Yoshie said: > I don't see any lack of willingness to examine struggles against > white supremacy, sexism, etc. in terms of their relationship to the > class struggle, and vice versa, among leftists who have some respect > for the socialist and other radical left-wing traditions. Whether or > not such leftists' examinations of race, gender, etc. in terms of the > class struggle (and vice versa) will be taken up by other activists, > much less the rest of the public, is another matter entirely.
There have nevertheless been widespread tendencies for the _non-industrial_ left of developed countries during the last 30 years to: (1) represent exploitation/oppression as being _primarily_ about discrimination/bigotry and/or imperialism/genocide and; (2) assume that capitalists who happen to face the above are also somehow inherently of the left and/or natural allies. > When you confront a global trend like this, it doesn't make much > sense to speak of the "failure" of social > democracy/labourism/reformism, I think. The 70s was the end of an > era, both for socialist and social democratic economies. I failed to point out out that the trend was not uniform: From strong personal experience I have good reason to question the way in which strike stats are compiled, nevertheless, the most militant workforces do appear to have been: 1. Denmark 296 (days lost/1000 emps 1996-2000) 2. Iceland 244 3. Canada 217 4. Spain 189 5. Norway 135 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_str&int=-1 During the 1990s union membership peaked in Denmark in 1994 at 93% of the workforce; in Finland the same year at 122%; in Sweden in 1998 at 119%; in Iceland it was steady at about 88%. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/downloads/FAQ/UNIONSTATS2002.pdf The above are clearly all countries with relatively strong welfare systems; what is more significant and often forgotten is that Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden have the Ghent System, under which unions distribute welfare, rather than state agencies. "[U]nion density in Norway-where [state-administered] unemployment insurance is now compulsory-is only around 55 percent, a remarkable difference to Sweden given the similarities between the two countries in other dimensions." Agar Brugiavini, Bernhard Ebbinghaus,Richard Freeman,Pietro Garibaldi, Bertil Holmund, Martin Schludi & Thierry Verdier, 2000, "What do Unions Do to the Welfare States?" http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/people/es/Papers/RDB_2000_Report_2.pdf "[T]he impact of unemployment on the annual change in union density is strongly negative in a country like the US, with decentralized bargaining (level 0) and a government-run system of unemployment insurance (Ghent = 0). In contrast, in countries like Sweden or Denmark, with centralized bargaining (level :8) and a union-run system of unemployment (Ghent = 1), the rate of unemployment has almost no impact on the growth of union density." Michael Wallerstein & Bruce Western, 1999, "Unions in Decline: What has Changed and Why" http://emma.sscnet.ucla.edu/data/papers/ww99.pdf (cf: Michael Shalev, 1998, "Limits of and Alternatives to Multiple Regression in Macro- Comparative Research." http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/regression.pdf) > There aren't many leftists to begin with and leftists are not welcome > in, much less in the leadership of, the labor movement in the USA. It's not a US-specific problem or necessarily a quantitative one; genuine marxists are not welcome in the leadership of an overwhelming majority of unions in the developed world. Of course many of these have deep, long-standing relationships with centre-left (or even right in some cases) parties. There is also the matter of significant influence by organised crime. Or conversely, union leaders utilising "solidarity" to assist their own accumulation, legal or otherwise. And so on. Dealing with these issues is difficult, but it doesn't mean organised labour should be abandoned by activists as a hopeless case. Grant.
