>In regard to unions, which seems to be a related matter, I
>think they're great and I think anarchists who disparage them
>out of hand are falling prey to petit-bourgeois sensibilities
>(heh). But one should not forget that they are _liberal_
>institutions, groups of persons with something to trade who
>combine their efforts to advance their interests, and not
>expect too much of them -- success will almost certainly
>lead to bourgeoisification, as we observe.
If success inevitably leads a group to bourgoisification, then bourgeosification is the inevitable destiny of society. Only successful movements can change society and this view means that success is fatal.
But then, this isn't that odd a statement. There is a whole wing of the left that prefers the purity of failure, since it avoids the actual strategic choices required by any moderately successful movement for social change. There is a perpetual utopianism allowed by failure.
-- Nathan Newman