I'm not easily sickened, but I think I can explain shag's point.Your
> examples are o.k., but it's a matter of the old saw, a swallow does not
> a summer make.
>
> Earlier this year Illinois adopted a piece of legislation that made
> strikes by Chicago teachers in effect illegal. It had been pushed hard
> by the big honcho at State Farm, who even held special meetings of
> employees to push it. The legislature passed it unanimously -- and both
> the big state unions ALSO SUPPORTED IT. Why? They wanted to save their
> "place at the table." The unions, like the DP, tend to go along. There
> are e eptions of whole locals; there are also many union members who
> don't go along. But on the whole unions have been radical herre and in
> Europe, only when they are fighting or recognition, with both state and
> company opposing. No absolute "law" here, but there's a rough tendency.
>
> In fact there is no absolute law, no really dependable 'universal'
> principle in regard to ANY ASPECT of social or revolutionary movements.
> That's why they can't be theorized in advance, and why "disciplined
> parties ALWAYS turn either sectarian or opportunist.
>
> Carrol
>
What you say is interesting and makes sense to me. But I don't see what it has to do with Shag being sickened by unions joining in on #OccupyWallStreet. Maybe I'm missing something. (I also don't know what you mean by "Your examples are o.k."--I didn't really give any examples.)
To me, it seems pretty clear that lots of union folks would add legitimacy and numbers to #OWS. It would also be an instance of unions being more militant, vs. pinning their hopes on the Democratic party, focusing on wages and benefits, etc.
But since Shag grouped them in with MoveOn, I'm guessing that the concern is that just as MoveOn folks joining in is likely to make the movement less radical, union members, who are admittedly often not so radical, would also drag down the "movement" (so even if the numbers are greater, the aims are less radical, or less coherent).
But if it's going to turn into a real movement (vs. people looking for one), don't unions *have* to join in? Or to put it another way: if we don't want union folks to join in, whom *do* we want to join in?
> On 10/3/2011 1:48 PM, Chris Sturr wrote:
> > Shag, you said:
> >
> > Meanwhile, I think Carrol is right to say that it's a lot of people
> >> looking for a movement. it sickens me to watch the vultures move in -
> >> the unions, moveon, etc.
> >>
> >
> > I get it about MoveOn, but why does it sicken you to see unions move in?
> > I'm disappointed that I won't be able to be down there on the 6th, or
> > whenever it is that the transit workers and other unions are going to
> march.
> > And we had really great chats with union folks there yesterday.
> >
>