I listened with excitement to the AU interview. I want to thank comrade Flores for taking the time to put it together and thank the organizers for taking the time out of their busy schedules to participate. The organizers amply expressed the need to instill in their co-workers a sense of their own collective power, which is essential in any organizing. However there appears to be a bit of confusion about what exactly is holding back the working class in the United States. At multiple points, the organizers emphasized the need for workers to “be autonomous” and to run their own organizations. I have no dispute with this. But the organizers never said what exactly it is that keeps workers from acting autonomously, and why the PRO Act doesn’t address it.
Two key provisions severely limit US workers’ freedom of association: Sections 8(b)(4) and 8(b)(7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Both are naked assaults on workers’ political freedom to assemble and associate. 8(b)(4) prohibits workers from using secondary pressure on employers – that is, enlisting consumers and employees of suppliers to their employer in their struggle. Where workers or their unions violate this provision, they are liable for the damages they cause to the employer. 8(b)(7) outlaws recognitional picketing. Recognitional picketing is picketing directed at pressuring an employer to recognize a union in certain contexts. The PRO Act repeals both.1 These aren’t laws that apply only to business unions. They affect the IWW or UE or AU, as much as they apply to the Teamsters. Even still, elements of the working class, unions like UE, have long pointed out that these laws destroy inter-union solidarity, and undermine the bargaining power of the class.2 Repealing them does nothing to draw workers into any agreement with their employer or the state – they simply free the working class from the threat of money damages or jail time for exercising their right to assemble.
I’m not saying this to argue against shopfloor committee work. That work is necessary. But the point is that alone it will fail. You can organize shopfloor committees and eschew the NLRB election process until the self-driving cars come home – the NLRB will still crush you with an 8(b)(4) violation if you are a labor organization calling for secondary pressure. We don’t need a workers’ inquiry or the mass line to figure out how this hurts workers. Pretending like this doesn’t matter is a fatal error. Post-war US capitalism succeeded by splitting the communists out of the labor movement and convincing generations of leftists that direct action is class struggle, full stop, while politics is a mere distraction.3
This past summer, in debating comrades in the IWW, I put it like this:
“…by reducing the class struggle to direct action,[labor activists] risk painting themselves into a corner. The argument goes like this: We need a revolution in our political system. Political change happens with class struggle. Class struggle is the mass direct action of the working class. Then, either true politics is limited to direct action or if politics is defined to go beyond direct action (voting in elections, running campaigns for legal reforms) then politics is merely a distraction from class struggle. The result is that as long as this outlook is hegemonic, we will continue to organize on legal terrain laid down by our class enemies, instead of winning reforms that shape the terrain in ways advantageous to the working class. If we don’t start thinking politically and legally, we’ll remain cornered in our defensive posture indefinitely – and labor’s last 50 years of body blow after body blow will continue, unabated.”
Workers need a party. Why? To fight for reforms that free up the working class to better organize its struggle and build the fight for socialism.
Solidarity,
Anton J.
Any socialist who does not support Amazonians United is unworthy of the title. The fact
that so many organizers from around the world have come together to engage in a project of
this magnitude is a benefit both to the global proletariat and the international socialist
movement. That said, I would like to join others in the spirit of comradely debate who have
expressed concerns about Cde. Zama’s view on the relationship between the US left and the
labor movement during the last Cosmonaut podcast interview. The flippant dismissal of labor
law reform, the disavowal of the left in general, and the dishonesty about his own place within
the left are all issues which should be addressed.
As for the PRO Act, Cde. Pollock and others are right to point out that socialists must
integrate themselves with the working class to understand their daily struggles and uncover
popular demands, but this isn’t our only task. We also have a responsibility to educate our
coworkers and neighbors when they aren’t aware of something as significant as a massive
overhaul to labor law that would increase our ability to organize unions. We should not dismiss
every proposed reform just because we have doubts about whether it will pass, and we certainly
should not dismiss labor reforms due to sectarian attitudes about established labor unions in
general. Critics are right to point out that it likely won’t pass, but this should be seen as an
opportunity to discuss the limitations of reformism rather than a danger that could lead to false
hope among the workers. The fact that DSA doesn’t realize this and is currently wasting
resources on what is probably a doomed phone banking campaign is symptomatic of a larger
problem: at present, they are more oriented towards reformism than revolution. This is a
deficiency that no Marxist should tolerate. However, it is not necessarily permanent! Rather than
showing up to one meeting, encountering disagreement, and giving up at the first obstacle, we
have the opportunity to stick around and win DSA members over to our way of thinking.
Instead, Zama chose the former route and started a microsect called Chicago
Communists with a few ex-ISO friends (a fact which he neglected to mention on the podcast). If
we accept that it is the duty of socialists everywhere to merge with the labor movement and
spread our ideas far and wide, this kind of sectarianism is clearly counterproductive. Refusing to
engage with the rest of the left on the grounds that it is disconnected from the working class is a
poor excuse. If we want socialists to salt and get rooted in organizing efforts, we need to talk to
them. Turning our frustrations with individuals in the DSA into a political stance against
engagement with the broader left is a grave error. Neither labor nor the socialist movement can
fulfill their historic missions without cooperating; keeping them isolated will only stunt their
growth. In this regard, Jonathan’s approach to the left as he explained it on the podcast was
much more reasonable than Zama’s.
Nobody can deny that Amazonians United’s tactics are effective when it comes to
galvanizing previously unorganized sections of the proletariat. This work is harsh and often
thankless, and the people doing it deserve recognition. Even after all valid criticisms are
accepted, Zama and the other AU organizers are heroes of our class. But this fact alone does
not mean that his politics are above reproach. In my view, they are a dead end.
Comradely,
Cliff Connolly
- There are other things the PRO Act does, like remove the ability for employers to permanently replace striking workers. Read more here: https://edlabor.house.gov/media/press-releases/top-democrats-introduce-bill-to-protect-workers-right-to-organize-and-make-our-economy-work-for-everyone.
- UE on the PRO Act: https://www.ueunion.org/ue-policy/labor-law-reform.
- Here is a discussion on this point from this past summer. There I wrote: “https://cosmonautmag.com/2020/07/of-course-labor-law-advances-the-class-struggle/.