Disqus - Latest Comments for MikeK

Re: Some Thoughts About A Left in a Rut by Norman Markowitz

MikeK — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:33:07 -0000

Then you're equally off-base. A servicing model of unionism is a real problem within the labor movement that has been the subject of much internal debate. It's funny that you choose to attack one of the couple of unions that have made the most complete break with a servicing model and toward an organizing model.

Any actual participant in the labor movement would be likely to get "awfully touchy" if someone described their organizations which workers have fought and sacrificed to build as you do above. Stern has some ideas that I disagree with (and many more that I do agree with), but statements about "Andy Stern's boys" makes it abundantly clear that you have no clue about the leadership dynamics within SEIU. The specific case aside, describing the gains that workers have made through unions - which have quite literally been the difference between life and death for many - as "shallow side benefits" is indefensible.

Re: Some Thoughts About A Left in a Rut by Norman Markowitz

MikeK — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:21:38 -0000

The "enterprise unionism" model that prevails in the US? What are you talking about? Enterprise unionism is most commonly associated with Japan. US unions tend to follow craft, industrial or general unionism models. Can you name a single affiliate of the AFL-CIO or Change to Win that is limited to a single plant or enterprise - that is, one that follows the model of enterprise unionism?

As regards "organizing independently" within SEIU, I'm not really sure what that means. It sounds more like a slogan than anything. But more to the point - are you a member or participant in SEIU? If not, what is your basis for this judgment? The internal life of the union looks far different from what one might read in the Socialist Worker or Labor Notes, I assure you.

You end up unintentionally backing up Norman's points with these kinds of out of touch and ill-informed comments about the US labor movement. No one to the left of us and no connection to the actual movements of the working class...

Re: It Ain't Over Until We've Won!

MikeK — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:08:13 -0000

Damn straight, Smiley! The next 50 days (!) are going to be a real struggle if the candidates and policies of the Ultra-Right are to be defeated. And if they are not it will be a terrible loss for working people everywhere.

So, I want to add to your call - every one of us needs to be doing something on every possible day in these coming weeks! Hook up with a local union, campus group, or directly with the Obama campaign and get out there talking with and mobilizing folks! People can even use the Obama campaign website to phone bank from home. It's easy, but important work.

Perhaps others can post links to organizations to contact or ideas for involvement in these coming days. None of us can afford to sit this one out.

Re: People's Weekly World - Editorial: Union organizing helps the economy

MikeK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:16:01 -0000

Regardless of who uses it, it is an anti-labor term. The labor movement has leaders, both good ones and bad ones, but it does not have "bosses." That's who we fight.

As to your assertion about the salaries of leadership, could you back that up? The president of my international union - which is one of the largest in the U.S. - doesn't make 250,000 a year. Local presidents certainly don't. And who exactly are these millionaires? Now, that isn't to say that some union leaders aren't overpaid. Some are, but this is hardly among the major problems facing labor in the US.

Re: Bad News and Media Nonesense by Norman Markowitz

MikeK — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:53 -0000

Yes, Nader probably would sign off on the EFCA as well. The difference is that Nader does not have a realistic chance of winning the election by any estimation. Obama does.

Many, many union campaigns succeed in building majority pledged support within a bargaining unit but fail to win a union election when workers are subjected to the fear and disinformation of a boss fight (complete with captive audience meetings, threats, etc) that sometimes drags on for months or years. Even those that win often fail to win a first contract with an entrenched employer. The EFCA has provisions addressing both of these things. True, the power of the bosses doesn't disappear, but this would be a very serious gain. The labor movement would almost surely grow dramatically both in size and power.

Re: Bad News and Media Nonesense by Norman Markowitz

MikeK — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:31:18 -0000

The reform of labor law through the Employee Free Choice Act is a material difference. The end of the Bush-era NLRB and the appointment of a more labor friendly one is a material difference. Universal access to health care, no matter how imperfect the plan, is a material difference. Some lessening of the all out assault on immigrant workers is a material difference.

None of these steps is good enough, nor is Obama's stance on them. However, the difference between Obama and McCain on these is large enough to represent a HUGE material difference in the lives of working people effected by these issues. I work with people daily who would have a better chance of winning their union organizing campaigns (and a first contract), would be able to take their children to the doctor, and would live in less fear of the possibility of every knock at their door being ICE agents ready to rip their families apart.

In terms of creating more space to build a movement for sweeping change and in terms of being responsive to the immediate needs of working people, all of these things are of incredible importance. They are not "good enough" and the approach of a Democratic majority on all of these questions will not be "good enough." That does nothing to undercut the importance of the importance of a landslide victory for Obama and other Democrats as a step in building a stronger workers movement capable of transforming society.

Re: The New Yorker Fist Bump

MikeK — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:54:39 -0000

How is that censorship? All editors suggesting revisions are censors then? What about when they turn down pieces altogether?

Debating the appropriateness of the New Yorker cover is a good thing and could lead to fruitful discussion. However, suggesting that those who are offended by the imagery and its use are some sort of would-be censors or advocates of limiting art to the drab and uninteresting is entirely unhelpful.

Re: How the Left Saved Capitalism

MikeK — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:01:21 -0000

Harold-
For the record, I have several Haymarket Press books on my shelf. In what has so far been a friendly and interesting discussion, why introduce that negative tone and seemingly baseless implications of sectarianism?

Anyway, on to the substantive points.
While the factory takeovers in Argentina that are described in Sin Patron are certainly interesting and inspiring, it would be a mistake on our part to ignore the material conditions that led to these actions. Surely, the complete collapse of the Argentine economy is not a factor that we can discount. You seem to be saying that subjective factors alone are what stands in the way of unions in the US following the Argentina example. What industries do you see primed for this? Why?

I don't agree that workers in unions are simply getting instructed in capitalist relations of production, but even if they were wouldn't that be a good thing? Wasn't much of the project of Marx and Engels removing the mystification of those relations and laying them bare before the working class?

You ask how the struggle over wages and working conditions results in class strength and contributes to the fight for socialism. Organizing into fighting organizations AS workers leads to class strength. The weakness of the working class is in its disorganization. Also, when improvements in working conditions and hindrance of bosses' ability to extract maximum surplus value are won through collective action an important lesson - when we unite as workers and fight, we win improvements in our lives. That is, consciousness develops. Unions, probably more than any other mass organizations, contribute to central subjective factors (class consciousness) and objective factors (worker organization) in the fight for socialism.

Re: How the Left Saved Capitalism

MikeK — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:19:06 -0000

Some interesting points here Harold, but I couldn't disagree more on the question of unions. It is true that the leadership and membership of most US unions do not have a subjective commitment to anti-capitalism. This does not mean that important class victories can't be won through these organizations. Of course, a move toward an embrace of socialism by unionists is desirable. I can think of two important things that can contribute to this. One is exactly the kind of international organizing that Gregory points us to and that you seem skeptical of. One of the most exciting things (to me) about the coordinated campaign by union security guards that I mentioned in an earlier post is the close cooperation between US unions and member unions of the Congress of South African Trade Unions. The leadership of the COSATU unions openly talk about their organizations as revolutionary and committed to the fight for socialism. And they are, of course, close to the South African Communist Party.

The second important piece of moving unions to the left is active, enthusiastic, good faith participation in these organizations by socialists, rather than writing them off. The model of such participation, in my view, is captured by Joe Slovo when he wrote:
"We do not regard the trade unions or the national movement as mere conduits for our policies. Nor do we attempt to advance our policy positions through intrigue or manipulation. Our relationship with these organisations is based on complete respect for their independence, integrity and inner-democracy. In so far as our influence is felt, it is the result of open submissions of policy positions and the impact of individual communists who win respect as among the most loyal, the most devoted and ideologically clear members of these organisations."

Finally, I see your description of the objective role played by unions as very wrong. I have read many analyses (ones that I would describe as "ultra-left") that view the unions as a force tying workers to capital. I think that this is just inaccurate. The underlying assumption of the idea that unions protect capitalism and result in victories for capitalists by preventing "the system from 'getting out of hand'" seems to be that if things do get out of hand and result in worse conditions for the working class, workers will revolt against capitalism and embrace a socialist alternative. History has shown us that this is just not the case. Class strength grows from organization and victories, even imperfect ones. Labor unions as organizations and labor union victories are certainly imperfect. They are also the most important fighting organizations of the working class and central in any fight for worker power and socialism.

Sorry for the length!

Re: People's Weekly World - Teachers union rolls out new vision for America�s schools

MikeK — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:21:58 -0000

Um... no. The driving force in the movement of manufacturing jobs is the capitalist drive to appropriate a maximum amount of surplus value - manifested in a search for the cheapest labor costs and, thus, maximum profits. It is absolutely not a search for a workforce with a better primary education. Improving such education in the US is an important goal, but the fighting organizations of education workers are not the problem.

Re: How the Left Saved Capitalism

MikeK — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:03:03 -0000

Interesting piece, Gregory. I'd like to give it another read and more thought than I am able at the moment. I do have a few comments though.

1. I'm surprised to see you list Gramsci among those writers that you list at the start of the article. Many academics have (mis)read Gramsci and used his work in the way that you describe, but I don't see any comfortable moralising the writings on hegemony myself. And relishing defeat? Not from the man who spoke of the "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

2. While the IWW's activity at Starbucks is to be applauded, I don't think it's accurate to say that they are doing anything particularly cutting edge or that they have a better understanding of the current conjuncture than mainstream unions. The most successful organizing unions in recent years have also been in the service sector and their organizing victories have been many, many times the size of the entire membership of the IWW. And when it comes to organizing across borders, I would argue that the more valuable place to look is the mainstream unions. The USW-Unite merger comes to mind. Also, the collaboration between SEIU and unions in Europe and Africa to take on transnational private security firms has great potential. And then there was the effort by the Teamsters (US) and TGWU (UK) to coordinate organizing efforts at the First Student bus company. Many exciting examples, all with a mass base that is numerically far larger and more broadly representative of the working class than the IWW's activities. In sum, that they are on the cutting edge as compared to other unions and not a relic is debatable.

Re: a new era

MikeK — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:16:09 -0000

A party of, by and for the working class? Yup. Sounds great. Unfortunately, a mass party of that type does not currently exist and is certainly not a contender in the November election. The question, then, is what is a pragmatic strategy to pursue in the situation that we actually find ourselves in. It is important to not lose sight of the larger goal that you raise, but that does little to tell us how to get there from here.

Would a President Obama and a Democratic congressional majority pass the Employee Free Choice Act into law? Possibly. Will they pass some sort of progressive national health care plan? Possibly. Will they end the war in Iraq? Possibly. They say they will. It's certainly also possible that they'll break all of those promises. That's why it's so important to build the progressive grassroots movement that can not only bring these folks into office, but can push them further afterward. The one thing that we do know for sure is that there is no way in hell that a President McCain would do any of the above things. If anything, he would make things worse than they are now.

The question before us (or the one that I think should be before us) is what kind of strategy can win short term gains for the working class - easing the process of uniting with others in a union, ensuring that none of us are denied affordable healthcare, protecting and furthering basic democratic rights - while at the same time laying the groundwork for more qualitative change. I cannot imagine such a strategy that did not include fighting for a landslide Democratic victory in November. In short, I think the policy that the CPUSA has put out on the elections is correct.

On the many sins of Obama that you detail, I would refer you to the post about looking at "the whole message." That is not to say that Obama's message is a socialist one. Of course it isn't. But it is, on the whole, progressive especially when compared with the alternative. Making sure that that is the message that wins out is essential to both the immediate and long term interests of workers in this country and elsewhere.

Re: a new era

MikeK — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:11:17 -0000

The selection of Furman is certainly troubling, but in my view it speaks more to the fact that it will be an ongoing struggle to push a President Obama in the most progressive direction possible than it does to anything else. Already the labor-backed Wal-Mart Watch is putting pressure on the Obama campaign over the move.

That said, I don't see the Furman appointment as indicative of the main thrust of what Obama has put out there as far as economic policy goes. I agree with Jonathan Tasini when he says, "It's hard to believe that during his community organizing work in the poorest neighborhoods of his own city he didn't have something sink into him about income inequality. There's no way to read anything he has put out there as anything but rejection for the Wal-Mart model."

Leon, you clearly are arguing against strategic support for Obama. What do you propose as an alternative strategy? Are you one of those who argues for ceding the electoral realm of struggle altogether? I definitely don't see how working people in the US and around the world would benefit from such a course.

Re:

MikeK — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:00:48 -0000

Great questions and comments on a great post! The question of where the movement goes after a huge victory in November (fingers crossed!) is a crucial one. I've been impressed with the accountability program that SEIU has rolled out recently. In short, millions of dollars and a huge number of the union's staff and member leaders are going to be dedicated full time for the first few months after the change of power to making sure that the politicians that they helped elect are actually pursuing a pro-worker agenda. Similar types of accountability efforts should be encouraged in all parts of the movement.

I would note that this should not be interpreted as treating voting for Obama and other Dems as some sort of pained action. They should be enthusiastically campaigned for. But to get them to do their part in bringing about the 21st century New Deal legislation that is needed will require continual pressure from the movement. On that note, the field organizations that Brad mentions should be an area of focus. Forging deep connections with these folks - many of whom are young people who are being politicized (and could be radicalized) by this exciting campaign and time - is an important task now.

To Moonmaster9000 - Do you have something in mind as an alternate structure? Or could you maybe be more precise on how you think the club model can act as an obstacle to growth? Just trying to get a good grasp on your critique.