Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:49:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
Subject: M-I: Re: Marxists in Unions (+ cyberspace)


(1)

> From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
> I do not like the sneering tone of Cabral's post.    My visceral response is
> simply not to answer it.    Like so many in this forum,  he is merely out to
> sniff bicycle seats.

Who warns the moderators when it is the moderators themselves who engage
in flaming?

[NB: the way LG danced around, but not not directly answer, the
"Bookmarks" question re Cliff].

> The world has,  thankfully,  moved on to other things.

So will I.

(2)

> From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka-AT-acsu.buffalo.edu>
> Yoshie, These are very good questions.  I would answer somewhat along the
> following lines.  Academics are objectively workers to the extent that
> they do not control their means of production (I could write a lot about
> this but maybe better to move forward).  However, to the extent that
> faculty have tenure and/or permanent appointment and the financial
> situation of the institution is "stable", in some sense, there is a
> definite material base for a petty bourgeoisie.  Perhaps Eric O. Wright's
> early work is useful here in introducing the notion of contradictory
> locations between classes.

To begin with, the percentages of faculty in the US who have tenure and/or
permanent appointment have been dropping radically for a long time now (at
_least_ since the early 1980's and, possibly, including much of the
1970's). This is not accidental. There has been a conscious strategy by
college management to substitute part-time faculty (with lower income,
less or no benefits, usually no job security, frequently no access to
the grievance procedure) for full-time positions. Moreover, many colleges
have during the same time period _routinely_ denied full-time faculty
tenure when they come-up for tenure review (usually after 7 years). Since
a tenure decision is an "up-or-out" decision generally, this means that
these workers lose their jobs -- usually without recourse to the grievance
procedure -- and have to try to obtain employment elsewhere. This, also,
is a deliberate management strategy to cut labor costs and exercise
greater control over workers.

Secondly, one could describe very few colleges today as
"financially stable" -- whether they are public colleges and suffering the
effects of austerity and budget cuts or private colleges which are
increasingly engaged in a dog fight for enrollment and funding (also,
private colleges have been affected by federal budget cuts for student
loans).

Thirdly, it is true that many faculty see themselves as "professionals"
rather than workers. This was also the case for public school teachers,
especially prior to unionization. This is certainly a problem for building
trade union organization and solidarity, but it does not alter the
material (objective) condition of teachers and faculty as workers.

Fourthly, many members of other skilled trades also view themselves as
"professionals" rather than workers. Machinists and electricians, for
instance, tend to see themselves as machinists and electricians rather
than "just" workers (this varies regionally and depends, in part, on the
strength and history of their trade unions). Similarly, accountants,
computer programmers, etc. view themselves, in general, as professionals.
In _some_ cases, they may actually be part of management rather than
workers (even when they might be paid a wage). In other cases, they _are_
workers, but don't accept that designation.

Fifth, we can not let the desire of many workers to leave their class and
become petty-bourgeois prevent us from saying what they are now. As I
remarked previously, the popularity of gambling and lotteries in the
working class is an expression of petty-bourgeois desires. Does this make
them any less workers? No, I think not.  Much of bourgeois ideology,
fostered by the state, the media, educational institutions, etc., is
aimed at convincing workers that they too can become successful and move
out of their class (a component part of the "American Dream", e.g. the
Horatio Alger rags-to-riches myth). Many, perhaps most, workers accept all
or some part of this myth. That is an obstacle to be overcome, to be sure.
Yet, for that to change and for solidarity to increase, not only must all
segments of the working class see _themselves_ as workers, but see _each
other_ as workers. In that sense, all of the railing against "academics"
is an obstacle to be overcome on the road to working-class unity.

I imagine that you agree with much of the above, especially since the both
of us actually have experience in trade union organizing in colleges.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---