Anarcho-syndicalism

6 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Oct 10 2005 20:26
Anarcho-syndicalism

Hi,

Because of a discussion on a couple of other threads, including one about the AF and solfed merging, I'm confused about the syndicalist approach to unions/workplace struggles and how it differs from that of (say) the AF.

Do syndicalists such as Solfed attempt to 'capture' the existing union structures and democratise them? And if not (i.e. if they want to set up alternative structures/networks on a rank and file level) how is this different from the AF's belief in 'seperate workplace organisations'? Is it something to do with their relationship to the revolutionary organisation(s)?

Or is perhaps that Solfed want to use the existing union structures more than AF do, though they don't accept that they have a revolutionary character?

Another question: do solfed etc. consider organisation outside the workplace unimportant (or significantly less important than do AF types)?

#2
Top
Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 10 2005 21:28

A quick reply.

SolFed do not want to capture the present unions, this tactic has not been advocated by anarcho-syndicalists in this country since before WW1. We do seek to establish alternative unions but do not see them growing out of the SF. We would like them to grow from breakaways from the present unions maybe through rank & files organisations or some other means together with other militant workers who may or may not be unionised. The difference with AF is that we would see these unions as permanent structures that would take on the day to day issues as well as having as their goal a libertarian communist society.

Our attitude to the present unions is one of being inside but beyond them. We will work inside them if applicable, but not take any paid positions, as well as not feeling constrained by them. We advocate having workplace meetings or assemblies that would involve unionised and non-unionised workers together and seek to broaden out and widen disputes beyond their immediate confines. A recent example of this approach is the ‘Workmates’ group on the London Underground.

We also see building community resistance as going hand in hand with this and where possible linking workplace and community struggles together so one supports the other with solidarity and mutual aid.

#3
Top
posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Oct 10 2005 21:58

Thanks Steve,

Quote:
The difference with AF is that we would see these unions as permanent structures that would take on the day to day issues as well as having as their goal a libertarian communist society.

Then the difference would be that the AF don't believe in their 'workplace organisations' supporting struggles for limited, 'bread and butter' objectives under capitalism, but as organisations only to be activated for The Revolution? That doesn't sounds right. Have I misunderstood what you mean by 'day to day issues'? And by 'permament' do you mean that they'd still be there post-revolution, or that they wouldn't rise and fall in activity in response to waves of struggle, but would put emphasis on growing and doing work even in periods of relative quiet?

Quote:
Our attitude to the present unions is one of being inside but beyond them. .[..] widen disputes beyond their immediate confines.

I guess that non-syndicalist class struggle anarchists would agree with that as well? I know some people believe in being outside, but I guess even they think that's got to be a judgment made in the particular workplace environment?

#4
Top
Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 10 2005 22:42

I can't reply for the AF on the role they see for workplace organisations.

As for the a/s union its function would change in the run up to a revolution as the bread and butter issues become less relevant and the working class begin to challenge capitalism head on leading to an out and out confrontation. Post revolution there would still be a role for such an organisation as society is transformed. It would give some basic structure until replaced by whatever follows. Of course some of its pre-revolutionary functions would be no longer needed but the lessons learned in organising to fight capitalism and the state in a non-hierarchical way would prepare workers for the post revolutionary period.

#5
Top
Vaneigemappreci...
Offline
Joined: 23-01-04
Oct 11 2005 10:36
Quote:
As for the a/s union its function would change in the run up to a revolution as the bread and butter issues become less relevant and the working class begin to challenge capitalism head on leading to an out and out confrontation.

Would the federation call for demands that would weaken the company/economy to such a degree that those demands couldnt be met or would they gather round a table with the bosses and negotiate demands that could be met but would nontheless improve the short term material condition of the workers? And if the answer is the latter where would you see the fight for piecemeal, short term gains being surpassed by a move towards revolutionary action? Could you not fall into the SWP mentality of believing 'now isnt the right time' and getting stuck in negotiations and bureaucratic technicalities?

#6
Top
Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 11 2005 10:43

As I see it as the confidence of the working class grows they would just not be acting in a defensive manner but demanding more from capitalism to the extent that there will be confrontation that cannot be resolved by negotiation. Strikes etc would become more frequent and the state would have to react with increasing hostility. Sometimes the workers will win their demand sometimes not and sometimes settle for something close. The point of an anarcho-syndicalist union is that all decisions are made by mass workplace assemblies so it would be the workers themselves deciding when to push and when to give.

There is not telling when the situation may change to outright revolution, anything could spark that off. It could be a community issue that is supported by strike action, who knows.