Then he develops his ideas on the new scientific and technological revolution, the historical bloc, the concept of national strike on self-determination and for self-management of resources in a socialist society with a human face, Roger Garaudy sees himself involved - among others - for a current anarchist whose unfair - and in many respects, however pretentious-criticism illuminates his theories:
WORKERS SOLIDARITY No. 5 (September 1971)
Garaudy discovers anarcho-syndicalism
In the June issue of the journal "Politics today," Roger Garaudy meets a number of issues regarding the "revolutionary strategy."
We thought we have to stop because there Garaudy made a number of "discoveries" lightning that put water in the mill of anarcho-syndicalists, but which also are worrisome in that context totally ideological different in that it places them, may divert these items from the revolutionary goal we give them: autonomy of the working class struggle.
First, Garaudy wants to "escape the false opposition between strikes claims (...) and political strikes (...) The relationship between economics and politics and the separation of the two can no longer be conceived as 1905 (sic) at the time of the "Charter of Amiens, where you could still at this stage of capitalism, limiting unions to fight in the enterprise (...) While the political parties of the working class had the task of fighting a state and a regime where the labor is a commodity ".
For information, remember that Comrade Garaudy Charter of Amiens, written in 1906 by revolutionary syndicalists, denies precisely this separation between politics and protest, refusing party interference in trade unions, refuses to limit the action of the union at the immediate demand, and finally gave the union the lead role in organizing and building a socialist society:
"But this task (it is the material claim) is only one side of the work of trade unions, said the Charter of Amiens: it prepares the complete emancipation that can only be achieved by expropriating capitalist he advocates as a policy the general strike and considers that the union, today resistance groups will in the future the group of production and distribution, the basis of social reorganization ... "But
continuing analysis of Garaudy.
For the state, which Today is by far the biggest employer, "the main interlocutors are not political parties but the unions." What blatant confirmation of theses revolutionary syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists, and coming in more than one of the most learned logicians of our time! And he says quite rightly: "The only danger is that unions mimic their actions on the parliamentary model in negotiations with employers and the state."
This concern for a classmate (excluded it is true) of a political group whose sole activity "revolutionary" current is only bid for the maximum number of seats in Parliament, concern for the fellow will receive the deepest heart of all genuine trade unionists, those, among others, who have always maintained that the only class organization that is both defend interests of workers and prepare for the construction of socialism, is the union.
Those who have always claimed that workers' organizations should refuse to engage on the ground of the bourgeoisie, the parliamentary field, but to force the bourgeoisie to come fight in the only field where workers can overcome the field the class struggle, strike, protest and politics.
We're gratified to see an intellectual value of Comrade Garaudy join us on this point, since it goes to say that the main form of struggle (but not sole) is the general strike (as it called "national" ...)
The shade is so subtle that wonders if Garaudy is not the ass to have sound. He pretends not to know what the general strike, and this enables him to introduce the subtle name of "national strike".
According to Garaudy, the general strike would encompass only the workers, while the national strike would cover it, "beyond the working class," "broad strata": staff, students, intellectuals, etc.. The second fundamental difference is that the general strike was intended only to paralyze production, while his strike him, strike "national" would be to run the business, government, etc..
Once again, we must remember that, just as unions have exclusive claim to the role, nor the general strike has sole objective to halt production. Instead, it led to workers' management of production, through the union, as the passage of the Charter of Amiens quoted above shows us.
What are we trying to show in us by paying for Garaudy?
What truths from the depths of the working class feels prone to be diverted from their minds and retrieved by a minority of politicians.
That we must be vigilant and denounce all attempts to systematically abuse and recovery. Les travailleurs
That, par leur pratique quotidienne the lutte, n'ont pas attendu pour lancer will camarade Garaudy les mots d'ordre: GREVE GENERALE MANAGEMENT EXPROPRIATRICE et Ouvrière.
We thought we have to stop because there Garaudy made a number of "discoveries" lightning that put water in the mill of anarcho-syndicalists, but which also are worrisome in that context totally ideological different in that it places them, may divert these items from the revolutionary goal we give them: autonomy of the working class struggle.
First, Garaudy wants to "escape the false opposition between strikes claims (...) and political strikes (...) The relationship between economics and politics and the separation of the two can no longer be conceived as 1905 (sic) at the time of the "Charter of Amiens, where you could still at this stage of capitalism, limiting unions to fight in the enterprise (...) While the political parties of the working class had the task of fighting a state and a regime where the labor is a commodity ".
For information, remember that Comrade Garaudy Charter of Amiens, written in 1906 by revolutionary syndicalists, denies precisely this separation between politics and protest, refusing party interference in trade unions, refuses to limit the action of the union at the immediate demand, and finally gave the union the lead role in organizing and building a socialist society:
"But this task (it is the material claim) is only one side of the work of trade unions, said the Charter of Amiens: it prepares the complete emancipation that can only be achieved by expropriating capitalist he advocates as a policy the general strike and considers that the union, today resistance groups will in the future the group of production and distribution, the basis of social reorganization ... "But
continuing analysis of Garaudy.
For the state, which Today is by far the biggest employer, "the main interlocutors are not political parties but the unions." What blatant confirmation of theses revolutionary syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists, and coming in more than one of the most learned logicians of our time! And he says quite rightly: "The only danger is that unions mimic their actions on the parliamentary model in negotiations with employers and the state."
This concern for a classmate (excluded it is true) of a political group whose sole activity "revolutionary" current is only bid for the maximum number of seats in Parliament, concern for the fellow will receive the deepest heart of all genuine trade unionists, those, among others, who have always maintained that the only class organization that is both defend interests of workers and prepare for the construction of socialism, is the union.
Those who have always claimed that workers' organizations should refuse to engage on the ground of the bourgeoisie, the parliamentary field, but to force the bourgeoisie to come fight in the only field where workers can overcome the field the class struggle, strike, protest and politics.
We're gratified to see an intellectual value of Comrade Garaudy join us on this point, since it goes to say that the main form of struggle (but not sole) is the general strike (as it called "national" ...)
The shade is so subtle that wonders if Garaudy is not the ass to have sound. He pretends not to know what the general strike, and this enables him to introduce the subtle name of "national strike".
According to Garaudy, the general strike would encompass only the workers, while the national strike would cover it, "beyond the working class," "broad strata": staff, students, intellectuals, etc.. The second fundamental difference is that the general strike was intended only to paralyze production, while his strike him, strike "national" would be to run the business, government, etc..
Once again, we must remember that, just as unions have exclusive claim to the role, nor the general strike has sole objective to halt production. Instead, it led to workers' management of production, through the union, as the passage of the Charter of Amiens quoted above shows us.
What are we trying to show in us by paying for Garaudy?
What truths from the depths of the working class feels prone to be diverted from their minds and retrieved by a minority of politicians.
That we must be vigilant and denounce all attempts to systematically abuse and recovery. Les travailleurs
That, par leur pratique quotidienne the lutte, n'ont pas attendu pour lancer will camarade Garaudy les mots d'ordre: GREVE GENERALE MANAGEMENT EXPROPRIATRICE et Ouvrière.
0 comments:
Post a Comment