> Even posing the question of trade unionism as "individual
> choice" is the capitulation to the business propaganda. In
> civilized countries, union membership comes automatically
> with employment - but in this shit hole it is an "individual
> choice."
Dude, can I kiss you?
Michael Dawson writes:
> Meanwhile, my personal guess is that Lacny fancies himself
> our instructor on labor issues.
There are more than a few people here who have agreed with me. I'm not saying anything particularly original. I took an angry tone with Munson because he advocated scabbing in cases where he thought a union was doing something for "stupid" reasons -- not evil reasons, like racism or what-have-you, but so-called "stupid" reasons, to be determined by him alone, as an individual. That kind of thinking is the antithesis of solidarity, and if this were in some public context, it might require a more nuanced approach -- but here, we're all supposed to be on the "left," and Munson talks ad nauseam about his own "activist" and "revolutionary" credentials, so his apologetics on this issue are especially egregious, and he deserves to be upbraided in the most severe terms. Unfortunately, words cannot fully express the contempt that I truly feel for that lumpen piece of shit, so you will have to make due with my poor substitute for a more well-rounded expression of justified hatred. Sorry.
This whole discussion is so frustrating because a generation ago -- or in any civilized country even now -- it would be unthinkable for people on the left to have any other position. As someone here pointed out, this is a symptom of the disconnect between many on the left in the United States on the one hand and the working-class and basic working-class values of solidarity on the other. Michael, I seem to recall that you have described yourself as a former union president, and yet your entire contribution to this discussion has been to bring up farfetched hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the real world, apparently because you feel some need to side with Munson over me. As you well know, the key issue is not the picketline per se but what the workers request of everyone else -- there are always plenty of pickets, informational pickets for example, where there is no request to the public or to other workers not to cross. So why did you bring up strikes of health care workers? I challenge you to name ONE instance where health care workers on strike asked that desperately ill or injured people or their families not enter a healthcare facility on strike. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.
Really Michael, this is the stuff of boss propaganda (almost on par with Munson's imaginary conceit that he "thinks for himself," when in reality several decades of being reared in a highly-indoctrinated capitalist society have done all his thinking for him on issues that really matter, despite his "anarchist" pretentions that find expression only in infantile acting-out and never in anything that matters). As a union president, Michael, you should be ashamed of yourself, and you should also be just a tad embarrassed by the fact that you of all people should posture about "civility."
Chuck Munson writes:
> With small radical unions, at least there is the chance that
> a network or movement of radical unions can be built
> which can't be sold down the river by some centralized
> union with comfy offices in Washington.
You're trying to have it both ways, though as usual you're far too stupid to realize it. Bad union leaderships have often sold out their memberships -- this is a well-known fact of life, and should be condemned, particularly by people who know what the hell they're talking about. But like the Right to Work Committee of which you would be an honorary member were you not too dumb even for them, you use this as an excuse to denounce unions even when they DO fight, reserving for yourself the personal decision to cross picketlines if you feel that a union is "stupid." You, Munson, are a scab. And stupid, too. But I am done arguing with you.
Yoshie Furuhashi brings up:
> the CTV in Venezuela and the AFL-CIO's support for
> them
and
> the doctors' strike in Saskatchewan in 1961
These are immediate examples that sprang to my mind as well, but I think you're missing my point. These were actions that served the interests of the capitalists. In the case of the CTV "strike" against the state oil company, it was really more of a lockout by the top managers in a bid to overthrow a democratically-elected poor people's government, and furthermore it was defied by most of the lower-rung workers. The point I am trying to make is that the key criterion for judging picketlines is always CLASS, not whether you think someone's tactics are off. That's why these nonsensical attempts to bring up Fred Phelps or whatnot -- or even this, though I think you more honestly misjudged what I was trying to say -- are only so many attempts to muddy things when the issue is crystal-clear. Even if you think a strike or job action is going to fail, you are duty bound to support it once workers are committed to a course of action, and to do your best to minimize the chances that the bosses will win.
This stuff goes back to Marx and the Paris Commune, and even before that. I suppose that makes me an authoritarian, but oh well. "Rebuild the Wall -- 3 meters higher!"
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories