More Union Bashing
- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1333-september-2015/more-union-bashingFron this article:As socialists, we stand with our fellow working class in their necessary battles to defend themselves, but we point out at all times that the real victory to be achieved is the abolition of the wages system.How does the talk of battles add up to a peaceful road to Socialism …. ! ? ! ?
Following is a discussion on the page titled: More Union Bashing.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!i think the article is justified in using the term battle.We do advocate that workes engage in the class struggle in what we call the class war. Divisions in class will always exist within capitalism and conflict between them will always take place until we establish a socialist society, peacefully if possible, forcibly as necessary. Some may be pacifits but certainly by no means all of the SPGBLet also not forget that the the term 'battle' is not necessarily a metaphor since a look at history will show that they were indeed real battles with many fatal casualties. Armies and militias, police and private police have violently suppressed strikes and protests. Occasionally, workers fought back but the odds were always against them. In our own lifetimes, we have seen militarised police, banging shields with their batons, Zulu style, and then cudgeling and bludgeoning innocent miners in the UK.I see nothing incorrect using the word battle.
From comment above: Peacefully if possible, forcibly as necessary. Some may be pacifits but certainly by no means all of the SPGB !I'm on the peaceful side being a witness to violence and the human emotion / pain makes me like that. I don't get the pacifist debate, I knew some in thew Green Party England and Wales and they where not being peaceful when to do with Fracking and Anti – War movement !
The slogan i believe has a long history, originally being the one of the Chartists in the 1830s/40.There is a also many varieties of non-violence, some are by no means, passive docility…there are occupations, sit-downs, blockade pickets, non-cooperation, collective actions that go beyond turning the other cheek of 'Christian' pacifism. One thing we should always be remember that militarisation of protest will lead to defeat…Who now remembers that that the Syrian civil war began from a peaceful youth protest movement and grew into the bloody carnage it is now when non-violent opposition was abandoned first for self-defence. It provided the opportunity for outside influences to take control and dominate the resistance to Assad. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-non-violent-approach-to-class-war.htmlhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-few-views-on-syria.htmlI think Gene Sharp wrote a lot on the topic. One of his books is reveiwed here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1291-march-2012/book-reviews
Marxist Internet Archive Users Discussion Group:This topic has taken off on this link ….https://www.facebook.com/groups/925823854110470/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.