Anarcho-Syndicalism and Platformism -- do they go together?

In regard to the FAI ministers in the central government in Spain in 1936, there were two: Montseny and Garcia Oliver. The CNT had two other representatives in that government: Joan Peiro and Juan Lopez. Peiro was a main theoretician of the treintistas. Lopez was an influential CNT leader in Valencia. Neither Lopez or Peiro were FAIstas.

Joseph K, when do you think the CNT became anarchosyndicalist rather than "anarchists doing syndicalism"? I still feel you're using a rather unorthodox definition of anarchosyndicalism, albeit a potentially more interesting one.

well this is the kind of thing i'm getting at. if we take the IWA to be 'orthodox' anarcho-syndicalism, there seems an acceptance that revolutionary principles often mean a trade off against mass membership. correspondingly the model is less about building One Big Union a la the wobblies and puts more emphasis on mass meetings, assemblies and creating a 'system of free councils.' this goes hand in hand with DAM's criticisms of unions quoted above, where the objective is the biggest possible membership and a representative model that tends to bureaucratisation regardless of the wishes of the membership.

what i mean by 'common-or-garden syndicalism' is everything covered by the (english language) term, from Tom Mann to the IWW to stuff like COBAS. most of these would put strong emphasis on internal democracy and self-management, so i don't think that's enough to define anarcho-syndicalism as distinct. anarcho-syndicalism grew out of revolutionary syndicalism, when those generically revolutionary aspirations and methods became specifically anarchist.

i was sloppy, i should have said some of them were FAIistas. that said, the point stands that the compromise was rooted in the material situation (including the legacy of a revolutionary syndicalist model) against which specific political organisation offerred little counter.

i don't think there was a clear break. a lot of people would point to the adoption of libertarian communism in 1923, but even then the organising model remained that of revolutionary syndicalism (recruit and represent as many workers as possible, organise your members, with the elementof union-for-class substitutionism this implies). however, the intransigence of the spanish ruling class in the 20s and 30s curtailed the class collaborationist tendencies associated with the model elsewhwere (most notably the French CGT), until July '36 anyway, when suddenly the CNT were offered seats at the table.

i think it's better to understand the CNT as containing conflicting tendencies. there were 'straight unionists' who advocated union political neutrality and/or actively hostile to anarchism, and at the other extreme you had FAIistas with their 'revolution now!' impatience and tendency to launch abortive insurrections. the upshot of this was the CNT as a whole behaved in a largely anarcho-syndicalist way with/despite a largely revolutionary syndicalist model. the contradictions of this came to the fore in the revolution when the class collaborationism inherent to a representative model was able to assert itself. obviously many in the CNT rejected it and sought to carry on a revolutionary path.

i think the post-war CNT has clarified a lot of those issues (and mystified others by claiming it has no ideology). for instance the split with the CGT over works councils is a clear example of an anarchist rejection of representation of labour power - the CNT doesn't see itself as a mediator between it's members and the bosses, but a means to organise conflicts with the bosses. the consequence of maintaining their revolutionary/anarchist principles is a smaller membership relative to more class collaborationist unions, but this is countered by an organising model that makes use of mass meetings/assemblies for all workers at which the CNT argues for a course of action consistent with it's aims and principles. this prefigures the IWA's goal of 'a system of free councils' and echoes Rocker/Maximov's support for soviets. i think that's in clear contrast to the 'One Big Union' approach of industrial unionism or revolutionary syndicalism.

i wouldn't say unorthodox; it's based on contemporary anarcho-syndicalist practice. however i am trying to be more rigorous with my terminology than is normal; i guess 'orthodoxy' - in line with historical practice - could be considered a mish-mash of revolutionary syndicalism, industrial unionism and anarchism. i'm interested in unpicking those tendencies, jettisoning the baggage and using the best bits rather than holding it up as a blueprint. but like i say, i don't think i'm straying far from the practice of the contemporary CNT here.

Actually comrade, both the FAI and the CNT failed in identical as well as seperate ways. What does that say about the effectiveness of either?

i'm not sure i understand the question? i've set out my understanding of what happened in '36/7 above. my argument is that it's idealism to think a specific political organisation can keep a mass economic one from class collaboration by argument alone, since such class collaboration is rooted in the actual role played by the organisation, the way it organises and so on, not simply bad ideas. thus i think the 'mass economic/specific political' combo ('anarchists doing syndicalism') is inferior to a 'political-economic union/mass meetings of all workers' one ('anarcho-syndicalism').

except one was the dominant force in a revolution whereas the other hasn't gotten anywhere as far as I can see. Your model is also way too spontaneist...how do those mass assemblies come to be? and why would that lead to a revolutionary dynamic? revoluition doesn't happen spontaneously, but develops through a protracted process of change in consciousness.

Your view strikes me as being closer to council communism than anarcho-syndicalism. but I suppose you can say that the libertarian approach to revolutionary syndicalism is not anarcho-syndicalism, by your definition. but it seems to me you've simply changed the definition of "anarcho-syndicalism." I mean, in your discussion of the CNT above you are saying that the CNT was revolutionary syndicalist not "anarcho-syndicalist." of course I suppose the FORA presents a different model, so maybe the historic record was sort of ambiguous.

in regard to the CNT joining the Popular Front government, I don't think there are any guarantees we can "pre-cook" into any "model" to prevent mistakes being made. your assemblies can make mistakes. and I don't envision the specific organization only influencing the course of events through debates and arguments but also through the influence of its activists and through the building of popular education to develop the capacities of large numbers of active rank and file participants.

Part of the problem with spontaneism is that it simply doesn't address the need to develop the leadership skills, self-confidence, knowledge etc of increasing numbers of rank and file working class persons. Not doing so will be more likely to end up with them dependent on leaders.

when the Communists were beating the drum to rebuild a hierarchical army & police, the CNT had to come up with an alternative. they did, in the form of the proposal for a unified militia and a revolutionary council jointly controlled by UGT and CNT, to replace the Popular Front government. This was what Durruti et al came up with & approved by union delegates in plenary. When the Left Socialists...the only plausible ally within the national UGT...refused, what then? Durruti's strategy was for the CNT to take power in the regions where it could because it was the majority, and force the hand of the Left Socialists. They did this in Aragon.

But apparently many in CNT and FAI regarded Durruti's strategy as too risky. Hence the decision to take up Largo Caballero's offer of 4 seats in the Popular Front government. You can say, well, they might have simply stayed in opposition. But that is just another version of Durruti's position. Having created militias and seized industries they couldn't be indifferent to their fate. They had to either figure out a way forward, or things would slide backward. That's the way it is with revolutions. And the people who made the decision were the delegates elected by their coworkers in assemblies, meeting in plenary.

Comrade, all I was saying was that neither the anarchists of the CNT or the anarchists of the FAI did a very effective job, period. Basically when "we" look in the historical mirror, both segments of the libertarian workers movement didn't do such a hot job of keeping things on, as the expression goes, the 'straight & narrow., of advancing the totality of libertarian communist goals (as expressed in their own platforms and programs). So I think there's fairsharing of the "blame" to go around. Did all of a sudden FAIistas in the CNT become trade union bureaucrats? Did all of a sudden the seemingly libertarian structure and methods of the CNT become "garden variety" syndicalism or trade unionism? I mean there was simply a general failure by both.

Just for the record (and for little it's prolly worth here) I'm only a "dualist" out of conditions not out of conviction per se. I think in places where we have existed more as propaganda groups, where mass anarcho-syndicalist unions don't exist or don't have the proud traditions or where there are generalized and genunine mass movements with libertarian tendencies (or the possibilities for libertraian tendencies) I think we'll act in a way and manner that is more akin to a dualist form of organization. The key, for me, is not to get hung up on terminology, but how we develop a practice that reflects some of our on the ground realities.

I would agree that "by argument alone" does not win the day. And there will be times when the tidal wave of events are pounding us down. I giess a question here, is how do we find ways to advance libertarian ideas, libertarian structure and an internal libertarian "culture" which can stand the test of time. I am certainly open to have this discussion with comrades in similiar situations, where our today realities only provide us with an ability to be a propaganda (reall read political) group? I will be the first to admit I surely do not have the answers, but can only share our own experiances and perspectives in this regard.

Yes, on the other hand it's rigid determinism to think that ideas and decisions have no impact - there is such a thing as "making mistakes", history is a series of decisions made in specific conditions.

This could possibly be interpreted as contradicting Joseph K's idea that the CNT failed because it was "representative". Unless you think that mass meetings are sufficiently different from mandated delegates. Other events such as May '37 would support his argument though.

Surely comrade, the best elements in the CNT were the former: its tendencies towards mass assemblies and an inculcation of specifically anarchist principles and behaviour, the very things which could lead it to produce the Consejo de Aragon and numerous other examples of direct control. All of which, as Joseph Kay states, was allowed to exist within but also grating against the more standard unionist machine and the long-running confusion of what anarcho-syndicalism meant.

Didn't the latter approach kill the revolution as much as make it? What would have happened if we had seen mass assemblies deal with the problem of political power in Barcelona from the beginning?

I would think a permanent organisation that tries to push for class conflict rather than mediation stands quite contrary to a belief in the spontaneous eruption of revolt. It would also be far more conducive to building skills in self-organisation, through actually doing it. I can't speak for Joseph Kay, whose explanation I broadly agree with, but remaining small and rejecting trying to represent the interests of the class is surely more achievable than building mass organisations. No mass organisation exists anywhere today, but there is still a small, principled CNT as at least one example of the alternative.

me:

888:

well, in regard to May '37, it's worth noting the Friends of Durruti didn't have the support of the majority. They had the support of the defense organization and militia, apparently. But the real weight in the union were the delegates, and the assemblies that elect them. These could have tossed out the collaborationist regional committee, in plenary.

In any event, i think by then it was apparently a bit too late. PCE had been allowed to rebuild an army and police under their control. Much of CNT rank and file had become accustomed to the Popular Front particiipation. In other words, if assemblies would have given a different answer, why would the FoD not be able to get assemblies to kick out the collaborationists?

A movement with 2 million members is going to inevitably require some element of delegation. I'm not suggesting CNT could not have been improved upon. But i'm not convinced the highly ideologistic conception of "union" is the viable alternative. Nor disconnected ad hoc "assemblies."
888:

But we're talking about small, highly ideological organizations that try to somehow be both union and political organization. I'm not convinced they can grow to be the kind of large movement needed. I think it's necessary to conceive of the mass organization as having somewhat greater diversity of viewpoint in it, or that is a lesser degree of consensus on its program, which typically differentiates mass social movement organizations (of which labor orgs are a type) from political orgs.

volin:

well, I see your point. In regard to building skills, this is something that I think requires some sort of broader initiative. including things like working people's colleges (independent of the state, that is) which may require more resources than a small group can muster. (There exist some of these in the USA but unfortunately in some cases they are controlled by Leninists so the wrong lessons are imparted.)

ok been off the net this weekend and loads to respond to, will do it post-by-post, apologies if i miss some points...

it was, once yes. but if we're to draw inspiration from the CNT in '36 (and we should), then we have to account for the class collaboration of the CNT '37. in any event, a mass assemblies/workers' councils approach was central to the Russian Revolution (and supported by the albeit woefully disorganised anarcho-syndicalists there - see Maximov), as well as characterising the most positive elements of the Spanish Revolution (the Council of Aragon went more down this road).

there's nothing spontaneous about it. i'm saying the role of an anarcho-syndicalist union is not to dilute its revolutioanry politics in order to recruit masses of workers, but to organise from a clear revolutionary perspective -- organising mass meetings at which it argues for militant direct action. the CNT did this in Puerto Real, for instance. in a situation where such mass meetings were happening all over the place, they could send delegates to regional/industrial workers' councils, forming the basis of a revolutionary counter-power.

no what i said was the CNT contained numerous tendencies from apolitical syndicalism to insurrection now! anarchism, and due to a confluence of circumstances maintained a largely revolutionary syndicalist organising model (a la the Charter of Amiens) whilst operating in a largely anarcho-syndicalist way (contra the Charter of Amiens). the FORA was a bit different, but later split along these lines (as did the post-war CNT).

for the record there's nothing particularly council communist about advocacy of assemblies/workers' councils - Maximov speaks highly of the russian soviets and Rocker sees it as definitive of anarcho-syndicalism, tracing it back to the libertarian faction in the first international and their resolution at Basel in 1867. i outright reject the spontaneist/council communist approach and think it is absolutely vital to organise within the workplace and community in order not just to bring mass assemblies/workers' councils about but also to successfully argue within them for action consistent with our aims and principles. the 'spontaneity' of struggles is usually an artifact of the distance of the observer (e.g. see the recent discussion of 'wildcat strikes' that are most often organised by lay union officials).

i'm not going to respond to the rest of your criticisms of spontaneism, because i largely agree with them and they don't apply to what i'm advocating.

i agree. of course. but we can know with greater certainty, especially with hindsight, what doesn't work than what does.

now i'm fully aware i have the benefit of hindsight and don't presume to second-guess those revolutionaries who faced impossible decisions. however, the problem to me seems precisely that the question was framed in terms of anarchist dicatorship vs class collaboration. this is precisely what i mean by a 'representative' approach. let me clarify.

it was seen that the CNT in many areas represented the majority of the working class, thus the question was unilaterally represent them or represent them in cahoots with other (bourgeois) representatives. this, imho was a major error. the 'problem' was how to involve workers who weren't CNT members. this is precisely the failing of one big unionism/revolutionary syndicalism - Catalonia had perhaps the highest ever percentage of unionisation in a revolutionary union, but it still only constituted something like 60% from memory. when you think about it, if 60% of the working class are part of a revolutionary union, it's pretty likely revolution's gonna break out before they reach 100% unionisation. so this problem will always occur while thinking of the union as a 'representative' of the class.

my benefit-of-hindsight assertion is that this problem is addressed by creating power for the class directly, not via any representatives. and the way to do this is mass meetings/factory committees/neighbourhood assemblies etc sending delegates to workers' councils. anarcho-syndicalists would push for this and where possible organise them, then argue within them for militant direct action and so on. they may or may not win those arguments, but at least the arguments are had, for example and i'd wager the rank and file UGT members in '36 were more revolutionary than their socialist bureacrats. obviously if the anarcho-syndicalists have long been involved in day-to-day class struggles and workplace and community organisation then their arguments will command more respect than an ICC-style councillist 'intervention' by a tiny revolutionary sect instructing the workers on what is to be done. now even if this had happened in Spain, you still had the insurmountable problems of 'anarchism in one country' in a world lurching towards total war, but i think the 'anarchist dictatorship vs class collaboration' was both an untenable choice and a false one.

ok, then yes i agree. i'm not trying to blame any one more than the other, just pointing out specific political organisation didn't particularly arrest the tendency to class collaboration i think is inherent to a representative organising model. i've outlined my understanding of what happened and why above, and won't repeat myself here.

for sure, it's a strategic judgement call. i happen to disagree with you on it. i think the major difference is that i don't see an anarcho-syndicalist union as necessarily a mass organisation (and this is a change on a year ago in 'Strategy in Struggle', following some very instructive discussions within SolFed over the intervening period). the anarcho-syndicalist model i'm describing works just as well as a minority, so long as that minority is significant/influential enough to organise mass meetings. in the case of the Workmates collective, just one anarcho-syndicalist together with some sympathetic co-workers was able to do this. typically militants won't carry that level of influence so it will require more members in one place to function as an a-s union. but mass membership at the expense of clear revolutionary principles is not required.

yes i agree, but those mistakes are made on the shoulders of earlier decisions/outcomes which shape the parameters of the decision. i accept mistakes were made, but that alone is not a sufficient explanation, anymoreso than when defenders of the Bolsheviks put their counter-revolutionary role down to 'errors' as opposed to something inherent to the vanguard party model.

exactly - the whole question of CNT dictatorship versus collaboration could have been sidestepped by workers' councils putting power directly into the hands of the working class (not their representatives). of course, the class would still have had to contend with the isolation of the revolution and may well have made all sorts of mistakes. but at least it wouldn't have been betrayed by its supposed representatives, and at least genuine revolutionaries wouldn't have found themselves in the impossible position the CNT ministers did during the May Days etc.

the whole point here is you're trying to fit everything into two categories - mass organisation or ideological organisations, a lexicon common to both platformism and council communism (which draw very different conclusions). the point of anarcho-syndicalism is to sidestep this dichotomy via organising as workers but from a clear revolutionary perspective. neither a political sect nor a mass union in the representative sense, but an organisation of revolutionary workers that involves others through assemblies and so on as i've outlined.

now of course these 'mass organisations' are actually fictional for the most part, but even as and when they come into being you have to address the fact that lacking 'ideology' - i.e. a rejection of class society - then class collaboration is the most likely outcome, as it has been in most cases and as DAM's critique of trade unions explains quite eloquently imho.

there's nothing stopping small anarcho-syndicalist unions collaborating with others in broader initiatives where circumstances dictate. i mean SolFed makes no claims to be a union, but even if we were 10 times the size and able to organise the odd dispute in places of higher density we'd still most likely work with others on various things as we do at present.

one thing SolFed's working on at the moment is a syllabus for workplace organsing training, drawing on the knowledge of some of our more experienced militants. if even a small group can pull this together, then in principle it could be made open to invited non-members e.g. militant co-workers and start to provide an element of this development of skills etc even without us being an actual a-s union (which i would define as being able to organise/help initiate struggles independently of the existing unions, e.g. organising a wildcat strike through a mass meeting). it's not the kind of thing political groups tend to try and do, as they tend to aim at developing positions, 'clarity' etc, so although we are in practice a political group, we can start to act in a more political-economic way (i.e. politicised workers organising as workers).

i somewhat agree here. what is interesting is that the CNT was forced to abandon its original position that the CNT union itself was the structure of the future society, that it would run everything. It was forced to do this because the working class was divided, with nearly half the organized workers in UGT. I agree with you that UGT rank and file were often more radical than the bureaucrats. And in practice the CNT was successful in bringing them along in building common organizations...such as the federations built to control the railways and public utility systems.

The "class collaboration vs anarchist dictatorship" dilemma was ultimately resolved by August 1936 when the revolutionaries in FAI -- Durruti, Mera, Garcia Oliver et al -- came up with the proposal for regional and national worker congresses and councils that would include the UGT. In other words, they came up with the proposal for joint power by the two unions as an alternative to joining the Popular Front, being pushed by the treintistas. And they envisioned this power as being based on the assemblies at the base, electing delegates to congresses.

The point to excluding the Republican and Basque Nationalist parties was to create an exclusively proletarian power, with no representation by groups supporting alien class interests.

We can't say there can be no delegation or representation. The working class can't gain power over larger regions that way.

Erm I am really confused, aren't the working class a massive majority everywhere? Do you not include peasants in working class?

I'm not clear why you think of the requirement of delegation as somehow related to the question of a peasantry. Let's take developed countries. The working class is the majority. Its power would be expressed not just in worker assemblies but also in delegate congresses to make decisions for larger regions, or even an entire revolutionary zone. And there would also be a need for elected coordinating committees in various areas.

in a region with millions of people you can't get everyone together in one big assembly.

Sorry i meant in relation to the use of representation, why do think this is necessary if we are using delegate system.

Having delegates is a form of representation. It's not like some parliamentary system but it is still a from of representation. What we advocate, I gather, is that the controls lie with the base.

So for example any decision of a delegate congress if it is controversial could be referred back to the base assemblies for decision. I know some people advocate mandates but I think delegates need some freedom to come to their own conclusions as they may encounter concerns and issues raised by others that were not anticipated. There needs to be an actual deliberative process at the congresses, but with the assemblies at base being able to agree or not to the result.

thanks for clearing that up, probably me being a bit dense.

How would this differ then from modern representative democracy other than being recallable? i mean some US states even have recall referendums. Surely, in this day and age, technology could easily solve the problem of unexpected issues without giving up on mandates?

The idea is that the congresses are a place for deliberation to occur. People come from various communities, or industries, and these different places and different groups of people have different concerns, backgrounds, priorities. When an assembly elects a delegate, they may not be fully aware of these various considerations and viewpoints that these other delegates would bring. This is why mandates are not really viable because it denies the deliberative role of a congress.

How does this differ from what exists at present? There is no rule at present in constitutions that controversial and important matters have to be sent back for discussion and vote of assemblies.

Referendums that occur now do not involve interactions and debates by people in assemblies. The campaigns for or against them tend to be dominated by the corporate media and funding for PR.

Also, by a delegate, I mean someone who isn't a professional politician, but has a regular job or role of some sort in their local community, so they share conditions of life with others in their community. They are not paid huge sums to be professional representatives who arrogate to themselves the right and power to make the rules for all of us. They may simply be compensated at their normal rate of remuneration (assuming we have a system of remuneration and that they are working somewhere).

Again, don't you think an assembly can have deliberation as described above without abandoning mandates by utilizing technology? Especially given your description about pay (and knowing your affinity for parecon), I'm having a hard time not thinking of this as abandoning traditional libertarian mainstays in favor of left-liberal reformism.

ETA: I'm not using left-liberal reformism as a pejorative, but as a true descriptor of a vein of political thought.

In a word, no. There needs to be face to face interaction. if people are restricted on how they can vote by a mandate, how can proposals evolve out of a discussion that modify the original proposals from the local assemblies in ways that respond to, and try to integrate, the concerns of the various communites? I don't see how appeals to "technology" enter the picture. I'm sure that discussions via email and message boards can take place prior to a congress, but this cannot substitute for face to face interactions and participation by a wide variety of people.

You can call it names if you like ("left liberal reformism") but that's not an argument. and in the absence of an argument, it's called a "smear."

It is called a flexible mandate. Plus why shouldn't things that come up which were not foreseen be taken back to the base?

I had posted a response last night, but the site got weird.

My point, which you refer to as an "appeal to technology" is it would be possible to have a break in a session and consult with the base using something as basic as a webinar. In a future libertarian communist society these things will impact ordinary people's daily lives, so it will not be the same as the tedious impossibility of watching CSPAN. People will make time to be debriefed.

Your system would, almost certainly, give rise to a new class of politicians. In a mandated delegate situation, nearly anyone who is willing could perform the task. However, with what you are proposing, minus mandates, potential delegates would be forced to electioneer telling constituents what they will or won't do, making promises, and ultimately attacks on opponents, leading inevitably to politicking on the basis of personality. Much like the way things are today, just a little better.

Which is why I added this:

Having a critical opinion is not the same thing as a smear.

What's the point of "consultation" if they are stuck to a mandate? The only way to change a mandate is to have another assembly to hash out any proposed changes. But that is exactly the point to my suggestion of the proposals, which result from the discussions, being sent back to the base assemblies. So you're basically nit-picking.

Moreover, if you say that delegates can abandon their mandated position upon "consultation" then mandates become merely the position taken by the assembly when they send the delegates. This is also part of what I was proposing.

We're talking about delegates elected from assemblies. We're not talking about politicians elected from large areas where they don't know people and people don't know the people being proposed for delegate. Besides, even with mandates, there are likely to be different people proposed for delegate. This will reflect the political differences among the people in the assembly. So "politicking", as you call it, is inevitable to some degree. What you seem to have in mind is some utopian idea of politics that isn't politics.

Something I view as rather odd is the repeated accusation levied against the "neo-platformists" that they are trying to transform non-revolutionary unions into revolutionary ones.

As a "neo-platformist" (or a dual organisationalist or especifista etc...) and not specifically an anarcho-syndicalist, I'm fairly flexible in my thinking about where we're going to organise. I'd like to see a large anarcho-syndicalist union, certainly, and I think syndicalism is damn near the best chance we have of libertarian revolution.

However, as the WSM union position states, we stand with the workers wherever they are. We encourage people to join the union in their workplace so they can best organise with their work mates. We don't make a principle of following the legalistic measures given by the trade unions, and we wouldn't be opposed to, for instance, wildcats if a member in a workplace felt that was what was required and the workers in that workplace agreed or came to agree. We're also not opposed to the formation of libertarian networks, if in fact such a thing were possible in Ireland (which it almost certainly is not at this point in time).

The odd part comes in the claim that the neo-platformists would like to turn the major trade unions into the CNT.

First, it seems clear that every anarchist would like to see such a thing occur! The CNT was a vastly more progressive organisation than SIPTU (insert your local union here). This remark is meant to allude to the absurdity of the position on the grounds that it is entirely unpragmatic.

It is, however, no more pragmatic to envision a single anarchist or couple of anarchists forming their own union in the work place as more progressive and more pragmatic. Such a minority when not in the same organisation as the rest of the workforce is simply delusional about the mechanism of collective action, which as the name suggests, must be collective. That doesn't mean that anarchist workers should be subordinate to the union bureaucracy. We should attempt to win the arguments with our fellow workers. The union provides a forum for discourse that provides legitimacy and a modicum of protection.

Secondly, if by some miracle, anarchist tendencies begin to grow and to become a real tendency, then it isn't absurd that we might have a big transformative effect on the unions themselves. The CNT itself was formed by "anarchist entryism" (a quite unbecoming epithet) into Solidaridad Obrera. In fact, this is not a unique occurrence, but unions-come-syndicalist, happened in several unions in Europe and South America [CGT France, CGT Portugal; See Black Flame for an impressively large list].

It has been said by Josephy Kay that there would be no need for the specific political organisation in relation to the anarcho-syndicalist union. However, it was also said that there would still be need of a think-tank and propaganda organ. Clearly this should be the role of the specific political organisation, if in fact a union is so democratised and politicised that it is in fact a libertarian revolutionary organisation. Yet even at this juncture, they are still in danger of coming under the structural realities of struggle within capitalist society, and a continuous vigil must be taken to stave off reformist tendencies. Organising specifically with other workers who have a clear critique of capitalism and the state, can help to coordinate efforts to fight such tendencies.

In reality, in many conditions*, the anarcho-syndicalist union acts as a specific political organisation. In some ways these anarcho-syndicalists even adopt practical organising methods that are no different than what the neo-platformists might adopt in similar circumstances (formation of shop stewards networks among the militant workers).

When however, the anarcho-syndicalists make a blanket rejection of participation in the trade unions that already exist in a workplace, they take the path towards isolation. It becomes merely a specific political organisation without a union, magifying the worst deficiencies of both tools. The danger of an abstract theory elevated to principled tactic can now easily take hold, since the organisation no longer has real connection with the workers as a real union, having to deal with the real conservatism of a given workplace or the broader labour movement in general. The union, in turn, is not well served by all the most militant and libertarian elements deciding to remain aloof.

* It is not the case in all circumstances. The situation in areas where workplaces vote on strike in the workplace with multiple unions acting to some extent, themselves as political parties (France and I think Spain) the conditions need to be assessed differently.

I'm generally in agreement with the thrust of jacobian's post here. I would also point out that the IWW came into being as a revolutionary union through revolutionaries gaining increasing influence in unions, such as the Western Federation of Miners, the remnants of Debs ARU, the western Hotel & Restaurant Workers Union, among others. In this case it wasn't an anarchist tendency alone that created IWW, it was an alliance of three revolutionary tendencies: anarchists, De Leonites, and the syndicalist leftwing of the Socialist Party.

Under American labor law it isn't possible to legally function as a union in a workplace where the business unions are recognized. For this reason, the IWW has at times functioned as a rank and file group within the context of an AFL union. The most spectacular case of this was on the west coast in the '30s when the IWW Maritime Transport Workers Industrial Union functioned as a caucus in the Sailors Union of the Pacific and became the dominant influence, leading to a prolonged direct action campaign on ships, and leading to the AFL expelling the SUP for syndicalist influence. There is currently an IWW group functioning this way in the context of a CWA local in a telephone company in a particular city.

In the '80s WSA organized an "action committee" that worked in the context of the AFL garment and textile unions. As in the IWW examples above, independently of the bureaucracy. In the '90s one of our member initiated an independent rank and file group and newsletter in a campaign against a possible sellout by the bureaucrats of an SEIU hospital workers union here in San Francisco. Being in the SEIU made it easier to connect with and mobilize other rank and file hospital workers.

So, the advantage of functioning as a kind of rank and file group in the AFL union is that you then are working in that broader context of discussion that occurs in the offficial union, which jacobian refers to. At the same time, independence of the bureaucracy means that you can also encourage collective action independently of the union if this is feasible.