On 2011-12-27, at 10:58 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "I would describe your scheme as a diversion, but it is so far
> removed from the present reality facing the unions, that it is nowhere
> a subject of discussion, and you'd be laughed out of any meeting where
> you proposed it."
>
> [WS:] No doubt. But this is the problem. On the one hand, you have
> unions engaged in practicalities of everyday life matters, on the
> other hand - academic intellectuals discussing abstract theoretical
> matters of little practical relevance. And there is very little
> middle ground of strategic planning that transcends short term
> workplace goals and sets long term political goals.
>
> This is, of course, nothing new. Lenin saw the limits of trade
> unionism some 100 years ago. Fitch pointed out the same problems some
> 100 later. What is disconcerting is that, by your won admission,
> unions refuse to change their approach and learn from the successes of
> their adversaries even though organized labor is losing on all fronts.
>
> I know, of course that you do not advocate launching a revolution -
> but what you seem to propose is more of the same union business that
> does not have much to show for - at least for the past 30-40 years.
> it is not difficult to foresee the outcome of this approach in not so
> distant future - the extinction of labor as organized political force.
But the unions have, in fact, been changing their approach, not because they have been reading Lenin or Fitch (!), but because they have been reading the angry, desperate mood of their own members and the intentions of the capitalist states to use the current crisis to decisively rollback trade union rights and social benefits. The evidence of this has been plain in Wisconsin, Ohio, and in the OWS movement in the US, and in the mass strikes which have been roiling Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and other EU countries. These are still defensive struggles, but much more widespread and intense than we have seen heretofore. As you note, the unions have been losing ground for the past three decades, and their political weight is consequently much diminished. However, as I've been insisting, this is less owing to a failure to "learn from the successes of their adversaries" than from the increased ability of the multinationals to relocate production in vast new markets where labour is cheaper.
What else would you have the unions do in the present circumstances apart from taking to the streets against the austerity? We only have your quaint proposal that trade union leaders refashion themselves as corporate executives and use their resources to enter into competition with Walmart and the other big retail chains. Talk about "academic intellectuals discussing abstract theoretical matters of little practical relevance"!
This thread has established that we have very different perspectives on working class history and the options open to the trade union movement in the advanced capitalist states, and I'm ready, as I hope you are, to move on.