On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Why shouldn't the unions be supporting the CTV as an institution, if not
> its specific leaders, against government repression, as it does in
> countries around the world?
Because that presumes the government is always the more powerful force. There are rare moments in history when that is not true -- when a union, in conjunction with other social actors, is as strong as or stronger than the government. "Repression" doesn't seem the right interpretative scheme at such moments. When a union has the power to topple a government -- a rare thing -- the most important point seems to be whether you want that government toppled. You can't defend union action in such a situation on the basis of principles which presume it is always the weaker power. 99 out of 100 times, that presumption is right. But this seems to be one of those exceptional times when it is not.
Just out of curiousity, what's your interpretation of the Chilean copper miners' strike in 1973? Legitimate airing of grievances that leftists should have supported?
Michael