[lbo-talk] Response to MG -- Was Poll....

[Dissenting Wren]

Certainly my political group (Solidarity) has no objection to working with trade unions.  I don't think that the term "objectively left" tells us anything, though.  Trade unions are what they are, and Bob Fitch (among others) filled us in on the dirty details.  We don't work in trade unions because they are "objectively left".  We work in trade unions because they are the only mass institution of the working class.  One day, those trade unions may even be controlled by their members.  With rare exceptions, though, unions are controlled by their officers and bureaucracy.  Even if the members of unions manage to take control, there is no guarantee (though there is the hope) that the left will find a mass base there.  But that's the institutional ground on which we work.

________________________________
From: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com>
To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2011 3:53 PM
Subject: [lbo-talk] Response to MG -- Was Poll....

Dissenting Wren

This response is cogent and admirably clear.

^^^
CB: thank you so much (smiles)

^^^^^^^

  However, I think it is wrong.  Perhaps I should have been clearer
that by "left" I mean a political formation whose horizon extends
beyond capitalism to socialism (not social democracy).

^^^^^
CB: Ok.   That would mean there is no _mass_ left. There are very,
very small fairly well organized communist and socialist parties and
organizations ( although many "socialists" aim for social democracy).
The Bolsheviks were a very small, but well organized left political
formation up until the Great October Insurrection.   I guess I'm
tending to think at this point  that it is not worth repeating over
and over that the left is not "organized" ( actually very, very
small).  That's obvious to those in the left as you define it, and
nobody in the left asserts otherwise. So , why does Carrol remind us
of it so much ?  There have been very few mass Communist Parties under
capitalism, not surprisingly. Italy had one.

^^^^^

With that clarification made, CB's response to points 1 and 3 below
are simply factually incorrect.  And with those props removed, his
entire argument collapses.

^^^^^^
CB; Except I prefer my definition of "left" to yours, so with the
better definition of "left" my 1 and 3 are factually correct; and my
whole argument is still cogent ( smiles).

Think of it this way. The trade unions et al are objectively
anti-capitalist even as very few trade unionists are communists. Thus,
the trade unions et al are objectively left organizations; their
struggles are left struggles.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk