The role of the unions (continuation from Rachael Dolezal thread)

[Pickman's model]

It's a needless argument about an interesting discussion imo.

so urban the right place for it.

 

[crossthebreeze]

Sorry i've been at work

iww and this german lot: forget the bureaucracy, did they implicitly acknowledge that a) capital existed; b) that in furtherance of workers' grievances negotiation was necessary; c) that the revolution not happening tomorrow so good if union recognised by employers?

IWW: a) See the preamble to the IWW constitution: "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common." etc. b) and c) Not in the early (pre 1938) IWW: the IWW refused to sign contracts with employers and there was an emphasis of direct action and constant struggle, but mostly worked around pay and conditions etc. Nowadays admittedly things are watered down, although they are moving back towards this with practice "solidarity unionism" which "seeks to win gains and build power through direct action tactics, rejecting concessionary bargaining".

AAUD a)yes they were communists (including council communists) b) no they were against all negotiation with employers or state - they were more like workplace-based revolutionary groups. They endorsed direct action. c) they thought the revolution was imminent and were against recognition anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're missing my point, once again. The point isn't a big or small fight. The point is raising demands that the union structure cannot accommodate.

Well the narrow point was originally you calling unions bourgeois in foundation. The wider point is the lived reality and lived problems of people. Fine to raise such demands, but what real problems does that directly address? What is the prospect of success? These are real problems that need sorting out now - the offer of martyrdom to a coming revolution is not going to get you anywhere at all, and neither is labelling unions bourgeois by their nature. That does not build anything.

To an extent we are talking past each other here, because I think what you are on about is irrelevant, and vice versa. But I do also think that your theorising has led you to make absurd statements that bear no relation to reality, and that ought to make you stop and think about where you've gone wrong.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Well the narrow point was originally you calling unions bourgeois in foundation. The wider point is the lived reality and lived problems of people. Fine to raise such demands, but what real problems does that directly address? What is the prospect of success? These are real problems that need sorting out now - the offer of martyrdom to a coming revolution is not going to get you anywhere at all, and neither is labelling unions bourgeois by their nature. That does not build anything.

To an extent we are talking past each other here, because I think what you are on about is irrelevant, and vice versa. But I do also think that your theorising has led you to make absurd statements that bear no relation to reality, and that ought to make you stop and think about where you've gone wrong.

Oh christ. So now instead of attempting to refute the theory you call my theorising (which, might I add, is the standard left communist position) absurd and out of touch with reality.

And, no, I don't appreciate being talked down to without someone seriously engaging with my points. So indeed there's no point in continuing this debate, but because you're pugnaciously claiming to be an expert on something you don't understand, not because my theorising is absurd or out of touch with reality.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Depends. As my example of the new courier union shows, I think. In that example, the union still very much is the workers. It was set up by couriers for couriers. What it might mutate into over time, who can say? But to call it bourgeois in formation, which was the claim, makes no sense to me.

The structure of a trade union - general membership, then the layers of representatives (local, regional, national) - is very much a bourgeois form. It relies on stratification and on centralisation of power. While the structure of the emergent union you're talking about is probably currently flatter, if it takes off and becomes affiliated, it can't help but follow that bourgeois form, unless the membership are syndics.