Revolutionary role of unions

Joe R. Golowka joeg at ieee.org
Wed Aug 7 21:48:09 PDT 2002



> >> Let's not confuse the "anarchist repudiation of unions" (traditionally
> >> there was no such thing), with the "Chuck Munson repudiation of unions."
> >
> >I think most Post-Leftist Anarchists would agree with him.
>
> ..... not to mention all the anti-union Republicans and Democrats.

Another logical fallacy from the pro-union side. Chuck's criticism of unions that they are not revolutionary enough is miles away from the capitalist criticism of unions. Even if they weren't, a stopped clock is right twice a day. This is like the crude tactics supporters of Imperialism who equate opposition to US attacks on Iraq with support for Sadaam. The only people to actually put forth a rational critique of Chuck's position in this thread have been Doug & Brian. Most of you have been resorting to attacking straw men with the occasional ad homien or other logical fallacy thrown in.

-- Joe R. Golowka Anarchist FAQ -- http://www.anarchyfaq.org

"By popular government they [the Authoritarian Socialists] mean government of the people by a small number of representatives elected by the people. . . [That is,] government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people." - Mikhail Bakunin



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list