意在赢得罢工农民支持的查韦斯的运动的理论以及他所忍受的绝食引起了公众的猜想。其他劳工领袖惊讶地发现,他建立了一个古怪的,却集合了农民、宗教狂热分子、学生激进分子、政治家、艺术家和工会干部的强大联合。他们齐心协力劝说上百万消费者抵制由拒绝真诚地与农会谈判的农业公司所生产的产品:葡萄、生菜及其它。经他们完善的策略被评论家描述为受迫害情结。比如,一幅饥饿的儿童画像下打出的标题是:你购买的每一颗葡萄都让这个孩子挨饿。
Mr Bardacke is only half-impressed with all this. As he sees it Chvez had two mainresponsibilities: to sustain support for boycotts, which he did magnificently, and toadminister the union, which he did badly. The author notes that the union s membershipcontinued to decline in the late 1980s even after Chvez fasted for 36 days to support itsgrape boycott and anti-pesticide campaign. His verdict seems unduly harsh but then MrBardacke is an old-fashioned leftist. For him, strikebreakers are almost always scabs andgrowers not even worth listening to. This is a pity, for such prejudices mar an otherwiseintelligent, thorough history.
对此,巴达克则不置可否。依他之见,查韦斯担负有两个主要责任:维持对抵制的支持,这点他做得非常好,至于管理工会这点做得很糟糕。作者注明,即使查韦斯为声援抵制葡萄及反杀虫剂运动而绝食36天,工会会员数在80年代末期也不断下降。他的结论看上去过于偏激,但巴达克是一名老左,对他来说,破坏罢工者几乎全是工贼,而推波助澜者甚至可以置之不理。这不得不说是种遗憾,因为其它方面的睿智的、深刻的历史有损于这种偏见。
【2015考研英语阅读工会的力量】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30