Under Socialism would Workers have the right to be in Labor or Trade Unions ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Under Socialism would Workers have the right to be in Labor or Trade Unions ? Did Karl Marx and Frederick Engels support having Unions under Socialism ? Where there Unions in the Soviet Union ? Should Workers in a Socialist State have the right to strike or would this make no sense for Workers to strike in a Worker's State ? Also what is your opinion of of the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland were they right or wrong to strike in the early 1980's ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union


In some "Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist)" regimes, such as the former USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR) or the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), striking is illegal and viewed as counter-revolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-revolutionary) (see Trade unions in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union), All-China Federation of Trade Unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions)). Since the government in such systems claims to represent the working class, it has been argued that unions and strikes were not necessary.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action


Do you agree with the above ?

[CommieTroll]

Trade Unions ARE Socialism

[CommieTroll]

In some "Marxist-Leninist" regimes, such as the former USSR or the People's Republic of China, striking is illegal and viewed as counter-revolutionary

A lot of people here would say that neither the USSR or the PRC were Socialist in any sense of the word. Trade Unions have a vital part in the emancipation of the proletariat from this Capitalism, along with the Vanguard Party they are a good was to spread Class Consciousness

[Valdemar]

Trade unions are not needed in Socialist/Communist country.
Why:
Because Country is allready Workers state and whatever it does, it does for the workers and people.

Also:
Another thing about Trading Unions is that easily they can be hijacked by people who do not have Workers interest in their minds.

So in communist society they could be easily used to use workers to do things which would harm them in a long way. (Solidarity)
Therfore, they are not needed in post revolution society (Socialism/Communism)

Thats my humble opinion,

[Nox]

The Soviet Union and China weren't Socialist, so you can't use those as an example.

[CommieTroll]

Trade unions are not needed in Socialist/Communist country.
Why:
Because Country is allready Workers state and whatever it does, it does for the workers and people.

Also:
Another thing about Trading Unions is that easily they can be hijacked by people who do not have Workers interest in their minds.

So in communist society they could be easily used to use workers to do things which would harm them in a long way. (Solidarity)
Therfore, they are not needed in post revolution society (Socialism/Communism)

Thats my humble opinion, of course most of people here on RevLeft

How do you think the revolution happened in Russia? Without the worker's Soviets the Bolsheviks wouldn't have won

[Kosakk]

I'd say yes. The option should ALLWAYS be there.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

The Soviet Union and China weren't Socialist
:laugh:

[Nox]

How do you think the revolution happened in Russia? Without the worker's Soviets the Bolsheviks wouldn't have won

The Bolsheviks didn't win, they lost horribly and closed the elections :rolleyes:

[Nox]

:laugh:

I'm not sure what you're implying with that...

I hope you do realise that they weren't Socialist...

[Valdemar]

How do you think the revolution happened in Russia? Without the worker's Soviets the Bolsheviks wouldn't have won

You Trolling? Sorry, but Your reply and your nick does indicate that. Because I do not understand your reply, but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with me...
Are you sure you read what I wrote?

[RGacky3]

You Trolling? Sorry, but Your reply and your nick does indicate that. Because I do not understand your reply, but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with me...
Are you sure you read what I wrote?

Soviets WERE almost trade unions, organized geographically rather than industrially or by trade.

[Valdemar]

Soviets WERE almost trade unions, organized geographically rather than industrially or by trade.

Yup, i understood that, but what it has to with my reply? Care to explain me that...

[RGacky3]

Your basically staying organizations of workers democracy are not needed in a workers democracy.

[Rafiq]

These "What will exist under socialism" threads are pretty pointless imo.

But if we want to play the "Imagine what future society will look like" game, I'd imagine they wouldn't need to exist, since, you know, the proletariat would already be in a position of class dictatorship.

[Bud Struggle]

These "What will exist under socialism" threads are pretty pointless imo.

But if we want to play the "Imagine what future society will look like" game, I'd imagine they wouldn't need to exist, since, you know, the proletariat would already be in a position of class dictatorship.

They had a good one in Poland in the 80s and 90s.

[Rafiq]

They had a good one in Poland in the 80s and 90s.

I don't know what you were reffering to, but the proletariat was not in a position of class dictatorship so therefore trade unions were a normal result of a class antagonism that formed between the Polish bourgeoisie and the polish proletariat.


I hear Poland is better off now, anyway, though.

[RGacky3]

You can basically conclude that a country has NOTHING to do with socialism if they restrict unions.

[ComradeMan]

The same old terminology, the same old squabbles. Like I said in another thread, you guys sound like you come out of the 1970s.

It's time to rule a line under what happened in the past and look forward. I'm sick to death of the wisdom of failed revolutions, and long dead megalomaniacs.

[Rooster]

I would argue that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the capitalist class is being expropriated, then there would still be a need for trade unions. After the revolution? Who knows. They'd possibly evolve into local organs to help with distribution and production.

[Jose Gracchus]

The working-class will have ceased to exist under socialism in the Marxian, and meaningfully emancipatory sense, along with the social and juridicial entity of the capitalist enterprise, exchange, wages, capital, the state, and all other classes, including capitalists. This is actually part of the definition of socialism. The proletariat, and the bourgeoisie are the products of capital. The proletariat's continued existence signifies the continued existence of capital and of capitalism, and that signifies that further advances must be made to pursue the full abolition of value-production and all the social institutions which underpin it. The working-class may take political power under capitalism, and they may require the persistence of defensive forms like unions.

But to be honest, in this epoch, establishing the rule of the working-class and assaulting value-production will first involve shutting down the unnecessary production, farming out existing work over the entire able population currently frequently expelled from production, and the massive reduction of the working-day, and providing plenty of use-value needs purely ad libitum. The role of traditional labor unions seems quite confused in such a context; we are not dealing with some pseudo-"socialist" productivist farce like Stalinism where the workers need protect themselves from the accumulation drive, now imposed by the political center administratively rather than the "free play" of market forces.

[Bud Struggle]

The same old terminology, the same old squabbles. Like I said in another thread, you guys sound like you come out of the 1970s.

When it comes to Communism--what else is there to talk about? :)

[thefinalmarch]

Trade Unions ARE Socialism
what the fuck?

Anyway, whilst I was lurking around a year ago I remember coming across a thread (which I can't link to now, unfortunately, as I didn't bookmark it) where this very same topic was being discussed.

By the end of the thread the general consensus was that labour organisations of some sort should exist to address the concerns of free labourers who are, for example, working in dangerous or stressful environments, etc.

[tir1944]

You can basically conclude that a country has NOTHING to do with socialism if they restrict unions.
Early RSFSR often "restricted" the Unions...:rolleyes:

[thefinalmarch]

Early RSFSR often "restricted" the Unions...:rolleyes:
and in spite of all this and more you still don't fucking get that the RSFSR/USSR was never socialist.

[RGacky3]

Early RSFSR often "restricted" the Unions...:rolleyes:

My point exactly.


By the end of the thread the general consensus was that labour organisations of some sort should exist to address the concerns of free labourers who are, for example, working in dangerous or stressful environments, etc.

Thats the capitalist interpritation of what unions are for, i.e. they want to restrict them, relaly unions are whatever their memebers want them to be, in the sense that they are organs of worker control is the sense that they are socialist, and I believe are the center of socialist movements.

[thefinalmarch]

Thats the capitalist interpritation of what unions are for, i.e. they want to restrict them, relaly unions are whatever their memebers want them to be, in the sense that they are organs of worker control is the sense that they are socialist, and I believe are the center of socialist movements.
I mean to say that any sort of labour organisations in communist society would not of course be involved in capital-labour disputes, but they simply would be a platform for free workers to voice their concerns over working conditions, etc.

I really don't know where you got the idea that I wanted to restrict unions.

[RGacky3]

I missunderstood, I thought you were talking about unions under Capitalism, I think Unions under communism would basically the the equivilent of the board of directors now.

[RedGrunt]

The Bolsheviks didn't win, they lost horribly and closed the elections :rolleyes:

I believe they had majority vote in the Soviets, and they did not win the elections in the Provisional.

[tir1944]

and in spite of all this and more you still don't fucking get that the RSFSR/USSR was never socialist.
Says who?


The working-class will have ceased to exist under socialism in the Marxian, and meaningfully emancipatory sense, along with the social and juridicial entity of the capitalist enterprise, exchange, wages, capital, the state, and all other classes, including capitalists.
Is that so?
What are you basing this on,please?

[RGacky3]

Says who?


Well, what made it socialist? Did the workers have control over their production? No.

Was the economy run democratically? Nominally, but in reality not at all.

Sure they nationalized industries, but that does'nt make it automatically socialist does it?


Is that so?
What are you basing this on,please?

In the sense that the workers would be both the workers AND the capitalist in the sense that they labor and control the surplus, we are getting rid of the worker/capitalist distinction, by getting rid of capitalist power.


I believe they had majority vote in the Soviets, and they did not win the elections in the Provisional.

Only the petrograd soviet.

[tir1944]

Hey Gacky,what i'd like to see is primary sources/quotations from Marxist classics (or some other authors).
That should be "backbone" of every discussion,IMO at least.