Damn, I've really gotten under some skins today! People are already calling me names without addressing my arguments.
See my answer in the other email to this question.
> > 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
Oh, give me a break! Capitalists as persons may hate unions, but capitalism requires the presence of tamed unions to channel worker anger away from strikes and wildcat dissent.
This is why reformism is so vital to those in power. If workers have a place to vent their anger--unions--then they can't organize among themselves and resist capitalism.
As an anarchist, I would point to the problem of "legibility." The state--which works on behalf of capitalism--prefers things and processes that are legible in order to control them. Unions (especially the moderate ones) perform as legible institutions that capitalism and the state can control. What capitalism and the state really dislike is when the "unwashed masses" take matters into their hands without approval from their leaders. A typical example of this is when workers make a wildcat strike against the wishes of the union leadership. Or when workers defected from the labor march at Seattle and joined the street resistance.
> >> > 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.
Well, I'm not saying that getting killed is a measure of success that we should strive for, but that period in our history was known as a time when workers were pretty powerful.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)