Building a militant mass labour movement

[jake williams]

So, I went to a talk by Boots Riley the other day, and his slogan now is that the priority of the left needs to be to build a militant, mass labour movement (militant in tactics, its relationship with legalism and the state; mass in its size, scope and character).

I found the concision interesting - in the whole universe of left theory, there are rarely arguments that are so simple and unambiguous (besides perhaps the counterpoint "build the party").

Also, as a prescription for left strategy, it sounds about right, but I am curious how much consensus his point would actually make.

1) If you think he's right, what concretely would this look like?

2) If you think he's wrong, why, and what else should people be doing?

[Queen Mab]

What do you mean by 'the left'?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I don't think it can be a priority, this promotion of full-blown militancy and an undefined mass labour movement doesn't synthesise the various theories and forms of practice which exist on the far-left. Violence and confrontation should be considered as part of a wider strategy, but not the strategy.

[Q]

I'm not sure what is meant here exactly with 'a militant, mass labour movement'. So I don't know if I'm for or against.

If a focus is put on 'militant' and with that is meant a movement for strikes, protests and demonstrations. Then I'll have to decline.

If however a party-movement is meant that exists out of a great diversity of organisations that organise our class as a class-for-itself on a social, cultural, economic and political level... Then sure, I'm all for that.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Sad to say, but in a world where people freak out at even the smallest acts of civil disobedience (i.e. a Senate page here in Canada held up a sign which read "Stop Harper!", prompting even the social democratic NDP to support her removal), I don't see any significant support at the moment for more militant tactics.

It would be a hell of a lot more effective than what, say, the CPCML or the "Communist Party of the USA" are doing, I think, but only if it were backed by widespread support.

Shying away from it would be as bad as jumping into it blindly, but at this point "militancy" would only be the tactic of a "vanguard". Tempting, but a temptation we should resist in my point of view.

[#FF0000]

It's neat to find out Boots Riley and I are on the same page. In the US right now, there's literally no labor movement whatsoever. Without one, all communists are capable of is really ineffective activism in "parties"and organizations totally divorced from any actual, real-life day to day struggles or intellectual masturbation in papers and magazines that no one but hella insufferable academic kids read.

[jake williams]

What do you mean by 'the left'?
We could say "the group of people who want to abolish capitalism" to be more exact.


If a focus is put on 'militant' and with that is meant a movement for strikes, protests and demonstrations. Then I'll have to decline.

If however a party-movement is meant that exists out of a great diversity of organisations that organise our class as a class-for-itself on a social, cultural, economic and political level... Then sure, I'm all for that.
I would presume that it would be some kind of movement that would engage in a variety of activities, build culture and working class consciousness, but which would be tactically focused on building organizations whereby workers can advance their interests at the point of production in workplaces; through whatever means are effective, but with the understanding that you can't be effective in workplace action through class collaboration and politeness.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Just from an outsider's perspective, I think that there's already starting to be a reinvigorating, so to speak, of the labour movement in the US, particularly with the low wage workers organising and willing to strike. After thirty years of stagnation, it's a positive movement and it really reveals the irrationality of capitalism when people are confronted with some of the facts. It can't be the only tactic but, similarly, 'party building' is only useful when there's an active working class to build within. There's certainly nothing wrong with workers fighting for immediate and tangible goals through all the means available to them.

[#FF0000]

The number of strikes in recent years has been dropping like a stone. In either 2011 or 2012, it was single digit.

[Ele'ill]

1) If you think he's right, what concretely would this look like?

2) If you think he's wrong, why, and what else should people be doing?

I don't really know/think he's wrong or right here I don't know enough about his position but I guess I could say that I disagree on the grounds that the brief paraphrased portion at the beginning of your post comes across as a magic bullet solution for pretty much any task you could think of and still leaves us right back at the start. Something like, 'we need enough people doing the right things at the right time until it's done'. I don't really think that is possible or desirable as an approach. I don't think that 'mass movement' can work in the way I think that he's thinking it can but this is simply speculation.

[jake williams]

I guess I could say that I disagree on the grounds that the brief paraphrased portion at the beginning of your post comes across as a magic bullet solution for pretty much any task you could think of and still leaves us right back at the start. Something like, 'we need enough people doing the right things at the right time until it's done'.
I don't know that many people would disagree that it would be easier to fight capitalism if there was a large, active labour movement that mobilized a lot of people, fought capital, and won victories; nor that such a project would take an immense quantity of difficult work.

I think the questions where there is probably some disagreement are about whether such a thing is achievable in North America or Europe in the medium term, or whether time and energy would be better invested in other projects ("party building" let's say, or direct confrontations with the state, or "anti-imperialist" campaigns, put aside the whole nexus of identity politics).

[Ele'ill]

I don't know that many people would disagree that it would be easier to fight capitalism if there was a large, active labour movement that mobilized a lot of people, fought capital, and won victories; nor that such a project would take an immense quantity of difficult work.

I think the questions where there is probably some disagreement are about whether such a thing is achievable in North America or Europe in the medium term, or whether time and energy would be better invested in other projects ("party building" let's say, or direct confrontations with the state, or "anti-imperialist" campaigns, put aside the whole nexus of identity politics).

I was just noting that 'if there was a successful mass militant labor movement it would be successful' is kind of not saying much

[Loony Le Fist]

I think my position is going to depend on how you define a militant mass labour movement.

I voted yes, because I see a militant mass labour movement as a group of armed workers that don't seek out violence, but rather seek to defend themselves against state violence. In this case, I am totally with you.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The number of strikes in recent years has been dropping like a stone. In either 2011 or 2012, it was single digit.
True enough. In the US during the seventies something like 20% of workers were involved in strikes but in 2009 that had fallen to 0.05%. That's a huge drop in militancy. However, even the hint of organising in low pay conditions is a positive change. There's huge potential to organise workers at the moment. I would say the tail end of 2013 and now in 2014 things are quieting down but the potential is still there, as it always was.

[AmilcarCabral]

You know I admit that I still don't know a lot about how to overthrow capitalist government in the USA and replace it with socialist governments. I mean what is the best way either, thru the Occupy Movement, the different isolated protests going on in the country, with the help of the internet, and alternative news websites, the spreading of knowledge to the masses thru the rise of social networks like Facebook, Myspace, blogger.com, Youtube.com etc. Or a situation in which all the communist leftists parties of USA concentrate on building a united leftist party specifically designed for all the poor people of USA. (Not the middle classes, because the middle classes are: eating well, living well, do not live a painful life, so that drives them to keep voting for the democratic party and the republican party).

So having said all this, I think that all the small leftist parties of USA like The workers world party, the socialist equality party, socialist action, socialistworker.org, The maoist revolutionary communist party of Bob Avakian, solidarity party, the black panther party, and other leftist parties should join together into a big front, a united leftist front.

If i was rich I would write a letter to each of those parties, and economically motivate them and support them into create a brand new united leftist front. But most of us here are economically limited and in USA such a big country, merging all these different small parties together, and creating a brand new communist TV station for that new united leftist front like Russia Today News, a modern newspaper and financing a place for that united leftist front, requires a lot of money. And I think that the cheapest way of creating that united leftist front is by creating a sort of united internet leftist front. Like an internet political party (I mean creating that united leftist front composed of all the radical leftist parties of USA into 1 front thru the internet), because outside of the internet it would be too expensive


.



So, I went to a talk by Boots Riley the other day, and his slogan now is that the priority of the left needs to be to build a militant, mass labour movement (militant in tactics, its relationship with legalism and the state; mass in its size, scope and character).

I found the concision interesting - in the whole universe of left theory, there are rarely arguments that are so simple and unambiguous (besides perhaps the counterpoint "build the party").

Also, as a prescription for left strategy, it sounds about right, but I am curious how much consensus his point would actually make.

1) If you think he's right, what concretely would this look like?

2) If you think he's wrong, why, and what else should people be doing?

[Red Economist]

"Yes", but depends how you define "left" and "militant" as there is enormous scope for ideological dispute over this as these terms as they could mean almost anything.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, I went to a talk by Boots Riley the other day, and his slogan now is that the priority of the left needs to be to build a militant, mass labour movement (militant in tactics, its relationship with legalism and the state; mass in its size, scope and character).

I found the concision interesting - in the whole universe of left theory, there are rarely arguments that are so simple and unambiguous (besides perhaps the counterpoint "build the party").

The argument is far, far from simple.

The most important problem here is just how is "the left", as politicos and activists, going to build a mass labor movement.

Surely, some of these people are workers' themselves. Though, is there any chance that they might form the nuclei of such a movement, in their capacity as workers? I'd sooner expect Obama to invade France honestly.

Then, the deal rests on their relationship to and contact with either the existing rump of the labor movement (mostly official unions) or with broad swathes of non-unionized workers (perhaps most importantly, with precarious laborers) and the unemployed.

In both cases it's entirely unclear on which basis ought this left relate to workers' and their representatives (union bosses); as workers or as activists. The choice, if there is one, most probably determines how any organizing goes forward.

And that's not the end of the complications in this seemingly simple argument, since I believe that the activity of the working class base (apart from union officials, mainstream political representatives and community leaders, the activists of the left and the far left), in their capacity as workers (not confined to strike action), is crucial here, and probably the only counter-weight to all sorts of stunts and potentials for political degeneration of involved radical organizations. I also believe only this can serve as the basis for any such "building project".

The tricky part is that this can't be jump started.

In the end, militancy? Yes, it's necessary. Mass, in size, scope and character? Surely. A labor movement? Crucially depending on what one understands as constituting a movement.

[jake williams]

The argument is far, far from simple.

The most important problem here is just how is "the left", as politicos and activists, going to build a mass labor movement.
Yes, and I think these are exactly the kind of conversations worth having.


Surely, some of these people are workers' themselves. Though, is there any chance that they might form the nuclei of such a movement, in their capacity as workers? I'd sooner expect Obama to invade France honestly.
What specifically are you skeptical about, and why? (not that I don't agree, I'm not just not sure *exactly* what you mean)


And that's not the end of the complications in this seemingly simple argument, since I believe that the activity of the working class base (apart from union officials, mainstream political representatives and community leaders, the activists of the left and the far left), in their capacity as workers (not confined to strike action), is crucial here, and probably the only counter-weight to all sorts of stunts and potentials for political degeneration of involved radical organizations. I also believe only this can serve as the basis for any such "building project".

The tricky part is that this can't be jump started.
I could be misunderstanding you, but I don't think it makes sense to write off the ability of left activists to get involved with spontaneous, day-to-day class struggle at their own workplaces, and to find ways to use it to build strength and class consciousness. It's hard, but there are some small examples of it happening (albeit with mixed results).

[Comrade Jandar]

No, at least not the in the classical sense. The organization of a mass militant labour movement would probably end up excluding the precariat and lumpen who I think we should really be focusing on. Communists need to move away from workerism while still remembering that the proletariat is the only truly revolutionary subjectivity under capitalism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No, at least not the in the classical sense. The organization of a mass militant labour movement would probably end up excluding the precariat and lumpen who I think we should really be focusing on. Communists need to move away from workerism while still remembering that the proletariat is the only truly revolutionary subjectivity under capitalism.

I think this really speaks to the necessity of troubling certain hegemonic notions of, on one hand, the proletariat (especially concerning the role of reproduction in capitalism), and, on the other, revolutionary communist subjectivity.

For one, I think that formulations that equate proletarians with wage earners are pretty simplistic to say the least, since a huge amount of the labour that capital necessitates takes place outside of the formal relationship between bourgeoisie and proletariat - particularly in the third world - where the reproduction of living labour is, to a certain degree, premised on labour that occurs outside of formal market relations (eg - where people still rely on "pre-capitalist" forms to provide food to greater or lesser degrees according to market conditions; less spectacularly, in the case of sex/literal reproduction, etc.).

Secondly, I think that positing capitalism as The precursor to communism is a bit of Marx's/Marxists' liberal baggage. That's not to say we should abandon the proletariat as a potential bearer of revolutionary communist consciousness in the context of the particular contradictions within capital - but, at the same time, I think this can lead to a deeply problematic set of conclusions concerning people whose forms of life exist outside of formal relations to the market (e.g. "traditional" peoples, "peasants", etc.). Revolts with implicitly communist content often emerge out these "other" (i.e. seemingly "outside" of capitalism) spaces, and I think communists dismiss this at their own peril.

None of this is to say I'm against building a mass militant labour movement - I'm not. I just think that such a movement should look very different from current models of labour organizing (accredited/state-legitimated unionism) and political activity (bourgeois-modeled political parties).

[blake 3:17]

I disagreement with this question bizarre for revolutionaries.

But then I looked in the mirror and saw I was wearing a Liverpool Dockers tshirt --

http://static.goal.com/150600/150682.jpg I'm just a class struggle militant + other stuff. Forget the master plan.

Check http://www.labornotes.org/ or http://www.labourstart.org/2013/

My workplace organizing was managing to get the collective agreement into the staff room and I'm not included in the bargaining unit -- I'm a casual & way fucked over. I did tell a grievance officer who to contact to file a grievance.

Time to go to bed.

Edited to add: Now I can't sleep. It's a school of hard knocks. I spent months and months working as a volunteer prepping for a major strike in the early 2000s -- I was mostly getting people's phone numbers and making sure they'd get their strike pay from the national union if the strike lasted any length of time. Pretty tedious but very necessary. We were also doing some pretty cool educationals for members -- training for picket captains, what to do on a line, but also involving political education. Frigging employer locked my unit out and the damned local didn't recognize as such. urggh

So you gotta fight it from within and from the outside. The bureaucrats can steamroll you. There was a good crew of activists in our local and one time we were in a meeting and some serious stuff was going down in the city -- cops attacking homeless people -- we just left the meeting and went down there. Forget Resolution 8823 -- do justice where you can.

[RedSonRising]

I don't really see what else the left should be caring about?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, I went to a talk by Boots Riley the other day, and his slogan now is that the priority of the left needs to be to build a militant, mass labour movement (militant in tactics, its relationship with legalism and the state; mass in its size, scope and character).

I found the concision interesting - in the whole universe of left theory, there are rarely arguments that are so simple and unambiguous (besides perhaps the counterpoint "build the party").

Also, as a prescription for left strategy, it sounds about right, but I am curious how much consensus his point would actually make.

1) If you think he's right, what concretely would this look like?

2) If you think he's wrong, why, and what else should people be doing?

Well yeah I generally agree with Boots - I often did like his approach during Occupy Oakland.

We eventually need something like this and under present conditions it's I think it's more possible now than in recent memory to make militant arguments and get a hearing in a workplace - or at least be treated more seriously than 10 years ago. I don't think workplace struggle is the only place a class moement can happen - and today there's no reason in the US to think that would be the initial area where new militancy develops... but it's THE fundamental site of inherent working class power IMO - but for the sake of simplification, I'm just going to talk about a mass movement as if it is a labor one.

Without a mass militant movement with some class independance, most of our various ideas from the 2nd International type mass-partyists to the Revolutionay (vanguard)-partyists to Anarcho-syndicalists don't make much real sense. These are all forms built out of a larger working class movement and their assumptions and political orientation often take for granted a mass class movement in which to relate to. Without such a movement, Trotskyists and Anarchists become insular or debate about speculative possible conditions that might allow our ideas a historical context in which they makes sense; Leninist groupings of a couple dozen claim to be the Vanguard party; people turn to induvidual means to change things; it makes groups or induviduals act sectarian on an ideological basis on the one hand or just melt themselves into union bureaurocracies or whatnot.

What would building this look like? Messy.

I don't think it's really a question of forms: do we need some new vehicle or should we try and battle union bureaurcracy from the rank and file or battle them for positions in the union. What's important I think is if more workers are being drawn into the process, learning how to fight and lead potentially, etc. So in terms of forms I think any revival of labor militancy is probably going to look like a combination of both new forms outside the unions and challenges from below inside the unions. Which strategy is better probably depends on a bunch of local specific conditions - what kind of organizing already exists, where are workers already asserting themselves, what the general consiousness and dynamic in the group are. At some point some new form, or some internal revival and reform of the unions, might emerge as really the dominent vehicle and then I think it becomes clearer where radicals should prioritize.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, and I think these are exactly the kind of conversations worth having.
Indeed.



What specifically are you skeptical about, and why? (not that I don't agree, I'm not just not sure *exactly* what you mean)I'm really sceptical about the existing left activists acting as militant workers in that they would constitute the nuclei of a potential militant, mass labor movement. In my opinion, what really defines the activity of these people is the particular strain of left activism, which means that any relation to workers occurs in this specific way.


Though, just to state the obvious, I'm not from North America so my beliefs about the left were formed through communication and reading. I think that's worth bearing in mind, because I do think my contact with the left here where I live enabled me more immediate insight. And the situation I briefly described above is all the more acute here where the left is practically non-existent; so the argument would run rather differently, in that the isolated and scattered remnants of it would first need to get their shit together, engage in political discussion and see where that could lead in relation to organizing.

But that still leaves us with the basic problem, that communists as communists can't initiate class struggle, and I believe that any such building project (be it of an organization of communists or of a labor movement) is intimately tied to class militancy and actual struggles. That doesn't mean that concrete activities and organizing are futile in absence of a broader, temporary "movement" focused around specific battles; it's just that the scope, potentials and goals of said organizing need to be reasonably conceptualized (for instance, for some of my comrades and me there are few avenues for action open, and pretty much the only one is writing and discussions on that broken left; this of course holds only in relation to our present situation, that of significant passivity, ruling class offensive, and only sporadic and isolated fightback from the working class).



I could be misunderstanding you, but I don't think it makes sense to write off the ability of left activists to get involved with spontaneous, day-to-day class struggle at their own workplaces, and to find ways to use it to build strength and class consciousness. It's hard, but there are some small examples of it happening (albeit with mixed results).
I probably didn't make myself clear enough.

It doesn't make sense to write off that ability, but the key here is that left activists doing what they do as left activists can't really initiate the spontaneous day-to-day class struggle.

That would mean that the left is completely dependent on the working class base, their activity and drive towards the creation of a militant mass labor movement; itself meaning that it's misleading to speak of the left building that movement.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yes in this modern age of Leftist defeat we must focus on organizing labor, and not just militant labor. Even benign labor organization does a massive blow to liberal hegemony.

[jake williams]

I don't really see what else the left should be caring about?
To give some examples, that are seriously suggested by a large group of people, and which I think constitute a distinct set of priorities:


international solidarity with oppressed nations (because imperialism is subjectively more harmful than capitalist exploitation interior to capitalist countries, or for strategic reasons);
mobilization of the poorest or most oppressed or most exploited sectors within rich capitalist countries (because mobilizing less-oppressed or less-exploited sectors is more difficult, or because it is less subjectively important);
building a revolutionary organization that is not workplace- or industry-focused (a party, parliamentary or otherwise)
environmental action
or, "anti-oppression work" (because intersectionality means class coalitions aren't viable in the long term since at a given moment fighting oppression means fighting within a class, or because holding any single strategic priority is oppressive, or even in the perspective of eventually establishing a class movement)

I disagree with all of these as strategic priorities, but all of them have real arguments, and I think all of them are pretty widely held by people who would identify as being on the left, or opposing capitalism.


I don't think workplace struggle is the only place a class moement can happen - and today there's no reason in the US to think that would be the initial area where new militancy develops
My own feeling is that there is a reason that the most strategically important locus of "class moments" actually is the workplace, if I follow your logic (ie. compared to rent strikes, boycotts, blockades, self-defence against the police or landlords, service provision, etc.).

I have two basic reasons:
1) That is where employed people tend to have the most power: everything else equal, for a given amount of effort, workers usually have the most power against capital within their workplace
2) Workplaces ground organizing in a defined, physical space. One of the really interesting lessons I took from the Québec student strike was how much easier it is to mobilize people in a dense workplace where people physically congregate day in and day out, compared against a neighbourhood where people live but don't socialize, or a public square, etc.

Of course, specific situations vary a lot, and in a lot of communities there are tons of community organizations (tenant organizations, unemployed organizations etc.) but no unions with any power (or even no unions at all). But to a certain extent, I think a short term tactic that puts time and energy into winning short term gains more easily might not be worth it.


I don't think it's really a question of forms: do we need some new vehicle or should we try and battle union bureaurcracy from the rank and file or battle them for positions in the union. What's important I think is if more workers are being drawn into the process, learning how to fight and lead potentially, etc. So in terms of forms I think any revival of labor militancy is probably going to look like a combination of both new forms outside the unions and challenges from below inside the unions. Which strategy is better probably depends on a bunch of local specific conditions - what kind of organizing already exists, where are workers already asserting themselves, what the general consiousness and dynamic in the group are. At some point some new form, or some internal revival and reform of the unions, might emerge as really the dominent vehicle and then I think it becomes clearer where radicals should prioritize.
It might not be a question of forms in a general sense, everywhere in the world, but to be frank I think in particular circumstances, it actually is substantially a question of forms, because certain forms of labour organization are dramatically more or less capable of empowering people and/or winning (winning strikes, winning concessions, winning defensive victories, etc.)

I'm extremely skeptical of most of what is coming out of the various "new unionism" movements: worker centres, social unionism, extending membership without asking for dues, etc.

I think the "worker centre" model is going in exactly the wrong direction - I think it completely decouples the union structure from workplaces and members, and turns them into, at best, mutual aid organizations with limited capacity to do much beyond alleviate the worst abuses in particular cases, and at worst, replace unions with charities staffed by overprivileged college kids who have never worked in any of the workplaces they are serving, funded by other workers, the state, or even the bourgeoisie itself (http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/economic-fairness/promoting-the-next-generation-workforce-strategies/grant-making). If you think unions directly funded by workers are terrible, wait until you see unions funded directly by the employers.

I think the biggest problem in unions, I'll say in Québec to be specific but it probably generalizes in a lot of places, is the fact that very few of them are meaningfully controlled by their members, or meaningfully involve those members in actions. A subsidiary and related problem is that current or potential shop floor militants get siphoned off into lifelong staff gigs where they're completely removed from any political decision-making (again at best, because what tends to actually happen is staffers can manipulate things on the ground as they see fit).

This lack of democracy or member participation makes unions ineffective, because it means it's difficult for even well-intentioned elected officials and staff to give members what they actually want, and because it means that mobilizing for strikes or other actions is really difficult. But given two generations of anti-union propaganda meant to portray unions as disinterested private businesses simply looking out for their own interests, or the interests of a few specific privileged workers, we also have to actually fight to make people trust their own unions, which won't work unless unions are meaningfully democratic.

So yes, I do think it is a question of forms, albeit perhaps not one that can be answered in a general case in every context.


I'm really sceptical about the existing left activists acting as militant workers in that they would constitute the nuclei of a potential militant, mass labor movement. In my opinion, what really defines the activity of these people is the particular strain of left activism, which means that any relation to workers occurs in this specific way.

...

It doesn't make sense to write off that ability, but the key here is that left activists doing what they do as left activists can't really initiate the spontaneous day-to-day class struggle.

That would mean that the left is completely dependent on the working class base, their activity and drive towards the creation of a militant mass labor movement; itself meaning that it's misleading to speak of the left building that movement.
Ah, I think I understand now. Yes, I agree, a "left activism" primarily about being a part of some small group or political subculture isn't going to naturally create a militant labour movement. But, I think individuals and organizations actually could be effective in developing common strategies in their actions within the workplace and within unions.


Even benign labor organization does a massive blow to liberal hegemony.
It's not obvious that that's the case. It certainly provides at least a small speed bump against the most aggressive attacks, but it also fills a clear and explicit role in suppressing militancy (I could give you for the example most major strikes in Québec in the last year or so, where the union was actively involved in suppressing grassroots militancy, pushing legalism, and convincing workers to accept shitty deals).

[Dagoth Ur]

In a world so anti-labor even corrupt unions have a progressive role to play. Although I think most of those will die before anything gets better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

@Jake

Good points and I mostly agree with you. I also think form of organization of workers is important - I guess my point was at this point, we need the content before we can really make much inroads in terms of forms... that is there needs to be some kind of existing network of workers who would be able to create the links and organization to build a new form (or challenge the politics of the current labor movement). So I guess I was arguing more against a sort of "Build it and they will come" approach that sometimes I see among leftists. I think on a practical level we can not challenge even the worst unions on that basis because a good model without the social ability to fight is essentially the same as a bad model that has some access to negotiate with the bosses even when they do even this poorly.

I also agree on the point that workplaces are the fundamental place of organic working class power in general. And I can't imagine a revolution today where direct siezure of major production sites, infrastructure, etc by workers wouldn't be the decisive thing. But from our very modest starting point now, I think we should be flexible because (to envoke Luxembourg) social movements can feed into economic movements and back and forth.

With Occupy Oakland I think I've seen very modest local examples as the anti-police brutality movement parallel with the anti-university tuition increase movements in 2008-9 helped create connections that later gelled in Occupy and before Occupy was repressed and fell apart, there was some very interesting work being done in begining a Labor group in Occupy that could bridge rank and file unionists with low-wage non-union organizing... and occupy allowed this to happen outside the framework of the union leaders, but not alienating either rank and file unionists or non-union workers (bringing workers together on a non-sectional basis to work on common struggles).

[RedTrackWorker]

The number of strikes in recent years has been dropping like a stone. In either 2011 or 2012, it was single digit.

FYI those stats are for strikes of 1,000+ workers, so when warehouse workers strike and win at a Walmart DC, they're not counted.

Not to play with words, but I agree "mass, militant labor movement" is a key goal for workers in the U.S., but not only would I prioritize the creation of a party (and this means not just ranking it higher as a priority but a different approach to that renewed labor movement) but one of the key things for a renewed labor movement is the immigrant rights movement, which has its own independent significance as well and one could list several other things here, so while I'm wary of just putting one thing at the top, this is very important.

Right now, I and the LRP are working in this thing called Public Workers United (no real website yet), a coalition with other union activists (mostly from MORE-the UFT reform caucus like CORE in CTU, some DC37 workers and nurses) to campaign for the public unions in NYC (none of whom have contracts) to build a united mass movement on broad demands, just contracts for us public workers but fight for the $15 minimum, etc. We'll see.

On Labor Notes (which I just went to), I think they're a useful source of info but they're an obstacle to the kind of movement we need, and this is a way to make my early vague reference to 'party building' and its relationship to the labor movement. They consciously chose to reverse that priority (union reform first->party work later) and what has been created is a cynical apparatus, and for just a small piece of that, here are some of my thoughts on that conference (and so it's indirectly an argument for why we need political clarity as part of building a renewed labor movement):

It was predictable that the Labor Notes conference would neither fully ask the questions we have to ask ourselves about the union and other movements in this country, much less answer them or even provide a forum for meaningful discussion about the big questions and what is to be done.

Take immigrant rights, surely one of the most important issues to a revitalized movement. Thankfully all but one speaker on the panel opposed the so-called reform bills supported by the union federations and the Chamber of Commerce, but the one speaker who supported it is now the AFLCIO staff person in charge of getting the bill passed and more...is on the Labor Notes Policy Committee: Yanira Merino. Such an association should be stomach churning and unacceptable to any trade unionist in this country, much less revolutionary internationalists. Beyond that bottom line, while various panelists and the few speakers from the floor made some interesting points, the panel and discussion did not provide the foundation or space to have a serious discussion about how we could build a movement that could potentially stop the deportations, much less win bigger victories for immigrant rights. As far as I remember, only an LRP supporter there used the opportunity to challenge the AFL-CIO Immigration Campaign Manager to use the resources of our unions to build a mass movement for immigrant rights and to stop the deportations instead of demobilizing the movement as they did post-2006 to drive it into subordination to the Democratic Party.

There was also a panel on "independent politics." Independent of what? The phrase has devolved from "the political independence of the working class" to just "independent politics" and without its class content, it's just playing with words as you can be an "independent" Democratic, Republican, asshole, nice guy, whatever. Lee Sustar's article on Labor Notes used this fudge to conflate the campaigns of Sawant and Mike Parker, calling his campaign "left-wing independent." Sawant ran as an open socialist, whereas Parker's campaign is, in his own words at the panel, a coalition with liberal Democrats and others. (Parker's own article in Labor Notes doesn't hide its nature and notes they would have a problem if they ran in partisan rather than only non-partisan races--as there's no commitment to opposing the bosses' political parties in the alliance. And if you look at its website, it's hardly "left-wing"--another fudge term for sure, and De Blasio's campaign had more proposed progressive measures and rhetoric.) As for the conference more generally, the question of the Democratic Party came up frequently and generally expressed in terms of the need for opposition--yet an overall discussion of the party's nature and more, a strategy to break from it was not held. Besides LN's fake "non-political" policy (forbidding promoting a political party as a policy), the political group behind it--Solidarity--has no compunction endorsing the Democrats as was done by Steve Downs in TWU Local 100 and advocated by Robert Brenner.

Or take the session on "Labor Fights the Austerity Agenda," which should have been a discussion of how we can build a real national movement to stop the austerity attacks, instead is a presentation by panelists on their own particular situations, which is interesting and important in its own right but when there was no other place in which to work for a national movement, was de facto an obstacle to such discussion (esp. given that floor discussion is so limited, if the panel itself doesn't pose ideas there's no real way to bring them up). Indeed, when asked from the floor how we can build a national movement, two of the reform leaders said, "We have to start in our own unions." Well given they had already won leadership in their unions (NYSNA, ATU), don't they have an obligation to use that position not just for their own unions but to help us all build the national movement we need? Indeed, both talked about the idea of community-labor alliance in some form or another but that was limited to simply smarter business union approaches in fact (for instance ATU's bulletin gave backhanded support to a $.10/gallon gas tax surcharge, presumably to get more transit funding but at the cost of a regressive tax on workers), and more their avoidance of the idea of using their positions to challenge other union's and the union federations' complicity with the austerity drive means that they're not fulfilling their responsibility to the workers' movement.

[d3crypt]

A "militant mass labour movement" sounds pretty damn far ahead of where we are now. First we have to spread anti-capitalism and build up a stronger base, then we can talk about "militant mass labour movements" (really sounds kinda 1917).

[#FF0000]

A "militant mass labour movement" sounds pretty damn far ahead of where we are now. First we have to spread anti-capitalism and build up a stronger base, then we can talk about "militant mass labour movements" (really sounds kinda 1917).

We can have no base with no labor movement, though. I think "militant"only means a labor movement that is willing to assert itself, as opposed to the isolated, timid, and declawed unions and worker organizations we have now.

Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk 2

[Quail]

It depends on what exactly is meant by a "militant mass labour movement" (so I didn't vote in your poll, sorry).

I think that a labour movement has to go much further than organising and agitating within mainstream unions (obviously), but should also include the unemployed and "solidarity unionism" to organise around a range of issues from shitty landlords, the closure of nurseries and lack of affordable childcare, the massive recent increase in food poverty, etc. People belonging to different mainstream unions and in different workplaces should show solidarity and organise together. Obviously all of that is easier said than done, especially when we're limited by numbers and time and energy, but I think that leading by example, so to speak, and showing that the working class can win victories, that extending our solidarity and mutual aid actually works, is a good way of convincing people that our ideas are more than some idealist utopia.

[blake 3:17]

A "militant mass labour movement" sounds pretty damn far ahead of where we are now. First we have to spread anti-capitalism and build up a stronger base, then we can talk about "militant mass labour movements" (really sounds kinda 1917).

OK -- I'm get crusty and cranky here cuz I am.

I agree with many of the reservations and concerns people are expressing -- but for fucking fuck's sake -- if you can't win a fucking strike or win a few concessions from the goddam government or bring an employer down (or up!), why bother about "socialism" or "what I'll feed my rabbits under anarchy" or whatevs.

Legal unions, illegal unions, federated or not -- it's all tactics, you play it by ear. I was way keen on Change to Win, thought Stern was alright, knew it was Devil's Deals, but wtf didn't really matter. The Labor Notes crew hated that. AFL-CIO is a crock of shit anyways, but you don't need to go around saying that all the time. Blah blah blah.

[blake 3:17]

from the school of hard knocks:

*******

One of the better things to do as a radical in a regular trade/industrial/public sector union is to be a steward. Around here it's relatively democratic, you still do the work, but also get the time off and resources to support members on grievances, representing units on issues going into bargaining, chance to look at convoluted policy issues that you can't deal with when you're on the job.

If you are serious about it, friggin do your job at it. Bend left, but stay competent, professional, get things done on time. And if there's somebody in management friendly to the union, don't be a fucking jerk off 1,2,3,4/ClassWar/YourMothersuckscocksinHell idiot.

And *** KNOW the Contract!!!! ****

The employer never knows all the contract.

My single worst experience as a unionist was sitting in a room being 'disciplined' by a useless manager and having my steward watch it all stupidly. I was asking, "Well, what's the rule about that? What's in the collective agreement?"

Stupid fucking steward didn't have the collective agreement or have the nerve to bullshit it.

She was a nice enough woman, but ran into her a couple of years later with a couple of people from that workplace -- I took a payout quick -- said hi, and just said politely enough, "Don't ever represent a member without knowing the agreement."

[blake 3:17]

Good piece by John Clarke from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty about stopping the merger of disability benefits and general social assistance.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/967.php

Last paragraph:


We must understand the nature of the attack precisely because we intend to defeat it. In the UK, the assessment system that has brought such misery into peoples’ lives has been challenged relentlessly and the model of regressive reform is floundering as a result of that resistance. The Raise the Rates Campaign, initiated by OCAP, backed by anti poverty organizations in a range of communities and supported decisively by CUPE Ontario and other unions, has shown that we don't have to accept austerity as an inevitability: we can impose defeats on those who seek to implement it.

The threat to ODSP is part of a bigger attack on social benefits in Ontario and throughout Canada and, in turn, the removal of such supports is about undermining the right to a living wage for all workers. For that very reason, we take up the fight to defend the benefit system for disabled people as part of a broader working-class common front against austerity. •

[blake 3:17]

& do it where it is or where you at. Class happens whether it's much of a struggle or not. Mostly it's a fumble on both sides.

I couldn't take part in the WalMart Black Fridays a 1 1/2 ago but gave a half days wages to support a strike.

[blake 3:17]

I'll try to stop waxing nostagically about the days when we could hurt an economy.

What the capitalist class done so brilliantly is revamp things so that nothing seems to be anywhere, and workplace and community are so chopped and screwed from the total insanity of contemporary production & distribution chains.

[jake williams]

I think that a labour movement has to go much further than organising and agitating within mainstream unions (obviously), but should also include the unemployed and "solidarity unionism" to organise around a range of issues from shitty landlords, the closure of nurseries and lack of affordable childcare, the massive recent increase in food poverty, etc. People belonging to different mainstream unions and in different workplaces should show solidarity and organise together. Obviously all of that is easier said than done, especially when we're limited by numbers and time and energy, but I think that leading by example, so to speak, and showing that the working class can win victories, that extending our solidarity and mutual aid actually works, is a good way of convincing people that our ideas are more than some idealist utopia.
In principle I agree, but I have some reservations.

Specifically, there's some evidence that the social democratic establishment in Canada (union staffers/the NDP/the NGOs/Naomi Klein/etc.) is working on using arguments about "social unionism" or "solidarity unionism" as a way to undermine unions' internal democracy and direct obligations to their own members. To put it another way, it's not obvious that unions which are unable to win any victories for their own members are going to be effective in protecting social services, the unemployed, minimum wage, etc.

Of course, it's a very different story if you're talking about building worker-solidarity structures outside of (in addition to?) union structures in specific workplaces. I think that's valuable and we should do it, and in fact it's something I work on (I'm an elected officer of a TA union in Québec; we are the only TA union in Québec not affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress, and we are working on the possibility of a coordinated strike with some TAs at another university; I'm hoping it will go in the direction of building some kind of a coalition of unions and labour activists outside of the central structures, because Québec has four main labour centrals).

My biggest concerns in that respect have to do with the strategic relationship between workplace activism and extra- or inter-workplace activism. Basically I think our capacity to have a labour movement which can move beyond particular workplaces is dependent on our ability to build a labour movement which is effective in particular workplaces.

[blake 3:17]

@ jake williams -- it's tactical. I don't see a huge fuss over the CLC. I've been very pro-OFL unity because the splitters have been corporatist creeps trying to undermine a left activist leadership.

In my sector, a very weak part of the broader public sector, it'd be great to get some kind of worker to worker talk happening. We're mostly just really isolated.

You look at http://rankandfile.ca/ ? Should've included that somewhere before. Here it is.

Was good to see 3903ers at the Minimum Wage rally today.

[blake 3:17]

Just in. An excerpt from Sam Gindin's review of Raising Expectations (And Raising Hell):


Organizing strategy is McAlevey’s forte, and two examples highlight her approach. In 1998, following the moment in the mid-nineties when the AFL-CIO had become desperate enough to allow some real experimentation to take place, McAlevey was sent to Stamford, Conn., to direct an organizing drive, the Stamford Organizing Project. Stamford had one of the lowest union densities in all of New England.

A number of aspects of that drive stand out. First, as obvious as it might seem to cooperate across unions, it is in fact extremely rare to see unions getting together to “pool resources, share lists, and adhere to collectively made decisions.” To the credit of the four locals involved (most of whose leadership came from an oppositional and left tradition), they saw beyond a parochial concern to gain new dues-paying members and grasped the need to build the class across sectors and across racial and gendered divisions.

Second, when a main concern of the workers turned out to revolve around access to housing, McAlevey shifted the unionization drive to make housing a primary focus — class was not just a workplace relationship. The confidence, skills, and alliances developed in that campaign, and the corresponding credibility gained for the labor movement, were key to organizing unions and winning strong contracts.

Breaking down the distinction between the workplace and the community and putting an emphasis on community allies is itself not unusual in such struggles; what was distinct was that rather than seeing the community as an “other,” McAlevey emphasized the extent to which workers were themselves part of the community; success depended on workers becoming the key organizers in bringing the community around. “When union staff try to do it in place of workers,” McAlevey writes, “they blow it.”

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/raising-our-expectations/

[mindsword]

Hasnt that always been the priority of the left??

[Geiseric]

Nobody on this forum actually does support the international Labour movement. If they did there would be less talk about game of thrones and more talk about the massive election fraud in Algeria, a country with a militant, mass Labour party.

[Ele'ill]

Nobody on this forum actually does support the international Labour movement. If they did there would be less talk about game of thrones and more talk about the massive election fraud in Algeria, a country with a militant, mass Labour party.

What international labour movement

[blake 3:17]

@Geiseric -- that's not true, but I feel similar pains.

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm always amazed by proclamations such as this. Always the grand "we must embark on.." this or "organize for.." that. Yet ne'er a nuts an bolts plan to be seen or heard. Telling lefties that they need a mass militant labour movement is like telling a drowning man he needs to start swimming. No shit, really? Thanks for the input.

[jake williams]

I'm always amazed by proclamations such as this. Always the grand "we must embark on.." this or "organize for.." that. Yet ne'er a nuts an bolts plan to be seen or heard. Telling lefties that they need a mass militant labour movement is like telling a drowning man he needs to start swimming. No shit, really? Thanks for the input.
Afaik (and someone could correct me, Jimmie Higgins?) Boots Riley is actually supporting militant labour organizing in the Bay Area, so I don't think it's just talk. There are people who proclaim it and don't do anything, sure, but there are also people working locally who bring it up as a strategic question because of the limited nature of local actions and the objective necessity to build broader coalitions and organizations around some measure of common strategic vision. In that sense I think it is actually worth talking about, provided people are actually also doing something to make it happen.

[Geiseric]

What international labour movement

The international student movement isn't even patronized by most people here. Nor is SYRIZA or really any actual working class party, including ones with members I'd consider comrades, people who would lay their life on the line for socialism, such as Louisa Hannoune. Any actual movement that raises reasonable, concrete demands which the working class will mobilize for is called the left wing of capital by most people here. If people didn't pretend like they knew so much it wouldn't be annoying.

[Prometeo liberado]

Afaik (and someone could correct me, Jimmie Higgins?) Boots Riley is actually supporting militant labour organizing in the Bay Area, so I don't think it's just talk. There are people who proclaim it and don't do anything, sure, but there are also people working locally who bring it up as a strategic question because of the limited nature of local actions and the objective necessity to build broader coalitions and organizations around some measure of common strategic vision. In that sense I think it is actually worth talking about, provided people are actually also doing something to make it happen.

I think you kinda missed my point. I was referring more along the lies of "preaching to the converted", as well as that if you wanna lecture on the need for a MASS-MILITANT-LABOUR-MOVEMENT then give us some details as to what the left should do that they haven't already done. Otherwise it's just regurgitation.

[Alan OldStudent]

So, I went to a talk by Boots Riley the other day, and his slogan now is that the priority of the left needs to be to build a militant, mass labour movement (militant in tactics, its relationship with legalism and the state; mass in its size, scope and character).

I found the concision interesting - in the whole universe of left theory, there are rarely arguments that are so simple and unambiguous (besides perhaps the counterpoint "build the party").

Also, as a prescription for left strategy, it sounds about right, but I am curious how much consensus his point would actually make.

1) If you think he's right, what concretely would this look like?

2) If you think he's wrong, why, and what else should people be doing?

Others have asked what Boots Riley means by "militant" and "mass labour movement." Those are excellent starting questions.

But there is an even more fundamental question. As always, when people like Boots Riley start talking about building a mass revolutionary labor movement, they seem to skip over the bit that explains how we get from our present reality to the desired reality.

The really important question is: "how do we get from here to there?"

Specifically, given American workers' present level of consciousness, exactly what steps are needed to move them to a revolutionary level of consciousness? How do we get them to listen, to understand, to act? What practical steps must we take to bridge the gap and build such a movement of millions of workers?

As far as I know, Boots Riley doesn't have a realistic answer.

Do we do it organize within the unions or attempt to go around them? Do we chuck rocks at bank windows and go on rampages? Do we support left-wing Democrats or oppose them? Do we fight for an end to gerrymandering, for striking down "Citizens United," or is that a reformist diversion. Do we fight to eliminate discriminatory election laws or conclude bourgeoise elections are meaningless and therefore abstain from the fight for fair elections and against undemocratic voter challenges? Do we participate in various other struggles such as $15/hour minimum wage, single payer health care, support for immigrant rights and hope to win our class's respect and go from there?

Will any answer given to the above questions help build that mass movement of millions of workers. If so, why? If not, why not?

Can Boots Riley write a brilliant leaflet that will mobilize the masses to say "Yes, by gummy! To the barricades! To the barricades! Down with the rule of the bosses!!"?

Is there any sort of shortcut such as that? Can we bridge the gap by starting a Facebook page?

Or do we try to build some small cadre of people around what we view as the "correct" political program, complete with democratic centralism? If so, how do we get millions to consider, let alone support, our revolutionary program and understand that we are the vanguard and they should follow our lead, that we know best? Do we present the masses with our brilliantly thought-out manifesto that some committee of party strategists have put together after extensive study of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Trotsky, Hoxha, or some other theoretician? If so, how do we get enough of them to listen, let alone consider, our brilliant blueprint?

How, specifically, do we get from here to there? How do we bridge the gap from the workers' present level of consciousness to a revolutionary level of consciousness?

And how do we avoid falling into the kind of sectarianism that so many other little grouplets with 2- and 3-letter monikers have, with their correct programs, hawking their papers, talking at instead of with the working class, accusing each other of reformism, petite bourgeois influences, even alien class influences?

Comrades, realistically speaking, how do we get from here to there?

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[jake williams]

I think you kinda missed my point. I was referring more along the lies of "preaching to the converted", as well as that if you wanna lecture on the need for a MASS-MILITANT-LABOUR-MOVEMENT then give us some details as to what the left should do that they haven't already done. Otherwise it's just regurgitation.
Gotcha. For what it's worth though, I don't think there's necessarily a consensus that what he's describing should be the main strategic priority of people who see themselves as communists or leftists or anti-capitalists, so I'm not sure it is preaching to the converted. But if it is, then the next step is how to do it.


Specifically, given American workers' present level of consciousness, exactly what steps are needed to move them to a revolutionary level of consciousness?
It's not obvious that that's really the pertinent question.


How do we get them to listen, to understand, to act? What practical steps must we take to bridge the gap and build such a movement of millions of workers?

As far as I know, Boots Riley doesn't have a realistic answer.
As far as I know he does, in a basic way, and it's not super complicated: mobilize people on the ground, encourage militant tactics, try to build unity. There are some difficult questions, but there are also some obvious questions.


Do we do it organize within the unions or attempt to go around them?
If by "the unions" you mean the AFL-CIO and yellow unions (rather than "unions" as such), I don't think the debate is settled, but probably no one is going to get very far in the AFL-CIO.


Do we chuck rocks at bank windows and go on rampages?
If you could establish a specific strategic argument for it; and I've heard such arguments plausibly made (eg. in the context of a specific struggle, sometimes property discussion is an effective pressure tactic).


Do we support left-wing Democrats or oppose them? Do we fight for an end to gerrymandering, for striking down "Citizens United," or is that a reformist diversion. Do we fight to eliminate discriminatory election laws or conclude bourgeoise elections are meaningless and therefore abstain from the fight for fair elections and against undemocratic voter challenges?
Not really a controversy, and I think part of the point of articulating a strategic priority of building amilitant mass labour movement is to distinguish your strategy from an electoralist strategy.


Do we participate in various other struggles such as $15/hour minimum wage, single payer health care, support for immigrant rights and hope to win our class's respect and go from there?
That's debatable.


Can Boots Riley write a brilliant leaflet that will mobilize the masses to say "Yes, by gummy! To the barricades! To the barricades! Down with the rule of the bosses!!"?
I don't think class struggle is really fought with "brilliant leaflets", as much as long, complicated conversations with people you work with on a constant basis.


Is there any sort of shortcut such as that? Can we bridge the gap by starting a Facebook page?
No.


Or do we try to build some small cadre of people around what we view as the "correct" political program, complete with democratic centralism?
No. (if you want to get together with friends who you agree very closely with, fine, but it's not in and of itself a political strategy)


How, specifically, do we get from here to there? How do we bridge the gap from the workers' present level of consciousness to a revolutionary level of consciousness?
I could be wrong, but I think there's a complicated relationship between building a militant, mass labour movement, and building a revolutionary labour movement. I'm not saying one can't be the other, but I think you can build a militant mass labour movement without every participant being a revolutionary.

And obviously there is an argument that being part of a movement can be politicizing and radicalizing, it brings you into contact with revolutionary politics, etc.

[erupt]

If I look at it hypothetically I say "Yes" for sure.

However, in the real world, as of now, I can't see it happening yet; class consciousness is almost non-existent. Class consciousness needs to grow long before the general population can/would support a labor-oriented movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If I look at it hypothetically I say "Yes" for sure.

However, in the real world, as of now, I can't see it happening yet; class consciousness is almost non-existent. Class consciousness needs to grow long before the general population can/would support a labor-oriented movement.Why would people develop consiousness around something that in their view doesn't exist? Sex isn't rocking then rolling it's rocking and rolling, man. I don't know why I wrote that just now (someone said that to me the other day and I laughed), but I mean that I think these things are a give and take of the same process. You need more or less open class struggle (i.e. at least some people recognizing the need to fight the bosses to imporve and change conditions) to develop class consiousness and then you need the consiousness to make effective struggle and build more out of it.

[erupt]

You need more or less open class struggle (i.e. at least some people recognizing the need to fight the bosses to imporve and change conditions) to develop class consiousness and then you need the consiousness to make effective struggle and build more out of it.

I agree. I said consciousness needs to grow for their to be a mass-based movement. Consciousness will only grow through someone else who has already been politicized.

My point was that there will be nothing mass-based, worker-oriented and revolutionary until class consciousness isn't so hard to find.

[blake 3:17]

Raising Our Expectations

Sam Gindin

Looking back to the defeat of the labour movement since the early 1980s, three lessons seem especially important. First, any gains made under capitalism are temporary; they can be reversed. Second, the kind of unionism we developed in that earlier period of gains was inherently limited; it left us in a poor position to respond to the subsequent attacks. Third, absent new forms of working-class organization and practices, fatalism takes over and worker expectations fall.


Raising Expectations (And Raising Hell), newly out in paperback from Verso, is part memoir, part organizing manual, and part rejoinder to that fatalism. Jane McAlevey is a long-time organizer in the student, environmental and, over the past two decades, labour movements. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at City University of New York, which she has integrated into her continuing life as a labour organizer. Her message, based on her experiences and achievements, is that as much as capitalism has diminished workers and undermined their confidence in affecting their lives, workers can overcome – but only if they themselves become organizers inside both the workplace and community.

While any such organizing begins with workers’ needs, it is workers’ expectations of their own ability to intervene – and of the support from their unions in doing so – that must especially be raised. McAlevey refuses to romanticize workers or glorify spontaneity. But she deeply respects working people and genuinely appreciates their creative potential, a respect reflected in her refusal to be shy about challenging workers to reach their potential.

full article: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/970.php

See some good debate here: http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/tag/jane-mcalevey/

[Ele'ill]

Any actual movement that raises reasonable, concrete demands

If you're demanding you're asking and then you're willing to accept your current position forever, just that you have the upper hand for a moment, and if your actions are reasonable that means you are thinking about the interest of your enemies as a part of your praxis.

[Geiseric]

If you're demanding you're asking and then you're willing to accept your current position forever, just that you have the upper hand for a moment, and if your actions are reasonable that means you are thinking about the interest of your enemies as a part of your praxis.

You would be a stupid tactician if you couldn't actually fathom why those considerations are important. Changes such as an international 8 hour working day with a sliding scale of wages would look like a godsend to most people. A major role of socialists is to examine the ebb and flow of class consciousness. If you can gauge where that is, you can figure out where the working class's bastions of struggle are, aka the place that socialists need to focus their attention. Millions of students owe trillions in debt, so it's not rocket science that they would be more likely to struggle for political power than unionized construction workers who live more or less comfortably.

[Ele'ill]

You would be a stupid tactician if you couldn't actually fathom why those considerations are important. Changes such as an international 8 hour working day with a sliding scale of wages would look like a godsend to most people. A major role of socialists is to examine the ebb and flow of class consciousness. If you can gauge where that is, you can figure out where the working class's bastions of struggle are, aka the place that socialists need to focus their attention. Millions of students owe trillions in debt, so it's not rocket science that they would be more likely to struggle for political power than unionized construction workers who live more or less comfortably.

This is not a reply to what I posted. *I understand your frustration though just from a different angle I think, a much different angle. Or not I dunno

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you're demanding you're asking and then you're willing to accept your current position forever, just that you have the upper hand for a moment, and if your actions are reasonable that means you are thinking about the interest of your enemies as a part of your praxis.I don't think demanding is necissarily "asking" and I do think there is more or less a war of positions and since any challenge to capitalism is temporary unless capitalism is smashed, a stronger position in regards to potentially fighting in the future is better than being totally pushed back and conceeding. But I agree with the "reasonable" part - I mean a living wage and bathroom breaks are "unreasonable" to the bosses.

[Thirsty Crow]

The international student movement isn't even patronized by most people here. Nor is SYRIZA or really any actual working class party, including ones with members I'd consider comrades, people who would lay their life on the line for socialism, such as Louisa Hannoune. Any actual movement that raises reasonable, concrete demands which the working class will mobilize for is called the left wing of capital by most people here. If people didn't pretend like they knew so much it wouldn't be annoying.
So you actually do think of the international student movement as part of a labor movement.
Along with SYRIZA.

Oh boy.

Do you now what labor is actually as in "labor movement"?

[exeexe]

Of course there should be a mass labour movement. If you wanna promote better working conditions for the workers then you wanna build a union of workers. And in the same manner if you wanna build a strong movement for politicians you wanna build a strong political party.

Workers can do without politicians but politicians cant do without workers. In a sense politicians is just another class that are exploiting workers.

[Geiseric]

So you actually do think of the international student movement as part of a labor movement.
Along with SYRIZA.

Oh boy.

Do you now what labor is actually as in "labor movement"?

The working class movement is what i consider 99.99999% of the world to be consciously or unconsciously part of. They might not be conscious of it or particularly mobilized but class struggle is inescapable. It flares in some areas before others, depending atm where the bourgeois believe the working class is weakest.

[jake williams]

The working class movement is what i consider 99.99999% of the world to be consciously or unconsciously part of.
You think there are only 600-700 people in the world who aren't part of the working class? That's about half the number of US dollar billionaires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billi onaires

[Geiseric]

You think there are only 600-700 people in the world who aren't part of the working class? That's about half the number of US dollar billionaires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billi onaires

You're missing the point entirely.

[jake williams]

You're missing the point entirely.
I don't think so: you were implying - of course, using hyperbole - that only a numerically trivial number of people have interests opposed to that of the "working class movement". I disagree.

[Ele'ill]

I think the working class doesn't even benefit from the 'working class movement'

[Geiseric]

I think the working class doesn't even benefit from the 'working class movement'

You're saying this while living in a place where you have at least access to internet and food. You and i personally benefit at least thanks to people who were killed or died miserable deaths before we were born, going all the way back to the creation of the working class.

[Ele'ill]

You're saying this while living in a place where you have at least access to internet and food. You and i personally benefit at least thanks to people who were killed or died miserable deaths before we were born.

Ya being a full time worker and homeless is pretty chill

[Geiseric]

Ya being a full time worker and homeless is pretty chill

At least you have time to type and express your ideas. Sorry if i sound like a douche but there won't be an end to suffering for a very long time, the first step is creating a working class political body that will outlive us, which is capable of putting scientific Marxism into practice. Class struggle is impossible without the correct theories and a correct evaluation of the past.

[Ele'ill]

you're not mean enough to be a douche you're like a socially stunted conservation activist

[Red Shaker]

The question is mechanical. It assumes a strong militant labor movement can be built without building a mass revolutionary communist party. The capitalist with the passage of the Taft-Hartley law in 1947 essentially outlawed militancy in the labor movement. Only communist who do not limit themselves by the capitalist legal system are willing to stand up to this legal strike breaking. When confronted with adversity, communists attempt to intensify the class struggle. Militant labor leaders since to reach a deal.

[Geiseric]

you're not mean enough to be a douche you're like a socially stunted conservation activist

I'll admit it, I'm union level privileged, so I'm obligated to return the favor to people suffering instead of me, and whom have suffered for a long time. A revolution can't happen unless there are links built between the entire working class in the form of a political, militant, revolutionary party. At least there's no draft for forced conscription, there's no slavery, we have a level of freedom of speech. They lack those things in most of the world.

[Ele'ill]

what the fuck does that even mean

[Geiseric]

what the fuck does that even mean

It means were being selfish if we don't contribute to the class struggle. At least i am. If you want to ignore the fact that there are currently people organizing and mobilizing across the world who disagree with you, at least don't spread that feeling of apathy to the younger generation.

[Ele'ill]

it's not apathy that your failures generate its social war so I guess I could actually thank you for your contributions thanks

[Geiseric]

it's not apathy that your failures generate its social war so I guess I could actually thank you for your contributions thanks

I didn't start the social war, but I'm going to help finish it the right way.

[Ele'ill]

i doubt it

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The question is mechanical. It assumes a strong militant labor movement can be built without building a mass revolutionary communist party. The capitalist with the passage of the Taft-Hartley law in 1947 essentially outlawed militancy in the labor movement. Only communist who do not limit themselves by the capitalist legal system are willing to stand up to this legal strike breaking. When confronted with adversity, communists attempt to intensify the class struggle. Militant labor leaders since to reach a deal.

I think this is really interesting, and points in an important direction.

Now, on one hand, I'm not sure I'm exactly inspired by the idea of a "mass revolutionary communist party" in the way it's usually understood, insofar as I'm not sure that a "mass" party on the traditional Leninist formal-centralized-party model is possible at this juncture.

What's important, however, is that I think this puts politics back at the forefront in a really crucial way - that it puts workers with a developed communist class consciousness at the center of the question, and asks not "what should 'labour' do" but what should we (ie communist workers) do - and demands that we take the lead, and are on the cutting edge of struggles.

In some ways, I think this is "No duh!" when articulated explicitly, but I think it often gets lost.

[Thirsty Crow]

The working class movement is what i consider 99.99999% of the world to be consciously or unconsciously part of.
I'm not sure whether I should laugh my ass off, cry in despair, or simply tell you to get your act together.


I don't think so: you were implying - of course, using hyperbole - that only a numerically trivial number of people have interests opposed to that of the "working class movement". I disagree.
More importantly, the user imagines a movement - as both you and I know I hope, it's possible to reasonably talk of a movement only under certain, specific conditions - of massive proportions, and a class struggle movement at that.

I admit it, it's got a nice ring, and it's a creative use of the notion of "movement", but underlying all of this is mere bullshit, primarily that the student movement is part of the labor movement. It is not.

[blake 3:17]

More and more students are workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

More and more students are workers.True. But they don't act as workers, they don't act in their capacity as workers when they do what they do as part of the student movement. The so called student strike is no strike at all - this is merely a metaphorical, and a misleading use of the notion of "strike". But hey now we're getting somewhere at least with regard to the way we think about "movements" or the working class in relation to students.

To clarify from my own experience of the student occupation of unis, the burning problem was that of merging with, of joint action with workers, which itself makes it clear that we're dealing with two separate phenomena here.

[Geiseric]

True. But they don't act as workers, they don't act in their capacity as workers when they do what they do as part of the student movement. The so called student strike is no strike at all - this is merely a metaphorical, and a misleading use of the notion of "strike". But hey now we're getting somewhere at least with regard to the way we think about "movements" or the working class in relation to students.

To clarify from my own experience of the student occupation of unis, the burning problem was that of merging with, of joint action with workers, which itself makes it clear that we're dealing with two separate phenomena here.

Do you seriously think most students are petit bourgeois?

[jake williams]

Do you seriously think most students are petit bourgeois?
I don't necessarily agree with LR on this (personally I think a student movement can be a part of a working class movement, contingent importantly on the particular circumstances), but in the post you quote, they agree that an increasing number of students come from working class backgrounds.

Their point was a different one: that the organized political activity of students-as-such is not class struggle as such. This could be true even if most students are working class, for a variety of reasons: the specific nature of their demands, control by petty bourgeois leaders of various sorts, false consciousness, etc.

[Geiseric]

I don't necessarily agree with LR on this (personally I think a student movement can be a part of a working class movement, contingent importantly on the particular circumstances), but in the post you quote, they agree that an increasing number of students come from working class backgrounds.

Their point was a different one: that the organized political activity of students-as-such is not class struggle as such. This could be true even if most students are working class, for a variety of reasons: the specific nature of their demands, control by petty bourgeois leaders of various sorts, false consciousness, etc.

The same can be said about every union in the U.S. but that doesn't mean his pessimism is warranted. Students are overwhelmingly working class, as most teachers are also working class.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

By building a militant mass labour movement, you can mobilize the workers to fight off either with or without weapons the reactionaries (the army, police, counter-revolutionary protest groups, etc.).

[OGLemon]

I think my position is going to depend on how you define a militant mass labour movement.

I voted yes, because I see a militant mass labour movement as a group of armed workers that don't seek out violence, but rather seek to defend themselves against state violence. In this case, I am totally with you.
This:thumbup1: