I just wanted to post my topic here before someone would take my topic. Thanks much,
A social movement can be defined as a whole group, rather than the just the leaders of the movement, coming about to bring some sense of action towards an ideal, action, or policy. The group cannot be defined by a mainstream industry, because the fame from media may cause the distraction as quickly as the fall. The institution that uses the collective effort should not be so big that economics can control the flow of the money needed to promote the organization, yet the organization should be something that many people can back up, even if it doesn’t necessarily effect them directly.
The Indiana Right to Work is a social movement fitting of this definition, because although the leaders of the unions talk with government officials about changing laws, the dependency of the success of the movement is not dependent on one specific person. This a link to their website– http://indianarighttowork.com/ — this really only contains questions and answers, a flawed system that clearly expresses through it’s holes that is free of fame in the media and an institution.
This is the only ad on the website for Indiana Right to Work. Check this out and then continue…
The problem with the add for this groups is that it says nothing about the work to right law and everything about leaving the “little people” alone. This is an unsuccessful tactic for someone who knows little to nothing about the movement. The ad should express something that shows the importance of independent unions, instead of just sad families. There is no credibility to this video or logic, so even thought this is a social movement, one could claim that an unsuccessful add approach could destroy it.
The Indiana Right to Work is a grass root’s movement according to the text. There is not an overwhelming report of activities, other than an add on their website, and pictures of people protesting at the state level. In the same regard to the text this movement has ideals being fraught for in their neighborhood. It is a reformist type of movement in that it seeks to fix a law in legislation. The text also describes that “just as institution are created by people, so they can be changed policy by changes in the hands of the people”. The text also describes the tactics of the movements being demonstrations or the use of force (483). The problem with this movement is found in that the main rally’s are found only in protests with signs at governmental places. There is no word on facebook or media or good advertisements that come out of the movement. This is an example of “modest reforms” that do not get the opportunity to reject or play by media’s rules. (485)
The Indiana Right to work Social Movement has expanded in the last year with Indiana passing the bill. This bill according to the Right to work website ”a major anti-worker overhaul of Federal labor law pushed through by the 80th Congress despite a veto by President Harry Truman. It is worth noting that this was the first Republican controlled Congress since 1932.” “Right-to-Work” law prohibits a union security clause thus creating a “Right-to-Freeload” law.” This complicated loophole at its most simple form takes union power away from the employee and puts it in the power of the employers. This causes problems in wages being fair trade for the work done is a place such as a factory.
So recall back to Marx and how the bourgeois wanted to control the proletariat. This is a prime situation based on the Republicans controlling legislature in Indiana. The proletariat may protest against the employers, but remember, they need to work to support their life. The Simons and Jones text would suggest that this looks like “we-them” statements. These statements are beneficial for those who need to know that this argument is against a group of people oppressing this one group. It’s the cry of if you are not for us then you are against us. The text describes this type of tactic as militant tactic, because it relies on a “power-vonruble degree” with something to loose for those who can not participate in it. Marx would have been on the side with the workers, because ultimately this is only movement they can change, and only they have the right to change. For Marx, this was even more important to our capitalistic society, because without the groups that fight for the workers rights, the worker becomes a drone unaware of abuse. The republicans are unlikely to repel this act because they hold the power and the power will have to shift in order for Workers-rights to win. So although the power needs to shift, and the workers need to have a bargaining chip, it’s a social movement because of it’s ability to rally a group of hopefuls determined to seceded and fight an injustice to the system they live in.