Ask A Red: The IVth International

[Traitorfish]

Au Contraire!, read Engels' Preface to the German Edition of 1891 -- after Marx's death. It is very relevant. The reason I started with the Manifesto (that is, after you find out about your own labor situation and the national and regional and local history of progressive organizing) is that it defines the terms of the struggle -- the "unity of opposites," as it were so that one can even understand who WE are, and who THEY are. It also cleverly points out in Section III some political tendencies that still exist today.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Manifesto was irrelevant, simply that its very far from complete. And why shouldn't it be? You can't expect a text from 1848 to bear the load of explaining the world in 2013, let alone responding to it. It contains still-pertinent themes, yes, but other works address the same themes with a sounder theoretical basis and in reference to much more contemporary iterations of capitalism.

Read Where to Begin here

It does predate the soviets of 1905, but the soviets of 1905 were NOT Lenin's. This is an important debate. You are right, Lenin never deviated from this treatise -- and Lenin won.

The soviets were not Lenin's, but by 1917 Lenin was an unapologetic partisan of the soviets. His pre-1905 writings belong very much to the pre-history of Leninism, very little more than Kautskyism with a sternly-set jaw. The Lenin of "Where to Begin" and the Lenin of "State & Revolution" are not the same, regardless of the fact they shared a name and a haircut.

True. Reading Gruber's Introductionj from International Communism in the Era of Lenin will provide a context. Add to that the fact the EVERY Party that has won a socialist revolution has adhered to these principles -- even in the absence of an announced international: Russia, China, Cuba, Viet Nam. And those who continued to adhere to these principles have stayed in power: Cuba, China, Viet Nam. Those who did not either befell the "Great Power" Chauvanism of the USSR or were so heavily dependent on her that they collapsed when she did.

A red flag does not socialism make.

Those who did not approve of the 21 Conditions, most notably the German and Italian Parties, not only LOST their contest, but their nations became fascist.

Correlation, or causation? It's hardly obvious.

For some reason I find what Traitorfish says far different and more appealing than what you say. Just how ideologically divergent are you? (Or vice versa)

Near-totally, I'd say. Beyond a shared reference point in Marx (which doesn't even amount to a shared reading of Marx), I don't think that I have much more in common with your average "anti-Revisionist" than with your average liberal.

How are you guys explaining the decline of unions? Not just in traditional areas - manufacturing, government - but also the complete lack of unions in a lot of new industries? (I've long since thrown my hands up in confusion over the whole thing, since even quite savage job cuts in state government here haven't done much to boost union membership).

I think it reflects the historical limitations of the mass union as a form of industrial organisation. The function of the (mainstream, bureaucratic) unions within capitalism isn't as an organisation of labour, not fundamentally, but as a mediator between labour and capital. They deliver material well-being and even a limited say in administration to labour, and they deliver industrial discipline to capital. (Social democratic parties fulfil much the same role at a more general level.) They're about what Giddens (no radical!) described as "institutionalising class conflict". In the post-war period, that worked like a charm.

Problem is, in the last few decades, the reorganisation of the labour-process has made unions less necessary to maintain industrial discipline, while the declining profitability of capital mean that what discipline they can offer isn't much worth the cost. Unions cease to be of much use to capital, which increasingly prefers to incorporate its functions into its own, directly-controlled structures. This puts unions in a defensive position, concerned largely with preserving their own status as industrial mediator- and, if they have time, almost as an afterthought, the wages and benefits of their members- which puts expanding into newer industries very low on their priorities, while the fact that they generally aren't even very good at defensive struggle, something which has always been premised on a fast-fading usefulness to capital, undermines their position in older industries.

That's all very generalised, of course, and in reality it's all tied up in particular sectional and local issues; you can't understand the decline of British unions without the miners' strike, for example, and the miners' strike is a specifically British event. But, as a broad outline, I think that it tends to hold true.

Oh, and because it's topical:

What are your thoughts on the Catholic Church's economic teachings, and do you feel this makes the Catholic Church a force of more harm or good for the world?

I think the function of Catholic economic teachings is, by and large, to play the good cop. Preaching for justice within the terms of the existing social order is always, ultimately, an affirmation of that social order. It's the same essential role as that played by the unions and the social democratic parties that I mentioned above to Masada, delivering social discipline in exchange for material well-being.

It's hard to say whether that makes it a force for harm. Politically, I prefer the iron fist without the velvet glove. (Thatcherite declarations of "no alternative" at least have the virtue of conceding openly that capitalism is rotten through necessity, and not simply poor or unethical leadership.) But a lot of people rely on the material benefits this stuff brings about, and I'm hesitant to declare that they'd be better off in immediately greater poverty for the sake of hypothetical future prosperity.

 

[Masada]

So in this analysis, if labour (I don't want to use the word) militant in their dealings with capital, the value of the unions as a mediating force could be restored?

On a related note, if the old style unions are losing their relevance, do you see anything replacing them?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Oh come now, they are not so bad. They can behave like a tabloid sometimes, but in that respect they are no different than any other major "news" source.

I didn't say they were any better than Fox or even CNN. I hate them for praising North Korea, they had such an episode, I mean seriously, who would praise such a screwed state that masquerades as Socialist while it has an elite Oligarchy (The Kim's & Generals) that starves its people.

Apart from that I often hear the argument that "Competition is crucial for any type of development but Communism lacks it and therefore it is doomed". Also that Capitalism leads to meritocracy while Communism does not. These arguments look rather thin to me but would you mind explaining your views on them.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So in this analysis, if labour (I don't want to use the word) militant in their dealings with capital, the value of the unions as a mediating force could be restored?

Yes, but it requires two things:
1.a labor movement outside of the current strictures and confines of the labor laws that govern (and thereby restrict) unions militancy -- and effectiveness that can organize the potential scab workforce AND take the lead in the eocnomic an dpolitical fight of labour v. capital.

2. labour organizers willing to build such a movement.

On a related note, if the old style unions are losing their relevance, do you see anything replacing them?

Per above, building labor organizations outside of the restrictions that have put them in a defensive position. It is going on in the US. I am part of that.

I often hear the argument that "Competition is crucial for any type of development but Communism lacks it and therefore it is doomed". Also that Capitalism leads to meritocracy while Communism does not. These arguments look rather thin to me but would you mind explaining your views on them.

We have not seen communism in our lifetimes, save for collectives and communes that have not changed the existing social order, however, to be fair, the arguments on their own ARE weak -- that would be "Historicist." The revoluiton it takes to bring socialism from capitalism may look sudden, but it is the result of a lot of work. Therefore the movement creates a structure that makes meritocracy unreachable. You see, under capitalism, the class in power is the owning class, and they have the apparatus of government working for them.

Under socialism, the government works for the working class. It is through the building of that structure you ensure democracy. Cheezy has a lot to say on that -- and the gist is that if you build a system where people trying to take personal advantage of group resources, they stick out and can be educated, warned or thrown out. I like to say "If you want to see what happens to the support you give us, come in and help us spend it."

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I see.....

Dear sir or madam, you may be right.

 

[Masada]

1.a labor movement outside of the current strictures and confines of the labor laws that govern (and thereby restrict) unions militancy -- and effectiveness that can organize the potential scab workforce AND take the lead in the eocnomic an dpolitical fight of labour v. capital.

What industries do you think offer the best options for this?

Per above, building labor organizations outside of the restrictions that have put them in a defensive position. It is going on in the US. I am part of that.

You've alluded to the fact that you organize farm workers could you explain a bit about that? (I assume this is what your alluding too here).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Um, The Iron Heel isn't exactly "light" reading. Not a bad list. Start with finding out ther labor history in your own country/ region/ locality before hitting any of the commie stuff.

It kind of is. Ernest Everhard's arguments with capitalists and liberals, and how he explains the concepts of class struggle, the revolutionary strategy, capitalism, and socialism are extremely useful, especially to a newcomer to these ideas. I've adopted many of them myself. It also serves as a useful insight into just how wrong things can go, even if you try to change the system through "legitimate" internal methods. I find many people sympathize with communist goals, but not our methods, namely they still believe in the power of their vote within the capitalist "democracy." The Iron Heel demonstrates just how this democracy can - and very well may - be shut down when it threatens the bases of capitalist privilege.

And it's contained in a fiction book; one need not search The Grundrisse or History and Class Consciousness for it, and sort apart the academic Marxist language.

I am not a normal person But I do belive in the DOP!

You live in America?

Maryland born and raised, thanks be to God!

I didn't say they were any better than Fox or even CNN. I hate them for praising North Korea, they had such an episode, I mean seriously, who would praise such a screwed state that masquerades as Socialist while it has an elite Oligarchy (The Kim's & Generals) that starves its people.

Apart from that I often hear the argument that "Competition is crucial for any type of development but Communism lacks it and therefore it is doomed". Also that Capitalism leads to meritocracy while Communism does not. These arguments look rather thin to me but would you mind explaining your views on them.

The argument rests on an attempt to legitimize capitalists' accrued wealth. By claiming that the hard-working are rewarded with rising status and accompanying wealth and power, the enormous riches of the capitalist class are justified as the legitimate keepings of the most moral and meritorious of us all. But anyone who has ever worked a working class job knows that this is not the case. But even if it were, the keepings of the rich would still not be justified, because of how they came to get them, which is through exploitation of a social relationship with their workforce which forces the workers to accept any kind of deal in order to get a job, and those deals, drafted by the employers, will inevitably favor those employers.

Socialism, on the other hand, eliminates this possibility of exploitation, by destroying the foundation for it: private property. If the capitalist doesn't own the property, then he doesn't have control over the wages, and he cannot bamboozle and dragoon workers into corrupt relationships which allow him to accrue the wealth that they create. Thus, in socialism, a worker keeps the full product of his labor, instead of having most of it stolen away by some capitalist. The harder someone works, the more they are rewarded in turn. Since socialism is democracy, the only ones who will rise to power are the ones who earn and keep the trust of their co-workers, and the only ones can who accumulate wealth are those who work hard at the same jobs as everyone else. Thus, socialism is meritocratic.

The people who say it is not, are those who assume that socialism = the present relationship, but with lots of literal taking from the rich and literal giving to the poor. This is the only relationship they can imagine, because they have already decided that capitalists are the only people who do anything worthwhile in society, and that the rest of the society owes them an enormous debt of gratitude for creating businesses that we can work at, and for being so kind as to share some of their enormous amounts of wealth with us. It is the most derisive insult one can imagine to the working people of the world.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What industries do you think offer the best options for this?

At this point, the service industry, like Hotel/ Motel, attendant care workers, and other health care professionals, and -- of course -- migrant, seasonal work, and farm work. What they all have in common is this: you are permitted to form a bone fide AFL-CIO union with any of these workers, BUT you are not afforded the "benefits" of government protection for your right to organize. In a sense, you have some recognition, but the employer does not have to recognize you. The SEIU (Service Employees Int'l) and UNITE/ HERE (needle trades and hotel/ restaurant workers) have vibrant active organizing drives and aggressive, motivated leadership, so there is some hope in that respect -- however, when the employer wants to bring in the government, the "Iron Heel" comes down and the employers end up having the law on their side.

Rather, with those workforces that unions have a hard time organizing, like farm workers and independent contract labor, temp workers, et al, is where my folks come in -- we do not represent workers, but teach them the skills to organize their own organizations and fight for control over their living and working conditions -- all the while building ties with the rest of the 99.5% of us whose interests are advanced when the lowest workers earn a living wage.

You've alluded to the fact that you organize farm workers could you explain a bit about that? (I assume this is what your alluding too here).

Partially, yes. I can't be specific, as other eyes are watching, and I don't want to tip my hand, BUT, think of it like above -- organizing workers into their own autonomous organizations in the workplace or in their neighborhoods, and teaching them how to get the ways and means to fight for control. This does not put them at odds with the family farmers -- many of whom support my work because we also provide benefits for their workers -- keeping them healthy.

It [The Iron Heel] kind of is [light reading]. Ernest Everhard's arguments with capitalists and liberals, and how he explains the concepts of class struggle, the revolutionary strategy, capitalism, and socialism are extremely useful, especially to a newcomer to these ideas. I've adopted many of them myself. It also serves as a useful insight into just how wrong things can go, even if you try to change the system through "legitimate" internal methods. I find many people sympathize with communist goals, but not our methods, namely they still believe in the power of their vote within the capitalist "democracy." The Iron Heel demonstrates just how this democracy can - and very well may - be shut down when it threatens the bases of capitalist privilege.

And it's contained in a fiction book; one need not search The Grundrisse or History and Class Consciousness for it, and sort apart the academic Marxist language.

Of course. I meant that for the uninitiated, reading about the violent history of US labor can be shocking. No more shocking, I suppose, the Labor's Untold Story! As I said, good list.

FYI Bertoldt Brecht has one of my favorite quotes: "There are those who struggle for one day, and they are good. There are those who struggle for one year, and they are great. There are those who struggle for many years, and they even better. But those who struggle their entire lives, they are indispensable." (Loosely remembered from the Spanish to the English from a Silvio Rodriguez song.)

By claiming that the hard-working are rewarded with rising status and accompanying wealth and power, the enormous riches of the capitalist class are justified as the legitimate keepings of the most moral and meritorious of us all. But anyone who has ever worked a working class job knows that this is not the case. But even if it were, the keepings of the rich would still not be justified, because of how they came to get them, which is through exploitation of a social relationship with their workforce which forces the workers to accept any kind of deal in order to get a job, and those deals, drafted by the employers, will inevitably favor those employers.

Socialism, on the other hand, eliminates this possibility of exploitation, by destroying the foundation for it: private property. If the capitalist doesn't own the property, then he doesn't have control over the wages, and he cannot bamboozle and dragoon workers into corrupt relationships which allow him to accrue the wealth that they create. Thus, in socialism, a worker keeps the full product of his labor, instead of having most of it stolen away by some capitalist. The harder someone works, the more they are rewarded in turn. Since socialism is democracy, the only ones who will rise to power are the ones who earn and keep the trust of their co-workers, and the only ones can who accumulate wealth are those who work hard at the same jobs as everyone else. Thus, socialism is meritocratic.

The people who say it is not, are those who assume that socialism = the present relationship, but with lots of literal taking from the rich and literal giving to the poor. This is the only relationship they can imagine, because they have already decided that capitalists are the only people who do anything worthwhile in society, and that the rest of the society owes them an enormous debt of gratitude for creating businesses that we can work at, and for being so kind as to share some of their enormous amounts of wealth with us. It is the most derisive insult one can imagine to the working people of the world.

Exactly. Well put. We who work for a living give very little credence to the criticisms of our class antagonists.

Thanks, Cheezy, for keeping it real.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Brecht has two of my favorite quotes as well:

"Your father was a bandit,
a harlot the mother who bore you,
yet honorable men
shall kneel down before you."
- from The Caucasian Chalk Circle

"Who fights for Communism has of all the virtues only one: that he fights for Communism."
- from The Decision

And yes, the violence in US labor history is indeed shocking. To learn about Cripple Creek, Ludlow, and Blair Mountain required a strong drink afterwards. Labor leaders being lynched, the entire IWW having its doors kicked in on the same night, and half of them literally deported to Russia (they were put on a boat and dumped on the shore in Siberia), it is very intimidating and leaves one with a sense of helplessness at the sight of what can happen when The People organize.

 

[ace99]

Blair Mountain is the best(worst) they used aircraft to BOMB striking miners.

(But we don't need to worry about domestic drones because the government would never do that to us!)

 

[Traitorfish]

So in this analysis, if labour (I don't want to use the word) militant in their dealings with capital, the value of the unions as a mediating force could be restored?

Potentially, but it would also require that unions were able to contain that militancy and effectively, and that it was worth the cost for capital to engage with them. Most times, in most places, co-opting working class organisations has come a solid third to dissolving them through appeals to communal/national unity or outright coercion.

On a related note, if the old style unions are losing their relevance, do you see anything replacing them?

I'm not sure. It may be that permanent organisations themselves lose their relevance. A lot of strikes in Asia are conducted without the presence of a formal union organisation, or at least not more than nominally, and while this doubtlessly has a lot to do with employer and state repression, especially in China, it may also be that it simply represents a more effective response to current conditions. Can't say.

 

[Takhisis]

Ye Wee Traitorfishy, don't ye think that it might be because triads predate the Western-style trade unions?

 

[ace99]

What do you think of company unions, which I hear are fairly common in Japan?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Blair Mountain is the best(worst) they used aircraft to BOMB striking miners.

(But we don't need to worry about domestic drones because the government would never do that to us!)

See John Sayles' Matewan if you get a chance. It takes place inthe same time period, West Va. Good lesson in labor organizing and in the virtue of taking a side.

While you're at it, watch Herb Biberman's Salt of the Earth. Workers get to win that one!

What do you think of company unions, which I hear are fairly common in Japan?

Speaking for myself,
I was a member of a company union and they successfully convinced workers to accept a pay cut durjng some of their best sales years.

No, sir, the only organization that works is when only the workers' interests are served.

 

[Old Hippy]

See John Sayles' Matewan if you get a chance. It takes place inthe same time period, West Va. Good lesson in labor organizing and in the virtue of taking a side.

While you're at it, watch Herb Biberman's Salt of the Earth. Workers get to win that one!



Speaking for myself,
I was a member of a company union and they successfully convinced workers to accept a pay cut durjng some of their best sales years.

No, sir, the only organization that works is when only the workers' interests are served.

On unions and their place in the struggle it seems, that the US system, lacks the same will to organize, that you encourage at the grass roots level, at the national level between unions

while in other places the one big Union concept has been on going since 1911(Australia),forming major political parties(winning government at times), a council of trade Unions,that produces political leaders... even Prime Ministers,
So my question is "Why haven't the abilities of organizers been successfull at the national level, or is it something that US unions avoid..."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Americans came up with the One Big Union (IWW) concept, until it was completely eviscerated during the First Red Scare.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

On unions and their place in the struggle it seems, that the US system, lacks the same will to organize, that you encourage at the grass roots level, at the national level between unions

while in other places the one big Union concept has been on going since 1911(Australia),forming major political parties(winning government at times), a council of trade Unions,that produces political leaders... even Prime Ministers,
So my question is "Why haven't the abilities of organizers been successfull at the national level, or is it something that US unions avoid..."

Thanks for the query. (And thank you, Cheezy for handling the One Big Union Question and the IWW which could be the subject of a whole book (or several -- it is

See my earlier posts on the subjects of Union in the United States. We in the States have the unique position worldwide in that our labor union movement predates our revolutionary socialist movement -- and situation that Jay Lovestone, one-time Communist Party USA chief who later became a professional anti-communist for the AFL, called "American Exceptionalism." So, what you had were unions dealing solely with bread and butter issues (See Lenin's What is to be Done Section IV: The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organisation of Revolutionaries) without dealing with the question of political power. Anyway, here's the first quesitoion from Masada and my original answer (For your consideration):

How are you guys explaining the decline of unions? Not just in traditional areas - manufacturing, government - but also the complete lack of unions in a lot of new industries? (I've long since thrown my hands up in confusion over the whole thing, since even quite savage job cuts in state government here haven't done much to boost union membership).

Well, lucky you, I am a labor organizer. The decline of US unions has little to do with the subjective motivation of labor leaders to be sure. It has, in part, been due to the National labor legislation starting with the 1935 "National Labor Relations Act," which was passed in reaction to 6 General strikes in 1934, including the SF General strike, where for six months, even the police were on strike, the UNIONS (Teamsters, Machinist and longshore workers) ran the city. The NLRA or Wagner Act "allowed" a certain sector of the workforce to organize -- it excluded farm workers and domestic workers, as well as employees of independent contractors. Well, some, like John L Lewis (NOT a communist) said "Let's do it -- get the unions going and then get to the unorganized. Use this tactically." He took his industrial unions, raised a treasury and started the CIO.

Well, after WWII, another Red Scare happened and congress passed the Taft-Hartley amendment which outlawed all of the tactics labor used to win in the 1930s. Since 1947, the percentage of workers in unions went down, while in 1970, the actual numbers of unions went down. Unions' hands in the US are tied by labor laws, so that left 70 - 100 million workers untouched by union organizers, legally.

Don't despair, there are unions organizing the growing number of service workers, and there are organizations reaching those who are not organizable unto unions. These organizations lack organizers. That is one of the things do -- train organizers.

FYI: Eugene Debs got a million votes as socialist party candidate when running against Woodrow Wilson in 1916 -- and he got them from JAIL!
(c.f. Labor's Untold StoryBoyer and Morais, UE Publication.

As Cheezy alludes to in his last post -- the One Big Union thing didn't cut it, certainly not after 1916 and the Palmer raids put all of them in jail. I say MORE organization of the workers, not less.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well let me say, I'm an enormous supporter of the One Big Union policy and the Wobbly Theory. I just don't know how to fight back against this seemingly inexorable anti-labor tide, the most recent culmination of which is this horrible "right to work," aka, anti-closed-shop laws. And there are so many working class people who think this is freedom for them, to not be forced to join a union! It's maddeningly stupid, it literally infuriates me to hear people tout support for Right to Work, which is about as similar to an African American defending racism against themselves as it can get.

 

[Azale]

What are all of your stances on immigration in general and the immigration policy debate going on in the US right now?

What are all of your stances on the Occupy Wall Street movement?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What are all of your stances on immigration in general and the immigration policy debate going on in the US right now?

Amnesty or a path to citizenship for all immigrants not guilty of crimes other than illegally entering the country. I voted for the amendment in Maryland last November, which passed, allowing resident immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.

What are all of your stances on the Occupy Wall Street movement?

As in, what it was in its heyday, or what it is today? Is it even still around? It seems to me that its time has come and gone, I don't know what they expect to accomplish now.