> > You're missing something obvious, the concept of class is not merely
>> a social analysis designed to justify a claim, or for its own sake.
>> The primary purpose is to work out whose interests are objectively
>> reconcilable, as a theoretical basis for organisation. Class
>> analysis, in other words is a practical issue of concern, the very
>> foundation of working class organisation. In the sense that you can't
>> even begin the task or organising the working class if you have no
>> idea what it is and if you get the class analysis wrong the
>> organisation you build on these foundations will probably collapse.
>
>No, I do not. I believe I mentioned the practical aspect of the notion of
>class for organizing - but I also said I do not think that the 19th century
>concept of class will be a very effective organizing tool today. I think
>this view is consistent with the reality of the labor movement (or rather
>what is left of it) today.
To the contrary, the modern labour movement completely rejects class as a basis of organisation. Unions these days are basically fee-for-service utilities. members pay a fee and expect the union officers to provide value for money.
Ironically, back in their hey-day unions provided vastly superior value for money as simply service providers even though that was not at all what they were, simply because the officers of the unions were often ideologically committed to the class. These old-time union officers dedicated their whole lives to the cause, pursuing the interests of members with every waking breath. Their own family would starve without it ever occurring to them to steal a penny of union funds.
The weakness of the labour movement today is precisely the fact that it completely lacks any class perspective.
>I also sense a certain contradiction in your views. On the one hand, you
>seem to yearn for a totalizing military-like organization of all people who
>have objectively common class interest (which btw would scare the living
>shit out of me if it became reality).
Not at all. That would scare me too. As my argument to the effect that irreconcilable interests must lead either to dictatorship of one or other interest, or else total ineffectiveness. However, organising on the basis of mutual interests and shared objectives doesn't mean there are no disagreements as to means.
It just means that the disagreements are reconcilable. Given that everyone's interests are genuinely the same. No military-style discipline is needed. Mistakes will be made and the democratic inefficiencies suffers from some inefficiencies, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
> On the other hand, your coop example
>suggests organizational differentiation of people with different interests -
>which seems to be a much more realistic position.
Everyone has their own personal interests of course. However the point is to organise around the points of shared interest.
>Now, if you cannot unite people in a relatively small cooperative
Well, as I say, we've never actually had a formal vote on any question, because it has been possible to come to a consensus every time. So on the narrow points of shared interest for which the organisation is designed to operate, its members are obviously completely united. Outside that, there's a wide range of differing interests, but no unity is necessary there, because its outside the scope of the organisation. It isn't a social club or a political party, we don't need to even like each other its just business.
>(btw, my
>coop has the same problem, renters seek mainly short term housing that is
>conveniently located and do not give a flying fuck about the coop's
>governance and long term interests)
Getting people to care about governance issues requires careful design of organisational structure and procedure. Just getting people to meetings, without resorting to threats, is a hurdle. This is so because, by defininition, members of a co-op aren't crusaders. They just want to get the job done with minimum effort.
Refining procedural structure is critically important to successful ongoing governance. Carrots work better than sticks of course. This weeks meeting of my co-op was an AGM, meaning it was time for everyone to re-appoint themselves to the Board again. (Management by a Board of Directors is a statutory requirement for co-ops.) Someone asked, "do I have to be a Director?". "No, only if you want to have a say," I explained. It was apparently convincing.
People only wanting short term housing would be a real problem. I should have thought that was something you would have resolved by natural selection though? Surely long term residents would, by virtue of attrition, eventually fill up the co-op? We hardly ever have any vacancies.
One possibility that occurs to me is that your co-op may not be offering any significant advantages over what's available to members in the open market. Certainly if there were few benefits, then the extra input costs in terms of time and energy, might deter people from remaining.
>- what do you think are the chances of
>organizing a 100+ million people who sell their labour power for a living in
>this country?
Well, there has to be something in it for them. Unions that are merely interested in negotiating the best possible price for labour under capitalism don't have much to offer if you examine it carefully. Even if they can efficiently monopolise a sector of the labour supply, there would only be short term advantages, because market forces tend to compensate for monopolies. (Replacement technologies for instance.)
The organisational objectives have to be plausible at least and I think the working class has correctly understood that the purely wage negotiation oriented unions don't have much to offer them. The only way out of endless slavery in my view is socialism. Unions have to, once again, become instruments of working class emancipation. Organisation on that basis, rather than the rather pathetic basis of pleading for a more humane exercise of the masters' divine authority to exploit is the answer.
The only real obstacle is that people aren't convinced that there are any alternatives to capitalism.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas