>>> "Nathan Newman" <nnewman at ix.netcom.com> 06/17 10:15 AM >>>
-----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.
Charles: I thought about this. I think your view depends too much on hindsight. During the war, it is not certain you are going to win it (now of course we know the Nazis were defeated, so there is a tendency to treat that as a given in 1941 also. Any loss of production from,especially the area of the "Arsenal of Democracy" could be the difference between winning and losing.
Also, opportunism is famously left and right, and often expressed in the same opportunist. Reuther's "militancy" was not in the best interest of the WORLD working class. It was an opportunist move to seize power, although I don't disagree that this cannot be treated in an absolute or onesided manner. LIke everything, Reuther's career had contradictions.The focus of communists, pursuant to The Manifesto, is to consider the interests of the class as a whole, and that whole is the workers of the world. You may disagree that helping to defend the Soviet Union, but also to destroy fascism for its impact on all workers around the world, was a prime task of communist, but the CPUSA concluded oppositely from you if you do. Thus, there conduct during the war as you describe was consistent with that.
Nathan: 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.
Charles: I think you are too hard on the CPUSA; The wartime no strike pledge etc. was not grounds to wipe out some of the most militant trade unionists and Reuther and the rest knew it. The communists were NOT ousted for lack of militancy, but rather just the opposite, too much militancy and too much ultimate radicalism , unlike Reuther et al.
Nathan: 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.
Chas. It is difficult to spell out complexity and details on e-mail format
Nathan; 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.
Charles:
Yes, but in the long term the current mess was fallen into because of the anti-communist trend which Reuther played into in large part. He may not have seen the long run consequence, but his pursuit of personal power and social democratic , reformist ideology inevitably lead to what we have now, erosion of even the reforms won.
Charles Brown