File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9711, message 399


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:58:28 -0500 (EST)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: Re: M-I: when things get BAD



Jim Blaut asks:

>Why do you suppose  the percentage of workers who belong to
>trade unions in the US is so low... Granted
>that the answer is complex, the main reaswon must be that most workers
>don't feel the need to organize -- beause they are not being pushed down to
>and below the poverty line. (Majority workers, that is.)


Jim, I don't think that the *percentage* of unionized workers vs their
non-union comrades means much in itself.  France has a lower rate of
unionization than the US, as does Chile.  Yet, workers in both France and
Chile, unlike their counterparts in the US, have shown a phenomenal
willingness to wage class struggle, in the streets if necessary.  In France,
at least, this has meant a much more secure life for workers than here in
the US.

Why is this?  In both France and Chile there are Communist parties that have
a tradition of militancy and armed struggle, and in the latter country, at
least, the growth of that CP has been astonishing, with the overwhelming
majority of new members under age 30 (the leadership of the Chilean CP,
however, remains disparate and ossified).  But, in the context of bourgeois
democracy, is this sufficient.  And was Marchais, as bad as he undeniably
was, less of a nincompoop than Gus Hall?

The answer, I think, lies in the vastly different social traditions
prevailing in the Anglo trade union movement. and the Protestant
nonconformist background embedded in its tradition.  True, this initially
gave it a missionary zeal and fervor in the cause of the oppressed, but this
same tradition also accomodated a respect for a liberal society, property
rights and the rule of law.  The prospect of winning concessions for the
workers within that society, and through its procedures, still seemed real
up til the other day.  And there is nothing here of the anarchist strain
which is a common ingredient of the revolutionary spirit elsewhere.

It seems to me that this nonconformist Protestant tradition is anathema to
the type of collective organizing needed to build a revolutionary working
class movement.  Are there other reasons?

Louis Godena 



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005