NY Transit Strike
Jan 10 2006 11:14
Hi,
There hasn't been much discussion here of the significance of the NY Transit Strike that took place just before Christmas. Our comrades in the US have written a statement on this important struggle, which has been published here: http://en.internationalism.org/inter/137_ny_transit_strike
They think that...
Internationalism wrote:
On behalf of a working class that has been enduring a full scale attack on its pensions, transit workers essentially drew a line in the sand and refused to accept any change whatsoever in the pension. They struck to protect the retirement pension of workers who are not yet on the job, what they called “our unborn” – their future, unknown colleagues. As such, this struggle became the clearest embodiment of the movement to reaffirm working class self-identity and solidarity to date. ... It resonated with many workers in many industries, who can see that someone had finally stood up and said, “Don’t mess with pensions!”
The reaffirmation of the working class’s ability to see and comprehend itself as a class could be seen on many levels and in many manifestations in the transit struggle. Clearly the central issue itself – protection of the pensions for future workers – embodied this aspect. This was not just on an abstract level, but could be seen and heard on a very concrete level as well.
Internationalism wrote:
For example, at a picketline at a bus depot in Brooklyn, dozens of workers gathered in small groups to discuss the strike. One worker said he didn’t think it was right to strike over the pensions for future workers, for people we don’t even know. His co-workers countered by arguing that the future workers affected by accepting the cuts in the pensions, “could be our kids.” Another said it was important to maintain the unity of different generations in the workforce. He pointed out that in the future, it would be likely that the government would try to cut the medical benefits or pension payments to “us when we retire. And it will be important for the guys working then to remember that we stood up for them, so they will stand up for us and keep them from cutting our benefits.” Similar discussions occurred elsewhere around the city, clearly and concretely reflecting the tendency for workers to see themselves as a class, to look beyond the barriers of generation that capitalism seeks to use to divide them against themselves.Other workers driving by the picket lines honked their horns in solidarity and yelled cheers of support. In Brooklyn, a group of teachers at a nearby elementary school expressed their solidarity by discussing the strike with their students and brought their classes of students ranging in age from 9-12 years old to visit the picket line. The kids brought Christmas cards to the strikers with messages like, “We support you. You are fighting for respect.”
The children were assigned by their teachers to interview the strikers, and the kids asked the workers what kind of jobs they did and why they were striking.
The day after the strike was over, one of our comrades boarded a city bus and had a conversation with the driver that illustrated the strides made in this struggle. After he paid his fair he told the driver, a 35-year old Latino worker, “You guys did the right thing.”
The driver responded, “But we didn’t win. We went to back to work without a contract.”
“But what really matters is what you did. You said don’t fuck with pensions, workers need to stick together, no matter what. It’s an important example for other workers,” said our comrade.
To this the driver replied, “Yeah, it’s true. It was important that we stood up for the working class.”
The attacks on pensions are becoming a central concern for the working class, and not just in the UK. What does everyone else think?
Beltov.
Jan 10 2006 11:31
#2
Pensions are a bit more important though, and isn't striking for any improvement in conditions tied to capitalism?
Pensions are a major worry, by the time we'll all be retiring, it's very unlikely that there will be state pensions.
Jan 10 2006 11:40
#3
jimmer wrote:
Pensions are a bit more important though, and isn't striking for any improvement in conditions tied to capitalism?
Pensions are a major worry, by the time we'll all be retiring, it's very unlikely that there will be state pensions.
Jimmer calm down ducky I've not went mental, I was asking a rhetorical question to our ICC comrade.
And how are pensions anymore important privitisation per se, I mean they can be but also privitisation will more often than not include issues such as pensions, health and safety, workers rights etc etc.
Jan 10 2006 11:51
#4
Sorry, I thought you'd lost it. 
I think as time moves on, pensions will become more and more of an issue. Privitisation might bring with it the issues you've mentioned but it doesn't have to. It's entirely possible for a private company to offer better health and safety, workers rights etc. whilst I accept that it's unlikely it is just swapping one set of bosses for another.
Jan 10 2006 12:04
#5
jimmer wrote:
Sorry, I thought you'd lost it.I think as time moves on, pensions will become more and more of an issue. Privitisation might bring with it the issues you've mentioned but it doesn't have to. It's entirely possible for a private company to offer better health and safety, workers rights etc. whilst I accept that it's unlikely it is just swapping one set of bosses for another.
yeah but it's not just swapping one set of bosses for another, it is entirely tied to the rolling back of the gains the working class forced upon the state, in many cases it's about pishing away the social wage.
Jan 10 2006 12:16
#6
I don't think nationalisation in Britain was a significant working class gain. British Coal was only created because the mines were either bankrupt or struggling financially. Whilst I'd agree that the reality of privatisation is pretty shit, I don't think the concept of it is seriously different from state ownership.
Jan 10 2006 12:25
#7
no i'm talking more about stuff like rail networks, water supply and other social services that are being make "competitive". These are essentially attempts to shift the social wage.
For example they are going to privitise the water boards in Northern Ireland and introduce meters, this is a serious assault on the social wage as people will be expected to pay and extra 400 quid a year for their water. It's not just the 400 quid thats the issue is the very concept of a social wage, the very concept of somethings not being left wide open to market forces.
Jan 10 2006 12:28
#8
Yeah, that's bad... 
What you planning on doing about it then?
Jan 10 2006 12:36
#9
Hi
There is little I find less enjoyable than having to agree with revol, however...
Quote:
I don't think nationalisation in Britain was a significant working class gain
All those final salary pensions that are being closed down, and which private sector workers are going to have to bail out with longer hours and lower pay, are in formally nationalised industries and the public sector.
Without primary industrial activity, the money supply is too fragile for us too afford the "social wage", the loss of which revol (seems to) lament.
Love
LR
Jan 10 2006 12:54
#10
Hi
Quote:
What you planning on doing about it then?
Reopen the coal mines to give us free energy, bury the carbon monoxide under the sea. Promote working class autonomy using a media stunt campaign. Start an immediate programme of reindustrialisation and the creation of self managed enterprises.
Quote:
It's not just the 400 quid thats the issue is the very concept of a social wage.
This is quite an interesting point. Before water privatisation you could get locked up for not paying your rates, now they’re more or less forced to negotiate “arrangements” with people who can’t pay. The problem is that the price is higher (N. Ireland was let off privatisation ‘coz the bailiffs would be kneecapped, there’s a lesson there for comrades in the South West of England).
Quote:
the very concept of somethings not being left wide open to market forces
In what way is there an open market for water supply? The reason why they get away with selling our water back to us at a profit is because they operate a state monopoly by proxy. They call it “market forces” to distract Bolsheviks into their usual set of irrelevant histrionics. The irony is that water company stock exchange profits fund final salary pensions, what’s required here is bit of real consumer democracy.
Perhaps a solidarity campaign aimed at workers within the water (and for that matter pensions) industry is called for. I can imagine a few pro-working class "computer errors" might help alleviate our financial difficulties.
We could write off working class debt and clear our water bills with a few key strokes.
Love
LR
Jan 10 2006 19:43
#11
The fight for pensions is important because it speaks of the bankruptcy of the entire system. Workers don't want to die on the job. They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest. If capitalism can't even offer that anymore (and it can't) then it will dawn on us that the system itself needs to go.
About privatisation, I think it is just a way tof attacking workers' living standards and jobs. The problem is when we start fighting privatisations in themselves rather than seeing them as one way among many to achieve the bourgeoisie's goals. These same goals can be achieved through nationalisations. Hugo Chavez is a master at this.
Workers ought to fight the attacks on workers in whatever guise they come.
The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.
Jan 10 2006 20:26
#12
Hi
Quote:
They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest.
We want more than that you commie, stop selling us out!
Live Without Dead Time, Indulge Untrammelled Desire.
Love
LR
Jan 10 2006 21:04
#13
from another thread:
Quote:
also, gave moral support (i can walk just about everywhere i need to go, lucky sod) to the TWU (me da's old union) strike, in the face of incredibly vicious attacks even from previously worker-friendly press (though many who were discomfited still rallied to the workers, which was beautiful).there was a moment when the metro-north workers hinted that they'd strike in solidarity, and it looked as if there might actually be a real live demonstration of industrial unionism. it would have been an amazing thing to see. but then they didn't walk.
that was my disappointment: that other unions hinted at a mass walkout, then didn't. i keep reading the IWW talk about the power of industrial unionism, and here we would all get a demonstration of it, but ... nothing.
the TWU has been a tough (by US standartds) union, and the fact that they walked at all is a breath of fresh air. the last time (3 years ago) however they folded, and toussaint had to stay tough this time, and carried through pretty well, though there are still TWU board members who are calling for rejection of the health-care contribution, and to walk out again. all this has actually created debate in the mass press on many facets: unionism itself, benefits, salaries, even capitalism. that sort of talk has been unheard for AGES.
Jan 10 2006 22:36
#14
Hi
Quote:
The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.
Yes it is nice. Having said that, the more workers that belong to the existing fund then the larger and more profitable that body of capital will be. By keeping the fund open to new members, those who are currently enjoying its benefits are looking after their own best financial interests the expense of workers in the private sector with pensions backed by the stock market rather than tax.
Love
LR
Jan 10 2006 22:46
#15
Lazy Riser wrote:
HiQuote:
The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.Yes it is nice. Having said that, the more workers that belong to the existing fund then the larger and more profitable that body of capital will be. By keeping the fund open to new members, those who are currently enjoying its benefits are looking after their own best financial interests the expense of workers in the private sector with pensions backed by the stock market rather than tax.
Love
LR
Lazy you really have no belief in any kind of unselfish action.
Incidentally it does not follow that larger funds are more profitable, in fact smaller funds are often more profitable because they do not affect the market by trading.
Quote:
They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest.
Who does? I want 10 years before, not at the end. I'll be incontinent, my cock won't work and Lazy will be dead and won't be able to amuse me.
Jan 10 2006 23:08
#16
Hi
Quote:
Incidentally it does not follow that larger funds are more profitable, in fact smaller funds are often more profitable because they do not affect the market by trading.
True. But ongoing, growing, public sector defined benefit pension funds topped up by tax are more profitable that closed ones with a shrinking, aging membership.
They are also easier to default on after everyone in them has retired. What are they going to do about it? Withdraw their labour?
Do have any investment tips for us, Jef? If you had a few thousand to invest, where would you put it in the best interests of the working class. (Careful revol, I know where you'd like to put it).
Quote:
Lazy you really have no belief in any kind of unselfish action.
I have no “belief” in anything but the awesome power of the working class acting ruthlessly to its own game plan.
Love
LR
Jan 10 2006 23:39
#17
Lazy Riser wrote:
Do have any investment tips for us, Jef? If you had a few thousand to invest, where would you put it in the best interests of the working class.
I just put a grand into an ISA but I can't honestly say that it was for the good of the working class. I don't really know shit about nuts and bolts investments. If you have any info Lazy I have some money I'd like to stash for a holiday in a few months.
I'd like to make some money quickly, if you have any advice.
Jan 11 2006 00:26
#18
Hi
Mate, if I had a cast iron way of making money fast, I'd be sure to let all my comrades in on the secret. I was thinking of fitting curves over price movements of key stocks, taking first order differentials and predicting turning points, but as revol68 puts it, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it.
Love
LR
Jan 11 2006 01:22
#19
Lazy Riser wrote:
HiMate, if I had a cast iron way of making money fast, I'd be sure to let all my comrades in on the secret. I was thinking of fitting curves over price movements of key stocks, taking first order differentials and predicting turning points, but as revol68 puts it, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it.
Love
LR
it doesn't sound that simple to me.
Crime is a good way of making money fast, I have a few ideas but lack the nerve. I have a criminal mind and a coward's disposition.
I've got a new job, which pays better, so I am going to get some more cash. I'm trying to accumulate capital right now.
Jan 11 2006 10:04
#20
Karl Marx was rubbish at making money on the stock exchange. His mother is supposed to have said "if only Karl was as good at making capital as writing about it", which shows she was still a Jewish mother at heart.
However, this discussion has gone totally off topic. It was supposed to be a discussion about the NY transit strike, class solidarity, and the difference between class demands - such as the defence of wages, jobs, benefit and pension levels etc - and bourgeois slogans like 'defend the nationalised industries'.
Alibadani pointed out that privatisation (and nationalisation) is often used as a cover for real attacks on working and living conditions; the attacks have to be fought, but workers have no interest in choosing between private or state bosses.
Jan 11 2006 12:27
#21
Alf wrote:
Karl Marx was rubbish at making money on the stock exchange. His mother is supposed to have said "if only Karl was as good at making capital as writing about it", which shows she was still a Jewish mother at heart.However, this discussion has gone totally off topic. It was supposed to be a discussion about the NY transit strike, class solidarity, and the difference between class demands - such as the defence of wages, jobs, benefit and pension levels etc - and bourgeois slogans like 'defend the nationalised industries'.
Alibadani pointed out that privatisation (and nationalisation) is often used as a cover for real attacks on working and living conditions; the attacks have to be fought, but workers have no interest in choosing between private or state bosses.
who has ever raised the slogan "defend nationalised industries"? Sounds like something the Sparts would put on a banner.
My point was that privitisations struggles are essentially about workers defending themselves from further attack, afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.
Jan 11 2006 12:45
#22
Hi
Quote:
afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.
This is true. But do you remember the "if you see Sid, tell him" campaign when British Gas was privatised? The BT shares deal was also heavily sold to the “aspirational” working class, not to mention BT staff themselves, who were happy to give up “job security” for the sake of a quick return.
Even now, when everyone’s sold their shares back to the banks, we’re still being told how BT’s privatisation has made phone calls much cheaper than they’d otherwise be.
It’s all connected up too. I used to work for a subsidiary of previously nationalised Rover that had been sold to AT&T and had a Rover style Final Salary Pension. AT&T sold the subsidiary, and employees had to transfer their pensions into a private sector fund, which was a quite shit in comparison. On they way, most of them (not the mighty LR, I hasten to add) were convinced to “contract out” of SERPS, yet another pension con played on the working class. They all had letters last year telling them to buy they’re way back into SERPS at considerable cost. Looking back on it, I’m not even sure it was legal, but in small companies it’s unlikely that anyone will have enough job security to “rock the boat”.
Love
LR
Jan 11 2006 12:45
#23
I wasn't accusing Revol of raising the pro-nationalisation slogan. But the Trotskyists and anti-globalists use the struggle against privatisation in exactly that sense.
When the bosses introduce attacks on wages, jobs, etc under the cover of privatisation, we have to respond to the attacks as such, not demand that the state remains in control.
Jan 11 2006 13:01
#24
Hi
As an occasional public sector employee I can vouch for it being a complete doss compared to having to meet the performance targets required in private industry.
When you look at the income and assets of these firms, you realise that they’re not just imposed because “capitalists are evil” either, if you don’t do something to bring cash in, there really will be no money to pay anyone’s wages. And woe betide you if turn up at the dole office having left “voluntarily”, nasty business.
Love
LR
Jan 11 2006 16:13
#25
revol68 wrote:
Who has ever raised the slogan "defend nationalised industries"? Sounds like something the Sparts would put on a banner.My point was that privitisations struggles are essentially about workers defending themselves from further attack, afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.
Revol, you seemed to be saying that it's a 'lesser evil' for the water to remain in 'state' hands rather than in 'private' hands, and in a sense implying that in an anti-privatisation campaign you would defend a call for water to remain in state hands. It's similar to other campaigns promoted on Libcom, such as the campaign to 'defend council housing' here:
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7341
You're right to say that privatisation is not done in the interests of the working class. There's a seperate argument to be had about why the ruling class uses privatisations, and to what degree state capitalism has actually extended its grip on society during the past 20 years.
But what we're saying is that the leftist's defence of 'state ownership' is a great trap for the working class. The NY Transit Strike is a good example that even under state ownership the working class is being attacked. The employer, the MTA, is in effect the local authority if I'm not mistaken. If you look back to the '60s and '70s the nationalised industries (coal, motors etc) made hundreds of thousands of workers redundant. What we do defend is the working class raising demands against attacks on pensions, wages, jobs because these are 'class' demands they are common to wider sectors of workers, and as such can pose the foundation for the generalisation and unification of struggles.
Anti-privatisation campaigns that defend 'state ownership' as an advance for the working class tend, on the one hand, to divide 'private' and 'state' employed workers against each other - for example in the health, postal and transport sectors. Also, such campaigns are divisive at the international level as they pit 'British' workers against 'American', 'German', 'Chinese' workers etc. During the miners strike the NUM raised the defence of 'British Coal' against 'Polish' imports, thus tying the workers to the interests of the national capital rather than those of the intenational proletariat.
The working class has to defend itself against ALL attacks AS A CLASS, regardless of whether the attacks come from 'private' or 'state' bosses. So YES to class demands that unify the class and strengthen its self-identity, and NO to demands that tie the class to the interests of the national capital!
Beltov.
Jan 11 2006 16:35
#26
Beltov wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Who has ever raised the slogan "defend nationalised industries"? Sounds like something the Sparts would put on a banner.My point was that privitisations struggles are essentially about workers defending themselves from further attack, afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.
Revol, you seemed to be saying that it's a 'lesser evil' for the water to remain in 'state' hands rather than in 'private' hands, and in a sense implying that in an anti-privatisation campaign you would defend a call for water to remain in state hands. It's similar to other campaigns promoted on Libcom, such as the campaign to 'defend council housing' here:
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7341
You're right to say that privatisation is not done in the interests of the working class. There's a seperate argument to be had about why the ruling class uses privatisations, and to what degree state capitalism has actually extended its grip on society during the past 20 years.
But what we're saying is that the leftist's defence of 'state ownership' is a great trap for the working class. The NY Transit Strike is a good example that even under state ownership the working class is being attacked. The employer, the MTA, is in effect the local authority if I'm not mistaken. If you look back to the '60s and '70s the nationalised industries (coal, motors etc) made hundreds of thousands of workers redundant. What we do defend is the working class raising demands against attacks on pensions, wages, jobs because these are 'class' demands they are common to wider sectors of workers, and as such can pose the foundation for the generalisation and unification of struggles.
Anti-privatisation campaigns that defend 'state ownership' as an advance for the working class tend, on the one hand, to divide 'private' and 'state' employed workers against each other - for example in the health, postal and transport sectors. Also, such campaigns are divisive at the international level as they pit 'British' workers against 'American', 'German', 'Chinese' workers etc. During the miners strike the NUM raised the defence of 'British Coal' against 'Polish' imports, thus tying the workers to the interests of the national capital rather than those of the intenational proletariat.
The working class has to defend itself against ALL attacks AS A CLASS, regardless of whether the attacks come from 'private' or 'state' bosses. So YES to class demands that unify the class and strengthen its self-identity, and NO to demands that tie the class to the interests of the national capital!
Beltov.
what in the name of christ are you babbling about? My point was that workers fight back against privitisation not cause of some great belief in nationalisation but rather cos it 99% of the time represents a direct attack on them.
Jan 11 2006 16:57
#27
Hi
For the love of man, Beltov, you know what my politics are like, and even I can see that your pendantic application of orthodoxy to revol's position is impractical, not to mention irrational.
This is going to be "1939" all over again, isn't it. Stopping privatisation is not "defending the left of capital", it's a side-effect of class war.
Love
LR
Jan 11 2006 20:03
#28
You guys, the problem is that many workers and others DO see state ownership as inherently better in itself than private ownership. The leftists certainly preach that all the time. You'll notice that very few workers in Venezuela are out fighting against nationalisations. None of the leftists are out fighting nationalisations. Why is this? Is it not because they feel that state property is better that private porperty?
Aren't the workers and peasants in Bolivia calling FOR the nationalisation of natural resources there? WHY? Isn't that , and I'll quote revol, "some great belief in nationalisation"? Nationalisations can be used to attack workers living standards just as well and perhaps even better. Just look at Venezuela. Look at what Chavez did to the petrol workers there, or what he's doing to state workers as well. He has managed to do what the rightists could only dream of, all in the name of "socialism." Workers find themselves fighting for one set of bosses who screw them just as hard.
This is gettting repetitive. But I guess that's what it takes. When revolutionaries intervene in the struggles of workers we must try and clarify things. We must encourage the struggles against the attacks on workers. We must also discourage any illusions in state property. We must explain (patiently) that privatisation is a way among many to attack our jobs and living standards, but that the problem isn't privatisation per se. It is the state itself that is spearheading the attacks on us. It makes no sense to defend state property as if that were some sort of safeguard against the attacks of the state.
I hope you'll expand on the argument that fighting against privatisations isn't a defense of state property. Also, maybe you could you start a thread calling for a fight against nationalisations in Venezuela, since we all know that nationalisations have been just as disastrous for Venezuelan workers as privatisations have been to workers elsewhere?
Jan 11 2006 20:56
#29
Hi
Quote:
the problem is that many workers and others DO see state ownership as inherently better in itself than private ownership
The problem, I think you’ll find, is bourgeois control of the economy. Whether or not workers prefer the public sector is based on the net wage on offer (which is a combination of income, job security, low work tempo and status). It’s a fair point though, it’s much easier to get a mortgage or good value rented accommodation if you work in the public sector, the lenders/landlords are less likely to have regular payments interrupted. The pensions are better as well. Regardless, the discovery that workers prefer a higher real income is hardly a problem; in fact we’re going to rely on that if we ever want to achieve anything politically worthwhile.
Quote:
Aren't the workers and peasants in Bolivia calling FOR the nationalisation of natural resources there?
Even if the use of “natural resources” in place of “companies” there isn’t a cynical twisting of language to win a point for the sake of it, it certainly looks like it. Anyway, cite your sources for the workers and peasants in Bolivia calls for the “nationalisation” of firms, I could just as easily recast it “protect our net incomes”. Nationalisation may well be the only option the bourgeoisie are offering though, I’m not contending the spirit of your position here. I saw the SWP calling for the renationalisation of Rover the other day, not the working class. Peasants calling for nationalisation? That I’ve got to see.
Quote:
I hope you'll expand on the argument that fighting against privatisations isn't a defense of state property
Why? Are you being sarcastic? I think so. Please show how allowing it to happen is in the best interests of the working class, really, I’d appreciate it.
Now, any Internationalist that wants to post anything that does not address that issue directly, please do it on a different thread. We have a war against the bourgeoisie to fight on this one.
Love
LR
Jan 11 2006 21:58
#30
Quote:
As an occasional public sector employee I can vouch for it being a complete doss compared to having to meet the performance targets required in private industry.
Lazy, I really thought I'd educated you out of this fiction for a moment the other day. Do you seriously still believe that the public sector isn't contorting itself to death trying to meet performance targets?
plus its not a complete doss. its increasingly insecure as i've pointed out on other threads. where exactly is this public sector nivana you have inhabited?
education? health? housing? do tell.
isn't striking over pensions abit like striking over privitisation, you know completely tied to capitalism?