Radical perspectives on the crisis

Another interesting blog is Marx and the financial crisis of 2008, though less updated.

that andrew klinman article (on the isj site) looks quite good from a brief skim through

Yes, I found it quite interesting. I have a problem understanding one of his arguments, though.
Andrew Kliman

But from 2000 to 2005 after-tax income (not adjusted for inflation) rose just 34.7 percent, barely one third of the increase in home prices. This is precisely why the real-estate bubble proved to be a bubble. A rise in asset prices or expansion of credit is never excessive in itself. It is excessive only in relation to the underlying flow of value.

I understand the main thrust of the argument, but can't see how "after-tax income" is related to value (and what "after-tax income" is, in the first place. English economic terminology is still a mystery to me.) Can somebody help?

Btw, the article is here.

if you read it in the context of the paragraph above it it makes more sense

The increases in home prices were far in excess of the flow of value from new production that alone could guarantee repayment of the mortgages in the long run. The new value created in production is ultimately the sole source of all income—including homeowners’ wages, salaries and other income—and therefore it is the sole basis upon which the repayment of mortgages ultimately rests.

it means that house prices have got to be ultimately paid for in real money (yeah you can borrow 100% of the cost of the house from a bank but at some point that has to be repaid), which comes from wages - so if house prices are going up by 100% but the wages which will ultimately have to repay the debts taken on to buy those houses are only going up by 35% then something has to give

after tax income is just the real wage we get, i.e. after tax deductions and the like, it's the wage out of which you have to live on (fund mortagge payments/rent, buy food, reproduce yourself etc..)

Aha! Thanks.

If capitalism got through '29 it can get through this.

While I have found Kliman's Marx fundamentalism rather ridiculous, his article on the crisis was indeed good and straightforward.

It seems like one can divide crisis theorists into those who have read Doug Noland and those who haven't. Those who have read Noland seem to be able to actually understand leveraged finance. It seems Kliman has read Noland and has a good grasp on the current breakdown. Good job.

And Noland is here. I suggest the serious student read the many back issues of Credit Bubble Bulletin as well.

RedHughs

While I have found Kliman's Marx fundamentalism rather ridiculous, his article on the crisis was indeed good and straightforward.

What you refer to as "Kliman's Marx fundamentalism" is simply the idea that, while interpreting Marx, we should see if other interpretations are possible before declaring his work "internally inconsistent". If you had actually read any of Kliman's work on the interpretation of Marx, you'd be aware that he has never asserted that Marx was correct about everything (or anything), just that Marx's work was internally consistent (or rather that attempts to prove the contrary have failed), which means that Marx's theory can form a working hypothesis for research. Further research would be necessary to determine the extent to which Marx is correct.

That isn't fundamentalism, it's basic scientific method, based on the generation of hypotheses and empirical research.

Perhaps you just don't like that his work doesn't lend itself to pulling out random Marx quotes and then trying to make them conform to your own random ideas which are entirely independent of Marx's actual writing. But I think anyone with even a minimal amount of intellectual honesty would think that's a good thing.

I heard that our comrades in NYC went to a meeting last week where Kliman was giving a presentation on the economic crisis. There's an audio version of it here:

http://ourmedia.org/node/463283/

I heard that he comes from the 'dispropotionality' school (i.e. tendency towards the falling rate of profit). Is that right?

doesn't he just tell it how it is, i.e. in the absence of various counteracting influences (to which there are countless) there would be a tendency for the rate of profit to fall

Beltov

I heard that our comrades in NYC went to a meeting last week where Kliman was giving a presentation on the economic crisis. There's an audio version of it here:

http://ourmedia.org/node/463283/

I heard that he comes from the 'dispropotionality' school (i.e. tendency towards the falling rate of profit). Is that right?

Disproportionality and the falling rate of profit theory are generally considered to be two different theories of crisis.

His work on Marx has emphasized the latter. But his work has mostly (although not all) been on the issue of the interpretation of Marx's theory of value (his arguments have been directed primarily at the surplus approach, which is what people disparagingly call neo-Ricardianism), not on his own view of crises. The debate on Marx's value theory is directly related to the theory of the rate of profit to fall, not to disproportionality.

If you want to understand his explanation of why this last crisis has occurred, you will have to read his paper and/or listen to the talk.

He has an older paper which is his own view on crisis (not an interpretation of Marx, although I think a small part of the paper does deal with that issue) which gives a falling rate of profit theory of crises. But it's not online. It's called "Value Production and Economic Crisis: A temporal analysis", published in "Value and the World Economy Today," edited by Richard Westra and Alan Zuege.

oisleep

doesn't he just tell it how it is, i.e. in the absence of various counteracting influences (to which there are countless) there would be a tendency for the rate of profit to fall

In his work on the interpretation of Marx, in addition to what you said, he makes the point that for Marx the devaluation of constant capital is both what halts the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and what causes crises. So according to Kliman's interpretation of Marx (and I it's correct), for Marx rising productivity both prevents the tendency of the rate of profit to fall from being a long term tendency, and causes periodic crises. The crises pave the way for the new upswing, by boosting the devaluing capital and hence boosting the rate of profit. Kliman denies that there is a long-term tend toward stagnation of permanent crisis in Marx's theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

He will be on the radio tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 12AM Eastern time, which you can stream from your computer.

"This coming Tuesday night, Oct. 28, Andrew will be interviewed on the
radio--WBAI, 99.5 FM (Pacifica) in New York City--about the economic
crisis, its causes, significance, etc., at midnight (i.e., 12 am-1:30 am
on WEDNESDAY). The interview will be the main topic on the "Moorish
Orthodox Radio Crusade" program hosted by Bill Weinberg and Ann-Marie
Hendrickson.

For those not in New York City who may want to call in, WBAI is streamed
live over the internet in multiple formats: MP3: 24K or 64K or .ram--see
stream.wbai.org. The show will be archived for some time after that on
the WBAI site, http://archive.wbai.org/ (search by name of program,
"Moorish ...")"

In his work on the interpretation of Marx, in addition to what you said, he makes the point that for Marx the devaluation of constant capital is both what halts the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and what causes crises. So according to Kliman's interpretation of Marx (and I it's correct), for Marx rising productivity both prevents the tendency of the rate of profit to fall from being a long term tendency, and causes periodic crises. The crises pave the way for the new upswing, by boosting the devaluing capital and hence boosting the rate of profit. Kliman denies that there is a long-term tend toward stagnation of permanent crisis in Marx's theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

cheers, i presume when he refers to the devaluation of constant capital he means through rising productivity? so in a way rising productivity both causes the rate of profit to fall and prevents it? (i'm not that up to speed with it all but i'd always thought in the past that the lowering of the value of constant capital through productivity was something which only slowed down the speed in which the composition of capital increased, so whilst it was a necessary condition of halting the tendency of the rate of profit to fall it wasn't sufficient in itself?)

I listened to Kliman's presentation and the discussion, and in general it was good. He's basically saying that the 1930s Depression and the Second World War caused massive destruction of capital - both in value terms and physically through war damage - and that this increased the rate of profit, leading to the post-war boom. He then says that this upswing became exhausted in the early 70s, and that since then the ruling class has resorted to massive levels of debt to maintain the system in place, which are only temporary palliatives. He thinks the only longer term 'solution' within capitalism would be another round of capital devaluation on the scale of the 1930s and WW2 that would restore the rate of profit. Of course, he would prefer a solution outside of captialism. ie socialism. Because he's an economics professor he admitted that he didn't have much to say about the way the working class can fight back and organise for socialism.

The main problem I have with this is that it can be interpreted to mean that there is a certain economic 'rationality' to world-war from the perspective of capitalism, that a third world-war would be beneficial economically, progressive even. On the contrary, it would be a disaster for humanity, totally undermining the conditions for any further development of the productive forces seeing as it would be a nuclear war.

Regarding the Kliman article "Value Production and Economic Crisis: A temporal analysis" that Mike mentions: Kliman has now posted what I have been told is a fuller version of this on his website as a result of the brief exchange on http://marxandthefinancialcrisisof2008.blogspot.com/.

Link:

http://akliman.squarespace.com/crisis-intervention/

I listened to the audio of the Kliman talk and thought it was quite good too.

And Mikus, did you meet Bill Weinberg at our gathering at the Marxist library in Oakland around the time of the last SF bookfair? He actually reported about it on his show.

Beltov

The main problem I have with this is that it can be interpreted to mean that there is a certain economic 'rationality' to world-war from the perspective of capitalism, that a third world-war would be beneficial economically, progressive even.

He said that the second world war (along with the great depression) resulted in such a destruction of value that it enabled capitalism to come out of its crisis. You can't "interpret" him to mean that a third world war would be beneficial, because he didn't say it. You can impute that view to him, of course. But in that case, you could impute any view to him which you wanted.

Hyperion

Regarding the Kliman article "Value Production and Economic Crisis: A temporal analysis" that Mike mentions: Kliman has now posted what I have been told is a fuller version of this on his website as a result of the brief exchange on http://marxandthefinancialcrisisof2008.blogspot.com/.

Link:

http://akliman.squarespace.com/crisis-intervention/

Thanks, I hadn't seen that online.

Heironymous

And Mikus, did you meet Bill Weinberg at our gathering at the Marxist library in Oakland around the time of the last SF bookfair? He actually reported about it on his show.

I think I saw him for a second. I met him briefly in New York a couple of years ago when he did a talk on the worker's movement in Iraq (or something like that -- it's been a long time). I don't think he'd remember me, though.

He said that the second world war (along with the great depression) resulted in such a destruction of value that it enabled capitalism to come out of its crisis. You can't "interpret" him to mean that a third world war would be beneficial, because he didn't say it. You can impute that view to him, of course. But in that case, you could impute any view to him which you wanted.

And george bush has never said 'I'm going to screw the workers of america' maybe we should also give him the benefit of the doubt? You can make logical assumptions and draw conclusions about consequences based on existing premises.

miles

He said that the second world war (along with the great depression) resulted in such a destruction of value that it enabled capitalism to come out of its crisis. You can't "interpret" him to mean that a third world war would be beneficial, because he didn't say it. You can impute that view to him, of course. But in that case, you could impute any view to him which you wanted.

And george bush has never said 'I'm going to screw the workers of america' maybe we should also give him the benefit of the doubt? You can make logical assumptions and draw conclusions about consequences based on existing premises.

Show how the statement "The second world war resulted in such a destruction of value that it enabled capitalism to come out of its crisis" logically implies "a third world war would be economically beneficial for capitalism" and you will surely earn a place up there with the logical greats like Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Turing, etc., for revolutionizing the field of logic.

And we don't generally judge George Bush by his statements, we judge him by his policies. Unless you have some evidence that Mr. Kliman's actions resulted in the second world war (or will result in a third world war), it is a very poor comparison.

This is what Kliman says here:

As for the longer-term conditions that have given rise to the crisis, my view is basically this: The world economy has never fully recovered from the crisis of the 1970s – not in the way in which the destruction of capital in and through the Great Depression and WWII led to a post-war boom. That’s largely because of an understandable fear of having a repeat of the Great Depression. So there’s been a partial recovery only, brought about largely through:

(1) declining real wages for most workers and other austerity measures, as well as exporting the crisis into the 3d world, and

(2) a mountain of debt – mortgage, consumer, government, corporate – to paper over the sluggishness and mitigate the effects of the declining real wages.

Thus there have been persistent debt crises, and these will continue until:

(a) sufficient capital is destroyed (in value terms and physically) to once again make investment truly profitable – the present crisis may well end up being this moment, or

(b) there’s such a panic (“liquidity lock,” as a Fed official recently called it) that lending stops and the economy crashes, ushering in chaos or fascism or warlordism or whatever, or

(c) capitalism is replaced by a new human, socialist society.

I think its a reasonable interpretation to state Kliman does think another war could theoretically bring about the devaluation necessary to restart the accumulation process. For him it's not the only possibility, a particularly severe crisis could do the same. I see no problem with this view personally at a purely theoretical level. At a historical level, of course, a third world war would be nuclear and would make the whole question moot. I think it's important to separate the two aspects when discussing this question.

Interestingly, he also sees the disintegration of society (part of the bit I bolded) as an option, which is reminiscent of the ICC's theory of Decomposition (which is not identical with decadence, incidentally).

However, my vote is for option c.

Demogorgon303

This is what Kliman says here:

As for the longer-term conditions that have given rise to the crisis, my view is basically this: The world economy has never fully recovered from the crisis of the 1970s – not in the way in which the destruction of capital in and through the Great Depression and WWII led to a post-war boom. That’s largely because of an understandable fear of having a repeat of the Great Depression. So there’s been a partial recovery only, brought about largely through:

(1) declining real wages for most workers and other austerity measures, as well as exporting the crisis into the 3d world, and

(2) a mountain of debt – mortgage, consumer, government, corporate – to paper over the sluggishness and mitigate the effects of the declining real wages.

Thus there have been persistent debt crises, and these will continue until:

(a) sufficient capital is destroyed (in value terms and physically) to once again make investment truly profitable – the present crisis may well end up being this moment, or

(b) there’s such a panic (“liquidity lock,” as a Fed official recently called it) that lending stops and the economy crashes, ushering in chaos or fascism or warlordism or whatever, or

(c) capitalism is replaced by a new human, socialist society.

I think its a reasonable interpretation to state Kliman does think another war could theoretically bring about the devaluation necessary to restart the accumulation process. For him it's not the only possibility, a particularly severe crisis could do the same. I see no problem with this view personally at a purely theoretical level. At a historical level, of course, a third world war would be nuclear and would make the whole question moot. I think it's important to separate the two aspects when discussing this question.

In the quote you provided, he didn't say "war" but physical destruction of capital. That can happen without war. Furthermore, war can occur without world war. You switch from "war" in the first sentence to "world war" in the last sentence, which invalidates your whole argument. You act as if you're comparing the same thing, first at a theoretical level, then at an historical level. In fact you are just comparing two different things.

Demogorgon303

Interestingly, he also sees the disintegration of society (part of the bit I bolded) as an option, which is reminiscent of the ICC's theory of Decomposition (which is not identical with decadence, incidentally).

He clarified on the radio program that he thinks this is extremely unlikely to occur.

In the quote you provided, he didn't say "war" but physical destruction of capital. That can happen without war. Furthermore, war can occur without world war. You switch from "war" in the first sentence to "world war" in the last sentence, which invalidates your whole argument. You act as if you're comparing the same thing, first at a theoretical level, then at an historical level. In fact you are just comparing two different things.

I'm not sure what else would lead to massive physical destruction of capital on such a scale. And, in the context of what he said earlier in that passage, world war would make sense. On an empirical level, it seems fairly obvious that the wars that have occured since the 70s haven't done much to destroy capital at least not at the level required to prevent a full recovery (as opposed to the partial one Kliman suggests).

Surely for a war to have a real impact on global capital formation it would have to take place in the major industrial centres. It would also require a victor that emerged relatively unscathed to lead a reconstruction as the US did in 1945. I can't see an occurance such as this occuring outside the context of world war. Any direct confrontation between the great powers (which would demand the rallying of the working class in any event) would be a seismic event that would probably lead to a new world war, which would almost certainly end up being nuclear.

He clarified on the radio program that he thinks this is extremely unlikely to occur.

I'm only working on the basis of the piece I read which obviously didn't give odds for each scenario. I just thought it was interesting he posed it as a possibility. As for decomposition, in some respects it's already happening: the tendency to social disintegration is very clear in place like Somalia, Iraq, Congo, and Pakistan.

Demogorgon303

In the quote you provided, he didn't say "war" but physical destruction of capital. That can happen without war. Furthermore, war can occur without world war. You switch from "war" in the first sentence to "world war" in the last sentence, which invalidates your whole argument. You act as if you're comparing the same thing, first at a theoretical level, then at an historical level. In fact you are just comparing two different things.

I'm not sure what else would lead to massive physical destruction of capital on such a scale. And, in the context of what he said earlier in that passage, world war would make sense. On an empirical level, it seems fairly obvious that the wars that have occurred since the 70s haven't done much to destroy capital at least not at the level required to prevent a full recovery (as opposed to the partial one Kliman suggests).

Physical destruction happens during any major crisis. Plants sit idle, they are not repaired, machines are sold for scrap, commodities are purposefully destroyed, etc.

But aside from that, I still don't see why you think he was saying world war. You may think that only a world war would lead to such destruction, and you may even be correct, but Kliman himself didn't say it and I don't really see any reason to think that's what he had in mind. Many countries have had civil wars which brought about large amounts of destruction without being nuclear wars. It does seem there are other possibilities, but like nuclear war they're all completely hypothetical.

Demogorgon303

Surely for a war to have a real impact on global capital formation it would have to take place in the major industrial centres. It would also require a victor that emerged relatively unscathed to lead a reconstruction as the US did in 1945.

Again, you're going back to what you think, not what Kliman thinks or said. That's fine, but the original issue started over what Kliman said. He said nothing about an unscathed victor being required.

Demogorgon303

I'm only working on the basis of the piece I read which obviously didn't give odds for each scenario.

And that's obviously why I brought it up, so that you would be aware that he wasn't actually being very ICC-ish after all.

Actually the ICC debate on the prosperity following world war two was initiated by a recogntion of the inadequacy of seeing it as a kind of mechanical product of the physical destruction resulting from the war, a view that is contained in our original pamphlet The Decadence of Capitalism. See the introduction to the debate at http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/economic_debate_decadence:

[i]The context of the debate: certain contradictions in our analyses
The debate on the economic implications of war in capitalism's decadence is not new to the ICC, and had indeed already been posed in the workers' movement, notably by the Communist Left. Our pamphlet on The Decadence of Capitalism explicitly developed the idea that the destruction provoked by the wars in the phase of decadence, and in particular the world wars, could constitute an outlet for capitalist production, by creating a market based on post-war reconstruction:

"...the external outlets have contracted rapidly. Because of this, capitalism has had to resort to the palliatives of destruction and arms production to try to compensate for rapid losses in ‘living space'." (Section 5: "The turning-point of the 1914-18 war")

"Through massive destruction with an eye to reconstruction, capitalism has discovered a way out, dangerous and temporary but effective, for its new problems of finding outlets.

During the first war, the amount of destruction was not ‘sufficient' (...) In 1929, world capitalism again ran into a crisis situation. As if the lesson had been well-learned the amount of destruction accomplished in World War II was far more intense and extensive (...) a war which for the first time had the conscious aim of systematically destroying the existing industrial potential. The ‘prosperity' of Europe and Japan after the war seemed already foreseen by the end of the war, (Marshall Plan, etc...)" (Section 6: "The cycle of war-reconstruction").

A similar idea is present in other texts of the organisation (notably in the International Review) as well as among our predecessors in the Italian Left: in an article published in 1934 by Bilan we read, for example, that "The slaughter that followed formed an enormous outlet for capitalist production, opening up a ‘magnificent' perspective (...) While war is the great outlet for capitalist production, in ‘peacetime' it is militarism (i.e. all the activities involved in the preparation for war that realises the surplus value of the fundamental areas of production controlled by finance capital" (Bilan n°11, 1934, ‘Crises and cycles in the economy of capitalism in agony' republished in International Review n°103).

Other ICC texts, written both before and after The Decadence of Capitalism was published, developed a very different analysis of the role of war in the period of decadence, harking back to the report on the international situation at the July 1945 conference of the Gauche Communiste de France, for whom war "was an indispensable means for capitalism, opening up the possibilities of ulterior dev­elopment, in the epoch when these possibilities existed and could only be opened up through violent methods. In the same way, the downfall of the capitalist world, which has historically exhausted all the possibilities for development, finds in modern war, imperialist war, the expression of this downfall which, without open­ing up any possibility for an ulterior develop­ment, can only hurl the productive forces into an abyss and pile ruins upon ruins at an ever-increasing pace".

The report on the course of history adopted at the ICC's 3rd Congress refers explicitly to this passage from the GCF's text, as does the article ‘War, militarism and imperialist blocs in the decadence of capitalism', published in 1988, which emphasises that "what characterises all these wars, like the two world wars, is that unlike those of the previous century, at no time have they permitted any progress in the development of the productive forces, having had no other result than massive destructions which have bled dry the countries in which they have taken place (not to mention the horrible massacres they have provoked)". [/i]

So if Kliman did think that a world war would permit a new boom, he wouldn't be all that ICC-ish.....[b]

So instead of getting into a pointless debate with ICC'ers about what Andrew Kliman must think, I decided to ask him myself (after referring him to this thread) and he sent me this e-mail which he said I could forward to the list here.

Dear Mike,

Nothing in my talk ("Worse than They Want You to Think: A Marxist Analysis
of the Economic Crisis") denied in any way that a new world war would be a
disaster for humanity, nor that such a world war will be fought with nukes.
Nothing in the talk implied that war is somehow "progressive," nor did it
imply that war is economically beneficial--even to capitalism. Indeed, I
said the opposite: war destroys capital.

It is true that the destruction of capital is the key mechanism that leads
to the next boom. But the destruction of capital, itself, is not beneficial
to capitalism. The goal of the system is the self-expansion of value. The
destruction of capital-value is the very opposite.

The destruction of capital can take many forms:

* destruction of capital-value through falling asset prices,
* physical destruction of capital assets, by means of the deterioration of
factories and the rusting of machines that lie idle
* physical destruction of capital by means of war

So, although I suggested that the destruction of capital is the key
mechanism that leads to the next boom, nothing in my talk implies that the
destruction of capital *must* take the form of war. I simply noted the
historical fact that, last time around, capital was destroyed by means of
World War II as well as by means of the Great Depression, and I argued the
combination of the two led to the postwar boom.

The talk is available (in print and as an audio recording) at

http://sites.google.com/site/radicalperspectivesonthecrisis/audio-video/andrewklimanlecture-worsethantheywantyoutothinkamarxistanalysisoftheeconomiccrisis

and elsewhere. Let me quote the relevant part for the record. I don't see
how it can be construed as saying that war is "progressive" or economically
beneficial, or as a denial that the next world war would be a nuclear war
that's a disaster for humanity:

"My view is basically that the crisis has its roots in the economic slump of
the 1970s, from which the global economy never fully recovered-not in the
way in which the destruction of capital in and through the Great Depression
and World War II led to a post-war boom. Policymakers here and abroad have
understandably been afraid of a repeat of the Great Depression. So they've
continually taken measures to slow down and prevent the destruction of
capital (a plummeting of the value of capital assets as well as physical
destruction of capital).

"But the destruction of capital is not only a consequence of an economic
slump; it is also the mechanism leading to the next boom. For instance, if
there's a business that can generate $3 million in profit annually, but the
value of the capital invested in the business is $100 million, the rate of
profit is a measly 3%. But if the destruction of capital values enables a
new owner to acquire the business for only $10 million instead of $100
million, the new owner's rate of profit is a more-than-respectable 30%.
That's a tremendous spur to a new boom.

"But such a massive destruction of capital as took place in the Depression
and then in World War II hasn't taken place, and so there's been a partial
recovery only, brought about largely through:

(1) declining real wages for most workers and other austerity measures, as
well as exporting the crisis into the 3d world, and

(2) a mountain of debt-mortgage, consumer, government, corporate-to paper
over the sluggishness and mitigate the effects of the declining real wages.

"Because of this excessive run-up of debt, there have been persistent debt
crises. These will continue until:

(a) sufficient capital is destroyed to once again make investment truly
profitable. (The present crisis may well end up being this moment.). Or

(b) there's such a panic that lending stops and the economy crashes,
ushering in chaos or fascism or warlordism or whatever, or

(c) capitalism is replaced by a new human, socialist society."

Best,

Drewk

Andrew Kliman
akliman.squarespace.com

ernie

No one is saying to workers leave the unions, what we are saying is that the unions are the main block to the development of the struggles and that if workers want to wage an effective struggle they need to organise their own struggles through mass assembles and revocable strike committees. We are for the autonomous self-activity of the class, not for imprisoning oneself in the state prison of the unions. Recent history has shown that it is only when workers try to break from the strangle hold of the unions and to organise and spread their own struggles that they have been effective.
Capricorn we do not need to walk the streets saying THE END OF CAPITALISM IS NIGH most people can see that something is very wrong with the system. Our aim is to show that this is not some temporary event that capitalism will simply get out of eventually, but a historically profound development in the process of the collapse of capitalism. This DOES NOT MEAN saying there is nothing that workers can do to defend themselves, there is, but seeking to show that such a immediate defensive struggles will have to lead to the calling into question of capitalism i.e. the process of the development of class consciousness. This process is already developing amongst a minority of the class as can be seen in the growing interest in a revolutionary alternative to capitalism, particularly Left Communism. We are living in a truly profound historical period and if the revolution is going to take place this will demand that the revolutionary minorities of the proletariat embrace this period and do all they can to put forwards the revolutionary alternative. This DOES NOT MEAN the revolution is around the corner, but the conditions for the future revolution are maturing. We have produced an article which seeks to explain the historical significance of this period [http://en.internationalism.org/2008/10/rev-end].
On the regroupment revolutionaries, we think that the eventual regrouping of the present revolutionary groups and individuals into a world party is of great importance. The present revolutionary organisations are small, but the perspective is for the growth (which we are already seeing) the eventual uniting of these forces into one world party will an essential step towards the proletariat's political arming of itself in preparation for the revolution. The ICC has consistently worked for the development of the conditions for such a unification; international discussions, conferences, joint statements on historical events, working to spread the influence of the Communis
Capricorn what do you see as the perspective for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat? Do you see such a perspective?

To take up your last point first, what do you mean by "revolutionary struggle" and what do you mean by "proletariat"?

If you mean civil war, then forget it. It's just not going to happen -- fortunately. Workers, rightly, don't want it and, again rightly, are not going to put up with it. So as long as the revolutionary minority is tied to Russia in 1917 and after as a model we're not going to get anywhere. All that Bolshevik baggage has to be ditched. That road has been tried and it didn't lead to socialism. If, however, you're talking about the sort of essentially peaceful mass demonstrations that brought down the state-capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe a few years ago, without violence, then that would be a different.

As to the proletariat, are they just industrial workers or anybody obliged by economic necessity to sell their labour power for a wage or a salary? This is an important point to clarify as it's about who are to be the agents of any revolution. The majority or just a minority of wage and salary workers?

I don't think the revolutionary minority will get very far either by attacking the existing trade unions. Workers here have learned through long experience that "unity is strength" and "divided we fall". We shouldn't try to undermine this consciousness, but to build on it. I'm not making a fetish about working within the existing union (not for revolution of course, but to get the best terms possible in any circumstance for wages and working conditions). My experience, including as a union rep, is that unions can do something for their members despite being rather bureaucratic and, in Britain, being linked to the pro-capitalist Labour Party (but then this probably reflects the views of their members). So, I think we should try to work within as well as, if necessary, outside the existing unions to make them more democratic and more class conscious.

I can't see any viable alternative way of trying to protect ourselves in the coming slump. Whether the slump will lead to the emergence of a revolutionary consciousness, I don't know. I get the impression that you think that there is an almost mechanical connection between a slump and working class revolutionary action, ie that it is economic hardship that will drive people to overthrow capitalism. I don't think history confirms this.

Capricorn,

I think you are pessimistic because your position is fundamentally social-democratic. For social-democracy, capitalist crisis has never been a kind mistress. But your view that revolutionary civil war is a thing of the past (fortunately! you say) is completely laughable and breaks with all traditions of the working class from the Babeuf conspiracy onwards. Any Chinese or Egyptian or Bangladeshi etc. striker will understand that the state is violence and they will need to arm themselves and fraternise with the army at some point in the future, when their conditions of life become increasingly unbearable with the deepening of the crisis. I think because you live in England, a country that has always seemed immune to the revolutions of the continent, you don't believe a civil war could ever happen between the capitalists and workers; but in fact this civil war has always existed, which is why people die all over the world every day during strikes. Your models of change are the palace revolutions that ended the USSR, not fundamental working class actions; you don't even think that the most momentous change in human history will be violent. Finally you claim that history supports you, but of course it doesn't; the revolutions of 1848 were intimately linked with the economic crisis on the continent and Marx saw this, 1871 happened because of a war, as did the upheavals of 1919. Why was there a revolution in Spain, and a near revolution in France during the Great Depression in 1936? The great strikes in America during the 30's were just a random chance happening? That 1979 in Iran and 1980 in Poland didn't have something to do with the stagflation crisis... Do you really think these are unconnected phenomenon, that crisis and revolution are not linked?

I will put forward my own view on the crisis, because this thread seems far too stodgy and ho-hum: worldwide revolutionary civil war in the next decade.

Marx definitely thought that crisis and revolutionary class struggle were interlinked: "Given this general prosperity, wherein the productive forces of bourgeois society arc developing as luxuriantly as it is possible for them to do within bourgeois relationships, a real revolution is out of the question. Such a revolution is possible only in periods when both of these factors — the modern forces of production and the bourgeois forms of production — come into opposition with each other ... A new revolution is only a consequence of a new crisis. The one, however, is as sure to come as the other." - The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, Part IV, Marx, 1850

But "linked" doesn't mean mechanically determined. The Great Depression was the most severe crisis capitalism has experienced so far but produced no revolutionary upsurge. The struggles that took place were recuperated into support for the Popular Fronts and ultimately World War 2.

Economic crisis provides the material conditions for revolution but other factors also come into play. The Great Depression took place in the context of a global proletariat whose revolutionary wave and been physically and ideologically crushed. "Internationalism" meant, at best, supporting the new predator on the imperialist bloc: Stalin's USSR.

Today, there's a totally different situation. For all its difficulties, the working class is engaging in massive struggles around the globe and moving (albeit unevenly) towards developing its own autonomous forms of organisation. Political minorities are developing everywhere (of which libcom is an example) reflecting the fact that workers are coming into direct confrontation with the bourgeois ideologies of democracy, unionism, etc. So the political context the crisis is taking place in is totally different.

Certainly. the working class is suffering many difficulties. But the crisis has the potential to push forward reflection within its ranks and stimulate militant responses. Nothing is guaranteed, of course. Even if there is a revolutionary upsurge it can still be defeated, as it has been before. This is why its important for revolutionaries to organise themselves with a view to stimulating the wider proletariat's confrontation with bourgeois ideology and ultimate bourgeois power.

worldwide revolutionary civil war in the next decade

And this is supposed to be an optimistic perspective !
Hands up all those here who favour this who know the difference between an armalite and an AK47 or, for that matter, one end of a rifle from another.
Don't be silly.

Capricorn, do you think a revolution (ie the overthrow of one class by another - NOT what happened in eastern Europe at the end of the 80s or later) can take place without violence?

Alf

Capricorn, do you think a revolution (ie the overthrow of one class by another - NOT what happened in eastern Europe at the end of the 80s or later) can take place without violence?

Yes, I agree with Marx on this one.

And did the majority of urban populations in the revolutionary periods or the 19th century? Besides, the intitial revolution won't be won by force of arms but the capacity of the movement to dissolve the armed forces of the state. The situation of dual power in Russia wasn't won by force of arms but by the fact that the soldiers took their lead from the Soviets rather than the Provisional Government. Similarly, in Germany it was the winning of the armed forces to the revolutionary cause (for example, in the Kiel Mutiny) that threatened the bourgeois state with disintegration.

I seriously doubt the core of the armed forces that remained loyal to the state were much threatened by the untrained masses with guns as the butchering of the workers by the Freikorp demonstrated. What mattered was that the wider mass of the workers had withdrawn their political consent to the rule of the bourgeoisie. It was only when the bourgeoisie had rearmed themselves politically and was able to crush the revolution in its own name did their military force become a factor again.

Once the bourgeoisie's state power has been broken, the proletariat will obviously need to produce and train its own armed organs to guard the revolution against reactionaries.

Capricorn: You mean when Marx thought that in some countries the workers could come to power via parliament?

Alf

Capricorn: You mean when Marx thought that in some countries the workers could come to power via parliament?

I think that does seem to have been Marx's view. In any event, he undoubtedly did favour the workers movement putting up candidates in bourgeois elections. Why are you asking? Do you think he was wrong and that Bakunin was right?
I think Marx took a pragmatic view of the matter : if the workers have the vote they should use it, not exclusively to the detriment of anything else of course but amongst other actions. But Marx is not a guru whose views have to be followed blindly. He's only one 19th century socialist while we're living in the 21st. He could be wrong here but you'll need to argue why. But I think you're going to have a hard time convincing workers in countries like North America and Western Europe that the answer to the current crisis is to prepare for armed insurrection and civil war.

capricorn

I think you're going to have a hard time convincing workers in countries like North America and Western Europe that the answer to the current crisis is to prepare for armed insurrection and civil war.

this isn't the 'answer' in any meaningful sense, not least because it's several steps removed from the current situation. however it's niave to think the bourgeoisie will hand over power peacefully - but equally to think a bunch of random wage slaves could defeat a modern army and have anything resembling a revolutionary society left to show for it. mass defections from the state to the revolution would be necessary, but i doubt such a massive transformation in society will go off without a shot being fired.

mass defections from the state to the revolution would be necessary, but i doubt such a massive transformation in society will go off without a shot being fired.

I never actually said that I didn't think no shots would be fired. In fact I think it is a reasonable assumption that they probably will be, but only as marginal incidents. It's the credibility of envisaging civil war (with armoured cars, gunship helicopters, roadside bombs and the rest) as a way to end capitalism that I'm challenging.
I agree with you too that there has never been a successful "revolution" -- in the limited sense of a change of political regime, since all revolutions till now have been bourgeois or bourgeois-democratic or bourgeois nationalist -- without the army being either neutral or going over to the side of the revolution.

I never actually said that I didn't think no shots would be fired. In fact I think it is a reasonable assumption that they probably will be, but only as marginal incidents.

If you cast your mind back to the large scale struggles of the 70s and 80s even the violence used by the state at that time was huge (beatings, intimidations, raids etc..) - and this was 'only' in a period of class struggle. It's not too difficult to imagine how many steps further up the scale this would be in a situation where the bourgeiosie faces losing its power over society. Indeed, we only have to look at all the technological advances that have been made to see how important the need to control/ track the movements of people are. People get beaten up by the police even when attending non-event marches and demos.

What do you think would hapen in a country like America where large numbers of the population are armed - how will the ruling class confront these people? "Please, please give up your AK47s - we're your natural rulers you know"

I just think it's stupid and counter-productive to talk in terms of "armed insurrection" and "civil war" as as "radical perspective" in the present crisis. If we do, we'll just be dismissed as toy-town revolutionaries if not as utter nutters. If you don't believe me, go ahead and do so and see what happens.
We've really got to get away from this sort of talk and evolve a credible theory of how to get rid of capitalism in the context of a majority working class and the stable political conditions that have existed in North America and Western Europe for over sixty years now.

ignore

capricorn

I just think it's stupid and counter-productive to talk in terms of "armed insurrection" and "civil war" as as "radical perspective" in the present crisis. If we do, we'll just be dismissed as toy-town revolutionaries if not as utter nutters. If you don't believe me, go ahead and do so and see what happens.

damn it! the next issue of Tea Break was going to be an 8-page special advising public sector workers how to win inflation-plus payrises with roadside IEDs and asymmetric urban warfare techniques :(

(which is to say i agree ;))

Capricorn

I agree with the above replies to your post (even agreeing with Mikus, whatever next!).
On your defense of the unions, you do not answer my question about examples of succesful union lead struggles. Also you do not comment upon the point about the most effective means of struggle being self-organised struggles that seeks to spread the struggle to all workers.

Nikus

On the post war boom and the role of war, in your analysis you do not mention the vital importance of the setting up of international and national state capitalist measures. Without the framework of the imperialist blocs established after the war there would have been no boom. During the war the ruling class consciously planned to avoid the mistakes of the 30's. This would imply that simply more than the destruction of value was involved in the 'recovery' from the 30's. Also it is not at all convincing that the war did destroy values: the massive growth of US war industry, the war economies in the main countries etc did not entail a destruction of value, but a massive growth in unproductive costs and a drain on Surplus value. The growth after the war was not spontaneous. There was a recession at the end of the 1940's (if I remember correctly) and it was only in the early 50's that the 'boom' started to take off after a good dose of the Marshall plan, US support for the Japanesse economy etc. And even then how much of the 'boom' was due to the 'natural' accumulation of capital and how much due to the state capitalist measures such as the war economy, state spending, etc. The problem with the way that you present this 'recovery' is that it was like the classic recoveries rather than seeing it in its historical context: cold war, increased state capitalism, wars, etc. The change in the historical period with WW1 changed the unfolding of the crisis. You say so your self when you accepted that the war was part of the reason for the recovery; this was not the case in the classical period.

If you mean civil war, then forget it. It's just not going to happen -- fortunately. Workers, rightly, don't want it and, again rightly, are not going to put up with it. So as long as the revolutionary minority is tied to Russia in 1917 and after as a model we're not going to get anywhere. All that Bolshevik baggage has to be ditched. That road has been tried and it didn't lead to socialism. If, however, you're talking about the sort of essentially peaceful mass demonstrations that brought down the state-capitalist dictatorships in Eastern Europe a few years ago, without violence, then that would be a different.

Wel t me it seems fairly likely that south and central america are the parts of the world closest to what we might consider revolution. If you look at those countries do you imagine that there would be a ''peaceful transition''. Take brazil or better still take recent events in mexico, do you honestly think its as simnple as having peaceful demonstrations?

Also i think the problem here is that while you've rightly pointed out that bolshevik baggage about some sort of militarised revolution is a problem you've internalised the logic of what your claiming to be against. Afterall you say that people are tied to russia in 1917, where in fact russia in 1917 was relatively bloodless. Unlike in germany the russian army mutinied, most of it either refused to fight or joined up with the revolutionaries and other anti-government forces, most soviets, committees and councils were established without a shot being fired.
The violence associated with bolshevik revolution took place in the civil war afterwards (ie 1918 onwards) and stemmed from the whites being propped up by other capitalist states after revolutions in other states failed and from the bolsheviks consolidating state power, militarising society and repressing other political groupings.

We've really got to get away from this sort of talk and evolve a credible theory of how to get rid of capitalism

Please elaborate, I'm certainly interested in how you think there will be a bloodless revolution.

On your defense of the unions, you do not answer my question about examples of succesful union lead struggles.

How about this one, Ernie ?

The 1972 Miners' Strike was noticeable as it was the first time since 1926 that British miners had been on strike. It came about because of disagreements between the miners and the Government over pay; throughout Britain's industry there was a widespread hostility to the Tories' offers of pay. In the 1971 NUM Annual Conference, it was decided to ask for a 43% pay rise, at a time when the Tories' were offering around 7-8%. In late 1971, the miners voted to take industrial action if their pay demands were not met.
On the 5th January 1972, the National Executive Committee of the NUM rejected a small pay rise from the National Coal Board, who then 2 days later, withdrew all pay offers from the last 3 months. On the 9th January 1972, miners from all over Britain came out on strike. In South Wales, 135 pits were closed; 50 collieries and 85 private mines.
At first the miners picketed at coal power stations, but then it was decided to target all power stations, and also steelworks, ports, coal depots and other major coal users. In South Wales, dockers at Newport and Cardiff supported the miners by refusing to unload coal from ships. On the 21st January, the NUM decided to try to stop the movement of all fuel supplies. Miners from South Wales were involved in the pickets at the Saltley Marsh Coal Depot of the West Midlands Gas Board.
On the 9th February, a state of emergency was declared and 2 days later, the three day working week was introduced to save electricity. On the 19th February, after much negotiation, an agreement was reached between the National Executive Committee of the NUM and the Government. Picketing was called off, and on the 25th February, the miners accepted the offer in a ballot, returning to work on the 28th February.
The result of the strike was that the miners' wages became almost the highest amongst the working class. The strike also showed the country how important coal was to the country's economy.
By 1973 however, the miners had moved from first in the industrial wages league to eighteenth. The miners saw however, that the poor economic situation that the country was in could be used to their advantage. The Arab-Israeli War was causing oil prices to soar, and throughout the country, relations between the industrial unions and the Government were hostile as the Tories were attempting to introduce pay freezes and restraints to help the economy.
In late 1973, the miners once more voted to take industrial action if their pay demands were not meet. They were not, and so on the 9th February 1974, the miners came out on strike.
The Government refused to compromise on a 7% pay rise, and the situation lead to Edward Heath, the Prime Minister, to declare a state of emergency and introduce a three day working week. The General Election and the Industrial Relations Act meant that picketing and campaigning were low key compared with the 1972 strike. Edward Heath called a General Election for the 28th February believing that the country would be in sympathy with him, but the Conservatives were defeated. The Labour Government and the miners reached a deal shortly afterwards and the strike ended.
The new Secretary of State for Employment, Michael Foot, implemented the Pay Board Report which showed how miners' pay had dropped since 1972. As well as increases in pay, there were two other important results of the strike; the implementation of a scheme for compensation for pneumoconiosis sufferers, and a new superannuation scheme which commenced in 1975.

I could give many more examples, but don't think I need to as there'll be others here who can give examples from personal experience. It's a well-documented fact that the existing unions can and have won pay increases, etc for their members, even if they don't win every time. I just can't see how you can deny this.

Also you do not comment upon the point about the most effective means of struggle being self-organised struggles that seeks to spread the struggle to all workers.

I agree that a struggle can be more effective to the extent that it is based on the democratic self-organisation of those involved. That's what I've always advocated in the various unions I've been in. Getting the support of other workers is obviously beneficial and should always be attempted, but is not absolutely necessary for success.

Of course the existing unions are not, and are not supposed to be, revolutionary organisations, so if you're criticising them for not trying to turn every strike into a revolution you are missing the point. I'm not sure this would be a good idea anyway. Look what happened 10 years later when the NUM under Scargill tried to challenge the government politically and he only wanted a change of government, not a social revolution.

Unlike in germany the russian army mutinied, most of it either refused to fight or joined up with the revolutionaries and other anti-government forces, most soviets, committees and councils were established without a shot being fired.

Largely agree with most of what cantdo says, but he's a bit negative about the armed forces in Germany. Firstly the German surrender was largely triggered by a realisation that the German army no longer had any will to fight. This was confirmed by the experience of the Navy who tried to make one more "going down with glory" strike which resulted in the Kiel mutiny, the trigger for the November revolution.

As for the soldiers, they had already began to form councils on the front when the call to return came. Although they largely remained in military formation until they returned from the fronts, once they got back to the cities, they dissolved their brigades, took their weapons with them and formed soldiers councils linked to the workers councils. It turned out that the soldiers had made a conscious decision to accept military discipline, because they thought the German army was the most efficient mechanism to get them back home.

capricorn

It's a well-documented fact that the existing unions can and have won pay increases, etc for their members, even if they don't win every time. I just can't see how you can deny this.

well unions don't win anything, workers in struggle win things, but they can and have done so through the unions. this doesn't mean unions aren't ultimately capitalist organisations that have to be gone beyond. i think the ICC are somewhat blind to nuance here, to say "the unions are the main block to the development of the struggles" suggests there is some Platonic content ('the struggles') effervescing up and being contained by the union form. this is only partially true, i mean there's no union in my workplace (like the majority of ones), but anger is not being translated into colelctive action. blaming the unions avoids more difficult questions of how to build collective action where no culture or history of it exists, which may even involve people joining unions in unionised workplaces to be able to join strikes without being sacked etc.

Struggles can and do develop within the union form to some extent - indeed they have to if the unions are to appear to act in our interests - but they will very soon come up against the limits of this form; witness the Liverpool posties hung out to dry last year. so therefore it's correct to say "if workers want to wage an effective struggle they need to organise their own struggles through mass assembles and revocable strike committees." This is what communists should be advocating in both unionised and non-unionised workplaces imho, with suitable adaptation to context (i.e. leafletting my workplace for mass assemblies and revocable strike committees would likely just raise eyebrows, the struggle isn't at a level that such tactics would make sense.)

Capricorn

My knowledge of the 1972 pit strike is limited, but if I remember correctly it began as an unofficial strike and the NUM had to run to catch up. But at the time there was a whole wave of struggles going on, and the fact it remained confined to the pits and did not spread limited its effectiveness. However, need to learn more about the strike before saying much more.

On the unions:

[quote]Of course the existing unions are not, and are not supposed to be, revolutionary organisations, so if you're criticising them for not trying to turn every strike into a revolution you are missing the point. I'm not sure this would be a good idea anyway. Look what happened 10 years later when the NUM under Scargill tried to challenge the government politically and he only wanted a change of government, not a social revolution.[quote]

For us the unions are a part of the capitalist state. We do not think they could be revolutionary etc, their role is to police the working class in the work place

Glad we are agreed on self-organisation

Joseph

I see the point you are making about it being rather black and white to say the unions are holding back the struggle. It is clearly a wider issue than simply the role of the unions, as you say there is the overall question of the proletariat's confidence in its own ability to struggle etc. However, the unions are the the bulwalk of the state and will do all they can to ensure that the wider process of development of the struggle is confined and defeated within the union framework.
On how to intervene, clearly we would not say that one should make calls for mass assemblies in you work place if there is not dynamic towards this. However, faced with problems from the management we would encourage collective discussions etc. We do see that there is a difference between a class wide intervention (well as many workers as we can get to) and one specifically aimed at a work place.

that sounds remarkably sensible and pragmatic for an ICC'er :shock:

the contradiction is that on the one hand struggles might sometimes be spread by workers joining unions (recent public sector strikes say, with people joining so as to take part in strike action without getting fired), but this 'enabler' will soon turn into a barrier to the further development of that struggle, seeking to contain it within the limits of that form (with the division, lack of control etc this implies). one could wax quite dialectical about it :P

well unions don't win anything, workers in struggle win things, but they can and have done so through the unions.

I stand corrected. It's workers who win things, either through or organised in the unions.

it's correct to say "if workers want to wage an effective struggle they need to organise their own struggles through mass assembles and revocable strike committees."

One problem is that, as the saying goes, "the most succesful strike is the one that never takes place", ie one where the employers concede under the threat of a strike. This requires a permanent organisation capable of exerting permanent pressure (or rather counter-pressure). Ephemeral ad hoc strike committees are no substitute for this, especially as strikes are comparatively rare but bargaining with employers over wages and working conditions has to go on all the time.
I'm all in favour, when there's a strike, of those who are actually going out on strike having the final say, both on whether and when to strike and on when to go back to work and controlling the conduct and tactics via revocable delegates. Sometimes this can be done through the existing unions and sometimes outside them. This is a matter to be decided pragmatically. Saying that the existing unions are "agents of the capitalist state", etc is just too simplist, not to say wrong.
"Trade union consciousness", ie the understanding that workers must band together to bargain with employers over the price and conditions of sale of labour power, remains a higher degree of consciousness than non-unionism and anti-unionism.
In any event, it's all we've got to try to defend ourselves during the coming slump.

capricorn

I stand corrected. It's workers who win things, either through or organised in the unions.

or outside, and against them. but it's collective direct action wot gets the goods.

capricorn

One problem is that, as the saying goes, "the most succesful strike is the one that never takes place", ie one where the employers concede under the threat of a strike. This requires a permanent organisation capable of exerting permanent pressure (or rather counter-pressure).

a permanent organisation without permanent militancy guarantees nothing; struggle has primacy over form. now if there is a sustained level of militancy (and the form it takes may help sustain/enhance it, reflexively), we should be arguing for that form to be mass assemblies, with recallable mandated delegates etc. this is to say mass organisation is only as permanent as the struggle of which it is an expression; permanence of form by no means guarantees permanence of content.

capricorn

Saying that the existing unions are "agents of the capitalist state", etc is just too simplist, not to say wrong.

ultimately they are though due to the legal framework in which they operate (which is why they're legl at all); they must give bosses notice of industrial action and denounce wildcats, policing their members like an outsourced HR dept or face sequestration of their assets. this is not to say everyone should just quit them or that struggles cannot be advanced to a point within the union form.

Help! Aren't there any anarcho-syndicalists and wobblies out there who see the need for permanent workers' organisations to face employers. I'm surrounded by a bunch of anti-unionists with only one non-unionist in between.

Sorry you feel surround capricorn, we are not ganging up on you, just trying to convince you of the role of the unions.

I have to say I was rather surprised to read you saying the following:

"Trade union consciousness", ie the understanding that workers must band together to bargain with employers over the price and conditions of sale of labour power, remains a higher degree of consciousness than non-unionism and anti-unionism.

I never took you for a Leninist! And a Leninist that Lenin rejected in 1905. Is my world crumbling before me!

Thus do you think that trade union consciousness is higher than the workers organising their own struggles and spreading them?

JK

We have our moments of lucidity, when the zombie medication wears off.

One can certainly wax all dialectical!

capricorn

Help! Aren't there any anarcho-syndicalists and wobblies out there who see the need for permanent workers' organisations to face employers. I'm surrounded by a bunch of anti-unionists with only one non-unionist in between.

loads of anarcho-syndicalists and wobblies want permanent mass revolutionary organisations, but they're impossible, so they might as well see the need for the holy spirit. the important thing is class struggle; organsations can (and must) give form to these struggles but they can't substitute for them, and so they are only as permanent as the struggles themselves. unfortunately there's no short-cut to working class self-activity. this is not to say we shouldn't have permanent* political groups advocating struggles develop in a libertarian communist direction.

* that is to say with a longevity not inherently linked to cycles of struggle

do you think that trade union consciousness is higher than the workers organising their own struggles and spreading them?

No, I think that is also a form of "trade union consciousness" and that it would be better if workers organised on a permanent basis to wage these struggles, ie into a "union".
I'm not looking for a permanent "revolutionary" union. I agree we won't, and can't, have that till many, many more workers have adopted revolutionary ideas. I'm just arguing for permanent defensive organisation, as the only shield we're going to have with any chance of slowing down the worsening of conditions that the coming depression is going to bring. Mere ad hoc strike committees won't be enough.
In arguing against permanent defensive organisation, youse are disarming the working class. Hopefully you won't be listened to. In fact, I know you won't.

capricorn

I'm not looking for a permanent "revolutionary" union. I agree we won't, and can't, have that till many, many more workers have adopted revolutionary ideas. I'm just arguing for permanent defensive organisation, as the only shield we're going to have with any chance of slowing down the worsening of conditions that the coming depression is going to bring. Mere ad hoc strike committees won't be enough.
In arguing against permanent defensive organisation, youse are disarming the working class. Hopefully you won't be listened to. In fact, I know you won't.

we have 'permanent defensive organisations' in the form of the unions. they've largely assisted in imposing sub-inflation pay settlements (i.e. pay cuts) on their members. Having a union by no means guarantees defence of conditions - only collective direct action or the threat thereof does that.

you've already said "I stand corrected. It's workers who win things, either through or organised in the unions" - it's workers in struggle who win things, to call for permanent organisations is therefore to call for permanent struggle, unless you put cart before the horse. nobody is saying that workers organising all the time to defend themselves would be a bad thing - the point is it is not the reality, and calling for it to be otherwise doesn't make it so.

those 'defensive organisations' that do outlive cycles of struggle - unions - become incorporated into the management of labour by legal means; they are obliged to take ineffective action (notice to management, lengthly ballot/consultation procedures), divide the class (no secondary action, every union for itself) and repress autonomous workers organisation (must disown and try to end wildcats). thus these 'defensive' workers organsiations' by virtue of their legality and permanence become instruments of the management of labour.

the limited defensive victories that are possible within the unions are only possible by militant collective direct action; you should not focus on organsiations which claim to represent the class, but on the (self-)organisation of the class itself.

Yes, but the class struggle is permanent. It's goes on all the time, strikes just represent it becoming more intense. In periods of non-strike (ie 99 per cent of the time) workers still need to confront the employer who will try and get away with what they can, over the amount and pace of work, over favoritism, etc. It's a question of the balance of forces. Organising permanently shifts this slightly in our favour. That's why it's needed. It's no good dealing with each problem as it arises by calling an an ad hoc general assembly.
I've been a union member ever since I started work and in fact have always worked in places where's there's been a recognised union and all I can say is that I'm glad I've never worked in a non-union establishment. I've been a union rep, and even a branch secretary, and can tell you plenty of things the employer would have done if they didn't have to take into account that their workers were permanently organised. My union even financed a court case which won me a pay increase back-dated 3 years. Thousands of other workers could tell a similar story. The existing unions have many faults (largely reflecting the level of consciousness of their members -- who get the union they deserve), but they are not entirely useless.
OK there's nothing revolutionary about this day-t-day, non-strike union activity. It's only about defending ourselves within the system. But then there's nothing revolutionary about strikes either. They are just a means of putting pressure on employers to come to agree to something they are not initially prepared to. And most strikes end in a compromise anyway.
But defending ourselves within the system is what we're going to have to do more of in the depression that's already started, and for this we need to organise ourselves on a permanent basis. I, for one, don't want to face the coming depression without being in a union.

I agree with JosephK's approach on this question. Capricorn echoes the Trotskyist position in saying, okay the unions aren't revolutionary but they are defensive organisations and gives us some annecdotal examples of how they've helped him and others.

If he's to be grateful to the unions for financing "a court case which won me a pay increase back-dated 3 years", perhaps he should also be grateful to the bourgeois courts for finding in his favour and the bourgeois parliamentarians for creating the laws that enabled the court to do so. Why stop there? I have to say the police were once very helpful to a friend of mine in returning his lost wallet, and helping to manage a traffic accident near my road. Thousands of workers could tell similar stories. The police are more than happy to help law-abiding individuals in such circumstances because it helps justify their position when the state calls on them to smash workers' skulls open on the picket lines.

In the same way, it's precisely because unions will act as advocates for individual or even groups of workers in particular cases that pose no threat whatsoever to the system that they can then stand as a bastion against the working classes when they suddenly become threatening to the bosses and state that the unions serve.

I've worked in both unionised and non-unionised workplaces (and one which was a mixture of the two) and can't say I've noticed a massive difference at the level of consciousness in either. I can't say I've noticed much significant difference in pay and conditions either: in fact, in terms of working hours and perks the non-unionised workplace was probably the best I've ever been in, if only slightly. The only difference was that in the unionised places it was the unions telling us we should accept job cuts for the good of everyone rather than the bosses.

capricorn

Yes, but the class struggle is permanent. It's goes on all the time, strikes just represent it becoming more intense.

yes and these periodic variations in intensity - cycles of struggle - are what give rise to workers organisations. if i were to declare a permanent defensive organisation in my workplace today it would just be an empry shell - there is anger but no collective struggle. if we can get our act together - organise - and struggle collectively, raising the intensity, then by definition a defensive organisation is born. but for exactly the same reason it would be nothing but an empty shell - or at best a residue of militants - if we attempted to maintain it after the intensity of the struggle subsides.

Now obviously we hope the struggle doesn't subside, and that formal organisation further develops it. but workers' organisation cannot outlive the cycle of struggle of which it is an expression without becoming an empty shell. even if the intensity of struggle is maintained, it will either remain unlawful and so exist in an unstable, necessarily temporary situation of dual power (Workmates was a recent example), or become a legally recognised union with all the attendent limits on struggle, and therefore move from being a weapon of a certain level of struggle to a barrier to that same struggle's development.

this isn't just theory, an ex-wobbly comrade got fucked at work when they tried to form a 'union' without a sufficient level of solidarity and struggle to sustain it; they put structure before substance, form before content. similarly another comrade persuaded residents in his area not to form a soft-cop neighbourhood watch scheme, but a residents association (with an impeccable anarcho-syndicalist constitution) to fight against the loss of public space. when the immediate struggle was won, the association has become a vehicle for reactionaries. the form is perfect, but it guarantees nothing without the content of class struggle.

i think the problem here is you're reifying a process - workers organisation - which we should be doing all the time into a thing - a permanent workers organisation - which suffers all the pitfalls detailed above. Class struggle is a process of organisation, which at certain level of intensity can give rise to certain formalised forms. But you can't short-cut the ongoing process by making a form permanent: a boss might not immediately attack a unionised workplace in the way he would a non-unionised one, because he assumes unionisation to signify a certain capacity for collective resistance (he assumes the form has content). If he discovers this is not the case, that there is no confidence or appetite for struggle, then he will move to break it or co-opt it into the management structure, precisely because the class struggle is permanent; he will counter-attack.

capricorn

I, for one, don't want to face the coming depression without being in a union.

the point is these forms don't come out of nowhere. if i wanted to unionise my workplace it would involve a process of organisation, of collective action, to which any subsequent union presence is a consequential. struggle has primacy. as described above, the union would be nothing without the capacity and appetite for struggle; the thing is a moment of the process, not a guarantor of it. in any event, the fact the unions have been imposing pay cuts during successive years of the boom doesn't fill me with confidence about how they'll act during a prolonged depression, i suspect all that will stop them imposing austerity 'for the good of the economy' is a level of militancy which renders such an approach untenable. their permanance is no subsitute for the necessity of struggle.

Just some general points on the class struggle:
Firstly I agree with Iron Column that Capricorn's position is social democratic. (I'm not sure about world wide revolution in ten years though). Capricorn also expresses pacifist tendencies as well as tendencies towards trotskyism (and Lenin at his weakest. as Ernie points out). Capricorn doesn't see a revolutionary working class, he doesn't see Labour as opposed to capital - which is a bit of a waste for someone who has studied Capital so closely.

I don't think it's a point of calling for insurrection whatever, or posing in the sense that Capricorn describes ("nutters", etc) and calling on workers to do this or that, intervene in a strike for example and call the workers to put up barricades, make a revolution, etc. Such intervention, as Ernie above indicates, would indeed make revolutionaries look like nutters. But Capricorn's position is a caricature of the position of the ICC (and IBRP). And, it has to be said, revolution is the perspective and to ignore this is to talk down to workers - to see them as only having a trade union consciousness, as dummies incapable of taking historical steps.

The class struggle goes on all the time - even in the depths of the counter-revolution it did not die completely. And the class struggle is two-sided with the bourgeoisie in Britain, for example, permanently involved in short and long planning and strategies against the workiing class. Apart from the committees, shadowy sub-committees, government and university departments, the army, the police and intelligence overall, the state also has its trade unions. Have these trade unions ever "won" anything in the widest sense of the term. Of course they have - they would not be any good for the bourgeoisie, they wouldn't have lasted any time at all if they hadn't (though I also agree with JK's point on this about workers' struggle underneath). But if the unions didn't put up something they would have the credibility of the stalinist trade unions, the weakness of trade unions in the third world. But they have credibility and strength precisely because they and the game they are involved in has been carefully constructed for purpose by a very intelligent bourgeoisie.
For the last 90 years, trade unions and trade union ideology has been a political component of capital and all the major decisions taken by them during this period attest to it.

The working class in general struggles every day; it struggles to get to work, struggles at work, will increasingly struggle to get a job, a pay rise and struggles to have any confidence in the future. Capricorn is correct in some sense to say that the actual fight of the working class , expressed in strikes, demonstrations, etc., can't go on on a daily basis. Sometimes the class goes quiet, appears to dip out of sight but that in no way precludes a more or less profound reflection. And of course, someone above made the very important point that the class struggle is international. But in the heartlands it is very difficult to struggle now: maybe lose four days pay for a miserable increase, the blackmail of unemployment, the very real weight of decomposition and what do you struggle for? As if things weren't already bad enough for the working class - and it's been a decade or so now of relentless and severe attacks on the working class globally - things are suddenly getting much worse. The working class will be forced to fight back, forced to develop its activity and consciousness and the only possibility of pushing back the bourgeoisie is a massive struggle starting somewhere and spreading. Not only are the trade unions not equipt for such a struggle, they are built and structured to oppose any autonomous and independent action of the working class. It's not a question of "pure" struggle outside the unions - there's nothing unilinear or decided in advance about it. But the physical and ideological barrier of trade unionism has to be crossed in order for the working class to further develop its consciousness and push back the bourgeoisie.

A concrete example is the 72 miners' strike, which contrary to what Capricorn says above, started as a wildcat in South Wales where miners physically knocked the NUM officials out of the way who were trying to stop their wildcat and then spread the struggle through flying pickets to the Yorkshire fields. Scargill was so hated by many miners at the time for subverting their movement that he had to have a police escort.

Just on the army: any successful revolution will have to be backed soldiers joining it. There was a small indication of this during the 84 miners' strike where most of the non-miner arrests in the north were of soldiers on leave joining the struggle. The bourgeoisie sensibly declined to send in the army against the strikers but instead relied on the NUM and other unions to subvert it from within.

Capricorn's pacifism, trade unionism and social democracy would lead the working class into abject surrender.

After reading Demogorgan's latest contribution, I think I'm beginning to understand what "ultra-leftism" means.

JK

You clearly see the role of the unions, so why o why do you reject the theory of decadence? (I would put a nice little pleading face but I do not know how to do it, and also a thumbs up)

Baboon

Thanks for the details about the miners strike, I though it had been a wildcat. Was it in 1972 when Scottish miners put Mcgathy in a wheel barrow and wheeled him out of the pit? Scargill also had to be guarded by the police from the miner in 1982 during a miners wildcat.

ernie

Nikus

Bernie, my screen name is mikus.

arnie

On the post war boom and the role of war, in your analysis you do not mention the vital importance of the setting up of international and national state capitalist measures.

I believe that you do have a reading comprehension problem. If you decide to go back and actually read my posts on this thread, instead of inventing arguments for me, it will be clear that I never gave my own analysis of the post war boom and the role of war. I only clarified what Andrew Kliman was said to a group of people who seem to be determined to misunderstand him.

I never gave my own opinion on the matter. I don't know enough about it.

Baboon writes: "A concrete example is the 72 miners' strike, which contrary to what Capricorn says above, started as a wildcat in South Wales where miners physically knocked the NUM officials out of the way who were trying to stop their wildcat and then spread the struggle through flying pickets to the Yorkshire fields. Scargill was so hated by many miners at the time for subverting their movement that he had to have a police escort."

Ernie writes: "Thanks for the details about the miners strike, I though it had been a wildcat. Was it in 1972 when Scottish miners put Mcgathy in a wheel barrow and wheeled him out of the pit?"

Sorry, this won't do. You asked me to give an example of a succesful strike organised by an existing union. I gave you the example of the 1972 miners' strike. Now you tell me it was an unofficial, wildcat strike. You're just making it up as you go along to avoid accepting that the existing unions can, sometimes, organise a succesful strike. Here's the chronology of that strike (from pages 470 to 476 of The Fed. A History of the South Wales Miners in the Twentieth Century by Hywel Francis and David Smith:

July 1971 : NUM Annual Conference carries Yorkshire resolution demanding minimum rates of £26 (surface workers), £28 (underground) and £35 (men on Power Loading Agreement) and for the NEC to consult members on industrial action in the event of an unsatisfactory response from the NCB. This represented a 43 per cent wage demand when the Conservative Government's 'norm' was 7-8 per cent.
31 October 1971: Overtime ban in all coalfields, supervised by liaison committees, had the effect (if that were necessary) of revealing the miners' bare earnings and of conditioning and disciplining the membership at local level for the struggle ahead.
2 December 1971 : Result of NUM ballot on strike action for their conference wage demand announced:
145,482 vote for strike action 101,910 vote against strike action
In South Wales, 65 5 per cent of 29,249 voted for strike action.
9 December 1971 : NUM NEC accept the ballot result and unanimously decide to commence first national coal strike since 1926 on 9 January 1972.
5 January 1972 : NUM NEC rejects, by 23 to 2, marginally improved pay offer from NCB.
6 January 1972 : S. Wales Area EC supports unanimously the rejection of the latest NCB offer. South Wales District, National union of Railwaymen, decide that they will refuse to handle any coal in the event of a miners' strike, a decision which was fully endorsed by the train-drivers' union (ASLEF). South Wales Electricity Board announces that its coal-fired power stations have stocks sufficient to last fourteen weeks, but South Wales merchants say they only have a two-week stockpile.
7 January 1972: NCB's withdrawal of all pay offers over the previous three months and that backdating would not apply to any eventual settlement, only serves to strengthen further the miners' resolve. At South Wales Area Conference, 100 delegates unanimously support call for strike to begin as planned. All lodges to meet over the week-end to consider their situation and findings to be reported Area EC on 11 January. It is decided that only safety men should continue to work during the strike and that miners' agents can call area or strike committees: by the middle of the first week twelve such committees cover the coalfield and beyond: their main functions are picketing and the supervision of essential coal distribution but they also deal with social security problems and present their case to the 'public'. South Wales members of transport unions volunteer information to NUM on coal movements.
9 January 1972 : National coalfield strike begins. In South Wales all fifty collieries and eighty-five private mines are at a standstill.
10 January 1972: TUC calls on all its members not to cross NUM picket lines. Miners begin picketing opencast coal sites in South Wales where contractors are bringing out coal: nearly all twenty opencast sites working but no movement of coal. At seven pits (Blaenavon, Caerau, Coegnant, Cwmgwili, Fernhill, Garw and St John's) safety men have been withdrawn contrary to union instructions. Only partial safety cover at five pits in the coalfield. A hundred coal merchants in the South Wales valleys report that they are completely out of coal.
11 January 1972: South Wales Area NUM lift picket lines to allow coal supplies to be delivered to hospitals in the area.
12 January 1972: South Wales Area NUM announces intensification of picketing. Twenty-four hour picketing of coal-powered power stations to begin. 3,000 schoolchildren in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire unable to go to school because of lack of coal supplies.
13 January 1972: NUM instruction on non-colliery picketing announced. All power stations, steelworks, ports, coal depots and other major coal users to be picketed. Responsibilities for picketing in non-mining areas are allocated. South Wales miners are given the South and South-West. COSA in South Wales decides to join strike from 15 January (1,200 members, mostly clerks in Area and colliery offices). Mass meetings of Newport dockers vote to support the miners and refuse to unload two coal-laden ships. At Cardiff Docks, miners from Cwm, Nantgarw and Ferndale lodges protest at plans to unload a French ship, the Alain L. D., and appeal to Cardiff dockers not to supervise the unloading.
14 January 1972: Cardiff dockers refuse to supervise unloading of Alain L. D., which is forced to leave the port. Similar decisions to black imported coal at Swansea, Bristol, Avonmouth and Portishead.
( . . .)
18 February 1972: Report of Wilberforce Court of Inquiry recommends increases of £6 for underground workers, £5 for surface workers and £4.50 for face workers, but is rejected by NUM NEC (13 to 12). The two South Wales members formally move and second rejection which instructs its negotiators to seek more from NCB. Negotiations transfer to Downing Street,
19 February 1972: Downing Street negotiations end at 1 a.m. The improvements to Wilberforce included an extra 80p for winding men; the full basic increases to be applied to piece and contract workers, to eighteen-year-olds, and to coke and clerical staff; consequential increases for canteen workers from 1 November; adult rate to be paid at eighteen over a two-year period; an extra five days' holiday a year; the bonus shift payment to be consolidated to give a five-shift basic week; no redundancies on return to work; rent arrears to be cleared up over a 12-month period; talks on a subsidised transport scheme, to operate from 1 May; talks on a productivity bonus scheme from the autumn. NEC recommends settlement to members and picketing is called off. South Wales Area EC unanimously recommends acceptance.
21 February 1972 : South Wales Area Conference: only 2 out of 80 delegates vote against acceptance.
23 February 1972 : South Wales Miners ballot on settlement. NCB announces that seven faces in South Wales pits seriously damaged.
24 February 1972 : Two miners killed and one seriously injured at Cynheidre Colliery whilst preparing the pit for return to work.
25 February 1972 : Result of national ballot: 210,039 for, 7,581 against; in South Wales 22,332 for, 1,078 against.
28 February 1972 Return to work.

I would say that was an exemplarily executed strike, which wouldn't have been possible without a permanent workers organisation.

I've produced by evidence of what happened. Now you produce your counter-evidence that it was an unofficial strike organised by flying pickets -- if you can.

ernie

JK

You clearly see the role of the unions, so why o why do you reject the theory of decadence?

because you don't need eschatological dogma to have a materialist understanding of the historical development of the role of trade unions, the contradiction between permanent mass organisations and permanent revolutionary organisations, the relationship between the process of workers organisation and the particular formal expressions of it etc. in fact i think such a 'theory,' that is literally irrefutable (not undisputable! irrefutable, unfalsifiable) is merely theology that runs counter to the critical kernal of communist thought.

Mikus,

Sorry for the spelling mistake. Also I think I must have got you mixed up with capricorn. It would be interesting to know what you do think about the post war boom, it is generating a very interesting debate within out organization: a debate open to everyone to intervene in.

JK

I though I had laid out some of the things that would disprove decadence, hardly

irrefutable (not undisputable! irrefutable, unfalsifiable) is merely theology that runs counter to the critical kernal of communist thought.

I would say that the theory of the historically transitory nature of capitalism is part of the kernal of communist thought, As alf has pointed out even Capricorn, despite denying it, see capitalism as an outmoded social form, which as alf points out is the same as saying it is decadent. The difference is we draw different political conclusions from this same starting point.

Some times I think we may be arguing about the same thing but from different angles. Sorry I cannot remember but do you think capitalism is an outmoded social system?

ernie

I would say that the theory of the historically transitory nature of capitalism is part of the kernal of communist thought

my life is historically transitory. it doesn't mean at a certain point i stopped developing and went into decline; both processes are at work simultaneously. now with human beings we've seen enough of them to derive a 'natural arc', although i could be hit by a car tomorrow or live to protracted old age. since capitalism as a global social relation is a sample size of one and is not as limited by biological finity as an individual person, declaring it is in decline tells us nothing; one day you will be right, but that's less useful than a broken clock.

ernie

I cannot remember but do you think capitalism is an outmoded social system?

decadence theory is rather more than the possibility of communism, is it not?

But isn't one of the material conditions for a new mode of production (communism) precisely that the old mode of production has become obsolete and a barrier to the further development of the productive forces? If capitalism isn't decadent then doesn't communism become a utopia?

If by 'eschatalogical dogma' you mean a religious understanding of the end of the world, then I'd have to disagree with you about the conception of the ascendency and decadence of human societies. All previous societies have risen and fell, and capitalism is no different. Capitalism is not the end of history.

Surely a materialist understanding of the role of the unions, parliament, national self-determination etc has to take into account the nature of the historical epoch we are in?

JK

I think I see the point you are trying to get at, but biologically Sadly as one gets older you do reach a point where the inter-relationship between the various biological systems at work in the body become into such combinations that unfortunately there is a process of decline. The skin thins, the liver does not work as effectively, the colon undergoes changes etc. Sadly these are biological realities for those of us of certain years. The rate of onset and impact clearly depends upon many factors: class, occupation, general health etc, but as a general dynamic there is a process of aging [url=Enter URL herehttp://www.myseniorhealthcare.com/Effects-Of-Aging-On-Your-Body.html]. Most shockingly apparently for men the libido is in decline from the early 20s, sorry chaps! For women this does not happen until the mid 30's.

In capitalism we can see and analysis phenomena that also express the decline of the capitalist body, as we have pointed out many times. The point is that you appear to think that these symptoms: incessant wars, two world wars, mass starvation, the inability to integrate large parts of humanity into capitalism, mass unemployment, 20 years of 'boom' in nearly 95 years are not signs of decline, unless I have misunderstood you. It is not a question of the ICC and others putting forwards a dogma etc but the fact you do not agree that the social phenomena we say express this, demonstrate this . As Beltov points out this is not a religious view but a historical materialist one. We will probably not agree but at least lets agree on a common understanding of what we are disagreeing on.

Ernie, don't forget to reply with your version of the 1972 Miner's strike.

ernie

Sadly these are biological realities for those of us

there's a reason i delimited my analogy...
Joseph K.

since capitalism as a global social relation is a sample size of one and is not as limited by biological finity

ernie

In capitalism we can see and analysis phenomena that also express the decline of the capitalist body, as we have pointed out many times. The point is that you appear to think that these symptoms: incessant wars, two world wars, mass starvation, the inability to integrate large parts of humanity into capitalism, mass unemployment, 20 years of 'boom' in nearly 95 years are not signs of decline, unless I have misunderstood you.

they're signs of capitalism functioning normally. a theory of decline adds nothing, save perhaps a chicken licken urgency, as can be seen by the fact one can both see capitalism as historically transitory and understand the role of unions etc perfectly well without one. i mean at least put a timescale on it, otherwise you're just saying 'all this bad stuff will keep happening until we put a stop to it,' which is really rather banal. or to return to the human analogy...

Patient: Doctor, there's something wrong with my baby!
Dr ICC: I have some bad news. Your baby is dying.
Patient: Gasp! Oh my god, what's wrong with him!? how long does he have?
Dr ICC: The symptoms are undeniable. Your baby has a terminal condition known as 'life.' It's too early to say how long he has, could be 5 minutes or 5 decades, but the prognosis is bleak; the mortality rate is 100%. The only thing we can say for certain is your baby is a historically transient phenomenon. Next.
Patient 2: I have these headaches...
Dr ICC: I have some bad news. You're dying.

they're signs of capitalism functioning normally.

no, because the phenomena ernie mentions are specific phenomena of decadence:

- world war, with, it should be added, the development of weapons capable of destroying the world many times over

- the inability to integrate large parts of humanity into capitalism - during the period of ascendence, larger and larger sections of the peasantry were being integrated into capitalism. (For some people, the rapid industrialisation of China in the last 20 years has been a sign of 'incorporation' however, there is a difference - in ascendence the totality of the workforce was increasing. Today, every 3 jobs created in China mean a job lost in the west - as there were in the 80s with the rise of taiwan / korea).

- you could also add the environmental destruction whch has hugely accelerated over the past 100 years or so

The thing is Joseph, if there is no 'chicken licken urgency', as you put it, if everything is just 'business as before' why is there a need to develop a revolutionary alternative?

since capitalism as a global social relation is a sample size of one and is not as limited by biological finity as an individual person, declaring it is in decline tells us nothing; one day you will be right, but that's less useful than a broken clock.

We don't say that, and the workers movement hasn't posed it in that way - it was stated as 'socialism or barbarism', either the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or the breakdown of society into a state of barbarism. Already the scientists are saying it'll take a hundred years or more to 'correct' the problems with poor air quality for hundreds of millions. Do you think capitalism will be able to overcome this issue left to its own devices? If yes, fine we have nothing to tallk about. If no, then the question is how long does humanity have before we reach a real 'tipping point', where it will be too late to overt major disasters? There is a finite amount of time for the working class to overthrow capitalism, and time is not on our side...

miles

no, because the phenomena ernie mentions are specific phenomena of decadence

this is circular. you're defining decadence as these things, then pointing to them as evidence of decadence.

miles

The thing is Joseph, if there is no 'chicken licken urgency', as you put it, if everything is just 'business as before' why is there a need to develop a revolutionary alternative?

in short, because capitalism is shit, irrespective of your eschatological predispositions. and i'm not saying everything is the same, it's not a case of subscribe to decadence theory or be ahistorical.

miles

There is a finite amount of time for the working class to overthrow capitalism, and time is not on our side...

you've switched to talking about the ecological crisis, which is a concrete thing not a vague sense of decline. you guys really are a case study of fallacies and confirmation bias.

decadence theory

miles

the inability to integrate large parts of humanity into capitalism - during the period of ascendence, larger and larger sections of the peasantry were being integrated into capitalism. (For some people, the rapid industrialisation of China in the last 20 years has been a sign of 'incorporation' however, there is a difference - in ascendence the totality of the workforce was increasing. Today, every 3 jobs created in China mean a job lost in the west - as there were in the 80s with the rise of taiwan / korea).

I don't really see your point here. If only one job is lost to every three created, then surely the "totality of the workforce" is still increasing?

You're right, I didn't make that point very well. I don't think that ratio is correct - Just because labour is a lot cheaper in china, doesn't necessarily mean that more people are required to do the same job. The point I was trying to make was that jobs created elsewhere mean jobs lost here (or other places where the cost of labour is much higher than china).

China is also a particular example (of course, what is going to happen to huge numbers of these workers in the next period of recession?) - the point was about the inability of the integration of humanity into capitalism, for which large parts of africa constitute better examples.

miles

The point I was trying to make was that jobs created elsewhere mean jobs lost here (or other places where the cost of labour is much higher than china).

the number of wage labourers globally in absolute and relative terms is an empirical question. i would be very surprised to say the least if the creation of an industrial proletariat in china is offset completely by rising unemployment in the west.

miles

China is also a particular example (of course, what is going to happen to huge numbers of these workers in the next period of recession?) - the point was about the inability of the integration of humanity into capitalism, for which large parts of africa constitute better examples.

but did capitalism integrate that humanity any better pre-1914? i can't see how africa's predicament means capitalism is in decline, looks like more circular logic and confirmation bias to me...

Joseph K.

a theory of decline adds nothing... as can be seen by the fact one can both see capitalism as historically transitory and understand the role of unions etc perfectly well without one.

It would be good if you could elaborate on this point. Do you reject the need for theory per se, or just a theory of decadence?

i reject decadence theories, not theory per se

it really is just silly you know? i'm from the midwest in the u.s. and i had never heard of the icc prior to my arrival on libcom, and i was very interested to know what it was all about. but i swear to god you guys come off like raving lunatics about decadence. if one doesn't believe in your theory of decadence one can't believe in the importance of theory? or the better one was "why overthrow capitalism if it isn't decadent?" why is it so important for you guys to jam this down people's throats? the rest of your politics seem okay to me, and decadence is really interesting, but jesus christ if you guys don't sound like you all drank some kool-aid at a religious gathering.

i don't want to sound harsh. i don't have a horse in this race, and i thought perhaps it would be helpful to know what it looks like from the outside.

If you don't like decadence theory, you're anti-theory. If you don't think that capitalism is on the verge of collapse, you're echoing the British bourgeoisie. If you don't think that Luxemburg's explanation of overproduction is correct, you must think overproduction is impossible. If you don't think that the IRA is a proxy army for the CIA, you must not think that governments use proxy armies and you must support Irish nationalism.

Back to the discussion about unions...

I like Joseph K's formulation about putting "substance before structure". I'm amazed by how anarchist groups keep popping up, writing whole constitutions and having a number of officers before they have a half dozen people with similar ideas.

I'm a bit confused by the formulation "permanent organization" though. Formal organizations with regular meetings and dues often fall apart quickly, and sometimes informal social networks of militant workers will last for years.

But assuming we just mean formal organizations that have lived longer than the struggle, the how does that square with the idea of class struggle as a "process of organisation"?

Here we're talking about a lot of informal things as well, such as informal workplace groups forming, breaking down barriers/prejudices between different workers... If a cycle of struggles are over, they are over precisely because these sorts of organizational advances have been destroyed. We would want them to be as permanent as possible.

I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure why "permanent organization" is a good way to describe this... or is there something i'm missing. When I have argued with some friends of mine who are insurrectionary anarchists, this always comes up.

In any case, I like the warning not to put structure before substance better (for people defending and critiquing union activity).

The putting of form before substance works both ways. Look at the wildcast Ulster Workers Council strike of 1974. Here the opponents of the existing unions had what they want: an unofficial strike organised by a unofficial "workers council" (yes, that's what it called itself) outside and against the existing unions (which opposed and tried to sabotage it). In fact this has been the only successful political general strike in UK history -- and what for? What was the substance? To bring down a power-sharing government.
PS While we'll still back in the 70s I'm still waiting for the anti-union ICC to try to explain away the successful 1972 official miners' strike.

quint

But assuming we just mean formal organizations that have lived longer than the struggle, the how does that square with the idea of class struggle as a "process of organisation"?

what i have in mind is that while an anarcho-syndicalist union (as i've defined it, mass assemblies etc, a 'type (3) organisation') could be formed off the back of an increased level of struggle, it would necessarily recess into being a network of militants ('type (2) organisation') when the struggle, and so the participation in mass meetings wanes. so i think type (1) and (2) organisations (propaganda groups and networks of militants) are permanent organisations (although of course this doesn't mean they will endure), whereas type (3) organistions are not, so if we want to build them we have to give primacy to the struggle itself, and not the other way around.

you may be right that 'permanent organisation' isn't the best way to frame this, but what i'm trying to stress is we can't apply a 'build it and they will come' approach to anarcho-syndicalist unions since they are an expression of a certain level of class struggle, and even if we build them off the back of a mass struggle we'll be left clinging to an empty shell if the level of struggle subsides. this is important because workers get fucked over when they declare themselves a union without being in a position to actually take collective direct action.

capricorn

The putting of form before substance works both ways. Look at the wildcast Ulster Workers Council strike of 1974.

surely that's working in the same way...? without the content of militant class struggle (i think religious sectarianism can be considered not a class struggle ;)), even the most perfect forms are meaningless. likewise if we try and create the perfect anarcho-syndicalist union without there being an adequate level of militant struggle, we will get nowhere; class struggle has primacy.

That's what I meant to say. That both class consciousness and non-class consciousness can express themselves in the same form, the Ulster Workers Council strike being an example of non-class consciousness expressing itself in the form you favour. And, conversely, form not being the most important, that class consciousness can express itself in the "trade union" form just as much as in the ad hoc "workers council" form. Sorry not to have been clearer first time round.

capricorn

And, conversely, form not being the most important, that class consciousness can express itself in the "trade union" form just as much as in the ad hoc "workers council" form. Sorry not to have been clearer first time round.

well this is true to an extent, but it will very quickly come up against the limits of that form (of course if the forms i'm advocating prove inadequate to communisation, they should be unsentimentally gone beyond too). so i wouldn't say "class concsiousness can express itself in the 'trade union' form just as much as in the ad hoc 'workers council' form", because for instance the trade union form precludes secondary solidarity action, spontaneous walkouts to support a collegue, workers' control of the struggle, and imposes various sectoral divisions on the class etc.

jesuithitsquad

i'm from the midwest in the u.s. and i had never heard of the icc prior to my arrival on libcom

i do apologise :cry:

because for instance the trade union form precludes secondary solidarity action, spontaneous walkouts to support a collegue, workers' control of the struggle, and imposes various sectoral divisions on the class etc.

I put "trade union" in inverted commas deliberately since for me it doesn't just mean the existing ordinary unions but any permanent working class defensive organisation including industrial unions and unions embracing anarcho-syndicalist principles.
It is not true that this permanent form precludes the actions you list. Even the existing unions can do this, even if not openly but they still do (formally condemning them to be seen to comply with the law and save union funds, while surreptiously encouraging them).
Agreed that the existing and even anarcho-syndicalist unions do impose "sectoral divisions on the class" but so can and do actions organised by ad hoc temporary strike committees.

capricorn

I put "trade union" in inverted commas deliberately since for me it doesn't just mean the existing ordinary unions but any permanent working class defensive organisation including industrial unions and unions embracing anarcho-syndicalist principles.

i think this is needlessly conflating very different forms of organisation. i mean there's a discussion over whether ongoing mass assemblies/delegate councils should be referred to as anarchol-syndicalist unions or 'workers groups' or something else, but to use the same term for mass assemblies as describes UNISON seems to only serve the purpose of making the latter seem more respectable, like when left communists insist on calling a federation of workers councils a 'state.'

it seems like you're trying to turn my 'struggle > forms' argument into a 'forms are unimportant' apologia for trade unions, that's a very different argument to the one i'm making, which is to push for forms more adequate to spreading, and winning our struggles.

capricorn

Even the existing unions can do this, even if not openly but they still do (formally condemning them to be seen to comply with the law and save union funds, while surreptiously encouraging them).

while the initiative for lots of wildcats comes from shop stewards, nod-and-a-wink condemnation is really not that viable as i understand it, particularly in the case of ongoing secondry pickets etc. not that union bureaucrats want workers to spread their struggles horizontally beyond their control, since their function is to manage struggles on our behalf (however they rationalise this to themselves).

capricorn

Agreed that the existing and even anarcho-syndicalist unions do impose "sectoral divisions on the class" but so can and do actions organised by ad hoc temporary strike committees.

which is why we should push for forms that don't when the level of struggle permits is - mass assemblies, federating by region/industry, spreading beyond the workplace to 'the community' etc. my argument is not that form is unimportant - it is - but that struggle precedes it (ontologically, if you like).

I think I'm trying to express the same view as Dave Douglass (for all his faults) in his criticism of an anti-union pamphlet by Cajo Brendel published elsewhere on this site, especially this part:

Page 6 - 'THE UNIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO CAPITALISM BUT NOT TO THE WORKERS'

This statement alone cuts aside all theoretical differences, for in practice it says, 'the struggle at plant, on farm or down the pit is not important to workers'. It must mean that, for it is the union who takes, for example, the unfair dismissal case, questions the lack of adequate breaks, attends the inquest of the dead miner or the compensation case for the builder with a split skull or the factory worker with an amputated leg, or the canteen worker with the scalded arm, who sorts out the problems left for the kids or partner where the breadwinner is killed or seriously injured? Who challenges the diseases and injurious substances introduced by the capitalist process? In all of this Brendel says the unions are important to capitalism but not the workers!

I think we have the right to ask if this person has ever met or spoken to an industrial worker? Maybe he has, but it is quite clear he himself has never been one, for if he had it is for certain he would have joined the union BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN HIS INTEREST TO DO SO, just like the other workers. This is why unions were formed, and why despite massive anti-union legislation they still exist. If Mr. Brendel went to work in a sweat shop because he needed the money, with unguarded machinery, and he lost a finger or a hand, the union would seek compensation and a change of working practices to ensure the safety of other workers. In such circumstances would he need the union more than the boss? I deem the answer to be so obvious that only a situationist would get it wrong.

As I've said before (and to stay on topic) we're going to need some permanent organisation to protect us on these and other matters in the coming Depression. And the only credible such organisations we have at the moment are ordinary trade unions such as UNISON, etc. Demogorgon's suggestion that we could just as easily go to the local Citizens Advice Bureau for help on such matters is just ridiculous. The suggestion that an ad hoc general assembly can deal with them adequately is only slightly better.

Capricorn demands an answer from Ernie concerning the 72 miners' strike.
I'll answer - hope you don't mind Ernie.

Have a look at Capricorn's 7.11 post above defending the NUM as conducting an "exemplary strike". Not only is Capricorn an apologist and defender of the unions he is also their censor.

HIs account of the strike above is pure union propaganda highlighting the "democratic" vote as well as other elements such as, in his own words, an overtime ban for the "conditioning and disciplinging of the membership at the local level for the struggle ahead". Yes, "conditioning and disciplining" that's what he says. Add to this the uselessness of an overtime ban in such circumstances and already you see in Capricorn's defence of the unions his anti-working class positions.

Worse than this, in his trade union "account" of what went on, capricorn completely leaves out any mention whatsoever of the flying pickets. These were a very positive element of the 71/2 miners' struggle and while not perfect, showed a determination for the self-organisation and extention of the strike within the coalfields and to other workers. Capricorn makes not one mention of these very positive elements in his sanitised, censored, union account of what took place.

The 72 strike began with a strong element of self-organisation, flying pickets, unofficial walkouts (starting with South Wales), picketing of power stations, taking the struggle to other workers and other workers joining in, notably and decisevely, Birmingham engineering workers.

The miners, and the working class generally, won big increases from the militant struggles of the early 70s but living standards had fallen below these levels by early 1978 with the NUM accepting and implementing pit by pit productivity deals with tiny increases in exchange for largely union organised increases in output ("conditioning and disciplining" of workers by the unions you might say Capricorn).

In the early 80s with over 40 pits closed and tens of thousands of steel and miners jobs on the line, the steelworkers' ISTC union and the NUM stamped on attempts by South Wales miners to join the steel strike in a united struggle against job losses. Union division of Scottish, Yorkshire and Welsh miners, and union division of miners from other workers was maintained and constantly reinforced by the NUM.

No one is arguing about "pure" struggle outside of the unions, but elements of self-organisation and extension that naturally come up against the trade union barriers, as the unmentionable flying pickets discovered. How could the unions be absent from these struggles? Their very role as a state-structured, state-financed, state organised bodies is to be fully inivolved in the class struggle on the side of the bourgeoisie. That's their job.
For the same reason it can be said, as Capricorn says, that the unions have "won" "gains". The question is what is "won" and what is "gains"?
We've seen that gains made by the class struggle in GB in the early 70s were wiped out in a few years - not least by union "conditioning and disciplining", bringing shed-loads of job cuts, wage cuts and productivity campaigns. So what is the basis of these "gains", what is their content, and what is their perspective from today?

The basis of trade union "gains" is from the state integrated union structures playing a game of opposition to management, essential if they are to maintain any credibility at all among workers. All the bourgeoisie are and have been involved in this, governments left or right, unions, leftism, etc. The actual content of these union "gains" are short lived, shallow and carry a sting of productivity, actual wage cuts, enforced union discipline (that probably goes along with Capricorn's "conditioning"), job losses agreed by the unions, and so on. But the biggest "gain" for the unions and their state, is the ideological and physical division of the working class when it goes into struggle, division into private, public; firm or corporation; sector and the union's ultimate division and defence - the national capital. This work of union division is carried out permanently by the trade unions and this is the main function that they perform for the state. This is what the bourgeoisie has integrated them into the state and set them up for.
As to the perspective of any "gains" or "winning" in the coming period, then the unions are going to have a problem in convincing workers that they can provide anything except wage cuts, job losses and increased productivity. But this won't stop apologists like Capricorn continuing to defend them. The only real "gain" for the working class is the depth and extension of its struggles - a "gain" that the unions will try to go along with in order to better control but one that fundamentally they are opposed to (see Capricorn's union position, 7.11).

Among the positions poisonous to class consciousness that Capricorn defends is also the question of pacifism.This is strongly related to his 'civil war, forget it' position. It's exemplified in his own words again above that "... if however, you're talking about the sort of essentially peaceful demonstration that brought down the state capitalist regimes of Eastern Europe a few years ago without violence". But the collapse of the eastern bloc in 89 directly came about from the implosion of the Soviet economy from which the working class was largely absent The ideological attacks that came from that event, the "death of communism" and the equasion of stalinism with communism had nothing positive in it. It was proclaime "the victory of capitalism".
The events of 89 also opened up a can of worms on the imperialist level; ethnic, nationalist and imperialist manoeuvres and divisions that very quickly turned into hot wars and generalised attacks against the working class.

Capricorn celebrated the "gains" and "victories" of the unions while at the same time writing out from history the real gain of the struggles. He also celebrated pacificm and the sideliining of the working class.

capricorn

I think I'm trying to express the same view as Dave Douglass (for all his faults) in his criticism of an anti-union pamphlet by Cajo Brendel published elsewhere on this site

i'm not saying unions offer no benefits to workers; my own organisation's strategy is that members should join the union if one is recognised in their workplace, and i don't think even the ICC are arguing for workers to leave unions. however, the idea 'the unions' will defend us from recession is pure nonsense; the reaction of the unions so far has been to impose pay cuts on their members, and the recession has barely even begun! The only thing that will make the unions do any more is an increased level of workers struggle and militancy, which will likely express itself in part though the unions just as it will need to express itself outside them.

i'm not saying unions offer no benefits to workers; my own organisation's strategy is that members should join the union if one is recognised in their workplace, and i don't think even the ICC are arguing for workers to leave unions.

Glad to hear it. That's what I'd say too. I know the ICC doesn't say that workers should necessarily leave the existing unions, but I presume they say they shouldn't join them and don't join them themselves. That's logical on their part since if you really think that the unions are part of the State machinery then you'd no more advise workers to join a union than you would to join the armed forces or the police force. But of course they're not living on this planet or in our time, only in an imaginary world of their own, circa 1918.

Sorry, Baboon, you've been too quick on the draw and have made a fool of yourself. It wasn't me who wrote the chronology of the strike. I was just quoting as documentary evidence something from an official history of the NUM South Wales Area. The words "conditioning and discipling" came from them not me (they struck me as odd too, even if used in the context of preparing their membership for a strike, which 34.5% voted against anyway).
I only quoted from part of the chronology. If I had quote all 6 pages you would have been able to see that flying pickets. For instance

17 January 1972 Pickets stop coke movements in and out of Ebbw Vale and Port Talbot steelworks. Two more pits (Ffaldau and Wyndham-Western) without safety cover. South Wales Area EC reaffirms its decision that safety men should work. Pickets persuade members of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union (CAWU) at seven collieries to go home, but other members at the NCB Area offices (Ystradmynach, Tondu and Llanishen) go to work.
18 January 1972 Pickets at Aberthaw and Llynfi power stations. Coal operations virtually ceased on opencast sites because TGWU lorry drivers refuse to deliver fuel oil. At Ystradmynach NCB offices, 400 CAWU members turn back after speaking to pickets. At Pontarddulais, pickets prevent ninety clerks from entering NCB West Wales Area Wages Office. Twenty-four pickets at Llanwern and Port Talbolt steelworks. 6,500 children away from Glamorganshire schools owing to coal shortage.

(Incidentally, the CAWU was one of the unions I've been in and a piss poor union it was, now swallowed up by the GMB).
But who do think organised, paid-for (and paid) the flying pickets if not the NUM -- ie according to your conception the State ! State-sponsored flying pickets, that's a good one. Anyway, here's the evidence of one of them, Dave Douglass (for Brendel read Baboon):

Page 14 - THE MINERS' STRIKE OF 1972

I myself was an activist in the unofficial miners' movement of the middle and late 1960's. I edited the revolutionary miners' paper The Mineworker, and assisted with numerous other unofficial journals. By the time of 1972 the unofficial movement had gained its head, it had won a number of constitutional victories without which the strike could not have got started, let alone been won. Everywhere it was the militant 'unofficial' leaders and activists who were now taking branch positions. The union was coming over en masse to the perspective of strike action. It is true the national leadership was against the strike, but the rank and file were running the union and the strike. At no time did we feel 'the union' was something other than ourselves, we were the union and we had wrested control back from the right wing bureaucrats, but the union was ours, not theirs. The impression given in the pamphlet is that the strike and the picketing was at odds with 'the union'. How could this be so? We had held a successful national ballot and voted to strike. Each area and district appointed its own picket targets and picket plans, no-one could or did obstruct this process. The union organised the picketing so praised by Brendel. Which "orders of the bureaucrats" did we refuse to follow? It would be interesting for comrade Brendel to actually tell us what he is talking about.

I don't understand the bit that says "out of 289 pits only 60 were kept up". I presume this is a bad translation. I suppose he is saying 289 pits were on strike in 1972, but only 60 survived. If so, it's true, but not because of the 1972 strike! We had a 1974 strike, and 1984/85 strike after that, before we got down to 60 pits and that happened after 1985 as a result of loosing our strike against pit closures. To stick this figure in here , in reference to the 1972 strike, is absurd and historically quite meaningless.

Picketing of coal stocks and power stations was organised by the area and district levels of the union. It is simply a lie to say this was done against the union's wishes. "Their dynamism and ambitions were astonishing, inspiring as much fear in the union leaders as in the bourgeoisie itself." - Who is he talking about? Arthur Scargill, a union official, led the miners at Saltley Gate, Jack Dunn, a union official, picketed the Thames in a Navy picket, blockading coal and ports. Union officials were present in each and every conflict; some were arrested, many were injured. Again Mr. Brendel's assertions are simply untrue. The union organised the picket convoys (and paid the petrol, by the way). If Brendel's whole thesis rests upon the myth that 'the miners' against the NUM organised and ran the whole strike, then the whole thing collapses as this is patently untrue; yes, the rank and file activists gained ground and captured control of the direction of the union, but it was the union they utilised to run the strike and win the strike. The miners are inseparable from the miners' union, of which they are most proud. Why didn't he ask any of us

I agree that a union's "gains" are never secure and are undermined by further downward pressures. All they can do in the long-run is ensure that workers get paid more or less the full value of their labour power, and to do this they have to run fast just to standstill. If they stopped running (ie dissolved themselves as you would like) then workers' conditions would get even worse.
But, from what I can gather, you're not interested in strikes and other pressure to protect wages and conditions in the here and now as you think that any "gain" will soon be taken away, but only in strikes as a potential spark (as your hero Lenin put it) to ignite a revolutionary struggle to overthrow capitalism. But workers cannot live on theory alone.

The basis of trade union "gains" is from the state integrated union structures playing a game of opposition to management, essential if they are to maintain any credibility at all among workers. All the bourgeoisie are and have been involved in this, governments left or right, unions, leftism, etc.

I thought you would use this one and was in fact going to suggest, if you hadn't replied, that this would be the only argument you could use. But where's the evidence? When and where did the leaders of the NUM meet the top management of the Coal Board and government ministers to get their permission to organise a national strike to maintain a following amongst the miners? This is just a mad conspiracy theory of the sort for which the ICC has a well-earned reputation. In fact, after a second successful national strike in 1974, a future government decided to see off and smash the NUM, which they succeeded in doing.
Sorry I can't return the compliment about you being a danger to the working class because I think workers are not going to take any notice of your attacks on the unions and talk of civil war.

I'm aware that you were quoting official NUM propaganda Capricorn and that the words were not your own. I was mistaken to say that they were your words. However you quoted this stalinist/democratic "report" approvingly and as an answer to the ICC and you quoted it approvingly as an example of an "exemplarly strike".
You've now gone from the stalinist/democratic defence of your position (ie, official NUM propaganda) as an apologist for the trade unions to the rank and file trotskyist defence of it as above.

I've noticed this before, Baboon, and others will have too: every time you are in a hole you don't deal with the argument but attack the person making it. Your way of trying to deal with Mikus's arguments has been to call him an academic. You tried the same on me. And you've done it again now.
You may remember how this started. You (or was it Ernie?) asked me to name a successful strike organised by one of the existing unions. I said the 1972 miners strike in Britain. You replied that that was a wildcat strike. So, I produced evidence that it wasn't. That evidence came from an official history of the NUM South Wales Area which happened to have been dominated by the old Communist Party. You seem to think that it's enough to dismiss this on the grounds that they're stalinists; which is true but irrelevant in this case. Then you said it was flying pickets not the official union that did it. I produced the evidence of one of them that these pickets were organised and paid for by the union. You dismiss this on the grounds that the picket in question was a trotskyist (I thought that he was writing as a Class War anarchist, but it doesn't matter).
But I quoted these sources not because of their politics but as eye-witness evidence as to what happened: that it was a union-organised strike and a successful one.
Anyway, I think I've proved my case.

Hi, I hope somebody can help: I'm still trying to make sense of the situation and recently I became interested in the relationship between the current crisis and the overall development of capitalism since the 1970s.

Kliman's articles were helpful, but not completely satisfying. The text in the new Prol-position newsletter seems to suggest that since the 1970s, it's becoming ever more obvious that the automobile-centred cycle (with its corresponding Fordist regime of accumulation) is nearing its end, or is already exhausted. The empirical trend of the falling rate of profit (as supposedly proven by e.g. Moseley or Shaikh) seems to confirm this, as does the explosion of the financial sector since the early 80s.

So, first, I'd be interested in your opinions. Can the current crisis be explained in terms of capital's unsuccessful attempts at finding a new sector that could become the "core" of a new cycle (the dot-com crash etc.)? Is the reason behind the "financialization" of capitalism the attempt to restore the rate of profit to 1960s levels?

Second, can someone recommend any literature dealing with this, preferably in a rigorous way, either affirming or criticizing the theses? (I thought Beverly Silver's Forces of Labor would be helpful, but it's too wide-ranging and I don't have time to deal with it right now.)

(I am not too sure about the falling rate of profit, which apparently is still a matter of a hot and complex debate, but Moseley's and Shaikh's charts seem persuasive. Anyway, I wouldn't want to get in a discussion about this, as I still haven't read Volume III of the scripture.)

Jura

I think that the following article will provide some of the analysis you are looking for in relation to the current crisis and that of the 1970's [http://en.internationalism.org/wr/319/neo-liberalism. Please let us know what you think of it.]

Capricorn

The point that Baboon is making is that the NUM of course claim that the 1972 strike was a victory due to their organisation, whereas the reality was it was the miners who spread the struggle etc. You appear to have a rather naive confidence in the truth telling of this state organization. Baboon is not distorting the truth, the 1972 began as an unofficial strike and the NUM had to run to catch up and take the head of the movement. And clearly it will claim that the gains the workers won by their action was in reality the NUM's victory, otherwise why the hell would workers want to belong to it. The 70's was marked by struggles that began as unofficials that posed a real threat to the unions and the unions had to run and appear radical in order to keep any influence over the workers. The relationship between the NUM and the miners was marked by unofficial actions in the 70s and early 1980's. During an unofficial strike in 1981 or 2 (I cannot remember) Scargill had to have cordon of police to protect him from striking miners as he entered a meeting. 1984 began spread to nearly all the coal fields as an unofficial, it was only when the NUM regained the initiative that this movement was stopped.
You also avoid the question of the role of the fying pickets. The NUM also claim that all the miners need to do in 1984 was get Nothingham out and that would be it, the fact that it was the NUM which stopped them picketing out Nothingham etc in the first place is put to one side. What does the NUM history say about the beginning of the 84 strike?

Capricorn

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

The stock markets are falling because the frauds that bankers and rich people have been doing there were seen .

Governmentals are trying to make sure that the money which they lost won’t be destructive from them .

The police and the governments are trying to take peoples’ money to save the bankers from jail ,and make the fraud by their selves, taking control of the banks.

Police is putting the lives of bankers above millions of lives.

The money is the peoples’ pain and struggle we must not let them steal us.

DON’T GIVE THE MONEY TO THE BANKERS ,
TAKE IT FROM THEM

ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming your anti-union stance which you should attach as a health warning to all your contributions here.
I take it that when a union such as the PCSU -- a "state organisation" in your eyes -- calls a one-day strike you stay at work or perhaps go sick?
And you dare to call yourselves "Marxists". Go away and read Marx's Value, Price and Profit

D.K.

The stock markets are falling because the frauds that bankers and rich people have been doing there were seen .

Governmentals are trying to make sure that the money which they lost won’t be destructive from them .

The police and the governments are trying to take peoples’ money to save the bankers from jail ,and make the fraud by their selves, taking control of the banks.

Police is putting the lives of bankers above millions of lives.

The money is the peoples’ pain and struggle we must not let them steal us.

DON’T GIVE THE MONEY TO THE BANKERS ,
TAKE IT FROM THEM

It's not the bankers that are to blame but the whole capitalist system. In blaming just the bankers we'd be taking the side of the industrial and other capitalists against the financial capitalists who they blame for getting them into a mess.
So, a much better slogan would be "Blame the System! " or "Abolish Money altogether!"

"Blame the System!

But, somehow 'support the unions' - which, somehow, are not part of the system..?

Baboon is not distorting the truth, the 1972 began as an unofficial strike and the NUM had to run to catch up and take the head of the movement.

That's just not true. The 1972 miners strike began on 9 January 1972 as a national stoppage organised by the NUM following both a vote at its delegate conference in July 1971 and an individual ballot of all the members in November . In other words, the NUM was carring out the will and mandate of its members. After six weeks of striking and picketing a settlement was reached on 19 February involving a substantial wage increase and other concessions. The strike ended on 28 February 1972 after this settlement was accepted in a further individual ballot of the members.
You are trying to deny this undeniable fact as it undermines your whole belief system that the existing unions cannot organise a successful strike but must always sabotage them. There must be a psychological term for this.

ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

The lawyer Capricorn says he has proved his case. But he has just continued to defend trade unionism and democracy. Over one hundred thousand Yorkshire miners were on strike months before the 72 official ballot. Of course the NUM had to get "radical", that's their function.

Why do the unions constantly throw up "bad leaders" and "bureaucrats"? Why does it always happen that the unions "sell out"? Why do the union leaders always end up as Lords and Ladies, or on state and corporate bodes, very well paid and pensioned? When did any union leader in the 40 years die poor? Why? Because the unions perform an indispensable role for the state and the bourgeoisie is very aware of this and in general looks after its own.

The suggestion from Capricorn is that the unions do not sit down with the bosses and governmnet, 11.11, in the case of the NUM. He must be kidding. Secret and public meetings were the name of the game.
Even Thatcher and her clique, when they were setting up the working class prior to 84 (when the NUM brought in another overtime ban in order to allow the state to build up coal stocks and more time to prepare the attack on the working class), held meetings, open and secret, with the ISTC steel union, the powerworkers union, and the National Union of Railmen in order to cut deals with them in order to ensure their support to the miners was like a noose to a condemned man.

From the stalinist/democratic statement that Capricorn unreservedly supported 7.11, he's quickly leapt onto the Douglas rank and filist approach in order not to appear so blatently anti-working class. This is exactly what trade unions do when faced with the class struggle: radicalise their language. But Capricorns rapidly discovered rank and filism is just a variation on the stalinist/democratic approach - just more "radical" in appearance. Trade unionism, stalinist, democratic or rank and filist always supports the trade, corporatist, and nationalist and divisivions. The rank and filist approach of Douglas above, now supported by Capricorn, talks of "constitutional victories" and "successful national ballots". Douglas may have ditched the stalinism (though I'd like to investigate that further) but he's certainly hung onto democracy. And his whole approach about the "the unions are us" is exactly what greatly contributed to the defeat of the miners and the rest of the working class in GB in 1984.

ernie

The lawyer Capricorn says he has proved his case.

you weaken a communist critique of the unions with constant ad hominems

Jason Cortez

I can't find anything to support the claim being made that the 72 miners strike started as a wildcat.

of course even if this is the case, union laws have changed dramatically since then (as have union densities, general levels of militancy...), largely in response to working class victories in the 70s; in particular the outlawing of secondary picketing and sympathy strikes, which were previously a course of action open to workers within union limits. a periodisation that divides the world into 'pre-1914' and 'post-1914' ironically ends up being ahistorical, and unmaterialist. it is entirely possible that a union could have organised and funded secondary pickets in 1972 (as apparently happened in the case of the miners strike, under rank and file initiative), but that unions would not do so today, even if there was comparable rank and file militancy driving them to act - because unions are not platonic forms but historically contingent ones. communist critique should start from reality not try and fit reality to theory.

I don't know much about the 1972 strike but I did find something that looks interesting here. Some quotes:

"During 1971, the NUM conference put forward a large wage-demand under pressure from the rank and file, but Gormley, the NUM president, warned that "pressure from below" must not "lead to anarchy". The NUM organised a ban on overtime; the NCB employed privately contracted labour whilst rearranging shifts. The NUM was afraid that the tension would allow wildcats to break out immediately, so in December they declared an official strike to start from January 1972." (Emphases mine)

"Another issue which divided the miners against the NUM leadership was the question of NCB office workers. The NUM had instructed the union's white-collar section (COSA) to stay at work to handle wages for the week in hand and to process tax rebates. Picketting in Notts led to 500 workers at the coal industry's research centre to come out and this was followed by 1200 members in South Wales coming out, and a week later, on 17th Jan, 12,500 came out on strike, all against NUM wishes. And picketting of offices still working continued in various parts of the country throughout the strike, often with some success."

"Scargill, asked by the chief constable to disperse the crowd, did so using a police loudspeaker to make a nice rhetorical speech about the workers of the world uniting – but clearly they'd done enough uniting for the last hour and were asked to disunite and go home. The strikers, sadly, complied." (Emphasis in original)

The incorporation of the trade unions relies on the nature of their role as mediators and the historical unfolding of the class struggle. The trade union movement is not simply a part of the 'state' or even the 'left wing capital', it represents in an institutional form an expression of class struggle. The gains of the working class are often insitutionalised at the level of law, unions became subject to this process early on in their history, this helped ensure and codify their inherent contradictions and limitations. This does not mean that they can't be instruments in the class struggle, just that they need to be superceeded by better forms of organisation situated in the real lived content of the class struggle.

Why doesn't this apply to parliamentary struggles?

Demogorgon303

Why doesn't this apply to parliamentary struggles?

why doesn't it apply to the bon jovi fan club? because it's completely different institution with its own form, function, history, limits etc

Over one hundred thousand Yorkshire miners were on strike months before the 72 official ballot. Of course the NUM had to get "radical", that's their function.

Wrong again, Baboon. Where's the evidence? Newspaper reports, even reports in ICC publications. I think you're making this up as you're going along to save your core belief about workers not being able to make any use of the existing unions to defend their wages and working conditions. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever of unofficial strike action taking place in the months before the ballot that voted for the 1972 strike as you claim. In any event, such unofficial action would have taken place with the connivance of the Area officials of the NUM, who in your book would be State officials, as it did in 1969 and 1970.

I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt (but why should I) and say you're confusing what happened in 1972 with what happened in 1970. Here's an account of what happened that year from Glorious Summer. Class Struggle in Britain, 1972 by Ralph Darlington and Dave Lyddon (I leave it to you to expose their politics):

Despite the mixed result of the 1969 action and 'some recrimination among the strike leaders, particularly in South Wales and Scotland', the militant action had affected official attitudes within the union. Hence when the NCB rebuffed the union's 1970 pay claim as this time it was in conflict with the recently elected Conservative government's public sector pay policy, the NUM national executive committee agreed to ballot on a national strike. For the majority on the executive it was merely a negotiating tactic, but it allowed extensive campaigning for a strike vote. In Yorkshire this was conducted by the unofficial group based around the Barnsley and Doncaster panels, while in Scotland the officials and area executive members addressed pithead meetings. The national vote of just over 55 percent in favour was not enough to meet the two-thirds majority then required by the NUM rule book.
When negotiations restarted with only a very small concession from the NCB, unofficial action again took place. In Yorkshire the Brodsworth miners came out, and persuaded the Doncaster panel to support them and organise pickets, but only half the Yorkshire miners struck this time. Scotland and South Wales were once more the main other areas taking action. Some 103,000 miners from 116 pits were on strike at some point before the unofficial movement collapsed after nearly four weeks and a majority, including 60 per cent of Yorkshire miners, supported the revised offer in a national ballot.

ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Jason Cortez

deja vu, I'll just let you reply JK

no way, solfed's developing an ICC-esque hivemind, only not mental. this is awesome. (also, i really should do some work).

the wildcats would not have come from outside the members of the NUM in all likelyhood. I think it is significant that the unorganised workplaces did not come out, and don't believe this can be simply put down to trade union structures dividing workers, as other union workers eagerly attempted to play part in the strike

Most people involved in wildcats are union members, that's not the point. No-one is suggesting that being a member of a union (or even being a shop steward) automatically means you're an anti-working class scab in hock to a great conspiracy to crush the workers! The point is that there is a contradiction between the struggle of the working class and the whole social framework that the unions operate. This is the fundamental source of all the conflicts between workers and "their" union.

It's no accident that today unionism is strongest in the most strategically important sectors of the economy: the utilities, heavy industry (especially those with military aspects), the state administration, etc. Most of these employers would rather cut off a limb than lose the union and in many of them the unions are promoted by the employers themselves! This is the case even in work areas where the working class is not traditionally militant. For example, I know from personal experience that the call-centre workers in the energy and education industry are far from militant and have the same declining membership as everywhere else, but the union involvement in the management of the organisation is enormous. At present, the unions are launching a massive campaign in at least three public sector workplaces I'm personally aware of (with management support and in my experience every manager in a unionised workplace is always a union member!) to recruit members. I think this is is response to an awareness that the growing economic difficulties are going to generate new struggles. It seems to be met with total apathy from the mass of the workers at present.

In most non-unionised workplaces, unions would be more trouble than they're worth. When levels of struggle are particularly low, the existence of a union may give the workers ideas the bosses would rather they didn't have. In that sense, non-unionisation is a product of low militancy. When struggle begins to rise, generally bosses will fight against union representation for two reasons (a) genuine hostility towards them; (b) because it makes an ideal deflection point. A hard won struggle for union representation, especially if accompanied by some small concessions can seem like a real victory for the workers ... and the bosses who usually breathe a sigh of relief at the arrival of a union official who usually offers advice for calming down the situation.

Unionism today represents the level of threat that bosses perceive from workers. Even in large non-unionised workplaces there are mechanisms of "workers representation" that do a similar job in allowing a formal channel for workers to communicate with the bosses and feel "acknowledged".

My current workplace is unionised but our department also has its own representation scheme which was created following an extremely negative staff survey which revealed that people were fucked off with things. It functions exactly the same as a union: it supposedly raises our concerns with senior managers but is really a vehicle for imposing subtle restrictions on us in our own name.

As for the relationship between unions and the state there are certainly conspiratorial aspects. In Germany, in the 1st World War, all the major unions were totally integrated into the bourgeois state. When labour unrest began to rise in 1916-17, the Generals realised they could not win the war without the "industrial worker" and that the people best placed to keep said "industrial worker" under control were the trade union leaders. They even recognised that these leaders had to talk radically at times and get involved in strikes in order to maintain their credibility with the masses. There were discussions about this in the ruling class at the time. Given that the ruling class at the time was largely composed of Junkers and the military who made Thatcher seem like a whingeing liberal, it shows a certain level of shrewdness on the part of the ruling class in knowing who their real friends are. Why do you think that this isn't the case today?

why doesn't it apply to the bon jovi fan club? because it's completely different institution with its own form, function, history, limits etc

Except that unionism and parliamentarianism have actually always walked hand-in-hand, for better or worse. Anyway, the reason I ask is that your point about your institutionalisation of reforms and (presumably) the trade unions themselves reminded me of Luxemburg in Reform or Revolution:

"Now, the democratic forms of political life are without a question a phenomenon expressing clearly the evolution of the State in society. They constitute, to that extent, a move toward a socialist transformation. But the conflict within the capitalist State, described above, manifests itself even more emphatically in modern parliamentarism. Indeed, in accordance with its form, parliamentarism serves to express, within the organisation of the State, the interests of the whole society. But what parliamentarism expresses here is capitalist society, that is to say, a society in which capitalist interests predominate. In this society, the representative institutions, democratic in form, are in content the instruments of the interests of the ruling class. This manifests itself in a tangible fashion in the fact that as soon as democracy shows the tendency to negate its class character and become transformed into an instrument of the real interests of the population, the democratic forms are sacrificed by the bourgeoisie, and by its State representatives."

I see the integration of the unions into the state as a similar process. Of course the unions are still sites of class struggle. The very fact that they exist as barriers to the struggle (as you yourself say) while simulataneously officially regrouping workers for the purpose of struggle makes this inevitable. It is their integration into the legal apparatus of the state gives them a similar colouring to parliament. Formally, they express the interests of the working class but in content they express the interests of the bourgeoisie. This contradiction is expressed in the constant conflicts between the base membership and the hierarchy (which is thoroughly integrated into bourgeois politics either officially or unofficially).

The key here is your point about them being an "an institutional form an expression of class struggle". In today's epoch, the state cannot tolerate any large mobilisation of society taking place outside of its control. As a result, any institution (including the bon jovi fanclub) can only exist at the sufferance of the bourgeois state without there being open civil war. Tight control is maintained over them at all times, with most unions having high paid members in direct employ of the security services.

Outside of a revolutionary period, the mass of the working class does not have a communist consciousness. As a result mass organisations - like the workers that compose them - generally submit to bourgeois ideology. Any permanent mass organisation in these conditions inevitably falls into the lap of the bourgeoisie and its state and once this happens it's more or less impossible to prise them away. This happens with organs thrown up by the masses in the heat of struggle (e.g. the Soviets were maintained in form until 1989, but only as weapons with which to keep the masses in line) which are maintain beyond the struggle. I think JK made this point earlier in the thread. But trade unionism's very basis is founded on the concept of permanent mass organisations and thus is inevitably reactionary in the current epoch.

Demogorgon303

I think JK made this point earlier in the thread. But trade unionism's very basis is founded on the concept of permanent mass organisations and thus is inevitably reactionary in the current epoch.

i think only capricorn is disputing this, i'm certainly not (as you say i made the point earlier), and i doubt jason is either. however, as far as i'm aware the ICC support union strikes, but argue for them to move beyond the union form. so do i, and solfed. however, union strikes don't come out of nowhere, votes to strike are a result of militants making arguments as well as the underlying material grievances. it seems you're prepared to support the results of these actions without sullying yourself with participating in them, which seems a little inconstent.

(as to your claim "tight control is maintained over them at all times, with most unions having high paid members in direct employ of the security services" - your reference refers to the 60s & 70s, not today, so your claim is not evidenced. while the link demonstrates the state will use its security services to subvert threats to national security, it doesn't establish it is the case today with much lower militancy. your link also stresses that the state was concerned about Trotskyist rank-and-filism, something the ICC is declaring inevitably part of the state. at most you could assert if militancy did increase and the unions looked like getting 'out of control', they would be prepared to subvert them. of course when union leaderships are members of the ruling party and donate large sums to keep them there, resort to SIS is somewhat superfluous).

Ernie, thanks for the article, but I'm looking for a more detailed and less leaflet-like analysis. The article doesn't say anything about the rate of profit, transformative technologies or the possible end of the automobile cycle, and there is no empirical evidence...

Any other ideas?
(Also, would it be too rude of me to ask some of the other posters to move their interesting, but completely off-topic discussion on unions to a different thread?)

trade unionism's very basis is founded on the concept of permanent mass organisations and thus is inevitably reactionary in the current epoch.

I may be the only person contributing to this thread who is disputing this, but I'm sure there are others on this forum who do (and who may not be so prepared as me to bang their heads against the brickwall of the ICC). Certainly there will be hundreds if not thousands out there who do (i'm thinking, for instance, of the members of anarcho-syndicalist unions and of the IWW).

But I hope there are others even here who would dispute this argument of Demogorgon's:

Outside of a revolutionary period, the mass of the working class does not have a communist consciousness. As a result mass organisations - like the workers that compose them - generally submit to bourgeois ideology. Any permanent mass organisation in these conditions inevitably falls into the lap of the bourgeoisie and its state and once this happens it's more or less impossible to prise them away.

The trouble with this (whole) analysis is that it assumes that an organisation is either revolutionary or a reactionary part of the state. It ignores a third possible type: a non-revolutionary defensive organisation. In other words, there is a level of consciousness in between acceptance of what capitalism imposes on workers ("you can't do anything", "it's not worth trying", etc) and revolutionary socialist consciousness. There are some workers, even in a non-revolutionary period, who are not prepared to be pushed around by employers and are prepared to stand up to them and to organise on a permanent basis (the most effective way in the end) to do this. Why is the concept (and reality) of a "fighting union" or a rank-and-file "ginger group" within a union to be written off. Why are the workers who try to do this (myself included) to be denounced as "the leftwing of capital" or "agents of the State". Why, worse, should revolutionaries place themselves in the same camp as anti-unionists? It's just madness.

In any event, Demogorgon is not consistent since he believes that such organisations could have, and should have, existed outside a revolutionary period until 1914.

ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

This is how Malcolm Pitt, Kent miner and union official, describes the emergence of flying pickets in his book on the 72 strike "The World On Our Backs";.

CHAPTER SIX
Flying Squads
From the start of the strike, the Kent Area NUM knew that the Kent miners would have to go beyond the confines of the coalfield if they were to stop the movement of coal and allied fuels. Two carloads of miners were sent out to the London area and along the south-east coast to locate coal stocks. When the TGWU had raised the question of 'pirate tankers', Jack Dunn suggested the formation of 'flying squads' at pit level to meet any emergencies.
But the Union's immediate task was to secure the pitheads against any attempt to move 200,000 tons of stockpiled coal. Branch officials had to organise lists of volunteers for picket duty, and a system of communications with the men once they had dispersed from the pits into the villages and towns. In the pit villages, the welfare clubs and working men's clubs were obvious centres for the men to congregate in each day to see if they were needed for picket duty. In the towns, because the men were dispersed among the local working-class population, certain pubs and clubs frequented by miners were nominated by the branches and visited daily by union officials.
On Monday, 10 January, Jack Dunn emphasised to a special Area council meeting the need for daily and emergency contact between branch officials and the Area Union, but the general feeling was that the miners were in for a long, hard, protracted strike." [...]
[br]
Pitt states that the TUC leadership vetoed direct co-ordination to prevent coal movements between the rail union ASLEF and the NUM (he fails to say that these TUC bureaucratic decisions were simply accepted and meekly adhered to by ASLEF & NUM leaders);
[br]
"The committee did however express `great sympathy' with the miners` case, and asked members of affiliated unions not to cross NUM picket lines. The national leadership of the British trade union movement had limited itself to calling on trade unionists not to blackleg!" [...]

"...the TUC's passive resistance to coordinating sympathetic action by the trade union movement forced the NUM to transform the picket line into a new and devastating weapon in industrial conflict. Informed of the TUC's call to trade unionists not to break NUM picket lines, Joe Gormley commented; "We will make sure the picket lines are in the right places.' Jack Jones, General Secretary of the TGWU, replied that, clearly, no picket lines will be crossed', and his members would assist the miners 'in any way they can'.
On Wednesday, 12 January, the NUM national executive general purposes sub-committee met to consider `action necessary to support the offer of the transport unions'. Joe Gormley, it is claimed, said that he had no taste for the strike, but that - if it had to be - it should be got over quickly and the power stations be picketed. Jimmy Wheeler, NUM research officer, came down from the meeting and asked one of the women in the office for a map of the power stations. The only map available was the Central Electricity Generating Board yearbook which gave the location and type of the power stations. Each mining area was consigned a part of Britain: London and south-east England to Kent and the Midlands NUM; south-west England to South Wales: East Anglia to Yorkshire; and south and north Scotland to Scotland with help from Northumberland and Durham if necessary. Using the CEGB yearbook, the maps were photostatted and sent to the respective NUM areas. Thus, on 13 January, the Kent Area NUM of only three thousand five hundred miners found itself reponsible for providing picket cover for the largest concentration of power stations, docks and railway depots in Great Britain."

Pitt doesn't mention the existence of flying pickets prior to this. His being a union official does not automatically invalidate the truthfulness of his description (and after all, Baboon was happy in the past to cite, though not quote, old Militant Trot newspapers to defend his unsubstantiated claims about Thatcher's relations with MI5 - so the "left wing of capital" are considered trustworthy/have their uses when it's convenient). So, unless they can provide contrary evidence to prove their claims - ie, the reason they dispute this description of events - it seems Baboon and co, for the zillionth time are caught out (I can cite/link to numerous other threads where it previously occurred) twisting 'history' to try to 'prove' their dogma. And then when you point out the inaccuracy/distortion they childishly call you names like "lawyer" as a substitute for any credible response.

A little subtlety in analysis is required to understand the relationship of unions and workers in the 70s - and in particular the miners.

The miners communities in pit villages were generally so close-knit that political and social life was often quite merged - to a far greater degree, by the 70s, than other workforces. (Eg, miners social clubs, colliery bands etc are only the most visible cultural examples of this). There was not the same divide or remoteness between union and rank'n'file that occurred in many other workplaces; at a local level the NUM branch often was closer to a self-organisation of the workers (within the bounds of the prevailing union ideology, wider bureaucracy, collective traditions etc), to a greater degree than elsewhere. Strong traditions and principles bound the solidarity throughout the mining villages as a workforce and as a community - eg, to be a scab was never ever forgotten and socially (and occasionally physically) scarred you for life. The state recognised that community solidarity as central to the struggle - that's why they invaded and occupied pit villages in 84-85. (If this sounds quaintly nostalgic for a distant age, that's a sign of how such traditons of solidarity have been utterly destroyed since 85 - in many places replaced by call centres and smack epidemics.)

So the kind of union/worker division the ICC simplistically imply didn't exist in the same way in mining communities. Wildcats and flying pickets could be organised day to day at a rank'n'file/shop steward level, sometimes against the wishes of the union hierarchy - but this wasn't a break with the union, it was, if anything, an assertion by workers of seeing the union as being rooted in the rank'n'file; ie, even if the union bosses didn't want a strike, 'it's our union and we'll strike anyway'. Branch, Area and and higher levels of NUM organisation were progressive degrees of mediation; but to see the NUM as only an official bureaucracy over, above and separate from the workers and ignore its deep cultural roots precludes any understanding of the enduring power of unions as mediators of class struggle. Any break would have had to be made by miners challenging the union form, rather than just resisting occasional decisions of union bosses. The ICC has regularly talked of workers as passive objects that have machiavellian things done to them by unions - whereas in fact workers at a rank'n'file level animate unions and give them their influence by their participation. So the union is not merely an external force; trade unionism is not just some external power that has to be combatted - it is also something within the working class that has to be confronted and overcome. And that confrontation will presumably occur, initially, within the union form.

And no matter how many times the ICC cite the alleged incident of Scargill needing police protection - which you've still never provided any evidence for, despite requests for verification - even if true, it doesn't at all define the dominant historical relationship of miners to Scargill. Scargill's union career rise began when he worked as an NUM compensations officer and fought hard for disabled miners claims. (Even miners critical of his leadership credited him for this.) This gave him a combative reputation that helped his ascension to leadership. Pointing this fact out implies no 'defence' of Scargill.

Yes, the unions often limited and/or sabotaged struggles - they always have, and yes, union bosses have separate interests, yes radicalisation would mean confronting/transcending the union form - but, despite having the nuances pointed out to them repeatedly, Baboon & co have really shown little grasp of the continuing appeal of unions within the working class. The UK class struggle, at its 60-70s highpoint, jumped in and out of the union form - with shop stewards as the tipping point/balancing act - but never made any decisive break with it. To claim repeatedly that the workers are only held back by 'machiavellian unions' is plain wrong - unions are an expression, not just of the limits of 'consciousness' - but of the partial realisation of needs in the labour market; as mediators and functionaries of social control they do deliver some benefits. And, as previously stated, if the unions really are 'part of the state' - then the state must be striking against itself. Was the 84-85 Miners Strike really just an inter-state faction fight? Nope.

Demagorg is a little more subtle in outlook; but the article he cites on MI5 informers in unions shows they were of very limited use to the state, and there was not as much "tight control" as he seems to claim; the end of the article shows Govt. Minister Barbara Castle concluded the MI5 info was of little use and it could not prevent strikes. Verifying that class struggle is a contending force within the union form.

Capricorn; there are definite limits to what can be achieved within the trade union form. I don't 'condemn' those who work within the form at a rank'n'file level, they are often some of the most militant/up for a fight - but, if one recognises those definite limits, the question is, where are they reached, how can they be overcome, what are the obstacles and where is the potential? There is a crucial difference, at certain historical points, between those who use the union form in the present and those who are permanently loyal to it as an end in itself. At present, UK unions are helping impose wage cuts/forcing acceptance of below-inflation rises. If something like the Teabreak newsletter (produced in part by those active in unions) can encourage, in its own small way, a workers self-organisation that circumvents this union crap and pushes such a tendency as far as possible, then that's a good thing - encouraging an exercise of direct w/c power. That act has a radical content, while a rank'n'file union project only seeks to capture a certain level of factional power within the existing structure via representatives, thereby perpetuating a division of labour between workers as constituents and specialist representatives and their deadening bureaucratic procedures. Some of the union bosses who impose pay cuts are in a leadership position as the result of such previous rank'n'file movements/pressure.

So, while the ICC's 'either revolutionary or reactionary' choice is, as you say, false insofar as it denies the possibility of a non-revolutionary defensive activity; I think this is only true at the level of the workplace (and even there problematically) - once one begins to try and capture factional power and/or a career within the union bureaucracy one is, however well meaning, sucked into a game that opposes the union's and the 'national economy's' institutional interests to workers interests on a day to day functional level. This doesn't mean I'm a rank'n'filist, I'm just trying to describe reality - I want to see the unions overcome by a radical self-organisation in struggle. But there's no signs of it here as yet.

Capricorn's NUM timetable above shows the official overtime ban and balloting for a strike began October 71. Capricorn above also states that 103,000 Yorkshire miners were on unofficial strike in 1970. Capricorn also says above that I was wrong (again) to say that a hundred thousand Yorkshire miners were on unofficial strike months before the 72 strike. I think while it may not be absolutely precise, it's fairly accurate to say that a hundred thousand Yorkshire miners were on unofficial strike months before the 72 strike. I don't know precisely how many months - I haven't worked it out, but the point is that the NUM, like the other trade unions, had to radicalise in the face of the growing class struggle; that the old stalinist guard (of which the claims lawyer, Scargill was a part) needed the assistance of rank and file unionism which duly came and contributed greatly to the decisive defeat of 1984. Or is anyone on here arguing that rank and file trade unionism didn't contribute greatly to the 84 defeat?

Capricorn has put forward the position, taken up by others above, that the ICC (and myself who is not a member) only supports strikes that will spark a revolution. This is a slander. Throughout the decades of my working life I have taken part in many strikes and actions in defence of the living and working conditions of myself and those around me. I have also taken part in solidarity actions and demonstrations beyond my workplace and circumstances. I know of many in the ICC who have done exactly the same, always with a view to making the immediate struggle more effective as well as trying to take it forward. Capricorn's position, therefore, that I only support strikes that will spark a revolution is a falsification.

This idea of Capricorn that for the ICC it's 'all or nothing', taken up above with "you can't do anything" and "it's not worth trying" or the ICC's choice is "either revolution or reaction" shows a certain lack of confidence in the working class, a static view, and a complete misunderstanding of intervention in the class struggle. It implies going for the lowest common demoninator (a class that needs "disciplining and conditioning" as the stalinists put it), a class that couldn't possibly take on board the fact that the trade unions are its enemies, a class that is stuck with, as Capricorn puts it, a "trade union consciousness", ie., dummies that need to be told what to do and can only reach a certain level of understanding.

The trade unions are not only inadequate organisms in which to fight back against the coming attacks of capital from the unfolding effects of this phase of the crisis, they are, as we've seen for decades, structures put in place by the bourgeoisie in order to subvert any fightback and defend the capitalist state and the national interest. Or is it being argued here that the trade unions haven't defended the national interest?

Not a member of the ICC? Pull the other one. Come off it, you must at least be a candidate-member or a reader. Anyway you've gone up in my estimation a bit, compared with your fellow ICC non-member, Demogorgon, who's proud to be a non-unionist at his workplace and who pours scorn on the work unions do to deal with individual cases.

The trade unions are not only inadequate organisms in which to fight back against the coming attacks of capital from the unfolding effects of this phase of the crisis, they are, as we've seen for decades, structures put in place by the bourgeoisie in order to subvert any fightback and defend the capitalist state and the national interest.

That makes it clear what the argument is about -- and, Jura, sorry, but I think this argument is relevant as we are discussing how best the working class should react to the coming Depression. Is it "outside and against the unions" or "outside and inside the unions"? I'm for the latter.

Obviously I know that the existing unions are far, very far, from perfect (they are bureaucratic, they collaborate with an anti-working class political party and, yes, with the State too), but they were not "put in place by the bourgeoisie in order to subvert any fightback and defend the capitalist state and the national interest". They were originally formed by workers to defend their wages and working conditions within capitalism and, despite their faults, still retain enough of their origin to be able to be used by workers to defend themselves against the downward pressures of capital.

I certainly don't think that workers are incapable of advancing beyond "trade union consciousness", even though I consider such consciousness to be higher than the anti-union consciousness of the ICC and its fellow travellers. My views on the matter are well expressed in the following extract from a mid-19th century socialist and pro-unionist:

. . . quite apart form the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!" they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wages system!"
( . . . .) Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. The fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.

ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

They were originally formed by workers to defend their wages and working conditions within capitalism

Well, yes, the ICC also holds this view (and has said so on a number of occasions) for example in this article:

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_chapter_02.htm

It should be added that one key difference between Germany and Britain at the time of the revolutionary wave (1918/9) was that in Germany there existed a workers political party with a programme, whereas political development had 'stalled' in Britain at the point of formation of unions.

despite their faults, still retain enough of their origin to be able to be used by workers to defend themselves against the downward pressures of capital.

This is where we part company, the reason being that I think, as per the ICC, that in decadence the unions 'passed over' to the side of the bourgeiosie. Actually, the key aspect here is war - for the ICC the 1st world war is the significant moment - i.e. when the unions actively acted as recruiting sargeants for their national capital in the imperialist slaughter.

Does that point have any historical significance for you capricorn?

the 1st world war is the significant moment - i.e. when the unions actively acted as recruiting sargeants for their national capital in the imperialist slaughter.
Does that point have any historical significance for you capricorn?

Well, now you ask, actually No, this date is not a turning point for me as regards the need for workers to organise on a permanent basis to resist the downward pressures of capital and to bargain with employers over the price and conditions of sale of their labour power. (Of course it's of historical significance for other reasons). That need existed before 1914. It existed after 1914. It still exists today and will exist as long as capitalism exists.

We may be veering a bit of topic but perhaps the "revolutionary wave" of 1918/19 in Germany does go some way to explain your position. If you are a revolutionary socialist and you think you're in a revolutionary situation and act on this and try to overthrow capitalism and you find the trade unions taking the side of the government, as happened in Germany at that time, then naturally you are going to denounce them and urge workers to leave them. That makes some sort of sense. (I'm leaving aside the fact that there wasn't a socialist revolutionary situation in Germany at the time, only a large revolutionary minority who thought their was; most workers, as reflected in the support a majority of them gave to the Social Democratic Party government and the support given by the trade unions to that government, didn't want the revolution to go any further that kicking out the Kaiser and the establishment of political democracy, ie a bourgeois revolution against a relic of feudalism. By the way, which was the "workers party with a programme" which existed in Germany but not in Britain?)

As I say I can understand socialists taking an anti-union position in a revolutionmary situation (if the unions don't side with the revolution). But not in a non-revolutionary situation (as I think you admit to be the case at present). That's just plain stupid and I can't understand how it has come to be accepted by some socialists. The best I can come up with as an explanation is the disappointment, even resentment, of some French intellectuals that in May/June 1968 the workers and their unions settled by higher wages and better working conditions instead of going on to overthrow capitalism. These French intellectuals then turned on the French workers denouncing them as mere "variable capital" and throwing at them Marx's saying (not one of his better ones) that "‘The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing". In other words, for them, a non-revolutionary working class is nothing or rather nothing but the variable part of capital whose value trade unions seek to maintain.

It certainly did not come from the other strand that led to the ICC, ie the Italian Left who never took up this absurd opposition to workers forming permanent organisations to defend their wages and working conditions under capitalism.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

The best I can come up with as an explanation is the disappointment, even resentment, of some French intellectuals that in May/June 1968 the workers and their unions settled by higher wages and better working conditions instead of going on to overthrow capitalism.

I don't think that this is a very accurate description of May '68 - unlike the miners strike there certainly was hugely widespread wildcat action initially led by workers, not "their" unions. "Their" unions did their best to contain and undermine what was going on.

While I don't share the ICC's dogmatism, in that I do think that unions are a point of departure for many workers and that there is space for good work to be done within them, I don't see anything wrong with understanding the role of unions, that they have to police their members in order to function, that they divide the working class and that the objectives of unionism and working class revolution (our ultimate aim) are opposed. I think that problems do derive from a politicised working class investing its consciousness in the unions - you've given the example of the German revolution.

Geez , having followed this thread i think any accusations by the ICC against the SPGB being somehow out of sync with the working class can now be jettisoned . It certainly appears that it is the ICC who are out of touch with reality with the purpose and practice of the unions and the relationship with their members . So, no , you are not all alone Capricorn .

As a ex-trade unionist and one time trade union activist , involved in numerous official and unofficial postal workers strikes , i had neither any illusions about the CWU as a trade union , but just as importantly , i held no illusions either about my fellow workers ,( as if its the union office holder who is holding back the members' on-rush towards militancy !! ).

Trade unions arise out of the wage-relation that is at the basis of capitalism.When we say that labour-power has the commodity nature , it must express its value through a struggle in the labour market. Combining together in trade unions to exert collective pressure on employers is a way workers can prevent their wages falling below the value of their Iabour-power. It is a way of ensuring that they are paid the full value of what they have to sell. This is the usefulness of trade unions to the working class but they can do no more than this. The competition of individual workers for jobs enabled employers to take full advantage of their strengthened position. If, however, the workers unite and agree not to sell their labour-power below a certain price, the effect of individual competition for jobs can be, at least in part, overcome. Organised workers can ensure that the wage they get is the current value of their labour-power and, at times when the demand for labour-power exceeds the supply, they can temporarily push wages above the current value of labour power or even, in the longer term, raise its value. This was, and still is, the economic logic for the working class of trade union organisation.They cannot substantially increase the living standards of their members under capitalism but they can ensure that wages are not reduced below the subsistence level. The trade unions are essentially defensive organisations with the limited role of protecting wages and working conditions and it is by this criterion that their effectiveness or otherwise ought to be judged.
Trade Unions can - and do - enable workers to get the full value of their labour-power, but they cannot stop the exploitation of the working class.

Workers may influence their wages and working conditions only by collective effort and only by being in the position to stop working if their demands are not met. The ability to withhold their service in a strike is one weapon in their possession ( work-to-rules and overtime bans are others) . It is the only final logic known to employers. Without it, wages tend to sink below subsistence level. With it , a substantial check can often be placed on the encroachments of the employers and improvements both in wages and working conditions can be made.
The strike is not a sure means of victory for workers in dispute with employers. There are many cases of workers being compelled to return to work without gains, even sometimes with losses. Strikes should not be employed recklessly but should be entered into with caution, particularly during times when production falls off and there are growing numbers of unemployed. Nor should not be thought that victory can be gained only by means of the strike. Sometimes more can be gained simply by the threat of a strike. An early contribution described the most effective strike as the one that did not take place .Workers must bear all these things in mind if they are to make the most effective use of the trade union and the power which it gives them.

The non-revolutionary phase of the struggle between the classes is as inevitable as the revolutionary one . Therefore we should not reduce the trade unions to impotence by by getting them to avow principles and policies which are not necessary to their object and reason for being - and also to which their members do not hold. We, therefore, accept trade unions as they are, and, realising that all their grave and undeniable faults are but the reflection of the mental shortcomings of their members.The Socialist Party is not antagonistic to the trade unions under present conditions, even though they have not a revolutionary basis but we are hostile to the misleading by the trade union leaders and the ignorance of the rank and file which make such misleading possible. Workers must come to see through the illusion that all that is needed in the class war are good generals. Sloganising leaders making militant noises are impotent in the face of a system which still has majority support – or at least the acquiescence – of the working class.

It would be wrong to write off the unions as anti-working-class organisations. The union has indeed tended to become an institution apart from its members; but the policy of a union is still influenced by the views of its members. It may be a truism but a union is only as strong as its members.Most unions have formal democratic constitutions which provide for a wide degree of membership participation and democratic control. In practice however, these provisions are sometimes ineffective and actual control of many unions is in the hands of a well-entrenched full-time leadership.It is these leaders who frequently collaborate with the State and employers in the administration of capitalism; who get involved in supporting political parties and governments which act against the interest of the working class.

Under present conditions, trade unions are non-revolutionary but as far as the socialist thinks them necessary to his personal economic welfare and as far as economic pressure forces him to, he is right and justified in using them. The class struggle has to be carried on by socialists and non-socialists alike and because of the very nature of the workers' economic struggle under capitalism it compels socialists to associate in a common cause with the non-socialists during strikes, lock-outs and all the other activities on the economic side of the class struggle.

The Socialist Party urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their labour-power.We do not criticise the unions for not being revolutionary, but we do severely criticise them when they depart from the principle of an antagonism of interests between workers and employers; when they collaborate with employers, the state or political parties; when they put the corporate interests of a particular section of workers above that of the general interest of the working class as a whole.

Trade unions , in general , have languished in a role which provides little scope for action beyond preparing for the next self-repeating battle with employers. They tended to be bogged down in bureaucracy and run by careerists and timeserving officials for whom the future means little more than their pensions and peerage . It has to be admitted that this does present itself as a sterile accommodation with the capitalist system.

However , and this should be emphasised .

Trade unions can bring a great deal of experience to bear on the question of how a new society could be organised democratically in the interests of the whole community. Certainly in the developed countries they have organisation in the most important parts of production. They have rulebooks that allow them to be run locally and nationally in a generally democratic manner and they also enjoy fraternal links across the globe. All this is already in place , ready to be applied . If only trade unions set their sights beyond the next wage claim and by becoming part of the socialist movement, they could so easily become part of the democratic administration of industry that would replace the corporate bosses and their managers who now organise production for profit.

From Krisis::

Crash Course

Why the collapsing of the financial bubble is not the fault of “greedy bankers” and why there can be no going back to a social welfare capitalism

A new version of the “stab in the back” legend of the 1920s and ‘30s is making the rounds: “our” economy has supposedly fallen victim to the limitless greed of a handful of bankers and speculators. Gorged on the cheap money of the U.S. Federal Reserve and backed up by irresponsible politicians, these greedy bankers have–so the legend goes–brought the world to the edge of the abyss, while honest people are made to play the fools.

Nothing could be more contrary to fact nor, given its demagogic and even anti-Semitic propensity, as dangerously irrational as this notion–now being broadcast across the entire spectrum of public opinion. It stands things on their heads. The cause for the current misery is not to be sought in the huge over-valuation of financial markets; the latter was itself not a cause but an effect, a mechanism aimed at avoiding the real, underlying crisis with which capitalist society has been confronted ever since the 1970s. That was when the post-WWII boom, and the long and self-sustaining period of growth made possible by the generalization of industrial production methods and their expansion into new sectors such as auto-making, came to an end. Mass production of commodities in the 1950s and 1960s required additional masses of labor-power–labor-power thereby in a position to attract the flow of wages and means of subsistence that in turn enabled it to go on mass-producing such commodities. Since then, however, widespread rationalization of the core, world market-oriented sectors of production has displaced ever greater quantities of labor-power through processes of automation, thus destroying the basis for this “Fordist” mechanism and with it the precondition for any renewed tendency towards prosperity in the real economy. Capitalist crisis in its classical form gives way to an even more fundamental crisis in which the viability of labor itself comes to the fore.
De-valorized labor power –“superfluous” human beings?

The real insanity of the capitalist mode of production is expressed in the contradiction between the enormous advance in productivity brought about by the “microelectronic revolution” and the fact that that advance has not even come close to guaranteeing the possibility of a good life for all. On the contrary: work itself has been intensified, its tempo accelerated and the pressure to produce ramped up even more. Across the world, more and more people must sell their labor-power under the worst possible conditions because, as measured against the standard set by the current level of productivity worldwide, that labor-power is increasingly de-valorized.

But it is also a contradiction of capitalism that, in the process of becoming ‘too productive,’ it wrenches its own foundations out from under its feet. For a society that rests on the exploitation of human labor-power collides with its own structural limits as it renders this labor-power, to an ever-greater degree, superfluous. For over thirty years, the dynamic of the world economy has only been sustained thanks to the inflation of a speculative and credit bubble – what Marx termed “fictional capital.” Capital is diverted into the financial markets because the real economy no longer offers adequate investment possibilities. States go into debt to maintain their budgets and more and more people finance their own consumption, directly or indirectly, at the credit pump. In this way finance turned into the “basic industry” of the world market and the motor of capitalist growth. The “real economy” now so suddenly prized is not forced into submission by finance. On the contrary: it could only flourish as the latter’s appendage. The “Chinese economic miracle” and Germany’s so-called world-class export economy would never have been possible except for the gigantic, global recycling of debt that has been going on for more than twenty years, with the USA at the center of it all.
Crisis management and stagflation

Such methods of postponing an eventual collapse have now reached their limit. There is no reason to be overjoyed about this. The effects will be dramatic in the extreme. For the combined potential for economic crisis and de-valorization that has been building up over the last thirty years is now exploding violently into the here and now. Politics in the accepted sense may be able to influence the tempo and the trajectory of this process. But it is inherently incapable of stopping what has, in truth, become unstoppable. Either the rescue packages themselves, already topping the trillions, will go up in smoke, and the crisis will break through into the “real economy” with catastrophic results. Or they will catch hold of the runaway train one more time with the result being an exorbitant increase in national debt, followed by another, still more gigantic collapse in the near future. The return of “stagflation”—galloping inflation combined with a simultaneous recession—is already looming, and at much higher levels than in the 1970s.

The last decades have already seen massive downward pressure on wages, a descent into ever more precarious working conditions and the privatization of large parts of the public sector. The present crisis means that, to a degree previously undreamt of, ever-greater numbers of human beings will simply be declared “superfluous.” The much-invoked “new role of the state” has not the slightest chance of recreating a 1960s style social welfare capitalism, with full employment and a rising standard of living. What it portends, rather, is the organization and administering of racist and nationalist policies of social exclusion. The return of “regulation” and “state capitalism” is at this point conceivable only as an authoritarian and repressive form of crisis management.
The world is too wealthy for capitalism

The present financial crisis marks a turning point in the epoch of fictional capital and with it a new stage in the underlying crisis of capitalism already discernable in the 1970s. This is not just the crisis of a specifically “Anglo-Saxon system” of “neoliberalism,” as is widely affirmed amidst the current emotional outburst of European anti-Americanism–an outburst in which, however faint as yet, the echoes of anti-Semitism are unmistakable. What is clearly apparent now, rather, is that the world is and has long been too rich in relation to the stinginess of the capitalist mode of production—and that society will break apart, unravel and sink into a morass of poverty, violence and irrationalism if we do not succeed in overcoming that mode of production.

It is not the “speculators” and the financial markets that are the problem, but the utter absurdity of a society that produces wealth only as a waste product of the valorization of capital, whether as a real or a fictional process. The return to a seemingly stable capitalism, kept standing by the onslaught of massive armies of labor, is neither possible nor anything worth striving for.

Whatever sacrifices now being demanded of us in order to perpetuate the (self)destructive dynamic of this senseless mode of production and the capitalist way of life count only as an obscene mockery of the good and decent existence long since within reach in a society beyond commodity production, beyond money and beyond the state. With the present crisis the question of the system itself is finally being posed. It is time that we answered it.

Please distribute this text as widely as possible. Downloadable as a .PDF file at: www.krisis.org

Printed by: Förderverein Krisis e.V.
Postfach 81 02 69, 90247 Nürnberg

capricorn

Well, now you ask, actually No, this date is not a turning point for me as regards the need for workers to organise on a permanent basis to resist the downward pressures of capital and to bargain with employers over the price and conditions of sale of their labour power. (Of course it's of historical significance for other reasons). That need existed before 1914. It existed after 1914. It still exists today and will exist as long as capitalism exists.

Amen.

Loren Goldner

I do not think the revolutionary approach to the union question is simply 'unions are bourgeois, and to be involved in the unions is to be part of a bourgeois institution'. Karl Marx in 1860 also said that unions are bourgeois institutions. And nevertheless he strongly advocated socialists, Marxists, leftists of all kinds to be active in unions. Nevertheless I think history since that time has demonstrated that the strategy of taking over unions, as is still advocated by some Trotskyists, is a dead end. Already in 1914, the unions in every country participating in World War I joined their national government and helped form almost state capitalist planning institutions in collaboration with capital. And again in World War â…¡, the unions in all the countries, in all the bourgeois democracies, did the same thing, and were central in sending the working class off to fight in the imperialist war. And I think with the much weakened position of unions in the world today, there's no question that the same thing will happen again. So what is my strategy for the unions? It is to be active in unions where they exist, but not to do it with a unionist perspective but with a class wide perspective that points to all of the workers and other elements, other oppressed groups in society that have no opportunity to participate in unions and to involve them as much as possible in struggles. As what is happening to some extent right now with the E-land strike in Korea. One of my favorite examples is the Buenos Aires subway strike of 2003-2004, where the subway workers struck with the demand for '30 hours a week'. And demanding that the subway management hire 2,000 new workers to make it possible for everybody to work 30 hours a week. And they won! Now subway workers in big cities have a special kind of power that very few other workers have, but nevertheless I think the example is one of workers who are in unions doing things that point to a broader class orientation.

...

I'll give a couple of more anecdotes to illustrate what I think is the abstract theoretical bankruptcy of the left communist, left communist of the ICC type. In the American South about five years ago, a chicken packing factory burned to the ground with mainly black women workers trapped inside because the management had locked all the safety exits. Thirty women were killed in that fire. And what did they do? They formed a union to force the company to leave the emergency doors unlocked while people were working. I would like to see the ICC come to a situation like that and say "No, no, , this is the era of capitalist decay, unions are reactionary." I worked for a number of years on the non-academic staff of a big American university on the east coast. I was working on the staff in the library. And there was a unionization drive, that took 15 years to finally win. A unionization drive means an attempt to form a union by the non-academic staff. The management of the university fought this unionization drive in every possible way. The union finally won in 1989, and it was considered the most successful unionization drive of white-collar workers in 20 years. The immediate result of the union victory was a 10% to 20% wage increase for the least paid non-academic workers. More important than the wage increase was that the workers were able to criticize management, talk back to management without fear of being fired as they had been in the past. Now, that's the good news. The bad news was that as soon as the union won, the university began a new strategy of slowly trying to...

... and obviously management fights back, and the response is inadequate, as Goldner describes. But that doesn't take away from his point.

Thanks, guys. I was wondering when the calvary was going to arrive.

Loren Goldner

So what is my strategy for the unions? It is to be active in unions where they exist, but not to do it with a unionist perspective but with a class wide perspective that points to all of the workers and other elements, other oppressed groups in society that have no opportunity to participate in unions and to involve them as much as possible in struggles.

he should join solfed :P

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Just a little bit of SPGB history to bore you all .

Below is the report of a debate on the trade union question that took place in the SPGB in 1946. It gives some idea of the practical problems that arise for socialists in the unions and on which there is room for discussion as to how to deal with them (to follow the discussion you need to know that the general secretary of the breakaway union in question, the NPWU, was an SPGB member).

Trade union questions (1946)

The meeting was called by the EC to discuss the trade union dispute concerning the closed shop, breakaway unions and allied questions.

Some points raised in the discussion Compulsory trade union membership was opposed on the grounds that it was bad for the trade union movement ; it did not strengthen it or help the working class. Various views on the meaning of the "closed shop" were relatively unimportant, it was the principle involved that mattered. While it was impossible to give guidance for all members in their unions, the working-class must fight to obtain and retain the freedom to organise as they wished. There was something radically wrong when workers asked the capitalists to act against fellow workers by dismissing or not employing non-union workers. We must be opposed to any form of coercion. The interests of some workers on the industrial field were often in conflict with the interests of other workers. This was due to capitalist conditions, and if all workers in an industry were organised in one union this opposition would manifest itself inside the union. In American industries the trade union subscription was often taken from the pay packet, and workers could not oppose trade union leaders without losing their jobs.

The party's original manifesto had advocated the support of "trade unions on sound lines". There should be no question of compulsion, but in the trade
union movement as with the party workers should be convinced by argument of the necessity of taking part. The more a union was controlled by a sound
membership, the stronger resistance could be made against the capitalists. The closed shop did not necessarily organise trade unionists against strike
breakers. A closed shop would disguise the opponents of trade union action, who would be apathetic and unlikely to come out on strike. A worker's ideas
were not changed because he had been compelled to take out a trade union ticket. It had been argued that a closed shop enabled the trade union executive to control the membership, but from our view point the membership should control the executive. One great danger of the closed shop was that the trade union could become an employing agency as in America. A trade union membership even with not more than 75 percent of the industry in it could be effective in coming out on strike. Compulsory trade union membership encouraged wrong ideas and stopped the active work of understanding the advantages of trade union action, and that it was the expression of the class struggle with the strike as its only weapon. The idea was circulating
among members of unions that their problems could be solved by the closed shop. The party should help to clear away this misconception, as events
themselves would in the long run. It should not be assumed that a non-unionist is necessarily a blackleg.

Other views expressed were that there was difficulty in understanding the meaning of the expression "the closed shop". One meaning was that everyone
in a particular industry must belong to some union. Another meaning was that everyone must be a member of one particular union. If we are to advise
workers on the industrial field, we must also do so on the political field, but on the latter issue an example was given of a party speaker saying that
the party did not give advice on how workers should vote. The party was wrong in advising workers to join trade unions. Some workers were expelled
from trade unions for non-democratic reasons. The party should not intervene in the struggle between employee and employer. One participant in discussion said that he would be prepared to ask an employer to choose between union and non-union members. The ETU and printing trades unions were quoted as examples of 100 percent membership bringing favourable conditions of employment. The party was primarily concerned with politics and should refrain from saying more than that the real conflict was between two classes and could only be ended by the acquisition of socialist knowledge.

The immediate problem on the trade union field was bound up with the Labour Government and the TUC, and the closed shop arose as a symptom of the present political conditions. Later a member said that we should not oppose the coercion of workers acting in an undemocratic manner. Non-unionists were breaking down workers' conditions. Our object should be to avoid embarrassing the party by having speakers and writers expressing different points of views. Another member said that the closed shop was usually a spontaneous movement of workers to defend their standard of living. The TGWU was, however, a move by the officials who were prompted by political motives and were endeavouring to destroy competing unions. However carefully the party went into this question we should eventually arrive at the position that we supported trade unions providing they acted on sound lines, that is in a manner to increase the standard of living or to resist encroachments.

Resolution - McLauglin (Snr) and Gaskin: "That this party meeting is of the opinion that the party should not intervene in Trade Union issues except to explain and pronounce the class issue".

For the resolution it was urged that we should use incidents of this kind (without taking sides) to explain the class struggle. If we express any
opinion we should be labelled an organisation that upheld blacklegs and anti-trade unionists. We must look at trade union matters as an historical
development. Trade unions must decide on the advisability of strikes etc. There was a conflict between socialists on the question of the closed shop
and the party would be best served by the resolution. It had been said at the meeting that the class struggle found expression in the trade union
movement, but the class struggle was for political supremacy and not about working conditions. Individual socialists in trade unions would be able to
decide the best action to be taken, but the party were not competent to do this. As only about 25 percent of the party membership were at the meeting
only a decision on general lines should be made.

Against the resolution it was claimed that as the party was in favour of trade union action we have to state a position. Trade union issues were
class issues, and a resolution of this nature would make the meeting a waste of time. The principle of the rights of minorities was involved. We should
examine the issue and try to take up one position or another. This evasive resolution would hold the party up to ridicule. It was much more our
responsibility even than the trade unionists to explain.

The resolution was lost 7-49.

Resolution - Hardy and McClatchie: "That this party meeting is of the opinion that on balance compulsory trade union membership is not in the best interest of the trade union movement and the working-class in the struggle against the employing class".

In support of the resolution it was said that we should be unconditionally opposed to the closed shop. However spontaneous closed shops had been in the past, the present moves were sponsored by the Labour Party and the trade union executives. The closed shop issue coincided with the repeal of the
1927 Act. The party had always supported trade union membership but did not force its members to join. We had also opposed trade unions collaborating with the government.

Against the resolution it was urged that should the resolution be passed the party would be known throughout trade unions as an organisation which
supported non-unionists and blacklegs.

The resolution was carried 57-7.

Breakaway Unions
On this item it was pointed out that the TGWU demanded that all uniformed grades should be members of their union. Trade Unions have a form of
democracy and the officials were a manifestation of the views of the membership. The cause of the present dispute was that a certain group refused to submit to a democratically arrived at decision arrived at by the rank and file. We cannot support this anti-democratic and anarchistic sort of action. The minority should have accepted the decision and then put their point of view in the union.

The N[ational] U[nion of] P[assenger] W[orkers] was not merely trying to breakaway on its own, but also to form a federation against the TUC. This demonstrated the uselessness of breakaway unions in general. Most unions affiliated to the TUC were also affiliated to the Labour Party, but unions outside the TUC (which were few in number) included those who would not be tied to the Labour Party because they favoured the Tories. There were both
big and little unions which were reactionary, some even regarded the TUC as a revolutionary body. Although most workers' ideas on the class struggle were elementary they did affiliate with the TUC in an effort to achieve working-class unity. NUPW was exceptional as far as little unions were concerned outside the TUC.

If minority action was to be supported it could only be on the grounds that the minority would become a majority. This majority would reflect the outlook of the bulk of the membership with its limited appreciation of the class struggle and what could be obtained by trade union action. The strike weapon was out of the question for a minority union, leading to the NUPW's appeal to the High Court for an injunction against the employers, thereby disclosing their ineffectiveness.

Other views were that we could not help but sympathise with the NUPW. The TGWU was an octopus union, claiming to represent even agricultural workers. As trade unions became larger so they became weaker, and eventually come under the control of the Labour Government. We should view breakaway unions as a part of the development of capitalism with the state becoming more and more powerful.

Joseph K.

Loren Goldner

So what is my strategy for the unions? It is to be active in unions where they exist, but not to do it with a unionist perspective but with a class wide perspective that points to all of the workers and other elements, other oppressed groups in society that have no opportunity to participate in unions and to involve them as much as possible in struggles.

he should join solfed :P

I found that Goldner's argument on the unions in that interview really chimed with mine (and the developing AF strategy too come to think of it). Theoretical insight + sensible conclusions = win.

you should join solfed too ;)

(actually the manchester local are writing a pamphlet on anarchism and sexuality, following a public meeting they held in July. no idea what will be in it, but might be worth talking to them... at least to influence them away from the re-hashed sexual liberation argument i dread they might produce :P)

Capricorn I meant whether the fact that the unions had acted as recruiters for the natioanl war effort meant anything of significance to you, not the date. Or was it just a 'mistake' on their part?

I don't follow your logic, Miles. In 1914 trade union leaders on both sides support the war effort, therefore workers should not try to organise on a permanent basis to resist the downward pressures of capital and negotiate over wages and working conditions. It doesn't follow, especially as in America the IWW, which was a permanent organisation, did not act as recruiters.

What follows is that these leaders should be kicked out or that those opposed to them and their policies should organise inside or outside the official structures (eg the war-time shop stewards movement in Britain) or that a new permanent organisation should be formed (eg various organisations formed in Germany after WWI), but not that workers should abandon trying to unite on a permanent basis.

You'll have to base your absurd conclusion on other grounds.

Incidentally, it's not the existing unions as such that I'm defending, but the principle of workers organising permanently. So what I'm defending is, if you like, the principle of permanent "unionism" not particular unions which do suffer from some of the defects which have been aired here.

But I see there are enough organisations and people out there who take a common sense, pragmatic attitude to work within, and if need be, outside the existing unions to promote a class-struggle approach, which is going to be sorely needed in the coming depression to apply a brake on worsening conditions.

PS Don't forget to mention in passing (since though interesting, it's off topic) what was the workers party with a programme that existed in Germany in 1918/19.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

capricorn

PS Don't forget to mention in passing (since though interesting, it's off topic) what was the workers party with a programme that existed in Germany in 1918/19.

I assume a left communist would say the Spartacist League and then the KAPD.

Joseph K.

Loren Goldner

So what is my strategy for the unions? It is to be active in unions where they exist, but not to do it with a unionist perspective but with a class wide perspective that points to all of the workers and other elements, other oppressed groups in society that have no opportunity to participate in unions and to involve them as much as possible in struggles.

he should join solfed :P

He can't because (1) he's in the US (or S. Korea), and (2) he's a Marxist.

(1) is a problem, (2) isn't. anyway i was speaking in jest, hence the ":P" ;)

Did rank and filism trade contribute to the defeat of the miners' strike in 1984?
Do the trade unions, let's say from around 1914, defend the national interest?

‘Baboon’ is obviously not 100% right about the facts of the 1972 dispute:

Baboon

Over one hundred thousand Yorkshire miners were on strike months before the 72 official ballot. Of course the NUM had to get "radical", that's their function.

The large scale unoffical action was related to the 1970 pay claim as ‘Capricorn’ pointed out:

Ralph Darlington and Dave Lyddon

Hence when the NCB rebuffed the union's 1970 pay claim as this time it was in conflict with the recently elected Conservative government's public sector pay policy, the NUM national executive committee agreed to ballot on a national strike…
When negotiations restarted with only a very small concession from the NCB, unofficial action again took place. In Yorkshire the Brodsworth miners came out, and persuaded the Doncaster panel to support them and organise pickets, but only half the Yorkshire miners struck this time. Scotland and South Wales were once more the main other areas taking action. Some 103,000 miners from 116 pits were on strike at some point before the unofficial movement collapsed after nearly four weeks and a majority, including 60 per cent of Yorkshire miners, supported the revised offer in a national ballot.

In 1972 the strike started as one at midnight on 9th January :

BBC

1972: Miners strike against government
Coal miners walked out at midnight in their first national strike for almost 50 years.
Three months of negotiations with the National Coal Board ended in deadlock four days ago with an offer of 7.9% on the table and the promise of a backdated deal for an increase in productivity.
The 280,000 mineworkers signalled their determination to break the Government's unofficial eight per cent pay ceiling by refusing to put the offer to the vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/9/newsid_2515000/2515917.stm

The idea of ‘over one hundred thousand Yorkshire miners being on strike’ should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing. I don’t think that there were over 100,000 Yorkshire miners, and if there were it would have been the whole field.

In a way though ‘Baboon’ is right. The miners were on strike ‘months before the 72 official ballot’. The ‘72 strike was actually over the ‘71 pay claim, and I believe that the conflict over the 1970 pay claim dragged on into 1971.

However, I don’t think the importaant point is somebody’s memory of events 40 years ago.

Ret

Demagorg is a little more subtle in outlook; but the article he cites on MI5 informers in unions shows they were of very limited use to the state, and there was not as much "tight control" as he seems to claim; the end of the article shows Govt. Minister Barbara Castle concluded the MI5 info was of little use and it could not prevent strikes.

If the argument is about whether the state had spies in the unions, it is quite well known that they did:
BBC

Joe Gormley, former president of the National Union of Miners (NUM), was a Special Branch informant during the 1970s, a BBC investigation has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/true_spies/2351547.stm

The Guardian

A former president of the Transport and General Workers' Union has admitted knowingly passing information on strike tactics to the security services, after MI5 reports on a national docks stoppage in 1970 released today detailed his views and attitudes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/01/politics.freedomofinformation

Their influence is another question. However, as the two examples above show, they had contacts with quite senior figures in the unions.

Capricorn

Not a member of the ICC? Pull the other one. Come off it, you must at least be a candidate-member or a reader. Anyway you've gone up in my estimation a bit, compared with your fellow ICC non-member, Demogorgon, …

The last ICC member to post on this thread was Ernie on page 4. You seem to be seeing ICC members everywhere.

Devrim

Devrim, as we both know, Baboon is an ex-member and 'supporter' of the ICC, which is close to what Capricorn said. Additionally - I don't think this comes down to 40 year-old memories - Capricorn pulled that example to show that a strike can be successful within the framework of the unions as he was asked to, I think he did that. Now - we can say that this was in the context of unofficial action a year or so before, and the threat of it - but we know that increased class militancy can be managed within the union framework to an extent - they don't always call things off because that risks people going outside it completely. To say that this 'never' happens is a completely inflexible position not based in material reality.

Fair points, I am planning a comment on the political issues on this thread. I just wanted to be clear on some things that I didn't want to argue about first.
Devrim

Devrim

If the argument is about whether the state had spies in the unions, it is quite well known that they did:

Clearly it isn't, as I already stated (and you quoted me saying);

the article he cites on MI5 informers in unions shows they were of very limited use to the state

Without a doubt the unions support the national interest. The vast majority of the trade unions internationally openly supported WWI, ie, worker killing worker, for the national and imperialist interest of their country. It's even more so for WWII. Proletarian interests and the interests of the nation state are diametrically opposed.

Did rank and filism contribute to the defeat of the 84 miners' strike (a crushing blow for the whole working class in fact)? Yes, it was one of the main weaknesses of the class struggle and leftism and rank and filism was one of the main weapons of the bourgeoisie.

Firstly, let's be clear (again) that we are not talking about "pure" struggle. Take the example of the 72 miners' strike: militant stewards, union members, or even officaials could be and were dynamic elements in this struggle and its expression of self-organisation and extension. It is not a question of unions "dissolving themselves" as Capricorn says above. They won't do that because that is not what they are programmed for. Their role is to be in the struggle and keep workers divided and locked up in the prison of the factory, the workplace or the industry - a role that the NUM peformed during the 72 and even more so in the 84 strike. This is the role of the unions for the state - they have to be involved in the struggle or they are useless in the face of working class militancy.

I'm quite happy to agree with Capricorn above that a number of months before the outbreak of the 72 strike 103,000 Yorkshire miners were wildcatting (I was wrong when I said a hundred thousand). From memory there were several subsequent wildcats by Yorkshire, Scottish and South Wales miners. There were a great deal of strikes in GB and elsewhere showing self-organisation and extension and coming up againist the unions from the late 60s. The point I am making about these wildcats is that there was a growing militancy, including an element of anti-trade unionism, swelling up in the working class internationally.

Dave Douglas, who went on the become a member of the Yorkshire Area Executive of the NUM before and during the 84 strike, says of 72: "constitutional reforms were won"; the "rank and file were running the union"; "right wing bureaucrats" lost control; "we were the union". All this underlines how the miners were released from the obvious prison of the "right wing bureaucracy" into the more malleable prison of left wing ideology - which suited the needs of the state perfectly. As Jason Cortez,quoting the BBC at the time, above says: "The NUM's aim was freeze domestic and industrial coal supplies to force the Coal Board to return to the negotiating table". The rank and file structure, no less than the right wing bureaucrats, focussed the miners (and other workers) on the question of the NUM, the Coal Board, the industry and ultimately the national interest.

No one industrial sector (as we saw not just with the miners in the 70s and 80s) can push back the bourgeoisie's attacks in any significant way - that's the lesson of the 72 and, even more so, the 84 strike.

The strenght of the 72 strike was the groundswell of class solidarity, self-organisation and extension despite the union sabotage overall to keep it confined to "democratic" and "constitutional" illusions, within the "defence of the NUM". The workers' respect for union decisions, limitations and manoeuvres tied the miners' (and other workers in general) hands behind their backs and, from memory, it was the Birmingham engineers, as well as a groundswell of solidarity, that forced the bourgeoisie, very wisely, to capitulate and pay out large increases to workers across the board. The significance of this didn't lie in the union organisation of the strike but the possibility that it would begin to escape the control of the unions. The bourgeoisie are not stupid! The pay offs lasted about 3 to 4 years before the bourgeoisie were back with the attacks.

The bourgeoisie learned the lessons of 72 and were well ready to take on the miners and the whole of the working class by 84 with the cards, especially the trade union cards, stacked well up on their side. At the beginning of the 84 strike, and certain points within it, there were still very positive elements of self-organisation and solidarity in miners and other workers that could have developed further. But what else than "defend the NUM", "defend British Coal", the corporatism of "Coal not Dole" and finally, the pleading of miners as a "special case", defeated the working class in 84? All these slogans supported by rank and filism and leftist ideology corralling the workers into the trade union prison.

One thing that has not been mentioned in the back and forth over the specifics of British mining history but that I feel is important... the unions were prepared to struggle for wages in a period of relative prosperity. In a time of worldwide austerity, the 80s, assuredly they could not kick any crumbs down to the working class. It is the same with the welfare state, and those arguing that workers get a material benefit from being in unions could say the same about voting for any social democrat party at a certain period. I think this explains why generally unionism and parliamentarism go hand in hand. Those same parties or unions that were 'for the workers' in a period of upswing attack them in a downturn, and are always against the unitary power of the workers councils in a revolutionary time. The same french union, the CGT, that won those workers the weeks of vacations (presumably when it was 'theirs' in 1936) corralled them into WW2 (inexplicably enough it seems for certain posters); it gave them a pay raise to buy cars that kill the planet but it sabotaged every attempt to make a revolution in 68. This is an empirical fact proved time and again.

The tiny and now vanishing gains of the welfare state have come only with the horrific price of two world wars and all the colonial wars as well. In this coming crisis the unions and political parties will become so reactionary that the halfway (or all the way) attitude on display by some posters here will be revealed not as pragmatism against the anti union crazies, but as an embarassing error. To wit, the TWA union president and darling of the US pseudo left just signed a no strike pledge. For me (maybe not for others) the issue is not one strike that worked. The unions seem to have two faces because capitalism has two faces, boom and bust. This doesn't mean unions are occasionally working class, only that occasionally capitalism has enough wealth to give a morsel to the workers. Only by having an historical view can the unions be seen for what they are, safety valves of capitalism rather than some semi mystical view that sometimes they are, others are not, for the workers.

Agree with Iron Column: the trade unions can't have a dual class nature, which is what the majority of the posters on this thread have been arguing.

Agree with Iron Column: the trade unions can't have a dual class nature, which is what the majority of the posters on this thread have been arguing.

do you support workers when they go on union strikes? if so you accept that class struggle is expressed within trade union forms while arguing it has to go beyond them. that seems to be the majority position.

Capitalists can obviously afford more concessions during a boom, (and union leaders know this and it would affect the kinds of demands they make on our behalf). But I don't really think that boom or bust is what makes unions hostile to or supportive of reforms.

I think a better way of looking at it would be to look at the mediating role of the union leaders. They will moderate demands, point struggles toward legal channels, and obviously oppose anything serious that gets out of their control. At the same time it's in their interest for there to be some level of class struggle (however unionist) just so they can keep their jobs. If they just continually repressed all manifestations of discontent and never won anything for the workers no one would be in a union. In the US the "Change to Win" unions broke away from the AFL-CIO at least partially because they wanted to spend more resources on organizing new people into unions. In right-to-work states in the US (where social democracy feels itself particularly under threat) you will sometimes get union leaders instigating campaigns, mobilizing people and winning things.

None of this is to take away from a critique of the union form. But it seems to me far too simplistic to say that unions are simply bourgeois institutions the bosses use to control us.

"do you support workers when they go on union strikes? if so you accept that class struggle is expressed within trade union forms while arguing it has to go beyond them. that seems to be the majority position"

The problem is not there - the problem is the idea of advocating that revolutionaries and militant workers should work in the lower echelons of the unions, become union reps, recruit workers to unions, or try to build new unions, which most left communists would argue mitigates against workers going beyond the unions

Quint,

You say that if unions never fought and won anything, no one would be in a union. I largely think the reason people are not largely in unions in the U.S., and why union memberships have been dropping precipitously since the 80's, is because people have come to that very conclusion. Why are the unions not fighting at this particular juncture? I would say it has something to do with a general trend of first world capitalism away from social democracy and the welfare state. And I do think this has something to do with the expansion and contraction of capitalism. Essentially you seem to propose a very superficial view of things, that we should examine the leaders and what they think and say. You do this instead of examining the function of the unions historically- the unions which emerged from the trade guilds and the political parties that emerged from the fraternal associations used by the bourgeoisie to regroup itself against feudalism.

Joseph,
If a political party calls a strike, is this an expression of class struggle? In my view, in both cases, a union or a party led strike, the class struggle is occuring in spite of, not because of, the organizational forms of the bourgeoisie-because the real material greivances of the proletariat will always be there under capitalism, this is what we believe, no? If workers try to express their troubles through a union or a party I think they will be sorely dissapointed, because the only real cure for their problems is ending capitalism with its unions and parties. Maybe they will win a strike in '72, they will have to fight again in '84 and they will lose. I would think our job is to point out what is really going on, class struggle, and what could happen, an unbelievable revolution; as opposed to what goes on day after day with the unions and parties, tinkering with the mechanism of capitalism. Your position seems to be halfway on this issue; saying that class struggle is expressed in the unions but must go beyond them seems like you would not be aversed to working for a union in a non-revolutionary time?

Agree with Iron Column, his post actually quite succintly sums up the contradictions expressed by several posters here. Not to mention that some posters (eg, Steven) must have to go through an incredible amount of mental juggling to somehow reconcile their union activity (which necessitates defending the union in some way) with revolutionary positions 'going beyond' the union.

Iron Column

the class struggle is occuring in spite of, not because of, the organizational forms of the bourgeoisie-because the real material greivances of the proletariat will always be there under capitalism

yes, the material grievances exist regardless of form, but content must take some form, and in practice that form is often a union one, because they exist (this is not an endorsement but a statement of fact). now we could say if the unions didn't exist, other forms would be found (mass assemblies etc). but of course this is precisely why the unions do exist, as they are able to give form to class struggle to a certain extent, but are ultimately divisive barriers to its development. thus, faced with the facticity of the unions, we should be advocating communist tactics (mass meetings, delegate councils, workers' control of the struggle) to workers whether they are in unions or nor.

when a comrade of mine made these kind of arguments recently, it led to lots of non-unionised workers joining UNISON so they could take part in the strike without being victimised, and there was one of the highest pro-strike votes from that branch. you could see this as a victory for trade union ideology, trapping workers in a prison etc etc, or you could see it as workers with few illusions that 'the union' will do anything for them wanting to take collective direct action to advance their material interests, and taking advantage of what legal protections are available to them. communists should never stop pointing out the limits and ultimate role as pressure-release valve of the union form, but i can't say i'm depressed by scenarios such as this, if anything it signifies an upturn in interest in collective action to defend our living standards.

the inadequacies of the union form will soon be found out, and communists should never encourage the idea that the thing of 'the union' does anything for workers, the process workers uniting does that.

Iron Column

saying that class struggle is expressed in the unions but must go beyond them seems like you would not be aversed to working for a union in a non-revolutionary time?

what do you mean 'working for...'? several very solid comrades are shop stewards, well aware of the contradictions inherent to the role and also not promoting any illusions in the union. i'd consider being a shop steward if i was in a unionised workplace, although there's a lot to weigh up which would depend on the specifics of the situation. saying class struggle (content) can be partially expressed by the union form - indeed it must be or they'd not fulfil their role - doesn't imply support for the form, but the content! Communists should seek to build the class struggle and argue that this content takes adequate forms (mass meetings etc), this means addressing the minority of workers in unions and the majority of those who are not.

The defence against victimisation comes from the strength of the movement and willingness of workers to express solidarity and defend each other. The union structure offers no defence in itself. For example, the wildcats at Exeter a couple of years ago were in response to victimisation of a union official (who was later forced to condemn the strike that had been launched in his own defence!). Similarly, struggles at the building site of a power station in Plymouth were launched after some workers (including union activists) were laid off - once again, the union activists were the ones on TV calling for the workers to go back to work!

In fact, going on strike to defend a colleague in this way is very difficult in the union structure, given the hoops that union strikes have to go through. This is why this sort of action is usually expressed in a wildcat.

What being in a union may allow you to do is join a union-controlled strike without victimisation. Given that union-controlled strikes are, by definition, agreed with the bosses beforehand, prevent solidarity between workers and all the rest, it's not really much of an advantage in my opinion. It is perfectly possible to join the struggle outside the union form as this experience of Alf's demonstrates.

Now, not all comrades are in a position to do this and I'm the first to appreciate this. I would never condemn anyone who joined a union in order to take part in a strike. But this is vastly different to actively propagandising for joining the union or becoming a union official.

Joseph K.

do you support workers when they go on union strikes? if so you accept that class struggle is expressed within trade union forms while arguing it has to go beyond them. that seems to be the majority position.

This ‘majority’ opinion is not clear to me. The unions do help ‘defend’ as in preserve the working class, but unions refuse to act against the general capitalist relation because they function as a counter-weight in the reproduction of the balance of that relation. The question becomes one of communists focusing either on a critique of capitalism or a ‘defence’ of the working class, if the former then the whole idea of merely preserving the working class becomes redundant. Whilst any of us might accidentally belong to a union and derive benefits from it, it is not worhtwhile to formulate a political strategy in support of that which already exists and which would not register that support anyway, except in terms other than the dominant ideology – if we are talking about intervening in possible spheres of influence, why not form a political party and try to get elected to parliament? I would think it preferable to maintain a communist critique than pursue some uncosted policy of pragmatism.

fort-da game

The question becomes one of communists focusing either on a critique of capitalism or a ‘defence’ of the working class.

i'm a communist, i have a critique of capitalism. i'm also a worker, and i need to defend myself from capital's attacks for the sake of my mental and physical health. this can only be done effectively in a collective way. defending proletarian conditions doesn't mean defending the proletarian condition, it's a fucking necessity of life under capitalism. the assertion of our needs is in direct contradiction to the needs of capital, and thus ultimately in direct contradiction to our condition as a part of that social relation.

fort-da game

Whilst any of us might accidentally belong to a union and derive benefits from it, it is not worhtwhile to formulate a political strategy in support of that which already exists

of course. i think there's possibly one poster on this thread who actully supports unions per se, and others who think membership is largely 'accidental' and that shop steward roles, while contradictory can offer some potential for the development of the class struggle. there hasn't really been a counter-argument to this except that 'ultimately union interests and workers interests come into contradiction, and leave the shop steward with a choice of whose side they're on' - i don't think anyone disputes this.

fort-da game

if we are talking about intervening in possible spheres of influence, why not form a political party and try to get elected to parliament? I would think it preferable to maintain a communist critique than pursue some uncosted policy of pragmatism

where is this straw man coming from? nobody, except possibly capricorn is talking about reforming the unions in a way analagous to reforming capitalism by running for parliament. if you want to attack 'union pragmatism' go talk to members of Liberty and Solidarity, but posing "communist critique" as the alternative to collective direct action is a bad parody of ultra-left purist inactivity. communist critique has to be a protagonist in and a product of the class struggle not a marginal note to collective action, which must of course go far beyond trade union forms.

I'm not saying that we should just look at what the leaders say. I'm saying we should look at their interests. And the leaders of unions have an interest in there being controlled working class mobilization and reformism. The unions integrate workers struggles into legal frameworks which ultimately isolates militant workers and is counter productive. But in order to have any credibility (and not just be deserted en masse) they accomplish this channeling by negotiating concessions.

You really think that the decline of the unions in the US is because workers have a critique of the unions? It seems much more plausible to me that worker's bargaining power has been undermined through all the restructuring since the 70s, and therefore even reformist struggles have been weak.

I mean no matter what form worker's are using to struggle for their immediate demands, they're going to win concessions easier from capitalists during an upswing than during a recession.

Obviously unions are part of a larger social-democratic project which is in decline. But this is because of the self-destructiveness of social-democracy. By demanding representation within the management of capitalism, the social-democrats demobilize the movement and thereby undermine the basis of their own power to force representation. I agree with you that there is a historic arc of the union movement, but it's not just a historic arc. The bureaucracy gets rejuvenated from below from time to time, even today, and then inevitably becomes a new bureaucracy because of the mediating role they have to play. This is different from saying that the unions just do whatever they can to undermine worker's struggles.

For what it's worth, I'm not "advocating that revolutionaries and militant workers should work in the lower echelons of the unions, become union reps, recruit workers to unions, or try to build new unions". I don't think it weakens the critique of unions to say that class struggle takes place within them and that the union bureaucrats sometimes (however rarely) actually instigate reformist struggles. Otherwise what's the point of unions? Why not just have police?

Joseph K wrote
i'm a communist, i have a critique of capitalism. i'm also a worker, and i need to defend myself from capital's attacks for the sake of my mental and physical health. this can only be done effectively in a collective way. defending proletarian conditions doesn't mean defending the proletarian condition, it's a fucking necessity of life under capitalism. the assertion of our needs is in direct contradiction to the needs of capital, and thus ultimately in direct contradiction to our condition as a part of that social relation.

So am I and I agree, but I am not "supporting the unions per se". What I am supporting is that workers should organise on a permanent basis to defend themselves "from capital's attacks", the usefulness and desirability of which some here have challenged. The existing unions have the merit of existing, so we may as well use them, though I'm not opposed to forming some new union, as a permanent defensive organisation, if necessary.

As to "reforming" the existing unions, yes, I suppose I would say this is possible, given a rising class consciousness amongst workers. They could be made more democratic, cut their ties with the state and political parties, adopt an explicit class struggle stance but, as I said, this will depend on their members, and workers generally, wanting these things. In the meantime I'm in favour of arguing for these things within the existing unions.

As class consciousness rises and spreads, I can see three possible ways in which the permanent defensive organisations of the working class can change:
1. Reform of the existing unions.
2. Breakaway unions from the existing unions.
3. Formation of new unions.
I wouldn't be dogmatic about this. That would be stupid as that would be to try to dictate the future, but I imagine that what will happen will be all three depending on the circumstances.

We'll see (hopefully).
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

In book one of Capital, from memory, Marx says that when two rights collide (meaning capital and labour)' force decides the issue.
At a certain level, within the global and historical class struggle, the particular force of the proletariat in Britain from around 1969 to 1972, largely through its combativity, got the edge over the bourgeoisie (which retreated in good order) and pushed back the latter's attacks. It did this in spite of and not because of the trade unions.
At a somewhat more important level in Britain in 1984, the bourgeoisie prepared and reinforced its forces and, though this wasn't inevitable, scored a decisive and crushing victory over the miners that had national and international ramifications. A very significant force acting for the bourgeoisie at both the material and ideological level was trade unionism.

The main argument of Capricorn and his fellow travellers for supporting the trade unions seems to me to be that at some time, at some level, at some place they can give some protection and some benefits to the working class. From a revolutionary or communist point of view this argument for the defence of the trade unions is wrongly framed from the outset in order to favour an anti-working class position for the defence of the trade unions - however "critically".
If the questions is some protection and benefits at some time then Hamas provides that to its members and constituency. So too do Hizbollah and the Israeli state. The same is true for street gangs, social security the Mafia, Sinn Fein, insurance companies, the British legal system, the police force and so on and so on, if that's the level of your argument.
I agree, in fact it's a position of the ICC that I am happy to try to defend, that the trade unionism has a particular history in relation to its role within the working class. But this is all the more reason not to accept the ideological hogwash about 'protection and benefits' that even on this pathetic level are looking more and more suspect and unlikely as this economic crisis develops.
There's a valid and important discussion to be had on how revolutionaries act and react within the class struggle. But the main theoretical question that frames the former discussion must be the class nature of the trade unions.

Joseph K.

fort-da game

The question becomes one of communists focusing either on a critique of capitalism or a ‘defence’ of the working class.

i'm a communist, i have a critique of capitalism. i'm also a worker, and i need to defend myself from capital's attacks for the sake of my mental and physical health. this can only be done effectively in a collective way. defending proletarian conditions doesn't mean defending the proletarian condition, it's a fucking necessity of life under capitalism. the assertion of our needs is in direct contradiction to the needs of capital, and thus ultimately in direct contradiction to our condition as a part of that social relation .... but posing "communist critique" as the alternative to collective direct action is a bad parody of ultra-left purist inactivity. communist critique has to be a protagonist in and a product of the class struggle not a marginal note to collective action, which must of course go far beyond trade union forms.

We are discussing a specifc form of subjectivity here and the means and forces through which if has been fashioned. Unions are not merely defined negatively by ‘anti-’ trade union legislation such as the combination acts of 1799, the1927 anti-general strike act and Thatcher’s 1982 employment act or 1984 ‘secret ballot’ trade union act etc. You know as well as I do, that any product (subject position, television, tractor, loaf of bread) is not caused merely by immediate lived ‘activity’ but is a result of a processing or co-mingling of lived labour, accumulated knowledge and technology (dead labour). And so it is that unions are a combination of workers organising plus the legal definition of that combination, thus we see a particular form of the preservation of the proletariat through ‘positive’ legislation directed at workers’ organisation from the 1824 repeal of the combination laws to 1871protection of funds and decriminalisation of union collective action act, the1875 conspiracy and protection of property act, 1906 post taff vale, union non-liablity act, the 1913 ‘political’ and ‘social’ fund act. This latter legislation positively defines trade unions and trade union activity within existing social relations.

One of the most striking aspects of the ‘limits’ of trade union consciousness is the historical forgetting within the ‘lets build an organisation’ sentiment of the provenance and character of the dead labour fragment of organising.The fragment that is forgotten is precisely the positive subjective form which ideologically obscures the limits of that form. What is suddenly remembered (but falsely) is the idea that immediate activity has never been tried before – therefore, instead of advocating 'organising' it becomes more important to carry forward the rememberance of the limits of failed forms so that they are not endlessly and fruitlessly repeated.

The struggles and gains won within the union's subjective form both further refine its function and strengthen its ideological hold on an apparent critique of capital. Through critically investigating the limits of subjective formations we find that whilst, for example, we can see a positive usefulness in the distribution infrastructure of Tesco and Asda (which may be socialised in a social crisis very rapidly) it is difficult to find a prospect for the positive expropriations of, for example, Parliament, the law courts, or trade unions. All of these must be suppressed because they will function vis a vis a social crisis as fetters on a possible communist attempt, i.e. they are institutions with no prospect of radicalisation belonging as they do to a previous era.

I have not approached your point which you make here:
communist critique has to be a protagonist in and a product of the class struggle not a marginal note to collective action, which must of course go far beyond trade union forms.

You do not define the subjective form of 'protagonist' here, it seems a rhetorical term. Briefly, I think you are making a moral argument about my obligations to change the world, but in response I can honestly say I have no personal capacity to either change the unions from the inside, or to raise class consciousness – therefore your definition of my 'inactivity' is not an issue, there are nearly 60 million individuals in this country who do less than me, why don't you criticise them? I don't feel guilty about not overthrowing capitalism as it is not within my capabilities; whether I 'do' something or 'do' nothing, whether I am in favour of unions or against them, it makes no difference – therefore the discussion has to be set elsewhere than on individualistic relations to activism. Radically changing other people's ideas is not derived from activists' energy but from external factors relating to receptivity in these 'other people's' circumstances; all I can say is that I have factored in my marginality within the frame of the critique I have undertaken. Communist critique in its applicability is tightly determined by the conditions of the social relation of which it is a product, neither you nor I can change how communist ideas will be received by others – this will be settled with a magnitude greater than our individual activity.

On the lessons of the 84 miners' strike:

From the beginning and at major points within it, even, to some extent, after it (particularly in the international context of class struggle), the 84 strike showed an enormous degree, within all sectors of the working class, of self-organisation, extension and solidarity. It also showed that ideas about the workers being apathetic and tied to a "trade union consciousness", as Capricorn argues, profoundly underestimated the working class (as does ideas of "new unions").
I don't think that Ret's point above about "mining communities" is a useful one and tends rather to support the isolation and union grip that was imposed on the "mining community" by the NUM (and the other mining unions). What's the reality behind the sentimentality of "mining communities"? 700 pits closed and half a million jobs lost between 1947 and 1972. The NUM in the 60s calling strikes "reactionary" and "holding the country to ransom". During this time within the miners I don't know how many died of or contracted fatal dust-related diseases and other "accidents". Fixating on mining communities reinforces the isolation and corporatism of the NUM.

The "Plan for Coal", touted by Scargill, was agreed between the Labour government and the NUM in 1974. The "gains" of the 72 struggle were suppressed and the NUM introduced bonus schemes and pit by pit productivity deals. Just two years after attempts at extension within the struggle, the miners were forced back into the union straightjacket and the "mining community".

In early 81, fifty thousand miners are out on unofficial strike and the Yorkshire NUM tried to keep its members from joining the strike which, as I remember, led to Scargill being called a scab and traitor.
The other major unions talked of resurrecting the Triple Alliance in order to fight Thatcher. The idea that this half mad bat herself had the intelligence to take on the working class in the early 80s is just a joke. There was deep state activity behind her and "her" plans. That much is obvious. She, or more to the point the state, called on all its intelligence in order to take on the miners and used union ideology and the union structures to the hilt.

In September 83, 18000 miners struck in South Yorkshire over the victimisation of one man and all of Scotland's pits were on strike over one colliery. Both actions were kept separate by the NUM within its fiefdoms. But it did implement the overtime ban in late 83 which not only cut miners' wages but also allowed the bourgeoisie to fine tune its plans and build up coal stocks.

Despite the action of the miners and other elements of the class joining the struggle, notably the dockers, themselves under threat, in summer 84, the main lesson of the strike is that the corporatist isolation, certainly helped by the police, the media, social security measures, etc, was mainly down to the NUM and its industry based and nationalist campaigns for "British Coal", campaigns that went back to the Scargill=touted "Plan for Coal" of 74 and all linked to the ideology and isolation of the miners as a "special case".

Hundreds of miners were imprisoned after the strike (two for life) and there were strikes and big demonstrations in Kent, Wales and Yorkshire in 85 demanding an amnesty. The NUM did its best to sabotage this movementwith the Welsh NUM coming out against demonstration.

fort-da game

We are discussing a specifc form of subjectivity here and the means and forces through which if has been fashioned.

no, i'm discussing 'radical perspectives on the crisis', mine being the perspective of a financial services worker who's getting fucked over at work because of the current crisis (well, because that's what work is, but the crisis/recession is the proximate cause). you don't need to convince me of the role of the trade unions, i'm highly critical of them already, not in one, not trying to build one or join one etc. the necessity for collective action of which i speak is not some theoretical nicety, but a very real need in my work life and that of many other workers, particularly with attacks likely to intensify at the current juncture. juxtaposing this to communist critique is meaningless, as if refreshing my knowledge of chapter 10 of Capital would stop me being forced to work through my lunch breaks and do unpaid overtime.

fort-da game

I think you are making a moral argument about my obligations to change the world, but in response I can honestly say I have no personal capacity to either change the unions from the inside, or to raise class consciousness – therefore your definition of my 'inactivity' is not an issue, there are nearly 60 million individuals in this country who do less than me, why don't you criticise them?

then we are at completely at crossed purposes. my point is class struggle is not something external for communists to pontificate about; this has nothing to do with your moral obligation to do anything. you said "the question becomes one of communists focusing either on a critique of capitalism or a ‘defence’ of the working class" - a juxtaposition which places communists outside the class . now if you're not feeling the attacks of capital fair play, but 'the working class' isn't some external object, critique (however necessary) won't stop the intensive and extensive pressures on my working day, collective action might. you seem to be saying i shouldn't be talking to my workmates about working to rule in terms of our contractual breaks, because this only re-inforces the proletarian condition or somesuch. if that's what you're saying, it's bollocks.

Joseph K wrote
. . . or trade unions. All of these must be suppressed . . .

Superceded perhaps, but suppressed? How? When?
EDIT: Sorry JK. It was not you but Fort-da game who wrote this.

capricorn

Joseph K wrote
. . . or trade unions. All of these must be suppressed . . .

Superceded perhaps, but suppressed? How? When?

fort-da game wrote that

Sorry, mate. I've edited my post. It didn't really seem like you.

Joseph K.

you said "the question becomes one of communists focusing either on a critique of capitalism or a ‘defence’ of the working class"- a juxtaposition which places communists outside the class

Why? You are perhaps misunderstanding the word defence, it was used in the context of 'preserve'. There is a qualitive leap, rather than a continuity, between defending a standard of living now, and attempting to engage the framework of a communist future. My point is that I can make no difference in the struggle to preserve the standard of living of the class, this struggle occurs at a level above my capacity for intervention. Therefore, I must focus my abilities on the points where a communist intervention will make a difference... evidently, these are few and far between.

Joseph K.

you seem to be saying i shouldn't be talking to my workmates about working to rule in terms of our contractual breaks, because this only re-inforces the proletarian condition or somesuch. if that's what you're saying, it's bollocks.

Plainly, it is not what I am saying, why would I denounce you talking to your workmates? I made the point that the problematic of circulating politicised consciousness is based more on the capacities of reception than on those of transmission. If your workmates are able to understand your message of collective action then your transmitting the message is redundant, that is it presupposes a condition in which collective action is already present in people's minds – i.e. most of your work has already been done for you. If you are saying you are attempting some pedagogical/missionary exercise amongst those who have hitherto shown no interest in collective action then I think you are unlikely to achieve much in the long term. In this latter case, the radical response of the proletariat to the 'crisis' is a continued refusal of politicisation; it is my opinion that this may be the correct response, i.e. it could be that passive refusal of the trade union form adequately expresses a mass non-commitment to the ideology that is bound up in unionism, this form no longer expresses the class interest. It is at this point we need to consider different patterns for the dissemination of ideas and others' receptivity to them, the point is always what is the most radical response at this juncture.

A radical perspective on the economic crisis is that the unions are part of the state.

Prior and up to the 84 miners' strike, the bourgeoisie set up a special committee, a national police force drawn up under the plans of the previous Labout government (under whom 50,000 mining jobs went), new laws were enacted, the media primed, social security measures taken and the government did deals with the steel, power, dock and rail unions. But the corporate prison of the NUM, with a middle ranking bureaucrat, Scargill, polished up and presented as "radical, was the most effective weapon of the bourgeoisie to deal with "the enemy within".

In the face of wildcats throughout 83, the NUM started an overtime ban that cut miners wages and allowed the bourgeoisie to build up stocks. The NUM started a nationalist campaign to "black foreign coal" (the British state had supplied "British" coal to strikebound Poland in 1980).

Self-organisation and extension of the struggle in the first week of the strike. Confrontations of miners with the NUM in Wales, Yorkshire and Scotland, and Scargill pronounced "I want to take the heat out of the situation". Richardson, another NUM official, called on the pickets, now numbering thousands, to "withdraw"

The "special case" argument that developed throughout the strike for the miners deserves another mention. It is closely related to the idea of a separate "mining community", seeing miners as an isolated, "deserving" sector that deserves special attention, whereas the struggle was about the whole working class. It's also not unrelated to the national interest arguments put forward by the NUM and the charity buckets for the "mining community" seeing the miners as a charity case. The real solidarity with the miners was shown throughout the strike (and right up to 1992 when 120,000 mining jobs had gone since 85) with other workers coming out on strike both in solidarity and with their own demands.

The NUM fixation on getting the Notts area out, led to set piece police clashes and calls for "democratic ballots". Of course the bourgeoisie ignored the real democratic movement in favour of joining the strike from Nacods (mine safety - two votes in favour), power, steel and car workers, but were told by their unions (and, in some cases, by the rank and file NUM organisation, see Douglas above) not to, in some cases overtly threatened with union discipline.

fort-da game

Why? You are perhaps misunderstanding the word defence, it was used in the context of 'preserve'. There is a qualitive leap, rather than a continuity, between defending a standard of living now, and attempting to engage the framework of a communist future.

well, no-one's been advocating defending the proletarian condition, rather than proletarian conditions (living standards etc). i disagree there's a qualitative leap. both defensive and offensive struggles are waged at the level of asserting our needs, which run counter to the needs of capital. a communist future is one when we assert those needs to not simply disrupting or taking over capital but destroying it by communisation, the reorganisation of society around our needs. i mean there's a 'leap' in the sense of hypothetical mass assemblies of financial services workers just disbanding financial services rather than self-managing them, but this is dependent on a similar level of class power throughout society, it's less a leap than a qualitative development of the struggle, rooted in the same assertion of needs.

fort-da game

I made the point that the problematic of circulating politicised consciousness is based more on the capacities of reception than on those of transmission. If your workmates are able to understand your message of collective action then your transmitting the message is redundant, that is it presupposes a condition in which collective action is already present in people's minds – i.e. most of your work has already been done for you. If you are saying you are attempting some pedagogical/missionary exercise amongst those who have hitherto shown no interest in collective action then I think you are unlikely to achieve much in the long term.

it's not about 'politicising' or missionary work. people are fucked off, there's been redundancies. the rest of us are being made to "give 110%." others are suggesting things, so am i, but we're young, atomised and have very little experience of collective action. i doubt my workplace is unique in this. class struggle isn't a mystical automatic process, it's something happening every day, with real concrete individuals the protagonists; in hushed conversations behind the boss' back as much as in more familiar visible forms of strikes etc. you seemed to be saying i shouldn't be doing this, but engaging in critique, i appreciate you might not be in a position to do anything other than critique, but to make this mutually exclusive to communist workers advocating certain tactics (i.e. talking to each other and realising we have common problems, not individually raising 'personal' concerns through the 'proper channels' etc) seems wrongheaded.

fort-da game

In this latter case, the radical response of the proletariat to the 'crisis' is a continued refusal of politicisation; it is my opinion that this may be the correct response, i.e. it could be that passive refusal of the trade union form adequately expresses a mass non-commitment to the ideology that is bound up in unionism, this form no longer expresses the class interest. It is at this point we need to consider different patterns for the dissemination of ideas and others' receptivity to them, the point is always what is the most radical response at this juncture.

i'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'politicisation' here. are you conflating collective action with the trade union form? that would be a strange thing to do for a communist. with all due respect, celebrating working class passivity as some sort of victory against trade union ideology is mental; by all means see alternative forms of activity as a break with trade unionism (if you can see any), but we are getting fucking hammered and it's going to get worse. passivity is not to be celebrated.

I'm curious, for those arguing against unions and others, what is your guess as to Capital's plans for the UAW. Will the bailout of the big three be tied to 'tearing up existing contracts with unions' as Thomas Friedman, the Wall Street Journal and many others would have it? Or, as argued by some above, is the unions roll as foil against class struggle (where is it?) and its stabilizing roll in contract negotiations (agreeing to layoffs, cutbacks) still important to Capital? Perhaps the conditions in the auto plants have become so degraded they don't need the union anymore to agree to further cutbacks.

Don't know a great dela about the specifics of the US auto industry at the moment, but it's difficult to believe that the bourgeoisie could manage big factories, even degraded ones, without the assistance of the trade unions.

There are a couple of useful and one inspiring article in the blog section of the Internationalist Perspective Web Site on the current Economic Crisis which people might want to read if they haven't done so already:

http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-index.html

baboon

I don't think that Ret's point above about "mining communities" is a useful one and tends rather to support the isolation and union grip that was imposed on the "mining community" by the NUM (and the other mining unions). What's the reality behind the sentimentality of "mining communities"? 700 pits closed and half a million jobs lost between 1947 and 1972. The NUM in the 60s calling strikes "reactionary" and "holding the country to ransom". During this time within the miners I don't know how many died of or contracted fatal dust-related diseases and other "accidents". Fixating on mining communities reinforces the isolation and corporatism of the NUM.

My comments on mining communities took up about one fifth of my post, so are hardly "fixating", as baboon claims. But if one doesn't recognise the specific historical conditions of the subject under discussion, one's understanding is somewhat limited. Not that I should need to point that out to a "Marxist", of course...

As for the undoubted brutality of the destruction of many pit villages and their solidarity; there's a difference between sentiment and "sentimentality". But it seems, for baboon, that to even talk of "mining communities" and their particularities - ie the strengths that the ruling class felt obliged to smash - is sentimental and supportive of the most conservative aspects. Or why the inverted commas? Does baboon deny that miners and their families lived in a geographical location in close-knit social groupings close to their work within particular historical conditions that were unique and specific to themselves? The working class even today is not one homogenous mass - convenient as such a category may be for oversimplification - and one will understand little in denying that. The ruling class wants workers to see themselves as increasingly 'flexible', interchangeable, isolated components of production, and an insistence on collective particularities can be a defence against that; agreed, it can also lead to a maintaining of sectoral division between workers too. But that's not the whole story, and one has to combat the (ultra)leftist tendency to theorise the working class as mere 'mass', reducing the proletarian to the same reified functional role that capital does.

Unless one makes a complete separation between the 'big bad machiavellian union' and the noble working class constantly striving for its 'autonomy and self-organisation', one has to understand the link between the miners communities, the union - and tendencies towards such autonomy as emerging from tensions within those forms. Baboon fails to recognise, much less explain, the links and tensions between them. So on the one hand we have; "the 84 strike showed an enormous degree, within all sectors of the working class, of self-organisation, extension and solidarity" and, apparently at the same time among some of the same workers we have "the isolation and union grip that was imposed on the "mining community" by the NUM (and the other mining unions)." But that's what you get when you deal in dogmatic absolutes of either/or. From the 60s, the tendencies for self-organisation took the form of rank'n'file young miners movements, more wildcats and tensions with the conservatism of the union leadership. Such tendencies also took the form in 84 of rank'n'file organising of flying pickets and of women asserting themselves in a new way - in mining communities - as organisers, picketers, speakers, food distributors etc. But all within the union form and never pushing decisively beyond it - therefore showing the necessity in understanding the specific relationship between miners and union, beyond simple platitudes of workers being led astray from above.

(BTW, if baboon actually means "the isolation and union grip that was imposed on the "mining community" by the NUM (and the other mining unions)" was in an earlier period which was then followed in the 84 strike by an outbreak of "an enormous degree, within all sectors of the working class, of self-organisation" etc, he's still wrong. Workers came far more under the control of unions after 1979 - and miners were generally fiercely loyal to the NUM throughout the strike, despite tensions over some strategies within the organisation. But it's hard to know just what he does mean.)

baboon

From the beginning and at major points within it, even, to some extent, after it (particularly in the international context of class struggle), the 84 strike showed an enormous degree, within all sectors of the working class, of self-organisation, extension and solidarity. It also showed that ideas about the workers being apathetic and tied to a "trade union consciousness", as Capricorn argues, profoundly underestimated the working class (as does ideas of "new unions").

This is wrong; the miners weren't given the solidarity they needed to win by other sectors of workers and they rarely if ever bypassed union channels to try and get it (even so, when coal stocks got low the strike's outcome was still, at one point, a close thing). There was plenty of the 'put money in the bucket, go to the benefit gig, pass branch resolution of support and donation, go on the demo' etc kind of solidarity - but very little strike action, and nothing close to the solidarity action that could have won the strike. (That's not to dismiss the efforts of those who did their best to aid the miners.) The unions quite easily maintained sectoral isolation between workers, so I think claims of "an enormous degree, within all sectors of the working class, of self-organisation, extension and solidarity" are fantasy. The large majority of workers took no action. Similarly (though I wouldn't want to use a term like 'TU consciousness'), claims that "It also showed that ideas about the workers being apathetic and tied to a "trade union consciousness"... profoundly underestimated the working class" are wrong - the working class obeyed the trade union leaders' discipline and clearly weren't up for any decisive acts of solidarity. That's not "underestimation" or denial of a potential for effective solidarity, but the historical fact is it didn't happen.

It was the miners fixating on the mining community that was part of the problem, The mining communities have long been a bastion of class struggle and long been under attack - see the number of job losses above and imagine the number of miners killed by their job since the 40s. But a bastion in war can become a prison, a trap. And this is what happened with the 84 strike with the consequence of a long, drawn out defeat. The question posed to the working class in Britain was the same as anywhere else: how to fight back effectively against these growing attacks. The entrenchement into the mining community helped facilitate the ideologies of the miners as a "special case" (the same process of isolation applied to nurses and firemen for example), "Defend the NUM", "Defend British Coal". All this staying within the mining community led to the strengthening of the NUM and the strangulation of the strike. The NUM and the state it was part of used the uniqueness and specific nature of the mining community to turn a possible strength, that is its self-organisation and expansion, into a weakness, isolation and defeat.

The idea of the unions on one side and a "noble" working class on the other is not quite accurate. But there is a clear distinction between the historic and international nature of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. I, and my comrades in the ICC, are very aware of the almost total grip that the NUM had on the miners during 84. But because workers are trapped in an ideological prison doesn't mean that revolutionaries have to make any concession towards that - in fact, from a revolutionary perspective, it's all the more reason not to. The 'only struggle is a union struggle' idea is poisonous and a false alternative.
I think the self-organisation and move to extension is obvious during the miners' strike. Of course the unions are involved here - that is what they have been programmed to do. That is their raison d'etre. The fundamnetal lesson of the 84 strike is that is was defeated in the main by the corporatist and nationalist ideologies of the NUM, assisted by the other trade unions.

Revolutionaries had a perspective on the 84 strike and it was reinforced by the attempts of the working class to break the union prison from the late 60s in Britain and the lessons internationally, not least the defeat of the mass strike in Poland, 1980, by the weapons of rank and file and "new unionism".

Ret

There were attempts by other workers to try and unite with the miners. In 84 we discussed with a miner in South Wales who told us that the steel workers (who were stewards) at LLanwern had made contact with miners and had wanted to work to bring out the steel workers. The NUM and steel union stopped this initiative in its tracks. We were also told about power workers wanting to join the struggle. There was also the situation in the summer of 84 when there were the dock strikes. The dockers union did all they could to stop this struggle being seen as the same as the dockers. For our part, we did all we could with our very limited resources to put forwards the need for unity between the workers. We distributed leaflets at meetings of dockers, we also distributed the leaflet to miners. In one discussion with miners at a power station we were told yes it is the way forwards but we need to get all the pits out first.
We should also not forget the way in which the class wide sense of solidarity with the miners was imprisoned in the miners' support groups which turned this real solidarity into a passive collecting of money etc.
On the question of solidarity in struggles, there is the example of the 1988 nurses' wildcat when nurses walked out in Leeds and the movement spread to other areas. There were reports of nurses going to car plants and pits. And on the union called demonstration in London (aimed at getting control of the movement) many delegations of other workers joined the demonstration.
The great problem that faced the struggle in the 70 and 80's was the inability to go from agreeing on the need for solidarity to putting this into question which would mean going against the unions. The state had also made such action illegal which also had an impact.
It would be good to hear the experience of others who militated in the 70s and 80s. There are important lessons that we have to draw for the development of the struggles today.

A couple of things surprised me in South Yorkshire at the time;
one was that it was a glimpse of a police state; most of the roads in were blocked by police. They were patrolling everywhere, arresting and beating up miners and others in their travels. Nicking anyone with leaflets or newspapers (including union ones), impounding cars and harassing and abusing the families of miners. This had the effect of isolating South Yorkshire and forcing miners more into the arms of the NUM who were leading the objections based on legality and pleas to the state.
The other thing was the massive amount of armour that the miners had at their disposal; giant bulldozers the size of houses; massive JCB's and dumper trucks that were excellent offensive weapons against police charges (which were relentless). In the pit village of Dinnington, near Rotherham, where I stayed, the Coal Board HQ was flattened by two miners driving a bulldozer they had "released". The union disciplined them and the Coal Board sacked them and I believe they were nicked. This equipment was locked up in compounds and it seems that the union assisted in their security.

But the main point is not the weaponry but the consciousness of the class and this solidarity within the miners and from other workers wasn't enough to break out of the union framework.

With the development of the economic crisis further pressure will be put on the trade unions both to implement measures in the national interest (for instance, facilitate redundancies as they did in Northern Rock with 14000 jobs going, eight thousand of them compulsory) and radicalising in order to keep up and control any development towards autonomous struggle that will inevitably arise.
Reflecting this overall need for a sharper image of the unions, Capricorn above includes in his perspectives the possibility of "new" trade unions. The ideology of "new" trade unions is not new at all and has mostly been seen in Stalinist and weaker regimes where the unions are more obviously part of the state. But with the development of class struggle worldwide, the ideas of "new" trade unions is being put forward to the working class.
They've recently been posed in Palestine, where there are campaigns for unions to be independent of Hamas and Fatah; in Iran there are calls for the (intelligence controlled) unions to be separate from the state. Independent unions in south Africa are critical of COSATU's role in the ANC government; in Venezuela there's a discussion as to whether there's a need for trade unions indepent of the Chavez regime. Along with "new" and "independent" there's recent campaigns for "real" unions in China, Egypt, Algeria and Vietnam, unions that supposedly will really represent workers' interests. One of the greatest proponents of "new" unions in Britain is the SWP.

Most of this amounts to a plea from the left wing of capital for different unions structures in order to reinforce workers' illusions in them whereas the need of the working class is for the unification and extension of struggles against the restrictions that the unions impose. The fact that "new" trade unions are repressed by some regimes today no more puts them on the side of the working class than any argument between factions of the bourgeosie.

The best example of the role of a "new", independent trade union is "Solidarnosc" in Poland, 1980. The workers had set up strike committees with revocable delegates, with demands going from the economic to the political and back again. But with help from the west (including the leftists' bogeywoman, Thatcher) the free trade union illusion of workers in Poland were used to set up Solidarnosc and an emphatic move towards the mass strike was turned into the defence and "reform" of Polish capital. Just as the NUM was to defeat the miners' strike of 84, the "new" union of Solidarnosc, on the basis of the national interest, opened up the way to the military repression and defeat of the workers in December 1981.

baboon

It was the miners fixating on the mining community that was part of the problem, The mining communities have long been a bastion of class struggle and long been under attack - see the number of job losses above and imagine the number of miners killed by their job since the 40s. But a bastion in war can become a prison, a trap. And this is what happened with the 84 strike with the consequence of a long, drawn out defeat. The question posed to the working class in Britain was the same as anywhere else: how to fight back effectively against these growing attacks. The entrenchement into the mining community helped facilitate the ideologies of the miners as a "special case" (the same process of isolation applied to nurses and firemen for example), "Defend the NUM", "Defend British Coal". All this staying within the mining community led to the strengthening of the NUM and the strangulation of the strike. The NUM and the state it was part of used the uniqueness and specific nature of the mining community to turn a possible strength, that is its self-organisation and expansion, into a weakness, isolation and defeat.

Unsurprisingly, your reply is just a reworded repetition without any elaboration of your claims or answer to criticisms. You keep saying the miners "fixated on the mining community" - but haven't once described how this occurred. In fact miners travelled far and wide - both on demos and flying pickets and across the UK & Europe speaking and seeking support for the strike. Hardly "fixating" on their home base or "staying within the mining community", as you claim. But yes, miners lived in mining villages, picketed there and were scabbed on there. They were also invaded and occupied by the cops, so they unavoidably had to struggle, in part, where they lived and worked. So I don't think the option of "fixating" or not came into it in reality - your "entrenchment" is therefore a myth, which, afaics, only serves to give you the security of a neat self-contained narrative as an alternative to dealing with a messier reality. And supporters were welcomed into mining communities, so the use of social space was transformed, which has something potentially subversive to it in itself. In fact, the 84-85 strike was probably one of the least "isolated", in social terms, of all UK strikes.

The 'only struggle is a union struggle' idea is poisonous and a false alternative.

No one has argued that here - it may be convenient to characterise those who disagree in that way so as to wheel out your ready-made response, but it's still strawmanning. What is more annoying - and similarly is a result of a need to fit everthing into a neat narrative that only serves the ICC line - is your repeated presentation of your very dubious and incoherent interpretations of recent history as authoritative fact, and your dodging and weaving when the contradictions and inaccuracies are pointed out.

I think the self-organisation and move to extension is obvious during the miners' strike. Of course the unions are involved here - that is what they have been programmed to do. That is their raison d'etre.

Ernie cites some small examples of a desire of a small number of workers to give strike solidarity - though given your track records, your off-the-cuff unsubstantiated recollections are totally unreliable; but if the unions so easily stifled them it shows their limits and weakness - and that they didn't seek to 'self-organise' outside the union. My point is that any real development towards "self-organisation and move to extension" would have had to quickly force a confrontation with the unions' attempt to limit it - that this didn't happen shows there was very little attempt at decisive working class solidarity that could've won the strike. If " the self-organisation and move to extension is obvious during the miners' strike" then list all the strike action that occurred in solidarity, then list all the strikes that made any difference.

The fundamnetal lesson of the 84 strike is that is was defeated in the main by the corporatist and nationalist ideologies of the NUM, assisted by the other trade unions.

Wrong - how comforting to simply blame the unions for hoodwinking the workers, then let your 'theory' go back to sleep. Your 'analysis' stops where it should begin. The '"fundamental lesson" is to understand why this happens, what it is in the union/worker relationship that gives it this enduring ability, where the strong and weak points are in that relationship, how/why a breach in this relationship may occur, why workers don't step decisively out of the union form etc. 'Because the nasty union leaders always hoodwink/trick them' is a shallow non-explanation.

Wrong - how comforting to simply blame the unions for hoodwinking the workers, then let your 'theory' go back to sleep. Your 'analysis' stops where it should begin. The '"fundamental lesson" is to understand why this happens, what it is in the union/worker relationship that gives it this enduring ability, where the strong and weak points are in that relationship, how/why a breach in this relationship may occur, why workers don't step decisively out of the union form etc. 'Because the nasty union leaders always hoodwink/trick them' is a shallow non-explanation

This is really pathetic. Have you actually been reading what Baboon and others have written? In several posts, in detail, Baboon has been trying to show exactly what lay 'behind' the defeat of the miners - what the root causes of the defeat were. And the overwhelming bulk of the argument has been how the workers struggled was derailed by the union, that this showed the strength of the unions and how staying within the union framework (despite various attempts to go beyond it) ultimately resulted in its defeat - and an extremely hard defeat for the whole working class.

You disagree with the arguments being put forward - fine, so do many other people, especially on the issue of the miners struggles. But to somehow argue that baboon is putting forward a 'non-explanation' either indicates a wilful misinterpretation or, frankly, ignorance.

Have you bothered to read what you quoted by me? If you grasped its meaning you'd understand my point is that merely to summarise that the 'struggle was derailed by the unions' is to end where one must begin looking for an explanation.

You don't appear to have anything concrete to say apart from "pathetic" and another herd-like response supporting the line of your group. Accumulating repetition is not much of an argument, nor slavish mutual support. So I'm not much inclined to continue debating with the ICC hive-mentality.

The idea that the trade unions have become bourgeois instiutions, state organs, was not invented by the ICC but is a heritage of most of the currents of the communist left. I see a lot of attempts by Ret to argue against particular points of interpretation by ICC members or sympathisers, lots of insinuations about how dishonest we are, but no attempt at all to enagage with the central question, which is precisely the class nature of the unions. Unless it is to argue that this question is wrongly posed, based on a false either/or logic, etc. But the Trotskyists say the same when they tell us that we have to understand the contradictory nature of the Labour party as a 'bourgeois workers' party'. What is the difference in what you are saying about the unions? That's a question, not a statement.

The issue here is surely not that every situation can be reduced to a simple dichotomy between radical, class conscious workers and a trade union machine that opposes them at every turn. It is evident that workers have internalised trade union ideology at a deep level, in Britain above all where the trade unions first developed. In fact it is the left communist view of unions as being once definite expressions of the working class which provides a much firmer basis for understanding why they have such a weight on the working class today than the various anarchist notions that they were always either reactionary or were always as 'dual' or 'subtle' natured as they are today.

You have a short memory - maybe that's why your arguments are so circular;
http://libcom.org/forums/history/1968-06022008
You already made your 'Trotskyist 'amalgam claim on that thread and I answered it.
I don't think the ICC has advanced their ideas since then. For you it is sufficient to denounce the "class nature" of the unions as bourgeois. Which, for me, begs more questions than it answers - it's descriptive, not explanatory. But I won't rerun the same discussion again.

For you it is sufficient to denounce the "class nature" of the unions as bourgeois.

Once again, you see just what you want to.

Which, for me, begs more questions than it answers - it's descriptive, not explanatory.

Please, please, please (to quote James Brown) - tell us what these questions are. Maybe then the discussion can move forward?

But I won't rerun the same discussion again.

Is that a promise? :-)

miles

But I won't rerun the same discussion again.

Is that a promise?

Yes - precisely because I know you will anyway, endlessly, come what may.

Alf wrote: It is evident that workers have internalised trade union ideology at a deep level, in Britain above all where the trade unions first developed.

True and a good thing too. Workers in Britain have at least learned that "unity is strength", "united we stand, divided we fall", etc, which means that their degree of class consciousness is higher than that of Left Bolsheviks like the ICC who, by taking up an anti-union and anti-permanent organisation position, have not yet reached this level. In fact, they are worse than your average anti-union worker since they've made a whole theory of their opposition to unionism. I suppose it could be conceded that they stand by their (mistaken principles), but so do others such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Plymouth Brethren who also refuse to join unions on principle.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Re wrote:
"You have a short memory - maybe that's why your arguments are so circular;
http://libcom.org/forums/history/1968-06022008
You already made your 'Trotskyist 'amalgam claim on that thread and I answered it."

Or perhaps I found your answer to be as ambiguous as when you posed the question of the unions again on this thread.

What is the ICC’s response to Lenin’s criticism of the ‘left communist’ position on ;

VI SHOULD REVOLUTIONARIES WORK IN REACTIONARY TRADE UNIONS ?

In "LEFT-WING" COMMUNISM, AN INFANTILE DISORDER

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html

In his ‘April Thesis’ of 1920.

And Lenin’s criticism of the Mensheviks organising trade unions independent of the Bolshevik’s State Capitalism.

who still have a certain, though very small, number of adherents, whom they teach all possible counter-revolutionary tricks, from ideologically defending democracy (bourgeois ) and preaching "independence" of the trade unions (independent of the proletarian state power!) to sabotaging proletarian discipline, etc., etc.

page 39

For the moment, a response to Jason C's comments above about 'shame no-one told the unions that the police were on the same side':
A number of countries, their institutions, including the trade unions, went to war with a number of other countries, their institutions, including the trade unions, in 1914. With some minor exceptions, they were both implacably opposed to each other to the extent of warfare. They were on separate sides in a profound bourgeois faction fight but not only did neither represent the interests of the working class but both were against them. This war was brought to an abrupt close by proletarian revolution, mutinies, insurrection and strikes on an international level the underlying force of which was self-organisation and extension.
The lesson from all this is that fights between bourgeois factions can be dangerous for the working class.

The two world wars, and capitalism generally, has shown that opposition between bourgeois factions do not necessarily favour the working class. The question of trade unionism takes us beyond this fundamental lesson. While there has been some opposition to the trade unions from some bourgeois factions (ie, usually weaker ones where the unions have been outlawed for example) here and there, the overwhelming example from all the major industrial countries is the union's integration into the state apparatus over decades. Their role, underwritten by reformist, stalinist, trotskyist and democratic ideologies, is to police, divide and rule the class struggle at every level. For these states the trade unions are much more important than the police forces, sociologists, pollsters and university departments dedicated to this area put together. That is why they are maintained and that is why there are regular conncections, interactions, meetings, interchange and discussions at all levels of the state including the highest.

Further than this, and Jason's sarcasm underlines his naivity, it would be a grave underestimation of the intelligence of the ruling class if you think that the bourgeoisie, or at least some of its most important elements, did not understand and manipulate both instruments of the state, repression on the one hand, and defence of trade unionism on the other, against the working class. The bourgeoisie of the major countries are not stupid enough not to see that the unions deliver division, corporatism and the defence of the national interest, all exemplified in the NUM slogans during the 84 strike.

It's a testimony to the potential strength of the proletariat in the 70s and 80s, that the 84 miners' strike was, from the beginning, a dance orchestrated by the bourgeoisie against the class struggle. Frontal repression alone, faced with a strong strike, tendencies to expansion, self organisation and solidarity would have been counter-productive, dangerous to the bourgeoisie. Selective repression and isolation, points of fixation, the use of the unions were the bourgeoisie's strategy. The NUM, with its martyr's halo and its fixations, corporatism and nationalism, was perfectly complementary and comprised a unity with the selective repression of the police.

The same tactic of selective repression and union corporatism was adopted by various national capitals around the same period: Talbot in France; Longwy in France, Sagunto in Spain. Selected violence on one side fixating on the specifics of an area or firm and on the other side various shades of leftism defending and reinforcing the illusions of workers in trade unionism and the defence of corporatism. The workers are trapped in two alternatives both of which lead to certain defeat.

Radical perspectives on the crisis: the unions will offer some "protection" and give some "benefits" is the main argument for their supporters on here. As strong as the union grip is on the working class the latter's reality with the development of this economic crisis is that there will be no protection, no benefits if they rely on these state organisations whose main function is to keep the working class restricted to the defence of limited and sectoral intersts that are subordinate to the national capital.

Dave B

Pretty much along these lines for the first question, although there's a lot more to be said in response to some of the specifics of Lenin's arguments, and I will try to come back to them,as I will regarding the Mensheviks etc

Herman Gorter, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin, 1920

II. The Question of the Trade Unions
Having brought forward the general theoretical bases, I will now proceed to prove, also by practice, that the Left Wing in Germany and England is right in general principles – on the questions of the Trade Unions and of parliamentarism.

First we will take the question of the Trade Unions.

As parliamentarism embodies the spiritual, thus the Trade Union movement embodies the material power of the leaders over the masses of the workers. Under capitalism the Trade Unions constitute the natural organisations for uniting the proletariat, and as such Marx, already from the very beginning, has demonstrated their importance. Under a more developed capitalism, and to a greater extent even in the age of imperialism, the Trade Unions have ever more become gigantic unions, with a trend of development, equal to that of the bourgeois State bodies themselves. They have produced a class of officials, a bureaucracy, that controls all the engines of power of the organisation, the finances, the press, the appointment of lower officials; often it is invested with even greater power, so that from a servant of the rank and file, it has become the master, identifying itself with the organisation. The Trade Unions can be compared to the State and its bureaucracy, also in this: that, notwithstanding the democracy that is supposed to reign there, the members are unable to enforce their will against the bureaucracy; every revolt is broken against the cleverly constructed apparatus of official ordinances and statutes, before it has been able even to shake the highest regions.

Only the most tenacious perseverance over several years can obtain even a moderate result, which mostly remains restricted to a change of persons. In the last few years, before and after the war, in England, Germany, and America, this often gave rise to rebellions of the members, who started strikes on their own account, against the will of the leaders, or the decrees of the union itself. That this should seem natural, and be accepted as such, is an indication in itself that the organisation does not represent the totality of the members, but something altogether foreign to them; and the workers do not control their union, but that the union is placed over them as an outside power against which they can rebel – a power which, all the same, has its origin in themselves: again, therefore, an analogy with the State. Once the revolt is over, the old domination begins again. In spite of the hatred and impotent exasperation of the masses, this domination manages to maintain itself, owing to the indifference and lack of clear insight, and of a united, indomitable will in the masses, and upheld as it is by the inner need for the Trade Unions, the only means the workers have to gain strength through unity, in their struggle against capital.

Warning of TU Influence
Fighting against capital, in a constant opposition against its tendency of increasing misery, and enabling the working class, through the restriction of these tendencies, to keep the existence the Trade Union movement, has played its part under capitalism, and has thus become itself a member of capitalist society. It is only at the beginning of the revolution, when the proletariat, from a member of capitalist society, is turned into the annihilator of this society, that the Trade Union finds itself in opposition to the proletariat.

That which Marx and Lenin demonstrated for the State: that its organisation, in spite of formal democracy, makes it impossible to turn it into an Instrument of the proletarian revolution, must also hold good therefore for the Trade Union organisations. Their counter-revolutionary power cannot be destroyed or weakened through a change of staff, through the replacing of reactionary leaders by radical or revolutionary elements.

It is the form of organisation that renders the masses as good as powerless, and prevents them from turning the Trade Unions into the organs of their will. The revolution can triumph only if it completely destroys this organisation: that is to say, if it alters the form of organisation so fundamentally as to turn it into something altogether different. The Soviet system, the construction from within, is not only able to uproot and abolish the State, but also the Trade Union bureaucracy: it will constitute not only the new political organs of the proletariat as opposed to capitalism, but likewise the foundation for the new Trade Unions. In the party factions in Germany, the idea of a form of organisation being revolutionary has been mocked at, because it is only the revolutionary sentiment, the revolutionary mind of the members, that matters. However, if the most important part of the revolution consists in the masses conducting their own concerns – the control of society and production – then every form of organisation that does not allow the masses to rule and to guide for themselves, must needs be counter-revolutionary and harmful, and as such it must be replaced by another form, which is revolutionary in so far as it allows the workers to decide matters for themselves.

Through their very nature the Trade Unions are useless arms for the West-European revolution! Apart from the fact that they have become tools of capitalism, and that they are in the hands of traitors, apart from the fact that through their nature they are bound to make slaves of the members, no matter what the leaders may be, they are also unfit for use generally.

Hi Alf

Just to take the opportunity to gripe on about something that in this instance is I suppose of little or no consequence. This is the ‘habit’ of some posters on this list, which really does irritate me, of not giving the fullest access to the source of quotes.

This varies from people just quoting so and so and not giving where it is from at all, or giving a source as page something or other from a book or collected works that not everyone has on their bookshelves.

To me in the worst cases this just looks like a deliberate attempt to stifle honest debate by withholding information, exacerbated of course when quotes are taken out of context.

I am presuming that with the quote that you gave, you cut and pasted it from a link on the internet, so why not provide that link, if you had it?

In this instance of course it is of no consequence and it took me no trouble to find it, but there has been worst cases, if not for me probably for others.

The link to the quote that you gave is;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

There is a wikipedia entry on Herman Gorter;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Gorter

I have to admit that I am not as well informed as others on all this left communism and council communism kind of stuff of the 1920’s and the various minor insurrections around Europe of the time. But presumably you would not be so incautious as to treat me like a fool.

I do know enough about it I think however to recognise that the quoted letter represents to some extent council communism’s theory.

Herman Gorter’s bit that says;

That which Marx and Lenin demonstrated for the State: that its organisation, in spite of formal democracy, makes it impossible to turn it into an Instrument of the proletarian revolution, must also hold good therefore for the Trade Union organisations. Their counter-revolutionary power cannot be destroyed or weakened through a change of staff, through the replacing of reactionary leaders by radical or revolutionary elements.

Is patently false as far as Marx and Engels is concerned as we have already discussed ad nauseum already.

The issue at stake here for me at the moment is the ICC’s romantic and uncritical attachment to Lenin and Leninism. Eg. From your own site, taken at random, that is full of ‘the sun shines out of Lenin’s arse’ crap;

It has been taught us by the experience of the workers' movement, and especially by its main fighters: Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin...

http://en.internationalism.org/node/625

A case again of dragging Marx, Engels and even Rosa Luxemburg into the sewer of Bolshevism and thereby undermining them.

And how you can revere somebody who says of your own theory;

And we cannot but regard as equally ridiculous and childish nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Lefts to the effect that Commumsts cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to turn down such work, that it is necessary to leave the trade unions and to create an absolutely brand-new, immaculate "Workers' Union' invented by very nice (and, probably, for the most part very youthful) Communists, etc., etc.

page 41

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html

An opinion of Lenin’s that in fact, I have some sympathy with, but I obviously have no interest in finding common ground with Lenin.

In fact for me Lenin’s position is the very antithesis of the one you, as a left communist, claim to hold yourself, and your reverence of him that appears obvious to many others, besides myself, is quite absurd. No doubt there is a complex intellectual explanation for this that is beyond the comprehension of a simple member of the working class like myself.

For me Lenin and his leading Bolshevik coterie where and are a shitty little group of power mad elitists, the meaning of ‘bourgeois’, that wanted to and felt they deserved to lord it over the rest of the masses. And that these repugnant aspirations had to be rationalised by a superficial ideology revolving around ‘we are only doing it for your good’ and requiring a bit of Trotskyist ‘tough love’ and coercion when the masses don’t appreciate it.

In contrast I struggle sometimes to conjure up real hostility and antipathy to certain kinds of anarchists and genuine council communist types

Hi Dave B,
I've read with interest your response to Alf of the ICC.

I agree with you that, where possible and practicable, references to quotes given should be made.

I agree with you that sometimes the failure to do this can be attributed to bad faith, to a wish to obfuscate, to mislead.

Other times, you may consider it to be merely incompetence, lack of time, or even assumption (the mother of all f*ck-ups, as people like to say).

It is wrong to assume 'people' know about 'left communism.' It's also wrong to assume that people who do know about this movement agree on what it was, and what it implies for today.

Where does that leave us?

I write as a sympathiser, (a drone, I've been called) of the ICC view. Just so you know.

I haven't taken the trouble to read about your previous 'ad nauseum' disagreements on this thread - my problem, not yours. Again, just so you know.

To return to the lack of links to the Gorter quote: I too was going to cite this passage (no doubt an example of the ICC's 'hive mind' as certain posters on Libcom like to joke).

I was going to cite it from the Libcom Library, where it is introduced by a group (organisation) called Wildcat which (from memory) criticises, amongst other things, Gorter for calling his contemporary, Lenin, 'comrade'.

http://libcom.org/library/open-letter-to-comrade-lenin-gorter

In essence, this Wildcat group poses (years after the event) the same question to Gorter (writing almost 100 years ago) as you pose to the ICC today: how the f*ck could Gorter (then) or any group today (say, the ICC) call Lenin 'comrade'?

The answer is perfectly simple.

Because they were comrades. They came from the same stable. They were part of the same (marxist) movement.

They were after the same thing. They both fought, Lenin and Gorter, within their respective (and joint) organisations of the time, against imperialist war and for proletarian revolution.

They both emerged from energetic participation in the same international body (the II International) and, both considering this body had failed the workers and the revolution, both worked to consruct another that might support it - The IIIrd International.

They were both Party men.

They came from the same stable as Rosa Luxemburg, who declared, despite her criticisms that 'the future belongs to Bolshevism.' They came from the same (left communist) movement as the party man Pannekoek (German Social Democracy's favoured 'lecturer in marxism') who so influenced Lenin, and was later influenced by him (and who later distanced himself from Lenin and Bolshevism)

Gorter called Lenin 'comrade' because they were of the same 'hive mind', although they didn't always agree on everything. The ICC calls Lenin 'comrade' because it too comes from the same 'hive mind' - the mind of the revolutionary movement, albeit a critical mind.

Reaproriate what has been forgotten, Do so critically. Do so mindful that we have the 'benefit' of hindsight not available to our comrades so many years ago.

My response to your original question about 'what is the ICC's response' to Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder' was to have been:

- to point out that his (Lenin's) response (in Left Wing Communism...) was in direct contradiction with the staetements of the First Congress of the IIIrd International which stated (via Lenin himself!!) that:

"“Victory can be considered assured only when not only the urban workers, but also the rural proletarians are organised, and organised not as before – in trade unions and cooperative societies – but in soviets”

(Lenin’s speech on the theses on bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat at the First Congress of the CI, Founding the Communist International, proceedings and documents of the First Congress: March 1919, Pathfinder, p.47);

- to point out that even at the Second Congress of the III International, when the international wave of revolution was ebbing, the view was that:

“During the war most of the trade unions proved themselves to be part of the military apparatus of the bourgeoisie, assisting the exploitation of the working class and spilling the blood of the proletariat in the interests of capitalist profit. In the same way and for the same reasons international Social-Democracy showed itself, with few exceptions, to be an organisation serving the interests of the bourgeoisie and restraining the proletariat, rather than a weapon of the revolutionary proletarian struggle”

(“The Trade Union Movement, Factory Committees and the Third International” in Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the first four Congresses of the Third International, Hessel, p.106).

- and to ask why there was such a marked change between the attitude of the Ist Congress of the IIIrd Internationaland Lenin's pamphlet 'Left Wing... etc. in order to recommend reading, if you can be bothered:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/123_decadence

which attempts to explain this.

The point remains: where do you stand vis-a-vis Gorter's position on the unions?

I think that Ret should stay with this discussion and tell us what his position is on the trade unions. I find his position on the trade unions very difficult to understand.

The point he makes about the NUM making international contacts is very true. A source to be quoted (though Ret's usual anti-ICC arguments on sources is that they are too little or they are not good enough for him) on the international contacts of the NUM is "The enemy within" by Seumus Milne. The NUM met Salem Ibrahim, described as "Gaddafi's paymaster", a "serious Libyan intelligence officer" and a Libyan official in charge of the British desk of the Libyan revolutionary committees. That Salem was a powerful figure in Libya is not in doubt.
The NUM international contacts went further: Scargill and Roger Windsor also met Augustin Dufresne, stalinist head of the CGT in a Paris hotel. He was organising food parcels for the miners, most of whom had been denied strike pay from the NUM from the beginning of the strike (Shefield Inde Media). They also met Mohammed Altaf Abbasi, a Kashmiri political exile based in Doncaster who was close to a Pakistani paramilitary group with Libyan and Syrian connections. He also had connections to Irish Republicanism. Furthering international connections, Scargill also met with a senior Soviet diplomat in Paris - what do you think, a worker concerned with the struggle of the miners or a KGB agent? He also met a Hungarian stalinist leader. The book reports that miners were digusted with the Libyan connection - particularly since Salem was seemingly involved with the murder of an unarmed policewoman outside the Libyan embassy in London earlier in the year - with some going back to work because of it.

But these are the leadership, what about the rank and file? Capricorn's 13 November quote above from Rank and Filist Douglas, shows the role of the union in going along with the spreading of the strike in order to control it. Above, Douglas says that the carworkers at Cowley asked the miners to throw a picket line across and they would join the strike, "which we declined to do". An offer of active solidarity turned down flat in order to maintain the NUM.

Jason, there's no need for a conspiracy theory. The bourgeoisie actually exists and it organises against the working class. The 1984 miners' strike is a prime example of this.

I think that Ret should stay with this discussion and tell us what his position is on the trade unions. I find his position on the trade unions very difficult to understand.

The point he makes about the NUM making international contacts is very true. A source to be quoted (though Ret's usual anti-ICC arguments on sources is that they are too little or they are not good enough for him) on the international contacts of the NUM is "The enemy within" by Seumus Milne. The NUM met Salem Ibrahim, described as "Gaddafi's paymaster", a "serious Libyan intelligence officer" and a Libyan official in charge of the British desk of the Libyan revolutionary committees. That Salem was a powerful figure in Libya is not in doubt.
The NUM international contacts went further: Scargill and Roger Windsor also met Augustin Dufresne, stalinist head of the CGT in a Paris hotel. He was organising food parcels for the miners, most of whom had been denied strike pay from the NUM from the beginning of the strike (Shefield Inde Media). They also met Mohammed Altaf Abbasi, a Kashmiri political exile based in Doncaster who was close to a Pakistani paramilitary group with Libyan and Syrian connections. He also had connections to Irish Republicanism. Furthering international connections, Scargill also met with a senior Soviet diplomat in Paris - what do you think, a worker concerned with the struggle of the miners or a KGB agent? He also met a Hungarian stalinist leader. The book reports that miners were digusted with the Libyan connection - particularly since Salem was seemingly involved with the murder of an unarmed policewoman outside the Libyan embassy in London earlier in the year - with some going back to work because of it.

But these are the leadership, what about the rank and file? Capricorn's 13 November quote above from Rank and Filist Douglas, shows the role of the union in going along with the spreading of the strike in order to control it. Above, Douglas says that the carworkers at Cowley asked the miners to throw a picket line across and they would join the strike, "which we declined to do". An offer of active solidarity turned down flat in order to maintain the NUM.

Jason, there's no need for a conspiracy theory. The bourgeoisie actually exists and it organises against the working class. The 1984 miners' strike is a prime example of this.

Dave B

If you want to develop your knowledge of the history of the Communist Left we have produced histories of the British, German/dutch, Russian and Italian Communist Left, and the comrades of the EKS have just produced a history of the Communist Left in Turkey. All available from our website (or Amazon, though I am not sure the Turkish Communist left is on their). We look forwards to receiving your order.

hi dave b

The issue at stake here for me at the moment is the ICC’s romantic and uncritical attachment to Lenin and Leninism

I think this has to be challenged. What you will find on the ICC website is mountains of materials from Lenin, amongst many others, which we quote, use, re-publish etc. But, and it's a big 'but', you could hardly say we're 'uncritical' in our use. It can often seem to be the case that we unconditionally 'defend' Lenin, Trotsky, etc - the reason is, I would say, the necessity to defend a basic orientation, i.e the historical continuity of theory and action in the workers movement. This is not the same as saying we have nothing critical to say.

To take just one example : we have published numerous articles on the Russian revolution, defending the Bolsheviks etc, this is necessary (from our point of view) faced with critiques both from the bourgeiosie, some strains of anarchism etc. However we have also published criticisms of particular actions / moments / decisions and so on. In fact, not only our critiques, but also to show that at the time of the Russian experience the workers movement itself gave rise to critical factions - it's not something we're sitting in judgement upon with the weight of hindisght. An example of this is this article

On a related note - there is a constant low level implication that the ICC is 'Leninist'. I'm not exactly clear on what people mean by that, as people use it in different ways. However, this isn't the first time someone has thrown that accusation against us, in the form of an insult. With that in mind we decided to publish texts with the title "Have we become 'Leninsts'?" which try to look at the different acusations and answer them politically and historically, e.g where did 'Leninsm' arise from..? Part 1 is here and part 2 here

I agree with the above. The ICC, through its publications over decades, has made a profound critique of Lenin and Bolshevism from a working class perspective.

On the union question, I agree with the quote from Gorter above and its very precise conclusion at an early stage of the integration of the trade unions into the state. Discussions that developed in the communist left milieu of the 30s were not so clear with some elements seeing that the unions could be used by a process of supplanting and imposing communist activity. The idea developed in the Italian Left of the unions being some sort of transmission belt to the Party - an idea that repeated the subsitutionist errors of Bolshevism. Some positions were very clear: "Today, the question is not is it possible for marxists to develop a healthy activity inside the trade unions; it is one of understanding that these organisations have passed definitively into the enemy camp and it is impossible to transform them" (L. Stefanini: 'Il Seme comunista, 5.2.38, from the ICC' "The Italian Communist Left).

On the question of the NUM's international "connections" during the 1984 miners' strike. This was of course used by the British bourgeoisie to show how the miners were "traitors"; it was used by leftism to show that solidarity meant food parcels and collecting buckets; it was used by the trade unions of Britain, France and Belgium to show that internationalism was charity donations and empty resolutions and it was used by the stalinist regimes of Russia, Hungary, etc, to propagandise their particular socialist paradises. The NUM particularly, along with all these other agencies, were presenting a perversion of solidarity and a perversion of internationalism.
Throughout the late 60s, 70s and 80s in Britain, there were a whole series of union officials were "demonised" by the media in the Right/Left game of the bourgeoisie. "Red this" or "Red that", so and so the "red" when most of these characters were dyed in the wool stalinists. It isn't necessary for each faction of the bourgeoisie to understand its role in relation to the others, but there is a limited, global consciousness within the bourgeoisie, of the general lines of march to take against the working class. If you at all doubt the right/left divisions of the bourgeoisie against the working class then look at the lessons of the German revolution (last 3 issues of the ICC's International Review).

NYC, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9TH

Forum and open discussion: Class-struggle anarchist perspectives on the economic crisis, the election and the way forward.

Speakers: Wayne P. of Open City Collective/NY Area Union of Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) and Steve R. of NY-NJ Area Group, Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA)

Tuesday, December 9—7:30 p.m.

A.J. Muste Institute, 339 Lafayette Street (corner of Bleecker), 3rd floor

Contact:
NEFAC: [email protected].
WSA: [email protected].

I wonder if, when Dave B says that the ICC are Leninist, he doesn't also have in mind the ICC's internal organisation, which is a closed, secretive organisation where members have to drop their original names, report on all their activities, submit to orders from a central committee and be subject to the activities of an internal police force with the power to recover typewriters and internal documents, as well as being taxed 10 percent of their income. See this thread which if true is really shocking. Just like a real top-down organisation of professional revolutionaries practising "democratic centralism" such as Lenin advocated.
This means that the ICC has a lower model of organisation, imported from an economically and politically backward country undergoing a "bourgeois revolution", than the trade unions in Britain most of which at least pay lip-service to democratic forms and some of which originally were democratic -- and could become so again with a heightened degree of class consciousness amongst workers. That (apart from the socialist revolution of course) is what revolutionaries should be advocating at the present time to face the Depression that has begun not a regression to backward, undemocratic Bolshevik organisational forms.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

which is a closed, secretive...

Which is why we have public meetings, a regular press, intervention at workers struggles....

where members have to drop their original names.

I'm guessing your real name isn't 'Capricorn', right?

report on all their activities

Not sure what the word 'all' means here - I forgot to mention that I recenty had had a really tasty cornish pasty, last time I met my comrades...

submit to orders from a central committee

Yes, all those hours we sat around talking about what and how to do - far easier just to do as one is told, maybe we could take a leaf out of the Idiots guide to being a Shop Steward...

be subject to the activities of an internal police force with the power to recover typewriters and internal documents

oooh, it's much better than that...we were thinking of getting some kind of a uniform going...

as well as being taxed 10 percent of their income.

taxation is money taken by the state - we voluntarily pay dues, according to a comrades ability to pay, in order to carry out our work.

This means that the ICC has a lower model of organisation, imported from an economically and politically backward country undergoing a "bourgeois revolution", than the trade unions in Britain most of which at least pay lip-service to democratic forms and some of which originally were democratic -- and could become so again with a heightened degree of class consciousness amongst workers. That (apart from the socialist revolution of course) is what revolutionaries should be advocating at the present time to face the Depression that has begun not a regression to backward, undemocratic Bolshevik organisational forms.

As for this rant, it just confirms your current inability to break with bourgeois democracy in all its myriad forms.

If the Bolsheviks were so "undemocratic", why was it that the left communist current around Bukharin was able to set itself up within the party framework to make a vigorous campaign against Lenin's position of signing Brest-Litovsk? They even produced their own journal, "Kommunist"! More to the point, why was it that there were three positions (Lenin's, Trotsky's, Bukharin's)on Brest-Litovsk in the Party anyway? Even when the CC voted to sign a treaty (in the face of the German armies sweeping across Eastern Europe), Bukharin's group were free to agitate against the decision within the party. They ceased their campaign when it was made redundant by Germany's defeat.

As for the rest of the comments about the ICC, many of them seem like efforts to make perfecly sensible activities look ridiculous:

- ICC members do not adopt new names as if they're entering a new religion. This feeble accusation seems to have its origin in a piece put out the by the SPGB. Of course, ICC members use pseudonyms when writing articles, posting on websites, and carrying out political work. This is just a sensible precaution given the omnipresence of surveillance from bourgeois organs, hostile forces (stalinists, fascists, etc) who have threatened to kill them in various countries, and the random crazies that you occasionally encounted.

- Of course members report on their political activities. You find this kind of thing in any organisation! It helps the whole organisation know what's going on and co-ordinate its activities. Any person with half-a-brain knows this is necessary in any organisation - it doesn't mean every ICC drone is writing down a record of every bowel movement since they joined!

- A central organ exists in order to co-ordinate activity. It seems no great hardship for ICC members to allow such a committee to do what they themselves have voted the organ into existence to do. When some members attempted to hijack the central organs several years ago, they were expelled by the mass of the members who thereupon elected new central organs. So much for the dictatorship of the ICC "central committee"!

miles

As for this rant, it just confirms your current inability to break with bourgeois democracy in all its myriad forms.

Yes, I am afraid that I am unable to break with democracy (which I don't regard as bourgeois) as I regard this as a key organisational principle both of future socialist society and of the movement to bring it about.
It's because you reject it as "bourgeois" that I hope that the working class will never act on what you propose. Not that I think they ever will. A regard for democratic forms is as ingrained in the working class in this part of the world as is "trade union consciousness" and, despite your efforts, you won't be able to turn the clock back on this advance. It's something you are going to have to learn to live with (unless you want to remain trapped in the Russia of 90-100 years ago).
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Surely nobody can be serious as to infer that the Bolsheviks were ‘so democratic’ because they permitted a narrow perspective of opinions within the party.

In April of 1920,whilst the Leninist, Left Communists and Anarchists were mulling over the theoretical implications of the state capitalist revolution. The Marxists, as represented by the Mensheviks, had the jackboot of state capitalism stamping on their face for attempting to organise the workers into independent trade unions.

As mentioned by Berkman himself, as a ‘hostile’ witness;

The Secretary himself could give me little information about labor conditions in the city and province, as he had only recently assumed charge of his office. "I am not a local man," he said; "I was sent from Moscow only a few weeks ago. You see, Comrade," he explained, evidently assuming my membership in the Communist Party, "it became necessary to liquidate the whole management of the Soviet and of most of the unions. At their heads were Mensheviki. They conducted the organization on the principle of alleged protection of the workers' interests. Protection against whom?" he raged. "You understand how counter-revolutionary such a conception is! Just a Menshevik cloak to further their opposition to us.

Under capitalism, the union is destructive of bourgeois interests; but with us, it is constructive. The labor bodies must work hand in hand with the government; in fact, they are the actual government, or one of its vital parts. They must serve as schools of Communism and at the same time carry out in industry the will of the proletariat as expressed by the Soviet Government. This is our policy, and we shall eliminate every opposition."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmch23.html

If there was a good case for not joining a trade union because it had become fused with the state and in this case state capitalism, as modelled on the ‘German example’, then that was.

The Bolshevik view given by Berkman can obviously be found elsewhere, eg from Trotsky in 1920 The Labour Armies About the Organisation of Labour
.

"Under capitalism, piece-work and lumpwork, the application of the
Taylor system, and so on, had as their object to increase the
exploitation of the workers by squeezing out surplus value. Under
socialised production, piece-wages, bonuses, and so on, serve the
purpose of increasing the volume of the social product, and,
consequently, raising the general level of prosperity

for the vanguard class

Those workers who do more for the common interest
receive the right to a larger share of the social product than the
lazy, the careless and the disorganisers”

or the free trade unionists.

"Repression for the attainment of economic ends is a necessary
weapon of the socialist dictatorship"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch17.htm

And moving onto being ‘under state surveillance’ and mixing things up a bit.

And from Agnes Smedley, letter to Florence Lennon (November 1921)

Much that we read of Russia is imagination and desire only. And no person is safe from intrigues and the danger of prison. The prisons are jammed with anarchists and syndicalists who fought in the revolution. Emma Goldman and Berkman are out only because of their international reputations. And they are under house arrest; they expect to go to prison any day, and may be there now for all I know. Any Communist who excuses such things is a scoundrel and a blaggard. Yet they do excuse it - and defend it. If I'm not expelled or locked up or something, I'll raise a small-sized hell. Everybody calls everybody a spy, secretly, in Russia, and everybody is under surveillance. You never feel safe

Assuming that is a reliable quote

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsmedleyA.htm

But it was all predictable enough.

From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.
We see, then, that Blanqui is a revolutionary of the preceding generation

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm

And from;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_04_23.htm

And in an early and thus rare example of Menshevik thinking, which ironically comes from Trotsky himself when he was one, in his Our Political Tasks, PART IV: JACOBINISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, and something else the ICC pours scorn over in defence of Lenin.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/ch05.htm

In which Trotsky predicts that Lenin will turn into a Maximilien Robespierre which seems familiar to Engels to Vera Zasulich In Geneva, London, 23 April, 1885. I believe Vera Zasulich and Trotsky knew each other so one can’t help wondering if Trotsky had in fact seen that letter and drew from it.

On using your own name etc I can understand why some people in some places and occupations might want to be cagey about it. Generally I am not and it wouldn’t take a genius to work out who I am as I post under my full name on my own list.

I am not one for skulking myself and if you can come out then I think you should as it potentially makes it easier for those others that have.

People probably think I have an irrational hatred of the Leninists which isn’t really fair. I saved one of their lives once and put my own life in some jeopardy in the process, Marion Parker ex Manchester SWP.

Although it was a democratic decision that I was sent on the rescue mission.

I was also with Karen Reissmann, sacked by New Labour for trade union activity ;

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1009/1009507_nurse_suspended_for_speaking_out.html

when the New Labour got elected at an SWP ‘celebration’ at the Saint Alphonsus Street centre. I left I think after Michael Portillo lost his seat and the bonhomie became unbearable, with a last defiant ‘they will be just as bad as the Tories’.

capricorn

ICC's internal organisation, which is a closed, secretive organisation where members... being taxed 10 percent of their income. See this thread which if true is really shocking. Just like a real top-down organisation of professional revolutionaries practising "democratic centralism" such as Lenin advocated.

I am a member of an organisation which although not actually a part of the ICC would consider itself part of their tendency. As far as I know ICC members 'are taxed' 5% of their salary, or one day's work a month.

Personally, I patymore to my organisation, somewhere between 0.56% and 12.5%. I don't have any secrets about it and can be quite honest and open about money. I do casual work and make between 2,000 and 4,500 YTL per month depending how many days work I get. I pay the organisation 250YTL per month.

Maybe some people think that this is quite high. I personally think the amount of dues paid by people in Anarchist organisations in the West are pathetically low*.

I suppose it depends how seriously you take your politics.

Our organisation publishes a monthly illegal 16-page newspaper, a bi-annual legal glossy 96-page magazine, various pamphlets including ones in foreign languages, produces thousands of leaflets on workers demonstrations, and maintains an office.

And you, 'Capricorn', make snide comments about us over the internet.

Well, I am happy with that if you are.

Devrim Valerian
Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol

*I mention the West because I know that members of the now dissolved Turkish platformist organisation AKI paid 10% of their income.

Dave B

In April of 1920,whilst the Leninist, Left Communists and Anarchists were mulling over the theoretical implications of the state capitalist revolution. The Marxists, as represented by the Mensheviks, had the jackboot of state capitalism stamping on their face for attempting to organise the workers into independent trade unions.

It is a good thing some of the left communists of the time--such as Pannekoek--mulled over the idea of state capitalism a bit, and insisted on working class self-emancipation. Pannekoek insisted that the class struggle must be the guide of communists, and he criticized any "clever attempt to arrive at a form of Socialism by avoiding the class struggle" which could only result in a "Socialist State" that functioned capitalistically (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1920/17.htm). The Mensheviks, however, had worked, like the Bolsheviks, to neutralize working class power in the factory committees. The difference was that the Bolsheviks did this most aggressively after coming to power, while the Mensheviks worked within the Provisional Government to do this. The Menshevik Skobelev (a Minister in the Provisional Government) claimed that Skobelev

the regulation and control of industry was a task for the State. Upon the individual class, especially the working class, lies the responsibility for helping the state in its organisational work. (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917)

Perhaps you criticize Leninists because they don't share the Menshevik vision of state capitalism.

The Menshevik Kolokolnikov spoke at the Third Conference of Factory Committees in September 1917 and defended a recent Ministry of Labor Circular that stated, against workers' demands in a number of recent strikes, that factory owners maintained the power to hire and fire. The historian F.I. Kaplan writes, Kaplan

As the Bolsheviks were themselves to do later Kolokolnikov defined control as supervision over policy, as opposed to the right of making policy.(http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917)

This must be authentic Marxism: democracy is only good in small doses. The anarcho-syndicalists at least had something to say about this, and they too suffered from "the jackboot of state capitalism." At the First All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions in January 1918, Maximoff claimed that the anarcho-syndicalists were "better Marxists" than either the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks, causing a stir. The implication was that they took the phrase about the "emancipation of the working class" being the task of the workers' themselves seriously (Paul Avrich, The Russian Anarchists, 168). I can only admire this questioning of those who claim to represent Authentic Marxism.

Surely nobody can be serious as to infer that the Bolsheviks were ‘so democratic’ because they permitted a narrow perspective of opinions within the party.

Is there anyone in the SPGB that holds the view that revolution is only possible through the self-activity of the working class, organised through workers councils and in direct opposition to the state? If not, I can only lament the narrow perspective of opinions within your party.

I guess, to bring things back to their original purpose, the radical perspective on the crisis is the ongoing situation in Greece. Not a few weeks ago some people were talking about how ridiculous an idea civil war was, how the unions could be reformed...in Greece because of the heroic example of the insurrectional Anarchists things are already heading that way, and it seems like the unions are doing their best to try to resolve this conflict as they did May 1968: by having the unions and the leftist parties support an election for a new bourgeois government, to try to divide the workers and the students, unemployed, prisoners, etc.

The idea of a democratic union ballot, the idea that a majority of miners needed to vote for a strike and the fixation of the NUM on this issue in 1984 was one of the components that helped to defeat the miners' strike. Capricorn's support for democracy and the trade unions will support the workers like a rope supports a hanged man. What have the unions done so far into this crisis to "protect" and "give benefits" to the working class? They've had lots of meetings with the government and other state officials. Thy've kept workers divided. They've "negotiated" lots of job losses, some voluntary, some compulsory. They've "negotiated" wage cuts, speed-ups, productivity and flexibility deals. The prospects for "protection and benefits" from the unions doesn't look good.

Uniform? No one said anything about a uniform.

Baboon, you forget that your position is not only that the existing unions are worse than useless but that workers should not try to form any permanent organisation to wage the defensive class struggle against employers over wages and working conditions. So you are against would-be class struggle unions such as the IWW and the anarcho-syndicalist unions. You are against breakaway unions. You are against forming new, democratic unions controlled by their members. You are, quite simply, against union.
In other words, your advice, if followed, would leave workers, 99 percent of who are non-revolutionary (and so are not going to form "soviets" or stage an insurrection), without any defence in the Depression that has already started. Your position is dangerous and anti-working class.
The good news is that there is absolutely no chance of workers listening to what you've got to say. Workers will form, or stay in, permanent unions and they will resist as best they can while you carp from the sidelines.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Iron Column

I guess, to bring things back to their original purpose, the radical perspective on the crisis is the ongoing situation in Greece. Not a few weeks ago some people were talking about how ridiculous an idea civil war was, how the unions could be reformed...in Greece because of the heroic example of the insurrectional Anarchists things are already heading that way, and it seems like the unions are doing their best to try to resolve this conflict as they did May 1968: by having the unions and the leftist parties support an election for a new bourgeois government, to try to divide the workers and the students, unemployed, prisoners, etc.

Agreed, the ongoing situation in Greece is interesting as it presents the stark choice of two responses to the Crisis: either "can the street militants and workers move from riot to insurrection & revolution?" (as someone has put it on the news thread on this) or a general strike by the unions to apply a break on the worsening of conditions. (I rule out a change of government as useless and a waste of time).
Personally, I don't think rioting will get anywhere. We'll see.

Capricorn

You are right rioting in itself will get now where and in fact could lead to the exhausting of those involved and demoralisation generally, this is why we see the radical unions in Spain and France using the tactic of violent confrontation with the police to dissipate workers militancy. The bourgeoisie can also use riots to hid what is really happening. This happened with the anti-CPE movement in France, which was reported as simply being riots whereas in reality there was a very important movement of self-organisation by the students, However, it is clear that what is taking place in Greece is far more than simply riots: which is why the bourgeois here and there is so keen to play up the riots. There is a very real social discontent. In interviews published in today's Guardian people say whilst the do not agree with the destruction of the riots they do support the demonstrations. As for your idea that the Greek unions are calling the demonstration to "apply the break on worsening conditions", the reason they union called this demonstration weeks ago is inorder to keep control of the class and to dissipate its energies in a one day general strike. However, now with the other demonstrations, and generalised discontent this strike could provide the opportunity for the working class to come to the fore. It is not a mater of riot to insurrection or revolution, but of discussion, of workers, students and others meeting together to discussion what is happening and what should be done. Also what should not be done i.e., falling in behind the unions which want to divert workers and the populations discontent into a false struggle between the Left wing opposition and the Right wing government. Workers interests are not the same as those of the capitalist state, no matter what guise it puts on: trade union, Leftist and Righist parties.

Capricorn

Our position is that workers have to struggle to defend themselves. That the most effective way of doing this is through self-organisation and spreading the struggles as far as possible i.e., workers autonomous struggle. It is only by developing the most powerful balance of forces possible that the class can push back the attacks. This cannot be done in isolated sectors, the miners strike demonstrated that clearly, but only by workers breaking out the the confines of the firm, industry or region and seeking to develop the struggle as a class, not this or that sector or members of this or that union. The biggest obstacle and most active opponent of such class wide movements are the trade unions. We oppose the trade unions for this reason: we want the workers to be able to struggle as effectively as possible. This defense of workers self-organisation and activity may not be popular or widely accepted, but it is only way that the class has been able to and will be able to struggle back against the developing attacks. You may not agree with this self-activity but do not imply we are against workers struggling to defend themselves as effectively as possible.
The struggle of the workers in Poland in 1980 demonstrated how powerful such autonomous struggles can be and this experience also demonstrated just how important trade unions are to the defense of the capitalist state. It was the trade union Solidarnoc that confined the struggle and crushed the struggles leaving the workers pray to the imposition of marshal law.

Demogorgon wrote

Is there anyone in the SPGB that holds the view that revolution is only possible through the self-activity of the working class, organised through workers councils and in direct opposition to the state? If not, I can only lament the narrow perspective of opinions within your party.

I can only say that some SPGB members understand that it is a possibilty .But if you want to straight-jacket the working class into a fixed set of strategies under all conditions and situations then so be it
SPGB have only preferred means and methods ,

Aboslutely correct Capricorn - if indeed that's your real name - the unions are one hundred percent against the working class, one hundred percent integrated into the bourgeois state apparatus. The 1984 miners' strike is a classic example of the anti-working class nature of the trade unions from the top to the bottom.
You talk about the ICC wanting to go back a hundred years to the Russian revolution but you want to go back even further to the period when the unions could really be effective organisations of class struggle and represent the interests of the working class. But it's not a question of the ICC going back but looking forward to perspectives on the basis of the global and historical lessons of the class struggle.

Tell you what Capircorn, from now, let's keep a general eye on what the unions do in the face of this unfolding economic crisis. Just generally. Let's keep an eye out to see what "defence", "protection and benefits" the trade unions internationally and in Britain give to the working class. Up to now, Capricorn, the trade unions have agreed to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of job cuts, wage cuts and speed ups. Before we go any further Capricorn, is this what you define as "defence", "protection and benefits" for the working class? Or do you deny that this is happening?

we want the workers to be able to struggle as effectively as possible. This defense of workers self-organisation and activity may not be popular or widely accepted, but it is only way that the class has been able to and will be able to struggle back against the developing attacks. You may not agree with this self-activity but do not imply we are against workers struggling to defend themselves as effectively as possible.

Of course I agree with workers self-activity, Ernie, but, unlike you, I also agree with workers' permanent self-organisation. You are against this, which is madness. As a matter of fact, it is workers democratic self-activity and self-organisation that I have been trying to defend all along, not the existing trade unions as such. As regards them, they are far from perfect but generally reflect the level of consciousness of their members and are not worse than useless. In rejecting any permanent form of working class economic organisation as a "trade union", and therefore part of the State, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water and, as I keep on saying, leaving workers completely defenceless. To tell workers not to organise on a permanent basis is to be against "workers struggling to defend themselves as effectively as possible". What you are preaching is dangerous nonsense as you are in effect advocating that workers should struggle with one hand tied behind their back. Hardly "the most effective" way of struggling.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

baboon

Tell you what Capircorn, from now, let's keep a general eye on what the unions do in the face of this unfolding economic crisis. Just generally. Let's keep an eye out to see what "defence", "protection and benefits" the trade unions internationally and in Britain give to the working class.

Right, Baboon - I'm quite prepared to believe that's your real name - you're on. But first let's agree on the terms of the bet. My bet is that workers in unionised workplaces will not suffer so much in the coming depression (and, yes, many will probably suffer real wage decreases, nothing can stop this in a slump) as those not in them (they'll get bigger wage decreases and smaller redundancy payments).
If you win, I'll take out a take out a sub to "World Revolution". If I win, you join a union. OK?

Capricorn

As we keep on saying the unions are not defensive organisations of the working class but rather of the capitalist state.
As for permanent organization, the last 90 years have shown just who much such permanent organisations have defended the working class, especially the tens of millions who were slaughtered in WW1 and WW2 which the unions (in their vast majority, especially WW2) supported. Or for example, the role of say the NUM in the running down of the coal industry with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs following WW2.
Which do the bosses prefer: a nicely organised and controlled union police force with which it can work in order to maintain order in the factories, offices, hospitals etc or a working class that seeks to defend itself through organising mass assembles, seeking to spread their struggles etc. It is a question of seeking to establish a balance of forces through the working class struggling as a class and not in isolation. The history of the last 90 years have shown that the unions have not only not been able to establish such a class wide movement, but have actively worked against such movements. For example, the massive struggles that swept through Europe in the late 1960's and 1970's it was the unions that kept workers divided up into unions.
Today, the working class is faced with what is going to be the most massive wave of attacks on their living and working conditions that we have seen in dacades. Attacks that are being organised and coordinated by the state. The ruling class is fully agreed that they have to drive down wages, cut the social wage, make millions unemployed. What is the way for the class to oppose these attacks: support the unions that are working hand in hand with the bosses and the state to impose these attacks, or to seek to force back these attacks by trying to establish a class wide response?

Ernie, you're evading the issue. Your case is not just that the existing unions are crap, but that the working class should not organise themselves into any permanent body to defend their economic interests within capitalism.

You have not yet made out a case for workers not uniting permanently on the economic front. Even the Ancient Greeks could see through your argument. Aristotle had already pointed out that this argument of yours doesn't hold water.
The existing unions are crap
The existing unions are permanent organisations
Therefore, all permanent organisations are crap.

I'll say it again, to urge workers, as you do, not to organise permanently to try to resist the intensified downward pressures on their wages and conditions that will inevitably occur in the depression that's already under way is madness. The bosses would love this "radical" response to the crisis.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

Capricorn, I don't accept your terms.

Day one of 'union watch' and BBC news reports today that "three unions representing 25000 steelworkers have come up with (come up with!) a proposal for workers to accept a 10% pay cut". In the same bulletin, it reports that some postal workers have been sacked for not keeping up with the management/union productivity arrangements.
Yesterday, 3500 Nissan workers were sent home. The arrangements for pay are obscure but if any of the other short time, 3 day week car works are anything to go by, the workers will be losing holidays, overtime, bonuses and attendance allowances. Tony Woodley, their union official, said yesterday on Channel 4 News: that the economic crisis is "only a short term problem"; the car industry "represents thousands of jobs for our country"; "we will jettison thousands of jobs unecessarily"; "we don't want too many victims"; "it's not right for our country".

"25000 Woolworth workers jobs, wages and pensions on the line and their union rep said he 'would be working with the proper authorities".

All this Capricorn, is a real and prime example of the 'defence, protection and benefits' that trade unionism can bring to its members, ie facilitating the attacks of the bourgeoisie in the national interest. Your argument that workers will not be so badly affected than those not in unions, is itself a division within and would weaken the working class. Your argument amounts to slow strangulation being better than quick strangulation. Day one in Britain, Capricorn, and while you want to obscure the attacks by the unions in the name of the defence of democracy, it is all the more important for revolutionaries to point out the reality that is taking place in front of our eyes. Not some fairy tale about workers in unions being not so badly off.

baboon

Not some fairy tale about workers in unions being not so badly off.

the thing is, this may well be true. but correlation doesn't equal causation. the confounding variable is workers militancy; historically militant sectors have higher levels of unionisation.

And is this, as some people have tried to argue, because trade unions in some sense express some kind of halfway expression of the class (in itself, or for capital, or whatever), or is it because this expresses capital's response to the need to contain militant workers?

both. they only function to contain and divide the struggle because they are a partial expression of it. welcome to technicolor. you're gonna shit bricks when you get HD.

baboon

Capricorn, I don't accept your terms.

Phew. That's a relief. I suppose there might have been an outside chance of me having to take out a subscription to "World Revolution".
baboon

"25000 Woolworth workers jobs, wages and pensions on the line and their union rep said he 'would be working with the proper authorities".

What's your advice to Woolworth workers then? Stage a wildcat strike? And ask the workers next door in Boots, Primark, etc to join them, until the whole thing snowballs into a soviet revolution?
Come down to earth, man. All they can do is negotiate the best redundancy terms they can, but without a union they won't get very far. Agreed, with a union they might not get too far either, but at least they might get a couple of bob extra.
It's easy for you to tell them not to let their union negotiate anything but I don't suppose your job is on the line in the run-up to christmas.

Capricorn follows Tony Woodley: he doesn't want "too many victims". Join the union and you will be better off than other workers (your family, friends, class). Let them suffer you will weather the storm better, you'll "have a couple of bob extra". His belief in the unions is of the 'pie in the sky when you die' religious variety. Trust them, they will look after you and when this is all over... You have mentioned this several times now Capricorn in different forms. What do you mean by it. Do you see light at the end of the tunnel and better times ahead. It's religious belief again.

The vital and militant sectors of the economy are unionised (often joining the union is a condition of getting the job in these industries) because of the development of state capitalism and the need for unions to be where militant workers are in order to control their struggles and unions to be where the vital sectors of the economy are (often the same sectors) because of the national ierest that is laid out so often by the trade unions.

As to what to say to Woolworth's workers: there is plenty above about intervention and action in workers struggles and though one has to be aware of particular circumstances the position towards this sector of workers is the same as any other.

Yes Capricorn, my job was on the line in the run up to Christmas - as are tens of thousands of others - and I was made redundant two months ago. My comrades and myself who went saw first hand the result of union "negotiation" for "flexibility" and the horrendous union-agreed workload for those that are left.

"Three steel unions representing 25,000 workers have come up with proposals for a ten per cent pay cut". Good job they are represented by the unions or it could be eleven or twelve per cent. Or any other number that you can use in your argument to put the unions in a positive light and inveigle workers into putting their trust in them.

What are you doing on a Radical Perspectives for the Crisis thread? Why don't you start a Defend the National Interest one. I've no objection to you putting your arguments here but defending the national interest is surely what you are about.

Not all bad news .

Up to 2,000 postal workers at seven sorting offices are to stage a 24-hour strike just days before Christmas in a row over office closures, The Communication Workers Union said its members in Liverpool, Coventry, Stockport, Oldham, Oxford, Crewe and Bolton will walk out on December 19 - the day before the last Christmas posting day for first-class letters.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i3br1OnfrHG2s27SLtnBR5_JMsIg

Joseph K wrote: "they only function to contain and divide the struggle because they are a partial expression of it."

Exactly.

BBC news reports today that "three unions representing 25000 steelworkers have come up with (come up with!) a proposal for workers to accept a 10% pay cut".

It looks, Baboon, as if you've been caught being economical with the truth yet again. I tried to find a reference to this on the BBC website but all I could come up with, dated 11 December, the day you claimed to have heard this, was this:

Unions representing the 25,000 UK workforce of steelmaker Corus have rejected the firm's proposal that staff take a 10% pay cut.

Please provide chapter and verse for your claim that the 10% pay cut proposal was not only accepted by the unions, but actually proposed by them rather than by the employers.

Actually, there were rumours that it had been accepted but the union later denied this.

capricorn, to be fair to baboon that article did say that earlier, i linked it on another thread then the BBC updated the article as it was clearly innacurate

Well, Baboon, repeated it again today as if it hadn't been corrected and, knowing him, he'll probably go on repeating it for years to come.
I'll be satisfied with an admission from him that the original bbc report was inaccurate.

Actually, the question of the nature of the trade unions is going to be increasingly relevant to that most radical critique of the crisis: the class struggle. The whole question of 'what do we say to workers in xxx who are being made redundant / offered pay cuts'? is going to be a burning issue of the day. The approach we take is to call for and encourage workers in struggle to take control of their own struggles through mass meetings and assemblies, and to extend them to other sectors of the class. These are the two methods of making the struggles most effective - self organisation and active solidarity.

Capricorn, the ICC is in actually in favour of forming some permanent organisation: political ones, the international regroupment of revolutionaries around a clear political platform. There are several reasons reasons why permanent economic organisations with a genuine proletarian, revolutionary character aren't possible in the current epoch:

1) The omnipresence state has absorbed civil society to such an extent that any permanent economic organisation would have to be legally recognised and bound by the state's laws. Hardly conducive to its overthrow. If you have liberal illusions that we are living in a 'democracy' and that lasting reforms are winnable then of course it may seem tenable that the ruling class will tolerate such organisations. But we aren't and such illusions are dangerous.

2) General assemblies and workers' councils do indeed have a tendency to become permanent when the workers' self-activity reaches such a fever pitch and the mass strike has gained a certain momentum. But when the level of self-activity and mass involvement begins to wain any attempt to keep the organs of struggle alive becomes artificial. All attempts to keep alive permanent organisations outside periods of open struggle has led them to become unions.

This doesn't mean that outside of periods of open struggle the most advanced and radicalised elements of the class should disappear and dissolve back into the masses, as the councilists insisted. They should regroup and aim to draw the lessons of the past struggles. In fact this is the best contribution they can make to the improved success of future struggles, by contributing to the consciousness of the class.

I've been to several leftist meetings recently and when anti-union positions are put to them they come back with two main (familiar!) arguments:

1) If you're against the unions then you're in effect a strike breaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Ernie said, we are for the most effective means of struggle, and the unions are worse than ineffective - they are the social fireman for the ruling class, dampign down struggles and keeping them isolated to particular sectors. Where I work there are five unions and they have never once (in the past ten years I have been there) called a joint strike on the same day. And its 'Union A' who tells its members that they have to cross the picket lines of 'Union B', because solidarity action is illegal. I have seen this with my own eyes. I have proudly taken part in every strike at my workplace because as workers we have been under attack and I've stood by my colleagues - even though they're members of a union - because they have decided to make a stand. I've had my pay deducted like them and because I'm not in a union, I've been hurt doubly because I don't receive strike pay either, although the unions hardly ever pay it out to members anyway.

2) Then there's the old chesnut about the 'dual nature' of the unions, their 'contradictory charachter'. Well, the ruling class aren't stupid. For the unions to have any hold over the class they have to be allowed to be effective in times of social peace, but that's not the correct time to judge the true class character of an organisation. As Baboon has pointed out, we'll see plenty of evidence of how loyal and duty bound the unions are to the 'company' and the 'national interest', and their anti-working class nature will be increasingly clear to workers as and when struggles develop.

For anyone interested in taking a serious look at the ICC's position on the unions may I recommend our pamphlet 'Unions Against the Working Class' which is on our website. Chapter 5 is particularly relevant to this debate:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_chapter_05.htm

B.

Thanks, Beltov, I can now see more clearly where youse are coming from -- it's all do with Decadence (I should have guessed!) which you claim means that capitalism can no longer offer any meaningful and lasting "economic reforms" (by which I take it you mean no increases in real wages, no improvements in working conditions) and that any attempt by workers to form permanent organisations at work will inevitably lead to these organisations negotiating a worsening of conditions. So, best not to try, but go straight for revolution instead. Anyway, here's what the pamphlet you refer us to says:

The workers’ resistance under decadent capitalism can no long­er escape the following two alternatives. Given the system’s drive for self-preservation, either the working class must accept the containment of its struggles within a purely economic terrain, thereby condemning its struggles to a total impasse since capitalism can no longer grant any meaningful economic reforms, or the working class must assert itself resolutely as a power in its own right. If the workers accept the first alternative, such an impasse produces within their midst the best conditions in which the bourgeoisie can un­leash its chief weaponry against working class resistance. These weapons include economism, narrow localism, illusions in self-management, etc. These mystifications always lead to defeat and demoralisation. But if the proletariat takes up the second alternative, it is immediately forced to go beyond the purely economic framework of its struggle and display its political nature by developing class solidarity and confront­ing the very basis of bourgeois legality, starting with the state’s representatives within the factory: the unions ( . . . )
But whatever the exact circumstances, and however intense the struggle may or may not be, working class resistance in this epoch can no longer assert itself without immediately taking a revolutionary direction.

This is open to challenge on a number of grounds.

First, that in the periods of boom that have occurred since 1914 the possibility of real improvements in wages and working conditions has existed. But not only the possibility. It has actually happened: the workers did make gains in the 1950s and 1960s and conditions are still much better today that they were in the 1920s and 1930s.

Second, even if you were right and no real improvements were possible, only things getting worse, working-class resistance in permanent organisations would still be useful and necessary to try to slow down this trend. This in fact is the position that Marx took up when he gave a talk in 1865 to a group of English trade unionists:

I think I have shown that their struggles for the standard of wages are incidents inseparable from the whole wages system, that in 99 cases out of 100 their efforts at raising wages are only efforts at maintaining the given value of labour, and that the necessity of debating their price with the capitalist is inherent to their condition of having to sell themselves as commodities. By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement.
At the same time, and quite apart form the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady.

Marx goes on to say that workers should adopt the revolutionary watchword "Abolition of the Wages System" but not instead of "higher wages", "better working conditions" but in addition to these.

In fact, this is precisely the usefulness of workers' permanent organisations: to ensure that wages rise faster in a boom than they otherwise would and that in slump they fall slower than they otherwise would. They are not supposed to revolutionary organisations but defensive economic organisations of the working class in non-revolutionary times.

Third, it's way over the top to say that the only response workers should give to an immediate threat of worsening their conditions is Revolution. That's not very helpful to workers facing wage cuts or redundancies. So, I was right: your advice to Woolworth workers really is: don't bother to try and get better redundancy terms, start the soviet revolution.

Of course Woolworth and all other workers should draw the lesson that they should get rid of capitalism, but organising and struggling for this does not rule out also waging the day-to-day defensive struggle on the economic front over immediate issues. Doing both, that's the only realistic response to the Depression.

On your first point, you've answered yourself really. You said permanent improvements in pay and conditions were possible 'in the periods of boom', which doesn't make them very permanent. The gains made in the 50s and 60s were largely wiped out in the 70s through rampant inflation. Since then we've had 40 years of open economic crisis where working conditions globally have deteriorated (see China for example).

As for your second point, you're forgetting our coneption of decadence! Marx was talking in an epoch where capitalism was ascendant and the trade unions were important weapons in the hands of the working class. So, your argument holds up until... 1914.

To take up your third point. We share your concern to give the most helpful advice to workers facing wage cuts or redundancies. But it's rather crude to imply that we say to them 'defensive struggles are a waste of time, go for revolution now'. We are not 'total revolutionists' as some imply.

The working class should not abandon its economic struggles because its interests are fundamentally economic. But faced with a long-term, permanent tendency towards increased rates of exploitation and attacks on the social wage, the destruction of the capitalist system is the only way the working class has of avoiding ever-increasing degradations in its living conditions. Thus, its struggle for an improvement in its economic situation becomes a struggle for the destruction of the system itself.

To take another quote from our Unions pamphlet:

The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is not, then, the negation of the economic nature of its struggle but the result of its total understanding of the reality of that struggle. In consciously embracing the political nature of its daily economic struggle, in deepening it to the point of fin­ally destroying the bourgeois state and establishing communist society, the proletariat never abandons its defence of its economic interests. Rather the proletariat takes upon itself all the meaning and all the consequences of that struggle... Inevitably, unavoidably, the working class forges the weapons of its revolutionary struggle through its daily resistance to capitalist exploitation. It is this which both allows the class and forces it to unify as a class and thus it is in the heat of this struggle that the proletariat arrives at a conscious­ness of the necessity for, and the possibility of, communist revolution.

What the proletariat must abandon is not the economic nature of its struggle (an impossibility in any case if it is to fight as a class), but all its illusions in the future possibilities of successfully defending its interests, even its most immediate ones, without leaving the strictly econom­ic framework of struggles and without consciously adopting a political, global and revolutionary understanding of its struggle. Faced with the inevitable short-term failure of its defensive struggles under decadent capitalism, the class must conclude that it isn’t that these struggles are useless, but that the only way of making them useful to the proletarian cause is to understand them and consciously transform them into moments of learning and preparation for struggles which are more generalised, more organised, and more conscious of the inevitability of the proletariat’s final confrontation with the system of exploitation. In the era of capitalism’s decline, when the communist revolution is on the historical agenda, the effectiveness of the every day struggles of the working class can no longer be measured, or understood, in immediate terms. Their effectiveness can only be understood within the world historic perspective of the communist revolution.

B.

The report was on BBC's teletext and was apparantly taken from that day's Financial Times (or the day before). The union's are backtracking now are they? There's a surprise. It's a variation of the management want a thousand to go and ask for two thousand. The unions "negotiate" a thousand and everyone is happy (except for the workers). It's all a game Capricorn.

Beltov

On your first point, you've answered yourself really. You said permanent improvements in pay and conditions were possible 'in the periods of boom', which doesn't make them very permanent. The gains made in the 50s and 60s were largely wiped out in the 70s through rampant inflation. Since then we've had 40 years of open economic crisis where working conditions globally have deteriorated (see China for example).

Did I talk of "permanent improvements"? I thought I was talking about permanent organisations capable of obtaining improvements during boom times. Of course all improvements obtained by workers under capitalism are under constant threat as economic circumstances and the balance of forces between employers and workers change, but this does mean that the improvements are not worth struggling for in the most effective way (ie through maintaining a permanent organisation to exert a permanent counter-pressure to the permanent pressure from employers) while they can be had nor not worth having while they last.
Beltov

As for your second point, you're forgetting our coneption of decadence! Marx was talking in an epoch where capitalism was ascendant and the trade unions were important weapons in the hands of the working class. So, your argument holds up until... 1914.

Marx's assumption was still that most wages struggles were to prevent things getting worse, which is one of the features of your period of "Decadence". Frankly, I don't see any difference between the pre- and the post-1914 periods as far as the need for workers to negotiate the price and conditions of sale of their labour-power to employers. It was still true then as it is now that wage increases gained in boom times were mostly lost in slump times, and don't forget that the Great Depression of the 1880s as it was called was just as bad as that of the 1930s.
Beltov

To take up your third point. We share your concern to give the most helpful advice to workers facing wage cuts or redundancies. But it's rather crude to imply that we say to them 'defensive struggles are a waste of time, go for revolution now'. We are not 'total revolutionists' as some imply.

But that's what you are saying. The passage you quote from your pamphlet actually talks about:

the inevitable short-term failure of its defensive struggles under decadent capitalism

If they're inevitably going to fail, what's the point of embarking on them?
Beltov

The working class should not abandon its economic struggles because its interests are fundamentally economic. But faced with a long-term, permanent tendency towards increased rates of exploitation and attacks on the social wage, the destruction of the capitalist system is the only way the working class has of avoiding ever-increasing degradations in its living conditions. Thus, its struggle for an improvement in its economic situation becomes a struggle for the destruction of the system itself.

I don't think you've thought this one through. "The working class", you say, "should not abandon its economic struggles". I take this to mean that, for instance, the steel workers employed by Corus should struggle against the pay cut that has been floated, but how? Not through the unions you say, but through a wildcat strike and a general meeting of workers that will elect its own delegates. To do what (besides trying to spread the strike)? To negotiate with the employers? If not, you are saying that workers should in effect abandon the economic struggle and go for Revolution. But if you are saying that these general meeting mandated delegates should negotiate, what makes you think they would be able to get better terms than the existing unions? In fact of course you don't think this as it's your stated view that "under decadent capitalism" "defensive struggles" are doomed to "inevitable short-term failure". I think you need to go back to the drawing-board on this one.

I would add, though it's another argument, that I don't agree with your implicit arguments:

(1) That workers should struggle for economic objectives even though they can't be achieved as they will learn by the experience of failure that Revolution is the only way out (this smells too much of Trotsky's theory of what "transitional demands" are supposed to do. But then you do come from the same stable as him (Bolshevism).

(2) The argument from "miserablism", that workers will make a Revolution only if their material circumstances get worse and worse.

Someone needs to tell those damn Chicago workers that their union reps were really part of the state!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13factory.html?hp

Mikus wrote:

Someone needs to tell those damn Chicago workers that their union reps were really part of the state!

An excellent example of unions at work Mikus.

Half the workforce already gone before the sit-in.

Result of 'union-inspired' sit-in? All workers' jobs gone! The factory closed.

An action triumphed in the article you quote as an example to all US workers. "The reverberations of the workers’ victory are likely to be felt for months as plants continue to close."

What was won through this 'example'? Payments already 'guaranteed', in law, by that great working class institution, the US state!! This is the terrain of lawyers, not of the class struggle.

The Chicago workers got what they were 'entitled to' under US law, under capitalism's law, the law of 'value': no work, no way of maintaining themselves and their families.

And why, in any case, does anyone credit 'the union' with the fact that, through their struggle, the workers 'won' the bare minimum that the state is happy to concede in order to get rid of them: severence pay and holiday entitlement? The workers were helpless, hopeless until 'the union' stepped in? They were/are only capable of a 'trade union consciousness'?

That's certainly what the dominant ideology likes to peddle: do it the union way or do nothing.

If it's true, as the article says, that 'plants will continue to close' - not just in Chicago, not just in the US, but as we know, globally, have we no other perspective to offer other than 'the union will protect us'?

Workers have had to fight for the enforcement of already-existent labor laws, which had only been made into law through the working class' own force, since the Factory Acts of the 19th century (and almost certainly before). To act as if the workers should abandon this struggle and leave it to the lawyers is ridiculous. You ultra-left sectarians seem to forget the very simple, and still-valid point made by Marx:

"By cowardly giving way in their everyday conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any larger movement."

And please spare us the bad poetry:

Lurch

The Chicago workers got what they were 'entitled to' under US law, under capitalism's law, the law of 'value'

You are very obviously using "law" in two very different senses here. Don't try to pass this off as anything other than a confused use of language.

The fact of the matter is that if the workers in Chicago had done the exact same things, but outside of the union, you ultra-left sectarians would be praising this as some excellent example of working-class self-activity. But somehow when a union rep (who himself is a worker in the plant!) helps organize the action, the first of its kind in the US that anyone seems to remember, it becomes a state action only fit for lawyers.

And when did I say that the unions would protect us? The only thing that will protect the working class is its own struggle in its own interest -- whether or not those interests were previously recognized in law or not, and whether or not some parts of the working class are organized in unions (possibly even having low-level union positions, like the the organizers in Chicago).

So behind all the bluster, the insults and the rest, you still maintain that, not only was the result of this struggle (in Chicago) to which you provided a link, a 'victory' for the working class, but one which it owes to the trades union! So be it. Your opinion. And that of the NYT. Readers can judge for themselves.

Certainly a proletariat that can't defend itself is in no position to make a revolution - I've argued as much quite recently on these boards.

Workers can even profit from their defeats if the lessons are drawn. But they can't do that when defeats are dressed up as 'victories' and presented as models for future struggles. That's really what I object to in this instance.

It's funny that you guys constantly complain about "insults" and "abuse", all the while acting as if it's an actual argument to call others non-Marxists, social democrats, insinuating that they have the same politics as the NYT, etc., when they disagree with them. I guess this is that much-famed "proletarian culture of debate" that guys like to reminisce about.

An ad hominem is an ad hominem, so clean up your own crew's act before lecturing others.

Secondly, you guys are excellent at putting words in other people's mouths, as has been noticed many times on these boards. I never said that this victory was owed to the trade union. In fact I said something which suggests the opposite. I will quote myself for those of you (primarily ICC'ers) with reading comprehension problems:

mikus

And when did I say that the unions would protect us? The only thing that will protect the working class is its own struggle in its own interest

As I said before, if some of the workers who help organize this struggle are in unions, or even union reps, so what? Your outside-and-against-the-union-under-all-conceivable-circumstances-after-1914 position is pure dogmatism, and if you guys want talk about "anti-working-class" positions, I suggest you look at your own posts on this message board.

Lurch

So behind all the bluster, the insults and the rest, you still maintain that, not only was the result of this struggle (in Chicago) to which you provided a link, a 'victory' for the working class, but one which it owes to the trades union! So be it. Your opinion. And that of the NYT. Readers can judge for themselves.

This is classic ICC insanity, and is barely worth refuting. Because the NYT has an opinion, apparently us communists cannot share the opinion. I suppose the earth isn't really spherical, evolution is a hoax, and the financial system is not in the worst crisis since the Great Depression. And I suppose that next time workers make a wage gain and the NYT declares it to be a gain for the workers, the ICC will be insinuating (without saying it outright, as that would be too obviously foolish) that anyone who says that the wage increase was a gain for the workers has the same politics as the NYT.

Yes, I'm quite happy to leave this issue to the judgment of the reader.

Lurch

Certainly a proletariat that can't defend itself is in no position to make a revolution - I've argued as much quite recently on these boards.

You can say as much, but when it comes down to it you think that the working class should only get involved in certain types of defensive struggles -- only defensive struggles that occur outside of the union framework, and only on issues that aren't legally recognized.

Lurch

Workers can even profit from their defeats if the lessons are drawn. But they can't do that when defeats are dressed up as 'victories' and presented as models for future struggles. That's really what I object to in this instance.

The struggle was a plain and simple victory. The workers wanted the 60 days pay and their vacation pay, and they got it. In order to make your statement, you have to imagine that the working class had some other goal in mind. The problem is, they didn't. They didn't want their jobs back, they didn't want higher wages, they didn't want greater unemployment relief, and least of all did they want the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production.

If you want to argue that their goals were insufficient, that is an entirely different sort of argument, but the fact of the matter is that the workers got what they wanted, and that is a victory.

Your outside-and-against-the-union-under-all-conceivable-circumstances-after-1914 position

I like it. It well sums up the position of this anti-union outfit. I think I'll adopt it myself instead of the quote below from Ernie. My only doubt is that I don't think they believe that groups of workers should set specific goals to achieve on the work front within capitalism as that would be the first step on the road to localism, economism, trade unionism and integration into the State.
ernie

In relation to the unions, militants of the ICC do not join unions unless they work in a closed shop.

It's funny that you guys constantly complain about "insults" and "abuse"

Mikus it's hard to think what else to call

you ultra-left sectarians

repeated several times. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're using that as a term of endearment?

And as for this

Secondly, you guys are excellent at putting words in other people's mouths, as has been noticed many times on these boards.

well, a little bit rich coming from you. Lurch wrote:

What was won through this 'example'? Payments already 'guaranteed', in law, by that great working class institution, the US state!! This is the terrain of lawyers, not of the class struggle.

Which you represented as

To act as if the workers should abandon this struggle and leave it to the lawyers is ridiculous.

Is that what Lurch meant, that workers should abandon the struggle? This is an interpretation of the words 'this is...not the terrain of the class struggle!'???

Please stop an consider your own selective methods before criticising those of others. These include the need to 'destroy' every argument which is put against you, constantly repeating how 'crazy' the ICC and its contacts are when we dare to repeat or elaborate on any argument that has been "refuted" or "disproven"....according to the Great Mikus.

Capricorn

My only doubt is that I don't think they believe that groups of workers should set specific goals to achieve on the work front within capitalism as that would be the first step on the road to localism, economism, trade unionism and integration into the State.

Putting words into people's mouths, hum! Clearly you cannot read yourself when it suits your purpose: defense of the trade unions. At no stage has the ICC said the workers should not defend themselves at the economic level. But what we do say is that they cannot do this effectively if they stay within the union prison. This has been proved in practice through our interventions in the majors struggles over the last 33 years which have always called for workers to defend themselves through carrying out the most effective struggle. One example of this was the printers strike at Wapping in 1986 when we intervened regularly on the demonstrations and pickets to call on workers not to fall into the trap of trying to close the plant and instead to go to the rest of the print industry and others workers in order to spread the struggle.
Capricorn, you have still not answer Baboon about the question of the defense of the national interest by the unions.

Mikus wrote:

It's funny that you guys constantly complain about "insults" and "abuse", all the while acting as if it's an actual argument to call others non-Marxists, social democrats, insinuating that they have the same politics as the NYT, etc., when they disagree with them. I guess this is that much-famed "proletarian culture of debate" that guys like to reminisce about.

Just briefly on ‘insults’, identifying arguments as non-marxist, or social democrat, or ‘revisionist’ isn’t a personal insult as far as I’m concerned. They are descriptions of political positions which have a definite historical weight and tradition. For example, Bernstein was labeled a ‘revisionist’ by his critics in (and outside) pre-WW1 Germany Social Democracy because he attempted to ‘revise’ Marxism by claiming that capitalism could in and of itself turn into socialism, that there was no need of a proletarian revolution, and that, to paraphrase: ‘the movement is everything, the goal is nothing.’ This labeling of ‘revisionist’, this identification of a political trend (a trend moreover within the workers movement of its day) wasn’t an insult: it was a political classification. Ad hominem simply doesn’t come into it.

Mikus wrote:

Secondly, you guys are excellent at putting words in other people's mouths, as has been noticed many times on these boards. I never said that this victory was owed to the trade union. In fact I said something which suggests the opposite. I will quote myself for those of you (primarily ICC'ers) with reading comprehension problems:

mikus wrote:

"And when did I say that the unions would protect us? The only thing that will protect the working class is its own struggle in its own interest."

What you actually wrote, what I responded to was this:

Someone needs to tell those damn Chicago workers that their union reps were really part of the state!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13factory.html?hp

I’m putting words into your mouth? Hard to do when your foot’s already in there. OK Mikus: you explain why you linked to this story, explain what point you were actually trying to make by doing so. Free from any mediation.

Mikus wrote:

As I said before, if some of the workers who help organize this struggle are in unions, or even union reps, so what?

Why do you think I would disagree on this point, as far as it goes? Perhaps reading difficulties aren’t confined to sympathisers and members of the ICC. See the contributions of Beltov and Demogorgon above.

Mikus wrote:

Lurch wrote:

"So behind all the bluster, the insults and the rest, you still maintain that, not only was the result of this struggle (in Chicago) to which you provided a link, a 'victory' for the working class, but one which it owes to the trades union! So be it. Your opinion. And that of the NYT. Readers can judge for themselves."

This is classic ICC insanity, and is barely worth refuting. Because the NYT has an opinion, apparently us communists cannot share the opinion. ....

We’re not however talking about opinions ‘in general’, about the ‘depth of the economic crisis’ or whether the earth travels around the sun: we’re talking about the link you posted to an opinion which seeks to gloss over the loss of 250 jobs by presenting as a ‘victory’ the acquisition of benefits to which they were legally entitled. Classic spin. You agree with the NYT on this point, don’t you? I don’t.

Mikus wrote:

Lurch wrote:

"Certainly a proletariat that can't defend itself is in no position to make a revolution - I've argued as much quite recently on these boards."

You can say as much, but when it comes down to it you think that the working class should only get involved in certain types of defensive struggles -- only defensive struggles that occur outside of the union framework, and only on issues that aren't legally recognized.

Thank you for telling me what I think (and by implication how I act). However you are incorrect. What you say is factually untrue.

Like Beltov (above) I have taken an active part in many dozens of struggles, both at my own places of work and at other enterprises – the vast majority of these struggles either called into being, recognised by or ‘adopted’ once they were underway by the union machinery.

As you say above: so what of it? I am first and foremost for the struggle and it is inevitably during the struggle that, concretely, workers and militants encounter the sabotage of the unions. That obstacles to the successful prosecution of this or that movement inevitably exist – from police repression to the use of the law and courts through to divisions and distortions imposed by the state’s union machinery - is no reason to abstain from them. Who argues this?

Mikus wrote:

Lurch wrote:

"Workers can even profit from their defeats if the lessons are drawn. But they can't do that when defeats are dressed up as 'victories' and presented as models for future struggles. That's really what I object to in this instance."

The struggle was a plain and simple victory. The workers wanted the 60 days pay and their vacation pay, and they got it. In order to make your statement, you have to imagine that the working class had some other goal in mind. The problem is, they didn't. They didn't want their jobs back, they didn't want higher wages, they didn't want greater unemployment relief, and least of all did they want the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production.

And so we come full circle. The struggle of the sacked Chicago workers is a ‘victory’. OK, I agree. Only it wasn’t a victory for the working class collectively, or for these particular workers. They didn't want their jobs? They wanted to be laid off? They didn't want better wages and conditions? Are we sure?

In any case, the question of struggle isn’t what this or that worker thinks at any given moment, but what the class as a whole is obliged to do, as Marx said. Marx also said the communists’ aim wasn’t to console the proletariat (or indeed to see in misery only misery).

Lurch wrote:

"What was won through this 'example'? Payments already 'guaranteed', in law, by that great working class institution, the US state!! This is the terrain of lawyers, not of the class struggle."

Clarify please the terrain of struggle. Granted these are defensive struggles, but are you saying that defending any rights, protections, interests that are guaranteed in law, is not something workers should do? If my boss decides not to pay me my wages, even though he's legally obliged to, this is just a matter for lawyers? Workers should not take direct action in this situation because it's the wrong terrain?

For those who believed the WSM /SPGB /WSPUS positions on unions and the class struggle was abstentionist and abstract here is the latest post from The World Socialist blog .

The occupation of the Republic Window and Door factory in Chicago has ended.

Certainly this has been an inspiring event. One hopes the sit-in will inspire even more inventive methods of fighting for working people.

However, we must also take into account what was “won”. The workers received the monies owed them. They lost their jobs. The employer had taken monies from the Republic plant and bought a competitor in Iowa.

That’s a victory? Perhaps in the present conditions it is. But it’s rather sad to crow success when you are getting what’s legally owed you.

Now the UE union - perhaps the best union in the US - is discussing restarting the factory perhaps as some sort of cooperative. While one wishes the workers the best, would this be an improvement? They will still be subject to the laws of supply and demand. How will they be successful when the former company wasn’t? As the downturn continues will they cut their own wages? Cut their own hours? Or perhaps just lay themselves off.

Cooperatives or worker owned businesses may be more “fair” for the workers than a privately held company like Republic Window. Can’t fault them for trying, right?

But ultimately you can’t wish justice or fairness - or seek room for fairness - in what is a fundamentally unfair society. Even a cooperative business must accept the logic of capitalism or perish.

An example of this contradiction is the famous Mondragon Cooperatives of the Basque country of Spain. These cooperatives we established in the 1940s and consist of more than 80,000 worker-owners. They were a huge inspiration for the 1970s cooperative movement here in the US as well as many anarcho-syndicalists who have long argued for “self-management” .

But the Mondragon Cooperatives have to function within the system. They thrived under the fascist dictatorship of Franco. They have also expanded, buying factories in Poland. But the Polish workers are not owners as the Basques are. This year the Polish employees of Mondragon went on strike and the Mondragon Cooperatives moved to break the strike and the workers’ unions.

I’m raising the problems of the Republic sit-in not to belittle the efforts made there. Nor is it a call to workers to sit on their hands or become isolated academics. The point needs to be made that UE is trying to replicate past strategies - sit-ins, cooperatives, etc. which are tired. Inspiring or not, the strategies have serious flaws. They are focused on the immediate and have no long term vision or goal.

Perhaps with a little class consciousness, some radical understanding of how capitalism functions, the workers at Republic Windows could have inspired a much more radical and powerful workers movement - one to abolish capitalism.
http://theworldsocialist.blogspot.com/2008/12/on-republic-window-sit-in.html

I'd say it was a balanced and insightful , a very realistic , but nevertheless , a very sympathetic analysis .

I was going to ask something similar of Ernie. I've never denied here that during strikes his outfit distributes leaflets calling for the strike to be spread (this follows from their rather romantic view that any strike has the potential to develop into a soviet revolution) but what about the goals strikers themselves set (a wage increase, stopping a wage decrease, etc)? Reading that old pamphlet Beltov mentioned I got the impression that you are not interested in such specific demands, if only because you don't think they can be met anyway under "decadent capitalism". If I'm wrong, let me know. Answer for Baboon, what you think the steelworkers should aim at faced with the proposal to cut their wages by 10 percent (apart from a soviet revolution)?
Wapping. That's an odd strike for you to have got involved in, isn't it? If I remember right it was a union recognition dispute. The newspaper Mogul Murdoch withdrew recognition of one set of unions and sacked those who were members of them and employed members of another union. The sacked union members were taking action to try to get their jobs back. A sad affair of worker against worker.
I used to be a member of one of the print unions and boycotted buying any of Murdoch's papers for years. But I don't suppose youse did.
I didn't reply to Baboon's insulting suggestion that because I don't see the existing unions as completely useless I must therefore support the "national interest" as it was beneath contempt.

miles

What was won through this 'example'? Payments already 'guaranteed', in law, by that great working class institution, the US state!! This is the terrain of lawyers, not of the class struggle.

Which you represented as

To act as if the workers should abandon this struggle and leave it to the lawyers is ridiculous.

Is that what Lurch meant, that workers should abandon the struggle? This is an interpretation of the words 'this is...not the terrain of the class struggle!'??

So does the ICC think that the working class should fight on the terrain of lawyers?

If not, and I don't think you guys do, then what I said is completely fair. If you do think that the working class should fight on the terrain of lawyers, then please explain further.

Mikus said:

The only thing that will protect the working class is its own struggle in its own interest -- whether or not those interests were previously recognized in law or not, and whether or not some parts of the working class are organized in unions (possibly even having low-level union positions, like the the organizers in Chicago).

While I don't like Mikus' style of argument - having been at the receiving end of it before - I have to say I agree with the point he's making here. The Chicago struggle was a very limited one, with minimal demands, and didn't fit in with the implied 'all-or-nothing' stance of some posters. No, they didn't start the revolution, but within the limits of what they were demanding it was a little victory. Little victories might not count for much in the grand scheme of things, but they do matter.

Lurch

Just briefly on ‘insults’, identifying arguments as non-marxist, or social democrat, or ‘revisionist’ isn’t a personal insult as far as I’m concerned. They are descriptions of political positions which have a definite historical weight and tradition. For example, Bernstein was labeled a ‘revisionist’ by his critics in (and outside) pre-WW1 Germany Social Democracy because he attempted to ‘revise’ Marxism by claiming that capitalism could in and of itself turn into socialism, that there was no need of a proletarian revolution, and that, to paraphrase: ‘the movement is everything, the goal is nothing.’ This labeling of ‘revisionist’, this identification of a political trend (a trend moreover within the workers movement of its day) wasn’t an insult: it was a political classification. Ad hominem simply doesn’t come into it.

I was speaking of the ICC more than the Second International tradition. You guys spend more time "labeling" other theories than arguing against them. (I've encountered this same problem with Trotskyists.) The only reason I can think of for this is that you think this constitutes an actual argument. In that case, it is an ad hominem.

If you don't think it constitutes an argument, but you just like labeling things, then I'd encourage you to start making more actual arguments.

Luch

mikus

And when did I say that the unions would protect us? The only thing that will protect the working class is its own struggle in its own interest.

What you actually wrote, what I responded to was this:

mikus

Someone needs to tell those damn Chicago workers that their union reps were really part of the state!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13factory.html?hp

I’m putting words into your mouth? Hard to do when your foot’s already in there. [ouch, buuuurned! -- mikus] OK Mikus: you explain why you linked to this story, explain what point you were actually trying to make by doing so. Free from any mediation.

My point was simply that the idea that all unions are part of the state apparatus is ridiculous. There is a significant amount of work that workers can do within unions, and obviously there is a significant amount of work that workers can't do within unions. You guys like to reduce the whole issue to its crudest terms. There is a difference between a limited form of organization and an organization that is part of the state.

And this is yet another example of one of the ICC's most characteristic problems -- if you disagree with them, you must be taking the most extreme opposite position that they can think of. Hence Lurch's conclusion that because I mocked the view that the unions are part of the state apparatus, I must have been saying that we can sit around and let the unions defend us!

Lurch

mikus

As I said before, if some of the workers who help organize this struggle are in unions, or even union reps, so what?

Why do you think I would disagree on this point, as far as it goes? Perhaps reading difficulties aren’t confined to sympathisers and members of the ICC. See the contributions of Beltov and Demogorgon above.

ICC members do not join unions unless they work in closed shops and they argue that unions are part of the state apparatus. I don't think this qualifies as an attitude to the union reps of the "so what?" variety.

Unless of course, you want to ditch your ultra-leftist dogmatism.

Lurch

mikus

Lurch

So behind all the bluster, the insults and the rest, you still maintain that, not only was the result of this struggle (in Chicago) to which you provided a link, a 'victory' for the working class, but one which it owes to the trades union! So be it. Your opinion. And that of the NYT. Readers can judge for themselves.

This is classic ICC insanity, and is barely worth refuting. Because the NYT has an opinion, apparently us communists cannot share the opinion. ....

We’re not however talking about opinions ‘in general’, about the ‘depth of the economic crisis’ or whether the earth travels around the sun: we’re talking about the link you posted to an opinion which seeks to gloss over the loss of 250 jobs by presenting as a ‘victory’ the acquisition of benefits to which they were legally entitled. Classic spin. You agree with the NYT on this point, don’t you? I don’t.

In your original post you insinuated that my argument was incorrect because the NYT agreed with it. (Why else would you put in "Your opinion. And that of the NYT.") My point about bringing up other opinions that the NYT shares with most communists (and most human beings in general) is that if agreement with the NYT were evidence that one's views were false, then we'd have to start rejecting a lot of statements which we know to be true. Hence the implication that I'm wrong or have bad politics because I agree with the NYT is a bad argument.

As for why this was in fact a victory, more below.

Lurch

mikus

Lurch

Certainly a proletariat that can't defend itself is in no position to make a revolution - I've argued as much quite recently on these boards.

You can say as much, but when it comes down to it you think that the working class should only get involved in certain types of defensive struggles -- only defensive struggles that occur outside of the union framework, and only on issues that aren't legally recognized.

Thank you for telling me what I think (and by implication how I act). However you are incorrect. What you say is factually untrue.

Like Beltov (above) I have taken an active part in many dozens of struggles, both at my own places of work and at other enterprises – the vast majority of these struggles either called into being, recognised by or ‘adopted’ once they were underway by the union machinery.

DId you partake in the union struggle though, or were you outside and against it? If the latter, then my point stands. If the former, then I have to ask you, do you enjoy working within a part of (by your own claim) the state apparatus?

BTW, I didn't "imply" that you must act in the same way as you think. I find it perfectly possible, even probably, that you act in a different way from how your ultra-leftist mind conceives things. Being a worker makes this likely for all but the most devout.

Lurch

As you say above: so what of it? I am first and foremost for the struggle and it is inevitably during the struggle that, concretely, workers and militants encounter the sabotage of the unions. That obstacles to the successful prosecution of this or that movement inevitably exist – from police repression to the use of the law and courts through to divisions and distortions imposed by the state’s union machinery - is no reason to abstain from them. Who argues this?

I don't know who argues this. Certainly not me. In fact, I don't even have any idea what this has to do with what we were talking about.

Lurch

The struggle of the sacked Chicago workers is a ‘victory’. OK, I agree. Only it wasn’t a victory for the working class collectively, or for these particular workers. They didn't want their jobs? They wanted to be laid off? They didn't want better wages and conditions? Are we sure?

Did I ever say that it was a victory for the working class collectively? It may become an important stepping stone for a revival of the worker's movement, but that's something that's up to the whole working class, not for those Chicago workers. We won't see any victory for the whole working class arise from a struggle carried out within one small factory, so I don't see what your point is, unless you think that that itself is an argument against struggles within single factories. (I don't think you'd go that far but I could be wrong.)

You rhetorically ask if they didn't want their jobs back. Did they say that's what their struggle was for? No. They had very specific demands, and they were met.

Obviously they wanted their jobs back in a general sense. They probably wanted some fine wine and winning lottery tickets as well. They didn't demand those things, so the fact that they didn't get them doesn't make the struggle a failure.

Lurch

In any case, the question of struggle isn’t what this or that worker thinks at any given moment, but what the class as a whole is obliged to do, as Marx said. Marx also said the communists’ aim wasn’t to console the proletariat (or indeed to see in misery only misery).

Your quote is completely out of context. In that quote, Marx is saying the occurrence of a communist revolution is not a matter of what any particular worker thinks at some particular time, but what the working class is compelled to do by its circumstances.

The quote does not say, as you seem to be saying, that there is some mystical "goal" that the mystical collective working class has, and which it strives for, without any particular member realizing it. (Kind of like a Jungian collective consciousness that no one and everyone has. Or the Lukacsian class consciousness which exists without anyone having it.)

We can get Marx to say whatever we want when we quote him out of context. But I've always considered that to be more fit for the religious than for serious communists.

miles

It's funny that you guys constantly complain about "insults" and "abuse"

Mikus it's hard to think what else to call

you ultra-left sectarians

repeated several times. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're using that as a term of endearment?

I refer you to comrade Lurch.

Lurch

Just briefly on ‘insults’, identifying arguments as non-marxist, or social democrat, or ‘revisionist’ isn’t a personal insult as far as I’m concerned. They are descriptions of political positions which have a definite historical weight and tradition. For example, Bernstein was labeled a ‘revisionist’ by his critics in (and outside) pre-WW1 Germany Social Democracy because he attempted to ‘revise’ Marxism by claiming that capitalism could in and of itself turn into socialism, that there was no need of a proletarian revolution, and that, to paraphrase: ‘the movement is everything, the goal is nothing.’ This labeling of ‘revisionist’, this identification of a political trend (a trend moreover within the workers movement of its day) wasn’t an insult: it was a political classification. Ad hominem simply doesn’t come into it.

It looks very much like the unions are involved in the steel and car industries "negotiating" pay cuts in return for "saving jobs". At JCB, after taking around a £50 a week pay cut for "saving jobs" (178 redundancies instead of 500 - the old management/union game again) the company came back a month later for additional job cuts. The management and unions are part of the same team in this process.

Capricorn above says I don't know what it's like to lose a job in the run up to Christmas, but I do having been made redundant in October. The redundancies in the vital industry I worked in have been going on for over 15 years on the basis of management/union flexibility and productivity agreements. When I was offered a job in this sector over 20 years ago I was "advised" that to get it I should join the union. I did and jacked the union a while later when I was reasonably settled. You can't denounce the unions effectively to fellow workers while being in one and the time I did this before, over 30 years ago in another industry, I was elected shop steward.

The current management/union deal for my ex-workmates is cuts in hours, "protected" pay, ie, no pay rises for up to five years, 12-day consecutive shifts (7 of them on 24 hour standby) and greater areas to cover. All of these, job cuts, wage cuts, flexibility, all "negotiated" by the unions and all enforced by trade union discipline along with their class parters on the management side.

There is the potential for the unions to radicalise, to move left and "be with the workers". they will be more dangerous here. At the moment they are at the forefront of the attacks against the working class.

baboon

You can't denounce the unions effectively to fellow workers while being in one

i don't think this necessarily follows. it's like liberals who say you can't be a communist and work for a multinational company, or the anarchist idiots who say you can't be against the state if you pay taxes or claim benefits.

Joseph K.

baboon

You can't denounce the unions effectively to fellow workers while being in one

i don't think this necessarily follows. it's like liberals who say you can't be a communist and work for a multinational company, or the anarchist idiots who say you can't be against the state if you pay taxes or claim benefits.

I don't think those are good analogies Joseph - no one on these boards (as far as I can see!) thinks that 'multinational companies' or the state are there to protect the workers - whereas clearly there are people on here defending the unions as supposedly outside of the state and as 'protectors' of the workers....

the analogy is good insofar as it's possible to criticise something while being a part of it. in fact communist critique of capitalism is based on this possibility. i don't see why being a member of a union would discredit criticisms of them; if anything the criticism has more weight.

Hope you don't mind me asking, Baboon, and tell me to eff off if you like (as I'm sure you'd love to), but was your redundancy voluntary or compulsory?

the analogy is good insofar as it's possible to criticise something while being a part of it

Of course, we're all part of capitalism after all.

in fact communist critique of capitalism is based on this possibility.

That depends on the basis of your communist critique.... ours is based on the understanding of the ascendence and decadence of all previous social systems/modes of production. To paraphrase an oft quoted saying - capitalism has created its own gravedigger, the working class.

i don't see why being a member of a union would discredit criticisms of them; if anything the criticism has more weight.

It depends on the type and nature of your criticisms, some criticism is perfectly acceptable - indeed, isn't it the case that unions recruit exactly those people who are most critical, most vocal in defending themselves/their colleagues at the workplace?

On the other hand if you're saying that the union is part of the state, is not there to defend the workers but to police them etc.. - well, in the first place I'm not sure what kind of a union would want you as a member, and secondly you'd be open to an accusation of hypocrisy, that you as a member were 'gaining the benefit' of this, whilst openly criticising their nature/role/function...

miles

On the other hand if you're saying that the union is part of the state, is not there to defend the workers but to police them etc.. - well, in the first place I'm not sure what kind of a union would want you as a member, and secondly you'd be open to an accusation of hypocrisy, that you as a member were 'gaining the benefit' of this, whilst openly criticising their nature/role/function...

Well the unions' function as bulk-purchasers of insurance, legal services etc. can and do benefit individual members - they don't always, but plenty of people take advantage of the legal support whereas they'd otherwise be reliant on a no-win no-fee solicitor. Same as I might criticise workers co-ops or consumers co-ops as revolutionary strategies, but that doesn't mean I'd refuse a job in one or refuse to buy food from one. Nor getting a loan from a credit union.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy in saying that the unions can help (sometimes) with individual cases while being structurally part of the management of capitalism, central to the implementation of attacks on wages, pensions and working conditions and a barrier to meaningful collective action against such attacks (or for improvements).

I have criticised the ICC's use of the categorisation of the Unions as 'part of the state' previously as an unhelpful description which confuses most people (includinging many from anarchist and marxist backgrounds) who commonly use a narrower definition of 'the state'.

But I understand the reasoning behind this which recognises the historical direction which the Unions have in general travelled, from genuine, if flawed, workers organisations to an important and integrated part of the management system of modern capitalism.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that actually existing unions in the modern world do actively operate against the class interests of workers and are not simply a passive reflection of the limited level of class consciousness amongst the workers they 'represent'.

Unlike the ICC however, I do not consider that in every case this means nothing is gained within the union framework, but rather that in times of crisis ( a recurring phenomina rather than some permanent state of ecomomic decadence) the heightened stakes for both workers and capitalists mean that struggles do indeed need to break from the union framework and become more political even to be successful in purely defensive terms.. This doesn't of course mean that struggles will necessarily start outside the union framework, though in some circumstances they may do. For this reason I am more sympathetic to Joseph's view here that ordinary membership of a union is not of itself a barrier to criticism of union organisation and action and that a pragmatic approach is needed depending on the circumstances of time and place (remembering that there are some very different circumstances indeed around the world). I have to say however that in the British context at least, even a lay stewards position is so problematical from a pro-revolutionary perspective as to be avoided in most circumstances I can think of.

The post from AJJ shows that the WSM can take a supportive but critical view of workers struggles but this, like most of their material is I suspect, merely reflective, rather than part of an active collective intervention, and flows from their denial of the potential to develop a pre-revolutionary situation through practical escalation of the everyday class struggle. In this respect the ICC position for all it's faults is still within the realm of marxist materialism whereas that of the WSM floats around between a mechanical materialism and outright idealism. If the ICC is at fault it seems to lie in their application of broad historical lessons in an overly ideological way to the practicalities of everyday life but they have learned some important historical lessons which still seem to ellude the WSM.

That's not as clear as I would like it to be but hopefully you get my drift.

I suppose that will now open me up to attack from all sides but it will at least divert you all perhaps from continuing with the debate about 'insults' .

Mike Harman

I don't think there's any hypocrisy in saying that the unions can help (sometimes) with individual cases while being structurally part of the management of capitalism, central to the implementation of attacks on wages, pensions and working conditions and a barrier to meaningful collective action against such attacks (or for improvements).

"Central" to the implementation of attacks on wages, pensions and working conditions? You seem to be assuming here, Catch, that, in a depression, workers can somehow prevent a worsening of wages and working conditions. But how? The increase in unemployment tips the balance of forces further in favour of the employers so that - I'm even prepared to say - take-home pay will inevitably fall and that not even the most militant action can stop this, in fact could lead to the employer closing down the business with an even greater loss of income to the workers concerned. This being so, the problem workers face is how to react - to try to negotiate the fall (whether through the existing unions or outside them) so as to limit the damage or to let employers have a free hand to do it? It's not a very nice choice, but that's capitalism. I sometimes think that some people here are blaming the unions when they should be blaming capitalism.

Capricorn you ask

I was going to ask something similar of Ernie. I've never denied here that during strikes his outfit distributes leaflets calling for the strike to be spread (this follows from their rather romantic view that any strike has the potential to develop into a soviet revolution) but what about the goals strikers themselves set (a wage increase, stopping a wage decrease, etc)

In our leaflets, publications and physical interventions on the picket lines, demos, meetings etc we clearly defend the demands defended by the struggling workers, and seek to show that the only way of really gaining these demands is to spread struggles or if this is not possible to seek to discuss with others workers. We seek to argue that all workers are under attack and that they need to struggle together as a class in order to defend their living and working conditions.

The point about the national interest is not beneath contempt because the unions do defend the national interests, as has been amply shown, especially when it is a case of defending the national imperialism. This is one of the reasons we say they have been integrated into the state. Thus, the integration of the vast majority of unions into the war effort in WW1 and above all in WW2 demonstrated that they nolonger had any working class content but had become part of the capitalist state.

It was also the role that the vast majority of the Social Democratic parties in the First World War, national defence, that was showed that the majority of these parties had been integrated into the state. It was the same with the Trotskyists defense of the slaugther of WW2.

Outside of situations of war the unions have defend the national interest.

The point that Baboon is making and it is a valid one is that through defending the unions you are defending bastions of the national interest. Clearly this is not your intent, but you have not shown that these institutions have done anything but defend the national interest, even though they dress this up as defending workers interests. The arguments of the unions are about the best way to run the firm, or the national economy.

For the ICC saying the unions are part of the state is not some abstraction but has concrete political implications for the class. This does not mean that members of the unions or even the union reps are conscious of the unions role in defending the national interest, but the unions have played an active role in the running of the national economy. The discussions between the unions and the boss, the state etc, the close collaboration between them all for example the social partnership in Germany. One may wish the unions were not like this, but the practice of the unions over the past 90 years has shown that they are an integral part of the defense of the national interest.

ernie

Capricorn you ask

I was going to ask something similar of Ernie. I've never denied here that during strikes his outfit distributes leaflets calling for the strike to be spread (this follows from their rather romantic view that any strike has the potential to develop into a soviet revolution) but what about the goals strikers themselves set (a wage increase, stopping a wage decrease, etc)

In our leaflets, publications and physical interventions on the picket lines, demos, meetings etc we clearly defend the demands defended by the struggling workers, and seek to show that the only way of really gaining these demands is to spread struggles or if this is not possible to seek to discuss with others workers. We seek to argue that all workers are under attack and that they need to struggle together as a class in order to defend their living and working conditions.

I don't doubt that this ("the only way of really gaining these demands") is what you say in your leaflets, but I question that this is what you really believe or even support (in the case of Wapping where the workers were on strike to get their jobs back and their unions recognised again).

The opening paragraphs of that pamphlet Beltov referred us to contains the following:

The fact that capitalism is no longer in a position to concede any real improvement in the conditions of exploitation has reduced proletarian struggles to a defensive battle against capital’s permanent attack on the workers’ living standards. The examp­les of 1936 and 1968 in France show how capital is forced to take back immediately any concession torn from it by generalised struggles of the class. But 1936 and 1968 were situations in which wage increases were followed by price rises; in both cases these were exceptions arising out of particularly large-scale struggles. The normal rule in capitalism today is not that price rises follow wage increases but the exact opposite. It isn’t a question of capital constantly trying to recoup what the workers have torn from it, but of the workers const­antly trying to resist any intensification of exploitation.

What characterises the content of workers’ struggles under decadent capitalism is not in itself the fact that they are defensive struggles (this has been a common feature of all proletarian struggle ever since the workers first confronted their exploiters), but firstly the fact that struggles can be defensive, without any hope of real victories such as were won in the nineteenth century and secondly the fact that real workers’ struggles immediately tend to put into question the very existence of the exploitative system (i.e. their tendency to become revolutionary).

These claims are what you have always said. For instance, the May 1974 issue of World Revolution states under the head "The Impossibility of Reforms" (meaning by "reform" any improvement including wage increases):

In the decadent era of capitalism no real and lasting reforms can be won by the working class. If some part of the class at certain times can fight for and get a wage increase or some such 'reform', the historic bankruptcy of capitalism demands that this be eroded or taken away immediately either from those same workers or other sections of the class through inflation, higher productivity quotas, overtime or taxation. In attempting to reduce what it is forced to yield to the working class, the bourgeoisie systematically attacks the concessions the proletariat has obtained in the past.

In other words, any wage increase gained by some group of workers can only be at the expense of some other group of workers. This of course is the old "Wages Fund" fallacy that went out with the Ark and was so effectively demolished by Marx in his 1865 talk to British Trade Unionists Value, Price and Profit.

If you really believe this - that one group of workers can only make a gain at the expense of another group - as I think you do, then it is completely illogical from your point of view to say the best way of achieving the inevitably sectional aims of some striking workers is to spread the strike.

I will only add that, as Marx explained patiently to Citizen Weston, any gains a group of workers make in terms of wage increases are made at the expense of the profits of the employer, not at the expense of other workers. And neither do wage increases put up prices (as the common or garden opponents of trade unionism claim too).

It isn't a question of 'don't fight, trust the unions' on one side or of a 'soviet revolution' on the other. It's to encourage the tendency, prevalent in the 60s to the 80s, to overcome the union framework and spread the struggle which, from their very nature, the trade unions try to prevent and compartmentalise. Capricorn now seems to accept that the unions will be actively involved in implementing job, wage and working condition cuts but qualifies this with some sort of idea that this is better than nothing. The whole history of the workers' movement shows that every time the workers make sacrifices for the national interest, which is the union's ultimate defence, they are beaten down even further and harder. In this situation the only real defence of the working class is to tend to strengthen its activity towards self-organisation and extension which, by its defence of class interest rather than corporate or national interest will come up against the trade union framework that is imposed on it. Otherwise it will be sliced up, divided and crushed and, if this extends far enough, will open the way to capitalist decomposition and generalised imperialist war. To be in the union and militate against them is to ask to be, as I was, elected as a shop steward. You have to then, as I did after some time, denounce the union and leave it. It's a messy, brain damaging business, that leaves one open to accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy. But it is not enough to call on workers to "leave the unions" but militate for the action and consciousness that will encourage workers to take their own collective action which, by necessity, comes up against the union prison; general assemblies, self-organisation and extension. I don't think that one can do this effectively from inside the unions.

Corus has confirmed that it is involved "a range of proposals" with the unions on payroll discussions. The Llanwern plant is under threat and it was this plant in 1984 that Thatcher and her clique guarenteed to keep running as long the ISTC steel union kept out of the miners' strike. I think there was also a guarantee to Ravenscraig in Scotland which, if it hasn't shut down already, is running on a much reduced capacity.

On Capricorn's question about the redundancies in my industry: it was clear who the management wanted to go and after some manoeuvring the management made it clear to me that I could have a say in my redundancy package (and another working close to me - a union member) or I could take the union agreed deal for compulsory redundancy. I choose to do the deal for myself (and my mate) and we got about two thirds more than the union deal.

Capricorn

The quote from the WR is not saying that a pay rise for this or that group of workers in immediately taken from another: ie the class is punished for having asked for a rise. What it says is that:

the historic bankruptcy of capitalism demands that this be eroded or taken away immediately either from those same workers or other sections of the class through inflation, higher productivity quotas, overtime or taxation.

This means that in the context of the historical crisis of capitalism, not that of rising capitalism in the 19th century, the class is under permanent attack general and that any pay rises etc will be worn away. When capitalism was expanding it could absorb the impact of rising wages, though as Marx's explains the question of pay also has to be seen in the context of the phases of the cycle, This lead to a doubling of real wages in Britain between the middle and the end of the 19th century. In decadence (which clearly you do not agree with) the situation has changed because capitalism is not longer an expanding system as in the 19th century and thus cannot absorb and lead to real pay rises as in the 19th century.
The question of the real pay rises in the 50s and 60s is one we are discussing at the moment.
As for the question of inflation, we do not see this as arising through pay rises but through the growth of state spending, etc.
In this general context workers still have to struggle to defend themselves but anything they win will be eaten away due to the historical crisis of capitalism. We are not saying that because this group of workers gain a pay rise another groups of workers will have theirs cuts, it is the overall crisis that causes these attacks. This underlines why we say that it is only at a class wide level that the attacks can be pushed back. It is not a question of this or that employer attacking this or that group of workers, but of a class wide offensive by the ruling class to drive down wages and living conditions. We are all under attack, it may be more intense for this or that group of workers at a given time, so the only way we can defend ourselves as a class is through seeking to struggle as a class. If we struggle in isolation we will be defended. What worries the bosses more, the union controlled strike or a strike controlled by mass assemblies which seeks to unite with other workers.

ernie

Capricorn

The quote from the WR is not saying that a pay rise for this or that group of workers in immediately taken from another: ie the class is punished for having asked for a rise. What it says is that:

the historic bankruptcy of capitalism demands that this be eroded or taken away immediately either from those same workers or other sections of the class through inflation, higher productivity quotas, overtime or taxation.

This means that in the context of the historical crisis of capitalism, not that of rising capitalism in the 19th century, the class is under permanent attack general and that any pay rises etc will be worn away. When capitalism was expanding it could absorb the impact of rising wages, though as Marx's explains the question of pay also has to be seen in the context of the phases of the cycle, This lead to a doubling of real wages in Britain between the middle and the end of the 19th century. In decadence (which clearly you do not agree with) the situation has changed because capitalism is not longer an expanding system as in the 19th century and thus cannot absorb and lead to real pay rises as in the 19th century.
The question of the real pay rises in the 50s and 60s is one we are discussing at the moment.

Sorry, Ernie, but I can't see the difference between what you say it doesn't mean and what you say it does mean. It is true that the quote says that any pay rise will be "eroded or taken away immediately" (the same phrase "taken back immediately" was also used in your anti-union pamphlet) whereas you water this down to "will be worn away" which suggests a more gradual process, implying that in fact workers could enjoy the benefit of the pay rise for a while (and that capitalism can absorb this). It is also clear that you yourself don't believe it applied in the 50s and 60s (a major concession to the facts and dent in your theory that "decadent capitalism" can't absorb real wage increases). And the passage itself does imply that if it not taken away "immediately" from the section of workers who got the pay rise it will be "immediately" taken away "from other sections of the class".

You'd have been better to have come out straight and repudiated the passage as it is wrong both factually and theoretically. Until then it must be assumed that the ICC still stands by it.

I still don't see the difference between pre-1914 and after-1914. Continuous downward pressures on wages and working conditions existed then as they did now. Pay rises, then, as now, had to be defended against attempt to wear then down and, as you imply, were worn down during the slump phase of the trade cycle. Undeniably, real wages did increase in Britain in the 19th century, and capitalism was able to absorb this. But this has been the case in Britain since 1945 too. Nearly every year since then wages have gone up more than the cost of living. This has been my personal experience (but then I've always worked in places with a union). I imagine it's been yours too.

I still don't see the difference between pre-1914 and after-1914.

It's not just a case of focusing purely on the economics - we say that 1914 is a watershed moment because the world war should that there was increasingly limited room for expansion, that expansion for one imperialism meant direct conflict with another, stepping on anothers toes immediately.

Undeniably, real wages did increase in Britain in the 19th century, and capitalism was able to absorb this. But this has been the case in Britain since 1945 too. Nearly every year since then wages have gone up more than the cost of living.

Really? I don't know how old you are, but you seem to have forgotten the late 70s / early 80s rampant inflation - the 'winter of discontent' didn't come out of nothing.... Even if you just take the last 10 years - how are you relating wages with cost of living? When the average house price (to take just one example) was 20-something times the average wage, there's something fundamentally wrong with your calculations.

This has been my personal experience (but then I've always worked in places with a union). I imagine it's been yours too

Meaningless tosh - workers in private sectors (i.e. less unionised sectors) have (generally) higher wages for equivalent work - teachers, medics etc. Having a union is no guarantee of getting a cost of living wage rise (whatever THAT is..) ask the teachers, for example... ;)

This thread seems to have become another 'lets talk about decadence' thread, by the back door....

The key aspect is - ALL workers, whether unionised or not, will be faced with a seriously (and rapidly) deteriorating situation, as todays unemployment statistics show. The key question is how the workers respond to this, whether they are able to put forward their own perspective (mass struggles, irrespective of union / sector), or whether the bourgeoisie will be able to demoralise and divert growing discontent onto their own terrain.

These are two contradictory tendencies. As others have noted, the current crisis has the immediate effect of making workers fearful about losing their jobs / homes etc, i.e. a tendency to dampen down the struggle, along with the rearing of xenophobias ugly head. At the same time, the bourgeiosie is forced to openly attack - 'reforms' of welfare, taking on companies (the banks) and then directly having to fire workers (e.g. half the Northern Rock workforce). Constant attacks on the unemployed / single mothers etc.. (These are just the ones that make the news - there are lots of cuts, e.g. in arts, local services, all sorts of social provisions - youth centres etc etc.. which never make it onto the news).

It's not only a case of the development of the mass struggle, because we saw the 'masses' struggling in the 70s/80s - but also whether there is a real political development, for example that we see an upturn in interest in political questioning / openess to revolutionary politics (a hallmark of the late 60s 'explosions'.)

baboon

Capricorn now seems to accept that the unions will be actively involved in implementing job, wage and working condition cuts but qualifies this with some sort of idea that this is better than nothing.

Actually, I don't have a particularly high view of what workers uniting on the economic front can achieve. For me, apart from ensuring the application of safety and other regulations, all this can do is to push up wages faster in a boom than would otherwise happen and slow down the fall in (real) wages in a depression. Wages are a price (the price of labour-power) and go up and down in accordance with labour market conditions. So, if we're entering into a big depression with millions more unemployed as we seem to be, we can expect the price of labour-power to fall. No wildcat action, however militant, will be able to stop this happening any more than the existing unions could. You just can't buck the labour market. So, workers are going to have to negotiate this with employers. I can understand that you find this distateful and have chosen to have nothing to do with, but somebody has to do it, otherwise the employers will do it anyway - on their terms.
baboon

The whole history of the workers' movement shows that every time the workers make sacrifices for the national interest, which is the union's ultimate defence, they are beaten down even further and harder.

Let's lay this red-herring to rest. The leaders of the existing unions certainly are nationalists, as are nearly all union members and workers generally (including those who go on wildcat strikes). So, they will frame some of their arguments as being in "the national interest". But it is only in war-time and under Labour governments (which is why I've always opted out of paying the political levy to the Labour Party) that they have justified wage restraint in this way. More normally, they argue that it is a high wage policy that is in "the national interest", for instance because, as now, this will help "the country" spend its way out of the depression (it won't of course, but that's another matter) or encourage technological innovation or whatever. I don't know if they actually believe this or whether it's just presenting the case for higher wages in a form that will be acceptable to employers and governments.

When unions negotiate and justify wage reductions in industries and firms I don't know of any case where "the national interest" has been invoked. The reason they give is "to save jobs". I agree that in many, even most cases, workers who go along with this are deluding themselves and quite often end up losing their jobs anyway (which is why, in my view, it's better to negotiate the biggest possible redundancy payments instead). But not always. The Corus case might be one of these cases, where the pay cut may be a disguised case of short-time working -- in which case being paid 90% of your normal wage for just turning up and maintaining the steel works rather than actually producing steel would be better than nothing. I don't know if this is actually the case but I just mention this as a possibility to show that things might not be as straightforward as you think.

In any case, if you really are concerned about the wages of these workers, you've got to come up with an alternative. So far, all you have in effect suggested is "soviet revolution" because, basically, you don't think that workers should negotiate with employers at all since the result is bound to be a compromise reflecting the balance of forces between the two sides (as you will have learnt from your shop steward days) and for you "compromise" = "betrayal".

"Central" to the implementation of attacks on wages, pensions and working conditions?

Royal Mail strikes 2007 - CWU continually put back strike dates, then agreed to a deal which was about the same as the one they were originally offered - this despite massive support for the strike - national strikes were delayed then called off during an ongoing wildcat and occupation which left the strikers hung out to dry.

Unison health ballot - local branches told to remain 'neutral' on accepting a pay cut, the union leaflet put the employers arguments first, any local activists who tried to agitate for strike action were witchhunted.

It's not just a case of not winning gains, it's a case of recommending and enforcing pay cuts and the rest to membership and attacking and/or isolating workers who disagree.

Not to mention the material and personal support which both those unions and their leadership give to New Labour - the governing party which is pushing through these pay cuts.

I'd say that's a pretty central place. I'm not interested in 'What if there was no union, what would happen then? eh?', I'm interested in what is actually happening in recent class struggles and for that matter previous ones. If you look at Martin Glaberman's writing on Detroit in the '60s and '70s, much the same things occurred. Union density is a product of worker militancy (or sometimes just traditions of such) within workplaces, not its cause.

miles

I still don't see the difference between pre-1914 and after-1914.

It's not just a case of focusing purely on the economics - we say that 1914 is a watershed moment because the world war should that there was increasingly limited room for expansion, that expansion for one imperialism meant direct conflict with another, stepping on anothers toes immediately.

That's true, but I don't see how that effects downward pressures on wages and working conditions in the two periods. Nor how workers should organise to try to counter them.

Undeniably, real wages did increase in Britain in the 19th century, and capitalism was able to absorb this. But this has been the case in Britain since 1945 too. Nearly every year since then wages have gone up more than the cost of living.

miles

Really? I don't know how old you are, but you seem to have forgotten the late 70s / early 80s rampant inflation - the 'winter of discontent' didn't come out of nothing.... Even if you just take the last 10 years - how are you relating wages with cost of living? When the average house price (to take just one example) was 20-something times the average wage, there's something fundamentally wrong with your calculations.

I thought it was generally accepted that "real wages" had gone up more or less continuously in the UK since the last World War. Apparently not, when this conflicts with dogma. Here's one thing I found at random on the internet which says:

More than once it has been asserted in this list that the living
standards of the working class in the USA and the UK suffered a
deep fall since the early 70's. Yet, this is not what the available
statistics on real wages (that is to say, the nominal wages divided
by the cost of living index, or the wages in terms of use values)
seem to reflect.

In the case of the USA, there is a fall of less than 10% from the
70’s to the 90’s, of which 6% corresponds to the fall from the 80's
to the 90's. But the wage level in the latter equals that of the
supposedly unbeaten 60’s.

In the case of the UK, far from falling, along the 90’s the real wages
have been 54% above the 60’s, 26% above the 70’s and 17% above
the 80's (perhaps the UK rises include some extension of the
working day, since the data are computed on a monthly basis, but
that eventuality is far from being able to account for the magnitude
of the increase).

There's also a table showing what happened (up to 2000) in the UK compared with the US and Argentina:

Real wages data (1960/64=100):

--------USA UK Arg.
60-64 100 100 100
65-69 107 113 118
70-74 113 135 122
75-79 117 137 90
80-84 112 137 96
85-89 110 157 99
90-95 104 166 79
95-99 104 178 77

I don't know how reliable these stats are but the stagnation they show from 1970 to 1985 does confirm what you say about this period. In any event, capitalism seems to have been able to have absorbed them

miles

This has been my personal experience (but then I've always worked in places with a union). I imagine it's been yours too

Meaningless tosh - workers in private sectors (i.e. less unionised sectors) have (generally) higher wages for equivalent work - teachers, medics etc. Having a union is no guarantee of getting a cost of living wage rise (whatever THAT is..) ask the teachers, for example... ;)

Well, other people in another thread here, on this subject of the trend in real wages in the UK, also gave their personal experience. Anyway, I never said that being in a union is a guarantee that your wages will go up in line with some cost of living index. In fact, we'll see that this is not so in the developing depression, but "mass action" won't guarantee this either. In a deep depression we really will see a fall in real wages. That's the way capitalism works and is what will show the relative ineffectiveness (as opposed to the total uselessness, as you claim) of unions and why workers need to organise to get rid of capitalism (rather than to get rid of unions, which seems to be your priority).

I must say it's surprising how deep your anti-unionism is. First, Demogorgon tells me that I could have got the three-year backdated pay that I did if I'd gone to some lawyer or the citizens advice bureau just as easily as I did through my union. Then, Lurch says those textile workers in Chicago who occupied their workplace could have got the same if they gone to some lawyer. Now, you're arguing that workers in non-union firms are better off than those in unionised firms. These are all arguments put by your ordinary anti-unionist such as can be found in any backwoods.

I had my say earlier in this thread but would add one point in response to Capricorn who referred to the importance of the balance of class forces quite correctly, but then treats this as purely a reflection of an externally imposed economic situation, without recognising our class as an active participant, able through our level of class organisation and consciousness to effect the economic world. I should really say the material world in all it's complexity though as capricorn also neatly divides the economic and poltical here in a totally unjustified but traditional WSM (and indeed traditional social democratic) way.

This is how the ICC and WSM participants manage to talk about the apparently same thing without ever grasping the fundamentally different basis of their approach to the relationship between the everyday class struggle (not being reduced to an economic category) and the development of the material conditions for revolutionary change.

I have to say that the ICC has the better grasp of this relationship, at least in it's historical dimension, if not in every aspect of what that may mean in our current practice as pro-revolutionaries. ( It has many other faults of course!).

The WSM participants here and on other threads continually refer back to Marx himself in relation to strategic and tactical matters completely ignoring the reality of the historical changes in modern global capitalism and the role of modern day unions. You don't have to take on board the ICC's decadence theory lock stock and barrel to be able to acknowlege these changes, which make the need for a class based, (as opposed to a sectional trade union based) mode of struggle even more essential.

I did not know that capricorn was WSM!

are we talking World Socialist Movement or Workers Solidarity Movement or something else here?

World Socialist Movement I think - SPGB specifically.

Capricorn can you help us out here?

Yes, I think Django is right. He must mean the "World Socialist Movement", though he could well have meant the "Workers Solidarity Movement" in Ireland as they, too, have a similar position to the one I've been defending:

2.2 Trade unions are not revolutionary organisations. They were formed to defend and improve the lot of workers under capitalism. Trade union struggle is an absolute necessity.

4.2 A problem which, from time to time, has manifested itself in other countries is the view that workers should leave the unions and destroy them; that no permanent organisation of workers under capitalism can avoid becoming totally integrated into the state and a tool in the hands of the bosses. The people who promote this nonsense claim that the unions are holding workers back from making a revolution ...now! This analysis is little more than wishful thinking that hopes to avoid the difficult struggle to win the mass of workers to revolutionary politics. It is of little use to an organisation that seeks to involve itself in the actual struggles of our class, warts and all. It also ignores the day to day need of workers to collectively defend themselves.

5.10 We recognise that the union structures we argue for are essentially the same as those that syndicalists argue for. In the context of union structures syndicalism thus provides both historical and current examples that demonstrate to fellow workers that such methods of organisation not only work but bring results

7.1 Our perspectives for activity within the unions are centred on encouraging workers themselves to take up the fight against the bosses, state interference and the TU bureaucracy. Our most important area of activity is on the shopfloor.

7.2 We encourage 100% union membership and all WSM members are members of their appropriate trade union. When members take up employment in non-union jobs, they are expected to join an appropriate trade union. However, depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary for some considerable time for this person to remain a secret/ "sleeper" member. The process of unionisation of non-union workplaces is extremely varied and complex. In some cases an immediate organising drive can unionise a workplace, in others it is only when a specific issue arises that workers begin to become receptive to unionisation, in yet others it will be the product of slow and undramatic work aimed at convincing people in ones and twos. The WSM members on a particular job are best placed to decide what strategy is most useful in their workplace."

7.3 No WSM member will accept any unelected position that entails having power over the membership.

7.4 Members elected as shop stewards consider their position as that of a delegate rather than that of a 'representative' who can act over the heads of the members.

7.5 When going forward for elective positions we make it clear that we are not accepting the structure as it now exists. We will fight for more accountability, mandation, information for members, etc.

All good stuff and there's more here.

World Socialist Movement eh? Capricorn finally comes clean.

On Catch's (qualified) point about some advantages to TU membership, bulk purchase of insurance, legal services, etc. These are not political advantages to workers - I'm not suggesting that Catch says they are but I'm making my point. Most of these bulk purchases could be bettered elsewhere. There may be "deals" here and there, holidays, insurance for example, but with the web these can usually be bettered individually. On legal services: one thing I saw as I rose through the ranks of the unions over a decade, was the "sweetheart" deals done between company lawyers and union lawyers. In the 30 years since then my personal experience has been either to negotiate your own deal (as I did with redundancy and got 3 times as much as the union offer - not two-thirds as I said above) or get your own specialist brief. A case in point in the recent scandal surrounding miners' compensation and the peanuts they or their dependents - eventually - received for serious and fatal diseases. It wasn't just rogue barristers that were involved in this disgusting scam, but the miners' union, both through its meetings with Beresford's, and legal relationships between the UDM legal departments and Beresfords. The details are murky, but I wouldn't want the union acting on my behalf.
The idea of "some benefits" to belonging to unions is an open door argument. There's "some benefits" to belonging to one particular insurance company rather than another. There's "some benefits" belonging to one bank rather than another... There's some benefits to belonging to Sinn Fein, the Chinese Communist Party. "Some benefits" is not the issue. It's not a survey by "Which" magazine but radical perspectives on the crisis.

Capricorn's arguments have now descended into sticking his fingers in his ears and making inane noises. He's never heard the national interest invoked in wage claims or union negotiations for wage cuts. Read the recent quotes from Tony Woodley above Capricorn - it was about a week ago. Also go back and have a look at the discussion on the 1984 miners' strike, because you obviously haven't taken any of it in. The union ideology is peppered with the national interest; they act in the interests of the state not the workers.

Capricorn salves whatever conscience he has left by "opting out" of the political levy to the Labour Party. That will not stop his union (what is that union Capricorn now you've been exposed?) talking to the government at every level, taking monies and support from the state and defending the national interest.

Finally, Capricorn is reduced to saying that all revolutionaries (the ICC in this case) offer workers is a soviet revolution. There are pages of discussion above and on other threads, where the ICC and many others defend and act in movements for the workers to take steps now in order to defend themselves against attacks and take their struggle further. Capricorn offers nothing but anti-working class trade unionism and parliamentary democracy.

On Catch's (qualified) point about some advantages to TU membership, bulk purchase of insurance, legal services, etc. These are not political advantages to workers - I'm not suggesting that Catch says they are but I'm making my point. Most of these bulk purchases could be bettered elsewhere. There may be "deals" here and there, holidays, insurance for example, but with the web these can usually be bettered individually. On legal services: one thing I saw as I rose through the ranks of the unions over a decade, was the "sweetheart" deals done between company lawyers and union lawyers. In the 30 years since then my personal experience has been either to negotiate your own deal (as I did with redundancy and got 3 times as much as the union offer - not two-thirds as I said above) or get your own specialist brief.

[..]

There's "some benefits" to belonging to one particular insurance company rather than another. There's "some benefits" belonging to one bank rather than another... There's some benefits to belonging to Sinn Fein, the Chinese Communist Party. "Some benefits" is not the issue. It's not a survey by "Which" magazine but radical perspectives on the crisis.

I repeat my point about credit unions - these are put forward as revolutionary alternatives by some groups, while we (hopefully) all agree here that that's a mystification - so would you have a problem taking out a loan from one?

baboon

Capricorn's arguments have now descended into sticking his fingers in his ears and making inane noises. He's never heard the national interest invoked in wage claims or union negotiations for wage cuts. Read the recent quotes from Tony Woodley above Capricorn - it was about a week ago. Also go back and have a look at the discussion on the 1984 miners' strike, because you obviously haven't taken any of it in. The union ideology is peppered with the national interest; they act in the interests of the state not the workers.

Re-read what I said. I did say that union bureaucrats do often invoke the "national interest" in wage claims, but to argue that higher wages are in the "national interest" (a silly argument since they are not, the "national interest" being the overall general of the capitalist class). I just questioned whether, as a matter of fact, they used this argument to argue for wage cuts, suggesting that the argument they used for this was, rather, to so-called "save jobs". I don't really want to go down this road as I don't want to seem to be defending them, but I think you're over-stating your case here. Knowing that you are an unreliable source of accurate information, I've tried to find where Tony Woodley is supposed to have argued for pay cuts in the national interest. I've found him arguing for a State subsidy to the UK car industry, but criticisable as that is too it's not quite the same thing.

So, please, where and when did he advocate pay cuts in the national interest?

baboon

Capricorn salves whatever conscience he has left by "opting out" of the political levy to the Labour Party. That will not stop his union (what is that union Capricorn now you've been exposed?) talking to the government at every level, taking monies and support from the state and defending the national interest.

So you want my class war record? I've already said that I was a member of a print union (SOGAT in the occurrence, it's now got some funny name like Amicus), then of APEX (though I prefer its original name of Clerical and Administrative Workers Union, now part of the GMB). Yes, the leaders of these unions did the things you've said (one of them is now a Baroness), but so what? I didn't agree with them, nor did many others. When I was in SOGAT I was also active in an Association of Rank and File Printworkers (which called for One Union for the Printing Industry and a ballot on disaffiliation from the Labour Party) and later with another ginger group called "Apex Action". I have been a union rep and a branch secretary. So, I do know what goes on in unions, both the good things and the bad things. That's what pisses me off with people like you, especially when I read insults like:

Representatives of the unions on the shop floor, ie, shop stewards in Britain and their equivalents in other countries, are often directly elected by their fellow workers and can appear to be very militant defenders of the workers' interests. Nevertheless, they perform the same function as unions in general; they iron out union problems between the workers and management, formulate wage demands and ruthlessly keep the self-activity of the working class within the framework of 'law and order' and wage slavery.(World Revolution, May 1974)

So not only no unions, but no workplace reps either! They're all agents of the State! How naive and ill-informed (and stupid) can you get. Who do you think organise the wildcat strikes you praise so much (and I'm not against them) if not union reps and militants at workplace level? Certainly not those who follow your advice and don't even join a union.
baboon

Finally, Capricorn is reduced to saying that all revolutionaries (the ICC in this case) offer workers is a soviet revolution. There are pages of discussion above and on other threads, where the ICC and many others defend and act in movements for the workers to take steps now in order to defend themselves against attacks and take their struggle further. Capricorn offers nothing but anti-working class trade unionism and parliamentary democracy.

Don't flatter yourself by including yourselves with other revolutionaries. I worked with some of these in the rank-and-file groups I was in and they never took up the bigoted anti-union position that you do. And I still say that you don't offer anything when you "intervene" in strikes other than "soviet revolution". I've asked you and Ernie at least two times what specific measures you advocate. You carefully avoid doing this, so that when a settlement is reached, which is inevitably a compromise, you can denounce those who negotiated it as traitors, rank-and-filists, State agents and the like.
So, I ask you again, if you really do want to help defend the interests of steelworkers threatened with a pay cut or carworkers threatened with redundancy, what are you saying they should demand, concretely, if they go on unofficial strike? What is your alternative to Tony Woodley's demand for a State subsidy? No pay cuts? No redundancies? If so, say it. And say also if, in this period of "decadent capitalism", you think this is achievable.

In the decadent era of capitalism no real and lasting reforms can be won by the working class. If some part of the class at certain times can fight for and get a wage increase or some such 'reform', the historic bankruptcy of capitalism demands that this be eroded or taken away immediately either from those same workers or other sections of the class through inflation, higher productivity quotas, overtime or taxation.(World Revolution, May 1974)

Capricorn, while I think the ICC's line on the unions is pretty flawed, you've ignored my response, with concrete examples, to your request for an explanation of them being 'central to the implementation' of various attacks on workers - perhaps because it's a less easy target?

No pay cuts, no redundancies seem like good demands to me. They could be achieved as a temporary gain if workers manage to impose a relation of force against the bosses. What exactly are you on about Capricorn?

No sooner asked, than answered.
Mike Harman

Royal Mail strikes 2007 - CWU continually put back strike dates, then agreed to a deal which was about the same as the one they were originally offered - this despite massive support for the strike - national strikes were delayed then called off during an ongoing wildcat and occupation which left the strikers hung out to dry.

Unison health ballot - local branches told to remain 'neutral' on accepting a pay cut, the union leaflet put the employers arguments first, any local activists who tried to agitate for strike action were witchhunted.

It's not just a case of not winning gains, it's a case of recommending and enforcing pay cuts and the rest to membership and attacking and/or isolating workers who disagree.

Not to mention the material and personal support which both those unions and their leadership give to New Labour - the governing party which is pushing through these pay cuts.

I agree that this is happening and that it's a disgrace to unionism but is it a case of the union form of organisation as such failing or of the policy pursued by the particular leaders of a union? In other words, is it an inevitable consequence of workers organising at work on a permanent basis to try to protect their wages and working conditions? Could the CWU have called the strike earlier and stood firmer? Could Unison have recommended a No vote? Must the workplace militants who are being victimised always be a minority? Are more militant unions envisageable?

Catch asked:

I repeat my point about credit unions - these are put forward as revolutionary alternatives by some groups, while we (hopefully) all agree here that that's a mystification - so would you have a problem taking out a loan from one?

I think I would rather get a loan from a newly nationalised bank or building society like Northern Rock - much safer than dealing with some fly by night organisation run by a bunch of anarchists, especially what with the current state of the economy, etc etc.

Capricorn asked:
Are more militant unions envisageable?

This is where drawing the lessons of history can be useful, rather than repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

capricorn

No sooner asked, than answered.
I agree that this is happening and that it's a disgrace to unionism but is it a case of the union form of organisation as such failing or of the policy pursued by the particular leaders of a union?

Looking at any number of strikes around the world or in the past we see the same patterns - the steel workers union in Russia was calling off strikes in 1917, and the CNT leadership did the same in 1937. So either there's some strange coincidence of personality flaws in all union leaders ever, or there's a structural reason why they behave that way, I know which I think is more plausible.

Capricorn

In other words, is it an inevitable consequence of workers organising at work on a permanent basis to try to protect their wages and working conditions?

Those other words don't really describe a union though do they. There's a whole layer of negotiation framework which unions - including various 'base' unions around the world have to fit into - and governments and employers have been more than willing to negotiate with 'temporary' unions or co-ordinations if the established unions lost control - say in Spain or Italy during the '80s.

Even the mass strikes, occupations and clashes with riot police in Korea are often about union recognition, as in many other places with underground/illegal unions - not that this is the sole content of struggles, but it's a factor in it.

Union leaders have to be seen to exert restraint on their members in order to be able to function as negotiators - this has little to do with day to day 'workers organising at work', and it's not a conspiracy theory either - they have to do that to stay in their job, which by nature is making deals with the bosses. It's not a 'disgrace' to unionism, it's the form and content of unionism in practice as opposed to some idealised version of it.

Could the CWU have called the strike earlier and stood firmer?

Well of course they could, but they didn't. Can't or won't?

Are more militant unions envisageable?

Well I already mentioned the (revolutionary, Bolshevik led) metalworkers union in Russia. Then there's the mass ( > 100,000) syndicalist union in Mexico which fought with the government against Zapata, the CNT calling of striking workers in '37, the UAW and many others signing no-strike clauses in the '30s/'40s, Martin Glaberman's very clear writing on the role of unions in Detroit during the '60s and '70s, then we could point to two US IWW branches signing no-strike contracts, or the negative role of the Bangladesh garment workers union in recent struggles too. So even during relatively high levels of militancy, unions have acted against their own members, against the working class at large - and new forms and organisations have been thrown up to replace them during those circumstances since - some of which were accommodated later, some destroyed, some massively reduced in number to politically-based organisations when thing died down.

Mike Harman

Union leaders have to be seen to exert restraint on their members in order to be able to function as negotiators - this has little to do with day to day 'workers organising at work', and it's not a conspiracy theory either - they have to do that to stay in their job, which by nature is making deals with the bosses. It's not a 'disgrace' to unionism, it's the form and content of unionism in practice as opposed to some idealised version of it.

I can see the point you're making here and there's some validity in it. That union leaders are in control of organisations that are selling labour power in bulk to employers. This involves negotiations ending in a contract. The deal is that in return for the union leaders controlling their members, eg by stopping any wildcat action to change the terms of the contract, the employers will guarantee to pay higher wages. Which is what they do from time to time.

I'd just make 2 points in relation to this.

1. By and large these bureaucratised unions are effective in securing a good price for the sale of their members' labour power. The figures show this. Some of the leaders are skilled negotiators and know how to exploit labour market conditions to get the best deal.

2. These organisations don't have to be democratic to be effective, as the notorious case of the once Mafia-controlled Teamsters Union in the US shows.

So, where does this leave our attitude to be to these organisations? I think most union members take a pragmatic attitude to them, supporting them as long as they deliver the goods, ie raising wages in good times and protecting them better than otherwise when labour market conditions turn in favour of employers. Which, as I said, they generally do or at least are capable of doing.

Obviously, we'd like them to be more democratic. Unions in Britain, although much more bureaucratised than they originally were, still do allow a wider degree of democratic participation than in most other organisations of the same size. So I suppose that's what we do. We join them on pragmatic grounds and try to make them more responsive to the members interests. Without supporting the organisations as such (in fact criticising them for not being democratic and for being sectional, associating with the State and political parties, etc), I don't think we should engage in the sort of crude anti-union propaganda as some here have expressed.

But of course they are not revolutionary organisations and are not meant to be, though I would think that at some point, when class-consciousness grows, they will become less business unions and more class-oriented ones (as some of them once were).

I gave the details for the Woodley quotes Capricorn. Look at it. Incidentally this trade union defender of the national interest is living in his union London apartment with a rent of 50 quid a week. Good news for the members.

It's been my experience in and around the trade unions, that most workers most of the time know that the unions are crap and self-serving. It's when the unions radicalise and go with the struggle, even instigating it, that they are the most dangerous (see the discussion on the 84 miners' strike).
But the one thing I've found throughout in workers' attitudes towards the unions is the pernicious idea, peddled on here, that the unions can offer "some benefits", "some insurance", "some protection". The role of the current miners' union in the diabolical Beresford scam against sick, dying and dead miners bears some looking at. What protection, benefits and insurance have the unions offered here? None whatsoever. Not only have they offered no protection at all but they've, at the very least, been negligently complicit in the scam and possibily knowingly complicit. Gangsterism and corruption has been an aspect of the trade unions in my working experience since the 60s. How could it be any other for an organisation that is part of a gangster and corrupt state apparatus?

Aplogies to all for my loose use of intials earlier - I was of course referring to the WSM-SPGB.

Catch is right to divert you onto his and hopefully my criticisms rather than letting you get locked into a debate with the ICC.

Please re-read my point about you and the ICC arguing at cross purposes. Underlying this dispute about our respective attitudes to the Trade Unions is a fundamemtally different understanding of the relationship of class struggle (seen as a social movement encompassing both economic and political elements) to the material development of the conditions for a revolutionary transformation of society. We are talking crudely here about the development of a situation of dual power in which the working class challenges the power of the capitalist system - economically and politically. It is this challenge which creates the potential for a mass shift in consciousness, demonstrating a real potential for change rather than something which is a good idea, but viewed by most as simply impractical dreaming by a minority of pro- revolutionaries.

Whilst non of us view every little strike or occupation in itself as leading onto such a situation of dual power we do recognise the value of workers developing an independent class based experience and consciousnees through struggle which in the right conditions provides a springboard for a much wider and deeper struggle that can challenge capitalism in a serious way..

The TU's in these situations in particular, through their previous role in 'representing' (if badly)the workers various sectional interests, inevitably act as a barrier to the further development of the class (not the TU) struggle.

I recognise, as I explained before, that in the British context (and some but not all others) struggles may start off within the confines of the Union (and as you point out may be initiated by miltant lay union officials in some cases) but it is our common view with the ICC that pro-revolutionaries need to argue for struggles to extend bejond these limits where anything other than marginal issues are at stake. It is precisely in situations where the stakes are high that this argument carries the most weight in terms of both the immediate and long term interests of our class.

The economic and the political struggle are not in real life separate struggles as the SPGB in good social democratic fashion asserts but one struggle in need of one organised class expression. Political groups can assist this process, if they are clear about this relationship but they cannot substitute for it either through the parliamentary or vanguard route.

The likes of Rosa Luxemburge and Anton Panekoek recognised all this long ago why can't the SPGB make that further break, not just from reformism but from the whole social democratic tradition.