Discussing the Kamunist Kranti/Collectivities article Self-Activity of Wage Workers

The article (they stopped being called the KK a long time ago, and I don't think actually have a group name or form like that)is here http://libcom.org/library/self-activity-wage-workers-kamunist-kranti

In this article they make a number of wide ranging and broad arguements. Having spent some time with these folks at the Faridabad Majdoor Samachar, I know that just reading the few articles they have online won't give you a good picture of what they do or think. Part of the problem is translation, part of the problem is a different framework/experience/vocabulary, and part of it is that you only see a glimpse of what is in fact a fairly systematic approach. In that context slapping labels on them, jumping to conclusions about what you think they mean, etc., is not wise.

With that in mind I wanted to discuss some portions of the text. In it they layout forms of self-activity of workers, mostly drawing off their experiences. They then discuss the forms of cooptation, and the 'fringe-left' responses. They critique the left (by which I think they mean to include most anarchists and left-communists as well) for their embrace of means which are unifocal, or which imply forms of representation and/or(?) break up the diffuse forms of self-organization of the working class and are predicated on hierarchies of the radicals.

To draw out this reasoning they discuss strikes, demonstrations, and mass meetings, and argue that they aren't in the interests of workers, that they privledge hierarchical proto-state forms, and that they dissolve self-activities.

For example
"Unified militant struggles, whether in the form of demonstrations, mass meetings or strikes, are akin to military operations with their generals, captains, sergeants and, of course, foot soldiers. Organisations linked to the management or organisations that are proto-states are alone capable of running such operations."

The alternative they present is

"For all of us self-activity of wage-workers is of paramount importance. It is this area that we want to open out for discussion and debate.

As wage-workers we know that all of us, everyday and at everyplace, have to contend with oppressive and exploitative conditions around us. Individually and in small groups we take steps on our own. In small groups, we interact with each other 'not as unequals' ensuring the self-expression and self-activity of each one of us.

Confining ourselves to workplace experiences we can say that each one of us has an affinity group of half a dozen or so amongst whom all participate 'not as unequals'. In these affinity groups a lot of premeditation and co-ordination takes place. The activities of affinity groups span from mutual help to routine resistances against productivity and discipline, along with refusals and steps of change that question and challenge hierarchy, competition, money relations and wage slavery.

The problems as we see them are:

I. The importance of self-activity as reflected in these steps taken by affinity groups is denied. The steps by themselves are small and thus belittled. When they are talked about, they are derisively characterized as insignificant workplace skirmishes, or merely survival calisthenics.

II. Constant attempts are made by managements to suppress these self-activities through representation.

III. Wage-workers often do not give much importance to their self activity because of the invisibility of the social effects of the small steps engendered by their self-activities.

IV. There is a tremendous lack of linkages between affinity groups (which can only be horizontal and multi-nodal). This lack makes wage-workers vulnerable to getting coagulated into a mass whenever wider level issues are forced or arise. This coagulation if not created by representatives (which is ofttn the case), then in itself engenders representation.

V. More importantly, co-ordination between affinity groups is hampered by a lack of discussion on experiences of affinity groups.

Lest we be misunderstood, we would like to make it clear that we are not for small steps per se but our concern, rather, is for self-activity. Self-activity in terms of routine resistances, refusals and steps of change by wage-workers at large on a sustained, extended and expansive scale, encompassing a multifaceted global reality. "

The article concludes with an exploration of workers' activity at one shop that seems to point to a method of activity that maintains self-activity but extends it as well.

There are a number of points to question:
1. I'm not convinced that workplace actions are always against the working class' interest. Though they are probably right that in recent times the majority of such actions have met with some defeats, this isn't true in every instance. Moreover economic, violent, etc., transformations that they talk about aren't the only standards of interest. It may be that important shifts in social relations occur.
2. I'm not sure whether things that appear unifocal (like a strike) are unifocal. In the only strike I've been in the reality was far from unifocal. In fact these social networks and affinity groups continue throughout society. It is true that most often they are contained by institutional forces, but that isn't a priori, it is definately contextual. The point is taken though that in general organizing seeks to precipitate unity that can destroy informal work groups rather than strengthen or utilize them.
3. Self-activities itself is maybe a fuzzy category. I know in the instance of the last example they give, that they had a strong hand in helping precipitate those struggles. The workers chose a number of routes some of which included a maoist party and unions, but the FMS group also workers with the workers. I think it's fair to ask what constitutes self-activity and what not, and when the boundary becomes crucial. I know they would consider ultra-left political groupings and anarchosyndicalist unions as against self-activity so...
4. The last of the 'problems' they see seems crucial. IV that the linkages are weak- I am friendly to the suggestion that our organizing should take as its base and principle informal work groups or infinity groups. Still I have a hard time thinking of how these linkages would work out such that they could transcend the snares that the article lays out. In conversations I had with them, these friends avoided crafting a prefabricated model and also resisted the label anti-organizationalist. I am sympathetic to both such moves, but it seems like such a movement won't be spontaneous and thereby deserves some thought as to what it looks like and the possibility of such.

I hope this is relatively clear, typing-while-hungry is always a mistake.