Re: AUT: unions & revolution

[billbartlett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Bartlett)]

Neil wrote:

>Reply to CACanny of IWW/Wash.

<<SNIP>>
>
>But he IWW has since the 20s, though it still had honest worker
>fighters in it, been passed over by its own economism,
>its local-yokelism, and  hostility to workers fighting with two
> hands --political and economic, instead supports the  one hand fighting
>method
> (economic) of the IWW, etc. going up  against a ruling class that punches
>workers lights out with any blow it can mount , above or below the
>belt.

What the hell is local-yokelism when its at home? I partly agree with this
analysis of the faults of the IWW, but the logical alternative to the
"one-handed" ("economism") strategy Neil criticises is the outmoded "19th
century" DeLeonist thinking he derided in his post of Nov. 7th. We seem to
be getting somewhere.

But I still don't know what the verb to "Bogart" means.
>
>But your own experience here shows your method/programme
>of syndicalism  cannot handle the problem of dealing with
>the filthy capitalist lib-lab politics that hamstrings workers-
>and even leads to real  IWW capitulation to them..
>And that is a  fatal contradiction  that  has helped lead your trend
>in its awful quandry for the last 75+ years.

That argument has weight, but exactly what do you see as the faults of
syndicalism? Is it something inherent, or merely a strategy that is
incomplete as in "economism"?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.




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