Broad Economism and Mass Strike Strategies Revisited?

[kjk2.1]

I'm earmarking this paper for discussion:

Global Trade Unionism as the Vanguard of a Non-violent Marxist Revolution

The slippery slope into broad economism (and narrow, more typical economism further down) begins by not recognizing that the "struggle for socialism" is an economic struggle, not a political one.

The majority of left-syndicalists fall into this trap, and so the call for "mass strikes for the socialist revolution" avoids the question of what is truly needed for workers to obtain policy-making and all other ruling-class political power (participatory-democratic parallelism, recallability, average skilled workers' wages, and so on). To quote the paper above:

Quote:Imagine all the workers of the world truly, actually uniting… and then striking. It would be a world-transforming action.

However, does the call for "mass strikes for the socialist revolution" actually become valid after ruling-class political power has been obtained?

I'm not sure how proletarian-not-necessarily-communist elements can accuse "mass strike" communist outlets of conning the workers towards political revolution when that political revolution has already been made. Programmatically speaking, at issue here is the call for "Legally considering all workplaces as being unionized for the purposes of political strikes and even syndicalist strikes, regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace." This is one of the directional roads to "socialist revolution" alongside "Enabling society's cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans" and "Extending litigation rights to include class-action lawsuits and speedy judgements against all non-workers who appropriate surplus value atop any economic rent applied towards exclusively public purposes."

Discuss.

[ArrowLance]

The formation of a global union would likely be impossible. Governments would resist it and it would probably result in violence on a global scale. However if such a union could be formed there would be little reason to strike, the victory would all ready be won. All that would be left is to take control of governmental positions and reform industry and agriculture how we please. But again it is most likely that, like any thrown body of power, the capitalist and bourgeois forces will not simply lay on the ground or merge with the crowd. Further if all goods and services were withheld it would result in a global tragedy that, while disrupting capitalism, would cripple a global economy that the working class soon would need at its best to achieve their goals and overcome the challenges that would lie in socializing a global market system.

The article is quite optimistic in its views on global solidarity. Even if the world were to globalize and we saw the loss of nationalistic tendencies corporations and business interests would remain and pick up the slack. It is unlikely that under the capitalist system the socialist movements can ever hope to have an overwhelming majority. The working class is playing in the capitalists system which is against solidarity and altruism. Even the author admits that the capitalist system actively fights unionism and solidarity but then never explains how the working class can combat that tendency or how globalization can stop it.