A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Britain, Workplace Strategy of the Anarchist Federation, ACE #18 - ON THE FRONTLINE: ANARCHISTS AT WORK

Date Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:39:15 +0300

The following text is the official workplace strategy of the Anarchist Federation, adopted
nationally in April 2009. Drawing on the experiences of AF members at the workplace, it
aims to lay out the possibilities for anarchists in the here and now and open debate in
the movement on workplace organisation. ---- Contents of .pdf pamphlet: ---- Preface 5
Introduction 7 ---- Waged work and the workplace 9 ---- Mainstream unions and the
unionised --- workplace 12 --- Syndicalist and grassroots unions 16 ---- The non-unionised
workplace 18 ---- The workplace resistance group 23 ---- Conclusion: beyond resistance? 26
Preface ---- It is necessary to explain why we felt we needed to clarify and publish our
workplace strategy. Given our stated position that unions are not revolutionary organs,
and that they play an important role in the management of workers, many comrades have
expressed puzzlement at the involvement of AF members in the Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW). Others, hearing these views on unions, did not understand why AF members
often join the unions in their workplaces. There was clearly a perceived mismatch between
our stated politics and our visible practice, and this needed to be addressed.

The existing published positions fail to adequately address the kinds of struggle and
solidarity possible in different kinds of workplaces. This document is an attempt to
detail the various situations working people face, and the consequent possibilities for
action. Our aim is the development of a culture of resistance amongst workers, and this
workplace strategy details how we believe this is possible, and the role of unions in
this. In short, we hold that unions are not working class organs, and play an important
role in managing and containing workers and workers' struggles. However, they are one
place where class struggle finds expression. They provide important protection for
workers, and are a common point of departure. However, as mediating institutions, struggle
must move beyond them for meaningful change to take place. Our involvement in unions
recognises what they are and how they operate; it is motivated not by trade unionism, but
a broader anarchist communist perspective. We seek the broadening and advancement of
workers’ struggles, not the advancement of the sectional interests trade unions represent.
In this sense, the trade unions are a site of struggle in their own right.

Our current publications describe workplace resistance groups as the only form of workers
organisation consistent with anarchist communist politics. However, we felt that the
formulation was vague, and did not address the need for workers to use unions and union
recognition to defend themselves against sacking and victimisation. Moreover, extra-union
forms of organisation and resistance are always contingent on the specific situation
workers find themselves in, and in periods of low struggle they can be a less viable
strategy of self-defence than the decision to form a union branch. This document describes
the workplace resistance group as a tendency of self-organisation and militancy which can
take radically different forms as a result of different contexts, but remains the form of
organisation which takes on the bosses in both the workplace and in the union. It is a
tendency towards self-organisation, mutual aid and direct action. The workplace resistance
group can exist in non-unionised workplaces, but it is not described as an alternative to
unionisation. Rather it is an important strategy in moving beyond trade union structures
and towards workers taking full control of their own struggles.


As the first of our aims and principles says, the Anarchist Federation is an organisation
of revolutionary class struggle anarchists. We come together as class struggle militants
to share experiences, spread activity and develop the ideas of anarchist communism. We do
not see our organisation as the beginning or end of any future movement which will carry
out the revolution. We are not the embryo of future workers’ councils, not the seed of a
revolutionary union nor a blueprint for a future society.

However, we are also more than a propaganda group. Our task is not to have the 'correct'
political position and simply wait for capitalism to fall, perhaps criticising workers for
their 'mistakes' along the way. We recognise that class struggle is a process, a condition
of life in our current society which occurs in many different ways and in many different
places. The inequalities that currently exist will not change until a movement of workers
organising themselves and setting their own agenda challenge them. This movement must
break down the barriers of class society and recreate society on its own terms. This is
the revolution. The development of a widespread ‘culture of resistance’ amongst working
class people is a necessary condition for this to take place. This culture develops
through the real experiences of people in their everyday lives. It is a grass roots
movement that grows from struggle to struggle, connecting and enlarging each fight that it
touches. It educates, brings confidence and strengthens links of solidarity within the
class. It cannot be created from on high by any group, no matter how 'correct' their line
may be.

The AF is part of this process. The ideas we try to spread and develop are not isolated
theorising. They are the lessons learned from the direct struggle of workers against
capitalism. They grow out of the needs and necessities of working people and from their
aspirations to liberty and equality. As conscious revolutionaries, we can, with good luck
and good judgement, help to spread these confrontational ideas and tactics. We can build
communication and friendship between isolated struggles. We can spread the lessons of
defeats and victories from different places and historical periods from struggle to
struggle, reconnecting workers with a broader history and tradition from which to draw not
just lessons and tactics, but also inspiration and confidence which are just as important.
The way that we do this is by getting involved. We don't preach and expect people to
listen. Nor do we wish to build support for particular ideas or to attempt to institute a
political programme. We get stuck in and earn respect for ourselves and our ideas because
we show that our ideas work in practice. Direct action gets the goods. Confrontation gains
us confidence and material rewards, negotiation makes us dependent and robs us of what is
ours by right.

As revolutionaries and as AF members we engage in struggle wherever it is possible for us
to do so. This can be anything from movements for the defence of asylum seekers and
migrants, community resistance to school closures and other attacks on public services,
workplace struggles over wages and conditions, and all the many and varied ways that
working people choose to resist. We hope that we bring to these struggles a set of ideas
and tactics, and a militancy, that can strengthen them enormously. But this is not a one
way process. Whenever we engage in struggle, we enter into dialogue. As much as we hope to
strengthen a particular struggle, we also hope to be strengthened by it. As much as we
feel that we have things to teach, we also have a great deal to learn.

Which brings us to the piece that you're reading now. This document is based on the
experiences of AF members as anarchist communist militants in the workplace. It tries to
lay out what we do and why we do it. It tries to think out loud about what strategies
might and might not work in the workplace and how we could put them into practice. The
guiding principles are always self-organisation and direct action. What we're trying to do
here is draw on our experience and analysis of the modern workplace to think about the
ways that a militant can engage effectively to encourage this direct action and

There are many things that this document is not. It is not a blueprint for the struggle of
waged workers or a set of diktats to the working class. It is, more modestly, simply a set
of general observations on the nature of workplace struggle and ideas on how militants
should engage in their own workplace. This is also not an indication of some great change
in the AF's thinking or in the nature of class consciousness and class struggle. Simply
because we're writing about the workplace here does not mean that we believe that fighting
in the workplace is more important than fighting elsewhere. This document is just one part
of the wider process through which we develop our ideas and practice in light of the
changing situation and our growing experience.

There is one last thing that this document is not. It is not final. We present this as
provisional, as all revolutionary ideas must be. Our commitment to developing these ideas
in the light of new ideas and experiences is absolute. Nothing short of a successful
revolution will end that process.

I - Waged Work and the Workplace

Work under Modern Capitalism

Work under capitalism is much more complex than the simple exchange of a wage for labour.
Unpaid housework, various social security systems like pensions, incapacity and
unemployment benefits, the commodification of 'leisure' time and so on all mean that even
those who do not work for a wage are contributing to the circulation of capital and the
generation of profit. To be a worker does not simply mean being chained to a factory bench
for twelve hours a day. It means being forced to participate in the production of profit
for a minority whatever you do.

There are many different kinds of working class struggle against work as exploitation by
the ruling class. These include the struggles of women over housework, of benefit
claimants and the unemployed against 'workfare' schemes and cuts, of undocumented
immigrant workers against state harassment and of many other groups in many different
situations. No one form of this struggle against work is more important than another. Each
has its own dynamic and priorities that can only be set by those directly involved.

This document does not look at the full range of these struggles. Instead it considers the
ways that an anarchist militant can engage with resistance to waged work in their own
workplace. These terms are defined broadly. 'Waged work' includes many 'self employed'
contractors and those on commission and piece rates as well as those of us who get a pay
slip every month. The 'workplace' can be anything from a vast factory or call centre to
the kitchen tables of millions of outsourced homeworkers. Whilst this variety presents
different challenges to different workers, there is always the potential for workers to
connect with each other and resist in their workplace, however it is made up. The same
questions of how to organise arise; the same risks of co-option by trade unionism are run.

The Anarchist Federation encourages, wherever it can, direct action by wage workers
against their bosses. It encourages workers to organise themselves without leaders or
representatives. It encourages workers to control their own struggles and resist co-option
into management structures. We do this because we believe that these forms of organisation
strengthen not just the particular workers involved, but the entire class through
contributing to a broader culture of resistance. We believe that the best way that we can
spread these ideas in the workplace is through our own example as militant workers. We
hope that the ideas below can help waged workers in struggle do this more effectively.

The Forms of Workplace Struggle

Just as we define 'workplace' and 'waged work' broadly, we also take a broad view of what
counts as struggle in the workplace and a workers' movement. Working people experience the
exploitation, lack of control and boredom of waged work every day. Because of this, they
resist in whatever ways they can – from very formal rank and file movements within the
trade unions to loose and informal groups of friends in a single workplace who support
each other in small acts of theft and sabotage. We recognise this whole range of
strategiesas parts of a ‘workers’ movement’.

These strategies, as diverse as they are, have two things in common. They push for
immediate improvements in conditions and create a base for further action in the future. A
small act of sabotage by a single worker slows down work for that day and provides an
example for sabotage by two workers the next. The grass roots movement within the unions
creates self confidence and solidarity amongst its members today, and the potential for
more militant action and greater autonomy for workers tomorrow. Some actions lean further
in one direction than another, but all contain both tendencies.

From the examples above, it should also be clear that we see the creation of links of
solidarity between workers as an end in itself. The self confidence and experience that
people gain from collective organising and action is a powerful force. This is an
important factor in creating a broader culture of resistance. It is through this that
fightback in the workplace spreads into other areas of life and vice versa.

These things taken together mean that we see two immediate goals for any militant
organisation or action in the workplace. The first is the creation of private space where
workers can talk and organise together as equals free from the interference of either
management or bureaucratic trade union structures. The second is the creation of sites of
public confrontation with management, and, when necessary, with trade unions. Both of
these are necessary in order for struggle to be successful and to grow. There is no single
way of doing either of these things, just as there is no single set of strategies that
make up the workers' movement. The forms of struggle that workers take up are dictated by
the conditions in their particular workplace. What is possible and what is necessary are
dictated by the particular problems that particular workers face and this cannot be
prejudged by anyone outside the situation. However, it is possible to suggest the broader
outlines of what an individual militant or small group of militants can do in different
kinds of workplace and workers' organisation. To that end we discuss three broad areas of
struggle against waged work in which AF members are involved now: the unionised workplace,
the non-unionised workplace and the trade unions themselves, both mainstream unions and
syndicalist type unions (such as the IWW).

II - Mainstream Unions and the Unionised Workplace

Trade Unions, Class Struggle and Management

Trade Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary
transformation of society. Unions have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function
and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trade unions divide the working class (between
employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc.). Unions have to be
able to control their membership in order to make deals with management, and must police
unofficial action in order to avoid legal liability. Through negotiation they aim to
achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and
representatives will always be different from ours.

The full range of strategies and formal and informal organisations that make up the
workers’ movement can never be fully represented by or organised within the trade unions.
Because of this the trade unions will actively resist the parts of the movement that they
cannot control. Any revolutionary tendency in the workplace will come into conflict with
the trade unions and must be prepared for this.
However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the
revolutionary event. We also do not believe that workers’ organisation can bypass the
question of trade unions altogether. The union is a common point of departure for many
workers, where more militant workers can meet each other and begin to organise. It also
provides, in the current climate, important material advantages that workers simply can
not afford to ignore (e.g.: better pay and conditions, better health and safety, some
legal protection for industrial action and so on).

This contradiction between the union’s role in disciplining and controlling workers and
the material advantages and opportunities to organise that it brings cannot be wished
away. Any militant in the workplace must find ways of working around these problems and
find ways of using the opportunities and protections unions offer without being co-opted
and controlled by union structures.

AF Members in the Unionised Workplace

The AF as a whole will always support workers struggling for improvements in their pay and
conditions or to defend themselves against management, except where these struggles are at
the expense of other sections of the working class. For example, struggles to expel
immigrants or women from a particular sector may be about improving pay and conditions for
the white male majority, but they do so by dividing and attacking sections of the working
class. A worker facing disciplinary action for racism may be defending themselves against
management, but their success would be at the expense of the minority workers their racist
actions attacked. Solidarity must be the basis of working class struggle, not narrow
sectional interest. For this reason we are also critical of the struggles of groups like
prison officers or the police. They may be fighting management for better pay and
conditions, but their victory would be at the expense of the working class people they
exist to discipline and punish.

We stress that struggles over pay and conditions are never simply reformist, however much
that struggle might be under the control of reformist institutions like trade unions.
Workers’ struggles pit the needs and desires of wage workers against the inhuman needs of
capital. Even in their most reformist and least confrontational forms, these struggles
reveal the fundamental contradiction between the needs of workers and the needs of
capitalism. Because of this they always point towards the possibility of revolutionary
change. Whenever possible, we will always seek to involve ourselves in this kind of
struggle, whether from outside in the form of solidarity action or from the inside as
militant workers. Any experience of struggle, and especially any victory, however small,
potentially gives people the confidence to fight back again.

However, for any success to be lasting and for any new confidence to find expression,
especially revolutionary expression, workers in struggle must move past the agenda set by
management and the trade unions and start to ask their own questions. This will mean
fighting not just over pay, working hours and so on, but over control of the workplace.

Management will rarely negotiate on these issues. The trade unions will almost always
resist fighting on this ground. Indeed, the unions will often seek to channel this kind of
anger and struggle into a more conventional pay dispute.

For progress to be possible, workers need to be in control of their own struggles. They
must control their own meetings without interference from management or the unions. They
must choose their own confrontations and their own tactics. Any engagement with trade
union structures must have this end in mind. The goal is not a strong union branch, a
successful rank and file movement, or this kind of thing, although all of these things may
in some cases move us towards the real goal. The goal is for workers to organise
themselves to resist management and to be able to take direct action of their choosing to
achieve this.

In an already unionised workplace, the trade union provides a number of potential
opportunities to further this goal. Membership of the union gives some protection for
public confrontations with management, for open organising and criticism. Workplace union
meetings potentially open a private space where it is possible to meet other militant
workers and work together away from the eyes of management. They also provide a chance to
argue for militant struggle that is directly controlled by those taking part and which
goes beyond the confines of the unions involved.

Sometimes, to realise these possibilities it may be necessary to engage more directly with
trade union structures. AF members sometimes take positions as reps or shop stewards, but
only where they feel that this advances the class struggle. We realise that holding a rep
or shop steward position can put a revolutionary workplace militant in a contradictory
position. You get access to information you may otherwise not get and are able to call
meetings and openly produce material that would otherwise not be possible. However, you
are also expected to take part in disciplinary procedures, to negotiate with management
and to stick to the union ‘party line’. These contradictions can sometimes be overcome or
worked around by a militant rep. At other times, militancy and a rep position are
incompatible. This is a judgement that individual members have to make in particular
circumstances, with the support of the organisation. Members who act as reps should always
be aware of this.
AF members do not take up paid leadership positions within unions, nor do they stand for
election as union executive officers. To do so is to cross a clear line into the
management and mediation of the working class, and out of the real spaces of class struggle.

Rank and file initiatives can often strengthen the working class in the battle for
anarchist communism. However, they are also often dragged into futile attempts to reform
bureaucratic structures. The AF looks at these initiatives on a case by case basis. Where
they believe a rank and file initiative can advance the class struggle, AF members will
take an active part in it. They should at all times, however, argue that struggles be
directly controlled by those taking part.

We always argue against seeing the rank and file initiative as an end in itself or as an
attempt to reform or take over the union. We reject what can be called rank and file-ism
in favour of seeing rank and file initiatives as one opportunity amongst others to
broaden, strengthen or intensify workers' struggles.

Our aim is always to widen struggles. Revolution – the making of a better world through
the struggle of the working class – can only come from the broadening of struggle across
the lines of workplace, union membership, or lack thereof. Therefore AF members involved
in union actions should always be looking to involve co-workers from outside the union, or
in different unions. Likewise they should be building bridges with other workers, and with
the struggles of the unemployed.

III - Syndicalist and Grass roots Unions

Syndicalist type unions run the same risks as ordinary unions. Like any other permanent
organisation of the working class, they can be co-opted into helping manage capitalism
rather than fight it. They have certain legal obligations to keep their membership in
line, or face sanction, for instance in channelling wildcat action into the legal
structures of negotiation and industrial action. However, syndicalist type unions are more
likely to remain under the control of their membership. This means that they are less
likely to do the kind of deals with bosses that have turned other union bureaucracies into
a part of the management of capitalism.

Where they judge that syndicalist type unions remain under the control of their
membership, AF members should take an active part in these unions. We do not get involved
in these unions because we believe that they are a straightforward road to revolution. We
do not believe it is possible to recreate mass industrial organizations like the CNT and
IWW of the past although we recognise much that is of value in this tradition. The nature
of work in modern capitalism has changed and the conditions that allowed the revolutionary
potential in this form of organisation to flower are long since past.

We see these syndicalist type unions in their modern forms as fighting organisations of
the working class. They are not, in their current form, the same as mainstream trade
unions, although they could become so. We believe that it is possible for these
organisations to achieve significant gains through direct action and self-organisation,
which is not possible for mainstream unions without significant rebellions within their
ranks that go beyond union structures. We believe that they can contribute in this way to
the culture of resistance so desperately needed.

We are also, however, aware of the risks that these organisations run. They are vulnerable
to cooption by capital through any negotiating role they may take up. They can become ends
in themselves leading the militants within them to confuse building the union with
building working class resistance. As such, AF members who get involved should always seek
to maintain militancy and struggle against attempts to co-opt these unions. They should
also seek to maintain a wider perspective inside the organisation and fight against any
creeping bureaucracy or hierarchy.

At the moment grass roots self-managed industrial unions like the IWW provide
opportunities to spread militant struggle from workplace to workplace, strengthen struggle
within the workplace and coordinate solidarity action. Where they judge that these
opportunities still exist, AF members are encouraged to join them. However, with regard to
syndicalist and self-managed industrial unions, judgements need to be constantly made and
remade in the light of the real experience of workers involved.

IV – The Non-unionised Workplace

Building Confidence and Solidarity in the Non-unionised Workplace Our goals in a
non-unionised workplace are the same as in any other workplace. We encourage workers to
organise themselves and to take direct action. To enable this we try to create two things.
Private spaces in which workers can communicate as equals without interference from bosses
or bureaucrats and public confrontations with management through which workers can begin
to make concrete gains and gain confidence in their collective strength.

This is more difficult in a non-unionised workplace. There are no legal protections for
action and no pre-existing spaces that could be used to meet and organise. More than this,
people working in non-unionised workplaces are more likely to be on short term contracts,
or working without contracts at all. This increases the risk of being seen as a militant,
as it makes it much easier for management to simply sack people they see as a threat.

Seeing attempts at organisation crushed and militants sacked is a sure way to demoralise
workers and stop any potential struggle before it even starts. People trying to organise
in this situation need to be careful about the risks they take. There are, however, some
simple steps that can be taken to increase feelings of solidarity amongst workers and to
win small victories against management. Most workplaces have procedures and regulations
that are routinely broken and abused by management. There are many ways to insist upon
your existing rights collectively without risking an all out confrontation that you will
lose. Small victories of this kind can increase confidence and create links between
workers that can be used to build up to more significant confrontations.

Workers will be able to think of many points like this peculiar to their own workplaces,
but there are a number of general areas where this kind of thing is possible. For example,
health and safety rules offer a number of opportunities for minor confrontations that are
often winnable. Disciplinary procedures are often used to isolate people. Simply refusing
to let anyone go into a meeting with management alone can create a sense of solidarity
where none existed before. Irregularities in contracts (e.g.: people on different rates
for the same job) can often be challenged successfully. These are small examples and many
others are possible.

These small confrontations should be coupled with meetings between workers wherever
possible. Initially these will have to be on the basis of trust and will probably consist
of only the most militant workers, meeting outside of the workplace. However, with luck,
these should expand to include a significant minority or even a majority of workers in the
workplace consciously looking to organise themselves to improve their conditions.

Escalating Confrontation and the Recognition Struggle

Sooner or later, usually sooner, workers organising to improve their conditions face the
question of how to move from minor disputes to a full confrontation with management. This
means answering the question of how to take their organisation public. This is also
unlikely to be a process that workers start themselves. As more workers feel empowered to
stand up for themselves confrontation with management will escalate almost automatically.
Management will start fighting back, attempting to break any organisation against them.

This is not to imply that more spontaneous confrontations are not possible or that only
the self conscious organisation of militants can lead to struggle in the workplace. This
kind of confrontation occurs all the time and is the inevitable result of the basic
opposition of interests between management and workers. However, for struggles to be
sustained and broadened there must be conscious organisation as well as spontaneous
confrontation. As militants we would always involve ourselves in any spontaneous outburst
or conflict at work, but we also recognise that the more patient work of building
solidarity and confidence is just as necessary.

In any case, whether a particular confrontation has come totally out of the blue, has been
the result of months and years of patient work in building confidence and solidarity, or,
more likely, some combination of the two, the same questions arise. How to win an all out
confrontation with management? How, and even whether, the struggle can or should be
continued? How can workers protect themselves from reprisals following the dispute?

To win, self organisation and direct action are key. The strength of workers lies not in
negotiation and accommodation, but in their ability to disrupt the smooth running of the
workplace. By controlling their own actions, by acting together in solidarity and taking
appropriate direct action workers can achieve this and more. None of this guarantees
success, but they are always our best chance.

The other two questions are more difficult to answer and the answers will differ from
situation to situation and workplace to workplace. In some cases, a decisive victory can
be won on a particular issue by a short and sharp confrontation. Particularly in the case
of things like spontaneous occupations in response cuts or closures or wildcats over
particular management abuses there may be no logic in trying to forge a more permanent
organisation on the basis of this one confrontation. This may also be true in workplaces
with very high staff turnover. In these cases workers need to decide amongst themselves to
demobilise, and it should always be borne in mind that further action may be needed to
protect 'ringleaders' from victimisation.

In many other cases, however, in order to continue the struggle or simply to offer
protection against management reprisals, a more formal publicly acknowledged workers'
organisation is needed. The form this kind of organisation takes is dictated by the
situation in the particular workplace and the state of class struggle in society as a
whole. However, outside of situations of generalised struggle, this is almost always going
to mean creating a union branch of some kind. There are occasional exceptions of workers’
organisations that are able to go public without taking this formal, legal step (for
instance, recent examples include McDonalds Workers’ Resistance and dispatch riders in
London in the early 1990s.)

However, these examples are often short lived and depend on conditions peculiar to that
workplace. More usually, using the legal protections of unionisation is the most practical
way forward.
Workers in this situation face danger from two directions. Management will resist any
challenge to their authority. A recognition struggle sees a real risk of people losing
work, ending up on blacklists and so on. Trade unions, however, will also make their own
bid for power. They will attempt to control workers’ struggles and co-opt the work of
militants on the ground for its own ends. Where management is unable to crush workers’
resistance trade union involvement in negotiation risks destroying any solidarity built up
by workers and giving management a new tool of control – the union itself.

To deal with this situation the principles of self organisation and direct action are key.
If workers are honest and democratic amongst themselves and are prepared to take direct
action in solidarity when any one of them is attacked, then it should be possible to both
maintain independence from the union and resist management. This means practically that
meetings of all workers involved become necessary, meetings which need to be run on
directly democratic principles.

Management attacks can take many forms. Sacking militants, either singly or wholesale,
on the job, intimidation of less militant workers and so on. Pretty much anything up to
and including physical attacks and police involvement is possible depending on the
situation. However, management attacks on organisation disrupt the workplace in
themselves. If workers’ responses to these attacks escalate this disruption then
management will seek to normalise the situation as quickly as possible. And bear in mind
that management often pretend they know more than they do – collectively putting up a
knowledgeable and combative front can spook them into making snap

The response to management then should be to cause as much disruption as is possible
without giving it the excuse it needs to move to large scale sackings. Intimidation and
victimisation on the job should be challenged when it happens and through legal channels
if these exist. Any sackings should be met with whatever direct action is possible, e.g.:
work to rules, go slows, even wild cat strike action if this will not be used as an excuse
for more sackings (more likely in skilled workplaces where scabs are harder to come by,
but this will depend on the situation). Sabotage can be particularly useful here if you
can get away with it. The risks of this have to be weighed very carefully. It is here that
organisations outside the workplace can have a big impact. Management rely on isolating
and intimidating their workforce. If workers in struggle can demonstrate that they have
support networks of their own then management lose an important source of self confidence.
Pickets and phone/email blockades are obvious tactics, used with great success by the IWW
recently. Indeed, it is in this kind of situation that syndicalist type unions are at
their most useful. Mainstream unions are very unlikely to offer this kind of visible,
direct support.

Negotiation, the Union and Avoiding Co-option

At some point in this process of escalation, management will start negotiations. Their
goal will be to end disruption in the workplace and to try and ensure that it never
happens again.
They will be looking for certainty, for a recognisable body that they can deal with and
for ways of managing worker dissatisfaction before it reaches the point of confrontation.
Any trade union will be happy to meet these needs and to take its place in the management
of the workplace by defusing and channelling disputes in the right directions.

Outside of situations of generalised or heightened struggle, it will also be necessary for
workers to de-escalate. This kind of struggle is very stressful and without a much broader
context of generalised struggle it is difficult to maintain at a high pitch over the long

The problem here is how to normalise the situation without losing the gains in confidence
and solidarity that workers have made. It is also important that potential for
confrontation is maintained. Only through confrontation can solidarity and militancy be
maintained. Only if solidarity and militancy are maintained can any gains be preserved
rather than chipped away by management once the opportunity presents itself.

It is essential that any recognition negotiations are entered into after solidarity and
militancy has been demonstrated by direct action. This is the basis of workplace strength,
not any agreement signed by management, and any struggle for recognition of a workplace
organisation must work from this principle.

No outside representative should be accepted from a trade union. Those negotiating with
management should be from the workplace itself and should be chosen and mandated by
workers themselves. The union is there for advice and legal back up. Anything that needs
to happen in the workplace itself should be done by the people that work there.

After recognition as a union branch, workers should continue to meet regularly and hold
any reps to high standards of accountability.

V – The Workplace Resistance Group

Our medium term aim is the creation of workplace resistance groups. These are groups
consisting of the most active and class conscious workers within a given workplace, groups
that unite workers in militant struggle against the bosses. They work in a number of
different ways depending on the context of struggle they find themselves in. Sometimes
they simply produce propaganda against management and the union, attempting to create a
larger context for debate on tactics and goals. At other times they will engage in
clandestine militant, even violent, action in support of a particular workplace conflict.
They are always independent of trade unions, even when they sometimes work within trade
union structures.

It is not always possible to build this kind of group in every workplace at every time. A
heightened level of struggle is necessary for these groups to be possible. In workplaces
where struggle is at a low level, attempts to form workplace resistance groups are
unlikely to succeed and are more likely to result in the isolation and potentially the
sacking of the workers involved. In workplaces with a higher level of struggle the
potential for this kind of group must be judged by the workers involved.
Workplace resistance groups are a key tactic in breaking with the trade unions in
situations of heightened struggle. They are one means of preventing the unions channelling
the anger and activity of workers into harmless and easily controlled streams. In this
way, they can maintain militancy and encourage in the independent organisation and direct
action of other workers.

A workplace resistance group, as an autonomous manifestation of workers’ struggles, has
the potential to carry forward struggles in a manner that permanent workers’ organisations
such as unions cannot, either through lack of desire or for fear of legal repercussion.
For instance, during struggles of a significant size, an informal grouping of militant
workers can agitate for occupations and blockades, can undertake sabotage, and can
directly approach sympathisers in a way which unions cannot. When such dramatic activity
is not viable, workplace resistance groups can undertake other forms of direct action.
They can produce clandestine and anonymous propaganda against management, against the
'negotiations' carried out by unions behind closed doors and the sale of these stitch-ups
to the membership. They can give coherence to the forms of individual resistance which
happen in workplaces anyway – such as stealing, slacking and scamming. But what unites
these disparate tactics is their relationship to the struggle. In all these cases, the
role of the workplace resistance group is to spread militancy and consciousness
irrespective of the role and the activity of the union.

What we are describing is not a discrete thing, but a tendency. It is the tendency for
militant and politicised workers to seek to advance their interests, and the state of the
struggle. This tendency encompasses many historical examples, from miners’ hit squads and
unofficial flying pickets to the informal presence of anarchist and revolutionary groups
in the workplace, either in individual or in broader networks such as those currently
being formed through IWW dual-carding and the industrial networks of the Solidarity

Undoubtedly, were the latter two examples to coalesce into functioning unions they would
cease to be workplace resistance groups as we understand them, but currently they
represent the attempts of politicised workers to push struggles forward and engender a
culture of resistance amongst the workforce.

In this sense they differ from the presence of leftist groups within the workplace, whose
aim is invariably to ‘capture’ the union (and in the course of doing this defend its
role), and to spread the party word and party line amongst the workforce. Anarchist
communists seek the advancement of working class struggles, and for these to reach the
point where they pose the possibility of the working class taking power for itself, they
must go beyond the union form. We seek the establishment of a widespread culture of
resistance, rather than simply the establishment of strong unions, or faith in a ‘workers
party’. The use of unions for struggle is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid in most
situations. However, anarchist communists do not confuse the power of the unions with the
power of the working class.

The workplace resistance group, as an informal and semi-clandestine group of politicised
workers, will therefore develop a healthy disdain for law, the unions and management alike.

Conclusion: Beyond Resistance?

What we have outlined here still begs the question of how we see the kinds of working
class organisation we advocate translating into radical social change. After all, we do
advocate the establishment of libertarian communism through social revolution.

What we have described here are general tendencies of struggle, which necessarily ebb and
flow in intensity in line with the constantly evolving dynamics of class struggle. As we
have described, we don’t advocate building a mass organisation, whether a social
democratic party, co-operative movement or revolutionary union, which will maintain its
purity until it reaches critical mass and can assume power. We don’t see the new world
steadily growing within the shell of the old, until the point of eclipse. The idea that
structures such as permanent mass revolutionary unions can be built and maintained through
the effort and willpower of politicised workers - irrespective of the concrete reality of
class struggle – is idealism. That is not to say that we do not want a conscious,
politicised and militant working class. It is to say that we don’t pretend that workers
organisations go bad because of bad ideas or a lack of effort, but due to their mediating
role within capitalism, something that will have to be surpassed in order to move beyond
working class self-defence and take on capitalism itself.
But if we do not advocate this ‘building blocks’ method of revolutionary change, then what
do we argue for? The strategies we have detailed in this document are means by which
working class people can make concrete demands of their bosses – of capital and the state
which is part of it.

We advocate the tendency towards self-organisation and direct action as a strategy against
the problems inherent in unions as mediating structures within capitalism. But ultimately
our goal is the working class seizing power for itself, and in so doing abolishing itself
as the working class by abolishing its need to sell its ability to work in order for the
money needed to live. We seek the socialisation of production, distribution and provision
through communisation. This is the process by which the vast majority of us currently
rendered wage-slaves take over the business of doing and making within society and
re-orient it towards our own collective needs, rather than the current inhuman and alien
requirement of money to become more money. This process therefore involves doing away with
all the fetishised creations of capitalism – money, capital, private property and the
state. We see this break, the beginnings of which have been seen in a number of great
ruptures in the past, as developing out of the dynamics of class struggle which are an
intrinsic product of capitalism.

The workplace resistance group is the tendency we have described towards
self-organisation, direct action and mutual aid. But we do not advocate it simply because
these are pleasant things, but because this tendency is what poses the ultimate negation
of capitalism. All class struggle pits our needs against the needs of capital, and when
struggle is of a certain magnitude the conclusion is possible that in order to meet our
needs we must do away with the capital relationship itself.

And for this to happen, the working class must take political power, by itself, directly –
not through any party taking control of the state apparatus on its behalf. History has
shown us repeatedly that the direct form which is the natural expression of working class
political power is the mass assembly, and from this the use of mandated recallable
delegates to form the councils of workers required to oversee first revolutionary
struggle, then the everyday functioning of the new society. Therefore, the mass workers’
assembly is precisely the organisational form we agitate for in order for the principles
of self-organisation, direct action and mutual aid to become the leading ones within mass
struggle. It is the expression of the anarchist communist goal of direct control by people
over their conditions of existence.

Clearly if we stood on the street and called for workers’ councils tomorrow we wouldn’t
get anywhere. But it is the job of anarchist communist militants to push for the
broadening of all struggles, for turning defensive struggles into offensive ones, and for
struggles to be directed directly and democratically by those they concern, not dictated
by union bosses or obliquely by union laws. None of this can be abstracted from the real
development of class struggle on the ground.
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en

A-Infos Information Center