USI involvement in RSUs

Well it depends how comrades come to these debates to be fair, if people come ready to spout crap about our comrades then it will obviously degenerate. But beyond the bullshit, there has been some decent discussion on how people perceive the USI's position and its implications for the IWA and anarcho syndicalist practice. So it can be constructive.

That woudnt be the principles of revolutionary unionism by any chance would it? Because that is not at all reformist, but if you cant accept the reality of the class struggle over fantasy then i doubt these principles and the entire basis of anarcho syndicalism means much to you.

Comment
Wood'nt you ask tham to partisipate in this discusions?
I wood like to talk with not reformists from SF. I wood like to know they opinion.

Comment
Look i don't like do be arguing about words. I don't think we are only revolutionaris. But of couse we are revolutionanary minority or part of it.

fuck me this is tedious bollox.

As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

Comment
You just use demagogia again. This is thery tipical for reformists. They have no theoretical backgraund and only use demagogia and manipulate words. I never say we must be out of workers class! We are part of workers class of couse. But we have to split with overs then they passive and support bosses or they leninusts or fassists ets!
Are you against split in workers class even if 60% of workers beliv in exelent idea to kill jews?

Your posts would make more sense in russian.

Its not worth answering. It dont help the debate at all.

ha-ha-ha-hah-a))))))))

Woode you please answer my qwestion:
"So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?"

Not all unions are part of the capitalist system, would you put USI there? CNTE? but all reformist union are damaging to the working class, no anarcho syndicalist would say any different, but at the present time we have to particpate in these organisations until we are strong enough to have our own unions.

Comment
I say "TRADE-UNIONS". Yes part of USI and CNT-E are tham. Not all organisations.

Comment
i agree

Comment
What for do you have to partisipate in reformist unions wich "are damaging to the working class"?

Right. Fuck off if you think the USI and CNTE are in any way involved in reformist practices, thats just ridiculous.

What for? For legal protection from bosses, for standing in solidarity with the rest of the workers for better conditions, because we have no anarcho syndicalist union yet!

Comment
Clever strong and convincing argument.

Magidd
What for do you have to partisipate in reformist unions wich "are damaging to the working class"?

Comment
Wood you go to police or to munisipal elections or to political party (labour) as trotskists do if you thing it can give you legal protection from bosses?

Comment
Wood you join the Labor party if 90% of workers in your factory are there. Woode you join there for "standing in solidarity with the rest of the workers"?

Comment
What is the connection between absence of anarcho syndicalist union and necessity to join organisations (trade-unions) wich as you say "are damaging to the working class"?

Comment:

You wuld go to the police, wuld you go to teh police if they was murder dead jews from the millions?

Magidd write: "But from another side even FORA or Machnovshina were ornanisations of revolutionary minority of proletarians."

I hate to contest Russian history with a Russian anarchist but... The Machnovshina was a mass movement that didn't include just the Federation of Anarchist Organizations of Ukraine, but also included Maximalists, Left SRs, syndicalists and others. The Ukrainian anarcho-communists, their federation, were indeed a "revolutionary minority." They were a political organization. But that is not the same as all the peasant collectives, local soviets, and local unions that were represented at the people's congresses that authorized the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine.

I think part of the problem is your use of the phrase "revoolutionary minority" which I think is unclear. What we want is for the bulk of the working class to build, become involved in, to run, its own mass movement, yes? This is very different than the acts of a small groups or small minorities. But when I say "the bulk of the working class" I'm not saying we have to count heads to make sure it is an exact numerical majority of every
proletarian, working and unemployed, house-husband and housewife, retiree etc. That would be too mechanistic an interpretation of "the bulk of the working class." If there is truly a mass movement that can move the class, that is the dominant working class force, that can draw large sections of the more passive members of the working class, that is an acceptable understanding of what "bulk of the working class" means. And in Catalonia in 1936 the CNT movement was "the bulk of the working class" in this sense. This is very different than small groups of even a few thousand.

Me: "Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas."

M.: "Tell me where did you take this idea about "substituting"? We are against substituting of mass activity. And where did you take this absurd idea about russian anarcho-comunists in the revolution of 1917-1921?! What mass organisations you are talking about? Who told you this shit that they try to substitut mass movement? Anarho-communists initiate the riot in july 1917 and partisipate in this mass movement. They appeal workers and solgers to create Military-Revolutionary Commity by the delegates from the factoris and revolutionary military units and to take controle over S-Petersburg."

It is true that Russian anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists participated in the Revolutionary
Military Committee of the St. Petersburg Soviet in 1917, and were an important part of the workers' militia even after Oct. 1917. There is a book about this in English by Rex Wade, called "Red Guards and Workers Militias in the Russian Revolution." But there were only four anarchists on the large (80+ members) Revolutionary Military Committee of St. Petersburg in Oct. 1917, which committee was headed by Trotsky.

About the substitutionism of the Russian anarcho-communists, I'm talking about the small group xpropriation tactice, which was the main revoltuionary method of the Russian anarcho-communist groups. Their seizure of the Durnova Villa in July 1917, which is the event I think you're referring to, is an example. But this strategy was substitutionist, they had no concept of developing mass organizations of ordinary Russians, as organizers. Their approach evolved from the 19th century "propaganda by
the deed" method which Krotpotkin had endorsed at one time (though during the 1917 revolution he became more supportive of the syndicalist method of building mass organizations). This Russian anarcho-communist small group expropriation tactic became the main reason for the big split between the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists in Russia, particularly after the expropriation of an automobile of the American ambassador gave the Bolshevik government a nice pretext for banning anarchist newspapers. Over time this small group expropriation tactic also led to corruption, as many anarchists began stealing things to make a livelihood, and justifying it by bullshit political reasons. in 1918 Maximov and the Russian anarcho-syndicalists denounced these methods of the Russian anarcho-communists. This is discussed by Paul Avrich in "The Russian Anarchists" and the problem of corruption is also alluded to by Emma Goldman in "My Disillusionment in Russia."

About Spain magidd write:
"Your position is incorrect. I am not talking about "wage-earners of Catalonia". I am talking about spanish proletariat. People of CNT had befor and during revolution about 1-2 million memebers. This is small part of 12-15 million spanish proletariat. And proletariat is not only wage-earners. Poour Pesants are also proletarians. And big part of proletarians were not union members at all.
But even if "CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members" (and mush less in meny over areas) it was still revolutionary minority even in Catalonia."

Here again, you're falling into sophistry. As far as I am aware, the CNT never tried to organize strikes in industries in the 1930s when they were a small minority. All of the strikes I am aware of were situations where the CNT was the great majority of the workers. Three of the
major strikes in Catalonia in the early '30s were the 1931 telephone and constructionn strikes, and the 1933 streetcar strike in Barcelona. In all these cases the CNT union was a very large majority of the workers. 90% in the case of the telephone and streetcar strikes.

The CNT was 60% of the organized workers in Catalonia, 70% in Valencia, 80% in Aragon and Murcia. That is surely close enough to being "the bulk of the working class" even if it was not a numerical majority of every proletarian, counting housewives and elderly abuelos. Especially since 60% of the wage-earners belonged to unions. The CNT support also extended beyond the formal union members, as was clear in the 1931 Barcelona rent strike where large numbers of women and children were involved in actions like putting people back into apartments and fighting off the police sent to evict people. in regards to peasants, there was no self-subsistent peasant agriculture in Spain, unlike Russia in 1917. Spain had a market-based agriculture and the majority of farm laborers were wage-workers. in Catalonia there was a large class of property owning farmers -- members of the petty bourgeoisie -- and many wage-laborers in market gardens. But no self-subsistent peasantry.

Moreover, you are quite wrong when you say the Spanish proletariat was 12 to 15 million. The total population of Spain was 24 million. You have to subtract about 35 to 40
percent who were children. That means the total adult population was maybe 14 million. Spain had a large population in the middle strata -- small farm owners, small shop keepers, lawyers, priests, military and police officers, managers and government administrators, etc.
These are what I would call the small business and coordinator classes, plus people in an in-between position, between the proletariat and the dominating classes, such as teachers, writers, engineers. When the PSUC in Catalonia began organizing these people into unions, they were able to build a mass union with 350,000 members, almost as big as the CNT. That suggests the large size of the middle classes. Probably larger than in the advanced capitalist countries today. And there were also elderly people maintained by their families. And in that period most wives in Spain did not work in wage labor (bringing women into industry was one of the big changes that happened during the civil war). so the "economically active" portion of the working class was nowhere near 12 to 15 million. Plus, a third of the country was
controled by the fascists during the beginning of the civil war, and the CNT lost a large part of its membership there.

Me: "Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution."

Magidd: "So cooperation with avtoritarian socialist UGT was correct politicks? Wood you please explane me why in this case cooperations with political partis is not correct? Leninists and socialist partys have the same structure of organisation and the same ideas as UGT!
And what kind of delegate of UGT you are tolking about?
UGT was centralist burocratick organisations. There all or almoust all disisgions were made by burocrasy. This left cosial-demacratic burocrasy controll workers activity, collective money and propety and give oders to workers.
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers pawer to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation! I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists."

The CNT was the majority labor union in Spain in July of 1936 but it was only just barely a majority. Nearly half the organized workers were in the CNT. And, as YOU emphasize, the CNT was a numerical minority of the entire working class. This means the CNT membership knew very well they had to work out a unity with the workers in the UGT, and also in the FOUS (the union of the POUM). This was why in Sept. 1936 the CNT proposed a federative
system of worker councils and worker congresses in which both the UGT and CNT would be represented. Yes, that means that people who supported the SP and CP leaders and a more
bureaucratic form of organization would be represented. That was necessary to build working class power
and defeat the capitalist/fascist enemy. It is simply false to say the UGT was merely a "system of exploitation"
of the working class. About a third of the UGT in 1936 were members of the Land Workers Federation. The Left-wing of the Socialist Party were the leading influence. Their methods were very similar to the CNT. In march 1936 they led 80,000 landless farm laborers into a mass seizure of 200 huge farming estates in Estremadura, to seize the land and convert them into cooperatives, managed by the farm workers.

Yes, we disagree with the state socialist ideology of the PSOE. But it was necessary to draw the rank and file membership of the UGT into a joint self-management of the
society. The CNT in fact did this in Catalonia. Take the railway system as an example. On the railways half the workers belonged to the CNT and half to the UGT. When the CNT initiated the seizure of the railway system in July 1936, the UGT workers soon came to them to ask to participate. And they set up a joint Revolutionary Railway
Federation. This was run through mass assemblies in the rail stations and terminals every two weeks, and with a rank and file coordinating committee with half the
delegates from UGT and half from CNT. How is that a violation of our principles? The fact that they gained the cooperation of the UGT workers greatly strengthened the
revolution.

The fact is, Largo Caballero, head of the Left of the Socialist Party, almost agreed to go along with the CNT proposal for replacing the Republican state with
joint CNT-UGT labor councils. This is because he was worried about the power games of the Communists. If the CNT had played their cards right, I think they could
have persuaded the Left Socialists to agree to the CNT's terms. Where you are wrong is in thinking it was not necessary to work for a united front with the UGT and FOUS (POUM) workers.

The trade unions are not just parts of the state or parts of capital. That is an ultra-left mistake. They are more contradictory. Looking at the unions in the USA, where I live, they have both elements of topdown control, and elements of democracy. For example, workers in unions in the USA almost always have the right to have a mass assembly to vote on contracts -- unlike under the works
councils in Spain, for example. Yet, yes, they do sometimes try to constrain struggle, via topdown manipulation. The buaucracy has its own interests, which
are not idential with either the interests of the workers or the capitalists or the state. Workers here often use the existing unions, imperfect though they are, as a vehicle for launching struggles with their employers. They are a means of resistance. Because they are, and because participation in them enables us to gain access to, and dialogue with, our coworkers, that is why it is necessary
to organize within them.

It is good that you go to workers when they are involved in strikes or struggles and talk to them, dialogue with them. I respect you for doing that.

t.

Jack wrote:

It's funny how many of the bureaucrats end in the House of Lords though. And the number of unions who "sponsor" MPs. And the way the TUC pays for the Labour Party.
Maybe not exactly part of the state. More sort of poor relations. Definitely part of the management structure.

Are you not a member of such a union?

Yes. I'm a member of the NUT. The real problem we face is the tension between the local branch and the ruling bodies of the unions. My comments refer to the ruling bodies.

Comment
I did not said they are part of state. I said they are the part of capitalist sistem as state or privet corporations. And of couse they bosses strongly connected with state?

Comment
So the same with labor party. Wood you olso join there? Or wood you aguring that some local groopse of labor party try to protect some material intres of part of workers?
I allredy answer at another forum. Trade-unions are corpotrations who sell workers pawer to bosses. Trade-union burocrates control profit, collective money, infrustructure and activity of simle workers. They are just capitalist corparation. Don't you here about Mihels "iron prinsip og oligarhia"?
Trade unions dengerouse becouse they integrate oppositional activity of proletarions. That's another reason why we need to terminate trade unions and to liberate proletarian autonomous activity and energy.

So, Russia isn't that different from Britain then?

Strangely, though, it has been funded over the years by the collective proletarian resistance. Hmmmmmmm.

Oh well, I'm a teeny bit pissed. So just ignore anything that's unpleasant.

Comment
I am professionaly leaning the history of Russian revolution and i tell you: this is just bulshit. The moust secsesful anarhist movement befo Macnovshina were anarho-communist workers resistens in Belostok. There was interprofessional federation of groopes of anarho-comunists like FORA with hundreds or thusends members. And there was permanent proletarian assembly with 5.000-30.000 people wich sometime control the city. It was one of the moste secesfull anarhist movements in history. And it cooperated not with fucking trade-unions but with anothere revolutionary oraganisations and with some active not-anarhist workers.
As for 1917 anarho-communists expropriate the house of Durnovo and make the club and Hause for workers. Anarho-commnists were not any substituters. They initiated mass movements and work with different factory collectivs and revolutionary military units collectives.

Comment
I don't think you can mask the fact that in 1936 befor revolution CNT-E had about 1 or 1,5 million members and there were about 15 or even 10 million proletarians in Spane. Even if CNT was in majority in some areas it was small revolutionary majonority of spanish workers class.
And i think it is creasy idea that we can initiate strikes or resistens in some plsases only if we are in majority there... In this case we will never become majority

Magidd
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers power to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation! I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists."

Comment
That is simply means that you have no understanding what is explotation at all.
Exploatation is the situation than sombody have monopoly to use resalts of collective work. This is situation of any centralist organisation . They burocratick leaders control collective resorses of milliones of workers: workers power, collectiv money, ifrustructure, part of time ets. Burocrats negoshiate with bosses and state and make en egreaments about using of labour power. As for UGT it olso have offisialy anti-anarhist statatist program.
You don't understend that burocratic organisation CAN NOT be instrument of liberation of workers becouse it is ALLREDY capitalist organisation.
Thire is only way for revolutionary attitude : total termination of such organisations.
Ans YES, WE HAVE TO COOPERATE WITH WORKERS, who still there. Thery is only one way for that: to blow up trade-unions insyde, to create on they plases assemblease and workers Soviets, and (if we can) anarhist revolutionary assosiations wich kick burocrats outside factory. Untill we do that work capitalism will be stable.

Magid
So the same with labor party.

Comment
The trade-unionse are olso not the forms of collective proletarian resistens becouse they bosses exploited workers class and integrate spontanoiuse workers protests. This is why trade-unions must diy. Untill they alive they controll the proletarian protests by they burocrasy and legal methods of strugle and do not give to proletariat possibility to leave the framework of capitalism.
Laibor party do almouste the same.
But for sure they were created for proletarian selfdeffens as probably labor party. I think Beatriss Webb was personaly honest then she said that.

Comment
That's exactly the same as in the modern burgua state. It has elements of democrasy even some elements of direct democrasy (as referendums in some Europian countres); in the same time burocracy and corparations control (in generaly) politics of state. And yes! workers sometime use the elements of state demacrasy in they own aims. They can for example dismiss unpopular politik or vote for increasing of social partnership... or for withdroing of emigrants.
So if we agree with you logik we must use state as you prefere to use trade-unions.

I can understand if some people can not get the job withaut being members of unions. In this situation they can join. I olso can understand that if there is union strike such people can orgernised the meeting at they workers plase, initiate direct action. But we have to remember 3 things in such situation
1) Trade-unionse must be terminated and exhenged by workers assemleas. Trade-unionse can not be reformed. And we try to explain that to people.
2) We have to make propoganda of direct action and anarcho-communist ideas.
3)If there are some people are not union members we must try to make them join the assembly.

So it's the bureaucracies then not at branch level. A bit different to what you've said before. Is it the same with your other 'union' and the MSPs?

The tension in the unions, the drive to bureaucratisation etc extends all the way down to the branches. However, the local branch is composed of ordinary workers, so they also attempt to defend living conditions. It's just that Steve Sinnott and his cronies do their best to stop them! If there were a decent a-s union alternative, I'd probably join it! (that's not an insult against SF).

btw - I'm not going to discuss the IWW here. Privately is another matter. There is a dispute on, after all.

Maggid you're a mentalist. That does not follow, OK. It just doesn't. You're being ridiculous and stretching things beyond where they can go.

Dundee, he's obviously not "mental", and this is non-flaming forum.

Revol any more of your pathetic snipes at magidd's english (how many languages do you speak?) and you're getting a ban.