Log in

View Full Version : Workers struggles and the Left



PRC-UTE
26th August 2009, 07:06
I posted this in this forum because this article from the Guardian, Has the Left blown its big chance of success touches on the fortunes of the Left / Marxism being intertwined with workers struggles. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/17/left-politics-capitalism-recession) I don't just mean the left as in the various groups and people of the left, but the cultural/social and intellectual impact and influence of leftist theory as well

First the article starts off with a tolerably accurate, although somewhat questionable assessment of the Left's general ideological retreat. The article claims this is partially brought on by a focus that has moved from class to identity politics, and also the fall of the socialist governments and social democracy in the west. It notes, and I agree that there is less understanding of economic theory than there used to be amongst the left and those calling themselves Marxists.

The article seems fairly shallow at first, but gets more interesting further down. There the piece details some interesting changes in attitudes amongst some workers. They now have a bit of appreciation for socialist ideas after their own struggles they were abruptly plunged into:


At Marxism 2009 there is the occasional reminder that leftwing politics still has potential. In the conference bookshop, for the most part a well-visited mausoleum of nostalgic volumes – Glorious Summer: Class Struggle in Britain 1972 – there is a brief, more forward-looking pamphlet on sale for Ł1. Visteon: How Workers Occupied and Won is an SWP account of the factory occupations in Northern Ireland and England this spring at the car component manufacturer Visteon. It is written in the usual overdone party style – "Now we have the template for resistance" – but suggests that the left's response to the global slump may not be completely toothless.
In March, with the motor industry in free-fall, Visteon, a spin-off of Ford, abruptly closed its UK plants and sacked all its workers. Staff reportedly received "six minutes" to clear their lockers, and redundancy terms far inferior to those they had been promised when Ford created the company nine years earlier. Kevin Nolan, a Unite union official at the Visteon factory in Enfield in north London, was one of those fired.
"I've always been a middle-of-the-road working man," he says. "I always voted Labour but I wouldn't say I was too leftwing." Yet the mass sackings radicalised him almost instantly. "I started thinking, we've got to come up with something. This was a corporation which had decided to use the recession to walk away. The initial plan was to ram a car through the main gates. Then we found a gate round the back of the factory open – no one knows the plant better than the worker – and we could just walk in." Once inside, Nolan and between a third and two-thirds of the Enfield workforce (accounts vary) blocked up the entrances to the plant with plastic crates, climbed on to the roof and fire escape, and announced that they would occupy the premises until they were offered satisfactory redundancy terms.
Nolan and many of his colleagues had never been on strike, but they made beds out of cardboard on the chilly shopfloor and dug in. Local people, some with no connection to the plant, brought them food and blankets. Members of the SWP arrived. "I said to them, 'I used to think you were a bunch of nutcases,'" says Nolan. "But they were very, very helpful." The Enfield occupation acquired a revolutionary tinge: "Don't Need Politicians, Don't Need Bosses, Workers Take Control," read one placard prominent in the TV and web coverage.
The Visteon sit-ins led to pickets of Ford dealerships and the threat of walkouts at Ford factories. In May, after less than five weeks' campaigning, the Visteon workers were granted redundancy payments close to what they had originally demanded.
Other British factory occupations have followed, most recently at the Vestas wind turbine plant on the Isle of Wight. But the ability of such well-publicised local episodes to restore a lasting momentum to the left is far from obvious. Over the last 20 years, there have been intermittent waves of leftwing militancy – the huge and vivid anti-globalisation protests of the 90s, for example – while the underlying political assumptions of Britain and similar western countries have continued to move rightwards. The modern left, its internal critics say, has become too fragmented, too utopian and divorced from how most people live. do the increase around the world in occupations and workers struggles mean a new beginning for us? Or will the left continue to fail at adequately put forward an alternate vision? I hear this regularly from most people, that the left is generally short on alternatives.

9
26th August 2009, 09:20
do the increase around the world in occupations and workers struggles mean a new beginning for us? Or will the left continue to fail at adequately put forward an alternate vision? I hear this regularly from most people, that the left is generally short on alternatives.

There is no easy answer to this. To me, it seems to come back to the proverbial question of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" with regard to whether mass workers' struggles will be the precursor to a revitalization of the revolutionary left or, conversely, whether a revitalization of the revolutionary left will be the precursor to mass workers' struggle. And to an extent, I'd say it varies from one nation or region or city to the next. In some places with more radically-inclined workers, the former scenario will be more likely to occur and more appropriate. While in other places, perhaps including much of the US, the latter scenario may be the only viable order of events. These are questions that I consider on a daily basis, but I will be the first to admit that I don't have the answers.
Anyway, interesting post. I wish I had a more functional response to offer.

Devrim
26th August 2009, 09:36
To me, it seems to come back to the proverbial question of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" with regard to whether mass workers' struggles will be the precursor to a revitalization of the revolutionary left or, conversely, whether a revitalization of the revolutionary left will be the precursor to mass workers' struggle.

As our current said in the 1930s, "we don't need the party to create class struggle. We need class struggle to create the party".

Devrim

cyu
26th August 2009, 23:13
"I always voted Labour but I wouldn't say I was too leftwing." Yet the mass sackings radicalised him almost instantly... Local people, some with no connection to the plant, brought them food and blankets. Members of the SWP arrived. "I said to them, 'I used to think you were a bunch of nutcases,'" says Nolan. "But they were very, very helpful."

Thanks for pointing out the good parts of the article - I had seen a link to it earlier and only skimmed, but had mostly dismissed it as useless because there was too much pro-status quo crap in it.


Or will the left continue to fail at adequately put forward an alternate vision? I hear this regularly from most people, that the left is generally short on alternatives.

Personally I'd say this is part of the alternative vision. You start small, and build up the snowball from there. First there's a union that doesn't even strike, but merely negotiates. Then there's a union that strikes. Then there's a union that occupies the company. Then there's a union that assumes permanent democratic control. Then that spreads to other companies. Then various communities begin to assume democratic control of their mass media outlets. Then everyone assumes democratic control of all the means of production in the economy... and so on.

I'm not quite sure what non-leftists mean when they accuse leftists of a lack of alternatives, other than their own ignorance =]

PRC-UTE
27th August 2009, 00:11
I'm not quite sure what non-leftists mean when they accuse leftists of a lack of alternatives, other than their own ignorance =]

I think they mean something along the lines of a specific, concrete plan for right now that people can rally around. Most leftists of course have an alternate vision for how society should be reorganised after a revolution, but something for right now is often lacking or simply too vague.

PRC-UTE
27th August 2009, 01:48
Thanks for pointing out the good parts of the article - I had seen a link to it earlier and only skimmed, but had mostly dismissed it as useless because there was too much pro-status quo crap in it.



same here, I thought at first it was jsut going to have a go at the SWP

Jimmie Higgins
27th August 2009, 08:27
Great posts! I'd love to hear more form people on this question as it applies to the UK or other countries where the left is a little more developed than in the US.

I feel like in the US the left could offer great alternatives but does not have any mechanisms to do so - I'm sure it is much different in places where social-democratic and revolutionary ideas are more established.

The lack of opposition to (specifically neoliberal) capitalism (hell, even Keynesian capitalists are a minority voice now) has made our politicians lazy (this is how they can make arguments with the depth of "bush is a fascist/health care reform is fascist") and it's pretty easy to argue all kinds of alternatives in the US.

I've seen individual radicals make speeches to union members and completely win over the crowd. It doesn't take much in the US to explain socialized healthcare to workers and win them to your side - the problem is that then what do you do? The Union leadership is tied to the Democrats as are all the NGO groups who buy up all the young liberal activists and there is no structure to turn mass anger into a mass mobilization.

So - for the US, I'd say that party building (and I mean building any permanent structures for the left, not just a specific kind of party - though I am obviously in favor of building a revolutionary party) along side of the spontaneous things that happen in the US already could help the workers movement build on itself (and learn lessons and tactics) as well as providing a bigger platform for radical ideas.

cyu
28th August 2009, 04:45
Personally, I'd say the steps outlined above are pretty good:

1. First there's a union that doesn't even strike, but merely negotiates.

2. Then there's a union that strikes.

3. Then there's a union that occupies the company.

4. Then there's a union that assumes permanent democratic control.

5. Then that spreads to other companies.

6. Then various communities begin to assume democratic control of their mass media outlets.

7. Then everyone assumes democratic control of all the means of production in the economy... and so on.

Do we need to fill in the gaps more? What gaps do you feel are missing or need more elaboration? Yes, existing union executives may be barely better than corporate executives, which is why anarcho-syndicalists prefer more independent unions, or at least affiliating with unions that aren't so hierarchical. If your current union execs are crap, then stop listening to them - it should never be the union "leader" telling the members what to do, it should be the other way around.

9
28th August 2009, 04:52
Personally, I'd say the steps outlined above are pretty good:

1. First there's a union that doesn't even strike, but merely negotiates.

2. Then there's a union that strikes.

3. Then there's a union that occupies the company.

4. Then there's a union that assumes permanent democratic control.

5. Then that spreads to other companies.

6. Then various communities begin to assume democratic control of their mass media outlets.

7. Then everyone assumes democratic control of all the means of production in the economy... and so on.

Do we need to fill in the gaps more? What gaps do you feel are missing or need more elaboration? Yes, existing union executives may be barely better than corporate executives, which is why anarcho-syndicalists prefer more independent unions, or at least affiliating with unions that aren't so hierarchical. If your current union execs are crap, then stop listening to them - it should never be the union "leader" telling the members what to do, it should be the other way around.

As far as the US goes, it is not a matter of "needing to fill in the gaps more", it is a matter of "your equation doesn't compute". If step one is "unions don't strike, but negotiate", what happens when the unions are virtually non-existent? A union can't do much if it doesn't exist. What happens when capitalist propaganda has convinced huge swathes of the working class that unions are the enemy? The solution is not as cut and dry as some here are making it out to be, not in the US anyway.

cyu
29th August 2009, 01:53
what happens when the unions are virtually non-existent?


Encourage more people to take up the noble career of salting: http://www.iww.org/organize/strategy/salt.shtml



What happens when capitalist propaganda has convinced huge swathes of the working class that unions are the enemy?


This is exactly the kind of discussion we should be having. Instead of saying in vague terms that there's no hope or no organization, pointing out concrete obstacles like this is exactly what needs to be done if we want to destroy, circumvent, or go around them.

One thing you can do is to push forward step 6 to be something done sooner rather than later. For example, say there's a strike going on (there usually is - even if unionized employees are rare, there are always people somewhere who are standing up for themselves). Say the local media is providing what you consider to be negative coverage or ignoring them - do something about the media right there.

What they did in Greece earlier this year was that they actually walked into the sets of news broadcasts to get their message out. If you see a reporter on the street in the middle of a story, get together a few leftists and stand in front of the camera - get the union's message out.

It's basically just civil disobedience - if the union story isn't considered very interesting to news organizations, then union members, their families, and supporters taking over news organizations would certainly be more interesting.

PRC-UTE
29th August 2009, 09:16
I think a more important and more useful discussion than discussing unions being seen as the enemy by some people is what to do when unions are completely ineffectual because they are tied to political parties that attack workers when they're in power.

A case in point is Obama's rightist attacks on schools and teachers. The teachers are up for a fight, but the union officials are subservient and tied to the Democratic Party.


In his interview with the WSWS, Johnson went to great length to deny the fact that teachers are facing a political struggle against the Obama administration and its right-wing agenda.
“I am not concerned about President Obama and Arne Duncan,” Johnson told the WSWS, “I don’t negotiate with them. Right now I negotiate with Robert Bobb. He is the focus of my attention right now.”
There is a definite political reason why Johnson attempts to conceal the nature of the struggle teachers are facing. He opposes a fight against the Democrats because the DFT is politically aligned with Detroit Mayor Bing, Governor Granholm and Obama. It accepts entirely their claim that teachers and the working class as a whole must pay for the crisis of the capitalist system.


LINK: Detroit teachers’ union blocks strike action against wage cuts, layoffs (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/teac-a28.shtml)

Maybe we could throw around some ideas for how socialists can get such unions to break with bourgeois parties?

Enragé
31st August 2009, 17:46
try to get in touch with the rank 'n file, in this example the teachers. Talk to them, try to organise some support, get them in contact with a union that supports strike action - if there is none, try to build a new one. There might be ways to pressure the bureaucrats of the union in question to support them tho, but only if u (get to) know enough people in that union.

ofcourse all said easier than done.

cyu
1st September 2009, 03:08
It would depends on what the general union body of members want of course - if they are already fully behind their "leaders" then I'd just leave them be.

However, if they are not, then any group of left-leaning campaigners could go in, talk to them and get a real idea about what the real union wants, publish an informal survey (if necessary, randomly sampled at first if you can't contact all of them) - if the results show enough people on your side, then it is important that this be made public because it will make union members less afraid to voice what they believe, especially if they've been made to feel isolated by the existing bureaucracy (whether capitalist or pretend-leftist). After that is distributed widely enough, then you can probably gather enough support for a vote by the general union body (it doesn't even matter if the vote is unofficial, informal, or non-binding) - the point is to hold it to get a real and broad sense of what the real union wants. Try to make sure as few people involved in the vote-counting, ballot-collection, etc as possible are part of the existing bureaucracy - instead, you might have each group of co-workers vote on who among them will work together to get the votes counted.

If the results of the election show that the real union is far removed from the bureaucracy, then you suddenly have a very strong case that the existing bureaucracy should be abandoned, and you should go for a "wildcat" strike - although if all you did was kick out the old bureaucracy and replace it with what the real union wants, then it's not really a "wildcat" is it?