USI involvement in RSUs

Firstly the USI argue that the RSUs are different than the workplace committees that the Vignoles and the CGT-E participate in. They also say their partial participation, in them (not all of USI participate) is tactical and that they are actively seeking an alternative to them. They still organise workplace meetings unlike the others.

Sorry if this is a daft question, but what's an RSU when it's at home?

Jack

IWA people - Is the USI Q&A about the RSUs that we got for congress private, or can it be shown, because I think it'd be useful and illuminating on this issue.

My position is (roughly) that USI are *probably* wrong to participate and it seems like a mistake, but it's a tactical choice that doesn't violate any rules or principles. Given this, I respect the right of my comrades to make mistakes!

Not sure about the first part of your question but the second part is what the Congress decided. As I said the USI themselves seem to be admiting it was a bit of an error as they have been pulling out and those still in are looking to get out.

madashell

Sorry if this is a daft question, but what's an RSU when it's at home?

They are some kind of works council that union reps in Italy get elected to. I believe they are non-recallable, and some in the IWA say they are comparable to the works councils the CGT-E were expelled from the CNT for participating in.

Ah, cheers. Thought it'd be something like that, but wasn't so sure.

So it's equivalent to, say, a SolFed member going for a position as a full-timer?

madashell

So it's equivalent to, say, a SolFed member going for a position as a full-timer?

No, because they're not full-timers. AFAIK they're just workers but these councils are given the "right" to negotiate on behalf of workers, when elected by them.

Ah. Having trouble seeing exactly where the fuss is, but I obviously don't know enough here to comment.

madashell

Ah. Having trouble seeing exactly where the fuss is, but I obviously don't know enough here to comment.

The problem - in Spain at least - is that members of these unions get elected to represent their fellow workers, and can negotiate and make deals behind closed doors, with no power of recall from the people who elected them.

A key part of anarcho-syndicalism (and anarchism/libcomism) is that struggle should always be self-organised, based on mass assemblies, and delegation with recall, not term-elected representation, so the power is always with the grassroots.

Some in the IWA fear these Italian ones are the same.

it struck me that USI wants to find alternatives, but until such alternatives are found they will stay in the RSUs in some of their syndicates. People from outside of USI hoping that they would stop cant offer much in terms of alternative ideas and practical advice, apart from maybe CNT-E (this is what i meant by that throwaway comment in the other thread about organisation sizes).

Personally i am not fussed, but then again i am the resident reformist ;)

What does "RSU" stand for? Is this a government defined body like the Comite de Empresa in Spain?

Some anarcho-syndicalists or libertarian left-influenced workers in some organizations in Spain have tried a practice of using signed letters of resignation held by the local union, so that if a delegate elected to a comite de empresa didn't do what the assembly wanted, they would be "resigned." Some union slates were elected on an assemblyist platform, meaning that they would refuse to make the decisions for the workers on the comite de empresa but invoke an assembly to make the decision. This was the method of the CNT unions on the Barcelona subway (now a part of CGT) and at SEAT (also now a part of CGT) in early 1980s, as well as of the Port Sevedores Federation (Coordinadora).

The CGT on the subway in Barcelona apparently still takes the "let the workers decide" stance, at least according to their website. An example of why the comites are a problem is shown by the 2003 contract struggle on the bus systtem in Barcelona. A petition of 1,200 of the 2,500 workers demanded the right to vote on the contract via a mass assembly, but a small meeting of only 60 people was called by some of the unions on the comite and approval by that meeting was used as the excuse to sign the contract without approval by a large open meeting of the workers.

t.

The Comites de Empresas (CEs) in Spain are government-created entities (authorized via labor law) so workers don't control the rules. The CEs have the legal right to sign contracts without holding a workplace assembly and taking a ratification vote, I gather. The delegates elected to the CEs get 40 hours per month off with pay, paid by the employer I believe. Historically, the CEs are derived from the lowest level of the old fascist trade union. Are the RSUs in Italy government-created entities like the CEs?

To its credit, CGT-E (or sections of it) still tries to ensure that an assembly is held. For example, this was the source of a major conflict in Barcelona at the time of the 2003 contract struggle on the TMB bus system. (TMB is the metro area transit authority.) The CGT organized a petition by 1,200 of the 2,500 workers demanding a mass meeting to discuss and vote on the contract. Certain of the unions (in particular the Workers Commission) held a small meeting of 60 people late in the evening, and because those people approved the contract, the majority on the CE signed the contract. Although the CGT is the largest of the 5 unions on the CE at the TMB bus system, it is a minority (7 out of 32 delegates) and was not able to block this. The Workers Commissions, for its part, accused the CGT of engaging in "physical attacks" -- apparently this is a common form of smear against anarchists in Spain. The CGT Transport Union on its website says this is a lie.

t.

Could somebody tell me why engagement in works councils is always perceived to be a bad thing. It seems to me there could be a strategic role for it - for example as part of afraser's programme which was discussed to some extent about 10/11 months ago he posited using and extending works councils in the context of a wider dual power strategy - and the IWA is just being divisively ultra-leftist.

I think I'd start to worry if I was a member of an international federation that was having to purge a third of the main affiliates for a somewhat spurious point of ideological purity. I mean what happens when Europe, or indeed the world's anarcho-synidicalist movement is mostly NOT affiliated to the IWA? They'll become a laughing stock. It just all seems a little bit queer to be so full-on in what clearly has to be just a tactical question - have the ICC taken over? What next - expel all the real unions from the IWA because of their 'anti-working class nature', force the adoption of decadence theory?

Firstly the USI argue that the RSUs are different than the workplace committees that the Vignoles and the CGT-E participate in.

Comment
Firstly RSUs are exactly the same than the workplace committees the CGT-E participate in. USI can not prove that it is different.

They also say their partial participation, in them (not all of USI participate) is tactical and that they are actively seeking an alternative to them.

Comment
This is exactly the thing wich Vignoles say befor split.

They still organise workplace meetings unlike the others.

Comment
This is only 50% troofe. There is another part: RSU (not workers meetings) make negotiation with the bosses. And RSU can not be reelected in the moment by meeting. It is tipical parlamentary struture of representative democrasy (not direct democrasy). RSU (not meetings) make disigions. I bloody recomend you to reade the resalts of commition of IWA about RSU.

Ultra-lefts are absolutly right about burgua theory of part of modern eurapian sindicalists.
If you go to RSU and state court where is Direct Action? Why do we need this factory strugle at all? Becouse we want workers class get expirianse of assembleas disigions and get idea do not respect state and burgua loo. And this is way of preparation of libertarian-communist revolution. If you go RSU or state court what is the differense between you and Tony Blar? He wants workers do the same!

Dundee_United

Could somebody tell me why engagement in works councils is always perceived to be a bad thing.

Dundee, if you don't think representatives bargaining and negotiating on behalf of workers, over the heads of the workers with no recallability then you're not a very good anarchist. I can see why a trotskyist would have no problem with it of course...

USI moved into the RSU's as a tactical step for some of their unions, i beleive only two of their unions still particpate in teh RSU's. The USI gave clear answers on how the manage delegates when they are sent into the RSU's, firstly the workers hold a meeting to determine the syndical line and mandate the RSU delegate from that meeting, after the meeting has taken place an assembly of all workers is organised for any decisions to be ratified, if the USI do not agree with the majority of workers if tehy are a minority presence then the USI will act alone and against any decisions made. I think they have enough safe guards and experience in syndicalist organising for this in anyway undermine the principles of revolutionary unionism.

And comrades should now that the congress gave an overwhelming vote of confidence to USI and its continued anarcho syndicalist practice.

WeTheYouth

after the meeting has taken place an assembly of all workers is organised for any decisions to be ratified, if the USI do not agree with the majority of workers if tehy are a minority presence then the USI will act alone and against any decisions made.

Now a political group can do this, but not a supposedly anarchist union, surely? (Which is of course the contradiction with political unionism)

WeTheYouth

I think they have enough safe guards and experience in syndicalist organising for this in anyway undermine the principles of revolutionary unionism.

You don't think going against the decisions of workers' assemblies is a violation of these principles? And what safeguards are there if they aren't recallable?

WeTheYouth wrote:
after the meeting has taken place an assembly of all workers is organised for any decisions to be ratified, if the USI do not agree with the majority of workers if tehy are a minority presence then the USI will act alone and against any decisions made.

Now a political group can do this, but not a supposedly anarchist union, surely? (Which is of course the contradiction with political unionism)

Its not in contradiction with the principles of revolutionary unionism, if they find that they are in a minority in a workplace, and the reformist unions make a deal which is to the detriment to the workers, then why should the USI workers have to abide by decisions which they do not agree with, do not accept. By being able to act against any decisions taken which are damaging to the workers they are safeguarding themselves as simply being dragged along by reformist unions into deals that their members dont want.

WeTheYouth wrote:
I think they have enough safe guards and experience in syndicalist organising for this in anyway undermine the principles of revolutionary unionism.

You don't think going against the decisions of workers' assemblies is a violation of these principles? And what safeguards are there if they aren't recallable?

Going against the decisions of reformist unions which may hold a bigger membership in a workplace is not going against any principles of revolutionary unionism. As i said above it safeguards the USI from being dragged into deals its members do not accept.

If they are not recallable? Well as far i read and understood the documents that were sent out, that in practice it would rarely happen and if a person who is elected to the RSU acts against the syndical line and against the wishes of the USI workers, then they would be expelled from the union and therefore unable to participate in the RSU's as they are no longer a union member.

syndicalist

BTW, it's my understanding that the largest USI union in health care participates in the RSU. So, if I'm correct, there's a significant part of the USI which will use its tactical flexibility.

I must say, I find this all very rife with contradictions.

I think the health care unions do participate in the RSU's but im not too sure wether it is on a solely from workplace to workplace decision in the health care unions, and as said earlier they are in discussion on the how to get out of the RSU's and still have the same presence in workplaces which now particpate in the RSU's.

Dundee, if you don't think representatives bargaining and negotiating on behalf of workers, over the heads of the workers with no recallability then you're not a very good anarchist. I can see why a trotskyist would have no problem with it of course...

Sometimes my views are close to those of the Trotskyists but that is a bit of a cheap shot John. The point about engagement in works councils is that is one avenue for building power, and needn'y necessarily be done on the man's terms. I also think the whole debate here is verging on a moralistic rehash of the old means and ends sacred tatty. It's a purely tactical question in my view. The point about communist agitation isn't that you always 100% behave in a democratic way - it's that you always push what is more likely to lead to more power, autonomy, class consciousness and accountability for the class. If in practice that meant packing works councils for class demands then so be it, and as one poster put it quite succintly, "If a person who is elected to the RSU acts against the syndical line and against the wishes of the USI workers, then they would be expelled from the union and therefore unable to participate in the RSU's as they are no longer a union member."

"If a person who is elected to the RSU acts against the syndical line and against the wishes of the USI workers, then they would be expelled from the union and therefore unable to participate in the RSU's as they are no longer a union member."

Comment
Theoreticaly yes. But even in this case not elected person come to the RSU from USI but somebody who is next in the list (this list uses at the elections of RSU). And aniway haw do simple memebers of union know what happen during negoutiations with boss or with over members of RSU? It is closed from meeting!
I can add that over members of RSU just normal leaders of different yellow trade-unionions. So activists of USI sit in the parlament wich is elected by workers collectiv on the bases of trade-union lists withaut right to chenge deligate in the moment. I mean why don't we partisipate in parlamentary elections in this case? And what is the reason to be negative to CGT-E? If RSU is o'key we have to re-unite with CGT-E and Vignoles.

The reasons given to justify USI's participation in RSUs are hard to square with the IWA hostility to the CGT-E.

Consider the method used by the Spanish longshore union (FEEP). FEEP came into existence in the late '70s by making strike assemblies permanent in Barcelona and a number of other ports, and anarcho-syndicalists were the main influence for them going this way. To deal with the comites de empresa (CEs), they do several things. First, they have assemblies before the decisions by the CE and their delegates must do what they tell them. Since FEEP has 80% of the delegates on the longshore CEs in Spain, they dominate. Also, when delegates are elected they have them sign a letter of resignation. If they violate what the assembly tells them, they are "resigned." At least, this is what they were doing back in the late '80s.

When the CNT unions on the Barcelona Metro and at the SEAT auto plant (two of the largest enterprises in Barcelona), won the majority on the CEs in 1984, they used methods similar to the FEEP. They pledged that they would not make the decisions for the workers but invoke an assembly. From looking at the CGT Transport Union's website, it seems they still take this position. They say explicitly the workers must appprove any decision. In the contract struggle on the Barcelona bus system in 2003, the CGT got 1,200 of the 2,500 workers to sign a petition demanding the invoking of a mass assembly to discuss and vote on the contract. What actually happened is that the Workers Commission and some of the other unions on the CE held a small meeting of only 60 people late in the evening and because that agreed to the contract, the majority on the CE voted to approve it. CGT is a minority on that CE so they couldn't block it.

t.

magidd

"If a person who is elected to the RSU acts against the syndical line and against the wishes of the USI workers, then they would be expelled from the union and therefore unable to participate in the RSU's as they are no longer a union member."

Comment
Theoreticaly yes. But even in this case not elected person come to the RSU from USI but somebody who is next in the list (this list uses at the elections of RSU). And aniway haw do simple memebers of union know what happen during negoutiations with boss or with over members of RSU? It is closed from meeting!
I can add that over members of RSU just normal leaders of different yellow trade-unionions. So activists of USI sit in the parlament wich is elected by workers collectiv on the bases of trade-union lists withaut right to chenge deligate in the moment. I mean why don't we partisipate in parlamentary elections in this case? And what is the reason to be negative to CGT-E? If RSU is o'key we have to re-unite with CGT-E and Vignoles.

The meetings are obviously minuted and as i have said earlier decisions have to be ratified so the workers would know what has been discussed.

How is it close to parliamentarianism? You need to read what the USI have said over and over again. And in workplace organising there is a terrible reality that you will encouncter reformist unions who on occassion you may have to work with for practical necessity.

USI's participation is alot different than the CGTE/CNTE split. And as congress decided it is their choice in how they appoach organising there unions. Maybe if more sections had Anarcho Syndicalist unions then maybe more comrades would have a better grasp on the practical situations which our comrades in the USI are trying to overcome.

WeTheYouth writes: "And aniway haw do simple memebers of union know what happen during negoutiations with boss or with over members of RSU? It is closed from meeting!"

But this is almost always the case in negotiations even where works councils don't exist. The employers don't negotiate with a huge mass meeting of the workers. Even in the most rank-and-file controlled situation, there is a negotiating committee. The entire workforce doesn't get to sit in. This would be true even if there were a negotiation with a workers' assembly, like the strike assemblies in Spain in the late '70s.

For the workers to be properly informed, the negotiating committee needs to report back what went on in the negotiations and report any proposed agreement, so that the ranks can ratify or not. Workers need to be provided the text of any proposed agreement in writing in advance of a meeting to ratify. There have been many situations in the USA where at ratification meetings the leaders of the unions lie about what the contract contains to get approval.

And the negotiating committee should be mainly made up of people elected from among the workers for that purpose, not full-time officials who won't be working under the conditions agreed to.

So, suppose that libertarian delegates to a works council pledge they will report back what is discussed and pledge that the workers must agree to any proposed agreement. How is that a violation of principles?

It is true of course that the works councils set up by law do not have legal rules that workers control. But there are many aspects of worker organization and negotiation with employers controlled by laws, in all advanced capitalist countries, and the laws are tailored to be to the advantage of the employers. That's the way it is in the USA, where there are no works councils.

t.

WeTheYouth writes: "And aniway haw do simple memebers of union know what happen during negoutiations with boss or with over members of RSU? It is closed from meeting!"

I did not write that comrade!!! It was our comrade magdid.

Okay, my mistake.

t.

The meetings are obviously minuted and as i have said earlier decisions have to be ratified so the workers would know what has been discussed.

Comment
You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors. RSU can and it do it. And i tell more- bosse negotiate not with USI but with RSU at all. That meanse your delegate need compromises with representatives of vertical unions.
You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things. You do not understand what is the pressure og boss against active individuals during strike. They can loose evrething and they have familise... If they negoutiate in the close room you never know what happen.
But even if sindicate exqlude the delegate it can not chenge it to anothere one wich it wants in the moment.

How is it close to parliamentarianism?

Comment
I explaned you here and in the priviose letter.
I repite: "RSU can not be reelected in the moment by meeting of workers. It is tipical parlamentary struture of representative democrasy (not direct democrasy). RSU (not meetings) make disigions.
As for USI it can ratify or not ratify disigion. But if it is in minority it will change nothing. And USI can not even sent to RSU new delegate wich it wants in the moment.
And if it is in majority it does not need RSU at all if they revolutiuonaris! They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

You need to read what the USI have said over and over again.

Comment
We read this meny times and i allredy explaned why this is bullshit. If you don't understand that is not my folt.

USI's participation is alot different than the CGTE/CNTE split.

Comment
This is False. No one prove that.

And as congress decided it is their choice in how they appoach organising there unions.

Comment
We think this is wrong disigion and we did not chenge position. And it will not be so easy for reformists to establish they oder in IWA.

Maybe if more sections had Anarcho Syndicalist unions then maybe more comrades would have a better grasp on the practical situations which our comrades in the USI are trying to overcome.

Comment
1) USI members who support RSU are not my comrades.
2) As for us we have groopes wich work at the industry and orgernised classe resistens. Opposit that i see u have no idea what is real strike and strugle at the factory.

And in workplace organising there is a terrible reality that you will encouncter reformist unions who on occassion you may have to work with for practical necessity.

Comment
I get it. Wood you like to cooperate with polise if you see practical necessity? Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity".
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

I'm sorry magidd, are you actually saying you don't beleive in delegated responsibility in any form? Or are you only criticising mandates?
If its the latter then sure a mandate isn't ideal, and you should encourage criticism of it, but expelling people for being part of unions who have mandated reps is just purist shite. If its the former then i'm sorry but thats just fucking absolutely mental.

I don't like saying it but the only reason i joined solfed was because it wasn't a bunch of outside and against mentalists and therefore allowed you to be a member of a ''reformist union'' when it was common sense to be a member. How do you have any right to be against what the USI or SAC are doing but happily be a member of unison or whatever who do things that are infinitely worse on a very regular basis? Seriously i haven't got the patience for that kind of hypocritical 'purer-than-thou' nonsense.

Writes "magidd": "You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things!...You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things."

You know nothing about me, so if you want to have a civil discussion it is best to avoid personal comments like this. If you can't do that, this tells me you can't give reasons to persuade those who don't already agree with you.

I can't offhand think of any situation in the USA where there has been actual negotiations between an employer and a mass meeting. It has happened sometimes that a group of workers in a department may press collectively their demands to a supervisor. But that's typically not a really large group of workers. we're talking here about situations where agreements are being reached for a larger group of workers. At least, that is how i understand the situation, because that is usually the case for works councils.

In cases where there is a wildcat strike and workers are striking to press demands, there may not be any actual negotiations at all. I did help to organize an independent union that carried out a one-week strike where we were victorious on our main demand, but there were never any negotiations. The union simply voted to end the strike when management agreed to our demand.

But when you talk about negotiations, you're not talking about a situation where workers simply make a demand and take direct action to try to pressure the employer to go along. That isn't negotiation. Wildcat strikes in the USA are often situations where no negotiations take place, but there is a protest action that has a particular demand, and they end the strike based on either a decision to end it or because the employer on his own has made sufficient concessions. Again, no negotiations.

If you want to make comments on what I write, it is best to actually quote the part you are responding to. When you say "comment" above i have no idea what you're responding to.

You write: " Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity"."

What unions are you talking about? Some critics have said this of the CGT-E but it's false. What happened, in that case, is that the police in a town in Catalonia formed a union and asked to affiliate to the CGT. The CGT refused, but the police continued to use the "CGT" initials. So, critics of the CGT then say they've accepted police, but it is false. These kinds of accusations just fuel sectarianism.

t.

I'm sorry magidd, are you actually saying you don't beleive in delegated responsibility in any form?

Comment
I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.
Partisipation in RSU means all that things.

I don't like saying it but the only reason i joined solfed was because it wasn't a bunch of outside and against mentalists and therefore allowed you to be a member of a ''reformist union'' when it was common sense to be a member.

Comment
I don't care why did you join SF. This is not storry we discusse here.

Or are you only criticising mandates?

Comment
I allredy say what i critisise and why.

How do you have any right to be against what the USI or SAC are doing but happily be a member of unison or whatever who do things that are infinitely worse on a very regular basis?

Comment
I am working on the regular bases as anarhist-workers activist, in the conditions of dictatoship and i see all reformists in hell. Woode you please tell me what the hellish things am i doing?

Seriously i haven't got the patience for that kind of hypocritical 'purer-than-thou' nonsense.

Comment
Take care youself. I heard there are goode psychoanalysts in UK. As for me i am not redy to listen to sad story of your life. But wood you explaine please what terrible things i do "that are infinitely worse" than politics of RSU? Do you meane evry fridey drinkig bloode of christian children?

What unions are you talking about? Some critics have said this of the CGT-E but it's false. What happened, in that case, is that the police in a town in Catalonia formed a union and asked to affiliate to the CGT. The CGT refused, but the police continued to use the "CGT" initials. So, critics of the CGT then say they've accepted police, but it is false.

Comment
I herd absolutly different interpritation of story. But i did not want to ageu. It is not realy important in my understanding.

These kinds of accusations just fuel sectarianism.

Commen
You know i like to be sectarian but unfortunatly i am far from that. But may be i can. Sects were the centers of class resistend during 1.000 years in Europa.

First of all, magdid, you are a sectarian purist, and to not call our comrades in USI comrades is ridiculous and TBH you really need to learn how to enter into an open and free discussion without resorting to pathetic personal insults. Debate on such issues needs to be constructive and not create more divisions in the anarcho syndicalist movement.

You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors.

It is the USI workers who agree the syndical line, they choose their own delegates, they have full control on how that delegate behaves. It is a tactical choice of USI to participate in the RSU's and you need to respect your comrades judgement and experience in these matters.

You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things. You do not understand what is the pressure og boss against active individuals during strike.

It is not important to the debate, but i have. And i urge you not to bring this down to who's prolier than thou, or who's been around longer.

"RSU can not be reelected in the moment by meeting of workers. It is tipical parlamentary struture of representative democrasy (not direct democrasy). RSU (not meetings) make disigions.

Which i said before is ratified by a workers assembly, and USI can act against the decisions. Its not a mini parliament.

They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

Really? and what will it achieve if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace. Ill say again we have to have confidence in our comrades on this issue who are having to practically utilise anarcho syndicalist ideas.

We think this is wrong disigion and we did not chenge position. And it will not be so easy for reformists to establish they oder in IWA.

Well lets hope your a minority in your section comrade, And i see no reformists in our International. I see a minority of sectarian fools, who are falling over themselves to attack the anarcho syndicalist organisations in the IWA.

Comment
1) USI members who support RSU are not my comrades.
2) As for us we have groopes wich work at the industry and orgernised classe resistens. Opposit that i see u have no idea what is real strike and strugle at the factory.

Once again your being stupid, USI are our comrades, a little group of sectarian comrades are never going to change that.

And im not gonna go into my personal defence, i have no need to do so.

I get it. Wood you like to cooperate with polise if you see practical necessity? Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity".
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade, would you call SF comrades who are shop stewards reformists? And the SAC does NOThave a police syndicate, and that is absolute lies. CGTE does NOT have a police syndicate.

You lack a grasp on the realities of the class struggle at the moment comrade.

Comrade when you make accusations against others you need to qualify it with proof, its what happends when you enter a debate on such issue.

Im deeply concerned about your lack of support for our USI comrades, they are organising in amazing ways and doing everything i hope to see anarcho syndicalist unions doing in the UK and globally.

First of all, magdid, you are a sectarian purist, and to not call our comrades in USI comrades is ridiculous and TBH you really need to learn how to enter into an open and free discussion without resorting to pathetic personal insults.

Comment
First of all i don't think to say about reformists that they are not my comrades is insult. It is not. I am not they comrade. I openley say thet. Where is insult?
I can just repit it personaly to you. You are not my comrade. But still i can talk with you or with USI. Well if all people with whoome you talk openly are your comrades i am realy-realy happy about you.

Debate on such issues needs to be constructive and not create more divisions in the anarcho syndicalist movement.

Comment
Don't teach me please. This is not polite way of talking.
And you are not my mom.

Magidd
You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors.

It is the USI workers who agree the syndical line, they choose their own delegates, they have full control on how that delegate behaves.

Comment
No they don't. And i allredy proved that. RSU is not the institute were workers can chenge the delegate by one for whom they want in the moment. This delegate make negoutiation with boss with closed doors. He makes a negoutiations and agreement with trade-union delagetes of yellow unions (olso with closed doors).
Do you belive if you repite your absurd thesis more it will become the troof? Do you belive in vodoo magice?

It is a tactical choice of USI to participate in the RSU's and you need to respect your comrades judgement and experience in these matters.

Comment
Alot of Erors. They are not my comrades. I do not respect reformist chois. And i don't need it at all.
If we agry with your logic we mast belive that we had to respect the chois of CNT-E than they join government in 1936 just becouse they were members of IWA.

Magidd
They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

Really? and what will it achieve if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace.

Comment
Not too much. But few friends of us at bug factory this year get inkcease they sellary becouse of detaled considered sabo.
And what can they achieve by coloboration with the state institute of miny-parlament (RCU) if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace? I see! You thing that some institutes wich was created by itallian state have magic fors to help proletarians? O!

Once again your being stupid,

Comment
Nise! And you teach me to be polite dear (not) comrade?

Magidd
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade, would you call SF comrades who are shop stewards reformists?

Comment
Dear not-comred i don't know exactly what SF shop stewards are doing. But if they burocrates in trade-unions- yes of couse they are reformists.

Im deeply concerned about your lack of support for our USI comrades, they are organising in amazing ways and doing everything i hope to see anarcho syndicalist unions doing in the UK and globally.

Comment
You forget to say "Allahy Akbar!"

Magidd
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade,

Comments
Aha! Please answer the qwestion! So reformist unions are NOT the capitalist institutes? And we must NOT terminate tham together with state and corporations?

magidd

I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.

so if you have say an informal go slow or whatever, and thirty of you vote for a couple of people to go up and read soem demands to management in the office, would you regard that as ''being behind closed doors'?

As for not co-operating with trade unions are you mad? Its one thing to say you wouldn't join one but to not co-operate implies an explicit breach fo solidarity. Are you suggesting that since you don't regard the USI as comrades that therefore you wouldn't support them if they were on strike

i never said you do things that are infinitely worse than the sac and usi although actually this sort of purism is a million times worse since its led you to have no solidairty with your comrades, but what i said was that a lot of, if not the majority of sol fed members were also members of reformist unions who do stuff that is infinitey worse than the sac and co.
Hell its in solfeds constitution.
http://merlin.xssl.net/~admin75/strategy.htm
Should we be expelled from the IWA aswell?

I'm actually quite an admirier of the sac, i mean fuck me its got 7000 members in a country with a population of under 10 million, and they seem like good comrades to me, i actuallt couldn't give a toss what some crazy anarchist sect thinks about them.

Just a little aside. I'm curious who the "outside and against mentalists" in Britain are that cantdocartwheels referred to?

knightrose

Just a little aside. I'm curious who the "outside and against mentalists" in Britain are that cantdocartwheels referred to?

Sorry mate i apologise 'mentalists' is coming on a bit strong and isn't appropriate, was just pissed off with magidds attitude. And yeah I know the AF aren't technically outside and against.

From the AF's aims and principles:
"However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist-communism."

This hardly counts as saying people shouldn't join Unison, does it. We do recognise, however, that the union structures are intimately bound up in the process of exploiting wage labour: "The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation for the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different to ours."

And finally:
"They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part on its overthrow."

I know I've quoted it all backwards, but it seemed to make more sense that way.

In other words, our members do join trade unions. Thjey are not discouraged from doing so. Some are evn shop stewards, though we debate the wisdom of this from time to time.

magidd wrote:

Magid
I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.

so if you have say an informal go slow or whatever, and thirty of you vote for a couple of people to go up and read soem demands to management in the office, would you regard that as ''being behind closed doors'?

Comment
That's stuped. They negotiate with boss about all problems. And boss negotiates ONLY with RSU not with meeting. + He negotiates with all RSU members (not separatly with USI and overs) so they need sort of compromise with delegates of vertical unions. All prosses of negotiation is under the closed doors- this is one of the reasons for state to have such instruments as RSU.
Or you think state created RSU just for making life of workers better?
This is shit wich makes workers extrymly week. Not assembly of workers make disigions but RSU delegates and we don't know what do they discuss. And than if your union in minoriry in RSU you can not chenge resalts of negotiation if you want. You can not even send to RSU new delegate wich you want to send. This is what state wants proletarians do: play the games wich are invented by burgua state itself.
And if your union in Majority your don't need that shit at all you can just make normal direct action- rank-and-file strike with full competention of meeting.

As for not co-operating with trade unions are you mad?

Comment
No, but as far as i can see you have siriose mental problems becouse you can not express your ideas in the clear form.
If vertical union make strike we suport workers but in the same time make priopoganda against they union. We say that all vertical unions must be terminated by selfactiviry of workers, by they independent assembless. Becouse union leaders use activity of proletarians in they oun aims. Union leaders and burocrates are sort of owners of workers pawer. They are also bosses. We say: "Fuck burocratik yellow unions, fuck leaders. All bosses are bustards- include union bosses. All pawer to workers assembly! Don't haerd union leaders do it youself! Kick the union burocrats from the factory!"
Wood you please anse the qestion, dear:
So reformist unions are NOT the capitalist institutes? And we must NOT terminate tham together with state and corporations?

FROM SF
We need a three-pronged approach to the business of actually setting up an independent organisation at work.
1. In a workplace with a recognised TUC union, an SF member would join the union but promote an anarcho-syndicalist strategy. This would involve organising workplace assemblies to make collective decisions on workplace issues. However, workers will still be likely to hold union cards here to avoid splits in the workplace between union members and non-union members.

Comment
I don't understand that. It saunds not clear. All vertical unions are anemis they are spys of bosses. We say to all workers- we don't care they members on not members of vertical unions- fusk yellow unions, don't be obidiente to they leaders, do strugle yourself.

Not too much. But few friends of us at bug factory this year get inkcease they sellary becouse of detaled considered sabo.
And what can they achieve by coloboration with the state institute of miny-parlament (RCU) if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace? I see! You thing that some institutes wich was created by itallian state have magic fors to help proletarians? O!

Well thats really good, but some workers may not be in a position to do so. And ill say again it up to our comrades to practically utilise the ideas of anarcho syndicalism.

Do you belive if you repite your absurd thesis more it will become the troof? Do you belive in vodoo magice?

Well if you read the CNTF report on the RSU's, USI have clearly said what i have been saying, it is you who do not qualify your arguments with anything substantial.

Dear not-comred i don't know exactly what SF shop stewards are doing. But if they burocrates in trade-unions- yes of couse they are reformists.

Comrade, shop stewards are workers who are elected by the workers to represent the workers interests in workplaces, some SF members are shop stewards, i myself have been a member of a youth committee in teh shop workers union (USDAW) would you call us reformists??? Or would have some sense to realise that sometimes practicall necessity is more important than being a purist???

I don't understand that. It saunds not clear. All vertical unions are anemis they are spys of bosses. We say to all workers- we don't care they members on not members of vertical unions- fusk yellow unions, don't be obidiente to they leaders, do strugle yourself.

How when we have a small organisation which is not capable at the moment of forming unions and taking part in union activity away from the reformist unions? We do struggle ourselves. You need to realise that you can engage in rank and file activity in these unions as you can still be apart of the struggle inside these union however crap they are, and we do this because as anarcho syndicalists without a union of our own we still need to stand in solidarity with workers and if the only practical way we can do this is through the reformist unions then comrade we have to do this. Anarcho syndicalism is not about standing outside of the struggle it is about participating in the struggle wherever we can and it is about engaging with the workers so we can build our own organisation and anarcho syndicalist tendencies amongst the working class.

syndicalist

Paralellist!_:) In the Solfed no less! My goodness, what is going on?! -:) You know WSA was tarred and feathered for less.

Anyway, I hope we can keep on topic.

--mitch

Shhhh! There is no paralellist spectres in SF... Shhhh!!!

One point to make. Mayb Magidd could take a break from organising the great big spark and hammer factory to learn how to use the fucking quote function.

Comment
:D

AFAICS it differs in that the USI managed to avoid a split on it, while the CNTf didn't. It also seems clear from the USI's statements on this that they do see it as problematic, whereas Vignoles IIRC was less so.

Regards,

Martin

You need to realise that you can engage in rank and file activity in these unions as you can still be apart of the struggle inside these union however crap they are, and we do this because as anarcho syndicalists without a union of our own we still need to stand in solidarity with workers and if the only practical way we can do this is through the reformist unions then comrade we have to do this. Anarcho syndicalism is not about standing outside of the struggle it is about participating in the struggle wherever we can and it is about engaging with the workers so we can build our own organisation and anarcho syndicalist tendencies amongst the working class.

Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya
Now i explane that:
Number 1. Why anarhists come to the workers strugle? Are we marksists who belive that communism is just automaticle resalt of class strugle? No! We need class strugle becouse it is way to change everyday life of proletarians. But it can change our life only if we fight in assemblis and if we dispise state, loo ets. As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!
Another important thing is propoganda of anarho-comminist ideas duribg the strike.
What wood we have during noramal union strike? No assembleas: workers do not make disigions thamselfs. No nagation od statist oder, loo: workers use courts, RSU and over legal methods of strugle. No anarhist propoganda: union leaders together with police try to isolate independent political activists. But why is it going so bad? One part of unswer is trade-unions. They integrate spontaniouse activety of workers. So untill this shit (trade-unions) exist- widespred workers strugle can not not be based on anticapitalist antiavtoritarian prinsiples.
2) We still need to stand in solidarity with workers even if thay have vertical union strike. I allredy say that and than you started again talk about solidarity it was demagogia from your side. At list workers want to chenge they life. That is good. So that is the reasons to fight even stronger against fucking trade-unions! Some workers activists in Itally in 70s attak or even shoot union bustards and it was fucking good! Until this shit exists we can not do revolutionary work. Loke at the Franse. We were in deep contact with CNT-F during 2006-protests against CPE. And we know haw union bustards together with police atac revolutionary activists and arrest them. And than yangsters from suberbs, yang unemploide arabs and blacks attak back this unionist shit! And it was good!
3) Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS. As Anton Panekuk say: "That is not troofe that workers class week becouse it has splits. It has splitse becouse it is week!" This is deep idea. There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority. It must not order movement as bolsheviks. It has to (as FORA or AAUD-E) do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight. And it has to attack unionists burocrats and all union stratagy at all.

revol68
Learn to fucking quote properly you clown!

Comment
I am intresting why Libcom moderaters are so tolerent to this degenerate? Evidently he is not capable for logically thinking and just insult people here. Is this so called "political correctness"?

Thank you.

Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya

And i would like to describe your position as left communist fantasy with no real grasp on the nature of the class struggle.

As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!

Thats all very nice but how do we get to that stage, nice idea but not real a path to building workplace assemblies it it???

So untill this shit (trade-unions) exist- widespred workers strugle can not not be based on anticapitalist antiavtoritarian prinsiples.

Again how do we get there? And how do we intervene in the class struggle now?

Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS

Ill leave splitting our class to our enemies, the fascists, the bosses and the political parasites....also romantacists and left communists.

There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority.

You sure your not a leninist??? Because that smacks of bolshevik bullshit comrade. As far as i am aware anarcho syndicalism is not about organising a revolutionary minority it is about enabling our class to free themselves through revolutionary unions.

do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight

Really we have to go and preach and teach these poor thick workers how to fight? how patronising.

And it has to attack unionists burocrats and all union stratagy at all.

Once again you need to get a grip on reality comrade. I am not against attacking the beauracrats, i encourage it, but to throw the baby out with the bath water and abandon all union strategy is stupid and in total contradiction with the principles of revolutionary unionism.

Magidd
Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya

And i would like to describe your position as left communist fantasy with no real grasp on the nature of the class struggle.

Comment
This is demagogia again. As i told you befor you can repit some false but it will not become the troof after repit.
Who you to tell me this? I was at the bigest strikes in Russia during last ten years, talk with workers, spred the liflets, help people to orgernise they celles at the factory, trying to orgernise strikes at my own work. And you telling me this??? Take care aboute your oun gray and sad reformist fantasy!

As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!

Thats all very nice but how do we get to that stage, nice idea but not real a path to building workplace assemblies it it???.

What is not real? You just ask me about the "path to building workplace assemblies" and allredy say "not real"? Are you o'key?
The path is simple: in the begining we have to create small organisations of workers-anarhists. Even 3 or 5 people can do alot befor and during the workers protests (we want more but in the begining this is all we can do).
It is not trade-union becouse ot is political and make anarhist propoganda. And it is not party becouse it has no idea to controle the movement. What we need is to initiate assemblearist strugle ant destroy unions and burgua cultural idealogikal gegemonia. And we must be involved in evreday economicle life and strugle.
As CNT-F say: strugle has 3 dimentions: political, economical and cultural. It is not only economicale. It is strugle against political and cultural pawer of capital and state.
It fact huge assemblearist strike in Yasnogorsk-sity in Russia were initiated by small nuklea of radical workers and ingeners (abot 10 people) and they even were not an anarhists. Few months ago very small groope of KRAS stop the work in one of the brenches of huge military factory
Arsenal.
This small sindicate spreded thausends of liflets and hundreds of nwespapes at the factory and friends of us have alot of diskussions with another workers. Than we have repressions from the bosses and fuking trade union spys. Ouer friend Olga Smirnova was kicked from the factory and she has problems with KGB (modern name is FSB)- russian sicret polis.
In Moskaw we work todey with groope of proletarianse who strugling against jentrification in they area. We make togever assembles with some hundreds of local inhabitants. Spred alot of anarhist tekts. We say people: don't belive partis and politiks, fuck the politiks, fuck trade-unions. And yang people from this groope come to KRAS.
Well this is strugle! We knew it can be dengerouse.
But we can do somthing even if we have 20 people and live in the conditions of dictatoship.

Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS

Ill leave splitting our class to our enemies, the fascists, the bosses and the political parasites....also romantacists and left communists.

Comments
What you say is so far from reality, frome real life!
Fassist and bosses split workers class this is troof. As for us we have to overcome that splits this is olso the troof. But than we crate another splits: between workers who sturted revolutionary class strugle and overs. Alot of workers still belive in rasist and capitalists myfs, 90% of tham were passive even during lust hige proletarian protests in Franse! And what we do? Agree with this passsiv majoruty to do nothing and do not resis to bosses? Agree with submission to union bosses?
This passivity is resalt of cultural gegemonia of capital. Until we have revolution we will live in such sityation of split between revolutionary proletarians (who overcome rasists and over burgua splits in they oun movement) and overs.
Yes we create a split in workers class. This is why we need revolution!

Magidd
There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority.

You sure your not a leninist??? Because that smacks of bolshevik bullshit comrade.

Comment
1) Belive me- i am not you comrade. I have no idea why do you want to be my comrade. This is hipocrasy.
2) There were alot of anarhists and anarho-sindicalists who talk about revolutionary minority from Bakunin to FORA. If you think this is bolshevik idea- you have know idea what is revolutionary strugle.

As far as i am aware anarcho syndicalism is not about organising a revolutionary minority

Comment
O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?
What is that mean? That you have 30 million members or you are not revolutionaris? ;)

Magidd
do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight

Really we have to go and preach and teach these poor thick workers how to fight? how patronising.

Comment
It is sad if you think so. In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty as FORA. spreade some anarhist ideas and practises and show good examples of strugle wich can convins majority that direct action and libertarian communism are good ideas. This is way to become majority and i don't know anothe ways.
Are you realy misunderstand the point or you just play games? Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936. And be sure antill it join government it was splited with workers-leninists, workers-socialists and workers-nationalists.
And it was revolutionary minority be sure.

Anyone from SF ansewr my qwestion: are trade-unions like BKT (or haw do you call that- the bigest one in UK) the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?

Maggid writes: " In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty..."

There is a definitely a point to an organization of
a revolutionary minority, to act as instigators, organizers, trainers...but *of* workers in general. They cannot contribute to the liberation of the working class if they try to substitute themselves for the class. Liberation is an act of the bulk of the class.

WSA is a revolutionary group. But it does not say it is a union. I would make a distinction between the roles of a political organization, an organization of publicists, organizers, activists, etc., verus a mass organization like a union.

Maggid:
"spreade some anarhist ideas and practises and show good examples of strugle wich can convins majority that direct action and libertarian communism are good ideas."

It is not by seeing an example by others, but through their own experiences of collective decision-making and collective struggle that workers can develop, gain more confidence, acquire better understanding of the system, etc. Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas.

The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

Maggid:
"Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936." This is incorrect. In the spring of 1936 CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members. And that was after a split where it lost 60,000 members to the FOUS (POUM controlled ex-CNT unions). The CNT of Catalonia was 60% of the union members. And in Valencia it was 70% of the union members, and in Aragon and Murcia it was 80% of the union members.

Continuing:
"And it was revolutionary minority be sure." It was a majority of the unionized workers, and a very large minority of the class. Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution. It's mistake was in not doing this thru the building of new delegate congress structures to replace the state rather than joining with the Popular Front party leaders.

t.

If one likes to substitute revolutionary syndicalism (and this is what the IWA by its principles is about with councilist dogmatism as maggid promotes, why then stop in the middle of it? Every up-to-date councilist or left communist will tell you, that one of the main reasons for all reformist evils is the negotiation i.e. confronting the management with demands that are negotiable. Thus it would only be logical to kick out every union from within the IWA that goes into negotiations with the bosses once there is a conflict instead of starting the social revolution. I would suggest CNT-E and USI just to start with someone, followed by the FAU and the CNT-F/AIT.

Revolutionary syndicalism (no matter if you replace revolutionary with anarcho) always had, has and will have a certain "reformist" component. Just because we (besides from hoping for the Libertarian communism) are everyday workers with everyday needs and problems and are organizing ourselves in unions even in possibly non revolutionary times. The question is not how to get rid of those reformist collateral damage (which is impossible) but that we must be aware of it, discuss it and reduce it to the max. Anarcho syndicalism is the life and not abstract theory. If one likes the latter maybe it would be better to chose something else and end up in the fertile practice of - let's say AUFHEBEN?

magidd

Magidd
Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya

And i would like to describe your position as left communist fantasy with no real grasp on the nature of the class struggle.

Comment
This is demagogia again. As i told you befor you can repit some false but it will not become the troof after repit.
Who you to tell me this? I was at the bigest strikes in Russia during last ten years, talk with workers, spred the liflets, help people to orgernise they celles at the factory, trying to orgernise strikes at my own work. And you telling me this??? Take care aboute your oun gray and sad reformist fantasy!

See i wouldn't have called you a bolshevik since clearly you and your comrades are class struggle militants and inr ussia thats an unnacceptably loaded isnult to be throwing around, but then i beleive on another thread, you compared what the USI were doing to ''killing jews if the workers told them to'' which is also completely unnacceptable. You can't compare a group of class struggle militants to fascists just because they do somethingt hats slightly reformist. You also have repeatedly claimed they are not your comrades, so i think its a bit fucking steep for you to then get all upset when soemone claims youa re a left communist fantasist, which is a fairly mild insult in comparison to the shit you were flinging around. Afterall we're not the ones advocating banning you simply because we don't think your position is 100% correct, you are the one effectively advocating the explusion of all groups who 'co-operate with reformist unions' in anyway, which in western europe would effectively mean the reduction of the IWA to spain.

Thing is i'm not a union member, i don't work in an industry where it would be possible or useful and i'm technically agency staff, so union shops are pointless and even if they ever came up they would be likely to be used by management to isolate trouble makers in the comapny i work for, but at the same time i realise that in workpalces where being in a reformist union can help, then you should be a member.
Obviously as an anarchist you should and by the very nature of your actions generally will always oppose the ideas of union leaders and should not seek any position within the union bureaucracy outside the workplace, but being a shop steward or a member of the basic rank and file organisations of unions can be highly beneficial, of course it can sometimes be counter productive like say if i worked in tescos, theres no fucking way i'd me am member of usdaw, but trying to claim its always counter productive is just dogmatism.

Maggid writes: " In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty..."

There is a definitely a point to an organization of
a revolutionary minority, to act as instigators, organizers, trainers...but *of* workers in general. They cannot contribute to the liberation of the working class if they try to substitute themselves for the class. Liberation is an act of the bulk of the class.

Comment
This is absolutly stuped. Nobody among us deny that liberation is the act of bulk of the class itself. Olso i've olredy wrighte that nobody wants to give oders to proletariat! But from another side even FORA or Machnovshina were ornanisations of revolutionary minority of proletarians. This is obviouse. So the qewstion is: haw can we inishiate the proses of selforganisation of workers until we are in minority? This is very important point. Bakunin, FORA, Volin discuss that point. I think nobody can say that Volin was avtoritarian, bolshevik or that he was bad anarhist. He make the best booke about russian revolution and he was pure anarho-sindicalist and libertarian communist. He strugle against bolsheviks in Machno army. He was in opposition to avtoritarian "platforma" of Arshinov. Volin say: as minority of proletarians we can give good examples of strugle and libertarian organisation wich can convince of broad nutral masses of proletariat.

WSA is a revolutionary group. But it does not say it is a union. I would make a distinction between the roles of a political organization, an organization of publicists, organizers, activists, etc., verus a mass organization like a union.

Comment
So what?

Maggid:
"spreade some anarhist ideas and practises and show good examples of strugle wich can convins majority that direct action and libertarian communism are good ideas."

Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas.

Tell me where did you take this idea about "substituting"? We are against substituting of mass activity.
And where did you take this absurd idea about russian anarcho-comunists in the revolution of 1917-1921?! What mass organisations you are talking about? Who told you this shit that they try to substitut mass movement? Anarho-communists initiate the riot in july 1917 and partisipate in this mass movement. They appeal workers and solgers to create Military-Revolutionary Commity by the delegates from the factoris and revolutionary military units and to take controle over S-Petersburg.
As for anarho-communists who belong to sindicalist tendensy alot of them work at the organisations of factory comitties and over workers organisations.

The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

Comment
Grate! I am delighted! This time i agree in 100%!
But what we mast do untill majority are not involve into the prosses of change through its own actions and organizations? To say bla-bla-bla in internet? Or initiate strikes, strugle, spreade anarhist ideas, give (if we can) examples of resistens?

Maggid:
"Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936."

This is incorrect. In the spring of 1936 CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members.

Comment
No. Your position is incorrect. I am not talking about "wage-earners of Catalonia". I am talking about spanish proletariat. People of CNT had befor and during revolution about 1-2 million memebers. This is small part of 12-15 million spanish proletariat. And proletariat is not only wage-earners. Poour Pesants are also proletarians. And big part of proletarians were not union members at all.
But even if "CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members" (and mush less in meny over areas) it was still revolutionary minority even in Catalonia.

Continuing:
"And it was revolutionary minority be sure." It was a majority of the unionized workers, and a very large minority of the class. Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution.

Comment
So cooperation with avtoritarian socialist UGT was correct politicks? Wood you please explane me why in this case cooperations with political partis is not correct? Leninists and socialist partys have the same structure of organisation and the same ideas as UGT!
And what kind of delegate of UGT you are tolking about?
UGT was centralist burocratick organisations. There all or almoust all disisgions were made by burocrasy. This left cosial-demacratic burocrasy controll workers activity, collective money and propety and give oders to workers.
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers pawer to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation!
I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists.

I was at the bigest strikes in Russia during last ten years, talk with workers, spred the liflets, help people to orgernise they celles at the factory, trying to orgernise strikes at my own work. And you telling me this??? Take care aboute your oun gray and sad reformist fantasy!

Well thats really cool, and i always have respect for AS militants who work constantl, but what does that give to the debate?

90% of tham were passive even during lust hige proletarian protests in Franse! And what we do? Agree with this passsiv majoruty to do nothing and do not resis to bosses? Agree with submission to union bosses?

No we dont get dragged into reformism but we do not put ourselves outside of the mass action.

1) Belive me- i am not you comrade. I have no idea why do you want to be my comrade. This is hipocrasy.
2) There were alot of anarhists and anarho-sindicalists who talk about revolutionary minority from Bakunin to FORA. If you think this is bolshevik idea- you have know idea what is revolutionary strugle.

Well thats a shame, as i would call any member of the IWA my comrade.

A revolutionary minority of workers is not anarcho syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism is about organising all workers (were possible) it is not about seperating the revolutionary minority like the leninists wish to and creating the revolution on the workers behalf, surely as an anarcho syndicalist you agree with comrade?

O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?

I wouldnt say we are the revolutionary minority, i would say we are in a minority and we are revolutionaries. Mainly because a revolutionary minority of anarcho syndicalists is never going to work, because it is the wider participation of our class which are the only ones capable of forming actual revolutionary organisations.

Anyone from SF ansewr my qwestion: are trade-unions like BKT (or haw do you call that- the bigest one in UK) the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?

All of the unions organise under the TUC which is very reformist and is part of the labour party.

The BKT was our former bulgarian section i think.

AGAIN i wood like to repit my qestion to SF: Are trade-unions the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?
Why don't you answerig?

Yes they are reformist unions who work hand in hand with the state.

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

You said:

The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

I completely agree. It is the struggle that changes consciousness, not a slow increase of militants one by one.

O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?

I wouldnt say we are the revolutionary minority, i would say we are in a minority and we are revolutionaries.

Comment
That is gigantic differense be shure ;)

No we dont get dragged into reformism but we do not put ourselves outside of the mass action.

Comment
As we are. So what? Do you put yourselves outside of mass passivity?

A revolutionary minority of workers is not anarcho syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism is about organising all workers (were possible) it is not about seperating the revolutionary minority

Comment
Wood you please read Volin- he was 100% anarho-cindicalist.
We are not tolking about seperating we are talking about split with passive majority. The reason of this split with workers-fassists, workers-scialists, workers-liberals and just passiv workers is to initiate revolutinary strugle. Becouse untill we are obifiant to bosses and tradinions as majority of workers we are passiv and doing nothing

Yes they are reformist unions who work hand in hand with the state.

Comment
So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?

That is gigantic differense be shure

It may just look like semantics but there is alot of difference.

As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

We are not tolking about seperating we are talking about split with passive majority. The reason of this split with workers-fassists, workers-scialists, workers-liberals and just passiv workers is to initiate revolutinary strugle. Becouse untill we are obifiant to bosses and tradinions as majority of workers we are passiv and doing nothing.

But it is only this "passive majority" that can bring about credible social change and eventually the social revolution.

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

magidd

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

I dont think so comrade. I dont think the CNTE have that much in common with wacko left communist bullshit espoused by yourself. And who are these reformist anarcho syndicalists? FAU? USI? SF?!?

No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.

But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.
btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English?

knightrose

No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.

But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.
btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English?

Im saying we are not the revolutionary minority but we are a minority of revolutionaries, maybe a translation problem, an dthis thread has gon wildly of course, the main problem is that magdid spouts left commie crap and attacks our USI comrades in unions.

Isn't magidd in the IWA then?

knightrose

Isn't magidd in the IWA then?

Comrade Magdid is in our russian section the KRAS.

Comrade Magdid is in our russian section the KRAS.

See my comment on the other thread http://libcom.org/forums/history/french-syndicalists-cnt-ait-cnt-vignoles-csr

syndicalist

Perhaps this would be a subject open for discussion as well.

I figured that the matter of the USI would be a "make or break" one for the IWA. What I'm curious about is what was the view or position taken by comrades in regards to the USI's on-going participation in the RSU? And how does their participation in the RSU differ much from CNT-Vignoles participation in work place committees or for that matter from the Spanish CGT's?

Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

The USI were overwhelming supporte by sections at congress. I think it differs from the other splits, as it is a tactical choice of a couple of their unions and they are seeing the shortcomings of these tactics and are looking for alternatives, There is not a big split in the USI, the USI have managed to maintain coherency as an organisation even when some unions are using some seemingly controversial tactics. I think the sections of the IWA whilst being wary of such practice suport the tactical autonmy if the USI and there unions.

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

I dont think so comrade.

Comment
Do you know works of Karl Shmidt, german far right fiflosofists of XX? Well he was terrible fucking bustard but he was clever bustard. I bloody recomend you read him. Than you understand then you call me comrade you make a big mistake. This is my last point about that.

I dont think the CNTE have that much in common with wacko left communist bullshit espoused by yourself.

Comment
They have people and groopse who have positions wich is clouse to my point about revolutionary anarho-sindicalism. In the same time they have alot of people who beliv in the same facking reformist abomination as you beliv.

And who are these reformist anarcho syndicalists? FAU? USI? SF?!?

Comment
I think there are not only reformists like you in that sections.

WeTheYouth

Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

I think this and other threads prove otherwise.

Steve

WeTheYouth

Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

I think this and other threads prove otherwise.

Well it depends how comrades come to these debates to be fair, if people come ready to spout crap about our comrades then it will obviously degenerate. But beyond the bullshit, there has been some decent discussion on how people perceive the USI's position and its implications for the IWA and anarcho syndicalist practice. So it can be constructive.

They have people and groopse who have positions wich is clouse to my point about revolutionary anarho-sindicalism. In the same time they have alot of people who beliv in the same facking reformist abomination as you beliv.

That woudnt be the principles of revolutionary unionism by any chance would it? Because that is not at all reformist, but if you cant accept the reality of the class struggle over fantasy then i doubt these principles and the entire basis of anarcho syndicalism means much to you.

No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.
But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.

Comment
Wood'nt you ask tham to partisipate in this discusions?
I wood like to talk with not reformists from SF. I wood like to know they opinion.

btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English

Comment
Look i don't like do be arguing about words. I don't think we are only revolutionaris. But of couse we are revolutionanary minority or part of it.

As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

Comment
You just use demagogia again. This is thery tipical for reformists. They have no theoretical backgraund and only use demagogia and manipulate words. I never say we must be out of workers class! We are part of workers class of couse. But we have to split with overs then they passive and support bosses or they leninusts or fassists ets!
Are you against split in workers class even if 60% of workers beliv in exelent idea to kill jews?

magidd

As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

Comment
You just use demagogia again. This is thery tipical for reformists. They have no theoretical backgraund and only use demagogia and manipulate words. I never say we must be out of workers class! We are part of workers class of couse. But we have to split with overs then they passive and support bosses or they leninusts or fassists ets!
Are you against split in workers class even if 60% of workers beliv in exelent idea to kill jews?

Its not worth answering. It dont help the debate at all.

ha-ha-ha-hah-a))))))))

Woode you please answer my qwestion:
"So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?"

magidd

Woode you please answer my qwestion:
"So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?"

Not all unions are part of the capitalist system, would you put USI there? CNTE? but all reformist union are damaging to the working class, no anarcho syndicalist would say any different, but at the present time we have to particpate in these organisations until we are strong enough to have our own unions.

Not all unions are part of the capitalist system, would you put USI there? CNTE?

Comment
I say "TRADE-UNIONS". Yes part of USI and CNT-E are tham. Not all organisations.

but all reformist union are damaging to the working class,

Comment
i agree

but at the present time we have to particpate in these organisations until we are strong enough to have our own unions

Comment
What for do you have to partisipate in reformist unions wich "are damaging to the working class"?

Right. Fuck off if you think the USI and CNTE are in any way involved in reformist practices, thats just ridiculous.

What for? For legal protection from bosses, for standing in solidarity with the rest of the workers for better conditions, because we have no anarcho syndicalist union yet!

Right. Fuck off if you think the USI and CNTE are in any way involved in reformist practices, thats just ridiculous.

Comment
Clever strong and convincing argument.

Magidd
What for do you have to partisipate in reformist unions wich "are damaging to the working class"?

What for? For legal protection from bosses,

Comment
Wood you go to police or to munisipal elections or to political party (labour) as trotskists do if you thing it can give you legal protection from bosses?

for standing in solidarity with the rest of the workers

Comment
Wood you join the Labor party if 90% of workers in your factory are there. Woode you join there for "standing in solidarity with the rest of the workers"?

for better conditions, because we have no anarcho syndicalist union yet!

Comment
What is the connection between absence of anarcho syndicalist union and necessity to join organisations (trade-unions) wich as you say "are damaging to the working class"?

Magidd write: "But from another side even FORA or Machnovshina were ornanisations of revolutionary minority of proletarians."

I hate to contest Russian history with a Russian anarchist but... The Machnovshina was a mass movement that didn't include just the Federation of Anarchist Organizations of Ukraine, but also included Maximalists, Left SRs, syndicalists and others. The Ukrainian anarcho-communists, their federation, were indeed a "revolutionary minority." They were a political organization. But that is not the same as all the peasant collectives, local soviets, and local unions that were represented at the people's congresses that authorized the Revolutionary Army of Ukraine.

I think part of the problem is your use of the phrase "revoolutionary minority" which I think is unclear. What we want is for the bulk of the working class to build, become involved in, to run, its own mass movement, yes? This is very different than the acts of a small groups or small minorities. But when I say "the bulk of the working class" I'm not saying we have to count heads to make sure it is an exact numerical majority of every
proletarian, working and unemployed, house-husband and housewife, retiree etc. That would be too mechanistic an interpretation of "the bulk of the working class." If there is truly a mass movement that can move the class, that is the dominant working class force, that can draw large sections of the more passive members of the working class, that is an acceptable understanding of what "bulk of the working class" means. And in Catalonia in 1936 the CNT movement was "the bulk of the working class" in this sense. This is very different than small groups of even a few thousand.

Me: "Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas."

M.: "Tell me where did you take this idea about "substituting"? We are against substituting of mass activity. And where did you take this absurd idea about russian anarcho-comunists in the revolution of 1917-1921?! What mass organisations you are talking about? Who told you this shit that they try to substitut mass movement? Anarho-communists initiate the riot in july 1917 and partisipate in this mass movement. They appeal workers and solgers to create Military-Revolutionary Commity by the delegates from the factoris and revolutionary military units and to take controle over S-Petersburg."

It is true that Russian anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists participated in the Revolutionary
Military Committee of the St. Petersburg Soviet in 1917, and were an important part of the workers' militia even after Oct. 1917. There is a book about this in English by Rex Wade, called "Red Guards and Workers Militias in the Russian Revolution." But there were only four anarchists on the large (80+ members) Revolutionary Military Committee of St. Petersburg in Oct. 1917, which committee was headed by Trotsky.

About the substitutionism of the Russian anarcho-communists, I'm talking about the small group xpropriation tactice, which was the main revoltuionary method of the Russian anarcho-communist groups. Their seizure of the Durnova Villa in July 1917, which is the event I think you're referring to, is an example. But this strategy was substitutionist, they had no concept of developing mass organizations of ordinary Russians, as organizers. Their approach evolved from the 19th century "propaganda by
the deed" method which Krotpotkin had endorsed at one time (though during the 1917 revolution he became more supportive of the syndicalist method of building mass organizations). This Russian anarcho-communist small group expropriation tactic became the main reason for the big split between the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists in Russia, particularly after the expropriation of an automobile of the American ambassador gave the Bolshevik government a nice pretext for banning anarchist newspapers. Over time this small group expropriation tactic also led to corruption, as many anarchists began stealing things to make a livelihood, and justifying it by bullshit political reasons. in 1918 Maximov and the Russian anarcho-syndicalists denounced these methods of the Russian anarcho-communists. This is discussed by Paul Avrich in "The Russian Anarchists" and the problem of corruption is also alluded to by Emma Goldman in "My Disillusionment in Russia."

About Spain magidd write:
"Your position is incorrect. I am not talking about "wage-earners of Catalonia". I am talking about spanish proletariat. People of CNT had befor and during revolution about 1-2 million memebers. This is small part of 12-15 million spanish proletariat. And proletariat is not only wage-earners. Poour Pesants are also proletarians. And big part of proletarians were not union members at all.
But even if "CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members" (and mush less in meny over areas) it was still revolutionary minority even in Catalonia."

Here again, you're falling into sophistry. As far as I am aware, the CNT never tried to organize strikes in industries in the 1930s when they were a small minority. All of the strikes I am aware of were situations where the CNT was the great majority of the workers. Three of the
major strikes in Catalonia in the early '30s were the 1931 telephone and constructionn strikes, and the 1933 streetcar strike in Barcelona. In all these cases the CNT union was a very large majority of the workers. 90% in the case of the telephone and streetcar strikes.

The CNT was 60% of the organized workers in Catalonia, 70% in Valencia, 80% in Aragon and Murcia. That is surely close enough to being "the bulk of the working class" even if it was not a numerical majority of every proletarian, counting housewives and elderly abuelos. Especially since 60% of the wage-earners belonged to unions. The CNT support also extended beyond the formal union members, as was clear in the 1931 Barcelona rent strike where large numbers of women and children were involved in actions like putting people back into apartments and fighting off the police sent to evict people. in regards to peasants, there was no self-subsistent peasant agriculture in Spain, unlike Russia in 1917. Spain had a market-based agriculture and the majority of farm laborers were wage-workers. in Catalonia there was a large class of property owning farmers -- members of the petty bourgeoisie -- and many wage-laborers in market gardens. But no self-subsistent peasantry.

Moreover, you are quite wrong when you say the Spanish proletariat was 12 to 15 million. The total population of Spain was 24 million. You have to subtract about 35 to 40
percent who were children. That means the total adult population was maybe 14 million. Spain had a large population in the middle strata -- small farm owners, small shop keepers, lawyers, priests, military and police officers, managers and government administrators, etc.
These are what I would call the small business and coordinator classes, plus people in an in-between position, between the proletariat and the dominating classes, such as teachers, writers, engineers. When the PSUC in Catalonia began organizing these people into unions, they were able to build a mass union with 350,000 members, almost as big as the CNT. That suggests the large size of the middle classes. Probably larger than in the advanced capitalist countries today. And there were also elderly people maintained by their families. And in that period most wives in Spain did not work in wage labor (bringing women into industry was one of the big changes that happened during the civil war). so the "economically active" portion of the working class was nowhere near 12 to 15 million. Plus, a third of the country was
controled by the fascists during the beginning of the civil war, and the CNT lost a large part of its membership there.

Me: "Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution."

Magidd: "So cooperation with avtoritarian socialist UGT was correct politicks? Wood you please explane me why in this case cooperations with political partis is not correct? Leninists and socialist partys have the same structure of organisation and the same ideas as UGT!
And what kind of delegate of UGT you are tolking about?
UGT was centralist burocratick organisations. There all or almoust all disisgions were made by burocrasy. This left cosial-demacratic burocrasy controll workers activity, collective money and propety and give oders to workers.
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers pawer to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation! I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists."

The CNT was the majority labor union in Spain in July of 1936 but it was only just barely a majority. Nearly half the organized workers were in the CNT. And, as YOU emphasize, the CNT was a numerical minority of the entire working class. This means the CNT membership knew very well they had to work out a unity with the workers in the UGT, and also in the FOUS (the union of the POUM). This was why in Sept. 1936 the CNT proposed a federative
system of worker councils and worker congresses in which both the UGT and CNT would be represented. Yes, that means that people who supported the SP and CP leaders and a more
bureaucratic form of organization would be represented. That was necessary to build working class power
and defeat the capitalist/fascist enemy. It is simply false to say the UGT was merely a "system of exploitation"
of the working class. About a third of the UGT in 1936 were members of the Land Workers Federation. The Left-wing of the Socialist Party were the leading influence. Their methods were very similar to the CNT. In march 1936 they led 80,000 landless farm laborers into a mass seizure of 200 huge farming estates in Estremadura, to seize the land and convert them into cooperatives, managed by the farm workers.

Yes, we disagree with the state socialist ideology of the PSOE. But it was necessary to draw the rank and file membership of the UGT into a joint self-management of the
society. The CNT in fact did this in Catalonia. Take the railway system as an example. On the railways half the workers belonged to the CNT and half to the UGT. When the CNT initiated the seizure of the railway system in July 1936, the UGT workers soon came to them to ask to participate. And they set up a joint Revolutionary Railway
Federation. This was run through mass assemblies in the rail stations and terminals every two weeks, and with a rank and file coordinating committee with half the
delegates from UGT and half from CNT. How is that a violation of our principles? The fact that they gained the cooperation of the UGT workers greatly strengthened the
revolution.

The fact is, Largo Caballero, head of the Left of the Socialist Party, almost agreed to go along with the CNT proposal for replacing the Republican state with
joint CNT-UGT labor councils. This is because he was worried about the power games of the Communists. If the CNT had played their cards right, I think they could
have persuaded the Left Socialists to agree to the CNT's terms. Where you are wrong is in thinking it was not necessary to work for a united front with the UGT and FOUS (POUM) workers.

The trade unions are not just parts of the state or parts of capital. That is an ultra-left mistake. They are more contradictory. Looking at the unions in the USA, where I live, they have both elements of topdown control, and elements of democracy. For example, workers in unions in the USA almost always have the right to have a mass assembly to vote on contracts -- unlike under the works
councils in Spain, for example. Yet, yes, they do sometimes try to constrain struggle, via topdown manipulation. The buaucracy has its own interests, which
are not idential with either the interests of the workers or the capitalists or the state. Workers here often use the existing unions, imperfect though they are, as a vehicle for launching struggles with their employers. They are a means of resistance. Because they are, and because participation in them enables us to gain access to, and dialogue with, our coworkers, that is why it is necessary
to organize within them.

It is good that you go to workers when they are involved in strikes or struggles and talk to them, dialogue with them. I respect you for doing that.

t.

Jack wrote:

This is just personally, as a member of SF. I don't think it's useful to say trade unions are 'part of the state'.

It's funny how many of the bureaucrats end in the House of Lords though. And the number of unions who "sponsor" MPs. And the way the TUC pays for the Labour Party.
Maybe not exactly part of the state. More sort of poor relations. Definitely part of the management structure.

knightrose

Jack wrote:

This is just personally, as a member of SF. I don't think it's useful to say trade unions are 'part of the state'.

It's funny how many of the bureaucrats end in the House of Lords though. And the number of unions who "sponsor" MPs. And the way the TUC pays for the Labour Party.
Maybe not exactly part of the state. More sort of poor relations. Definitely part of the management structure.

Are you not a member of such a union?

Yes. I'm a member of the NUT. The real problem we face is the tension between the local branch and the ruling bodies of the unions. My comments refer to the ruling bodies.

Maggid - This is just personally, as a member of SF. I don't think it's useful to say trade unions are 'part of the state'. Certainly not in the current context in this country, you'd just sound mad.

Comment
I did not said they are part of state. I said they are the part of capitalist sistem as state or privet corporations. And of couse they bosses strongly connected with state?

TU's are a flawed form of workers collective resistance to the worst effects of capital. At times, they can be organs of working class struggle, and can be used to make significant advances in working class living standards.

Comment
So the same with labor party. ;) Wood you olso join there? Or wood you aguring that some local groopse of labor party try to protect some material intres of part of workers?
I allredy answer at another forum. Trade-unions are corpotrations who sell workers pawer to bosses. Trade-union burocrates control profit, collective money, infrustructure and activity of simle workers. They are just capitalist corparation. Don't you here about Mihels "iron prinsip og oligarhia"?
Trade unions dengerouse becouse they integrate oppositional activity of proletarions. That's another reason why we need to terminate trade unions and to liberate proletarian autonomous activity and energy.

So, Russia isn't that different from Britain then?

The labour party isn't a form of collective proletarian resistance, no matter how flawed.

Strangely, though, it has been funded over the years by the collective proletarian resistance. Hmmmmmmm.

Oh well, I'm a teeny bit pissed. So just ignore anything that's unpleasant.

About the substitutionism of the Russian anarcho-communists, I'm talking about the small group xpropriation tactice, which was the main revoltuionary method of the Russian anarcho-communist groups. Their seizure of the Durnova Villa in July 1917, which is the event I think you're referring to, is an example. But this strategy was substitutionist, they had no concept of developing mass organizations of ordinary Russians, as organizers.

Comment
I am professionaly leaning the history of Russian revolution and i tell you: this is just bulshit. The moust secsesful anarhist movement befo Macnovshina were anarho-communist workers resistens in Belostok. There was interprofessional federation of groopes of anarho-comunists like FORA with hundreds or thusends members. And there was permanent proletarian assembly with 5.000-30.000 people wich sometime control the city. It was one of the moste secesfull anarhist movements in history. And it cooperated not with fucking trade-unions but with anothere revolutionary oraganisations and with some active not-anarhist workers.
As for 1917 anarho-communists expropriate the house of Durnovo and make the club and Hause for workers. Anarho-commnists were not any substituters. They initiated mass movements and work with different factory collectivs and revolutionary military units collectives.

The CNT was the majority labor union in Spain in July of 1936 but it was only just barely a majority.

Comment
I don't think you can mask the fact that in 1936 befor revolution CNT-E had about 1 or 1,5 million members and there were about 15 or even 10 million proletarians in Spane. Even if CNT was in majority in some areas it was small revolutionary majonority of spanish workers class.
And i think it is creasy idea that we can initiate strikes or resistens in some plsases only if we are in majority there... In this case we will never become majority ;)

Magidd
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers power to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation! I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists."

...End, as YOU emphasize, the CNT was a numerical minority of the entire working class. This means the CNT membership knew very well they had to work out a unity with the workers in the UGT, and also in the FOUS (the union of the POUM). This was why in Sept. 1936 the CNT proposed a federative system of worker councils and worker congresses in which both the UGT and CNT would be represented. Yes, that means that people who supported the SP and CP leaders and a more bureaucratic form of organization would be represented. That was necessary to build working class power and defeat the capitalist/fascist enemy. It is simply false to say the UGT was merely a "system of exploitation"

Comment
That is simply means that you have no understanding what is explotation at all.
Exploatation is the situation than sombody have monopoly to use resalts of collective work. This is situation of any centralist organisation . They burocratick leaders control collective resorses of milliones of workers: workers power, collectiv money, ifrustructure, part of time ets. Burocrats negoshiate with bosses and state and make en egreaments about using of labour power. As for UGT it olso have offisialy anti-anarhist statatist program.
You don't understend that burocratic organisation CAN NOT be instrument of liberation of workers becouse it is ALLREDY capitalist organisation.
Thire is only way for revolutionary attitude : total termination of such organisations.
Ans YES, WE HAVE TO COOPERATE WITH WORKERS, who still there. Thery is only one way for that: to blow up trade-unions insyde, to create on they plases assemblease and workers Soviets, and (if we can) anarhist revolutionary assosiations wich kick burocrats outside factory. Untill we do that work capitalism will be stable.

Magid
So the same with labor party.

No, not at all. The labour party isn't a form of collective proletarian resistance, no matter how flawed.

Comment
The trade-unionse are olso not the forms of collective proletarian resistens becouse they bosses exploited workers class and integrate spontanoiuse workers protests. This is why trade-unions must diy. Untill they alive they controll the proletarian protests by they burocrasy and legal methods of strugle and do not give to proletariat possibility to leave the framework of capitalism.
Laibor party do almouste the same.
But for sure they were created for proletarian selfdeffens as probably labor party. I think Beatriss Webb was personaly honest then she said that.

Looking at the unions in the USA, where I live, they have both elements of topdown control, and elements of democracy.

Comment
That's exactly the same as in the modern burgua state. It has elements of democrasy even some elements of direct democrasy (as referendums in some Europian countres); in the same time burocracy and corparations control (in generaly) politics of state. And yes! workers sometime use the elements of state demacrasy in they own aims. They can for example dismiss unpopular politik or vote for increasing of social partnership... or for withdroing of emigrants.
So if we agree with you logik we must use state as you prefere to use trade-unions.

I can understand if some people can not get the job withaut being members of unions. In this situation they can join. I olso can understand that if there is union strike such people can orgernised the meeting at they workers plase, initiate direct action. But we have to remember 3 things in such situation
1) Trade-unionse must be terminated and exhenged by workers assemleas. Trade-unionse can not be reformed. And we try to explain that to people.
2) We have to make propoganda of direct action and anarcho-communist ideas.
3)If there are some people are not union members we must try to make them join the assembly.

knightrose

Yes. I'm a member of the NUT. The real problem we face is the tension between the local branch and the ruling bodies of the unions. My comments refer to the ruling bodies.

So it's the bureaucracies then not at branch level. A bit different to what you've said before. Is it the same with your other 'union' :roll: and the MSPs?

So it's the bureaucracies then not at branch level. A bit different to what you've said before. Is it the same with your other 'union' Rolleyes and the MSPs?

The tension in the unions, the drive to bureaucratisation etc extends all the way down to the branches. However, the local branch is composed of ordinary workers, so they also attempt to defend living conditions. It's just that Steve Sinnott and his cronies do their best to stop them! If there were a decent a-s union alternative, I'd probably join it! (that's not an insult against SF).

btw - I'm not going to discuss the IWW here. Privately is another matter. There is a dispute on, after all.

That's exactly the same as in the modern burgua state. It has elements of democrasy even some elements of direct democrasy (as referendums in some Europian countres); in the same time burocracy and corparations control (in generaly) politics of state. And yes! workers sometime use the elements of state demacrasy in they own aims. They can for example dismiss unpopular politik or vote for increasing of social partnership... or for withdroing of emigrants.
So if we agree with you logik we must use state as you prefere to use trade-unions.

Maggid you're a mentalist. That does not follow, OK. It just doesn't. You're being ridiculous and stretching things beyond where they can go.

Dundee_United

Maggid you're a mentalist. That does not follow, OK. It just doesn't. You're being ridiculous and stretching things beyond where they can go.

Dundee, he's obviously not "mental", and this is non-flaming forum.

Revol any more of your pathetic snipes at magidd's english (how many languages do you speak?) and you're getting a ban.

Dundee, he's obviously not "mental", and this is non-flaming forum.

Ok. Sorry mods, sorry Maggid.

I do however think that the views being expressed here by Maggid are not realistic, and I think that comrade Maggid has a habit of taking something somebody says and stretching it by straw man analogy to the point where everything is rank parliamentarism.

[Tone isn't conveyed well by text. It wasn't meant to be flamey - just slightly overbearing :p]

I know this is an old thread, but i noticed this at CNT's site and didn't want to start a new thread.

At the beginning of 1995, one part of USI (which was based in the city of Rome) tried to lead USI into an organization called ARCA-USAE (linked to a coordination of European unions) together with other Italian unions, both alternative as well as corporate. The ARCA project lasted a few years and in the end failed due to internal power struggles.

The majority of USI at that time objected to joining ARCA, conscious that this would mean ending the identity of USI and its participation in the IWA. The part of the union referred to as USI Roma arose as the result of an internal process that led to a Congress held in Rome in April 1996 in which they declared their separation from the rest of USI. The legitimate part of USI held its Congress in Prato Carnico in May of the same year. The XX IWA Congress (Madrid, December 1996), after checking the authoritarian practices of the splinter group from the Congress of Rome, decide to expel them from the IWA, recognizing at the same time USI which had held its Congress in Prato Carnico, as the only legitimate section of the IWA in Italy. Despite all this, the splinter group continued usurping the name USI as well as IWA, creating serious problems for the legitimate USI-IWA in its union action (calling strikes, labour conflicts, etc.). The splinter group, in addition to arbitrarily using our initials, USI-AIT, continued to have an organization and a way of conducting union activity that can only be defined as clientelist, corporativist, authoritarian and oriented at delegating power to the top of the organization (including at some times supporting the Roman Rifondazione Comunista party in local elections). All of this clearly has nothing to do with the principles of anarchosyndicalism and the IWA.

An example of the problems caused for our union becuase of this unclear situation was when we called for a strike against the war in Iraq, together with other alternative unions. USI Red Black Coordination sent a telegram to the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research saying that USI did not call any strike. The consequence of this was an enormous confusion amongst workers, since the Ministry issued a statement that declared the strike didn't exist.Another example are the declarations of the leaders of the USI Red Black Coordination which announce that they would vote for the candidates of the party Rifondazione Comunista in the local elections in Rome.

Therefore we want to inform the union that participates in the Red Black Coordination with the initials USI / USI-AIT, that the only USI recognized by the IWA, and therefore the only one that can legitimately use their initials, is the one who currently (2010) has its National Secretariat in Via Bologna 28, Genova, and whose current National Secretary is Guido Barroero, demanding an immediate end to use both the name IWA / AIT of our international, to which they don't belong.

USI-IWA website is http://www.usi-ait.org & http://www.lottadiclasse.it

http://cnt.es/node/2775

If you're bringing this thread back from the dead, there is a statement I'd take issue with:

That's the way it is in the USA, where there are no works councils.

Unless we quibble about the specific definitions of a works council, they do exist in the US- at least in one industry, education; specifically higher education. Universities, state colleges, community colleges, etc across the US have "Classified Employees Councils". State employees who work for state run and/or state funded higher education institutions in many states are given the status of 'Classified' or 'Non-Classified' after their probationary period after being hired (most are classified; non-classified include skilled tradesmen like electricians, plumbers, etc who have their own unions). After this, they are subject to an elected representative body of workers from every department of the school; the Classified Employees Council. This includes building maintenance workers, custodians, groundskeepers, etc as well as representatives of the upper echelon faculty (the school President has an observor on the council) while another spot on the council is taken by a 'liason' between the school and the state. During meetings of the council, negotiations are done that concern the workforce.

Sometimes there is a union as well (such as the case with the USI/CGT-E/CNT-V) who may or may not be recognized by the state. Palomar College in CA has a union recognized as the collective bargaining agent on the council:

http://www.palomarcceaft.org/

While the schools in the state I work in (WV) often have a union presence (American Federation of Teachers) state employees do not have the right to collectively bargain- so the council is the sole negotiating agent.

The West Virginia University Staff Council was created to provide the classified staff employees of West Virginia University a means of conveying their concerns on employee-employer relations. This council was formed with recognition that all matters at West Virginia University are governed by state law, by the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission, and West Virginia University policies and procedures.

I think this counts as a works council in the US. But yea, they're no where near as common as in Europe.

I wouldn't make this into an issue of smaller or bigger sections. Also this issue was largely brought up by cnt

Yes, and the IWA asked them to stop using RSU. However it rarely comes up as a contentious issue these days. It seems that if new problems come up and if the topic is made something else, nobody remembers thus topic.

works councils are actually illegal in the private sector in USA because they would count as a "company union" under the definition of the Wagner Act, and "company unions" are illegal. That's why IG Metall and VW wanted UAW to gain recognition at the VW plant, since a works council would be legal if mandated by a union collective bargaining agreement.

Syndicalist, the issue is brought up from time to time but it goes nowhere. My most educated guess is that other false crises have been created and attention has been diverted. From recent correspondence and internet psycho stuff, l assume that the main occupation of USl is claiming l called them Trotskyists. :-) (l didn't, but they have their theories.)

But seriously, l would suppose that really the main reason that the topic does not come up is because there is increasing participation in work councils on the part of FAU and CNT has flipped their policy, so instead of criticizing what FAU or USl is doing, they spent their time otherwise. So the question of workplace tactics is put in the background while questions of who should be in the lWA are brought in as very divisive issues.

That said, we have a few workplace unions and are looking for more, so the question of tactics is almost always up to discussion in our organization. We have hospital workers who ask about how this looks in ltaly, people discuss stuff like this and really show a preference for normal rank and file unionism. However l do not recall that anybody in our organization had any conflict or hard differences of opinion with USl regarding that matter. ln other words, l suppose that we would participate in such a thing and in general we are critical/ against them, but we haven't had any conflict with USl about that. l think a much bigger beef about this would be that the hospital workers here wanted to have contacts with the workers there, but this was not facilitated and in some cases rather discouraged by USl, whose members like to say very bad things, claim we are a couple of people, with no history, from suspicious backgrounds... in other words, we can even doubt that the rank and file members of those unions know about what their colleagues here are doing.

l guess this is very off topic, so l will leave it at that.

Sorry,typo and correction. Should be that we wouldn't participate in these.