Are the other half of the american workforce peasants or capitalists? Or perhaps craft artisans? Oh I know - the American Aristocracy! Those Kennedy's are breeding like rabbits...
Snap!
iww revisionism!
I actually haven't gotten that bad a response from people on the OBU pamphlet, but the preamble is just way too old timey. We a different blurb on the back of The Dispatch and our business cards that says pretty much the same stuff just in way more contemporary terms. We do have to be careful about watering it down though because a chance to change old wording can easilly be used to stick some crap reformist rhetoric.
Personally, I like the preamble, but I see where you're coming from. The OBU could certainly use some updating. The only issue I've had with the preamble is that I've had it shoved in my face to prove I'm a dirty commie, but substantively I find it damn inspiring. The second idea does seem pretty reasonable, but I would definitely want to keep the preamble in the constitution somewhere. As I said, I really like it, but also I think there is something to be said for maintaining that link with history.
Just out of curiosity Booey, could you give us a your tentative suggestion for what a new preamble could read? Anyone else please feel free to jump in with your suggestions as well.
I mean the brazilian rainforest is getting torn down to grow GMO corn using fertilizer and pesticides (both made in factories), which will be put on refrigerated trucks (made in factories and powered by petrol) and driven to a warehouse, where they will be placed into giant containers (made in factories), then put on a ship (made in factories, powered by petrol), and transported to another port, where they will then be driven on more factory-made trucks using petrol to a plant where the corn syrup can be extracted, than this corn syrup will be re-packaged and driven on more factory-made trucks and maybe ships to another plant where it will be combined with numerous toxic chemicals and put into cans made from tin which was dug out of the ground, processed, and pressed into can form.
The end result is Coca-Cola.
But "abolish the wages system" - at least under the early marxists - Elanor Marx, Aveling, Wm Morris, Lafarge, etc. meant a *new* society where industrialism wouldn't exist. And it's these folks that the old wobblies were reading (at least the ones I knew). One oldtimer - a 1919 Levanworth prisoner - lent me "The Right to be Lazy".
And as we've discussed in other thread recently, this understanding is the pivot in the divergence between socialism = "different administration" or "different social structure". The folks who see a "different administration" lead to focus on taking power either through putchist insurrections - ala leninism, and those who seek a majoritarian transformation from below a transformation in society's structures.
Well I think it also leads into a difference between those who think that there will one day be a revolution because a 'revolutionary union' controls the right 'essential industries', and those who believe that in any important movement we can play a contributing and important role without having to take over 'essential industries'. (I think this also gets into the comparison that could be made between the 'revolutionary party' and the 'revolutinary union').
I would argue that the difference has a very big impact on immediate goals, strategy, and tactics.
I agree with you about the "abolish the wages system" and what it meant to those using it (although interestingly enough I believe Marx said he preferred "Abolition of the wage system of production" as it was more specific).
However what I'm saying is that I think most syndicalists from 1900 to 1945 or so thought that 'revolutionary unions' could simply take over the existing industry and run it for the benefit of humanity. Maybe it was even true then that a majority of production could be converted to make things useful for Humanity and not Capital. At this point however its clear that 99% of production is useless or worse. We need to be really clear about this - we aren't advocating self-management of Starbucks under workers' control (with the workers buying coffee beans from ethiopian peasants and selling them to consumers); I think it's clear that if our goals are ever met there wouldn't be any Starbucks.
I think the preamble should stay in the constitution too.
In the place of the preamble I think we could have a statement that expresses the same ideas (critique of capital, critique of unions and electoralism, and the vision revolutionary workplace organizing moving towards communist workplace democracy).
OliverTwister wrote:
I mean the brazilian rainforest is getting torn down to grow GMO corn using fertilizer and pesticides (both made in factories), which will be put on refrigerated trucks (made in factories and powered by petrol) and driven to a warehouse, where they will be placed into giant containers (made in factories), then put on a ship (made in factories, powered by petrol), and transported to another port, where they will then be driven on more factory-made trucks using petrol to a plant where the corn syrup can be extracted, than this corn syrup will be re-packaged and driven on more factory-made trucks and maybe ships to another plant where it will be combined with numerous toxic chemicals and put into cans made from tin which was dug out of the ground, processed, and pressed into can form.The end result is Coca-Cola.
This just sounds like you described industrial capitalism to me. There has been kind of weird current on these boards where 'worker control' has been critiqued. Too often, in my opinion, this has occurred without context. If individuals are going to argue against 'industry' and 'worker control' even in a post-capitalist society it should be done with some sort of suggestion for how an economy that will feed, clothe, shelter and provide health care and entertainment to 7 billion people would be organized.
In an ideal economy--one that is decentralized, democratically controlled and work is reduced to a minimum while every effort is made to produce sustainably and the commodity exchange has been eliminated--some degree of 'industry' and inter and intra continental shipment is still going to be necessary. For example, rubber trees only grow in certain parts of the earth and I'm pretty sure condoms will exist after the revolution. Or transportation, granted I think automobiles should probably only be used for emergency services (fire, ambulance) but I hope a large scale railroad network that runs on clean fuels will be an outgrowth of the revolution. Or the medical industry, hospitals will have to exist and a pharmaceutical industry based on human need and not profit would be of an immeasurable benefit to society.
Granted, in a rationally organized socialist society I think a large degree of production will be brought down to the local level (I really enjoy Bookchin on these points), but democratic worker control at the point of production will be a must even then. And I'm not so sure service industries (coffeeshops, etc) will cease to exist. My sister, anarchist and committed revolutionary, loves to cook and would like nothing more than to live in a post capitalist society where she works as a chef in co-operatively run restaurant and having that count as her contribution to society. Human are social creatures, service industries that are de-humanizing under capitalism can, outside of capitalism, provide workers and 'consumers' with great sense of psychological satisfaction. Not to mention there is always going to be a need for certain services: education, trash removal, plumbers, pest removal, funeral services, etc. No degree of technological innovation is ever going to replace humans in these sectors and it would seem to that bringing them under democratic control of the workers while having the industries accountable to the community is the only alternative for a sane and just social and economic order.
sorry about the rambling, it's been a long day...
x361737
I think this winds up being somewhat semantical. "industrialism" is far more complex the a bunch of machines making stuff. Just as there is useful labor (when you make something useful) and making commodities for capitalist speculation (work).
But it's also important to realize that many institutions are built around creating commodities even if useful ones. For instance, there could be something like hospitals in the future, certainly useful. But perhaps they would be more like hospices, small surguries, etc. But most likely there won't be the large scale "industrial" hospitals.
Rubber? condoms? Maybe folks will be able to make thin plastics out of other local materials as latex is available in many plants.
Collective or communal kitchens for those so inclined sure - I'll be there (or in the brewery). But restaurants - I don't see it as such...
Well I think there's also a valid critique of the idea that unions will form the administration of the future society, which comes from within anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism (primarily the FORA of Argentina). They were extremely critical of unions even under capitalism but saw them as possible organs of defense and offense. But they saw the idea of a 'revolutionary union' taking over the industry to be similar to the idea of a 'revolutionary party' taking over government.
Either way the factories stay there (which means the workers have lost).
As I said I think that in the 1920's a much larger portion of industry could have been converted into production for use rather than commodities (I won't speculate on what that amount might have been). However a lot of it was bullshit anyways. How many people wasted their lives in coal mines or steel mills working in hellish conditions, only to create the constant capital for more factories and more industrialization?
But regardless of that, its even more apparent today that most production is entirely for the market, and has no real 'use value' - high fructose corn syrup is a good example.
As an Italian anarchist said, "We must abolish production. To those who ask, 'what shall we eat?', we answer, 'that which we produce'."
PS As an ex-barista I can see a lot of cool things about coffee culture. But why do Starbucks have drive-thrus? The same reason that grocery stores sell 'Red Bull' or 'Monster': wage-slavery forces people to wake up at abominable hours to get to shitty jobs, and things like that help them get through the day.
In a post-capitalist world there could be cafes. But no cafes with drive-thrus.
ETA What I mean about the FORA is that they thought the administration of the future society would be built in the struggle, but that existing unions would be too easily manipulated by politicians to form the new society. The russian anarchosyndicalists around GP Maximoff were also critical of the unions and supported the workers councils against the unions when necessary, as far as i understand. The French CNT-AIT place themselves within this trend.
Booey, maybe it's not the Preamble that's the problem but how you're talking about it. Snap!
Actually, that's half serious. If _anything_ in the IWW constitution is like the major obstacle in whatever organizing you're doing then I think you have a weird campaign.
Do you actually have people going "yeah I totally want to change things on the job and the only way to do that is to build organization, but this preamble is so like old fashioned that I'm just not going to be involved"? Cuz if someone said that to me I'd figure they were lying and had some other reservation. What I'd say is "look, if you're really interested why are you going to let a matter of style get in the way?" and I'd go back and re-agitate on their issues and push them to find out what's really bothering them.
Nate:
In the early days of the CCU I did have one experience with someone who was very supportive of the union but who refused to join because of the preamble. He came to every meeting (industrial organizing committee and shop committee) and was super dedicated. Every time we asked him to join he would say something like: "Look, I really agree with what is being done here and I fully support it. However, I consider myself a capitalist and just can't jive with your guys ideology."
Now, of the dozens of workers that I have organized with and signed into the union he was the only person who ever really pushed that line. I just wanted to mention that it does actually happen on a very rare occasion (anyone who misses those last three words is not reading my post right). It is not the rule, not the norm and not an obstacle to organizing.
I like the preamble. The OBU and the constitution have got to go but I like the preamble a lot.
The situations more complex Nate, because you didn't factor in that... i just don't like the preamble and that's why i'm ripping on it. I don't think its an insurmountable obstacle, merely an avoidable one. If we changed it to fit our time and our experiences, we could eliminate a lot of that. And honestly i don't think much is gained by it, i see the preamble as mostly baggage. I know others feel that way too, and my coworkers will usually overlook it, but its just that, ignoring it.
Merry toddmas!
OliverTwister wrote:
At this point however its clear that 99% of production is useless or worse.
How did you come by this number? And by 99% of production, do you mean 99% of the labor hours spent in production, or 99% of the energy consumed in production, or 99% of production according to GDP?
yeah, all that stuff about class and taking control of the means of production is so dated! I DON'T THINK SO!
I wonder why someone who doesn't share such views would join the IWW?
The preamble was one of the things that drew me to the wobblies in the first place, I have no problems with what's in the One Big Union book either.
Do I sense a reformist / primitivist current emerging?
Quote:
As an Italian anarchist said, "We must abolish production. To those who ask, 'what shall we eat?', we answer, 'that which we produce'."
Which means continuing production! Abolishing exchange on the other hand is a different matter.
Quote:
But "abolish the wages system" - at least under the early marxists - Elanor Marx, Aveling, Wm Morris, Lafarge, etc. meant a *new* society where industrialism wouldn't exist.
Wrong! it means industrial production for use not exchange.
I could go on....
darren poynton wrote:
yeah, all that stuff about class and taking control of the means of production is so dated! I DON'T THINK SO!I wonder why someone who doesn't share such views would join the IWW?
The preamble was one of the things that drew me to the wobblies in the first place, I have no problems with what's in the One Big Union book either.
Do I sense a reformist / primitivist current emerging?
Quote:
As an Italian anarchist said, "We must abolish production. To those who ask, 'what shall we eat?', we answer, 'that which we produce'."Which means continuing production! Abolishing exchange on the other hand is a different matter.
Quote:
But "abolish the wages system" - at least under the early marxists - Elanor Marx, Aveling, Wm Morris, Lafarge, etc. meant a *new* society where industrialism wouldn't exist.Wrong! it means industrial production for use not exchange.
I could go on....
I don't know what the deal is with all the deleted posts, but i agree wholeheartedly with Darren on this one with the exception that I do feel the OBU pamplet to be a bit dated.
OliverTwister wrote:
Either way the factories stay there (which means the workers have lost).
I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous thing to say. It reeks of lifestylist Crimethinc-primo BS. Surely you must acknowledge that even under socialism, with technology employed to the common good, recycling done in every possible instance, and useless work eliminated, production is still going to exist.
Example: I'm going to want fucking beer to celebrate the revolution. Beer is produced in a brewery, i.e, a factory. And I know some brewery workers, even under capitalism many of them find reward and satisfaction in their work. But if they had chance to run the factories themselves and had a say in every managerial decision, their social and psychological satisfaction would be dramatically increased.
Factories are simply a place of production. Granted, under capitalism they are a place of exploitation, but it would seem that one of the advantages of a revolution to implement libertarian socialism is that society can have an honest dialog about what needs to continue being produced (in the most efficient way possible--this will many times entail mass production in a factory setting) and how undesirable work can equally and justly be distributed amongst all able bodies.
In short: Capitalism = Bad
Sustainable mass production under worker control = Good and highly desirable
ncwob: I can't think of any mass production going on at the moment that wouldn't have to be completely transformed if capitalist social-relations were abolished.
factory brewing isn't all that much more efficient than micro-brewing for example. And I imagine a load of people would brew beer for fun given the time (fuck's sake I have with a bucket, barrel, water, yeast, malt and tin of glop from a kit). Brewing beer, at least once you've got the mulch, isn't very labour intensive, at all.
In organizing at my job stuff like the preamble is an obstacle. It's an obstacle not because of the ideas, but because of the bad outdated language and the perspective. If you look at the numbers health care, social service, education, government, etc., workers make up almost half of the american workforce. Given these fact, doesn't it make sense to have our basic statement something that resonates with people in our time rather than a bad photocopy of a marxist pamphlet?
Yeah I'm ripping on the preamble, oh snap nate! I don't like the OBU either. Here's my thought. We keep the preamble, but relegate it to the intro to the constitution. It becomes replaced by a similar statement written to fit our times. Then we alter the OBU which seems to be universally hated.
Thoughts? Heresy?