revolutionary organisation
Jun 20 2007
The party came up on: this thread about RAAN, but no-one yet squeezed Devrim's conception of it out of him, so I figure a new thread might do that. Devrim's said he's "for the party" on several threads before, but at this point I've not worked out what this means other than being in favour of formalised international co-ordination of communist groups - does it go further than that?
This thread also inspired by SpikyMike's posts on: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-and-libertarian-communism (which couldn't be closer to my views on solfed and the IWW if I'd written the posts myself).
At the moment, I think there's next to zero chance of the IWW growing to a large size and remaining revolutionary in the UK, nor of solfed leading to the formation of a mass anarcho-syndicalist union. I think solfed (or some of them) seem to be a bit more realistic about the prospects of this than the IWW (or some of them), but I still think the networks and everything else are hampered by the idea that they might one day form a revolutionary union. Also I haven't yet got an answer to this post about how inclusive they're supposed to be of non-anarcho-syndicalists despite a potential future union allowing non-revolutionaries-at-all in. This is something I really don't get still. I do think a 'network of militants', for communists to discuss workplace (and other class issues), with the potential for co-ordinated publications and activity, but without pretensions to eventually becoming a union, would be a good thing. Members of both the IWW and solfed (or some of them), have suggested they're in those organisations for specifically that reason, but I'm wondring how many it is and whether they lso see revolutionary unionism as a viable strategy now.
In terms of the 'party', I think international discussion and communication is important, but don't feel that there can be any concerted international co-ordination and organisation outside the production and distribution of propaganda for the moment - again at least from here in London - and you dont need a party for that. However I'll leave discussion on that until Devrim has responded in case he means something different to what I think he does.
I wanted to write some more coherent thoughts down for this thread, but haven't done that yet, so I'm starting it anyway. This was a bit lazy, will try to clarify later if needed..
Jun 21 2007
#2
I believe in the specific organization, call it a Party if you will, that organizes apart from and deeply within the workers struggles. I was talking to a co-worker yesterday,and he asked me if I would help build unions, to which I replied NO. He was a bit surprised, but I explained that I build the workers ability to see that capital is their enemy, and that however the workers choose to build the union is up to them. The union itself is a vehicle of capital's domination now, but the internal contradictions of the class struggle can turn them into their opposites -- vehicles of the proletarian struggle.
I feel strongly that the specific organization must be completely and absolutely sold out to fighting directly for a communist society, but that the mass orgs, job places, military, and other locals that the specific org. organizes in should be as inclusive as possible. I see it as a dialectical process between the specific organization and the mass organization to create consciousness, horizontally link the struggles, and tear down the state.
Jun 21 2007
#3
wangwei wrote:
I believe in the specific organization, call it a Party if you will, that organizes apart from and deeply within the workers struggles. I was talking to a co-worker yesterday,and he asked me if I would help build unions, to which I replied NO. He was a bit surprised, but I explained that I build the workers ability to see that capital is their enemy, and that however the workers choose to build the union is up to them. The union itself is a vehicle of capital's domination now, but the internal contradictions of the class struggle can turn them into their opposites -- vehicles of the proletarian struggle.I feel strongly that the specific organization must be completely and absolutely sold out to fighting directly for a communist society, but that the mass orgs, job places, military, and other locals that the specific org. organizes in should be as inclusive as possible. I see it as a dialectical process between the specific organization and the mass organization to create consciousness, horizontally link the struggles, and tear down the state.
Leninist much?
Problem with your dialectic is it doesn't seem to grasp that the specific political organisation can only guarantee it's revolutionary purity on the basis that it's not an actual revolutionary organ of significance, if it were to become significant it would be as open to decomposition as anyother organ, unless of course we think calling oneself a revolutionary automatically insulates oneself from wider dynamics. You only have to look at how the purists in the FAI quickly ended up acquising to the counter revolution whilst it was the less pure in the syndicates and sections of the CNT that rose up in the May Days.
Jun 21 2007
#4
Not strictly true. Balius was a FAIsta as were many others of theFOD. It was elements in both the FAI and CNT who acquiesced, from all wings of the CNT
Jun 21 2007
#5
Battlescarred wrote:
Not strictly true. Balius was a FAIsta as were many others of theFOD. It was elements in both the FAI and CNT who acquiesced, from all wings of the CNT
well quite but what it does show is the folly of imagining reformism can be neatly resisted by keeping a specific pure organisation detached from the everyday organs of struggle, a formula that seems to tempt alot of people, who basically want to have some mass organisation unrevolutionary in itself and then the revolutionary organisation to sit beside it, infact that's how I see some people in the AF's move away from talk of work place resistance groups in favour of the IWW, unless of course the AF's aims and principles are wrong and a revolutionary syndicalist organisation like the IWW can actually be revolutionary.
Jun 21 2007
#6
Quote:
Balius was a FAIsta as were many others of theFOD. It was elements in both the FAI and CNT who acquiesced, from all wings of the CNT
Quite. Plus the FAI was all over the place. It was pretty big tent, not really at all akin to a tight-knit specific political organisation / party.
I would also agree with Revol though - being in a 'revolutionary organisation' does not guarantee revolutionary behaviour. All being in a specific political organisation, however revolutionary, guaratees is that you will have more clout to impact and shape the world around you (again through whatever wide variety of ways as there are wide varieties of political organisations) as people who already agree with each other already, than trying to do so on your own as a lone militant will.
Jun 21 2007
#7
revol68 wrote:
well quite but what it does show is the folly of imagining reformism can be neatly resisted by keeping a specific pure organisation detached from the everyday organs of struggle
Although I don't think this is aimed at me, just in case it is:
I don't think it's the role of an organisation to sit alongside much bigger ones as some kind of guiding light ( FAI/CNT or what Dundee United has put forward on here).
Revolutionary organisations will be the assemblies/councils whatever - and will spring up during times of heightened class struggle - they'll supercede both minority groupings and any unions/othe mass organisations that might exist before them, and are likely to have to fend off and actively oppose those organisations if they're to succeed (as they've generally failed to in the past where even given a chance - cf. factory committees in Russia). Obviously existing organisations and informal social groupings will persist as loci within mass assemblies either through design, or through personal ties as much as anything else. On a positive note this might allow for some kind of wider communication of communists and possibly the formation of some kind of shared literature to combat that which will definitely be produced by others. But the extent that communists should have a role 'as organisations', or 'as communists' within such assemblies should be to argue the case for workers controlling their own struggles and defending their organisations from recuperation or marginalisation. That's badly worded, but a revolution will only be successful to the extent that previous forms of organisation are superceeded, rendered irrelevant, or if necessary smashed.
Obviously if there was massive repression or things began to wind down, then organised groups would be necessary to take up the slack in allowing for communication and more long-term strategic attempts, or documenting and analysing failures and successes for future attempts - but then your not on the brink again.
As such, although I think there's definitely a role for an organisation of communists (both something workplace/day-to-day related in the UK, and propaganda groups/international discussion), I don't think they'll be 'revolutionary organisations' in themselves - although I'm sure I've used that as shorthand lazily, possibly even on this thread!
Jun 21 2007
#8
Quote:
Catch: But the extent that communists should have a role 'as organisations', or 'as communists' within such assemblies should be to argue the case for workers controlling their own struggles and defending their organisations from recuperation or marginalisation.
The idea of workers "controlling their own struggles" has the basic contradiction that "their own struggles" must not be allowed to interfere with the working class. In other words, they should not be allowed to form an organization that will preserve their privilege at the expense of any other workers. The specific organization will also bridge the various groupings of workers and horizontally link their struggles to see themselves as "cells" of the overall "human body".
If my vision of the specific organization is Leninist, then so be it, but the need for a solid organization that is dedicated to a direct fight to a cashless, egalitarian society, and the negation of all privilege is a fundamental necessity.
Quote:
Plus the FAI was all over the place. It was pretty big tent, not really at all akin to a tight-knit specific political organisation / party.
This phenomenon seems to be still happening to many anarchist organizations. I applaud NEFAC and the FdCA for at least attempting cohesive theory and organization, but they are in process.
Jun 21 2007
#9
Quote:
I don't think it's the role of an organisation to sit alongside much bigger ones as some kind of guiding light ( FAI/CNT or what Dundee United has put forward on here).
Actually that's not what I've argued at all. That would be very limited and arrogant.
Jun 21 2007
#10
You didn't say "guiding light" - that was just lazy shorthand by me, but you've said plenty about social insertion etc.
Quote:
As far as unions being a means of revolutionary transformation of society - in and of themselves they are not. That requires a political organisation with a programme to bring us to the point of dual power with the bourgeoisie, and it requires councils to form and take over running society.
Jun 21 2007
#11
Yeah, but that's not a programme for the class, it's a programme for the organisation.
I might have made it clearer if what I'd wrote was:-
An organisation which sorts out what it feels are the priorities for its organisation based on a shared political understanding and agreement on tactics by all of its members. The organisation would then get active in campaigns and mass organisations like unions and residents associations and would then try and make a case together for the best ideas already present in those organisations as well as the experiences it brings to these mass bodies.
That's really a different gig from being a 'guiding light,' even if it's shorthand, as it's a different concept.
I like Saul Alinsky's reading of programmatic organising. He wrote that he felt that you couldn't just insist on things, ideas etc. which had no currency in the people you are organising with. You had to take what was already there and use that as a bridge into the next narrative for the organisation/campaign/whatever. It's the role of a group of individuals who agree with each other and choose where to get active in campaigns, based on their priorities, why they feel people should come towards their point of view. You can't do that as a 'guiding light' as it just sets you apart.
Just for Revol, I also don't necessarily believe that the specific group, so organised, will necessarily be right - they can be as wrong as easily as anyone else. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try and exercise their ideas on the world though, same as anyone else.
Jun 21 2007
#12
catch wrote:
At the moment, I think there's next to zero chance of the IWW growing to a large size and remaining revolutionary in the UK...
There’s a limit to the size an organisation like this can grow in present circumstances, and this will always be marginal when everyone, apart from a few activists and generally radicalised workers, are far from receptive to a class outlook, never mind activity which requires some commitment to it. I don’t think this is wrong at all, but if we’re to take it as it is we’d be ignoring our most important strength - and that’s that we can influence things.
I have issues with pretty much everything you (and Spikemike) have said in regards what defines being ‘revolutionary’. The council is fetishised as the sole means of sweeping away the old social relations (which any previous mass organisation is caught up with, right?), coming about through a heightened period of struggle which is itself apparently nothing to do with past organising and prefigurative struggles but, I guess, more along the lines of economic crisis. In that situation people are both expected to suddenly know what to and do it in a co-ordinated and collective way.
If we’re to look at the General Strike of 1926 workers naturally began to form councils of action in spite of the TUC, and they had to. However didn’t they come to this point of conflict through the pre-existing movement of a radicalised rank-and-file, from the miners especially? Weren’t they defeated by the fact that they were still dependent on trade union hierarchies and had no long-term preparation for taking over production etc.?
The Russia of 1917 was not ‘spontaneous’ to the extent that there had been long years of struggle (hadn’t we already seen the council itself prematurely brought into the world in 1905?), of militancy and propaganda. One of the main failures of the biggest popular transformation up till then, was that the council was isolated, uncoordinated on a mass-scale and ultimately brought under control of the only clear-headed approach going - a politics of power that ultimately was pathological.
I think historically we can see that root, participative organisation is absolutely necessary in a revolutionary sense and just plain common-sense in everyday life. Outdated anti-syndicalist arguments are used: the union is literally the ‘new society’ in the shell of the old; it’s the only type of activity we should involve ourselves in; it shouldn’t contain differences and splits; must have a dead certain ideological basis; wouldn’t massively change structurely with a more militant environment, all of which I don’t agree with actually.
The idea of a ‘network of communists’ is no better than an IWW at its worst - something we should be trying to get away from. I’m not of the opinion that some neat ideological group of communists would have any great impact on people, in getting them to face up to and challenge their conditions themselves or would even be of any great use if everyone suddenly did getting all horny with revolutionary enthusiasm. To repeat the cliché; a politics of change must be a part of the process of where change can happen. The few insights we have are no use as a ready-made answer people must come to, they have to be raised where we can, over time, be putting them into action collectively and learn from them.
Jun 21 2007
#13
^ What he said. Nice post man!
Jun 21 2007
#14
I think the real question is what makes something revolutionary, the ideas in the heads of its members or the program under which everyone operates. Insofar as the IWW is based on direct action and direct democracy it is revolutionary and will grow with the revolutionary tendencies within the working class. It will also shrink with them.
Now insofar as a group holds a revolutionary analysis and membership is based on that, it's best chance of playing a role in the revolution is as a minority existing to steer the revolution in the direction of its analysis in order to fit it's pre-existing scientific analysis of how a revolution is supposed to go. Either that or to sit on the sidelines denouncing everyone for not following their analyses, in other words they will be either leninists or left communists.
As anarchists what is important is that we put forward that the working class as a whole must look out for its own interests, and its methods are direct action, and accountability based on direct delegate democracy.
Jun 21 2007
#15
Volin wrote:
catch wrote:
At the moment, I think there's next to zero chance of the IWW growing to a large size and remaining revolutionary in the UK...There’s a limit to the size an organisation like this can grow in present circumstances, and this will always be marginal when everyone, apart from a few activists and generally radicalised workers, are far from receptive to a class outlook, never mind activity which requires some commitment to it. I don’t think this is wrong at all, but if we’re to take it as it is we’d be ignoring our most important strength - and that’s that we can influence things.
I agree with that.
Quote:
coming about through a heightened period of struggle which is itself apparently nothing to do with past organising and prefigurative struggles
No I think past organising and struggles are important, but don't believe these will happen successfully via a mass revolutionary organisation.
Quote:
If we’re to look at the General Strike of 1926 workers naturally began to form councils of action in spite of the TUC, and they had to. However didn’t they come to this point of conflict through the pre-existing movement of a radicalised rank-and-file, from the miners especially? Weren’t they defeated by the fact that they were still dependent on trade union hierarchies and had no long-term preparation for taking over production etc.?
Again, long-term preparation for taking over production doesn't have to be via a mass revolutionary union - for a start, unions organise workers in their workplaces, I think it very likely that many workplaces in the UK will simply cease functioning entirely since they produce nothing of use to anyone at all - with workers ending up doing completely different jobs. I don't see a central role for self-managed call centres, direct mail, or insurance firms for example.
Quote:
The Russia of 1917 was not ‘spontaneous’ to the extent that there had been long years of struggle (hadn’t we already seen the council itself prematurely brought into the world in 1905?), of militancy and propaganda. One of the main failures of the biggest popular transformation up till then, was that the council was isolated, uncoordinated on a mass-scale and ultimately brought under control of the only clear-headed approach going - a politics of power that ultimately was pathological.
The factory committees did co-ordinate nationally despite slanders against them, although those efforts were still-born to a large extent. Which permanent mass organisations do you feel had a positive role in the Russian Revolution?
Quote:
I think historically we can see that root, participative organisation is absolutely necessary in a revolutionary sense and just plain common-sense in everyday life. Outdated anti-syndicalist arguments are used: the union is literally the ‘new society’ in the shell of the old;
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.
i'm saying that this confederation of economic federations and civil federations must be built now. the new world must be built within the shell of the old...
I argue that libertarian communism is a condition, a free confederation of workers community federations and workers' union federations
Quote:
it’s the only type of activity we should involve ourselves in;
eh?
Quote:
it shouldn’t contain differences and splits;
- actually I'm saying that open entry unions would contain too many differences and splits, and simultaneously, I'd have to lie to get into solfed as it stands now, since I don't agree with all their As and Ps.
Quote:
I’m not of the opinion that some neat ideological group of communists would have any great impact on people, in getting them to face up to and challenge their conditions themselves
Well even as someone almost completely isolated (politically) in my workplace, I've managed to have a decent effect in getting people to discuss and act on grievances, wages and working conditions. Having a vehicle through which I could discuss those experiences, get advice, and produce shared literature around them would be good. Like I said, although I'm sure both solfed and the IWW are good for that, I couldn't join them without glossing over the statements I'd be signing up to.
Quote:
The few insights we have are no use as a ready-made answer people must come to, they have to be raised where we can, over time, be putting them into action collectively and learn from them.
I agree with that as well, this has got nothing to do with permanent mass organisations though.
Jun 21 2007
#16
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
Insofar as the IWW is based on direct action and direct democracy it is revolutionary and will grow with the revolutionary tendencies within the working class. It will also shrink with them.
I think you yourself have said that in several cases, the IWW isn't operating using direct action - it's using labor relations boards or performing a representative function (cf. starbucks, train driver). I think this is what happens when you have low periods of struggle - 'revolutionary unions' can't stick so closely to the principles you outline.
Quote:
Now insofar as a group holds a revolutionary analysis and membership is based on that, it's best chance of playing a role in the revolution is as a minority existing to steer the revolution in the direction of its analysis in order to fit it's pre-existing scientific analysis of how a revolution is supposed to go.
Actually I'd say solfed's consitution has the most "pre-existing scientific analysis of how a revolution is supposed to go" of any group posting here:
Quote:
all workers must unite in industrial unions
Quote:
only the industrial unions of the working class are capable of reaching this objective
About as prescriptive as it gets.
Jun 21 2007
#17
Quote:
I think you yourself have said that in several cases, the IWW isn't operating using direct action
No, I said in some instances we do use direct action in some instances we don't. You are right that at some points you need to compromise in order to build strength but eschewing available avenues because of a stronger commitment to ideologiy is cultish and irresponsible. No group operating in class struggle is homogenously revolutionary, to do that is impossible. If your interest is in keeping a revolutionary line your best bet is a political group.
I would say the IWW is not entirely revolutionary, but not entirely unrevolutionary either. There is a lot of stuff happening in a lot of places that is very under the radar, not publicised highly but is also based on direct action, I would say this is revolutionary.
That is to say what I've already said: Insofar as the IWW uses direct action it is revolutionary insofar as it does not it isn't. In my mind this is better than the tension that exists in politiical groups, you either steer a group as a minority or become a marginal sect.
Jun 21 2007
#18
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
Quote:
I think you yourself have said that in several cases, the IWW isn't operating using direct actionNo, I said in some instances we do use direct action in some instances we don't.
Ok that's what I meant.
Quote:
You are right that at some points you need to compromise in order to build strength but eschewing available avenues because of a stronger commitment to ideologiy is cultish and irresponsible.
Well I use any and all avenues in my own life to improve/defend my living and working conditions, but I don't pretend that any of it is revolutionary if I'm quoting procedures back at the people who were supposed to write them or threatening landlords with legal action etc. Nor do I need to be in an organisation (of any kind) to do that kind of stuff - it's by nature individualised and atomised, and bringing anything but anecdotal advice about those kinds of avenues into an organisation is as likely to reinforce that way of doing things as break it down. I think the IWW muddies the waters between these two things.
Quote:
No group operating in class struggle is homogenously revolutionary, to do that is impossible. If your interest is in keeping a revolutionary line your best bet is a political group.
Well organise with the people I work and live with regardless of their political (or religious) views due to shared material interests, I don't think it would be possible for me to persuade even one person I work with to join the IWW (or a political group), not one. However I think there's value in being in a political group (to the extent that it's a group, libcom - keeping this site running, that's based around shared politics etc.)
Quote:
There is a lot of stuff happening in a lot of places that is very under the radar, not publicised highly but is also based on direct action, I would say this is revolutionary.
No I think it has revolutionary intent, but as SpikyMike said, there's not really any 'revolutionary' activity that's available to us at the moment. I think it'd be fair to call self-managed wildcat strikes or work to rules as part of the real movement towards communism. Again it depends on how you define revolutionary I guess.
Quote:
In my mind this is better than the tension that exists in politiical groups, you either steer a group as a minority or become a marginal sect.
To me this tension is as much present in the IWW - you either get very close to being a normal union
Quote:
need to compromise in order to build strength
or remain tiny. And if you do get huge, those pro-revolutionaries will indeed be a minority in a group, and may well attempt to steer it to avoid it slipping towards reformism (or become reformist themselves and have to be ousted by the membership before revol catches me out).
Jun 21 2007
#19
catch wrote:
I use any and all avenues in my own life to improve/defend my living and working conditions, but I don't pretend that any of it is revolutionary if I'm quoting procedures back at the people who were supposed to write them or threatening landlords with legal action etc. Nor do I need to be in an organisation (of any kind) to do that kind of stuff - it's by nature individualised and atomised, and bringing anything but anecdotal advice about those kinds of avenues into an organisation is as likely to reinforce that way of doing things as break it down. I think the IWW muddies the waters between these two things.
Catch, I'm not sure I undersand this. What's by nature individualized and atomized? Use of the law? That's not actually the case. I think that that stuff is definitely problematic and is at best a second choice. But it's not necessarily individualized and atomized. In 2004- 05 lost two jobs for organizing activity (one a firing and the second a slow-down that resulted in the office being closed). In one we went to the labor board to file charges in the attempt to get back wages. That really sucked but the loss was worse than using the NLRB. And we went in a group and supported each other, came out with stronger relationships. The second time I got help and ended up helping others file for unemployment. Same results. In both cases, a big part of the actions against the boss were not institutionally mediated. In both cases using institutional mediation afterward was the result of our having lost but was actually less isolating than any noninstitutional responses we could have had.
Quote:
you either get very close to being a normal union, need to compromise in order to build strength or remain tiny. And if you do get huge, those pro-revolutionaries will indeed be a minority in a group, and may well attempt to steer it to avoid it slipping towards reformism (or become reformist themselves and have to be ousted by the membership before revol catches me out).
I don't know. In my experience struggle plus conversations can really radicalize people. If people are joining a mass organization (albeit a very small one like the IWW right now) in the context of struggle and there are decent formal and informal mechanisms in place (like member orientations) then I don't think this fate you see is inescapable.
Jun 22 2007
#20
DU wrote:
That can mean insistence on 'purist' politics and adherence to revolutionary goals, hegemony of 'revolutionary' tactics, a refusal to countenance 'reformist' activity and use of iconography which is at best part of a left-wing subculture. All of that leads to unions losing members, and ceasing to be mass organisations.I get the impression the IWW in the US suffers from those sorts of issues...
Are you saying that a greater emphasis on 'revolutionary ideas', tactics, iconography etc. would make the IWW cease to be a 'mass organization'? (Or conversely, that it is our current emphasis on these things that keep us from being a 'mass organization'?)
Jun 22 2007
#21
Right now you will not have a body which is simultaneously a mass organisation and an organisation of the ‘pro-revolutionary minority’, to borrow spikymike’s phrase, because the later is tiny. Period. The later is likely to remain tiny in the foreseeable future in the English speaking world. This fact does not preclude a pre-figurative strategy of building working class power in the here and now (or a culture of resistance or however one wants to phrase it). Nor does it preclude building permanent mass organisations (the argument concerning such is a different one). It does preclude the possibility of building an organisation which is very large and which has both revolutionary politics and a constantly radical practise. Any strategy in the immediate future based around building in the here and now mass revolutionary organisations is likely to be as successful as it was in the last couple of decades.
In this regard the IWW is better than the IWA groups as the IWW’s politics are looser and broader, while that of the IWA groups is quite narrow and as such they have no capacity to be a broad front.
Jun 22 2007
#22
Quote:
In both cases, a big part of the actions against the boss were not institutionally mediated. In both cases using institutional mediation afterward was the result of our having lost but was actually less isolating than any noninstitutional responses we could have had.
Yeah I'm not saying people shouldn't use those avenues themselves when that's the only (or last) option, but you don't need be in a 'mass revolutionary organisation' to do so - people do it all the time as individuals, collections of individuals, and via trade unions, community advice centres, housing rights groups etc.
Jun 22 2007
#23
Quote:
Are you saying that a greater emphasis on 'revolutionary ideas', tactics, iconography etc. would make the IWW cease to be a 'mass organization'? (Or conversely, that it is our current emphasis on these things that keep us from being a 'mass organization'?)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. What I'm primarily interested in at the moment is building industrial unions which are anti-partnership, have real density in certain industries and are member controlled. Right now I couldn't give a stuff whether they are 'revolutionary' or not, and I see too much politics as being a hinderance to that objective.
I don't think the IWW should repeal those sections of its constitution but I really think we should not stress those aspects. What I'd like to see is a mass organisation built as above with revolutionary tendencies active within it. I'm frankly a bit surprised SolFed have not already joined us en masse to do exactly that, but I guess we've only started to seem like we have some potential to develop into a serious option in the past six months, and we're still several years away from being of any consequence to the wider struggle. We are moving there though.
Quote:
Right now you will not have a body which is simultaneously a mass organisation and an organisation of the ‘pro-revolutionary minority’, to borrow spikymike’s phrase, because the later is tiny. Period. The later is likely to remain tiny in the foreseeable future in the English speaking world. This fact does not preclude a pre-figurative strategy of building working class power in the here and now (or a culture of resistance or however one wants to phrase it). Nor does it preclude building permanent mass organisations (the argument concerning such is a different one). It does preclude the possibility of building an organisation which is very large and which has both revolutionary politics and a constantly radical practise. Any strategy in the immediate future based around building in the here and now mass revolutionary organisations is likely to be as successful as it was in the last couple of decades.
In this regard the IWW is better than the IWA groups as the IWW’s politics are looser and broader, while that of the IWA groups is quite narrow and as such they have no capacity to be a broad front.
Yeah exactly. You defo could see the development of relatively horizontal fighting unions right now - the UK's got the OILC for example. They wouldn't be 'revolutionary', but I couldn't give a stuff about that as if they were they'd be tiny, but they would be a fucking great leap forward in the UK right now. It would advance the struggle. If the struggle advances then the class will move further to the left, making more struggle possible. It's a bit of a no-brainer really. We need mass fighting organisations in our communities and workplaces, and that's the best way for the struggle to advance, which is the best way for more ideological groups like anarcho-syndicalist unions to develop. The IWW has more potential to develop in such a way because we don't insist that our members are revolutionary, like some IWA sections do, and we're very vague on the whole 'rev' thing anyway.
Jun 22 2007
#24
youse do know that groups like SolFed don't see themselves as the basis of a mass organisation per se, rather they are propaganda group with somewhat tighter membership criteria.
Also the idea of an anarcho syndicalist union is in the present a motivating aim, for example I don't think the CNT will grow to a million members rather I see it's role as being a potential revolutionary pole who provide something of an example as to how to struggle, that shows the potential for participatory democracy and refusing a split between the political and economic, basically something along the lines of their role in Puerto Real.
Jun 22 2007
#25
Quote:
Revol wrote: "youse do know that groups like SolFed don't see themselves as the basis of a mass organisation per se, rather they are propaganda group with somewhat tighter membership criteria."
Not the impression one would get from this thread here: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-and-libertarian-communism
There are a number of different variants of anarcho-syndicalism, some perhaps inhabiting the same organisations, and from reading that thread it does seem that is exactly how some members of SolFed, at least, see their organisation, that is, as the basis of a mass revolutionary union.
Jun 22 2007
#26
Quote:
youse do know that groups like SolFed don't see themselves as the basis of a mass organisation per se, rather they are propaganda group with somewhat tighter membership criteria.
Like Terry said, that's not the imrpession you get from several members who post on here, although certainly some other members see them as you do. In other words there appears to be a split as to how members view it's role, which was one of several reasons I started this thread.
Jun 22 2007
#27
well I can't speak for them but I think they're very silly if they imagine that's how things will go, much more likely to see growing groups of militant workers networking and an organic linking up of struggles (hopefully), I mean these people fetishing the need for a mass formal union really need to look at how even the CNT came about, that is a linking up of local unions, clandestine work place resistance groups, peasants and farm labourers movements.
Jun 22 2007
#28
I agree with Dundee completely here:
Quote:
Right now I couldn't give a stuff whether they are 'revolutionary' or not, and I see too much politics as being a hinderance to that objective. (...) What I'd like to see is a mass organisation built as above with revolutionary tendencies active within it. (...)If the struggle advances then the class will move further to the left, making more struggle possible. It's a bit of a no-brainer really. We need mass fighting organisations in our communities and workplaces, and that's the best way for the struggle to advance, which is the best way for more ideological groups like anarcho-syndicalist unions to develop.
I think there are two functions the IWW can play. One is to help people struggle more effectively, or get people plugged in more like when we target a place for organizing. The other is to radicalize people in those struggles, through primarily through the experience of struggle plus other activities like education for members.
I had another thought about the hypothetical scenario that sometimes get floated about what would happen if a bunch of people who weren't pro-revolutionary joined the IWW - I think the response to this is to ask, "why would they join?", basically to get the hypothetical scenario fleshed out further. Everyone I've ever met has joined the IWW either because they were already a lefty or because they were organizing in their workplace and got involved in the IWW. Of the second type, some people were organizing already and were lefty and they chose the IWW. Others got involved out of their own self-interest in the workplace (because someone organized them, this is what the union should focus on above all else). Everyone I've met of the latter type got radicalized in the process, and if we do things right I think this will generally happen. So I don't see the hypothetical situation as a problem. People join the IWW because they're already subjectivley pro-revolutionary or in the context of a struggle which has the potential to radicalize them plus an organizational plan to help this happen. Where this doesn't happen within the IWW, it's an organizational failing but it's a correctible failing, not something ineliminable.
Jun 22 2007
#29
revol68 wrote:
well I can't speak for them but I think they're very silly if they imagine that's how things will go, much more likely to see growing groups of militant workers networking and an organic linking up of struggles (hopefully), I mean these people fetishing the need for a mass formal union really need to look at how even the CNT came about, that is a linking up of local unions, clandestine work place resistance groups, peasants and farm labourers movements.
Which is why I started the thread.
Jun 22 2007
#30
Quote:
Revol wrote: “more likely to see growing groups of militant workers networking and an organic linking up of struggles”
Still isn’t realistic to see such a development as (a) having a libertarian communist political perspective and (b) having a consistently radical practise. Which, as I understand it, is the definition of an anarcho-syndicalist union. Still leaves the question of whether such is open to all workers (irrespective of political opinion) or only people who sign up to the IWA statutes.
Also begs the question of why, seeing as it is no way on the cards now, is there that much stress on this particular strategy. Anarchists should recognise they are a tiny minority, are likely to be a tiny minority for the foreseeable future, and discuss appropriate strategies for that situation.
It's an interesting discussion Catch. I'll post my thoughts later. Basically I think we are getting too bogged down with the term revolutionary here.
The wider issue is that class struggle is not on the up. Having some militant union co-ordination would begin to address this. That's what I'm interested in the wobblies for. There are a number of interesting developments in the UK and Ireland at the moment with fringe unions. A serious anarchist communist political strategy should aim to get them working together.
As far as unions being a means of revolutionary transformation of society - in and of themselves they are not. That requires a political organisation with a programme to bring us to the point of dual power with the bourgeoisie, and it requires councils to form and take over running society. Rank and file unions can be useful to bring us to that point though, by developing the confidence and solidaritistic aspects of the class, especially if there is a hegemony of class struggle ideas. However it takes decades to develop though and we haven't even properly started yet.
I think the trouble with believing that unions can be completely revolutionary is the tendency for people with those views to treat them as political organisations (ie to only want to work with people you agree). That can mean insistence on 'purist' politics and adherence to revolutionary goals, hegemony of 'revolutionary' tactics, a refusal to countenance 'reformist' activity and use of iconography which is at best part of a left-wing subculture. All of that leads to unions losing members, and ceasing to be mass organisations.
I get the impression the IWW in the US suffers from those sorts of issues (confusion between being a political organisation and being a union, and, I would add as well, being a trade union in that there seems to be those who don't want to build dual card power). I don't think we suffer from it so much in the UK but the confusion is still there at the moment, and really if we are to become powerful we have to eliminate it.
In many ways I'd prefer to be involved in building a non-revolutionary anti-partnership union (for the reasons you outline), but given that IWW membership has jumped from 130 or so with one job shop in January to well over 250 now in June, with four job shops, all in the one industry, in the UK we appear to be the only show in town. I'm quite confident with the drives on in education and healthcare where our membership is based, we might start to make some headway soon. Apparently there is also talk of midwives starting up an anti-partnership trade union to counter the RCM. There's also the IWU and the OILC. I think as well this Unite develop could force a realignment which could end up being very interesting. I don't believe those developments are 'revolutionary' (unless you believe in the concept of non-reformist reforms, and non-reformist mass organisations, which I don't) but they may well advance the class struggle.