<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/20/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Doug Henwood</b> <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>On Dec 20, 2006, at 3:47 PM, andie nachgeborenen wrote:<br><br>> Hard leftists not infrequently end up in high Union<br>> office, heading up locals and such. But what they can<br>> do severely limited,<br><br>
Though I have to say that sometimes it seems like SEIU is an<br>employment scheme for praxis-minded Marxists.<br><br>Doug</blockquote><div><br><br>I appreciate the "sometimes it seems" qualification in this remark and the ironic flavor of "praxis-minded" but is this really fair? I also know of the debate around Fitch's "Solidarity for Sale", etc.
<br><br>But can't a union catch a break? I mean if they didn't employ a few Marxists here and there wouldn't we simply call the union conservative, and since they do employ them and also do some bit of organizing work they should be slagged on for it?
<br><br>Or if I said something like "sometimes it seems the academy is an employment scheme for theory-oriented Marxists" wouldn't everyone know that I was repeating the nonsense of a right wing hack? Though as far as I know it might be a good scheme for our rulers to open up the academy to theory-oriented Marxists in order to divert "praxis-minded" Marxists from working with unions.
<br><br>If unions start hiring (anti)theory-oriented sort-of-Marxists with a bit of a classical bent I hope one of you will let me know. This means you Jim. <br><br>Jerry<br></div></div><br>