Vote for Mick Dooley UCATT gen sec

[Forward Union]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjEIz_F7CY&feature=related

If you are a construction worker, or know any, vote or get them to vote for Mick Dooley.

http://buildersunited.wordpress.com/ucatt-fact-and-fiction/

[Communist Theory]

Nobody votes.

[Forward Union]

Nobody votes.

why not? do you not want him to win?

[ls]

He's a truly brilliant guy. I've told all the builders I know to vote for him. :)

[Andropov]

Brilliant speech.
Is there much chance he will get in?

[Forward Union]

Brilliant speech.
Is there much chance he will get in?

There sure is yea, he came vey close last time and that was without a campaign. I think if we pull our fingers out we can get him ellected. The UCATT leadership have banned him from campaigning for himself.

I'll talk about it more later. I've been occupying a canteen all night and my brain isnt working.

[Andropov]

There sure is yea, he came vey close last time and that was without a campaign. I think if we pull our fingers out we can get him ellected. The UCATT leadership have banned him from campaigning for himself.

I'll talk about it more later. I've been occupying a canteen all night and my brain isnt working.
Do you UCATT have an affiliate union in Ireland?
I have worked on sites for years and alot of my family have so I could try and put in a good word for him.

[billy tobin]

We need to pass on the message to everyone you can in the construction industry. Any profiles on the internet should have his details up, spreading the word to make his name known and favoured over Alan ritchie

[Forward Union]

We need to pass on the message to everyone you can in the construction industry. Any profiles on the internet should have his details up, spreading the word to make his name known and favoured over Alan ritchie

Agreed. Ellections are tomorrow however so, perhaps its too late :cool:

[billy tobin]

I do believe that replies do not need to be returned for a couple of weeks. Having Dooley's face and name about while members are thinking who to vote for may sway them

[billy tobin]

Yes UCATT does organise in Ireland so keep spreading the word.

[Pogue]

video doesn't work.

[Pogue]

Anyone heard the story about this guy and the crane?

[Forward Union]

"I don't care if I bankrupt ucatt, a union that doesn't stick up for it's members doesnt deserve to exist"

:cool:

[Andropov]

Did he get elected?

[billy tobin]

the return of ballot papers is not untill june 15th so we will find out about that time. did anyone hear him on the radio on tuesday night, what did you think?
good luck to him hope he gets through.

[Forward Union]

He lost the election :sneaky:

[Killfacer]

He lost the election :sneaky:

Didn't the union pull just about every dirty trick it's possible to pull?

[K.Bullstreet]

Lost as in come last out of all candidates or just didn't win the lot?

[Mindtoaster]

Video link is broken

[Devrim]

I think that this thread shows a lot of confusion on the nature of the unions. It is particulary surprising to see anarchists, whom one would have thought would have a much clearer understanding of the nature of the unions, campaigning for a 'left' union boss. In many ways I think that it shows the regression of anarchist ideas on the trade unions since the last major wave of struggles in the 1980s. At the time, the ACF, which L&S traces it's roots from, had developed a measure of clarity on the role of the unions in workers struggles due in no small part to the involment of leading militants in the series of Wildcat strikes in the Post Office.
Funnily enough at the time the current CWU leader who is now accused of selling the workers out at every turn was a radical left shop steward on the first step of the road to officialdom.
The real questions that need to be raised today are not which union boss to vote for, but whether the nature of a union can be changed by electing 'left wing' leaders. In my personal experience it is usual that the leaders change not the unions.
Devrim

[ls]

The real questions that need to be raised today are not which union boss to vote for, but whether the nature of a union can be changed by electing 'left wing' leaders. In my personal experience it is usual that the leaders change not the unions.
Devrim

Isn't it kind of telling that Dooley has been cheated out of this victory by the corrupt union bureaucracy he was trying to fight? Dooley is without doubt an anarchist and not just 'left-wing', what he's been saying clearly proves it.

It may indeed be usual that the leaders not the unions change, however I honestly do not believe in this instance that that would've been the case were he elected, as FU quoted him saying:


I don't care if I bankrupt ucatt, a union that doesn't stick up for it's members doesnt deserve to exist

That is certainly not "usual" dedication.

[Forward Union]

It is particulary surprising to see anarchists, whom one would have thought would have a much clearer understanding of the nature of the unions, campaigning for a 'left' union boss. I think this topic deserves it's own thread really. Firstly, just because many Anarchists have taken up ultra-left positions of issues like this doesn't mean they are the heirs to the throne of proper anarchism, if anything the opposite. This ultra-leftism is borrowed from elsewhere and has far too comfortable a seat in Anarchist circles, and for too long, and I have no objection to challenging these views so that they no longer dominate our movement. As Dave Douglass said after the Anarchist conference, there is no disrespect in stating a positive position, which confronts and disagrees with someone else's position. Of course, I believe a class perspective is more correct than a non-class perspective, otherwise what would be the point of holding it.

I don't feel that there is anything confused about my (and many other comrades') decision to support a union Candiate.


In many ways I think that it shows the regression of anarchist ideas on the trade unions since the last major wave of struggles in the 1980s. I think it shows a recovery. But then I'm not so concerned about my politics being called a "regression" by someone who is a member of the ICC, who's british counterparts handed out leaflets titles "Against the National Union of Miners" during the miners strikes of 1984. :lol:


At the time, the ACF, which L&S traces it's roots fromI don't think this is fair to say. I trace my roots from the AF (and if you go further back, the Socialist Party) as do other members of L&S. Most of our members were never in the AF, some come from Praxis, SNP, various local groups and even one former Labour party member.


had developed a measure of clarity on the role of the unions in workers struggles due in no small part to the involment of leading militants in the series of Wildcat strikes in the Post Office.Many anarchists groups came after that with different positions on Union involvement. The DAM proposed forming independent syndicalist Unions while the ACF opposed unions . The Anarchist Workers Group supported involvement in Unions whough it came a bit later in 1990.

"This represented an advance of other anarchist positions at the time which either ignored the unions (Class War), attempted to build alternative unions (DAM) or rejected any participation in the unions (ACF).[The AWG Pamphlet;] 'In place of compromise' in fact shared many common features with the WSM policy on trade unions."


Funnily enough at the time the current CWU leader who is now accused of selling the workers out at every turn was a radical left shop steward on the first step of the road to officialdom.The current CWU Leader who has a picture of me in his wallet... (ok im not proud of that, but it is true!)

I think you make a valid point here, but I simply don't follow it through to the conclusion. All this fact demonstrates is that corruption is a possibility. Yes. It is. Anarchists ought to be trying to bring power back down to the rank and file, democratising the Unions. The specific circumstances in the construction industry meant that in my judgement, Dooleys victory would make this process easier.


The real questions that need to be raised today are not which union boss to vote for, but whether the nature of a union can be changed by electing 'left wing' leaders. When we have a state of affairs, where union members who seek to organise themselves are actively discouraged by the leadership to take any action. What is the best plan of action? Assuming we want construction workers to be organised, do we


a) Get them to build an independant union. Which would require a large amount of (militant) people to have a large amount of money, to become certified etc. And would end up as corruptable as the current ones
b) Forget everything, go home and wait for them to spontainosly form workpalce resistance groups.
Get a millitant anti-capitalist and experienced trade unionist, who, at an Anarchist ralley on Mayday vowed to build "a workers army" to get UCATT members to "defend peoples homes"

I know where I stand on this.

[Forward Union]

Lost as in come last out of all candidates or just didn't win the lot?

He came last out of two candidates :cool: This is very bad. THe next election is in 8 years. Watch this space.

[Devrim]

I think it shows a recovery. But then I'm not so concerned about my politics being called a "regression" by someone who is a member of the ICC, who's british counterparts handed out leaflets titles "Against the National Union of Miners" during the miners strikes of 1984. :lol:

Actually, Idon't think that the ICC handed out leaflets with titles 'Against the National Union of Miners' during the 1984-5 strike. Maybe I could be mistaken though. After all I was there and you weren't even born.

The ICC did of course criticise the union though. It was the union after all which stopped flying pickets in the early days of the strike and basically along with the TUC kept the strike locked up in the minning sector.


I don't think this is fair to say. I trace my roots from the AF (and if you go further back, the Socialist Party) as do other members of L&S. Most of our members were never in the AF, some come from Praxis, SNP, various local groups and even one former Labour party member.

I think it is fair to say that it originated as a split from the AF. It is not a question of individuals personal experience. It is about the roots of an organisation.


Many anarchists groups came after that with different positions on Union involvement. The DAM proposed forming independent syndicalist Unions while the ACF opposed unions . The Anarchist Workers Group supported involvement in Unions whough it came a bit later in 1990.

Yes, but I was talking about the positions of the ACF, which changed into the AF and your group split from. AWG was formed in 1988 by the way.


I think you make a valid point here, but I simply don't follow it through to the conclusion. All this fact demonstrates is that corruption is a possibility. Yes. It is. Anarchists ought to be trying to bring power back down to the rank and file, democratising the Unions. The specific circumstances in the construction industry meant that in my judgement, Dooleys victory would make this process easier.

I think that this shows an amazing amount of nieivty about how unions operate.


When we have a state of affairs, where union members who seek to organise themselves are actively discouraged by the leadership to take any action. What is the best plan of action? Assuming we want construction workers to be organised, do we

a) Get them to build an independant union. Which would require a large amount of (militant) people to have a large amount of money, to become certified etc. And would end up as corruptable as the current ones
b) Forget everything, go home and wait for them to spontainosly form workpalce resistance groups.
Get a millitant anti-capitalist and experienced trade unionist, who, at an Anarchist ralley on Mayday vowed to build "a workers army" to get UCATT members to "defend peoples homes"

I know where I stand on this.

I don'tthink you even understand how to pose the question. Let alone take a stance on it.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Actually, Idon't think that the ICC handed out leaflets with titles 'Against the National Union of Miners' during the 1984-5 strike. Maybe I could be mistaken though. After all I was there and you weren't even born.

Well I will endeavor to find out.



I think it is fair to say that it originated as a split from the AF. It is not a question of individuals personal experience. It is about the roots of an organisation.No it didn't originate as a split from the AF.


Yes, but I was talking about the positions of the ACF, which changed into the AF and your group split from. AWG was formed in 1988 by the way. No we didn't split from the AF. L&S started as a mixture of Praxis', and a pre-existing network of individuals in the UK, which we attached ourselves to later. I had hoped to be involved in both projects for a period, but evidently decided to go forward with L&S.

I can tell you've been desperate for some sort of gossip on this issue and I am afraid there just isn't any. :lol:


I think that this shows an amazing amount of nieivty about how unions operate.Yes ok. I would rather discuss this point because actually I agree with a lot of the criticisms of ainstream unions devrim, I just feel that engaging with them in a particular way can produce a better state of affairs.

[Charlie Mowbray]

You seem to have no real understanding of what anarchism should be about, and you seem to have had no real understanding of the AF politics whilst you were in it.You are reduced to the typical leftist position of supporting "left" candidates for positions in the bureaucracy.
With the AWG the thing that destroyed them was their anti-internationalist and cross-class positions on support for Saddam ( not that they weren't fundamentally flawed already). With L&S the rot has set in far quicker.

[Pogue]

It isn't an L&S position to support Dooley, so what rot are you talking about?

[Forward Union]

You seem to have no real understanding of what anarchism should be about, and you seem to have had no real understanding of the AF politics whilst you were in it.You are reduced to the typical leftist position of supporting "

And you seem to have no idea idea of how to reconstruct working class power in the construction industry. Unless you can present some sort of plan...

What you have to understand, is that there were some very obvious, immediate and practical benefits to be gained, including strategies for accelerating IWW dual carding within the Olympic site (as an example) which would have resulted from his victory. Therefore, I can already see, clear as day, that things would be materially and empirically better for us as Anarchists if he was in charge. Not to mention for the day to day lives of the local and migrant workers, who have been recruited from Poland and are earning under the minimum wage, who, due to lack of fighting willpower, the union is only able to contact via the agency employer. Of course, their lives are nor as important as Ultra-left philosophical purity. Of course, I recognise that he is institutionally incapable of creating the ultimate change we want to see, but have a praxis for getting past that.

I supported him on that basis (as did many IWW members, various Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists including Ian Bone - who I dare say would take issue with the 'leftist' remark), while you opposed him on some incredible reality-defying Ultra-left 'basis' that a victory for Mick would not be a libertarian workers revolution and therefore cannot be supported. This whole outlook ignores the reality that politics is often a messy business, and you cannot simply hold out for purist, philosophically acceptable solutions to quite real problems. Your absolutist position is borrowed right out of the book of Left-Communist dogma, and should have nothing more to do with Anarchism.

The rejection of involvement in mainstream unions is the most unfortunate departure from Platformism you've made.


With the AWG the thing that destroyed them was their anti-internationalist and cross-class positions on support for Saddam ( not that they weren't fundamentally flawed already). With L&S the rot has set in far quicker.I have nothing to do with the AWG. I don't see what their view of the first gulf war has to do with this.

[Devrim]

I supported him on that basis (as did many IWW members, various Libertarian Marxists and Anarchists including Ian Bone -who I dare say would take issue with the 'leftist' remark),

I am not sure why Ian gets the bold letter treatment, but as much as I like the man on a personal level, when it comes to anarchist politics, it should be remembered that he is the sort of anarchist in the past who has supported standing in elections. I don't see why he should be brought up as a particular authority particulary as in my opinion he is somebody who has never had much at all to say about workplace struggle.


I have nothing to do with the AWG. I don't see what their view of the first gulf war has to do with this.

No, L&S is not the AWG. From the impression that I get of L&S the differences are very clear. The AWG had more theoretical rigour a d cohesion, and had a number of members who were well respected workplace militants with experience of organising and leading strikes including as far as I am aware the only strike against the poll tax.

You do share their sub-Trotskyist politics though.

What was it that Marx said about old Hegel forgetting to mention, "first as a tragedy..."

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I am not sure why Ian gets the bold letter treatment, but as much as I like the man on a personal level, when it comes to anarchist politics, it should be remembered that he is the sort of anarchist in the past who has supported standing in elections. I don't see why he should be brought up as a particular authority particulary as in my opinion he is somebody who has never had much at all to say about workplace struggle.

I was simply juxtaposing the fact that Ian would support Mick, while a former platformist like CharlsMowbray would label it 'leftist'.


No, L&S is not the AWG. From the impression that I get of L&S the differences are very clear. The AWG had more theoretical rigour a d cohesion, and had a number of members who were well respected workplace militants with experience of organising and leading strikes including as far as I am aware the only strike against the poll tax.
I don't want to reduce the debate to this mate, you don't know our members, we have members who have come to our politics entirely through their experience in workplace struggle, including one leading figure from (and worker at) the Blood Center Campaign in Birmingham, which has been resisting privatization for years now. Along with people who have up to and over a decade of successful community organising experience, and have a lot of respect in their locales as well as in the wider anarchist movement.

Anyway all this ignores the point. You disagree with our strategies, and if so I'd rather continue discussing where you think our decisions are strategically wrong.


You do share their sub-Trotskyist politics though. Such as?

[Charlie Mowbray]

Right let's get beyond the caricatures, shall we. I'm grateful, and also thankful that a support for Dooley is not a position of the L&S, although certainly Forward Union gave that impression. But I stand corrected.
However I really don't give a flyiing fuck what Ian Bone does or says as on many occasions recently the stuff he comes out with is laughable- a vote for Chris Knight for fuck's sakes? I also don't see how my positions are based on left communist ( do you actually know what that means instead of spoouting cliches?) ideology.I've come to my ideas on the unions through my own workplace exereience as well , by the way, a longer experience of it than some in L&S who have little or none.
For the record I'm a member of Unison and have been for a long time so your accusations are complete tosh. I've been a shop steward in 3 different workplaces so maybe my view of what they are, what unions are about etc is based on experience as well. But unlike you I have no illusions whatsoever in the unions - even from the old rank and fileist position that the AWG argued from , I doubt as if they would have called for a vote for a "left" candidate to the the union bureaucracy. And that is what is so deplorable that the politics of some sections of the anarchist movement hasn't even progressed beyond rank and fileism, which was in itself mistaken, but has regressed to support for 'left' candidates.
"What you have to understand, is that there were some very obvious, immediate and practical benefits to be gained, including strategies for accelerating IWW dual carding within the Olympic site (as an example) which would have resulted from his victory. Therefore, I can already see, clear as day, that things would be materially and empirically better for us as Anarchists if he was in charge. Not to mention for the day to day lives of the local and migrant workers, who have been recruited from Poland and are earning under the minimum wage, who, due to lack of fighting willpower, the union is only able to contact via the agency employer. Of course, their lives are nor as important as Ultra-left philosophical purity." Who was it who used the term ultra-left to slander his opponents who refused to go down the road into involvement with parliamentariarism and social democracy. A certain VI Lenin. As far as I am concerned your accusations of ultra left are just swear words and have no content. PLease enlighten someone who is so out of touch with reality in your opinion as to why a victory for Dooley would have made things any better for these workers. Do you have any idea of how many times leftists have got into positions of power within the union bureaucracy? Have there been any advancements in the class struggle as a result? Please let me know if you can find any examples and please let me know how campaigning for Dooley ( who came second to last in the election) actually in any way develops any self-confidence or self-organisation among workers at a grass roots level.
Oh and one more thing, I've probably done far more at making aware of what the Platform was than many here who still describe themselves as such. But the Platform was written in 1926 and whilst I'm still thankful for its insights, I know that both capitalism and the struggle against it have changed. I have no major problems with the Platform as such, but I do with many of the positions developed by those who describe themselves as platformists in the present period.

[Forward Union]

However I really don't give a flyiing fuck what Ian Bone does or says as on many occasions recently the stuff he comes out with is laughable- a vote for Chris Knight for fuck's sakes?

Well actually moving beyond caricatures was my point, you labeled my positions as "leftist" which is a term used as an ultra-left opposition to a particular style of engagement with politics. The general cop-out for this opposition is to retreat to a complete uninvolvement in all political discourse. Puritanical propagandism, Stuntism and complete lack of coordination is what follows from this sort of politics. I was using the example of Ian bone to try and devalue the content of your slur. But we can move on really. It's not likely to add to debate.


For the record I'm a member of Unison and have been for a long time so your accusations are complete tosh. Why are you in Unison though? If you feel the union is crap, which it undoubtedly is, do you not wish to reorganise it? if you do, then you need to organise with like minded people in order to achieve this (which is what I argue) if you agree with the AFs position then you might as well save yourself the money, leave the union and start a workplace resistance group.

I've been a shop steward in 3 different workplaces so maybe my view of what they are, what unions are about etc is based on experience as well.I am not disputing that you are an experienced workplace militant, I simply disagree with the conclusions you have drawn from this. I know many comrades with as much if not more experience than you, and they have different interpretations. So this aspect is unimportant here.


And that is what is so deplorable that the politics of some sections of the anarchist movement hasn't even progressed beyond rank and fileism, which was in itself mistaken, but has regressed to support for 'left' candidates.But you perhaps misunderstand me. I don't actually support Mick, I see him as a useful component in an overall strategy. I did not expect him to create any meaningful long lasting change within UCATT, but as I have explained it would have accelerate our ability to organise and coordinate within the Olympic site. Do you not think that would be worthwile?

Do you not think the other explicit benefits (minimum wage for foreign laborers, using the union to defend houses from eviction etc) would be worth having as well? If not, fine, but how do you propose creating such dramatic change? I am more interested in physical results than left-communist oppositionism.


As far as I am concerned your accusations of ultra left are just swear words and have no content.Likewise all your "leftism" "rank and fileism" "opeprtunism" and "regressed support for left candidates" are, in my view just swear words with no content. You have provided no alternative or effective plans for reconfiguring the wider labour movement.


Do you have any idea of how many times leftists have got into positions of power within the union bureaucracy? Have there been any advancements in the class struggle as a result? Totally accept that point, I would not have expected his ellection to create any advancements within the class struggle, but to have paved the way for more important and meaningful organisation through bodies like the NSSN and IWW. This is the point you don't understand if you even care to grasp it at all. I am not a stooge voting mindlessly for some lefty candidate.


Please let me know if you can find any examples and please let me know how campaigning for Dooley ( who came second to last in the election) actually in any way develops any self-confidence or self-organisation among workers at a grass roots level.It doesn't and that's not the point. He did lose quite spectacularly, but then, the Union did ban him from campaigning for himself, threatened to take out a libel case against a website we set up and intimidated his supporters...


Oh and one more thing, I've probably done far more at making aware of what the Platform was than many here who still describe themselves as such.Yes but it's a shame you don't agree with it's key points.


I have no major problems with the Platform as such, but I do with many of the positions developed by those who describe themselves as platformists in the present period.Well, presumably you have a problem with Tactical and Theoretical unity, as the organisation you champion has none and no mechanism for enforcing any that may or may not exist. And the idea of Anarchists working within mainstream unions which was the key focus of the syndicalism section... avoiding my particular criticisms of your industrial strategy, the two AF members I speak to the most have never read it, and explained to me that they are not obliged to read it, agree with it, or act within it. It's somethin someone wrote. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, presumably you have a problem with Tactical and Theoretical unity, as the organisation you champion has none and no mechanism for enforcing any that may or may not exist.

Says the guy who was just corrected by a member of his organisation. Yeah, great theoretical unity you have there.

In any case, we do have mechanisms to develop tactical and theoretical unity. The difference is that we see it as an ongoing project of analysis, reflection, debate and development.

You can't just magically wish unity out of thin air, as L&S have obviously had to realise.


And the idea of Anarchists working within mainstream unions which was the key focus of the syndicalism section... avoiding my particular criticisms of your industrial strategy, the two AF members I speak to the most have never read it, and explained to me that they are not obliged to read it, agree with it, or act within it.That is certainly very strange and also not very accurate on their part.


It's somethin someone wrote. This is not a healthy state of affairs.Actually the document was written by collective and sent through 2 NDM's and 2 conferences before it was officially adopted. If people didn't read it or contribute to it's development then that's indeed an unhealthy attitude to take towards an organisation they have voluntarily joined.

But the implication in what you're saying is that members of organisations will always be at the same level, same commitment and same dedication to the ideas and methods of the organisation they join all the time and in a group larger than 12 that becomes increasingly difficult and unrealistic. Humans have flaws and they have to be accommodated in order to be overcome. It is a problem and we have accepted it and we aim to change it.

You try and make out that having two members who clearly don't understand the nature of the document that was written is some indictment of the entire organisation and it's just not, no matter how much you'd like that to be the case. You make criticisms of our organisation as if we hadn't taken the time to reflect on our short comings, but this just goes further to highlight your total lack of understanding what our organisation is, what it stands for and how it operates. Indeed how any organisation should effectively operate.

We're not afraid of getting things wrong, of accepting our limitations and aiming to change them. Indeed, it's a great deal more healthy to reflect on ourselves than attempting to market yourself as something you just clearly are not.

[Forward Union]

Says the guy who was just corrected by a member of his organisation. Yeah, great theoretical unity you have there.

The member you are referring to joined after this whole process was discussed, and is wrong in saying that L&S did not support Mick, although he did help with the campaign. However, all this is beside the point; we have members who will openly disagree with various things we've agreed to do (just browse the ABC forums for examples of that) but they still participate in the activity that they may have voted against.

Much like how you might see a member of a political party disagreeing with a particular party policy, it's not a sign of an internal failure. If anything it's an important part of internal processes.



But the implication in what you're saying is that members of organisations will always be at the same level, same commitment and same dedication to the ideas and methods of the organisation they join all the time and in a group larger than 12 that becomes increasingly difficult and unrealistic. Humans have flaws and they have to be accommodated in order to be overcome. It is a problem and we have accepted it and we aim to change it. I fully understand that people have different abilities and commitment levels and probably different activity preferences, we have people involved in the NSSN, IWW, LCAP and people helping run a community campaign in Newtown. Some do more than others, but everyones active. I don't see how any of that enters into this.


You try and make out that having two members who clearly don't understand the nature of the document that was written is some indictment of the entire organisation and it's just not, no matter how much you'd like that to be the case. I was more concerned with the point that they were not obliged to agree with, or act within the strategy. I would assume that this point lead to the fact that they had no interest in reading the document.


of accepting our limitations and aiming to change them. Indeed, it's a great deal more healthy to reflect on ourselves than attempting to market yourself as something you just clearly are not.Who is against self-criticism and self reflection?

[The Feral Underclass]

I fully understand that people have different abilities and commitment levels. I don't see how that enters into this?

I know, that's the problem.


I was more concerned with the point that they were not obliged to agree with, or act within the strategy. I would assume that this point lead the the fact that they had no interest in reading the document.

Have you read the document?

It's an analysis and consolidation of our position on unions and work place strategy. It is wholly consistent with our aims and principles, something that members are obliged to agree with. If someone has joined the organisation saying they agree with the A&P's then to reject this document is to reject the A&P's and in which case they shouldn't have joined.

And we simply cannot make it an obligation of membership to work within this strategy when peoples experiences and areas of activism may not be as sophisticated or the same. It's unreasonable to expect somoene who doesn't have a job, for example, or who simply, for whatever reason, cannot attempt to implement its ideas. It is, however, very much an objective and people should be viewing it as such, if they are not then that's questionable.

But you're trying to prove that some organisational priniciple doesn't exist within the AF and it does. We do strive for tactical and theoretical unity - It's in our constitution, but we recognise that you can't just enforce that with some bureucratic or administrative changes to the way you organise. It requires debate, the development of ideas and the building of a solid organisation of people willing and dedicated to class struggle.


Who is against self-criticism and self reflection?

You are.

[Pogue]

I know, that's the problem.



Have you read the document?

It's an analysis and consolidation of our position on unions and work place strategy. It is wholly consistent with our aims and principles, something that members are obliged to agree with. If someone has joined the organisation saying they agree with the A&P's then to reject this document is to reject the A&P's and in which case they shouldn't have joined.

And we simply cannot make it an obligation of membership to work within this strategy when peoples experiences and areas of activism may not be as sophisticated or the same. It's unreasonable to expect somoene who doesn't have a job, for example, or who simply, for whatever reason, cannot attempt to implement its ideas. It is, however, very much an objective and people should be viewing it as such, if they are not then that's questionable.

But you're trying to prove that some organisational priniciple doesn't exist within the AF and it does. We do strive for tactical and theoretical unity - It's in our constitution, but we recognise that you can't just enforce that with some bureucratic or administrative changes to the way you organise. It requires debate, the development of ideas and the building of a solid organisation of people willing and dedicated to class struggle.



You are.

When you say you are, do you mean Forward Union as a person or the organisation we are both in, L&S?

[Forward Union]

Have you read the document?I have


It's an analysis and consolidation of our position on unions and work place strategy. It is wholly consistent with our aims and principles, something that members are obliged to agree with. If someone has joined the organisation saying they agree with the A&P's then to reject this document is to reject the A&P's and in which case they shouldn't have joined.Not sure about that. I may well agree with the A+Ps (Which I don't) but not that particular interpretation of it, it certainly makes statements that are not in the A+Ps. Though I recognise that it does not contradict them.

It's simply not true that if you agree with the A+Ps, then you would automatically agree with the strategy document. For example it says "trade unions will actively resist the parts of the movement that they cannot control" it also claims that a unions role is in "disciplining and controlling workers " both of these are additions to the already anti-union line set out in the A+Ps. It also adds a counter-strategy; "Our medium term aim is the creation of workplace resistance groups. These are groups consisting of the most active and class conscious workers within a given workplace, groups that unite workers in militant struggle against the bosses" (which sounds like the NSSN but impossible) Which is not an A+P either. People may agree with the original statements, but not these particular extensions, but actually the examples are irrelivent (i don't want todiscuss if they are good or bad positions) rather I am illustrating the point, the 'strategy' is not binding, and is thus not an organisational strategy.


And we simply cannot make it an obligation of membership to work within this strategy when peoples experiences and areas of activism may not be as sophisticated or the same.People who have little or no workpalce experience would be the ones who most needed a more informed strategy I would have thought. If they discover issues with it they can propose reforms, and I donk think there ought to be are any strategies that micromanage on such a level. National strategy must be adapted to the local level. In fact, to quote the big m himself

"The activities of local organizations can be adapted, as far as possible, to suit local conditions: however, such activities must, unfailingly, be consonant with the pattern of the overall organizational practice of the Union of anarchists throughout the country"


It requires debate, the development of ideas and the building of a solid organisation of people willing and dedicated to class struggle.I think this distinction is false. It is not one of debate vs bureaucracy. It is one of responsibility vs reckless individualism.


You are.Oh come on you know no one objects to those things. This is just adding slander to an otherwise productive debate.

[Forward Union]

When you say you are, do you mean Forward Union as a person or the organisation we are both in, L&S?

He means you because you always hit people in debates.

[Pogue]

He means you because you always hit people in debates.

I have a slip from the doctor saying I can't help it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not sure about that. I may well agree with the A+Ps (Which I don't) but not that particular interpretation of it, it certainly makes statements that are not in the A+Ps. Though I recognise that it does not contradict them.

The organisation has spent a year, or just over, consolidating our views on unions and that is a document of the AF and is the official workplace strategy of the organisation. That is a fact. If members suddenly have different interpretations of the principles they should have raised those objections during the process, a process that was open, democratic and on going. It is unreasonable for them to object after the fact and if that happens that's unfortunate, but the organisation spent a great deal of time and effort developing this document and it is now official AF strategy. The time came and went to disagree.

In any case, if it is the case that certain members don't agree with this document they are few and far between.


It's simply not true that if you agree with the A+Ps, then you would automatically agree with the strategy document. For example it says "trade unions will actively resist the parts of the movement that they cannot control" it also claims that a unions role is in "disciplining and controlling workers " both of these are additions to the already anti-union line set out in the A+Ps.Actually it's a clarification for the reasons for our A&P on unions. They're not additional views at all, they're the clarifications of our views laid out in the aims and principles and other documents written by the AF.


It also adds a counter-strategy; "Our medium term aim is the creation of workplace resistance groups. These are groups consisting of the most active and class conscious workers within a given workplace, groups that unite workers in militant struggle against the bosses" (which sounds like the NSSN but impossible) Which is not an A+P either. People may agree with the original statements, but not these particular extensions, but actually the examples are irrelivent (i don't want todiscuss if they are good or bad positions) rather I am illustrating the point, the 'strategy' is not binding, and is thus not an organisational strategy.Worplace resistance groups and the role of unions are talked about in our Manifesto, Beyond Resistance (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html) and Role of the Revolutionary Organisation. (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/63-the-role-of-the-revolutionary-organisation.html) They are not necessarily new ideas, simply a clarification of already existing views of the AF, as well documented as a perspective of the organisation. If people choose to join an organisation they disagree with, then they will soon find it difficult to remain a member, as history has rightly proven.


People who have little or no workpalce experience would be the ones who most needed a more informed strategy I would have thought.I absolutely agree, but making it an obligation ignores the reality of human behaviour. People may not be ready to start implementing this strategy and so saying they have to do so as condition of being a member could lead to them feeling isolated and under pressure, in which they have no experience in dealing with. People who join or want to join organisations don't have the same class consciousness as already existing members and seasoned activists.


I think this distinction is false. It is not one of debate vs bureaucracy. It is one of responsibility vs reckless individualism.This is just obscuring my point. You're conflating two different issues and attributing a view that's not mine, i.e. building a strawman argument.

Being irresponsible and a "reckless individual" are clearly unproductive things for any member of any organisation to have. Of course any organisation who actually wishes to function even on a basic level needs to stop what is very clearly and obviously a problem.

My point relates to your insistence of theoretical and tactical unity and how you achieve that. You seem to think that creating official policy to discipline members and creating, what is bureuacratic, a process to "manage" that unity is going to achieve it.

You simply cannot get people to form unity by creating policy that forces them. Unity is about debate and development of ideas as a collective. Consenting unity is clearly far more productive for an organisation than what is written in your constitution.

People in different locations may have a different strategy at their workplace, and providing it does not clash with our A&P's or takes a conflicting (rather than different) approach to the strategy I don't see it as a massive problem. Unless it's not working and in which case that location should probably reflect. If there are groups in the AF who fundamentally disagree with the workplace strategy (which is not the case because we use consensus decision making and all dissent and objections are discussed, agreed upon and developed) they have the right to form a faction and dissent from the official decisions of the organisation. It's all in the constitution.

[Forward Union]

The organisation has spent a year, or just over, consolidating our views on unions and that is a document of the AF and is the official workplace strategy of the organisation. That is a fact. If members suddenly have different interpretations of the principles they should have raised those objections during the process, a process that was open, democratic and on going. It is unreasonable for them to object after the fact and if that happens that's unfortunate, but the organisation spent a great deal of time and effort developing this document and it is now official AF strategy. The time came and went to disagree.

You don't have to justify holding an industrial strategy to me! I fully accept that if people did not contribute or raise objections in the process then, what more can you really do? Of course, they can propose amendments or alternative strategies at later times.

Am I to understand that this document is binding, and that members must adhere to it? or can they completely ignore it and follow their own industrial strategy as long as it's within the a&ps?



Actually it's a clarification for the reasons for our A&P on unions. They're not additional views at all, they're the clarifications of our views laid out in the aims and principles and other documents written by the AF.I understand that, I'm speaking mostly hypothetically. What I am really asking is if the document is binding, which you cryptically seem to be saying it is. If so, how is this any different from a dreaded position paper or any other strategy paper that you have, over the last few years, so strongly opposed (although I will say you've changed your tune dramatically - for the better)


Worplace resistance groups and the role of unions are talked about in our Manifesto, Beyond Resistance (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html) and Role of the Revolutionary Organisation. (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/63-the-role-of-the-revolutionary-organisation.html) They are not necessarily new ideas, simply a clarification of already existing views of the AF, as well documented as a perspective of the organisation. If people choose to join an organisation they disagree with, then they will soon find it difficult to remain a member, as history has rightly proven. These documents are also not binding, but are simply the views of some members in the organisation, who perhaps form a defacto leadership (though I wont discuss this point any further). As far as the constitution and membership requirements are concerned, I could be in the AF and completely oppose workplace resistance groups.


I absolutely agree, but making it an obligation ignores the reality of human behaviour. People may not be ready to start implementing this strategy and so saying they have to do so as condition of being a member could lead to them feeling isolated and under pressure, in which they have no experience in dealing with. People who join or want to join organisations don't have the same class consciousness as already existing members and seasoned activists.I think people should feel under pressure. We're not talking about social clubs here, we're talking about serious political organisations.

I don't think we ought to recruit inexperienced people to our ranks, why do we need them?. They should of course be entirely involved in mass economic organisations such as Unions and Residents/tenants associations, they should be encouraged and given assistance in these groups. Actually, recruiting such people to such groups should be an active process. But membership to the political organisation should be for people capable and willing to participate in such a group. Though I would say that experience is not the most important quality, capability and commitment are also important.


You simply cannot get people to form unity by creating policy that forces them. Unity is about debate and development of ideas as a collective. Consenting unity is clearly far more productive for an organisation than what is written in your constitution.No one is forced to do anything, the strategies that are binding are formed through democratic discussion and a majority vote, they are also subject to change at any point. I don't see the difference between this process and yours in regard to the Industrial Strategy.


People in different locations may have a different strategy at their workplace, and providing it does not clash with our A&P's or takes a conflicting (rather than different) approach to the strategy I don't see it as a massive problem.Nor do I, I said as much in my last post.

[Charlie Mowbray]

So then, Forward Union, it's safe to say that L&S did support , as a body, Mick Dooley ( and that a new member who joined after this decision disagrees with this?) So much for your much vaunted theoretical and tactical unity which manifestly does not exist as witness contradictory statements from different L&Sers on various boards.

[Forward Union]

So then, Forward Union, it's safe to say that L&S did support , as a body, Mick Dooley ( and that a new member who joined after this decision disagrees with this?) So much for your much vaunted theoretical and tactical unity which manifestly does not exist as witness contradictory statements from different L&Sers on various boards.

:cool: