The problem with Federations?

Im not sure. Don't see the problem with federations personally. But im sure people will enlighten me?

Why don't you start with your problems with federations and we'll take it from there?

I did try to join the Leeds branch of the AF a few weeks ago but they stopped replying to my emails. I think they decided I wasn't hardcore when I missed the anti-EDL protest because I was knocked out with the flu. .

~J.

Emails do have a tendency to go astray. Are you sure they're igorning you?

I'm sure they're not, I've just been busy/disorganised and haven't chased them about it. I will get onto them.

~J.

Looking at your profile I reckon you should move to Manchester and join the AF here. You'd fit right in If you are having trouble contacting Leeds AF pm me and I'll give them a rocket for you.

When I join AF it will definitely be full anarchy in the UK. I've just emailed leeds so hopefully I'll hear back from them soon.

~J.

Curtains having a bun fight?

~J.

i think this is the wrong way to look at it. SolFed only has the Education Workers' Network at present, but why would you want to join the EWN and not meet with other militants in other industries in your vicinity, i.e. in the local? SolFed has problems, but i don't think this is one tbh.

I am keen to write exactly why I think both federations arent working federally the way they should. Its due to the fact that federalism as dual characteristics only some of which AF and SF seem to achieve, a consequence frankly of low level political consciousness and the fact that we are an uber marginal movement and numbers rarely test the organisations were talking about. When I get chance I will post a thread or put it on a blog, or something.

Personally i think the decision to have a closed industrial network was obviously a mistake. Thankfully stuff like the LEWG is starting to show its something that can be put behind us, and that we can learn from past errors.
On top of that I'd say that while having locals is an inevitable result of low density etc our approach should be about breaking out of those locals (albeit within the bounds of realism). Since an anarchosyndicalist organisation would have to recruit industrially to be effective.

I'm off the internet this weekend but I'll reply next week, and sort out that PM blackrainbow.

On the topic of education. Im hoping to try and do a PGCE in teaching next year. I was wondering if there is any specific teaching/education union I should join? Is there any known for their militancy? (I know most if not all have a top down hierarchy) But I need the legal protection etc if something goes wrong. Cheers

Most lefties join the National Union of Teachers, and they considered to be the most militant. The Association of Lecturers and Teachers are arguably the most rightwing. I don't know a huge deal about NASUWT, but they're the middle ones.

I think when you're studying for the PGCE membership of all three of the major unions is free, and many students join all three for the slightly different stuff you get.

Once you're based in a school I would have thought it would make sense to see what unions are organised there, but if in doubt go with the NUT.

Surely you should not have been wasting your time attending both branches, the education branch should have just sent a delegate(s) to the general branch meetings.

You should join the union that your workmates are predominately in, but like as already been hinted at we have a problem that education institutions are penetrated by in some cases three or more seperate unions which reinforce to make militancy ineffective and weak. In SF were trying to overcome this through networking, which was the basis of LEWG.

Im not disagreeing with what your saying here. SF it seems is filling a dual space of being a hub of activists or rather a political entity organised through a local branch and trying to function as a proto anarcho-syndicalist union, both of which are taxing. For me this process is an outcome of the political climate we have found ourselves in, where in a period of low class-struggle the organisation/activists have titled towards the permeantly fixed local rather than industrially networking. This as resulted in a slightly skewed set of commitments and a miss allocation of some of our time and effort. Im not that interested in "building general local branches" which can mean anything frankly. Let me say in response were a weak organisation that as gone through a period of serious class defeats and some of the lethargy and disorientation is a reflection of that. We have one functioning industrial network and after some of the delays and missed oppurtunities of recent years there is a concerted effort to work with all concerned. Correct me if I am wrong but all the joint ventures with the IWW have come from ourselves, so credit where its due.

The resolution for my part is that we will have to start leaving the politics to the AF and focussing on industrially organising. I see potentially the two organisations can function one as an explicitly political entity the other as being economic/political organisation. Which is precisely why I can see potential between the two, and there being no requirement for overlap in political work but potentially having dual members. But differences need to be looked at through practical activity, not based on internet discussions.

like i say, the EWN is not "closed" - if you agree with the EWN aims and principles you agree with SolFed, and vice versa. the EWN is SolFed, only one of its industrial sections (the only one at present). EWN members also assure me their discussion list is open to non-members too.

SolFed has neither focussed on building industrial or local groups, and we haven't grown in recent years. We lack organisational strategy, and this is a failing (one that is recognised and currently under discussion). Still, with a relatively low density of workers who accept anarcho-syndicalist means and ends, industrial networks are always likely to be geographically dispersed while locals form the basis of face-to face meetings.

the idea has been floated in SolFed for one or more general networks (e.g. public, private, unwaged) just so that everyone is a member of a network, both to normalise the idea of industrial organisation and encourage the formation of more specific ones. that said, in my local the focus is mainly on practical organising activity rather than internal stuff, only for the most part as supportive outsiders rather than workers in the industry. that's a problem, but there's no real shortcut to building industrial networks as far as i can see. personally i think those who support a strategy of industrial networking with anarchist means and ends should consider joining SF and helping make it happen, although i recognise SF hasn't always been the most attractive organisation to join for a number of reasons (many of which are being addressed though).

as october_lost says, surely you could send a delegate?

two things:

1) how many of those involved in LEWG actually disagree with the EWN's principles or don't meet its conditions of membership? i mean the LEWG 'about us' strikes me as anarcho-syndicalist (the explicit opposition to political parties and the state i think takes it beyond the IWW's syndicalism). i'm not saying everyone in the LEWG should join EWN/SolFed, but i do wonder what differences there actually are - LEWG's a&p's aren't any more 'open' than the EWNs imho.

2) the two are not mutually exclusive; EWN members can and do participate in the LEWG.

i think the LEWG is a good thing, and we plugged it in Catalyst on the page of the Tower Hamlets feature. but i'm not sure how it is organised... is it a dues-paying formal membership organisation? if not, it's not really comparing like with like to compare it with the EWN or IW620 anyway.

i think this is the way forward, with 'industrial organising' considered broadly with unwaged (claimants, pensioners, carers, housework etc) all considered 'industries' for the purpose of of organising. if SolFed takes on the role of an anrcho-syndicalist organisation (the practical application of anarchism to class struggle organising) then that opens up the possibility for a synergy (eugh, managementspeak) with the AF as exists in many places on the continent. i don't think it's a case of practical activity or internet discussions, the latter clairify the former. that said SolFed does need to address how we become more practically focussed, which probably means leaving some things to the AF.

In the real world though its quite clearly closed. Anyone who joins has to join a solfed local and accept all of solfeds baggage meaning that you would be getting people to join on pretty much a solely political basis. Trying to pretend solfed is an open group you;d merrily invite your workmates who weren't anarchists to is just putting your head in the sand comrade.

Anyways the point of our politics isn;t to recruit people into solfed, its to
a) argue for the wider class to use anarchist ideas and strategies in struggle
and b) argue for an effective political-economic anarcho-syndicalist organisation
In the case of (a) this is more effectively done by having open networks which people can join on a basic minimum level of agreement without having to throw their lot in totally with what is in reality a small political group, and which allows you to work effectively with other anarchists and syndicalists etc
In the case of (b) if at some indeterminant point in the future you had breakaway sections of unions/groups of workers, community organisations and various anarchists and syndicalists wanting to form a mass organisation as for example happened with formation of the IWW back in the day, then solfed (if it still happened to exist then) would one assumes most likely fold itself into said larger organisation.

SolFed neither is nor should be open to all. revolutionary principles are important otherwise you're just left with the uncritical fetish for mass organisations of certain platformists. the point is the LEWG's principles are no more open than the EWN/SolFed's, all the politics are there (anti-capitalism, opposition to political parties and the state etc).

To the extent SolFed is 'closed' it reflects a lack of organisational strategy/direction and an inward-looking culture. these have been recognised as problems and are under discussion. anyway please dispense with the straw men, as if i have anywhere said "solfed is an open group you;d merrily invite your workmates who weren't anarchists to".

i agree , although neither should we be averse to growth or put unneccessary barriers in its way.

this isn't anarcho-syndicalism, it's anarchists doing syndicalism. if you believed it you'd join the AF and IWW. in any case the politics of the LEWG are no less exclusive than those of the EWN, so i really don't get the distinction you're making. what are these SolFed principles, specifically, that are a barrier to wider participation?* 'Baggage' is a different thing, although specifics would also help if we're to address it.

* edit: i agree the 'principles of revolutionary unionism' are often clunky and/or badly translated, but the actual points they make are basically correct (so long as SF is clear what we mean by a union, since the tradition of politicised minority unionism doesn't really exist in the UK).

Choccy = village bicycle

~J.

i'm pretty sure he's not the only one. LEWG's spoken well of by London SFers anyway.

Thanks for tips guys

.To be in LEWG you don;t have to be in a solfed local you can just have some agreement with the a&p's, to be in the EWN you have to be a paid up member of our small group with 60 people in it and go to local meetings of said group and participate in its slow internal structures and debates about the internal workings of the IWA etc etc, hence the former is obviously less exclusive than the latter. Do you honestly disagree with this, cause to me it seems like common sense.

Do you really want me to sit here and reel off all the baggage that puts people off joining solfed? I'm realistically not going to do that on a public forum because its not a constructive thing to be doing, but i can PM you if you want. I don;t really see the point though, since i think you know all the problems i'll mention already.

You realise what i said echoes Solfeds industrial stategy right.
''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. ''

Where does it say anything about setting up closed networks solely of solfed members?

The A&P's are a guideline for how an organisation functions, not a rigid set of ideas everyone has to adhere to, we're not in the ICC, we don;t test people to see if they know the correct position to have on every issue. Your talk of A&P's is all very nice, but the fact is if LEWG got going people would join it who didn;t have a tight theoretical agreement with the A&P's but instead only loosely agreed with them. This is always going to happen, as it happened to the CNT in 36/37, we can;t make people libertarian communists,.we as anarchists just have to be up front and argue our politics with people. Apolitical syndicalism tries to sidestep this by just not having the arguement and going around pretending we're not anarchists. What the EWN is doing is in practice ensuring that the chance of anyone joining who your going to have those arguements with is virtually nil because it requires being in solfed which is a small political group.

The fact is the vast majority of workplace or community groups are formed through struggle and not simply through political agreement with aims and principles. Wildcats or anti-war demos don;t happen because everyone wakes up and realises they're an anarchist, people gradually come to a critique of capitalism through opposition to it. People don;t start off as hardened anarchists who want to turn up to a meeting a week and agree with everything in the A&p's, people get involved in community and workplace groups through opposition to the bosses and through issues that affect them directly and if they saw, say LEWG's a&p's, they might just agree with enough of it in practice to act according to those a&p's while they were working with said group, perhaps coming to agree with them more over time and see their political value.

As an aside all syndicalism is in principle federalist, and aformentioned community and workplace groups formed largely through class struggle can affiliate to a national/regional/international federal organisation on the basis of agreement with its goals and a&p's (thats how the CNT and IWW worked effectively). In practice of course modern anarcho-syndicalism completely fails to adopt such a federalist approach, partly through limited size but also through attitudes and ideas. Sadly, in practice anarcho-syndicalism today works more solely on the basis of political agreement rather than on what we might term political-economic agreement, hence you are left with political organisation rather than political-economic federations.

In conculsion though I don;t even see what it is you are argueing for. If i were to take another care job in the future and with one or two like minded individuals wanted to set up a group or network for careworkers in london i might have some chance of getting people interested and getting the ball rolling if it was an open network. If it was a group you could only be in if you were in solfed it would realistically just be me. It is the same in every industry, so what your argueing for would seem to be a dead end no?

this is obvious from the string of straw men you're attacking:

...

are you being deliberately obtuse? i'm talking about the politics (you can tell this because in the quote you're responding to i say "the politics of the LEWG"). the LEWG is no more exclusive on these grounds.

PMing me achieves nothing. raise it internally. raise it publically if you want. it isn't going to be addressed if it's some great unspoken, and if it isn't addressed what's the point in being part of an organisation you think it's completely outlandish that other libertarian communist workers would ever join? i mean what's the point in a political group that doesn't want to be a political group, that resigns itself to being a political group? Fortunately the discussion on how to change this is ongoing accross the organisation, including in person with a sizeable chunk of the membership at the weekend school.

Try the constitution:

...

right and if we think the idea of other people - other libertarian communists no less - joining SolFed is so mental we should be building independent organisations to fill its role then we should just leave.

alternatively, we can look at the reasons SolFed is a small political group when there are at least hundreds of others who essentially agree with us and what we're trying to do, which includes clarifying and communicating our aims, addressing 'baggage' rather than taking it as a given, discussing organisational and network developement strategy, looking at ways we can undertake practical activity (such as direct action casework) and become more an organisation of militants than a group of politicos etc. You know, what's been happening for the last 6 months or so.

profound. it's a shame there haven't been ongoing internal discussions on how to address this for 6 months or so then

the point is 'open networks' doesn't solve that problem, it just resigns itself to the status quo, leaving SolFed as a poltical organisation that doesn't want to be a political organisation, and giving up changing that.

Except of course the whole point i'm making is that the a&ps of the networks (or LEWG) require no tighter political agreement than SF, which is essentially a list of bad things we're against (nationalism, racism, sexism, environmental damage...) and organisational maxims (we aim to organise as workers who share these principles).

The idea SolFed has some ICC-esque tight political principles is nonsense. They really are pretty vague, the main thing that puts other libertarian communists off is not an imaginary tight political line but the fact there's a lot of emphasis put on 'revolutionary unions' but we haven't bothered telling anyone what they are, including our own members. we don't even have an introductory pamphlet.

nobody's stopping you forming groups of your own, formal or otherwise. it would be a welcome development if you did so; some of our EWN members are doing this at Sussex Uni. it doesn't contradict SolFed's approach (and if your workmates agreed with LEWG-esque principles they'd be welcome in a SolFed 'care workers network' anyway, the idea they'd be forced to participate in tedious IWA business is just not true, they would participate in SF as industrial militants in the network).

No-one, thats wy we only have the EWN which has 10 people in it. Hence closed networks are a dead end.

take no notice, BLJ doesn't knwo anythign about LEWG including the fact that I had nothing to do with setting it up, nor was I a member of SF/EWN when I joined LEWG
But yeah, there were already 2 SF members in LEWG when I joined and at least one other had contributed literature