In your podcast interview with the Amazonians United organizers recently I was surprised to hear some of the views expressed by one of the organizers interviewed. Regardless of the valid criticisms of the Pro Act and how the mainstream of the socialist movement, the DSA, has made it one of their “policy issues”, the Pro Act if passed would indeed favorably change the conditions under which we organize. The focus for labor organizers in my long developed opinion should not focus on being content at how “radical” they are but to actually develop the union of workers. That cannot just be done locally. The conditions we organize under are both impacted by the national and global political economy, with economic dynamics and entrenched anti-union laws that significantly hamper the “elbow room” and rights workers have to fight for their power at work.
Zama’s views throughout are really sectarian and economistic. His hostility to the existing left, while reacting to real problems, seems to dismiss the important role that leftist parties and organizations play in furthering the strength of the union movement. The way forward for the revolutionary left is to develop practical political unity that can aid in strengthening the conditions under which we organize. If local conditions don’t allow us as individuals to gain support from business unions then it naturally makes sense to pursue independent economic organizations. However the dismissal of business unions comes across as seeing them as a source of competition when instead the aim of a union movement should be to unite all organized workers as broadly as possible. In a period of labor defeat even conservative business unions making advances is an advanment for the broader working class. Being content with local economic projects which believe the world will change without emphasis on the need for the working class to organize a party and seize political power does not lead to our victory.
The emphasis of Amazonians United on building shopfloor support is correct, but my concern is that their approach is too hostile to using labor law and the NLRB as a tool. The RDSWU’s approach failed due to a lack of shopfloor, and AU’s focus on building strong shopfloor relations addresses this. My worry is that sectarianism towards the broader left and a narrow focus on the shopfloor without engaging with the realities of labor law will lead to some of the same problems that IWW campaigns have come into. Strong shopfloor committees can perform direct actions and make demands, but to form institutional power that can represent workers in the long term requires engaging with law and developing paid staff.
David Thayer
