Log in

View Full Version : BT: Menshevik Tendency for the Promotion of Scabbing



Sectarian
29th September 2016, 19:25
The Internationalist
September 2016

IBT Self-“Repudiation” Still Alibis Crossing Picket Lines

Menshevik Tendency for the Promotion of Scabbing


“Picket Lines Mean – Don’t Cross!” chanted Verizon strikers in New York City through six and a half weeks of their bitter fight against the telecom giant. “Picket Lines Mean – Don’t Cross!” yelled supporters of locked-out faculty as they picketed Long Island University in downtown Brooklyn earlier this month. So did locked-out Bröd bakery workers earlier this year. They picked up the chant from Internationalist activists, but the point it drives home is as basic as it gets: the picket line is the battle line of class struggle. It’s the class line: on one side are the striking or locked-out workers, on the other side are the bosses and those working for and with them. The issue is simple: it’s which side are you on, as the famous labor song put it.

Working behind picket lines in a struck facility means stabbing fellow workers in the back, betraying the fundamental solidarity the working class needs if it is to win its struggles – from a strike or resistance to a lockout to the fight for power. The name for this kind of treachery is as old as the picket line itself: it’s called scabbing. “Don’t scab for the bosses, Don’t listen to their lies,” say the lyrics of the Harlan County miners’ song, the answer is to “organize.” And in case you didn’t get, the song adds: “There are no neutrals there.” Young people learning the ABCs of class-struggle politics today can go on-line to find “The Picket Line Song,” which says: “‘Solidarity Forever’ don’t mean just sometimes… You should never walk across a picket line!”

What then is one to make of a supposedly revolutionary group that has spent two decades upholding, justifying and promoting scabbing? We’re talking about the grotesquely misnamed International “Bolshevik” Tendency (IBT), which put out a whole pamphlet called Sectarians, ‘Scabs’& Socialists (May 1996). This was to alibi the actions of an IBT supporter, Jim C., who during the 1996 strike by New York City janitors in Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Locals 32B and 32J, daily walked past pickets to work at the Village Voice newspaper, where he was a union steward for the United Auto Workers representing Voice staff. As denounced in Workers Vanguard back when it stood on the program of genuine Trotskyism, Jim C. was scabbing. As the then-revolutionary WV put it: “No self-respecting trade unionist, no supporter of the workers movement, and certainly no communist, crosses picket lines, ever.”

The shameful IBT pamphlet was devoted to teaching people that working behind picket lines in a struck building is dandy – so long as you make the usual hypocritical gestures of “solidarity.” The IBT had one proviso: picket-line crossers should please avoid doing the exact work of the employees on the strike pickets outside. This is the logic of labor aristocratic craft unionism, which says it’s fine for unions to scab on each other, crossing each others’ picket lines, so long as they abide by divisions between the various trades. The idea that it’s okay to cross picket lines – and its embodiment, the abominable oxymoron of a so-called “informational picket line” – is both a key cause and reflection of the drastic weakening of union power over the past decades.

Suddenly last month a two-paragraph statement appeared on the IBT website (bolshevik.org), titled “The 1996 New York City Janitors’ Strike: A Repudiation.” It was the first new item in over three months for these social-democratic Mensheviks whose existence consists essentially of a once-yearly journal. The content of this particular posting, though, was nothing less than a self-condemnation. Here it is in full:

“In 1996, janitors employed by building maintenance companies across New York City carried out a four-week strike against the introduction of a lower tier pay scale for new workers. During the strike, an IBT supporter, Jim C., and other union members at his workplace, the Village Voice, managed to prevent the building management employing scab janitors at the Voice and raised a considerable amount of money for the striking workers. Jim's role in the strike was subsequently the subject of a polemic with Workers Vanguard (WV, publication of the Spartacist League). Articles from WV and letters to the paper by Jim and another IBT supporter in New York were later published by us in a pamphlet entitled ‘Sectarians, ‘Scabs’ & Socialists,’ in which we defended his actions.



“We have recently become aware that Jim (who is no longer an IBT supporter) and other Village Voice employees were removing some trash from their offices during the strike. In his 1996 letter to Workers Vanguard, Jim stated that ‘Neither I nor any of my fellow union members did the work normally performed by strikers….’ This statement was simply not true – they were removing trash. We regard this as indefensible and therefore repudiate our previous defense of Jim’s record during the strike.”


What’s going on here, a reader might ask? Did the IBT all of a sudden “get it” that picket lines mean don’t cross? No way. Note that while it is making this shamefaced admission, all that the IBT is repudiating is the fact that its supporter was doing the specific work normally done by the strikers. It pointedly does not repudiate crossing picket lines, and thus continues to uphold the IBT’s longstanding defense of going into a struck, picketed location and working behind picket lines – i.e., scabbing.

It is worth noting that the denunciation of the IBT’s scab line back in 1996 came out in one of the last issues of Workers Vanguard edited by Jan Norden before he and other long-time cadres of the Spartacist League/International Communist League were purged as part of the SL/ICL’s sharp turn to the right; they went on to found the Internationalist Group that same year. The very first publication put out by the expelled SL cadres, From a Drift Toward Abstentionism to Desertion from the Class Struggle (July 1996), includes “A Note on the ‘Bolshevik’ Tendency” by Abram Negrete pointing out: “Now they have published an entire pamphlet in defense of crossing picket lines! Any genuine revolutionary can only scorn the BT.”

In response to the 20-years-after-the-fact “repudiation,” the IBT’s former supporter Jim C. circulated a letter charging that “the IBT, apparently under pressure from the IG, has shamefully capitulated to one of Norden’s smears.” However, in this letter Jim C. confirms that he and others had indeed performed cleaning work normally done by the workers who were on strike at the Voice – while stating irately that the IBT has had every opportunity and reason to know this for the past two decades. Moreover, as we learned some years after the episode from a person who worked there, as a UAW shop steward Jim C. called a meeting with the Voice staff on the eve of the strike where they were told it was okay to go into work and that they would bag their own garbage. Thus the then IBT supporter not only scabbed, working behind 32BJ picket lines day after day, he was a scab-herder and then directly lied about it in his letter to WV.

So why the sudden revelation from the IBT now? The answer is that two youth who were around the IBT approached Internationalist Group comrades at the Left Forum in New York this past May, asking about some of the key differences between the IBT and the IG. After all, they said, both groups claim continuity with the historic Trotskyist program, and specifically with the programmatic tradition going back to the Revolutionary Tendency of the Socialist Workers Party in the early 1960s, which went on to found the Spartacist League in 1966.

There’s a world of difference, we pointed out: the IG was formed by left oppositionists expelled for fighting to defend the revolutionary program and bring it into the class struggle, and consistently upholds the revolutionary program abandoned by the now centrist SL/ICL. The IBT, in contrast, coalesced from demoralized quitters moving rapidly to the right, expressing the pressure and outlook of the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy. Just look at the IBT’s defense and outright promotion of scabbing, we said. This came from a group whose founding publications read like a National Enquirer of rank anti-communist smears, while the first issue of the IBT’s 1917 went out of its way to rail against “the deranged rantings of MOVE’s founder, John Africa.” This in an article attacking the SL for not distancing itself sufficiently from the black back-to-nature MOVE commune at a Spartacist forum featuring two relatives of victims of the horrific Mother’s Day 1985 incineration of MOVE members in Philadelphia.

In our correspondence with the two IBT contacts this summer, we systematically explained the class principle behind the picket-line question, highlighting key struggles to defend the bedrock principle that picket lines mean don’t cross. We explained how the McCarthyite red purge against leftists in U.S. trade unions paved the way for the anti-communist, pro-Democrat union bureaucracy to dilute and undermine basic labor principles, how the union bureaucrats caved in to anti-labor laws like Taft-Hartley, how employers have increasingly used subcontracting to divide and conquer the workforce, how the notorious “two-gate” system is used by construction companies and other firms during many strikes.

We noted that “Our comrades in Portland were won from a group of construction workers they had formed called Cross-Trades Solidarity, dedicated to promoting and enforcing the picket-line principle against sell-out union bureaucrats who tell workers it is OK to cross each others’ picket lines.” In another e-mail, we pointed out that the non-union drivers at Fed Ex had more class consciousness than the IBT, since during the ’96 32BJ strike they dropped packages on the curb rather than cross the picket lines.

We noted that the struggle of British dock workers in Liverpool came about because hundreds of workers refused to cross a picket line of another group of workers, and were fired as a result. We referred the then IBT contacts to Billy Bragg’s song, “Never Cross a Picket Line” about the Liverpool dockers’ struggle.

The correspondence entailed demolishing the IBT’s repertoire of nauseating excuses, pretexts and justifications for scabbing. It was in that context that we wrote that what IBT supporter Jim C. and the others actually did “was bag the garbage and take it downstairs themselves. In other words, they did the struck work themselves” (email communication, 12 June). As for the IBT’s 1996 pamphlet, we wrote that the whole point of it “is to justify a union steward, and ‘Marxist’ no less, going in, and encouraging others to go in, to work in a struck enterprise.”

So two and a half months later, the IBT suddenly “discovered” that its factual claims of the past 20 years were false, and that its former member did what even by its narrow definition constitutes scabbing (although they pointedly avoid the word). Given its “repudiation” of its ex-supporter’s actions, but not of its shameful political line that crossing picket lines is all right if the sellout bureaucrats approve and so long as you don’t do the strikers’ work yourself, the IBT may have to do a little editing if it is to issue a post-“repudiation” edition of its pamphlet, Sectarians, ‘Scabs’ & Socialists.

Among the editorial amendments the IBT might make would be to update the title to How to Scab: A Manual for “Socialists.” And how about a subtitle: “An injury to one is not my problem”? As for the text, maybe add an introductory note for the second edition saying, “Refusing to work behind a picket line is sectarian. Socialists from Morris Hillquit to Santiago Carrillo have often conducted their business behind picket lines. If improvised scabbing becomes a political embarrassment, we may have to disavow – a decade or two later, perhaps.” For illustrations, may we suggest:

The Majestic, manned by a reduced crew of strikebreakers, was the first passenger liner to leave Southampton after the beginning of the seamen's strike. It arrived on schedule in New York on 8 September 1925 and was met by angry demonstrators. One of the primary targets of the hostility was Morris Hilquit, a one-time Socialist candidate for mayor, who was returning from the Second International Conference in Europe. (In 1901 it was Hilquit's wing of the Socialist Labor Party that joined the Social Democratic party to create the Socialist Party of America.) Hilquit was greeted with slogans such as "Stand by Soviet Russia," "Hilquit with a Scab Crew," and "Down with the Steamship Companies."


From Olga Peters Hasty and Susanne Fuss, America through Russian Eyes, 1874–1926 (Yale University Press, 1988)

And then the famous photo of Santiago Carrillo, then head of the Spanish Communist Party, crossing a picket line of striking campus workers at Yale University in November 1977:

Spartacist sign in Spanish says, “Carrillo: Sellout Workers Leader Scabs on Yale Strike.” (Workers Vanguard)

(Full disclosure: when Workers Vanguard was the voice of revolutionary Trotskyism, the editor did dispatch a photographer to Yale to take the above picture of Carrillo’s betrayal, subsequently used for the cover of the English edition of his book, Eurocommunism and the State (1978), just as we did to document Jim C.’s picket line crossing. By their betrayals they shall be known.)

In 1917, Trotsky famously consigned the Mensheviks to “the place where you belong… the dust-bin of history.” In truth, any group with the politics and record of the pro-scab IBT should be known as the Menshevik Tendency instead, and really does belong in the garbage. ■

The Idler
30th September 2016, 21:16
Calling a group Bolshevik (like the IBT) is more damning than calling a group Menshevik.

C. Macguigan
3rd October 2016, 04:31
Calling a group Bolshevik (like the IBT) is more damning than calling a group Menshevik.

Depends highly on the audience!

Gepetto
3rd October 2016, 14:43
Calling a group Bolshevik (like the IBT) is more damning than calling a group Menshevik.
There you go again.

Your beloved Mensheviks staffed various White governments while White generals killed all workers suspected of communist sympathies and instigated the largest mass murder of Jews before Hitler.

The Idler
5th October 2016, 22:03
The Mensheviks may have been bad (although some of the criticisms levelled at them is nothing but Bolshevik propaganda) but the Bolsheviks were much worse.

Blake's Baby
5th October 2016, 23:44
Did the majority of the Mensheviks support the entry of the party into the Provisional Government?

That's a class line. You may as well support the Labour Party.

ketplaz
6th October 2016, 03:07
What is your criteria for "worse"? The Mensheviks were the left-wing of the monarchist reaction against the people. The Bolsheviks were the only party capable of leading the proletariat through the civil war into socialism. When you say the Bolsheviks were worse you are plainly saying that you prefer monarchism to socialism, because there was simply no other option.

The Idler
7th October 2016, 15:05
"Worse" means more than one thing is bad, but at least one thing is moreso. What the Bolsheviks did was worse, unnecessary and pointing this out does not make anyone a monarchist.

Blake's Baby
9th October 2016, 21:15
What is your criteria for "worse"? The Mensheviks were the left-wing of the monarchist reaction against the people. The Bolsheviks were the only party capable of leading the proletariat through the civil war into socialism. When you say the Bolsheviks were worse you are plainly saying that you prefer monarchism to socialism, because there was simply no other option.

That means Stalin must have been a Czar then, because there was certainly no 'socialism' in the USSR.

So, as monarchism certainly didn't happen, and neither did socialism, then history doesn't conform to the choices you give.

Heretek
9th October 2016, 21:36
I had no idea organizations still existed that clung to 'Bolshevism' as some god-sent savior and 'Menshevik' as a meaningful insult. Even the SA here doesn't call it self 'Bolshevik.' This also glosses over Trotsky's own Menshevik days

The Idler
10th October 2016, 21:34
I had no idea organizations still existed that clung to 'Bolshevism' as some god-sent savior and 'Menshevik' as a meaningful insult. Even the SA here doesn't call it self 'Bolshevik.' This also glosses over Trotsky's own Menshevik days

This. It is almost like calling a group the 'Viking' tendency or 'Pangea' tendency or some other thing that has long ceased to exist. I don't mind shorthand terms as a reference, but why not focus on the ideology? Why call yourself Bolshevik if you claim Bolshevism merely continued or extended Marx?

Blake's Baby
31st October 2016, 19:04
Because some people claim the heritage of Marx, but not the attempt to put Marxism into practice that occurred in Russia in 1917?

You know I'm not a 'Bolshevik' (except in so far as the SPGB have labelled eg Pannekoek a 'Bolshevik' for his support for a revolution based on workers' councils not parliament) but honestly you are not just throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you've gotten rid of the soap, flannel and bath, then burned down the bathroom and claimed that you never even saw a baby.

The Idler
31st October 2016, 23:48
I'm not accusing you of being a Bolshevik or supporting them in lockstep, and I'm not familiar enough with Pannekoek. Although its stretching the analogy too much, I don't know many things from 1917 that could still be considered a baby (let alone the only important baby), the point being not many advanced applied (social) sciences are heavily reliant on textbooks from 1917. Especially when the OP is talking in 2016 about an IBT pamphlet from 1996. So what is being proposed to be applied (not just theory about how things work) and modern groups naming themselves and their opponents after (IBT and "Mensheviks") is laughably ancient.

Ale Brider
1st November 2016, 10:07
Oh my. We should insult each other with labels such as "filthy insurrectionist!" or "damned communization-ist" or "ya squatter" or "infantile black bloc kiddo" or "worthless Zizekian" or anything, but this Bolshevik/Menshevik thing is just so ridiculously obsolete it hurts.

Blake's Baby
1st November 2016, 18:10
Calling anyone a Menshevik as an insult is indeed a bit ridiculous.

Objecting to groups calling themselves 'Bolshevik' is also in my view ridiculous.

You still don't understand what the soviets were, Idler?

The Idler
5th November 2016, 13:21
From Socialist Standard July 1920

The word "Soviet" is used by many supporters of the Bolsheviks as though it denoted some newly discovered magical power. When one is told that it merely means "Council" the magic vanishes.At the base of this system are the Urban and Rural Councils, directly elected by the sections qualified to vote. The delegates are elected in the proportion of one delegate to every 1,000 members in the towns (up to a maximum of 1,000 councillors), and one delegate to every 100 in the country.
Above this comes the Volost Congress. A Volost is a group of villages, and the Congress is composed of delegates from the Councils of these village groups.
Next above in the order is the District Congress composed of representatives from the Village Councils.
Still higher is the County Congress consisting of representatives from the Urban Councils and the Volost Congresses.
Overriding all these bodies is the Regional Congress made up of delegates from the Urban Councils and Congresses of the County Districts.
At the apex of the system is the All Russia Congress of Councils which is the supreme authority of the Russian Republic. This is formed of delegates from the Urban Councils and the Congresses of County Councils.
We have, then, six grades of authority in the Russian system. But note how they are elected.
The "labouring masses" vote once - namely, at the local councils, urban and village. This is their one and only vote. All the other grades are elected by the delegates of the Congress immediately below it.
This the Volost Congress is elected by the Village Group Councils; the District Congress by the general Village Councils; the County Congress by the Urban Councils and Volost Congresses; the Regional Congress by the Urban Councils and Congresses of County Districts; and the All Russia Congress by Urban Councils and Congresses of County Councils.
We see, then, that "the supreme authority of the Russian Council Republic" is removed five stages beyond the vote, reach, or control of the workers.

Sectarian
14th November 2016, 16:25
The responses are good. I encourage all Revolutionary Leftists to disown Bolshevism, it is the only honest thing that Revolutionary Leftists will do.