Project X (Sydney) [Archive]

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th March 2010, 12:06

SMH:

UNION REVIVAL

Wow, really interesting to see the WSN mentioned in the mainstream press already!

Do the people involved in this project still plan on challenging the bureaucracy within the mainstream unions?

I think the union question is not so clear cut as the article would make it seem. Whilst the WSN very clearly recognises the failings of the unions, the question of whether or not the unions can be radicalised or 're-captured', whether new 'grassroots' or red unions are necessary or whether the union form is incompatible with the struggle of the working class today is a question that has yet to be answered, I think.

There are sections of the WSN also being organised in Melbourne, Canberra and Wollongong. For people interested in knowing more, please see the groups founding statement on the Jura website here (http://www.jura.org.au/node/1220). More chatter can be found in this (http://libcom.org/forums/oceania/call-out-direct-action-against-draconian-abcc-04032010) Libcom thread.

Also, is it just me or is 'Project X' a terrible name?

Saorsa

12th March 2010, 13:09

Also, is it just me or is 'Project X' a terrible name?

It sounds like a plot by some kind of super-villain :lol:

The Douche

12th March 2010, 14:05

Also, is it just me or is 'Project X' a terrible name?

Its also the name of a well known straight edge band.

But at least they will be able to claim:

"I'm as straight as the line that you sniff up your nose
I'm as hard as the booze that you swill down your throat
I'm as bad as the shit you breath into your lungs
And I'll fuck you up as fast as the pill on your tongue"

12th March 2010, 16:21

How many militant workers are involved in this? If it just a pet project of a few dozen anarchists, I don't see it becoming very relevant any time soon. I think a two-track strategy of fighting against the union bureaucracy and promoting working class self-organisation (whether inside the union, outside the control of the bureaucracy, or outside of it) is the right way to go. I welcome this initiative.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th March 2010, 07:42

Its also the name of a well known straight edge band.

Oh dear...

How many militant workers are involved in this? If it just a pet project of a few dozen anarchists, I don't see it becoming very relevant any time soon.

Even though I think there is a false dichotomy here (Communists/Anarchists are workers), I think this is the burning question at the moment - whether it will just wind up to be an 'anarchist pet project'.

Sam Da Communist

13th March 2010, 08:31

SMH wtf, who the heck reported this to them? perhaps they do their little intelligence work, scary, and good.

Yep it's dominated by anarchists and people not so interested in the political parties and trade unions and perhaps the people that are newbies to politics.

The anarchists that run this show said that a broad non-union movement not affiliated to ideology or political party is what they want. They seem to be desperate about our situation at hand, so they want to work with the non-anarchists, A magnificant idea! i say about time. the left movement has always been segregated in australia.

Perhaps the Salts, CPA, Salliance, solidarity can contribute to running the show not just the anarchists? the other parties and orgs can get interested in it o believe.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th March 2010, 12:14

Yep it's dominated by anarchists and people not so interested in the political parties and trade unions and perhaps the people that are newbies to politics.

I don't think its accurate to describe those involved as being disinterested in political parties or trade unions. What defined 'interest' anyway? Also, to say that those involved are 'newbies to politics' is your own speculation. Save it for yourself.

Perhaps the Salts, CPA, Salliance, solidarity can contribute to running the show not just the anarchists? the other parties and orgs can get interested in it o believe.

I don't see this as very likely. SAlt, CPA, SA, Soli, et al are all more or less appendages of the unions. You only need to look at their coverage of the recent wildcat strikes by construction workers in the Pilbara region. When the unions denounced the strikers and ordered them back to work all these groups were silent, this fact mysteriously absent from their article surrounding the struggle. The whole thing was made even more farcical when on the pages of the same papers we read the standard articles celebrating the trade unions (take for example the article: "A tradition of union support for Aboriginal rights (http://www.sa.org.au/aboriginal-rights/2623-a-tradition-of-union-support-for-aboriginal-rights)" found on the page opposite to "Pilbara workers angry at Rudd's betrayal (http://www.sa.org.au/labour-and-unions/2615-pilbara-workers-angry-at-rudds-betrayal)" in SAlts March magazine).

I agree with you however, as I said above, that I think it is important that the group does not just become a circle of anarchists pretending to be something that it is not. I think the success of the WSN will be contingent on its ability to draw in militant workers from outside the leftist/anarchist ghetto and actually assume the role of building solidarity around workers struggles in Australia.

Il Medico

14th March 2010, 03:19

It sounds like a plot by some kind of super-villain :lol:
I was thinking it sounded more like a super secret military bio weapons project, tbh. :lol:

Anyways, sound interesting enough. Wish them luck, because god knows the Unions aren't working in the interest of the workers.

Sam Da Communist

14th March 2010, 04:13

Hi nic, left commie. remember me?

I don't think its accurate to describe those involved as being disinterested in political parties or trade unions. What defined 'interest' anyway? Also, to say that those involved are 'newbies to politics' is your own speculation. Save it for yourself.

The project X goes up to strikes and hands out leaflets to people, to unionists, and to the strikers. They seek to find militant people, or create some. They express their hate of the non-militantcy of the unions. I like this way of approaching the working class with the issues at hand instead of running about representing a party and saying "read Marx!" or "read Bakunin" etc. Sorry for not clarifying and for sounding rotten to the anarchists. I shoudl have said "people not yet formed with an ideology" , instead of "not political"

So this group is more like a workers activist formation such as Stop the war coalition, or Gaza defence, stop the intervention, or anti-us bases gruop away from the unions.

I don't see this as very likely. SAlt, CPA, SA, Soli, et al are all more or less appendages of the unions. You only need to look at their coverage of the recent wildcat strikes by construction workers in the Pilbara region. When the unions denounced the strikers and ordered them back to work all these groups were silent, this fact mysteriously absent from their article surrounding the struggle. The whole thing was made even more farcical when on the pages of the same papers we read the standard articles celebrating the trade unions (take for example the article:

Yeah, i support unions against the capitalists, i dont support unions 100% though. I more support the formation of a party.

......a circle of anarchists pretending to be something that it is not.....draw in militant workers from outside the leftist/anarchist ghetto and actually assume the role of building solidarity around workers struggles in Australia.

LOL true true, solidarity we need. The left in australia are fucking weak.

In addition, one of the guys talked about banning cops, union officials etc from the meetings of the WSN. A strict anarchist code can be a turn off and a creepy thing for the people of a non radical centre left or non-left-ideological nature.

Bilan

14th March 2010, 13:00

Bilan

14th March 2010, 13:03

Hi nic, left commie. remember me?

The project X goes up to strikes and hands out leaflets to people, to unionists, and to the strikers. They seek to find militant people, or create some. They express their hate of the non-militantcy of the unions. I like this way of approaching the working class with the issues at hand instead of running about representing a party and saying "read Marx!" or "read Bakunin" etc. Sorry for not clarifying and for sounding rotten to the anarchists. I shoudl have said "people not yet formed with an ideology" , instead of "not political"

So this group is more like a workers activist formation such as Stop the war coalition, or Gaza defence, stop the intervention, or anti-us bases gruop away from the unions.

No, it'd be more coherent in its ideology than that. Firstly, they're all anarchists, and secondly, presumably they're either communists or syndicalists. It's not non-ideological, just not a very strong ideology.

In addition, one of the guys talked about banning cops, union officials etc from the meetings of the WSN. A strict anarchist code can be a turn off and a creepy thing for the people of a non radical centre left or non-left-ideological nature.

Banning people is stupid. However, one can see what they were getting at.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

15th March 2010, 03:03

Sorry for not clarifying and for sounding rotten to the anarchists. I shoudl have said "people not yet formed with an ideology" , instead of "not political"

Again, I don't think this is correct. We've already established that the majority of the people involved at this stage are anarchists. This is hardly "people not yet formed with an ideology" [sic].

So this group is more like a workers activist formation such as Stop the war coalition, or Gaza defence, stop the intervention, or anti-us bases gruop away from the unions.

We are yet to see clearly in what capacity the group will act, however I would hope that this is not the case. A workers solidarity network (in deed, not just in name) is not the same as a single issue activist group!

Yeah, i support unions against the capitalists

Yeah, and I support workers against the unions.

LOL true true, solidarity we need. The left in australia are fucking weak.

Solidarity, yes, but of what sort. The 'solidarity' you speak of (solidarity between leftist groups), is not what we're talking about, I believe. We are talking about workers solidarity.

In addition, one of the guys talked about banning cops, union officials etc from the meetings of the WSN. A strict anarchist code can be a turn off and a creepy thing for the people of a non radical centre left or non-left-ideological nature.

Excluding cops and union officials from participation is not an 'anarchist code', it's an essential mode of operation for any workers organisation.

Bilan

15th March 2010, 22:36

Rossi's on the money.

Sam Da Communist

16th March 2010, 10:30

thank you rossi for being so analytical.

head over to the meetings comrades. we are all in sydney.

chebol

17th March 2010, 01:54

Niccolò Rossi wrote:

I don't see this as very likely. SAlt, CPA, SA, Soli, et al are all more or less appendages of the unions. This is utter garbage. On too many levels to for me to even begin to explain how daft a statement it is. And using SAlt articles (of all things!) as justification for lumping most of the Left together is both lazy and dishonest.

Nevertheless, Niccolò's on the money here:

Solidarity, yes, but of what sort. The 'solidarity' you speak of (solidarity between leftist groups), is not what we're talking about, I believe. We are talking about workers solidarity.Because, not only is the Left weak, the militant sections of the working class are also weak. Presumably (no, actually, clearly) this move is designed to strengthen it. (And Niccolò's also right that there is a world of difference between something like Stop the War and what is being proposed here).

While I support the idea, however (or at least the motivation), I rather doubt the scale or effectiveness of "Project X". And because of that, it runs the risk of becoming only "a good idea" - small, and rarely tested, or - worse yet - substitutionist.

I wish it well, of course, and hope that it becomes a collaborative network that reaches across workplaces and various left tendencies.

Which begs the question: who (which existing groups/ networks) are actually involved in this?

Incidentally, this:

Excluding ... union officials from participation is ... an essential mode of operation for any workers organisation.is not a smart move, it's a recipe for sectarian fail. True, most union officials are untrustworthy, but if you elevate this exclusion to the point of principle, you automatically exclude important possible allies and militants.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

20th March 2010, 13:25

This is utter garbage. On too many levels to for me to even begin to explain how daft a statement it is.

In that case you can't expect much of a response...
I defend what I said in my original post. More than this I would go further to say that the DSP/SA is among the worst groups in this regard. There really isnt any question that it is almost entirely uncritically in tow of the unions.

And using SAlt articles (of all things!) as justification for lumping most of the Left together is both lazy and dishonest.

I can't be blamed for the fact that Green Left Weekly didn't even bother to run an article on the struggle (which we should note has been one of the most significant thus far this year).

And Niccolò's also right that there is a world of difference between something like Stop the War and what is being proposed here.

I'm very surprised we agree on this point actually. I'm not going to complain though.

While I support the idea, however (or at least the motivation), I rather doubt the scale or effectiveness of "Project X". And because of that, it runs the risk of becoming only "a good idea" - small, and rarely tested, or - worse yet - substitutionist.

I agree with you on this one also, actually. Time will tell, the result is not yet set in stone.

Which begs the question: who (which existing groups/ networks) are actually involved in this?

No group is involved as a group at this stage, as far as I am aware. The Sydney meeting was comprised mostly of anarchists, but also had people from the CPA and sympathisers of the communist left. Any one who was present at the meeting is welcome to give us a head count on this, all I know is that there were about 15 all up.

Incidentally, this:is not a smart move, it's a recipe for sectarian fail. True, most union officials are untrustworthy, but if you elevate this exclusion to the point of principle, you automatically exclude important possible allies and militants.

This is no more sectarian a principle than the principle of excluding cops and agents of the state from workers organisations. The union officialdom are the police within the labour movement, they are cops in flat caps.

chebol

23rd March 2010, 08:39

Niccolo, you need to learn to use search engines before you start spitting on people:
I presume this is the strike you were referring to?
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/824/42404

I'm very surprised we agree on this point actually.You shouldn't be. It's a fairly basic differentiation, which obviously some people don't understand. There is "unity in action" and then there is unity in action.

With regards to who turned up - it sounds promising, as least as far as it can go at the moment (being - from what I gather - still in utero).

Regarding union officials, I think we agree on the basic problem, but I differ when it comes to elevating the exclusion of union officials (at least elected ones) from such actions as a matter of principle. I know of a considerable number of union "officials" who would sympathise with the aims of this melodramatically named project, and might even be willing to help out. You seem to have an ideological allergy to unions, rather than any good reason, and it is nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Where do you stop? What about delegates?

This is particularly childish and arrogant, and stands - I think - as testament to what's wrong with your attitude:

This is no more sectarian a principle than the principle of excluding cops and agents of the state from workers organisations. The union officialdom are the police within the labour movement, they are cops in flat caps.

Enjoy your eternal irrelevance!

redwog

24th March 2010, 14:49

Unions must be understood as a historical force which subjugates workers, while winning minimal improvements in conditions.

It is not merely a question of who controls a union, but rather, a union's social, economic and political function.

They exist to temper relations between capital and labour. Occasionally they are more combative or even demonstrate some potential for social change, yet they can never move away from their material purpose. To do so would be to render their own existence unneccesary.

I am "activist member" of a very large union, that is the most democratic union in the country. It has all of its officials elected. And they all have had to have been workers in that sector. We hold 8 councils a year with 300 delegates, fed by local federated associations, which are open to all members and whom are entitled to speak, vote and move motions to councils. Many left unionists psuh for their unions to reform and be more like ours.

Despite this, the democracy is not enough to overcome the limitations of trade unionism. It will always serve the function I have outlined above. It allows militancy to only go so far and then quashes it by convincing members that they are not strong enough to push further. Ultimately, there is always a tendency for the negotiations between the union boffins and the bosses to shape the practice of the union, over and above the actual level of militancy of the membership.

I participate in the union as a delegate to the council and I do so as my only political point of contact with 'the left'; but I am under few illusions about what can be achieved by such an intervention. I engage because it is a means by which I can have some formalised time set aside to analyse, write and argue the bringing of revolutionary marxist politics into my daily political practice at work.

So ultimately I agree with Nic that the unions serve a policing functions against workers. Even when they are under communist control! It is a materialist conclusion.

That said, I am undecided if project X is the correct alternative or if I am even arguing that we should not make arguments in union forums.

Unfortunately in recent decades, the left (including much of the libertarian left with a few notable exceptions) have been limited to agitating unionised workers from the 'outside' by leafleting while attending meetings/pickets or stuck arguing with bureaucrats on the inside and rarely winning in the game of liberal agruments/reformism/and trying to push a "more left" position.

Discussions suggesting a different way are very interesting to me.

chebol

25th March 2010, 13:11

the unions serve a policing functions against workers. Even when they are under communist control! It is a materialist conclusion.

Not quite. Actually, it is a premature conclusion based on limited evidence. That is, the behaviour of (the vast majority of) union leaders under capitalist or so-called "communist" regimes.

There have been, are, and will be, union leaders, union members, and unions as a whole, who play a role very different to the union-allergic sectariana above. Sorry, but it's true.

Does that negate the fact that the vast majority of union activity is funneled into class-collaborationist politics? Not one iota. But if you want to break the twin binds of soc-dem co-option and left isolation frm the working class, you are going to have to get real about "voluntary associations of working people" - that is, unions, and learn how to relate to them in a way which is effective and meaningful in terms of furthering the class struggle.

Blanket statements that throw genuine marxist union leaders into the same basket as class collaborationists are a symptom of precisely the isolation the left suffers from.

You can rhetoricise all you want, but the truth of that statement will never go away (and, pre-empting pithy statements about "real" marxists etc, that line of attack just reinforces the point).

This

Despite this, the democracy is not enough to overcome the limitations of trade unionism.

is incredibly short-sighted. Democracy is the only thing that can overcome the limitations of trade unions, and unionism. To be precise, increased democracy within unions, that can challenge and overthrow the collaborationist elements.

I suspect the problem some "communists" have with unions is that they represent "competition" for favour in the proletariat. Workers shouldn't be in these silly, evil, unions, some figure, but rather should join my party, and thereby make the revolution. I sympathise (and recruiting good union activists is often hard), but the problem in any version of the scenario above is one of the Left, not the unionist.

What is a union anyway, other than a co-opted organ of proletarian power? The question should be, do you try to win it back to worker control, or do you try to compete? Or both?

You can guess my position.

Chambered Word

25th March 2010, 16:25

Chebol, isn't it a bit ridiculous to say that a group that poses an alternative to trade unions should be inviting the people who run the unions? :confused:

Best of luck to all involved with this anyhow, let us know how it goes.

chebol

26th March 2010, 06:27

No, what's ridiculous is setting up unnecessary barriers to the participation of genuine working class activists solely on the basis that they hold a position in a union. It's potentially self-defeating, and lends itself to sectarianism only a short trundle down the track.

Does this mean that I think there are lots of union officials who should be allowed to participate? No. But I don't think precluding the participation of officials who are genuine allies as a matter of principle is an intelligent thing to do - quite the opposite in fact.

And I think the blanket attitude/ position toward all unions indicated by others above to be foolish, sectarian and counter-productive as well. It is simply not a black-and-white issue (few things are in fact).

Chambered Word

26th March 2010, 12:13

If they opposed unions as a main organizing body for the working class, would they be a union official? I thought that was the point of the group.

chebol

26th March 2010, 12:46

From my understanding of "the project", it is to organise the working class in ways that the unions "can't or won't do".

This in no way precludes (or at least should not preclude) the involvement of union members, union activists or union officials who believe that unions and workers should be doing more, but are restrained from doing so by corruption, class collaborationism, and ALP cronyism.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

27th March 2010, 11:45

Before I go on to respond to Chebol, I'd like to thank Redwog for his post. I think you're spot on with ever single point. Also, its evident your post is alot more planned and well thought out than my one liner replies.

Niccolo, you need to learn to use search engines before you start spitting on people:
I presume this is the strike you were referring to?
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/824/42404

Thanks for that Chebol. I did the search but couldn't find it, nor did I see it in GLW, but I'm not a regular reader anyway.

Either way, posting it only confirms what I originally said. The only mention of the role of the unions is:
"Companies supplying labour to the Woodside site are doing so under ongoing “non-union Greenfield agreements” left over from the previous government. Under such arrangements, a company could make an agreement with workers who had not yet been employed, without consultation with or agreement from the unions representing them.

"Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union state secretary Steve McCartney told media: “This is nothing but a cost cutting exercise by Woodside and [employment contractor] Foster Wheeler Worley”, who’s “non union” project is behind on time and budget.

"McCartney asked that Woodside seek to resolve the dispute through negotiation rather than court actions.

[...]

"With all unions who represent the workers legally hamstrung into asking the workers to return to work, these workers are continuing to fight the Woodside multinational alone."

Of course no mention of Tim Lyons, assistant secretary of the ACTU: “The strike was not organised by the unions and unions have told the workers at Pluto that they must comply with the orders of the Federal Court. This means returning to work" or CEPU official, Les McLaughlin: “All we are saying is that if they (Woodside) want to maintain their position with motelling, then they should do a new agreement with the unions”.

In fact, only one line is devoted at the very bottom of the article to concretely stating the position of the unions in this struggle, and even here it is apologia that the unions are 'hamstrung'. Yes, the unions are legally bound, but even if they were willing to fight this doesn't change the role that the union is objectively playing in the dispute. The unions are on the side of the management and the state.

You seem to have an ideological allergy to unions, rather than any good reason, and it is nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.

My emphasis added. This is only the case because you don't know what you are on about.

Enjoy your eternal irrelevance!

Given the current historic low levels of unionisation in Australia, it might well be argued that it is the unions which are irrelvant.

Besides, the communist left has not been eternally irrelevant. The communist left for a time at the hight of the internal revolutionary wave following the 1917 October Revolution the majority in the Italian and German Communist Parties. This is also not to forget the thousands of members that the Internationalist Communist Party had after WWII.

Most importantly of all though, being small and without great influence does not make you wrong. In fact, it is in this constant need to 'be relevant' that groups like the SA tail the unions or populist parties in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

The irony of it all is despite this the SA is still irrelevant to the mass of workers aswell. This is really not a very good line of argument...

What is a union anyway, other than a co-opted organ of proletarian power? The question should be, do you try to win it back to worker control, or do you try to compete?

This is based on the premise that it is actually possible to 'win back' the unions. We say this is an impossible task in this era.

Does this mean that I think there are lots of union officials who should be allowed to participate? No. But I don't think precluding the participation of officials who are genuine allies as a matter of principle is an intelligent thing to do - quite the opposite in fact.

Prey tell, who are these 'genuine allies' within the union officialdom?

This in no way precludes (or at least should not preclude) the involvement of union members, union activists or union officials who believe that unions and workers should be doing more, but are restrained from doing so by corruption, class collaborationism, and ALP cronyism.

Where is the 'corruption, class collaborationism and ALP cronyism' coming from other than the union officialdom?

Chambered Word

27th March 2010, 16:29

chebol

28th March 2010, 10:51

Lewis:

I don't think it's fair to dismiss them of responsibility. They are part of the union system after all.Union members are part of the union system too. Do you want to exclude them? Point is, you are running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Niccolo, regarding the article:

There is a difference, when you are involved in union work, fighting against the class collaborationists and for more militant union action, between openly criticising unions at every turn, and pointing out that the unions are "hamstrung".

If I can ask you to indulge your brain as well as your dictionary...
How can this sentence be seen as anything other than endorsing the continued struggle of the workers (regardless of the unions)?

"With all unions who represent the workers legally hamstrung into asking the workers to return to work, these workers are continuing to fight the Woodside multinational alone."As for this:

Yes, the unions are legally bound, but even if they were willing to fight this doesn't change the role that the union is objectively playing in the dispute. The unions are on the side of the management and the state. Sure, although I don't entirely agree with your conclusion. The unions' response to the dispute has been objectively on the side of the bosses and the state, but are they so subjectively? That is, are they consciously pro-boss? Your approach seems to indicate that you believe this to be the case, and this is where a black-and-white approach to union leaders gets messy (and wrong). You refuse to recognise that there are union officials, as well as members, who would prefer a more radical approach.

If the unions were stronger and more militant, they might fight (as they certainly should) - and sometimes do.

My question is now - and how do you plan to change that - by setting up a rival to the unions made up mostly of anarchists and left communists and formulaically excluding someone on the basis of their holding a position in a union, rather than their dedication to class struggle???? I won't hold my breath. Sorry comrade, but no.

If you want to condemn people at the top of your voice until the cows come home, you are free to do so. You will also probably be largely correct in your criticisms. But when the question comes along of "what do we do next?" your first reaction is to preclude possible allies on the basis of the fact they play a leading role in a union.

Which is evidence that you don't actually have a plan, just a hectoring "program".

That is, this is where we differ:

This is based on the premise that it is actually possible to 'win back' the unions. We say this is an impossible task in this era.And I say you're delusional if you mean to apply that to all unions, in all places.

And no, I'm not going to name any names here, because that would be fucking stupid, and you know it.

core_1

28th March 2010, 11:18

[QUOTE=chebol;1705317]

If the unions were stronger and more militant, they might fight (as they certainly should) - and sometimes do.

My question is now - and how do you plan to change that - by setting up a rival to the unions made up mostly of anarchists and left communists and formulaically excluding someone on the basis of their holding a position in a union, rather than their dedication to class struggle???? I won't hold my breath. Sorry comrade, but no.

If you want to condemn people at the top of your voice until the cows come home, you are free to do so. You will also probably be largely correct in your criticisms. But when the question comes along of "what do we do next?" your first reaction is to preclude possible allies on the basis of the fact they play a leading role in a union.

QUOTE]

First of all, I think that Unions by definition play a role in communication between the worker and the employer. The Union engages itself in order to win reforms and concerns itself with the mediation of worker struggles. The reason project X (now renamed the 'Workers Solidarity Network) excludes union officials from its membership, is that the organisation doesn't care for conflict resolution. The Fact is that the WSN is comprised of comrades who support a revolutionary workers movement. This is contradictory to and even antagonistic towards the aims of trade unions. Obviously, we do not exclude rank and file trade unionists, but we do exclude union officials with opposing interests to the working class. Now if it is clear that the WSN wants to build class conciousness and empower the working class to a point beyond meer reformism, if the aims of the WSN are different to the aims of the bourgeois trade unions, what is the next logical step? What could possibly protect the original interests of the organisation? We won't preclude allies, we will preclude enemies.

Chambered Word

28th March 2010, 11:27

Lewis:
Union members are part of the union system too. Do you want to exclude them? Point is, you are running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I meant the system that prevents workers from pushing past basic reformism towards revolution e.g the layer of union bureaucracy.

First of all, I think that Unions by definition play a role in communication between the worker and the employer. The Union engages itself in order to win reforms and concerns itself with the mediation of worker struggles. The reason project X (now renamed the 'Workers Solidarity Network) excludes union officials from its membership, is that the organisation doesn't care for conflict resolution. The Fact is that the WSN is comprised of comrades who support a revolutionary workers movement. This is contradictory to and even antagonistic towards the aims of trade unions. Obviously, we do not exclude rank and file trade unionists, but we do exclude union officials with opposing interests to the working class. Now if it is clear that the WSN wants to build class conciousness and empower the working class to a point beyond meer reformism, if the aims of the WSN are different to the aims of the bourgeois trade unions, what is the next logical step? What could possibly protect the original interests of the organisation? We won't preclude allies, we will preclude enemies.

Core pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

chebol

29th March 2010, 13:29

You continue to fail to understand reality.

We won't preclude allies, we will preclude enemies.

By refusing to accept that there are trade union officials who share your (our) ideals (that is, a revolutionary workers' movement), you preclude allies along with enemies.

There is however this contradiction in your attempted argument:

we do exclude union officials with opposing interests to the working class. (emphasis added)

And what about union officials without opposing interests to the working class? Is there a blanket ban, or isn't there? Sheesh, get some fucking consistency. Are you still playing with Tonka toys, or are you serious???

chebol

29th March 2010, 13:30

Lewis wrote:

I meant the system that prevents workers from pushing past basic reformism towards revolution e.g the layer of union bureaucracy.

I realise that, but you need to learn that not every union official is part of the the union bureaucracy. It's not a disease you catch the moment you win a position you know...

core_1

30th March 2010, 08:56

You continue to fail to understand reality.

By refusing to accept that there are trade union officials who share your (our) ideals (that is, a revolutionary workers' movement), you preclude allies along with enemies.

There is however this contradiction in your attempted argument:

(emphasis added)

And what about union officials without opposing interests to the working class? Is there a blanket ban, or isn't there? Sheesh, get some fucking consistency. Are you still playing with Tonka toys, or are you serious???

I apologise if I haven't made myself clear enough. Union officials, in my opinion have inherently bourgeois interests. I think we should remember that a person's political conciousness is mostly determined by their class. Union officials, upon recieving that post and becoming alienated above the working class, they adapt to their new position and assimilate into capitalism. The physical environment greatly influences conciousness, anyone that is familiar with materialism should remember this. In other words, I disagree with your apologist stance for union officials and say that yes, they pretty much are all useless. Believing in a truly revolutionary union bureacrat would be similar to supporting a Labor party candidate against capitalism.

"Are you still playing with Tonka toys, or are you serious???"
fuck you

redwog

30th March 2010, 13:18

If I may preface by apologising for the length of my reply...

Chebol, thank you for your genuine reply.

If I may take up what I think is the essence of the argument. And it is one that has some degree of subtlety which grays between the too seemingly opposed positions.

I have no doubt that communists can become union officials, although it is very rare. I am also of little doubt that as soon as they are brought in to the bureacracy, aspects of their practice change (they may always have good 'ideas' but practice is what matters).

It is not a 'disease' as you refer, but a material reality of their position. If they wish to function within the organisation, and even conduct some more militant or radical work, they must adopt elements of the bureaucracy's practice. They will not keep their job by calling wildcats and allowing workers to call the shots. They would lose their job quicksmart. The best they can offer is a 'more leftish' bureacracy - a political dead end that history has reasserted. (in my reading at least)

It seems to me absurd to suggest that a communist union official with good ideas can maintain a level of of militancy against a tide of the institutional stifling of workers self-activity.

The only manner in which any such resistance from a communist official could be achieved is if the official earned or won their position on the back of a genuine social movement.

Unfortunately, the organised left seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to win the election rather than build the movement which would deliver the positions as an expression from below. Add to this the fact that if any union ever did come under commie control it would be illegalised by the very state that recognises the union bureacracy in the first place. Think BLF.

I am of the belief that such a movement did exist, its leadership, rather than push for formal control, should actually rupture the union itself and in its place create new instruments that truly express their needs. I feel the same way about relating to the state as well I suppose.

This is a point of departure between our ideas, and not new for me, as many of the people I consider comrades in my union share your beliefs. I often make arguments against 'us' running for the upper posts in the union. If we have to electioneer to win the post, it is misplaced energy and evidence that we haven't done anywhere near enough on the ground.

I suspect that the desire to win positions is a shortcut to avoid the very difficult task of building social movements.

On the question about whether officials should be allowed to come to WSN, I do not think it is always useful to have a hard and fast rule but any official who agrees with the aims of the project will eventually be unable to reconcile their political trajectory and the demands of being a union official.

chebol

31st March 2010, 13:36

redwog,

thanks for a bit of civility and thought in this discussion.

Again, I don't think we disagree as wildly as some of the manic ideologues here would like to think we do. A few points:

To clarify - again - at no point did I act, consciously or otherwise, as an apologist for the trade union bureaucracy. My point of departure in this discussion - to return to the concrete reality around us - was opposing the blanket banning of trade union officials participating in the proposed project, whatever it's called.

There are - I agree - serious problems with revolutionaries taking high ranking positions in unions. The degree to which this compromises your public political activity varies from union to union, and place to place, of course, and in Australia the ALP and it's tame unions tries to buy off anyone in the union movement they perceive to be a threat (I've seen it done and tried numerous times).

Where I strongly disagree is in your argument that a revolutionary automatically becomes a tame reformist sell-out the moment they become an official. There are all number of forces at work encouraging this, of course, but that is not the same as saying it will necessarily happen. If you think it is unavoidable, you are in fact treating it like a disease, under the guise of materialism (which is a good *guide*, but not an infallible rulebook to every living person).

Surely you have the imagination to realise that there are other possible outcomes.

Take the case of Socialist Alliance member and Victorian State Secretary of the AMWU Craig Johnston, who was set up by his own union, by the state ALP, and by the courts and sent to jail a few years ago for organising a protest against workers being laid off basically overnight. Was he a victim of the union bureaucrats? Certainly. Did he sell out his revolutionary politics because he was elected to a high ranking position? Certainly not - he went to jail for 9 months in defiance of ALP and "left-wing" trade union power politics and red baiting.

Or the various revolutionaries I know - many of them my comrades - who have been elected to a number of varying positions within several unions, and remain active in those positions. Have they suddenly become class traitors, do you think, or are they merely restrained in what they can publicly do and say in their position as a union leader by the right-wing leadership of the ALP/ unions?

They push what politics they can through their unions, they carry on revolutionary politics outside of that role, and they can use their profile in the union to expose the gap between union rhetoric and the reality workers face every day.

And to respond to your characterisation of position-holders, it's not a question of "reconciling" your politics with your position, it's about determining how much use your position can be in furthering your politics. The moment you "reconcile" you begin to fail.

I also agree that taking *leadership* of a union without a social movement is a recipe for failure, and that any number of ruptures will occur in such circumstances. That's not the same as winning official positions (where useful) in a union that can be used to further the work of revolutionary organising within the union and within the working class.

To return again to the heart of the argument - I was saying that there ought not be a position of principle precluding trade union officials from participating in a radical workers' rights organisation with revolutionary intentions. Some union officials - almost all of them elected, few of a high position - do - exist who would be - could be - allies in this cause. Because they remain revolutionaries, whatever you might assert from afar.

To preempt one possible line of argument, I never argued that there should be an open slather free-for-all of officials invited to take part. Far from it.

The key problem I think with the discussion so far is that it is characterised by an approach which conflates all levels and political alleigances of union officials - putting them in an undifferentiated basket of class collaboration.

Such an approach shows a lack of understanding of union structures, as well as of the methods in which revolutionaries can work effectively, and I believe my "disease" analogy remains incredibly apt description for a counterproductive and mistaken position.