Unions are good, but they are not revolutionary. In fact, a lot of the larger trade unions are so thoroughly tied to capitalist markets and so deeply captured by reaction that they are actually more of a threat to socialist organizing than a boon.
That's like...standard Marx though isn't it? Only the most pure Syndicalist would disagree (and national syndicalism is right there as a counter example.)
Even Marxists who ascribed radical roles to Unions like Luxemburg didn't think they could be revolutionary without direction from a party of revolutionaries.
Just my personal experience, I guess. Nearly every left-leaning person I interact with IRL lies somewhere along the syndicalist-ancom spectrum. This is a take that has gotten me in hot water with friends before.
So, in the late 19th century a bunch of French wierdos adapted Sorel and Proudhon's anarchist and syndicalist ideas to a heavily revanchist and pro tradcath revolutionary ideology marrying unionism to the defense of French "culture". Some were Corporatist, some Anarchist. All chuds.
These orgs (Action Francaise, Circle Proudhon) diverged rapidly from the anarchist movement (though there were repeated attempts at entryism into the CNT in Spain) and ended up spreading to Spain and Italy, where they were a key influence on proto-Fascism (Mussolini began as essentially a National Syndicalist before embracing Corporatism more strongly, and maintained Syndicalist measures until the late 20s where he finally caved to the ruling classes instead of the petty bourgois).
Later during the Spanish Civil Wars, they influenced the development of Flanagism (Franco's ideology) as well, though they rejected his centralisation of government, preferring a Fascist grand council of reactionary unions. As the Second Spanish Republic was formed they were gradually merged into the Falange however. A lot of Spains reactionary unions have heritage in this movement.
There’s a not insignificant overlap in rhetoric between the “red fash” anarcho-libs and the ancaps who insist that Hitler and Mussolini were big government socialists. In my experience, “all governments are bad” is a thought-terminating cliche. A principled analysis of power has a means of distinguishing between justified and unjustified hierarchy and can therefore compare the severity of abuse when that power is misused. But that’s a lot of work and not always situationally appropriate to actually walk through the analysis, so ymmv
Yeah, but then they go "Police arent workers ackshtually" and I've given up a perfectly good chance to be an utter edgelord and say "Anarchism is objectively the libertarian wing of Fascism"
I don't think even the Most Pure Syndicalist thinks unions are inherently revolutionary. Syndicalism is the belief that radical, revolutionary unions are the best path towards revolution, but it's also the belief that unions that aren't radical and revolutionary are shit at being unions.
I would love to hear about western examples of non-union organization that unions are actually a threat to. As far as I know, all of the non-union organizations has happened exclusively outside of the imperial core (which says a lot about how cool and good Maoism is)
When a friend joined a local mechanics union, they made him sign a contract swearing that he did not and would not, while a union member, belong to a communist or socialist party. When I was a teamster, reaction and anti-communism ran deep with just about everyone I worked with. Because of course it did, it had to. We were the beneficiaries of an agreement between imperial capital and imperial labor. They gave us good pay and good benefits, and in exchange we didn't rock the boat. Fostered an anti-boat-rocking culture.
Sure, teamsters will still fight back whenever capital steps too far over line and threatens that agreement. But it's not for the building of a better society. It's just protecting their interests.
The job of communists in labor unions is to convince their co-workers that being part of a larger socialist workers' movement and party is good. We've had some success on that front, I think, in teachers and nurses' unions specifically. But the unions tied more to market commodity production and distribution, like teamsters and painters, are substantially and often systemically less class-concious.
And to answer your question more directly, unionized cops pissed on the Black Panthers' breakfast food for kids.
Unions are good, but they are not revolutionary. In fact, a lot of the larger trade unions are so thoroughly tied to capitalist markets and so deeply captured by reaction that they are actually more of a threat to socialist organizing than a boon.
That's like...standard Marx though isn't it? Only the most pure Syndicalist would disagree (and national syndicalism is right there as a counter example.)
Even Marxists who ascribed radical roles to Unions like Luxemburg didn't think they could be revolutionary without direction from a party of revolutionaries.
Just my personal experience, I guess. Nearly every left-leaning person I interact with IRL lies somewhere along the syndicalist-ancom spectrum. This is a take that has gotten me in hot water with friends before.
Have you tried waving in the general direction of Falangeism/JONS and the original Action Française?
You'll have to explain that last one to me.
My go-tos for union skepticism are usually the truckers' strike that helped oust Allende, and the Solidarnosc movement in Poland.
But then that usually runs up against the "well, all governments are bad" argument.
So, in the late 19th century a bunch of French wierdos adapted Sorel and Proudhon's anarchist and syndicalist ideas to a heavily revanchist and pro tradcath revolutionary ideology marrying unionism to the defense of French "culture". Some were Corporatist, some Anarchist. All chuds.
These orgs (Action Francaise, Circle Proudhon) diverged rapidly from the anarchist movement (though there were repeated attempts at entryism into the CNT in Spain) and ended up spreading to Spain and Italy, where they were a key influence on proto-Fascism (Mussolini began as essentially a National Syndicalist before embracing Corporatism more strongly, and maintained Syndicalist measures until the late 20s where he finally caved to the ruling classes instead of the petty bourgois).
Later during the Spanish Civil Wars, they influenced the development of Flanagism (Franco's ideology) as well, though they rejected his centralisation of government, preferring a Fascist grand council of reactionary unions. As the Second Spanish Republic was formed they were gradually merged into the Falange however. A lot of Spains reactionary unions have heritage in this movement.
Christ. Really puts paid to the notion that MLs are the "red fash," don't it.
There’s a not insignificant overlap in rhetoric between the “red fash” anarcho-libs and the ancaps who insist that Hitler and Mussolini were big government socialists. In my experience, “all governments are bad” is a thought-terminating cliche. A principled analysis of power has a means of distinguishing between justified and unjustified hierarchy and can therefore compare the severity of abuse when that power is misused. But that’s a lot of work and not always situationally appropriate to actually walk through the analysis, so ymmv
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, but then they go "Police arent workers ackshtually" and I've given up a perfectly good chance to be an utter edgelord and say "Anarchism is objectively the libertarian wing of Fascism"
deleted by creator
I don't think even the Most Pure Syndicalist thinks unions are inherently revolutionary. Syndicalism is the belief that radical, revolutionary unions are the best path towards revolution, but it's also the belief that unions that aren't radical and revolutionary are shit at being unions.
I would love to hear about western examples of non-union organization that unions are actually a threat to. As far as I know, all of the non-union organizations has happened exclusively outside of the imperial core (which says a lot about how cool and good Maoism is)
When a friend joined a local mechanics union, they made him sign a contract swearing that he did not and would not, while a union member, belong to a communist or socialist party. When I was a teamster, reaction and anti-communism ran deep with just about everyone I worked with. Because of course it did, it had to. We were the beneficiaries of an agreement between imperial capital and imperial labor. They gave us good pay and good benefits, and in exchange we didn't rock the boat. Fostered an anti-boat-rocking culture.
Sure, teamsters will still fight back whenever capital steps too far over line and threatens that agreement. But it's not for the building of a better society. It's just protecting their interests.
The job of communists in labor unions is to convince their co-workers that being part of a larger socialist workers' movement and party is good. We've had some success on that front, I think, in teachers and nurses' unions specifically. But the unions tied more to market commodity production and distribution, like teamsters and painters, are substantially and often systemically less class-concious.
And to answer your question more directly, unionized cops pissed on the Black Panthers' breakfast food for kids.