[lbo-talk] Contradictions of contemporary working class consciousness

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 10:24:22 PDT 2013


Marv: "When I was a steward in a Steelworkers local in Toronto for a time in my younger days, I would have casual discussions with my workmates about exploitation, the nature of capitalism, union democracy, and the need for solidarity between men and women and the whites and non-whites in the plant, and these would elicit enthusiastic nods and comments, which I would convey with some excitement to my wife that evening, only to return the next day to hear the same group grousing about the "girls" and the "Pakis" as if our conversation had never happened. So it's correct to emphasize that the only way to sustain commitment among both workers and students is if there are "institutions to support it" - more specifically, IMO, a credible political organization which can inspire, recruit, politically educate, and provide members with sustained organized activity inside and outside the workplace"

[WS:] My ex who used to be an organizer for the UNITE told me similar stories. I also heard about conflicts at Labor party meetings between leftists supporters and rank and file union members on issues such as abortion or environemtn protection. This suggest a deeply rooted clash between frameworks of organizers (and leftists in general) and rank-and file. The organizers tend to espouse the liberal/libertarian framework of individual freedom and universal acceptance of differences (that sometimes gets extend to non-human species), whereas rank-an-file tends to espouse the in-group framework emphasizing solidarity over individual freedom and out-group rejection. These are pre-rational cognitive differences that contribute to the lack of trust and cannot be easily papered-over by political speeches, declarations and lectures.

The way I have been approaching these differences is by ignoring them.

Thus, I would downplay sexist, racist, or xenophobic comments e.g. by saying that "not everyone is like that" which signals disagreement without a judgment and then trying to emphasize commonalities of interest. For example, I was once doing my laundry in a dilapidated public laundromat in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Baltimore. The time was about 11PM and I was the only person in the establishment. Then another patron enters - a white guy in his 40s and starts a conversation by observing that we are an easy target in this neighborhood, and then going on with racially offensive comments about Black crime. I listened to him for while and then responded that I lived here a while, that it is not that bad, and that not everyone tries to rob me. He was initially a bit surprised, but then agreed citing his own experience working as a roofer with mostly Black crews, and then added an explanation that he just moved to Baltimore from West Virginia and never lived in a neighborhood like that before, which made him uneasy. We then talked about the poor state of Baltimore economy which created an opportunity for a segue into a more political discussion about urban policy in the US, but my laundry was done and I left. It is very likely that if this guy later talked to his buddies in West Virginia, he used the same racist language he tried on me. However, an organizer or a recruiter would have to live with it and instead focus on common interests to attract this guy to a movement or an organization.

The bottom line is that organizing involves a lot of compromising and picking only the most essential battles while ignoring other. Abortion, gay rights, racial inequality, peace, or environmental protection are without doubt important issues in themselves, but they do not necessarily must be put "in your face" of people who operate in a different cognitive framework but whose support we seek. This reminds me of a story of a staunch atheist whose son just informed him about his intention to marry a certain young lady, but then added that there is a small complication as the lady insisted that the ceremony be held in a church. The farther replied to go and do it if that is the way of getting the lady's consent, adding 'You don't think there is anything in this religious mumbo-jumbo, do you?"

-- Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list