of the struggles of young people who have entered the labour force workers. Our real representativeness will continue to exist although I don't know what it will be in the congress.
This will depend on the congress rules which are usually unfavourable to the minorities and whether the attitude of the majority is more tolerant or more bureaucratic. If it acts bureaucratically in a fashion hostile to us we could have some difficulties in maintaining our representation. We could see them being hostile to us because today the IS has become the only real opposition in the Workers Com-
The other critical sectors are the sections of those who broke with the PCE that have either returned to the party or do not represent a real opposition. leaves a section of the so-called proSoviets who have combative positions — we would like to come together with them to form a left wing current for the future congresses. We will see if this possible. • What forces are today involved in
It is necessary to understand two things: firstly, that there is an input from the revolutionary left, and secondly that, while the current is not a political force inside the CCOO, it also does not consider itself a strictly trade union option. The majority current is supported by the PCE and the great majority of the union's cadres belong to this party.
There are two revolutionary parties whose militants work in the CCOO and support the IS — the LCR and the MC (Movimiento Comunista — a current of Maoist origin). Evidently distinct political conceptions - reformist or revolutionary - translate into different trade union practices. But the IS is not a mechanical transfer of the LCR and MC into the union - it has been a pole in all the union battles that have taken place in the Commissions in the course of 20 years. There are many excellent militants who are not in the LCR or MC, but who share the IS's positions and fight for • The Union Left puts itself forward as a defined current and the Work-
Commissions recognize right of currents to exist. Nonetheless, the IS is not recognized. Why? What is the scope and the limits of the rights according to the statutes of the CCOO?
Effectively, the IS is a current de facto and not de jure. Everybody recognizes
our existence as a current in fact. This is true in the media, among the workers and also in the union itself. But the leadership is resisting recognizing us formally. This is perhaps the result of its patrimonial view of the union. The majority current considers the union to be its own and thus it is only them good and legitimate right to form currents is not automatically granted to members who want to exercise it — it depends on the decision majority. Thus there exists today in the union a tiny current, Management Current (CSA), officially recognized. Why is the CSA recognized when the answer is simple: the CSA is to the right of the leadership and allows it to appear as if there is a Socialist element in the union. The CSA poses no threat and even improves the union's image.
The IS is a quite different matter. It is radical, presenting an image of the union that the leadership wants to avoid and it is dangerous because it questions the domination of the majority current. But what is
It is a characteristic of the CCOO that it allows a degree of pluralism. Alternative lists can be presented in the congresses for the leadership elections and its organs are composed on a proportional basis. If a current participates and obtains posts in the majority of the 300 to 400 assemblies that take place in the pre-Congress discussion process, the recognition of the current in fact is undeniable. This is what happens in our case. • From what you say, it seems as if ties of the curthat are The limits are unclear. How do you operate? ensure that your ideas are heard, both inside and take part in all the debates and bodies delegates and memeral Executive. Our current plays a vital debates. We enjoy wide freedom of down in the statutes, but only for individuals. I, for example, can go the press and give my opinion on any action or decision of the union's executive. I can publicly criticize the leadership without any
The difficulty is in expressing ourselves as a current rather than as individuals, and this is precisely because we are not recognized as a current. But we are taking steps to give the current a public
Thus, for example, when we speak as individuals in the media, in fact we function as spokespersons of the IS.
We also promote initiatives with public repercussions, such as the manifesto of the 2000 that I mentioned earlier. In Euskadi, the IS puts out a bulletin that is circulated among the union members. Finally, we do not want our opinions to be confined inside the union, still less that they should be heard only in the four walls of the rooms where the leadership without the workers knowing • That is to say that you are behaving in such a way as to appear as a current that is avoiding direct conflict with the bureaucracy.
Yes, but this is not always possible. In the Commissions, as in the Italian CGIL, there are certain democratic rights that are hardly to be found in other European unions. But even so, we are up against a key problem — the patrimonialism of the majority current which will not tolerate the IS winning the majority in some important organization of the union and that organization acting on IS lines. We have had some very bad experiences in
SPANISH STATE this regard. When the left was in the leadership of the provincial union in Navarra in Euskadi, this leadership was dissolved bureaucratically. The same thing happened in Gijón, the most important industrial city in Asturias, where the IS-led executive of the union in one of the factories — the Spanish State's main industrial enterprises — has recently been dissolved. The leaders had already been expelled.
The big issue as far as internal democracy in the CCOO is concerned is this: to accept that not all the union's organizations are going to be led by the confederal majority and to accept that the IS can, in fact, lead important organizations when the members give us their support and can develop left trade unionism. This is also the big challenge for us because we can hardly aspire to conquer the majority in the union if we are victims of bureaucratic repression in the areas where we have • But if you are meeting this problem - which is not a small one -there are sectors of the left that are not in the Workers Commissions. Why have you persisted in working
Because we are part of that union. Workers know and recognize us as militants and leaders of the union. It is not the property of the majority alone but of us as well - we have been there since the beginning. But, moreover, if we look at what has happened to those who are outside the CCOO, we can see the dangers of isolation that could await us. Experience shows that it is not the same to undertake an action or start a strike as such and such a collective rather than as the CCOO.
In general, it is much less likely that the workers will heed calls to action if they come from outside the union. Our medium and long-term project cannot be blocked by sporadic clashes with the burcaucracy.
We know that our project will inevitably run up against the bureaucracy since reformist trade unionism requires strict control over the workers and cannot tolerate spontaneous expressions or autonomy on the part of the base organizations, and much less that a left current can challenge
But we also know that the historic development of the union movement and its left in the Spanish State means that our project of drawing a significant part of the workers towards our leftist orientation should be conducted through the CCOO. The bureaucracy's room for manoeuvre will be determined by the relationship of forces. Pluralism will be secured insofar as the left gathers forces. Today the CCOO are more democratic than they were ten years ago, and if we do our work well we will ensure that the Izquierda Sindical becomes a reference point for the 13 May 21, 1990 • #185 International Viewpoint
"I'm sure they were
COLOMBIA captors pretended that they were going to throw them into some precipice or execute them.
Furthermore, the compañeros were held entirely incommunicado. To justify this, planning to kill me"
the military used Decree 1892 (also called the Anti-Terrorist Law), a totally reactionary decree issued in the context of presidential powers under the state of siege. It allows the army to arrest and hold incommunicado for seven working days (includ-
A MEMBER of the National Executive Committee of the organization A Luchar [To Struggle], the lawyer Daniel
Libreros was kidnapped by soldiers at Cali airport on March
27. He had gone to the Colombian provincial city to defend over 70 members of A Lucharwho were jailed and mistreated in the course of an offensive against the organization by the army. He narrowly escaped being murdered. After his release, he gave the following interview to Eric Toussaint.
OULD you explain the form taken by the offensive that
A Luchar activists in the
On March 2, Manuel José Bonnet, commander of the Third Brigade of the
Southwestern region, headquartered in
Cali, unleashed a campaign of persecution against members of A Luchar, a campaign organized and coordinated by the
(AIS), and which the brigade commander himself built up through the mass media.
This campaign was directly related to A
Luchar's position toward electoral process, in which it is calling on people not to vote.
The campaign of persecution led to raids on trade-union offices and homes of trade-union and political leaders in the region. In all, about 70 compañeros, in groups of 20, passed through the bri gade's facilities. These premises are fitted out for torture. The walls are lined with tractor tires, and the roof is made out of zinc. The space is divided up into
One is set up for electrical torture. In the early morning hours, they strip people, put them into baths and apply electric shocks. Another is set up for torturing people on a wooden horse. They set on people, tie them up and begin to spreadeagle them and beat them.
another that serves for simulating executions. They bring people there blindfolded, and begin to fire into the air or poke an empty pistol into their chests and pull
All the compañeros were beaten, and some, especially those with higher ranks in the regional union and leaders or the regional leadership of A Luchar, were
14 tortured. They were all kept blindfolded for three days, their hands and feet tied,
International Viewpoint #185 • May 21, 1990 without food and exposed to the sun, which in this climate can mean temperatures of around 34 degrees centigrade. As a result of all this, on the second day, some compañeros fainted, and in this condition they were kicked and trampled by elements belonging to the AIS.
On the third day, when they were given food, pentothal (otherwise known truth serum) was put in the hot chocolate given to some. Under these conditions, in which people's physical faculties are worn down (above all those that have to do with their consciousness and in which under pressure they may say whatyou want them to say, the compañeros were interrogated.
One of the compañeros most tortured was Harold Weiss, a prominent member of the regional leadership of A Luchar. On one occasion, they took off his blindfold to show him that they were putting a bullet in the pistol. Immediately putting the blindfold back, they took out the bullet or changed the pistol, an operation that Harold of course could not be aware off. Without a bullet in the chamber or with another pistol, they started "playing" Russian roulette with him.
Another compañero, a highly respected trade-union leader in the region, was buried up to his neck and tortured by the head of the AIS, a truly sinister figure, whom everyone calls "the priest." When he tortures people, he puts on a priest's robe and resorts to mystical language in order to justify his human wretchedness.
Compañera Elizabeth Suárez was tortured and raped. Other compañeros were taken from the Battalion headquarters in vehicles that use various license plates (which makes them hard to recognize) and which have polarized-glass windows (which makes it impossible to see who is inside). In these vehicles they were taken to high points in the city, and then their ing Saturday and Sunday, that can be extended to nine) any person suspected of being a "political criminal," without those affected having the least opportunity to obtain legal assistance.
The situation I have been describing lasted from March 2 to 15. Immediately afterwards, the compañeros were accused of being active elements of the National Liberation Army (ELN) in the area. On this charge, they were transferred to the Villahermosa jail here in Cali. The majority of them were released on Saturday,
However, ten people are still being held.