I'm not sure how we can determine the political nature of an institution once and for all; institutions themselves are breathing organisms, largely dependent on the historical & material climates in which they operate. HOWEVER, I see your point. But, I would change your last sentence to "success of unions that are isolated and independent of a larger workers' movement, will almost certainly lead...."
And besides, a number of successful revolutionary movements, including the Russian Revolution before the larger revolutionary tide waned internationally, had a strong union element. This could also be said for several leftist movements today-- the Zapatista movement, often an anarchist favorite, have quite a strong tie with F.A.T., one of the main union organizations down there. The numerous ongoing socialist revolutions in Latin America and Asia-- like the FARC, the so-called Shining Path, and Nepal Maoists-- also have significant ties to labor.
JKS wrote:
"Quite. But then there is another wing of the --left?-- that prefers moderate short term success (or the prospect of it) at the expense of any long term aims. Thus the people, if there were any around here, who adhere to the Democratic Party as the only possible source of policy change and heap scorn on those who regard it as hopless--a course which inevitably means (since there is no reasonable prospect of capturing the DP or transforming it into a radical organization) chaining ourselves to an organization whose aims are antithetical to ours on all the big things...."
A good point. Indeed, we see that there are two kinds of left cynicism here. One denies the natural expression of actual workers' struggles to actually do better for their familes, and moves to the "mythical center." (ooh, a naderism!) The other denies this expression and postures itself on the far-left without proposing any real, possible alternative. But, when put to the test, these forces often join. The best example of this is in Spain, where the CNT-FAI and POUM joined the bourgeois Catalan government in 1936.
Gordon wrote in his next letter: "There's also some question, I think, as to whether large-scale production would be as universally desirable in a non-capitalist system as it is in a capitalist one. Take for example the generation of electric power -- one may find solar cells, fuel cells, local wind power and so on more desirable where a money return on investment isn't what's being maximized."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that in a non-capitalist system there will be the same drive for profit, independent of human need?
Gordon: "The successs of a _union_ leads to bourgeoisification, because the values, understandings and relations with which a union is organized are liberal -- as I said, they're groups of persons who are combining to advance their collective and private interests, very much like people forming a corporation, partnership, or cooperative. When and if they succeed, there will be a difference between them and the people who haven't succeeded, and they will be motivated to attempt to conserve their advantages, that is, enter into a class relation with the rest of the community."
I think this is a good summary of the activities of what happens when unions fail to be connected to a larger political movement. Indeed, a new bureaucracy is created, analagous to the state bureaucracy of the Soviet Union under Stalin. But, a truly revolutionary labor movement would need to do more than advance wages and benefits for those working-- it would need to address the issue of increasing unemployment (i.e., the poor and jobless, who would be the "people who haven't succeeded" that you're mentioning). To address the issue of unemployment is to address an issue that is fundamental to the success of capitalism, that is, perpetual unemployment by a large amount of people.
The end of unemployment (locally, let alone globally) is by economic definition impossible to legislate under the capitalist parties, i.e., the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Thus the need for a labor party, financially and socially based not in the capitalists but in the trade unions, which are funded by workers themselves. A mass workers' party would run candidates in meaningful elections at municipal, state and federal levels, with an economic AND political platform in the interests of workers including: reduction of the workday to 4-6 hours, full and gainful employment for all, open borders and immediate legalization of all immigrants and "resident aliens," immediate end to military service and full-scale disarmament of all military at home and abroad, full universal health care, etc., etc., etc.
"Isn't this what we generally observe in history?"
By and large, we've observed, thusfar, a history of relative levels of class collaboration. But, to really examine this history, we need to bypass the standard subjective morality with which this history is presented (i.e., "class collaboration is BAD," "capitalists are EVIL"), and examine the real economic factors at work. The most progressive historical examples of organizing against capitalism (i.e., radical labor organizing, and the "actually existing socialisms"), have been carried out in circumstances of marginal economic development, where the immense pressures of capital from without led to the establishment of elaborate bureaucracies, paranoiac heads of state, etc. But, when we're talking about the United States in 2002, we're talking about something fundamentally different. Here, there is a relatively high level of development, the contradictions of a fully-developed capitalism expose it as an economic system that is not just ripe, but rotten. And the resources available to organizers are comparatively immense.
"But liberalism is not the only possible route of political development and activity."
I think we've shown, above, that unions aren't necessarily and infallibly "liberal". Unions are tools in the hands of those who use them. The failure of unions to truly represent workers are due to real economic pressures from without, not ahistorical forces of "greed" and "evil" personalities from within.
Best, David