ravi writes:
> to the contrary, i have written: one cannot base
struggle/action on high-level "axioms". if i may say
so, i have been more rigorous in calling for
fundamental yardsticks: not identity, but some uniting
and axiomatic moral principles.
But John L wants to claim that one identity trumps all others: union member.
> its between reasoned action and the demand for
unquestioned axiomatic rule-following
The authoritarian demand for unquestioned obedience is the next step after engaging in LRT. First you reduce the options to two, then demand a heel click (not the ruby slipper kind either) and agreement with the preferred position.
John A. writes:
> Brian, I honestly think you're the one thinking reductively.
Am I the one who is reducing everything to either/or?
> People can be both allies and opponents at different times
and under different circumstances, and different responses are
needed.
But sometimes those differences overlap and the circumstances occur simultaneously. The question I am asking is how do we deal with these situations. John L. reduces everything to "the union is right every time." No room for discussion or debate. John L. lives by authoritarian fiat.
> It's also a way to change those people into more frequent allies and
> less frequent opponents.
The way to change people into less frequent opponents is to demonstrate that their opposition has real world consequences. When a union does what IBEW did, there should be repercussions from those who support queer rights. If they realize that their heterosexism may result in loss of support, then they might not be so quick to persecute queers. Under John L's method, it is support no matter what -- union uber alles. There is no incentive for the union to change since John L. grants them carte blanche. However, if the union realizes that at crucial times it may lose support due to its heterosexist practices, then maybe they will clean up their act.
> Like you, I suspect the value of persuasive change through storytelling
and sweet reason is overrated. It's still real, though.
But it doesn't accomplish anything in the real world. If it did, union members would tell their stories to their bosses who, upon hearing these tales, would immediately grant the workers all they requested. See Jean Arthur, Chalres Coburn, Robert Cummings and Spring Byington in "The Devil and Miss Jones" (1941).
John L. writes:
> Against queer people, Muslims, etc.? No.
&
> Against the boss, and for better working conditions for workers?
Yes -- unconditionally.
So how do we decide? Clearly, we should side with workers against bossess. But we should also oppose heterosexists. Just because it is a union practicing heterosexism does not give it a free pass.
> No, in a strike there are only two sides. Period.
Thank you Pope John. When will you be publishing your encyclical on the subject? I look forward to reading it.
> It is not a game; it is a war, and to effect "neutrality" in such a
situation is to side with the status quo.
Who said anything about neutrality?
> I disagree strongly. Real-life activists side with imperfect people
all the time -- it's the only possible avenue for real social action.
It is not a question of siding with imperfect people. It is a matter of siding with people who are persecuting queers which goes far beyond being imperfect.
> 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.
Again, evil actions should have consequences. Maybe you like letting people off scott free, but there should be some way to make heterosexists accountable for their hate without going to the extreme of destroying their pensions (can you only think and post in extremes?).
> 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.
So it is okay to persecute queers if you take on capital, and you should experience no backlash for your persecution of queers?
> 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,"
We disagree. I think an understanding of basic human rights is what undergirds real struggle. One of the reasons unionism is on the wane is that unions never grasped this simple truth.
> Three words sum up all of this: NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
More LRT. No it is not rocket science. But it is certainly more complex than you are admitting.
> Brian, I have a hard time thinking that you actually believe this,
because it's sectarian bullshit. The HRC may be a bad organization,
but queers do NOT "deserve whatever they get" for letting the HRC
lead any more than Iraqis deserved to get bombed for having Saddam
Hussein as their president.
Bad analogy Pope John. Iraqis did not deserve to get bombed because it was an act of evil. I am also not sure that the Iraqis had as much choice in supporting Saddam Hussein as queers do in supporting HRC. Queers can build organizations other than HRC and not give their money and support to HRC. I am not sure that Iraqis had such freedom.
But if queers allow an organization such as HRC to take a leadership role, and support it through donations of time, money and other services, then when other people and groups recognize and point out the racist and classist tactics of HRC and respond accordingly, queers merely reap what they have sown.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister