Over on the General Strike in France blog Joseph K made a comment about General Assemblies:
I've heard from CNT-AIT comrades that assemblies are fairly common as is distrust of the unions. however, it's been pointed out to me (possibly on libcom) that this partly reflects the different industrial relations framework. non-union members are covered by union agreements, so you don't need to join to get some of the benefits (assuming they exist, for arguments sake), which means there's much lower union membership, which means there's more scope for assemblies and more scope for those to take a critical attitude to the unions, since there's less material basis for a 'we are the union' type attitude.Likewise i'd warn about being excited about assemblies per se, even ones with lots of political discussion. in my very limited experiences (the Sussex Uni occupation earlier this year), much of the political discussion was just politicos soapboxing, some who'd travelled to make 'interventions' and give their version of the correct line. this often dragged on assemblies for hours with little firm conclusions, and many of the less politico workers/students involved just left the room/went for booze. to be honest, it drove me from the room sometimes. it can be hard to tell what the dynamics are from a distance, but that's what it looked like from the inside in that one instance; a shift from concrete action to abstract sloganeering and a corresponding shift from mass action to politico soapboxing. France may well be different, i certainly hope it is!
The ICC and the CNT-AIT have been working quite closely in the GAs in France, and we've published and translated this brief article from the CNT on this question, which we support:
==============================================================
What is a general assembly? (Text of the CNT AIT, Gers)
Definition
We call a general assembly the regular meeting, democratic and sovereign, of workers, regrouped as and when, without criteria, which can be varied (those belonging to a union, a confederation of unions, a social movement). At no point should these workers be prevented from being delegates: the principle of the GA is the vote by head count.
Typology
There are several types of GA:
* The GA of a single union
* The combined GA of several unions
* The GA of workers on strike
Moreover, it can be limited to a single profession or be ‘inter-professional’. [Regrouping those from many professions – trans.]
Functioning of the GA
* The GA is democratic, and therefore guarantees each a turn to speak, shared equally in terms of duration and discussion topics. This is guaranteed by a mandate given to the moderator.
* Speeches must also be consistent with an agenda, agreed at the beginning of the meeting, which does not include various decision points.
* The GA is sovereign, and decisions are made by a show of hands, without any overturning of decisions, according to the agenda.
* The GA meets regularly and keeps a record of its debates and decisions. The record is kept by a secretary appointed early in the meeting, who ensures the debates and decisions of the GA are made public. The GA gives the date and place of the next GA.
Threats to the GA
* Monopolisation of debate: The GA becomes un-democratic. The classic case is the shop-steward who takes the role of moderator, participates in discussions or responds systematically giving their opinions. A variation on this is a participant in the room who monopolises the floor or speaks too often.
* The handling of the debate: The agenda is not respected. When the debate is moving precisely towards direct action, or a motion to renew the strike, the agenda is changed in order to blur the clarity of discussion, and to confuse the whole point of a GA, which is to answer the question "What and how?"
* Lack of democracy within the GA: the vote is not respected. Violating the agenda, votes are taken several times on decisions already made. Often, manipulation occurs at the end of the meeting, to destroy its coherence and audacity.
* Neutralisation of the GA: there is no alternative to a GA, however rich. Often, a GA of striking workers is treated as a safety-valve for their anger, neutralising their revolt, transforming their militancy into a sterile talking-shop. Be on guard! In a GA, we have all the tools at hand to see if they are being monopolised, manipulated, and neutralised. In all cases, failure to denounce the above threats will undermine our activity, our words, and our decisions: in short, our very reason to go on strike!
"The emancipation of the workers will be the task of the workers themselves"
SIA 32 (Member of the CNT-AIT).
==============================================================
In answer to JK's comments, yes, GA have to be on guard against domination and manipulation from unions and leftists. One of the lessons from the experience at Sussex Uni is the need for firm moderation and a clear agenda. On the other hand, there is a risk of GA being dominated by the "action! action! action!" types, as seems to be happening in some of the GA in Paris (according to LoneLondoner). I'm also thinking that there are lessons here too for the student movement in California, where the leftists have dominated general assemblies, s'pas? The potential of GA shouldn't be underestimated, they're proto-soviets after all, calling into question the right of the unions to control the struggle, right?
Can comment on articles and discussions
I also saw that comment and thought about responding to it.
I think the risks you have identified are the biggest ones I have seen although I might also add GA that are called without sufficient notice/publicity. This was a frequent complaint by the anti-strikes students (and anti-strike types in general), that leftists and troublemakers called meetings in that manner and then tried to force people to go along with it.
There have also been cases where people have simply been unable to all get into the meeting space (although again a halfway sensible moderation should be able to handle this.
Another tactic is also to manipulate the voting options I was at a meeting where there was a lot of anger at the list of voting options presented by those running the meeting and a new set of options were drawn up. A lot of meetings used 1 person, 1 vote, methods but most of the ones I atttended allowed you to vote for every proposal you agreed with which I find to be more democratic. For example where there were six options available it is easy for the vote to become split and avoids people being forced into voting tactically. Sometimes sheets are circulated so anyone can propose an option. Often the moderators synthesise the options and there's a show of hands vote on whether people are happy with the options.
Dragging out the AG is also done sometimes by organisers who are confident that their supporters will stay to the end.
I think the types of GA listed are a bit restrictive, it seems to push the role of the unions. It also doesn't take into account other types of GA, such as at Lycees and universities.
I think Joseph K's experience is something that happens when you have people trying to put on GA without too much experience, also from what I know of politics at the Uni it was heavily dominated by SWP types.
I was involved in trying to set up a group when I got back to England and it took us a couple of meetings to work out how to have a meeting (and we didn't manage to get much further than that while I still went). I was also talking to Devrim and an ICC comrade about this after the bookfair, as they have experience of GA in workplaces whereas few workers my age will have been on strike let alone organised or attended a GA.