revolutionary organisation

Terry if you see a contradiction please leave the whole sentence intact and let others decide for themselves whether there is a contradiction, I said, and in relation to your 'contradiction' the underlined section is what is important:

Here the "and political" is a reference to the anarcho-syndicalists on here who do not see the economic and political as separate. The "a pole", "example" and "alternative" were all in relation to small anarcho-syndicalist unions in France and Spain - not political parties.

Firstly the level of consistency will fluctuate, I think the point revol and myself have made in relation to this is that the specific political organisation/political party is not insulated from this lack of consistency - this is particularly the case when it increases its influence. I apologise for being of the opinion that workers in their own organisations are open to making mistakes, I would rather that than a party seeking to lead us in the wrong direction. The possibility of libertarian communism as a goal is questioned why? Do you believe that working class people in organisations controlled directly by themselves are incapable of working towards the goal of libertarian communism without the 'correct' leadership?

At present we certainly need to build a tradition among the working class. On the matter of differing or too narrowly defined political outlook, I'm not sure that this is always what is going on. There are serious differences in relation to works councils (as an example) that I do not think relate directly to any dogmatically defined political outlook, they are differences thrown up in the actual struggles and reactions to real life events that these organisations are confronted with. Certain groups have reacted differently and rather than render entire organisations ineffective they have tended to split. I hasten to add that I am not 'ideologically' opposed to splits and that such disagreements in any (potentially) revolutionary situation are very likely to become irrelevant. Debates over participation in works councils are gonna become pretty irrelevant when workers are actually taking over their workplaces now won't they?

"As hard as steel, as pure as glass" are not words I have used anywhere on these forums ever. If you believe we need a 'leadership' that is "as hard as steel, as pure as glass" perhaps you could explain why? Any 'leadership' with the arrogance to proclaim this are probably a much bigger danger to the possibility of succesful revolution than any radical inconsistency displayed by workers.

Um, Terry, I haven't put forward a 'model' as such, the example was put forward in terms of the long-term work involved in getting to a situation where libertarian-communism (encompassing a range of organisations) was capable of playing a decisive role in the early stages of the Spanish revolution and civil war. That stands, no analogy between the modern global north and C19th Spain is required - although in terms of C20th Spain, like the rest of Europe then and now the same basic relationships within capitalist society stand.

But for further elaboration scroll back to my response to catch.

I think that last post was extremely clear, and shows why 'revolutionary unions' are as much an anachronism as the idea of building up a mass social democratic party inside capitalist society until power fall into its hands like a ripe fruit. Both are products of a bygone era. The assembly/council form has been confirmed by all the major explosions of class struggle in the last century (with predecessors going much further back, as catch points out). I certainly agree that there should be cooperation between all who support this basic idea, and indeed this will be vital in any period of heightened class struggle. It doesn't however obviate the necessity for revolutionary political organisations formed around a more developed programmatic basis.

Boul any chance of answering this question here:

...rather than arguing with strawmen. I've explained why I think it unlikely...basically broad based organisations are...broad based....they don't have the one political line....and no I wouldn't criticise such for being broad based.

Boul have I misqouted you there? If not, is there not a contradition between those two statements. Note the contradiction is not resolved by use of the term 'union', rather than 'party'.

Terry I have answered the first point without arguing a strawman. I've told you that I believe radical practice will fluctuate. Please re-read my whole post and I think you will find at least some indication of why I believe such a movement could indeed by libertarian communist.

But Terry "mass revolutionary organisation" does not equal "broad based". Nor does this not being "broad based" mean that such an organisation has "the one political line" however. A political Party is not the same as a Union. Political parties and Unions (of all sorts) have very different histories and courses of development. Bearing this in mind please re-read my posts.

Yes you replied with this strawman argument....

You are arguing for instance that a specific anarchist organisation is "not insulated from this lack of consistency" etc....etc....etc.... a strawman that bears no relationship to the question I asked.
Which is....

Oh and when you get around to actually answering that you might also tell us on what grounds do you make a distinction between "workers in their own organisations" and "a party seeking to lead us".

In case you are not willfully missing the point I will repeat again. I am not criticising any putative organisation for having a less than consistently radical practise. For another simple example the non-anarchist organisation in Ireland closest to anarchism is the Irish Socialist Network. We have no reason to assume that a higher level of class struggle would not lead to both anarchist movement and the ISN being a lot bigger than they are now. Not to mention many other divergent opinions that do not have an organisational expression. Given this why would any future breakaway or alternative union be (a) libertarian communist in politics and (b) be consistently radical.

Jesus fuckin christ - lets do b) first I have said that there will be fluctuation in its (and any organisations) 'radicalism'. The point about 60 years of work in Spain prior to the revolution was meant to indicate that we need to put in the work to build a libertarian communist tradition in advance of the next increase in the intensity of class struggle. There is a role for many different forms of organisation in this, from collectives to propaganda groups, to solidarity groups in and beyond the workplace, this is not exhaustive.

I have said all this before. A workers organisation is one created by and (at least originally) ran by and for the working class members of that organisation based in their workplaces and communities while a political party seeks to develop a political programme which it utilises to 'lead' workers and their organisations in the political direction they have in their wisdom decided is best for us. Do you seriously not know the difference between a Union and a Political Party - I suppose not from your previous posts.

I actually believe in local autonomy and basic principles - I am not a platformist, I am a federalist and believe that initiative and the call on how to respond to local or specific workplace/industry issues should be down to those who are on the ground and that they should be afforded the solidarity of the wider movement. This of course means working class people are free to make their own fuck ups rather than rely on the wisdom of the revolutionary party.

Just to clarify though, Organise! does not regard itself as an anarcho-syndicalist union in embryo, we do not have a strategy for building an anarcho-syndicalist union but we do regard the tradition of anarcho-syndicalism as a high point in working class self organisation.

What about this though:

The possibility of libertarian communism as a goal (for a mass organisation) is questioned why? Do you believe that working class people in organisations controlled directly by themselves are incapable of working towards the goal of libertarian communism without the 'correct' leadership?

If you really believe that there cannot be mass organisation that can have the goal of libertarian communism you may as well declare the revolutionary 'project' futile and go home and find something better to do with yer time.

Why would anyone want it to be? Precisely.

Catch, I think your workplace group based on common politics is a great idea and if it actually happens I'd love to hear more about it. That said, on this -

I don't know how to say this respectfully, but, I don't think you know much about the way the IWW is at present. You may know about some sections of it in the UK, maybe, but we're pretty heterogeneous internally and as a non-member I'm sure there's stuff you're not privvy to. You may be opposed to internally heterogeneous organizations (and I have days where dealing with the differences in the IWW exhausts me and makes me pessimistic) but that's not an argument and it doesn't mean that there's no good work to be done within such organizations. Personally, being in nearly any organization at all is better than none.

Dundee_united, I too have to go to work and will try to reply over the weekend.

Jacque, we are not trying to mediate but participate.

However.....

Sorry I may have missed some nuance there...but you are clearly talking about two of the anarcho-syndicalist groups in France having a leading role, no?
(incidentally isn't CNT-AIT tiny? - that is the other one in France isn't it? or do you mean the Spanish one?)

Of course you should direct that towards anarcho-syndicalists as they are the people who seem to hold that working class self activity and their revolutionary party (except they don't say party though...) is either one and the same thing or the former is not up to scratch.....see Jacque for instance, above he writes:

Finally I know you addressed the point in regard to Spain tis the other point where you have responsed with strawmen, so to repeat it again.....

To repeat my argument.....as I understand it the claim is an anarcho-syndicalist union (generally seen as having libertarian communist politics and a consistently radical practise - I'm banging on about this later point as if an anarcho-syndicalist organisation doesn't have that it gets called 'reformist' by the IWAistas)...anyways an anarcho-syndicalist union will develop either by a load of different alternative unions and breakaway groups coming together OR by an anarcho-syndicalist organisation growing in size, in both cases in the context of a heightened degree of class struggle.
In option (a) why should we assume that all the different folk involved in these breakway unions and that will be libertarian communist in politics - I mean it seems preposterous unless we see self activity, self organisation, and that, being one and the same as libertarian communism - that is basically 'the party' and 'the class' is one and the same thing...no one who hasn't signed up to the IWA statutes could be engaged in class struggle.....still less have a political opinion...still less some class of anti-capitalist political opinion. .......er obviously this is bollox....so why would any putative future alternative union be an IWA style anarcho-syndicalist union. It just isn't likely.
Option (b) the anarcho-syndicalist group grows until it is a mass movement. Also not likely. It just isn't gonna be the only show on the road.

And this here is a strawman.......

Relevance of all this is that if small groups don't have a clear idea of what they are about relevant to the specific context they find themselves in they will not grow in a period of more intense class struggle to the extent they could....and it maybe other forces which grow.

As well as being a strawman it is also a pretty stupid question, unless everyone has the same idea simultaneously, everyone thinks the exact same thoughts at the exact same time, then there is gonna be different individuals and different factions seeking to give different leads, ie express their opinions in the hope other folk will agree with them (or follow), no movement in history has ever existed without this and no movement will ever exist in the future without this.

The implication of course is that if you think well yes actually I would hope to see a leadership that I would agree with (ie my sort of opinions becoming prevalent, libertarian communism being part of that) then you are some class of Leninist…which is of course where this discussion started on the other thread.

Part of the reason for the often woeful state of anarchism is a complete lack of understanding of Leninism.
So it becomes ’Leninist’ to want to give a lead, ie express an opinion and hope other folk find it useful and go for it.

It is a strawman because it has fuck all to do with what I’m saying…which is not an anarcho-syndicalist union would be crap because there would be lots of different folk in it with different opinions, but that an “anarcho-syndicalist union” wouldn’t be an anarcho-syndicalist union…cause it would have lots of different folk in it with different opinions….unless of course all those folk in the self organised workplace groups, alternative unions, breakaways, rank and file groups and the like which are gonna form this future union would be all hard-line libertarian communists along IWA lines. (bearing in mind also any backsliding from that would put them in the camp of ’reformists’ to be denounced at all times).

Terry I don't know but I think our conceptions of class, solidarity, self activity and libertarian communism may actually not be at all the same. Perhaps there is a difference betwen my experience and what you happen to be reading right now? Maybe thats cheeky but I really can't see what you are not getting in my previous posts. The two sections you have quoted at the start of your last 3 in a row post(s) are not contradictory, there is no room for a "However" between them. My question, posted above, is not a strawman, it seems to be the 'logical' basis of your position.

You are wrong when you call anarcho-syndicalist unions political parties. I don't know how far any of what I am saying is going to get through to you if you can't see the difference or read what I've posted, but the thing is it seems to me that you have convinced yourself that we need a political party to lead the class and won't hear anything based on a different understanding of working class struggle, self organisation or libertarian communism. I think you are having the same problem with Jaques, and although I don't agree with him 100% I can at least understand/make sense of what he has said.

The example provided by anarcho-syndicalist unions is an example of working class self organisation - it is not the leadership of a political party. Nor are examples of collectively run projects, magazines, printing presses, bookshops etc. They can provide an (imperfect) example of our ideas in action and increase the resources of our movement but this is not the same as leadership in a political party sense.

I've already said what my thoughts are in relation to some differences between anarcho-syndicalists re works councils and the relevance these will (not) have in a revolutionary situation. I have answered you about consistently radical practise as well, and please don't bang on to me about IWAistas, as you know I am not one and neither is Organise! actually anarcho-syndicalist. If I deal with a point don't pretend that I haven't because of the position of some other people.

But even on this there is no inconsistency between my acknowledging that, particualrly in periods of less intense struggle, there will be 'radical inconsistency' and others regarding this as reformist. If low levels of struggle causes part of a movement to drift towards reformism and others in that movement call that reformism whats the fuckin problem - thats what it is! Like I said I have no ideological opposition to splits in any movement, they are often necessary. But you are correct in the end what you've posted there is "bollox" particualrly the IWA party and class outburst. I thought our original debate was premised on whether you actually believed or didn't believe that working class mass organisation could have the goal of libertarian communism - rather it seems you want to rant about the IWA (btw I don't actually think I said anything about this mass organisation being "identical" to what you call "an IWA style anarcho-syndicalist union").

Indeed one could argue that anarcho-syndicalism (or certain variants of it) .....goes even further than Leninism in the wrong direction....Leninism, particularly at its worst, sees the class as passive with agency in the hands of the party....or even worse with the party hierarchy as the sole personification of the class for itself......anarcho-syndicalism likewise identifies the party with the class. Our party is working class self-organisation and that is that, end of story. I don't see how it would be different if the Socialist Party said we believe in a mass party of the working class, so in the future our party and the working class, it is the same thing, innit? therefore any organisation should be part of our party.

Recognising the existance of a multitude of different opinions, and many different forms of self organisation, make up the class struggle, it follows that you cannot equate working class self-organisation with the political perspective of one small tendency...consequently working class self-organisation is not necessarily something which comes with the IWA statutes attached. However being a libertarian communist means you are gonna be arguing within that self organisation for certain ideas, methods, and strategies, that is, seeking to give a lead.

Express ing an opinion in the hope people find it useful is far removed from seeking to build a political party with a programme that you then seek to impose on the working class. I see political parties as something built outside of the class and trying to direct it whereas as an example of working class self organisation anarcho-syndicalism in some areas still is, and certainly has been, a movement created by the working class based on their real experiences of life under capitalism and allowing them to set out how they confront it in their immediate circumstances.

Well you clearly have convinced yourself of that because you keep talking about the example anarcho-syndicalist groups are giving. Difference between giving an example and giving a lead? This would explain how the two passages I have quoted several times are in fact not contradictory.

Strawman time again. I'm arguing that it is not likely in the sort of contexts we need to be thinking about, ie the foreseeable future, for the reasons I have explained, which you havn't addressed.

Ok sorry I see while I was writing that last post you have outlined the difference in another post.
A party is from 'outside the working class' right?...that is what this here below means, right?

In what sense is say the Socialist Party from outside the class in a way in which any anarcho-syndicalist group isn't? Both are small groups of working class people, that is a small part of the class, not something outside which like landed in UFOs or something. They should have a very different practise because they should have very different strategic perspectives on what is necessary to build socialism, one should be very centred on their organisation and its capacity to lead, because they have a greatly overstated idea of the role of the party, the other should favour a more participatory practise.

BTW Boul is your opinion on the difference between a socialist political party and small anarcho-syndicalist unions on the continent informed by reading or your experience?

Although I'm not in favour of 'revolutionary unionism' I think both EKS and the ICC appear to be trying to build the international "party" as a specific organised tendency in the here and now, and this I disagree with since I think the organisational specifity that comes with it can actually be a barrier to open discussion and successful organisation. I'm not sure how commonly the word is used, but the best I can find is "organisationalism" as distinct from "organisation".

The question is this: can there be a successful proletarian revolution without a "specific organised tendency" which has clear politics? We would say no. Therefore this has to be built now and the methods of centralisation have to be learned now.

That might mean sacrificing superficial popularity with the numerous anti-organisational currents but it's certainly not a barrier to discussion. Serious discussion is only advanced when positions are developed and articulated with clarity and confidence.

As far as I understand, Chuck0 basically holds paper membership. He may be active on a local level (although I believe the Kansas City branch was de-chartered, so probably not), but I've never even heard of him being involved in anything beyond that level.

The MSPs and GR are a different case though. All I can say is that they are no longer members (and at least with the MSPs I sincerely hope lessons were learned by the British fellow workers).

Yes, lessons like "how can we be more irrelevent?"

chuck0 is your most famous member.

Must've skipped that page in the little red songbook.

Their most famous member is blind, deaf, Red and dead.