Hot to Trot

[Chris Kromm]

Hold up, Justin, I think you're missing the point. At the risk of
misrepresenting Leo's argument, I think what he was trying to say is that
the Solidarity/Labor Notes (distinct, but similar) crowds tend to dismiss
any expansion of worker control/input/etc. *under capitalism* as just
co-optation. Leo is making the point that, even if these small steps aren't
the revolution, Braverman's analysis makes clear that they are important
terrains of struggle. In other words, Solidarity/Labor Notes do focus on the
labor process -- the problem is, they don't get it. Their only comment on it
is to say it doesn't matter and is just a way for the boss to buy off the
masses, diverting them from the real struggle.

And every Labor Notes and Solidarity person I've talked to does say that
they are in the Trotskyist tradition.

----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Hot to Trot


>
> Talk about misrepresentation? Leo, do you really have a Ph.D? I mean, I
ask
> because I do not understand how anyone who has actually read Labor Notes
or
> any of the Parker-Slaughter cxollections could actually say that they
> "refuse to take up issues of control over the labor process."
>
> Leo, that is virtually the sole concern of the Labor Notes crowd. If they
> can be criticized for anything, it is too narrow a focus on the labor
> process and neglect of wider politics off the shop floor, struggles for
> social unionism in a broad sense. That is _my_ beef with them. But
> apparently you think that only buying into the Team Concept counts as
> engaging with the control of the labor process. Sheesh.
>
> And, although I did not think about it at the time, Dennis is right that
the
> Trot reference is just redbaiting. Labor Notes is NOT Trot. Solidarity is
> NOT Trot. I am not and never have been a Trot. That is, as they say, a red
> herring. Calling militant rank and filr trade unionists "Trots" --is that
> how a democratic labor movemnent works?
>
> --jks
>
> >why a
> >particular type of workerist strategy which refuses to
> >take up issues of control over the labor process and
> >knowledge is,
> ... .
>
> This mindless engagement in habitual,
> >know nothing whines about "Cold War screeds"
> >contributes nothing but ill will to the entire
> >discussion.
> >
> >Furthermore, the day when labor solidarity depends
> >upon shutting down open debate over strategies, on
> >muffling criticisms and differences, is the day when
> >labor solidarity is already dead. If you don't
> >understand that, then you don't understand the most
> >basic thing about how a democratic labor movement
> >works.
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>