Re: AUT: unions and revolution

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Neil wrote:

>dear bill Bartlett,
>
>Your smokescreen  evasions to my exposure
>of  once progressive , now outmoded -and now
> bourgeois state  integrated unions of the 20th cent
>is disingenuous.

INDUSTRIAL, adj. 1. of, or pertaining to, or resulting from industry or
productive labour, 2. having highly developed industries. 3. pertaining to
the workers in industries.
UNION, n. 1. the act of uniting 2 or more things into one. 2. the state of
being united; conjunction. 3. something formed by uniting 2 or more things;
combination. 4.  a number of persons , societies, states, or the like,
joined together or associated for some common purpose. 5. trade union.

(The Little Macquarie Dictionary)

Mind you, my dictionary also defines "unionist" as a "trade unionist",
which is somewhat illogical. Convince me you are not doing the same.
>
>Just deal honestly  with my examples of the  mass
>movements, economic/political , leading to the Russian soviets-
> councils of 1905 & 1917. How about the western soviets/councils  in
>Germany and Austria post WW1 ? The red Turin workers
>movements in Italy in 1919-20?
>How about the mass struggles in France in '68
>and Italy in '69?
>Did  not these and other movements not show how unionist
> structure/business is reactionary in this epoch?

It annoys me somewhat that it is constantly inferred  that I deny trade
unions are not revolutionary. I have acknowledged that, can we move on?

The French uprisings of '68 really put the shits up the ruling class all
over the industrialised world. But lacked unity and purpose, correct me if
I'm wrong, and thus was able to be diverted and diffused in various ways?
But I'm not one of those who expects such spontaneous revolts to lead to
socialism, so what are you getting at.
>
>You just don't show you have the slightest idea why these
>and other rev. struggles/movements had to face
>down the unions as well as  open bourgeois -state
>reaction as open enemeies who wanted to drown
>the rev. workers organization in blood --and certainly
>they succeeded, unfortunately for workers of the world.

Good reasons why we should be organised, united and purposeful don't you
think? Got any ideas about how we should get started on that project?
>
>Don't confuse your own  apparent shallow understanding
>of workers rev. history with the concrete historical
>examples i presented to try to show how the developemnt
>of the capitalist exploiter  system from ascendency to outright
>barbarism  helped change the nature of the EPOCH
>and the UNIONS!.

Knowledge and understanding are entirely different things. Sorry if I seem
shallow to you, I'll try to make a better impression from now on.
>
>Smokescreens  won't cut it Bill. Workers deserve/demand  better.

Smokescreens were not intended, sorry I didn't make myself clear, which
part didn't you follow?

>Cut the personalisms -deal with the events themselves
>in the proper hisorical and social context.
>Sorry to offend your Deleonist ritualisms.

By "DeLeonist ritualisms", I take you to mean my belief that socialism can
only be achieved through the class-conscious action of workers themselves,
acting in unity and with purpose. They don't seem to be all that offended,
but neither are they exactly torn to shreds by your incoherent ramble.

Don't take it personally, just trying to ignite some brain cells, including
my own.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---