[lbo-talk] Condescension (Was Re: labor bitchiness)

[Jim Straub]

Basically, because we can't afford to be balkanized or isolated into any
region or demographic--- all workers, everywhere.  If HCA has 400 hospitals,
in every state, workers will inevitably be weaker if their strength is in
just a few cities, states, or bargaining units; true industrial unionism
necessitates breadth for strength.  We cannot afford to not contest for
power in a chain just because in some states its workers are mostly baptist,
mormon or republican.  You can't wield effective national power, politically
or industrially, from 3 downtowns in blue states.  Chi, NYC and LA might be
very numerous, but they're also not reflective of the pop as a whole---
they're much more left and diverse than their metro areas, and after them,
there aren't many other cities like them.  Lets remember the next cities
after them in scale include places like Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Philly,
Indianapolis; where the union question, and the far-right question, are a
lot more up for grabs.

Much of the present task is already accomplished in the cities you mention.
The far-right is weak in, and much of our industries are organized in, and
wages are high in, LA, Chicago, and NY.  I know Doug you think NYC is full
of vile politics and it is, but it is no south carolina--- its CNAs are the
highest paid in the country, and its politics are certainly left of the rest
of the country's, and it has a relatively high level of consciousness and
social movement (again, compared to the rest of the US).  Of the cities you
mention, only Chicago has a sizeable chunk of seiu's industries left to
organize--- Chicago's hospitals are mostly non-union.  The reason we're
structured the way we are is so that resources from the union strongholds in
those three cities can be directed to the organizing we're conducting, and
winning with, in Florida, Houston, NV, and Ohio.

The battle isn't for Chicago, LA, and NYC right now.  The 'swing states'---
both in terms of wavering political loyalty, inroads by the far right, and
declining union density--- are in the rust belt and the sunbelt.  More
broadly, they're in suburbs everywhere, which where most of our population
is and where the vast majority of future demographic and economic growth
will be (and where unions and left politics of any stripe are essential
nonexistent).

I don't ascribe to the easy thinking that smalltown nebraska is 'true
america' or whatever.  But I do think that the most important places for
organizing, rebuilding, moving people, and shifting loyalties and developing
progressive power, are suburbs, the rust belt, and the greater sun belt.
Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
What is the future of the left in greater Phoenix, in Tampa Bay, in
Millwauke, in western pennsylvania?


> Isn't this the downside of your heartland strategy? Places like Elko
> have the reputation of being echt American, but in fact they're not
> very representative of our population. The working classes of LA,
> Chicago, and New York are less Republican and a lot more numerous.
> When your resources are limited, why focus on organizing people who
> are so at odds with the righteous truth (I mean that more in
> political terms than union terms)?
>
>