Workplace Strategy of the Anarchist Federation
The following text is the official workplace strategy of the Anarchist Federation, adopted nationally in April 2009. Drawing on the experiences of AF members at the workplace, it aims to lay out the possibilities for anarchists in the here and now and open debate in the movement on workplace organisation.
we (brighton SolFed) have a discussion meeting scheduled for a few weeks time with the local AF group, where we'll discuss this and the Brighton pamphlet. have only scan-read at the moment so will hold off comment for now.
Sounds good. This includes a link to your doc...
http://www.afed.org.uk/news-and-events/62-on-the-frontline-anarchists-at-work-af-workplace-strategy-document.html
Okay a few thoughts as I read through it. I'm very sympathetic to the aims of this document, but there are some points that jumped out at me.
In section 2:
Not wanting to defend the unions, but as most union representatives will just be ordinary workers I don't think that the "always" here is appropriate.
I don't think it's fair to say that unions provide better pay and conditions or better health and safety. Workers organisation provides better pay and safety. In places where workers are better organised, unions will find it easier to recruit and have more members.
For example, a worker at McDonald's could join Unite, but this would not improve their pay, conditions or safety since the workforce is not well organised.
You see what I mean?
The point about legal protection for industrial action is true, however, as would similar points about easier access to advice, legal assistance, representation, etc..
In section 3:
This point doesn't really make much sense. What evidence is there for this? Where official syndicalist unions exist, if they are forced to act in certain ways by the law, they will probably do this, regardless of the wishes of the membership (or else the "wishes" of the membership could be altered to obey the law despite what they would ideally like to do).
Claiming they are less likely to do deals with bosses is also quite a vague point. You could easily point out counter examples, such as the IWW has a high proportion of shops with no strike agreements. Whereas UNISON, say, is an ultra-bureaucratic union, which has no shops with no strike agreements.
I just think the language here is pretty woolly and doesn't really stand up.
In fact, I'm afraid I think this whole section is problematic. For example:
In what sense is this true? What significant working class fights have taken place via syndicalist type unions in the past 20 years say? That none of these organisations have more than a couple of thousand members, out of a working class of billions would imply to me that these are not the forms in which class struggle takes place - and it does still take place to a significant extent. The only syndicalist type union with a significant membership, the CGT in Spain, is reformist and integrated into state and management structures.
again, trying to relate this to the real world, where has this occurred? That the IWW has spread militant struggle from workplace to workplace? A couple of disputes recently have won when the struggle began to spread - the oil truck drivers and refinery workers in the past year for example. But other than that I'm not aware of many - it's incredibly difficult in the current climate to initiate solidarity action, because many workers will not even take industrial action in their own interests, let alone in support of others demands due to the recent decades of defeat.
If your argument is simply that AF members should treat syndicalist unions like any other union and join them if its practical for their workplace, then of course that's fine. However, I don't believe that that is exactly what you're saying - otherwise pretty much no AF member would join the IWW pretty much, because it doesn't have a significant recognized workplace presence.
In general I think the document would be strengthened by more use of practical examples, using footnotes perhaps.
Otherwise, I suppose I agree with a lot of it. But as for a general approach, these "workplace resistance groups" will be temporary, dependent on a high level of struggle. When struggles dissipate or end these formal or informal groups will either fizzle out or become bureaucratised in some way. Therefore I'm not sure that stating that creating these groups necessarily is a goal, as opposed to just more generally attempting to organise to push the ideas of direct action and workers taking control of their own struggles. I'd be interested discussing it further anyway, to help clarify my own thoughts on the matter if nothing else.
I agree with all of Steven's points above.
The problem with this document it seems to me lies in the fact that, for all it's good intentions (which I acknowledge), it lacks any real historical or economic analysis to back up it's claims as to the the changes in modern capitalism which define the strategy as being the most relevant for pro-revolutionaries today.
It is presented in a very abstract and generalised way, lacking any real practical examples or historical or international reference points and in this respect compares badly with the Brighton Solfed pamphlet with which it has inevitably been compared.
It also contains a fundamental contradiction between the bland statement in the preface '..we hold that unions are not working class organs.' and virtually every later reference to the reasons why AF members and other workers can and do belong to unions, both traditional trade union and 'syndicalist' type unions.
The claim that syndicalist type unions '...are more likely to remain under the control of their membership.' and in their modern form are '...fighting organisations of the working class.' and other claims for this 'type' of union are not backed up with any reasoning or evidence.
The preface also explains one of the reasons for the statement being to explain AF members involvement with the IWW. Later it is implied that the AF regards the current IWW as being essentially just a 'network of militants'. I can see why in some circumstances, and in the absense of any other 'network', this might seem attractive, but there is no explanation as to how the AF squares this with the IWW's own explanation of it's function, supported by many, perhaps most, of it's members?
It equally contains no criticism of the SolFeds approach to industrial networks (presumably unchanged since the rejection by them of their Brighton Groups suggested new orientation) putting these on a par with the IWW despite their differences
There is an honest attempt to describe the 'compromises' which workers, including pro-revolutionaries have to make in the everyday class struggle in the workplace but these would be better explained as exactly this, rather than positive responses to difficult sutuations.
I am sure that to AF members who have spent long hours arguing over the content of this statement that it appears to be a clear and concise document, but I suspect to most people, whether new to anarchist communism or old hands from other political traditions it still comes accross as being fairly confusing.
still haven't closely read the AF document, so will reserve comment. just want to clarify a few of the points in relation to the Brighton document (personal capacity as we haven't met formally as a local since conference - next meeting is monday).
Spikymike
actually, the lack of history and abstract nature of our analysis was one of the major internal criticisms of our pamphlet. to be honest, i partially accept that. the historical summary is incredibly brief, and the contempory stuff drawn from (limited) secondary sources. consequently, the more theoretical analysis doesn't have much in the way of concrete examples to draw on. whatever happens with the current document, we will almost certainly be drafting a much-expanded second edition addressing these concerns.
Spikymike
we don't actually advocate a change to the industrial networks, so much as a clarification of their function (as agitational minority networks of militants rather than embryonic 'unions in formation') and their supplementation with wider networks of militants. the former is subject to ongoing debate (our argument is that there's a qualitative difference between the role of networks of militants and revolutionary unions, the current 'union in formation' view seems to assume a merely quantitative difference in membership). the latter is happening already, for example with moves in London towards co-operation/joint organisation between SolFed's EWN, IWW's education network and AF education workers. this will be bolstered by a successful motion that resolved "to actively seek to work alongside the Anarchist Federation wherever practical and wherever our interests coincide, in all instances where such cooperation would not be a threat to our principles."
there was a motion to dissaffiliate the networks from SolFed at conference, which was defeated with Brighton abstaining. in my view anarcho-syndicalism is the application of anarchist principles to the workers movement, so most class struggle anarchists should be SolFed members - whether they intend to be more active through the industrial or the local side of our dual structure. i recognise there are various reasons people don't want to join SolFed, and as an organisation we are very keen to hear them (as we are to find out why members leave, on which there was a successful motion). if anyone wants to PM me reasons you wouldn't/haven't joined SolFed, i'll forward them to our internal bulletin.
New article on the ICC's site:
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/Solfed-AF-unions-debate
"Two recent documents coming from different parts of the anarchist movement both make attempts to address the questions of the role of the unions and how workers can struggle. The first is a document that was circulated by the Brighton local of the Solidarity Federation for discussion in the period leading up to their national conference. The second is the workplace strategy of the Anarchist Federation that was adopted by their national conference in April.....".
doing my habitual 'know your enemy' trawl through bourgeois literature i came across this from a HR text:
Dealing with difficult people
looks like the bosses have a more succinct understanding of a workplace resistance group than the AF ;)
the proposed counter-measures are:
Dealing with difficult people
quite a class conscious lot, the bosses.
Please see also the Redux article elswhere in the AF section of the Library and my comments posted there.
Intresting text. But one thing seems rong. "Syndicalist type unions"
There is NO syndicalist type unions in modern world.
Revolutionary sindicalism of real IWW in the begining on 20 c. totaly refused collective agreements with administration and legal trial. That was revolutionaru movement struggling against cooperation with boss. Has modern IWW the same politics?
For anyone picking up on this more recently the other critical thread I mentioned before is worth a read, see here:
http://libcom.org/library/frontline-redux-problem-unions