But, Chuck seems to be in agreement with the labor bureaucracy by his repeated statements that labor unions are only for the bureaucrats, and not for the workers. In another email, he even suggested that agitators go into union halls and workplaces and tell the workers that the unions were not for them at all. He shares their cynicism.
Best, David In a message dated 8/6/2 11:27:15 PM, you wrote:
>Dddddd0814 at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>In that standard opinion poll which asks people what they think about
>institutions in society, unions are consistently at the bottom of the
>ratings. While an argument could be made that unions have a bad reputation
>because of propaganda, I can't see how the unions help themselves at all
>with their practices. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
>that unions consistently sell out workers, or engage in relationships with
>unsavory elements like the mafia.
>
>Do I mean that working people dislike themselves? You are assuming that
>unions are the only manifestation of working class interest.
>
>I like your hostility towards my comments. This shows that I've gotten
>under your dogmatic skin. You assume that unions are the only way to
>represent the worker's interests? Most of us aren't even in unions and
>those of us who are have seen years of unions making concessions to
>capital.
>
>Do you see this cognitive dissonance? If unions are "on their back," why
>do they have these big fancy buildings in Washington? If these unions are
>so interested in representing workers, why don't they fucking sell their
>nice buildings and spend the money on organizing more workers?
>
>Because unions are the left wing of capital. They have a nice arrangement.
>
>Ok, here's a better analogy, which comes from what I've learned about what
>the homeless go through. Big unions are like "poverty pimps," so let's
>call them "labor pimps."
>
>> 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'm sorry, but the IWW wasn't defeated solely by the bullet. This has been
>overemphasized but syndicalists who refuse to face up to the failure of
>their strategy. In addition to government repression, the IWW was torn
>apart by two addition factors: 1) the decentralization controversy within
>the union (which would have helped the IWW survive the government
>repression; and 2) the increased mechanization of agriculture, which
>drastically changed migrant labor, which the IWW was very dependent on for
>members at that time.
>
>> 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.
>
>Right. And the so-called "lumpen" will be helped by our correct position
>paper on this problem? I agree that the mutiny will happen from within the
>unions, without the help of outside leftists and activists who are too
>busy putting workerist ideologies on a pedestal.
>
><< Chuck0 >>