[lbo-talk] A highly critical take on Fitch

[Jim Devine]

On 3/14/06, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> On the pain of oversimplification, Fitch's argument can be interpreted as
> follows - the US unions suck because of their fragmented and
> compartmentalized nature, which fails to take universal interests of the
> working class, but instead it focuses on defending the interests of its
> clients.

this compartmentalization reflected the relatively decentralized
nature of US capitalism during the period in which the AFL and (to a
lesser extent) the CIO developed. In other "western industrial"
countries, on the other hand, capital was very centralized, so labor
organizations tended to be so, too. They had to be centralized in
order to combat management, while the relatively small size of those
other countries made it easier to be centralized. Similarly, the
unions that represent US federal workers are relatively centralized.

In that case, Fitch's critique is a criticism of the weight of history
in holding back the labor movement, encouraging it toward economism.
--
Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence
of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles