[Marxism] Police unions etc. (was: low point)

["Lou Paulsen" <LouPaulsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sayan wrote:

> What about police unions...? They exist in a lot of
> places. Should we support them? ...
> What about prison guards' unions? Prison guards' unions frequently
> lobby for stricter sentencing laws and building more prisons...
> Also, if employees at private mercenary security corporations like
> Blackwater or DynCorps were to unionize, should they be supported?
>====================================

Marvin wrote: 
I don't know of any contemporary labour federations which have rejected
affiliation by such unions, ... notwithstanding the reactionary views
they, like other unions, might hold on various social and political
questions.

Nor do I know of any current campaigns within labour organizations calling
for the dissolution of existing police and prison guards' unions, nor of any
grassroots sentiment which would favour such campaigns. The absence of such
opposition would indicate that this is currently not an issue for unionized
workers, and that efforts to make it one would be seen as a diversion from
present concerns.

- - -
Me:

The fact that trade unions in the US generally see police and guard unions
as unproblematic components of "the labor movement" is just another sign of
the bad state of trade union consciousness in the US and their general
insensitivity to national oppression.  

If you want to see "grassroots sentiment" which gives a proper evaluation of
these organizations, go into the African-American community and ask people
what they think of the police and guard unions.  They are just about
invariably the most horrible racist gangs you will see not wearing sheets,
which is not to say that they don't wear sheets on their own time.  Yes,
it's true that there are a lot of Black police and prison guards these days,
but that doesn't change the character of the political action of police and
guard unions, which is just about always for the "right" to torture, kill,
beat, assault, punish, and abuse people of the oppressed nations, poor, and
working people, with complete impunity and without any recourse or
oversight.  And this is not an accident.  This is a product of the material
reality of the police and prison guards, whose whole function is to occupy
communities and imprison and control and fight the poor and the oppressed,
day in and day out.  It's in their material interest to be able to terrorize
with complete autonomy and without fear of any consequences.

Here is the kind of thing police unions are about.  About ten years ago,
there was a hotly contested election in the police union in Chicago.  One of
the candidates put a float in the St. Patrick's Day parade with the idea of
really winning votes from the cops who were going to be there.  This float
depicted some vicious racist cops who were under investigation for serious
crimes, and was called "Victims of Injustice".

The only police organizations which are worth talking with in Chicago and
probably elsewhere are groups like the African-American Police League, which
has historically been a persecuted oppositional group within the police
force and which constantly stands up against police terror.  If you see a
police or guards' organization which is not spending its time fighting
racism and brutality, then it's almost certainly an enemy organization,
despite the fact that it may be an AFSCME affiliate.

As for "contractors' unions", this would certainly depend on the details.
Many of the private employees of these firms are doing food service work,
maintenance, construction, and so on.  Not all are gun-carrying mercenary
killers.  I hope that the reactionary nature of a "mercenary killers' union"
would be reasonably obvious to people.  However, even the hypothetical
"occupation army food service workers' union" would pose some problems.  The
chief problem is that their work depends on there being a continued
occupation.  Should their right to unionize be supported -against
Blackwater-?  I would say so, speaking in general, but a lot might depend on
the specific case.  

It's true that Marxists have always been in favor of organizing among
rank-and-file troops, and that "soldiers' unions" have played an important
subversive role.  I think one of the factors in making the distinction is
that working-class youth mostly do not go into the armed forces expecting
that they are making a lifetime career choice, in the US anyway.  Even when
there is not actual conscription, there is economic conscription.  No, they
don't lobby for wars.  They would prefer not to be used.  (They might lobby
for better equipment, though, which would pose us more problems.) 

Lou Paulsen
Member, WWP, Chicago  



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism