The capitalist class which runs the country see how important the students struggle is. This is reflected in the coverage in major journals such as the Wall Street Journal and the new York Times and on the media such as CNN. They clearly see that a victory for the students would dent their offensive in general. It is important for them that the students are defeated. So they push their decision to hike fees through the undemocratic body of multi millionaire regents and surround and protect this body with cops, with the armed power of their state apparatus.
The students are occupying buildings and conducting sit downs and sit ins to take their struggle forward. These are the methods of the sit down strikes of the US working class which won the victories of the 1930's and the sit ins and demonstrations and confrontation on the streets which won the victories of the 1960's. The Cal students are in the best tradition of US struggle. They must receive our full support. They can win and in doing so begin the process of halting and throwing back the capitalist offensive and beginning an offensive of our own for a better life.
It is in this context that we wish to raise a few concerns. The trade unions have borne the brunt of the capitalist offensive in this country over the past decades. Wages, benefits, conditions, rights have all been attacked and cut back. The union leaders, convinced there is no alternative to the profit addicted capitalist system have gone along with this offensive. They have done so in the form of the so called team concept. Behind these innocent sounding words they have cooperated with the bosses in reducing living standards. It is fundamentally incorrect that the workers and the unions and the bosses are or ever can be a team. The bosses and the workers will always be opposed in their interests. We live in a system which is dominated by the struggle over profits.
There is a lot of anger in the union rank and file against the refusal of their leaders to fight. The union leaders in turn are afraid of their own rank and file rising against them and making them fight. It is very important therefore for the union leaders that their policy of making concessions on wages, jobs, conditions and rights is not challenged. To put it bluntly it is very important that every struggle to improve wages, benefits, jobs and conditions or stop education fee hikes is defeated. Think about it. If workers and students began to win struggles then the whole argument of the union leaders that struggles cannot not be won is undermined. Their argument that there is no alternative but to accept concessions is undermined and their position in the leadership of the unions would be undermined. Victorious struggles are a threat to the union leaders.
It is in this context I would like to look at the Cal students struggle. The Union leaders are refusing to bring their members out in all out strike and action along with the students. What an opportunity they have here. But they refuse to take this opportunity. They quote a so called "no sympathy clause" in contracts. Or as I call it a "screw everybody else clause." And in the last analysis "screw ourselves" clause. All contracts that have this clause in them should be broken and the workers should be out on the picket line, in the streets and in the occupations and sit downs with the students. But this is not what is happening. The students are being left to fight alone, to face the vicious attacks of the cops and their batons and spray and to be arrested alone. This is an outright shame. The union leaders should be ashamed of themselves. These young students are showing the way and they are letting them down. But there is more enough shame to go around. The union members should also look at their actions, they should refuse to go along with their leaders actions. They should organize in their locals, workplaces, councils and come out in struggle with the students and disregard their leaders and their contracts.
In relation to this I have read a report that in the struggle in LA there appeared on the scene a so called "security line." This outfit claimed it was there to defend the students from the cops. It placed itself between the students and the cops. The affect was to prevent the students from carrying out their plan to try and occupy the building and to take the struggle forward. It sounds to me that this was a "security line" for the state and the cops not the students. A security line to keep the decision to hike the fees standing. It sounds to me like this so called "security line" was there to hold back not protect the students, to prevent their struggle being successful.
But let us be objective. I would like to propose the following. Let us have an enquiry into this so called security line. Where was the decision taken to organize it? There had to have been a meeting to take a decision to set up this so called security line and to organize it. Who was at the meeting that took this decision? Were the so called authorities, cops, bosses, university authorities and or regents present? Were the union leaders represented at this meeting and what position did they take? What was the objective of this so called security line? Was this a "make the students action ineffective" meeting? Do not let this lie. Let us find out about this so called security line. In doing so we can have a better understanding of how the various forces in society works and what we have to do to win our struggles.
Let us continue with our struggles. Let us organize support for the heroic Cal students. And let the LA students set up an enquiry into this so called security line, or more accurately the "make the students action ineffective line."
Two dedications to the Cal students and especially those who have been on the front line and attacked by the state.
Berkeley 1964. "There is a time when the operations of the machine, becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you cannot take part.....and you've got to put your body upon the gears....and you've got to make it stop."
"Silence is sometimes a disgrace." Yevtushenko. 1968.
Sean.
No comments:
Post a Comment