https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/wz$20foster/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/cbGOD-_u9Y8/vRXPMcOCXWkJ
Some relevant material from APST:
You talk about "the Stalinists being immune from the influence of the
trade union bureaucracy". More than that, they were not immune from the
influence of the INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, unlike petty bourgeois
"Trotskyists" who live in a world of their own. If you read Marx's
letter to Vogt April 9 1870 (in Ireland and the Irish Question Foreign
Languages pp 202-205, you will find he says inter alia:
" But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in
the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing
concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus
to the English labour market, and thus FORCES DOWN WAGES AND LOWERS THE
MATERIAL AND MORAL POSITION (my emphasis) of the English working
class."
And, further, the English WORKING CLASS were well aware of this:
"And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in
England now possesses a working class DIVIDED into two HOSTILE camps,
English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English
worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who LOWERS HIS STANDARD
OF LIFE (my emphasis). In relation to the Irish worker he regards
himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a
tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus
strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious,
social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude
towards him is much the same as that of the "poor whites" to the
"niggers" in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman
pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English
worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rule in
Ireland."
So forget the stuff about the "trade union bureaucracy". The CPA was
acting under the pressure of the INFORMED opinion of the working
people. And as I have posted before, there was equally strident
opposition to Australian labour markets being flooded by (NOW GET THIS)
BRITISH workers under the Empire Settlement Act 1922. Racism MY ARSE.
As to the stuff about the ALP and the so called "White Australia
Policy" which did not exist as a formal policy any more than similar
"policies" in the USA, NZ and Canada, it has its own history. It was
not simply based on "prejudice" but had a strong basis in a class
struggle against sections of the capitalist class wanting to use the
standard methods of the British imperialists and import masses of cheap
coolie labour to drive down and culturally undermine the Anglo celtic
population coming from lands which gave rise to the ethos of the modern
labour movement. I refer to Chartism, Trade Unionism and so on.
Yes it was belated in Australia, but that is not due to some
half-witted idea that Australians were any more racist than say yankees
(I have indelible memories of these wonderboys in Vietnam: "gooks" etc
etc etc.
nada:
In the US today we are not faced with mass unemployment. Officially
it's 4%. We always double it to 8% for realism sake.
As I have said before: as Gerry Healy used to say: you have a touching
faith in the capitalism. Listen mate, most of the jobs around today are
shit part time short contract jobs and when people apply and miss out
they often find that there were dozens of applicants. Can you not see
that there are OBJECTIVE forces at work here transcending opinions.
Capitalists in the USA HAVE to drive down wages and conditions in order
to earn the going rate of profit in the medium to long term OR ELSE GO
OUT OF BUSINESS. And this rate of profit is increasingly dominated by
labour at a tiny fraction of the cost of the current rate in the West.
The function of the reserve army, brought about largely through
immigration of skilled and unskilled labour, is to do just that. And
there is nothing at all new in that.
Within that context there is a role for trade unions but they are
seriously weakened by the lack of homogeneity of the workforce arising
from new immigrants and by the numbers. See my posting by WZ Foster on
this. In Fact I will transcribe it again:
William Z Fosters' book History of the Communist Party of the United
States:
"During the decade of the war and post-war period the working class
greatly changed. The number of workers engaged in industry was up by
31.6 percent. The sharp dividing line between skilled and unskilled was
greatly blurred by the growth of mass production. A considerable Negro
proletariat had grown up in the northern industries. And with
immigration shut off, the speed of Americanisation of the foreign born
workers had been hastened. All this made for a greater homogeneity and
solidarity amongst the workers."