He doesn't refute his point though? He says that bottom up struggle is a factor in NLRB actions but isn't the only factor, due to the fact that higher levels of struggle haven't always resulted in good NLRB actions. This refutes Leninist and anarchist state theory that say that bottom up struggle is the only factor in good state actions
He refutes his own point by relying on a misconception of Leninist and anarchist theory that is nonsensical and reductive, they do not posit bottom-up pressure is the ONLY factor, but that it is the most important factor far outpacing any other and that is correct as he admitted by mindlessly pointing out the "obvious truth that bottom-up struggle has given MORE SPACE AND IMPETUS"
Honestly, just think for a second how ludicrous it is to argue that bottom-up pressure isn't the primary concern of any government in history, especially a capitalist one
The only way you can salvage his argument is if you narrow the definition of "bottom-up" to like street protests or town halls or some shit, but again nobody believes that is the ONLY way to effect a government, so he's both arguing against a phantom and unintentionally refuting his own conception of Leninism and anarchism
Easy to fall into a trap like that when he doesn't engage properly with theory and instead relies on pure surface intuition
He doesn't refute his point though? He says that bottom up struggle is a factor in NLRB actions but isn't the only factor, due to the fact that higher levels of struggle haven't always resulted in good NLRB actions. This refutes Leninist and anarchist state theory that say that bottom up struggle is the only factor in good state actions
He refutes his own point by relying on a misconception of Leninist and anarchist theory that is nonsensical and reductive, they do not posit bottom-up pressure is the ONLY factor, but that it is the most important factor far outpacing any other and that is correct as he admitted by mindlessly pointing out the "obvious truth that bottom-up struggle has given MORE SPACE AND IMPETUS"
Honestly, just think for a second how ludicrous it is to argue that bottom-up pressure isn't the primary concern of any government in history, especially a capitalist one
The only way you can salvage his argument is if you narrow the definition of "bottom-up" to like street protests or town halls or some shit, but again nobody believes that is the ONLY way to effect a government, so he's both arguing against a phantom and unintentionally refuting his own conception of Leninism and anarchism
Easy to fall into a trap like that when he doesn't engage properly with theory and instead relies on pure surface intuition