rc-am wrote:
> rc-am wrote:
>
> > b) i think nathan is right to point to the advances in the AFL-CIO on
> > [SNIP]carrol wrote:
>
> >>Could you expand and clarify. Are you saying that (1) the AFL-CIO...
>
> perhaps both. but more specifically, it seems to me that in places like
> [SNIP]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.
I agree with most of what Angela has posted on this.
> 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.
I would qualify this. There may be many union officials (especially at the local level) who simply "aren't accustomed ..." but until I see hard evidence otherwise I would assume that the national leadership and many local leaders (in McLean County, Illinois, for example) have given a good deal of thought to *avoid* the membership thinking in those terms. This is analogous to the Democratic Party's practice (or non-practice) in the registering of new voters. They would rather lose than get too many new people politically involved.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>What is your conception of the route to class unity in the united states?
>
> why only "in the united states"?
Because (a) that is what most of this thread has centered on and (b) I think the intensely practical question of class unity (or the route to it) is bound up with the specific conditions of each given country. There are undoubtedly generalizations that apply "universally" but probably not directly without a good deal of wrestling.
Carrol