Political-Economic Dual Carding...

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
May 3 2011 18:55
Political-Economic Dual Carding...

The thought just occurred to me that there is nothing stopping members of a political-economic organization dual carding in the trades or the social movements. Theoretically a political-economic organization could also do dual-organization.

What do people think of this?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 3 2011 19:42

You mean membership of an IWA organisation and a TUC style union?
(I don't class IWW as political-economic - don't want to derail)

SF advocate this,

Quote:
We need a three-pronged approach to the business of actually setting up an independent organisation at work.

In a workplace with a recognised TUC union, an SF member would join the union but promote an anarcho-syndicalist strategy. This would involve organising workplace assemblies to make collective decisions on workplace issues. However, workers will still be likely to hold union cards here to avoid splits in the workplace between union members and non-union members.

In a non-unionised workplace, independent unions, based on the principle of collective decision-making, should be set up wherever possible.

In a non-unionised workplace, that is difficult to organise due to a high turnover of staff or a large number of temps, we should just call workers assemblies when a dispute arises.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
May 3 2011 20:16

yeah know worries about the potential for derail, i understand iww in uk context etc…i'd say the better locals out here in the usa are closer to what solfed does in practice.

yeah and i forgot about that stuff you quoted. thnx

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
May 3 2011 20:26
sabotage wrote:
yeah know worries about the potential for derail, i understand iww in uk context etc…i'd say the better locals out here in the usa are closer to what solfed does in practice.

On the risk of de-railing, I think you're entirely right. That said, there's nothing wrong with two different strategies for two different organisations (SF and UK IWW), but they should be acknowledged while finding practical ways our organisations can work together and support each other in struggle.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
May 3 2011 21:42
Quote:
The thought just occurred to me that there is nothing stopping members of a political-economic organization dual carding in the trades or the social movements.

I'd certainly be pretty worried if SolFed's strategy for industrial organisation precluded joining existing unions!

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
May 3 2011 22:25
Yorkie Bar wrote:
Quote:
The thought just occurred to me that there is nothing stopping members of a political-economic organization dual carding in the trades or the social movements.

I'd certainly be pretty worried if SolFed's strategy for industrial organisation precluded joining existing unions!

Working alongside a rather gung-ho trot within our union branch, as got me thinking how really auto-bureaucratic their politics are, and partly why the recent economic stagnation as not been that amazing for them because there's not much of a bureaucracy to leech from anymore. I am starting to get really active in my workplace, but some of the workers I talk to have real and valid understandings of the limitations of unionism, and to there credit. Trade unions will defend capitalism and will be legalistic, they are simply organisations where most radical workers orientate, but they are wedded firmly in the confines of capitalism. I think if your open and sincere about their limitations there is still a remit and a veneer trade unionism offers you that can open more doors. I have used tactics in disputes as a steward before to collectivise issues and have managed to get non-union members in on the grievances.

Even though its really short and not much substance to it, I think SF's approach hits the nail on the head.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 3 2011 23:49
Yorkie Bar wrote:
Quote:
The thought just occurred to me that there is nothing stopping members of a political-economic organization dual carding in the trades or the social movements.

I'd certainly be pretty worried if SolFed's strategy for industrial organisation precluded joining existing unions!

i *think* the CNT doesn't allow dual carding with mainstream unions. although it's a bit different in Spain as they're able to operate as a legally recognised union without having to compromise too much on anarcho- methods (which would be impossible under UK industrial relations legislation imho, even if we wanted to go that route).

re: the OP; yeah basically members of a revolutionary union type organisation can dual-card with a mainstream one. if there's a difference to a typical dual card set up, it's that this wouldn't be boring from within, attempting to reform the mainstream org, but seeking to organise independently along anarcho-syndicalist lines with all workers, perhaps under the cover of the recognised union at times. of course not all political organisations attempt to 'bore from within', e.g. 'workplace resistance groups' might be a similar thing of being a member of the mainstream union but seeking to organise independently along direct action lines.

we'll be publishing a pamphlet imminently about the Workmates collective on the London Underground, which is a pretty good example of this kind of thing in action.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 4 2011 07:30
JoeMaguire wrote:
(I don't class IWW as political-economic - don't want to derail)

Sorry, but I just have to respond to this.

The NA IWW, at least, sometimes acts as a political-economic organization that has never had a discussion about what this means or how to do it.

Quote:
the OP; yeah basically members of a revolutionary union type organisation can dual-card with a mainstream one. if there's a difference to a typical dual card set up, it's that this wouldn't be boring from within, attempting to reform the mainstream org, but seeking to organise independently along anarcho-syndicalist lines with all workers, perhaps under the cover of the recognised union at times. of course not all political organisations attempt to 'bore from within', e.g. 'workplace resistance groups' might be a similar thing of being a member of the mainstream union but seeking to organise independently along direct action lines.

I think this is why what SolFed has been discussing is pretty appealing to me right now. Because it's a discussion that really needs to happen in the IWW. Not sure if it could because we are not an anarcho-syndicalist organization and have always had (in my opinion) ill developed politics, but maybe it could. At the very least, dual carding is a conversation that needs to happen. There are tons of dual carders in the IWW, yet there is not and to my knowledge has never been a dual card strategy or training. Which kinda results in a variety of different things being done. Some try to build pressure on the bureaucrats to pass resolutions or act in a way more radical. Others organize somewhat independently of the mainstream union and try to build power. It seems most just make it up as they go, and whatever makes sense to them or seems like its working is done.

After Wisconsin though, I don't think we can afford to operate this way anymore.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
May 4 2011 10:22
Joseph Kay wrote:
i *think* the CNT doesn't allow dual carding with mainstream unions.

I thought the same but I recently read something from a CNT member on alasbarricadas saying that they didn't actually have any rule against it. In practice there isn't any dual membership though and in the Spanish context there wouldn't be much reason for it.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
May 4 2011 11:22

If the CNT doesn't allow dual membership with other unions, that strongly suggests, to me, that they are aiming to 'compete' with mainstream unions in doing the same sorts of things. But maybe there's some context here I'm missing.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
May 4 2011 12:02
JoeMaguire wrote:
I am starting to get really active in my workplace, but some of the workers I talk to have real and valid understandings of the limitations of unionism, and to there credit.
JoeMaguire wrote:
I think if your open and sincere about their limitations there is still a remit and a veneer trade unionism offers you that can open more doors.

I have to say, i really 100% agree with this.
While i don't attempt to organise my workplace (i only work very part time, and i'm studying the rest of the week), i do enjoy subversive chats with my colleagues.

Criticising unionism at the same time as the employer immediately gets their attention, and distinguishes one from a regular boring lefty spouting a narrative they've heard before. Pointing out how little control we have over the unions, how stupid their actions often are, in the same conversation as a regular 'look at the shit things the employers are making us do' actually builds a lot of bridges as well as encouraging libertarian ideas.

The most mileage i got out of this was when a colleague admitted that a pretty nasty (very complicit with the top local public sector bureaucracy) manager had joined the union for the first time (after working there for like 5 years), when she was threatened with the sack.

JoeMaguire wrote:
Even though its really short and not much substance to it, I think SF's approach hits the nail on the head.

Industrial networks, and the focus on training does seem like a really good approach to building up a grassroots workplace radicalism. One might laugh at the idea of roleplays, but i think they could be pretty useful, as workplace organising definitely requires a lot of very specifically defined (and repeated) social interactions.

Out of interest, how do the industrial networks relate to SolFed? Do workers have to join SolFed to become part of a network? Are the networks subordinate to the decisions of the federation?

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
May 4 2011 12:07
Yorkie Bar wrote:
If the CNT doesn't allow dual membership with other unions, that strongly suggests, to me, that they are aiming to 'compete' with mainstream unions in doing the same sorts of things. But maybe there's some context here I'm missing.

Well they refused to hold a press announcement with the UGT etc, and they don't participate in union elections which would get them lots of money from the state if they did. So i wouldn't worry about them wanting to compete.

IMO its quite interesting to see that the FAI was not reconstituted after Franco died, and that the CNT are trying something quite interesting, which is building up a purely and inherently revolutionary union that doesn't need a vanguard of anarchists to check it is still on a revolutionary path. Much like the AAUD-E

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
May 4 2011 12:29

HM, those are all really pertinent and important questions about SF that I'm too busy to answer atm. If no one responds, please feel free to PM me.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
May 4 2011 13:59
Harrison Myers wrote:
IMO its quite interesting to see that the FAI was not reconstituted after Franco died, and that the CNT are trying something quite interesting, which is building up a purely and inherently revolutionary union that doesn't need a vanguard of anarchists to check it is still on a revolutionary path. Much like the AAUD-E

there is an FAI, although i don't know what conection it has to the old FAI

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 4 2011 14:22
Harrison Myers wrote:
Out of interest, how do the industrial networks relate to SolFed? Do workers have to join SolFed to become part of a network? Are the networks subordinate to the decisions of the federation?

Networks are part of SolFed in a similar way to Locals - they have full autonomy within the A&Ps and Conference decisions, the difference being members' votes on federation-wide matters are exercised through Locals . Members are free to divide their time between Locals and Networks as they see fit, so an isolated Education worker may be mainly active through the EWN, but exercise voting rights through their nearest Local.

In practice however, the Networks are very small and geographically dispersed, and with the exception of the EWN in a very formative stage, so most practical activity goes through Locals, with Networks focussing on propaganda (the EWN included). So for example the Unwaged Workers Network might be putting together a leaflet for the possible PCS strikes, but it would be Locals actually leafletting claimants at job centres. We might also be looking into adapting the training to particular industries with the help of the Networks, which might be a first step beyond propaganda.

If we grew to the point of having Industrial Locals (Brighton Public Services, Manchester Education Workers etc), then more activity might shift to the Networks, with Locals becoming more of a co-ordination body for cross-industry or community activity. But this is a bit speculative at the moment as we're probably an order of magnitude shy of having widespread Industrial Locals!

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 4 2011 14:32
Yorkie Bar wrote:
If the CNT doesn't allow dual membership with other unions, that strongly suggests, to me, that they are aiming to 'compete' with mainstream unions in doing the same sorts of things. But maybe there's some context here I'm missing.

i think it is trying to 'compete' in the sense they think workers should organise along revolutionary/direct action lines rather than reformist/representative ones, but not trying to compete in the sense of poaching members etc. as Harrison Myers points out, they'd be richer and be able to claim to represent far more workers if they participated in works councils/union elections and accepted state subsidies, but they refuse to on principled grounds.*

Harrison Myers wrote:
IMO its quite interesting to see that the FAI was not reconstituted after Franco died, and that the CNT are trying something quite interesting, which is building up a purely and inherently revolutionary union that doesn't need a vanguard of anarchists to check it is still on a revolutionary path. Much like the AAUD-E

There are similarities to the AAUD-E in the sense of combining union organisation and revolutionary politics in a single organisation, but there's also several important differences (the AAUD-E didn't organise day-to-day struggles for example, and was only meant to exist in a 'revolutionary period'). As for the FAI, I met one of them at a CNT-hosted IWA conference last year. I really don't know much about them but i think they see their role similarly as always; although since the split with the CGT the CNT has mostly jettisoned the 'simple syndicalist' tendency that the original FAI was set up to counter.

* which are also practical; since in the final analysis class collaboration doesn't really work and you end up with bureaucratic obstacles to struggle rather than being a catalyst for it.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
May 4 2011 15:41

Cheers for the replies SolFedders. I personally think the CNT and Solfed have the right approach in more-or-less fusing the economic and political, even if the economic bit is embryonic at this stage.

IMHO, the political bit seems important in determining the long-term direction of the economic bit (which sort of works on automatically fighting for gains in the workplace). So the more closely linked, the better judged will be the time the union transforms from fighting for workplace gains to fighting for purely revolutionary gains.... ie. shifting to an AAUD-E/AAUD policy.

From reading about the old CNT in the civil war, its greatest failure was that when the moment arose, it didn't fight uncompromisingly for communism. Maybe i'm mistaken, but i attribute this to it [at the time, not today] lacking enough political direction and being more of an economic organ.

...anyway thats my opinion on dual-carding. its perhaps a bit too wrapped up with ATR thought

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 4 2011 15:53
Harrison Myers wrote:
IMHO, the political bit seems important in determining the long-term direction of the economic bit (which sort of works on automatically fighting for gains in the workplace).

i also think it informs day-to-day practice. do we want to represent workers, or do we want workers to act for themselves? these things require conscious effort and decision-making on a day-to-day basis. for example, imagine you have a job branch of say, 5 workers in a revolutionary union, who have got the place well enough organised that you're having regular mass meetings, in a workplace of, for arguments sake 100 workers. what if the boss decides to try and co-opt these into the management structure, setting aside time for the meetings, perhaps encouraging them to nominate a representative to liase with HR etc. that might look like victory, 'having our fair say' etc unless the revolutionary unionists have done a good job of 'inoculation', preparing workers for the likely consequences of organising (whether repression or recuperation). i think the default position is to fall back into normal capitalist relations, so a revolutionary perspective informs even basic day-to-day organising imho.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
May 4 2011 20:32
Joseph Kay wrote:
Harrison Myers wrote:
IMO its quite interesting to see that the FAI was not reconstituted after Franco died, and that the CNT are trying something quite interesting, which is building up a purely and inherently revolutionary union that doesn't need a vanguard of anarchists to check it is still on a revolutionary path. Much like the AAUD-E

There are similarities to the AAUD-E in the sense of combining union organisation and revolutionary politics in a single organisation, but there's also several important differences (the AAUD-E didn't organise day-to-day struggles for example, and was only meant to exist in a 'revolutionary period')

Also membership of the AAUD-E required a high level of ideological agreement, membership of the CNT doesn't.

The CNT wrote:
Anyone can voluntarily belong to the anarcho-union, with the exception of police, soldiers and members of security forces. No ideological qualification is necessary to be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organization in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous, federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules, and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties ... can be part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 4 2011 20:34

Yeah, but the Qué es la CNT? is a bit disingenuous on that (or I'm missing the Spanish nuances with my rudimentary translation); 'no ideological qualification is necessary' you just have to accept the aims and methods of the union, which are explicitly anarchist. I think in practice that means you don't have to identify as anarchist, but have to act like one.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
May 5 2011 08:18

Sorry but the information about the FAI is just plain wrong. The FAI continued to exist in one form or the other and was there when democratisation was brought in, its militants took part in the controversy within the CNT which eventually led to the split between the CNT-AIT and the CNT Renovados which then became the CGT. FAistas were robust in their views, with some Renovados being attacked with iron bars. The late Luis Andres Edo was involved with this, although he later issued a statement that he regretted these actions.
The FAI still exists today and is the Spanish section of the International of Anarchist Federations. Its members have to be members of the CNT too, as far as I am aware.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 5 2011 13:57

Sorry, I haven't fully read everything yet. My comments are really directed to my US comrades.

To Battlescar's point: all members of the FAI are also to be CNT militants. This is historical and dates back to the founding of the FAI in 1927.

More to the point of what has become known as "dual carding". This is prolly not something that will ever happen in Spain. It's not a tradition, it's not something of value to them.

Going back to the time when I started to get active (1970s), I would hazard to say that most pro-IWA anarcho-syndicalists in the industrialized west (except for France) acted in a "dual card" manner. Mind you, the anarcho-syndicalist divide, while there, was not as manifest as today. The majority of us young folks (all in our 20s,maybe early 30s) was pro-IWA Principles.

Anyway, here in the US, the question of "dual carding"or, rather, being an active "dual carder" was seen as akin to being reformist. This created a stir and ill-feelings between the more active elements of the anarchist movement. To a large degree, this issue -- actually, the practical application of effective "dual carding", lead to the break-up of the ACF/NA; led to ill will between some in the IWW and some who were rapidly becoming disillusioned with IWW practice and some really egg-head Wobs attitudes in general.

Of course nothing is black and white. There will always be shades of lots of colors involved. One of the failures of the US libertarian workers movement has, for ages, been a sort of "either, or" strategy (my way or no way). I think this is still a problem. But the reality, for whatever proportion of folks that still belong to unions, is that strategy and tactics must sometimes be guided by the reality you face, not the dream wiorld we wish. For example, having worked in a number union shops, back in my day, it made no sense to say, "Hey Join the IWW" (even when I was a Wob). So, what to do? The old timers had no practical answers. So us youngins' basically had to figure out things on our own. Ultimeately we came to the conclusion that the best tact would be (what we called) a "pluralistic" one. Try and build militant bases/action committees in the unionized shops, try and do industrial networks and try and organize independently (usually meaning IWW) where possible.

Look, I'm not trying to knock anyone's efforts in 2011. It is many years since my shop days. But time and again the practical question and reality of situations will raise their heads. I honestly have all the respect in the world for folks in the IWW, but I thought it was kinda sad that, after all these years, the best that folks could say in WI was "build the general strike".
I mean the IWW folks on the ground were doing tremdendous work, day and night. Word and respect. But the call for militant action, without other demands, speaks volumes to the waekness of a number of other issues.... not just with building the IWW as a distinct organ in heavily unionized situations, but to the need to attach demands for miliatnt action with some sort of concrete demands (fight the concessions, build inter-departmental solidarity between rank-and-file members, emphasize direct action against the demands by the mainstream for political action and so forth).

Whoa.... sorry, did I drift a bit. My real point here is not to trash anyones efforts or love for the IWW.. But to be critical of the same sorts of problems that seem to have plagued us for decades. And to say, "Hey, look at the way we continually operate as a movement."
"Let's see if we can find a way to take the best aspects of our views and work out a set of parallel ways forward." As a WSA partisan, I think we have gone through some of these experiances and have thought some of this out. I think some of my younger comrades may not think this and feel they have to taste things themselves. Cool, all power to them. As new and challeging as each experiance is, all experiances can be tied together. Somethings folks in our movement just need to think they have discovered something new, as I prolly did so many years ago as well. OK, fair enough and enough pontificating and walking down memory lane.

Anywho, to my comrades who are actively engaged in the thick of struggle, in the thick of organizing, stick to your basic principles of self-organization and direct action, but do not close oneslf off from maximum principled tactical and organizational flexibility.

OK, end of broken record!

EDIT: I want to be absolutely clear that any and all critical comments are meant in a respectful and comradely tone. They are not meant to denigrate the work of anyone or any organization. I think we all of us always need to be self-critical.....and I would include anything
I have done or organizations I have or still belong to. So, yes to constructive criticism. No to shit talking.

Awesome Dude's picture
Awesome Dude
Offline
Joined: 31-07-07
May 5 2011 18:49

There has never exisited mass revolutionary union organisation (apart from the early 20th century North American IWW) in the Anglo-American workers movement. Untill these mythical 'political-economic' entities develop or are built I this all this is pure abstraction.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 5 2011 19:21

A political-economic organisation isn't necessarily 'mass', it just means doing economic organisation in a way informed by explicit political perspectives, which inform the organising methods. Excluding the non-English speaking world seems pretty arbitrary, there's important cultural issues to consider, but there's lots of interesting experiences to draw from Spain, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Chile... And isn't abstraction - the ability to digest complex information and discern patterns - what separates us from chimps? wink

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
May 5 2011 20:04

to be clear for comrades i was thinking more that a political-economic active minority could also do "dual organization"

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 5 2011 20:25

Sabotage.....Back around 1992, the WSA agreed to try and initiate two or three industrial networks. They were to be intiated by WSA, but not directly affiliated to WSA. When NY comrades did the Needle Trade Workers Action Committee, it was initiated by us, but not affiliated to the Libertarian Workers Group. We didn't want them to simply political arms of the organization. The risk, is that it can either act as a front or been seen as a front. But, I think, the possibilities for networks are never far away. I guess, it's just having some deddicated comrades doing the spade work.

I suspect there's a way to do this even with small numbers.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 5 2011 20:50
Joseph Kay wrote:
A political-economic organisation isn't necessarily 'mass', it just means doing economic organisation in a way informed by explicit political perspectives, which inform the organising methods.

I can see a long and pointless circular argument coming on here. wink

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 5 2011 21:32
nastyned wrote:
I can see a long and pointless circular argument coming on here. ;)

You would say that, you councillismist! etc wink

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 6 2011 07:24
syndicalist wrote:
One of the failures of the US libertarian workers movement has, for ages, been a sort of "either, or" strategy (my way or no way). I think this is still a problem.

I've seen you state that a couple of times, but I really don't see that in anything really. Besides 1 or 2 ultraplatformists or a couple of ultra-Build the IWW! folks, I've not really encountered this attitude. A far bigger failure is the tactical and localist chauvinism that uses regional or workplace situations as an excuse to basically do anything. I wish there was more 'either/or' going on. That would indicate a level of theoretical development and tactical unity that just doesn't exist at all. Instead we have 300 people doing 299 different campaigns using 500 different tactics. I think people need to identify some broad things that work and go all in.

Quote:
I honestly have all the respect in the world for folks in the IWW, but I thought it was kinda sad that, after all these years, the best that folks could say in WI was "build the general strike".

Unfortunately, like I said before, the IWW often acts like a political-economic organization that has never actually talked about what that means. There's no strategy on dual carding, and there is no strategy in operating within mass movements as a minority. The latter is something many IWW branches who do not do workplace organizing fall into anyway.

Additionally that phrase wasn't the only thing we said. We tried to give examples of job actions and give people the organizing tools and concepts to these to the best of our very limited ability.

My question to you is, what would an anarchist political organization (who were all absolutely irrelevant in WI, I'd like to point out...) do in this situation? I've thought about this quite a bit actually. And I really don't know if any could have done much more or different. In fact, due to what I see as the lack of emphasis on organizing skills in the anarchist political organizations, one might have done much worse.

Quote:
I mean the IWW folks on the ground were doing tremdendous work, day and night. Word and respect. But the call for militant action, without other demands, speaks volumes to the waekness of a number of other issues.... not just with building the IWW as a distinct organ in heavily unionized situations, but to the need to attach demands for miliatnt action with some sort of concrete demands (fight the concessions, build inter-departmental solidarity between rank-and-file members, emphasize direct action against the demands by the mainstream for political action and so forth).

Well, as a militant minority, I don't see the point of making demands. That's something that's made by a wider movement, and it didn't really get to that point. That type of thing requires mass assemblies, on the job actions building up, etc. I don't believe in propping up some list of demands and building everything around that.

There's 20 groups out there, all forming their lists of demands, which are absolutely meaningless. I'm more of a 'demand nothing' type though, or at least I'm coming around to it. Far more important is the ability to disrupt the economy and business as usual. Also, there's no need for demands if it's already understood what you want.

Quote:
But to be critical of the same sorts of problems that seem to have plagued us for decades. And to say, "Hey, look at the way we continually operate as a movement."
"Let's see if we can find a way to take the best aspects of our views and work out a set of parallel ways forward."

As a WSA partisan, I think we have gone through some of these experiances and have thought some of this out. I think some of my younger comrades may not think this and feel they have to taste things themselves. Cool, all power to them. As new and challeging as each experiance is, all experiances can be tied together. Somethings folks in our movement just need to think they have discovered something new, as I prolly did so many years ago as well. OK, fair enough and enough pontificating and walking down memory lane.

Anywho, to my comrades who are actively engaged in the thick of struggle, in the thick of organizing, stick to your basic principles of self-organization and direct action, but do not close oneslf off from maximum principled tactical and organizational flexibility.

In all respect, man, sometimes it seems that you're directed things towards people that just don't exist, or just existed during a time before mine. Who thinks they discovered something new?

Who is 'closing oneself off from maximum principled tactical and organizational flexibility'? I saw quite the oppisite.. It's the result of inexperience...which was reflected in people ages 20-65 here I'm afraid to say.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 6 2011 13:00

Juan, briefly before I go to work. I'll come back to some stuff over the weekend.

My comments about reinventing the wheel are based on a recent stuff (say since 2008ish). Now, you may think I've come from another planet and am having differenct observations than you, which is ok by me.

My observations are mainly in the relam of the 3 "Class Struggle Anarchist Conferences".
For 2 1/2 of them I was deeply involved in the planning and discussions. These experiances have given me some insight into some of the other groups. The failure of the CSAC-Labor group and some more recent stuff which arose in the WSA. As well as some of the more recent writings by folks in our movement. Now, you can say that my observations are wrong, that's you're perogative.

Inexperiance, yes, of course, we all have gone through that. As I said, my generation has as well. One big difference, we had no one to really share our thinking with. You all do (and I'm not refering to me or simply WSA folks here, but I've always shared when asked). Specifically, in the IWW, I'm assuming you have a number of seasoned class struggle veterans. One would think they would be sharing whatever experiances and advice with folks beyond a slogan.

OK, let me run here. Let me close by saying I get where you're coming from on a number of the substantive points. Perhaps it's more a matter of where our own political heads and focuses are at.

Back to you again, man.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 6 2011 13:05

Sorry, sort of as a PS:

Quote:
Who is 'closing oneself off from maximum principled tactical and organizational flexibility'? I saw quite the oppisite..

Well, this is one of the things I am exactly talking about. In fact, this goes back to when I was a youngin' in the movement and in the IWW and got the shit stomped on for even raising it:

Quote:
Juan:

There's no strategy on dual carding, and there is no strategy in operating within mass movements as a minority. The latter is something many IWW branches who do not do workplace organizing fall into anyway.

Gots to ruuuuuunnnnnnn......