Red and yellow in the UK

[Pogue]

What Unions in the UK would you guys say are red, and what ones are yellow? I suppose you could also says theres that third category, with that Solidarity 'union' which has links to the BNP but lets disregard that as the joke it is.

So yeh, what Unions would you say are red and what ones are yellow?

(I know no unions would be openly commited to revolution in the UK except the IWW, but by red I mean they are radical, with a good leadership and alot of activity in leftist protests/campaigns, and alot of socialists in their membership)

My opinion:

Red:

Unite
GMB
Unison

Yellow:

I don't actualy know any.

I have a great amount of respect for the rank and file activists and reps in Unison, thats why I'd call them red, because I know them to have good members, but I've been told that their leadership are going a bit crazy, on a bit of a socialist-purge ala Kinnock with the Labour party in the 80s.

So yeh, comrades with a knowledge of UK unions, who are red and who are yellow?

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Whats the point in striking in a union for pay!

Just revolutionize the country and there will be no need for strikes - unions are aiming way to low and not realizing there full potential. If we could co-ordinate strikes with a couple of the big unions the government would be crippled.
The voice of one is nothing in the sea of competition that exists within the corporate atmosphere of capitalism and thats what the business moguls and politicians want.
We should try to co-ordinate union strikes and turn the tide.

[Pogue]

Whats the point in striking in a union for pay!

Just revolutionize the country and there will be no need for strikes - unions are aiming way to low and not realizing there full potential. If we could co-ordinate strikes with a couple of the big unions the government would be crippled.
The voice of one is nothing in the sea of competition that exists within the corporate atmosphere of capitalism and thats what the business moguls and politicians want.
We should try to co-ordinate union strikes and turn the tide.

??? I'm just asking what unions are red and which are yellow.

[Yehuda Stern]

Whats the point in striking in a union for pay!

Just revolutionize the country and there will be no need for strike

Are you actually serious?

[Vanguard1917]

I don't think there are any 'red' (i.e. socialist) unions in Britain today. You'll find that most unions have to a large extent dropped even the rhetoric of socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What Unions in the UK would you guys say are red, and what ones are yellow? I suppose you could also says theres that third category, with that Solidarity 'union' which has links to the BNP but lets disregard that as the joke it is.

How 'bout a fourth: orange?

"Red unionism" is the stuff of the IWW and of socialist syndicalism. "Orange unionism" acknowledges class struggle but is for radical reform (not necessarily revolution). Still, it occupies a better spot on the class-strugglist political compass than their class-collaborationist reformist brethren.


Are you actually serious?

http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6949&sid=64f2adc7a8af18671e8f8381ecf772e0#6949



1) The reduction of the normal workweek to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime


8) Annual, non-deflationary adjustments of the minimum wage to match real inflation (not notorious government underestimations due to faulty measures like chain weighting) and, where possible, both the restoration of the minimum wage to its original living-wage level and the institution of annual, non-deflationary adjustments on a cost-of-living basis for all other non-executive remunerations and benefits;

In essence, this eighth demand combines the typical "living wage" demand with Trotsky's "sliding scale of wages" stuff which, by the way, IS ALREADY WIDESPREAD in the workforce (especially office work such as mine, so what I'm raising here is merely the universalization of this).

It also forces dwindling unions to get past struggling for wage increases.

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Are you actually serious?

yes, very. Mobilizing the populous through the use of unions seems as good a strategy as any. I mean, I may have been slightly over simplistic about it but the principle is sound.

[Forward Union]

What Unions in the UK would you guys say are red, and what ones are yellow? I suppose you could also says theres that third category, with that Solidarity 'union' which has links to the BNP but lets disregard that as the joke it is.

So yeh, what Unions would you say are red and what ones are yellow?

(I know no unions would be openly commited to revolution in the UK except the IWW, but by red I mean they are radical, with a good leadership and alot of activity in leftist protests/campaigns, and alot of socialists in their membership)

My opinion:

Red:

Unite
GMB
Unison

Yellow:

I don't actualy know any.

I have a great amount of respect for the rank and file activists and reps in Unison, thats why I'd call them red, because I know them to have good members, but I've been told that their leadership are going a bit crazy, on a bit of a socialist-purge ala Kinnock with the Labour party in the 80s.

So yeh, comrades with a knowledge of UK unions, who are red and who are yellow?


RED:

RMT
IWW
Unite

a few others.

[duffers]

Are you actually serious?

Watch your tongue. James Larkin thought the very same, and he did a little bit more than critiquing from an armchair; he lead the Dublin Lockout of 1913.

[Yehuda Stern]

James Larkin thought the very same, and he did a little bit more than critiquing from an armchair; he lead the Dublin Lockout of 1913

What do people on this forum have with armchairs? Who the fuck sits on armchairs anymore? I sit on a normal chair when I write in forums, and I don't sit when I'm taking part in actions, which I do, even if I don't wave my dick so much about.

What I was protesting was that I understood Followthewhiterabbit's post as saying that revolutionaries don't need to fight for reforms, but just wait for the revolution. If that's what he said then I still think he is wrong. Otherwise, it's just a misunderstanding.

From what he's written above, I can see that's not what he meant. So, that's that.

To the OP: I don't think either kind exists in Britain today. Red unions are revolutionary unions, and yellow ones are unions that are part of the state apparatus. Red unions were, for example, the unions of the CPs before the Comintern's degeneration in the late 1920s. Examples of yellow unions are the Russian state's unions between the two revolutions and the Israeli Histadrut in its early days.

[duffers]

Fuck me, don't Israeli schools teach what a figure of speech is?

Suffice to say, you could only dream about being as constructive as Larkin.

Not sure how you could deduce all that from revolutionise the country, which is precisely what should be done. Reformism has no place in Marxism. Current day liberal democrats look at that more favourably.

[Yehuda Stern]

Fuck me, don't Israeli schools teach what a figure of speech is?

They do, and it's not that they're that great, either. But they even teach us some "Don't Talk Like You're Living In the 19th Century" classes. Even we can understand such concepts.


Suffice to say, you could only dream about being as constructive as Larkin.

I hope to not just dream, but to do as well. Sadly, that has not yet happened. So I prefer explaining myself in left forums to people who have the listening capability of a wall.



Not sure how you could deduce all that from revolutionise the country, which is precisely what should be done.

I deduced that from:


Whats the point in striking in a union for pay!

Just revolutionize the country and there will be no need for strike


Reformism has no place in Marxism.

No, but the fight for reforms does. In fact, Marxists should fight vigorously for reforms in order to show workers their power as class and strengthen their independent consciousness.


Current day liberal democrats look at that more favourably.

Oh, ouch, burn! Got me there!

[zimmerwald1915]

No, but the fight for reforms does. In fact, Marxists should fight vigorously for reforms in order to show workers their power as class and strengthen their independent consciousness.
Now who's talking like they're living in the nineteenth century?

[Yehuda Stern]

If that was supposed to be clever, I'm sorry, but it went right over my head.

[Followthewhiterabbit]

My belief is that fighting for small causes like little increases in wages harms the movement more than it benefits. The workers who win higher wages are appeased and unwilling to support further, they go back to work for the capitalists the next day. The corporations who they are striking against give them the bare minimum they think they can get away with till the next strike. It creates a false sense of control within the strikers, they believe that they have power over their bosses, in reality they are being given the bare minimum. If the company can afford the increase they could have afforded it before the strike, if you see what I'm saying.

Again, this is just my belief.

[zimmerwald1915]

If that was supposed to be clever, I'm sorry, but it went right over my head.
It was in reference to the dichotomy between the first and last bits of your post:


They do, and it's not that they're that great, either. But they even teach us some "Don't Talk Like You're Living In the 19th Century" classes. Even we can understand such concepts...

No, but the fight for reforms does. In fact, Marxists should fight vigorously for reforms in order to show workers their power as class and strengthen their independent consciousness.

I was making the point that "the fight for reforms" is a strategy germane to the nineteenth century and is not really all that appropriate nowadays.

[Yehuda Stern]

Followthewhiterabbit: I think that that is only correct when the reforms are granted from above, like under the Attlee government or under Chavez today. When workers force the capitalist state to give them reforms by the sheer social power they have, I think it strengthens consciousness and makes workers less apathetic and more open to revolutionary ideas. Of course, that's something that needs to be tested in reality.

Zimmerwald1915: I see now, but I don't think that's true. I think that even today, the fight for reforms is important, for the reasons given above.

[zimmerwald1915]

Zimmerwald1915: I see now, but I don't think that's true. I think that even today, the fight for reforms is important, for the reasons given above.
I really think that we've got to look at capitalism as a constantly developing social form, where each new development occasions a new (perhaps not entirely "new", but certainly further developed and deepened) strategy by revolutionaries. For example, in the nineteeth century, capitalism was a healthy--by its standards--system. Capitalists could realize their investments through cannibalization of pre-capitalist markets followed by integration of these markets into the capitalist sphere, and revolution was not a viable historical option. In such a period, struggles reforms were the mode of struggle available to revolutionaries. Furthermore, the economic basis for reforms was real, as in there actually existed the cash to pay for social legislation, and the relations of production permitted an eight-hour day.

I called this a nineteenth century attitude because these conditions don't exist anymore. Capitalism's relations of production have turned against it; it is impossible, for example, to produce a commodity and then to sell it at a profit without being hindered in some way by the social processes that make an item a commodity. In a more applicable vein, it is impossible these days to expand social legislation without expanding indebtedness, increasing the amount of ghost capital in the market. Furthermore, the fight for social legislation doesn't lead to an increase in consciousness: rather, it either leads to a dissatisfaction with those who advocated it (since social legislation is so very difficult to pass and so very ineffective once it is passed) and thus a move away from revolutionaries in general, or it leads to a satisfaction with the flexibility of the capitalist system.

IMHO, and this is just IMHO, the struggle for reforms is a dead end.

[Followthewhiterabbit]

Zimmerwald1915, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Summary : Reformism stagnates the true revolutionary objective by providing some satisfaction with the little flexibility within capitalist system.

[duffers]

Yehuda, when do you think Marxism was invented?

So Larkin agitated a whole city in person, you do it on forums. Good job.

Having seen the enacting of that action, with the trade unions in England either too weak, or too greedy, that is counter objective to our goal.

Well the only folk I hear speaking of reforms are your social democrats. No self respecting communist would support reforms, or the fight for them, 4th International avatar or not.

[Yehuda Stern]

I was being cynical, obviously. I am active, I just don't brag about it. I think it cheapens all political discussions when we play honor games. And I think many self-respecting communist would support reforms, as Marx, Lenin and Trotsky did. If sectarians have self-respect is probably an interesting psychological question that will just have to be dealt with at another time.

[duffers]

Obviously!

Many would, but then again many supported Stalin.

Surely we're gonna be a bit more progressive (and aware of the mistakes made when reforms are relied upon) in this day and age, no?

[Yehuda Stern]

Only if we believe those things to be mistakes. Supporting Stalin was, more often than not, not a mistake but an inherent tendency of middle class leftists to support all sorts of reactionaries in the name of 'socialism,' as is typified in their support today of Castro, Chavez and others.

[Pogue]

As a marxist, surely you don't believe in a middle class, Yehuda Stern?

[Yehuda Stern]

Since I'm a Marxist, and Marxism is not a dogma, I do not have to decide whether or not to believe in something that's very real. There is, of course, a middle class: the layers of professionals with higher education that form a certain subsection of the petty bourgeoisie. It takes a very crude 'Marxism' to ignore the fact that such a class exists, and that it has different and hostile interests to those of the workers, and that it forms a great part of the base of the reformist and centrist left.

[Pogue]

So when you call reformists middle class, you mean they're all petty bourgeoisie? As in, they all own small businesses, hold managerial roles, etc? Not just someone who you don't like who isn't living in absolute poverty?

[Yehuda Stern]

When I call a centrist or reformist middle class, I mean that their politics express the interests of the upper crust of the petty bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy. Nice attempt at a snide remark, though.

[Pogue]

Gaaaahh, I just don't understand why every one of your posts always seems to radiate anger! Its wierd! Not everything is a confrontation you know, and we're all socialists here...

[Sam_b]

No self respecting communist would support reforms, or the fight for them, 4th International avatar or not.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Are you saying you would never join a strike picket line, protest against war or support a women's group that opposes abortion restrictions?


and we're all socialists here...

Anarchist who? :laugh:

[Pogue]

Anarchism being a form of socialism...

[Yehuda Stern]

Gaaaahh, I just don't understand why every one of your posts always seems to radiate anger!

Not really anger, but it's just that I sometimes fail to be nice when people like you make snotty remarks like


So when you call reformists middle class, you mean they're all petty bourgeoisie? As in, they all own small businesses, hold managerial roles, etc? Not just someone who you don't like who isn't living in absolute poverty?

It kinda gets to me, and makes me articulate my position in a much less friendly way, which is quite understandable. Practice what you preach - be respectful, and you will be respected.


Not everything is a confrontation you know, and we're all socialists here...

Not everything is a confrontation, but everything on these boards is a debate, and more often than not a debate on what the authentic Marxist position is on any particular subject. So the fact that "we're all socialists" doesn't really matter - what I care is to defend authentic Marxism against all sorts of distortions that cheapen it and empty it of its revolutionary and anti-imperialist content. Anyone who cares to enlighten me about any mistakes I make is welcome to do it, but don't expect me to tone down because you define yourself as a socialist.

[Pogue]

Maybe you should look at that then, because judging by the tone of your words, most things 'get to you'. Its an internet forum with other people who agree with you on 99% of things, you need to chill the fuck out.

[Yehuda Stern]

No, to be honest nothing gets to me. I just get pissed off by know-it-alls who thing they invented opportunist fronts with other people who agree with me maybe on the -isms but not on any actual policies. So maybe instead of me chilling the fuck out, you need to stop condemning everyone who refuses to, how did you put it? "unite with every Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist and Chavista," was that about it?

[Sam_b]

Anarchism being a form of socialism...

No its not.

[Yehuda Stern]

Tsk tsk tsk, now who's the sectarian?

[Sam_b]

Tsk tsk tsk, now who's the sectarian?


Well if thats directed at me...

Socialists are not anarchists as anarchists don't believe in a state structure, whereas socialists tend to argue for some sort of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Surely this isn't news to you?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, it is - I always thought that socialism means a society where the producers collectively own the means of production and distribute goods fairly. Dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism or even communism, it's a more specific tendency inside communism - Marxism. Most socialist tendencies of the past never advocated dictatorship of the proletariat, and many didn't even advocate a revolution.

[Sam_b]

Almost always collective ownership under socialism equates to the state. Hiatorically, especially in Eastern Europe, it has meant this.

[Devrim]

What Unions in the UK would you guys say are red, and what ones are yellow? I suppose you could also says theres that third category, with that Solidarity 'union' which has links to the BNP but lets disregard that as the joke it is.

So yeh, what Unions would you say are red and what ones are yellow?

(I know no unions would be openly commited to revolution in the UK except the IWW, but by red I mean they are radical, with a good leadership and alot of activity in leftist protests/campaigns, and alot of socialists in their membership)

My opinion:

Red:

Unite
GMB
Unison

Yellow:

I don't actualy know any.

I have a great amount of respect for the rank and file activists and reps in Unison, thats why I'd call them red, because I know them to have good members, but I've been told that their leadership are going a bit crazy, on a bit of a socialist-purge ala Kinnock with the Labour party in the 80s.

So yeh, comrades with a knowledge of UK unions, who are red and who are yellow?
RED:
RMT
IWW
Unite
a few others.

Back to the original point, these terms do have historic meanings. No union in the UK can be described as 'red' (unless I have missed the fact that the RMT advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat). All of the current unions in the UK would have historically been described as yellow*.


How 'bout a fourth: orange?

"Red unionism" is the stuff of the IWW and of socialist syndicalism. "Orange unionism" acknowledges class struggle but is for radical reform (not necessarily revolution). Still, it occupies a better spot on the class-strugglist political compass than their class-collaborationist reformist brethren.

'Orange' unionism, however, isn't a historical term, and doesn't have a historical meaning. In fact outside of Jacob's world it has no meaning whatsoever.


To the OP: I don't think either kind exists in Britain today. Red unions are revolutionary unions, and yellow ones are unions that are part of the state apparatus. Red unions were, for example, the unions of the CPs before the Comintern's degeneration in the late 1920s. Examples of yellow unions are the Russian state's unions between the two revolutions and the Israeli Histadrut in its early days.


I don't think there are any 'red' (i.e. socialist) unions in Britain today. You'll find that most unions have to a large extent dropped even the rhetoric of socialism.

I agree with these two posters. They at least understand what the terms mean.

Devrim

*I don't believe that the IWW is a union in the UK.

[Pogue]

Yeah, it is - I always thought that socialism means a society where the producers collectively own the means of production and distribute goods fairly. Dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism or even communism, it's a more specific tendency inside communism - Marxism. Most socialist tendencies of the past never advocated dictatorship of the proletariat, and many didn't even advocate a revolution.

I'm on Yehuda Stern's side in this one, obviously. Anarchism is a form of socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Almost always collective ownership under socialism equates to the state. Hiatorically, especially in Eastern Europe, it has meant this.

I... uh... could you rephrase that?

[duffers]

Amusingly, the words orange and unionism suggest Orange Order sash wearing Unionists in the north of Ireland.

The Eastern Bloc's style of 'communism' was a bastardised form of Leninist and Stalinist state capitalism bollocks, with the soviet mention a tongue in cheek reminder of what the actual 1917 revolution was all for. It should never been used as an example for anything the left stands for, other than to show us what dictatorship of the proletariat results in.

Socialists are not just Marxists; many of us don't advocate the state existing, same like the anarchists.

And Sam, do I believe in doing something that has little or no effect? Not really I'm afraid. Call it defeatist or skepticism, but governments don't listen to protests in the current day. There was many anti war ones prior to the Iraq War, and look how that turned out.

Animals understand violence better than dialogue, and should always be met with such.

[communard resolution]

Followthewhiterabbit: I think that that is only correct when the reforms are granted from above, like under the Attlee government or under Chavez today. When workers force the capitalist state to give them reforms by the sheer social power they have, I think it strengthens consciousness and makes workers less apathetic and more open to revolutionary ideas. Of course, that's something that needs to be tested in reality.

Zimmerwald1915: I see now, but I don't think that's true. I think that even today, the fight for reforms is important, for the reasons given above.

Hi Yehuda, my post is obviously a bit of a Johnny-come-lately considering the actual debate's long over. Anyway, I don't understand the difference you are making between bottom-top reforms and reforms that come 'from above'. Isn't any reform 'from above' basically a concession to demands coming 'from below'?

A reform granted 'from above' according to your definition would be, for instance, if the bourgeoisie woke up one morning and decided out of the blue "today we're granting the proles a minimum wage because we're in a generous mood". But do such things ever happen, without prior struggle from below? I'd be hard pressed to think of an example.

What you call "workers forcing the capitalist state to give them reforms", I would simply call a demand. What you classify as a "reform granted from above", I would call a concession. Seeing as both are variables of the same function, would one not consequentially have to either absolutely reject or absolutely embrace reforms?

[Yehuda Stern]

No, you see, in some situations reforms could be granted preemptively by the ruling class to win over sections of the working class. This is, of course, a rare historical event. It happened in many of the state capitalist regimes which came to power after WWII, and was very clear in Israel, for example, where the Zionist regime gave the Jewish workers an extensive welfare state which won over many of them for decades and created a large labor aristocracy.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I don't think there are any 'red' (i.e. socialist) unions in Britain today. You'll find that most unions have to a large extent dropped even the rhetoric of socialism.

I think the CWUs charter commits the union to supporting the establishment of a "socialist society"... but then again, so does the Labour party's