unions, 'trots', etc

This is all so so new...

admin edit: link swapped for internal one, much nicer than spunk ;)

Uh...

depends what you mean by work in doesn't it. As far as I'm aware the standard position shared by the likes of Sol Fed, AF and Organise! is that up to shop steward is not barred on principle, whilst fulltime paid positions are out.

I always thought this was a pretty basic and universal position on the matter.

Aaaah. It is. Being a paid staff is not an anarchist strategy. Nor is it an effective strategy to influence the direction of a union politically.

To me, this should we/shouldn't we approach to the mainstream unions kind of misses the point.

I believe in workplace organisation -- i.e. organisation in the workplace, with direct democracy and direct action. Direct democracy and direct action are the principles -- your attitude to involvement with the existing union is a matter of tactics.

Or, to put it another way: -

http://merlin.xssl.net/~admin75/strategy.htm

To a degree but surely there are issues of principle about mediation, elections and full time positions?

I don't see a problem with dual cards or with working in and with mainstream unions where its useful. Don't see what there is to debate here though? Like revol said the position held by the likes of solfed and organise seems to make sense, to be any more or less dogmatic over it is asking for trouble and anyway beyond that sort of basic position you'd really be wanting people to develop tactics appropriate for their workplace not to try and invent a hypothetical one-size fits all model of organisation and action.

Oh definitely. That's why I said "the principles are direct democracy & direct action." Tactics are flexible as long as they're in pursuit of those goals.

good boy, good boy, my wax stamped letter to the IWA calling for your excommunication can remain in my desk.

Phew. That'll save the poor carrier-pigeon from going out in the rain, too.

"Pure anarchism cannot be a practical solution while people are forced to deal with bosses and with authority."

what's the debate again? The same debate since the late 1800s?

I'm active in my local union. It's just common sense. But I wouldn't take a steward's role and I don't think others should either.

Is that a point of principle or is it tactical and related to the set up and nature of your industry?

It could be either. It actually derives from practical experience, when I was a steward (or union rep as it was called). I found that the role invovled representing workers to thye boss, representing the boss to the workers and representing the union to everyone. I think anyone who claims the role does not involve that is either deluding themselves or lying. Often I think the "stewards are OK" argument comes from people who have no experience and are romanticising something they know nothing about.

I'm all in favour of attending union meetings, of arguing for militant action and of taking part in ad hoc committees etc.

well i've no direct experiance of it myself and I can easily see what your talking about, but it clearly will vary depending on workplace and it's level of militancy. I mean no offence but I wouldn't be quick to generalise the experiance in a teachers union to say that of a militant shipyard.

None taken.
I guess I would say if you must be a steward, do it. But do it for a limited time period.
I think you can generalise, though. In a large industrial workplace they just use different methods to co-opt.

Really? No calls for nominations or elections or anything? Blimey.

So - if anyone can be a steward - who are they accountable to, & how can they be removed?

I am genuinely puzzled by this.

Clearly when I was talking about a Trotskyist Labour Strategy I wasn't just talking about being involved with the labour movement. You've taken my comments out of context here.

right on! bring on the purges!

Working in the unions-

entryism: trots and anarchotrots (deformed workers states *giggles*)

The Sol Fed post someone put is a decent way of talking about it. Just a reference: check out the Zabalaza Anarchist Federation's piece on unions. It's crazy. They call for building new locals of hierarchical unions rather than ones consistent with our principles. I hope I'm missing something about the South African context?

The way i think of it, the way we organize is fixed because we have a totally different direction from unions (if i had my druthers i'd say we don't organize unions, but nate would smack me).

That is, what we do is organize collective action to solve workplace grievances without intermediary bureaucracies, whether there is no union, a union, a contract, no contract, laws, etc. I personally think that becoming a shop steward is a bad idea, and I'll refer people to Glaberman's 'The Leftwing Committeeman' rather than type more.

Generally speaking we are about transforming social relations and building power through collective action, and because of that working within unions is incompatible with our goals (not to mention our values as anarchism. It always struck me as strange that what is so clear for anarchists about the state is muddy about unions, the analogy being far from obscure). I say outside, but indifferent not against. We try to build our own institutions where possible, but this is bounded less by unions than by the collective power in the workplace. Perhaps in times of great strength we can rupture the unions and create something new out of their shells, but examples of such are forthcoming.

I'm afraid I disagree. Sopmetimes working through the unions is the only thing we can do.