-----Original Message----- From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at mail.ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> A fun little note across the email transom about UAW suppression of
> internal democracy at UC-Santa Barbara. All too familiar --Nathan
-Coming from such a staunch defender of the Democratic Party this complaint -about the UAW is both extraordinarily naive and in wild contradiction to the -defense of the equally "undemocratic" dems.
I am going to write a longer note in reply to the general issue of the Dems & Progressives after all the lovely replies. [I was waiting for Doug to wax nostalgic for Hitler's domestic policy, except for the concentration camps, of course.]
But it is precisely the simplistic left spectrum categories that push out my contrarian streak in "defending" Clinton, when basic semblances of distinction on alternative views disappear over strategy.
Carroll, the major union writing I have done has been in LABORNOTES and labor support is one of my main political activities [I have probably spent about 10,000 hours on labor work for every one hour I have spent on electoral work.]
It is largely because I support really militant rank-and-file unionism that I put up with the mealy-mouthed policies of the Dems, since they at least block the absolute union destruction riders that have floated around the Gingrinch Congress. GOP proposed laws would criminalize "salting", corporate campaigns, economic boycotts, and every other militant tactic currently in use by progressive unionists.
Unfortunately, even if militant tools are available, they are useless if antidemocratic union leaders suppress their use for fear they might empower the rank-and-file too much (and therefore endanger those leaders' jobs.)
A rank-and-file run union is a real advance for worker democracy and socialism. It is not symbolic crap like getting a few thousand votes for some fringe candidate. It is because I care about the former than I have so much disdain for the latter.
Most militant unionists I know suck it up and vote Democratic most elections precisely because lesser-evilism gets them marginal benefits and protection from the State fucking their organizing [and yeah, yeah, point out the Dem asshole actions and I will list the thousand Republican courterpoints starting with Taft-Hartley, that cancer that destroyed the Left in the labor movement in the first place.]
There are arguments that campaigns for union democracy weaken the union and allow the employer to gain strength, so some people argue with sticking with strong loyalty to union leadership, however flawed. That is the argument in parallel to voting Democratic to stop Republicans.
The reason I buy the later and not the former is based on empirical observation - instead of the ideological bias that equates theoretical syllogism with reality.
The fact is that fights for union democracy usually strengthen unions versus employers. Unions with strong rank-and-file movements are more militant and are more mobilized, and thus can win better against the employers. While there are exceptions, that is empirical fact as far as my observational powers go.
On the other hand, third party efforts seem to accomplish little at best and elect Republicans at worst. The gains are few and the costs are high. There are exceptions, again, like Bernie Sanders, but the empirical failure of third party work is just a fact.
Why this difference exists seems pretty obvious to me. Rank-and-file union efforts are about control of a union that directly affects people's lives. The organizing itself gives people direct power within the union, if only within their shop or department, and translates into a stronger union whether the union leadership likes it or not. That is the nature of class struggle over the means of production - the battle is direct and power is not achieved just in discrete bundles but in a broad accumulation of power proportionate to the mobilization and self-empowerment of the working class.
Electoral power, on the other hand, is discrete. You win office, you have power. You fail, and you may retain the threat of exercising power at the next election, but you have no actual power beyond that threat. And due to the nature of our specific electoral system designed to crush third party challenges, even that threat is contained and made largely meaningless due to its ineffectiveness. So most third party organizing effort is wasted- its mobilizations sporadic at election time and meaning little in between. I know most third party efforts aspire to a more continuous level of mobilization, but again empirically, few acheive it, since people will not invest their day-to-day organizational commitment to a vehicle unable to exercise any power on their behalf.
Again, I recognize the arguments of those who see third party efforts as strengthening the independence of the working class from "bourgois parties" and thereby strengthening the ideology of rank-and-file power. I just don't buy it empirically since I haven't seen it happen, and 50,000 votes for Granpa Munster doesn't do it for me.
And if the Labor Party is successful, I am actually curious whether that won't chill some of the rank-and-file activism of some folks, since their desire to keep International Unions involved may force them to tone down their anti-leadership rhetoric. While it won't necessarily happen, I can see a scenario where third party work leads to less focus on union democracy, as various leftists protect undemocratic union leaders who happen to be willing to support the Labor Party.
Contradictions exist all over, which make differences in strategy on the left part of a healthy movement, if those differences are aired with respect for the people if not their views in that instance. People of good conscience can have different empirical and strategic evaluations of what the situation is and what will make it better.
In Solidarity,
Nathan