Nathan Newman wrote:
> While not all young activists are hard-core union advocates, you almost
> never hear the contempt a Cockburn or others do for union leaders looking
> out for the wage interests of their members. There is an environmental
> consciousness among most younger activists without the antiworkerist
> attitudes that often laced New Left rhetoric. Even the "serious" activists
> Max highlights took workers seriously mostly for their abstract role as the
> engine of revolution, not for their more limited but vital-for-members role
> of protecting their wages in the here-and-now.
>
There are concrete reasons why the relationship between activists and unions may differ in the 60s, compared to the 90s. The 60s were a time of domestic market power in major industries like autos and steel, unparalleled corp. profit rates, miniscule unemployment, no recession 'til the end of the decade, etc. The rebuilding of US capitalism since the destruction of the Depression and WWII was in full flower. Major unions like the steel and auto workers hooked up to the gravy train, capturing for members some of the surplus value, created by both the prosperity and market power in specific industries. There was a correlation between higher wages for union members and the market power of the inustries where the unions flourished.
When the civil rights, anti-war, women's, and environmental movements came along, these same unions mostly opposed them. In part they were protecting their privileged niche in the capitalist order. But some of the main reasons for the activist-union opposition had real economic bases.
By the end of the 90s, real wages had stagnated for 25 years. Capital had taken back some of that surplus value from workers. The domestic market power of many of the major industries has been broken up, although that's a mixed bag, as other forms of market power have emerged. As more production shifts overseas, competition for many jobs knows no borders. Now unions fighting for wages means something very different. It's less about capturing some of the gravy, more about providing for necessities. Also, it's easier to see what labor and environmentalists have in common, compared to where their interests conflict. In short, activists and unions have more in common now in a lot of ways.
I haven't followed every word of this exchange on the 60s and 90s. But my sense, Nathan, is that some of your comments lack perspective. For example, any discussion of what did or didn't get done in the 60s must start with the immediate post WWII years, the 50s mainly, to see all the things that needed changing. The 50s and into the early 60s were a time of: conform and don't question authority, up-the-corp.-ladder, hide-under-your-desk-in-the-third-grade-drills-for-when-the-bomb-will-be-dropped, short hair, narrow ties, suburban cul de sacs with all the same houses in a row, live for your children, commie baiting paranoia. At its base, the 60s was a movement to throw open all the windows of the house--question authority--which succeeded to a large extent. That's for starters. It was a base on which to build other things.
Max makes a similar point beautifully:
"I would also hazard the guess that another difference is that the 60's lefts thought in terms of a change of life, not how to manage their progressive concerns in a practical way. There was the expectation, however foolish, of some actual break in history, of an imminent conjuncture with extraordinary possibilities. It was the greatest thing that almost happened."
And it wouldn't hurt to consider the generations of the 30s and 40s that were the union leaders of the 60s. They had seen the dregs of capitalism, and now had to make a living, had families to support. The crumbs of capitalism thrown their way looked awfully good to them. Thirty years later, perhaps people are starting to see more clearly what capitalism does to them, in additioon to having fewer crumbs tossed their way to buy them off..
RO