Re: AUT: Anarchism & Conflicts

[cbac2 <cbac2@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

guy debord wrote:

> 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;

Are you sure - why then do bourgeise governments bother trying to smash
unions, and come up with new ways of organising the workforce so as to
discourage collective organisation?

Unions inherently seek reform, at the most basic level immediate
workplace reform (i.e. "we want five minutes longer for coffee," "we
want hand cream in the toilets," etc..

It's no secret in Australia that unionised industries carry better pay
and conditions, and its no accident that industrial legislation seeks to
limit the role of unions to struggles over wages and conditions. Despite
this unions continue to be the organisational form through which
militant workers give their political voice formal expression... don't
get me wrong there are conservative unions everwhere, but "inherently"?
You make it sound like the character of a union has little to do withthe
class composition it reflects.

> 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.

Seems more like a rhetorical circle to me. Unions that do not function
as good social reformist associations are likely to incur the wrath of
the state, and be banned if they go so far as to use industrial power
for political causes - this doen't mean they can't, or don't.


> 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?

Perhaps you need to differentiate between union's memberships and
union's leaderships.

> 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.

How else are we to organise to struggle over day to day demands (I want
a revolution but I also want to maintain my wage!)? Isn't "union" a
catach all term for a variety of organisations of workers anyway?

> 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.

Unions are one organisational form through which, every day, workers
carry out a formal class struggle over wages, the length of the working
day, etc.. It's not the unions themselves that are revolutionary but the
proletarians they sign up - the struggle *within* the unions determines
their character.

Andrew C







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