I was drawn to a recent post The Wobblies (IWW union) at a food co-op? which you can read on George’s Employment Blawg. As usual, George raises some interesting questions for which there are no simple answers. However, his post got me thinking:
1. The Wobblies could never re-emerge as a political or acitivist entity today any more than there is currently a mass market for manure. When the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was conceived horses were as important to the economy as was the wholesale exploitation of downtrodden workers and the lumpenproletariat. Of course, times change. The Wobblies today represent a romanticism that should not be confused with political activism. No, I’m afraid the 24-year old new-age Wobblies are about as connected to the political past as their Goth cousins are connected to ancient history. I think George should have known that before asking, “Is there something inherently inconsistent about unionizing a co-op?”. With all due respect, George, that is a stupid question. Should all Catholics be priests and nuns?
2. The irrelevancy of the IWW today should not distract us from the legitimate debate regarding human rights in the workplace. Who is going to say there is not a good case to be made for mobilizing in defense of those enslaved around the world – estimated to be around 27 million – or for agitating for improved working conditions for sweat shop workers, exploited children, women forced to work as prostitutes, and so on. As long as economic interests transcend human decency there will always be a need for someone to stand up and say: “This is not a good enough society for me, or you, fellow-citizen, human soul!” I agree it may not be the Wobblies, but who then?
3. I understand famed intellectual and social commentator Noam Chomsky is one of the most celebrated Wobblies in the “movement” today. Anyone who has an interest in digging deeper to better understand the legacy of our sepia-tainted and uniquely American anarcho-syndicalist organizations should read Chomsky’s work and his contribution to modern thinking that argues a case for the evolution - not revolution - of an anarcho-capitalist society.
I know, I know - where’s the relevancy of this for us, today? Where’s the connection here? Well, I submit:
Blogging and the democratization of the web are classic examples of the type libertarian society characterized by anarchist thinkers like Chomsky - a society itself characterized by freedom of association, mutual aid, loose confederation and social networking in the absence of governmental oversight and authoritarian regulation. While silly Wobblies may be all screwed up trying to get food co-ops to spill the beans - ridiculous - perhaps we should start getting passionate about “sticking it to the man” ourselves. Before it’s too late.
Thanks for the quick pickup on my post. I stayed up late to finish it and when I awoke you had already joined the fray with more complete and cogent thoughts than my own! Your blog has now joined my monstrous blogroll at George’s Employment Blawg.
I am uncertain exactly what you meant by the following:
“I think George should have known that before asking, “Is there something inherently inconsistent about unionizing a co-op?”. With all due respect, George, that is a stupid question. Should all Catholics be priests and nuns?”
The analogy between the questions can be interpreted to present different answers to the first question.
I would answer your question: “of course, not all Catholics should be priests and nuns; it depends on many factors, notably their own personalities and preferences.”
So the answer to my original “stupid question” is “sometimes, George, but don’t overgeneralize. A union might be needed in a particular co-op that was exploiting employees despite its lip-service to utopian principles.”
Or is your point the less subtle one that both questions are “duhs,” but my “stupid question is a “duh, yes” and yours a “duh, no”?
Hey, George:
My point regarding the question you asked was not relative to the unionizing of a co-op which I think you implied was odd – hence my Church comparison - but that you should have known that the Wobbly agitator’s where about as politically in tune with the today’s realities as the ‘punks’ they more properly represent. I’m sorry - reading it again I can see I was unclear.
My referencing your question as stupid should not imply that I think you are. I know for a fact that you are not! I would never mean to cause you any embarrassment. If I did, I apologize.
Amitai
Goerge says: I take it, though, you agree that there is some
inherent contradiction, or at least irony, in organizing a co-op?
Recruitomatic says: Absolutley, yes! Just as it would be an inherent contradiction to expect all Catholics to be priests and nuns.
I hope this clears things up.
Amitai
The Businesspundit has a related post on some more Wobblie antics: A Starbucks Union? Surely You Jest.