Campaign for a New Workers Party (UK)

[321zero]

In other news...

Ostensible 'trotskyists' the Socialist Party (CWI) and Workers Power, and the Communist Party of Great Britain covered themselves in inglory today at the founding conference of the 'Campaign for a New Workers Party'.

Key speakers included a representative of the German WASG and Mark Sewotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union. Mr Sewotka waxed lyrical about the possibilities for an 'electoral alternative' to New Labour, citing the success of RESPECT and the German WASG/PDS bloc in recent elections. The WASG speaker was more interesting in that he spoke about tensions in the bloc with the PDS, which is presently in coalition government with the SPD in Berlin. It seems that he anticipates the WASG\PDS bloc may split before its electoral success can be repeated...

These cautionary words contrasted with Socialist Party speakers. They tended to boost the 'unity' supposedly made possible by an electoral bloc around an explicitly reformist minimum program and echoed Mr Sewotka's straightforward electoralism.

Deliberately placing cart before horse the SP had insisted that if anyone was to have speaking rights at the meeting (the advertised purpose of which was to decide upon the basis of the campaign), they must first have signed the declaration of the CNWP.

However it was no obstacle for the likes of Workers Power or the CPGB. Both signed a declaration they apparently disagreed with in order to participate in the CNWP.

Both organisations proposed resolutions calling upon the CNWP to adopt a revolutionary perspective. Both these resolutions were defeated after a transparent 'whipping' by an SP hack.

Workers Power repeated the same trick they performed with the Stop the War Coalition, accepting a position of the 'Steering Committee' of an organisation which had moments before explicitly rejected the politics WP had recommended.

In short the CNWP is only adding torque to Trotsky's coffin, and I can't see why they didn't simply join RESPECT (actually I can - RESPECT is the SWPs hunting ground...)

Why is there no 'emoticon' for 'ugh - puke-making'?


You decide -

http://www.cnwp.org.uk/

[redstar2000]

I believe this is the emoticon you want. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck32.gif I'd use it more often myself were it not for the fact that it takes up so much room. There's a lot of stuff in what's left of the "Leninist left" that's fully worthy of this emoticon.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah, i have heard of this campaign.

Although it doesn't have much to do with revolution, it could allow people to identify with working class politics.

Also, hopefully the trade unions will kick out their Blairite leaders, and support this new party financially.

The trade unions have been so far removed from politics, from thatcher and now Blair, that they need to have a real voice.

If they do, and this party appeals to people, then maybe people will join trade unions again and think of themselves as workers :D

Also, i think anyone who would be elected under this new workers party would only take the average workers wage, so i doubt it would be full of business men. hopefully workers.

And, at least it ain't Respect.

[321zero]

Testing

blergghh!

Hmm, I'll work it out eventually...

Do you have to link to it with the IMG function then?

[Andy Bowden]

Whats wrong with trying to create a new workers party? The left in England is pretty disorganised, and this could help them form something relevant.

Considering the advances of the BNP, a Left alternative is neccessary in England.

[h&s]

In short the CNWP is only adding torque to Trotsky's coffin, and I can't see why they didn't simply join RESPECT
(except for the obvious swp reason) Because Respect is not a democratic organisation, and has absolutely no potential to develop into a party can be a workers' party.
Look at how the old Labour party was run, then look at Respect - they are not the same, and are not meant to be. Respect is just a front for the SWP.
A new workers' party would actually give workers in this country some sort of voice that we just don't have today. There's nowt wrong with that, and can only help to build the left.

[bolshevik butcher]

RESPECT's a popular frontist farse.

However I would question wether the class conscioussness was of such a level that a mass workers party was possible, I mean if you look at the SSP up here I dont think thats a desirable outcome.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 20 2006, 01:04 PM
Whats wrong with trying to create a new workers party? The left in England is pretty disorganised, and this could help them form something relevant.

Considering the advances of the BNP, a Left alternative is neccessary in England.
It's a stale waste of time. I'd sooner burn my hand off than support a new dictatorship-vanguard-elite.

If this was actually going to get anywhere it'd be worth effort opposing, but it's a fossilised idea, so who cares?

[YKTMX]

Good to see the Sectarians talking themselves silly as usual.

Warms the heart.

Respect is too Brown and successful to be anything other than:

a) A SWP Popular front
b) An organ of George Galloway's Ego
c) A Islamist organisation
d) All of the above


I doubt any of this will actually happen. And if it does, it'll survive for 6 months, and then they'll fall into fratricide over the nature of the Soviet Union or something.

:lol:

'Workers of the World, in-fight!"

[silentprotest]

I went to this meeting, and all I have to say is it was a bit of a shambles. It started late and most of the speakers had their time cut short.
When debating matters they relied far to heavily on doing everything perfectly democratically which caused alot of divides between the groups there. It would have been much better if they had just said what they wanted to do and then have people say what they thought should be changed. There was far too much bureaucracy.
The saddest thing was all the people from the parties bickering over minor technical matters that really would not make a difference. A waste of a meeting really.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Good to see the Sectarians talking themselves silly as usual.

Well RESPECT deserves the same amount as the respect as the tories, new labour or the lib dems.

none of them are leftist, none of them look at society along class lines. RESPECT is all about religion and ethnicity.

A workers party looks beyond relgion and ethnicity, it looks at defending the working class.


However I would question wether the class conscioussness was of such a level that a mass workers party was possible, I mean if you look at the SSP up here I dont think thats a desirable outcome.

Fundemental difference would be that the MP's would only take a workers wage, is that what the SSP do? I am not sure, but i hope they do.

[bolshevik butcher]

They do. However this hasn't stopped a fetish for electoral politics, nationalism, reformisms, and a general abbandonment of a serious marxist program or a set of real tranistional demands.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:30 PM
Respect is too Brown and successful to be anything other than:

a) A SWP Popular front
b) An organ of George Galloway's Ego
c) A Islamist organisation
d) All of the above



Please explain to me how respect isnt A and B?

I wouldn't say that RESPECT was C, however it is happy to collaborate with such organisations in it's popular frontism.

[h&s]

The whole point of this campaign isn't jsut to create a new party and expect people to join it in a way that would lead to the possibility of sectarian infighting.
It is just a campaign at the moment. We need to get to a situation where the class consciousness and reality on the ground is such that a workers' party can be formed.
We first need to get the unions to dissaffiliate from Labour, untill then a party isn't even on the cards.

[Taevus]

As someone who attended the meeting, I was a little taken-back by the RESPECT representative who attended, who in an overly-long time period insisted we instead supported their party rather than this campaign, at least that is how it seemed to me. Undermined the point of the meeting just a little.

[silentprotest]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:49 PM
As someone who attended the meeting, I was a little taken-back by the RESPECT representative who attended, who in an overly-long time period insisted we instead supported their party rather than this campaign, at least that is how it seemed to me. Undermined the point of the meeting just a little.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. It was disgraceful.

[Taevus]

Originally posted by silentprotest+Mar 21 2006, 06:57 PM--> (silentprotest @ Mar 21 2006, 06:57 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:49 PM
As someone who attended the meeting, I was a little taken-back by the RESPECT representative who attended, who in an overly-long time period insisted we instead supported their party rather than this campaign, at least that is how it seemed to me. Undermined the point of the meeting just a little.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. It was disgraceful. [/b]
Indeed. And in reference to your earlier point, I also was annoyed at how the speakers were all cut short (via tapping on the microphone) before they could fully present their views to the audience, especially when this happened to some that I was particularly interested in.
I was also disappointed at the splitting off in groups at the end for discussion. I was part of the youth and student group, and we were situated in the cafè which proved very problematic due to lack of space and noise from the other groups echoing, meaning that I and probably at least half of the others attending simply could not hear what other comrades were saying, leaving us out of the discussion and really quite nunplussed about what was going on. Apparently, we were voting on who we wanted to represent us in the steering commitee. Four candidates had around 30 seconds to say their piece, which of course, many could not hear. I was the only one who voted against nominating representatives there and then, because I thought that to make such a decision, when many only caught snatches of their pitch, was unfair. In the end, this whole situation could have been avoided if the CNWP had made better accomodation for the groups, perhaps by choosing a larger location for the meeting.
I support what the CNWP want to achieve, but I expect a little more for future events.

[321zero]

I didn't catch the eventual decision, but did the original SP proposal that the CNWP not reconvene for a full year stand?

[Ollie]

C'mon kids, it's obvious we need a new mass party in order to gage working class people's interest in politics and to give them a voice to represent them in the current climate where are three capitalist parties.

With a democratic, class based party (unlike respect), it will give a massive opportunity to put forward the ideas of socialism and getting rid of capitalism.
Everyone should support it.

[Guest1]

Well, as far as I can tell, isn't the New Labour initiative dead? And seeing as it's dead, and it never went as far as the blairites wanted it to, they're still affilitated to the unions.

Meaning a change in the leadership of the unions would still lead to a change in Labour.

So... new workers' party? Getting people to disaffiliate from labour? Is it really necessary yet?

[Taevus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:07 PM
I didn't catch the eventual decision, but did the original SP proposal that the CNWP not reconvene for a full year stand?
Edit - sorry misread, I'm not sure. I vaguely remember a vote of some kind, but I really don't know. I hope it didn't stand, a year is too long.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2006, 08:29 PM
So... new workers' party? Getting people to disaffiliate from labour? Is it really necessary yet?

Rob Sewell (CMI member?) seems to agree with you. He thinks that the British Labour Party needs to be "reclaimed"....

Crisis of Working Class Political Representation (http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm)

Viva la Harold Wilson! :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2174/puke1vs.gif

^ This one's small enough to use regularly, I think ;) ^

What does this campaign want it's party to achieve anyway?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:00 PM
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2174/puke1vs.gif

^ This one's small enough to use regularly, I think ;) ^

How about one of these....

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-004.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-005.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-006.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-003.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-024.gif

Or my personal favourite....

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-023.gif

You can find more here.....

http://www.clicksmilies.com/

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 21 2006, 05:22 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 21 2006, 05:22 PM)
Che y [email protected] 21 2006, 08:29 PM
So... new workers' party? Getting people to disaffiliate from labour? Is it really necessary yet?

Rob Sewell (CMI member?) seems to agree with you. He thinks that the British Labour Party needs to be "reclaimed"....

Crisis of Working Class Political Representation (http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm)

Viva la Harold Wilson! :lol: [/b]
Oh rob... I remember drinking with him once when he came to Canada, good guy who's been in the movement for decades I believe.

But really, what exactly is wrong with his analysis?


But the irony is that those calling to break the union-Labour link are putting themselves in the same camp as the Blairites and the right wing in the capitalist media on this question! It is Blair and Co., supported by the ruling class, who want the union-Labour link broken, precisely to transform the Labour Party into a capitalist party. They realise (clearly more than some on the left) that this question is decisive in determining the class character of the Labour Party. While the link remains, the trade unions can potentially determine the way the party will develop. Even now, the trade unions have 50% of the votes at Labour Party conference and have inflicted big defeats on the Blairites over pensions, privatisation, secondary action, etc. That is why the representatives of Capital are also campaigning in favour of the unions disaffiliating from Labour. As part of this, the Blairites are now proposing the trade union vote at Labour conference be reduced to 15%! You don’t need a degree in rocket science to figure this one out. A child of six can see the implications.
I think 50 percent of the votes in labour's inner politics is a pretty heavy control by unions. So long as that remains, reclaiming the unions is all that is needed to have a labour leadership sympathetic and useful to revolutionary working-class organizing.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)But really, what exactly is wrong with his analysis?[/b]

Well, the other day I found this piece by him....

History of British Trotskyism Postcript (http://www.marxist.com/hbt/p-1.html)

It's a pretty scathing report of what various communists were doing inside the Labour Party -- lining up with reformists, opportunism and so on. And yet, he wants to repeat that! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/fragend/confused-smiley-013.gif

Quite why he wishes to that when he himself has pointed out how disastrous it was last time, I don't know.

Additionally, he starts that piece by saying....


Originally posted by Sewell+--> (Sewell)A conference is taking place in London this Saturday, January 21st, to discuss the crisis of working class representation. It has been sponsored by the rail workers’ union, RMT, and has a range of speakers from Labour MP John McDonnell to Colin Fox leader of the Scottish Socialist Party.

The RMT statement about the conference explains that: “The conference will not be used to promote the establishment of a new political party and will be a non resolution based conference. It will be an open public debate to discuss the crisis in working class representation and also how best to address the continued decline in working class people standing for public office and the continuing low turnouts in elections.”[/b]

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-clas...ation160106.htm (http://www.marxist.com/crisis-working-class-representation160106.htm)

The impression I've got, is that the whole purpose of entrism was to (1) connect with the working class through their own institutions and (2) show how useless bourgeois "democracy" is by exposing it as a scam.

Here however, Sewell's solution to growing scepticism in bourgeois "democracy" from the working class is to propose that that confidence should be restored!

So rather than trying to expose it as a scam, aim 2, he wants to draw people back into the "democratic process" -- "address the continued decline in working class people standing for public office and the continuing low turnouts in elections."

He doesn't say this himself, he quotes the RMT, but as he fails to offer any criticism of the RMT's aim and he attended the conference, and from the general tone of that article, it appears that he agrees with the RMT's aim.

So, at a time when most of the working class in Britain thinks politicians are corrupt bastards, Sewell proposes that we need to change this image.

I just don't get the point of this exercise, indeed if successful, it could well prove to be counter-productive.

Indeed, the whole tone of that article, is, in my opinion, one of "fetishing elections". He talks continuously about low turnouts, loss of confidence, bad policies, blah, blah, blah.

He sounds like a Social-Democrat! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-023.gif

You mentioned that he's "been in the movement for decades" and to be honest, I think he's showing his age -- i.e. he's going senile! :(


Che y [email protected]
I think 50 percent of the votes in labour's inner politics is a pretty heavy control by unions.

Well the British Unions today, are as bad as the American ones -- in other words, they are scared of industrial action.

Not only that, but for all talk of Union pressure on Blair from Sewell, I'm unaware of them even attempting to pressure Blair into reversing Thatcher's anti-Union laws.

In addition to this, the track record of Unions, even when they are "to the left", is shit!

The only Union that I know of during the second half of the last century that was both big and relatively militant, was the Miners' Union.

It had the potential to be revolutionary, but in the 60's its "achievement" was kicking a Conservative Government out of Office and in the 80's the Union bureaucracy sold the Miners' out -- i.e. the old joke: Scargill started out with a big Union and a small house and ended up with no Union and a massive house!

With such a poor track record, I don't see the point of trying to "reclaim" the Unions -- which basically means getting Union bosses who will mouth off about Socialism, but when the time comes, will become an obstacle to working class power.


Che y Marijuana
So long as that remains, reclaiming the unions is all that is needed to have a labour leadership sympathetic and useful to revolutionary working-class organizing.

When did the British Labour Party ever have a "leadership sympathetic and useful to revolutionary working-class organizing"???

Remember, it wasn't even formed on the same "radical goals" as German Social-Democracy. Instead, it took its "ideological direction" from the Fabian Society -- Bernstein types.

In addition to that, even the most "far left" element of the Labour Party in the last century, the Militant tendency, proved themselves to be rotten bastards once they gained a Council -- they threatened workers with redundancy! :angry:

The day anyone in either the leadership of the Labour Party or the leadership of the Unions does anything remotely useful with regards proletarian revolution, is the day I'll swim across the English Channel naked! :lol:

[321zero]

Mark Sewotka of the PCS was the big fish union leader who opened the CNWP. The Socialist Party made a big deal of his presence, and of the fact that several SP supporters are in the PCS leadership.

The upcoming (March 28) one-day strike by civil servants against pension cutbacks was also lauded as an indication of increasing militancy.

OK, but this is the same Mark Sewotka who called off a one day strike against pension cuts last year at the last minute. It was all 'get ready to fight, be strong, united, militant' ... and then suddenly 'oh never mind, don't bother, the government has promised to negotiate in good faith, a strike at this point would be counter-productive...'

When the PCS called off the strike, the government must have laughed and laughed. Before the May election the union had a strong hand. A big strike and other militancy, combined with New Labour anxiety about the election might have meant defeat for the government’s plans for state-sector pensions.

However, despite the overwhelming vote for strike action by the PCS membership the strike was called off, giving New Labour a clear run.

The PCS leadership did New Labour a favour - but was this reciprocated? Noooooooooo! Once re-elected New Labour had the whip hand, and the treacherous, venal, backstabbing, PCS leadership 'negotiated' away the retirement and pension conditions they'd promised to defend, and agreed to the introduction of a two-tier public sector pension where new starters will be worse off than those already employed...

At the CNWP meeting, the Socialist Party talked about this episode as if it were a victory instead of a betrayal. Explicitly reformist, lying to the working class - this thing stinks already.

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm a CMI member myself, the question I'd ask this campaign is what it will actually achieve, I mean if it really did achieve its aim of having the unions leave Labour impretty sure CMI would leave with them, however i don't know if that will happen in the current state of class consciousness.

Rob Seoul's an excellent speaker by the way.

[h&s]

I think 50 percent of the votes in labour's inner politics is a pretty heavy control by unions. So long as that remains, reclaiming the unions is all that is needed to have a labour leadership sympathetic and useful to revolutionary working-class organizing.
In theory yes, but the leadership of the Labour Party completely ignore any decsion made by congress that they don't like - last time they voted to repeal anti-union legsilation (e.g the ban on secondary action, flying pickets, more than 8 people on a picket line, etc, etc, etc, etc). Jack Straw replies by saying that the vote 'will have no effect on policy.'
The days in which any union branch or group of activists could move a resolution and then get it onto the manifesto are gone, long gone. And that was what made the Labour Party what it was - it was a worker's party. Today everyone just sees it as a corrupt pile of shit - even Labour Party activists.



Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 22 2006, 01:46 PM
I'm a CMI member myself, the question I'd ask this campaign is what it will actually achieve, I mean if it really did achieve its aim of having the unions leave Labour impretty sure CMI would leave with them, however i don't know if that will happen in the current state of class consciousness.

Rob Seoul's an excellent speaker by the way.
I don't know if its actually a class consciousnous thing that stops the unions disaffiliating, personally.
Apart from the obvious fact that union beureucrats are utter arsewipes, I think that unions don't dissafiliate is because of a misunderstanding of Labour.
The vast majority of union members know that Tony Blair is a Thatcherite bastard, but many think that Labour can change.
Once people see that Labour is only going to get worse they will see no reason to be part of Labour - at the moment all unions bar ASLEF (I think its aslef) are in struggle against the government - people just need to see that they shouldn't fund those who they are fighting against.
Once that has happened a new party can be seriously discussed

[McLeft]

I have to say that I did see posters and propaganda around my area, I also saw a group of activists giving out leaflets outside McDonalds, so far they sound very convincing, let's wait and see what can be made out of them at the next election. I will be watching their moves very closely and if they manage to convince me they'll get my vote. Let's hope it's not just a load of rhetoric, I guess i'm too skeptical but I have lost faith in British politics. My mind remains open though.

[Guest1]

AS, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here, really.

Are you suggesting that workers not only abandon Labour, but abandon unions as well?

Are you saying that the corrupt leadership in the unions and in the workers' parties should lead us to adopt a line against organizing either?

What exactly is your solution? That the working class stop putting up its own independent candidates on the election front, leaving it to the Liberal and Conservative wings of the bourgeoisie to duke it out, and then shut down its industrial organs of class struggle?

Yes, you're right, workers of the world, go home!

[Axel1917]

Heh. Taaffee and Co. are up to their usual nonsense yet again! :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CyM+--> (CyM)Are you suggesting that workers not only abandon Labour, but abandon unions as well?[/b]

Well right now, they are doing both things without any advice from me. Indeed, I think Miles quoted a figure in the other thread that said that 9/10 workers in the private sector in America are non-unionised.

These people leave for reasons I don't know myself, but they leave all the same.

Indeed, if someone asked my advice, I'd advise them that the money they'd be spending on Union dues would be better spent by pissing it up against a wall. That is what I would do.

There might be exceptions, if someone worked in a sector with a really militant Union, I might tell them its worth joining. However, if they worked in a sector where the only available Union was a bad one, I'd tell them to save their money.

After all, most people of my generation now have to get a 100% mortgage, so they really can't afford to waste money.

At the very most, I'd advise them to join the Industrial Workers of the World, though as far as I know, the IWW acts more like a political organisation rather than a traditional Union.


Originally posted by CyM+--> (CyM)Are you saying that the corrupt leadership in the unions and in the workers' parties should lead us to adopt a line against organizing either?[/b]

Well I would never "organise for" the British Labour Party, nor would I advise anyone too.

As for "the unions", well that is too general.

For instance, I have heard about some Unions losing millions of members money in attempts to make "profits" -- one Union in the 80's lost 4 million on a "left" newspaper which only lasted two months!

Whether the membership vote for this action, or the leadership just did it, doesn't matter in my opinion -- it still seems repugnant.

Therefore, I would consider organising for such a Union, the equivalent of being a salesman -- in other words a fraudster who steals money from the working class.

Additionally, most Unions in Britain, as I have mentioned, are rubbish. They remain about the same as they were in the 19th century when Marx encountered the English Trade Unionists in the International Workingmen's Association -- i.e. they are only concerned with "bartering", in a purely capitalist sense, for more money for the Union bureaucracy.

So with regards most Unions, I would recommend that we don't organise for them. Indeed, if you really want to become a salesman, then go work for Staybrite Windows and Doors -- at least they'll pay you!

The only time I change this position is (a) if there was a particularly good Union which impressed me or (b) if most, or all, Unions divorced themselves from the bourgeois establishment and concentrated their efforts on damaging the bourgeois relentlessly.


[email protected]
What exactly is your solution?

Well, I've always like the principle behind wildcat strikes. Why not encourage those rather than telling workers that if they join Union X life will be "great" as the Union leadership will "really fight for them"?

Helping to make average workers feel "empowered" and important, rather than reliant on this or that leadership, is in my opinion, a massive step towards the creation of a revolutionary class.

Additionally, I quite liked the way in which the CPGB created Red Unions in the 30's. These Unions, during their short existence, were militant.

Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, there was a really noticeable increase in militancy in the North of England (maybe Clynside?) where these Unions had their most recruits.

These Unions did "fizzle out" when there was less class polarisation, but I don't see why we shouldn't, in times of class polarisation or times leading up to class polarisation, create Communist Unions.

The message will be "shocking" and heaven forbid "ultra-left" -- but it will also be one of outright rejection of bourgeois despotism which I think will attract more support than you think during particularly turbulent times.

It's certainly worth another go don't you think? ....after all, we've had over a century of your option and less than a decade of mine, and yet my option, in the time period it functioned, seems to be the more useful.

As a side note, I don't know the "ins and outs" of how these Unions operated, I just like the principle of "Red Unions".

In my opinion, the Official status as a Union should be sort of misleading. In that all decisions should be made from below and the only function that should be served by the (regularly) elected leadership is to "take the blame" -- i.e. a spontaneous strike by Union members happens and the "leaderships" function is to try and make it appear to look like the strike is "legal", through forgery if necessary.

The reason I suggest this, is so that the bourgeois will have more trouble oppressing the workers themselves and will instead punish the Union -- which if structured in a certain way, could just go into bankruptcy (or whatever the Union equivalent is) and fold if it is fined. Then, everyone could just start up a new Communist Union. :D

In addition to this, wildcat strikes should be encouraged and if the Union affiliates with a political organisation, that organisation should not participate in bourgeois "democracy".

Also, as a principle, bartering with the bourgeois should not be tolerated.

This proposal needs refining, granted, but as a guideline I like it, and what's more, this form of Union is worth organising for.


Cym
....leaving it to the Liberal and Conservative wings of the bourgeoisie to duke it out....

The "duking" of the bourgeois as it were, happens in the boardrooms and private clubs and not Parliament. That shit is table dressing.