A 15 minute video; a workforce, 85% female, paid some of the lowest wages in the world; expressing some of the highest levels of class struggle in the world at present. Trade unions have very little influence or restraint on these struggles - they are self-organised by workers on the job. When strikes turn riotous, they often spread into the wider working class community.
Part 1 illustrates aspects of slum life, factory work and the massive 2006 workers' revolt.
Part 2 shows the extent of recent clashes in the garment sector...
Videos here;
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdiWWo_008M
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUFJYlyG8-Y
Comments
Thanks...very interesting and
Thanks...very interesting and inspiring, will forward.
This was interesting. But
This was interesting. But where are the communists?
What? That's a pretty vague
What? That's a pretty vague question. You mean politically-identified communists? AFAIK there are only tiny trotskyist and stalinist groups in Bangladesh who have little connection with workers and no influence on garment workers' struggles. But these workers' struggles have more 'communist' tendencies and potential, IMO, than the antics of most self-proclaimed 'communists'.
Quote: AFAIK there are only
Well I don’t consider them communists. There seems to me to be a lot of potential, and that a political party uniting all the garment workers with each other and other workers could be an effective force.
I agree but I’m not interested in any Trotskyist or Stalinist group, but how these workers are actually organized. Don’t you think such potential is wasted if not united behind an effective force which has clear demands to put forth? Burning factories is one thing, demanding higher wages is another as is calls for increased union presence, but I think its another stage altogether when workers begin forming their own organisations - e.g some sort of mass assembly - to put forth their demands or to seek their goals. From the video it seems that they were organized on the level of striking workers alerting other workers in nearby factories who would join, which would be v. effective if it was just several factories. But when 50,000 workers are involved new forms of organization are required to be effective, simply owing to the size, don't you think?
Hmm, that's a rather
Hmm, that's a rather different question from "but where are the communists" isn't it? On the one hand, you seem to be saying "if only there was a group of self-identified communists with a good theoretical understanding of communism to propagandise the masses" and on the other "if only the workers had organised themselves into a mass meeting or communist party to articulate their demands".
Of course, both are interesting questions, but to equate the two smacks of Leninism to be honest - bringing a communist understanding of how to fight to the struggling workers through an external group of communist militants.
EDIT: Jesus fuck I just realised I called someone a Leninist over the internet.
I'm an anarchist.
Help.
Quote: On the one hand, you
Well, I don't think like some Trotskyists that the struggle for revolution is a struggle for the (correct) leadership, and that if only we had the correct leaders or party then our goal could be reached. But I also see organisation as a weapon.
I would support this.
I don't think I advocated this, but nor do I think there is anything wrong with militants bringing a communist viewpoint to struggling workers when they are not part of those struggling workers (i.e. they are external). In fact, I think the fundamental aim of communists should be to unite all workers across trade and location. I don't think I have to be a Bangladeshi garment worker to point out that neither the unions nor the parliament is a step forward, which seems to be already understood by the most militant sections of these workers. If that makes me a Leninist, I'm not really concerned? IMO these sorts of situations typically organically create organizations, sometimes councils, I was asking whether there was any existence of them.
Illien wrote: This was
Illien
Sorry, but the above does not equate to this;
If you don't want to be accused of Leninism I suggest you express yourself more clearly. You seem to go from seeing the need for external communist influence to the need for workers self-organisation.
??Workers regularly put forth very "clear demands", they're not stupid enough to risk death from bullets for no reason. You seem to think making demands is impossible without a formal 'official' organisation - trade unionists and Leninists think the same.
You are equating the emergence of certain organisational forms with increased radicality - 'if there were mass assemblies'.... which can be true, but assemblies, workers councils can have conservative content and/or be set up or become dominated as manipulative instruments by 'communist' parties. Or just express the conservative limits of the working class.
I don't know enough, unfortunately, about how garment workers organise on the ground. But the existing unions have admitted they have very little influence at all. We can assume there must be some form of collective decision making on courses of action - these struggles have been going on for decades - whether it sometimes conforms to our notions of assembly or not I don't have a clue. I agree that struggles need to develop their form and content - but am wary of projecting onto them simple prescriptions based on very different cultural and historical experience.
Illien wrote: This was
Illien
There's the National Garment Workers Federation, although Ret has been critical of them in previous discussions and they only represent about 23,000 out of two million garment workers. I don't know what kind of view they take of the riots and the burning of factories - or whether these were completely independent of the unions.
Solfed article from 1996
Interview from 2009
And on youtube
Interview with NGWF president Shahida Sarkar
The NGWF and Primark
Interview with an NGWF member
thanks for this. Very
thanks for this. Very interesting. I read the solfed article from 1996 but will give the others a look.
But the NGWF is not communist
But the NGWF is not communist - either in self-identity or stated goals. They seem to be the most grass roots union, closest to garment workers. But even they admit they have little influence over actual workers' struggles;
They seem to function more like an NGO; providing legal training and advice, lobbying governments for legal improvements etc.
And the relations with the IWW were afaik over a decade ago, consisting of a visit and some correspondence for a year or so. This led to them being mistakenly described by some as an anarcho-syndicalist union. As I understand, they never joined the IWW, IWA or similar.
I believe they made an
I believe they made an application to join the IWA, but this was refused as they were not anarchosyndicalists
I don't think they applied to
I don't think they applied to join in the end - although I may be wrong about this. Presumably there's still some kind of contact with both the IWW and the IWA - the photo in my previous post is from this year, as is this.
How much you can read into it is another question - most likely giving support to FAU is a case of showing solidarity to people who have supported the NGWF in the past. I'm sure they wouldn't call themselves anarcho-syndicalists. I'd guess that the more active members would call themselves Communists of some kind - although again I could be wrong about this.
this probably isn't the right
this probably isn't the right place for this discussion - but that "photo" looks photo shopped to me...
JH's 1st pic comes from this
JH's 1st pic comes from this article about the Martin Luther King commemoration day organised at the NGWF HQ in Dhaka; http://www.iww.org/en/node/4931
There's some horribly liberal stuff from the IWW in there;
So realpolitik kicks the IWW's 'the working class and the employing class have nothing in common' well and truly out the window.
So advocating pacifist tactics rather than the militant struggles the garment workers actually often use.
So now the IWW is functioning as an NGO lobbyist of Bangladeshi and US government officials. Nothing remotely radical in any of this.
I.e., crude reformism is unashamedly necessary for recruitment drives?
Some of the things the NGOs do for them may even be of some benefit to garment workers, and the IWW has independently organised benefits for NGWF - but I can't see what the class-collaborationist NGO tactics have to do with the supposed revolutionary aims of the IWW.
well you can either be "for
well you can either be "for all workers" or you can have revolutionary principles, but you can't do both. but that's another thread.
But the IWW could still give
But the IWW could still give support to garment workers without replicating/interacting with NGO-type tactics.
Yes it could, but it rejects
Yes it could, but it rejects the idea of political membership criteria, and is internally democratic, so it's no surprise they come out with less-than-revolutionary statements.
In the UK at least you only need to confirm you're a worker and will "study" the aims/constitution, not even agree with them, which leaves the preamble as a bit of a historical relic.
OK, I see what you're getting
OK, I see what you're getting at now.
Steven wrote: this probably
Steven
Why would garment workers want to photoshop a banner rather than make one?
But to make a banner like
But to make a banner like that seems a massive waste of effort - as 99.9% of garment workers won't read English or know what the issue is about. I very much doubt it would be used for more than that photo.
That sounds quite
That sounds quite possible.
There's another IWW article here which at least has more to say about the NGWF than the IWW.
http://sisyphuspeak.blogspot.com/2007/07/bangladesh-national-garment-workers.html