unions and "logical fallacies"

Dddddd0814 at aol.com Dddddd0814 at aol.com
Fri Aug 9 21:08:30 PDT 2002


In a message dated 8/9/2002 8:06:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, chuck at tao.ca writes:


> I'll grant that some forms of radical unions might provide the grounds for
> a workers struggle against capitalism.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Chuck. Perhaps there is not as much antagonism here as we think there is, and we are simply coming from different perspectives.


> I think that these organizations
> would need to go through some radical changes in order to be effective.

Exactly. I would be highly suspect of anyone who said that unions, in their present form, could affect radical change. They can't-- and that's why we need to work to build a movement against the bureaucracy from within the unions. The unions themselves contain the actual people and actual resources to get the job done. And, masses of real people and a massive amount of real resources will be crucial in any struggle against capitalism-- wouldn't you agree?


> My
> personal preference would be for a strategy of networked economic
> disruption. This would be illegible to the state and the bosses and would
> be a strategy that would be hard to sell-out or corrupt.

This is trickier than it seems, Chuck. We cannot just go into unions as non-members and get people, in a matter of an instant, to go against both their bosses and their corrupt union leadership. People are already walking a tightrope as it is-- they don't want to lose their jobs because their jobs are their only means of livelihood. People have families to support, health concerns, housing problems, etc., etc.


>
> Big business unions are not the answer, because they are not engaged in an
> ongoing fight against capitalism.

But, there are hardly any "big business unions". The vast majority of workers in the United States are not organized into unions at all. A large, well funded, mass union movement is necessary before we can talk of taking on capitalism. You seem, above, to understand the importance of labor stoppage (i.e. "networked economic disruption"): Well, labor stoppages can't be organized by people who either a) have no job security, or b) have no job at all!

Best, David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020810/6e8c4386/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list