• [Labor's] alliance with the Democratic Party is the logical extension of business unionism to the political realm. The lack of ultimate or even long-range goals, the embrace of the system with some modifications, the business-like relation to limited goals (lobbying for legislation), the top-down nature of political decisions and tactical choices, the self-importance that comes from associating with those in power, the notion of measured advances through a semi-institutional partnership with those who administer the system; all of these features f business unionism fit well the alliance with the capitalist party most open to compromise.
• The problem is that these very same attributes fit poorly with the notion of labor as a social movement based on class and class conflict. How to inspire African Americans or Latinos to vote in larger numbers for candidates that shrink from addressing their issues? How to turn immigrants into citizens and working class voters? How to attract working-class white, particularly low-income ones, to vote for their real interests? Clearly, the Democratic Party cannot do these things. But can a business union leadership that shares many of the same ideas, cautions, and fears of class conflict and mass mobilization?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Did I Mention What I Dissertate About?
See below quotation from Kim Moody, US Labor in Trouble and Transition (Verso, 2007: 166). Discuss.
Posted
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Bureaucracide!
Advocating devilishly, what if the members of a union don't want class conflict? What if the members of a union want a 5% annual raise, a decent health care plan and four weeks paid vacation? Are these workers benighted, besieged and experiencing consciousness falsely? Are they in need of some sort of vangard of intellectuals to lead and inspire them, if only until that can awake and arise on their own?
I ask only because in few of the union (of professionals!) meetings, conferences, and/or trainings that I have attended have I sensed that the attendees were straining to get some class conflict going. I have run into countless (well, I imagine they could be counted, but I have not) union leaders who wish that their members were more active. Possible that members remain unactivated because they don't like the direction in which their leaders are pointing, granted.
I understand that these are merely excerpts and I should put down my fingers and read the fucking book, but I ask because we seem to be setting the terms of the debate here as either a union is attempting to smash the system or it is betraying the members, and I'm not so sure that's a valid choice.
dave,
definitely read the book... i think it's the best of its kind. i'm going to do a full-blown critical review soon, however.
Dear Uncle,
Advocating devilishly, what if the members of a union don't want (alternative energy)? What if the members of a union want (lower gas prices)?
Are these workers benighted, besieged and experiencing consciousness falsely? Are they in need of some sort of vangard of intellectuals to lead and inspire them, if only until that can awake and arise on their own?
I ask only because in few of the union (of professionals!) meetings, conferences, and/or trainings that I have attended have I sensed that the attendees were straining to get some (hemp-based fuel) going.
Love,
Nephew
I feel as if I have been touched in a French manner!
Post a Comment