co-opt at all costs

"i am struck again by the fact that as soon as a working man gets an official post in the trade union or goes into labor politics, he becomes quite middle class, whether he will or no. ie. by fighting against the bourgeoise he becomes a bourgeois." from "the road to wigan pier diary" by george orwell 2.6-10.36 ____________________________________________________________________________ george was a sensitive to ironies as he was inequalities...so is this a mechanism of hegemonic culture? anyone who might acquire real influence must be co-opted into the status quo? i have to think so...inclusion as a reward ( or control) for showing initiative or ability that might pose a threat if enough of it was left outside the system...the threat of loss of inclusion ( the control part ), status, economic security for political or philosophical heresy...reinforcement of the elite's orthodoxies...certainly holds true in my union...it's run like a business and leadership has common interest with capital in controlling labor...strikes, slowdowns, a vocal dissent on policy all impede the union's cash flow since their product is industrial peace in contract size chunks...the nature of a union official's duties and obligations push them towards a rapprochement with management and distances them from those purport to represent...an unfortunate circumstance that has turned the "official" labor movement into a special interest...doesn't come as much of a surprise that there weren't many indignant howls of protest from walmart employees when indiana became a right-to-work state...fairly soon unions will be a memory...just like a healthy economy ( healthy for whom? that's a question for another blog...certainly the economic health of wage earners isn't at the top of wall street's agenda...or whoretown's for that matter no matter what those sluts say about "the street"...we're in the middle of another one of joseph schumpeter's foul "contest for votes"...sit back and ask yourself what's changed come next january and make an assessment of whether it's for the better...odds are it won't be for you and me mac...win or lose old mitt will still be doing okay...not so the 23,110,695 "actual unemployed" the u s national debt clock is showing [ as opposed to the politically expediently cooked numbers the bureau of labor statistics arms the whores with]...they will still be putting up with conditions that transfer their wealth to mitt so he can send it offshore...where is the lake of fire? )...then it will be time to rebuild something that is a bit more worker friendly and has the gumption to assert its numbers and subvert the hamiltonian disenfranchisement of the political will of the people.