> He [Robert Fitch] argues that the structure of clientalism (or
> fiefdoms) dooms our unions.
Fitch's criticism of clientelism is animated by his vision of republican virtue. A republic cannot survive without citizens actively participating in law-making, submitting only to "such Laws as our selves shall choose" (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/ 2000/2000-March/006839.html>). Fitch argues that the same goes for unions. Most union members in the United States, however, are members in the name only, taking no part in the affairs of organizations that are supposedly theirs. Instead, they are for the most part clients of union officials and staff members. That's the source of corruption. If 13 million union members weren't merely nominal members, we would actually have a labor movement, and America wouldn't be what it is today. The 13-million strong organization "counts for so little" because activism in it is "mostly limited to the approximately 85,000 officials and staff" (p. 322).
Even reform movements, such as TDU and reformers in AFSCME DC 37, could not break out of the mold, Fitch argues. TDU ended up becoming a client of Ron Carey, and DC 37 reformers either got purged (like Roy Commer) or have adapted themselves to the prevailing culture of using union offices for patronage.
The chapter on TDU is sobering. Fitch suggests that the turn to Carey was basically a result of TDU's inability to change the Teamsters by its original bottom-up activism: "In the 1980s, after more than a decade's work, it could still elect only a couple of dozen delegates out of nearly 2,000 who voted at conventions" (p. 255). But the turn to Carey cost TDU its political independence, becoming unable to criticize Carey's failures and losing the allegiance of a number of TDU activists as a consequence (p. 256). "Boring from within" -- or a long march through the institutions -- is harder than many revolutionaries imagined.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>