Re: unions --for or against capitalism?

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

There is a real debate to be had here.

Neil writes things like:
> > The key thing is that  most all unions today , are defenders of the wages 
> > system
> > and are based on peddling the commodity labor power. They build careers for
> > traitors who fatten themselves on dues/investments. They use thuggery and
> > censorship to silence the ranks! They  have huge monies and real estate  and
> > stock investments  IN the system. They are integrated by law into the 
> > capitalist
> > state. They police the workers for capital. (80s Teamster president  J. 
> > Presser
> > was  a "red squad" FBI fink, etc).
> > Meany , Kirkland and CWAs Bierne  all work with the CIA --against the 
> > workers
> > throughout the world for American imperialism.

> > UAW -(-Errr, today thats "U Aint Workin") presidents Beiber and Fraser 
> > helped
> > the bosses oversee the 500, 000 US workers sacked in the  1980-94 period in 
> > auto
> > , tens of thousands more on vicious speed-ups and overwork , saddled with 2 
> > tier
> > concessions contracts!
> > How much different would having an OPEN company union be for workers???
> > US papers admit in 1994, US union workers pay dropped 3.0% while those left 
> > at
> > the bosses mercy with no workplace organization got smacked with a LOWER 
> > 2.7%
> > cut-in one year, worst since the early 30s! What great persuance of the 
> > needs of
> > the working class by the unions!


Mark writes things like :
> Maybe so, but the difference between an effective union leadership and an
> ineffective union leadership is that the effective one does defend it's
> member's rights. The difference is not that an effective union leadership
> promotes socialist revolution and an ineffective one does not.

> I think neil has made a grave error here, he has confused the unions with
> their present leadership. Having done this he now thinks that the only
> way to get rid of them is to destroy the unions.
>
> Now if that doesn't help the conservatives I don't know what will.

Iwao writes things like:
> IMO, all we need is a full of exchange of concrete situations that activists 
> face
> at workplaces and at union locals, and thus encourage our activists and 
> strengthen
> our unity through more concrete struggles.


Raymond Hickman writes things like:
> 'if you agitate
> for more industrial militancy, that just what you get, more
> industrial militancy'. What you don't necessarily get is
> revolutionary change.


Rosa Luxembourg wrote things like:
"The trade union struggle is like the Labour of Sysiphus" !

Adam Rose ( ie me ) writes things like:
> So socialists need to pressure the leaders to promise action,
> and when they have promised it, we need to force them to actually do
> it. At the same time, we need to organise the rank + file so that
> we are in a position to move independently of the union leaders.
> Also, we need to draw links between the reformist politics of the
> trade union leaders and their vacillating leadership, and explain
> why a political opposition to their reformism is needed.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------