A response to Miami Autonomy & Solidarity's Defining Practice: the intermediate level of organization and struggle.
This piece is in dialog with some stuff by my friend Scott Nappalos. I won’t try to summarize all of Nappalos’s points here. I want to focus here on a few points I think are important. I wrote this to think out some issues and lay out some points that may sound obvious but didn’t to me until after I wrote them. I hope others find it thought provoking.
An assessment of how the situation of the U.S. working class has changed and how to adapt to these conditions.
It’s a tired truism that the workers movement in the US is floundering without a real base or path forward. A new generation of experimentation, struggle, and militants emerged from the ashes of the union’s most recent collaborationist strategy of labor-management partnership, contractualism, and labor’s historical parochialism of our-jobs-for-us.
A discussion document (2/2) I wrote a few months back, which may be of interest in light of the 'Direct Unionism' debate.
What makes a revolutionary union revolutionary? or in other words, what is the content of the 'political' in a political-economic organisation?
Academic historian Marcel van der Linden says this, which i think can be used to think about an answer:
A discussion document (1/2) I wrote a few months back, which may be of interest in light of the 'Direct Unionism' debate.
Anarcho-syndicalist criticisms of trade unionism are often scathing and incisive, but are weaker or non-existent when it comes to the bureaucratisation and class collaboration of ostensibly revolutionary unions – most famously the CNT’s participation in the Spanish government dur
Part 2 of a 2 part reply by a IWW member, to 'Direct Unionism: A Discussion Paper', which argues for a network of militants and non-contractual organizing.
Intro & The Early IWW and Contracts
Part 1 of a 2 part reply by a IWW member, to 'Direct Unionism: A Discussion Paper', which argues for a network of militants and non-contractual organizing.
Recently, an unfinished piece titled 'Direct Unionism: A Discussion Paper' appeared on the internet. It was written by a group of IWWers a couple of years ago and was intended to start a dialogue within the union on contracts and generally how we organize in the workplace.
Bernard Lyon on the role played by communisation theorists in the process of communisation.
Despite its title, this discussion note does not deal with the question of intervention as such, but rather with the social becoming of the key-concept of our theory: communisation.
A critical survey of the emergence of Russian working class politics and the historical role of Trotsky's pre-Bolshevik theory, including its anti-Leninist tendencies.
RAAN highlight their struggle against lifestylism, and the problem of 'the scene' limiting organisational practice, as it is inhibited by sub-cultures that move into activism formulating their own cliques. As they argue "If scenes are the bourgeois social structures that arise as a result of people struggling to come to terms with alienation, then “Anarcho-sceneism” is the held belief that a revolutionary movement can exist within, or even be based on, any such scene (especially, a “revolutionary” one)." (Oddly though the piece argues Black Bloc - amongst other things challenges scene politics)
“Sub-cultures... are no more than glorified fan clubs. They are incomplete or escapist at best, and social organs of the enemy collaboration at worst. They are not counter.” — David (Green Mountain Anarchist Collective)
Three essays on revolutionary organisation by participants in the women's liberation movement of the 1970s. The essays criticise the organisational theory and practice of revolutionaries, particularly those of the various Trotskyist organisations which were then in their ascendancy.
They were originally published as a pamphlet by the Tyneside Socialist Centre and Islington Community Press in 1979 and reprinted in book form in 1980.