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

You might bother reading my post Jack. The oddity isn't that the accusation is false.

It certainly was not clear to me, so maybe it is your post that is at fault.

which anarcho-syndicalists, specifically, do this?

And if they don't, what is the argument with respect to neo-platformism other than posturing?

I think I was fairly clear on the "positive" account of our strategy. Perhaps you can explicate how it is misguided.

Maybe I can help clarify for you. Calling for a powerful libertarian communist movement to supplant all world governments is not very pragmatic is it? Yet, that is a stated goal of libcom and the WSM.

The accusation carries a veiled/obscured claim that the outcome is either undesirable or not possible. I discussed both of these points in my post, but it may have been too subtle of a distinction for you.

The question should be one of how to obtain our goals. Now, perhaps you could proceed to describe how the strategy is unrealistic, or counter-productive and how organisational dualism brings nothing to anarcho-syndicalism.

In the USA historically the strategy of trying to transform the bueaucratic business unions from within by revolutionaries was called "boring from within," which refers to a strategy originally developed by Wm. Z. Foster back before WW1 when he was still an anarchist. In practice this strategy has led to electoral strategies, that is, electing reformers or radicals to capture the existing union apparatus. Often the radicals end up simply replicating the same bureaucratic practices of their predecessors...consider Tousaint in the Transport Workers Union in New York City. And when they go farther, the national unions often slap trusteeships -- dictatorships -- on them, as recently occurred in Chicago's largest Teamsters union when a radical elected as president radically reduced officers' salaries.

so WSA rules out a "boring from within" approach.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of segments of the existing unions being transformed. There is often a certain amount of local autonomy in American unions and the local unions are often reasonably democratic. There is also a history of radical breakaways...this was partly how the IWW was created originally. I think in a period of rising radicalism and insurgency this is when this would be likely to occur, as also new organizations emerging.

i am so sorry I read this as you saying that the accusation is odd because it is without foundation not that isn't an accusation at all as it a statement of fact. Clear as mud.

So since the second world war, when has this strategy of reforming the unions into revolutionary ones or even capturing positions achieve this?? Beyond the NSW BLF i can't think of another that comes close. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am more than happy to learn of other examples.

I suppose this would apply to the CNT as I don't think they allow dual membership with other unions. There's a discussion somewhere on alasbarricadas where CNT members are clearly quite puzzled about why members of solfed should also be in mainstream unions.

But platformists specifically namecheck the CNT as something to aspire to

syndicalistcat-I'm not sure where the miscommunication lies here, but I'm saying delegates could report back via a webinar or some other form of technology to get a mandate as to how to proceed.

See there. What you did when you said utopian? Is that a smear? I really don't think so. It's more likely you have a critical opinion.

I have exactly an "idea of politics that isn't politics," and if you don't, I'd ask why? Ending politics as a separate activity from everyday life (or the destruction of politics) should be a goal of everyone in the milieu, otherwise what would be the purpose of a revolution?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

okay, but i don't think it is necessarily important whether the second assembly occurs simultaneious with the congress or later.

as I see it "politics" just refers to the debate and discussion and decision-making about something of common or collective impact. So wherever it is appropriate to have collective decision-making there can be discussion and disagreement about how to proceed. at present of course areas of social impact often have decision-making appropriated by capitalists and bureaucrats or politicians. but parliamentary government isn't necessary for there to be politics. There is workplace politics, the internal politics of the labor movement, internal politics in social movements, there is politics in any sort of human association probably.

I don't see this going away just because the class and state structures are replaced with generalized self-management.

Perhaps our (anti)politics would be better served by a poserteriori conversation of what we are doing concretely and not from a priori ideological descriptors of our concrete activity.
If JK, 888, jacobian, syndicalist, Jack and others could explain how their participation in different work/ campaigns follows or differs from anothers ideology/praxis I'd be all ears... SolFed with Workmates, WSM with bin tax resistance, IWW with SeaSol, WSA with description of what they did in AFL unions, SolFed with description of what they did in TUC unions... where is the difference? This might make the distinction between "unitary" or "dual" organizations and what is "mass" more relevant...

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].
- you also have to take into account that anarcho-syndicalists/class struggle anarchists in those days were serious about industrial organising (unlike today in many countries) and were not just aping in many ways the sects from the Trotskyist/Stalinist heritage and getting drawn into all manner of campaigns legitimising this aimless activism with absurd claims to having something to do with a-s unionism (confusing broader activity of mass syndicalist unions/federation with the tiny groupings today which have syndicalist union building pretensions) - and recognised the importance of creating a-s influence in sectors of great industrial importance - one good example discussed in salvatore soldarto's "red november, black november"(about the early IWW) and an article an edition of Antipode magazine (radical geographical magazine) is the work of the "Right to Existence Group" which was based in the eastern USA and sent out activists and journalists in union building efforts in the mid western states- to help syndicalist mining workers unions get going - contributing to syndicalist influence in the early Western Miners Federation - the key component of the alliance of labour organisations which formed the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) -and also in Bareclona - the metal workers federation was an a-s union which was a key component of Solidad Obrera - in those days a-s groups were mainly composed militant workers in touch with the grim realities of class struggle and "the big picture" (and associated key steps leading to mass syndicalist union confederations) and the importance of strategic organising rather than any activoid "hunger for class struggle flesh" and associated aimless activism or pandering to bourgeois influence in the shape of identity politics amongst the left subculture in the interest of recruiting these elements for sect numbers games - so you see - a-s's in those days were getting important results as they hadn't lost the plot re the focus on the industrial front and associated strategic sectors and of course this was all before the rise of leninism/stalinism following the Russian Revolution so they weren't drawn into aping in certain respects the groupings which came from this legacy

FYI, comments posted on Anarkismo are not approved - they are automatically viewable. Only articles need editorial approval before being viewable.
There are no hidden comments containing links to the text AES refers to, so it would seem that s/he either hasn't posted them, or thinks s/he has, but perhaps didn't complete the publication procedure.
S/he is welcome to try again, but it might have been better to ask the editors about its non-appearance, before announcing to a public forum that it hadn't been approved.

BUMP!

Just to add a little to what Jim said, in terms of the differences between SolFed, IWW (UK) and platformists....

- I'd characterise SolFed's strategy as pretty much indifferent to the TUC unions and seeking to organise independently. Tactically, a recognised union can offer opportunities and we'd usually join it, but recognised union or not we pursue a strategy of independent workplace organisation via committees and/or mass meetings which organise everything from making more contacts to direct actions (typically on the job given our present capacities). While we want to function as a revolutionary union, we see this as being a catalyst for self-organised struggles on the shop floor, rather than seeking recognition from management to represent workers. There's consequently no pressure to recruit people who don't share our A&Ps, as the model only relies on getting a critical mass of workers organising, rather than signed up to SF (or a TUC union) in pursuit of recognition. There's no strategy of reforming or building TUC unions, though getting people to join a TUC union may be a good tactic depending on circumstances.

- The IWW as I understand it does want to be recognised by management to represent workers, they have jumped through the right hoops with the state to have the legal form to do this, and recognition has been a key demand of several public struggles (Showroom cinema and Guildhall cleaners spring to mind). That's not to say they've rejected unofficial action - the cleaners have wildcatted and won, which is brilliant. However this may land them in trouble in future as they're legally obliged to repudiate it (and the law is pretty strict, iirc repudiation can be retrospectively annulled if the union or its officials say anything endorsing it, iirc up to 6 months later). So I'd characterise the IWW's approach as an attempt to be a more democratic competitor/version of a TUC union.

- In terms of platformists, we don't really have any in the UK, unless L&S count? I don't really know much about L&S, other than they're heavily involved in the IWW. In terms of the WSM, their position paper suggests a more positive approach to ICTU unions than SF (encouraging 100% membership, even in non-unionised workplaces), and includes various elements of a program to reform/reclaim ICTU unions for the rank-and-file. I don't have any knowledge of what this means in practice, but based on their position paper I'd characterise this as a strategy of building rank-and-file strength within ICTU unions in order to democratise them, as well as struggle independently when necessary.

Hope that helps?

I can understand wanting to keep a future SF branch "unofficial" because of the legal constraints placed on it - not to mention the guarantee of diluting the radicalism of the branch - but, let's play devils advocate here, what if they demand recognition?
It strikes me that organising within the straight-jacket of legal TUC unions is in itself restrictive, and the Sparks activity (hats off to them!) has shown the TUC unions - in this case Unite - to be as we know it to be: anti-rank and file to the core (ref:"cancerous").
Correct me if I'm wrong but we approve the formation of "unofficial" bargaining units because we understand that in the context of anti-trade union laws that we're hamstrung when it comes to calling wildcats if we're jumped through the hoops to become "official"..?
But what if that bargaining unit then says they want to become recognised and feel that being recognised isn't in conflict with the Principals of Revolutionary Unionism and see it as the best way forward to forming a second branch in a near-by place of work?
I'm not making a statement here, I feel that this is a round-the-corner scenario.
regards

Getting recognised is a multi-year process, you can't just do it on a whim!

I suspect if it did happen, we'd have to discuss it with them as an organisation, try and reconcile, but if they were insistent on becoming legally recognised, then we'd have to part ways. Doesn't mean we couldn't be supportive of them, and we'd hope to maintain close comradely relations, but IMO if you pursue legal recognition, you have exceeded the bounds of anarchy-syndicalism. Obviously that wouldn't mean you couldn't be part of the group and SF (given most of our members are in TUC unions, largely those with recognition), but the group itself couldn't be.

In this hypothetical situation tho, I don't think the problem would be so much the split as that it would mean we hadn't been organising on an A-S basis. If we were growing on that basis, with our politics up front and not fudging the issues, then the issue shouldn't arise.

Absolutely, but as we know not all workplaces are huge affairs, so if you can indulge me here a bit.. I appreciate the need for all decisions to be made in the mass meeting "regardless of union membership" - 100% behind that. But, here's a scenario: lets say you work in a bakery and there is 12 workers. 5 have joined SF and all 12 have collectively they have forced their employer to recognise them as a bargaining unit. More of the workforce have indicated they would join SF if they were recognised and another bakers down the road too. Can we still have a recognised branch and still agitate through the mass meeting for the need - if it arose - to "illegal" actions? (after all, decisions are to be made in the mass meeting regardless of union affiliation, therefore kind of parking up the fact that there may be 1 or 2 recognised unions). I'm really thinking can we have our cake and eat it? ie a recognised branch AND agitate when required for actions outside labour laws therefore not diluting any politics or having to keep it zipped.

There's a difference between forcing an employer to deal with you in terms of collective bargaining and legal recognition. If all 12 forced this then fine, no issue. But if they wanted to be legally recognised, solfed isn't the place for that - in practice in this situation I think we'd point them in the direction of a TUC union, and possibly even join. But we're not interested in dilluting our politics for the sake of growth.

Yea, sure more people could well join us if we dropped anarcho-syndicalism and were just a democratic rank and file union. But that's not the kind of growth we want. There are all kinds of compromises you can take for growth. But once you go down that route, you only have to look around to see where it gets you!

I agree - I'm playing devils advocate with this a bit as there's a vague chance of something in the offing. I'm trying to think of the benefits of "recognition" (growth, promotion of ideas, bringing radicalism back on the agenda) without the destructive side-effects. Personally I think the best argument against recognition (besides dilution of politics) is that many of the people attracted to a legally recognised union are wanting representation - something SF is not about.

Anyhoo.. thanks for indulging me!

Yeah, it's a useful thought experiment, and something which will probably come up as we have small successes. I think you're right, if people are saying they'll only join SF if the bosses recognise us, then they don't really get what we're about, which is a good reason not to do it. I think the main advantage of the revolutionary union-mass meeting model is it is the best of both worlds: all workers participate in and control the struggle, but if it votes to do something sketchy (say, a no strike deal), SF can organise independently without being bound to the agreement or having any of the legal responsibilities that come with recognition (not being able to expel scabs, for example).

IMO the main argument against legal recognition in the situation you describe is not dilution of politics or representation, but that there'd be no practical advantage to legal recognition, it would just be a massive buraucratic obstacle to getting anything done - especially compared to the situation where you'd set up a branch of a TUC union (or the IWW), with a significant part of dual-carding SF members.

That's a fair comment No1, but IMO being neutered by red tape is a very different reason for not going the legal route.

Just as a technical point, there's two routes to recognition in the UK: statutory (where a registered certified independent trade union wins a ballot) and voluntary (where bosses choose to accept an organisation as the bargaining agent). We seem to be talking about the second scenario. Then the question would be are we talking about SF or the mass meeting being recognised? I think even with the latter it's problematic. Just by having the bosses sanction, a mass meeting takes a step away from being part of a process of self-organised struggle to being institutionalised as a 'team meeting', a chance for bosses/HR to 'consult' and nip conflict in the bid etc. If we solely wanted to improve conditions that might be fine, but as we see experience of self-organised struggle as fundamental to building class confidence and power it would short-circuit the very process we're interested in, imho. Which is of course the precise reason bosses would be interested in it. We have antagonistic interests after all! (I know this is all devils advocacy, but it's a useful discussion as these issues will always come up)

Maybe I am a tad naive, but I always thought The Platform on a practical level was used to keep the nutters out of your organisation, who always seem to awake like zombies from their reposes at the mere sniff of the old circled A, and start to shuffle towards you on mass muttering crackers.

Well it didn't work on me!

I'm with you! I would never be in an organisation that would have me as a member

While I think it would probably be daft for Solfed members in a mainstream union not to go for statutory recognition if they had the chance - I think one pretty big obstacle for SF going for it as an organisation would be that once you have achieved recognition, if the two sides fail to agree on the details of CB - then a method can be imposed by the CAC, which can only be modified by the agreement of both sides, and it is unlikely an employer would agree to terms SF could accept, and the CAC imposed terms would likely fall well short of what SF could accept.