[pitalist Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang of Sun Yat-sen…]

Scan page 8

pitalist Nationalist Party, the Kuomintang of Sun Yat-sen.

The 1927 Revolution This dispute over the central strategy of the Chinese revolution continued on and off until the defeat of the revolution in the spring and summer of 1927 at the hands of the military generals of the KMT led by Chiang Kai-shek. Peng Shuchih succeeded in convincing the party's founder and general secretary, Ch'en Tu-hsiu, of his position. They viewed this idea as simply an application to China of the strategy Lenin had employed in making the Russian revolution in 1917, and the debate in China hinged on whether the Russian model was applicable. The Stalin leadership of the Soviet CP, which 8 Socialist Action January 1984 I AM WORKING WITHIN THE SYSTEM... ROBBERY IS THE SYSTEM!

Name

Address City/State/Zip Telephone Union/Organization Socialist Action, St., Rm. issI

Scan page 9

... Lessons of Greyhound strike (continued from page 1: “A strategy to disarm the warmakers”)

that what is good for the company is good for the workers; that jobs and the general welfare of working people depend on the continued profitability of the company; that sacrifices by workers are inevitable and necessary to maintain jobs in times such as now.

Nothing could be more wrong! The interests of labor and capital are diametrically opposed. What is good for the boss is bad for the worker-and vice versa. When wages go up, profits inevitably go down; and when wages go down, profits are boosted. The drive to lower wages is a drive to raise profits!

Behind the antilabor offensive The ongoing assault on wages-to raise profits—is caused by the struggle for survival of different groups of capitalists competing for a larger share of decreasing markets. The least efficient producers go belly-up. Even whole countries whose technology lags behind the average are being forced into a condition of virtual bankruptcy. The only way out for capitalists, as a class, is to cut the share of production that goes to workers-wages-thus relieving the downward pressure on profits.

Sacrifices by workers to rescue failing businesses and save jobs will not help. Concessions will not rescue Chrysler or any other business whose techological level lags behind the rest of industry. On the contrary, the concessions granted to a failing Chrysler Corporation are demanded by their more efficient competitors, like General Motors and Ford. A vicious cycle is thus unleashed: When Chrysler demands more concessions from its workers, the rest of the industry demands similar concessions. Chrysler then has to exact additional concessions, and so on.

In the end, the least efficient company will go down-but not before a demoralizing wave of concessions has depressed all wages and left the working class confused and disoriented by a strategy based on a partnership between Chrysler worker and boss against Ford worker and boss.

The slogan "Buy American," another example of the labor-capital "partnership" ', is useless as a means to increase sales of U.S.-made products in an effort to save jobs. No such campaign can be effective as long as foreign-made products are significantly cheaper. Worse yet, this slogan pits American workers promoted by the bosses through the agency of their class collaborationist labor-lieutenants.

The ultimate tragedy of the myth of a labor-capital partnership is that American workers are sent into foreign lands to kill their sister and brother workers in the name of defending "our" national interests.

Union democracy stifled

Recent experience in the Greyound strike sheds light on how a class-collaborationist strategy compels anti-democratic practices. When the voting on the first contract offered by Greyhound was held, for example, it was conducted in local meetings. (At that time the ATU top officialdom were recommending rejection.) This permitted the freest possible discussion of the company's offer, and the contract was rejected by a 96 percent majority. But when the union heads decided to endorse the last company offer, they conducted the vote by a mail ballot. Only the point of view favoring acceptance of the company's proposal (the Dec. 3 letter) was presented to the membership.

A more serious example of the antidemocratic consequences of current union strategy was the virtual absence of strike comitttees, except where an occasional local leadership or rank-and-file group took the initiative. The simplest strike tasks cannot be effectively carried out without rank-and-file participation in every aspect of organization. This includes discussion and action about making the picket lines more effective and organizing support among the allies of the strikers. The leading national ATU bodies in charge of the strike made no effort to create and activate such democratic strike institutions.

Greyhound strikers, as Local 1225's Dave Mix pointed out, were dismally unprepared for the simplest strike tasks. The responsibility for this rests squarely with the national union leadership. It was only after the rejection of the company offer after the strike began that local ATU members and leaders realized they had better get on the ball and get picketing, fund-raising, hardship, outreach, and support committees going.

But partisans of the strategy of class collaboration traditionally fear organized self-mobilization by the ranks. They are pockets through their joint control, with the bosses, over the union health, welfare, and pension funds. Even the most prudent bureaucrats avail themselves of lush all-expenses-paid junkets to "business conferences" financed out of health and welfare treasuries. They seem to be hardly aware that the bosses encourage this in order to compromise them and blackmail them into bigger betrayals of their memberships.

When Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa was indicted and convicted for financial irregularities, it sent a cold chill down the spines of many a careless union official in a similarly vulnerable position. They could see themselves going to jail if they decided to put up a fight—not as militant workers' leaders, but as common criminals!

New leadership will emerge We are still at the very beginning of a major confontation between labor and capital. The American workers have been stunned and temporarily paralyzed by the arrogant and powerful offensive ATU AMALGAMATED COUNCIL ON AGAINST GREYHOUND LINES FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICI * FAIR CONTRACT 3803 Striker protesting at San Francisco mass rally which stopped buses from rolling.

launched by the bosses. But at the same time, as serious struggles erupt against the bosses' offensive, new leaders are emerging from the ranks. This was evidenced during the Greyhound strike. More and bigger conflicts, stemming tionship to put into effect the lessons of the Greyhound strike. This is a good beginning.

Principle of a class struggle program The underlying principle of a class-struggle program is simple. The labor movement, in the course of its fight to defend its class interests, must win over all potential allies to its side. The labor movement, driven by this necessity, tends to become the champion of all progressive layers of society. This role is in complete harmony with the class interests of workers.

Workers' interests are not in conflict with the interests of any but the capitalists. In the course of its struggle to defend itself, the working class can move ahead and fulfill the revolutionary role assigned to it by history, that is, to lead all progressive forces in society forward to a higher social order based on cooperation for human needs rather than competition for profits. To do this, it must offer working-class solutions to the economic, social and political problems of the day.

Such a program involves putting forward a set of demands that can mobilize working people around their immediate interests. The demand for a reduced workweek with no reduction in pay, for example, would establish the idea that everyone should have a job and that, as productivity increases, all would share in the benefits through an ever decreasing workweek, eliminating layoffs.

Under the system of capitalism, maximizing profits at the expense of human beings who produce all wealth is the highest principle. The sliding scale of hours of work points straight to socialism—a system in which the highest principle is the interests of the vast majority, the working people, not the maximization of profits.

Whether or not working people today are conscious of the need to go forward to a higher level of social organization, more and more workers are conscious of the need to find a way to a winning strategy in the unions. They tend to become conscious that there is an irreconcilable division in society between the owners of all the productive wealth and those who live by their ability to labor. Along with this consciousness, they begin to perceive the bias of all institutions of the state in favor of the employers. Such awareness is heightened during strikes. It was painfully apparent during the Greyhound