Unions and repression

go on

Have a read, comrade iexist:

http://libcom.org/blog/thinking-about-unions-association-representation-20052011

iexist, you're everywhere mate! No sooner do you stumble upon something, your keyboard is chattering.
This one is a massive area of debate that will always be a work in progress. But to maybe flesh out a couple of pointers - it is true to say that anarchists and anti-state communists and socialists certainly lean towards the sentiment that illegal unions are the preferred position. But you must take in to consideration lots of important factors that change from country to country - usually depending on the laws of the land. Being a revolutionary union with a militant and aggressive membership of 7 figures earns the right to say that illegal is best - legal can translate to varying degrees as "state approved". However, even though most anarcho syndicalists will find themselves in an illegal union or structure, there are plenty who have had to bite the bullet and registered. Registering is a seriously double edged sword. But even though they may have registered the union for whatever reason, most anarchists within that union would have preferred not to, or seek to build their organisation so to create other bigger, unions that stick 2 fingers up to the state and just go ahead and fight the bosses without having to jump through the hoops of State laws.

iexist, look up the early history of Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s (before it was taken over by the catholic church). It was completely illegal and formed against the Soviet-backed polish state, and involved in a series of very large illegal labour strikes. I think there were at least a handful of syndicalists involved, or at least later became syndicalists. I think Akai from the ZSP, along with others, was involved, maybe she could post here about it.

I think being an organisation of workers, based primarily in the workplace, that's able to call strikes would be a union under anyone's definition, whether the organisation is legal or not. Similarly, that would make basically any union from the early days of trade unionism 'not a union' as for years workers organising themselves was illegal anyway!

As for "You can't be both", well, as plasmatelly says, that's a major area of debate (which you do say you're about to get into).. at the same time, here are two potentially interesting pamphlets for you:

Revolutionary unionism in Latin America - the FORA in Argentina
Anarcho-syndicalism in Puerto Real: From shipyard resistance to community control

I don't necessarily agree with the first sentence - that I think depends on who sets them up and who joins. Registering - or legalising - the union has that added problem in the uk of not being Able to discriminate who joins your union; you could have an explicitly socialist union with members from the far right- kick them out and they will sue you. However, a non-registered union has the benefit of being able to only work with who benefits the union and therefore the rest of the workers. Political economic unions - workplace unions that combine politics instead of aligning to a political party to do the thinking for them - usually insist on a level of political agreement before allowing someone to join - another reason to stay non registered.
"If ur goal is confrontation.." - that's class war for yer!
"..strikes sometimes aren't the best tactic" - the strike is a weapon in armoury, not something that anyone should fetishise, but having said that, the withdrawing of labour stops the cogs- something we are certainly all about, no?

From my perspective here in the US, it seems advisable to build un-registered unions with strong critiques of NLRB involvement. Labour law, as pertains to "union" activity in US is a hog-tie. Very few, mostly insignificant protections are offered while a pound of flesh is demanded. Perhaps in other places this isn't so, and the benefits out-weigh the costs?

To be honest, in the US, oftentimes a union contracts (explicitly like no-strike clauses and grievance procedures or implicitly due to judicial interpretation) takes away some of your legal rights in relation to 'concerted activity' - which is why most legal strikes happen outside contract periods anyway.

Just so I'm clear on this iexist, are you arguing for less explicitly political unions on the basis that being political can bring repression from the state?

I think he is also saying that fewer people will want to sign up/stay with a radical organisation.

iexist???

I guess I would say that all unions are political, even ones that have no explicit political requirements for membership.. it's just that some unions 'outsource' their politics to social democratic (or in the case of the US, just Democrat) parties through lobbying/supporting particular politicians at particular times.

About fighting and dealing, I think the opposite of your sentence is equally true (sometimes 'war' can be better than 'peace', 'fighting' better than 'dealing') Just as a revolutionary union might stupidly decide that a one-day public sector strike is THE TIME FOR REVOLUTION, a social democratic one might decide that a situation of nationwide wildcat strikes is the right time to send everyone home while they negotiate (I'm thinking of the 2007 UK postal strikes here)..

I think that this is a strategic question rather than a political one, and that said, one that is equally effected by the union's politics, whether explicit or implicit.

I strongly disagree. Unions are supposed to be the workshop in which we, as a class, learn how to destroy capitalism through direct confrontation ala blocking production. Unions are also one of the places that we, as a class, learn to build large scale, horizontal social organization. Such organization should strive to prefigure, in some ways, the world we hope to build. Struggles for better conditions are often the venue in which this learning takes place though revolutionary struggles are what we're after. For this reason we ought shy away from "dealing", in revolution there is no dealing and during social struggles anarchists should certainly agitate for confrontation and militancy.

Anarchists are not the only ones who understand union activity politically. Social Democrats use unions as political projects to reinforce the vertical capitalist relation, anarchists flip this nonsense on its head. Shit, even the fucking BNP fucked around with it for a bit ala the miserable failure, "Solidarity". They were attempting to use such a project to promote xenophobia and the BNP political agenda within the workplace. Unions don't exist in a "winning victories", a-political vacuum, never have, never will. If we ain't there, then we just cede the "battle with the bosses" terrain to liberal and right wing forces. This of course, has happened in most places, and is the source of my rejection of NLRB involvement and business unions more generally.

IIrc Durruti's comment was in the context of pistolerismo and la ley de fugas - with the bosses men and the cops respectively gunning down CNT activists. He was pointing out the best way to end the repression would be to swap sides, and join with the bosses in stitching up workers. i.e. the CNT was being repressed because it won victories, and watering down the anarchism to reach a truce with the state would undermine it both the union and revolutionary aspects of the organisation.