Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Correct. It's been so long since I read any of Munson's posts that I
> >forget how isolated & irrelevant he is.
>
> Uh, Carrol, comrade - are you implying that you, by contrast, are
> tenaciously rooted and screamingly relevant?
Oh shit Doug -- couldn't you once in a while discuss issues instead of people.
Subject: Re: Revolutionary role of unions
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dddddd0814 at aol.com
Comments, please.
In a message dated 8/7/2 10:08:02 PM, you wrote:
>I triggered a brief thread on some list sometime in the last year or two
>which contained some interesting observations on this general topic. My
>suggestion was that there is at least some historical evidence that
>labor unions are for the most part potentially revolutionary in their
>process of _formation_. The struggle for union recognition, or for the
>very legality of unions, is strongly radicalizing.
Definitely. We can look at it in terms of factory unions during the times of the Russian Revolutions. Regardless of how "revolutionary" one considers these revolutions, one must acknowledge that the organization of unions by Lenin et al., and their struggle for legality, had an important effect with regards to the extent that the revolution itself was "proletarian" in nature. Furthermore, I would add that the existence of these unions themselves, as the dialectic was pushed further and further to revolt against the autocracy, helped insure the progressive nature of that revolution. Damn progressive, I'd say, for a country composed largely of peasants.
> Even the hardest
>fought "ordinary" strikes, on the other hand, let alone the day to day
>practice (grievance procedures etc.) is seldom radicalizing.
True enough. I hope that no one would argue that bread-and-butter trade unionism, no matter how "progressive" or "tactically advanced," is sufficient for revolution, though some far-left posturing of late has tried to put those of us who are pro-union into that camp. But large-scale unionization, and worker's organizations in general, are very important when the contradictions of capital come most clearly to the forefront.
> This would
>not support anarchist repudiation of unions as such, or even repudiation
>of existing unions. It would suggest that unions are a bad place, or at
>least not a primary place, to look for the development of class
>politics.
But, now we need to consider the historical position of labor in the United States as it exists today. I would argue that unions are being put back into that precise position-- a position where they are, once again, struggling for legality and recognition in a time when they are more relevant than ever. No, unions are not fully illegal, but the worker's movement, at a time of economic downturn, is squirming to emerge from a legalistic box into a new kind of relevance. This is one of the reasons that I am optimistic about the struggle of workers for political power in the United States.
>It is simply not true that u.s. workers dislike unions.
Not true at all. This would be like suggesting that workers are not interested in a better wage for less working hours. It is interesting that the proponents of the "workers dislike union" thesis (in addition to being bereft of any supporting scientific data) seemingly capitulate to the position of anti-union capitalists, who state that unions are now irrelevant because record profits are being "made." Defeat, overwhelm, or co-opt the opposition, and then when they cave in or scatter, triumphantly turn around and claim that no one in their right mind would support such losers and hypocrites. Get the Aborigines hooked on alcohol and then declare that they're a bunch of drunks. Tried and true imperialist tactic all around, I'd say.
-- David
> Employer action
>(particularly the regular firing of trouble-makers) simply makes union
>organizing too difficult and too dangerous.