SSMP and full-time organising [was 'Troublemakers']

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 14 2007 12:32
SSMP and full-time organising [was 'Troublemakers']

Tena koe all,

In an email to several anarchos, I proposed a communication network for Anarchists involved in and/or interested in organising in workplace struggles. in Aotearoa.

The purpose of this group is just to bring together anarchists/syndicalists/anarcho-syndicalists/revolutionary unionists/anti-state unionist etc who are interested in workplace struggle together and to facilitate communication when needed. There are a few of us and its intended to be loose etc.

Give us an email if interested, media@ndu.org.nz or make some comments here.

Simon

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 14 2007 15:08

Hi Simono, just to say that we on libcom would be happy to help this out in any way we can. Cheers.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jul 15 2007 01:40

So the NDU recognised that your time as an unpaid UNITE organiser was good enough training in fucking over struggling workers to give you a paying job? Good for you.

omar
Offline
Joined: 23-10-06
Jul 16 2007 07:49
Quote:
fucking over struggling workers

well i've known simon quite a while and i ain't ever seen him fuck over no struggling workers. maybe you could explain it to me though...

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jul 16 2007 12:39

So UNITE didn't call SuperSizeMyPay off once it started to get beyond union control?

He's a proper union bureaucrat now - even if there's no recuperation in has past (which I doubt) there's plenty in his future.

omar
Offline
Joined: 23-10-06
Jul 17 2007 00:15

during the last strike of supersizemypay.com - there was a dispute between the Unite union officialdom and simon, who was the organiser of a particular site, that had voted to go on strike. simon took the workers side and consequently left unite.

i think anyone in a union official position has the potential to act as a recuperater of struggle. It doesn't mean they will.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 13:40
Quote:
So the NDU recognised that your time as an unpaid UNITE organiser was good enough training in fucking over struggling workers to give you a paying job? Good for you.
Quote:
So UNITE didn't call SuperSizeMyPay off once it started to get beyond union control?
He's a proper union bureaucrat now - even if there's no recuperation in has past (which I doubt) there's plenty in his future.

I'm not quite sure where to even start. I'll give it a go. Please follow up if I've missed something. These internet posting are very important to me and I make sure I do it on paid company (union) time because I need some way to spend members money.

Let's start with me:

1. I wasn't at Unite to call off SuperSizeMyPay.com because I quit over a dispute relating to the Restaurant Brands (Pizza Hut) Call Center and interference/assumptions about industrial action. Thinking back on it, I think this other person was quite stressed with the campaign and was concerned (maybe even rightly) that the campaign was screwed and had lost its steam.
2. I started getting paid $320 a week near the end of the campaign for 80 hours+. I made sure i didn't give a cent away and invested it all in banking. (I'm recuperating it now...)
3. Am I union bureaucrat? I have incredible difficulties working for the NDU. But by being in a paid position I can accept that's bureaucratic no matter what I or any other rosy eyes anarcho or radical is trying to do. Can you be strategically bureaucratic? Probably not. Does it help? Not sure. I want to help people and there wasn't anything else going on with work place struggles so I started working for NDU. I'm sure I've made a difference of some sorts and I'm not an organiser anymore btw.
4. I recently organised Rainbows End (NZ's only theme park) in my spare time with my own money with 1 or 2 days on work time (but I work in the weekends unpaid so I think that makes it up for the union - my work life balance is great, ask my girlfriend. no do it, because i can't because she's doing the same thing organising unorganised supermarkets who are on minimum wage.) I certainly didn't try to fuck those struggling workers over. Yes, definetly could have done it without working for the union - so maybe I should have as an activist outside of unions. that question plauges me everyday.

As for recuperation... I suppose I'll have to wait and see what you can dish up. if you would like theres this right wing guy in nz with a website at www.newzeal.blogspot.com - you could ask him for advice.

Then there's the campaign, SuperSizeMyPay.com:

1. I'm not sure what you know or understand about the campaign beyond what you've read. Most of what's been written has been wrong or misleading. It may even have been worse than what people have written - but certainly nothing has really shown what was actually going on. I wrote up my own account but decided not to publish it at the time and I can't find where I put it. (I might have framed it in my "I once was an anarchist before I sold out and this might affect my CV" folder.
Fucking the fast food workers over… I’ll assume that would be the Restaurant Brands workers since I wasn’t there to screw over the BK, Wendy’s or McDonalds. Although I suppose my previous action could have impacted the future strength of that part of the campaign.

So, how could we have screwed them over:

a) They got paid less, or we just took their union fees.
b) We blocked the desire to organise or as a result of the experience of the campaign their desire was realised and we turned the tap "off"
c) Something else.

A. Well they certainly didn’t get paid less.

There were definitely no big pay rises. I opposed the offer the whole time and was called fucking irresponsible for doing so. But in the end I didn’t do the voting, it was the union members. Not many, and from memory there may have never even been a ratification. The Starbucks workers and the Call Center got paid more. Starbucks workers had a higher union membership, they also probably in the eyes of the company deserve more because they want a higher pedigree of low paid worker. The call Center certainly only got more than anyone else because they took shit loads of industrial action and they are strategically in a better position and we almost had 100% union density. Either way their union fees would by covered by the pay increases.

B. Did we block their burning desire to organize?

Not sure. I certainly was pushing things, and often when the members weren’t even at that "stage". I’m not even sure where they were at. There wasn’t actually that much day to day involvement in the campaign organising, course they doing their stuff on the floor. It was largely an external campaign with some sites being active. In many ways it shows how keen/easy/”natural” it is for people to take action that a bunch of people come in and say, hey, why not take action. They can see the point, you give them the support etc etc But keep in mind there weren’t that many stores involved in the strikes. Up at the old call center we were pulling them out all the time. But that was a different situation. There are like 16,000 fast food workers and only 2000 max in the union.

In fact the reason why I quit was over one of the officials involvement in trying to get people to stop striking the day before negotiations. I hadn’t even called the strike, t'was the old trade union conciousness members.

C. Something else.

Yeah I was pretty pissed off that there was a lul of action over Christmas. The word came down from above. I can’t even remember why we didn’t just go ahead anyway. I think we didn’t have enough people keen or maybe we didn’t spend enough time. I wasn’t actually on sites anymore at this time.

Quote:
So UNITE didn't call SuperSizeMyPay off once it started to get beyond union control?
Did it get called off once beyond union control?

We’ll the call centre took that strike they wanted to take anyway. It was great, one of the best. They company tried to block me legally from coming up when they wanted to take it. Turned out to be the biggest strike there. They ended up accepting the deal they got offered afterwards though (even though I tried to encourage them not to - especially not a 2 year deal) but they got about $1.70 extra an hour which is about 11%. Certainly one of the highest pay rises nz workers had gotten in low paid jobs in a long time. They didn’t have youth rates. The staff accepted it unanimously.

What about the other sites? Well, all I can say was that I felt we were weak elsewhere and the remaining staff didn’t have the support or ability or the members weren’t keen enough for any more action.

Quote:
So the NDU recognised that your time as an unpaid UNITE organiser was good enough training in fucking over struggling workers to give you a paying job? Good for you.

I’m not sure what they recognized because I’m certainly not doing now what I should be doing. In fact I feel bogged down doing really strange things. I’m doing design and other stuff and really don’t have that much contact with workers (cept for getting pissed off and organising rainbows end). Still got a lot of “power” being a publicity officer writing the newspaper etc but I rarely put in what I’d think I should.

Anyway - shit I’m meant to be working, in my spare time, late at night again , doing an all nighter, to screw the workers over. I’ve got a big Certificate with an A+ in screwing workers in recognition by the NDU of my skills in doing so.

Feel free to email me Peter or keep this going. We’ve got to keep the fight on the internet going. so if you keep replying to this post it might get a high enough google ranking that a worker might even read this one day.

Simon

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 14:07

Revol68, I see you've added greatly to this discussion. Thankyou. Feel free to add to the discussion. I fully support exploration of me being a full time union hack . You obviously agree with the above post, so please share your feelings. Think of it as therapy, I'm sure you'll feel better afterwards.

Please, bring it on.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 14:28

Hey like a serious question though - what's the suggestion from Revol68 and Peter for me to do. I'm really interested. Any advice or experience from your own organisations would be good. (And killing myself is not a useful answer.) Practical stuff would be good and experiences from helping workers organise in your own areas would be even better. That's what we are trying to do here and not all of 'em are sellout full tim ehacks like me.

SImon

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 14:54

Good idea. Where you working, I'm give it ago. You could share your rank and file organising skills with me and we could do some international solidarity. How about a no to the second bit. Still waiting on the practical ideas or do prefer just to spout?

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 15:24

I never said I can be different. If you read it I said that was no excuse! In fact I'm only doing this because I feel (weakly) that I can at least make some difference probably more than if I was organising outside by myself. In some ways I think this is my in security. I did pretty well with Rainbows End and SuperSizeMyPay.com without being paid. There was money infolved in SSMP that came from somewhere obviously, but a lot of it was done without money. in fact, I'm not even sure who else in anarcho circles has had as much success in workplace organising? Of course the word success is a debateable term - what do we mean by that, what about long term activism etc yes yes. I've got a lot to learn. But we actually went out there and did something and engaged. The worlds first starbucks strike. We shook up unions here a lot. I've tried to hand in my notice many times, and I know that's lame and I should just do it. I should do a lot of things. You can't imagine the debates I have with my partner (who also works here) about quitting and what we'd do. There just isn't that much support for anarcho-syndicalist stuff or even radical stuff. I want to be doing something, and this must have just been the easy way to do it. It's weak sure. But you still haven't added to the debate.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 17 2007 15:41

edit - revol, this post of mine was made before your quite sensible one above where you actually make a constructive point, so bear that in mind. Also, you wouldn't get a job with the T&G.

revol68 wrote:
Jesus, what is it with these pricks, they get paid to be activists and then lambast everyone with 'what are you doing' etc.

I'm pointing out that there is a fundamental contradiction between anarcho syndicalism and full time organisers, a problem you actually recognised but then try and sneak around with the pathetic 'but I can be different', which is exactly what everyone tells themselves before fucking over principles long learnt.

Actually your supposed "anarcho-syndicalist principle" on paid organisers hasn't been adopted by any anarcho-syndicalist organisation that has had any kind of success. The CNT and IWW both used paid organisers. You are the one stating it's a "fundamental contradiction" with no evidence to back it up. From most of your initial posts on this subject it was clear you didn't even know what an organiser was, you were slagging them off for things which aren't in their power, like being able to call off strikes.

As demonstrated by simon's example, there' no inherent difference in their work from volunteer organisers - which he has done as well, and so no inherent difference from people just unionising somewhere. If you have a specific criticism, say it. Although I would say save it for a relevant thread, don't just have your rude little hissy fits all over the boards.

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 17 2007 15:48

I'm not patting myself on the back, I'm defending accusations. doing something for workers actually means something for me, especially when it gets workers something. taking action and organising is a good practical experience can radicalise people. that's the only reason i'm involved, and that's also the reason why I'm not sure why I'm involved. i certainly don't shirk from my criticism of unions either - but I also recognise they're doing more than any other group. I think the good thinigs that come from being involved with the low level of activity in nz makes up for the fact i have to deal with being in an organisation i'm not comfortable with (principlaly). But hey i'm not comfortable with it. I've already sent in my resignation anyhoo.

omar
Offline
Joined: 23-10-06
Jul 17 2007 22:40
Quote:
it might be alot easier to skip the whole building things from the very base but without it everything you build is just on shaky foundations

well said. the choice, however that activists and anarchists in the trade union movement have had in the last couple of years in NZ has been between not building anything at all or getting involved in and helping to build left-wing unions like Unite and the NDU.

i've worked temporarily as a paid union recruiter but that doesn't mean i don't want to build worker power from below.

however only now with the formation of an anarcho-syndicalist network in aotearoa does the potential exist for this to be built with any form of succcess. plus people like myself who once knew nothing of organising/running a union now have a semblance of how to (and how not to) run a union.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 17 2007 22:58

I just left a job where it went from almost zero union membership to workplace meetings of 30 people, no support from 'the union' at all, lots and lots of informal organisation trying to get various things dealt with. Apart from spending my lunch breaks talking about stuff, I managed to do everything on work time, as did anyone else who was interested there. No need for a full time organiser and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been welcome if they'd been sniffing around. All the stuff that we actually did was completely outside the framework - by the time I'd left they'd had their second official meeting to set things up.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jul 18 2007 04:45
simono wrote:
Hey like a serious question though - what's the suggestion from Revol68 and Peter for me to do. I'm really interested. Any advice or experience from your own organisations would be good. (And killing myself is not a useful answer.) Practical stuff would be good and experiences from helping workers organise in your own areas would be even better. That's what we are trying to do here and not all of 'em are sellout full tim ehacks like me.

SImon

What Revol said, get a proper job plus give up your moralising, self-sacrificing, missionaryeque attitude.

There's already a union at my work, why would I want to organise another one?

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 18 2007 08:17

I don't have a moralising self sacrificing attitude. i was defending my self from internet warriors like yourself.

So what are you suggesting to organise? There's already a union - sweet so what are you organising instead. I seem to recall things you'd posted years ago when I first had a look on here. What have you practically built since then? Revolutionary workers groups, networks or whatever your into? We're trying to build something practical and if you've got nothing to add don't waste our time, there are plenty of online dating agencies elsewhere.

Simon

Malcy
Offline
Joined: 13-04-07
Jul 18 2007 11:19

Peter,

I find your attack on Simon a bit pathetic. You don't answer his replies to your initial criticism of him as fucking over workers' struggles in the SSMP campaign. If you think the only way to organise is directly as a waged worker rather than a (paid) union organiser then why don't you just say so rather than making petty personal attacks on a person who seems to, in my opinion, be making the best efforts to foster a militant revolutionary unionism against all the odds. Your holier-than-thou attitude and blase assumptions don't do anyone any favours.

Malcolm

happychaos's picture
happychaos
Offline
Joined: 14-04-06
Jul 18 2007 23:07

The thing is, you've now turned a forum post that was meant to be about something specific into something completely different. been more useful if you had created a seperate forum topic and invited me to respond. even then i think it should be debated around the issues and topics - i'm sure most people wouldn't bothere defending themselves and not even bother discussing the topic.

And just for the record - "i just want to help people" means help them build their power and ability to do the job. Certainly you're not going to tell me that being on a picket line for most of the last few weeks is a charity job? Have you joined a charity so you can help your local locked out cleaners then?

I made the mistake of not reading your messages elsewhere to see your forum response style. It's not a criticism, but please take into the above and I'll happily discuss anything when I've got time as I'm too busy doing charity work to get rid of youth rates.

Simon

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jul 23 2007 02:22

Sorry to go all quiet on this topic, my home connection has died so I've only had a bit of web time in libraries. I guess I do owe Simon an apology regarding SSMP, I knew the UNITE leadership had fucked it up but I didn't know his part in it. So, sorry Simon.

However having seen the union fuck up SSMP it seems a little naive to then get a job as a union bureaucrat.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 23 2007 02:55
revol68 wrote:
I'm pointing out that there is a fundamental contradiction between anarcho syndicalism and winning.

Fixed.

Antieverything
Offline
Joined: 27-02-07
Jul 23 2007 04:00

Sure, thugarchist, but wouldn't winning be hollow without maintaining ideological purity? I mean, seriously, who really wants an increase in pay, benefits and job security while at the same time building workers power when they can be an ineffectual punk-ass on internet forums?

now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go masturbate to youtube videos of the CNT.

Antieverything
Offline
Joined: 27-02-07
Jul 23 2007 19:11

good idea, lets simulate a lack of resources...because the CNT made it work.

I don't know about New Zealand, but here in the states most folks don't even really know what a union is much less have the willingness to sacrifice money, security and time with the kids to build one from the ground up, against all odds (not to mention existing labor law). This isn't Spain and it isn't 1930.

Try organizing workers here in Texas...try to get folks signed up with the union so that they can get health insurance for their kids and they'll start off by telling you to fuck off because they are watching American Idol (no joke, true story)! Those dastardly paid organizers...if it wasn't for them, the workers would be doing it themselves without the need of a massive international organization with huge amounts of investment and well-trained, experienced staff who are going to stick around into organizing drives with the constant threat of failure and little immediate payoff! Once again, this isn't Spain and it isn't 1930...you can't run a national union federation on ideological fervor and economic necessity alone. (have you ever been to the US, by the way?)

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 24 2007 00:19
revol68 wrote:
No it's not Spain and the 1930's, if anything people have more time and security, the issue isn't that, the issue is about a lack of struggle and that struggle will have to be built from the grassroots, it won't come about from a professional cadre of Union Organisers,if anything it is professionalism of 'struggle', it's commodification through 'full time peace activists', 'professional community activists and spokespeople', single issue NGO's with whole bureacratic apparatus that play such a role in removing politics and struggle from everyday life, convincing people that it's about signing up for a direct debit and then the real activists can do it. Full time union organisers at once reproduce and represent a response to this dynamic, they are the answer to a question they themselves ask. It's easy to just throw up your hands, take a reductionist and condescending attitude to the working class (yeah because all of them sit on their fat arses watching pop idol roll eyes) and then jump on the professional activist train where you can 'save them from themselves', it's a somewhat understandable response to the lack of struggle at the moment but it's an ahistorical self perpeuating one, replacing 'politics' with a kind of activist charity, post modern missionaries. if you don't think the working class is capable of self organising and taking control of it's own struggles then just fucking say it, piss off and get a nice job in some wanky liberal lobby group and leave those of us who are part of the working class (y'know that category you treat as an object) and who argue for self organisation to get on with it, just don't mistake yourself for an anarchist or revolutionary.

That ain't what organizers do in the states. Its also not what the new australian model is moving towards. You have no notion of what the organizing unions are trying to do within mainstream mass labor organizations.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 24 2007 00:39
revol68 wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:
No it's not Spain and the 1930's, if anything people have more time and security, the issue isn't that, the issue is about a lack of struggle and that struggle will have to be built from the grassroots, it won't come about from a professional cadre of Union Organisers,if anything it is professionalism of 'struggle', it's commodification through 'full time peace activists', 'professional community activists and spokespeople', single issue NGO's with whole bureacratic apparatus that play such a role in removing politics and struggle from everyday life, convincing people that it's about signing up for a direct debit and then the real activists can do it. Full time union organisers at once reproduce and represent a response to this dynamic, they are the answer to a question they themselves ask. It's easy to just throw up your hands, take a reductionist and condescending attitude to the working class (yeah because all of them sit on their fat arses watching pop idol roll eyes) and then jump on the professional activist train where you can 'save them from themselves', it's a somewhat understandable response to the lack of struggle at the moment but it's an ahistorical self perpeuating one, replacing 'politics' with a kind of activist charity, post modern missionaries. if you don't think the working class is capable of self organising and taking control of it's own struggles then just fucking say it, piss off and get a nice job in some wanky liberal lobby group and leave those of us who are part of the working class (y'know that category you treat as an object) and who argue for self organisation to get on with it, just don't mistake yourself for an anarchist or revolutionary.

That ain't what organizers do in the states. Its also not what the new australian model is moving towards. You have no notion of what the organizing unions are trying to do within mainstream mass labor organizations.

No I know the organisers just get people to organise themselves, creating working class leaders, pushing the class yadda yadda, maybe that initial organising (what could we call it meta organising??) is something the working class has to do itself. Over here if workers want to get a union in they organise themselves and approach a union, usually on the back of a struggle they are involved in, they don't have full timers coming in to 'organise them', they tend to join a union for some basic legal protection whilst not being under the illusion the union will actually actively support them in their own struggle. Interestingly for me is the fact you and I both know that if workers began self organising in an industry, creating their own base uions, networks or whatever the Unions would send in full time organisers to raid the shit out of it.

Theoretically. However, its more likely to depend on the industry here in the states. Lots of little healthcare indy's we don't raid for example. Because its a waste of time, not because of some higher principle. The US has such low density that we focus on unorganized helathcare workers and try to merge with the indys. Thats not true with other unions in other industries but, personally, I'm all for raiding the shit out of little indys who fuck up the ability to wield industrial power.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 24 2007 00:49
revol68 wrote:
well if anything I respect your honesty, where we no doubt differ is in the concept of industrial power but atleast you aren't trying to have your cake and eat it on this issue as others have.

Yeah, I got no problem with disagreements on my views. I'm pretty straight forward in expressing what I think. And I couldn't give a fuck if others don't agree. smile

Anyway, we probably don't disagree on what industrial power is but most likely do disagree on how it should be wielded and by who.

Antieverything
Offline
Joined: 27-02-07
Jul 24 2007 00:59
Quote:
No it's not Spain and the 1930's, if anything people have more time and security, the issue isn't that, the issue is about a lack of struggle and that struggle will have to be built from the grassroots, it won't come about from a professional cadre of Union Organisers,if anything it is professionalism of 'struggle', it's commodification through 'full time peace activists', 'professional community activists and spokespeople', single issue NGO's with whole bureacratic apparatus that play such a role in removing politics and struggle from everyday life, convincing people that it's about signing up for a direct debit and then the real activists can do it. Full time union organisers at once reproduce and represent a response to this dynamic, they are the answer to a question they themselves ask. It's easy to just throw up your hands, take a reductionist and condescending attitude to the working class (yeah because all of them sit on their fat arses watching pop idol roll eyes) and then jump on the professional activist train where you can 'save them from themselves', it's a somewhat understandable response to the lack of struggle at the moment but it's an ahistorical self perpeuating one, replacing 'politics' with a kind of activist charity, post modern missionaries. if you don't think the working class is capable of self organising and taking control of it's own struggles then just fucking say it, piss off and get a nice job in some wanky liberal lobby group and leave those of us who are part of the working class (y'know that category you treat as an object) and who argue for self organisation to get on with it, just don't mistake yourself for an anarchist or revolutionary.

I understand that shit is way different across the pond. And don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I wish that the conditions we are faced with here gave me the luxury of agreeing with you on the issue of how unions ought to work (not ideally but right here, right now) if they are to accomplish anything of significance.

It is ironic to the extreme that you accuse me of not coming from a working-class background solely due to my comments here (you are wrong)...especially since, here in the US, the sort of stuff you are saying generally comes out of the mouths of middle-class (the wealthier the family the more 'radical' the rhetoric, generally) career students who have no contact with working-class people, instead preferring to objectify them (much as you accuse me of doing) but in an almost disgustingly romantic light. Back in the real world, the US working class happily goes deeper in debt every year buying brand new cars and televisions (I'm not exaggerating, it isn't at all uncommon for folks to buy a new car every other year that costs more than the home they live in!) Hell, what do you expect in a country where 90% of people think they are middle class and literally the majority think that they are or one day will be in the top 10% income bracket (its true!).

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 24 2007 20:16
revol68 wrote:
there is a fundamental contradiction between anarcho syndicalism and full time organisers

Revol this is you saying the same thing you always say about this topic, which boils down to "full time staff?! that's anti-working class! fuck you!" You have never been in a workplace that organized a union in any fashion, let alone under a labor relations regime like that in US, you've never been a union employee, and as far as I know you've never been a member of a union. And yet you know a great deal about all of those things, what they must be like in every instance. If other people who have done one or more of those things say "well, in my experience of one of those, it was more complicated than you're allowing" you respond with abuse, shrillness, putting words in peoples mouths, strawmen and evasion, until the person gets tired and you can pretend you've established your point by argument instead of rhetoric. It's really quite tiresome and a poor use of your time. A more efficient thing around would be for you to write up "Revol's a priori perspective" then you could just post up "you cunts are all wrong! see this link! cunts!" every time you felt the need.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 24 2007 20:36

Nate,
So you have argued Revol to a standstill, well done.
I have been in unions, in closed shops, in union shops, and in places without a union.
I say that the unions are against the working class.
My practical experience (manual work in six countries) supports this conclusion.
I am tired of reading all these North Americans going on about organisning the working class.
The working class is capable of organising itself. History shows us this.
You go on about America as if your experience there is different frm the rest of the planet.
It isn't.
Devrim

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 24 2007 20:56

Devrim, that's not the point. As far as I know, two people on this site have said "all unions are revolutionary." Two or three people on this site at most have said "working as staff in (mainstream) unions is revolutionary" and all of them have said explicitly that they don't encourage anarchists to do that. More others have said "organizing as members of the rank and file in mainstream unions is revolutionary", some have said anarchists should do that and others have said they don't care if anarchists do that. All of that is worth debating. In that debate it's important to be clear about three general things. First about what is totally incompatible with our principles and strategies (for me being a cop or having the power to hire and fire, for Revol being a full time union employee of any type which is specific to unions), second about what are compatible but not of strategic importance or a way to further act on our principles (that's where I'd put being an organizer), and third about what are good goals and paths to pursue in keeping with our principles in an effective way. Confusing those categories doesn't help matters.

Also please note that none of those three necessarily involve any claim about the capacity of the working class. One can believe in the self-organizing capacity of the working class while pursuing a practice of trying to push forward the self-organization of the class where self-organization currently doesn't exist or doesn't exist much. If anything, I think organizing in the workplace implies a belief in the capacity of all workers for self-organization.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 24 2007 21:01

What I remember is you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims and ignoring or dismissing requests for evidence and further argument. Feel free to provide links proving me wrong. Otherwise, I'm bowing out of this discussion as I don't want to contribute further to derailing this thread.