>First, the whole phrase "Big Labor" is a rightwing propaganda term like
>"union bosses", all phrased as if union leadership really has an equal role
>with Big Capital in firing people and running the system.
I'm not using the term in that sense. I mean "Big Labor" in the sense that it's disconnected from the "little people," i.e. the grass roots. We find the same thing in environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, whose Executive Director, Carl Pope, favors sealing the border with Mexico, which most members of the various Sierra Club chapters find appalling and pointless.
>Ted's critique assumes that labor has so much power
>that whatever they achieve, if they don't completely defeat neoliberalism,
>that's a deliberate choice by the Big Labor elite.
>
>So Ted assumes that labor is so strong that limited success is a sign not
of
>limited power but of "caving."
>
>What these critics avoid is dealing with the possibility that labor has
very
>real but also limited power (the situation I think matches reality). What
>that means is that even the most idealistic union leaders will end up
>fighting for and settling for less-than ideal compromises, in the belief
>that they will allow another fight another day. And limited power implies
>tactical and strategic decisions that can be criticized as the wrong ones
>strategically, but not because the goals are necessarily different from the
>critics.
All power is limited. (I'm assuming you don't believe in an omnipotent deity.) Even the power of capital is limited. Compromise is essential to politics. But sometimes "compromise" is actually a code-word for capitulation. Take the issue, two years ago, of IMF funding. For awhile it looked like Congress was going to defeat the $18 billion IMF funding bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach. Despite lobbying from the White House and Alan Greenspan, the bill looked to be doomed. But then, according to the March 16, 1998 issue of Counterpunch, "the tide began to turn.
"Perhaps the largest share of the blame for the collapse of anti-IMF forces lies with organized labor (with the notable exception of the UAW.) Earlier this year, the AFL-CIO issued a pathetic statement saying that it would support members of Congress who tried to condition additional funding to the IMF on protection for workers' rights and the environment. This, despite the fact that such provisions-- as seen in the fabled "side agreements" attached to NAFTA-- invariably prove toothless unless there are strict enforcement mechanisms.
"Many Democrats took the AFL-CIO's statement as a signal that they could vote for IMF expansion without paying a political price. Since Democrats on the Banking Committee depend on Wall Street money for their campaigns they took the AFL's posture as a perfect opportunity to jump ship."
So, Sweeney passed up an opportunity to cripple the IMF in exchange for meaningless eco-labor rights. He offered total capitulation dressed up as a compromise at a moment when he had the upper hand. In the wake of Seattle, we may very well have the upper hand again. But will things be any different this time around?
It's not just a problem with labor elites. We've seen progressive leadership cave in to the demands of capital many times during the Clinton years (ancient forests, the crime bill, consumer protection, etc.) One problem is that progressive leaders have a tendency to lose their nerve in the face of bullying and threats from powerful politicians. Another is that even people with authentic values are liable to sell out their constituency once they start getting a taste of power for themselves. It all hinges on the curious ability of progressive leaders to con themselves into believing that their unprincipled compromises are necessitated by their miniscule power, as if they had no other choice but to give the opposition virtually everything it wants in exchange for some purely symbolic victory.
If only they would *believe* in themselves instead of deluding themselves.
Ted