From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Re: Bluedevils versus blue collars
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:09:16 -0500


The issue is not who they treat better or worse abstractly.  The question is
who is perceived as the greater threat.  Union-organized strikes tend to be
much more passive and harmless than many direct action environmental stuff.
Also, the unions, if they are not engaged in anything major, are a bigger
social force.  I see no major reason for the police to see an official,
union-led strike as a threat.  Now, wildcats that might involve workplace
occupations, sabotage, etc would be a different story.  The miserable role
of the unions (as guarantors of capitalist stability) plays a deadening role
when struggles begin to flare, but otherwise provide a veneer of militantism
that wears workers out.  Let's see what happens if struggles in the
workplace develop a deeper, more radical aspect marked by fights against the
official apparatuses inside the working class as well as against capital.

Also, environmental activism is not necessarily non- or anti-working class.
I hope that goes without saying on this list.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "info" <info-AT-j12.org>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: AUT: Bluedevils versus blue collars


>
> Peter wrote:
> in australia at least the cops generally deal with young environmentalist
blockaders much
> more harshly than they deal with bluecollar workers on picket lines.
>
> My response;
> That's interesting. But I don't think it's true in the UK
> Fabian
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---