The Limitations of the Social-Reformist Left and Opposition to a United Front without an Independent Working-Class

In the first place, it could be that the nature of the social-reformist left in the past has contributed to the emergence of the far right. Its use of cliches–such as “economic justice”–which one of the panelists, John Cartwright, has used.

As I wrote on my blog:

“John Cartwright, president of the Toronto & York Region Labour Council, in his open letter of January 30, 2018 (An open letter to our movement) , wrote the following:”

“Does Mr. Cartwright mean by “economic justice” the abolition of the power of employers as a class? Or does he mean the signing of a collective agreement, which still involves the subordination of workers to the power of employers and their treatment as things? I suspect that Mr. Cartwright equates economic justice with collective agreements. In other words, the representation of the interests of workers for social reformists involves belonging to a union but not opposing the power of employers as a class.”

The social-reformist left, by using such cliches as “economic justice” assume that such justice can arise within the limits of the capitalist system. It cannot. Since such phrases and their own actions paper over the real exploitation, oppression and insecurity of working-class life, the legitimate rage felt by some workers because of their situation is simply ignored by the social-reformist left. Hence, it is probable that their political position has contributed to the rise of the far right–something which was never addressed at the book launch. (I will be providing another post in the future that addresses how the so-called progressive reformist left have contributed to the rise of the far right).

In the second place, it is quite useful for the social-reformist left to call for a united front since they do not have to give up anything to achieve it; rather, it is the radical left who must temper their political position in order to “gain admittance” into the hallowed halls of social democracy.

My prediction is that Tim will be co-opted–if he has not already been co-opted–into the reformist position.

Common fronts, of course, may be necessary for the working class, and coalitions may be necessary–but with an independent working-class position already formulated as a point of departure for negotiations. Tim seems to be isolated, and the predominance of the social-reformist left will likely lead to his co-optation. There will be no addressing the roots of the problem—the class power of employers.

(Incidentally, as is typical at social-reformist events, there was acknoweldgement of the land being on indigenous land. The editor then said that this was often performative, and she then referred to the land being stolen from the indigenous peoples. In the first place, that may have been true in the past, but is land something that should be the property of anyone? No questioning of the issue of the assumption that land should be the property of some section of the human species. Reference to “stolen land” was itself merely performative. In the second place, why is it that no reference to the produced means of production being the property of a minority? Has not the human species, as a species, always used tools of some form or another in order to produce their lives. By only referring to land and not these produced means of production, reference to “stolen land” was once again merely performative.)

Another point I wish to make is that the radical position can often entail or include progressive social-reformist positions, but progressive social-reformist positions can rarely include radical positions.

As an example of what I mean, I use the conversation or debate that I had with some union activists who were also feminists. I certainly support radical feminism politically, but social-reformist feminism often takes what is a particular situation and prioritizes it over what is the general situation and cannot even see the general situation.

“The story of an impregnated preteen girl in Massillon, Ohio, has drawn national attention to the state’s new, highly restrictive abortion laws.” Chicago Tribune (https://www.chicagotribune.com/2019/05/09/column-should-11-year-old-girls-have-to-bear-their-rapists-babies-ohio-says-yes/):

Tina Robin Faibish and 14 others

18 Comments

Kristen Bones Disgusting

Raymadawn Hamilton Hell no!!!!!!!

Liz Seaward Ash No they should not…this is disgusting

Natalie Ashlyne Brooke Michener Wtf these law makers have to go who the hell would do that to someone

Fred Harris Undoubtedly this is amoral [should be immoral]–but so too is having to work for an employer. And yet how many among the left really find working for an employer to be “disgusting?”

Tina Robin Faibish Fred Harris come on are you kidding me, you can not look at these two issues as if the level of unjust is similar or comparable because they are not!

Fred Harris Of course, social democrats simply ignore the day-to-day exploitation and oppression of billions of workers (this is so trivial) when compared to the issue of “11-year old girls having to bear their rapists’ babies.” This shows the extent to which the social-democratic left have been indoctrinated into accepting the employer-employee relation–which treats human beings as things.

So “moral”! Such phrases as “decent work,” and “$15 and Fairness” hide the immorality of being treated as things. The social-democratic left want to present themselves as morally superior, and yet they ignore the persistent and day-to-day subordination of billions of workers to the power of employers.

By the way, I do have a daughter. And she has been treated unjustly in various ways–including being treated as a thing by employers. I neither ignore the other ways in which she has been treated unjustly–nor the way in which she has been treated unjustly as an employee. The social-democratic left, however, do not consider it unjust to have to work for an employer. Their trite phrases, such as “decent work” express their own biases.

Laura Betty Fred Harris really?

Fred Harris Really what?

Fred Harris I have a blog on the issue of the employer-employee relation and the bankruptcy of the social-democratic left–theabolitionary

Tina Robin Faibish Fred Harris this is your MO and why no one is listening. Your comparison is completely off topic, and undermines the legitimacy and outrage as it relates to this discussion. In other words, as valid as your point may be, this is not the appropriate place to reference a comparison that clearly does not exist!”

Yes, social democrats do not listen. They have had their way for a long time now in Canada–ignoring the day-to-day exploitation, oppression and insecurity of workers.

But I do oppose having the particular situation of a girl being forced to retain a violently forced pregnancy. Why would I be opposed? In a capitalist society, workers sell their labour power–their capacity to work. Once sold, they lose a large part of control over their lives (with or without unions). In general, radical socialists should oppose measures which increase the control of the government and employers over the lives of workers and community members (Covid being an exception with respect to certain sections of the government–related to health issues, in particular).

So, a radical socialist position can support opposing such a law, as can the social-reformist union feminists, but the social-reformist union feminists do not categorically oppose the use of workers’ lives by employers for the benefit of public and private employers. Which position is more inclusive? The daily use of billions of workers by employers worldwide, for social reformists, is a “non-issue.” Incredible. The social-reformist leftist position is very restrictive and cannot address the general situation of the working class.

I prefer to find people, initially, who are opposed to the class power of employers and not to “neoliberalism”. That is the starting point but by not means the end point.

John Cartwright, Sid Ryan and so forth–their aim is really to humanize capitalism and then cover over its dictatorial nature with trite cliches, such as “economic justice,” “fair collective agreements,” “corporations paying their fare share of taxes,” and similar nonsense.

No united front until such time as there exists an independent working-class organization–not the petite bourgeois organization that idealizes unions and fails to oppose the class power of employers.