> I don't disagree the AFL-CIO has more resources. Way more resources. But
> that also comes with its own problems, as you, with your repeated calls
> for some kind of "post unionism" must also realize. At least you referred
> your friend to a real union and not to some gost of a "post leftist
> post-union," which you have repeatedly argued for on the list.
Of course I referred him to a union. I'm a pragmatic guy and not some kind of ideological purist. I may promote a certain viewpoint (or viewpoints), but if you want to be effective you have to make some practical compromises. I don't like religion, but I'm still willing to work with religious people on projects and activism.
> In short, there obviously needs to be som kind of radical labor -
> revolutionary labor - alternative to the AFL-CIO. I'm all ears. What are
> your thoughts?
I know that this reference is out of the orbit of this list, but I think that Flint Jones of Baltimore has the best take on where the IWW needs to go. As for radical labor, I guess there are many tacks that one can take. I think one thing is to talk to workers and encourage them to dissent in the workplace. One of the problems with traditional unionism (and radical labor that mimics this agenda) is that too much emphasis is spent on getting workers into unions, in the sense of putting them into an organization that can be controlled by either union bosses or the capitalists. What I'm trying to say is that unionization is a conservative state for labor, which I think is incompatible with the goals of more radical labor organizers.
Look at the dockworker situation currently, where the ILWU capitulated to the back-to-work order. Many rank and file union members are fighting back with work slowdowns and calling in sick to work.
> The IWW does have its share of internal problems (and helping out the very
> real problems of ACORN workers wasn't, is not, and has never been
> chickenshit - no one in the IWW can help it if workers at a non-profit
> want to form a union in the IWW, and they *won't* be turned away just
> because they happen to be working at one).
There's nothing wrong with helping people out who ask for it, but the IWW mostly operates on a strategy of "waiting ofr something to fall into our laps." There is no coherent national or international strategy of creating campaigns. And the IWW claims to be an international union, but can't do the basic things to satisfy its non-U.S. members.
> The lack of funds or "resources" problem is circular: the IWW doesn't
> have resources, so it doesn't get member. The IWW doesn't get members, so
> thereby it doesn't get resources. In the long run, maybe the IWW isn't the
> answer. But SOME kind of revolutionary *labor* based movement must be.
The problem is that the IWW doesn't think big. The Borders campaign is considered to be a flop, because no job shops were set up, but it helped triple the membership of the union.
I don't know what the answer is, Brian, but I think we will soon have a fertile climate in which to promote radical ideas to American workers.
Perhaps we should start talking about 401ks and what a scam they are.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)