Henry C.K. Liu wrote: > > The differences are fiundamental. > > Ideologically, capitalist unions aim at preserving capitalism against the > emrgence of socialism while socialist unions aim at destroying capitalisnm to > build toward socialism. > Unions in capitalism usually aim at protecting the workers who belong to them the best they can. Most unions in capitalist countries do not have a statement in their charters stating "we are for capitalism and against socialism". BY LAW, unions in the USA and those who work in administrative positions in those unions must declare themselves to be against communism or they GO TO JAIL (Taft-Hartley Act). BY LAW, unions in China and Vietnam and Mexico must pledge allegiance to the state or they, like in the board game 'Monopoly', receive a card that says "GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL". These unions have no existence apart from the state, they represent the state and not the workers who belong to them. These unions are not allowed to organize action independent of the state. Indeed the workers are not allowed organize independent of the state in any way, shape or form or they GO TO JAIL. Allowing workers to organize and carry out collective action autonomously is the essence of socialism whether this collective action occurs in the USA or China. Workers organizing and acting autonomously in China necessarily act against the state. Since by definition, the state is a socialist state the workers must be working to restore capitalism. Not so. Perhaps they are acting simply to better their immediate conditions and make their socialist state more democratic. Mao himself believed that class struggle continues after a socialist revolution. > Capitalist unions accept competition and stratification as just and necessary > within the capitalist philosophy Unions in capitalism accept these conditions because they must work within the system to better advance their members interests within that system. Unions are combines of the working class and as such are objectively opposite the capitalist class. That unions even exist in China tells me that a class structure exists, a portion of which is objectively opposed to the interests of the Chinese workers. while socialist unions promote cooperation and > equality. > Co-operation and equality among who? Judging by the working conditions and unemployment level in China ,especially in the FTZ's, "their" unions and "their" state are not doing a very good job at improving their lives. However, top members of the party are doing very well and have been the prime beneficiaries of the economic growth and FDI that has materialized since the death of Mao. > Capitalist unions derive from their guild historical origin a natural tendency > to stratify workers through exclusivity. Their strategy is based on narrow > trade interests and they support or are willing to accept widening income > disparity among workers as long as their own member receive high pay and > benefits. One union or unions who negotiate a decent contract often set an example or benchmark for other unions thus leading to better contracts across the union sector of the working class. Further, non-union capitalists must pay their workers comparable rates to stop them from joining unions. Higher wages even for a small sector improves the situation for everyone else within the same class. This narrow interest has lead them into socially reactionary > positions. Sometimes. Unions and their members throughout the world are the major funders, backers, supporters and organizers of socialist, social democratic and communist parties [in China too, many moons ago] which have achieved very real gains in improving the lives of the working class and the unemployed. The supporters of these parties have for the most part bore the brunt of the capitalist offensive and these parties are now openly neo-liberal but that has not been true historically. The wholesale roleover of the former working class parties has sparked off "the crisis of the left" that everyone has been talking about for so long now. Should the German unions break with the SocDems or work to move it to the left? etc. etc. > > Socialist unions understand that it is important to prevent the emergence of a > new class of elite workers and that competitive adversary postures are not > acceptable in a socialist setting where cooperation and equality should be the > norms of behavior. Should be, yes. "Socialist" unions see it as necessary to prevent their workers from autonomous action to protect the new class of party cadre driving around in their BMW's. This is particularly crucial in China where 80% (over one > billion) of the population are still farming peasants and only 12% are > industrial workers, of which less than 10 million worked for Western FDI > companies. > So what? What has happened to the alliance between the working class and the peasantry. That *is* what that hammer and sickle symbolizes. > The president of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions is also a member of > the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China > (CPC) Central Committee. Indeed. In other words, he is a member of the Chinese ruling class and carries out his orders faithfully. > > All the attempts to start illegal capitalist unions have been supported by > Western anti-China forces with special political agneda and destabilization > objectives. Yes, they are called Marxists and Trotskyists. Marxists almost always champion the working class whether the workers are employed by the state or by capitalist firms. IMO, that is the only difference between China and the USA. The two of three of these self-styled "activists" have been > jailed for receiving foreign funds to carry out anti-China activities on > Chinese soil. These inviduals have nothing to do with labor issues in China. OK. Sam Pawlett
