[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Notes on co-opting Occupy

[Mike Lehman]

I certainly do share y'alls dissatisfaction with venerable institutions 
selling out those they represent...

On the other hand, if we're trying to build a majority to overturn the 
present system, I'd strongly suggest a more sophisticated approach to 
building alliances. Those revolutions that focus on the need to purge 
our way to utopia in themselves often turn out to be not much of a 
revolution at all.

Just saying.
Mike Lehman

On 5/3/2012 5:06 PM, David Johnson wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Great E-mail !
>
> Yes, the UAW bureaucrats are very much involved in the 99 % Spring thing.
> When I went to their pathetic training in Chicago in March, the head of the
> UAW Northern Ilinois Region was there.
> I saw the UAW logo on his polo shirt and  commented on it, and that is when
> he introduced himself to me.
> I know Greg Shotwell who Louis ( original e-mail subject author ) refers to
> and YES ! The UAW over the last 30-years has de-evolved into a corporate
> collaborationist so called " union " from it's once proud militant heritage
> and actions during the 1930's and 40's and even through the 70's.
> I said from the begining of the Occupy Movement that rank and file Union
> members need an Occupy Movement within the Unions as well, coordinated with
> the general Occupy Movement.
> Many liberals may feel uncomfortable about this topic, but they must
> understand that although the neo-liberal capitalists are the primary enemy,
> the majority of the Union bureaucracy ( with the grand exception of the
> U.E. - United Electrical Workers ) are collaborators just as the French
> Vichy " government " were collaborators with the nazis, and hence we need to
> support not the collaborators, but instead the REAL Resistance and REAL
> democracy !
> If anyone doubts my statements I would be more than happy to give specific
> examples about the UAW 's track record alone, not to mention other Union's
> malfeasence against the democratic will and the best interests of their
> members they are suppose to represent.
>
> David Johnson
>