I haven't really followed what is going on in this struggle, but do people really think that passing motions through trade union branches has anything to offer workers in terms of developing their struggles?
Trade union branch meetings are generally empty dead events, where a few lefties pass motions if they can manage to get enough of their fellow workers to come along to meet the quorum.
I don't think that it has much to offer in the way of building solidarity with other workers.
I think it's considered worthwhile just for the money, which the ex-workers badly need as Unite have been, unsurprisingly, pretty useless and tightwads - and as a way of making other workers aware of the dispute. No, Devrim, it doesn't adequately substitute for the greater class solidarity action that is lacking - but I doubt anyone is under the illusion that it could.
Yes, like others said the point of passing union motions is to get money. I think it's important that we try to get people to give money to the fund that the workers themselves control - because most unions would normally give to the official union fund, which is very unlikely to ever get anywhere near the workers.
Chatting to the Belfast workers tonight you can be assured that they'd readily welcome the sort of support fund money that might be generated from these union motions.
So the only reason to push for this sort of thing is that union branches will send money. Do you think that it should be limited to union branches, or should it be taken to the Labour Party, or maybe even the Women's Institute?
I think the main point here is that union branches tend to be very much empty shells. I don't think that this is an effective way to collect money even. Surely if you only wanted to collect money the best thing would be to appeal to workers directly. At least then it would try and involve workers politically in however small a way.
But I think that there is more than that. I think that people can get pulled into activity like this because they feel a need to support a strike. Even though it goes against most of the things they believe in.
Is it though, Jack? You seem to admit that it is an empty shell ("10 minutes talking to the branch chair"), but don't seem even to realise that there is more to solidarity donations than just the money. Surely part of it is about arguing with fellow workers for the need for such solidarity.
The way that you seem to express it, you may as well go and appeal to eccentric millionaires. After all John Paul Getty III gave £100,000 to support the miners' strike.
I don't see the point of Dev's purism. (It's also a little odd to see such uninformed sweeping statements from an ICC member in Turkey when I've seen no comment or involvement at all on here re. this dispute from UK ICC members. I guess that's their oft-touted 'internationalism' for you...)
Of course Visteon workers and supporters have collected money directly from other workers and supporters and discussed the issues - but, as shown by other comments here, in this instance the union branches can also be a convenient source of funds, without any great compromise; acknowledging that is not automatically a capitulation to 'weakness on the union question' or some other pointless abstraction.
Even the ICC sometimes supports union-led and financed strikes, so, again, I don't see the point of this purism.
Devrim
I think that people can get pulled into activity like this because they feel a need to support a strike. Even though it goes against most of the things they believe in.
Yes, people think this dispute - it's not a strike, btw - deserves support. I don't agree with everything about the way it's being conducted - I doubt I would about many strikes/disputes - so what? Wider class solidarity has been very limited, yes, and so money is short, but - considering the real circumstances, rather than any holy abstract principles - I don't see it as an unacceptable compromise in this instance to take money from local union branches to put directly into the workers' own coffers to maintain picket lines etc.
It's also a little odd to see such uninformed sweeping statements from an ICC member in Turkey when I've seen no comment or involvement at all on here re. this dispute from UK ICC members. I guess that's their oft-touted 'internationalism' for you...
But then I started the first post by clearly stating that I didn't know anything about this dispute, and I thought that it was quite clear that I was talking about the general idea, so yeah I suppose that you would expect 'uninformed sweeping statements'. I guess that comments is your 'oft-touted slag off the ICC before reading what they say' for you.
Ret Marut
acknowledging that is not automatically a capitulation to 'weakness on the union question' or some other pointless abstraction.
Similarly, I am not quite sure what the use of inverted commas is for here unless it is to try to attribute some 'pointless abstraction' to me, which I didn't mention at all.
Ret Marut
Yes, people think this dispute - it's not a strike, btw - deserves support.
I think if you go back and re-read what I said it is quite clear that again I am referring to strikes in general, and not this struggle (I use a strike, not this strike), but hey why miss a chance to infer that somebody else on another continent is ignorant because they don't know as much about a struggle on your own doorstep as you. Don't let the fact that they weren't even talking about it get in the way of trying to make yourself look clever.
Ret Marut
Even the ICC sometimes supports union-led and financed strikes,...
The ICC supports all workers struggles in defence of working class living standards whether they are 'union-led' or not. I suppose the 'sometimes' is used to suggest that we don't.
Ret Marut
so, again, I don't see the point of this purism.
I think it is an important point to discuss. I think that there are important considerations here about the way that revolutionaries orientate themselves towards workers disputes. However, I don't see much point in discussing it with you as you seem more interested in taking cheap shots at the ICC than discussing the point I raised.
Ah Dev you can't back out of this by saying 'oh I was just talking about generally'.
This thread, is about THIS workplace issue, and how in THIS instance, the compromise wasn't exactly that problematic and doesn't necessarily involve abandoning a critique of the unions.
Ah Dev you can't back out of this by saying 'oh I was just talking about generally'.
This thread, is about THIS workplace issue, and how in THIS instance, the compromise wasn't exactly that problematic and doesn't necessarily involve abandoning a critique of the unions.
Exactly - you were applying your abstract generalisations to activities of posters here in this specific dispute. Now you seem to say, 'criticise what I specifically said and it's just an excuse to attack the ICC.' I think this kind of behaviour and abstraction is rooted in the ICC's perspectives, whose politics sometimes seem more like a moralistic code of ethics than a means for practical engagement in struggles.
And to say that I've made a habit of gratuitous attacks on the ICC is just untrue. I've concretely criticised their misconceptions and their many repeated factual inaccuracies. I've also several times bothered to debate political points with them at great length. I should get out more...
Ah Dev you can't back out of this by saying 'oh I was just talking about generally'.
This thread, is about THIS workplace issue, and how in THIS instance, the compromise wasn't exactly that problematic and doesn't necessarily involve abandoning a critique of the unions.
Well there wasn't a thread until I commented, and I think that comments such as "but do people really think that passing motions through trade union branches has anything to offer workers in terms of developing their struggles?" make it clear that I was talking in general. So yes, I think I was.
Also I just reported your post mistakenly thinking it was the quote button, sorry and sorry for the inconvenience admins.
I wasn't likely to spend that time arguing why my workmates should donate directly to Visteon - they'd either look at me in mild bemusement, or suggest I got the union to do it, since they (almost) all pay dues to that.
I think that is a very telling statement, Jack. How it sounds to me is that you don't think that you can go out and argue with your fellow workers about the dispute, so you don't.
Jack
A one off donation from a single union branch doesn't come with strings attached to it - it was a case of either they got £250 or not. And it's not as if it's what we've limited our support for the dispute to. It was one thing, that is easy to do, and case raise a fair whack of money.
And what you seem to be saying now is that 'this is just a one of donation from my branch, it isn't a problem', but what I am saying is that there are people on here who seem to be advocating it as a general strategy. Why else produce model motions?
Its not a 'general' strategy, its one thing you can do if the possibility exists, and as pointed out already, is hardly the worst thing your union might do. If a model email or protest letter was produced, as they often are for disputes / campaigns, would you say that the 'general strategy' of the campaign was emails? Or would it be ok as long as the emails weren't sent from a Union office? ;)
I think most peoples 'general strategy' is to offer and drum up as much support as we can for the workers in this dispute, so those in a position to raise money for them by this avenue arent going to pass up the chance.
Trying to get some rank and file union members to support this dispute (Visteon) is critical. Union top brass want this to go away as soon as possible before these tactics spread too widely . With many, if not most, workers still married to the idea that it is the unions 'job' to improve their conditions of employment and in the worst scenario save their jobs it is worth while working with local union branches. Even if these are empty shells we should still do all we can to restrict the effectiveness of Union bureaucrats.
The Union bureau are very alert to the threat local industrial branches pose to their control over workers. Recently Unite membership department has been joining new members of my local work place to join general branches near where they live instead of their work place branch.This is a conscious strategy to weaken rank and file collective strength in anticipation of increased wildcat actions from membership. We can take a 'pureist whiter than white' approach or we can engage with rank and file members to try and break them away from union bureaucrats.
As the Visteon dispute painfully demonstrates the trade union question will not be solved by sticking our heads in the sand and hoping workers will simply come to the realisation that the unionism largely distracts them from their main task: workers direct control through councils
Its not a 'general' strategy, its one thing you can do if the possibility exists, and as pointed out already, is hardly the worst thing your union might do. If a model email or protest letter was produced, as they often are for disputes / campaigns, would you say that the 'general strategy' of the campaign was emails? Or would it be ok as long as the emails weren't sent from a Union office? wink
Well yes basically, the protest letter is pretty limp as well. The thing that really astounds me is that after all of the talk of direct action when it comes to a dispute there is always some anarchist advocating sending a protest letter to the boss.
Surely the task of revolutionaries must be different from the sort of 'support' advocated by the trade unions. I think that what needs to be done is exactly the opposite of what you seem to advocate:
notch8
I think most peoples 'general strategy' is to offer and drum up as much support as we can for the workers in this dispute, so those in a position to raise money for them by this avenue arent going to pass up the chance.
Drum up support from whom? Trade union branch meetings that are only attended by officials who were elected by default as it is in many cases.
Jack
Well no, I'm not likely to go and start arguing with my workmates about Visteon apropos of nothing. If a context came up, I would, where it made sense. So, for example, Iw as able to argue about solidarity with Natalia Szymanska when we did pickets for the Subway day of action, and try (and fail) to get people along to this. However, if I'd just said "donate money to this in solidarity", they'd have been more confused than anything else, really.
But it is not that long ago Jack that workplaces would hold mass meetings to discuss other workers disputes. I think that organising to bring some of the workers in dispute to your workplace, including printing a leaflet, and standing outside as people are going in trying to engage people in discussion, yes, and collect money, is much more the way we try to go about things.
Is it difficult? Yes I think so at the moment. Is it necessary? Yes, I really think so
Jack
That is what I'm saying, exactly. I don't think anyone is trying to make it a general strategy - I had nothing to do with the model motion, so can't confirm or deny the thinking behind it, but I'd presume it was just along the lines of "some people have gotten money with minimal effort for this dispute doing this. As we have already written a motion, we can now produce a model motion, meaning it would take minutes for someone to do the same and get some more money."
The things that we are trying to do aren't about minimal effort. Our goal is a working class which is consciously active in defence of its own interest. That is n't about minimal effort.
Actually Devrim, I havent written a letter or a email, if you think thats all Ive done seriously go fuck yourself.The example was illustrative, and Im guessing youre fully aware of that, but youve kind of backed yourself into a corner on this thread with your knee jerk anything-that-ever-happens-through-a-union-ever-must-be-bad bullshit. What Ive done is offer practical and moral support to the occupiers as much and as often as I can.
As for 'drumming up support'...for all the problems Ive got with union full timers, if you talk to the workers who are in struggle, they wouldnt pass up the chance to get a few bob off a union branch, so thats their call. As far as Im concerned, the task of class struggle activists is to support the workers, letting them remain in charge of their own struggle at all times. If youre so convinced that you need to talk them round to the correct political viewpoint, why not come down to the gates and sell papers like the rest of the opportunist vultures?
Actually Devrim, I havent written a letter or a email, if you think thats all Ive done seriously go fuck yourself.
I am not particularly interested in what you have done to be honest. I am more interested in how these type of motions relate to workers struggles here.
Notch8
but youve kind of backed yourself into a corner on this thread with your knee jerk anything-that-ever-happens-through-a-union-ever-must-be-bad bullshit.
I don't think so, but then I am not the one who is throwing abuse around instead of constructing an argument. The bit with the dashes between it is something else that I have never said by the way.
Notch8
if you talk to the workers who are in struggle, they wouldnt pass up the chance to get a few bob off a union branch, so thats their call.
Ultimately charity doesn't win struggles though.
Notch8
As far as Im concerned, the task of class struggle activists is to support the workers, letting them remain in charge of their own struggle at all times.
What's the point of having the politics that you do if you don't believe on acting on them? Surely the task of communists is to argue for what they believe are the tactics to win, not to tail-end whatever the unions suggest.
An example here could be the way that the 'international day of action' was based around the idea of a consumer boycott. Do you think it is the task of revolutionaries to go along with this or to argue why it offers nothing to the struggle accept the path to defeat?
After all, its not like we haven't seen workers led by their unions to defeat with these sort of tactics before.
Notch8
If youre so convinced that you need to talk them round to the correct political viewpoint, why not come down to the gates and sell papers like the rest of the opportunist vultures?
Well, I am hardly going to fly across continents to visit a small dispute, and we don't sell papers to strikers anyway with give them to them, but its a nice insult to finish with.
I am not particularly interested in what you have done to be honest. I am more interested in how these type of motions relate to workers struggles here.
BY BEING A MEANS OF RAISING MUCH NEEDED AND APPRECIATED FUNDS FOR THE OCCUPIERS / STRIKERS, as has been pointed out umpteen times.
And also something that people can do who may not be in a position to physically visit the occupations.
Devrim
Ultimately charity doesn't win struggles though.
Maybe not, but without the practical and monetary support they have received, the picketers, and especially the Belfast occupiers would never have been able to hold out as long as they did.
Devrim
What's the point of having the politics that you do if you don't believe on acting on them? Surely the task of communists is to argue for what they believe are the tactics to win, not to tail-end whatever the unions suggest.
Well as Ive already pointed out, having the 'politics that I do' means that I think ultimately the workers decide what tactics to adopt to 'win', also consider that what the workers consider a 'win' might be different from we think.
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Devrim
Well, I am hardly going to fly across continents to visit a small dispute, and we don't sell papers to strikers anyway with give them to them, but its a nice insult to finish with.
Would be something to burn in the oil drum if they ran out of wood I suppose.
Whats really insulting is you trying to use this thread about something that people might be able to do to support a dispute, that many see as very important, to pick a petty row about attitudes to the Trades Unions.
Dev - there was NOTHING in that proposed Day of Action that called for a 'consumer boycott' - I have no idea where you got that idea. It was an information picket, with leaflets for Ford employees etc. Not a single person suggested a Ford boycott. If people have decided to spend 8k on a car, a leaflet outside a showroom is unlikely to change their mind, and no one suggested that.
As it is, given the deal accepted it doesn't look like that Day of Action will occur, though given there are further negotiations on pensions it's not entirely unlikely that solidarity action won't be called on again.
Yes Dev, charity doesn't win struggles, but the food, clothes, sleeping bags, and support money given to workers enabled them to stay there as long as they did, boosted morale, and showed them that people gave a shit about their struggle.
In fact, your characterization of vital and much-needed support to workers in struggle, be it financial or in terms of materials (food etc) as 'charity' is patronising and cretinous beyond words.
Whats really insulting is you trying to use this thread about something that people might be able to do to support a dispute, that many see as very important, to pick a petty row about attitudes to the Trades Unions.
Except there wasn't a thread at all. Mine was the first post on their, which went up nearly a week after the article, and so obviously nobody was discussing it. Still its nice the way you try to paint it that I'm deliberately trying to sabotage people's support of this dispute.
AS for whether its petty or not, that may be your opinion, but I think that it's important.
Choccy
Dev - there was NOTHING in that proposed Day of Action that called for a 'consumer boycott' - I have no idea where you got that idea. It was an information picket, with leaflets for Ford employees etc. Not a single person suggested a Ford boycott. If people have decided to spend 8k on a car, a leaflet outside a showroom is unlikely to change their mind, and no one suggested that.
Steven
Well, this isn't for me to decide, but I would think that what people should do will be related to what is nearest to where they live. So for most people this would be picketing/leafleting Ford dealerships.
Choccy
It's an INTERNATIONAL action.
So, Ford plants, offices, showrooms, KPMG offices etc, whatever is closest to where you are organising.
So what was being suggested outside showrooms? Maybe I misunderstood.
Choccy
Yes Dev, charity doesn't win struggles, but the food, clothes, sleeping bags, and support money given to workers enabled them to stay there as long as they did, boosted morale, and showed them that people gave a shit about their struggle.
In fact, your characterization of vital and much-needed support to workers in struggle, be it financial or in terms of materials (food etc) as 'charity' is patronising and cretinous beyond words.
I think that they are words that have to be said. Before explaining why I think that is so though, I just want to clarify something. You make it sound here that I am arguing against people giving financial support. In fact earlier in this same thread, I argue for it. What is important though is the way that we raise money. It is not a non-political issue.
The reason that I think it is important to say that charity doesn't win struggles is because if we go back through the history of working class struggles it has been used by the unions to convince workers that they are doing something to support struggles and as a weapon against extension of struggles, which is what is needed to win. At times giving money has been directly counterpoised as an argument against more direct forms of solidarity.
So yes, it can help, but I think that the methods that we try to go about in collecting it are not unimportant as they have a direct effect on developing the ground to argue for solidarity action.
You may think that that is a 'cretinous' argument. I don't.
notch8
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Except there wasn't a thread at all. Mine was the first post on their, which went up nearly a week after the article, and so obviously nobody was discussing it.
Maybe because no one else thought there was an issue with it?
Devrim
notch8
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Do you have anymore straw men?
Well if youd explain how thats a straw man, I might be able to help you.
Devrim
Well, I am hardly going to fly across continents to visit a small dispute
Neither are people from New Zealand or Brazil, but they were at least able to send messages of support and solidarity. I didnt see any from the ICC on the factory walls.
So what was being suggested outside showrooms? Maybe I misunderstood.
Eh an information leaflet - informing people about the factory occupation, both general public and Ford workers.
If you'd bothered to look at the literature on this site connected to this struggle, there was a flyer specifically for other Ford workers.
And apparently the threat of pickets at dealerships was enough for Ford bosses to send 'red flag' emails to all individual dealerships/showrooms.
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Do you have anymore straw men?
I'd love to know how that's a straw man Dev, serious.
notch
Neither are people from New Zealand or Brazil, but they were at least able to send messages of support and solidarity. I didnt see any from the ICC on the factory walls.
Exactly, the workers were very appreciative from the messages of support and had the plastered around the walls of the canteen at the factory, growing each time we visited. Such support, from Poland, NewZealand, Brazil, the USA etc etc helped keep morale high and told the workers that they had support all over.
devrim
The reason that I think it is important to say that charity doesn't win struggles is because if we go back through the history of working class struggles it has been used by the unions to convince workers that they are doing something to support struggles and as a weapon against extension of struggles, which is what is needed to win. At times giving money has been directly counterpoised as an argument against more direct forms of solidarity.
And no one here is arguing that 'charity' should replace direct action. The workers WERE taking direct ation, and it was being supported by people who were doing solidarity work, whcih for some involved sending an email to a union branch and getting some money. Again it isn't advocated as a general strategy, but in this context actually served to support the direct action being taken, by workers, to try and improve their lives.
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Do you have anymore straw men?
I'd love to know how that's a straw man Dev, serious.
Perhaps because I never suggested at all that anybody should 'try to tell workers how to run their dispute'. What I said was that you shouldn't abandon your politics when working in solidarity with people. There is a bit of a difference.
Notch8
Neither are people from New Zealand or Brazil, but they were at least able to send messages of support and solidarity. I didnt see any from the ICC on the factory walls.
Well you didn't see any from the ICC in Turkey because we didn't send one.
Choccy
Exactly, the workers were very appreciative from the messages of support and had the plastered around the walls of the canteen at the factory, growing each time we visited. Such support, from Poland, NewZealand, Brazil, the USA etc etc helped keep morale high and told the workers that they had support all over.
Yes, OK messages of support can give psychological support to people involved in a dispute, and stress that they are not alone. They only happen though when people are isolated. When there are massive strikes, you never see people saying "send messages of support to...". It would be practically impossible. What the message of support is in fact saying is "workers you are not isolated" at exactly the time that they are.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing in itself, but we should realise what they are. There are scores of disputes going on everyday around the world. I can think of at least a dozen factory occupations in this country over the last year. Did you send messages of support to any of them? I wouldn't have expected you to have done so.
What I am asking though is why when anarchists are active around small disputes, the tactics that they advocate often seem to be little different from more 'left-wing' members of the Labour Party, send a message of support, pass a motion in your union branch, write and complain to the employer...To be fair they don't generally ask people to write to their MP.
I think that it is an important question.
Choccy
Devrim
So what was being suggested outside showrooms? Maybe I misunderstood.
Eh an information leaflet - informing people about the factory occupation, both general public and Ford workers.
And apparently the threat of pickets at dealerships was enough for Ford bosses to send 'red flag' emails to all individual dealerships/showrooms.
Again, I am not saying that everything you do/have done is bad. I am merely raising questions about certain things. I am very wary of things aimed at the 'general public'. Here I am not sure what you see the function of leafleting the 'general public' as being.
Choccy
If you'd bothered to look at the literature on this site connected to this struggle, there was a flyer specifically for other Ford workers.
I know that there was, but then I am not particularly interested in this dispute anyway. I am trying to raise general perspectives.
Notch8
Mine was the first post on their, which went up nearly a week after the article, and so obviously nobody was discussing it.
Maybe because no one else thought there was an issue with it?
Maybe, though that doesn't mean that I am wrong to question it. Maybe they were put off by the amount of abuse and vitriol that was directed at me for merely questioning it.
What I said was that you shouldn't abandon your politics when working in solidarity with people.
Well, we havent. Its not like we advocated they write to their MPs, but we were hardly going to walk away from the dispute because they did things we might not have agreed with; in the Subway dispute here, we disagreed with how the Trades Council handled some things, but we didnt just abandon ship. Trying to wean people away from the notion that they should put their faith in politicians or union suits is a problem that goes far beyond this dispute, or any dispute.
Devrim
notch8
Exactly, the workers were very appreciative from the messages of support and had the plastered around the walls of the canteen at the factory, growing each time we visited. Such support, from Poland, NewZealand, Brazil, the USA etc etc helped keep morale high and told the workers that they had support all over.
Yes, OK messages of support can give psychological support to people involved in a dispute, and stress that they are not alone. They only happen though when people are isolated. When there are massive strikes, you never see people saying "send messages of support to...". It would be practically impossible. What the message of support is in fact saying is "workers you are not isolated" at exactly the time that they are.
For a start, that was Choccy you quoted there, not me.
Devrim
I am not saying that it is a bad thing in itself, but we should realise what they are. There are scores of disputes going on everyday around the world. I can think of at least a dozen factory occupations in this country over the last year. Did you send messages of support to any of them? I wouldn't have expected you to have done so.
Well if we'd known about them Id say we would have, and that the workers would have been happy to get them..did you do much to publicise them?
Devrim
What I am asking though is why when anarchists are active around small disputes, the tactics that they advocate often seem to be little different from more 'left-wing' members of the Labour Party, send a message of support, pass a motion in your union branch, write and complain to the employer...
Again you are basically implying that these are the ONLY things anyone has done, which is so much shit, and insulting to the people who have given their time to help picket the English sites, or visited the Belfast occupation, or provided the practical things the workers needed, food, sleeping bags whatever; that might the reason for the "abuse and vitriol" eh? Sure, people far away from the disputes may not be able to do those things, so they do the things youve mentionned above, because the only other thing they can do is nothing, which they dont want to do. Again, clearly the workers themselves are appreciative.
You may not be 'particularly interested' in this 'small dispute' as you so patronisingly called it in an earlier post, but plenty of people are, given that it has now caused a convenor in Swansea to be sacked for supporting it, and links have been forged with the Lewisham school occupation
Devrim is being nothing shirt of a cretin on his thread.
1 - presenting numerous strawmen:
a) that people are abandoning a critique of unions,
b) that people are suggesting abandoning direct action in place of letter-writing, charity
2 - completely misrepresenting the activity of the people actually engaged in solidarity work on these issues, which the workers called for, and were apparently very appreciative of
3 - characterizing the occupation of 3 factories as 'a small dispute' in a manor so derisory so as to negate ever talking about any sort of struggle taking place in any workplace ever
As Notch has said, whatever the outcome of this, important things have been done - solidarity has been forged between workers and communities taking direct action to try and improve their lives, Visteon/Ford (Belfast, Basildon, Enfield), Lewisham school occupation, Glasgow school occupations, Swansea sacked convenor etc etc. Links have been made, lessons learned and examples set, to workers and communties everywhere that people can make steps toward taking control of their own lives.
The purpose of informing the 'general public' (who you seemed to dismiss with utter contempt Dev) is to a) attempt to get work out about struggles so people in a position to support can do so, and b) show that direct action can be taken in workplaces and communties.
Dev, you post on Libcom, you could have easily tried to get word out about disputes in turkey, instead of deriding people elsewhere who've went to the effort of exchanging messages of support and publicising issues all over.
This is where libcom really comes into its own I think. Publicised here are struggles going on everyday, everywhere. These can either function to simply get word out, or to provide information about how past struggles have been conducted, or lessons to be learned from workers' and communities' experiences in fighting to improve their lives, so future struggles are in a better position.
Belittling this as nothing more than liberal 'letter-writing' literally makes a mockery of ever documenting anything ever. And to be honest, no one really gives a fuck about your smug dismissal of people from all over the world's messages of support - the workers were grateful, and in these struggles, they're the people that count, not sanctimonious pricks at a computer.
3 - characterizing the occupation of 3 factories as 'a small dispute' in a manor so derisory so as to negate ever talking about any sort of struggle taking place in any workplace ever
Notch8
You may not be 'particularly interested' in this 'small dispute' as you so patronisingly called it in an earlier post, but plenty of people are,
I don't see what is 'derisory' or 'patronising' about saying that this is a small dispute. It is. That doesn't mean that it is unimportant not only to the people involved but also possibly to the rest of the working class. That doesn't mean it is not a small dispute though.
Why am I not 'particularly interested' in a dispute involving a few hundred workers on another continent? Are you? I don't think that is patronising at all. It is just honest.
My point was there when there is a large strike are you going to write to every workplace involved in it. How many thousands of letters are you going to write? It is something that people only tend to do in small strikes.
Choccy
Dev, you post on Libcom, you could have easily tried to get word out about disputes in turkey, instead of deriding people elsewhere who've went to the effort of exchanging messages of support and publicising issues all over.
Yes, we have done lots of things around small disputes in Turkey. I don't really see the point of writing about them individually in English though. When there are big disputes we do write about them in English, as we wrote about the general strikes, the Telekom strike, and the shipyard 'strikes' last year. There are things that are important and need to be discussed internationally. I think you are right when you state;
Choccy
This is where libcom really comes into its own I think. Publicised here are struggles going on everyday, everywhere. These can either function to simply get word out, or to provide information about how past struggles have been conducted, or lessons to be learned from workers' and communities' experiences in fighting to improve their lives, so future struggles are in a better position.
But how are people supposed to learn from these experiences when asking questions brings down a hail of abuse as it has on this thread.
Notch8
Again you are basically implying that these are the ONLY things anyone has done, which is so much shit, and insulting to the people who have given their time to help picket the English sites, or visited the Belfast occupation, or provided the practical things the workers needed, food, sleeping bags whatever; that might the reason for the "abuse and vitriol" eh?
Notch8
2 - completely misrepresenting the activity of the people actually engaged in solidarity work on these issues, which the workers called for, and were apparently very appreciative of
I don't think that I have claimed at any point that these were the only things that people were involved in. They were just the things that I asked questions about.
Choccy
The purpose of informing the 'general public' (who you seemed to dismiss with utter contempt Dev)
Yes, I am very dubious about strategies orientated towards the general public. Prominent examples when I lived in England were 'switch on at six' and 'Don't buy the Sun'. I think that they draw people's energy away from developing the struggle.
For me how we relate to disputes is a hugely important question, and one that needs to be discussed. I doubt that any serious discussion will break through the abuse on this thread though, so I am signing off on it.
Well substitute for 'general public' then 'other workers' (because that's who 'the public are'), i.e. other people affected by capitalism in the same way as the Visteon/ford workers and who in the current climate will potentially face similar attacks, and indeed are already, and thus might be intersted in how other workers have fought back, or be able to lend a hand, as many did in Enfield, Basildon, Belfast, Lewisham, Glasgow etc etc
I'd imagine raising money for the occupation directly in an appeal to the workers rather than empty shell union branches would have been more useful in building proper base level solidarity, as it involves workers having to discuss the actual issue rather than it getting rubber staped by some trots on the branch committee.
I dont remember where it said it was an either/or situation. On a practical level, the funds raised via union branches were likely much more substantial than might have been raised by just rattling a tin.
revol68
As for this emotionally manipulative shit about 'well you tell that to the workers who were glad of the money', oh come on to fuck that's the shit my ma says when I'm giving off about the "Secret Millionaire".
Well thats some rich fuck patronisingly throwing a few crumbs to some poor peasants in the name of entertainment, and making themselves look good on TV. Thats hardly the same as some workers offering practical support to other workers in dispute. And there were no cameras that I could see.
revol68
Notch's argument about 3-5 anarchists lecturing 200 workers is nothing more than attempted gbh on a straw man.
Well that was in response to Dev going on about anarchists 'abandoning our politics' in relation to the dispute...if only youd been there to keep us on the straight and narrow?
Well thats some rich fuck patronisingly throwing a few crumbs to some poor peasants in the name of entertainment, and making themselves look good on TV. Thats hardly the same as some workers offering practical support to other workers in dispute. And there were no cameras that I could see.
I know you are smarter than this so I'm going to assume you are deliberately missing my point. The fact that you so readily identify 'union branch motions' as solidarity from other workers only serves to reinforce my point.
No, by 'solidarity from other workers' I meant people coming up to the gate with food, sleeping bags etc...thats hardly Secret fucking Millionaire stuff, is it?
In I wanted to say here as well that, although I think it's fair enough to use these motions to get money (if it was just as easy to get money by appealing to some right-wing charitable fund then I would happily have an article hosted here, like this one informing people how to get it), choccy and notch you have totally overreacted to Devrim's criticisms.
Revol is right to bring the discussion back to Dev's original criticisms, because they relate to a wider discussion of how revolutionaries should relate to the official union structures. They also posed, implicitly at least, the issue of financial solidarity itself, given that the unions often use this as a substitute for posing the issue of extension. Perhaps that issue could be developed elsewhere.
In response to some insinuations that the ICC didn't have anything to say to about this dispute, we did produce two article about it, which emphasised the workers' real efforts to spread the struggle.
We also took part in one of the solidarity rallies and gave out copies of the paper containing the first article. I don't think we were at all satisfied that we were present enough during the struggle, but we certainly didn't dismiss it as unimportant.
The impression I get from the role played by (most of?) the anarchists in this dispute is that they invested a great deal amount of energy into it (which, again, I'm not dismissing) but that there was a definite tendency to shadow what the unions were doing, a tendency exemplified in the idea of the 'model trade union resolution'. I understand that people didn't want to appear as some alien force coming to tell the workers what to do etc, and that it is necessary to build up relations of confidence and mutual trust by showing that you are really in solidarity with the struggle, but there remains the basic problem: if revolutionaries aren't going to be clear, explicit and open in their criticisms of the unions as such, who will? I think that choccy and Notch's reactions (rightly criticised by Steven as being excessive) are not really engaging with this basic problem facing the building of a movement which is really independent of the unions.
What a bunch of boring windbags with axes to grind Alf, Devrim and Revol are being on here. It's pretty pathetic to use a rather desperate struggle as a means of waving your cocks over your idiotic "positions". Go play Dungeons & Dragons you hobbyists.
The impression I get from the role played by (most of?) the anarchists in this dispute is that they invested a great deal amount of energy into it (which, again, I'm not dismissing) but that there was a definite tendency to shadow what the unions were doing, a tendency exemplified in the idea of the 'model trade union resolution'
That might be true in so far as we often supported what the workers were doing (marches, pickets of dealerships etc), and they were doing those things for the most part through their union. The proposed International Day (which obviously would have been independent) was met with interest, but the feeling that the union would have to 'ok' it first. It wasnt until after the 'deal' that we started to hear more open criticism of the union (at its higher levels).
Alf
if revolutionaries aren't going to be clear, explicit and open in their criticisms of the unions as such, who will?
Well we did distribute our paper, with a front page article containing 'explicit and open' criticisms of the role Trade Unions play in these disputes. Whether the workers were more inclined to read that than any of the papers they were inundated with is hard to say.
Comments
I haven't really followed
I haven't really followed what is going on in this struggle, but do people really think that passing motions through trade union branches has anything to offer workers in terms of developing their struggles?
Trade union branch meetings are generally empty dead events, where a few lefties pass motions if they can manage to get enough of their fellow workers to come along to meet the quorum.
I don't think that it has much to offer in the way of building solidarity with other workers.
Devrim
If it means union branches
If it means union branches sending a donation to a support fund for the striking workers I don't really see any need to complain.
I think it's considered
I think it's considered worthwhile just for the money, which the ex-workers badly need as Unite have been, unsurprisingly, pretty useless and tightwads - and as a way of making other workers aware of the dispute. No, Devrim, it doesn't adequately substitute for the greater class solidarity action that is lacking - but I doubt anyone is under the illusion that it could.
Yes, like others said the
Yes, like others said the point of passing union motions is to get money. I think it's important that we try to get people to give money to the fund that the workers themselves control - because most unions would normally give to the official union fund, which is very unlikely to ever get anywhere near the workers.
Chatting to the Belfast
Chatting to the Belfast workers tonight you can be assured that they'd readily welcome the sort of support fund money that might be generated from these union motions.
interview with convenor
interview with convenor today
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/5482
So the only reason to push
So the only reason to push for this sort of thing is that union branches will send money. Do you think that it should be limited to union branches, or should it be taken to the Labour Party, or maybe even the Women's Institute?
I think the main point here is that union branches tend to be very much empty shells. I don't think that this is an effective way to collect money even. Surely if you only wanted to collect money the best thing would be to appeal to workers directly. At least then it would try and involve workers politically in however small a way.
But I think that there is more than that. I think that people can get pulled into activity like this because they feel a need to support a strike. Even though it goes against most of the things they believe in.
Devrim
Is it though, Jack? You seem
Is it though, Jack? You seem to admit that it is an empty shell ("10 minutes talking to the branch chair"), but don't seem even to realise that there is more to solidarity donations than just the money. Surely part of it is about arguing with fellow workers for the need for such solidarity.
The way that you seem to express it, you may as well go and appeal to eccentric millionaires. After all John Paul Getty III gave £100,000 to support the miners' strike.
Devrim
I don't see the point of
I don't see the point of Dev's purism. (It's also a little odd to see such uninformed sweeping statements from an ICC member in Turkey when I've seen no comment or involvement at all on here re. this dispute from UK ICC members. I guess that's their oft-touted 'internationalism' for you...)
Of course Visteon workers and supporters have collected money directly from other workers and supporters and discussed the issues - but, as shown by other comments here, in this instance the union branches can also be a convenient source of funds, without any great compromise; acknowledging that is not automatically a capitulation to 'weakness on the union question' or some other pointless abstraction.
Even the ICC sometimes supports union-led and financed strikes, so, again, I don't see the point of this purism.
Devrim
Yes, people think this dispute - it's not a strike, btw - deserves support. I don't agree with everything about the way it's being conducted - I doubt I would about many strikes/disputes - so what? Wider class solidarity has been very limited, yes, and so money is short, but - considering the real circumstances, rather than any holy abstract principles - I don't see it as an unacceptable compromise in this instance to take money from local union branches to put directly into the workers' own coffers to maintain picket lines etc.
Ret Marut wrote: It's also a
Ret Marut
But then I started the first post by clearly stating that I didn't know anything about this dispute, and I thought that it was quite clear that I was talking about the general idea, so yeah I suppose that you would expect 'uninformed sweeping statements'. I guess that comments is your 'oft-touted slag off the ICC before reading what they say' for you.
Ret Marut
Similarly, I am not quite sure what the use of inverted commas is for here unless it is to try to attribute some 'pointless abstraction' to me, which I didn't mention at all.
Ret Marut
I think if you go back and re-read what I said it is quite clear that again I am referring to strikes in general, and not this struggle (I use a strike, not this strike), but hey why miss a chance to infer that somebody else on another continent is ignorant because they don't know as much about a struggle on your own doorstep as you. Don't let the fact that they weren't even talking about it get in the way of trying to make yourself look clever.
Ret Marut
The ICC supports all workers struggles in defence of working class living standards whether they are 'union-led' or not. I suppose the 'sometimes' is used to suggest that we don't.
Ret Marut
I think it is an important point to discuss. I think that there are important considerations here about the way that revolutionaries orientate themselves towards workers disputes. However, I don't see much point in discussing it with you as you seem more interested in taking cheap shots at the ICC than discussing the point I raised.
That's fair enough. It is your choice.
Devrim
Ah Dev you can't back out of
Ah Dev you can't back out of this by saying 'oh I was just talking about generally'.
This thread, is about THIS workplace issue, and how in THIS instance, the compromise wasn't exactly that problematic and doesn't necessarily involve abandoning a critique of the unions.
Choccy wrote: Ah Dev you
Choccy
Exactly - you were applying your abstract generalisations to activities of posters here in this specific dispute. Now you seem to say, 'criticise what I specifically said and it's just an excuse to attack the ICC.' I think this kind of behaviour and abstraction is rooted in the ICC's perspectives, whose politics sometimes seem more like a moralistic code of ethics than a means for practical engagement in struggles.
And to say that I've made a habit of gratuitous attacks on the ICC is just untrue. I've concretely criticised their misconceptions and their many repeated factual inaccuracies. I've also several times bothered to debate political points with them at great length. I should get out more...
Choccy wrote: Ah Dev you
Choccy
Well there wasn't a thread until I commented, and I think that comments such as "but do people really think that passing motions through trade union branches has anything to offer workers in terms of developing their struggles?" make it clear that I was talking in general. So yes, I think I was.
Also I just reported your post mistakenly thinking it was the quote button, sorry and sorry for the inconvenience admins.
Devrim
Jack wrote: I wasn't likely
Jack
I think that is a very telling statement, Jack. How it sounds to me is that you don't think that you can go out and argue with your fellow workers about the dispute, so you don't.
Jack
And what you seem to be saying now is that 'this is just a one of donation from my branch, it isn't a problem', but what I am saying is that there are people on here who seem to be advocating it as a general strategy. Why else produce model motions?
Devrim
Its not a 'general'
Its not a 'general' strategy, its one thing you can do if the possibility exists, and as pointed out already, is hardly the worst thing your union might do. If a model email or protest letter was produced, as they often are for disputes / campaigns, would you say that the 'general strategy' of the campaign was emails? Or would it be ok as long as the emails weren't sent from a Union office? ;)
I think most peoples 'general strategy' is to offer and drum up as much support as we can for the workers in this dispute, so those in a position to raise money for them by this avenue arent going to pass up the chance.
Trying to get some rank and
Trying to get some rank and file union members to support this dispute (Visteon) is critical. Union top brass want this to go away as soon as possible before these tactics spread too widely . With many, if not most, workers still married to the idea that it is the unions 'job' to improve their conditions of employment and in the worst scenario save their jobs it is worth while working with local union branches. Even if these are empty shells we should still do all we can to restrict the effectiveness of Union bureaucrats.
The Union bureau are very alert to the threat local industrial branches pose to their control over workers. Recently Unite membership department has been joining new members of my local work place to join general branches near where they live instead of their work place branch.This is a conscious strategy to weaken rank and file collective strength in anticipation of increased wildcat actions from membership. We can take a 'pureist whiter than white' approach or we can engage with rank and file members to try and break them away from union bureaucrats.
As the Visteon dispute painfully demonstrates the trade union question will not be solved by sticking our heads in the sand and hoping workers will simply come to the realisation that the unionism largely distracts them from their main task: workers direct control through councils
notch8 wrote: Its not a
notch8
Well yes basically, the protest letter is pretty limp as well. The thing that really astounds me is that after all of the talk of direct action when it comes to a dispute there is always some anarchist advocating sending a protest letter to the boss.
Surely the task of revolutionaries must be different from the sort of 'support' advocated by the trade unions. I think that what needs to be done is exactly the opposite of what you seem to advocate:
notch8
Drum up support from whom? Trade union branch meetings that are only attended by officials who were elected by default as it is in many cases.
Jack
But it is not that long ago Jack that workplaces would hold mass meetings to discuss other workers disputes. I think that organising to bring some of the workers in dispute to your workplace, including printing a leaflet, and standing outside as people are going in trying to engage people in discussion, yes, and collect money, is much more the way we try to go about things.
Is it difficult? Yes I think so at the moment. Is it necessary? Yes, I really think so
Jack
The things that we are trying to do aren't about minimal effort. Our goal is a working class which is consciously active in defence of its own interest. That is n't about minimal effort.
Devrim
Actually Devrim, I havent
Actually Devrim, I havent written a letter or a email, if you think thats all Ive done seriously go fuck yourself.The example was illustrative, and Im guessing youre fully aware of that, but youve kind of backed yourself into a corner on this thread with your knee jerk anything-that-ever-happens-through-a-union-ever-must-be-bad bullshit. What Ive done is offer practical and moral support to the occupiers as much and as often as I can.
As for 'drumming up support'...for all the problems Ive got with union full timers, if you talk to the workers who are in struggle, they wouldnt pass up the chance to get a few bob off a union branch, so thats their call. As far as Im concerned, the task of class struggle activists is to support the workers, letting them remain in charge of their own struggle at all times. If youre so convinced that you need to talk them round to the correct political viewpoint, why not come down to the gates and sell papers like the rest of the opportunist vultures?
Notch8 wrote: Actually
Notch8
I am not particularly interested in what you have done to be honest. I am more interested in how these type of motions relate to workers struggles here.
Notch8
I don't think so, but then I am not the one who is throwing abuse around instead of constructing an argument. The bit with the dashes between it is something else that I have never said by the way.
Notch8
Ultimately charity doesn't win struggles though.
Notch8
What's the point of having the politics that you do if you don't believe on acting on them? Surely the task of communists is to argue for what they believe are the tactics to win, not to tail-end whatever the unions suggest.
An example here could be the way that the 'international day of action' was based around the idea of a consumer boycott. Do you think it is the task of revolutionaries to go along with this or to argue why it offers nothing to the struggle accept the path to defeat?
After all, its not like we haven't seen workers led by their unions to defeat with these sort of tactics before.
Notch8
Well, I am hardly going to fly across continents to visit a small dispute, and we don't sell papers to strikers anyway with give them to them, but its a nice insult to finish with.
Devrim
Intro says "Model trade
Intro says "Model trade union motion for supporters of the Visteon occupation to take to branch meetings."
It doesn't say "Model strategy to win the struggle"
Am I missing something in this debate?!
Devrim wrote: I am not
Devrim
BY BEING A MEANS OF RAISING MUCH NEEDED AND APPRECIATED FUNDS FOR THE OCCUPIERS / STRIKERS, as has been pointed out umpteen times.
And also something that people can do who may not be in a position to physically visit the occupations.
Devrim
Maybe not, but without the practical and monetary support they have received, the picketers, and especially the Belfast occupiers would never have been able to hold out as long as they did.
Devrim
Well as Ive already pointed out, having the 'politics that I do' means that I think ultimately the workers decide what tactics to adopt to 'win', also consider that what the workers consider a 'win' might be different from we think.
Aside from anything, the notion of 4 or 5 anarchists trying to tell 200+ workers how to run their dispute is laughable. We can certainly offer support, and hope that by doing so consistently and honestly the workers will come to take us and our politics seriously.
Devrim
Would be something to burn in the oil drum if they ran out of wood I suppose.
Whats really insulting is you trying to use this thread about something that people might be able to do to support a dispute, that many see as very important, to pick a petty row about attitudes to the Trades Unions.
Dev - there was NOTHING in
Dev - there was NOTHING in that proposed Day of Action that called for a 'consumer boycott' - I have no idea where you got that idea. It was an information picket, with leaflets for Ford employees etc. Not a single person suggested a Ford boycott. If people have decided to spend 8k on a car, a leaflet outside a showroom is unlikely to change their mind, and no one suggested that.
As it is, given the deal accepted it doesn't look like that Day of Action will occur, though given there are further negotiations on pensions it's not entirely unlikely that solidarity action won't be called on again.
Yes Dev, charity doesn't win
Yes Dev, charity doesn't win struggles, but the food, clothes, sleeping bags, and support money given to workers enabled them to stay there as long as they did, boosted morale, and showed them that people gave a shit about their struggle.
In fact, your characterization of vital and much-needed support to workers in struggle, be it financial or in terms of materials (food etc) as 'charity' is patronising and cretinous beyond words.
notch8 wrote: Whats really
notch8
Except there wasn't a thread at all. Mine was the first post on their, which went up nearly a week after the article, and so obviously nobody was discussing it. Still its nice the way you try to paint it that I'm deliberately trying to sabotage people's support of this dispute.
AS for whether its petty or not, that may be your opinion, but I think that it's important.
Choccy
Steven
Choccy
So what was being suggested outside showrooms? Maybe I misunderstood.
Choccy
I think that they are words that have to be said. Before explaining why I think that is so though, I just want to clarify something. You make it sound here that I am arguing against people giving financial support. In fact earlier in this same thread, I argue for it. What is important though is the way that we raise money. It is not a non-political issue.
The reason that I think it is important to say that charity doesn't win struggles is because if we go back through the history of working class struggles it has been used by the unions to convince workers that they are doing something to support struggles and as a weapon against extension of struggles, which is what is needed to win. At times giving money has been directly counterpoised as an argument against more direct forms of solidarity.
So yes, it can help, but I think that the methods that we try to go about in collecting it are not unimportant as they have a direct effect on developing the ground to argue for solidarity action.
You may think that that is a 'cretinous' argument. I don't.
notch8
Do you have anymore straw men?
Devrim
Devrim wrote: Except there
Devrim
Maybe because no one else thought there was an issue with it?
Devrim
Well if youd explain how thats a straw man, I might be able to help you.
Devrim
Neither are people from New Zealand or Brazil, but they were at least able to send messages of support and solidarity. I didnt see any from the ICC on the factory walls.
devrim wrote: So what was
devrim
Eh an information leaflet - informing people about the factory occupation, both general public and Ford workers.
If you'd bothered to look at the literature on this site connected to this struggle, there was a flyer specifically for other Ford workers.
And apparently the threat of pickets at dealerships was enough for Ford bosses to send 'red flag' emails to all individual dealerships/showrooms.
Devrim wrote: notch8
Devrim
I'd love to know how that's a straw man Dev, serious.
notch
Exactly, the workers were very appreciative from the messages of support and had the plastered around the walls of the canteen at the factory, growing each time we visited. Such support, from Poland, NewZealand, Brazil, the USA etc etc helped keep morale high and told the workers that they had support all over.
devrim
And no one here is arguing that 'charity' should replace direct action. The workers WERE taking direct ation, and it was being supported by people who were doing solidarity work, whcih for some involved sending an email to a union branch and getting some money. Again it isn't advocated as a general strategy, but in this context actually served to support the direct action being taken, by workers, to try and improve their lives.
Here is an analysis of the
Here is an analysis of the struggle from the commune:
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/the-struggle-at-visteon-the-union-and-the-development-of-class-consciousness/
It has things to say both about the funds that were available for the dispute, and the importance of active solidarity from other workers.
Choccy wrote: Devrim
Choccy
Perhaps because I never suggested at all that anybody should 'try to tell workers how to run their dispute'. What I said was that you shouldn't abandon your politics when working in solidarity with people. There is a bit of a difference.
Notch8
Well you didn't see any from the ICC in Turkey because we didn't send one.
Choccy
Yes, OK messages of support can give psychological support to people involved in a dispute, and stress that they are not alone. They only happen though when people are isolated. When there are massive strikes, you never see people saying "send messages of support to...". It would be practically impossible. What the message of support is in fact saying is "workers you are not isolated" at exactly the time that they are.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing in itself, but we should realise what they are. There are scores of disputes going on everyday around the world. I can think of at least a dozen factory occupations in this country over the last year. Did you send messages of support to any of them? I wouldn't have expected you to have done so.
What I am asking though is why when anarchists are active around small disputes, the tactics that they advocate often seem to be little different from more 'left-wing' members of the Labour Party, send a message of support, pass a motion in your union branch, write and complain to the employer...To be fair they don't generally ask people to write to their MP.
I think that it is an important question.
Choccy
Again, I am not saying that everything you do/have done is bad. I am merely raising questions about certain things. I am very wary of things aimed at the 'general public'. Here I am not sure what you see the function of leafleting the 'general public' as being.
Choccy
I know that there was, but then I am not particularly interested in this dispute anyway. I am trying to raise general perspectives.
Notch8
Maybe, though that doesn't mean that I am wrong to question it. Maybe they were put off by the amount of abuse and vitriol that was directed at me for merely questioning it.
Devrim
Devrim wrote: What I said was
Devrim
Well, we havent. Its not like we advocated they write to their MPs, but we were hardly going to walk away from the dispute because they did things we might not have agreed with; in the Subway dispute here, we disagreed with how the Trades Council handled some things, but we didnt just abandon ship. Trying to wean people away from the notion that they should put their faith in politicians or union suits is a problem that goes far beyond this dispute, or any dispute.
Devrim
For a start, that was Choccy you quoted there, not me.
Devrim
Well if we'd known about them Id say we would have, and that the workers would have been happy to get them..did you do much to publicise them?
Devrim
Again you are basically implying that these are the ONLY things anyone has done, which is so much shit, and insulting to the people who have given their time to help picket the English sites, or visited the Belfast occupation, or provided the practical things the workers needed, food, sleeping bags whatever; that might the reason for the "abuse and vitriol" eh? Sure, people far away from the disputes may not be able to do those things, so they do the things youve mentionned above, because the only other thing they can do is nothing, which they dont want to do. Again, clearly the workers themselves are appreciative.
You may not be 'particularly interested' in this 'small dispute' as you so patronisingly called it in an earlier post, but plenty of people are, given that it has now caused a convenor in Swansea to be sacked for supporting it, and links have been forged with the Lewisham school occupation
Devrim is being nothing
Devrim is being nothing shirt of a cretin on his thread.
1 - presenting numerous strawmen:
a) that people are abandoning a critique of unions,
b) that people are suggesting abandoning direct action in place of letter-writing, charity
2 - completely misrepresenting the activity of the people actually engaged in solidarity work on these issues, which the workers called for, and were apparently very appreciative of
3 - characterizing the occupation of 3 factories as 'a small dispute' in a manor so derisory so as to negate ever talking about any sort of struggle taking place in any workplace ever
As Notch has said, whatever the outcome of this, important things have been done - solidarity has been forged between workers and communities taking direct action to try and improve their lives, Visteon/Ford (Belfast, Basildon, Enfield), Lewisham school occupation, Glasgow school occupations, Swansea sacked convenor etc etc. Links have been made, lessons learned and examples set, to workers and communties everywhere that people can make steps toward taking control of their own lives.
The purpose of informing the 'general public' (who you seemed to dismiss with utter contempt Dev) is to a) attempt to get work out about struggles so people in a position to support can do so, and b) show that direct action can be taken in workplaces and communties.
Dev, you post on Libcom, you could have easily tried to get word out about disputes in turkey, instead of deriding people elsewhere who've went to the effort of exchanging messages of support and publicising issues all over.
This is where libcom really comes into its own I think. Publicised here are struggles going on everyday, everywhere. These can either function to simply get word out, or to provide information about how past struggles have been conducted, or lessons to be learned from workers' and communities' experiences in fighting to improve their lives, so future struggles are in a better position.
Belittling this as nothing more than liberal 'letter-writing' literally makes a mockery of ever documenting anything ever. And to be honest, no one really gives a fuck about your smug dismissal of people from all over the world's messages of support - the workers were grateful, and in these struggles, they're the people that count, not sanctimonious pricks at a computer.
Choccy wrote: 3 -
Choccy
Notch8
I don't see what is 'derisory' or 'patronising' about saying that this is a small dispute. It is. That doesn't mean that it is unimportant not only to the people involved but also possibly to the rest of the working class. That doesn't mean it is not a small dispute though.
Why am I not 'particularly interested' in a dispute involving a few hundred workers on another continent? Are you? I don't think that is patronising at all. It is just honest.
My point was there when there is a large strike are you going to write to every workplace involved in it. How many thousands of letters are you going to write? It is something that people only tend to do in small strikes.
Choccy
Yes, we have done lots of things around small disputes in Turkey. I don't really see the point of writing about them individually in English though. When there are big disputes we do write about them in English, as we wrote about the general strikes, the Telekom strike, and the shipyard 'strikes' last year. There are things that are important and need to be discussed internationally. I think you are right when you state;
Choccy
But how are people supposed to learn from these experiences when asking questions brings down a hail of abuse as it has on this thread.
Notch8
Notch8
I don't think that I have claimed at any point that these were the only things that people were involved in. They were just the things that I asked questions about.
Choccy
Yes, I am very dubious about strategies orientated towards the general public. Prominent examples when I lived in England were 'switch on at six' and 'Don't buy the Sun'. I think that they draw people's energy away from developing the struggle.
For me how we relate to disputes is a hugely important question, and one that needs to be discussed. I doubt that any serious discussion will break through the abuse on this thread though, so I am signing off on it.
Devrim
Well substitute for 'general
Well substitute for 'general public' then 'other workers' (because that's who 'the public are'), i.e. other people affected by capitalism in the same way as the Visteon/ford workers and who in the current climate will potentially face similar attacks, and indeed are already, and thus might be intersted in how other workers have fought back, or be able to lend a hand, as many did in Enfield, Basildon, Belfast, Lewisham, Glasgow etc etc
Well, Dev you arent signing
Well, Dev you arent signing off on a high, thats for sure. You keep on talking, we'll keep on doing, that suits me.
A very revealing thread.
A very revealing thread.
revol68 wrote: I'd imagine
revol68
I dont remember where it said it was an either/or situation. On a practical level, the funds raised via union branches were likely much more substantial than might have been raised by just rattling a tin.
revol68
Well thats some rich fuck patronisingly throwing a few crumbs to some poor peasants in the name of entertainment, and making themselves look good on TV. Thats hardly the same as some workers offering practical support to other workers in dispute. And there were no cameras that I could see.
revol68
Well that was in response to Dev going on about anarchists 'abandoning our politics' in relation to the dispute...if only youd been there to keep us on the straight and narrow?
revol68 wrote: notch8
revol68
No, by 'solidarity from other workers' I meant people coming up to the gate with food, sleeping bags etc...thats hardly Secret fucking Millionaire stuff, is it?
In I wanted to say here as
In I wanted to say here as well that, although I think it's fair enough to use these motions to get money (if it was just as easy to get money by appealing to some right-wing charitable fund then I would happily have an article hosted here, like this one informing people how to get it), choccy and notch you have totally overreacted to Devrim's criticisms.
Revol is right to bring the
Revol is right to bring the discussion back to Dev's original criticisms, because they relate to a wider discussion of how revolutionaries should relate to the official union structures. They also posed, implicitly at least, the issue of financial solidarity itself, given that the unions often use this as a substitute for posing the issue of extension. Perhaps that issue could be developed elsewhere.
In response to some insinuations that the ICC didn't have anything to say to about this dispute, we did produce two article about it, which emphasised the workers' real efforts to spread the struggle.
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/2009/323/visteon
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/2009/324/visteon
We also took part in one of the solidarity rallies and gave out copies of the paper containing the first article. I don't think we were at all satisfied that we were present enough during the struggle, but we certainly didn't dismiss it as unimportant.
The impression I get from the role played by (most of?) the anarchists in this dispute is that they invested a great deal amount of energy into it (which, again, I'm not dismissing) but that there was a definite tendency to shadow what the unions were doing, a tendency exemplified in the idea of the 'model trade union resolution'. I understand that people didn't want to appear as some alien force coming to tell the workers what to do etc, and that it is necessary to build up relations of confidence and mutual trust by showing that you are really in solidarity with the struggle, but there remains the basic problem: if revolutionaries aren't going to be clear, explicit and open in their criticisms of the unions as such, who will? I think that choccy and Notch's reactions (rightly criticised by Steven as being excessive) are not really engaging with this basic problem facing the building of a movement which is really independent of the unions.
What a bunch of boring
What a bunch of boring windbags with axes to grind Alf, Devrim and Revol are being on here. It's pretty pathetic to use a rather desperate struggle as a means of waving your cocks over your idiotic "positions". Go play Dungeons & Dragons you hobbyists.
Alf wrote: The impression I
Alf
That might be true in so far as we often supported what the workers were doing (marches, pickets of dealerships etc), and they were doing those things for the most part through their union. The proposed International Day (which obviously would have been independent) was met with interest, but the feeling that the union would have to 'ok' it first. It wasnt until after the 'deal' that we started to hear more open criticism of the union (at its higher levels).
Alf
Well we did distribute our paper, with a front page article containing 'explicit and open' criticisms of the role Trade Unions play in these disputes. Whether the workers were more inclined to read that than any of the papers they were inundated with is hard to say.