> The working class was OPPOSED to the Vietnam war. Their kids were getting
> killed. I am not making this up. The polls showed that working class opinion
> turned against the war by mid-67--well before the elite had it with the
> war. The prowar white "hardhats"--mainly construction trades in NYC, not
> involved in war production--were anomalous. --jks
***********************
That's not the issue as it assumes a naive majoritarianism. The question is why wasn't the oppostion you speak of more efficacious in it's collective action strategies in bringing about a cessation to the war sooner. Street demos, consciousness raising and targeting corporations etc., why weren't these more effective? In retrospect, what would have been more effective?
I only ask because we have a generation trying to learn as much as possible from the successes and failures of the anti-war and civil rights and feminist movements so as to stop the destruction of the planet and human decency. What worked in working class mobilization, what failed and what had the elites reaching for their Rolaids?
The Unions STILL have their hands and minds "dirty" from Turkey, Colombia, Sri Lanka, yaddah yaddah yaddah as we speak. How do we stop this?
<http://www.webcom.com/ncecd/bp18.html>
7. TRADE UNIONS
About 2.3 million American workers are employed in "defense related industry" in 1996, down from 3.6 million at the 1987 Cold War peak. These working people, heavily unionized and concentrated in skilled worker, technician and engineering occupations, have been an important political instrument for state managers. The Pentagon has often prepared schedules of subcontracting that would be available to each state or region, for major military programs--the better to harness Members of Congress, the unions, chambers of commerce to support new contracts.
The state managers have understood the subtleties of the unions' position. For the unions come from a tradition of independence which they wish to preserve, even as they are asked to coordinate with the wishes of the state managers. Overemphasis on such coordination carries the danger of appearing to pressure the unions to be as though a "company union."
Ian
>