The September 11 vote challenged revolutionaries to figure out what position would advance, as the CL explained, "working-class unity through the self-determination of all oppressed nationalities."
But given the relationship of forces and the actual conditions of the class struggle today, a Scottish parliament coming out of this election would be a bourgeois parliament. Are revolutionary workers for this or against? Clearly, we should be for it, even if the new government is not socialist. Why? Again, as the CL explained, because devolution advances "the break-up of the institutions of the imperialist state."
So, if this is true, why would the CL also take the position that it is "not in favor of granting [a Scottish parliament] the right to tax workers even more?" If there is to be a real parliament, it will have the power to tax. Along with many other aspects of a bourgeois state, the class inequalities that become clearer and clearer will be part of the engine that fuels the development of a socialist wing among fighters for Scottish self-determination.
Does not the CL's position put a barrier to joining them in their current struggle? While there was a ten percent discrepancy between those voting for devolution and those voting to empower the new parliament with taxation, it seems that the big majority of people in Scotland did not make this distinction. Shouldn't we keep our eyes on how they view the fight right now? Isn't that the best position from which to make our deeper points on where the struggle must go to succeed?
To do otherwise, it seems to me, would be to contradict the stance the Militant has taken towards other developments in the struggle for national liberation. For example, no one opposed the right of the new South African government emerging from the struggle to overthrow apartheid the right to tax. Of course the question of how taxes would be formulated constituted a new battleground within the national democratic revolution. In another case, the Zionist state of Israel seeks to leave the Palestine National Authority crippled by strictly controlling the flow of tax revenues.
Perhaps there are some differences in the case of the devolution referendum in Scotland that make it hard for a distant observer to understand the CL's point. But I would appreciate some more discussion on this as it seems to be a very important part of how communists today relate to critical struggles of this kind.
Pete Seidman
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Rail workers' fight
I spent an hour today talking with a group of Amtrak track
workers at Sunnyside rail yard in Queens, New York. They have
been working without a contract since 1995. Their union, the
Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way Employees (BMWE), will be
free to legally strike Amtrak on October 22.
On August 21 of this year President William Clinton ordered a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) to forestall an impending strike by the BMWE, as all attempts at coming to a contract agreement had been exhausted. The board's findings, however, are not binding - and wonder of wonders it favored labor. The PEB ruled in favor of wage increases of 3.5 percent per year over the course of the contract, recommending a signing bonus and retroactive pay. The men I spoke with were pleased with the board's decision in every aspect. It was their opinion that given the high cost of living in the Northeast, the terms proposed would give them some degree of parity with fellow workers employed by other railroads within the region.
Unfortunately Amtrak President Thomas Downs felt differently, stating that if Amtrak was bound by the PEB's decision, the short fall of funds would require shutting the company down. What, I asked, was the likelihood of a strike? To a man they agreed that if the company refuses to abide by the board's decision they will vote to strike. Several workers expressed doubts that the union leadership will actually call the strike.
A common theme runs through our conversation, the company has money for new trucks, cell phones, pagers and whatnot but no money for a pay raise for the workers. And work they do at times up to 16 hours straight in all kinds of weather, on bridges and mainline tracks traversed by 125 mph metroliners where a misstep gets you killed in the blink of an eye.
To a man they agree on one thing; they must have the full support of the other unions here at Amtrak if a strike is to be effective and in this respect I totally agree. The recent outcome of the United Parcel strike has shown workers that strikes can be won and gains made with unity.
Jeff Payne,
New York, New York
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.