[Marxism] New York Times coverage of Chicago factory occupation

Steve Palmer spalmer999 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 8 03:45:28 MST 2008


Obama is not supporting the occupation of the factory but the demands of the workers: 'I think that these workers, if they have earned their benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.'

They'll try to get the dispute out of the factory and into the courts or arbitration or some such thing, to 'get a just solution' etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if an Obama-minder issues a 'clarification' that makes clear that he's not supporting the occupation as such, he just wants the workers treated fairly, understands why they've resorted to this tactic, counsels moderation, both sides should talk, find a compromise blah blah.

Obama's job is to calm things down, defuse confrontation, 'get both sides round the bargaining table', urge patience, encourage negotiation, ensure moderation and generally pour molasses onto the class struggle, spread confusion, doubt and uncertainty and slow it down and head it off. He's a reformist. His mission is to 'prevent things getting out of hand' and generally make soothing noises and gestures while trying to fix US capitalism.

I doubt that he realizes (yet) that workers are going to take his comments as legitimating factory occupations etc. I'm sure that the 'Republic' workers they are thinking of this as a struggle about jobs, not just getting fired 'fairly'. In one of the reports one of the workers was quoted as "having nothing to lose".

I'm surprised that nothing happened any sooner. I'm anticipating that soon someone being foreclosed on and evicted will barricade themselves in put a few slugs through the bailiffs.


      




More information about the Marxism mailing list