GM and the UAW

Nathan Newman nnewman at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 17 07:15:37 PDT 1998


-----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown <charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>


>But I agree with you that the UAW does not use the full potential. This
is >Reutherite opportunism. When Reuther drove the Communists and left out of >the UAW around 1950, it marked, of course, the beginning of the end of
>militant class struggle trade unionism as a guiding principle within any
of >the industrial unions.

And why was Reuther able to take control of the union away from the Communists?

Because the CPUSA had promoted absolutely class-collaborationist policies during World War II, supporting no-strike pledges when Reuther's faction promoted militant rank-and-file strikes to defend wages being eroded by wartime wage controls.

If the CPUSA had not so discredited itself among the much of the militant rank-and-file during those years of collaboration, the postWar history of unionism might have been quite different.

But I also think it is simplistic to reduce Reutherism just to collaboration since Reuther led many tough militant strikes, including the 1946 strike that set a pattern for one of the strongest union strike waves of the 20th century. The limits of the success of that strike wave, along with the passage of Taft-Hartley in response, set severe limits on what unions could accomplish.

Unfortunately, those limits created a pathological spiral of abandonment of new organizing, especially in the South, which just further reduced the options for many labor struggles. The failure to consistently expand new organizing, especially into new industries, fatally undermined union power over the years.


>The new AFL-CIO leadership has given lipservice to a return to militant
>trade unionism (though they are still anti-communist enough not to
mention >class struggle).

The reality is that Sweeney et al mostly don't believe in class struggle but in strong basic unionism in defense of workers rights. It is not enough but it is also not lip service; the AFL-CIO has supported a range of new organizing initiatives that are making a significant difference, but the other reality is that it is damn hard to organize in the context of runaway multinational corporations and labor policies that allow companies to fire pro-union activists in unorganized shops with only a slap on the wrist.

--Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list