> It's not "simplistic dogma." It's the distillation of over a century of
> union experience and has real-world consequences; I didn't invent union
> principles, but I do defend them.
In other words, Lacny doesn't think for himself. If a hammer is handed to him to open up a box, he'll smash it to pieces because "that's the way it has always been done."
One thing I've learned about authoritarians over the years is that they seldom change their stripes. Lacny's move from being an obedient ISO dupe to a liberal union hack didn't involve much change in the area of mental paragim shifts.
> Last year my partner argued against a strike by her union, saying it was
> ill-advised. When the strike vote came and people approved the strike, she
> worked harder than anybody else in the union to actually organizing the
> strike.
What a fucking idiot.
> This was as it should be. If she had decided to undermine the strike
> because she thought it ill-advised, she would be a scab.
No, she would have been a scab if she had gone to work. There is always the option of staying at home, neither crossing the picket line or pariticipating in a decision that she opposed.
> People indeed make
> mistakes, but once a course of action has been decided upon in a democratic
> fashion, you are duty-bound to help implement that decision, not undermine
> it, particularly if undermining that decision increases our chances of
> defeat at the hands of the enemy.
That's a very complex sentence which leads to a lemming-like rationalization. Nobody is "duty-bound" to implement a decision they disagree with. This isn't the U.S. Army we are talking about. Democracy is supposed to mean having "freedom" and control over your life. You can always "go along" with a decision you opposed, but "duty" is a bad rationalization for supporting groupthink.
> This is called democracy. US-style
> individualism that ignores such basic democratic decision-making by social
> movements (whether under a liberal or anarchist, "diversity of tactics"
> guise) is profoundly undemocratic and in fact serves the enemy.
I'm serving the enemy if I tell you that your picket is a stupid idea and refuse to support it? If your union decided to buy guns and take over the factory, would I be serving the enemy if I pointed out that this might not be a good idea?
Something tells me that Comrade Lacny would have me shot for not supporting his strike. Ouch! Must be a history book falling of the shelf.
Nope. It's just a sheaf of Lacny's ABB rationalizations for supporting John "War Criminal" Kerry.
Chuck