attack, unions & party (discussion split from FBI raids thread)

[citizen of industry]

thread split from here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/fbi-jttf-raids-t173808/index.html - admin



I'm on my phone so I can't really flesh out a good response, but I was talking to my friends in Oakland about this last night.

To be communists or anarchists or whatever means that we're at war, right, like, whether we accept that idea or use that language or not is irrelevant. We're here to destroy the existing social order by force, and its what we spend our time working on. So let's not feign surprise or indignation at the state when they act in a manner that accepts the reality of the situation (war).

To organize effectively around this is not to oppose repression (afterall, we support the repression of our political opponents). The effective and honest way to organize is within the mindset or the combatant, ee don't oppose repression, we oppose the capitalist state and its institutions, and so I think that attack is one of the best ways we can react to the state.

If you're looking at it from a war perspective, you have to consider the balance of forces. Attack is good and all, but don't you need enough people, i.e, an army, to launch one? You could devote your activity to building cadre, agitation, etc., economic crisis, etc. i.e., building an army and waiting until a more favorable balance of forces. But I'm having trouble seeing how "attack is one of the best ways we can react to the state" with the current balance. Wouldn't it either be something small and anonymous that causes trivial damage nobody would notice, or else something that would just get you shot and imprisoned while looking stupid that wouldn't at all threaten the capitalist state or its institutions?

[The Douche]

I'm confused as to what this is a response to I think.

To Jimmie's worry about the solidarity actions.


Attack is good and all, but don't you need enough people, i.e, an army, to launch one?

Well, no, not really. You just need to capability to attack, your strength determines your targets, your frequency, and your intensity.


You could devote your activity to building cadre, agitation, etc., economic crisis, etc. i.e., building an army and waiting until a more favorable balance of forces.

I don't really agree with the other actions or, at least, the way you've phrased them. But if we are not simultaneously destructive and creative, if we do not regularly both attack and build, then we're not going to succeed. To focus on just "movement building" will end landing you in the domain of reform and the left, to focus solely on the construction of positive communities, will leave you isolated into a counter-culture, and to only attack, well, that'll end up with you being dead or in prison.


But I'm having trouble seeing how "attack is one of the best ways we can react to the state" with the current balance.

So when it comes to our relationship with the state, instead of attack you would prefer to see...


Wouldn't it either be something small and anonymous that causes trivial damage nobody would notice, or else something that would just get you shot and imprisoned while looking stupid that wouldn't at all threaten the capitalist state or its institutions?

Intensity has to be escalated, obviously people have to start out small because their resources are limited and they have little experience, those small actions are about learning and cutting your teeth, not to mention they present the only correct answer to the question of demands or dialogue (the answer is no).

[citizen of industry]

So Blanquism, with no mass support whatsoever, with an increasing technological disparity in weaponry. I recall the homemade "mortar" attacks on the base that didn't stop work for a minute, weren't even reported to the "victims" of the attack who didn't even know they had been "attacked" while simultaneously being reported in the press in another language as "terrorism" to discredit the "attackers." Contrast that to a petty crime next to the base that shuts the whole base down for a week for fear of bad PR and you get my drift. The soldiers would rather be "mortared" than have a robbery occur in front of the base that keeps them locked up for a week. Without mass support for those actions they are worthless, imo.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I guess I can understand being suspicious of attack turning into the empty propaganda of the deed of the past but is "building cadre, agitation" even a realistic option? Why are those organizations getting smaller and their agitation less and less effective? Something is wrong with that tactic.

[The Douche]

So Blanquism, with no mass support whatsoever, with an increasing technological disparity in weaponry. I recall the homemade "mortar" attacks on the base that didn't stop work for a minute, weren't even reported to the "victims" of the attack who didn't even know they had been "attacked" while simultaneously being reported in the press in another language as "terrorism" to discredit the "attackers." Contrast that to a petty crime next to the base that shuts the whole base down for a week for fear of bad PR and you get my drift. The soldiers would rather be "mortared" than have a robbery occur in front of the base that keeps them locked up for a week. Without mass support for those actions they are worthless, imo.

What? Did you even read my post?

[citizen of industry]

I guess I can understand being suspicious of attack turning into the empty propaganda of the deed of the past but is "building cadre, agitation" even a realistic option? Why are those organizations getting smaller and their agitation less and less effective? Something is wrong with that tactic.

Are they getting smaller? Trade union memberships have picked up a bit post 2008, as have party memberships, I imagine. I guess you could link it to economics, "building cadre, agitation" isn't effective without crisis, which are inevitable. The same could be said for propaganda of the deed I suppose.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Are they getting smaller? Trade union memberships have picked up a bit post 2008, as have party memberships, I imagine. I guess you could link it to economics, "building cadre, agitation" isn't effective without crisis, which are inevitable. The same could be said for propaganda of the deed I suppose.

Do you consider trade unions to have a revolutionary character? Or even an anti-capitalist one? I doubt the old vanguard parties are growing in any meaningful way. I'll bet the psl got some members out of Glen Beck's attack on them a few years ago, but for what? A few more people to shout "money for x not y!" once a month? Not even a crisis can turn back history it seems.

[Ele'ill]

Without mass support for those actions they are worthless, imo.

Without mass support for mass support mass support is worthless.

[citizen of industry]

Do you consider trade unions to have a revolutionary character? Or even an anti-capitalist one?

An anti-capitalist one definitely. Any improvement in working conditions means a reduction in profits. Typically, unions attempt to secure higher wages in times of growth, and prevent workers from being dismissed or having their wages reduced in times of crisis. Regardless of whatever phase of the industrial cycle, they are anti-capitalist. Rank and file unionists usually involve themselves in very open fights with their employers that most often don't result in success. I don't know how many times I've seen "Occupy" activists put on a mask and demonstrate, but shy away from organizing their workplace for fear of the boss, even when such activity is protected under bourgeois law and the more agressive you are in the workplace the less able the boss is to fire you.

The labor aristocracy is pro-capitalist, and governments put a huge budget into smashing unions, creating scab unions, and coopting unions, expelling radicals, and turning unions into organizations that "increase productivity." Despite that many unionists battle their bosses and win.

As for revolutionary unionism, yes, there are many unions who officially proclaim organizing as a class and overthrowing the state. I can give you references if google is too time consuming. From experience, they attract the same amount of cops and secret police as a 100,000man demo, but it still goes off.

Reference history here as well. Union activity over the past two centuries has been violent and anti-capital, and has resulted in the 12 hour day, the 10 hour day, the 8 hour day, weekends, safety regulations, benefits like overtime and health insurance, etc.

[citizen of industry]

To focus on just "movement building" will end landing you in the domain of reform and the left

How so, if you reject electoral politics or liberal movements unrelated to class struggle?


So when it comes to our relationship with the state, instead of attack you would prefer to see..

Attack, as is plainly clear in my post. But we need to clarify "attack." I don't consider actions that don't do any considerable damage, don't threaten the state, don't attract people, are anonymous and not especially risky as an "attack." It seems more like desperation from giving up on the majority of a population who is not class-conscious, but experiences violence every day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To be communists or anarchists or whatever means that we're at war, right, like, whether we accept that idea or use that language or not is irrelevant. We're here to destroy the existing social order by force, and its what we spend our time working on.Well on this general point: relations of production can not be destroyed by force, the institutions which protect them can, but the relations need to ultimately be replaced by something else... some kind of worker's democracy from below, worker's power, collective and cooperative relations (or alternative harmonious analogues that basically get to the same things).

IMO this is beside the point in this case as the problem is much more concrete and immediate, but I do think the larger strategic concept informs different views on what tactics are best. So I want to see our class prepare itself for taking down the old order and replacing it cooperatively and consciously and I think an important part of that - especially as we build our networks and experience - is building up our ability to create real solidarity and defense of any repression - against us or immigrants or whatnot.

Being able to defend ourselves from oppression is an important part of being able to go on the offensive as a class and I think that's partly why "free-speech" struggles helped lead to the 60s New Left as well as helped the IWW establish its roots and ability to agitate.

Part of what is good and admirable about some of the more adventurist views in Occupy is that willingness to stand up against repression and keep coming back. The weakness IMO is that right now, or at least during Occupy, this fight-back was largely based on momentum and the individual will and determination of individual radicals. Rather than creating class power to push back, it's the individual moral determination of some which is unsustainable in the long run in my view based on looking at the experience of the 1960s or even the way that going to court all the time or being arrested burned out individuals in the Occupy movement.


So let's not feign surprise or indignation at the state when they act in a manner that accepts the reality of the situation (war). Not at all, this isn't a game. But this is also why, looking back on radical history, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that these kind of actions, without larger solidarity and open defense and agitation can be effective at all.

Of course they always want to attack us if our message gains a wider resonance or if we are effective. But, historically, they have not always been able to do this. Time and time again, their strategy for repression has been isolation of radicals and then attack. If our actions are anonymous and not connected to forces in the working class movement, then we can be swept under the rug and thrown away without anyone noticing: "Oh it was just some hooligans, oh it was just some gang-bangers, oh it was some terrorists, oh it was some illegal immigrants".


To organize effectively around this is not to oppose repression (afterall, we support the repression of our political opponents). We're not talking about some abstract repression, this is capitalist state repression and opposing that is not contradictory to supporting suppression of the capitalist class at some point.

[Ravachol]

To be communists or anarchists or whatever means that we're at war, right, like, whether we accept that idea or use that language or not is irrelevant. We're here to destroy the existing social order by force, and its what we spend our time working on. So let's not feign surprise or indignation at the state when they act in a manner that accepts the reality of the situation (war).

Kinda reminds me of the last words of Eugen Leviné, leader of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic:



We Communists are all dead men on leave. Of this I am fully aware. I do not know if you will extend my leave or whether I shall have to join Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. In any case I await your verdict with composure and inner serenity. For I know that, whatever your verdict, events cannot be stopped. The Prosecuting Counsel believes that the leaders incited the masses. But just as leaders could not prevent the mistakes of the masses under the pseudo-Soviet Republic, so the disappearance of one or other of the leaders will under no circumstances hold up the movement.

[The Douche]

Siembra Socialismo:


How so, if you reject electoral politics or liberal movements unrelated to class struggle?

You don't reject those things though.


I don't consider actions that don't do any considerable damage, don't threaten the state, don't attract people, are anonymous and not especially risky as an "attack."

Ok, I don't consider you to be a communist, but our interpretations and definitions of certain things are really irrelevant. You can say that smashing police cruisers is not an attack if you want to I guess.

jimmie higgins:


Well on this general point: relations of production can not be destroyed by force, the institutions which protect them can, but the relations need to ultimately be replaced by something else... some kind of worker's democracy from below, worker's power, collective and cooperative relations (or alternative harmonious analogues that basically get to the same things).

Right, and I've already made comments about the need for the positive aspect of the communist project (i.e. the one that builds and creates).


But this is also why, looking back on radical history, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that these kind of actions, without larger solidarity and open defense and agitation can be effective at all.

I don't think anybody thinks that way, certainly nobody in this thread has expressed it.


If our actions are anonymous and not connected to forces in the working class movement, then we can be swept under the rug and thrown away without anyone noticing: "Oh it was just some hooligans, oh it was just some gang-bangers, oh it was some terrorists, oh it was some illegal immigrants".

This is really how its always been throughout history, even when radicals of various stripes were very numerous and capable of mobilizing large amounts of people and were part of the public consciousness. Debs was receiving hundreds of thousands of votes (almost a million) and that didn't stop the state from imprisoning him.


We're not talking about some abstract repression, this is capitalist state repression and opposing that is not contradictory to supporting suppression of the capitalist class at some point.

But opposing state repression is like opposing police brutality, there is no "police brutality" there is just "police" and there is no "state repression" there is just "the state".

[citizen of industry]

You don't reject those things though.

I do reject electoral politics. I don't vote and am not a member of a party that participates in electoral politics. The liberal movements I've participated in personally, i.e., Occupy and anti-nuke, I've done critically.


Ok, I don't consider you to be a communist, but our interpretations and definitions of certain things are really irrelevant. You can say that smashing police cruisers is not an attack if you want to I guess.

Well, your interpretation of "communist" is certainly off the mark if it has nothing to do with marxism. Smashing police cars is an attack, especially if supported by the community. If I roll out and spray paint one it is not much of an attack. I can do far more damage to capital in my own workplace.

A lot of people though, are more terrified of their bosses than police cars.

[The Douche]

The liberal movements I've participated in personally, i.e., Occupy and anti-nuke, I've done critically.

Your support for trade unions (a mediating tool fully assimilated to empire) seems pretty uncritical. Now I'm sure you have some token criticisms of union bosses and things like that, but you obviously support the trade union as an anti-capitalist vehicle.


Well, your interpretation of "communist" is certainly off the mark if it has nothing to do with marxism.

First of all, one does not have to be a marxist in order to be a communist, and second of all, one does not have to interpret marx in the same way as you in order to be a communist.


A lot of people though, are more terrified of their bosses than police cars.

I think you're wrong.

But this is neither here nor there and I'm not gonna play some pathetic game with you where you try and pretend that I am opposed more to "police cars" than bosses or the concept of bosses.

[citizen of industry]

you obviously support the trade union as an anti-capitalist vehicle

I do, and nothing more really needs to be said. Aside from "token disagreements with union bosses" I've been in splits and advocate going for the top, i.e., revolutionary unions. A mediating tool? You must be joking. It's an open and brutal fight with every boss.

[The Douche]

I do, and nothing more really needs to be said. Aside from "token disagreements with union bosses" I've been in splits and advocate going for the top, i.e., revolutionary unions. A mediating tool? You must be joking. It's an open and brutal fight with every boss.

How is settling a contract "an open and brutal fight with every boss"?

[citizen of industry]

How is settling a contract "an open and brutal fight with every boss"?

Try it sometime and you'll find out, after years of struggle and solidarity with your coworkers, frustrating organizing under union busting, strikes, demos, lawsuits, family pressure, sometimes violence. Maybe you'll get a collective bargaining agreement in your favor if you've produced enough leverage, or a settlement. But probably not.

[The Douche]

Try it sometime and you'll find out, after years of struggle and solidarity with your coworkers, frustrating organizing under union busting, strikes, demos, lawsuits, family pressure, sometimes violence. Maybe you'll get a collective bargaining agreement in your favor if you've produced enough leverage, or a settlement. But probably not.

I grew up in a union family, I was out on the picket during the last verizon strike (not a CWA worker, just stopped by to drop off some water/gatorade and flyers). I think you're confusing unions being absorbed by capital with unions "doing nothing" or something.

Liberal and progressive activists work hard all the time and face violence and arrest, and sometimes their actions result in good things, but that doesn't make them revolutionaries and it doesn't make their organizations into revolutionary vehicles.

[citizen of industry]

I grew up in a union family, I was out on the picket during the last verizon strike (not a CWA worker, just stopped by to drop off some water/gatorade and flyers). I think you're confusing unions being absorbed by capital with unions "doing nothing" or something.

Liberal and progressive activists work hard all the time and face violence and arrest, and sometimes their actions result in good things, but that doesn't make them revolutionaries and it doesn't make their organizations into revolutionary vehicles.

Hence the need for a revolutionary party. In any case, strikes, solidarity strikes, sit-down strikes, sabotage, work-to-rule, factory committees, etc., are all an explicit rejection of capital.

[Ravachol]

There's a lot of residual Christianity in your argumentation Siembra. Just because someone suffers for this or that cause does not mean it vindicates the cause or that it is actually going anywhere. The imperialist soldier suffers brutal hardships, so does the reactionary wahabist militant and the nationalist-seperatist guerrilla. Suffering and martyrdom do not vindicate a struggle by itself.

Unions exist solidly within the framework of capitalism, a structure capable of containing both globalization and 'the anti-globalization movement', both Israel and Palestine, both USJFCOM and Al-Qaeda, both employers and unions.

The unions exist as an expression of the negotiation of the particular conditions surrounding the sale of labour power. The (claim to) represent the workers as workers within capitalism and act as a limited expression of their interests re. their reproduction as proletarians. The principle of the union is the negotiation of the proletarian condition, not it's negation. The union-form is fundamentally incapable of challenging Capitalism, not due to bureaucracy, the 'incorrect political line', top-down structures, 'vulgar economism', etc. but due to it's fundamental nature. The former are all consequences of the latter.

Sure, unions are capable of negotiating better living conditions now and then when workers are militant enough to put on the pressure. But that's only because of the class struggle that gives content to the form of the union, a form which channels this content into a collaborationist practice. The unions act as a pressure valve, a tool of labour discipline. This is necessary because negotiation is only possible when the union is capable of controlling the workers it represents, if it is not capable of smoothing the gears of capitalism and guaranteeing social peace, management has no interest in negotiating with them as they are an empty husk. As a manager at a multinational in South Africa once said when asked why his company had recognised the workers' union: “Have you ever tried to negotiate with a football field full of militant angry workers?”

[Ravachol]

In any case, strikes, solidarity strikes, sit-down strikes, sabotage, work-to-rule, factory committees, etc., are all an explicit rejection of capital.

Unions, however, are not. There is a whole history of political strikes used as a reactionary means of political bargaining to achieve this or that political goal. Ulster Unionist trade unions close to the paramilitary UVF and UDA used strikes (like the misleadingly named Ulster Workers' Council strike) to further sectarian nationalist goals. There was no rejection of capital there.

All the things you mention originate with the workers, not the union-form.

[citizen of industry]

You are taking the "suffering" out of context, and comparing a labor struggle to a reactionary soldier on the basis of suffering. I never made that argument. Union demands are in opposition to capital's demands, and the logical conclusion of unionism is expropriation and worker control over the means of production. You have to make a distinction between reactionary unions who grease the gears of capitalism and those that reject it. The labor movement isn't homogenous, and undergoes the same factional struggles as the left.

[Ravachol]

Union demands are in opposition to capital's demands.


Yes, but not outside of them. The demands of one individual capitalist are in opposition to that of another. You're confusing immanent contradictions within a structure with aspirations to transcendence outside of the structure.



and the logical conclusion of unionism is expropriation and worker control over the means of production.


No it's not. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Unionism is just fine with bargaining for 'a fair day's wages for a fair day's work'. Besides, worker control over the means of production is not outside of capitalism by itself. There's more to capital than that. Self-management is compatible with capitalism.



You have to make a distinction between reactionary unions who grease the gears of capitalism and those that reject it.


What unions do not grease the gears of capitalism? As I pointed out, the role and function of the union is immanent to the logic of capitalism, not outside of it. The activity and struggle of workers is often in opposition to the logic of capital (though often still within the logic of capitalism before the whole mess bursting wide open) but the union-form channels this activity into negotiation, compromise and other functions a steam-valve has.



The labor movement isn't homogenous, and undergoes the same factional struggles as the left.

I don't think 'the left' (whatever that may be) is opposed to capitalism, let alone outside of it.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't think it's impossible to both support the idea of unions and still be critical of their lack of revolutionary character in their current form. After all, Engels said "At the side of, or above, the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation of the working class as a whole" indicating his belief that unions should form a integral part of the Party structure. As they are now, most unions throw their weight behind the centre-left parties (such as the Labour Party in the UK) but clearly there is historical potential from the CNT in Spain to the IWW in the US and PAME in Greece.

However, this is quite far removed from the original topic. Solidarity from the UK! Keep up the struggle!

[citizen of industry]

Yes, but not outside of them. The demands of one individual capitalist are in opposition to that of another. You're confusing immanent contradictions within a structure with aspirations to transcendence outside of the structure.



No it's not. I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Unionism is just fine with bargaining for 'a fair day's wages for a fair day's work'. Besides, worker control over the means of production is not outside of capitalism by itself. There's more to capital than that. Self-management is compatible with capitalism.



What unions do not grease the gears of capitalism? As I pointed out, the role and function of the union is immanent to the logic of capitalism, not outside of it. The activity and struggle of workers is often in opposition to the logic of capital (though often still within the logic of capitalism before the whole mess bursting wide open) but the union-form channels this activity into negotiation, compromise and other functions a steam-valve has.



I don't think 'the left' (whatever that may be) is opposed to capitalism, let alone outside of it.

Here, you are lumping all unions into one homogenous grouping, and making a generalization about them based on the role of unions in capitalist society, improving working conditions for their members. However, many unions, and unionists, seek to use their organizations as vehicles that "transcend capitalist structure," as the best way to improve working conditions for their members is to abolish capitalism. Have you read the preamble to IWW's constitution? The CWI, Doro-Chiba, etc. Unions are an integral part of any revolution. Many explicitly renounce "a fair days work for a fair days wage" (I've actually never seen that slogan used by any union i've been in) and specifically call for an end to wage slavery. Many more unionists would aspire to this, if it wasn't for the labor aristocracy and the stain Stalinism left on communism.

I'm not a syndicalist, and see the need for a revolutionary party. But I don't see how you can deny the revolutionary potential of organized labor.

[citizen of industry]

I don't think it's impossible to both support the idea of unions and still be critical of their lack of revolutionary character in their current form. After all, Engels said "At the side of, or above, the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation of the working class as a whole" indicating his belief that unions should form a integral part of the Party structure. As they are now, most unions throw their weight behind the centre-left parties (such as the Labour Party in the UK) but clearly there is historical potential from the CNT in Spain to the IWW in the US and PAME in Greece.

According to Marx, "Now and then, the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate results, but in the ever expanding union of the workers." He also wrote:


Apart from their original purposes, they must now learn to act deliberatly as organizing centers of the working class in the broad interest of its complete emancipation. They must aid every social and political movement tending in that direction. Considering themselves and acting as the champions and representatives of the whole working class, they cannot fail to enlist the nonsociety[unorganized] men into their ranks. They must look carefully after the interests of the worst-paid trades, such as the agricultural laborers, rendered powerless by exceptional circumstances. They must convince the world at large, that their efforts, far from being narrow and selfish, aim at the emancipation of the downtrodden millions.

I interpret that to mean the role of a communist in regards labor unions (only one role of many) is to build them, look after the interests of their members and work to give them that political character. Unfortunately, many communists, "who have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement" prefer instead to abandon the unions to the most conservative elements and then only criticize them for being so conservative.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I interpret that to mean the role of a communist in regards labor unions (only one role of many) is to build them, look after the interests of their members and work to give them that political character. Unfortunately, many communists, "who have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement" prefer instead to abandon the unions to the most conservative elements and then only criticize them for being so conservative.
I agree to an extent; communists should be actively organising with the working class. The issue I have, and I think the one being raised, is that working with unions such as UNITE is pretty much entryism in the Labour Party. The Labour Party is composed of a bunch of old trotskyists and communists of other stripes who routinely soldier on with their neoliberal agenda and their union support is doing nothing but greasing the cogs for that process. I support them when they win a victory for the working class because I'm not souless and I want my fellow workers to have better lives but they are so entrenched in the system that they would more likely be counter-revolutionary than support any revolutionary thrust.

[citizen of industry]

I agree to an extent; communists should be actively organising with the working class. The issue I have, and I think the one being raised, is that working with unions such as UNITE is pretty much entryism in the Labour Party. The Labour Party is composed of a bunch of old trotskyists and communists of other stripes who routinely soldier on with their neoliberal agenda and their union support is doing nothing but greasing the cogs for that process. I support them when they win a victory for the working class because I'm not souless and I want my fellow workers to have better lives but they are so entrenched in the system that they would more likely be counter-revolutionary than support any revolutionary thrust.

I agree with that. Hence the distinction needs to made between the different character of specific unions, not generalizations about unionism as a whole. Also, if my workplace was unionized in a UNITE union, I would join that union and attempt to give it a political and militant character. If minority unionism was feasible (is it in the UK?) I would likely join a second union instead.

[Ravachol]

I don't think you got the point I was trying to make, I suggest the following texts:

http://libcom.org/library/unions-against-revolution-g-munis

http://libcom.org/library/organized-labor-versus-revolt-against-work-john-zerzan


Also, if my workplace was unionized in a UNITE union, I would join that union and attempt to give it a political and militant character.

Ok, let me try it this way. What would that attempt look like? What would UNITE be transformed into for it to be 'revolutionary'?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, let me try it this way. What would that attempt look like? What would UNITE be transformed into for it to be 'revolutionary'?I think this is a bit of a straw-man in terms of the relationship of revolutionaries to organized labor. I don't think unions can be made into vehicles for revolution directly, even at best, they are defensive organizations which, as you argued well, are also inherently creatures of capitalism. This defensive nature along with the natural ups and downs of struggle and militancy mean that these organizations will always be pulled towards conservativeism (in a labor, not political sense, though they can be politically conservative too) and accomodationism - especially in periods of low struggle. This is true for revolutionary unions too, though rather than ceome increasingly bureaucratic (and undemocratic) in times of low struggle or retreat, they tend to just dwindle and collapse (if they stick to their revolutionary politics).

So I don't think the role of revolutionaries should be to try and make existing unions revolutionary (or create new revolutionary unions on principle) - however I think they are still important not because of the leadership but because of the membership. The union itself may not become revolutionary, but the membership - through their experiences both struggling against the bosses as well as experiencing the limitations of non-revolutionary unionism - can become radicalized and learn the tools to fight.

Concretely what this would mean is organizing as rank and file when there is a union in our workplace. Sometimes, in periods of mass militancy, unions will be pulled along (if only for fear of becoming irrelevant as struggle surges) but generally when unions have gone further than what the leadership would normally want (negotiation-power, not worker's power... which is part of the self-flattering of the union officials as if it's their negotiating skills, not the threat of strikes and all that denotes regarding worker's power, that cause the bosses to make concessions) it's because the rank and file is organized and can act in its own interests and push forward from below.

So while the short-term gains are nice as workers (improve our lives, power on the job) they are always temporary; the important thing about unions is that tons of workers who at least see the need to collectively defend themselves from the bosses are organized which is potentially much more powerful than the trade-union as an organization itself.

[citizen of industry]

I don't think you got the point I was trying to make, I suggest the following texts:

http://libcom.org/library/unions-against-revolution-g-munis

http://libcom.org/library/organized-labor-versus-revolt-against-work-john-zerzan



Ok, let me try it this way. What would that attempt look like? What would UNITE be transformed into for it to be 'revolutionary'?

Munis is arguing the need for a revolutionary party vis-a-vis syndicalism, a point I've never disputed. Fortunately for Munis, he lived in an era of class conscious union militancy, where the labor movement created dual power situations, general struck regularly, created factory committees, etc. It's a base-superstructure argument. He had a lot of "material" to work with, and didn't have to deal with the pro-capitalist union federations we have today.

Where I'm at, the largest union federation openly collaborates with capital and is anti-worker. They reduce wages and increase productivity. There are two other large federations that do the bare minimum and attempt to better working conditions for their members. There are many other independent unions who reject capitalism and are militant. As the law allows for minority unionism, as only three people are required to form a union, as workers in any workplace are free to choose or form their own unions, even in a "closed shop,"there is no barricade to union militantcy. From what I've read, the same is possible in the US, though rarely have workers taken advantage of it.

If we're suggesting titles to each other, may I suggest Luxemburg's "The Mass Strike."