> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
>
> But hasn't the opportunism of mushy centrism been the 50 year
> failed strategy of Reutherism/Meanyism, failing both the U.S.
> working class and proletarian internationalism ? It has been
> tried and it doesn't work.
Agreed. Which has nothing to do with what I said.
((((((((((((
Charles: OK, I guess you are for finding a way of getting around mushy centrism, but you see it as like gravity, i.e. it can't be irradicated. Is that what you are saying ?
(((((((((((((
Nathan: Or to paraphrase the joke, whose this "we" in your assumption kimosabie? Nowhere do I advocate mushy centrism; I merely argued that on any political spectrum, there is by definition a point and people in political bargaining of those seeking to get 50% plus one vote who will inevitably engage in mushy centrism. In the purest socialist state, there will be the same point and the dynamics of mediation and compromise will create a mushy centrism closing every final political deal.
(((((((((((
Charles: I don't question that you personally have struggled against mushy centrism ( as you detail at length; I am going to clip some of your discussion of your specific work). I don't even question that it is almost as formidable as gravity in some senses.
On the other hand, I think that leftists must take up the task of coming up with an alternative to mushy centrism and opportunism/'pragmatism". In that regard, we have to try to find a way that mushy centrism is not as immutable as gravity. So, I can understand your observation that compromise is inevitable (like gravity), I really can. But amazingly, this "pragmatism" has turned out not to be pragmatic. It may have seemed fifty years ago that compromise, not fighting ,would get the best results for union members, but it is the job of leftists to point out that in fact it has failed. It should be pointed out as a first step. But constructing an alternative , militant class struggle strategy will be an enormous challenge, as you allude to below.
The something new (and ironic) here is that mushy centrism was premised on the idea that it was pragmatic, that it works. But now we can look at the long run and say it is not pragmatic. It hasn't worked. We can argue pragmatism against mushy centrism. ((((((((((((((
Nathan:
People act as if Bill Clinton and his mushy centrism is one of us, and thus debating his actions is somehow debating what we as activists should be doing. My point is just that bashing his existence is silly. He is not the cause but is the reflection of class and political forces at this time that define the political spectrum.
(((((((((((
Charles: I am not so much focussing on Clinton, but on the trade union leaders and movement. I realize the thread had Clinton in it, but I was thinking of the mushy centrism in the trade union strategy in general.
-clip-
Nathan: Which also says little about what left activists should be doing, which I also noted in arguing for more serious discussion about how to respond to real changes in working class institutions like the CLC structures.
Charles: Actually, I don't think structural changes will get it. Somehow, the theory of trade unionism must shift from class collaborationist to militant class struggle. I realize that this is radical "rhetoric", but it is also analytical terminology. We could invent and use some different terms to avoid the history of these terms being branded radical rhetoric, but the concepts would be the same because the reality is the same. Capitalism is basically the same (something like your gravity analogy).
(((((((((((
Nathan: People makes these statements about me somehow advocating mushy centrism and I have to laugh.
Charles: I applaud your individual work. I don't at all think the issue is "Nathan needs to change his practice". I am clipping some of these , because I have no doubt that you have done the fine work you describe.
(((((((((((
-clip-.
Nathan: The point of struggle to build radical power through organizations that can continue to empower the diversity of progressive forces. Occasional bouts of rhetoric denouncing the powers that be is a tried and true method of attracting new recruits to that strruggle and is occasionally fun in rousing the troops on a slow day.
But when you meet in a room to plan actions or discuss the analytic state of the world, it is self-indulgence to bash mushy centrism. It's just rhetoric. In fact, one of the ways to tell the difference between organizations that are doing real organizing and those just pissing around is the level of rhetoric at their internal meetings. Those pissing around use lots of rhetoric because that is their form of activism - denounce everything and everybody without really mobilizing anyone. Those doing real organizing don't have time for rhetoric and get down to analysis of the pros and cons of different alternative actions.
((((((((((((
Charles: My comment is for an e-mail list. I am not saying that that wording or rhetoric is exactly what is needed in union organizing. What you and Tom term rhetoric is in my opinion not exactly rhetoric because it is not aimed at people in the contexts you describe. It is rather a theoretical discussion of trade unionism, which seems entirely appropriate on this list. What we are doing on this thread is theoretically discussing trade unionism. The idea that terms like "militant trade unionism" are inappropriate for any forum seems wrong to me. They might not be for the meetings you describe right now, but they are appropriate for somewhere.
The specific rhetoric ( in the technical sense of that term, language used to persuade audiences) in speaking to large numbers of workers and trade union leaders will have to be developed. But there must be someplace to deal with trade unionism on a theoretical level so as to develop the ideas that will determine what the rhetoric will be trying to get the people to do.
(((((((((((((((
Nathan: Where discussions of mushy centrism come up are in concrete debates on when to support specific political compromises and candidates. It comes up in every union contract ratification and every political endorsement. But rhetoric bashing the compromise or "candidate that can win" is extremely unconvincing unless a case can be made for an alternative strategy. Radicalism is not mindless denunciation of the present situation but the building of the power to choose an alternative.
No radical likes the political balance of force as they are, but to paraphrase Marx, the point of philosophy is not to denounce the world but to change it.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Yes, I agree. Seems to me if this was a union meeting dealing with concrete tasks, then discussion of radical concepts might be inappropriate. But this is exactly the forum for bringing up issues that are not immediately practical. Otherwise, where do they come up ?
((((((((((((((
Nathan: This thread started with Tom, Josh and I debating a bit on the likely effects of the proposed restructuring on the CLCs on the ability of labor to help change those balance of forces. And instead of adding to that discussion, folks jumped in with a bunch of Democratic-bashing rhetoric. Pretty useless for the discussion at hand like a lot of rhetoric.
So if people like Charles have an opinion on "Reutherism/Meanyism", how does that effect your analysis of one very direct product of that trend, namely the Central Labor Council structure? What is your experience with those local structures and how does that effect your view? Do the new structures proposed sound like they will hurt or help? Should grassroots labor activists be mobilizing to block the changes or propose additional new changes to take advantage of the window of opportunity of restructuring?
((((((((((((((
Charles: By and large, it seems to me that the CLC change would tend to undermine potential for rank and file power and influence, and that this would cut against more militant trade unionism. My experience is that CLC's are pretty hierarchical themselves and haven't bucked the national levels much.
However, there would have to be more concrete analysis of what this actually is, because to some extent the new AFL national leadership, slightly more progressive and activist than what it replaces, may be more prrogressive than local CLC's that are left with the philosophy of the Kirkland years. But I would only say that as a thought , and not as a definite conclusion. And , anyway, in the long run, the more centralized structure seems to cut against militancy, because overall I think the rank and file tend to be a bit more militant
I am not ready to judge the restructuring. I am ready to say that the theoretical issue I interjected must be a key touchstone test for everything that goes on, whether this restructuring or anything else. The theoretical issue of class struggle vs class collaboration trade unionism has been dismissed as "rhetoric" and impragmatic for fifty years, but now we see that it is collaboration/partnership that is impragmatic in the long run.
(((((((((((((
Nathan: So if folks can pull themselves away from pretty empty rhetoric about the evils of moderation, how about some non-rhetorical contributions to the debate on what to do about the Central Labor Council restructuring?
((((((((((
Charles: I don't think your use of the term "rhetoric" is exact. Theoretical discussion of trade unionism is appropriate to this forum. We are not making decisions for specific trade union concrete actions here.
CB