Question on Unions
ccc6639 at vip.cybercity.dk
Tue Apr 9 04:53:07 MDT 1996
>Why would the
>government want to break the trade unions, when the leadership of the
>unions have made them one of the pillars of support for capitalism.
It is not the unions that are "one of the pillars of support for capitalism",
it is *the union bureaucracy* that is one of these - main - pillars.
They want to break the unions exactly because the unions are much
more than the bureaucratic leadership. They are also organizations where
workers fight about the terms of exploitation. And debate about this
>Why shouldn't we demand that the
>government act in accordance with its own rule, if only to expose the
>fact of its utter hypocrisy.
Because governments don't act in accordance to rules. They bend rules
in accordance to acts needed. When you reach the devil a finger, he
takes the whole arm ...
How could state intervention in union affairs help the rank & file against a
pro-capitalist bureaucracy? It's the other way round: The bureaucracy has
invited state intervention in union affairs in order to better control the rank
So Robert Malecki is right:
>The state is an instrument of violence with the pistol pointed at
>workers organisations. In principle commmunists must be for non-intervention
>in the unions by the state despite their pro-capitalist leadership..
>The point is that revolutionaries do not block with the bourgeois state in
>order to get the union bureaucrats and gansters. Our duty is to expose them
>and take over the leadership while at the same time keeping these
>organisations independent from the state and bourgeoisie. Any other line is
>a betrayal to working class independence.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 2334 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Marxism