Strong Rank and File Division within UAW

[blackstone]

Strong rank-and-file opposition to UAW sellout evident at local meetings


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/flin-o01.shtml

The response from General Motors workers attending United Auto Workers informational meetings to hear details of the new tentative contract demonstrate the irreconcilable divide between rank-and-file auto workers and the union bureaucracy.

On Sunday a WSWS team distributed a statement calling for rejection of the tentative settlement to GM workers in Flint, Michigan and received an enthusiastic reception. The workers were attending a local informational meeting called by UAW Local 659, which covers workers at the Metal Fabricating Center, Flint Engine South and other smaller facilities.

Flint is the birthplace of General Motors and the site of the 1936-37 GM sit-down strike, which established the United Auto Workers as a mass industrial union. At its peak in 1978 nearly 80,000 people worked for GM in the city; only about 8,000 are left after the most recent 2006 buyouts. Once enjoying one of the highest per capita incomes in America, Flint is scourged with poverty and crime today, with some 38 percent of its children growing up poor.

The WSWS statement, entitled “Vote ‘no’ on UAW sellout! Elect rank-and-file committees for contract,” called for the rejection of the contract and for auto workers to break free from the control of the union take the struggle into their own hands by electing rank-and-file strike and negotiating committees. It advanced a socialist alternative to the UAW bureaucracy’s support for the profit system and the Democratic Party.

As one former Delphi worker, whose father was a sit-down striker, told the WSWS, “It looks like we are giving up what I worked 37 years and my dad worked 47 years obtaining.”

Workers were angry and suspicious over the fact that the UAW had given them no information on the contract. They were also skeptical of the non-stop propaganda in the news media, which is parroting the lies of the UAW bureaucracy that the settlement protects jobs and benefits. That morning’s Flint Journal printed a front-page article, featuring quotes for local area UAW officials enthusiastically praising the sellout. Typical were the remarks of Local 659 Tool and Die Shop Committee Chairman Wayne Clontz, who boasted, “This is a great contract, we got a great deal.”

A skilled trade worker, with 22 years seniority, asked to take extra copies of the leaflet to distribute. He told the WSWS, “There is a reason that the union is keeping everything quiet. They went on strike two days just to make everything look good for the company and the UAW. It was a setup. We’ve never been asked to return to work before a vote.

“They are going to say they are guaranteeing jobs. There are no guaranteed jobs. They are going to offer more buyouts to bring in lower wage workers. We had 800 take buyouts last year alone.

“They screwed a lot of guys with this two-tier wage. Who can live on $14 an hour—no benefits, no retirement, nothing? They are going to call anything “non-core” that they want,” he said, referring to the provision that allows GM to pay far lower wages and benefits to non-assembly line workers, including material handlers, janitors and others.

He also indicated skepticism in the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, (VEBA) a trust fund to be managed by the union to oversee retiree health care benefits.

“If the UAW gets hold of that money, then the retirees are going to have problems.” He said. “They are taking 40 cents a year from our cost of living to this VEBA. Are we financing this or is GM financing this? We gave up $1.00 last year and 2 cents from our quarterly COLA. Now it’s another $1.60 an hour that they are taking (over four years). That is like $150,000 an hour that GM is getting. Do you know how much money that is?”

Another worker from the Flint Service Parts Operations told the WSWS, “I hear they are planning to sell all the SPOs, that is what is going to fund VEBA. Where else is GM going to get $38 billion? They are going to sell all the remaining parts plants. This is the last parts plant. I have been to Shreveport, Louisiana, Boston, Baltimore, I’ve been around.

“This is the best they can do, they said. They say without this there are going to be layoffs. Well, I’ll bet in November (after ratification) there will be layoffs.”

James, who also works at the Flint SPO told the WSWS, “Most here are within 3-5 years of retirement and are not pleased with the outcome. Why don’t the people at the top take cuts? Why is it always those on the bottom who have to have their wages cut?”

Afterwards a worker spoke with the WSWS about what happened at the meeting. “There were International UAW reps and local officials making it sound like this was the best contract ever. They said retiree benefits would be guaranteed even if the company went bankrupt and that GM had to remove its obligations from their books in order to make it look like they were making good profits.

“They spoke about the VEBA going broke at Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel but they said those trusts hadn’t been set up right. There would be a third party taking care of the trust this time and the UAW would sit on the board, with the fund being monitored every year to keep it on the up and up. They had to say this because workers don’t trust the union with their retirement benefits.

“They tried to put dollar signs in front of peoples’ eyes to get this approved. But I’m leery of it. They are going to get rid of us older workers and replace us with people making $14 an hour and few benefits.

“I’m a material handler, doing one of the so-called ‘non-core’ jobs. The guy who takes my place will get lower pay even though he is working next to someone making twice as much.

“Fourteen dollars an hour might sound good to someone who doesn’t have a job. But in a few years these younger workers, who have not been getting what we were making, are going to say, ‘Let’s get rid of these retirees, I’m not paying for them anymore.’ That’s what GM wants.

“To me this is a Delphi Jr. In the end, GM could just dissolve and we’ll be on the streets in our 50s looking for work. These are the biggest give-backs we’ve ever made. The union has been hostile to the interests of workers for a long time.”

[Mkultra]

good news

[blackstone]

Def good news, gotta keep an eye on how things pan out.

[Edgar]

Apparently SEP/WSWS members were threatened by union bureaucrats as they were trying to hand out leaflets to the workers. The bureaucrats even called the police on them! It was captured on video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ci07Zx0NHlA)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:42 am
Apparently SEP/WSWS members were threatened by union bureaucrats as they were trying to hand out leaflets to the workers. The bureaucrats even called the police on them! It was captured on video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ci07Zx0NHlA)
This is common behaviour with some unions. I don't know why you seem surprised. There was a funny event when I was working at a car factory in Europe. We leafleted the plant in the period leading up to a strike, the union got information from the police about the organisation, and sent a e-mail to every employee condemning us. They also claimed we had a mass party in Poland. :D
In Turkey there are some unions whose demonstrations we don't even leaflet because we know we would get physically attacked.
Devrim

[blackstone]

Did the bureaucrats just say get the fuck off "our" property? Just who is "our"?

[Cheung Mo]

WSWS has some great analysis (their ultra-leftism on Latin American issues notwithstanding), but isn't the leader a member of the haute bourgeoisie?

[Guerrilla22]

Unfortunately the UAW has had a long history of trying to repel leftist from its leadership, as well as a long history of bureaucrats willing to sell out the workers in order to be able to claim they accomplished an agreement, when in fact they bent under corporate pressure.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 08, 2007 02:05 pm
WSWS has some great analysis (their ultra-leftism on Latin American issues notwithstanding), but isn't the leader a member of the haute bourgeoisie?
I'm not too familiar with the leadership of the WSW, like you, i think they have some great analysis on some issues and that's as far as I go with them

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The WSWS' main leader is a rich capitalist. FYI

They also have a history of using the capitalist courts against workers' parties and their tendency pointed out communists for Saddam to kill (and applauded when he did).

On this question, they're wrong again. They see unions as a part of the bourgeois state, and so discount them. Their statement talks about breaking workers from the UAW, which is obviously wrong.

A struggle needs to be undertaken to oust the bureaucracy and create real democratic structures in the union, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Communists fight for elected strike committees within the union, we don't tell workers to leave the union.

[Edgar]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 09:54 pm
The WSWS' main leader is a rich capitalist. FYI

From what I know, David North, the chairman of the American section of the SEP, owns a small printing press in Michigan. Don't know if he's really "rich" or not. Party leaders come and go, so it's more important to determine if the party's line is correct or incorrect.


Communists fight for elected strike committees within the union

But this is exactly what the SEP is calling for:

"Rejection of the contract is only the first step. Auto workers should take the struggle out of the hands of the UAW by electing rank-and-file committees to re-launch the strike and formulate demands that defend workers’ jobs, living standards and working conditions. An appeal should be made to Ford, Chrysler and Delphi workers to join this fight, and to auto workers in Canada, Latin America, Asia and Europe who are facing attacks by the same global auto giants."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/uaw-o01.shtml

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From what I know, David North, the chairman of the American section of the SEP, owns a small printing press in Michigan. Don't know if he's really "rich" or not. Party leaders come and go, so it's more important to determine if the party's line is correct or incorrect.

It's not small. It's huge. He is rich and drives a car worth more than the combined holdings of my extended family.

The whole "party line" thing independent of class is patently bogus. Being determines consciousness. Being a parasite that makes your living exploiting workers create that sort of consciousness, now more than ever.

Claiming someone the bourgeoisie can/will overthrow itself if it just has "the correct line" is worse than ridiculous.


But this is exactly what the SEP is calling for:

Maybe you should read the article originally posted..

"The WSWS statement, entitled “Vote ‘no’ on UAW sellout! Elect rank-and-file committees for contract,” called for the rejection of the contract and for auto workers to break free from the control of the union take the struggle into their own hands by electing rank-and-file strike and negotiating committees."

That's not a call to oust the bureaucracy, it's a call to break from the union, just as I've said.

This is in line with the SEP's absurd claim, which I pointed out earlier, that unions are now a part of the bourgeois state.

[YSR]

This is in line with the SEP's absurd claim, which I pointed out earlier, that unions are now a part of the bourgeois state.

This "absurd claim" has been made by leftists since the 1960's. It's not exactly from outer space. Union bureaucracy is one of the best ways to silence class conscious proletarian militants.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 08, 2007 09:54 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 08, 2007 09:54 pm) A struggle needs to be undertaken to oust the bureaucracy and create real democratic structures in the union, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Communists fight for elected strike committees within the union, we don't tell workers to leave the union. [/b]
This is a rather bizarre statement. How can you create 'elected strike committees within the union'? Maybe the UAW is different, but I have never come across a union, which has a mechanism for taking control away from its officers in times of crisis.

Unless provided for in union rules an elected strike committee is by definition outside of the union structure. I doubt that the UAW has rules that cover this sort of thing.


CompañeroDeLibertad
A struggle needs to be undertaken to oust the bureaucracy and create real democratic structures in the union, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Communists fight for elected strike committees within the union, ...

What this would practically mean would be a long protracted campaign to change the union's rules. It has nothing to say to the workers about this struggle.


...we don't tell workers to leave the union.

Neither is anybody here, certainly not the WSWS. Please refer to a statement, which calls for workers to leave the unions, which says leave the union, or stop making this ridiculous claim.

The organisations, which are clearest about the role of the unions, are the left communist ones. None of them are calling for worker's to leave the unions even. It was a slogan that the left communists raised in Germany during the revolutionary wave, and it may well be a slogan that we raise again in the future. The claim that the WSWS are doing today is just hyperbole taken to an absurd extent. They are not.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 09, 2007 04:32 am

This is in line with the SEP's absurd claim, which I pointed out earlier, that unions are now a part of the bourgeois state.

This "absurd claim" has been made by leftists since the 1960's. It's not exactly from outer space. Union bureaucracy is one of the best ways to silence class conscious proletarian militants.
The communist left says that the unions are integrated into the state. Calling this idea absurd doesn't make it any less true.

'Young Stupid Radical' seems to be showing his youth here. In fact the idea was first raised by Marxists in the revolutionary period after the first world war. I think, but I am not 100% certain, that it was raised by anarchists before the war.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is a rather bizarre statement.

I guess communism is pretty bizarre to you, with an outlook so alien to it.


How can you create 'elected strike committees within the union'? Maybe the UAW is different, but I have never come across a union, which has a mechanism for taking control away from its officers in times of crisis.

You create them by... creating them. It would take an intense struggle on the part of the workers, but it could certainly be done. And communists fight to overthrow capitalism, not just to win one strike. The struggle that could create such committees during this strike could open up/democratize the union and oust the bureaucrats in the heat of battle.. the best way to do so...


Unless provided for in union rules an elected strike committee is by definition outside of the union structure. I doubt that the UAW has rules that cover this sort of thing.

Outside of established union structures is not the same as as outside of the union.


Neither is anybody here, certainly not the WSWS. Please refer to a statement, which calls for workers to leave the unions, which says leave the union, or stop making this ridiculous claim.

I guess you didn't read the original article posted in this thread either and/or you aren't aware of the SEP's line on the character of unions? Please refer to my earlier post and the WSWS website.


This "absurd claim" has been made by leftists since the 1960's. It's not exactly from outer space. Union bureaucracy is one of the best ways to silence class conscious proletarian militants.

A lot of absurd claims have been made by "leftists" since the 1960's. The petty-bourgeoisie "radicals" brought all sorts of trash baggage with them during that period.

Unions are organizations of workers who have come together to defend their interests, full stop. They are not a part of the bourgeois state. All of this is true independent of that fact that many are currently led by bureaucrats who are in bed with the bosses.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 09, 2007 06:07 am--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 09, 2007 06:07 am)
How can you create 'elected strike committees within the union'? Maybe the UAW is different, but I have never come across a union, which has a mechanism for taking control away from its officers in times of crisis.

You create them by... creating them. It would take an intense struggle on the part of the workers, but it could certainly be done. And communists fight to overthrow capitalism, not just to win one strike. The struggle that could create such committees during this strike could open up/democratize the union and oust the bureaucrats in the heat of battle.. the best way to do so...


Unless provided for in union rules an elected strike committee is by definition outside of the union structure. I doubt that the UAW has rules that cover this sort of thing.

Outside of established union structures is not the same as as outside of the union.
[/b]
So you are for committees, which are 'outside of established union structures', but not 'outside of the union'. Where do these committees exist,...neverneverland?

I don't know what you are trying to say here. I am not sure that you do either.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)I guess you didn't read the original article posted in this thread either and/or you aren't aware of the SEP's line on the character of unions? Please refer to my earlier post and the WSWS website.[/b]

I hadn't read it but I just have. They do not call for workers to leave the unions. They do say:


Originally posted by WSWS
the UAW is dead and cannot be revived.

This is true. More, and more workers feel this way about 'their' unions.


Compañ[email protected]
A lot of absurd claims have been made by "leftists" since the 1960's. The petty-bourgeoisie "radicals" brought all sorts of trash baggage with them during that period.

I am not sure if this is a reference to me personally, but it seems obligatory for American leftists to scream 'petty-bourgeoisie'* at people.

I will tell you a little about myself though. I have been a worker for about 25 years since leaving school at sixteen. I have worked in factories, the Post Office, and on building sites amongst other things. I have been on strike thirteen times, the longest of which was a three and a half week strike of 180,000 workers, and not one of these strikes has been organised by the union**. I have been sent back to work by unions many times though.

That's me. If you want to call me petite bourgeois, fine. What do you do for a living?

The idea that the unions are integrated into the state doesn't come from 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"'. It comes originally from the communists on the left wing of the Third International, particularly the KAPD, which was so full of 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"' that it had its own factory organisations with hundreds of thousands of workers.


CompañeroDeLibertad
Unions are organizations of workers who have come together to defend their interests, full stop. They are not a part of the bourgeois state. All of this is true independent of that fact that many are currently led by bureaucrats who are in bed with the bosses.

Repeating something, and putting 'full stop' after it doesn't make it true. If you want to argue this fine. We can. I suggest you start with an argument, and stop throwing slanders.

Devrim

* It is 'petite', not 'petty'.
**There was once a one day offical strike somewhere I worked, but I was on holiday at the time.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So you are for committees, which are 'outside of established union structures', but not 'outside of the union'. Where do these committees exist,...neverneverland?

I don't know what you are trying to say here. I am not sure that you do either.

You don't understand what a union is, fundamentally. It's a body of workers, not a structure above and outside of them. If the workers of a union create committees, those committees are within the union, whether or not they have 'official' recognition from the bureaucrats (who can be made recognize them and/or done away with all together).


I hadn't read it but I just have. They do not call for workers to leave the unions.

It's usually a good idea to read a thread before you post in it.

"The WSWS statement, entitled “Vote ‘no’ on UAW sellout! Elect rank-and-file committees for contract,” called for the rejection of the contract and for auto workers to break free from the control of the union take the struggle into their own hands by electing rank-and-file strike and negotiating committees."


This is true. More, and more workers feel this way about 'their' unions.


What's your answer? If the unions are dead and cannot be reclaimed as you and other ultra-lefts claim, what's the answer, if not to leave them?


I am not sure if this is a reference to me personally, but it seems obligatory for American leftists to scream 'petty-bourgeoisie'* at people.

I don't "scream it" at anyone, or use it to describe people who do not belong to that class.

Believe it or not, I was not referring to you when I wrote of "petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"" who entered the left in the 1960's; I was referring to "petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"" who entered the left in the 1960's. I know nothing of your history.

As for me, I am of recent unemployed. Until a few days ago I was a teamster (box handler) in one of the largest shipping facilities in the U.S. Before that I was a factory worker, construction worker, roofer, laborer, driver, etc.

And yeah, petty-bourgeois is a common and accepted term among leftists in the U.S.

And yeah, they (the 60's pb radicals) revived some of the worst crap (and/or misunderstood a lot of things, such as how the boss unions of some countries differ from the regular unions in the U.S.) in their search to be a "New Left" with none of that horrible dirt that comes along with the communist movement.

[catch]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 09, 2007 06:04 pm
"The WSWS statement, entitled “Vote ‘no’ on UAW sellout! Elect rank-and-file committees for contract,” called for the rejection of the contract and for auto workers to break free from the control of the union take the struggle into their own hands by electing rank-and-file strike and negotiating committees."

That doesn't say "resign from the union" or "leave the union" though does it?

[Guerrilla22]

There is a reason that the union is keeping everything quiet. They went on strike two days just to make everything look good for the company and the UAW. It was a setup. We’ve never been asked to return to work before a vote.

This is indicative of how the higher ups in the UAW operate and hardly the first time it has happened as I mentioned before. I was once one of our reps from our factory to the local. Detroit ignored us constantly.

[IronColumn]

As all the major unions take their marching orders from the business owners, most workers can see that the traditional unions can neither represent them nor defend them. This elaborate UAW stage production of a strike, only to pretend militancy and then sell the workers out, is a good example of this type of thing.

Also I don't think telling the workers to leave the unions is a bad thing. What the KAPD and other alleged ultra-lefts mean by this is for the workers to abandon bureaucratic capitalist unions and to create a new fighting organ, from the bottom up. Thus it's not a question of union or no union, it's revolutionary union or counter-revolutionary union. Nothing revolutionary ever came out of the traditional unions; clearly, revolutionaries need to advocate something else other than blind, unworkable, and unwarranted trust in AFL-CIO reform.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In case anyone still doesn't believe me on the SEP's motivations: "...the UAW is not an organization of the working class, but rather an organization of a right-wing, privileged bureaucracy that is hostile to the interests of workers and is transforming itself from a tool of the bosses into a corporate entity in its own right." Source (http://wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/uaw-o10.shtml)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And more of this trash: "The UAW is not a workers’ organization. It is a business. You have to face the facts. It is a business, and now with the VEBA being transferred to it, it becomes a major player, an investment banker, so to speak. That is what it has become, but it is not a workers’ organization. Because workers are contained in the UAW does not make it a workers’ organization. These workers are trapped inside that organization, which exists only for the enrichment of the ruling class and the UAW bureaucracy." Source (http://wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/jiml-o09.shtml)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)Repeating something, and putting 'full stop' after it doesn't make it true. If you want to argue this fine. We can. I suggest you start with an argument, and stop throwing slanders.[/b]

This is pretty poor as arguments go:


CompañeroDeLibertad
You don't understand what a union is, fundamentally. It's a body of workers, not a structure above and outside of them. If the workers of a union create committees, those committees are within the union, whether or not they have 'official' recognition from the bureaucrats (who can be made recognize them and/or done away with all together).

It is funny that you say that I don't understand as it is not me who seems to have a problem with this. It is after all you introducing abstract ideas like 'outside, but not outside'. I think that we have another one here with this idea of a 'body of workers'

A union is not some vague 'body of workers'. It is an organisation, and an organisation which is capable of acting against the interests of its members. You seem to have very little understanding of this.

This is something you often find when discussing with American workers. The low level of class struggle there tends to blind them to the unions role in the class struggle. Possibly because they rarely see it.

Also you have yet to show that they are calling for workers to leave the unions. None of the statements that you have provided show that. They do give a reasonable picture of the UAW though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:43 pm
As all the major unions take their marching orders from the business owners, most workers can see that the traditional unions can neither represent them nor defend them. This elaborate UAW stage production of a strike, only to pretend militancy and then sell the workers out, is a good example of this type of thing.

Also I don't think telling the workers to leave the unions is a bad thing. What the KAPD and other alleged ultra-lefts mean by this is for the workers to abandon bureaucratic capitalist unions and to create a new fighting organ, from the bottom up. Thus it's not a question of union or no union, it's revolutionary union or counter-revolutionary union. Nothing revolutionary ever came out of the traditional unions; clearly, revolutionaries need to advocate something else other than blind, unworkable, and unwarranted trust in AFL-CIO reform.
While we agree on the basics of the role of the unions, Ironcolumn, we do not call for workers to leave the unions today. When the KAPD called for it, it was in a revolutionary situation. Today is not that situation. The other question of importance is whether revolutionary unions can be built outside of periods of large scale struggle without turning into the same old thing.

Devrim

[Devrim]

A couple of 'absurd' claims made by 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"'


[the unions] are no longer workers' organisations; they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point.


...always and everywhere they [the unions] stood ready to help at the side of capital, as a praetorian guard ready for the lowest and most shameful deed. Always against the interests of the proletariat, against the progress of the revolution, the liberation and autonomy of the working class, they used and use the far greater part of all accretions to funds to secure and materially provide for their existence as boss-men and parasites, which -- as they well know -- stands and falls with the existence of the trade union organisation that they have falsified from a weapon for the workers into a weapon against the workers.
...
Such generally harmful, counter-revolutionary institutions, inimical to the workers, can only be destroyed, annihilated, exterminated.

A prize for anyone who can guess who both of them are by.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Luxemburg and Rühle were wrong on a lot of things, one of them was unions.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 07:13 am
Luxemburg and Rühle were wrong on a lot of things, one of them was unions.
OK, so you are obviously aware that the idea of the unions being intergrated into the state doesn't come form 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"' in the sixties. Why then did you try to imply that it did. It is a pretty dishonest way of arguing politics.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, they're just the main players who brought that trash, which had been taken to the curb by earlier communists, back; As I said.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 10, 2007 08:22 am--> (devrimankara @ October 10, 2007 08:22 am)
Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 07:13 am
Luxemburg and Rühle were wrong on a lot of things, one of them was unions.
OK, so you are obviously aware that the idea of the unions being intergrated into the state doesn't come form 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"' in the sixties. Why then did you try to imply that it did. It is a pretty dishonest way of arguing politics.

Devrim [/b]
I think, correct me if i'm wrong, he meant that the current notion of the roles of unions held by some of the left today aren't due to the influence of Luxemberg, but of the New Left.

Just as Maoism and Leninism, obviously had early roots in Mao and Lenin, but alot of current views are based off of the radicals of the New Left.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 02:46 pm
No, they're just the main players who brought that trash, which had been taken to the curb by earlier communists, back; As I said.
By 'taken to the curb' do you mean by a few chapters in one shoddy pamphlet by Lenin. The 'left' was so taken apart that the KPD had to expel over half of its membership over these issues.

Putting it down to 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"' is dishonest whatever you try to cliam now.

More to the point though is the nonsense that you talk about the unions.

I presume that you have never been involved in any big strike. Because anyone who had would have at least some understanding of how the unions operate.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 10, 2007 02:59 pm--> (blackstone @ October 10, 2007 02:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:22 am

Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 07:13 am
Luxemburg and Rühle were wrong on a lot of things, one of them was unions.
OK, so you are obviously aware that the idea of the unions being intergrated into the state doesn't come form 'petty-bourgeoisie "radicals"' in the sixties. Why then did you try to imply that it did. It is a pretty dishonest way of arguing politics.

Devrim
I think, correct me if i'm wrong, he meant that the current notion of the roles of unions held by some of the left today aren't due to the influence of Luxemberg, but of the New Left.

Just as Maoism and Leninism, obviously had early roots in Mao and Lenin, but alot of current views are based off of the radicals of the New Left. [/b]
No the communist left has organisational continuity going back to the Third international. The politics don't come from the new left in the sixties. I don't think thee are any similarities.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"The Socialist Equality Party would advise workers, should the UAW come to their plant, to vote to keep it out."

"The task of genuine socialists is to destroy, not bolster, the “persuasive power” of the UAW..."

Source (http://wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/left-o12.shtml)

What say you?