Re: AUT: Anarchism & Conflicts

[guy debord <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Remember that if large, truly revolutionary unions
>existed, we'd be in a more revolutionary situation.

i doubt this is true. two reasons:

1) i don't think direct, revolutionary rank and file
control could fix the position of unions as they exist
within the capitalist framework. this position is: the
aclimatization of the working class (thus unions are
an intrigal part of the capitalist machine). this is
why unions are inherently reformist; and actually: it
is reformism that made unions so easily recuperable (i
would agree that unions, generally speaking, started
out as basically revolutionary) -- thus: the vicious
cicle that is unionism. a union which does not
function in this way cannot continue to exist... or at
least can not grow to include, in any meaningful way,
a membership outside of the currently consciously
revolutionary.

>In a revolutionary situation, some unions will choose
>a radical path (like, the IWW or CNT), and some will
>fight against the revolution (like the Stalinist
>controlled CGT of France. the CGIL of Italy, the CCOO
>of Spain or the AFL-CIO of the USA.

2) the example of the cnt in spain: from june 18th on
the cnt developed into a rigid hierarchy, which ended
in many of the now "leaders" taking positions in
government, issuing what were essentially orders for
workers to put down their weapons during the maydays
(which was obeyed!), etc.

so: even tho the anarchist/revolutionary marxist
workers (including large numbers of the cnt rank-and-
file) in spain carried out a revolution, the cnt as an
organization (thru it's hierarchy) ended up being
counter-revolutionary. as did the anarcho-syndicalist
union which existed during the mexican revolution. let
alone the tendency of some syndicalist unions to
become the ideology-machine of stalinists (cgt-france)
and fasicsts (the italian fascist-syndicalists), etc.
((there is no reason to believe that the iww wouldn't
do the same things if given the chance.))

so the question becomes: why has syndicalism dropped
the ball so many times? what is inherent in
syndicalism which enables it to become nothing more
than a statist lacky in revolutionary moments?

to me the answer is simple: the relance on the
"syndicate" or union, a reformist machanism which has
been completely recuperated by capitalism, as its
principal model of organization and method.

this leaves out other problems of syndicalism, such
as: the division of labour inherent in most
syndicalists' vision of the future (ie: the idea that
a union structure, which relies on the division of
labour -- capital's cheif work-organizing method,
could somehow be "creating a new sociey in the shell
of the olde"), tendencies toward bureaucracy, etc.

to me believing that unions can somehow realize
revolution is no different than believing that a
political party can. both forms were reformist from
the onset, and both are part and parcel of the
capitalist system.

guy
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com


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