COBAS UK?
Looks like a one or two person operation, but anyone else know anything about it?
A couple of years after the defeat of the miners' strike in GB. 1984, a great effervesence exploded in workers' struggles, particularly in Europe, mainly calling into question the unions and also showing tendency twoards the outbreak of spontaneous struggle and towards a degree of anti-union self organisation.
The trade unions, particularly the "radical" elements of them, were the bourgeoisie's response to this development of the potential unification of struggle:
- In GB in early 87 a strike by 140,000 BT workers showing early anti-union sentiments;
- Spring 86 in Belgium saw massive and generalised struggles giving rise to workers' committees and delegations to all factories;
- France 86/7 saw hard strikes with tendencies towards self-organisation and base committees;
- Spain saw months of strikes and demonstrations in 87 with workers going from factory to factory calling workers out in solidarity - a real atmosphere of conflict;
- Holldna and Germany saw strikes, demonstrations and workers coming together. In Yugoslavia (soon to be ex-Yugoslavia) strikes went on for months before the bourgeoisie could control them with workers explicitly rejecting the stalinist unions and the "workers' paradise".
In Italy, Spring 87, initially in the railways, airlines, hospitals and schools, these tendencies above expressed themsleves. The base committees of the school sector, first from 120 schools in Rome, then nationally, gained a majority over the unions organising 3 national delegate assemblies in Florence, Rome and Naples. There was a clash in this process between the tendency that wanted to solidify the committees into new unions - the Cobas (unione Comitati di Base - which had a majority in Rome) and the "assembyists" who had a majority nationally and more clearly reflected the rejection of the unions.
On the railways, an assembly in Naples gave rise to a regional coordination and then a national one in Florence. At a railworkers' demonstration in Rome, a leaflet was put out by the non-union majority of the base committees calling for a unified struggle. Clear, anti-union sentiments were expressed from a council workers' wildcat in Sicily to an assemby of different public sector workers in March 87, which explicitly debated how to organise face with trade union treachery.
But like in the coordinations and base committees that appeared in France, Spain and Belgium, the left wing of the bourgeoisie was active in turning these (soemtimes confused0 expressions of the class openly questioning trade unionism, into the divisive terrain of "fighting both inside and outside the unions" or for new trade unions. for the first time in Italy, the Trotskyists were involved in the teachers' movement, ending up polarising the question around "the recognition of the Cobas as a negotiating body", rather than the needs of the struggle.
In France, militants of the CNT, proposed that the committees of the gas, electricity and postal workers should have a platform for membership "for a renewal of class unionism". Like the Cobas, fixing the workers into the boundries of the state when the whole tendency was to go beyond it.
After the collapse of Stalinism and the massive ideological assault against the working class, the bourgeoisie in France and Italy strengthened their union apparatus in the mid-90s with the renewed development of rank and file structures largely animated by leftism and supporting the unions: the SUD and FSI in France and the Cobas in Italy.
The statement above shows the leftist nature of the Cobas, radical organs of the state strengthening the union apparatus with all the leftist baggage; the discovery of "globalisation" over a hundred years after it's happened; the "nasty" USA; the "nasty" right wing, the lesser evil argument; taking part in "referendums" (there's the official stamp of leftism) and so on.
Here's a description of the various different Italian base unions from an article by the FdCA - http://libcom.org/history/anarchist-communists-italian-base-union-movement
USI: Revived in 1978, it reached a certain consistency in the '90s, before it split into two (following disagreement on union practices), with a more syndicalist, open wing and the more orthodox, ideological wing. The split was later sanctioned by the IWA (AIT). USI-AIT today claims a historical legitimacy as a revolutionary, anarcho-syndicalist union, which is lost to the collective memory, and seems to attract workers who have already made a political choice towards anarchism or libertarianism. It considers its anti-war activities to be central. The other USI, excluded from the IWA, is limited more or less to the city of Rome where it is quite active through its policy of labour forums. Both organizations lay claim to the name USI.CIB Unicobas: This union was born from the cobas movement in the schools in 1991 and describes itself as an independent, libertarian union, something which has been responsible for an appreciable growth over recent years, particularly in the schools sector. It makes no ideological claims and has a horizontal organizational structure. Having been, in the early '90s, a driving force for the aggregation of base unions, it is now going through a phase of self-isolation due to differences with other base unions who tend to exclude it. It is part of the SIL network and, together with CGT-Spain, SUD-France and SUD-Switzerland it is working towards the creation of a European federation of alternative unions, the FESAL.
Confederazione COBAS: This is the Cobas that is most commonly seen in demonstrations and on TV, despite it only formally becoming a union quite recently. It is descended from the remains of the school cobas groups of the '80s and is still strongest in this area. It presents itself as a political, syndicalist and cultural entity, which makes it seem something of a party-union-cultural association. This, in fact, leads one to suppose that its members share not only a common labor strategy, but also a political and ideological line. This characteristic together with its tendency to want to devour all around it, was mainly responsible for the failure of the policy of trying to get "all the cobas into one single union". It enjoys great political and media support among the Italian communist left wing, which also serves to make it much more visible than the other base unions, but also much more susceptible to the general political choices of parties such as Rifondazione Comunista or structures like the Social Forums, one of whose greatest exponents is in fact the Confederazione COBAS leader.
CUB: Federated with the RdB (which is strong in the civil service), the CUB is the largest grassroots confederation in Italy, with unions in several different categories. It grew out of a split in the machinists' sector of the CISL. It has been able to reach the requisites which enable it to enjoy national representativity, something which has permitted it to participate in talks for national work contracts, while placing itself firmly as an alternative to the CIGL-CISL-UIL trio. It has a vertical organizational structure, with paid officers and services for workers. It employs a distinct syndicalist line, with no apparent ideological interference.
SLAI COBAS: This union exists above all within certain large industrial plants where it practices highly radical policies and is able to win votes and seats in the union representation elections in the workplace. It is strongly biased towards the communist left-wing, but autonomously with respect to the parliamentary left, which was to result in a split which led to the birth of the S.in.Cobas. Its original statute foresees a horizontal structure.
S.in.Cobas: A split from the SLAI guided by Rifondazione Comunista. It is active above all in certain factories and in local administration, thanks also to its parliamentary connections.
Other base unions are active only within certain categories, for example the Or.S.A. and SULT in the transport sector and SNaTeR in telecommunications. All the so-called base unions, with the possible exception of the USI, found themselves effectively forced to present candidates at the union elections in the workplace, with some even obtaining excellent results. However, there is unfortunately no data available to allow us to establish if the base union delegates have been able to practice a proper relationship between delegate and workers, as one would expect of anti-bureaucratic syndicalists, in respecting the mandates they have received from their workmates who have elected them.
Baboon, what alternative to forming unions do you suggest in the situations you mentioned? The vanishing into thin air of these networks after a few weeks after the conditions have changed? Isn't it useful to havesome kind of permanent structure (memory, experience, mobilising power) that can respond to conditions in a more organised way?
In France, militants of the CNT, proposed that the committees of the gas, electricity and postal workers should have a platform for membership "for a renewal of class unionism". Like the Cobas, fixing the workers into the boundries of the state when the whole tendency was to go beyond it.
How does this necessarily fix the workers into the boundaries of the state? The CNT isn't bound to operate purely legally.
the left wing of the bourgeoisie
Does this bit of ultra-left speak actually serve any useful purpose? They aren't literally the left wing of the bourgeoisie, nor are they sponsored or consiously acting on behalf of the left wing of the bourgeoisie, maybe their ideas reflect those a very forward thinking left wing section of the bourgeoisie might have if it actually existed... what does this phrase actually mean?
The point is not that workers can´t try to have ´permanent´or rather long lasting groups which have an activity in the workplace. The mistake made over and over again is that groups which can really only express the viewpoint and activity of a small minority outside periods of open struggle set themselves up as representatives of the entire workplace and end up playing the role of alternative unions. This process of recuperation takes place irrespective of the conscious wishes the participants.
The point is not that workers can´t try to have ´permanent´or rather long lasting groups which have an activity in the workplace. The mistake made over and over again is that groups which can really only express the viewpoint and activity of a small minority outside periods of open struggle set themselves up as representatives of the entire workplace and end up playing the role of alternative unions. This process of recuperation takes place irrespective of the conscious wishes the participants.
It is true that this happens, but what do you suggest workers who have some faith in the importance of class struggle do instead?
The point is not that workers can´t try to have ´permanent´or rather long lasting groups which have an activity in the workplace. The mistake made over and over again is that groups which can really only express the viewpoint and activity of a small minority outside periods of open struggle set themselves up as representatives of the entire workplace and end up playing the role of alternative unions. This process of recuperation takes place irrespective of the conscious wishes the participants.
Out of interest, have these kinds of groups ever existed? Do you mean organisations of political minorities?




From googling this quickly it does look like a two person operation - an Italian academic who's given up on the UCU and his partner.
Good luck to him I suppose. I can't make the link work but this seems to be the document on COBAS.