brian j. callahan wrote:

>But you didn't get to the heart of the matter, IMHO--how such a union is
>different in the way it is organized, administered and funded.  I would say,
>from a libertarian socialist perspective, that such a union would have to be
>organized industrially rather than by trade, as you mentioned; its
>administration would really have to be in the hands of the workers themselves-
>-no professional bureaucrats whose class interests would inevitably conflict
>with the rank and file; and the funding should not come through the automatic
>deduction by the business which employs workers--as most AFL-CIO unions
>operate--but through the voluntary dues paying of its members.  A good
>example of such a union is the Industrial Workers of the World, which is now
>just a tiny remnant but which still embodies these principles.
>
>Anyway, these differences would help ensure that a small oligarchy would not
>end up in control of the union as so often happens.  Any seizure of power by
>unions controlled in that way just means a personnel change in the group of
>oligarchs who control the economy and the state.  Say hello to the new boss,
>same as the old boss.
>
>Not that any such seizure is likely in the near future, but we can dream.

I agree with all of that. Unions organised by trade are ineffectual,
dividing workers instead of uniting them. The "professionalisation" of not
just unions, but a whole range of activist organisations is also
inconsistent with them remaining accountable in the long run. I admit I
haven't formed a firm view of the exact structure of a socialist union. It
obviously has to be accountable, and that means any delegates being subject
to recall, but remuneration of any elected officials and what jobs can be
safely delegated to officials is tricky. I'd be interested in your
thoughts.

My point though was that it doesn't matter how well you structure a union,
if it doesn't have socialism as its main purpose it can never achieve
ANYTHING, except act a mechanism for social control of workers. There is
only so much that can be won within capitalism and, as
're-proletarianisation' of the workforce in western countries continues,
even maintaining those gains and concessions is a losing battle. (Because
they accept the boss's sovereignty over the workplace, trade unions don't
even consider anything more than bargaining for marginally higher
redundancy packages.) If unions aren't revolutionary they must be
pro-capitalist and that means pro-exploitation of workers.

So "useless" is a compliment really.

But I don't support the "seizure of power" by anyone, it has to be the
express will of the people. If we say its OK for us or ours to seize power,
we're on shaky ground condemning others for the same. It might be some way
off as you say, and I think Chomsky has done quite a good job in explaining
the mechanics of how the present system maintains 'consent'. But you can't
fool all of the people all of the time as they say, so 'manufacturing
consent' isn't the whole story, nor a final solution. Material
circumstances, ie the inherent ECONOMIC flaws of capitalism will play a big
part.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.