Log in

View Full Version : NEFAC Workplace Position Paper



STI
2nd February 2006, 05:44
Original version, with comments, available here. (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1982)

NEFAC workplace position paper

Introduction

As anarchist-communists, we want a radical reorganization of the workplace. We want workplaces that are run by directly democratic federated workers' and community-based councils. We want the highest decision-making body to be general assemblies of workers held on the shop floor and in the communities where they live. We want to abolish the wage system, end the alienation and division of labor, and usher in a new society of libertarian communism.

To achieve this society, we engage in a struggle against the bosses; a struggle between the working and the employing classes; a revolutionary class struggle that will only end when the class system itself is destroyed and everyone controls and shares in the wealth that we as working people produce.

We believe that the struggle toward libertarian communism must be brought about by the whole of the working class, and see the workplace and labor unions as an essential point of agitation and struggle. Labor unions represent the largest organized grouping of the working class. For this reason we feel that anarchist participation within the unions is essential. Anarchists must be involved in workplace struggles, both because we are both workers and because we are revolutionaries. As we fight the bosses with our fellow workers, we also fight the mediation of our struggle.

We anarchist-communists must organize within the ranks of labor unions, retaining our specific praxis. We become active in this struggle as both advocates of social revolution and as fellow workers in a collective battle against exploitation. We choose participation over authority and solidarity over isolation. It is through the process of collective struggle that people become radicalized and more open to anarchist ideas. To win the battle of ideas, we fight for direct action, mutual aid, and direct democracy in our unions and more importantly in the workers' movement as a whole--in short, revolutionary anarchist praxis.

CLASS STRUGGLE

At every stage in the historical development of society -– from ancient times through feudalism, to present-day capitalism -- there has been a division between those who produce goods and services, and the small minority that expropriate. This division has led to the development and irreconcilable interests of the two primary social and economic classes, resulting in an ongoing class struggle between them.

Class struggle is by no means confined to workplace. Class conflict occurs everyday in neighborhood-based battles for decent housing, the fight for welfare, the battles for access to quality education, the struggle against prisons and police brutality, in the arena of popular culture, and especially against racism, sexism, and other oppressions that stratify and divide the working class. It is not simply the fight for better wages and working conditions, but a daily struggle for the direction of society.

However, as anarchist-communists, we have a particular strategic interest in workplace struggles due to the ability to directly challenge the material interests of the capitalist class. Capitalism is, above all, a social relation; but it is also an economic system with real material weaknesses at the various points of production, communication, and distribution. Our greatest strength as workers is in the collective refusal of our labor. An organized working class is a force that has the potential to shut this system down and re-create society in our own interests.

The workers who produce the wealth under capitalism differ from all previously oppressed classes. Firstly, we now have the productive capacity to create enough wealth to provide the basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing, education, health care) for everyone and still have plenty to spare for science, culture, luxuries, etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, our everyday life as workers prepares us to eventually self-manage our society.

UNION BUREAUCRACY AND REFORMISM

Although we realize there are some exceptions, the reality of the labor movement today in North America is one of compromise, and often collaboration, with capitalist exploitation. Unions serve as a mediator between the working class and the bosses, often playing the role of business organizations that negotiate the sale of their members labor power to employers (and, in exchange, they offer workers material benefits: job security, health care, better wages). They seek a fairer form of exploitation under capitalism, rather than an end to exploitation itself.

As the labor movement has failed over the years to mount a fundamental challenge to the power of the bosses, the unions became increasingly top-down in their structure and integrated into the system. The officials who run these organizations work to contain workers' struggles within the framework of their longstanding relationship with employers and politicians.

While there are variations amongst the unions (some of which are more democratic and militant than others), most are dominated by a hierarchy of paid officials and staff, who control bargaining with employers, the handling of grievances, and tend to have a social service relationship to the rank-and-file (with whom they remain unaccountable to). This bureaucratic stranglehold, along with years of regulatory labor legislation, has led to unions often becoming roadblocks to serious working class power in North America, rather than fulfilling their historic role as effective vehicles for class struggle.

It is important to understand how this bureaucratic leadership emerged. Successive waves of union organizing, often involving militant tactics such as wildcat strikes and occupations pressed a tactical retreat on the bosses and the capitalist state, leading to the extension of new rights to workers' organizations. In place of open class warfare, a process of limited and uneven concession granting was established. This truce regulated and compartmentalized workplace struggles to keep them below the level of serious disruption. A new layer of union functionary emerged to broker and executes this deal. These union executives needed to placate membership with regulated contract gains while simultaneously ensuring labor force stability and an environment suited to accumulation for the bosses. While limited outbursts were permitted, union leaders were obliged to police the deal and maintain order in the ranks. The bureaucracy developed centralized structures and methods of control and direction that fit its role and function.

Beyond bureaucracy and internal hierarchies, most unions that are officially recognized by the state are unable to act outside of existing labor laws, and often limited in their ability to take effective action against employers. This means that they can support only the most moderate action, and they are typically unwilling to risk even this. Local unions that pursue a more independent, militant stance against employers are likely to run up against roadblocks of officials to effective action. In the worst cases when AFL-CIO or CLC affiliated locals are deemed too militant, national or international unions use their power to impose a dictatorship called a trusteeship, tossing out their elected officers and seizing control of the local with appointees of the bureaucrats.

Anarchist workplace militants must become revolutionary opponents of the union bureaucracy, refuse the terms of compromise with the bosses, and directly challenge those who seek to enforce it. It is necessary to build a rank-and-file movement which understands how this bureaucratic hold has entrenched itself, and which can actually work to break both the union bureaucrats and the bosses' hold over workers' struggles.

As the existing unions are not suited to overthrow the capitalist class (or, often times, even capable of taking effective action against employers) a workers' movement that can transform society needs to be built independently of the existing union hierarchies, both inside and outside of the union bodies. As workers move towards more militant action and more widespread solidarity, self-organization becomes a more realistic possibility.

Independent rank-and-file tendencies within existing unions, coupled with workplace resistance groups, solidarity networks (flying squads, workers' centers, student-labor action groups, etc.), and, eventually, workplace assemblies and coordinating councils, provide a glimpse at the kind of self-managed workers movement needed to not only effectively challenge the employers, but also develop the unity and revolutionary class consciousness needed to overthrow the capitalist social order. These are the areas where NEFAC seeks to be actively involved in the workplace.

DIVISIONS WITHIN LABOR

We recognize the exclusion that many workers face within capitalism due to certain forms of discrimination (such as racism and gender discrimination). These forms of divisions prop up capitalist isolation tactics between sectors of the workforce, as well as reinforce reactionary attitudes between various sectors of the working class.

We must recognize the vast divisions in the world of labor between people of different language, "race" or ethnic origin, which fuel racist, xenophobic and reactionary attitudes amongst workers. We must struggle against these divisions, by acting autonomously and building internationalist and anti-racist alliances. Through class organizing in the workplace, workers can develop strategies that break down racist and xenophobic divisions inside as well as outside of the workplace, demonstrating that racism is a social construction that serves to maintain ruling class power (divide to rule). By making an internationalist and anti-racist class struggle possible, we live a social alternative enabling worker's from different back ground to meet and learn from each others.

We must defend undocumented immigrant workers from attacks by capitalist exploitation of their "legal status". We must defeat racist and xenophobic attitudes amongst sectors of our class, by building solidarity between rank-and-file workers of "legal" and "illegal" status. Our most powerful argument against these racist attitudes is by organizing for common goals, so that capitalists can't take advantage of immigrant worker status to push the standard of wages and conditions down for all workers. By organizing defense of immigrant workers within the workplace we expose the relationship between capitalist organization of national boundaries as a relationship that serves the interests of the capitalist class, and not for selected sections of the "legal" workforce within artificial geographic boundaries. This activity also weakens the statist control of national and ethnic distinctions.

We must recognize the specific oppression of women under both capitalism and patriarchy. A long time before industrialization - and long after that – the place assigned to women was one of the "queen of the home", a place pointed out as their first and natural vocation. When the massive participation of women in the workforce occurred, opposition came out from all sides, from religious groups to the unions, saying that female work was against the natural order of things. But since society could not afford to develop itself without the work of women, essential to the development of capitalism and above all to the survival of working class families, we saw a great range of laws orienting the work of women towards jobs fitting better with their "nature". This has caused the creation of large female job ghettos in which the professional qualification of women was not recognized since it was "natural". If the work of women was not recognized as the fruit of diverse learning and special aptitudes, but rather as being part of their innate qualities, it was not worth a particular remuneration. In this way women's' jobs were, and still are today, paid much less and not valorized. The capitalist reality of the "double day" of work – social reproduction labor (such as housekeeping and childcare) in addition to this undervalued wage labor – forces women to stay home in a private sphere and contributes to their isolation. We must therefore fight against the economic and social inequalities that women live in society and in their workplace by struggling against the wage discrimination towards women and the low union rate of jobs worked by women, as well as their precarity and bad working conditions. The solidarity of the workers' movement must be extended to all workers, no matter if their labor is recognized, waged, and legal or not. We also must support and defend autonomous women's organizing around their material conditions and militantly defend all the gains made by our class, including those that provide advancement for women.

We don't believe that by simply abolishing capitalism, that racist and patriarchal attitudes in the working class will be destroyed. Class struggle is a struggle against all forms of oppression; therefore the class system must be brought down by a cross-gender and inter-racial mass workers' revolution. By organizing against these forms of discrimination inside the workplace we connect the dots between capitalist exploitation and social oppression, how they are linked and how we can draw these struggles together into one united class struggle for the liberation of all workers. Through rank-and-file action we must organize against these divisions by building campaigns and workers' organizations that are anti-racist, pro-immigrant, and anti-sexist. By agitating and acting in defense of these excluded sectors of our class in the workplace, by supporting and encouraging the autonomous organizing of all oppressed groups in all areas of society, and supporting leadership and activity within these struggles, we participate in creating class-based, internationalist, feminist and anti-racist organizing strategies that are capable or developing into a more advanced class struggle movement.

RANK-AND-FILE AUTONOMY

If society is a vast interlocking network of cooperative labor then those networks of cooperation provide a good starting point, if only a starting point, towards throwing off the bonds of coercion, authoritarianism, and exploitation. It is in these relations of cooperative labor, which encompasses millions of daily acts, that one can find the real basis for social life. Without these networks, often unrecognized and unpaid, society would collapse. We believe that for workers' struggles to move towards anarchist-communism, that they must provide within them the social basis for the re-organization of production into a libertarian communist economy. This social basis necessitates that workers' struggles be cooperatively run on the shop floor, while expanding and generalizing not only to other workplaces, but also outside the workplace to the community that the workplace is located in.

Sometimes this struggle formalizes itself into groups of workers that act outside and in opposition to not only the exploiting class, but also the union bureaucracy. Some names that these formations have taken in the past are workers' committees, flying squads, resistance groups, action committees, etc. Other times, this is expressed through unofficial spontaneous collective action, such sit-down-strikes, occupations, slows downs, sabotage, and wildcat strikes utilizing informal networks that exist between workers. What matters is not the name or even the specific organizational form they take, but rather the way that the unmediated class struggle of these workers' formations starts the transformation of the organization of production.

COMMUNITY-LABOR ALLIANCES

This brings us to the importance of building active links between the grassroots popular struggles in the neighborhoods and the labor struggles taking place inside them. We call this the community-labor alliance. Community-labor alliances are best built by a mutual reinforcement of ongoing struggles in the communities and workplaces. It is for this reason that NEFAC advocates workers' and people's organizations actively support each other, build solidarity, and end the artificial division between the workplace and community struggles.

ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS

The labor movement once put a great deal of energy into building more permanent forms of alternative institutions. An expanding variety of mutual aid functions were provided through workers' organizations in the early days of labor. Long before the government monopolized social services, many workers' organizations created a network of cooperative institutions of all kinds: schools, daycare, summer camps for children and adults, homes for the aged, health and cultural center, insurance plans, technical education, housing, credit associations, etc. While we recognize that, in the past, working people have won significant victories that have forced the government to provide these services; we actively fight for self-managed social services that are controlled directly by the workers themselves.

While on their own such institutions can and are absorbed into the capitalist system (and do not constitute a strategy for revolutionary change), we take a position in favor of creating workers' owned and run services that operate, as best they can under capitalism, on the basis of the need for the entire working class with the participation of the communities that benefit from the services. We believe that such institutions and programs open up space for experimentation of a limited form of self-management under capitalism.

WORKERS CENTERS

Today one expression of this need for alternative workers' institutions, as well as the previously mentioned community-labor alliance, is seen in the development of workers' centers. Workers' centers provide a location and organizational support for campaigns in defense of precarious workers such as immigrant workers, workers in small shops, and non-unionized industries. NEFAC takes a position in support of workers centers and encourages participation and utilization of them as part of our extra-union strategy.

GRASSROOTS SYNDICALISM AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZING

We support industrial organizing over organizing by trade or craft. Industrial organizing brings together all workers in a workplace into a common union organization. Trade unionism - which allows each location, profession, or sector to be represented by different unions, weakens class identification and solidarity. With the aim of creating a workers' movement on a class basis, NEFAC supports the goal of eventually building grassroots syndicalism, which would incorporate all workers regardless of skill, trade, industry, or even current employment.

THE GENERAL STRIKE

A central part of our program is the call for the general strike. It serves as a bridge between demands for reforms and the ultimate goal of revolution. The old method of each union fighting for its own gains, striking one at a time against a particular boss, is of limited use. The capitalists help each other against the unions. Companies have grown in size, through mergers and expansion, on a national and international scale. A multinational company uses the profits of one part of its business empire to make up for losses due to strikes in another part. The bosses have their own "union", namely the national state. Through the state, they have outlawed the most effective methods of striking, such as mass picketing, sit-down strikes (occupation of work sites), and cross-union strikes (sympathy strikes). They have given the courts the rights to limit strikes, and some workers are legally forbidden from striking at all.

We think the answer is to increase solidarity among unions, as well as among unions and the community. As many workers as possible should be prepared to strike together. Most useful would be for a large number of workers in an area to strike at once, effectively shutting down production in the whole area. The area might be a city, a country, multiple countries or global. Such general strikes would be very difficult to break.

Rather than just walking out of the factories, offices, and other work sites, the workers should occupy them. This would make it harder for the capitalists to bring in scabs or to assault the strikers (since such assaults could destroy their property). Locking out the bosses, the workers could decide to restart the workplaces, to produce goods and services on the basis of the needs of the community.

There have been general strikes in many countries at various times—in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Most of these strikes were for limited gains. But a general strike poses the possibility of revolution, especially if it is over several cities or even nationwide. To have the workers running a city or region, even for a while, to have workers councils instead of the state, to have the workers patrolling the street instead of police, to have work sites producing for the needs of the workers--these suggest a different form of society. They ask the question, ""Why not get rid of the capitalists and the state?"

Right now the workers have suffered many defeats and only a few victories. They do not trust in their power. More than all the radical rhetoric, a successful general strike would show in practice that we have the power to change the world.

REVOLUTION

Any popular movement for working class power must be prepared to defend itself. The working class already has one source of power; it has the ability to shut down the economy and to start it back up on another basis. This is not enough to resist a persistent reign of physical terror by the state. Working people must be able to resist with weapons in hand. Workers' defense squads must grow from defense of pickets from scabs and goons to popular militias. Armed defense must be combined with a political appeal to the ranks of the armed forces sent against the workers. The ranks of the armed forces consist of the working class and can be reached. They are more likely to do so if they feel that the workers are prepared to fight to the end, until they win (it is no light matter to defy military orders and soldiers will not do so unless they feel they will get away with it). The more prepared the working class is for serious self defense, the less violence there is likely to be.

Violent revolutions in the past have resulted in new rulers. We, however, are building a movement for the self-rule of the working class, where the armed people are democratically organized and the economy is a communist one based on the maxim: "From each according to ability to each according to need". We wish to smash the state, to dismantle capitalism and all authoritarian institutions, and create a lasting freedom of libertarian communism.

We want a social revolution, literally a "turning-over", so that those on the bottom of society overturn their masters and manage themselves. If society is to survive, the workers must replace capitalism with a federation of self-managed industries and communities with production based on needs, not profits.

Under capitalism, workers are a component of producing an ever-accumulating surplus of value that is stolen from our labor. In an anarchist-communist society, production will be organized on the basis of need where there is no surplus of value. This anarchist-communist production can only be realized by the cooperation in production that takes place in the community as a whole. There can be no isolated anarchist-communist workplace; the reorganization of production by its nature requires the elimination of division between the workplace and the communities in which we live.

(Adopted at eleventh federation congress, November 5-6, 2005,
Sherbrooke, Quebec)

redstar2000
2nd February 2006, 13:22
Originally posted by NEFAC+--> (NEFAC)We anarchist-communists must organize within the ranks of labor unions, retaining our specific praxis.[/b]

That's the dilemma!


Originally posted by NEFAC+--> (NEFAC)Labor unions represent the largest organized grouping of the working class. For this reason we feel that anarchist participation within the unions is essential.[/b]

It's long been argued that the presence of a large number of workers in an organization is reason in and of itself for revolutionaries to join it and work inside it to spread revolutionary ideas.

Is that true?

In my opinion, we have to take into account the "political culture" of an organization and not simply the number of workers that might be in it.

When trade unions were illegal or only semi-legal, it made sense for revolutionaries to work in them. They existed then not only to fight a particular capitalist or group of capitalists, but to fight the bourgeois state apparatus as well!

There was a "political culture" that favored the development of a revolutionary consciousness in the workers who participated...even in the absence of conscious revolutionaries.

It's been a very long time since that was true. The legal unions are all (or nearly all) shrinking...and their ability to actually deliver on what they promise is steadily dwindling.

I see nothing to be gained for revolutionaries to climb aboard a sinking ship.


[email protected]
It is through the process of collective struggle that people become radicalized and more open to anarchist ideas.

Depends. A collective struggle that arises as a result of proletarian initiative does radicalize people or at least has the potential to do that.

A "ritual struggle" ordered from "on high" just promotes demoralization, apathy, and cynicism.

Especially when it doesn't gain jack shit!


NEFAC
As the existing unions are not suited to overthrow the capitalist class (or, often times, even capable of taking effective action against employers) a workers' movement that can transform society needs to be built independently of the existing union hierarchies, both inside and outside of the union bodies. As workers move towards more militant action and more widespread solidarity, self-organization becomes a more realistic possibility. -- emphasis added.

Why not do that? Particularly the part about outside the union bodies.

Why not explain to your co-workers that since the union won't help them, they'll just have to help themselves.

If you spend a lot of time and energy trying to "pressure" a legal union in a more "combative" direction, what will you gain?

You can't possibly imagine that anarchists would be permitted by the bourgeois state apparatus to "take over" a legal union, right?

Why shouldn't anarchist-communists try to build a working class resistance to the despotism of capital without regard to the existing unions at all?

Much less bourgeois "labor law".

Would that be "a lot harder"?

Sure would!

Are there any "microwave ready" ways to do that?

Nope. You'd have to "cook up" the whole thing from scratch, inventing your recipes along the way.

Is it "do-able"?

To tell you the truth, I don't know. The Leninists tried very hard to use the trade unions throughout the last century as "vehicles of radicalization" and failed miserably. I don't see why anarchist-communists should have any more success in that regard.

So I suggest that it's time for something new. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

rebelworker
3rd February 2006, 00:51
Why not do that? Particularly the part about outside the union bodies.

Why not explain to your co-workers that since the union won't help them, they'll just have to help themselves.

If you spend a lot of time and energy trying to "pressure" a legal union in a more "combative" direction, what will you gain?

You can't possibly imagine that anarchists would be permitted by the bourgeois state apparatus to "take over" a legal union, right?

Why shouldn't anarchist-communists try to build a working class resistance to the despotism of capital without regard to the existing unions at all?

Well we are doing both of these things and I think its important not to totaly abandon the unions because.... there are workers there.
I myself was recently a member of UNITE-HERE, miserablydisapointed by them, but the real problem in our workplace was that the workplace was not united and because of this people were too afraid to do anything.

One of the first things I tried to do was get peopel who wanted to change things togeather, had i not been fired for doing this, I would have used the legal defense and funds of the union to help this process along.

I dont have any illusions about anarchists "taking over the unions", although in the 70's here in montreal the maoists missed the central labour council missed that by only a few votes, That is not the point anyway, we just want to encourage militancy wherever workers are, and this may mean in the unions(in quebec its more of an issue with 40% unionization). In fact I beleive that if we get too influencial we will be phisically intimidated or purged from the unions, itself a political situation that will lead to radicalization of some layers of the membership.

As for what to do outside of the unions, many of us are working on building "para-unions" we do direct action job "caeswork" across indusrties and unions in defence of workers rights. We do picket support with our organisation and incourage autonomy from the burocrats and direct action, so far we have some minimal success.

We are also currently dicussing founding a new diretcly democratic union to work in tandem with our workers network. This is being done because of desire by some of our members to organise thier workplaces.
We beleive a too teired strategy is required, build our own organisations were needed, work with or within the unions when possible.

I think the flaw of the Leninist strategy was their onesided drive to seize the burocracy of the unions to "lead" the stupid workers while not fcusig enough on base work in the rank and file.

revolution will only come from the mass self activity of the working class, we hope to encourage that wherever it may happen.

rebelworker
17th February 2006, 03:15
I find it hard to beleive that on a page dedicated to revolution hardly anyone has an opinion on this Paper.

Weither you agree with our position or not these issues are hugely relevant if we are to have a revolutinary movement in Norht America again!!

Come on people, say somehting, anything

Give it your best shot!!!

Comrade-Z
18th February 2006, 03:41
Well, it is pretty good all around. I do have to question the proposition that today's bureaucratic unions can be "reformed" into raging revolutionary syndicates. It would probably be better to spend those efforts building the IWW or some other new revolutionary unions rather than trying to revive and re-shape the obsolete reforminst unions. Becoming involved with those unions is not necessary in order to make contact with the workers of those unions.

Basically, I doubt that stuff like this changes the minds of many people (at this present time in history--give it some time). Those who already agree with anarchist communism will approve of it and perhaps come away with a clearer, more concise understanding of "what is to be done." Those who don't already agree with anarchist communism probably won't approve, even if the most brilliant arguments imaginable are presented in this position paper in the most understandable terms possible.

For some reason (individual life experiences, other material conditions), this stuff just won't "resonate" with most people at this present time. This would still be the case even if Mr.-Pullitzer-Prize-Winning-Writer himself had written the position paper. It's not a question of having the right arguments or writing in a beautifully clear and understandable manner. That's all already present in the position paper. It's a question of what the current objective conditions in society pre-dispose people to find reasonable. Right now the dominant mindsets don't encourage the embracing of anarchist communism. Objective conditions in society will have to chance before mindsets change, and mindsets will have to change before clearly formed ideas on "the way forward" change. Unfortunately, it seems to be a slow process.

Basically, with most workers in the world today, there is nothing you could tell them to convince them to become anarchist communists. Unfortunately, they will have to be "burned" by capitalism before they will know better. Being presented with brilliant abstract ideas is no substitute for first-hand experience.

The French aristocracy had been no less brutal in 1749 than in 1789. Why was it the case, then, that in 1749, yelling "Off with the King's head!" would have been met with hopeless apathy or complacence, whereas that same cry in 1789 would meet with thunderous approval? Material conditions had changed in the meantime, and mindsets had accordingly changed.

The capitalist class was no less brutal in 1910 than it will be when it is overthrown. They will have "deserved" overthrow in roughly equal amounts in both cases. Why then, would a cry of "Down with capitalism!" be met with apathy, fear, and even hatred in one case and thunderous approval in the other? Material conditions will have changed in the meantime, and accordingly mindsets will have changed.

NEFAC's position paper is preaching to the choir and/or falling on deaf ears at the moment. "Soon" this will no longer be the case. It will seem "miraculous" when all of a sudden this stuff starts to "resonate" strongly with large numbers of people. But that sudden "miraculous" boost in the appeal of anarchist-communism will simply be a product of changing conditions in society and changing mindsets. Give it time.

STI
18th February 2006, 20:45
Comrade Z, I agree with you for the most part - material conditions just won't allow for large-scale "conversion" to anarchist-communism right now.

Some NEFACers may agree with this, some may not. Either way, the question is one of "what the hell we should do until then". If we take the Position Paper as an answer to that question, it has some more usefulness.

But, while we're on the topic, what the hell should we do "until then"?

enigma2517
18th February 2006, 21:49
I agree.

I think an interesting question we can ask is...how are we different? We live in the same society, why is our outlook on everything is very opposite of everybody else's?

STI
18th February 2006, 22:13
Well, when it comes to human sciences (and hypotheses thereof), there are no "absolutes". Everything is about trends. Right now, us lefties are the small part of the population that doesn't fit the trend, we're not the norm. That doesn't make us "better", of course, and certainly doesn't give us license to "lead" the working class (aside from providing leadership in the "battle of ideas" or a "leadership by example"). Eventually, trends will change (and are always changing, to varying degrees).

Comrade-Z
19th February 2006, 02:06
But, while we're on the topic, what the hell should we do "until then"?

In general, I think the position paper does give some good advice to already existing anarchist-communists on the question of "what is to be done." That's probably the area in which it is most useful.

The parts that I would mainly disagree with are the parts that suggest working within the already existing bureaucratic trade unions. That's just going to be wasted effort. That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage the workers of those trade unions and criticize the bureaucracy of their trade unions. In fact, that is something we should very much do. But we do it on our own terms, working from our own self-managed organizations, if need be.

I also question the wisdom of promoting anything less than total, widespread workers' control of the workplaces. We should draw attention to the fact that active, ongoing resistance to capital or the threat of this resistance is the only thing that guarantees the existence of any concessions or reforms (and we should probably point out that even that won't necessarily guarantee those concessions, especially in the era of capitalism that we now find ourselves in). And we should follow this argument to its logical conclusion--that workers will only ever achieve any measure of "economic security" by getting rid of the capitalist system altogether.

Finally, if workers are interested in alternatives to the bureaucratic trade unions, we can put forward the IWW or something of the like and encourage them to insist, whatever organization they are a part of, that workers require those organizations to be self-managed and ultra-democratic. We must encourage workers to settle for nothing less. At the same time, we must stress that even these self-managed alternative institutions will be largely impotent as far as winning reforms, and that the only truly worthwhile way in which these organizatons can be used is to advance proletarian revolution.


I think an interesting question we can ask is...how are we different? We live in the same society, why is our outlook on everything is very opposite of everybody else's?

I can only speak from personal experience. And I don't even fully know why I am the way I am. I do know that I have had an "anarchist-communist impulse" for some time now, ever since I was roughly 12 or so. I really can't tell you how that came to be. I just have no idea. I can tell you, though, that by age 16, I had a rough "skeleton" of my ideas already in place. I was already fairly committed to the idea of "workers' control" without ever even hearing that phrase explicitly, or even hearing anything about anarchism or communism with regards to "workers' control."

I had developed the idea independently, and I had a very sincere suspicion for a while that I was the "only one" around who had come up with this neat stuff. But then I found www.anarchosyndicalism.net (I explicitly remember that being the first site I had found that explicitly stated what I had already been thinking in less clear terms). The material on the site immediately "resonated" with me (it was like, "Ah ha! This is exactly what I've been thinking all along!"), and my interest in anarchism and communism has grown from there for over a year and a half now.

Here's a sample of my writing around age 16, before I had ever even heard of "workers' control," "anarchism," or "communism" (except insofar as "Communism as the Leninist despotism" had been presented to me in school). I'm not particularly proud of this piece of writing. It is full of erroneous thinking, naivaté, a belief in reformism, etc. It's basically an argument for market-socialism, now that I look back at it and see it for what it was (I hadn't been formally introduced to the idea of "market-socialism" yet.) But it was a start, and I had developed it completely independently of any exposure to anarchism, socialism, or genuine communism.

The bolding and bracketed texts are additions and commentary that I am making right now.


An Explanation of
Democratic Business Management [Note: I really thought that I had come up with something totally "new" with this. Hence the name. Little did I know it was basically market-socialism.]

Clearly, Communism has been, is, and will always be a failure. A noble failure, perhaps, but still a dead end as far as economic philosophies go. Its flaws are glaring and numerous. Human beings, with all of their imperfections, will never operate true Communism successfully. In fact, it is doubtful if true Communism could even be achieved, much less sustained and successfully implemented. On the other hand, Capitalism’s flaws persist, and remain a great detriment to society. Any working class citizen can attest to its miseries. Should wealth be so vastly concentrated in so few hands? Putting “fairness” aside, is it even healthy for society, and for democracy? Can society take much more of capitalism before it either rips open at the seams in a bloody revolutionary struggle or recedes into a shadowy totalitarian grip? [Note: the idea that capitalism is authoritarian is already present in my thinking at this time.]

The working class has been the victim of brutal exploitation all too often. Its exploiters have come in various forms: monarchs, capitalists, communists. The Communists have been perhaps the most appalling exploiters of the working class. First they come to the working class promising a new world, giving the long oppressed masses a much needed beacon of hope in their otherwise dark lives. The working class pours its heart into the Communist cause, only to be repaid with murder and suffering. This treachery is beyond foul words. It is true that Communism was never intended to be that way. In fact, the intentions were just the opposite - Communism was going to be, ideally, the rule of the working class. [Note: That's the part of "ideal" communism that I already admired. But I saw actual realworld communism as functioning in a completely different way, so I rejected it outright.] Instead, workers traded one exploiter for another. They were on a different road, but this road led even more directly to totalitarianism and suffering. So, if both roads, Capitalism and Communism, lead the wrong way, are workers inevitably doomed to lead a life of mediocrity at best, or more likely, a life of misery? NO! There is a third road, and a fourth, and there may be others that we may not yet have discovered. What we must do now is consider one of these unexplored paths:

Democratic Business Management

In many ways, Democratic Business Management (DBM) is not so much a new philosophy as a significant reform of the capitalist system. As it is, the means of production is always privately owned, even if the owner does not operate the machinery/property of production. In fact, the machinery and property is virtually worthless to the owner unless he/she can find labor to operate it. Similarly, the abilities of the laborer are greatly reduced without the use of machinery/property. It is this “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” type of situation that has caused so many problems in business management. How does one assign worth to machinery that is worthless without labor? And how does one assign a value to labor that is almost worthless without machinery? Before the industrial revolution, workers and owners did not largely have to face this problem. A laborer’s productivity was determined almost solely by his/her skill and efforts. But the introduction of automation and mechanization in the industrial revolution opened up a conundrum that has yet to be satisfactorily solved. Democratic Business Management attempts to provide a solution to this problem.

DBM functions on the basic principle that property is privately owned unless it is used by someone other than the owner as a means of production. In this case, the property is said to be “proportionally owned,” by the owner and all of its users, and how this property is used is determined democratically by each owner’s and worker’s proportional vote. Furthermore, the resulting profits, and thus wages, are also democratically allocated.

The concept is confusing at first, partly because it is so revolutionary, but with adequate explanation it becomes clear. This is basically how the philosophy works: A citizen’s property remains strictly privately owned unless that citizen uses his/her property as a means of production and that citizen employs other people to operate that means of production. In this case, if the workers who operate the means of production so wish, they may declare that they proportionally own the means of production (the business) that they are using. For example, a farmer has no need to worry about his tractor becoming anyone’s property except his (unless he hires someone else to operate it, in which case that “employee” can demand proportional ownership of the tractor. However, the farmer still remains the “official” owner. As long as he is a part of this business, his tractor is proportionally owned, but if such a scenario occurred, and the farmer was dissatisfied, he could “quit” the business, taking with him his tractor. Thus, everything would be the same as it had been before.)

Competition, and thus incentive for harder work, is maintained in that businesses still compete with each other. This is an important distinction between DBM and Communism.

DBM would formally operate as thus:

If all of the workers (defined as non-owners) at a company decide that they want their business to be run democratically, then they all must unanimously sign a declaration of proportional ownership, which declares that the business shall subsequently be considered to be proportionally owned (unless the employees decide to reverse this at a later date through a democratic process.) The official owners of the business continue to be the executive private owners of the property of the business. However, the way in which this property is used is then decided democratically, with the owners jointly receiving one worker’s proportion of the vote, which will then be divided according to each owner’s ownership of the business. If an owner is also a worker at the business, then that person receives a worker proportion of vote in addition to his/her proportional ownership vote.

However, because the owners still executively own the property of the business, they may decide to “quit” the business, either jointly or individually, at any time, taking their property with them, and thus in a sense dissolving the company. This would greatly harm the owners, as their property would be useless without labor to operate it. The workers would also be greatly injured, as they would lose the machinery/property with which to operate the business, effectively putting them out of business. An important point is that owners do not have the ability to fire individual workers. Such a decision would have to come about through a majority vote. If owners wish to fire their employees, they must “fire” all of them at once by leaving the company themselves. Because such a venture would be financially hazardous (it would be difficult to re-constitute the entire workforce), owners would probably only use this option as a last resort. In addition owners are almost guaranteed job security, because if they were fired, they would take their property with them, and the workers would not be able to run the business anymore. However, owners do not have the ability to fire individual workers. Such a decision would have to come about through a majority vote.

There is a tremendous amount of give-and-take within DBM. The goal of DBM is not to punish owners, whose risk-taking and perseverance have done much to further the progress of society. Instead, the goal of DBM is to create a democratic framework within which citizens can work together to determine how to operate the means of production, and thus determine how to improve their lives. DBM is not centralized management of production. In fact, DBM is almost the exact opposite. In Communism, the dictator has been the central manager (and brutal exploiter). In Capitalism, the owner has been the central manager (and brutal exploiter). Under DBM, there is no central manager, unless one is appointed democratically. It is decentralized, anti-authoritative, and at its heart extremely pluralistic and democratic. The belief in democracy for nations is now deeply rooted across the world, but why not democracy for businesses?

What would democratic management entail?

1. All company information (budgets, profits, supplies, salaries, etc.) would be transparent within the company. This would be essential if workers were to participate in the decision making.
2. Decisions concerning wages, purchases, business strategies, etc. would be decided by a majority vote. Whether decisions would need a simple majority, super majority, or a consensus would be determined democratically through a simple majority vote.
3. If the workers so wished, they could vote to have a representative system of company management. These elected representatives could manage the menial affairs of the company for efficiency’s sake (always with proper transparency of decisions and proceedings.) If the workers decide that the representatives are not doing an acceptable job, they could remove them of their rank at any time. [Here I was expounding upon the anarchist concepts of transparency, specific delegation of tasks, and instant recall of delegates presented in slightly more awkward language, without ever having been introduced to anarchism.]
4. As a safeguard against worker backlash, owners would be guaranteed a wage of at least two times the mean (average) wage of the company, multiplied by the percentage of their ownership. Meaning, if an owner held 50% of the company, he/she would be entitled to at least the mean wage of the company. If the owner held 75% of the company, he/she would have a wage of at least 2*(average wage)*75%, and so on. Surely, though, workers will consider the real value of having an experienced manager with the company, and will compensate the owner/manager somewhat better than the average wage (although the owner will most likely no longer obtain huge astronomical profits.) Another result of this is that stockholders of a DBM company would get paid twice: once for being part-owners in the company and once from their dividends.

The advantages of these reforms are:

1. These reforms can be carried out peacefully and democratically. No violent and bloody revolution necessary. The reforms can begin to sprout at a single business. The process can be gradual. It is likely that privately owned businesses would compete with proportionally owned businesses for quite a long time, if not forever. It all depends on if the workers at a particular business want to make these reforms.
2. These reforms only target a very specific area of society. All of the other parts of society would continue on as usual (no massive upheavals or restructuring.) For example, in America, the congress would go on functioning as usual, free trade would still exist as it had before, the stock market would still function similarly, and the private lives of people would be unaffected.

Some natural consequences of democratic management would be:

1. Owners would tend to be paid less than they are currently. Workers would generally be paid a little more, and products would possibly be less expensive to manufacture. This is partly because…
2. Businesses would be operated more efficiently. Yes, that’s right, more efficiently. Except for giant mega-corporations like Wal-Mart (which would become almost unmanageable - a good thing, perhaps), direct worker input [Note: pretty close to saying "workers' control"] into the management process would yield practical innovations and improvements. And workers need not confine management discussion to some musty conference room. In fact, much of the management discussion would likely occur during the course of the work day, spontaneously. If a worker sees a more efficient way to do something, he/she could discuss it with his/her co-workers, and eventually refer it to the representative or put it up to a vote. Discussing management solutions could become a common workplace activity under this system! Also, things that past workers lacked, like internet message boards, could be used to greatly aid organization, communication, and efficiency of management.
3. Huge mega-corporations like Wal-Mart would (most likely) be forced to split up, naturally discouraging monopolies and encouraging competition.
4. Workers would become better educated. Some would argue that ordinary workers would be incapable of managing their own business. However, if they became a part of the decision-making process, they would quickly learn the workings of the company, and would soon be able to make informed decisions as to how to run things. The best training is on-site experience. School education is extremely helpful, but not necessarily essential. Those workers that have no interest in helping to run the company could simply abstain when votes are called. Nevertheless, they will always have the option of getting involved, if they change their mind.
5. DBM would help to diffuse the huge concentrations of wealth and power in big business that now dominate national politics, as well as depriving millions of workers of a decent living wage.

How can all of this be achieved?

It’s fairly simple in thought, although not necessarily in action. There are 2 steps towards democratic business management:
1. A bill must be passed in the congress and signed into law that makes a “declaration of proportional ownership” legal.
2. Workers must be willing and eager to actually do all of this. Remember, the government can’t force any of this on society. For this to be truly democratic, the workers in a company must be unanimously willing of their own volition to launch such an effort. The Communist method of direction by an intellectual elite is fraught with numerous hazards, and must be avoided. This means there must be a broad, grassroots level worker’s movement that strives to promote democratic business management.

This movement must also remain entirely separate from issues of foreign policy, unrelated domestic policy, policy dealing with religion, unrelated rights, civil liberties, etc. While these may be important issues, they would only muddy and entangle the movement for democratic business management if adopted. These issues can and should be dealt with in other progressive movements, but entangling other issues with this movement would invariably drive away would-be supporters who happen to just disagree with one of the entangling issues. The DBM movement must have a clear, singular, and easily explained message that will appeal to the broadest base of citizens as possible if it is to be successful.

The first stage of the movement must be to spread the philosophy to as many people as possible, and to encourage discussion and criticism. Why criticism? If there are defects in the logic or philosophy, it is best that they be addressed at the preliminary stage of the movement. Criticism and discussion should always continue, throughout the movement and beyond, as criticism is essential to improvement, but it is especially important at this early stage. Open discussion, criticism, and tolerance of opinions will also be essential in maintaining the democratic nature of this movement. There should be no “absolute submission to a singular will” as Lenin so preferred, nor should there solely be an intellectual elite guiding the movement. This cannot be stressed enough. Just as this movement’s aim is to empower the citizen, so it is that the citizen must carry this movement forward.

More Fire for the People
19th February 2006, 16:54
Labor unions represent the largest organized grouping of the working class. For this reason, we feel that anarchist participation within the unions is essential.

The labor unions have turned from subversive organizations into submissive organizations. Union meetings are not debate floors; they are information centers where the workers receive their orders. “Picket here until they tell you to stop!”

A revolutionary must engage his fellow workers in the workplace. He must act with a certainty that his actions will encourage his fellow workers to become revolutionary. He must educate by agitation, by propaganda of the deed. The problems of past revolutions cannot be solved by repeating the situation. He must reject craft unionism and appeasement. The revolutionary must create a new situation through unauthorized strikes, picketing, and if necessary establishing an alternative industrial union.


Although we realize there are some exceptions, the reality of the labor movement today in North America is one of compromise, and often collaboration, with capitalist exploitation. Unions serve as a mediator between the working class and the bosses, often playing the role of business organizations that negotiate the sale of their members labor power to employers (and, in exchange, they offer workers material benefits: job security, health care, better wages). They seek a fairer form of exploitation under capitalism, rather than an end to exploitation itself.

Then why work within them? You criticize reformism yet engage in it. The system cannot be reformed from within; a socialist in parliament with the hope of overthrowing it is the same as a socialist in a craft union with the hope of overthrowing the union bureaucracy.

As to a workers revolution, we must reject rank-and-file militias. The general strike is only an inroad towards libertarian socialism. However, a general strike cannot overthrow the state and capitalist social relations. The workers must form a popular democratic army utilizing strikes, guerilla warfare, and propaganda by the deed to demolish and demoralize the bourgeois state. A revolution against capitalism and against the state, by its nature is protracted. The revolution is a long drawn out battle, as the workers are weak in the current state of affairs. The efforts by a popular army slowly enable the working class to seize more power until power is theirs.

STI
20th February 2006, 04:50
Originally posted by Comrade_Z+--> (Comrade_Z)The parts that I would mainly disagree with are the parts that suggest working within the already existing bureaucratic trade unions. That's just going to be wasted effort. That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage the workers of those trade unions and criticize the bureaucracy of their trade unions. In fact, that is something we should very much do. But we do it on our own terms, working from our own self-managed organizations, if need be.[/b]

I might or might not agree with you abou that. It all depends on how this position paper will be implimented in in practice. If by "working within the already-existing trade unions" means supporting rank-and-file strikers with AFL-CIO/CLC, good. If it means going to union meetings at your workplace to criticize what's wrong with the union and push for more radicalism (ie: taking issues to their roots - from the latin word "radix", meaning, well, 'roots'), then good. If it means doing organizing drives for the CAW, no thanks!

I guess everyone will just have to wait and see how it turns out (or, if one feels like getting involved in NEFAC, influencing how it turns out).


I also question the wisdom of promoting anything less than total, widespread workers' control of the workplaces. We should draw attention to the fact that active, ongoing resistance to capital or the threat of this resistance is the only thing that guarantees the existence of any concessions or reforms (and we should probably point out that even that won't necessarily guarantee those concessions, especially in the era of capitalism that we now find ourselves in). And we should follow this argument to its logical conclusion--that workers will only ever achieve any measure of "economic security" by getting rid of the capitalist system altogether.

Couldn't have said it better myself :)


Diego_Armando
A revolutionary must engage his fellow workers in the workplace. He must act with a certainty that his actions will encourage his fellow workers to become revolutionary. He must educate by agitation, by propaganda of the deed. The problems of past revolutions cannot be solved by repeating the situation. He must reject craft unionism and appeasement. The revolutionary must create a new situation through unauthorized strikes, picketing, and if necessary establishing an alternative industrial union.


That stuff is true, but it isn't always easy to actually talk to all your co-workers while you're at work, much less find that even a good chunk of them are all that interested about talking politics on their smoke break... or that their smoke breaks are long enough to get a decent discussion going.

At a union meeting, you can at least 'stir up the shit' a little bit. You won't be making any friends with the union leadership, but that's not who you're trying to convince anyway.

But, at least when you're at a union meeting, people have politics on the mind and on the tongue.


Then why work within them? You criticize reformism yet engage in it. The system cannot be reformed from within; a socialist in parliament with the hope of overthrowing it is the same as a socialist in a craft union with the hope of overthrowing the union bureaucracy.

They're not quite the same thing. I don't think I or anybody in NEFAC would argue that we can "turn the CAW into an anarchist-communist union", but that the WORKERS who belong to the CAW could be reached through contact with anarchist-communists within the union. Those anarchist-communists could encourage things like wildcat strikes, or, better yet, taking over locals straight-up (saying "yeah, all this stuff doesn't belong to the CAW anymore. It belongs to us and we're going to make use of it, suckas!").

More Fire for the People
20th February 2006, 16:22
That stuff is true, but it isn't always easy to actually talk to all your co-workers while you're at work, much less find that even a good chunk of them are all that interested about talking politics on their smoke break... or that their smoke breaks are long enough to get a decent discussion going.

At a union meeting, you can at least 'stir up the shit' a little bit. You won't be making any friends with the union leadership, but that's not who you're trying to convince anyway.
I can see your point but in a nation like America, only 12.5% of the population is an union. Out of these 12.5%, maybe a third of them are interested in radical change. The other two-thirds are either likely not to care or directly oppose you.

Workplace agitation invovles more people than that would normally be involved simply because they are in a union. If your coworkers are talking about a possible strike, encourage them to do so. Then during the strike you could ask them if they wanted to assemble later and talk the issues out amongst themselves and draft a solution.

STI
20th February 2006, 22:15
I can see your point but in a nation like America, only 12.5% of the population is an union.

So then I guess my application of the position paper would only apply to that 12.5%... the other 87.5%, though, is another position paper altogether :lol:


Out of these 12.5%, maybe a third of them are interested in radical change.

True, and I don't think that being in a bureaucratic union necessarily predisposes a person toward wanting radical change, my point is that it gives us an opportunity to try and convince them of how radical change will be beneficial.

More Fire for the People
20th February 2006, 22:38
Winning people over could be as easy as a protest or as hard as a civil war. Education via conversations and workplace dialogoues in my opinion is a better option than being hushed by union bureaucrats.

STI
21st February 2006, 00:22
Education via conversations and workplace dialogoues in my opinion is a better option than being hushed by union bureaucrats.

So then both should be done (conversations at work when it's appropriate and speaking up at union meetings), which was, I thought, my point all along :D

More Fire for the People
21st February 2006, 02:48
Yes, but workplace conversations seem more effective. You walk into an AFL-CIO or Teamsters meating and you might get your ass kicked for saying "So, should we raise our wagess?". While union meetings might work, workplace conversations are more effective.

STI
21st February 2006, 06:03
They might or might not be, but that doesn't alter the point of my interpretation of the position paper: that it's at least useful to go to union meetings and argue for radicalism.

But like I said before, conversations *at* work aren't always that effective. What I've found is good is to just hang out with co-workers as friends, and if the shittiness of work happens to come up in the conversation, that's when progress can be made. Trying bring politics into the conversation constantly makes people feel like ignoring you.

rebelworker
24th February 2006, 21:46
Something to remember when reading the position paper is that it is written by NEFAC memebrs(ie people who live in the North east of the US and Canada).

Quebec, where nefac is the strongest, has a 40% unionization rate, Ontario slightly lower and the US lower still, but in general much higher than 12%.

Second, we never claim that mainstream unions will be turned into revolutionary organisations(thats why we have nefac). We do think that they can be made more combative and that the most combatative elemants of the working class will be in them(weither we like it or not).

Also we are workers, many of us work in unionized workplaces and need to do ur political work "within the unions". Our position is counteposed to the last large revolutionary movment in quebec, when the maoists argued that people should leave the unions altogeather and join there party, talk about alienating yourself from potential supporters. This is still the line of the largest maoist group here.

This position paper was something for us to clearafy our internal aproach to what kind of labour work we should be doing and also an outreach tool to our close allies within the labour movement.

It was more "anti union" than some ALF-CIO memebrs wanted and less critical than some members wanted also.

Im gald it made it to this webpage, there are so few revolutionary groups dong serrious labour work, the maoists are a joke and the old left is more and more irrelevant.

I think that ant authoritarian communists need to get serrious about building a base within the labour movement. There are lots of young angry people looking for answers, and a good amount of older folks dissalusioned by Lenenism/stalinism and the like who are still doing solid work who may be won over.