Doug writes:
>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, that's too bad. Because the auto *industry* is far from dying, even
> if GM & Chrysler at death's door. With deep debt reductions and labor
> concessions, these firms could re-start with a much lower cost than
> before, even challenging some of the transplants. And with some political
> vision, they could actually use the moment to talk about making entirely
> new kinds of fuel-efficient, low-emission cars. Of course, they have no
> political vision. They're braindead and cowardly. But it's funny - people
> can talk boldly about what "we" would do if "we" could nationalize the
> banks, which is about as likely as my walking on water. But then two auto
> firms drop in the laps of labor and everyone shrugs.
===================================
Isn't this precisely what the labour leadership is telling the membership -
that with (unspecified) "labor concessions" and new product lines, the
revived US industry could challenge the "foreign" transplants? I'm not
condemning or even criticizing you, they, the Obama administration, and the
mass of desperate auto workers for believing so and proceeding on that
basis. Like I said, bankruptcy court is the worse alternative.
But there are no good alternatives either - certainly not labour "concessions" and temporary nationalization until (and if) profitability is restored - and it's misleading oneself and others to suggest otherwise. The measures being considered by the administration and the union are deeply at odds with the meaning historically attached to public ownership and control by the international labour and socialist movement when it was on the rise and those programmatic goals, while distant, didn't seem utopian. So, yes, I would say I'm more forgiving than you are of those who "shrug" at what the "nationalization" being foisted upon the auto workers as a means of securing their agreement to deep concessions represents in the current context.