-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of John Lacny
Brian Charles Dauth:
> When that electricians' union changed its by-laws it declared
> war on queers. The same is true of any group/persons who
> do not support marriage equality and equal rights for queers.
I'm afraid I don't understand your logic at all. Because the IBEW takes a reactioary position on queer oppression, you should side with the boss if they picket over wages or pensions? Because the president of the IAM said horrible pro-imperialist things after September 11 ("We want vengeance, pure and complete!" and similar bloodcurdling things), we should all say "Fuck those workers" -- Weather Underground style -- and encourage people to scab on the machinists if they strike Boeing or US Air?
This is called a non-sequitir.
If the HRC calls a protest against some anti-gay reactionary, do I say to hell with them (and effectively side with the reactionary) because the HRC is a middle- to upper-class white gay male organization with an anti-working class outlook and a board half of whose members are probably Uncle Tom's Cabin Republicans? Do I tell them I will support no HRC actions for gay rights until the HRC comes out in favor of working-class socialist revolution? If I did something like that, you'd say I was objectively siding with anti-queer bigots despite my hyper-leftist posturing. And you'd be right.
If the IBEW were standing outside a building with picket signs saying "Don't hire faggots," you'd be perfectly within your rights to sabotage their actions. If they were standing outside a building with signs that said "So-and-so is a rat contractor who wants to gut workers' pensions," and you advocated crossing the picketline then, you'd be a scab.
If you have to be a saint to be deserving of solidarity, then no one qualifies.
And once again, people are making this issue far more complicated than it is.
------------------------------------
No, you're simplifying the issues so you don't risk the presuppositions of your argument to substantive counterexamples which show your position to be seriously incomplete and inadequate for the much needed and all too lacking 21st century forms of solidarity.