soreff (02/21/83)
I don't believe that the right to strike should (in theory) be considered a SOCIALIST right. In order for there to a free labor market, it must be possible for employers and employees to terminate jobs freely. If employers can conduct or threaten mass layoffs then employees must be able to quit or threaten to quit en masse. In practice, of course, "authoritarian" "capitalist" countries tend to discourage strikes more forcefully than they discourage mass layoffs. Even in the US, some of methods used to discourage strikes in the past have been quite bloody. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)
turner (02/24/83)
#R:hplabsb:-137800:ucbesvax:7100005:000:3219 ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 23:15:00 1983 Jeff, I agree with this, and I hope that nothing I've said so far makes you think that the "right" to strike (a little more complicated than that, I'll allow) is a strictly socialist idea. In fact, there is over- whelming evidence that unions dominated by Communist and socialist parties have often played the role of strike-breaker, when this was the only way they could get their hands on state power. Solidarity is only the most recent example of this. There were and are unions in Poland apart from Solidarity, but they were party- controlled. Italy, France, and Spain would seem to be different, in that they are not Soviet satellites, and their respective Communist parties have never held total state power. But in each of these non- Communist states, the CP holds fantastic power over union activity. In Italy, the CP formed the "Historic Compromise" coalition with a center-RIGHT Christion Democrats, with the understanding that it would take part in a general crackdown on leftist groups and autonomous [i.e. non-CP-aligned] unions -- under the general smear campaign of "Wipe Out Terrorism". For a while there [1977-1980], Italy led NATO in the number of persons held in prison without charge (around 1200). In France, the CP has a similar degree of union control. In 1968, during a general strike, the CP had to face the very real possibility of a revolution in which they were not necessarily guaranteed any resulting power. That is, workers were striking WITHOUT BEING TOLD. This scared the French CP so much that they hastily began to look for solutions to the crisis which would keep the Gaullists in power -- who were, at least, a known variable. In Republican Spain (1935-49?), the CP took its orders from Stalin, who did not want a revolution. He wanted a stable Mediterranean/Atlantic trading partner for the USSR. The result is quite well documented in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". In Spain today, after Franco, the party plays a similarly regressive role, but very large (>100,000 people) wildcat strikes did take place in the mid-to-late seventies, showing that the party's hold is not so strong. In all these countries, there are worker's movements which are quite radical, while at the same time hostile to doctrinaire "party line" reasoning about what they should or should not be doing. This makes them incoherent, disorganized, faltering, and sometimes violent. But so much depends (to my mind) on the ability of workers to think, work, and act for themselves, that I certainly don't blame them for wanting to dump the hoary ideologues of old left-wing parties and the hardened career bureaucrats of unions which don't represent them anymore. No ideology can make a particular moral claim on the right to organize and strike. The appropriateness is entirely situational. Those who would impose some over-arching theory over this right will almost always ending up repressing it themselves. (Why am I flaming at YOU about this? Oh, well: reponses are welcome in any case.) Michael Turner