N. American Anarcho-syndicalism today

catch-22:

there were a couple articles by Chris Pelton in Labor Notes. but i doubt they are online.

but you haven't explained to me what the difference is between the presence of revolutionary activists within a mainstream union and within a mass organization that is left-libertarian initiated or newly formed.

a problem with any informal network is that informality tends to breed informal hierarchy. avoiding concentration of expertise and control into the hands of a few requires constant and systematic efforts to train and mobilize the membership. thus evolution of bureaucracy can't be prevented by purely informal means.

it's true, however, that the more democratic and effective the organization is, the less motivation there will be for members to form a rank and file organization apart from the formal structure of that organization. but this may actually make the specific organization more important. in a mainstream union that has a lot of problems, enough to motivate a rank and file opposition movement, what we should want is for that to be a broad movement, based on some ideas about the kind of organization we want the union to be. by "broad" i mean not just a "fraction" of the specific organization.

so it would seem that there is then room for three levels of organization: specific organizations, the broad rank and file opposition movement, the union organization.

it seems to me that it's inappropriate to speak of an "elitist clique" if the aim of the specific organization is empowerment of the rank and file. there need not be any assumption that one specific organization has all the answers. if we're talking about a libertarian approach to active involvement within a mass organization, then we have in mind methods consistent with the aims. this means speaking up, encouraging people to not be passive in the face of management, but it also means that the ranks control the movement and make the decisions. we have a voice but so does everyone else.

moreover, in my observation differences in level of knowledge, activism and commitment are virtually inevitable in any mass organization that is likely. this in itself holds the danger of bureaucratization because there will be a "spontaneous" tendency for people to rely on the people with the most knowledge and commitment. this was in fact the origin of bureaucracy in the AFL unions in the late 19th century.

in my experience American anarchists all too often operate with naive notions of spontaneity solving all problems or of everyone being automatically all "leaders".

a problem i've seen is that anarchists will sometimes insist that their revolutionary politics has to be in command, so they will refuse to try to build mass organizations or be involved in them because this will be seen as "reformist" -- that's one ultra-left error -- or else they try to build mass organizations they believe will be "pure" because they form them.

but in the present era authentic working class-based mass organizations will tend to reflect the character of the American working class at the present time, but with the possible exception that if people are willing to struggle, that starts with people who are less passive and may not be, in that sense, a perfect "average" of the working class right now.

i think it is necessary to build a social base for left-libertarian ideas within the working class. i can't see how this can happen without organized effort. this includes people working as activists within mass organizations, being a voice for rank and file self-management in those organizations, being a voice for militancy, against discriminatory or other retrograde tendencies. the influence gained has to come from the work that is done in support of a common struggle, not through attempts to aggrandize power.

so i don't understand your "elitist clique" comment. you'll need to explain what that means as i don't understand what your fear is.

the "elitist clique" argument has historically been used to defend the "unitary" theory of organization -- that only mass organization and not a specific organization is needed. in practice this tends to lead some anarcho-syndicalists to create small ideological unions that are largely marginal. this tends to marginalize the anarcho-syndicalists, in my opinion.

Catch, seems to me that you are missing the point of specific orgs. They are needed not to give a home to a better grade of militant, but rather they are a social body with a different set of aims, revolutionary aims, that a union can't have (given its need to attend to wage and benefit concerns of the membership). Sometimes short term gains and long term rev. goals coincide, but not always. (Example: staying out on strike another week would help our long range struggle goals, but the folks are getting hungry so we better accept the most recent offer).

I agree completely.

Such as?

Mitch, I like the idea of an a/s group as a way for folk to reflect on and improve their own work wherever it is. Like I have disagreements with Duke and with Chuck Hendricks but I could learn things from them too and that's gonna be more productive for me than rehashing disagreements. Or like I'm not super interested in things like New Directions or TDU whatever but I think people those settings could be good to learn from too. I think in some respects for the short term bracketing questions of strategy (which unions etc) and focusing on sharing and mastering effective tactics would be very useful. Like you said, for people to "develop and enhance their work in a variety of worker, social and community struggles." Another way to put this is the a/s group as a sort of ongoing workshop for people to improve their effectiveness in practice and formulate the best anarchist moves in their current environment. That would bracket out issues like "IWW or not, IWA or not," etc. Those debates are totally important but I think they're going to be more productive later on down the road after the group knew each other better and there was a relationships and trust and a culture of discussion etc built up. That is, the a/s group as workshop could lay the groundwork for a more strategically cohesive group in the future wherease pushing for that cohesion initially would probably cause fractious debate and result in smaller organizatios.

I'm less interested in putting out propaganda as a group but I think there is a role for that too.

While I do think it is a good idea for like minded activists to "come together to issue libertarian literature and help develop and enhance their work", I don't see why this should be done in the context of a "especifista" organization. In fact, I don't see it as very important whether this is done by a formal organization or through informal networks, and I fail to see how making formal organizations will solve the problem with informal hierarchies. Also, I don't see any reason why such an organization or network should be restricted to people who use the anarchist label.

I don't think small "unitary" organizations nessesarily marginalizes anarcho-syndicalists, as their role isn't to act as a small trade union that takes care of the interests of their own members, but to advocate workers self-activity, and decision making through mass assemblies rather than bureaucratic union structures.

felix:

in the context of the USA or North America, a "unitary" organization could only be the IWW. i'm not a member of the IWW but i'm not familiar with them advocating worker assembly movements. what i have heard from wobs i know is the idea of the IWW functioning as a network of radical workplace activists, but I'm not familiar with a particular program they would advocate in this role. there are others in the IWW who do advocate the IWW building industrial union of people working in particular industries, as with the food workers union in New York and the Starbucks union. so apparently the IWW is trying to be what you say a unitary organization is not supposed to be.

so your description seems to not reflect the actual situation in North America.

also, what is the program for community struggles? what is the way of addressing non-class based forms of oppression like racism?

through a systematic effort training and education of rank and file workers, and rank and file participants in community organizing, and of involving them. i've never seen this addressed adequately through informal means.

WSA understands anarcho-syndicalism as a strategy based on developing mass organizations controlled by their members, but since the class struggle spreads out into the community and the working class must address the entire set of issues facing it, including the divisions internal to it, this needs to also include community organization and a labor/community alliance. this isn't an especially new idea for anarcho-syndicalism: consider the 1931 rent strike in Barcelona, which was a community struggle. but the question here isn't about the anarcho-syndicalist strategy but about the possible role that an organization of activists on the basis of a specifically revolutionary viewpoint can play.

catch-22:

i think it's necessary to look at what the actual situation is. the actual situation is that within the working class there are very great differences in terms of commitment, consistency, understanding of the institutions we're up against, and vision in regard to the changes being sought, or even having any vision. your comment above seems to be saying that if we ignore these differences they won't exist.

but in reality organizations depend on activists and organizers. we want to create more activists, we want to encourage ordinary folks to be more active, and people do grow and learn through that process. but there is still a distinction between the activist/organizer layer and those not so involved.

i think it is also very easy for isolation to undermine commitment. commitment can't be taken for granted. not being isolated helps to sustain commitment.

how does understanding develop? mass organizations, precisely because they are diverse and focused on whatever level of goal people in the community in struggle feel is winnable now, are unlikely to be the venue for the development of revolutionary strategy and vision today. on the other hand, work in developing strategy and vision needs to be informed by the practical experiences of people today. how is that going to happen without the radical activists being involved in both practical organizing activity, on the one hand, and some organizational venue dedicated specifically to the development and dispersion of revolutionary anti-authoritarian ideas?

maybe your perceptions are due to your involvement in SDS and IWW. those organizations are formed on the basis of radical politics. that's 2,500 people in a country of 300 million. not a cross-section of the working class.

either you think revolutionary ideas are needed or not. how do they get developed? not being isolated has the advantage there are others with a similar commitment who you can bounce your ideas off of, who have different experiences, and can help to keep you from falling into mistakes. dogmatism is avoided in part through this process of dialogue, but also through practical experience. and through an organization you can gain from the practical experience of others.

the history of the USA suggests that worker self-activity and militancy is not sufficient by itself for the development of revolutionary consciousness. for one thing, militancy and self-activity can be isolated or episodic. the breadth of collective struggle affects the power people develop, and this power is needed to help people develop a sense that more far reaching change is possible. the American working class has a much more violent history of class struggle than most countries in western Europe. but individualism, passivity and escapism are more pronounced here nowadays.

as long as you mention the IWW and the '30s, you should also consider the following question. Given that union membership in the USA grew from 5 million in 1933 to 15 million in 1940, but IWW membership dropped from 20,000 to 2,000, why did that huge labor upsurge pass the IWW by? will another labor upsurge pass the IWW by?

Small point, as Tom has covered pretty much everything.

The ever Nefarious Nefac. That speaks more about those anarchists than there being anything dodgy about organising to advance one’s perspectives. If others don’t particularly want to sort out their approach in advance that’s their prerogative. It’s naïve to think that others won’t, which makes it all the more important that libertarians do it properly.

What does “push its politics on a mass group” mean in practice? It’s really how this is done that is important. There’s a big difference whether it’s done by open argument and debate or by attempting to overwhelm unorganised section through manipulation or pressure of some sort. Are they constantly trying to get control of a central committee and thereby impose their politics or are they faced with having to persuade people on an issue by issue basis?

In practice, the situation is likely to be much more dynamic than the organised anarchists forcing their line on a broader group. Apart from respecting the independence of the group, the influence is generally two-ways, with the anarchists picking up lots of useful experience along the way.

Eh, can't please everyone...

Really though, this is a weak liberal argument, and just speaking for myself, I am not especially interested in winning over any anarchist that actually thinks this way.

Any conscious revolutionary has an agenda (for our group its developing class confidence, autonomous self-organization, a radicalization of struggles, anti-electoralism, direct action, etc... and eventually, social revolution and libertarian communism). If they say they don't, they are lying. Now, moving from this indisputable point of departure, I would think the best way to effectively assert said agenda would be in an conscious, organized, collective manner... which is what serious anarchists, since the time of Bakunin, have always done.

We're not just gonna wake up to a world of anarchists someday. It is going to take years of conscious minorities asserting anarchist ideas and methods of organization within social movements and struggles before we find mass appeal. Sorry, that's reality.

SRB:

Yep. For our group, the agenda includes developing mass organizations, sustaining or building self-management of those organizations/movements, favoring a strategy of direct collective struggle rather reformist methods of electoral politics/lobbying, encouraging the development of links between different groups, such as labor and community. The emphasis upon self-managed mass organizations is what makes it syndicalist. Class autonomy of a mass organization such as union means rejecting "partnership" or collaborationist conceptions.

We should want to see develop of skills, knowledge, self-confidence in growing numbers of working people. That's not going to happen "spontaneously." That should also be part of our "agenda" in mass organizations.

Of course there is a great variance amongst working class. I’ve worked with pretty reactionary folks before in mass campaigns, as well as radicals. The working class is so damn complex and diverse that it’s a bit foolish to think that we’ve distilled the best ideas and that revolution will only be successful following our course of action.

We really aren’t any more advanced than other members of the working class. We just think we are becuase we're more active. And when we begin forming organizations to inform those reactionary masses there is room for dogmatism and there is a high chance that we will piss people off. I’m in favor of groups that promote broad libertarian aims in mass struggle. The minute detail of our long term vision is really better left up to propaganda groups or talk shops.

I’m an anarcho-syndicalist. Last I checked we advocate and create mass organizations with a limitless ceiling of demands. That’s what distinguishes our mass groups from the others; our aim is to keep demanding till we abolish coercive authority. Through that struggle people change and revolutionary consciousness develops.

Why are we so worked up about forming our nice grouplets when we need to start building mass? Waiting for the “proper” level of struggle to come along so that the working class is “ready” for mass syndicalist organization isn’t gonna get us anywhere. If we’re serious we need to start building mass groups that will push the struggle forward. Let’s make those self managed unions and community groups you’ve been talking about S-cat.

That’s why I’m involved with the IWW and SDS, because they’re actually organizing and radicalizing folk. Marginal and small yes, but so was the CNT at one point. I’ve worked in reformist mass campaigns; I think my energies are better here. An inadequate cross section of the working class? Yeah probably, but I’m not exactly sure what an adequate representation of the working class is. I’m just tired of talking about syndicalism without putting that into practice.

How is militancy and self activity not sufficient? Where do you think these revolutionary ideas came out of? There are but the polished afterthoughts of struggle. If we truly think that anarchism is possible than it’s necessary that anarchist ideas can develop relatively organically. When I was at the USSF the revolution was coming from the lived experiences of “another politics is possible” practitioners, not the anarchist workshop. These folk seemed to distill a pretty good praxis without “specific organization” pushing their politics on these mass organizations.

Maybe because the IWW was marred by the Thompson/ EP split and never really recovered? I know you have some interpretation from the 8,000 pages of IWW history you’ve read so lets hear it.

catch22:

but i've found i can't create a mass organization by myself. and not all the mass organizations i've been involved in were set up by left-libertarians with an explicit orientation to being self-managing and so on. it's really helpful if there are others you can work with who have similar politics. here in S.F. we've been involved since the '80s in four organizing efforts i can offhand remember. two were organizing people into AFL unions. one was involvement in the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition, and a fourth is a housing organization that i'm involved in now. only the last is an organization that was initiated by a number of left-libertarians, and it's a struggle to keep a self-management orientation.

this is sort of a strawman argument. it's not necessary for us to claim we have all the answers or the final correct line. We make use of the understanding that we have, the things we think we know. we try to argue for why our ideas make sense. if we don't other ideas will prevail. if we believe in our ideas, then we need to try to put them into practice.

This is a false dichotomy. One of the reasons it is useful to have a political group is so there are people to share the work. I don't know about you but i can't create a mass organization by myself.

there are some situations where the IWW is trying to build genuine mass union organizations as with the restaurant supply warehouses in NYC. but i wouldn't describe the IWW in general as a mass organization rather than a political organization, in terms of who joins it, in my observation. the fact that the IWW attracts anarchists and has a large number of them in it in relation to total membership creates, i suspect, a certain illusion. the illusion that political organization isn't needed.

in the '30s i think a part of the problem was the lack of a libertarian political organization. for example, a number of IWW butchers initiated the Independent Union of All Workers. It was a community-based labor oganization, with each town having a local union of all the workers in that town. the largest group of workers were the meat packing plant workers. but the large numbers and strength of the meat packing workers was used to support smaller groups of more isolated workers as in the retail stores on the "Main Streets". at a certain point the governor of Minnesota agreed to not intervene in a struggle with the national guard if the IUAW would affiliate to a national union. the governor was close to the Communists and the AFL. the Communists wanted to use the IUAW as a chip to advance themselves in the CIO. but joining the CIO meant cutting adrift all the non-packing plant workers as IUAW didn't fit the CIO's industrial jurisdictions. the key architect of the IUAW's strategy was wob Frank Ellis who was in jail at that moment. there was no libertarian political group or caucus in IUAW to counter the pressure to join the CIO. sticking to the IWW itself merely isolated the syndicalists.

Well, I don't think the IWW have ever claimed to be a "unitary organization", and I personally would think it was a good idea for it to function more like a network of radical workplace activists, rather than a small radical union. Even so, I would imagine that wobblies planning a campaign will try to involve everyone in their workplaces, hold meetings open to all workers, etc, and not just work with paid up IWW members.

This is a whole other discussion, but I don't see the need for a specific anarchist organization in order to participate in community struggles or anti-racist work either.

This is all well and good, but again I would see this as the job of the mass organizations, and not of a specific political organization.

blackstarbhoy: i'm not sure i see any "deeper commitment to theoretical and strategic unity" in NEFAC than in WSA. However, it's possible that NEFAC's stronger groups (collectives) helps. But this is an only accidental difference between WSA and NEFAC, due to WSA's more scattered membership at present.

WSA has a single political perspective codified in the "Where We Stand" statement back in the '80s (we've got a draft of a new version which we're currently discussing).

A part of the reason WSA was formed on the basis of individual membership rather than collective membership was to avoid group chauvinism and separate "lines" developing in groups, which became a roadblock to unity in practice in the ACF of the late '70s, which some of us had been in. On the down side, individual membership has meant that often WSA's membership has been scattered and probably made WSA more vulnterable to the entryist takeover attempt by the Duluth group. It's made me re-think that aspect of how WSA was organized. WSA functioned more like NEFAC around 1990 when we had about four or five branches (which are called "groups" in WSA), and branches were involved in various projects. at that time our equivalent of the NEFAC Federal Council was the National Committee which had regional delegates and officers doing certain functions (Secretary, Treasurer, International Secretary).

We were unfamiliar with Uruguayan "especifista" theory when we formed WSA. We were familiar however with the Italian "dual organization" concept which we do follow in practice. It's just that right now we're re-writing our basic political statement and so we're revisiting these issues. That's why syndicalist posted this question, to get feedback.

felix:

well, i'm not willing to put all the eggs in the IWW basket. your reply essentially leaves "build the IWW" as the be-all and end-all of revolutionary strategy. To me that's a recipe for marginalization. We had that debate with the ASR group. That was probably the main issue in the split in the ACF in 1980. IWW is a marginal group that attracts a high level of anarchists as a percentage of the members. It's not yet shown that it has the ability to break out of its marginalization, tho we support efforts of IWW to build actual unions, as in the restaurant supply warehouse campaign. But it's highly implausible to suppose an entire revolutionary mass movement will be forged out of these IWW efforts.

the past history of labor upsurges in the USA suggests the intiatives for these come from all sorts of sources and emerge all over. a multiplicity of venues of mass struggle is sort of inevitable.

You, on the other hand, would rather the IWW function as a network of radical activists. Well, the fact is, the IWW has no internal consensus on this question, and never has. This debate was going on in the IWW in1908. Yet it isn't coherent to try to combine building actual unions and being a network of radical activists in whatever unions there are.

my observation of the IWA, as a former member, is that the "unitary" idea of combining a revolutionary organization and a mass organization in practice leads to marginalization, splits and sectarianism.

and you provided no answer to my point about the need for radical left-libertarian activists to also be involved in community organization, and to work to develop labor/community links.

You can say that training of members should be a function of mass organizations, but who is going to propose and push for this in mass organizations? Few actual mass organizations in my observation have this orientation, tho a few do. And I'm not sure how good they are at really developing skills and confidence in members to do everything.

the kind of unionism we would advocate for, i hope, would be based on member control, constant training and mobilizing of members, fighting against all forms of discrimination or inequality such as racism, avoiding ideas of "partership" or "common interests" with the employers.

and we should also be able to advocate for this in any unions that exist, whether AFL-CIO, CtW or whatever. and it's helpful if we're not chopped up into isolated individuals while doing this.

There needs to be a place where revolutionaries can come together and share experiences and debate and learn from that, improving their own understanding, and finding people to work together with on projects. This is one of the things we need specific organizations for.