The Radical Left Needs to Call into Question Existing Social Institutions at Every Opportunity, Part One

Before I obtained a so-called permanent teaching position (I will explain in a much later post why I use the word “so-called”), I worked for a number of years as a substitute teacher (with short periods of term teaching positions). I became an executive member of the Winnipeg Teachers’ Association (WTA) (in the province of Manitoba, Canada), representing substitute teachers.

The WTA had an education fund for the executive, where each member, if approved by the executive, could access up to $3,000 for educational purposes. A condition for obtaining such funds was a summary of the educational experience and its publication in the WTA newsletter.

I used this situation as an opportunity to criticize the limitations of the educational experience.

Of course, representatives should not limit themselves to such criticism but rather perform their representative function in order to enhance the democratic nature of the union or association to which they belong. To that end, I and others on the Substitute Teachers’ Committee created a survey for substitute teachers and used the results of such a survey to criticize the policy of the WTA of permitting only permanent teachers the right to apply for permanent positions (substitute teachers paid association dues and consisted of usually 700-900 paying members of around 4000 members, but they did not have the right to apply for permanent positions).

Below is a copy of the draft (written in 2007) as well as the critical summary of my educational experience.

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000004995 StartFragment:0000000438 EndFragment:0000004978

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } –>

To the Negotiations Committee

As members of the same organization, all should be treated in the same way unless there are sufficient differential grounds for distinguishing the members and for thus treating them on a differential basis. However, that does not mean that substitute teachers should necessarily all have the same rights as permanent contract teachers.

A basic principle of political philosophy is that all should be treated the same unless there are differential conditions for treating some differently from others. There are differential conditions, at least in the case of substitute teachers who are relatively new. Would it be fair, for instance, that permanent contract teachers, who by definition generally expect to work for the same employer for years, be reduced to the same rights as a beginning substitute teacher? Attachment to a particular employer for an increasing length of time forms the basis for privileging permanent teachers over substitute teachers, just as the principle of seniority does in unions.

However, as substitute teachers are engaged in employment with the same employer for an increasing length of time, the grounds for differential treatment become less and less valid.

Of course, the reported statistics from the survey of substitute teachers do indicate that there is a substantial percentage of substitute teachers who have been employed by the Division for a number of years. Their exclusion from any consideration of whether they can apply for positions is less valid than the exclusion of shorter term substitute teachers. Of course, the exact cut off line is not easy to define, but the issue is first of all whether all substitute teachers should be banned from applying for positions. Perhaps there are counterarguments which justify such exclusion, and I would like to hear such arguments. Lacking such counterarguments, substitute teachers with a certain period of employment with the Division should have the right to apply for positions as they arise, just like permanent contract teachers.

Addressing now the issue of those with a shorter period of employment with the Division, the Division may agree to allow them to apply for positions once the third round of blue sheets have been distributed.

In other words, there would be two sets of substitute teachers, those with sufficient length of service to be able to apply for positions immediately, and those with less service, who would be able to apply for positions on the third round of job postings.

Although this two-tier system of selection may be preferable, it may not be possible during the 2009 round of bargaining; a collective agreement involves two parties, and it may be impossible to negotiate the “best” scenario in any particular year of bargaining. Consequently, there are two alternative proposals: a “bottom-line one,” and a preferred (but perhaps unrealistic) one at this stage. The important point is to have substitute teachers’ concern about the right to apply for job postings addressed.

Proposed “bottom-line clause”: All substitute teachers shall have the right to apply for job postings during the third round of postings of the blue sheets.”

An alternative would be as follows: Substitute teachers who have substituted for the Division for at least ten (10) years shall have the right to apply for job postings. Substitute teachers with less than 10 years of substitute teaching shall have the right to apply for job postings during the third round of postings of the blue sheet.”

Of course, the exact wording is irrelevant at this stage. It is the concept that matters.

Fred, chair, Substitute Teachers’ Committee

The critical summary of my educational experience (

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000007228 StartFragment:0000000438 EndFragment:0000007211



<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } –>

The Double-Bind of Teachers as Employees

On September 21 [2007], I attended a seminar on Employment Law Essentials. It covered various topics, including the difference between an employee and an independent contractor, pre-employment inquiries, employment standards and workplace harassment policies.

There were two areas of most relevance to teachers: a discussion of the nature of an employee and the issue of the age at which people can become employees.

Let us start with the last issue first. The age at which people can become employees is relevant for teachers since the age at which students can become employees then arises. Generally, it is very difficult for students under the age of 12 to become employees. On the other hand, it is less difficult for students between the ages of 12 and 16 to obtain a permit. Four people must be in agreement if those between 12 and 16 are to become employees: the student, the parent, the principal and the employer. Since being an employee may affect school work, teachers who are concerned about some of their students working as employees may consult with the principal since the latter needs to agree to such employment.

Addressing now the first issue—the nature of an employee—there are four criteria for determining whether a person is an employee or has her or his own business (is an independent contractor): lack of control over the work performed (how, when and where the work is to be performed), the ownership of tools, possibility of loss or gain and the extent to which the person is integrated into the employer’s operations. The criterion of loss or gain is inapplicable to the situation of teachers. The criterion of integration is only used in borderline cases. Hence, the question of the status of teachers is reduced to the two criteria of control and ownership of tools.

In the seminar, we briefly discussed whether teachers are employees. Although teachers may control the order in which the curriculum is presented, it is the Division, generally, which determines standards of performance for teachers. Another aspect of control is whether the employer determines where and when work is done. Teachers work for the Division and not for specific schools. The collective agreement may modify the power of the employer, but it does not fundamentally alter the situation—as teachers in low-enrollment schools may discover when they are transferred to other schools. In terms of control, teachers are employees.

The other criterion for determining who is an employee is the ownership of tools. In the case of teachers, although the latter may personally purchase items for use in the classroom, it is the Division which owns the buildings, the things in the building and so forth. The fact that the Division may represent the vague public because of the payment of taxes does not change the situation.

Since the situation of teachers satisfies the two major criteria for determining whether teachers are employees, it can indeed be concluded that they are employees.

The collective agreement does not change the status of teachers as employees; it modified the conditions of employment—certainly an important characteristic—but it does not fundamentally alter the employer-employee relationships as such. For example, employment standards are such that judges will take into account length of service to an employer when considering notice required, but the judge will not take it into consideration when the issue of dismissal arises. Arbitrators of collective agreements, on the other hand, do take into account length of service when considering the issue of dismissal.

The issue of control is full of interesting sub-issues. One of the issues that were brought up was whether employees who are under the control of employers are extensions of the will of the employer. They are. This situation, however, has major social implications. If employees are extensions of the will of the employer, then employees are means to the ends specified by the employer.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, argued that it is a categorical ethical imperative to treat all human beings as ends in themselves. If we apply the philosophical principle of the unity of the ends in the means and the means in the ends, then to treat human beings as ends in themselves is to have them participate in the process of defining their own ends. They need to be able to contribute to the formation of the ends toward which their activity tends: living democracy rather than formal democracy.

Being an employee, however, which involves being an extension of the will of the employer, clashes with the principle of treating human beings as a unity of both means and ends in the same process. Human life is split, with teachers being extensions of the will of the Division. Their personhood is suspended to the extent that they cannot formulate the ends of their own activity in conjunction with the activity of other teachers.

This clash applies to other employees in other domains, such as waiters and waitresses, bus drivers, factory workers, office workers and so forth. In the specific case of teachers, though, there is an added contradiction. Teachers are supposed to treat students as ends in themselves: the formation of character. To do so, they need to have students learn to unify the ends in the means and the means in the ends. If, however, part of their function is to prepare students for their status as employees, then their educative function clashes with their function within the school system. This is the double bind of teachers: being an employee, on the one hand, and being an educator within an economy dominated by the employer-employee relation on the other.

Are teachers in a double bind? What do other teachers believe?

Fred Harris, executive member

Socialism, Part Four: What It May Look Like, or Visions of a Better Kind of Society Without Employers

The following is a continuation of previous posts on the possible nature of socialism that excludes the power of employers as a class.

In the following, Tony Smith elaborates on the democratic nature of the workplace, which is subject to control not only by the workers at the particular workplace electing managers but also by certain community organizations that represent specific community interests. From Globalisation: A Systematic Marxian Account (2006. Boston: Brill), page 303:

(iii) Worker collectives produce public goods, inputs into the production process, or final consumption goods. Funds for the first are directly allocated to collectives by the relevant planning agencies (see below). The latter two categories of products are offered for sale in producer and consumer markets. In Schweickart’s view, attempts to centrally plan all inputs and outputs in a top-down fashion are simply not feasible, at least not in a complex and dynamic economy. But it does not follow that capitalist market societies are the only acceptable forms of economic organisation. It is possible to imagine a feasible and normatively attractive society combining markets with the socialisation of the means of production, that is, a society making use of producer and consumer markets after abolishing both capital markets and
labour markets.

In addition to the elimination of a market for workers and management of work enterprises being accountable to work councils and community councils, capital markets in the sense of an investment process owned by a minority would no longer exist. There would, nonetheless, be markets that produced means of production and markets that produced consumption goods. For example, at the brewery where I worked, the workers who produced the soaker or the filler that the brewery workers used would be subject to competition from other workers who produce soakers or fillers. Workers in the brewery would be subject to competition from workers in other breweries.

Unfortunately, Smith does not elaborate much on what he means by the abolition of capital markets. His reference to David Schweickart’s work Against Capitalism, however, gives a clue to what he means. Schweikart has the following to say (page 172):

First, we issue a decree abolishing all enterprise obligations to pay interest or stock dividends to private individuals or private institutions.

This decree will need no enforcement, since enterprises are not going to insist on paying what they are no longer legally obligated to pay.

But Schweickart sees a flaw in the abolition of all capital markets, at least immediately (page 173):

6.3.2 Once More, This Time with Feeling (for the Stockholders)

Too Simple? Of course. The above is not meant to be a realistic scenario. Above all, it fails to take into account the fact that millions of ordinary citizens (not only capitalists) have resources tied up in the financial markets. People with savings accounts or holdings in stocks and bonds have been counting on their dividend and interest checks. (Nearly half of all American households have direct or indirect holdings in the stock market, mostly in pension plans.) Eliminating all dividend and interest income-which is what Radical Quick does-will not strike these fellow citizens as a welcome reform. Let us run through our story again, this time complicating it to take into account their legitimate concerns.

Schweickart, realistically, recognizes that workers have investments in capital markets and hence are in some ways tied to such markets. His solution is to imagine a situation where at least the key corporations, due to the circumstances of a crisis, would be subject to elimination from capital markets (pages 173-174):

Let me first set the stage a little more fully than I did with Radical Quick. Let us suppose that a genuine counterproject to capitalism has developed, and that, gradually gaining in strength, it has been able to elect a leftist government that has put most of the reforms outlined earlier in this chapter on the table and has secured the passage of some of them. Suppose investors decide they’ve had enough and begin cashing in their stock holdings. A stock-market crash ensues. In reaction, the citizenry decide that they too have had enough-and give their leftist government an even stronger mandate to take full responsibility for an economy now tumbling into crisis.

Our new government declares a bank holiday, pending reorganization (as Roosevelt did following his election in 1932). All publicly traded corporations are declared to be worker-controlled. Note: This control extends only to corporations, not to small businesses or even to privately held capitalist firms. It is decided that it will be sufficient  to redefine property rights only in those firms for which ownership has already been largely separated from management. (With the “commanding heights” of the economy now democratized, most other firms can be expected to come under increased pressure from their own workers, over time, to follow suit.)

The exact way in which capital markets would be reduced and eventually abolished would vary across time and place, depending on circumstances.

As I have emphasized throughout this blog, though, it is much less likely that workers will be receptive to a call for the elimination of capital markets and markets for workers unless they find the situation to be unfair. The ideology of the social-reformist left consistently makes reference to fairness within the limits of the employer-employee relation. We need to break with such ideology if we are to initiate such a process without having to respond erratically when a crisis hits.

Or are there alternatives? What do you think?


Socialism, Part Three: What It May Look Like, or Visions of a Better Kind of Society Without Employers

The following is a continuation of an earlier post (Socialism, Part Two: What It May Look Like) about the nature of socialism–which is a solution to problems that capitalism, characterized by the domination of a class of employers, cannot solve. Socialism is not something that emerges from a utopian view independently of the nature of capitalism but requires a critical approach to capitalism.

In the following, Michael Perelman contrasts what many people experience in their lives: their own contrast between an activity which they enjoy doing and their experience working for an employer, which they often enough find to be draining.

From Michael Perelman, The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism: How Market Tyranny Stifles the Economy by Stunting Workers (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2011),

Just What Is Work?

To understand the potential for transforming the economy, consider a simple example that does not require much of a stretch of the imagination. Just think of the enormous contrast between farm work for wages and gardening as a hobby. Farm work is considered to be so abhorrent in the United States that we regularly hear that only foreign-born workers are willing to perform it. Supposedly, upstanding citizens of the United States would never subject themselves to the life of a farm worker for poverty wages.

While farm labor may be among the hardest, most dangerous work in our society, many people regard gardening as a pleasant diversion. While the United Farm Workers Union represents mostly downtrodden workers, a good number of wealthy people are proud affiliates of their blue-blood garden clubs. Over and above the time they spend in their gardens, many gardeners enthusiastically devote considerable leisure time to conversing or reading in order to become better gardeners. In addition, many gardeners also willingly spend substantial sums for equipment and supplies to use in their gardens.

What, then, is the underlying difference between farm work and gardening? Farm work typically entails hard physical labor, but many gardeners also exert themselves in their gardens. The difference lies in the context of gardening. Gardeners, unlike farm workers, freely choose to be gardeners. During the time they work in their gardens, they want to be gardening. Nobody tells them what to do. Gardeners are producing for themselves rather than for someone else who will benefit from their work.

As the psychologist John Neulinger says: “Everyone knows the difference between doing something because one has to and doing something because one wants to.”43 We should also keep in mind that society respects gardeners. Our newspapers regularly print features of interest to gardeners. Some even have special sections to appeal to their affluent gardening readers. All the while, the lives of farm workers pass virtually unnoticed. In our society, farm work is never “respectable” work; well-to-do families would not approve of their children becoming farm workers.
Of course, gardeners are not entirely free to follow their whims. The rhythms of the seasons and the sudden shifts in the weather dictate some of what the gardeners do, but gardeners generally accept these demands beforehand. …

As suggested earlier, the key to the Procrustean trap is not the threat of physical force but rather the inability to imagine anything outside of the constrained present circumstances. The willingness to take seriously Margaret Thatcher’s preposterous claim—“There is no alternative”—perfectly sums up this state of mind.

A writer for reminisced about Thatcher’s Procrustean destructive success:

Of course, it’s possible to change a society and to drag it into the global economic monoculture. Mrs. Thatcher showed how: Break up collectives and make people feel a little bit more alone in the world. Cut a few holes in the social safety net. Raise the status of money-making, and lower the status of every other activity. Stop giving knighthoods to artists and start giving them to department-store moguls. Stop listening to intellectuals and start listening to entrepreneurs and financiers.
Stick to the plan long enough and the people who are good at making money acquire huge sums and, along with them, power. In time, they become the culture’s dominant voice. And they love you for it.46

Thatcher’s scheme actually worked. Her acolytes were so convinced that the mere utterance of Thatcher’s acronym TINA seemed sufficient to cut off any debate with skeptics.

The social-democratic or social-reformist left in Toronto certainly has reinforced the TINA principle. The so-called radical left, by keeping silent out of fear of becoming isolated, themselves becomes part of the social-democratic left. They, like the social-reformist left, provide no real alternative vision to the oppressive and exploitative nature of work characteristic of the power of employers as a class.

In fact, through their silence and their lack of criticism, they contribute to the perpetuation of class rule. They are, practically, social reformists who will never go beyond the existing class system despite their rhetoric of class struggle and struggle from below.



The Limitations of the Social-Reformist Left


I used to belong to a leftist organization in Toronto. I started, slowly, to realize that it really has little to do with challenging the power of employers as a class despite the rhetoric concerning class issues being a priority. This view was confirmed when a movement for the reform of employment standards developed in Ontario in general and in Toronto in particular, and the Ontario Liberal government (Canada is divided into provinces, with Ontario as one of the provinces) agreed to such reforms.

The reform of employment standards was certainly needed, and the reforms are indeed useful to the working class. Among the reforms was included an increase in minimum wages to $15 an hour (in two phases). However, the problem is not the reforms but the pairing of these reforms with “fairness.” T-shirts with the slogan “Fight for $15 and Fairness” were produced, and rallies were announced with the same slogan. I found such a pairing objectionable, to say the least.

The Social-Reformist Left

This is a “selling point” typical of the social-reformist left. They try to get others to agree to the reforms that they propose by claiming that it is fair or just in some way; this is also often the tactic of union negotiating teams (as will be seen in another post).

Logically, the social-reformist left would never dare to pair a law that reduced the number of times a husband could hit his wife legally from 25 times a year to 10 times a year with the concept of fairness. Of course, receiving 10 hits a year is, in general, better than receiving 25 hits a year (all other circumstances being the same, such as the force of the hit, the hit not resulting in death and so forth). But they would object to the very idea of calling even the 10 hits a year fair.

Logically, though, the social-reformist  left do dare to pair $15 an hour (and other labour law reforms) with the concept of fairness. They “forget” that workers still are treated as means for purposes over which they have little or no control (see The Money Circuit of Capital)

This forgetfulness is actually agreement with the continued existence of the power of employers as a class.

Indeed, David Bush, a labour and community organizer (and doctoral student) in Toronto specifically claimed that the reforms were fair. They are certainly fairer, but to claim that they are fair assumes that the relationship between the class of employers and the class of workers is fair. The social-reformist left rely on the acceptance of the fairness of the employer-employee relation in order to justify its own position. The money circuit of capital shows that such a relationship is decidedly unfair. (I will address Mr. Bush’s reformist ideology in another post).

The social-reformist left, therefore, conveniently forget about the class relation between employers and employees as the background for any reform movement, and then boldly claims that the Fight for $15 is fair. They have no intention of challenging the power of employers as a class.

The social-reformist left may, of course, try to argue that there is a large difference between arguing that a reduction from 25 hits to 10 hits is fair to arguing that an increase in the minimum wages to $15 is fair. A reduction in the number of hits is negative whereas the increase in the minimum wage is positive. If, however, we look at the logic of both, they are the same. Both narrow the focus to what has been gained. In the case of a reduction in the number of hits, the focus is exclusively on the number of hits, without taking into consideration the remaining hits. In the case of an increase in the minimum wage (and other labour law reforms), consideration of the remaining power of employers–a power that is abusive in itself–is simply ignored. How otherwise could the social-reformist left then call the increase in the minimum wage fair (rather than fairer)?

Both logics exclude consideration of the wider context, and both present certain changes exclusively in a positive light (a favourite tactic of the social-reformist left). In another post, it will be pointed out that acting intelligently requires taking into consideration the context; if we do not, we likely will act unintelligently. The social-reformist left, ultimately, propose that we act unintelligently.

The Radical Left

The organization to which I belonged found the pairing of $15 and fairness to be irrelevant. There was no objection to such a linking of the reform movement and the issue of fairness. I found this lack of criticism to be appalling and, as a consequence, withdrew from the organization.

The silence of the so-called radical left in Toronto (and undoubtedly in other cities and countries) over such issues shows just how dominate the social-reformist point of view has become at a practical level. Such a view assumes TINA: there is no alternative.

We need to start discussing how to challenge the power of employers as a class. The so-called radical left, however, creates all sorts of excuses for not adopting a class point of view and for putting off any discussion about such issues. Reform is all that is on the agenda for them–like the social-reformist left.

The radical left in Toronto, by remaining silent over the issue, practically are on the same level as the social-reformist left. By remaining silent, they foster the continued illusion that the existence of the class of employers and the class of employees are somehow natural and eternal. This illusion needs to be constantly criticized.

By remaining silent, the radical left in Toronto fosters actions that are unintelligent. By remaining silent, the radical left contributes to the continued oppression and exploitation of the billions of workers who experience the daily grind of being treated as things at work.

Some among the radical left, of course, will justify such silence in many ways. Some may say that it is necessary to create structures (such as TAWC–the Toronto Airport Workers Council) that cut across unions. Somehow, by magic, such structures are going to address the power of employers as a class–in the far distant future. Such a vague future is a fairy tale. The radical left, in practice, do nothing different from the social-reformist left.

I attended one TAWC meeting; I did not hear any conversation that related to the power of employers as a class. It was more like an extended union meeting than anything else.

Others may claim that we need to engage in a “war of position” (based on the Italian Marxist Gramsci). Practically, this “war of position” turns out to be no different than the social-reformist left’s position. Why else was there silence over the issue of the fairness of $15 an hour? Or is such silence an expression of a “war of position”?

Ultimately, the radical left in Toronto lost an opportunity for bringing up the class issue–and that is what is needed in these trying times of ours–and not more social-reformist rhetoric.

Les Limitations du Gauche Reformiste Social


J'appartenais à une organisation de gauche à Toronto. J'ai commencé, lentement, à rendre compte que cela n'avait vraiment rien à voir avec la remise en cause du pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe, bien que la rhétorique concernant les problèmes de classe soit une priorité. Ce point de vue a été confirmé lorsqu'un mouvement pour la réforme des normes d'emploi s'est développé en Ontario en général et à Toronto en particulier; le gouvernement libéral de l'Ontario (le Canada est divisé en provinces, l'Ontario étant l'une des provinces) a accepté de telles réformes.

La réforme des normes d'emploi était certainement nécessaire, et les réformes sont en effet utiles à la classe ouvrière. Parmi les réformes figurait une augmentation du salaire minimum à 15 $ l'heure (en deux phases). Cependant, le problème n'est pas les réformes mais l'associaiton de ces réformes avec « l'équité ». On a produit des t-shirts avec le slogan « Fight for $15 and Fairness » ("Lutte pour 15 $ l'heure), et on a annoncé des rassemblements avec le même slogan. J'ai trouvé une telle association répréhensible, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire.
C'est un « argument de vente » typique de la gauche social-réformiste. Ils essaient d'amener les autres à accepter les réformes qu'ils proposent en prétendant que c'est juste ou juste d'une certaine manière ; c'est aussi souvent la tactique des équipes de négociation syndicales (comme on le verra dans un autre billet de blog).

Logiquement, la gauche social-réformiste n'aurait jamais osé associer une loi qui réduirait le nombre de fois qu'un mari pourrait frapper légalement sa femme de 25 fois par an à 10 fois par an avec le concept d'équité. Bien sûr, recevoir 10 coups par an est, en général, mieux que de recevoir 25 coups par an (toutes les autres circonstances étant les mêmes, comme la force du coup, le coup n'entraînant pas la mort, etc.). Mais ils s'opposeraient à l'idée même d'appeler juste les 10 coups par an.

Logiquement, cependant, la gauche social-réformiste ose associer 15 $ l'heure (et d'autres réformes du droit du travail) au concept d'équité. Ils "oublient" que les travailleurs sont toujours traités comme des moyens à des fins sur lesquelles ils n'ont que peu ou pas de contrôle (voir Le circuit monétaire du capital)

Cet oubli est en fait d'accord avec l'existence continue du pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe.
En effet, David Bush, un organisateur syndical et communautaire (et étudiant au doctorat) à Toronto a spécifiquement affirmé que les réformes étaient justes. Ils sont certainement plus justes, mais prétendre qu'ils sont justes suppose que la relation entre la classe des employeurs et la classe des travailleurs est juste. La gauche social-réformiste s'appuie sur l'acceptation de l'équité de la relation employeur-employé pour justifier sa propre position. Le circuit monétaire du capital montre qu'une telle relation est décidément injuste. (J'aborderai l'idéologie réformiste de M. Bush dans un autre billet).

La gauche social-réformiste oublie donc commodément la relation de classe entre employeurs et employés comme arrière-plan de tout mouvement de réforme, puis prétend hardiment que la lutte pour 15 $ est juste. Ils n'ont pas l'intention de remettre en cause le pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe.

La gauche social-réformiste peut, bien sûr, essayer de faire valoir qu'il y a une grande différence entre soutenir qu'une réduction de 25 coups à 10 coups est juste et affirmer qu'une augmentation du salaire minimum à 15 $ est juste. Une réduction du nombre de hits est négative alors que l'augmentation du salaire minimum est positive. Si, cependant, nous regardons la logique des deux, ils sont les mêmes. Les deux se concentrent sur ce qui a été gagné. Dans le cas d'une réduction du nombre de hits, l'accent est mis exclusivement sur le nombre de hits, sans prendre en considération les hits restants. Dans le cas d'une augmentation du salaire minimum (et d'autres réformes du droit du travail), la considération du pouvoir restant des employeurs - un pouvoir en soi abusif - est tout simplement ignorée. Sinon, comment la gauche social-réformiste pourrait-elle alors qualifier l'augmentation du salaire minimum de juste (plutôt que de plus juste) ?

Les deux logiques excluent la considération du contexte plus large, et toutes deux présentent certains changements sous un jour exclusivement positif (une tactique favorite de la gauche social-réformiste). Dans un autre billet, on soulignera qu'agir intelligemment nécessite de prendre en considération le contexte ; si nous ne le faisons pas, nous agirons probablement de manière inintelligente. La gauche social-réformiste, en fin de compte, propose que nous agissions de manière inintelligente.

La Gauche Radicale

L'organisation à laquelle j'appartenais a trouvé que l'associaiton de 15 $ l'heure et l'équité n'était pas pertinent. Il n'y avait aucune objection à un tel lien entre le mouvement de réforme et la question de l'équité. J'ai trouvé ce manque de critique épouvantable et, par conséquent, je me suis retiré de l'organisation.

Le silence de la soi-disant gauche radicale à Toronto (et sans doute dans d'autres villes et pays) sur de telles questions montre à quel point le point de vue social-réformiste est devenu dominant au niveau pratique. Une telle vue suppose TINA : il n'y a pas d'alternative.

Nous devons commencer à discuter de la façon de défier le pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe. La soi-disant gauche radicale, cependant, crée toutes sortes d'excuses pour ne pas adopter un point de vue de classe et pour repousser toute discussion sur ces questions. La réforme est tout ce qui est à l'ordre du jour pour eux, comme la gauche social-réformiste.

La gauche radicale de Toronto, en gardant le silence sur ces questions, se situe pratiquement au même niveau que la gauche social-réformiste. En restant silencieux, ils entretiennent l'illusion persistante que l'existence de la classe des employeurs et de la classe des employés est en quelque sorte naturelle et éternelle. Cette illusion doit être constamment critiquée.

En gardant le silence, la gauche radicale à Toronto favorise des actions inintelligentes. En gardant le silence, la gauche radicale contribue à la poursuite de l'oppression et de l'exploitation des milliards de travailleurs qui subissent le quotidien d'être traités comme des choses au travail.

Certains parmi la gauche radicale, bien sûr, justifieront un tel silence de plusieurs manières. Certains diront qu'il est nécessaire de créer des structures (comme le TAWC – le Toronto Airport Workers Council) qui transcendent les syndicats. D'une manière ou d'une autre, par magie, de telles structures vont aborder au pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe - dans un avenir lointain. Un avenir aussi vague est un conte de fées. La gauche radicale, en pratique, ne fait rien de différent de la gauche social-réformiste.

J'ai assisté à une réunion du TAWC ; Je n'ai entendu aucune conversation concernant le pouvoir des employeurs en tant que classe. C'était plus comme une réunion syndicale prolongée qu'autre chose.

D'autres peuvent prétendre que nous devons nous lancer dans une « guerre de position » (basée sur les idées marxistes italiennes de Gramsci). Pratiquement, cette « guerre de position » s'avère n'être pas différente de la position de la gauche social-réformiste. Sinon, pourquoi y a-t-il eu un silence sur la question de l'équité de 15 $ l'heure? Ou un tel silence est-il l'expression d'une « guerre de position » ?

En fin de compte, la gauche radicale de Toronto a perdu une occasion d'aborder la question des classes - et c'est ce dont nous avons besoin en ces temps difficiles qui sont les nôtres - et non plus de rhétorique social-réformiste.

Las Limitaciones de la Izquierda Reformista Social


Solía ​​pertenecer a una organización de izquierda en Toronto. Comencé, lentamente, a darme cuenta de que realmente tiene poco que ver con desafiar el poder de los empleadores como clase a pesar de que la retórica sobre los problemas de clase es una prioridad. Esta opinión se confirmó cuando se desarrolló un movimiento para la reforma de las normas laborales en Ontario en general y en Toronto en particular, y el gobierno liberal de Ontario (Canadá está dividido en provincias, siendo Ontario una de las provincias) aceptó tales reformas.
La reforma de las normas laborales era ciertamente necesaria, y las reformas son de hecho útiles para la clase trabajadora. Entre las reformas se incluyó un aumento del salario mínimo a $ 15 la hora (en dos fases). Sin embargo, el problema no son las reformas, sino la combinación de estas reformas con la "equidad". Se produjeron camisetas con el lema "Lucha por $ 15 y la justicia" y se anunciaron mítines con el mismo lema. Encontré esa combinación objetable, por decir lo menos.

La Ala Izquierda Reformista Social

Este es un "argumento de venta" típico de la izquierda reformista social. Intentan que otros estén de acuerdo con las reformas que proponen alegando que es justa o justa de alguna manera; Esta es también a menudo la táctica de los equipos negociadores sindicales (como se verá en otro artículo).
Lógicamente, la izquierda social-reformista nunca se atrevería a emparejar una ley que redujera la cantidad de veces que un esposo podía golpear legalmente a su esposa de 25 veces al año a 10 veces al año con el concepto de equidad. Por supuesto, recibir 10 golpes al año es, en general, mejor que recibir 25 golpes al año (todas las demás circunstancias son las mismas, como la fuerza del golpe, el golpe que no resultó en la muerte, etc.). Pero se opondrían a la idea misma de considerar justos incluso los 10 hits al año.

Sin embargo, lógicamente, la izquierda reformista social se atreve a emparejar $ 15 la hora (y otras reformas de la legislación laboral) con el concepto de equidad. Ellos "olvidan" que los trabajadores todavía son tratados como medios para propósitos sobre los cuales tienen poco o ningún control (ver El circuito monetario del capital).
Este olvido en realidad está de acuerdo con la existencia continuada del poder de los empleadores como clase.

De hecho, David Bush, un organizador laboral y comunitario (y estudiante de doctorado) en Toronto afirmó específicamente que las reformas fueron justas. Ciertamente son más justas, pero afirmar que son justas supone que la relación entre la clase de empleadores y la clase de trabajadores es justa. La izquierda reformista social se basa en la aceptación de la equidad de la relación empleador-empleado para justificar su propia posición. El circuito monetario del capital muestra que tal relación es decididamente injusta. (Abordaré la ideología reformista del Sr. Bush en otro artículo).

La izquierda social-reformista, por lo tanto, se olvida convenientemente de la relación de clase entre empleadores y empleados como trasfondo para cualquier movimiento de reforma, y ​​luego afirma audazmente que la Lucha por $ 15 es justa. No tienen la intención de desafiar el poder de los empleadores como clase.
La izquierda reformista social puede, por supuesto, intentar argumentar que hay una gran diferencia entre argumentar que una reducción de 25 a 10 golpes es justa y argumentar que un aumento en el salario mínimo a $ 15 es justo. Una reducción en el número de aciertos es negativa mientras que el aumento del salario mínimo es positivo. Sin embargo, si miramos la lógica de ambos, son lo mismo. Ambos limitan el enfoque a lo que se ha ganado. En el caso de una reducción en el número de aciertos, la atención se centra exclusivamente en el número de aciertos, sin tener en cuenta los aciertos restantes. En el caso de un aumento del salario mínimo (y otras reformas de la legislación laboral), la consideración del poder restante de los empleadores, un poder que es abusivo en sí mismo, simplemente se ignora. ¿De qué otra manera podría la izquierda reformista social calificar de justo (en lugar de más justo) el aumento del salario mínimo?

Ambas lógicas excluyen la consideración del contexto más amplio, y ambas presentan ciertos cambios exclusivamente de manera positiva (una táctica favorita de la izquierda social-reformista). En otro post se señalará que actuar con inteligencia requiere tener en cuenta el contexto; si no lo hacemos, es probable que actuemos de forma poco inteligente. La izquierda social-reformista, en última instancia, propone que actuemos sin inteligencia.

La Izquierda Radical

La organización a la que pertenecía consideró que la combinación de $ 15 y la equidad eran irrelevantes. No hubo objeciones a tal vinculación entre el movimiento de reforma y la cuestión de la equidad. Encontré esta falta de críticas espantosa y, como consecuencia, me retiré de la organización.

El silencio de la llamada izquierda radical en Toronto (y sin duda en otras ciudades y países) sobre estos temas muestra cuán dominante se ha vuelto el punto de vista social-reformista a nivel práctico. Tal punto de vista asume TINA: no hay alternativa.

Necesitamos comenzar a discutir cómo desafiar el poder de los empleadores como clase. La llamada izquierda radical, sin embargo, crea todo tipo de excusas para no adoptar un punto de vista de clase y para posponer cualquier discusión sobre estos temas. La reforma es todo lo que está en la agenda para ellos, como la izquierda social-reformista.

La izquierda radical en Toronto, al guardar silencio sobre el tema, prácticamente está al mismo nivel que la izquierda social-reformista. Al permanecer en silencio, fomentan la ilusión continua de que la existencia de la clase de empleadores y la clase de empleados son de alguna manera natural y eterna. Esta ilusión necesita ser criticada constantemente.

Al permanecer en silencio, la izquierda radical en Toronto fomenta acciones que no son inteligentes. Al permanecer en silencio, la izquierda radical contribuye a la continua opresión y explotación de los miles de millones de trabajadores que experimentan la rutina diaria de ser tratados como cosas en el trabajo.

Algunos entre la izquierda radical, por supuesto, justificarán tal silencio de muchas maneras. Algunos pueden decir que es necesario crear estructuras (como TAWC, el Consejo de Trabajadores del Aeropuerto de Toronto) que atraviesen los sindicatos. De alguna manera, por arte de magia, tales estructuras abordarán el poder de los empleadores como clase, en un futuro lejano. Un futuro tan vago es un cuento de hadas. La izquierda radical, en la práctica, no hace nada diferente a la izquierda social-reformista.

Asistí a una reunión del TAWC; No escuché ninguna conversación relacionada con el poder de los empleadores como clase. Fue más como una reunión sindical ampliada que cualquier otra cosa.

Otros pueden afirmar que necesitamos participar en una "guerra de posiciones" (basada en el marxista italiano Gramsci). Prácticamente, esta "guerra de posiciones" resulta no ser diferente a la posición de la izquierda social-reformista. ¿Por qué más hubo silencio sobre el tema de la equidad de $ 15 la hora? ¿O tal silencio es expresión de una "guerra de posiciones"?

En última instancia, la izquierda radical de Toronto perdió la oportunidad de sacar a relucir el problema de clase, y eso es lo que se necesita en estos tiempos difíciles, y no más retórica social-reformista.