Commentary by long time libertarian syndicalist, Tom Wetzel:
“This is where the historical tracks of electoral democracy and cohesive working-class power sharply diverge. There is no workplace organizing at scale possible in rural regions that lack universities or hospitals—the workplaces are too small and diffuse; but without unions, it’s hard to see what mediating institutions might mitigate anti-cosmopolitanism. Without a multiracial coalition that can bring together the rural and urban working class, Democrats have little choice but to calibrate their economic platform to appeal to both workers and wealthier professionals, in continuation with the party’s overall strategy in recent decades. The burgeoning labor-left professional managerial class—represented by the readership of this journal and also Jacobin—provide a cultural spark, but it is not yet large enough to change outcomes outside of deep blue areas. For now, unions can do little to create the institutional ballast that would enact the class solidarity needed to offer an alternative.”
There are a number of things wrong with this piece but many socalled “progresssives” in labor bureauacracy share this view that change comes from electoral politics. In some rural areas there do exist some larger manufacturing workplaces — such as auto assembly plants, poultry processing plants, meat packing plants.
There is no such thing as the “professional-managerial class”. there are two different groups there that belong to different classes. There is the bureaucratic control class whose job is controlling labor, the firm, state agencies — managers, supervisors, high end professionals working in that area such as HR experts, “industrial engineers” who design jobs, “marketeers”, corporate lawyers. And then there are the low level professionals whose position structurally is akin to core working class — teachers, RNs, ordinary writers, librarians, programmers, etc. The latter at times form unions, do not manage other workers.”