Education workers

Purely for information.

In schools, the government, with the connivance of two of the unions - NAS and ATL - have introduced some changes to the pay structure. This has resulted in all responsibility allowances - the money you get for doing specific jobs - becoming in effect temporary and in a load of teachers facing pay cuts.

These cuts effect 30 teachers at one Oldham school with smaller numbers at two others. All three have balloted for strike action. At least one head wanted to compromise and was stopped from doing so by the LEA. The NUT has agreed to pay full pay for days on strike. So next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday strikes are happenign and the schools will be closed. Unfortunately the schools will not be on strike on the same day!

At the same time, the council, our employers, are letting the NUT hold a meeting about the proposed education reforms go ahead in council rooms in a week or so - with MPs speaking.

It was nice to hear fellow teachers repeating our words about maximising disruption in the staff room.

This thread did have potential and I hope it still does.

At present EWN is an Industrial Network of SF, but a new influx of members working in FE/HE means it needs reexamining, IMO. And yes Im a SF member. We are due to discuss this fully at conference, but I have a number of issues I would like to take up,

1. None SF members should be able to join, if they are able to work within its structure and according to its practice. They join as equals regardless of how they describe their politics.

2. We should be more open to working with others and supporting other peoples actions, hopefully with a bit more fraternity

3. People wishing to discuss anarchist unions or groups becoming intermediaries of capital and labour do so elsewhere, I dont think it as a place in a situation where people are looking to practical solutions.

Cheers

Which, if you read my post carefully, you would realise is what I meant!

This thread started off with what appeared to be an open discussion about an EWN. A couple of people asked whether not being syndicalists was a problem and suddenly all sort of shit started being said.

If you recall, I said that I'd read the SF strategy and didn't see any problems with it. So then I got accused of coat-tailing SF?

Ironically, I'm actually involved in an industrial dispute at work and was on strike yesterday.

My idea of an industrial strategy is:

1. recognise what the existing unions are

2. recognise that we have little choice but to be members of them

3. argue that when we are fighting the bosses we try to spread our struggle to other groups of workers

4. join up with other like minded comrades to argue these positions.

5. Think twice - or more - before taking up any positions in the union

AF would support rank and file initiatives too. Indeed in the past members have been very busy with them - Communications Worker being the example I have in mind.

What is not worth doing is trying to take over existing unions. I've seen it done and strangely enough it all ends up a bit like Animal Farm.

I would see the type of unions Solfed dreams of taking off in a period of mass upheaval. I'd probably join one at the time!

What are these examples of unions being taken over? Anyway SolFed does not argue for taking over existing unions, in fact the majority of anarcho-syndicalists in Britain ditched that idea nearly a hundred years ago!

I also object to the use of the word 'dreams' that is being used. It implies it is some wild unachievable fancy. I would argue that achieving a libertarian revolution in a capitalist society, where power is employed economically, politically and culturally without a libertarian organisation that has economic, political and cultural aspects is the greater illusion.

Fancy letting us know about any of this stuff here:

http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7845

Steve, please read what I write, not what you imagine I write.

You had suggested that I had no industrial strategy - and neither did AF. I then put down some thoughts on what an industrial strategy could be. I got picked up on missing something out, so then put down two more points. I wasn't criticising Solfed, just saying what I thought libertarian militants shouldn't do. As to taking over unions, I've seen examples in the NUT. Local rank and file groups have got themselves elected to positions of power in the local branches. They then behave just like the old bureaucrats - or at least they did in Oldham.

I know that. But that isn't true of anarcho-syndicalists everywhere. My reading of what the platformist ones say is that they are trying to take them over - if only at a local level.

But not those around NAN, for example, who seem obsessed with Trades Councils.

JDMF used the term, I paraphrased it. He's a Solfed member. I didn't mean any insult. Personally, I do believe that the kind of industrial organisation you are talking of will take some time to achieve - it is something for the future. Networks are not a substitute for this - and I know you don't believe they are.

I agree with you 100%. Right now we need anarchist communists to band together and put across their ideas in every circumstance they can. In my opinion, industrial struggle is paramount.

One of the strengths of anarcho-syndicalism in my opinion is that is not a 'one size fits all' approach. When I said anarcho-syndicalists do not want to take over the existing unions I was specifically referring to the British situation.

Rank & file-ism is not anarcho-syndicalism.

Yes well I think you know what I think about NAN. In a couple of years they may enter the 20th Century but I wouldn't bet on it.

As for the dreams bit my comment was aimed as much at JDMF as at you.

I realise that. But, as I said, I was discussing what I think anarchist communists should do in industry. And we do get asked a lot about rank and fileism, don't we?

At least soem sense seems to be coming back into this discussion ...

What is 'rank and fileism' then? It seems to me to be a very ambigious term. I know what the left social democrats think it means. I would like to know what the AF, Solfed, and Class War think it means. If you want to have common industrial groups, you should think about what you want these groups to do. It would be an interesting discussion.

What a lovely little spat

Good luck with all your initiatives and i hope you end up with your hands dirty.

yeah thats essentially what organise takes as it's industrial strategy, plus some of them have a keen interest in getting a bookshop/solidarity/workers resource centre set up.

Also to be fair to steve i don't know any anarcho syndicalists who have ever sought to take over existing unions or for that matter think they can be effectively democratised, that would be closer the WSMs position than any anarcho syndicalist group or tendency

For me, "rank and fileism" is about a strategy based around forming rank and file groups, which are then used to challenge the leadership of the unions, often electorally. Usual demands for a R&F group would be democratisation of the union, recallable mandated delegates etc.

The critique of them from SolFed focuses around their limitations to the "union" (sometimes unions, but because of the nature of their aims they are usually limited to one union) rather than the "workplace".

These were big in the 60s and 70s, and formed the keystone of the IS (now SWP) workplace strategy. However, once party members started to get more interested in the R&F group than the Party, they pulled the plug.

SolFed recognises that they are at times useful, and we do work with the Building Workers Group, a R&F group left over from that period. However, we would not put them at the heart of any strategy.

Regards,

martin

Democratisation yes, recallable, mandated delegates - I'm not so sure about that. Teachers had fairly successful rank and file groups - they got people involved, fought the good fight, became the local union officials, became the same as the old ones ..... Too often groups which orientate themselves around the union end up in battles to wrest the leadership away from the old guard.

We need workplace groups that try to link across the union divides, not to take over structures that already divide us. Which is why I was interested in the EWN to start with!

First I would like to thank Martin for explaining what he thought that ‘Rank and Fileism’ means. It gives us a base to start a real discussion of industrial strategy from.

As I understand it in Britain the most basic strategy is ‘Broad left’. This is basically an electoral machine to elect ‘left wingers’ to a position of power within the union. I presume that everybody in this discussion is against this perspective, so I won’t bother to argue against it.

The second is ‘Rank and Fileism’. This is a much more ambiguous formula as it can be used by very different people to mean very different things.

Martin wrote that

Basically, it was broad leftism with a call for democratization. However, I have heard anarchists use it to mean a completely different thing.

This is interesting. Are ‘Rank and File groups’ more than electoral machines? If they are what is their focus? Is democratization of the current unions either possible or desirable? Does it draw people into the idea that the unions can fight to defend workers? If we say yes to this, should we also argue for a labour vote?

So, what is the anarcho-syndicalist strategy in Britain?

Steve said that

Yes, it is exactly what I would expect. You are anarcho-syndicalists after all. What does it mean in Britain today? Both you and I know that in Britain an anarcho-syndicalism union will never take off in Britain in a pre-revolutionary situation. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong for having an international policy (actually, I admire the cohesion even if I think you are wrong on the politics). It would be nice though to hear what an anarcho-syndicalism strategy is in Britain today spelled out beyond banalities.

Now in a country like mine, Turkey. I think that constructing an anarcho-syndicalism union would be possible. That is if you don’t regard DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu, unfortunately for non Turkish readers there is no English on their website), The Confederation of Revolutionary Workers Syndicates, as a revolutionary workers union anyway. Now at the last demonstration I went to, I was chatting with friends about unions in our industry. There is a leftist one, a religious one, a nationalist one…, and then somebody from a different city mentioned another leftist one, which was a split from the one which was holding the demo that none of us in Ankara had ever heard of before. O.K., in this environment, I think that setting up an anarcho-syndicalism union is possible.

So (sorry to go on about my situation, but I am coming towards a point), setting up an anarcho-syndicalism union would be possible. If, however I did this, and I could imagine it on a basis of a tight group of supporters in very few work places as a base, what would stop a bigger leftist group coming along, and taking it over lock stock, and barrel. Could we refuse them entry on the grounds that they weren’t anarchists, or is a workers union open to all? If you say ‘let them all in, in what is your so-called anarcho-syndicalism union different from any other union? You could be swamped by leftists, or in a revolutionary situation you would definitely be swamped by reformist workers. If you refuse them entry, in what way are you different from a political workplace group?

The left communists say that there can be no ‘permanent revolutionary workers organizations’ under capitalism. I consider myself a left communist, and agree with this point for the reasons explained above, amongst others.

In that case what would I argue for in opposition to ‘broad lefts‘, ‘rank and file’ groups, or anarcho-syndicalism unions?

In my opinion the answer is what I called a political workplace group. It is not a catchy title I admit, but I am more concerned here with the theory, not the marketing.

For me a ‘political workplace group’ is a propaganda group linked by a coherent industrial strategy.

Knightrose wrote that

In general I agree. I have a few comments to make though.

1) I think that you and I agree about what the unions are. Our position is clear. Does everybody else agree with us? I am not saying that we shouldn’t work with people who don’t, but that we should retain control of our own groups and our own propaganda. If we let in all and sundry, we can end up at the lowest common denominator. I think that revolutionaries should maintain permanent workplace groups, but that they are political groups based in a particular setting, not economic organizations. When there is struggle, we can work together with other workers. When struggle dies down, we will still be there, and still be consistent.

2)Yes, you are right. I have heard the ICC argue that unions are little more than insurance organizations. I have had house insurance since the last time I got burgled. What is wrong with that? Also, not being a member of a union can raise suspicions amongst other workers that we are anti-working class solidarity.

5)Never be a union official. I was at one time in the past a branch committee member. I don’t think that we can argue for revolutionary positions from that position.

This is not intended as a sectarian diatribe. I would like to know what people think including the anarcho-syndicalists, whom I have argued against. It is intend as a basis upon which we can discuss a coherent workplace strategy.