Announcing Wild Rose Collective In Iowa City, Iowa

If your an anarcho-syndicalist why a platformist group?

october_lost

If you're an anarcho-syndicalist why a platformist group?

Syndicalism and platformism are not exclusive strategies. Syndicalism is a useful strategy as workers can be radicalised in struggle and a necessary precondition for anarchist communism is for the working class to come into realisation of their own collective power.

For syndicalism to be successful it needs to have a certain critical mass. This means that any syndicalist strategy is going to be walking a difficult line between being inclusive and being so ideologically diluted that it falls into simple reformism. Specific political organisations can serve to provide a dynamic tension with syndicalism. The specific organisation can help to argue the need for revolution in the broader syndicalist context, while the syndicalist context can help keep the specific political organisation from devolving into a sect.

well (economic) syndicalism and (political) platformism aren't mutually exclusive. (political-economic) anarcho-syndicalism and platformism are to a large extent. the former looks to create independent workers' organisations (from small networks through to large unions, depending on the conditions) to organise and co-ordniate class struggle, the latter seeks to enter mass organsiations and/or social movements and influence them. those strategies do pull in different directions, e.g. the platformist WSM repeatedly talk about "reclaiming our unions" and criticising union leadership while the anarcho-syndicalist DAM (now SolFed) says "since the trade unions are not in any way designed to carry out these [revolutionary] aims and, indeed, are themselves an important part of capitalism, our objective cannot be to reform them (still less to elect 'better' leaders), but has to be to create a new and altogether independent workers' movement."

now just because you identify with especifismo doesn't mean you have to pursue the Trot-lite strategy of the WSM. the same DAM document i linked above talks about industrial networks being initially at least 'political organisations in the economic sphere', which may well chime with your aspirations for workplace agitation. i would recommend reading the DAM pamphlet - there seems to be an effort from some quarters (e.g. Black Flame) to conflate syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism, thus making a platformist strategy look pragmatic and contemporary, when in fact it was the failures of the political anarchism/economic syndicalism dualism that lead to the creation of anarcho-syndicalism in the first place (although admittedly it was far from a clean break, more an uneven evolution).

It's my considered opinion that you've simply redefined anarcho-syndicalism to mean specific political organisation.

I also think that the following *strategy* of involvement (which as you say later is something up for discussion) is confused.

since the trade unions are not in any way designed to carry out these [revolutionary] aims and, indeed, are themselves an important part of capitalism, our objective cannot be to reform them (still less to elect 'better' leaders), but has to be to create a new and altogether independent workers' movement.

What is an "altogether independent workers' movement"? You mean a union that isn't a reformist union? Clearly we all want to have revolutionary workers movements. You aren't going to get that through workplace struggles that you can't win. So the question is one of the particulars of a situation.

What do you do in an un-unionised workplace?

Practically speaking, getting people to realise that they have some power to struggle collectively is the primary issue. We need to find out what peoples issues are, and then help them realise their ability to control that through workers power. It seems likely that in practical terms, joining some union is going to be a tactical necessity. How big and radical of a union is going to depend on the particulars.

What do you do in a workplace where a large percentage of the workers are already unionised?

Attempting to only work with radical unions when you're in a workplace that has a high percentage of workers already unionised doesn't seem like the best strategy if the intent is to influence workers. This doesn't mean being commanded by the union leadership like a good soldier. If workers can use their power (perhaps by strike) in some scenario without "permission" in order to win, then you might encourage that. It's possible, for example to have wildcats that are later "legalised" by the union post-facto. This has happened with rail workers in Ireland previously.

now just because you identify with especifismo doesn't mean you have to pursue the Trot-lite strategy of the WSM.

Your use of the term "trot-like" is an association fallacy.

don't want to hijack this thread, but want to respond... can split off if it derails.

jacobian

It's my considered opinion that you've simply redefined anarcho-syndicalism to mean specific political organisation.

So SolFed have been platformists for 20 years? :confused:

If you insist on shoe-horning anything with politics into 'specific political organisation' then yeah, sure, but if you read the DAM document you'll find it's not describing anything like a platformist organisation. the whole point of anarcho-syndicalism is that it's neither apolitical economic organisation nor specific political organisation, but political-economic organisation. Platformist analysis tends to split this into 'anarchism' and 'syndicalism', thus missing precisely what was innovative in anarcho-syndicalism.

jacobian

What is an "altogether independent workers' movement"? (...) What do you do in an un-unionised workplace? (...) What do you do in a workplace where a large percentage of the workers are already unionised?

i'm not going to get into this when i've just linked to a document that addresses these questions, drawing on the failed experiences of rank-and-file strategies within the unions.

jacobian

Your use of the term "trot-like" is an association fallacy.

no it isn't. it's a reference to the fact that far from being hard-nosed pragmatism, 'reclaiming our unions' flies in the face of a century of attempts to do just that, mostly by Trot groups. as i said above, i think specific political organisations could adopt better strategies than this though, such as industrial networking.

So SolFed have been platformists for 20 years?

I said specific political, not platformist. Yes, SolFed have not been a union, they've not really been a syndicate but for the most part and they've essentially been a political group.

We see an interesting parallel statement by Johan here:

http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/cunts?page=4#comment-368740

What the old guard said about CNT or what Keiran Casey thinks about AIT (?) is something that has not bearing on what people think today. Its just politics that no ones cares about at all. I dont even think 1% of the active members knows about the statements discussed, because SAC has gone from being a rather large syndicalist political party disguised as union to a struggle streamlined to defend its members and intervene in the class struggle.

I think that you'll see this situation played out again. If you become a big functional union, you'll not be able to maintain the specific political character and vice versa.

no it isn't. it's a reference to the fact that far from being hard-nosed pragmatism, 'reclaiming our unions' flies in the face of a century of attempts to do just that, mostly by Trot groups. as i said above, i think specific political organisations could adopt better strategies than this though, such as industrial networking.

It clearly is an attempt to associate us with "bad things" rather than talking about the strategies concretely. You could say you think "boring from within" is a worthless strategy incapable of working, but instead you mentioned Trots. Since there is nothing inherently Leninist, Trotskyist or authortarian about boring from within and attempting to create democratic and revolutionary unions, I'd say it sits firmly in the association fallacy category.

Firstly, the WSM has taken the approach of creating "industrial networks". In the case of a landscape dominated by a few unions however, it's going to mostly look like us getting together with militants that are already in those main unions. What would you recommend we do with people not in a union in a workplace? Maybe you can recommend they don't join it?

I think "boring from within" is generally associated with Fosterism and the attempt to seize the leadership and amalgamate. Obviously this isn't what groups such as the WSM are advocating. Instead, we advocate base unionism, which is trying to advocate workers power over the workplace, using the union tactically when it suits. Democratising and transforming the unions are clearly not on the cards in the near term for a political organisation the size of the WSM. In the face of a big upsurge in worker struggle, that might change.

Your claim that "reclaiming our unions" has never worked in history is questionable. The formation of the USI happened when workers, many of them anarchists, split from the CGL. This meant that there was prior to that a long hard slog *in* the USI - something that a lot of Anarchists seem to forget. Anarchists also "syndicalised" the French CGT. There is also the example of the FAU's interaction with the PIT-CNT which contributed to periods of high militancy.

jacobian

I said specific political, not platformist. Yes, SolFed have not been a union, they've not really been a syndicate but for the most part and they've essentially been a political group.

right ok, that's true. but the strategy spelled out in the DAM pamphlet is about building political-economic organisation, starting with political organisation in the economic sphere, which is distinct from 'specific political organisation' as usually understood. hence my point that there's a difference between anarcho-syndicalist and platformist strategies.

jacobian

I think that you'll see this situation played out again. If you become a big functional union, you'll not be able to maintain the specific political character and vice versa.

lots of syndicalists drop politics in order to grow, yes. this isn't an argument against political-economic organisation, in fact it's an argument in favour of it. unions without an explicit revolutionary perspective get drawn into class collaboration, and specific political organisations have proved unable to stem that since it's a material tendency stemming from the organising model, not a question of bad ideas or bad leadership (of ideas or otherwise).

jacobian

It clearly is an attempt to associate us with "bad things" rather than talking about the strategies concretely. You could say you think "boring from within" is a worthless strategy incapable of working, but instead you mentioned Trots. Since there is nothing inherently Leninist, Trotskyist or authortarian about boring from within and attempting to create democratic and revolutionary unions, I'd say it sits firmly in the association fallacy category.

Firstly, the WSM has taken the approach of creating "industrial networks". In the case of a landscape dominated by a few unions however, it's going to mostly look like us getting together with militants that are already in those main unions. What would you recommend we do with people not in a union in a workplace? Maybe you can recommend they don't join it?

I think "boring from within" is generally associated with Fosterism and the attempt to seize the leadership and amalgamate. Obviously this isn't what groups such as the WSM are advocating. Instead, we advocate base unionism, which is trying to advocate workers power over the workplace, using the union tactically when it suits. Democratising and transforming the unions are clearly not on the cards in the near term for a political organisation the size of the WSM. In the face of a big upsurge in worker struggle, that might change.

Your claim that "reclaiming our unions" has never worked in history is questionable. The formation of the USI happened when workers, many of them anarchists, split from the CGL. This meant that there was prior to that a long hard slog *in* the USI - something that a lot of Anarchists seem to forget. Anarchists also "syndicalised" the French CGT. There is also the example of the FAU's interaction with the PIT-CNT which contributed to periods of high militancy.

the point is that base unionism/'reclaim our unions' and revolutionary industrial networks are different and largely incompatible strategies (although it's all largely hypothetical, given our mutual small size and influence). i'm not going to get into a debate on their relative mertits on someone elses thread.

in terms of small group organising in unorganised workplaces, the FAU/AGA pamphlet 'notes from the class struggle' may be informative. there's not a lot of information on that kind of thing because few groups have had much success. I think FAU's approach is pretty good though, and we're looking into it's applicability to Brighton (outside the large, unionised public sector it's mostly non-union, causal, service sector work - hotels, restaurants, call centres). as i understand it if they have one or several members in a workplace they'll typically try and involve the other workers through a mass meeting on-site or nearby, then draw up demands and come up with a direct action way to enforce them (often short of a strike, so boycotts, supporter pickets or on-the-job methods). We're wondering whether this could be combined with SeaSol style solidarity work, to make contacts with angry workers then assist them collectivising their problem using the 'FAU model'. but yeah it's an open question how best to go about it.

Well I hope your WRC in Iowa does well whatever model of organising they choose.

Joseph, that's a very interesting set of ideas there, it reminds me somewhat of AFed's "workplace resistance groups" except it sounds broader and more dynamic, could you perhaps tell me about any historical success that that model has had for FAU? I can understand if it's not been tested fully yet by them.

i don't know much more about the FAU than what's in the 'Notes from the class struggle' pamphlet, and the ongoing struggle at Babylon Cinema in Berlin. Here's what i wrote about that elsewhere:

Joseph Kay

apparently the workers at Babylon first contacted Ver.di (Unison equivalent), but they didn't want to know. FAU had previously provided assistance to on worker there in an individual dispute with management, so they were known to the workers who then approached them.

some of the workers joined the FAU, others didn't. the FAU proceeded by organising a meeting for all workers in a nearby pub which discussed the problems and collectively drew up a desired contract (with better pay, job security etc), this was put to management and when they ignored it a campaign of direct action implemented to force management's hand. they used a boycott rather than strikes in this instance for practical reasons - harder to get fired and effective since the cinema's customers are mostly lefties.

that to me is pretty close to the union/mass meeeting non-representative approach i've described here. FAU is organising struggles, not mediating them. if management comes to the table, i wouldn't expect FAU to enter behind-closed-doors talks on behalf of the workers - that would certainly be inconsistent with their approach so far. rather i would expect any offer to be discussed in a mass meeting and delegates mandated to carry on any negotiation.

i think 'Workplace Resistance Groups' are a potentially useful concept to describe informal, affinity-group style organisation at work. the problem i have is the AF shoehorn a lot of very different things into the term, from SolFed's industrial networks (which aren't really workplace based, and are formal, dues-paying, revolutionary organisations) to loose informal social groups without defined politics that engage in sabotage and slacking off etc (to which i think the term's more suited).

Joseph Kay

i don't know much more about the FAU than what's in the 'Notes from the class struggle' pamphlet, and the ongoing struggle at Babylon Cinema in Berlin. Here's what i wrote about that elsewhere:

Joseph Kay

apparently the workers at Babylon first contacted Ver.di (Unison equivalent), but they didn't want to know. FAU had previously provided assistance to on worker there in an individual dispute with management, so they were known to the workers who then approached them.

some of the workers joined the FAU, others didn't. the FAU proceeded by organising a meeting for all workers in a nearby pub which discussed the problems and collectively drew up a desired contract (with better pay, job security etc), this was put to management and when they ignored it a campaign of direct action implemented to force management's hand. they used a boycott rather than strikes in this instance for practical reasons - harder to get fired and effective since the cinema's customers are mostly lefties.

that to me is pretty close to the union/mass meeeting non-representative approach i've described here. FAU is organising struggles, not mediating them. if management comes to the table, i wouldn't expect FAU to enter behind-closed-doors talks on behalf of the workers - that would certainly be inconsistent with their approach so far. rather i would expect any offer to be discussed in a mass meeting and delegates mandated to carry on any negotiation.

It is quite interesting this:

The Silver Lining
Interestingly, the public employees knew very little about the wage-reform negotiations
until 2005. Many weren’t even aware of what was coming their way. Consequently, the
members of the FAU employed in the public sector set to the task of informing their colleagues.
Their goal: warding off attacks by the employers and union leadership on wages and working
conditions and forcing the repeal of the changes to the contract. For the FAU-Hannover this
would mean a fight against both the Ver.di leadership and the employers in the event of a
strike. The situation favored a fighting alternative to Ver.di. The physicians’ Marburger Union
(MB) ended its alliance with Ver.di after 40 years of cooperation and carried out an
independent strike in University Hospitals starting in August of 2005.

Would you feel that for instance, a Teamster breaking from the IBT in the United States is a plausible concept? It seems to be like that in the case described here, I must say though it's incredibly tough not knowing the full details of what happened, democratising factional sort of mini unions is an interesting kind of concept though.

i think 'Workplace Resistance Groups' are a potentially useful concept to describe informal, affinity-group style organisation at work. the problem i have is the AF shoehorn a lot of very different things into the term, from SolFed's industrial networks (which aren't really workplace based, and are formal, dues-paying, revolutionary organisations) to loose informal social groups without defined politics that engage in sabotage and slacking off etc (to which i think the term's more suited).

Yeah, I suppose you're right unfortunately.

I am hoping that the one WSA member of the collective will continue to take the "true path" towards the bright, new and future libertarian society. That said, WR is a group of its own making and influences (said in a comradely way).

On a different note,it is my opinion that many of my younger comrades (said respectfully) have come of age when the ideas and groups comprising the (broadly speaking) anarchist-communist and especifismo movements have had more of the internet and other exposure and spotlight. Surely here in north america. That said, it may not be either appropriate or accurate to mix and match some of the nuances, etc. of the european scene. In fact, the best thing european (and other) comrades can to is to post positive stuff about your views.Perhaps the "battle of ideas" is best won through as positive dialoge and discussion as possible.
I would encourage folks to do that.

Links to position papers, pamphlets stuff like that are always usueful. Hint, hint.

But what do know anyway, its been a long road and small results.

This thread is interesting. I've been emailing a friend discussing what is going on right here.

How much good is being done by parsing definitions?

Why even define yourself or your group?

Why not just do the work you think needs to be done and let other people worry about categories and definitions?

It seems like a lot of time and energy is spent intellectualizing the revolution. Meanwhile, who's baking the bread?

Dead End

Yeah, I read that about a couple months ago, interesting stuff. What it describes sounds pretty much like the IWW Starbucks Workers Union and 'minority unionism'. That's probably another good source for that type of organizing.

i don't know much about the US IWW, but i've heard that there's two tendencies - one that organises more like this and the other that tries to get as many workers as possible to join the union then pushes for recognition. i think 'minority unionism' is ok, but it can be ambiguous whether you're acting as a minority out of failure to recruit or principled opposition to the representative model - the former could easily lapse into the problems of representative unionism. without knowing more specifics on the Starbucks Workers Union i can't comment what's the case there - i'll read up on it though.

communal_pie

Would you feel that for instance, a Teamster breaking from the IBT in the United States is a plausible concept? It seems to be like that in the case described here, I must say though it's incredibly tough not knowing the full details of what happened, democratising factional sort of mini unions is an interesting kind of concept though.

i don't know anything about the US unions, but in the UK i can't see it happening any time soon, and certainly wouldn't advocate it as a strategy. if you had a big upsurge in struggles (complete with stitch-ups from the union bureaucracy), you may get workers being radicalised and breaking away to form new federations etc. i think if they weren't based on a clear revolutionary perspective (i.e. rejecting class society not looking to mediate it), they'd end up as bureaucracies themselves though.

syndicalist

I am hoping that the one WSA member of the collective will continue to take the "true path" towards the bright, new and future libertarian society. That said, WR is a group of its own making and influences (said in a comradely way).

On a different note,it is my opinion that many of my younger comrades (said respectfully) have come of age when the ideas and groups comprising the (broadly speaking) anarchist-communist and especifismo movements have had more of the internet and other exposure and spotlight. Surely here in north america. That said, it may not be either appropriate or accurate to mix and match some of the nuances, etc. of the european scene. In fact, the best thing european (and other) comrades can to is to post positive stuff about your views.Perhaps the "battle of ideas" is best won through as positive dialoge and discussion as possible.
I would encourage folks to do that.

Links to position papers, pamphlets stuff like that are always usueful. Hint, hint.

But what do know anyway, its been a long road and small results.

A very good post and not too far from the truth.