What do folks think about this piece? I'm curious if it has much currency in Europe right now. I'm just working my way through it but I'm trying to build a serious engagement with Insurrectionist writings on the workplace and I figured big daddy Bonnano was the place to start.
Jun 5 2010 17:14
Jun 6 2010 00:12
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I find insurrectionists to be boring, alienated fantasists generally speaking...
Not to mention the brainnumbing pompousness and verbiage. I would honestly rather read the complete works of Althusser than go through 10 pages of Tiqqun. Cringing can be fatal, you know.
EW, assuming you've read that far, what is Bonano's criticism of "syndicalist methods," in a nutshell?
Jun 6 2010 00:51
I'm not a fan of this pamphlet. Didn't like it when it came and still don't. Bonnao mixes trade unionism, revolutionary unionism and anarcho-syndicalism all into (mostly) the same mix.
His conclusions signify his criticism in a nutshell:
Quote:
To fight for an autonomous organisation of the struggle means to fight for the autonomous organisation of production at the same time. It is not possible to make a quantitative difference. In a sense, even a distinction in time phases is impossible. When workers organise their own autonomous production nuclei they are taking road that is quite different to that of the syndicalist organisation or the party. In so doing they have already taken a decisive step towards managing not only the struggle in the sense of the choice of instruments to be used, but also in the choice of aims to be reached, and not only the aims of the struggle, but also those of production.During the revolutionary event the presence of a strong syndicalist organisation or party in the traditional sense has the immediate consequence of the proletariat being declared immature, and the conclusion that someone — syndicalist or party leaders — must decide for them. A structure for intervention is imposed on the base. Syndicalist or party meetings are always led by the same bureaucrats and specialists. Everything ends up passing over the heads of the workers. Any anarchist comrades who might eventually object to this should remember what happened in Spain at the time of the decision to enter the government, or of the struggle for the collectives. The main operative elements of the base nuclei should therefore be:
The struggle. This is where the class spirit is born and developed. Here the real intentions of the parties and unions are also clarified. Methods of direct action are developed: sabotage, absenteeism, attempts at self-management destruction of work, etc.
Organisation. This grows from the need for confrontation and verification. It differs greatly according to time and place, but is substantially unified on the basis of common interests in the production process. Nuclei grow up, each one on a different social, economic and political grounding, but all within the limits circumscribed by the reality' of production. This is the essence of organisation which gives the possibility of a constant reference to something unitary.
Information. This must be gained through a gradual reversal of the relations of production, modifications in the division of labour and sabotage of production, with analyses of effects and limits. The gaining of information thus becomes the awakening of a political consciousness within the concrete dimension of the economy and production.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__A_Critique_of_Syndicalist_Methods.html
Jun 6 2010 01:11
from what i remember, he summarised his critique as 'syndicalists' (the aforementioned amalgam of everyone from brendan barber to buenaventura durruti) are only interested in resistance, but we need to ATTACK. or in other words, look at them organising, we should be robbing banks. i mean there's elements of rejecting representation etc which are fair enough, but then the same things had been said decades earlier by those within the 'syndicalist' amalgam he 'attacks'.
Jun 6 2010 18:38
Yeah I'm not about halfway through. It's also really big on downplaying the role of the workplace, and has a really totalizing view of workplace control/surveillance. It really reminds me of a lot of Frankfurt school stuff in that its really verbose and simultaneously really dismissive of the capacity of real resistance by workers.
Conversely they completely eschew any actual formal organisation or strategy which guarantees in turn that any workplace based fightback will be futile and useless.
Jun 7 2010 01:06
Is this also known as 'Worker's Autonomy' or something? I think I have that pamphlet somewheres.
Jun 7 2010 10:47
no it is separate...
Jun 9 2010 00:40
Joseph Kay wrote:
he summarised his critique as 'syndicalists' (the aforementioned amalgam of everyone from brendan barber to buenaventura durruti) are only interested in resistance, but we need to ATTACK. or in other words, look at them organising, we should be robbing banks.
This is a pretty old hat argument though. Individualists were slagging off anarchist communists in much the same way back in the 1890s.
And it's ridiculous to claim that syndicalism (i.e. revolutionary unionism) is quintessentially defensive. It was born precisely as a reaction to the reformism of parliamentary socialists, and has been all about ATTACKING via direct action since day one (although obviously syndicalism today is not what it used to be).
I am kind of intrigued though, as I never encountered a full fledged critique of syndicalism from this sort of individualist (or "insurrectionist" as it's now called) perspective, so I might look this one up.
Jun 9 2010 01:43
it's ages since i read it, so maybe i'm being unfair. i think the main target was reformist base unionism, a valid target, and the criticisms did include a critique of the representative role meaning they could only ever fight within capitalism and not against it. these are fair enough points. maybe they were relatively original ones in the 1970s (although it's there in Debord quite explicitly and some council communists/anarcho-syndicalists before that). but then there's a massive over-extrapolation first from a specific form of unionism to this massive 'syndicalist' amalgam, then from that to a rejection of organisation per se as inherently reformist/bureaucratic etc.
tbh my main criticism would be the way 'attack' is elevated from a tactical call to a strategic imperitive. sometimes we're weak and can't attack, imho fighting a rearguard action or trying to organise the unorganised is more useful in that situaton than acting out our weakness with porpaganda by the deed, robbing banks, or as most contemporary Bonano fanboys do, gluing ATMs.
Jun 15 2010 15:11
Joseph Kay wrote:
tbh my main criticism would be the way 'attack' is elevated from a tactical call to a strategic imperitive. sometimes we're weak and can't attack, imho fighting a rearguard action or trying to organise the unorganised is more useful in that situaton than acting out our weakness with porpaganda by the deed, robbing banks, or as most contemporary Bonano fanboys do, gluing ATMs.
Most insurrectionists don't believe that 'attack' negates organisation among the working class but merely suggest that such organisation should be consistent with the line of permanent conflictuality and uncontrolabilty that facilitate 'attack'- thus you here alot about informal organisation and self organisation. 'Attack', which isn't just sabotage but also includes activities in the workplace such as wildcat strikes and anyother example of militant working class action against the bosses and their material appendages. Bonnnao isn't massively big as a theorist for many insurrectionists I've discussed with, despite him being regarded as somewhat of a cornerstone of the tradition. Insurrectionism admits that we do not exactly know how the generalised revolt to bring the social order manifested in state and capital will go down, hence there is constant experiementation in tactics to find out what works and what doesn't. Due to actively wanting to avoid stagnation, it is important to keep up to date with the literature produce and the communiques coming out of actions and the disscussions that they incur in insurrectionist circles.
You also strawman about bank robbing, which I suppose you're suggesting that illegalism has a major impact on insurrectionists. Well, no. It's understood as a tactic that can facilitate projects and individuals/groups initial material needs not much more.
Can comment on articles and discussions
A massive effort is being made to translate it into Spanish over here. Bear in mind the currency of insurrectionism in Mexico and Chile right now...
Is it worth my reading? I find insurrectionists to be boring, alienated fantasists generally speaking...