Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Michael McIntyre
> <mcintyremichael at mac.com> wrote:
>
> > The Labor Notes people (aka the Berkeley Shachtmanite/Draperite
> > Detroit Transplant Dweebs) have been promoting such a strategy for
> > years, one based on union democracy, mobilizing rank-and-file members
> > as organizers, a social movement conception of unionism, active shop-
> > floor presence, and a fight against all contract give-backs.
>
> But when have they actually organized sufficient new members to
> increase the industrial density of any union?
This is a nonsense question, for reasons that Marvin Gandall has nicely summarized. _Nothing_ anyone might have done over the last 40 years would have produced greatly different results (or as JS says in that moldy old cliche "put (more) ood on the table"). But what the Labor Notes people have done is keep alive hope, recruit new generations of cadre, provide a basis for thinking. And they have not, incidentally, cooperated with the CIA etc in union-breaking throughout the developing world, as established union leaders have consistently.
Carrol
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Marxism] From CNA/NNOC:"RNs Condemn Violent Service UnionAttack at Michigan Event" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:55:11 -0400 From: Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Mike Kramer writes: "I just found the CNA press release, but not the one from SEIU, printed in full on the Forbes website. Should we conclude from that that Forbes is endorsing the CNA in this dispute? Not too sound a methodology in my book."
Forbes has a regular section reprinting material from the PR Newswire. These are clearly and prominently labeled at the very top of the column "PR Newswire" and in case you don't know what that is, "PRESS RELEASE."
The Fox business news SEIU story appears under the heading "Latest News" and prominently on the page are the normal "article tools" from their website, including rating the story and "Respond to Editor."
The difference between the two is Murdoch's site is vouching for, accepting editorial responsibility for, the SEIU statement, clearly and beyond any ambiguity.
Forbes clearly is not accepting editorial responsibility, although I'd be happier if they also stated that explicitly, rather than just letting people draw that conclusion from the label "press release."
You can draw whatever conclusion you want about the political reasons why Fox Business News decided to side with the SEIU, including that it was a communist infiltrator in Murdoch-land that snuck it through. But the FACT is that they have. And it makes perfect sense to me.
As for the Ohio dispute, frankly, I don't give a damn.
It was the SEIU leadership that took the initiative to split the immigrant rights movement in 2006, setting up the Anglo-dominated "We Are America" abomination to try to cram "guest worker" down the Latino community's throat. They did this to position the SEIU to serve as agents of the employers in contracting guest workers. I will forgive the SEIU tops that bit of treachery when I see Andy Stern's lifeless body hanging from a lamp post as a warning to others -- and perhaps not even then.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htmJoaquín
Carrol