You didn't sound hostile.
>Unions retreating from
>politics? Here you must have an incredibly curious definition of
>politics which wholly excludes the subset of "party politics" as well
>as moving legislation through Congress, since to argue that unions are
>retreating from both of these is laughable.
Yes, trying not to have a Badioun normative definition of politics, emphasis on party/legislative action is a retreat from politics, in that it mediates working-class will through the state, where interest and calculation replace desire and collectivity.
> Last time I checked,
>working people made up the vast majority of this nation, so I don't
>get your opposition of national interest and working-class self help.
The UAW repeated over and over that it's main goal was to "keep union jobs." This meant, and they were very forthright about this, that they wanted to keep jobs from going to "Mexico." That is, so that working-class "Mexicans" wouldn't get those jobs. This is prioritizing the national interest over working-class self-help. Seems evident to me. Am I wrong?
Mike B:
>It's a power thing, dude. Workers exert more power when they're oganized than
when they remain powerless individuals.
Yes, I certainly don't want to imply that organization is not necessary. But it should be a kind of organization that creates its own measures for success, not one that is judged by already existing ones ("unionization rate," "political influence").