> b) i think nathan is right to point to the advances in the AFL-CIO on
> migration. and they're certainly not communists. the question that
> remains though is to what extent the current leadership of the AFL-CIO
> regarded it necessary to acknowledge (and include) the energy and fight
> that was apparent in the anti-Prop 187 but limit those recognitions to la
> linea and 'legality'. if there's a basis for an internationalist
workers'
> movement in the US, it's always been here rather than in the moral
> inflections of 'solidarity'.
carrol wrote:
>>Could you expand and clarify. Are you saying that (1) the AFL-CIO
leadership opposed Prop 187 only because they were forced to by
their members or (2) that leadership's motives were correct but
they can't be depended on to see the logical implications of their
original motives? Or what? I don't understand the first part of
your paragraph and so can't respond to the last sentence, which
is where the interest lies.<<
perhaps both. but more specifically, it seems to me that in places like california, the mobilisations against Prop 187 generated a combativeness (and activists) much of which was (and many of whom were) going to be important to renovate the unions. all very well and good. in that sense, the AFL-CIO has a newly combative constituency, new faces in the leadership through which to represent such a constituency. but i think there were specific limits to this welcome. unlike nathan, i read the recent discussions and final policy statement on migrant workers as a narrowing down, specifically on the question of illegality. the AFL-CIO's statement, even though it includes one comment about the need to organise illegal migrants, makes constant reference to how the AFL-CIO supports _legal_ migration. does that mean the AFL-CIO supports what is legal _now_? ie., the '96 legislation?
in some ways, that doesn't matter if a number of unions go about their work without such distinctions -- i can't tell from here -- but it does matter in terms of how the federation presents itself on the wider issues of migration policy.
otoh, what is more important, is that instead of considering migrant workers as the basis upon which to generate concrete international links, specifically with mexican workers, their importance has been confined to the national terrain. so, hoffa can make pronouncements about 'foreign policy' because his union regards itself in competition with mexican truckers; and the AFL-CIO 'proper' can make representations to govt on migration policy with the requisite statements about supporting legal migration (the actual content of which is taken off the table), but the basis upon which any concrete internationalism can be built is politically subordinated to both these moments. most unions see internationalism in terms of meetings between union officials and, at best, the application of solidarity boycotts during strikes. what none of this does, however, is nurture ongoing links between the rank and file. the only people capable of doing this work in its first stages are migrant workers.
so, the AFL-CIO were forced to acknowledge and include the emergence of a combative force created around the Prop 187 campaigns; they did so because it was the only route to renovation around; but they did so on terms which leaves intact the fundaments of the AFL-CIO's politics when it comes to cross-border organising. and, the didn't see the logical implications of such a movement because they aren't accustomed to thinking in terms of 'bottom-up' solidarity and organisation, only alliances between those at the top.
all of that, however, is still to note that there is some excellent work being done. i say that, of course, from a context in which the only time the national union federation talks about border issues it's to call for tighter migration controls, more staff for the refugee detention centres, for more detention centres to be built, and for a militarisation of the coastline.
>>What is your conception of the route to class unity in the united states?
why only "in the united states"?
Angela _________