File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0306, message 160


From: "Richard Singer" <ricinger-AT-inch.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Abuse by employers, etc. (was Fwd: Re: Race Traitor...)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:45:07 -0400


J.M. Adams <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> writes:

> Richard,
>
> Come on - so called working class movements such as
> AFL-CIO labor unions for instance can be and most
> often are just as "liberal" or even more so than are
> the bulk of what you call "identity politics"!

I don't recall saying otherwise.  In fact, I made the comment, "As for
unions...I think we know the limitations here."

> For
> crying out loud most supposedly working class
> organizations represent people making far more money
> per year than most women, immigrants, people of color,
> etc.

No argument here.  In fact, I've made the same point myself.

>And anyway how do you reconcile these workerist
> views you are spouting with poststructuralist thought
> which tends to reject reductionist statements that the
> only "real" oppression is that of workers?

I never said the only real oppression was that of workers.  And I
specifically said, regarding workers' struggle, that "I no longer think it's
the one true path to revolution."

>...it would be much more of a "total" revolution if it
> wasnt JUST working class or if it wasnt JUST identity
> politics, right?

I completely agree.  I never said otherwise.  What I was saying was that to
address the problems of  employees in the workplace, specifically, we would
need to take a revolutionary approach of getting rid of the wage system.  If
work is the problem, then getting rid of work as we know it is the solution
(not just trying to protect specific groups).

>There is a reason the AFL-CIO is
> sometimes called the AFL-CIA and its the same reason
> that you reject "liberal" identity politics, because
> both the new and the old social movements have the
> capacity to be either liberal or revolutionary.
>

I absolutely agree.  In fact, I have had strong disagreements with some of
the red-and-black anarchos precisely because they advocate stirring up some
kind of revolution from within trade unions (and some of them advocate doing
so as professional  union organizers!) while I don't think this is a
worthwhile idea.  I've gone into so much verbiage explaining what's wrong
with this idea that I am already tired of making these points.  So I think
it's kind of funny that you came to the conclusion that I was advocating for
the AFL-CIO. Was I that unclear?

I've been impressed by some of the work by council communists such as
Pannekoek, who certainly were for workers' struggle but pointed out the
uselessness of looking for revolutionary potential in trade unions.  I
specifically called for  a workers' movement "that uses innovative
approaches and tactics"  I don't think AFL-CIO trade unions fit that
description.  (On the other hand, some of the activity of autonomist
Marxists does.)

I also might add that I don't even think class struggle or struggle with
regard to labor should be limited to the workplace.  There has been some
good stuff posted to Aut-Op-Sy about why that isn't a good idea either.

I don't understand how you interpreted my last message the way you did.
Just because I'm advocating for workers to find ways to struggle against
employers (especially if the specific problem we're discussing is abuse in
the workplace), that doesn't mean I'm saying that the solution for
everything (or anything) is trade union activism.  Absolutely not.  No way!


Richard










   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005