File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0112, message 63


From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: re: the real movement definition again
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:14:15 -0600


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


The following is from the Echanges et Mouvement's Presentation Pamphelet.  I think it captures the points made by Monty and others rather well.  It presents workers as a bit too unconscious, I think, but not too much so.  I have had interesting conversations with two co-workers this week who are reading Fundamentalist Christian novels and they are as interested in the way the books talk about people having computer ID chips placed in their hands and the de-humanization and mechanization of all life as much or more than about anything specifically religious.  Clearly, the religious writers here have found a way to reach into and describe in very vivid terms the problems which touch a whole layer of working class people.  What they will do with from here obviously is not clear.  I think that consciousness is important in such a situation in so far as the religious consciousness tends to find ways to reintegrate people, but at the same time my co-workers may go places with this material that the authors would absolutely not want because their existence drives them that way.

I am also pasting something from As We See It beneath this.

"4. The break with any form of exploitation or political practice and thought (reformism, etc.) is not a matter of theoretical discussion and conceptions but a matter of class struggle and workers' practice, a practice which is the result of their daily conditions of exploitation.

5. Trade unions are institutions in capitalist society whose function is to regulate the labour market. To be able to do so, they have to keep a balance between on one hand workers' interests (trying to maintain the loyalty and the
    support from the workers) and on the other hand the interest of capitalists (trying to maintain the confidence of as well as their usefulness for management.) But in modern capitalism the historical trend pushes toward their complete integration. Performing their initial function in these conditions they are more and more transformed into mechanisms of disciplining the workers. Calls for rejecting the unions or for their support or for reforms have no meaning at all. It is more important to see what is the specific and concrete role of unions in the development of class struggle. One has to be well aware of the fact that the same rank and file workers who at one time support unions will oppose them in practice when their own interests force them to go against the present social order. In general we can say that particularly in the highly developed countries the post-war development of class strulggle has greatly reduced the possibility of mediating between the classes and has created a situation where workers find themselves permanently
    opposed to the unions. The same development of the actual class struggle has rendered obsolete any kind of syndicalist project.

6. For similar reasons it is useless to call for the rejection or support of parliamentarism. The fate of parliamentarism depends exclusively on class struggle inside the capitalist system. Whatever may be the reason for those who want to call themselves "revolutionaries" not to participate in parliamentary work or not to vote in an election workers have other reasons when they don't go to the polls. If they stay at home on election day, they don't do so with revolutionary ideas in mind. They abstain because parliament, parliamentary parties and politicians don't have anything to say to them, because they have understood none of the poltical parties is defending their interests and that it does not make much difference if this party or another is in office.  On the other hand workers who go to the polls and share parliamentary illusions will not refuse to participate in unofficial strikes or factory occupations if they seem necessary.
    Both categories behave in the same way in practice irrespective of their attitude in elections. They do so without a revolutionary theory about parliament and without being conscious that they are attacking the order of bourgeois society."

>From As We See It
"4.  The trade unions and political parties cannot be reformed, 'captured', or converted into instruments of working class emancipation. We don't call however for the proclamation of new unions, which in the conditions of today would suffer a similar fate to the old ones. Nor do we call for militants to tear up their union cards. Our aims are simply that the workers themselves should decide on the objectives of their struggles and that the control and organisation of these struggles should remain firmly in their own hands. The forms which this self activity of the working class may take will vary considerably from country to country and from industry to industry. Its basic content will not.

7.  Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the
   participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their
   cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."

As We Don't See It

4.Because the traditional parties cannot be 'reformed', 'captured', or converted into instruments of working
class emancipation - and because we are reluctant to indulge in double-talk and double-think - IT FOLLOWS that we do not indulge in such activities as 'critically supporting' the Labour Party at election time, calling for 'Labour to Power' between elections, and generally participating in sowing illusions, the better at a later date to 'take people through the experience' of seeing through them. The Labour and Communist parties may be marginally superior to the Conservative Party in driving private capitalism along the road to state capitalism. The trad revs would certainly prove superior to both. But we are not called upon to make any choice of this kind: it is not the role of revolutionaries to be the midwives of new forms of exploitation. IT FOLLOWS that we would rather fight for what we want (even if we don't immediately get it) than fight for what we don't want ... and get it.

The trade union bureaucracy is an essential component of developing state capitalist societies. The trade union leaders neither 'betray' nor 'sell out' when they manipulate working class struggles and seek to use them for their own ends. They are not 'traitors' when they seek to increase their material rewards or to lessen the frequency with which they have to submit to election - they are acting logically and according to their own interests, which just happen to be different from those of working people. IT FOLLOWS that we do not urge people to elect 'better' leaders, to 'democratise' the unions or to create new ones, which under the circumstances of today would suffer exactly the same fate as the old ones. All these are 'non-issues' about which only those who have failed to grasp the real root of the problem can get worked up. 

The real need is to concentrate on the positive task of building the alternative (both in people's minds and in reality) namely autonomous job organisations, linked to others in the same industry and  lsewhere, and controlled from below. Sooner or later such organisations will either enter into conflict with the existing outfits claiming to 'represent' the working class (and it would be premature at this stage to define the possible forms of this conflict), or they will bypass the old organisations altogether."

These two pieces are somewhat different in perspective, but I think that they are both worth reviewing.  If we keep in mind the idea of defetishization, we certainly do not support voting, trade union reformism, etc.  That does not mean that we wage campaigns every year to not vote or to not participate in unions.  Our task is to show the limitations of these activities, how they are used to reincorporate us, etc.  At the same time, why should I blame the 97% of African Americans who voted against George Bush?  Bush and Gore were not the same.  The problem for us is not to say that they are the same.  Its just to show that neither is a solution, something workers will learn through their own experience, not through our leaflets and reading groups.

Cheers,
Chris


----- Original Message -----
  From: Montyneill-AT-aol.com
  To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:57 PM
  Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: re: the real movement definition again


  Perhaps we should look at elections as a form of wages. To receive a wage means to accept the employer as a boss, to thus participate in the reality and the illusions of the system - even if one wishes one did not. To struggle for higher wages can imply one accepts the system, just wishes a better deal; or that one is trying to get along in a system one is otherwise battling to supercede.

  Elections can be thought of this way - an effort to get a somewhat better deal in the system, with no definite statement either way about deeper beliefs in the system.

  Thus, at times I vote in referenda or even for a person who probably will help produce slightly better deals for the most screwed-over, maybe some housing or medical care or a raise in the minimum wage. By doing so perhaps I contribute to the general illusion of elections as a means to more fundamental change - or maybe it is just one of those compromises of survival that I no know one escapes.

  Electoralism as an ideology for basic change is a dangerous illusion - just as are higher wages if one concludes higher wages make the system just, etc.. But I'd rather be paid better than worse, and at times will vote for that little raise.

  I would note that the forms of solidarity gained by direct struggles (strikes, for example, of the sort commie00 noted) are vastly more powerful in potential than any election - so elections are weak, I think, even for reformism.

  Going away for most of a week, thanks for good conversation and thought,

  Monty

HTML VERSION:

The following is from the Echanges et Mouvement's Presentation Pamphelet.  I think it captures the points made by Monty and others rather well.  It presents workers as a bit too unconscious, I think, but not too much so.  I have had interesting conversations with two co-workers this week who are reading Fundamentalist Christian novels and they are as interested in the way the books talk about people having computer ID chips placed in their hands and the de-humanization and mechanization of all life as much or more than about anything specifically religious.  Clearly, the religious writers here have found a way to reach into and describe in very vivid terms the problems which touch a whole layer of working class people.  What they will do with from here obviously is not clear.  I think that consciousness is important in such a situation in so far as the religious consciousness tends to find ways to reintegrate people, but at the same time my co-workers may go places with this material that the authors would absolutely not want because their existence drives them that way.
 
I am also pasting something from As We See It beneath this.
 
"4. The break with any form of exploitation or political practice and thought (reformism, etc.) is not a matter of theoretical discussion and conceptions but a matter of class struggle and workers' practice, a practice which is the result of their daily conditions of exploitation.

5. Trade unions are institutions in capitalist society whose function is to regulate the labour market. To be able to do so, they have to keep a balance between on one hand workers' interests (trying to maintain the loyalty and the
    support from the workers) and on the other hand the interest of capitalists (trying to maintain the confidence of as well as their usefulness for management.) But in modern capitalism the historical trend pushes toward their complete integration. Performing their initial function in these conditions they are more and more transformed into mechanisms of disciplining the workers. Calls for rejecting the unions or for their support or for reforms have no meaning at all. It is more important to see what is the specific and concrete role of unions in the development of class struggle. One has to be well aware of the fact that the same rank and file workers who at one time support unions will oppose them in practice when their own interests force them to go against the present social order. In general we can say that particularly in the highly developed countries the post-war development of class strulggle has greatly reduced the possibility of mediating between the classes and has created a situation where workers find themselves permanently
    opposed to the unions. The same development of the actual class struggle has rendered obsolete any kind of syndicalist project.

6. For similar reasons it is useless to call for the rejection or support of parliamentarism. The fate of parliamentarism depends exclusively on class struggle inside the capitalist system. Whatever may be the reason for those who want to call themselves "revolutionaries" not to participate in parliamentary work or not to vote in an election workers have other reasons when they don't go to the polls. If they stay at home on election day, they don't do so with revolutionary ideas in mind. They abstain because parliament, parliamentary parties and politicians don't have anything to say to them, because they have understood none of the poltical parties is defending their interests and that it does not make much difference if this party or another is in office.  On the other hand workers who go to the polls and share parliamentary illusions will not refuse to participate in unofficial strikes or factory occupations if they seem necessary.
    Both categories behave in the same way in practice irrespective of their attitude in elections. They do so without a revolutionary theory about parliament and without being conscious that they are attacking the order of bourgeois society."
 
From As We See It
"4.  The trade unions and political parties cannot be reformed, 'captured', or converted into instruments of working class emancipation. We don't call however for the proclamation of new unions, which in the conditions of today would suffer a similar fate to the old ones. Nor do we call for militants to tear up their union cards. Our aims are simply that the workers themselves should decide on the objectives of their struggles and that the control and organisation of these struggles should remain firmly in their own hands. The forms which this self activity of the working class may take will vary considerably from country to country and from industry to industry. Its basic content will not.
 
7.  Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the
   participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their
   cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."
 
As We Don't See It
 
4.Because the traditional parties cannot be 'reformed', 'captured', or converted into instruments of working
class emancipation - and because we are reluctant to indulge in double-talk and double-think - IT FOLLOWS that we do not indulge in such activities as 'critically supporting' the Labour Party at election time, calling for 'Labour to Power' between elections, and generally participating in sowing illusions, the better at a later date to 'take people through the experience' of seeing through them. The Labour and Communist parties may be marginally superior to the Conservative Party in driving private capitalism along the road to state capitalism. The trad revs would certainly prove superior to both. But we are not called upon to make any choice of this kind: it is not the role of revolutionaries to be the midwives of new forms of exploitation. IT FOLLOWS that we would rather fight for what we want (even if we don't immediately get it) than fight for what we don't want ... and get it.

The trade union bureaucracy is an essential component of developing state capitalist societies. The trade union leaders neither 'betray' nor 'sell out' when they manipulate working class struggles and seek to use them for their own ends. They are not 'traitors' when they seek to increase their material rewards or to lessen the frequency with which they have to submit to election - they are acting logically and according to their own interests, which just happen to be different from those of working people. IT FOLLOWS that we do not urge people to elect 'better' leaders, to 'democratise' the unions or to create new ones, which under the circumstances of today would suffer exactly the same fate as the old ones. All these are 'non-issues' about which only those who have failed to grasp the real root of the problem can get worked up.
 
The real need is to concentrate on the positive task of building the alternative (both in people's minds and in reality) namely autonomous job organisations, linked to others in the same industry and  lsewhere, and controlled from below. Sooner or later such organisations will either enter into conflict with the existing outfits claiming to 'represent' the working class (and it would be premature at this stage to define the possible forms of this conflict), or they will bypass the old organisations altogether."
 
These two pieces are somewhat different in perspective, but I think that they are both worth reviewing.  If we keep in mind the idea of defetishization, we certainly do not support voting, trade union reformism, etc.  That does not mean that we wage campaigns every year to not vote or to not participate in unions.  Our task is to show the limitations of these activities, how they are used to reincorporate us, etc.  At the same time, why should I blame the 97% of African Americans who voted against George Bush?  Bush and Gore were not the same.  The problem for us is not to say that they are the same.  Its just to show that neither is a solution, something workers will learn through their own experience, not through our leaflets and reading groups.
 
Cheers,
Chris
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Montyneill-AT-aol.com
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: re: the real movement definition again

Perhaps we should look at elections as a form of wages. To receive a wage means to accept the employer as a boss, to thus participate in the reality and the illusions of the system - even if one wishes one did not. To struggle for higher wages can imply one accepts the system, just wishes a better deal; or that one is trying to get along in a system one is otherwise battling to supercede.

Elections can be thought of this way - an effort to get a somewhat better deal in the system, with no definite statement either way about deeper beliefs in the system.

Thus, at times I vote in referenda or even for a person who probably will help produce slightly better deals for the most screwed-over, maybe some housing or medical care or a raise in the minimum wage. By doing so perhaps I contribute to the general illusion of elections as a means to more fundamental change - or maybe it is just one of those compromises of survival that I no know one escapes.

Electoralism as an ideology for basic change is a dangerous illusion - just as are higher wages if one concludes higher wages make the system just, etc.. But I'd rather be paid better than worse, and at times will vote for that little raise.

I would note that the forms of solidarity gained by direct struggles (strikes, for example, of the sort commie00 noted) are vastly more powerful in potential than any election - so elections are weak, I think, even for reformism.

Going away for most of a week, thanks for good conversation and thought,

Monty
--- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005