[PEN-L:1818] Re: Sweeney and company

[John L Gulick <jlgulick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Naiman asks:

> Gee, does Sweeney have to go to pc hell already for the dread crime of
Keynesiansm, or for asking that workers share the benefits of productivity
gains?

I've been taking a lot of heat for criticizing Sweeney & Co. Clearly,
these new reformist hacks are light years better than the old AFL-CIA
hacks. (BTW, did everybody see Lane Kirkland's name in the _NYTimes_
full-page ad expressing non-partisan support for Clinton's Bosnia
policy ? Good old Lane Kirkland understands the discourse of "credibility"
well, eh ?). Of course, the character of the new leadership has a lot
to do with capitalizing upon the succession crisis and being pushed to
the left from the rank-and-file.

My housemate is a free lance labor
journalist here in S.F., and he secured five minutes of Sweeney's
time during his West Coast barnstorming tour. (We also should be
thankful that Sweeney is actually operating in the public sphere).
Sweeney refused to acknowledge that much of the maneuvering to
roll back NLRB/OSHA laws and enforcement powers has bipartisan
support. He's already announced enthusiastic support for Clinton's
re-election. (So much for being a skilled bargainer).

As for "p.c." and "Keynesianism," I would argue that in U.S. left-liberal
circles it is far more "p.c." to argue on behalf of nation-state based
Keynesianism than it is to argue on behalf of transnational, collaborative
alliances between trade unionists, the urban poor, immiserated peasants,
casual laborers, et. al. -- that is, confronting capital on the scale that
it itself is organized (understanding of course the principle that "the
enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend," and that simply
personifying systemic evil as "global corporations" will
get us nowhere).

Sweeney is a total self-contradicting buffoon to argue that U.S.-
based TNC's are making record profits, and then to argue that their
international competitiveness is dependent upon the robustness of
consumer demand in the U.S. Even as a tactical intervention into
hegemonic discourse it doesn't cut the mustard. And does your
vision of where the left should go revolve around recreating
1950's/60's America where "our" imperial power reigned supreme ?
(I'm not saying yours does, but this vision sometimes seems
implicit in what Sweeney says).

As for wage increases concomitant with productivity, of course
I want that in my life as I want it in everyone's life -- but
only as an immediate bread-and-butter objective, not as a
end-state in an emancipatory world society.

I apologize if this posting sounds self-righteous or antipathetic.
Dialogue is important, and the left does have a tendency to devour
its own.





John L. Gulick
U. California-Santa Cruz Sociology Graduate Program

Research interest: eco-Marxist sociology of the built environment,
port authority competition on the West Coast of North America

e-mail: jlgulick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx