However, we in the United States often have a very skewed picture of labor. Indeed, this picture is much different from the "Archie Bunker" image that some would fantasize. The fastest-growing sector of U.S. labor has almost always been an influx of immigrants into the labor market (and, with the case of the Civil War and Civil Rights movement a century later, an influx of former slaves and their descendents into these markets). These are mostly low-level workers, service workers, and people of color-- people who aren't as easily "duped" by the "American dream," and have no foreseeable opportunity to go petty-bourgeois (i.e., start their own small businesses, etc.). By virtue of these economic hardships, and a history of radicalism in the home countries in the case of immigrants, this sector potentially has a much higher political consciousness than "Archie" (or even "Gloria" and "Meathead," for that matter). Even the most conservative aspects of labor (like the leadership of the AFL-CIO) understand that these are the people that need to be organized if workers as an entire class are going to benefit. A larger economic downturn at this juncture-- coupled with an end to the social protections brought on by the New Deal, and/or a large-scale war in which many working people could die-- could lead to a further radicalization of a larger section of the working class. Those factors, and an end to the anarchist-socialdemocratic-stalinist coalition of cynicism against worker organizing, that is.
-- David In a message dated 8/9/2 9:01:41 PM, you wrote:
>Chuck Munson:
>>> Let's face it, American labor is comfortable with its arrangement
>>> with capital. This is because it understands that its standard of
>>> living depends on U.S. workers exploiting the workers in the Global
>>> South.
>
>Jenny Brown:
>> Someone care to address that? It's sort of a first principle for a lot
>of
>> anti-globalization folks that regular U.S. workers are enjoying the
>> bounties of imperialism. How much is this really true if you count
>> the military costs, and examine the glorious 'standard of living' of
>the
>> bottom 70 percent or so, which would include nearly every union
>> household? And yes, I have spent time in countries the U.S. & IMF
>> beat up on.
>
>Excellent question. So, how would that be measured? Can it be?
>
>And how precisely are "U.S. workers exploiting the workers in the Global
>South"? They don't run sweetshops and aren't in control of the companies
>that due. What wealth companies due bleed from the Global South isn't at
>the command of workers.
>
>It sounds like collective guilt.
>
>-- Shane