Those four reasons cover most of the things weighing on my mind as to whether or not I remain a wob.
why i didn't join the IWW. NB: no-slag zone
Yawka, the first three are all true. I'm not getting into the fourth, it's a tiresome debate and I think everyone already knows what they think about that. Two or three caveats - its true to varying degrees across the organization, and it really is more recent than you think. Despite the long history and stuff, the IWW's raelly a pretty recent organization, in terms of being a serious body that's dedicated to being (or learning to be) effective. So I think you are wrong about this stuff being irresolvable and super long standing. That said, I can see how getting involved to fix that stuff doesn't appeal to you. If you don't have the time and energy to do the work, don't join. We already have too many members like that as it is. I don't mean for that to sound like a dis, it's really not. Lastly, I think if you really did want to get involved in order to do some sort of positive work, you could find/create space for doing that work without having to be involved in the repair work. A lot of people do that. I think that's the more important matter - what do you want to do and with who, and what opportunities do you have to do that work? I'm definitely not in the IWW cuz I think it's perfect or cuz I think we're the way the truth and the light for the proletariat. I do work here that I think is valuable. If there's no opportunity for that in NYC, then don't join.
Quote:
but these issues are deep-set and not new, and frankly i was daunted by the thought of having to level what seems to be a mountain.
This is true. But then this is true of the entire communist project. It's mind-blowingly huge, and at the moment I do not think there is any particularly decent revolutionary organisation. nor any prospect of one with more than about 50 members in the forseeable future.
These are difficult times.
Good thread -- let's make an effort to keep the level of discourse high here because I hope these criticisms are helpful to IWW-roaders.
Newyawka's points 1-4 are all in there somewhere but the two biggest things that make the IWW unappealing to me are:
1. With the exception of a handful of people I've met over the Internet, whenever I encounter the IWW, the "historic legacy" stuff is way up front in the message and presentation. I think this is inappropriate and actively reactionary, because it unintentionally reinforces an outdated and limited understanding of what (who) the working class is.
2. While I actually think an industrial-networks approach might be helpful in my sector (I'm doing data entry at a large corporate/IP law firm, and often do similar back-office work in "unproductive" industries), I don't see the IWW as ever being able to fill that role. I would honestly rather have a shitty capitalist union that has some institutional experience dealing with similar industries, and then get a more politicized or militant network going outside the union (and which recognizes its limits), than an IWW group which would be stretching to serve both functions simultaneously.
I've never belonged to the IWW. part of this has to do with MJ's point 1 and newyawka's point 4. i was always impressed by the fact that the obsession with the historical legacy led people to overlook the fact that the IWW, as an ostenbible revolutionary organization, didn't seem to me to have an adequate revolutionary strategy. a thing i ran into was an unwillingness to discuss ideas on the grounds that this would get in the way of being sufficiently inclusive. but how, then, can you effectively adapt to the vast changes in the economic and social situation of the U.S. working class since the World War 1 era? a problem that might be called "repressive tolerance." I'm not sure if this is still true of the IWW today, tho.
my view has always been that it is time to pioneer a new path, and not be bound by "historical legacies". this led me to the view that it would make more sense for groups of activists to try to form new industrial unions in situations where they had a strategic possibility and could develop the resources. an example of wobs themselves doing this is the Independent Union of All Workers in the 1930s.
i think it's a mistake to allow oneself to be mesmerized by the IWW's nominal commitment to revolution. at present this isn't really very relevant. I don't take the position that unions are incapable of being revolutionary. rather, i agree with Gramsci that unionism has two souls, two contradictory tendencies. there is the tendency of workplace unionism to generate resistance and struggle, and of bureaucratic structures to consolidate, to preside over "industrial legalities" negotiated with employers. bureaucratic trade unionism can't be revolutionary. that's not its function.
it's important, then, to emphasize and work to build up workplace unionism. this is part of the process of developing class consciousness. revolutionary ideas are only likely to gain much acceptance if working people have a greater sense of power and more confidence in their ability to challenge the people who are on top.
but i don't think it is possible for "revolutionary unionism" to be real in the U.S. at the present time.
that said, when IWWs do actually get it together to try to build a union in a particular company or industry, then i think they should be supported in a practical sense, and i thus agree with syndicalist's comment to this effect. but i see this in terms of encouraging workplace unionism, given the IWW's anti-bureaucratic tendencies. but i wouldn't see this as any more important than developing some other anti-bureaucratic, base union, such as CUE.
As to #1, I think that is greatly exaggerated, along with the fact that there is going to be some friction and competing views (and shit talking) in any organization.
As to #2, it would be helpful if you could give some examples. There's the traditional identity politics of "liberalism," which I think can be useful in some ways and be a hindrance to a broader class based analysis in others. Perhaps this is more the experience of some folks in more traditionally "liberal" cities, such as NYC and the Bay Area.
As to #3, some of that has to do with an underlying ethos of voluntarism, decentralization, and lack of formalism brought in by a portion of the anarchist element -- yeah, some of youse guys.
As to #4, I do think that is a point quite worthy of discussion, and to some extent Nos. 1-3 factor into this. Most people are not going to join the IWW unless there is an IWW presence at their job or in their industry with a clear relation to them. Therefore, I don't get upset when people say they don't want to join. I would rather have as members those who have been through a workplace struggle under the IWW than those who have joined out of some feel-good ideological affinity. I think that also would make for less of Nos. 1-3 being a problem.
That said, I do think there is value in having open union membership. Ideally, people should join because they want to organize, not have some kind of historical wank-fest. In that regard, I do agree that our history is a hindrance. However, it is also a strength from which members can draw inspiration, and use to learn what has worked and what did not, with an eye to what MJ properly acknowledged is the ever-changing nature of industry. Ironically, when the IWW had 100,000 members, it was experimenting more with form, method, and structure that it has done in the last 50 years.
I guess my question for newyawka is what he hoped to accomplish by joining, and how he felt the IWW could and could not have helped him achieve those objectives.
Quote:
As to #2, it would be helpful if you could give some examples. There's the traditional identity politics of "liberalism," which I think can be useful in some ways and be a hindrance to a broader class based analysis in others. Perhaps this is more the experience of some folks in more traditionally "liberal" cities, such as NYC and the Bay Area.
It's certainly not a big issue in the BIROC.
number three needs working on, is being worked on, and is due for some overhaul, especially if some of us have anything to do with it. Number four is merely a question of size and the scale of the ambitions. If all we aspired to was to be a 'workplace resistance network' (ie a shite union) then we could do that easy enough. If we want to be a 'real union' - as opposed to some fantastical body that's 'not a union' but behaves like a shite union without much power - we have to act like one. Clearly in order to do this effectively issue three needs to be dealt with, and the PR and our marketing strategy and implementation of this has to be solid (issue one). Surely that's just a question of CRAMing and of being guided by evidence based practice in union marketing though. It's hardly a severe problem, just that our people are currently rubbish at marketing.
Dundee_United wrote:
A base union is what's needed in the UK right now. The IWW with a dual card strategy is one way of leveraging this.
How does having a dual card strategy for the IWW help you build a "base union"? Are you saying the IWW is the base union? Or you'll get lots of dual carders then start one? Base unions come from Italy; they have not been successful at advancing workers' interests - when they became proper unions, as opposed to networks of militants, they were recuperated and bureaucratised. Why do you want to emulate this?
Dundee_United wrote:
If all we aspired to was to be a 'workplace resistance network' (ie a shite union)
This thread is meant to be a no-slagging off zone. By present false and insulting charicatures of other people's positions you are breaking this, and making yourself look stupid. A network of militants is not "a shite union." A "shite union" is one which lets bosses in and signs no strike contracts. Official entities of "unions" are forced by law, by their very existence, to do very anti-working class things. Including being forced to order wildcats back to work, disavow and criticise unofficial action, not launch secondary action, not co-ordinate with other unions or workers, or link demands with other workers. This stuff is all "shite" and anti-workers. Cross-union networks of militants do not have to do this.
With your arrogant and dismissive position dundee, I do wonder what union you are in and what strikes you have been involved in - what are they?
Quote:
then we could do that easy enough. If we want to be a 'real union' - as opposed to some fantastical body that's 'not a union' but behaves like a shite union without much power - we have to act like one. Clearly in order to do this effectively issue three needs to be dealt with, and the PR and our marketing strategy and implementation of this has to be solid (issue one). Surely that's just a question of CRAMing and of being guided by evidence based practice in union marketing though. It's hardly a severe problem, just that our people are currently rubbish at marketing.
Dundee, you cannot wield workers power with "good PR", you must have masses of workers used to exercising their own power in their own interests. Fantastically describing the IWW as something bigger and more powerful than it is ("15,000 members in Glasgow within the next three years") will not help this. In fact quite the opposite, along with anything else which persuades workers to have faith in anything other than their own efforts and initiative.
The NYC GMB, in its current incarnation, has only existed for as long as the SBUX campaign has been around (if that). Folks like Tomer and Dan Gross had to build the GMB the same time they were building the campaign, something that clearly took its toll, but is also a testament to the their work.
Honestly, if anybody here has ever been part of a local revolutionary class struggle organization that has only been in existance for four years and has accomplished as much as it has, I'd like to hear it. Really.
And uh, yeah, the term "PC" causes my eyes to gloss over. You know that was a Reaganite-coined term, right?
Quote:
You know that was a Reaganite-coined term, right?
no it wasn't, it developed from Leninism, became a perojative term used to mock dogmatic bullshit within the left, it later got taken up by the right. And just because the right take the piss out of politically correct wank doesn't mean others can't and should. I mean the right wong like to whinge about murder rates too, do you suggest we don't criticise murderers too?
I don't want to be a dick to any other wobs, but I think if I lived where some of y'all live I wouldn't have gotten involved in the IWW. I got involved at a good moment in Chicago then moved to Minneapolis where some really solid people were just building a branch. Some of us in the branch (me above all, I think) are also networked with other likeminded wobs around the union. My branch has only been chartered 2 years and I think we've accomplished a reasonably impressive amount of stuff in that time. That said, we're definitely not any place where I'd say "okay this is good enough," either locally or union-wide. Balancing the pride and the frustration is tough, both in talking to other wobs and in talking to non-members. Not sure I'm on topic anymore so I'm shutting up.
newyawka wrote:
1: it's a soap opera
Yeah. It's getting a bit tiresome. But the same is true of my family, the house I live in, the school, my workplace, the city and just about every other group I've ever been involved in.
newyawka wrote:
2: there' a scary lot of PCism among the youth
Please elaborate.
newyawka wrote:
3: it's an admnistrative disaster zone
Working on it..... (Am currently quite interested in http://civicrm.org/ )
newyawka wrote:
4: it's not really a union, or, the efforts to make it one are sporadic (though laudable and involving lots of sacrifice)
I think it is definitely a bunch of unions at the very least.
It's not the One Big Union just yet, but things take time.
I am having a hard time dealing with the tech folks. I am pursuing the strategy of implementing in Canada first where there are no tech folks, then I can show how much better websites with a plan and structure are then haphazard ones who's design is based on 1905 motifs.
(PS thanks for the compliment)
Stripey wrote:
I am having a hard time dealing with the tech folks. I am pursuing the strategy of implementing in Canada first where there are no tech folks, then I can show how much better websites with a plan and structure are then haphazard ones who's design is based on 1905 motifs.(PS thanks for the compliment)
Dundee_United wrote:
A base union is what's needed in the UK right now. The IWW with a dual card strategy is one way of leveraging this.
Why, and how?
Also there is a difference between what is needed, what we would like to see, and what is acheivable.
What is needed, and what I would like to see is a revolutionary situation, crisis of capital with communists being a in a position to take advantage of that.
What is acheivable and what I would like to see, and what is needed as a first step to the other goals is the intial stages of a network of militant and revolutionary workers across whatever industries, regions, localities etc they are in, within which they can network and get support for building workplace resistance groups and networking them, on a local, regional, sectional, company wide basis - which the afore mentioned network may or may not be able to provide the facilities for.
Obviously I'm not saying this can happen all at once, but we can take intial steps towards that - membership of mainstream unions can while we are doing this offer legal support, financial support, training and networking opportunities which is used right can benefit not just individual members but the overall "strategy" outlined above.
Can the IWW offer anything towards the above outline? I'm not saying it can't, but I've not read or heard anything to show that it can. I mean christ in theory libcom or email lists, could offer a fuck of a lot towards it...
John. wrote:
Dundee_United wrote:
A base union is what's needed in the UK right now. The IWW with a dual card strategy is one way of leveraging this.How does having a dual card strategy for the IWW help you build a "base union"? Are you saying the IWW is the base union? Or you'll get lots of dual carders then start one? Base unions come from Italy; they have not been successful at advancing workers' interests - when they became proper unions, as opposed to networks of militants, they were recuperated and bureaucratised. Why do you want to emulate this?
Dundee_United wrote:
If all we aspired to was to be a 'workplace resistance network' (ie a shite union)This thread is meant to be a no-slagging off zone. By present false and insulting charicatures of other people's positions you are breaking this, and making yourself look stupid. A network of militants is not "a shite union." A "shite union" is one which lets bosses in and signs no strike contracts. Official entities of "unions" are forced by law, by their very existence, to do very anti-working class things. Including being forced to order wildcats back to work, disavow and criticise unofficial action, not launch secondary action, not co-ordinate with other unions or workers, or link demands with other workers. This stuff is all "shite" and anti-workers. Cross-union networks of militants do not have to do this.
With your arrogant and dismissive position dundee, I do wonder what union you are in and what strikes you have been involved in - what are they?
Quote:
then we could do that easy enough. If we want to be a 'real union' - as opposed to some fantastical body that's 'not a union' but behaves like a shite union without much power - we have to act like one. Clearly in order to do this effectively issue three needs to be dealt with, and the PR and our marketing strategy and implementation of this has to be solid (issue one). Surely that's just a question of CRAMing and of being guided by evidence based practice in union marketing though. It's hardly a severe problem, just that our people are currently rubbish at marketing.Dundee, you cannot wield workers power with "good PR", you must have masses of workers used to exercising their own power in their own interests. Fantastically describing the IWW as something bigger and more powerful than it is ("15,000 members in Glasgow within the next three years") will not help this. In fact quite the opposite, along with anything else which persuades workers to have faith in anything other than their own efforts and initiative.
any responses to any of this?
Quote:
What is needed, and what I would like to see is a revolutionary situation, crisis of capital with communists being a in a position to take advantage of that.
At the moment, such a situation would inevitably lead to the rise of fascism. Without mass organisations in place, without a left to speak of, and without a strategy and programme that would be absolutely horrific if it took place in the UK today.
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
What is needed, and what I would like to see is a revolutionary situation, crisis of capital with communists being a in a position to take advantage of that.At the moment, such a situation would inevitably lead to the rise of fascism. Without mass organisations in place, without a left to speak of, and without a strategy and programme that would be absolutely horrific if it took place in the UK today.
I'm aware of that (that there is a good chance of it, though it is not inevitable, ever!), which is why I said what is quoted below - with the rest of my post showing what we need to do (though not how) to move towards being in such a position.
Quote:
with communists being a in a position to take advantage of that.
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
What is needed, and what I would like to see is a revolutionary situation, crisis of capital with communists being a in a position to take advantage of that.At the moment, such a situation would inevitably lead to the rise of fascism. Without mass organisations in place, without a left to speak of, and without a strategy and programme that would be absolutely horrific if it took place in the UK today.
I don't see what this means really. Fascism arises in response to working class militancy, to crush it. Without the working class militancy, you don't get fascism. Unless you're using it in a very wooly sense, like when you were claiming the US government was fascist? I'm not trying to have a go here, just see what you mean - do you still hold that the US is fascist?
i had a heavy flirtation with the IWW. i gave to the 460 strike fund, i gave to the GDC, i read the IW, i met some serious-minded and seasoned unionists in the NYC GMB, but i never joined. there are four reasons for this, in ascending order of importance though some of them are connected and i mean them all seriously:
1: it's a soap opera
2: there' a scary lot of PCism among the youth
3: it's an admnistrative disaster zone
4: it's not really a union, or, the efforts to make it one are sporadic (though laudable and involving lots of sacrifice)
the easy response to this is "well, just join and help to change it." but these issues are deep-set and not new, and frankly i was daunted by the thought of having to level what seems to be a mountain. what i'd like to hear is whether i'm right in my take on the situation - specifically, which of these four things are observations about superficialities that should not concern me, and which are observations about disabling problems the IWW doesn't seem to be able to resolve - or whether i'm wrong.
NB: there's been alot of hatin' on the IWW over the past two days on other threads, concerning stuff about which I know very little. please don't bring that here.