Last week’s thunderous defeat of
the UAW by workers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga auto plant goes to the role
Protestant culture often plays in nullifying moral questions. Jung and Tillich described
it as creating a state of “dreaming innocence.”
Their analysis of the nature of true evil—brought to the fore by their experience
with Nazism and Sovietism—pointed to the use of religion to induce in people an
imaginary innocence, blinding their ability to see evil by playing off their
sense of being overwhelmed, of being powerless.
This requires mythicizing and re-writing history. The weekly labor columnist at the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson, describes how that was done in Chattanooga.
This requires mythicizing and re-writing history. The weekly labor columnist at the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson, describes how that was done in Chattanooga.
Matt
Patterson of the Center for Worker Freedom (a spin-off of Grover Norquist’s
Americans for Tax Reform), compared the UAW’s campaign to the Union Army’s
occupation of Eastern Tennessee during the Civil War and urged workers to repel
it as Confederates forces had done to that Union army at the battle of
Chickamauga. Clearly, this was not an argument Patterson would have made had
the plant employed more than a handful of African-Americans, but Chattanooga
remains one of the whiter bastions of the New South. (The website established
by the Center for Worker Freedom is emblazoned with a logo reading “Liberating
Labor, One Worker at a Time”—quite the slogan for a group that equated its
anti-union struggle with a battle to defeat the army that actually freed
Chattanooga’s slaves in 1863.)
Meyerson describes the role Walter
Reuther’s UAW actually played in the emergence of social liberalism:
…no
institution played a larger role in the construction of postwar American
liberalism than the UAW. Under Reuther’s leadership, the union provided funds
to civil rights activists who conducted the Montgomery bus boycott, paid for
the buses and sound system at the 1963 March on Washington, detailed staff and
dollars to the efforts to build municipal employee unions and Cesar Chavez’s
United Farm Workers, donated resources to the fledgling efforts of Students for
a Democratic Society and the National Organization for Women, and helped fund
the first Earth Day.
Fundamentalist Christian
Evangelicalism lives off the bitter sense of belonging to an underclass, so prevalent
in Appalachia and deeper south locations like Chattanooga. It makes one cling to racial identity and the
dream of innocence in a world one is unable consciously to acknowledge actually
bends him to this low estate. In the virtually empty slogans of this form of Christian
parlance, God both loves you, redeems you and protects you from the very agency
the Gospel proclaimed to be yours. Meyers continues on the important theme
of self-management and self-governance:
For all of labor’s
troubles organizing in the white South, Volkswagen was the one campaign that
labor thought it could win….the union had won the support of the German
auto-and-steel workers union, IG Metall, which, under the terms of Germany’s
“co-determination” law, controls half the seats on Volkswagen’s corporate
board. Indeed, due to Volkswagen’s Nazi roots, the American authorities in
postwar Germany made the company go one step further, requiring a two-thirds
majority from board members for any significant policy decision—in effect,
giving the union veto power over Volkswagen’s various projects. Many of the
workers who opposed the very idea of a union at Chattanooga argued, rightly,
that Volkswagen was a good employer that paid them well and respected their
rights. They failed to realize that the company’s conduct had been largely
shaped by influence that IG Metall wields over VW’s labor relations.
How did the Levitical teaching that you are not to slander your
neighbor nor profit from his loss—claimed as roots by three world faiths—compose
such contradictory violations in Chattanooga?
The answer is more and more faith communities are in love with the idea
of themselves, the grace of God that will always protect them and save them. Of
course this means evil can run rampant and your neighbor can be slandered
because even to mention it would mix politics with religion.
Faith communities that practice in the public square can build agency
and responsibility for the battle against evils like those that carried the day
in Chattanooga. They can freshly study and embrace the idea of worker dignity,
worker co-determination—let us even say worker ownership—because it acts out,
makes real, the sovereignty of individual freedom in its indissoluble responsibility
to do justice to one’s neighbors, to one’s co-workers.
Can evil grow? Yes, and its petri dish is inequality.
Can evil grow? Yes, and its petri dish is inequality.
IInequality does seem to be the key, to the Chattanooga VW vote and the general decline in union density, as well as so many other trends:. Supreme Court Decisions, inadequate health care reform which is really health insurance reform, voter suppression, etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteIn searching for the causes of inequality, we are increasingly led to examine the basic economic structure of the contemporary world. Your previous post looked at 50 years of capitalism. A forthcoming book by Thomas Picketty, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, takes an even longer view, synthesizing his work covering over 200 years, and posits inequality as the inevitable result of capitalism.
Previews describe it as a monumental (nearly 1,000 pages) study of the fact and causes of inequality. In a length review (http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/52384.html) for a pending issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, World Bank Economist Branko Milanovic states “that we are in the presence of one of the watershed books in economic thinking.” What’s the stir all about?
Picketty is one of the preeminent researchers of income distribution and concentration. Along with his fellow-Frenchman, Immanuel Saez, he has deepened the study of income distribution by using fiscal rather than household survey data for his work, which placed new emphasis on the dramatic rise in the very top incomes and the stagnation of the majority. But his new book goes beyond this: “Picketty’s unstated objective is nothing less than the unification of the theory of economic growth with the theories of functional and personal income distributions, and thus a quasi-complete description of the function of a capitalist economy.” ( Milanovich, p.2)
Just a few of his conclusions:
The period from 1917 to 1975 was a special, untypical period of capitalism, which because of the world wars, the depression and strong social pressures, reduced the political power and economic advantage of capital(wealth).
If the rate of return of capital and wealth exceeds that of the rate of economic growth, there will be an increasing concentration of income and wealth at the top. (K>g).
Since this has characterized capitalism for the past four decades we have returned to a more normal functioning of capitalism and growing inequality.
Picketty is pessimistic about efforts to curtain and reverse this trend. He says that only a progressive, global tax on wealth would get at the root causes of inequality. Others, who share his view of the cause, are not as pessimistic.
Kate Bronfenbrenner , labor studies professor at Cornell University was one of two guests discussing the VW vote on the PBS News Hour last night. She attributed the loss to a mediocre campaign by the UAW, deceived, she said, in part by over confidence and a failure to take the opposition seriously.
ReplyDeleteI know little about the campaign other than the corporate and political right-wing attacks on the union. Is her assessment accurate and fair?
Here is a link to a thoughtful reflection on the vote: https://portside.org/2014-02-22/reflections-defeat-suffered-tn-workers-volkswagen
ReplyDeletetest comment
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart exposed the hypocrisy of Senator Corker and other politicians in the period leading up to the vote on the union at Chattanooga. Jon showed clips of the Senator preaching his faith in the free market, saying that government should not interfere in the market by picking winners and losers. At the same time, the Senator himself intervenes in the vote by creating false fears among the workers of the consequences of approving the union.
ReplyDeleteHarold Meyerson, in his article "When Culture Eclipses Class," referred to above, points out that if the union had been approved, a works council would have been established, a consultative labor-management council that meets regularly to shape company policy on working conditions. This would have been a golden opportunity -- the first in the United States -- to demonstrate a new constructive partnership between labor and management. The opportunity was lost because of the rigid ideological obstinacy of Senator Corker and others.
Paul Lindsay