Syndicalism, The Idea that can save Socialism [Archive]

View Full Version : Syndicalism, The Idea that can save Socialism

Forward Union

20th June 2011, 10:44

This is a first draft of a document I am writing. Tell me what you think.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/200149_554728469771_223001729_2570493_5468791_n.jp g

Syndicalism. The idea which can save Socialism.
By David O'Connell

“What became of all that work of the Syndicalists?” - Tom Brown, Direct Action Magazine, February, 1968, vol 9 no 2.

Forward
This article is built on the back of a new and growing body of literature, the start of something fresh and constructive.,It will outline in brief terms, the need for a phase of,'syndicalist style reconstruction',of the basic bodies of workers self-organisation; Union branches,,Tenants,and Residents associations. It is a growing belief,amongst,the left, that there is a need to "put aside" exclusive political,organisation, and party building in a,vacuum, as an,inappropriate,tool (and indeed method) for the task ahead. Syndicalists like Tom Mann, writing in 1890, warned of the shortcomings of partyist organisations, namely the Labour Party, and proclaimed that "The hope for the future lies in the extension of labour organisations on the side of the workers,"[1], while he changed his mind on the matter of Syndicalism, it was for good cause, and I affirm his early position to be even truer today.
I take no side in any dispute, between any party, tradition, or faction on the left here. Instead this document is intended to act as a polemic, in a debate which is currently completely silent, attacking the assumed idea that,political,organising is the only means of building class power.

Background and The Situation today.
The first and most significant,split,in the political workers movement finds its roots in the First international, between the Marxists,,who considered control of the state apparatus as strategically useful, and the,Bakuninists, who believed that the organs of workers power (Trade Unions, Community associations) could manage society directly. That was a long time ago, but this debate goes on, and is perhaps intensified by the actions, failures, and mistakes of both sides throughout history. Both,tendencies however, are agreed on one key point, something fundamental to their very existence which,Syndicalists,consider to today be a fatal assumption - which is the focus of this article.

Political organizations of the left, be they of Anarchists, Stalinists, or anything in between, are completely unified in conceiving their political organizations as something external to the mass organs of class power. This is not in itself an attack, it simply states the obvious: that they are political rather than economic,organisations. Malatesta said as much when he described labour organisations as "fertile ground for propaganda"[2] Political groups are then, are not 'mass,organisations' for any worker, but for workers with a very particular set of ideas.

When Marx and,Baknunin,were writing, mass economic,organisations,were indeed large, politically and culturally significant entities in society. Something on which genuine political power could be built. Unions played a key role in the everyday lives of 19th/20th,century European Workers, at work and in the community, and what was needed, according to both the Anarchists and the Communists was more specific political direction - and they were right. This was the most important question facing any Socialist from the,1800s,right up until the, 1980s.

What is missing from our historical epoch is the strength of these basic organs. These bodies are decayed and shattered now. No political,organisation,can be built on the back of small, partnership unions, with density now reaching lows as worrying as 13.1 in sales occupations, with general membership falling by 2% each year, and the average age of a trade unionist fast approaching 60. [3]

Yet the left are still attempting to win the wider working class to their,principled,positions by means of propaganda, attempting to dominatethe 'mass'organisations, or simply perfecting their own political natures internally, all are failing to see that primary bodies on which they must exist, no longer exist in the way they once did - or when they do realise it, are unable to act upon it due to the fragmented and sectarian nature of the left. This approach must then stop.

All the literature that has ever been written in our movement, has made the assumption that the working class either had (some level of) pre-existing,consciousness, or some decent level of economic,organisation,(even if it was defensive). Prior to all our great thinkers and activists, when the,organs of class power,were in their infancy, people had to,organise, to build, slowly, and patiently, from the bottom up, the basic means of economic class power, as the opening quotation refers, devoid of overt political direction (which is by definition exclusive) but rather inclusive, and,organised,on purely economic, bread and butter lines.

Instead of the exclusive party model, we look back to the Charter of Amiens, adopted by the, CGT, in 1909 which asserted the importance of "complete freedom for union members to participate — outside of his corporate grouping — in those forms of struggle that correspond to his philosophical or political concepts, limiting itself to asking him in exchange to not introduce into the union the opinions he professes outside it." The 'New Unionism' of Tom Mann, and the inclusive demands of the Chartists are the models we need to be looking to.

New Syndicalism
This is where we see ourselves.,Syndicalists,believe that what is needed today, is to throw all of our effort, passion, and enthusiasm, as socialists and as comrades, into building open and inclusive organs of class power, wherever we find ourselves, and by whatever means. Union Branches, Residents associations, Tenants associations, Campaign groups, and Anti-Cuts groups. Such groups must include working people with diverse and unorthodox views "whatever their opinions or their political or philosophical leaning" including not only socialists of all traditions and shades of red, but those who know nothing about our politics, or seem hostile to the misconceptions of it that they hold.
These bodies will form the rock on which any later political,organisation,will be based. And the political left may be right, that such organs on their own cannot direct the struggle politically. But even with this premise accepted, it does not change the reality previously outlined. What ought to be added, to compound the point further, and dismiss this criticism, is to say that political parties are inherently incapable of building mass institutions of class power due to their interest in self-sustainment and growth on exclusive political lines. Any overtly political body which is to come out of the rebirth of the workers movement, must be level headed, and form its policies based on the issues and necessary strategies of the day.

Among the bodies on the left which can be seen to be responding to this historical call, are the IWW, and the RMT (while not being an explicitly Syndicalist Union, it displays many positive features), along with numerous small community group, factions and individuals - too numerous to list. One of the fundamental beliefs of the RMT (and its brainchild; the NSSN) was summed up in a statement by General Secretary Bob Crow when he said; "If we are to roll back the tide of privatisation and war, rebuilding the grassroots of our movement is essential" This perhaps sums up the general view of this article, and indeed, Bob Crows decision to leave the Communist Party and focus on rebuilding the base of the workers movement must be seen as exemplary.

The IWW, as a non-political union seeks to build support for the ideas and practices of Syndicalism across other Unions. Its ability to include any worker, and to operate as a base union (that is, a Union which operates within and across other unions), means it is a tool for reconstruction worth serious consideration.

Sadly, the National Shop Steward Network, a body which had massive potential to rebuild the workers movement on grassroots economic lines, was converted into a political campaign body by the Socialist Party, in early 2011 - despite the efforts of the,NSSN,Syndicalist grouping,to maintain the NSSNs core principals when it declared:

"Syndicalists,are opposed to the cynical use of the NSSN as a vehicle for sectarian aims. Talk about rebuilding the Labour Party Left or building alternative parties is a diversion – it won’t happen quickly, if at all, and it ignores the fact that militant trade union,activity is a political power in and of itself."

This vehicle has now, sadly, been warped and twisted to political ends, when it could have been used to push a sorely needed educational and organising mentality at the base of the unions, thanks to the short sighted and sectarian interests of the Socialist Party. Who performed this stunt in order to match the “Right to Work” campaign of the Socialist Workers Party.
This stands as an excellent, contemporary example of the destructive nature of partyism at a time when we need to be rebuilding. Imagine if all Socialists involved in both the Right to Work campaign, and the NSSN, had worked together to rebuild the base of the unions not on ideological or factional lines, but for its own sake.

This is not an isolated example, nor limited to any in particular tendency; indeed if the IWW were to be transformed it into a political union it would then act as a political rival of other fraternal,organisations, competing with them for membership, arguing with them about philosophies like any other faction on the left, rather than rebuilding the general power of the working class. While this model is employed by Anarcho-Syndicalist unions, it is fortunately against the core founding principals of the IWW, a position which must be safeguarded. The problem of partyism is not tendency specific.

The Saviour of Socialism

This is not intended to offend the left, but to redefine debate. The greatest respect is given to those hard working activists in the various Socialist parties, groups, or factions. The general view put forward by syndicalists ought to be seriously considered by even the most dedicated Party supporter, for their own benefit. As it seeks to build a new national situation, in which Socialism is as politically viable as it once was.
Even the founding of the Communist Party, once one of the most significant Socialist political forces in Britain, was built off the back of Syndicalism, as Phil Taylor explains;
In Britain the activities of Tom Mann and other syndicalists were important in fueling the highly militant wave of mass strikes that ran from 1910 to 1914, known as the “Great Unrest”. The Socialist Labour Party, although numerically small, had a widespread influence because of the activities of its leading members. That influence remained powerful even after the outbreak of the First World War, into the great engineering strikes of 1916-17, the birth of the first shop stewards’ movement and later the founding of the British Communist Party.[3]

Syndicalism's critique of any particular,organisation,is not the same as sectarianism. It does not make any reference to the policies or ideas put forward by the,organisation, takes no sides in any of the political debates currently going on. There is no conflict between agreeing with the strategic outlook of modern Syndicalism, as roughly put forward here, and holding true to the manifesto or principals of whatever affiliation one might have.

If any Socialist wants to see their group become a significant political force in society, then it will require the general strength of the working class. What Syndicalism is proposing today is cross-tendency work to build that base back up to what it once was. To fight for democracy within Unions, for the approach most effective at strengthening the direct power wielded by the workers themselves, and for the inclusion of as many working people as possible. No Socialist reading this should disagree with the benefits, or even inherent worth of this, nor will it come as anything new. What ought to be kept in mind however, is that such a revitalisation of the base,organisations,of the class, would lead to greater relevance, understanding and participation in the left wing political parties anyway. This Syndicalist approach has a lot to offer the political left.

What the left can learn from the Labour Party

Ironically perhaps, this view is well understood and is being championed first and foremost by the Labour party under Ed Miliband. Of course, the Labour Party is undoubtedly a party of the Bourgeoisie - perhaps more so now that it has been historically. But to leave the analysis there, as many do, would be to ignore an absolutely fundamental point which is that it draws its historical support from the same places that we do, namely the
grassroots,organisations,of class power; Unions, Campaign Groups, Residents and Tenants associations etc.

The Labour Party dealt with the destruction of our shared base in the,1980s,by simply positioning itself further right, and changing its core vote to that of the middle class (something we could not do by our very nature). New Labour, as it became known, sought greater support from people like Lord Sainsbury - now one of the party’s biggest donors.

As a result of the Conservative victory in 2010, and the large organic upheaval seen in the new wave of anti-cuts groups and general activity, which have sprung up around the country, Labour have seen the potential in realigning themselves slightly left of their previous position and have developed a "radical plan to win back working-class voters". And in doing so have concluded what we have seen; that those who want to see victory for a left-aligned political,organisation,must seek to rebuild the economic,organisation,of class power first, and to re establish political organisation on the back of them.

In launching "Project Game Plan" Labour are seeking to train 10,000 community organisers, expanding the "The Movement for Change" started by David Miliband some time ago. These activists will be tasked with reconstructing community groups, campaigns, and even Union Branches. In their introduction to the project they state;

“A community based political organiser can mean the difference between winning and losing an election. In the general election, seats that had an organiser for just five months in the run up to the general election bucked the trend and were decisive in stopping the Tories from getting a majority.
So imagine the result if we had organisers in place for five years? To have a strong chance of winning the 2015 general election and the elections in between, we have to start recruiting over 30 community based political organisers now for our marginal and heartland seats.”

They go into some detail, thanking "Trades Unionists" and "our ability to deploy cutting edge technologies like Contact Creator and Print Creator to target our message with unprecedented sophistication".

As Socialists, we ought to take careful note of this. These bourgeoisie are our rivals in gaining support from the wider working class, and will do untold damage once in power. But what we must accept and take note of, is what they have realised, in realpolitik terms, the absolute necessity of rebuilding the basic organs of class power first. While this is of course for their own sinister ends, the reality of the matter is that we to need to reconstruct these organs as well.

Conclusion.
The party model is a particular kind of tool, for a particular kind of job. Its job is to gain enough support for its policies (or if it has failed to develop any; its raw philosophies and principals) on the back of a wider base of support, in order to direct struggle. It is not a particularly good tool for constructing its own base of support, and no example of this can be found in history.
Consequently, we ought to put this tool aside for the mean time. The tool we need in this historical age, is an organisational approach aimed at reconstructing Unions, Residents associations, and Community groups, with no political or religious prejudice, rather being based on overt economic interests; namely those of the working class. Such bodies should be (and naturally find themselves to be) democratic and inclusive, and nurturing this atmosphere is the most important task for Socialists today.

Syndicalism is beginning to marshal itself as a new force in left wing practice and thought, as it does not conflict with the core principals of any Socialist or Anarchist but is purely a strategic approach; it no doubt has the explosive potential for reorganising the movement, fighting back, and making real and lasting change.

When affiliation to a logo, party, manifesto, or to one side in a historical dispute, or to this or that philosophical thinker comes before real inclusive,organisation, we will fail. When we learn to live in the 21st century, forget abstract differences, operate strategically, and pledge our alliance to hard work and organising, we will make progress.

See Also

Partyism versus Syndicalism -*http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/node/78
Project Game Plan -*http://www.labour.org.uk/gameplan-explained
The Charter of Amines -*http://www.marxists.org/history/france/cgt/charter-amiens.htm
The Syndicalist -*http://www.thesyndicalist.org.uk/

[1] http://www.marxists.org/archive/mann-tom/1890/x01.htm

[2] Phil taylor. http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/syndic.htm
[3]A. James, Trade Union Membership, National Statistics Publication 2009
Ibid.
[4]http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1925/04/syndic1.htm

NoOneIsIllegal

20th June 2011, 14:15

I enjoyed this article. Keep up the good work.

BTW: Crazy coincidence, I was actually looking for that cartoon. No joke. I was skimming over a book on the IWW, and it had a reference to it and it sounded hilarious.

Return to the Source

21st June 2011, 05:17

I dare you to try putting this horseshit into practice. It's literally impossible, and before you respond and tell me that it is not, try it.

Jose Gracchus

21st June 2011, 05:54

Where's your (horseshit) response to the critique of your bullshit Deng-apologist article, carmelpence provided (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2118689&postcount=24)? Don't let this faker browbeat you. He's supports investing in Caterpillar provided its not the ISO, but the People's Republic of China.

Martin Blank

21st June 2011, 06:12

I love how this is always presented as an either/or. Human beings have two arms, so why can't the proletarian movement -- one political and one economic?

Jose Gracchus

21st June 2011, 06:14

Well put! Also: is that a paraphrase of DeLeon, or is my memory fooling me?

Martin Blank

21st June 2011, 06:27

Well put! Also: is that a paraphrase of DeLeon, or is my memory fooling me?

Yeah, it is, if memory serves.

P.S.: Haven't forgotten about your questions in the USSR thread. Had a couple personal tragedies to deal with over the last week.

Os Cangaceiros

21st June 2011, 07:08

Return to the Source

21st June 2011, 07:15

Carmelpence, among many others, will receive a response in due time.

Savage

21st June 2011, 07:35

Carmelpence, among many others, will receive a response in due time.

please hurry

Jose Gracchus

21st June 2011, 07:46

YP.S.: Haven't forgotten about your questions in the USSR thread. Had a couple personal tragedies to deal with over the last week.

No problem. Thanks. I'm sorry to hear about that.

Forward Union

21st June 2011, 11:30

I dare you to try putting this horseshit into practice. It's literally impossible, and before you respond and tell me that it is not, try it.

Well, I can point to numerous examples of 'mass' economic organisations being rebuilt on non-politically exclusive lines; The Syndcalists in the NSSN, LCAP (http://www.lcap.org.uk/), Hackney Alliance (http://hackneyalliance.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/the-lawns-old-peoples-home-to-be-shut-and-sold/), The Syndicalist (http://www.thesyndicalist.org.uk/), The Burgh Angel (http://burghangel.wordpress.com/) Etc.As for groups that sympathise with the analysis I've presented, I'd point to L&S (http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/) though it's by no means a statement by them. However, I suspect your request for examples wasn't genuine. I can't really respond to the accusation of it being "horse shit" or "impossible" unless you explain your criticism a bit more fully.

I love how this is always presented as an either/or. Human beings have two arms, so why can't the proletarian movement -- one political and one economic?

In the context of modern britain, there is absolutely no point in building political organisations. I don't think they will have any function of any use to anyone, while we lack the social context of class confrontation, built on institutions like Unions. The point of the vanguard party, as lenin put it, was to lead those who had "trade union conciousness", to get them behind a coherent political platform, right? well, trade union conciousness can only exist if there are trade unions, operating on behalf of the class. Within the TUs you can have vast numbers of workers, with all kinds of political and religious beliefs, engaged in a natural confrontation with their bosses. The politics become self explanatory.

Now the Partyist mantra is that there must be a political organisation, in order to direct struggle. Fine, I don't disagree. Hence we can have "both arms" But that mantra was developed in a context of class conciousness, which does not exist in the same way. We need to go back a step, and rebuild the mass organisations first.

Die Neue Zeit

21st June 2011, 14:08

I am generally sympathetic to syndicalism. However, I also think it's clear that syndicalism has stagnated for, oh, the past 100 years, after peaking in the early part of the 20th century. So my question is what are the significant syndicalist efforts in the present day, with the exception of SAC and a few others?

This is the concern Return to the Source should have said.

I love how this is always presented as an either/or. Human beings have two arms, so why can't the proletarian movement -- one political and one economic?

Comrade, Explosive Situation hinted at something about the stagnation of syndicalism. Any new, vibrant syndicalism needs to be sociopolitical (i.e., Sociopolitical Syndicalism) from the outset. Forward Union just repeated anti-political mantra.

NoOneIsIllegal

21st June 2011, 14:39

I am generally sympathetic to syndicalism. However, I also think it's clear that syndicalism has stagnated for, oh, the past 100 years, after peaking in the early part of the 20th century. So my question is what are the significant syndicalist efforts in the present day, with the exception of SAC and a few others?
Big things happenin' in IWW y'all. Nothing has exploded yet, but we have a few things under wrap that I rather not post on a public forum. You can always find out by joining! ;) lololololol. I rather not beat a dead horse of what's happening in the union (as I have in a several other threads), but man, gets me excited (see: hard-on).

As for other syndicalist unions, I'm not up to date on everything, but yes it seems SAC is putting the class-struggle at top of its list, which is excellent because it's an active, strong union in several industries. I really do need to update myself on struggles in other countries, like South American nations. Man, that place use to be the hotbed of syndicalism.

Forward Union

21st June 2011, 15:16

Well, also, I don't think Syndicalism is necessarily a replacement for Leninism, Anarchism, or whatever tendency you chose to follow. I mean, this is why the IWW has a "leave politics at the door" policy. Any Socialist, Social Democrat, or Joe Bloggs can join, and defend themselves alongside their fellow workers. Rather, Syndicalism is an approach which I see being strategically very useful in the modern context. You could agree with either side in the Kronstadt rebellion and still see that rebuilding the organic power of the working class today is the best active path to take. But once Socialism becomes a vibrant contemporary force, most of the ideological backwaters will be flushed out by fresh water - something political hacks don't want.

Now, there are tons of non-political ) organisations (in regard to big p politics) and unions dedicated to rebuilding the grassroots power of the working class, rather than a syndicalist organisation or any other kind of political or ideological organisation. The point of Syndicalism is to build mass organisations, not syndicalist organisations, if this wording helps you understand what I mean a bit better.

Now the IWW, certainly is growing. I can only talk about the UK, where it has gone through the full certification process and is now a completely legal union, able to perform all the functions any other union can. It has an increasing membership, including the entire Latin American Workers Association, as well numerous new Job Branches, industrial sections including health and social workers (http://health.iww.org.uk/) and Education workers (http://iww.org.uk/education) as well as in construction (http://iww.org.uk/buildingconstruct), with workers on the olympic site etc etc. But building the IWW isn't the same as building Syndicalism. I'm also interested in building other union branches. But the IWW has a Dual Card strategy, which is very important;

'Dual carders'

Since the education sector is one of the most unionised sectors in the UK, many IWW education workers operate as a network of workplace militants within the mainstream education unions. As such, the IWW welcomes education workers who are already in another union. Our members are engaged both in independent IWW organising work, and pushing a radical and democratic platform within the mainstream unions.

It wouldn't be productive to try and attack other unions, full of dedicated and hard working people, by trying to steal their members thus creating tribal divisions within the workers movement. Mainstream Unions are important, and can't be beaten by building an independent Syndicalist Union, but by pushing a pro-democracy, pro-militancy approach, which would be a lot easier if Socialists and Communists were interested in doing that, rather than pushing an exclusive political agenda within the Unions, trying to capture key positions etc.

Kadir Ateş

21st June 2011, 15:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Return to the Source http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2149908#post2149908)
Carmelpence, among many others, will receive a response in due time.

please hurry

Thank you for calling the Central Committee, please hold on the line for the next available representative.

Tim Cornelis

21st June 2011, 15:28

I don't wanna be that guy, but I'd suggest correcting the punctuation. It makes it really hard* to read.

*at least for me.

Forward Union

21st June 2011, 15:29

I don't wanna be that guy, but I'd suggest correcting the punctuation. It makes it really hard* to read.

*at least for me.

Yea sorry, something went wrong in the formatting when I moved it here. I will fix it in a later draft.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

21st June 2011, 15:39

Forward Union

21st June 2011, 16:10

Interesting article-while I think party-centric platforms can work in some contexts, its clear that a broader platform is required in some states, especially those where left parties are limited in strength and ambition, ie the UK. But I don't see anything mutually exclusive about organizing both the worker's platform and the party base. It seems that socialist organizing is most successful when the two go hand in hand. The real weakness is not in political parties themselves, but in how they are used-the party "gaining power" becomes an end unto itself, when of course the Communist ideal is the "working class" taking power.

I just can't see what a Socialist party would do while the organisations its based on are being rebuilt. In fact, I think there are cases where trying to politically direct a body like the NSSN while its still in its infancy can be destructive to the process. So I advocate that Socialists like me and you ought to put our effort into exclusively rebuilding 'mass organisations'. Of course, there are 'political organisations' which advocate this approach, of which I am a member.

How do you think syndicalism in Europe would differ practically or strategically from that in rural Mexico?

Well there are a lot of things happening in Mexico which make it very different to the UK. The country has had, since the revolution, a left divided between every faction, in every imaginable way (and a few ways which are unimaginable). If I remember my history well enough, The Revolutionary Syndicalists, in 1910 alligned themselves with the racist científicos Bourgeois Mestizos from the Cities who wanted to eradicate the Indigenous population, or at least turn them into a slave caste. So the Syndicalists joined in campaigns against Zapatas revolutionary peasant army (!)- in order to defend their urban privileges. This is something you don't find too often in European history.

Syndicalism just can't survive in Rural Mexico, without linking up to the cities. In my view, La Otra Campana, had tremendous potential to network the radicals into a coherent program of action which has been sorely needed in Mexico, since you have isolated flashpoints all over the country which have failed to spread or become proper class conflicts (Chiapas, Oaxaca etc). I mean, when I was in Mexico, I found out that the Libertarian Socialists in D.F had absolutely no idea that VOCAL in Oaxaca even existed, and Section22 had only minimal overlap with the Zapatistas. They were all completely isolated events.

The corruption and distrust of the government leaves serious space for dual power to take root. But the large presence of Stalinist organisations, which have victimised Libertarian Socialists involved in APPO for example, and have not only a political platform but a fairly substantial military one - an Insurrectionary peasant army bigger than the EZLN. These are serious concerns.

Book O'Dead

21st June 2011, 18:51

I've cut and pasted the article at the head of this thread so I can read it at home.
Please keep this discussion going until I can come back to participate (which will likely be tomorrow, June 21). Thanks to all, especially to Forward Union for instigating this timely discussion.

Os Cangaceiros

21st June 2011, 21:08

The corruption and distrust of the government leaves serious space for dual power to take root. But the large presence of Stalinist organisations, which have victimised Libertarian Socialists involved in APPO for example, and have not only a political platform but a fairly substantial military one - an Insurrectionary peasant army bigger than the EZLN. These are serious concerns.

Wait, there are Stalinist organizations in Mexico w/ large insurrectionary peasant armies? Which organizations are these?

The only militant Marxist-Leninist organization in Mexico that I know of is the EPR, and they're not very big.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd June 2011, 02:51

Well, also, I don't think Syndicalism is necessarily a replacement for Leninism, Anarchism, or whatever tendency you chose to follow. I mean, this is why the IWW has a "leave politics at the door" policy.

That's precisely the problem. The IWW doesn't have its own set of politics to unite members around. It doesn't have its own political party made up exclusively of IWW members.

Martin Blank

22nd June 2011, 06:52

In the context of modern britain, there is absolutely no point in building political organisations. I don't think they will have any function of any use to anyone, while we lack the social context of class confrontation, built on institutions like Unions. The point of the vanguard party, as lenin put it, was to lead those who had "trade union conciousness", to get them behind a coherent political platform, right? well, trade union conciousness can only exist if there are trade unions, operating on behalf of the class. Within the TUs you can have vast numbers of workers, with all kinds of political and religious beliefs, engaged in a natural confrontation with their bosses. The politics become self explanatory.

Now the Partyist mantra is that there must be a political organisation, in order to direct struggle. Fine, I don't disagree. Hence we can have "both arms" But that mantra was developed in a context of class conciousness, which does not exist in the same way. We need to go back a step, and rebuild the mass organisations first.

I think that the problem with your approach is not that there is no need to build mass economic organizations of the working class, but that you're choosing sides in a "chicken or egg" argument. Class consciousness cannot be confined to one arena of society; it inevitably breaks through the artificial barriers set down by capitalism in the forms of "politics", "economics", "culture" and "social relations", and demands an all-encompassing movement. A picket line broken up or hamstrung by the police is an excellent example. From the moment they appear and confront the strikers, the issue that prompted the picket line becomes as political as it is economic.

Whenever the state intervenes, the issue becomes political and cannot be resolved by even the most radical of economic means. It requires having a political front, either stemming from or developed alongside the economic movement, that can challenge the state's monopoly on coercive force. Call it a party, or don't -- the specific label is more or less irrelevant; what matters is what it does and how it works with and alongside the economic movement.

Another point that I think should be made is that it is something of a myth to imply that the period in which organizations like the IWW developed was one with a generalized context of class confrontation and mass labor union organizations. In fact, the IWW developed precisely because there was not that kind of context, and because mass labor union organizations did not exist. Union membership in the U.S. in 1905 was only about 2 million, which was about 11 percent of the workforce -- similar to where it was in 1995. Most of those workers were in AFL craft unions, not industrially-organized unions like the Western Federation of Miners, and were known to cross each other's picket lines because strikes were limited to one or two crafts at a workplace. Moreover, the AFL unions were strong purveyors of the belief in unity between capital and labor, not class confrontation.

Does any of this negate the need to organize at the point of production, distribution or exchange? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite! But we shouldn't engage in "chicken or egg" contrarianism. Yes, let's organize in the workplaces together, but let's not forget that the moment we as working people gain a little traction, we will be thrust into a political struggle against elements of the capitalist state as surely as the sun rises.

Forward Union

22nd June 2011, 07:27

I think that the problem with your approach is not that there is no need to build mass economic organizations of the working class, but that you're choosing sides in a "chicken or egg" argument. Class consciousness cannot be confined to one arena of society; it inevitably breaks through the artificial barriers set down by capitalism in the forms of "politics", "economics", "culture" and "social relations", and demands an all-encompassing movement. A picket line broken up or hamstrung by the police is an excellent example. From the moment they appear and confront the strikers, the issue that prompted the picket line becomes as political as it is economic.

Whenever the state intervenes, the issue becomes political and cannot be resolved by even the most radical of economic means. It requires having a political front, either stemming from or developed alongside the economic movement, that can challenge the state's monopoly on coercive force. Call it a party, or don't -- the specific label is more or less irrelevant; what matters is what it does and how it works with and alongside the economic movement.

But the kind of political confrontation brought on by police smashing a picket line (or perhaps if you like, anti-union laws being implemented) is small p politics, the type already encompassed by groups like the IWW, and RMT (and probably most unions). It's quite different from the politics of Communism.

Now, I've never denied the need for a political wing. Some Syndicalists do, Anarcho Syndicalists think the Union should also be the political wing. I don't agree with either of these positions. What I am saying, is that the political wing will eventually form out of historical inevitability. There is already a huge, bloated political wing, attached to nothing. The problem is that it's actions are the same as they were 100 years ago, particularly the trotskyists, who make the presumption that Unions are the mass organs of the class already, and need to be directed politically, as with the NSSN. This can damage the process of reconstruction greatly. The NSSN could have been a brilliant education tool for Union members, teaching them class conciousness, history, and more importantly, law. It could have helped radicalise the base and build trade union conciousness, now it is just an anti-cuts front for the SP. And people will have to find a way to set up another NSSN.

This is why I'd say you have to hatch the egg to eat the chicken, though in good time you will have had both.

That's precisely the problem. The IWW doesn't have its own set of politics to unite members around. It doesn't have its own political party made up exclusively of IWW members.

What would such a party do? how big do you think it would be, in seriousness, and how much impact on the political landscape would it have?

W1N5T0N

22nd June 2011, 07:49

@Explosive Situation: What are you talking about? ;) 1936 - Catalonia. Thats almost halfway into the last century!

Os Cangaceiros

22nd June 2011, 07:57

@Explosive Situation: What are you talking about? ;) 1936 - Catalonia. Thats almost halfway into the last century!

That's an anomaly. Left-wing revolutionary syndicalism's peak was around just before World War One. And it's decline was due in no small part to the revolutionary movement's inability to stop that war. After that it was firmly supplanted by the Leninist model endorsed at the Third International.

Paulappaul

22nd June 2011, 08:29

The point of the vanguard party, as lenin put it, was to lead those who had "trade union conciousness", to get them behind a coherent political platform, right? well, trade union conciousness can only exist if there are trade unions, operating on behalf of the class. Within the TUs you can have vast numbers of workers, with all kinds of political and religious beliefs, engaged in a natural confrontation with their bosses. The politics become self explanatory.I think you're are trying to make the political struggle synonymous with the Political party. The point is that the working class takes on naturally political demands, which confront the state toe to toe. The problem with Syndicalism, particularly with the Industrial Unionism of the IWW, is that, to quote Anton Pannekoek,

Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold, the state powerand the same can be basically said with the CNT. Alone as a Union it took up incredibly reformist and limiting demands, attacking the Capitalist as a master of only the economic field. It was weak in pushing the revolution beyond the border of the areas for which it had seized production. When it did, it was in the hands of the political organization of the proletariat, the FAI. This was the organisation that aganist the reformism of the CNT pushed the revolution with its propaganda, with its slogans and with its "vanguard" position within the CNT.

And if it was true that the "Natural Confrontation" within the Trade Unions and their bosses led into political demands we would have had the revolution a long time ago. But fact of the matter is that the working class doesn't always take on political positions relating to class antagonism. Working Class consciousness is not as black as white as you make it appear. This is a major failure within most Syndicalists, something which a Political Organization can clarify and discuss, something which I see is being more and more pursued within the 21st Century Anarchist - Syndicalists and within the IWW's milieu.

Forward Union

22nd June 2011, 08:29

Forward Union

22nd June 2011, 08:34

I think you're are trying to make the political struggle synonymous with the Political party. The point is that the working class takes on naturally political demands, which confront the state toe to toe. The problem with Syndicalism, particularly with the Industrial Unionism of the IWW, is that, to quote Anton Pannekoek,

Yes I knew someone would dig up these old mantras, but it just doesn't respond to my article, it responds to a strawman parody of Syndicalism as an all encompasing worldview, but I am proposing reconstruction of the base of the workers movement before building political organisations. I can't put it more plainly.

and the same can be basically said with the CNT. Alone as a Union it took up incredibly reformist and limiting demands, attacking the Capitalist as a master of only the economic field. It was weak in pushing the revolution beyond the border of the areas for which it had seized production. When it did, it was in the hands of the political organization of the proletariat, the FAI. This was the organisation that aganist the reformism of the CNT pushed the revolution with its propaganda, with its slogans and with its "vanguard" position within the CNT.

I'm quite opposed to the CNTs model, I could probably write a whole book on it. In short though, I don't think it has anything at all to do with what I am talking about, and won't go down that road of discussion right now.

And if it was true that the "Natural Confrontation" within the Trade Unions and their bosses led into political demands we would have had the revolution a long time ago. But fact of the matter is that the working class doesn't always take on political positions relating to class antagonism. Working Class consciousness is not as black as white as you make it appear. This is a major failure within most Syndicalists, something which a Political Organization can clarify and discuss, something which I see is being more and more pursued within the 21st Century Anarchist - Syndicalists and within the IWW's milieu.

You're just repeating some old statements about the need for a political party, which I've never denied. And in fact explicitly complimented in the essay.

Paulappaul

22nd June 2011, 08:52

You're just repeating some old statements about the need for a political party, which I've never denied. And in fact explicitly complimented in the essay. I never said we need a Political Party. Speaking of Strawmen :rolleyes:

What I said was that a Political Organization can Clarify misconceptions of the Workers and Revolutionaries have. Within the CNT, such a Political organization was the FAI.

but I am proposing reconstruction of the base of the workers movement before building political organisations

This is a very mechanical conception of the working class and revolutionary strategy, more in line with Lenin then Syndicalism.

Forward Union

22nd June 2011, 09:12

I never said we need a Political Party. Speaking of Strawmen :rolleyes:

What I said was that a Political Organization can Clarify misconceptions of the Workers and Revolutionaries have. Within the CNT, such a Political organization was the FAI.

I don't see the difference between the FAI and a Party.

This is a very mechanical conception of the working class and revolutionary strategy, more in line with Lenin then Syndicalism.

Well it's more in line with Political Science. Most political parties and organisations have an identified base, and like to make sure it's sturdy.

Martin Blank

22nd June 2011, 09:12

But the kind of political confrontation brought on by police smashing a picket line (or perhaps if you like, anti-union laws being implemented) is small p politics, the type already encompassed by groups like the IWW, and RMT (and probably most unions). It's quite different from the politics of Communism.

Every labor union, to one degree or another, engages in politics. In Britain, the business (TUC) unions engage the Labour Party and its politicians in the parliament or local council over policy issues, give money to them, volunteer to help them at election time, etc., much as the AFL-CIO engages the Democrats here. But this is more like capital-p Politics. However, the small-p politics of these unions is a reflection of its capitalized cousin. When a business union here is placed in a confrontation with the state, such as in the picket line example or in situations where a court injunction has been issued, their "political" response is either to appeal to local politicians and "public opinion" for mercy or to peremptorily submit (if it's clear the politicians would apologize or support the actions of the state).

Yes, this is quite different from the politics of communism, which would see police violence on a picket line as confirmation of the need for organized workers' self-defense. It would see the injunction as an example of exactly how the courts act as an arm of the state. It would see the indifference, intransigence or belligerence of the politicians as evidence of how their parties are political agents of the capitalists. It would not only do these, but it would also point out that, if we are going to confront the bosses at the point of production, if we are going to challenge the ability of the state and its various arms to impose capitalism's "law and order" on us workers, then we need to have a good idea of what with we want to replace these things.

But I imagine that each of these elements would also fit within your view of the kind of things a Syndicalist economic movement, as you see it, would also advocate. If not, then what are you actually advocating? I ask because the only other option would be a new batch of Syndicalist-run business unions. We tried radical-run business unions here in the U.S. in the 1930s. See how well that worked out?

Now, I've never denied the need for a political wing. Some Syndicalists do, Anarcho Syndicalists think the Union should also be the political wing. I don't agree with either of these positions. What I am saying, is that the political wing will eventually form out of historical inevitability. There is already a huge, bloated political wing, attached to nothing. The problem is that it's actions are the same as they were 100 years ago, particularly the trotskyists, who make the presumption that Unions are the mass organs of the class already, and need to be directed politically, as with the NSSN. This can damage the process of reconstruction greatly. The NSSN could have been a brilliant education tool for Union members, teaching them class consciousness, history, and more importantly, law. It could have helped radicalise the base and build trade union consciousness, now it is just an anti-cuts front for the SP. And people will have to find a way to set up another NSSN.

It sounds like the kind of organization you're looking to develop is actually a kind of hybrid union and workplace network -- an avenue for workers in various existing unions to come together and act as a network for class-struggle opposition in these bodies, but also a vehicle for organizing new unions on the basis of membership (workers') control, and a body that can generate the organic working-class base for a mass political organization. Am I correct?

If so, then you're articulating a view that our organization has advocated for two years. The only real question I'd have is: When do we start?

This is why I'd say you have to hatch the egg to eat the chicken, though in good time you will have had both.

You eat the chicken. I'll have the prime rib. :cool:

Forward Union

22nd June 2011, 09:31

Every labor union, to one degree or another, engages in politics. In Britain, the business (TUC) unions engage the Labour Party and its politicians in the parliament or local council over policy issues, give money to them, volunteer to help them at election time, etc., much as the AFL-CIO engages the Democrats here. But this is more like capital-p Politics. However, the small-p politics of these unions is a reflection of its capitalized cousin. When a business union here is placed in a confrontation with the state, such as in the picket line example or in situations where a court injunction has been issued, their "political" response is either to appeal to local politicians and "public opinion" for mercy or to peremptorily submit (if it's clear the politicians would apologize or support the actions of the state).

Right. But the reason these appeals seem desperate is due to the weakness of the Union movement itself. I mean, during the New Deal, when Keynesian politics were brought in to deal with the 1929 depression, Roosevelt said to the Unions "You make me do it". He wanted to bring in welfare reform (including healthcare) as well as labour laws to protect workers, boost employment via state intervention in the economy etc, but told the Union bosses that he could only get these things through congress if they agitated enough.

This isn't something we should aim for, but a by product of which we should take note. Pushing the entire political agenda further left is one of the benefits of a strong Union (and community) Movement. It changes public discourse and gives political organisations like yours a much better context in which to make your case.

But I imagine that each of these elements would also fit within your view of the kind of things a Syndicalist economic movement, as you see it, would also advocate. If not, then what are you actually advocating? I ask because the only other option would be a new batch of Syndicalist-run business unions. We tried radical-run business unions here in the U.S. in the 1930s. See how well that worked out?

You can say that about any of our political formations. The reality is that if any of our ideas' historical parallels had succeeded we wouldn't be here talking about it.

It sounds like the kind of organization you're looking to develop is actually a kind of hybrid union and workplace network -- an avenue for workers in various existing unions to come together and act as a network for class-struggle opposition in these bodies, but also a vehicle for organizing new unions on the basis of membership (workers') control, and a body that can generate the organic working-class base for a mass political organization. Am I correct?

Yes. I mean, in some places where there is no organisation (most places), it may be useful to build an exclusive IWW branch, from scratch. Certainly if the IWW wants to have any actual power, it will need to have some (more) industry organised. But in places where there already is Union organisation, rather than compete with them for membership and recognition, it is far better to operate as a base union within existing union. I do also feel that we ought to be, where possible building up 'mainstream' union branches. The IWW is playing a part in some of this, but bodies like the National Shop Steward Network also had massive potential.

Book O'Dead

22nd June 2011, 16:51

Saving Ourselves With Socialism.

Sounds selfishly alliterative, no?

At first blush it strikes as just another "Us & Them" paradigm but it ain't, okay?

I agree with many of the points O'Connell makes in his essay. The one that attracted me first was the question of orthodoxy in relation to the political interaction between peoples and parties. Thankfully, we live in an age where it is possible to remain faithful to an inspiring idea that motivates us while working and struggling alongside people who may not share our enthusiasm or may be inspired by contrasting but no less exciting visions.

Long ago I had a furtive but instructional meeting with a Mexican Marxist (sounds so Noir, doesn't it; Trotsky Noir, anyone?).

The informal, person-to-person meeting took place at a Denny's when it was still thought by some that Denny's at night was a perfect cop-free meeting place for cautious revolutionaries. Believe me, it never was; all the way back to the roadhouse and the roadside diner. Where else would tired cops go to temporarily escape the boredom and the horror of their execrable occupation; the venality of their empty existence?

But never mind cops, the point of this story isn't cops; it's the memory of the question my imaginary Mexican Marxist asked me while sipping his coffee. The question has stuck with me ever since that night, it was: "Do you really think that revolutions are orthodox?"

For a second I was taken aback: "No it's, it's," I stammered, struggling for the common antonym in Spanish. Impulsively I blurted out "They're HETERODOX!"

I immediately regretted my lack of self-control and cursed the clumsiness and inadequacy of my conversational Spanish.

Before I could muster up a blush of embarrassment at my stupidly impulsive and obviously mistaken answer, he said

"Right, and so must every revolutionary be."

That night I came away from that Mexican comrade feeling like I had met Trotsky in the flesh.

Later I heard from an acquaintance that he had been expelled from his party for alleged and assorted heresies. I think he asked the same question one too many times at their meetings. Who knows? Who cares, after all, he's only an imaginary person, right?

So yes, proletarian revolutions indeed are heterodox, as even a cursory examination of their history will plainly show: From the Commune to October, in between and beyond.
Hell, in one essay I vaguely remember, Engels points out how the Anarchists of Catalonia, resembling those of Blanchi during the Paris months of 1871, gave their support to and even participated in political organs of power so as to forestall defeat and destruction. The same happened again during the civil war in Spain where anarchists and Marxists (usually Trotskyites), putting aside their differences regarding political activity, collaborated closely and participated harmoniously in council meetings, debates and vote-taking. See Orwell's Homage, if you don't believe me.

By accident (mine) or by design (his) I discovered something useful. Sitting at Denny's across the table from my imaginary Mexican Marxist, I discovered a new way of perceiving reality and a different way of reading history.

I discovered for myself a viable reality in which it is possible to abandon adherence to constricting paradigms while holding fast and being true to the central idea and its supporting principles and at the same time encountering no insurmountable obstacle in the way of helping to build the necessary organizational structures required for our personal and collective emancipation from capital.

This is why the syndicalism that O'Connell espouses is so attractive: It calls for the formation of workplace and community-based organizations--by and for the workers--which are interconnected, democratic and dispense with traditional notions of leadership, control and authority. Structured in such ways as to accomplish our emancipation from capitalist exploitation, achieve the formation of a non-political government with unbreakable democratic safeguards that permanently prevent usurpation by tyrannical minorities, while ensuring the greatest prosperity, freedom and participation in the governance of society to all of the people.

Oh, yeah, did I mention that these organizations (let's call them UNIONS from here on out, okay?), united under one umbrella, will also have to be structured in a way that they will be able to effect, to carry out, to bring the rest of society safely trough the painful transition from capitalist economic and political rule to socialism in a relative but alarmingly short time?

The so-called dictatorship of the proletariat will have to be so short as to appear as a tiny, fading blip in the vast radar of our history.

O'Connell states that "Any overtly political body which is to come out of the rebirth of the workers movement, must be level headed,[sic] and form its policies based on the issues and necessary strategies of the day."

Good advise. But not enough, I think. The political party or parties that emerge out workers' struggles must contain within their charter and declaration of principles the explicit stipulation that its sole aim is EXCLUSIVELY to agitate for the formation of UNIONS by helping to awaken and strengthen proletarian class consciousness, and to capture and dismantle the political state and itself SIMULTANEOUSLY so as to ease the way or clear a path for the UNION governance to occupy its rightful, revolutionary place in society (the workplace, principally). You see now the need for a brief transition?

The party is the midwife of the revolution, not its mother. The political party of socialism is nothing more than the heroic but doomed offspring of the class struggle. Fated to oblivion when it fulfills its destiny; Fated to die in battle alongside its nemesis, the political state.

The mother of the revolution is the UNION for she is the one who is or must be made pregnant with the new society.

The political party of socialism must not outlive the revolution. Otherwise it comes to think of itself as its author, it's mother. And that, as history has shown, is a motherfucker.

O'Connell affirms, "The party model is a particular kind of tool, for a particular kind of job. Its job is to gain enough support for its policies (or if it has failed to develop any; its raw philosophies and principals) on the back of a wider base of support, in order to direct struggle. It is not a particularly good tool for constructing its own base of support, and no example of this can be found in history. Consequently, we ought to put this tool aside for the mean time"

Given what I've said previously, this conclusion is premature, erroneous and, I must say, unacceptable in spite of the sound reasoning that precedes it.

The political tool is just that: a tool. You put it down or discard it ONLY when it has outlived its usefulness. So far it has not. In my experience, the majority of workers I've met still think almost exclusively in political terms. They must be reached. And for that the UNION Mr. O'Connell and I want is woefully inadequate.

When it comes to political parties of socialism I think "Kamikaze".

The political party of socialism must be a willing and class-conscious kamikaze at the service of the UNION that launches it into the maelstrom of the class struggle. By that I mean that the union must stipulate that the party's mission is offensive in a suicidal way. Moreover, during its brief but resplendent life, the party of socialism must give the public (by 'public' read working class) a voice with which to arouse the undecided into action (create more UNIONS and challenge capitalist political rule before, during and between "political seasons"). In other words, agitate, agitate, and agitate with the unionist doctrine. In brief, the first words that come out of the political party of socialism must not be "Mama", "Papa" or "Uncle Joe" but "THE UNION IS SUPREME!"

For that we must always keep the Kamikaze Clause in their charter and enforce it as the revolution progresses.

If there is any saving to be done within Socialism it must be the preservation of the central concept toward which Karl Marx always strove: The unification of the entire working class. Only one great union can achieve that.

Maybe later we can all explore different ideas on how to structure this UNION (or "Syndicate") in practical and logistical terms but right now I want to smoke a cigarette, scratch my balls and re-read O'Connell's timely article at a more leisurely pace.

BureauOfAbsurdity13

22nd June 2011, 21:42

I'm new here, so i won't say much just yet, but I loved the article!

MarxSchmarx

23rd June 2011, 06:10

Forward union:

On the whole I think the article is on the right track, and here are some suggestions I would make (some of which have been mentioned) as you go about revising it.

First with respect to style, I think this article doesn't have to be nearly as long. Some points are repeated quite a bit (e.g., I think you rephrase the idea of a "non-political union" several times, the well known and somewhat gratuitous (in this context) digs at new labour etc... ).

More subtantively, the case for an explicitly non-politcal union must go beyond merely asserting the short-comings of partyism, as Uncle Sam among others have pointed out. Just because partyism doesn't work doesn't mean syndicalism will work. and as several users have pointed out, who defends the union against the state's repression using distinctly political tools like court injunctions? You would need to answer this question.

Indeed, in general I feel you are making the case of syndicalism almost exclusively by pointing out why partyism doesn't work, why trade unions as they exist today don't work, etc... It seems an argument by contradiction. Which is fine logically but I can't really say I feel particularly inspired that syndicalism will work just because the other methods have failed.

Relatedly, I find the emphasis on late 19th century early 20th century europe as the basis of your analysis frankly insufficient. Yes, that was a time and place when such unionism was quite robust esp. in comparison to today. But I don't think that one can say simply "it worked then, it must work now" - indeed much of the features that made industrial unionism very practical (such as huge factories with thousands of workers in the same work place, a rather motley slieu of diversions, child labor cheap wages and a complete lack of workplace safety laws) render the radicalism of unions back them seem less urgent today. I don't think the message has lost its luster, but rather at least in teh global north as bad as things are you can't compare the material circumstances people found themselves in to how they were 100 years ago for most private-sectors workers. I think your case would be much stronger if you can articulate why syndicalism applies to today's workplace and social relations, rather than trying to draw up an analogy to a very different era.

Finally I must confess (and this is a pet-peeve of mine) that "community organization" is given lip service but you only provide the concrete examples of tenants unions and anti-cut groups and other basically single-issue organizations. While better than real single issue groups with only one issue they work on, such groups have been shown to have a quite limited range of effectiveness and with the possible exception of gruopls like ACORN in America a general working class movement that speaks to a diverse range of issues outside the workplace has not shown to be massively popular. I think the side of building working class power outside the workplace deserves quite a bit more attention and should not be glossed over - especially if you are saying that people should spend the time they are away from their workplace in some kind of leftist activism that isn't something that should be glossed over, especially because you want to give people an alternative to party building to compliment their union activity.

I understand this may seem a bit caustic, but I also want to emphasize that I sympathize quite a bit with what you are saying, and I think your article is a good first start. I think therefore you should try to maximize its appeal and take this chance to make it stronger, and I've merely tried to suggest some areas where it could be sharpened a bit.

Die Neue Zeit

23rd June 2011, 06:19

^^^ Forward Union doesn't understand partyism much, though. His "partyism" object of criticism is a strawman. :(

syndicat

23rd June 2011, 18:55

i've been a died in the wool syndicalist for over 35 years. but this piece is (a) UK-centric, and (b) doesn't really say anything, that is, it doesn't really say what syndicalism is as a conception of what unionism should be.

it's also wrong to say that syndicalism is "non-political." mass organizations such as unions always have a politics. this is an old confusion among some IWW members. when the IWW changed its constitution in 1908 to remove references to the need for a political party of the class, this was done due to the sectarian cat-fight between the SLP and SPA for control of the IWW.

it was also an assertion of the autonomy of the mass organization in relation to political parties...and that is a revolutionary syndicalist principle. after the Russian revolution many revolutionary syndicalist organizations affiliated initially to the Red Trade Union International. but at the first congress of the latter body it became clear it was regarded as entirely subordinate to the Communist Party, and that all mass orgs were considered, in Leninist ideology, to be subordinate transmission belts of the national party. this is why the syndicalist organizations split from the Red Trade Union International and formed the International Workers Association.

what this piece fails to discuss is that revolutionary syndicalism also has different conception of how worker unionism should be oriented and structured. it favors direct worker control of the union & of struggles, not putting control in a paid hierarchy as in the bureaucratic business unions, and orienting to direct collective worker action, not focusing on, or dependence on, politicians and lobbying....tho pressure on the state can be an aspect of syndicalist practice, but it has to be from an independent base, apart from the politicians and parties.

this piece is also too IWW-centric. despite some growth in recent years and some impressive campaigns like Jimmy Johns, the IWW is still marginal. the whole class needs to be organized, and especially so in the more basic and strategic industries. but these latter tend to be where the business unions retain a base. how to deal with that? in the USA, due to the particular labor law scheme here, it isn't feasible to have a separate union in workplaces with a recognized business union, but there needs to be some sort of parallel worker organization apart from the bureaucracy. how to do that?

if workers build new grassroots union formations, why assume they have to be a part of the IWW? in fact they don't. we don't really know the path that the class will follow towards the building of a new, grassroots labor movement. to say it must be via the IWW is too dogmatic.

Kiev Communard

23rd June 2011, 20:52

The IWW has historically been important, as it seems to have been one of the most successful projects of overcoming sectarian schisms dating back from the times of the First International (i.e. the ones between Marxian and Bakuninian wings of revolutionary workers' movement) and building the broad, yet combative working-class organization. Nevertheless, the historical experience of European anarcho-syndicalists, German council communists of AAUD-E (who were themselves heavily influenced by IWW) and Italian autonomists are also worth studying - and criticizing, because I think that a revolutionary union should not exist in isolation but should be supported by the network of specifically political and ideological militants (i.e. the specific political organization - think about KAPD, FAI or De Leonist SLP for the approximate model), as there is still always a danger of excessive economization of the struggle.

Forward Union

24th June 2011, 14:21

i've been a died in the wool syndicalist for over 35 years. but this piece is (a) UK-centric, and (b) doesn't really say anything, that is, it doesn't really say what syndicalism is as a conception of what unionism should be.

I don't have time to respond to everything fully at the moment, but I will try to respond to you at least.

It is UK centric, it's intended to be, the political left in the UK are my target audience. There may be points of relevance to other national situations, butI know that even within the west, France and Sweden for example, this article is of no relevence. Equally people from Papua new Gunia, China, or Nigera won't find much use from what I have said. As for what Syndicalism is, ok. But i am trying to take advantage of the ambiguity of the term. I conceive of Syndicalism in line with The Syndicalists in the NSSN, or the CSR inside the French CGT.

it's also wrong to say that syndicalism is "non-political." mass organizations such as unions always have a politics. this is an old confusion among some IWW members. when the IWW changed its constitution in 1908 to remove references to the need for a political party of the class, this was done due to the sectarian cat-fight between the SLP and SPA for control of the IWW.

There's a massive difference between the small p politics of economic self-interest, and the exclusive ideological politics of a party.

this piece is also too IWW-centric. despite some growth in recent years and some impressive campaigns like Jimmy Johns, the IWW is still marginal. the whole class needs to be organized,

Point taken though I would like to make it clear that I completely agree, and see building the wider union movement as extremely important as well. Particularly in Energy, Transport, and Weapons production, because these are economically vital industries, and any union which has successfully organised such an industry could have quite powerful leverage.

and especially so in the more basic and strategic industries. but these latter tend to be where the business unions retain a base. how to deal with that?

The RMT (Rail, Maritime and Transport Union) 'retains' a massive base in Transport, it's also incredibly militant and class concious. It declares in its constitution that the job of the Union is to overthrow the wage system. It also expends resources in supporting other unions which strike, as well as wildcats, and campaigns politically against the strict trade union laws. Energy is more tricky, run but a fairly hefty 'yellow' union, the sector has seen wildcats against "migrant labour" etc. And as far as I know Weapons production is quite a hostile industry to attempt to organise, though Unite does have factories unionised. If think either the old NSSN approach, or marginal IWW 'dual card' strategy, are the ways into this. But if we exclude those dedicated trade unionists who consider themselves Trots or Anarchists then we have already made the task impossible for ourselves.

I don't know the ins and outs of US TU law, but I'd imagine it's possible to follow a similar strategy. In France, Germany, Norway etc, there are Syndicalist factions within the mainstream unions. While in Sweden, with the fairly successful SAC, it's illegal to be a member of two unions, so I've suggested a few times that the SAC set up a kind of 'radical' network within the LO.

if workers build new grassroots union formations, why assume they have to be a part of the IWW? in fact they don't. we don't really know the path that the class will follow towards the building of a new, grassroots labor movement. to say it must be via the IWW is too dogmatic.

Oh, I agree, I didn't realise my article came across like this. I think, in the UK, the NSSN had massive potential to do this, the RMT is an interesting exception to the 'mainstream unions'. But I fully support working within the TUC, and other unions to push an organising agenda, and am involved in groups that do this.

Forward Union

24th June 2011, 14:30

Finally I must confess (and this is a pet-peeve of mine) that "community organization" is given lip service but you only provide the concrete examples of tenants unions and anti-cut groups and other basically single-issue organizations. While better than real single issue groups with only one issue they work on, such groups have been shown to have a quite limited range of effectiveness and with the possible exception of gruopls like ACORN in America a general working class movement that speaks to a diverse range of issues outside the workplace has not shown to be massively popular. I think the side of building working class power outside the workplace deserves quite a bit more attention and should not be glossed over - especially if you are saying that people should spend the time they are away from their workplace in some kind of leftist activism that isn't something that should be glossed over, especially because you want to give people an alternative to party building to compliment their union activity.

A separate political body will at some point be necessary. But not now, it has no use. The reason we also have to build community organisations as well, is that Housing precariousness, for example, is statistically one of the issues which most worries people. Including myself!, it's also well outside the Unions mandate. Tenants and residents associations, are more than single issue campaigns, they are long term institutions which are designed to defend the people of a particular area. They could, in theory, protect families from evictions, and pressure councils to repossess rich peoples home or repair abandoned buildings as well as stopping the sale of council housing. I will add that such organisations have, at some point, done all of these things.

However, they have less leverage than Industrial Unions, so didn't receive as much emphasis.

I understand this may seem a bit caustic, but I also want to emphasize that I sympathize quite a bit with what you are saying, and I think your article is a good first start. I think therefore you should try to maximize its appeal and take this chance to make it stronger, and I've merely tried to suggest some areas where it could be sharpened a bit.

I appreciate that you read through it, I'll take note of all the comradely criticisms I've read so far.

NoOneIsIllegal

24th June 2011, 15:01

That's an anomaly. Left-wing revolutionary syndicalism's peak was around just before World War One. And it's decline was due in no small part to the revolutionary movement's inability to stop that war. After that it was firmly supplanted by the Leninist model endorsed at the Third International.
Actually syndicalism's highest points were during and after World War One. The USI in Italy grew from 80,000 in 1912 to 800,000 in 1920. The CNT went from 100,000 in 1914 to 700,000 in 1920. In Portugal, the UGT reached a peak of 90,000 in 1922, representing 40% of the working-class in the country. The FAUD (Germany) managed to "grow six times faster than any other labor organization in the country", claiming 120,000 in 1922. FORA-V of Argentina had over 200,000 in 1922, while the country's other syndicalist union, FORA-IX claimed 70,000 in that same period. The Chilean IWW was formed in 1918 with 200 members, and had over 25,000 a few years later.

I think we need to look at the countries individually to see what happened, because the "WW1 divided and destroyed the working-class" argument is a blanket term that cannot be applied to syndicalist unions, as they actually flourished.

Os Cangaceiros

24th June 2011, 22:44

Actually syndicalism's highest points were during and after World War One. The USI in Italy grew from 80,000 in 1912 to 800,000 in 1920. The CNT went from 100,000 in 1914 to 700,000 in 1920. In Portugal, the UGT reached a peak of 90,000 in 1922, representing 40% of the working-class in the country. The FAUD (Germany) managed to "grow six times faster than any other labor organization in the country", claiming 120,000 in 1922. FORA-V of Argentina had over 200,000 in 1922, while the country's other syndicalist union, FORA-IX claimed 70,000 in that same period. The Chilean IWW was formed in 1918 with 200 members, and had over 25,000 a few years later.

I think we need to look at the countries individually to see what happened, because the "WW1 divided and destroyed the working-class" argument is a blanket term that cannot be applied to syndicalist unions, as they actually flourished.

hmmm...forgot about some of those examples.

MarxSchmarx

25th June 2011, 02:37

A separate political body will at some point be necessary. But not now, it has no use.

So I guess it may be that you and I have very different definitions of what may be a "political body". I, along with other users like it seems DNZ and Uncle Sam, would include in this not just a party that runs elections (hence, I surmise, DNZ's point about a lot of your criticisms of partyisms being reading as strawmen arguments), but also say, an organized legal arm that fights the union's (and other community group's) cases in the courts and arguably takes on many of the services traditionally relegated to the state like education and health care and housing. Of the latter sort, surely you do not think it that it has no role to play? Yet this was precisely what a lot of the traditional strategies of political parties were (and to some extent certain parties like the sectarians in Northern Ireland or India continue this tradition).

The reason we also have to build community organisations as well, is that Housing precariousness, for example, is statistically one of the issues which most worries people. Including myself!, it's also well outside the Unions mandate. Tenants and residents associations, are more than single issue campaigns, they are long term institutions which are designed to defend the people of a particular area. They could, in theory, protect families from evictions, and pressure councils to repossess rich peoples home or repair abandoned buildings as well as stopping the sale of council housing. I will add that such organisations have, at some point, done all of these things.

However, they have less leverage than Industrial Unions, so didn't receive as much emphasis.

On this point, I think a more plausible analogy for the essense of your argument would be the resource wars in Bolivia of recent decades, again rather than Europe at the turn of the last century. There, once the basically syndicalist tin miners union was destroyed, much of the expertise migrated away from a non-existent industrial working class (as a large fraction, perhaps a plurality, of formal workers in Bolivia had been in the tin mining) to organizations based on anti-water and natural gas privatization and other quality of life issues. But Bolivia is not exactly typical because of its large, hard to organize informal sector, which is part of the reason why many of the best activists moved into other campaigns outside the workplace. Perhaps syndicalism then will take on very different forms in places where the "official" economy and employment constitutes the bulk of the working class, and places where rather unofficial and underground economy provides the basis for the working class like a large fraction of the developing world.

I appreciate that you read through it, I'll take note of all the comradely criticisms I've read so far.

Yeah I certainly strive to be constructive. I don't think all that I say needs to be incorporated into your new revision, just that it highlights areas that deserve closer attention.

Forward Union

25th June 2011, 03:42

So I guess it may be that you and I have very different definitions of what may be a "political body". I, along with other users like it seems DNZ and Uncle Sam, would include in this not just a party that runs elections (hence, I surmise, DNZ's point about a lot of your criticisms of partyisms being reading as strawmen arguments), but also say, an organized legal arm that fights the union's (and other community group's) cases in the courts and arguably takes on many of the services traditionally relegated to the state like education and health care and housing. Of the latter sort, surely you do not think it that it has no role to play? Yet this was precisely what a lot of the traditional strategies of political parties were (and to some extent certain parties like the sectarians in Northern Ireland or India continue this tradition).

The latter sort isn't a political party, it's a legal arm of a union. I mean political party in the sense Marx, saw the role of the Communist party. An Anarchist Federation, is by all means a political party as well. They are Ideological groupings, completely separate from mass organisations, that seek to ideologically lead struggle toward a particular set of political goals.

Perhaps syndicalism then will take on very different forms in places where the "official" economy and employment constitutes the bulk of the working class, and places where rather unofficial and underground economy provides the basis for the working class like a large fraction of the developing world.

Well my article wasn't supposed to apply Universally. Only to the UK, and only at the moment (not through all history)

MarxSchmarx

25th June 2011, 03:55

The latter sort isn't a political party, it's a legal arm of a union. I mean political party in the sense Marx, saw the role of the Communist party. An Anarchist Federation, is by all means a political party as well. They are Ideological groupings, completely separate from mass organisations, that seek to ideologically lead struggle toward a particular set of political goals.

So what about those "parties" that seek to provide social services like Sinn Fein or the American Black Panthers at one point?

In any event, conceivably you wouldn't be against self-proclaimed multi-tendency parties (like the CPGB or teh SPUSA) whose basic role is largely just to have an electoral strategy like any number of minute doctrinaire groups? I don't see why those are somehow any less troubling just because they don't tow a narrow ideological line.

Forward Union

25th June 2011, 04:12

MarxSchmarx

26th June 2011, 05:34

So what about those "parties" that seek to provide social services like Sinn Fein or the American Black Panthers at one point? A strategy to gain more support. I'm not sure what PR has to do with this?

PR?

In any event, conceivably you wouldn't be against self-proclaimed multi-tendency parties (like the CPGB or teh SPUSA) whose basic role is largely just to have an electoral strategy like any number of minute doctrinaire groups? I don't see why those are somehow any less troubling just because they don't tow a narrow ideological line.

Just because the ideological line is a bit less narrow, it doesn't change the relation of the party to the mass organisations.

Well, considering the ideological rigity you attribute to these groups, I wouldn't characterize their line as just a "bit" less narrow. It is in fact more than sufficient to rebuff the claim in your article about how sectarian parties behave. If you are willing to lump something like a Kim Il Sung'ist sect in a rural British town and their ideology with the American socialist party, I don't think lend your analysis any credence.

In any event, your use of the phrase "mass organization" is selective. Even the most sectarian of Trotskyist sects seek to be a "mass organization" and in fairness the Hoxhaists (an example of a tiny sect) are probably comparable to the IWW, say, in most countries insofar as neither is in any serious sense a "mass organization". So the question becomes, why can't political parties with broader ideologies become mass organizations? Merely asserting that "parties" have a relation to a mass organization distinct from say unions or special interest pressure groups is insufficient.

Forward Union

26th June 2011, 12:14

PR?

Public Relations

Well, considering the ideological rigity you attribute to these groups, I wouldn't characterize their line as just a "bit" less narrow. It is in fact more than sufficient to rebuff the claim in your article about how sectarian parties behave. If you are willing to lump something like a Kim Il Sung'ist sect in a rural British town and their ideology with the American socialist party, I don't think lend your analysis any credence.

You've misunderstood. I wasn't attacking sectarian partys. But partys themselves. They can be formulated any which way you want, but they are, by definition, not 'mass workers organisations'. As Marx, Lenin, and even Bakunin conceived of the political body, it's a strictly ideological grouping which seeks to lead the mass organisations.

In any event, your use of the phrase "mass organization" is selective. Even the most sectarian of Trotskyist sects seek to be a "mass organization" and in fairness the Hoxhaists (an example of a tiny sect) are probably comparable to the IWW, say, in most countries insofar as neither is in any serious sense a "mass organization". So the question becomes, why can't political parties with broader ideologies become mass organizations? .

They can be 'mass' in the infantile sense that they can have a lot of members. But that's not what we mean by 'mass organisations' in terms of political science.

Tavarisch_Mike

26th June 2011, 12:39

While in Sweden, with the fairly successful SAC, it's illegal to be a member of two unions, so I've suggested a few times that the SAC set up a kind of 'radical' network within the LO.

.

Intresting! how would that look like? In some places workers would benefit frome having both unions.

syndicat

26th June 2011, 16:13

There's a massive difference between the small p politics of economic self-interest,

it's not just based on "economic self-interest." there is also such a thing as working class morality like solidarity. solidarity does expand the power of the class but this is not the economic self-interest necessarily of just one craft or industry or self-interest in any narrow sense. politics is not reducible to self-interest. one of the problems of American unions is that they tend to be too narrow and too sectoralist. in the past they were racist and refused to do anything related to sexual or racial equality. in more recent years even the AFL-CIO has changed some, supporting illegal immigrants, supporting equal rights for gay workers (Pride at Work is now an official AFL constituency group). but there are some cases where unions with large numbers of black workers have taken on police brutality for example. that's also part of the politics of the union.

what you're suggesting is too narrowly economist. liberation is broader than economic and the union, to be a vehicle for liberation, has to broaden its focus.

syndicat

26th June 2011, 16:17

Actually syndicalism's highest points were during and after World War One. The USI in Italy grew from 80,000 in 1912 to 800,000 in 1920. The CNT went from 100,000 in 1914 to 700,000 in 1920. In Portugal, the UGT reached a peak of 90,000 in 1922, representing 40% of the working-class in the country. The FAUD (Germany) managed to "grow six times faster than any other labor organization in the country", claiming 120,000 in 1922. FORA-V of Argentina had over 200,000 in 1922, while the country's other syndicalist union, FORA-IX claimed 70,000 in that same period. The Chilean IWW was formed in 1918 with 200 members, and had over 25,000 a few years later.

IWW's high point was 1917. that's when the government repression began and after the war there was an upsurge in proto-fascist and police violence, the various states passing criminal syndicalism laws.

high point of CNT in members was 2.5 milliion in 1937. after all, they carried out a revolution in 1936-37. so that has to be the historic high point of syndicalism.

in Latin America repression was also a major factor in decline in late '20s and '30s. by early '30s Mexico had adopted the Italian fascist labor codes and used the charro unions and those laws to crush the CGT.

Die Neue Zeit

26th June 2011, 16:27

You've misunderstood. I wasn't attacking sectarian partys. But partys themselves. They can be formulated any which way you want, but they are, by definition, not 'mass workers organisations'. As Marx, Lenin, and even Bakunin conceived of the political body, it's a strictly ideological grouping which seeks to lead the mass organisations.

The pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were mass worker organizations and ideological groupings at the same time.

They can be 'mass' in the infantile sense that they can have a lot of members. But that's not what we mean by 'mass organisations' in terms of political science.

Care to provide your hazy definition of "mass organization"?

NoOneIsIllegal

26th June 2011, 18:49

IWW's high point was 1917. that's when the government repression began and after the war there was an upsurge in proto-fascist and police violence, the various states passing criminal syndicalism laws.
Yeah, that's why I didn't mention the IWW. Between the Marxists leaving the IWW in favor of the Communist Party, and the mass arrests towards Wobblies, they started to decline. They were still relatively strong until 1924 though (when the centralized-decentralized split occurred)

high point of CNT in members was 2.5 milliion in 1937. after all, they carried out a revolution in 1936-37. so that has to be the historic high point of syndicalism.
Yes, although what I listed of the CNT wasn't its peak, it was still one of the many international growths of syndicalism at the time. Of course the Spanish Revolution/Civil War is of major importance to Syndicalism, however, unless I'm completely unaware, the massive outgrowth and strength of the CNT was a lone-wolf in the world. I don't recall other anarcho-syndicalist unions having any particular strength in the same period as the revolution (which surprises me, as I would think it would of started another wave of enthusiasm for it...)

in Latin America repression was also a major factor in decline in late '20s and '30s. by early '30s Mexico had adopted the Italian fascist labor codes and used the charro unions and those laws to crush the CGT.
It's a damn shame too, since Latin America lived and breathed syndicalism.

syndicat

26th June 2011, 18:50

Die Neue Zeit

26th June 2011, 21:49

a political party is defined by its program and ideology, and aims to put its leadership into control of the state. they organize members on the basis of agreement with their ideology/progam, not the fact that they are an organ of struggle of workers, arising in the workplaces.

A political party-movement is defined by its program for society and overall ideology, and aims to put its own apparatus, its own institutions, and its own bureaucratic processes into positions of power over all society's political affairs (outside, inside, or substituting some state's apparatus, institutions, and bureaucratic processes).

Workers cannot act as a class for itself unless they organize on a party-movement basis (Marx), whereby real parties are real movements and vice versa. This cannot arise from mislabelled "struggles" that are mere labour disputes or lower-end economic campaigns.

Even Sociopolitical Syndicalism is something that cannot arise from such disputes or campaigns.

a mass organization organizes anyone who is willing to fight in some sphere, such as any worker willing to fight the employer and work together with coworkers to this end, a tenants organization organizes all the tenants in an apartment complex or town, etc. a mass organization can also be a class-wide federation or alliance of some kind.

A tenant organization for an apartment complex isn't a "mass organization," but a whole group of tenant organizations for a city would qualify as such.

mass organizations have a politics and that isn't what makes them not political parties.

The kind of "mass organizations" you speak of do not have the kind of politics addressed for society as a whole.

hierarchical domination by a paid apparatus also

There is such a thing as revolutionary careerism. :glare:

syndicat

26th June 2011, 22:12

Workers cannot act as a class for itself unless they organize on a party-movement basis

dogmatic bullshit. the CNT mass movement was an organization of the class, a class movement, during the Spanish revolution.

a party can't be a class movement precisely because of its tendencies to focus power on its leaders and its aim of control of a bureaucratic state apparatus. these things tend inevitably to concentrate control into the hands of a minority.

a class movement requires mass participation, and thus bodies through which members of the class can participate as members of the class...such as workplace assemblies, neighborhood assemblies.

Sociopolitical Syndicalism

more of your meaningless phrase mongering.

The kind of "mass organizations" you speak of do not have the kind of politics addressed for society as a whole.

more of your dogmatism. they may well have views on what is needed for society as a whole.

it's true that representation/development of the politics of the class requires organizational linkages and alliances over a broader range, such as an alliance or federation of worker organizations, an alliance of labor and other social movement organizations. but this representation & articulation of the politics of the class cannot happen thru a party. it requires a class-wide alliance of mass social/labor organizations, that is, of mass organizations.

Martin Blank

27th June 2011, 02:12

a political party is defined by its program and ideology, and aims to put its leadership into control of the state. they organize members on the basis of agreement with their ideology/progam, not the fact that they are an organ of struggle of workers, arising in the workplaces.

That's one definition of a "political party", but doesn't apply to all of them. Our party, for example, does not "aim to put its leadership into control of the state". We aim to provide a political leadership (our program) and skills (e.g., basics of workplace organization and administration) that allow workers to control the transitional semi-state themselves. Most of our Party's leadership would prefer to retire to some nice little area in the workers' republic and rely on our brothers and sisters to take society forward. Moreover, much of our Party's work is done as "an organ of struggle of workers, arising in the workplaces". As an all-workers organization, and one that sees itself as a party of organizers, not "activists", this has been our point of departure from the beginning. So where does that leave us?

a mass organization organizes anyone who is willing to fight in some sphere, such as any worker willing to fight the employer and work together with coworkers to this end, a tenants organization organizes all the tenants in an apartment complex or town, etc. a mass organization can also be a class-wide federation or alliance of some kind.

mass organizations have a politics and that isn't what makes them not political parties. of course sometimes an erstwhile mass organization can be under the thumb of some political party, and that makes for a hierarchical control system in that mass org. bureaucratic business unions are mass orgs with hierarchical domination by a paid apparatus also.

Overall, I think these definitions are too wooden and static to be very relevant, especially today. They begin by assuming facts not in evidence (e.g., that all political parties aim to take power by themselves; that all single-issue organizations are or will become "mass" entities), and end in a one-sided and wholly subjective analysis that is based more on personal prejudice resulting from bitter past experience than on current material conditions. There is something to be said for the dynamics of development within the working class.

syndicat

27th June 2011, 04:33

Overall, I think these definitions are too wooden and static to be very relevant, especially today. They begin by assuming facts not in evidence (e.g., that all political parties aim to take power by themselves; that all single-issue organizations are or will become "mass" entities), and end in a one-sided and wholly subjective analysis that is based more on personal prejudice resulting from bitter past experience than on current material conditions. There is something to be said for the dynamics of development within the working class.

frankly this is just verbage that doesn't say anything. what your tiny grouplet calls a "party" is not relevant since you don't get to run the English language.

Martin Blank

27th June 2011, 04:41

frankly this is just verbage that doesn't say anything. what your tiny grouplet calls a "party" is not relevant since you don't get to run the English language.

Neither do you, for that matter. It should be pointed out, though, that a casual dismissal like you offer above is usually an indication that you cannot answer the questions or address the comments.

We may not get to run the English language, but we do get to create an alternative in the real world. And, honestly, that's what we prefer to do.

syndicat

27th June 2011, 04:48

that a casual dismissal like you offer above is usually an indication that you cannot answer the questions or address the comments.

there's nothing in your verbage that needs an answer.

we agree that therre is a distinction between a revolutionary political organization and a mass organization. but you really said nothing relevant to the topic of this thread.

Martin Blank

27th June 2011, 05:09

we agree that there is a distinction between a revolutionary political organization and a mass organization. but you really said nothing relevant to the topic of this thread.

No, we don't necessarily agree. You gave a specific definition of what you think a "political party" is. Your point appeared to be that a "political party" had no ability to be a "mass organization" of the working class or a vehicle for liberation because of the reasons you stated. I described our organization and how it does not match that definition, and in fact goes against it. I was pointing out that not all "political parties" fit your narrow, one-sided and subjective definition. And then you turned around and accused me of trying to "run the English language" and "not saying anything"?! Do you usually stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENINGLALALAL ALALALALALALALA" when someone presents you with facts that don't fit your narrow, dogmatic perspective?

Forward Union

27th June 2011, 11:06

it's not just based on "economic self-interest." there is also such a thing as working class morality like solidarity. solidarity does expand the power of the class but this is not the economic self-interest necessarily of just one craft or industry or self-interest in any narrow sense. politics is not reducible to self-interest

I absolutely could not disagree more. Even acts like altruism are ultimately self interested acts due to the social developments brought about by Natural selection. The idea being that any kind act would be reciprocated, thus improving chances of group survival. Self-interested, does not mean "at others expense".

one of the problems of American unions is that they tend to be too narrow and too sectoralist. in the past they were racist and refused to do anything related to sexual or racial equality. in more recent years even the AFL-CIO has changed some, supporting illegal immigrants, supporting equal rights for gay workers (Pride at Work is now an official AFL constituency group). but there are some cases where unions with large numbers of black workers have taken on police brutality for example. that's also part of the politics of the union.

I'm very worried about getting into a quagmire over terms here. But suffice to say that supporting Racial and Sexual equality are, in my view, important tasks for Unions. In the Uk we don't have as much of a problem with this as in the states, every union I can think of has a gay rights section and many have womens caucuses.

But I agree, Unions are supposed to be as inclusive and representative of the population as possible. If they fail to represent women - making up more than half of the population, who are in economic terms quite visibly worse of than their male counterparts, then there's not much hope.

what you're suggesting is too narrowly economist. liberation is broader than economic and the union, to be a vehicle for liberation, has to broaden its focus

Historically speaking, Unions have in times of struggle ended up being far broader than they had initially set out. I think that's somewhat inevitable to. During the miners strikes, the National Union of Miners' newspapers originally had a 'page 3' pin up girl in every edition. They would wolf-wistle female supporters and activists etc. By the end of the struggle the page 3 girl was gone, the wolf whistling had stopped, and feminist blocs took part on Miners marches, the reasons are vague, left involvement in the miners strike may have had something to do with it, but I think the reality of class conflict - seeing the solidarity of confident women, from other industries, undermines prejudices or discriminatory attitudes you might have had before. I've seen things like this take place myself, in the Vistion occupation and the jungles of Chiapas.

Forward Union

27th June 2011, 11:08

Care to provide your hazy definition of "mass organization"?

Non-political economic organs of the class, Unions, Residents associations, Tenants associations, and perhaps various campaigns. They are 'mass' rather than 'exclusive', not because they are 'big', but because you don't have to have any pre-configured political world view in order to participate in the struggle through such bodies. Syndicat also put it quite well:

a political party is defined by its program and ideology, and aims to put its leadership into control of the state. they organize members on the basis of agreement with their ideology/progam, not the fact that they are an organ of struggle of workers, arising in the workplaces.

a mass organization organizes anyone who is willing to fight in some sphere, such as any worker willing to fight the employer and work together with coworkers to this end, a tenants organization organizes all the tenants in an apartment complex or town, etc. a mass organization can also be a class-wide federation or alliance of some kind.

mass organizations have a politics and that isn't what makes them not political parties. of course sometimes an erstwhile mass organization can be under the thumb of some political party, and that makes for a hierarchical control system in that mass org. bureaucratic business unions are mass orgs with hierarchical domination by a paid apparatus also.

Though I would expand his definition of party to include ideological anarchist groups which seek, not to control the state, but are also exclusive.

syndicat

27th June 2011, 21:00

No, we don't necessarily agree. You gave a specific definition of what you think a "political party" is. Your point appeared to be that a "political party" had no ability to be a "mass organization" of the working class or a vehicle for liberation because of the reasons you stated.

actually, you're not paying attention. your "party" is a political organization. I have allowed that there can be political organizations that aren't parties, as I described parties. if you believe your political organization doesn't fit my description of a party, then you are verifying my view that there can be political organizations that aren't parties.

My description or understanding of parties is based on the actual historical role of organizations called "parties" including especially marxist "parties." your grouplet has deciced on a use of "party" that is idiosyncratic, apart from the historical meaning....if it's not intended to be an oranization to put its leadership into control of the state and/or to manage social movements.

Die Neue Zeit

28th June 2011, 02:22

Non-political economic organs of the class, Unions, Residents associations, Tenants associations, and perhaps various campaigns. They are 'mass' rather than 'exclusive', not because they are 'big', but because you don't have to have any pre-configured political world view in order to participate in the struggle through such bodies.

Translation: Only non-political economic organizations and odd single-issue campaigns can be "mass organizations." Political institutions and other political organizations of any sort can never be mass organizations. :rolleyes:

My description or understanding of parties is based on the actual historical role of organizations called "parties" including especially marxist "parties." your grouplet has deciced on a use of "party" that is idiosyncratic, apart from the historical meaning....if it's not intended to be an oranization to put its leadership into control of the state and/or to manage social movements.

Today's electoral machines aren't really proper political parties, you know. You're the one who doesn't recognize that, for example, the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were the German working class for itself.

Forward Union

28th June 2011, 09:16

Translation: Only non-political economic organizations and odd single-issue campaigns can be "mass organizations." Political institutions and other political organizations of any sort can never be mass organizations. :rolleyes:

I've already explained that the terminology has nothing to do with size. The Socialist Party is no doubt bigger than my local residents association, numbering four, but I would still refer to the Socialist party as a partyist organisation, and the RA as a mass organisation. These are just terms people use.

Incidentally, I consider Anarchist organisations to also be partyist, in that they fulfil the same, exclusive ideological role as a 'socialist party' but with different ideology and different strategic approach.

Today's electoral machines aren't really proper political parties, you know. You're the one who doesn't recognize that, for example, the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were the German working class for itself.

Yes I do know that. But I have absolutely nothing to say about Germany before the war, not the slightest interest. This article is explicitly and exclusively refering to Britain today. And your contributions on the matter are found somewhat wanting.

Martin Blank

28th June 2011, 09:31

actually, you're not paying attention. your "party" is a political organization. I have allowed that there can be political organizations that aren't parties, as I described parties. if you believe your political organization doesn't fit my description of a party, then you are verifying my view that there can be political organizations that aren't parties.

My description or understanding of parties is based on the actual historical role of organizations called "parties" including especially Marxist "parties." your grouplet has decided on a use of "party" that is idiosyncratic, apart from the historical meaning....if it's not intended to be an organization to put its leadership into control of the state and/or to manage social movements.

The irony, of course, in all this is that our definition of "party" is the one Marx used when he spoke of a "proletarian party" and a "communist party", beginning in the Communist Manifesto and continuing until his death. Marx saw the party in the Roman sense of the term: the party "gains power" through the fulfillment of its program, not necessarily or solely through individual members taking over the reins of a state entity. This was why he was able to reconcile his support for a party with the statement in your signature.

The party was the program and those who believed in it. The organization of the party was needed as a means to promote, educate and agitate for the program, not for itself. This is why a communist party is defined as one that presents its program consistently and completely, but also carries out work consistent with the program on a continual basis, with the goal of winning the majority of the working class to the program, not the party.

Now, of course, I understand that the influence of the petty bourgeoisie in the proletarian movement has bolstered another definition of a party that more closely matches the bourgeois conception. But that does not make the proletarian definition of a party idiosyncratic or ahistorical. On the contrary, it requires us to point out the error in assumption about what is and is not a party, again and again, if only to expose the petty-bourgeois character of the other self-described socialist and communist parties.

Like all other abstract concepts in class society (e.g., democracy, freedom, rights, etc.), "party" means different things to different classes because it is refracted through the lens of class society. For a proletarian party, the program is primary; the organization behind it, secondary. In other words, the party organization is temporary, valuable only insofar as it is a reflection of a proletarian program. A party that puts itself ahead of the program is no proletarian party, but has become a vehicle for advancing individual "stars" and "experts" -- i.e., a petty-bourgeois party. Such parties have no real value or role in the class struggle except to divert or destroy it. On this point, I would think we would agree.

Die Neue Zeit

28th June 2011, 14:35

Yes I do know that. But I have absolutely nothing to say about Germany before the war, not the slightest interest. This article is explicitly and exclusively refering to Britain today. And your contributions on the matter are found somewhat wanting.

I also said that the history of British organized labour is one of bastardization from the outset. Chartism and specifically Left Chartism was the closest movement Britain came towards "Continental" worker movements, and I've proposed some form of neo-Chartism as a replacement for all the sects and halfway house "Labour Mark Two" projects.

syndicat

28th June 2011, 18:58

Now, of course, I understand that the influence of the petty bourgeoisie in the proletarian movement has bolstered another definition of a party that more closely matches the bourgeois conception. But that does not make the proletarian definition of a party idiosyncratic or ahistorical.

this view that the class structure can explain a belief is a stalinist form of economic determinism, and is wildly implausible.

anyway, your idea that the party isn't an organization to put people in control of a state hierarchy can of course be justified by various ahistorical appeals to texts. but i was talking about the actual history of parties, and including Marxist parties.

Kiev Communard

28th June 2011, 21:16

I also said that the history of British organized labour is one of bastardization from the outset. Chartism and specifically Left Chartism was the closest movement Britain came towards "Continental" worker movements, and I've proposed some form of neo-Chartism as a replacement for all the sects and halfway house "Labour Mark Two" projects.

I would say the lessons of Industrial Syndicalist Education League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Syndicalist_Education_League), the pre-WWI strike movement and the relationship between the League and the political parties that supported it (like Social Democratic Federation and Scottish SLP) are more interesting for the current situation in Britain.

bricolage

28th June 2011, 21:55

I think there are some problems with this, for starters those in political organisations of the vague 'ultra-left' have never conceived of themselves as specific agents of change nor have engage in 'party building'. The argument does not go that you recruit one by one until you have enough with certain ideas to launch a challenge to the state, but that political groupings exist to push the communist line, the retain historical memories of class struggle and the interject into mass social movements.

Additionally these organisations are specifically viewed as being built upon the fortunes of the class, to paraphrase the ICC, 'we don't need the party to build the struggle, we need the struggle to build the party'. (a party of course which 'in the broad historical sense' is nothing like what syndicat goes on about, even insurrectionists talk about the party of rock throwing kids on corners, most probably there exists a party it just so happens none of us have anything to do with it). Whether anarcho-syndicalists who partake in building workplace grouping both interior and exterior to their organisation (coincidentally interior and exterior the trade unions to) or those who take a more strident opposition to both trade unions and permanent bodies in non-revolutionary times, to participate in (both as workers and as militants) struggles that may emerge without being sucked into formalised bodies.

Which brings us to the further problematics, the reason political organisations can be conceived as existing in non-revolutionary times is that they are built upon a revolutionary line, are they tiny? Yes but their role is to maintain this line and not dilute it to the tides of current thought. Economic organisations however that seek to represent workers in such times will (do I say inevitably?) be drawn into compromise and capitulation. The nature of the present state of struggle is that to represent workers economically requires negotiation and so forth, ultimately coming to agreements that stand against class interests, no matter how radical the organisation may be (the IWW signing no strike pledges is a good example of this).

Now to backtrack a bit do I think this is inevitable? No probably not but if you take the approach that we can only in these times confine ourselves to building 'trade union consciousness' that I'd say it most definitely is. This stagist approach completely sells ourselves out and is exceedingly counter-productive. Not many of my co-workers are in unions and those that are are not very involved, should I limit myself to encouraging them to join Unite or Unison, to sit through branch meetings, engage in legalistic mumbo-jumbo, until one day there are enough people in the union that I can turn around and say 'wait a minute I've been a communist all along now let's talk about REAL class struggle!' Hell no! In fact I'd say in un-unionised workplaces there is even more reason to push for forms of organisation and action outside of union structures (possibly alongside bits (that are possible) inside them?) as to be honest if there is a grievance and you wait to join the union, fight in the union etc etc you will have already lost...

(Actually on the subject of unions you do a pretty poor point of proving why the RMT (incidentally led by that un-political Bob Crow who lent his full to support to the oh so syndicalist NO2EU) is any different to other unions except that it goes on strike a bit more and has some meaningless words about the wage system in its constitution. To a lesser degree the same could be said about the IWW.)

I'm not against joining unions on principle and in heavily unionised sectors there is clearly an advantage (use of resources, ways of interacting with people, abilities to call out people) but confining yourself to this is bound to failure. Maybe we should be star gazing a bit more is ORGANISE just means shack up with Dave Prentis and hope for the best.

Die Neue Zeit

29th June 2011, 00:54

I would say the lessons of Industrial Syndicalist Education League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Syndicalist_Education_League), the pre-WWI strike movement and the relationship between the League and the political parties that supported it (like Social Democratic Federation and Scottish SLP) are more interesting for the current situation in Britain.

Fair enough, but I just wanted to make a jab at Labourism and illusions about it being somehow "progressive" for workers.

Speaking of the "Anglo-Continental" divide, I listened to commentary on that new fascist tendency in the Labour party. The book pioneering that ideology tries to recast labour history before Labour, and I'm not surprised to hear of an emphasis on *English* culture (as opposed to more "Continental"-friendly Scottish culture) even as it berates "Continental" tendencies (like Marxism).

Martin Blank

30th June 2011, 21:51

this view that the class structure can explain a belief is a stalinist form of economic determinism, and is wildly implausible.

Class is a system of social relations -- most clearly structured in the economic arena, but prevalent throughout all aspects of society. These social relations, and the antagonisms that result, shape the consciousness of all classes, with that consciousness being passed on from generation to generation. This doesn't come from some bland "Stalinist" text. It comes from Marx, who was a little more blunt about it: "Social being determines consciousness". Note that he doesn't say "economic being"; he understood that class and class consciousness not only exists in all aspects of society, but is also shaped by the interactions among classes throughout those societal arenas: politics, culture, social interaction and, yes, the economy.

And, no, the irony is not lost on me that a syndicalist is accusing a communist of "economic determinism". I understand. He's run out of actual arguments, so he's playing the "stalinist" card ... poorly.

anyway, your idea that the party isn't an organization to put people in control of a state hierarchy can of course be justified by various ahistorical appeals to texts. but i was talking about the actual history of parties, and including Marxist parties.

Translation: "I got nothing to actually respond to his arguments, so I'll just repeat myself and hope people won't notice."

It's OK, syndicat. I won't upset your fragile concepts of the world any longer. I'll leave you to your own, um, devices.

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th June 2011, 21:59

there is also such a thing as working class morality like solidarity.

Solidarity is precisely based on workers self-interest if it is real and meaningful and not an empty activist slogan.

"Solidarity is not a matter of sentiment but a fact, cold and impassive as the granite foundations of a skyscraper. If the basic elements, identity of interest, clarity of vision, honesty of intent, and oneness of purpose, or any of these is lacking, all sentimental pleas for solidarity, and all other efforts to achieve it will be barren of results." - Eugene V. Debs

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th June 2011, 22:07

Historically speaking, Unions have in times of struggle ended up being far broader than they had initially set out. I think that's somewhat inevitable to. During the miners strikes, the National Union of Miners' newspapers originally had a 'page 3' pin up girl in every edition. They would wolf-wistle female supporters and activists etc. By the end of the struggle the page 3 girl was gone, the wolf whistling had stopped, and feminist blocs took part on Miners marches, the reasons are vague, left involvement in the miners strike may have had something to do with it, but I think the reality of class conflict - seeing the solidarity of confident women, from other industries, undermines prejudices or discriminatory attitudes you might have had before. I've seen things like this take place myself, in the Vistion occupation and the jungles of Chiapas.

Another (perhaps better) example is the Coal Creek War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Creek_War) in the United States. White miners freed mostly-black convicts who were being used as replacement workers by force, not because they were some "anti-racist activists," but because it was in their material interests.

Or how about the U.S. war in Viet Nam?

"In the Vietnam War, for example, the picture most people had was of middle-class radicals, the New Left, fighting against the war and the hard-hats supporting it and beating up the antiwar students. Yet more war production was stopped by workers carrying on ordinary strikes in the course of their lives in the plants than by the whole antiwar movement put together. There were strikes at Olin-Matheson, which made munitions, at McDonnell-Douglas, which made fighter planes, on the Missouri Pacific railroad, which transported war materials for shipment from the Pacific coast. In a few instances, strikes lasted a couple of weeks, and the shortage of planes and war material reached the point where the Johnson administration was getting ready to take over the plants to stop the strikes.... This was not because the workers were anti-war. Many workers were, but many weren’t. What the workers were doing was trying to live as human beings in the process of production. " - Martin Glaberman

syndicat

1st July 2011, 03:11

Translation: "I got nothing to actually respond to his arguments, so I'll just repeat myself and hope people won't notice."

you provided no argument at all that your conception of a party fits with hhistorical parties and especially historical Marxist parties.

all you offered was an ahistorical abstract definition advocated by your grouplet. but words in English have refernced based on mass usage...you don't get to run your own language.

syndicat

1st July 2011, 03:18

Solidarity is precisely based on workers self-interest if it is real and meaningful and not an empty activist slogan.

on the contrary, solidarity often requires that workers act against the immediate personal self-interest.

collective self-interest is not the same thing as individual self-interest.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd July 2011, 18:04

Can you give some examples when working class solidarity requires workers to act against their own self-interest?