Workers vs Non-Workers

[Jitsu]

One question I have been having lately, specifically within the context of Anarcho-Syndacalism, but also within all forms of grassroots socialism is "Who is a Worker"? What about the role that Mothers, the disabled, and elders have in our society? Shouldnt they also have a say in community based issues?
One of my criticisms of Anarcho-Syndacalism is that so much emphasis was placed on the revolution of the workers in the world place. While this is certainly a vital component to ANY socialist revolution, what about community based Direct Democracy for members of our society who dont work for the factories, but are still valuable members of our local societies?
I think this model should be adjusted to create greater unity with community based councils that operate on behalf of the community based on geography or bio-region, rather than all political power being placed in the hands of powerful Industrial Unions.

Just some morning thoughts.

[apathy maybe]

This is a very interesting thread for a new user. This is one of my problems with syndicalism as well, the focus on the work places.

Of course, I think the point is that within the work places the workers rule, but in the wider society, the citizenry would. Umm... Someone with a better knowledge of syndicalism then me?

[Raúl Duke]

Why not organize the economy in a syndicalist worker's council fashion and organize society in a communal local assembly fashion?

Why not use both Anarcho-Syndicalism organisation & Anarcho-Communism organisation at the same time?

I'm not an expert, but just presenting a suggestion/idea.

[Jitsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:49 pm
Why not organize the economy in a syndicalist worker's council fashion and organize society in a communal local assembly fashion?

Why not use both Anarcho-Syndicalism organisation & Anarcho-Communism organisation at the same time?

I'm not an expert, but just presenting a suggestion/idea.
I agree. I think that a hybrid system between the two MUST be created and improved on to deal with our present day situation.

And thanks apathy. I may be new to the site, but Im not new to Anarchism or socialist theory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about this, then? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207) [And nowhere do I mention the words "party," "Lenin," "Marx," "vanguard," etc.]

[TheGreenWeeWee]

I don't doubt that social services would exist either as a department in the industrial union or profession trades of worker's councils. I mean people who are disabled, born mentally handicapped or elderly won't be discarded by the new society as they would under Nazi and other political related ilk. If I believe that socialism, worker's councils or industrial unionism would discard people who have no control over what happen to them be it by accident or birth or simply growing old then I would be a staunch opponent. I see a lot of compassion on the Left. The only thing I don't agree with on the Left is: "I have to dictate to you how to live and what to believe in". Basically when it come to people who dance to a beat of a different drum it is better to repect those differences rather than attack them.

[Jitsu]

While in the Syndacalist model, Mothers, the disabled, and the elderly were taken care of, they were not involved in the decision making process inside of the Industrial Unions. Why would they? They are not workers in those Unions, so it is not their place.

My criticism is not that they would be abandoned, but that Community Councils should have a place in neighborhood and city wide direct Democracy, and that the role of Community Councils should perhaps supersede that of Industrial Unions if not be equal.

Especially in smaller communities, it may not be practical to have separate Industrial Unions for every little garage factory or farming project....Rather, you are likely to have workers play a wide variety of roles, from building homes, to planting crops, to setting up communication systems. This would produce a society with fewer if any boundaries between the workers of one project and the workers of another.

By placing the center of power in community councils you give Mothers and the elderly a voice. The mentally disabled is not really what I was thinking of when i said this, since they may not be able to participate in a community discussion if their are unable to communicate and be understood....which would be sad, since I would like as many people to have a voice as possible.

Every Industrial Union is going to depend on resources, and those resources have to come from somewhere. If a coal plant needs to strip mine a mountain side that is not JUST an issue for members of the Coal miners Union, but its also an issue for the Farmers who use the land below the hillside, and the people who deal with providing clean water. Furthermore its an issue for the people who live in that community to decide how much they need the fuel source, and to weigh the environmental impact of strip mining.

What I would propose would be a compromise between Anarchist-Communism and Anarcho-Syndacalism where community based councils which would include all concerned residents, and coordinate the various Unions. The Industrial and Workers Unions need representation, because they are the experts in their field, and the common people might not understand what reasonable expectations are. The people also need representation because various Unions might be competing for resources in an environment that believes in collective rather than private ownership of the land, and even those who are not Industrial workers should have a say in what affects their environment and living conditions.

I think the primary seat of power should be community based councils, and Syndacalist Unions should be created when need for them is justified. Otherwise, your basic co-op model, or task rotation can be put in place.

[Jitsu]

Of course, the decision making process should only include matters of common interest.


I also think that that its preferable to simply communicate and come to a mutual understanding (when and if possible), and avoid exercising (Majority Rule).

I am against coercion as a driving force, but i believe incentives to cooperate rather than compete should be invented, which shouldnt be too difficult in a society where we all depend on each others efforts.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Jitsu wrote:
While in the Syndacalist model, Mothers, the disabled, and the elderly were taken care of, they were not involved in the decision making process inside of the Industrial Unions. Why would they? They are not workers in those Unions, so it is not their place.

Okay, this is outside of worker's councils and industrial union.


My criticism is not that they would be abandoned, but that Community Councils should have a place in neighborhood and city wide direct Democracy, and that the role of Community Councils should perhaps supersede that of Industrial Unions if not be equal.

Especially in smaller communities, it may not be practical to have separate Industrial Unions for every little garage factory or farming project....Rather, you are likely to have workers play a wide variety of roles, from building homes, to planting crops, to setting up communication systems. This would produce a society with fewer if any boundaries between the workers of one project and the workers of another.

The industrial union is not unions but one union with different departments that would build homes, furniture, farm, increase communications, purify drinking water from the tap, etc. Worker councils are similar but less centralized I believe but don't quote me on that. Either way it would be a republic of labor. I would think that community councils would problem solve domestic issues that arise. If a community needs houses built or a new sewer system then an order is presented to the union or worker's council who would take those orders and go to work on it. I don't think it would matter if a community was small.


By placing the center of power in community councils you give Mothers and the elderly a voice. The mentally disabled is not really what I was thinking of when i said this, since they may not be able to participate in a community discussion if their are unable to communicate and be understood....which would be sad, since I would like as many people to have a voice as possible.

Community is important and what decision are made should be made at a local level with as much imput from the citizen no matter who they are.


Every Industrial Union is going to depend on resources, and those resources have to come from somewhere. If a coal plant needs to strip mine a mountain side that is not JUST an issue for members of the Coal miners Union, but its also an issue for the Farmers who use the land below the hillside, and the people who deal with providing clean water. Furthermore its an issue for the people who live in that community to decide how much they need the fuel source, and to weigh the environmental impact of strip mining.

True, resources are needed to create electricity which makes machines run to lighting homes. Keep in mind that in the new society people will have a say and enviromental issues will be addressed. What those poeple do in the future is speculation but I am sure they will have good judgement.


What I would propose would be a compromise between Anarchist-Communism and Anarcho-Syndacalism where community based councils which would include all concerned residents, and coordinate the various Unions. The Industrial and Workers Unions need representation, because they are the experts in their field, and the common people might not understand what reasonable expectations are. The people also need representation because various Unions might be competing for resources in an environment that believes in collective rather than private ownership of the land, and even those who are not Industrial workers should have a say in what affects their environment and living conditions.

I think the primary seat of power should be community based councils, and Syndacalist Unions should be created when need for them is justified. Otherwise, your basic co-op model, or task rotation can be put in place.

There are a lot of proposals out there. We just have to discuss what steps should be taken. There will be a lot and compromise before any steps are taken. Each step will have to implemented a little at a time to make sure they are effective. Believe me, communities will have a lot of say. There will be more of an inter-relationship between places of work and where workers live. The industrial union or worker's councils will have to play a major role in the beginning of the new society creation. They don't compete for resources. They fill orders for consumption by communities. Sorry I am a bit tired right now so I may not have been able to respond very well.

[coda]

I think everything The Green Wee Wee said is right on. The important thing to realize is that Anarcho-syndicalism is an ideological method to revolution---not an economic structure or system. That is an important distinction. Anarcho- syndicalism says "we, the Workers produce, therefore we have the power to halt production and lay waste the capitalist system" -- given that the workers realize and actualize that the economic leverage is with themselves as workers and producers of capital. Building a communist society is based on community--- workers, seniors, mothers, children, everyone. Truly, the great thing about Anarchism is that it includes Everyone in the communist process---everyone who wants to participate to the greater benefit, anyone who has an idea for community. That is what is So great about anarchism and the whole difference between anarchism and any other system. Yup, that makes me an anarchist true believer.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary weapon, not a society. The society would likely resemble something out of Kropotkin.

[Jitsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:39 am
Anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary weapon, not a society. The society would likely resemble something out of Kropotkin.
I think you are right. However, keeping this in mind is important when thinking ahead.

[Jitsu]

I do support the IWW, but has anybody ever mapped out the transition from Anarcho-Syndacalism to Anarchist-Communism for the post revolution phase?

While I have read and appreciated many wittings by Anarcho-Syndacalists, I have never actually read an entire platform of the revolutionary stages beyond the workers revolt. Everything up to that point seems well defined, but I have not seen much material on the post revolution struggle.

While Im sure people would come up with viable solutions, these things should probably be talked about in advance.


Also, I would be interested in any reading material relevant to this subject.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Kropotkin had a well-written bit on expropriation:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...nquest/ch4.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html)

[coda]

Check out the Anarchist FAQ if you haven't already. I always thought it was pretty inspiring. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

You won't find a concrete platform anywhere, mostly it's open to suggestion and thereafter consenses. The basic idea-- that of a communist society will be intact. My thinking is that there will hopefully be an ongoing evolution, ---refining and hammering out all the nitty gritty details by the proles, that determined by the changing times and circumstances.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Yes, we must never, ever rest on our laurels.

[Jitsu]

What incentive would there be for Unions to make the transition from Market Mutualism to Anarchist Communism? I worry that union sectarianism could become the new status quo, and while this is preferable to capitalist exploitation, it falls short of community based equality and egalitarianism.
I think the transition is totally doable. Certainly easier to make the transition from Market Mutualism than from a Capitalist Oligarchy. However, what incentives can be invented to encourage sectarian unions to make the transition from Market Mutualism into a gift based economy?

[coda]

The incentive would be, for everyone, to be an integral contributer to society, like everyone else will be.

If you mean, what would happen if a union out and out revolts against having a communist society then they more than likely will have to give up their workplace and share of production to those who will work and contribute. What happens to those people, the community will have to decide. I'm sure they will be treated humanely in any respect.. provided food and shelter.

[Jitsu]

I suppose it would be a natural progression, assuming that most people desired such an outcome.

[Faceless]

One question I have been having lately, specifically within the context of Anarcho-Syndacalism, but also within all forms of grassroots socialism is "Who is a Worker"? What about the role that Mothers, the disabled, and elders have in our society? Shouldnt they also have a say in community based issues?
One of my criticisms of Anarcho-Syndacalism is that so much emphasis was placed on the revolution of the workers in the world place. While this is certainly a vital component to ANY socialist revolution, what about community based Direct Democracy for members of our society who dont work for the factories, but are still valuable members of our local societies?
I think this model should be adjusted to create greater unity with community based councils that operate on behalf of the community based on geography or bio-region, rather than all political power being placed in the hands of powerful Industrial Unions.

Just some morning thoughts.

The power of the working class is in the fact that is is concentrated in the main centres of economic and political power, and therefore it is able to take economic and political power from the capitalist class and into its own hands. This is why the industrial proletariat is the leader in the revolution. Nothing moves without its say-so, regardless of what society "should" look like. The problem, in my humble opinion, with all forms of syndicalism, is that it sees only who is in economic control, and does not realise that even when the workers occupy every factory under worker's control, there remains the political, bourgeois state... that body of men armed to the teeth to defend private property.

The working class has to put up its own fighters against this state, which will not simply die because the bourgeoisie has lost the reigns of economic power. What is more, in the country-side of peasant dominated countries, we have a huge body of people detatched from these centres of political power, and who can be whipped up against the revolutionary proletariat to simply sweep the working class aside if the revolution is not brought from the cities into the country.

To reorganise power along economic lines alone fails to recognise the need to unite every section of the oppressed in society against the old order to fight a centralised, planned war against the capitalist class until it is destroyed. And people are absolutely right, Industrial Unionism alone cannot succeed in this way. Other political mechanisms are needed to bring the small peasants, who are by no means organised in unions, the urban poor, the unemployed etc. to the side of the proletariat. To fail to do so is to leave them in the hands of reaction.

[coda]

excellent analysis, faceless.

<<<{that body of men armed to the teeth to defend private property....
The working class has to put up its own fighters against this state}>>>

Yes, and it may seem obvious, but in case it&#39;s not... "fighting against the Capitalists"--- the body of armed men of course refers to the standing military, the Armed Forces of the state, which entails our fighting and dismantling it.. not as it sounds---hand-to-hand combat with Bill Gates and company.

[Jitsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:00 pm

One question I have been having lately, specifically within the context of Anarcho-Syndacalism, but also within all forms of grassroots socialism is "Who is a Worker"? What about the role that Mothers, the disabled, and elders have in our society? Shouldnt they also have a say in community based issues?
One of my criticisms of Anarcho-Syndacalism is that so much emphasis was placed on the revolution of the workers in the world place. While this is certainly a vital component to ANY socialist revolution, what about community based Direct Democracy for members of our society who dont work for the factories, but are still valuable members of our local societies?
I think this model should be adjusted to create greater unity with community based councils that operate on behalf of the community based on geography or bio-region, rather than all political power being placed in the hands of powerful Industrial Unions.

Just some morning thoughts.

The power of the working class is in the fact that is is concentrated in the main centres of economic and political power, and therefore it is able to take economic and political power from the capitalist class and into its own hands. This is why the industrial proletariat is the leader in the revolution. Nothing moves without its say-so, regardless of what society "should" look like. The problem, in my humble opinion, with all forms of syndicalism, is that it sees only who is in economic control, and does not realise that even when the workers occupy every factory under worker&#39;s control, there remains the political, bourgeois state... that body of men armed to the teeth to defend private property.

The working class has to put up its own fighters against this state, which will not simply die because the bourgeoisie has lost the reigns of economic power. What is more, in the country-side of peasant dominated countries, we have a huge body of people detatched from these centres of political power, and who can be whipped up against the revolutionary proletariat to simply sweep the working class aside if the revolution is not brought from the cities into the country.

To reorganise power along economic lines alone fails to recognise the need to unite every section of the oppressed in society against the old order to fight a centralised, planned war against the capitalist class until it is destroyed. And people are absolutely right, Industrial Unionism alone cannot succeed in this way. Other political mechanisms are needed to bring the small peasants, who are by no means organised in unions, the urban poor, the unemployed etc. to the side of the proletariat. To fail to do so is to leave them in the hands of reaction.
Excellent response. Its exactly what I was getting at.
While I dont think syndacalism should be thrown out, I do think it should be modified and improved on. It is still a valuable tactic, but it is not a complete solution on its own.

Are you really a Leninist and not an Anarchist faceless?
It is refreshing to see the civil exchange of ideas between Anarchists and other Communists on this site.

[Faceless]

Thanks Jitsu, I will take it as a compliment that you think I ought to be an anarchist. :D The truth is though that no, I&#39;m not an anarchist, I am definately a Leninist, and I would like to imagine that Lenin himself would have agreed with me on this. Jitsu, you are right that Syndicalism is a good tactic. But yes, it has to be modified. It is not enough just to be a good Trade Unionist; although these people are good fighters. I have no doubt that the most honest of them would see the limitations of syndicalism when the question becomes critical.

To be honest, what I value more than being a "Leninist" or an "anarchist" is to be able to scientifically analyse the situation and draw the correct conclusions. This is scientific socialism and I think Lenin&#39;s contributions were in the best of this tradition. To me the state is simply what I said it was, "an armed body of men" defending certain property relations. I explained the fact that the capitalist class has their armed body of men; ready to fight to defend the interests of capital. But what is necessary from the working class is that it puts forward its own armed body of men prepared to fight for a new society based upon socialist principles and the old state must be dismantled, completely smashed. To me this constitutes a new state of the working class; by necessity democratic but equally centralised so as to be able to carry out the great task of defeating the hostile armies of a dying capitalism, so how can I be an anarchist?