Individual or Class Struggle Strategies

[Jimmie Higgins]

Split from the thread "Bristol Anarchists Sabotage..."
On the question of Individual strategies or Class Struggle:


Calling people terrorists is petty-bourgeois. Not sabotage. haWell I didn't mean the people themselves were petty-bourgeois necessarily, I'm sure many if not most are workers who are attracted to these tactics and strategies out of their own class anger - but workers can also be attracted to black nationalism out of racial and class anger too, it doesn't mean it's a working class strategy for liberation. Anyway, but that these kinds of tactics, and sabotage in particular, are historically the strategy of the petty-bourgeois.

Where does the term and concept come from? It's from Luddites and skilled artisans "disrupting" automated production because it was a threat to their professional standing and causing these artisans to become proletarianized.

Since this kind of artisan production is atomized and isolated, aside from guilds there was no way for them to really collectively struggle or fight for an alternative to the existing system and so individual acts of sabotage or whatnot were often the best available form of militant resistance.

This is not the case for workers however who are engaged in collective production under private ownership. Their power is not just being able to disrupt or merely hault production, but they can actually take it over and run production for themselves (i.e. actual revolutionarily transform how society works).

I think this has important ramifications for strategy and tactics because it demonstrates the real potential power of workers. Not as induviduals throwing themselves on the gears of oppression and exploitation - but actually expropriating the expropriators and taking over control of the basic necessities of society. But this task requires that we as workers learn how to cooperate and how to express our common class interests and ultimately engage in a conscious struggle for working class hegemony over the capitalists so that society is in our hands. So for those who have already drawn the conclusion that worker's revolution is necessary in order to get rid of capitalism and bring about liberation, I think it's clear that our tasks should be in trying to convince our fellow workers to organize an independent and revolutionary working class resistance aimed at solidarity and control of the means of production. The question of how is of course a whole other can of worms and can be debated between syndicalists, trotskyists, and left-coms elsewhere :lol:.


Why do people like you always turn being a pro-revolutionary into some sort of puritanical set of rules. Working class people steal shit and break things all the time. Why is it revolutionary when a regular worker sabotages something, but something to be criticized and distanced from when it is political people?I don't care about rules or morality or any of this - I am judging these ideas and tactics based on what to the best of my understanding will actually help our class liberate itself and in doing so all of humanity. I do not think individual actions, even if they could disrupt things to the point where the system can't cope (which I am also skeptical of) would put the class in a position to come out on top because there would be no organic self-leadership and experience in making collective decisions if capitalism just suddenly collapsed. I think whatever forces in society which were the most organized (and armed) would end up coming out on top under such a situation.


You are aware that the class is made up of individuals, right? Yes, but a working class person could be a racist and bomb a synagogue but their class origin doesn't make that "working class fight-back".


You still haven't told us when the cut off is for something to be class struggle and no longer "individualistic." Here's a scenario: Lets say there were 4 people involved in the action in Bristol. To you this is an individualist act that doesn't teach the working class how to fight and instead seeks to lend itself toward a small gang of people attempting a coup but not really a coup. Alright, but what if its four workers who worked at a train yard or some shit that sabotaged it? Or hell, just four workers somewhere sabotaging something where they work.

Is that petty-bourgeois individualist terrorism?This would be an induvidualist action taken by workers out of class frustration and anger. And no doubt workers themselves that have done this see it as a function of their own dissatisfaction and being disgruntled about conditions at work, not as a strategy for liberation. I steal from work, I try and drag my feet when I can to make my life a little easier and get a little satisfaction - I just don't kid myself into elevating this to a tactic to advanced class struggle.

But since I don't view any tactic as a dogma, let's look at another scenario where this tactic would be part of a class struggle. Let's say that this happens in the context of a ongoing strike; the company is sending rail cars of scabs and cops or national guard and the strikers are openly talking about how to prevent the strike from being broken. Some workers decide to take it apon themselves to sabotage the tracks - yes this would not be a democratic act, but it would still be an act as part of a conscious struggle of workers and an attempt to preserve and defend power taken by workers in the strike.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hmm, is my science and logic really that strong? Or are people just falling asleep about 1/2 way through :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm skeptical of the concept of building a consciously pro-revolutionary movement via the charismatic proselytizing of pro-revolutionaries, personally. I normally wouldn't, but when I look back at history and see almost 200 years of failure, I can't help but be. (Which is a non-sectarian comment, as that failure is pretty much across the board, tendency-speaking...after all, the dominant belief in syndicalist circles was that general strikes were the revolutionary gymnastics of the working class, and we've all seen where that led. Don't get me started on the more "authoritarian" movements...)

I think the working class, as much as a group of people billions strong can be understood, has a narrow view of it's own self-interest. There's nothing wrong with that...I'm the same way, mostly. That means the only way I can see communism developing is if capitalism goes into death spirals (but doesn't necessarily die on it's own accord), and there is simply a moment when a significant-enough part of the populace decides that it's no longer in their self-interest to keep enabling the system. That's not the only option for what will happen, though, that's simply the only possible (not even probable) way I can see capitalism being replaced with something else.

Until then I'm skeptical of both the efforts of "mass movement" organizers (for reasons stated above), and anarcho-ninjas/vigilantes/insurrectionaries, for reasons related more to the massive totality of what they're attacking. Some of them don't have any illusions about that, though. I don't condemn either tactic, though...I condemn people's politics constantly, but not their tactics. I'm critical, however.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm skeptical of the concept of building a consciously pro-revolutionary movement via the charismatic proselytizing of pro-revolutionaries, personally.Good, so am I. I don't think radicals should lecture from the sidelines, I think we should be organically fighting alongside workers in struggle in the hopes of not just exposing people to radical ideas but also presenting a radical alternative to liberal or trade-union leadership strategies. We won't convince everyone right away or win every argument - especially in periods of demoralization or low-struggle - but we can build networks of militant workers and when struggle does begin a lot of our arguments will begin to make sense from people's own experiences.

In Occupy Oakland most people aside from experienced anarchists and Marxists argued that the cops were workers too. Telling them otherwise can only go so far, but when they then experienced this themselves then our theories and politics and the strategies which flow from this had more resonance.

Yes it's often a slow process, but times are different now and people all over the world are beging to look for strategies to fight back against austerity and people fighting is a pre-condition IMO for people looking for radical and revolutionary answers.

In periods of low-struggle it's easy for liberals to argue and convince people that everything's fine and they should just "play the game" and everything will work out. Now it's harder for them to make these arguments and revolutionaries have a good chance to present and show the benefits for a different approach. But isolating ourselves and putting on masks and not trying to reach out is not effective for these goals.


I normally wouldn't, but when I look back at history and see almost 200 years of failure, I can't help but be. (Which is a non-sectarian comment, as that failure is pretty much across the board, tendency-speaking...after all, the dominant belief in syndicalist circles was that general strikes were the revolutionary gymnastics of the working class, and we've all seen where that led. Don't get me started on the more "authoritarian" movements...)But history and the class struggle isn't a straight line. At some points our class has been in better positions to fight, sometimes closer to creating an independent class movement and so on. But on the other hand, Sabotage has been around in a modern sense (to disrupt capitalist production) since 1500 and by itself it has never created a stronger working class. Our power has always been in organizing ourselves, in movements, in concerted class actions - it not only "disrupts" capital but it shows the inherent power of workers as workers - we don't need them. Sabotage just says that production can be interrupted, it doesn't inherently give the working class any sense of it's own strength.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

With the singular / isolated acts of sabotage, I can't help but think of my parents, my mum especially, and what their reaction would be. A lot 'that's just stupid' and 'what good would that do' and other bemused / angry exclamations.
While the working class majority are indifferent or ignorant of the idea of class struggle and what these acts represent, they'll only ever be looked on as the actions of a mis-guided minority of trouble makers...so how does the majority of the working class a) get 'educated' as to what class struggle is / what it means for them and their class and b) develop co-ordinated efforts so it's not just a handful of random groups with often purely symbolic DA and demos..

EDIT: Just rambling here...no solutions or original ideas, apologies

[Die Neue Zeit]

Revolutionary strategy was reiterated upon by comrade Rowan Duffy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/futility-electoral-politics-t172140/index.html?p=2455255

Antagonisms between the state apparatus and the working-class populace more broadly:


Even the widespread illegitimacy of the state is not sufficient.

Mass party-movement of the working class:


The manner in which we should be orientating is instead, to try and find flexible approaches in which we can build up institutions that can potentially be the "new society in the shell of the old". That is we should focus on the development of new forms of organisation and production. This will very likely not be sufficient to become the hegemonic system, but if there *is* a revolutionary period, there will be institutions that can explode into the space made open by the revolution so that they can become hegemonic.

Majority political support from the working class:


However, it doesn't mean you can get around them by ignoring them. Every strategy is going to require convincing the public which puts us at a huge disadvantage since we are disadvantaged in terms of resources.

Internal confidence within the state apparatus breaking down:


What needs to happen is that the class or constituents of the state itself must become disorganised or lose faith in their own project. The state itself has to go into serious fragmentation before revolution can seriously be considered.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually kind of regret making the last post in this thread, as I was kind of out of it and, thinking back on it, dividing the sphere of tactics and politics didn't make sense to me as the two are very much interlinked, but I'll respond to these points anyway:


Good, so am I. I don't think radicals should lecture from the sidelines, I think we should be organically fighting alongside workers in struggle in the hopes of not just exposing people to radical ideas but also presenting a radical alternative to liberal or trade-union leadership strategies. We won't convince everyone right away or win every argument - especially in periods of demoralization or low-struggle - but we can build networks of militant workers and when struggle does begin a lot of our arguments will begin to make sense from people's own experiences.

In Occupy Oakland most people aside from experienced anarchists and Marxists argued that the cops were workers too. Telling them otherwise can only go so far, but when they then experienced this themselves then our theories and politics and the strategies which flow from this had more resonance.

Yes it's often a slow process, but times are different now and people all over the world are beging to look for strategies to fight back against austerity and people fighting is a pre-condition IMO for people looking for radical and revolutionary answers.

If you're in a job position in which there's serious conflict with management, and you take action based on that (or you're a student and unrest boils up over tuition, or other scenarios), then that truly is an instance of imbedding radicalism into a discourse. But if you're a student who works at a convience store part time and decides to walk down to a picket line to hawk your ideological wares...that still smacks of stale rhetoric and tactics, even though aforementioned student may be part of the working class. I wish it could be some other way, but in my opinion these events with real potential just sort of fall out of the sky. And yes, often the parties with the best tradition of fighting and organization are in the position to exploit the situation the best; one example being Greek anarchists in 2008, who were a tiny, tiny part of the Greek population, but were never-the-less able to tear the country apart for an entire month in December 2008, in conjunction with wide swathes of the population. Another example would be the Muslim Brotherhood, I suppose. But the absolute failure of a consciously pro-revolutionary movement to establish any sort of tolerable anti-capitalist society leads me to believe in more mechanistic alternatives to communization, while not entirely denying human agency altogether.


But history and the class struggle isn't a straight line. At some points our class has been in better positions to fight, sometimes closer to creating an independent class movement and so on. But on the other hand, Sabotage has been around in a modern sense (to disrupt capitalist production) since 1500 and by itself it has never created a stronger working class. Our power has always been in organizing ourselves, in movements, in concerted class actions - it not only "disrupts" capital but it shows the inherent power of workers as workers - we don't need them. Sabotage just says that production can be interrupted, it doesn't inherently give the working class any sense of it's own strength.

I think your perspective on sabotage is substantially skewed. Earlier you claimed that sabotage was a "petty bourgeois" tactic. I'm sorry, but this smacks of the kind of vulgar Marxist "materialism" that's often rife on this site. Just out of curiousity, I looked up the Wiki article on "sabotage", and this is what it said in one section (much of which I already knew):







Claimed explanations include:

That it derives from the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-5)
That it derives from the French sabot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clog_(shoe)) (a wooden shoe or clog) via its derivative saboter (to knock with the foot, or work carelessly).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-6)
That it derives from the late 19th-century French slang use of the word sabot to describe an unskilled worker, so called due to their wooden clogs or sabots; sabotage was used to describe the poor quality work which such workers turned out.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-7)
Luddites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) and radical labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions) such as the Industrial Workers of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World) (IWW) have advocated sabotage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_philosophy_and_tac tics#Sabotage) as a means of self-defense and direct action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) against unfair working conditions.

The IWW was shaped in part by the industrial unionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism) philosophy of Big Bill Haywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haywood), and in 1910 Haywood was exposed to sabotage while touring Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe):

The experience that had the most lasting impact on Haywood was witnessing a general strike on the French railroads. Tired of waiting for parliament to act on their demands, railroad workers walked off their jobs all across the country. The French government responded by drafting the strikers into the army and then ordering them back to work. Undaunted, the workers carried their strike to the job. Suddenly, they could not seem to do anything right. Perishables sat for weeks, sidetracked and forgotten. Freight bound for Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris) was misdirected to Lyon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon) or Marseille instead. This tactic — the French called it "sabotage" — won the strikers their demands and impressed Bill Haywood.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-9)
For the IWW, sabotage came to mean any withdrawal of efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_philosophy_and_tac tics#Sabotage) — including the slowdown, the strike, or creative bungling of job assignments.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-10)

One of the most severe examples was at the construction site of the Robert-Bourassa Generating Station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-Bourassa_generating_station) in 1974, when workers used bulldozers to topple electric generators, damaged fuel tanks, and set buildings on fire. The project was delayed a year, and the direct cost of the damage estimated at $2 million CAD. The causes were not clear, however three factors have been cited: inter-union rivalry, poor working conditions, and the perceived arrogance of American executives of the contractor, Bechtel Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-11)

You may remember a more recent example of sabotage happening during the Verizon strike (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/technology/verizon_strike/index.htm).

So sabotage is mostly used as a tactic within specific struggles in order to leverage some sort of result. It's actually been used in my own industry (commercial fishing) as well. Using a term like "petite bourgeoisie" to describe an artesanal segment of the working population in the early 19th century (since liquidated, basically) doesn't make any sense to me, honestly. So sabotage is a tactic that can be used appropriately or inappropriately, just like anything else...the saboteur who just sets something on fire to prove a seemingly obscure political point is just another version of the classic paper selling activist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you're in a job position in which there's serious conflict with management, and you take action based on that (or you're a student and unrest boils up over tuition, or other scenarios), then that truly is an instance of imbedding radicalism into a discourse. But if you're a student who works at a convience store part time and decides to walk down to a picket line to hawk your ideological wares...that still smacks of stale rhetoric and tactics, even though aforementioned student may be part of the working class.I think the "hawking ideological wares" bit is a straw-man because I have argued repeatedly that standing on the sidelines and lecturing people with the "right ideas" doesn't go far. But a worker-student alliance or even just community solidarity with a WORKING CLASS ACTION of workers fighting in their capacity as workers actually can build class networks and help people draw the conclusion that this is a struggle of the whole class from people resiting wage-cuts at work to community members having to pay more for buses due to cutbacks, to working class students being economically squeezed out of education opportunities because of tuition hikes.


I wish it could be some other way, but in my opinion these events with real potential just sort of fall out of the sky.My position on this is classic marxism: men make history but not in conditions of their choosing. Yes we can't control the larger objective circumstances, but we can have input on what we do subjectively and how we respond to the conditions that face us. This is the essence of the tactical question - not if some action is inherently good or bad, but if it is appropriate and will help us respond to conditions to the best of our ability. My position is that the goal of workers with revolutionary aims should be to try and help our class prepare itself and self-organize to be able to fight as a class. This means organic links between different areas of struggle, this means trying to win workers away from failed tactics and ideas like business-unionism and negotiation or voting for the Dems or Labor etc. But of course to do this revolutionaries can't just tell people and expect them to listen, we should be involved where people are struggling, occupy our workplace struggles, anti-racist struggles etc.

Attacking the means of production does not help show workers themselves the potential power of workers to run things without bosses nor does it show the bosses today that the working class as a whole is ready and willing to fight.


And yes, often the parties with the best tradition of fighting and organization are in the position to exploit the situation the best; one example being Greek anarchists in 2008, who were a tiny, tiny part of the Greek population, but were never-the-less able to tear the country apart for an entire month in December 2008, in conjunction with wide swathes of the population. Another example would be the Muslim Brotherhood, I suppose. But the absolute failure of a consciously pro-revolutionary movement to establish any sort of tolerable anti-capitalist society leads me to believe in more mechanistic alternatives to communization, while not entirely denying human agency altogether.I'd say aside from the Russian Revolution in which there was a long downward trajectory after the revolution (i.e. where it went wasn't inevitable but the result of a process and many factors) the problem with most of 20th century "communism" was that it didn't fight for worker's revolution. After the USSR, other countries fought for national liberation from imperialism and often didn't even involve workers fighting as workers but coups to bring "revolution from above" - CPs also didn't fight for worker's revolution, but for support of the USSR.

Now we are at a time where CPs are dominant and other working class formations are possible because people have begun fighting and trying to figure out how to counter the austerity hitting their lives. This is why I find insurrectionist ideas and attitudes so out of touch: we have a chance to do something different and actually try and connect class struggle and radicalism, get revolutionary politics out of the leftist ghetto, and yet it's like the New Left all over again. But instead of supporting a sort of Maoist "revolution from above" they seem to strive for a revolution from without - but it's the same problem, revolution without working class self-liberation.


I think your perspective on sabotage is substantially skewed. Earlier you claimed that sabotage was a "petty bourgeois" tactic. I'm sorry, but this smacks of the kind of vulgar Marxist "materialism" that's often rife on this site. Just out of curiousity, I looked up the Wiki article on "sabotage", and this is what it said in one section (much of which I already knew):Again, I'm not saying that it is petty-bourgoise people, but that it has been the tactic used historically by artisans resisting capitalist development since they lacked the ability to have collective class struggle and they had no independent class interest in an alternative system. So this tactic means that they could hault industry, but they had no desire to "take over". This has implications for workers today, this is a tactic which under certain circumstances may help a specific workers struggle in some way, but the tactic itself will not accomplish anything in regards to workers power in isolation from a class struggle.


That it derives from the Netherlands (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.So this first entry backs up my explanation of the class and historical origins of this tactic: skilled labor trying to halt the development of de-skilled industrial labor.


Luddites (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) and radical labor unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions) such as the Industrial Workers of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World) (IWW) have advocated sabotage (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_philosophy_and_tac tics#Sabotage) as a means of self-defense and direct action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action) against unfair working conditions.Luddites again confirms my argument. And as far as the IWW, I agree with their position because they are placing the use of this tactic within the larger context of a consious worker's struggle:


The experience that had the most lasting impact on Haywood was witnessing a general strike on the French railroads. Tired of waiting for parliament to act on their demands, railroad workers walked off their jobs all across the country. The French government responded by drafting the strikers into the army and then ordering them back to work. Undaunted, the workers carried their strike to the job. Suddenly, they could not seem to do anything right. Perishables sat for weeks, sidetracked and forgotten. Freight bound for Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris) was misdirected to Lyon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon) or Marseille instead. This tactic — the French called it "sabotage" — won the strikers their demands and impressed Bill Haywood.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#cite_note-9)Here are workers fighting consiosuly as workers using sabotage as a tactic to ADVANCE their specific struggle. They are not advocating sabotage as an end to itself nor are they using it to mearly "disrupt" or "damage" capital, they are using it as a tactic of class struggle to increase workers power by winning their strike and demands.


You may remember a more recent example of sabotage happening during the Verizon strike (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/technology/verizon_strike/index.htm).Again, with the goal of "hurting capital" in the abstract or with the goal of winning a specific struggle?

So sabotage is a tactic that can be used appropriately or inappropriately, just like anything else.[/QUOTE]I agree with that. I just don't agree with the fetishization of this tactic that seems to be going on with a segment of the left right now. Sabotage totally disconnected from any real or organic class struggle doesn't help workers develop their own abilities to resist.