Bill Bartlett replies to Don Brayton:
>>Would you clarify what you meant here?  How is a socialist union
>>organized, administered,  and funded such that it is different from a
>>capitalist union?

>It explicitly has socialism as its objective. See my post 6 May 1997 in
>reply to James W Hutchings on Leninism v socialism, which contained a
>socialist programme from the US SLP.

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.