[Warning: The below is a bit rambling and as a result perhaps
incoherent and even weakly argued. I had to choose between sending it
as is, or abandoning it, since I do not have the time or energy -- and
perhaps skill? -- to clean it up. As someone who has never hesitated
to make a fool of myself, I chose the option of sending it. --ravi]
On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Julio Huato wrote:
The allusion to Clinton was in the context of the unions' willingness
to spend their money supporting the Democrats. For "nothing,"
according to Doug. Now, did the unions had perfect foresight to check
Clinton's record as a president prior to their supporting him? I
don't think they did. The unions had experience dealing with other
Democrats -- and Republicans! And they used it.
Given that much is at stake for unions (and working people) in a
presidential election (because presidents can make a difference on the
life of unions and working people), it's easy for me to see why the
unions (and working people) choose not to support their Republican
overt enemies (the Tataglia candidate) or sit on the fence, but rather
bribe the enemy of their enemy, which isn't necessarily their friend
(the Corleone candidate), to advance their interest.
Please forgive the jargon, but when people make a choice, the goods
outside of their opportunity set are not feasible.
Julio,
I will concede that the logic of this sort of argument (offered
elsewhere and in other contexts by "progressives") is sound (as far as
soundness goes in such debates), but I have a beef with it,
nonetheless, from a very different perspective, which I have outlined
before: the goals that the Left aims at are highly unlikely in a
gradualist (hence the term "progressive" I guess, to imply
monotonically increasing progress!) framework or reasoning. I would
suggest this is somewhat like (though not reducible) to Zeno's paradox
of Achilles and the tortoise. To invert a popular aphorism, the
"better", in our case, is the enemy of the "perfect".
IMHO, the reason for the gradualist approach is not so much pragmatism
as it is a continued (if unconscious) style of argumentation and
analysis that is at its core individualistic and based on narrow self-
interest (and perhaps a denial of free will, but I won't get into that
since it is irrelevant to my argument). Having surrendered the atomic/
axioms to the other side, honest leftists are compelled (it seems to
me) to adopt this gradualist approach and inexorably terminate at
Enlightenment liberalism (coupled with a mostly unjustifiable feel
good morality received from early religious education that survives at
the mercy of the scientistic Left).
But as Cohen points out in a book recommended to me by a couple of you:
Both self-interest and generosity exist in everyone. We know how to
make an economic system work on the basis of self-interest. We do
not know how to make it work on the basis of generosity. But that
does not mean that we should forget generosity[.].
For my argument here, I would substitute "generosity" with "concern
for collective benefit" or even "sacrifice".
Unions, the Left, and such entities, in their quest to create a just
world have to break from (i.e., create a discontinuity with) the
current world order. This might involve near term pain and suffering,
but if I am guilty of recommending suffering for others, my opponents
are guilty of under-estimating the spirit and commitment of the
working class (as has been demonstrated time and again by history).
It is one thing for unions and leftists to be opportunistic in
supporting or demanding concessions from the Democrats (which is the
sense in which I read your guarded support of Obama) but another to
rely on this party as the primary (perhaps sole) vehicle of furthering
their ends -- which is what they seem to be doing by spending massive
amounts of money on electing Democrats.
Mahatma Gandhi, dismissed in the macho West for his pacifism, was foxy
enough to point out to the British that a few thousand Brits cannot at
the end of the day control a few hundred million Indians against their
will, while at the same time pushing forward a programme of aggressive
and active non-violent resistance based on ideals of shared sacrifice
and collective good. This approach seems far more militant than what
we Western Leftists, and auto workers earning $50/hour with retirement
benefits, are willing to attempt!
It is not sophistry to argue that people can see both beyond their
current opportunity set or understand and be up for the actions
necessary to achieve an expansion of the set. Though I take a sort of
cheap shot at $50/hour auto workers, the recent sit-in in Chicago
demonstrates this spirit, as does the fact that majority public
opinion is almost always to the left of the DP except in cases (e.g:
tax hikes) where they have been carefully conditioned by years of
rhetoric, disillusionment with the parties themselves, and phraseology.
Nobody was drawing any analogy. What I wrote was that the strength of
unions is only one element in the workers' power vector. Employment
conditions is another one, typically one workers hold at the top of
their priorities. Political influence in Washington, however diluted,
is another one. Etc.
I was making the case that you cannot just look at the union density
rates during the Clinton administration to determine the overall state
of workers under Clinton. It is a more complex picture.
I am afraid I don't get the above. Employment conditions, as you note
above are a top priority of workers. To achieve that priority workers
need to gain power. To gain power, the current accepted vehicle is the
union. If you are arguing that unions are not the only means to
achieve worker power, I do not see an alternative offered by you,
above. What am I missing?
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself ;-)
PeTA => http://peta.org/
Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
