Re: AUT: Anarchism & Conflicts

[Jamal Hannah <jah@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, guy debord wrote:


> > 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.

What the"leaders" do does not neccesarily make the union
counterrevolutionary, becauee the rank and file was revolutionary.
>
> 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.))

The italian fascists were origionaly SOCIALISTS, not syndicalists.
Mussolini worked on a socialist newspaper.  This is a common falicy that
Marxists make.

As for the CGT of france.. the same thing happened with the major union in
South Africa.. it started out syndicalist but Marxists took it over.
Entryist tactics sometimes do this.

There is nothing inherently reactionary in syndicalism. However, the
strategy you support certainly hasnt worked.




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