GM strike

[Michael Eisenscher]

Yikes!  Again no big argument, Doug.  At least not with your basic
conclusion.  But I would observe that if you want to affect change within
the labor movement (UAW included) rather than just talk about it, using the
language you use here is counter-productive.  Even honest militant trade
unionists, who are aghast at what the top leaders are doing, will often
recoil defensively when you draw into question everything they do rather
than distinguish analytically the inadequacy of guiding principles, basic
assumptions, strategic direction, and policies of the top leadership from
the average UAW dues-payer.  Broadsides that fail to make those distinctions
are likely to produce a "circle the wagons" attitude among some folks with
whom a different approach could be used to initiate some dialog or at least
thoughtful consideration.  I'd add that trade unionists, like partisans of
any other movement, are not keen on sideline critics hurling rocks.  After
all, it's not like we in the LEFT have done such a sterling job of getting
our shit together.  And one can take on the leadership of various left
groups and their policies in ways that don't get interpreted as a broadside
attack on every member of the organization.

Mikey

At 02:13 PM 6/30/98 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Eisenscher wrote:
>
>>If that's what Dougie is saying, I have no quarrel with it.
>
>Thanks, Mikey.
>
>>But that said,
>>real workers face real threats to their economic welfare and security that
>>require immediate strategies.  Promising them solutions under socialism is
>>little different than telling them they'll get their reward in heaven.
>>Neither is a very satisfactory response to what they confront in the moment.
>>Academics can debate and dissect the "logic of capitalism."  Workers still
>>struggle within the framework of that logic to avoid being ground to the
>>lowest common denominator, whether they accept that logic or not.
>
>Of course you can't offer promised land solutions to workers in the midst
>of a struggle today. But the UAW is showing just how hard it is to fight a
>practical bread & butter struggle today if you've got no vision of the
>future. I hate to sound like a Spart, but unions are doomed unless they
>practice a class-struggle unionism, which is the exact opposite of the
>UAW's jointness (i.e., class-collaborationist) strategy. Does the UAW
>leadership really believe that auto executives view them as partners? Or
>are they just using that as a public excuse while they hide out and cash
>their fat paychecks?
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>