Question on minority unionism and anarcho-syndicalism

Path to hell paved with good intentions and all that...

I don't want to be snarky, but it's also led to no-strike clauses.

I also don't think that the sorts of committees and networks proposed by SF suffer from any sort of informality.

Just a few things to say here (sorry this isn't addressed to specific posts, I'm just picking up on various things that have come up)...

I don't think FFO proposes highly 'ideological' unionism, though a few people have got that impression so when I get round to re-reading it I'll see if it's unclear. Iirc the discussion of this actually says explicit ideology is the least important element of a union's politics (after all, you can say you're an anarchist/communist/revolutionary and act in a way which contradicts this). As I understand it the whole point of the approach is to draw in people on a practical basis rather than just recruiting people who already fully agree with you, e.g. people seeing a-s methods in action rather than reading FFO and deciding to join (though that's fine too, ofc). My understanding (though maybe this is just my personal politics that I'm reading into FFO), is that SF is neither FORAista nor CNTista, but is trying to work out a revolutionary union practice under the conditions we face (which aren't 1900s Argentina or 1920s Spain or even 1970s Britain/Ireland).

On the organisational form/political-economic thing, the basic ideas (and I think the final draft) of FFO were worked out before Quebec kicked off, but I think (CL)ASSÉ is a pretty good contemporary example of the kind of thing FFO advocates. There's a permanent union organisation (ASSÉ) which engages in day-to-day organising at a local level, which builds up organisational capacity and the respect of much wider circles beyond its membership. The union has explicit politics, both in terms of its stated ideology (anti-capitalist, anti-colonial, feminist) and embedded in its practice and goals (free education, direct democracy, direct action etc). Presumably not every member agrees with every word of their politics, but have to abide by them (e.g. I doubt you/your section have to be actively feminist to join, but if you're misogynist or actively anti-feminist I assume you'd get the boot).*

That meant when a really big issue came along they were able to organise/catalyse an assembly-based mass movement federated as a temporary coalition (CL) around ASSÉ's federal structures. I think the formulation in FFO is that the union's a 'catalyst and not a container'. I also think it's different to 'intervention' as normally practiced or understood. I mean, would you say ASSÉ 'intervened' in CLASSÉ? I think their role was far more catalytic and generative than that (presumably, lots of political organisations from anarchists to trots to liberals did make conventionally understood interventions in the assemblies, to varying degrees of influence? - this is maybe somewhere specific political organisation could complement revolutionary unionism).

I think this shows that (permanent) union organisation need not be juxtaposed to mass movement, nor reliant on recruiting everyone into its ranks in order to catalyse such a movement. Rather, the right kind of union organisation is in a position to do things that neither hierarchical/bureaucratic/capitalist (symmetrist?) unions or specific political organisations are in a position to do, because of its day to day organising work (in FFO terms, its political orientation and activity in the economic sphere of 'work' [well, study/course work in ASSÉ's case]).

In terms of where SF's at, I think it's made clear in FFO that we're not a fully functioning revolutionary union, but have long-been an a-s propaganda group which is currently attempting to transform itself into more of a union-type organisation as described in FFO.** I think we've had some success at that, but it's very much early days. I mean, until very recently, I had never been a member of a 'real' union. But being in SF has given me access to the kind training, networking, tactical brainstorming and material support usually reserved for shop stewards (and of course the content of that is less service-based and more direct action-oriented). All my 'real' union does is work in partnership with the bosses, tell me to stop doing actual organising, and to sign up more co-workers to shore up their subs base. I do feel like I relate to SF as my union and to my 'real' union like I do to the insurance company. That said I'm in a particularly active SF workplace group, and we're still far from functioning as a revolutionary union across the board.

I also wouldn't necessarily juxtapose this to the IWW either. I think the IWW's probably a broader church than SF, but there would also seem to be at least one (if not more) coherent articulation of 'Wobblyism' broadly in line with what FFO advocates, which might not self-identify as anarcho-syndicalist but would be practically indistinguishable. I think the direct unionist stuff is sketching out that kind of project, and doing so in a way endogenous to the Wobbly tradition rather than imported from Europe/Latin America. I mean while the historical IWW had some closed shops, it also led mass strikes as a minority union (e.g. most famously Lawrence 1912). I think the thing is neither IWW or SF aspires to be a minority, but what FFO is arguing is for a union practice that doesn't require majority membership (and therefore avoids the pressures to dilute or downplay the revolutionary politics and develop a service-model to attract and retain members). If a majority of my workmates were won round to a-s politics and practice that would be awesome, though I can't see that happening except through successive waves of mass struggles, trade union 'betrayals' etc. Hence the focus on catalysing struggles over recruitment (while not being shy about the latter).

* I don't know enough about ASSÉ to say if it's anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary unionist or whatever, but in terms of organisational form I think it's clear how it differs from both Leninist parties or non-vanguardist specific political organisations. I think it also shows how organisational forms are difficult to separate out from political content, as the two feed back into each other.

** Maybe we won't succeed, and there are of course other ways a revolutionary union movement might emerge - new organisations, radicalised breakaways from existing organisations etc. But these other possibilities aren't a reason to remain indecisively agnostic or wait-and-see imho.

Just a few things...

It is correct that SF doesn't really see themselves as just a replica of FORA or CNT. From FFO they seem somewhat in between and have a practice based on their circumstances. Maybe that is not convenient for folks but not everything is black and white. By this I mean it seems they have elements of both being an organization of anarcho-syndicalists and an anarcho-syndicalist organization.

Regarding informality, I think this is just silly. I think the issue here at least with DU is people seeing something that is not the union committee or SolFed workplace group as being too informal. I don't know if that makes it informal. You could have both a very formal union group and a very formal workers group, with overlapping membership.

JK has really laid it out better than I could ever hope, but do you think registering with the state and signing contracts with bosses will help to minimize the pressures of trade unionism?

Now, you could be talking about the IWW's notion of Solidarity Unionism and perhaps you understand that to be explicitly anti-contract (although by suggesting we begin from a 'legally recognized base, it wouldn't immediately appear to be the case), but then were approaching something much closer to Direct Unionism--a document written by explicit anarcho-syndicalists who were very much influenced by SF (a two way process, I should add).

Have you read this thread Yekmesh? I think you should:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/solidarity-revolutionary-unionism-16092010

but yeksmesh tho that is true about proclaimed ideology or whatever... joseph was talking about the functional aspects of how a group like solfed or the iww could do what asse did with classe create a broader assembly based movement. also the way asse even worse is that usually they try to start a small committee first in a department that eventually builds towards calling for mass assemblies.

Yeah, the ASSÉ example was explicitly one of organisational form...

Attitude to legal status is a different question (though a related one, sure). I can elaborate on the UK legal situation if you like, but I don't think legal status itself is the issue, but what implications that has for organising the way you want to. It obviously didn't stop ASSÉ organising in the kind of way FFO advocates. The CNT is also legally registered/recognised as a union by the Spanish state (I'm not sure exactly how Spanish labour law works, presumably it's less restrictive than TULR(C)A 1992).

I need to read the whole thread when I get time and sleep/caffeine. For now, on this, I agree w/ JK. I would also add that some of us in some of the currents in the IWW do identify as anarchosyndicalists, quite a few actually, myself included (though my personal grounding in the anarchosyndicalist traditions is quite thin because I came to all of this a bit late in my political life - one of many things that made me appreciate FFO was how it mapped out so much of that tradition and related/similar ones). But that identification goes with a wide range of politics and practices (and unfortunately a lot of the individual anarchosyndicalists involved talk like their views are the REAL anarchosyndicalist ones and others' aren't really anarchosyndicalists.) To some extent what we in the IWW are doing is trying to build both a vocabulary to have discussions with as well as the contents of those discussions. One of the many difficulties with that is that people often are like "the content and the vocabulary are identical" so like "what should we do? the anarchosyndicalist thing to do!" when there's disagreement on what an anarchosyndicalist line is on various topics. And also like "using XYZ vocabulary (or not using it) is a matter of political principle!!!!" So we often flip between fighting over actual proposals and fighting over words and back again.

hey Nate, care to expand on this, particulalrly in the US context::

EDIT: Not meant as a loaded question. As more north americans begin to become more amenable to a/s, I'm interested in a dialogue and discussion.

I meant that I've had multiple conversations over the years with IWW members who are bascially like "as an anarchosyndicalist IWW member, I think we should do the following thing", where the thing they want to happen is portrayed as an issue of principles for all anarchosyndicalists. Is that any clearer? (Sorry if not!) This isn't unique to anarchosyndicalists in the IWW either, I should say. I think people of any tradition/political tradition in the organization tend to do this.

I hear you, Nate.

there a quite a number of unions which play in one or another way in this league, e.g. French Solidaires/SUD, several of the Italian CoBas, the NTUI in India, historically both the Autentico current in the Brazilian labour movement (which partly created its own (pluralist) political expression with the PT ;-( ) and the "Workerists" in the South African unions around 1980 and the independent communist "Revolutionary Industrial unions" 1924-33 in Germany ... their attractiveness derives from the fact, that you don't have to subscribe to a distinct historical narrative and a certain paraphernalia to participate ... it is also my perception, that there e.g. in Germany many people I know would join an independent and radical class struggle union outside the DGB who would never join narrower "alternatives" like the FAU or an RGO (the latter even achieved around 1980 to become a non-negligible force in some areas and had quantitatively reached a point where a qualitative breakthrough would have been possible)

I've read this thread now and have read some of the posts multiple times and I'm still confused. Some of this is sleeplessness I'm sure. Still, could you clarify here what you mean, please?

You refer in a generic/abstract/general sense to political parties who organize in workplaces and seek to steer class struggle. You don't say much about them that's specific - just that they're groups that have ideology, have sections/subsections/presence/activity/whatever-we-call-it in workplaces and that they actively try to influence struggles in those workplaces in some way. That seems super vague to me. (And you explicitly set aside the issue of ideology.) This seems vague enough to me that I'm having trouble understanding the comparison you're drawing. I don't mean this rudely but I feel like you're saying something along the lines of "anarchosyndicalists tends to be involved in groups of people doing things related to class struggle, and musicians tend to be involved in groups of people doing things related to music. How, then, are anarchosyndicalists and musicians difference, except of course for the differences between music and politics?" (Again I don't mean that rudely, it's just the only comparison I could think of.) It would help me understand here if you would say more concretely, preferably with some examples, "political parties have the following qualities/do the following activities" then show how this is similar to anarchosyndicalists. It'd also help if you clarified what the stakes are - like if the comparison holds, then what? That would help sort out of the similarities are trivially true (like "anarchosyndicalists and albatrosses both start with the letter a" or "anarchosyndicalism and leninism are both ideologies") or politically important. Again I don't mean any of this dismissively, I genuinely want to understand your points and have tried, but failed, and so I'd like some help here. Thanks.

honestly i think it comes down to this...

there are some highly ideologically coherent pro-revolutionary groups of various ideological varieties like leninism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism/communism... and historically and contemporarily they have often used a cell structure within workplaces and neighborhoods to organize their concentration within those contexts...

This is the thing though, like what's the issue? Is it just people want resolution on the debate from years ago about S&S being a "rip off" of council communism or something?

Klaus..... "cell structure"?

read up on old CPs etc... they had shop and zonal nuclei

But you mentioned a/s in this as well. So you've confused me even more.

EDIT: Knowing you, I suspect you may be referring, on the libertarian side of the ledger, to Bonnao's "base nuclei" which are sorta, sorta like the libertarian version of shop factions/shop
nuclei: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-a-critique-of-syndicalist-methods#toc9

And there aims are different. They would like the proletariat to be steered away from the class struggle.

I don't necessarily know if that's true, but they do want to control struggle and to make sure it's steered in their preferred direction...

Beware of those with pseudo-socialist politics!

Couldn't it be the case that it depends on how you define struggle?

If it's this document http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/1935/07/organisers-manual/index.htm I'll be in hysterics....i read this same sucker decades ago!

Their bureaucracies which needs capital relations to survive. If capital goes, they go.

They'll lose their purpose.

Yes I believe so...and this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/piatnitsky/1925/02/11.htm

I think ages ago searching for origins of people using the term nuclei I found some pdfs of old CPish pamphlets too.

Of course, but ultimately they want to become managers of capital. For that to happen, they will allow working class struggle to occur under their direction and control. Once they attain that, yeah, of course they'll seek to squash struggle and certainly and potentially revolutionary struggle.

Or alternatively, once they've achieve their trade union position at the bargaining table or political power within the social democratic state, they'll allow the selective use of struggle to prop up them up.

the language of "cells" has also been used by some anarchists. when I talked to members of the FAG in Porto Alegre in 2003 they called their various concentrations "cells". these were in workplaces but could be in a neighborhood (they had barrio committees to defend squated land) or among students at a university. i think this derives from the legacy of the Uruguayan FAU.

In "The Communist Party & Auto Worker Unions" Keeran refers to the CP "units" in workplaces. These were required to have at least 3 members. these were disbanded during the Popular Front period.

having just read thru "Hammer & Hoe" about the Alabama Communist Party, it seems that to the extent the CP tended to hide its existence in mass organizations after 1936, this tended to generate distrust. It had its largest working class support (almost all black) in the early '30s when the party was underground but open about their politics to the people involved in the unemployed committees (neighborhood based) and the Share Croppers Union, where a large part of the rank and file membership were sympathetic to communism and the International Labor Defense (a civil rights defense organization put together around the case of the Scottsboro boys). The party hoped that after 1936 thru their attempts at links with liberals & middle class blacks they could create a party that would be accepted as a legal political party. This proved to be unrealistic in the context of a highly repressive political culture & institutions in the south in that period where even liberals defended segregation.