> Nor does it follow that you should support them. Unless you
> are arguing that unions should be supported no matter what --
> without regard for whatever racist, hetero/sexist, ageist
> positions they support. Is that your position John L?
Against queer people, Muslims, etc.? No.
Against the boss, and for better working conditions for workers? Yes -- unconditionally.
> More reductive thinking. There are always more than two
> sides.
No, in a strike there are only two sides. Period. It is not a game; it is a war, and to effect "neutrality" in such a situation is to side with the status quo.
> But I think we can expect agreement and support for basic
> human rights. If you disagree with me, I am curious as to
> what your reasons are.
I disagree strongly. Real-life activists side with imperfect people all the time -- it's the only possible avenue for real social action.
The Machinists' leadership took a position against fundamental human rights when they called for "vengeance, pure and complete" against thousands of people in the Muslim world. It does not follow that their members (some of whom, it turns out, are not chauvinists and bigots, though of course many are) should see their US Air pensions destroyed, for example. Insofar as they take on capital to improve workers' conditions, they ARE supporting basic human rights, regardless of their stated position -- or even actions -- on other questions. Your job as an activist is to bring out the progressive tendencies in every situation by helping put real people into real struggle; it is not to convert every person on earth to a perfect understanding of "basic human rights," and certainly not to wait until they're all converted -- religion-style -- to that perfect understanding before you side with them against a reactionary enemy.
Three words sum up all of this: NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories