[Marxism] Socialist Action & Solidarity in the trade unions

[Adam Ritscher <northernadam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Joaquín,

I don't mean in any way to say that some members of
Solidarity don't do great work, especially labor work.
 I'm still not convinced that Solidarity, as an
organization, necessarily deserves credit for it
though.  And even more importantly I don't think the
labor work done by Solidarity members is a better
breed of race horse than that done by SA and others
who come from the SWP tradition.

On the first point it appears to me that it's the
people who use to be in the International Socialists
who are behind the labor projects Solidarity is often
associated with (TDU, Labor Notes, New Directions) and
that they work they do is just a continuation of the
IS labor projects.  Soliarity as an organization
doesn't seem to direct the labor work of its members,
at least this is what I've been told by some friends
of mine who use to be in Solidarity (I won't
exagerate, I'm only talking about 2 people here, so I
may be wrong).  In fact I gather there are members in
Soliarity who disagree with the rank and file caucus
approach followed by the former members of IS.

On the second point I will say that the work of the
former International Socialists in the unions, while
substantial and impressive on some fronts, is far from
above ideal in my humble opinion.  Solidarity is much
bigger than Socialist Action, and there aren't many
workplaces or unions where we both have members
working side by side to compare our different
apporaches, but the few places where we do I have to
say that I haven't been impressed with Solidarity.

The Teamsters are a good example.  While we only have
a few comrades in the IBT, I think our work in
defending Ron Carey from that government frameup was
exemplary given what we had to work with.  TDU did a
rather shameful thing, I felt, in basically washing
its hands of Carey on the assumption he was dirty.  We
weren't able to turn the tide, but we reached a lot of
people with the message that its labor who should get
to decide who its leaders are, not the state.

In NYC we both have comrades in TWU 1000 and the ISers
decades long project of building a rank and file
caucus around minimal issues got their slate elected,
but they ended up getting a monster elected who has
turned on the former rank and file slate that got him
elected.  The low level of politics in the rank and
file slate's campaign, AND the decision to dissolve
the caucus once the old guard was removed, left the
ranks unprepared for what happened.

Now In the case of the Ron Carey issue SA and
Solidarity really butted heads.  There was some
shouting at some forums, some good old fashioned
street corner arguments between members. and a nasty
little tiff over a conference of Labor Party members
that we helped build that tried to get that group to
take a stand against government intervention in the
unions. The Carey issue aside though, we've sincerely
tried to work with Solidarity members in the few
unions and workplaces where we both have members (like
TWU 1000).  But our experience hasn't been very
pleasant.  Granted I think when members of any two
different groups find themselves face to face there is
going to be a certain hesitation - but a number of
Soli members seem to have a nasty case of
'non-sectarian' sectarianism.  There have been some
shining exceptions, but a number of SA comrades have
experienced the cold shoulder from Soli members who
don't seem to want anything to do with activists who
still believe in a vanguard party.

For example, back in the 1990s when SA initiated ICAM
(a coalition of the many rail unions) and Straight
Track newspaper - a very succesful project that
brought together hundreds of rail unionists to fight
against concessions and to break down craft barriers -
Labor Notes gave us the cold shoulder.  They wanted
the mailing list for Straight Track, but refused to
use their network to help build on ICAM's momentum.  I
guess they were worried we would steal some of their
thunder, or something, but in any event it was a major
missed opportunity for the left in the rail unions.

Anyway, my goal isn't to nitpick about what some
Solidarity members said to an SA member back in 19
whenever, I just want to express that it isn't always
the hated "vangaurdists" who are the sectarian ones,
and I don't think Solidarity's labor work should be
put on an unassailable pedistal.

Socialist Action and Solidarity have very different
approaches in our labor work.  In SA we view building
rank and file caucuses as a tactical thing.  Sometimes
it's appropriate, but we don't think it's always
useful to automatically go into a union and declare
war on the leadership.  We still uphold the old SWP's
"flanking tactic" which says that it's sometimes more
useful to form an alliance with certain trade union
leaders around issues where you have agreement.  Now
in a mob led union, a declaration of war is more than
in order, but otherwise you need to be flexible.

Where I live, in Duluth, MN, we spent two years
working intensely with HERE on an organizing campaign.
 We disagreed with a lot of their policies - the top
down nature of their union, their reliance on the Dems
- and we told them that; but we focused on working
with them on the organizing drive because we had
agreement on that basic point.  It was a very
important campaign for the labor movement as a whole,
we felt that's where our energies should be focused -
not on forming a rank and file oppositon caucus.  I
even got hired on HERE's staff with an explicit
agreement from the union that as a socialist I
wouldn't support their electoral work, but would just
do organizing.  With that relationship established
with the HERE local leadership we got their
endorsement of the local anti-war rally (which was a
HUGE boost for our anti-war work, and opened up the
door to getting a broad range of labor participation
in the anti-war movement here, so much that that alone
made all of work on the organizing drive worthwhile!),
some gay rights protests, and the respect that allowed
us to recruit a fraction within their union, and bring
some others closer to us.

Now that's a simplistic example, but I hope it
illustrates what I'm trying to get across.  I think
the old fashioned Trotskyist idea of building a class
struggle left wing - which you do through a WIDE
variety of tactics and by bringing politics into the
unions in a sensible, flexible but aggresive way -
gets better results when compared side by side with
the IS rank and file caucuses approach.

Having said all that, I'll concede that I'm only 27,
and since I grew up on a farm my exposure to the labor
movement only began when I joined SA, so my
expereience in the labor movement is less than a
decade long.  I don't mean any disrespect to the
Solidarity members who have spent a life time fighting
the mob in the Teamsters, often at considerable
personal risk, but it's out of respect that I say what
I say.  The left needs to have more discussion on this
sort of thing!

"Red"ily yours,


Adam Ritscher

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism