I.W.W. and trade unions.

[Little-Lenin]

:)This is something I think I ought to know. But since I can´t figure it out, I will try to get answers from someone here.

What is the difference between the syndicalism of the 1.W.W. and the "common" trade unions?

An answer is very welcome. (Many answers are even better).

Greetings,:)

Little-Lenin

[Jack]

Syndicalism sets out to destroy capitalism through a general strike, reformist unionism doesn't aim for shit but a few benifits, kind of like social democrats or liberals.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Syndicalism sets out to destroy capitalism through a general strike, reformist unionism doesn't aim for shit but a few benifits, kind of like social democrats or liberals.
Also, reformist unions have hierarchies, with leaders who, not matter how well-intentioned they are, have to play the role of negotiating between workers and bosses; syndicalist unions are directly controlled by their members.

[ComradeOm]

Syndicalism sets out to destroy capitalism through a general strike...Which is probably a good reason why 'pure' syndicalism is almost entirely non-existent these days

[Lamanov]

Which is probably a good reason why 'pure' syndicalism is almost entirely non-existent these days

Yeah, that's why modern-day Bolshevism is such a formidable force. :rolleyes:

[ComradeOm]

Yeah, that's why modern-day Bolshevism is such a formidable force. :rolleyes:You ever hear of 'Whataboutism'?

And, for the record, I think there are extended families in Ireland today (to say nothing of the worldwide communist movement) that have more active members than the IWW. Syndicalism is dead and has been for almost a century now. It lives on only in the shell of the IWW and the (very welcome) influences on both anarchism and Marxism

[Invariance]

Also, reformist unions have hierarchies, with leaders who, not matter how well-intentioned they are, have to play the role of negotiating between workers and bosses What, and the IWW doesn't engage in collective bargaining? (Actually, you might have a point here, from what I understand the IWW barely functions as a union)


syndicalist unions are directly controlled by their members.Every union in Australia has elected stewards and elected leadership.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Which is probably a good reason why 'pure' syndicalism is almost entirely non-existent these days

Syndicalism hasn't been very pervasive in Britain for a long time, even at its zenith I'm not sure how much influence you could attribute to it. As far as I've known, we've never had a hugely powerful radical union. There was the National Minority Movement, founded by the Communist Party, for people disaffected with the mainstream unions but not willing to join the CP. That was fronted by Tom Mann, who was a promenant syndicalist during that era. However the NMM was a CP organisation and obviously couldn't operate independently and from the bottom up - it was still a step towards the 'one big union idea'

Keeping on the idea of 'one big union'. Some people interpret the Tripple Alliance between the railwaymen, dockers and miners as a syndicalist move, 'creating one big wrecking ball to swing against capitalism' was an analagy someone used at the time (sorry about the lack of sources, dont have anything to quote from at present). Nevertheless, when the miners went out on strike, the dockers and railwaymen didnt hold up their end and it cumulated in worse conditions for the miners. It was a bit more successful leading up to the general strike, but the strike was about 7 years belated and the TUC adamant not to secede any power to the local unions.

The TUC is probably the biggest single factor that held back syndicalism/any radical unionism, during that era. Radical unionism was never able to keep a foothold, mainstream unionism dabbled is bourgeoise politics, backing the failed experiment of the Labour Party.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Also, reformist unions have hierarchies, with leaders who, not matter how well-intentioned they are, have to play the role of negotiating between workers and bosses; syndicalist unions are directly controlled by their members.

Syndicalist unions are directly controlled by their members and, despite being well-intentioned, have to play the role of negotiating between [maybe more relevant, conciliating] workers and bosses.

The problem with unions is not the structure. The problem with unions is the role they play.

[ls]

Don't left-communists argue that the IWW at least at one point in time, was an important part of organising the proletariat?

[ComradeOm]

Syndicalism hasn't been very pervasive in Britain for a long time, even at its zenith I'm not sure how much influence you could attribute to itNot in Britain perhaps, but it is hard to understate the influence that the syndicalist movement had elsewhere - particularly the US and Continental Europe. At its pre-1914 peak it was easily as viable a current as Social-Democracy and far out-stripped anarchism in terms of numbers and organisation. Which makes its extremely rapid decline (largely the result of severe deficiencies in its theory - particular Sorel's 'myth' of the general strike) all the more surprising/interesting


Don't left-communists argue that the IWW at least at one point in time, was an important part of organising the proletariat? All unions play an important role in "organising the proletariat". The problem is that unions have historically been unable to take the next step and organise for a socialist future. Revolutionary unionism had progressed as far as it could by 1914 but after this point it rapidly haemorrhaged supporters to those groups (communists and, to a lesser degree in immediate post-war Europe, anarchists) that were explicitly concerned with this transformation of society

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What, and the IWW doesn't engage in collective bargaining?
It does, but the bargaining is not done by a small minority of union officials on behalf of the workforce. That's a pretty big difference.

Every union in Australia has elected stewards and elected leadership.
And? An elected bureaucracy is still a bureaucracy. We have an elected House of Commons, does that mean everything's fine? Democratically elected union leaders can still witch-hunt militants.

Syndicalist unions are directly controlled by their members and, despite being well-intentioned, have to play the role of negotiating between [maybe more relevant, conciliating] workers and bosses.

The problem with unions is not the structure. The problem with unions is the role they play.
All true, which is why I'm not a syndicalist. Unions aren't the revolution; but while a large section of the most class-conscious workers are in them, then they're a useful place to work in. And while that's the case, I'd rather work in a democratic syndicalist union than a top-down bureaucratic one. Your point is still ultimately true, tho.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Not in Britain perhaps, but it is hard to understate the influence that the syndicalist movement had elsewhere - particularly the US and Continental Europe.

Not denying that, I'm not trying to downplay the militancy or organisation of the IWW(US) or the CNT. I was just focusing on Britain since I can speak at better length about it.

[Lamanov]

And, for the record, I think there are extended families in Ireland today (to say nothing of the worldwide communist movement) that have more active members than the IWW. Syndicalism is dead and has been for almost a century now. It lives on only in the shell of the IWW and the (very welcome) influences on both anarchism and Marxism

What actually bothers me about your first comment is an assertion that 'pure' syndicalism is almost non-existent because of its general strike doctrine, which is certainly not the case.

It would be like saying that USSR failed "because they were Marxist."

'Pure' syndicalism is failing because of its foolish "apolitical" pretenses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should repost CPGB comrade Macnair's serial criticism of the general strike *strategy* that is indeed the strategy of most of the left today (including Trots and left-communists, with councils arising from mass strike waves), not just that of the pure syndicalists:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32

The basic problem is that, if you've got a *supermajority* of the worker class (including soldiers in the military) supporting you, why bother with a strike when you can "ignore" the bourgeois state and implement the DOTP? It is only useful if your support among the class is less than a supermajority. If this support is in the minority, then you're guilty of conning the masses into taking power prematurely.

[Pogue]

I should repost CPGB comrade Macnair's serial criticism of the general strike *strategy* that is indeed the strategy of most of the left today (including Trots and left-communists, with councils arising from mass strike waves), not just that of the pure syndicalists:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32

The basic problem is that, if you've got a *supermajority* of the worker class (including soldiers in the military) supporting you, why bother with a strike when you can "ignore" the bourgeois state and implement the DOTP? It is only useful if your support among the class is less than a supermajority. If this support is in the minority, then you're guilty of conning the masses into taking power prematurely.

This doesn't make sense. We merely recognise there will come a stage where mass unrest expressed both in the stoppage and taking over of the bourgeoisie means of production and in other ways, i.e. rent strikes, and situations of dual power will be the precursor to the destruction of capitalism. I hate this idea that we think theres going to be a magic day when we just call the strike. We just think an organisation of the working class arising from this popular unrest using strikes and other methods will carry out the revolution. Its hardly a controversial position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is conning the masses into power ("arising from this popular unrest"), then, whether this is the spontaneous emergence of "one big union" (after a period of isolation) or of workers' councils.

The class needs to be well-organised long before the revolutionary crisis. Alas (bad news for syndicalists), this can only come in the form of a mass revolutionary political party with an extensive "alternative culture" framework (http://rabble.ca/comment/1032539/peterjcassidy-wrote-one) for the class as a whole.

[ComradeOm]

'Pure' syndicalism is failing because of its foolish "apolitical" pretenses.Exactly. As long as it restricted itself to purely union activities, of which the general strike was the most potent example, the syndicalist movement was (note the past tense) completely unable to effect meaningful social change. Hence the mass abandonment of the current following WWI in favour of more 'political' ideologies


What actually bothers me about your first comment is an assertion that 'pure' syndicalism is almost non-existent because of its general strike doctrine, which is certainly not the caseI think you're underestimating the importance of the mass strike to the syndicalist movement. No doubt there were other reasons for its demise (and please don't hesitate to suggest your own) but, as Jack's initial post suggested, the general strike was very much central to radical unionism. The problem was of course that, to quote Blackadder, it was bollocks and the failure of the general strike in practice caused wide disillusionment amongst syndicalists at the time. Sorel understood this well enough but his 'myth', like syndicalism in general, was never anything more than an empty promise

To further your own example; strip Marxism/socialism out of the USSR and you have just another despotism. Similarly, take the general strike away from syndicalism and you simply have everyday unionism

But, as I said, I'd be happy for you to put forward the other reasons for syndicalism's demise. The above is merely my own judgement

[Pogue]

It is conning the masses into power ("arising from this popular unrest"), then, whether this is the spontaneous emergence of "one big union" (after a period of isolation) or of workers' councils.

The class needs to be well-organised long before the revolutionary crisis. Alas, for syndicalists, this can only come in the form of a mass revolutionary political party with an extensive "alternative culture" framework (http://rabble.ca/comment/1032539/peterjcassidy-wrote-one) for the class as a whole.

We don't deny the class has to be well organised long before the revolutionary crisis. Thats why we believe in revolutionary unions which act like 'schools of the revolution', educating workers in the practices neccesary for revolution. Have you researched this at all? It seems you have an incorrect understanding of the syndicalist position.

[Lamanov]

Exactly. As long as it restricted itself to purely union activities, of which the general strike was the most potent example, the syndicalist movement was (note the past tense) completely unable to effect meaningful social change.

The basic problem is that, if you've got a *supermajority* of the worker class (including soldiers in the military) supporting you, why bother with a strike when you can "ignore" the bourgeois state and implement the DOTP? It is only useful if your support among the class is less than a supermajority. If this support is in the minority, then you're guilty of conning the masses into taking power prematurely.

I don't know why people like to speculate but don't bother to actually understand what is meant by certain terms like "General strike". "Everyone" pretends to "know" what "DOP" means because they've done some homework, but in the case of "General strike" they assume it's merely a stoppage on a massive scale without any further action.

Notion of "General strike" developed through a long time until it was finally understood as something more that a "Grand National Holiday" or a big "Sit in". When we speak of "General strike" we are speaking of mass takeover of the means of production and their application towards a social revolution. "General strike" is supposed to grow both takeover of economy under workers' control and a new political order based on workers' organs of self-management.

"General strike" was not just a "union action" but a political action as well.


The class needs to be well-organised long before the revolutionary crisis. Alas, for syndicalists, this can only come in the form of a mass revolutionary political party with an extensive "alternative culture" framework (http://rabble.ca/comment/1032539/peterjcassidy-wrote-one) for the class as a whole.

Syndicalists call for a political party? Which ones?

As usual, I fail to understand what you are talking about. It's either my superficial knowledge or your obscure argumentation.


But, as I said, I'd be happy for you to put forward the other reasons for syndicalism's demise.

I hope you understand that anarcho-syndicalism is that "more political" form of revolutionary movement. I'm not saying you don't, I'm just reminding everyone.

I'll repeat my basic reason: it's "a-politics". This has nothing to do with the "General strike" doctrine, but with the fact that "pure unionists" insisted on a delusion that "politics are left outside of union's doors". But politics are always involved, even if there's no political discussion. This helped politically organized socialists to take over these unions from the inside, like they did in the IWW and CGT.

One more thing that helped the downfall of "pure unionism" was massive repression. "Industrial unionism" was huge in 1900's and 1910's and it was a primary target of repression in Argentina, USA, France and Britain.

In Spain, however, it became politicized, a process which expanded its organizational forms and political platforms, and that's why it evolved into the most powerful revolutionary movement in Europe at the time.

[MilitantWorker]

First of all, in this stage of capitalism, unions are not revolutionary. The unions role as a political weapon of the working class has instead now been incorporated into the system and the state, and is now in most cases a weapon for the ruling class. Whenever workers demands go beyond the frame of capitalism--when they become blatantly anti-capitalist-- the Union is forced to side with the state (for Legal, and other reasons). We have seen time and time again with organized militant actions like bossnappings that often times it is the Union standing with the police and politicians on the other side of the picket.

I was once a wobbly, and I think that the politicization of workplace struggles is a positive thing but the IWW and unions like it are no longer organic products of the working class. They are being propped up by intellectuals and revolutionaries, and as with my case, cannot always provide the necessary support to workers who are trying to get organized and therefore become impractical.

Even though education almost implies hierarchy, I like the idea of "schools of revolution" or consciousness-building community centers, or whatever.

However if you think that organic proletarian structures like these "schools" would naturally arise within, or, as a project of ANY union (IWW, CNT, etc), you should reconsider IMHO. In the past, places like Highlander in Tennessee couldn't have survived without the support of the labor movement. But that was a different era, epoch even.

[Lamanov]

However if you think that organic proletarian structures like these "schools" would naturally arise within, or, as a project of ANY union (IWW, CNT, etc), you should reconsider IMHO.

CNT escapes that critique.

We're speaking of "pure unionism" here, not anarcho-syndicalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We don't deny the class has to be well organised long before the revolutionary crisis. Thats why we believe in revolutionary unions which act like 'schools of the revolution', educating workers in the practices neccesary for revolution. Have you researched this at all? It seems you have an incorrect understanding of the syndicalist position.

Au contraire (and this is for Lamanov and ComradeOm, too):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8682919597603842499

[The relevant part starts at 35:00]

"On the other hand, Bakunin - and from Bakunin's ideas we get the syndicalists and Sorel, and Sorel's ideas are profoundly influential on Rosa Luxemburg and somewhat less influential on Trotsky, and certainly influential on Bogdanov and a whole lot of people... Herman Gorter, Korsch, the people who were the left wing of the Second International..."

[Pogue]

Au contraire (and this is for Lamanov and ComradeOm, too):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8682919597603842499

[The relevant part starts at 35:00]

"On the other hand, Bakunin - and from Bakunin's ideas we get the syndicalists and Sorel, and Sorel's ideas are profoundly influential on Rosa Luxemburg and somewhat less influential on Trotsky, and certainly influential on Bogdanov and a whole lot of people... Herman Gorter, Korsch, the people who were the left wing of the Second International..."

I don't see how that quote is at all relevant? I said that as anarcho-syndicalists or revolutionary syndicalists, we strongly believe in workers becoming educated prior to a revolution. We see this being the purpose of the syndicalist union. Its the main reason for our existence, and one of the main things which differentiates us from say, left communists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"The strategy of the left is an illusion. The general strike strategy, the strategy of the insurrectionary general strike, the strategy of creating soviets, and 'all power to the soviets' - is an illusion."

with a bureaucracy.]

[Pogue]

Oh, thanks. That one unsourced and unsubstantiated quote really convinced me. Top stuff. Out of interest is that another of the quotes you make up yourself?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I pointed the link earlier: the Google video link above.

[Pogue]

I'd rather you argued rather than getting someone else to do it for you. You can't win an argument by substituting your argument with someone else's.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's one of my own, actually:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxemburg-vs-kautsky-t105061/index.html

[Pogue]

I'd rather you argued now, I can't really argue with an article, can I, I want to argue with a person.

[Lamanov]

I don't see how that quote is at all relevant?

It has to be relevant because all he reads is Lenin and Kautsky. :closedeyes:

Get it? Closest Jacob ever came to syndicalism was in these scriptures of Lenin against Bogdanov, Luxemburg and later "The Left".

History and theory itself don't matter. What Lenin and Kautsky wrote on history and theory matters the most.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It has to be relevant because all he reads is Lenin and Kautsky. :closedeyes:

Get it? Closest Jacob ever came to syndicalism was in these scriptures of Lenin against Bogdanov, Luxemburg and later "The Left".

History and theory itself don't matter. What Lenin and Kautsky wrote on history and theory matters the most.

Wrong on almost all counts.

"All he reads" certainly is wrong, otherwise why bring up Mike Macnair, Paul Cockshott, and a number of others supporting the profoundly true and important position formulated by Kautsky and upheld by his disciple Lenin?

"Closest Jacob ever came to syndicalism"? Try this article posted by Miles in the WPA user group:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2109 ("The Character and Structure of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism")

I've even had the privilege of suggesting a slight neologism for "industrial unionism" to account for business and economics tendencies to turn nouns into adjectives: industry unionism.

What the disciple and *especially* the true founder of "Marxism" wrote matters the most precisely because the theoretical implications come closest to matching historical trends.

[Lamanov]

That's all fine, but we're talking about syndicalism here. Syndicalisme révolutionnaire, you know. Yes, mostly about "pure" and "industrial unionism", but with a certain hint of anarcho-syndicalism. The new revival of De Leon in USA and how Lenin argued against his opponents is certainly interesting, but not remotely close to actual questions at hand.

If you're going to argue how "syndicalists" put their hopes in a "political party", you can do that when discussing, say, WIIU, or De Leon himself and certain "syndicalist" trends within certain socialist parties from the turn of the century, but not when we're talking about syndcialists in the form of early CGT, IWW, ISEL group, etc. And that is what we're talking about.

In short, we're discussing "pure" syndicalisme révolutionnaire and "industrial unionism" (CGT-F, IWW, Amiens Charter, CNT-Vignoles, CGT-E, CSR-F, etc.).

We're not discussing socialist syndicalism (De Leon, SLP, WIIU, etc.) or council-communist "unionen" (AAUD or AAUD-E).

We're not discussing anarcho-syndicalism or "worker-anarchism" (CNT, FORA, USI, Maximoff, Besgnard, AIT, etc.).

[Die Neue Zeit]

The wording on syndicalists and parties in my post above was a mistake. I meant to say:


Alas (bad news for syndicalists), this can only come in the form of a mass revolutionary political party

[Lamanov]

Ah, well now, that's a different pair of shoes.

Of course, that's just an assumption already proven wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How so? Workers have taken power as a class only by means of political parties and coalitions of such - "distinct from and opposed to all parties of the propertied classes" (Marx) - from the Paris Commune to the coalition between the Bolsheviks and Left SRs with passive support from the Menshevik-Internationalists.

[x359594]

Returning to the question of what differentiates the IWW from an ordinary trade union, the IWW is explicitly anti-capitalist. Trade unions only seek to improve conditions under capitalism.

While working for higher wages, job safety and job security the IWW also works to educate workers in self-management in preparation for the eventual seizure of the means of production from the owners. This goal is not part of the trade union movement.

The IWW organizes by industry rather than trade. For example, in a hospital, besides nurses, doctors, technicians, interns, etc., there are laundry workers, cooks, electricians, and many other hands, all of whom are in the same industry, and therefore in the same industrial union of Health Service Workers (I.U. 610).

In an IWW shop the delegates are elected by their fellow workers and are recallable at any time.

There is no union bureaucracy, no differential salaries for officers, no top down decision-making.

The IWW does not describe itself as syndicalist, anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist. It is non-political in the sense that it does donate to political campaigns or make endorsements. Individual members are free to belong to whatever political party they chose or no party at all. Some Wobblies I know belong to the Party of Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Party USA, even the Green Party. Other describe themselves as anarchist and may belong to an anarchist affinity group.

Presently the IWW has organized bike messengers in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. It has some Starbucks shops organized in Illinois, Ohio, California and New York and is involved in on-going campaigns in box shipping industry and building maintenance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's funny. Back in the day, the word "trade" was used to describe "industrial." What you refer to as "trade" is actually craft unionism.

[MilitantWorker]

All I am saying is that the IWW is on the right "track" in terms of their ideology but in reality its like 3000 people, a lot of whom are not organized workers or shops but individual revolutionaries who believe in this method. Should the IWW ever become a mass organization like it was in the early 20th century (100,000 people at one time) than we will be having a much different conversation..but at this point its not a proletarian organization really.

Besides, the IWW is blatantly anti-capitalist...they use language like employers...employees, explointing and exploited classes....its not counter revolutionary by any stretch. The thing is, most of their struggles and demands are "economist", and they are no longer militant, or as militant as they once were. If you guys started a bunch of revolutionary schools...let me know...I have teaching experience.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since Intifada too raised the problem of the IWW's narrow economism (to say nothing about broad economism), I wonder if Lamanov might be interested in folding the discussion in the other Learning thread into this one.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Don't left-communists argue that the IWW at least at one point in time, was an important part of organising the proletariat?

I'm not sure about that. I suppose it comes down to what we mean by 'organising the proletariat'. With regard to unions in time past:


In the nineteenth century, the period of capitalism’s greatest prosperity, the working class - often through bitter and bloody struggles - built up permanent trade organisations whose role was to defend its economic interests: the trade unions. These organs played an essential role in the struggle for reforms and for the substantial improvements in the workers’ living conditions which the system could then afford. They also constituted a focus for the regroupment of the class, for the development of its solidarity and consciousness, so that revolutionaries could intervene within them and help make them serve as ‘schools for communism’. Although the existence of these organs was indissolubly linked to the existence of wage labour, and although even in this period they were often substantially bureaucratised, the unions were nevertheless authentic organs of the class to the extent that the abolition of wage labour was not yet on the historical agenda.


Unions arose as negotiators of the terms of sale of workers’ labour power. Trades unions are organs of mediation between labour and capital. They are not, and have never been, useful instruments for the overthrow of capitalism.

With regard to the IWW in particular you might want to see:


The IWW: The failure of revolutionary syndicalism in the USA (Pt 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/124_iww) and 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/125-iww)) - ICC
1905-2005: A Century of the IWW (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2007-11-20/1905-2005-a-century-of-the-iww) - IBRP


Unions aren't the revolution; but while a large section of the most class-conscious workers are in them, then they're a useful place to work in.

Yes, we can agree, unions are not revolutionary. With regard to the possibility of 'working within unions', maybe what this 'work' involves needs to be clarified. Either way think this is a tactical matter and not a principle as such.