>From what I have read so far here and from Bob's book (which I have read), I
think Bob will more than hold his own in any debate.
I wonder what Fitch's critics would say to those who argue that many unions and labor leaders have been in league with US foreign policy, no matter how murderous. Would they be saying that not all unions do it, or that many local unions don't do it, or the author used too many anecdotes? Or the author wasn't a real historian? The unions are on the ropes. Wouldn't getting rid of ALL corruption be at least a precondition for any renewal? Couldn't the same thing be said for ending ALL support of US foreign policy and the taking of ANY funds from the State Dept.?
Fitch probably implies that reform of the labor movement is not possible from within. Elly Leary suggested something similar in a very fine recent article in Monthly Review. This seems to me to be the really important question. Any answers?
Michael Yates