Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
> No, exactly the opposite. That truce was based on labor renouncing
> any intrusion in management; I'm saying that management has proved
> itself hopelessly foolish (even from the POV of the stockholders
> <http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=GM&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC>
> and the workers need to step in.
They can't. There is now way under present conditions that workers can win a share in mangement, and under conditions when they _could_ do that they could do much better things. One of the reasons they can't is that to replace union-leadership with leadership that _could_ would take a level of worker militancy _inside_ the union _as well as_ against the companies _and_ the state that is simply out of the question now.
A practical suggestion (I don't have one, but I know what it would look like) would be one that while (probably) making no current gains (or even avoiding current losses) would nevertheless achieve a level of organization which would leave them _internally_ stronger. Actually, before u.s. workers can began a comeback there will have to be a titanic surge of solidarity among white native workers with minorities and with illegal immigrants. But I don't have the foggiest idea how that is to be achieved either.
I do know that pushing for hopeless 'practical' solutions is simply t surrender completely to whatever the capitalists want labor to do. Defeat with dishonor one might call it.
Carrol