Stark Contrast
The Labor Now conference held at the University of Montana last Saturday provided the local Wobblies with a great forum to demonstrate the difference between addressing symptoms and attacking the actual problem. The keynote speakers both came from respected "progressive" mainstream labor rights NGOs and proposed policy for reforming institutions, or for more "rights" to be bestowed upon the deserving workers by the benevolent grantors in order to curb the excesses and abuses of capitalist penetration. The IWW representative ( our own Che Bob)pointed out, in the words of Simone de Beauvoir that "there are no 'excesses' or 'abuses' here, simply an all-pervasive system" and he provided a radical critique of that system, probably not heard in Missoula since Frank Little spoke here.
These labor rights organizations, funded by who knows who, are all about "collaborative"efforts between labor, government and business to make happy and nice for everyone for ever after. We call bullshit. We refuse to be counted among those "well intentioned" who are willing to trade the "expansive,magnificent concept of justice" ,as Arundhati Roy so eloquently puts it, "for the far more fragile discourse of human rights." What the Wobblies prefer to talk about is worker POWER and it woke a few people up from the old conference doldrums. It seems to me that the optimistic La La Land in which these intellectuals dwell is subversive to the degree that they subtley disregard the notions of equality and parity and settle for "decent" wages and a "first step" up the ladder of development. Especially when they are speaking to idealistic young students facing real questions of how best to do some good in the world, this diminished discourse needs challenging. What was interesting was the inability of anyone else on the panel, including the representative of mainstream unionism, to provide any examples of where all their hours of work with their large budgets had affected any real positive structural change or gave us any reason to be hopeful. If the Wobs had their resources sparks would fly! Decent my ass.
posted by troutsky @ 8:58 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
Your point is very clear. One cannot simultaneously improve capitalism and overthrow it. It would be working at cross-purposes. The more successful all those labor types are at improving the lives of ordinary Americans within capitalism, the harder it will be for you to convince people to overthrow it.
I have a solution for you - join the far-right wing of the Republican party and try to sabotage the labor movement from that end.
Lenin would call it "hightening the contradictions". Until you achieve that, no revolution for you...
Is it just me or do
Naked women say the durndest things...followed by laughter?
Sonia,
I couldn't agree with you more! Seriously, we run the risk of institutionalizing mediocrity (which only benefits a select few) every time we collaborate with liberals. We also make possible a road to treachery and betrayal at the hands of capitalist reformers that the Spanish anarchists learned about all too well in 1936.
It's highly unlikely that I would ever go so far as to join any right-wing anything even if it meant speeding up the process. I prefer "heightening the contradictions" of "progressive" or "liberal" critiques just the way we did this weekend by calling into question their devilish gifts: rights without justice!
I can only find "heightening the contradictions" + Lenin, at rightist sources, without explaining exactly where that was used.
The professional organizers measure their worth, by how long they are employed.
The labor movement sabotages itself, by staying married to Democrats, who have nothing to give back.
We are thinking about going to starbucks, walmart, etc.. and passing out some Wobbly stuff. If nothing else, perhaps it will scare them into spending money by bringing in professional union busters.
Well hello Che Bob. Good to see you're back at it. But what is with all you anti-liberalites. I personally find mediocrity comforting. Not all that nasty pressure to excel. But I'm with you all the way on that justice thing. Justice is important.
We all get your flawed point sonia, reiterated here ad nauseum.But whereas capitalists (even the 'liberal' variety) are to often willing to "destroy the village in order to save it", the anti-capitalist left can walk and chew gum at the same time. We often help people with their objective conditions through social programs.And yes, these programs do soften the sharp edge of capitalism, but we COMBINE our help with a radical critique, thereby organizing for the future as we help in the here and now.We explain to workers that they wouldn't need state or NGO welfare if they had power in society.There is no need to heighten the contradictions of capitalism, they are organic and prevelant enough.We need to heighten the workers AWARENESS of these contradictions.Unfortunately, this is what the "progressive pink tide" of social democrats to often fails to do, to continue on to a revolutionary (call it evolutionary if you want) restructuring.
Che Bob: we run the risk of institutionalizing mediocrity (which only benefits a select few) every time we collaborate with liberals. We also make possible a road to treachery and betrayal at the hands of capitalist reformers.
Troutsky: anti-capitalist left can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I don't agree with both your politics, but at least Che Bob's argument is logical. Troutsky's argument is completely illogical. Nobody can IMPROVE and DESTROY the same thing simultaneously. When a labor union negociates a huge pay raise for its workers, it's rather difficult to then convince those same workers to overthrow the capitalist system. More likely, instead of overthrowing capitalism, those workers will be demanding tax cuts and voting Republican...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Winning reforms helps socialists, not hurts. Only reforms aren't ends in of themselves.
If you win the street light in the poor neighborhood, flaunt it. I certainly would. The street light is the final goal, but bettering lives and winning fights, is what politics is about.
Again I agree with Sonia on at least one point.
When a labor union negociates a huge pay raise for its workers, it's rather difficult to then convince those same workers to overthrow the capitalist system. More likely, instead of overthrowing capitalism, those workers will be demanding tax cuts and voting Republican...
To a very large extent Sonia is dead on accurate in explaining why mainstream professional unions are rightfully criticized by the IWW. Mainstream unions negotiate for contracts that stall/dampen/assuage worker discontent thereby extending the back and forth gains and losses of the working class. Many gains were made by unions 50 years ago, only to see those gains widdled away by business and their bedfellow: government.
Furthermore, mainstream union bosses have notoriously done the bidding of big business. They are not interested in seeing an end to capitalism as their long-term mission. Therefore, mainstream unions have no interest in education for the rank and file. How could any of no who to fight or the first thing about that which perpetuates our misery since we know public education has no interest in seeing this happen and the business world is our organic enemy.
I told Troutsky the other day that I would be happy to see the kinds of social benefits enjoyed in many of Europe's countries right here in River City right now, but that wish for something "decent" or "mediocre" may be my weak knee. Perhaps reform and band-aids prolong the misery.
This debate haunted anarchists in Spain for 70 years prior to the Spanish Revolution: to vote or not to vote? To work for some reforms or fight for the whole thing uncompromisingly?
A simple exercise for all us to try is to ask ourselves if we want to exert our energy for "improved capitalism" or an end to it?!
When I referred to walking and chewing gum at the same time, I was referring to organizing for increasing worker control in the work place (a measure of "firing the boss" by depowering him/her); EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION; and using the power of effective organizing and international worker solidarity to topple the system. General strikes, sabotage, and power through solidarity. This also means having uncompromising position against state and capital!
Che: That's why I'm not an anarchist. Capitalism can't be overthrown with strong principles alone. You also need tactical flexibility. It's not a compromise to vote, for a candidate, from a mass party, based in the working class. Just because you support a candidate, doesn't mean you endorse the candidate. I'd vote for Hugo Chavez, Obrador, Bhutto etc.
My comrades serve in the Parliment in Pakistan, representing Bhutto's party, as open socialists. At the same time we have no illusions about Bhutto. Her father had a socialist program when he was in power. We will remind the daughter.
Winning reforms give people confidence. I know Troutsky understands, between reform demands and revolution demands, there is a third kind. Ask Troutsky in private to decipher what I'm saying.
Ren,
Your tone sounds awfully condescending, as if I'm incapable of understanding what you mean to say and that I need a father (Troutsky) to explain things to me.
That's not the case at all. My analysis is based on historical evidence. You may believe yours is too. Unfortunately, you cannot point to a single historical example where political parties (socialist or otherwise) were successful in achieving true justice for the working class.
On the other hand, there is one glaring historical example where the working class achieved unequaled social and economic example: the Spanish Revolution. The reason? No politicos, no leaders, no bosses, no elites. In this one instance, 2 million Spanish anarchists led themselves towards an unprecedented social revolution--abolishing prostitution, the wage system, distributing property and wealth across society, etc., etc. What was the main cause of the end to this social revolution? Treachery and betrayal on behalf of socialist and communist politicos! Not surprisingly, both of these political parties were seeking to slow the social revolution. Despite popular demand, socialists and communists were working for reform within the Spanish Republican Government. Therefore, socialists and communists were uninterested in seeing further advancement of the social revolution unless they could have control over it.
Sorry Ren. I just disagree with you. Reform (and most voting) is a recipe for collusion with state and capital.
Che: Not meant to be condescending. I was being cryptic, talking about this subject with both leftists and rightists, in the same forum.
I admit there were too few Trotskyists to play a major role in Spain. The PUOM was close to Trotskyism.
As long as classes exist, there needs to be a state. The anarchists didn't know how to galvanize their gains in Spain. A state apparatus was needed.
In Venezuela do you tell people not to vote?
I was careful to say "most" voting. On a case by case basis. I vote for mil levees and school board members, etc. I'm not Venezuelan, so I don't tell them what to do.
Thanks for the clarification about the cryptic nature of your last comment.
Where are you getting the analysis that the anarchists didn't know how to galvanize their gains? They were fighting on all fronts, fascism and the socialist/communist treachery. According to my research they were moving along well but were being undermined by the state.
Che: See this.
Can't you get yourself to say you would vote for Chavez?
I would no more want Chavez to be my leader than Troutsky, Trotsky, Sonia or you. So NO! I would not vote for him.
Thank you for sharing Felix Morrow's piece. I am sorry however, but I do not share your enthusiasm for this narrative. There is overwhelming evidence and subsequent reason that cannot support it. Even Bolloten's work itself would contradict much of Morrow's narrow perspective. For instance, the POUM was not a significant player and never was. Numbers themselves belie this fact.
A bit off the topic, but have you read any work by Jose Triana, the Cuban playwright? It's a powerful commentary on leaders ("benevolent" and otherwise).
Hell, I think of myself as trustworthy and kind as a potential leader, but I wouldn't want to be a leader or be followed. I would prefer we find ways to empower others to lead themselves. Chavez, like so many cult-like leaders, has utterly failed to prepare the next generation of leaders. He cannot share the power/spotlight with anyone!
Bring Marie Trigona in on this discussion, I'd be interested to hear her perspective on leaders.
interesting, I have thinking about this issue as well. i just read rudolph Rocker's book on anarcho-syndicalism and I am going to read one on workers' councils next.
Are there any major differences between council communism and anarcho-syndicalism?
I think CheBobs point about "case by case" analysis is a way forward. If we reject dogmatic thinking and trust our logic based on dialectics combined with humanist and deeply democratic values we see that "leadership" can mean anything from educating to helping a person down a steep trail to facilitation abilities. None of which have to exploit power relations or oppress. Another issue which confronts us is the idea of "transition", the time between a rupture, or opening in a society and achieving your goals. This is the period which seems ripe with opportunity for reactionary forces exploiting those whose consciousness hasn't caught up with events. The modern Left must avoid the pitfalls of 1917, 1936 and 1968.
Getting back to Sonia's "heightening contradictions", none of us would advocate standing by while someone suffers in the hopes they would become angry enough to revolt. We want their revolt to be reasoned , not impassioned.
Politics are never as pure as we might like and the perfect candidate never arrives.Similarly, historical accounts rarely reveal the full range of contingent factors, nuances and complete context of social forces at work and reduce events to ideological basics.Just as I might vote for Hillary while building the IWW I might vote for Chavez while building a strong countervailing power.Im not going to vote for Rudy (or Nader) in the hopes things will get worse.
Chavez is organizing, one of the largest socialist parties in the world. It is not the party or program, I would organize, but it sure provides an opening.
I believe in joining mass parties, based on the working class, or with some socialist connection as the PPP in Pakistan.
I generally agree with Troutsky, and strongly agree with him about Sonia's comments. We need confident, educated fighters.
I don't believe the group on this blog does this. Some totally support Chavez, or Cuba etc without criticism. I think it's best to analyze events, acknowledging strengths and weaknesses. From that base tactics.
I support Chavez, but only endorse my comrades.
Mike Ballard (MikeB) has a new blog at:
http://iamawobbly.multiply.com/
Graeme, I havent done much research at this level ( the distinctions seem to get finer and finer) but some info at syndicalist.org goes into the Proudhon/ Bakunin debate over private ownership of property (Bakunin rejected) and over approach, Proudhon advocating a more reformist creation of a "new society within the shell of the old". Sort of like Chavez!
By the way, thanks for everyones input on this topic, it is the kind of discussion I think those hoping to build movements need more of.I may be naive in my faith in discourse, but I think progress is being made (slowly) towards a new -new left.
Post a Comment
<< Home