Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:49:06 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-G: Re: so- called deformed workers states


malecki wrote;
>" I mean the Transitional program is still quite and effective weapon."

Aaron replied;
>
>        Not exactly, the transitional program is quite obsolete, unions
>today are not merely poorly lead but are more interested in disciplining
>workers and maintaining their control of working class dissent. In World
>War 2 the unions and the state both acted to control workers struggles by
>means of the no-strike pledge and the national war labor board, this was
>done in the name of the holy war against fascism but didn't end with the
>war. The unions(AFL, CIO, and Independent) used the no--strike pledge to
>make workers have no choice but to except the leadership of people the
>likes of John L. Lewis(who hated all leftists). The unions by the nineteen
>fiftees had almost stopped organizing non-union workers, today unions see
>non-union labor as a threat. They also champion nationalistic "buy
>American" campaigns. Unions today only represent around twelve percent of
>the workers in this country at the most. Not much use to the rest of the
>working class.

Aaron, stop being so one country orientated around the trade unions. In fact 
the American trade unions are hardly the trade unions Internationally and in 
fact the reformist (Social Democratic) and Stalinist lead unions 
Internationally are mass organisations of the proletariat who organise 
millions of workers. And even on the American trade unions you are wrong. 
Because usually trade union organisation is quite flexible in its ups and 
downs. Workers tend to ignore these organisations in times of ralative class 
peace and show far much more attention to them in times of crisises. And 
much depends on who is leading what where in these organisations that will 
decide partially the outcome of every struggle. 

>Your fairly consistent work in the trade unions consists of tail ending
>unions leaders like Sweeney.

Now Could you please come with some proof where Trotskyists support Sweeny..

>Trotskyists support Union hacks by telling militant workers to participate
>in organizations that do little more today than take union dues as
>protection money from workers.

Paying union dues to participate in unions or pay their dues is surpose to 
be protection money? Is that why workers join unions? I doubt it..

>You missed the point here the problem of unions is not one of leadership
>but one of the nature of the trade union itself, today unions are a part of
>the capitalist state the shop floor cops of the ruling class. I have seen
>dozens of good people elected as shop stewards just to realize that the
>institution of the union itself is beyond reform.

That is the whole point. You can not tell the difference between an 
organisation of the proletariat, despite its leadership. Just as you could 
not tell the difference between a deformed or degenerated workers state and 
capitalism. In your world their are no contradictions, no living class 
stuggle, and no tactics except everybody is in the pay of the capitalist 
state. So instead of trying to break the unions from its pro capitalist 
leaders and turn these organisations into real class struggle unions you 
write off both the unions and all the workers in them. Just as you do on the 
question of the degenerated and deformed woprkers states.

>Unions today do little more than to bargain for the lesser evil in the form
>of concessions to the employers under the umbrella of the NLRB.

Maybe the union leadership does do that. Well the whole point is to change 
the leadership.

>Unions today are no longer mass organizations, I have enough accusations of
>"going off into the desert screaming smash the unions," or the name calling
>of ultra-leftism.The unions, like the "deformed and former degenerated
>workers states" are a part of the capitalist system itself. Your
>degenerated workers states are nothing more than a bloc of national capital
>ruled by a ruling class in the form of a political party that claimed to be
>the friend  and leader of the working class. Then every capitalist party
>claims to be a friend to working class people. You should read Ibsen's an
>enemy of the people.

This is bullshit. Perhaps in the United States the procent of people 
organised in unions is low. But here in many countries in Europe we are 
talking about anything from 75 to 90 % of the working class is organised in 
unions..
>
>"Not really. And futhermore "Soviets" are not just a means to and end. Thus
>the equation Soviets=revolution. But who leads those Soviets is naturally
>the decisive factor!"
>
>In answer to your mistakes here I suggest that you read the the
>transcriptions of the firsty two congresses of the Communist Third
>International, hopefully it might clear up some of your obsolete
>social-democratic thinking.fd

Oh please enlighten me on my Social Democratic deviation..


>Your hostility here is unwarranted, the IWW was far more revolutionary than
>the trotskyists ever were, your trouble again is that you consistently see
>workers as merely needing an effective leadership, then everything will be
>alright. This is wishful thinking at best, the real trouble is that the
>majority of the working class exists outside of your proletarian
>organizations, "in the desert" as you would say.

Not true on either count. Perhaps in your American centered world..
>
>"I mean the Social Democrats were already written of by the Third
>International. So naturally to do like you is just a belated cheap shot
>which tries to make cheap points that can,t be made. In fact the blame must
>be put on the left splits moving towards the Third International and the CPs
>which did not have the cadre or maturity to use the situations to take the
>revolutionary helm and lead it to victory."
>
>Here you again refer to leadership as a magical panacea for the ills of the
>workers movement, you then proceed to blame the problems of the third
>international on left splits. Not exactly the case, in fact the communist
>left stuck with the Third International until it became impossible to
>remain as a part of it, particularly the Italian Communist Left of Bordiga
>and Damen who remained as active parts of the International until 1926. In
>fact the Communist left were overwhealmingly friendly to Lenin and the
>Bolshevik party. It was the bolshevik party which attacked every one that
>even slightly disagreed with their august programe. Trotskyists still
>insist on viewing the first four or five congresses of the Third
>International as being"revolutionary". Left Communists view only the first
>two congresses as being revolutionary. Trotskyists are distinguishable from
>the Stalinists in name only. The other question I must raise with you about
>your Trotskyism is why his Fourth International excommunicated Trotsky's
>daughter Elena Sedova? One reason, Trotskyists are unforgivibly nationalist
>and they themselves went "screaming off into the desert" when they formed
>the Fourth International, they never even bothered to inform the Italian
>Communist left that they were forming an International(History of the
>Italian Communist left, ICC, 1992).

What you forgot to say is that the Bordigists put themselves outside of any 
kind of serious revolutionary struggle already in the early 20ties with the 
politics of anti-parlimentarianism and ultimatism. Formally they took this 
position at the second world Congress. They rejected the struggle for 
democratic slogans. They rejected any kind of United Front with the Social 
Democracy. This by the way was a predecessor to Stalin's "Red Front" period. 
And basically put themselves into a ultra sectarian position of abstention 
>from creating a Communist International.

And So what we have here are just the remnants of a bankrupt ultra left 
tendency which never made any impact on either Italian politics or 
International politics. Nothing can really change that because in fact you 
have put yourselfs outside of any kind of serious class struggle. And 
blowing revolutionary farts in the faces of the tremendous class struggle 
and dialectics going on every day including the present will not change 
anything. The Bordigists and there defenders on this list are still just 
blowing a lot of hot empty air. No tactics, No program. and definitely will 
never lead a revolution with their program of no to everything.. Why even 
the anarchists are more well known Internationally in the International 
Workers movement then the Bordigists ever were or will be. And in fact the 
anarchists did actually make and impact on events in Spain unlike the 
Bordigists who never accomplished anything except abstentionism.. 

Malecki wrote;
>" Its just that you have no program, a bankrupt political history of a
>plague on both your houises type
>and you have no future. That is unless you find a
>Bolshevik-Leninist-Trotskyist organisation who can teach you some
>revolutionary history and tactics. Then maybe you can be part of the future.
>However along the path your are walking is only the desert Neil!"

aaron replied;
>Neil is not alone here, we have a program, it is clearly outlined in the
>transcripts from the Congresses of the Communist left as available from the
>ICC, or you can find our platform in Socialism or Barbarism as published by
>the Communist Workers Organization.

Well You have a program and I bet it is a modern verion of Bordigist 
abstentionism of any kind of class struggle. But please don,t be shy, 
present it here for the readers
of the list and we can discuss it. I mean I  hopnestly that people should 
not buy the pig in a sack. Let us have a discussion the program of the TP 
verses the Program of the Bordigists! 

Or we can just take even parts of political tactics and program to start 
with. For example "critical support" in elections. The United front with 
reformists or Stalinists.
Trade Union tactics, the question of parliment, the party as the vanguard 
question whatever. 

Let us see where it goes. Perhaps some rather stupid romantic fool might 
even believe you after such a discussion. 

Bob Malecki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Check Out My HomePage where you can,

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people

HTTP://WWW.ALGONET.SE/~MALECKI

If The links are not working you can write to me 
>from my home page and get the latest issue of COCKROACH!
--------------------------------------------------------
  






     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---