Likewise, I’m also catching up with this thread, which overlaps with a couple of other parallel discussions revolving around the DSA and its orientation to the DP and trade unions.
I can’t recall ever receiving an answer to the question I’ve posed before: if the elected and appointed union officials constitute a bureaucracy which is suppressing the more militant impulses of their rank-and file, why is it that those who promote this view have rarely if ever ever succeeded in wresting control from them? John Reimann, who is perhaps the most strident advocate of this position, has a long history of trade union involvement and I’m confident he has spoken up strongly at many meetings counterposing his revolutionary line to that of union leadership. It's true, as he says, that many (the “great majority”?) feel alienated from their unions, but this is not true of the core of activists who regularly turn up at union meetings and take a keen interest in its affairs. AFAIK, John never held office or organized a successful challenge to the existing leadership at a general meeting to decide a strike or ratification vote. If I missed it, I would look forward to a link showing otherwise. It may be that John’s approach to holding office coincides with the SWP’s ill-fated ultra-left turn to the industrial unions in the late 70’s where, among other things, the party - then under the new leadership of Jack Barnes and others from the 60’s student generation - instructed its members not to stand for local executive and shop steward positions as these were said to represent the lower levels of the union bureaucracy. Trotsky and the previous working class leadership of the SWP did not hold this view. I expressed mine the other day: "The union leaders I encountered were often former union activists who rose from the ranks and were, despite their privileges and integration into the labour relations system, still ahead of or at least in tune with the consciousness of their base rather than behind it.” Only Tony chose to engage with the comment in a thoughtful way. I might add that it was also not unusual to encounter researchers and educators and other appointed staff who identified with Marxism and played an important role at certain junctures encouraging the elected leadership to adopt a more militant union posture. This was particularly so in the case of Canadian unions like the UAW (later the CAW), CUPW, CUPE, and to a lesser extent the PSAC. If their militancy fell short of the high standards demanded by Reimann and other critics, it may be because their responsibilities required they take into account the relationship of forces and the resulting pressures from both within and outside the union, from their more conservative members and the relative strength of the employer. Of course, I also was in unions - notably the Steelworkers and SEIU - with leaders who were themselves conservative and eager to collaborate with the bosses and gain entry into their circles, but their role has never been contentious on this list. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42445): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42445 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120140354/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
