DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

NY Transit Strike

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Jan 10 2006 11:14
NY Transit Strike

Hi,

There hasn't been much discussion here of the significance of the NY Transit Strike that took place just before Christmas. Our comrades in the US have written a statement on this important struggle, which has been published here: http://en.internationalism.org/inter/137_ny_transit_strike

They think that...

Internationalism wrote:
On behalf of a working class that has been enduring a full scale attack on its pensions, transit workers essentially drew a line in the sand and refused to accept any change whatsoever in the pension. They struck to protect the retirement pension of workers who are not yet on the job, what they called “our unborn” – their future, unknown colleagues. As such, this struggle became the clearest embodiment of the movement to reaffirm working class self-identity and solidarity to date. ... It resonated with many workers in many industries, who can see that someone had finally stood up and said, “Don’t mess with pensions!”

The reaffirmation of the working class’s ability to see and comprehend itself as a class could be seen on many levels and in many manifestations in the transit struggle. Clearly the central issue itself – protection of the pensions for future workers – embodied this aspect. This was not just on an abstract level, but could be seen and heard on a very concrete level as well.

Internationalism wrote:
For example, at a picketline at a bus depot in Brooklyn, dozens of workers gathered in small groups to discuss the strike. One worker said he didn’t think it was right to strike over the pensions for future workers, for people we don’t even know. His co-workers countered by arguing that the future workers affected by accepting the cuts in the pensions, “could be our kids.” Another said it was important to maintain the unity of different generations in the workforce. He pointed out that in the future, it would be likely that the government would try to cut the medical benefits or pension payments to “us when we retire. And it will be important for the guys working then to remember that we stood up for them, so they will stand up for us and keep them from cutting our benefits.” Similar discussions occurred elsewhere around the city, clearly and concretely reflecting the tendency for workers to see themselves as a class, to look beyond the barriers of generation that capitalism seeks to use to divide them against themselves.

Other workers driving by the picket lines honked their horns in solidarity and yelled cheers of support. In Brooklyn, a group of teachers at a nearby elementary school expressed their solidarity by discussing the strike with their students and brought their classes of students ranging in age from 9-12 years old to visit the picket line. The kids brought Christmas cards to the strikers with messages like, “We support you. You are fighting for respect.”

The children were assigned by their teachers to interview the strikers, and the kids asked the workers what kind of jobs they did and why they were striking.

The day after the strike was over, one of our comrades boarded a city bus and had a conversation with the driver that illustrated the strides made in this struggle. After he paid his fair he told the driver, a 35-year old Latino worker, “You guys did the right thing.”

The driver responded, “But we didn’t win. We went to back to work without a contract.”

“But what really matters is what you did. You said don’t fuck with pensions, workers need to stick together, no matter what. It’s an important example for other workers,” said our comrade.

To this the driver replied, “Yeah, it’s true. It was important that we stood up for the working class.”

The attacks on pensions are becoming a central concern for the working class, and not just in the UK. What does everyone else think?

Beltov.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 10 2006 12:36

Hi

There is little I find less enjoyable than having to agree with revol, however...

Quote:
I don't think nationalisation in Britain was a significant working class gain

All those final salary pensions that are being closed down, and which private sector workers are going to have to bail out with longer hours and lower pay, are in formally nationalised industries and the public sector.

Without primary industrial activity, the money supply is too fragile for us too afford the "social wage", the loss of which revol (seems to) lament.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 10 2006 12:54

Hi

Quote:
What you planning on doing about it then?

Reopen the coal mines to give us free energy, bury the carbon monoxide under the sea. Promote working class autonomy using a media stunt campaign. Start an immediate programme of reindustrialisation and the creation of self managed enterprises.

Quote:
It's not just the 400 quid thats the issue is the very concept of a social wage.

This is quite an interesting point. Before water privatisation you could get locked up for not paying your rates, now they’re more or less forced to negotiate “arrangements” with people who can’t pay. The problem is that the price is higher (N. Ireland was let off privatisation ‘coz the bailiffs would be kneecapped, there’s a lesson there for comrades in the South West of England).

Quote:
the very concept of somethings not being left wide open to market forces

In what way is there an open market for water supply? The reason why they get away with selling our water back to us at a profit is because they operate a state monopoly by proxy. They call it “market forces” to distract Bolsheviks into their usual set of irrelevant histrionics. The irony is that water company stock exchange profits fund final salary pensions, what’s required here is bit of real consumer democracy.

Perhaps a solidarity campaign aimed at workers within the water (and for that matter pensions) industry is called for. I can imagine a few pro-working class "computer errors" might help alleviate our financial difficulties.

We could write off working class debt and clear our water bills with a few key strokes.

Love

LR

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Jan 10 2006 19:43

The fight for pensions is important because it speaks of the bankruptcy of the entire system. Workers don't want to die on the job. They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest. If capitalism can't even offer that anymore (and it can't) then it will dawn on us that the system itself needs to go.

About privatisation, I think it is just a way tof attacking workers' living standards and jobs. The problem is when we start fighting privatisations in themselves rather than seeing them as one way among many to achieve the bourgeoisie's goals. These same goals can be achieved through nationalisations. Hugo Chavez is a master at this.

Workers ought to fight the attacks on workers in whatever guise they come.

The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 10 2006 20:26

Hi

Quote:
They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest.

We want more than that you commie, stop selling us out!

Live Without Dead Time, Indulge Untrammelled Desire.

Love

LR

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 10 2006 21:04

from another thread:

Quote:
also, gave moral support (i can walk just about everywhere i need to go, lucky sod) to the TWU (me da's old union) strike, in the face of incredibly vicious attacks even from previously worker-friendly press (though many who were discomfited still rallied to the workers, which was beautiful).

there was a moment when the metro-north workers hinted that they'd strike in solidarity, and it looked as if there might actually be a real live demonstration of industrial unionism. it would have been an amazing thing to see. but then they didn't walk.

that was my disappointment: that other unions hinted at a mass walkout, then didn't. i keep reading the IWW talk about the power of industrial unionism, and here we would all get a demonstration of it, but ... nothing.

the TWU has been a tough (by US standartds) union, and the fact that they walked at all is a breath of fresh air. the last time (3 years ago) however they folded, and toussaint had to stay tough this time, and carried through pretty well, though there are still TWU board members who are calling for rejection of the health-care contribution, and to walk out again. all this has actually created debate in the mass press on many facets: unionism itself, benefits, salaries, even capitalism. that sort of talk has been unheard for AGES.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 10 2006 22:36

Hi

Quote:
The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.

Yes it is nice. Having said that, the more workers that belong to the existing fund then the larger and more profitable that body of capital will be. By keeping the fund open to new members, those who are currently enjoying its benefits are looking after their own best financial interests the expense of workers in the private sector with pensions backed by the stock market rather than tax.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 10 2006 22:46
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
The fact that workers in the U.S today could go on strike for the welfare of future workers was quite a step forward in solidarity.

Yes it is nice. Having said that, the more workers that belong to the existing fund then the larger and more profitable that body of capital will be. By keeping the fund open to new members, those who are currently enjoying its benefits are looking after their own best financial interests the expense of workers in the private sector with pensions backed by the stock market rather than tax.

Love

LR

Lazy you really have no belief in any kind of unselfish action.

Incidentally it does not follow that larger funds are more profitable, in fact smaller funds are often more profitable because they do not affect the market by trading.

Quote:
They want a decade or so at the end of their lives to rest.

Who does? I want 10 years before, not at the end. I'll be incontinent, my cock won't work and Lazy will be dead and won't be able to amuse me.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 10 2006 23:08

Hi

Quote:
Incidentally it does not follow that larger funds are more profitable, in fact smaller funds are often more profitable because they do not affect the market by trading.

True. But ongoing, growing, public sector defined benefit pension funds topped up by tax are more profitable that closed ones with a shrinking, aging membership.

They are also easier to default on after everyone in them has retired. What are they going to do about it? Withdraw their labour?

Do have any investment tips for us, Jef? If you had a few thousand to invest, where would you put it in the best interests of the working class. (Careful revol, I know where you'd like to put it).

Quote:
Lazy you really have no belief in any kind of unselfish action.

I have no “belief” in anything but the awesome power of the working class acting ruthlessly to its own game plan.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 10 2006 23:39
Lazy Riser wrote:

Do have any investment tips for us, Jef? If you had a few thousand to invest, where would you put it in the best interests of the working class.

I just put a grand into an ISA but I can't honestly say that it was for the good of the working class. I don't really know shit about nuts and bolts investments. If you have any info Lazy I have some money I'd like to stash for a holiday in a few months.

I'd like to make some money quickly, if you have any advice.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 00:26

Hi

Mate, if I had a cast iron way of making money fast, I'd be sure to let all my comrades in on the secret. I was thinking of fitting curves over price movements of key stocks, taking first order differentials and predicting turning points, but as revol68 puts it, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 11 2006 01:22
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi

Mate, if I had a cast iron way of making money fast, I'd be sure to let all my comrades in on the secret. I was thinking of fitting curves over price movements of key stocks, taking first order differentials and predicting turning points, but as revol68 puts it, if it was that simple everyone would be doing it.

Love

LR

it doesn't sound that simple to me.

Crime is a good way of making money fast, I have a few ideas but lack the nerve. I have a criminal mind and a coward's disposition.

I've got a new job, which pays better, so I am going to get some more cash. I'm trying to accumulate capital right now.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 11 2006 10:04

Karl Marx was rubbish at making money on the stock exchange. His mother is supposed to have said "if only Karl was as good at making capital as writing about it", which shows she was still a Jewish mother at heart.

However, this discussion has gone totally off topic. It was supposed to be a discussion about the NY transit strike, class solidarity, and the difference between class demands - such as the defence of wages, jobs, benefit and pension levels etc - and bourgeois slogans like 'defend the nationalised industries'.

Alibadani pointed out that privatisation (and nationalisation) is often used as a cover for real attacks on working and living conditions; the attacks have to be fought, but workers have no interest in choosing between private or state bosses.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 12:45

Hi

Quote:
afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.

This is true. But do you remember the "if you see Sid, tell him" campaign when British Gas was privatised? The BT shares deal was also heavily sold to the “aspirational” working class, not to mention BT staff themselves, who were happy to give up “job security” for the sake of a quick return.

Even now, when everyone’s sold their shares back to the banks, we’re still being told how BT’s privatisation has made phone calls much cheaper than they’d otherwise be.

It’s all connected up too. I used to work for a subsidiary of previously nationalised Rover that had been sold to AT&T and had a Rover style Final Salary Pension. AT&T sold the subsidiary, and employees had to transfer their pensions into a private sector fund, which was a quite shit in comparison. On they way, most of them (not the mighty LR, I hasten to add) were convinced to “contract out” of SERPS, yet another pension con played on the working class. They all had letters last year telling them to buy they’re way back into SERPS at considerable cost. Looking back on it, I’m not even sure it was legal, but in small companies it’s unlikely that anyone will have enough job security to “rock the boat”.

Love

LR

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 11 2006 12:45

I wasn't accusing Revol of raising the pro-nationalisation slogan. But the Trotskyists and anti-globalists use the struggle against privatisation in exactly that sense.

When the bosses introduce attacks on wages, jobs, etc under the cover of privatisation, we have to respond to the attacks as such, not demand that the state remains in control.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 13:01

Hi

As an occasional public sector employee I can vouch for it being a complete doss compared to having to meet the performance targets required in private industry.

When you look at the income and assets of these firms, you realise that they’re not just imposed because “capitalists are evil” either, if you don’t do something to bring cash in, there really will be no money to pay anyone’s wages. And woe betide you if turn up at the dole office having left “voluntarily”, nasty business.

Love

LR

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Jan 11 2006 16:13
revol68 wrote:
Who has ever raised the slogan "defend nationalised industries"? Sounds like something the Sparts would put on a banner.

My point was that privitisations struggles are essentially about workers defending themselves from further attack, afterall privitisation is always something pushed by captial and hardly done in the interests of the working class.

Revol, you seemed to be saying that it's a 'lesser evil' for the water to remain in 'state' hands rather than in 'private' hands, and in a sense implying that in an anti-privatisation campaign you would defend a call for water to remain in state hands. It's similar to other campaigns promoted on Libcom, such as the campaign to 'defend council housing' here:

http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7341

You're right to say that privatisation is not done in the interests of the working class. There's a seperate argument to be had about why the ruling class uses privatisations, and to what degree state capitalism has actually extended its grip on society during the past 20 years.

But what we're saying is that the leftist's defence of 'state ownership' is a great trap for the working class. The NY Transit Strike is a good example that even under state ownership the working class is being attacked. The employer, the MTA, is in effect the local authority if I'm not mistaken. If you look back to the '60s and '70s the nationalised industries (coal, motors etc) made hundreds of thousands of workers redundant. What we do defend is the working class raising demands against attacks on pensions, wages, jobs because these are 'class' demands they are common to wider sectors of workers, and as such can pose the foundation for the generalisation and unification of struggles.

Anti-privatisation campaigns that defend 'state ownership' as an advance for the working class tend, on the one hand, to divide 'private' and 'state' employed workers against each other - for example in the health, postal and transport sectors. Also, such campaigns are divisive at the international level as they pit 'British' workers against 'American', 'German', 'Chinese' workers etc. During the miners strike the NUM raised the defence of 'British Coal' against 'Polish' imports, thus tying the workers to the interests of the national capital rather than those of the intenational proletariat.

The working class has to defend itself against ALL attacks AS A CLASS, regardless of whether the attacks come from 'private' or 'state' bosses. So YES to class demands that unify the class and strengthen its self-identity, and NO to demands that tie the class to the interests of the national capital!

Beltov.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 16:57

Hi

For the love of man, Beltov, you know what my politics are like, and even I can see that your pendantic application of orthodoxy to revol's position is impractical, not to mention irrational.

This is going to be "1939" all over again, isn't it. Stopping privatisation is not "defending the left of capital", it's a side-effect of class war.

Love

LR

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Jan 11 2006 20:03

You guys, the problem is that many workers and others DO see state ownership as inherently better in itself than private ownership. The leftists certainly preach that all the time. You'll notice that very few workers in Venezuela are out fighting against nationalisations. None of the leftists are out fighting nationalisations. Why is this? Is it not because they feel that state property is better that private porperty?

Aren't the workers and peasants in Bolivia calling FOR the nationalisation of natural resources there? WHY? Isn't that , and I'll quote revol, "some great belief in nationalisation"? Nationalisations can be used to attack workers living standards just as well and perhaps even better. Just look at Venezuela. Look at what Chavez did to the petrol workers there, or what he's doing to state workers as well. He has managed to do what the rightists could only dream of, all in the name of "socialism." Workers find themselves fighting for one set of bosses who screw them just as hard.

This is gettting repetitive. But I guess that's what it takes. When revolutionaries intervene in the struggles of workers we must try and clarify things. We must encourage the struggles against the attacks on workers. We must also discourage any illusions in state property. We must explain (patiently) that privatisation is a way among many to attack our jobs and living standards, but that the problem isn't privatisation per se. It is the state itself that is spearheading the attacks on us. It makes no sense to defend state property as if that were some sort of safeguard against the attacks of the state.

I hope you'll expand on the argument that fighting against privatisations isn't a defense of state property. Also, maybe you could you start a thread calling for a fight against nationalisations in Venezuela, since we all know that nationalisations have been just as disastrous for Venezuelan workers as privatisations have been to workers elsewhere?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 20:56

Hi

Quote:
the problem is that many workers and others DO see state ownership as inherently better in itself than private ownership

The problem, I think you’ll find, is bourgeois control of the economy. Whether or not workers prefer the public sector is based on the net wage on offer (which is a combination of income, job security, low work tempo and status). It’s a fair point though, it’s much easier to get a mortgage or good value rented accommodation if you work in the public sector, the lenders/landlords are less likely to have regular payments interrupted. The pensions are better as well. Regardless, the discovery that workers prefer a higher real income is hardly a problem; in fact we’re going to rely on that if we ever want to achieve anything politically worthwhile.

Quote:
Aren't the workers and peasants in Bolivia calling FOR the nationalisation of natural resources there?

Even if the use of “natural resources” in place of “companies” there isn’t a cynical twisting of language to win a point for the sake of it, it certainly looks like it. Anyway, cite your sources for the workers and peasants in Bolivia calls for the “nationalisation” of firms, I could just as easily recast it “protect our net incomes”. Nationalisation may well be the only option the bourgeoisie are offering though, I’m not contending the spirit of your position here. I saw the SWP calling for the renationalisation of Rover the other day, not the working class. Peasants calling for nationalisation? That I’ve got to see.

Quote:
I hope you'll expand on the argument that fighting against privatisations isn't a defense of state property

Why? Are you being sarcastic? I think so. Please show how allowing it to happen is in the best interests of the working class, really, I’d appreciate it.

Now, any Internationalist that wants to post anything that does not address that issue directly, please do it on a different thread. We have a war against the bourgeoisie to fight on this one.

Love

LR

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Jan 11 2006 21:58
Quote:
As an occasional public sector employee I can vouch for it being a complete doss compared to having to meet the performance targets required in private industry.

Lazy, I really thought I'd educated you out of this fiction for a moment the other day. Do you seriously still believe that the public sector isn't contorting itself to death trying to meet performance targets?

plus its not a complete doss. its increasingly insecure as i've pointed out on other threads. where exactly is this public sector nivana you have inhabited?

education? health? housing? do tell.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 22:14

Hi

Planning, "Housing Personnel" and Highways. Come on, you've got to admit it's better than commission based telesales (which drives a lot of business in the private sector, I can tell you). You've admitted yourself that it has its advantages, you're just habituated to the good things and bored with everything else.

These "performance targets" you talk of, do you get laid off when you don't meet them? Or do you get a special task re-appraisal and extra training? My local council's got a "no redundancies" policy, and pensioners getting visited by bailiffs to pay for it too.

Not that it worries me, just a fact of life.

Love

LR

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Jan 11 2006 22:26
Quote:
Peasants calling for nationalisation? That I’ve got to see.

Revol PLEEEEEASE inform LR about this.

This is why I don't respond to LR. It's hard to know if he's serious. I understand the whole comic relief role he plays but thi time..... I mean everyone knows the demands of the protesters in Bolivia: convene a constituent assembly, nationalise hydrocarbons, recognise the Aymara Indian nation etc.

Source: every news agency on earth including libcom's sources. LR knows this (he must) so what on earth is that quote about?

I'm assuming LR is serious when he asks, "Please show how allowing it to happen is in the best interests of the working class, really, I’d appreciate it. "

I'd appreciate the answer to this question: Please show how nationalisations in Venezuela are in the best interest of the working class? One last time. The problem isn't privatisation it is the sytem's bankruptcy which makes these attacks inevitable and increasingly severe. So the workers should fight back wether industry is being privatised, nationalised, modernised, streamlined, updated, downsized or whatever.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 11 2006 22:31
Quote:
Revol, you seemed to be saying that it's a 'lesser evil' for the water to remain in 'state' hands rather than in 'private' hands, and in a sense implying that in an anti-privatisation campaign you would defend a call for water to remain in state hands

He is saying it is the lesser of two evils. He is saying that privatisation is being done to screw more money out of people and should be resisted, I'm sure he would not defend state control of water against a worker's soviet but that is not the issue.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 11 2006 22:32

Hi

Quote:
Please show how nationalisations in Venezuela are in the best interest of the working class?

They are not. They will proliferate state-capital in the long run. I expect others may disagree, but that’s my position for the sake of argument. Now, simply, please explain how allowing the subsidised price of water in Northern Ireland to increase is in the best interests of the working class.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 11 2006 22:48
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
Please show how nationalisations in Venezuela are in the best interest of the working class?

They are not. They will proliferate state-capital in the long run. I expect others may disagree, but that’s my position for the sake of argument. Now, simply, please explain how allowing the subsidised price of water in Northern Ireland to increase is in the best interests of the working class.

Love

LR

clearly the proletariat have been bought off with cheap water. Losing that privilege will inspire them to throw off their chains, isn't it obvious. If only I could help the working class by oppressing them...

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 12 2006 00:47
Beltov wrote:
The employer, the MTA, is in effect the local authority if I'm not mistaken.

you're only very slightly mistaken. the MTA is a NY state - not NY city - authority. under its charter it does not have to open its books to the public, as a city (i.e. local) agency would. just before the strike the MTA announced that it had an "unexpected" $1 billion surplus, and gave discount rides for a while, which wasn't a bad thing, but they also gave the TWU an excellent and absolutely valid reason to demand more money. which they didn't, aiming instead to preserve benefits, which the strike pretty much succeeded in preserving.

on the whole, the strike worked, for this reason and the ones i mentioned above.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 12 2006 01:05

Hi

Quote:
Peasants calling for nationalisation? That I’ve got to see.

I thought you meant nationalising “their” land, not gas, which as a natural resource is slightly different from nationalising, say, a car manufacturer. But I wouldn’t want to stoop too low in the mire of pedantry. I concede your point, here’s a picture…

Yep, they do look like peasants. Could I escape by saying that the “nationalise” mantra is being articulated by “left wing groups” rather than from within the peasant ranks itself? No? Fair enough.

Anyway, is it possible to prevent water prices rising in N. Ireland? Anyone? I’m not sure if it’s a cause that can be won, but I’m open to persuasion.

Love

LR

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Jan 12 2006 07:39

ill answer your response on your insults thread LR later today, so i don't derail this one.

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Jan 13 2006 14:59
alibadani wrote:
The problem isn't privatisation it is the sytem's bankruptcy which makes these attacks inevitable and increasingly severe. So the workers should fight back wether industry is being privatised, nationalised, modernised, streamlined, updated, downsized or whatever.

Alibadani has hit the nail on the head really. What lies behind ALL of the attacks is the global economic crisis of capitalism , which has been going on for over 30 years now. It is the pressures created by the economic crisis which push the bourgeoisie to de-regulate their economies, privatise certain industries and attack the social wage.

The principal target of these attacks is the working class. In its defensive struggles against these attacks the working class comes up against a number of obstacles. The first is the trade unions, that since 1914 have been integrated into the workings of the state. Their role is to faithfully do whatever they can to sabotage the struggles of the working class by keeping them within the union rule-book, the state's laws, and derailing them into deadend campaigns such as 'defending the union'. The unions are aided and abbetted by the far-left wing of the bourgeoisie, (the Trotskyists, Maoists and 'official' anarchists) who put forward propaganda in favour of state-ownership and nationalisation, defence of the trade unions and a whole barrage of lies and bourgeois positions to confuse and disorientate the working class, to take it off its own terrain and onto that of the bourgeoisie. Then there are the more visible arms of the state: police, army, courts, prisons...

As an international, militant communist organisation the ICC intervenes towards the manifestations of the class struggle: picket lines, general assemblies, demonstrations etc. in order to put forward alternative positions to those of the bourgeoisie, what we consider to be the genuine class positions. And while we are a very small organisation, we take every opportunity we can to intervene in the real world (and not *just* in our 'ivory towers' or cyberspace!) to the best of our abilities, and have been doing so for over 30 years.

To give a few recent examples:

- Our comrades in Sweden intervened towards a demonstration in October 2005 around the strike at SL-Connex.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2005_sweden_transport_leaflet.html

- Our comrades in India intervened towards the struggles at Honda in the summer of 2005

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2005_hondaindia

- Our comrades in Germany intervened towards the struggles at Opel and Karstadt in October 2004.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_germany.html

- Our comrades in France intervened towards the struggles of the workers in the education sector against the proposed penson reforms in the spring of 2003.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/266_notre_intervention.htm

The central theme in all of our interventions has been to highlight the common cause of these attacks - the chronic economic crisis that capitalism finds itself in - and which it cannot solve but only fight off by making the working class pay for it. And the economic crisis itself is just one expression of the historic decadence of capitalism, which is the root cause of all the war, poverty and environmental destruction. In the struggles to come it is the responsibility of revolutionaries not to strengthen the illusions and lies consciously pushed by the unions and the leftists, but to point out clearly and patiently the total lack of positive perspective capitalism has to offer humanity. This is a conclusion that increasing numbers of workers and those from other classes who are concerned about what the future holds are coming to on their own accord. It is this questioning and searching for alternatives that the ICC is actively supporting, whereas the bourgeoisie is seeking to crush.

Beltov.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 13 2006 16:38

Hi

Yes, yes comrade. We all understand this, but this isn't "Introductory Thought" you know. I'm just a "normal" working class person, how does any of this help me, exactly?

Love

LR