What is the Base of the Trade Union Policy? Two views (or one?)
Karl Burg
Angela Klein, the editor of the Newspaper of the German section of the
Mandelites "SoZ. Sozialistische Zeitung" wrote an article in No.
1/2005 : "The "bad year" 2004: To learn from defeats"
The last chapter has the heading "A new culture of disputes"
"The defeat in the fights against the Hartz laws has shown a lot of
weaknesses of the resistance. Whereas the enterprises have recognized
the central importance of the "Sozialhilfe" [minimum support from the
state, even lower than unemployment benefits] for the debate on how to
organize society, the trade unions have not. They have restricted
themselves to the defense of the criteria of acceptance [of jobs with
especially low wages offered by the unemployment offices to jobless
workers, who get unemployment benefits] and the defense of the level
of the old "Arbeitslosenhilfe" [second - still lower - level of
unemployment benefits]. And even in doing only this, they nevertheless
lost.
They are satisfied with the repulse of partial attacks instead of
answering to the complete strategy of the bosses with a counter
strategy that is rounded as theirs. The trade unions have not found an
answer to the blackmail politics of arguing with the "Standort" [the
theory, that everyone has to take its burdon to prevent the capital to
go abroad and to defend ones own company and country in its rivalries
with its competitors]. Since the nineties they contract their own
leeway more and more to the factory level and this makes them helpless
more and more.
If you add that the leading bodies of the DGB [trade union federation]
and the individual unions are upholding their loyalty to the Social
Democracy and its government - even with stomachache - and are not
willing to bring themselves as an independent force into the play,
that could even influence the political fate of this country, than you
more ore less have the ingredients that make up defeats. This is an
extremely dangerous situation if you take into account that they still
play a major role in the balance of forces of the society.
The worst is that the leadership of the trade unions is talking itself
into these defeats. They are lamenting that Hartz IV is rammed through
without the chance to fight it back and they are not propagating any
hopes anymore that improvements worth mentioning will be seen anymore.
This produces demoralisation and leads to trade union resignations.
But they also do not allow that alternatives can be discussed. Their
concepts are as hopeless as those of the politicians. But a little bit
more would have been possible even this time - in the fight against
Hartz IV as well as in the fights against the wage cuts in the big
companies. But you only achieve more when the trade unions change
their strategy from the ground on. When they take up the gauntlet,
when they accept that the days of social partnerships are over and
that you cannot even prevent deteriorations at the negotiating table.
When they learn a new culture of fighting, which means to find the
courage to fight. Then they would be seen again as a serious force,
they would gain new credibility.
The fight for the orientation of the trade unions therefore is of
central importance. No new political force can replace it. The trade
unions have to become a political force of its own., that is able to
organize strikes in all of Europe and win contracts Europe wide at
least. The social movements can only support the unions doing this if
they overcome their fragmentation - it is clear, they can only do this
from the outside, but their capabilities for mobilizations can not be
talked down anymore - the Monday demonstrations were much bigger than
the [trade union organized] demonstrations of April 3, also in regard
to their political impact. The Sozialforum in Germany can play an
important role in bringing about the neccessary unity and it can open
the room for arguments for alternatives in the trade unions as well.
It is not all over jet, an the owners of capital do not jet have
everything in their pockets."
To this Anton Holberg, the public voice of the COVI (the international
organisation around the LRP) answered in a letter, published in SoZ
No. 2/2005:
"Workers Aristocracy?
I think, that one of the important questions, that are raised by
Angela Klein's description of the current situation, which I subscribe
to generally, is the question of the class character of the leadership
of the trade unions. In the past you could often hear, that the trade
unions - and this means in practice the leadership of the trade unions
- are representatives of the interests of the "workers aristocracy" as
Lenin described it, a layer of the working class bribed through
imperialists extra profits. This view gets more and more old
fashioned. Klein clearly shows, that the strategy of capital is not
aimed at producing a two thirds society but instead it wants to push
back the labor aristocracy and the lower layers of the middle classes
back into the masses of the proletariat. In other owrd: the layer that
constituted in the past the social base of the trade union bureaucracy
and especially its leadership is dissolving.. Under these
circumstances one has to ask the question , how can ir be explained,
that the trade union tops generally do not only stick to their pro
capitalist course , but even are getting nearer to the the SPD, which
today is the party that can communicate the aggressive course of the
bourgeoisie in the most appropriate way.
As materialists we should not limit ourselves to explain this with
ideological stubbornness or lacking intelligence. of this layer, that
once has developped from the working class, We rather have to ask
ourselves, whether the trade union leadership has not - for a long
time already - another base economically than the rank and file
membership of their unions, whether they have not become already the
conscious agents of the governing class in the working class, because
they are independent economically from the working class but not
independent from the bourgeosie. One then would have to discuss about
the tactical and strategic consequences for the urgent renewal or even
revolutionisation of the trade unions."
Here the German texts:
Eine neue Streitkultur
Die Niederlage im Kampf gegen die Hartz-Gesetze offenbart eine
Vielzahl von Schwächen der Gegenwehr. An-ders als die Unternehmer
haben die Gewerkschaften den zentralen ordnungspolitischen Stellenwert
der So-zialhilfe als Armutsgrenze nicht er-kannt. Sie haben sich
darauf be-schränkt, die Zumutbarkeitskriterien und die Höhe der alten
Arbeitslosen-hilfe zu verteidigen - und auch dabei verloren.
Sie begnügen sich damit, Teilangriffe abzuwehren, statt auf eine
komplette Unternehmerstrategie mit einer eben-so abgerundeten
Gegenstrategie zu antworten. Die Gewerkschaften haben bis heute auch
keine Antwort auf die er-presserische Standortpolitik gefunden. Seit
den 90er Jahren verengen sie ihren Spielraum mehr und mehr auf die
be-triebliche Ebene, und das macht sie im-mer hilfloser.
Fügt man hinzu, dass die Vorstände von DGB und Einzelgewerkschaften
nach wie vor in Treue, wenn auch mit Bauchschmerzen, zur SPD und ihrer
Regierung stehen und nicht bereit sind, sich selbst als unabhängige
Kraft ins Spiel zu bringen, die auch die politi-schen Geschicke dieses
Landes prägen könnte, hat man in etwa die Zutaten beisammen, aus denen
das Gericht der Niederlagen gemacht ist. Das ist eine brandgefährliche
Situation angesichts dessen, dass ihnen nach wie vor eine zentrale
Rolle im gesellschaftlichen Kräfteverhältnis zukommt.
Das Schlimmste ist, dass sich die Ge-werkschaftsführungen jetzt in
diese Niederlagen hineinreden. Sie bekla-gen, dass Hartz IV «gegessen«
ist und machen ihren Mitgliedern keine Hoff-nungen mehr auf
nennenswerte Ver-besserungen. Das schafft Demoralisie-rungund
befördert Mitgliederaustritte.
Aber sie lassen auch nicht zu, dass Al-ternativen diskutiert werden.
Ihre Kon-zepte sind ausweglos wie die der Poli-tik. Dabeiwäre auch
diesmal mehr drin gewesen - im Kampf gegen Hartz IV ge-nauso wie in
den Kämpfen gegen den Lohnraub bei den großen Konzernen. Aber mehr
drin ist nur, wenn die Ge-werkschaften ihre Strategie von Grund auf
ändern. Wenn sie den Fehdehand-schuh aufnehmen, dass die
Sozialpart-nerschaft passe ist und am Verhandlungstisch nicht einmal
mehr Ver-schlechterungen abgewehrt werden können. Wenn sie eine neue
Streitkul-tur lernen, also den Mut zum Kampf finden. Dann würden sie
wieder als ei-ne ernst zu nehmende Kraft wahrge-nommen, neue
Glaubwürdigkeit erlan-gen.
Der Kampf um den Kurs der Gewerk-schaften ist deshalb von zentraler
Be-deutung. Keine neue politische Kraft kann sie ersetzen. Die
Gewerkschaften müssen selber zu einer politischen Kraft werden, die
mindestens europa-weit streik- und tariffähig ist. Die sozia-len
Bewegungen können sie dabei un-terstützen, sofern sie ihre
Zersplitte-rung überwinden - zwar nur von au-ßen, aber ihre
Mobilisierungskraft ist nicht mehr klein zu reden - da haben die
Montagsdemonstrationen die De-mo vom 3. April weit in den Schatten
gestellt, auch in ihrer politischen Wir-kung. Das Sozialforum in
Deutschland kann eine wichtige Rolle dabei spielen, die notwendige
Einheit herzustellen und den Argumentationsraum für ge-werkschaftliche
Alternativen zu öff-nen.
Noch ist nicht aller Tage Abend und die Kapitalbesitzer haben uns noch
lange nicht im Sack.
Angela Klein (verantwortliche Redakteurin der Soz - Sozialistische
Zeitung, mehr oder weniger die "Partei"-Presse des Vereinigtes
Sekretariat der Vierten Internationale (Mandelianer-Variante von
Trotzkismus)
Arbeiteraristokratie?
Betr.: »Aus Niederlagen lernen«, SoZ l/OS, S.3
Ich denke, dass zu den wichti-gen Fragen, die Angela Kleins
Einschätzung der Lage, die ich generell teile, aufwirft, die nach dem
Klassencharakter der Ge-werkschaftsführung gehört. War man früher oft
der Meinung, die
Gewerkschaften - und das heißt in der Praxis die
Gewerkschafts-führungen - vertreten die Inter-essen der von Lenin als
»Arbei-teraristokratie« bezeichneten, durch imperialistische
Extraprofi-te bestochenen Schicht der Ar-beiterklasse, so überlebt
sich diese Sicht der Dinge offenbar recht zügig. Klein macht
deut-lich, dass die Kapitalstrategie nicht auf eine
Zweidrittelgesell-schaft abzielt, sondern darauf, die
»Arbeiteraristokratie« und darauf, zumindest den unteren Mittelstand
zunehmend in die Masse des Proletariats herab zu stoßen. Mit anderen
Worten: die Schicht, die in der Vergangenheit die soziale Basis der
Gewerk-schaftsbürokratie und insbeson-dere der Führung darstellte,
löst sich auf. Unter diesen Umstän-den muss die Frage beantwortet
werden, wie zu erklären ist, dass die Gewerkschaftsführung nicht nur
generell ihren prokapitalisti-schen Kurs fortführt, sondern sich sogar
der SPD als der heute den genannten aggressiven Kurs der Bourgeoisie
am adäquates-ten politisch vermittelnden Par-tei wieder stärker
annähert.
Als Materialisten sollten wir uns nicht darauf beschränken, das mit
ideologischer Verbortheit und mangelnder Intelligenz dieser einst aus
der Arbeiterklas-se hervorgegangenen Schicht zu erklären. Vielmehr
muss die Fra-ge gestellt werden, ob die Ge-werkschaftsführung nicht
längst ökonomisch eine andere Basis als die breite Mitgliedschaft
ih-rer Gewerkschaften hat, ob sie nicht längst zu einem bewussten
Agenten der herrschenden Klas-se innerhalb der Arbeiterbewe-gung
geworden ist, weil sie öko-nomisch von der Arbeiterklasse, nicht aber
der Bourgeoisie unab-hängig geworden ist. Über die sich daraus
ergebenden takti-schen und strategischen Folgen für die
unaufschiebbare Erneue-rung oder gar Revolutionierung der
Gewerkschaften wäre dann zu diskutieren.
von Anton Holberg, Bonn, (Vertreter des Kommittees für eine Vierte
Internationale (meist als staatskapitalistisch mißverstanden in der
BRD)
Karl
Karl Burg
in one of their forums:
Really "exciting" this inner trotskyist dispute: the social democratic
hot air of your "main stream Trotskyist" against the conspirational
theory persecution mania of this COFI.
The SoZ starts with: "The defeat in the fights against the Hartz laws
has shown a lot of weaknesses of the resistance. Whereas the
enterprises have recognized the central importance of the
"Sozialhilfe" [minimum support from the state, even lower than
unemployment benefits] for the debate on how to organize society, the
trade unions have not." As if the trade unions ever had waged a "fight
against the Hartz laws". They have not, but the critical social
democrats of the the SoZ project this fight into their beloved trade
unions. The trade unions have done something else. They refused the
unconditional approval hoping to get the recognition as a kind of
bundesrepublikanischer Gesamt-Betriebsrat [a class collaborationist
committee defined in the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz since the early
1920ies and resurrected in the 50ies under Adenauer as an instrument
of peaceful class collaboration on the shop level, the
representatives normally are trade unionists but do not have to be so]
and with this as negotiation partners of the government. The few
demonstrations that took place did not have the aim of fighting
against the Hartz laws but to support their claim to collaboration on
the top level.
"They are satisfied with the repulse of partial attacks instead of
answering to the complete strategy of the bosses with a counter
strategy that is rounded as theirs." Bullshit. The trade unions do not
understand these measures of the government as an "attack", as class
struggle from above, even when these phrases are used rhetorically
sometimes, but as a kind of inappropriate implementation of reform
politics, which only cries for trade union cooperation. All this class
struggle jargon of attacks, partial attacks, resistance are useless to
describe the politics of the DGB trade unions.
"and are not willing to bring themselves as an independent force into
the play, that could even influence the political fate of this
country"
It is exactly this, what the trade unions are doing all of the time.
They fight for their aim to get the permission to coadministrate the
political life of this country. But they do not want to do this
against the ruling politics. In its critic of this politics you can
see the social democratic dream of the SoZ-ites to achieve a workers
friendly organization of "this country". The SoZ itself is already
thinking in the same national categories as do the trade unions. They
dream of a real consequent workers friendly BRD.
" When they learn a new culture of fighting, which means to find the
courage to fight."
Class struggle as a culture of debates! For the opening of " rooms
for arguments"!! this is sociological bullshit, which is sickening.
But what Mr. Holberg is putting against this, is as worse.
"I think, that one of the important questions, that are raised by
Angela Klein's description of the current situation, which I subscribe
to generally, is the question of the class character of the leadership
of the trade unions."
He does not care to criticize the politics of the trade union
leadership. Here her totally agrees with the idealistic social
democratic criterion how to measure up the DGB. But what he is missing
is a historical- materialist characterisation of the class nature of
the trade unions, something with which in hand he can find the final
verdict on the trade unions without any regard to objections on the
level of content. If you could exclude the DGB from the working class,
one would not have the problem anymore that critical friends of the
trade unions always have, namely whether one should join them or not.
What is lacking is an orientation, or an knowledge without any
arguments who is on which side, which was easier then than now:
" In the past you could often hear, that the trade unions - and this
means in practice the leadership of the trade unions - are
representatives of the interests of the " labour aristocracy" as Lenin
described it, a layer of the working class bribed through imperialists
extra profits. This view gets more and more old fashioned."
This Holberg does not recognize in the theory of the workers
aristocracy how shabby instrumental people are talking about the
working class, when they take it to be a problem for the revolution,
that parts of the working class are a little better off than the rest
(The appropriate slogan: not enough real misery for the revolution!)
No the problem what this Holberg has with the theory of the labour
aristocracy is, that this theory does not give him the necessary
orientation, because he obviously has deducted from some sociological
class studies that this former workers aristocracy is now falling back
into the proletariat. This is bad, because now you cannot define the
politics of the DGB in class sociological terms anymore?? Where from
can this clear class orientation be taken, because without it one can
say nothing about the DGB? But fortunately, this is easy! If the
politics of the DGB are not determined by the labour aristocracy, then
everything is probably far worse, then the trade union leadership has
" another base economically than the rank and file membership of their
unions, whether they have not become already the conscious agents of
the governing class in the working class, because they are independent
economically from the working class but not independent from the
bourgeoisie"
What an insane conspiracy theory! The DGB, paid by capital to organize
the obviously totally stupidified workers, which originally or really
are against the bourgeoisie, into an organization, that supports the
bourgeoisie.
Why is the thought, that the workers share the politics of the DGB,
that they are for it, that they seek to get exactly this kind of
national Mitbestimmung [Cooperation/Collaboration], for which this
organization is fighting, so unbearable for Trotskyists? Which workers
do you think can be reached with your unmasking that the trade union
is controlled by the capital? These workers just do not see the
principled class contradiction between capital and working class !"
Karl
rent@mob
> Here an answer by a German supporter of the (formerly) Marxist Group
> in one of their forums:
If I understand the meaning behind all that huffing and puffing
correctly, this critic made one worthwhile point: the question is not
one of socioeconomic base, but one of class consciousness. The union
tops are somewhat stranded, with the ideological rungs of the ladder
below them turning to jelly. Little wonder that they grab at handholds
on the castle wall.
What amazes me, (admittedly only on the basis of this snapshot and one
other exchange with Karl), is that union organization remains such a
pressing issue for German marxists. I appreciate that the long-wave
bourgeois roll-back has been somewhat slowed there by more
deeply-entrenched union involvement in social institutions. But surely
*some* of the shape of things to come has seeped into the awareness?
Shouldn't you get ahead of the game, staking out positions in the new
terrain, the emerging forms of social conflict, that the experience of
other bourgeois political economies warns you is coming your way?
Perhaps you are?
rent@mob