tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post6146761094290104214..comments2024-01-19T04:00:42.885-05:00Comments on Permanent Revolution: An anti-working class organization: reply to commentsAlex Steinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-6482089084989404992018-08-13T20:55:23.970-04:002018-08-13T20:55:23.970-04:00As a worker, why would you support a decision whic...As a worker, why would you support a decision which is in effect a barrier to workers organizing? You should absolutely fight your union on decisions that work against your interests - of that there is no question. But you also need to fight for your right to organize. The Janus Decision is a blow against *that*. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-56197574402355208612018-08-12T11:17:27.923-04:002018-08-12T11:17:27.923-04:00As a worker, why should I have money automatically...As a worker, why should I have money automatically withdrawn from me meager paycheck in order to pay a union that doesn't defend my rights?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-41964043065378981972018-08-05T05:17:35.593-04:002018-08-05T05:17:35.593-04:00I do think that Carlo Rovelli has written a number...I do think that Carlo Rovelli has written a number of interesting books explaining science to lay people. There is in fact a kind of Renaissance of books by working scientists attempting to present contemporary science to the public. Others who have done so are Richard Muller, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and of course the late Stephen Hawking. There have also been a number of attempts by philosophers who are concerned with the natural sciences to provide conceptual tools for making sense of contemporary developments. Some of the notable contributions in this area can be found in the writings of Thomas Nagel, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, and Lee Smolin and Julian Barbour who are both physicists and philosophers. There is a keen interest in the natural sciences among wide audiences these days as witnessed by the popularity of the Nova series on PBS and the brisk attendance at the World Science Festival held annually in New York. These are all welcome developments and are in some ways a return to the humanistic understanding of the natural sciences that the late Carl Sagan championed. But we should also keep in mind that capitalism has little use for the spirit of free inquiry represented by science at its best when it is liberated from the profit motive. On the contrary contemporary culture is ridden with attacks on genuine science, the spread of pseudo-science, quackery, superstition, conspiracy theories and all sorts of other rubbish. Some of these retrograde trends find expression in popular presentations of science, so one must choose carefully what one reads. If you want to pursue this discussion, which is not exactly the topic of this article, I suggest you write to me offline at <b>revolutioninpermanence @ gmail.com</b>Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-17769575598217030242018-08-04T00:02:33.369-04:002018-08-04T00:02:33.369-04:00Although I know my demand is presumptuous, I’ve al...Although I know my demand is presumptuous, I’ve always felt sorry that the number of posts by Steiner or Brenner is rather too scant. In retrospect, however, they have written very enough. Those who should have listened to them more than anybody else didn’t. As with tango, it takes two to debate. Without the proper opponents with compatible intellectual integrity, how could they have the motivation to coax their hands to type the keyboard? Nevertheless, I build up my courage to ask Steiner for an opinion about Carlo Rovelli and broader themes regarding modern cosmology. (As for Carlo Rovelli, I came across an article about him in WSWS, which I thought very intriguing and instructive. So, I went so far as to buy Rovelli’s Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, which was good but seemed to be too sketchy.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-77754607950375726892018-08-02T18:45:58.655-04:002018-08-02T18:45:58.655-04:00Response to Charles on Frankfrut School:
Charles,...Response to Charles on Frankfrut School:<br /><br />Charles, you seem to be incapable of reading anything we have written or responding to it in a meaningful way. But you do seem to be very good at repeating formulas you have picked up from Mr. North's writing on the Frankfurt School. This is not the first time I have asked you to respond to our critique of North's butchery of the history and ideas of the Frankfurt School. <br /><br />It is a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion with you as you are not arguing in good faith.<br /> Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-31146623986722608722018-08-02T18:38:43.666-04:002018-08-02T18:38:43.666-04:00Response to Charles on unions:
You are just repea...Response to Charles on unions:<br /><br />You are just repeating yourself and show no evidence that you have read a word of our critique of the SEP's analysis of the unions. Can you summarize our critique of North's discussion of the "union form"? No I didn't think so.<br /><br />You concede that unions still offer some benefits - a concession the SEP is unwilling to admit. But you think it is fine that the SEP refuses to defend those unions and even praise them for "tacking ahead of events in a way, in order to clarify the direction of change." But please tell us what the working class should do until Mr. North leads that movement with new organizations of struggle, which I have no doubt is coming soon? I guess they will just have to settle for having no organizations of any sort to defend them. <br /><br />Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-76961375459351581772018-08-02T03:46:19.220-04:002018-08-02T03:46:19.220-04:00Is 'critical theory' (i.e. the tradition o...Is 'critical theory' (i.e. the tradition of thought deriving from the Frankfurt School) class theory? No it is not. It rejects the salience of class. It treats capitalism as a form of rationality rather than class exploitation. It looks to the sources of social change in cultural movements, environmental movements, new social movements of all kinds, feminism, third world and post-colonial movements, and in discourse, civil society, the 'lifeworld' etc. <br />Therefore, the legacy of the Frankfurt School is a turn away from class politics, something fundamentally un-Marxist, which masquerades as Marxism in the universities. <br />Therefore, North is fundamentally correct. <br />What his book on the Frankfurt School is about is the historical-political legacy of the Frankfurt School. Its legacy is a turn of the 'radical intelligentsia' away from Marxism and away from the working class. In this crucial way, the Frankfurt School is a key part of the intellectual background of today's pseudo-left. I think North is correct about that. <br />Even if, as I do, you think that there are really important ideas in the Frankfurt School (on the psychology of authoritarianism, on the distortion of science into a tool of repression, on consumerism, for example) one still has to acknowledge that it is a fundamental problem that the overall movement of the Frankfurt School itself and of critical theory following it was away from class analysis and class politics. Is that not true? <br />Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-90309573090935372002018-08-02T02:23:49.243-04:002018-08-02T02:23:49.243-04:00You say "What was an incorrect analysis a doz...You say "What was an incorrect analysis a dozen years ago has now metamorphosed into a fundamental betrayal of the principle of working class solidarity. That is why we are now saying that the SEP is an anti-working class organization." But the thing is, I think the SEP's analysis of the unions is becoming more correct all the time. The historical process underway is toward the transformation of unions into organizations that operate to suppress strikes and police the working class on behalf of capital. What is driving that is contradiction between the union form, which is national and oriented to the nation state, and the globalization of production. The ability to move 'fixed capital', together with financial instruments that facilitate the movement of capital, have immensely strengthened the power of capital in relation to labor and it is that changing balance of power that is reflected in the degeneration of unions into being representatives of capital to labor rather than vice versa. This process has gone hand in hand with political changes that are also driven by globalization the demise of social democracy and the end of the social democratic character such as it was of the Democratic Party in the US. And the collapse of the Soviet Union (which I think the SEP is correct to say globalization was also a major cause of) strengthened capital and removed a lot of the fear of revolution which had motivated reformism. So the dialectical change, the metamorphosis, is in the unions themselves, their degeneration. (And you so often accuse the SEP of not having a dialectical analysis!) Yes, there are benefits still to be being a member of a union. But the unions are degenerating even from the limited reformist role they had. The SEP is pointing to, and through their approach, emphasizing and highlighting the direction of change. And this is a change that is very far along the way. The benefits of union membership mentioned by Reich are residual. Workers need to respond to globalization with new organs of struggle. The SEP is tacking ahead of events in a way, in order to clarify the direction of change. I appreciate that. And I see it as a very honest approach. The alternative - which by the way is Robert Reich's politics - is pretending that social democracy can be restored and that means obfuscating the direction of change in order to suggest that there is nothing wrong with the union form. Well, there is, and increasingly so. The postwar order is collapsing (witness Trump at the G7). This is a period when the contradictions of capitalism can no longer be contained. It will be a period of wars and revolutions. Workers need new organs of struggle in this period. This is what I take to be the SEP's analysis and I find it very cogent. Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-84965914828323461312018-07-31T10:44:58.806-04:002018-07-31T10:44:58.806-04:00Reply to Charles Part III:
A couple of other poin...Reply to Charles Part III:<br /><br />A couple of other points Charles makes: It is destructive to call the SEP an anti-working class organization.<br /><br />I would say that it is incumbent at this point to expose the SEP for what they are as any illusion that this party has anything to do with "socialism" simply gives socialism a bad name among class conscious workers. I simply cannot imagine how one can speak to a worker in the name of socialism and at the same time defend the Janus decision. I am sure that many members of the SEP feel sympathy for the working class but they have to come to terms with the fact that the organization to which they belong no longer defends the working class from attacks by the bourgeois state. That is the significance of their support for the Janus decision. It does mark a certain turning point.<br /><br />Finally I think Charles is far too indulgent in granting some credbility to David North's claims to have "analyzed" the Frankfurt School. I would say, <b>"What analysis"?</b> It is certainly legitimate for Marxists to critique the theories of the Frankfurt School, but you will not find anything of the sort in the writings of David North on the subject. Rather North has perpetrated an intellectual fraud in his various fulminations against the Frankfurt School. If you want to discuss that seriously then I would point you to our writings on this subject: <br /><br /><a href="http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/2015/09/crackpot-philosophy-and-doublespeak.html" rel="nofollow">Crackpot Philosophy and Double-Speak</a><br /><br /><a href="http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/2016/04/response-to-review-of-frankfurt-school.html" rel="nofollow">Response to a review of 'The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left'</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://permanent-revolution.org/polemics/downward_spiral_ch01.pdf" rel="nofollow">Downward Spiral of the International Committee</a> For an extended discussion of the history of the Frankfurt School and some of North distortions of that history see Chapter 1, pages 13-17, 23-29.<br /><br />It is not a matter of North getting some details wrong, but of concocting out of whole cloth a narrative about the Frankfrut School that has nothing to do with its actual history or its thought, but has everything to do with justifying a philosophical and political stand that has finally landed him in the camp of the enemies of the working class.Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-48253626973081443562018-07-31T10:09:28.980-04:002018-07-31T10:09:28.980-04:00Response to Anonymous:
It is complete rubbish to ...Response to Anonymous:<br /><br />It is complete rubbish to claim that the SEP had the same position on the unions two decades ago that they do today. While they already had a highly distorted understanding of the unions even two decades ago, they still expressed a strong opposition to Right To Work laws. We have documented this previously but SEP supporters are apparently incapable of acknowledging this simple fact. Here is an example of their previous opposition to Right To Work laws from 2012, in an official statement from the Socialist Equality Party, which states,<br /><br /><i>"The Socialist Equality Party opposes the “right-to-work” legislation being rushed through the Michigan legislature by Governor Rick Snyder and state Republicans. Despite its misleading name, the measure has nothing to do with guaranteeing jobs or any other right to workers. On the contrary, it is aimed at stripping workers of any means of collectively defending their jobs, living standards and working conditions.<br /><br />Funded by the most right-wing and anti-working class forces—including billionaire Richard DeVos and the Koch Brothers—the measure bans collective bargaining agreements that require workers to pay dues or fees to unions as a condition of employment. By instituting what is in effect an open shop requirement for all public and private-sector workplaces, the corporate backers of the legislation hope to remove any restrictions on their exploitation of labor.<br /><br />States that currently have right-to-work laws, including Mississippi and South Carolina, are among the most impoverished in the United States. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, wages for both union and nonunion workers are on average $1,500 a year lower in right-to-work states."</i><br /><br /><a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/10/rtwm-d10.html" rel="nofollow">No to Michigan’s ‘right-to-work’ legislation</a><br /><br />I would never have applied to join any organization that supports the Janus decision or any other Right To Work legislation. <br /><br />As for the corruption of the UAW what is preventing you or any SEP member from fighing this corrupt bureaucracy by pursuing all avenues that are available including - but not limited to - pressing criminal charges, creating rank and file committees <b> and organizing opposition movements within the UAW? </b> What is your point? Are you saying that this union is now the equivalent of "unions" that were imposed on workers by the Mussolini fascist regime, where any hint of opposition landed you in prison? Are the crimes of the UAW bureaucracy now supposed to be an excuse for abandoning a defense of unions against assault by the bourgeois state? If so how would you explain Trotsky's position even at the height of the Moscow Trials that it was necessary to defend the Soviet Union against attacks by external enemies despite the crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy?Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-29424669075287591782018-07-31T04:32:24.767-04:002018-07-31T04:32:24.767-04:00"It's an observation that confirms everyt..."It's an observation that confirms everything Marx taught us about the mutually antagonistic relationship between labor and capital and makes toast of all the rubbish spread by free marketeers and other right wing ideologues, financed by the most virulent representatives of the bourgeoisie like the Koch brothers, that claim workers are better off without unions."<br /><br />How can this be a shock to you when this was the position the SEP was putting forward some two decades ago when you reapplied to join? Your insinuation that this is an innovation of the last few months is unsustainable. It would appear that it is your attitude to the unions that has changed--not that of SEP...<br /><br />And in light of your comments above, could you comment on the latest revelations about the corruption of the UAW...i.e., that it went to the top, involved virtually the entire apparatus of the union, and was nothing less than a systematic defrauding of auto workers. The union was receiving massive kickbacks from the big three while "negotiating" contracts that slashed workers' jobs, wages and conditions. How can such entities be described as "workers organisations" in any sense of the term, and why should socialists promote the illusion that they can be reformed or revived?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-10006958691729000122018-07-30T15:56:22.700-04:002018-07-30T15:56:22.700-04:00Response to Charles Part II:
Charles raises the q...Response to Charles Part II:<br /><br />Charles raises the question,<br /><br />"CAN unions actually be reformed? OK, the problem is the union bureaucracy, but is it possible to undo the power of the bureaucracy within these structures?"<br /><br />There are a lot of assumptions behind that statement. If you are looking for organizations of the working class to become centers for the preparation of the revolution then you will of course be disappointed in unions as they function in ordinary times. But then again you would be disappointed in any kind of working class organization including the rank and file committees that the SEP likes to put forward as their alternative. But under exceptional circumstances, it is possible for organizations of the working class, including unions, to play a revolutionary role. This was one of the lessons of the Russian Revolution, a fact to which we pointed in our analysis of the SEP's position on the unions in Marxism Without its Head or its Heart. <br /><br />Now the SEP's position is that the unions have become so rotten that they no longer can even function as organizations that defend the interests of workers even within the framework of capitalism. There is a lot of truth to that if you are painting with a very broad brush. But the broad-brush view, while helpful as a general orientation, cannot provide sufficient concreteness to be a practical guide to action. There are differences between unions and in locals within unions. And even a rotten union, as the Reich essay makes clear, is generally better than having no union at all. It is possible even today, to see revolts from the rank and file arise within unions against the bureaucracy. And as we have seen with the teachers strikes, struggles can emerge among non-unionized workers. And what do those struggles always demand? Better wages and working conditions and some sort of security that can only be provided by a collective bargaining agreement. In other words, they begin to function as unions and want the support of other sectors of the working class for their struggle. The SEP's blanket denial that it is impossible to fight the bureaucracy in any union under any circumstances is nothing more than an excuse for abstaining from the struggle. For Marxists to gain influence within working class organizations necessarily involves a struggle against the bureaucracy. To think that this struggle can simply be bypassed by magically creating "rank and file committees" that do not have a bureaucracy is nothing more than a form of wishful thinking. <br /><br />Ask yourself this - what is preventing the SEP from running candidates for office within unions? Is it likely that they will very quickly capture the leadership of the union away from career bureaucrats? No, of course not, but does that mean that there is nothing to be gained from conducting a campaign that tries to make the bureaucracy accountable? If you think not then you might as well say the same thing about fielding candidates for Congress. There is no possibility that an SEP representative will be elected to Congress but apparently the SEP still thinks there is some value in running for Congressional Office. Why does this not apply to unions?<br /><br />So maybe the question should be not, "Can unions be reformed?", but "Is it possible to fight for a socialist perspective to defend workers within unions?" in which case the answer is absolutely "YES".<br />Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-59292442417798828072018-07-30T12:57:27.060-04:002018-07-30T12:57:27.060-04:00Response to Charles Part I:
Reich's point is ...Response to Charles Part I:<br /><br />Reich's point is indeed correct. He refers to data showing that when the powers of unions are weakened and the power of corporations strengthened the wages and conditions of life of the working class suffer. It's an observation that confirms everything Marx taught us about the mutually antagonistic relationship between labor and capital and makes toast of all the rubbish spread by free marketeers and other right wing ideologues, financed by the most virulent representatives of the bourgeoisie like the Koch brothers, that claim workers are better off without unions. <br /><br />It is therefore somewhat of a shock to see an organization claiming to be Marxist echoing the free marketeers in saying that workers would be better off without unions. But that is exactly what the Socialist Equality Party have done. To have ended up in this position is not simply a matter of having a mistaken analysis, as Charles indicates. It is true of course that their analysis of unions is grossly mistaken and stands on a fundamental misreading of history and a bastardization of philosophy. This much we analyzed in detail a dozen years ago. But nothing stands still in this dialectial universe. What was an incorrect analysis a dozen years ago has now metamorphosed into a fundamental betrayal of the principle of working class solidarity. That is why we are now saying that the SEP is an anti-working class organization. They have crossed a class line in their support of the reactionary Supreme Court decision in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. We characterize the SEP in this manner not because we are interested in name-calling - a practice they theselves indulge in with nauseating regularity - but because we feel we have a responsibility to tell the truth without any adornments or illusions. <br /><br />Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-50402153044080576152018-07-30T12:47:33.527-04:002018-07-30T12:47:33.527-04:00Somebody needs to criticize the SEP because there ...Somebody needs to criticize the SEP because there is so much to criticize! They've been predicting that WW3 is about to start for decades and have been wrong every time. I don't know how much of this blog you have read but the SEP is wrong and dishonest about so many things that it baffles me that people defend them so fiercely. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-55479333705026824932018-07-29T17:11:18.281-04:002018-07-29T17:11:18.281-04:00I don't understand the point of this blog. It ...I don't understand the point of this blog. It seems to have moved from criticizing the SEP while being in basic sympathy to outright hostility and opposition to the SEP. What is the point of an anti-SEP blog? What do you have to offer instead? It seems to me the SEP is the only organization telling the truth consistently, most importantly about imperialism and the danger of World War Three, and about the movement of the whole political spectrum to the right, and about the need for a total break with bourgeois organizations and the necessity of revolution. Calling the SEP anti-working class is destructive and reactionary. Is that the point of your blog, just to attack the SEP? It doesn't seem like constructive criticism any more. Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-14436424912554818222018-07-29T15:52:47.252-04:002018-07-29T15:52:47.252-04:00Even if you are correct that engagement in the uni...Even if you are correct that engagement in the unions in order to reach the working class is the correct strategy for Trotskyists, it is still rhetorical and, I believe, destructive, to call the SEP 'anti-working class'. They may be wrong, but they're not anti-working class. They are consistently partisan on the side of the working class. How can one read the WSWS and think it is anti-working class? The website itself performs a crucial service to the working class by penetrating through the fog of mainstream media and presenting and analyzing events from a Marxist, working-class perspective. The SEP is not a vast behemoth but a small organization made up of people absolutely dedicated to the working class struggle. What about the Auto Workers Newsletter? What about the Amazon Workers Newsletter? These may be modest but they are significant interventions and achievements for an organization that does not have unlimited resources or personnel? It's one thing to engage in criticism of the SEP but another to attack it as anti-working class. It's one thing to call organizations such as the UAW anti-working class when the leadership takes bribes from the auto companies in order to push through sell-out contracts. To use that label against the SEP is a totally different matter. I think it is destructive and unhelpful. Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-11550669762044886932018-07-29T14:31:28.772-04:002018-07-29T14:31:28.772-04:00Relevant to this debate:
https://www.theguardian....Relevant to this debate: <br />https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/us-economy-workers-paycheck-robert-reich<br />Reich makes an interesting point: <br />"Two fundamental forces have changed the structure of the US economy, directly altering the balance of power between business and labor. The first is the increasing difficulty for workers of joining together in trade unions. The second is the growing ease by which corporations can join together in oligopolies or to form monopolies." <br />The article provides some evidence to support Steiner and Brenner's analysis of unions. <br /><br />But: CAN unions actually be reformed? OK, the problem is the union bureaucracy, but is it possible to undo the power of the bureaucracy within these structures? <br />Also, I take the the task of workplace committees not to be collective bargaining, but revolutionary organizing. Now, whether that is realistic in these times is a key question. <br /><br />Regarding the Frankfurt School - I'm actually very interested in their ideas and don't dismiss them. But I do think that there is a fundamental problem, which is their view that advanced capitalism has incorporated the working class and overcome the crisis tendencies of capitalism and rendered class struggle latent. That had some truth in the first two post-war decades (and the bureaucratization of class relations via the unions was part of what gave that perspective a degree of reality then). The uncoupling by the Frankfurt School of Marx's critique of alienation from Marx's economic analysis in capital was very detrimental. Whatever arguments one can make about the details of North's analysis, I think he makes a fundamental point about the Frankfurt School providing intellectual cover for an abandonment of class by the left intelligentsia. Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-13259314344499331612018-07-26T13:18:35.948-04:002018-07-26T13:18:35.948-04:00The support is for the rank and file, and the cons...The support is for the rank and file, and the consideration of what the Decision will mean for them is the point. Where the SEP insists it is a win (which, as noted by S&B, is an opinion shared by the right-wing union-busters), it is ignoring the cost of this decision for the working class as a whole. The question of how this decision is of benefit to the working class has certainly not been answered by the writers of the WSWS - this question has been avoided and hidden under the blanket of how bad it will be for the bureaucracy and the Democrats. <br /><br />No one has argued in favor of either of these entities. But the SEP has conflated the bureaucracy with the workers in unions. This is incorrect. Workers trapped in rotten - and yes, anti-working class - organizations need to be defended, and if a decision ultimately hurts *their* interests, it has to be denounced, not lauded. <br /><br />To ask and analyze what the decision means for the union rank and file and the un-unionized working class is exactly what socialists should be doing. Ultimately, this decision is a blow against workers' rights to organize. The SEP's celebration of it is incorrect and the result of a failure to look at the implications dialectically. Christie S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-78848343451497887872018-07-25T17:39:38.244-04:002018-07-25T17:39:38.244-04:00Reply to Charles:
You've missed every salient...Reply to Charles:<br /><br />You've missed every salient point we've made. What's at stake in the Janus decision is not defending the union bureaucracy but defending THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.<br /><br />You admit that there are "some residual benefits to union membership". Eric London doesn't even admit to that. But how is it that such benefits can continue to exist if, as you say, unionism is just a "corpse"? In any case, the BLS numbers I cited show that these benefits are far from insignificant, which is to say that the "corpse" is still breathing. Why else do you think that corporate gangsters like the Koch brothers have been so relentless in trying to destroy collective bargaining rights? <br /><br />One further point in this regard: in the event that rank-and-file committees do emerge, what do you imagine these committees will do? Assuming they emerge spontaneously, which is most likely going to be the case, they will seek to bargain collectively for the workers that support them. In other words, they will seek to exercise the very right that the Supreme Court has just denied them - with the approval of the SEP. I don't think such workers will have any trouble identifying the SEP as an anti-working class organization.<br /><br />As for the WSWS position on the unions, we subjected that to a lengthy analysis in Marxism Without its Head or its Heart, which we've referenced repeatedly in this discussion. Before you accuse us of name-calling, you should actually take the time to read and engage with that analysis.<br /><br />As for your reference to the Frankfurt School, that is just an echo of North's anti-intellectual gibberish.<br /><br />Frank Brenner<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-12652886566528160142018-07-23T17:53:47.467-04:002018-07-23T17:53:47.467-04:00When WSWS says that unions are anti-working class ...When WSWS says that unions are anti-working class organizations, this is based on analysis. There are so many examples of workers' struggles being betrayed by the union bureaucracy that support this analysis. But when permanent-revolution turns around and calls the SEP anti working class, that is just reflexive name calling. The reply to Eric London above doesnt support that claim. All it does is show that there are sone residual benefits to union membership in the public sector. But these are not organizations within which struggles for the revolutionary transformation of society can be conducted. For me, Steiner and Brenner's support of unions really calls into question their whole perspective. If broadening Trotskyist analysis to include ideas from the Frankfurt School leads merely to attempt to recusitate the corpse of unionism, that doesnt seem a big gain from incorporating these perspectives.Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-73796023093822044102018-07-23T00:52:19.542-04:002018-07-23T00:52:19.542-04:00I apologize for using that term in this forum, des...I apologize for using that term in this forum, despite my sentiment in regards to him remaining. I will refrain from using it in the future. But his disgusting contempt for women and his attacks on social justice movements that he as well as the rest of his site describe as "Pseudo-left", among other terms. And their endless repeating of that in the Goebbels style, is bothersome. How are they considered the epitome of Socialist organizations? Is that as good as it's going to get?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08633220724830962043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-53179943943785877652018-07-22T16:11:31.123-04:002018-07-22T16:11:31.123-04:00Mr Steiner, can you tell me if you think the WSWS&...Mr Steiner, can you tell me if you think the WSWS's coverage of the Russian election interference issue has been any good?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-19635253995234096032018-07-19T17:28:05.825-04:002018-07-19T17:28:05.825-04:00Please refrain from name calling on this site. Ex...Please refrain from name calling on this site. Examples of name calling are calling people "bastards" or "psychotic haters". I let a couple of comments go but any future use of such language will not be permitted.Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-49236073322994900822018-07-19T10:05:35.701-04:002018-07-19T10:05:35.701-04:00HighProfileHermit refers to "that bastard Dav...HighProfileHermit refers to "that bastard David Walsh." This site is building its audience among embittered and psychotic haters of the SEP. You are attracting the readers you deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-54759562114054953612018-07-19T09:07:57.603-04:002018-07-19T09:07:57.603-04:00Yes, I also have had my comments screened, and one...Yes, I also have had my comments screened, and one of them was censored on the WSWS site. I have studied up extensively on the WSWS,SEP,WRP,SLL and Healy in the last year or so. I don't see the SEP as being anything approximating the Party of the World Revolution as they proclaim they are. I am sure that there are a good many people (myself included) that read the WSWS daily but do not adhere to some of their political conclusions. I would not go to the lengths that Brenner does and brand the SEP an anti-working class organization. <br />I am thinking that a thorough study of the origins, history and evolution (or degeneration if you will) of the trade unions is in order. Maybe a good study exist that I am not aware of? In my opinion a quality study would take into consideration all newer research on evolutionary biology relating to human social behavior and etc. muskratnoreply@blogger.com