Read the article of NouvelObs.com ... Photos: General Assembly of Continental's employees Clairoix in Oise.
The first role of revolutionaries is to assist and organize solidarity with workers in struggle (below, a Marxist activist speaks Unitarians).
University Summer NPA sold out ...
comment Leek Red
This incident raises the much-debated question of the relationship between left parties and unions. This is an issue that is far from unanimous, even within the NPA, which, in practice, some activists who have local or national union responsibilities tend to hide behind the notion of "autonomy unions "(and more generally, the" autonomy of the social movement "). Certainly, the phenomenon is less developed than in a party like the French Communist Party, but there is such in sectors such as education.
It seems to me that we must do at least a distinction between organizational autonomy and political autonomy. Revolutionaries must respect the autonomy of trade unions in the sense that it belongs to union members, that is to say the union workers themselves, to democratically decide how to behave. For this reason we are fighting for greater participation of union members in union structures, but also for general meetings open (especially given the very low rate of unionization in many areas) during struggles such as those is going on right now against the redundancy plans.
We argue that the party does not replace the union because it would mean that it substitutes for union members. It is up to them to control their organization, and to anyone else. But at the same time it fights for workers to the most combative and are more aware of the political unions. It is for the organizational independence of the unions, but against their political autonomy, which in reality is a chimera.
Who can believe, in fact, that when the union leaders negotiate with employers or take lunch at the Elysee Palace or at Matignon, they do not do politics? They are necessarily influenced not only by their own political affiliations but more crucially by the idea that the role of unions is to organize the best possible relations between employees and employers under the capitalist system - which is basically an idea policy.
The role of revolutionaries is to fight for the idea that trade union action, to remain faithful to its primary objectives, must lead to overthrow the capitalist system.
That's also why the Marxists also defend the notion that unions should remain independent State and of course the employers, which is hardly the case today. Indeed, the same union leaders who promote the idea of the autonomy of trade unions when it comes to reducing the influence of revolutionary militants are very comfortable with the idea that organizations can be part of employees involved in a multitude of committees, councils and other government institutions, parastatals and parity. Some do not seem shocked that they are supported and financed openly or secretly by the government (or by employers' organizations).
It is understandable that this policy struggle for union democracy, combined with a political struggle within the revolutionary mass organizations, union leaders discomfort, which - no blanket presumption - often gained (almost by necessity) to work more or less open with the employers and the state. Whether to intervene in the unions to push directions to lead the fight for jobs and better working conditions - otherwise we struggle to replace them with new teams - constitutes "interference", then we plead guilty.
In the mouth of labor leaders, therefore, the slogan of "trade union autonomy" reflects the process - almost inevitable under capitalism - the empowerment of the union bureaucracy in relation to the mass of union members.
In a party like the NPA, the same slogan may reflect an adaptation of a fraction of militants - often those who have served as the party in the past - their union environment. Political activists must obviously be the best union in their workplace, but not revolutionary, is to defend at every time the overall interests of workers and oppressed, which is precisely the role of the party. They should intervene in the unions especially as revolutionaries, while they are in positions of responsibility in their union, they are subject to a double pressure - that of union members but also of trade union leadership. This is obviously not always easy.
Precisely because it is not always easy as it is essential that the party activists involved in the same union - the union and beyond (because the union has its extension division within the party) in the same branch - should be organized in the form of 'fraction' to coordinate their actions. They are accountable to the party of their union activities - which does not mean it is the party that decides instead union activists.
This important debate of course has nothing to do with any tendency to "teach" the unions (Thibault) or with a beauty contest between Bernard Thibault and Olivier Besancenot. There can be no question of using the reputation of a political leader outside trade unions (although Besancenot is also a trade unionist base) union to impress, but to build patiently fractions within the unions fighting for the political leadership of them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment