Marx and the One Big Union

[Punkerslut]

I finished reading the essay "The Bakuninists at Work" by Marx, and he offers a theoretical opposition to the premises of Syndicalism. To quote...


Great importance was also attached to the general STRIKE at the Geneva Congress of the Alliance held on September 1, 1873, although it was universally admitted that this required a well-formed organisation of the working class and plentiful funds. And there's the rub. On the one hand the governments, especially if encouraged by political abstention, will never allow the organisation or the funds of the workers to reach such a level; on the other hand, political events and oppressive acts by the ruling classes will lead to the liberation of the workers long before the proletariat is able to set up such an ideal organisation and this colossal reserve fund. But if it had them, there would be no need to use the roundabout way of a general STRIKE to achieve its goal.

It was just one essay, so I'm not going to nutshell this as Marx's only reason of opposing the union and the strike as a means to social change. But ultimately, it was simply a matter of instrumentality -- what is a better tool to use in achieving the social revolution. Marx had outright rejected petty bourgeoisie parties, moderates of the left and the right, as means to any type of significant or real social change. But in this part, he even admits that the union is capable of producing the social changes that the Proletariat need; it is simply "the roundabout way."

If the workers organize into unions on this level, many of the disadvantages of political parties disappear. As Mao said well, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The countless massacres and executions of individuals, politically left and right, was the main achievement of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Suppression of the press, of the right to vote, freedom of assembly, all of that was ripped from the peoples' hands in these self-described Communist regimes. A syndicalist union lacks many parts of the political party. It does not require a compulsary opinion, nor does it have a hierarchical structure, nor do representatives hold any power over the workers. And if revolution can be done "the roundabout way," without these excesses, then why not?

[YSR]

Interesting note: most of the early IWW self-identified as Marxists, albeit an "ultra-left" version of Marxism. This could also have something to do with the fact that in 1905, when the union was founded, a large portion of anarchists in the U.S. embraced or defended political assassinations as solid praxis.

[syndicat]

Marx's comment there is rather sectarian. Marxists in practice have not opposed mass strikes -- think of Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet "The Mass Strike," about the national general strike in Russia in 1905. This Russian mass strike, which took on a revolutionary dimension, influenced the rise of syndicalism in Europe before World War I. Collective mass actions help to develop the class consciousness and strength of the working class. Is Marx suggesting that a labor-managed economy is to come about through elections? That is highly unlikely, given that electoral politics tends to empower party leaders, and leads to parliamentary reformism and to statist, top-down conceptions of social change.

I doubt that very many anarchists in 1905 were advocating "assassinations". Alexander Berkman's attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick in the 1890s was influenced by the example of the Russian populists, not anarchism.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:20 pm
Marx's comment there is rather sectarian. Marxists in practice have not opposed mass strikes -- think of Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet "The Mass Strike," about the national general strike in Russia in 1905. This Russian mass strike, which took on a revolutionary dimension, influenced the rise of syndicalism in Europe before World War I. Collective mass actions help to develop the class consciousness and strength of the working class.
I think there's a big difference between the Marxist position of supporting mass strikes in the context of an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing the state (to establish the DotP) and the anarcho-syndicalist position of the single general strike in itself as the means to overthrow the state.

[syndicat]

I think there's a big difference between the Marxist position of supporting mass strikes in the context of an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing the state (to establish the DotP) and the anarcho-syndicalist position of the single general strike in itself as the means to overthrow the state.

This is a caricature. I think you don't understand the anarcho-syndicalist position. In Spain in 1936 the anarcho-syndicalist unions formed armed worker defense groups that defeated the army coup. In that context the anarcho-syndicalist unions did also declare a revolutionary general strike. Programmatically their aim was to replace the state with worker congresses, worker defense councils, a unified workers militia, worker seizure of the means of production, and workplace and community assemblies at the base.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:37 pm

I think there's a big difference between the Marxist position of supporting mass strikes in the context of an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing the state (to establish the DotP) and the anarcho-syndicalist position of the single general strike in itself as the means to overthrow the state.

This is a caricature. I think you don't understand the anarcho-syndicalist position. In Spain in 1936 the anarcho-syndicalist unions formed armed worker defense groups that defeated the army coup. In that context the anarcho-syndicalist unions did also declare a revolutionary general strike. Programmatically their aim was to replace the state with worker congresses, worker defense councils, a unified workers militia, worker seizure of the means of production, and workplace and community assemblies at the base.
The Marxist and Bakuninist, or State Communist and Libertarian Communist, have often shared the same ideological principles: the worker should control the means of production. Marxian politics worships the value of the state, and demands that all things to be subjugated towards this power. The only power to effect society is through the state, so putting people in that position who believe strong enough in Communism is important -- and naturally, giving them more power, more strength, more armies, police, and spys, will make a stronger state, and therefore a stronger Communism. That is the Marxian position.

This differs extremely different from the Anarchist position, which seeks to establish the workers' rights not through armed conflict, but through social conflict. The Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain were not on the attack; they were on the defense. Fascist Military leaders revolted against the democratically elected government. The war wasn't a choice on the part of the syndicalists. Their militia units were just the sane reaction that any people would have towards an invading force.

[syndicat]

This differs extremely different from the Anarchist position, which seeks to establish the workers' rights not through armed conflict, but through social conflict. The Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain were not on the attack; they were on the defense. Fascist Military leaders revolted against the democratically elected government. The war wasn't a choice on the part of the syndicalists. Their militia units were just the sane reaction that any people would have towards an invading force.

More than 18,000 enterprises were expropriated by the unions, millions of acres of land, thousands of urban buildings. Not clear how that is "mere defense."

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:25 pm

This differs extremely different from the Anarchist position, which seeks to establish the workers' rights not through armed conflict, but through social conflict. The Anarcho-Syndicalists in Spain were not on the attack; they were on the defense. Fascist Military leaders revolted against the democratically elected government. The war wasn't a choice on the part of the syndicalists. Their militia units were just the sane reaction that any people would have towards an invading force.

More than 18,000 enterprises were expropriated by the unions, millions of acres of land, thousands of urban buildings. Not clear how that is "mere defense."
That wasn't done in response to the Fascist revolt; that was happening before, as a part of the organization of Spain's Left Revolutionaries. The arguments of many on the right was that the democratic government, which considered itself revolutionary, was allowing much of this to go on. These weren't anti-fascist, military actions. They were anti-capitalist, social actions, which took place preceding the civil war. The government itself granted worker ownership in all manufacturing plants with over one hundred workers. How was this a defense against Fascism, when the military leaders had yet to revolt?

Not sure if you're into torrents, but there's a five-hour documentary on the Spanish Civil War that you can download at www.torrentz.com. Just type in "Spanish Civil War" in the search and you'll see the six parts.

[syndicat]

That wasn't done in response to the Fascist revolt; that was happening before, as a part of the organization of Spain's Left Revolutionaries. The arguments of many on the right was that the democratic government, which considered itself revolutionary, was allowing much of this to go on. These weren't anti-fascist, military actions. They were anti-capitalist, social actions, which took place preceding the civil war. The government itself granted worker ownership in all manufacturing plants with over one hundred workers. How was this a defense against Fascism, when the military leaders had yet to revolt?

The government elected in Feb 1936 was dominated by liberal Republicans. They did not consider themselves "revolutionary." Indeed it was because of their timidity on the issue of land reform that the Land Workers Federation, led by the left socialists, started seizing huge agricultural operations in March. That was really the only takeovers that happened before the coup in July. The massive expropriation of industry, most of the takeovers of land, and the takeovers of thousands of urban buildings, only happened AFTER the smashing of the army coup because the building of a workers militia gave the workers the courage to pursue a revolutionary course.

The government did NOT legalize takeovers of industrial enterprises before the mlitary coup. That didn't happen until October 1936, months after the coup. And that was merely an attempt by the Communists and their Popular Front allies to limit the amount of takeovers. The anarcho-syndicalists had already seized 18,000 enterprises including many smaller enterprises, such as the entire haircutting, cabinet-making, dairy and baking industries in the Barcelona area. The Communists were recruiting and mobilizing the petit bourgeoisie to counter the anarcho-syndicalist-inspired worker revolution.

Here is an essay on the Spanish revolution that goes into all this:

http://www.workersolidarity.org/spain.pdf

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:59 pm

Here is an essay on the Spanish revolution that goes into all this:

http://www.workersolidarity.org/spain.pdf
Okay, maybe I mistook some of the order of events. The Anarcho-syndicalists seized the means of production in many industries, yes, but their program was not Marxian, i.e., revolution through armed struggle (or electioneering).

[syndicat]

The Anarcho-syndicalists seized the means of production in many industries, yes, but their program was not Marxian, i.e., revolution through armed struggle (or electioneering).

Not all Marxists would agree with this characterization of a Marxist program. In particular there are some Marxist groups (such as Solidarity) who advocate "socialism from below", based on mass movements of the working class and oppressed.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "revolution through armed struggle." The anarcho-syndicalist position is that any armed force that is required during a revolution, to defend the revolution, needs to be under the democratic control of the mass democratic worker organizations, such as the unions, as in the Spanish case. if the revolution is to be the self-emancipation of the working class, then the working class needs to control the process.

They therefore would reject the idea of building up a party-army to conduct guerrilla war or civil war as the strategy for revolution, not because they are pacifists but because it would end up creating a state, and thus perpetuating the class system.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:25 pm
Not all Marxists would agree with this characterization of a Marxist program. In particular there are some Marxist groups (such as Solidarity) who advocate "socialism from below", based on mass movements of the working class and oppressed.
The unique feature of Marxism, apart from Syndicalism or Libertarian Communism or Socialism, is the value of the state in achieving the social revolution, even though its model lies on a democratically elected government. To this extent, the Anarcho-Syndicalists certainly diverge at this point; their economy is the same, naturally. After all, Bakunin and Marx worked together during the First International. Their opinion on the state was their distinguishing attribute. I'm not familiar with Solidarity, unless you mean the Polish federation of trade unions.

[angus_mor]

If the workers organize into unions on this level, many of the disadvantages of political parties disappear. As Mao said well, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The countless massacres and executions of individuals, politically left and right, was the main achievement of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Suppression of the press, of the right to vote, freedom of assembly, all of that was ripped from the peoples' hands in these self-described Communist regimes. A syndicalist union lacks many parts of the political party. It does not require a compulsary opinion, nor does it have a hierarchical structure, nor do representatives hold any power over the workers. And if revolution can be done "the roundabout way," without these excesses, then why not?

The revolutionary political organization of the working class transgresses the type of organization that is the Trade Union. Such organization of the proletariat is developed within a bourgeois paradigm; and thus only capable of gaining concessions therefrom and the continuation of labour in its present, waged condition. The qualitative changes in the relation between capital and organized labour will, just as the accumulation of capital necessitated such organization, necessitate greater political organization of the proletariat as the revolutionary situation develops. The Paris Commune was of this revolutionary character:

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body; executive and legislative at the same time." -- Karl Marx

[syndicat]

I'm not familiar with Solidarity, unless you mean the Polish federation of trade unions.

take a look at:

http://www.solidarity-us.org


The unique feature of Marxism, apart from Syndicalism or Libertarian Communism or Socialism, is the value of the state in achieving the social revolution, even though its model lies on a democratically elected government.

The problem is, this phrase "democratically elected government" is multiply ambiguous. There is actually a sense in which anarcho-syndicalists also advocate a "democratic government." Consider, again, the program of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists. The building blocks of the society they proposed to build would be assemblies in the workplaces and the neighborhoods. That's because the libertarian Left, being committeed to self-management, is also committed to direct, participatory democracy. But there were to be also regional and national worker congresses, made up of delegates elected from the base assemblies. And if major issues came up in the congresses, they could be referred back for decision to the base assemblies. The union organizations would act sort of like mass caucuses within these congresses, as the different unions represented the mass base of the different political tendencies.

There were also to be revolutionary committees, elected by the base, to oversee a unified workers' militia. The workers militia would thus be directly controlled by the organized working class.

From the point of view of the Spanish anarchists, this may be a "working class government", and an elected one, but it isn't a state, because there is no hierarchical body of professional armed bodies controlled by party leaders running a state. The revolutionary committees or defense councils, as they called them, represented the workers, not party leaders. And the revolutionary committees or defense council would only coordinate the social defense function -- militia, courts. The economy would be self-managed by the workers, not run by a government hierarchy.

Thus it's necessary to distinguish between a government or governance system and a state.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:14 am
From the point of view of the Spanish anarchists, this may be a "working class government", and an elected one, but it isn't a state, because there is no hierarchical body of professional armed bodies controlled by party leaders running a state. The revolutionary committees or defense councils, as they called them, represented the workers, not party leaders. And the revolutionary committees or defense council would only coordinate the social defense function -- militia, courts. The economy would be self-managed by the workers, not run by a government hierarchy.

Thus it's necessary to distinguish between a government or governance system and a state.
The Syndicalists viewed their structure not as a state because of the absence of professionally militarized, armed forces, immediately answerable to an executive. Rather, it was that their representatives had no binding authority over the workers, while a party. I recall one argument against the Syndicalist system being that the workers simply rename their party officers as delegates, with councils and assemblies instead of parliaments and congresses; that it was a matter of semantics only. But the difference is that the workers are only bound to agreements that they consent to, and they possess the right to pull any delegate representing the union.

A self-organized, self-managed society fits the term social order. The term "government" has loosely been used to describe the functioning of any social order, but that's still an incorrect application.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:58 am
It was just one essay, so I'm not going to nutshell this as Marx's only reason of opposing the union and the strike as a means to social change.
Straw man alert!

Marx didn't oppose unions and strikes, obviously. In fact, he was the first major socialist writer to make support for unions an integral part of his class-based strategy for social change.

In contrast, the anarchist Proudhon wrote that striking workers should be shot.

The International, under Marx's leadership, put a lot of effort into supporting different strikes, coordinating international support for them. For example, it blocked efforts to recruit German tailors to scab on a tailors' strike in Britain.

What Marx is opposing in this passage is the idea that workers could take power through a general strike alone: no armed insurrection needed.

It was a very fashionable idea at one time, but pretty much dead today. Since we have real-world experience of both insurrections and general strikes.

General strikes are rarely completely peaceful, and often shade over into insurrection.


The Anarcho-syndicalists seized the means of production in many industries, yes, but their program was not Marxian, i.e., revolution through armed struggle (or electioneering).

So you can't even make up your mind which straw man to use "revolution through armed struggle" or "electioneering". But both are bad, right? Only certain tactics OK?

The real difference is that Marx was not a rigidly mechanistic thinker or a utopian. He didn't have a blueprint set up in advance that the revolution must take place Exactly. Like. This. and no other way. He had participated in the real revolution in 1848 and had a feel for the complex, uncontrolled dynamics of mass movements. He understood the need for use different tactics in different situations.

In contrast, those who insisted they already knew the tactic through which the working class would take power (general strike and nothing else).......

[Punkerslut]

Straw man alert!

What? How is this a straw man? Marx certainly held these opinions about unions. Read the quote again. He didn't say unions weren't a good idea; but they weren't his idea of revolution.


Marx didn't oppose unions and strikes, obviously. In fact, he was the first major socialist writer to make support for unions an integral part of his class-based strategy for social change.

This post wasn't about opposing or being against strikes in general; but being opposed to strikes as a means of revolution, which Marx was.


In contrast, the anarchist Proudhon wrote that striking workers should be shot.

Where was this?


So you can't even make up your mind which straw man to use "revolution through armed struggle" or "electioneering". But both are bad, right? Only certain tactics OK?

Achieving political power. Come on. We know the difference between Marxist and Anarchist. How else would you achieve political power except with insurrection or election?


It was a very fashionable idea at one time, but pretty much dead today. Since we have real-world experience of both insurrections and general strikes.

Bandwagon false argument! BAND WAGON! WE HAVE A BAND WAGON FALSE ARGUMENT!!!!

See, I know debate rules, too, and I can act like an idiot if I want to.

[People's Councillor]

The characterization of Marxism as "state-worshipping" is a fallacy. Marx consistently uses the phrase "state power," as in "the working class must sieze state power." Obviously, that's a paraphrase. The point is the same; the State is not the only possible organization to hold state power.

The democratic organization of the proletariat, the DotP if you will, if that phrase pleases you, may hold state power without being a State. (A side note, that phrase does not please me, it's been far too twisted by the bourgeoisie to have any real meaning). It can do this by adopting the program already stated; be unheirarchical. Power, force, exists. Commodities exist. It's a question of distribution, and the means of distribution.

Really, it saddens me that the Left is apparently so divided on this issue. I say "apparently" because it appears to me that it's a question merely of semantics and interpretation. Anarchists want to do away with heirarchy by abolishing the State. After that, private property and capitalism goes out the window. Marxists want to do the thing the other way. It really doesn't matter. Questions of tactics don't matter.

There, I've said my bit. Back to your inconsequential little arguments, fellows :D

[Punkerslut]

The characterization of Marxism as "state-worshipping" is a fallacy. Marx consistently uses the phrase "state power," as in "the working class must sieze state power." Obviously, that's a paraphrase. The point is the same; the State is not the only possible organization to hold state power.

Does Marxism not seek to achieve the revolution through authoritarian state power? Is this not the premise of Karl Marx's philosophy, his tactics, and his methods? His achievements being the founding of political parties and international associations of political parties, but not the organization of the workers socially or economically (in a syndicalist sense).


The democratic organization of the proletariat, the DotP if you will, if that phrase pleases you, may hold state power without being a State.

That's a contradiction, as a state's technical definition is concerning its power. Did the Leninists and Stalinists abolish state power, but simply possessed it within themselves? Besides, what is Anarchism if it allows there to be no state, but anyone with state power?


Anarchists want to do away with heirarchy by abolishing the State. After that, private property and capitalism goes out the window. Marxists want to do the thing the other way. It really doesn't matter. Questions of tactics don't matter.

Tactics matter if they determine whether you're going to win or not. =)

[syndicat]

pslut:
The Syndicalists viewed their structure not as a state because of the absence of professionally militarized, armed forces, immediately answerable to an executive. Rather, it was that their representatives had no binding authority over the workers, while a party. I recall one argument against the Syndicalist system being that the workers simply rename their party officers as delegates, with councils and assemblies instead of parliaments and congresses; that it was a matter of semantics only. But the difference is that the workers are only bound to agreements that they consent to, and they possess the right to pull any delegate representing the union.

A self-organized, self-managed society fits the term social order. The term "government" has loosely been used to describe the functioning of any social order, but that's still an incorrect application.

Governance consists of certain necessary social functions. In a society there has to be a way to make decisions about the basic rules. This is the legislative function. There has to be a way to enforce the basic rules, to protect the society against anti-social behavior, whether capitalist counter-revolution, predatory gangs, or murder and rape. This means there needs to be something like courts to adjudicate accusations of such conduct made against people.

There needs to be an armed social self-defense force to protect the social order if need be. These things are governance functions, and they onstitute "government" or "a governance structure". But they do not require a state. That's because the society can be arranged so that the mass of the people control these things directly themselves, authentic self-governance. In that case you have government but no state.

Now, such an arrangement isn't possible in a class-divided society because the dominating class needs a type of governance structure that is answerable to them, not the immediate producers who they are exploiting. That's why class socieities always have a state.

The distinction between a congress of delegates and a parliament is not a merely semantic distinction. A parliament has professional politicians who are not immediately accountable to the residents of communities by being required to come before assemblies which can remove them. A delegate congress consists of people who are not professional politicians but who also work a regular job alongside their fellow workers. Also, if there are issues that are controversial or very important, they would be brought back directly to the assemblies at the base for a decision.

Someone:
In contrast, the anarchist Proudhon wrote that striking workers should be shot.

Proudhon wasn't an anarchist in the modern sense. Modern anarchism really first came together as a political tendency in the first International Workers Association of the 1860s-70s. Proudhon was opposed to unions and direct action. He was also sexist and racist and anti-semitic. What Proudhon had in common with anarchism were the advocacy of self-management and federalism.

[Rawthentic]

I don't like the semantics game, but stop using the word "state" as if you know what it was and what it is for.

[temp918273]

The countless massacres and executions of individuals, politically left and right, was the main achievement of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin.
Give me a break, you sound like the mouthpiece for some right-wing thinktank. You don't honestly believe that the MAIN achievements of the leaders you just listed was mass murder do you?


There needs to be an armed social self-defense force to protect the social order if need be. These things are governance functions, and they onstitute "government" or "a governance structure". But they do not require a state. That's because the society can be arranged so that the mass of the people control these things directly themselves, authentic self-governance. In that case you have government but no state.
That sounds like a state to me...

[Leo]

I think this thread belongs to theory so I moved it. I know that it has been going on for sometime but I just started figuring out how moderating works so apologies if it is too late. If anyone has any objections, please send me a pm.

[Punkerslut]

Give me a break, you sound like the mouthpiece for some right-wing thinktank. You don't honestly believe that the MAIN achievements of the leaders you just listed was mass murder do you?

I'm sorry, but that really does outweigh any so-called nationalization efforts of "the proletariat's dictatorship."

Stalin? Well, let's see. In Spain where land was collectivized, he persecuted the ultra-left and handed land over to the bourgeoisie. Not only is their main accomplishment the mass-murders of countless innocent; it is the destruction of any attempts at collectivization at all!

[angus_mor]

Does Marxism not seek to achieve the revolution through authoritarian state power? Is this not the premise of Karl Marx's philosophy, his tactics, and his methods? His achievements being the founding of political parties and international associations of political parties, but not the organization of the workers socially or economically (in a syndicalist sense).

Marxism is not an authoritarian doctrine; it is Scientific Socialism. Marx didn't theorize specific, tactical revolution, he wrote about the class struggles of his day and revolutionary situations. But above all, he stated that the aggregation of proletarians as a class was the consequence of the thorough program of exploitation by the bourgeoisie, and more importantly it is this exploitation which gives the proletariat its international, revolutionary disposition.


At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so.

-- Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party


Governance consists of certain necessary social functions. In a society there has to be a way to make decisions about the basic rules. This is the legislative function. There has to be a way to enforce the basic rules, to protect the society against anti-social behavior, whether capitalist counter-revolution, predatory gangs, or murder and rape. This means there needs to be something like courts to adjudicate accusations of such conduct made against people.

There needs to be an armed social self-defense force to protect the social order if need be. These things are governance functions, and they onstitute "government" or "a governance structure". But they do not require a state. That's because the society can be arranged so that the mass of the people control these things directly themselves, authentic self-governance. In that case you have government but no state.


When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

-- Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party

Anarchists might as well just scribble a (A) over the Manifesto and call it a day.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:28 pm

Marx didn't oppose unions and strikes, obviously. In fact, he was the first major socialist writer to make support for unions an integral part of his class-based strategy for social change.

This post wasn't about opposing or being against strikes in general; but being opposed to strikes as a means of revolution, which Marx was.
You wrote:

I'm not going to nutshell this as Marx's only reason of opposing the union and the strike as a means to social change. Emphasis added.

Now if you want to retract the implication that Marx opposed the union and the strike as a means of social change, fine. But don't pretend you never made it, when it's right there in black and white.

He didn't "oppose" it as a means of taking power, either. He pointed out it was insufficient and impractical as a means of taking power. You even admit he was right, when you say:


How else would you achieve political power except with insurrection or election?

However works. General strikes have certainly been one method of struggle which has been part of revolutions historically, including the Russian and Cuban Revolutions.

But you're right that general strikes are not, by themselves, a succesful method of taking political power.

Which amounts to you admitting that Marx was right....and those who said a general strike by itself was enough - were wrong.

As long as the upper class keeps a monopoly on the use of force, it'll eventually be able to break the strike. And hold on to political power.

And yes, that is the difference between Marxists and anarchists: taking political power.

Marxists say workers should take it: anarchists, in practice, have always been content to leave political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. That's what they did in Spain, for one example you've mentioned.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:28 am
Marx .....didn't say unions weren't a good idea; but they weren't his idea of revolution.

[
I think its fair to say that in Marx's writings the potential role of strikes in the revolutionary process is undetermined. He had little to say on the point - certainlynever expressed a view like those of LUxembourg in the The Mass Strike.

Kautsky's position represented Marxist orthodoxy and would have been similar to marx's position. His view was first to emphasise that strikes could increasingly have a political purpose: "trade unions are coming to have more and more political tasks....that is the the valid principle at the heart of the syndicalism of the Latin countries.....yet the direct action of the trade unions can effectively serve only as a supplement and reinforcement not as a substitute for the parliamentary activity of the labor parties." P. 67 Chp 8, The Road to Power

Marx in thequote above was opposing the idea that the working class could build its union power, without engaging within the arenas of the State in politics and then just push out the ruling class in a single momentary act.

THis model of revolution was another version of the typical anarchist desire to build a model of political revolution as a single socially transformative act that includes within its single moment much of the process of tansformation which Marxism sees as coming after it and much of the process of political struggle that Marxism sees as coming before it. It is that collapsing of the necessary temporal length of social transformation that Marx rejected.

Thus Marx did say that strikes were not his idea of revolution, but he did not say that strikes were not part of his idea of revolution.

Anarchists seem to find imagining such a transformative moment cathartic and reassuring because it seems to reassure them that they can escape all the personal moral compromises that a lengthy process would be likely to involve.

Bu just because Marx rejects a transformative instant of strike action, does not mean he rejects strike action

[syndicat]

gilhyle:
THis model of revolution was another version of the typical anarchist desire to build a model of political revolution as a single socially transformative act that includes within its single moment much of the process of tansformation which Marxism sees as coming after it and much of the process of political struggle that Marxism sees as coming before it. It is that collapsing of the necessary temporal length of social transformation that Marx rejected.

Thus Marx did say that strikes were not his idea of revolution, but he did not say that strikes were not part of his idea of revolution.

Anarchists seem to find imagining such a transformative moment cathartic and reassuring because it seems to reassure them that they can escape all the personal moral compromises that a lengthy process would be likely to involve.

Those anarchists who have emphasized the general strike are the syndicalist anarchists. It is a mistake to ascribe to anarcho-syndicalism the view of the revolutionary process as simply a general strike, and it is a mistake to ascribe to anarcho-syndicalism the view of the revolutionary process as a single event.

Ralph Chaplin of the IWW did advocate a vision of the revolution as a "general strike on the job" where workers would simply take over the running of the factories, with mass picketing or other forms of mass community support. But Chaplin's pamphlet, "The General Strike for Industrial Freedom" fails to deal with the question of the state. But Chaplin in that pamphlet also rejects anarcho-syndicalism.

There are some anarchists, perhaps, who hold to an apocolyptic idea of a revolution as a single spontaneious uprising or as a mass insurrectionary rebellion, as some "insurrectionary" anarchists seem to imagine. But these views are rejected by anarcho-syndicalism. Thus gilhyle seems to be confusing different anarchist views.

Anarcho-syndicalists hold that the transformative process is a protracted struggle in which mass collective struggle is important to class formation, that is, to the development of the organizational strength and self-confidence and class consciousness of the working class. General strikes contribute to this process of class formation. Anarcho-syndicalists reject the idea of a revolution as a spontaneous one-time act because habits of deference and obedience and acceptance of hierarchy can only be replaced by new habits of control of one's organization, of self-management of struggles by workers, through a protracted process of struggle and movement-building.

Anarcho-syndicalists do envision workers taking over the means of production as an essential part of the revolutionary process, but not the whole of it. It's an essential part of the process if the revolution is to be a process through which the working class liberates itself from control by a dominating class. But dismantling of the state and its replacement by a new governance structure has to also be a part of the process.

Because anarcho-syndicalists advocate a strategy of mass movement building and collective direct struggle, they needed to be able to suggest tactics through which an entire community could use direct action to press its case, to fight for changes. This is the context of the advocacy of the general strike. It's true that some anarcho-syndicalists have also said that the general strike "should be the prelude to the revolution". But even in this case the general strike was not envisioned as the whole of the process. It's worth noting that both the Russian revolution of Feb 1917 and the Spanish revolution of July 1936 did exhibit general strikes as a part of the revolutionary process.

Anarcho-syndicalists are opposed to the reduction of politics to electoral politics and the contest of parties for state power. There is also the politics of mass organizations and mass participation and mass struggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All this talk about unions and unionizing are irrelevant (and I've never worked in a unionized environment myself):

A CASUALTY OF GLOBALIZATION: Death of the Unions (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445043,00.html)

This is only part of a series on the book World War for Wealth: The Global Grab for Power and Prosperity.

However, there is hope. I've been to hasta's blog (can't get his new username right), and he emphasizes the need for Party-run cultural and artistic societies in their place, along with agitation for direct workers' control in their workplaces.

[syndicat]

in the years after World War II, the unions in the USA, and in western Europe, became bureaucratized, the radical left was purged, and the focus of the unions restricted to narrow, routine bargaining with employers. This lessened the strength of the working class relative to the capitalists. These bureaucratized unions were sitting ducks. And hence they've uniformly been in retreat. The German unions having lost a quarter of their members -- and that article is wishful thinking by a bourgeois mag -- is far less than the shrinkage in the USA, where unions now represent only 8% of workers in the private sector.

But this is not a permanent state of affairs, but a particular conjuncture.

To be able to mount an effective struggle with the employers workers need to build a different kind of woker mass organization. And if we are talking about their ability as a class to fundamentally challenge the capitalists, that can't happen without the ability to take over production. And it presupposes the development of widesread anti-capitalist consciousness within the working class. These things aren't possible without mass organizations through which workers can mount their own struggles and learn and develop.

Workers can't liberate themselves without developing mass organizations that they control. That's what it comes down to. And this happens, and revolutionary consciousness develops, through a more or less protracted process.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The reason why I quoted the bourgeois mag is because it does illustrate some key, non-sectarian points.

The reason why I agree with it on the permanence, though, is that, like you said, there must emerge a different kind of workers' mass organization. Labour unions have outlived their defensive usefulness.


Workers can't liberate themselves without developing mass organizations that they control. That's what it comes down to. And this happens, and revolutionary consciousness develops, through a more or less protracted process.

That latter part can only occur with the assistance of a certain VANGUARD "party" that takes upon itself the task of setting up social and cultural societies like the KPD once did (ie, go the NGO route and stop entertaining notions of running candidates in bourgeois elections). :P ;)

[gilhyle]

Well I have this much sympathy with Hammer - I have argued before (in an article posted here on 'company unions') that the current structure of nationally-based unions is fundamentally inadequate to the society we now live in.

As to Sydicat's points, I dont have a suitable quote to hand but I have read quite a lot of stuff from the late 19th and early 20th century from syndicalists, anarcho-syndicalists and industrial unionism advocates both from Europe and the US and there was a widespread sentiment that the murky world of politics could be avoided by just building the union to a tipping point where it would allow society to be transformed. Marx rightly points out the abstract nature of that conception in the quote that started this thread.



Have anarcho-syndicalists moved on .....maybe, I can certainly accept that they have : but those who take the name have little time in practice for union work now anyway, in my experience. So what their models are does not seem that significant if it doesnt feed into practice. THat said I know little about the present day IWW.

Its glib to even have to say it, but you cant reduce the process to electoral politics, you cant reduce the process to industrial organisation, you cant reduce the process to community politics. Having said that we havent said much....except Marx wasnt wrong.......which I always like saying:D

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Since you mentioned "sympathies," what differences with me, then?

Anyhow, there are current efforts to RE-globalize the union environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federations_of_trade_unions), particularly through the International Trade Union Confederation.

"Re-globalize" takes into account the earlier "Amsterdam International" and its counterweight, the "Red International" (Professionalye Soyuz Internationalnye).

[syndicat]

gilhyle:

As to Sydicat's points, I dont have a suitable quote to hand but I have read quite a lot of stuff from the late 19th and early 20th century from syndicalists, anarcho-syndicalists and industrial unionism advocates both from Europe and the US and there was a widespread sentiment that the murky world of politics could be avoided by just building the union to a tipping point where it would allow society to be transformed. Marx rightly points out the abstract nature of that conception in the quote that started this thread.

What do you mean by "politics"? Electoral politics? There is also the politics of mass movements. And anarchosyndicalists have also built separate political organizations, apart from the mass organizations, such as the FAI in Spain or the Turin Libertarian Group in the factory council movement of 1918-1920 in Turin.

Your use of "abstract" is strange. You're talking about a very practical organizing strategy. Anarcho-syndicalism was a strategy based on building mass organizations controlled by their members, to have a means of struggle that workers control, to build consciousness through direct collective struggle and people having direct collective power. They didn't limit themselves always to unions. The most important anarcho-syndicalist movement historically was the one in Spain, which was the driving force behind the proletarian revolution there in 1936. That's not very "abstract." By the 1920s they began to emphasize neighborhood or village organizations, not just unions. The mass rent strike in Barcelona in 1931 was based to a large extent on the neighborhood organizations, as well as support from the unions.

They built armed self-defense groups on a neighborhood basis, coordinated by a regional workers defense committee, which defeated the military coup in Barcelona in July 1936. They went on to build a large militia to fight the Spanish army, expropriated 18,000 enterprises, millions of acres of land, and thousands of urban buildings such as apartment buildings. Not sure how less "abstract" one can be.

They proposed to replace the state with a federative structure of national and regional worker congresses and defense councils, and the government of the region of Aragon was set up by the anarcho-syndicalists, based on a congress of delegates from the villages plus an elected defense council.

The Marxist parties that pursued electoral politics ended up simply getting in the way of the worker revolution, and the Communists began setting up the beginnings of a Russian-style police state.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:20 am
Does Marxism not seek to achieve the revolution through authoritarian state power?
No. That's a caricature.

Why do people have the idea that they are able to refute Marx without reading Marx?

Luís Henrique

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:42 am


What do you mean by "politics"? Electoral politics? There is also the politics of mass movements.
I think you have got confused here - the concept of politics being made use of is the syndicalist concept of politics, to which they counterposed industrial organisation as a preferable course. If the concept is crude, its because their concept was crude. That, in part, is what Marx is saying.

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:20 am
Does Marxism not seek to achieve the revolution through authoritarian state power?
No. That's a caricature.

Why do people have the idea that they are able to refute Marx without reading Marx?

Luís Henrique

Marx's opinion of state power was interesting and I've done quite a bit of research to try and uncover it exactly. Marx makes an attack on Proudhon's economics in his criticism of philosophy of misery, but never makes a direct attack on the political theories of Anarchism. For instance, there is only a "conspectus on bakunin" available from marxists.org, where Marx does admit that each person of a nation must be part of the government, because "this whole thing starts with self-government."

In his essay on authority, when arguing about the differences of a chosen (and recallable) union delegate with an elected offical of a republican government, he writes, "When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world." [ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...0/authority.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) ] So Marx was certainly of the opinion that the Anarchist community was incapable of reproducing anything more than systems identical to republicanism. The authority that Marx would give in his organization is certainly different than that espoused by Anarchists.

[syndicat]

me: "What do you mean by "politics"? Electoral politics? There is also the politics of mass movements."

gilhyle:

I think you have got confused here - the concept of politics being made use of is the syndicalist concept of politics, to which they counterposed industrial organisation as a preferable course. If the concept is crude, its because their concept was crude. That, in part, is what Marx is saying.

Actually, you're confused. the politics of mass movements doesn't refer only to industrial orgaization. as i pointed out before, anarcho-syndicalism also argues for community organization. this is clear if you look at the CNT's actual program, as well as their organizing methods, in the '30s in Spain. their porgram envisioned two types of buiding blocks for a self-managed socialist society: workplace assemblies (and federations of these into industrial federations) and neighborhood or village assemblies. their concept of the local governance structure of popular power wasn't based on industry but the assemblies of residents in neighborhoods. they called this the "free municipality." in the case of cities, this would be made up of a council of delegates from the neighborhood assemblies. this was a parallel structure to the industrial federations and the proposed regional and national worker congresses. in the workings of a socially planned economy they saw a division of labor for the workplace and residence based organizations with the residence based organizations providing the requests for public goods such as housing, education, health care.

what they did reject was electoral politics, which focuses on putting leaders into control of a hierarchical state apparatus. that could only empower the bureaucratic class. they did allow that sometimes outcomes of elections could make a difference and that is why many anarcho-syndicalist activists in 1936 advised workers to vote for the Popular Front, to gain some breathing room for direct organizing, with a less repressive regime. voting as a tactic is not the same thing as a strategy based on elections and political parties.

[syndicat]

pslut:
In his essay on authority, when arguing about the differences of a chosen (and recallable) union delegate with an elected offical of a republican government, he writes, "When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."

Actually this is Engels, not Marx. The issue for the libertarian Left is that the authority to manage industry should be controlled directly by the workers themselves. This is obviously different than if you have managers over workers who have been appointed from outside, as in state management of industry.

The issue isn't whether there is authority but that the authority to make collective decisions be controlled by the people affected by those decisions. that's what self-management is.

One of the confusions of Engels in that article is his assumption -- a form of technologial determinism -- that the authoritarian hierarchies of capitalist industry are technologically determined. E.g.:

"The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been."

"If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation."

Engels is treating technological development as a neutral, independent force, prior to capitalist social organization. He's failing to recognize that capitalism shapes technology and work organization to fit in with its aims of divide and conquer and control over the labor process. Thus capitalist logic shapes technological development and methods of work organization. Capitalism doesn't automatically chose the most efficient method of production in some ahistorical sense. The decisions within capitalist industry reflect the needs of market suvival and the needs of control over the labor force. This can and does lead to inefficient methods being adopted.

It's true that in large-scale industry cooperation is necessary and many decisions affect all or many workers. This doesn't make self-management impossible but it does entail that self-management has to be collective, so there can arise situations where the will of the individual is outvoted.

[RGacky3]

Talk of State and State power is a sticky subject because the question comes up when does an organisation become a state. I would have to say that at the point to where the State is a seperate entity, in other words its not just a tool that people use to make desicions, it is rather something that is somehow above the people, at that point it becomes a state.

About Strikes being used in Revolutions such as the Cuban revolution, there were major strikes supporting the revolution but Castro and his homies pretty much used the strikes and the Unions as tools to gain state power, the strikes were not about giving the workers power, they were about taking the power from Batista and giving it to Castro.

The difference I think between armed struggle and Social strugge (General Strike being one example) Is that armed struggle is about a group trying to gain power so that they can make the changes they want, they want to gain political power to make economic change. The general Strike is trying undermine primarily economic power but also because of that its undermining Political power, its not at all about getting power but weakening it, its not about telling people what to do, its about stopping other people from telling people what to do. The problem with armed struggle saying that power corrupts, and power comes from a barrel of a gun.

[angus_mor]

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

-- Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party (emphasis added)

So we see that Marx is sympathetic to the trade union, but notes that the trade union is but a benchmark in the development of the unity of the working class itself. Just as the craft union is qualitatively different from the industrial union, so too is the increasing political character and significance of the union of proletarians as a whole. Furthermore, such unity qualitatively renders the growing class of proletarians a political force to be reckoned with; hence, it is itself a political party.

P.S.: 100th post!

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:35 am
me: "What do you mean by "politics"? Electoral politics? There is also the politics of mass movements."

gilhyle:

I think you have got confused here - .

Actually, you're confused. the politics of mass movements doesn't refer only to industrial orgaization. as i pointed out before, anarcho-syndicalism also argues for community organization.
The problem with just saying that there is also community politics is that it fails to engage with Marx's point. Introducing terminological confusion does not answer him. Its no answer to say there is such a thing as community politics. Marx's point is about the organic relationship between what was once called gradualism and revolution, rather than counterposing these as his opponents did. Syndicalism represented a disengagement from important parts of political activity. Why obfuscate ?

In addition lets get some sense of history into this. The concept of community politics in the late 19 century had more to do with the medieval commune than post modern conceptions of civil society. You keep moving forward to the 1930s - not the period under discussion.

[syndicat]

gilhyle:
The problem with just saying that there is also community politics is that it fails to engage with Marx's point. Introducing terminological confusion does not answer him. Its no answer to say there is such a thing as community politics. Marx's point is about the organic relationship between what was once called gradualism and revolution, rather than counterposing these as his opponents did. Syndicalism represented a disengagement from important parts of political activity. Why obfuscate ?

You mean by "disengagement from important parts of potlical activity" the opposition to a strategy based on electoral politics? this is based on the observation that a strategy based on electoral politics tends to focus on politics of the state and parties running states. This leads to conceptions of a post-capitalist society based around the state running things, and a political party implementing its program top-down through the hierarchies of the state. That is not a possible path to the liberation of the working class from the class system, because the state and its hierarchies are institutions for sustaining the interests of particular dominating classes. Electoral politics also tends to focus on particular leaders, usually leaders drawn from the elite classes, rather than focusing on collective action and the decision-making of ordinary people. a strategy that aims at creating a society of self-management needs to be based on movements that are themselves self-managing, that develop the self-confidence and abilities and participation of the working class.

We can make demands against the state, but these should be made from a position of independence.



In addition lets get some sense of history into this. The concept of community politics in the late 19 century had more to do with the medieval commune than post modern conceptions of civil society. You keep moving forward to the 1930s - not the period under discussion.

You mean the present period? in what way does this affect the argument?

[Punkerslut]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:16 am


Talk of State and State power is a sticky subject because the question comes up when does an organisation become a state. I would have to say that at the point to where the State is a seperate entity, in other words its not just a tool that people use to make desicions, it is rather something that is somehow above the people, at that point it becomes a state.

It is an interesting debate. I vaguely remember a quote by a radical unionist, that the key to overthrowing Capitalism lies in our own organization. And organization, with different parts of a whole addressing different issues, can necessarily turn towards a state or a democracy. Just like economy, I think many modern governments hold a mixed policy. If there were elected officials, it could still be a complete democracy, depending on the relationship between electee and electors. Recallable delegates, refendums on major issues, etc..

By the way, I need to give Syndicat props for knowing his stuff well. =) I've been trying to pigeonhole Marx's opinion on Democracy and the nature of the state. But when searching through marxists.org, most of the stuff that is openly pro-Democracy is Engels, true. I probably need more research. (always more research!)

[Lamanov]

Correction: 'The Bakuninists at Work' was written by Friedrich Engels, not Karl Marx. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm)