Forwarded message:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:55:04 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:1075] union democracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-UID: 1508
Mike, you're bang on. I don't know who the hell this Fraser character is,
but he's full of shit. As you noted in your comments, ordinary,
run-of-the-mill, garden variety democracy must remain a radical proposition
in society so long as it is so fundamentally undemocratic.
The line that labour is in a war with capital and can't, therefore, afford
democracy is the same bullshit you get from a range of undemocratic types,
including Stalinists, social democratic apparatchiks, ultra leftists,
bosses, etc. Regardless of the particulars, they always seem to know what's
best for other people. (One of the things I love about negotiating new
contracts with bosses is watching it dawn upon them that their unilateral
ability to dictate any and everything that happens in the workplace is now
a thing of the past. It's a real eye opener.)
The question I always pose in response to "progressives" who argue against
democracy is: what's the basis for your position of command and control?
Superior ability? Merit? Greater intelligence? Greater insight? None of
these is legitimate from a progressive perspective. For progressives, real
legitimacy can only be based on democratic participation.
When I'm arguing this issue with people who characterize themselves as
Marxists, I also like to raise the issue that was raised by Marx's Theses
on Feuerbach: we can't assume that the person in the driver's seat is
taking the right position; and unless s/he is occupying that position by
virtue of having been selected by his/her peers, s/he is doing so by some
form of force or coercion or inherited privilege.
As someone who works in the ranks of organized labour, I see the perils of
undemocratic activity on a regular basis as well as the incredible
empowerment that true democracy has to offer ordinary working folk. For my
money, more democracy is the cure for what ails us.
Cheers and solidarity,
Sid Shniad
>Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:42:05 -0800 (PST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Green)
>
>>Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 20:12:37 +0000
>>From: Mike Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Organization: UPJ
>>
>>Friends,
>>
>> In the recent issue of the "Union Democracy Review," Herman Benson,
>>founder of the admirable Association for Union Democracy, comments on an
>>article on union democracy by Steve Fraser which appeared in a recent
>>issue of "Dissent" magazine. Steve is one of the founders of SAWSJ
>>(Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice, of which am a
>>member), a group of intellectuals supporting the "new" labor movement
>>and one of the main organizers of the first labor-intellectual teach-in
>>at Columbia in 1996.
>>
>> In the "Dissent" article Fraser makes light of union democracy, arguing
>>that it can cause harm as well as good and, using the analogy of a
>>nation at war, arguing that since labor is in a war with capital, union
>>democracy is an unaffordable luxury.
>>
>> These arguments ar both untenable and dangerous. It is the very lack
>>of union democracy which so screwed up the labor movement, especially
>>after the Cold War purge of the radicals. As recent scholarship has
>>indicated (especially work by Maurice Zeitlin and Judith Stepan-Norris,
>>as well as by Mike Goldfield), those unions with strong traditions of
>>democracy (often those on the left) not only were most socially
>>conscious but also won the best contracts in terms of maintaning worker
>>power on the shopfloor. And how is it likely that an egalitarian
>>society is going to be built if the organizations supposedly fighting
>>for it are not themselves as democratic as possible? And was not the
>>democratic militance of the organizers and rank-and-file in the great
>>struggles of the 1930s what built the unions in the first place?
>>Democracy is still a most radical idea, and this is the real reason why
>>so many labor "leaders" do not like it. In my travels and teaching among
>>labor unionists, I have seen so many sharp and creative persons, people
>>who would thrive in a democratic environment and who would help to build
>>a powerful labor movement. The pity is that so many unions are so very
>>undemocratic and have no use for such persons. This pity is compounded
>>when intellectuals make such terrible arguments as does Steve Fraser.
>>They may win a person favor with the labor bureaucrats, but they will
>>not build a labor movement worthy of the name.
>>
>> Two yeara ago, I was teaching a class at UMASS-Amherst in an MA program
>>for union officers and staff. I was having dinner with two of the other
>>teachers. We were talking about the struggle in the United Food and
>>Commercial Workers at Austin, Minnesota around the strike against Hormel
>>a few years ago (the subject of Barbara Koppel's interesting but
>>somewhat flawed documentary, "American Dream"-is this the right
>>title?). They really took me to task for supporting wholeheartedly the
>>position of the militants in the local -P29,who came into conflict with
>>the reactionary position of the (corrupt and undemocratic) national
>>union which forced the local to give up the fight and basically
>>destroyed the local. The national actually destroyed a work of art done
>>in support of the local's struggle. These two teachers actually
>>supported the national union's shameless actions. I was flabbergasted
>>and couldn't sleep the entire night thinking about this and going over
>>in my head the arguments I should have made during the discussion. I
>>thought that if two people who I respected and who were strong champions
>>of the unions could have this perspective, we were really in a lot of
>>trouble. Now Fraser's arguments tell me that we are in deep shit.
>>
>> What do others think about this?
>>
>>michael yates
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
