The Writers Strike And Labor Castes
Again, my observations regarding the writers strike have received knee jerk reactions stating the default position that we should defend all unions no matter what. That refusing to support any union for whatever reason would be destroying solidarity which we so desperately need to defeat (i.e. bring to the table) capital. And again, without definitively taking a stance on the issue, I’d like to bring up ideas that are not being discussed. All assumptions should be questioned, especially when the way we have been doing things for decades has been such an abysmal failure.
In Jack London’s 1908 novel The Iron Heel, London presciently describes the rise of the oligarchy and the crushing of labor. A key part of the book, the turning point between a labor victory and its ultimate defeat, was the creation of the labor castes. The oligarchs, realizing the strength of labor, devised a means of dividing labor. From labor, the Iron Heel chose the most necessary and skilled labor unions and gave them all they desired. Enough to tempt them into selling out the rest of labor. A small segment of labor was elevated into a higher class, similar to the way a lesser degree of royalty might have been created in the Middle Ages.
The labor castes London spoke of were the skilled, essential labor unions, primarily engineers, machinists and steel workers. This was in the beginning of the 20th Century. Over a hundred years later, the most necessary labor is not unionized. But of those that are, those who write our stories are of vital concern. London could not have known how vital narrative control would someday become, or how secondary industry would be to the U.S. economy.
The American Federation of Labor (AFL) under the leadership of Sam Gompers demonstrated how the skilled labor unions struck a deal with the oligarchy at the expense of unskilled labor. It was left to the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW)and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) to fight for unskilled workers. Since that time, there has always been a rift in labor, whether we wish to recognize it or not. Unions that go their own way at the expense of the greater good should be given no more respect than scabs.
The initial reaction of anyone who fights on the side of labor SHOULD be to support any striking union. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the cunningness of capital and the willingness of workers to betray the cause of labor for their own gain. We must always be aware that capital is willing to cut deals with segments of labor to work against labor as a whole. And just as we show solidarity, so should we be assured that solidarity is shown to the whole of labor.
So let us ask the WGA if they support the cause of labor. And rather than simply asking for declarations of allegiance from those who are perhaps more silver-tongued than any other group, let us look at their actions, as well. How well have those who write the stories that define us as a people served labor?
The last work on labor produced by Hollywood I’m aware of is 2017’s Damnation series on Netflix. It was a powerful exploration of a farmers strike in 1931. Before that, in 2014, was a movie about Caesar Chavez. The last movie I recall regarding the labor movement before that was 1987’s Matewan. And before that was 1979’s Norma Rae. All of these were works worthy of our recognition, but considering the amount of movies and TV programming being made each year, it does show a lack of commitment to the common working people. Considering how much of the rest is not merely neutral concerning the cause of labor but antagonistic to its cause, it can hardly be said that the WGA is a reliable ally of labor.
We all know, or should know, about the blacklisting of Hollywood screenwriters, directors, actors etc. in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Capital understood back then how dangerous were the storytellers who would tell stories contrary to capital, and therefore went after people like Dalton Trumbo (Another movie that might be considered pro-labor would be 2015’s Trumbo. I haven’t seen it but assume it is worthy of inclusion) and Yip Harburg, who wrote songs such as Somewhere Over The Rainbow (acceptable) and Brother, Can You Spare A Dime? (which was likely not acceptable). The point being that those in Hollywood who might cause trouble for capital and support labor were purged 70 years ago, and Hollywood has never really recovered. In the insanity of Russiagate the last few years, many people were censored and cancelled, but other than Susan Sarandon, none of them were known for their work in Hollywood. There is no longer anyone in Hollywood considered a threat to capital.
The question is, then, should labor give its blind support to the Writers Guild of America the way it does to the Democratic Party, or should it make demands (of both)? My answer is that support should be reciprocal. In the case of the Democratic Party, it has been proven over and over again that giving unqualified support is not a winning strategy. It is demonstrable that one favored union is often willing to sell out the cause of labor for their own selfish gains. It is not merely acceptable, it is necessary that labor police its own to make sure that they are standing up for others and not merely themselves. That is, after all, the idea of the labor movement.