A statement from a group of communists in the IWW and a follow-up to some responses they have received.
We are members of the Industrial Workers of the World, and we are Wobbling Towards Communism. We announce ourselves as a communist trend within the IWW, and we aim to reaffirm the basic principles of the union.
We are serious about our commitment to the abolition of the wage-labour system and its relation to commodity production and private property (and all that it entails). We are committed to this being the main focus of our tactics as a revolutionary union.
We are against reformist activism because capitalism cannot be reformed. We should not play the bourgeois game of single issue reforms. In particular, we oppose the practices and methods of the bourgeois business unions which only seek to increase their membership at the cost of revolutionary foment, that divides workers along skill and trade lines and capitulate to bourgeois political parties and the state. These reforms are perfectly compatible with the bourgeois mode of production, and have no place in Communism.
From this, we are against class collaboration and participation with any bourgeois institution, such as the state and its political parties. As the beginning of the IWW Preamble states, “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.” We are opposed not only to the standard bourgeois parties, but also to the left wing of capital in all its forms, from labour parties to political organizations which wish to subordinate the class struggle for their own gains.
Stay tuned.
A response
“No politics in the union”, said the anarchist.
We at WOBBLING TOWARDS COMMUNISM are both delighted and surprised by the attention we are suddenly getting. If we had known this would happen, we would have left a biting comment on the Industrial Worker facebook page long ago! We would like to address some of the recent feedback, most of which is about our aims, our output, and our conduct.
When we say communism, we mean “the real movement that abolishes the present state of things”. This present state of things is a social order predicated on value-creation through wage-labor and the circulation of that value through exchange. We are for the dissolution of class society, recognising the immediacy of communism, therefore we also oppose the state in all it’s forms. We do not seek leadership over this movement or over this union, not out of moral principle, but because we realize that it is the class itself that must take up leadership, and it is only the class in motion that is able to overcome the current social order. We are not members of any communist/socialist party or organization, we are only members of the IWW.
We call ourselves communists not because of any allegiance to Marx or any other writer who has called themselves that (although we are indebted to their analysis), but because for us, communism means the end of the commodity form and exchange being in control of our social-relations in favor of the directly human community. This is opposed to the abstract and moral formulations of other writers and thinkers who have thought of human emancipation in terms of “freedom” or “rights” or “liberty”. All of which emerged, ironically enough, out of attempts to justify the very basis of a society they claim to abhor. We do not want a better or more democratic version of this world, we want something new!
The purpose of this grouping is to try to put hard questions to ourselves and to clarify our role as a revolutionary industrial union. Our analysis is especially important considering that the IWW has no internal coherent theory, or set of texts and ideas that describe what wage-labour, commodity production, the state or class society is. These elements are notably lacking in regards to certain other political tendencies within the union, despite being perhaps the more active elements within the organization. What occurs as a result is that the IWW has been turned into just another leftist organization that involves people just endlessly going to meetings and nothing of note actually happening, despite some successes here and there at organizing a few shops. There is a disconnect between these small successes and the goal of changing the world. While we recognize the usefulness of proletarian organs we are also opposed to uncritical proletarian self-affirmation. The historic task of the proletariat is to destroy the proletariat as a category, along with every other social class.
Some wobs have responded to our stated existence in an organized format. When we hear the “no politics in the Union” line, it’s understandable where they’re coming from, but it is consistent with what many in the Union already do and will continue to do. How many times has the IWW been invoked in protests over things not related to workplace struggles? How about in defending oppressed groups? These are all political stances in which the IWW has been inserted into by well-meaning wobs. Our hearts goes out to you all for your effort but the purpose of the Union – the abolition of wage-labor – is nothing short of the most profound political change that the world has seen since the bourgeois revolutions themselves. Keep your eyes on the prize!
We could have sent our introductory statement for inclusion to the GOB, the internal-only discussion publication where little discussion happens, save for the thrill and excitement of one or two letters, voting results of the GEB, and accounting statements. We would have sent it there, if we didn’t care if anyone would read it. We made a deliberate choice to submit it for inclusion to the Industrial Worker, because we wanted it to be read by members and non-members alike.
We can see how some Fellow Workers might feel that our introductory statement runs contrary, and even abusive of the purpose of the Industrial Worker. If the Industrial Worker is meant to be a method of voicing concerns and developments within the Union, we see no reason why a group of organized wobblies should have to buy advertisement space on that periodical, especially when it is essentially a greeting for further dialogue, nor should it be obscured within the confines of union records. This dialogue will be more provoking than the announcement precisely because we are taking our time.
Now that we have your attention, we hope you stay with us as we gradually put out articles which clarify and develop our positions.
Wobble on,
WOBBLING TOWARDS COMMUNISM
wobblingtowardscommunism.wordpress.com
@IWWCommunists
Originally posted: April 10, 2014 and June 1, 2014 at Wobbling Towards Communism
Comments
Wonder how I'm just now
Wonder how I'm just now hearing about this. Will respond after reading.
It's all been on Facebook,
It's all been on Facebook, bruh. That's why I brought it here.
Quote: immediacy of
Sounds very anarchic.
Interesting stuff. Firstly
Interesting stuff.
Firstly though, they've started out on a bad note by screaming like babies because the IW didn't publish them. It was a short anonymous announcement about a blog with no content...what editor would publish that? I wouldn't. I hope this isn't a sign of ultraleft wingnuttiness to come. Leave that sort of conduct to some of the insane, older members who have been made irrelevant and marginalized.
As far as the 'no politics in the union' nonsense, I agree with Nate.
Haven't kept up with posting
Haven't kept up with posting their content (or really any of my projects for the library actually), but they have continued writing short critical pieces of various elements of the IWW. Both Oliver and myself have responded to some of what WTC has said, if anyone is interested.
The "immediacy of communism"
The "immediacy of communism" is a striking phrase but what does it mean? Does it mean anything? This bit is much better though.
They say: "it is the class itself that must take up leadership" which I take to mean what Marx meant by "the emancipation of the working class is the task of the class itself." And in a way this is a "moral principle " isn't it, though the writers seem queasy about this? It is a new kind of moral understanding that the working class embodies in its being and in its movement towards freedom from exploitation: the morality of the class taking responsibility for itself and its actions in freeing itself from exploitation. For exploitation is not a moral condition, being underhanded and dirty, and always imposing its dictates on those it screws through "leadership" and the like. Let us do your thinkng for you, urges the bourgeois, the better to exploit you. This is no morality at all.
But if these adventurous and thoughtful guys stay lodged within the confines of the IWW, wonderful as this organization may have been in the past, I fear for their future. Surely they would do better to look outside the union towards real communist organizations so that they can move forward together. They say somewhat bravely that they are not part of any larger organization "only members of the IWW". This suggests to me that the group may already have sneaking doubts about "only" being members of the IWW. But best wishes to them!
jojo, I'm sure that you would
jojo,
I'm sure that you would recognise with abit of thought ''the immediacy of communism'' phrase alongside other comments from this group as short hand for the concept of 'communisation' which you have criticised on another thread here. Of course 'communising measures' in practice may well involve, as this group seem to understand, the development of autonomous working class struggle (under certain 'objective' conditions) to a point where capitalist social relations are so severely undermined as to make a leap forward towards 'full communism' possible. In this respect they would differentiate themselves from others in the 'communisation' tendency except perhaps Dauve. So presumably they see some potential for a revitalised IWW (as a minority current?) to assist in the development I refer to (which leads back to a number of other related discussions on this site between some of those involved in both the IWW and the SolFed for instance) Suppose I'm guilty again of trying to connect to many different discussion threads but it's the way my mind works! Juan may be able to confirm or contradict my assumptions here?