Anarcho-Stalinism (chuck)

[Dddddd0814 at aol.com]

Again, Chuck seems to be confuscating the union bureaucracies and the workers 
themselves. When he concludes-- again somehow speaking authoritatively for 
all workers-- that "working people dislike unions," what does he mean? Does 
he mean that working people dislike themselves? Does he mean that working 
people no longer need to fight for better wages, less work hours, a better 
standing of living? Are the workers supposed to wait and let their wages and 
conditions degrade further, until another march in Seattle "saves" them, or 
some black bloquistas come along and agitate them into violent wildcats where 
they are shot by the police?

Shot by the police-- you are right, Chuck. "Killed by the government"-- 
that's what happened to syndicalists at the turn of the century. This is how 
the IWW was defeated. You yourself are critical of the IWW, so I am sure you 
understand why: they felt the military would acquiesce in the case of general 
strikes. Meanwhile, the CGT of France, in August 1914, turned about-face and 
began supporting the War.

I am glad, Chuck, that you recognize the corruption and swindle of union 
bosses. With your comment about syndicalism, you seem to be hinting on the 
importance of the genuine power of real labor. But this cannot be 
accomplished from without, by students, youth, lumpen or intellectuals, or 
from an outside organizations which vows to destroy the unions. There must be 
mutiny from within, from where the workers actually are.

-- David
In a message dated 8/6/2 7:44:18 PM, you wrote:


>Vacant individualism? You show your ignorance of contemporary anarchism
>rather boldly.
>
>If we want something more than widespread representation in official NLRB
>unions--like a bigger revolution against capitalim--we're going to have to
>stop wasting our time on labor reformism. I maintain that this failure to
>think big and engage in rear guard tepid unionization efforts, is the
>reason why working people dislike unions as much as other institutions in
>American society. The pro-union leftists would have you believe that
>unions are unpopular because they have been attacked by the capitalists.
>
>Whenever I hear this, I laugh real hard. I find it hard to believe that
>unions are downtrodden when so many of them have nice fucking headquarters
>offices in Washington, DC. Have any of you ever seen these buildings?
>
>And then big labor has millions of dollars to throw around. Right now, one
>of them in underwriting the financing of a swanky new capitalist
>development in Chinatown.
>
>None of these big unions are engaged in ANY kind of class war against the
>bosses. They WORK WITH the bosses. Working people understand this, like
>they understand that voting is a sham, which is why they won't join
>unions.
>
>> > If you recall, labor had more power when it was
>> > autonomous and NOT organized into a few national unions.
>> 
>> Exactly what time period are you thinking of?
>
>The late 19th and early 20th century when workers were being killed by the
>government. Read any histories of the period?
>
><< Chuck0 >>