Actually, Peace, I think a discussion of unions, especially their role as agents of social change, is very pertinent to any discussion about poverty in the USA. I believe a revived labor movement will be an essential element in effecting the rather massive changes in the current power structure, laws, and formal social institutions that are going to have to occur to effect social change on the scale that will be required. And I don't think the labor movement that will be an essential element in effective change in the future will look exactly like pre-globalization labor movements. That labor movement, (and the rest of us) are going to have to 'think globally, act locally,' to borrow a cliche that has merit.

I'm thinking out loud here. I opine it is going to take a lot of thinking out loud to figure out the means by which important and necessary changes might occur to improve the social welfare of our society.

___________________________________o_______________________________



Mick's comments on the transformation of the big unions from labor movement to institution continue to intrigue me. Many of the social institutions that have arisen to promote the welfare of the people - 'the common man' - have their origins in social movements that began outside of the established systems and power structures of their time. Agents for social change challenge the institution.

Thesis=the Establishment. Antithesis=the 'outsider change agent.' Synthesis=a reformed institution, or sometimes a new institution that may replace, or may be in addition to the existing social institution. Then, out of the sythesis arises a new or transformed set of challenges; A new thesis and a new antithesis emerge. This is the nature of the change process.

And what the f*ck does this have to do with poverty? It is a framework for understanding and effective problem-solving that accepts dilemma. It acknowledges the complexity of the issues, and also that every solution, i.e. synthesis, brings with it another set of problems and issues. It leads to more "yes, and" thinking, and less "yes, but" thinking.



Janie