>K wrote:
SnitgrrRl.
>This is an inanity, in fact a very vicious one,
that those of us who
>suggested only *organized* boycotts need be
honored, that personal
>boycotts were at best non-political, a mere
private fancy.
See Doug's reply. The point was not so much that it was an organized boycott, but that it wasn't a succesful one and no one seemed to pay any attention to. I always found that theoretically/politically interesting. And now that more folks know about this, what should we do? And why--really why--should we not share information about horrible union busting tactics in order to raise awareness and, perhaps, start an organized boycott? This is especially interesting because we're talking here about a product that most of us buy and enjoy and find reasons for preferring over other ways of distributing books. Borders & B&N provide us with products that we approve of politically (and they do this purposefully) and, as opposed to online bookstores, they provide a place to gather and socialize. And that Maria is why Borders/B&N is sooooo successful**: they knew *exactly* what they were doing when they--especially Borders--appealed to our politically left leaning sympathies via symbolic gestures in spatial design, decor, book displays, hiring of personnel [do you know how hard it is to get a job at these places and how they select folks who have the 'right' look]? Now this, *THIS* is flexible capitalism at its most viciously sneaking. Hegemony indeed Nathan.
**[Of course amazon.com is successful too, but for different reasons. Now did anyone hear about Walmart's 'plaints about amazon.com head hunting among Walmart's key techie staff?]
What are the political processes through which some products/places of business are boycotted and others not. It's all well and good to say that the point is that they're politically organized boycotts and that's why we should suport them. But that's tautological. It doesn't answer, in any sophisticated way, why some boycotts become successful and are honored and others are not. And, it doesn't answer the question as to why we shouldn't discuss theoretical/political strategies for how to get such boycotts get off the ground in the first place. And why? I'd say that there are good theoritically/political strategic reasons for supporting some boycotts and supporting attempts to raise awareness and organize boycotts. As Bill points out (and I turn his questions a bit to serve my purposes), can you provide a rationale for supporting the Gallo boycott and not supporting those who are voicing concerns in an *attempt* to organize such boycotts, lending it the weight of your political authority so to speak.
The logic behind this question is the same logic used by those who've asked why some union struggles became successful and broadly supported while others didn't (Dorothy Sue Cobble & others) The answer for some was that the process reflected gender inequality both in terms of the unions that were the focus of broad political support in the movement AND in terms of the historical forces that yielded support for one sort of union structure as opposed to others.
> Now we see
>that such private fancies, raised to the level of
(naturally
>super-moralistic) principle are anti-political,
sources of disunity and
>the destruction of solidarity, for they lead to
such fucking idiocies as
>K's personal attack on Nathan.
Actually, my personal attack skills are rusty, though I see you're quite competent. It wasn't a personal attack. I was teasing him (and quite seriously too) about a theoretical position. Since Nathan and I had reached a point of being able to bust each other's ass (as well as our own) I knew I could get away with it (with him anyway) -- in precisely the same way that Doug and Proyect do. When Doug rules ass-busting out of bounds, I'll stop. Furthermore, I brought it up precisely for the very reasons that have been mentioned: some say its not 'true' unionism (radical chic hipster kinda thang. Questions for Alex, Nathan below). And, it raised, as I'd hoped, an example of the processes through which capital co-opts labor (see my reply to Nathan, below) Finally, it also raised (again) Bill Keirnan's concerns about where you draw the line in terms of 'real' 'authentic' politics as opposed to mere moralizing. I'd be really interested in your reply to Bill Kiernan. I wanted to take folks up on it earlier but got caught up on three other threads. And I already raised other questions above. So.
And why are the spectres of disunity and challenges to 'solidarity' raised as an acceptable defense against these sorts of questions?
>*Every* corporation is a union busting company.
K reminds me of those
>anarchist *idiotes* (private persons) of the 60s
who wanted to live
>"outside" capitalism on some communal farm in the
hills of Arkansas.
Well you should get to know me Carol. I find that apolitical stance completely idiotic as well. Which reminds me I absolutely loved your points about the use of idiocy in the Manifesto. I've saying this *forever* to those who think he was denigrating peasants merely because he thought them stupid. _______________________________ Nathan writes:
>Actually, Borders has I believe unionized a
number of their stores. The
>IWW and UCFW are in a bit of an inter-union tiff
over this. I have avoided
>Borders partially because of their union-busting
in some stores, but the
>chains are actually more likely to unionize than
most of the groovy
>independents.
Which is theoretically interesting, of course: Labor-capital-(state) accord, legitimation crises and response, Gramscian hegemony. And all that good stuff.
More for you Nathan, Alex and others __________________________________________ I think Alex wrote:
>IWW ...An organization that kids with body
piercings and green
>hair join because they think belonging to a union
is such a hep, novel
>idea.
>
Now Nathan, another question: if you'd welcome
the idea of people boycotting or honoring a picket
line or even joining a union movement just because
they're afraid of being humiliated by their peers,
the what think you of the idea of seeing same from
the kinds of folks mentioned above? A kind of
superficial radical chic that motivates
identification with unions? Would interventions
be appropriate there? Shouldn't we say, according
to your earlier logic: well it may not exactly be
the means through which I'd prefer folks to come
to a radical consciousness, but the ends may well
justify those means, so I'll settle for this and
hope that, with some critical interventions, we
could politicize these folks and work toward more
radical unionization. Or do we just let them all
languish in their apolitical radical chic,
reveling in their bourgeois ideologies and
idiotique subjectivies?
idiotEgrrRl