Joanna
----- Original Message -----
CB: This seems to be contradicted by all the pro-labor accomplishments of the 1930's , especially winning unions in the industrial sector.
--------
I didn't know the earlier history before WW1 and 1917. After reading Trotsky's descriptions of union meetings I realized I had never seen anything like them when I was a union member in the Carpenter's local and later AFSCME local. By the 60s-70s these unions were reduced to offices and dues where total apparatcheks existed instead of workers. The systems were completely altered from any concept of social democracy. Their idea of a meeting was We Talk, You Listen. An ossified parlamentary rules of order were in place, all conduced in a pre-rehearst farce.
Where were the speechs, where were the demands, where were the votes, where were the open elections, where were the workers, if they bothered to show up at all?
Stalinism politely called corporatization prevailed, without the prisons, exiles, and assassinations.
So the meaning of Chris Hedges comment was before Wilson's anti-commie era there was a lot more social democracy in the union movements than afterward. It took awhile for this ossification process to take hold and become the order of the day. A false nationalism coupled with roll backs in ethnic and racial integration were other factors in the reaction.
Anyway, this problem which is the transformation from worker revolution to state apparatus deserves a better answer. All I can suggest is reading Trotsky's works. And most especially if you've been politically involved. They open your horizon on what is possible.
CG
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk