You claim that workers of different strata and segments don't compete with one another...amazing. Ok, let's try this point by point. Can the university system produce everything that a professor consumes? Can the automotive industry produce everything that an automotive worker consumes? Can managers produce everything that laborers consume? Can laborers (meaning those with no management tasks) produce everything that managers consume?
No.
So when workers of all "strata and segments" compete for the greatest possible share of what other workers in "different strata and segments" produce they compete with those workers, even if this competition often takes indirect or little recognized forms. Again, this seems self evident.
>>
>>Both in the market and through the public sector. I'm sorry but I
>>can't entirely buy your theory of segregated labor markets. A 500k
>>CEO salary does not come from the expropriated labor of other, less
>>successful CEOs.
>
>No professor of history -- not even the most celebrated -- gets an
>annual salary of $500,000.
arguing with yoshie reminds me of that scene from _Billy Madison_:
"No, I will not make out with you!"
>
>> >Etc. Falling for faux-populist demagogues only hurts us
>> >all, however.
>>
>>Right. We also hurt ourselves by assuming that rightwing populism
>>depends on nothing more thannothing more than imaginary grievances,
>>racism and hatred of intellectuals.
>
>I don't see any evidence that the majority of longshoremen and other
>workers in general have any particular grievances against college
>professors
>or find them to be racist
First, please go back and take a look at the syntax of the sentence you refer to. There is a left tendency, all too common, to pretend that the appeal of rightwing populism is "based on nothing more than imaginary grievances, racism and hatred of intellectuals."
>or hate them for being "intellectuals." I
>suppose that you assume that they do
>, but where's evidence from the
>real world that they _generally_ do? Assumptions, anecdotes, etc. do
>not suffice. Please present the sort of evidence that would allow us
>to make valid generalizations.
Please present evidence that I made such a claim in the first place! I referred only to an all-too-common left attitude about the appeal of rightwing populism, not to the attitudes of workers generally. Let's not forget that slightly more than half of the poorest workers voted for gore in the last american presidential election.
>
>>Why do you think it's so hard to get people to unionize and organize
>>across professional lines? Why won't skilled workers throw in with
>>unskilled workers?
>
>Even those who have trade union consciousness don't necessarily have
>class consciousness, and it is the latter that makes us realize the
>material ground for solidarity between "skilled" and "unskilled"
>workers.
>
>Yoshie
>
"Trade union consciousness," like "false consciousness," is a marxist euphemism for "worker stupidity." Why won't they join the struggle? Must be cause they're stupid. Also, all women who will not sleep with me are lesbians.
Let me lay a really wild and far-out concept on you. When skilled workers throw in with unskilled workers they lose some of their bargaining power in the economy. This is not an illusion, it actually happens. Radical forms of class struggle create real risks and real material consequences that most vanguard types never have to worry about.
--Steve
ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
against HTML e-mail X
/ \