Little confused as to the nature of this group

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 10 2006 15:12
Volin wrote:
it's just I can't call myself an anarchosyndicalist!

how come?!?! Is there a sexyer word out there wink try it, say it out loud, you feel so much better afterwards grin

red n black star <--- anarcho syndicalist symbol

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:14
Steve wrote:
Sounds like a vanguard to me. :wink:

I don't have a problem with vanguardism in terms of "we have libertarian communist ideas, we think these ideas are the best ones with which working people can improve our lives".

State-seizing vanguardism can fuck off, but in the realm of ideas I see nothing wrong with it. Presumably you'd like it if the workers' movement as a whole decided to adopt SolFed's ideas + strategy right? So you'd like more people to follow your ideas?

From JDMF's post above, looks like this is turning into the IWW thread all over again. And I think the ultra leftists won that...

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:15
Volin wrote:
I'm somewhat echoing knightrose here but I'll carry on,

I've got no problem with Solfed trying to bring consciously anarchosyndicalist workers together in their workplaces - it makes plain sense coming from their position as a group. In fact, I really agree with their approach in so many ways, it's just I can't call myself an anarchosyndicalist! so as an education worker and a top notch class-struggle anarchist wink I suppose that's me stuffed as far as the present situation goes. ...Which is why the 'AF's approach for an EWN is not any way 'rediculous' -what else do we do? Open to all anarchist education workers...right? Not as a separate, competitive entity to challenge what Solfed are already doing but, concievably, to work with them.

Obviously I'm not in favour of the two groups merging, but in terms of activity and organisation (the things that really matter) we should be working together as far as possible, that is 'merging' in a different sense. We both want to create a culture of worker militancy and organisation, we both want to bring anarchism to ordinary people and not as small pockets but a mass movement. These are specific, primary goals we share.

Either we bring back the AWG from it's early grave or we try to cooperate, in a real sense, between groups (IWW included to a certain extent) as they are. Respecting the small ideological differences but not putting them before our more fundamental similarities.

Hurrah! Well said. Totally agree (except for the AWG bit, they were twats, or do you mean the AWN? Still don't agree with resurrecting it though. wink )

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:17
John. wrote:
From JDMF's post above, looks like this is turning into the IWW thread all over again. And I think the ultra leftists won that...

Lost interest in that thread after a while and didn't wait for the result. We're at home this time though. wink

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:21
Steve wrote:
John. wrote:
From JDMF's post above, looks like this is turning into the IWW thread all over again. And I think the ultra leftists won that...

Lost interest in that thread after a while and didn't wait for the result. We're at home this time though. :wink:

Ha true. So is the AF group also going to be for anarchists? Or all workers? Cos if that's just for anarchists it does seem very much pointless (cos obviously it won't be all anarchists - not primmos/individualists, etc. and the same problem will be there again)

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 10 2006 15:24
John. wrote:
Cos if that's just for anarchists it does seem very much pointless (cos obviously it won't be all anarchists - not primmos/individualists, etc. and the same problem will be there again)

...that was the point i was trying to make about the wombles and trots from IWW...

hey lets face it folks: people talk about these networks like they were fully operational!

In EWN we have one, perhaps two, workplace groups in universities, other than that members are scattered. Email list is there, and web site is being worked on and a newsletter is coming out soon.

In the end it is the first steps we are taking here, and I would imagine AF's network is not much further...

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:28
JDMF wrote:
madashell wrote:

So basically, the EWN is about organising as anarchists in the workplace, as opposed to organising as workers along anarchist lines?

how long do you think it would stay anarchist without the political backbone?

If anarchist ideas and methods of organisation (federalism, direct democracy, non-hierarchical structures, class consciousness) can't stand on their own in struggle, then they're not worth having at all.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:31
madashell wrote:
If anarchist ideas and methods of organisation (federalism, direct democracy, non-hierarchical structures, class consciousness) can't stand on their own in struggle, then they're not worth having at all.

C'mon you can't be so naive - it's not like they'll exist in a vacuum. They'll be under attack from organised political tendencies like Leninists, etc.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:40
John. wrote:
madashell wrote:
If anarchist ideas and methods of organisation (federalism, direct democracy, non-hierarchical structures, class consciousness) can't stand on their own in struggle, then they're not worth having at all.

C'mon you can't be so naive - it's not like they'll exist in a vacuum. They'll be under attack from organised political tendencies like Leninists, etc.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue for our own ideas and structures, though I can see why it may have come off that way.

All I'm saying is that if you set up workplace groups along these lines and participate in struggles successfully, then people will participate in those groups. The Leninists are a minority in most workplaces, just like we are, and we could be just as well organised, if we could just get our arses into gear.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 15:43
madashell wrote:
John. wrote:
madashell wrote:
If anarchist ideas and methods of organisation (federalism, direct democracy, non-hierarchical structures, class consciousness) can't stand on their own in struggle, then they're not worth having at all.

C'mon you can't be so naive - it's not like they'll exist in a vacuum. They'll be under attack from organised political tendencies like Leninists, etc.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue for our own ideas and structures, though I can see why it may have come off that way.

All I'm saying is that if you set up workplace groups along these lines and participate in struggles successfully, then people will participate in those groups. The Leninists are a minority in most workplaces, just like we are, and we could be just as well organised, if we could just get our arses into gear.

Seeing the SF Networks are not open to all then this argument applies more to the AF network and so should be carried on on their thread. smile

Sorry.
Offline
Joined: 13-11-03
Apr 10 2006 15:57
John. wrote:
madashell wrote:
If anarchist ideas and methods of organisation (federalism, direct democracy, non-hierarchical structures, class consciousness) can't stand on their own in struggle, then they're not worth having at all.

C'mon you can't be so naive - it's not like they'll exist in a vacuum. They'll be under attack from organised political tendencies like Leninists, etc.

thay may be. But I can't really see the point in an anarchosyndicalist group that's too scared to organise properly at work for fear of other organised groups.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:00
Sorry. wrote:
But I can't really see the point in an anarchosyndicalist group that's too scared to organise properly at work for fear of other organised groups.

But we are trying to organise properly at work, as anarcho-syndicalists. Political & economic, otherwise we may as well join the IWW.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:02
Steve wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
But I can't really see the point in an anarchosyndicalist group that's too scared to organise properly at work for fear of other organised groups.

But we are trying to organise properly at work, as anarcho-syndicalists. Political & economic, otherwise we may as well join the IWW.

To be fair steve, I think you do a bit of a "knightrose" with the IWW, and keep claiming they're apolitical, which they're not. They're political+economic as well. Not that I'm the biggest IWW fan mind, you're just not being fair.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Apr 10 2006 16:06

Which explains why there's a section in the "Welcome to the Union" booklet called "no politics in this union." wink

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:09

I give you that the IWW are political in the sense that they have a philosophy of direct action but the IWW are open to any workers who agree with their preamble. That means anarchists, Marxists, social democrats can join. They can be members of political parties etc. They specifically say that they organise workers as workers - not politically.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:10
the button wrote:
Which explains why there's a section in the "Welcome to the Union" booklet called "no politics in this union." :wink:

I think "the abolition of wage labour" and the introduction of "industrial democracy" would count as "political" aims according to most people... But anyway back to EWN!

Sorry.
Offline
Joined: 13-11-03
Apr 10 2006 16:12
Steve wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
But I can't really see the point in an anarchosyndicalist group that's too scared to organise properly at work for fear of other organised groups.

But we are trying to organise properly at work, as anarcho-syndicalists. Political & economic, otherwise we may as well join the IWW.

Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:17
Sorry. wrote:
Steve wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
But I can't really see the point in an anarchosyndicalist group that's too scared to organise properly at work for fear of other organised groups.

But we are trying to organise properly at work, as anarcho-syndicalists. Political & economic, otherwise we may as well join the IWW.

Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

No. Where anarcho-syndicalist unions existed there were non a/s workers within them.

As JDMF says we are jumping the gun here. The EWN is small and we are long way off forming unions as yet.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:21
Sorry. wrote:
Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

Sorry, I'm not even in SF, but "solidarity and unity" are used to describe loads of broad church shite. SF obviously has chosen its ideological membership to the minimum possible to ensure it can still function effectively - so I don't see why they should change. (Having said that I'd prefer it if EWN were a general libertarian r+f group, not anarchist)

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 10 2006 16:28

i think we are kind of touching the reason why anarchists usually can't get anything off the ground - we start really thinking too big and are quickly lost with the whole thing.

I have a suggestion:

1. lets all start working on these initiatives and get some concrete things done.

2. in SolFed this issue has to be brought up and debated, one can't change this thing which is fundamental for the whole SolFeds way of organising on the basis of a chat on the internet forum. Things can be changed if need be by members, you know, democracy and that kind of things like...

3. Since if you join SolFed you automatically are part of the network in your industry (but there are not the numbers to have others at the moment) similarly as you are a member of a local, perhaps the fundamental question of the validity of having such networks should be in the SolFed general discussion rather than here in EWN.

Sorry.
Offline
Joined: 13-11-03
Apr 10 2006 16:33
John. wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

Sorry, I'm not even in SF, but "solidarity and unity" are used to describe loads of broad church shite. SF obviously has chosen its ideological membership to the minimum possible to ensure it can still function effectively - so I don't see why they should change. (Having said that I'd prefer it if EWN were a general libertarian r+f group, not anarchist)

That's a criticism of the language rather than the point I'm making though.

Sorry.
Offline
Joined: 13-11-03
Apr 10 2006 16:35
JDMF wrote:
i think we are kind of touching the reason why anarchists usually can't get anything off the ground - we start really thinking too big and are quickly lost with the whole thing.

I have a suggestion:

1. lets all start working on these initiatives and get some concrete things done.

2. in SolFed this issue has to be brought up and debated, one can't change this thing which is fundamental for the whole SolFeds way of organising on the basis of a chat on the internet forum. Things can be changed if need be by members, you know, democracy and that kind of things like...

3. Since if you join SolFed you automatically are part of the network in your industry (but there are not the numbers to have others at the moment) similarly as you are a member of a local, perhaps the fundamental question of the validity of having such networks should be in the SolFed general discussion rather than here in EWN.

Not trying to get ahead of myself. I would have thought the breadth of involvement is crucial to how effective we can be on point 1.

(I take points 2&3, was just arguing in the context of the thread, not suggesting that anything should change on the basis of this discussion)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 10 2006 16:40
Sorry. wrote:
John. wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

Sorry, I'm not even in SF, but "solidarity and unity" are used to describe loads of broad church shite. SF obviously has chosen its ideological membership to the minimum possible to ensure it can still function effectively - so I don't see why they should change. (Having said that I'd prefer it if EWN were a general libertarian r+f group, not anarchist)

That's a criticism of the language rather than the point I'm making though.

No it's not - it's that people in SF have decided they can't function effectively without the As and Ps they have, so they aren't going to widen them for networks.

Sorry.
Offline
Joined: 13-11-03
Apr 10 2006 20:20
John. wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
John. wrote:
Sorry. wrote:
Historically, has organising as anarcho-syndicalist meant excluding non-a-syns to the detriment of solidarity and unity?

Sorry, I'm not even in SF, but "solidarity and unity" are used to describe loads of broad church shite. SF obviously has chosen its ideological membership to the minimum possible to ensure it can still function effectively - so I don't see why they should change. (Having said that I'd prefer it if EWN were a general libertarian r+f group, not anarchist)

That's a criticism of the language rather than the point I'm making though.

No it's not - it's that people in SF have decided they can't function effectively without the As and Ps they have, so they aren't going to widen them for networks.

the first bit was telling me not to appeal to solidarity and unity, because those concepts have been used in politically trite ways. And the second part amounts to the statement "well that's what solfed have already decided".

Still don't think either really deals with how you organise effectively at work whilst excluding non-a-syns.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 10 2006 20:27

revolutionary education workers junta represented by Sorry., knightrose, JDMF and .flux met by chance today in a shady place in manchester and discussed the issue. The outcome was... can't remember if there was one? Oh yeah, bosses suck!

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2006 20:30

The otcome was that we should all be nice to each other ... now those should be principles which we can all agree with!

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2006 20:31

oh yerah, and an agreement that it's much better to talk face to face rather than over the internet. You remember you're talking to friends and comrades that way, not the enemy.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 10 2006 20:34

true, and another outcome was that it takes more than 5 anarchists to make a flag...

http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9254

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2006 20:39

and I recall JDMF told me not to go off in a sulk. I seem to recall we thought the idea of an anarchists in education conference was a good idea too.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Apr 12 2006 08:22

aye, conference would be a good idea.

TBH, i have a lot of time for organised anarchists like comrades in AF saying how we should work together, but would like to draw the line to:

a) all kinds of post modernists and anti-authoritarians without class politics and

b) those who complain that EWN is not for everyone because they are such individualists that they wouldn't join any group in any case.

FFS, we are pro-organisation anarchists who believe in responsibility, accountability, recallability, transparent structures and all that bollocks, and I for one would not like to see these bacis principles sacrificed just to appease the vague non-committal anarchists.

rant over! wink

red n black star