Mass revolutionary organisations during periods of class retreat?

Speaking with my SolFed hat on, if that's the way you're reading it it's badly put. If anything that's an idealised version of classical revolutionary syndicalism. I think we all know that there is not likely to be a majority of workers, let alone all, would sign up to a revolutionary union, even in times of heightened class struggle.

What we are advocating falls outside so much of British political culture (and indeed anglophone political culture) that it is difficult to get across that we don't just mean a red and black-bannered version of the T&G. And while the agreement for joining any such union would be looser than joining SolFed, it's not going to be a simple "let anyone in" approach. FWIW the same is true of unions like the RMT, who don't let in people with fascist views.

IMO a union is a group of workers organised together who attempt to organise on economic (and sometimes political) grounds. It doesn't have to be recognised by the boss or state, nor does it have to be particularly big.

AFAIK the only existing industrial network we have (education) will work with others, though clearly you can't expect it to subordinate itself to a vague "we must all work together" feeling that has nothing concrete attached.

Regards,

Martin

Sure whilst your at it why not bring up the union between Ireland and Great Britain, that's responsible for a lot of nasty shit too, or how about the European Union. What an utterly retarded statement, the same sentence works if we simply substitute union for 'pro revolutionary' or political group, or what about any 'communist' group, what about the gulags.

Extremely interesting discussion and one that is very productive, and of great relevance given the developing upsurge of international struggles. Agree with much of what Catch has argued. I want to add to what Beltov has said and to contribute to the most recent posts on the unions. The following quote is from the 1975 introduction to our pamphlet Trade Unions Against the Working Class and toches upon many of the points raised about the unions

Catch,

We can hold all we like that "all workers must unite in industrial unions", but can you not see a bit of rhetoric for what it is? It isn't going to happen. The bit before the first part you've quoted (and which it refers to) says:

So, stripped down to its barest, we are saying that we think revolutionary unions are working class organisations based on workers' self-management, solidarity, mutual aid and libertarian communism. If we didn't think along those lines, we'd probably contradict our own point xii.

While I think there are potentially issues with the term "general strike", as in some instances it has a meaning that is uniquely a political one (as in the historic references to the "social general strike" from anarchosyndicalists and it's disparagement by the ICC who prefer the term mass strike) I take this to be the more straightforward explanation that for any revolution to succeed, strikes will need to be generalised.

Sure, the language in our constitution could be tidied up. I'm not sure that we'd particularly gain anything from it, apart from a long session of navel gazing and internal focus that is not what we need at the moment. Personally I think this would only be worth it if there were major changes we wanted to make, or they were clearly out of step with our practice.

yes catch and quite a few people have had nasty experiances of 'political organisations', afterall it wasn't the TGWU who shot through my living room window 4 years ago.

Anyway my point is that not all entities called 'unions' behave as 'Unions', y'know just how not all communists supported show trials and purges or supported 'Communist' parties.

This discussion is a joke now, you've basically essentialised a label and got yourself bound up in semantics.

1. What is functioning as a union? Why is it not possible for workers to form a political and economic group that fights for gains in the here and now whilst maintaining a revolutionary outlook, rejecting recuperation and mediation. What if MWR had grown and decided to call itself a union without changing it's way of operating? What if a network of workers refer to themselves as a union in the most basic sense (that is a combination of workers). Seems to me your mistaking the role of the major existing 'Unions' with the term 'union'.

2. Don't you think the CNT was ever a revolutionary union? What about the early days of the IWW? Or does the fact that CNT members joined the government descredit everything the CNT ever done? And if that's the case surely it is equally dooms all political organisations to counter revolution as well, afterall all the ministers were members of the FAI?

maybe you should ponder on the fact that all revolutionary situations will throw up new dividing lines, will produce reformists and recuperators and that these lines can cut across previous lines, last years hothead becomes this years 'pragmatist'. This is unavoidable, there is no ideological line nor organisational structure that can grant immunity from it. The only organisations that have been able to avoid it have either been straight up wiped out or been soo insignificant to never be in such a position. Christ even your much loved workers councils have passed reformist shit and been recuperated, your communes and neighbourhood assemblies too.

also catch your complaints about SolFeds constitution just read like those of an autistic Spock, it's quite obvious that it's mostly rhetorical flourish.

seriously what's your next trick deconstructing romantic poetry?

"Well this is just absurd, her lips are clearly nothing like dew on a petal nor her eyes as soft and warm as melting caramel, what utter twaddle. take it away".

Sorry is my problem with various Platformists based on some over zealous rhetoric? I don't think s, it's based on their actual politics, unless of course demanding the nationalisation of Irelands energy was simply a metaphor for something else, or their public backing of Des Derwin was simply a romantic symbolic gesture.

Saying this I do think the Sol Fed's prop and constitution needs worked on, it does read like a simplistic paint by numbers guide.

I distinctly recall some crap from you about aims and principles. It was one of the times you made sense rather than just blather. Aims and principles and by-laws and constitutions and such should accurately reflect the politics and goals of an organization. If I want to read poetry I'll go read a poet.

yeah I agree but the only thing one could hold against the Sol Feds thing about all workers being in revolutionary industrial unions is extremely wishful thinking, it isn't like it's some qualititive political issue it's just a matter of exuberant quantities. Rather like the symbolism of the general strike, it isn't so much that it's how things will actually happen but rather it is a rhetorical device for reinforcing the power of the working class, how it is us who produce the world.

And there is no way any of my criticisms of the WSM's aims and principles was directed towards rhetorical flourish, i mean have you read them, it's bullet point central, there's more flowering language in a DVD players instruction manual.

No, there is a clear difference thinking something is a tad clunky than imagining it is of real barrier to joining, as if you are asked to literally agree that all workers will join revolutionary unions. Like I said it's a rhetorical device, a statement of desire and intent than one of fact, yes i think it sounds daft, no I don't think it's grounds for not joining them or even of any criticism beyond it being a bit hammy. Y'know how situ groups bang on about arming desires and all the rest of it, well they don't mean taking a fucking M4 and shoving up your girlfriends arse.

No when Wobblies talk about solidarity unionism it seems to me an attempt to return to the basic ethos of revolutionary syndicalism and direct action against a tide of recuperation and mediation that has eaten away at workers self organisation. Afterall the wobblies called themselves a union back in their direct action hay day, likewise the CNT called itself a union whilst rejecting mediation and recuperation for quite a few decades (obviously with a few internal fightsas one would expect of any mass organisation). The fact is that there have been revolutionary unions in the past and I think they are something to be aimed for again, obviously not carbon copies or as simple paint by number blueprints but as organic products of workers struggles, of the coming together of groups of militant workers as they seek to link up their struggles, now whether they call themselves unions or not, is of little concern to me really, what matters is what they do and how they do it, but to me a union is simply a combination of workers uniting to defend and further their working conditions and a revolutionary union is one that seeks to do that and ultimately destroy capitalism and wage slavery. I'm not particularly bothered by the semantics of it but I think it's wakerish to narrow the definition down in order to prove by circular reasoning that there cannot be a revolutionary unionism, especially since the deepest and most militant social revolution in the proletariats history was carried out by self describing revolutionary unionists and that along with that there is a proud history of revolutionary and anarcho syndicalism in other countries.

As to the fact such revolutionary unions are either miniscule or non existant today, well so what? Revolutionary Workers councils aren't exactly falling out of the skies and where these spontaneous organs of struggle do arise one of the greatest weaknesses they have is the lack of an organised tendency/legacy of self organisation that even a relatively small revolutionary/anarcho syndicalist unionism might provide. Instead in the case of Argentina we see these organs arise at breaking point, at a crisis and they are relatively easily recuperated by leftists or fade away, with little or no continuity for self organisation once the crisis fades away.

What would these inherent flaws be and what form of organisation is immune to them? Because to my knowledge we aren't living in communism right now so every past group, tendency or ideology has obviously not suceeded, fucked up or been recuperated, perhaps then we should just fuck the whole revolutionary idea/project out of the bath tub? Communes, syndicates, unions, councils, soviets, political organisations, mass assemblies, chuck them all out to fuck?

eh where exactly have I done that or anyone else?

As far as I'm aware most people on here understand the role of a revolutionary/anarcho syndicalist union or network as that of working to expand struggles into mass assemblies, co ordinating committees etc etc whilst at the same time seeing the need to maintain there own structures precisely in order to counter act recuperation and reformism that will no doubt prop up within assemblies. Essentially an anrcho syndicalist organisation should act as a pole of attraction, that aims to expand struggles whilst maintaining itself so that there can be continuity when particular struggles come to an end. Christ where the CNT was strongest it sought to widen things to communal and popular assemblies, infact much of the time it was fighting battles against the UGT who wished to maintain simple trade union control meaning it's say was represented by it's official union leadership rather than workers on the shop floor.

And as for things changing, well of course but I still don't see how the need for workers to come together and fight for gains in the here and now whilst maintaining a revolutionary perspective has faded, and that to me is what a revolutionary union is, an organisation of workers that is based on direct action, rejection of bureacracy, mediation, and looks to smash the capitalism. Even in the 1930's the CNT was made up of various union forms, organising 'precarious' seasonal agricultural workers as well as the more 'mass workers' of the industrialised cities, the chemical and textile factories, it also organised service sector workers. The idea that things have somehow magically changed and all previous forms of organising are dead is just a lazy banal cliche that assumes some sort of simplistic homogenity in the past whilst presuming a sophisticated heterogenity in the present and future. Infact your dismisal of anarcho syndicalism, council communism and all other 'past' tendencies and traditions reeks of the same smug self satisied pronouncements of capitalists ideological mouthpieces who never tire of announcing all history is bunk. The notion that we need to further break from these orthodoxies of the past strikes me as easy cliche, especially when the past offers us far richer and deeper lessons on fighting back, I see fuck all to be gained from reinventing the wheel everytime our cart crashes. Of course in reality you too want the rich history and legacy, unfortunately you only want to pick out the finest points, to play historical heroics and proclaim that you would do this in that situation, you are blind to the complex dialetical nature of those moments, to the fact that groups like the Friends of Durruti were themselves simply standing on the shoulders of the wider CNT, that they were only able to take their brave and correct stance because of decades of anarcho syndicalism that forced such a situation, that had shaped the very terrain on which the new lines and trenches were drawn between reformists and revolutionaries. Attempts to cherry pick off the heighest branches whilst neglecting the roots and trunks might give a cheap quick harvest but is ultimately doomed to futility.

The history of anarcho syndicalism and council communism are the history of the working class, they hold hard fought for lessons for any working class that wants to seriously challenge capital and the state and as such should serve as the starting point for present and future praxis.

I think this is nonsense, it seems like you imagine they weren't really revolutionary unions when they were at there most militant even though they described themselves as such and only really became revolutionary unions once recuperated? Once again I'd point out that your argument is entirely semantic and circular.

I'm super busy right now so gotta be quick, will try to post more later in the week:

Ok, we established this a few posts back, like spikeymike said then the issue between you, me and catch is probably one of what level of political agreement does a group need. Right? That could be on a new thread.

I think the discussion is quite good, please don't lower the tone by being rude. Like I said earlier it's not merely semantics - as this argument started about the faction of wobblies who want the IWW to be a capital U union. So how about you leave the argument with catch now, and say what you think about that?

Re: SF's As and Ps, you seem to agree they're not brilliant, and the fact that at least a couple of their (ex-) members have said things like that about it becoming like a mass union shows there is some confusion there. So don't just argue with catch for the sake of it.

Look revol, ok so you've made clear that's what you want, but you must admit that's not what most self-proclaimed "anarcho-syndicalist" unions do, or "anarcho-syndicalists" want. Look at the scorn you yourself pour on the CGT, SAC, Vignoles, etc.

Your flawed argument can be applied as much to the political party/organisation as the Union as you define it. This discussion began not because people in the IWW want to be a 'real Union' but because the IWW is avowedly apolitical and has peopl in it who have different understanding of the term Union. You and John have adopted one extreme in your definition of the term Union and are sticking to it pretty mindlessly. There have actually been splits in the recent past in trade unions in Ireland over issues such as partnership etc., and it is this tendency among workers in struggle faced with the inadequacies of trade unionism that demonstrates some potential. The use of wildcats is also encouraging but those most engaged in wildcat industrial action have tended to also be members of trades unions. Why do you think that is?

We certainly do not have to abandon the goal of setting up a revolutionary union we simply have to define our use of terms a bit more carefully. You discuss Unions as if only trades unions and business unions are unions, this is simply balls and extremely anglo-american in terms of reference.

Organise! has always been very precise in criticism of trades and business unionism and would be critical of tendencies towards emulating those types of unionism in the IWW. But your "sound minimum basis of agreement" is something that anarcho-syndicalist unions actually do have.

yes dear and most self proclaimed revolutionary communists groups are a crock of shit too. I don't see how the CGT, SAC and Vignole turning increasingly reformist and recuperated into the state does anything but reaffirm the basic tenants of anarcho syndicalism, namely direct action, self organisation and a rejection of mediation and getting involved with state apparatus, that there have been those who have strayed from that is hardly suprising given the defeats the working class has suffered across the board, like I said no organisational form or ideology is immune to such developments. I really don't see the issue here, these 'reformists' have been split from and fought against my others, what more do you want people to do? Any revolutionary organisation will see splits and divisions, will see itself shrink, implode, preyed upon by oppurtunist or produce reformist tendencies within itself, if you think that can be avoided by some simple formula, some crude and reductionist split between 'tight political organisations' and mass working class organs you are deluded.

Don't patronise me. I know that. My statement was in response to your "most people on here understand the role of a revolutionary/anarcho syndicalist union..." No, people don't, because most anarcho-syndicalists don't agree with you. I'm not using generalisations like "all communist groups" and if I did I'd expect to be called on it as well. I'm talking about my communist ideas. You're talking about your brand of anarcho-syndicalism.

So you agree with revol now on the rest of "HIS" brand of AS?

broadly yes, if he does disagree with them taking on any legal "union" functions. Though there's possibly disagreement on level of agreement needed.

well that's just a as stupid because i can just simply point out that most 'communists' don't agree with your politics, just as most 'anarchists' spout nonsense and most that passes for 'marxist' isn't fit for wiping your arse with.

As for the others on here who don't properly understand anarcho syndicalism, well they actually tend to be wobblies and anarcho syndicalists have always seen the IWW's suppoused 'apoliticism' as highly problematic. There is no doubt that some passing themselves off under the label anarcho syndicalist are essentially self described anarchists who simply believe in some sort of anarchist trade union essentially carrying out the same role as the existing Unions but with more democratic structures (Dundee and to a lesser extent the WSM's understanding of anarcho syndicalism), but that only makes it more pertinent that people stand up for real principles of anarcho syndicalism, just as gulags, show trials and coalition governments makes it all the more important to uphold the real meaning of communism.