Seeking honest critiques of the IWW

[Decolonize The Left]

I am interested in the theory behind the IWW - I think it makes a lot of sense. But I would like to hear from those who do not agree with it: honest critiques of the shortcomings of this theory.

Posted below in spoilers is the preamble to the IWW constitution which outlines briefly the theory:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

It doesn't matter to me what your specific politics are. I would like to hear your critique (or that of your party or ideology) so as to gather a wide variety of perspectives which are not my own.

Cheers.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The IWW is great ... if you are a hobbyist that wants to recreate the CIO in miniature. :)

Have been a Wobbly in the past. At the end of the day the IWW is a union, or at least a union organizing project. (As such it qualifies as a "dual union".) It was always hard to shoehorn my working life into Father Haggerty's wheel. Good chunks of my working life I worked as a "light industrial" temp -- which meant in practice any type work that didn't involve sitting at a desk. My job sites at times changed weekly. Now I am drawing a disability check.

For the precarious workers of today raising the minimum wage is the one action that would most improve their lives. As an avowed "anti-political" union the IWW has nothing to say regarding this -- or a basic income scheme.

[Dr Doom]

couple of decent threads on libcom.

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/iww-good-idea-practical-12032006

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/who-else-does-the-iww-organise

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd say the biggest problem, in my experience, is that, in many places, the IWW lacks a real class and workplace basis. There are def. IWW branches that are essentially activist groups, with a handful of syndicalists meeting once a month and paying dues, with no real shopfloor activity.

Of course, this probably varies from place to place.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I like the idea of the IWW very much and i really admire a lot of stuff that it's done as an organisation over the years - but as far as I know it's really a faint shadow of what it was in the early 20th century, and in a lot of areas it's limited to a small handful of people with regrettably few resources and little impact. I'd probably still join if i knew there was a branch in the city though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The IWW is great ... if you are a hobbyist that wants to recreate the CIO in miniature. :)

Have been a Wobbly in the past. At the end of the day the IWW is a union, or at least a union organizing project. (As such it qualifies as a "dual union".) It was always hard to shoehorn my working life into Father Haggerty's wheel. Good chunks of my working life I worked as a "light industrial" temp -- which meant in practice any type work that didn't involve sitting at a desk. My job sites at times changed weekly. Now I am drawing a disability check.

For the precarious workers of today raising the minimum wage is the one action that would most improve their lives. As an avowed "anti-political" union the IWW has nothing to say regarding this -- or a basic income scheme.

Bingo. The IWW never registered itself or organized generally as its own political party.

[#FF0000]

Bingo. The IWW never registered itself or organized generally as its own political party.

Good.

Even without doing so it did manage to win wage increases for workers throughout it's history (at least before it was utterly destroyed). I also think it's silly to try and say the IWW today can't or isn't winning anything for workers when it pretty clearly is, for the few it managed to organize in the fast food industry. For what it's worth, they were, for the longest time, the only ones even attempting to unionize that sort of work, and they're still the only ones I know that are trying to organize temp labor.

But, as for criticisms of the IWW today, I have to agree with what TGDU said above. I know wobblies and they're great at taking on issues in the community but they simply aren't a union in most areas, and even where they are, I can't imagine they can offer as much as other unions can (but then again, I guess this is just saying "they're too weak to be very effective").

[Flying Purple People Eater]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/

Not about the IWW but a heavy criticism of the shooting-self-in-foot 'anti-political' stance taken by some members of the IWW.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The dilemma for the IWW isn't just numbers. Since it was nearly wiped out it stopped being a working union (Yes there is the odd local exception.) It didn't have to change with time. It has become a historical re-enactment society.

I am all for "minority unionism". I just have doubts that the IWW is the means to that end.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd say the biggest problem, in my experience, is that, in many places, the IWW lacks a real class and workplace basis. There are def. IWW branches that are essentially activist groups, with a handful of syndicalists meeting once a month and paying dues, with no real shopfloor activity.

Of course, this probably varies from place to place.

I'd argue that this has more to do with the class situation outside the IWW than within.

I guess in my general impressions, I think one of the issues with radical syndicalism that relates to this is that it requires a certain level of class militancy and urgency for it to be effective. The IWW, to my knowlege, has taken many measures for practical reasons to adjust to some of the difficultiues of this kind of organization (specifically they seem to be engagin in more social struggles, they have duel membership so someone can be a political IWW activist while also being in the mainstream union representing their workplace).

But I think the tension that causes some of these issues is the blurring of "class for itself" and the class as it exists now; an offensive class organization (overthrowing the bosses) blurred with a defensive need (protecting day to day rights and conditions on the job UNDER the bosses). So when there is a lot of militancy, then people are able and willing to strike and not establish a set contract, people are willing to risk more and so these kinds of unions can be really effective and militant for this. When the IWW was at its most effective, it didn't start from scratch but from a lot of pre-existing radical forces - left SPers, already militant union organizations that were fed up with the trades. Now, without that basic level of militancy and some poltics in the class, they are starting from scratch and it is very difficult. When the class struggle receedes, the non-contract position, for example, means the bosses could hit back harder, people are less confident to strike and so they will be more drawn to the reformists who promise more results through their connections and wheeling and dealing (or at least this was much more possible- and actually achieved material gains - in the post-war decades).

But on a practical level I think the major problems for revolutionaries only comes in at a really high point in struggle when the question of class power comes into it. Then syndicalism comes into an issue where they are set up to represent specific workers and not the class as a whole (though they might have the class interests). Then politics becomes a bigger issue and an economic organization is not necissarily suited to be able to facilitate workers taking over all of society (though like in Spain, they could be a major force in a revolutionary movement). Of course we are not in the same situation and so I don't think any radical should be against seeing an upsurge in militant unions; organizing starbucks workers or other areas of the service economy would be a major breakthrough for class struggle and the IWW is right to organize in that direction.

But while these kinds of forms are very good at facilitating and helping militant struggles, we also need forms that can go beyond militancy within and against capital but can help the whole class struggle overcome the need for such miliancy and unions by class-revolution and worker's power over all of society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.Really this line is the only think I really think is conceptually problematic in their statement. Where I think I would agree with an interpretation of this quote is that by organizing workers, the IWW is helping to form the connections and people and consiousness to form a new society, but the structures that are created by revolutionary unions are organizing workers against bosses and against exploitation. Their networks might be part of the structure of a new society, but their main function today would become redundant in a new society. I think the conceptual problem with this in other interpretations of this idea is that if we capture the means of production, then the state and capitalist rule will fall away... this has not happened in revolutions and so economic control is a fundamental part of a new society, but not the whole picture in a revolution because workers also have to create a general class hegemony (which implies politics to me) and must counter the repressive abilities of capitalist rulers. I'm not sure if my argument is clear here.


We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class.Does this seem a little out of date? I don't necissarily disagree in general... inequality has increased and so has the concentration of economic power, but actual production has become more spread out. It doesn't invalidate their position however because it still means that competing trade unions can't deal with capitalists because they will use this diversity in production to move manufacturing to another factory or another sub-contractor; this means that workers need to fight more on a class basis to be effective otherwise winning concessions by one group means that the major company will then move their production to the next one.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Eh in 1905 or whenever the preamble was written 'trade unions' meant AFL unions built around specific trades. Industrial unionism -- everyone on the shop floor in the same union -- like the UAW, UMWA, ILWU was a radical concept back then. Only Wobblies and later Communists -- CIO -- were ready to embrace it.

(This is why I joke about the IWW seeking to build the CIO in miniature.)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The IWW is a great organization, but I would also agree that it has its flaws, partly do to its anti-political stance. It's not that the anti-political stance is bad, per se, as I understand the reason why they've done it (it means they won't get to tangled up in political dealings, like how many mainstream American unions have sort of become branches of the Democratic Party). But it's also hurt them in the long run.

That being said, the IWW served (and still serves) and important function in the American labor struggle, even if it is significantly less powerful than it once was. They may be more of a historical reenactment society in parts, but the history they reenact is an important one, especially in this day of anti-labor sentiment amongst conservatives and spineless liberals.

And hey, you never know. The American working class may one day rediscover the IWW.

[Popular Front of Judea]

In the interest of fairness:

http://i.imgur.com/cZ3lkDL.png

[helot]

I like the idea of the IWW very much and i really admire a lot of stuff that it's done as an organisation over the years - but as far as I know it's really a faint shadow of what it was in the early 20th century, and in a lot of areas it's limited to a small handful of people with regrettably few resources and little impact. I'd probably still join if i knew there was a branch in the city though.

There was once an active branch in Hull. They ended up organising in several places iirc, engaged in an industrial dispute but then loads of people got fired and never managed to get their jobs back and the branch died. There was mention of a branch on their website the other year but iirc it was one person who wasn't active.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm going to respond to some of the posts in this thread. I'm not a vehement IWW supporter or anything, I'd just like to talk it through.


The IWW is great ... if you are a hobbyist that wants to recreate the CIO in miniature. :)

Have been a Wobbly in the past. At the end of the day the IWW is a union, or at least a union organizing project. (As such it qualifies as a "dual union".) It was always hard to shoehorn my working life into Father Haggerty's wheel. Good chunks of my working life I worked as a "light industrial" temp -- which meant in practice any type work that didn't involve sitting at a desk. My job sites at times changed weekly. Now I am drawing a disability check.

My understanding is that you can be a member of the IWW and be unemployed, a student, or completely in one of the industrial sectors.


For the precarious workers of today raising the minimum wage is the one action that would most improve their lives. As an avowed "anti-political" union the IWW has nothing to say regarding this -- or a basic income scheme.

No, it doesn't. But then again, the notion of appealing to the government for more handouts is ridiculed and vehemently opposed by many leftist organizations. Furthermore, the IWW does appear to be organizing and/or helping people already on strike, thereby securing higher wages.


Bingo. The IWW never registered itself or organized generally as its own political party.

Am I the only one that doesn't see this as a criticism but as a strength?


The dilemma for the IWW isn't just numbers. Since it was nearly wiped out it stopped being a working union (Yes there is the odd local exception.) It didn't have to change with time. It has become a historical re-enactment society.

I am all for "minority unionism". I just have doubts that the IWW is the means to that end.

What do you mean by this? Because, as #FF000 touched on, it's too weak to be of interest?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good.

Even without doing so it did manage to win wage increases for workers throughout it's history (at least before it was utterly destroyed). I also think it's silly to try and say the IWW today can't or isn't winning anything for workers when it pretty clearly is, for the few it managed to organize in the fast food industry. For what it's worth, they were, for the longest time, the only ones even attempting to unionize that sort of work, and they're still the only ones I know that are trying to organize temp labor.

But, as for criticisms of the IWW today, I have to agree with what TGDU said above. I know wobblies and they're great at taking on issues in the community but they simply aren't a union in most areas, and even where they are, I can't imagine they can offer as much as other unions can (but then again, I guess this is just saying "they're too weak to be very effective").

My expectations of the IWW are admittedly low. If they're unwilling to organize as its own political party, why can't it at least organize itself as its own political action committee (PAC)? That would enhance its community issues profile.


Am I the only one that doesn't see this as a criticism but as a strength?

The PAC is the best immediate vehicle in the US for organizing around issues for retail workers, temp workers, and others.


Does this seem a little out of date? I don't necissarily disagree in general... inequality has increased and so has the concentration of economic power, but actual production has become more spread out. It doesn't invalidate their position however because it still means that competing trade unions can't deal with capitalists because they will use this diversity in production to move manufacturing to another factory or another sub-contractor; this means that workers need to fight more on a class basis to be effective otherwise winning concessions by one group means that the major company will then move their production to the next one.

That's where grassroots geographic employment associations come in.


Eh in 1905 or whenever the preamble was written 'trade unions' meant AFL unions built around specific trades. Industrial unionism -- everyone on the shop floor in the same union -- like the UAW, UMWA, ILWU was a radical concept back then. Only Wobblies and later Communists -- CIO -- were ready to embrace it.

(This is why I joke about the IWW seeking to build the CIO in miniature.)

Jimmie expressed concerns above with everyone on the shop floor being in the same union: why just that shop floor?

[Decolonize The Left]

I'd argue that this has more to do with the class situation outside the IWW than within.

I guess in my general impressions, I think one of the issues with radical syndicalism that relates to this is that it requires a certain level of class militancy and urgency for it to be effective. The IWW, to my knowlege, has taken many measures for practical reasons to adjust to some of the difficultiues of this kind of organization (specifically they seem to be engagin in more social struggles, they have duel membership so someone can be a political IWW activist while also being in the mainstream union representing their workplace).

I'm seeing this as a good thing as it preserves the inherent class character of the organization: no politics, you can be a member of any other union you want, whatever, we're talking about class interest.



But on a practical level I think the major problems for revolutionaries only comes in at a really high point in struggle when the question of class power comes into it. Then syndicalism comes into an issue where they are set up to represent specific workers and not the class as a whole (though they might have the class interests). Then politics becomes a bigger issue and an economic organization is not necissarily suited to be able to facilitate workers taking over all of society (though like in Spain, they could be a major force in a revolutionary movement). Of course we are not in the same situation and so I don't think any radical should be against seeing an upsurge in militant unions; organizing starbucks workers or other areas of the service economy would be a major breakthrough for class struggle and the IWW is right to organize in that direction.

My understanding is that the IWW does represent the working class - or at least is trying to by forming the 'one big union.' Does it not seem coherent to argue that the working class can only be organized as a class on the economic level, and that all political organization necessarily divides the working class in some form or another?

To be clear: In my mind I think the best strategy (because that's what I'm talking about here) is to have something like the IWW which all leftist political parties have a working relationship with. Hence the union grows and stands as the real power base of the movement; the political parties are the specific tools used to achieve one thing or another.


Really this line is the only think I really think is conceptually problematic in their statement. Where I think I would agree with an interpretation of this quote is that by organizing workers, the IWW is helping to form the connections and people and consiousness to form a new society, but the structures that are created by revolutionary unions are organizing workers against bosses and against exploitation. Their networks might be part of the structure of a new society, but their main function today would become redundant in a new society. I think the conceptual problem with this in other interpretations of this idea is that if we capture the means of production, then the state and capitalist rule will fall away... this has not happened in revolutions and so economic control is a fundamental part of a new society, but not the whole picture in a revolution because workers also have to create a general class hegemony (which implies politics to me) and must counter the repressive abilities of capitalist rulers. I'm not sure if my argument is clear here.

I think I'm reading you clearly enough. Basically you're saying that at some point political action will be necessary as the DoP necessitates political dominance of the capitalist class and that the IWW doesn't address this at all. I think this is fair, on one hand, but the DoP is also just one way of looking at the hypothetical post-revolutionary scenario. Personally, I don't think we can comment one way or another on what that would look like. I also feel as though positing a modern day global revolution means positing such working class consciousness that what happens post-revolution is fairly irrelevant.


Does this seem a little out of date? I don't necissarily disagree in general... inequality has increased and so has the concentration of economic power, but actual production has become more spread out. It doesn't invalidate their position however because it still means that competing trade unions can't deal with capitalists because they will use this diversity in production to move manufacturing to another factory or another sub-contractor; this means that workers need to fight more on a class basis to be effective otherwise winning concessions by one group means that the major company will then move their production to the next one.

I'm reading it as their strength. By repeatedly and unelectedly returning to the working class as a whole, the IWW is strong. Class consciousness means exactly that: seeing beyond industrial and shop boundaries and seeing class where it is, everywhere. It means seeing it when you're not at work and when you're not thinking about work. So the fact that the IWW's platform is so tiny and simple seems to me to be it's ultimate strength and versatility.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

There was once an active branch in Hull. They ended up organising in several places iirc, engaged in an industrial dispute but then loads of people got fired and never managed to get their jobs back and the branch died. There was mention of a branch on their website the other year but iirc it was one person who wasn't active.
yeah, i read about that. I believe that the trouble all started over the laying off of workers at a caravan factory?

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the interest of fairness:LOL! I think the guy without the glasses is me. Yeah no doubt comparing the urgency or immediate prospects for either a mass revolutionary union or a mass revolutionary party wouldn't get us anywhere since neither are looking like an immediate short-term possibility.

I have to say that I'm pretty sympathetic on the IWW and syndicalism generally. This school of thought and trotskyism were basically the ideas I was attracted to when I radicalized. Also I think that both schools of thought represent formations that happened at the height of class struggle - in general, they both try and deal with the issue of reformism, they both are aimed at how best the class as a whole can run society from below.


I'm seeing this as a good thing as it preserves the inherent class character of the organization: no politics, you can be a member of any other union you want, whatever, we're talking about class interest.Right, and I think as an organization of class militancy, there is practical logic to this. This would be something that I think would only become a practical problem when the question of class rule is really on the table. It might be a hinderance in some ways long before then, but ultimately it becomes a problem in a crisis because it leaves the political sphere (i.e. broader social issues) to other forces. This came up in Spain IMO where when politics became an obvious issue, the CNT didn't know how to navigate this issue and so they would switch from total abstention to de-facto support of the reformist parties to abstention and then ultimately forming a popular front with forces that wanted to protect property rights and stop the worker's movement (spcifically the CP). So in the long term I think independant class organization has to happen in economics, political/social (class issues of oppression, imperialism etc), and street (i.e. self-defense if necissary) levels. Not that Syndicalists or the IWW don't care about these things, it's part of the blurring between a "defensive" class economic organization and an "offensive" class organization.


My understanding is that the IWW does represent the working class - or at least is trying to by forming the 'one big union.' Does it not seem coherent to argue that the working class can only be organized as a class on the economic level, and that all political organization necessarily divides the working class in some form or another?Well I guess I'm a luxembourgist on this question because I think that they are too interrelated when it comes to revolutionary class struggle. If you are in a battle with the bosses, then you need everyone to fight around those immediate interests, so it doesn't matter if a co-worker is pro-war or maybe a little sexist. But this does begin to matter in a larger sense and so to be part of an "offenseive" class struggle or revolution, then an understanding of class issues must ultimately also encompas anti-sexism, anti-militarism, etc. Wobblies are no doubt on the right page on these issues generally, but if they were organizing large workforces, then it becomes an issue where you need to unite with people for econimic battles and so if someone voted for Obama or a Republican, as long as they are on the right side of the picket, it shouldn't matter.


To be clear: In my mind I think the best strategy (because that's what I'm talking about here) is to have something like the IWW which all leftist political parties have a working relationship with. Hence the union grows and stands as the real power base of the movement; the political parties are the specific tools used to achieve one thing or another.Yes, I would be thrilled to see something like this happen. I also think that probably any future revolution will have a more "coalition" type thing where different forces in differnet areas of the class struggle will have already begun to really have some level of cooperation and understanding. Where maybe I see things differently than IWW members is that I also think that probably in that heightened radical situation, many of the formerly reformist-led unions will have had beurocratic turn-overs and revolts within due to more wide-spread revolutionary consiousness and militancy.


I'm reading it as their strength. By repeatedly and unelectedly returning to the working class as a whole, the IWW is strong. Class consciousness means exactly that: seeing beyond industrial and shop boundaries and seeing class where it is, everywhere. It means seeing it when you're not at work and when you're not thinking about work. So the fact that the IWW's platform is so tiny and simple seems to me to be it's ultimate strength and versatility.I ws more curious about what was meant by this. I don't disagree - I think one of the major problems and impasses for labor right now is that power in one shop floor doesn't mean much when production has been made more diffuse and more directed through big finance rather than by industries with large single-factories where you could shut down production with one union in one site. Fast food or retail workers can't really get more in an induvidual struggle because that chain will just shut down there and shift somewhere else or something. It was just the wording I was wondering about because it made it sound like they were talking about huge factories or something - when definately in the US the trend is towards more flexible and diffuse production facilities. But maybe I didn't understand the quote - diffuse production doesn't mean more diffuse power by capitalists.

[Decolonize The Left]

Jimmie:
In regards to the issue of a purely economic organization being unable to relate to political developments, especially in a radical situation, I think this is a valid point. This is why I advocated using the economic organization as a base and allowing multiple political organizations to orbit it as the working class develops and changes its politics. I think that the alternative, having political organizations competing between each other and having no separate economic organization, weakens the class now and puts barriers in front of us.

So in my thinking I've come to see the best form as having something like the IWW whereby all political organizations push their members to join on a pure economic basis and having something like the IWW maintain a list of adjunct political organizations so that their membership can seek the appropriate political avenues for themselves. Then, as radical situations arise, the political organizations mobilize but draw their strength from the economic organization, and as the situation in general radicalizes all benefit from increased consciousness, cooperation, and mutual dependency.

Furthermore, political organizations can come and go without sacrificing the economic organization and leaving workers to start over. So a dual approach is what I'm seeing as best: a non-political economic organization such as the IWW, and a multitude of political organizations but whereby all their members are also members of the economic organization. Twice the power, a larger level of unity, and a diversity of tactics.