banning paid organizers

Nate wrote:

No he actually said something more like "hell yeah we would, let's roll!"

Yeah, but now that your a NEFAC supporter we can let you in on Duke's weaknesses (note: I'd sell Duke out for a beer).

But do tell about the weaknesses (other than Red Kryptonite, I mean, who doesn't know about that one). MJ owes me a beer, he'll buy.

Nate I'd suggest taking a look at the types ot fuckwits that make up the NEFAC supporters club, folks like Thugarist and let's not forget our good Chavez rimming friend rise.

Also of interest might be the platformist position on syndicalism.

Nate I'd suggest taking a look at the types ot fuckwits that make up the NEFAC supporters club, folks like Thugarist and let's not forget our good Chavez rimming friend rise.

Also of interest might be the platformist position on syndicalism.

Smash Rich Bastards wrote:

Nate wrote:

No he actually said something more like "hell yeah we would, let's roll!"

Yeah, but now that your a NEFAC supporter we can let you in on Duke's weaknesses (note: I'd sell Duke out for a beer).

Does this mean one must become a NEFAC supporter in order to learn Duke's weaknesses, or that one can simply provide beer?

j.rogue wrote:

Smash Rich Bastards wrote:

Nate wrote:

No he actually said something more like "hell yeah we would, let's roll!"

Yeah, but now that your a NEFAC supporter we can let you in on Duke's weaknesses (note: I'd sell Duke out for a beer).

Does this mean one must become a NEFAC supporter in order to learn Duke's weaknesses, or that one can simply provide beer?

I thought we had you on the blingin' decoder rings.

I'd be keen to do a "platform and platformists on syndicalism" thread. I read the platform today, I know I've read it before but damn if I remember it.

8. Anarchism and syndicalism

We consider the tendency to oppose libertarian communism to syndicalism and vice versa to be artificial, and devoid of all foundation and meaning.

The ideas of anarchism and syndicalism belong on two different planes. Whereas communism, that is to say a society of free workers, is the goal of the anarchist struggle - syndicalism, that is the movement of revolutionary workers in their occupations, is only one of the forms of revolutionary class struggle. In uniting workers on a basis of production, revolutionary syndicalism, like all groups based on professions, has no determining theory, it does not have a conception of the world which answers all the complicated social and political questions of contemporary reality. It always reflects the ideologies of diverse political groupings notably of those who work most intensely in its ranks.

Our attitude to revolutionary syndicalism derives from what is about to be said. Without trying here to resolve in advance the question of the role of the revolutionary syndicates after the revolution, whether they will be the organisers of all new production, or whether they will leave this role to workers' soviets or factory committees - we judge that anarchists must take part in revolutionary syndicalism as one of the forms of the revolutionary workers' movement.

However, the question which is posed today is not whether anarchists should or should not participate in revolutionary syndicalism, but rather how and to what end they must take part.

We consider the period up to the present day, when anarchists entered the syndicalist movement as individuals and propagandists, as a period of artisan relationships towards the professional workers movement.

Anarcho-syndicalism, trying to forcefully introduce libertarian ideas into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism as a means of creating anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward, but it does not, as yet, go beyond the empirical method, for anarcho-syndicalism does not necessarily interweave the 'anarchisation' of the trade union movement with that of the anarchists organised outside the movement. For it is only on this basis, of such a liaison, that revolutionary trade unionism could be 'anarchised' and prevented from moving towards opportunism and reformism.

In regarding syndicalism only as a professional body of workers without a coherent social and political theory, and consequently, being powerless to resolve the social question on its own, we consider that the tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the movement consist of developing libertarian theory, and point it in a libertarian direction, in order to transform it into an active arm of the social revolution. It is necessary to never forget that if trade unionism does not find in anarchist theory a support in opportune times it will turn, whether we like it or not, to the ideology of a political statist party.

The tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the revolutionary workers' movement could only be fulfilled on conditions that their work was closely interwoven and linked with the activity of the anarchist organisation outside the union. In other words, we must enter into revolutionary trade unions as an organised force, responsible to accomplish work in the union before the general anarchist organisation and orientated by the latter.

Without restricting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we must seek to exercise our theoretical influence on all trade unions, and in all its forms (the lWW, Russian TU's). We can only achieve this end by working in rigorously organised anarchist collectives; but never in small empirical groups, having between them neither organisational liaison nor theoretical agreement.

Groups of anarchists in companies, factories and workshops, preoccupied in creating anarchist unions, leading the struggle in revolutionary unions for the domination of libertarian ideas in unionism, groups organised in their action by a general anarchist organisation: these are the ways and means of anarchists' attitudes vis-à-vis trade unionism.

Snore. If some union wanted to raid the wobs they wouldn't need to cut a deal with the employer to do it. In fact thats the opposite strategy for successful raid.

the button wrote:

OK, I'm possibly going to overstate this, but fuck it.

To me, the power to send workers back to work when they're in dispute is as bad as the power to hire and fire. Union FTOs have that power -- or if they're only baby ones, they're attempting to recruit workers into organisations that do.

Call me old-fashioned, but....

Button, people who aren't organisers recruit people into unions. Hell I've recruited people into them, and I'm sure you have. You started a union at your work, which "the power to send workers back to work when they're in dispute." Should you, I, or anyone else who's recruited people to a union be banned then? And if not what's the difference?

I'm playing devil's advocate here sorta, it's just that criticism of posi here haven't been valid or consistent.

John. assume you were in a workplace with no union, what would you try and do, launch a struggle for a union or engage with your co workers in the issues that affect them, maybe have a few meetings, and hopefully hope to move towards some sort of action?

Now these union organisers are going to come in and they are clearly going to have to raise whatever issues there are in the workplace, argue that these will be dealt with by a union, that the first thing you need to do is get union recognition and then low and behold leave it in the hands of the union professionals who know how to deal with these things, or as Duke is fond of saying 'Know how to win',

of course if your workplace issue doesn't fit with whatever plan the Union bosses have, if it's not deemed 'stragetically valuable' you and your co workers can go sit on it.

A union organiser can't go in and say "hey guys, the unions are useless pricks, youse should be holding your own meetings and deciding your own actions, infact you'd be better spending your money on pints than in dues, unless you want a good deal on home insurance." and any union organiser who did would be out on his arse.

OK. So in practice, how often does this go beyond getting people to sign up/pay dues? i.e. how often have you experienced (either directly or anecdotally) significant organisation which went along with the formal process of unionisation? And how often have you seen industrial action following unionisation (i.e. not dead-ends like pr campaigns?).Not an attack, I'm genuinely interested in your experiences of this, but you seemed pretty pessimistic about how effective it was (hard to find workers who are clued up/motivated etc.).

I spent a while looking for this, but couldn't find. Either way, one poster was an organiser for the SuperSizeMyPay campaign, and tried hard to push the boundaries of his job role - he caught a massive amount of flack from a lot of other people for doing so, and was put in exactly the position that revol's outlined (the union or the workers). I will try to find it again a bit later.

I can think of several stories in libcom news in the past few months where non-unionised workers have elected spokespople from wthin their own ranks.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'significant organisation'. e.g. monthly open meetings attracting 15 - 20 people, smaller organising committee meetings also monthly, bulletins produced by the members going out every couple of months agitating, members producing other materials on their own, and training new reps from within their ranks. ad hoc campaigns to defend individual members collectively. Establishing small groups of active members to work together to plan an event, or organise a particular sub-section of the workforce. Yeah... for sure. Not in all target companies by any means, that level is rare, but that certainly goes on.

Yeah - it's not setting the world on fire, but it hasn't been long, and I can see a hell of alot more potential. I was just wanting to emphasise that it was a slog to get anything going at all!

Yes. I specifically said 'unorganised' rather that 'non-unionised'. I take it that once you've got a general assembly of workers meeting to discuss a problem and elect reps, they're effectively organised even if not unionised. I also take it that this mostly takes place in struggles with a pretty high tempo.

4. If people consider union staff to be workers, which we clearly are not, then I would be considered a boss. Union staff are not exploited by capital, they're movement positions and are liberated from exploitation by the rank and file. So it depends on your orientation towards staff as to how you would concieve of my role speciffically.

Well, they're working a job that isn't proletarian. After how many years of working a non-proletarian job do they lose prole status in your opinion?

yoshomon wrote:

Well, they're working a job that isn't proletarian. After how many years of working a non-proletarian job do they lose prole status in your opinion?

Probably right around when they start using their capital to purchase labor-power.

Exactly. Paid union organizers are not proletarian and have different class interests from the workers they "organize". This, if nothing else, ought to be reason enough to kick them out of your groups.

Nate wrote:
I actually like Duke and owe him several favors for some stuff he did to help my friends and I in an organizing drive a while back.

revol wrote:
Nate I'd suggest taking a look at the types ot fuckwits that make up the NEFAC supporters club, folks like Thugarist and let's not forget our good Chavez rimming friend rise.

If union organizers aren't workers, what are they?

I tend towards Otto Rühle's assertion that "Only in the factory is the worker of today a real proletarian, and as such a revolutionary within the meaning of the proletarian-socialist revolution. Outside the factory he is a petty-bourgeois, involved in a petty-bourgeois milieu and middle-class habits of life, dominated by petty-bourgeois ideology."

Of course, I would use different language and look at more than just the factory, but I think the deeper meaning remains.

yoshomon wrote:

I tend towards Otto Rühle's assertion that "Only in the factory is the worker of today a real proletarian, and as such a revolutionary within the meaning of the proletarian-socialist revolution. Outside the factory he is a petty-bourgeois, involved in a petty-bourgeois milieu and middle-class habits of life, dominated by petty-bourgeois ideology."

Of course, I would use different language and look at more than just the factory, but I think the deeper meaning remains.

Can someone with more patience than me explain the concept of the social factory to this kid?

Can I check something? I thought this thread was about whether paid organisers were allowed in Organise! But some people seem to be talking about here (i.e. libcom forums). Which is it? Or both?