AUT: Re: Unions and revolutionary potential

["Per-Anders Svärd" <per-anders.svard@xxxxxxxxx>]

>an intrigal part of the capitalist machine). this is
>why unions are inherently reformist; and actually: it


I do agree on the unions being inherently reformist. But the question remains: if not unions - then what? The day-to-day-struggles carried out by the unions of today - be they ever so corrupt - we could hardly make without. Sure, the unions have been coopted by capitalism - yet they do have a function for the workers welfare and standard of living. After all, the "historical compromise" which spawned the (bourgeois) european welfare state was based on a genuine fear on the part of capital for a radical, even revolutionary, workers' movement. Where the (reformist) unions' influence has been reduced we can clearly see the difference it has made for the workers' conditions and standard of living (take Thatcher's Britain for example).

So while the unions are a big stumbling block for social revolution, they are also a means of protection of those meager victories we have, in fact, won. Without the unions - what could we hope for? The radicalization the working class as a result of further immiseration and discontent? That would be a bleak vision indeed. Or the building of an autonomous revolutionary organization outside of the established parties and unions? I guess the later is the one to opt for, but how do we best proceed towards that goal? By calling for the abolition of all existing unions?

/Per-Anders





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