"if you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy."
– a. toffler
"What can we do today, so that tomorrow we can do what we are unable to do today?"
– Paulo Freire
do union leaders negotiate with management because of their privilege or because the function of trade unions within class society is to manage workers’ discontent and politicize and pacify their rage?
in response to a post last night about union leaders
I think there’s two ways of looking at it. I agree that trade unions do (nowadays after anti-union laws) in practice just manage workers’ discontent
but I don’t think that’s why people want to lead them. I think people want to lead them because they’re genuinely [a] so sure of themselves [b] a bit contemptuous of other workers (and their capacity to self-lead), so they decide they would be a better representative for their union (than, say, recallable delegates from directly democratic workplace meetings). that’s what I was getting at with the “privilege” comment
basically, I’m distinguishing between the effect an institution has in our world (what you’re saying), and the reasons it is reproduced in our world (what I’m saying)
Great case study from SolFed about going from an apathetic tech industry office, to an organised and militant collective force.
A worker’s critique of parecon, from libcom.org
An interesting overview of how participatory economics (parecon) may struggle to move into the real world if workers retain the same attitude to work as they do now in capitalism.
Some guy on a message board somewhere. Some spot-on guy.
There’ll be more where this came from.