Anarcho-Syndicalist Community Struggle

Its often overlooked that as anarcho-syndicalists we do have a perspective on community organising as a vital area of our work in organising the working class. The important issue is where we incorporate this - do we somehow try to bind militant resident's associations to the union, or merely engage ourselves in community campaigns seperate from our advoacy of militant union activism?

I think the Swedish Anarcho Syndicalist youth roganisation put it well enough when they said as workers, we are working class inside and outside of the work place. Pure syndicalism is where the mistake of ignoring community activism was made, as anarchists we cannot ignore it ourselves.

So I want to generate discussion on this topic. The libcom group have recently emphasised community work in their introductory article to anarcho syndicalism, and we have to keep this up.

I dont know as to what extent the anarcho-syndicalist unions actually take part in other societal struggles outside of the purely economical arena, Im sure it varies between country and between local branches, due to various reasons, but we sure as hell should, at least as far as were capable of doing it. If we dont, were nothing more than a regular union, albeit one with a little more 'bite'.

I cant really produce a longer answer now, as Im heading out right now, but Ill try to write something more later on, as its an interesting topic, and Ive heard various opinions on it, all by self-proclaimed syndicalists.

Community struggles is something we need to discuss within our ideology because it is often neglected by many groups. I do not quite know what strategy we need to take. I think in a time at which a revolutionary union could arise people from all sections of the proletariat will be organised. But within this time, I think we should have individual militant workers organisations to deal with each issue.

Community struggles is something we need to discuss within our ideology because it is often neglected by many groups. I do not quite know what strategy we need to take. I think in a time at which a revolutionary union could arise people from all sections of the proletariat will be organised. But within this time, I think we should have individual militant workers organisations to deal with each issue.

I disagree, at least to some extent. If it is physically impossible for the revolutionary union to actually try to organise or to help the community organising, then of course it shouldnt, and this is the case with the SAC at the moment. The union should focus on the economical arena first and foremost, but should, whenever possible organise everywhere else. As far as Im concerned, the anarcho-syndicalist union cannot, if it is to be a revolutionary force, neglect certain aspects of the class-struggle, in order to focus on one thing. Syndicalism is more than just radical unionism, its a force which aims is to overthrow the capitalist society, and simply due to that, syndicalist unions needs to be more than just unions, but all-encompassing organisations that fight on every field. Besides the more ideological points, I think it can have a good progandic effect, if the union fights in more than just the economical arena. If nothing else, we show that there actually is an alternative to the reformist unions.

About individual groups concentrating on certain aspects of the class-struggle, I think that this should be avoided as far as possible. Its much harder to have a coherent and revolutionary program if youre split up between a lot of smaller groups, each fighting their own fight, not necessarily coordinating or cooperating with the others. Id much rather see, at least to start with, some sort of umbrella organisation, be it syndicalist, anarchist or just socialist, that addresses all of these issues, while at the same time has a coherent political program, principles and shows that there actually exists alternatives to the party-politics and "democracy". I would also imagine that this kind of organisation, in a larger extent than its alternative, teaches people more about the general organisational issues, so to speak. I also think it helps people connect the dots, meaning that for example the fight for letting illegal immigrants stay is connected to the struggle for a free public transportation system. Its all part of the class struggle.

Sorry if its a bit confused, its late and Im tired, but you should get the general idea of what Im trying to say.

Whats the difference between "revolutionary syndicalism" and anarcho-syndicalism, and why is the former not political?

I think revolutionary syndicalism was always political. The claim that it was "apolitical" derives from our enemies.

I think there are two parts to the question of community struggle. First, it is true that a revolutionary syndicalist union or mass worker organization is going to be focused on the workplace struggle first and foremost because that is where this organization emerges. However, the organization needs to also address a worker's whole life, and I think this should lead it to ally with social movements in struggles elsewhere such as radical ecologists, housing struggles, women's struggles, environmental justice struggles (in USA enviro justice gruops emerge typically around pollution of communities of color which are also working class communities).

Second, i think this is a reason to have a separate specific organization. The specific organization can have multiple areas of focus where its activists are involved sometimes in workplace struggles and sometimes in community struggles, and can develop a broader revolutionary perspective. so, my organization is a specific organization, and we have members involved in various things, and this is also because, in the context of the USA, there are a variety of possible ways to develop grassroots worker organization...worker centers, rank and file groups inside the bureaucratic unions, independent grassroots unions with a syndicalist character.

I think revolutionary syndicalism was always political. The claim that it was "apolitical" derives from our enemies.

I agree, it was more of a question to Jurko, who made the claim, but anyways, I agree.

I think there are two parts to the question of community struggle. First, it is true that a revolutionary syndicalist union or mass worker organization is going to be focused on the workplace struggle first and foremost because that is where this organization emerges. However, the organization needs to also address a worker's whole life, and I think this should lead it to ally with social movements in struggles elsewhere such as radical ecologists, housing struggles, women's struggles, environmental justice struggles (in USA enviro justice gruops emerge typically around pollution of communities of color which are also working class communities).

I agree with this as well, but there are dangers to this as well. Focusing on the day-to-day demands and the immidiate concessions youll gain from the state and the capital makes it very easy to go reformist and forget what the main goal once was. Im not saying that we should focus all our energy on the revolution and not concentrate on the every-day struggles, such as better unemployment benefits or better housing in the working class neighbourhoods and so on, but when we make these demands, we need to be perfectly aware and really careful, that these demands to become the end result. I think the risk of that happening is greater with a lot of smaller groups, concentrating on their separate issue. Dont get me wrong, I think we should ally with other progressive movements whenever we can, but I think that the syndicalist unions should, in the extent possible (I realise that the circumstances are hugely different for every union or syndicalist organisation), fight for these things as well, while having a clear objective, be it very abstract and far away at the moment, and incorporate all these smaller struggles in to the struggle for socialism.

in USA a main problem with the way a lot of community struggles are conducted is that it is thru 501-c-3 nonprofit organizations. 501-c-3 refers to the U.S. tax code, and means nonprofit status. But to get funding these orgs tend to become hierarchical, run by professionalized staff, with a top manager, partly because this is what the funders, either private foundations or government want to see. and this results in a staff driven organization that is more akin to the bureaucratic business unions.

this is more of a problem, in regard to reformist tendencies, than making demands on the government, in my observation. for example the welfare rights movement of the '60s did mass protests where they would jam welfare offices, to demand relief. this is based on mass action pressure. this is different than lobbying by a bureaucratic nonprofit.

in USA a main problem with the way a lot of community struggles are conducted is that it is thru 501-c-3 nonprofit organizations...to get funding these orgs tend to become hierarchical, run by professionalized staff, with a top manager...the welfare rights movement of the '60s did mass protests where they would jam welfare offices, to demand relief. this is based on mass action pressure. this is different than lobbying by a bureaucratic nonprofit.

Very true about the 501-c-3 outfits. I tried working with one for a time but all my suggestions for direct action of any kind were rejected in favor of lobbying "sympathetic" politicians and polite letter writing campaigns.

By contrast, we have the Bus Riders Union here in L.A., a grass roots organization that's made up of the working poor, retirees living on fixed incomes and students too poor to own a car. It's also multi-ethnic with a large Asian and Latino membership. We show up in force when the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) holds hearings on route closures, fare increases and reduced service. We've carried out direct action by boarding a particular bus in strength and not paying the fare. This is the kind of community activism that teaches people how to run their own lives for a change.

By contrast, we have the Bus Riders Union here in L.A., a grass roots organization that's made up of the working poor, retirees living on fixed incomes and students too poor to own a car. It's also multi-ethnic with a large Asian and Latino membership. We show up in force when the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) holds hearings on route closures, fare increases and reduced service. We've carried out direct action by boarding a particular bus in strength and not paying the fare. This is the kind of community activism that teaches people how to run their own lives for a change.

Except that the staff are not selected by the members, but imposed by an outside group, the Labor/Community Strategy Center...an organization of about 100 activists formed by Marxist-Leninists and "revolutionary nationalists" in the '80s, but formed as a hierarchical nonprofit. And the five staff members make up five of the votes on the 12 member Planning Committee, which is the decision-making body. When I attended a BRU meeting, the staff were the ones who "shepherded" the meeting. Maybe things have changed more recently, but it seems to me the Stategy Center is still very much in control.

And it is the Strategy Center that always defined the line of the organization such as their technological determinism ("rail always bad"). So it's clearly a vanguardist mode of organizing.

That said, I would agree that the Strategy Center has been very savvy and successful in the organizing...putting initially most of its resources into it, and building up an organization with thousands of members, several hundred of which are active, and constantly organizing on the buses...altho mainly on only four bus lines (Wilshire, Vermont, Crenshaw, Soto).

Through their pressure, they were successful in preventing a fare hike for 10 years and got a large infusion of resources into the bus system. Currently the BRU is engaged in a hunger strike against the current proposed fare hike, driven by Schwarzenegger's theft of funds from CA transit systems.

Except that the staff are not selected by the members, but imposed by an outside group, the Labor/Community Strategy Center...When I attended a BRU meeting, the staff were the ones who "shepherded" the meeting. Maybe things have changed more recently, but it seems to me the Stategy Center is still very much in control...

That's essentially correct. However, there is much more rank and file decision making these days as far as BRU is concerned, and so far there has been no heavy handed interference by the Strategy Center.

in USA a main problem with the way a lot of community struggles are conducted is that it is thru 501-c-3 nonprofit organizations. 501-c-3 refers to the U.S. tax code, and means nonprofit status. But to get funding these orgs tend to become hierarchical, run by professionalized staff, with a top manager, partly because this is what the funders, either private foundations or government want to see. and this results in a staff driven organization that is more akin to the bureaucratic business unions.

this is more of a problem, in regard to reformist tendencies, than making demands on the government, in my observation. for example the welfare rights movement of the '60s did mass protests where they would jam welfare offices, to demand relief. this is based on mass action pressure. this is different than lobbying by a bureaucratic nonprofit.

You could always create a pseudo organization to "over watch" the group wanting funding. But in reality, this "hierarchal" organization that is helping get funding, would be selected workers from said group wanting funding, to act as a front. That could work to go around the 501-c-3 tax code... but it would be illegal? Maybe? I'd support it though!

i have no problem with a 501-c-3 for certain purposes. if what you want is an organization to hold and develop certain assets for the community, such as housing or a community garden or a community center, you could form a 501-c-3 but have periodic member assemblies, elect the board of directors, etc. that's what we did with the community land trust i helped formed. it has to do work and has staff, and we needed to be able to get funding. but this isn't an organization of struggle. i would not advise organizing the organization of struggle as a 501-c-3. it should be depenedent on the dues/contributions of its members.