Socialist Equality Party

[Prinskaj]

I just stumbled upon this political party, and they seem, for American standards, to be pretty radical.
http://socialequality.com/
What do you guys think?

[eric922]

From a quick read of their website,they seem fairly radical. However, they are a Trotskyist party, which I don't mind, but if you aren't a Trotskyist you may not agree with them.

[Renegade Saint]

Well, they're hyper-sectarian for one. The World Socialist Website is run by the SEP, and it devotes considerable bandwidth to attacking every other leftist group out there.
The SEP is also anti-union, which may or may not have to do with the fact that the party leader is the CEO of a non-unionized printing factory. (see David North/Green).

[Grenzer]

They seem pretty radical indeed, but they are Trotskyists.

Seems like just another small, insignificant sect. It's amazing how many there are in the United States. There are only a few parties of consequence, and even those seem to constantly split and fracture. Not sure why, but Trotskyist groups seem to be particularly prone to splitting up and having ultra-sectarian strife(even by leftist standards).

[Q]

However, they are a Trotskyist party, which I don't mind, but if you aren't a Trotskyist you may not agree with them.

Great effort to put everything along sectarian lines again. We need people like you to keep Revleft the quagmire that it is.

Anyway, the SEP is a grouping that has been discussed quite often here. Please do a search.

In a nutshell:
- The SEP runs a website called the World Socialist Website (http://wsws.org/) which runs like a news aggregation.
- The SEP is the result of a split that happened in the 1980's in the Workers Revolutionary Party in the UK, which at the time completely imploded and of which the SEP is one of the larger fragments. It organises its international affilates as the "International Committee for the Fourth International", but there are at least two other "ICFI's" out there still.
- The leading guru, David North, runs a business (a printing shop) under the legal name "David Green". This shop is run by SEP members and has an annual turnover of about 25 million dollars (read this page (http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html) for more info and a critique).
- The SEP is known for its explicit anti-union stand. All workers at the printing shop are disallowed from unionising as well.

[Prinskaj]

The SEP is known for its explicit anti-union stand. All workers at the printing shop are disallowed from unionising as well.
Wait what!.. How can an organisation call itself socialist, when it doesn't support unions?

[Dr Doom]

the wsw is a valuable resource i think. i dunno too much about the SEP itself except they have a seriously dodgy past, all that crazy shit their former leader Gerry Healy did back when they were the Workers League and also some of the sexist and homophobic shit they came out with in the 70s. 'The working class hates faggots and so do we!

[eric922]

Great effort to put everything along sectarian lines again. We need people like you to keep Revleft the quagmire that it is.

Anyway, the SEP is a grouping that has been discussed quite often here. Please do a search.

In a nutshell:
- The SEP runs a website called the World Socialist Website (http://wsws.org/) which runs like a news aggregation.
- The SEP is the result of a split that happened in the 1980's in the Workers Revolutionary Party in the UK, which at the time completely imploded and of which the SEP is one of the larger fragments. It organises its international affilates as the "International Committee for the Fourth International", but there are at least two other "ICFI's" out there still.
- The leading guru, David North, runs a business (a printing shop) under the legal name "David Green". This shop is run by SEP members and has an annual turnover of about 25 million dollars (read this page (http://www.internationalist.org/wherewasdavidnorth.html) for more info and a critique).
- The SEP is known for its explicit anti-union stand. All workers at the printing shop are disallowed from unionising as well.
What did I say that was sectarain, aside from the fact that they are Trotskyists and if you aren't are Trotskyist you probably won't agree with them. For the record, I see no use in this or any of the other 100s of minor parties in the U.S. We would be much better off trying to form one large party to focus on helping organize the working class instead of fighting amongst ourselves.

[Q]

For the record, I see no use in this or any of the other 100s of minor parties in the U.S. We would be much better off trying to form one large party to focus on helping organize the working class instead of fighting amongst ourselves.

That I agree with completely. For this to happen however, we need a paradigm shift on the left, away from sectarian values and towards democratic values where disagreement is not only normal, but considered a much respected value of any comrade.

Sorry for my somewhat allergic response earlier.

[Kassad]

They are one of the more discreet cults on the left. David North keeps a stranglehold on all political work and they're incredibly anti-union, which made it even more hilarious when they tried to join us protesting Senate Bill 5 in Ohio and we told them to fuck off. They come off, much like the Socialist Workers Party in the United States, as the tie-wearing Trotskyist types. From people I know who have worked with them, they say it is incredibly cultish and you're pretty much told what to believe and anything in opposition is reactionary. Then again, half of the left is like that at times.

But yeah, back away and back away quickly.

[eric922]

That I agree with completely. For this to happen however, we need a paradigm shift on the left, away from sectarian values and towards democratic values where disagreement is not only normal, but considered a much respected value of any comrade.

Sorry for my somewhat allergic response earlier.
It's fine and I agree with your point completely. I've looked into so many different parties over the years and it really makes me feel pessimistic, because the left as a whole is very divided against itself. The various parties can't agree to work together. Hell, I've heard stories about some small parties spitting in two over tiny issues. There are a lot of leftist parties in the U.S. and if they united, we might be able to get something done. However, as it is, I'm half scared if a revolutionary situation did arise, the Left would be too busy fighting amongst itself to help the working class. On the other hand, I know for a fact the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc would part aside their differences to crush any revolutionary movement.

[GoddessCleoLover]

A Trotskyite sect run by a cultish leader who owns a non-union printing shop and actively opposes unionization efforts? Mark Twain was well and truly on to something when he wrote that truth is stranger than fiction because authors of fiction tend to be constrained by "possibilities". The whole thing is nearly laugh a laugh but really a cry, to quote Roger Waters. Seriously, there has to be some type of brainwashing going on to have an anti-Union socialist organization. I can imagine that someone who falls in with them is forced to constantly re-read Trotsky's position at the 1921 Party Congress and somehow find it applicable. It's astounding, really.

[Prometeo liberado]

I was watching my stopwatch to see how long the north/green thing would take to pop up. Not long apparently. I have never worked with them and as I have never met anyone who has I will reserve any negative comment. They are aligned with the fourth international and do love their neckties though.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I live in Baltimore city, Maryland in the USA and there is no doubt that working-class Baltimoreans pride themselves in their distinctive proletarian neckties. ROFLMAO. Seriously, wearing a necktie these days is a sign of either being a member of the petit-bourgeoisie or being the wage slave of some bourgeois tyrant who mandate that his employees wear neckties.

[TrotskistMarx]

True, another thing I've noticed about The folks of wsws.org website is that they are too sectarian. They don't support The Bolivarian Revolution, and the other left-leaning governments of Latin America. They don't support Hugo Chavez. So they are a little bit like The International Communist Current (ICC). Of course many socialist groups do not support the governments of Cuba and the government of Venezuela, not only the ICC and the Socialist Equality Parties, thanks

.


From a quick read of their website,they seem fairly radical. However, they are a Trotskyist party, which I don't mind, but if you aren't a Trotskyist you may not agree with them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I live in Baltimore city, Maryland in the USA and there is no doubt that working-class Baltimoreans pride themselves in their distinctive proletarian neckties. ROFLMAO. Seriously, wearing a necktie these days is a sign of either being a member of the petit-bourgeoisie or being the wage slave of some bourgeois tyrant who mandate that his employees wear neckties.

When I think of people who wear neckties I instantly go to those religious people who go door to door annoying people.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQre4Q90Va-iUcALjM5eDOcgWnM9cwbDAqtCOXs5QPgADG0DLg3

[GoddessCleoLover]

We have those too in Baltimore. They strike me as having walked out of a time warp from the 1950s.

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, we need a united socialist front, 1 big pole composed of all the socialists and leftists into 1 big pole. But there are many many sectarian leftists that won't join it. For some reason I can't explain here, humans in general tend to be too group-narcissists, family-narcissists, and clan-narcissists. And indeed, people tend to have an extreme love and support for their group they belong too, and a sort of hatred for anybody that does not belong to their team, group or federation. And America is like that, the whole USA is divided into clans, sub-cultures, families, churches, groups. That's why most americans after they come home from work, hide in their coocoons, with their own wives and children, to protect themselves from an irrational fear toward the outside world.

having said all this, what I am trying to say is that there is lots and lots of sectarianism, group-thinking mentality in America, and maybe that's why forming a United Socialist Marxist Front is so hard in this Divided States of America. thanks

.


That I agree with completely. For this to happen however, we need a paradigm shift on the left, away from sectarian values and towards democratic values where disagreement is not only normal, but considered a much respected value of any comrade.

Sorry for my somewhat allergic response earlier.

[Prometeo liberado]

Indeed, we need a united socialist front, 1 big pole composed of all the socialists and leftists into 1 big pole. But there are many many sectarian leftists that won't join it. For some reason I can't explain here, humans in general tend to be too group-narcissists, family-narcissists, and clan-narcissists. And indeed, people tend to have an extreme love and support for their group they belong too, and a sort of hatred for anybody that does not belong to their team, group or federation. And America is like that, the whole USA is divided into clans, sub-cultures, families, churches, groups. That's why most americans after they come home from work, hide in their coocoons, with their own wives and children, to protect themselves from an irrational fear toward the outside world.

having said all this, what I am trying to say is that there is lots and lots of sectarianism, group-thinking mentality in America, and maybe that's why forming a United Socialist Marxist Front is so hard in this Divided States of America. thanks

.
Can we replace the pole with a tent? I want a tent. And I want one of their own wives as well. A tent(not a pole) and their own wives. Thats what I want, a United Socialist Marxist Front in this Divided States of America with a tent and their wives. Thats what I want.

P.S. Sorry it was impossible to resist.

[shaneo]

Wait what!.. How can an organisation call itself socialist, when it doesn't support unions?

Don't sound so surprised. If the unions are not socialist (which they are not) then why would a socialist organisation support them?

Read wsws.org, then dispute what they are saying.

[shaneo]

They are one of the more discreet cults on the left. David North keeps a stranglehold on all political work and they're incredibly anti-union, which made it even more hilarious when they tried to join us protesting Senate Bill 5 in Ohio and we told them to fuck off. They come off, much like the Socialist Workers Party in the United States, as the tie-wearing Trotskyist types. From people I know who have worked with them, they say it is incredibly cultish and you're pretty much told what to believe and anything in opposition is reactionary. Then again, half of the left is like that at times.

But yeah, back away and back away quickly.

So they were exercising their right to protest against a bill, and you told them to F off... which was "funny".

Now who's "incredibly cultish"?

Back away from what? Facts?

In what way does David North keep a "stranglehold on all political work"?

Most trade union bureaucrats don't like the WSWS and SEP because they regularly point out the crimes and betrayals of the unions. Prove me wrong. Show me an example of an article, regarding trade unions, on the wsws that is incorrect. For all the complaints over wsws and sep I've seen on these forums, not one has shown anything they have said which is false.

The left is divided, but that's the beauty of allowing different opinions.
The problem with uniting the left is that the united group usually ends up operating within the orbit of the dems in the US (and the Labour party in the UK), because come election time these "left groups" unquestionably allow the circulation of phrases like "anyone but Bush", and then tell their supporters to vote dem or labour to stop the other capitalist parties getting in. How are they any better?

During the last government, Labour presided over the largest upward re-distribution of wealth in recent history. Still the unions fund and support them!!! Surely, that tells you all you need to know about our current collection of trade unions, and anyone who tries to suggest that trade unions are socialist.

Don't forget... If you vote, and encourage a corrupt political system, then you have no right to complain when that system turns around harms you.

[Kassad]

Yeah. It was funny as shit to see a bunch of fake socialists show up at a rally organized by unions from across Ohio that was attended by tens of thousands of rank and file workers and tell them how bourgeois they were for being a part of said unions. I'd assume North keeps a stranglehold on political work through his non-unionized printing company. Food for thought.

[shaneo]

First up I'd like to say that I'm in no way part of the sep, but do find the wsws a good read. Just because the guy happens to own a business doesn't mean he can't push for a better political system.
Why would he allow a unionised workforce if he doesn't believe the unions do any good. Maybe he keeps his workforce happy by paying them well? You can't possibly know.
Anyway, my point still stands; why support unions, when they pass that support onto capitalist parties like Labour UK and Dems US?

[shaneo]

Look, workers now realise that the unions are just agents of big business, that is why union support is historically dwindling, and the wsws (which points out the crimes of the unions) is seeing its readership increase.
All I know is that if you're a trade union supporter, last one out turn the light off, eh?

Clearly there are still some trade union supporters who still by into the lies, because I've only been a member of this forum for a few ours, and I'm at negative 8.

[A Marxist Historian]

First up I'd like to say that I'm in no way part of the sep, but do find the wsws a good read. Just because the guy happens to own a business doesn't mean he can't push for a better political system.
Why would he allow a unionised workforce if he doesn't believe the unions do any good. Maybe he keeps his workforce happy by paying them well? You can't possibly know.
Anyway, my point still stands; why support unions, when they pass that support onto capitalist parties like Labour UK and Dems US?

Yes indeed, why allow unions if you are an employer? And why allow the workers to make decisions like that themselves, everybody knows workers are all stupid anyway right?

It's not just "socialist" capitalists like Mr. North who try to prevent the working class from organizing, it's all the capitalists.

When the workers take over, all the anti-union capitalists will lose their property, including Mr. North. Whether or not they pay the workers well to keep the unions out, like Mr. North, I am told, does, and like various bright capitalists do from time to time.

No doubt he will accuse the workers taking his business away from him of being reformists or Stalinists or something.

-M.H.-

[shaneo]

Yes indeed, why allow unions if you are an employer? And why allow the workers to make decisions like that themselves, everybody knows workers are all stupid anyway right?

It's not just "socialist" capitalists like Mr. North who try to prevent the working class from organizing, it's all the capitalists.

When the workers take over, all the anti-union capitalists will lose their property, including Mr. North. Whether or not they pay the workers well to keep the unions out, like Mr. North, I am told, does, and like various bright capitalists do from time to time.

No doubt he will accuse the workers taking his business away from him of being reformists or Stalinists or something.

-M.H.-

You don't know that his staff haven't decided themselves that they don't want unions.

The union leaders will also lose their property.

The fact that he has a successful business is irrelevant. He has no choice but to try and make a profit in the capitalist system. You don't know that he does make a profit. I've heard some figures around to do with the turnover of his business, but that doesn't mean he has that much money. he could be operating at break even for all you know.
Presumably, Billy Bragg is a capitalist because he sells T-shirts at his concerts; and that you are a capitalist because you buy and sell goods with money, and the last time you sold a car you tried to make as much money as possible on it..
Why focus on the distraction point of david North? It's like restricting political discussion to race, gender, and sexual orientation.

As yet, I still don't have an answer to the big questions, so I'll ask again...
Why support unions, when they pass that support onto capitalist parties like Labour UK and Dems US?

[shaneo]

I just noticed that Revleft sells Che-Guevara T-shirts (classy!) on its website. Presumably, Revleft is capitalist now as well?

[shaneo]

When the workers take over, all the anti-union capitalists will lose their property, including Mr. North. Whether or not they pay the workers well to keep the unions out, like Mr. North, I am told, does, and like various bright capitalists do from time to time.

-M.H.-

If the workers take over, the well heeled union leaders will also lose their property. If the unions take over, then they will not. This is why the unions, despite the rhetoric, are opposed to socialism and always seek to diffuse rank and file grievances, but never call for a workers system of governance, (ie. real democracy, end of parliamentary control) and instead try to work within the existing dead end system.

If, as you have heard, Mr North does pay his staff well, then surely that should make trade unions happy. But it doesn't because the trade unions don't have the control, and in our capitalist system (where the trade unions are there to control workers and lead them down narrow alleys) this is anathema.

[Lucretia]

If the workers take over, the well heeled union leaders will also lose their property. If the unions take over, then they will not. This is why the unions, despite the rhetoric, are opposed to socialism and always seek to diffuse rank and file grievances, but never call for a workers system of governance, (ie. real democracy, end of parliamentary control) and instead try to work within the existing dead end system.

If, as you have heard, Mr North does pay his staff well, then surely that should make trade unions happy. But it doesn't because the trade unions don't have the control, and in our capitalist system (where the trade unions are there to control workers and lead them down narrow alleys) this is anathema.

I think you're missing the point, which isn't about whether socialists support union bureaucrats taking anything over. It's about whether workers' organization is something that should be fought for, even in cases where the organization isn't necessarily premised on revolutionary politics, with the understanding that workers' organization is a *necessary* but not sufficient condition for socialist struggle. For socialists who are serious about revolution, the answer must be yes.

I mean, if North had been around in Russia in 1917, would he have denounced the soviets at "unions"?

[shaneo]

I think you're missing the point, which isn't about whether socialists support union bureaucrats taking anything over. It's about whether workers' organization is something that should be fought for, even in cases where the organization isn't necessarily premised on revolutionary politics, with the understanding that workers' organization is a *necessary* but not sufficient condition for socialist struggle. For socialists who are serious about revolution, the answer must be yes.

I mean, if North had been around in Russia in 1917, would he have denounced the soviets at "unions"?

Point taken regarding Mr North. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the SEP, and don't see how they can complain about the "two (or three in the UK) party system", and then put candidates forward in that very system.

Surely your text contradicts itself? You, as someone who is serious about revolution, wishes to support organizations that aren't premised on revolutionary politics. A workers organisation should be fought for, but I don't see that the existing trade unions are it. Too often they sell their members out, and that isn't right. The fact that they direct funds and support to capitalist parties, proves that they are anything but "workers organizations". In their current guise, they certainly arent what Marx had in mind anyway.

If trade unions are not about revolutionary struggle, then they cannot be the route by which workers will achieve socialism and democracy. It's the lesser evil thing, isn't it? I mean, you shouldn't vote Labour or Democrat just because they are less bad than the Torys or Republicans. If you do, you only encourage the system, and you're stuck with the same crooks for four years. Then if you try and question their actions, you are told, "Well, people voted us in". So you shouldn't support unions just because it's the only workers organization there is, otherwise they can justify criminal actions by stating that they have the support of workers. Surely we should scrap the existing capitalist unions and replace them with real workers unions?

This thread is meant to be about the SEP, but just seems to focus on financial rumours, and the personality of Mr North. What has the wsws said that is incorrect about the existing clique of trade unions?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Point taken regarding Mr North. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the SEP, and don't see how they can complain about the "two (or three in the UK) party system", and then put candidates forward in that very system.

Surely your text contradicts itself? You, as someone who is serious about revolution, wishes to support organizations that aren't premised on revolutionary politics. A workers organisation should be fought for, but I don't see that the existing trade unions are it. Too often they sell their members out, and that isn't right. The fact that they direct funds and support to capitalist parties, proves that they are anything but "workers organizations". In their current guise, they certainly arent what Marx had in mind anyway.

If trade unions are not about revolutionary struggle, then they cannot be the route by which workers will achieve socialism and democracy. It's the lesser evil thing, isn't it? I mean, you shouldn't vote Labour or Democrat just because they are less bad than the Torys or Republicans. If you do, you only encourage the system, and you're stuck with the same crooks for four years. Then if you try and question their actions, you are told, "Well, people voted us in". So you shouldn't support unions just because it's the only workers organization there is, otherwise they can justify criminal actions by stating that they have the support of workers. Surely we should scrap the existing capitalist unions and replace them with real workers unions?

This thread is meant to be about the SEP, but just seems to focus on financial rumours, and the personality of Mr North. What has the wsws said that is incorrect about the existing clique of trade unions?
They have a long and particularly awful history. Yes ICFI was on the correct side of the fight against Michel Pablo in the 50s. They produced some excellent Trotskyist literature. But Healy was always a real operator, always obsessed with money -- and was never one to treat an internal opponent with anything other than brutality. But they were instrumental in screwing up the revolutionary opposition in the SWP in the US, and then went on to very anti-marxist positions, on Mao and the Cultural Revolution, then supporting Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. They are, essentially hucksters. When Healy was ousted, THEN all of these recriminations and "revelations' came out. It was pretty obvious to outsiders at the time that they were on Qadaffi's payroll -- North could not have been unaware. My suggestion is to avoid any political entity that traces its roots to Healy, unless it split sharply and with prejudice a long time ago (e.g., ICL and maybe the WSL).

[SpiritiualMarxist]

Socialists should support unions for one, what they represent; which is opposition to capitalists who currently own the means of production. Secondly, being anti-union doesn't achieve ANYTHING at all but depowers workers in the very place they're being exploited, as well as robs the working class the practice of struggle and making decisions about their workplace. The strategy should be to organize the rank and file workers so that they may oust the bureaucrats. This strategy was effective in the Chicago Teacher's Union and now the union leader is an open socialist.

The fact that the party leader owns a unionized company is the result, not the cause, of his terrible ideology. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's a harsh boss but it does present evidence to the fact that he isn't committed to workers having say in the means of production, which causes me to be highly suspicious towards someone who claims to represent the interest of the working class.

[shaneo]

They have a long and particularly awful history. Yes ICFI was on the correct side of the fight against Michel Pablo in the 50s. They produced some excellent Trotskyist literature. But Healy was always a real operator, always obsessed with money -- and was never one to treat an internal opponent with anything other than brutality. But they were instrumental in screwing up the revolutionary opposition in the SWP in the US, and then went on to very anti-marxist positions, on Mao and the Cultural Revolution, then supporting Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. They are, essentially hucksters. When Healy was ousted, THEN all of these recriminations and "revelations' came out. It was pretty obvious to outsiders at the time that they were on Qadaffi's payroll -- North could not have been unaware. My suggestion is to avoid any political entity that traces its roots to Healy, unless it split sharply and with prejudice a long time ago (e.g., ICL and maybe the WSL).

Of course, we can find dirty laundry in anyones cupboard, and no doubt Healy was a nasty bit of work, but some of what you mention above is rumour and borderline libelous. How can you say "they" are essentially hucksters, when a lot of the people currently involved with the wsws were not around in Healy's day?

And what about now? So I ask again (in a final attempt to get away from personality politics), What have the wsws ever said about our current clique of trade unions that is untrue?

[shaneo]

Socialists should support unions for one, what they represent; which is opposition to capitalists who currently own the means of production. Secondly, being anti-union doesn't achieve ANYTHING at all but depowers workers in the very place they're being exploited, as well as robs the working class the practice of struggle and making decisions about their workplace. The strategy should be to organize the rank and file workers so that they may oust the bureaucrats. This strategy was effective in the Chicago Teacher's Union and now the union leader is an open socialist.

The fact that the party leader owns a unionized company is the result, not the cause, of his terrible ideology. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's a harsh boss but it does present evidence to the fact that he isn't committed to workers having say in the means of production, which causes me to be highly suspicious towards someone who claims to represent the interest of the working class.

What do unions represent, apart from Labour in the UK and the dems in the US? They certainly do not oppose capitalists who own the means of production. If they do oppose them, then why do they fund capitalist parties, who are there to ensure that workers do not gain control over the means of production? Still the same question needs answering: What has the wsws said against our current trade unions that is false?

You state that being anti-union depowers workers, but the opposite is true. The unions work closely with government and companies. Their job is to contain, and act as a safety valve for workers grievances. See previous comments.

Again we end up discussing Mr North, rather than the SEP... Why would he be committed to workers having a say in his company? He started the company (presumably) and he has invested the capital. As he has taken the risk, he has to take the hard decisions. Otherwise, he is giving a say over his capital to others who will not try to preserve or grow his capital. They will instead work in their interests. We all need to eat - even Mr North. Are you telling me, in the cause of being a Socialist, that you have never bought or sold goods with money?

If you don't like it, and want socialism, get your "union" to "unite" with all the other unions around the globe and end capitalism. No? Union rep too busy at the Labour party conference? Or better to just "pressure the Democrats from the left"?

After all, the unions have done so much for you so far, eh? I'd like to know... what has your union gained for you? Not, what has it stopped from being taken from you, but what has it gained for you?

[shaneo]

The strategy should be to organize the rank and file workers so that they may oust the bureaucrats. This strategy was effective in the Chicago Teacher's Union and now the union leader is an open socialist.
.

If you are referring to the election of CORE (or in other words) the ISO, which exists in the orbit of the Democratic party:

Who is the union leader that is an open socialist?

What gains have they made for their members?

To quote Dennis Van Roekel, “President Barack Obama shares our vision for a stronger America.”

[Lucretia]

If trade unions are not about revolutionary struggle, then they cannot be the route by which workers will achieve socialism and democracy.

Who invented this rule that trade unions, by definition, are not about revolutionary struggle? Unions, like all reforms, do not have one fixed essential meaning. Their meaning is relational, is derived from their context. Reforms sold as re-stabilizing a fundamentally secure economic system act as brakes on the revolutionary process. Those that are perceived by the workers themselves to be victories of the working class against a political establishment fundamentally opposed to their well being will act as facilitators for the revolutionary process. The same goes for unions. Like reforms, they are always potentially a springboard for revolutionary action. They are not by definition antithetical to revolution.

[black magick hustla]

idk about sep but i am a bit suspicious about a lot of the rumors surrounding it. it was p. common historically for parties and orgs to run buisnesses. i don't know the way the buisness is structured but there might be a possibility david green doesn't get all the profits. it reminds me of a forbes article that listed castro as one of the richest men on earth because it basically postulated that all the cuba gdp was his.

[black magick hustla]

anyway they wrote an article that pissed off a bunch of old white wankers from the ISO in my facebook cuz' it kept calling them out on their white guilt politics and democrats. so thats cool, i called them out for being old and white and tokenizing and i got kicked out from their fb lol

[A Marxist Historian]

You don't know that his staff haven't decided themselves that they don't want unions.

The union leaders will also lose their property.

The fact that he has a successful business is irrelevant. He has no choice but to try and make a profit in the capitalist system. You don't know that he does make a profit. I've heard some figures around to do with the turnover of his business, but that doesn't mean he has that much money. he could be operating at break even for all you know.
Presumably, Billy Bragg is a capitalist because he sells T-shirts at his concerts; and that you are a capitalist because you buy and sell goods with money, and the last time you sold a car you tried to make as much money as possible on it..
Why focus on the distraction point of david North? It's like restricting political discussion to race, gender, and sexual orientation.

As yet, I still don't have an answer to the big questions, so I'll ask again...
Why support unions, when they pass that support onto capitalist parties like Labour UK and Dems US?

A hilarious posting. One point at a time:

1) Have the staff "themselves" decided that they don't want unions? No doubt. Just like at Walmart. That they would be fired if they wanted to unionize has, of course, nothing to do with this.

In fact, rumor has it that the staff is mostly SEP, that this is a cultist operation, a profit making method similar to that of the Moonies and many other religious enterprises.

2) "The union leaders will also lose their property." Last I heard, it was the workers who own the unions. It's the workers' dues which pay the bills. In a democratic union, if they don't like who their leaders are, they vote them out. Of course, many unions are far from democratic, but that's another matter.

3) You think anybody who buys and sells goods is a capitalist? In that case, you might want to read some books by that Karl Marx fellow. I realise he is old fashioned, but your guru North does like to quote him...

4) Why focus on David North when talking about the SEP?

Duh!

Do I really have to explain that to you?

5) Why support unions, when they support the Democratic Party?

Well, because they are the only protections workers have against the capitalists these days, as crappy as they so often are.

Any worker can tell you that you are always better off working in a union than a non union shop. And there is simple statistics, that workers who are union members get paid a lot more than workers who are not, a well known economic fact.

But then, if you, like David North, are an enemy of the working class, that's not a consideration for you.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

...
Again we end up discussing Mr North, rather than the SEP... Why would he be committed to workers having a say in his company? He started the company (presumably) and he has invested the capital. As he has taken the risk, he has to take the hard decisions. Otherwise, he is giving a say over his capital to others who will not try to preserve or grow his capital. They will instead work in their interests. We all need to eat - even Mr North. Are you telling me, in the cause of being a Socialist, that you have never bought or sold goods with money?

If you don't like it, and want socialism, get your "union" to "unite" with all the other unions around the globe and end capitalism. No? Union rep too busy at the Labour party conference? Or better to just "pressure the Democrats from the left"?

After all, the unions have done so much for you so far, eh? I'd like to know... what has your union gained for you? Not, what has it stopped from being taken from you, but what has it gained for you?

Alright then, so you aren't an SEP supporter. You are simply defending North because you like capitalists and scorn workers. Like you said,

"Why would he be committed to workers having a say in his company? He started the company (presumably) and he has invested the capital. As he has taken the risk, he has to take the hard decisions."

And, of course, you hate unions and want to destroy them. "After all, the unions have done so much for you so far, eh? I'd like to know... what has your union gained for you?"

Revleft is anonymous, and rightly so. But, judging by the tone of your postings, I get the impression that you are defending North because you yourself are a businessman, and identify with him. And, like him, you are an enemy of the working class.

-M.H.-

[shaneo]

Who invented this rule that trade unions, by definition, are not about revolutionary struggle? Unions, like all reforms, do not have one fixed essential meaning. Their meaning is relational, is derived from their context. Reforms sold as re-stabilizing a fundamentally secure economic system act as brakes on the revolutionary process. Those that are perceived by the workers themselves to be victories of the working class against a political establishment fundamentally opposed to their well being will act as facilitators for the revolutionary process. The same goes for unions. Like reforms, they are always potentially a springboard for revolutionary action. They are not by definition antithetical to revolution.

The trade union leadership invented that rule by their actions, but if what you mean is; who on this forum invented the rule, then I guess you at least agree with it by admitting that they are only "potentially a springboard for revolutionary action". Although, this is a dubious statement given that we have had plenty of time to use this imaginary springboard.

You say "Those that are perceived by the workers themselves to be victories of the working class against a political establishment fundamentally opposed to their well being will act as facilitators for the revolutionary process". But perception and reality are not the same thing. Lots of people perceive that parliament and congress represent their interests, but that doesn't make it so. You should judge unions, politicians, and people generally, by their actions. How can you say that they "will act as facilitators" for revolution, when they openly support the "political establishment" that they are meant to oppose?

[shaneo]

A hilarious posting. One point at a time:

1) Have the staff "themselves" decided that they don't want unions? No doubt. Just like at Walmart. That they would be fired if they wanted to unionize has, of course, nothing to do with this.

In fact, rumor has it that the staff is mostly SEP, that this is a cultist operation, a profit making method similar to that of the Moonies and many other religious enterprises.

2) "The union leaders will also lose their property." Last I heard, it was the workers who own the unions. It's the workers' dues which pay the bills. In a democratic union, if they don't like who their leaders are, they vote them out. Of course, many unions are far from democratic, but that's another matter.

3) You think anybody who buys and sells goods is a capitalist? In that case, you might want to read some books by that Karl Marx fellow. I realise he is old fashioned, but your guru North does like to quote him...

4) Why focus on David North when talking about the SEP?

Duh!

Do I really have to explain that to you?

5) Why support unions, when they support the Democratic Party?

Well, because they are the only protections workers have against the capitalists these days, as crappy as they so often are.

Any worker can tell you that you are always better off working in a union than a non union shop. And there is simple statistics, that workers who are union members get paid a lot more than workers who are not, a well known economic fact.

But then, if you, like David North, are an enemy of the working class, that's not a consideration for you.

-M.H.-

I'm glad I amuse you.

1) You have no idea regarding the position of Mr Norths staff, so you wildly speculate. He could be running the business at "break even" because he pays his staff so well. You have no way of knowing, but you instinctively take the union propaganda that he is somehow exploiting his worker and is their enemy. I don't know and you don't know if his workers have struggled for union representation, but it is fair to say that we would probably have heard about it if they had. So don't you think you should base your assumptions on what you do know? That is: his organisation regularly exposes the unions crimes against workers, and the unions hate them for it.

Given that his company prints for Mehring books, then some of the staff probably are SEP. How is this relevant? If his staff wanted union representation, and Mr North is resisting, then what is your union doing to assist them? It’s OK, it was a rhetorical question; I already know the answer.

2) Workers own the unions as much as the population owns the state treasury. Looks good on paper, but doesn’t actually mean you have any control. The workers dues are handed over to the Labour and Democrat parties to pay for their election campaigns. I’m glad you agree that many unions are undemocratic, so lets work together and convince others on this forum.

3) No, I was being sarcastic. A previous poster (possibly you?) made the ridiculous assertion that because capitalism forces people (including North, Billy Bragg, and the Revleft website) to buy and sell good and services for profit, that makes them capitalists. I’m glad you agree with me, and Karl Marx, on this point also.

4) It would be nice if you would explain it, but the fact that you refuse to is telling. The odd way you refer to Mr North in biblical terms (guru, cultist, religious enterprises) is also telling, and stems from the fear felt throughout the trade union leadership, because of the way wsws points out their crimes against workers.

5)Union staff may be better paid than non-union staff, but neither are as well paid as the union leadership. This begs another question: why have the unions abandoned the other workers, and what are they currently doing to offer them protection?
I asked you why you support unions who support capitalist parties and you say “because they are the only protections workers have against the capitalists”. So capitalists are the only protection you have against capitalists? And you think I’m hilarious!! Please re-read you text above and then have the courage to admit (to yourself) that the unions are working against you.

So anyone who doesn’t accept union “protection” is an enemy of the working class? Don Corleone and Adolf Hitler must be turning in their graves wishing they could have had as much control over their subjects as you afford the current trade unions.

Look, I couldn't care less about David North. All I know is that the current unions are capitalist because they represent capitalist parties, and not their members. I also know that the wsws is a good resource and regularly exposes the way unions isolate, and sell out, their members. The unions like to be seen as "the left" but actually support a right wing system. The wsws attacks them from the real left. That is why trade unionists (with the hysteria of a Salem witch trial) like to refer to them as some kind of cult. It seems to me that the only thing that pro-union folk have on the wsws, is that one of its contributors happens to be self employed. I mean, who cares? What you really need to look at is the unions and their actions. We will never get socialism or democracy until you do.

[shaneo]

Alright then, so you aren't an SEP supporter. You are simply defending North because you like capitalists and scorn workers. Like you said,

"Why would he be committed to workers having a say in his company? He started the company (presumably) and he has invested the capital. As he has taken the risk, he has to take the hard decisions."

And, of course, you hate unions and want to destroy them. "After all, the unions have done so much for you so far, eh? I'd like to know... what has your union gained for you?"

Revleft is anonymous, and rightly so. But, judging by the tone of your postings, I get the impression that you are defending North because you yourself are a businessman, and identify with him. And, like him, you are an enemy of the working class.

-M.H.-

Just because I can see that within the capitalist system (which the trade unions prop up), that people are forced to buy and sell goods for profit; that means , I "like capitalists". This is, of course, the twisted logic peddled by unions to deflect from their crimes against workers. You shouldn't buy into it.

Yes I do hate the existing unions, and the fact that you repeated my question ("what has your union gained for you?") rather than answer it, should explain to you why I hate existing unions.

I am not defending North really. If anything, I have been trying to get the conversation away from identity politics.

Yet again, anyone who dares to question the unions hold over the working class is an "enemy of the working class". Smells a bit like fascism to me. I thought us socialists were meant to fight all forms of fascism...

You are right, Revleft should be anonymous, and my employment status is my business, but I don't need to be a businessman (or woman) to realise that, as a rule of capitalism (which is supported by unions) that companies need to make a profit so they can pay wages and feed their families. Many business owners take this too far and seek to maximise profit at the expense of paying workers a decent wage, but you don't know that Mr North does.

If you don't like it, why not get people to stop voting for the capitalist parties, and get your "union" to "unite" with the other "unions" and end capitalism? Again, it's a rhetorical question because i already know the answer.

If I did say that I was self employed or some kind of business owner, you would only see this as confirmation that I am an "enemy of workers". Rather, you should look at what I have actually said, and not try to distract yourself with identity politics.

We can twist it anyway we like, but the facts remain: The existing trade unions prop up capitalist parties to maintain capitalism; and they are the enemy of workers because they isolate them to prevent any chance of revolution.

I call for new unions that are truly run by workers, and an end to the existing clique. What is so wrong with that?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Of course, we can find dirty laundry in anyones cupboard, and no doubt Healy was a nasty bit of work, but some of what you mention above is rumour and borderline libelous. How can you say "they" are essentially hucksters, when a lot of the people currently involved with the wsws were not around in Healy's day?

And what about now? So I ask again (in a final attempt to get away from personality politics), What have the wsws ever said about our current clique of trade unions that is untrue?
No. No dirty laundry -- this is the political history of SEP and WSWS. And this is not simply having bad policies or a misguided line. This is about CROSSING THE CLASS LINE. Since your politics seem amorphous, at best, you might not understand that. Just as you do not understand that unions have brought about whatever meager rights and benefits workers have. And that an ostensible socialist won't allow his workers to organize, well it just bears out that he is an anti-worker, anti-communist shit. North spent decades in the WL/ICFI -- I am discussing his public political record.

[shaneo]

No. No dirty laundry -- this is the political history of SEP and WSWS. And this is not simply having bad policies or a misguided line. This is about CROSSING THE CLASS LINE. Since your politics seem amorphous, at best, you might not understand that. Just as you do not understand that unions have brought about whatever meager rights and benefits workers have. And that an ostensible socialist won't allow his workers to organize, well it just bears out that he is an anti-worker, anti-communist shit. North spent decades in the WL/ICFI -- I am discussing his public political record.

How are my politics amorphous?

Give me an example of unions directly getting a gain for workers. Workers gains, throughout the last century, were got through the fear of revolution. Ever since, the existing unions have been working with Labour and the democrats to remove or dilute these gains.

You don't know that he is stopping his workers from organising, and the current staff and membership of sep and wsws were not around in those days. Cmon, let's get away from identity politics. Besides, I have already said that I dont care about north, but find the wsws a good, and factual, resource.

[RedZezz]

A hilarious posting. One point at a time:

1) Have the staff "themselves" decided that they don't want unions? No doubt. Just like at Walmart. That they would be fired if they wanted to unionize has, of course, nothing to do with this.

In fact, rumor has it that the staff is mostly SEP, that this is a cultist operation, a profit making method similar to that of the Moonies and many other religious enterprises.

Wait, if it is true that most members of the printing company are SEP members then why would they want to form a union? First, they would already have chosen not to form a union for their political reasons and, second, they are already apart of a workers organization. If they are members of the party than the workers are already organized.

So far, I have never heard any arguements against the SEP's position on trade unions. In fact, their has been virtually nothing but ad hominem attacks against North. Why not address the points made in Marxism and the Trade Unions, Globalization and the International Working Class, or one of the other documents which not only discusses how the trade unions are no longer effective, but why that is so.

[shaneo]

Since your politics seem amorphous, at best, you might not understand that. ...-- I am discussing his public political record.

Actually, i take that as a compliment. We should always be willing to learn, as this will be part of permanent revolution. In fact, I was once a member of a printers union, but I soon learnt the error of my ways.

You weren't discussing his public political record. You were recycling rumours.

[Lucretia]

The trade union leadership invented that rule by their actions, but if what you mean is; who on this forum invented the rule, then I guess you at least agree with it by admitting that they are only "potentially a springboard for revolutionary action". Although, this is a dubious statement given that we have had plenty of time to use this imaginary springboard.

You depict trade unions as being hopelessly under oppressive bureaucratic leadership. If this is the case, and unions aren't contradictory in nature -- potentially facilitating, potentially holding back revolutionary organization -- then how on Earth can you explain the gains that unions have won for workers? According to your sweeping philosophical (ahistorical) statements on the nature of trade unions, they are always and everywhere under the thumb of anti-worker types. You therefore simply cannot answer my question.


You say "Those that are perceived by the workers themselves to be victories of the working class against a political establishment fundamentally opposed to their well being will act as facilitators for the revolutionary process". But perception and reality are not the same thing. Lots of people perceive that parliament and congress represent their interests, but that doesn't make it so. You should judge unions, politicians, and people generally, by their actions. How can you say that they "will act as facilitators" for revolution, when they openly support the "political establishment" that they are meant to oppose?According to this logic, consciousness and perception aren't a part of "reality." Therefore, working class consciousness has nothing to do with the reality of how revolution is fomented. This, of course, is completely undialectical. People's perceptions are very much a part of reality every bit as much as people's unconscious and accidental actions are. You are parroting nonsense about Marxism that was mostly laid to rest before the rise of Nazism showed that underestimating the subjective element to reality -- things like the irrational appeal of fascism to millions of German workers -- can have disastrous consequences.

[Lucretia]

Actually, i take that as a compliment. We should always be willing to learn, as this will be part of permanent revolution. In fact, I was once a member of a printers union, but I soon learnt the error of my ways.

You weren't discussing his public political record. You were recycling rumours.

How do you know these were rumors? On the one hand you used your claim not to be a member of the SEP to pose as a relatively disinterested participant in these exchanges, yet on the other hand you make claims such as the one above, which actually presuppose a very intimate level of knowledge not just with the party but also with its leadership.

So which is it? Are you too disconnected from the party to know these details about what is or is not a rumor? Or are you closely enough connected, in which case you can drop the pretense of being a neutral arbiter?

[shaneo]

How do you know these were rumors? On the one hand you used your claim not to be a member of the SEP to pose as a relatively disinterested participant in these exchanges, yet on the other hand you make claims such as the one above, which actually presuppose a very intimate level of knowledge not just with the party but also with its leadership.

So which is it? Are you too disconnected from the party to know these details about what is or is not a rumor? Or are you closely enough connected, in which case you can drop the pretense of being a neutral arbiter?

I am not, and have never been associated with the SEP. You'll have to take my word for it. I don't know if these are rumours or not, and that is why, unless you have evidence to the contrary, they are rumours. If you have any verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will gladly apologise and re-think my position.

Have you any evidence to prove that mr North's staff has requested union membership, and that he is preventing them?

[Lucretia]

I am not, and have never been associated with the SEP. You'll have to take my word for it. I don't know if these are rumours or not, and that is why, unless you have evidence to the contrary, they are rumours. If you have any verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will gladly apologise and re-think my position.

Have you any evidence to prove that mr North's staff has requested union membership, and that he is preventing them?

Maybe if you don't know they are rumors you should refrain from making strong declarative statements like, "You were recycling rumours."

[shaneo]

Maybe if you don't know they are rumors you should refrain from making strong declarative statements like, "You were recycling rumours."

That is ridiculous. They are rumours, because neither you nor anyone else is able to prove them as facts. So I'm well within my rights to claim that someone who is recycling rumours, is recycling rumours.

But ok, let me re-phrase it: I know they are rumours because neither you nor Lev can provide proof that he "does not allow his workers to organise".

Better?

Do you honestly go through life taking anything you hear (or want to believe) as fact, without seeking proof? I very much doubt it, yet you are happy to believe anything your union tells you regarding the SEP and David North. You must see the contradiction.

[shaneo]

"You depict trade unions as being hopelessly under oppressive bureaucratic leadership."

No, I believe trade unions are under capitalist control, and that this is facilitated through the bureaurocracy. I like to think I have offered sound reasoning to back this up, and since no one has been able to deny that the current trade unions support capitalism by funding capitalist parties, then I'm unlikely to change my mind.

" If this is the case, and unions aren't contradictory in nature -- potentially facilitating, potentially holding back revolutionary organization -- then how on Earth can you explain the gains that unions have won for workers?"

What gains? Any gains for workers, were made in the first half of the last century thereabouts, and were got through the fear of revolution felt by the financial aristocracy. Since then, the trade unions have been working with the capitalist parties (that they fund) to isolate workers and erode their previous gains. I've asked this before and have still not had an answer: what gains, not what reduction in loss, but what gain has a trade union got for workers in the last 30 years? I've asked this numerous times and no one is prepared to answer. Instead they try to direct the discussion to personality politics regarding David North.

"According to your sweeping philosophical (ahistorical) statements on the nature of trade unions, they are always and everywhere under the thumb of anti-worker types."

No not on the nature of trade unions as a whole (a new, global trade union, free from capitalism could work) but certainly the existing collection of capitalist trade unions. Unless you can provide me with the planned date for the unions to "unite" and start the revolution, surely my statement stands?

"You therefore simply cannot answer my question"

I just answered your question - see above. Is there another one I have missed? It is in fact you who cannot answer questions, so since you brought it up, I'll try again: Have you any evidence to prove that mr North's staff have requested union membership, and that he is preventing them?

"According to this logic, consciousness and perception aren't a part of "reality." Therefore, working class consciousness has nothing to do with the reality of how revolution is fomented. This, of course, is completely undialectical. People's perceptions are very much a part of reality every bit as much as people's unconscious and accidental actions are."

Now who's being philosophical?

You're right, it is undialectical; but that is only because you are creating a logic to fit your arguement, and then you suggest that this is my logic. I don't think I ever mentioned "consciousness", but of course the working class should open their eyes - particularly with regards to the unions.

So were you (or are you still) one of these suckers who "perceived" that when Obama came into office, everything would "change". A black man in the white house... I can recall the moment like it was yesterday...
We'll close Guantanamo -except we won't.
We'll leave Iraq - except we didn't.
Bring peace to the middle east - by that we mean lay waste to it.
The list goes on....

The right rev Jesse jackson, and Michael Moore certainly "perceived" that all these things would happen, and they're meant to be clever blokes. The union leaders clearly "perceived" that he would keep his promises as well. Although I'm sure the fact that no labour prime minister, or democratic president, has ever kept their promises to help workers is always up for discussion at union meetings eh? That's what I thought. Perception and reality are poles apart. You might believe in god, but that doesn't make him/her real. The same way that you might believe that the unions work in you interests, but since they never have, to hold this view is surely misguided.

"You are parroting nonsense about Marxism that was mostly laid to rest before the rise of Nazism showed that underestimating the subjective element to reality -- things like the irrational appeal of fascism to millions of German workers -- can have disastrous consequences."

If by "parroting" you mean repeating what I've learnt, then everyone does this to some degree. Sorry, I dont understand what "the subjective element to reality" is. No offence, but my family are working class, so they couldn't afford to send me to university. That's why intellectual gobbledygook goes straight over my head.

Those disastrous consequences mostly came from the type of rabid nationalism openly promoted by the capitalist parties, to divide workers globally and prevent unification. The financial problems and lack of jobs in Germany was blamed on the Jews, or as they like to call it these days: immigrants. During times of crisis for capitalism, these vile methods come to the fore. Yet the unions fund these parties and even join in! I can remember the UNite Union signs now.... "British jobs for British workers".

If you really fear another rise of fascism, then you should have a go at some of your pro-union buddies on this forum who suggest that if we do not accept (or dare to question) union control, then we are the "enemy of workers".

Scary stuff eh?

[shaneo]

To be honest I'm getting bored of asking the same questions and not getting an answer. The only answer I have received was from Marxist Historian who, when asked why he supports capitalists unions, answered that they "are the only protection workers have against capitalists". So it was hardly a serious response.

I think the right wing union supporters on this forum are afraid to answer because it will cause them to question their beliefs. If you want blind faith then take up religion. At least you might get something out of it.

Does anyone know of a forum where the need for socialism, away from the grubby clutches of capitalist trade unions, is discussed seriously?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

To be honest I'm getting bored of asking the same questions and not getting an answer. The only answer I have received was from Marxist Historian who, when asked why he supports capitalists unions, answered that they "are the only protection workers have against capitalists". So it was hardly a serious response.

I think the right wing union supporters on this forum are afraid to answer because it will cause them to question their beliefs. If you want blind faith then take up religion. At least you might get something out of it.

Does anyone know of a forum where the need for socialism, away from the grubby clutches of capitalist trade unions, is discussed seriously?
Unions are the only organizations where workers are organized as workers -- that is at their place of employ. As comrade Lucretia noted, they are not static -- they can play a revolutionary role or a reactionary role -- however, they are tools that can be used by workers and revolutionaries. Unions in the US had gone through a long period of inhibiting worker's struggles in the US until the mid 30s. Things changed in a hurry -- where you had the Minneapolis General Strike, The Autolite Strike the founding of the CIO, the organizing of the auto industry. Did it lead to a revolution? No. But would you have opposed those things at the time?

I think it might be foolish to even attempt to answer a comrade that takes such a right-wing, anti-proletarian view of unions. Really, the capitalists do everything they can to bust and keep unions out of their industries. That should give you a hint. Real communists take the issue of proper orientation to the trade unions very seriously. There is a long history of intense political debate about the issue. You just repeat that "unions are pro-capitalist" ergo, they should be ignored or trashed or opposed.

Also, about North and SEP. I don't give a shit about his printing company -- it is his factually documented political history as a leading member of a tendency that supported the murder of Iraqi Communists, took money and became press agents for bourgeois nationalist regimes in the Middle East, and made up terrible lies about the history of the Trotskyist movement and the murder of Trotsky that concerns me. These are not rumors. I have already provided some quotes. If you need more let me know.

If you do leave this forum, I've got one thing to say: "BYE!:D

[shaneo]

"Unions are the only organizations where workers are organized as workers -- that is at their place of employ."

Agreed, but just because it's the only organisation we are allowed to have, doesn't automatically mean it works in our interests.

"... they are not static -- they can play a revolutionary role or a reactionary role -- however, they are tools that can be used by workers and revolutionaries."

I'm sure you can name lots of reactionary actions by unions, but when have they played a revolutionary role in the last 30 years? You are using phrases that sound like they are from a union pamphlet, or something a pro-unionist university lecturer might say.... you need to back these statements up, or not write them if they are just outright false.


"Unions in the US had gone through a long period of inhibiting worker's struggles in the US until the mid 30s. Things changed in a hurry -- where you had the Minneapolis General Strike, The Autolite Strike the founding of the CIO, the organizing of the auto industry. Did it lead to a revolution? No. But would you have opposed those things at the time?"

Hard to say what I would have done at the time, and although we should take our lessons from history, that doesn't mean we should live in the past. For example, you mention actions taken by workers in the thirties, but what gains (not reduction in loss) have been got by unions in the last thirty years? Why are you avoiding a simple question? If your union has been so good to you then you must be able to give me numerous examples, and yet you can't find a single one.

Without dwelling on the past too much, is it not the case that the Autolite strike was taken by workers seperate to the AFL; who refused to take part at the time?



"Also, about North and SEP. I don't give a shit about his printing company -- it is his factually documented political history as a leading member of a tendency that supported the murder of Iraqi Communists, took money and became press agents for bourgeois nationalist regimes in the Middle East, and made up terrible lies about the history of the Trotskyist movement and the murder of Trotsky that concerns me. These are not rumors. I have already provided some quotes. If you need more let me know"

If you don't care about his printing company; why do you go on about it?
In a previous post you said that North is "an ostensible socialist (who) won't allow his workers to organize, well it just bears out that he is an anti-worker, anti-communist shit". This is a rumour, put about by unions, that you are recycling. So far you and Lucretia have both refused to provide proof that he won't allow his workers to organise. So if you know that this is not a rumour, I definitely would like you to "provide some more quotes". From one of his employees would be proof enough for me. If you can't provide proof but continue to state this, then it is worse than rumour, it is an outright lie.

You should both have the decency to admit you were wrong and stop peddling slanderous lies about someone, just because your union tells you to.

I'm well ware of the other dubious claims about him, but honestly, I think the capitalists would have tried him for these crimes if they were provable. But if you have proof of these claims I'm all ears. I think you'll have problems finding a source that is independent from the political / union / corporate media club that seeks to prevent socialism, but you're welcome to give it a go.

In any event, non of these things mean that what the wsws says about unions is wrong, and what terrible lies did he make up about the murder of Trotsky?


"If you do leave this forum, I've got one thing to say: "BYE!:D"

I've no doubt that you'd like me to leave. It is far easier for people to exist in unconsciousness.

"I think it might be foolish to even attempt to answer a comrade that takes such a right-wing, anti-proletarian view of unions. Really, the capitalists do everything they can to bust and keep unions out of their industries. That should give you a hint. Real communists take the issue of proper orientation to the trade unions very seriously."

Again, a phrase like "proper orientation to the trade unions" stinks of fascism, and what it really means is subservience to the well paid union leadership while they hand your dues over to Obama or whoever. All you've got to lose is your chains, comrade.

In what way have I attacked the unions from the right? You can say what you like about me, but the unions fund capitalist political parties, so they are capitalist organisations. I'll assume from your unshaking state of denial that you were told to vote Obama by your union and you fell for it.


Trust me, it wouldn't be foolish at all. Although you label me as right wing and anti-proletarian, in an attempt to supress your own sense of guilt, I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions. The fact that you can't answer should tell you everything you need to know. I have dared to question the trade unions grip on left wing politics, so I am an enemy of the working class. In the same way that anyone who dares to question the Israeli governments crimes against its neighbours is labelled an antisemite.

I only hope that one day you will see this. If you're not going to answer me, at least answer to yourself.

[Lucretia]

In a previous post you said that North is "an ostensible socialist (who) won't allow his workers to organize, well it just bears out that he is an anti-worker, anti-communist shit". This is a rumour, put about by unions, that you are recycling. So far you and Lucretia have both refused to provide proof that he won't allow his workers to organise. So if you know that this is not a rumour, I definitely would like you to "provide some more quotes". From one of his employees would be proof enough for me. If you can't provide proof but continue to state this, then it is worse than rumour, it is an outright lie.

You should both have the decency to admit you were wrong and stop peddling slanderous lies about someone, just because your union tells you to.

Two things: I haven't made any claims in this post or any other about North, his company, or how he chooses to run his company. So why are you faulting me for not providing proof for a claim I haven't even made?

Second, you say that if somebody can't provide proof on this forum for the claim that North wouldn't allow his workers to organize, it is now magically upgraded from a "rumour" to "an outright" and "slanderous lie." Do I really need to point out that, by calling the assertion a lie, you yourself are now making a counter-claim about the factual incorrectness of the North-union statement, basically saying not just that you aren't aware of proof that it's true, but that you know it's false. In so doing, *you* now are shouldering a burden of proof.

And, if we adopt your ridiculous standard, your inability to provide proof means you are telling an outright lie by making that claim.

Isn't this fun? :)

[shaneo]

Two things: I haven't made any claims in this post or any other about North, his company, or how he chooses to run his company. So why are you faulting me for not providing proof for a claim I haven't even made?

Second, you say that if somebody can't provide proof on this forum for the claim that North wouldn't allow his workers to organize, it is now magically upgraded from a "rumour" to "an outright" and "slanderous lie." Do I really need to point out that, by calling the assertion a lie, you yourself are now making a counter-claim about the factual incorrectness of the North-union statement, basically saying not just that you aren't aware of proof that it's true, but that you know it's false. In so doing, *you* now are shouldering a burden of proof.

And, if we adopt your ridiculous standard, your inability to provide proof means you are telling an outright lie by making that claim.

Isn't this fun? :)

More fun than I can handle! I re-read some of things I write and realise that it can sound quite aggressive. Sorry if I offend.

Look, we're getting into pedantry here. Like it or not, it's a rumour because no one can prove it. I don't think I ever said that he definitely didnt prevent them from joining a coven. I was asking for proof of Levs assertion. I never made a claim on the matter so there is no burden of proof on me.

To continue to say something that you know is only a rumour, which it is if you have no proof, then in my book, and maybe only in my book,you're telling porkies.

Let's face it though Lucretia, you're moving the subject onto word interpretation so you can avoid the questions.

[u.s.red]

Don't sound so surprised. If the unions are not socialist (which they are not) then why would a socialist organisation support them?

Read wsws.org, then dispute what they are saying.

Because Marx emphasized that the socialist and communist parties could never substitute their own goals for those of the workers and unions. The socialists could only point out to the workers the common interests of all international workers. Socialists do not impose their own ideas on workers but develop their ideas from the actually existing forces arising from the class struggle between the capitalists and workers. the communist manifesto.

One reason the socialists have failed in uniting with the unions is that the socialists have always tried to dictate to workers what their political and labor positions should be. this is demonstrated every day on the world Socialist Web site. It is a constant diatribe against unions, instructing on their betrayal of their union members. If these so called socialists would visit one union meeting one time and talk to the members, like marx did many times, they would see what a real socialist is.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

"Unions are the only organizations where workers are organized as workers -- that is at their place of employ."

Agreed, but just because it's the only organisation we are allowed to have, doesn't automatically mean it works in our interests.

"... they are not static -- they can play a revolutionary role or a reactionary role -- however, they are tools that can be used by workers and revolutionaries."

I'm sure you can name lots of reactionary actions by unions, but when have they played a revolutionary role in the last 30 years? You are using phrases that sound like they are from a union pamphlet, or something a pro-unionist university lecturer might say.... you need to back these statements up, or not write them if they are just outright false.


"Unions in the US had gone through a long period of inhibiting worker's struggles in the US until the mid 30s. Things changed in a hurry -- where you had the Minneapolis General Strike, The Autolite Strike the founding of the CIO, the organizing of the auto industry. Did it lead to a revolution? No. But would you have opposed those things at the time?"

Hard to say what I would have done at the time, and although we should take our lessons from history, that doesn't mean we should live in the past. For example, you mention actions taken by workers in the thirties, but what gains (not reduction in loss) have been got by unions in the last thirty years? Why are you avoiding a simple question? If your union has been so good to you then you must be able to give me numerous examples, and yet you can't find a single one.

Without dwelling on the past too much, is it not the case that the Autolite strike was taken by workers seperate to the AFL; who refused to take part at the time?



"Also, about North and SEP. I don't give a shit about his printing company -- it is his factually documented political history as a leading member of a tendency that supported the murder of Iraqi Communists, took money and became press agents for bourgeois nationalist regimes in the Middle East, and made up terrible lies about the history of the Trotskyist movement and the murder of Trotsky that concerns me. These are not rumors. I have already provided some quotes. If you need more let me know"

If you don't care about his printing company; why do you go on about it?
In a previous post you said that North is "an ostensible socialist (who) won't allow his workers to organize, well it just bears out that he is an anti-worker, anti-communist shit". This is a rumour, put about by unions, that you are recycling. So far you and Lucretia have both refused to provide proof that he won't allow his workers to organise. So if you know that this is not a rumour, I definitely would like you to "provide some more quotes". From one of his employees would be proof enough for me. If you can't provide proof but continue to state this, then it is worse than rumour, it is an outright lie.

You should both have the decency to admit you were wrong and stop peddling slanderous lies about someone, just because your union tells you to.

I'm well ware of the other dubious claims about him, but honestly, I think the capitalists would have tried him for these crimes if they were provable. But if you have proof of these claims I'm all ears. I think you'll have problems finding a source that is independent from the political / union / corporate media club that seeks to prevent socialism, but you're welcome to give it a go.

In any event, non of these things mean that what the wsws says about unions is wrong, and what terrible lies did he make up about the murder of Trotsky?


"If you do leave this forum, I've got one thing to say: "BYE!:D"

I've no doubt that you'd like me to leave. It is far easier for people to exist in unconsciousness.

"I think it might be foolish to even attempt to answer a comrade that takes such a right-wing, anti-proletarian view of unions. Really, the capitalists do everything they can to bust and keep unions out of their industries. That should give you a hint. Real communists take the issue of proper orientation to the trade unions very seriously."

Again, a phrase like "proper orientation to the trade unions" stinks of fascism, and what it really means is subservience to the well paid union leadership while they hand your dues over to Obama or whoever. All you've got to lose is your chains, comrade.

In what way have I attacked the unions from the right? You can say what you like about me, but the unions fund capitalist political parties, so they are capitalist organisations. I'll assume from your unshaking state of denial that you were told to vote Obama by your union and you fell for it.


Trust me, it wouldn't be foolish at all. Although you label me as right wing and anti-proletarian, in an attempt to supress your own sense of guilt, I have asked you perfectly reasonable questions. The fact that you can't answer should tell you everything you need to know. I have dared to question the trade unions grip on left wing politics, so I am an enemy of the working class. In the same way that anyone who dares to question the Israeli governments crimes against its neighbours is labelled an antisemite.

I only hope that one day you will see this. If you're not going to answer me, at least answer to yourself.

Comrade -- I have never in my life voted for any politician connected with a bourgeois party, period. Including the current swine in the White House. While I have been a member of a union a number of times in my life, I currently am self-employed. The idea of a union leader telling me to vote for a Democrat and me then following along, is laughable.

The phrase, "a proper orientation to the trade unions," is yours, not mine. But I don't even understand what you mean when you say that "stinks of fascism" -- this suggests that you don't have the faintest idea of what fascism is. What I was saying is that you have a very fucked-up orientation to the trade unions. I have not discussed what I consider to be a "proper orientation" to the trade unions. But you say that since unions haven't won any gains for workers in a period of reaction, let's just flush them down the toilet. The unions are not "capitalist." A Union any given moment, might not actually fight in the best interest of their members. They might support capitalist politicians. So do lots of workers, does that make them bourgeois? That is a mighty idealistic view of the relationship to the means of production.

I say let's fight for leadership of the unions and transform them into tools for revolution. But, insofar as they protect worker's interests and offer workers some protection against the blows of the bourgeoisie they are a good thing. They are not like reformist "socialist" parties, that actually stand in the way of revolution.

Comrade, do you know anything about the fights in the CPUSA in the twenties regarding the building of new, communist unions? You should familiarize yourself with those discussions. If you are interested I will try to dig something up.

In the US, the trade unions have nothing resembling a "grip" on left-wing politics. The union leadership is all pro-Democratic party -- and there are very, very, few conscious leftists among the rank and file. It is not inconceivable that in a period of revolutionary upsurge the unions might be bypassed by other types of organizations by the proletariat (e.g., worker's councils, factory committees). But capitalism without any unions is surely a big wet dream for the bourgeoisie.

Finally, and this is the last time I will say this, North was a member of a tendency, the ICFI, that cheered the execution of Iraqi Communists, took money from bourgeois governments in exchange for positive articles in their press, and more. These are crimes against the working class -- for fuck's sake, the bourgeoisie isn't going to prosecute them for this -- they will either cheer or probably not even pay attention. THESE THINGS ARE DOCUMENTED BY THE SEP ON THEIR WEBSITE. Good enough for you? They try to distance themselves from the slimy history of Healy and Wohlforth by being shocked when the revelations came out in 1985. Again, I was there comrade -- the idea that North or any leader of the WL was unaware of what was going on is ludicrous -- unless they did not even read their own press (which, I suppose considering just how bad it was, is plausible).

How could you be sanguine about a group that denies its own political past and that lies about its involvement in crimes against the proletariat?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Oh, one last thing. I don't have proof that North and his crew are union busting slime regarding the printing company. It sounds right to me, but ultimately, it is immaterial. So pending further evidence, I withdraw that charge. North is a political chameleon that has changed his colors many times. He is a con man -- who managed to come out on top of an organization led by other con men pretending to be Trotskyists. Their politics have placed them outside the left and on the other side of the class line. Aside from that, he's a fucking prince.

[shaneo]

Comrade -- I have never in my life voted for any politician connected with a bourgeois party, period. Including the current swine in the White House. While I have been a member of a union a number of times in my life, I currently am self-employed. The idea of a union leader telling me to vote for a Democrat and me then following along, is laughable.

The phrase, "a proper orientation to the trade unions," is yours, not mine. But I don't even understand what you mean when you say that "stinks of fascism" -- this suggests that you don't have the faintest idea of what fascism is. What I was saying is that you have a very fucked-up orientation to the trade unions. I have not discussed what I consider to be a "proper orientation" to the trade unions. But you say that since unions haven't won any gains for workers in a period of reaction, let's just flush them down the toilet. The unions are not "capitalist." A Union any given moment, might not actually fight in the best interest of their members. They might support capitalist politicians. So do lots of workers, does that make them bourgeois? That is a mighty idealistic view of the relationship to the means of production.

I say let's fight for leadership of the unions and transform them into tools for revolution. But, insofar as they protect worker's interests and offer workers some protection against the blows of the bourgeoisie they are a good thing. They are not like reformist "socialist" parties, that actually stand in the way of revolution.

Comrade, do you know anything about the fights in the CPUSA in the twenties regarding the building of new, communist unions? You should familiarize yourself with those discussions. If you are interested I will try to dig something up.

In the US, the trade unions have nothing resembling a "grip" on left-wing politics. The union leadership is all pro-Democratic party -- and there are very, very, few conscious leftists among the rank and file. It is not inconceivable that in a period of revolutionary upsurge the unions might be bypassed by other types of organizations by the proletariat (e.g., worker's councils, factory committees). But capitalism without any unions is surely a big wet dream for the bourgeoisie.

Finally, and this is the last time I will say this, North was a member of a tendency, the ICFI, that cheered the execution of Iraqi Communists, took money from bourgeois governments in exchange for positive articles in their press, and more. These are crimes against the working class -- for fuck's sake, the bourgeoisie isn't going to prosecute them for this -- they will either cheer or probably not even pay attention. THESE THINGS ARE DOCUMENTED BY THE SEP ON THEIR WEBSITE. Good enough for you? They try to distance themselves from the slimy history of Healy and Wohlforth by being shocked when the revelations came out in 1985. Again, I was there comrade -- the idea that North or any leader of the WL was unaware of what was going on is ludicrous -- unless they did not even read their own press (which, I suppose considering just how bad it was, is plausible).

How could you be sanguine about a group that denies its own political past and that lies about its involvement in crimes against the proletariat?

No, the phrase "a proper orientation to the trade unions" is actually yours. You used it 1840hrs (GMT) on 27th April.

Fascism = a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.

The way trade unions promote nationalism (British jobs for British workers) prevents the unity of the working class. Agreed, it's not the same as saying "extremely proud of country and race", but that's why I said hints of fascism. The rest of the description matches unions perfectly:
The powerful leader is the profit system, which the unions back via the for-profit parties they support. My opposition to trade unions has had me labelled, by Marxist Historian, as an enemy of the working class, and by you as "anti-proletarian" and so my opposition is not allowed. Even though I am allowed to speak freely on this forum, no one responds to reasonable questions. Perhaps out of fear?

I got this from a dictionary. I wonder where you got your interpretation of fascism? You may have it confused with something else.

You have withdrawn your slanderous fabrications about North, and I trust you will be quick to correct anyone else who tries to peddle this rumour in the future, but you then go on to make some new ones. Where is your evidence for these accusations? Or will we have to send notes back and forth for another week before you confess that you made this up also? In what way do the SEP operate on the other side of the class line?
When, and who, has he conned? Anymore than your union has conned you? Presumably, you know the date and place of his conviction?


"They might support capitalist politicians. So do lots of workers, does that make them bourgeois?"

Yes. How can you argue otherwise and still sleep at night? Only workers who have been fooled by the media and their union leaders support these politicians. Come the revolution, these people will be tried for their crimes and we can have a free and fair media. Not to mention free and fair unions.

I wasn't around in the twenties. But as I've said before, we should learn from history, but how is providing examples of union action nearly a century ago, some sort of justification for their crimes today?

"In the US, the trade unions have nothing resembling a "grip" on left-wing politics. The union leadership is all pro-Democratic party -- and there are very, very, few conscious leftists among the rank and file. It is not inconceivable that in a period of revolutionary upsurge the unions might be bypassed by other types of organizations by the proletariat (e.g., worker's councils, factory committees). But capitalism without any unions is surely a big wet dream for the bourgeoisie. "

OK, I can see the arguement that the unions are the best we've got now, and that they may be bypassed in the future. But you accept that the leadership is pro a capitalist party, so lets bypass them now!

If capitalism lost the buffer of the unions between it and workers, it might actually feel compelled to give some concessions to workers. Capitalisms only fear is revolution. Without the unions to suffocate protest and lead workers down blind alleys, workers can directly confront capitalism.
In the UK they do have a grip on the left. Anytime "left" opinion is sought on the BBC, they wheel out one of the union leaders to waffle on for 3 minutes.

If you have links from the SEP website which proves that North was involved, or had knowledge of the crimes you list, then please provide them. If not, please stop peddling rumours.

[shaneo]

Because Marx emphasized that the socialist and communist parties could never substitute their own goals for those of the workers and unions. The socialists could only point out to the workers the common interests of all international workers. Socialists do not impose their own ideas on workers but develop their ideas from the actually existing forces arising from the class struggle between the capitalists and workers. the communist manifesto.

One reason the socialists have failed in uniting with the unions is that the socialists have always tried to dictate to workers what their political and labor positions should be. this is demonstrated every day on the world Socialist Web site. It is a constant diatribe against unions, instructing on their betrayal of their union members. If these so called socialists would visit one union meeting one time and talk to the members, like marx did many times, they would see what a real socialist is.

Earlier in this forum Kassad said, "which made it even more hilarious when they tried to join us protesting Senate Bill 5 in Ohio and we told them to f..k off". So even if they wanted to attend a union meeting, which they don't, they wouldn't be welcome. A union meeting is hardly the place for discussing different trains of thought. It is the place for listening to the dictats of the union leadership, and taking ballots which the leadership then ignores.

You confirm that the unions are not socialist, because socialists are unable to unite with them. Please convince others on this forum who mistakenly believe that unions act in the social interest.

The WSWS is not a constant diatribe against unions. It does occasionally point out the crimes committed by unions against workers. Rather than describing it as a "constant diatribe", please provide specific proof. What has the wsws said that is false regarding the unions?

There is a piece today on the UK unions selling out their members and seeking to close down strike action. Which part of this is false?

You cannot believe that the unions we have now are what Marx had in mind? Why would a real socialist want to attend a union meeting, and help promote the Democrat or Labour parties?

[Sir Comradical]

They're anti-union hyper-sectarians. Back in the Gerry Healy days, they had a penchant for thuggery.

[shaneo]

They're anti-union hyper-sectarians. Back in the Gerry Healy days, they had a penchant for thuggery.

Probably. What about today?

They certainly are anti-union. Why would they not be?

Since no one on this forum seems able to specify anything the wsws has said about unions that is false, perhaps you should be anti-union also? The fact that no one can provide examples certainly suggests to me that it's probably all true.

Instead, as you have done, they just bring up Healy / North, rather than asking the unions to answer legitimate questions regarding their actions.

[shaneo]

For the benefit of The Marxist Historian:

Name a gain, not reduction in loss, that the trade unions have got for workers in the last 30 years.

Provide an example of where wsws.org has made a false statement regarding the bourgeois trade unions.

Where is your evidence that Mr North is "keeping the unions out" of his printing / publishing company?

It's OK, I know these questions are unanswerable, but that is my point. You really need to change your views regardng the trade unions.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I just stumbled upon this political party, and they seem, for American standards, to be pretty radical.
http://socialequality.com/
What do you guys think?

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWRcPxd-e8A) might interest you.

[A Marxist Historian]

For the benefit of The Marxist Historian:

Name a gain, not reduction in loss, that the trade unions have got for workers in the last 30 years...



A truly idiotic statement. As everybody knows, workers in union shops are paid much more than workers in nonunion shops. The stats on that are published and easily available. And, there are in fact lots of occasions when unions have managed to gain benefits for workers, far too many to enumerate or count. I could I suppose reel off a whole string of examples, such as the UPS strike in the late '90s for one.

Or I could name a bunch of small scale examples that I am personally familiar with, but this is an anonymous forum, and rightly so with full exposure to agents of the class enemy such as, objectively, your sweet self.

In fact, I'll throw the question back at you. Can you name a single situation where workers have benefitted from *not* having unions? Ever? Anywhere? Or is your great example David North's printshop?

Unions have been in retreat and making concession after concession. That's because they are weak and getting weaker. You want to stab them in the back and finish them off. You are a traitor to the working class.

-M.H.-

[shaneo]

A truly idiotic statement. As everybody knows, workers in union shops are paid much more than workers in nonunion shops. The stats on that are published and easily available. And, there are in fact lots of occasions when unions have managed to gain benefits for workers, far too many to enumerate or count. I could I suppose reel off a whole string of examples, such as the UPS strike in the late '90s for one.

What did the unions gain for workers during the UPS strike, that they didn't have before? This is a telling example. The other unions backed Ron Carey verbally, but did not send out their workers in actual support. In the end, they ditched him as soon as they could, and UPS dragged their feet for years, before making any changes. Even these were not real gains, but simply reductions in loss.
Union workers might be paid more. Who knows? Again, you provide no evidence. Even if they do get paid more, this begs another question... what are unions doing to try and protect the non union workers?
How about real examples? If there are far too many to enumerate, then you should have no problems.


Or I could name a bunch of small scale examples that I am personally familiar with, but this is an anonymous forum, and rightly so with full exposure to agents of the class enemy such as, objectively, your sweet self.

If they existed, you could provide these examples without exposing your identity. Just make sure they are verifiable please.



In fact, I'll throw the question back at you. Can you name a single situation where workers have benefitted from *not* having unions? Ever? Anywhere? Or is your great example David North's printshop?

That is just silly. So we should have unions just because there isn't a reason to not have unions? I am questioning the justification for their existence, so all I need to prove is that we are no better off with them. Since you only provide one dubious example from an imaginary list, I am fully justified.
I don't know anything about David Norths printshop.


Unions have been in retreat and making concession after concession. That's because they are weak and getting weaker. You want to stab them in the back and finish them off. You are a traitor to the working class.

I would love to be the one to finish them off, and remove the buffer that protects capitalism from workers. Who wouldn't want that honour?
Finally you admit that they are making concessions to profit, at workers expense, but still defend them. Come the revolution, you will have a hard time avoiding criminal trial, when you openly support such enemies of the working class.
They are weak because they have weakened themselves through "concessions" or capitulation to the profit system. Workers don't trust bourgeois unions that work against their interests, and rightly so.

We need real unions, that operate in the interests of workers. Not unions where the leaders pay themselves enormous salaries, and pass workers dues over to capitalist election campaigns.

[A Marxist Historian]

What's shaneo's attitude to unions?


...
I would love to be the one to finish them off..

A complete confession.

I think this character's postings should be boycotted. In fact, I think he should be banned. Anybody who outright advocates smashing unions is, like I said, an enemy of the working class. That should be obvious. Anybody fooled by all the radical rhetoric he wraps that in is naive to say the least.

He has no place here.

-M.H.-

[shaneo]

What's shaneo's attitude to unions?



A complete confession.

I think this character's postings should be boycotted. In fact, I think he should be banned. Anybody who outright advocates smashing unions is, like I said, an enemy of the working class. That should be obvious. Anybody fooled by all the radical rhetoric he wraps that in is naive to say the least.

He has no place here.

-M.H.-

Why do you say "confession"? When have i ever hidden the fact that i despise bourgeois unions, and would like to see them finished off? You make it sound like you've caught me out or something! Lol

So I should be banned for daring to question the existing trade unions current control over left thinking, and the way they push support (including financial) behind criminal capitalist parties such as labour and the democrats. All I call for, is that the working class reject these tools of capitalism, and close them down. I provide no radical rhetoric. Only facts, and questions that you are unable to answer.

You were only able to provide one dubious example of a union getting a gain for workers in the last twenty years, but blindly stick to your allegiance to unions. Even though you have already confessed that they provide concessions to capitalism.
You refuse to answer a simple question: "Where is your evidence that Mr North is "keeping the unions out" of his printing / publishing company?" So you happily peddle slanderous rumours about anyone who questions the unions.

You have previously stated, "Well, because they are the only protections workers have against the capitalists these days, as crappy as they so often are." so you define the existing trade unions as workers only protectors? Propping up organisations that are there to subvert workers struggles, and your attempt to ban me for asking questions and expressing my views, makes you a fascist. Surely it is you who should be banned as an enemy of the working class?

Perhaps you are a union employee, or official, and are afraid of losing your massive salary? We have no way of knowing. Your determination to defend such criminal organisations suggests a dubious motive.

If revleft is just a forum for ignorant people to prop up capitalisms tools of control, then you are right; I have no place here.

[jookyle]

I think there's generally a different perception of unions among Americans. In America, you grow up with a notion that unions and communism are very much related to each other. And, historically speaking, there was a time when they very much were.

Also, I think what America needs is just A communist party. A single party that everyone rallys around the same way they did with CPUSA in the 30's- McCarthyism.

[shaneo]

I think there's generally a different perception of unions among Americans. In America, you grow up with a notion that unions and communism are very much related to each other. And, historically speaking, there was a time when they very much were.

Also, I think what America needs is just A communist party. A single party that everyone rallys around the same way they did with CPUSA in the 30's- McCarthyism.

They are a bit this way in the UK as well. I know that they started as workers organisations, but it ain't the case now.

It's just unfortunate that some posters will stoop to any level to keep up illusions in the unions.