What is Left-Communism?

[Dogs On Acid]

What do you stand for?

Why do you reject parliamentarism, unions, and national liberation movements?

[Blake's Baby]

Fundamentally, because we don't see anything progressive in them. We think that capitalism's tasks are done, the bourgeoisie has exhausted its revolutionary potential, and 'the era of wars and revolutions has begun' in the words of the Communist International (from the '21 Conditions' possibly?)

Rosa Luxemburg criticised the notion of the right of nations to self determination and pretty much all Left Communists I think would go along with that critique (except some Bordigists who are a bit soft on nat-lib).

We also in general consider that parliament was the institution that the bourgeoisie used, and when the bourgeoisise is no longer a revolutionary class its institutions become reactionary. The working class has its own forms of organisation - soviets, workers' councils, mass assemblies - which are the revolutionary organisational forms of the future.

As for unions, in the majority of the world, the unions integrated themselves into the state machine 100 years or more ago. Yes they have working class people in them, but so do churches, armies, camera clubs, gymnasia and fascist parties. We don't see a revolutionary potential in any of those things either. Different Left Communist groups have different attitudes to the unions however; but on the whole, unions aren't seen as part of the working class movement any more.

[Dark Matter]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

hmm here you go :laugh:

thank science for wikipedia

[Tim Cornelis]

I never understood why Bordiga is considered a left communist, he is more of an ultra-Leninist it seems to me. Could someone explain this?

[Искра]

I never understood why Bordiga is considered a left communist, he is more of an ultra-Leninist it seems to me. Could someone explain this?Firstly you should write what do you consider "leninism", so that we can discuss.

Bordiga is considered left communist because of his strong internationalist position and opposition to parliamentarism and reformism. Of course, the fact that we consider Bordiga important figure doesn't mean that we agree with him on everything. Left communists are, imho, rare left tendency which tends to put politics/principles before theoreticians.

[daft punk]

So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?

And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?

[Искра]

So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?
Do we reject siding with fractions of Capital and call ourselves Marxist? 100%


And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?We hail Satan and smoke meth.

[Tim Cornelis]

So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?

And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?

Why wouldn't you be able to be a Marxist and reject parliamentarianism?


The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....

"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."

Owing to the prevalence of social-chauvinism and opportunism, this remarkable criticism of parliamentarism, made in 1871, also belongs now to the "forgotten words" of Marxism

(State and Revolution, chapter 3, section/paragraph 3, "Abolition of Parliamentarianism")


Firstly you should write what do you consider "leninism", so that we can discuss.

The core foundation of Leninism is the advocacy of a vanguard party. Meanwhile, left communism rejects a vanguard party and "advocates" revolutionary spontaneity, as far as I know.

[Искра]

The core foundation of Leninism is the advocacy of a vanguard party. Meanwhile, left communism rejects a vanguard party and "advocates" revolutionary spontaneity, as far as I know.
Well, it depends on what do you consider "vanguard party". Left communists advocate creation of communist party of proletariat. That would be kind of a vanguard party, but vanguard are not intelectuals but all party members, because they are the ones with the "vision", political goal etc. how to establish communism.

Of course, as we advocate class and not party dictatorship we advocat soviets as bodies etc.

Spontaneity and vanguard party dosen't have to be on opposit poles.

I don't know... I think that you need to write more about what you don't like in what you call "Leninism" (because "Leninism" is really broad current or idea of current) and what don't you like when it comes to Bordiga. Some left communists have problem with his idea of state and party etc. I guess that you could call that "Leninism" etc.

[Dogs On Acid]

So you don't believe unions can be a catalyst to class-consciousness? Also, are unions not a product of class-struggle under capitalism?

[Искра]

So you don't believe unions can be a catalyst to class-consciousness? Also, are unions not a product of class-struggle under capitalism?
They were, but today unions only serve as bodies for national capital to discipline workers.

[Blake's Baby]

...
The core foundation of Leninism is the advocacy of a vanguard party. Meanwhile, left communism rejects a vanguard party and "advocates" revolutionary spontaneity, as far as I know.

There are vanguards and vanguards. Left Communists as Kontrrazvedka says support a vanguard party. What they reject is that party taking political power on behalf of the working class.

The vanguard is the most politically advanced section of the working class. The existing political organisations of the working class are that vanguard; revolutionaries are that vanguard. We support the union of the political minorities internationally into a 'world party of communism'. So we are for a vanguard party. We believe that that party is necessary for the working class to make its revolution. We don't believe that the party makes the revolution for the working class.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Labor unions today do serve a certainly function of disciplining workers, but they also advocate for economic benefits for those same workers. Given the push for austerity and rampant international neo-liberalism seeking to erode the gains of the working class, Left Communists ought to consider whether unions might once again become a vehicle for developing class consciousness. MY view is that they are to some degree since at least some unions are still willing to fight for the gains of their workers.

[Ocean Seal]

Firstly you should write what do you consider "leninism", so that we can discuss.

Bordiga is considered left communist because of his strong internationalist position and opposition to parliamentarism and reformism. Of course, the fact that we consider Bordiga important figure doesn't mean that we agree with him on everything. Left communists are, imho, rare left tendency which tends to put politics/principles before theoreticians.

Yes left-communism is not a unified trend. The Italian and Dutch German traditions are quite distinct in that the Italian tradition (which is split in itself) finds more common ground with Lenin than the anarchists and and its the other way around for the Dutch German current.

They often find themselves against national liberation (which IIRC might not be the case with Bordiga), anti-fascist unity movements, parliamentary participation, and collaboration with reformist unions.

[Per Levy]

so how exactly do council communists and left coms differ? it seems to me that they are pretty close, yet still not the same. so i just want to know in what ways council coms and left coms are different in their views. thanks, and i have to say this is pretty good thread so far, very insightful.

[Искра]

Labor unions today do serve a certainly function of disciplining workers, but they also advocate for economic benefits for those same workers. Given the push for austerity and rampant international neo-liberalism seeking to erode the gains of the working class, Left Communists ought to consider whether unions might once again become a vehicle for developing class consciousness. MY view is that they are to some degree since at least some unions are still willing to fight for the gains of their workers.
It not about will but about institutiona frame work in which unions exist in capitalism. In order to push struggle on next level working class needs to create different institutions or bodies for struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

so how exactly do council communists and left coms differ? it seems to me that they are pretty close, yet still not the same. so i just want to know in what ways council coms and left coms are different in their views. thanks, and i have to say this is pretty good thread so far, very insightful.


Left-Coms: Pro-October, pro-Party
Council-Coms: believe October was a bourgeois revolution, believe all parties are bourgeois

Council communists have a conception of revolutionary organisation that revolves around ditching the history and theory of the 2nd International as 'the old workers' movement'. Left Coms are much happier about sorting through the history and politics of the 2nd Int and gleaning the useable bits from the bits we think are unusable (after all, all the main theoreticians who influenced the Communist Left, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Gorter, Pannekoek, Bukharin) were in the 2nd Int. The left wing of the 2nd Int was precisely what broke from Social Democracy to found the 3rd Int. It wasn't a total waste of time.

[daft punk]

Why wouldn't you be able to be a Marxist and reject parliamentarianism?


"Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention."

Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm



The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....

"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."

Owing to the prevalence of social-chauvinism and opportunism, this remarkable criticism of parliamentarism, made in 1871, also belongs now to the "forgotten words" of Marxism

This is after a revolution, not years before one.

[daft punk]

They were, but today unions only serve as bodies for national capital to discipline workers.

Oh, come on this is ludicrous. Do you not live in the real world? Unions are a vital part of workers lives defending jobs and conditions, fighting for better wages and so on. Some unions are led by Marxists. I dunno how you can expect a post like that to be taken seriously.

[Blake's Baby]

Marx also supported the German state if it was attacked by France or Russia. Do you think, that in order to be a Marxist, it's necessary to hold those positions, for instance between 1939 (when France decalred war on Germany) and oooh, 1989? Or do you think, maybe that some positions Marx held were conditional on circumstance?

[daft punk]

Marx also supported the German state if it was attacked by France or Russia. Do you think, that in order to be a Marxist, it's necessary to hold those positions, for instance between 1939 (when France decalred war on Germany) and oooh, 1989? Or do you think, maybe that some positions Marx held were conditional on circumstance?
who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

[Blake's Baby]

You said you can't be a Marxist if you don't advocate parliamentarism, because Marx did in 1848.

I'm asking if you have to support Marx's position on defence of Germany being attacked by Russia and France too, whether you do support it, and whether you consider yourself a Marxist.

[Искра]

Oh, come on this is ludicrous. Do you not live in the real world? Unions are a vital part of workers lives defending jobs and conditions, fighting for better wages and so on. Some unions are led by Marxists. I dunno how you can expect a post like that to be taken seriously.Unions promote cooperation with bosses and state, they promote siding with national fraction of bourgeuisie (especially industrial bourgeuisie), they promote flexicurity etc. They promote dominang ideology of ruling class together with some populist crys for welfare state (aka. state capitalism)... They supress workers strikes and defiant etc. I think that you are the one who needs to wake up and take a look at the real world, because it's not like in a CWI's notebook.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In the past certain unions have done all of those reactionary things, but in this era of neo-liberalism and austerity workers more and more are being pressed to give back their hard won gains and unions are also under attack, in the USA in particular.

[Искра]

Neo-liberalism is nothing but a trend in capitalism in which working class doesn't need protection of state in same way that it needed before. Unions were not (just) reactionary in the past... they are reactionary now. These policies I'm talking about are what they are advocating now.

Also, of course that unions are against anti-unions law, but in order to be an ally of working class unions should advocate class politics which they do, but in favour of ruling class. So, unions should advocate social change trought revolution and establishement of proletariat dictatorship but they don't. They advocate corporativist bodies and shit like that.

Also as you can see, working class (and others) are not using different methods and they are more and more sceptical about unions. That's good.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Neo-liberalism is nothing but a trend in capitalism in which working class doesn't need protection of state in same way that it needed before. Unions were not (just) reactionary in the past... they are reactionary now. These policies I'm talking about are what they are advocating now.

Also, of course that unions are against anti-unions law, but in order to be an ally of working class unions should advocate class politics which they do, but in favour of ruling class. So, unions should advocate social change trought revolution and establishement of proletariat dictatorship but they don't. They advocate corporativist bodies and shit like that.

Also as you can see, working class (and others) are not using different methods and they are more and more sceptical about unions. That's good.

Yep, this my experience. I remain in my union because, at the very least, I believe the unions can still help individual members. And they have in my case. However, what they can no longer do is advance the interests of the class as a whole.

[Lolumad273]

Are we really saying that unionism is bad? No one would argue that unions like the UAW are in bed with government and corporation. But the idea of unions being bad? I don't think so... There just aren't very many unions with the working class at heart.

[daft punk]

You said you can't be a Marxist if you don't advocate parliamentarism, because Marx did in 1848.

I'm asking if you have to support Marx's position on defence of Germany being attacked by Russia and France too, whether you do support it, and whether you consider yourself a Marxist.

I said Marx advocated workers standing in elections, He gave some concrete reasons. If you think those reasons no longer stand you should explain why.


Unions promote cooperation with bosses and state, they promote siding with national fraction of bourgeuisie (especially industrial bourgeuisie), they promote flexicurity etc. They promote dominang ideology of ruling class together with some populist crys for welfare state (aka. state capitalism)... They supress workers strikes and defiant etc. I think that you are the one who needs to wake up and take a look at the real world, because it's not like in a CWI's notebook.

This is so bizarre!

So your opinion on the 1984 miners strike? You would have opposed the strike or what? The workers striking to defend jobs, wages and conditions. Do you not support that? It does not usually happen without the unions involvement.

[Искра]

There's nothing bizzare here - it's called capitalism.

[daft punk]

No, your view that all unions are a total waste of time is bizarre.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I said Marx advocated workers standing in elections, He gave some concrete reasons. If you think those reasons no longer stand you should explain why.



This is so bizarre!

So your opinion on the 1984 miners strike? You would have opposed the strike or what? The workers striking to defend jobs, wages and conditions. Do you not support that? It does not usually happen without the unions involvement.

Of course individual workers should be supported in struggle. But this is surely different from the characterisation of the unions?

I would also add that the situation has further changed since 1984/85. We have gone through a period of deindustrialisation. This not only meant some industries became redundant but also led to the the trade unions becoming redundant as well. That is, in terms of advancing the interests of a class as a whole. Which was course why the Tories destroyed those industries. For example (in Britain, anyway), we now have hundreds of thousands of workers in industries like gaming. They work for bookmakers or casinos. The highly unlikely event of gaming workers going on strike is hardly going to achieve much to advance the interests of the class, in comparison when key industries to the state went on strike in the past.

[daft punk]

And we have a government attacking civil servants, and a civil servant union led by Marxists, fighting the government.

Continuing the pensions battle: PCS consultative ballot

Members of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) are voting in a consultation over the next steps in fighting the government's assault on public sector pensions (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Pensions). Over 250,000 workers will be voting in a ballot which closes on 16 March, asking whether they reject the government's pensions proposals and whether they support the joint union campaign for fair pensions for all.
The result will be considered at a special meeting of the union's national executive on 19 March.
The union's executive has unanimously rejected the government's latest offer and is discussing with unions representing members of the civil service (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Civil_Service), education and health pension schemes about taking joint strike action on 28 March.


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/Workplace_and_TU_campaigns/PCS/14059

[SHORAS]

It not about will but about institutiona frame work in which unions exist in capitalism. In order to push struggle on next level working class needs to create different institutions or bodies for struggle.

I thought the view was to do with capital, markets either being saturated or the falling rate of profit in decadent/decomposing capitalism not the "frame work" of an organisation. Hence unions could grant permanent reforms and concessions, perhaps even revolution for the exploited class in the ascendant period of capitalism but not so today?

[Blake's Baby]

Kontrrazvedka didn't say it was about the framework of the organisation, he said it was about the institutional framework in which unions exist. It's not about the structure of this or that union, it's about how unions work in capitalism.

Now I'm going to claim honourable exception for the IWW and the FAU and anarcho-syndicalist unions; because they don't function in the same way inside capitalism. They don't do deals with the bosses.

But 'business unions', 'piecard unions' as they're known in the US, exist to tie workers to national capital, with their ridiculous 'British jobs for British workers' slogans and 'pragmatic' deals in the national interest (selling out the General Strike in the UK, for instance; in the Miners' Strike in the UK, the slogan 'Coal not Dole' was not a slogan for the working class. How is 'Defend Our Pensions' from the lecturers' union now going to help college students solidarise with staff to spread the struggles? Unions exist to fragment workers' struggles not unite them).

Not to mention their role over the last 100 years in for instance enrolling the working class into WWI, standing by 'their own' governments in that conflict; honestly, the unions today are the heirs of the social patriots.

Unions are not an organ of the working class. They were once, but Rosa critiqued the reformism and ultimately reactionary nature of unions in 1906, as they were the parts of the workers' movement that were most intimately connected with compromises with capitalism (along with the parliamentary fractions of the socialist parties). Now they exist to deflect workers' anger into reformist campaigns designed to increase the power of the left of capital.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Unions promote cooperation with bosses and state, they promote siding with national fraction of bourgeuisie (especially industrial bourgeuisie), they promote flexicurity etc. They promote dominang ideology of ruling class together with some populist crys for welfare state (aka. state capitalism)... They supress workers strikes and defiant etc. I think that you are the one who needs to wake up and take a look at the real world, because it's not like in a CWI's notebook.

Well, so do newspapers, and TV stations, and most websites, should we be against those, in principle? Trying to make workers revolution without using the already extant forms of worker organization makes little sense. The CPUSA tried this in the 1920s by forming their own unions, with predictably dismal results. Obviously, the union leaderships need to be replaced with reds -- this has happened in the past, why not in the future? I don't think we need to repeat these old errors with failed experiments to show that they are still hollow formulations.

Also, without labor unions, workers would be exposed to even greater exploitation and abuse than usual.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Unions are certainly reformist, but even in the USA industrial unions are not reactionary, to the contrary union leaders like Trumka are well to the left. Condemning unions across the board would only increase the gulf between the working class and politically conscious revolutionaries. Although I am not a Leninist in toto I do believe that the basic approach he set forth in Left-wing Communism is still valid today.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, so do newspapers, and TV stations, and most websites, should we be against those, in principle? ...

Capitalist ones do, certainly, and I'm not aware that any Left Communists are saying 'hey! Subscribe to Fox News! It'll really help you fight capitalism!'

[Искра]

Unions are reformists. They protect the workers because bourgeuisie law says so. Also, they can help workers on individual level and on level of labour dispute. We are not questioning that...

But, we claim that unions can not be acters of socialist change, of class war against bourgeuisie, because their whole existance is to prevent that from happening :)

[GoddessCleoLover]

Unions are certainly limited in scope to what Lenin termed "economism". Bourgeois law in the USA is actually fairly hostile to unions, more so than in the UK or at least most of Europe. The American bourgeoisie has largely succeeded in creating a class of service workers in the past thirty years or so that is not only grossly underpaid but also lacks benefits such as health care. At least within the American context IMO organizing these workers could yield some real tangible benefits with respect to class consciousness. My understanding is that European service workers are not as badly exploited as they are in the USA so such a movement may not be as beneficial to the class consciousness of European workers.

[Paulappaul]

Oh, come on this is ludicrous. Do you not live in the real world? Unions are a vital part of workers lives defending jobs and conditions, fighting for better wages and so on. Some unions are led by Marxists. I dunno how you can expect a post like that to be taken seriously.


So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?

And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?

It's elitist, passively aggressive comments like this that make me fucking hate Trotskyists. Left - Coms are aganist Trade Unions, not Workplace Organization you tard. History has shown, time and again that Trade Unions have been either vehicles of reform or vehicles of crushing Workers' Spontaneity, NOT REVOLUTION . Counterpoised to Trade Unions we organize and advocate for Workplace organization along Class lines, rather then Trade or Industrial . Workplace Organization which is Horizontal and consists of Mass Assemblies much like the Soviets.

Blah Blah we can talk about Marx this and Marx that. Fact of the matter is, Marx was a Historical Materialist and rejected Dogma and Ideology. If the man was alive today and saw shits like you taking about what he said in 1848 to be divine truth he'd probably give up on the possibly of the left ever having a significant role in the workers' revolution.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Isnt the definition of a Union too wide in order to make a simplyfied question like 'for or against?' Unions can be reformist-class traitor tools in the hands of the ruling class, or they can come as radical syndicalists. Infact, where does the difference of a well organized workers council and a union (in its true meaning) go? There are examples here in Sweden where members of reformist unions have taken back the control over them in order to be more radical. I dont belive that the greatest obsticle between todays situation and the revolution can be found there.

[Paulappaul]

I think Left Communists understand that.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Kontrrazvedka didn't say it was about the framework of the organisation, he said it was about the institutional framework in which unions exist. It's not about the structure of this or that union, it's about how unions work in capitalism.

Now I'm going to claim honourable exception for the IWW and the FAU and anarcho-syndicalist unions; because they don't function in the same way inside capitalism. They don't do deals with the bosses.

But 'business unions', 'piecard unions' as they're known in the US, exist to tie workers to national capital, with their ridiculous 'British jobs for British workers' slogans and 'pragmatic' deals in the national interest (selling out the General Strike in the UK, for instance; in the Miners' Strike in the UK, the slogan 'Coal not Dole' was not a slogan for the working class. How is 'Defend Our Pensions' from the lecturers' union now going to help college students solidarise with staff to spread the struggles? Unions exist to fragment workers' struggles not unite them).

Not to mention their role over the last 100 years in for instance enrolling the working class into WWI, standing by 'their own' governments in that conflict; honestly, the unions today are the heirs of the social patriots.

Unions are not an organ of the working class. They were once, but Rosa critiqued the reformism and ultimately reactionary nature of unions in 1906, as they were the parts of the workers' movement that were most intimately connected with compromises with capitalism (along with the parliamentary fractions of the socialist parties). Now they exist to deflect workers' anger into reformist campaigns designed to increase the power of the left of capital.
Unions are absolutely tools that the working class has used and can use again. Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads, "Unions: The folks who brought you the weekend." And they have a point. The IWW, although I have some deep respect for it, never had the decisive influence that the UAW, Teamsters and other major industrial unions had in changing, for the better, the lives of workers in this country -- they also at times were led by communists (that's when they won the most for the workers). The IWW has also never had a small fraction of the social power of the large unions. If it reached a point where there was virtually no union membership in the US, and most major unions ceased to exist, forming red unions might be on the agenda.

But as the bank robber Willie Sutton ostensibly said when asked why he robbed banks ("because that's where the money is."). So unions are where the workers are. Moreover it's workers organized at the point of production. Going outside of the unions to organize workers, historically, has been a very unsuccessful strategy.

I understand your despair about the current state of union leadership. It is abysmal. My take is that first they purged the reds -- but at least you had a generation that were trained by the reds (Hoffa, Reuther), by now you have the idiot grandchildren of these bastards who wouldn't know how to lead a victorious strike

[Paulappaul]

Unions are absolutely tools that the working class has used and can use again. Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads, "Unions: The folks who brought you the weekend." And they have a point..

Good God. Left Communists don't reject the positive historical agency that Unions have played for the Working Class. The problem is that, they aren't agents for revolution and a 10 hour work day, a 9 hour work day, hell 1 hour work day, it doesn't make a difference, it's still exploitation, it's still Capitalism.


So unions are where the workers are. Moreover it's workers organized at the point of production. Going outside of the unions to organize workers, historically, has been a very unsuccessful strategy.

There are workers in Walmart, there are workers in Church, roll down the Republican hangout in your local area and you'll see.. surprise! Workers. In a country as America where an extreme minority of Workers are unionized - not to mention the ones that are usually privileged and less open to revolution - it's fatal to organize in Unions for anything more then simple reform. Like I said though, Left Communists aren't aganist Workplace Organization, we want Point - Production organizing just we want the content of it to be revolutionary.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Non-union employers like WalMart are the most effective in preventing workplace organization, since they are experienced at prevent organizing of a union nature they will certainly prevent organizing of a revolutionary nature.

[Paulappaul]

That's what they said about Starbucks and the Fast Food Industry. Our focus can't be on Point of Production organizing in America anyways.

[Искра]

Non-union employers like WalMart are the most effective in preventing workplace organization, since they are experienced at prevent organizing of a union nature they will certainly prevent organizing of a revolutionary nature.
Sorry, but this is just stupid. Workers in WalMart know that they can be replaced every second. They don't wanna do anything but too keep their jobs. In revolutionary situation those workers would crucify all capitalists...

[Ostrinski]

Man, when I first started working for Walmart they made me watch a 2+ hour long anti-union video and take a test after it. At first I was really irritated then it just got really boring.

Sorry. Commence with your discussion on left communism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The fact that WalMart employees know that they are expendable makes it difficult to organize there. They might want to crucify capitalists but the question is how will they organize themselves to do so? My opinion, stupid or not, is that workers who have the experience of working together as a class may turn out to be ahead of super-exploited workers with respect to engaging in political activity.

[Искра]

Your oppinion is quite elitist and shortsighted. First of all WalMart workers (and I'm talking from experience of simmilar workers here) will never organize themselves in union or anything like that, especially if company is against that, because they work low paid and low quality job and they are aware of army of unemployed workers who will replace them if they do anything "against the book" of their managemant. So, if you call yourself a communist you should know that and leave this elitist attitude thowards them like they are some kind of reactionary crap just because they are not in the union. Such workers care only for their job because they don't want to be unemployed. Their position is fucking reasonable and only moralists can condemn them.

On the other hand as such workplace conditions are becoming a rule once again we need to think over this trade union concept. Can we still imply it today? What can we achive? What it is purpose etc...

Now, we have witness movements such as OWS or struggle here in Europe etc. Such workers participated in these struggles and they have made impact on society and capital.

I believe that their situation is not about how they are "reactionary" because they are not in union or how they "behind" anyone... Their situation is about what can they organise to fight back. Unionism failed here and unions pretty much don't care about non-unionised workers... Soo much about class concience of unions.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I never wrote anything about WalMart employees being "reactionary" merely that unionized employees benefitted from the fact that they belonged to a class-based organization. Unions have a mixed record with respect to organizing the unorganized, at the very least they have failed to sufficiently prioritize the issue. My personal experience with the Occupy movement in the USA is that unions have played a positive role, but haven't supported it as much as they might have.

[Yazman]

It's elitist, passively aggressive comments like this that make me fucking hate Trotskyists. Left - Coms are aganist Trade Unions, not Workplace Organization you tard. History has shown, time and again that Trade Unions have been either vehicles of reform or vehicles of crushing Workers' Spontaneity, NOT REVOLUTION . Counterpoised to Trade Unions we organize and advocate for Workplace organization along Class lines, rather then Trade or Industrial . Workplace Organization which is Horizontal and consists of Mass Assemblies much like the Soviets.

Blah Blah we can talk about Marx this and Marx that. Fact of the matter is, Marx was a Historical Materialist and rejected Dogma and Ideology. If the man was alive today and saw shits like you taking about what he said in 1848 to be divine truth he'd probably give up on the possibly of the left ever having a significant role in the workers' revolution.

Don't insult other users! It's against the rules and you're not allowed to do it under any circumstances.

You're getting infracted if I see you do it again even once more. This is a warning.

[Paulappaul]

Don't insult other users! It's against the rules and you're not allowed to do it under any circumstances.

You're getting infracted if I see you do it again even once more. This is a warning.

Bout time, Geez mods be slow as hell.


Unions have a mixed record with respect to organizing the unorganized, at the very least they have failed to sufficiently prioritize the issue. My personal experience with the Occupy movement in the USA is that unions have played a positive role, but haven't supported it as much as they might have.

Because Trade Unions are well, organized along trades. They can't help by their nature to be organs of struggle for a single trade, not for a class as a whole.

[daft punk]

Kontrrazvedka didn't say it was about the framework of the organisation, he said it was about the institutional framework in which unions exist. It's not about the structure of this or that union, it's about how unions work in capitalism.

But what exactly?



Now I'm going to claim honourable exception for the IWW and the FAU and anarcho-syndicalist unions; because they don't function in the same way inside capitalism. They don't do deals with the bosses.

Can you give some examples




But 'business unions', 'piecard unions' as they're known in the US, exist to tie workers to national capital, with their ridiculous 'British jobs for British workers' slogans and 'pragmatic' deals in the national interest (selling out the General Strike in the UK, for instance; in the Miners' Strike in the UK, the slogan 'Coal not Dole' was not a slogan for the working class. How is 'Defend Our Pensions' from the lecturers' union now going to help college students solidarise with staff to spread the struggles? Unions exist to fragment workers' struggles not unite them).


The NUM was not a 'business union'. The only place company unions exist is Japan, and a few in France. They are illegal in America.

What union used a slogan British jobs for British workers?

Yes the General Strike was sold out in the UK. Also the Stalinist Communist Party were found wanting. The Stalinists did not warn against trusting the TUC leadership, they did the opposite, sowing illusions, especially in the left of the TUC leadership, creating the Anglo-Soviet Committee.

But the fact that the leaders sold it out does not mean the whole organisation is useless.

Trotsky warned against trusting the TUC leaders, warned that the British ruling class were preparing for a showdown, and warned that a general strike poses a question of dual power, either it leads to revolution or severe defeat.

What is wrong with the slogan Coal not Dole?

Why cant students understand lecturer's need to defend their pensions?

Why are you offering no alternatives?




Not to mention their role over the last 100 years in for instance enrolling the working class into WWI, standing by 'their own' governments in that conflict; honestly, the unions today are the heirs of the social patriots.

I don't think we can write off all trade unions because they advocated defending their country 100 years ago when Germany threatened to invade. Even Lenin was still working out his position as far as I know. The only alternative would be revolution, but Britain had no revolutionary party.



Unions are not an organ of the working class. They were once, but Rosa critiqued the reformism and ultimately reactionary nature of unions in 1906, as they were the parts of the workers' movement that were most intimately connected with compromises with capitalism (along with the parliamentary fractions of the socialist parties). Now they exist to deflect workers' anger into reformist campaigns designed to increase the power of the left of capital.

Rosa Luxemburg was a great Marxist but she was wrong on a couple of major things, and the result was her murder and the defeat of the 1919 German revolution - she was partly to blame, I think.

You sound as though you think any gains by the working class simply delay the revolution, like you would want us all starving, with no medical treatment, in cold rundown houses. Is that what you want?

Do you not understand that winning gains increases the confidence of the working class?

[daft punk]

Unions are reformists. They protect the workers because bourgeuisie law says so. Also, they can help workers on individual level and on level of labour dispute. We are not questioning that...

But, we claim that unions can not be acters of socialist change, of class war against bourgeuisie, because their whole existance is to prevent that from happening :)

No it is not. This is only in your imagination. Unions exist because workers created them to defend their interests. They never wanted them to prevent socialist change.

We all know that many of the union leaders lose their left wing ideals by the time they get to the top, and can sell out strikes. This is because they are Stalinists or reformists by that stage. But this does not justify not working in unions, where the best potential revolutionaries can be found.

Unions can prevent socialist change, and the can contribute towards socialist change, you are looking at it in a black and white way whereas reality is far more complex. Marxist parties can and have prevented revolutions, but we don't write them all off as anti-revolutionary.

You are boxing everything up and this is way too simplistic.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by Kontrrazvedka http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2374929#post2374929)
"They were, but today unions only serve as bodies for national capital to discipline workers."

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2375003#post2375003)
"Oh, come on this is ludicrous. Do you not live in the real world? Unions are a vital part of workers lives defending jobs and conditions, fighting for better wages and so on. Some unions are led by Marxists. I dunno how you can expect a post like that to be taken seriously."


Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2374884#post2374884)
"So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?

And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?"





It's elitist, passively aggressive comments like this that make me fucking hate Trotskyists. Left - Coms are aganist Trade Unions, not Workplace Organization you tard. History has shown, time and again that Trade Unions have been either vehicles of reform or vehicles of crushing Workers' Spontaneity, NOT REVOLUTION . Counterpoised to Trade Unions we organize and advocate for Workplace organization along Class lines, rather then Trade or Industrial . Workplace Organization which is Horizontal and consists of Mass Assemblies much like the Soviets.

Blah Blah we can talk about Marx this and Marx that. Fact of the matter is, Marx was a Historical Materialist and rejected Dogma and Ideology. If the man was alive today and saw shits like you taking about what he said in 1848 to be divine truth he'd probably give up on the possibly of the left ever having a significant role in the workers' revolution.

So, apart from flying into a rage and hurling insults at me, what have you offered?

"Workplace organization along Class lines, rather then Trade or Industrial . Workplace Organization which is Horizontal and consists of Mass Assemblies much like the Soviets. "

A lot of random capital letters, but what does it mean? Where are the examples? What soviets have you built in America or the UK?

You do realise that in Russia, soviets were spontaneously created in a revolutionary situation?

I asked what you do, but you haven't given me much. I expect some examples otherwise it's just words.

You call me elitist, but you go up to a random factory worker and tell him that you think unions are just bodies for national capital to discipline workers. They will tell you the same as me, that you are talking utter nonsense.

Now I gave a concrete, current example of a dispute involving a union with Marxist leaders, with a link.

You and your fellow left coms have chosen to completely ignore it. Why is this?

[Per Levy]

Marxist parties can and have prevented revolutions, but we don't write them all off as anti-revolutionary.

if "marxist" parties prevent revolutions then yes i call them what they are and that would be anti-revolutionary.

[Dogs On Acid]

The general anti-union stance of left-coms annoys me a bit because as has been said over and over in this thread, not all unions are in cooperation with the bosses.

I am aware that many unions are in fact tools of capital to ensure a certain mutual class agreement and to serve a an "exhaust" to revolutionary activity of the working class, but many unions, such as the CGTP in Portugal, are dominated by the Communist Party, and are not only general unions for all trades, they also oppose CIA controlled unions that are in bed with the bosses, like the portuguese UGT.

Also, your fondness of Worker Organizations that aren't unions is akin to a support of Anarchist "Dual-Power".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power

You should call yourselves "anti-reformist unionism" and not simply "anti-unionism" because it's very misleading.

[Искра]

It's funny how you (daft punk) never responded to anything with arguments etc. You just write "it's bizzare", "you are crazy" etc. and you give no answers to claims I stand behind :)

For example this:

Unions promote cooperation with bosses and state, they promote siding with national fraction of bourgeuisie (especially industrial bourgeuisie), they promote flexicurity etc. They promote dominang ideology of ruling class together with some populist crys for welfare state (aka. state capitalism)... They supress workers strikes and defiant etc. I think that you are the one who needs to wake up and take a look at the real world, because it's not like in a CWI's notebook...

It's not bizzare nor I'm crazy. This is reality in the World (I could give you a lot of examples from Europe, and I guess that other comrades can help and "cover" the rest of the world).

[Искра]

Even small grassroots or radical unions can not be bodies of class struggle. Problem in them is problem of economical struggle which stands in the front of political struggle. They tend to louse themselves in reformism and populism and since they just want to grow up they louse their political line (which was problematic in the first place, but it gets worst)...

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2375617#post2375617)
"Marxist parties can and have prevented revolutions, but we don't write them all off as anti-revolutionary. "


if "marxist" parties prevent revolutions then yes i call them what they are and that would be anti-revolutionary.

I meant you dont write off ALL Marxist Parties just because of a few bad ones.


It's funny how you (daft punk) never responded to anything with arguments etc. You just write "it's bizzare", "you are crazy" etc. and you give no answers to claims I stand behind :)

For example this:

It's not bizzare nor I'm crazy. This is reality in the World (I could give you a lot of examples from Europe, and I guess that other comrades can help and "cover" the rest of the world).

I just gave a whole load of arguments. We all know many union leaders are reformist. But it is down to you to support you claims that all union activity is ant-worker, including the miners strike in the UK etc.
I gave an example of a recent struggle and am still waiting for a left com to comment on it.


Even small grassroots or radical unions can not be bodies of class struggle. Problem in them is problem of economical struggle which stands in the front of political struggle. They tend to louse themselves in reformism and populism and since they just want to grow up they louse their political line (which was problematic in the first place, but it gets worst)...

So you shun the struggles of the workers. You stand to one side tut tutting. You expect workers to then flock to you in droves? It aint ever gonna happen!

I have yet to see anything CONCRETE from the left coms. Not a single example, not backed up by any facts or sound argument anyway. The fact is that the miners strike nearly brought down Thatcher (she admitted that) and that would have been a tremendous boost to the working class in Britain and internationally.

[Искра]

You didn't give anything. I wasn't talking about union leaders. I'm not a liberal and I don't take an individual to be anything important in class analasiys. I'm talking like a Marxist from class perspective and unions are bodies of working class who defend rulling class. They are bodies which say workers what can they do and what they can not. Who is a leader of union is really not so important, because it is not about individual but about his function and role in class society.

If you want support for my claims take look at CGT (France), CC.OO & UGT (Spain), SSSH (Croatia), Greek unions etc. Take a look at their politics and actions today. We could also dig up a lot of mud from the past.

If you are interested in 80's UK, read this: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/25-years-since-miners-strike

Also, I believe that you could read numerous times that left communists are claiming that unions sometimes can protect workers but that that has nothing to do with class struggle. That unions protect workers in the ways that laws of capitalist state allow them, but they can't be used as offensive force to attack capitalism. Which is why working class (+ others) use different ways of struggle... such as OWS and all simmilar stuff they did in Europe.

The problem with Trots (and other left) is that you believe in some blueprints for "revolution" which have failed numerous times and degenerated, but you still wave with them like some kind of proof that you are serious etc.

Also, I pretty much doubt that point of class struggle is to take one Prime Minister down... what then? You'll get a "socialist"? Point is to TAKE power... and you can't take it trought unions and unionist "struggle".

[ernie2]

Yes the miners strike did nearly bring down the then government but not because of the actions of the NUM. In fact the NUM was the main tool of the state to stop this happening.. How did they do this concretely and factually, the very slogan of coal not dole and the focusing of the strike onto getting the working miners out. The NUM made the aim of the strike the defense of the coal industry, at a time when the whole working class was suffering attacks on every front. Even more important though in the state's struggle to ensure that the miners remained isolated from the rest of the class, despite widespread solidarity with them, was the NUM's making getting out the whole of the industry before going to the rest of the class.. This was a very devious and powerful tactic by the NUM because it did not deny the need to go to the rest of the class, but only that it had to wait until all the miners were out. Throughout the strike in every part of the country miners told us we agree with the need for the whole class to struggle but we have to get us all out before we can call on others workers to join us. Similar arguments were used by other unions to put off calling action: if all the miners come out we can then support them.

On a direct level, the NUM worked with other unions to stop solidarity strikes and even the joining up of striking miners and other workers to meet and discuss out of the control of the NUM. Two concrete and factual examples; When the dockers came out on strike (a great moment of potential for extending the struggle to the whole class) the NUM and the dockers union made sure there was not joining up of these workers. For example at the Avon mouth docks in Bristol the union held the meeting of the striking dockers within the port area and would not allow anyone else into the meeting. We were also told by a striking miner in South Wales that the NUM and the steel union had threatened to impose disciplinary action against shop stewards form the LLanwern Steel Plant and miners from the area (the steel plant employed thousands and was next to the South Wales coal fields) if they continued to meet to discuss solidarity action without the unions permission. We were also told by power workers that the unions had come down like a ton of bricks on workers in a power plant in North Wales who had wanted to come out in support of the miners (an action that would have terrified the ruling class and its unions).
Another fact, the miners strike started as a wildcat strikes which was spread by flying pickets. It was not called by the NUM. However the NUM ensured that this struggle the began by challening its control (the NUM opposed the flying pickets going into South Wales), by stopping the momentum in its tracks by focusing all the attention on getting Nothingham out. The flying pickets were having some success at calling out pits in the area but unfortunately a working miner was killed which shocked everyone and the NUM stepped in and called a ballot of the coal field over whether to join the struggle or not. Thus removing the flying pickets from the area and the potential for them to persuade other miners to join. This also gave the rest of the ruling class time to put in place a huge ideological campaign around defending the right to work, denouncing the violence of the striking miners etc. Above all else attention was totally focused on whether the coal field would join the strike or not. And this set the tone for the whole strike.
During this time there were many demonstrations where thousands of workers came to express their solidarity with the miners, but the main union themes of these demonstrations were:
1. We have to get the whole of the industry out: if we cannot be united how want others be expected to unit with us
2. The TUC should show more support.
Both ideas reinforcing the control of the unions and the sense of isolation and desperation amongst the miners.

[ernie2]

As for Left Communists standing to one side and tutting, the facts of their actions during the miners strike proves this to be wrong. From the beginning of the strike, we (the ICC) and also the then Communist Workers Organisation (now part of the International Communist Tendency) put out leaflets call for the spreading of the struggle to the whole working class, warning of the danger of becoming isolated by the slogan of coal not dole and the actions of the NUM. When the dockers came out we distributed a leaflet to the miners, dockers, car workers and other workers calling for the class to turn the potential of this moment into a real struggle. Despite the weakness of our forces and those of the rest of the Communist Left we did all we could to put forwards the needs of the class.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Good God. Left Communists don't reject the positive historical agency that Unions have played for the Working Class. The problem is that, they aren't agents for revolution and a 10 hour work day, a 9 hour work day, hell 1 hour work day, it doesn't make a difference, it's still exploitation, it's still Capitalism.



There are workers in Walmart, there are workers in Church, roll down the Republican hangout in your local area and you'll see.. surprise! Workers. In a country as America where an extreme minority of Workers are unionized - not to mention the ones that are usually privileged and less open to revolution - it's fatal to organize in Unions for anything more then simple reform. Like I said though, Left Communists aren't aganist Workplace Organization, we want Point - Production organizing just we want the content of it to be revolutionary.
Well then, it would seem that our disagreement is a small one. One of labels. The difference though is important. In order to make a revolution, you need to have social power -- workers at Walmart and Starbucks, sadly don't have a lot. If those retailers shut down, the economy would be affected, but it would not exactly be brought to its knees. You need to have workers in critical industries -- Trucking, shipping, transit, power, to bring things to a grinding halt. There is nothing magical about the proletariat. It's just that they have both the motivation and the means to overthrow capitalism. In a time where you could readily organize workers to a revolutionary program, so could you win control of the unions. The reasons the unions have been so reactionary in this country is about the general reactionary political atmosphere, the difficulties of winning people to a revolutionary program is not about the unions per se.

[daft punk]

You didn't give anything.


I gave an example of a current dispute, but so far no left com has commented on it.



I wasn't talking about union leaders. I'm not a liberal and I don't take an individual to be anything important in class analasiys.

The whole essence of Marxism is a development of materialism to dialectical materialism, ie the importance of the role of the individual.




I'm talking like a Marxist from class perspective and unions are bodies of working class who defend rulling class.

when did Marx say that?



They are bodies which say workers what can they do and what they can not. Who is a leader of union is really not so important, because it is not about individual but about his function and role in class society.

No



If you want support for my claims take look at CGT (France), CC.OO & UGT (Spain), SSSH (Croatia), Greek unions etc. Take a look at their politics and actions today. We could also dig up a lot of mud from the past.

If you are interested in 80's UK, read this: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/25-years-since-miners-strike

You need to be specific. I looked at the link and couldnt see anything new in it, nothing I didnt already know. There was nothing in it to show that unions are anti-working class. It just showed that the miners national leadership was hesitant, and this we already know.

Try this detailed book on the miners strike:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/furniture/covers/minersstrikecutout3.jpg

Miners' Strike '84-'85

A civil war without guns

Preface and Acknowledgements (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/1.htm)
Chronology (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/Chronology.htm)
Introduction (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/2.htm)
Twenty years on (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/3.htm)

The gathering storms (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/4.htm)

The hesitant start (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/5.htm)

Nottingham and the ballot (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/6.htm)

Taking on Thatcher’s police state (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/7.htm)

Orgreave: Was it a trap? (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/8.htm)

Solidarity with the miners - but where were the union leaders? (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/9.htm)

Militant and the role of the Left (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/10.htm)

How close to victory? (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/11.htm)

After the deluge (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/12.htm)
List of abbreviations (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/abbreviations.htm)

Bibliography (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/miners_strike/bibliography.htm)

look at it, one chapter is even called 'Where were the union leaders', another called 'the hesitant start', have a look at them.






Also, I believe that you could read numerous times that left communists are claiming that unions sometimes can protect workers but that that has nothing to do with class struggle. That unions protect workers in the ways that laws of capitalist state allow them, but they can't be used as offensive force to attack capitalism. Which is why working class (+ others) use different ways of struggle... such as OWS and all simmilar stuff they did in Europe.

The problem with Trots (and other left) is that you believe in some blueprints for "revolution" which have failed numerous times and degenerated, but you still wave with them like some kind of proof that you are serious etc.

Also, I pretty much doubt that point of class struggle is to take one Prime Minister down... what then? You'll get a "socialist"? Point is to TAKE power... and you can't take it trought unions and unionist "struggle".

No you cant take power through unions, but unions can call a general strike which poses the question of power.

Do you think you are ever gonna call a general strike?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[Искра]

Occupy Oakland called for general strike and they are not a union.

[daft punk]

Yes the miners strike did nearly bring down the then government but not because of the actions of the NUM. In fact the NUM was the main tool of the state to stop this happening.. How did they do this concretely and factually, the very slogan of coal not dole and the focusing of the strike onto getting the working miners out. The NUM made the aim of the strike the defense of the coal industry, at a time when the whole working class was suffering attacks on every front. Even more important though in the state's struggle to ensure that the miners remained isolated from the rest of the class, despite widespread solidarity with them, was the NUM's making getting out the whole of the industry before going to the rest of the class.. This was a very devious and powerful tactic by the NUM because it did not deny the need to go to the rest of the class, but only that it had to wait until all the miners were out. Throughout the strike in every part of the country miners told us we agree with the need for the whole class to struggle but we have to get us all out before we can call on others workers to join us. Similar arguments were used by other unions to put off calling action: if all the miners come out we can then support them.

On a direct level, the NUM worked with other unions to stop solidarity strikes and even the joining up of striking miners and other workers to meet and discuss out of the control of the NUM. Two concrete and factual examples; When the dockers came out on strike (a great moment of potential for extending the struggle to the whole class) the NUM and the dockers union made sure there was not joining up of these workers. For example at the Avon mouth docks in Bristol the union held the meeting of the striking dockers within the port area and would not allow anyone else into the meeting. We were also told by a striking miner in South Wales that the NUM and the steel union had threatened to impose disciplinary action against shop stewards form the LLanwern Steel Plant and miners from the area (the steel plant employed thousands and was next to the South Wales coal fields) if they continued to meet to discuss solidarity action without the unions permission. We were also told by power workers that the unions had come down like a ton of bricks on workers in a power plant in North Wales who had wanted to come out in support of the miners (an action that would have terrified the ruling class and its unions).
Another fact, the miners strike started as a wildcat strikes which was spread by flying pickets. It was not called by the NUM. However the NUM ensured that this struggle the began by challening its control (the NUM opposed the flying pickets going into South Wales), by stopping the momentum in its tracks by focusing all the attention on getting Nothingham out. The flying pickets were having some success at calling out pits in the area but unfortunately a working miner was killed which shocked everyone and the NUM stepped in and called a ballot of the coal field over whether to join the struggle or not. Thus removing the flying pickets from the area and the potential for them to persuade other miners to join. This also gave the rest of the ruling class time to put in place a huge ideological campaign around defending the right to work, denouncing the violence of the striking miners etc. Above all else attention was totally focused on whether the coal field would join the strike or not. And this set the tone for the whole strike.
During this time there were many demonstrations where thousands of workers came to express their solidarity with the miners, but the main union themes of these demonstrations were:
1. We have to get the whole of the industry out: if we cannot be united how want others be expected to unit with us
2. The TUC should show more support.
Both ideas reinforcing the control of the unions and the sense of isolation and desperation amongst the miners.

Yeah. Have a read of this:



"Militant pointed out that this was the most important class conflict for decades. Pointing to the example of 1926 the paper showed that:

The TUC leaders [during 1926] became a brake on the movement. From the very first hours of the general strike, the TUC leaders were looking for an excuse to call it off. (9)
Therefore while urging action by the general council in support of the miners’ Militant also called on the miners to pursue a parallel course of appealing to the ranks:

Most miners today have already realised that the majority of the present TUC general council are no better than the leaders of 1926. Their policy of ‘new realism’ has meant little more than abject surrender. (10)
Therefore, at each stage Militant urged the miners to adopt the strategy of appealing to the ranks of the movement to put pressure on the tops for solidarity action. At the same time, the paper suggested that the miners take the lead in calling for the left leaders on the general council to pursue an independent strategy to that of the saboteurs on the right."


and





"Following the first battle of Orgreave Militant advised that at local level, direct approaches should be made, backed up by arguments and mass leafleting, to steelworkers, lorry drivers and power station workers. "



"Following the first battle of Orgreave Militant advised that at local level, direct approaches should be made, backed up by arguments and mass leafleting, to steelworkers, lorry drivers and power station workers. "
my emphasis
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/

or see the detailed book on the miners strike above. I don't really disagree that various attempts were made by union leaders to halt the strike.

But the article from the left coms itslef admits that the ruling class were smarting from their last defeat by the miners. So it's not always gonna end badly.

[Welshy]

when did Marx say that?

Since when does one have to back themselves up with a quote from Marx in order for a statement to be marxist. Marxism is not a religion.






No you cant take power through unions, but unions can call a general strike which poses the question of power.

Do you think you are ever gonna call a general strike?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

In Wisconsin last year around this time there was a call and support for a general strike, but the unions along with the democrats shut that down and directed all the energy there into a failed recall campaign. I think this is a pretty clear example of unions acting against class struggle.

Also a couple more things. I think you misunderstood the use of the term business union. To my understanding it means a union that behaves like a business. Secondly you seem to not understand how debate goes. Burden of proof falls on those making a positive statement and since we are saying unions can't be used as tools of revolutionary class struggle (or increased class struggle) and you seem to be arguing that they can be the burden of proof falls on you so it's your turn to give us concrete examples of where unions have been tools of revolutionary class struggle and increased class struggle. Also try to keep it a bit modern, there is no need to be stuck in the 1800's.

EDIT: I should note that I am probably softer than the left com's here on unions as I am willing to accept that in certain areas unions might be capable of playing a supporting role for revolution, but I don't think that is case in places US.

[hatzel]

The whole essence of Marxism is a development of materialism to dialectical materialism, ie the importance of the role of the individual.

Woah, pre-Althusserian bullshit humanist Marxism has leapt out of its rightful place in the historical annals and is now back with a vengeance, it seems...

[daft punk]

Since when does one have to back themselves up with a quote from Marx in order for a statement to be marxist. Marxism is not a religion.

For a statement claiming to be Marxist, a quote from Marx usually helps.





In Wisconsin last year around this time there was a call and support for a general strike, but the unions along with the democrats shut that down and directed all the energy there into a failed recall campaign. I think this is a pretty clear example of unions acting against class struggle.


Those particular unions, on that particular occasion. We all know about stuff like that, we havent led sheltered lives, this is stuff I learned 30 years ago.

I need more, and more to the point, a better alternative. The fact is that the unions and strikes etc are fertile ground for spreading revolutionary ideas and recruiting.



Also a couple more things. I think you misunderstood the use of the term business union. To my understanding it means a union that behaves like a business.

I thought you or whoever it was meant company union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union





Secondly you seem to not understand how debate goes. Burden of proof falls on those making a positive statement and since we are saying unions can't be used as tools of revolutionary class struggle (or increased class struggle) and you seem to be arguing that they can be the burden of proof falls on you so it's your turn to give us concrete examples of where unions have been tools of revolutionary class struggle and increased class struggle. Also try to keep it a bit modern, there is no need to be stuck in the 1800's.

Well, there has only ever been one successful revolution and that was in Russia in 1917.

I gave a recent example of a trade union struggle but no left com has addressed it. The leaders of the civil servants union in Britain are all Marxists. If there was a revolutionary situation they would be playing a revolutionary role. They are all members of cnwp which campaigns for a new workers party, a socialist party.

Tell you what, let's play lucky dip. You can play along at home too, boys and girls.

Go to Socialist World and pick a random article. Word search the page for union and see if anything turns up.

Ok, here goes...

article 1 is on Iran so not promising...

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5610

"The working class must rely on its own strength, as was seen in recent strikes and in the struggles to build independent unions. Neither the regime nor the pro-capitalist ‘reformist’ opposition leaders can guarantee jobs, housing, education, a living wage and lasting democratic rights or conduct a real struggle against imperialism. Only a resurgence of mass opposition protests, led this time by the organised working class, can successfully struggle for democratic rights and fundamental social and economic change.
The working class needs to build its own independent mass party to struggle to overthrow the reactionary Mullahs and to fight for a workers’ and poor people’s government, which would take the huge oil wealth and other key parts of the economy into democratic public ownership and begin the social transformation of the country."


ok, I picked this one deliberately hoping it might have something

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3094


"France was a country where, as the tsarist intelligence commented in 1917 on the eve of revolution, “an accidently dropped match” could ignite an explosion.
This ingredient was provided by the brutal repression and beating up of the students, which brought a million workers out in a general strike – reluctantly called by the trade union leaders – which then led to workers going back and occupying the factories and to the revolution that ensued. It was the specific features of France which placed the country and the working class in the vanguard of the revolution at that stage. Because conditions were different in Germany and Britain, even in Italy – which in a sense subsequently developed on an even higher plane than France – at that time, the ‘spark’ of student revolt could not provoke the same reaction as in France.
But if France had succeeded – and it could have done as the tremendous and illuminating book of Clare Doyle’s, ‘France 1968 – Month of Revolution’, demonstrates – then Berlin, Milan and Turin, and even London would have joined this movement. Even those ‘of 1968’, like Tariq Ali, underestimate the situation in Britain at that stage. He commented recently: “Compared with the ferment elsewhere, Britain was a sideshow.” [‘Where has all the rage gone?’ Tariq Ali, The Guardian, 22 March 2008.] Echoing this, even Mick Jagger, in his song ‘Street Fighting Man’, warbles: “In sleepy London town, there’s just no place for a street fighting man.”
Britain and Northern Ireland in turmoil

This is to underestimate completely the underlying mood that was developing in Britain at this stage, not just in the protests against the Vietnam War culminating in the clashes at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, but amongst the working class. The Grosvenor Square demonstration involved 100,000 people. In the preceding week, the capitalist press, particularly The Times newspaper, believed their own propaganda and gave the impression that Britain was on the eve of insurrection. This was an exaggeration but the sense of unease and opposition to capitalism was not confined to the students. A series of strikes broke out, of sewing machinists at Ford’s involving working-class women, symptomatic of what was to take place later. In our journal Militant in October 1968, we commented on a “Liverpool strike wave”. In Northern Ireland, the civil rights movement, which exploded in October in Derry, was a direct reflection of the worldwide revolt in 1968, particularly affecting young people, both Catholic and Protestant, who clashed with the sectarian Unionist state at that stage."


so, as we can see the union leaders can be reluctantly pushed to call for a general strike. Well a general strike is a general strike and it poses the question of power, similar to Iran 1979 or Britain 1926. What was missing was a mass workers party and a revolutionary party ready willing and able to carry things through. The vital subjective factor Marx and Engels knew full well to be critical.






EDIT: I should note that I am probably softer than the left com's here on unions as I am willing to accept that in certain areas unions might be capable of playing a supporting role for revolution, but I don't think that is case in places US.
Good, so you aren't that far from me after all. CWI have no illusions in unions, but neither do they write them off either. The unions are where the best workers happen to be active.




Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2375681#post2375681)
"The whole essence of Marxism is a development of materialism to dialectical materialism, ie the importance of the role of the individual. "
Woah, pre-Althusserian bullshit humanist Marxism has leapt out of its rightful place in the historical annals and is now back with a vengeance, it seems...

“Men make their history themselves”, wrote Engels in January 1894, “but not as yet with a collective will according to a collective plan or even a definite, delimited given society. Their aspirations clash, and for that very reason all such societies are governed by necessity, the complement and form of appearance of which is accident. The necessity which here asserts itself athwart all accident is again ultimately economic necessity. This is where the so-called great men come in for treatment. That such and such a man and precisely that man arises at a particular time in a particular country is, of course, pure chance. But cut him out and there will be a demand for such a substitute, and this substitute will be found, good or bad, but in the long run he will be found.” Engels goes on to furnish us with examples of this phenomena. “That Napoleon, just that particular Corsican, should have been the military dictator whom the French Republic, exhausted by its own warfare, had rendered necessary, was chance; but that, if a Napoleon had been lacking, another would have filled the place, is proved by the fact that the man was always found as soon as he became necessary: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc.” (Marx and Engels Correspondence, pp.467-68)
http://www.marxist.com/role-individual-history091205.htm

[daft punk]

The Russian revolution - would it have happened without Lenin and Trotsky? It is doubtful. Most of the Bolsheviks were opposed to revolution initially, before Lenin twisted their arms. The anarchists would never have done anything much. The Left SRs backed the Bolsheviks for a while but then walked out of the government over the peace plan.

[daft punk]

you seem to not understand how debate goes. Burden of proof falls on those making a positive statement and since we are saying unions can't be used as tools of revolutionary class struggle (or increased class struggle) and you seem to be arguing that they can be the burden of proof falls on you so it's your turn to give us concrete examples of where unions have been tools of revolutionary class struggle and increased class struggle. Also try to keep it a bit modern, there is no need to be stuck in the 1800's.


Yes, I will try to find some more, but it is up to the left coms to explain exactly what their alternative is and why, and it is up to them to show why unions are a waste of time because most workers consider unions to be their best form of defence.

[hatzel]

“Men make their history themselves”, wrote Engels in January 1894...

If you can't even be bothered to write anything, don't expect me to bother to read it. If I wanted torrents of century-old shit copy-pasted at me I would have asked for it. But I'd never ask for that, because I know how to use Google.

[Gold Against The Soul]

The Russian revolution - would it have happened without Lenin and Trotsky? It is doubtful. Most of the Bolsheviks were opposed to revolution initially, before Lenin twisted their arms. The anarchists would never have done anything much. The Left SRs backed the Bolsheviks for a while but then walked out of the government over the peace plan.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the case remains strong that it was the wrong time to do so. And having done so, virtues were made of necessity, as Luxemburg put it. Engels was very prophetic with regards to this in 'The Peasant War in Germany':


The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lostAnd indeed, that was the fate of Lenin. It gives me no pleasure to say that. Trotsky and Lenin were considerable men, for sure, but you can't deny the truth that they miserably failed.

[Blake's Baby]

...Trotsky and Lenin were considerable men, for sure, but you can't deny the truth that they miserably failed.

Oh, but he can. Watch...

[Gold Against The Soul]

No you cant take power through unions, but unions can call a general strike which poses the question of power

Not as it stands. Loads of general strikes across Europe in recent years and they were mostly token protests. At best, we're talking about slowing down the process but actual gains for workers or gains for the class as a whole? Nope.

[daft punk]

Woah, pre-Althusserian bullshit humanist Marxism has leapt out of its rightful place in the historical annals and is now back with a vengeance, it seems...

Support that Marx ever changed his mind. Or are you saying Marx was wrong?


If you can't even be bothered to write anything, don't expect me to bother to read it. If I wanted torrents of century-old shit copy-pasted at me I would have asked for it. But I'd never ask for that, because I know how to use Google.

I've written loads ffs. Dont post if you have nothing to say.


Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the case remains strong that it was the wrong time to do so.

No it doesnt, I have given you an article to read, have you read it? If not you wont know the eight reasons why it happened.




And having done so, virtues were made of necessity, as Luxembourg put it. Engels was very prophetic with regards to this in 'The Peasant War in Germany':



And indeed, that was the fate of Lenin. It gives me no pleasure to say that. Trotsky and Lenin were considerable men, for sure, but you can't deny the truth that they miserably failed.

"In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests."

But Lenin and Trotsky didn't do that, they followed Trotsky's plan and implemented a workers government. They took on the alien class and won, sorta. They won the civil war anyway. Then they set about battling the enemy from within. Unfortunately Uncle Joe swapped sides at a critical moment.

Basically if the 1919 revolution in Germany and/or one or two others at the time had succeeded, things would have been different. And part of the problem in Germany was the tendency toward left communism, they were too slow in building a Communist Party.

[Gold Against The Soul]

But Lenin and Trotsky didn't do that, they followed Trotsky's plan and implemented a workers government

Workers government? One of the first things they did was to undermine workers self-management in the workplaces! They didn't even believe workers should or could be allowed to manage their own workplaces, instead allowing the reintroduction of the old bosses that the workers had driven out. Followed soon after by Taylorism. See the draft decree on Workers Council, November 1917. That being the case, what chance for a workers government?!?


They took on the alien class and won, sorta. They won the civil war anyway. Then they set about battling the enemy from within. Unfortunately Uncle Joe swapped sides at a critical momentYes, Lenin acknowledges time and time again the battle with bureaucracy. To which his solution was... more bureaucracy.

[Paulappaul]

So, apart from flying into a rage and hurling insults at me, what have you offered?

Lawl trollin Trots they dumb


Where are the examples? What soviets have you built in America or the UK?

I said similar to Soviets in principle, not in actuality. It would be bizarre if American's started using Russian for their workplace organization. The Workmates Collective is one good example of transcending tradtional Unionism in the 21st Century, Buenos Aires in Argentina, Class Struggle in Brazil and the CNT - FAI's struggles which have turned into community and class wide struggles.

Sorry for not giving any white - privilege examples for you, Left - Coms are actually Internationalists.


You do realise that in Russia, soviets were spontaneously created in a revolutionary situation?

So many things I want to say, but you'd get trolled, I'd get an infraction. Duh. Really? Jesus. You really didn't read what I said at all you --
like the Soviets -- Not the Soviets in and of themselves, just their principles.


You call me elitist, but you go up to a random factory worker and tell him that you think unions are just bodies for national capital to discipline workers. They will tell you the same as me, that you are talking utter nonsense.

Not really in my experience. Last Spring my group of Anarchist/Council Comm people got called up to a Local College in Labor Negotiations to give advice. The rank and file were dieing to strike and win their demands. The union officials wanted them to concede some of their demands and went after people in the rank and file who were "militant" and disciplined them. So we went to the students, the body which the Union couldn't discipline and got an extra - union body running that consisted of Students, Teachers and non - contracted workers. We did Banner Drops around the campus, locked doors union busters couldn't meet with the administration of the college. We did whole bunch of demos, walkouts and what not and the administration conceded to them right before we threatened to Wildcat Strike the situation.

The Black Orchid Collective in Seattle had a similar experience as I recall. Nobody thinks their Union is wonderful, talk to the rank and file and they'd tell you they'd love to see a whole lot different.


You and your fellow left coms have chosen to completely ignore it. Why is this?

:wub:

[daft punk]

Workers government? One of the first things they did was to undermine workers self-management in the workplaces! They didn't even believe workers should or could be allowed to manage their own workplaces, instead allowing the reintroduction of the old bosses that the workers had driven out. Followed soon after by Taylorism. See the draft decree on Workers Council, November 1917. That being the case, what chance for a workers government?!?

Yes, Lenin acknowledges time and time again the battle with bureaucracy. To which his solution was... more bureaucracy.

V. I. Lenin

Draft Regulations On Workers’ Control

Written: 26 or 27 of October 1917
First Published: 1929 in the second and theird editions of Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 22. Published according to the manuscript.
Source:Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 264-265, from the manuscript.
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna
Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/index.htm) November, 2000

1. Workers’ control over the production, storage, purchase and sale of all products and raw materials shall be introduced in all industrial, commercial, banking, agricultural and other enterprises employing not less than five workers and office employees (together), or with an annual turnover of not less than 10,000 rubles.
2. Workers’ control shall be exercised by all the workers and office employees of an enterprise, either directly, if the enterprise is small enough to permit it, or through their elected representatives, who shall be elected immediately at general meetings, at which minutes of the elections shall be taken and the names of those elected communicated to the government and to the local Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.
3. Unless permission is given by the elected representatives of the workers and office employees, the suspension of work of an enterprise or an industrial establishment of state importance (see Clause 7), or any change in its operation is strictly prohibited.
4. The elected representatives shall be given access to all books and documents and to all warehouses and stocks of materials, instruments and products, without exception.
5. The decisions of the elected representatives of the workers and office employees are binding upon the owners of enterprises and may be annulled only by trade unions and their congresses.
6. In all enterprises of state importance all owners and all representatives of the workers and office employees elected for the purpose of exercising workers’ control shall be answerable to the state for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property. Persons guilty of dereliction of duty, concealment of stocks, accounts, etc., shall be punished by the confiscation of the whole of their property and by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
7. By enterprises of state importance are meant all enterprises working for defence, or in any way connected with the manufacture of articles necessary for the existence of the masses of the population.
8. More detailed rules on workers’ control shall be drawn up by the local Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and by conferences of factory committees, and also by committees of office employees at general meetings of their representatives.
Collected Works Volume 26 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume26.htm)
Collected Works Table of Contents (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/index.htm)
Lenin Works Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm)


er, you what?

[Gold Against The Soul]

V. I. Lenin

Draft Regulations On Workers’ Control

Written: 26 or 27 of October 1917
First Published: 1929 in the second and theird editions of Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 22. Published according to the manuscript.
Source:Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 264-265, from the manuscript.
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna
Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/index.htm) November, 2000

1. Workers’ control over the production, storage, purchase and sale of all products and raw materials shall be introduced in all industrial, commercial, banking, agricultural and other enterprises employing not less than five workers and office employees (together), or with an annual turnover of not less than 10,000 rubles.
2. Workers’ control shall be exercised by all the workers and office employees of an enterprise, either directly, if the enterprise is small enough to permit it, or through their elected representatives, who shall be elected immediately at general meetings, at which minutes of the elections shall be taken and the names of those elected communicated to the government and to the local Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.
3. Unless permission is given by the elected representatives of the workers and office employees, the suspension of work of an enterprise or an industrial establishment of state importance (see Clause 7), or any change in its operation is strictly prohibited.
4. The elected representatives shall be given access to all books and documents and to all warehouses and stocks of materials, instruments and products, without exception.
5. The decisions of the elected representatives of the workers and office employees are binding upon the owners of enterprises and may be annulled only by trade unions and their congresses.
6. In all enterprises of state importance all owners and all representatives of the workers and office employees elected for the purpose of exercising workers’ control shall be answerable to the state for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property. Persons guilty of dereliction of duty, concealment of stocks, accounts, etc., shall be punished by the confiscation of the whole of their property and by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
7. By enterprises of state importance are meant all enterprises working for defence, or in any way connected with the manufacture of articles necessary for the existence of the masses of the population.
8. More detailed rules on workers’ control shall be drawn up by the local Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and by conferences of factory committees, and also by committees of office employees at general meetings of their representatives.
Collected Works Volume 26 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume26.htm)
Collected Works Table of Contents (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/index.htm)
Lenin Works Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/index.htm)


er, you what?

The first 4 points just legislated for things that the workers had already carried out, before, during and after the revolution. There is no issue with any of that.

It is point 5 onwards where the problems begin. The decisions were binding BUT could be 'annulled by trade unions and congresses'. And this is exactly how the Bolsheviks undermined the decisions of the factory committees. The workers elected their delegates and they would make their decisions and they were overturned by the (Bolshevik run) trade unions. If the already very bureaucratised trade unions could overturn the decisions of the workers elected delegates, what real power in the workplace did the workers have? In practice, none.

As for point 6, you bold that line and ignore the key one that follows: (the workers delegates are) 'answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property' so they are answerable to a higher authority. Again, what real power if that is the case?Then there is also the issue of 'In all enterprises of state importance'. What are these then? Well Lenin tells us in point 7 'By enterprises of state importance are meant all enterprises working for defence, or in any way connected with the manufacture of articles necessary for the existence of the masses of the population'. Errr, you what? To coin your phrase. That could be just about anything and everything, couldn't it? And indeed that is how it was used.

So the first 4 points legalise what has already happened and then the remaining 3 points concentrate on how to take all that power away again.

[daft punk]

Lawl trollin Trots they dumb

Little things...





I said similar to Soviets in principle, not in actuality. It would be bizarre if American's started using Russian for their workplace organization. The Workmates Collective is one good example of transcending tradtional Unionism in the 21st Century, Buenos Aires in Argentina, Class Struggle in Brazil and the CNT - FAI's struggles which have turned into community and class wide struggles.

Sorry for not giving any white - privilege examples for you, Left - Coms are actually Internationalists.


Do you have links for the Workmates Collective. Are they still in existence? I have nothing against unofficial strike action or parallel organisations, but the biggest example was Spain and it turned a piss easy, in the bag, revolution, into a nightmare (ok the Stalinists did most of the damage).




So many things I want to say, but you'd get trolled, I'd get an infraction. Duh. Really? Jesus. You really didn't read what I said at all you -- -- Not the Soviets in and of themselves, just their principles.

Yes, and these things will probably happen in a revolutionary situation. In fact I have no problem with people trying different kinds of structures. Obviously, to achieve socialism, you need something like soviets. I am not disputing the need for these kind of things. But for now, most of the active workers are in the unions, so that is the best place to recruit.




Not really in my experience. Last Spring my group of Anarchist/Council Comm people got called up to a Local College in Labor Negotiations to give advice. The rank and file were dieing to strike and win their demands. The union officials wanted them to concede some of their demands and went after people in the rank and file who were "militant" and disciplined them. So we went to the students, the body which the Union couldn't discipline and got an extra - union body running that consisted of Students, Teachers and non - contracted workers. We did Banner Drops around the campus, locked doors union busters couldn't meet with the administration of the college. We did whole bunch of demos, walkouts and what not and the administration conceded to them right before we threatened to Wildcat Strike the situation.

The Black Orchid Collective in Seattle had a similar experience as I recall. Nobody thinks their Union is wonderful, talk to the rank and file and they'd tell you they'd love to see a whole lot different.



:wub:

Well, some unions are better than others, none are perfect. But to say all are just bodies for national capital to discipline workers is silly.

You can't prove otherwise with one example.

What is your opinion on the anarchist trade unions in Spain in 1936-7?

By the way, here is a UGT union

"Even those capitalist historians who have studied Spain seriously, have felt compelled to reflect the courage and determination of the Spanish working class. Beevor, for example, describes how the working class in Barcelona responded to the fascist uprising with "a desperate selfless bravery". He vividly pictures how the unarmed working class of Barcelona prepared to prevent the nationalist army seizing control of their city: "Isolated armouries were seized and weapons were taken from four ships in the harbour. Even the rusting hulk of the prison ship Uruguay was stormed, so as to take the warders’ weapons. The UGT dockers’ union knew of a shipment of dynamite in the port, and once that was seized, home-made grenades were manufactured all through the night. Every gun shop in the city was stripped bare. Cars and lorries were requisitioned and metal workers fixed crude armour plating while sandbags were piled behind truck cabs."
Beevor goes on to describe the key moment the next day when the battle turned in favour of the workers:
"At one moment during the fighting, a small group of workers and an assault guard rushed across to an insurgent artillery detachment with two 75mm guns. They held their rifles above their head to show that they were not attacking as they rushed up to the astonished soldiers. Out of breath, they poured forth passionate arguments why the soldiers should not fire on their brothers, telling them that they had been tricked by their officers. The guns were turned around and brought to bear on the rebel forces. From then on more and more soldiers joined the workers and assault guards.""


http://www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/5201


opinion please

[Искра]

Daft punk did what he does best - he turned thread into his personal wall of nothing. :rolleyes:

It's kind of strange that he didn't wrote "join the CWI" yet.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

You didn't give anything. I wasn't talking about union leaders. I'm not a liberal and I don't take an individual to be anything important in class analasiys. I'm talking like a Marxist from class perspective and unions are bodies of working class who defend rulling class. They are bodies which say workers what can they do and what they can not. Who is a leader of union is really not so important, because it is not about individual but about his function and role in class society.

If you want support for my claims take look at CGT (France), CC.OO & UGT (Spain), SSSH (Croatia), Greek unions etc. Take a look at their politics and actions today. We could also dig up a lot of mud from the past.

If you are interested in 80's UK, read this: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/25-years-since-miners-strike

Also, I believe that you could read numerous times that left communists are claiming that unions sometimes can protect workers but that that has nothing to do with class struggle. That unions protect workers in the ways that laws of capitalist state allow them, but they can't be used as offensive force to attack capitalism. Which is why working class (+ others) use different ways of struggle... such as OWS and all simmilar stuff they did in Europe.

The problem with Trots (and other left) is that you believe in some blueprints for "revolution" which have failed numerous times and degenerated, but you still wave with them like some kind of proof that you are serious etc.

Also, I pretty much doubt that point of class struggle is to take one Prime Minister down... what then? You'll get a "socialist"? Point is to TAKE power... and you can't take it trought unions and unionist "struggle".
The point is to take power -- EXACTLY. So, I would argue that the road to workers power is using all available tools, including, unions, and other organizations that develop. I agree that there is a tendency among Trotskyists to be talmudic in their readings of Marxist writings. But there is no substitute for understanding both the history and the theoretical fights that have happened on the left over the past 150 years.

I was pretty young when the New Left developed in the US. They had the idea that the "old left" comprised primarily of the CPUSA and the SWP were sclerotic and of no use. Workers were seen as bought off and reactionary. Out with old, in with the new. Students and Third world guerilla movements were seen as the new vanguard. What happened? Well, part of the New Left, followed a wing of SDS to become underground elements using bombings and such to fight the bourgeois order. But the other, larger wing, saw the labor explosions in Europe in 1968 and 1969 and really changed their tune. Suddenly lots of young leftists "discovered" the working class, by having a glimpse of the power of the proletariat.

The Russian Revolution was far from perfect, and that which issued out of it became increasing flawed over time. But it's the best we have. And that's why we use it as a model. Obviously, any kind of linear, mechanistic interpretation of it is liable to be less than useless.

[Paulappaul]

Do you have links for the Workmates Collective. Are they still in existence? I have nothing against unofficial strike action or parallel organisations, but the biggest example was Spain and it turned a piss easy, in the bag, revolution, into a nightmare (ok the Stalinists did most of the damage).

Workmates is still in existence I believe. Go look them up in libcom, I'm to lazy. Solfed wrote a good article on them. I wasn't talking about the Spanish Revolution, I was talking about the CNT's actions in the 21st Century, particulary the Puerto Real shipyards Strike.


But for now, most of the active workers are in the unions, so that is the best place to recruit.

The most active workers are progressive, liberal types. The most active workers have faith in the system because they are also the most privileged. This was Bolshevik - Left Communist debate you realize. Bolsheviks wanted workers around them regardless of what they believed, Left - Communists wanted a real vanguard of workers who were Communists. It's the difference between Quality Vs. Quantity.

Let me clarify something, Left Communists aren't aganist working in Unions. The difference between us and you is that we don't come in with a program or a mentality to capture Unions. We come in to promote autonomy and rank and file power for workplace organizations that transcend trade and industrial lines for class wide organizations.

[Blake's Baby]

...

I was pretty young when the New Left developed in the US. They had the idea that the "old left" comprised primarily of the CPUSA and the SWP were sclerotic and of no use. Workers were seen as bought off and reactionary. Out with old, in with the new. Students and Third world guerilla movements were seen as the new vanguard. What happened? Well, part of the New Left, followed a wing of SDS to become underground elements using bombings and such to fight the bourgeois order. But the other, larger wing, saw the labor explosions in Europe in 1968 and 1969 and really changed their tune. Suddenly lots of young leftists "discovered" the working class, by having a glimpse of the power of the proletariat...

And? Are you claiming that the insights of the German Left in the 1920s, after they saw the union movement tie itself to the German Empire and cheerlead the murder of German revolutionaries, are the same as the New Left's 'insights' in the 1960s that old people were boring?

The New Left was obviously talking arse, hot on a Marcusian-Maoist search for a 'new revolutionary subject' because it had abandoned the working class. Having abandoned a class analysis, it was lead by the nose back towards social democracy.

Far from abandoning the working class, Left Communism is supporting it in breaking with outmoded structures (not people see, we don't have an inter-generational conflict going on, the Left Coms I know range in age from 20 to nearly 70).

You do know that the 8.5 million French workers that were on strike were for the most part striking against the unions and the PCF, don't you? The unions were not just useless in May '68, they were positively harming the movement, along with the proletariat's other organisations it could call its own (supposedly), the Communist and Socialist Parties?

[Leo]

So, if you reject unions and parliament, do you still call yourself Marxists?

And if the unions and elections are a waste of time, what do you actually do?

If the only activity you can think of involves the unions and the elections, why don't you call yourself social-democrats?