Re: unions vs. the class struggle

[Mark Lockett <mlockett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18 Jan 1996, neil wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> These forums are one of the good  places where we can debate and discuss ideas
> and differences. It's the social world, class divided society where they get 
> the
> acid test  in practice. We thus, thru study and struggle, gain more knowlege 
> and
> can then  go through similar experiences agains and again to make positive
> contributions to the cause of the working class..
>
> In my 2  recent pieces on the unions and their class nature and practice , I
> surely drew some  historicaI  / contemporary based conclusions  based on much
> material evidence and experiences of the workers inside the unions. I myself
> have been in 3 AF of Hell unions in my life, I have worked with other 
> "Militant"
> union reform groups for years to try to " turn the policy to a class struggle
> path' and make them the 'schools for communism", etc.  Many  many new contacts
> have been made,  both positive and negative. Many trade unionists of the ranks
> themselves are  subjectively sincere and dedicated , and well meaning.

Well you could say the same thing about the former Socialist regimes of
Eastern Europe. Out of 7 nations in the Soviet Bloc in Europe, by the end
of 1991 all seven (East Germany, Poland, USSR, czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Romania and Bulgaria) all had collapsed, leaving their populations
impoverished.

Not only did this result but while they existed they routinely
imprisoned, tortured and killed all dissidents (including socialists).
Now if this occured in everyone of these countries then surely we should
not support socialism. Essentially this is the arguement of late 20th
century anarchism. And it is wrong for the same reason that your
arguement is wrong, your taking a very limited sample and generalising it.

> But as marxists, we should be materialists and scientific ones at that. Its 
> not
> just the subjective feelings of  individuals and/ or  groups or organizations
> that determies their social role ,  Iit is in the main  the objective role 
> they
> play in the ongoing struggles of classes in class divide society, wheher they
> help  perpetuate a decadent and barbaric social order, or whether they are 
> part
> of the artillery of the revolutionary cause of workers socialism and 
> communism.
> The track record of the unions themselves   exposes their  real class and 
> social
> role, to peddle the commodity wage labor on the cpaitalist market, to work 
> with
> the bosses to police the class and make certain the class struggles are kept
> penned in and then derailed.

AS I said before the unions exist precisely to negotiate compromises
between their members (Note their members and not all workers.) and the
employers - nothing more. (Well maybe they do provide some secondary
service to their members as well, but political purposes these are
unimportant.)

> They did not not start out exactly this way in the last century as i pointed
> out--they have from a working class point of view, degenerated and decayed and
> became instruments in the service of the  capitalist state and the rich in 
> each
> nation state.. As has been explianed, the 20th century  changes in the nature 
> of
> capitalism and developement into world economy and imperialism, and the defeat
> of mass movement s and revolutionary workers struggles has  greatly influenced
> this
>  process.
>
>
> marxists dont bellow that its just the individual bosses that make capitalism
> exploitative and anti-human  in  the present epoch. Its the institutions of
> capitalism and groups that work  to politically/industrially uphold  
> capitalist
> social relations that prop up the system. Changing republicans with democrats 
> is
> the bosses struggle not ours! Changing capitalist owners is the bosses fight,.
> not ours. Changing whether the "left' or the right leaders in the unions  
> police
> us  and help the
> bosses keep ramming it to us, fore and aft, is  not a struggle we should take
> sides in either. Pox on all their houses. May all their brains be palsied.!
> Our duty politicllay as revolutionaries is , however, to intervene in the 
> class
> struggles in all their forms , industrial, political, cultural, etc and expose
> the chicanery and fraud of the CON-servatives, Liberals, labor fakers, 
> Fascists,
> and ........Fake marxists, the  socialist labor fakers too!
> Revolutionaries in unions should stay in them and fight from within against 
> them
> to win workers to militant class motions , new political/industrial  groupings
> and connect this work to other  workers struggles.

And prey tell what will these 'new political/industrial  groupings' be
but none other than Unions!!! All your strategy calls for is the
replacement of the existing union structures by new union structures. You
haven't actually offered us anything new.
>
> L. Proyect must have a problem with reading & analysis  or is just putting up 
> a
> clever smokescreen . He should deal honestly with the many  factual points i
> have made to back up my controverial  contentions. His snide remarks about
> alleged  "bullshit"
> and "rhetoric" are in fact a most fitting response  for those who hold his
> outmoded views. If I wanted to defend politically bankrupt concepts in the 
> face
> of all evidence, i probably, a la Proyect, would not want to deal with the
> issues at hand, up front  either. If he can show with a good body of concrete
> evidence that  the unions in programme and practice are against the capitalist
> system and wage slavery. I would be forced to rethink my views and admit i was
> incorrect. But Proyect  is   totally impotent is this regard. C'mon Mr. 
> Proyect,
> the workers demand better!

You may well find that the Unions are in fact in favour of the capitalist
system. A revolutionary programme for a union is simply ridiculous. Why?
Because people don't join unions because they want to overthrow capitlism
and replace it with socialism. Worker join unions becasue they want their
working conditions to be defended.
>
[Deletia]

> In fact it is true that unions will be around with some hegemony both because
> the system demands they be available--there is the market for labor, and 
> because
> the workers cannot superceed them until the experience of mass struggle 
> impells
> them to build qualatatively superior  industrial organizations--really opposed
> to capital..

Unions will continue to be around not because capitalists demand them.
Capitalist in the main accept the existence of unions as 'necessary
evils'. Unions will continue to exist because workers will continue to
support an organisation that supports them.
>
> I hope this debate can continue and the objective reality of the crisis in the
> workers camp almost assuures it will.

I'm afraid I have to agree on this point, but perhaps my reasons are
different. >
> NC/LA
>
>
>
Mark Lockett
mlockett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pd.uwa.edu.au/Physics/Undergrads/Mark_Lockett/




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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