|AN OUTSIDERS VIEW|
Two weeks ago, in the first part of this account, we identified three kinds of splits in the labor movement — the party-political split, the split influenced by employers, and the split engineered by government. Last week, there was the split caused by labor-leader paternalism, or the desire to escape it — for the TUPAS-FSM split might be seen as an example of this. (At the lower levels of the movement there must have been countless undocumented examples of this kind of split over the years, along with those caused by personality differences and the careerism of leaders.)
We might also add that while not necessarily causing splits, foreign funding like that advanced by the Asian-American Free Labor Institute has acted as a means of fencing off conservative organizations from their more progressive brethren. And finally, we have the example of the post-1993 splits, which we might dub the “Red International” type of split. This requires some explanation.
Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, a number of communist-led organizations were established on an international level with the aim of gaining influence in the labor and peasant movements. One such organization was the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU), established in 1921. As the international communist movement entered its most sectarian period (characterized by the slogan “class against class”), the RILU saw the aim of communists as attempting to win the support of the labor movement in their own country for the cause of revolution, and if the existing trade unions could not so be won, to establish “red alternatives.”.... MORE
Source: The Daily Tribune