The IWW is coming!

[allenwrench]

Just wanted to see what some leftists thoughts on the Industrial Workers of the World were. What do the Leninists think? Stalinists? Maoists? etc etc. Solidarity or reformist drivel? What do you think?



cheers n oi

[Sosa]

Solidarity!

[Q]

It's a nice idea and had some momentum back in the day. But their explicit anti-politics stuff is harmful (to mostly themselves, as they've dwindled down into pretty much irrelevance).

[CommunistsUnite]

Reformist drivel.

[Sosa]

It's a nice idea and had some momentum back in the day. But their explicit anti-politics stuff is harmful (to mostly themselves, as they've dwindled down into pretty much irrelevance).

IWW isn't anti-political, it just doesn't associate itself with any political organization. It includes many members from all political backgrounds; marxists, trotskyists, anarchists, etc...which I think is a good idea because its inclusive of all workers. We have seen a resurgence in membership lately :)

[Sosa]

Reformist drivel.

How is it reformist?

[Property Is Robbery]

I consider myself to be a Left Communist/Anarcho Communist-Syndicalist and I believe we should all stand in solidarity with the IWW. They organize workers around the world of any skill level and any political ideology.

[Gorilla]

IWW is cool. There's a branch near me, I don't think they've succeeded in organizing any Starbucks or whatever in their own right, but they do some work with the local Teamsters (don't know the specifics) and are generally the most visible far-left presence around. I think their politics are naive but I respect them as socialist comrades.


Reformist drivel.

Ultraleft infantilism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm

[Chimurenga.]

Way past their prime. That goes for many organizations and tendencies.

Just my opinion though.

[Lyev]

I consider myself to be a Left Communist/Anarcho Communist-Syndicalist and I believe we should all stand in solidarity with the IWW. They organize workers around the world of any skill level and any political ideology.The communist left would probably reject the organisational methods of the IWW, seeing as a they're basically a big - well not so big anymore - trade union. Left communists would argue that unions could win reforms and play a progressive role when capitalism was growing, but in the current epoch - of decadent capitalism, though this itself is cotentious - the whole union apparatus is geared towards a defense of bourgeois interests; that the working class cannot maintain permanent organisations for the protection of their own economic interests. You perhaps need to rethink your position if you hold that left communism, whilst it is not a homogeneous tendency, equates to organising in trade unions. Indeed, many of the leftcom dudes on here have openly scoffed at the apparent insignificance of the IWW. You can find their position pretty clear on any of the main websites of these communist groups.

[OhYesIdid]

the whole union apparatus is geared towards a defence of bourgeois interests.

Lolwut.
How so? And what do you mean by "decadent capitalism"? Don't know about you, but I don't see a lot of overtly Fascist regimes gaining popularity wildly. In fact, with China becoming ever the more capitalist, I believe Capital is entering a whole new golden age. Perfect battlefield for trade Unions.

[Tablo]

I like IWW, but they are pretty irrelevant today. I'm hoping they keep fighting and are able to broaden their fight.

[Zanthorus]

Ultraleft infantilism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm

As much as I agree with the sentiment, this chapter from 'Left-Wing Communism' has nothing to do with your point. On the contrary, the German Left had used the IWW as an example of the kind of economic organisation they were in favour of as opposed to the existing union apparatus (See Pannekoek on Industrial Unions in Workers' Councils for example).

[BIG BROTHER]

Just wanted to see what some leftists thoughts on the Industrial Workers of the World were. What do the Leninists think? Stalinists? Maoists? etc etc. Solidarity or reformist drivel? What do you think?



cheers n oi

I know some Wobblies that I've organized with here in the Bay Area of California.

Their organization is pretty decent, mostly full of Anarchists(syndicalist) but open to everyone.

As a Union its one of the most democratic ones and it actually tries to empower workers.

However like many left groups out there, including my own if you will, the impact of the IWW on its own is pretty small and I do think that back in the day when they were big their whole "Anti-Political" (even though they were engaged in politics anyways) did hurt them, as another comrade said.

[Gorilla]

As much as I agree with the sentiment, this chapter from 'Left-Wing Communism' has nothing to do with your point. On the contrary, the German Left had used the IWW as an example of the kind of economic organisation they were in favour of as opposed to the existing union apparatus (See Pannekoek on Industrial Unions in Workers' Councils for example).

Zanthorus if you keep making my arguments for me better than I make them myself you n me may have to go a couple rounds...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Solidarity.

I don't agree that their method of organizing is the best for organizing towards revolution (radical unions alone, that is) but it can be very good at organizing workers and developing radical politics among workers and can be effective on just a labor-struggle level too.

I think it's great that they seem to be branching out to political events and movements more too.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There's a lot of discussion on the IWW and its current state here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/iww-organizes-sandwich-t141082/index.html

[RedScare]

Solidarity

[wunderbar]

The communist left would probably reject the organisational methods of the IWW, seeing as a they're basically a big - well not so big anymore - trade union.

They're not a trade union, they're an INDUSTRIAL union.

[x359594]

The IWW Preamble:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.


***


Much of this is raw undiluted Marx and some of it is direct quotation. For some of us the Preamble distills the complete works of Marx to their revolutionary essence.


And no, the IWW is not a trade union and never was. Revolutionary industrial unionism is the IWW's practical answer to the question: How can we, the workers, free ourselves from wage slavery and begin to enjoy the wealth we have created?

[BIG BROTHER]

It was a mix between an Union and a Vanguard party.

Back in the day as a Union, a lot of agricultural and temporal workers in the midwest of the US were Wobblies.

[x359594]

It was a mix between an Union and a Vanguard party...

The IWW was never in any way at all a vanguard party. It never fielded any candidates for election, it eschewed politics and spent all its man power (and woman power) organizing.

I lined with the IWW in 1974 in New York City. There were Wobs who'd lined up in the late 1920s and 1930s still active, and all the laborlore I heard from them never remotely suggested vanguradism in any shape or form.

However, at one time many IWW members belonged to the Socialist Party, especially prior to 1912, when the party's conservative leadership expelled Bill Haywood (secretary-treasurer) over the question of "sabotage"--and their respect and love for Gene Debs (minor disagreements not withstanding) held steady over the years.

Above all, the IWW"s basic ideas and its conception of a free society were developed in the course of its founders' own widely varied experience as wage-slaves in a rapidly industrializing North America as well as in Europe and other lands; a large portion of the union's membership, from the very beginning, were immigrants.

The IWW is a working class response to the various middle-class versions of Marxism, socialism and anarchism that held sway in left-wing and trade-union circles, revolutionary industrial unionism was the IWW's practical answer to the question: How can we, the workers, free ourselves from wage-slavery and begin to enjoy the wealth we have created?

[x359594]

...I don't think they've succeeded in organizing any Starbucks or whatever in their own right...[/URL]

As a matter of fact the Starbucks Workers Union has indeed organized several shops throughout the US. See for example this article, "Union Victory at Starbucks" (originally appearing in Counterpunch):[url]http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/5705 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm)

[Gorilla]

As a matter of fact the Starbucks Workers Union has indeed organized several shops throughout the US. See for example this article, "Union Victory at Starbucks" (originally appearing in Counterpunch):http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/5705

I know, I just meant the local in my area.

[Lyev]

Lolwut.
How so? And what do you mean by "decadent capitalism"? Don't know about you, but I don't see a lot of overtly Fascist regimes gaining popularity wildly. In fact, with China becoming ever the more capitalist, I believe Capital is entering a whole new golden age. Perfect battlefield for trade Unions.I just wanna clarify, I'm not a left communist, I was mainly paraphrasing some other websites of leftcom organisations. But on unions in today's epoch, try this: http://insurgentnotes.com/2010/10/andy-stern/ (again, I do not agree with all of it, I am just interested). And apologies for giving the IWW the misnomer of a 'trade' union.
edit: on decadence, http://en.internationalism.org/series/287 (it's not a position that all leftcoms uphold, I believe)

[Property Is Robbery]

The communist left would probably reject the organisational methods of the IWW, seeing as a they're basically a big - well not so big anymore - trade union. Left communists would argue that unions could win reforms and play a progressive role when capitalism was growing, but in the current epoch - of decadent capitalism, though this itself is cotentious - the whole union apparatus is geared towards a defense of bourgeois interests; that the working class cannot maintain permanent organisations for the protection of their own economic interests. You perhaps need to rethink your position if you hold that left communism, whilst it is not a homogeneous tendency, equates to organising in trade unions. Indeed, many of the leftcom dudes on here have openly scoffed at the apparent insignificance of the IWW. You can find their position pretty clear on any of the main websites of these communist groups.
I pick and choose what I believe, what I think would work, etc. from different ideologies (no right wing or capitalist ones of course). So if Left communism is against unions in Capitalist countries then I am not a hard-line left communist.

[Paulappaul]

They're not a trade union, they're an INDUSTRIAL union.


So if Left communism is against unions in Capitalist countries then I am not a hard-line left communist.

There's a few things to understand about Unions, and even the best of Union like the IWW, which completely turn you off the idea. First of the all, Unions are Capitalist. Even the so called "Industrial Unions" are exactly like Trade Unions. They organize along trade lines, into a Union corresponding to a particular trade and with this, reproduce the Capitalist Division of Labor. Trade Unions beyond this, particularly the big and bureaucratic ones which all sorts of Leninists argue we must organize in, too have in the last 100 years become appendages of the whole Capitalist system. Look at their model, which itself parallels the State organization: it has a congress, a president, representatives, secretaries, huge propaganda units and massive amounts of money at its disposal. It has paid positions with benefits. It's tied to other state organizations and abides by its laws.

Then there is the fact that Unions are completely antithetical to spontaneity and hinder it at every instance they get. Even the IWW which in every struggle competes with other labor associations for workers to get into its ranks against other workers of other organizations.

Then there is the fact that Unions, particularly the IWW actually, fight Bourgeois as a master of production, but not as the head of State and as class rather then just a boss. Their limited form as a Union compels them to this. They have no means to conquer the State apparatus. This is what the brilliance of Daniel Deleon and the Council Communists argued against.

Then there is the fact that Unions leave alot of people from their organization. Mainly those organized into other Unions, not of say the IWW. The Students which are essential to Revolution. The Unemployed which at this time are quite active and revolutionary and only growing.

With Unions, there is no revolution.

[x359594]

...First of the all, Unions are Capitalist. Even the so called "Industrial Unions" are exactly like Trade Unions. They organize along trade lines, into a Union corresponding to a particular trade and with this, reproduce the Capitalist Division of Labor...

No, they organize by shop not by trade. As for being capitalist because they reproduce the capitalist division of labor, this is little more than anti-working class obfuscation.

By shortening the work day, raising wages, and improving job conditions even business unions have made a positive difference in the lives of working people. You may take this for granted, but I assure that whatever protections and benefits workers enjoy today came from militatnt union struggles.


...Even the IWW which in every struggle competes with other labor associations for workers to get into its ranks against other workers of other organizations....

No. There were (and are) entire sectors of the working class that the business unions have neglected.


...This is what the brilliance of Daniel Deleon and the Council Communists argued against....

Bingo! The ad nauseum mossgrown criticism of the IWW made ages ago by such jaundiced enemies as Samuel Gompers the "brilliant" Daniel De Leon, William Z. Foster and now the "Council Communists."

In other words, don't organize, theorize.


...The Students which are essential to Revolution. The Unemployed which at this time are quite active and revolutionary and only growing...

Historically and down to the present day the IWW has organized students and the poor.

[Nolan]

I don't know that much about them but I've got a good impression.

[Paulappaul]

As for being capitalist because they reproduce the capitalist division of labor, this is little more than anti-working class obfuscation.

That's reproducing Capitalist relations, especially when the IWW thinks it is building the future society in the shell of the old.


By shortening the work day, raising wages, and improving job conditions even business unions have made a positive difference in the lives of working people. You may take this for granted, but I assure that whatever protections and benefits workers enjoy today came from militatnt union struggles.

Cool dude. Congratz for reforming the Capitalist system. I didn't deny that Unions do this.


No. There were (and are) entire sectors of the working class that the business unions have neglected.

That doesn't mean that there is still competition between the Class because of Unions. The IWW is in a fight with other Socialist and Capitalist Unions.


In other words, don't organize, theorize.

Lol wat. The Council Communists had once as many working class members as the IWW. Daniel De Leon was in the WIIU which could call thousands to its struggle. And Strawmen much?


Historically and down to the present day the IWW has organized students and the poor.

I am a Student, and my Local IWW pays little attention to me or my school. What Union does the Unemployed belong to? Just curious. My dad is self - employed. He can't join the IWW even though he is a fighting Socialist.

Your Post didn't challenge anything I said, only misunderstand it or quite frankly, said nothing against it.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Solidarity. I'm an IWW.
They've grown in popularity recently, but not even close to their prime. Plenty of new and growing branches have been sprouting up the past year (Omaha, Kansas City, Sacramento, etc.)

They don't espouse anarcho-syndicalism specifically, but I don't mind because the IWW is a solid union and I'm okay with their preamble and how they operate. I've heard a few people who believe in decentralization, but believe the IWW might be a bit too decentralized. I don't know how I feel about that, I think it operates pretty will and other branches seem to stay in contact with each other. Sometimes they can appear to be a "yellow" union, but when it comes down to business, they've always supported the abolishing capitalism.

I'm overall fine with the union, and they do some great stuff. I hope people stay interested in them, with how things are going.

[Dunk]

With Unions, there is no revolution.

I'm curious. If we don't organize as workers, what's your answer, then?

[wunderbar]

Plenty of new and growing branches have been sprouting up the past year (Omaha, Kansas City, Sacramento, etc.)

Nowhere near a functioning branch yet (let alone a GMB), but hopefully sometime in the near future!

[Le Socialiste]

Solidarity!

[Paulappaul]

I'm curious. If we don't organize as workers, what's your answer, then? Workers' Councils? Organizations that aren't Unions.

[Dunk]

Workers' Councils? Organizations that aren't Unions.

It seems anathema to the interests of the working class not to organize to improve their conditions.

[Paulappaul]

It seems anathema to the interests of the working class not to organize to improve their conditions.

The best way to improve the conditions of the working class is to dispose of the Capitalist system.

[Dunk]

The best way to improve the conditions of the working class is to dispose of the Capitalist system.

And the best way for my class to be continuously dominated by capitalists is to sit back and let their unions get eviscerated, or to have no organization of workers to coordinate action.

[Paulappaul]

And the best way for my class to be continuously dominated by capitalists is to sit back and let their unions get eviscerated, or to have no organization of workers to coordinate action.

I just said I wasn't against organization, just Unions. Sitting back and being uncoordinated is the worst thing the working class can do no doubt. Stop making strawmen.

[x371322]

I just said I wasn't against organization, just Unions.

But aren't you in the IWW? You list it as one of your organizations. So you're against unions but you're in one?

[Dunk]

I just said I wasn't against organization, just Unions. Sitting back and being uncoordinated is the worst thing the working class can do no doubt. Stop making strawmen.

So you're for worker organization but against worker organizations?

[Paulappaul]

But aren't you in the IWW? You list it as one of your organizations. So you're against unions but you're in one?

In short, Yes. My experience recently with them has only disillusioned me more with Unionism.


So you're for worker organization but against worker organizations?

If you're looking at the class composition to determine if it's a "Workers' Organisation" then the Democratic party may be good, hell a mcdonalds would be good.

I'm for a revolutionary workers' organization. Looking at the Bourgeois character of Unions, I don't consider them revolutionary.

[Dunk]

Looking at the Bourgeois character of Unions, I don't consider them revolutionary.

You seem more critical of the degree of democratization of a union rather than the union itself.

[Paulappaul]

By Bourgeois I mean its form which reproduce it, which I outlined my first post, not by the "degree of democratization".

[Dunk]

By Bourgeois I mean its form which reproduce it, which I outlined my first post, not by the "degree of democratization".

You support worker councils, but not unions. You don't think of unions as revolutionary, because the environment which necessitates it's continued existence is reproduced by capitalism - but it strikes me as odd to think that unions, whose sole purpose is to promote the interests of workers against capital, perpetuate the domination of capital. It's seems cut from the same cloth as the "New Deal saved capitalism". Yes, it's true that welfare capitalism and organized labor have temporarily improved the conditions of workers under capitalism, and because of these marginally improved conditions, have avoided the dire conditions which could prompt the working class to revolt - but our role as communists is to always fight on behalf on the working class. The working class' interests and the interests of communists are one in the same - and I'm telling you that encouraging workers to decertify or disband their unions so that their lives can suck so much that they revolt is not within the interests of the working class. Our class is not some organism in a petry dish you should try to experiment on.

I mentioned "degree of democratization" because the only instance in which I agree that unions do not fulfill their purpose of protecting and struggling for workers is when they are insufficiently democratic - when their upper bureaucracy becomes disconnected from the rank and file and they become "partners" with capital - which is a similar level of corruption of purpose comparable to state-sanctioned unions of the state-capitalist kind. You advocate worker councils and not unions partly, I presume, because worker councils are supposed to be democratic - but so can unions. If a union is sufficiently democratic, there is little difference between a union and a worker council. In fact, the difference is temporal. The organization of workers, today, which fights on behalf of working class interests against capital is the union. Worker councils can't even theoretically exist within capitalism - they can only exist during and after revolution - because seizing the means of production and democratically controlling it through an organization of workers is revolution against capital. Until the workers and their families find the conditions they are in force them to revolt - the workers won't revolt. And trying to convince a worker to fuck him or herself over in the interest of capital now, for some esoteric armchair communist reasoning that he or she will later immensely benefit is bullshit.

This argument based on delayed gratification is inherently bourgeois, as is your anti-union stance.

[Paulappaul]

You don't think of unions as revolutionary, because the environment which necessitates it's continued existence is reproduced by capitalism - but it strikes me as odd to think that unions, whose sole purpose is to promote the interests of workers against capital, perpetuate the domination of capital.

No. I think Unions reproduce Capitalist forms of exploitation because A) Their form mirrors the State Organization and the Capitalist Division of Labor. In the Case of the IWW which in its syndicalist fashion wants to build a society "in the shell of the old" this type of reproduction leads after the revolution straight back to Alienation. B) Because the Union form for its continued existence dependents on Capitalism and this is why the Union is compelled to simple workplace reforms, rather then revolution. Unions abhor Communism, which is why in a revolutionary struggle they hinder a movement at every instance.


but our role as communists is to always fight on behalf on the working class.

Wait says who? Says you? Communists don't do the job of the working class. When the working class fights, Communists fight alongside them. Hence why Marx says "The Emancipation of the Working Class is the act of the Working Class itself" - not the act of the Communist acting on their behalf, but as tool for the Working Class.


The working class' interests and the interests of communists are one in the same - and I'm telling you that encouraging workers to decertify or disband their unions so that their lives can suck so much that they revolt is not within the interests of the working class.

If our Interests are the same, then the Communist interest is in Welfare Capitalism and not Communism under your logic. Contradiction much? The job of revolutionaries, even as the stupidity of Lenin would say, is to push the working class beyond Simple Trade Union Consciousness.


Our class is not some organism in a petry dish you should try to experiment on.

Nor is it a pack of dogs you hope to lead.


. You advocate worker councils and not unions partly, I presume, because worker councils are supposed to be democratic - but so can unions.

A bad assumption, because Workers' Councils have in the past been highly Centralized and weakly democratic. No doubt too there have been the uber democratic ones, because Workers' Councils themselves are spontaneous without predetermined forms. Something Unions aren't. But to try and draw comparrisions between the Union and Workers' Councils is stupid. For one, Workers' Councils are revolutionary CLASS organizations. They compose of joint committees of action, representing Students, the Unemployed and Workers of all stripes meeting in a city council for the purposes of continuing services in a strike time and for the conductiong of revolutionary procedures. They are for both the overthrough of the existing state and the factory system and with that, the whole Capitalist system. They are not one sided fighters for reforms in the factories, but are for the end to the system of exploitation. If the difference isn't apparent enough then there is no point in arguing with you.


Worker councils can't even theoretically exist within capitalism - they can only exist during and after revolution - because seizing the means of production and democratically controlling it through an organization of workers is revolution against capital. Until the workers and their families find the conditions they are in force them to revolt - the workers won't revolt. And trying to convince a worker to fuck him or herself over in the interest of capital now, for some esoteric armchair communist reasoning that he or she will later immensely benefit is bullshit

Workers' Councils can exist in Capitalism. In a revolutionary struggle, Capitalism still exists. In Iran 79 there were Workers' Councils in the Oil industry which shut down cities and industries. Capitalism still existed in this struggle. Chile under Allende, Workers' Councils took over cities and industries. Capitalism still existed. Until an International Revolution happens where every last capitalist enterprise is shut down, Capitalism still exists.

What's with the distinction between Workers and Families btw.

I am not convincing a worker to go and fuck themselves. Again, you with absurd strawmen and assumptions, just so you can whip out your much overused "armchair communist" joke.

[Dunk]

Especially after discussing this with people on IRC, Paulappaul, you may be right. I'll message you questions, because I'm still not totally convinced anti-capitalists should oppose unions.

[Paulappaul]

Sounds good. I feel bad for clogging this topic with our conversation though haha

[x359594]

Today the old bourgeois and Stalinist cliches about the IWW's "incorrect policies" and other "mistakes" sound emptier than ever. Who but incurable dogmatists could believe such claptrap? The time has come to affirm that most of the IWW's so-called "failures" were in actuality its greatest triumphs, and that the alleged "successes" of its competitors have turned to dust. To reread the harshest criticisms directed against the One Big Union by its political enemies (from the left as well as right and middle) is truly to savor the sweetest tributes to its glory. All that the Old Left--social-democratic, Stalinist, "Progressive," Trotskyist, etc.--liked least about the Wobblies reappears now in an entirely new light and is increasingly recognized as the union's most important legacy to revolutionaries in our own time.

Among the IWW's most notorious "weaknesses" that can now more accurately be recognized as strengths, and essential building-blocks for a new revolutionary movement-are these:

* its uncompromising insistence on abolishing wage-slavery, and, as evidenced in part by its use of that particular expression, its self-conscious continuity with the older Abolitionist tradition;

* its focus on organizing the workers furthest down: the un-skilled, immigrants, people of color, women, the unemployed, the disabled, and the homeless;

* the nomadism of a large portion of its membership;

* its relentless non-sectarianism and uncompromising practice of solidarity, and hence its refusal to divide the struggle ("An injury to one is an injury to all");

*its open acceptance of different points of view, and its stubborn refusal to succumb to a rigid one-size-fits-all ideology;

* its emphasis on direct action and other forms of rank-and-file initiative, along with its principled non-participation in the sham of electoral politics;

* its strategic concentration on the point of production and the streets as the key areas for the creation of revolutionary situations;

* its recognition that song, poetry, art, and theater are not "secondary" but defining elements of revolutionary struggle;

* its impassioned awareness that the ongoing "romantic” and "utopian" project of building the new society in the shell of the old--so derided by authoritarian and mechanistic-minded leftists of all stripes--is not a substitute for, or "alternative" to proletarian revolution, but the only effective way of realizing it;

* and finally, its refusal (critics are wont to call it "inability") to establish stable (or "permanent'') institutions.

This last point--the alleged "failure" of the IWW most harped upon by opponents of all ages and sizes not only reveals the union at its brightest and far-seeing best, but also highlights its up-to-the-minute revolutionary actuality. One need not look hard or long to see that the stable, "permanent" institutions of this society, far from being emancipatory or in any way desirable, are on the contrary the sources of our worst woes. The state, military apparatus, churches, business, police, prisons, political parties, Boy Scouts, television, and organized crime are "stable" to a degree, but are they doing anybody except the billionaire capitalists any good? I take it as a given that, if humankind's age-old dreams of freedom are to be realized, the "stable institutions" of this society of unfreedom have got to go.

Did the Wobs 'way back sense that institutional "stability" inevitably means hierarchy, bureaucracy, stagnation, and repression? Certainly it is a fact that, with a couple of notable exceptions (Philadelphia longshoremen, Cleveland metal workers), the IWW did not build long-lasting job-connected institutions. Indeed, in its most vital and active years, the union tended to lead a rather precarious existence, with a rapidly fluctuating membership. New branches kept appearing and older ones surrendered their charters, but stability was nowhere to be found.

In part, of course, this lack of stability can be blamed on state and corporate violence. Instability, however, was characteristic of the IWW before such repression became a major factor in the life of the union, and remained characteristic after the worst repression was over. It would appear, therefore, that indifference to the development of "permanent" institutions reflects essential elements of the Wobbly sensibility: anti-authoritarianism, romanticism, mobility, creativity, and spontaneity. The IWW was not only countercultural but also vehemently counter-institutional.

As exemplified by their strikes and free-speech fights; the Wobbly conception of revolution was never a question of "stable institutions," but rather of "festivals of the oppressed": collective play-by-play negations of the existing social structure which at the same time open windows on a new society. Organizing not only the unorganized but above all those the AFL considered "unorganizable," Wobblies excelled in the fine art of rising to the occasion, redefining the "possible" in terms of the revolutionary imagination. Work experience was essential, but the play factor was no less decisive. In the IWW, the "informal work group" that many post-vanguardist Marxist theorists have perceived as the true nucleus of a new society was always also an informal play group, and its activity was by no means limited to the workplace. With their inexhaustible bag of tricks full of do-it-yourself direct actions, Wobs improvised new situations--on the job, of course, but also in the streets and even in jail: revolutionary situations in which the Old Order, if only for a day or a week, gave way to working people's dreams and desires.

This strong counter-institutional tendency was reinforced by the union's radically and self-consciously unfinished character-yet another feature the IWW shared with revolutionary currents in poetry and the arts, from romanticism to surrealism, just as it also served to distinguish Wobblies all the more from the AFL and the many left political parties. That the IWW regarded itself as still "in the works," far from "finished" and indeed, barely more than a rough sketch, was noted by many commentators in and outside the union. As Justus Ebert insisted in his pamphlet, The IWW in Theory and Practice, for decades one of the union's best-selling pieces of literature, "The IWW . . . is germinal, rather than full-grown. It is a beginning, rather than a completed article. It is raw, rather than refined."

At a time when some impatient ideologues were pretending that the IWW was over and done with, Floyd Dell, in the Liberator for June 1919, pointed out that it was just getting started: "The IWW is not a fixed institution, not a finished project. . . . It is the still-evolving embodiment of certain terrifically significant forces, which have not yet made their full concussion upon society."

Mary Marcy, reviewing that year's IWW Convention in the July issue of the same magazine, declared the union to be "...not a fixed and static thing, but an organization in the swift process of growing and becoming. . . ."

Such open-ended views in turn fit in well with the union's renowned genius for improvisation, as epitomized in a few words by Frank Little in the course of one of his talks to Butte, Montana miners in 1919. "We [in the IWW] have no set rules to go by," said Little, but in strikes, for example, we aim to win by "any means necessary."

That Little defined the IWW with a phrase later made famous by Malcolm X shows not only that great revolutionists often think the same thoughts, but also that the IWW was a forerunner--symbolically if not physically--of just about every subsequent emancipatory movement in the USA. And that helps explain why today, when the "organized left" is almost universally recognized as rigid, boring, and dead, the IWW--as inspiration and heritage--is still vibrant, exciting, and alive.

What I am arguing here is not particularly new, and I am far from alone in arguing it. In recent years an impressive number of labor activists, radical environmentalists, socialists, anarchists, feminists, pacifists, poets, puppeteers, novelists, artists, musicians, cartoonists and historians have concluded--notwithstanding many differences among them--that of all revolutionary and labor organizations in U. S. history, the IWW is the single most important inspiration and model--or at least one of the top two or three--for a new revolutionary movement in our time.

In the end, it is always up to the working class to turn things around, to make the changes that make life better.

[Paulappaul]

* its relentless non-sectarianism and uncompromising practice of solidarity, and hence its refusal to divide the struggle ("An injury to one is an injury to all");

*its open acceptance of different points of view, and its stubborn refusal to succumb to a rigid one-size-fits-all ideology;What about the Wobblies ousting the Socialist Labor Party from its ranks as well as those electoral Socialists? That's pretty sectarian. The I.W.W. was not an organic labor institution, it was created by Socialists for the purpose of more radical Unionism. There was a huge internal debate being that its leaders were themselves dedicated Socialists. The big debate which lead to a spilit in the IWW's early history was between the Detroit IWW and the Chicago IWW. The later being Anarchist - Syndicalist, Bakuninist and Individualist and the former being much more closer to the politics of the Socialist Labor Party. The Later ousted the Former, and it became the WIIU against the IWW. Talk about sectarianism :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Apolitical and sectarian all in the name of "anti-party"-ism :rolleyes:

[Zav]

I'm a Wobbly. I think that the One Big Union should be revived, or a new organisation like it should be created, because while I am proud to show my workers' solidarity, I doubt that it will ever regain its former might. Too many concessions have been made by the Labour Movement for the IWW to be a threat to the Establishment anymore. Honestly, I think our numbers are dwindling. There are only 2000 members or so, and less than half pay their dues. Most of us are old, retired, and have given up the fight against the abusing class. What the Left needs is to banish its pride and drop its sectarian practices. Maybe then we can make some real change for posterity. Previous attempts at this failed because of Anarchist-Marxist conflict, yes? Even if there were two movements (a Lib-Left and a State-Left, perhaps), we could stop the reactionary rich from driving us back into feudalism. We could worry about our own differences later. There are more important issues to be handled.

[syndicat]

i would say what's needed is a new labor movement that is directly run by workers and is independent of the parastic labor bureaucracy. a workers movement that works on the basis of mass mobilizations, links between the workplace and the community, doesn't ignore the non-economic ways people are oppressed, doesn't get dragged into electoral politics, and has a vision of a society where workers run the industries and places where we work.

but such a movement will inevitably develop around reform struggles...that is, struggles over what seem to working people to be achievable, desireable changes. the big assembly-based mass movements in Bolivia, based on worker assemblies, which defeated privatization of water and oil resources, has had a kind of revolutionary elan to it, even tho these were reform struggles. what's "revolutionary" is the way the reforms are fought for.

now of course many of the features that i laid out above for a new labor movement were characteristic of the IWW in its heyday. but the IWW today is a very tiny organization. in periods when new mass worker movements have emerged, they typically involve workers creating new organizations...like the creation of all the new unions in 1933-35 (which unfortunately got coopted into bureaucratic CIO structures over time). i think that it is unlikely the IWW will be the particular organizational form that this sort of mass organized working class movement will take...because the IWW is too small and has too little influence in the working class at present.

that said, i think some particular organizing struggles of the IWW in recent years are good examples of the kind of bottom-up organizing that needs to occur, like the Jimmy Johns campaign and the Starbucks campaign.

two weaknesses of the classical IWW were its ignoring the community as a sphere of struggle, and its failure to consider the role of the state in a revolutionary situation (largely ignored in "The General Strike for Industrial Freedom"...IWW's main document on how they conceive of the revolutionary transition taking place). the IWW has been accused of being "apolitical" but that word was used in early 1900s to merely mean not getting involved in electoral politics. but there is such a thing as working class politics, and the IWW was definitely quite "political" in that sense.

not all the organizations created by the IWW, by the way, were "unstable." The largest local union in the IWW, local 8 in Philadelphia, was a stable local of black and white longshoremen that survived for 10 years and had significant job control on the docks in that period...and was only broken through a massive concerted employer attack in 1923.