On a Marxist listserve, I recently started questioning the sincerity of a writer. He made many unsubstantiated assertions–like Trump. I find such an irresponsible attitude to be insulting, given the nature of human suffering in this world dominated by the class of employers.
First Insult to the Working Class: Providing No Evidence that Unions Openly Recognize the Limitations of Collective Bargaining and Collective Agreements
Thus, he wrote the following:
Should I in any or all of these settings, have insistently pointed out the “limitations of collective bargaining”? It wasn’t necessary to do so. Trade unionists, particularly those who are active, are already aware on the basis of their own experience with the negotation and administration of contracts of the system’s inherent limitations. It was enough to simply refer to the language of specific clauses to illustrate the point.
The writer provided no proof whatsoever–other than his own assurances–that “trade unionists are already aware on the basis of their own experience with the negotation and administration of contracts of the system’s inherent limitations. It was enough to simply refer to the language of specific clauses to illustrate the point.”
I guess the fact that the largest unions in Canada refer to collective agreements as fair contracts persistently is not counterproof of this assertion (see for instance many examples of the largest Canadian unions referring to collective agreements as “fair” in ( Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One: The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) , or Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada) or Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Four: The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) (The Second Largest Union in Canada)).
There is plenty of evidence that Canadian unions do not openly express a belief in the limitations of the collective-bargainig process and collective agreements. The writer is simply lying. Alternatively, union reps may believe there are limitations, but they do not express this publicly, in which case they are hypocritical by calling collective agreements fair–and so too is the writer.
On the rare occasion when union reps do admit such limitations, it is when they themselves are threatened with being held responsibile for issues over which they have little control. Thus, as I pointed out in my post in the context of the issue of health and safety (see Confessions of a Union Representative Concerning the Real Power of Employers):
“In the context of the process of passing legislation related to the Westray mining disaster (ultimately diluted to satisfy the interests of employers), a union representative explicitly expressed the reality that workers face when they work for employers. The problem with this explicit admission of the power of employers is that it does not play any real role in the education of the working class. Compare what is said below with union rhetoric about “decent jobs” or a “fair wage.” From Steven Bittle, Still Dying for a Living: Shaping Corporate Criminal Liability After the Westray Mine Disaster, doctoral dissertation, page 202:”
Another union representative expressed concern [with the proposed government legislation] that unions can be held responsible for workplace accidents, noting that unions and employees have little decision-making control with the organization:
“…basically we wanted the legislation to go after corporate bosses, basically, because
they’re the ones that make the decisions. At the end of the day any decision that’s
made on anything to do with the business comes about as a result of management’s
decision. It doesn’t come about because of a union decision. We wish, but it doesn’t.
They have the ultimate authority to manage, and that authority is only restricted by
terms of a collective agreement, and in very few cases, maybe in terms of regulations or legislation. So we were hoping that it would focus more on criminal liability for those that have the power to make decisions. But in reality what it does is that it will hold anybody accountable if the investigation shows there was any part played in any particular incident by anybody from the janitor right up to the CEO. Now some people will argue, why not? Well normally, in my experience in almost forty years, is that any decision made by the janitor is usually something that is usually handed down from above, right. And there are very few cases where you could actually cite where somebody at that level had any type of malicious intent to do anything to cause harm “(Union representative, Interview 12).
I indicated in one of my posts on the Marxist listserve that I had nothing but contempt for such writers as the one who made the incredibly irresponsible assertion that unions as a matter of course recognize the limitations of collective agreements. I also accused the writer of lacking sincerity.
The result? One of the moderators then wrote the following:
But why would X [name is unimportant in this context] or anyone else want to deceive us? It’s one thing to disagree with what someone has posted and a different thing to claim some underhanded purpose to the posting. Or to “unmask” people you disagree with on the list. If you find it “insulting to read his nonsense,” then why read his postings?
My partial response:
Why would X not want to deceive people? Why would X make such statements as the claim that unions do teach union members the limitations of collective bargaining and collective agreements? Why would he make such an assertion, [moderator’s name]? Please inform us why he would do this. I am all ears.
Note [the moderator’s] apparent logic. Why read anything that Trump wrote? Is not most of what Trump wrote nonsense? What would be the purpose of reading anything that Trump wrote? Or other members of the capitalist class or their representatives? To criticize them? To show that what they assert is wrong? That their ideas are empty? If Trump came on this listserve and started talking about “fake news”–would anyone here find that insulting? Is that not what X does with his empty assertions without any justitication whatsoever?
I find X’s statements stupid–and insulting. I will continue to ridicule them.
If you or the other moderators want to boot me off this listserve for that–feel free to do so. I have nothing but contempt for the X’s of the world.
Fred
It is a partial response since I also objected to X’s frequent use of the term “materialism” as justification for his beliefs–without his ever explaining what he means by the term. George L. Kline, in his article “The Myth of Marx’ Materialism,” has indicated what Marx did not mean by “materialism (page 158):
Let me be explicit at the outset about precisely what I am denying when I refer to Marx’ materialism as a “myth”. I am denying that Marx, even the youngest Marx, was a philosophical materialist, i.e., a theorist who develops or defends a materialist ontology, asserting the ontological primacy of matter and explaining whatever appears to common sense to be non-material (e.g., thoughts, feelings, values, ideals, structures, laws) as manifestations, functions, or relational properties of “matter in motion”.
Kline asserts that Marx used the term “materialism” or “materialist” in at least seven different ways. I will address this issue further below.
Second Insult to the Working Class
X makes the following assertion:
But it is a process. Unlike students and academics for whom the need for socialism can come as epiphany based on their reading, for most people political awakening comes through their own experience in struggle. To the extent they come into contact with revolutionary socialists who are tolerant of their illusions about reforming the system and willing to patiently explain why these are illusions [my emphasis], the process becomes accelerated.
My response:
Look at the delusions of this writer:
“To the extent they come into contact with revolutionary socialists who are tolerant of their illusions about reforming the system and willing to patiently explain why these are illusions, the process becomes accelerated.” What illusions are these? That unions systematically teach their members the limitations of collective bargaining and collective agreement? That money is their own power in a thing? Let X provide us with his theory of the illusion of money. I have yet to see what illusions he means. His illusions are evident.
Or the illusions of being paid a fair wage? What of the illusion of decent work? What of the illusion of the wage, where it appears that workers sell their labour rather than their labour power? What of the illusion that they are not exploited? What illusions, X?
In all these illusions, X has nothing to say. The emptiness of his thoughts should be evident to all. What illusions has he dispelled? That workers are not exploited? Where has he done this? Let X show us this. Or any other “illusion.”
With the Xs of the world, there will be no change. X is an apologist for doing nothing at all. What a farce. But he is a good representative of what the “left” has become.
X refers to people like him dispelling illusions held by workers–without any evidence that he tried to do so or what the nature of those illusions are. X is a crackpot leftist who hides the emptiness of his own thoughts behind wholly unsubstantiated claims. Why would any Marxist not criticize his views–and him? Those who claim to dispell illusions–do they not have some responsibility to actually refer to what they mean and how they are going to do it? Do they not need to show why there is a need for such a dispelling of illusions? Apparently not–according to the moderators–since they started to moderate the thread. I guess an expression of disgust at how irresponsible X can be is sufficient to warrant moderation.
Third Insult to the Working Class
Which way does X use the term “materialist”? In a mechanist way, discounting any importance to conscious efforts to overcome the class power of employers (except, as we will see, by X’s own reformist efforts):
We might all wish it were otherwise, but we’re materialists [my emphasis] whose starting point is the objective situation and the power relations to which it gives rise, and are not among those who believe we can force history to do our bidding on the strength of our good ideas.
X of course constantly denies that he contradicts himself. I point this out often enough–but to no avail. X is constantly in denial. The contradiction here is that he claims that he is a materialist, but then he writes the following:
To the extent they come into contact with revolutionary socialists who are tolerant of their illusions about reforming the system and willing to patiently explain why these are illusions, the process becomes accelerated.
Is not “patiently explaining why these are illusions” intellectual? Or is it material? You would not know by X. Calling him out is useless since he then denies that he contradicts himself–ever. Why would any Marxist tolerate such a “Marxist?”
I did respond as follows:
Undoubtedly, the wise “materialist” X has nothing but contempt for the stupid idealist Marx, who wrote the following (Grundrisse, page 463):
The recognition [Erkennung] of the products as its own, and the judgement that its separation from the conditions of its realization is improper – forcibly imposed – is an enormous [advance in] awareness [Bewusstsein], itself the product of the mode of production resting on capital, and as much the knell to its doom as, with the slave’s awareness that he cannot be the property of another, with his consciousness of himself as a person, the existence of slavery becomes a merely artificial, vegetative existence, and ceases to be able to prevail as the basis of production.
X’s “materialism” leads him to denigrate the capacity of the working class (and, given what he wrote above about “dispelling illusions,” elevating himself above the working class):
But absent such a profound crisis, there’s very little chance the current reform movements will be moved to revolutionary action on our say-so. People don’t risk their livelihoods or lives unless they absolutely believe there is no other alternative.
I guess calling X stupid, his assertions an insult and generally ridiculing his trite and contradictory views–merits moderation–by Marxists?
I suspect that I will, sooner or later, be banned from the Marxist listserve. My writings on my experiences as a Marxist father already are censored (claiming that “third-party accusations” are unacceptable–despite the fact that a court document claims that I indoctrinated my daughter and despite the fact that I was arrested by the Canadian national police–the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)–and the arrest was related to such “third-party accusations.”
I could continue on–X constantly expresses contempt for the working class in various ways, but this should suffice.
Conclusion
It is one thing to tolerate dissent within Marxist debates; it is quite another to tolerate assertions that insult the working class in various ways: the false claim that unions openly recognize the limitations of collective bargaining and collective rights, the false claim (because there is no provisio of evidence to substantiate the claim) that the writer attempts to dispell the illusions of workers and, last but not least, the writer’s contradictory claim of being a materialist (without specifying what he means by the term) and his simultaneous claim of dispelling the illusions of workers.
I will let the reader decide whether the X’s views deserve to be ridiculed–and X himself as well since he has a responsibility to substantiate his claims rather than simply asserting them. Unless of course personal non-accountability is what characterizes the left these days.
The Abolitionary 