Linking unions to the community: split from Organise
May 2 2005 20:27
the rest of the discussion is here
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=49347#49347
so carrying on the arguement
Steve wrote:
Since anarcho-syndicalism is about linking workplace and community organising I'm not sure what your point is.
How do you intend to do it then?
I mean i'm sure you have a lot more experience in this than i do, so i'd actually like to know what you thought was wrong with the anti-privatisation forum idea (and thats all it was, an idea) and what solution you would have to the trade union movements severe lack of connection to community struggle. Plus how do you think we can fight privatisation right now, which if irt carries through will result in a massive decrease in our living standards.
I don't see why you felt the need to shut down perfectly valid criticism and accuse me of wanting to 'abandon workplace struggle' or something equally ridiculous when it was fairly obvious i recommended nothing like that.
Quote:
As for history I wouldn't bandy figures about because the largest organised anarchist movements have been syndicalist based, CNT, IWW.
Yes the IWW was a large movement that had around 1-200,000 members at its peak, but it never gained the momentum, membership, support, or urban base to achieve its aims.
'Why do you think this was?' seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask under these circumstances. I mean i'm sure state repression had a lot to do with it, but that will exist for every working class movement and it doesn't explain the lack of urban breakthrough.
Or are we just supposed to regard the IWW as some sacred cow that can't be criticised? I'm interested in making material gains for our class, not in worshipping the past.
Quote:
Local communtiy based anarchist groups rarely get into double figures and tend to die away.
why are you comparing local anarchist groups to national federations?
what has that got to do with this arguement?
May 3 2005 10:04
#2
cantdocartwheels wrote:
so carrying on the arguement
Steve wrote:
Since anarcho-syndicalism is about linking workplace and community organising I'm not sure what your point is.How do you intend to do it then?
Well, a concrete instance (so probably completely out of place in the "Thought" forum 
).
The estate where I live is opposite an ambulance station. The owner of land was planning to build a garage on it, thus closing down the ambulance station -- something obviously to the detriment of the local community. And something the ambulance drivers' union was prepared to campaign on, even though there was no threat of job losses.
Since I'm active in my local residents' association, we took the initiative to contact the ambulance drivers, see if there was anything we could do for each other -- leaflet the estate, offer them our community rooms to meet in, and just generally offer a bit of solidarity.
As it happens, the landlord climbed down pretty sharpish, so nothing much really happened. But nonetheless, an instance of how workplace and community issues (wouldn't quite say "struggle" on this occasion ) can be joined up. And the ambulance drivers know they've got friends nearby if they have problems in the future.
Now I know that the purists among you will say, "Ooooh, bad button for working with reformist trade unions..... not explicitly going in there as an anarchist.... and so on." But anyway.
May 3 2005 14:28
#3
In the UK SolFed has its workplace strategy of working inside and outside the established unions to try to create alternatives structures based on workplace meetings etc. We also look to establish ‘locals’ that cover a geographical area and will get involved in local community type issue. Where appropriate we would try to raise issues from one sector in the other and often, as you pointed out, privatisation can directly affect both the community & the workplace.
If you were to look at the history and present day practice of the CNT you would see how the two strands can work together. Also the USI in Italy did a lot of organising in the anti-war movement recently.
As for the IWW they can be criticised and are from an anarcho-syndicalist viewpoint (There will be an article in the next DA). The historical IWW did involve itself in community struggles but did put more of an emphasis on the industrial unionism aspect. Today’s IWW seems to be even more workplace orientated.
The comment about local anarchist groups is that the impression I get is that there seems to be a continued reluctance for anarchists to organise beyond their locality and/or to duck out of issues that are workplace based which frankly I don’t understand.
May 3 2005 14:35
#4
Steve wrote:
....there seems to be a continued reluctance for anarchists to organise beyond their locality and/or to duck out of issues that are workplace based which frankly I don’t understand.
Me neither. If you're in full-time work, you spend more time at work than you do with your loved ones (if you exclude time spent sleeping). If that's not something to get pissed off & organised about, I don't know what is.
May 7 2005 07:58
#5
Steve wrote:
In the UK SolFed has its workplace strategy of working inside and outside the established unions to try to create alternatives structures based on workplace meetings
yes i know
Quote:
We also look to establish ‘locals’ that cover a geographical area and will get involved in local community type issue. Where appropriate we would try to raise issues from one sector in the other and often, as you pointed out, privatisation can directly affect both the community & the workplace.
Well exactly, so what is the problem with attempting to create a more formalised link between trade unions and community?
Plus I fail to see what you found so objectionable in my original post suggesting the not very original at all idea of some form of anti-privatisation forum/grouping for local areas or regions encompassing unions and community groups, please explain your problems with it? I mean its been tried before and worked succesfully, tho not in the UK obviously. And would surely be a good way of fighting hospital and school closures.
Quote:
The comment about local anarchist groups is that the impression I get is that there seems to be a continued reluctance for anarchists to organise beyond their locality and/or to duck out of issues that are workplace based which frankly I don’t understand.
The only reason local anarchist groups can be locally focused is because they contain small numbers of militants who can make an impact in one area. These can be local workplace or community issues, but costs, time limits and numbers make it impossible to win anything more than local victories at present, this is simply material reality.
In fairness right now the same can be said of federations which are small organisations nationally, therefore the impact of federations tends to be restricted to where they have a concentration of members in a region or local area right? especially now when the anarchist movement and left in general are very weak in the UK. So unless a federation reached more than say 5-10,000 members, it would always have to explictly depend purely on localism in order to get anywhere, otherwise its propaganda, members and actions would simply be diluted.
I'm not sure exactly how many members solfed have, but i doubt its enough to make a national impact at present I mean there are loads of areas where you have absolutely no presence whatsoever, while on the other hand there are areas where you have a concentration of militants.
I dunno I think state repression played a pretty massive part!
Outside the actual organisation the key idea of industrial unionism spread much further, particularly within the CIO...
Would say more but goin to bed - night