Abel says and forgive the length: I prefer the pragmatic approach that Perón liked: in politics, what counts are results. Of course, there also my visitors had arguments: EmeErre, for example, he says: " An act of ministries just got engaged to reinstate and proceed to plant at all, given the outsourced assembly. The policy in the hands of the working class (the policy of the Trots) parecde getting the only reforms . "
A very good news, and a fitting tribute to Mariano Ferreyra. Of course, there also are the presuppositions of who says it. The support given to the outsourced Moyano when he met with them, as well as national government policies appear not to have any bearing on the decision of the Minister Tomada. When an officer does something completely unresponsive to the demands of labor, it proves the complicity of the union bureaucracy and political patron. When you get a victory, tore the struggle of the workers, wisely led by the PTS or PO or ... ( delete as appropriate ).
So every one is playing his music? Not quite. A comment EmeErre, which is then replicated in a post from "The Devil", we are enlightened us something we already knew, but remember ... and understand:
"... the new law would be the right of defending Rucci agreements and Lorenzo Miguel, 74. Then agreements included categories that are now allowed to outsource (eg the Convention of the Railway Union were the categories track and work or cleaning that are now made by UOCRA or petty). The new law would keep it just for the outsourced that the agreement would be more favorable in outsourcing. Example: if I am a firm outsourced workers UOM'll be able to be in the UOCRA and I can unhook the slave even more petty or trade agreements that are even lower. Finally, to the left of Pedraza but Rucci right "
not play here ideologies and philosophies. This is a fact. Now, when we asked why, again. For simple explanations quickly crumble. It is difficult to believe that is because the union leaders, all working against the workers and every day try to joderlos a little more. Also, the automatic response of many compatriots, which would include the 30 000 missing and the betrayal of the Menem administration (which was returned to vote in '95, out of pure masochism argento, it seems) can not account for a similar story can be told in many developed countries, including, for example, U.S.
For my part, accepting that it is also too short, I note that from the 70s began a phase of financial globalization that creates an enrichment - that fictitious classical economists call - but it reaches to parts of the world population in developed countries, numerous enough for the balance of economic power producers to abandon property. Not entirely, of course. But this process is combined with a less commented that begins about fifteen years later. The relocation of industrial activity in East Asia, particularly China, attracted by low wages, lack of labor laws and the lack of environmental protection. Process which was led by a party imbued with the doctrines of Marx, Engels and Mao, for those ironies that loves to history.
Following of the global economic system is that today we are on the right and Lorenzo Rucci. I'm not particularly concerned about that. I give the Trotskyists to the left position, for that strive (...)
In the petition of Abel there are at least three discussions (and arguments!). A, say, "ideological", the other in relation to the dynamics of conquests, triumphs and defeats of the working class and does this relate to the Peronist union leadership, and a third on the transformations of capitalism in recent decades, making as a "framework" which develops the national struggles of the working class Argentina.
Abel As you say, it is difficult to separate the ideological aspect of practical political debate. Because if the theory is "widespread reality", ie general conclusions "many facts" (in this case social), enabling the development of legislation (and theories) which in turn can capture the dynamics of social processes and intervene to develop a sense "progressive", then, political theory is perhaps even more necessary than in other sciences.
And I'm not surprised that Abel, as well Peronist adhere to the "pragmatism" and entry is separated from the theory without which then can not explain the other develops two aspects, namely of theory that has a class struggle between its main foundations or whatever it is, Marxism. Abel makes it clear that is not Freudian, or Marxist, Peronist. (This sounds to me;)
And that's OK, we did not expect more (or less) of it, the problem is that if you abstraction class struggle, the other two issues that speaks seem to arise from "spontaneous generation." Let's see: Abel
somehow says, that on balance the outcome of the struggle of the outsourced rail (the return Pass and commitment to plant), we undervalue Trots at least two events: the meeting of outsourced Moyano and government policy, something that influenced that decision. That puts us in a discussion that may lead to a thought and a circular debate. Because if we turn the argument, we can say that according to the Peronist, when you lose is because of the "objective conditions" that did not (and a few that I know would add Peronist unionists "and handed him his head warm people "), and when you win is a" management "genius of the Secretary-General and" organic bodies "+ a good policy of an even better Minister of Labor (Peronist, of course).
The problem are the facts in the case of outsourcing, or Taken, and Moyano (or Abel), talked about them before, their working conditions now known to all, are released to the fight and are heard and all support (and even political cooperation) in the PTS Trots (and the Edge). The outsourcing of the country, until they do the same, that is fighting (and hopefully encourage them rail example) will not achieve such successes. The "gesture" of Moyano and Tomada, came the struggle and not vice versa. Would not it be a tribute more "worthy" to Mariano Ferreyra is over outsourcing in the country?. The problem is that outsourcing and procurement (contracts that are a complete sham labor) is one of the bases of the "model" and the earnings of capital (foreign and domestic, that does not discriminate in all contracts to outsource and use garbage) . And when he laid the structural basis of this "model" that was completed to establish in the 80 and 90 (after the dictatorship), the Peronist union leaders (mostly the same as today) to speak in Creole "did not stop a Fulbe "(as the defense of the current River): flexibility, privatization, contract law, unemployment, and then devaluation polyfunctionality and bursts of wages. Some will say "but the MTA Moyano moved Piumato and he even shot an egg," said but as General " in politics, what counts are the results" , all such attacks and passed became the capital gains that today "we fall to the right of Rucci. But here, to Abel would not have the responsibility of union leadership, which for us have a "logical" unbreakable (and reform), ie at times of peak prey on something (not hard not to fuck "the model") and moments deliver what crisis comes (not to fuck the system) and make their "perestroika" . No, the problem according to Abel, would be in international conditions, namely in the new era of "financial globalization."
But again, the question is: whence comes this phase of capitalism (which some called "neoliberal"), but is also the very contradictions of capital, the large losses suffered by the global labor movement? Reaganism and Thatcherism and the crushing of the proletariat English and Yankee, and, of course, the defeat of the Chinese proletariat and the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, with the restoration of capitalism, were "pre-conditions" for this phase for us to "restore" (Which fortunately is exceeded). Defeats which had "something" to do the addresses of the labor movement, especially the variants of Stalinism, whether Russian or Chinese (story, say that Mao asked an Argentine activist who visited him, as he claimed in Argentina and he said "Maoist" what the "great helmsman" said "error, you must be a Peronist ).
Were not the PS, PC or Labour, which in turn directed the labor movement organizations, the "neo-liberal" who carried out these programs in several countries where they were both the government and were the agents of capitalist restoration in socialist bloc?. Or let's say that they too were "determined" by the "phase of financial globalization."
not going to make under the Peronist this international labor movement, but we can not allow that since the "pragmatism" will save the responsibilities, not just the Peronist union bureaucracy, but now also in all directions (reformist and not) of the world labor movement.
Another possibility is that there is some new "philosophy of history" Peronist we do not know (our Marxism never joined any philosophy history) to prove that we were "doomed" to the phase of financial globalization with its miseries included. As we see it difficult, in summary, we believe that under these conditions (and betrayal) that describe the struggles and power relations between classes, is the explanation of the present moment of capitalism (and I stress and related to the problems that the own capital for "extended play"). Because it just like that, history is the history of class struggle, but also as FE said "History does nothing, has no great wealth, not fight battles; who does all that, owns and struggle is man himself : Man alive, real. It is the story that the man used as a tool to achieve the goal, as if history were a separate being, because the history is but the action of the man who pursues his goals. " And among these men are, aside Pedraza and the other the Mariano Ferreyra, with its own objectives and action. Everyone will know which side to wear.
A little "epilogue" (Walsh again on the Vandoren, theory and the "facts")
says Walsh, " At one time the Vandoren has boasted for its action does not require complicated political theories (...) Discuss Vandoren from the perspective of a revolutionary theory of the working class is to rediscover one by one the old cliches of reformism, of bourgeois trade unionism. Vandor In any event he is defeated by the facts, in addition theory. If workers deem it hard today is for the results of action, for what he has achieved with their negotiations, their schemes and their covenants, to destroy the guild making metallurgical in simple device, divide the CGT, break the workers' confidence in their leaders, the labor movement to roll back to 1943 ".
paraphrase, discuss current trade union bureaucracy (Pedraza or Moyano or CTA, delete as appropriate) from the point of view of theory is to find a common place of bourgeois reformism in the labor movement. But not only are defeated by the theory, and essentially but facts: black work, job insecurity, outsourcing and fraudulent contracts "working poor" relaxation, voiding the trade unions and away (to say the least) of the leaders of their bases (unless "closer" with street gangs) how the labor movement declined?.
greetings
FR
0 comments:
Post a Comment