SEP calls for general strike in Wisconsin; ISO and SDS scream "No! No!" ??

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anyone have any other info on this (highlighted the part referred to by title).

---

Socialist Equality Party members call for general strike at Wisconsin demonstration

By our reporter
11 March 2011


On the evening of March 9, Republicans in the Wisconsin state senate carried out a surprise vote on Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, bypassing the required quorum by splitting off the sections dealing with budget appropriations.

The bill sharply curtails collective bargaining rights for state workers, allowing the governor to to fire any workers who go on strike, and denying them the right to collectively negotiate over pensions and benefits.

Within hours, thousands assembled at the capitol. Members of the Socialist Equality Party addressed the crowds, calling for a general strike and a break with the Democratic Party, which had been carrying out secret negotiations with Walker before the vote.

Outside the capitol, Andre Damon, the National Secretary of the International Students for Social Equality, student organization of the SEP, spoke in support of a general strike, independent of the trade unions, to force Walker to resign. These calls gained vocal support, leading to resounding chants of “general strike" and "Walker must go" from the thousands assembled outside the capitol entrance.

This quickly caught the attention of the trade union leaders and Democratic Party officials, who sought to defend the record of the trade unions in the face of Damon's denunciations, and to talk workers down from the call from a general strike.

Eric Cobb, the executive director of the local building and contracts trade council and an emcee for the official demonstrations at the capitol, asked for Damon's megaphone and responded to calls for a general strike with inducements for workers to "be patient" and "peaceful."

Damon, a resident of Michigan, said that such calls by trade union leaders have led to the impoverishment of Detroit and the destruction of hundreds of thousand of autoworkers' jobs; he renewed the call for a general strike, which was enthusiastically supported.

Shortly afterward, John Nichols, political correspondent for The Nation magazine, took the megaphone to defend the record of the 14 Wisconsin Democratic state senators from Damon's denunciations, saying that Walker's publication that day of the documents was a groundless effort to discredit them.

Damon replied that Walker's documents only emphasized the spinelessness of the Democrats. He said that they had already agreed to most of Walker's demands long ago, and were negotiating in secret to give even more concessions to Walker.

After this, protesters who had sneaked inside the capitol through the windows opened the main doors, and thousands of people flooded into the building. The Socialist Equality Party had possessed the only megaphone on the capitol floor, and used it to facilitate a discussion of the vital issues facing Wisconsin workers.

When Damon spoke on the floor, he warned workers that a call for a general strike is meaningless if they do not build new organizations capable of leading a struggle. He warned that the AFL-CIO worked to isolate the PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981, and that there is no possibility that the unions would support the call for a general strike three decades later. He then turned to the Democratic Party, which he accused of caving to Republican demands, and supporting concessions equivalent to those called for by Walker in other states.

The criticisms of the Democratic Party and the trade unions prompted whisperings among the pseudo-left organizations leading the occupation of the capitol, followed by nervous cries of "Stop! Stop!" These people―largely members of the International Socialist Organization and Students for a Democratic Society―made it their business to try to police the demonstration and keep out opponents of the big-business parties.

After Damon's first speech inside the capitol, the various Democratic party and trade union operatives discussed with themselves what to do about the fact that socialists controlled the only megaphone. One, a middle-aged man with a large drum strapped to his midsection, offered to get "ten or twenty guys out here to throw the socialists out."

The Democratic Party supporters did not feel themselves up to this task, however, and Damon together with two other Socialist Equality Party Members spoke a number of more times to call on workers to form rank and file committees.

After the interventions, a number of workers caught up with the Socialist Equality Party speakers and thanked them for their firm support for a general strike. They discussed the perspective of organizing rank-and-file committees, and discussed strategies for preparing organizing committees at their workplaces.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's video from the SEP:

JSqMyHj93KY

[Jolly Red Giant]

Socialist Alternative (CWI in USA)

Walker Declares War

Immediately Organize a One-Day GENERAL STRIKE!

Governor Walker has pulled a coup! This illegal move to force through the union-busting bill cannot stand. We need to immediately set the date and prepare for a one-day public sector strike as both a warning shot to Walker and a launching pad to further action.

This maneuver means the movement cannot now simply rely on the fourteen Senate Democrats to hold out. A recall or a legal challenge would take too long. The time to act is now! This means immediately developing a coordinated plan for stepping up the struggle through rapid strike action and emergency meetings of unions and working people.

The revolt in Wisconsin has captured the imagination and support of millions of working people and youth from coast to coast. As Michael Moore stated, Governor Walker’s “class war” has “aroused a sleeping giant” of working class anger against corporate America and their politicians. There are more and more calls for a general strike because people correctly see the need for bolder action. We must rapidly act to make these calls a reality.

We should start with a one-day full shut-down of the state as soon as possible by organizing a public-sector general strike supported by mass mobilizations of all working people and youth who are prepared to fight. This can only be the first step to demonstrate the power of organized labor. We must be fully prepared to carry out a series of general strikes, that also involve the private sector, and other actions until Walker backs down.

Many fear the repercussions of a strike because it is not legal. Walker and the Republicans have shown no respect for the law, and we can’t allow legality to keep our movement in a straightjacket. We must remember that the union movement and civil rights movement were built by those prepared to defy unjust laws. As Dr. King said, “there are two types of laws: just and unjust...One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” The laws preventing us from taking strike action are unjust, and we must break them.

So far the top union officials have not put forward a clear plan of struggle and they are not likely to do so unless we build the necessary pressure from below. All labor activists must call for emergency mass meetings of their unions to democratically decide the way forward and organize for a general strike.

Not only do we deserve collective bargaining rights, we must counter the lies that workers and unions are the cause for this crisis. Wall Street is to blame, and they should be forced to pay. By demanding to kill the whole bill and taking no concessions, we can unite and mobilize the widest possible forces around the idea that all working people have the right to unions, good jobs, benefits and a decent life.

WE CALL FOR:

• Emergency mass union meetings to democratically develop an immediate plan for stepping up the struggle.
• The formation of elected strike committees in the unions as well as action committees of students, unemployed and community members to lead the struggle.
• Set the date and make immediate preparations for a one-day full shut-down of the state as soon as possible through a public-sector general strike and prepare for a series of general strikes and other actions until Walker backs down.
• Full mobilization of the youth and the unemployed as well as private sector, union and non-union workers in support of strike actions.
• Neighboring states to send caravans of activists to flood Wisconsin with hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers to stop this attack on the entire union movement.
• Wall Street is to blame not working people or their unions. Tax the super-rich and big corporations. Working people shouldn’t pay for a crisis we didn’t create.
• No concessions! No Cuts! Kill the whole bill!
• The full right to strike for all workers; the right to unionize and have decent jobs, benefits and pensions for all.
• An end to the corporate domination of politics and our lives. Working people of Wisconsin and the U.S. unite and fight for a working people’s party and a democratic socialist society!

[Lyev]

So far we have seen the demand for a general strike from the CWI, IWW and the SEP -- do these organisations plan to coordinate there same strike together, or what? The CWI calls for a one-day strike (would this really be worth it? - the risk is not worth it since many workers would lose their jobs). I dunno about the other two organisations' demands in detail, but there needs to be a bit more communication between the groups that are involved in the stuff going on in WI. Will all of these different groups organise their own different committees? Of course I support the call for a general strike, but as some comrades have pointed in other threads on this topic, the example of the struggles against the pension reforms in France - which were massive; in their millions - failed to stop the reform even with a general strike. So what's the deal?

[Kassad]

Party for Socialism and Liberation statement: A general strike can lead to victory in Wisconsin: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/general-strike-for-victory.html

I didn't realize that the ISO and SDS were being so anti-worker, but I'm not surprised. Are there any links in which they state opposition to a general strike?

[southernmissfan]

A general strike might not change the law but it would almost certainly have a radicalizing effect, both in Wisconsin and the American working class in general. The fact that we have diverse groups such as IWW, PSL, CWI and SEP all calling for one is pretty great.

[Chimurenga.]

Written today:

http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/11/now-is-the-time-to-fight


But given the low level of strike activity in the last decade, and the overall decline of he labor movement over the past 30 years, there is a gap between the widely felt need for mass action and the organization needed to bring it about. Simply calling for a general strike--no matter how enthusiastically it is received--is unlikely to get very far.

So they want people to "fight" but not shut down the state of Wisconsin. Right, because that worked the first time around.

The ISO is continuing to embarrass themselves. :laugh:

[BIG BROTHER]

WTF why would SDS and ISO stop a fellow radical from denouncing the Democracts??? The Democrats are such a poison to our movement!

and Socialist Organizer adds to the call for a general strike.

http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=434&Itemid=1

FOR A GENERAL STRIKE IN WISCONSIN AGAINST UNION-BUSTING AND THE CUTS!
Written by Socialist Organizer
Friday, 11 March 2011
Statement by Socialist Organizer

When word got out Wednesday night that the Wisconsin Senate Republicans had just voted to deprive Wisconsin public workers of their collective-bargaining rights, thousands upon thousands of workers and students descended upon the State Capitol, chanting in unison, "General Strike! General Strike!" And their words were met by determined action: They re-occupied the Capitol -- Ground Zero of this mass struggle for labor rights and for the protection of workers' jobs, healthcare and pensions -- and vowed not to leave "until things got turned around."

The call to prepare for a General Strike in Wisconsin was first put forward more than 10 days ago by the South Central Federation of Labor of Wisconsin. and vowed not to leave "until things got turned around."According to the bylaws, this Council of 97 unions does not have the authority to issue such a call on its own; the proposal has to come from one or more of the affiliated union locals. Hence the huge importance of the statement made on the Ed TV Show by Joe Conway, President of Madison Firefighters, Local 311, in support of the call for a General Strike, not only in Wisconsin but nationwide. [See brief excerpts below.]

Not waiting for the labor movement to act, the high school students in Wisconsin have taken the lead. They are organizing a walkout in schools across the state to organize teach-ins on the importance of collective-bargaining rights for public education. And they are calling on high school students and faculty across the nation to follow their lead. [See appeal below.]

Momentum is building among workers, the trade unions, and their allies toward a General Strike. But there is no time to lose. Workers and their organizations must immediately throw their huge social weight into the struggle by walking out and striking. The working class has the power to win because society grinds to a halt when workers refuse to work.

On Saturday, March 12 tens of thousands of unionists, students and farmers, with their tractors, will march and rally in Madison to protest both the union-busting attacks and the concessions/cuts demanded by Governon Scott Walker and his cohorts. It is essential that March 12 be huge, with unionists and labor activists converging on Madison from all neighboring states. Labor-led rallies need to be organized in cities nationwide. The top officials of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win should be urging their affiliates to be in Madison in this emergency mobilization and funding buses so that union members can be there.The embattled unionists and students occupying the Capitol need massive labor reinforcements from across the country throughout the following days and weeks.

But a one-day mobilization, though important, is not going to be enough to kill the bill and beat back the devastating cuts. Nothing short of a mass strike in Wisconsin, together with solidarity actions — including job actions where possible — of unions and allies throughout the country can force the state government to cave in.

A sleeping giant has been awakened. At stake in the class war in Wisconsin is the future (and existence) of public services and trade unions throughout the United States. History is being made — but we must push for the labor movement to do what it takes to win!

* * * * * * * * * *

Joe Conway, President of Madison Firefighters, Local 311 Speaks Out

(excerpts from interview with Ed Shultz on the Ed TV show)

Q. We're hearing people talking about a call for a general strike. What do you think about that?
A. I'm in total agreement. We should start walking out tomorrow and the next day. See how long they can last.
Q. So you're advocating for a general strike, even among firefighters.
A. I am. We'll see what they want to do. The union bodies decide. But it's time that these people, the Republicans, are held accountable for what they're doing. This isn't just a Wisconsin thing, it's a national movement to attack all unions, to attack all working men and women in Wisconsin and the United States. They're not playing fair.
Q. How wide would you advocate the strike going? Just Madison? Just Wisconsin?
A. State-wide and nation-wide. Michael Moore has gone for a nationwide walkout of all high-school students.

* * * * * * * * * *

Nationwide Student Walkout Friday in Solidarity with Wisconsin

Please forward to teachers/students! 3,000+ students already RSVP'd!

http://www.facebook.com/event. php?eid=141162765948861
Nationwide Student Walkout
Friday, March 11 · 2:00pm - 11:30pm (local time),
High schools nationwide!

High school students in Madison, Wisconsin will walk out of class this Friday, March 11th at 2:00 PM CT to hold a 3:00 CT teach-in on Library Mall in downtown Madison regarding the effects of collective bargaining elimination on public education, as well as the proposed education cuts in the Biennial Budget.

We are asking all students in the United States to walk out at 2:00 PM local time in solidarity with Wisconsin and to organize teach-ins on the attacks on public education and working families where you live.
Signed,

Wisconsin Students in Solidarity
http://www.facebook.com/home. php?sk=group_187367814637933
http://www.facebook.com/video/ video.php?v=10150106108358095& oid=141162765948861&comments

[DaringMehring]

The "logic" of the ISO seems to be that there can't be a general strike because the strike tradition and infrastructure isn't in place. They seem to be saying, we have to build up working class radicalism before that kind of a fight. But organizing to fight is how working class builds its own radicalism! As if, workers can't create what they need!

What a terrible argument.

Shame!

[IndependentCitizen]

There seems to be a hell of a lot of support for a general strike at the moment, how on earth can they NOT support it?

[Comrade Ian]

"But given the low level of strike activity in the last decade, and the overall decline of he labor movement over the past 30 years, there is a gap between the widely felt need for mass action and the organization needed to bring it about. Simply calling for a general strike--no matter how enthusiastically it is received--is unlikely to get very far."
-From the quoted article

The statement argues that for a General Strike to actually happen it takes a lot more then a couple members of obscure sects shouting at the top of their lungs for one to happen, it's not an argument against a General Strike. If one is to actually emerge in Wisconsin it will take co-ordinated efforts to challenge reformist union leaderships, to rebuild workplace solidarity and organization, to even educate most workers as to how a strike not to mention a general strike works. This will take time and hard work, and even though the last few weeks have had an explosion of working class militancy there is not yet anything approach the left leadership Communists/Trotskyists provide in previous general strikes, nothing approaching the experience of strikes that led up to it (Minneapolis for example was not just bam, General Strike, strikes happened to build up and cascade into a full scale General Strike). A real general strike requires not only a halt to all work but the actual emergence of an alternative, worker led management of the area under a General Strike, it's a situation of dual power or something approaching it and it cannot be simply shouted into existence. What the article advocates is working to build the kind of workplace organization that can make a real General Strike possible in the future.

[IndependentCitizen]

Then surely a 24 hour strike would be sensible to test the mood and its effectiveness?

[KurtFF8]

Any links to SDS opposition to the general strike?

[redasheville]

Comrade Ian gets it right. The ISO supports a general strike in Wisconsin. A general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.

[Chimurenga.]

Comrade Ian gets it right. The ISO supports a general strike in Wisconsin. A general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.

If you took the time to read the bottom of the article both the International Association of Fire Fighters and The South Central Federation of Labor (with a membership of 45,000 people mind you (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_db0d20d0-4b80-11e0-b664-001cc4c002e0.html)) are both in support of a general strike. This isn't "left sects", these are working class organizations. Organizations that the ISO are going against by taking bullshit positions like this.

To echo what Kassad said, "I didn't realize that the ISO was being so anti-worker, but I'm not surprised.."

[black magick hustla]

Comrade Ian gets it right. The ISO supports a general strike in Wisconsin. A general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.
of course but why would you scramble around if some kid tries to discuss about it? who the hell are you guys to shout "stop stop"

[black magick hustla]

general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.

the iso is also an insignificant sect made up mostly of college kids. don't pretend you guys are more "involved" than anybody else because nobody gives a fuck about all of youse too.

[KC]

WTF is the point of a one day general strike anyways? What a silly tactic Socialist Alternative is taking.

And why is the ISO being so fucking stupid about this? Where have they been the past few weeks, if they think that this is just a "left sect" calling for it?

EDIT: OHHH I get it! I just watched the video. They weren't saying "Stop" to him calling for a general strike but rather him talking bad about the democrats. Even more pitiful!

[redasheville]

If you took the time to read the bottom of the article both the International Association of Fire Fighters and The South Central Federation of Labor (with a membership of 45,000 people mind you (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_db0d20d0-4b80-11e0-b664-001cc4c002e0.html)) are in support a general strike. This isn't "left sects" these are working class organizations. Organizations that the ISO are going against by taking bullshit positions like this.

To echo what Kassad said, "I didn't realize that the ISO was being so anti-worker, but I'm not surprised.."

You really have a reading comprehension problem.

Did I ever say that the firefighters and the SCFL were left sects? Did I say that ONLY left groups were calling for a general strike? No. I did not. The labor movement is preparing for strike action (though they missed a crucial opportunity Wednesday night when the mood there was white hot). We do not have a "bullshit position" that you have projected on us. Our members are on the ground and part of the "no concessions" wing of the movement. Our members are pushing for strike actions. You just wish to fabricate a story that we are opposed to strike action because we have an analysis that goes a little deeper than simply yelling "general strike". Here are some twitter posts sent over the last few days from Socialist Worker as well as the Madison ISO:

SocialistViews Socialist Worker
What do we do next in Wisconsin? We say General Strike! socwrk.org/12702 #wiunion #generalstrike #p2

SocialistViews Socialist Worker
"Without our brain and muscle, not a single wheel would turn." We need a General Strike! #wiunion #solidaritywi

SocialistViews Socialist Worker
General Strike Pamphlet j.mp/hsVjHs #generalstrike #wiunion via @_IWW
ISOMadison Kill The WHOLE Bill
We were all escorted from the hall to the assembly room. we need a #generalstrike!

ISOMadison Kill The WHOLE Bill
Chanting in rotunda right now: general strike!

[Comrade Ian]

of course but why would you scramble around if some kid tries to discuss about it? who the hell are you guys to shout "stop stop"

I don't actually trust reporting from the Socialist Equality Party since they're known to be as sectarian (and as creepy) as the Sparts. They misrepresented some meetings here in Nor Cal around organizing for March 4th last year in a similar way, coming up with fake denunciations of the ISO that none of the people present at the meetings would attest to be true.

[DiaMat86]

http://www.plp.org/challenge/2011/3/2/plers-bring-red-ideas-wisconsin-workers-in-class-war-vs-boss.html

[redasheville]

Yes, the SEP has a long and disgusting history of slandering other left groups. They even went as far as to blame a member of the SWP (US) for Trotsky's death and accuse the SWP (US) of being CIA agents, FBI agents, and KGB agents among other things.

[redasheville]

http://www.plp.org/challenge/2011/3/2/plers-bring-red-ideas-wisconsin-workers-in-class-war-vs-boss.html

An old timer from the PLP is a member of the rank and file union caucus I belong to. He's a sharp guy.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=KC;2044938]WTF is the point of a one day general strike anyways? What a silly tactic Socialist Alternative is taking.
[QUOTE]
i dont get it either. sounds weinerish. however i havent striked ever and i am not unionized so i dont have any idea of the strategy behind it

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

They weren't shouting "stop!" in reference to the general strike. They didn't start yelling and trying to take the mic and such until he started attacking the democrats.

[KC]

I don't actually trust reporting from the Socialist Equality Party since they're known to be as sectarian (and as creepy) as the Sparts.LOL yeah let's only trust the ISO, they're upstanding gents, right? Get the fuck over yourselves. The SEP have been providing consistently solid analysis of the situation in Wisconsin since the beginning.


Yes, the SEP has a long and disgusting history of slandering other left groups. They even went as far as to blame a member of the SWP (US) for Trotsky's death and accuse the SWP (US) of being CIA agents, FBI agents, and KGB agents among other things.

LOL does anyone else find this statement incredibly hypocritical?

[theblackmask]

I can count about 20 ISO members on Facebook with general strike avatars...that means they support it right? :D

[Jolly Red Giant]

i dont get it either. sounds weinerish. however i havent striked ever and i am not unionized so i dont have any idea of the strategy behind it

To quote the full paragraph -
We should start with a one-day full shut-down of the state as soon as possible by organizing a public-sector general strike supported by mass mobilizations of all working people and youth who are prepared to fight. This can only be the first step to demonstrate the power of organized labor. We must be fully prepared to carry out a series of general strikes, that also involve the private sector, and other actions until Walker backs down.

A one-day general strike would be and should be the first step in a major campaign of strike action aimed at defeating the cuts. An all out general strike requires major levels of organisation and consciousness. A one-day general strike demonstrates the power of the working class and develops the organisation and consciousness of the working class in order to make the likelihood of further strike action successful.

[redasheville]

[QUOTE=KC;2044938]WTF is the point of a one day general strike anyways? What a silly tactic Socialist Alternative is taking.
[QUOTE]
i dont get it either. sounds weinerish. however i havent striked ever and i am not unionized so i dont have any idea of the strategy behind it

Recently, unions in the US have made effective use of one day strikes. For instance, the Oakland teachers union had a one day strike that forced Oakland Unified to back down from the concessions they were demanding.

I am not in a position to say if a one day general strike would be capable of winning this fight. I am inclined to say no simply because of how protracted this fight has been.

[Lucretia]

Apparently the guy with the megaphone was shouted down not because the ISO opposes a general strike, but because the ISO wants to control when/how/where a general strike is called. I can think of no other reason why this was done.

[Jimmie Higgins]

LOL yeah let's only trust the ISO, they're upstanding gents, right? Get the fuck over yourselves. The SEP have been providing consistently solid analysis of the situation in Wisconsin since the beginning.
1) I heard one unidentified voice shouting "stop, stop" on that video.
2) Support of the Democrats is not a debatable position in the ISO, and the ISO has been critical of the Democrats and provided analysis of why they are a capitalist party and the "graveyard of social movements" since well before I joined 10 years ago.

So why is the SEP going out of their way to call ISO and SDS "in support of the Democrats" or whatnot? Debating when and how to build a general strike is a totally valid and constructive debate - misrepresenting other groups positions either because one random member said "Stop" or some random person standing next to an ISO member said "stop" is not constructive.

[Lucretia]

Comrade Ian gets it right. The ISO supports a general strike in Wisconsin. A general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.

Paraphrase: The ISO supports a general strike, but it has to be one initiated in organizations in which the ISO has a presence so the ISO can try to exercise some control over it.

[redasheville]

Paraphrase: The ISO supports a general strike, but it has to be one initiated in organizations in which the ISO has a presence so the ISO can try to exercise some control over it.

What planet are you on? Do you know what AFSCME and SEIU are?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Apparently the guy with the megaphone was shouted down not because the ISO opposes a general strike, but because the ISO wants to control when/how/where a general strike is called. I can think of no other reason why this was done.If this is your argument, then the same could be said of the groups advocating a general strike - they're trying to control when and where it happens right?

The ISO is not in the position nor has any interest in "controlling" anything, we want to help build a rank and file-led union movement and therefore argue for what we think might be the best thing at any given time. But arguing a position is not "controlling" anything, that's a silly argument comrade.

I'd love to hear a concrete argument from people with some familiarity with conditions and forces on the ground as to why they think a general strike would be the next best achievable thing for labor. I mean of course it would be cool, and I do think there is a lot of moral support for it, but would it do anything to build fight-back or would (a limited or weak strike) then become an excuse for union bureaucrats and the Democrats to say, well see the only thing that will really work is getting Republicans out of office (and therefore supporting the Democrats).

The US general strikes of the 1930s came at the end of long and slowly built struggles to organize workers... workers had been hardened by lots or real experience and real battles both with the bosses and the union heads (at least in San Francisco). I'd love to see a general strike - even a losing one (as ones of the 1930s were) - if it actually helps increase militancy. My fear at this point is that a general strike would be more of a glorified walk-out and would end up convincing people that labor can not achieve anything against legislation and so battles must be done on that playing field. That being said, if in the end a general strike call did win the support of this movement, then I think we should all try and build it - I'm just not convinced at this point that it could really have the desired effect of winning or increasing militancy.

[Amphictyonis]

This is basically happening (article below)- as I have been saying all along- the Democrats are co-opting our struggle:


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/wisc-m11.shtml

[S.Artesian]

"But given the low level of strike activity in the last decade, and the overall decline of he labor movement over the past 30 years, there is a gap between the widely felt need for mass action and the organization needed to bring it about. Simply calling for a general strike--no matter how enthusiastically it is received--is unlikely to get very far."
-From the quoted article

The statement argues that for a General Strike to actually happen it takes a lot more then a couple members of obscure sects shouting at the top of their lungs for one to happen, it's not an argument against a General Strike. If one is to actually emerge in Wisconsin it will take co-ordinated efforts to challenge reformist union leaderships, to rebuild workplace solidarity and organization, to even educate most workers as to how a strike not to mention a general strike works. This will take time and hard work, and even though the last few weeks have had an explosion of working class militancy there is not yet anything approach the left leadership Communists/Trotskyists provide in previous general strikes, nothing approaching the experience of strikes that led up to it (Minneapolis for example was not just bam, General Strike, strikes happened to build up and cascade into a full scale General Strike). A real general strike requires not only a halt to all work but the actual emergence of an alternative, worker led management of the area under a General Strike, it's a situation of dual power or something approaching it and it cannot be simply shouted into existence. What the article advocates is working to build the kind of workplace organization that can make a real General Strike possible in the future.


To actually build a general strike you need an out of workplace organization. You cannot and will not build a general strike by confining the agitation, organization, and execution of it to workplaces, to unionized workers, to union halls or any sectoral formation that has already been pulverized and out-maneuvered, as unions qua unions have been by the bourgeoisie.

Let's not forget in the final analysis the Minneapolis general strike failed; the Toledo strikes failed; the Flint sit-down failed-- unless you consider the creation of the CIO, the incorporation and containment of class struggle to the trade union form the successful resolution of the contradictions of capitalism that produced the tremendous upheaval. This is not the 1930s; the need to integrate organized labor into the maintenance of discipline on the production floor is no longer a priority, nor even a necessity of the bourgeoisie. Koch and company don't give a flying fuck.

Nor are we going to see an upsurge in industrial production that will engage millions of new industrial workers in the US who will be expected to sweat and bleed to feed that big green, and red, machine of war.

We don't get a general strike by mere accretion of "workplace" organizations-- a general strike is a break, a rupture, with the old forms of class struggle.

What Wisconsin makes clear is that a general strike that doesn't embrace non-unionized, unemployed, retirees, the excluded, can't even be organized. There can be no organization confined to a or the "workplaces" of a general strike.

What Wisconsin also makes clear is that the tasks of a general are not the repeal of particular legislation and recall of particular officials, but replacement of the existing organization of government, and the arrest of all those officials and their bankrollers who have mobilized against labor.

Thirty two states are introducing or have enacted legislation to make it more difficult for the poor, students, young people, immigrants to vote. The response cannot be one then of "getting the right candidates," of even "establishing a party of labor."

The Obama administration has increased the Federal program of ICE raids on factories where immigrant labor is employed.

These types of attacks are not going to diminish. They are going to intensify.


Organizing for an immediate general strike around these and similar issues is the only way to build an organization of the class as a whole of which the general strike is a manifestation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The US general strikes of the 1930s came at the end of long and slowly built struggles to organize workers...

Personally I draw more inspiration from enraged people tearing up their union cards in Akron Ohio after being constantly sold up the river by their union during the 1930's, just before the advent of the sit-down strike.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Personally I draw more inspiration from enraged people tearing up their union cards in Akron Ohio after being constantly sold up the river by their union during the 1930's, just before the advent of the sit-down strike.Well, you win the most radicalist award.:lol:

And yes, sorry, IMO the general strikes and sit-down strikes of the 1930s are more effective and inspiring for the US working class. The San Francisco strike involved workers fighting both their bosses and the union bureaucrats on the principles of solidarity and union rank and file democracy. US workers don't need "examples" of people being enraged by their unions, that's called Tuesday - what workers do need are living examples of is grassroots fight-back and the power of union militancy, solidarity, and self-organizing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

:blink:

I'm not trying to win the "most radicalist" award. What's happening in Wisconsin has happened since time in memoriam in the United States. If we don't want to keep going down the same path over and over, then I think a substantial rupture is needed. (As S. Artesian mentioned)


US workers don't need "examples" of people being enraged by their unions

Whoever said they did? :bored:

[black magick hustla]

there is a difference between the general strike and the mass strike. the general strike is called by union bosses, the mass strike is a social break. what happened in may 68 was a mass strike.

[GX.]

The SEP is so overbearingly histrionic and sectarian it's not even funny. They think everyone on the 'pseudo-left' (i.e. not the SEP) is a Democratic stooge, so I'm really skeptical about their interpretation of events.

Also how does a random guy with a megaphone issue a call for a general strike? Huh?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also how does a random guy with a megaphone issue a call for a general strike? Huh?

By the power vested in him by the proles.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The ISO are clearly acting out as reactionary ultra-leftists. As far as the claims that the SDS are against a general strike, I've heard no word of this whatsoever, and since it's only being claimed by the SEP, this'll remain an unsubstantiated claim with lack of any merit behind it.

[Lucretia]

What planet are you on? Do you know what AFSCME and SEIU are?

Let me guess: they are labor unions. What point are you trying to make? My point was that your group appears specifically to be trying to direct the strike through only those unions your group has a strong presence in.

[Lucretia]

If this is your argument, then the same could be said of the groups advocating a general strike - they're trying to control when and where it happens right?

Excuse me, but my only argument involves how I interpreted what some ISO members here are saying. Correct me if I interpreted those statements incorrectly.


The ISO is not in the position nor has any interest in "controlling" anything, we want to help build a rank and file-led union movementSo why try to shut somebody up who is calling for a general strike?


and therefore argue for what we think might be the best thing at any given time.Apparently, the ISO thinks it is not "best" if a person arguing for a general strike is not in one of the ISO-approved unions.


But arguing a position is not "controlling" anything, that's a silly argument comrade.Where did I say that arguing a position is the same as trying to control something? My argument was that, if you support a general strike, why shout "No!" at somebody who is making calls for a general strike? The only reason I could see was that he was not a part of one of the ISO-approved channels for kicking off said strike. Do you have another explanation?


I'd love to hear a concrete argument from people with some familiarity with conditions and forces on the ground as to why they think a general strike would be the next best achievable thing for labor. I mean of course it would be cool, and I do think there is a lot of moral support for it, but would it do anything to build fight-back or would (a limited or weak strike) then become an excuse for union bureaucrats and the Democrats to say, well see the only thing that will really work is getting Republicans out of office (and therefore supporting the Democrats).Wait. So I'm confused here: RedAshville seems to be arguing that the ISO supports a general strike, but now you - also a member of the ISO - seem to be arguing that you do not support a general strike, although it would be "cool." What is the ISO position here, or does each member get to take a different position?

[redasheville]

Lucretia, no disrespect but your posts are very muddled and inarticulate.

[Lucretia]

Lucretia, no disrespect but your posts are very muddled and inarticulate.

No disrespect, but the only muddled thing I see here is the ISO position on a general strike in Wisconsin. You post in bold that the ISO supports it, then a page later another ISO member demands "a concrete argument" that a general strike would be "the next best achievable thing for labor" -- which he doubts.

[redasheville]

No disrespect, but the only muddled thing I see here is the ISO position on a general strike in Wisconsin. You post in bold that the ISO supports it, then a page later another ISO member demands "a concrete argument" that a general would be anything other than "cool."

Excellent detective work. You get a gold star.

Again: The ISO supports labor actions up to and including a general strike in Wisconsin. That being said, it is one thing to call for or support a general strike in the abstract, i.e. writing an article saying we need a general strike. It is another thing, though it is certainly not counterposed, to actually build for something like a general strike. Matters of strategy and tactics in concrete situations need to be taken seriously at all times, which is what my comrade from Oakland was getting at (he can correct me if I'm wrong).

[Lucretia]

Excellent detective work. You get a gold star.

Again: The ISO supports labor actions up to and including a general strike in Wisconsin. That being said, it is one thing to call for or support a general strike in the abstract, i.e. writing an article saying we need a general strike. It is another thing, though it is certainly not counterposed, to actually build for something like a general strike. Matters of strategy and tactics in concrete situations need to be taken seriously at all times, which is what my comrade from Oakland was getting at (he can correct me if I'm wrong).

Oh, I see, so your point is that the ISO supports it in the abstract but opposes it in concerete reality? Kinda like how Obama supports civil liberties in the abstract, but has to make pragmatic decisions to fight terrorism in reality? As the union leader in the youtube video posted upthread said to justify patience with the democrats, these things take time and careful planning. Uh huh. Let's not be hasty. Talk about totally abandoning the Marxian approach of merging theory and praxis.

Look, your "comrade from Oakland" did not say that he supports a general strike, but wonders how it will be carried out. He said that he doubts that "a general strike would be the next best achievable thing for labor." He clearly does not support a general strike in the current circumstances. Whether he supports one in some non-existent abstract universe is a separate question entirely, but one which has little value to people on the ground in Wisconsin.

[redasheville]

Oh, I see, so your point is that the ISO supports it in the abstract but opposes it in concerete reality? Kinda like how Obama supports civil liberties in the abstract, but has to make pragmatic decisions to fight terrorism in reality? As the union leader in the youtube video posted upthread said to justify patience with the democrats, these things take time and careful planning. Uh huh. Let's not be hasty. Talk about totally abandoning the Marxian approach of merging theory and praxis.



I think you need to hit the books (i.e. I think you mean "theory and practice" not "theory and praxis"....praxis is the process by which theory is put into practice...spend more time in the library and less time on the internet) and maybe get some more organizing experience, comrade.

[Lucretia]

I think you need to hit the books (i.e. I think you mean "theory and practice" not "theory and praxis"....praxis is the process by which theory is put into practice...spend more time in the library and less time on the internet) and maybe get some more organizing experience, comrade.

Nice job of totally dodging the issue (which, by the way, you are wrong about -- your "praxis" is certainly putting ideas into practice, but not the revolutionary socialist ideas you claim to uphold -- hence, your praxis is totally divorced from Marxian theory). Are you going to answer the question: does the ISO support a general strike -- not in the abstract -- but in the present circumstances in Wisconsin?

[redasheville]

Nice job of totally dodging the issue. Are you going to answer the question: does the ISO support a general strike -- not in the abstract -- but in the present circumstances in Wisconsin?

When you address a single thing I've said in this thread, instead of just a bunch of endless strawmen, I would be happy to discuss these matters with you.

[robbo203]

While political grouplets jockey for position in being most strident in calling for a general strike, has anyone actually consulted the workers involved? Sorry, but Ive got an ingrained prejudice about this. Trade union activity is effective to the extent that it carries as many workers as possible, irrespective of their political outlook and it is through the union structure that industrial action ought to be organised. Turning it into a hunting ground for political recruits to this or that sect, flaunting their militancy like hookers on a street corner competing for punters, is to me to me just so counterproductive and divisive. If the union is ineffective get another one. It goes without saying the IWW would be my first choice any day. But keep organised politics to the realm of organised politics.

A general strike is a high risk strategy which could very easily fall flat on its face under constrained conditions. To succeed it really does need bottom-up mass support by those who matter in this case: the workers themselves

[Jimmie Higgins]

Excuse me, but my only argument involves how I interpreted what some ISO members here are saying. Correct me if I interpreted those statements incorrectly.How you interpreted what an ISO member was saying? Well, there's the problem! :D


So why try to shut somebody up who is calling for a general strike?Who did? Again, I listened to that video and I heard one person say "stop, stop." and so I don't think that person was in both ISO and SDS - I guess they could have been. If you want to see ISO members (and SDS and PSL) shut someone down...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/22/nyregion/600_columbia_1.jpg

See unlike some sectarians on the left, the ISO doesn't see "pseudo-socialists" or "ultra-leftists" or other tiny left-wing groups (ISO included) as "controlling" things or the main obstacle to progress - rather its things like the union bureaucracy and the Democratic party - not to mention the right - that needs to be stopped and exposed and shut down.

Other leftists should be debated or politically argued against and hopefully allies in coalitions and so on.


Where did I say that arguing a position is the same as trying to control something? My argument was that, if you support a general strike, why shout "No!" at somebody who is making a general strike? The only reason I could see was that he was not a part of one of the ISO-approved channels for kicking off said strike.I don't know, which member said that and then maybe I can find out what they were thinking. Again, even if that was an ISO member, it wasn't some coordinated effort and it is a stretch of logic to argue that this one person saying stop off-camera reflects the organization as a whole even if they are a member.

Can I tell you how many coalition meetings I've been to where some person argues for a general strike. I have not once told them to shut up (although I've thought it) and in Mad Wisco, I don't think general strike is an "off the table" left-field demand like it was in some coalition in California 3 years ago. I agree with other people - I think the sentiment is there for a general strike, but would it be the best next step, would it be organized or just an "under the table" call by union bosses for a large walkout - a general strike with no real organization or teeth?


Do you have another explanation?Um yes: that you have a hatred of the ISO (based on other sectarian attacks in other threads) which you place above the needs of the movement or even factual correctness and reason?


Wait. So I'm confused here: RedAshville seems to be arguing that the ISO supports a general strike, but now you - also a member of the ISO - seem to be arguing that you do not support a general strike, although it would be "cool." What is the ISO position here, or does each member get to take a different position?First of all this is a website not some movement or coalition so what I or other comrades say is what we say - we don't vote on a unified stance before idly chatting with other radicals. Sure what we say is informed by the larger general shared viewpoints, but I speak for myself as a member of the ISO, not as the ISO as a collective (and I assume the same of other comrades from different groups).

Second, I'm not in Wisconsin, I would deffer to what the comrades on the ground there are feeling-out based on their dealings with other forces in this movement. If they do not think that conditions on the ground would make a general strike the next best tactic, then they have more immediate connections to activists, radicals and unionists there than I do. I (and I think it's safe to say all members of the ISO) would piss out pants for joy to see a real general strike in the US, the question is, would it be effective at increasing radicalization confidence and self-activity of workers at the grassrootes (or rank and file) level, secondly - could it be effective in actually winning this specific fight?

[Lucretia]

When you address a single thing I've said in this thread, instead of just a bunch of endless strawmen, I would be happy to discuss these matters with you.

I addressed a single thing you said. You mentioned in the previous post that "The ISO supports labor actions up to and including a general strike in Wisconsin." But then quickly qualified that support with by saying that there is a distinction between "calling for or support a general strike in the abstract" and actually building a general strike.

I then asked you to clarify the ISO position. Does the ISO support a general strike right now, or is it merely professing support for a general strike to be carried out at some point in the distant future when the conditions have been "built" (a year from now, perhaps?).

In response you are trying to start irrelevant discussions about the distinction between praxis and practice, and trying to accuse me -- without any evidence -- of constructing strawmen arguments.

Are you going to answer the question or aren't you?

[Lucretia]

How you interpreted what an ISO member was saying? Well, there's the problem! :D

I am perfectly amenable to hear what your interpretation of what that ISO member was saying. Care to provide one?


See unlike some sectarians on the left, the ISO doesn't see "pseudo-socialists" or "ultra-leftists" or other tiny left-wing groups (ISO included) as "controlling" things or the main obstacle to progress - rather its things like the union bureaucracy and the Democratic party - not to mention the right - that needs to be stopped and exposed and shut down.I agree with that aim. My question here is whether the ISO is actually willing to take the concrete steps to make that opposition successful, or whether it is simply declaring abstract support for those goals.


Um yes: that you have a hatred of the ISO (based on other sectarian attacks in other threads) which you place above the needs of the movement or even factual correctness and reason?Actually I consider myself a revolutionary socialist in the tradition of Tony Cliff and Alex Callinicos. What I don't support is the way the ISO attempts to put that theory in practice. How you can perceive that as a sectarian hatred of the ISO is unfathomable to a mind as unsophisticated and unenlightened as mine. Persecution complex, anyone?

[redasheville]

While political grouplets jockey for position in being most strident in calling for a general strike, has anyone actually consulted the workers involved? Sorry, but Ive got an ingrained prejudice about this. Trade union activity is effective to the extent that it carries as many workers as possible, irrespective of their political outlook and it is through the union structure that industrial action ought to be organised. Turning it into a hunting ground for political recruits to this or that sect, flaunting their militancy like hookers on a street corner competing for punters, is to me to me just so counterproductive and divisive. If the union is ineffective get another one. It goes without saying the IWW would be my first choice any day. But keep organised politics to the realm of organised politics.


There is definitely sentiment from the workers themselves for a general strike. People were chanting it in the rotunda Wednesday evening. However, there are those in the movement who wish to challenge Walker through legal strategies (e.g. lawsuits, recalls etc), which is of course what the Democrats want, and what some of the union officialdom wants (there were also people chanting "Recall Walker").


A general strike is a high risk strategy which could very easily fall flat on its face under constrained conditions. To succeed it really does need bottom-up mass support by those who matter in this case: the workers themselves

I agree with this. The workers themselves have everything to loose if whatever strategy taken fails. There is a split in the movement about how to proceed, and I think that it is up to radicals and rank and file workers to win people to a perspective of mass action/workplace stoppages in the near term. To get more concrete, you'd have to ask someone more familiar with the conditions on the ground.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A general strike is a high risk strategy which could very easily fall flat on its face under constrained conditions. To succeed it really does need bottom-up mass support by those who matter in this case: the workers themselvesExactly. And I think this was the point ComradeIan made about some SEP guy standing up in a crowd and talking general strike - that's great, but SEP or ISO or all the left-groups combined can not "will" a general strike into being - we might have a better chance of convincing people, but that's about it.

The US is just potentially rebuilding real rank and file bottom-up action and resistance but so far the union bureaucrats and Democrats even have been able to stay somewhat ahead of the movement, so I'd be afraid that a general strike under such conditions would not be militant, it would end up being a big protest and then the unions would say: see, even a general strike couldn't beat the republicans - let's get Obama re-elected.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am perfectly amenable to hear what your interpretation of what that ISO member was saying. Care to provide one?What ISO member? The voice off screen who according to SEP was ISO and SDS?

You are asking me to speculate on the thinking of someone who may or may not be a member of a group I'm in and may or may not have been against a general strike. Why not take up the arguements of the people here or better yet, the arguments made by the newspaper?


I agree with that aim. My question here is whether the ISO is actually willing to take the concrete steps to make that opposition successful, or whether it is simply declaring abstract support for those goals.Yes.


Actually I consider myself a revolutionary socialist in the tradition of Tony Cliff and Alex Callinicos. What I don't support is the way the ISO attempts to put that theory in practice. How you can perceive that as a sectarian hatred of the ISO is unfathomable to a mind as unsophisticated and unenlightened as mine. Persecution complex, anyone?Ok, maybe I'm mistaken. But in my defense, the only times I've ever seen you post anything on this website is to argue against the ISO :). Maybe it's the closeness in politics that relegates your criticisms of the organization as a whole because some mysterious member said "Stop" off-camera or some member posted some pro-Obama comment on facebook once.

I apologize and I'll take my defensiveness down a notch, but generally when people come at me without a real obvious political difference but are still opposed to the point that they are presenting distortions of the ISO's stated positions (like saying we support the Democrats or "controll" unions)... I begin to think that it's more about just hating that group than about a political debate.

[Lucretia]

What ISO member? The voice off screen who according to SEP was ISO and SDS?

No, RedAsheville.

[redasheville]

No, RedAsheville.

I think I've made myself pretty clear on this thread. If you'd like to discuss things further sent me a PM and we can do it over google chat or skype or something.

[Lucretia]

I think I've made myself pretty clear on this thread. If you'd like to discuss things further sent me a PM and we can do it over google chat or skype or something.

Actually, you haven't. I asked you whether the ISO supports a general strike in the present circumstances in Wisconsin, and your answer has been evasive.

You've stated that the ISO supports actions up to and including a general strike, but then note that supporting a general strike in the abstract is different than building one in reality (as if that needs to be pointed out). That you would mention this distinction raises the question of whether the ISO's supposed support for a general strike is just an abstract support (that is, the ISO is not in principle opposed to general strikes) or whether it is a concerete, real support for a general strike right now in Wisconsin (as in, we won't try to hush speakers chanting for a general strike in the capitol rotunda).

JimmieHiggins, at least, is clear enough. He thinks that a general strike at this point would be a disaster for the workers. Is your position different than his? Are either of these opinions reflective of the ISO's position?

[RedTrackWorker]

Oy. I want to take on the ISO's handling of Wisconsin, but the SEP makes it harder by showing off here some of the worst aspects of their method and history. Even if some ISO members shouted "No" at them for the reasons they say--which I doubt--that does not reflect the ISO's line(s), written statements or I'm sure 99% of their members. And the SEP isn't going to effectively fight for a general strike by ignoring the unions by just calling them bosses' organizations or whatever. The teacher's sick-out was extended and called (on and off) by a union. That doesn't mean I don't want to see the workers develop new organizational forms in this struggle and such, but that won't happen with the SEP's understanding of unions.

Now, to the ISO, that's much more complicated. Lucretia has pointed out some of the apparent inconsistency in whether they're for or not a general strike. First, let's say that given the question of the way forward in Wisconsin right now is clearly one of the most important immediate issues in the U.S. class struggle, you'd think a group would have a clear position.
Second, here's the hard part, let's break this down.
RedAsheville quotes some stuff referring positively to the general strike:


What do we do next in Wisconsin? We say General Strike! socwrk.org/12702 #wiunion #generalstrike
The author of the article linked to is Jack Trudell, who if you follow the ISO closely, has a history of taking more forthright and left positions than the ISO leadership like Lee Sustar (leader on their "labor" issues).
But that's just the issue--that's Trudell. What does the ISO think? Well, if they had a leaflet on their website they were distributing, it'd be easier to say. The only leaflet I've seen is that terrible "we're a rich country so don't hurt us workers" thing talked about on the first Wisconsin update thread. Next to that, the best thing would presumably be an editorial, which the ISO website typically has few of (in my opinion, so they can hide from criticism by saying "Oh, that was so-and-so's point of view" and avoid any responsibility for their positions, like they've done for at least a decade regarding my union, TWU Local 100, one of the most important in NYC). But with Wisconsin, they have had a couple of editorials.
Let's look at the most recent 3/11 (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/11/now-is-the-time-to-fight), which is the source of the already quoted passage "Simply calling for a general strike--no matter how enthusiastically it is received--is unlikely to get very far." True enough, but hardly the end of the question.
The question is more, as the ISO supporter Higgins puts it:

would it be the best next step, would it be organized or just an "under the table" call by union bosses for a large walkout - a general strike with no real organization or teeth?
[snip]
the question is, would it be effective at increasing radicalization confidence and self-activity of workers at the grassrootes (or rank and file) level, secondly - could it be effective in actually winning this specific fight?
So how does the editorial address this key question?
Well, guess what, it doesn't. At least not with any real analysis. It's left at the idea that there isn't enough organization for a general strike, so "The key task for labor activists, then, is to find ways to build union activity in the workplaces that can both put pressure on management while drawing upon the size and energy of the new workers' movement." So with the public unions under threat of virtually being abolished, how should they do this? The next sentence says, "This can mean, for example, organizing pickets before work or noontime marches to other unionized workplaces." The previous editorial 2/24 (http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/24/time-to-show-our-power) gave the advice: "This can be done in a number of ways--from wearing union T-shirts and buttons, holding meetings during breaks and lunch periods, and organizing informational pickets before work."

Now here's the hard part of the argument.
The ISO's right that there's not organization in place for a successful general strike but they're wrong that you get to the general strike by developing workers' organization before the general strike and without fighting for it in a situation like this. (And you certainly don't get there with buttons and t-shirts, good grief.)
Daring Merhring is 100% right here:

They seem to be saying, we have to build up working class radicalism before that kind of a fight. But organizing to fight is how working class builds its own radicalism! As if, workers can't create what they need!

Let me repeat that: organizing to fight is how working class builds its own radicalism [and organization].
Yes, you can't just shout "general strike" and get there. And yes, more organization is needed, but the fight to get to the general strike is the how you get to that kind of self-organization and self-initiative needed in Wisconsin now. The ISO could've taken the mike at the occupation, argued to turn the occupation into a voting assembly and passed a general strike to kill the bill motion that would've put enormous pressure on the unions. And it was certainly possible at the beginning to focus on first generalizing the teachers' wildcat to a statewide teachers' strike, turning the schools into organizing centers and strike committees and generalizing the struggle that way. So there are tactical things you can do to get to the general strike. I'm not sure what they are at this moment not being there. It might still make sense to specifically argue for a teachers' strike to galvanize a general strike.
My summary opinion is that the ISO leadership and website tail the general strike demands (always noting it, rarely posting a piece by someone for it) to not alienate even their own members and opportunistically "relate" to the call, but the trajectory of the editorial arguments and overall political strategy is clearly against focusing on fighting for the general strike now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let's see: one organization is trying to con the workers into taking power, and the others have a more Student Left orientation. Nobody in this debate has the guts to call for permanent workers assemblies with obligatory financial support (a basic form of de facto partyism).

[bricolage]

The ISO are clearly acting out as reactionary ultra-leftists.
So ultra-leftists oppose general strikes now?

[bricolage]

Let's see: one organization is trying to con the workers into taking power, and the others have a more Student Left orientation. Nobody in this debate has the guts to call for permanent workers assemblies with obligatory financial support (a basic form of de facto partyism).
Yawn.

[RED DAVE]

Conclusion of a Socialist Worker (ISO) editorial on the General Strike


What we can do

Labor has joined with a range of organizations to call for massive rally March 12. But will this event be used as means to gear up for job actions and struggle, or simply turn into an election rally to recall eight state Senate Republicans?

After all, mass labor rallies didn't rattle Ronald Reagan, who ignored the 250,000 union members and supporters who attended the Solidarity Day mach on Washington in 1981. And the near-constant protests by union members for three weeks in Madison haven't deterred Walker, who enjoys the full backing of big business.

In fact, the stakes in Wisconsin are even higher than the PATCO struggle. Similar measures in other states will soon follow, and private employers will escalate their own demands for concessions, too. If ever there was a moment for labor leaders to issue an all-out call to action, this is it.

But top union leaders haven't stepped up--and there's no sign they will. Tellingly, Madison Teachers Inc., the union whose sick-in helped spread the struggle, opted to go to work as usual following the passage of the anti-union bill as the union rushed to conclude a contract agreement before the bill becomes law.

An exception to the silence from labor was Joe Conway, president of Madison Local 311 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Asked after the bill's passage if he supported the call for a general strike, he said, "I'm in total agreement. We should start walking out tomorrow and the next day, and see how long they can last."

Conway was giving voice to a widespread sentiment among angry union members who chanted "general strike!" during the protest on the evening of March 9, when the state Senate passed the anti-union bill. The idea of a general strike has, in fact, been debated since Walker announced his legislative program. The South Central Federation of Labor, the Madison-area labor council, voted to endorse a general strike if one was called and launched an education effort among its affiliates.

But given the low level of strike activity in the last decade, and the overall decline of he labor movement over the past 30 years, there is a gap between the widely felt need for mass action and the organization needed to bring it about. Simply calling for a general strike--no matter how enthusiastically it is received--is unlikely to get very far.

Moreover, the rush by WEAC and AFSCME to conclude separate and largely concessionary contract agreements in advance of Walker's anti-union legislation passing has weakened the solidarity that gave rise to the movement. In that context, pursuing recall elections can seem like the only realistic course of action for labor--even though it will allow Walker's destruction of entire unions to go unchallenged.

The key task for labor activists, then, is to find ways to build union activity in the workplaces that can both put pressure on management while drawing upon the size and energy of the new workers' movement. This can mean, for example, organizing pickets before work or noontime marches to other unionized workplaces. An active, organized and fighting rank and file can compel management to bargain with their union on key issues, despite Walker's laws.

At the same time, unions can consolidate the links between their brothers and sisters that emerged during the movement by joining in struggle together. For example, the Teaching Assistants' Association at the University of Wisconsin has assigned a strike committee to prepare for any necessary action, and has pledged support for any action by other unions. In so doing, they are preparing the ground for the kind of solidarity action that can resist the implementation of Walkers' laws and begin to roll them back.

Thousands of union militants didn't wait for directions from labor leaders when they mobilized to protest or carried out job actions. They simply did it--and they created new activist networks, such as the Madison-based Kill the Whole Bill Coalition and the no cuts/no concessions campaign initiated by National Nurses United. These efforts are modest in size, but are nevertheless crucial in taking the movement forward.

The pace and scale of the next phase of resistance to Walker's laws is impossible to predict. But the potential to organize is clear--and the need to do so is urgent.http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/11/now-is-the-time-to-fight

RED DAVE

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And the SEP isn't going to effectively fight for a general strike by ignoring the unions by just calling them bosses' organizations or whatever. The teacher's wildcat was organized and called (on and off) by a union. That doesn't mean I don't want to see the workers develop new organizational forms in this struggle and such, but that won't happen with the SEP's understanding of unions.

How are they ignoring the unions? What about organizing a strike while beforehand accepting the concessions demanded by Walker is supposed to disprove their understanding of the unions, and what is supposed to be the correct understanding/tactic? Pressuring union bureaucrats to fight on workers behalf?

[Kassad]

So let me clarify something before I comment further: when the SEP member was calling for a general strikes, were ISO members literally chanting "No, no!" or is that just the SEP saying that figuratively, through its strategy, the ISO is opposing a general strike?

[Jimmie Higgins]

RedTrackWorker, I agree with you aside from the strawmen that ISO comrades have been doing nothing but advocating that people just wear buttons or t-shirts - I think you are seizing on one silly line and ignoring the main point that the author was trying to illustrate. What comrades in Wisconsin have been doing is working with their unions and with allies in trying to build up some left-wing rank and file opposition to the union leadership, a no concessions caucus and a no budget cuts coalition. The union leaders and Democrats are fine with all the concessions, they have no interest in fighting for that, the bureaucrats just don't want to loose their ability to have unions at all, but they are happy to give everything else up.

If a rank and file left-wing develops (yes, through the process and experience of this struggle) then if they organize they can call for not only protection of basic rights but for the budget not to be balanced on the backs of workers. This would have a big impact because it would change the whole nature of the struggles that have been popping up from last-ditch defensive struggles to a more offensive-defensive one (does that make sense? It would still be a defensive fight but it would be offensive in directly rejecting the bi-partisan logic of "we all have to sacrifice"). This more solidified rank and file left-wing could then be the actual forces on the ground and within unions to actually push for and carry out a general strike.

I'm not convinced that a general strike would actually be the best next step for this struggle, but a general strike could succeed and there are some real forces and unions who do want it and there is definitely sentiment among protesters in favor of it. I don't know if ISO or SEP members could organize it from the floor of the capital - from what I've heard from people who were there and seen on TV, it's not like there is one stage and mic like a rally, it's more like a university occupation from the late-1960s with speak-out happening at random and in various places in a spontaneous manner. Very cool, but doesn't mean just because you call for something that it could be done by the 100-odd people who can hear your megaphone.

But workers do learn how to self-lead through struggle and it's through struggle that our radical ideas start to make sense and relate to people's real questions and experiences... but people can also learn negative lessons from struggle and I'm a little skeptical at this point that a general strike would actually lead to more militancy or would lead to confusion if nothing is accomplished or if bureaucrats contain it. If there was a pre-existing more or less networkerd or organized rank and file left-wing, there'd be enough influence in unions that even if a general strike was betrayed from above or just flat-out lost, workers could argue why this is the case and what to do next. If a general strike at this point is contained or fails, it would more likely just discredit militant labor actions for a generation.

The US general strikes I know the most about are San Francisco and Oakland - and in Frisco (sorry SF peeps) there was a vibrant and strong rank and file that had developed through a long fight for union recognition - when the union leadership tried to contain their struggle, the union members rolled right over because they already knew their strength and the power of solidarity and rank and file democracy. In Oakland, after WWII, the left-wing of the unions were basically tied to this or that bureaucrat due to the politics of the CP and so when the union heads called off the strike and various unions began competing and breaking solidarity, there was not much of a way for workers to counter-act this from below. So the only long-term result was that Democrats, rather than Republicans, have controlled Oakland politics ever since.

Regardless, I think if there is a strike call that goes through, we all need to do as much as we can to try and help organize and make sure it isn't just a mass-protests but that we try and shut the state down as much as possible and try and build up the rank and file left-wing out of it.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So let me clarify something before I comment further: when the SEP member was calling for a general strikes, were ISO members literally chanting "No, no!" or is that just the SEP saying that figuratively, through its strategy, the ISO is opposing a general strike?

They're accused of shouting against his attacks on the democrats, not the call for a general strike.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, I've been confirmed by different sources to the SDS that they're not opposing general strike. They're very much for it. So the SEP are fucking liars.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yawn.

There's a difference between general strikes called by left-reformists (Die Linke) and general strikes called by many tendencies of the class-strugglist left. The former do not con workers into gaining power. The latter like to link as quickly as possible such strikes to council fetishes.

As for the revivalist remainder of the class-strugglist left, I just put forward our organizational strategy.

[Amphictyonis]

Sectarian lameness on the intewebs over real current issues during real struggles is silly. These are times for solidarity on real issues. I think we can all agree whatever action workers take it needs to be outside the Democrat/Republican apparatus. Our power isn't to be found in any bourgeois political party but in our own actions whatever actions we chose to take. It's my silly opinion the most important thing is to get people to realize Democrats are not our friends- I think most already understand Republicans represent capitalists.

[RED DAVE]

There's a difference between general strikes called by left-reformists (Die Linke) and general strikes called by many tendencies of the class-strugglist left. The former do not con workers into gaining power. The latter like to link as quickly as possible such strikes to council fetishes.

As for the revivalist remainder of the class-strugglist left, I just put forward our organizational strategy.Phew.

Someone needs their diaper changed.

RED DAVE

[IndependentCitizen]

WTF is the point of a one day general strike anyways? What a silly tactic Socialist Alternative is taking.

And why is the ISO being so fucking stupid about this? Where have they been the past few weeks, if they think that this is just a "left sect" calling for it?

EDIT: OHHH I get it! I just watched the video. They weren't saying "Stop" to him calling for a general strike but rather him talking bad about the democrats. Even more pitiful!

And what would an indefinite strike at this time achieve? A reformed capitalist alternative.

The idea of a 24 hour general strike would be to test the mood, stretch the muscles of the labour group and test peoples' reactions to the strike - it would be a great time for any left group to get involved in their communities. An indefinite strike in theory would be a revolutionary stage - there doesn't seem to be any party in the States at the moment strong enough to have enough influence. Perhaps, through a 24-GS organisations can build through demonstrations/demos and etc. Whilst you could do this in an indefinite strike, surely the safest route to get through is a series of small scale strike action to build up the momentum?

However, I have no idea what it's like the U.S right now, so by all means let me know what's wrong with 24hour general strikes.

[GX.]

By the power vested in him by the proles.

Ah, apparently this the "Marxian approach of merging theory and praxis." Which means merging make-believe and reality, something the SEP is really good at.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/stat-m12.shtml

Time for solidarity because Wisconsin is about to go nation wide.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's hypocritical on the part of the stringently anti-union SEP and its newspaper capitalist-for-a-founder.

[Amphictyonis]

It's hypocritical on the part of the stringently anti-union SEP and its newspaper capitalist-for-a-founder.

I'll send them an E-Mail. Damn Trot revisionists! :) I'm not sure what state you're in but we need to start gearing up in the community and forming a sort of "linked" plan state by state because the proverbial shit is about to hit the fan. If we're all scatter brained I don't think it would benefit us as well as some semblance of solidarity on the basics. We all know this. Fuck, what scares me is the obvious preparations they're making to attack workers nation wide and the continued ability of the capitalists to control the issue via the Dem/Rep/Union facade. If anything is going to come out of this I think it will be an exposure of the conflict between labor and capital along side the exposure of the two party systems role backing capital every time.

[RedTrackWorker]

On the ISO's line on the general strike in response to Jimmie Higgins:
a. I don't understand how you expect to "build up some left-wing rank and file opposition to the union leadership, a no concessions caucus and a no budget cuts coalition" without explaining to people how they can expect to stop the concessions and budget cuts! Without explaining to workers a perspective for actually winning, joining a caucus or coalition becomes a moral stance that can't sustain a struggle.

b. Organization before struggle or organization through struggle?

I'm a little skeptical at this point that a general strike would actually lead to more militancy or would lead to confusion if nothing is accomplished or if bureaucrats contain it. If there was a pre-existing more or less networkerd or organized rank and file left-wing, there'd be enough influence in unions that even if a general strike was betrayed from above or just flat-out lost, workers could argue why this is the case and what to do next. If a general strike at this point is contained or fails, it would more likely just discredit militant labor actions for a generation.

Of course defeats will be worse in the absence of a revolutionary leadership. The defeat of the 2005 transit strike at the hands of its leadership is still the main political factor in the life of the union (not consciously, but in terms of the divisions and lack of militancy). Did that mean it was wrong to support a transit strike in 2005?

One cannot just answer the question "no" and always be for militancy. I was just reading 20 years in underground Russia and she talks about calling off a textile strike because reaction was setting in in the period after the failed 1905 revolution. It sounds to me like the Bolsheviks made the right decision there.

But that was after a failed revolution with growing reaction. While the workers' movement in the U.S. (and mostly abroad till the beginning of this year), has known virtually only defeats for decades, the defeats are not of the same kind or quality as the Russian workers had gone through. The teachers' work actions and the overall character of the mass actions should show that quite clearly. The question is one of leadership.

Okay, you may say, the workers could win but they don't have the leadership they need to do so. In the 2005 transit strike, the workers were militant enough to force the leader to strike, but not organized enough to prevent a sell-out. I would argue that the kind of thinking of "rank-and-file organization before action" that Solidarity pushed was the decisive obstacle at key points to the workers overcoming their union leadership, but I don't have time to prove that here.

Let's look at Wisconsin now.
1. The workers have shown they're reading and willing to fight.
2. The politicians have shown they're going for the throat by passing the bill like that.
3. What are the chances that the workers will win this without a general strike?
It seems to me the choices aren't between general strike or the ISO's build up to a general strike by first building rank and file organization, but get to a general strike fast or face defeat. The ISO ran a headline: "Do or die." How can you run that headline and not call for a general strike? What exactly will the workers "do" that will cow the rulers short of a general strike?
The ISO editorial (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/11/now-is-the-time-to-fight) goes on to propose:
a. "organizing pickets before work or noontime marches to other unionized workplaces"
b. "unions can consolidate the links between their brothers and sisters that emerged during the movement by joining in struggle together. For example, the Teaching Assistants' Association at the University of Wisconsin has assigned a strike committee to prepare for any necessary action, and has pledged support for any action by other unions"
But is there any reason to think that if actions like that aren't linked to a fight for a general strike that they can succeed? I don't see it that they can. And as said at the beginning, I don't see that they'll sustain their momentum unless workers see a perspective for fighting to win.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And what would an indefinite strike at this time achieve? A reformed capitalist alternative.

The idea of a 24 hour general strike would be to test the mood, stretch the muscles of the labour group and test peoples' reactions to the strike - it would be a great time for any left group to get involved in their communities. An indefinite strike in theory would be a revolutionary stage - there doesn't seem to be any party in the States at the moment strong enough to have enough influence. Perhaps, through a 24-GS organisations can build through demonstrations/demos and etc. Whilst you could do this in an indefinite strike, surely the safest route to get through is a series of small scale strike action to build up the momentum?

However, I have no idea what it's like the U.S right now, so by all means let me know what's wrong with 24hour general strikes.

If there's a general strike, it needs to be one aimed at actually turning back the attacks at this point or else it will show how weak the union movement really is. Shutting down the state is the working class's "nuclear option" and if it fails it will mean every state in the US will rush to pass similar anti-worker measures. In the US general strikes and solidarity strikes are "illegal" and a successful one will legitimize union militancy and rank and file power (since the union leaders would not "officially" call for one even if they wanted it) but a half-assed one will have the opposite effect and lead to repression and backlash IMO.

In the US, most labor actions are limited strikes and it's a total empty ritual. It turns strikes into very top-down affairs as union officials worry more about stepping over legal lines and getting slapped with injunctions. It makes workers "extras," background to the "real protagonists" the union negotiators. Really to have a rebirth of US labor, it would mean workers would have to become the primary protagonists and overcome two of the main obstacles of most labor struggles of the last generation: they would have to challenge their union leadership and the whole idea of business-unionism and second, they would need to reject "legality" in favor of militancy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The US general strikes I know the most about are San Francisco and Oakland - and in Frisco (sorry SF peeps) there was a vibrant and strong rank and file that had developed through a long fight for union recognition - when the union leadership tried to contain their struggle, the union members rolled right over because they already knew their strength and the power of solidarity and rank and file democracy. In Oakland, after WWII, the left-wing of the unions were basically tied to this or that bureaucrat due to the politics of the CP and so when the union heads called off the strike and various unions began competing and breaking solidarity, there was not much of a way for workers to counter-act this from below. So the only long-term result was that Democrats, rather than Republicans, have controlled Oakland politics ever since.

Do yourself a favor. Read about the Great Strike of 1877, the Homestead Strike, and the much more recent wildcats in the coalfields of PA/WV/VA.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Let's see: one organization is trying to con the workers into taking power, and the others have a more Student Left orientation. Nobody in this debate has the guts to call for permanent workers assemblies with obligatory financial support (a basic form of de facto partyism).

Why don't you get down there are call for this and see how it goes over.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If there's a general strike, it needs to be one aimed at actually turning back the attacks at this point or else it will show how weak the union movement really is. Shutting down the state is the working class's "nuclear option" and if it fails it will mean every state in the US will rush to pass similar anti-worker measures.

1. States across the country are already working to push through similar measures, and it has to do with the workings of the capitalist system more than the actions of workers or unions.

2. How would a militant fight, even if it failed, prove the weakness of the class more than not fighting would?

3. Any mass strike is going to have to go outside of and beyond the unions to succeed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

On the ISO's line on the general strike in response to Jimmie Higgins:The ISO does not have an abstract "line" on general strikes - it is a tactic that can be very effective and powerful - the question is could it be pulled off at the present time and would it be effective at either helping workers to build up independent militancy and organization or achieving its aims?

If there is a "line" in the abstract, then it is that the ISO supports them. But what does it mean for a small radical group to "support" a general strike in the absence of one? But can the ISO or any radical group calling for one actually help build or pull one off - no, so it is not something we can realistically build by ourselves. Then who can, the union bureaucrats at this point - and are they going to agree to a no concessions general strike, or would it just be a general strike to stop the attack on collective bargaining?

Even Socialist Alternative doesn't seem to think that the enthusiasm for a general strike is enough alone and I'd guess that is why they are calling for a one-day general strike.


Of course defeats will be worse in the absence of a revolutionary leadership. The defeat of the 2005 transit strike at the hands of its leadership is still the main political factor in the life of the union (not consciously, but in terms of the divisions and lack of militancy). Did that mean it was wrong to support a transit strike in 2005?And it would be essential to support a general strike if one was actually initiated. This debate to me is about what can we realistically do at this point to build up a labor-left that could really have the organic roots to pull off a bottom-up general strike. A handful of radicals or rank and file militants can maybe turn the tide and win others to support them in a local, but in this case we are talking about much higher stakes and a million or more people.

I've read the IWW's excellent primer on strikes, I watched the video with the SEP comrade's very exciting speech, and the S.Alt statement:


http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/spacer.gif http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/spacer.gif Mar 10, 2011
By Socialist Alternative http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/spacer.gif
WE CALL FOR:



Emergency mass union meetings to democratically develop an immediate plan for stepping up the struggle.
The formation of elected strike committees in the unions as well as action committees of students, unemployed and community members to lead the struggle.
Set the date and make immediate preparations for a one-day full shut-down of the state as soon as possible through a public-sector general strike and prepare for a series of general strikes and other actions until Walker backs down.
Full mobilization of the youth and the unemployed as well as private sector, union and non-union workers in support of strike actions.
Neighboring states to send caravans of activists to flood Wisconsin with hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers to stop this attack on the entire union movement.
Wall Street is to blame not working people or their unions. Tax the super-rich and big corporations. Working people shouldn’t pay for a crisis we didn’t create.
No concessions! No Cuts! Kill the whole bill!
The full right to strike for all workers; the right to unionize and have decent jobs, benefits and pensions for all.
An end to the corporate domination of politics and our lives. Working people of Wisconsin and the U.S. unite and fight for a working people’s party and a democratic socialist society!


Excellent I agree with all of that (though I think a one-day general strike defeats the purpose). So how are they going to carry all this out? Do they have connections with union militants in all the major unions that can organize these strike committees?

In reality these calls at this point are just the hope that union bureaucrats are embarrassed enough to have to organize a general strike.


Let's look at Wisconsin now.
1. The workers have shown they're reading and willing to fight.
2. The politicians have shown they're going for the throat by passing the bill like that.
3. What are the chances that the workers will win this without a general strike?
It seems to me the choices aren't between general strike or the ISO's build up to a general strike by first building rank and file organization, but get to a general strike fast or face defeat. The ISO ran a headline: "Do or die." How can you run that headline and not call for a general strike? What exactly will the workers "do" that will cow the rulers short of a general strike?A militant general strike with mass participation would be most effective, that's not in question. The question is, is it possible under present circumstances. Yes, the sentiment is there which is a great sign, but you can also go to these same rallies, shout "class-war", call for the "overthrow of Hosni Walker" and get enthusiastic applause and support - does that mean we can really organize a revolution in Wisco? No, of course not, but it does mean that we have a better chance of building the kinds of things that could lead to real organic general strikes and so on - hells yes.

But even Socialist Alternative doesn't seem to think a real militant strike is yet possible - they are only calling for a one-day strike. Personally I am totally against a one-day general strike - it's like the worse of all worlds with that option IMO. An indefinite strike that lost in the end would at least harden a whole bunch of workers into fighters for the class, but a one day strike would probably not win and not allow for any real developments in rank and file self-organization and leadership. I'd guess that S. Alt are thinking that it would be an easier demand than an indefinite strike to actually "shut down the state" and then when Gov. Walker doesn't repeal the law after the one day (why would he if he knew the strike would be over as soon as he went to bed that night) the machinary would be in place to continue the strike. I think the problem there is that it would be a top-down strike and when the Gov. doesn't change anything, it will allow the unions to argue for their plan to recall Republicans.


There can be targeted actions by the more militant unions
The ISO editorial (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/11/now-is-the-time-to-fight) goes on to propose:
a. "organizing pickets before work or noontime marches to other unionized workplaces"
b. "unions can consolidate the links between their brothers and sisters that emerged during the movement by joining in struggle together. For example, the Teaching Assistants' Association at the University of Wisconsin has assigned a strike committee to prepare for any necessary action, and has pledged support for any action by other unions"
But is there any reason to think that if actions like that aren't linked to a fight for a general strike that they can succeed? I don't see it that they can. And as said at the beginning, I don't see that they'll sustain their momentum unless workers see a perspective for fighting to win.That's a good point about what "next steps" should be pushed through the more immediate organizing that can be done right now. I think that would probably be a much more realistic way to agitate for a general strike. But I think these targeted actions can be a good way to build a rank and file militant left because the argument will have to become in order to fight unjust laws, it is no longer possible to struggle within the bounds of "legality" which ultimately puts all sorts of militant actions back on the table from real picket lines, to solidarity strikes, workplace occupations, sit-downs, and general strikes. But my perspective is that Wisconsin represents the beginnings of rebuilding mass working class radicalism, not yet the height of it.

All that being said, I'd love to be wrong on this and see a real militant general strike on Monday. It is much easier to mobilize large numbers of people in general since the economic crisis (all the spontaneous protests against prop-8 - not to mention North Africa!) so we will see. Mostly I personally do not want to see some top-down 100,000 person protest at the capital that calls itself a general strike and just makes people confused and passive if it doesn't work - like what happened with the immigrant rights movement and so on. In that case the sentiment was there, the mobilizations were there, but there was also no organic democratic organizing, just a handful of groups and radio stations and eventually Democrats just took the movement into the ground for elections.

[S.Artesian]

1. States across the country are already working to push through similar measures, and it has to do with the workings of the capitalist system more than the actions of workers or unions.

2. How would a militant fight, even if it failed, prove the weakness of the class more than not fighting would?

3. Any mass strike is going to have to go outside of and beyond the unions to succeed.

This is exactly correct. Eight states already prohibit collective bargaining by state workers, and everybody from Cuomo in NY to Brown in Ca. would love to be able to pull the same thing off.

And actually any mass strike is going to have to begin by going outside the unions, by establishing organizations from the getgo that are not contained within union structures.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. States across the country are already working to push through similar measures, and it has to do with the workings of the capitalist system more than the actions of workers or unions.No shit, I'm in California where we have a "hippie" Democrat Governor who's playing the unions off each-other in order to break them. Yes capitalism and the crisis are the objective situation, but the results of fight-back and how effective that fight-back is has an impact on the manner and speed in which the ruling class tries to carry out its war on us. The struggle has allowed us to begin to fight back, a demoralizing defeat will have an opposite effect - I don't think it will kill struggle (because the cuts and pressure will keep coming), but it would be a major set-back


2. How would a militant fight, even if it failed, prove the weakness of the class more than not fighting would?I totally agree, workers can loose a battle and still end up in a better fighting position (either by learning a new lesson, like don't think Democrats are your friends because they'll still send the National Guard after you and that craft-brotherhoods are a weak way to organize for workers or by building mechanisms and militancy that will be helpful in the long-run). But that's my question about these calls for a general strike, could it actually be militant at this point or a one-day action.


3. Any mass strike is going to have to go outside of and beyond the unions to succeed.Agreed. And that's why I think so many radicals are enthusiastic about the possibility of a general strike - a mass breaking away from "legal" strikes (that only emphasize the power of the union leaders to negotiate, not the power of workers) towards what strikes are really about, the power of the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why don't you get down there are call for this and see how it goes over.

Although I have been much more critical of the Greater Toronto Workers' Assembly, a couple of comrades here have nudged me towards making more construction criticism. They've got the "permanent workers assemblies" part, but not yet the "obligatory financial support" part.

A New Type of Political Organization?: The Greater Toronto Workers Assembly (http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/400.php)

By Herman Rosenfeld and Carlo Fanelli

At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Left around the world is undergoing reformation. As the Great Recession has vividly demonstrated, more than three decades of neoliberal capitalism have eroded many of the significant gains won in the immediate decades following World War II. From wage and benefit concessions to reductions in social services, in an openly anti-union political climate, it is now being demanded that the working-class pay for a crisis which it did not create. With the impasse of the anti-globalization and other new social movements that burst onto the scene in the early 2000s, coupled with the inability of many historically progressive unions, trapped in erstwhile social democratic parties, to mobilize their membership base, the Left is in a period of experimentation.

There have been important developments: the emergence of explicitly anti-capitalist parties such as Die Linke (The Left) in Germany, the Left Bloc in Portugal, and the New Anti-capitalist Party in France; the re-emergence of working-class discontent in the streets of Greece, Spain, and Italy; and a left tide throughout Latin America. What about North American developments, however? A June 2010 article by Robert McChesney and John Bellamy Foster discusses the weak state of progressive forces in the United States and their inability to translate significant support for their political positions into commensurate political influence. This article updates reports on attempts in Toronto to build an anti-capitalist political movement bringing together trade unions and working-class communities, first published in the pages of Relay: A Socialist Project Review and Monthly Review.

Broadening the Anti-Capitalist Base

The idea began in the Spring of 2009, at a meeting of the Socialist Project Labour Committee. We were looking for a way to do a number of things at the same time. First, we wanted to explore a new way for the working-class to organize – across the different segments, including organized trade unionists who tended to look after their immediate bargaining and political needs, often totally cut off from non-unionized workers, people involved in community struggles, and workers in either precarious segments of the labour market or out of work. Second, we wanted to end the separation between the public and private sectors (both being hammered by the propaganda machine of business arguing against the “privileged” workers with pensions, decent wages, etc.). Third, we wanted to bring together elements of the Far Left – people who identify themselves as either socialists or anti-capitalists – in ways that might lead us beyond our small groups and narrow ideological tendencies. Fourth, we looked to reach some of the younger radical activists who were either concerned with poverty and welfare issues or involved in student groups and social movements, but who were beginning to question their isolation from organized labour and their tendency to remain limited to single-issue battles. Our approach was motivated by the inability of the labour and social justice movements, as well as opposition political parties, to develop an effective response to ongoing attacks against working-class living standards. It was evident that a fresh organizational approach based on new strategies, new alignments, and new objectives was needed – an approach that came to be dubbed Workers' Assemblies.

The Socialist Project, one of the initial groups involved in planning the Assembly, always said that we wanted to contribute to the development of a working-class-oriented socialist party and movement – rather than become the centre of it ourselves. But we saw ourselves as being bogged down, and this idea – originally an idea that Bill Fletcher, Jr. raised and Sam Gindin picked up on – provided a project that we thought might eventually move us closer to that goal. As well, we were struck by the unwillingness of the organized labour movement to ally with increasingly isolated and impoverished sectors of the working-class, to link up with community movements, and to address larger social issues. The trade unions were, and still are, mired in concessions, wage freezes, and other kinds of compromises with employers, and a politics of tailing after the social democratic NDP, which was going nowhere – hence the lack of a real fight-back against the crisis.

The starting point was not to launch a pre-formed set of local assemblies but to begin a process. We wrote up an invitation, and sent it out to activists we knew in working-class communities, left trade union activists, and colleagues on the anti-capitalist Left. It called for a meeting to propose the idea of an Assembly to them. This allowed us to attract a core of people helping to build toward the Assembly. From that core, we began to organize a series of ‘consultas’ – consultations centering on specific, hotly contested issues – in order to build momentum and shape the discussion.

The Consulta Process

The first consulta was on the commonalities and differences between activism in unionized workplaces and anti-poverty movements and on how they relate to each other. The second was on our relationship to the local labour council (which is one of the most progressive nodes of the standard labour movement in Canada), and the third was on the relationship and differences between class and other forms of social identity. The emphasis was on engaging activists of all stripes and political orientations among the anti-capitalist Left in a discussion of our own shortcomings and limitations and how, within a larger collectivity, we could overcome them.

The thinking behind the Assembly was that it wouldn't be just another event, nor would it focus upon a particular single-issue campaign. We noted that a key shortcoming of such mobilizations was that they tended to dissolve as a given issue or campaign dies down and everyone returns to their own projects. The consulta process, then, sought to actively build and develop our capacities together. This meant attracting new people to an exciting project with new possibilities: conveying to progressive individuals in union locals that this process carries hope; discovering more strength through political ‘mappings’ of communities and corresponding exchanges among groups; learning how to work collectively and democratically among diverse sectors of the working-class; rejuvenating already existing movements; and overcoming the fatalism that saps the mobilizing energy of activists.

The Workers' Assembly is Born

The First Assembly was held over the first weekend of October 2009. [Ed.: Presentations by Steve Williams and Sam Gindin.] It had mixed results. About 100 people attended from across the left spectrum and some key activist centres (anti-poverty, immigrant rights, left rank-and-file members of the public sector labour movement, student groups, environmentalists, etc). But it was weak on private-sector unionists, communities of colour, indigenous groups, and socialist feminists. As the Assembly progressed, we had some struggles over how to define ourselves (as an organization of individual members, or as a network or coalition of affiliated organizations), in addition to how geographically wide-ranging the organization would be (would it be based in the City of Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area, or stretching the Golden Horseshoe?). The Assembly ended with a plenary where it was agreed that the organization would be based on individual membership and based primarily in the Greater Toronto Area. A Vision Statement was also drafted, but it was assigned to a volunteer-based Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC) to come up with firm proposals for membership, committees, possible campaigns, and a more refined Vision Statement, as well as outreach. The ICC was the scene of a number of debates. The ICC discussed what should be undertaken at the next Assembly, drafted a Vision Statement, tried to determine how a member would be defined, and began to think critically about possible future campaigns.

The Second Assembly was held over one day in mid-January 2010; the attendance increased to roughly 150 people or so, but the participants remained within the same demographics as before. We set up committees (e.g. publications, campaigns, education), adopted a refined Vision Statement, and definitively agreed on the need for individual membership. The Campaigns Committee was entrusted to come up with recommendations for campaigns to adopt for the next Assembly. After the Assembly ended, however, there was a lot of confusion: people signed up for more than one committee and couldn't attend them all, and different committees stepped all over each other's toes. Despite this, the Campaigns Committee recommended two campaigns: free public transit and the defense of public-sector services, which were to be voted on in greater detail in time for the next Assembly.

The Third Assembly held in April 2010 saw healthy debates over which campaigns to adopt; whether to move toward an elected, as opposed to volunteer-based, coordinating committee; and whether to have a mandatory dues base. Underlying all of this was a recognition that most of the Assembly was still based on the left groups, activists, and students that had founded it, and that we had to build outwards toward the labour movement and people involved in other community struggles. After the Assembly, most of the work centred on trying to build the Free and Accessible Public Transit campaign; attempting to create a centre of resistance within the public-sector unions and among recipients of social services through the public-sector campaign; and orienting itself toward the G20 activities, debating questions of strategies and tactics. A new ICC was set up, again on a volunteer basis; some agreed to serve a second term. [Ed.: Presentations by Ian McKay and Rafeef Ziadah.]

Numerous organizations have individual members involved in the Greater Toronto Workers' Assembly (GTWA), a virtual A-Z of progressive organizations in Toronto including most major trade unions – a comprehensive list with links is available on the Workers' Assembly website.

In-between our Third and Fourth Assemblies, the GTWA, along with other social justice groups, hosted a number of events committed to not only challenging the representatives of the ruling class gearing up for their G20 meetings, but continuing the task of building a sustained workers movement days, weeks, months, and years after the G20 left town. This includes marches, workshops, panels, lectures, discussions, performances, spoken word, film screenings, and open-space plenaries on social justice issues, including forums on health, poverty, and privatization and on developing new bargaining strategies in an era of wage restraint.

The latest Assembly was held on July 16/17th, 2010 and included on Friday evening a public forum on the Free and Accessible Public Transit campaign. Saturday morning began with a series of report-backs from the various committees, a discussion on procedures for electing a coordinating committee, rules of conduct at meetings and assemblies, finances and fundraising, and in the afternoon a panel of speakers discussing and analyzing the various aspects of the G20.

The GTWA passed three motions: (1) to form a G8-G20 defence committee to contribute to the movement to drop all charges against G20 protesters; (2) to organize a G8/G20 de-briefing sometime in August or September and to further discuss its implications; (3) to support and endorse the “Toronto Call for a Public Inquiry” into actions undertaken by the G8-G20 Integrated Security Unit. With nearly $1-billion spent on ‘security’ at the Toronto G20, “the reaction of the police, in arresting, detaining, and brutalizing nearly 1,000 people in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, exposes the serious attacks on civil liberties the left faces.” The painful experiences of repression, aptly termed ‘Torontanamo Bay’ by some, may unfortunately provide a glimpse into the future, given that struggles over austerity and social services are likely to be the flashpoints of political confrontation in the coming years.

Three policies were also voted on and passed: (1) coordinating committee elections; (2) discrimination and harassment; (3) and participation, voting, and disruption. Coming out of that Assembly, we have 240 members and 265 supporters (people who want to be kept up on our activities), with members belonging to 40 community/social justice groups and 20 unions/labour organizations. Our six committees/caucuses are dedicated to Campaigns; Membership, Finance, and Outreach; Internal Political Development and Education; Publications and External Political Education; Culture; Labour; and G20 Solidarity. Our upcoming events include our next Assembly meeting tentatively scheduled for mid-October, a public-sector organizing meeting, a labour conference, a G20 forum, and new member orientation.

Prospects and Challenges

While the Assembly has thus far surpassed the expectations of many, it is premature to answer whether or not the GTWA represents a new type of political organization since, as the history of the Left shows, unexpected shifts in political climate and other changing circumstances can quickly derail progressive political interventions. We can, however, offer some personal thoughts, as members, on the prospects and challenges facing the GTWA.

Developing Working-Class Capacities

As mentioned earlier, the objective of the Assembly is to sustain a process, not to launch a ready-made organization. The focus, in our view, is on developing working-class capacities based upon recognizing differences and an understanding of our social interdependence through collective movement-building. However, a good number of committed activists within the GTWA are not so keen on the centrality of the working-class. This remains an ongoing tension, which will surely require further debate and discussion. Although the Assembly process is indicative of pragmatic efforts among the anti-capitalist Left in one city to broaden the efficacy and influence of social justice actors, the dynamics of its functioning will likely force the crucial question of a larger coordinating body, since issues related to un/under-employment, immigration, ecological degradation, and imperialism, for instance, obviously go beyond the local scale. Of course, the insistence on local orientations is crucial to developing a strong, solidaristic base upon which an international solidarity campaign can be built. This may potentially include city-wide assemblies that meet regularly, have an elected and accountable coordinating committee, and are based on democratic and sustained participation from its membership, with prospective plans to begin pooling resources for mutual support (e.g. a common newsletter and website, educational forums, pamphlets, campaigns, public educationals) and, perhaps eventually, an independent political platform. Organizing the various fragments of the working-class, as Engels reminded us some time ago, is a necessary project, since capitalists are always organized: “they need no formal unions, rules or officers.”

Creating Permanent Structures

The GTWA will likely have to confront the limitations of not having a permanent structure or physical space to bring its effectiveness to the next level.

As mentioned above, given the scale and scope of what we're up against, just organizing around specific issues and particular constituencies – as impressive and energetic as it may be – cannot add up to the kind of strength we need to bring about comprehensive change. The cost of not having such organizational capacities has become dreadfully clear during the ongoing global economic crisis. Despite sporadic and localized battles here and there, the working-class really wasn't able to take advantage of this historic moment, since our capacities just weren't there. In fact, capitalism (including neoliberalism) seems to be emerging more powerful and consolidated than ever. With our weakness so exposed, there is good reason to expect the Right to exploit the situation to its fullest potential.

The current fragmented state of movement politics leaves us frustratingly marginalized, unable to reverse or reshape the political agenda. Overcoming it entails developing organizational forms that can actually win substantive reforms, within and beyond the workplace, let alone attempt revolutionary undertakings. The GTWA will have to discuss how to build our collective political capacities in the absence of a ready-made fight-back organization; what our respective groups are doing independently and what we could potentially be doing together; how to build trust among ourselves and learn to work together; what kind of public campaigns could unite us; and so on. Of course, it will also necessitate a serious discussion on the need for financial resources. Moreover, it will unavoidably involve reckoning with the larger ideological, political, economic, and cultural barriers that confront the different layers of the working-class.

Although assemblies are built locally, the GTWA may develop and new ones may be formed (see below) without losing the strength of their local orientations, raising the possibility of a larger assembly made up of representatives from various assemblies and their communities. If the assembly process is to give birth to an organizational force capable of challenging the hegemony of capital, however, it must surmount the impasse of the old politics of networks and coalitions, as well as business-as-usual unionism.

Coming to Terms with Tensions

Most of the people from the different left groups have worked together quite well, transcending some of the sectarian divisions, without each having to caucus with their small group members. The left groups include socialist groups (IS, SP, NSG, CP, and others) as well as a number of anarchist groups (Common Cause, IWW). That part has been encouraging. But other political tensions exist and need to be addressed over time. The recent experience of the G20 demonstrations, especially the large differences over the appropriateness of different tactics and strategies (themselves rooted in deeper differences over the nature of the state and other major theoretical and practical issues), shows that we must figure out how to debate and solve them.

While there are a lot of people signed up for the Assembly, the core of people doing most of the planning and facilitating remains quite small in number, with a predominance of students and leftists. In other words, we are weak among trade unionists. Moreover, without funds for full-time organizers, the campaigns will have a great deal of difficulty getting off the ground. And the only way we can get funds is by having fixed dues. Participants, however, are still hesitant to commit to the idea until they see the importance and success of earlier Assembly campaigns. This may pose some problems. Additionally, people involved in other struggles are finding themselves torn in terms of time. Unless our Assembly campaigns can get off the ground, we can lose activists to their previous single-issue concerns. Last, there is a difficulty in getting more women and people of colour to take the lead on the coordinating committee. We are trying all kinds of new forms of affirmative action and forms of equity to make that happen.

Positive Developments

Since the GTWA was initiated nearly one year ago, there have been rumblings in various major cities throughout Canada – in particular Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa, but also mid-size cities like Windsor and London – of efforts to begin a similar process. These projects carry great hope as they attempt to develop a new kind of politics, a new way of organizing, a new way of building trust and unity amongst the working-class and, most importantly, of not only protesting but actually developing alternative proposals and potentially winning. As the austerity knife gets sharper and cuts deeper, and class polarization reaches new heights, the GTWA, as with local assemblies elsewhere, has significant potential. The task remains, however, to ensure that this potential gets realized, given the historic opportunity to effect change and indeed, perhaps, “to weaken the ruinous effects of this 'natural' law of capitalist production on our class... .”

[RedTrackWorker]

the question is could it be pulled off at the present time and would it [the general strike] be effective at either helping workers to build up independent militancy and organization or achieving its aims?
[snip]
A militant general strike with mass participation would be most effective, that's not in question. The question is, is it possible under present circumstances.

Let me re-phrase some of my points as pointed questions:
1) Do you think that the Wisconsin struggle can win without a general strike or the serious threat of one?
2) Do you think a movement against cuts and union-busting in Wisconsin can be sustained right now without a perspective for winning that struggle? (I.e. Do you think people will build the left/grassroots/whatever you want to call it just to oppose that stuff without thinking they can win or talking about how they're going to win?)

To posit that a general strike is not possible in Wisconsin, and as I would strongly assert such action is clearly needed to stop the attacks, then:

then all this talk of "[not possible]" just means you're saying that the workers are incapable of defending their living standards in [Wisconsin] right now. Which can be true in immediate situations after strategic defeats but it is not true in [Wisconsin]--it's a question of leadership.
That's what I said to the CWI on Ireland (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-left-alliance-t144876/index.html?p=2027200#post2027200) and it applies here just as well.

In sum, I think it reflects a sad and cynical view of the workers to say a general strike isn't possible in Wisconsin right now.

[Jolly Red Giant]

That's what I said to the CWI on Ireland (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-left-alliance-t144876/index.html?p=2027200#post2027200) and it applies here just as well.

In sum, I think it reflects a sad and cynical view of the workers to say a general strike isn't possible in Wisconsin right now.
You are wrong about Ireland and you are wrong about the situation in Wisconsin. People like you run so far ahead of the workers movement that you disappear into the distance and then when the workers movement does actually move into coordinated struggle you tailgate the movement screaming that they are going in the wrong direction.

[S.Artesian]

You are wrong about Ireland and you are wrong about the situation in Wisconsin. People like you run so far ahead of the workers movement that you disappear into the distance and then when the workers movement does actually move into coordinated struggle you tailgate the movement screaming that they are going in the wrong direction.


Interesting. So tell us exactly where RTW is wrong about Wisconsin, and where you are right. Would love to read your material analysis of the class struggle in Wisconsin, and the directions it will take.

[RedTrackWorker]

You are wrong about Ireland and you are wrong about the situation in Wisconsin. People like you run so far ahead of the workers movement that you disappear into the distance and then when the workers movement does actually move into coordinated struggle you tailgate the movement screaming that they are going in the wrong direction.

I was just going to let S. Artesian's question stand as the response, but really, ignorant slander like this should have no place in a debate about which way forward for the workers' movement. Trotsky wrote of Lenin's "epigones"--his followers who were actually second-rate imitators. He wrote of "saying what is" and opposed the "Stalinist school of falsification." And here we have a proclaimed follower of Trotsky claiming:
* the LRP takes such radical positions as to be outside the actual workers' movement, and
* when there is movement, we "[scream] that they are going in the wrong direction."

The ISO in person in NYC and Chicago (but never in print) frequently make similar accusations toward us: "criticizing from the sidelines" and such.

Well, we have a public track record. Our main area of day-to-day work in the past decade has been transit: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/RTW/index.html.
You can see that around the 2005 transit strike and the campaign to vote down the contract we put out thirteen issues of our bulletin (not all are online but most are) from Dec. 10th to Jan. 9th. RTW was virtually the only source of information on the picket line, much less the only source of a fightback strategy. The much bigger (at least ten times our size just in NY) ISO? Well, they have a public record too--check it out.

We had a history of fighting for a strike. Our then-lone RTW supporter got strike motions passed at contract meetings of thousands in 1999 and 2002 (there was no mass meeting in 2005 because the union leadership was too scared of it). Both meetings had elected leftists (mostly Solidarity) present yet it was our comrade who raised the motions because most of the left said it wasn't "opportune." So I guess the thousands of transit workers--mostly Black and Latino--that cheered our motions and made it impossible for Solidarity to put forward their weaker motion had not realized the LRP had left the workers' movement behind?

And then when the strike happened and our first bulletin (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/RTW/27/invincible.html) put forward the following plan:

1. Local 100 Must Demand Amnesty From Taylor Law Fines -- Don’t Go Back to Work Without It!
2. Take the Fight to the Mayor Like Mike Quill Did!
3. Toussaint Should Withdraw All Concession Offers
4. Call on LIRR and MetroNorth to Strike in Solidarity
5. CLC Must Call a Strike of all Public Sector Unions!
6. Local 100 Must Demand No Fare Hikes or Service Cuts!


I guess that's us "screaming that they are going in the wrong direction"? Screaming at the leadership yes. But the CWI comrade says we'd be screaming at the movement.

When Black youth and others rebelled against racist cop terror in Cincinnati, we flew there and distributed a well-received leaflet (http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Cincinnati.html) arguing for how the movement could go forward against the wishes of its leadership (as well as arguing in organizing meetings (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/CincinnatiPR63.html) for how this could happen).

What did the ISO do?

Instead, the ISO rushed in veteran leader Lee Sustar, whose immediate reaction was to support the leaders. While the masses were rejecting Rev. Lynch on the streets and in meetings, Socialist Worker gave Lynch a photo and a box in the paper's center-page spread in which to put forward his views without a word of criticism, including his dead-end call for hiring a new police chief from out of town. .... When the promise of phony reforms was being used by reformists to demobilize the rebellion, the ISO even supported the stupidest and most wishy washy!--see our open letter from several ex-ISO members (http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/ISOopenltr.html).

The workers' movement deserves better than this kind of "debate."

[gorillafuck]

Comrade Ian gets it right. The ISO supports a general strike in Wisconsin. A general strike is built on the ground (the ISO has a presence in AFSCME, SEIU and others in Madison), not from left sects with little or no presence in the WI labor movement calling for it.Yo, what the hell are you talking about? There are independent labor groups calling for it that don't have affiliation to any of the leftist parties.

[twenty percent tip]

Let's not get carried away. The Isolationist Student Organization is an anti-worker reformist sect. But on the other end of the spectrum lies the LRP. What of it exists at all (it's a miniscule sect) is little more than the ISO's r-r-r-revolutionary counterpart. Landy's Repetitive Parrots have nothing to offer but their own brand of the same repackaged product. They'll tell you their version has 10% more Lenin but it's all the same failed manure. They'll cry about union bureaucrats but they've spent decades trying to become just that. They've failed as miserably in that as they have in "building the revolutionary party." Be honest RedTrackWorker. 35 years on how big is your sect?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let me re-phrase some of my points as pointed questions:
1) Do you think that the Wisconsin struggle can win without a general strike or the serious threat of one?No, I think only a revolution will allow Wisconsin or any workers to win. :D
But seriously, do you think that a one day general strike would do anything or that there are forces to mobilize a general strike? I mean why not ask me if worker demands can win in the end without revolution? Of course more militant actions are needed, but the question is what can be organized now that will be a step forward, not end with a step-back.

2) Do you think a movement against cuts and union-busting in Wisconsin can be sustained right now without a perspective for winning that struggle? (I.e. Do you think people will build the left/grassroots/whatever you want to call it just to oppose that stuff without thinking they can win or talking about how they're going to win?)Yes. I think organizing the left in labor right now (not specifically into one radical group, but just in general as a conscious labor-left that is willing to take on equivocations by union leaders and business-unionism) will help the US left to figure out more militant and effective strategies against the ongoing one-sided class war. A stalemate or win or even a mixed-loss will still allow this movement to build across the country. A demoralizing defeat on the other hand will have a greater chilling effect IMO and drive people back into the hands of the Democrats and cynacism.


To posit that a general strike is not possible in Wisconsin, and as I would strongly assert such action is clearly needed to stop the attacks, then:

That's what I said to the CWI on Ireland (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-left-alliance-t144876/index.html?p=2027200#post2027200) and it applies here just as well.

In sum, I think it reflects a sad and cynical view of the workers to say a general strike isn't possible in Wisconsin right now.Like I said, if one is initiated, I'd argue we all must do our best to support it, but from what I've read and heard, I do not think it would be a real general strike, but some kind of glorified "day of action". What happens when labor leaders call off the action after one day or after the first hint of backlash from the right? Yes, workers learn how to self-organize and lead through struggle - that's what's going on right now! But without any counter-balance to the union leadership from the rank and file or revolutionaries seems like asking for a big sell-out. And what is the lesson people will learn then? Some will learn not to trust the unions, but they won't learn to trust their fellow workers.

Like I said, I'd love to be proven wrong on this. But right now, with fight-back just starting, I think that building up the left within labor will be the best way to build up a real resistance that will be able to push back against both the bosses and the union bureaucrats.


We had a history of fighting for a strike. Our then-lone RTW supporter got strike motions passed at contract meetings of thousands in 1999 and 2002 (there was no mass meeting in 2005 because the union leadership was too scared of it). Both meetings had elected leftists (mostly Solidarity) present yet it was our comrade who raised the motions because most of the left said it wasn't "opportune." So I guess the thousands of transit workers--mostly Black and Latino--that cheered our motions and made it impossible for Solidarity to put forward their weaker motion had not realized the LRP had left the workers' movement behind?I don't know enough of the details of this strike to comment on it because, being on the left-coast, I probably only read a handful of articles on it and was not directly involved. But from your description of all the support your positions had from some group of cheering workers, you should have been able to easily organize something if workers were just begging to follow your advice? If thousands of workers were just hoping to follow your programme for union victory, then surely it would have been easy to organize rank and file pressure from below to overturn all the terrible leadership.

Comrade, you've made some good general points throughout this debate but they are obscured by blaming everyone else on the left not agreeing with you and being out to get you. The ISO or Solidarity or PSL - or any left-group - is not the US CP of the 1930s or a mass socialist party from the early 20th century and does not have the roots to call for or call off strikes unilaterally. We are not even a "party" with a line and we aren't as silly and full of ourselves to pretend that our networking with other scattered leftist groups around the world is an international like some groups in the past have.


When Black youth and others rebelled against racist cop terror in Cincinnati, we flew there and distributed a well-received leaflet (http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Cincinnati.html) arguing for how the movement could go forward against the wishes of its leadership (as well as arguing in organizing meetings (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/CincinnatiPR63.html) for how this could happen).Sorry comrade, parachuting into a situation and making demands and having it "well received" is not quite the same as having real roots and connections to be able to organize and change things. If that is also your approach to trying to assess if a general strike is possible, I am even more worried about the prospects for a real militant general strike.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let's not get carried away. The Isolationist Student Organization is an anti-worker reformist sect. But on the other end of the spectrum lies the LRP. What of it exists at all (it's a miniscule sect) is little more than the ISO's r-r-r-revolutionary counterpart. Landy's Repetitive Parrots have nothing to offer but their own brand of the same repackaged product. They'll tell you their version has 10% more Lenin but it's all the same failed manure. They'll cry about union bureaucrats but they've spent decades trying to become just that. They've failed as miserably in that as they have in "building the revolutionary party." Be honest RedTrackWorker. 35 years on how big is your sect?

Cool that shit. Let's all try and focus on the issues and politics. All this sect point-scoring is just sad in the face of the opportunities and hardships we face in this political moment. We should compete when we have differnet ideas about what to do or on politics, but competition needs to be on the basis of what will help move the whole struggle forward, not some kind of team-sports BS.

If the LRP is able to organize something that helps push the movement forward, then hooray for all of us. These debates should be about what is possible, what will help us rebild a working-class based resistance, not what LRP's paper said about this or that group. If the LRP (and ISO) are small, then it has more to do with the one-sided class war the last generation has lived through than just politics alone. Now that we could be entering an upturn in struggle, then we can more accurately measure success rather than blame each-other for failures.

[redasheville]

Yo, what the hell are you talking about? There are independent labor groups calling for it that don't have affiliation to any of the leftist parties.

Please re-read the thread. I already explained to proletarianrevolution that saying that general strikes aren't built by left groups simply calling for them is not the same as saying that only left groups are calling for strikes.

[Devrim]

WTF is the point of a one day general strike anyways? What a silly tactic Socialist Alternative is taking.
i dont get it either. sounds weinerish. however i havent striked ever and i am not unionized so i dont have any idea of the strategy behind it

Which I don't think makes you very different from many people on this thread. I doubt that there is anybody on old enough to remember general strikes in America.


there is a difference between the general strike and the mass strike. the general strike is called by union bosses, the mass strike is a social break. what happened in may 68 was a mass strike.

I think that this is the important point here. Basically what most of the left groups are calling for is what militant workers in Europe are complaining about, a one day token general strike.

I think that it is highly unlikely that the unions will organise a general strike, and even if they do, I would imagine that it would be pretty much how Jimmy Higgins envisaged it:


I do not think it would be a real general strike, but some kind of glorified "day of action". What happens when labor leaders call off the action after one day or after the first hint of backlash from the right?

I think that part of the problem when talking to people in the USA or the UK who have never seen a 'general strike' is that there idea of one is deeply coloured by the huge general strikes of the early part of this century and the 1926 general strike in the UK. When you read about general strikes today in European countries they are not like this at all. Generally they are token one day affairs, which sometimes do engage massive of workers, but often only involve certain sectors here and there and even there participation is not that solid.

The general strike here before last was pretty much of this nature. It was called in support of a struggle of cigarette factory workers, and was an utterly demoralizing experience. I remember the demonstration here in Ankara on the day. It was about half the size (70,000) of the previous major demonstration in that struggle. Many workers supported the strike, but also many didn't. The feeling that I got was that it had a hugely demoralising effect on the struggle. Workers had spent so long trying to force the unions to organise a general strike, and then when it happened it was a bit of a damp squib.


It seems to me the choices aren't between general strike or the ISO's build up to a general strike by first building rank and file organization, but get to a general strike fast or face defeat.

Personally, I think that struggles that do manage to spread do it quickly. The break out and are carried to more and more workers by their momentum. Generally the way that they spread is by people walking out in sympathy or by strikers sending flying pickets to call other workers directly into the struggle.

To me the antithesis of this is the leftist tactic of building pressure on the unions for a general strike. Any left wing groups can call for a general strike. When I was young it was chanted by them like a mantra. I remember when I lived in England at the time of the miners strike, and leftist groups chanting 'TUC get off your knees, organise a general strike' became like a mind-numbing soundtrack to the struggle. The spreading of the strike in its early days didn't come from people putting pressure on the National Union of Mineworkers though. It came from workers going directly to other pits to call on them to come out in solidarity. Later the NUM did its upmost to stop flying pickets, a crucial example being calling off any flying picketting in Nottinghamshire to allow the local union branches to hold a democratic ballot, in which they ended up voting to scab. Later in the strike, in October, when dockers and railwaymen came out over similar grievances the unions did all that they could to stop the strikes making common cause. Margret Thatcher stated in here autobiography that if they had managed to link up the government would have almost certainly had to back down.

For me the arguments that communists should be putting forward to striking workers should not be based around calling for a general strike, but arguing for workers to hold mass meetings and to send massive delegations to other groups of workers.

Devrim

[theblackmask]

For me the arguments that communists should be putting forward to striking workers should not be based around calling for a general strike, but arguing for workers to hold mass meetings and to send massive delegations to other groups of workers.

Devrim, sometimes I love you :)

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure legally, unions have to give a 60 day notice for any strike. Does anyone really think the momentum can be kept up for two months, maybe more? Perhaps "glorified days of action" amongst non-union workers are what needs to be done in order to keep this inertia.

[black magick hustla]

I think that this is the important point here. Basically what most of the left groups are calling for is what militant workers in Europe are complaining about, a one day token general strike.



i think red dave was part of the famous postal workers wildcat strikes in the 70s. i remember discussing with friends this about madison. what is happening in madison is not that big, at all compared to the class fight in other places. the brave miners in mexicos northern mines have engaged in a many years long strike and nobody talks about them. but it is important for the class experience in the US though.

i agree with the your point on a general strike though. i think some people conflate between union bosses calling out a ritual or when there is like real class war which generally takes the form of a mixture of official strikes and wildcat strikes (mass strike).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure legally, unions have to give a 60 day notice for any strike.Well legally, unions can't participate in solidarity strikes let alone a general strike. What they'd end up doing IMO is sending out information to their membership saying, "A General Strike has been called for such and such day, people are gathering at such and such place. While officially endorsing such an action would cause Republicans to attack our union and slap us with injunctions and fines, who is to say that all of our brothers and sisters might just happen to call in sick and then happen to come across the rallying points listed above... wink wink".

There's no question in my mind that the union leadership is going to have to grapple with the increasing militancy and try and stay with it on some level. We are already starting to see this in California where unions are taking on more militant rhetoric and even doing "wink-wink" endorsements of "illegal" labor actions in response to cuts... but in action and at the end of the day, their strategy is to funnel all that rank and file anger into supporting the Democrats and legislative measures to increase taxes to generate revenue.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

So, let me set some of the record straight. I just got back from Madison and it was an intense experience. There were about fifty comrades there and we were by far the largest left contingent in the demonstrations. Our members have helped found and lead the no cuts no concessions kill the whole bill coalition which is building a rank and file effort against these cuts. We also have the most members in Wisconcin unions and our members are doing the organizing and laying the groundwork for a general strike. Not only are we doing this, but we marched as our own contingent around the capitol openly proclaiming ourselves socialists and chantin "1-2-3-4, this is class war!" And "scott walker take a hike, we need a general strike" we ARE agitating for more radical and militant actions and call out the Democrats as the capitalist party they are whenever we talk to people. The entirety of the criticism I've seen from the ops article are completely unfounded falsehoods as we are the only group with more than one member in wisconsin unions and all of them are agitating for and laying the groundwork for more militant action. What the editorial criticizes is groups showing up, telling everyone to have a general strike without helping to build and organize the groups which can facilitate a general strike and make the action successful and far reaching. The presence of several groups amounted solely of berating people for not being militant enough, spraypainting "stike now!"(Sic), or handing out fliers that argue for a general strike but provide no organizational backing. Only the ISO, IWW, and the one SA union guy I know of are taking part in or helping to facilitate organization and education around a general strike. The only other leftists I met there were three sparts from who knows where. Every other left group calling for a general strike ISN'T EVEN VISIBLE in Madison.

[Lucretia]

So, let me set some of the record straight. I just got back from Madison and it was an intense experience. There were about fifty comrades there and we were by far the largest left contingent in the demonstrations. Our members have helped found and lead the no cuts no concessions kill the whole bill coalition which is building a rank and file effort against these cuts. We also have the most members in Wisconcin unions and our members are doing the organizing and laying the groundwork for a general strike. Not only are we doing this, but we marched as our own contingent around the capitol openly proclaiming ourselves socialists and chantin "1-2-3-4, this is class war!" And "scott walker take a hike, we need a general strike" we ARE agitating for more radical and militant actions and call out the Democrats as the capitalist party they are whenever we talk to people. The entirety of the criticism I've seen from the ops article are completely unfounded falsehoods as we are the only group with more than one member in wisconsin unions and all of them are agitating for and laying the groundwork for more militant action. What the editorial criticizes is groups showing up, telling everyone to have a general strike without helping to build and organize the groups which can facilitate a general strike and make the action successful and far reaching. The presence of several groups amounted solely of berating people for not being militant enough, spraypainting "stike now!"(Sic), or handing out fliers that argue for a general strike but provide no organizational backing. Only the ISO, IWW, and the one SA union guy I know of are taking part in or helping to facilitate organization and education around a general strike. The only other leftists I met there were three sparts from who knows where. Every other left group calling for a general strike ISN'T EVEN VISIBLE in Madison.

So let me ask you then: is the ISO calling for a general strike *right now*, or are they trying to build a general strike that they don't think should take place for some time?

By the way, it's really cool and all that you are excited about the number of ISO people in Madison, but numbers don't make an organization effective at pressing for radical demands. A good strategy does. Remember that the Bolsheviks were far outnumbered by the Mensheviks and bourgeois liberals in the run up to the revolution.

[bricolage]

The spreading of the strike in its early days didn't come from people putting pressure on the National Union of Mineworkers though. It came from workers going directly to other pits to call on them to come out in solidarity.
I thought these initial flying pickets were organised by Scargill and co though.
I know at least in 1972 shutting Saltley came about from him going to other unions like the AEUW and having CP contacts in Birmingham.

Later in the strike, in October, when dockers and railwaymen came out over similar grievances the unions did all that they could to stop the strikes making common cause.
Even the NUM?
I dunno, I pretty much agree with the ICC position on unions but the miners strike always seems to be a bit different, for sure the TUC sold them out but then I'm not sure about the rest. Maybe I've just had the collective left memory of it etched into my head.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

So let me ask you then: is the ISO calling for a general strike *right now*, or are they trying to build a general strike that they don't think should take place for some time?

By the way, it's really cool and all that you are excited about the number of ISO people in Madison, but numbers don't make an organization effective at pressing for radical demands. A good strategy does. Remember that the Bolsheviks were far outnumbered by the Mensheviks and bourgeois liberals in the run up to the revolution.

The ISO is calling for a general strike now. We are also educating people about what that means and BUILDING organization to facilitate it and create linkages between different unions to ensure that if just one local goes out, the others will follow suit. In all likelihood, if this shit really gets started it will be because one or both of the AFSCME locals, who's contract expired today, walks out or the TAA pulls something really big off. The teachers unions have been incredibly reactionary however, and even the TAA facilitated the evacuation of the capitol and ending of the occupation instead of following their radical roots and escalating.

Also, we are building an organization which is focused solely around Marxist politics and the creation of self-actualizing leaders who are capable of winning people to Marxist politics and organizing actions and groups to which take part in the class struggle. I don't think any of us can say who will be the "bolsheviks" or "mensheviks" and anyone claiming that they are the vanguard right now is delusional.

[Lucretia]

The ISO is calling for a general strike now. We are also educating people about what that means and BUILDING organization to facilitate it and create linkages between different unions to ensure that if just one local goes out, the others will follow suit. In all likelihood, if this shit really gets started it will be because one or both of the AFSCME locals, who's contract expired today, walks out or the TAA pulls something really big off. The teachers unions have been incredibly reactionary however, and even the TAA facilitated the evacuation of the capitol and ending of the occupation instead of following their radical roots and escalating.

Thank you for clarifying.


Also, we are building an organization which is focused solely around Marxist politics and the creation of self-actualizing leaders who are capable of winning people to Marxist politics and organizing actions and groups to which take part in the class struggle. I don't think any of us can say who will be the "bolsheviks" or "mensheviks" and anyone claiming that they are the vanguard right now is delusional.

Agreed. I am not running around declaring different groups to be vanguards or the equivalent of bourgeois liberals. I am simply making the point that numbers do not necessarily translate into success, especially if large numbers follow an unwise strategy.

[RedTrackWorker]

But seriously, do you think that a one day general strike would do anything or that there are forces to mobilize a general strike?

Are there forces to mobilize a general strike? Fine question--which I think should be answered by trying as hard as hell to do it. The teachers shut down Madison school for several days and the youth walked-out. That would've been a fine starting point to organize to spread the strike and like I've said before, perhaps would be a good starting point now. There are all kinds of things that could be attempted if you were trying to get to a general strike but they only make sense if that's the framing perspective.

On the 1-day general strike, the only people advocating that as far as I know are the CWI based on a formal position that that's what you do in non-revolutionary situations. It's not a serious position.


The ISO is calling for a general strike now.

Like I said in my post, the ISO leadership is tailing the general strike demands such that their more militant members will think they're for it, but Philanchez, if you look at the ISO editorials and articles (except Trudell's) they either do not say if they're for a general strike now or not or they say now is not opportune.

To Jimmie Higgins: I assume you're trying to honestly debate with me, but sometimes I really don't know where you're coming from.

Like on the 2005 transit strike, you write:
But from your description of all the support your positions had from some group of cheering workers, you should have been able to easily organize something if workers were just begging to follow your advice?

The workers at a mass union meeting (not "some group") cheered our motion for a strike. They did not cheer "us" or "our positions" in the abstract. Getting support for a strike is different than being able to organize a self-conscious oppositional leadership that can stop the official leadership from selling out the strike. And it's an insult to transit workers to say they would beg anyone for advice.

(And it was 1999 (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/NYCTransitPR60.html), not 2002, that the strike motion vote happened. And for the ISO's role in the 2002 struggle see Left Strikes Out in TWU Struggle (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/leftTWUPR66.html).)

Then on the Cincinnati anti-cop rebellion you write:

Sorry comrade, parachuting into a situation and making demands and having it "well received" is not quite the same as having real roots and connections to be able to organize and change things. If that is also your approach to trying to assess if a general strike is possible, I am even more worried about the prospects for a real militant general strike.

Well, the problem with this argument is that the open letter (http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/ISOopenltr.html) I cite makes exactly this point: that the ISO had roots and connections there and we did not. But the ISO used these "roots and connections" to tie the movement to the middle class leadership, whereas we had to fight against that without roots and connections. So I do not understand why you would raise this point.

And finally, taking out some trash:

Let's not get carried away. The Isolationist Student Organization is an anti-worker reformist sect. But on the other end of the spectrum lies the LRP. What of it exists at all (it's a miniscule sect) is little more than the ISO's r-r-r-revolutionary counterpart. Landy's Repetitive Parrots have nothing to offer but their own brand of the same repackaged product. They'll tell you their version has 10% more Lenin but it's all the same failed manure. They'll cry about union bureaucrats but they've spent decades trying to become just that. They've failed as miserably in that as they have in "building the revolutionary party." Be honest RedTrackWorker. 35 years on how big is your sect?

Is this kind of stuff really acceptable on this forum?

Please tell me your evidence that we're trying to become union bureaucrats. Having watched Maoists like Toussaint and "Trotskyists" like Steve Downs become bureaucrats, I think we have a pretty good idea of what to do to become a union bureaucrats: it's simple: abandon your principles and abandon basing your political commitments on the interests of the working class. But please, explain how we're still trying to become bureaucrats.

And we're still a tiny group, a couple of dozen internationally. Please explain why that matters. And why don't you also explain what political tendency you support and how it is a better guide to realizing the interests of the workers in Tunisia and Egypt, the frontline of international class struggle right now.

[S.Artesian]

One more, but not last, time. If the organization for attempting to build a "mass strike" is going to be contained within the union framework, the battle is lost before it is even engaged.

Look, the demonstrations in Madison were 98% white. You have a black population in Milwaukee that has been effectively isolated and marginalized by then county executive Walker's dismantling of public transportation, making it economically irrational for African-Americans to commute to work or commute in the search for work.

They're not in Madison, they're not coming to Madison. If a union organization puts forward as the organizing point of a "general strike"-- repeal the bill, restore collective bargaining-- then by definition the strike won't be general because it won't be speaking the needs of the most oppressed and exploited sectors of that class.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Like I said in my post, the ISO leadership is tailing the general strike demands such that their more militant members will think they're for it, but Philanchez, if you look at the ISO editorials and articles (except Trudell's) they either do not say if they're for a general strike now or not or they say now is not opportune.

I couldn't tell you what the Steering Committee is thinking because I can't read minds, but I can tell you that I saw plenty of them in Madison taking part in chants agitating for a general strike AND discussing how to build an organization to SUPPORT one and make it a success.

Also, I noticed you spoke about the teachers sick out, their union is completely reactionary and has just made a hugely concessionary contract with the state. Their leaders have explicitly come out against a general strike and were agitating for people to end the occupation of the capitol before the Democrats went in there and told everyone to without allowing a discussion or letting people in favor of the occupation speak at the mic. Unless the rank-and-file become really radical, really fast, I doubt you can look to them to act without another union or group of workers acting first, especially now that they have a new contract.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Students Strike Back as Walker Rams Through Bill — Leading Role Played by Socialist Alternative

Madison, WI – It was just before 5:30pm Wednesday when the flurry of text messages began: “Word is collective bargaining might get forked and voted on tonight. Urgent rally at Capitol.”
Thousands surged into the building, climbing through windows and pushing through police lines. Chants of “general strike” (initiated by Socialist Alternative members!) were repeatedly taken up by the crowd, reflecting the deep anger and mood for stepping up the struggle.

By 7:30pm, from inside the Capitol, students and Socialist Alternative activists made the call – the planned “Day X” Madison student strike was on for 10am the next morning. The Facebook page “Day X Walkout on Walker,” set up the night before by East High senior Onawa Powell and Socialist Alternative organizer Philip Locker, put out the word, and numbers “attending” shot up from a couple hundred to over 1,000 by morning.

Early Thursday morning students and SA members fanned out to three high schools to leaflet for the walkout. At 10am around 2,000 students (according to media reports) walked out from Madison high schools, and descended on the Capitol building, adding a youthful, lively element to the day's rallies.

Rumors of a General Strike
All afternoon, rumors that unions might call a general strike could be heard in conversations in and around the Capitol. “Workers should strike like the students are doing,” was a regular sentiment expressed by protesters stopping for discussion at Socialist Alternative’s table, as we passed out thousands of leaflets advocating a one-day public sector general strike (http://socialistalternative.org/news/article14.php?id=1558).

Unfortunately, all evening more and more evidence came in that most union leaders, far from pushing for coordinated strike action, were campaigning hard against a general strike in response to pro-strike pressure from union members. The Madison teachers’ union president publicly urged members to stay on the job rather than join striking students as they had in the early days of the movement. Similarly, the UW-Madison teaching assistant union leaders, at a 400 strong general membership meeting Thursday night, argued against rank-and-file activists proposing immediate job actions.

The Madison firefighters’ union president (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Z_TVrBUtw) stands out as the only union leader speaking publicly in favor of the idea of a general strike. Beyond that, most union leaders are offering no strategy for stepping up the mass action after Saturday’s protest, effectively accepting near-term defeat. Instead they are pushing for all activists to focus on the election recall efforts, reflecting union leaders’ deep conservatism and ties to the Democratic Party.

Second Day of Student Walkouts
Meanwhile, in response to calls by Michael Moore for national student walkouts Friday, well over 1,000 Madison students walked out again today, joining together for a youth-organized teach-out on Library Mall, followed by a march to the Capitol. Because of our leading role building the previous days’ walkouts, I was invited to speak for Socialist Alternative, urging students to keep mobilizing and to appeal to teachers and parents to support the general strike idea.

Tomorrow’s protests promise to be massive, possibly the largest yet, but it remains unclear where things will go from there. Calls for workers and youth to focus their energy on upcoming elections and the recall efforts don’t answer the central questions of these last two days. How can the mass popular outrage be rapidly mobilized into action and what is a strategy to prevent the implementation of this bill? We are confident that the collective power of the Wisconsin workers and youth can bring Walker to his knees in the coming days and weeks, but this will require bold and visionary leadership armed with a clear program for action.

Socialist Alternative is urging the following action plan:



Emergency mass union meetings to democratically develop an immediate plan for stepping up the struggle.

The formation of elected strike committees in the unions as well as action committees of students, unemployed and community members to lead the struggle.

Set the date and make immediate preparations for a one-day full shut-down of the state as soon as possible through a public-sector general strike and prepare for a series of general strikes and other actions until Walker backs down.

Full mobilization of the youth and the unemployed as well as private sector, union and non-union workers in support of strike actions.

Neighboring states to send caravans of activists to flood Wisconsin with hundreds of thousands if not millions of workers to stop this attack on the entire union movement.

Wall Street is to blame, not working people or their unions. Tax the super-rich and big corporations. Working people shouldn’t pay for a crisis we didn’t create.

No concessions! No Cuts! Kill the whole bill!

The full right to strike for all workers; the right to unionize and have decent jobs, benefits and pensions for all.

An end to the corporate domination of politics and our lives. Working people of Wisconsin and the U.S. unite and fight for a mass party of working people and a democratic socialist society!

[Devrim]

i think red dave was part of the famous postal workers wildcat strikes in the 70s. i remember discussing with friends this about madison. what is happening in madison is not that big, at all compared to the class fight in other places. the brave miners in mexicos northern mines have engaged in a many years long strike and nobody talks about them. but it is important for the class experience in the US though.

I think that this underlines the point. One of the oldest guys on here is old enough to have been involved in a big strike, but none are old enough to have been involved in a general strike. There is a tremendous lack of experience. It is not anybody's fault, but it is a real factor in struggles.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Well legally, unions can't participate in solidarity strikes let alone a general strike. What they'd end up doing IMO is sending out information to their membership saying, "A General Strike has been called for such and such day, people are gathering at such and such place. While officially endorsing such an action would cause Republicans to attack our union and slap us with injunctions and fines, who is to say that all of our brothers and sisters might just happen to call in sick and then happen to come across the rallying points listed above... wink wink".

There's no question in my mind that the union leadership is going to have to grapple with the increasing militancy and try and stay with it on some level. We are already starting to see this in California where unions are taking on more militant rhetoric and even doing "wink-wink" endorsements of "illegal" labor actions in response to cuts... but in action and at the end of the day, their strategy is to funnel all that rank and file anger into supporting the Democrats and legislative measures to increase taxes to generate revenue.

More likely than the 'wink-wink' is unions calling off action that they never really wanted in the first place.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I thought these initial flying pickets were organised by Scargill and co though.
I know at least in 1972 shutting Saltley came about from him going to other unions like the AEUW and having CP contacts in Birmingham.

No, not in the 1984-5 strike. They were organised at the base. Scargill declared in a national strike after many were already on strike all across the country. In 1972 when he was involved in organising the mass picketing at Saltley, he was still an actual mineworker.


Even the NUM?
I dunno, I pretty much agree with the ICC position on unions but the miners strike always seems to be a bit different, for sure the TUC sold them out but then I'm not sure about the rest. Maybe I've just had the collective left memory of it etched into my head.

I don't think that the unions were that different. I am not quite sure what you mean by it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't think any of us can say who will be the "bolsheviks" or "mensheviks" and anyone claiming that they are the vanguard right now is delusional.

I don't think that any of us will be either. In 1917 the Bolsheviks were constantly drawing parallels with the French revolution, which didn't really work. I doubt ones with Russian in 1917 will mean that much in the future. A new revolutionary period will throw up new differences and new problems.

devrim

[YSR]

Yo, all this sectarianism is cool, but who is actually concretely organizing for a general strike? Like who is contacting locals and rank-and-filers and building momentum through the unions to go out for a general action? Who is contacting community groups and building a coalition that will support a mass action by public sector workers?

(These are just rhetorical questions, sorry everybody. I got back from Madtown yesterday and the answer is the IWW is! That's what's up! Please put aside your sectarian stuff and work on yer strategy and tactics.)

[black magick hustla]

haha are you kidding me, the iww can't organize a general strike, its barely a union. i don't thing the whole left in the us has a capacity to organize something as big as a general strike

i think the only ones that can organize a general strike is the big unions. beyond that the only thing pro-revolutionaries can argue is for mass meetings and if you feel ballsy enough start conversations about mass strikes.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Yo, all this sectarianism is cool, but who is actually concretely organizing for a general strike? Like who is contacting locals and rank-and-filers and building momentum through the unions to go out for a general action? Who is contacting community groups and building a coalition that will support a mass action by public sector workers?

(These are just rhetorical questions, sorry everybody. I got back from Madtown yesterday and the answer is the IWW is! That's what's up! Please put aside your sectarian stuff and work on yer strategy and tactics.)

I said that. The IWW, ISO and one SA member that I know of are actually building organizations to push for militant and radical actions and educating rank-n-filers about what a general strike means and how to make it successful.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I might be the only person on this blog who has actually been involved in a general strike - specifically May '68 in Paris - and as a union member, not a student.

My thought is, the problem isn't whether this or that left group, or union, is calling for a general strike - I think it's their duty to. The problem is, all of the above are calling for a general strike within the confines of organized labor. The point of the general strike isn't primarily the length, it's the breadth of involvement, and by playing the old American craft-union game, these guys are cutting themselves off at the knee. As usual.

Solidarité/Freundschaft/Solidarity

[bcbm]

instead of trying to get everybody to go on strike, why not use our limited numbers to paralyze things in other ways? no need to call a general strike if nobody can even get to work...

[bricolage]

No, not in the 1984-5 strike. They were organised at the base. Scargill declared in a national strike after many were already on strike all across the country.
Ah ok.

In 1972 when he was involved in organising the mass picketing at Saltley, he was still an actual mineworker.
But at the same time he made extensive use of the Yorkshire NUM, such as offering two pounds a day to any miner that would picket premises away from their own area. Even if he was still done the mines he wasn't completely separate from the union structure.
But I do see what you mean.

I don't think that the unions were that different. I am not quite sure what you mean by it.
I think what I meant to say is that it seems less obvious that the NUM was acting against workers interests in the miners strike than is apparent in most strikes. The blame is easier to place with other union leaders and the TUC.

[Amphictyonis]

Students Strike Back as Walker Rams Through Bill — Leading Role Played by Socialist Alternative



We need non union trade and service sector economy workers to join. These are the people I'll be focusing on when the wave hits California. Students and state workers NEED other workers to show solidarity. The capitalists have succeeded largely in painting state workers as "privileged" and "lazy", overpaid bureaucrats. Working in the private sector for over ten years this is the impression many non union/non state workers have. We need to find a way to chip away at that attitude/mind frame.

[bcbm]

there has been plenty of support from non-union private sector workers in wisconsin but they aren't part of an organized block so this isn't immediately apparent.

[Amphictyonis]

there has been plenty of support from non-union private sector workers in wisconsin but they aren't part of an organized block so this isn't immediately apparent.

Ya I've seen a few videos of non union trade workers showing up, it's just been my experience, after more than a decade in the private sector, capitalists have succeeded in driving a sort of wedge between public and private sector workers. In reality the capitalists job is made easier by the fact private sector workers do have to work harder, especially in small companies that micro manage (this has been my experience). This obvious gap in levels of productivity has made it easier for capitalists to divide the working class. Just one of the many small problems that add to the whole- racial differences are also stoked by the capitalists. Another thing we all need to pay attention to in the coming months (a fact we are all aware of already).

We need minorities, non union workers, union workers, state workers....all workers to flex some collective muscle- hell, even the unemployed, especially the unemployed. We need a simple message that this economic crisis, paying for the trillions in bail outs, is being passed to the overall working class. This is in fact whats happening. I think solidarity can be built around that simple fact. I also think Obama was brought in to help Democrats co-op our reaction to this crisis and this is what I see as another barrier we need to overcome. Another 'lesson' to be learned from this period of struggle.

[S.Artesian]

even the unemployed, especially the unemployed.

word.

[Kassad]

Is the SEP active anywhere besides Michigan? I've only seen them once and that was at the One Nation Working Together. Now that I think of it, the person in the video looks like the guy I talked to. I was hoping to get input from others as their activity, as I don't really get why SEP is being made out to be some massive contributor to the struggle.

[bcbm]

I don't really get why SEP is being made out to be some massive contributor to the struggle.

because all socialist groups try to make themselves out to be massive contributors. see the socialist alternative article in this thread for another example.

[redasheville]

Is the SEP active anywhere besides Michigan? I've only seen them once and that was at the One Nation Working Together. Now that I think of it, the person in the video looks like the guy I talked to. I was hoping to get input from others as their activity, as I don't really get why SEP is being made out to be some massive contributor to the struggle.

A friend of the family from when I was growing up was/is a member. This was in eastern North Carolina. He said the only reason why anyone should leave their house is to buy groceries and books. He was an unemployed philosophy professor.

Other than that I heard they denounce people in San Diego too.

[Kassad]

A friend of the family from when I was growing up was/is a member. This was in eastern North Carolina. He said the only reason why anyone should leave their house is to buy groceries and books. He was an unemployed philosophy professor.

Other than that I heard they denounce people in San Diego too.

A quick skim of WSWS shows that they are relatively fond of attacking some of the larger socialist organizations in the country. For having a hell of a website, they don't seem to be that active of an organization.

[bcbm]

A quick skim of WSWS shows that they are relatively fond of attacking some of the larger socialist organizations in the country. For having a hell of a website, they don't seem to be that active of an organization.

a socialist group attacking other socialist groups? the mind boggles

[KC]

a socialist group attacking other socialist groups? the mind boggles

It's pretty pitiful. The smaller groups spend all their time attacking other groups or proclaiming their "leading role" whenever they get anyone to listen to them, and the larger groups just do their own thing as if they're the "vanguard" and whenever a criticism comes up they just spout off on how active and popular they are, as if that's some sort of argument.

[Devrim]

I might be the only person on this blog who has actually been involved in a general strike - specifically May '68 in Paris - and as a union member, not a student.

I've been involved in general strikes as a worker. It is pretty much down to where you live, what you do and how old you are.


instead of trying to get everybody to go on strike, why not use our limited numbers to paralyze things in other ways? no need to call a general strike if nobody can even get to work...

Surely the important thing is working class self activity.

Devrim

[Amphictyonis]

It's pretty pitiful. The smaller groups spend all their time attacking other groups or proclaiming their "leading role" whenever they get anyone to listen to them, and the larger groups just do their own thing as if they're the "vanguard" and whenever a criticism comes up they just spout off on how active and popular they are, as if that's some sort of argument.

What we need is all out gang warfare during this crisis. Spy's, assassins, paranoia, surveillance the whole works. Maybe start wearing 3 piece back patches like biker gangs? Different colors? Maoists doing drive-by's at Trots homes and Trots killing Anarchists while the Anarchists kill everyone? That's what we need. Maybe throw some LSD into the mix. Monkey porn nihilism to the revolution.

But seriously, It's kinda an indictment on direct democracy when the very people advocating it can't show any solidarity. Now's the time to quit all that silly nonsense. Hold hands, form a love train. Hit the streets and organize!


kQvmCzILBfE


I'd even be willing to work side by side with Avakian and crew right now. Would be a tad strange though. The coming year should be the year of solidarity. Thats what the capitalists fear most.

[bcbm]

Surely the important thing is working class self activity.


sure, but if all these groups want to do something they might as well do something that is tailored to their strengths instead of trying to accomplish something that seems further away every day. "paralyzing the flows" was pretty widely practiced during the anti-cpe struggle in france for instance.

[Devrim]

sure, but if all these groups want to do something they might as well do something that is tailored to their strengths instead of trying to accomplish something that seems further away every day. "paralyzing the flows" was pretty widely practiced during the anti-cpe struggle in france for instance.

I think there is a difference between workers in struggle doing something and leftist groups taking it upon themselves to do things. In my opinion it is voluntarism.

Possibly the worst example I heard of was one in Turkey at a shipyards infamous for industrial 'accidents'. A coalition of leftists called for a strike, without support amongst the workers, and, according to ICC members who were there, it ended up with students spitting at workers who were crossing their 'picket line'.

I am not saying that is what you are advocating, but small leftist groups can't substitute themselves for the mass actions of workers.

Devrim

[Devrim]

But at the same time he made extensive use of the Yorkshire NUM, such as offering two pounds a day to any miner that would picket premises away from their own area. Even if he was still done the mines he wasn't completely separate from the union structure.
But I do see what you mean.

You are right. He wasn't. He was a union official. Shop stewards though are still workers, and are drawn both ways.


I think what I meant to say is that it seems less obvious that the NUM was acting against workers interests in the miners strike than is apparent in most strikes. The blame is easier to place with other union leaders and the TUC.

I think that it is easy to blame the TUC and the other union leaders. Nevertheless, the strategy adopted by the NUM, that of pressurizing the TUC to call a general strike was, in my opinion, part of the path to defeat. It is not because the union leaders were bad people, or didn't want to win the strike. It is that the nature of trade unionism leads them into a certain strategic approach.

The way to win the strike was to spread it to other sectors. Thatcher admitted it would have beat them if they had done so in October '84. What it needed was calling on other workers for solidarity directly, and that was precisely what the NUM was unable to do.

Devrim

[Amphictyonis]

I am not saying that is what you are advocating, but small leftist groups can't substitute themselves for the mass actions of workers.

Devrim

One problem, 'small leftist groups' are too involved in academia and arguing amongst each other and should be out in the work force working side by side with workers. Many of us do and are workers and socialists but all too often socialist 'intellectuals' aren't in the public sector, the trades or service sector economy working side by side with workers to help form a new mind frame. As Sartre puts it at the 1:27-1:57 mark in the video below:


K-aBxQCmu5Q

A socialist group can't just come in and expect to take charge they/we need to be there in the trenches 24/7. Intellectuals need to give up the petty bourgeois careers and ego driven what nots for a broader daily mission of elevating social consciousness. What's the best way of going about this? I'm not sure but if we had a bunch of 'vanguards' living working breathing amongst the working class rather than being opportunists I think it would go a long way.

[bcbm]

petty bourgeois intellectuals need to join the workers and lead them to consciousness? its the same product in a slightly different package.

[neosyndic]

I think there is a difference between workers in struggle doing something and leftist groups taking it upon themselves to do things. In my opinion it is voluntarism. Possibly the worst example I heard of was one in Turkey at a shipyards infamous for industrial 'accidents'. A coalition of leftists called for a strike, without support amongst the workers, and, according to ICC members who were there, it ended up with students spitting at workers who were crossing their 'picket line'. I am not saying that is what you are advocating, but small leftist groups can't substitute themselves for the mass actions of workers. Devrim


Amen. :thumbup1:

[Amphictyonis]

petty bourgeois intellectuals need to join the workers and lead them to consciousness? its the same product in a slightly different package.

Not really, I would say lead I would say work side by side in a non pretentious manner. Would you say American culture is headed down the road to consciousness and a true understanding of socialism or down the road to Justin Biber? What I'm saying is in lieu of some opportunist vanguard dictating events from above the socialist intelligentsia needs to meld in with workers on a daily basis. Sartre, when he was alive, was very approachable and would hang out with average French-peoples having conversation debates etc. I think the competition is TV/Radio/bourgeois MEDIA....in lieu of using the airwaves and newspapers perhaps a shift in social consciousness can be facilitated via a hands on approach that chips away at the divide between average workers and many socialists. (I happen to be both average worker and socialist as are many of us but we're a small minority in America). I agree we need mass actions of workers but we workers also need an elevated sense of whats going on. What I'm saying is intelligentsia should meld with workers rather than come at us from some higher foreign plane.

Many peoples conception of vanguard is shifty so I don't even like that term. Do you think if a Noam Chomsky or Micheal Parenti type worked at a major corporation in the United States they would expose thousands of workers to socialism on a daily basis? Usually the only people who pay attention to them are students in academia or middle class youth and there is a real divide between students and workers in America. Too many American workers don't know what socialism is, I guess this is the problem in a nut shell. What's the best way to spread not only class consciousness but an understanding of what socialism actually is (especially when combating the bourgeois disinformation MEDIA campaign against socialism)?

[bcbm]

Not really, I would say lead I would say work side by side in a non pretentious manner.

whatever terms you want to use you're still there as intellectuals trying to bring your one true message to the workers and lead them out of slavery or w/e. i don't think doing it from an ivory tower or from the stocking shelves at wal-mart will make much of a difference.


Would you say American culture is headed down the road to consciousness and a true understanding of socialism or down the road to Justin Biber?

i don't think its an either/or; a preference for justin bieber or metallica or mozart has nothing to do with class demands.


What I'm saying is in lieu of some opportunist vanguard dictating events from above the socialist intelligentsia needs to meld in with workers on a daily basis.

its just a different form of opportunism and speaking as a worker i don't think we need them. i've had more radical discussions with random co-workers than most socialist intellectuals.


I think the competition is TV/Radio/bourgeois MEDIA....in lieu of using the airwaves and newspapers perhaps a shift in social consciousness can be facilitated via a hands on approach that chips away at the divide between average workers and many socialists. (I happen to be both average worker and socialist as are many of us but we're a small minority in America).

i think that divide is a good thing and don't feel too bad if it is maintained, most socialists are wieners who would just want to recruit people to their dumb party or whatever and basically just push people away. socialists need workers more than the workers need them.


I agree we need mass actions of workers but we workers also need an elevated sense of whats going on.

i think a lot of workers have a better understanding than a lot of socialists and anyway they will "come around" when conditions necessitate it, not before.


What I'm saying is intelligentsia should meld with workers rather than come at us from some higher foreign plane.

i think even formulating this sort of thing already dooms it to be intelligentsia coming from a higher plane.


What's the best way to spread not only class consciousness but an understanding of what socialism actually is (especially when combating the bourgeois disinformation MEDIA campaign against socialism)?

push for class demands and try to force the economy to collapse

[Die Neue Zeit]

whatever terms you want to use you're still there as intellectuals trying to bring your one true message to the workers and lead them out of slavery or w/e. i don't think doing it from an ivory tower or from the stocking shelves at wal-mart will make much of a difference.

its just a different form of opportunism and speaking as a worker i don't think we need them. i've had more radical discussions with random co-workers than most socialist intellectuals.

Only if said intellectuals are not working-class.


i think that divide is a good thing and don't feel too bad if it is maintained, most socialists are wieners who would just want to recruit people to their dumb party or whatever and basically just push people away. socialists need workers more than the workers need them.

Since you just responded to a proletarian socialist, all you've just supported is "workerist" garbage. Whatever happened to classes-for-themselves organizing in real parties / real movements with revolutionary programs?


i think a lot of workers have a better understanding than a lot of socialists and anyway they will "come around" when conditions necessitate it, not before.

That's vulgar "materialism" ignoring politics: economism. Programs from Eisenach to Gotha to Erfurt are not developed "mass-spontaneously."

[Amphictyonis]

bcbm, you seem to be a tad....confused? Back in Spain when Anarchists took over without focusing too much on socialist theory class consciousness was at a high point (the early 20'th century workers were more familiar with socialism than we are today) but even the Anarchists didn't just sit back and wait for the economy to collapse, there was socialist theory behind the Spanish Revolution dating back to Bakunins time. Spain didn't have mass Media conglomerates controlling the Spanish peoples view of the world, Spain didn't have the 21'st century advanced capitalist military or governmental infrastructure etc. The same scenario could never happen in America, at least not without a mass movement and if you think US workers are at 'socialist mass movement levels' then....I don't know what to tell you. The whole point of getting people who are familiar with socialist theory into the work place is to get workers in a mass movement socialist mind frame- this won't just magically happen on it's own. I've also read too much anarchist literature for you to say historically anarchists have never tried to organize in the work place. It's the term "vanguard" that leaves a foul taste in your mouth, I understand that and I'm not talking about the sort of Russian Bolshevik thing you're envisioning. Some elite intelligentsia who will co-op workers struggles and create a new ruling class. No no and no.

You're smoking some good weed if you think the US economy collapsed tomorrow workers in America would facilitate a socialist revolution and I'm not pushing some "one true message". I've worked in 7 states in the US and have been on earth more than 30 years and I'm sorry to tell you the United States Of America will not just spontaneously turn to socialism in a time of severe crisis. It's going to take work on our part. This isnt a foreign concept to most Anarchists I know. I'm sorry if you're burnt out (it is vulgar materialism by the way...the things you're saying).

[Amphictyonis]

socialists need workers more than the workers need them.



i think a lot of workers have a better understanding than a lot of socialists and anyway they will "come around" when conditions necessitate it, not before.





This is disheartening to see from a mod on here. Oh well. Have fun doing nothing. I'll feel much better about EVERYTHING if you can get a video camera and walk around your city interviewing random people asking what socialism is.....if they actually know then by god I'm on your team. I'll join team sit around and wait ;) My overall point was also socialists and workers need not be two separate entities. I understand what you're talking about and have seen it first hand. College professors, petty bourgeois students and what not having absolutely NO actual real ties to the working class but come around acting all concerned...it can come off as posh egoism and it's exactly because the link between socialist intellectuals and workers is somewhat a facade. What we also need is more socialist working class in the work place not just some petty bourgeois soft handed professors running around in the service sector economy.... they need to be more accessible in general to help facilitate a shift in social consciousness. to create a new culture, a culture that will be ready to sweep capitalism aside when the time is right. I don't think we're ready now.

[eyedrop]

This is disheartening to see from a mod on here. Oh well. Have fun doing nothing. I'll feel much better about EVERYTHING if you can get a video camera and walk around your city interviewing random people asking what socialism is.....if they actually know then by god I'm on your team. I'll join team sit around and wait ;)

What would that prove? That everyone agrees with your private definition of socialism.

Socialism is a word that means a hundred different things and thus nothing.

The people are obviously not ready for action if they don't know the proper marxist jargon.

[Amphictyonis]

Socialism is a word that means a hundred different things and thus nothing.



^ Bullshit^


Anarchism/advanced communism basically boils down to one thing, democratic worker control of the means of production and hence worker control of society itself. Pretty simple sounding isn't it. Now go ask 10,000 average Americans what 'socialism' is and you won't get that answer very frequently. Not at all really. You'll get some lame ass liberal/conservative main stream media notion of some half ass social democracy taxing the rich with great social programs madness. Go try it... I've been hearing it for over 20 years. Americans are NOT ready to randomly/spontaneously implement socialism if capitalism crashes. The thought of it is childish, naive would be a better term. THIS IS THE ISSUE WE ARE FACING. The most important issue. Workers struggle on it's own is great but unless there's socialist ideology behind it it will go nowhere- it will just be pointless revolt. People aren't born with an understanding of socialism it must be explained. This isn't some attack on Anarchism, what the fuck is up with you people? You make me want to curse. Fuck. Get a fucking grip- I'm not advocating some elite vanguard, hell most Marxists don't even really know what Lenin meant by vanguard. I'm not even advocating Lenin's conception of vanguard or even "Marxism" in the work place I'm saying people, average people (of which I am one) should have better access to intellectuals to help explain things. I posted the Sartre video to reiterate my point. Do you think he was some 'vangaurdist' seeking to set up a new hierarchical system run by some vanguard party? Did you even understand what he said?

[Os Cangaceiros]

People aren't born with an understanding of socialism it must be explained.

Well, not a big fan of Chomsky, but he made a good point when pointing out that the striking workers in Ludlow, Massachusetts hadn't read a word of Marx, yet they knew that, since they spent a good deal of time in the factories, they should be able to control what happened inside them. That's not something that they were "born" with, but it wasn't something that was pounded into their heads from the local activist scene, either.

I largely agree with the notion that communism, if it is to appear at all, will appear as the result of the self-interest of workers being manifested against a system that no longer serves their needs. Not the communist missionaries, although the role of the militant in times of strife shouldn't be discounted. The main theme here though is that the conditions necessary for militants to do real work aren't brought about by do-gooders selling newspapers or holding miniscule conventions/demos. The idea that "hey, at least we're DOING SOMETHING!" is not convincing to me...more often than not it seems like doing things simply for the sake of doing things. Self-vindication for the "class warriors" among us.

[Amphictyonis]

Well, not a big fan of Chomsky, but he made a good point when pointing out that the striking workers in Ludlow, Massachusetts hadn't read a word of Marx, yet they knew that, since they spent a good deal of time in the factories, they should be able to control what happened inside them. That's not something that they were "born" with, but it wasn't something that was pounded into their heads from the local activist scene, either.

I largely agree with the notion that communism, if it is to appear at all, will appear as the result of the self-interest of workers being manifested against a system that no longer serves their needs. Not the communist missionaries, although the role of the militant in times of strife shouldn't be discounted. The main theme here though is that the conditions necessary for militants to do real work aren't brought about by do-gooders selling newspapers or holding miniscule conventions/demos. The idea that "hey, at least we're DOING SOMETHING!" is not convincing to me...more often than not it seems like doing things simply for the sake of doing things. Self-vindication for the "class warriors" among us.

(1912) Bill Haywood and the IWW? Workers revolted yes but....Chomsky is being a tad disingenuous, I've found he does that from time to time. There was an actual half way viable socialist party at the time as well. People understood socialism then. Most today are clueless and unless us socialists are there side by side with our fellow workers during the struggle they will remain clueless. Go back in time and tell Goldman or Berkman to stay away from workers and let us come to our own conclusions...Goldman had a huge impact giving speeches, socialiszing, writting....rubbing elbows in the trenches.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that you may be thinking of Ludlow, Colorado...I was talking about the mills in Ludlow, Mass.

There are other examples, too, of course. Another one being the 1877 general strike. Very very little influence from "professional revolutionaries" in that one.

(I don't really want to fall into the age old communist habit of going back centuries in order to prove a point, though.)

[Amphictyonis]

I think that you may be thinking of Ludlow, Colorado...I was talking about the mills in Ludlow, Mass.

There are other examples, too, of course. Another one being the 1877 general strike. Very very little influence from "professional revolutionaries" in that one.

(I don't really want to fall into the age old communist habit of going back centuries in order to prove a point, though.)

Just correcting Chomsky is all (link below) :) Historical arguments are roundabout clusterphucs. Anyway, as you know strikes can take place without the goal of socialism, happens in the US all the time. It's when we workers are dissatisfied is when we will be more prone to accept socialist ideology. This is my point. We need ideology or revolution is simple revolt. You'll see the end game of revolt without ideology in the middle east soon enough *hint* it wont be socialism :(.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SbXS5-4QGAUC&pg=PA616&lpg=PA616&dq=Ludlow+Massachusetts+workers+factories+Bill+Hay wood&source=bl&ots=2myh0nQ3XX&sig=eNLwggzEVHL7UnwjELxEKRBl84s&hl=en&ei=qGeDTY5ZkqKxA8zUxO4B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA

[Os Cangaceiros]

Uh-oh. Looks like it was Lawrence Mass. Damn...

[black magick hustla]

This is disheartening to see from a mod on here. Oh well. Have fun doing nothing. I'll feel much better about EVERYTHING if you can get a video camera and walk around your city interviewing random people asking what socialism is.....if they actually know then by god I'm on your team.

i think the idea is not so much to do nothing and that there is no task of a militant, but that you cannot force revolution down people's throats. it takes material conditions to breach an openiong for communism and i am sorry if you don't believe in that then you are throwing historical materialism down the drain.

[bcbm]

Only if said intellectuals are not working-class.

this conversation was specifically about intellectuals rejecting "petit-bourgeois" careers to join the workers...


Since you just responded to a proletarian socialist, all you've just supported is "workerist" garbage. Whatever happened to classes-for-themselves organizing in real parties / real movements with revolutionary programs?

yes, whatever did happen to them? when they develop then we can talk about their content.


That's vulgar "materialism" ignoring politics: economism. Programs from Eisenach to Gotha to Erfurt are not developed "mass-spontaneously."

i don't think a program will lead to communism.

----


bcbm, you seem to be a tad....confused?

i don't think so?


Back in Spain

basically ancient history, especially as a comparison to modern events


when Anarchists took over without focusing too much on socialist theory class consciousness was at a high point (the early 20'th century workers were more familiar with socialism than we are today) but even the Anarchists didn't just sit back and wait for the economy to collapse,

their revolution developed because of a specific set of circumstances that allowed such a large rupture in social normality.

and all the same, they lost.


Spain didn't have mass Media conglomerates controlling the Spanish peoples view of the world, Spain didn't have the 21'st century advanced capitalist military or governmental infrastructure etc.

but replicating their methods we will somehow build a bigger success than they did against such powers?


if you think US workers are at 'socialist mass movement levels' then....I don't know what to tell you.

no need to tell me anything, i don't think they are at "socialist mass movement levels." i said that i think workers have a more accurate perspective than most socialists on events that effect workers.


The whole point of getting people who are familiar with socialist theory into the work place is to get workers in a mass movement socialist mind frame-

yes, i understand the arguments for "consciousness raising," i just don't find them especially compelling.


this won't just magically happen on it's own.

there is nothing magic about it. people will care when there is an immediate need to care. workers fight when they are under attack, not because a socialist ideologue convinced them of it.


I've also read too much anarchist literature for you to say historically anarchists have never tried to organize in the work place.

i don't think i ever said that? i am not opposed to organizing in the workplace but i think it should be organizing for class demands, not vague concepts like "socialism"


You're smoking some good weed if you think the US economy collapsed tomorrow workers in America would facilitate a socialist revolution

i don't think they would, in fact it is pretty unlikely, but i think class conflict would quickly escalate and depending on how both workers and the authorities respond, there are exciting possibilities and at such a juncture communists/anarchists could actually have useful ideas to posit.


I've worked in 7 states in the US and have been on earth more than 30 years and I'm sorry to tell you the United States Of America will not just spontaneously turn to socialism in a time of severe crisis. It's going to take work on our part. It's going to take work on our part.

perhaps, perhaps not. i think crises open up a wide range of possibilities. as far as "work," i only plan to work for the benefit of myself and my co-workers. if communism is only to be realized through the working class, then it is through our blind greed for a better life that we will get there, especially as the ruling class finds it increasingly difficult to maintain a welfare state and an ever richer elite. this is what i mean by making class demands and trying to force the economy to collapse.


I'm sorry if you're burnt out (it is vulgar materialism by the way...the things you're saying).

i'm not burnt out, i just don't see much use in repeating endlessly things that have not worked in 80 years in the hopes that they will suddenly work again.


This is disheartening to see from a mod on here.

the world is full of tragedies


Oh well. Have fun doing nothing.

i find plenty of ways to fill my time


I'll feel much better about EVERYTHING if you can get a video camera and walk around your city interviewing random people asking what socialism is.....if they actually know then by god I'm on your team.

i don't think the ability for random people to identify with some vague concept that has been demonized endlessly in this country will make or break "the revolution," unless you believe that phantoms are more important than reality in determining these things?


My overall point was also socialists and workers need not be two separate entities.

there are groups that do this, some group makes all the members be meatpackers or some such... i don't think they have a much larger membership than any of the student socialist groups. in fact they are probably smaller.


I understand what you're talking about and have seen it first hand. College professors, petty bourgeois students and what not having absolutely NO actual real ties to the working class but come around acting all concerned...it can come off as posh egoism and it's exactly because the link between socialist intellectuals and workers is somewhat a facade.

i don't think them "becoming workers" while doing the same things would convey a significantly different message.


What we also need is more socialist working class in the work place not just some petty bourgeois soft handed professors running around in the service sector economy....

the service sector is a huge part of the economy in this country...


they need to be more accessible in general to help facilitate a shift in social consciousness. to create a new culture, a culture that will be ready to sweep capitalism aside when the time is right. I don't think we're ready now.

so we need to organize, convert and maintain hundreds of millions of people until "the time is right?" and if we're not ready when the right time comes? sorry i just don't think you will convince people "socialism" is the way to go while capitalism is still meeting their needs and justin bieber is of more immediate concern than reorganizing production to meet human needs. leftists will reach proto-leftists, the workers will do their jobs, collect their checks and go drink beers.

[The Grey Blur]

the idea that revolutionary (or just plain communist) consciousness can arise totally spontaneously is wrong. it imagines that we live in some sort of class-neutral culture; while it's true that workers organically despise work (especially of the more repetitive or disgusting kind...people work to live they don't live to work) there's no reason at all why this anger/frustration would be manifested in terms of serious class consciousness, not with glenn beck, rupert murdoch, the church, large corporations and the capitalist state controlling the means of mass communication, culture and education. instead a lot of this anger can be diverted by demagogic forces against 'liberals'/immigrant labour/foreign powers/choose your target...the rise of the tea party demonstrates this (to a certain degree...obviously a lot of its funding is astroturf'd etc).

i've thought about this issue a lot lately, and the relationship between socialists and the working class. i think we have to be conscious of possibly patronising workers, alienating them by jargon/a complete lack of social ability, etc (all things which i can understand bcbm's frustration towards considering the "dweebs" that make up much of the activist left). but we can't just abandon any notion of socialism-being-correct as an analysis of how society operates today and how it could operate in the future...i don't think it's patronising or wrong to talk about class consciousness or socialism (whether abstract or practical discourses, ie unionising in your workplace) and it could only be so if we accepted either 1) extreme economic determinism or 2) a post-modern account of social relations which purports that there are no factual social relations (class, private ownership of property) and that the idea of social justice (and the terms associated with it) is thus meaningless (or at best, that it can only be constructed spontaneously rather than elaborated as a prepared theory/analysis).

...not a lot of that makes sense, it's just some thoughts. essentially i understand bcbm's position, because so much of the left is caught up in very alienating, very outmoded, very "dweeby" language, agit-prop, methods, etc it can seem utterly irrelevant to workers (especially the workers of the US who are probably some of the most intellectually complex people imaginable, in the extent to which humour, literature, popular culture etc are all firmly entrenched in their daily existence)...i was looking at some of the signs that were held by those at the walker rally and the extent of their post-modern (in the good sense) -ness was incredible, there was everything from reddit memes, to star wars puns (walker)*, to more straightforward appeals to class solidarity or humanist ideals and i thought about how that contrasted with the pre-prepared nature of so many slogans of the activist left. i'm not saying the left should dissolve itself, as i said earlier i do believe some sort of organisation which operates as a counter-hegemonic force (in terms of developing an independent socialist culture as well as the practical elements of workplace organising, solidarity efforts etc) is necessary to educate/agitate/organise (delete as applicable), but that it needs to humanise. i see that on this site that most of the posters have a pretty sharp sense of humour, it would be disturbing if as soon as we put on our 'socialist' guises we lose that. this is not an appeal for '21st century socialism' or some vague nonsense like that, i think the efforts and achievements of the 20th century workers movement should be celebrated and made relevant for today's working class, but that it can't be at the expense of being able to actually relate to the current state of mind of most workers, or at the cost of sacrificing political imagination.

*this could bring up a whole other tangent about the role of humour as a revolutionary tool...there was a good article on the atlantic magazine website recently about humour in the anti-mubarak rallies in egypt.

[Amphictyonis]

i think the idea is not so much to do nothing and that there is no task of a militant, but that you cannot force revolution down people's throats. it takes material conditions to breach an openiong for communism and i am sorry if you don't believe in that then you are throwing historical materialism down the drain.

No, this has been exactly what I've been saying since I started posting here. I'll go dig up the thread and edit this post later with a link. What Bccm was saying is, or what it seems like what he/she is saying is we don't need intellectuals to help facilitate the shift in social consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution in advanced capitalist nations. Unless the masses understand socialism and want to implement it we will get exactly what we don't want if a revolution takes place- some small minority shoving communism down everyone's throat.

EDIT: I was actually accused of being an economic determinist and somewhat wrote this post months ago in vague response.


it takes material conditions to breach an openiong for communism and i am sorry if you don't believe in that then you are throwing historical materialism down the drain.



Amphictyonis said: No. I think capitalism is an entire different beast. If capitalism wasnt globalized with completley integrated markets then the chance for a global breakdown would be nil. Marx said the crisis would get worse and worse- once the system has become truly global the worsening crisis would effect the entire world. So we need to either have a socialist revolution before this happens or live in a state of barbarism after the capitalist system breaks down.

If anything breakdown/crisis theory makes the case for socialism a more urgent endeavor. We have a time limit before everything turns to shit (not that capitalism isn't shit- things can get worse for mankind). Breakdown theory isn't meant to say "hell capitalism will just go away on it's own and when it does socialism will just magically take it's place". It's meant to show that (even though Marx didn't use the term fascism) humanity would most likely either revert to barbarism/fascism after the collapse of capitalism. There needs to be a mass movement to overthrow capitalism before this happens or at the very least to make the transition while the collapse is taking place. The former is the more desirable of the two options. The sooner we can discard capitalism the better.

I think the only people who think capitalism can go on forever are capitalists. I always laugh when I see them declare 'the end of history'. We're in the advanced stages of capitalism now- in Lenins time he thought the advanced stage of capitalism had been met. This simply wasn't the case. Only just now are we truly seeing global integration/the necessary pre conditions for a successful global revolution.

If I were a fortune teller I'd say a revolution in China/Asia is key since much of global industry is located there but material condition's will have to sharply decline in the US which would result if China went socialist (or if another more severe crisis takes place). If this happens a war between China and the US would likely happen unless there is a mass movement of workers in the US to demand a switch in economic systems (facilitate revolution). I don't see socialism/communism arising from the third world or smaller second world Latin nations. I think China/India/Russia/US are all key to the transformation of our global economic system.

The question then arises, what will spark socialist revolutions in China, Russia and the US? Class consciousness of course but what will create this mass movement? What will set the stage for mass acceptance of our ideology? I was asking the questing in a Socratic method type way to say in a later post declining material conditions will be nessesary for the masses to accept socialist ideology :)











Go to the video I posted on the last page and tell me if you disagree with what Sartre said......

EDIT:

at the 1:27-1:57 mark in the video below:


K-aBxQCmu5Q

I don't want to "argue" with you guys either...we're all on the same team here:)

[The Grey Blur]

i think the idea is not so much to do nothing and that there is no task of a militant, but that you cannot force revolution down people's throats. it takes material conditions to breach an openiong for communism and i am sorry if you don't believe in that then you are throwing historical materialism down the drain.
right, but can you not see how this is a complete bastardization and vulgarization of marxism? there's a relationship between ideas and the economic reality, and to imagine that there isn't a battle of ideas (guess who's winning) within today's society is just naive. also, right now the 'material conditions' are more favourable to socialist ideas/interpretation/analysis since the great depression...marx's and marxist's theories of crises have been proven entirely correct and on top of that there's a more-or-less naked class war being waged to ensure that capital comes off the better from this crisis.

[Lucretia]

It is laughable to suppose that people will spontaneously wake up one day with a decent understanding of how capitalism functions, which aspects of it need to be overturned, and which need to be preserved (transcended). It is equally absurd to think that people will arrive at this understanding just by living at the mercy of the market's arbitrary cruelties. You might as well ask a walmart cashier to explain how her employer makes its money. You'll probably get something equivalent to, "well, they take a risk and buy low and sell high."

Advocating forcefully for a set of ideas you believe is right is not patronizing. It is the only way members of a political movement develop a shared framework of ideas and sense of what changes are desirable in society. Just imagine if northern white students opted not to persuade southern black to to register to vote in the South in the early 1960s on the basis of not wanting to "patronize" southerners by telling them how to run their society. What a ridiculously postmodern approach to politics: revolution by fence-sitting and opting out.

[bcbm]

the idea that revolutionary (or just plain communist) consciousness can arise totally spontaneously is wrong.

i don't think "consciousness" arises, i think reality forces events to take a certain character and one possible character events can take is a push towards communism. its by no means the only ones and there is every possibility it won't be the way things manifest. but if pro-revolutionaries can have an impact, it will be when their ideas have immediate relevance, not in times of class peace or reformist struggle.


not with glenn beck, rupert murdoch, the church, large corporations and the capitalist state controlling the means of mass communication, culture and education. instead a lot of this anger can be diverted by demagogic forces against 'liberals'/immigrant labour/foreign powers/choose your target...the rise of the tea party demonstrates this (to a certain degree...obviously a lot of its funding is astroturf'd etc).but a handful of weirdos, even using the right language and propaganda techniques, will somehow overcome the combined power of the ruling class and their total control of modern life?


but we can't just abandon any notion of socialism-being-correct as an analysis of how society operates today and how it could operate in the future...i'm not interested in abandoning a pro-revolutionary and for-communism perspective, just recognizing my/our own limitations.


i don't think it's patronising or wrong to talk about class consciousness or socialism (whether abstract or practical discourses, ie unionising in your workplace)i don't think it is wrong or patronizing either, but i also don't imagine it will convert millions of people to a pro-revolutionary perspective and inspire them to push for communism outside of certain circumstances. i think a brief look at most big modern events, at least in the us i can't speak for other countries, is telling. pro-revolutionaries will be doing their busy work endlessly and basically have no impact and then suddenly material events will bring a crisis and they will be left scrambling to catch up with the workers who were moved by events, not ideology. maybe it is different elsewhere and i have no problem with experimenting or even maintaining a "typical" pro-revolutionary milieu, i just think we should be extremely wary of efforts that have more or less only resulted in failure.


essentially i understand bcbm's position, because so much of the left is caught up in very alienating, very outmoded, very "dweeby" language, agit-prop, methods, etc it can seem utterly irrelevant to workers i guess maybe i have not been clear enough i don't think the problem is the methods of the left, i think these methods are probably a result of the conditions pro-revolutionaries find themselves in; i don't think losing this baggage will make much of a difference and as i said earlier i think these sort of formulations wherein "the workers" are a separate subject to be evangelized in one way or another by pro-revolutionaries are problematic.

[bcbm]

It is laughable to suppose that people will spontaneously wake up one day with a decent understanding of how capitalism functions, which aspects of it need to be overturned, and which need to be preserved (transcended).

who supposes that?


Advocating forcefully for a set of ideas you believe is right is not patronizing. who said it was?


Just imagine if northern white students opted not to register black voters in the South in the early 1960s on the basis of not wanting to "patronize" white southerners by telling them how to run their society.i think it depends on your goals, one approach works for some goals and not for others.


What a ridiculously postmodern approach to politics: revolution by fence-sitting and opting out.who called for either?

[Amphictyonis]

I think we're all basally in agreement and are being asshats. Or maybe I'm just an asshat? I don't mind being an asshat sometimes.

Bccm is just a nihilist

SEmvf_6k0pM

J41iFYO0NQA

[The Grey Blur]

yeah, i think i projected some of my own concerns onto bcbm and now he is being attacked for them. my bad.

[bcbm]

I think we're all basally in agreement and are being asshats. Or maybe I'm just an asshat? I don't mind being an asshat sometimes.

nah i think there are some fundamental disagreements about how things go down, but i don't really care what people do because while i don't think it helps it also doesn't hurt. and hell i could be wrong and maybe they will bring the human community and i am pretty okay with that

[The Grey Blur]

man i just had an amazing response that i took like an hour writing and my wifi died...it included the phrase 'revolution is just a mass phenomenological experiment conducted in the hopes of intervening into history'. i really need to sleep now...

[bcbm]

sorry to hear you lost that, that is always really annoying especially when it is a good one. get some rest and come back tomorrow and maybe you can write something even better? :) cheers

[Die Neue Zeit]

this conversation was specifically about intellectuals rejecting "petit-bourgeois" careers to join the workers...

Read the full quote of Kautsky more carefully, where the real emphasis is not on the "intellectuals" but on the "educated proletarians" who transmit all the socialist and political stuff into the class movement when conditions allow.

It's about the merger of Marxism and the worker-*class* movement.

Case in point to back up comrades here: Look up Democratic Theory and various academic works on it. It's not something that grows "spontaneously" within the masses of the working class. It may do so from isolated individuals here and there, but it takes intellectual commitment to examine ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, Marx's critique of Hegel, the Paris Commune, various council movements, etc.


i don't think a program will lead to communism.

Left-com translation: Lassalle, Schweitzer, Bebel, Liebknecht, Singer, etc. were all "voluntarists" for their organizational work!

[bcbm]

Read the full quote of Kautsky more carefully, where the real emphasis is not on the "intellectuals" but on the "educated proletarians" who transmit all the socialist and political stuff into the class movement when conditions allow.

i was having a conversation with amphictyonis and what they were saying, nobody said anything about kautsky.


Case in point to back up comrades here: Look up Democratic Theory and various academic works on it. It's not something that grows "spontaneously" within the masses of the working class. It may do so from isolated individuals here and there, but it takes intellectual commitment to examine ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, Marx's critique of Hegel, the Paris Commune, various council movements, etc.nothing on google seems to have anything to do with any of that


Left-com translation: Lassalle, Schweitzer, Bebel, Liebknecht, Singer, etc. were all "voluntarists" for their organizational work!nobody called anything voluntarist.


i don't really care what people do because while i don't think it helps it also doesn't hurt. and hell i could be wrong and maybe they will bring the human community and i am pretty okay with that

[Die Neue Zeit]

i was having a conversation with amphictyonis and what they were saying, nobody said anything about kautsky.

nothing on google seems to have anything to do with any of that

http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2010/10/democratic-theory/

Deliberative Democracy (emphasis on deliberation, not voting)
Participatory Democracy (all-encompassing catchphrase for models outside the liberal framework)
Demarchy (random selection replacing elections)

[All of the above can still imply a more genuine form of representative democracy.]

Delegative Democracy
Council Democracy (the notion of having a hierarchy of organs, where supposedly the higher organs are accountable to the lower ones)

Condorcet Method (method for determining elected candidates and referendum outcomes with multiple choices)
Random Balloting (maintains the elective principle but plucks winners at random)

What I wrote, not just above but programmatically, is but a mere summary of [Post-Liberal or Anti-Liberal] Democratic Theory.

[bcbm]

i'm not sure how that relates to anything being talked about here?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is intellectual work, not something that "masses of workers" can discover "spontaneously." It is something to be brought into a class movement by those workers who are politically educated / politically conscious / genuinely class-conscious.

[black magick hustla]

What Bccm was saying is, or what it seems like what he/she is saying is we don't need intellectuals to help facilitate the shift in social consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution in advanced capitalist nations.

what do you mean by an intellectual? i think there are some very intellectually minded workers and a lot of them become communists. but whenever i think of intellectuals i think of petit-bourgeois, declassed elements, like satre. i think communists existing is good and communists should push the communist line when it is possible, and communists should organize and form their own organizations. however, i like the approach the icc takes - the point is not so much recruiting elements but having a centralized node of communist militants and a starting point for people to be able to push the line, etc. however, communists should understand they are a tiny minority and their ideas wont have an audience until there is a sort of breach created material conditions. otherwise, we just enjoy, and organize ourselves and travela and try to clarify what are our positions.

[bcbm]

It is intellectual work, not something that "masses of workers" can discover "spontaneously." It is something to be brought into a class movement by those workers who are politically educated / politically conscious / genuinely class-conscious.

no one has used the terms "masses of workers" or "spontaneously" except you. and i really don't know what "democratic theory" has to do with any of this regardless of its need to be "brought in."

[Amphictyonis]

what do you mean by an intellectual? i think there are some very intellectually minded workers and a lot of them become communists. but whenever i think of intellectuals i think of petit-bourgeois, declassed elements, like satre. i think communists existing is good and communists should push the communist line when it is possible, and communists should organize and form their own organizations. however, i like the approach the icc takes - the point is not so much recruiting elements but having a centralized node of communist militants and a starting point for people to be able to push the line, etc. however, communists should understand they are a tiny minority and their ideas wont have an audience until there is a sort of breach created material conditions. otherwise, we just enjoy, and organize ourselves and travela and try to clarify what are our positions.

The right in America has bourgeois intellectuals creating all sorts of reactionary workers. Hell, Marx himself was an intellectual and petty bourgeois. Screw that guy? He did have a sexy beard. Hell, the right doesnt even seem to use intellectualism they use all manner of lie, half truth and slight of hand- just look at Glen Beck (not an intellectual by any means).


i think there are some very intellectually minded workers and a lot of them become communists.Very true and this is a good thing but all too infrequent these days :( most of us on this site are working class "intellectuals" in a sense. Intellectuals is a sort of elitist term I know, it would have been better if I said educated in the ways of socialism. Like Jedi Masters are with the force. Personally, in my case, I had the opportunity to learn about socialism years back when I was unemployed for a year or so. When working it seems all I have time for is work/sleep/eat/work. The education system in general isn't set up to educate people about socialism- some universities and professors do but this isnt enough to make a difference. Capitalists have a monopoly on 'education' and education in America seems to be centered around creating docile workers not enlightened human beings with a well rounded objective view of the world.

[black magick hustla]

The right in America has bourgeois intellectuals creating all sorts of reactionary workers. Hell, Marx himself was an intellectual and petty bourgeois. Screw that guy? He did have a sexy beard. Hell, the right doesnt even seem to use intellectualism they use all manner of lie, half truth and slight of hand- just look at Glen Beck (not an intellectual by any means).
i dont think the right has "intellectuals". well it does but nobody listens to them. the right wing has public figures though. the culture of public intellectuals in the US is almost nonexistant. chomsky is the most "public" of them all but to be honest even chomsky hass a tiny audience that centers around a certain college educated demographic.

i think marx was cool. i don't think marx had that concept of "public intellectual" though. marx was simply a communist that wrote about communism and i dont think the way we think of intellectuals today applies to him.

[Amphictyonis]

i dont think the right has "intellectuals".
Who do you think has manipulated the culture in America and other capitalist nations? Milton Friedman, William Buckley, Hayek, Greenspan etc. The entire 1980's we saw the effects of these assholes views being pushed on the world. Even today other right wing and even liberal intellectuals have fooled Americans into thinking "spreading democracy" around the globe is anything but spreading parasitic markets. As far as living right wing intellectuals they arent public and honest about their views as the MEDIA some what hides the reality of right wing intellectual positions behind backwards idiocy being pushed on FOX news and talk radio.


the culture of public intellectuals in the US is almost nonexistant. chomsky is the most "public" of them all but to be honest even chomsky hass a tiny audience that centers around a certain college educated demographic.

I agree and this is a problem.

[bcbm]

the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas

[Die Neue Zeit]

So how did the bourgeoisie overcome late feudalism if feudal ideas reigned supreme right up to the last minute? :glare:

[bcbm]

by materially forcing an end to feudalism during a period of intense upheaval

[Amphictyonis]

by materially forcing an end to feudalism during a period of intense upheaval

With no ideology?

[Tim Finnegan]

by materially forcing an end to feudalism during a period of intense upheaval
Out of interest, when did this happen in Britain? It seems like something I should be aware of, but I really can't bring it to mind...

[bcbm]

With no ideology?

the classes that would become the bourgeoisie had ideology, but their primary concern was more about acquiring wealth and power which was how they ultimately triumphed over the feudal ruling class. the rise of capitalism was basically a counter-revolution that harnessed and suppressed insurgent peasant/poor energy in the 15th-16th centuries.


Out of interest, when did this happen in Britain? It seems like something I should be aware of, but I really can't bring it to mind...1600-1700s, probably beginning around the english civil war and extending through the laws against vagabondage, enclosure, etc

[Tim Finnegan]

1600-1700s, probably beginning around the english civil war and extending through the laws against vagabondage, enclosure, etc
In what sense is the transition from feudal to capitalist modes of production over the course of around three centuries (the English Civil Wars occurred after enclosure had already well under way for over a century) "materially forcing an end to feudalism during a period of intense upheaval"? :confused:

[bcbm]

sorry if my dates are off i am going off the top of my head. these were part of the process of primitive accumulation which destroyed the feudal system while laying the foundation for capitalism, and came during a time of widespread societal upheaval across europe

[synthesis]

Revolution, in the Marxist sense, is probably better understood as a (finite) process rather than an event.

Would it be unfair to characterize the current topic of disagreement as revolving around the role of ideas and ideology in revolution? Because, if so, I don't think there's a clear-cut answer to that.

[Tim Finnegan]

sorry if my dates are off i am going off the top of my head. these were part of the process of primitive accumulation which destroyed the feudal system while laying the foundation for capitalism, and came during a time of widespread societal upheaval across europe
My point wasn't the dates so much as the length and nature of the period. You talk about "forcing an end to feudalism" and "a period of intense upheaval", the former of which never occurred, at least not in those terms, and the latter seems to either compress three centuries of evolution into a far shorter timespan, or, at least in Britain's case, to significantly over-dramatise the period.

Edit: It's also worth remembering that, in most of Britain, feudalism was given up willingly by the aristocracy- even if they well less enthusiastic about giving up the associated political privileges- so its hard to characterise it as a tug-of-war between two highly distinct classes. (I mean, the richest person in Britain today, the Duke of Westminster, is descended from the Norman aristocracy. Lots of continuity there.) Only in Ireland and Scotland was their widespread expropriation of aristocratic holdings, part of England's early imperial expansion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The economic residue of pre-capitalist Europe didn't completely die for a pretty long time, that's for sure. From the seizure of the monastic commons by the Tudors (perhaps the beginning of the expropriation) all the way up until the latter half of the 19th century, in which traces remained, namely in Eastern Europe. It's really hard to imagine capitalism dying out in such a manner, simply because it has a remarkable ability to consume and subvert just about any force that's opposed to it, given enough time.

In other areas (namely Japan), the pre-capitalist era did end abruptly.

I don't really know how we got unto this subject, though.

[bcbm]

My point wasn't the dates so much as the length and nature of the period. You talk about "forcing an end to feudalism" and "a period of intense upheaval", the former of which never occurred, at least not in those terms, and the latter seems to either compress three centuries of evolution into a far shorter timespan, or, at least in Britain's case, to significantly over-dramatise the period.

we're talking about a 3-400 year period across an entire continent, its complex and things developed differently in different areas but the transition to capitalism generally began during a huge period of upheaval in the medieval world and through primitive accumulation materially removed the base for feudalism. i may have generalized a little in trying to condense such a complex topic into a sentence or paragraph, my apologies.

and i don't think i am over-dramatizing anything, 1500-1750 (roughly) in britain was a tumultuous time, especially for the poor.


so its hard to characterise it as a tug-of-war between two highly distinct classes

i never characterized it as a tug of war; the primary tensions were between the poor and the rich (as always...). the smarter aristocrats certainly jumped on board with capitalism, but this doesn't mean these changes did not affect the existing feudal order in huge ways.

[Tim Finnegan]

we're talking about a 3-400 year period across an entire continent, its complex and things developed differently in different areas but the transition to capitalism generally began during a huge period of upheaval in the medieval world and through primitive accumulation materially removed the base for feudalism. i may have generalized a little in trying to condense such a complex topic into a sentence or paragraph, my apologies.
Fair enough, but, getting back to your original point, how can it be said that, as Die Neue Ziet put it, "feudal ideas reigned supreme right up to the last minute"? The economic revolution you offered in reply would have to be far more rapid and more violent than it seems to have historically been. Even if we accept the English Civil Wars as a key crisis of aristocratic ideology, the political logical of feudalism was already being undermined long before hand, and its economic logic had by that point evaporated outside of certain backwards corners of the country.


and i don't think i am over-dramatizing anything, 1500-1750 (roughly) in britain was a tumultuous time, especially for the poor.But for the ruling class, the chaos was largely confined to two episodes in the mid-to-late 16th century (around the Reformation) and the mid-to-late 17th century (Civil War and Glorious Revolution) (arguably one extended period, I suppose), despite the period of transition having begun before this and continuing for a good period afterwards.


i never characterized it as a tug of war; the primary tensions were between the poor and the rich (as always...). the smarter aristocrats certainly jumped on board with capitalism, but this doesn't mean these changes did not affect the existing feudal order in huge ways.Then why describe it as the "forcing" of feudalism's end? That implies the imposition of the new mode of production onto property by an external force.

[bcbm]

christ i didn't think posting a quote from marx would start such controversy


Fair enough, but, getting back to your original point, how can it be said that, as Die Neue Ziet put it, "feudal ideas reigned supreme right up to the last minute"?

a lot of feudal ideas actually persisted well into "modern" times, even in the most advanced capitalist countries.


The economic revolution you offered in reply would have to be far more rapid and more violent than it seems to have historically been. Even if we accept the English Civil Wars as a key crisis of aristocratic ideology, the political logical of feudalism was already being undermined long before hand, and its economic logic had by that point evaporated outside of certain backwards corners of the country.

primitive accumulation removed the material base for feudalism allowing capitalism to overtake feudalism and a new set of ruling ideas to develop, albeit unevenly and in different forms. this was an exceedingly violent period. i'm not sure what part of this is controversial?


But for the ruling class, the chaos was largely confined to two episodes in the mid-to-late 16th century (around the Reformation) and the mid-to-late 17th century (Civil War and Glorious Revolution) (arguably one extended period, I suppose), despite the period of transition having begun before this and continuing for a good period afterwards.

not all the crises were serious enough to threaten the ruling class but i don't think you can say the chaos was confined, there was disorder and resistance (riots, insurrection, sabotage, etc) throughout this period all across europe. some of it was more explosive than others, sure, but it was constant. all the world needs a jolt (http://books.google.com/books?id=4-PvMvdVqp0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=caliban+and+the+witch&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=MAyMTcjGG-K30QGO_NyqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) (starts on page 21)


Then why describe it as the "forcing" of feudalism's end? That implies the imposition of the new mode of production onto property by an external force.

i'd say enclosure was forced on most peasants, but if this is just coming down to semantics i think i have made it clear what i meant?

[synthesis]

christ i didn't think posting a quote from marx would start such controversy

I don't think that it's the quote itself but rather your interpretation of it. It seemed like you were suggesting that because "the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class" then every other ideology is therefore more or less irrelevant. Ideology is a source of motivation and strength, and reflects back upon conditions.

[bcbm]

I don't think that it's the quote itself but rather your interpretation of it. It seemed like you were suggesting that because "the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class" then every other ideology is therefore more or less irrelevant. Ideology is a source of motivation and strength, and reflects back upon conditions.

i do think that other ideologies will be more or less irrelevant in the face of the ideas of the ruling class, though i should say to me this means everything from neoconservativism to social democracy to even certain strains of "communism."

[Amphictyonis]

People will attempt to accumulate wealth even in an advanced communist society. Yes. I'm not so sure it would be via wage slavery though.

[OriginalGumby]

The criticisms of the Democratic Party and the trade unions prompted whisperings among the pseudo-left organizations leading the occupation of the capitol, followed by nervous cries of "Stop! Stop!" These people―largely members of the International Socialist Organization and Students for a Democratic Society―made it their business to try to police the demonstration and keep out opponents of the big-business parties.


This just is bullshit. I was there. This is not what we did. WSWS is flat out lying about what happened. I was in a massive crowd of people who booed down a SEP intervention around the Dems and unions but our comrades where not booing. SEP really think that the ISO and SDS are playing this massive role in the politics of the movement holding it back???? No one actual left group has that kind of influence to hold things back and if we did it would not be holding back but pushing forward. None of us were telling them no. Total BS. We were and still do explain to people what we think about the Dems and union bureaucracy. This account is complete garbage. They are fucking delusional.

[twenty percent tip]

so the choices are determinism and do nothing ism or bullshit activism? no wonder we're fucked. get a clue. usually you gotta know what your talking abotu before you act like an authority. not for us though right? if you didnt live life you cant talk about. your privledges are revoked.

[twenty percent tip]

This just is bullshit. I was there. This is not what we did. WSWS is flat out lying about what happened. I was in a massive crowd of people who booed down a SEP intervention around the Dems and unions but our comrades where not booing. SEP really think that the ISO and SDS are playing this massive role in the politics of the movement holding it back???? No one actual left group has that kind of influence to hold things back and if we did it would not be holding back but pushing forward. None of us were telling them no. Total BS. We were and still do explain to people what we think about the Dems and union bureaucracy. This account is complete garbage. They are fucking delusional.

you can see how they would be confused since the iso Is Scum Organized. I.S.O. when you scab for 3 decades you gotta expect it. then again they suck more than a punctured windpipe themselves with a CEO Central Committee.

if i was there i woulda booed you both out of the room and stole the bullhorn. international proletarian revolution!!

[electro_fan]

I wouldn't trust the sep's reporting on strikes or anything related to unions, to be honest, given the history of the organisation

[black magick hustla]

you can see how they would be confused since the iso Is Scum Organized. I.S.O. when you scab for 3 decades you gotta expect it. then again they suck more than a punctured windpipe themselves with a CEO Central Committee.

if i was there i woulda booed you both out of the room and stole the bullhorn. international proletarian revolution!!
holy shit i found my new fav member

[Jimmie Higgins]

since the iso Is Scum Organized. I.S.O.:laugh:

Wow, I didn't know we had a writer from Mad Magazine in the house, welcome. Sorry, my bad, it's Cracked magazine isn't it. I'll look forward to more of your delightful wordplay and clever noodle-scratchers in the future!