Useless to union organize?

[CynicalIdealist]

Yo.

A left-commie friend of mine told me that union organizing is useless because it just means that said corporation will squeeze others elsewhere to make up for their losses. Thoughts?

[Q]

By that logic we better not organise and protest at all... And indeed, this seems to be exactly what the trade union bureaucracy wants. Don't organise, let us do the talking behind closed doors (and be richly rewarded for it by the bosses)...

Our cause is to organise the whole class all over the globe.

That said, mere trade unionist organisation is not going to change society one iota. We need political organisation within the trade unionist struggle, towards an independent, democratic and international force.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually, this is the argument that Marx was countering in Value, Price and Profit (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf). It's actually taken from a speech and can be a little dense in parts if you are unfamiliar with Marxist econ, but it's a great overview of some basic Marxist concepts on the economy and it's a hell of a lot shorter than Capital:lol:.

And, of course, the speech totally destroys the argument that it hurts workers when workers strike for higher wages. The basic argument is that wages do not cut into revenues in an abstract way but that they into profits. So when workers get paid more, they are just changing the ratio of the value they created vs. how much the capitalist gets back in profits.

For example, if I make mailboxes, the capitalists base the price on the value of the materials and average value of the labor that goes into making a mailbox. But as a worker I do not get paid a percentage of each mailbox I create, I get paid a wage - when I have made enough mailboxes to equal the value of my labor, I still have to keep working my 40 hours a week but the capitalist still charges customers as if he has to pay me that percentage... in other words I'm working for "free" after a certain point just like a serf would have to give some of their labor to a nobleman. If I fight for higher wages, however, I am actually just fighting for an increased share in the ratio of wages/profits.

Some of the arguments I've heard against union organizing for radicals has to do with the bureaucratic set up of non-radical trade unions. But I do think it's important for socialists and anarchists to be involved in the labor movement both to develop a left-wing opposition to the reformist bureaucrats who run most unions and also just to be where working class people are engaged in front-line battles against employers (and in some cases, the union leaders too).

[Paulappaul]

And, of course, the speech totally destroys the argument that it hurts workers when workers strike for higher wages. The basic argument is that wages do not cut into revenues in an abstract way but that they into profits. So when workers get paid more, they are just changing the ratio of the value they created vs. how much the capitalist gets back in profits. I think you misunderstand Marxist econ and furthermore the Left-Com position. A rise in wages is not some a revolutionary thing. From an economic perspective a rise in wages is matched in a rise of price. In this sense, the usual right wing rhetoric is totally correct, but extremely dimwitted in its conclusions, what they don't realize is this: the Capitalist doesn't want to lose its money and will do anything to ensure that.

Furthermore a rise in wages leads to outsourcing. You live in Oakland, I am sure you know all this.

From a Consciousness perspective the union position and the petty bourgeois position is this: a comprise between Labor and Capitalism. Its an agreement, a reconcilation between two antagonistic forces.

Now to the Left Com position. Marx said the Union is the elementary education of the Proletariat. Some day the Proletarit has got to graduate. The Old Labor movement, characterized by Social Democracy (in its two forms, the Second International and the Third) and the Union movement were the educational and condition maker for future revolutions. In their Unions they learned how to fight. In their Parties their consciousness was raised to a "vanguard" level. But as early as the Paris Commune we began to see a tendency which would give way for the end to the Old Labor Movement. In the German Revolution and in early 20th century America, where the productive forces of Capitalism were so developed, there was the most clearest and earliest break with the Old Labor Movement. In Germany the Unions and the Social Democratic Party sold out the workers and with it Socialism. In America, the Union movement increasingly sold out the workers to the Capitalist class, and as a result, there was Proletarian Sabotage and Wildcat strikes.

The Old labor movement, died, its parties, its unions, its tactics, made for another time. But its work lives on and it accumulated into real experience. The need for any sort of Vanguard is pointless. The Workers now know how lead their struggles. Hungary 56 which lead out a successful revolution had to put down by not its national bourgeois but the international bourgeois. In May 68 the workers were to bring society to a complete standstill. Every modern struggle has been proof that the Vanguard statues of the Proletariat has been achieved. The Left Com position correlates with this. The Work of the Revolutionaries is not in working with Unions; everything about unions have been turned against the Proletarians interests. Higher Wages mean nothing. If you actually read Marx and Value, Price and Profit, you wouldn't forget his analogy of the house and the mansion.

The New Labor movement is characterized in Workers' Councils. We should we work for them. No piece of Congress, no union decree leads to them. The Preliminary for which is in true workers' organizations. Your own organization, the ISO has potential and qualities of such an for such organization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're an oddity for a left-com. You recognize that mass party-movements are necessary to get to the revolutionary period (characterized by your very own SP-USA membership), and you assert that the "revolutionary gambit" in that period is necessary regardless of what it will cost the party-movement.

That's something I hold in higher regard than typical left-com stuff about party-movements not being necessary, only SDKPiL-style "vanguard" sects.

[Paulappaul]

Party is a word. It's structure and how it comes about is what's important. The CPUSA for example came about totally unorganically to the worker class movement in America, and as such was a failure. True Parties are a reflection of the Political aspirations of the Proletariat. The most class consciousness of the Proletarians in them are too be an unflinching compass towards Communism. But the securing of the Political Power by the Proletariat and with it, by the Party is only one side of the Coin.

[MarxSchmarx]

Now to the Left Com position. Marx said the Union is the elementary education of the Proletariat. Some day the Proletarit has got to graduate. The Old Labor movement, characterized by Social Democracy (in its two forms, the Second International and the Third) and the Union movement were the educational and condition maker for future revolutions. In their Unions they learned how to fight. In their Parties their consciousness was raised to a "vanguard" level. But as early as the Paris Commune we began to see a tendency which would give way for the end to the Old Labor Movement. In the German Revolution and in early 20th century America, where the productive forces of Capitalism were so developed, there was the most clearest and earliest break with the Old Labor Movement. In Germany the Unions and the Social Democratic Party sold out the workers and with it Socialism. In America, the Union movement increasingly sold out the workers to the Capitalist class, and as a result, there was Proletarian Sabotage and Wildcat strikes.

The Old labor movement, died, its parties, its unions, its tactics, made for another time. But its work lives on and it accumulated into real experience. The need for any sort of Vanguard is pointless. The Workers now know how lead their struggles. Hungary 56 which lead out a successful revolution had to put down by not its national bourgeois but the international bourgeois. In May 68 the workers were to bring society to a complete standstill. Every modern struggle has been proof that the Vanguard statues of the Proletariat has been achieved. The Left Com position correlates with this. The Work of the Revolutionaries is not in working with Unions; everything about unions have been turned against the Proletarians interests. Higher Wages mean nothing. If you actually read Marx and Value, Price and Profit, you wouldn't forget his analogy of the house and the mansion.


Perhaps the working class has, but the capitalists have not moved on from their disdain for, and concern about, unionization.

The problem is is that every generation has to either build on earlier accomplishments or relearn the lessons learned through unionization. The slate has been wiped clean in for example the US where the union movement has been decimated, or in Germany, Mexico or China where it has ossified and become a collaborationist tool of the bourgeoisie. Whether Marx envisioned the trajectory from radical unionism to socialism taking as long as it has, in many respects the struggles of 50 to 100 years ago are fading in memory in much of the global north and arguably large parts of the global south as well.

The tools of organizing and empowerment must also be learned and honed in practice. Now we are in some cases several generations removed from those practitioners of even the "elementary" struggle of unionization in much of the world. For better or worse, the lessons have to be relearnt, and reading history books isn't enough to compensate.

[Paulappaul]

The slate has been wiped clean in for example the US where the union movement has been decimated

It's not that the Union movement is decimated in America. It's that Workers in America actually know that Unions don't do much. They are well experienced in the failures of Unions.


Whether Marx envisioned the trajectory from radical unionism to socialism taking as long as it has, in many respects the struggles of 50 to 100 years ago are fading in memory in much of the global north and arguably large parts of the global south as well.

Marx envisioned that Workers would go pass their Unions. The experiences of struggles in the last 60 or so years is a sign that this has happened.


Germany, Mexico or China where it has ossified and become a collaborationist tool of the bourgeoisie.

The Lesson their is clear as day. So No, I don't think it has to be "Relearned".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Party is a word. It's structure and how it comes about is what's important. The CPUSA for example came about totally unorganically to the worker class movement in America, and as such was a failure. True Parties are a reflection of the Political aspirations of the Proletariat. The most class consciousness of the Proletarians in them are to be an unflinching compass towards Communism. But the securing of the Political Power by the Proletariat and with it, by the Party is only one side of the Coin.


The Lesson their is clear as day. So No, I don't think it has to be "Relearned".

Well, I think all of us here agree, though, that the party-movement lesson has to be "relearned." True parties may be such reflections, comrade, but those aspirations are nothing without movement. Movement is fictitious without clear organization and processes for such organization (hence real parties being real movements and vice versa).

[Paulappaul]

True parties may be such reflections, comrade, but those aspirations are nothing without movement.

The former assumes the later. If there is no movement, there is no Party as there is no Revolution. Once again though, be wary of the Party form. It's just a word. In Hungary for example the consciousness was of such a level, the conditions so ripe, that the Revolution was done without any sort of Party.

A party is the unifying point of all elements of the proletarian class upon a general program that of which is the Political and naturally with it the economic securing of its power. Which is why we may call the AAUD-E a party, because it is set upon a program encompassing all elements of the class from neighborhood committee's to factory committee's to all sorts of workers' clubs. The Party is in this sense, the prelude and foundation of Socialist society.

And in the Hungarian Revolution the role of Party was implemented in the Workers' Councils which drew up a revolutionary programme and fulfilled it. I would suspect that with the rise a Socialist society, there is too a general decline in the "party" as it is implemented its usefulness becomes a practical part of the Council system.

Unfortunately, the Union form as it stands today and in history with its political neutrality has no potential that the Council form has had in History.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think you misunderstand Marxist econCould very well be I'm not an expert and I haven't read Value Price and Profit in a while.

and furthermore the Left-Com position.I'm sorry if I was misrepresenting the position, my goal was not to contrast ideological differences of among traditions or make any characterization of Left-Communism. I was only responding just to what the OP had said, which made it sound like they people he talked to were arguing that rising wages equal out for workers because then workers have to pay more. As I remember it from Value Price and Profit, that is the argument Marx is countering, but could you elaborate on what I'm missing in Marx's argument here?


From an economic perspective a rise in wages is matched in a rise of price. But again, I think this is exactly the idea that Marx is arguing against. The value of commodities is based on the average value of the labor, not the specific wage, so even if labor costs go up for a single producer, the value of the labor has not changed and so the capitalist can not simply increase the price of the commodity because his competitors would not be increasing the price. Of course the capitalist wants to make as much profit as he can, but there are constraints within the logic of capitalism that prevent him from simply gouging all the time (although it often happens as we all know - the point is that gouging is a side-effect, not the way pricing works in capitalism as the norm). So when workers go on strike what they are cutting into is profits, not altering the base value of what they have created and therefore the price can't just go up indefinitely while the value remains the same.


Furthermore a rise in wages leads to outsourcing. You live in Oakland, I am sure you know all this.Even in industries where wages have stagnated, there is outsourcing, so this has nothing to do with any result from economic struggles. Besides, US companies pay more to US dairy workers than 3rd world dairy workers, yet the US EXPORTS dairy products to Jamaica and Rice to China and Corn to Mexico when the wage labor costs domestically in these areas would be far cheaper.


From a Consciousness perspective the union position and the petty bourgeois position is this: a comprise between Labor and Capitalism. Its an agreement, a reconciliation between two antagonistic forces.Business unionism is certainty an attempt to reconcile an inherent conflict. But it's a straw-man to characterize unions in this way because that is just one reflection of the unions. At best, unions are a defensive reformist organization for the working class (they i.e. they can help workers to get a better version of their exploitation) but that doesn't mean they can not be wielded effectively by workers to organize themselves and defend their interests. It was through a struggle to form a union that the SF General Strike happened and that example shows how a lot of the contradictory nature of unions plays out in struggle. On the one hand there are rank and file workers effectivly wielding a union to defend their interests in a totally democratic way, on the other there are the heads of the national union who fly in and want to make deals with the bosses and FDR without any democratic process.

Are unions the vehicle for the working class ultimately? No, but in non-revolutionary conditions where workers are engaged in a daily struggle against the bosses, being able to potentially collectively negotiate the terms of your exploitation is better than not being able to. So in the reality we find ourselves in, it would be a loss for radicals not to try and organize a rank and file opposition in the unions - even in the worst of them like SEIU.

But we can't JUST be in the bureaucratic unions, we should also be wherever working class people are organizing and fighting - unions are one place where this is happening. Trying to organize inside these unions means fighting against both the bosses and the liberal/reformist bosses of the union - so such fights, wildcats, reform movements inside unions, etc can potentially radicalize workers really quickly.


The Left Com position correlates with this. The Work of the Revolutionaries is not in working with Unions; everything about unions have been turned against the Proletarians interests.I agree that radicals shouldn't have the goal of working in the trade unions to RUN them, they should help organize and lead reform movements or local struggles where appropriate, but I think the main reason to be involved is to work with the unions, but to work with the rank and file.


Higher Wages mean nothing. If you actually read Marx and Value, Price and Profit, you wouldn't forget his analogy of the house and the mansion.I don't remember this, can you explain?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The New Labor movement is characterized in Workers' Councils. We should we work for them. No piece of Congress, no union decree leads to them.Well I think the difference between unions and councils is that the first are defensive and reformist in nature and the councils are proactive and offensive... BUT workers have fought against union leaders and won really radical battles through the unions while in other instances, liberal/reformist parties have been able to convince worker councils to back the rule of a Parliament rather than rule through councils.

Therefore I think the important thing is not the type of worker organization in the abstract, but what are the given conditions at any time. If there were worker councils now in the US, they would be totally ineffective because class struggle and consciousness is low. Councils would be better for the POTENTIAL to fight back, but it by itself would not make this happen. If we were in a revolutionary time, then yes it would be idiotic to suggest that instead of organizing democratic bodies for worker's rule, that workers just stick with trade unions and negotiate contracts and conditions. So what matters more to me is what are the class forces and what is the situation we are in.

In the US currently, we have highly bureaucratic unions, a demoralized workforce (equally within and without the unions), and a large non-unionized sector of labor. So to me really we are at the point where radicals in unions need to organize rank and file opposition within the unions just for the practical reason that business-unionism can not negotiate under the regime of Austerity (not that they could for the last 30 years of neo-liberalism either). Rank and file democracy and union militancy are not just an ideological necessity, but a practical one which means that among the unionized workers who do want to fight back, radical ideas will have resonance.

But that's not enough, radicals also need to help organize the unorganized like the IWW has been able to do with increasing success.

Basically we are at the end or beginning of a new phase of organized labor and radicals will have to play a part. I don't think there is a particular formula for trying to boost class-consciousness and confidence to fight-back right now... we really need to be throwing in the kitchen sink.

The success of radical unions will have an effect beyond just radical unions - it will help move the class forward generally. This will also boost the confidence of workers within the mainstream unions to argue for more rank and file democracy and power and they can confidently point to the Starbucks unions or something as an example of why more radical ideas are good for unions. A wildcat will similarly show how to fight back and why solidarity, and democracy and organization are important. But the same goes inside the unions, if workers are able to push the leadership or create reform oppositions or rank and file organizations and win militant battles, then it will help the unorganized feel more confident to form their own union or get the IWW organizing their workplace and so on.

IMO we aren't in a position to decide if we should support workers organizing in councils or unions... they aren't doing the first and they are barely doing the second. So I think we need to look at where things are and see where workers are actually struggling in the present instance (which means both the mainstream unions as well as in anti-cuts movements as well as future workers struggling on campuses against tuition hikes and so on) and use that as our stating point.

[Fietsketting]

If there is no movement, there is no Party

That could be open to discussion :D

[Zanthorus]

A rise in wages is not some a revolutionary thing.

No, but the rise in wages in and of itself is not necessarily the important part. "The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers."


From an economic perspective a rise in wages is matched in a rise of price.

Jimmie Higgins is correct to note that this is exactly the argument that Marx was polemicising against in Value, Price and Profit.


From a Consciousness perspective the union position and the petty bourgeois position is this: a comprise between Labor and Capitalism.

So is everything short of socialism. What whould we do then? Sit on our arses waiting for the day when the proletariat suddenly and inexplicably rises up and abolishes capitalism in a single day, like Christians waiting for the last judgement? Maybe with a bit of sterile propagandising thrown in between for good measure?


everything about unions have been turned against the Proletarians interests. Higher Wages mean nothing.

The only 'Left-Communists' that to my knowledge ever actually believed this were a small group of intellectuals within the KAPD Essen tendency that eventually ended up back with the SPD. I also think you'll find that for a good deal of people the difference between low and high wages does mean quite a lot. One of the things that Marx argued at length in Value, Price and Profit is that it is a constant tendency of capital to force down the wages of the working-class, and many struggles for wages are justified even from the standpoint of the 'higher wages means higher prices argument' because they are defensive struggles. Denouncing the participation of the proletariat in the struggle for higher wages is akin to leaving capital free reign to carry out brutal attacks on the working-class to it's leisure.

The point about struggles for higher wages is not that they are 'reformist' or 'mean nothing' but that it is essentially a sisyphian struggle. The proletariat cannot possibly win on the battlefield of 'civil society' against the power of capital, it must eventually take political action in order to defend itself. It should also probably be pointed out that the lowering of the rate of profit caused by wage rises accelarates the tendency towards crises.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the things that Marx argued at length in Value, Price and Profit is that it is a constant tendency of capital to force down the wages of the working-class, and many struggles for wages are justified even from the standpoint of the 'higher wages means higher prices argument' because they are defensive struggles.

This is not original, though. This has obvious origins in classical political economy. Look at this blog:

http://ny-brit-expat.dailykos.com/

In particular, read the earlier blogs on classical economics. One of them:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/28/736259/-Classical-Economics:-Thompson-and-the-case-for-Cooperativism

This leads us to the minimum level of profits. If production is successful and you realise the surplus product, then the base level of profits is literally the rate of interest; instead of keeping your money in the bank and earning interest, you entered production. Given guaranteed realisation, we have to add these other components which will give us the minimum rate of profits that is the replacement of capital used up in the production process and covering the depreciation of fixed capital.

Our minimum wage (maximum profit) is the subsistence level of wages (this means that the workers do not obtain a part of the increased growth of society as compared to the last production period. Our maximum wage (minimum profit) is the whole product minus that part that covers the base rate of interest and the replacement of capital used up in production and which covers depreciation; this allows for no new growth in investment by the current capitalists (but this does not prevent workers from using it for the purposes of production and that is an important point for a socialist and believer in the co-operative movement.

[Victus Mortuum]

Why not try to orient the unions in your area to fighting for Participatory Workplace Democracy (or “Worker’s Council” or “Worker’s Self-Management” if you prefer)? Unions are not useless (from a revolutionary perspective) if they have moved beyond simply fighting for each individual reform and fight for mechanisms where workers can make those decisions within the workplace. If a mass union exists to fight for worker usurpation of their boss’ power, then it’s only a matter of time until the spark blows the keg and the mass productive strike occurs and the workers take over in a revolutionary move. That’s one way such could happen, at least.

[RED DAVE]

Why not try to orient the unions in your area to fighting for Participatory Workplace Democracy (or “Worker’s Council” or “Worker’s Self-Management” if you prefer)? Unions are not useless (from a revolutionary perspective) if they have moved beyond simply fighting for each individual reform and fight for mechanisms where workers can make those decisions within the workplace. If a mass union exists to fight for worker usurpation of their boss’ power, then it’s only a matter of time until the spark blows the keg and the mass productive strike occurs and the workers take over in a revolutionary move. That’s one way such could happen, at least.(emph added)

Don't hold for breath for this to happen this week. :D

RED DAVE

[ar734]

Originally Posted by Paulappaul
From an economic perspective a rise in wages is matched in a rise of price.

What??? Are you quoting Marx or Milton Friedman (soon to be forgotten.) :confused:

[Victus Mortuum]

(emph added)

Don't hold for breath for this to happen this week. :D

RED DAVE

Well if all revolutionaries prefer to talk about how it will never work rather than forming local organizations to help build such unions, you're quite right.

[Paulappaul]

Even in industries where wages have stagnated, there is outsourcing, so this has nothing to do with any result from economic struggles. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, and infact that's basic Marxist economics that the Capitalist seeks the cheapest source of labor. But you're correct, it isn't law, just a general tendency, under certain conditions. Incentives on Farming in America are very good vs. other countries.


workers to organize themselves and defend their interestsExcept that Unions don't work that way any more. Very few union members even see their foremen. The Union process in America is quite an alienating thing.


Are unions the vehicle for the working class ultimately? No, but in non-revolutionary conditions where workers are engaged in a daily struggle against the bosses, being able to potentially collectively negotiate the terms of your exploitation is better than not being able to. So in the reality we find ourselves in, it would be a loss for radicals not to try and organize a rank and file opposition in the unions - even in the worst of them like SEIU.

But we can't JUST be in the bureaucratic unions, we should also be wherever working class people are organizing and fighting - unions are one place where this is happening. Trying to organize inside these unions means fighting against both the bosses and the liberal/reformist bosses of the union - so such fights, wildcats, reform movements inside unions, etc can potentially radicalize workers really quickly.I don't think it's wrong for Communists to be in Unions or working inside them. And with that I have a tendency to break with alot of Left-Coms, so I shouldn't be taken as any sort of authority on Left-Communism when I say this (I would hope Zanthorus or Devrim would tackle this one)

I think the Union movement right now is sign of the workers' taking intuitive and obtaining a relative class consciousness. It's better then nothing and I am with you that we should organise with it. With that said, I go to Union meetings for the purpose of struggling in them for workers to break off with them and form there own committees. Which is realistic and has been what has happened in any struggle.


I don't remember this, can you explain? A rise in wages is matched by the rise in Profits by the Capitalist. So the worker with his new paycheck buys a house only to find his boss has bought a mansion. In his next pay check he gets a bonus, so he buys a mansion to compete with Boss, but finds his Boss now has a Palace. It is something along those lines and quite moving.


That could be open to discussionNaturally I understand your position. But once again, Party is just word. Things that aren't openly "parties" can be in a Marxist use of the word. For example the AAUD-E or even the FAI. I don't lay any fetish in the word or traditional form and the Hungarian Revolution showed the workers' movement it can move past such things.


but what are the given conditions at any time.Naturally and I say, "We should work for them". You're post deals with this assumption. The Practical work of the revolution in the past was imagined as being the job of the Party and the Union which corresponded to it. The testimonial of time has shown that it's the workers now, in their own councils for which the work of the revolution will be dealt.

That said, the New Workers' Movement is the struggle for the creation of Workers' Councils. The preliminary of which is revolutionary organizations outside Unions and Social-Democratic style parties.


The value of commodities is based on the average value of the labor, not the specific wage, so even if labor costs go up for a single producer, the value of the labor has not changed and so the capitalist can not simply increase the price of the commodity because his competitors would not be increasing the price. Of course the capitalist wants to make as much profit as he can, but there are constraints within the logic of capitalism that prevent him from simply gouging all the time (although it often happens as we all know - the point is that gouging is a side-effect, not the way pricing works in capitalism as the norm). So when workers go on strike what they are cutting into is profits, not altering the base value of what they have created and therefore the price can't just go up indefinitely while the value remains the same.
Worth checking out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral

It's a reality.

[ar734]

A rise in wages is matched by the rise in Profits by the Capitalist.

Well, here is Marx from Wages, Price and Profit:

"...Whenever a quantity is given, one part of it will increase inversely as the other decreases. If the wages change, profits will change in an opposite direction. If wages fall, profits will rise; and if wages rise, profits will fall... A general rise of wages would, therefore, result in a fall of the general rate of
profit, but not affect values" [meaning, prices.]

Are you really arguing that a rise in wages is matched by a rise in the profits of capitalists? The opposite might explain why capitalists spend so much money and other people's blood trying to destroy unions.

[ar734]

Worth checking out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price/wage_spiral

It's a reality.

Your wiki quote is mostly from the mises "institute," as the wiki article points out.

[Paulappaul]

Well, here is Marx from Wages, Price and Profit:"An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital."

This summing up a huge part on Profits, Capital and an analogy of the house and palace found on page 33 of the International Publishers edition.