"Post-Leftist Anarchists" are anti-union. Anti-union Democrats and Republicans are anti-union. Post-Leftist Anarchists and anti-union democrats and republicans unwittingly share ideological ground.
Damn! never was good at those syllogism thingies.... let me try another:
"Chuck's criticism of unions" never includes a viable alternative for workers. "Capitalists' criticism of unions" never includes a viable alternative for workers. ERGO "Chuck's c.o.u.'s" = "Capitalists' c.o.u.'s"
No, that one seemed to work out fine. The only "fallacy" I see here is that Chuck fails to bring to the table an alternate to worker unionization, and instead reiterates his "straw man" that others (again) flesh out their concepts, so he can disagree with them (again) in the negative (e.g., "Fuck the Teamsters," etc.) and further avoid spelling out any other feasible model in the positive. The workers are starving for crumbs and it's 1 o'clock in the morning.
And, no, there AREN'T enough votes for a filibuster, so I'm going to bed.
-- David purveyor of "evil" unions and "evil-er" electoral politics
In a message dated 8/8/2 4:47:53 AM, you wrote:
>> >> 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 tacks 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.