DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

USI involvement in RSUs

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 01:57

Anyone from SF ansewr my qwestion: are trade-unions like BKT (or haw do you call that- the bigest one in UK) the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Dec 20 2006 04:16

Maggid writes: " In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty..."

There is a definitely a point to an organization of
a revolutionary minority, to act as instigators, organizers, trainers...but *of* workers in general. They cannot contribute to the liberation of the working class if they try to substitute themselves for the class. Liberation is an act of the bulk of the class.

WSA is a revolutionary group. But it does not say it is a union. I would make a distinction between the roles of a political organization, an organization of publicists, organizers, activists, etc., verus a mass organization like a union.

Maggid:
"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."

It is not by seeing an example by others, but through their own experiences of collective decision-making and collective struggle that workers can develop, gain more confidence, acquire better understanding of the system, etc. Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas.

The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

Maggid:
"Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936." This is incorrect. In the spring of 1936 CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members. And that was after a split where it lost 60,000 members to the FOUS (POUM controlled ex-CNT unions). The CNT of Catalonia was 60% of the union members. And in Valencia it was 70% of the union members, and in Aragon and Murcia it was 80% of the union members.

Continuing:
"And it was revolutionary minority be sure." It was a majority of the unionized workers, and a very large minority of the class. Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution. It's mistake was in not doing this thru the building of new delegate congress structures to replace the state rather than joining with the Popular Front party leaders.

t.

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Dec 20 2006 06:44

If one likes to substitute revolutionary syndicalism (and this is what the IWA by its principles is about with councilist dogmatism as maggid promotes, why then stop in the middle of it? Every up-to-date councilist or left communist will tell you, that one of the main reasons for all reformist evils is the negotiation i.e. confronting the management with demands that are negotiable. Thus it would only be logical to kick out every union from within the IWA that goes into negotiations with the bosses once there is a conflict instead of starting the social revolution. I would suggest CNT-E and USI just to start with someone, followed by the FAU and the CNT-F/AIT.

Revolutionary syndicalism (no matter if you replace revolutionary with anarcho) always had, has and will have a certain "reformist" component. Just because we (besides from hoping for the Libertarian communism) are everyday workers with everyday needs and problems and are organizing ourselves in unions even in possibly non revolutionary times. The question is not how to get rid of those reformist collateral damage (which is impossible) but that we must be aware of it, discuss it and reduce it to the max. Anarcho syndicalism is the life and not abstract theory. If one likes the latter maybe it would be better to chose something else and end up in the fertile practice of - let's say AUFHEBEN?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Dec 20 2006 10:02
magidd wrote:
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!

See i wouldn't have called you a bolshevik since clearly you and your comrades are class struggle militants and inr ussia thats an unnacceptably loaded isnult to be throwing around, but then i beleive on another thread, you compared what the USI were doing to ''killing jews if the workers told them to'' which is also completely unnacceptable. You can't compare a group of class struggle militants to fascists just because they do somethingt hats slightly reformist. You also have repeatedly claimed they are not your comrades, so i think its a bit fucking steep for you to then get all upset when soemone claims youa re a left communist fantasist, which is a fairly mild insult in comparison to the shit you were flinging around. Afterall we're not the ones advocating banning you simply because we don't think your position is 100% correct, you are the one effectively advocating the explusion of all groups who 'co-operate with reformist unions' in anyway, which in western europe would effectively mean the reduction of the IWA to spain.

Thing is i'm not a union member, i don't work in an industry where it would be possible or useful and i'm technically agency staff, so union shops are pointless and even if they ever came up they would be likely to be used by management to isolate trouble makers in the comapny i work for, but at the same time i realise that in workpalces where being in a reformist union can help, then you should be a member.
Obviously as an anarchist you should and by the very nature of your actions generally will always oppose the ideas of union leaders and should not seek any position within the union bureaucracy outside the workplace, but being a shop steward or a member of the basic rank and file organisations of unions can be highly beneficial, of course it can sometimes be counter productive like say if i worked in tescos, theres no fucking way i'd me am member of usdaw, but trying to claim its always counter productive is just dogmatism.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 14:20

Maggid writes: " In my understanding we must have organisations of revolutionary minoryty..."

Quote:
There is a definitely a point to an organization of
a revolutionary minority, to act as instigators, organizers, trainers...but *of* workers in general. They cannot contribute to the liberation of the working class if they try to substitute themselves for the class. Liberation is an act of the bulk of the class.

Comment
This is absolutly stuped. Nobody among us deny that liberation is the act of bulk of the class itself. Olso i've olredy wrighte that nobody wants to give oders to proletariat! But from another side even FORA or Machnovshina were ornanisations of revolutionary minority of proletarians. This is obviouse. So the qewstion is: haw can we inishiate the proses of selforganisation of workers until we are in minority? This is very important point. Bakunin, FORA, Volin discuss that point. I think nobody can say that Volin was avtoritarian, bolshevik or that he was bad anarhist. He make the best booke about russian revolution and he was pure anarho-sindicalist and libertarian communist. He strugle against bolsheviks in Machno army. He was in opposition to avtoritarian "platforma" of Arshinov. Volin say: as minority of proletarians we can give good examples of strugle and libertarian organisation wich can convince of broad nutral masses of proletariat.

Quote:
WSA is a revolutionary group. But it does not say it is a union. I would make a distinction between the roles of a political organization, an organization of publicists, organizers, activists, etc., verus a mass organization like a union.

Comment
So what?

Maggid:
"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."

Quote:
Substituting acts of small groups (like seizing a building) for work in mass organizations was the big mistake of the Russian anarcho-communists in the Revolution of 1917. It led to them having no influence, developing no social base for their ideas.

Tell me where did you take this idea about "substituting"? We are against substituting of mass activity.
And where did you take this absurd idea about russian anarcho-comunists in the revolution of 1917-1921?! What mass organisations you are talking about? Who told you this shit that they try to substitut mass movement? Anarho-communists initiate the riot in july 1917 and partisipate in this mass movement. They appeal workers and solgers to create Military-Revolutionary Commity by the delegates from the factoris and revolutionary military units and to take controle over S-Petersburg.
As for anarho-communists who belong to sindicalist tendensy alot of them work at the organisations of factory comitties and over workers organisations.

Quote:
The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

Comment
Grate! I am delighted! This time i agree in 100%!
But what we mast do untill majority are not involve into the prosses of change through its own actions and organizations? To say bla-bla-bla in internet? Or initiate strikes, strugle, spreade anarhist ideas, give (if we can) examples of resistens?

Maggid:
"Even CNT-E was organisation of small minority of spanish proletarians (about 15%) in 1936."

Quote:
This is incorrect. In the spring of 1936 CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members.

Comment
No. Your position is incorrect. I am not talking about "wage-earners of Catalonia". I am talking about spanish proletariat. People of CNT had befor and during revolution about 1-2 million memebers. This is small part of 12-15 million spanish proletariat. And proletariat is not only wage-earners. Poour Pesants are also proletarians. And big part of proletarians were not union members at all.
But even if "CNT had nearly 40% of all the wage-earners of Catalonia as members" (and mush less in meny over areas) it was still revolutionary minority even in Catalonia.

Quote:
Continuing:
"And it was revolutionary minority be sure." It was a majority of the unionized workers, and a very large minority of the class. Even so, it did advocate a "revolutionary workers alliance" with the UGT. The workers of the CNT knew they had to work out an alliance with the other class struggle union of the class to be able to overthrow the state and consolidate the revolution.

Comment
So cooperation with avtoritarian socialist UGT was correct politicks? Wood you please explane me why in this case cooperations with political partis is not correct? Leninists and socialist partys have the same structure of organisation and the same ideas as UGT!
And what kind of delegate of UGT you are tolking about?
UGT was centralist burocratick organisations. There all or almoust all disisgions were made by burocrasy. This left cosial-demacratic burocrasy controll workers activity, collective money and propety and give oders to workers.
Trade-unions like UGT are nothing else than sistems of explotations of proletariat. Trade-unions are corporations wich sell workers pawer to bosses. To make alliance with tham is the same as to make alliance with Jeneral Motors ir Ford corporation!
I am terribly shoked then people like you call thmself anarcho-sindicalists.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 14:37
Quote:
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!

Well thats really cool, and i always have respect for AS militants who work constantl, but what does that give to the debate?

Quote:
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?

No we dont get dragged into reformism but we do not put ourselves outside of the mass action.

Quote:
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.

Well thats a shame, as i would call any member of the IWA my comrade.

A revolutionary minority of workers is not anarcho syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism is about organising all workers (were possible) it is not about seperating the revolutionary minority like the leninists wish to and creating the revolution on the workers behalf, surely as an anarcho syndicalist you agree with comrade?

Quote:
O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?

I wouldnt say we are the revolutionary minority, i would say we are in a minority and we are revolutionaries. Mainly because a revolutionary minority of anarcho syndicalists is never going to work, because it is the wider participation of our class which are the only ones capable of forming actual revolutionary organisations.

Quote:
Anyone from SF ansewr my qwestion: are trade-unions like BKT (or haw do you call that- the bigest one in UK) the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?

All of the unions organise under the TUC which is very reformist and is part of the labour party.

The BKT was our former bulgarian section i think.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 14:37

AGAIN i wood like to repit my qestion to SF: Are trade-unions the same part of capitalist sistem as state and privet corporations? Or this is something els: sort of anticapitalist proletarian resistense?
Why don't you answerig?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 14:41

Yes they are reformist unions who work hand in hand with the state.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 14:42

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

You said:

Quote:
The way for the majority to become revolutionary is for that majority to go thru a process of change through its own actions and organizations.

I completely agree. It is the struggle that changes consciousness, not a slow increase of militants one by one.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 14:48

O realy? So naw SF is not revolytionary minority in UK?

Quote:
I wouldnt say we are the revolutionary minority, i would say we are in a minority and we are revolutionaries.

Comment
That is gigantic differense be shure wink

Quote:
No we dont get dragged into reformism but we do not put ourselves outside of the mass action.

Comment
As we are. So what? Do you put yourselves outside of mass passivity?

Quote:
A revolutionary minority of workers is not anarcho syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism is about organising all workers (were possible) it is not about seperating the revolutionary minority

Comment
Wood you please read Volin- he was 100% anarho-cindicalist.
We are not tolking about seperating we are talking about split with passive majority. The reason of this split with workers-fassists, workers-scialists, workers-liberals and just passiv workers is to initiate revolutinary strugle. Becouse untill we are obifiant to bosses and tradinions as majority of workers we are passiv and doing nothing

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 14:52

Yes they are reformist unions who work hand in hand with the state.

Comment
So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 14:54
Quote:
That is gigantic differense be shure

It may just look like semantics but there is alot of difference.

Quote:
As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

Quote:
We are not tolking about seperating we are talking about split with passive majority. The reason of this split with workers-fassists, workers-scialists, workers-liberals and just passiv workers is to initiate revolutinary strugle. Becouse untill we are obifiant to bosses and tradinions as majority of workers we are passiv and doing nothing.

But it is only this "passive majority" that can bring about credible social change and eventually the social revolution.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 14:56

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 14:58
magidd wrote:
Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

I dont think so comrade. I dont think the CNTE have that much in common with wacko left communist bullshit espoused by yourself. And who are these reformist anarcho syndicalists? FAU? USI? SF?!?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 14:59

No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.

But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.
btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 15:03
knightrose wrote:
No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.

But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.
btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English?

Im saying we are not the revolutionary minority but we are a minority of revolutionaries, maybe a translation problem, an dthis thread has gon wildly of course, the main problem is that magdid spouts left commie crap and attacks our USI comrades in unions.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 15:06

Isn't magidd in the IWA then?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 15:08
knightrose wrote:
Isn't magidd in the IWA then?

Comrade Magdid is in our russian section the KRAS.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 15:12
Quote:
Comrade Magdid is in our russian section the KRAS.

See my comment on the other thread http://libcom.org/forums/history/french-syndicalists-cnt-ait-cnt-vignole...

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 15:12
syndicalist wrote:
Perhaps this would be a subject open for discussion as well.

I figured that the matter of the USI would be a "make or break" one for the IWA. What I'm curious about is what was the view or position taken by comrades in regards to the USI's on-going participation in the RSU? And how does their participation in the RSU differ much from CNT-Vignoles participation in work place committees or for that matter from the Spanish CGT's?

Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

The USI were overwhelming supporte by sections at congress. I think it differs from the other splits, as it is a tactical choice of a couple of their unions and they are seeing the shortcomings of these tactics and are looking for alternatives, There is not a big split in the USI, the USI have managed to maintain coherency as an organisation even when some unions are using some seemingly controversial tactics. I think the sections of the IWA whilst being wary of such practice suport the tactical autonmy if the USI and there unions.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 15:16

Hi magidd. Reading your posts, I don't really think you are an anarcho-syndicalist! But then, neither am I.

Comment
Thats becouse you probably mor in contact with reformist sindicalists. But in realitu big part of anarcho-sindicalists have tha same or olmouste the same position as me. This is part of CNT-E and CNT-AIT-F. And some over sections. Historickly this is revolutionary sindicalism of FORA and over south-americal sections, Durruty friends, Volin.

Quote:
I dont think so comrade.

Comment
Do you know works of Karl Shmidt, german far right fiflosofists of XX? Well he was terrible fucking bustard but he was clever bustard. I bloody recomend you read him. Than you understand then you call me comrade you make a big mistake. This is my last point about that.

Quote:
I dont think the CNTE have that much in common with wacko left communist bullshit espoused by yourself.

Comment
They have people and groopse who have positions wich is clouse to my point about revolutionary anarho-sindicalism. In the same time they have alot of people who beliv in the same facking reformist abomination as you beliv.

Quote:
And who are these reformist anarcho syndicalists? FAU? USI? SF?!?

Comment
I think there are not only reformists like you in that sections.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 20 2006 15:16
WeTheYouth wrote:
Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

I think this and other threads prove otherwise.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 15:20
Steve wrote:
WeTheYouth wrote:
Discussion on this can only be constructive as i said earlier.

I think this and other threads prove otherwise.

Well it depends how comrades come to these debates to be fair, if people come ready to spout crap about our comrades then it will obviously degenerate. But beyond the bullshit, there has been some decent discussion on how people perceive the USI's position and its implications for the IWA and anarcho syndicalist practice. So it can be constructive.

Quote:
They have people and groopse who have positions wich is clouse to my point about revolutionary anarho-sindicalism. In the same time they have alot of people who beliv in the same facking reformist abomination as you beliv.

That woudnt be the principles of revolutionary unionism by any chance would it? Because that is not at all reformist, but if you cant accept the reality of the class struggle over fantasy then i doubt these principles and the entire basis of anarcho syndicalism means much to you.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 15:25
Quote:
No. The only a-s I know personally are in Solfed. Definitely not reformists. Unlike some of the idiots who post on this board.
But they are part of the revolutionary minority, to be sure.

Comment
Wood'nt you ask tham to partisipate in this discusions?
I wood like to talk with not reformists from SF. I wood like to know they opinion.

Quote:
btw are you and WTY arguing over whether they are "a revolutionary minority" or "part of a revolutionary minority"? If so is that just a translation issue from Russian to English

Comment
Look i don't like do be arguing about words. I don't think we are only revolutionaris. But of couse we are revolutionanary minority or part of it.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 15:41

As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

Quote:
No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

Comment
You just use demagogia again. This is thery tipical for reformists. They have no theoretical backgraund and only use demagogia and manipulate words. I never say we must be out of workers class! We are part of workers class of couse. But we have to split with overs then they passive and support bosses or they leninusts or fassists ets!
Are you against split in workers class even if 60% of workers beliv in exelent idea to kill jews?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 15:47
magidd wrote:
As we are. So what? Do you put ourselves outside of mass passivity?

Quote:
No comrade. We do not take ourselves outside of the working class. ever.

Comment
You just use demagogia again. This is thery tipical for reformists. They have no theoretical backgraund and only use demagogia and manipulate words. I never say we must be out of workers class! We are part of workers class of couse. But we have to split with overs then they passive and support bosses or they leninusts or fassists ets!
Are you against split in workers class even if 60% of workers beliv in exelent idea to kill jews?

Its not worth answering. It dont help the debate at all.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 15:56

ha-ha-ha-hah-a))))))))

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 15:59

Woode you please answer my qwestion:
"So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?"

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Dec 20 2006 16:03
magidd wrote:
Woode you please answer my qwestion:
"So trade-unions are the part of capitalist sistem as privet corporations and state.
So they are enimis and must be destroid by workers isn't it?"

Not all unions are part of the capitalist system, would you put USI there? CNTE? but all reformist union are damaging to the working class, no anarcho syndicalist would say any different, but at the present time we have to particpate in these organisations until we are strong enough to have our own unions.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 16:08
Quote:
Not all unions are part of the capitalist system, would you put USI there? CNTE?

Comment
I say "TRADE-UNIONS". Yes part of USI and CNT-E are tham. Not all organisations.

Quote:
but all reformist union are damaging to the working class,

Comment
i agree

Quote:
but at the present time we have to particpate in these organisations until we are strong enough to have our own unions

Comment
What for do you have to partisipate in reformist unions wich "are damaging to the working class"?