> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
>
> 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 ?
Just to get definitions straight (since we are getting closer to clear communication), mushy centrism is not a substantive position but the act of smoothing out real differences in order to forge a political compromise. That will never be eliminated because in any political situation, whether among Maoists or Randians, there are always people who are trying to forge a majoritarian position and engage in mushy centrism to do so. In particular situations, I bet most activists have played both mushy centrists (in one context) and radical militants (in other contexts).
What can be eradicated is a balance of forces that make Clintonism-Bushism the narrow mushy middle of debate. I'd love for the world to be such that Bernie Sanders could assume the role of mushy middle, as a step towards more radical change.
> 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".
As Angela noted, radical militancy is often the best way to engage and challenge mushy centrism. Recognizing the existence of mushy centrism does not lead to endorsement or capitalation; it just leads to strategic thinking instead of feel-good rhetoric as a substitute for action.
If Clinton or the leadership of the AFL-CIO sucks, just saying so does nothing. In fact, it's jsut depressing and encourages cynical dispair. What is needed is to propose alternatives that mobilize people.
> 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.
Here is where we disagree in the union context. Mushy centrism was not premised on being pragmatic; it was the product of a Cold War purge of left elements in the union movement to serve the interests of moderate interests at the expense of pragmatic gains for the working class.
Ironically, one reason that the Communists were such easy targets for the Reutherites is that during World War II, the CPUSA had for pragmatic reasons supported no-strike clauses, while the Reutherites were much more willing to engage in wildcat strikes during the war. This allowed the Reutherites to gain broad allegiance for their militancy, take over the UAW, and then use that support to purge their left opponents. It's a very messy story (as you no doubt know) but the CPUSA ended up with probably the worst of all positions-- extremely militant rhetoric with a really weak record of militant action left over from World War II.
The result of this whole messy battle was not a real pragmatic strategy, at least not in the sense that any militant would recognize. It was an abandonment of mass organizing drives, the collapse of the CIO back into the AFL, and the creation of the CLC structure we are debating.
> 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.
I don't have a problem with rhetoric if it is aimed to convince, but repeating a general phrase that I agree with in the abstract but has little meaning when two militant trade unionists talk- that's rhetoric. No one is defending weak-ass business unionism, so it's rhetoric because its debating a straw horse.
> 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 ?
Sure, but where are the issues? My point is that denouncing evil is not an issue. Proposing a solution, however "unpragmatic" at the moment, is worth discussing.
> 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
Great. This is exactly the point where strategies are examined. Although, damn, your position sounds like mushy centrism in your equivocation :)
The reason I tend to think this restructuring might be useful is precisely because CLCs have been some of the more conservative institutions within the labor movement, resistant to any rank-and-file pressure since all its members are usually appointed by executive boards of local unions. Not that a more centralized structure will change that, but it also won't make it worse on that score.
And anything that forces CLCs into more organizing is good, because organizing forces institutions to deal with militant demands, even if the local structure is top-down. My judgement on the worth of new union initiatives is pretty basic (and unoriginal) which is whether it focuses on "organizing the unorganized." Whatever the rhetoric given, class collaboration breeds best in stable unionization where employers cut deals with established unions. Once new unions are fought for, class struggle is inevitable since employers resist new unions with every weapon possible, which forces unions to marshall their most militant strategies.
The devil is in the details of course, so these comments are abstract. It would be useful to track down the exact details of the proposal and have a more specific debate proposal by proposal. Hopefully one of us can do that.
--nathan