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

Vanilla wrote -

I agree - but exploring this - and keep me right here - the CAC imposed terms are in cases that are not resolved following every legal possibility (including industrial action)?

Just to say, I think in a situation where SF is approached by a group of workers (or a group of workers being supported by SF) who then want recognition, this could potentially be an area where we could send them to the IWW.

However, as SF members we should be organising as anarcho-syndicalists. This means, not recruitment or organising politically, but seeking to see A/S methods spread as widely as possible throughout the class; ideally self-organisation becoming the default response to problems at work.

In my workplace, we (being our informal workplace committee as advocated by the SF workplace organiser training program) use our recognised union for cover for various activities--and promote union membership on that specific basis. But it's a matter of picking and choosing; sometimes it makes sense to go through the union, sometimes we do everything in our power to keep the union the fuck away and use various channels of self-organisation.

From reading the industrial strategy and the T&P pamphlets, the way i see it is that SF organising through internal industrial networks works within workplaces and aims to build a shop committees capable of calling regular mass meetings of all workers. That is then informally a 'workplace section' of SF so long as SF members are involved in the workplace. If that section needs legal CB, they dual card with IWW or a TUC union depending on their situation. The difference between this and trot rank and filism is that we're not seeking to revolutionise the unions, but only use them as a cover for organising as Chilli described.

So basically SF in my opinion will never have formal union sections, and will essentially be a revolutionary democratic form of the NSSN; a growing core of organisers that aim to deepen the rift between workers and employers, and only recruiting those firmly won over to anarcho-syndicalism as the method to reach libertarian communism, whilst it's main goal is to inject those ideas and methods of organising into the class and make them self-perpetuating, independent of us.

That last paragraph is beautifully put, Harrison.

But it is organisational dualism, rather than the unitary political-economic org perspective.

I thought it was a bit of a departure from Solfed policy too. But having said that I agree with the sentiment so I'll shut up.

Yeah I probably wouldn't put it quite like Harrison, especially here:

I would distinguish between an anarcho-syndicalist group and a group of anarcho-syndicalists ie what matters is not our a priori 'politics' but our practice and tactics. The role of SF should be to promote and foment anarcho-syndicalist practice across the class. This is - and IMO will continue to be - a growing, increasingly intuitive tendency, as the intransigence and irrelevance of both the mainstream unions and parliamentary politics as a whole become apparent.

I actually think this is a really important point and a real marker of SF's development will be when we start to recruit people on an economic basis (cos we represent the best option for their efforts to struggle over material issues) rather than a political one (cos they've researched all forms of anarchism and believe that SF have the best 'line').

As it is, we're slowly starting to see that SF/a-s tactics are being adopted by contacts/companeros of SF, as well as SF members themselves.

Caiman, i don't understand how your point differs from mine?

I agree anarcho-syndicalism is just a practice and set of tactics that workers can use to get the goods. Libertarian communism is also just the 'final solution' to peoples material needs. They are essentially material concepts rather than ideological.

CDL is emphasing the difference between the institutional practice of militants in an AS group/union, as opposed to those who have completely bought into your particular political/ideological worldview. When you said "only recruiting those firmly won over to anarcho-syndicalism" it sounds like you are in favour of a union of politicised anarcho-syndicalists, rather than an AS union which could be open to broader libertarian militants.

Yeah, Harrison, I read your post more or less how you say (i.e. "recruiting those firmly won over to anarcho-syndicalism" = workers willing to fight along anarcho-syndicalist principles, anti-class collaboration, representation rather than self-defining anarcho-syndicalists etc) but I can see how it could have been read otherwise (as Caiman did)..

Just quickly, I reckon we might differ on the thing about union sections.. I mean, a group of a few SF members in one workplace would count as a section. As it grew, it would (hopefully) be able to direct/initiate struggles which (again hopefully) would attract militants to it who see in it the best way to fight for better conditions at work and to spread struggle beyond it.. I think this is what Caiman means when he talks about recruiting people economically as opposed to politically..

Speaking in a personal capacity, I wouldn't be opposed to recruiting individuals who weren't sure about the possibility of libertarian communism or whatever.. as long as they saw the merit in anarcho-syndicalist principles and tactics in struggle then I'd be happy with them joining as well.. so, leftist militants who want to capture mainstream unions wouldn't be allowed, even if they were communists, while militants who believe in workplace assemblies etc to control struggles but maybe thought communism was just a nice idea would be..

Also, don't use 'final solution' like that, it's just well weird..

Thanks Joe & Ed for succinctly summarising my perspective. This all relates to recent discussions within SF. The point is to promote anarcho-syndicalist practice as the obvious solution to workplace/social struggles.

This is kinda what happens in the CNT, who are basically the pre-eminent option for groups of workers who've been fucked by CCOO and UGT (the two mainstream union feds). The main difference i would prefer between us and the CNT is that they require workers to join before adopting their struggle, while I'd advocate them using SF methods over anything else.

This has been fascinating stuff gang. Although I think the SF strategies are perfect for an org of it's size - but as it grows (at the moment there's no getting away from this fact) I suspect it will have to adopt.
I think Harri's comparison with the NSSC isn't a bad one for the time being. And Ocelot's question about organisational dualism is correct - and this may be a hot potato in times to come.

Is it alright for me to say I haven't got a clue what 'organisational dualism' is? Nor why what we're advocating is 'organisational dualism' as opposed to a "unitary political/economic org"?

Well imo, SF is one the one hand building a base of militants in the workplace agitating on independent R and F lines and on the other attempting to achieve workplace control as a majority as a solfed branch. As things stand, this isn't a bad approach.

Hmm, so is that 'organisational dualism'? Building a base of militants on independant rank and file lines while also trying to achieve workplace control through a majority SF branch?

If it is, I'd dispute that was what we were doing. I'd say one thing about SF is that we're not so fussed about our size but rather our ability to affect struggle.. so a cafe where a lefty manager encourages all his staff to be SF members means little to us compared to a workplace with one SF member who manages to organise struggle with workmates through workplace meetings (and maybe recruit one or two who are interested in taking the organising beyond the workplace)..

Or have I missed something massive?

No I go along 100% with this, however if we are to continue in our success there should be no reason whatsoever why we can't achieve branch control. Granted, as things stand (and I see no reason for any change) we ask for ideological and tactical unity through free association to the SF's A's and P's and therefore this in itself is harder to pull off than twisting fingers and "recruiting" - but in itself shouldn't rule out the idea of majority SF control. (Obviously as @s's we still organise with fellow workers regardless of union membership).

Right, I get you.. I still don't have a clue why it's not political-economic organisation though (as ocelot says).. but nevermind..

I think it is, but now me head hurts..!

Organisational dualism = a 'mass' workers organisation organised on economic lines (typically a trade union), and a separate political organisation (typically a party, but also a 'specific' anarchist organisation).

Political-economic organisation = organisation with political principles which organises economic struggles, e.g. the CNT.

'Unitary organisation' = a term from left/council communist theory apparently included here to muddy the waters (meaning an organisation which, on the eve of revolution, unites the working class behind a revolutionary programme, e.g. the historic AAUD-E, or workers councils themselves)..

These are all 'the same' in the way the AF is 'the same' as the labour party and promoting 100% trade union membership is 'the same' as organising a mass meeting of all workers regardless of union membership.

Well there's no reason why we can't, it's just not something which implies dual organising - even if everyone at my workplace joined tomorrow (hah!) it wouldn't be so we could as an SF branch achieve workplace control it would be because everyone in the workplace felt it could facilitate their own struggle. Difference between a Party and a Federation innit.

Which is why it's not really a big thing whether a given workplace is SF-majority or not, the key isn't membership it's tactical approach. While yes it's a good thing to have more members (more resources etc) we aren't a vanguard and don't need to think that way in terms of organising people.

Fortunately no one will disagree with this, but it kind of sounds like we want to spread our ideas, methods and grow the org without wanting to achieve any sort of majority - are we just worried in case we sound vanguardist (when we know we're bloody well not)? The logical conclusion to winning arguments would be with people to side with us, no?

If you're in an organisation you would have to be mad not to want other people to join it.

The difference between a-c and a-s groups is that we want people to join for the right reasons, not just to be cannon fodder and paper sellers.

That doesn't contradict the idea that you also work with people regardless of whether they join or not.

Couldn't think of a better term! It has horrible connotations doesn't it...

The hard thing is squaring recruitment on an economic basis with agreement to the material end goal of a stateless / wageless society. Significant numbers could only be recruited on this basis during sustained periods of high class struggle....

I see what you're getting at.. the thing with SF imo, is that we don't build branches so we can organise struggle (like a standard TUC union would); we organise struggle and then try to build branches..

So say with standard union organising, you recruit til you have the members to get recognised, maybe take action if necessary..

The SF approach would be to organise struggle (with workers taking control of said struggle) and then when that struggle ends, you see who stays militant, who still thinks along the lines of direct action, boss vs worker, who rejects backroom representation.. those people (imo) should be in Solfed and we should ask them to join.

Those who aren't so militant, who still think management can be won over with argument or whatever, probably don't belong in Solfed.. but obviously we still work with them in struggles (through workplace meetings etc).. they just don't get to decide Solfed policy..

So I don't think it's not wanting to be a majority in a workplace (I think we'd love this!) or not wanting to be vanguardists.. but I think it's secondary to getting people to take control of struggle (and also to believe and understand why they should be in control of their own struggles). Having a majority in a workplace is only good if the content of that majority means something..

That said, a majority in a workplace that believed in direct action, solidarity and workers' control of struggle would be fucking sweet!

I've found some of the posts here very interesting, and I'll try and type up my thoughts tomorrow.

I not sure who VIB is having a go though so I don't know if I should be getting offended or nodding in agreement.

VENN DIAGRAMS!!!!

Sorry but using your definitions, these things are not exactly the same thing but are largely subsets of each other.

A unitary organisation is an "organisation with political principles which organises economic struggles". And a separate organisational dualist political organisation is also an "organisation with political principles which organises economic struggles". I've drawn the "separate political organisation" as including things which are not "organisation[s] with political principles which organises economic struggles" because you can of course have "separate political organisation" which organise around 'political' issues that are not simply 'economic'. (To be honest I think class struggle as a social struggle, not an economic one, nor a political one, nor an economic/political one, so I don't see this distinction as useful.) Examples of none economic struggle would be i don't know occupying a jobcentre in opposition to legislative changes.

For what its worth, I think SolFed have been doing great stuff over the last few years so I'm not having a go at what you are doing. Rather, I'm having a go at this "political/economic organisation" idea.

The way I see it is that there is the social class, and subsections of that social class that have common 'political beliefs'*. They can and do organise together to advance their common beliefs.

People organising together on the basis of shared beliefs can take many forms. It can be like the ICC, the Adam Smith institute, the US Democrats, SolFed, Aufheben, The Economist etc. etc. The question is what is most appropriate to what you are trying to do, general transhistorical rules about how people with shared politics should organise don't exist. Lessons do, the correct organisational form doesn't.

*There is an obvious difference here between a political belief (i.e. a belief about the distribution and organisation of power and violence in society) and the economic/political distinction which rests on the separation of the 'political sphere' (the state) from the 'economic sphere' (the market); a separation that only exists in its developed form in bourgeois society.

I fucking LOVE Venn diagrams!!!1!

Unlike Chili Sauce, I found George's post unreadable, sorry. Is that how you describe your ideas to interested people...?

I didn't understand Vanilla's contribution either, which tendency/type of org does he consider himself a part of?

Except that in practice, the anarchists in the CNT saw the necessity to form the FAI - 'la especefica' (the specific [one]) - to defend those political principles from reformism by "bakuninist" methods..

Actually I had more in mind the original Argentinian anarchists of the FOA and pre-split FORA to create a single organisation that was not revolutionary syndicalist (NB the term "anarcho-syndicalism" did not exist until coined as a pejorative neologism by the Profitern's Solomon Lozovsky in 1922). I can't remember their exact formulation, but it was something along the lines of the FORA as a unitary anarchist worker's organisation. In this they were opposed to the Malatesta/Fabbri line of a combination of unions built on the basis of maximum solidarity and direct action in defence of workers, combined with a specific anarchist organisation to promote "the final goal" of libertarian communism. At the 5th conference the FORA adopted the "finalist" goal of libertarian communism, much to the dismay of Fabbri, who said of this finalismo syndicalista (hack translation):

In fact, the fears of Malatesta and Fabbri were subsequently borne out by event. Following the 1915 split, the unions in Argentina divided into a combative FORA V, who did the fighting and the bleeding, and the mainstream reformist unions who followed behind and hoovered up whatever gains there were to be had in the aftermath. Leading inexorably to the progressive extinction of the FORA V as a fighting force (until the 1930 coup wiped out the remnants). As Malatesta said in his debate against Monatte in the 1907 Amsterdam conference "I don't want red unions, because I dont want yellow unions".

It's relative to this "unitary" conception of the finalista organisation, composed of "societies of resistance" (as FORA worker groups were known), that the Latin American term especifismo has meaning - i.e. the return to the Malatestan conception of specific anarchist organisations, practicing social insertion into mass organisations not siloed into specific political allegiances.

That was the background to my comment on Harrison's outline of the role of the SF as comparable to an anarchist version of the NSSN, i.e. operating social insertion into workplace organisation amongst members of existing unions and none (mass organisation), and "only recruiting those firmly won over to anarcho-syndicalism as the method to reach libertarian communism" (specific organisation), as being a form of organisational dualism (or especifismo).

Some did, and now is not then - if it were we'd be trying to take over the IWW as its core organising unit. And if we're limited to inserting our politics ino existing unions we're fucked, because the existing unions are so moribund they have what, 25% density outside the public sector? What's truly noticeable about the situation we have now is that in Britain the militants did stay in the mainstream unions and aim to militarise them, the same unions which now preside over one of the most demilitarised workforces in Europe.