Is there an equivalent to the CNT in the US?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Are there any large anarchist trade unions? What are some anarchist groups active in the US?

[Bright Banana Beard]

IWW, Crimethin or RAANismo

[ComradeOm]

IWW, Crimethin or RAANismoAnd that says all you need know about the current state of anarchism in the US...

To the OP, the IWW, which is not technically anarchist, is one of the last big radical syndicalist unions still alive today. Its barely so however and probably can't be considered an active union. I've heard the same about the CNT but haven't seen any membership figures for the latter

[Pogue]

The IWW is alive and active in the USA. To say that the IWW is barely alive would lead to serious questions of how alive any other left group in the US is.

I believe the membership of the IWW in the USA is rapdily growing too.

[ComradeOm]

The IWW is alive and active in the USA. To say that the IWW is barely alive would lead to serious questions of how alive any other left group in the US isThe IWW is supposed to be more than just another "left group" but a fully functioning union. I'd wager that the large majority of the IWW's card carrying members are academics or 'activists' with absolutely no connection to union work

[Pogue]

The IWW is supposed to be more than just another "left group" but a fully functioning union. I'd wager that the large majority of the IWW's card carrying members are academics or 'activists' with absolutely no connection to union work

Can you back up that ignorant assertion?

[ComradeOm]

Can you back up that ignorant assertion?If I had access to concrete figures I would not have said "I'd wager", would I?

But while there is a surprising (for a union) absence of such figures with regards the IWW, I'm always ready to admit when I might be wrong. So perhaps you can help correct the rumours I've heard from US comrades*. For example, what is the actual membership of the IWW? How many are in good standing? How many are actually working in a unionised workplace? And on what basis do you assert that this membership is growing?

In short, I'm look for signs that the IWW is a fully functioning and viable union. Any left tendency can subsist with a few hundred members but a union needs size, it needs clout, and it needs the ability to protect its members. So no, it is not the same as any other "left group" and if the IWW ever collapses (as I suspect it may well have done) to the point where it is just another political group on the left then it has lost something great, something important

Which is why I'm disturbed that the only campaign of note that I've heard, through both the media and comrades, from the IWW in recent years has been the struggle with Starbucks

* I say US because I've yet to hear of a single UK or Australian IWW run workplace

[Pogue]

If I had access to concrete figures I would not have said "I'd wager", would I?

But while there is a surprising (for a union) absence of such figures with regards the IWW, I'm always ready to admit when I might be wrong. So perhaps you can help correct the rumours I've heard from US comrades*. For example, what is the actual membership of the IWW? How many are in good standing? How many are actually working in a unionised workplace? And on what basis do you assert that this membership is growing?

In short, I'm look for signs that the IWW is a fully functioning and viable union. Any left tendency can subsist with a few hundred members but a union needs size, it needs clout, and it needs the ability to protect its members. So no, it is not the same as any other "left group" and if the IWW ever collapses (as I suspect it may well have done) to the point where it is just another political group on the left then it has lost something great, something important

Which is why I'm disturbed that the only campaign of note that I've heard, through both the media and comrades, from the IWW in recent years has been the struggle with Starbucks

* I say US because I've yet to hear of a single UK or Australian IWW run workplace

I didn't say it was the same as any other left group, but its clearly is a left group.

Not being the treasurer or member administrator I don't have access to the full membership numbers and its been a few years since I've seen a census. I'v eheard our membership has risen 00% in the last year or so so any statistics I could give you would be out of date.

I don't think you should criticise organisations you know nothing about, it makes you look silly.

[ComradeOm]

Know nothing? Please, unless you can answer the questions I asked above then I suggest that you remember about stones and glass houses. Those are important questions when it comes to establishing just how active a union the IWW actually is. As I say, the impressions I've garnered, granted all second hand, are not optimistic on that count. Which is why I'm waiting for your response... you are knowledgeable enough to answer them, right?

But hey, you're a member so we'll try some easier questions first. The most obvious being, are you a worker? If so, do you work in an IWW sanctioned workplace? If you don't mind me asking, what age are you and the other IWW members you work with? How did you join - on entering the workplace, approached by an existing member, or on your own initiative? That'll do for starters


I didn't say it was the same as any other left group, but its clearly is a left group.Well that's the crux of it, isn't it. A union is fundamentally different from a simple party (and entirely removed from the likes of Crimethinc) in that it has very real responsibilities to its members. And I've always treated the IWW as a union, hence my harsh judgement in the posts above. However I'm beginning to think that, in the UK at least, I might have been mistaken in this assumption. I don't want to jump to conclusions here, hence my questions to you, but its beginning to sound like the UK branch is indeed more of a local pressure group (which there's nothing wrong with per se) than a proper and functional union

[x359594]

...the IWW, which is not technically anarchist, is one of the last big radical syndicalist unions still alive today. Its barely so however and probably can't be considered an active union. I've heard the same about the CNT but haven't seen any membership figures for the latter

As a matter of fact the IWW is actively organizing Starbucks baristas and has several shops organized; bicycle messengers in Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles are organized in IWW locals, and the IWW has organized a few re-cycling centers and supported other organizing struggles such as the USW's CLEAN Car Wash campaign in Los Angeles. For more see http://www.iww.org/ .

As to the CNT, current membership numbers about 110,000, making it smaller than the CGT. For current information see http://www.cnt.es/ (Spanish only.)

There is also the CNT-F (Confédération nationale du travail) in France with a membership of about 30,000, also affiliated with AIT as is the Spanish CNT. For more information see http://www.cnt-ait.info/ (mostly French, some English.)

[Pogue]

Know nothing? Please, unless you can answer the questions I asked above then I suggest that you remember about stones and glass houses. Those are important questions when it comes to establishing just how active a union the IWW actually is. As I say, the impressions I've garnered, granted all second hand, are not optimistic on that count. Which is why I'm waiting for your response... you are knowledgeable enough to answer them, right?


What a disgustingly arogant attitude you have.


But hey, you're a member so we'll try some easier questions first. The most obvious being, are you a worker? If so, do you work in an IWW sanctioned workplace? If you don't mind me asking, what age are you and the other IWW members you work with? How did you join - on entering the workplace, approached by an existing member, or on your own initiative? That'll do for starters

For about half the time I've been in the IWW I've been a worker. I lost my job, as did many other people where I worked, around December of last year because the company we all worked for wanted to make more profit in the recession, and I hadn't managed to spread ideas enough and perhaps organise against the cuts before I was sacked.

It wasn't an IWW organised workplace of thats what you mean, but I was the only Wob there so it doesn't matter.

I'm 17, I joined when I was 16, and the people in my organisation vary from ages 17 to around 60 something. I'm not rude enough to ask but I'd wager the oldest member is in their sixties. I joined when I was looking into unions when I was younger and considering work, and also when I was quering good revolutionary tactics and organisations for working class people such as myself when I was less ideologically coherent. Are you sure that'll do for starters? I could tell you when the last time I had shit was too if you want.


Well that's the crux of it, isn't it. A union is fundamentally different from a simple party (and entirely removed from the likes of Crimethinc) in that it has very real responsibilities to its members. And I've always treated the IWW as a union, hence my harsh judgement in the posts above. However I'm beginning to think that, in the UK at least, I might have been mistaken in this assumption. I don't want to jump to conclusions here, hence my questions to you, but its beginning to sound like the UK branch is indeed more of a local pressure group (which there's nothing wrong with per se) than a proper and functional union

The crux of what? Like most left organisations, as I said, we're small. Considering we've had a revival only in the past few years I think the whole critique of our lack of organised shops is weak. London has only been going for a few years and we've gone from 5 members in the city to around 100 recently. I don't think this is anywhere near shameful, its quite impressive giving we started so small. All unions and organisations start small.

No one in London denies at the moment we function alot like a solidarity network for militants. I don't see how that is a critique of our politics, it just shows what we can do in our present state. The point is we're addressing this and putting into alot of effort to changing it and growing in size to match our comrades in the CNT and beyond.

[ComradeOm]

What a disgustingly arogant attitude you haveAnd again you refuse to answer my questions. Here's a blunter one then - do you have any idea as to the membership numbers or composition of the IWW?


No one in London denies at the moment we function alot like a solidarity network for militantsThat's what I thought and that's what motivated my personal questions above which, believe it or not, were perfectly transparent. I wanted to get a gauge of the IWW and its membership in the UK and confirm my prior impressions. Namely the fact that the IWW is a union in name only outside a few corners of the US

Now I bear the IWW absolutely no ill will and I wish youse all the best. What I was interested in however is whether the IWW today (interesting as to how you treat it as if its just a few years old) is a union or just another "solidarity network for militants". Not that the latter aren't nice and all but there's a fundamental difference between themselves and unions. I guess I just hold the latter to a higher standard


As a matter of fact the IWW is actively organizing Starbucks baristas and has several shops organized; bicycle messengers in Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles are organized in IWW locals, and the IWW has organized a few re-cycling centers and supported other organizing struggles such as the USW's CLEAN Car Wash campaign in Los AngelesI had heard of the Starbucks campaigns and its certainly something worth applauding... if only because its actual union work. What worries me is that this is the only major union action conducted by the IWW that's made the news of late. The rest of it seems to be... well the activities you mention above. All very worthwhile I'm sure but not what I would expect a union to be concerning itself with

Again we come back to this distinction that I've made in above posts - the difference between actual syndicalism (measured in union-run workplaces, and simple membership numbers) and general left activism. Again I have to stress that I'm not knocking the latter but its not union work and its not syndicalism in action


As to the CNT, current membership numbers about 110,000, making it smaller than the CGTReally? Excellent. I'd heard it was much lower but that figure represents a fantastic achievement when set against decades of repression. That's a proper union size

[Pogue]

And again you refuse to answer my questions. Here's a blunter one then - do you have any idea as to the membership numbers or composition of the IWW?


I did in fact answer them. But this is a new question. Membership? I couldn't answer honestly because we've grown alot recently. I believe its somewhere between 2000 and 5000. Our main focus is in the healthcare and education industries where we have alot of members.


That's what I thought and that's what motivated my personal questions above which, believe it or not, were perfectly transparent. I wanted to get a gauge of the IWW and its membership in the UK and confirm my prior impressions. Namely the fact that the IWW is a union in name only outside a few corners of the US

Now I bear the IWW absolutely no ill will and I wish youse all the best. What I was interested in however is whether the IWW today (interesting as to how you treat it as if its just a few years old) is a union or just another "solidarity network for militants". Not that the latter aren't nice and all but there's a fundamental difference between themselves and unions. I guess I just hold the latter to a higher standard

I think this here demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. In London we admit we have to move away from being just a solidarity froup of class struggle activists and more into becoming a union. Thats our main goal at the moment and we have alot of stuff going on to do this.

If I treat the London section like its a few years old thats because it effectively is. There was no activity at all until about 2006, where a few people decided to try and get it off the ground again. Now we're in the position now when we're beginning to organise again and recruit quite quickly.


I had heard of the Starbucks campaigns and its certainly something worth applauding... if only because its actual union work. What worries me is that this is the only major union action conducted by the IWW that's made the news of late. The rest of it seems to be... well the activities you mention above. All very worthwhile I'm sure but not what I would expect a union to be concerning itself with

Again we come back to this distinction that I've made in above posts - the difference between actual syndicalism (measured in union-run workplaces, and simple membership numbers) and general left activism. Again I have to stress that I'm not knocking the latter but its not union work and its not syndicalism in action

You seem to prove yourself wrong here. I don't know of any 'activist groups' who can organise Starbuck's workers.

Oncemore, we're small, we've jsut been rejuvenated, and organising is hard work. If you tried it you'd find that out. Theres all manner of shit you have to contend with and we're just getting things off the ground. No one is denying we're small. No one is denying we're hardly a major union at the moment. The point is, we're moving and growing to this. We're a union, yes, but we're a small one, hence why we spend mos tof our time doing solidarity work which serves a dual purpose of encouraging recruitment as well as the practical benefits of actually helping other struggles like at Visteon.


Really? Excellent. I'd heard it was much lower but that figure represents a fantastic achievement when set against decades of repression. That's a proper union size

The CNT shows its possible and is what we're pushing towards, and obviously we want to excel this too. As I said, the Wobs are in the early stages, the CNT are more established.

[ComradeOm]

I did in fact answer them. But this is a new question. Membership? I couldn't answer honestly because we've grown alot recently. I believe its somewhere between 2000 and 5000. Our main focus is in the healthcare and education industries where we have alot of membersProgress at last. Hallelujah. I'll take your figures with a pinch of salt, of course, but its great to finally see some solid numbers

Out of curiosity, how many of these would you say are active in the UK?


I think this here demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. In London we admit we have to move away from being just a solidarity froup of class struggle activists and more into becoming a union. Thats our main goal at the moment and we have alot of stuff going on to do thisDid I comment on where you were going? Did I comment on where you are coming from? No, I simply stated that today the IWW in the UK cannot be considered a functional union. Now that is not going to change until, and I hope this happens sooner than later, you become an established union in the workplace


You seem to prove yourself wrong here. I don't know of any 'activist groups' who can organise Starbuck's workersAre you reading my posts at all? I first mentioned Starbucks a number of posts ago and in both cases have made clear that I approve. That is proper union work. When the IWW UK starts to do the same then I'll start labelling them a union instead of yet another "solidarity network for militants"

Now my concern about the IWW in the US is that events such as the Starbucks campaigns seem to be far and few between. These are the sort of actions that demonstrate that a union is still active and still protecting its members' interests and obviously I'd like to see as many as possible


Oncemore, we're small, we've jsut been rejuvenated, and organising is hard work. If you tried it you'd find that out. Theres all manner of shit you have to contend with and we're just getting things off the ground. No one is denying we're small. No one is denying we're hardly a major union at the moment. The point is, we're moving and growing to this. We're a union, yes, but we're a small one, hence why we spend mos tof our time doing solidarity work which serves a dual purpose of encouraging recruitment as well as the practical benefits of actually helping other struggles like at VisteonAnd I wish you all the best. I look forward to the day when the IWW is running workplaces again and providing a real alternative to the more reformist unions. Its not particularly relevant to the point at hand, ie the IWW today, but still something I'd like to see


The CNT shows its possible and is what we're pushing towards, and obviously we want to excel this too. As I said, the Wobs are in the early stages, the CNT are more established.There is a definite irony there

[#FF0000]

IWW, Crimethin or RAANismo

Yes. No. and No.

Also, there's really no reason to get so defensive in this thread.

[Pogue]

Progress at last. Hallelujah. I'll take your figures with a pinch of salt, of course, but its great to finally see some solid numbers

Out of curiosity, how many of these would you say are active in the UK?



I really don't see where this is going, honestly, what point are you trying to prove that anyone is contesting?


Did I comment on where you were going? Did I comment on where you are coming from? No, I simply stated that today the IWW in the UK cannot be considered a functional union. Now that is not going to change until, and I hope this happens sooner than later, you become an established union in the workplace

Oh, so your not really making much of a point at all are you? Thats all fine and dandy then.


Are you reading my posts at all? I first mentioned Starbucks a number of posts ago and in both cases have made clear that I approve. That is proper union work. When the IWW UK starts to do the same then I'll start labelling them a union instead of yet another "solidarity network for militants"

Now my concern about the IWW in the US is that events such as the Starbucks campaigns seem to be far and few between. These are the sort of actions that demonstrate that a union is still active and still protecting its members' interests and obviously I'd like to see as many as possible


Cheers papa, its nice to know your looking out for us.


And I wish you all the best. I look forward to the day when the IWW is running workplaces again and providing a real alternative to the more reformist unions. Its not particularly relevant to the point at hand, ie the IWW today, but still something I'd like to see

Aww, aren't you sweet?


There is a definite irony there

There isn't, really. The CNT began their revival much earlier than us.

[ComradeOm]

I really don't see where this is going, honestly, what point are you trying to prove that anyone is contesting?I reiterate: how many of these members would you say are active in the UK?

And before you start going off again, consider the fact that I might actually give a damn about the state of the IWW in the UK and have a genuine interest in revolutionary syndicalism

Or just resort to petty put downs, whatever you can handle. Getting information from you is like getting blood from a stone


Oh, so your not really making much of a point at all are you? Thats all fine and dandy thenThe point has been made several times. The IWW UK is not a functional union. I hope to hell that this is the last time I will have to say that

As to the point of the overall thread... well it went something like moi casting doubts as to whether the IWW was a proper union (ie, able to defend the interests of its members); then you jumped in and accused me of ignorance despite not displaying much knowledge yourself; we've established that the IWW UK is definitely not a functional union (damn, there we go again) but is rather a "solidarity network for militants"; inconclusive so far regarding the IWW US (I hope that x359594 will be able to answer that one); and for some reason you feel the need to rabidly defend the current state of IWW UK

I think that's about it so far. Up to a few posts ago anyway - your last post added absolutely nothing to the discussion. So we've actually covered a far amount of ground... well, without addressing the OP's original question but certainly I'm happy to have my own impressions of the IWW international branches (UK at least) confirmed

[Pogue]

I reiterate: how many of these members would you say are active in the UK?

And before you start going off again, consider the fact that I might actually give a damn about the state of the IWW in the UK and have a genuine interest in revolutionary syndicalism

Or just resort to petty put downs, whatever you can handle. Getting information from you is like getting blood from a stone


Oh, you're just interested then? Forgive me, your posting style had me convinced you were being a rude prick. My mistake.

I'll reiterate - I don't know. I don't have access to that and most of my political work never leaves London. You could try asking Forward Union, or I could go find out next meeting. A few hundred, I believe.


The point has been made several times. The IWW UK is not a functional union. I hope to hell that this is the last time I will have to say that

As to the point of the overall thread... well it went something like moi casting doubts as to whether the IWW was a proper union (ie, able to defend the interests of its members); then you jumped in and accused me of ignorance despite not displaying much knowledge yourself; we've established that the IWW UK is definitely not a functional union (damn, there we go again) but is rather a "solidarity network for militants"; inconclusive so far regarding the IWW US (I hope that x359594 will be able to answer that one); and for some reason you feel the need to rabidly defend the current state of IWW UK

I think that's about it so far. Up to a few posts ago anyway - your last post added absolutely nothing to the discussion. So we've actually covered a far amount of ground... well, without addressing the OP's original question but certainly I'm happy to have my own impressions of the IWW international branches (UK at least) confirmed

Long story short, idiot enters argument with arogant assumptions, idiot leaves argument with arogant assumptions. Why? Because he's an idiot. That idiot is you, ComradeOm.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is the reborn WIIU in the US which, unlike the IWW, is committed to political action.




Note: I had meant to post this earlier, but other things distracted me from it. This is from the June 1 issue of Working People’s Advocate. -- HJM

The Character and Structure of
Revolutionary Industrial Unionism

At the core of the Workers Party in America’s general strategy, as outlined in “Our Road to Liberation,” is revolutionary industrial unionism. Martin Sayles describes what this strategy means to the Party and the workers’ movement.

THE WORKERS PARTY in America adopted revolutionary industrial unionism as part of an overall strategy designed to give us a clear outline of how to help organize and build the workers’ movement into one that can not only challenge capitalist rule, but defeat it and establish a working people’s republic.

As members of the Party have learned through our own bitter experiences over the years, without a clear strategy and plan, even the best political organization fails. Being vague and coy about what we want to do and, more importantly, how we want to do it only breeds mistrust among our fellow workers.

We in the Workers Party have no hidden agenda — no special path that only the select few know. Our strategy is there for all to see.

This alone sets us apart from many other self-described socialist and communist organizations. They will talk about the need for “struggle” and the “fight for socialism,” but when you ask them what that means and how they plan to achieve their goals, they fall silent.

Sometimes, the silence is due to an inability to actually answer the question. That is, they have no strategy, and they amble on, staggering from protest to protest (some of which they organize themselves), thinking that if they do enough of the right kind of mindless “activism” then they will magically achieve “socialism.”

Others, however, owe their silence to an unwillingness to answer. Their strategy is a well-guarded secret, and revealing it would rob them of that secret. They cover themselves with “mass lines” and “transitional methods;” they treat unity of revolutionary forces as a “tactic” to enhance their own sect. Real unity would be too much of a threat to their own control.

And, in all reality, revolution is the last thing they want. It would unleash too many forces that it simply could not control.

SO, what is our strategy? More specifically, what is revolutionary industrial unionism? Put simply, the revolutionary industrial union, or RIU, is the concrete development of workers’ power within the shell of capitalist society. It is the vehicle and means by which the working class will liberate itself at the points of production and distribution.

The strategy of revolutionary industrial unionism is, at once, defensive and offensive. This is because the RIU, as a workers’ organization, is both a defensive and offensive one.

A union of any kind is, by its nature, a defensive organization. It defend the basic interests, rights and livelihoods of working people on a daily basis. The RIU is no exception.

Unlike the corporatist company unions that “negotiate” away what workers have gained in the past, or the reactionary labor unions that ask for crumbs when they could demand the whole piece, the revolutionary industrial union fights for everything it can get for its fellow workers — including workers who are not involved in the RIU — at all times.

From the “bread and butter” issues to heath and safety to fighting workplace discrimination, the revolutionary industrial union makes it its business to defend all working people, regardless of whether or not they support us. It is here, through this kind of organization, that demands for meaningful reform have a home.

The RIU understands the reality contained in the classic labor slogan, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” As we’ve seen with the recent attacks on autoworkers, when one section of working people is put under the gun, all sections end up under fire. The capitalists have already begun to use the success they had imposing massive concessions on workers at the Big Three to squeeze our brothers and sisters in other industries and services in the economy.

BUT THIS IS just one half of the equation. After all, there’s nothing really revolutionary about a union or other labor organization defending what working people have gained in the past — although you really couldn’t tell that looking at the situation today.

What makes the RIU revolutionary is its ability to go on the offensive, to move from simply fighting for better wages and working conditions to challenging the power of the capitalists and their managers. It does this through allowing working people to organize and educate themselves about how to administer their workplaces and their communities.

The cornerstone principle of revolutionary industrial unionism is the achievement of workers’ control of production and distribution — of the industries and services in the economy. Because of this, the RIU is structured in such a way that any working person can take an active and leading role in the revolutionary reconstruction of the economy and society.

In this sense, the RIU serves as a school of communism. That is, it aids in the intellectual, cultural, political, economic and social development of working people so that they can responsibly and rationally lead our society into its future. Further, the RIU provides a practical structure and framework through which working people can rule in the transition from capitalist class society to communism.

AT THE HEART of the structure of revolutionary industrial unionism is the One Great Union of all workers.

This union represents the strength the workers’ movement draws from as the vehicle of revolutionary change. The RIU is the engine of that vehicle; without it, the workers’ movement cannot mobilize to take on and decisively defeat the exploiting and oppressing classes.

This is where the industrial element of revolutionary industrial unionism comes in. As opposed to the craft and professional unions, which organize by job classification and trade, we organize by industry, from top to bottom. No worker is left out of the union, except by their own choice. And even in those instances, the RIU nevertheless makes all efforts to build bonds of solidarity and unity with them.

William Trautmann, one of the leaders of the original Workers’ International Industrial Union, best described the role of the union in revolutionary industrial unionism: “[For] a labor organization to correctly represent the working class must have two things in view: first, it must combine wage workers in such a way that it can most successfully fight the battles and protect the interests of the working people in their struggle for fewer hours, more wages and better conditions; second, it must offer a final solution of the labor problem — an emancipation from strikes, injunctions, bull-pens and scabbing of one against the other.”

By bringing all workers together into One Great Union, the ability of the capitalists and their managers to “whipsaw” — to pit one group of workers against another in a race to the bottom — is non-existent. Strikes and other types of labor actions would no longer be isolated; the One Great Union would see to it that picket lines — even informational ones! — are honored by all workers. And attempts to use the bosses’ courts to shut down workers’ action would be meaningless and unenforceable.

The exploiters would no longer be able to point out the window to an army of unemployed workers and say to a worker demanding better, “If you ask for more, I’ll just fire you and hire one of them.” This is because unemployed workers are our brothers and sisters, too, and are welcome in the One Great Union.

OUT OF THE Units and Locals of the RIU comes the workplace committee. If the One Great Union itself is the heart of revolutionary industrial unionism, then the workplace committee is its soul.

In “Our Road to Liberation,” we describe the workplace committee as “the school for workers’ control of production.... It is the workplace committee, as a part of the revolutionary industrial union, that oversees the development of self-management and self-organization at the point of production — that assists in the training and development of workers to coordinate production, work with other industries to maintain a steady supply chain, and move the product of workers’ collective labor from the factory to the store.”

It is through the workplace committee that working people get their first experience of leading a new society. It is here that democracy begins its great and final transition from a form of governance and rule to a daily practice — from an ideology imposed from the outside to an innate part of our culture and thinking.

As you see in the graphical representation of the structure of revolutionary industrial unionism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=7350&d=1243202578), the workplace committee is elected by workers meeting in each organized unit of a workplace. Because the One Great Union includes all workers, including temporary and contract employees (provided they are workers), and seeks to include, at the very least, the voice of all workers at a facility, all working people find their interests in those elected to serve as a part of a workplace committee.

In the period before the defeat of capitalism, the role of the workplace committee is primarily educational. Its role is to prepare workers for the day when they take control of production and distribution. In the transition from capitalism to the classless communist society, the workplace committee functions as the focal point for the reorganization and reconstruction of production and distribution.

FROM THE FIRST day of the workers’ republic, the workplace committee’s chief task to improve and develop their facility’s capability to provide whatever goods and services they create or handle within the framework of the emerging economic system.

The workplace committee coordinates with every factory, plant, shop and facility in its supply chain to make sure that all the materials needed to insure that production continues arrive on time and in good order. The workplace committee also makes sure that all necessary accounting and bookkeeping is done in a timely and efficient manner. They would also be responsible for coordinating with workplace units on the election of any ad hoc management or supervision that might be needed.

Since each plant and facility is part of a larger economy, coordination is needed all along the line. Workplace committees would be responsible for electing delegates to meet in regional conventions and industry-wide congresses. These conventions and congresses would further the advance of the reconstruction of the economy in line with the new mode of production. They would make sure that the supply chain of parts and raw materials did not break down at any given point. In situations where the supply chain continues in places where capitalism continues to rule, the congresses, in conjunction with elected delegates from the workers’ republic, would engage in negotiations to secure continued delivery and production of the materials they provide.

The industry-wide congresses would also coordinate among themselves — for example, delegates of the Congress of the Auto Industry with delegates of the Congress of Transportation, to work on an agreement for the movement and delivery of materials, parts and finished products — as well as meet in an economy-wide congress that includes all industries and services. The economy-wide congress, which would include delegates from workplace committees across the country (or a trans-national economic zone, such as the Eurozone), would be responsible for bringing together all of the ideas and strength of the economy and coordinating it to provide for all of society.

The achievement of the communist mode of production in the economic arena requires two criteria be met during the transition away from capitalism: 1) that the production of goods and providing of services be reorganized for the needs of human society, not the acquiring of profit, and 2) that the forces of production and service be developed to a level where the elimination of material scarcity, which is the economic basis for classes, is sustainable.

The coordination and planning carried out by these regional, industry-wide and economy-wide gatherings would have as their overarching aim the meeting of these two criteria.

ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION is itself only part of the mission of revolutionary industrial unionism. The RIU also has a central role in the political reconstruction of society after the defeat of capitalist rule.

In “Our Road to Liberation,” we advocate “the organization of our class into alternative political structures, known as workers’ councils and assemblies, that can wrest control from the ruling capitalist class, its government and state by taking over and/or creating a new basis for providing the essential services needed in a modern society and currently administered by the exploiting and oppressing classes. From sanitation collection to community peacekeeping and protection, we advocate the organizing of structures necessary to give birth to a new society within the shell of the old. For those structures that cannot be efficiently duplicated, we advocate their reorganization under workers’ control and integration into the new system.”

What is the movement that will organize and build these workers’ councils and assemblies? What are these structures that will wrest control of society from the capitalists and that will “give birth to the new society within the shell of the old?” The Workers Party in America’s answer is revolutionary industrial unionism.

Those same Units and Locals of the One Great Union that elect their fellow workers to be a part of the workplace committees to coordinate and control the economy will choose which of their brothers and sisters they want to serve in the workers’ councils to coordinate and control the new state and government.

The workers’ councils themselves would also elect representatives to regional (or statewide) and national congresses of working people — and, when it becomes possible, a world congress of working people’s republics.

Unlike the structure of a capitalist government, which is based on territorial districts dominated by the exploiting and oppressing classes, and their agents, the structure of the working people’s republic is based in the workplace, which shifts the balance of power away from the capitalists and to the working class.

With the revolutionary industrial union as their foundation, the workers’ councils can quickly and decisively sweep away the old, rotting hulk of the capitalist system. Such a revolutionary seizure of political and economic power could very well be accomplished relatively peacefully, before the forces of the old, dispossessed capitalist state are able to gather their strength for a counteroffensive.

This is because, as the workers’ councils are organized and develop, they can begin to take over the administration of services that most people look to the capitalist government to provide.

Throughout history, ruling classes on the verge of revolutionary overthrow suffer systemic breakdowns that undermine their own ability to reassert control. Often times, one of the key failures of a revolutionary movement in this period is its unwillingness or inability to become an alternative source for essential services. That hesitation reduces the battle for control of society to a contest of brute force — a contest that the sitting class in power often wins.

However, when a revolutionary movement provides that alternative source, they begin to starve the ruling class, its government and state, of key resources — not simply money (through tax withholding) or human resources (through strikes and other labor actions), but also the culture of reliance that the institutions of class rule rely on to maintain their power.

Once the exploiting and oppressing classes find themselves starved of these resources, and workers have pushed the capitalist system to the brink of collapse, it will then be the task of the revolutionary political movement of the working class to carry through its mission in the class struggle: the final defeat and downfall of the capitalist state, the overthrow of the exploiting and oppressing classes, and the establishment of the working people’s republic.

HOW THIS FINAL overthrow of capitalism and capitalist rule comes about, in many respects, is not up to us. What we as a revolutionary workers’ movement — as the revolutionary industrial union and as the political party of the working class — do will be based on how far the exploiting and oppressing classes, and their armed agents, are willing to go to maintain their grip on power.

We in the Workers Party desire that the overthrow of capitalist rule be as peaceful as possible — that we settle the matter like civilized and responsible people should. However, we know that, when it comes to their hold on power, the exploiting and oppressing classes are anything but peaceful, civilized or responsible. Thus, while we can hope and work for the best, it would be insane to not prepare for the worst.

The capitalists tell us that their electoral system is the way to change things. At the same time, though, they and their managers have set up numerous obstacles designed to keep parties they do not approve from contesting them on equal ground. Restrictive ballot-access laws and “pay-to-play” campaigning keep all but the wealthiest and most connected of politicians from attaining political office. To put it another way, the capitalists make sure that only those they agree with and support sit on their “executive committee,” as Marx called it.

Nevertheless, this is how many workers see significant political change coming about. The high abstention rates we see in elections are due more to a general sense among working people that there is no candidate representing their interests that has a chance of winning than any rejection of participating in capitalist elections as both historically and practically obsolete.

Because of this, the Workers Party sees participation in elections as a viable and necessary tactic within the overall strategy of revolutionary industrial unionism, and our Party will either field its own slate or support independent working-class candidates that stand for the same goal: the organization of the working class along the lines of revolutionary industrial unionism, in order to prepare for the overthrow of capitalist rule and the establishment of a working people’s republic, and direct workers’ control of all industries and services.

But our use of the ballot box is not self-limiting. While it represents an effective and comprehensive platform from which we can agitate for a workers’ republic, allows us to challenge in action the perception of capitalist elections as “democratic” and “civilized,” and gives us the opportunity to gauge the strength and potential of our work build RIU organizations thus far, it is not the means by which capitalism and capitalist rule will be swept from power.

WINNING A capitalist election, however, does not automatically trans-late into taking control of the capitalist state. The armed agents of capitalism’s “law and order” are only loyal to the political government insofar as that government is controlled by the exploiting and oppressing classes. Once that arrangement is upset, the state becomes the guardian of class rule against the government. History is abound with examples of this; from Russia in 1917 to Spain in 1936 to Chile in 1973, it has been the armed agents of capitalist rule that have risen up against revolutionary, democratic and socially-progressive governments. There is little doubt that, if the Workers Party was to win a general election, the forces of the capitalist state would immediately move to stop such a transfer of power.

In such a scenario, where armed agents of capitalism stage a coup d’état to stop us from coming to power peacefully, the revolutionary industrial union would enforce the will of working people by immediately seizing and taking control of all means of production and distribution, including all essential services, and constituting the working people’s republic. At that point, with the new republic in place and the transition from capitalism to communism begun, dealing with the state — dissolving its powers and breaking up its organizations — becomes a matter of elementary self-defense.

Self-defense, including armed self-defense, is a necessary component of revolutionary industrial unionism, not because we like the idea of having to resort to such methods, but because we know the capitalists will use force and violence to suppress the working class.

The organization of self-defense and security will be a necessary part of building the RIU. Whether it is for the purposes of defending a picket line, protecting a meeting or rally, or guarding workers’ organizations from scabs, company-hired thugs and even fascists, it will be necessary — and is just plain smart — to use whatever means necessary to defend ourselves.

Even the revolution itself is an act of self-defense. Putting aside the fact that, as long as capitalism exists, working people are under attack and revolution is the only way to stop that attack, if we as working people are denied our right to assume power by reactionary elements using extralegal and anti-democratic means, then the only way we can defend ourselves and our right to democratically decide who runs society, and how, is through staging a revolution.

TO SOME READERS, the strategy of our Party will sound familiar. And we will undoubtedly be asked: Isn’t “revolutionary industrial unionism” really just the theory of “socialist industrial unionism” advocated by the DeLeonist Socialist Labor Party?

Yes and no. Daniel DeLeon’s theory of socialist industrial unionism is the basis of our strategy, and the work he and the SLP did at the beginning of the last century is much of the inspiration for what our Party wishes to accomplish. Indeed, we in the Workers Party recognize that DeLeon was the only person to contribute something fundamentally new to communist theory in the generation that came after the death of Karl Marx. Unlike most of those commonly recognized as 20th century communist theoretical leaders — Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Guevara, etc. — DeLeon was the only one to develop a theory that was not simply an enhancement of what Marx or Engels wrote about during their lives.

It is DeLeon’s theory that most self-described socialists and communists get their own generally vague concepts about workers’ councils and workers’ control of production. It was the SLP’s work in DeLeon’s time that inspired the formation of the Industrial Workers of the World and Workers’ International Industrial Union. It was their emphasis on the importance of workers’ control of production that, at least in part, preserved this essential element of communist principle and kept it from being buried under a mountain of misperception stemming from today’s “Marxist-Leninist” organizations.

Does this make the Workers Party DeLeonist? Again, yes and no. We are DeLeonist in the sense that recognize and accept as our own his theory. We are not DeLeonist in the same sense that we are not Leninist, or even necessarily “Marxist:” we do not live and die by every word written or spoken by DeLeon, Lenin or Marx. Rather, we apply the scientific methods they used to build on their work.

It is here that revolutionary industrial unionism differs from DeLeon’s theory. With the incorporation of the workplace committee and workers’ councils into the overall structure, RIU represents, in our view, and advance from DeLeon’s specific writings on socialist industrial unionism, while also keeping with the spirit and sense of his method and concept.

“If this is true,” one might ask, “why are you not a part of the SLP?” We see the SLP as a kindred party — as an organization with many honest and dedicated proletarian socialists. But the party itself is dominated by elements drawn from the exploiting and oppressing classes, and that has had a distorting effect on its theory and practice for decades. If the working class members of the SLP were to liberate themselves from this outside domination, closer collaboration and unity between the SLP and the Workers Party would be on the agenda.

[ComradeOm]

I'll reiterate - I don't know. I don't have access to that and most of my political work never leaves London. You could try asking Forward Union, or I could go find out next meeting. A few hundred, I believeA few hundred? You don't know, do you? Of course, you don't have a clue. You don't know how many IWW members are active worldwide and you don't know how many are active in the UK; in both cases you provide complete guesses. You don't know hoe many of these members are in good standing. You don't know how many are even workers or what the general class composition is. You don't know how many workplaces are IWW shops. You don't have a clue about the IWW or its activities in the US

Yet you claim some form of expertise. You claim to know more than others. You berate and insult on the basis of supposed ignorance when you yourself are even less knowledgeable. You may be right and I may well be an idiot but not only are you also completely clueless but you are a hypocrite to boot. I'm not even going to get in to your inability to post properly

Unless you can answer the above questions we're done here. If there's anyone else still reading, I apologise for the distraction - I should have finished this off a few posts ago


Long story short, idiot enters argument with arogant assumptions, idiot leaves argument with arogant assumptions. Why? Because he's an idiot. That idiot is you, ComradeOm.You're a credit to this site HLVS. A credit to the site

[SoupIsGoodFood]

According to Wikipedia, the IWWhas about 2000 members, 900 of whom are in good standing. Is this accurate?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

There is the reborn WIIU in the US which, unlike the IWW, is committed to political action.

But thats not an anarchist group, right?

[Devrim]

As a matter of fact the IWW is actively organizing Starbucks baristas and has several shops organized; bicycle messengers in Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles are organized in IWW locals, and the IWW has organized a few re-cycling centers and supported other organizing struggles such as the USW's CLEAN Car Wash campaign in Los Angeles. For more see http://www.iww.org/ .

As to the CNT, current membership numbers about 110,000, making it smaller than the CGT. For current information see http://www.cnt.es/ (Spanish only.)

There is also the CNT-F (Confédération nationale du travail) in France with a membership of about 30,000, also affiliated with AIT as is the Spanish CNT. For more information see http://www.cnt-ait.info/ (mostly French, some English.)

The information concerning the US IWW sounds accurate. The information concerning the European unions sounds absurd.

The CNT has between 2,000 and 6,000 members. I would imagine that the lower figure is nearer to the truth.

The CNT-F has a few hundred. 200 would sound like a reasonable estimate to me.

Devrim

[Pogue]

A few hundred? You don't know, do you? Of course, you don't have a clue. You don't know how many IWW members are active worldwide and you don't know how many are active in the UK; in both cases you provide complete guesses. You don't know hoe many of these members are in good standing. You don't know how many are even workers or what the general class composition is. You don't know how many workplaces are IWW shops. You don't have a clue about the IWW or its activities in the US

Yet you claim some form of expertise. You claim to know more than others. You berate and insult on the basis of supposed ignorance when you yourself are even less knowledgeable. You may be right and I may well be an idiot but not only are you also completely clueless but you are a hypocrite to boot. I'm not even going to get in to your inability to post properly

Unless you can answer the above questions we're done here. If there's anyone else still reading, I apologise for the distraction - I should have finished this off a few posts ago

We weren't ever debating how many members we have. I was at no point denying we're a small organisation. We were debating the role of our organisation. It was you who decided to go off on an tangent about the size of our organisation in an act which can only be describied as childish sniping, i.e. 'Your organisation is small thus insignificant'. And now your the one who is getting wound up about it.

Naturally I do have expertise on this subject because I'm an active IWW member. But that doesn't mean I'm the one with access to our membership statistics. We haven't taken a census internationally for a few years, as I told you, so I couldn't give you anything other than an educated guess, but I did say I would find out for you. Its you whose suddenly got into a bit of a strop over this, whats the problem? Did you get kicked out of the Wobs or something? It wouldn't suprise me, you seem to be a very angry and rude person. I suggest you chill out, maybe do a bit of real life activism.


You're a credit to this site HLVS. A credit to the site

Seeing as I'm in the CC and your not, I have a reputation bar over two times bigger than yours and I'm a much more regular contributor to the boards, and have met and got along with a large amount of members in real life, I'd say I am much more of a 'credit to this site' than an angry little keyboardist who enjoys wallowing in his own insignificance.

[Pogue]

The information concerning the US IWW sounds accurate. The information concerning the European unions sounds absurd.

The CNT has between 2,000 and 6,000 members. I would imagine that the lower figure is nearer to the truth.

The CNT-F has a few hundred. 200 would sound like a reasonable estimate to me.

Devrim


What's your source for this? It seems its jsut speculation as you previously admitted you haven't seen any CNT figures because they don't publish them.

[Pogue]

According to Wikipedia, the IWWhas about 2000 members, 900 of whom are in good standing. Is this accurate?

No, that statistic is from a few years ago, I believe it has grown by at least 200% since then.

[Invariance]

I doubt the IWW has more than two dozen members in Australia. I'm questionable of even a dozen which are even active. I know of no IWW run shop in the country. I've never met a worker in the IWW. Reading their blog, they seem more of a (small, inactive) political party, not a union. And their politics are about the same as the resident Trotskyist/social-democrat groups.

[Devrim]

What's your source for this? It seems its jsut speculation as you previously admitted you haven't seen any CNT figures because they don't publish them.

I spoke to the international sec of the AIT in Poland a couple of years ago. When I mentioned the figures 4,000 to 6,000, he didn't contradict me, although he did contradict other things that I said about the CNT. Since then other things I have heard have led me to believe that the estimate was too high. The numbers I gave were very rough, but certainly more accurate that the absurd claim of 110,000 made earlier.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No, that statistic is from a few years ago, I believe it has grown by at least 200% since then.

I would imagine that the previous figure is nearer to the truth.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

Unless you can answer the above questions we're done here. If there's anyone else still reading, I apologise for the distraction - I should have finished this off a few posts ago


Yeah, your patience is impressive. It seems to be too challenging for some to debate without throwing insults and tantrums.