The effect of recalling Scott Walker

[Leftsolidarity]

I've been pondering this for awhile now. If Scott Walker gets recalled it will obviously be a Democrat that takes his place. If he doesn't, he obviously stays in his position.

Obviously I want to see Scott Walker out of office. Here's the problem I see with both outcomes, though.

Walker gets recalled: I think it's very likely that all the motivation to fight and a lot of the great work that has been happening in Wisconsin will slow down/stop if he gets out of office. I think that it's possibly that people will go "Oh, Walker is gone. All done." Instead of continuing the fight for workers' right/etc. against the Democrats too.

Walker stays in office: Massive blow to the moral of the workers in Wisconsin. People become apathetic and thing that there is no point in trying anymore. Makes it seem that the majority of people in Wisconsin are supportive of Walker and his policies.

Upsides:

Recalled: Moral boost. Reforms won for workers to appease them. Fighting spirit might be instilled and workers' rights become more of a corner stone of Wisconsinites' conciousness.

Not recalled: Workers radicalised. Lose faith in bourgeois politics and look more toward revolutionary politics and ways of change.



Anything anyone want to add? I think it would be cool if we can get a Pro/Con thing going here and discuss what we think the best outcome would be.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO failing to recall Walker would be more likely to demoralize workers rather than radicalizing them.

[Mr. Natural]

Of course the workers would be further demoralized in Wisconsin and the rest of the US if Walker wins, and a Walker win appears to be the outcome of this struggle.

I've been avidly following this affair, which has become a contest between the Democratic Party establishment and a proto-fascist, insurgent Republican Party. The Democratic Party nominee, Barnett, the mayor of Milwaukee, has refused to sit down with the unions in the past. For that matter, the unions are hardly progressive, either. Wisconsin is shaping up as a "last hurrah" for progressivism. For that matter, expect Scott Brown to defeat Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts in the contest for Ted Kennedy's old senate seat.

"Progressive" politics are camouflaged capitalist politics, and the American people are steadily moving away from the bankruptcy of "bleeding heartism," although the American people in their massive political ignorance increasingly want blood. They want to kick some ass. They want change--any change--and the Republicans are in the ascendency.

Feel sorry for Mr. Natural, who has to watch American politics with awareness but without any means to engage and counter this shit. And now I have six months left of Obama versus Romney. Damn, damn, damn ...

[Ocean Seal]

I've been pondering this for awhile now. If Scott Walker gets recalled it will obviously be a Democrat that takes his place. If he doesn't, he obviously stays in his position.

Obviously I want to see Scott Walker out of office. Here's the problem I see with both outcomes, though.

Walker gets recalled: I think it's very likely that all the motivation to fight and a lot of the great work that has been happening in Wisconsin will slow down/stop if he gets out of office. I think that it's possibly that people will go "Oh, Walker is gone. All done." Instead of continuing the fight for workers' right/etc. against the Democrats too.

Walker stays in office: Massive blow to the moral of the workers in Wisconsin. People become apathetic and thing that there is no point in trying anymore. Makes it seem that the majority of people in Wisconsin are supportive of Walker and his policies.

Upsides:

Recalled: Moral boost. Reforms won for workers to appease them. Fighting spirit might be instilled and workers' rights become more of a corner stone of Wisconsinites' conciousness.

Not recalled: Workers radicalised. Lose faith in bourgeois politics and look more toward revolutionary politics and ways of change.



Anything anyone want to add? I think it would be cool if we can get a Pro/Con thing going here and discuss what we think the best outcome would be.
Its the great shame of the electoral paradigm. But think about how Walker was going to get recalled. Not through a proposal from a Democratic rival, but because his union busting tactics upset the workers and they protested. They came out 100,000 strong (a lot for the US) and marched on the capital building. Sure the workers will probably elect a democrat, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that they learned that they could get rid of a politician without bourgeois elections. That's all that really matters. If union cuts come from the democrats, they know what to do.

[LeftCoastComrade]

If Walker doesn't get recalled then I think we will see a lot of bad things happen. This will boost the morale of the anti union groups. I think we will see many more governors try something similar to what Walker did. A few workers will probably be radicalized, but the cons will outweigh the pros.

[thriller]

I've been pondering this for awhile now. If Scott Walker gets recalled it will obviously be a Democrat that takes his place. If he doesn't, he obviously stays in his position.

Obviously I want to see Scott Walker out of office. Here's the problem I see with both outcomes, though.

Walker gets recalled: I think it's very likely that all the motivation to fight and a lot of the great work that has been happening in Wisconsin will slow down/stop if he gets out of office. I think that it's possibly that people will go "Oh, Walker is gone. All done." Instead of continuing the fight for workers' right/etc. against the Democrats too.

Walker stays in office: Massive blow to the moral of the workers in Wisconsin. People become apathetic and thing that there is no point in trying anymore. Makes it seem that the majority of people in Wisconsin are supportive of Walker and his policies.

Upsides:

Recalled: Moral boost. Reforms won for workers to appease them. Fighting spirit might be instilled and workers' rights become more of a corner stone of Wisconsinites' conciousness.

Not recalled: Workers radicalised. Lose faith in bourgeois politics and look more toward revolutionary politics and ways of change.



Anything anyone want to add? I think it would be cool if we can get a Pro/Con thing going here and discuss what we think the best outcome would be.

My two cents:
I personally think a major problem was the recall itself. When the protests were still in their prime people were talking to each other about the next step, what to do after protests are dwindling. There were a lot of different ideas, and people were talking about a general strike, sick-outs, occupying more buildings etc. Of course some people were talking about recall as well. The democrats and AFL-CIO latched onto that so quick, that when the bill passed, it seemed like a majority of people just said "hey, we can just go home and vote on election day." This is sort of what got us into this problem in the first place: an election between two, single issue candidates (2010 was the train issue).

That being said, if Walker does get recalled, I almost completely agree that people will then just hand over all faith to Barrett. However if Walker doesn't get recalled I feel a big moral blow will be dealt to the working class. Ideally, this is what I think would be the best outcome (but most unlikely). Walker "officially" gets voted out of office. Yet he refuses to leave. Massive protests erupt again, with probably more radicalized ideas and actions since the reformist route failed.

[A Marxist Historian]

Its the great shame of the electoral paradigm. But think about how Walker was going to get recalled. Not through a proposal from a Democratic rival, but because his union busting tactics upset the workers and they protested. They came out 100,000 strong (a lot for the US) and marched on the capital building. Sure the workers will probably elect a democrat, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that they learned that they could get rid of a politician without bourgeois elections. That's all that really matters. If union cuts come from the democrats, they know what to do.

The whole recall Scott Walker thing was pushed by the union leaders as an alternative to what the rank and file wanted to do last year, which was a general strike.

It accomplished its purpose, namely to kill the movement.

The demoralization of the workers in Wisconsin has already happened. That's why it seems likely that Walker will win.

I would vote to recall Scott Walker if I lived there, for one reason and one only--because he is an anti-union scumbag, and I don't like the idea of him as governor. But with no illusions that it makes any real difference whether he is in office or not.

A Wisconsin Democrat replacing him would be another Jerry Brown. Democrat Brown here in California has been able to carry out more extensive and nastier cuts in social services than Shwartzenegger was able to, as he has the unions and the Democrats in the legislature in his corner.

-M.H.-

[Small Geezer]

If I could agree with A Marxist Historian any harder I would. Unions must call general strikes in response to issues effect that effect the very basis of their existence.

In New Zealand we once a had a very powerful union movement which completely rolled over when a right wing government took power and essentially abolished meaningful trade unionism.

Their slogan was 'Labour will fix it' (ie the Labour Party). This of course didn't happen which will surprise none of you.

The trade union movement has never recovered in New Zealand.

Sometimes negotiations are the way to go. But not when governments and employers give you a bare-faced declaration of war.

[shaneo]

Unfortunately, the unions wont call a general strike, and cannot be influenced from the left because they no longer act in workers interests.

They have all been reducing their powers over the last few decades, and only work to diffuse workers grievances, and lead protest down blind alleys.The unions only interest in this matter is that one of their own (a democrat) will take over. And we all know that workers will be no better off for this.

[bcbm]

what matters is that they learned that they could get rid of a politician without bourgeois elections

when?

[The Douche]

Honestly, if I was in Wisconsin I'd have already walked away from this struggle, its been dead for a long time and any pro-revolutionaries who are still investing resources in it are just gonna get burnt out/let down.

[Leftsolidarity]

Honestly, if I was in Wisconsin I'd have already walked away from this struggle, its been dead for a long time and any pro-revolutionaries who are still investing resources in it are just gonna get burnt out/let down.

Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure all the major leftist groups are still at least promoting this.

[thriller]

Unfortunately, the unions wont call a general strike, and cannot be influenced from the left because they no longer act in workers interests.

They have all been reducing their powers over the last few decades, and only work to diffuse workers grievances, and lead protest down blind alleys.The unions only interest in this matter is that one of their own (a democrat) will take over. And we all know that workers will be no better off for this.

The South Central Federation of Labor was calling for a general strike, prolly the biggest group to do so. But ohh that AFL-CIO and their admiration for dems :rolleyes:

[thriller]

Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure all the major leftist groups are still at least promoting this.

If I may... He probably means any hope for some real radical change or action, such as a strike, another occupation of the Capitol, teacher sick-outs, is gone. Leftist groups may still support getting Walker out of office, but not with the passion, motives, and numbers as last year (another example of materialism and how workers must harness the knowledge behind it :laugh: )

[shaneo]

The South Central Federation of Labor was calling for a general strike, prolly the biggest group to do so. But ohh that AFL-CIO and their admiration for dems :rolleyes:

We're they calling for a general strike, or just talking about it?

I don't think their members would have said no if they were balloted.

[Agathor]

If it doesnt get rid of capitalism it isnt worth shit. What is that, coffee? Anti-capitalist coffee? Pour it down the fucking sink you reactionary.

[thriller]

We're they calling for a general strike, or just talking about it?

I don't think their members would have said no if they were balloted.

Yeah, SCFL was calling for one, trying to get as many unions on board as possible.

[shaneo]

Yeah, SCFL was calling for one, trying to get as many unions on board as possible.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

They didn't actually bring their members out. If you're a union leader; it's easy to "call for a strike", if you know that you won't have to actually do anything, because you and your buddies made a deal in the pub to do fuzz all.

Can't see any honest reason why they didn't ballot their members and go out.

These unions must be stopped!

[bcbm]

If it doesnt get rid of capitalism it isnt worth shit. What is that, coffee? Anti-capitalist coffee? Pour it down the fucking sink you reactionary.

obama 2012!

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, that's what I mean.

They didn't actually bring their members out. If you're a union leader; it's easy to "call for a strike", if you know that you won't have to actually do anything, because you and your buddies made a deal in the pub to do fuzz all.

Can't see any honest reason why they didn't ballot their members and go out.

These unions must be stopped!

Was that last line a quote from Gov. Walker?

The whole issue here was defense of unions vs. Walker. For shaneo to call on unions to call out their members on strike is purely hypocritical, as he has said repeatedly that he, just like Gov. Walker, wants to get rid of unions altogether.

-M.H.-

[shaneo]

Was that last line a quote from Gov. Walker?


No idea. Why don't you tell us. Although, you like making up stuff about people (David North) so it's difficult to tell fact from fiction.



The whole issue here was defense of unions vs. Walker. For shaneo to call on unions to call out their members on strike is purely hypocritical, as he has said repeatedly that he, just like Gov. Walker, wants to get rid of unions altogether.-M.H.-


The actual issue here is that the unions didn't call their workers out, nor ballot their members on the issue, so they are as much enemies of workers as Mr Walker.

Calling to have a strike, and actually doing it, are not the same thing. Even if the end result is the same.

I'm not "call(ing) on the unions to call their members out on strike". Standing on the side of the road with a sign, for one or two days, is a pointless gesture. I'm pointing out the hipocracy of the unions pretending to defend workers rights, when they do no such thing.


Close them all down. Then we can start some real rank and file unions, that aren't just appendages to capitalist political parties.

MH, you are happy to stick your two cents worth in here and there, but refuse to answer simple questions. Instead, you resort to the dirty tricks of a fascist to protect the unions from serious scrutiny. I suspect you are in their employ.

[A Marxist Historian]

No idea. Why don't you tell us. Although, you like making up stuff about people (David North) so it's difficult to tell fact from fiction.

The actual issue here is that the unions didn't call their workers out, nor ballot their members on the issue, so they are as much enemies of workers as Mr Walker.

Calling to have a strike, and actually doing it, are not the same thing. Even if the end result is the same.

I'm not "call(ing) on the unions to call their members out on strike". Standing on the side of the road with a sign, for one or two days, is a pointless gesture. I'm pointing out the hipocracy of the unions pretending to defend workers rights, when they do no such thing.

Close them all down. Then we can start some real rank and file unions, that aren't just appendages to capitalist political parties.

MH, you are happy to stick your two cents worth in here and there, but refuse to answer simple questions. Instead, you resort to the dirty tricks of a fascist to protect the unions from serious scrutiny. I suspect you are in their employ.

Fascists are people who want to destroy unions. Like shaneo for example.

Am I "in the employ" of a union? Not currently. Yes, I was a shop chairman at one of my old shops at one point, quite a few years ago, and got a small monthly check. Less than ten bucks if I remember right.

the idea that the way to start "real rank and file" unions is to destroy all the current ones would be laughable if it weren't so sinister and dangerous.

Here we had a situation where the workers wanted to defend their unions against union-busters, and the leaders of said unions, class collaborationist sellouts that they are, did not have the intestinal fortitude to call out the workers in real struggle against union buster Walker. So shaneo says the solution is--bust the unions!

Gah.

Really, he should be tossed off Revleft. If Revleft doesn't have a rule against union busters, it should.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

We as communists need to aggitate the rank and file of these unions to pressure or change their organizational leadership to avoid this class collaborationist bullshit in the future. Not just for unions, but all workers organizations that refuse to act against the democrats or any kind of pseudo progressive bourgeois candidate. We need to push for immediate demands of the working class, such as the preservation and strenghening of unions, as the working class in Wisconsin obviously demands.

Left groups supporting the recall are simple opportunists trying to play centrist, "realistic," and "sensible," and this only makes the working class lose faith in them, and they will remain as sects, not mass parties.

[shaneo]

Fascists are people who want to destroy unions. Like shaneo for example.

What is your source for this definition of fascism?

I'm sure we,ve been over this before, but for the sake of clarity....

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

In this case, your powerful leader is the unions; who have poisoned your mind into believing that they should control the struggles of the working class. You have previously worked for this powerful leader, and you seem quite proud of the fact! According to you, political opposition to unions is not allowed. That is why you have called me an "enemy of the working class", and are trying to have me banned for questioning the unions. David North has had slanderous lies made up about him just because he belongs to a left wing political party, that refuses to come under the union / Democrat umbrella.



the idea that the way to start "real rank and file" unions is to destroy all the current ones would be laughable if it weren't so sinister and dangerous.

Here we had a situation where the workers wanted to defend their unions against union-busters, and the leaders of said unions, class collaborationist sellouts that they are, did not have the intestinal fortitude to call out the workers in real struggle against union buster Walker. So shaneo says the solution is--bust the unions!

Dangerous to you maybe, but it would be the best thing for the workers struggle.

Again, you confess that the current unions do not represent workers. You should open your eyes and take that line of thought further: They sellout workers struggles and support a capitalist political party. This is not some accident, or failing on their part, nor is it a lack of "intestinal fortitude". It is their job to sellout workers. Why would it take intestinal fortitude to do what your members want?

Bust them up!
As you have already premised, the unions don't work in our interest. So what have we got to lose by shutting them down?




Really, he should be tossed off Revleft. If Revleft doesn't have a rule against union busters, it should.
-M.H.-

I wouldn't keep bringing this up if I were you. After all, Revleft is more likely to have rules regarding fascists, than it is to have rules preventing exposure of union crimes against workers.

[shaneo]

We as communists need to aggitate the rank and file of these unions to pressure or change their organizational leadership to avoid this class collaborationist bullshit in the future.

This is what the unions already claim to do in relation to the Democratic Party.
They claim that pressuring them from the left will somehow change their trajectory. This has never worked, and the union leaders know it.

I'm sorry, but this is a lie. It is pushed about to keep left wing thought under the umbrella of the Democratic Party (or Labour in the UK).
In what way has union support for the Democrats made them more socialist?


We need to push for immediate demands of the working class, such as the preservation and strenghening of unions, as the working class in Wisconsin obviously demands.

No. The strengthening of unions is a demand of the capitalists, because they know that the unions will control workers greivances, and lead them down blind alleys. Why do you think that the workers "obviously demand" strengthening of the unions? What has happened to suggests this?

If the unions represented workers and needed strengthening, then this would automatically happen...
Workers would see all of the great things that they do to help workers struggles, and their membership would increase as a result. Obviously, this doesn't happen, because the existing clique of trade unions are rotten to the core.


Left groups supporting the recall are simple opportunists trying to play centrist, "realistic," and "sensible," and this only makes the working class lose faith in them, and they will remain as sects, not mass parties.

Maybe, but it's better to stick to what you know is right. Rather than follow the pseudo-left herd, just so you can be part of a larger group.

[shaneo]

What gain, not reduction in loss, have unions got for their members in the last 30 years?

Look, the democrats are an enemy of the working class. I'm sure no one here is denying that.

Trade unions pass vast sums of their members money to this capitalist party.

The union leadership have their comfortable salaries, and don't want to jeopardise this. That is why they call for their members to support the democrats, and then peddle the lie that they can then "pressure them from the left". They are aided in this by other capitalist organisations that operate in the orbit of the Democrats; such as the ISO and Nation magazine. Obama is one of the most pro-capital presidents the US has ever seen. Just take a look at some of the other people that fund his election campaigns... it's a "who's who" of Wall Street!

People like Marxist Historian openly admit that the unions don't support workers, yet he/she still supports them. I know that Marx supported unions, but I've read the Communist Manifesto and cannot see where it says that these trade unions should undermine workers struggles, and pass members dues over to capitalist parties.

You've got to be living in some kind of fairyland not to see this. If the unions really wanted to strengthen their position, they would join together, stop funding Obama, and bring all of their members out. Then they could use the money they've been passing to Obama for it's proper use: to feed and care for members families while they are out on strike.

The only thing that the elites fear is revolution, and they know this will never happen while the current collection of criminal trade unions do so well at containing revolution.


Are we all just keyboard socialists, or are we actually going to do something towards a socialist society? We must close them down and start real rank and file organisations.

I notice my rep has declined by a further twelve points overnight. Clearly there are either some very cowardly posters on here, who are happy to alter someones rep, but are not willing (or unable) to respond to the reasonable points I've made. Alternatively, Revleft is just a place for trade unionists to pat each other on the back, while their organisations undermine workers struggles.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Dangerous to you maybe, but it would be the best thing for the workers struggle.So your argument is that workers are pretty uniformly ready to struggle and the main thing holding them back is the union leadership?


Again, you confess that the current unions do not represent workers. You should open your eyes and take that line of thought further: They sellout workers struggles and support a capitalist political party. This is not some accident, or failing on their part, nor is it a lack of "intestinal fortitude". It is their job to sellout workers. Why would it take intestinal fortitude to do what your members want?You talk of current unions, but then you also say the unions are set up to control militancy? Is it inherent in unions in your view or a problem with the current set-up of unions?

I think yours is a highly impressionistic view of unions - almost the opposite side of the coin to the "pro-union" revolutionary straw-men you are railing against. Are unions a tool of capitalism? All unions, or just some kinds - state-run or yellow-unions, trade-unions with a business-unionism leadership, or what?

My view is that unions are a product of the class struggle, a defensive vehicle for workers in essence. The issue with the leadership is that, without revolutionary consciousness, and in the absence of rank and file members pushing, a bureaucracy can take hold and it occupies a strange class position because it depends both on capitalism and trying to at least meet the minimum demands of the workers it represents. If there is working class consciousness in society and rank and file militancy, then workers can force the leadership to the side or bring in militant leaders because if the union leadership is totally ineffective then (as we see today) they become increasingly irrelevant. From the labor struggles of the 1930s to the militant flare ups int he 1970s, working class militant struggle has usually involved taking on both the bosses and the rank and file taking on the union leadership. But these battles are possible because workers have been able to organize, even if it's not idea from a revolutionary perspective.

In the absence of struggle and in the face of strike defeats and a ruling class offensive, the labor leadership has moved very forcefully to the right and see negotiation and appealing to the "good" capitalist party as the "realistic" strategy. This will not change because some radicals on the outside describe some scheme for the ideal union organization. If this "outside" strategy could even work at all it would need working class militancy - which doesn't exist at the moment because our class has been disorganized and demoralized. But the catch is that if there was working class militancy in society, then even rank and filers in the official trade union movement would probably be challenging the conservative orientation of those unions and we'd get a situation like in the past anyway.

So rather than design ideal unions and hope that workers flock to it out of the shinny brilliance of our ideas, the more concrete and effective thing already radicalized workers could be doing is relating to the actual working class as it exists right now - warts and all. Try and build networks of union militants and challenge the conservative leadership and try and win our fellow workers to militant tactics and revolutionary conclusions.


Bust them up!
As you have already premised, the unions don't work in our interest. So what have we got to lose by shutting them down?Considering the lack of class consciousness that exists right now in the US and many similar places; considering that 90% of unionized workers would rather have representation (even as it is) rather than not; considering that about 53% percent of non-union workers in the US responded to a 2005 poll that they would want a union... I don't think there can be any doubt that in general workers would see the dissolution of the unions as a disorienting and demoralizing occurrence.

I support the efforts of syndicalists or the IWW in trying to organize the unorganized and presenting a militant alternative to trade-unionism, I just don't think that this alone is adequate. However, from this perspective of trying to build a more attractive and effective alternative to conservative-unions, it makes sense - create a better and "pure" vehicle essentially. But to argue in the abstract that ending the unions, rather than having some alternative, would be a step forward for the class is really detached from reality.

Radicals don't have the money or political connections to battle the liberal labor leaders on an organization to organization basis; our advantage is that our poltics make sense and are effective in times of increased struggle - so I think the logical strategy that flows from this is to work not from the outside alone (and the IWW and most successful syndicalist movements didn't come from the outside, they were formed out of organic networks within the official labor movement that had drawn revolutionary ideas and moved to the left ... the IWW came from the left of the Socialist Party, and they had links to unions and rank and file militants) but to work from below both within and without unions.[/QUOTE]

[shaneo]

So your argument is that workers are pretty uniformly ready to struggle and the main thing holding them back is the union leadership?


Yes, I think workers have always been ready to struggle to protect themselves. Revolution is contained through capitalisms tools of control. The existing unions are one of these tools, and bourgeois elections are another. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I do know that we cannot support these organisations while they work to contain struggle.



You talk of current unions, but then you also say the unions are set up to control militancy? Is it inherent in unions in your view or a problem with the current set-up of unions?


Oh no, workers need unions, and need to unite. This cannot happen if the current cliques of unions, which are just appendages to the capitalist democratic party, contain the class conciousness by keeping "the left" within the orbit of the Democratic party.



I think yours is a highly impressionistic view of unions - almost the opposite side of the coin to the "pro-union" revolutionary straw-men you are railing against. Are unions a tool of capitalism? All unions, or just some kinds - state-run or yellow-unions, trade-unions with a business-unionism leadership, or what?


Well, no offence, but everyones views are impressionistic.

The unions I have a problem with are those that gain workers support by pretending to act in the workers interest, but then pass that support (including financial) over to a capitalist political party. There are plenty examples in the UK, but for clarity I will just list the more prominent US ones:
UAW
IBofT
Service Employers International Union
AFSCME and the numerous others under the AFL-CIO

These unions, and the others that support a capitalist party, are tools of capitalism.

If there are unions out there that are not affiliated with any of these unions, The Nation magazine, The ISO, or the Democratic party, and that have got some gains (not reduction in loss) for their workers in recent times, then this is the sort of union we want and the others listed above should be doing the same.




My view is that unions are a product of the class struggle, a defensive vehicle for workers in essence. The issue with the leadership is that, without revolutionary consciousness, and in the absence of rank and file members pushing, a bureaucracy can take hold and it occupies a strange class position because it depends both on capitalism and trying to at least meet the minimum demands of the workers it represents.



I agree almost entirely with this view. I don't see it as accidental, that a bureaurocracy opposed to workers needs, is able to take control; and I don't agree that they depend on capitalism, or meet workers demands. In fact, it would be easy to argue that workers minimum demands take a distant second place to their support for capitalism - via the Democrats. Surely the important question is: Where does this bureaucracy come from, and how are these people (who act against workers interests) able to penetrate, and gain control, of what is meant to be a workers organisation?

If these organisations are lost to the capitalists (which they are) then we need to give up on them, and start new ones with strict rules about allegiances to capitalist organisations.



If there is working class consciousness in society and rank and file militancy, then workers can force the leadership to the side or bring in militant leaders because if the union leadership is totally ineffective then (as we see today) they become increasingly irrelevant.


And yet, in a time of massive unemployment and upward redistribution of wealth, this isn't happening. If you are a member of the AFL-CIO you know that Trumka supports Obama (He even used racism as a way to get people to vote Obama), so how can you get him removed?





So rather than design ideal unions and hope that workers flock to it out of the shinny brilliance of our ideas, the more concrete and effective thing already radicalized workers could be doing is relating to the actual working class as it exists right now - warts and all. Try and build networks of union militants and challenge the conservative leadership and try and win our fellow workers to militant tactics and revolutionary conclusions.


Is it more concrete and effective, or just easier?
I'm more of a "if you build it, they will come" kind of guy, and actions speak louder than words. I just think that trying to alter the existing leadership is a battle (and a distraction) not worthy of our efforts. It would be more effective to start again, with some better rules.





I support the efforts of syndicalists or the IWW in trying to organize the unorganized and presenting a militant alternative to trade-unionism, I just don't think that this alone is adequate. However, from this perspective of trying to build a more attractive and effective alternative to conservative-unions, it makes sense - create a better and "pure" vehicle essentially. But to argue in the abstract that ending the unions, rather than having some alternative, would be a step forward for the class is really detached from reality.


Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, and perhaps we do need to start these new organisations before abandoning the existing sham unions, but the existing trade unions (with help from their cronies in the media) will resist this. because of this, we will probably just keep going as we are, and that concerns me.

I can't really comment on the IWW as I don't know much about them. Will make a point of looking into them though. Their claim that they don't support Labour is a good start, but how do they resist being taken over by Labour / capitalism supporters?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, I think workers have always been ready to struggle to protect themselves. Revolution is contained through capitalisms tolls of control. The existing unions are one of these tools, and bourgeois elections are another. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I do know that we cannot support these organisations while they work to contain struggle.Well then I think this is the fundamental difference in our views. I don't think workers are just naturally inclined to do anything because of their class position; our class position makes it more possible for us to see through our own experiences the contradictions of capitalism, but it's not like workers are class-war drones who only doubt our ability to run society for ourselves because we're being directly tricked and manipulated.

In most capitalist societies, workers accept ruling class ideas as their own, as "common sense" - this is the way hegemony works for all ruling classes. The French Revolutionaries tried to keep the King around until their experience showed that he was not a "national" figure but the manager of a class with interests opposed to the masses and bourgeois.

I think the idea that worker's aren't militant because we're tricked by union leaders just doesn't make sense since there have been times when conservative trade-union leaderships have been pushed to the side or booted-out, or even moved to the left for their own cynical reasons, by rank and file militancy. The union movement sucks a lot right now, but is it worse than the AFL in the 1920s?

So I think this formulation treats workers as passive, as if workers just follow the conservative politics of the unions because no one has shown them a "pure" radical union yet. Again, if we are talking about the Historical IWW, it wasn't radicals from the outside creating a new vehicle it was experienced union militants coming together and creating something out of the existing limitations of the labor movement and based on the lessons that militants had learned about contracts and direct action and strikes and so on.


Oh no, workers need unions, and need to unite. This cannot happen if the current cliques of unions, which are just appendages to the capitalist democratic party, contain the class conciousness by keeping "the left" within the orbit of the Democratic party.Yes this needs to be opposed, but how is organizing separately from where many class conscious rank and fliers are already struggling going to help this process? It's like just giving up on where there is a section of the class already trying to figure a way out from the union movement being in such a weak state.

And while I'm not opposed to people trying to set up alternative unions, I think we also need to be trying to organize rank and file networks or oppositions to the leadership within the existing union movement.


Well, no offence, but everyones views are impressionistic.Sure, but what I'm saying is that I think even the labor bureaucracy is more dynamic than you are describing here. Yes in a period of defeat and declining militancy and confidence among rank and file members, the union movement went to the right and some of the top bureaucrats did well for themselves or even their specific union numbers through things that hurt rather than rebuilt the union movement (SEIU poaching, supporting the Dems by almost all unions, emphasis on negotiation, etc).


These unions, and the others that support a capitalist party, are tools of capitalism.They are a rudimentary defense against capitalism and because of that they have always had a de-fault conservativism in times of low struggle. In the US this included supporting white-supremacy in the early union movement, protecting some workers at the expense of others. But also because of this defensive position, rank and file militancy acts as a counter to this conservative tendency and has regularly in past upsurges.


If there are unions out there that are not affiliated with any of these unions, The Nation magazine, The ISO, or the Democratic party, and that have got some gains (not reduction in loss) for their workers in recent times, then this is the sort of union we want and the others listed above should follow their example. There are no unions which are affiliated with the ISO or any revolutionary group in the US (though the ISO does have scattered members involved in many unions as well as the IWW) and the ISO doesn't support the Democratic party. You may be thinking of the US CP which has supported the Democrats since WWII.


Unions must challenge austerity and insist that the rich pay for the crisis they caused. But this can only happen if labor breaks with the Democrats and their neoliberal politics.
...
ALTHOUGH THE Wisconsin labor movement has almost universally fallen in line behind Barrett, one Wisconsin local offered a glimpse of what a new labor movement could look like.
...But this political orientation, which puts winning elections--and more specifically, electing Democrats--at the center of movement strategy, is what led to the dismantling of the Capitol occupation last year and continues to threaten the vitality of the labor movement.


While rightly identifying the danger of Republican politicians, labor's Democratic supporters ignore the fact that forcing workers to pay for the economic crisis and undermining the power of unions are points of broad consensus between the Democratic and Republican Parties.


As AFSCME Local 171 member Mike Imbrogno said of his union in an interview with the Isthmus, "We supported [former Democratic Gov.] Jim Doyle when he ran on reducing the state workforce by 10,000 jobs, and we gave him money to do that. Why are we paying for them to lay us off and to furlough us?"


If Walker wins on Tuesday, it will be a blow to many people's morale. But we shouldn't forget that in a period of rising class struggle on a national and global scale, it remains possible to build a fighting labor movement here in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Whoever occupies the governor's seat on June 6 shouldn't anticipate an end to the battle. The future of our movement will depend on taking an independent stand for workers.



And yet, in a time of massive unemployment and upward redistribution of wealth, this isn't happening. If you are a member of the AFL-CIO you know that Trumka supports Obama (He even used racism as a way to get people to vote Obama), so how can you get him removed?

Is it more concrete and effective, or just easier?
I'm more of a "if you build it, they will come" kind of guy, and actions speak louder than words. I just think that trying to alter the existing leadership is a battle (and distraction) not worthy of our efforts. It would be more effective to start again.But I think this battle is how workers can potentially learn these lessons for themselves. Revolutionary ideas (within or without unions) or tactics have to be seen as practical and useful. If workers usuing militant unionism are winning and making gains, then the bureaucracy of other unions can't easily argue that supporting Democrats is the only "useful" way for workers to protect themselves.


It won't be easy. The existing trade unions (with help from their cronies in the media) will resist this, but what is the alternative? Just keep going as we are? I can't really comment on the IWW as I don't know much about them. Will make a point of looking into them though. Their claim that they don't support Labour is a good start.Yes while I support many of their aims and campaigns, I think this narrow approach has hurt them - when there was more class militancy, they grew not because they had the best ideas but because their ideas resonated with workers who had been in struggle and seen the ineffectiveness of the AFL. In the absense of struggle from below, the IWW has suffered over the decades like much of the rest of the left has and it shrank and often found themselves at the mercy of the union leaders of other unions. So in my view, the vehicle is secondary to the struggle from below and I think radicals should do this in as many areas as possible where were are ready to struggle - including the official trade unions. Out of that militancy both radical unions would probably be formed as well as insurgent rank and file caucuses.

In Wisconsin and in the Oakland port shut down, the mass class anger forced the union bureaucrats to tail us for a change. In Oakland, militant rank and file unionists went in and made a case for support that the leadership couldn't demobilize initially because class anger was on our side. Eventually in both cases, they were able to divert the mass upsurge... but this is because the people who supported the occupations were not organized beforehand well enough to provide a counter-weight. In Oakland we had the beginings of a network that brought rank and file militants as well as radicals and radical unionists like the IWW together... to me this is a glimpse of what is possible. Out of such things it could be possible to organize an organic shadow County Labor Council that could focus on rank and file and militant unionism or any number of other alternative ways for unionists to work together in their own interests.

So in short, yes the union leadership is an issue, support for the Democrats (also support beyond just the leadership, but in the class in general) is a barrier, but the existance of the unions can't just be jumped over or by-passed IMO, we have to deal with it as it is and try and organize alternatives to the logic of business-unionism that are organically connected to the struggle and are from below.

[~Spectre]

It's funny how a lot of the true believer, "progressive" democrats, seem to think they are going into an epic battle today, yet their party has left them for dead.

The republicans poured in like 30 million dollars more than the democrats did, and Obama didn't campaign for the recall. All he did was issue a single tweet yesterday.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's funny how a lot of the true believer, "progressive" democrats, seem to think they are going into an epic battle today, yet their party has left them for dead.

The republicans poured in like 30 million dollars more than the democrats did, and Obama didn't campaign for the recall. All he did was issue a single tweet yesterday.Yup. I'd love to see union militants pick up the old Malcolm X line: "You put the Democrats first and the Democrats always put you last".

[A Marxist Historian]

We as communists need to aggitate the rank and file of these unions to pressure or change their organizational leadership to avoid this class collaborationist bullshit in the future. Not just for unions, but all workers organizations that refuse to act against the democrats or any kind of pseudo progressive bourgeois candidate. We need to push for immediate demands of the working class, such as the preservation and strenghening of unions, as the working class in Wisconsin obviously demands.

Left groups supporting the recall are simple opportunists trying to play centrist, "realistic," and "sensible," and this only makes the working class lose faith in them, and they will remain as sects, not mass parties.

I see no reason not to support the recall as such. After all, do we want Walker to be governor? In general, whenever there is a recall election of a bourgeois politician, the default position should be to support it automatically, unless the recall is being pushed by right wingers for sinister reasons.

My understanding is that there are two separate lines on the ballot, and you can vote to recall Walker without voting for the Democrat.

But it's a distraction from the class struggle way to beat union-busting in Wisconsin, which the Democrat would just carry out in a slicker way. So *campaigning* for a recall would be a mistake, we have much better thing to campaign for.

But when a Wisconsin voter steps into the voting booth, that he or she votes to recall Walker is in and of itself a good thing.

-M.H.-

[Leftsolidarity]

Seeing as that today was the recall, anyone in Wisconsin on this forum vote? If so, who'd you vote for?

I voted for the independent Hari Trivedi (or whatever his name was) and Lt. Governor as Mahlon Mitchell. I figured they were the most progressive people to throw my vote at.

[bcbm]

i didnt vote

[Leftsolidarity]

i didnt vote

I thought about doing that but I figured that high apathy could be taken for support for or apathy for Walker and what's he's been doing.

I didn't want my vote to say I like the Democrats, though, so I voted for an independent guy that won't win. Basically just a "fuck this shit I'm not happy" kind of vote.

[Ilyich]

I voted for the independent Hari Trivedi (or whatever his name was) and Lt. Governor as Mahlon Mitchell. I figured they were the most progressive people to throw my vote at.

I don't want to tell you how to vote (or anti-vote) but I'm not totally sure that was wise. Mitchell might be a the least reactionary candidate for Lieutenant Governor but he is still a reactionary for various reasons, not the least of which is his membership in the Democratic Party. I don't think he is progressive in any way. As for Trivedi, I am curious. How did you arrive at him? I looked at his website and he didn't seem left-wing or even center-left at all. Once again, I'm not trying to tell you how to vote (or anti-vote). I probably would have written-in Marx for Governor and Engels for his Lieutenant!

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This is what the unions already claim to do in relation to the Democratic Party.
They claim that pressuring them from the left will somehow change their trajectory. This has never worked, and the union leaders know it.

I'm sorry, but this is a lie. It is pushed about to keep left wing thought under the umbrella of the Democratic Party (or Labour in the UK).
In what way has union support for the Democrats made them more socialist?



No. The strengthening of unions is a demand of the capitalists, because they know that the unions will control workers greivances, and lead them down blind alleys. Why do you think that the workers "obviously demand" strengthening of the unions? What has happened to suggests this?

If the unions represented workers and needed strengthening, then this would automatically happen...
Workers would see all of the great things that they do to help workers struggles, and their membership would increase as a result. Obviously, this doesn't happen, because the existing clique of trade unions are rotten to the core.



Maybe, but it's better to stick to what you know is right. Rather than follow the pseudo-left herd, just so you can be part of a larger group.
Damn, you are confused. Do you think MH or any of the other comrades here harbor major illusions about the current union leadership in this country? We've already jawed back and forth about the value of unions, per se. Most capitalists go out of their way to destroy unions -- when this is not seen as viable, they try to co-opt them -- and they come to working agreements called "contracts." The idea that capitalists love unions is idiotic. They will, however, make use of them when and where they can.

As for David North -- comrades vilify him for a host of reasons, based on his disgusting support for anti-proletarian elements and participation in such lovely things as fingering Communists to bonapartist governments, which could have lead to their imprisonment and murder. That he is an anti-union shit is just icing on the cake.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't want to tell you how to vote (or anti-vote) but I'm not totally sure that was wise. Mitchell might be a the least reactionary candidate for Lieutenant Governor but he is still a reactionary for various reasons, not the least of which is his membership in the Democratic Party. I don't think he is progressive in any way. As for Trivedi, I am curious. How did you arrive at him? I looked at his website and he didn't seem left-wing or even center-left at all. Once again, I'm not trying to tell you how to vote (or anti-vote). I probably would have written-in Marx for Governor and Engels for his Lieutenant!

See my response to bcbm

Basically I tried to choose the least reactionary. Trivedi was just a piss in the wind for me because I know he won't win but it was a different (and better) person to throw my vote at because at least it says that's I'm not happy with the Democrats or Republicans. I choose Mitchell because it was the better of the 2. I don't really support either person I voted for but I felt it was better than the other options and it was better then not voting at all because I feel that this is one vote that should not be able to be said that people don't care about the outcome.

[thriller]

First time in my life I voted for a democrat. It's sad to see this day as an end to a somewhat inspiring strong movement.

EDIT: Not that it was strong movement the past 6 months, but no matter the outcome, it's buried.

[Leftsolidarity]

First time in my life I voted for a democrat. It's sad to see this day as an end to a somewhat inspiring strong movement.

EDIT: Not that it was strong movement the past 6 months, but no matter the outcome, it's buried.

I don't know about that. There's a "keep it in the streets" march tomorrow in Milwaukee that I'm going too. That should be pretty interesting, I'll report back about it.

I think that no matter what the outcome of this recall is, it definitely woke up a lot of people to more pro-worker positions and radicalized a quite a bit as well.

I don't think these events that have been happening here are something to look at pessimistically.

[Rocky Rococo]

As we all know, capitalist "democracy" exists only insofar as it exists as an emanation of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Tonight we see demonstrated in Wisconsin the ability of the bourgeoisie to use a single partisan electoral result to roll up the remaining few bastions of organized labor, and shut the books decisively on the entire 20th Century Synthesis. For them, at long last complete and uncontested hegemony, for the rest of us, austerity and precarity.

[thriller]

Just in: Barrett conceded, Walker won, FYI

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know about that. There's a "keep it in the streets" march tomorrow in Milwaukee that I'm going too. That should be pretty interesting, I'll report back about it.

I think that no matter what the outcome of this recall is, it definitely woke up a lot of people to more pro-worker positions and radicalized a quite a bit as well.

I don't think these events that have been happening here are something to look at pessimistically.

Let's not sugercoat this, this is a fucking disaster. But it's only the rotten cherry on top of a big heapin' helpin' of failure, the working resistance to austerity in Wisconsin came out stillborn and now it's time for the corpse to finally be buried.

[Leftsolidarity]

Let's not sugercoat this, this is a fucking disaster. But it's only the rotten cherry on top of a big heapin' helpin' of failure, the working resistance to austerity in Wisconsin came out stillborn and now it's time for the corpse to finally be buried.

I don't see how that's sugarcoating anything. Yeah, we got fucked over by the union leadership (no surprise there) and the recall didn't work (not a huge surprise there either) but I don't think that's a failure. This has been a great thing that has mobilized a lot of the working class that was otherwise apathetic. It has raised a lot of people's conciousness. It has gotten a number of people more involved and more radicalized. I would count those things as great steps forward.

[~Spectre]

MSNBC had their lead anchor declare that the real winner tonight was Barack Obama. :laugh::laugh:

Shamelessness knows no bounds.

[Klaatu]

So we lost one battle... that's the way war is. This is by no means the end of our struggle; on the contrary, we are just getting started.
If this ass-clown Scott Walker tries any more funny business, there is always the statewide (or even nationwide) strike option.
Like they say, you ain't seen nuthin yet!

[LeftCoastComrade]

Oh man. Lets just hope the anti worker right groups don't go on an all out offensive across the US. I like the little bit of worker rights I have under this shitty capitalist system. All we can do is keep fighting.

[Rocky Rococo]

Oh man. Lets just hope the anti worker right groups don't go on an all out offensive across the US. I like the little bit of worker rights I have under this shitty capitalist system. All we can do is keep fighting.

Well, that's just it, that's the whole point of this. This is a major turning point in the class struggle, and why the control-freakery of the state and national Dems and union bosses is going to result in blowback for all American workers.

Capital is well-poised for the moment. All their structures for this are in place, they have the policy-coordination apparatus of ALEC, they have the Kochs and similar financial godfathers, ideological control of the overwhelming majority of the press and the pulpit, and of course all the centers of power. I expect places like Michigan, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey and Maine, perhaps even New York, will soon see similar campaigns under way.

I agree, all we can do is keep fighting, but let's recognize that the deck at this point is so totally stacked that we should mostly be planning on how to lose in such a way that it won't be demoralizing to the workers of a generation from now.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree, all we can do is keep fighting, but let's recognize that the deck at this point is so totally stacked that we should mostly be planning on how to lose in such a way that it won't be demoralizing to the workers of a generation from now.Well this has been the case for some time now in many places - it's just intensified with the crisis. What is different at the momement is a return to a willingness to fight-back. Of course this is going to be weak and mixed at first because whatever remains of any defensive organizations (unions in particular) have ossified and been pulled further and further right. But people fighting back means there is a potential for people to learn new lessons and figure out (small at first) how to defend themselves and maybe even take the offensive.

The working class has been confined, demoralized, and increasingly restricted for a straight generation, you don't go from sitting in solitary confinement to running a marathon in a day, so I think we are at the beginning of a process, of a historical development, not at the end. We may loose in the end, and most likely will unless the class struggle matures really really quickly on our side and there's a revolution in the next decade. But fighting-back is the pre-condition for the possibility of the class "rebuilding it's muscle" and any possibility for effective fight-back.

Just the fact that as many of us suspect, this will hasten the inevitability of more anti-union pushes throughout the nation, that fact suggests that there will be other battles provokes and the chance than next time workers will have learned some lessons from Wisco and Occupy and be more able to avoid some pitfalls or derailment by union leaders or the Dems. People who were inspired by Wisco and have seen the defeat of this strategy are going to be more receptive to militant strategies and mass movement strategies and less easily convinced to go into a long and probably loosing electoral battle. Additionally, it won't just be really scary right-wing politicians enacting these things which also means that labor could end up directly clashing with Democratic governors.

This battle is lost, it was probably lost as soon as the Democratic officials were able to misdirect it towards recall, but this war and this new era of struggle are just starting.

[Agathor]

So we lost one battle... that's the way war is.

Hehe, this isn't exactly our first defeat.

[Sasha]

When the game is so rigged that your opponent outspends you 8 to 1 you should not even attempt to play on their board, by their rules... parliamentarism is a dead end, in a two party kleptocracy even deader...

[Mr. Natural]

Os Cangaceiros is right: this is a fucking disaster, and it is a fucking disaster within a fucking disaster.

I'll try not to make this lengthy or too bitter. I understand what is going on all too well, though, and I couldn't sleep and am up at 3:00 AM.

Capitalism has triumphed, and one consequence is the degradation of the left. What is left of the left is extraordinarily conservative, passive, and dogmatic. There is no revolutionary organizing theory nor any attempt (self excluded) to develop one.

So capitalism has triumphed, but it has also reached the end of its process. It can no longer manufacture the runaway profit that is its lifeblood, and its massive exploitation of all forms of life must turn inward into ever more destructive forms of social and ecological degradation.

Hence Wisconsin. This is a major "advance" of a collapsing capitalism. Walker outspent Barrettt 7 to 1. This is the massive triumph of capital over people, and of an incipient fascism over the sham democracy that has prevailed for centuries in the US. The Democratic Party is a reeking corpse. The American people have the political awareness of a potato.

Following Marx, Engels, and the materialist dialectic, I view life and society as systemic process. Capitalism is a process, and the left was supposed to emerge and then intervene as capitalist contradictions developed, but the classic revolutionary clash of proletariat versus the bourgeoisie has passed, and the left has utterly failed to recognize this and develop new tricks. Did Marxism effectively die with Marx and Engels?

Living in the US with awareness is a pisser, but what really makes this fucked up is the lack of any revolutionary response or spirit on the left. I cannot go quietly into capitalism's dark night, but there is no way to resist.

It doesn't have to be this way, but for any necessary radical changes to take place, the left must recognize that it must radically re-tool its revolutionary toolkit. And to do this the left must engage the new, revolutionary sciences of organization so it may get organized and then rationally, humanely organize the human condition.

Marx and Engels would have done this long ago. Where are the Marxists?

[shaneo]

Well then I think this is the fundamental difference in our views. I don't think workers are just naturally inclined to do anything because of their class position; our class position makes it more possible for us to see through our own experiences the contradictions of capitalism, but it's not like workers are class-war drones who only doubt our ability to run society for ourselves because we're being directly tricked and manipulated.

Well no. Workers will not reject capitalism tomorrow, just on my say so. However, if workers are given the opportunities, and options, then I believe they will be “ready to struggle to protect themselves”. In my experience, and without having statistics to back me up, I think a lot of workers realise that the Democrats and Republicans don’t act in their interests, but they still (wrongly) see bourgeois elections as their only access to democracy. Unfortunately, the unions I listed support this illusion to prevent workers struggles. If you believe that the time is not right for revolution, that’s fine, but I still don’t see what is to be lost by ditching the current unions.


Yes this needs to be opposed, but how is organizing separately from where many class conscious rank and fliers are already struggling going to help this process? It's like just giving up on where there is a section of the class already trying to figure a way out from the union movement being in such a weak state.

Yes, give up on the unions, but that doesn’t mean give up on the workers. I would have to question how class conscious a lot of union members are. I know when I was younger, I joined the union because that was just what you did. Give us the facts and we will make own own decisions.


I think the idea that worker's aren't militant because we're tricked by union leaders just doesn't make sense since there have been times when conservative trade-union leaderships have been pushed to the side or booted-out, or even moved to the left for their own cynical reasons, by rank and file militancy. The union movement sucks a lot right now, but is it worse than the AFL in the 1920s?

Other posters have quoted actions in the 1920’s to suggest that unions act in our interest, but what about now? What about the last 30 years? It’s certainly been a long period of low struggle…

Yes I do believe that workers aren’t militant because they are tricked by union leaders. Union leaders direct support towards a capitalist party, while acting as a safety valve for militancy.


So I think this formulation treats workers as passive, as if workers just follow the conservative politics of the unions because no one has shown them a "pure" radical union yet.

Yes I think this is sort of true. Why else would workers continue to be part of unions that they know to be corrupted, unless they felt as though they had no choice.



Yes this needs to be opposed, but how is organizing separately from where many class conscious rank and fliers are already struggling going to help this process? It's like just giving up on where there is a section of the class already trying to figure a way out from the union movement being in such a weak state.

Well, they only exist there in an abstract sense. In the current arrangement they are only struggling with the union leadership, which acts on the side of the employers.


And while I'm not opposed to people trying to set up alternative unions, I think we also need to be trying to organize rank and file networks or oppositions to the leadership within the existing union movement.

Wisco has just proved that this cannot work. The leaders are too powerful to fight from within their organisation, and by their rules.


There are no unions which are affiliated with the ISO or any revolutionary group in the US (though the ISO does have scattered members involved in many unions as well as the IWW) and the ISO doesn't support the Democratic party. You may be thinking of the US CP which has supported the Democrats since WWII.

I didn’t say that there were unions affiliated with the ISO. However, the ISO backs the existence of our current unions and sees them, as you do, as a vehicle for struggle. Even though it must be acknowledged that the unions are corrupted.

From the ISO website: “The Democratic Party, much like the Republicans, acts in the interests of Corporate America and the privileged few at the top. Therefore, we do not support their candidates”. Yet the ISO supports the Greens, which is another capitalist party. I can’t recall the Greens ever calling for socialism?

November 7, 2008 “The sweeping victory of Barack Obama in the presidential elections is a transformative event in U.S. politics, as an African American takes the highest office in a country built on slavery.” In this case the ISO is propagating illusions in the Democrats.

I’m sorry, but to me the ISO’s position seems confused, incoherent, and based almost entirely on getting students to participate in the dead end identity politics of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Of course these issues are important, but they will be solved when we solve the class problem. Until then, they are a distraction from workers struggles, and used by politicians to divide workers.

What is the readership of the Socialist Worker? I’m sure it’s a lot. The ISO has a unique position and it could, if it chooses, to start a new union separate from the existing ones and work to convince its readers to join. Let’s say I accept your point that we cannot ditch the current unions until we a have “pure” ones… Let’s do it then! If you hold position in the ISO, you could make this happen. I think people are ready to struggle. Wisco, Occupy, Arab Spring, etc, etc prove this.


…but the existance of the unions can't just be jumped over or by-passed IMO, we have to deal with it as it is and try and organize alternatives to the logic of business-unionism that are organically connected to the struggle and are from below.

If we by-pass the existing unions to achieve our rights, then this would be a struggle from below. To continue to involve ourselves with the existing criminal unions, is to struggle from within.

[shaneo]

If this ass-clown Scott Walker tries any more funny business, there is always the statewide (or even nationwide) strike option.
Like they say, you ain't seen nuthin yet!

Don't hold your breath. The unions will be working as hard as they can to prevent any strikes.

[shaneo]

Damn, you are confused. Do you think MH or any of the other comrades here harbor major illusions about the current union leadership in this country?

Yes I do. If I am only pointing out what MH already knows, then why does he/she jump to their defence? What is "confused" is to support them, even when you accept that they are corrupt and not working in our interest. It is a cop out to say that the unions are fine, and it's the leaders who are the baddies. They are one and the same.


The idea that capitalists love unions is idiotic. They will, however, make use of them when and where they can.

I never said that they "love" them. But I know that if I owned a big company, and the union was helping me to keep down wages and reduce pension rights, then I could grow to love them.

Capitalists use them when they can, and the unions allow themselves to be used.

You accept all of this, and still defend them. I am confused!


As for David North -- comrades vilify him for a host of reasons, based on his disgusting support for anti-proletarian elements and participation in such lovely things as fingering Communists to bonapartist governments, which could have lead to their imprisonment and murder. That he is an anti-union shit is just icing on the cake.

Trade unionists don't like him only because he is anti-union. The rest of what you say is just unsubstantiated slander by association (to Gerry Healy), put about to undermine the SEP and their anti-union stance. Given what we know (and what you acknowledge) about the existing unions, perhaps you should join them?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well no. Workers will not reject capitalism tomorrow, just on my say so. However, if workers are given the opportunities, and options, then I believe they will be “ready to struggle to protect themselves”. In my experience, and without having statistics to back me up, I think a lot of workers realise that the Democrats and Republicans don’t act in their interests, but they still (wrongly) see bourgeois elections as their only access to democracy. Unfortunately, the unions I listed support this illusion to prevent workers struggles. If you believe that the time is not right for revolution, that’s fine, but I still don’t see what is to be lost by ditching the current unions.What is lost is relating to the actual working class as it is right now - and I agree, worker's aren't passive drones, but accept "business-unionism" and the Democrats leadership because they have been convinced that other alternatives don't exist, won't work, or would produce worse results.

Not challenging these notions will not have any impact on the hold of these ideas, in effect we'd be abandoning hundreds of thousands of workers to the liberals.

Syndicalism can provide an example of how militancy can work, but wildcats and other actions from below even in the unions can also create a counter-weight to the pull of the labor leaders. I say we need to fight with the class union or non-union in struggle.


Yes, give up on the unions, but that doesn’t mean give up on the workers. I would have to question how class conscious a lot of union members are. I know when I was younger, I joined the union because that was just what you did. Give us the facts and we will make own own decisions.It's rudimentary class consciousness even at the lowest level because someone's at least figured out that the bosses aren't going to give you shit just because you're a good worker. But this claim of no consciousness undermines your argument - if they don't have class consciousness then why would they join a radical union if one was dropped in our laps?


Other posters have quoted actions in the 1920’s to suggest that unions act in our interest, but what about now? What about the last 30 years? It’s certainly been a long period of low struggle…And there have been long periods of low struggle before - the 1920s were shorter but by everything I've heard it was still a real low-point after the post-war strike wave ended and the red-scare took effect. We have the tea-party, but they had the KKK meeting with elected officials and marching in Washington DC. Hell they even had the first feature-length movie popularizing them! There were also pogroms of working class whites against black migrant populations, the trade-union movement was explicitly elitist and craft-oriented and often pro-white power. Now THAT'S low class consciousness! Yet after radicals and union militants and groups like the CP and IWW doing real ground-level organizing and an economic crisis, the class went from the low 20s to the fighting 30s. Even right-wing union beurocrats had to move to the left and champion militant tactics becuase of the groundswell and effectiveness of radical tactics and the growing popularity of radical politics.


I didn’t say that there were unions affiliated with the ISO. However, the ISO backs the existence of our current unions and sees them, as you do, as a vehicle for struggle. Even though it must be acknowledged that the unions are corrupted.We believe it is a "contested" class space - this is backed up by the history of the union movement as I read it. As a defensive organization they don't have an alternative to capitalism and so this creates a tendency towards accomodation and conservativism (reformism). But because workers are organized there is also a greater chance for fight-back and history shows that during periods of class struggle the rank and file will challenge conservative leadership and methods.


From the ISO website: “The Democratic Party, much like the Republicans, acts in the interests of Corporate America and the privileged few at the top. Therefore, we do not support their candidates”. Yet the ISO supports the Greens, which is another capitalist party. I can’t recall the Greens ever calling for socialism?Did the ISO ever argue that the Green party or ANY electoral party could be a vehicle for socialism?! No. We believed they were in a position to be the organizational expression of disatisfaction with the Democratic party, potentially a place where a broad left-labor militants and anti-globalization activists could gain a larger hearing. When the Greens had a factional fight over weather or not to continue challenging Democrats or to only run where they weren't in danger of loosing we backed the left and when they lost, we stopped supporting them. I supported Nader in 2000 and when I met the ISO they were the ones who clarified for me why elections can't ultimately change the system.


November 7, 2008 “The sweeping victory of Barack Obama in the presidential elections is a transformative event in U.S. politics, as an African American takes the highest office in a country built on slavery.” In this case the ISO is propagating illusions in the Democrats.Yes the first line of an article which goes on to argue that Obama is not even as liberal as his supporters hope and that real change comes from movements, not Democrats. Besides what in this sentence is incorrect - it was a watershed moment in the US simply for his name and race and the idea that white people are too racist in the US to even elect a black president. It won't bring about socialism, but it's not insignificant. Here's the argument from the article you took the opening line from:


NOW THE issue is how Obama and the Democrats will use their power in Washington, particularly on the issues most important to voters--the economy and also the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.


A closer look at Obama's stated policy positions--as opposed to his soaring rhetoric--points to a big gap between the hopes and expectations of Obama voters and the cautious, moderate program he has put forward.
...Rather than implement a major redistribution of the wealth, he simply wants to let Bush's tax cuts expire and increase the top income tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent. But as Chuck Collins of the Institute for Policy Studies points out, Obama's proposal is far friendlier to the rich than those of the 1950s Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower:

In 1955, for instance, America's 400 highest-income taxpayers averaged about $12 million in income, in today's dollars. They paid, after loopholes, 51.2 percent of that in tax.
Let's put these numbers in contemporary perspective. In 2005, our 400 richest taxpayers averaged $214 million and paid federal taxes on that princely sum, after exploiting loopholes, at a mere 18.5 percent rate...Ike, were he around today, might even chide the target of McCain's anti-redistributionist fury, Sen. Barack Obama, for taking too timid a tax-the-rich stance.
An even more urgent issue than taxes is the bailout of the financial system, as Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson starts rushing to hand out $700 billion to banks and financial institutions before Obama takes office on January 20. This "rescue" is, in fact, the greatest single transfer of wealth from workers to the rich in U.S. history.


Will Obama call a halt to this colossal rip-off and fashion an economic program that puts the interests of working people at its center? Will an Obama administration use government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and shares in big banks in order to halt mortgage foreclosures? Will there be an economic stimulus program that creates secure, long-term jobs?


Obama's economic team shows no inclination toward such changes. While some pro-labor liberal economists like Jared Bernstein are counted among Obama's economic advisers, Obama relies much more on establishment figures like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker--both with long track records of favoring big business at workers' expense.


The same "realism" dominates Obama's foreign policy team. Attacked by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain for his inexperience in foreign policy, Obama surrounded himself with former secretaries of state, ex-CIA officials, generals and academics committed to an imperialist U.S. foreign policy. The style will change--more cultivation of allies, more international agreements--but the substance will not.


Obama plans to leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq to ensure that a pro-American government survives. And as he stressed repeatedly on the campaign trail, Obama wants to escalate the savage war in Afghanistan, where the pursuit of Osama bin Laden masks what is really a U.S. determination to occupy a strategic crossroads in Asia. Also, Obama has staked out hawkish positions on Venezuela and was even to the right of the Bush administration in declaring his support for Israel.


None of this is to say that no change is possible. Tens of millions of people want a new direction. The question is whether they can be organized to fight for it.



I’m sorry, but to me the ISO’s position seems confused, incoherent,Only if you go to the WSWS rather than our own members and resources to try and find out what our positions are.


and based almost entirely on getting students to participate in the dead end identity politics of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Of course these issues are important, but they will be solved when we solve the class problem. Until then, they are a distraction from workers struggles, and used by politicians to divide workers. Actually I think our arguments AGAINST Identity Politics are some of the clearest on the radical left.


The politics of identity SHARON SMITH argues that identity politics can't liberate the oppressed
(http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-identity.shtml)

But in general, how are the struggles of oppressed groups not part of the working class struggle? Aren't things like job and housing discrimination, racial profiling, racist arguments to further austerity politics, and so on class issues?


What is the readership of the Socialist Worker? I’m sure it’s a lot. The ISO has a unique position and it could, if it chooses, to start a new union separate from the existing ones and work to convince its readers to join. Let’s say I accept your point that we cannot ditch the current unions until we a have “pure” ones… Let’s do it then! If you hold position in the ISO, you could make this happen. I think people are ready to struggle. Wisco, Occupy, Arab Spring, etc, etc prove this.Sure I hope that's a real possibility coming organically from an upsurge in struggle. I don't think any group on the left can will class struggle into being. The left as a whole lacks the organic connection to broad labor struggles as it is, to create a Worker's Party or new International or new Radical Unions. I think this will change soon - hope, but also suspect because of the uptake in struggle. But it will take things like Occupy and other struggles to link militants and radicals with broader class support to create a situation where this is a real possibility IMO.

[Leftsolidarity]

Os Cangaceiros is right: this is a fucking disaster, and it is a fucking disaster within a fucking disaster.

I'll try not to make this lengthy or too bitter. I understand what is going on all too well, though, and I couldn't sleep and am up at 3:00 AM.

Capitalism has triumphed, and one consequence is the degradation of the left. What is left of the left is extraordinarily conservative, passive, and dogmatic. There is no revolutionary organizing theory nor any attempt (self excluded) to develop one.

So capitalism has triumphed, but it has also reached the end of its process. It can no longer manufacture the runaway profit that is its lifeblood, and its massive exploitation of all forms of life must turn inward into ever more destructive forms of social and ecological degradation.

Hence Wisconsin. This is a major "advance" of a collapsing capitalism. Walker outspent Barrettt 7 to 1. This is the massive triumph of capital over people, and of an incipient fascism over the sham democracy that has prevailed for centuries in the US. The Democratic Party is a reeking corpse. The American people have the political awareness of a potato.

Following Marx, Engels, and the materialist dialectic, I view life and society as systemic process. Capitalism is a process, and the left was supposed to emerge and then intervene as capitalist contradictions developed, but the classic revolutionary clash of proletariat versus the bourgeoisie has passed, and the left has utterly failed to recognize this and develop new tricks. Did Marxism effectively die with Marx and Engels?

Living in the US with awareness is a pisser, but what really makes this fucked up is the lack of any revolutionary response or spirit on the left. I cannot go quietly into capitalism's dark night, but there is no way to resist.

It doesn't have to be this way, but for any necessary radical changes to take place, the left must recognize that it must radically re-tool its revolutionary toolkit. And to do this the left must engage the new, revolutionary sciences of organization so it may get organized and then rationally, humanely organize the human condition.

Marx and Engels would have done this long ago. Where are the Marxists?

I think you were just too sweep up in the moment. We didn't get the results of a bourgeois election we were hoping for. It wouldn't be the first time. Now instead of wailing on about how that must be because of the failures of the left, it is time to keep on building the left. That was, what I view, as the main point of this whole movement in Wisconsin- building a bigger and wider movement. It's been working too. It's going to continue to happen as well since more people are going to be frustrated. This isn't stuff that happens overnight or happens if you wish for it hard enough.

[Agathor]

When the game is so rigged that your opponent outspends you 8 to 1 you should not even attempt to play on their board, by their rules... parliamentarism is a dead end, in a two party kleptocracy even deader...

Not interested in starting this argument again, but the ability of Scott Walker types to buy support via adverts is separate from the parliamentary system.

[Ilyich]

Well, neither outcome (a Walker or Barrett victory) would have been a victory for the working class. That much is obvious. Like Leftsolidarity, however, I personally don't see the need to be totally pessimistic about this. The movement beginning in last year's February had the potential to be a genuine workers' movement, at least in its early stages. A section of the AFL-CIO in southern Wisconsin even voted to approve a general strike. Of course, the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucrats killed the strike's momentum and channeled all the workers' energy into the recall. In that way, the movement was a disaster because of the recall itself.

Here's my hope. Walker and certain other politicians across the country will undoubtedly take Walker's double victory over Barrett as a mandate to continue their scaleback of workers' power and public services. The workers, seeing that the Democratic Party has failed to deliver them twice, will break from the Democratic Party and form their own independent labor movement.

Here's my fear. Walker and certain other politicians across the country will undoubtedly take Walker's double victory over Barrett as a mandate to continue their scaleback of workers' power and public services. The worker's will be so demoralized that they do nothing until the next election.

[Geiseric]

We just need somebody in the wisconsin unions to call out their leadership on supporting the entire plan with the democrats, and the resentment will spread like wildfire. My thoughts are on what wisconsin workers are thinking right now, does anybody in the area know?

[bcbm]

We just need somebody in the wisconsin unions to call out their leadership on supporting the entire plan with the democrats,

the taa already did this to some extent
(http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=36862)

My thoughts are on what wisconsin workers are thinking right now, does anybody in the area know?

overheard some discussions at work last night, mostly just people feeling bummed out or giving other people shit for not voting.

[Prometeo liberado]

IMO failing to recall Walker would be more likely to demoralize workers rather than radicalizing them.

You can't keep taking a beating like this for two reasons. First, there is a threshold of pain one can endure before either striking an effective blow or just bowing out. I don't see the Wisc. workers as so orgranized that they can hit back after this. Second, the Walkerites now see this as proof positive that the war on workers(Austerity) has the public backing and therefore will knotch it up another gear. Yes, demoralizing it is. Terminal, maybe. The only positive note to come of this is yet another example of how the Almighty DNC could not give a shit about people.

[Leftsolidarity]

Incredible march today. Will be posting up videos and news.

Here's some Fox footage. I'm here here a number of times hehe

and the person run over by the horse has a broken toe because of it. Many people were trampled today.

http://fox6now.com/2012/06/06/four-arrested-after-anti-walker-march-through-downtown-milwaukee/

More capitalist news:

http://www.cbs58.com/news/top-stories/Several-Arrested-During-Downtown-Protest-157649475.html

Good article by Fight Back!:

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/6/7/hundreds-march-milwaukee-aftermath-walker-recall-vote

[Leftsolidarity]

We are also looking for statements of solidarity for those who were arrested today and for the march against sexist, union-busting, racist laws by other Occupys and from different organizations so if you have any connections it would be great if we could have a statement of solidarity.

[Prometeo liberado]

Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure all the major leftist groups are still at least promoting this.
Promoting a cause that relied on much of its support from the DNC? When will you people learn?


The South Central Federation of Labor was calling for a general strike, prolly the biggest group to do so. But ohh that AFL-CIO and their admiration for dems http://www.revleft.com/vb/effect-recalling-scott-t171660/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
My point(unfortunately) proven.

[shaneo]

Not interested in starting this argument again, but the ability of Scott Walker types to buy support via adverts is separate from the parliamentary system.


I would have said they were closely intertwined. After all, if you get the money, you usually get the white house. In 2008 Obama managed to find 750 mil while McCain could only raise around 300 mil.

The dems could have found the money to fight this. If they really wanted to. It wasn't in their national interest to lose Walkers cause. Hence the half-arsed effort.

[Agathor]

The workers, seeing that the Democratic Party has failed to deliver them twice, will break from the Democratic Party and form their own independent labor movement
How will Republican governments kicking the working class (with their permission) cause disillusionment with Democrats?

[bcbm]

Incredible march today. Will be posting up videos and news.


i don't think it looked that good... 50 people maybe? mke used to pull that in just anarchists for some marches. but solidarity to the arrested, there is a meeting at 1 pm at 949 n 9th st to show support for andrew cox who is facing the most serious charges and has arraignment at 1 30

[Leftsolidarity]

i don't think it looked that good... 50 people maybe? mke used to pull that in just anarchists for some marches. but solidarity to the arrested, there is a meeting at 1 pm at 949 n 9th st to show support for andrew cox who is facing the most serious charges and has arraignment at 1 30

It was about 200 people.

[thriller]

Just the fact that as many of us suspect, this will hasten the inevitability of more anti-union pushes throughout the nation, that fact suggests that there will be other battles provokes and the chance than next time workers will have learned some lessons from Wisco and Occupy and be more able to avoid some pitfalls or derailment by union leaders or the Dems. People who were inspired by Wisco and have seen the defeat of this strategy are going to be more receptive to militant strategies and mass movement strategies and less easily convinced to go into a long and probably loosing electoral battle. Additionally, it won't just be really scary right-wing politicians enacting these things which also means that labor could end up directly clashing with Democratic governors
.

I agree with this completely. I always try to keep faith in the struggle. One way to look at the recall result is that reformist can't achieve goals for workers, because if it did, we wouldn't be where we are. Hopefully many Dem cheerleaders and progressives will be pulled further left. It's possible this is a better outcome than if Barrett won (considering he said limiting collective bargaining rights wasn't "off the table" for him in 2010).

[Geiseric]

I don't think the union memberships will allow for the same crap to be pulled twice with the democrats though again. If they're even important after this.

[Leftsolidarity]

Here's the main video of the march that I got on my camera. I got a number of others on my channel (adiosucks123) if you want to check them out. It gets really shakey sometimes because of different things that I had to deal with but you see some good parts. I'll try to highlight more important sections to watch when I have the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbUPtOvmZpM

gbUPtOvmZpM

[Mr. Natural]

37% of union households in Wisconsin voted for Scott Walker. The Tea Party is composed of old white people who are organizing against their Social Security and Medicare.

I'll quote H. L. Mencken: " No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I'll amend that statement to read "ignorance," not "intelligence," and it sums up politics in the USA.

But what makes this situation such a pisser is that there is no left. The "left" along with the rest of the political spectrum has been subsumed by capitalist values and institutions (The System) and no longer possesses any radical intelligence or spirit.

Life is composed of systems, and human and nonhuman life has been captured by the capitalist system, whose organization is alien to life. This is a mental as well as a physical capture of humanity, and that comrades refuse to recognize this is a marker of this mental capture of the left. We are now hyper-sectarian and conservative in the absence of any real understanding of what has happened.

Capitalism has killed the life in Marxism, and it is killing the human species. Of course, the left could wake up and turn this around, but this would require minds that are open to understanding the systemic triumph of capitalism and minds that will engage the new scientific understanding of the organization of life on Earth. Should comrades do this, we can begin organizing our way out of capitalism into a bright, realized human future. Should comrades continue to fail to engage our new realities and possibilities ....

[Leftsolidarity]

i didnt watch your video but if it has any of the confrontations or whatever i dont think it is a good idea to post that online...

U can't see anything or hear anything other than "fuck" a few times. It's not a problem.


still.

Still what? I don't really get the point you're trying to get across. Do you live in the area or know Occupy Milwaukee or any of that very well? It seems that you do from the info you posted above and if you know, at least the groups involved, I don't see why you are dismissing this action. I feel that this action was a great step forward.

[Bostana]

I knew from the beginning that it was going to work. And I think the people who started the recall knew that too, and just wanted to make a scene

[bcbm]

Still what? I don't really get the point you're trying to get across. Do you live in the area or know Occupy Milwaukee or any of that very well? It seems that you do from the info you posted above and if you know, at least the groups involved, I don't see why you are dismissing this action. I feel that this action was a great step forward.

seems like more of a last gasp

[Leftsolidarity]

seems like more of a last gasp

I think you're just pessimestic.

I think shit's just begun and now different groups and individuals in the area are even showing that they are willing to confront police and literally take the streets. I think that's a great sign.

[bcbm]

I think you're just pessimestic.

obviously


I think shit's just begun and now different groups and individuals in the area are even showing that they are willing to confront police and literally take the streets. I think that's a great sign.

i dont think small clusters of radicals and some fellow travelers is much of a sign.