"A commonly cited example of the parochialism of the union
movement has been its demand to protect local jobs against competition
from abroad, with its tendency to nationalism and xenophobia.
But an important distinction must be made. When workers
were in struggle and articulated these claims as attempts to
force corporations to maintain commitments to the community,
as a fight over corporate freedoms undermining worker and community
freedoms – that is, in class terms – the struggle was much
less likely to end up attacking Mexican or Asian workers. It is
when there is no class perspective, when unions are identifying
with ‘their’ corporation and mobilizing to win subsidies *for *corporations,
when the enemy isn’t capital but other workers, that
racist tendencies are more likely to be reinforced.
While it is absolutely imperative that unions commit to fighting
for the greatest equality amongst all workers if solidarity is to
be meaningful, the fact is that equality even just within the working
class can’t be achieved in a society based on markets, profits
and competition. That is why extending that commitment to fight
for overcoming class inequality in general is necessary. Equality
within the class is best advanced through being serious about
building the unity to bring down the whole class system that orders
society."
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:03:07 -0500
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Sam Gindin, ON THE REVIVAL OF THE WORKING
> CLASS
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Message-ID: <5D5C6059-3BB1-425C-A025-D331791EDB13 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 10:00 PM, brad bauerly wrote:
>
> > http://www.socialistproject.ca/relay/relay28_gindin.pdf
>
> Sam Gindin is terrific.
>
> "The point however of emphasizing ?class? is to get at a shared social
> relationship within capitalism that cuts across and potentially
> bridges other oppressions."
>
> Doug
>
>
>