[PEN-L:1887] Re: French movement situation

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>Personally, Bill, I can't stand the tension any longer -- are you in
>favour of or opposed to the strike in France?
>
>
>And while we're on the subject of unions, Bill, if they just can't afford
>to win under capitalism (as you argue, if I understand your position),
>what should they do, fight to lose?
>
I have combined two mails from sid here.

sid asks in the first question what seems to be a simple yes/no type question.
i am afraid it is definitely not that simple. in the second he raises a
critical issue facing unionists - operate within the fetters or go and try to
break them down.

first of all i should say that the french strike is causing myself and my
closest friend great personal (non-material) damage at present (as a few of my
close mates on the list know). if other citizens are feeling the same level of
damage then the "external" costs are huge.

i mentioned the other day that i had been thinking about the strike (personal
details notwithstanding) in relation to an article by bob rowthorn. i dug out
the reference just then and here is a quote for those who do not know the
article.

>From Marxism Today, Nov 1977 "Inflation and Crisis"

"No matter how strongly organised the trade-unoin movement, however, there are
inherent limits to the effectiveness of purely economic struggle. Capitalists
control production and they will not invest unless they receive a certain
'normal' rate of profit. If wages rise too rapidly,..., the rate of profit
falls below its 'normal' level, capitalists refuse to invest, expansion grinds
to a standstill and there is a crisis. This crisis has two effects. Firstly, it
brings about changes in the sphere of production so that weaker capitals are
weeded out and there is a general improvement in production techniques. In
consequence, when the economy eventually recovers, less labour is needed than
previously and productivity rises sharply....Secondly, the crisis leads to a
sharp increase in unemployment, which brings home to workers the precariousness
of their position and forces them to moderate their demands or even to accept a
reduction in wages......

This may sound like a condemnation of the trade union movement, but it is not.
it is simply stating the obvious fact that, so long as capitalists control
production, they hold the whip hand, and workers cannot afford to be too
successful in the wages struggle. If they are, capitalists respond by refusing
to invest, and the result is a premature or longer crisis. To escape from this
dilemma workers must go beyond purely economic struggle and must fight at the
political level to exert control over production itself."

In this context, sid, the strikes are dismal failures and only show some
sectors of the trade union movement grasping for more for themselves without
fighting for the environment, the migrant workers, or even other non-migrant
workers (with whom they have a privileged position in relation to).

I am against trade unions fighting within the fetters of capitalism and
grasping for more material rewards for themselves at the expense of the working
class movement in general. that is the mindset of the french public sector
unions.

they didn't go on strike when the french dropped the bomb.
they are happy to waste resources in a bloated health system.
they don't stand up to protect the exploited migrants - far from it.

they are fighting for special privileges.

with that said, i cannot say that i am against the strikes. i am for anything
which destabilises the world capitalist order and pushes the world closer to
broad economic crisis. i am also for anything that makes life a little
uncomfortable for the docile middle class who have been bribed off with
mortgages and a host of stupid material possessions to put in their houses. if
they are shivering b/c they have to walk to work then the environment in that
part of the world gets a rest and they lose some fat.

that is why it is not a simple yes/no.

it is also saying that trade unions should represent the broader working class
(included the unemployed and disadvantaged) and not become sucked into
corporatist relationships with bosses and states.

and anyway sid, you pose two questions, but you did not address in any way the
substance of my recent mails. that seems a bit unfair eh?

kind regards
bill

--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Head of Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html