Amazon's union & Dorothy Day's anarchism

no to picking sides/yes to getting to work

So I interviewed Chris Smalls, the founder of the Amazon Labor Union, for Compact, highlighting his reluctance to “pick a side” (political party) and instead to just get to work with organizing on the ground.

He says that establishment politicians “are all talk,” which is why he has opted to steer clear of the Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns. 

…

Smalls’s pessimistic outlook toward the current political climate has only served to embolden his efforts to organize on the ground. Much like O’Brien, Smalls has demonstrated his commitment to cutting across partisan lines to prioritize the needs of workers. “We speak to all parties and all constituents,” he told me. “I organize in Staten Island, which is the only red borough out of the five. I can’t go over there and say, ‘I only support people on the left.’ To keep it worker-led, we need to ask what needs to be done to improve all workers’ quality of life.” He says he has “been caught with the same kind of heat” as O’Brien for appearing on Fox News, Breitbart, and other outlets he isn’t “too fond of.” But it’s important not to “shut people out” just because he doesn’t align with all of their politics.

…

[Smalls] offers a compelling, realistic alternative to our increasingly polarized and performative political landscape, which ultimately helps maintain the imbalance of power and agency between bosses and workers. 

Prophetic, not normative

We’ve written frequently about the “prophetic” impulse to disassociate from mainstream politics (esp. in the form of voting 3rd party) and promote/work toward a “higher ideal”…an option which risks overt idealism—but hey, somebody’s gotta do it.

While talking with friend of the ’Stack

Valerie Stivers

, I mentioned that Dorothy Day’s anarchism (and pacifism) should not be taken as normative—as it’s completely imprudent and unsustainable—but as prophetic. She sets the bar higher for us normies, reminding us that the norm is far from ideal and that it should not be confused with the ideal.

Day’s position against recognizing or accepting the authority of the State was based on her conviction that (1) Christians should—like the early Church—live mutual responsibility, looking to each other and not the State for support, and (2) the post-industrial capitalist State was too corrupt for devout Christians to work with(in).

I recently cited her skeptical attitude toward accepting help from the State in my piece for EuroCon:

Day, who founded the Catholic Worker movement with Maurin in 1933, once observed that many prefer “getting aid from the state … to taking aid from their family. It isn’t any too easy … to be chided by your family for being a failure … They prefer the large bounty of the great, impersonal mother, the state.” And yet, Day insisted that “no matter what people’s preferences, that we are our brother’s keeper … that we must have a sense of personal responsibility to take care of our own, and our neighbor, at a personal sacrifice.” 

…

To conceive one’s responsibility as an actual response to external forces, to allow my freedom to be elicited by what Chesterton would call the element of “surprise,” is risky business indeed. It implies forging relationships and making commitments to things and people who exist beyond my control. It’s no wonder so many of us prefer the allure of total self-reliance or, as Day insisted, to accept support from the impersonal “mother State” than from one’s kin. 

As much as she has a point—especially given the expansive power of Oz-like technocrats running the show behind a curtain, it would be impossible for every Christian to take up this position…to never work with, within, or accept help from the State.

But again, if no Christians take up this position, we’re all screwed. And if you do take up this position, you better get to work…and not take it up as a posture in order to soothe your narcissistic conscience.

On elitist progress:

Smalls powerfully rejects the notion, still touted by even many liberals, that “social mobility” is the cure to workers’ plight. Mobility isn’t an appealing—let alone feasible—option for everyone. “People work at Amazon because it’s not a hard job…. I worked there for years. And if it had the right safety net, it would be a really decent job.” Smalls’s approach champions the interests of those who are more intent on improving their conditions “as is,” in the here and now. Those committed to authentic progress should take note.

I made a similar point about Pasolini’s brand of leftism and Vance’s (not an endorsement) brand of right-populism:

While teaching at an inner-city school in New Jersey, I came to understand well the tension between said “false progressivism” and authentic proletarian politics. Upon being asked about the solution to black poverty, a (black) establishment Democratic politician told one of my students that youth of color needed more access to STEM programs so they can get lucrative jobs after college…“so they can help their communities,” he added, mechanically.

Nothing against STEM, but to posit that the “solution” to poverty–no matter what color or ethnicity it comes in–is to work your way up the neoliberal ladder of success–alone–is anything but progressive. As those who have read or watched Hillbilly Elegy know, Vance is far from naive about this narrative of “selling out” in order to “help” one’s community…and its consequences.

Elitist pandering on identitarian issues is more often than not a mask for their disdain for working-class culture and its esteem for community and belonging. And it flies in the face of history: As I commented in essays for Compact and elsewhere, the strength of minority populations and the success of the Civil Rights movement has been driven not by the spirit of individualism, but by rootedness in tradition, community, and culture. 

For more…

on Amazon, listen to my interview with Bill Cavanaugh and read my piece on boycotting Prime.

Come join us

At the Catholic Worker Maryhouse on 12/13 for a talk about how Dorothy inspired Cracks in PoMo.