JM: Woj, let me say that I generally agree with you on this specific issue. But as usual you seem to talk off the top of your head without very much knowledge of current conditions or the history of unionism in the U.S. Perhaps Woj, you can start an organization to help us change the restrictive labor laws in this country. For the most part white collar workers have no right to organize unions or to negotiate with employers as a bargaining unit.
[WS:] No disagreement here, but two points seem relevant. First, the anti-union laws did not fall from the sky, US unions brought them upon themselves by their focus on member-serving trade unionism instead of representation of broadly defined class interests of labor in general (in this, I am following Fitch, who was extensively discussed on this list). Second, anti-labor laws seem quite tangential to the argument I was making, namely that "shopping for justice" (i.e. consumer choice) is basically irrelevant as strategy - its basic outcome is good feeling of those who engage in it, but otherwise this outcome is close to nil.
I may also want to add that while a discussion on future strategy of labor organizing is certainly important, we are basically constrained by reality in what is feasible. Restrictive labor laws are certainly a huge disadvantage to labor organizing, but this what we have and changing this in the foreseeable future does not strike as very realistic. Basically, US organized labor had a chance in the early 20th century and blew it, and now the damage, like an oil spill or nuclear core meltdown, is very difficult (if at all possible) to undo. This is the unpleasant reality, and chastising consumers for shopping in non-union stores or buying "non-kosher" goods like cheese or gasoline is merely a diversion that further confuses rather than clarifies labor's agenda and antagonizes potential supporters.
Finally, your previous posting (which I am not even sure was directed to me) you misinterpret my work on professionals in Eastern Europe. Far from suggesting that professionals should lead "the masses," the book and the paper argue the opposite view, that instead of a top-down designer approach to social change under central planning, the "new professionals" were more conscious about public perceptions of their innovations, and strove to legitimate them by channeling them through institutional forms already perceived as legitimate (pretty much in line with Marx's observation in the 18th brumaire of "history repeating itself twice.) While I am indeed vary wary and highly suspicious of populism (it gave us nothing but lynchings, pogroms, concentration camps and killing fields), I am equally wary of the "designer" approach to social institutions (implicit in "professional leadership") and pretty much in favor of pluralism of organized interests approach and historical contingency - path dependency to explaining their relative power and influence. I think these are quite consistent themes in what I post here, although I would not expect anyone to follow it.
Wojtek
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060829/d3bb8983/attachment.htm>