The "good news" , we had occupied these days re-weighing the interesting picture that opens to the advanced workers of Cordoba and defining how to give rise to responsibilities.
With a little more time, we turn to an issue we are addressing in this blog since its "birth": the union bureaucracy (and its inevitable connection with Peronism). This time, discussing not only with its fanatical defenders, but with some left-wing intelligentsia. And do not write for several days, we have been "overloaded" and we did a post a little long ...
We were privileged to receive a dossier that will forward to the next no. 7 of the magazine El Nuevo Topo, with the axis position to discuss precisely the union bureaucracy. Más130 are pages with articles by various authors (including our colleague Paula Varela) who analyze, in general from Marxism, the concept of union bureaucracy, the "complexity", its genesis, its representative or not, and some possible overcoming it. Very interesting analysis going back to Marx and Engels and their contributions to the union issue, via Gramsci, especially in his "moment advice", Trotsky and his contribution to the union-state, to classics scholars of trade unionism as Hyman and Daniel James.
are not lacking among many of the intellectuals who write about the issue, the advice and criticism of "the left" (and, in general) and his ideas on bureaucracy and its practice in the labor movement. We must recognize that these criticisms and advice are more "healthy" that we receive during the 90 and several years of 2000, when we called to set aside ancient and outdated that speech of "working class", who had disappeared or is was diluted in new subjects (especially materials and "soft") of the new information society and the Empire with its biopower, which had surpassed the company's Capital for something new post-industrial, post-historical, is ie, post-modern.
But "the executioner (and even defeated invisibilzado) remained on the threshold" and reappeared with everything, and with it the new-old classic discussions on the ways of their emancipation.
However, the first problem is that in his criticism of "left", these intellectuals, rather than discuss his theory and actual practice, build their own prejudices and are stuck to a "left" and then "refute". Myths about alleged beliefs and practices that have little or no foundation in reality or at best apply to sects that have never done anything serious in the labor movement.
worst thing is that the political and ideological background of these criticism, the most dangerous result is that several of them can lead to base (and justify?) "to left" the existence of the union bureaucracy. We will try to systematize these myths and explain controversially in several posts, both from theory and practice where we stand the problem (or try to approach it.)
Here we will discuss with the myth that left believes there is an opposition and a permanent tension between the rules and directions, with bases all the time pushing the fight and that the slow directions. According to this view, the left would be in the working class a subject "ontologically" revolutionary.
Troska In the jargon this is known as "the theory of 180 degrees", ie the bases are always 180 ° opposite to directions. For multiple authors of the dossier, this is THE problem of "left" and this is expressed (all quotations from the NT kit)
"So it was paying and consolidating a strong sense of left , union democracy whose slogan was applied to the leaders union to which they saw as barrage of workers bases perennially democratic, militant and revolutionary . " (Introducción. Towards a debate on the concept of union bureaucracy)
" Much of the left in Argentina been used very loosely in the category of union bureaucracy in their analysis of the working class. It has built a distorted image of a leadership always opposite to generate processes of struggle and constantly faced with bases would be willing to fight and to radicalize the process " (Gonzalo Perez Alvarez. Returning to an old debate: bases, address, trade unions and labor strategies)
"To think that the problem is reduced to the union leadership expressed a serious misunderstanding. Assume that the difficulties of the working class in Argentina to build an alternative to capitalism is limited to need to "end the union bureaucracy" or of bringing a "new democratic leadership "is not beyond the bounds of trade unionism. Is another expression of the problem is more serious and makes the 83-class consciousness, which is reflected in these positions of the largest left-wing currents in our country ". (Gonzalo Pérez Alvarez op.cit. .)
Without ruling that fools are everywhere (even among the Trotskyist left), this is not far from our conception (and at least we are among one of the "left most numerous streams of our country ").
The state of the economy (including certain branches), the recent and historical experience, both as a political union, defeats or triumphs, ideology or "consciousness" set, along with many other elements, the situation or face of the "bases", which we have called the subjectivity and its relation to this framework addresses. Where the very existence of this "super" call union bureaucracy is a key element that acts permanently and not just in times of struggle on the basis partly shaping their subjectivity. And where you also have to have their material, as the divisions imposed in recent years, guaranteed by the bureaucracy as well described by Paula V. in his note. Ghigliani and Belkin (two of the authors of the dossier) rescue some of this element and separated from what he calls the vision "orthodox" ( bases facing the directions provided ) and vision "revisionist", arguably inaugurated by D. James ( "there is some complementarity between databases and addresses, and dichotomy not only).
claim," In this short essay will explore the following hypothesis: that the separate report setting out the orthodox analysis between leaders and bases, showing the relative representation of the first and criticize essentialism the premise that usually leave, that is, the ontologically revolutionary character of the working class is a first step, no doubt important, but insufficient. Is insufficient, one hand, because runs the risk of turning into a justification addresses complacent actively militate against the construction of workers' power "Bureaucracy association: insights for a discussion in the making. Pablo Alejandro Ghigliani and Belkin.
There are moments of greater trends mobilization and confrontation, for example in the crisis, when the Capital is to download on the working class or by some recovery of objective forces that lead to increased aspirations and go for more and are in the bureaucracy is a limit ..
The central question for us is that capital (and more in this time of historic crisis) has to enter recurring crisis and to seek their "solution" in new forms of appropriation of surplus value, attacking the working class. At this time the interests of the union bureaucracy and its action, tend to open confrontation with the foundation or the whole class. And this is inseparable from the political orientation of the bureaucracy, both determined and fed back its privileged location, ie its reform program in general . The reformist bureaucracy, which is intended to "set limits", "moderate" to the Capital, but not abolish it, always ends side of capital against the working class when he is forced to smash it to "save" their social and political. Trotsky posed to Britain an element that is applicable (and even more so!) For a semi-colonial country like Argentina, which is experiencing a period of "end of cycle": "The decline of British capitalism, within the framework of the decline the world capitalist system, work undermined the foundations of reform union. Capitalism can only be maintained by lowering the standard of living of the working class. Under these conditions, unions can either be transformed into revolutionary organizations or become auxiliaries of capital in the increased exploitation of workers. The union bureaucracy, which successfully resolved their own social problems, took the second path. Turned all the power gained by the unions against the socialist revolution and even against any attempt by workers to resist the attacks of capital and the reaction . " Leon Trotsky" Unions in Britain "(1933 ) on About the unions.
This is not to say that between crisis and mediate crisis moments, sometimes long (especially if the previous cycle ended with big losses) in growth and relatively "smooth" the Capital (as in recent years Argentina, based on a terrible attack on the wage to the devaluation, among other issues). But even during these moments (which are preparatory to the Marxists), and may be the most "complementarity" between databases and addresses, everything is very limited. In sub-sectors, in some branches (which Paula Varela calls "kind of labor aristocracy") may find some support from the foundation to their directions, but in no way taking the whole working class and even in those sectors, the "honeymoon" ends where the crisis begins. Passivity or "no question" generalized union bureaucracies say LT or "tolerance" of the working class to their directions (taking into account the "detail" of these bureaucracies accumulate power, protected by the state and employers to "cooperate" and work together to pursue those questions) are to be found in the divisions imposed (and guaranteed by the reformist leaderships), based on previous losses that make it difficult to "revolutionary unity of the working class." As we are far from the vision of a working class "ontologically revolutionary" we said here alongside LT "The proletariat embodies a powerful social unit in acute period of revolutionary struggle unfolds so full to achieve the objectives of the class as a whole. But within this unit is a remarkable diversity , would even say that a disparity negligible. Among the ignorant and illiterate pastor and the mechanic there are a number of cultures and levels of skills and adapt to daily life. Each layer, each guild, each group is ultimately composed of living beings other than age and temperament, each of whom has a past different. If such diversity does not exist, the Communist Party's work for the unification and education of the proletariat would be easy . However, how difficult is this task, as we see in Western Europe! Arguably, the richer is the story of a country, and therefore their working class history: the more education, tradition and ability to buy, the former group is more difficult to contain and turn it into revolutionary unity (...) " ( Leon Trotsky "policy not only does man live" - \u200b\u200b1923)
Now, as is false is true that the "theory of the 180 º" no less false is totally against that theory may be summarized as "the bases have the addresses they deserve", which was crudely expressed here a fool who tries to take the title of "intellectual" (a disciple of "more bitter man the world "). And back to the master LT treatment given to this question in class, Party and Address: "There is an old saying that reflects the evolutionary and liberal conception of history: a people gets the government it deserves. History shows us however, that one and the same people can have during a relatively short period, different governments (Russia, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc.) and also that the order in which they occur is not always the same direction, from despotism to freedom, as liberals believe evolutionists. The secret of this state of affairs is that a people is composed of hostile classes and that these same classes are made up of different layers, partially opposite each other and have different orientations. Furthermore, all people are influenced by other peoples, each made up of classes. Governments are not the expression of "maturity" ever increasing "people", but the product of the struggle between different classes and different layers within one and the same class and also the action of external forces alliances, conflicts, wars, etc. . We should add that a government, from the time set, may last much longer than the balance of power which has been the product. It is from these historical contradictions that occur revolutions, coups, the counterrevolutionaries. The same dialectic method should be used to address the issue of the direction of a class. As liberals, our sages tacitly admit the axiom that every class has address deserves. In fact, the address is not at all, the "simple reflection" of a class or the product of his own creative power . An address is formed in the course of clashes between different classes or friction between different layers within a particular class. But as soon as it appears, the direction inevitably rises above the class and this fact risks the pressure and the influence of other classes . The proletariat can "tolerate" for quite some time to an address that has just undergone a total internal degeneration, but has not had the opportunity to manifest in the course of great events. need is a big shock to reveal historical acutely l a contradiction between address and class. powerful historical shocks are wars and revolutions. For this reason the working class is often caught by surprise by war and revolution . But even if the old address has revealed its own internal corruption, l a class can not immediately improvise a new direction, especially if it has inherited from the previous period strong revolutionary cadres able to take advantage of the collapse of the old ruling party. Marxist interpretation, ie dialectic and not scholastic, the relationship between a class and its leadership leaves no stone unturned legalistic sophistry of our author. "Leon Trotsky" Class, Party, Directorate
Without roundly criticized reformist direction, ie the union bureaucracy and no work on the advanced sectors of the working class to defeat it, no chance to form such "revolutionary cadres solid", to prepare (as a whole class of "tolerate" their corrupt way) for the moments of rupture or revolution.
Will it continue? ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment