> Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
>
> I had written:
> >>worker-solidarity on a global basis seems to have difficulties of many
kinds.
>
> 8/19/97, Andrew *Hund* wrote:
> >It was a passing thought.
>
> But an important one. If we can't even seek worker solidarity, then what
> hope to reverse globalization?
"In theory" a global union would be a creation or development of a global
society/culture. So, within this limited framework it would be a form of
globalization rather than a reverse or hindrance of such.
>
>
> How could the interests of workers at different rungs of the economic
> ladder be harmonized in a single progressive framework?
Obviously, unifying individuals with different earnings and lifestyles is
impossible without a distinct common enemy. Social class and status walk
hand and hand. There is no "economic incentive" for a person who is doing
well to help out someone who is economically oppressed. Pretty standard
cost-benefit-analysis type thinking.
In what terms
> could solidarity be formulated?
Individuals with common threads/similar backgrounds could perhaps be
interested in helping out their symbolic counterparts throughout the world.
Seeing yourself as "that" person across the globe, nation, or state
organizing (struggling?) for better working conditions, health benefits,
and descent wages is a means to achieving solidarity.
Ps. Why doesn't the "world system theory" explain social change?