my international has sent me a letter urging me to join in "the fight" to save unionism from the "distasteful assault" and "evil agenda"...i am no fan of capitalism,or the ultra greedyglobalization...period...extortionist...expropriative...corrupt...venal...all apply with equal force...capitalists will always hate unions...period...because they represent a form of collective action which does not agrandize the wealth or power of capital...shopping at wall-mart or driving your vehicle from the suburbs to the city...or buying a house you cannot really afford and then using it as an atm...or watching television (evil manipulator...ANY entertainment value nonwithstanding)...or participating in or watching sports...all of that reults in a transference of wealth from you to them and that is what they want...unions' attempts to reverse that flow...no matter how trifling...is unacceptable in their eyes and must be quashed before the masses begin to perceive the consumerist utopia for the vast ponzi scheme, never delivering on its promises of fulfillment, that it is...i can accept mike's take on that because , while i am no doubt more outspoken about it, he and i are on the same page there....unions are a target of capital and the hired whores they keep on retainer in the state and federal bagnios...you can dispute that but you'd give yourself away as engaging in class warfare in the intersts of wealth and i can readily discount you...where mike and i part ways is when he contends that "an injury to one of us ia an injury to all of us" and that "i welcome this fight and i will be fighting with you." he may indeed be fighting...but he'd rather not....and he may be "fighting" along side me but i cannot help but think that we are fighting for fundamentally different reasons and that if the reasons he is fighting for are resolved in a fashion staisfactory to him and the continued existence of his organization he will quit the fight and leave me to fend for mayself as best i can...to borrow a kantian concept, mike is fighting "in accordance with duty" not "from duty"...it is an appearance only...if he can salvage his union ( and by extention his job ) without expending any union resources ( "mail this check to our office at the above address")he will do so and it will be in line with the entire craft union philosophy of non-advocacy if there is any possibility it may cost the union funds...so the dilemma is mine...i cetainly empathize with anyone struggling to make ends meet is a depressed ( oh my god! he said it martha!)economy and anyone anywhere who questions my categorical loathing of the degenerate bastards that constitute the political class in this hamiltonian extravaganza will have to meet me on the field of honor at dawn...and yet i have an infinitely difficult time accepting that the organization that purports to represent me is acting from amything but its own interests which mostly do not coincide with mine...some call me paranoid which is a glib way of dismissing unpleasant arguments...like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la very loudly...blocks it out...but doesn't explain or change a damned thing...the point is there are real choices to be made about whom to side with ( it is an era that demmands taking sides ) and no-one seems to be trustworthy...what would bill haywood do?
No comments:
Post a Comment