DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

USI involvement in RSUs

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 18 2006 22:00

The meetings are obviously minuted and as i have said earlier decisions have to be ratified so the workers would know what has been discussed.

Comment
You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors. RSU can and it do it. And i tell more- bosse negotiate not with USI but with RSU at all. That meanse your delegate need compromises with representatives of vertical unions.
You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things. You do not understand what is the pressure og boss against active individuals during strike. They can loose evrething and they have familise... If they negoutiate in the close room you never know what happen.
But even if sindicate exqlude the delegate it can not chenge it to anothere one wich it wants in the moment.

How is it close to parliamentarianism?

Comment
I explaned you here and in the priviose letter.
I repite: "RSU can not be reelected in the moment by meeting of workers. It is tipical parlamentary struture of representative democrasy (not direct democrasy). RSU (not meetings) make disigions.
As for USI it can ratify or not ratify disigion. But if it is in minority it will change nothing. And USI can not even sent to RSU new delegate wich it wants in the moment.
And if it is in majority it does not need RSU at all if they revolutiuonaris! They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

You need to read what the USI have said over and over again.

Comment
We read this meny times and i allredy explaned why this is bullshit. If you don't understand that is not my folt.

USI's participation is alot different than the CGTE/CNTE split.

Comment
This is False. No one prove that.

And as congress decided it is their choice in how they appoach organising there unions.

Comment
We think this is wrong disigion and we did not chenge position. And it will not be so easy for reformists to establish they oder in IWA.

Maybe if more sections had Anarcho Syndicalist unions then maybe more comrades would have a better grasp on the practical situations which our comrades in the USI are trying to overcome.

Comment
1) USI members who support RSU are not my comrades.
2) As for us we have groopes wich work at the industry and orgernised classe resistens. Opposit that i see u have no idea what is real strike and strugle at the factory.

And in workplace organising there is a terrible reality that you will encouncter reformist unions who on occassion you may have to work with for practical necessity.

Comment
I get it. Wood you like to cooperate with polise if you see practical necessity? Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity".
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Dec 18 2006 22:21

I'm sorry magidd, are you actually saying you don't beleive in delegated responsibility in any form? Or are you only criticising mandates?
If its the latter then sure a mandate isn't ideal, and you should encourage criticism of it, but expelling people for being part of unions who have mandated reps is just purist shite. If its the former then i'm sorry but thats just fucking absolutely mental.

I don't like saying it but the only reason i joined solfed was because it wasn't a bunch of outside and against mentalists and therefore allowed you to be a member of a ''reformist union'' when it was common sense to be a member. How do you have any right to be against what the USI or SAC are doing but happily be a member of unison or whatever who do things that are infinitely worse on a very regular basis? Seriously i haven't got the patience for that kind of hypocritical 'purer-than-thou' nonsense.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Dec 18 2006 22:22

Writes "magidd": "You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things!...You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things."

You know nothing about me, so if you want to have a civil discussion it is best to avoid personal comments like this. If you can't do that, this tells me you can't give reasons to persuade those who don't already agree with you.

I can't offhand think of any situation in the USA where there has been actual negotiations between an employer and a mass meeting. It has happened sometimes that a group of workers in a department may press collectively their demands to a supervisor. But that's typically not a really large group of workers. we're talking here about situations where agreements are being reached for a larger group of workers. At least, that is how i understand the situation, because that is usually the case for works councils.

In cases where there is a wildcat strike and workers are striking to press demands, there may not be any actual negotiations at all. I did help to organize an independent union that carried out a one-week strike where we were victorious on our main demand, but there were never any negotiations. The union simply voted to end the strike when management agreed to our demand.

But when you talk about negotiations, you're not talking about a situation where workers simply make a demand and take direct action to try to pressure the employer to go along. That isn't negotiation. Wildcat strikes in the USA are often situations where no negotiations take place, but there is a protest action that has a particular demand, and they end the strike based on either a decision to end it or because the employer on his own has made sufficient concessions. Again, no negotiations.

If you want to make comments on what I write, it is best to actually quote the part you are responding to. When you say "comment" above i have no idea what you're responding to.

You write: " Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity"."

What unions are you talking about? Some critics have said this of the CGT-E but it's false. What happened, in that case, is that the police in a town in Catalonia formed a union and asked to affiliate to the CGT. The CGT refused, but the police continued to use the "CGT" initials. So, critics of the CGT then say they've accepted police, but it is false. These kinds of accusations just fuel sectarianism.

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 18 2006 23:29

I'm sorry magidd, are you actually saying you don't beleive in delegated responsibility in any form?

Comment
I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.
Partisipation in RSU means all that things.

I don't like saying it but the only reason i joined solfed was because it wasn't a bunch of outside and against mentalists and therefore allowed you to be a member of a ''reformist union'' when it was common sense to be a member.

Comment
I don't care why did you join SF. This is not storry we discusse here.

Or are you only criticising mandates?

Comment
I allredy say what i critisise and why.

How do you have any right to be against what the USI or SAC are doing but happily be a member of unison or whatever who do things that are infinitely worse on a very regular basis?

Comment
I am working on the regular bases as anarhist-workers activist, in the conditions of dictatoship and i see all reformists in hell. Woode you please tell me what the hellish things am i doing?

Seriously i haven't got the patience for that kind of hypocritical 'purer-than-thou' nonsense.

Comment
Take care youself. I heard there are goode psychoanalysts in UK. As for me i am not redy to listen to sad story of your life. But wood you explaine please what terrible things i do "that are infinitely worse" than politics of RSU? Do you meane evry fridey drinkig bloode of christian children?

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 18 2006 23:53

What unions are you talking about? Some critics have said this of the CGT-E but it's false. What happened, in that case, is that the police in a town in Catalonia formed a union and asked to affiliate to the CGT. The CGT refused, but the police continued to use the "CGT" initials. So, critics of the CGT then say they've accepted police, but it is false.

Comment
I herd absolutly different interpritation of story. But i did not want to ageu. It is not realy important in my understanding.

These kinds of accusations just fuel sectarianism.

Commen
You know i like to be sectarian but unfortunatly i am far from that. But may be i can. Sects were the centers of class resistend during 1.000 years in Europa.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 19 2006 00:42

First of all, magdid, you are a sectarian purist, and to not call our comrades in USI comrades is ridiculous and TBH you really need to learn how to enter into an open and free discussion without resorting to pathetic personal insults. Debate on such issues needs to be constructive and not create more divisions in the anarcho syndicalist movement.

Quote:
You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors.

It is the USI workers who agree the syndical line, they choose their own delegates, they have full control on how that delegate behaves. It is a tactical choice of USI to participate in the RSU's and you need to respect your comrades judgement and experience in these matters.

Quote:
You've probebly never been in reale strugle (strike): that is why you say sich things. You do not understand what is the pressure og boss against active individuals during strike.

It is not important to the debate, but i have. And i urge you not to bring this down to who's prolier than thou, or who's been around longer.

Quote:
"RSU can not be reelected in the moment by meeting of workers. It is tipical parlamentary struture of representative democrasy (not direct democrasy). RSU (not meetings) make disigions.

Which i said before is ratified by a workers assembly, and USI can act against the decisions. Its not a mini parliament.

Quote:
They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

Really? and what will it achieve if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace. Ill say again we have to have confidence in our comrades on this issue who are having to practically utilise anarcho syndicalist ideas.

Quote:
We think this is wrong disigion and we did not chenge position. And it will not be so easy for reformists to establish they oder in IWA.

Well lets hope your a minority in your section comrade, And i see no reformists in our International. I see a minority of sectarian fools, who are falling over themselves to attack the anarcho syndicalist organisations in the IWA.

Quote:
Comment
1) USI members who support RSU are not my comrades.
2) As for us we have groopes wich work at the industry and orgernised classe resistens. Opposit that i see u have no idea what is real strike and strugle at the factory.

Once again your being stupid, USI are our comrades, a little group of sectarian comrades are never going to change that.

And im not gonna go into my personal defence, i have no need to do so.

Quote:
I get it. Wood you like to cooperate with polise if you see practical necessity? Some unions who were kicked from IWA see it. They have polise sindicates. Olso becouse of "practical necessity".
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade, would you call SF comrades who are shop stewards reformists? And the SAC does NOThave a police syndicate, and that is absolute lies. CGTE does NOT have a police syndicate.

You lack a grasp on the realities of the class struggle at the moment comrade.

Comrade when you make accusations against others you need to qualify it with proof, its what happends when you enter a debate on such issue.

Im deeply concerned about your lack of support for our USI comrades, they are organising in amazing ways and doing everything i hope to see anarcho syndicalist unions doing in the UK and globally.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 01:53

First of all, magdid, you are a sectarian purist, and to not call our comrades in USI comrades is ridiculous and TBH you really need to learn how to enter into an open and free discussion without resorting to pathetic personal insults.

Comment
First of all i don't think to say about reformists that they are not my comrades is insult. It is not. I am not they comrade. I openley say thet. Where is insult?
I can just repit it personaly to you. You are not my comrade. But still i can talk with you or with USI. Well if all people with whoome you talk openly are your comrades i am realy-realy happy about you.

Debate on such issues needs to be constructive and not create more divisions in the anarcho syndicalist movement.

Comment
Don't teach me please. This is not polite way of talking.
And you are not my mom.

Magidd
You have no idea what is direct action if you say such absurd things! In our pamflet we wright: during class rank-and-file resistens boss can talk ONLY with workers meeting. No one workers delegate can negotiate with boss with closed doors.

It is the USI workers who agree the syndical line, they choose their own delegates, they have full control on how that delegate behaves.

Comment
No they don't. And i allredy proved that. RSU is not the institute were workers can chenge the delegate by one for whom they want in the moment. This delegate make negoutiation with boss with closed doors. He makes a negoutiations and agreement with trade-union delagetes of yellow unions (olso with closed doors).
Do you belive if you repite your absurd thesis more it will become the troof? Do you belive in vodoo magice?

It is a tactical choice of USI to participate in the RSU's and you need to respect your comrades judgement and experience in these matters.

Comment
Alot of Erors. They are not my comrades. I do not respect reformist chois. And i don't need it at all.
If we agry with your logic we mast belive that we had to respect the chois of CNT-E than they join government in 1936 just becouse they were members of IWA.

Magidd
They just can do wilde-cat as simple not anarhist workers do meny times in Italy withau any cooperation with any of state institutes!

Really? and what will it achieve if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace.

Comment
Not too much. But few friends of us at bug factory this year get inkcease they sellary becouse of detaled considered sabo.
And what can they achieve by coloboration with the state institute of miny-parlament (RCU) if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace? I see! You thing that some institutes wich was created by itallian state have magic fors to help proletarians? O!

Once again your being stupid,

Comment
Nise! And you teach me to be polite dear (not) comrade?

Magidd
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade, would you call SF comrades who are shop stewards reformists?

Comment
Dear not-comred i don't know exactly what SF shop stewards are doing. But if they burocrates in trade-unions- yes of couse they are reformists.

Im deeply concerned about your lack of support for our USI comrades, they are organising in amazing ways and doing everything i hope to see anarcho syndicalist unions doing in the UK and globally.

Comment
You forget to say "Allahy Akbar!"

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 02:10

Magidd
As for reformist unions. This is part of capitalist sistem. And if we work with tham only with one particular reason: to terminate tham.

Thats ridiculous comrade,

Comments
Aha! Please answer the qwestion! So reformist unions are NOT the capitalist institutes? And we must NOT terminate tham together with state and corporations?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 19 2006 03:45

WeTheYouth wrote:

"USI's participation is alot different than the CGTE/CNTE split. And as congress decided it is their choice in how they appoach organising there unions. Maybe if more sections had Anarcho Syndicalist unions then maybe more comrades would have a better grasp on the practical situations which our comrades in the USI are trying to overcome."

Well, I think it's really nuanced, as I've said before. Perhaps the main difference is that USI sees participation in some RSU's as one tactic, not the tacic. This might be a distinction. It's also not Spain or France where the IWA has pre-exisiting section's.

I say this in the most comradely way, read what WTY has written. It points out the greatest challenges and contradictions facing anarcho-sndicalists. And I think that the IWA, in this instance, has recognized the problem. I think the explaning away of it outside of Italy is perhaps overstated (at least for France)but for once the IWA has recognized the right of a Section to its own autonomy in terms of tactical flexibility.

Anyway, it's interesting to see how this will develop over time.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Dec 19 2006 07:25
magidd wrote:
I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.

so if you have say an informal go slow or whatever, and thirty of you vote for a couple of people to go up and read soem demands to management in the office, would you regard that as ''being behind closed doors'?

As for not co-operating with trade unions are you mad? Its one thing to say you wouldn't join one but to not co-operate implies an explicit breach fo solidarity. Are you suggesting that since you don't regard the USI as comrades that therefore you wouldn't support them if they were on strike

i never said you do things that are infinitely worse than the sac and usi although actually this sort of purism is a million times worse since its led you to have no solidairty with your comrades, but what i said was that a lot of, if not the majority of sol fed members were also members of reformist unions who do stuff that is infinitey worse than the sac and co.
Hell its in solfeds constitution.
http://merlin.xssl.net/~admin75/strategy.htm
Should we be expelled from the IWA aswell?

I'm actually quite an admirier of the sac, i mean fuck me its got 7000 members in a country with a population of under 10 million, and they seem like good comrades to me, i actuallt couldn't give a toss what some crazy anarchist sect thinks about them.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 19 2006 08:13

Just a little aside. I'm curious who the "outside and against mentalists" in Britain are that cantdocartwheels referred to?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Dec 19 2006 10:21
knightrose wrote:
Just a little aside. I'm curious who the "outside and against mentalists" in Britain are that cantdocartwheels referred to?

Sorry mate i apologise 'mentalists' is coming on a bit strong and isn't appropriate, was just pissed off with magidds attitude. And yeah I know the AF aren't technically outside and against.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 19 2006 10:50

From the AF's aims and principles:
"However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist-communism."

This hardly counts as saying people shouldn't join Unison, does it. We do recognise, however, that the union structures are intimately bound up in the process of exploiting wage labour: "The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation for the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different to ours."

And finally:
"They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part on its overthrow."

I know I've quoted it all backwards, but it seemed to make more sense that way.

In other words, our members do join trade unions. Thjey are not discouraged from doing so. Some are evn shop stewards, though we debate the wisdom of this from time to time.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 13:43

magidd wrote:

Magid
I don't know where and haw did you get this strange and stuped idea.
I refuse 3 things
1)Partisipation in the institutes of representative democrasy wich are created by state.
2)Cooperation and negotiation with trade-unions.
3) Negoutiation with the boss during the strike with the doors cloosed.

so if you have say an informal go slow or whatever, and thirty of you vote for a couple of people to go up and read soem demands to management in the office, would you regard that as ''being behind closed doors'?

Comment
That's stuped. They negotiate with boss about all problems. And boss negotiates ONLY with RSU not with meeting. + He negotiates with all RSU members (not separatly with USI and overs) so they need sort of compromise with delegates of vertical unions. All prosses of negotiation is under the closed doors- this is one of the reasons for state to have such instruments as RSU.
Or you think state created RSU just for making life of workers better?
This is shit wich makes workers extrymly week. Not assembly of workers make disigions but RSU delegates and we don't know what do they discuss. And than if your union in minoriry in RSU you can not chenge resalts of negotiation if you want. You can not even send to RSU new delegate wich you want to send. This is what state wants proletarians do: play the games wich are invented by burgua state itself.
And if your union in Majority your don't need that shit at all you can just make normal direct action- rank-and-file strike with full competention of meeting.

As for not co-operating with trade unions are you mad?

Comment
No, but as far as i can see you have siriose mental problems becouse you can not express your ideas in the clear form.
If vertical union make strike we suport workers but in the same time make priopoganda against they union. We say that all vertical unions must be terminated by selfactiviry of workers, by they independent assembless. Becouse union leaders use activity of proletarians in they oun aims. Union leaders and burocrates are sort of owners of workers pawer. They are also bosses. We say: "Fuck burocratik yellow unions, fuck leaders. All bosses are bustards- include union bosses. All pawer to workers assembly! Don't haerd union leaders do it youself! Kick the union burocrats from the factory!"
Wood you please anse the qestion, dear:
So reformist unions are NOT the capitalist institutes? And we must NOT terminate tham together with state and corporations?

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 13:49

FROM SF
We need a three-pronged approach to the business of actually setting up an independent organisation at work.
1. In a workplace with a recognised TUC union, an SF member would join the union but promote an anarcho-syndicalist strategy. This would involve organising workplace assemblies to make collective decisions on workplace issues. However, workers will still be likely to hold union cards here to avoid splits in the workplace between union members and non-union members.

Comment
I don't understand that. It saunds not clear. All vertical unions are anemis they are spys of bosses. We say to all workers- we don't care they members on not members of vertical unions- fusk yellow unions, don't be obidiente to they leaders, do strugle yourself.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 19 2006 13:55
Quote:
Not too much. But few friends of us at bug factory this year get inkcease they sellary becouse of detaled considered sabo.
And what can they achieve by coloboration with the state institute of miny-parlament (RCU) if the workers are not strong enough or USI is a minority in a workplace? I see! You thing that some institutes wich was created by itallian state have magic fors to help proletarians? O!

Well thats really good, but some workers may not be in a position to do so. And ill say again it up to our comrades to practically utilise the ideas of anarcho syndicalism.

Quote:
Do you belive if you repite your absurd thesis more it will become the troof? Do you belive in vodoo magice?

Well if you read the CNTF report on the RSU's, USI have clearly said what i have been saying, it is you who do not qualify your arguments with anything substantial.

Quote:
Dear not-comred i don't know exactly what SF shop stewards are doing. But if they burocrates in trade-unions- yes of couse they are reformists.

Comrade, shop stewards are workers who are elected by the workers to represent the workers interests in workplaces, some SF members are shop stewards, i myself have been a member of a youth committee in teh shop workers union (USDAW) would you call us reformists??? Or would have some sense to realise that sometimes practicall necessity is more important than being a purist???

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 19 2006 13:58

Paralellist!_:) In the Solfed no less! My goodness, what is going on?! -:) You know WSA was tarred and feathered for less.

Anyway, I hope we can keep on topic.

--mitch

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 19 2006 14:01
Quote:
I don't understand that. It saunds not clear. All vertical unions are anemis they are spys of bosses. We say to all workers- we don't care they members on not members of vertical unions- fusk yellow unions, don't be obidiente to they leaders, do strugle yourself.

How when we have a small organisation which is not capable at the moment of forming unions and taking part in union activity away from the reformist unions? We do struggle ourselves. You need to realise that you can engage in rank and file activity in these unions as you can still be apart of the struggle inside these union however crap they are, and we do this because as anarcho syndicalists without a union of our own we still need to stand in solidarity with workers and if the only practical way we can do this is through the reformist unions then comrade we have to do this. Anarcho syndicalism is not about standing outside of the struggle it is about participating in the struggle wherever we can and it is about engaging with the workers so we can build our own organisation and anarcho syndicalist tendencies amongst the working class.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 19 2006 14:03
syndicalist wrote:
Paralellist!_:) In the Solfed no less! My goodness, what is going on?! -:) You know WSA was tarred and feathered for less.

Anyway, I hope we can keep on topic.

--mitch

Shhhh! There is no paralellist spectres in SF... Shhhh!!!

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Dec 19 2006 14:33

One point to make. Mayb Magidd could take a break from organising the great big spark and hammer factory to learn how to use the fucking quote function.

Comment
grin

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 19 2006 14:43

Has anyone (aside from Magid -:)) answered the question how the USI healthworkers participation in the RSU differs from CNT-Vignoles use of a similiar tactic in France?

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Dec 19 2006 15:10

AFAICS it differs in that the USI managed to avoid a split on it, while the CNTf didn't. It also seems clear from the USI's statements on this that they do see it as problematic, whereas Vignoles IIRC was less so.

Regards,

Martin

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 19 2006 15:43

I'll give the USI credit for finding the balance. Very important. I think this has been one of the failures of many orgaziations (including the IWA as a body. That is, failing to find balances while trying to work out approaches.WSA was crucified for this by some in the IWA.

As for the USI seeing the approach as problematic, would this have even been a question if the KRAS didn't raise it?It does appear that the practice is going on inside the largest USI union. BTW, I do not support the KRAS viewpoint.

In regards to CNT_Vignoles, it has always been my understanding that it was a tactic and not a strategy. Perhaps more vastly accept by their members, but a tactic and not a goal. Perhaps a bit more different with the Spanish CGT, as this seems to be their main workplace strategy. This said, I thought syndicalistcat shared some intersting observations about the CGT (which I wasn't too aware of). But they are another story altogether.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 18:30

You need to realise that you can engage in rank and file activity in these unions as you can still be apart of the struggle inside these union however crap they are, and we do this because as anarcho syndicalists without a union of our own we still need to stand in solidarity with workers and if the only practical way we can do this is through the reformist unions then comrade we have to do this. Anarcho syndicalism is not about standing outside of the struggle it is about participating in the struggle wherever we can and it is about engaging with the workers so we can build our own organisation and anarcho syndicalist tendencies amongst the working class.

Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya
Now i explane that:
Number 1. Why anarhists come to the workers strugle? Are we marksists who belive that communism is just automaticle resalt of class strugle? No! We need class strugle becouse it is way to change everyday life of proletarians. But it can change our life only if we fight in assemblis and if we dispise state, loo ets. As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!
Another important thing is propoganda of anarho-comminist ideas duribg the strike.
What wood we have during noramal union strike? No assembleas: workers do not make disigions thamselfs. No nagation od statist oder, loo: workers use courts, RSU and over legal methods of strugle. No anarhist propoganda: union leaders together with police try to isolate independent political activists. But why is it going so bad? One part of unswer is trade-unions. They integrate spontaniouse activety of workers. So untill this shit (trade-unions) exist- widespred workers strugle can not not be based on anticapitalist antiavtoritarian prinsiples.
2) We still need to stand in solidarity with workers even if thay have vertical union strike. I allredy say that and than you started again talk about solidarity it was demagogia from your side. At list workers want to chenge they life. That is good. So that is the reasons to fight even stronger against fucking trade-unions! Some workers activists in Itally in 70s attak or even shoot union bustards and it was fucking good! Until this shit exists we can not do revolutionary work. Loke at the Franse. We were in deep contact with CNT-F during 2006-protests against CPE. And we know haw union bustards together with police atac revolutionary activists and arrest them. And than yangsters from suberbs, yang unemploide arabs and blacks attak back this unionist shit! And it was good!
3) Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS. As Anton Panekuk say: "That is not troofe that workers class week becouse it has splits. It has splitse becouse it is week!" This is deep idea. There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority. It must not order movement as bolsheviks. It has to (as FORA or AAUD-E) do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight. And it has to attack unionists burocrats and all union stratagy at all.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 21:25

revol68
Learn to fucking quote properly you clown!

Comment
I am intresting why Libcom moderaters are so tolerent to this degenerate? Evidently he is not capable for logically thinking and just insult people here. Is this so called "political correctness"?

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 19 2006 21:31

Thank you.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 19 2006 22:26
Quote:
Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya

And i would like to describe your position as left communist fantasy with no real grasp on the nature of the class struggle.

Quote:
As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!

Thats all very nice but how do we get to that stage, nice idea but not real a path to building workplace assemblies it it???

Quote:
So untill this shit (trade-unions) exist- widespred workers strugle can not not be based on anticapitalist antiavtoritarian prinsiples.

Again how do we get there? And how do we intervene in the class struggle now?

Quote:
Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS

Ill leave splitting our class to our enemies, the fascists, the bosses and the political parasites....also romantacists and left communists.

Quote:
There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority.

You sure your not a leninist??? Because that smacks of bolshevik bullshit comrade. As far as i am aware anarcho syndicalism is not about organising a revolutionary minority it is about enabling our class to free themselves through revolutionary unions.

Quote:
do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight

Really we have to go and preach and teach these poor thick workers how to fight? how patronising.

Quote:
And it has to attack unionists burocrats and all union stratagy at all.

Once again you need to get a grip on reality comrade. I am not against attacking the beauracrats, i encourage it, but to throw the baby out with the bath water and abandon all union strategy is stupid and in total contradiction with the principles of revolutionary unionism.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 00:47

Magidd
Commeny
I wood like to discribe your position as
A) total misunderstanding of anarhist workers resistens and aims of revolutional anarhism.
B) demagogiya

Quote:
And i would like to describe your position as left communist fantasy with no real grasp on the nature of the class struggle.

Comment
This is demagogia again. As i told you befor you can repit some false but it will not become the troof after repit.
Who you to tell me this? I was at the bigest strikes in Russia during last ten years, talk with workers, spred the liflets, help people to orgernise they celles at the factory, trying to orgernise strikes at my own work. And you telling me this??? Take care aboute your oun gray and sad reformist fantasy!

As Lopes Arango says this assemlearist outloo classstrugle is only way to prepared for anarhist-communist revolution and to overcome fear!

Quote:
Thats all very nice but how do we get to that stage, nice idea but not real a path to building workplace assemblies it it???.

What is not real? You just ask me about the "path to building workplace assemblies" and allredy say "not real"? Are you o'key?
The path is simple: in the begining we have to create small organisations of workers-anarhists. Even 3 or 5 people can do alot befor and during the workers protests (we want more but in the begining this is all we can do).
It is not trade-union becouse ot is political and make anarhist propoganda. And it is not party becouse it has no idea to controle the movement. What we need is to initiate assemblearist strugle ant destroy unions and burgua cultural idealogikal gegemonia. And we must be involved in evreday economicle life and strugle.
As CNT-F say: strugle has 3 dimentions: political, economical and cultural. It is not only economicale. It is strugle against political and cultural pawer of capital and state.
It fact huge assemblearist strike in Yasnogorsk-sity in Russia were initiated by small nuklea of radical workers and ingeners (abot 10 people) and they even were not an anarhists. Few months ago very small groope of KRAS stop the work in one of the brenches of huge military factory
Arsenal.
This small sindicate spreded thausends of liflets and hundreds of nwespapes at the factory and friends of us have alot of diskussions with another workers. Than we have repressions from the bosses and fuking trade union spys. Ouer friend Olga Smirnova was kicked from the factory and she has problems with KGB (modern name is FSB)- russian sicret polis.
In Moskaw we work todey with groope of proletarianse who strugling against jentrification in they area. We make togever assembles with some hundreds of local inhabitants. Spred alot of anarhist tekts. We say people: don't belive partis and politiks, fuck the politiks, fuck trade-unions. And yang people from this groope come to KRAS.
Well this is strugle! We knew it can be dengerouse.
But we can do somthing even if we have 20 people and live in the conditions of dictatoship.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 01:12

Opposite the SF position WE MUST SPLIT WORKERS CLASS

Quote:
Ill leave splitting our class to our enemies, the fascists, the bosses and the political parasites....also romantacists and left communists.

Comments
What you say is so far from reality, frome real life!
Fassist and bosses split workers class this is troof. As for us we have to overcome that splits this is olso the troof. But than we crate another splits: between workers who sturted revolutionary class strugle and overs. Alot of workers still belive in rasist and capitalists myfs, 90% of tham were passive even during lust hige proletarian protests in Franse! And what we do? Agree with this passsiv majoruty to do nothing and do not resis to bosses? Agree with submission to union bosses?
This passivity is resalt of cultural gegemonia of capital. Until we have revolution we will live in such sityation of split between revolutionary proletarians (who overcome rasists and over burgua splits in they oun movement) and overs.
Yes we create a split in workers class. This is why we need revolution!

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 01:18

Magidd
There is only smalle minority of proletarianse who are ready for reale resistense. We have to be ammong tham and to shou tham revolutionary ways of strugle. If we are secsesful it will be split. But than we will have organisation of revolutionary minority.

Quote:
You sure your not a leninist??? Because that smacks of bolshevik bullshit comrade.

Comment
1) Belive me- i am not you comrade. I have no idea why do you want to be my comrade. This is hipocrasy.
2) There were alot of anarhists and anarho-sindicalists who talk about revolutionary minority from Bakunin to FORA. If you think this is bolshevik idea- you have know idea what is revolutionary strugle.

Quote:
As far as i am aware anarcho syndicalism is not about organising a revolutionary minority

Comment
O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?
What is that mean? That you have 30 million members or you are not revolutionaris? wink

Magidd
do revolutionary work and show to the majority of workers class haw to fight

Quote:
Really we have to go and preach and teach these poor thick workers how to fight? how patronising.

Comment
It is sad if you think so. In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty as FORA. spreade some anarhist ideas and practises and show good examples of strugle wich can convins majority that direct action and libertarian communism are good ideas. This is way to become majority and i don't know anothe ways.
Are you realy misunderstand the point or you just play games? Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936. And be sure antill it join government it was splited with workers-leninists, workers-socialists and workers-nationalists.
And it was revolutionary minority be sure.