> 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.
Right. Working people hate unions because they're not explicitly anti-capitalist. What world do you inhabit?
> 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.
Voting in NLRB elections is anything but a sham. The capitalists realize this. That's why they expend billions of dollars each year fighting unionization efforts. They realize most workers want to join unions, and would if not for expensive anti-union campaigns. It goes without saying that capital expends far, far less to combat the threat to its existence posed by contemporary anarchism. Perhaps if the sundry Anti-Capitalist Convergences spent less time infighting and expelling members this would not be the case, but I remain skeptical. :P
>> > 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?
Getting killed by the state is for you a measure of labor strength? Interesting.
mark