Political Organization and Social Movements

The push for a delegate convention was a collective UK-IWW position. Unfortunately some opportunistic elements tried make it sound as if it was their efforts alone that were instrumental to the proceedings i.e. 'with out our organisation it never would have happened'.

If a political group operates in a secretive fashion in a mass organisation it automatically posses a problem for the workers movement. Looking at the Bolsheviks and their derivatives through out the 20th century and their poisonous effect on workers movements, surely it is the right thing for libertarian communists to question organisation which follows that pattern? Communism will be an open society. There will be no need hide anything like the capitalist class do to maintain the status quo.

L&S don't produce publications in their own name because there's enough tiny revolutionary groups with publications the world doesn't really need another one.

I'm pretty sure the constitution and aims and principles is available to read on the website somewhere, but anyway they have never made any secret of the fact that they work together as an organisation in wider groups.

L&S branches are supposed to hold regular member's meetings just like other orgs do, and I think people can request an invite even if they're not members.

What's a "major decision" or a "strategic position"? Who decides what differentiates them from the rest?

The above is a recipe for constantly splitting, or for breeding conservatism and conformism. And it has nothing to do with real historical experience of successful mass revolutionary organisations, all of which have done away with the pointlessness of asking people to say anything other than what they think. It's so totally weird and useless, and is almost solely a preoccupation of tiny propaganda groups acting under the mistaken belief that such rules in some way represent being serious or useful.

Every group needs some coherence: this should be on the political level, and in the current conditions there's no reason why it shouldn't be publicly available. If strategic differences flow consistently from political differences which are themselves worth splitting over, then yes it might be time to leave - but that's not always the case.

Sure, but what do you mean by secretive? I mean the FAI operated, and from what I understand still operates in the CNT as an active tendency. Is being a group that has a political perspective separate and apart from a larger organisation all it takes to be secretive? I think things always look much more secretive to people who are not in your group to those that are in your group.

Solfed and Afed both have a presence in broader organisations. I've heard of the ICC participating in larger groups. In Makhno's memoirs the Gulai Polye group had a very strict internal discipline and sent mandated delegates to participate in the soviets and there was little flexibility in the perspectives that they were permitted to put forward. I'm also sure they didn't publish their minutes to the public at large is that secretive?

I think it's like Fallback said, it has more to do with the politics of the group than any poor motives or sneaky dealings. If anything L&S, and one member in particular, have been open to the point of tactlessness in the IWW. My objections to them in the international have been largely over organising strategy I'm not sure its fair to imply they were dishonest.

I think also bears mentioning that the decisive votes for Delegate convention were BIROC votes and that was a turning point from an organisation that represented branches versus an organisation largely governed by who could afford to show up. It also ended packing the votes at annual meetings for the host branches pet activist projects. Both things were major steps forward for the IWW.

First of all I do not advocate constant splitting, I think that even in a tight knit revolutionary organisation the maximum possible flexibility should be allowed, and a "party line" should only be imposed in the fewest possible situations, and that tendencies and factions as well as individuals should be free to argue for their positions internally until they or the rest of the group (not some permanant fixed leadership) get bored and decide a parting of the ways is called for.

However if you make a series of proposals that get rejected by 90% of the organisation you're in, and you find yourself being one of only a handful of people that vote against a series of winning proposals the overwhelming majority back then what is the point of continuing, when there are more productive uses of your time elsewhere?

The fact is that when you have a selection of revolutionary orgs participating within wider social movements then there is an inherent flexibility in rev group membership and especially at the present time it really doesn't matter whether people stay in groups or not, as long as they're active in the wider movements.

That might change however if we ever do grow a genuinely sizable and weighty libcom/class struggle/libsoc/etc organisation which has real influence in the wider struggle - then it would make sense to have it be as internally flexible and tolerant as possible in the interests of revolutionary class unity - but until then, the splitting, disolution, and reforming of micro groups matters not one jot.

And just to come back to the bit I've bolded - it is surely up to the organisation in question whether they bore outsiders with their internal debates, I suspect however that the vast majority putside aren't that interested.

dp

No one does, even those who constantly split. But many people advocate organisational norms which necessarily need to constant splitting.

... or even 50%...

e.g. Lenin circa Jan 1917, arguing the internationalist position within the Bolshevik fraction? Possibly quite a lot, if it allows the org to learn from dissident perspectives.

It demoralises and disorganises the milieu, and makes any future regroupment less likely and more difficult.

No one's asking you to publish your list-serve - we won't - but having a rule where people say contrary to what they think, or even don't argue for their real position is corrosive, and no group has a "right" to it.

Demo was called under the banner of Cleaners Defence Committee. Several groups get involved under that auspice include SF and AF, individuals SH and DO put themselves forward to organise said demo. Cleaners Defence Committee demo then transpires in the final stages to become an IWW called demo, which was an attempt to freeze us out.

As I said this as NOTHING to do with the demo being called off and this is discussed at length on the previous thread.

Bit blunt that, I've vocalised my disagreement with the current SolFed line on media involvement for several years now while accepting the fact that mine hasn't been the majority view. It only becomes a big problem if a) you are deliberately undermining the organisation's core policies (eg. if I took it into my head to speak "on behalf" of Solfed to Hello! or something) or b) you disagree with large enough percentages of policy that it becomes untenable to continue working within it.

In terms of organised voting, I think it becomes a problem when you start deliberately packing members into places they have no right to be. No-one's can really argue if you and your group been working a campaign for a year and then vote the same way on an issue (though tbh I also think that in a healthy organisation it's unlikely everyone will freely vote the same way on every issue - hell even the Tories are rarely that robotic outside a three line whip), but if a dozen more of your mates show up at a key meeting having done fuck all towards the project and skew the vote that's clearly out of order.

Ah I understand where you are coming from now.

Yeah but I think you are thinking about this a bit abstractly. Suppose you are in an organisation of 2,000 people and in the errr south east hull branch there are a bunch of people who start advocating and participating in vigelantism; beating up teenage dealers of weed etc. What do you do? Do you think that people should be free to say and do what ever they really believe in regardless of what the organisation says?

Suppose alternatively that a catholic joins your organisation. And as a catholic they are opposed to abortion. Do you think they should be free to spend their weekends waving picture of fetuses at people entering abortion clinics?

Or do you say to them you can remain the group and not engage in or support vigilantism/engage in or support 'prolife' activism or you can leave. If you are think the latter is a better response than letting people do what they want and say what they want then you agree with the abstract position you are arguing against. The issue is rather what level of compulsory political agreement is necessary and how are people prevented from going against that agreement.

I agree with all this.

We're not like the left though, the fact is most tiny anarchist groups manage to work together on issues where they agree most of the time (even L&S and Solfed members!)

That's up to you, but yeah 50% is probably a limit.

Well no, not if it means you have to engage in activity you think it worthless (IE the IWW).

I'm not convinced it really does depending on how it's handled, I quit L&S that wouldn't and hasn't stopped me from working with them, and considering them comrades, just like I consider AF, Solfed, and the Commune to be comrades and potential allies. Indeed I'm involved with an emerging local group that has AF and Solfed members involved. As long as people do not elevate genuine political differences into massive grudge matches and ego wars, like the trot sects then it shoudln't really matter.

Who are you to allocate "rights"? It's not about rights, the fact is some groups will do this and some won't as long as the groups who do it are open about that fact it doesn't matter it is a tactical issue, not ethical.

I would just like to reiterate I would ideally like to see the maximum possible libertarian communist unity in a Libertarian Communist (or whatever) Network that brought together the various federations, the commune, and various individuals who signed up to a minimum aims and prnciples and programme for joint action, and organised in local groups across the country. I actually think that is doable right here right now. However if it doesn't happen right here and now, as long as people are involved in working together constructively where possible in struggles that are genuinely relevant to the class it really doesn't matter.

I've copied your last comment to this thread because it's interesting and relevant there too.

What are you alluding to?

what?

The problem here is that L&S are not an anarchist group. They say as much on their FAQ.