Direct involvement as an alternative to paying dues?

[Kotze]

What do you think of the common practice of parties and unions to demand dues from every member, especially considering that high involuntary un(der)employment seems to be a permanent feature of modern capitalism? Could doing deeds for your union/party/revolutionary anime and fantasy baseball group be an alternative, and if so, how should that be structured?

[Q]

The Workers Party in America (Miles' group) has a dues "in-kind", although only for supporters, not for members.

But yes, I think it is an interesting conception as it makes party organisation less abstract (you do something concretely), thereby you're more empowered as a member and this in turn undermines the power of a potential bureaucracy which exactly thrives on alienation and elitism (i.e. excluding common members from the runnings of the party, merely to be deployed as "foot soldiers").

[citizen of industry]

Usually the problem isn't people not being able to afford dues, it's people paying dues but not able/willing to do anything. Even then, dues are typically on a sliding scale and/or unions offer financial aid. If someone came to me and said, "I have all this time I want to offer to the union, it's just that I can't afford dues" I would shit my pants and make sure they had financial aid. More often I see members use the union as a cheap legal service, pay dues, never offer any of their time or make any effort to build the union, and resign when they have to offer any of their time or take any personal risk like striking.

On top of that, no dues = no organization. No office, no leaflets, no armbands, flags and speakers, no strike funds, legal funds, or organizers, etc. When 90% of the union pays dues, but only 10% is active and the union is fully democratic, dues are the only thing that hold it together. Otherwise it would just be the 10% union activists. I've also seen unions offer limited time"discounts" to boost membership, which I don't support, because it commodifies the union, doesn't encourage participation, and many people resign when the discount is up. In that sense, higher dues are better because people value their investment more and are more willing to offer their time.

In the end, it's not the money. I've seen plenty of people reject better job offers because they are fighting a labor dispute.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=citizen of industry;2515613]Usually the problem isn't people not being able to afford dues, it's people paying dues but not able/willing to do anything. Even then, dues are typically on a sliding scale and/or unions offer financial aid. If someone came to me and said, "I have all this time I want to offer to the union, it's just that I can't afford dues" I would shit my pants and make sure they had financial aid. More often I see members use the union as a cheap legal service, pay dues, never offer any of their time or make any effort to build the union, and resign when they have to offer any of their time or take any personal risk like striking.

This is incredibly cynical and, from a class perspective, quite a reprehensible view. I think it's a bit arrogant actually, to assume that because someone is working class and a member of a union, they should instantly be fighting the 'right' political battles. Isn't the whole purpose of the trade union to use the collective bargaining power of unionised labour to fight battles. So when you say you "see members use the union as a cheap legal service, pay dues, never off their time..." you're describing the raison d'etre of trade unionism. I think what you'll find is that this is an organisational fault with the trade union system - encouraging due-paying apathy and doing little to raise political consciousness on any sort of meaningful level beyond occasional self-interest - than individual members of the working class. It is the job of the class as a whole to fight as a class, not the job of individuals to fight on behalf of the class. Dialectically speaking, however, it is also the job of those of us who are already Socialists to fight for a more inclusive union, and unions of workers that transcend the typical TU mode of dues, bureaucracy and the limiting of activity to defensive economic struggles.



On top of that, no dues = no organization. No office, no leaflets, no armbands, flags and speakers, no strike funds, legal funds, or organizers, etc. When 90% of the union pays dues, but only 10% is active and the union is fully democratic, dues are the only thing that hold it together. Otherwise it would just be the 10% union activists. I've also seen unions offer limited time"discounts" to boost membership, which I don't support, because it commodifies the union, doesn't encourage participation, and many people resign when the discount is up. In that sense, higher dues are better because people value their investment more and are more willing to offer their time.

This is a non-sequitor. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that without the 10% of union activists, the union wouldn't run. But actually, it is the dues that keep it going, and it is that ONLY 10% of members are active - i.e. that unions are not inclusive - that is to the detriment of trade unions. Typically, unions do little political work beyond mere defensive struggles, and certainly do absolutely nothing to go beyond the confines of capitalism. This is because the exclusivity of unions (that 90%+ members have no direct involvement in the union's operation) means that actually, the unions' raison d'etre is to operate economic struggle exclusively; if it operated political struggle and Socialism came about, there would be no reason for trade unions in their current form, and the bureaucrats would be out of a job/lifestyle.

[citizen of industry]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "right" political battles. I was referring to collective bargaining and strike action. Too many people see the union as a service industry that exists to bail them out when they get in trouble. They have no interest in building the union at their workplace, no interest in attending meetings, don't join until they are getting fired, resign when a labor dispute gets hot, etc. As a result, membership numbers are often a paper tiger. The union is only as strong as its members.

[Kotze]

Wan't there a post by The Idler? Forum crash, huh.

Didn't really think about making involvement less abstract as a goal in itself when posing that question, but that's something to consider.

Just thought about the having-no-money issue, and wouldn't have asked about that if it wasn't a problem. Some of you may think that it isn't an issue for many people because it doesn't come up in your org. -Well, why would somebody for whom this is a big issue come to the org to begin with?

I don't see an org working with zero monetary contribs either.

[citizen of industry]

I would say, yes, someone with no money would still come to the org, because first of all dues are not that high, say at minimum wage 3 hours of your labour a month, and you are putting that labour into an organization that exists to better your working conditions, if you use it to organize your workplace and strengthen it, and don't see your dues as a price paid for someone else to magically do it for you.

And secondly, most orgs make it abundantly clear that if you can't afford dues it isn't a problem, especially if you are active.