"No politics in the union"? Come off it

Interesting stuff. But whether there is politics or not - clearly there is - my understanding is that there is a deliberate intention to avoid talking politics beyond a point where agreement is required. If there was, quite simply you'd have an overnight multiple fracture; there seems no disagreement amongst members - all Wobblies I speak to take a sort of pride in the way they can unite people who in other spheres are polar opposites (State-communists with liberal anarchists a prime example).
I agree that more political agreement is a desirable thing for an organisation to move forward - if there was agreement as to political objectives; but the IWW's objectives are deliberately vague too - and why shouldn't they be? They are perfectly suited to the organisation; yes there are politics, but not enough to reach a point where people are supposed to agree or disagree.
Nate - you must have had this conversation more than I have: I've spoken with Wobblies in this country who are explicit, they are opposed to anarchism in all it's forms, and in the same room other Wobblies who seem to think they're members of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation (they're not, but no one seems to let on to them). Are you sure you want enough politics where you have to start agreeing or disagreeing?

plasmatelly

Are you sure you want enough politics where you have to start agreeing or disagreeing?

I don't know much about the internal politics (or lack thereof) in the IWW. But I think in principle making shared politics/values more explicit can guard against splits/divisions over other issues. If everyone knows we're all signed up to X, Y and Z, then disagreeing over A or B doesn't have to lead to schisms. I know we have sometimes very stark disagreements over tactics or whatever in my local, but we have a certain amount of common ground which means there's scope for frank, good faith political disagreement. I guess the flipside of that is if there's no agreement over X, Y and Z in the first place, attempting to reach one could be destructive, leading to 'no politics' as a papering over the cracks exercise.

There's probably lots more too this in terms of building a culture of vigorous but comradely discussion, guaranteeing the right to minority/unpopular positions within the A&Ps etc. But I think a clear articulation (however minimal) of shared politics/values is an important part of such a culture, though by no means guarantees it.

Nate

And finally, just to repeat, we should openly note somewhere that declaring that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, believing that there can be no peace under capitalism, believing that an injury to one is an injury to all, and calling for a new society based on cooperation and solidarity - these are political positions.

I think noting the broader contemporary usage of 'politics' compared with the early 20th century is an important point. I think in the broader sense, every organisation has politics. The question is whether they go with the grain of capitalist society or against it. So full-time paid officials, no-strike contract clauses, hierarchical/top-down structures, cosy relationships with politicians and so on are all political, but they're politics completely in line with prevailing social relations which imitate dominant social forms. So organisations that have these politics can pass for 'non-political', 'purely economic' or whatever, because their politics are in line with the ruling ideology. The denial of ideology is the surest sign of ideology and all that.

By contrast, if you go against the grain of capitalist society, if you refuse to imitate or collaborate with dominant social forms, then it's hard to maintain that without making those political commitments more explicit (otherwise the 'common sense' of ruling ideology would reassert itself). So if you ban paid full-time officials, refuse to sign no-strike clauses, adopt grassroots/direct democratic structures, and reject collaboration with politicians, that's a more overtly political stance. And there's no point denying that, as you argue. In fact, it's surely easier to take this stance if it's part of a coherently articulated ideology, even if it's expressed in very simple terms? (e.g. 'we want to change the way society's organised, so we organise in a different way').

JK wrote -

So if you ban paid full-time officials, refuse to sign no-strike clauses, adopt grassroots/direct democratic structures, and reject collaboration with politicians, that's a more overtly political stance.

A perfect example of just what is and what could be - but also of just how different the politics of 2 IWW members could be. Unity trumps agreement only for so long; after a while the political will walk and the apolitical will seek something stronger.

I agree with you Nate that there's more than one way to skin a cat and that every turn in the road there's decisions to be made. Where I'm coming from is that not having enough core agreement in the first instance is what people understand as being apolitical. The fact that you can and do unite and organise people who would normally tear each others eyes out is on the one hand commendable and on the other fraught with the obvious frustrations surrounding where exactly this kind of organisation can go. Even at such an early stage there has to be 2 things to be agreed before any journey - 1) where we going and 2) how do we get there? Keeping the politics out of it is like a ride on a mystery tour, imo.
One of the most common critiques of the IWA model from IWW friends that I come across is one based on simple ignorance (seriously, I'm not having a pop) - that you can't expand and organise beyond the fringes if your organisation is explicit about libertarian communism (one of the IWA's goals) - not so. We've found that being open about what sort of organisation we are and where we want to go informs the way we organise and make decisions; it creates a culture. We don't ask for peoples souls or for homogeneous clones, but we won't keep our politics in a box. I won't insult you by listing examples of how being an explicitly anarcho-syndicalist organisation hasn't stopped workers from agreeing at point of entry in our openly revolutionary agenda, but I will say that keeping politics in a box will only disappoint people when you get them out.

i think this is the main issue compared to the others:

"real discomfort and difficulties that many of us in the IWW have when it comes to talking about and advocating for our organization’s core values."

in that it is more like:

"if we have politics then some workers’ will be scared away or we'll just fight all the time and we'll never be a real union!"

either for ideological reasons some don't want to have political conversations or because it is more a workerist drive to "just organize!"

overall i think this piece is really good, and i hope there is an effort to bring this up within the union. i am pretty fed up with folks who reject the idea that we should be honest that we are a revolutionary anti-capitalist workers organization, and instead a "union for all workers that has no-politics is militant and grassroots" sorry but to me that just sounds really boring and more right wing than even the change to win unions and others like UE or UH.

also i don't want to just not use the state, but abolish it. :P

hi all, good piece Nate and interesting comments all. I think both these points pretty much hit the spot:
"the meaning of the word ‘politics’ as it was used by a lot of people in the era when the IWW was founded is different from the meaning of the word in a lot of the circles IWW members move in today. In the early 20th century U.S. the word “politics” meant the ballot box. There were, for instance, debates between political socialists and nonpolitical socialists. The phrase “nonpolitical socialist” may sound like a contradiction to us today, because we tend to believe there can be politics through other means than the ballot box. In the early 20th century, though, “political” meant basically “state parliamentary,” so “political socialists” were people who believed that socialism could happen through voting. So, material from the early days of the IWW that is critical of “politics” is critical of state parliamentary approaches to social change. Today we might call that non- or extra-parliamentary politics."

"There’s a second reason why it’s a mistake to link “no politics” to the IWW’s early history tied to the One Big Union pamphlet. It’s a simpler reason, which is that the phrase “no politics in the union” doesn’t appear in the original One Big Union pamphlet at all. What we have today as the One Big Union pamphlet is very, very different, so that it’s a bit weird that it has the same title."

Also the deal about the old-school trade unionists using "no politics in this union" as an anti-radical slogan, and how what passes as "apolitical" can mean simply status quo politics, is right on as well. The "no politics" line from trade unionists can also sound ludicrous given all the wheeling-and-dealing with politicians and using the unions as electioneering machines... at best, in some cases "no politics" meant something more like "no ideology"/pure and simple economic goals, but even then it can be argued that "pure and simple economics" is just code word for an ideologically capitalist union. Which I'm really fascinated by, especially comparing with more social-democratic styles of unionism, but anyway...

Hi Kevin, some interesting points there.

Nate's first bit, well fair enough if you want to say something like the IWW is a union that doesn't rely on the separation of politics and union member via a political party. But that doesn't do anything to strengthen the argument that the apolitical stance of the IWW allows 2 divergent, polarised even, political stances to be taken as the direction of the union. Not having agreement on modus operandi and direction is what I would say an apolitical union is. I don't question that there isn't political camps - hell, I know there is, but there isn't agreement sought at this crucial level. It's viewed as a strength by some members and frustrating to others.

yeah i was gonna say, usually calls for "no politics" is anti-communist. you actually sorta saw this in the real democracy ya movement, and you almost saw it (and there was certainly veins of this) in the occupy and other pro "democracy" movements

sabotage wrote -

calls for "no politics" is anti-communist

I very much agree that calls for no politics is a way of neutering any union. Take out the politics of rank and file organising and you can bet your boots you're on the path to handing decision making to bureaucrats.
But I'm curious... from all the posters on this thread in the IWW...(and this is meant as a comradely enquiry) are you in favour of attempting to introduce a level of agreement that would change the organisation from apolitical to political? There are glaring contradictions in approaches that could see quite a fall out if attempted.. for instance rank and file versus representation (mediation and class collaboration, to the r&f) versus no-strike deals. Or the society based on a commonwealth of cooperatives and an end to wage slavery, seen as one thing by mutualists and another by communists. Rather than step on egg shells, but not wanting to sound rude or unconstructive, I'll get to the point: the IWW exists in its present form only because it is apolitical. You may want a greater political unity - and I commend that - but if the IWW were to move to something that incorporates politics with economics, expect fracture and very possibly an organisation that's politics you don't share.

I can't speak for Nate or sabotage. Personally, I'm against seeking more political unity than we have now in the IWW, in the sense of theoretical/ideological agreement on stuff like the cooperative commonwealth, communism etc.. I don't believe it would do anything for the union, our workplace organizing, or the broader working class, and it wouldn't bring us closes to revolution either. I mean folks can talk and write about that stuff all they want, informally. I am, however, for prohibiting stuff like no-strike clauses (we already have a rule against dues checkoff, and there's a referendum item this year that would ban any restrictive agreements, including contracts with no-strike clauses) from the union. I don't see that as pushing for more political unity, I see it as enforcing the already agreed to politics of the union (anti-class collaborationism) by banning things that we know from experience conflict with what we claim to be and believe in. The same reason we don't allow salaried bureaucrats, endorse political parties, etc..

I'm satisfied with the IWW preamble being the ideological position of the union. I actually think we don't push it enough as an ideological thing in our organizing (a lot of folks try to circumvent it, even folks who clearly subscribe to what it says). A problem we've had in some of our prominent campaign is ambiguity over calling something IWW-affiliated (like "Starbucks Workers Union" "Jimmy Johns Workers Union" etc., officially both are IWW-affiliated) but having folks who are part of those but aren't card-holding wobblies. The campaign structure can be used to circumvent the IWW while still adopting its name and getting resources from it... in short "third-party" the union. I think that's a recipe for problems and should be avoided, by being stricter about how campaigns are structured. I could hypothetically see a campaign like that pursuing a contract with a no-strike clause, and then "leaving" the IWW (of which most of the workers were never actually members), to give one example of a potential bad scenario. (I also don't think company-centric campaigns are strong organizationally, and I've been pushing for more centralization into the industrial organizing committees....)

Nate, I know at the founding convention there was a split basically between De Leon and, well, everyone else (even the SPers like Debs, who would later reverse do pretty much the same thing as De Leon after having knocked out De Leon as a political competitor), over whether this new union should be tied to political platform via an electoral wing, or should be a "strictly economic organization." The economics/no-politics phrasing has to do with the choice of "battlefield" more so than with the idea of having agreed-to ideological values (as said already, even most of the "pure and simplers" openly took political stances both in the sense of electioneering and in the sense of ideological claims...). The "economic battlefield" thing is an old syndicalist position that actually goes back to Bakunin and Marx debates over electoralism in the IWMA, that was taken up by anarchists who founded the CGT (who had a slogan that "syndicalism is sufficient unto itself"), which in turn influenced the early IWW.

The union clearly went the no-politics route and repeated the same position later on with Socialists, and then the Communists. Which is why it appealed so strongly to anarchists and the SPers, when they split, accused it of being "anarchist in everything but name" (which is funny because the most famous direct actionist in the union was Bill Haywood, an SPer).

A final thing, the old AFL claimed to politically independent (as in not being tied to/controlled by one party) which I suspect is where what then were vaguely syndicalist-sounding phrases (and now come across as vaguely business unionist/anti-communist) like "no politics in this union." AFL political independence meant not being controlled by one party, and using the union voting block as leverage over candidates from the big parties ("reward your friends and punish your enemies" - political opportunism), which most of the big unions don't subscribe to anymore, and the ones that do claim to still just support the Dems in practice (a legacy of Roosevelt's labor-courting and later Reagan's union-busting). Wobbly political skepticism was taken further in not doing any electoral politics. A metaphorical explanation would maybe be the AFL subscribed to "don't put all your eggs in one political basket" while the IWW subscribed to "put no eggs in the political basket, put them all in the direct action basket" (direct action gets the goods). Whereas De Leon, the SP, and CP, all pursued a singular labor party, metaphorically "put all your eggs in one political party basket" (ironically during the Roosevelt era a bunch of SPers would leave to form an "American Labor Party" as a pro-Roosevelt political front, and then just folded that into the Democratic Party making it their one political party basket... while CPers, who like the SP wanted political control, ended up being instruments in Lewis's more politically independent Gompers-ian political policy).

Maybe that's helpful in explaining why you find similar-sounding and sometimes even the exact same slogans being used about politics in both the IWW and AFL. And remember too both the IWW and AFL and later CIO all had in-fights with the CP, so it shouldn't be surprising to find the same slogan being deployed against the same group by all those unions, despite the visceral reaction we both probly have toward "no politics in this union" as an old red-baiting slogan.

I get a sense that Recomposition folks and circles around them are for defending the existing politics of the union. I see this taking two forms. Defending that the IWW can be a revolutionary union with anti-capitalist vision against percieved revolutionaries inside and outside the union that think real unions should be apolitical spaces open to all workers. Whereas you have to agree to the Preamble to join the IWW and would make sense to believe in industrial organizing around a direct action revolutionary unionist basis.

Regarding if the IWW should take on more explicit politics I agree that it would cause splits and at this time it would make more sense to effectively in a structural and policy way make the organization as anti-political as possible. I mean otherwise you'd see a faction trying to essentially form a left communist union or an anarcho-syndicalist union.

What I do think this all brings up though is that Recomposition folks, but especially Juan and Nate have been using the whole SolFed stance on political-economic organization in their polemic against such percieved currents inside and outside the union, but seemingly only to defend the union's existing line, not to argue for an anarcho-syndicalist strategy or libertarian communist vision. So sure, unions can be political, but what type of politics does that entail is an open question. Like I said earlier pushing any direction on this would probably mean splits, sorta like you have seen with the IWGB/WIIU stuff lately (though I do think any leftcom/a-s split from the IWW would probably be more substantial if it did happen.)

So for me the question about specifically anarchist revolutionary organization and questions around dual organization, or leaving a space open for all workers via open committees/mass assemblies has been answered by SolFed. But it seems folks in the IWW who are/were obstensibly anarchists (perhaps prefer communists now?) seem content with broad anti-capitalism and seem to not have answered the question of how do you work with workers who don't accept your politics but still want to be part of the campaign?

I think formerly the Brand Name Workers Union thing was used as a solution for this, but I do agree with it's dangers. Perhaps still using some over arching title for a campaign but having the union drive be explicitly about joining the IWW? I don't have all the answers around this, but I'd like to hear more from other fellow workers. :D

Kevin - thanks for that, it's one of the most honest and insightful posts on the state of the US wobs I've seen for a while.
If I can ask you more about the relationship of the JJWU and the SWU (and fair crack about wanting to organise more industrially)... the unions you have set up here include full IWW members and members who have joined for a variety of reasons; but how can these unions have any such interaction (other than as you suggested, using the IWW as support) if the members don't have automatic membership with voting rights? And if you give them automatic voting rights and lets say there were more members of these unions than actual IWW membership proper - then what's to say they don't want any of that revolutionary stuff thank you very much? Creating rank and file unions (that preferably don't mediate between classes) is fair enough and there's something in that, but actually building a revolutionary organisation requires agreement on quite a few things. I appreciate you're more than aware of the argument for and against putting a core level of agreement in at the point of membership, but allow me to play devils advocate (not that I have all the answers! But some of this IS playing out) - Let's say you set up a union in a shop and some guy joins. He does as you have stated, bypasses the preamble and joins because it makes economic sense. First off, this guy is not a revolutionary, he happens to be a Democrat voter and is culturally and politically conservative. Now, he doesn't have voting rights to the IWW (fine, he says, I don't agree with them anyway) and if he did he'd find like-minded members to change the IWW for the worse. How does this benefit the revolutionary politics for the IWW?

I assume you want to hear Kevin's reply, but I would just say it doesn't benefit the IWW's revolutionary politics, or even directly via whatever membership of that individual would entail assiting the IWW (financially, as a member, etc). It would still be worth potentially working with them though if they want to fight.

I think the question here is between what do we want build? The union, the fight, both?

The 'what if non-revolutionary workers join' thing is sort of a boring conversation to me, but I'll engage. In what sort of situation would this mythical mass of 'non-revolutionary workers' join the IWW?

Juan Conatz

The 'what if non-revolutionary workers join' thing is sort of a boring conversation to me, but I'll engage. In what sort of situation would this mythical mass of 'non-revolutionary workers' join the IWW?

They don't or if they do, usually as one month wonders...

@Nate I think you are clear about the IWW's paper politics, but I think Plasmatelly is suggesting that it is made up of a broad variety of politics.

One change that I'd definitely like is for there to be consensus that the organization is political. And I'd like the stuff in the OBU pamphlet that says otherwise to be dropped.

For instance you say it is political but there is not a consensus on if it is or not, and you'd like there to be. I am for this too, but I think Plasmatelly's question is fair.

hey plasma, in response to your question...

As it stands, it's not so much we have a bunch of folks wanting to turn the union into a more conservative/non-revolutionary union, so much as simply folks who are like half-members, who we try to get into our campaigns by offering non-formal ways of being part of the campaign structure.

The only situation in which a whole bunch of conservative workers would want to join would be if they saw economic gains in it, which would only happen if we became larger and stronger and started winning economic gains, which we don't win a whole lot of right now - frankly if you want to join a union out of economic self-interest, the IWW is a bad choice of union. I think that's a big problem, and I'm all about trying to get the goods and not just be a kind of politico-cultural society for radical workers, but it does mean that, for now at least, few workers will join and stay for long in the IWW who don't at least vaguely believe in some kind of radical politics.

I do think there's potential down the road for mass membership growth from workers who are uninterested in politics who join mostly from economic motives or out of vaguely defined class consciousness. I actually want those folks to join, I don't think it's crucial for all members to be active organizers. I don't think there's a perfect "cure" for opportunism, I mean there's always gonna be folks in any struggle (military, political, whatever...) who fight for opportunistic, self-interested or non-selfish but basically "apolitical" reasons (to protect their family, etc.) and could give a shit about political ideology. I'm not super threatened by those folks, to be honest, typically they either don't get involved in organizing, or they stay marginally involved (as paper members who maybe picket if there's a strike on, and maybe vote for officers if there's someone in particular they want to support) but don't actively try to control things, unless they see potential personal benefits from doing so (like making a fat paycheck as a bureaucrat... which can be pretty easily avoided by not having bureaucrats who make fat paychecks) or if they have major grievances over something (which in the IWW they'd probly just leave over, since it's way easier than "staying and fighting").

I'm significantly more threatened by the conflicting pressures on radicals to either compromise too much out of short-term expediency, or seek ideological purity (in hopes of avoiding compromise) at the expense of getting anything done.

I don't know the perfect answer for any of those issues (opportunists/reformists joining the union or radicals turning opportunist/reformist or radicals being self-isolating) and frankly I tend to be pessimistic about the long term, but I do think there's some really basic things the IWW can do to discourage opportunism/reformism and encourage a culture of militant direct action and class consciousness.

a.) don't allow any class collaborationist agreements, period - prohibit no-strike clauses, management rights clauses, etc., ensuring the union will have to fight for its existence (as opposed to signing a neutrality agreement or a sweetheart contract with management) thus encouraging a culture of militancy and worker solidarity (if you can't just kiss up to the boss, you have no choice but to depend on your fellow workers) ... basically force workers to "pick sides"

b.) push the preamble more, discourage folks from joining who don't subscribe to it and stop with the brand-name campaign fronts (I can only see those undermining the union's ideological position, by creating the appearance of a rank and file in conflict with some ulterior agenda of the union's... in other words third-partying the union, which can never be a good thing for us, and potentially could provoke an "insurgency" against the revolutionary politics); make it unmistakable to workers what we are and what they are signing up for when they join

c.) keep it simple - the politics are in the preamble, you don't gotta be a professor to comprehend it and it takes like two minutes to read it carefully, maybe five or ten to explain the context it was written in and any minor nuances; the language is clear-cut (the working class and the employing class have nothing in common) and unmistakably calls for class warfare, so there's no room for sneaking collaborationist politics into the union without directly opposing the preamble

I think it's helpful to encourage reading and conversations about history, politics etc., informally (to be clear, I'm against extensive required reading packets on which membership is conditioned, the preamble is good enough for me, but I'm all for pushing conversations on an unofficial basis). The smarter workers are, the better.

A final thought -

d.) fuck the press - don't try to appease the capitalist media or look like we're the reasonable ones who are more than willing to negotiate, etc., let them go ahead and red-bait the union and call us freaks and whatever else (minus straight up factual slander, and obviously don't let them come snooping around for non-public information about our organizing); it's not just that they're not our friends and we shouldn't expect them to be, frankly I'd rather we look like dangerous radicals to the press, than go out of our way to look reasonable just so we don't scare off reformists ("reasonable" to reformists always, always means "reformist")

Hi Nate, briefly this time...

I totally agree with you about the simplistic/weak beliefs thing and how those develop over time after joining and that being an argument keeping the politics simple (or as you put it "relatively thin ideology required").

I can't think off hand of any card-holders I know who don't believe in the preamble, I was thinking more of folks who right now don't join/who "join" campaigns but not the union itself, who if the union was to grow and say (as I've been pushing for) we cut out the whole affiliated-campaigns-with-non-affiliated-members dynamic, I could see becoming card-holders and paying dues and not thinking too hard about the politics of the unions. There's certainly historical precedent for non-political/less-political workers joining radical movements for reasons that are more about economics or vague sympathies, and it wouldn't be a huge leap from how some wobs skirt around the preamble right now... and we've definitely had workers in campaigns who clearly don't subscribe to the preamble.

I think sabotage hit the nail on the head in saying that folks who do that right now are typically one month wonders - from a distance, it sounds like we got a bunch of that in Madison and we may have gotten that around the occupy movement also. The thing is, like I said, right now there's little incentive for that beyond the one month wonder sympathy votes, because the union isn't winning much in the way of economic gains. I was saying how during periods of mass growth when the union is either winning gains, or widely perceived as a viable option for winning gains, there's likely to be more folks joining either out of vague class conscious sympathies (who aren't necessarily ideological revolutionaries) or out of economic self-interest (because the union would be seen as protecting their economic interests as a worker). As I said I'm okay with that to a large extent if happens in the context of militant struggles and as long as there's some basic organizational commitments against collaborationist practices etc... A few reformist apples don't necessarily spoil the whole revolutionary barrel, so to speak, especially if they're passive apples that just sort of sit on the side and pull the occasional picket duty (or barricade duty....?).

EDIT

I see what you were looking at now, Nate, I think what happened was I did cut-and-paste job on a couple parts while I was writing that post, and didn't notice some contradictory/confusing language. I'm a sloppy self-editor....

A quick side note/clarification, in response to plasma's question:

"If I can ask you more about the relationship of the JJWU and the SWU (and fair crack about wanting to organise more industrially)... the unions you have set up here include full IWW members and members who have joined for a variety of reasons; but how can these unions have any such interaction (other than as you suggested, using the IWW as support) if the members don't have automatic membership with voting rights? And if you give them automatic voting rights and lets say there were more members of these unions than actual IWW membership proper - then what's to say they don't want any of that revolutionary stuff thank you very much?"

To clarify, SWU and JJWU and probly similar lesser known campaigns like that, don't have a formal membership structure the way the IWW does. What makes someone a member or not of JJWU is a little unclear even to some folks who are in JJWU- is it attending meetings? working at Jimmy John's? ... Which is why there's this ambiguity about affiliation. There is an organizing committee and there are shop committees, but it's unclear and I've even heard from JJ workers who are in the union that they've encountered confusion from workers thinking they had joined the IWW and not realizing they hadn't, and the flip side of folks being in the campaign who weren't totally down for the IWW politically, and so on. Basically the affiliated campaign structure is like an intermediate step between "open mass assemblies" (since formal membership isn't required) and a formal union structure (since it's affiliated to the IWW and uses the IWW's name).

I don't mean to downgrade either campaign, the comrades who drove them were/are doing their best and achieved a lot and there have been huge benefits for the union as a result of those campaigns. The industrial organizing committee I mentioned exists largely thanks to the JJWU, so, again, this isn't meant as a one-sided attack against the JJWU.

This is a really good thread, prompted by a really good blog post.

I'm enjoying the discussion, but I want to play a bit of devil's advocate here:
Kevin S.

don't allow any class collaborationist agreements, period

Aren't all agreements and contracts with the boss by their very nature collaborationist?

And this I think can be the crux of the matter as well. It's not neccesarily 'apolitical' or 'conservative' workers. It's workers who think 'unions' operate certain ways as defined by labor legislation, the state, and the general capitalist institutions which govern society and who will expect the IWW to conform to this to one degree or another.

I think it's a bit like 'non-political' often means 'dominant ideology'. The development of class consciousness is often riddled with contradiction, with lots of remnants of the dominant ideology left over. And I think for this reason it makes a lot more sense to have a higher bar of required political agreement combined with an active and ever-evolving strategy for reaching our to and working alongside co-workers who may not share our radicalism (yet ;)).

I mean, we've seen this in, say, the JJWU. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), JJWU members weren't opposed to direct action or the like, but felt an NLRB election was the best way to establish a union presence in the chain and push forward the campaign. Some organizers and longer-term members may have disagreed with this tactically, but went along with it because of concerns for reasons of democracy or whatever.

Saying 'apolitical' may be the wrong wording, but clearly the influence of non-radical ideas does play out in IWW campaigns in the here and now.

This thread is really interesting, thanks.

Yeah, this is thread is spot on, thanks to all who have spent the time to write some belter stuff. I got to answer but tbh, I think you're getting where I'm coming from now so I don't want to over-egg what I've said or go in circles as the thread has moved on a bit.
But just to say it may be an understanding of the language here - I think the ancient text denouncing politics in the union is a distraction, but Nate is possibly correct in suggesting it has done the ground work for the notion that the IWW is apolitical. As a member of an IWA Section, I'd expect a political union to be a union that you would join because you at least agree with enough core values to make it a viable option. An apolitical union is something I might join for whatever reason - and as Kevin as said early, if the IWW gets much bigger, this is going to be the case - but the core political values (goals, aims and principals and organisational methods) are not necessarily something you might give 2 hoots about.
Now, there's enough been said by all for me to say if I was a first time reader to this subject, I'd imagine you could join the IWW without agreeing to the preamble, that there is a mixture of radical and non-radical methods used and that there lots of politically motivated members that put aside their politics as they may possibly fall out and damage the union. Without going into what my views are on this, I would say that this is by many peoples understanding an apolitical union, imo.

@Nate I agree that makes it political. I also agree that the non-consensus is small. But it still brought up Plasmatelly's point that there could be division and splits (and certainly even on a small level a lot of fuss by some grumpy politicos) if more than the existing politics, or even pushing the existing politics is brought up. Like I am sure if we try to get OBU changed just like things like DelCon it will cause a fuss. I'm all for it though.

Regarding the IWW and SolFed, you and Juan's thoughts on that stuff, I think you've finally explained them to my satisfaction, sorry if I was at all annoying, but just a very curious cat. I've gotten a lot of answers, that you think IWW should mostly focus on workplace organizing, that the Preamble is enough for that, that it can be political-economic revolutionary organization, etc. Please excuse me for my confusion on if you were using their arguments or not for the debates with others on political organization, it just really came across that way. I think perhaps this was because of the nature of what you found valuable in what SolFed folks were saying, and what SolFed is actually saying. I think we can agree that SolFed's new pamphlet lays out their strategy and vision for what they think is the best way forward (I am sure they are humble about this, but they are making a case) for revolutionary organization in our times. This includes tighter politics than the IWW preamble and community strategy as well. So when I saw you guys sympathetic to this stuff, I really thought you were trying to argue that the IWW have tighter politics as well as being economic, have a community strategy, etc. Personally I was excited about this as a union member, cause I would like to see some better positions taken (in a collective manner) on politics in the union. I'd also like to see us develop collectively what the union's community strategy is as well (I mean the social justice unions do this, it'd be nice if the IWW had a more unified approach than just a variety of community activism.)

I think that is about it for now, I generally agreed with all the points you made.

Like others I think this is a great thread, and again thanks Nate for starting to poke around about these underlying historical issues.

Oh and Kevin deffinitely make your thoughts into discussion pieces for the union! :D

Hi Chilli, interesting points.

Chilli Sauce

This is a really good thread, prompted by a really good blog post.

I'm enjoying the discussion, but I want to play a bit of devil's advocate here:
Kevin S.

don't allow any class collaborationist agreements, period

Aren't all agreements and contracts with the boss by their very nature collaborationist?

And this I think can be the crux of the matter as well. It's not neccesarily 'apolitical' or 'conservative' workers. It's workers who think 'unions' operate certain ways as defined by labor legislation, the state, and the general capitalist institutions which govern society and who will expect the IWW to conform to this to one degree or another.

Yes and no - not to sound like a politician (cuz I'm apolitical -wink-). There's different levels to this, I think.

At a certain level, we all class collaborate regularly, when we go to work and make profits for capitalist employers and agree to their terms of employment-- let's call it mundane collaboration, or low-commitment collaboration, or whatever. I don't think a contract, in the abstract, is anymore collaborationist than working without a contract- especially when non-contractual organizing means basically conceding official credit to the company for things the union fought for, as we've seen on a minor scale with the SWU. If anything I think non-contractual organizing can open itself up to nonunion workers who aren't radical at all, seeking in-house company reform. When this meets with brand name campaign organizing, it can (and has) played out as a kind of, what I'd polemically label, "reformist company unionism with a militant bent." The direct unionism pamphlet accidentally encourages this tendency, in my opinion, by downplaying formal unionism and encouraging organizing around grievances without seeking formal union recognition. A concrete example of this would fighting for paid sick days, and getting workers on board for that fight and giving them voice and vote on a committee, who don't necessarily want the union.

At another level, yeah typically union contracts are explicitly class collaborations; things like management rights, no-strike clauses, etc., I'm sure we'd all agree aren't just bargaining chips, they are expressions of a long-standing (and legally enshrined) labor philosophy that seeks labor-management partnership and to avert economic disruption except as an occasional bargaining tactic for "extreme cases" (via legally protected strikes and lockouts). Call it active/ideological collaborationism. I think that's different from what I'm calling, above, mundane collaboration.

I'd be cool with, say, workers/the union writing up a document stipulating some protections for workers and whatever economic claims, with no restrictions stipulated on what workers can do (or maybe even specifically protecting work stoppages in the contract), and imposing it on the employer via militant direct action techniques. There's historical precedent for that style of contractual "bargaining" - announcing such-and-such will now be in the contract, and then forcing it on management against their will - but unions don't tend to do it because it involves heavy disruption and invites legal problems (since labor law is designed to make companies and unions bargain "in good faith" and requires workers to abide by their terms of employment, in the contract if it's a unionized workplace, or in the company policy if it's a nonunion workplace). That's not a whole lot different really from direct unionist style non-contractual organizing, except instead of making demands and forcing the company to accept them, it's making demands and forcing the company accept them, and then putting it in writing with the union's name on it and calling it a contract (or whatever other name). While it may or may be legally protected, it does secure a greater amount of recognition of the union, not just by the company but by the workers, in my opinion. (John O'Reilly's interesting piece on recomp, about legitimacy, touches some on this problem of getting workers to recognize the union http://recomposition.info/2012/09/25/whos-in-charge-here/ )

To be totally clear, I'm less interested in the potential legal protections that a contract can offer than in the political utility of contracts/whatever-you-call-them, written documents that recognize the union in some form and provide at least some paper protections for workers and set some minimum economic standards. I think that's different a traditional contractual arrangement, so maybe it's confusing to talk about it in terms of contracts, I don't know....

I think it's a bit like 'non-political' often means 'dominant ideology'. The development of class consciousness is often riddled with contradiction, with lots of remnants of the dominant ideology left over. And I think for this reason it makes a lot more sense to have a higher bar of required political agreement combined with an active and ever-evolving strategy for reaching our to and working alongside co-workers who may not share our radicalism (yet ;)).

I mean, we've seen this in, say, the JJWU. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), JJWU members weren't opposed to direct action or the like, but felt an NLRB election was the best way to establish a union presence in the chain and push forward the campaign. Some organizers and longer-term members may have disagreed with this tactically, but went along with it because of concerns for reasons of democracy or whatever.

Saying 'apolitical' may be the wrong wording, but clearly the influence of non-radical ideas does play out in IWW campaigns in the here and now.

There's a few different things at work with the JJWU. I don't wanna claim infallibility here, I never worked at JJs and didn't attend their committee meetings, so all my observations are based on encounters outside those meetings (at pickets, solidarity meetings, and other campaign functions), the emergency meeting after the sick day firings, and reflective discussions and writings about the campaign that've happened since then.

Some not-so-radical folks were loosely involved in the campaign, sure, and might've swayed the decisions to go the NLRB route. Those folks didn't take out red cards, or, if they did, they didn't stick around for long or make an impact on the branch (as Nate said, maybe they had a brief radicalization and then cool down later, leading them to drop out). As I've said, there's little incentive right now for folks like that to stick around in the union, so the only level at which they have a significant impact is in the campaigns. Other folks, who were/still are radicals who believe in revolutionary unionism, supported the election strategy for other reasons, motivated by their own brand of radical unionism (that didn't square with "direct unionism" but was still politically radical). Those folks were motivated, from a one-big-unionist impulse, to build a majority union. They felt an election drive would force them to reach out to all the workers there, and learn valuable lessons in doing so. Which, incidentally, even workers who were against the election strategy, confirmed that it did in fact do just that (forced them to reach out to all the workers, and that they learned valuable lessons in the process).

The sick day firings saw a similar split between NLRB-ers and the "action faction" (folks who by and large would agree with direct unionism), with swayable workers in the middle on the issue. At the emergency meeting (which had campaign members and a bunch of other wobblies), there were some softer core folks who were afraid of scaring off workers with an aggressive response. The majority of folks there supported a direct action escalation plan, at least when they thought they could win it... only within like a week or two, the escalation campaign had dried up and was basically killed when a planned blockade action was cancelled.

At least one wob (who was actually one of the fired workers), was unenthusiastic about "outside actions" (like the blockade) for reasons based on radical ideology - the same reasons why many folks like the autonomous campaigns, framed as "inside workers" vs. "outside organizers." This fellow worker had strongly supported the election strategy (for the reasons explained above), and was (and is) proud of the campaign's militant record of "inside actions." I'm not super into election drives, and obviously I don't agree with the inside/outside thing as it has played out in the campaigns (not to mention, nothing could be more "outside" than a court suit!), which in my opinion is contradictory to industrial unionism... but in fairness, in this case and other workers who have a less extreme/less vocal version of the inside/outside thing, the issue wasn't non-radicalism, it was a form of radicalism which I simply disagree with.

Okay, sorry for the long post, don't mean to hog all the air time....

Hmmm...I not gonna lie, FW, there's a lot I disagree with in there. Bit rushed for time at the moment, but I will respond in short for the time being.

class collaborate regularly, when we go to work and make profits for capitalist employers and agree to their terms of employment-- let's call it mundane collaboration, or low-commitment collaboration, or whatever.

Class collaboration or class coercion, mate?

the only level at which they [non-radicals] have a significant impact is in the campaigns

That's pretty fundamentally important tho, no?

How I wish it's true. But, looking at my surroundings, politics work.

Hi Chilli, heheh I figured you'd disagree with a bunch of that, lol. Well that's what discussion is for. I'll be a lot briefer this time...

Class collaboration or class coercion, mate?

Sure. The same coercion that largely compels how unions function, and workers to cross picket lines etc.. We all make compromises on a daily basis to survive, that's just life. We all draw lines we won't cross (supposedly) no matter what, even for survival. I mean it's not like we're all out there waging uncompromising armed struggle, we have day jobs and so on, we compromise.

All my point is, anyway, is that signing a union contract doesn't strike me as being more collaborationist than working for employers anyway, it just depends on what the contract does, like, if it turns the union into a labor peace machine devoted to mediating class conflict, well then yeah it's collaborationist... but if it protects and encourages rank and file militancy, and doesn't interfere with direct worker actions, then I don't see how that's collaborationist, except in a very abstract and meaningless way in which pretty much all of us collaborate in some sense.

Quote:
the only level at which they [non-radicals] have a significant impact is in the campaigns
That's pretty fundamentally important tho, no?

I agree. All I meant was, those folks were't/aren't typically card-carrying wobblies, responding to the issue of non-radical workers joining the union in disregard for the preamble.

kevin s.

Class collaboration or class coercion, mate?

Sure. The same coercion that largely compels how unions function, and workers to cross picket lines etc.. We all make compromises on a daily basis to survive, that's just life. We all draw lines we won't cross (supposedly) no matter what, even for survival. I mean it's not like we're all out there waging uncompromising armed struggle, we have day jobs and so on, we compromise.

Again, I think you're conflating the inherently coercive nature of the market on individuals with the mediating function which representative unions play. It's one thing to be forced to join the army or whatever so you can pay your bills, it's a whole 'nother thing to consciously put your explicitly revolutionary organization in the position of mediating and making agreements between two classes which "have nothing in common".

All my point is, anyway, is that signing a union contract doesn't strike me as being more collaborationist than working for employers anyway, it just depends on what the contract does, like, if it turns the union into a labor peace machine devoted to mediating class conflict, well then yeah it's collaborationist... but if it protects and encourages rank and file militancy, and doesn't interfere with direct worker actions, then I don't see how that's collaborationist, except in a very abstract and meaningless way in which pretty much all of us collaborate in some sense.

The path to hell, my friend, is paved with good intentions. The intention may be not to establish labor peace or inhibit direct action, but being put into a position of having to defend a contract puts a lot of pressures on the union to act in certain ways. I think Martin Glaberman's Punching Out has basically said it best, but despite the best intentions of signing a contract, bureacratization and, ultimately, de-escalation of struggle is an inevitable result of contractualized 'gains'.

The other factor, of course, is that labor law which governs collective bargaining contracts is explicit in seeking to gain labor peace by using unions as policemen of the contract. I'd go a step further and say that even before the state 'labor relations regime', any union which has put itself in the position of representing workers (which objectively and inherently means mediating struggle) has put the brakes on self-organization by the very logic of the role it fills in the workplace. The NLRB only formalized and extended this intrinsic tendency.

Quote:
the only level at which they [non-radicals] have a significant impact is in the campaigns
That's pretty fundamentally important tho, no?

I agree. All I meant was, those folks were't/aren't typically card-carrying wobblies, responding to the issue of non-radical workers joining the union in disregard for the preamble.

But, again, we come to back to another critique of 'apolitical'/low-level of political commitment: what would have happened if the JJWU won that election and all those folks did take out red cards for the economic reasons that the IWW, as their collective bargaining agent, benefittted their conditions on the job?

Last post was longer than expected, so I'm going to keep this one short...

If anything I think non-contractual organizing can open itself up to nonunion workers who aren't radical at all, seeking in-house company reform... The direct unionism pamphlet accidentally encourages this tendency, in my opinion, by downplaying formal unionism and encouraging organizing around grievances without seeking formal union recognition. A concrete example of this would fighting for paid sick days, and getting workers on board for that fight and giving them voice and vote on a committee, who don't necessarily want the union.

I don't really understand this bit, mate.

How does organizing for a contract inhibit workers who "aren't radical at all" from "seeking in-house company reform"? Those workers will act in the same way regardless of a recognized union.

And this, to me, seems like it's why we should be willing to maintain ourselves as principled revolutionary minority union. It gives us the space to push for our radical ideas, always arguing for and looking for ways to push the struggle forward. However, if our co-workers choose to act in a way that isn't "radical at all", we can disagree and not have to compromise our revolutionary organisation.

I mean, we don't want to represent them--we don't want to represent anyone!--so why would we seek to gain a contract which puts us into a position of representing and recruiting workers who only want "in-house company reform"?

Finally, I guess, why does it matter if workers want a union if they're willing to fight for paid sick days? It's not like as soon as something is contractually enshrined management won't try to get around it. Workplace militancy is the only thing that can force employers to respect a contract. At the same time, contracts discourage workplace militancy in countless ways. It can be explicit in that contracts are legal documents with all the specialized knowledge that entails. Or less explicit: action becomes formalised around contract cycles or the propensity of workers to see the contract as the source of their power as opposed to their own organization and solidarity.

I'd be cool with, say, workers/the union writing up a document stipulating some protections for workers and whatever economic claims, with no restrictions stipulated on what workers can do (or maybe even specifically protecting work stoppages in the contract), and imposing it on the employer via militant direct action techniques.

Again, if we can pull that off, why do we need a contract with all the dangers which you seem aware of?

And what happens if the employer gets us at a weak point and imposes, say, a no-strike clause (as we've seen in the IWW already)? Doesn't the contract then condition the workforce in the same way you hope it will condition the bosses to accept this state of affairs?

Even worse, it puts the union in the position of defending all aspects of the contracts if they (a) don't want to get sued and (b) want to continue to maintain their position as a representative bargaining agent who enforce the contract.

I don't think it's worth opening up that can of worms.

Other folks, who were/still are radicals who believe in revolutionary unionism, supported the election strategy for other reasons, motivated by their own brand of radical unionism (that didn't square with "direct unionism" but was still politically radical). Those folks were motivated, from a one-big-unionist impulse, to build a majority union. They felt an election drive would force them to reach out to all the workers there, and learn valuable lessons in doing so. Which, incidentally, even workers who were against the election strategy, confirmed that it did in fact do just that (forced them to reach out to all the workers, and that they learned valuable lessons in the process).

Without trying to sound snippy, did they find the valuable lesson in the contradictions that can result in holding the "one big unionist impulse", especially outside periods of heightened class struggle?

Agreed with Nate that this is veering away from the politics issue. Apologies for the sidetrack, didn't mean to derail the real.

Chilli, I appreciate your responses, and I'm gonna reply to some of your points (mainly stuff that does relate to "politics in the union"), but seeing as this contract stuff is a big discussion and this isn't the most appropriate context for it, I'll just throw out there that I'm (slowly, between other stuff) working on a critical response to the DU discussion paper, and I'd hope you'll take a look at that and add your comments on it when I'm finished with that.

Again, I think you're conflating the inherently coercive nature of the market on individuals with the mediating function which representative unions play. It's one thing to be forced to join the army or whatever so you can pay your bills, it's a whole 'nother thing to consciously put your explicitly revolutionary organization in the position of mediating and making agreements between two classes which "have nothing in common".

I'm not conflating those, I already said there's a big difference between work-to-survive type

What this has to do with politics is that where the line between "daily survival" and "betrayal" is drawn, is a political issue. (Like most of us would never join the army, and probly even fewer would become cops, or bosses, even if it was that or unemployment.) A paper contract doesn't cross that line in my opinion- it's what contracts typically do (explicitly/in writing or implicitly/in practice) that crosses the line, which is restraining worker militancy and preserving class peace.

And this, to me, seems like it's why we should be willing to maintain ourselves as principled revolutionary minority union. It gives us the space to push for our radical ideas, always arguing for and looking for ways to push the struggle forward. However, if our co-workers choose to act in a way that isn't "radical at all", we can disagree and not have to compromise our revolutionary organisation.

I mean, we don't want to represent them--we don't want to represent anyone!--so why would we seek to gain a contract which puts us into a position of representing and recruiting workers who only want "in-house company reform"?

I think we're in agreement here. I think I'm probly confusing thing with the contract issue, so to spell it out. I'm not interested in legal protection via contracts - I've written stuff against the use of ULPs as a protective mechanism, for instance. One thing I like about the proposed bylaws amendment (which will be in the referendum this year) against signing any restrictive agreements, and I similarly like about the ban against dues checkoff, isn't just that it discourages contractualism, but that it shapes what kind of items the union can seek in a contract.

You asked "what happens if the employer gets us at a weak point and imposes, say, a no-strike clause (as we've seen in the IWW already)?" Well if that bylaw passes referendum, then that'll be off the table. (I was surprised at the convention when someone claimed their committee had successfully kept a no-strike clause out of their shop's contract, just by telling the employer that it was banned in the IWW constitution- which was false, and the employer could have researched and found that, but apparently they pulled it off anyway.) If a union body signs a no-strike clause, that body can and should be expelled from the union.

I mean, you could ask the same about unions in general (which some comrades do, and make compelling enough points), what happens when the employer catches the union at a weak point and forces it to either accept a contract or be destroyed? Why do you think so many wobs file ULPs? (which the DU paper, while critical of, doesn't come nearly as hard against as union contracts) The road to hell, etc..

Again to bring this back to politics, and to the representation thing, I'm against seeking traditional representation agreements. I haven't ever called for that, anywhere. All I question is whether "contracts" (written paper documents) in the abstract, or the substance of the contracts, is the where the real problem is. I'm for pushing the union's "message"/politics, and tying it to the fight for economic gains. And I'm for the union protecting its own and showing other workers we mean business, we can fight the fight etc., without turning filing a court suit every time a worker is illegally fired. Because that too sends a political message - can the union fend for itself or does it depend on legal protection from the capitalist state that we're supposedly against?

did they find the valuable lesson in the contradictions that can result in holding the "one big unionist impulse", especially outside periods of heightened class struggle?

Well that depends who you talk to. A question the campaign exposed though, was that political radicalism doesn't inherently equate with militancy. I mentioned that radical fellow worker who, out of radical political motives, supported an NLRB-based strategy more than once. The lesson here, in my opinion, is folks should not confuse rhetorical ideology with the substance. The gist of the politics is simple enough, we just gotta get better at both pushing the message and translating it into bread-and-butter-militancy (so it doesn't just remain abstract).

EDIT

To make the politics/representation thing clearer, this is what I'm worried about with downplaying formal unionism, as DU does:

why does it matter if workers want a union if they're willing to fight for paid sick days? It's not like as soon as something is contractually enshrined management won't try to get around it.

Because it isn't just about paid sick days... isn't that the whole critique of "apoliticism" (not building a larger, "political," revolutionary movement) ? Why even have the union if it doesn't matter?

I guess we're not going to agree on whether being forced to exist in capitalist society as a member of the proletariat equates to it being an acceptable practice for radical unions to sign agreements with bosses, but whatever.

Because it isn't just about paid sick days... isn't that the whole critique of "apoliticism" (not building a larger, "political," revolutionary movement) ? Why even have the union if it doesn't matter?

It's about the bar of membership, I guess. Of course we have the revolutionary union as a vehicle which unites the political and economic, but its membership should be made up of revolutionaries. Some workers aren't going to want that union or any union (at least in the short-term, if not longer). This doesn't mean that we should dismantle the union or that somehow getting workmates into the union is nearly as important as working alongside our co-workers to engage in struggle.

The role of the union, in my opinion, is both to always push struggles as far as possible and, through struggle, to create new policized workers who share our methods and ideas. It becomes a problem when--in seeking to represent workers or have struggles occur under their banner--when membership numbers (as opposed to the amount of workers we can mobilize) become the driving force of how we present ourselves to the boss or how we view our own success as an organisation.

it's not actually clear what "made up of revolutionaries" means

Across both though one common denominator is that each group expects members to hold revolutionary values.

that's what made up of revolutionaries means, members who hold revolutionary values.

yes solfed as you can see from fighting for ourselves is pretty influence by FORA and the pure anarchists, etc among other more ultra-left tendencies that call for more political agreement... to be honest pretty specific anarchist politics, which is why i think they are still pretty much a specifically anarchist (-syndicalist) organization, even if one aimed at being a revolutionary union/fighting organization.

but so as not to belabor the point, the tighter agreement doesn't affect that both groups call for membership to be made up of people who agree to the groups revolutionary methods and vision.

Yeah sorry FW if that seemed like a little duh...or something. I just wanted to help you be clear! :D

Hi all, back again - keep it up this is good debate, imo.

Nate wrote -

while my sense with SolFed is that there's a much higher level of agreement required before people can join and a narrower range of conflict internally. Across both though one common denominator is that each group expects members to hold revolutionary values.

Yep, sounds about right, except I suspect you probably imagine finding agreement on an anarcho-syndicalist level too cumbersome? I don't think so, personally. And it's not about asking for agreement on a level where we look like a cult! IMO, belonging to an anarcho-syndicalist organisation/union reqs probably the same level of agreement as the IWW, though obviously on different things. And as revolutionary and even reformist syndicalism written down on paper can look as alien as anarcho-syndicalism, then you stand just as good a chance finding members unless you have context - that context obviously being economic. I believe that successful militant workplace unions would attract workers naturally, one of our jobs in building these outfits is to keep the politics on the table and out the box.

Sabotage wrote -

which is why i think they are still pretty much a specifically anarchist (-syndicalist) organization, even if one aimed at being a revolutionary union/fighting organization.

Well, we are an anarcho-syndicalist organisation! Though I don't see any contradiction in being an anarcho-syndicalist union and a 'revolutionary union/fighting organisation' - it's what we're about, or am I missing your point?

Agree totally with this:

belonging to an anarcho-syndicalist organisation/union reqs probably the same level of agreement as the IWW, though obviously on different things. And as revolutionary and even reformist syndicalism written down on paper can look as alien as anarcho-syndicalism, then you stand just as good a chance finding members unless you have context - that context obviously being economic. I believe that successful militant workplace unions would attract workers naturally, one of our jobs in building these outfits is to keep the politics on the table and out the box.

I haven't made up my mind about this...

you probably imagine finding agreement on an anarcho-syndicalist level too cumbersome? I don't think so, personally.

but I'd say, again agreeing with plasmatelly, that in the context of economic motives the amount of political specificity is less likely to be an issue. I mean even fairly basic stuff can seem cultish when it's marginalized, but suddenly seem normal when it becomes a mass movement, which mostly happens in economic contexts.

I gotta say I'm finding this thread very helpful in spelling out the issues.

plasmatelly

Sabotage wrote -

which is why i think they are still pretty much a specifically anarchist (-syndicalist) organization, even if one aimed at being a revolutionary union/fighting organization.

Well, we are an anarcho-syndicalist organisation! Though I don't see any contradiction in being an anarcho-syndicalist union and a 'revolutionary union/fighting organisation' - it's what we're about, or am I missing your point?

Oh, just you still have anarchist politics and use syndicalist methods. Where as some groups just are about anarchist politics, and others just about syndicalist methods. An anarcho-syndicalist organization is specifically both! ;)

PS: I wasn't saying there was a contradiction. I think they are same thing.

I guess I'm just curious, "what's the bottom line" here, Nate? I mean what should the IWW be in your vision---- politically and otherwise?

Kevin wrote -

in the context of economic motives the amount of political specificity is less likely to be an issue.

Yes, I agree with this Kevin and well put. But I see this as a bit of a problem are, possibly better tackled by a/s unions imo. Having members paying lip service at entrance levels for economic reasons is to be expected - having a political identity is helpful but more key is that a/s unions organise both on economic lines and at the same time political lines. To expand - though I suspect you know - a union branch (the economic) quite often would be an appendage to a political Local. Members could join a Local because they agree with our politics and would be expected to play an active role in supporting and decision making. Unions would feed in federally into the wider political body, and of course members might join for less political reasons. So, yes the problem of people joining and paying lip service to our aims and principals never goes away, but it's not just like joining any old reformist union. Importantly, the structure, internal distribution and decision making reflects the libertarian communist politics and ambitions. I'll build on this to answer some of Nate's questions, but first I'll comment on another comment from Kevin:

I mean even fairly basic stuff can seem cultish when it's marginalized, but suddenly seem normal when it becomes a mass movement, which mostly happens in economic contexts.

I'm with you 100% on this one - we have Sections with branches that have 100's of members in a workplace (not too many, but still we got 'em!). They all started the same afaik - small group of members of the union convincing fellow workmates that their ideas for organisation are potent and viable and that they are building for a bigger picture, in our case libertarian communism. Perfect examples of people joining by example and normalising revolutionary ideas.
Nate you asked about this comment mate -

IMO, belonging to an anarcho-syndicalist organisation/union reqs probably the same level of agreement as the IWW, though obviously on different things.

What I'd say is, based on your own comments about the OBU preamble and how members are supposed to read, etc. - both organisations ask for members to agree with it's aims and principals and revolutionary ambitions. However, I think there are stark differences in how this is approached, right across the board. I'm speaking as I find here and hope non of this offends, it certainly isn't meant to. But lets look at the IWA - there are those who want a greater level of agreement than say for instance mine. But I wouldn't be comfortable if someone wanted to join for economic reasons and couldn't be talked round to agreeing even tacitly with our aim of creating a society based on libertarian communism. I would expect a core level of agreement and part of that would be to work as a member of a greater revolutionary organisation; I'm not so bothered on whether they call themself an anarchist or even know the slightest about anarcho-syndicalism - they will be encouraged to learn and play an active part. Now lets say the IWW - we know that people can play fast and loose with the aims and principals and organisational methods, so much so that the IWW is in fact the would-be economic muscle for any revolutionary of any political persuasion (and therefore differing ideas of how society should be run). So, I'd say at this level there's little to compare - but, the question is if all members are expected to read and agree with the OBU preamble, then is there enough in there to form a basis for agreement? If there is, then it's been overlooked - if there isn't, what's the purpose of it? I reckon if you're pushing the OBU as a must read and agree document before joining the IWW, you're possibly more prescriptive than what I'd expect in the IWA! This is fine and commendable, but is also one of many approaches within the IWW for members wanting to join... anyway, me wife is going nuts that I'm on the computer again.. hopefully this makes sense as I haven't proof read it!

Nate:

syndicalist wrote:

I guess I'm just curious, "what's the bottom line" here, Nate? I mean what should the IWW be in your vision---- politically and otherwise?
That's a really broad question so I'm not sure how to answer that. I think the IWW currently is a (very flawed, small) fighting organization with radical views. I think some of the organization's rhetoric is confused and should be dropped, like in the proposed changes in the OBU pamphlet. Beyond that, I think we have a great deal of work to do in all kinds of areas of our ideas and our practice, including having a lot more political discussion - basically every aspect of the IWW needs improvement. I'm not sure I'm answering your question though. The 'bottom line' of the blog post was specifically that we should drop that lousy part of the OBU pamphlet. And that we should have a conversation about whether or not to keep the constitutional language requiring that the pamphlet be given to new members. I think probly we shouldn't but I'm not sure, I also think we should talk about the organization's official literature more broadly.

It just seemed like there was more to what you were driving at. But, admitedly, this was a long thread with lots of long posts coveringmany things. So, perhaps I simply "walked away" with a different impression of what you were aiming at. I'll go back and read the original posting then.

Nate

what, me wordy? ;)

But less rambly and a lot more focused.

This is just one of those threads you had to read from the start and absorb it as it went along. Not A super fast read of tons and tons of stuff. Def. a thread that should be read at leisure.

If to sum anything up, yeah it is really dumb to just say, hey you're supposed to get this, you don't have to agree to it, or read it or anything, but you are supposed to have it so you eventually read it, yeah maybe if you want?

I say this as like, I didn't end up reading it for years. Even then I think I skimmed it, and still haven't read the thing fully. I mean like it's old right? :P

I agree that Think It Over and maybe having delegates use the Annotated Preamble as a way to talk to newbies about the basics might just be a better start.

Having conversations of post-revolutionary vision would definitely be on my list of things I'd like to see happen in my lifetime as part of the union (keeping it realistic). Do I want to live in a "cooperative commonwealth" hell no!?

I wanna live on a boat! MUTHFUCKA!

The 'bottom line' of the blog post was specifically that we should drop that lousy part of the OBU pamphlet. And that we should have a conversation about whether or not to keep the constitutional language requiring that the pamphlet be given to new members.

Actually I'd say the constitutional language part is probly more important than dropping the language (although I'd be happy with dropping that language too), in that the problem with the pamphlet isn't just that it's "wrong" (or, at least, highly disputable) but that it isn't the official position of the union (and I'd be against it being the official position of the union, if it were to come up) and therefore it's misleading to promote it on the same level as the constitution and preamble. (I don't know if the folks who wrote that constitutional language meant it to make the pamphlet the union's official position, or interpreted the pamphlet as having always been the union's official position... if so, it hasn't held up and should be relegated to non-official status to the extent it has any official status at all).

Weirdly enough... I suspect (but can't prove without digging deeper into the records, maybe you know more than me and can answer this) the folks who wrote that no-politics language in the pamphlet and/or who inserted that constitutional language semi-officializing the pamphlet, were probly highly politicized folks and pushed the pamphlet out of a desire to make it the longer, more detailed, official ("non"-)political statement of the union in place of merely the preamble (which is short and, arguably, vague and open to loose interpretation, as these debates around contractualism might indicate). A kind of "Where We Stand" for the IWW. And I suspect the no-politics language was more expressive of some anarchists and "wobblyist" reactions against CP and similar type in-fights. I could be wrong though, very possibly it was pushed by more conservative-leaning wobs who were on the outs with the anarchists. Probly also related to the bylaws language against alliances with "political parties and anti-political sects"- again could easily be expressive of either conservatives wanting to curb the anarchists, or anarchists pushing a vaguely anarchistic prohibition against political party control (with language against anti-political sects included to make sure anarchist-specific "non-party" political orgs also were included).

The no-politics language in the pamphlet, again, pretty clearly points to the narrower sense of politics as in party politics and "politicking." The problem is, whether you agree with it or not (I lean strongly that way, but, after all I'm at least loosely an anarchist), it's ambiguous in meaning. And it can potentially be an obstacle to open political debate.

This, minus libertarian communism, is what's supposed to happen in the IWW and what I'm advocating for the IWW. The main difference I see here is that the IWW has a broader range of views (or, to put more critically about the IWW, less substantial and worked out views) on what sort of post-revolutionary society we want. As you put it, there's room "for any revolutionary of any political persuasion (and therefore differing ideas of how society should be run)."

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure highly detailed post-revolutionary vision really counts for all that much, except very loosely. I haven't seen much evidence for it. When the proverbial chips fall, comrades who previously shared the seam "vision" end up stabbing each other's backs, while hostile political militants can end up joining forces against each others' own respective "comrades." Spain being the supreme case in point for the anarchist and syndicalists in the CNT.

I think it's enough to have simple principles and sophisticated descriptive analysis of the situation, and work out the details from there. I highly doubt that "when the revolution comes" all the wobblies are gonna be united in singular purpose or whatever, there's never been a revolution (or non-revolution) like that. And if/when there are splits, they won't be strictly over post-rev visionary politics, more likely they'll be over life-and-death questions of expedience and "simple" principles (when or when not to compromise, whether it's cool to shoot your comrades in the back, etc.).

Funny memory .... I recall back some years ago, how (during my initial membership round) we in the IWW would be raising funds for the Spanish CNT, yet get anarchist baited at the local level. Funny world we lived in.

If anything I think non-contractual organizing can open itself up to nonunion workers who aren't radical at all, seeking in-house company reform. When this meets with brand name campaign organizing, it can (and has) played out as a kind of, what I'd polemically label, "reformist company unionism with a militant bent." The direct unionism pamphlet accidentally encourages this tendency, in my opinion, by downplaying formal unionism and encouraging organizing around grievances without seeking formal union recognition. A concrete example of this would fighting for paid sick days, and getting workers on board for that fight and giving them voice and vote on a committee, who don't necessarily want the union.

Actually I do not think the Direct Unionism piece really encourages this. Bad organizing encourages this. There is a big difference between recognizing that an IWW union workplace committee can be built off the existing structures of informal workplace resistance groups, and doing the same but instead of trying to organize folks as IWW members, trying to organize them as a more apolitical Brand Name Workers' Union. If anything it is more like what they were saying in the pamphlet around the IWW has not done a good job as organizers if we can't get workers to go with the IWW, and instead they either want to go with some other union, or want a less militant sounding affiliate, that is pro-contracts, getting "recognition" but for an organization that is only loosely related to the IWW for fears of red baiting.

Thanks for digging up the old versions of the OBU pam, Nate. This part of your exposition isn't quite correct:

"Historically the IWW has tended to be generally opposed to electoralism. That was part of the conflict with the De Leonists, who were expelled in 1908. And loads of IWW members were expelled from the Social Party over their rejection of the ballot box as a meaningful avenue for change."

As far as I know, members of the Socialist Labor Party were never expelled from the the IWW. De Leon quit the IWW when his delegate's credentials were successfully challenged at the 1908 Convention. Other members of the SLP stayed in the IWW for awhile after the '08 Convention e.g. James Connolly. The SLP was not the party of pure and simple 'electoralism', that was the Socialist Party's stand. This is why most SP members never joined the IWW en masse, although, of course, Debs was in for the first year while Haywood and Flynn kept both their SP and IWW memberships up to date until the one jumped bail and the other was expelled for supposed strike breaking activities. No, the SLP position and why most all SLP members were also I'WW members up till 1908 was that pure and simple voting for socialists would never do much other than elect bourgeois opportunists to positions in capitalist government. The SLP's stand was that a victory for the establishment of a classless society and the abolition of wage-labour at the ballot box without One Big Union backing was an illusion and would be quickly smashed by the capitalist class. The ballot was a peaceful declaration of political power: the actual political power to enforce the declaration would be the workers organised in One Big Union taking, holding and operating the means of production for themselves.

If you want to know more about what I think on these questions and more, welcome to my blog:

Wobbly times

Mandating every new member get a copy of One Big Union started in 1972. 73 people voted for this to be so. Old thread, I know, but I just found this out and thought I'd post.

2 years late but what the hell:

Nate

Thanks Y, and sorry for the delay, I missed your comment. I stand corrected on the expulsions in 1908 though it is my impression that DeLeon was deliberately pushed out by others, which isn't expulsion exactly but is in the neighborhood.

DeLeon was denied his delegate status at the 1908 convention. It was a questionable call and politically motivated by St John. DeLeon's supporters walked out and held their own IWW convention.

Nate

About the SP, I believe the SP expelled most of the IWW members in it in 1913.

Nope: They expelled the GEB members who supported the IWW.

Responsive to Juan. I first joined the IWW in 1973. That vote reflected a membership of something like 150-200 global members The vast majority in the US