Doug writes:
>
> On Apr 28, 2009, at 7:02 PM, James Heartfield wrote:
>
>> By all means, lets look at the UAW-GM deal, but is it likely that a
>> positive outcome will arrive by chance? Did the UAW fight for a workers'
>> control? Did a revolution happen without us knowing? Or did the
>> employing class fumble the ball? Scepticism might be a way of avoiding
>> looking at what is new, but there is no need to be naive.
>
> To whom is this addressed? I don't recall anyone being naive, though I do
> recall one or two people who demonstrated challenged reading
> comprehension.
====================================
I haven't followed the thread from the beginning, but I assume there's a
common understanding that the UAW's overriding interest - as it has always
been since the US auto sector went into decline - is to affect the scale,
timing and nature of the impending cuts to jobs, pay, benefits and work
rules. It sees an equity stake and the support of the Obama administration
as affording a greater possibility for doing so than bankruptcy court.
I doubt very much that it has any interest in the worthless shares of a dying industry, although it's probably still hoping against hope that the latest and deepest round of voluntary concessions will restore the sector to profitability.
Concepts like "nationalization", "workers' control" and "employee ownership" only have relevance when there is a demand for labour and the working class is self-confident and on the offensive. When the workers and and their organizations are being routed and the class struggle, such as it is, is entirely defensive, these issues are no longer even fodder for Sunday speeches.