> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> > You may recall that I've defended the AFL-CIO against claims that
> > it's a gang of hopelessly complicit reactionaries. But what, aside
> > from holding up this card, has Sweeney done to show that he's a
> > socialist? Endorsing Gore? Going before a business audience and
> > begging to be their junior partner? Supporting the IMF refunding?
>
>How about unionizing 600,000 people last year, including the largest number
>of private-sector employees in two decades, giving them some democratic
>control of their workplaces?
Jesus H Christ, Nathan, I said unionization is a good thing. I'm not some Spart fundamentalist, you know. You don't need to lecture me on any of the following:
>There is a snobby anti-union attitude among many socialists,
>State control of an enterprise with arbitrary workplace authority is a hell
>of lot less socialism for the the workers involved than a decent union
>contract in a capitalist enterprise.
>So every aggressive unionist, whether they call themselves socialist or not,
>accomplishes more for socialism than the average intellectual nattering
>away.
etc.
>Now the lack of comprehensiveness is your beef. You don't like
>incrementalism and don't think step-by-step reforms will work.
That's not true at all. I've said many times, here & elsewhere, that I can't conceive of a (conventionally defined) revolution in the U.S., and that some kind of (nonreformist) reformism is the way to go. Don't put words in my mouth.
>If Sweeney spends his days fighting for the rights of workers and calls
>himself a socialist, who are you to claim he is lying about his ultimate
>goals?
Hey, call up his office. Ask them if Sweeney calls himself a socialist. Get back to us with the answer.
>Sweeney is not a leftwing revolutionary,
But he's a socialist. Hmm. Socialism, even if it's not achieved by classically revolutionary means (e.g. storming the Winter Palace), does involve a social revolution of some kind. What is this nonleft, nonrevolutionary socialism anyway?
> but he is obviously committed to
>significant socialization of the economy. I have no idea how far he would
>go, but it is clear that his endpoint is far to the left of the present
>political spectrum, so why the emphasis on excommunication rather than
>embrace in socialist solidarity (whatever criticisms you may want to
>reserve)?
I'm not excommunicating him - I just see him for what he is, the leader of a fairly conservative, fairly unimaginative federation of unions, most of them fairly conservative and unimaginative, with little power on his own. Alex Cockburn thinks I'm an apologist for the AFL-CIO. You think I'm some kind of sectarian purist. If I were Ronald Reagan, I might think that being attacked from both sides is proof I'm doing something right, but I'm not, so I don't.
Doug