[lbo-talk] Boycotting the unorganized?

[Paul]

Carol
Carol, writes (quoting snips of me):
> > It was rank and file, in a line,
> > handing out leaflets -- but in a style that was more like a picket line
> > (their organizational experience) and discouraging interaction (out of
> > fear?  concern for disruption?). [clip]  [clip] and didn't provide the
> > kind of history and justification that a middle class [clip]
> >
> > [clip] And most middle
> > class passerby's [clip]
> >
> > Of course none of us wants to support this type of union leadership and
> > union structure - this is part of what MUST be changed.  But the
> > overarching question for people on this list is how do we reach those
> > workers?  How do we make sure that they and the Michael P.'s connect?
>
>An analysis of this situation that endlessly invokes a mythical "middle
>class" is simply not serious.
>
>We are talking about a huge working class differntiated into innumerable
>fragments, and leftists just can't bring themselves to escape their
>slavery to what is perhaps the chief cultural/ideological weapon of
>capital, the really weird belief in a middle class.
>
>Tom Walker's powerful focus on time ought to disabuse people of this
>error.
>
>By focusing on this non-existent "middle class" this whole thread
>magnifies the power of capital.
>
>Carrol
>Carrol

I am certainly with Carol on his larger point about the myth of the middle 
class et al.  This 'post-New Deal era' of a "new society" is TODAY a 
particularly preposterous perspective (sorry), on simple empirical grounds 
-  we are rapidly reverting (I don't know what is with me this morning) to 
a 1920's income distribution.  This is not hyperbole on my part, I find 
that even progressives are amazed to learn just how much things have 
changed.  On a different list I recommended to Yoshie a paper that draws on 
the entirely official data (census bureau, etc) to show this reversion in 
clear, chilling graphs (Dumenil&Levy - "Trends in Capital Ownership and 
Income", it should be on their website 
http://www.cepremap.ens.fr/~levy/index.htm or, if not, people can contact 
me offlist).

In THIS anecdotal discussion raised by Michael Pollack (who seems to have 
fled - in the face of mud? coward) I was simply pointing out that a 
worker-activist alliance would have been particularly effective (for 
reasons I explained) since the clientele being appealed to by this 
particular type of supermarket/in this particular location WERE middle 
class (upper middle to be clear) and NOT mythical middle.  Those ARE the 
sociological facts in this anecdotal example.  But to be clear: the goal 
would be to secure a minor victory for the workers in their unionization 
efforts.  A second goal would be to promote worker-activists 
links.  "Conversion" of the (upper) middle class clientele was not my focus 
or purpose.

[Yes the activists themselves are also often from an upper middle class 
*background* (with others being called "middle class" in background but 
that is a misnomer, as Carol points out).  But *background* is a different 
issue than actual instrumentality; a relevant issue since background does 
often color your perspective; but still it is different than an actual day 
to day relationship to those workers.]

The worker-activist links was what motivated my post.  Is it fair to say 
that the 1960s-'70s floundered on this issue?  Are we doing better today?

Paul