It has been more than 2 weeks since the death of Carlos Fuentealba. I'm interested in reflecting on the reactions to this event and what it can mean in a larger context for union movements. While this situation is far from resolved, I feel there are some lessons that can be learned from the immediate response.
Those reactions were criticized by many on the left for being too weak and not actively building a larger, more militant worker movement. That may be fair in Argentina, but the reaction was much stronger than I would have expected in the United States. The two major union federations called for limited general strikes. La Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) called for a 1 hour strike, with the Central de los Trabajadores Argentinos' (CTA) strike being for one day. I believe that these types of limited actions can do a great deal to strengthen a union movement.
There are times, like the killing of school teacher Carlos Fuentealba, when the state or businesses show, in a very powerful way, their hypocrisies -- or even their true intentions. When these events occur, they provoke a popular break from the national myths, allowing communities to truly see where they stand in relation to corporate profit and power. Using this break as a focal point for organizing can help to build popular support for a particular organization or movement. That support can be used not only to bring about national solidarity to win immediate demands, but can also be used to empower the movement and expand its demands.
One piece of empowering a movement is bringing in new support. But actions like a one day strike can help to empower the movement from within. It does so by demonstrating the power that an organization is capable of asserting. It helps to keep the union's methods of mobilization well prepared. Members will become accustomed to coming out for union actions and the union will become accustomed to calling and organizing such actions. With consistent efforts in mobilization a union should gain a better sense of its own power, allowing it to go beyond reacting and begin mobilizing on the offense.
These actions won't only demonstrate power to members of the organization, but also to the movement's targets. Businesses will realize the capacity of union organizing and begin to worry about becoming the active target of the worker movement. This anxiousness can help to bring about easier victories, possibly even preventative victories where organizing isn't happening.
The potential ripple effects of calling a few, relatively simple and well timed actions could build the power and popularity of the union movement by great strides. All we need to do is demonstrate our will to enact the solidarity that we advocate.
2 comments:
Listening to Shut 'em Down by P.E. as I write this at some ungodly hour in the morning EST.
I'm finding myself in this frustrating position of power building against the ridiculous bureaucracy here. I can't even begin to make the comparative analysis to pin point where the intersection is. I think of Paulo Freire and the popular education movement that srung from his groundbreaking work as a light on the path and other who borrow from his legacy.
You have to think on multiple levels in order to even put the circumstancial similarities between popular mobilization in the US and anywhere elsein order to relate the differences for comparative purposes. I hope that made sense. Apologies for the increibly vague statement.
I think Ranajit Guha is someone else I look to for the kind of holisitic, relational, and compartive analysis that situates impositional/coercive power vis-a-vis a subordinate class or group and does a great job of explaining in his discussion of the Indian sub continent's movement, how the dominance of the West was often intricately woven into existing cultural fabrics in Indian society that preexisted the West which gave its universalist idea of supremacy legitimacy.
I feel the same way about labor struggles, race, gender and whatever other cases there is some sort of power realation. Dissent is, I think, the natural antithesis to unbalanced power, but I continue to struggle with how one (or a movement for that matter) beats that relationship in a system of revisionist history that constantly reinvents itself and/or rearticulates its foundational premises to suit its self perpetuation? Sounds like an easyquestion to answer, right? Ok, so you do it!
It's not that easy. The whole ration deconstrucion of it all (and a discussion of tactical approaches to balancing uneven power relations in a revisionist bureaucracy) is riddled with contradictions that are varyingly unethical, immoral, and ??? which go beyon Ghandian philosophical use of "truth force" as the primary tool.
That leads me to the whole notion of the farce of the US labor movement. It's priamrily thatrical. In part because of its decline, in part because of its organiztional structure, and in part because its tactical shift from rank and file to andy stern and the CEO style labor negotiatiing...all very scary to me.
Enough of me...I'm not getting any credit for this shit. Holla at the kid, bro.
Peace to the all in all from the poopr part of the planet.
Hey Eric,
I meant to respond to this awhile ago, but have had a couple of computer issues and a massive exam.
A lot of what you wrote, I think may be a little beyond me. At least until I read those authors, because what you said of them sounds interesting and are ideas Id like to dive into more.
But 2 things struck me -- the capacity to make comparisons between different struggles, and the state of the US labor movement.
In terms of international comparisons, Im quickly finding myself answering a lot of questions with 'its just so damn different here.' But what I also find is that while certain tactics used here come from very different places, they are good ideas for addressing situations in the US. Some of which are actually just basic organizing practices that seem to be the same, some of which are probably the result of globalizations homogenization of the world.
The US labor movement, Ive found to be completely impossible to label...as anything. There are just an incredible number of sides. I think often there are a lot of us that are very critical of the labor movement (as I have often been) without putting ourselves in it. Something like CEJ IS the labor movement. UBSAS IS the labor movement. Granted, these are parts that have fewer resources, and are often not considered a part of the 'official' labor movement. But, I dont think we should do ourselves the same disservice of not recognizing these movements as a real part of it all. Although, that may not be at all what you were saying, and I just read into it what I thought you were saying..
Post a Comment