The first time I encountered this sort of thing was when working to a pass plant closing notification law in NY. There were far too many condescending comments made to workers on the part of marxist organizers. I don't think you can really deny that this happensl. In fact, I was actually surprised at Mike's commentary precisely because I'm familiar with his work and didn't imagine that he might say something like that
I've had similar experiences in every single movement I've ever been involved in: More well off marxist academics informing workers about the poverty of their politics. It's not that marxist shouldn't do this and I *was* advocating that early on in the previous thread. I'd like to see a bit less paternalism.
For ex, a couple of years ago, I was helping to organize a town meeting in response to the Smith Corona plant closing in NY. A contingent of campus marxists from a university outside of town came to the forum because they were afraid that the non-unionized workers would start bashing Mexican workers for taking away their jobs. Perhaps rightfully so since that does indeed happen often enough. But the air of superiority was stomach turning and I wondered yet again if this divide would ever easily be bridged. Yes, workers do their own fair share of labeling and stereotyping academics. As a working class academic I'm altogether too familiar with it.
Fortunately, the lil ol' (assumed to be racist) SCM workers (non unionized) who spoke did get it. In my interviews with many more of them later, they understood what was going on and didn't necessarily need the university marxist contingent patronizing them. But again, not that this isn't important work to do. The paternalism can go though, iyam.
So, yes, I do know that workers are fully capable of these sorts of things. My ramblings were about the condecension: out of all that Chuck wrote, to pick up on a minor discussion about drinking Gallo wine 30 years ago?????? My sense, ultimately, is that Mike doesn't appreciate certain topics raised for discussion. Well. Great.
I'm not by any means suggesting that the working class can somehow transparently recognize their true interests w/o marxist interventions, either. Nonetheless, I remain incensed at the condecension, though still respectful of Mike's comments on the list and in his work--which I intend to use in my teaching and have recommended to others.
>On the other hand, there are, as Mike Yates I am
sure will attest, broad
>stretches of working class latinos in California
who to this day won't buy
>grapes in solidarity with the farmworkers. And
there are large numbers of
>union members, including not well-off members,
who avoid Coors or other
>markedly anti-union products.
no one said they don't or can't or shouldn't. I suggested that we could be a bit more considerate about why someone might not do be able to money or time wise. Whether these objections are valid, that's another question. And I appreciate folks' responses, truly.
>It's not that I don't respect the ideals of
personal liberation, but there
>is an anti-union, anti-traditional politics
aspects of the
>postmodern-cultural studies approach that is
profoundly disdainful of
>collective struggle.
I completely agree. But as I said earlier, I'm a contrarian. I like to argue. If someone's attacking marxist academics for being condescending then I might feel like defending them. This sort of jumping around can have it own set of problems and I'm aware of them. For now, though, its a way of wrestling with a deeply ingrained iconoclasm and suspicion of anything that seems the least bit dogmatic.
> I used was Mike Yate's
>POWER ON THE JOB which is a wonderful, practical
handbook for workers to
>conduct strikes and protect themselves when they
launch boycotts.
Yes, I've assigned it in classes. So. Are Mike's comments hands off because he wrote a really great book? I took offense precisely because I thought he should know better and have taken more care in reading Chuck's post in the first place.
> You
>would not believe how hard and how dangerous it
sometimes is under the law
>for workers to launch boycotts and, frankly, if
they are willing to take
>the trouble, it is a pretty weak defense to
complain that it might take a
>few pennies or a little extra time to avoid a
boycotted product.
Perhaps it is lame. And the intra class warfare is a big problem too, isn't it? Do you go about telling poor people who wonder about the efficacy of boycotts that they're lame? I was questioning the efficacy of the strategy, in part, because it is a form of politics that operates at the level of conumption and I think there are a whole slew of problems with that. Not unlike your comments re SGs and the like. It's not that I don't think boycotts aren't useful, but why on earth should we just accept the dogma that they are.
Finally, are you suggesting that I know nothing about workers struggles?
Again: I was in a snit about the condescending attitudes about why Chuck might buy Gallo wine more than 30 effin' years ago. I thought it was somewhat rude and that compounded by more patronizing claims ab out what constitutes appropriate fodder for discussion.
SnitgrrRl