SolNets, rank-and-file groups, etc. - seem like unions to me!

Anarchists tend to use a broad definition of unions ('association of workers') qualified with adjectives, so probably wouldn't object to seeing SolNets as a kind of union.

Ultra-left Marxists tend to use a narrow definition of unions ('mediate the sale of labour power') so probably wouldn't agree.

I think part of it can be where they're based. A union is based in a particular workplace or industry and draws its membership and power thereof. A Solnet is, well, a network that helps individuals or groups from the outside.

My understanding is that there's even been some discussion of this within SeaSol, looking at their relationship with the IWW in regards to internal v. external organsing. Perhaps a libcom SeaSoller could elaborate?

Does anyone think solidarity networks can set the stage for a nationwide community syndicalism, taking up issues far more than those related to work pay or rent? I think it can go in that direction, if only it had a large membership.

[Edit: I also think the use of 'community syndicalism' and 'workplace syndicalism' is far better than saying it is a union only if it is based in a workplace.]

yes i do think they could. i also think that at least in the case of seasol they are starting to take on more collective long term fights so they are going to start having even more union like activity.

i think it definitely paves the way for a broad revolutionary unionism that includes a community syndicalist and workplace perspective.

I mean, you could call those organisations unions, but it seems to me like that's stretching the definition of the word 'union' well beyond it's conventional usage. JK's right to say anarchists (or anarcho-syndicalists at any rate) have quite a broad definition of what a union is compared to some ultra lefties who define a union strictly as a mediating body that represents labour within a capitalist framework. But I think there's a danger of the definition of "union" becoming so broad it's almost meaningless.

~J.

yeah i mean you could just call them worker networks or rank and file committees which is sorta more of what they are, ain't it?

I think any union in a sector like catering/hospitality would have a lot of overlap with SolNet style tactics, just cos high turnover makes a permanent on-the-job presence difficult. But while people change jobs often, they often stay in the sector. So it would look something like an industrial SolNet that tries to organise on the shopfloor where possible.

The comrades at Priama Akcia gave this some thought and I would recommend taking a look at the afterward of their pamphlet on solnets, which they translated into English. http://libcom.org/library/afterword-activities-related-workplace-community-our-conditions

I think it refers to some of the questions you have.

I'm with SeaSol. Mainly, I'd agree with what Joseph Kay said. If you define "union" very broadly, SolNets could be seen as a type of union. The more we do multi-employee fights and develop a strong presence in certain industries, the more we'll seem like a union, broadly defined. Currently in the U.S., with worker centers, IWW projects, SolNets, union-backed "minority unionism" groups etc, there's a lot of grey area in terms of what's a union and what isn't, and personally I don't think it matters much which label you use.

Actually SeaSol is very open to building "inside" power of groups of workers in particular workplaces or industries too, but we just haven't managed to pull it off yet. In apartment buildings there has been some good progress on this, but not yet in workplaces (progress defined as effective struggles launched by multiple coworkers against their current boss, where they don't immediately quit or get fired in the process). Partly this is because we've often been dealing with very small workplaces. As for the IWW, for a while there was the idea of SeaSol handling the "inside" side of things via a collaboration with the local IWW, but this sort of fell apart about a year ago, and since then SeaSol has been working towards developing its own workplace organizing strategy. Personally I hope that this eventually leads towards reestablishing some form of connection with the IWW (not just locally but at the national/continental level), but right now the priority is getting the actual organizing figured out, and the inter-organizational dynamics were getting in the way of that.

Ah, thanks for the elaboration blarg.

So has that connection been pretty formally severed?

The history of the local relationship is a long story that goes way beyond the subject of this thread, but yes, currently there is no formal connection between SeaSol and the IWW although there have been some friendly conversations in the past few months, a little bit of attending each other's events and meetings etc. Basically right now, renewing close ties with the local IWW is just not a top priority for SeaSol because the local IWW is not very big or active.

If you start to have ongoing committees or groups of tenants in buildings, then you have a tenants union. historically there have been cases where tenant unions were affiliated sections of syndicalist unions. In Vera Cruz in '20s the Mexican CGT had a majority of the households in the town in the Sindicato de Inquilinos, which was an affiliate of the CGT.

normally the very elemental concept of a union, which revolutionary syndicalists use, is the idea of workers acting directly "in union" with each other. An association of workers. It seems to me SeaSol is sort of what you get if you were to imagine "minority unionism" in various industries thinning out to the point that there were no longer groups in workplaces but the organized support of individuals in various fights with employers. A very thin form of minority unionism, so to speak. So it's kind of at the very extreme end of the definition.

Hmmm...I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive. I agree with your understanding of a 'union' as defined by FFO ourselves. There's nothing stopping a 'union' from trying to organise non-members without regard to membership. The best union militants (and even some of the 'better' trade unions around the world) do that anyway.

Where I would disagree is that, long-term, SF certainly advocates industrial organisation with sections/networks based around industries and workplaces. That might not come through in FFO--and might not appear to be the case given SF's current activity--but I can assure you that the goal is to eventually be based in workplaces and industries and organised accordingly.

It's also worth noting that SF currently calls itself an anarcho-syndicalist initiative. And that is in large part precisely because we don't have the organisation within workplaces or industries to launch ourselves as a union.

Also, in general, I think rank-and-file networks--at least in UK usage--often refer to work networks of workers in a workplaces with a recognized trade union. A semantic distinction, perhaps, but it does reflect a different strategy for different workplaces.

I'll have to get back to you on that one - bin a while since I read it I'm afraid. But I think if you define a union as an organisation which aims "to initiate, organize, and inspire direct action by workers" then things like the UK Anarchist Federation, or even libcom.org, could be classed as unions which I don't think is really a helpful use of language.

~J.

Hi ultraviolet - a rank and file union is one controlled by the rank and file (the shop floor workers). So where an organisation like solfed aspires to grow from small cell like r&f unions into larger more obvious unions, these would still be controlled by the rank and file.
On organising within a top down, social democratic, reformist union - it isn't uncommon for workers to organise on r&f lines within these unions (and often pay the price of betrayal and denunciation by the mother union some way down the line!)
But this is just organising, anarcho-syndicalists organise those unions on a political level too.

But this is just organising, anarcho-syndicalists organise those unions on a political level too.

Anarcho-syndicalism or revolutinary syndicalism do not exist todey.
"Rank and file union" is not still anarho - (revolutionary) syndicate. Rank-and-file union can cooperate with boss and state. That is very far fron the line of revolutionary sindikalism:
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/lack-syndicalism-15082013

Would you care to qualify this? Your statement is not exactly self-evident to the folks on this board, that, you know, are in anarcho-syndicalist orgs. . .

I think 'rank and file' has a more specific meaning in the UK, where leftist parties tried to set up rank and file movements within unions , especially the CP in the 50s/60s, later the IS/SWP. The DAM pamphlet "Winning the class war" (from 1991) has a section on this - basically, anarcho-syndicalists got involved with rank and file networks, but this was not a positive experience. The conclusion was that it's better for SolFed to set up industrial networks that have a more defined principled basis:
http://libcom.org/library/winning-class-war-anarcho-syndicalist-strategy

Well, that was some people's reflection on a specific situation, don't know as you can draw from that an analysis of rank and file movements as a whole.

Ultraviolet, regarding rank and file movements, people often use that to mean rank and file union members (ie not with positions high up in the union, but typically involving militant shop stewards) who organise together and take action together without going through the formal channels.

In the States there were famous rank and file rebellions in the seventies against the union leadership, the IBT (teamsters) was famous for that, so was the UAW (car workers). If you want to look into it more there's an excellent book called "Rebel Rank and File" by Verso (2010). A really interesting rank and file movement was DRUM (Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement) which was set up in '68 in Detroit in the Chrystler car plants, it was a black rank and file movement, others got set up around Detroit (FRUM and ELRUM) It's fascinating and there's a good book on it called "Detroit: I do mind dying". (I remember this book well as I was once stopped and searched in the street in E2 when I was 19, they found the book on me and straight away took me in and roughed me up a bit and strip searched me which I thought was a bit of an over reaction.)

People often use rank and file movement to talk about people organising as the rank and file of a specific union, which is one of the criticisms of rank and file organising, but I don't think this necessarily has to be implicit in rank and file organising. Re: your question above, I dunno if you would call a network of workers in an ununionised workplace a rank and file organisation, but a good rank and file group might well reach out to non unionised workers.

If you want to know more about r-n-f, I can look more stuff up and find more references.

Oh yeah, and regarding solnets, you can use "union" to describe things like "claimants union" or "tenants union". If you don't put a qualifying word people will assume you mean workplace union though. I can probably dig out some stuff on the claimants union if you like.

Yes that's what I was trying to say. When FFO talks about rank and file networks there's a more specific context to that which can't necessarily be generalised, because it is about DAM/SolFed's negative experience with networks that were initiated/influenced by leftist parties in a bygone era.

The forerunner of the DAM was the Syndicalist Workers Federation. The SWF helped intiate the early 1960s "National Rank and File Movement"