I meant the organizable and the leadership. There's a pretty good survey I think 4 years old now that Peter Hart did for the AFL-CIO showing that women-dominated shops were more easily organized and despite this, perhaps because of the lower pay (and therefore lower dues) the unions still focused on male-dominated employment. There are a lot of factors, of course, workplace size, turnover, male organizers who don't get it, etc.
>From what I've read, the largest section of wage-workers
>consists of service workers, mostly immigrants and people of color. Sorry
>I do not have any sources to cite off-hand, but rest assured they are out
>there.
Ok, I'm going to try again. What in your experience as a person living in (I assume) the U.S.--as opposed to your reading--is getting you to the program you suggest. The reason I ask is that direct experience is how I check and understand things, without that it's just a lot of rhetoric--which I may think I agree with or not--but so what. Abstractions are abstracted from something, right?
>David:
>Oh, I didn't say there weren't innumerable ways to ameliorate the bourgeoisie
>or at least temporarily slow down the imperialist drive to war. But, on
>an objective level, I don't see how the working class of every upcoming
>generation will avoid facing war unless the current modes of production,
>distribution, and exchange are completely uprooted.
There are lot of surprises if you look at even just the last 20 years. Sure, that's what Bush says, they want endless war and they're by god gonna get it.
But a lot of very fucking drastic changes have occurred without that the "current modes of production, distribution, and exchange are completely uprooted." Not to mention that there's been a lot of replanting going on in various places where these were fairly well uprooted.
>These splits in the
>ruling class you mention are also among the causes of war, globally, and
>tremendous opportunities for the working class to organize.
Again, an example would be helpful.
Jenny Brown