Solidarity Federation led campaign against temp agency is victorious

[bricolage]

An interesting write up.

The past couple of months have seen SolFed engage in an escalating “disruptive action” campaign to redress a case of unpaid wages by the world's largest employment agency. Four days into a national week of action, the Office Angels temporary agency capitulated and gave their ex-worker his due wages.http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=solidarity-federation-to-agency-workers-together-we-can-fight-back-and-win

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It's a great article. This sums it up very well:


direct action works. We achieved what we achieved without lawyers, courts, industrial tribunals, or even union reps. And we won. We planned and strategised and, despite some inevitable hiccups, we orchestrated an escalating campaign against the largest employment agency in the world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like SolFed (and the IWA in general, I guess). Good organization. Wish there were more libertarian communist groups like it and AFed in the USA, although I remain skeptical regarding the ultimate effectiveness of explicitely anarchist organization(s). This is encouraging though.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I like SolFed (and the IWA in general, I guess). Good organization. Wish there were more libertarian communist groups like it and AFed in the USA, although I remain skeptical regarding the ultimate effectiveness of explicitely anarchist organization(s). This is encouraging though.

What is it about groups being explicitly anarchist that restricts how effective they are? Surely thats more to do with their size.

[IndependentCitizen]

Well done, comrades. Great job.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What is it about groups being explicitly anarchist that restricts how effective they are? Surely thats more to do with their size.

Well, as far as a present strategy, I'm just not convinced of the value of forming specifically anarchist groupings in regards to the labor movement...it doesn't really have anything to do with anarchism per se, I'd have the same criticism of, say, a DeLeonist trade union organization or something.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, on the other hand, does have points that can and have been critiqued from an anarchist perspective, for example here (http://spunk.org/texts/writers/malatest/sp001867.html) and here (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__A_Critique_of_Syndicalist_Meth ods.html). (Those writings from Malatesta in particular were influential on my thoughts towards anarcho-syndicalism in my early political development. I think that the experience of Spain and other episodes in the historic trajectory of syndicalism added some credibility to his ideas regarding the tendency. But that's for another thread.)

[Zanthorus]

What is it about groups being explicitly anarchist that restricts how effective they are? Surely thats more to do with their size.

This is a strange statement. Surely it's obvious that the small size of these groupings is precisely because they have explicitly Anarchist politics. These groups have the same issues that all tiny groupings which hold to a particular theory hold - the vast majority of the working-class will never have the 'correct' consciousness to be able join them. Our 'goal' if we are serious about the overthrow of the existing state regime is an organisation (Or perhaps multiplicity of organisations?) which encompasses all the militant sections of the class such as the Soviet/Factory Council movement in Russia. Such an organisation could not possibly identify itself with any particular branch of the 'left'.

[Joe Payne]

This is pretty awesome news. It's always good to hear of victories like these. Especially encouraging given our work in the Solidarity networks.

There are groups like AFed in the US: WSA, NEFAC, Amenecer, Four Star, Wild Rose Collective, Buffalo Class Action, Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, Heatwave Communist Anarchist Federation, M1, Solidarity and Defense, and I think there's others, too.

There's also Modesto Anarcho Crew and Pheonix Class War Council, from my understanding they're the more solid insurrectionary groups.

There also more Jamesian groups that I would describe as Libertarian like Bring the Ruckus and Unity and Struggle.

All those groups are in the US and are generally on friendly comradely, even filial relations with one another. They live communism and spread anarchy. lol, but seriously they're all doin great stuff.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is a strange statement. Surely it's obvious that the small size of these groupings is precisely because they have explicitly Anarchist politics.

Why? Have there not been large explicitly Anarchist movements in the past?


These groups have the same issues that all tiny groupings which hold to a particular theory hold - the vast majority of the working-class will never have the 'correct' consciousness to be able join them. Our 'goal' if we are serious about the overthrow of the existing state regime is an organisation (Or perhaps multiplicity of organisations?) which encompasses all the militant sections of the class such as the Soviet/Factory Council movement in Russia. Such an organisation could not possibly identify itself with any particular branch of the 'left'.

Obviously I agree with that as a goal, any organisation knocking about which sees it self as capable of being revolutionary in the future is deluding itself.


Anarcho-Syndicalism, on the other hand, does have points that can and have been critiqued from an anarchist perspective, for example here and here. (Those writings from Malatesta in particular were influential on my thoughts towards anarcho-syndicalism in my early political development. I think that the experience of Spain and other episodes in the historic trajectory of syndicalism added some credibility to his ideas regarding the tendency. But that's for another thread.)

I'll try and write a bit of reply to those two articles and get a thread up at some point, if you want to post you should as it'll probably be up before I reply that way.

[black magick hustla]

This is a strange statement. Surely it's obvious that the small size of these groupings is precisely because they have explicitly Anarchist politics. These groups have the same issues that all tiny groupings which hold to a particular theory hold - the vast majority of the working-class will never have the 'correct' consciousness to be able join them. Our 'goal' if we are serious about the overthrow of the existing state regime is an organisation (Or perhaps multiplicity of organisations?) which encompasses all the militant sections of the class such as the Soviet/Factory Council movement in Russia. Such an organisation could not possibly identify itself with any particular branch of the 'left'.

class organizations are different from commnunist organizations. they are related, but they are useful in different ways. it doesnt matter how small a communist organization is - its merits and goals are different.

[Mather]

This is a strange statement. Surely it's obvious that the small size of these groupings is precisely because they have explicitly Anarchist politics.

Not really.

Historically speaking, during times of intense class struggle such as early 20th century Russia and the USA or in Spain in the 1930s, anarchism had a much wider and higher level of support amongst the working class.

The failures of the far left post-1945 are due to the fact that class struggle has not been as intense as it has been in past instances. With the current economic conditions (the worst since the 1929 crash) we may well see a return class politics and the class struggle hopefully becoming more intense.


These groups have the same issues that all tiny groupings which hold to a particular theory hold - the vast majority of the working-class will never have the 'correct' consciousness to be able join them.

I agree to some extent.

Any party or organisation that seeks to impose complete ideological 'purity' on it's members will not get very far and there are a few examples of this. However there is a big difference between an organisation making it's members toe the party line on all issues and having a set of general principles and a generally agreed upon ideology. This is the point where the advocates of 'broad and non-ideological' leftist unity stumble as there are some issues which cannot be brushed under the carpet so to speak, for example on the question of reformism vs revolution.


Our 'goal' if we are serious about the overthrow of the existing state regime is an organisation (Or perhaps multiplicity of organisations?) which encompasses all the militant sections of the class such as the Soviet/Factory Council movement in Russia. Such an organisation could not possibly identify itself with any particular branch of the 'left'.

Soviets/workers councils are ideal for the working class and especially those workers who work in large units (factories etc) where the conditions are ideal for such an approach.

But what about all those people who would be supportive towards a working class revolution but due to their own personal circumstances cannot become involved in the Soviets/workers councils? Pensioners, students, the unemployed, the homeless, people reliant on the welfare state, all these people face the same levels of exploitation, suffering and oppression as the working class. Yet they have no factories or shops to occupy, unlike the employed working class, so yes we do need Soviets/workers councils but we also need much more than that.

A genuine communist movement that has mass support and a solid base amongst the working class as well as an internally democratic structure that allows for full democracy and debate, is both desirable and achievable.