"If there was an anarchist revolution in Russia..."

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 5 2009 15:11
ernie wrote:
sorry for delay in replying to your detailed post, but wage labour has got in the way and still is. I cannot give a detailed response at the moment

no problem, take your time. i do have a tendency to long posts which is exacerbated by unemployment wink

i'll try to have a read of your pamphlet at some point, but it won't be soon as i'm pretty busy with practical stuff and have put my reading on hold for the time being. in terms of my tradition, what i'm arguing here is very close to Rudolph Rocker's (and with regard to Russia, GP Maximov's) positions - i.e. anarcho-syndicalism.

in summary, Rocker traces advocacy of councils back to the libertarian side of the first international, who published a resolution saying as much at Basel in 1869. essentially this was the split between 'direct action' and 'political action' between anarchists/syndicalists and marxists/social democrats - although of course the later development of council/left communism, putting the primacy back on direct action by workers themselves (as opposed to political action by the party on their behalf) blurred this line. of course i don't 'take sides' in the first international in any crude way, on this question the libertarians were right, but Marx still made many valuable contributions.

i terms of my anaysis of what happened in Spain, it's based on reading the history and addressing the differences between revolutionary and anarcho- syndicalism armed with Chapter 4 of Debord's 'Society of the Spectacle' - 'Proletariat as subject and as representation'. It's my contention that much like its social democratic/bolshevik counterparts, revolutionary syndicaists saw the class as something to be recruited en mass and represented, whereas anarcho-syndicalists rejected that logic in favour of self-organisation (i.e. 'proletariat as subject' instead of 'party as subject' or 'union as subject'). as debord says of bolshevism, "the representation of the working class radically opposes itself to the working class" - in my opinion the same can be said of the French CGT or the CNT in the May Days of '37.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 5 2009 23:44

Not too familiar or at all familiar with the work of Debord but I think the idea that Marxism, or Bolshevism sees or saw itself as recruiting the proletariat on mass in order to represent it is where there is probably a fundamental disagreement. This is well summed up in the Resolution on Political Action adopted by the Ist International at the Hague Congress, which saw the formation of a proletarian political party as the expression of the proletariat's self-activity. This is how we see this question, which is why we see ourselves as coming from the Tradition of the Left in the 2nd International, the 3rd International and the Left Communists within this. For us these are all expressions of the proletariats efforts to organise itself politically.
In the case of the 2nd International and the various socialist parties, these expressed the determination of the proletariat to make its political weight and will felt. The central problem was that parts of these parties became accustomed to being an opposition within capitalism and fought against those who wanted to maintain the revolutionary nature of the party.
We will not agree on this, but it is very useful to see that the difference is on this fundamental understanding i.e. political organisation as expression of the proletariat's self-organisation or not. It bring it back to the good old question of political struggle or not. A very important and fundamental question.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 6 2009 19:45
ernie wrote:
Not too familiar or at all familiar with the work of Debord but I think the idea that Marxism, or Bolshevism sees or saw itself as recruiting the proletariat on mass in order to represent it is where there is probably a fundamental disagreement. This is well summed up in the Resolution on Political Action adopted by the Ist International at the Hague Congress, which saw the formation of a proletarian political party as the expression of the proletariat's self-activity. This is how we see this question, which is why we see ourselves as coming from the Tradition of the Left in the 2nd International, the 3rd International and the Left Communists within this. For us these are all expressions of the proletariats efforts to organise itself politically.

yes but the question is what was that party supposed to do? take state power on behalf of the proletariat. i know the ICC rejects this, but it's still a minority position amongst Marxists/Bolsheviks today and i don't think was even considered in the 19th century (the post-1905 council/left communist writings are probably the first to move in this direction from the Marxist tradition).

ernie wrote:
In the case of the 2nd International and the various socialist parties, these expressed the determination of the proletariat to make its political weight and will felt. The central problem was that parts of these parties became accustomed to being an opposition within capitalism and fought against those who wanted to maintain the revolutionary nature of the party.
We will not agree on this, but it is very useful to see that the difference is on this fundamental understanding i.e. political organisation as expression of the proletariat's self-organisation or not. It bring it back to the good old question of political struggle or not. A very important and fundamental question.

i think this is a point of difference. while i reject the strict economism/apoliticism of some forms of syndicalism and industrial unionism, i think the way for the working class to make political demands is the same way we make economic ones - direct action. a party is not required.

to be fair to councilists (and perhaps the ICC, since you like Luxemburg), they also see a unity of the political and economic in the class struggle, but only at its peaks in the mass strike. by contrast for anarcho-syndicalists the day-to-day class struggle, waged by direct action is always political, since behind every bread and butter economic demand is also the question of power: who controls the workplace, who controls our lives? consequently i think revolutionary organisation needs to reflect this, industrial and community organisation with a clear revolutionary perspective, rather than a political party.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 10 2009 11:54

First of all JK, I am very sorry to hear you are unemployed. and hope you find work soon.

You are correct to say that it was not until after 1905 that the concept of the party taking power was questioned, it after 1917 to be precise. This is one of the most important and bitterly learnt lessons of the proletarian revolution in Russia. However, as you say our conception of the role of the party is not widely accepted within the Communist Left.
I do not think the conception in the 19th century was of the party taking power on behalf of the working class but of the working class take power through its party. There certainly those who believed that the Party was there to take power or to act on behalf of the proletariat, but that was not the conception that formed the basis of the Marxist understanding of the party: which as has already by pointed out was clearly laid out in the Resolution on Political Activity

Quote:
In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;

That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists —

The Conference recalls to the members of the International:

That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united.

Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action

This is not a million miles away from what you say

Quote:
to be fair to councilists (and perhaps the ICC, since you like Luxemburg), they also see a unity of the political and economic in the class struggle, but only at its peaks in the mass strike. by contrast for anarcho-syndicalists the day-to-day class struggle, waged by direct action is always political, since behind every bread and butter economic demand is also the question of power: who controls the workplace, who controls our lives? consequently i think revolutionary organisation needs to reflect this, industrial and community organisation with a clear revolutionary perspective, rather than a political party.

Here I think it is a question of what you mean by political. We would agree with most of what you say. Behind every strike loons the revolution and the economic struggle cannot be separate from the political. That the central need for the class in its struggle is to defend its autonomy. We see this as being done at two levels;
- the self-organisation of the struggles
- through the development of political organisations.
This does not mean we see the economic and political struggle as being two separate sphere, rather they are part of the same process of the development of class consciousness. The political aspect of the struggle clearly involves the workplace and daily problems but also the wider question of social position of the class, its revolutionary role, its theoretical armory and historical understanding.
I think that the question of what is the political struggle is one that may be needs to be clarified.
For a more detailed analysis of this question I would recommend our pamphlet Class Consciousness and Communist Organisation http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc. Could you recommend a book or pamphlet that you feel best summaries your position on this question.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 14 2009 16:31

I didn't want to interrupt this in the middle of the discussion, but now it seems to be dead, I am surprised that Jef Costello didn't take issue with the title.

Devrim

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 14 2009 22:12

I think you forgot that they have intergalactic nuclear missions. You will never win.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Nov 18 2009 00:05
Jason Cortez wrote:
I think you forgot that they have intergalactic nuclear missions. You will never win.

Cortez is wrong! We're closing in for the kill on Dundee now sub-space commandante weelers.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 3 2009 00:59

JK: You spoke of the various streams within the CNT. I know some CNTistas participated in one of the Bolshevik congresses but unlike many British syndicalists who would go on to form the CPGB (Tom Mann et al) the CNT seemed hostile to the Bolshevik project. Is there any background on this?

Battlescarred wrote:
Question: Why did not Trotsky win within the Bolsheviks against Stalin?
A: Because he was seen by many as a Bonaparte, as autocratic and arrogant prepared to ride rough shod over other tendencies within Bolshevism. Many Party members were aware of what Trotsky was capable of, and were very apprehensive about him assuming supreme control. As a result Stalin, who played a long , slow game,was able to triumph
If unity had been forged berween anarchists, maximalists, Left SRs, rank and file Communists etc and obviously if the revolution had spread to other parts of the world perhaps things would have been differnt. All academic speculations anyway, although the incipient ( and ultimately unsuccessful) Third Revolution points towards a different scenario. What disturbs me about Dundee's pronouncements is that they seem like standard Bolshevik justifications for the policies of the Bolshevik government, with no real understanding of what it means to construct a society from bottom up.

Possibly a more resonable hypothesis would speculate that Stalin was more acceptable, and up until 1917 an unknown figure in the party, therefore ideal spokesperson for the rising bureaucracy.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 3 2009 12:21
october_lost wrote:
JK: You spoke of the various streams within the CNT. I know some CNTistas participated in one of the Bolshevik congresses but unlike many British syndicalists who would go on to form the CPGB (Tom Mannet al) the CNT seemed hostile to the Bolshevik project. Is there any background on this?

i think the CNT were hostile to Bolshevism from the start, as the IWA was founded when it was clear that the Bolsheviks' 'Red International' was going to be neither libertarian nor revolutionary (according to SelfEd anyway). I need to read more on it (our local has got the three volumes of Jose Peirats i've been meaning to read), but i think the difference is the British syndicalists (Mann et al) were influenced by a mixture of French revolutionary syndicalism (CGT) and American industrial unionism (IWW) - both of which were committed to political neutrality/apoliticism. to those with politics therefore, political organisation seemed the natural counterpart to economic syndicalism. the CNT's development was different - growing out of CGT-style revolutionary syndicalism, but under such strong anarchist influence that the CNT itself took on elements of anarchist politics, including an outright opposition to parliamentary politics and 'workers parties' rather than a neutral stance.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 3 2009 12:31

ernie, just realised i never replied to your post above...

ernie wrote:
First of all JK, I am very sorry to hear you are unemployed. and hope you find work soon.

well you know, work's a mixed blessing so i'm making the most of the free time.

ernie wrote:
I do not think the conception in the 19th century was of the party taking power on behalf of the working class but of the working class take power through its party.

that may well have been the conception, but i'd contend that this couldn't be anything but the party acting on behalf of (i.e. representing) the working class. i mean you see the problem when workers in a trade union say 'we are the union' - i think the same thing applies to political representation as it does to economic representation.

ernie wrote:
- the self-organisation of the struggles
- through the development of political organisations.
This does not mean we see the economic and political struggle as being two separate sphere, rather they are part of the same process of the development of class consciousness. The political aspect of the struggle clearly involves the workplace and daily problems but also the wider question of social position of the class, its revolutionary role, its theoretical armory and historical understanding.

i think this is the difference. i don't actually reject the role of political organisations (whether they be editorial collectives or federations), but i think 'self-organisation' is not a purely spontaneous phenomenon and the best way to encourage it is as fellow workers within the workplace - i.e. revolutionaries organising as workers rather than individuals or members of a political organsation. that's why it's SolFed's priorty to build industrial networks to co-ordinate practical workplace activity, rather than pose "the wider question of social position of the class, its revolutionary role, its theoretical armory and historical understanding" which is essentially the role of political groups (acting as 'think tanks' trying to influence the wider milieu and class).

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Dec 3 2009 15:57
Joseph Kay wrote:
october_lost wrote:
JK: You spoke of the various streams within the CNT. I know some CNTistas participated in one of the Bolshevik congresses but unlike many British syndicalists who would go on to form the CPGB (Tom Mannet al) the CNT seemed hostile to the Bolshevik project. Is there any background on this?

i think the CNT were hostile to Bolshevism from the start, as the IWA was founded when it was clear that the Bolsheviks' 'Red International' was going to be neither libertarian nor revolutionary (according to SelfEd anyway). I need to read more on it (our local has got the three volumes of Jose Peirats i've been meaning to read), but i think the difference is the British syndicalists (Mann et al) were influenced by a mixture of French revolutionary syndicalism (CGT) and American industrial unionism (IWW) - both of which were committed to political neutrality/apoliticism. to those with politics therefore, political organisation seemed the natural counterpart to economic syndicalism. the CNT's development was different - growing out of CGT-style revolutionary syndicalism, but under such strong anarchist influence that the CNT itself took on elements of anarchist politics, including an outright opposition to parliamentary politics and 'workers parties' rather than a neutral stance.

There definitely was a current within the CNT who wanted to affiliate to the Red International, but they were always outnumbered and I think may have ended up being expelled or splitting or something. And they were dicks, according to whatever source I read this in. Sorry to be so vague, it's been about two years since I read up on this stuff. Maybe Pestaña and Segui were sympathetic to it? I could imagine Christie's book would probably have some information on the subject. And yeah, there was always a strong anti-bolshevik current right from the start (or at least right from 1917) - the FAI didn't just emerge out of nowhere.
Oh, wait, wiki says:

Quote:
The second congress of the CNT in 1919 studied the possibility of merging both organizations to unify the Spanish labor movement. That same congress approved linking the CNT to the Third International, but after Ángel Pestaña's visit to the Soviet Union, and on his advice, they broke definitively from the Third International in 1922.

So it's probably a bit harsh to accuse Pestaña of being a bolshie.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 3 2009 18:55

Thanks for not forgetting me

On your point

Quote:
i don't actually reject the role of political organisations (whether they be editorial collectives or federations), but i think 'self-organisation' is not a purely spontaneous phenomenon and the best way to encourage it is as fellow workers within the workplace - i.e. revolutionaries organising as workers rather than individuals or members of a political organsation. that's why it's SolFed's priorty to build industrial networks to co-ordinate practical workplace activity, rather than pose "the wider question of social position of the class, its revolutionary role, its theoretical armory and historical understanding" which is essentially the role of political groups (acting as 'think tanks' trying to influence the wider milieu and class).

We would not see any separation between the wider work of a political organisation and actively participating in the development of workers efforts to better organise themselves at work. Not sure what you mean by industrial networks to co-ordinate workplace activity, but we have certainly work with struggles groups in the past and recently with the education workers network. The aim surely is help the development of class consciousness, which is a praxis of the economic and political struggle. Here I think we are probably getting back to the question of what is the political struggle. Surely the building of the industrial networks is a political activity, Solfed has a political conception of their wider role, if I remember the recent text correctly.
Have you read the article in the recent WR on Solfed? what did you think?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Dec 3 2009 20:33

This may well warrant splitting the thread:

Joseph Kay wrote:

but i think the difference is the British syndicalists (Mann et al) were influenced by a mixture of French revolutionary syndicalism (CGT) and American industrial unionism (IWW) - both of which were committed to political neutrality/apoliticism. to those with politics therefore, political organisation seemed the natural counterpart to economic syndicalism.

I think there needs to be a clearer way of articulating this distinction - the CNT's opposition to "politics" was pretty vocal; by this of course they meant parliament, and participation in government (at least until the war, where participation wasn't limited to anarchist ministers and was much more complicated and wide-reaching). Terminologically, this distinction was muddled, as Pierats acknowledges in Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution: IIRC, he discusses how the contemporary press in the years leading up to the revolution jumped on such ambiguities to periodically announce the CNT's involvement in parliamentarism, which had to be periodically denied. I'll get the reference for this if I get time.

Also, speaking of the contemporary, British IWW at least, my criticism of it is that its something (a political organisation), pretenting its something its not (a union).

Joseph Kay wrote:

the CNT's development was different - growing out of CGT-style revolutionary syndicalism, but under such strong anarchist influence that the CNT itself took on elements of anarchist politics, including an outright opposition to parliamentary politics and 'workers parties' rather than a neutral stance.

While this is true, and that anarchist 'principles' and 'ideals' were identified with an 'anti-political' stance inside the Spanish anarchist movement, these principles were abandoned very quickly following 1936, and on a massive scale with the rise of what dissenting elements called 'circumstantialism'. Pierats gives quite a good account of this in Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution. Its something that I think needs to be accounted for, that the movement ended up practicing what the tientistas had been criticised for years before on a large scale.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 8 2009 14:16
Django wrote:
While this is true, and that anarchist 'principles' and 'ideals' were identified with an 'anti-political' stance inside the Spanish anarchist movement, these principles were abandoned very quickly following 1936, and on a massive scale with the rise of what dissenting elements called 'circumstantialism'. Pierats gives quite a good account of this in Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution. Its something that I think needs to be accounted for, that the movement ended up practicing what the tientistas had been criticised for years before on a large scale.

well i think while the CNT had taken on large swathes of anarchist politics, it hadn't modified its organising model accordingly, which was still essentially that of revolutionary syndicalists like the CGT. as the CNT was largely illegal/under heavy repression, that curtailed the tendency towards class collaboration inherent to the model - but with those pressures removed in '36 it didn't take long to end up there, although not of course without significant dissent from within the ranks.

Django wrote:
I think there needs to be a clearer way of articulating this distinction - the CNT's opposition to "politics" was pretty vocal; by this of course they meant parliament, and participation in government (at least until the war, where participation wasn't limited to anarchist ministers and was much more complicated and wide-reaching). Terminologically, this distinction was muddled, as Pierats acknowledges in Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution: IIRC, he discusses how the contemporary press in the years leading up to the revolution jumped on such ambiguities to periodically announce the CNT's involvement in parliamentarism, which had to be periodically denied. I'll get the reference for this if I get time.

at the time the distinction was between 'union action' (direct action) and 'political action' (parliamentarism, bolshevism). i suppose political groups like the AF that oppose 'political action' don't fit well with that.

Django wrote:
Also, speaking of the contemporary, British IWW at least, my criticism of it is that its something (a political organisation), pretenting its something its not (a union).

well by their definition of a union they're not a union, but they're not really a political group either, as they don't have any real shared politics as far as i can tell.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 8 2009 14:21
ernie wrote:
Solfed has a political conception of their wider role, if I remember the recent text correctly.

yes we do, but we don't aspire to be a political organsiation. the point is you can have apolitical workers organisations (as the IWW aspires to be), politicised ones (as SolFed aspires to be/partly is) and political organisations (like the AF or ICC). i mean to join the AF or ICC adherence to atheism or decadence respectively are required, which makes sense for purposes of theoretical unity, but for the purposes of industrial networking and agitation i think such theoretical unity would be an unneccessary barrier, so long as there's agreement on basic principles.

ernie wrote:
Have you read the article in the recent WR on Solfed? what did you think?

nope. is it online?

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Dec 8 2009 15:01

If I'm not mistaken, I think the article ernie is referring to is here

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Dec 9 2009 00:22

There's a KSL pamphlet IIRC that talks about Pestaña's visist to Moscow and how the CNT then kept aloof from the Red TU International. I think, though I don't have sources to hand, that the people who were pro-Moscow were around Maurin, who also visited Moscow but came away impressed. He set up a group within the CNT that was pro-PCE and joined the PCE. He split from the PCE and eventually formed the POUM with Nin's more Trotskyist group.

Regards,

Martin

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 19 2009 18:03

JK

Sorry for the delay in reply but as you probably have seen I have been caught up with other threads.
On the question of industrial networking, I think I see what you mean. Clearly if one is trying to bring together workers in order to better prepare future struggles etc it would be a very serious error to have political criteria for participating: the main criteria would be the desire to develop and prepare struggles. When we participate in struggle groups in the 80's this is the idea we put forwards. However, I think Solfed sees the networks as something more permanent .
What did you think of the article?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 19 2009 18:44
ernie wrote:
Clearly if one is trying to bring together workers in order to better prepare future struggles etc it would be a very serious error to have political criteria for participating: the main criteria would be the desire to develop and prepare struggles. When we participate in struggle groups in the 80's this is the idea we put forwards. However, I think Solfed sees the networks as something more permanent .

well i think some political criteria are important as they effect the way you struggle - we want direct action (so no parliamentarism or legalistic/representative methods) and working class solidarity (so no nationalism, racism, sexism), and we are explicitly revolutionary. however, i don't think those represent a tight theoretical agreement as sought (in principle) by most political groups - certainly there would be no requirement for agreed 'positions' on anything, merely shared principles which inform practice. this kind of workplace organisation from an explicitly libertarian, revolutionary perspective is what anarcho-syndicalism is. obviously in periods of less struggle you're going to have small networks of isolated individuals, after decades of industrial unrest you may well have a network of numerous workplace branches. the former minority networks are things which can be built in the here and now, although their development is to a certain extent out of our control.

ernie wrote:
What did you think of the article?

honestly? i think it's terrible. the analysis is 'if it has politics, it's not a union', which when anarcho-syndicalism is about politicised unions is just wilfully ignorant.

ICC wrote:
But then they go on to argue that "stewards have to be transformed from being representatives, whose role is to reconcile workers' demands with the interests of management, into being delegates"(Catalyst 22). If stewards can transform the function they have - presumably through a mix of enlightenment and will power, and with their actual social position having no influence on what they think, say or do - then why can't union bosses or other functionaries of the capitalist class change the way they act as well? What's the point of mass meetings and recallable delegates if workers (or a militant minority) still have to struggle within the union structure?

the reductio ad absurdum that 'if shop stewards can sometimes do good things, why not bureaucrats' is too fallacious to answer.

the implication being that SolFed supports trade unions "or other functionaries of the capitalist class" - when in fact what is being talked about is ensuring that lay workers (the context implies the 'stewards' under discussion are members of a hypothetical anarcho-syndicalist union or delegates from the workforce, not trade unionists), whose "actual social position" is that of their fellow workers. if they're not stewards of a 'social partnership' union, what "actual social position" do they have that makes them "functionaries of the capitalist class", beyond ICC-land fantasy that anything with the word union involved is bourgeois?

This is clarified by the nex sentence omitted from the quote: "Those delegates must be given mandates and decision-making must lie not with them but with the workforce at mass meetings." The argument here is that the anarcho-syndicalist union is not the organ of struggle and that struggle does not take place through its structures, but through mass meetings of all workers, whether they're anarcho-syndicalists or not. anyone delegated by the workforce (i.e. acting as a 'steward') is accountable to the mass meeting. perhaps the word 'steward' confuses things since it implies trade unionism, but the level of analysis is woeful, amounting to 'if you have politics you're a political organisation, if you say union you're a capitalist functionary.' it accepts the separation of politics and economics as a given, denies the possibility of politicised workers organisation (even as a minority), and ends up not really saying anything except measuring everyone against the ICC. i'm rather glad not to measure up, to be honest.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 20 2009 19:32

Ok. The article does say the above but before it says that it underlines the following points

Quote:
When SolFed itself draw out the "lessons learned" their clearest points are on the nature of workers' self-organisation. "The central form of self-organisation is the mass meeting. However, it is vital that mass meetings do not just give a democratic rubber-stamp to decisions made elsewhere (as happened in the Ford-Visteon dispute), but take an active role in organising and controlling the struggle."

However "Not everything can be done in a mass meeting. Sometimes a strike committee is needed to draw up demands. Other times workers may want to produce a leaflet or do some research. They may also want to send delegations to other workplaces in order to encourage solidarity actions and spread the struggle."

These are all fundamental acquisitions of the workers' movement. Confusion starts when they explain "the contradictions and limits of a rank-and-file level of trade unionism". This begins quite promisingly: "It is not simply a matter of the unions ‘not doing their job properly' - they do it only too well, since they need to be able to control workers' struggles in order to function as representatives of those struggles."

I do not think the article is saying that Solfed supports the unions but rather it ends up putting forwards a contradictory position because it does not see the unions as being fully integrated into the state and thus serving the interests of the state, despite what this or that stewards etc thinks

The difference is not between mass meetings controlling delegates were are clearly agreed on that but on what should politised workers do in the workplace. If I understand Solfeds position it is they they should form industrial networks and anarcho-syndicalist unions (though I did not get this from the pamphlet). For us workers politized or not should not concentrate on building permanent industrial organizations but on seeking out ways of bringing together the most militant workers either to help develop the struggle when it is underway or to try and draw the lessons when they are over.

The question of what politised workers should do is very much dependent upon whether you that the proletariat can and should produce permanent organs of struggle, no matter its political content. For example the Bordigists defend the idea of the Red union lead by Left Communist, a concept we have polemized with. So it is not just a question of anarcho-syndicalism, revolutionary unions. We certainly don't think the Bordigists have sold out to the bourgeoisie, nor do we think so about Solfed. Rather this is a question of whether there can be permanent organisations of the struggle.

Nor is it a question measuring everything against the ICC, but of what is the most effective means of contributing to the class struggle. A question that is a permanent concern for all politized workers. As I said above we saw the struggle committees as one way in which the minority of politized or most militant workers could contribute most effectively to the developing struggle or helping to draw their lessons. We have also had contact with the assembly of mental health workers and service users in Alicante which over the past year has been trying to organise the struggle against cuts in the service. There can be and are a multitude of different expressions of the proletariats efforts to organise its struggles, etc and new ones will arise that will surprise us all.

This may well seem like hair splitting but there you go. The essential point is that all revolutionaries engage in a discussion of how best to contribute to the development of the struggle, to the most effective contribution of the politized workers to the struggle. We probably may not agree on what is the best organisation, but we should accept that we trying to struggle for the same aim.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 20 2009 19:34

This is rather off the topic of the thread, may be there should be another thread on the question of how to organise?