Some of My Best Friends Are Bosses
In fact, my wife is a boss! Call me a nit-picker when it comes to discourse, but I'm not crazy about rhetoric like this in the first sentence in the preamble to the IWW constitution: "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common." Is a capitalist social relationship always a "commodity relationship"? Are all relationships? The fact is, me and my boss (my manager, supervisor etc..who can hire and fire me) have a great deal in common on many levels as do many of my other friends who own their own businesses and have their own employees. (who they admittedly exploit) If the "division of labor" is harmful to the human project of peaceful self- realization and cooperation, it is exactly through the construction of these impermeable barriers of isolation and alienation. For those dedicated to the socialist project to carelessly (unknowingly?) employ these self-same tactics seems counter productive. These potential allies are needed on a broader political project and their (potential ) committment to worker emacipation, self-organization and participatory democracy far outweighs any vaguely defined "commodity relationship".
At our general meeting we decided my wife could be a member of the IWW because she technically only made "recommendations" for hiring and firings but this hair splitting does not improve the general lack of depth demonstrated by this imprecise terminology. Since she works for a non-profit, where is the capitalist? My good friend who owns a small housekeeping and catering business has a great deal more in common with her employees than she does with "real" capitalists, even if she does extract a little profit. Many in the "coordinator" class share the values of the "rank and file" and would associate with our demands if we can express our logic coherantly .And if I have a little "capital" invested in a pension fund I still can be in solidarity with a worker in China who can do what I do only much cheaper. Luckily, the IWW "is a democratic, member run union" and "decisions about what issues to address and what tactics to pursue" (hopefully including language) are made by the workers directly involved"
Another issue which arose is the the degree to which "self interest" can be harnessed to build a movement of resistance to capitalism. It is a fact that self interest motivates many union members to adopt a protectionist, anti- immigrant, anti-"outsourcing" stance which runs counter to an international socialist agenda. I still remember being assaulted by union "hard -hats"who associated with a nationalistic self interest which they felt was threatened by my opposition to the war in Vietnam. Self interest is of course the motor of Adam Smiths laissez-faire market mechanics and is something each of us considers in every decision we make. Is this tension something we need to resolve? I love being a fly in the ointment.
posted by troutsky @ 7:43 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I think one should differentiate between the capitalist and those in the capitalist system. My Dad was a business owner for many years and would often pay his employees more than he would take home.
I don't really know what the "framers" of the IWW constitution meant by this most frequently quoted passage. And, not being much of an "originalist", I don't much care. I do think it is possible to read the statement as referring to a structural, not interpersonal, conflict: i.e., "The working class and the employing class", as classes, "have nothing in common." That reading seems most consistent with the text, which, after all, does pose the conflict as being between "classes" and not simply between "workers" and "bosses". (In a similar vein, note that the refrain of the popular Wobbly hymn is "Dump the bosses off your back" and not "Dump the boss off your back" -- again emphasizing the interclass, rather than interpersonal, nature of the conflict).
That reading would leave plenty of room for recognizing that individual workers and individual employers may have a good deal in common. It would also leave room for recognizing that the problem with capitalism isn't the personal attributes, dispositions, or practices of individual capitalists, but rather the structural inequity of an institutional relation in which one class systematically gets to determine the fate of another.
Well put Eric! I would like to put your last statement in a concrete context. You said: "It would also leave room for recognizing that the problem with capitalism isn't the personal attributes, dispositions, or practices of individual capitalists, but rather the structural inequity of an institutional relation in which one class systematically gets to determine the fate of another."
I'm a teacher and I face the massive contradictions propagated by the corporate power structure which has trained nearly all workplaces into a subservient mentality which says that I must serve "the team" without offering any semblance of solidarity that a real team would benefit from.
This kind of "team" abdicates all thinking and decisions to a boss/expert/professional. Power is concentrated in the hands of one person/class without the democratic input of the rest of the "team."
Everyday I go to work as a non-tenured teacher and it requires that I endure a painful measure of self-censorship, light treading, ass-kissing, demeaning subservience all because my boss (with who I may have a great deal in common: a love of soccer, fishing, reading, family, etc.) can decide my future (unexaggerated wording) without any input from me, the team, my students and their parents, the community, etc.
My suggestion would be that bosses resign/reassign their power to the true bosses and struggle by our sides. They have the power to refuse to do the bidding of the ruling class! Business owners could rethink their relationships with their employees/workers/wage slaves!
My feeling is that as long as my boss holds sway over my future with the stroke of a keyboard, our common ground will be vacuous at best. I resent, to the level of hatred, the nature of my work relationships!
My dad was a business owner, he was a nice guy (I think), etc., etc., but in the end, I know so little about how his employees felt everyday competing for his favor (to be his next manager, a pay raise, etc.). The employing class (as pointed out by Eric) and the working class do indeed have little in common!
Since she works for a non-profit, where is the capitalist?
Have your wife try an experiment. Have her suggest among the other employees (managers and otherwise) of the non-profit that every member of the organization should be included in the decision making process about all aspects of the organization, and I would bet she will flush out the capitalists/true bosses/"employing class" (i.e. the board, the funders, et. al.).
Trout,
So many questions to address in this post...
Many in the "coordinator" class share the values of the "rank and file" and would associate with our demands if we can express our logic coherantly
We share values, yeah. We share feelings, yeah. We share hopes, yeah. But we don't share all values, feelings, hopes, aspirations. I would like to feel dignified in my work place. I would like to feel my livelihood wasn't under constant duress due to arbitrary and unnecessary power relations.
Imagine if you will, that when the principal of my school tells me to have a nice weekend how it must feel to instantly stress out about what to say to make him like me a little bit more so that I can continue to stuff my three-year probation box with one more possible "positive." Your wife, like it or not, holds power over those she supervises. She can make recommendations that can deeply affect their lives. She has been pitted against people with whom she may indeed share much in common. However, that is minus a most significant element: power. Even if this power is symbolic (recommending hiring and firing), her "employees" do not have the power to make recommendations about her livelihood.
If I was in her shoes I would talk among her fellow "supervisors" about this unequal power relationship and start working towards an end to them.
Self-interest also motivates me to fight for social, economic and environmental justice. Self-interest is one reason I don't randomly punch some people in the face. Self-interest is among the reasons I don't tell my boss to go to hell!
There are plenty of self-interested reasons for creating a just world. I'm sorry for your bad experience with union "hard hats," but that shouldn't lead to a leap that the IWW would ever end up being protectionist, anti-immigrant, etc. The IWW has existed since 1905 and unlike other unions, has maintained a horizontal structure, embraced immigrants, the disaffected, unemployed, retired and all people regardless of race, religion, gender, and sex. It's position is objectively consistent with social and economic justice.
I don't have any problem with what your wife does. I don't think socialism is about the ma and pa business.
I don't think the IWW is the natural extension of your politics. I think you'll always be questioning them. I understand your isolation politically, and they are better than nothing.
The difference between the IWW here and us Trotskyists, is when Graeme came to Minneapolis, they knew he was coming. We are the ones who met with him.
Some of My Best Friends are Bosses
Maybe I should start asking these friends to dismantle their relationships with their employees. Perhaps then I will see who my best friends truly are.
Or, maybe as their "best friend," I'm obligated to point out the exploitative nature of their relationship with their wage slaves. I should be able to talk to my best friends and express my true feelings without reprisal or retribution.
"Dear best friend,
I believe holding power over your employees--a power which can make or break (or at least indefinitely setback) their economic livelihood--is unrepresentative of the values of true justice and democracy."
It seems we could never have such a conversation because our best friend would cease to be our best friend as soon as we ask him to share power, profit, etc. with his employees, but isn't that what we "socialists" are eventually asking? Why are we waiting?
In the meantime, I say hell yeah to the IWW and/or any genuine industrial union that recognizes that even our best friends can exploit us. Even our best friends have power that they shouldn't over our lives. I'm sorry but it seems like we are on a two-way street with one big car taking up two lanes and unlikely to budge, and so until this tension is resolved then the employing class and the working class are going to have little in common.
As a "friend" I owe it to him/her to compel a change. As much as we hate the Bushism: "You're either with us or your with the terrorists," I wonder if such divisive speech is ever relevant. I wonder how long we have to wait to compel the employing class that they are a buffer zone class in a class war (compounded by race, sex, religion and sexual orientation). My principal, supervisors, and managers are doing the ruling class bidding.
And so where are these best friends' loyalties? Hedonistic self-interest? Retirement? Health care? Job security? A new car? A better vacation? A promotion?
It is clearly more complex than this, but it generally applies across the board. There are plenty of wage slaves without power to hire/fire that make lots of money, and then likely have more in common with much of the employing class than poor working class people. But this salaried/wage slave is not typical as he/she is looking to climb to the next wrung and take hold of a scepter of power. And while holding this hypothetical position of high salary without power to hire and fire, he/she has many workers cleaning his/her office, toilets, delivering his/her mail, dry cleaning, etc. So the old Wobbly phrase need not be read tyrannically, but in the nature of an interclass war between the actual capitalist ruling class and the working class (which needs a broad description). I hope Eric has helped add the nuance to this phrase so we can get down to the struggle of spreading power throughout every industry and "fire our bosses."
As far as best friends, when I was trying to change my life to stop drinking, smoking, chewing, womanizing, gambling, etc., my therapist suggested I stop hanging out with my old "best" friends. He suggested that sometimes relationships run their course, especially when "friends" cannot respect our choices to change. Noting our radical positions, we may likely alienate many "friends," and find our place in the world lonely sometimes.
In the meantime, how about a post that describes how a best friend moved uptown through exploitative labor relationships with fellow workers (those with whom we are struggling!).
The use of the word "leadership" in modern corporate parlance gets my goat. It is ridden with class, brainwashing and elitism. No genuine leadership about it.
Sorry if that seems cryptic, but it does relate and I'm on my way elsewhere.
It is my understanding that the IWW doesn't endorse any specific economic program and allows self-employed people to join.
The difference between the IWW here and us Trotskyists, is when Graeme came to Minneapolis, they knew he was coming. We are the ones who met with him.
To be fair to the Twin Cities Wobblies, I only have talked to them over email. I didn't have any specific plans to meet up with them. I have been invited to numerous events, but with full time work and school, it is hard to get to the cities. (The Fargo delegate has been a bitch to get a hold of though)
Common objectives fellas. At this stage of game, it makes absolutely no sense to be fighting over doctrines. Some "anarchists" are so stuck on the anti-authority element they forget about it isn't about being an outsider forever. At least not for me.
Thanks all, if I seem to muddy the water it's because it's my method for sorting out the fines, the different particulates.( different than "fighting over doctrine)
This idea of "class consciousness" is complex as we all know.The Stockholm Syndrome refers to a persons reflexive coping mechanism to identify with his captor (oppressor), another aspect of consciousness (the sub-conscious)and layer of complexity we have to consider in this project.In other words, mis-identifying true self interest.
My issue is with the concept of antagonism. Can I really compartmentalize the abstract "employing class" , create an enclosure into which they are not permitted, yet express no animosity towards the individuals themselves? While we 'dump the bosses off our backs' are we convincing the 'boss'to abandon his position? Do we do this by excluding him from our union? If so ,what is the discursive territory where we meet?
As for "business owners rethinking their relationship" with their employees, the relationship is fixed,it's a commodity relationship, and no intellectual process can change it.Co-management may be just another form of co-opting resistance. It is the profit(surplus) the worker is after, in order to eliminate it as a concept.
As for self interest , I know the IWW is different from other unions by "embracing immigrants" but true self interest tells me more workers willing to work for low wages (a larger labor pool) means more competition in the labor market.Self interest means a cushy management job with perks looks pretty inviting.It is the copetiotion between short term (immediate gain) and long term (eventual true justice) thinking.Which generally wins out?
Post a Comment
<< Home