anyone have a clue what forms of organization pre-dated the councilist/left communist unionen?
since they were seen as only bodies for revolutionary agitation... i am just wondering what organizing happened before their existence that got them to that capacity level.
They were members of the social democratic trade unions, as was most of the German working class (except for the FAUD. who's origins ere also inside the mainstream unions).
this has already been refuted in detail on this thread. old does not equal irrelevant and automatically outdated.
I'm not saying it's outdated because it's old. I'm saying it's outdated because of policies that it holds onto that are no longer relevant. I've used a very specific example and no one is really touching it. I'm a member of a union that doesn't want to cause any political trouble with the socialist party of the 1920's. That's outdated (and old).
I'm a member of a union that doesn't want to cause any political trouble with the socialist party of the 1920's. That's outdated (and old).
What exactly are you referring to here? I'm a member and I've never seen or heard a single reference to the Socialist Party in the modern IWW.
A principal that somewhat sets the IWW apart from its sister unions in Europe is their non-political stance (rather than anti-political). The IWW does not discriminate on the basis of party membership, which is fine, but the IWW also will not call for ballot boycotts as per their (or I suppose our) stated non-political line, nor will the IWW engage at all in any sort of political critique. As far as the wobs are concerned, this is neither here nor there when it comes to union matters.
This policy was developed because of dual membership between Wobs and SP members. At the time, it was probably a solid choice. Seeing as how today there's a growing amount of disenchanted voters out there, and how every other union is pretty much owned by the Democrats, it would probably serve the union a little better to actively engage an anti-electoral rhetoric. This would illustrate core principals about workers only being able to represent themselves, direct action, and so on and so forth. However, this is not an option.
Even if I was in the CNT, I would think anti-ballot stuff is a waste of time and resources. It's sort of a moral campaign that anarchists feel an obligation to do, and really not much else.
And that's fine, but it's not even an option for the IWW in its current state. Ballot boycotts have a use in certain situations, and its not a tool the IWW would be able to use because of leftover nonsense from a century ago.
Nah. Some of the strongest non-political stuff has more roots in the 70s and 80s. Nate has done some digging around on this and found that out. For example, the 'No Politics In This Union' part in the OBU pamphlet comes out of the early 80s.
The old IWW had tons of anti-electoral cartoons,including many that lampooned the Socialist Party. There was a host of the other regional things that often clearly took a pro-Bolshevik or pro-anarchist take on things.
I don't agree that it isn't an option because of some constitutional statement on being non-political, I think its an option that isn't going to get much support, because there are other way, way more important things that deserve time, money and resources than that.
Your losing sight of my point. I'm not necessarily arguing that ballot boycotts are the end-all-be-all of the class war or even that they're a necessary part of it. Instead, I'm saying that the IWW will not call for one, originally because of a policy developed at the founding of the union, and that policy has remained largely untouched since, despite a changing political atmosphere.
IWW has sacrificed any sort of coherent, long-term revolutionary strategy for at best creating more union work places (which can never constitute a revolutionary strategy if we define revolution as something including the abolition of wage labor)
Viewed in the context of some of your other comments, is the assumption here that modes of councilist organisation can never abolish wage labour, but in fact rely upon it?
I have a very limited knowledge and understanding of both councilism and syndaclism. My initial question at the beginning of this thread was really based around the degree to which both councilism and syndaclism necessitate a mode of organising production and distribution that relies upon socially average labour time, and which might thereby risk perpertuating some of the problems that it sets out to address (i.e. a society's subservience to the rule of value). But what alternative modes of social organisation might be able to avoid that problem?
My initial question at the beginning of this thread was really based around the degree to which both councilism and syndaclism necessitate a mode of organising production and distribution that relies upon socially average labour time
tbh i don't think this is really an issue. you can certainly find both syndicalists and councillists who more or less advocate some kind of self-managed wage labour. but i don't think it's definitive of either tradition, which both place more emphasis on self-organised class struggle than what replaces capitalism (where answers range from self-managed labour voucher type stuff to full communism).
Yeah, my question was also motivated in part by the degree to which councilism could be viewed in a more general sense simply as a mode of organisation per se, and not just as workers' councilism, i.e. as a system of federated workplaces; in that sense it seemed to differ from syndicalism (hence my initial question). ...but I guess the question that then arises (if the issue is - that of adopting the value-theory type arguments) is as to what alternative modes of social production and distribution would not rely upon abstract labour. Presumably labour-vouchers, time-chits, etc. would not resolve the problem.
Your losing sight of my point. I'm not necessarily arguing that ballot boycotts are the end-all-be-all of the class war or even that they're a necessary part of it. Instead, I'm saying that the IWW will not call for one, originally because of a policy developed at the founding of the union, and that policy has remained largely untouched since, despite a changing political atmosphere.
Actually, I think Juan pretty clearly dealt with exactly this point.
Nah. Some of the strongest non-political stuff has more roots in the 70s and 80s. Nate has done some digging around on this and found that out. For example, the 'No Politics In This Union' part in the OBU pamphlet comes out of the early 80s.
The old IWW had tons of anti-electoral cartoons,including many that lampooned the Socialist Party. There was a host of the other regional things that often clearly took a pro-Bolshevik or pro-anarchist take on things.
I don't agree that it isn't an option because of some constitutional statement on being non-political, I think its an option that isn't going to get much support, because there are other way, way more important things that deserve time, money and resources than that.
I really don't see how you could construe a refusal to make alliances with political parties and "anti-political" groups as meaning that you can't do a ballot boycott. And what exactly has changed in the political atmosphere that would make alliances with political parties more sensible now?
Very quick question: is it fair to say that a council communist system does not necessarily entail syndicalism, but that syndicalist system might well involve councilism?
I am really not sure about this now since the topic came up. It is pretty clear that council communists were influenced by the IWW and revolutionary syndicalism in the formation of the "Workers' Unions" ... to the point that constituent organizations of a larger Workers' Union could organize either by factory (ideally), area/region, or by industry.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1924/revolution.htm#h9.3If several Union (Arbeiterunion) members are employed in one factory, they have a duty to found a factory organisation. Individual members organise first of all according to groups of industries or living areas, as also with relations between small factories. Autonomous small-scale firms, as likewise do intellectuals, organise themselves by dwelling areas. The area groups bear the character of interim organisations insofar as every member in one has to withdraw as soon as the conditions cited above are present for the founding of a factory organisation (Betriebsorganisation) of its own in his factory.
This pretty much is the structure of the IWW today. Preferably we want shop unions, but we also have industrial networks and interim organization via GMBs.
Considering this I am really wondering if there can be considered any difference between the strains other than that some developed in more or less eclectic ways. I know some have said the Unionen were only formed because of the revolutionary situation for political agitation on the job, but I mean they were in a revolutionary situation. Eventually you see the same direction that anarcho-syndicalism took of merging communist politics with unionist practice.
A principal that somewhat sets the IWW apart from its sister unions in Europe is their non-political stance (rather than anti-political). The IWW does not discriminate on the basis of party membership, which is fine, but the IWW also will not call for ballot boycotts as per their (or I suppose our) stated non-political line, nor will the IWW engage at all in any sort of political critique. As far as the wobs are concerned, this is neither here nor there when it comes to union matters.
That, unfortunately, is very much anti-political enough (not calling for ballot spoilage, not directly organizing political action, not itself becoming a political formation).
"The IWW doesn't do my pet anarcho project, therefore its apolitical."
I know this will probably be considered flame-y but I'm just gonna blurt it at the expense of looking dumb. I don't know much abouut councilism, but I really REALLY think its just a revolutionary movement relevant for a very particular time in history. Please inform me:
What is the councilist program? Would the councils exert political control around the surrounding area? Would these councils become just worker cooperatives? Don't worker councils HAVE to be syndicalist in order to be communist?
What does it mean to be a Councilist?
What is the councilist program?
The councilist program is pretty much that the workers councils are the real bodies of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That the workers should run the world themselves, and not via trade unions or parliaments. More specifically the little economic thought they had thought about remunerating people linked to socially average labor time. So basically they still didn't totally delink consumption/distribution from value production.
Would the councils exert political control around the surrounding area?
Council communists were very concerns about geographic and class wide spread of forms of struggle and self-governance, so basically yes. A more modern interpretation of this would recognize that the workers are also "consumers" or "community" members. These councils could administer all life. Shop committees and neighborhood committees would send over all delegates upwards, etc.
Would these councils become just worker cooperatives?
This question is a little confusing, but I'd tend to say no depending on what you mean by cooperatives. If you just mean that the world would be run cooperatively by the workers themselves in various self-organized institutions sure.
Don't worker councils HAVE to be syndicalist in order to be communist?
This question also doesn't make much sense to me. Most Council Communists were getting derided for being anarchists or syndicalists, so they would have rejected the term, but essentially the fighting factory organizations i.e. worker's unions/action committees they were in favor of were pretty syndicalist if you ask me.
What does it mean to be a Councilist?
That is a big question, but I think I've started to answer that for you above.
machine translate german wikipedia:
At times, the KAUD concluded with the German branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) to a "cartel" together. KAUD and IWW also tried an approach to the Free Workers Union (FAUD) to form a "cartel against fascism and reaction." This did not materialize because the FAUD the idea in theory but in practice is right for 'very difficult' held. [3].
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Syndicalism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in Germany: An Introduction
by Helge Döhring, translation by John Carroll
"The following text comprises an introduction to the development of German Syndicalism from its beginnings in 1890 until the end of its organized form in the early 1960s. The emphasis of this introduction, however, centers on the period before and leading up to 1933, when the National Socialists under Adolf Hitler ascended to power. Syndicalism, and more specifically Anarcho-Syndicalism are movements that have been largely forgotten. This albeit superficial outline should, at its conclusion, show that this movement was not always so obscure and unknown. This piece aims not to comprehensively examine all the varied aspects of German Anarcho-syndicalism, but rather to pique the curiosity and interest of its readers. "
CONTINUED: http://www.syndikalismusforschung.info/introduction.htm