We need to broaden our scope!

[Ol' Dirty]

Its great to be active at an anarchist book club or, union meeting or infoshop, I think that one of the best ways to be political active in our communities is to start doing thing average people are interested in. Make a local football (gridiron if you're Stateside) club sponsored by your political group. Start a free meal program. Create a charity that gives food or fuel for unremployed workers. Show movies. Start a socialist videogame club! Sometimes we get down on ourselves because making meaninful change is so difficult, but if we start with small things, the effects can be widespread.

I created this thread so that people can propose new activities and help each other with new projects.

[Pogue]

I'd say things such as this should come out fo a workign class culture established through a storng union movement. Like they had in Germany before WW1.

[Muzk]

Class war is still war, and no fucking game, if you try to get people to wake up from their own game, called life in capitalism, you can't use the same tactics that keeps them in in the first place...:thumbdown:

[Forward Union]

I think we should be building physical class power. We can have all the football clubs and vegan bake groups we want, but it wont get more wages or take over production lines.

[bricolage]

I think we should be building physical class power. We can have all the football clubs and vegan bake groups we want, but it wont get more wages or take over production lines.

Ok but if we are trying to 'build a new world in the shell of the old' establishing real forms of community should be an important part of this. Additionally you make two false dichotomies, one that community cohesion does not impact upon class struggle, I'd argue that this is not the case, even with the example you use, football clubs; http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2009/12/13/return-of-terrace-politics/#more-581

Secondly there is the idea that doing one means you can't do the other, which in one instance quite frankly wrong and in the second disregards those who are not actually working on the production lines, the disabled, the eldery, housewives/househusbands for example. I've still never worked out how they fit into a syndicalist strategy.

I think things may have been different before when one particular industry would be the central point of a community and working in it would provide such cohesion, however, in the UK at least, this isn't the case anymore, I know people who used to work down a mine and knew everything about everyone they worked with, Thatcher shut them down and they barely saw their co workers again, now everyone is dispersed among different smaller workplaces or even different bits of the country, aside from lobbing everyone back into a geographically specific industry I can't see how community can be rebuilt solely through unions or workplace organisation.

Genuine resistance must expand to all areas of life, not just the immediate economic ones (even if those workplaces are where such resistance will be won or lost).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its great to be active at an anarchist book club or, union meeting or infoshop, I think that one of the best ways to be political active in our communities is to start doing thing average people are interested in. Make a local football (gridiron if you're Stateside) club sponsored by your political group. Start a free meal program. Create a charity that gives food or fuel for unremployed workers. Show movies. Start a socialist videogame club! Sometimes we get down on ourselves because making meaninful change is so difficult, but if we start with small things, the effects can be widespread.

I created this thread so that people can propose new activities and help each other with new projects.

I like this sentiment but I think these things will develop naturally when the working class movement grows like Pogue said.

In places where red-schools to teach adult workers to read and red-sports teams developed this was out of the complete lack of any government programs or recreational opportunities for workers. In the US there was some union culture, but the closest think I know of to social programs created and maintained by radicals were the programs developed by the Black Panthers for chemical addiction programs and meal programs for poor school-kids. These kinds of programs obviously help radicals connect their politics directly to certain communities and help cut through the fear-mongering lies people hear about radicals, but often these clubs and social programs/spaces serve to show the hypocrisy of the way the system treats poor people and workers in general.

If a handful of Black Panthers can do more to help drug addicts and school children than the entire state and federal system, it's a pretty damning statement about the system's priorities.

It's sick that in the US basically only churches do these kinds of things anymore at a time when the government has been taking apart the social-welfare system and inequality has gotten worse. I'd like to see a return to the radical "social-life" that existed in the past, but in order to see this develop, we first need to lay the groundwork and try and get our political ideas out to the working class, help people train themselves to be a new generation or radical workers, build our organizations and help re-build working class militancy and radicalism.

[Forward Union]

Ok but if we are trying to 'build a new world in the shell of the old' establishing real forms of community should be an important part of this. Additionally you make two false dichotomies, one that community cohesion does not impact upon class struggle, I'd argue that this is not the case, even with the example you use, football clubs;

No. I am not arguing that community cohesion is not a beneficial pre condition for building class power, but that you cannot artificially force it to occor. Or if you did, it would be superficial.

What you can do is form economic unions, like residents associations, tenants associations, and community organise practically. Football games and other socials may be beneficial side activities.

My main objection is not that these social clubs don't wield results, but that the benefits are disproportionate to the effort put in. The cost-benefit analysis objects!


Secondly there is the idea that doing one means you can't do the other, which in one instance quite frankly wrong

Well if you have enough time money and people to do these things then go for it, I personally don't know many groups who do.


I think things may have been different before when one particular industry would be the central point of a community and working in it would provide such cohesion, however, in the UK at least, this isn't the case anymore,

Community cohesion is important on some levels yes, but our main focus should be to unionise and take over industry. Transport, Energy, and Weapons production in a majority of europe. Then we will have enough physical power to defeat capitalism.

[bricolage]

No. I am not arguing that community cohesion is not a beneficial pre condition for building class power, but that you cannot artificially force it to occor. Or if you did, it would be superficial.

But why is cohesion formed through economic unions any more genuine than that formed through social activities, or to put it another way why is the latter 'superficial'? Cohesion may be more practically beneficial in achieving better conditions in the workplace if built through a union but that does not make them any more 'real' or longlasting, on the contrary I can't think of many people who I've achieved real affinity with through political activity.


Well if you have enough time money and people to do these things then go for it, I personally don't know many groups who do.People tend to play football or bake cakes in their spare time anyway (I know I do both!), the two examples you gave.


Community cohesion is important on some levels yes, but our main focus should be to unionise and take over industry. Transport, Energy, and Weapons production in a majority of europe. Then we will have enough physical power to defeat capitalism.I agree that is important but I'd question again where do people such as the elderly, the disabled or stay at home partners of workers fit into this, they are not present in the workplace so how can they fit into the union?

[redasheville]

I like this sentiment but I think these things will develop naturally when the working class movement grows like Pogue said.

In places where red-schools to teach adult workers to read and red-sports teams developed this was out of the complete lack of any government programs or recreational opportunities for workers. In the US there was some union culture, but the closest think I know of to social programs created and maintained by radicals were the programs developed by the Black Panthers for chemical addiction programs and meal programs for poor school-kids. These kinds of programs obviously help radicals connect their politics directly to certain communities and help cut through the fear-mongering lies people hear about radicals, but often these clubs and social programs/spaces serve to show the hypocrisy of the way the system treats poor people and workers in general.

If a handful of Black Panthers can do more to help drug addicts and school children than the entire state and federal system, it's a pretty damning statement about the system's priorities.

It's sick that in the US basically only churches do these kinds of things anymore at a time when the government has been taking apart the social-welfare system and inequality has gotten worse. I'd like to see a return to the radical "social-life" that existed in the past, but in order to see this develop, we first need to lay the groundwork and try and get our political ideas out to the working class, help people train themselves to be a new generation or radical workers, build our organizations and help re-build working class militancy and radicalism.

I agree with everything put forward in this post.

I'd add that in the 30s there was a cooperative housing movement backed by the Communist Party (there was a PBS documentary made recently about this).

[StoneFrog]

I'd question again where do people such as the elderly, the disabled or stay at home partners of workers fit into this, they are not present in the workplace so how can they fit into the union?

I agree with this, i feel there is a lack of representative for these people. We are suppose to be fighting for the working class, not just the workers.

[Pogue]

I agree with this, i feel there is a lack of representative for these people. We are suppose to be fighting for the working class, not just the workers.

They can fi tinto the union through the commuiy struggle section or as part of the unemployed workers section. Or they could just help with the physical running of the union outside of workplace activity.

The working class movement will be broad, the things that people want to exist within it will exist, such is the way democratic organisaitons work.

[Patchd]

I'd say I agree largely with Forward Union on this, only because the workplace is the only place for effective class struggle, everything else is a culture struggle (yes, a culture determined by the material conditions we live in, but a culture struggle nonetheless). This is not to say however, that other issues shouldn't be tackled, the removal of the capitalist class will not remove racism, sexism, homophobia, youth subjugation etc. alone, but obviously if individual members want to start up a Socialist gaming club, or an antifascist network firm at their local club, or an LGBTQ rights group, then do so, but this is for individuals to decide for themselves, for their own leisure and interests.

Our struggle as a whole must be concentrated, but not limited to the workplaces, this is something which I think the 'left' has moved away from in recent years, less emphasis on on-the-ground workplace activism, and more emphasis on single issue campaigning. This isn't to say that I limit myself to only workplace struggle, seeing as I only work part-time, this would be ridiculous for me to do, an example is work with the unemployed/homeless, I do it out of solidarity with other workers who live much less comfortable lives, and out of compassion, but not because it will remove capitalism.

[Forward Union]

But why is cohesion formed through economic unions any more genuine than that formed through social activities, or to put it another way why is the latter 'superficial'? Cohesion may be more practically beneficial in achieving better conditions in the workplace if built through a union but that does not make them any more 'real' or longlasting, on the contrary I can't think of many people who I've achieved real affinity with through political activity.

Because a working class economic grouping can actually challenge capitalism, a union or tenants association can do serious damage to the ruling class in the right time and place. Whereas community cohesion (as an abstract social reality) can coexist perfectly happily with it.


People tend to play football or bake cakes in their spare time anyway (I know I do both!), the two examples you gave.I don't care what you do in your spare time, we're talking about political organising, which I do not consider a hobby or "spare time"


I agree that is important but I'd question again where do people such as the elderly, the disabled or stay at home partners of workers fit into this, they are not present in the workplace so how can they fit into the union?Nowhere. Unions are generally for people with jobs. I think it's pretty respectable if they choose to join anyway, but I have absolutely no interest in target-recruiting them. If we call a strike what would they do? Stay at home, like any other day? That'll show em! Same can be said for workers with non-integral jobs. While I fully support all workers who fight for their rights, If we organise every coffee worker in the country, we have the power to stop instant coffee access at an instant! that's not going to help us build an Anarchist Commonwealth. But if we were to organise a percentage of Energy or transport workers, we can do much more serious damage.

[Forward Union]

Yes I do think the elderly, disabled, and home workers have a place in the struggle. Particularly in community struggles. but we're not in a place to organise every tom dick and harry, we need to prioritise.

[bricolage]

Because a working class economic grouping can actually challenge capitalism, a union or tenants association can do serious damage to the ruling class in the right time and place. Whereas community cohesion (as an abstract social reality) can coexist perfectly happily with it.

Yes fair enough, I agree with that however my point was that doesn't mean the affinity created between people is any more real, genuine or less superficial because it is done through a body that can challenge capitalism better than one that can not. Whether this is actually relevant at all is another matter altogether, to be honest probably not that much.


I don't care what you do in your spare time, we're talking about political organising, which I do not consider a hobby or "spare time"Neither do I, but the point was that as people do those things in their spare time anyway it doesn't take much time or effort to turn them into something more than just a kickabout or baking the odd cake, eg. to politicise them.


Nowhere. Unions are generally for people with jobs. I think it's pretty respectable if they choose to join anyway, but I have absolutely no interest in target-recruiting them. If we call a strike what would they do? Stay at home, like any other day? That'll show em! Same can be said for workers with non-integral jobs. While I fully support all workers who fight for their rights, If we organise every coffee worker in the country, we have the power to stop instant coffee access at an instant! that's not going to help us build an Anarchist Commonwealth. But if we were to organise a percentage of Energy or transport workers, we can do much more serious damage.Yeah ok once again I do partly agree with you, there are areas that will be able to challenge capitalism better than others but I have two other points to add.

First that the point at the moment is to not just do what we think will be best for the long term challenge to capitalism but work towards aiding those who are suffering the most at the hands of it at the moment. If, say coffee workers (the example you gave), were getting fucked over at 2.50 an hour, half of which had to come from tips, what are you going to do say 'yeah times are shit but to be honest you aren't going to end capitalism by striking are you so can't really give you much support'. Not that I'm saying you would say that but it's where that line of thinking could lead and it's the point of not leaving anyone behind.

Also the same can be said in terms of those who aren't actually in the workplace (the examples I gave), there's a film from the McCarthy era called Salt of the Earth, you might have seen it, anyway these miners go on strike until there is a court injunction or something saying any miners who are on the picket line can get arrested, what happens next is a union meeting is disbanded and turned into a community meeting where the wives of the miners (who previously had been getting ignored and fucked over at home) decide to run the picket line. The point expressed there is that it is only when they start to function as a community and not just 'the workers' that they achieve victory and that the wives really become part of the struggle. I think the problem is that a lot of syndicalist strategies think that revolution will come just from objective, empirical conditions of exploitation, however if that were the case we would have communism by now. This ignores the number of other issues, most importantly I think actually feeling connected to a struggle, actually wanting to be a part of it and wanting emancipation not just for yourself but for all and I don't think this can be created just from workplace organisation.

Additionally in terms of a global approach such strategies are also limited when applied outside of advanced industrialised nations. Richard Pithouse writing about South Africa has said that the difference there is that a large amount of the major struggles are at the point of consumption (access to electricity, housing or land) and not production, something that unions and the strategies of the Global North are less adept to address. Things like this are always worth remembering.

As a final point I should reiterate that I do agree with both you and Patchd that workplace resistance is the most important point of resistance and where any substantial change will be won or lost and I also agree it is where efforts should most be put in. However I do feel it is a mistake to solely concentrate on this at the expense of those not directly involved at this level.

[nuisance]

Nowhere. Unions are generally for people with jobs. I think it's pretty respectable if they choose to join anyway, but I have absolutely no interest in target-recruiting them. If we call a strike what would they do? Stay at home, like any other day? That'll show em! Same can be said for workers with non-integral jobs. While I fully support all workers who fight for their rights, If we organise every coffee worker in the country, we have the power to stop instant coffee access at an instant! that's not going to help us build an Anarchist Commonwealth. But if we were to organise a percentage of Energy or transport workers, we can do much more serious damage.
This is effectively slating solidarity pickets/parties that are put on by people that aren't on strike, so presumebly you have such problem or apathy with such events also? Anyway as capital is global, any strike to protect or further the class in struggle, is theirs as well, whether they are employed somewhere else or unemployed. We must generalise the escalation of conflict and not bound it to various industries (not just the people involved in intergal industury will be part of any successful anarchist revolution)- which makes what you say here extremely strange, as you're a member of the IWW.
Anyway, what can they do? More like what can't they do other than officially go on strike at a workplace they aren't employed by. They can increase moral by bringing down, food, drink, music and just showing support. They can spread the message to others that aren't necessarily in the know. They can attack companies and such that would benefit or attemt to perpetuate the conditions that ignited the strike in the first place. Help form hit squads, and many more things.
This whole seperating culture and economics you do, claiming the necessity of 'building working class power' above all else, fails to see the relationship between the two and the need to promote and celebrate cultures of resistance that have existed, as this is also building working class power. It's also important to add that creating cohesion and affinities will more likely prevent burnt out, than considering your political organising as a job.

[Forward Union]

This is effectively slating solidarity pickets/parties that are put on by people that aren't on strike, so presumebly you have such problem or apathy with such events also?

I said that I commend them for being involved but they are just there in a support role



Anyway as capital is global, any strike to protect or further the class in struggle, is theirs as well, whether they are employed somewhere else or unemployed. We must generalise the escalation of conflict and not bound it to various industries (not just the people involved in intergal industury will be part of any successful anarchist revolution)- which makes what you say here extremely strange, as you're a member of the IWW.What you are doing is framing the question morally. Making it a case of there being morally good and morally bad activities, and of course no one wants to be a badie. Of course I support industrial unionism, and the need to organise most/all sectors at some point. But actually we can't, with our limited resources; organise every sector right now. Thus, (unless I am mistaken, and we really do have lots of time, money and human resources) we need to prioritise where we put our time, effort and cash in order to make necessary gains. And I have said time and again, that organising in Energy, Transport and Weapons manufacturing can cause the most damage to capitalism, correct me if I am wrong, but they need Nuclear power stations more than Starbucks...

If we have 10000 members in entirely different workplaces, we can do absolutely nothing. If we have 10 workers in one power plant, we can potentially force change.


Anyway, what can they do? More like what can't they do other than officially go on strike at a workplace they aren't employed by. They can increase moral by bringing down, food, drink, music and just showing support.

I class that as community work, not industrial, but yes that is something good they can do.

[The Feral Underclass]

If we organise every coffee worker in the country, we have the power to stop instant coffee access at an instant! that's not going to help us build an Anarchist Commonwealth. But if we were to organise a percentage of Energy or transport workers, we can do much more serious damage.

Energy and transport workers going on strike isn't going to build an anarchist "commonwealth" (whatever that is) either. Aside from the fact that strikes are almost exclusively for the purposes of gaining concessions from the bosses not for the destruction of the bosses, what happens when the energy and transport bosses bring in other workers to break the strike? For someone who needs a better job, working in the energy sector is going to provide better for you and your family than working in a coffee shop, so why not go and break the strike? Lots of unemployed people broke the postal workers strike because they needed a job, diminishing the bargaining power of the strikers. Had the unemployed workers unions existed or been better organised during that time, the issue could have been better politicised and perhaps people wouldn't have crossed the picket line.

Workers need to stand in solidarity with each other and that is why every aspect of life, every work place needs to be politicised. If the working class aren't politicised and they don't stand in unity with each other, then capital will continue to exist as the bosses use that division or apathy to recruit other workers from other places. Not only do we have to ensure that workers in jobs that directly effect the function of the means of production are politicised, we have to ensure that their fellow workers are politicised so they will stand side-by-side with them in unity and solidarity on the picket lines and ultimately on the barricades.

[nuisance]

I said that I commend them for being involved but they are just there in a support role
Support in the community is a must for progressing towards anything concious or revolutionary. What you seem to be advocating is creating some vanguard out of vitial industry workers aqnd organisers, inorder to seize this industry, and once that has been been done you shall whip everyone else up into shape. However, without combatting mainstream culture this wouldn't even be possible.



What you are doing is framing the question morally. Making it a case of there being morally good and morally bad activities, and of course no one wants to be a badie.
No, I'm not. What I'm saying is based upon the material. Without support structures forming within the class with networks and coordination between workplace, community and activity groups, you simply won't have the structures to incoroporate every facet of modern day live. To wage war effectiviely on the social order we need to create links between all of working class socety and not some niche.


Of course I support industrial unionism, and the need to organise most/all sectors at some point. But actually we can't, with our limited resources; organise every sector right now. Thus, (unless I am mistaken, and we really do have lots of time, money and human resources) we need to prioritise where we put our time, effort and cash in order to make necessary gains. And I have said time and again, that organising in Energy, Transport and Weapons manufacturing can cause the most damage to capitalism, correct me if I am wrong, but they need Nuclear power stations more than Starbucks...
Of course you are correct, in that some industry is more vital than others, for the maintence of capitalism, but your rhetoric and degrading of certain workplaces as less revolutionary or whatever is downright alienating. People should organise the workplace they are in, which may be a Starbucks or some other chain food or coffee house (we all can't simply get jobs in the same area just like that)- this may, hopefully, even radicalise that workforce, making them more adventurous. Then, in your organising out of work, you can focus on what industry percieved as more intergal.


If we have 10000 members in entirely different workplaces, we can do absolutely nothing. If we have 10 workers in one power plant, we can potentially force change.
Well, if they're effective and can call on networks between current members, then they would actually grow- well how else are you going to get 10 members in the same workplace without this sort of structure, unless you're presupposing that you all get employed there conciously to form such a group. Though I don't need you to point out the obvious, about bigger groups having more potenial effectiveness in organising.

[The Feral Underclass]

If we have 10000 members in entirely different workplaces, we can do absolutely nothing. If we have 10 workers in one power plant, we can potentially force change.

:lol:

"Absolutely nothing"? That's just lunacy.

On the the general point, what happens when those ten workers get sacked and they get ten others in to do the job? I find it a little disconcerting that as someone who claims to be a social anarchist, you're relying heavily on what looks to me as a bit of insurrection :ohmy: Who would have thought it!

Out of interest, what kind of change do you honestly think 10 workers in a power plant will force?

[Forward Union]

:lol:"Absolutely nothing"? That's just lunacy.

In regard to union organising they can't do much. If you called a general strike they'd be the only one not working in their respective workplaces and would most likely get the sack or a disciplinary.

They can be mobilised for rallies, promotion, and branch building. But they themselves don't wield any class power.


On the the general point, what happens when those ten workers get sacked and they get ten others in to do the job?

10 energy workers going on strike in say, a nuclear power plant, can effectively shut the power down. The treat of that can often get you want you want. Though that is unlikely. The general point I am making is that energy workers can threaten more, they have more leverage. There are also alot of skilled workers that cannot be fired as easliy.

Look how much shit the lindy workers got away with before the sacking started, if you tried that shit in a coffee shop you'd be out the door before you know whats happened.

[Consueonson]

Yes, I am agree with this topics......

[Victory Of The People!]

The truth of the matter is that most people get involved in something because they get enjoyment or fulfillment from it. If you look to the places where socialist revolutions have taken place you will see that in those countries political activity was seen as something enjoyable (or at least better than staring at the four walls while you had no job and were starving). By making political activism more socially desirable to the individual (rather than being seen as a chore or duty) you will bring many more into the movement and they will stick with it. It is no coincidence that many political movements started in taverns...

Think about it, if you gained no sort of personal fulfillment out of your political work, would you continue to do it?