The "anarchists" that run antistate.com and lewrockwell.com also dislike unions, and say true anarchism is unfettered capitalism. Even if they were the majority trend, they would be wrong, as well. Arguing with post-leftists, primitivists and primitivist fellow travellers is a bit like arguing with the writers at those sites. No matter what they want to call their ideas, no matter what tradition they want to hijack with their own innovations, the actual substance of their principles has so far failed to withstand any basic scrutiny. It's like Shane asked, if not unions, what? Workers combining into organizations to protect their mutual interests - that's a basic staple of the principle of mutual aid. Is it only bad if we call this a "union"? If this is the minority trend, to believe in these kinds of basic solidaric examples of mutual aid, then more's the pity.
> Like many anarchists, I'm very hostile towards big unions, for
> solid pragmatic and political reasons.
WHen absolutely pressed it seems like a lot of 'post-leftists' and their sympathizers will say, "Well, I'm only opposed to business unions, not real class struggle unions" - a sentiment I share. But otherwise there is nothing but negative polemics against unions from these same people, who make no effort to distinguish between the kinds of unions they like and the kind they dislike. It's simply "unions are reformist," etc., leaving the reader to believe that the writer thinks all unions are bad. Class-collaborationist organizations of *any kind* are bad, union or not. And they do exist, yes. But there is no law, natural or supernatural, that says that workers' organizations must inevitably turn out this way.
> Which anarchist is Albert? Don't know that one. Albert Parsons?
Albert Parsons was the husband of Lucy Parsons. No, I did not mean Michael ALbert. Ha! :)
Brian Oliver Sheppard