[Marxism] Iranian labor and US trade union "support" - was"Winning and Losing" etc.
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Aug 10 22:26:44 MDT 2006
>Do you perhaps only believe in red unions - that is, support only for
>labour organizations which are opposed to capitalism? Would you urge your
>workmates to replace their existing union with the IWW as the bargaining
>agent with the employer, for example?
Things are getting hopelessly confused. Mike said that the AFL-CIO's role
was completely counter-revolutionary outside the USA in places like Guyana,
El Salvador, etc. where the AIFLD basically functions like the CIA as a
subversive counter-revolutionary outfit. He never said that this was what
was going on *inside* the USA. He also confused things when he made this
point in the course of a debate about the bus drivers in Iran. Their strike
was not a typical AIFLD operation. The only connection between the AFL-CIO
and their strike was a press release from Solidarity House demanding the
release of jailed bus drivers. That is completely different from the AIFLD
building anti-Communist unions in Latin America and strikes to topple
figures like Allende or Chavez. This is not to say that the AFL-CIO will
never operate this way in Iran, only that there is no evidence of that in
the bus driver's strike. If some comrades think the strike was tainted
because of an AFL-CIO press release, then there's not much we can do about
that. I would call that terminal sectarianism and be done with it.
More information about the Marxism