I know this isn't really a hot take, though. But I don't see a scenario in which we can make real changes that help people, save the planet, and destroy US imperialism without an organized working class - and that requires mass unionization. And right now the deck is stacked so much against unionization, from a legal / policy / regulation standpoint. But also, I do see a whole lot more positive energy regarding unionization among the working class in the US. People really are seeing through the anti-unionization lies spread by neoliberalism over the last few decades. Really, the one big objection from workers is they don't want to get fired, which is totally reasonable. That's why we need to make radical changes to the unionization rules and really beef up enforcement.
And this is has the benefit of being ostensibly in line with the goals of the Democratic party. Now of course, the party is beholden to capital and capital will fight this tooth and nail. But I think there will still be plenty of D politicians who see mass unionization as increasing their base of power, right or wrong.
So I think this should be our electoral focus, even if that means to the exclusion of other policies (because not like we're gonna get shit done in those areas as things stand now, anyway.
I agree. Life at this point for most of America is simply work-home-repeat. Its also the activity that every American participates in. Religion, national politics, sports, while popular, are still minor communities compared to labor. And those groups have largely remained reactionary with maybe a few exceptions. But deep down every worker knows they're getting a shitty deal. Unions, and by extension local politics, are the organizations we should be putting any and all effort we have into.
Another thing is that union power gives the framework to solve problems external to labor as well. Right now my union is trying to partner with a bunch of other unions across the west coast to form a housing coalition so we can fight for lower cost housing. More often than not, the employer will either be the direct landlord or have ties to landlords in the area. I might be union-pilled but i genuinely believe that unions have the capability to improve every aspect of our lives.
Yep, this was exactly the point I wanted to make, and you articulated it so well. An organized, militant working class will have much more success in say taking real measures to combat things like wealth inequality, climate change, healthcare, imperialism, et al than we will just hoping the few progressive politicians we have will be able to swim against the current and get something done.
There's a reason why DSA's major priority right now is getting the PRO Act passed.
Yep, like you said it's a catch-22. DSA could focus on getting unions formed but right now it's so skewed in favor of capital. Workers are right to be afraid of unionization, corporations can just close up any union operation without consequence. Agree it's a chicken-and-egg situation but right now I personally think the legislative changes need to come first.
No, the US left should focus on building an actual anti-imperialism/war movement.
The fact that no such thing exists in a country that has the blood of so many innocents on its hands is fucking shameful.
I mean, I agree that anti-imperialism along with climate change, are the most important issues we face. It's just that I think we won't be effective in bringing about real change in those areas without first having a working-class movement based in unions.
Why focus on unions when you can easily form mass-work orgs, which are FAR more important to the people anyway. Unions are somewhat obsolete with gig work becoming more normal as well
Nothing inherently wrong with unions but I feel like, especially in the US, the propaganda against socialism is so strong that they would never go revolutionary. Almost every union I've encountered seems so ridiculously neutered I can't imagine them ever supporting any actual joined worker's front
Yeah, but it's easier to radicalize a union than it is to radicalize atomized workers. Plus you can push for entryism in union leadership and turn almost any union into a more radical one as long as you have some support.
I don't have the stats pulled up, but my hunch is that current union rolls skew towards trades and government employees, who by all means are workers and need unionization, but probably skew towards "better" incomes and caucasian, which strikes me as naturally less militant.
I don't completely disagree, but the US had really strong unions for a time, and they were super reactionary. Organized labor needs to be led by a communist party, once they are then they're incredibly dangerous.
If you really think this tho, check out the PRO act. Strengthens protections for organizers and might be able to pass the Senate. DSA national is running a campaign and I'm sure they need help.
My grandfather was a hardcore union man, and was incredibly reactionary and racist. I'm a big Settlers fan myself, so I agree with you on this 100%. But in 2021, I think mass unionization would be much more racially and ethnically diverse, which I think would tamp down much of the reactionary potential.
I mean, ideally unions would be led by a communist party, but in the US there's so few of us I'm not sure that's gonna be realistic. But yeah, I would hope there would be a good number of this future union leadership that was radical and at least understood the contradictions in capitalism and took an aggressive position against capital, even if they weren't explicitly commies.
Isn't this what Lenin called economism? You need a broad coalition that brings together different sectors of the society, anti racist, anti ice, pro union, indigenous resistance (obviously there are many others. Examples). We need to build bridges between these movements and unite them under the banner of anti capitalism/patriarchy/colonialism as the systems of oppression that lead to all of these issues.
"It's the ballot or the bullet, it's liberty or death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody."
I agree 100%, but I think you need unions as a large component of it that can be part of the "glue" that unites these groups.
If only someone had designed some kind of "forward party" we'll call it that is internally democratic, but externally moves in lock step and is composed of professional revolutionaries that could glue it all together.
Oh well.
We could call it a "truck protector"? That doesn't really roll off the tongue, though.
This is ironic Chomsky. For strategy that is eternally doomed see real Chomsky.
I for one think it is a very good idea to exclude and ostracize as many other workers as possible because I define my sense of self based on the many things I hate.
While PMC upper management has bought into the system several times over, there's absolutely union potential among the professional grunt workers. Paralegals, nurses, medical resisdents, education workers, social workers. All treated like shit for years just for the chance at entering the PMC class. Telling them their lives can immediately get better would likely produce good results.
Well, tbf a lot of the upper/middle class will be hostile to unionization. Particularly white folks, who even if they are getting screwed by their bosses, enjoy plenty of privileges from the status quo. I'm not saying we should ignore professionals and office workers, but if we get better legal protections it's gonna be a hell of a lot easier to get a warehouse or hotel unionized than it will an office park.
"44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000... Most of the 53 million Americans working in low-wage jobs are adults in their prime working years, or between about 25 to 54, they noted. Their median hourly wage is $10.22 per hour" (link)
I feel like we should absolutely be targeting this 44%. Folks in the next income brackets above this, too. So we're talking I dunno maybe 60-70% of workers who are living in material conditions that are very amenable to unions and socialism. Sure we shouldn't exclude the toner distribution manager making $125k but I don't know why we should be focusing any of our very limited resources on the labor aristocracy, either.
