i mean, i´ve been reading this discussion carefully and i feel like if you really narrowly use the "union" semantics despite it was written in posts before what "union" means in AS tradition. i dont want to be rude, it is just sad.
there is a lot of icc or left commie people who stick to this narrow view even though it is explained to them. then i feel like in babylon. or do you have some other criticism to "revols" AS branch of anarchosyndicalism? it´d be interesting to know ´cos i really am confused what else you REALLY dislike that you so strongly stick against AS (the revol branch of it of course...).
Dec 31 2007 15:24
Dec 31 2007 15:27
to be fair if i was met with a bunch of feckless backward ass peasants marching around with statues and pictures of the Madonna I'd have probably took a shot at them. Sounds like the mexican proletariat was soo terrified by an onslaught of culchies that they jumped into a cross class urban alliance, not the correct choice but one I think anyone living in Irish urban areas could sympathise with even today.
Dec 31 2007 16:30
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
We certainly do not have to abandon the goal of setting up a revolutionary union...
Well, I'd have to disagree with this. Syndicalism is a dead-end for the working class, whether it's the IWW flavour or anarcho-syndicalism. As I tried to explain in my first post above, the problems of the forms of organisation of the class struggle can't be seperated from their content. This is what's absolutely essential do grasp, and what I was trying to show above. My question still stands: what did 1905 signify? Has anyone read Luxemburg's pamphlet on the Mass Strike?
The period of the struggles for reforms has passed and in the present period defensive struggles have shown the tendency time and time again to take on an immediately revolutionary character. And it’s not just 'ancient history'. What about the mass strikes in Poland in 1980? The forms taken by these struggles (assemblies, councils etc.) are in line with the content. Revolutionary unions that try to maintain the continuity between struggles simply aren’t because they are doomed to re-cuperation once the oxygen of the struggle has passed. Apologies for another quote, but here goes,
ICC wrote:
Revolutionary syndicalism constituted a reaction against parliamentary degeneration and the reformism of the unions. To begin with it also expressed, at least in a partial way, an authentic current within the workers’ movement. But in order to oppose parliamentarism, revolutionary syndicalism took up again the old anarchist idea, vehemently fought against by Marx, of advocating the rejection of political struggle, seeing in it the source of all reformist degeneration. Through its concern to be ‘apolitical’ it once more joined up with its reformist enemies, who as we have seen defended the apoliticism of the unions, but from a different standpoint. Syndicalism and parliamentarism are part and parcel of a form of struggle that corresponded to a particular historical period. To reject one without the other is to inevitably fall into incoherence which can only lead to a dead-end.Under decadent capitalism revolutionary struggle cannot take on a trade union form. The revolutionary struggle is a mass, generalised, and direct struggle which cannot revert back into the shell of an organisation built for the purpose of a permanent, and systematic struggle for reforms, still less when reforms themselves are impossible. Revolutionary syndicalism had to adopt either politics in keeping with the union form (and that under decadent capitalism would have condemned it to pass to the camp of capital) or it would have had to dissolve itself as a syndicalist organisation in order to integrate itself into the revolutionary struggle, or else dissolve into general society. In the USA, the IWW disappeared. In France and Spain, in spite of often great resistance, revolutionary syndicalist organisations fell prey in the first instance into participation in the imperialist war and in the second instance into participation in the government of the bourgeois Republic during the Spanish Civil War.
In all cases, the experience of revolutionary syndicalism only demonstrated one thing: the impossibility of building revolutionary trade unions in decadent capitalism. That is to say the impossibility of building real workers’ unions.
From Unions Against the Working Class, Chapter 5
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_chapter_05.htm
This isn't some abstract, dogmatic mantra. It's based on the real history of workers struggles,
ICC wrote:
What generally happens when the struggle dies down is that the strike committees disappear along with the general assemblies. The workers tend to go back to being a mass of individuals, atomised and defeated, more or less accepting the claims of the unions to represent them. Such a return to passivity may take a long time or it may happen very quickly, but in either case if there is no new outbreak of open struggle it is inevitable. In an attempt to prevent such a relapse, it often happens that in the downturn of the struggle the most combative workers try to remain organised in order to create a permanent organisation that will allow the class to regroup after the struggle has finished. The absence of struggle systematically condemns such attempts.Either the factory organisation dissolves itself after a time, demoralised by its inability to regroup all the workers (this happened to the German AATJ, for example, after the struggles of 1919-1923 and also to all the Action Committees which tried to stay alive in the French factories after the events of May-June, 1968 ), or it remains and is transformed into a new union. This return to unionism can in some cases be very obvious. The initiators of these factory groups simply acknowledge the formation of a new more ‘radical’, less ‘bureaucratic’, ‘more democratic’ union. This, for example, was the fate of the strike committee that the Trotskyists tried to keep going in 1947 after the Renault strike in France. And similarly the ‘Workers’ Commissions’ in Spain became by the end of the 1960’s a real national union structure, and an instrument in the hands of the bourgeois parties of the ‘democratic’ opposition.
So, returning to the central theme of this thread, how are pro-revolutionaries to organise outside periods of open struggle? The model adopted by the IWW is of radical but a-political unions, the model favoured by Sol Fed seems to be along the lines of the CNT/FAI, of industrial unions with 'ideological leadership' from a political organisation. But it's clear that there's not such a clear distinction any more. Revol summed up it up rather well:
revol68 wrote:
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 anarcho 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...
Now, there's a great need for militant workers who have experience of struggles staying in contact after they have ended, to draw the lessons for the future. This is why we are in favour of workers' groups, and for initiatives such as Dispatch, whose aim we largely agreed with. While they can't hope to be revolutionary organisations by themselves, they can play a vital role as temporary centres of discussion where workers can start to deepen their class consciousness. Any attempt to freeze them by trying to transform them into something they cannot be, that is stable organisations, must end up in one of the dead-ends mentioned above.
The working class doesn't need no-strike agreements, T-shirts, stickers and coffee mugs, it needs contributions to the development of its class consciousness.
B.
Dec 31 2007 17:09
A couple of other points. First, there seems to be an under-current again of disagreement over what it means to be a 'pro-revolutionary'. On the one hand there's the tendency to define it by activism: about what you do in the community or the workplace. On the other hand there's the 'alienated' political animal who's a member of a political organisation and does nothing but discuss in their ivory towers. Neither of these extremes are of any use, but as a miltant of a communist organisation my contribution is through the work of the organisation. Of course, I participate in discussions and struggles in my workplace, but my contribution is wider than that. I don't get demoralised when things go quiet or get burnt-out when struggles pick up. It's better to have a long-term perspective.
Also, it seems that the increase in the level of class struggle over the last few years has enabled many people to move from 'community' activism (roads protests, anti-globalisation etc.) into 'workplace' activism (IWW, Solfed) without having to call into question activism itself. But the class struggle develops in fits and starts - there are long periods of calm punctuated by brief moments of heightened struggle, so the threat of demoralisation and burn-out remains the same. I think Catch's main concern is how to make the break from activism and maintain confidence and conviction in the class between struggles. I might be wrong and would be happy to be corrected.
B.
Dec 31 2007 17:27
I've been given a lot to chew on here but I will sadly backtrack and ask Revol to please define what 'essentialist' means so I know exactly on what terms I've been insulted, given that I agree with him on most things.
Dec 31 2007 17:32
MT wrote:
i mean, i´ve been reading this discussion carefully and i feel like if you really narrowly use the "union" semantics despite it was written in posts before what "union" means in AS tradition. i dont want to be rude, it is just sad.
there is a lot of icc or left commie people who stick to this narrow view even though it is explained to them. then i feel like in babylon. or do you have some other criticism to "revols" AS branch of anarchosyndicalism? it´d be interesting to know ´cos i really am confused what else you REALLY dislike that you so strongly stick against AS (the revol branch of it of course...).
Sorry MT, but I thought we had made it clear that we had made a distinction between trade unions (unions with a big U) and the currents within the syndicalist tradition. We have written histories of the CGT, CNT and IWW, and will be writing on the British Shop Stewards' movement and the state of the present-day syndicalist movement. And I must say threads like this are giving us lots of inspiration! If you are interested all these series have been collected together here: http://en.internationalism.org/series/271
B.
Dec 31 2007 22:57
Beltov wrote:
We have written histories of the CGT, CNT and IWW, and will be writing on the British Shop Stewards' movement and the state of the present-day syndicalist movement. And I must say threads like this are giving us lots of inspiration! If you are interested all these series have been collected together here: http://en.internationalism.org/series/271
B.
I'd be interested to see any analysis of the existing independent unions in Spain, anarcho-syndicalist (CNT, CGT, Solidaridad Obrera) or not (Coordinadora, SAT, CSI, CO.BAS etc). Links in Spanish would do as well.
Dec 31 2007 23:53
revol68 wrote:
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.
Well it seems like you're arguing two different things here. 1. that the tendency towards assemblies and their co-ordination could lead to a revolutionary union (in previous posts) 2. that an anarcho-syndicalist union (or network) would act as a minority tendency within struggles. Which is it? Or both? fwiw I largely agree with your view as expressed in this post, except it's so fundamental and generalised there's nothing which specfiically connects it with anarcho-syndicalism. And although I think there's a role for political organisation in between struggles - in terms of a union, again - one example (one) of a mass revolutionary organisation which has remained both mass and revolutionary when things have quietened down.
Quote:
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.
Well that's just lovely. In fact to anyone paying attention (clearly not you) I don't dismiss those tendencies - otherwise why would I spend hours a week working on a site that archives both their historical and theoretical legacy. However I think the only way to preserve any revolutionary tradition is precisely to recognise the failings of what's gone before, try to learn from those mistakes as much as possible, and not to simply ape previous attempts outside of their historical (and geographical, cultural) context. The fact I have a healthy respect for some of those different traditions means increasingly I think it's pointless so many groups picking one to identify with it. After all, those who I admire are those individuals and groups which were quite prepared to rip up theoretical and organisational legacies when they'd shown themselves to be ineffective or actively counter-revolutionary.
Quote:
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
And how not to. Both positive and negative lessons can be learned from many different tendencies and events, why cling to one in particular like a comfort blanket?
Quote:
I see fuck all to be gained from reinventing the wheel everytime our cart crashes.
Or sitting in it as it lays in pieces while the world passes you by.
Quote:
to play historical heroics and proclaim that you would do this in that situation
One example of me doing this please. Thanks.
Quote:
to the fact that groups like the Friends of Durruti were themselves simply standing on the shoulders of the wider CNT
And Miasnikov's workers group on the shoulders of the Bolsheviks? The KAPD on the KPD and SPD? Anyway where did I bring the Friends of Durruti into anything?
Quote:
Quote:
And some of the process of recuperation is when they become revolutionary unions - on that other thread the Coordinara in Spain is on the works councils for example.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.
Read this then get back to me.
Jan 1 2008 00:32
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
Your flawed argument can be applied as much to the political party/organisation as the Union as you define it.
Unions (particularly revolutionary and/or syndicalist ones) are a form of political organisation. In fact that's been central to my argument throughout this thread and the others it split off from. Political parties are another, different, form of political organisation - one you'll note I've not argued in favour of. It's like you're saying "well, you think standing on that swivel chair with one wheel missing is stupid, but that argument could be applied to any piece of furniture".
Quote:
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?
Because the unions continue to have some level of density in the sectors where workers still have some strength - where there's traditions of miltancy, slightly lower turnover etc. Also the unions (at least the lowest levels of them) are organising wildcats much of the time in recent years, they're not necessarily a split from them (CWU is the most recent example of course).
Quote:
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.
No I made plenty of references to anarcho-syndicalist and other revolutionary unions - claiming I didn't confirms my suspicion you haven't bothered to read this thread.
Quote:
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.
Who's benefit is this for? I've not suggested anything differen whatsoever.
Quote:
But your "sound minimum basis of agreement" is something that anarcho-syndicalist unions actually do have.
What, all of them?
Jan 1 2008 00:34
Quote:
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.
See I'm sure I've seen you claim somewhere before that the real principles of anarcho syndicalism are identical to the real meaning of communism. But here you are trying to drive a wedge between them just so you can disagree with me and John. again.
Jan 1 2008 00:45
MT wrote:
i mean, i´ve been reading this discussion carefully and i feel like if you really narrowly use the "union" semantics despite it was written in posts before what "union" means in AS tradition. i dont want to be rude, it is just sad.
MT, I don't really get this sentence - could you try again?
Quote:
there is a lot of icc or left commie people who stick to this narrow view even though it is explained to them.
John. and I are neither ICC nor any other brand of left commies. Just to make that clear.
Quote:
or do you have some other criticism to "revols" AS branch of anarchosyndicalism?
revol's description of how he sees anarcho-syndicalism functioning in present day practice strips it of much it's historically specific form and content. By paring it down to a few basic principles comes down to a formulation which is almost indistinguishable from other revolutionary currents which have emphasised workers self-organisation - to the extent he does that, I agree with him. However, when you take things to that point, then I don't think you're talking specfically about anarcho-syndicalism - you're talking about something far more fundamental which isn't the property of any particular historical tradition.
Essentially I think revol just wants to disagree with us regardless of the content of our arguments - and he knows a surefire way to do this is to insist on calling his politics anarcho-syndicalist.
Jan 1 2008 11:52
John. wrote:
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.
Which couple of ex-members are you referring to, I mean you know and i know that solfeds got a whole bunch of problems, its an organisation of 100 odd anarchists, of course its git prop will be clunky and it will have difficulties, which i'd like to discuss with you at some point, though not on here and not today, but catch is criticising it in a bit a dishonest way here i feel, Bringing up WTY who has just left the organisation for his poor grasp of politics and attacking what is obviously a poorly written bit of rhetoric as though it was being presented as literal truth aren't exactly conducive to a good debate.
Anyways two serious questions like coz i'm still not 100% sure where your coming from
1) Do you think a mass ''pro-revolutionary'' organisation is possible in a period of mass struggle that isn't exactly revolutionary. Say like in some souh american countries today like chile, argentina or brazil or a number of other countries where there is mass civil unrest, but not exactly revolution round the corner do you think a large mass revolutionary organisation is possible?
2) if so and you had this mass pro-revolutionary organisation? How would it differ in practical terms from an anarcho-syndiclaist union?
I assume you would have dues payment, official membership and industrial 'networks'' in specific workplaces and industries no? Also What would it do that was different from an anarcho-syndicalist union like the CNT (not a mass organisation by any meana)? in other words what are the CNT as they currently stand, doing wrong? What would you do instead?
Jan 1 2008 13:02
cantdocartwheels wrote:
2) if so and you had this mass pro-revolutionary organisation? How would it differ in practical terms from an anarcho-syndiclaist union? I assume you would have dues payment, official membership and industrial 'networks'' in specific workplaces and industries no? Also What would it do that was different from an anarcho-syndicalist union like the CNT (not a mass organisation by any meana)? in other words what are the CNT as they currently stand, doing wrong? What would you do instead?
I think a revolutionary political organisation must be based on revolutionary politics. The CNT doesn't:
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998: wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to
be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation
in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous,
federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional
bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules,
and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies
can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be
part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view
about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union
is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.
As for the Solfed 'Princples of Revolutionary Unionism', either the organisation agrees with them, or it doesn't. I suspect that it doesn't, in which case maybe changing them would be a good idea.
Devrim
Jan 1 2008 13:40
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Which couple of ex-members are you referring to
Well two off the top of my head are WTY and Gentle Revolutionary.
Quote:
but catch is criticising it in a bit a dishonest way here i feel
What exactly is dishonest about quoting from
Quote:
attacking what is obviously a poorly written bit of rhetoric as though it was being presented as literal truth
And which happens to be your constitution, the third item in your website's menu, and the second result for solfed in google.
If I wanted to attack you, I'd find some stuff in back issues of Direct Action, if I wanted to be dishonest, I'd have claimed you all think this instead of explicitly stating that it doesn't tally with my understanding of the majority of solfed members I've had any contact with.
Anyway, it's not just ex-members who appears to take it literally, Jacque argues along the same lines as well:
Jacque wrote:
we advocate the formation of a confederation of both union federations and civic federations - composed of industrial federations (local, regional and international federations) which form the union component of our international together with an international of civic federations (local, regional and international) which form the civic component of our international. This is an indespensable component of a new world - libertarian communism.
Jacque wrote:
The way I see it, in its structure the Solidarity Federation promotes that the I.W.A. advocates One Big Confederation - of free and federalist union federations (One Big Union federation) and that these same workers similtaneously create within this worldwide confederation, a civic federation to directly administor social life (One Big Community federation) of the same workers. We start by building locals and networks for this purpose.The I.W.W also advocates that a new world should be constructed within the of the shell of the world and work toward One Big Union of workers organised as a class, which is at least (partly) economically compatible with our demand for the One Big Confederation of Free Federations of Workers Unions and Free Federations of Workers Community Unions. We build libertarian communism, its not merely an idea.
Like Spikeymike said 'build the revolution = build the union'.
I'll answer the serious questions later.
Jan 1 2008 13:41
Mike Harman wrote:
However I think the only way to preserve any revolutionary tradition is precisely to recognise the failings of what's gone before, try to learn from those mistakes as much as possible, and not to simply ape previous attempts outside of their historical (and geographical, cultural) context. The fact I have a healthy respect for some of those different traditions means increasingly I think it's pointless so many groups picking one to identify with it.
This sounds fair enough.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And some of the process of recuperation is when they become revolutionary unions - on that other thread the Coordinara in Spain is on the works councils for example.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.
Read this then get back to me.
Catch - thanks for the link on the BM Blob Coordinadora article. I've posted the WSA article on the Coordinadora here. Do you think the fact that the Coordinadora developed into a union that takes part in the works councils automatically means it has been recuperated? A genuine question by the way - I don't know that much about how the independent Spanish unions that take part in the works councils actually operate in practice.
Jan 1 2008 13:46
Devrim wrote:
I think a revolutionary political organisation must be based on revolutionary politics. The CNT doesn't:
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998: wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to
be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation
in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous,
federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional
bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules,
and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies
can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be
part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view
about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union
is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.As for the Solfed 'Princples of Revolutionary Unionism', either the organisation agrees with them, or it doesn't. I suspect that it doesn't, in which case maybe changing them would be a good idea.
Devrim
I'd also strongly disagree with this stance on membership - it presumes that everything can be solved by 'anti-authoritarian structure' and leaves itself open to exactly the same issues that revol claims 'spontaneous' organisations will suffer from.
I've also seen solfed members, not just the CNT, suggesting that an actual anarcho-syndicalist union (as opposed to solfed itself) would have similarly loose requirements for membership. This again goes against revol's conception of a minority, specifically revolutionary group. agitating both within and parallel to unitary organisations thrown up by struggle.
Jan 1 2008 14:37
Devrim wrote:
I think a revolutionary political organisation must be based on revolutionary politics. The CNT doesn't:Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998: wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to
be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation
in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous,
federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional
bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules, and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies
can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be
part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view
about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union
is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.Devrim
In practice I think the current CNT has maintained its ideological cohesion through its no-compromise approach on organisation. This has led to sizeable groups who wanted to join not being able to. For instance Solidaridad Obrera started as a split from the CGT that wanted to rejoin the CNT. The sticking point was that they wanted to retain the option of participating in the works councils in some circumstances. On the alasbarricadas thread discussing Beltrán's article there's a mention of a building workers union with a thousand or so members that approached the CNT in Seville. Here one of the problems was that the union had a full time employee whose role was to help people find their next job on a building site. Splits from the CC.OO and UGT have joined the CGT rather than the CNT, part of the reason that anarchists are in a minority in the CGT.
The CNT now seems to be having a bit more success in a small way with people joining for union rather than political reasons. Beltrán suggests that one reason for this is that there is a whole area of casual work and small employers where the works council system doesn't really apply and the CNT are better placed to organise than the mainstream unions. Of course if this carries on it will be interesting to see the long term effects on the politics of the CNT.
Jan 1 2008 16:17
The critical point made by ICC type posters here and by Catch etc is that there is a connection between form and content, which reflects the historical development of capitalism - a process of interaction between sections of capital and between the main opposing class's, that transforms forms of organisation, sometimes rapidly and at others times more slowly. That transformation can, and often does see the function of those forms of organisation change into the opposite of what they were in their origins. This is clearly the case with trade and industrial unions.
The ICC type posters however place too much reliance on a fairly simplistic watershed date of 1905 (or 1914?) as determining this transformation for the whole world (based on their Luxemburgist influenced decadence theories criticised on other threads).
I think if we see the gradual historic shift within the development of modern capitalism from the formal to the real subsumption of labour/ from the reliance on the absolute to the relative extraction of surplus value from the working class, as being the key factor, then a more subtle understanding of why Unions may at different places and times (even today in some circumstances) be relevant to workers, but why such relevance has over time become less and less frequent and short lived, when not totally counterproductive.
Ironically the decline of Unions as a force benefitting the working class and there integration into part of the armoury of the capitalist state (to put it rather crudely) againt the working class, has been a result, in part at least, of their actual success in driving forward the above process.
That process however is not complete on a world scale and even from time to time may be reversed temporarily.
The trend is quite clear and well established in the 'heartlands' of capitalism except for a few backward areas (in which the likes of the more traditionalist members of the IWW and the Sol Fed perhaps perceive some ongoing relevance for their historically outdated unionist theories).
Jan 1 2008 16:48
Spikymike wrote:
I think if we see the gradual historic shift within the development of modern capitalism from the formal to the real subsumption of labour/ from the reliance on the absolute to the relative extraction of surplus value from the working class, as being the key factor, then a more subtle understanding of why Unions may at different places and times (even today in some circumstances) be relevant to workers, but why such relevance has over time become less and less frequent and short lived, when not totally counterproductive.
Mike - what's your view of independent/base unions in countries like Spain and Italy where they actually have some kind of presence albeit a minority one? Would you see them as being relevant to workers or counterproductive?
Jan 1 2008 16:59
JH,
I have only read a little about the base committees and subsequent base unionism in Italy and Spain (includimg some critical material from Echanges) but it's a long time back now.
They clearly originated in genuine attempts to co-ordinate struggles accross sectional ines in a militant way but I am at least sceptical about the value of their subsequent trajectory into rank and file unions.
I don't think they represent what I thought were situations of 'backward (reliance on absolute extraction of surplus value/formal subsumption of labour) capitalism' where such Union forms might still have some limited relevance in the absense of more generalised struggle.
I'd be interested in other posters views on this but I have to go and cook the tea now!
Jan 2 2008 03:21
Duke, somewhere early in this thread you asked something like "if the IWW doesn't aim to make itself into the single union for all workers and doesn't think it's going to create a revolution then what's the point?" (if that's not a fair rephrase I apologize, I don't have the patience to find your post again. I also still haven't read this thread in its entirety - if someone else answered then just ignore me.) If that is a decent paraphrase then it seems to me your basically asking why is the IWW worth anything and why is anyone a member. Right? Or you're asking "what do you people think it is that you're doing and why do you do it?" Right?
I don't have it all thought out 100% myself - either the reasons or the terms - but for me it's two or three things - it's a space to be involved in organizing with other workers at the point of production, without having to be a liberated parasite. Despite all the problems and insufficiencies and stuff, there's a lot of talent and dedication in the IWW re: organizing. Organizing is a good thing to do, and it improves people's lives materially sometimes. (So basically among other things the IWW is a place for people who have the bug but can't or won't be staff someplace.) Second, IWW organizing involves reaching out to workers who aren't politicized, reaching out based on their self-interest as workers, and getting them to become more involved in collective struggle than they were, and helping them be more effective at it than they would have been (via the trainings and experience etc). That radicalizes people in their heads, gives people more confidence, gives people skills they didn't have, helps people find talents they didn't know they had, etc, and develops relationships with other workers around these things. That's idealized of course - it doesn't happen all the time, not every member in the IWW is involved in doing this, sometimes we screw up, etc etc. But that does happen sometimes - more than anything else I'm aware of that exists that I have the option to be involved in - and that stuff strikes me as worthwhile, whatever we call it etc.
I also think it's important not to overstate the objective or class-wide importance of this activity. If after the revolution it turns out the IWW made zero contribution and there was some other activity members should have been doing instead then I promise to do whatever the post-revolutionary equivalent is to buying you a drink. But it seems to me that folk ought to try and do something collectively and in an organization and looking at the other options I don't see a lot else out there that works for me and that I could make much of a contribution to. (That's really not a "we're the best, no other group is worthwhile" thing, though I know it sounds like it is, I'm not sure how to make this point without sounding that way.)
Jan 2 2008 03:34
Nate wrote:
Duke, somewhere early in this thread you asked something like "if the IWW doesn't aim to make itself into the single union for all workers and doesn't think it's going to create a revolution then what's the point?" (if that's not a fair rephrase I apologize, I don't have the patience to find your post again. I also still haven't read this thread in its entirety - if someone else answered then just ignore me.) If that is a decent paraphrase then it seems to me your basically asking why is the IWW worth anything and why is anyone a member. Right? Or you're asking "what do you people think it is that you're doing and why do you do it?" Right?I don't have it all thought out 100% myself - either the reasons or the terms - but for me it's two or three things - it's a space to be involved in organizing with other workers at the point of production, without having to be a liberated parasite. Despite all the problems and insufficiencies and stuff, there's a lot of talent and dedication in the IWW re: organizing. Organizing is a good thing to do, and it improves people's lives materially sometimes. (So basically among other things the IWW is a place for people who have the bug but can't or won't be staff someplace.) Second, IWW organizing involves reaching out to workers who aren't politicized, reaching out based on their self-interest as workers, and getting them to become more involved in collective struggle than they were, and helping them be more effective at it than they would have been (via the trainings and experience etc). That radicalizes people in their heads, gives people more confidence, gives people skills they didn't have, helps people find talents they didn't know they had, etc, and develops relationships with other workers around these things. That's idealized of course - it doesn't happen all the time, not every member in the IWW is involved in doing this, sometimes we screw up, etc etc. But that does happen sometimes - more than anything else I'm aware of that exists that I have the option to be involved in - and that stuff strikes me as worthwhile, whatever we call it etc.
I also think it's important not to overstate the objective or class-wide importance of this activity. If after the revolution it turns out the IWW made zero contribution and there was some other activity members should have been doing instead then I promise to do whatever the post-revolutionary equivalent is to buying you a drink. But it seems to me that folk ought to try and do something collectively and in an organization and looking at the other options I don't see a lot else out there that works for me and that I could make much of a contribution to. (That's really not a "we're the best, no other group is worthwhile" thing, though I know it sounds like it is, I'm not sure how to make this point without sounding that way.)
I'm sure the question was worded that way, or similarly, but your interpretation isn't what I meant. Well, either of your interpretations really. The question is more centered around why is it that most of the wobs I've met seem to reject the basic grounding principles of the IWW? And why if y'all reject those principles is your organizing centered around the IWW and not something else?
I could disagree with someone in the wobs if they're arguing that they will build the one big union and have as a goal to foment a syndicalist revolution but it would make sense to me that they were wobs. However, most people are either saying they don't agree with those two things because they want the IWW to act as a network of militant radical workers or they want the wobs to become more like a traditional union only more radical. I ask the question because I honestly don't understand.
Saying its a good way to organize doesn't mean anything to me. You join an organization because you agree with it. There are limitless good ways to organize.
Jan 2 2008 03:34
Double post.
Jan 2 2008 03:46
Quote:
(So basically among other things the IWW is a place for people who have the bug but can't or won't be staff someplace.) Second, IWW organizing involves reaching out to workers who aren't politicized, reaching out based on their self-interest as workers, and getting them to become more involved in collective struggle than they were, and helping them be more effective at it than they would have been (via the trainings and experience etc). That radicalizes people in their heads, gives people more confidence, gives people skills they didn't have, helps people find talents they didn't know they had, etc, and develops relationships with other workers around these things.
Reading that makes the IWW sound like some sort of NGO for the advancement of workers, reaching out to workers who aren't politicised and doing so on a level they can understand, namely their crude self interest, ahh bless could you get any fucking more patronising??!! And yes the IWW is a place for people who are essentially staffers, who see it as their vocation to organise other workers, to 'politicise us', to teach us how to struggle. Such an attitude is annoying but understandable amongst those parasites who actually make a career out of being professional organisers and activists, it's even more smug and patronising when it's some dipshit activist motivated out of their own pious martyr complex.
A brief review of the bullshit the leftist fuckwits in the IWW have pulled in the past year would suggest the working classes would be benevolent organisers and teachers need to fucking educate themselves before anyone else.
Jan 2 2008 08:23
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
But your "sound minimum basis of agreement" is something that anarcho-syndicalist unions actually do have.
Boul, could you explain this to me then?
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998 wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous, federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules, and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.
Jan 2 2008 10:01
JH wrote:
Catch - thanks for the link on the BM Blob Coordinadora article. I've posted the WSA article on the Coordinadora here.
Thanks, I'll try to read that today.
Quote:
Do you think the fact that the Coordinadora developed into a union that takes part in the works councils automatically means it has been recuperated?
A genuine question by the way - I don't know that much about how the independent Spanish unions that take part in the works councils actually operate in practice.
Well me neither. What I know about the Coordinara is pretty much what's in that BM Blob article, and rata, revol68 et all bringing up it's participation in the works councils because 'the CNT is the only union that doesn't participate' (paraphrasing). However I think for any organisation that's trying to deal with day-to-day workplace organising as a representative body, they're going to get more or less involved with those state structures in order to do so - and although I certainly don't think works councils are a litmus test (or if they are, it's a very superficial one) - it seems like the CNT was decimated in terms of any real workplace presence for more than a decade after the split with the CGT - and is still out in the cold in workplaces where those works councils are. Again, as with the first of my couple of posts on this thread, either 'mass' or 'revolutionary' has to give at some point (if not both).
With the Coordinara specifically - from the BM Blob article it seems like something that grew organically during those mass dock struggles - against the mainstream unions (and independent of and parallel to the CNT). There's an interesting bit where one of the delegates to the co-ordinating committee describes them all trying to step down from their positions when they cycle of struggles they'd been involved with had come to an end - but pressure from others to keep going afterwards. Now it's likely that BM Blob picked up on that for similar reasons that I noticed it - but I think it shows a clear understanding of the temporary role such organisations have, and that they will not be able to remain the same when the circumstances which threw them up subside.
Jan 2 2008 12:57
'Exchanges' had a very interesting article on the coordinadora years back but I don't know if it's online.
Jan 2 2008 16:39
revol68 wrote:
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
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 etcLook 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.
yes dear and most self proclaimed revolutionary communists groups are a crock of shit too.
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.
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.
This is an argument against yourself here. My critical comments here have been directed against certain strains of anarcho-syndacalism and revolutionary unionism - namely the ones who want to form "real Unions". You have responded by defending "anarchosyndicalism" implying that your interpretation is the only one. If you criticised shit bits of communism I wouldn't go off on one at you saying you don't understand what communism is, and say "As far as I'm aware most people on here understand the role of communists is that of working to expand struggles into mass assemblies, co ordinating committees etc," because that's not what most communists do or want to do. They should though.
As should be quite clear by now, and as I and others have stated several times, what me and catch are arguing does not appear to be that different from you. Probably around level of agreement needed. You seem to want to have an argument anyway because you like arguing. I can't type that much, so stop being such a "comedy" contrarian.
Quote:
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.
What you've done is here is attack me and catch for actually standing up for those principles here. Because we're including some of the bad anarcho-syndicalism as "anarcho-syndicalism" whereas you seem to be claiming the majority of the world's anarcho-syndicalists aren't anarcho-syndicalists, because they don't agree with your "true" version.
Moving on to more productive points...
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
But your "sound minimum basis of agreement" is something that anarcho-syndicalist unions actually do have.
like devrim showed from the CNT, this is not the case.
cantdocartwheels wrote:
John. wrote:
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.
Which couple of ex-members are you referring to
WTY and GR, I'm pretty sure Sorry, JDMF and Jacques all said similar things.
Quote:
I mean you know and i know that solfeds got a whole bunch of problems, its an organisation of 100 odd anarchists, of course its git prop will be clunky and it will have difficulties, which i'd like to discuss with you at some point, though not on here and not today, but catch is criticising it in a bit a dishonest way here i feel, Bringing up WTY who has just left the organisation for his poor grasp of politics and attacking what is obviously a poorly written bit of rhetoric as though it was being presented as literal truth aren't exactly conducive to a good debate.
I meant some current members too. The As + Ps quoting isn't dishonest; it does tally with what jacques has said. If they're badly-written they should be corrected.
Quote:
Anyways two serious questions like coz i'm still not 100% sure where your coming from
cool
Quote:
1) Do you think a mass ''pro-revolutionary'' organisation is possible in a period of mass struggle that isn't exactly revolutionary.
Yes
Quote:
Say like in some souh american countries today like chile, argentina or brazil or a number of other countries where there is mass civil unrest, but not exactly revolution round the corner do you think a large mass revolutionary organisation is possible?
yes
Quote:
2) if so and you had this mass pro-revolutionary organisation? How would it differ in practical terms from an anarcho-syndiclaist union?
It would not perform any Union functions, namely representing workers to management. It would be open only to pro-revolutionaries with certain politics (i.e. libertarian communist)
Quote:
I assume you would have dues payment, official membership and industrial 'networks'' in specific workplaces and industries no?
yes
Quote:
Also What would it do that was different from an anarcho-syndicalist union like the CNT (not a mass organisation by any meana)? in other words what are the CNT as they currently stand, doing wrong? What would you do instead?
As above, it wouldn't be open to just anyone. This isn't a surefire way of stopping recuperation, but it is a guard against it. I'm not how the CNT acts where it is a majority. Where it is a minority it argues for assemblies to control struggle. This is good. However, it should not try to present itself as a union to prospective members to try to recruit workers to it in general. I don't think the CNT does this much, but other groups do - Vignoles, SAC, USI, etc.
Jan 2 2008 17:05
Duke,
Doesn't matter really since I misunderstood you but I think you're overstating things. "Limitless good ways" seems wrong to me. You may think they're dumb reasons, but it's not the case that people only join groups they agree with. Loads of folk are in groups cuz they're an opportunity to do good work.
Revol, I wish you'd hurry up and die you disgusting piece of shit. Since you have by your own admission no experience and no ability in organizing, you're not at all qualified to assess what is and is not good organizing practice and what is and is not politically problematic in organizing. You also know nothing about the IWW except the comments you read in a maliciously distorting way in order to score points in some stupid macho game of political one-upsmanship. If you want to have a serious conversation then grow the fuck up and let's do that. Otherwise do the world a favor and take a bottle of wine with a bottle of sleeping pills ASAP.
Can comment on articles and discussions
-revol "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."
I'd just like to re-draw attention to this.
On the mexico references- I think it is worth pointing out that the Casa actually split over the peasant issue, and the leading anarchists went to Morelos and fought alongside Zapata. I'm not sure how much people know mexican history, but support for the peasant armies had waned during their occupation of the capital, as they failed to impliment a popular power and let a vacuum develop which alienated their potential urban support. The generals were able to exploit faux-revolutionary fervor with populism against the hyper-regionlized zapatist movement. It doesn't suprise me that there were reformists and opportunists within a revolutionary union, nor that they outflanked revolutionary forces, or even that self-provlaimed revolutionaries turn into oppressions in revolutionary situations.