unions vs. the class struggle

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Sun Apr 7 04:30:54 MDT 1996


Ken Wrote:

>(I don't know what text editor you use, but your posts are oddly formatted,
>which makes for a tough read.)
>
>Your Subject line -- "unions vs. the class struggle" -- suggests, to me,

<snip>

I basically agree with what Ken says here. However my question to Neil is
basically why are you writing off the unions? I just can,t understand how
the pro-capitalists tops and the base are put in one big bathtub by you. Its
like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Can,t you see that there is a
difference?

I thought that communists tried to fight in order to lead the unions. To get
the membership to fight in their own interests against the traitors at the
top. In a sense you have the same position as the PCP maoists. They have
written of the industrial proletariat for the "masses" in the third world.
You write off the trade unions where the industrial proletariat at present
is led by its pro capitalist leaders.

Another thing that confuses me is the line on state capitalism. It could
only be a theroy dreamed up by a radical petty bougeois intellectual, raised
in a country with a treacherous social democratic leadership over a long
period of time. A tired leftist who instead of fighting for the leadership
of the working class on a communist program declares that everybody in the
reformist parties of the workers movements are state capitalists.

Then after declaring this puts all of the workers in the same bag. And then
has the audacity to say we should stand on the outside and scream that we
are the real communists. For me communists fight anywhere and everywhere for
a program. Inside and outside the unions. We do not dream up theories to
stand aside and let the reformists have and open field! That is rediculous
and probably what Lenin would have called a "ultra left sickness" of some
sort. But in fact is pett bougeoisie right wing ignorance of leading the
working class towards a communist revolution.
If Lenin had the same reasoning as you he would have said that Bolsheviks do
not go to the front and the army because the army was "imperialist monarchy"
or something.

In fact what really happened is that the bureacrats in the reformist parties
have gone over more or more to the side of the bourgeoisie. In the western
industrial countries their aren,t any state capitalists, just bouegois
states, the reformists sometimes think they steer. However today we can see
as interimperialist rivalry grows and the deformed workers states are
disintegrating a shift in the reformist leadership of being mediators for
the bourgeois state through its institutions, now openly going over to the
side of the bourgiosie.

In fact perhaps the tasks of the communists become easier because the
reformist can no longer play both sides of the fence. It is either the
bourgeoisie or the proletariat. The real danger for revolutionaries are the
traditionalists and fake leftists who are still trying to reform the
bourgeois state by building mini programs around programs of back to the
good old times. Communist should be telling the truth to the workers. Either
we fight for a communist future through the dictatorship of the proletariat
or we lose!

Warm Regards
malecki

PS: Ken, i do not thing these guys are cops! Just petty bourgeois left
radicals in the service of the bougeoisie...Because anybody that is
basically ready to give up the struggle for leadership of the unions to the
reformist traitors by screaming state capitalism if they are honest should
get on the same plane to Peru as Aldolfo...



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list