>Nathan wrote about John Sweeney
>
> > >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?
>
>To which an exasperated Doug responded:
>
> > Jesus H Christ, Nathan, I said unionization is a good thing. I'm not
> > some Spart fundamentalist, you know.
>
>And now I note out of frustration that severe critics of Sweeney's
>business unionism are not fundamentalists either. In the latest New
>Politics for example such criticism is voiced by Kim Moody (a rather well
>grounded trotskyist labor newspaper editor with whom Walter Daum has
>important disagreements), Peter Rachleff (who has combined the tradition
>of council communism with meticulous historical work and engagement in
>class struggle--e.g., the Hormel Strike), Staughton Lynd (an eclectic
>labor attorny whose influences include Rosa Luxemburg and liberation
>theologians).
>
>Paul Buhle in his important reply does not dismiss them as fundamentalists
>either. And I am bit taken aback that such great labor historians and
>activists are being dismissed here here in such absolute terms.
Hardly. I've learned a lot over the years from Moody & Labor Notes, and I generally agree with most of what they say. I'm happy to see unorganized workers organized, even by a business union. Welcoming that doesn't preclude a criticism of business unionism for its many compromises and failings. Organized labor in the U.S. has moved a bit away from pure business unionism over the last 5 years or so - which is good - though not far enough - which is bad.
Yours in wishy-washiness,
Doug