So if opposing racism (for example) does not spontaneously have resonance in
existing organisations do we just ignore it? Surely not. Raising the
"hard" issues when few want to hear about them is not posturing but often a
necessity.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>RG: So what you do in practice to fight racism where you work or live,
>including practical opposition to immigration controls, determines the
worth
>of your approach. . . .
>>>>>>>>
>
>[mbs] I don't agree at all. Many days pass when I do
>nothing at all to fight racism or immigration restrictions.
Well then (from what I know about the reactionary "glue" that binds Amercian society), your priorities are probably wrong.
>rg:. . .
> Working people don't necessarily need the left to tell them how
>to organise a union (though every little bit helps). An independent class
>outlook on key issues like race, women's rights, foreign policy etc, does
>not however just come naturally to workplace organisations.
>[mbs] I wouldn't presume how to tell anyone how to
>organize unions. I do try to support the idea
>of trade unionism. But it's striking that your
>list seems to take trade unionism as a reasonable
>measure to deal with everything that isn't race,
>women's rights, & foreign policy. But unionism
>in and of itself is only a limited start on
>seeing the working class stake in economic
>policy in the large.
I agree. I don't know where you got the notion that I see unions as the key organisational channel for work on everything but a few key issues. I was in fact pointing to their generally limited (defensive) role and criticising what I saw as your notion of fraternal union relations across borders as equating with internationalism. Please also note the "etc." in my list of key issues above.
Russell