Revival of the Workers' International Industrial Union (WIIU)

[mikelepore]

I have received news of the new efforts to reorganize the Workers' International Industrial Union, or WIIU. It is the revolutionary industrial union that originally operated from 1915 to 1924. Please help spread the news around, add links to your web sites, etc.

Here is the WIIU's new site, which may be under construction:

http://www.wiiu.org/

Here's the first issue of their new publication, dated April 2009:

http://www.wiiu.org/iunews/pdf/iunews200904.pdf

Here is the first press release of the WIIU's secretary-treasurer, dated January 4:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deleonism-list/message/340

[Die Neue Zeit]

And unlike the IWW, the US section of the WIIU is linked to a political party: the Workers Party in America. :cool:

[Martin Blank]

And unlike the IWW, the US section of the WIIU is linked to a political party: the Workers Party in America. :cool:

Actually, there's no formal link, Jacob. We are supporters of the WIIU, as is another organization, the Real Union of Social Science. The WIIU will decide when and if they choose to endorse the WPA. Personally, I hope they will at some point in the future, but that's up to the Union's members.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In due time, of course. I just don't want to see the WIIU become a competing "red union" against the IWW, although the latter is influenced more by anarcho-syndicalism than by Marxism.

[mikelepore]

Miles deserves some recognition and thanks, because he spoke up immediately and volunteed his time and labor to help the organization get started. I'm sure his computer skills were very helpful.

[Forward Union]

Their logo looks familiar :rolleyes:

Good luck though.

[Martin Blank]

Their logo looks familiar :rolleyes:

Good luck though.

The reason the logos look familiar is because the WIIU: a) carries on the traditions of the early IWW (from 1905 to 1908), and b) emerged from the IWW when the latter removed the original Preamble wording about independent workers' political action.

Even though the revived WIIU does not wish or intend to also revive the old rivarly and animosity that existed with the IWW, we do intend to carry on the principles and traditions that led to its existence.

[Martin Blank]

Miles deserves some recognition and thanks, because he spoke up immediately and volunteed his time and labor to help the organization get started. I'm sure his computer skills were very helpful.

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your comments. But it should be said that the WPA as an organization has thrown in its time and labor into this project. We recognize its importance for the same reasons you do.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sounds great. Good luck to anybody involved.
The labourstart AFL-CIO link on the page is somewhat disturbing, but nothing major.

[PRC-UTE]

And unlike the IWW, the US section of the WIIU is linked to a political party: the Workers Party in America. :cool:

isn't the WPA a very new and small party? seems odd to link with them.

[Martin Blank]

isn't the WPA a very new and small party? seems odd to link with them.

Please see my reply to Jacob's comments above.

[Pogue]

Why would you create another international workers union when there is already one, the IWW?

[Martin Blank]

Why would you create another international workers union when there is already one, the IWW?

We have no beef with the IWW. Many of us are both IWW and WIIU members. But there is a fundamental difference between the two organizations: where the IWW rejects workers' political action, we support it. If that issue can be resolved, then there's no longer a need for the WIIU.

[Le Libérer]

Okay moved off topic content in this thread.

[PRC-UTE]

Okay moved off topic content in this thread.

beat me to it :crying:

[black magick hustla]

Why would you create another international workers union when there is already one, the IWW?

more importantly, why create a union at all? from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else. i think the work would be better invested in creating an organization, not a union

[KC]

more importantly, why create a union at all? from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else. i think the work would be better invested in creating an organization, not a unionMy posts that were split and trashed addressed this issue entirely, so I'm not sure why exactly they were trashed, aside from the fact that they didn't discuss the WIIU specifically but rather Miles' organizations in general.

You can see the posts here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/offtopic-stuff-workers-t104797/index.html). Hopefully we can get these untrashed, although perhaps they should be made into a separate thread, as they are organizational in nature, whereas this thread is regarding a news item. As far as I am concerned, organization is one of the most important issues pertaining to us, and should be extensively discussed. This certainly includes criticism, which I was offering.

Stifling discussion doesn't help solve the problem.

EDIT: Link Fixed

[YSR]

Err, I don't get it. In the U.S., this role is already more-or-less being attempted by the IWW. Why not be members of the WPA or whatever other political party and organize with the IWW? What's the strategic advantage of having a revolutionary union that's affiliated with a political party vs. having a revolutionary union that's not but allows political membership in whatever party?


more importantly, why create a union at all? from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else.

Hm. Maybe in some places. But the majority of the IWW at least is not like that.

[Devrim]

Hm. Maybe in some places. But the majority of the IWW at least is not like that.

What percentage of the membership is in job branches (i.e. actual real functioning unions)?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Stifling discussion doesn't help solve the problem.


I absolutely agree with this.

Devrim

[mikelepore]

more importantly, why create a union at all? from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else. i think the work would be better invested in creating an organization, not a union

The principle being followed there is that union organization is forever supposed to keep in focus the goal of collective ownership and workers' democratic control of the industries, that this goal has to be something that only a workplace organization can implement (although a political movement is also required), and that the department structure of the workplace organization has to be the starting point for the structure of new economic administration. The IWW and WIIU preambles say: ""The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggles with the capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially, we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." Similarly, from a 1913 editorial by De Leon: "Industrial unionism is the socialist republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the industrial union is the socialist republic in operation. Accordingly, the industrial union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself."

[Pogue]

more importantly, why create a union at all? from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else. i think the work would be better invested in creating an organization, not a union

I think its called anarcho-syndicalism.

[Pogue]

I think its very stupid to form an organisation alongside the IWW that is very similar. It will simply divide things. The IWW is a union, its political by its nature, but yes, we don't want to be controlled by a party.

I'm assuming you guys in the WIIU are De Leonists of some sort? Who see a union-party organisation neccesary for revolution? Otherwise I'd say what you're doing is unjustifiable. Workers unions should have no politics outside of the union. Otherwise it becomes a puppet and is not self-organised.

[mikelepore]

We have no beef with the IWW. Many of us are both IWW and WIIU members. But there is a fundamental difference between the two organizations: where the IWW rejects workers' political action, we support it. If that issue can be resolved, then there's no longer a need for the WIIU.

I think the original wedge between the two groups was the IWW, not formally opposing political organization, but saying formally that the issue of politics is just as much a personal choice as religious affiliation, so that many and perhaps most IWW speakers and writers, as individuals, did and still do oppose political organization. But the WIIU held that it's only political organization that can allow the workers' revolution to occur as peacefully as possible, without extensive and systematic violence. As Miles said, we shouldn't dredge up the hundred-year-old animosity, but the difference of opinion can't be glossed over with frosting. When someone argues that, if the workers don't do some certain thing, then they will get massacred in large numbers, and someone else says hey chill out, it's just a private issue like religion, there's a chasm there. I don't know how to fix it. I hope that the two groups will find many ways to collaborate fraternally, but the size of the disagreement shouldn't be underestimated. That disagreement is about a point related to which strategy will cause a workers' revolution to be successful and which strategy will cause it to be defeated. Even for the best of diplomats, and optimists, I'm afraid that this might be one tough problem to surmount.

[KC]

The original posts that were wrongfully trashed have been made into a new thread here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/discussion-communist-league-t104797/index.html). I suggest anyone that asked the question "What is the point of this?" in this thread to go participate in that thread.

[black magick hustla]

I think its called anarcho-syndicalism.

I know what is anarcho-syndicalism. My whole point is that "anarchosyndicalism" in the US is pointless. I am not adressing just anarchos, but any of the syndicalists, including DeLeonists.

[Pogue]

I know what is anarcho-syndicalism. My whole point is that "anarchosyndicalism" in the US is pointless. I am not adressing just anarchos, but any of the syndicalists, including DeLeonists.

Why do you think it is pointless?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just FYI, left communism is merely an ultra-spontaneist variant of the very syndicalism denounced by Marmot.

[spritely]

How was this union formed? Was there a congress of workers / delegates representing workers or did a few people get together and proclaim it?

How will you get workers to join? How will you organize job branches?

What will make workers join this union at a time when they joining unions at a rate as low or lower than before the legalization of unions in America?

Do you think that the difference with the IWW will make workers join this union? Do you think that the reason the IWW is ignored / not effective is that it rejects the political aspect?


What percentage of the membership is in job branches (i.e. actual real functioning unions)?

I would guess around 2%. They have a few job branches. There are the curbside recyclers in Berkley for example.

I agree with the general sentiment that the IWW is dead.

At the same time I think the left communists fare no better.

[mikelepore]

I know what is anarcho-syndicalism. My whole point is that "anarchosyndicalism" in the US is pointless. I am not adressing just anarchos, but any of the syndicalists, including DeLeonists.

I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking why the workers who intend to scrap capitalism need to organize industrially while capitalism still exists? I think it follows that, if the workers are going to take complete control of the industry, say, on Thursday, that they would need to finalize the details by Wednesday, so that, when Thursday comes, they can say: That thing that we have completely put together as of yesterday, starting today that's our new administrative system. What else could they do, declare that they have taken control, and only then begin thinking for the first time about how they might want to run it?

[spritely]

You can have a general idea but not a completely worked out plan. It's called Utopianism. That's why Marx didn't leave any blueprints for communism.

You can't work out your ideas and then try to force reality to conform to them. You have to deal with things as they are.

[YSR]

I would guess around 2%. They have a few job branches. There are the curbside recyclers in Berkley for example.

I'd guess around 40%, and growing daily. We have many job branches all around the world, however many of them remain nonpublic because they are still building power in the workplace.

The IWW has been declared dead by jealous partisans many times and yet we're still here. We're just as, if not more alarming to business as the possibility of pro-labor legislation like the EFCA in the U.S. I might have agreed with you if you'd said this 30 years ago, but today you're just incorrect. We are growing by leaps and bounds. Yet the haters, the "left communists" and the armchair radicals can't see over their dusty Marxist tomes.

[Devrim]

We are growing by leaps and bounds. Yet the haters, the "left communists" and the armchair radicals can't see over their dusty Marxist tomes.

It is a bit week, isn't it? People who disagree with the IWW are 'armchair radicals can't see over their dusty Marxist tomes'. Personally, I don't have a single book by Marx in my house, but never mind.


I'd guess around 40%, and growing daily. We have many job branches all around the world, however many of them remain nonpublic because they are still building power in the workplace.

It sounds absolutely unbelievable to me. I think that the 2% quoted earlier sounds much more believable. I have never heard anybody in the IWW quote a figure this high before.

There are a number of real political question here. The most important being whether a collection of anarchists, and leftists can set themselves up as the organ of the class, or whether this conception is complete voluntarism.

This applies to the IWW as much as it applies to whatever organisation this thread is talking about.

Left communist believe that the working class can form its own organisations for struggle.

Devrim

[spritely]

But who set up the IWW? It was workers.

The fact that's it is dead now doesn't change history.

The 40% claim is obviously without merit. I think the poster is counting every workplace in which the union has a member as a job branch. It's a part of the "minority unionism" crap that passes in the modern day IWW.

The organized / recognized job branches they have (where they are able to halt production and distribution) are few and far between. Then there are the "cooperatives" like Paper Crane Press. No one serious would count something like Daniel Gross's little "Starbucks Union" project.

Yes, the IWW is dead. I was a member of it for a while. It hasn't grown by leaps and bounds. It isn't a serious union any more. While there are some good militants in it, it's dominated by political weirdos and has no prospects for organizing as it once did. The unofficial leadership which includes people like Dianne the new editor of the Industrial Worker are more concerned with PC liberal hogwash, "women's caucuses" and public relations shenanigans than organizing industrially. The days of 100,000 members are long gone, never to return.

[black magick hustla]

I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking why the workers who intend to scrap capitalism need to organize industrially while capitalism still exists? I think it follows that, if the workers are going to take complete control of the industry, say, on Thursday, that they would need to finalize the details by Wednesday, so that, when Thursday comes, they can say: That thing that we have completely put together as of yesterday, starting today that's our new administrative system. What else could they do, declare that they have taken control, and only then begin thinking for the first time about how they might want to run it?

I think I am not explaining myself well. Devrim did a better job. Basically, class organs dont arise from a few leftist cats just forming clubs. Its pure voluntarism.

[black magick hustla]

I'd guess around 40%, and growing daily. We have many job branches all around the world, however many of them remain nonpublic because they are still building power in the workplace.

The IWW has been declared dead by jealous partisans many times and yet we're still here. We're just as, if not more alarming to business as the possibility of pro-labor legislation like the EFCA in the U.S. I might have agreed with you if you'd said this 30 years ago, but today you're just incorrect. We are growing by leaps and bounds. Yet the haters, the "left communists" and the armchair radicals can't see over their dusty Marxist tomes.

This is ridiculous. Honeslty, the whole "dusty marxist tome" garbage is kindof odd coming from you, considering you like discussing really esoteric post-leftist wordplay. If anything, what I say seems to make a lot of sense.

[Revy]

Instead of sectarian bashing, we should extend solidarity to them.

As for the Workers Party in America, they are a great party and I am even interested in becoming a member.

There's this toxic refusal to reach out with other groups, seeing everything in terms of competition, who 's more revolutionary or "lefter-than-thou". It can get pretty annoying after a while.

[mikelepore]

You can have a general idea but not a completely worked out plan. It's called Utopianism. That's why Marx didn't leave any blueprints for communism.

You can't work out your ideas and then try to force reality to conform to them. You have to deal with things as they are.

A general idea isn't good enough. It's complicated and takes a lot of concentration for the workers in an electric power plant to keep the current load balanced, or for air traffic controllers to keep planes from colliding. Running most industries requires forethought, in the sense that truck drivers can't begin to drive unless they have a particular destination on the daily schedule, etc.. If the workers are suddenly going to throw out the whole management system and implement a completely new one, they need to have it all ready to snap in place in a minute. That's industrial organization, by the workers inside the workplaces. A political party can't do it. A cultural organization can't do it. A neighborhood coalition can't do it.

[Lolshevik]

My understanding of the situation is that the WIIU is not intended as a competitor to the Industrial Workers of the World.

I applied for membership the other day. Hopefully we (speaking as a member of the WPA) will continue to cement our relationship with them over time.

[YSR]

Ugh. Thanks for reminding me why I hate Revleft everybody. It's like campus politics: everyone who's not with you is against you.

Sorry to derail this thread into IWW stuff.

[KC]

Ugh. Thanks for reminding me why I hate Revleft everybody. It's like campus politics: everyone who's not with you is against you.

Keep in mind that you were the one that said "Yet the haters, the "left communists" and the armchair radicals can't see over their dusty Marxist tomes." I'm sure that didn't really help your cause, if your cause was indeed not to contribute to the "campus politics".

Aside from that, though, I am interested in hearing you and other IWW members respond to Devrim's post. Specifically, this:


There are a number of real political question here. The most important being whether a collection of anarchists, and leftists can set themselves up as the organ of the class, or whether this conception is complete voluntarism.

This applies to the IWW as much as it applies to whatever organisation this thread is talking about.

Left communist believe that the working class can form its own organisations for struggle.

[Pogue]

But who set up the IWW? It was workers.

The fact that's it is dead now doesn't change history.

The 40% claim is obviously without merit. I think the poster is counting every workplace in which the union has a member as a job branch. It's a part of the "minority unionism" crap that passes in the modern day IWW.

The organized / recognized job branches they have (where they are able to halt production and distribution) are few and far between. Then there are the "cooperatives" like Paper Crane Press. No one serious would count something like Daniel Gross's little "Starbucks Union" project.

Yes, the IWW is dead. I was a member of it for a while. It hasn't grown by leaps and bounds. It isn't a serious union any more. While there are some good militants in it, it's dominated by political weirdos and has no prospects for organizing as it once did. The unofficial leadership which includes people like Dianne the new editor of the Industrial Worker are more concerned with PC liberal hogwash, "women's caucuses" and public relations shenanigans than organizing industrially. The days of 100,000 members are long gone, never to return.

Going by that logic the whole revolutionary left is dead. I doubt we have any organisations which are genuinely revolutionary and left wing which have any members to be an influence at all.

Its insane - we all collectively recognise we have tiny organisations. I could be in any group on the left, experience how small it is and declare that that party/union/group is dead. But its not. How can a group be dead if its still organising, attending protests etc?

And the crticisms of the leadership could extend to anyone. Point remains, we're all small and we all need to grow. IWW members such as myself believe a group like the IWW is best for acheiving this group.

How do Left Communists see a revolutionary situation where workers will create revolutionary organisations themselves happening without any group organising, educating and working towards it?

[JimmyJazz]

from my understanding, all those small "unions" that have been created by radical socialists right now seem more like political parties or leftist clubs than anything else.

your understanding sucks


Err, I don't get it. In the U.S., this role is already more-or-less being attempted by the IWW. Why not be members of the WPA or whatever other political party and organize with the IWW? What's the strategic advantage of having a revolutionary union that's affiliated with a political party vs. having a revolutionary union that's not but allows political membership in whatever party?

I'm a member of the IWW, they do good organizing in my area (and we don't even have a Starbucks campaign going here), but I'm disappointed that they dropped the famous "political clause" that was originally in their constitution. Since (I think it was) 1907 the constitution has been without any mention about the necessity of political struggle, and the result is a membership/culture that is pretty anti-political. My ideal union would probably follow the original IWW political clause, which emphasizes "political and industrial struggle" yet disavows affiliation with "any particular political party". Those are paraphrasings, but quite close.

Bottom line, I hardly think the IWW is so big there isn't room for another radical union or three.

[spritely]

I would appreciate a reply to my questions if at all possible.

[spritely]

Going by that logic the whole revolutionary left is dead.

Most of it is. Most groups have no potential to organize anything approaching a revolution and many don't even want to. They're stuck in the stone age.

The IWW doesn't even pursue what it was founded to do anymore: industrial unionism. What does that tell you?

[Devrim]

Going by that logic the whole revolutionary left is dead. I doubt we have any organisations which are genuinely revolutionary and left wing which have any members to be an influence at all.

Its insane - we all collectively recognise we have tiny organisations. I could be in any group on the left, experience how small it is and declare that that party/union/group is dead. But its not. How can a group be dead if its still organising, attending protests etc?

And the crticisms of the leadership could extend to anyone. Point remains, we're all small and we all need to grow. IWW members such as myself believe a group like the IWW is best for acheiving this group.

How do Left Communists see a revolutionary situation where workers will create revolutionary organisations themselves happening without any group organising, educating and working towards it?

HLVS, the problem here is about realising what an organisation is and what it is not. The organisation that I am a member of is smaller than the IWW. Does that make it dead? In my opinion not at all. It is a political organisation, and knows that it is a political organisation.

The IWW claims to be the unitary* organisation of the class. It does not claim that it is a political organisation. It claims that it is a unitary organisation. It isn't.

It is a collection of anarchists, leftists, and historical reenactment society enthusiasts. Whatever it may be it is not the organ of the class.

The question that emerges of how the unitary organs of the class arrise. The communist left believes that they arrise in struggle, and that their form is mass meetings, strike committies, and ultimately workers councils.

You can't form a mass meeting on your own. It is something that can only be done by the vast majority of workers in a given work place. The unitary organisations of the class will appear and disappear with the ebb and flow of the struggle.

For us the task of communist organisations is to agitate in favour of these organisations when they do not exist, and argue for our politics within them when they do.

The conception of the IWW is very different. They believe that a small group of left-wing activists can construct the unitary organisations of the class themselves, and then they must slowly get the working class as a whole to join.

In our opinion this method makes the mistake of confusing the roles of political and unitary organisations. In our opinion this is voluntarism.

What it leads to in practise is firstly the IWW pretending to be something it is not, a union, and secondly to outrageous oppertunism when it sees the possibility of becoming a union in a particular workplace. I think that the history of the IWW in the UK provides examples of both of these tendencies.

There are other important parts to this argument, but I think that that is enough to start with.

Devrim

*An organisation which groups people not on the basis of their politics but on the basis of their being workers.

[YSR]

The IWW is a union. I know people who have been fired and gotten their job back because of shop floor pressure by their fellow union members. What more do you need?

[Devrim]

The IWW is a union. I know people who have been fired and gotten their job back because of shop floor pressure by their fellow union members. What more do you need?

To be honest a bit more than that. I have worked in places without unions where this has happened. It doesn't prove anything at all. As I understand it they IWW has three organised shops (maybe there are a couple more) where it operates as a union, interestingly enough including ones where it has signed no-strike deals.

When the IWW does manage to operate as a union, it is forced to behave exactly as the yellow unions do (signing no-strike deals, having workers and bosses in the same shop). It would be possible to construct an argument around this.

It is not the case for the IWW in general though because apart from a handful of small shops, it isn't a union.

Devrim

[mikelepore]

The IWW doesn't even pursue what it was founded to do anymore: industrial unionism. What does that tell you?

Why do you say that? What does the term "industrial unionism" mean to you?

To groups like the IWW and WIIU, the term means the fact that, as soon as someone joins, they are assigned to a branch according to the product that their occupation produces, such as department 1D (fishing), department 4A (glass and ceramics), Department 6C (educational institutions), etc. [to cite the numbers used in the original 1911 edition of Trautmann's pamphlet "One Big Union"]

[mikelepore]

I would appreciate a reply to my questions if at all possible.

(In your post #29) You addressed question about the organization to "you", which presumably means that you want a member of the organization to reply. I think that leaves it up to Miles only, if he's reading this.

[mikelepore]

You can't form a mass meeting on your own. It is something that can only be done by the vast majority of workers in a given work place. The unitary organisations of the class will appear and disappear with the ebb and flow of the struggle.

I don't see why that would be true. Three people could form an organization, and then vote on its name, bylaws, and officers. Then suppose four people join, the new members outnumbering the original three. They can take another vote on the organization's name, bylaws and officers. Then suppose ten people join, outnumbering the original seven. Take another vote. Repeat the process until most of the working class has joined the organization.

[spritely]

(In your post #29) You addressed question about the organization to "you", which presumably means that you want a member of the organization to reply. I think that leaves it up to Miles only, if he's reading this.

Anyone who has the info to provide an answer is welcome to respond.


Why do you say that? What does the term "industrial unionism" mean to you?It "means to me" what it means.

If the IWW pursued industrial unionism there would be no "Starbucks Union." Organizing a particular coffee shop chain is like organizing a particular craft.

If the IWW was pursuing industrial unionism in this particular realm it would attempt to organize all coffee shop workers along with the people who work the coffee fields, the people who ship/fly/cart the beans, the people who roast the beans, the people who make the cups and equipment used in the stores, etc.

It would also rely on shutting down the chain of production and distribution to further its ends instead of the capitalist courts, non-profits and NGOs and liberal public relations campaigns and other similar antics.

What the IWW of today does is nothing like what the IWW of the heyday did.


To groups like the IWW and WIIU, the term means the fact that, as soon as someone joins, they are assigned to a branch according to the product that their occupation produces, such as department 1D (fishing), department 4A (glass and ceramics), Department 6C (educational institutions), etc. [to cite the numbers used in the original 1911 edition of Trautmann's pamphlet "One Big Union"]That's just a form of organization. It says nothing of their strategy and tactics.

According to this the UMWA and Teamsters organize industrially, because workers in a shop join a union they are classified according to what they produce or do. Truck drivers are in different locals than warehouse workers. So what?

[spritely]

I don't see why that would be true. Three people could form an organization, and then vote on its name, bylaws, and officers. Then suppose four people join, the new members outnumbering the original three. They can take another vote on the organization's name, bylaws and officers. Then suppose ten people join, outnumbering the original seven. Take another vote. Repeat the process until most of the entire working class has joined the organization.

He's not saying its organizationally or physically impossible. He's saying you can't build up a revolutionary party of mass character by getting together with a few buddies, proclaiming a party and then going around and recruiting people in ones and twos.

Whether or not he's correct is one thing but you're completely misunderstanding him.

[Devrim]

He's not saying its organizationally or physically impossible. He's saying you can't build up a revolutionary party of mass character by getting together with a few buddies, proclaiming a party and then going around and recruiting people in ones and twos.

Whether or not he's correct is one thing but you're completely misunderstanding him.

Actually, I am not talking about a revolutionary party, but about the unitary organisations of the class; the mass meeting, the strike committee and ultimately the workers' councils. Your point still applies though.


I don't see why that would be true. Three people could form an organization, and then vote on its name, bylaws, and officers. Then suppose four people join, the new members outnumbering the original three. They can take another vote on the organization's name, bylaws and officers. Then suppose ten people join, outnumbering the original seven. Take another vote. Repeat the process until most of the working class has joined the organization.

Is this how you think workers' councils have been formed historically? It wasn't how it worked really.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Workers councils have been formed either "spontaneously" (and thus failed rapidly) or by parties (lasting a tad longer). Infrequent meetings and an overemphasis on action were the historical pitfalls of workers councils.

[genstrike]

Workers councils have been formed either "spontaneously" (and thus failed rapidly) or by parties (lasting a tad longer). Infrequent meetings and an overemphasis on action were the historical pitfalls of workers councils.

Yes, that's exactly what the left needs. More meetings and less action...

[spritely]

Actually, I am not talking about a revolutionary party, but about the unitary organisations of the class; the mass meeting, the strike committee and ultimately the workers' councils. Your point still applies though.

I should have known better. With left communists everything is in the disagreement. Even when you agree you have to find some minor point to "clarify".

Balls.

[Pogue]

HLVS, the problem here is about realising what an organisation is and what it is not. The organisation that I am a member of is smaller than the IWW. Does that make it dead? In my opinion not at all. It is a political organisation, and knows that it is a political organisation.

The IWW claims to be the unitary* organisation of the class. It does not claim that it is a political organisation. It claims that it is a unitary organisation. It isn't.

It is a collection of anarchists, leftists, and historical reenactment society enthusiasts. Whatever it may be it is not the organ of the class.

The question that emerges of how the unitary organs of the class arrise. The communist left believes that they arrise in struggle, and that their form is mass meetings, strike committies, and ultimately workers councils.

You can't form a mass meeting on your own. It is something that can only be done by the vast majority of workers in a given work place. The unitary organisations of the class will appear and disappear with the ebb and flow of the struggle.

For us the task of communist organisations is to agitate in favour of these organisations when they do not exist, and argue for our politics within them when they do.

The conception of the IWW is very different. They believe that a small group of left-wing activists can construct the unitary organisations of the class themselves, and then they must slowly get the working class as a whole to join.

In our opinion this method makes the mistake of confusing the roles of political and unitary organisations. In our opinion this is voluntarism.

What it leads to in practise is firstly the IWW pretending to be something it is not, a union, and secondly to outrageous oppertunism when it sees the possibility of becoming a union in a particular workplace. I think that the history of the IWW in the UK provides examples of both of these tendencies.

There are other important parts to this argument, but I think that that is enough to start with.

Devrim

*An organisation which groups people not on the basis of their politics but on the basis of their being workers.

But how do left communists see themselves getting involved within the working class to agitate for these organisations? As individuals? As a party? Aren't you guys basically saying "We think people should create workers councils" without usggesting how it is done?

And with the IWW. We're basically a few people who share the idea of one big union. We want a worker run union which educates people and fights and dfends them. Creating the new world within the shell of the old as the old slogan goes. I don't see the problem - we hope people join us or take our ideas and organise as a class to take over workplaces. We're small at the moment, yes, but as is everyone. Point is we want to recruit people so we grow and can fulfill our purpose.

[spritely]

Point is we want to recruit people so we grow and can fulfill our purpose.

How's that working out for ya?

When can I expect capitalism to vanish?

[Devrim]

I should have known better. With left communists everything is in the disagreement. Even when you agree you have to find some minor point to "clarify".

Balls.

Yes, because looking for clarity in a discussion is a terrible thing.

Devrim

[Devrim]

But how do left communists see themselves getting involved within the working class to agitate for these organisations? As individuals? As a party? Aren't you guys basically saying "We think people should create workers councils" without usggesting how it is done?

No, the first step in constructing workers' councils is to argue in workers' struggles for mass meetings open to all workers. Left communists believe that we should advocate this as a political organisation.


And with the IWW. We're basically a few people who share the idea of one big union. We want a worker run union which educates people and fights and dfends them. Creating the new world within the shell of the old as the old slogan goes. I don't see the problem - we hope people join us or take our ideas and organise as a class to take over workplaces. We're small at the moment, yes, but as is everyone. Point is we want to recruit people so we grow and can fulfill our purpose.

There are various problems. The one that we are discussing here is that a few leftists proclaiming themselves to be the unitary organisations of the class doesn't make it so. These type of organisations can only be formed by struggle, not by willpower.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, that's exactly what the left needs. More meetings and less action...

Comrade, why are you accusing me of "propagandism"?

Consider the slogan "educate, agitate, organize" for a moment. Most leftists focus merely on "agitate" and maybe the odd "organize." More sectarian groups like the ICC and World Socialist Movement focus merely on "educate."

The historic Kautskyan-Marxist center focused, above all else, on "organize."

[black magick hustla]

I should have known better. With left communists everything is in the disagreement. Even when you agree you have to find some minor point to "clarify".

Balls.

clarity is one of the most important things. without clarity you have people just bsing

[spritely]

Nit picking is for old ladies and apes.

[spritely]

Trying to get someone to directly answer a question on this site is like trying to get an Amish person to fix your computer.

[black magick hustla]

Nit picking is for old ladies and apes.
you sure are cranky

[Pogue]

No, the first step in constructing workers' councils is to argue in workers' struggles for mass meetings open to all workers. Left communists believe that we should advocate this as a political organisation.



There are various problems. The one that we are discussing here is that a few leftists proclaiming themselves to be the unitary organisations of the class doesn't make it so. These type of organisations can only be formed by struggle, not by willpower.

Devrim

Isn't that basically the SolFed line?

I agree with what you're saying to a large extent, but I just don't see why workers would be drawn to an organisation that isn't an union because it'd serve no purpose.

I mean, Left Communists need left communist people to be in workplaces to agitate for mass meetings and workers councils. But why would anyone become a left communist, outside of people from leftist traditions? How would you attract the critical mass to your organisation to begin agitating and organising?

Thats why I'm in the IWW, because people join for the fighting union and within it they can be educated through struggle. And we have to start somewhere, we're providing a structure and basis to be filled by workers who join us.

[spritely]

How long can you be starting? When over a 100 years goes by and your no closer to workers in power (and actually probably further than you were when you started) can you still say you're "starting somewhere"? I suppose you can but do you have to hypnotize yourself to believe that crap?

[cyu]

Trying to get someone to directly answer a question on this site is like trying to get an Amish person to fix your computer.
Maybe a lot of the people just don't feel like answering variations on the same questions that have been asked a million times in the Learning forum.

Anyway:

http://everything2.com/node/1869037

http://www.marxist.com/pt-istana-factory-occupied.htm

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/01/strike-bike.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-t103022/index.html?p=1376240

[spritely]

What does any of that have to do with my questions?

There's nothing about this new WIIU formation in any of that.

Thanks babe.

[mikelepore]

Trying to get someone to directly answer a question on this site is like trying to get an Amish person to fix your computer.

I will opine about your questions in post #29. I don't speak for any organization.


How was this union formed? Was there a congress of workers / delegates representing workers or did a few people get together and proclaim it?

I can't answer that because I don't believe that such a distinction is real. Someone who thinks that such a distinction is real may wish to answer it.


How will you get workers to join? How will you organize job branches? What will make workers join this union at a time when they joining unions at a rate as low or lower than before the legalization of unions in America?

No one knows how to get a significant portion of the working class to adopt revolutionary principles and join a revolutionary organization. Everything that anyone anywhere has ever tried for the past 150 years has been unsuccessful. All class conscious organizations are in the position of trying to think up that new idea that will hopefully generate new results.


Do you think that the difference with the IWW will make workers join this union? Do you think that the reason the IWW is ignored / not effective is that it rejects the political aspect?

Support for the political method of transfering control of the industries to the workers is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for recruiting the working class and also for transforming society. It's a necessary condition because the working class will never want to have the holocaust that would occur if the workers try to take control of the industries without going through the political process. It's not a sufficent condition because the working class must also want a change to a new social system, and currently more than 99.9 percent of the working class supports capitalism.

[YSR]

As I understand it they IWW has three organised shops (maybe there are a couple more) where it operates as a union, interestingly enough including ones where it has signed no-strike deals.

Devrim, isn't this sort of an old hat that you've repeated here and at Libcom since time immemorial? There are two organized IWW shops in my city, I know of dozens more shops around the U.S., not one of which have a no-strike deal. In one city, as I understand it we are pretty close to having an entire industry (albeit a small one) organized with the IWW.

I would never say, for a minute, that the IWW is anywhere near our goal of an organized working class. But we're working, we're expanding daily, and I don't understand what about our work it is that is so objectionable.


If the IWW was pursuing industrial unionism in this particular realm it would attempt to organize all coffee shop workers along with the people who work the coffee fields, the people who ship/fly/cart the beans, the people who roast the beans, the people who make the cups and equipment used in the stores, etc.

OMG that's what we're doing!

The whole Starbucks workers union has raised folks' eyebrows at times, in terms of its commitment to industrial unionism, but ultimately its a good starting place. In terms of public relations and good images, there's nothing better than a bunch of rough-and-tumble workers taking on one of the biggest corporations in the U.S. with an ostenbsibly progressive image. And winning!

But if you think we're going to stop at Starbucks, you're not thinking. Anecdotally, the publicty that the Starbucks campaign has generated in my city has brought in literaly hundreds of inquiries from other service employees in other shops and sectors. For a union with a single paid employee, that's not a bad start.


It would also rely on shutting down the chain of production and distribution to further its ends instead of the capitalist courts, non-profits and NGOs and liberal public relations campaigns and other similar antics.

Yeah, call me when you do that and I'll join your union. Oh wait...nobody is doing that right now. At least nobody anti-capitalist. But at least we're trying. And while you're hammering away at your keyboard angrily, we're getting closer.


What the IWW of today does is nothing like what the IWW of the heyday did.

This isn't fair. The IWW of the heyday was composed spontaneosly by the joining together of a variety of North American radical unions. There are no radical unions in North America today outside of the IWW and (arguably) UE. The IWW of old started with tens of thousands of members. We had a couple hundred a decade ago, most of them paper members, either old bitter trade unionists or hip anarchist 20-somethings with a hard-on for the old days. But we've exploded in membership and completely changed our course from a history club (which, without a doubt, it was) to a fighting union focused on organizing.


When can I expect capitalism to vanish?

What the fuck is your problem?

I'm sorry, we're an all-volunteer organization which is working like crazy to build membership from the ground up and educating workers to turn them into organizers and empowering them to take on the boss on their own.

If you want substitutionism, go join the Red Brigades or write some vague treatise on insurrectionism or some shit. The rest of us are gonna be out there organizing.

[cyu]

Trying to get someone to directly answer a question on this site is like trying to get an Amish person to fix your computer.


So I hear you claim to have spent your entire life trying to organize leftists and have basically admitted that your attempts have ended in failure. Perhaps it's because the first thing you do when you join an organization is try to insult everyone there - those aren't very smooth organizational skills there, partner.

[Devrim]

Devrim, isn't this sort of an old hat that you've repeated here and at Libcom since time immemorial? There are two organized IWW shops in my city, I know of dozens more shops around the U.S., not one of which have a no-strike deal. In one city, as I understand it we are pretty close to having an entire industry (albeit a small one) organized with the IWW.


I don't think this is stuff that I have been spreading on Libcom. The stuff about no-strike deals came from IWW members. Let's let them speak for themselves (emphasis added):


Yeah, I'm not sure about Bay Area because it's not a branch I have a lot of contact with but some of the social services shops that are under contract in Portland have no strike clauses. Part of the problem is that organizing until a year ago was a very branch by branch thing, hopefully with the ODB in place we will be able to keep better track, and have this discussion more.


Re: no strike clauses Yes, they fucking suck, but just to clarify for any non-Americans who may be following the thread, they only forbid strikes during the time of the contract. Still absolute shit, but during negotiations, striking is still is an option.



Let me ask you this: if we continue to sign contracts which include binding arbitration and no-strike clauses*, do you think there's any way we can avoid eventually hiring organizers or staffers to service those contracts?
*For clarity: The iww has few signed contracts, of which only a small minority contain no-strike clauses. I don't wish to give a different impression.


The IWW negotiating no-strike clauses has been a 21st Century 'innovation' coming from an US faction seeking 'realistic' IWW organizing. The folks involved in the first no-strike contract kept it hidden from the membership. After I made the contract public they went on a whisper campaign attacking my personal and political reputation.


Again, I believe most time contracts contained a no-strike clause or the legal equivalent thereof -- the reading into the contract of a no strike clause for the duration. That would then be the contract at American Stove in Cleveland, though there may have been something in Idaho around that same time.


Currently, I believe the Portland social services shops *do* have no-strike clauses, but the Bay Area branch's two recycling shops *do not* have no-strike clauses and a pretty good union cluture of stopping work when grievences arise, holding stop work meetings and marching on the boss.

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/no-strike-clauses-iww-16122007

So as we can see the IWW does have no-strike deals. This isn't some vague accusation coming from 'haters'. It is complaints from rightly concerned IWW members with details of the shops where it happens.

The difference between us and them is that while they see this as a problem of a "faction seeking 'realistic' IWW organizing", we see it as something which is unavoidable in the form.

As for the numbers, I said 'three organised shops (maybe there are a couple more)'. Let's see how many there are according to the IWW wikipedia page:


In the early 2000s the IWW organized Stonemountain and Daughter Fabrics, a fabric/seamstress shop in Berkeley. The shop has remained under contract with the IWW to this day.
In 2004, an IWW union was organized in a New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) Starbucks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks). In 2006, the IWW continued efforts at Starbucks by organizing several Chicago area shops.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW#cite_note-11)
...

In Chicago the IWW began an effort to organize bicycle messengers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_messenger) with some success.
Between 2003 and 2006, the IWW organized unions at food co-operatives in Seattle, Washington and Pittsburgh, PA. The IWW represents administrative and maintenance workers under contract in Seattle, while the union in Pittsburgh lost 22-21 in an NLRB election, only to have the results invalidated in late 2006, based on management's behavior before the election.
The city of Berkeley's recycling is picked up, sorted, processed and sent out all through two different IWW organized enterprises.
In New York City, the IWW has been organizing immigrant foodstuffs workers since 2005. That summer, workers from Handyfat Trading joined the IWW, and were soon followed by workers from four more warehouses.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW#cite_note-12) Workers at these warehouses made gains such as receiving the minimum wage and being paid overtime.
...



I make that 11 plus several coffee shops in Chicago. Maybe I exaggerated a little, but not as much as the person claiming dozens. Also it would be interesting to know how many are workers co-operatives.


I would never say, for a minute, that the IWW is anywhere near our goal of an organized working class. But we're working, we're expanding daily, and I don't understand what about our work it is that is so objectionable.

Yes, it is absolutely unbelivable that on a discussion board people would go as far as to discuss tactics which they believe don't have any potential. What a terrible thing, workers discussing politics.

Devrim

[Bilan]

It isn't necessary for comrades to take cheap shots at each other in here.
Give it a rest, please.

[Lamanov]

But there is a fundamental difference between the two organizations: where the IWW rejects workers' political action, we support it. If that issue can be resolved, then there's no longer a need for the WIIU.

This only works if you don't consider workers' direct action to be workers' political action par excellence.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the "old line" in IWW by which it still considers itself "apolitical". I thought we absolved the lessons of "pure unionism" long time ago.


The question that emerges of how the unitary organs of the class arrise. The communist left believes that they arrise in struggle, and that their form is mass meetings, strike committies, and ultimately workers councils.

When you say unitary organizations (you defined what they are) would they not include organizations such as AAUD or AAUD-E; they gathered members based on them being workers but those workers had to agree on the platform which was essentially political (power to the workers' councils)?

[PRC-UTE]

Yes, it is absolutely unbelivable that on a discussion board people would go as far as to discuss tactics which they believe don't have any potential. What a terrible thing, workers discussing politics.

Devrim

I think his frustration is understandable. Your approach has been very dismissive and condescending, you've been very reluctant to acknowledge some of the good work done by the IWW.

[YSR]

Slandar, lies, bullshit. It's not even worth responding to this thread anymore.

Devrim, using Wikipedia to gauge the work we're doing is pretty lacking. Lots of campaigns remain underground or are not interested in being publicized at the moment for various reasons.

Klondike5:

Since no one else is doing it we shouldn't do it either? What reasoning is that?

Huh? I meant that since no one else is doing it, we shouldn't be held to a standard that others aren't. The IWW, because of its history, is held to this ridiculous standard. Because we're not what we were in 1910, we're failing. But compare the work that we're doing to any other union in North America: We're the only one that is actually trying to end capitalism and build one big union across industrial lines.

The Starbucks thing is slander. The SWU has brought actual gains to union members all over the place. And actually getting jobs back who were fired for union activity IS a victory. Something like 85% of all union campaigns in the U.S. fail. Just being able to say you're a union member and keep your job is a step in the right direction. And, as I've repeated ad nauseum, the Starbucks Workers Union is expanding beyond Starbucks to build industrial power. None of the work is public so I can't talk about it. But rest assured that if the only idea was to organize Starbucks, it wouldn't be an IWW campaign.

Your attacks on Daniel Gross are bizarre and echo a recently banned member who was a sockpuppet. I wonder...

All in all, I think this thread stinks of utopianism (the bad kind). Folks who think that we can magically go from here to an organized working class without a lot of struggle. Well, that's not how political work goes and I think that some of you should know that by now. Kids from the suburbs wearing Che t-shirts can be excused on account of ignorance, but folks who've been in the struggle for a long time should know better.

[Bilan]

To be fair, YSR, Devrim is not a member, and can only go by what information is accessible on the web and what-not, it isn't fair to make accusations against him on those grounds.

[Devrim]

Devrim, using Wikipedia to gauge the work we're doing is pretty lacking. Lots of campaigns remain underground or are not interested in being publicized at the moment for various reasons.

I would imagine that looking at the nature of the other things they put up there including details of organising tiny shops, they have the vast majority of their organised shops. Campaigns may well 'remain underground', but it sort of suggests that they are not places where the IWW was organised as a union, really doesn't it.


Slandar, lies, bullshit. It's not even worth responding to this thread anymore.

Scratch an anarchist these days, and it is quite common to find someone who behaves like a Stalinist. Really what 'lies, slander and bullshit' is being spread here? I was told that the stuff about the no-strike deals was old hat, and a produced multiple statements from IWW members testifying to these deals and which even named the shops where it occurred. The response is to be accused of 'lies, slander, and bullshit'.

Of course the alternative would be addressing what goes on and why it goes on, which is much more difficult.


I think his frustration is understandable. Your approach has been very dismissive and condescending, you've been very reluctant to acknowledge some of the good work done by the IWW.

I don't think that I have been 'dismissive and condescending', and I certainly haven't been as rude as the IWW supporter.

When a union does things like sign no strike deals, and organise branches when the bosses are in the same branch as the workers' I am not at all surprised. That is how unions behave.

When a union that does these things then claims to be revolutionary, I actually think that somebody should say something.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

Let's get back on topic. The IWW has been discussed many times before and we don't need to hijack the only thread in existence here about this new union. I'd like to hear more about the WIIU's plans.

Also this may have been covered earlier, but does the WIIU plan on having dual membership like the IWW and IWU do?

[Devrim]

Let's get back on topic. The IWW has been discussed many times before and we don't need to hijack the only thread in existence here about this new union. I'd like to hear more about the WIIU's plans.

Also this may have been covered earlier, but does the WIIU plan on having dual membership like the IWW and IWU do?

I think that the points about the IWW are valid. For me the main point here is about voluntarism. You can't set up the mass organs of proletarian struggle apart from the class. This might seem like an abstract theoretical point, but it has a lot of practical consequences.

And of course, if this applies to the IWW with its proud history and comparatively much higher membership base, it applies to the WIIU even more so.

Devrim

[Devrim]

When you say unitary organizations (you defined what they are) would they not include organizations such as AAUD or AAUD-E; they gathered members based on them being workers but those workers had to agree on the platform which was essentially political (power to the workers' councils)?

I am not sure really. The nature of the AAUD and AAUD-E is interesting. It is not made any clearer by the fact that they referred to themselves as unitary organisations.

You could argue that they were some sort of 'transmission belt' type of organisation.

What would you say?

Devrim

[mikelepore]

You can't set up the mass organs of proletarian struggle apart from the class. This might seem like an abstract theoretical point, but it has a lot of practical consequences.

And of course, if this applies to the IWW with its proud history and comparatively much higher membership base, it applies to the WIIU even more so.

Do you mean ... whereas the IWW has recruited one ten-thousandth of one percent of the working class, the WIIU has so far recruited only one one-hundred thousandth of one percent of the working class?

[Pogue]

I am not sure really. The nature of the AAUD and AAUD-E is interesting. It is not made any clearer by the fact that they referred to themselves as unitary organisations.

You could argue that they were some sort of 'transmission belt' type of organisation.

What would you say?

Devrim

The IWW is trying to organise people into a union that immedaitely can defend them against the bosses and organise them internationally, inter-industrially, as a class so we can fight the bosses. I don't personally see how you can begin to organise workers against bosses in anything other than a union. You say we're unitary'. Well, we're made up of workers. We have no heirachy or unmoving leaders. Things are run by the members and workers themselves. If we went to a factory and spread ideas of industrial unionism and revolutionary syndicalism, we'd encourage people to join our worker run union and organise themselves, organise their branch, their campaigns, in a direct process, without union beurecrats in between. I don't see how this is a bad thing, or how being 'unitary' is a bad thing.

You're position is also one I admire, the idea of the organisation coming from the class, I think it has its strengths. But I don't see how you'd ever get people to join you in agitating for this (as logically you need a certain amount of people agitating for the creation of strike committees and mass meetings in the first place, for this to happen) as most workers will want to join a group which clearly benefits them. As the IWW does. We all know it makes sense to have a union, and a good one at that. The IWW is a good union.

If you set up your strike committees and mass meetings and workers councils, originally these'd be small, perhaps localised, before they spread internationally, nationally, etc. So would that then mean that, say for example, the '51st Portland Road, Seattle Smiths Toy Factory Workers Council' would be 'unitary' because its an organisation already in place looking to spread? Because the IWWs decentralised nature means if you organise your workplace or indutry your not bound to union officials or anything like that. So when you join you have alot of autonomy, you're not being controlled and you *can* form your own class based organisations like you advocate, but that organisation, i.e. the strike committee, workers council, will be part of the IWW. I think thats a stronger position and one more likely to come about than simply wanting people to set up isolated councils and committees which then just have to unite anyway, which is why I'm in the IWW, and also why I think your theoretical critique of what we adovcate is not correct.

[Lamanov]

I am not sure really. The nature of the AAUD and AAUD-E is interesting. It is not made any clearer by the fact that they referred to themselves as unitary organisations.

You could argue that they were some sort of 'transmission belt' type of organisation.

What would you say?

I believe that they were transmission organizations that, from today's standpoint, reflect the goals of the struggle.

I think that this should be the cornerstone of our strategy: creation of organizations based on workplaces (what was then called "factory organization", or "societies for resistance") that can gather people based both on their status as workers (and organize them as workers - in workplace, profession and location) as well as their agreement on basic goals and principles, which are revolutionary in character.

In this way our organizations become the embryos of workers' councils in combative form, while practice and theory reflect each other without exceptions.

I also believe that revolutionary syndicalism can answer to this strategic call if its protagonists avoid the holes of "apolitical" and "pure unionism", which, in the end, lead to these suicidal tactics like "no strike clauses".

[mikelepore]

It may not be possible to avoid a no-strike clause. The legal status of unions in the U.S. is rather weak. In some cases the company can even do what a Pepsi Cola plant in Newburgh, New York did about fifteen years ago, in response to unionization -- they fired the entire unionized work force in the middle of the night, and hired a new and nonunionized work force in time for the morning shift. In this kind of environment, if a union knows that they have to accept a contract with no-strike clause, they shouldn't necessarily feel guilty about it.

[PoWR]

Why feel guilty about abandoning your principles and signing away the only power you have? After all the law is the law!

Bullshit.

Striking was once illegal all together as were unions. Workers use legal opening when we can but we don't give up our fight because our oppressors outlaw our tactics.

[Martin Blank]

Let's get back on topic. The IWW has been discussed many times before and we don't need to hijack the only thread in existence here about this new union. I'd like to hear more about the WIIU's plans.

Also this may have been covered earlier, but does the WIIU plan on having dual membership like the IWW and IWU do?

The short answer is yes. Some WIIU members are also IWW members, and no animosity should exist (and does not on the part of the WIIU). When the project was started, the following short statement was issued:


The WIIU and the IWW

The Workers’ International Industrial Union stands on the history and tradition of Industrial Unionism that brought about the formation of the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905. As well, in reviving the Workers’ International Industrial Union, we seek to revive the principles and aims of our namesake, especially in the relationship between the economic and political struggle.

In beginning this effort, some have asked if we also intend to revive the rivalry and, in many respects, hostility that marked the relationship between the WIIU and IWW. Our answer is a clear NO! We are fully aware of the bitter history between the two great Industrial Unions, and we believe it is unfortunate that such bitterness existed.

Yes, we differ from the IWW on the question of workers’ political action. That is why we are two, not one. But we nevertheless regard the IWW and its members as fellow workers — brothers and sisters in the great struggle for the abolition of the wages system, and liberation of the working class from exploitation and oppression.

We declare today that any past animosity between the IWW and WIIU is, should be and must be left in the past. We are not enemies or opponents, but allies and comrades in struggle. We are ready to agree in advance, without conditions, to assist the IWW in any campaign or organizing effort it undertakes, to not negatively interfere or intervene in any area of its work, or to attempt to diminish its membership, work or activities.

We invite members of the IWW who agree with the need for political action to become members of the WIIU, and hope they will extend a similar invitation. We hope, one day, to re-unite with our brethren in the IWW, to unify and move forward as One Big Industrial Union, on the basis of the principles established in the 1905 [or 1907 — Miles] Preamble.

Source: http://www.wiiu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:the-wiiu-and-the-iww&catid=1:latest-news

[mikelepore]

Why feel guilty about abandoning your principles and signing away the only power you have? After all the law is the law!

Bullshit.

Striking was once illegal all together as were unions. Workers use legal opening when we can but we don't give up our fight because our oppressors outlaw our tactics.

I didn't cite the law as my reason. The reason I gave is labor's bargaining weakness under certain kinds of laws. In the "fire-at-will" states, such as New York, the employer can fire all the union employees by giving any reasons other than the reasons on the prohibited list: race, religion, etc., as well as union membership.

Here's how the employer fires all of the union members:

"Smith, you're fired because I didn't like the expression on your face. Jones, you're fired because one day a few months ago your tone of voice seemed disrespectful. Johnson, you wore a wrinkled shirt one day last year. Green, such intangibles as your generally unprofessional attitude. Brown, you don't smile often enough. Jackson, about five years ago you made a typographical error on some paperwork. You're all fired, for the specific reasons just indicated. Just for the record, note that this action has nothing to do with your recent union activities, nor with race, sex, religion, national origin or handicap. And the fact that the people who didn't join the union are being kept on, that's just a coincidence."

In the states where that type of union busting is legal, labor doesn't have much bargaining power, if any. For the union to have a policy that a contract must have any one particular feature, such as no-strike agreement never being included, may be impossible to enforce, and achieve nothing but to convert the company into a nonunion shop very quickly.

[Pogue]

Two 'One Big Unions'? This is nothing but bad. I wish these guys had just joined the IWW and been influencial in a non apolitical organisation on the side. Being in the IWW doesn't mean you can't get involved in non IWW stuff, it just means you don't do it as the IWW. For example many of our members are also in groups like AFed, etc. These guys quite simply are dividing the movement which is already ridiculously small, and missing the idea of what the industrial union is meant to be, and its a shame.

[Patchd]

What about affiliation to the IWW?

[cyu]

In the states where that type of union busting is legal, labor doesn't have much bargaining power, if any.
Laws only have as much power as how well enforced they are or how much respect people give them. Speed limit laws, for example, are broken all the time.

Practically every workplace occupation we hear about is technically illegal, but you know what? If the local community sides with the employees, then it's just treated as civil disobedience and no charges are filed - it means a defacto change to the law (if temporary) - our job is to make this permanently "legal".

[genstrike]

Just an interesting observation which is telling about this forum: ever notice that the longest thread in the workers struggles section is about the WIIU?

[cyu]

Well, the longest threads are usually when there's a lot of disagreement. Once people reach agreement, the thread dies =]

[Devrim]

Just an interesting observation which is telling about this forum: ever notice that the longest thread in the workers struggles section is about the WIIU?

I don't think that it is interesting at all. Maybe it is in the wrong forum because it isn't actually about workers' struggles.

What can I say or do though when I hear that there is a strike in Kansas, click my heals together, and magically go there to help the working class?

There are myriads of small strike all the time. With many of them there is very little comment to make on an international forum.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I believe that they were transmission organizations that, from today's standpoint, reflect the goals of the struggle.

I think that this should be the cornerstone of our strategy: creation of organizations based on workplaces (what was then called "factory organization", or "societies for resistance") that can gather people based both on their status as workers (and organize them as workers - in workplace, profession and location) as well as their agreement on basic goals and principles, which are revolutionary in character.

In this way our organizations become the embryos of workers' councils in combative form, while practice and theory reflect each other without exceptions.

I also believe that revolutionary syndicalism can answer to this strategic call if its protagonists avoid the holes of "apolitical" and "pure unionism", which, in the end, lead to these suicidal tactics like "no strike clauses".

I have sympathy for this argument but I think that there are some things that need to be clarified.

The main one of which is organisations suddenly declaring that they are unions when they so obviously are not. I don't think that this is mere semantics, and I think that the issue is deliberately left confused within the anarcho-syndicalist movement mainly because they are very different basic conceptions between the FORAist ideas and the 'traditional' anarcho-syndicalist ideas.

The new strategy proposal from Brighton SolFed is very interesting, and I agree with much of it. I still think it suffers from this problem though, and avoids some of the political confrontations by its choice of words. While it is understandable that people use a vocabulary that is within their tradition, I think here it only adds to confusion.

In my opinion one of the results of this confusion has been for tiny groups, like for example the Serbian section, to declare themselves to be unions, which in my opinion is absurd.

Groups claiming to be unions when in reality they are small political groups in my opinion can not add to any clarity, and can only lead to confusion.

I think that the other problem is the way that you see the factory groups as being 'the embryos of workers' councils in combative form'. To me this blurs the difference between what is essentially a political organisation, and a unitary organisation.

I think that this can lead to confusion. You would probably say something about overcoming the artificial differentiation between the political and the economic.

Finally about it being the 'cornerstone' of our strategy. I think that it is still important to have organisation based on geographical criteria, and that they are the cornerstone of our organisations. Bordiga is interesting on this point.

Incidentally the BC in Italy has some factory groups. Maybe what they are doing is of interest to the discussion.

Devrim

[Devrim]

HLVS, I will come back to your points later, sorry.

Devrim

[communick]

Yawn.

[mikelepore]

Two 'One Big Unions'? This is nothing but bad. I wish these guys had just joined the IWW and been influencial in a non apolitical organisation on the side. Being in the IWW doesn't mean you can't get involved in non IWW stuff, it just means you don't do it as the IWW. For example many of our members are also in groups like AFed, etc. These guys quite simply are dividing the movement which is already ridiculously small, and missing the idea of what the industrial union is meant to be, and its a shame.

It's a shame and it's bad if it's unnecessary, and it can't be a shame or bad if it's necessary, so the issue isn't whether or not some of the effects are bad, but solely whether the action is necessary.

It's better to propose a workable method but not yet have persuaded anyone to adopt it, than to propose an unworkable method and have a lot of people who have signed up.

***

"The working class must above all else strive to get the entire political power of the state into its own hands. Political power, however, is for us socialists only a means. The end for which we must use this power is the fundamental transformation of the entire economic relations."

-- Rosa Luxemburg, from "The Socialisation of Society"

"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes."

-- Karl Marx, from the "International Working Men's Association Resolution on the Establishment of Working Class Parties"