It's time to return to basics

[Mike]

It's time to return to basics

Across the political landscape, the Left is involved in mind deadening discussions about the effectiveness of various organizations and political parties in changing the hierarchies of power. On the liberal discussion boards, the call for reformative actions and solutions continues to grow (and become more shrill) as liberals become more cynical and disappointed in Democratic policy makers. Leftists, who challenge that approach, soon find themselves adrift in conversations about morals, labels and American Exceptionalism.

It's time to return to basics when engaged in these arguments. Both the actions needed and the solutions required can only come from growing the Labor Movement. Unions and other labor organizations have the greatest potential to be transformed into centers of working class power. They have institutional memories that contain both the historic advance and retreat along a revolutionary path.   

From the start many of the attacks can be anticipated: 1) The US Trade Union Movement has sold out its rank and file, is corrupt and joined at the hip to the Democratic Party. 2) Elevating the Labor Movement to the highest priority minimizes the importance of other Peace and Justice issues 3) Not everyone interested in working on Peace and Justice issues can belong to a union

These objections (among others) should be acknowledged, but they are not serious obstacles. Compared to self-interest, undemocratic tendencies, and the class interests of other political organizations, US Trade Unions look virtuous. Labor issues are not limited to the workplace. Unions, have at times (in the not so distant past) led Peace, Environmental, and Human Rights campaigns and, in many case strongly supported Racial and Gender Equality Issues. Currently, many are at the front of the Immigrant Rights struggle. Because, workers live in our communities, everything is a potential working class issue, and community campaigns have become a central part of organizing and contract negotiating strategies. Similarly, many locals have a history of being strong coalition partners on non-workplace struggles.

Radical change comes from class struggle. At a time when the unionization of workers in the private sector wallows at about 8%, we need an analysis of the barriers to organizing, and find ways that people can participate in tearing them down. Here's a start:

While there are many obstacles, fear may be the most immediate.  Beyond the almost universal desire to keep the bosses happy when the economy is in crisis, the lack of enforcement of National Labor Relations protections regarding concerted action and intimidation, poses a very real threat of job loss for workers even considering organizing. Normally, when such violations occur Labor's reaction is to file Unfair Labor Practices complaints, and once in a while rally support in the community for the fired worker. Years later, the NLRB may make the right decision, but the message is clear to all employees. Many times they refuse to testify at the NLRB hearing for fear of reprisal.

A more pro-active role for activists who "want to do something", could be to make it clear that their state, town or neighborhood wants nothing to do with manufacturers and merchants who deny their brothers and sisters the right to organize. The major gains included in EFCA were the strengthening of NLRB right to organize provisions. If the policy makers aren't interested in them, maybe working people and their allies could make it their business to do so.

[Dynamo Om]

Why do we have to reinvent the wheel?

[Political Heretic]

From the start many of the attacks can be anticipated: 1) The US Trade Union Movement has sold out its rank and file, is corrupt and joined at the hip to the Democratic Party. 2) Elevating the Labor Movement to the highest priority minimizes the importance of other Peace and Justice issues 3) Not everyone interested in working on Peace and Justice issues can belong to a union

These objections (among others) should be acknowledged, but they are not serious obstacles.

Mike you don't think that attack #1 is a serious concern?   That's certainly the thing that discourages me the most about looking to current labor organizations and thinking they can be vehicles for progress.

Talk me down!

[Mike]

Mike you don't think that attack #1 is a serious concern?   That's certainly the thing that discourages me the most about looking to current labor organizations and thinking they can be vehicles for progress.

Talk me down! 

You know, that is a great question - more there than meets the eye.

As people break ranks with the Democratic party, the entire concept of solidarity is being lost. People do not know what or whom to be loyal to anymore, if anything.

Some perspective is needed...

And here we have it -

"These objections (among others) should be acknowledged, but they are not serious obstacles. Compared to self-interest, undemocratic tendencies, and the class interests of other political organizations, US Trade Unions look virtuous."

Now, unlike the Democratic party, reforming the Union movement from within, working within the system, and being loyal to the Union will bring results. Unlike with the Democratic party, focusing on the enemy first rather than attacking or criticizing the Union is the right course, I think.

The reason to not be loyal to the party, to not try to reform the party, to not work within the party is because none of those work, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with being loyal to an organization, or working within it or trying to reform it.

The problems within Labor reflect the problems throughout the society. The question of what will be a vehicle for progress, if determined by this, would have no answer. The problems are everywhere. The question is where, and as what and as who do we fight? Where do we stand? If we stand with organized Labor, we are on solid ground. Many of the problems within Labor are the result of a failure by the Left to stand with organized Labor.

The arguments that "Labor is no better than management" (or corporations or whatever) are reactionary and can produce no good result.

[Political Heretic]

Mike you don't think that attack #1 is a serious concern?   That's certainly the thing that discourages me the most about looking to current labor organizations and thinking they can be vehicles for progress.

Talk me down! 

You know, that is a great question - more there than meets the eye.

As people break ranks with the Democratic party, the entire concept of solidarity is being lost. People do not know what or whom to be loyal to anymore, if anything.

Some perspective is needed...

And here we have it -

"These objections (among others) should be acknowledged, but they are not serious obstacles. Compared to self-interest, undemocratic tendencies, and the class interests of other political organizations, US Trade Unions look virtuous."

Now, unlike the Democratic party, reforming the Union movement from within, working within the system, and being loyal to the Union will bring results. Unlike with the Democratic party, focusing on the enemy first rather than attacking or criticizing the Union is the right course, I think.

The reason to not be loyal to the party, to not try to reform the party, to not work within the party is because none of those work, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with being loyal to an organization, or working within it or trying to reform it.

The problems within Labor reflect the problems throughout the society. The question of what will be a vehicle for progress, if determined by this, would have no answer. The problems are everywhere. The question is where, and as what and as who do we fight? Where do we stand? If we stand with organized Labor, we are on solid ground. Many of the problems within Labor are the result of a failure by the Left to stand with organized Labor.

The arguments that "Labor is no better than management" (or corporations or whatever) are reactionary and can produce no good result.

I think I'm suffering from a syndrome or something...

When I went to the poll in 2008, I remember as I was driving in my car, I asked myself why I wanted Democrats to win so much.  I wasn't completely tone deaf to the warnings of others about putting hope for change in establishment politicians or parties.  It was more like I needed to see for myself...

I realized that the reason it was so important is because I had not really had the opportunity in my politically mature life to really evaluate a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President in action.   And I wanted them to have that.  I wanted Democrats to control every branch of government so that I could see - once and for all - what they were about.

And of course I had hope, because I am by nature a hopeful optimist (no really, I know I sound like a cynic sometimes, you just have to get to know me! ) 

And obviously, I got my answer and those hopes were completely shredded.  The reason it happened so fast was because it just doesn't take that long for one to understand the true colors of the establishment Democratic Party in Washington, or understand the subtext.

For years before that I had been on the fence about whether or not I thought you could have meaningful change from within this basic political and economic structure or if I thought you had to deconstruct this political and economic structure and rebuild it in a new image.

Back and forth back and forth I'd go.... sometimes sounding more "radical," other times sounding more like an "apologist" for the status quo.

2009 brought the final closure I was seeking to that entire questioning process.  I wanted to see democrats operate for myself in their fullest potential just once, not just be told by others what it would be like - I needed to see it.

Now I have.

Yes I know that was a major digression.... but here's the point:

After being so disappointed by the Democratic Party it feels scary to think about looking to another massive institution with a (recent) history of functioning too much in service of the status quo as the source for "change from within."

My mind goes, "yeah see, that's what just burned me before!"

It's not that I'm convinced you are wrong.  It's just going to take me some time, and a lot more study and understanding of the biggest unions and their internal politics - before I feel comfortable and confident putting on my "change from the inside!" suit again.

[cornermouse]

The short simple version is that greed took over and they sold us out, PH.  I guess it shouldn't be a surprise since we've lived in a greed based system since Reagan was in office.    Also, remember the period of time when Tom, the Hammer, DeLay was bragging that he had successfully cut democrats out of the K Street action?

That said, they really shouldn't have done it.

[Mike]

My mind goes, "yeah see, that's what just burned me before!"

There is a profund and fundamental difference between the two.

With the party, the hope is that those people over there will do something that might help us over here.

With the Union, the hope is that we ourselves will do something to help ourselves right here.

Working within the party, we are aligning with the side of the rulers, the only issue being which faction of the rulers we will align with.

Working within the Union, we are aligning with our side, the issue being how effectively we can then advance our side.

Saying that one is as bad as the other, and both are corrupt or ineffective, is avoiding the most important question which is, as always, which side are we on? That is also based on a sense of being able to take a rugged individualistic and aloof stance, seeing oneself as a free agent, placing one's own preferences, beliefs, feelings, and thoughts higher in importance than the community, than the common good. That may seem to be neutral, but is not.

One is on the side of the working people, or one is on the side of the rulers. For whatever the faults of our side, it is still our side. Of course our side makes mistakes, is not as glamorous, has less clout. The other side has all of the power and resources. The only power we have is solidarity. It must start with solidarity, solidarity cannot come down the road after each of us has personally mulled and decided to choose which organization we will grace our illustrious presence with, which one we like the most. You have to want what the Union could become, not what it is. It cannot become anything without solidarity, and solidarity comes from asking the question - which side are we on? - and then following up on that rather than on our personal preferences or musings.

"Are the workers' organizations any better than the rulers' organizations?" is the wrong question to ask, just as "are the slaves any better than the masters?" was the wrong question to ask of the Abolition movement.

Which side are we on? If we ignore that, we will always be confused and we will always be siding with the rulers one way or another and against our own interests.

[Political Heretic]

Mike this is one serious obstacle we have to overcome...


Pew Research: Favorability Ratings of Labor Unions Fall Sharply
http://people-press.org/report/591/

Favorable views of labor unions have plummeted since 2007, amid growing public skepticism about unions’ purpose and power. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of labor unions while about as many (42%) express an unfavorable opinion. In January 2007, a clear majority (58%) had a favorable view of unions while just 31% had an unfavorable impression.

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 3-9 among 1,383 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that favorable opinions of unions have fallen across demographic and partisan groups. Still, far more Democrats have favorable views of unions (56%) than do independents (38%) or Republicans (29%).

Last year, a Pew Research survey found a decline in the proportion of the public saying labor unions are necessary to protect working people, while more expressed concern about the power of unions. In April 2009, 61% agreed with the statement “labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,” down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that “labor unions have too much power,” up from 52% in 1999.

[Mike]

Mike this is one serious obstacle we have to overcome...


Pew Research: Favorability Ratings of Labor Unions Fall Sharply
http://people-press.org/report/591/

Favorable views of labor unions have plummeted since 2007, amid growing public skepticism about unions’ purpose and power. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of labor unions while about as many (42%) express an unfavorable opinion. In January 2007, a clear majority (58%) had a favorable view of unions while just 31% had an unfavorable impression.

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 3-9 among 1,383 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that favorable opinions of unions have fallen across demographic and partisan groups. Still, far more Democrats have favorable views of unions (56%) than do independents (38%) or Republicans (29%).

Last year, a Pew Research survey found a decline in the proportion of the public saying labor unions are necessary to protect working people, while more expressed concern about the power of unions. In April 2009, 61% agreed with the statement “labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,” down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that “labor unions have too much power,” up from 52% in 1999.

Thanks for the discussion PH and forgive me being glib.

People supporting Unions as a word, and with what they have been told to associate with that word, and people supporting what a Union could bring them are two different things.

So...the recent Democratic party success has been accompanied by a decrease in support for Unions. That is pretty telling, pretty damning of the party.

We don't want to confuse the method with the goals. People have been trained to fear and reject Unions - mostly they fear and reject the word. There has been a relentless propaganda campaign. But they still need what the Union, and I say only the Union, could bring them. Talk about what people need, why they are in need, and the methods will then make sense to people and be clear. Talk about what the Union can do and then call it "organizing so we have a voice and some clout" and don't use the word Union and most people are supportive. So they support the thing, but reject the word. That tells us that opposition to Unionism is shallow, though broad, and the fact that people have been trained to fear and reject that which they most need is more grist for the mill rather than an impediment.

Most of the political debates today involve rejecting or embracing words rather than the reality the words actually describe. That is a barrier only so long as we stay trapped in that paradigm ourselves.

An example - we have some leftists here, or potential leftists, who call themselves liberals. If they stopped calling themselves liberals (they can still "be" liberals if they like) they would discover that they could promote all of their ideas with greater success and much less opposition and we would make much more progress. Liberalism has been hijacked by a pro-corporate agenda, and people have been trained to reject anything associated with the word. Is it the ideas and results we are interested in, or in the identification with certain words and the promotion of those words?

Most Union leadership has funneled all of their effort into the partisan electoral politics for the purpose of electing Democrats in recdent times. As that ship sinks, any who lashed themselves to it are in danger of going down as well.

But we aren't, or should not be thinking in terms of selling a product, so we shouldn't obsess over the public feelings about a brand name. Corporate marketing and selling ideas just permeate all of our thinking, in my view, and are not of much use. Liberal and Democratic and Progressive and Socialist and Union have all come to be seen as though they were brand names for a product. That works against us, as you point out.

[Political Heretic]

I should clarify something - sometimes motives are unclear for internet posting.  I expressed some questions about unions previously in this thread.  But I didn't go out looking for this information to make an anti-union case.  I'm persuaded by your points.

I stumbled into this today, because I have an RSS feed from Pew Research about their new surveys, and this one happened to be there this morning....

Just thinking about the obstacles to social transformation.

[Political Heretic]

But we aren't, or should not be thinking in terms of selling a product, so we shouldn't obsess over the public feelings about a brand name. Corporate marketing and selling ideas just permeate all of our thinking, in my view, and are not of much use. Liberal and Democratic and Progressive and Socialist and Union have all come to be seen as though they were brand names for a product. That works against us, as you point out.

Thanks mike.  Very interesting, and lots to think about.

[Mike]

I should clarify something - sometimes motives are unclear for internet posting.  I expressed some questions about unions previously in this thread.  But I didn't go out looking for this information to make an anti-union case.  I'm persuaded by your points.

I stumbled into this today, because I have an RSS feed from Pew Research about their new surveys, and this one happened to be there this morning....

Just thinking about the obstacles to social transformation.

I know. No problem.

[Mike]

Thanks mike.  Very interesting, and lots to think about.

Don't know that I am right.

I do think that we are not quite getting to the problems somehow, skimming over the surface, so I keep turning it over and approaching it from different directions.