Would the general position of espicifistas towards workplace organizing, unions, etc. best be summarized by this passage from the "Organizational Platform"? Something else? Links?
This is meant as a no flame question
"8. Anarchism and syndicalism
We consider the tendency to oppose libertarian communism to syndicalism and vice versa to be artificial, and devoid of all foundation and meaning.
The ideas of anarchism and syndicalism belong on two different planes. Whereas communism, that is to say a society of free workers, is the goal of the anarchist struggle - syndicalism, that is the movement of revolutionary workers in their occupations, is only one of the forms of revolutionary class struggle. In uniting workers on a basis of production, revolutionary syndicalism, like all groups based on professions, has no determining theory, it does not have a conception of the world which answers all the complicated social and political questions of contemporary reality. It always reflects the ideologies of diverse political groupings notably of those who work most intensely in its ranks.
Our attitude to revolutionary syndicalism derives from what is about to be said. Without trying here to resolve in advance the question of the role of the revolutionary syndicates after the revolution, whether they will be the organisers of all new production, or whether they will leave this role to workers' soviets or factory committees - we judge that anarchists must take part in revolutionary syndicalism as one of the forms of the revolutionary workers' movement.
However, the question which is posed today is not whether anarchists should or should not participate in revolutionary syndicalism, but rather how and to what end they must take part.
We consider the period up to the present day, when anarchists entered the syndicalist movement as individuals and propagandists, as a period of artisan relationships towards the professional workers movement.
Anarcho-syndicalism, trying to forcefully introduce libertarian ideas into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism as a means of creating anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward, but it does not, as yet, go beyond the empirical method, for anarcho-syndicalism does not necessarily interweave the 'anarchisation' of the trade union movement with that of the anarchists organised outside the movement. For it is only on this basis, of such a liaison, that revolutionary trade unionism could be 'anarchised' and prevented from moving towards opportunism and reformism.
In regarding syndicalism only as a professional body of workers without a coherent social and political theory, and consequently, being powerless to resolve the social question on its own, we consider that the tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the movement consist of developing libertarian theory, and point it in a libertarian direction, in order to transform it into an active arm of the social revolution. It is necessary to never forget that if trade unionism does not find in anarchist theory a support in opportune times it will turn, whether we like it or not, to the ideology of a political statist party.
The tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the revolutionary workers' movement could only be fulfilled on conditions that their work was closely interwoven and linked with the activity of the anarchist organisation outside the union. In other words, we must enter into revolutionary trade unions as an organised force, responsible to accomplish work in the union before the general anarchist organisation and orientated by the latter.
Without restricting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we must seek to exercise our theoretical influence on all trade unions, and in all its forms (the lWW, Russian TU's). We can only achieve this end by working in rigorously organised anarchist collectives; but never in small empirical groups, having between them neither organisational liaison nor theoretical agreement.
Groups of anarchists in companies, factories and workshops, preoccupied in creating anarchist unions, leading the struggle in revolutionary unions for the domination of libertarian ideas in unionism, groups organised in their action by a general anarchist organisation: these are the ways and means of anarchists' attitudes vis a vis trade unionism."
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_general.html
NOT FLAMlNG. l think your
NOT FLAMlNG. l think your question is not to anarchosyndicalists but to those specific folks, but l wonder whether or not there is only one set position or whether their is divergence. So it would be good if somebody answers that to point out differences.
(Needless to say, l have a number of comments on this, but not now.) :-)
Yes, it's priimarily directed
Yes, it's priimarily directed to especifistas, some who occasionally read libcom.
And, yes, I would agree with you Akai, there is probally not one approach.
There have been a few older
There have been a few older threads on this broad topic that may be of relevance.
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/platformists-revolutionary-syndicalism-strategy-did-or-do-any-reject-it-08072015
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/anarcho-syndicalism-platformism-do-they-go-together-15122009
Appreciate those links. If
Appreciate those links. If especifismo approach is identical to the suggestions in The Platform, no need to pursue. If those in 2016 who identify as especifistas see it significantly different, then I'm interested in hear that.If not, sorry for reduncacies
Basically I am curious, as I know little detail of current or relatively recent (say, since about 2010) practices.
I would imagine there's some
I would imagine there's some overlap but to be honest I think it's fair to say that the Platform is best seen as a historical document rather than some type of program or 'platform' that guides people's politics and organizing today. Further, I think our comrade [name removed - admin) pointed out in a piece he wrote not too long ago (can't find link) that there's discussion in the document that is pretty particular to the Russian situation and the traditions of unionism, syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism there that I think flips a lot of the preconceptions people generally have of the document.
But if one's basic take away is that anarchists should attempt to build a revolutionary workers movement, which can be defined in many different ways, and be active and attempting to influence the broader labor movement regardless of union affiliation, then I would agree. Here in the US I think the bureacratization and conservativism of the mainstream unions together with the tradition/legalistic framework of contractualism, I think makes the possibility of what we can do inside of them fairly narrow and the need to build independently much greater.
I'm not sure what more to say or offer on the question but I will leave there two reference points here:
First, is the stub referencing attempts to build the IWW in South Africa in the early 2000s by the groups that would later go on to become Zabalaza:
https://saasha.net/2014/01/06/industrial-workers-of-world-pamphlet-durban-early-2000s/
Second, is the work of the Brazilian especifists in building a new and independant union with trash collectors. You can see their influence here in this "princible onjectives" document of the union that are based on: autogestion, direct democracy, direct action, class independance (no alliance with political parties), mutual aid, and class solidarity.
http://www.mncr.org.br/sobre-o-mncr/principios-e-objetivos
Hey A., I removed the
Hey A., I removed the person's real name that you used as I don't think they want that linked to their pseudonym. Easy mistake, not a big deal.
Thank you A. Weaver. I
Thank you A. Weaver.
I would say that as a teenager and then a member of a local political group (the Libertarian Workers Group), the below quote captures an important part of my own development. Of course, not word for word. Or proscription for proscription sake. But our anarchism and tactics were clearly discussed within the group and attempted to be put in practice. Ultimately it was not the group, but the militants on the shop floor who directed the final outcome of the practice and tactics. It was understood that the group was essential for support and the more ideological and movement oriented discussions.
In our general approach, the local's goals were two fold: a) build shop floor libertarian presence and form of action leading towards counter-power and organization b) try and develop relationships that with workers who we could help bring into the group for purposes of helping with the more ideological aspects of growth and development, sorta "building one anarchist at a time."
Granted times change, documents sometimes frozen in time, sometimes not. As a kid, the two most important libertarian documents in my development were 1970s version) of "The Aims, Policies and Principles of the IWA" and portions of "The Organizational Platform" (followed closely by London Solidarity's "As We See It"). Perhaps I've always been the odd bird, but a revolutionary labor movement must filed with revolutionaries. And our local group's were never unions, but associations of libertarian workers seeking to help with trying to develop a libertarian specific labor movement, be it in the reformist unions (of which most of us belonged) ff the IWW. So, basically trying to extend the ideas, the practices as far as wide as possible.
The 1970s and 1980s are not the 2000s and US union levels are at an all time low. And the ability or acceptance at different forms of organizing are much better.
syndicalist wrote: our local
syndicalist
that actually sounds quite FORAista in a way...
klas batalo
klas batalo
The reality was we were "winging it". We had no models or guides
In fact, we never thought of the Fora other than a historic a/s movement
of old vets holding the fort. Admittedly, it's only been relatively recent that I
Understood in detail the nature of the FORA and foraismo.
Bluntly, we own all our success and failures due to trial and error.