[Marxism] Re: Socialist Action & Solidarity in the trade unions

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   I really do not mean to be cruel, but the main difference between
Socialist Action and Solidarity is that Solidarity exists -- and outside
of the Bay Area.  Jeff Mackler, the leader of Solidarity, was and, as
far as I know, still is one of the most outstanding mass workers of my
generation in the Socialist Workers Party.  And out West, its unlikely
that anybody can be around the antiwar movement without seeing the
positive role that he and other Socialist Action activists play in the
antiwar movement, in the Mumia struggle.  He has good sense.

  He is a real revolutionary, too, and a dedicated Trotskyist who has
devoted his life to the cause.  But his commitment to Trotskyism as the
exclusive, necessary ideology of a real revolutionary party, and of the
"Leninist structure" -- not the "voluntary" totalitarainism that Barnes
defends, but the tradition of Cannon -- the tradition of Trotskyism as a
party disciplined and centralized around Trotskyist ideas.  A
disciplined, centralized IDEOLOGICAL grouping.  Mackler and SA are
strong fighters for the Cuban revolution in the United States, but they
have learned little from it in terms of fundamental politics.  They
don't see the success and subsequent development of the Cuban leadership
as the watershed that it really is from the standpoint of building a
revolutionary party in our period.  (Frankly, I still believe that the
fundamental question is not Cochranism vs. Zinovievism, but this one.)
They have stuck with Trotskyism as "the answer" and therefore resist the
tendency for Trotsky's contributions and the positive experiences and
ideas of the Trotskyist movement to become gradually absorbed by a
different kind of revolutionary organization -- one that is not about
beleaguered ideas that demand defending, but about a real revolutionary
movement taking shape in the world.

  They continue to see Cuba as the best of many "exceptions" to the rule
that all revolutions must be led by "Trotskyist" parties, and not as an
example of how to forge a revolutionary leadership and movement.

  So they show little interest in the beginnings of a regroupment
process in the United States which is not going to end in a "Trotskyist"
party.  I believe that is historically excluded.

  Now on the unions.  The truth is that the SWP always believed in a lot
of autonomy for the trade union fractions, not only nationally, but
locally.  The concept of PC control (as opposed to discussion, etc.) of
all trade union work was actually rejected by Cannon et al. It was only
in the Later Barnes Era that this autonomy disappeared in favor of
"political centralism" and the line for each fraction was developed by
the Political Committee (in "consultation" with the fraction leadership)
and presented under discipline by the homogeneous fraction leaderships,
selected on criteria developed by the political committee and assigned
the task of creating completely homogeneous work by fraction members
across the union.


  Solidarity, for a small organization in today's situation, has a lot
of trade union work going on.
Quite a bit of it does originate with the IS historically.  But we have
to note that the ISers as well as the SWP members like the recently
retired Dianne Feeley who were in industry are aging out of industry
now.  The members of Solidarity in industry tend to be considerably
younger than those from the older generations who formed Solidarity in
the fusions of the late 80s, early 90s.

  In general, Solidarity today is oriented much more to becoming rank
and file workers in industry and less and less toward getting elected to
posts or taking jobs as officials.  And they are oriented more toward
rank and file workers, while not being sectarian about the openings to
work with this or that official.

  In my last meeting, there was a discussion among transit workers from
the region, organized as a group.  There was a debate over the degree of
emphasis to be put on rank-and-file activity against the intensifying
job-cuts and takebacks and on a newsletter aimed at union members that
had been developed  The issue was debated in the branch, although it was
understood that the people on the job were in the best position to
resolve the problem with the help of a discussion by the branch as a
whole.

  I didn't see anything wrong with that approach.  Solidarity is
definitely somewhat slow-moving (partly an age problem but perhaps a
political question as well) and has other problems, but I think it is
advancing. While, in my sad judgment, Socialist Action, with ups and
downs, is basically continuing to wither despite some very strong and
talented leaders, because of it's adherence to a narrow, exclusive, and
frankly out-of-date approach to the building of a revolutionary
organization in the United States and elsewhere.
Fred Feldman


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