Kevin Keating

#92

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 8 2007 05:00

syndicalistcat wrote:

now you're getting too pedantic and sectarian, devrim. the situationists are very positively regarded by for example Kevin Keating, who identifies as a "left communist" and are positively regarded by most ultra-lefts (using my terminology) around here that I am familiar with.

Cat, I think that we, meaning the left communist organisations, can define what we mean by left communism, and we define it as the organisations with a political continuity with the Communist Left.

On the subject of Kevin Keating (who is not as far as I am aware a member of such an organisation) I think that most of the left communists on these boards are deeply embarresed that he continues his personal fueds and muck slinging under the label of 'Left Communist'.

Of course, you are totally free to reject our definition, but then I would be quite justified in associating you with every idiot who pushes his, or her nonsense in the name of anarchism.

Devrim

#93

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 8 2007 05:05

seriously do any of youse fucking wobs have a basic clue about your own history?

i'd have a lot more time for the IWW if the wobs stuck up for some basic revolutionary syndicalist principles instead of trying to be all things to everyone, for example, I hear you're applying to be a supporter of NEFAC Nate, maybe you should read up on what the Platformists make of syndicalism, namely the stuff about them never being revolutionary, the WSM's position paper is a right blast on that issue, give it a wee read and then ask yourself why you are in the IWW?

#94

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 8 2007 05:09

newyawka wrote:

Quote:

not a single one of them as, at any point as far as i'm aware, held any position of participation in any kind of significant political movement or action. ever.

define 'significant'

Of course, it is difficult to reply to a comment like that when the meaning of significance isn't clarified. One could say that the Iran in 1979, and Poland in 1980 were the last significant class movements. It all depends how you define 'significant'.

Even if one lowers the definition, one could argue that there haven't been any significant movements since the 80's (not struggles, but movements). You would then be criticising people for merely being to young.

For me personally the biggest struggle that I participated in as a striker was a three and, a half week national wildcat strike of about 180,000 workers. I don't know how that figures on your scale.

Devrim

#95

syndicalistcat

Offline

Joined: 2-11-06

Jul 8 2007 05:10

here i have to agree with revol's objection to what the WSM says about syndicalism. i've written now two critiques of it, one here on libcom, one on the WSA website, but they ignore me because I'm not in Ireland (a sorry and chauvinistic excuse).

#96

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 8 2007 05:14

rise wrote:

btw, I'm not "waving my cock" around about my union involvement, I'm making a point of highlighting it as a counterpoint to the anti-union bullshit being spread on this forum.

Oh, you could have fooled me. I think that nearly all of the left communists who post on here were at some time low ranking union officials. Most of them resigned from their posts when they realisd that there was a contradiction between their position, and defending the interests of the workers. I personally resigned as a UCW branch committee member after a strike when as soon as we walked out of the door, the management called the UCW LDC and got them to come down to tells us to go back to work.

Devrim

#97

Devrim

Offline

Joined: 15-07-06

Jul 8 2007 05:40

Nate wrote:

Revol, I don't know what union organizing is like in the UK. But what you're saying simply isn't accurate about the US. In the US, the 'full timers' you talk about screwing over the ranks aren't organizing staff.

I don't know much about conditions in the US, but they certainly seem different. Of course the UK unions employ full time staff. That is not what is meant by 'union fulltimer in the UK'. Basically the union officials for each branch are elected. They then continue workinging, but depending on the size of their work place will be given some 'facility time'. This is time not doing their normal job spent doing union work, which is paid for by the management as if they were doing their normal job. As an example when I was a UCW branch committee member in the 80's I got two hours a week. This can continue up to the point when people are on 100% facility time. They don't work in their job. They are paid by the management to do union business. Even these people are not technically full timers though they are often reffered to as such. Above that is the full-timer. He is still elected, but no longer employed by the company, and works for the union. He is what is meant by full-timer in the UK.

I will give an example of how it worked in the UK Post Office when I was there, of course there are differences in different jobs, but this will give Americans an idea of what people in the UK are talking about.

Committee member, sub-office with about 100 members: Two hours a week
Branch Sec, sub-office: 10 hours a week
Branch Sec, District Office about 2000 members: Full facility time.
District Council Officers (in the case of London DC 50,000 members): Full time

I hope that makes some things a little easier to understand.

Nate wrote:

I think parts of this argument is more compelling. But the reality is that employees of unions, at least some who work as organizers, regularly navigate this. And organizers (it's the organizers you objected to being NEFAC members) frequently pretty much have nothing to do with people who are already members of the union so the 'wildcats by existing union members' thing doesn't apply. Also, the 'they're employees of a big business whose interests are anti-working class' argument - assuming for the sake of argument that it's true - isn't sufficient grounds for excluding organizing staff. By the logic of this argument you'd have to exclude every employee of a massive company. At a minimum you'd have to exclude every employee in any sector of the economy bound up with policing or discipling the working class, like teachers and social workers and TV camera men and workers at tank factories etc etc.

To me this whole point seems strange as I have never met anyone who worked in this role in the union, the role of union staff has never come up in a political discusion I have been involved in except with Americans on here. I think that even in America, it can't be that common, yet NEFAC seems to have quite a few people in and around itself in these positions, and they have come up in discussions lots of times. I wonder if it is like lots of UK lefties working in the voluntary sector when I lived there. I am all for people getting involved where they work, but these people are hardly the vanguard of the proletariat, are they?

Devrim

#98

Nate

Offline

Joined: 16-12-05

Jul 8 2007 05:46

Edit: Comment moved here - http://libcom.org/forums/thought/banning-paid-organizers

#99

Joseph Kay

Offline

Joined: 14-03-06

Jul 8 2007 08:20

rise wrote:

I am pleased that ultra-leftists advocate a line of alienating active union volunteers and officials

at least one of the "ultra-left mcanarchyists" from the CRA thread is a shop steward

#100

pghwob

Offline

Joined: 9-12-06

Jul 8 2007 10:17

Quote:

Nate wrote:
Organizing staff aren't part of "union bureaucracy" and their role isn't to manage existing union members.

As you alluded to in a later post, I think we have to take a closer look at what business unions and organizers do. There are field organizers who are asked to get the membership more involved, but of course end-up doing so by bringing people in to that union's particular culture and mode of operation, which is not always a positive one. Then there are organizers of field staff who are brought in to work on mobilizing membership for a contract campaign. More often these are not the types of concessionary contracts signed by many UFCW locals we know and loathe, but it is not just about organizing workers to fight the boss, and we should recognize that. I do, but still support the idea of paying staff, recognizing that while worker self-activity certainly exists and is a positive thing, most people need to be pushed to be more active.