Forward Union
24th April 2013, 18:35
Made the title deliberately to provoke. But by "Syndicalism" I mean "A form or development of trade unionism, originating in France, that aims at the possession of the means of production and distribution, and ultimately at the control of society, by federated bodies of industrial workers, and that seeks to realize its purposes through general strikes, sabotage, etc." and by Communism I'm actually talking about Political parties and exclusive organisations of the left. But hey, I had to hook you in somehow.
I've written a document included here (but not necessary reading) which argues for an alternative strategy to that proposed generally by both the State-Socialists and the Libertarian left. Both of whom see the need to exclusive political organisations, which then interact with the mass workers movements as a separate entity (although anarchism is deeply confused about its own role in that relation)
I think we would get further by abandoning exclusive political organisations completely and forming something along the lines of a Revolutionary Committee within the Union movement, with the aims of:
1) Democratising the unions
2) Advocating a militant, confrontational strategy
3) A class analysis
4) Industrial Unionism.
I'm of the opinion that such a Syndicalist faction would be able to solve the crisis of leadership on it's own, a body like the Comités Syndicalistes Révolutionnaires or "Revolutionary Syndicalist Committee" (CSR) which operates within most of the French Unions , including a wide enough section of the left without becoming a broad tent. We can all agree on the four points I've laid out.
Abandoning the Political Party Model
Posted on April 8, 2013
“For last years words belong to last years language. And next years words await another voice” – TS Elliot.
This article will briefly cover some issues which are perhaps seldom raised within the left but cover an alternative approach to the party model. Generally being coined “Sydnicalism” (although it doesn’t entirely fit with a historical description of syndicalism) it argues that the political party is not a useful tool in the current material climate, and that reconstructing the basic grassroots, open, and inclusive organs of class power, Unions, Community and residents associations, is a more immediate and practical goal for workers everywhere.
A moment should be taken to show just how central this debate is becoming, with the scandal of the SWPs handling of a recent rape allegation, Socialist Review published an article with the (rather alarmingly written) heading “Is Leninism Finished” The Leninist, Alex Callinicos, in a typically boring manner concludes that ‘it’s not’, but his main crime is the inability to tackle the fundamental assumption made by the entire left, of the indispensable nature of the political organisation itself.
The question which still keeps party hacks awake at night is ‘what political position must our organisation/party take?’ or even in some more profound cases ‘what form must it take?’ . It cannot be doubted, that these were very pressing issues when the great writers and thinkers of Socialism penned the classic works, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, as well as even Marx and Bakunin before them, were debating immediate political and material matters which would have very real, and perhaps even brutal consequences for the people alive at the time – what concerned them was how they ought to direct the erupting forces into a political program which will win.
In a nutshell the question of “which form/position the party ought to take” is not the question facing us today. The carpet has been pulled from under this approach in the form of a dramatic change in the industrial and political landscape (in the west). Or to put it in a slightly stronger way still, we should ask ourselves whether or not it is still possible to read the founding program of the Fourth International (which summarises the Leninist world-view on this matter) “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat” and not immediately see how detached this is from the facts on the ground.
The reasons for this detachment are quite clear, Trade Union density is, to be it at its mildest, low, as is support for Union activity generally. Community organisation is in a much more dire state, though much harder to asses as it’s hard to imagine an assessment of “Residents association density” and harder still to imagine how that might be done. In such a situation as this, we must return to the more fundamental question of; ‘how do we rebuild the basic organs of class power’. This question immediately directs the entire focus of the Socialist mind on pragmatic questions, on creating an activity and strategy which works today. There is no crisis of leadership, the crisis is that there is nothing substantial to lead.
We first need to ask each other “What is it we agree on?”
What is it we all, as working people, living now in the 21st century agree on (I’m sure, reader, that you have thought of several things already). This does not mean reaching conclusions on utterly irrelevant historical issues, that is to say, while it might even be possible for two Socialists to come to a complete agreement on the issue of Kronstadt, such an agreement would be utterly meaningless (If you are sitting there thinking that finding such a common ground is even worthwhile then you need to drastically reconsider your priorities). Agreement on these kinds of issues is almost impossible but also pointless – except, it should be noted, when these ‘issues’ are used to metaphorically describe an actually existing pragmatic disagreement, which may even have historical parallels (no doubt the left uses the same historical metaphors as the result of a complete poverty of imagination)
How can we build an organisation which practically unite the Socialists?
This question is so dry and uninspiring that it is hopefully as painful to read as to write. It immediately forces the cynics and optimists alike to imagine things as utterly depressing as broad coalitions, left alliances, umbrella organisations, or perhaps for the exceptionally Jaded activists; nothing more than limited joint campaigns or cross coordination between some of the existing organisations. Anyone who has dipped her or his feet into the far left will be able to name not only several competing Socialist and Communist organisations competing unity projects as well… I shan’t do so here for all our sakes.
In his paper “Which road to Socialism” Keir argues that “Whilst those advocating a party-centric or balanced approach will often pay lip service to the importance of trade union and community work, the reality is that frequently it is discarded in favour of concentrating on the party” This is true, but in my experience, when these groups do come to the table of grass roots organising, they do not always bury the hatchets, and their involvement rather cynically directed toward building the party. What is needed now is something rather different.
The Union Movement
There is only one escape from this cycle and that is to (at least temporarily) abandon the party model altogether By Party model (I am making it clear now for all those who will attempt to justify their party by focussing on some special or unique feature it might contain)we are talking specifically about any Politically exclusive organisation. How might this be put clearer? Any organisation which has a strict (or sometimes loose) set of political philosophies or codes to which all members must adhere. This includes not only the major (ha!) Communist and Socialist parties, but also political campaign groups and the footnote of the left, the Anarchists. Anarchists simply restructure the party, have differing political positions, and refuse to lead the mass workers movement, but do not escape the issue.
Let’s distinguish the party from it’s opposite, the mass workers movement, or “mass organs of class power” (If I must resort to such a cliché . These sorts of organisations unite workers on economic grounds, and ok, they may have some political positions, but the tension is toward greater inclusiveness not ideological unity. The Union movement can draw in people from a wide range of backgrounds with different views, opinions, religions and ideas, and pitch them in battle with their bosses.
The Charte d’Amiens (or “Charter of Amiens”) made two demands which are the cornerstone of this kind of revolutionary trade unionism, which we can, in the short term, all hold to; The “defence of immediate and daily demands” and the “struggle for a global transformation of society in complete independence from political parties and from the state”. There is no reason known to me, that could prevent anyone with a Socialist constitution from devoting themselves to these two principles. If (which is, as my mother taught me, a BIG word) the left devoted itself solely to the destruction of reactionary elements within the mainstream unions, to democratisation and inclusiveness for all people, including those who are not of our political movement; our friends, colleagues, family, ( And perhaps even our in-laws . No movement or organisation which can not involve the majority of working people is worth any consideration at all. Even if the demands made by some of the parties have a resonance with the people generally, a step on the ladder of engagement is missing. We cannot expect a lot of people to go from some apathetic disenfranchisement to Party members, but we can expect to get those people into Unions (or residents associations) and from there, into supporting a practical political platform – which they may even help form.
This new syndicalist project envisages the resurgence of the grass roots organisation, bringing with it a fresh involvement, new ideas, strategies, and hope from people the party will always fail to engage with. The future of the left will not be up to the small and dwindling numbers of hardened cadre activists, nor those attempting to ‘have it both ways’ but really having it neither way such as the “Solidarity Federation”, but to the masses themselves. This fear of letting tight control go will certainly send a chill up some of the spines of those who are not politically serious about doing “whatever it takes”.
Only Industrial Unionism can unite the working class and put it in a position to begin an effective defence in the face of the current Coalition onslaught. People in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones, and if we do not begin a serious and pragmatic project now, we may regret it when it is too late.
_________________
1) Darlington Ralph, Socialist History 37, 2010, Rivers Oram Press,
1 Consider Partyism vs Syndicalism by Nick Durrie as a fantasitc and perhaps even ground breaking example of this assesment.
2 I am aware that there are many cases where Trade Union density and Class conciouss (and militancy) do not correspond – but the density in the UK is indeed an illustration of the current state of affairs.
3 I also had the chance to sit and speak briefly with Noam Chomsky about the distinction between Partyism and rebuilding the basic organs of class power, an approach he said he understood and agreed with – and noted the success, militancy, and growth of the anti-cuts movement outside of the traditional left as an example of this.
I've written a document included here (but not necessary reading) which argues for an alternative strategy to that proposed generally by both the State-Socialists and the Libertarian left. Both of whom see the need to exclusive political organisations, which then interact with the mass workers movements as a separate entity (although anarchism is deeply confused about its own role in that relation)
I think we would get further by abandoning exclusive political organisations completely and forming something along the lines of a Revolutionary Committee within the Union movement, with the aims of:
1) Democratising the unions
2) Advocating a militant, confrontational strategy
3) A class analysis
4) Industrial Unionism.
I'm of the opinion that such a Syndicalist faction would be able to solve the crisis of leadership on it's own, a body like the Comités Syndicalistes Révolutionnaires or "Revolutionary Syndicalist Committee" (CSR) which operates within most of the French Unions , including a wide enough section of the left without becoming a broad tent. We can all agree on the four points I've laid out.
Abandoning the Political Party Model
Posted on April 8, 2013
“For last years words belong to last years language. And next years words await another voice” – TS Elliot.
This article will briefly cover some issues which are perhaps seldom raised within the left but cover an alternative approach to the party model. Generally being coined “Sydnicalism” (although it doesn’t entirely fit with a historical description of syndicalism) it argues that the political party is not a useful tool in the current material climate, and that reconstructing the basic grassroots, open, and inclusive organs of class power, Unions, Community and residents associations, is a more immediate and practical goal for workers everywhere.
A moment should be taken to show just how central this debate is becoming, with the scandal of the SWPs handling of a recent rape allegation, Socialist Review published an article with the (rather alarmingly written) heading “Is Leninism Finished” The Leninist, Alex Callinicos, in a typically boring manner concludes that ‘it’s not’, but his main crime is the inability to tackle the fundamental assumption made by the entire left, of the indispensable nature of the political organisation itself.
The question which still keeps party hacks awake at night is ‘what political position must our organisation/party take?’ or even in some more profound cases ‘what form must it take?’ . It cannot be doubted, that these were very pressing issues when the great writers and thinkers of Socialism penned the classic works, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, as well as even Marx and Bakunin before them, were debating immediate political and material matters which would have very real, and perhaps even brutal consequences for the people alive at the time – what concerned them was how they ought to direct the erupting forces into a political program which will win.
In a nutshell the question of “which form/position the party ought to take” is not the question facing us today. The carpet has been pulled from under this approach in the form of a dramatic change in the industrial and political landscape (in the west). Or to put it in a slightly stronger way still, we should ask ourselves whether or not it is still possible to read the founding program of the Fourth International (which summarises the Leninist world-view on this matter) “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat” and not immediately see how detached this is from the facts on the ground.
The reasons for this detachment are quite clear, Trade Union density is, to be it at its mildest, low, as is support for Union activity generally. Community organisation is in a much more dire state, though much harder to asses as it’s hard to imagine an assessment of “Residents association density” and harder still to imagine how that might be done. In such a situation as this, we must return to the more fundamental question of; ‘how do we rebuild the basic organs of class power’. This question immediately directs the entire focus of the Socialist mind on pragmatic questions, on creating an activity and strategy which works today. There is no crisis of leadership, the crisis is that there is nothing substantial to lead.
We first need to ask each other “What is it we agree on?”
What is it we all, as working people, living now in the 21st century agree on (I’m sure, reader, that you have thought of several things already). This does not mean reaching conclusions on utterly irrelevant historical issues, that is to say, while it might even be possible for two Socialists to come to a complete agreement on the issue of Kronstadt, such an agreement would be utterly meaningless (If you are sitting there thinking that finding such a common ground is even worthwhile then you need to drastically reconsider your priorities). Agreement on these kinds of issues is almost impossible but also pointless – except, it should be noted, when these ‘issues’ are used to metaphorically describe an actually existing pragmatic disagreement, which may even have historical parallels (no doubt the left uses the same historical metaphors as the result of a complete poverty of imagination)
How can we build an organisation which practically unite the Socialists?
This question is so dry and uninspiring that it is hopefully as painful to read as to write. It immediately forces the cynics and optimists alike to imagine things as utterly depressing as broad coalitions, left alliances, umbrella organisations, or perhaps for the exceptionally Jaded activists; nothing more than limited joint campaigns or cross coordination between some of the existing organisations. Anyone who has dipped her or his feet into the far left will be able to name not only several competing Socialist and Communist organisations competing unity projects as well… I shan’t do so here for all our sakes.
In his paper “Which road to Socialism” Keir argues that “Whilst those advocating a party-centric or balanced approach will often pay lip service to the importance of trade union and community work, the reality is that frequently it is discarded in favour of concentrating on the party” This is true, but in my experience, when these groups do come to the table of grass roots organising, they do not always bury the hatchets, and their involvement rather cynically directed toward building the party. What is needed now is something rather different.
The Union Movement
There is only one escape from this cycle and that is to (at least temporarily) abandon the party model altogether By Party model (I am making it clear now for all those who will attempt to justify their party by focussing on some special or unique feature it might contain)we are talking specifically about any Politically exclusive organisation. How might this be put clearer? Any organisation which has a strict (or sometimes loose) set of political philosophies or codes to which all members must adhere. This includes not only the major (ha!) Communist and Socialist parties, but also political campaign groups and the footnote of the left, the Anarchists. Anarchists simply restructure the party, have differing political positions, and refuse to lead the mass workers movement, but do not escape the issue.
Let’s distinguish the party from it’s opposite, the mass workers movement, or “mass organs of class power” (If I must resort to such a cliché . These sorts of organisations unite workers on economic grounds, and ok, they may have some political positions, but the tension is toward greater inclusiveness not ideological unity. The Union movement can draw in people from a wide range of backgrounds with different views, opinions, religions and ideas, and pitch them in battle with their bosses.
The Charte d’Amiens (or “Charter of Amiens”) made two demands which are the cornerstone of this kind of revolutionary trade unionism, which we can, in the short term, all hold to; The “defence of immediate and daily demands” and the “struggle for a global transformation of society in complete independence from political parties and from the state”. There is no reason known to me, that could prevent anyone with a Socialist constitution from devoting themselves to these two principles. If (which is, as my mother taught me, a BIG word) the left devoted itself solely to the destruction of reactionary elements within the mainstream unions, to democratisation and inclusiveness for all people, including those who are not of our political movement; our friends, colleagues, family, ( And perhaps even our in-laws . No movement or organisation which can not involve the majority of working people is worth any consideration at all. Even if the demands made by some of the parties have a resonance with the people generally, a step on the ladder of engagement is missing. We cannot expect a lot of people to go from some apathetic disenfranchisement to Party members, but we can expect to get those people into Unions (or residents associations) and from there, into supporting a practical political platform – which they may even help form.
This new syndicalist project envisages the resurgence of the grass roots organisation, bringing with it a fresh involvement, new ideas, strategies, and hope from people the party will always fail to engage with. The future of the left will not be up to the small and dwindling numbers of hardened cadre activists, nor those attempting to ‘have it both ways’ but really having it neither way such as the “Solidarity Federation”, but to the masses themselves. This fear of letting tight control go will certainly send a chill up some of the spines of those who are not politically serious about doing “whatever it takes”.
Only Industrial Unionism can unite the working class and put it in a position to begin an effective defence in the face of the current Coalition onslaught. People in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones, and if we do not begin a serious and pragmatic project now, we may regret it when it is too late.
_________________
1) Darlington Ralph, Socialist History 37, 2010, Rivers Oram Press,
1 Consider Partyism vs Syndicalism by Nick Durrie as a fantasitc and perhaps even ground breaking example of this assesment.
2 I am aware that there are many cases where Trade Union density and Class conciouss (and militancy) do not correspond – but the density in the UK is indeed an illustration of the current state of affairs.
3 I also had the chance to sit and speak briefly with Noam Chomsky about the distinction between Partyism and rebuilding the basic organs of class power, an approach he said he understood and agreed with – and noted the success, militancy, and growth of the anti-cuts movement outside of the traditional left as an example of this.