[PEN-L:1907] Response to Bill Mitchell

[D Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>]

Bill, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that "workers must go
beyond purely economic struggle and must fight at the political level to
exert control over production itself."  (Ironically, Canadian and
American workers who engaged in the political struggle against NAFTA
were condemned by significant sections of the folks on Pen for lining up
with reactionaries like Perot, Buchanan, etc. -- ignoring the fact that
those who were _supporting_ NAFTA were lined up with progressives
like the Business Roundtable, the international finance capital business,
Bill Clinton, etc.)

I don't agree, Bill, that "In this context...the strikes are dismal failures
[which] 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 contend that if this were the
case, the strikers would not be enjoying such a high level of public
approval in France, despite the best efforts of the government and the
capitalist press to paint them in much the same terms that you have
used.  In several interviews with folks on the street in Paris that I have
heard, people have expressed the view that the unions are defending
France's social safety net against neo-liberal incursions.

You say that "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."  Given the reaction of the French
public, I don't think it accurate to say that the French strikers are acting
"at the expense of the working class movement in general."  See above.

It's true that the French unions didn't go on strike when the french
dropped the bomb.  Ergo?  Progressives withhold their support until
they take the right position on this issue?

You state that "they are happy to waste resources in a bloated health
system."  What evidence do you have that these workers are "happy"
about the wastage of these resources, or that they are in any way
responsible for that wastage?  I have every confidence that the Canadian
public health care system needs improvement, but the cure for what ails
our health care system does lie neither in the gutting of the funding for
that system nor in the privatisation of this system along American lines
-- both of which our (neo-) Liberal federal government has been
promoting in the name of deficit reduction.

I know nothing one way or the other about whether these unions stand
up to protect exploited migrants.  If, in fact, it is the case (that they have
failed to stand up in this manner), then what?  You withhold support in
the current situation until these unions stand up to protect exploited
migrants?

I'm curious, Bill.  Do you, personally, make unions in your country
undergo a political litmus test prior to bestowing your solidarity when
they ask for it?

You summarise by saying that "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."

Forgive me if I'm not particularly sanguine about a political strategy
based on the old notion that "the worse it gets, the better."  Carrying
what sounds to me like a highly personalized, embitted political world
view to its logical conclusion, I would think that you would be
_opposed_ to forcing middle class folks to walk to work because the
exercise will improve their health and you don't think they're worthy of
having their health improved.

When it comes to taking sides in confrontations like the one in France,
we may be compelled to engage in a dispute that doesn't meet our own,
individual, exactly standards of how such a confrontation should be
conducted.  I suggest that, while it is vital for us to try to influence the
conduct of struggles along the lines we deem necessary and desirable, it
is of primary importance that we express our solidarity with the struggle
that is being waged.  If, instead, you choose to wait for the participants
in the struggle to meet your standards before adding the strength of your
viuce to theirs, you may be waiting for a very long time.

In solidarity with the striking French workers,

Sid Shniad

PS -- I neglected to hold on to several of your other postings, Bill.  If
you want me to address the points raised in them, I'm afraid that you'll
have to send them my way once again.  Sorry.