Forward Union
21st December 2009, 10:47
This is not my article but one I would like you to discuss...
What does success look like?
It is commonplace on the left to describe victory, how ultimate victory will be achieved, to fall out with one another about the finer details of the end stage of revolutionary organisation.
There seems on the left to be a fascination with what is 'radical'. 'Radical' is seen as being closer to revolutionary. Radix is the Latin for root. The meaning being something that differs at the root. The term radical emerged in the reign of the unfortunate King Charles, who got his head chopped off. In the 18th century it came to mean someone who wanted wide-ranging change to the constitution or political character of the nation. These days the way the word is used appears to distort the political opinions and strategy of 'radicals' when they look at our organisation as workers. This distortion leads to a confused interpretation of what power is, and therefore what power our class wields is. Considered in political, economic, civil/communitarian and military terms, often what is truly radical (offering the prospect of root and branch societal change), and what is powerful, is the least likely to be identified as such by the left.
http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/georgia-russian-tanks-south-ossetia.jpg
<-- Power: Russian tanks smash Georgian aggression, and counter by invading Georgia. Imperialist states are heavily organised polities, extremely conscious of their own power, with a plan for seizing more.
Revolution is a process. In Australian Labourist parlance there is the analogy of the light on the hill. It is shining as a beacon for the working class to slowly climb the hill towards it, to attain greater economic and political power. Incremements towards Socialism (or Labourism). While the sentiment is probably mostly associated with possibilist currents of thought, the analogy is far more sensible than anything ever stated by impossibilist spontaneist currents.
Let's take a workplace. Unorganised. With no union presence. Now we can all imagine what it would be like to build a union in this workplace. There would be organising around grievances. A wee team would be built up. With luck, support and back-up, and a bit of planning and strategy, a union might be built in this workplace. But as we can all agree the likelihood that this workplace will go from being unorganised, to exerting job control, and forming a workers council is next to nil - even tho the theoretical possibility is always there, in all workplaces, so long as there is a division between labour and capital. Confidence, power, collective control, solidaritaristic feelings, and ambition are built up a piece at a time. Step by step. Experientially. Ideology here is also less of a factor than habit. The red-est, most militant-minded comrade can still be a poor trade unionist, if their instincts are wrong, or they can't relate to their colleagues.
So there are two principles here. The first is that power is built by increments, experientially. The second is that ideology is not a motor of change, by itself.
When we look then at a collectively organised endeavour, whatever it is, we cannot judge the power of that collectivity by the statements it makes, or by how apparently radical some its members are. Some of the worst trade union branches, community organisations, and most poorly organised endeavours have very radical spokespeople.
Understanding revolution as a process means that we have to appreciate that gains are built upon previous gains. The eight hour day would not have been possible if our unions had not articulated demands for improved conditions, pay, safety and hours in the past. The first wage workers under capitalism were indentured, and enjoyed conditions little better than serfs. Equally we will not see the development of a revolutionary and insurrectionary working class until a raft of successful social reforms force an escalation in the class war and prevent further reforms from being attained.
I recently heard the view that residents associations were not radical. Understood properly a residents association is a group of people who live in an area combining for their mutual self-interest. The term 'community union' is used by some comrades; it is an appropriate understanding. The claim that such community unions are not radical however is a misapprehension. If we state that Unison is a union, and that Unison does not agree, at an executive level, with campaigning hard against government policy, and is linked to the Labour Party, it does not follow that syndicalism implies support for government policy. Nor does the executive position of Unison at a national level mean there is no point in getting involved in Unison building up a local branch. Both of those positions would be rightly ridiculed. So the logic that residents associations (community unions) are not radical, because the extant organisations do not aim to topple capitalism is a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be radical.
As radicals we are interested in root and branch change. That requires power. Power is about the ability to effect change. For most local residents the change that is sought will be local primarily. Local issues, just like workplace grievances, are subjective issues. Unions may grow by organising around grievances, such as poor lighting, health and safety concerns, poor shift scheduling etc. Residents associations may want to tackle street lighting, on-street parking, dog fouling, tenant concerns, indeed almost anything that local residents are concerned about. That is what is radical about collective organisation. It creates a polity of common concern, and therefore also the prospect of building power by experientially enhancing peoples lives thru collective action. Some comrades may not deign to see that as radical, but how else can power be built? How else can we form the basis of new collective organs?
Indeed, just as a union is not a branch in a workplace, neither is a community union a single residents association. The power of organised communities stems from their ability to combine to build a federal organisation that is able to challenge the power of municipal government. It is at this level that socialist leadership and direction is most vital. Because it is at this level that we can fight for more money for communities, to oppose landlordism by councils and housing associations, and it is at this level that we can start to build an economic counter strategy for the communities and cities we live in. There is nothing more radical than starting to arrogate real power to collectively controlled working class organisation, away from capital and the state. Just as in the workplace our unions work towards job control, in our communities we work towards being a counter-power to municipal authorities, a source of moral, political, and institutional authority, and a weapon in the hands of our class, fighting for and supporting the development of tenant management co-operatives, community land trusts, condominiums, (the community parallels with job control), and important provisions such as concierge services, as well as greater control over, and say in council services. Just as we can in the here and now turn the tide against neo-liberal schemes for the destruction of our social wage.
At this federal/municipal level, built on organising around local community concerns from dog fouling to anti-social behaviour, the links between municipal unions, built on organising around workplace grievances as wide and varied as the ways that capitalists infringe on our liberties, and trades councils become tangible and obvious. Those links, and the degree to which we are collectively organised (how many local people, how many co-workers are involved, and to what extent they are showing real leadership together) is what is radical. None of this implies a critique of capitalism. Nor need it.
It doesn't matter at this stage whether our brothers and sisters are fighting for the things that matter to them together, and winning victories, and feeling our power when we win them, if they are doing this because they want to see a bit of fairness for them and their kids, or whether they want to see a global proletarian revolution, and the last politician swing by the esophagus of the last banker. The point is that our brothers and sisters are feeling that they have power. It our job to extend those feelings of power, and build momentum for wider and wider changes. That is a battle that will take decades and decades.
But it cannot happen without collective organisation. It cannot happen without organising around grievances. It cannot happen without dealing with the issues that matter to people, and making small gains in the here and now.
And there is nothing more radical than that.
Power is our ability to change the actions of others. One person, no matter how radical, can change nothing on their own. A party of socialists, no matter how creative, intelligent, and thought-thru can change precious little, unless its views have wider echoes in society. And those wider echoes in our society can achieve nothing if there is no collective organisation. And collective organisation can achieve nothing if it is not built around fighting and making a difference to our brothers and sisters on the issues that matter to them, again and again, demonstrating and involving as many of us as possible in taking collective action, and asserting ourselves. That is how momentum around an agenda is built. The working class is a sleeping giant that is neither conscious of its own power, and barely aware of its own independent existence. We need to wake it up. That starts with dogfouling and shift rotas. Not with tanks and insurrection. If we are to awaken our class we have to put paid to lazy somnolent thinking that we can just articulate a vision of revolution, and that the working class will be there, ready, and organised to meet that call. It's not. THAT is our job. That is what it is to be radical. A thousand incremental victories, and a ladder of engagement, with confidence and ambition being built slowly on every rung of the ladder. And all of it 'boring', 'reformist', and therefore actually based in the needs and desires of the actual working class of the UK in 2010.
We need far far more 'boring', 'reformist' activity on the left. And far less childish pretend adventurism. Because for all our words and fury, exactly how many divisions does the working class have?
What does success look like?
It is commonplace on the left to describe victory, how ultimate victory will be achieved, to fall out with one another about the finer details of the end stage of revolutionary organisation.
There seems on the left to be a fascination with what is 'radical'. 'Radical' is seen as being closer to revolutionary. Radix is the Latin for root. The meaning being something that differs at the root. The term radical emerged in the reign of the unfortunate King Charles, who got his head chopped off. In the 18th century it came to mean someone who wanted wide-ranging change to the constitution or political character of the nation. These days the way the word is used appears to distort the political opinions and strategy of 'radicals' when they look at our organisation as workers. This distortion leads to a confused interpretation of what power is, and therefore what power our class wields is. Considered in political, economic, civil/communitarian and military terms, often what is truly radical (offering the prospect of root and branch societal change), and what is powerful, is the least likely to be identified as such by the left.
http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/georgia-russian-tanks-south-ossetia.jpg
<-- Power: Russian tanks smash Georgian aggression, and counter by invading Georgia. Imperialist states are heavily organised polities, extremely conscious of their own power, with a plan for seizing more.
Revolution is a process. In Australian Labourist parlance there is the analogy of the light on the hill. It is shining as a beacon for the working class to slowly climb the hill towards it, to attain greater economic and political power. Incremements towards Socialism (or Labourism). While the sentiment is probably mostly associated with possibilist currents of thought, the analogy is far more sensible than anything ever stated by impossibilist spontaneist currents.
Let's take a workplace. Unorganised. With no union presence. Now we can all imagine what it would be like to build a union in this workplace. There would be organising around grievances. A wee team would be built up. With luck, support and back-up, and a bit of planning and strategy, a union might be built in this workplace. But as we can all agree the likelihood that this workplace will go from being unorganised, to exerting job control, and forming a workers council is next to nil - even tho the theoretical possibility is always there, in all workplaces, so long as there is a division between labour and capital. Confidence, power, collective control, solidaritaristic feelings, and ambition are built up a piece at a time. Step by step. Experientially. Ideology here is also less of a factor than habit. The red-est, most militant-minded comrade can still be a poor trade unionist, if their instincts are wrong, or they can't relate to their colleagues.
So there are two principles here. The first is that power is built by increments, experientially. The second is that ideology is not a motor of change, by itself.
When we look then at a collectively organised endeavour, whatever it is, we cannot judge the power of that collectivity by the statements it makes, or by how apparently radical some its members are. Some of the worst trade union branches, community organisations, and most poorly organised endeavours have very radical spokespeople.
Understanding revolution as a process means that we have to appreciate that gains are built upon previous gains. The eight hour day would not have been possible if our unions had not articulated demands for improved conditions, pay, safety and hours in the past. The first wage workers under capitalism were indentured, and enjoyed conditions little better than serfs. Equally we will not see the development of a revolutionary and insurrectionary working class until a raft of successful social reforms force an escalation in the class war and prevent further reforms from being attained.
I recently heard the view that residents associations were not radical. Understood properly a residents association is a group of people who live in an area combining for their mutual self-interest. The term 'community union' is used by some comrades; it is an appropriate understanding. The claim that such community unions are not radical however is a misapprehension. If we state that Unison is a union, and that Unison does not agree, at an executive level, with campaigning hard against government policy, and is linked to the Labour Party, it does not follow that syndicalism implies support for government policy. Nor does the executive position of Unison at a national level mean there is no point in getting involved in Unison building up a local branch. Both of those positions would be rightly ridiculed. So the logic that residents associations (community unions) are not radical, because the extant organisations do not aim to topple capitalism is a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be radical.
As radicals we are interested in root and branch change. That requires power. Power is about the ability to effect change. For most local residents the change that is sought will be local primarily. Local issues, just like workplace grievances, are subjective issues. Unions may grow by organising around grievances, such as poor lighting, health and safety concerns, poor shift scheduling etc. Residents associations may want to tackle street lighting, on-street parking, dog fouling, tenant concerns, indeed almost anything that local residents are concerned about. That is what is radical about collective organisation. It creates a polity of common concern, and therefore also the prospect of building power by experientially enhancing peoples lives thru collective action. Some comrades may not deign to see that as radical, but how else can power be built? How else can we form the basis of new collective organs?
Indeed, just as a union is not a branch in a workplace, neither is a community union a single residents association. The power of organised communities stems from their ability to combine to build a federal organisation that is able to challenge the power of municipal government. It is at this level that socialist leadership and direction is most vital. Because it is at this level that we can fight for more money for communities, to oppose landlordism by councils and housing associations, and it is at this level that we can start to build an economic counter strategy for the communities and cities we live in. There is nothing more radical than starting to arrogate real power to collectively controlled working class organisation, away from capital and the state. Just as in the workplace our unions work towards job control, in our communities we work towards being a counter-power to municipal authorities, a source of moral, political, and institutional authority, and a weapon in the hands of our class, fighting for and supporting the development of tenant management co-operatives, community land trusts, condominiums, (the community parallels with job control), and important provisions such as concierge services, as well as greater control over, and say in council services. Just as we can in the here and now turn the tide against neo-liberal schemes for the destruction of our social wage.
At this federal/municipal level, built on organising around local community concerns from dog fouling to anti-social behaviour, the links between municipal unions, built on organising around workplace grievances as wide and varied as the ways that capitalists infringe on our liberties, and trades councils become tangible and obvious. Those links, and the degree to which we are collectively organised (how many local people, how many co-workers are involved, and to what extent they are showing real leadership together) is what is radical. None of this implies a critique of capitalism. Nor need it.
It doesn't matter at this stage whether our brothers and sisters are fighting for the things that matter to them together, and winning victories, and feeling our power when we win them, if they are doing this because they want to see a bit of fairness for them and their kids, or whether they want to see a global proletarian revolution, and the last politician swing by the esophagus of the last banker. The point is that our brothers and sisters are feeling that they have power. It our job to extend those feelings of power, and build momentum for wider and wider changes. That is a battle that will take decades and decades.
But it cannot happen without collective organisation. It cannot happen without organising around grievances. It cannot happen without dealing with the issues that matter to people, and making small gains in the here and now.
And there is nothing more radical than that.
Power is our ability to change the actions of others. One person, no matter how radical, can change nothing on their own. A party of socialists, no matter how creative, intelligent, and thought-thru can change precious little, unless its views have wider echoes in society. And those wider echoes in our society can achieve nothing if there is no collective organisation. And collective organisation can achieve nothing if it is not built around fighting and making a difference to our brothers and sisters on the issues that matter to them, again and again, demonstrating and involving as many of us as possible in taking collective action, and asserting ourselves. That is how momentum around an agenda is built. The working class is a sleeping giant that is neither conscious of its own power, and barely aware of its own independent existence. We need to wake it up. That starts with dogfouling and shift rotas. Not with tanks and insurrection. If we are to awaken our class we have to put paid to lazy somnolent thinking that we can just articulate a vision of revolution, and that the working class will be there, ready, and organised to meet that call. It's not. THAT is our job. That is what it is to be radical. A thousand incremental victories, and a ladder of engagement, with confidence and ambition being built slowly on every rung of the ladder. And all of it 'boring', 'reformist', and therefore actually based in the needs and desires of the actual working class of the UK in 2010.
We need far far more 'boring', 'reformist' activity on the left. And far less childish pretend adventurism. Because for all our words and fury, exactly how many divisions does the working class have?