A-Infos (en) The Northeastern Anarchist #2 A New Syndicalism? (Flint Jones)

[Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>(http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/magazine/02/solidarity.html)]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
            http://www.ainfos.ca/
 ________________________________________________

                    Anarcho-syndicalism has changed a lot from it's origin in
                    workers' movements of the late 19th century. It saw
                    many of its practices adopted by reformist institutions,
                    and other practices rendered illegal by the repressive
                    hand of the state. Criticisms have grown outside of
                    workplace related issues, and failures have been
                    revisited time and again. I'd like to constructively
                    address some of those criticisms to develop a
                    revolutionary strategy for tactical intervention with the
                    economic struggles of our class. Organizing around
                    economic means is not enough, there are more
                    struggles than class warfare, but any revolution that
                    doesn't abolish class isn't a revolution (1). We need to
                    not try to resurrect old models of anarcho-syndicalism,
                    but reincarnate the ideals for a new life in our changing
                    world.

                    A criticism common these days is the claim that
                    anarcho-syndicalism is dominated by a positivist
                    productionalist idea. Indeed, at one time there were
                    many syndicalists that emphasized the parasitism of the
                    rich, and encouraged that science and syndicalism
                    could create a more productive and efficient system.
                    This idea, however, co-existed with the opposition to
                    long work hours, celebrated the free existence of the
                    migrant worker, and shopfloor battles against the
                    deskilling and taylorization of crafts. Much worker
                    resistance is not just a resistance to capitalism, but a
                    resistance of work in general, particularly when labor is
                    alienated through domination and exploitation.

                    It is not simply a question of production, but of the kind of
                    production we are involved in. Increasing the amount of
                    junk we have is not beneficial. Having all of our needs
                    and a good number of our desires met with miminal
                    effort and ecological cost, is close to an economic
                    utopia. Quality of life issues like a reduction in working
                    hours and safety protections are old anarcho-syndicalist
                    issues. However, some of the important environmental
                    issues can not relegated to only what workers do at
                    work, or to the wanton demands of consumers, but also
                    whether there is going to be a toxic waste dump in your
                    backyard (or toxix waste at all!) or to build a dam.
                    Bio-regional, libertarian municipalist(2) or other
                    communal approaches might offer us a direction to look
                    for additions to workers' and consumers' councils.

                    Another criticism of anarcho-syndicalism is that it has
                    generally been viewed as primarily being concerned
                    with organizing workers as a labor union (3). This focus
                    on only organizing with workers at the place of
                    confrontation with their employer limited
                    anarcho-syndicalists to fighting isolated, defensive
                    battles. The old utopian economic solution of "workers'
                    control" through a union "administration of things" or
                    workers' councils is very limiting since the interests of
                    workers and consumers can be different. Everyone
                    participating in an economic social relationship is a
                    consumer; though everyone is not a worker. As human
                    beings, we are so much more than these economic
                    roles, but we are these things as well; and in fact, it is
                    these roles that are the only ones capitalism addresses.

                    The problem of workers' councils having a monopoly of
                    economic decision-making is addressed in Michael
                    Albert and Robin Hahnel's work on participatory
                    economics. Parecon basically advocates federation of
                    workers' councils based in the workplaces and
                    consumers' councils based in the neighborhood.
                    Parecon lacks a revolutionary praxis; they have no way
                    to get there proposed federation. I think there is a way...
                    and that is a worker and consumer syndicalism. We
                    need to organize not only at the point of production, but
                    also along the lines of transportation and
                    communication, as well as at the point of consumption.

                    Consumers, like workers, need to organize for their own
                    interests, and while more difficult to organize than
                    workers, organizing one can greatly support the other.
                    There are many similarities between organizing a labor
                    union, and organizing a tennants' union(4) or a bus
                    riders' union. Workers and consumers have more in
                    common with each other than they do with the capitalists
                    and bosses.

                    Syndicalism should be thought of as the practice of
                    organizing along principles of direct action and direct
                    democracy by the exploited for economic action against
                    their exploiters. It's primary weapon being
                    refusal--refusal to work, and refusal to buy. From slow
                    down on the job, to sabotage, from putting your rent in
                    escrow until the leak is fixed, to a mass rent revolt until
                    rent is lowered. As struggle increases, we move from
                    refusal to occupation and expropriation.

                    Probably the most useful criticism coming from council
                    communist influenced groups like the Anarchist
                    (Communist) Federation is that unions are defined by
                    their mediation between workers and capitalism. The
                    union bureacracy becomes separated from the interests
                    of workers as the professional staff acts as mediators
                    and negotiators between workers and employers. The
                    union comes to exist as a permanent economic
                    organization with interests separate from the rank and
                    file. The union bureacracy attempts to control the
                    workforce through discipline to fullfill contracts, as much
                    as it confronts the employers for a better contract. The
                    union must deliver a docile and stable workforce to the
                    boss or lose its power to bargain; and to do so it must
                    work to reduce the militancy of spontaneous worker
                    struggle against the employer. The union is your pimp.

                    While some of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt
                    since many unions do not behave this way,(5) and many
                    of these problems point to a lack of democracy in
                    current unions, or show the difficulty of staying within
                    labor law during struggle, I do think they make an
                    important point. Unions alone can not be the vehicle for
                    revolution. They are designed as confrontational
                    organizations within a hierarchial economy. They might
                    be good tools for surviving in this environment, but that
                    doesn't mean they are the best tools for destroying
                    capitalism.

                    Some neo-council communists forget, going so far as to
                    oppose any kind of political organization or even any
                    form of activism, that many of those workers who
                    particpated in the spontaneous formation of workers'
                    councils also participated in unions and political factions
                    before struggles became large enough to form councils.
                    Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the unions can be
                    schools for revolution. It gives workers confidence,
                    resources and time so that they can prepare for a
                    revolution. It develops a web of solidarity, mutual aid,
                    and trust that can be developed no other way than
                    through participating collectively with our class in
                    struggles that are reducing the rate of exploitation.

                    Unfortunately, until there is a revolution, there is always
                    going to be some degree of negotiation between the
                    exploited and the exploiters. If our class organizations
                    refuse to negotiate an eventual return to a rate of
                    exploitation, then the bosses and state will construct an
                    organization with whom they they can negotiate.
                    Eventually they will find enough scabs or break the
                    struggle forcing us to accept the deal negotiated by a
                    fake union. If we deny ourselves the ability to have at the
                    very least a democratic control over the negotiation
                    process, then we are sure to get fucked by it. (5)

                    It's a common myth that if we all belonged to the best
                    revolutionary organization, we would gain the critical
                    mass that is in agreement on the correct theoertical and
                    tactical unity and we would then have a revolution! The
                    debate becomes, which revolutionary organization is
                    best, and thus which organizations aren't then
                    revolutionary at all. It doesn't take long to see where this
                    will go. It would create a horde of rival sectarian
                    organizations sqabbling over whether the
                    Confederacion Nacional Trabajo (CNT) was
                    revolutionary in 1936, before, afterwards, or not at all.

                    The idea of "One Big Union"(OBU) here is taken out of
                    context. The appeal to OBU is a notion of solidarity in
                    action, not a monopoly of revolutionary activity by one
                    body of organized labor. The Industrial Workers of the
                    World(IWW) was very critical of "union scabbing" at the
                    time where one union would continue work (and even
                    increase work with overtime and job loading) while
                    another union was on strike. The idea was that all
                    workers in an industry should strike together. That was
                    the intent of OBU. Workers would support each others'
                    strikes regardless of craft, political party, union affiliation,
                    race, ethnicity, etc...

                    I think we witnessed this during the general strikes in
                    which the IWW agitated and participated. The IWW
                    contest for the membership of workers with the
                    American Federation of Labor obscured this point. In
                    some ways this is uniquely a phenomenon of the United
                    States labor law which only allows one union to
                    represent workers. This method of election for official
                    recognition by the government of one body of workers'
                    representatives, certainly did much to weaken radical
                    labor unions while giving advantages to reformist and
                    business unions.

                    Unions vary. They vary alot. Even in the U.S. you have a
                    spectrum of unions that include: hierarchical,
                    state-collaborationist, mafia-controlled, corporate,
                    pro-capitalist, sexist, racist, and nationalist unions, some
                    are moderate social-democratic reformers, some are
                    radical anti-capitalist democratic direct action unions,
                    and even others are small formal anarcho-syndicalist
                    groups. All unions are not the same, whether they are
                    offically recognized by the government or not. Whether
                    the government recognizes a body of organized workers
                    isn't really up to us, but rather the government and the
                    employers. When you've got a successful strike, the
                    bosses are desperate to negotiate and grant
                    recognition. Unions, though, are made by the collective
                    actions of the workers, not the paper endorsement of the
                    state or the permission of the capitalists.

                    If all unions are not the same, then some are better than
                    others. We should do everything we can to encourage
                    better unions. In the better unions we should encourage
                    the support of revolutionary struggle, even if the
                    revolution means the destruction of the organizations (or
                    at least its role as negotiator with the bosses).

                    In most places, a majority of the workers are not
                    organized into any but the most informal of work
                    resistance organizations. There is plenty of space for a
                    radical union that operates according to
                    anarcho-syndicalist principles to grow without ever
                    having to challenge the officaldom of the business
                    unions. Perhaps the IWW can today be a banner in
                    which similar efforts can gather.

                    For those workers who already have a "union" at work,
                    they have to figure out their own strategy. Does it make
                    more sense to try and reform the union toward a
                    revolutionary goal, or does it make more sense to form
                    an alternative and challenge the business union's role?
                    One problem for us from a class perspective is that
                    many vital industries are already in the domain of
                    business unions. Those industries would be essential
                    for the creation of general strikes and revolution.
                    However, the onslaught of neo-liberalism has launched
                    its war against even reformist unions, breaking the
                    decades of "cooperation" between labor unions and
                    capitalists. The AFL-CIO is changing under the strain of
                    assault from the capitalists, increasingly wild-catting
                    workers, local autonomy, rank & file democratic
                    movements. Other strains include radicals involved as
                    organizers for those portions of the unions that are
                    growing; the class collaboration of some union bosses
                    more interested in acting as pimps; and the
                    fragmentation being created by the United Brotherhood
                    of Carpenters and the withdraw of local unions from
                    central labor councils to setup their own progressive
                    labor councils. As much as we have an opportunity to
                    organize with the unorganized, we also have
                    opportunities for radicalization in the reformist unions.

                    We need specifically anarchist groups which spread
                    syndicalist ideals among our class and can provide a
                    perspective, history and theory for our fellow workers to
                    consider. This is to be a leadership of ideas, not a
                    vanguard. These probably need to be no larger than a
                    successful publication group, such as
                    Anarcho-Syndicalist Review; though undoubtly if they
                    are confederated with similar organizations they can
                    increase their reach and ability to intevene.

                    We need solidarity organizations that build support for
                    workers across lines of industry, craft, locality,
                    nationality; and where the need is across racial, tribal
                    and gender lines. These organizations need to be open
                    to anyone as long as they are willing to working in a
                    directly democratic matter taking direct action in the
                    interests of supporting workers in struggle. A good
                    example here would be the New York City based Direct
                    Action Network Labor group. It's groups like these that
                    will probably do much of the work in spreading the
                    solidarity that will be needed for successful general
                    strikes.

                    We need workplace organization. I'm talking about on
                    the ground bread & butter organizations that help
                    workers survive day-to-day. The kinds of organizations
                    that get us coffee breaks or a pay raise. Sometimes, it
                    will mean negotiation with the State and the Bosses;
                    which means a contract even if all it is is a verbal
                    understanding. Ideally, these would be direct action,
                    directly democratic orgnizations of workers.

                    We need organizations pushing for the radicalization of
                    reformist and business unions. These can be networks
                    of rebel workers in the construction trades plotting a wild
                    cat strike, or the activities of militants with a newsletter
                    and alternate slate for the next elections, with a proposal
                    to change the union's constitution to allow more
                    democracy. Hopefully, they will either succeed in
                    changing the union, or in gaining enough supporters to
                    break away and form a rival union that is a better model
                    of workplace organization than the business union.

                    We need a seed for a new society. For that space we
                    manage to carve out for ourselves through alternative
                    economic organizations, communes and cooperatives,
                    we need to encourage those to grow as an economic
                    rival to capitalism. Much like unions, they are not the
                    revolution unto themselves for they have not escaped
                    the market economy completely, only mitigated it. They
                    do provide important models and can provide
                    employment for the black listed, and cost effective
                    services for our class that objectively improve their
                    income and resources. Workers cooperatives,
                    consumer cooperatives, mutual insurance, credit unions
                    and people's banks are all examples of these kind of
                    alternative economic orgnizations. They must become
                    confederated with each other, and support each other
                    and the revolutionary movement in general or they will
                    be isolated and destroyed by the competiveness of
                    capitalist exploitation or the repression of the state.
                    Cooperatives can also learn much from the directly
                    democratic nature of the radical labor and consumer
                    movement--many cooperatives have failed in being
                    cooperative by centralizing decision-making or trying to
                    "compete" in the global market.

                    By using a multi-organizational economic approach, we
                    can confront the existing power structure and builds an
                    alternative through dual power. We can advance from
                    isolated class struggles to a revolutionary movement
                    united in action and solidarity.

                    While focusing on our class organizations is a good
                    thing, we should always keep in mind that the revolution
                    is not just the organization of unions and their activities.
                    When revolution comes, it is going to be much more
                    spontaneous, chaotic and massive than any of the
                    formal organizational forms in which we participate. Will
                    we be ready?

                    1) The lead editorial by Nicholas Phebus in this issue on
                    revolutionary strategy.

                    2) There are some deep criticism of the local electoral
                    strategy of some libertarian muncipalists, but the idea of
                    organizing directly democratically in municipalties to
                    build dual power is a valid one. Perhaps a revolutionary
                    strategy involving neighborhood committees like the
                    Popular Commitee Saint Jean-Baptiste in Quebec City
                    can be developed? It would be interesting to see if
                    popular committees could develop in the United States.

                    3) Anarcho-syndicalism in practice often had a
                    communal aspect. But increasingly anarcho-syndicalism
                    is thought of only in terms of workplace organizing. This
                    has been one of the anarcho-communist criticisms of
                    syndicalism from the very beginning.

                    3) Becky (?) has an article on tennants' organizing in
                    this issue.

                    4) The Industrial Workers of the World often refused to
                    sign contracts. The some CNT locals struck only for
                    libertarian communism and not for any negotiation in
                    modifying the rate of exploitation.

                    5) An excellent example of the union bureacracy
                    selling-out the membership is the recent struggle at
                    Jeffboat ship-building yard along the Ohio River. The
                    Teamster local president tried to sign a sweet heart deal
                    with the boss, ignoring the voted opposition to the
                    contract from the rank & file, as a result the workers
                    (including a group of IWW members) held a short
                    wildcat strike. In the case of Jeffboat, the wildcat strike
                    gained support from the Teamster international. The
                    international forced the corrupt local president out office,
                    calling for a new election and putting all future contracts
                    to be decided by vote of the membership.




			********
       ****** The A-Infos News Service ******
      News about and of interest to anarchists
                       ******
		COMMANDS: lists@ainfos.ca
		REPLIES: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca
		HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
		WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
		INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org

-To receive a-infos in one language only mail lists@ainfos.ca the message:
                unsubscribe a-infos
                subscribe a-infos-X
 where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)