Your point is well taken about the problematic nature of unions, historically speaking. I am not so sure, however, that racism and sexism are essential features of unionization, even if these clearly marred past efforts. And the threat (or inevitability) of corruption seems to be essential to any kind of collective human enterprise whatsoever. (Secretaries of State have been corrupt — I am thinking of Katherine Harris, for example — and there have been poll taxes, but does that undermine the value of popular voting?)

So yes, unionization can be fraught with moral conflicts, etc. But I’m not so sure that this fact undermines its value as a weapon against labor exploitation, etc.

And in any case, what else do people have to work with? There is no improving the political order without collective action. Atomized internet venting is perfectly futile, for example, in the fight against the wealth that pulls the strings. Unions have been an effective tool in past struggles, despite impurities, and when strong have been hated and feared by labor exploiters — hated and feared precisely because they were effective.

At one time I have been a part of a unionization effort (among graduate teaching assistants at U. Wash) the purpose of which was to retain access to medical insurance, and I can say that it was the only tool that even remotely threatened the decision of the Administrators to revoke access to medical insurance.

Nevertheless, I am not expecting to see a resurgence of unionization, nor is this post meant to call for one. Rather, it calls for fighting — effective fighting, which seems to require a collective bound by interest or principle — and not by partisan loyalty or fear, both of which is all too easily manipulated.

So, yes, “a different solution is called for, one that harnesses the positive creative energy now languishing in the parking lots of America and Europe”. Any suggestions?

Good, if sad, point about McCain/Obama