Right-to-work protesters boo Ind. governor's address

[Klaatu]

Right-to-work protesters boo Ind. governor's address
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-11/indiana-right-work/52495786/1

My Point of View

I don't understand how these so-called "right-to-work" laws even can get on the books, as they are blatantly unconstitutional.
For example, the First Amendment (US) reads:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""the right of the people peaceably to assemble" means that you have a right to join a club or any organization (or a union!)

"to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" means not only the right to politically protest out in the streets,
it also can mean the right to collectively bargain for improved wages and working conditions. And if ANYONE has this right,
the PUBLIC SECTOR workers certainly do, vis-à-vis the Constitution itself!

And for some law to prevent a union (a private organization!) from collecting dues, is no different than banning any
private club or organization from collecting dues from its members. I wonder what would happen if I joined some ritzy
country club, paid my initiation fee, and then proudly declared that I was no longer going to pay membership dues.
How long would I last there before being thrown out by their bouncer?

The bottom line is that, right-to-work laws violate the First Amendment, and therefore have no right to exist.
All right-to-work laws must be struck down by the courts in every state that has them.

[Rafiq]

Yes yes, use bourgeois declarations and traditions as a means of criticizing something. This is a new low, even for yoi

[Klaatu]

Yes yes, use bourgeois declarations and traditions as a means of criticizing something. This is a new low, even for yoi

Well I figured I would be criticized for quoting the US Constitution, but we should use what we have available to us shouldn't we.

In the future, when the working class starts to realize they are getting screwed by the "bourgeois tradition," (as you put it) there can finally be permanent protections for workers, and not just a clarion call from some obscure leftist like myself who is trying hard to think outside the box on difficult social issues facing workers.

So then Rafiq, what is your solution to mitigate and stop the destruction of union rights? Have you any good ideas for us to consider?

[the last donut of the night]

Well I figured I would be criticized for quoting the US Constitution, but we should use what we have available to us shouldn't we.

In the future, when the working class starts to realize they are getting screwed by the "bourgeois tradition," (as you put it) there can finally be permanent protections for workers, and not just a clarion call from some obscure leftist like myself who is trying hard to think outside the box on difficult social issues facing workers.

So then Rafiq, what is your solution to mitigate and stop the destruction of union rights? Have you any good ideas for us to consider?

part of why the left is so small and insignificant nowadays is because it chooses to start its discourse limiting itself to bourgeois ideological diatribes. who cares what's available to "us"? the capitalists don't take their laws seriously, why should the working class?

[Veovis]

part of why the left is so small and insignificant nowadays is because it chooses to start its discourse limiting itself to bourgeois ideological diatribes. who cares what's available to "us"? the capitalists don't take their laws seriously, why should the working class?

Because a lot of the working class does, actually. You try saying "down with the constitution!" and see how may friends you make with the U.S. working class.

We are raised from kindergarten to believe that the U.S. constitution is the greatest document ever put to paper. Why do you think Ron Paul's "back to the constitution" routine is so popular? I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

[Klaatu]

Because a lot of the working class does, actually. You try saying "down with the constitution!" and see how may friends you make with the U.S. working class.

We are raised from kindergarten to believe that the U.S. constitution is the greatest document ever put to paper. Why do you think Ron Paul's "back to the constitution" routine is so popular? I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

When you are given lemons, you make lemonade. ;)


part of why the left is so small and insignificant nowadays is because it chooses to start its discourse limiting itself to bourgeois ideological diatribes. who cares what's available to "us"? the capitalists don't take their laws seriously, why should the working class?

So we would not have something like a "First Amendment" after the Socialist Revolution? :confused:

[the last donut of the night]

actually yes, i do want to bring down the constitution. don't you? the same one that supposedly defends your rights also upholds the rule of capital. isn't there something wrong there?

[Renegade Saint]

actually yes, i do want to bring down the constitution. don't you? the same one that supposedly defends your rights also upholds the rule of capital. isn't there something wrong there?
Rather than saying "down with the constitution" just try to calmly explain people the problems with how the government is structured by the constitution. The two most blatant are the senate (which is fundamentally and explicitly undemocratic and the appointed for life federal judiciary. Especially in wake of the Citizens United decision they're likely to agree with you on those issues. Obviously the senate is never going to vote to abolish itself, ergo we need revolution---->constitutional convention---->new constitution.

[Klaatu]

actually yes, i do want to bring down the constitution. don't you? the same one that supposedly defends your rights also upholds the rule of capital. isn't there something wrong there?

I specifically mentioned the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of assembly and the right to protest, used in order to nullify criminally unjust anti-labor laws, and you talk about "bringing down the (entire) Constitution because it "upholds the rule of capital." So what? That's not my argument here. One thing at a time.

Let's stick to the original premise. Are we going to use what we have available to us to help workers, or not? Are we going to sit by and watch while our labor comrades get the shaft?

You can fantasize all you want about how beautiful life will be after we throw out all of the capitalists, but workers need legal help now.


Rather than saying "down with the constitution" just try to calmly explain people the problems with how the government is structured by the constitution. The two most blatant are the senate (which is fundamentally and explicitly undemocratic and the appointed for life federal judiciary. Especially in wake of the Citizens United decision they're likely to agree with you on those issues. Obviously the senate is never going to vote to abolish itself, ergo we need revolution---->constitutional convention---->new constitution.

I agree, representative democracy is a failure. Replace it with direct democracy, the will of the people. (not just the will of the monied) Representative democracy may have been necessary in 18th century America, due to long travel times and other difficulties, but in this modern age of instant communication, it is no longer needed. In fact it has become so corrupt it has become like a malignant cancer.

[ckaihatsu]

The bottom line is that, right-to-work laws violate the First Amendment, and therefore have no right to exist.
All right-to-work laws must be struck down by the courts in every state that has them.





Yes yes, use bourgeois declarations and traditions as a means of criticizing something. This is a new low, even for yoi


Shhhhhhhhhh -- !

That was for the liberal reformists to take up as their banner...! (!!!)


= D

[the last donut of the night]

basing a tactic on "legal" or "legitimate" bases is just useless, that's all i'm saying. it's the approach taken by groups like the ACLU and as we can see, it rarely gets anything done. "our labor comrades" will get the shaft regardless of any kind of "legal help", because the capitalist state doesn't work on "legal" premises. it works to fulfill its needs, whether they follow a constitution or not. it's what i'm saying.

[Klaatu]

basing a tactic on "legal" or "legitimate" bases is just useless, that's all i'm saying. it's the approach taken by groups like the ACLU and as we can see, it rarely gets anything done. "our labor comrades" will get the shaft regardless of any kind of "legal help", because the capitalist state doesn't work on "legal" premises. it works to fulfill its needs, whether they follow a constitution or not. it's what i'm saying.

Sorry comrade, but that is a defeatist attitude to have. :(

[ckaihatsu]

basing a tactic on "legal" or "legitimate" bases is just useless, that's all i'm saying. it's the approach taken by groups like the ACLU and as we can see, it rarely gets anything done. "our labor comrades" will get the shaft regardless of any kind of "legal help", because the capitalist state doesn't work on "legal" premises. it works to fulfill its needs, whether they follow a constitution or not. it's what i'm saying.





Sorry comrade, but that is a defeatist attitude to have. :(


No, actually, it's *not* a defeatist attitude, nor is it inappropriately dismissive, by the yardstick of revolutionary politics.








The bottom line is that, right-to-work laws violate the First Amendment, and therefore have no right to exist.
All right-to-work laws must be struck down by the courts in every state that has them.


No revolutionary would / should propose a strictly *law*-based strategy in their efforts to build workers power. The strength of the working class is in its ability to organize on a *class* basis, so labor actions / strikes are a far better demonstration of that main strength of labor in its own best interests.

[Ocean Seal]

Strictly speaking right to work is not unconstitutional. What it says isn't that you can't join a union but rather that not every employee must join a union. That way the union doesn't work anymore and the boss can just bring in scabs and pay them higher wages.
Lolbertarians often trot out the we want people to have freedom card here, but rather ironically, if you tell them that a boss is abusing his power they just say: "find a new job". Which could without much difficulty be applied to workers who don't want to work with a union.

In any case I don't really care for lolbertarians or the constitution so I'll just get back to supporting the protesters because it is in my class interest to do so.

[Klaatu]

No revolutionary would / should propose a strictly *law*-based strategy in their efforts to build workers power. The strength of the working class is in its ability to organize on a *class* basis, so labor actions / strikes are a far better demonstration of that main strength of labor in its own best interests.

I was not suggesting that law/constitutional strategy is the only means of protecting worker interest. Demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, advertising, propaganda, (but not violence) are all tools which we would use to achieve labor goals (which includes class equality)

Once our society has become fair and equal, the important gains will be enshrined in writing (The Labor Constitution of America for example)


Strictly speaking right to work is not unconstitutional. What it says isn't that you can't join a union but rather that not every employee must join a union. That way the union doesn't work anymore and the boss can just bring in scabs and pay them higher wages.


It would depend on how the law is written. My OP attacks the idea that the state allows a worker to join, but then says that he does not have to pay dues. It would be as if I walked into one of those politician's $1,000-a-plate fundraiser dinner, and refused to pay more than the $20 or so the dinner was actually worth. Ohh my, they would not like that at all! :p

[Ocean Seal]

It would depend on how the law is written. My OP attacks the idea that the state allows a worker to join, but then says that he does not have to pay dues. It would be as if I walked into one of those politician's $1,000-a-plate fundraiser dinner, and refused to pay more than the $20 or so the dinner was actually worth. Ohh my, they would not like that at all!

Your example shows quite clearly that the constitution is filled to the brim with holes. Yes the bourgeoisie wouldn't like it, but they easily just call what you are doing theft and move on. They don't care about logic, justice, or even their own damn constitution. The Constitutional route is useful sometimes, but not now. When the language in it is vague it tends to be in the bosses control. There is nothing the Constitution that can stop this, its just the way that it is. The way to stop it is locking down the factory in a militant and "un-constitutional" manner.

[Klaatu]

Your example shows quite clearly that the constitution is filled to the brim with holes. Yes the bourgeoisie wouldn't like it, but they easily just call what you are doing theft and move on. They don't care about logic, justice, or even their own damn constitution. The Constitutional route is useful sometimes, but not now. When the language in it is vague it tends to be in the bosses control. There is nothing the Constitution that can stop this, its just the way that it is. The way to stop it is locking down the factory in a militant and "un-constitutional" manner.

I think you're right to a certain extent.

But I still think we should try to use any means necessary (sans violence) to free the worker.

Here is an article from last week in The Nation (interesting tactics)
Labor Takes Aim at Walmart—Again
http://www.thenation.com/article/165437/labor-takes-aim-walmart-again

[ckaihatsu]

Once our society has become fair and equal, the important gains will be enshrined in writing (The Labor Constitution of America for example)


Your formulation here is problematic in several ways, from a Marxist / communist perspective:

- "Fair" and "equal" are abstractions that beg definition and context, just like "liberty". There's a current discussion here at RevLeft about this topic:







The political abstraction you use "dates" you on the timeline of historical development -- it's the point in history where you think society progressed just as far as it needed to, with no more social progress needed since then / after that.

What exactly does "Liberty" even mean?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/exactly-does-liberty-t166650/index.html

- Arguably *nothing* about a bottom-up society should be "enshrined" -- the term itself suggests an immovability and reverence, as if to a deity. As far as social policy and administration go, it would probably be more fitting to envision a continuous "bubbling up" of ferment from below, over one set of demands or another, once capitalism has been overthrown for good.







God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

- The very use of a formal constitution is a legal-type *bourgeois* institution, one that implies the establishment of authority. There's no reason to presume that a post-capitalist class-*less* society would require the exercise of power through a social dichotomy of any kind. Rather, once the means of mass industrial production have been fully democratized / socialized, the emphasis would be on a mass-productive *functionality* -- perhaps oral-tradition-like received-wisdom and best-practices, as through guidelines, would be society's operative framework instead of dependence on a fixed, codified, strict, separated authority.

[Luís Henrique]

part of why the left is so small and insignificant nowadays is because it chooses to start its discourse limiting itself to bourgeois ideological diatribes. who cares what's available to "us"?

On the contrary, a huge part of the left's insignificance in the United States is related to its obnoxious refusal to deal with American realities. You do have a Constitution; such constitution does grant workers and people in general some rights - why wouldn't the left demand that at least those rights are respected by the bourgeosie?

Instead, what we have are (very bourgeois in themselves) diatribes on how the Constitution is bourgeois, and how we should rather be forbidden the right to unionise and protest than invoke the Constitution in defence of our rights.


the capitalists don't take their laws seriously, why should the working class?

They don't take their laws seriously because the working class doesn't take them to the task of taking them seriously. Organise, build an actual working class movement, and you will see whether they will respect their laws.

Luís Henrique

[Klaatu]

Your formulation here is problematic in several ways, from a Marxist / communist perspective:

- "Fair" and "equal" are abstractions that beg definition and context, just like "liberty". There's a current discussion here at RevLeft about this topic:

- Arguably *nothing* about a bottom-up society should be "enshrined" -- the term itself suggests an immovability and reverence, as if to a deity. As far as social policy and administration go, it would probably be more fitting to envision a continuous "bubbling up" of ferment from below, over one set of demands or another, once capitalism has been overthrown for good.

- The very use of a formal constitution is a legal-type *bourgeois* institution, one that implies the establishment of authority. There's no reason to presume that a post-capitalist class-*less* society would require the exercise of power through a social dichotomy of any kind. Rather, once the means of mass industrial production have been fully democratized / socialized, the emphasis would be on a mass-productive *functionality* -- perhaps oral-tradition-like received-wisdom and best-practices, as through guidelines, would be society's operative framework instead of dependence on a fixed, codified, strict, separated authority.

I think you are forgetting something very important here (the very thing libertarians and other idealists have not considered either) and that is: What about the criminal element of society? When I say "criminal element" I don't necessarily mean only criminals per se, I mean the "robber-baron," the greedy type that try to wrestle power and wealth for themselves... how do we control this? Isn't that what authority is for?
I understand the idea that people do not like to be told what to do (they dislike authority) but someone has to enforce rules.

And we have to have rules. Otherwise we have no civilization.

Just as things tend to naturally rot and decay, society itself naturally decays and degenerates into capitalism, the lowest and most immoral form of barter and trade among all forms of economic systems, encompassing such shameful enterprises such as narcotics and prostitution, for example (The government does not sell dope and hookers, but capitalists do) Capitalists used to employ child labor and slavery too, until they were stopped.

Capitalism is prone to and is the breeding ground of organized crime and wage slavery, especially in the absence of strong unions and the rule of law (consider what happened to the former USSR)

Yes we do need rules and written laws, lest society slip back and regress backward into the darkest days of capitalism.

_

[ckaihatsu]

I think you are forgetting something very important here (the very thing libertarians and other idealists have not considered either) and that is: What about the criminal element of society? When I say "criminal element" I don't necessarily mean only criminals per se, I mean the "robber-baron," the greedy type that try to wrestle power and wealth for themselves... how do we control this? Isn't that what authority is for?
I understand the idea that people do not like to be told what to do (they dislike authority) but someone has to enforce rules.

And we have to have rules. Otherwise we have no civilization.


I appreciate this point, and I personally have no problem with the use of formal rules and authority -- or 'policy'. The heart of the matter, of course, is how the policy comes to be formulated and whose interests it tends to be in.





Just as things tend to naturally rot and decay, society itself naturally decays and degenerates into capitalism,


This is *not* a given, any more than saying "things tend to naturally rot and decay into feudalism, or slavery". This is essentially an argument for some kind of 'social entropy', and is no more factual than its counterpart, the *cosmic* argument for 'entropy'.

Any tendencies towards entropy are countered by the self-organization of living matter, and of social organization involving cooperation -- conferring increasing-returns benefits for participants (and beyond).





the lowest and most immoral form of barter and trade among all forms of economic systems, encompassing such shameful enterprises such as narcotics and prostitution, for example (The government does not sell dope and hookers, but capitalists do) Capitalists used to employ child labor and slavery too, until they were stopped.

Capitalism is prone to and is the breeding ground of organized crime and wage slavery, especially in the absence of strong unions and the rule of law (consider what happened to the former USSR)

Yes we do need rules and written laws, lest society slip back and regress backward into the darkest days of capitalism.

_


I'll also note that you tend to be emphasizing the *exception*-to-the-rule -- certainly formal rules and authority can't anticipate *every* circumstance, and no form of societal organization will be 'perfect'.

*And* functional norms -- "anarchy" -- will often provide an *emergent* social organization based on overall context, regardless of whether formalism exists or not. (Consider the extreme conventionality that goes with driving a car in traffic -- *not* an area where anyone would benefit from being a "creative driver".)

[Rafiq]

Well I figured I would be criticized for quoting the US Constitution, but we should use what we have available to us shouldn't we.

If you were a worker who lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia, would you use their constitution? After all, we should use what we have available, right? How about fuck no.




So then Rafiq, what is your solution to mitigate and stop the destruction of union rights? Have you any good ideas for us to consider?

The same way Union rights were one: Through intense class struggle. The Bourgeois rationalism that is persistent in your posts is quite obvious, Klaatu. This is a war going on right now between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Should the power of Labor rise once more, they will be forced to enact new union rights. The bourgeois scum will change their constitutions when it best serves them. It's like using Mein Kemph to criticize hitler.

[Rafiq]

Because a lot of the working class does, actually. You try saying "down with the constitution!" and see how may friends you make with the U.S. working class.

We are raised from kindergarten to believe that the U.S. constitution is the greatest document ever put to paper. Why do you think Ron Paul's "back to the constitution" routine is so popular? I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

Look, more Idealism.

The point is, is that the dissatisfaction with the Bourgeois Constitution from the proletariat is not something that simply just comes through a third party external force (academics, revlefters) spreading propaganda, it comes naturally.

[Rafiq]

On the contrary, a huge part of the left's insignificance in the United States is related to its obnoxious refusal to deal with American realities. You do have a Constitution; such constitution does grant workers and people in general some rights - why wouldn't the left demand that at least those rights are respected by the bourgeosie?

Instead, what we have are (very bourgeois in themselves) diatribes on how the Constitution is bourgeois, and how we should rather be forbidden the right to unionise and protest than invoke the Constitution in defence of our rights.



They don't take their laws seriously because the working class doesn't take them to the task of taking them seriously. Organise, build an actual working class movement, and you will see whether they will respect their laws.

Luís Henrique

You're wrong, Henrique, and you're a champion of Bourgeois thought at that.

The Left's insignificance has nothing to do with it's decisions. It's decisions are merely a result of material conditions brought about in the destruction of working class power in the 1980's and 1990's. It furtherly was destroyed in the 1990's due to the economic "Success" that was built.

There is nothing any part of the revolutionary left can do to revive class struggle. Class struggle is something that is revived spontaneously regardless of the consent of any external third party force. "The Left" becomes the movement that represents this class struggle, unlike, say, any party in the United States.

All of the working class parties in the U.S. degenerated into opportunist parties that have nothing to do with the class interests of the proletariat in modern times.

participating in the United States political process only ties the political proletariat to the constraint that is our current situation. We must, with no hesitations, demand the impossible. Class struggle is going to rise once more, soon. It's inevitable.

So, when we say matter is before thought, we mean more than that. We mean material conditions precede parties, they proceed political organizations, ideologies, etc. etc.

The point is that the proletariat should organize itself regardless of the consent of the Bourgeois constitution. They can, in a heart beat (as was done in Reagan's time) use their bloody constitution to force the working class to kneel before them. And they'll fucking do it again if they like.