My Problem With The "Towards A Union Of Organizers" leaflet

i assumed the general gist of those unions was to copy todays social-democratic unions but make them more militant and democratic and with an affiliation to some form of libertarian program

i'm also probably making assumptions though - you'd be better off getting first hand information

i know within the SAC there was a concerted effort by the vast majority of the union to move further from those traditional structures (hence the firing of a load of ombudsmen) toward a more lean structure with a more horizontal spread of knowledge / skill.

Interesting. Someone here in the US recently asked me about this traiing bit, whether the CNT did such.
I didn't think so. I believe this is very new and very much something originating from the IWW.

Years ago, when WSA in the IWA, no, there was no such training or any training what-so-ever.

That said, IWA affiliatres would do internal educationals, conferences and so forth. As I recall, some of these were on varous aspects of practican stuff and also libertarian theory. Those IWA functioning unions usually carried on those activities on their own, rather then it being Conferedation-wide.

The SAC has long time held various industrial and membership conferences dealing with a variety of issues: from labor law, to finances, to social and other issues.

I skimmed this thread rapidly, apologies if I cover ground others went over.

meaning what? and, for example...? Also I think that this is probably in the eye of the beholder. Like, I read "bureaucratic tone" and thought "this guy's being a jerk to score points" but after reading further I think you're being sincere and don't mean it that way. Probly the same thing is going on in that piece.

Where does the piece suggest these are magic or that they solve everything? As for the skills involved, it refers to the stuff covered in very cursory fashion in one of the IWW's two day organizer trainings and see for yourself. (SolFed does something similar and their trianing's based on the IWW training.) And the piece is directed at an audience of IWW members who already knows what the piece means for the most part. I get that if you're not in that audience then it may not make much sense, but that's just sort of what happens when you're not part of the intended audience of a piece. If you really want to know what's in the training it's easy to attend one. It's not easy to summarize two days of participatory activity on the internet in a way that really conveys much at all of the content.

So... since some organizations who do trainings suck, therefore trainings suck? Nah. No more than the fact that these organizations have names, therefore nothing should have a name, or since these organizations have members who breathe therefore communists shouldn't breathe... You're putting an awful lot of weight on a word - training - given that you don't actually know what the IWW's organizer training program consists of. (because if you did then you wouldn't have been like "what is this piece referring to, in terms of skills?")

I agree, but what bit made you think it says that? I don't think the piece does that - I think it says "we are one group that can do some of this" but I could be wrong.

I don't think "the organizer framework" means much here, again given that you don't know what the content of the IWW trainings is. Beyond that, the fact is that some people know how to do some things that others don't, or know how to do some stuff better. That doesn't mean that some people should giver orders while others follow, but it's just a fact that there are differences of skill sometimes. We can admit that and try to move toward where everyone knows how to do as much as everyone else, by spreading around skills and skill development, or we can ignore it and have these differences become a problem. The IWW's training program is about the former. Some people took the lessons learned over years of IWW organizing, wrote them down and work on how to convey them as effectively and in as participatory a fashion as possible. A lot of those lessons were learned by making mistakes. The training is about as good (and as flawed) as the quality of organizing the IWW has done. The training is also continually being refined and changed, in line with the continuing experience of the organization. It's effective to a limited extent in helping people do workplace activity and it's also democratizing because it works against informal hierarchies. It's a very useful and important tool within the current IWW's toolkit, and it's far from perfect. People who want to attend should do so, people who don't, cool, don't, no skin off anyone else's back either way.

This sounds to me like a loaded and largely irrelevant question, but the answer is yes actually. Among other things several people involved in developing and giving the training were very active in a 2 1/2 week strike of 3000 people in Minnesota several years ago. This is one of the biggest strikes in the US (strikes of more than 1000 people are quite rare at this point in US history, you don't have to take my word for it, go look at the web site of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics). More recently several people involved in making, remaking, and facilitating the trainings were involved in a series of walkouts that built toward a strike then lockout of 50,000 people in Canada. And in that case, they found parts of the training very useful in conducting and spreading and improving workers organizing as part of the strike. And loads of people involved have been part of job actions including work stoppages at workplaces that are much smaller. I don't know the statistics about how many workers are at what sized places of employment in the US today and I don't think it's relevant here, but those who do should do the research to find out before being like "y'all work in small shops! nyah!"

Edit: I was being a dick. Sorry for doing so. I edited to cut out at least some of that as it accomplishes nothing.

Surely this is unrelated? The communication bit of the training relates to face-to-face communication skills with workmates, not how to write leaflets for groupings like Recomposition, writing specifically as revolutionaries, for revolutionaries?

Red, sorry for being redundant in the thread.

Yeah, we kind of can. I mean, obviously I agree, there are better and worse ways to communicate. But the best way to communicate varies with the people one is trying to communicate with. I'm not saying that article was perfect but you're simply not its intended audience, like I said. I don't mean to be rude but what's happening here is that some basically anonymous communists on a communist web site dislike the word "training." So, what I'm learning here is that the way the IWW presents our organizing training program fails the "do all anonymous communists on the internet like the name?" test. Fair enough. That's not a big concern for me. I mean, I genuinely do care what communists on the internet think, that's why I read libcom, and I really do see where you're coming from here. But I feel like it's already been explained to you that the practice in teh trainings doesn't mean what you seemed to think it meant based on your interpretation of the word 'training'. So mostly now you're like just giving unsolicited advice on how the IWW names its activities and it's not advice that I think we should take up.

Because in terms of communicating with other people offline and all, I'm seriously having trouble thinking of a time when it's ever been a problem ever, except in situations like this (individual radicals on the internet). I've brought several co-workers to the training and people I know but don't work with and suggested it to many more. I think people who have a hang-up about the idea of being trained are much more rare than people who don't. Generally the invitation to a training isn't like a random "hey nice to meet you come to a training," it's in the context of a relationship and in the context of working with people (or at least chatting) about problems at work. Most people are like "that sounds great, I'd love to get better at all this stuff." I've asked loads of people to come to the training and I've honestly never once had some be like "training? that word is offputting. It sounds... I mean, it sounds like indoctrination, or like you think I don't already know everything and that I'm not already a ninja at stuff relevant to doing stuff at work. Why don't you call it 'we all put our heads together' or something?" Except via unsolicited electronic communication from people who aren't involved in the organization and seem at least partially skeptical about what we're trying to do anyway. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude here, just saying that this is seriously the only kind of situation where I've personally ever had this kind of thing come up. As such, I don't feel like we should do anything different in terms of calling the training a training.

Edit:

I know you quoted the article. But, here, check this out.

That's a good suggestion, except for your bureaucratic tone, more importantly, though, the term strategy has a militaristic overtone that some people find offputting, so I would prefer that we say "develop ideas together about to do."

I'm not serious, course. Strategy doesn't bother me and I don't actually think your tone is bureaucratic. I don't actually know what you mean by "bureaucratic tone", because you didn't say what you meant. And the fact that I quoted you does not mean I've shown that your tone is bureaucratic. Likewise the fact that you quote the article doesn't mean you've explained why you think it sounds a certain way.

Oh, I should of said something before, but I thought maybe people use the word 'leaflet' different than I do. That piece was not a 'leaflet' as in something that was printed and handed out to people is that's the meaning people meant by the word. It's a blogpost.

I'm sorry, but this whole paragraphs reeks of activism (the same activism the OT tries to overcome). Skill-sharing is hippy nonsense. Training is what normal people do when they want to learn a new skill. Sometimes bosses force us to learn new things, too, but that doesn't somehow fundamentally alter the meaning of the term training.

The "most rebellious" workers aren't really our target audience. And even if the term training does initially put them off (I've never seen this happen and can't imagine it being so), it should only take about a 30 second conversation to change that.

Seems like pretty pointless semantics to me, tbh.

This is key and I think largely deals with a lot of Red's concerns.

Where did you get this perception?

RE: IWA and training. The best compliment I ever got on the training was from a long-term CNT member who told me “I wish the CNT had this”.

Also, I apologize about the barrage of posts. I've been away from the internet for a while.

All hail Hippies! I was a hippie growing up! One of my first contacts with a real live anarchist was in the Yippies!
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_International_Party]

Long live the proletarian hippie wing!

"Where did you get this perception?"

From the fact that, as I understand it, a lot of Solfed/IWW comrades take on shop steward roles....or is my perception wrong?

I don't know about SolFed or UK-IWW. It happens in the IWW in N America but rarely in the US. If union density was higher it'd probly happen more often. Total union density in the US is about 12% and in the private sector it's like 6%, and the rates are much lower for younger workers and most people in the IWW are relatively young. (Also wanted to say that while I'm skeptical of use of the institutions of trade union official positions etc as a strategy I do think people can make tactical use of it to good effect some of the time, within serious limits.)

There is a difference I think between anarchist / communist political groups and the US IWW. Maybe I am wrong but my impression is that in the latter there is competing strategic perspectives, whereas in the former there is some degree of homogeneity on strategy. I don't really wish to open up the discussion triggered by Juan's blog post on formalised political groups.

In general, an agreed strategy should have a conditioning effect of the tactics chosen in a particular circumstances faced by comrades in day-to-day stuff.

My impression is the same as Alf's that some members of SolFed and the IWW do take on official positions and not just as a temporary tactical thing.

In the IWW in the US when it comes to engaging with other unions, stuff like become a steward etc, there's basically just a range of practices with little discussion so I think it makes the organization sound much more well developed than it is to say it's "competing strategies." I don't like that but I don't think it's a big deal because like I said it's relatively rare because union density is so low. Without turning this conversation into that other one, the US political groups and their members have much more developed views and discussions on this compared to the IWW but I don't think there's much agreement, I think it's more a matter of competing strategies, to some extent between groups and to some extent among the membership of the larger groups (ie some of the larger groups disagree somewhat internally on these issues).

I realize this bit of the conversation, what Alf said and so on, is really more about the UK stuff on this, SolFed and IWW. I'd love to hear more on that - both the theoretical positions and the practices - and not just SolFed and IWW but also AFed and any other groups that are relevant.

Also: I don't mean this at all disrespectfully (and I apologize if I'm getting any of this wrong) but I believe that two posters on libcom are both AF members and do official roles in their unions, despite the AF's line on unions. No criticism intended of those people or of the AF, I just say this because I think it it's worth discussing both organizations' line and their members' actual practice.

I don't think I'd say a lot, but a decent-ish number, I guess. What irks me, though, is that you're on libcom enough to know damn well it's something we do tactically. When we do take on the steward role it with full knowledge of the limits of trade unionism and we always push to overcome union boundaries in the workplace. Not to mention that there's been a ton of discussion of the OT program here libcom and it's always made clear that the committee model is independent of the any trade union. In fact, here's a massive thread you've participated in that addresses these exact issues.

What irks me further is that you haven't actually answered my question. Where have you come to the perception that "a key part of the organiser training involves learning how to ‘use’ the union machinery for the workers’ benefit"?

Just saying a lot of SFers are shop stewards is not an explanation, especially given the aforementioned references to the relationship between proposed SF workplace committees and the OT.

A point SolFed users on here have emphasised in previous discussions is that people shouldn't take libcom.org SolFeders as representative of the group as a whole. SolFed's strategy is something that has been agreed by the whole group and it has been mentioned that there will be a pamphlet appearing soon to flesh out the theoretical and practical dimensions of it. While it maybe obvious to you and other SolFeders on here that taking union positions is something you've have a critical standpoint toward and view it as a tactical thing, my perception is that throughout the group that is not the case. I could be wrong, but that is my perception. And I do think this has consequences, practically over the long run, the contradiction between a strategy that is aimed at independent workplace committees and members who take on union positions for an extended period of time, has to be squared.

And to be honest, the thing about the limits of trade unionism is what the more sophisticated of the lefties would say when pushed on such issues.

I know Steven has posted in the past about his experience as a union convenor (?) and has said something to the effect that his experience has confirmed the critique of taking on such roles for a political end, but that he enjoys the representative aspect of defending work colleagues. Correct me if that is misrepresentating him. I think the difference between SolFed and AF is that the former has a nationally agreed strategy it is pursuing, whilst the latter has a strategy on paper, 'On the Frontline', but it doesn't have a co-ordinated practice as its members deal with such things on an ad-hoc basis. Which by the way, is not necessarily a bad thing, although it can be.

I agree with Android's post regarding taking union positions. The point I made was that the use of this tactic gives the impression that at least a part of the training involves ways of applying this tactic - and I can only see this as a tactic of using the union machinery. There's obviously a political difference here but that's not a problem. I don't think it would be a barrier to working together. In my own very limited experience with workplace groups, back in the 80s I started a group at my college with a resources worker who was the NALGO steward.

How on earth do you jump from 'some members of SF are shop stewards' to 'SF is actively training people to use the trade union machinery contrary to its stated strategy and repeated statements to the contrary from people directly involved'?

A member of the ICC plays piano, therefore the ICC is training people to capture the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. The Internet demands an explanation for this imagined bourgeois deviation!

If you "get the impression" we are lying about our strategy and politics on the basis of a tiny fraction of the organisation taking steward positions for tactics reasons, then it says more about you than SF tbh.

Taking steward positions isn't part of our strategy. Our strategy is pretty clear, unambiguous and publicly available.

Calm down, when did I say you were lying? To me the tactic of standing for election as a shop steward is a tactic of using the union machinery at the bottom level. I haven't pretended to know how much this tactic forms part of the organiser training. I have simply given you reasons why I (and maybe others)feel uneasy about the training, and said you can correct me if my impressions are wrong.

I have no interest in correcting your impressions that you have made up in your head tbh.

Anyone who thinks a tiny number of SF members feel they get a benefit from steward positions sullies the training program isn't the kind person we're interested in. We've made it clear repeatedly that it's not part of our strategy. That you insist on asserting that some members taking this position *must* mean our training programme is based on seizing the unions demonstrates nothing but the wretched idealism of the ICC.

Of course, your only interest here in to denounce SF are impure. I think it'd be a bad sign if you were convinced of the validity of the programme tbh. I honestly don't believe you have any interest in organising on a class basis. Left communism reduced to a sterile hobby.

No one said that you or anyone else was lying. I don't see what such a baseless accusation contributes to the discussion.

I mentioned in my previous post that I await the forthcoming pamphlet before forming any sort of view on SolFed's strategy. I was simply raising in this thread how organising autonomously from trade unionism relates to some members taking on union positions. I am still interested how this relates to the overall strategy and approach.

I have no interest in denouncing SolFed. Actually, quite the opposite I have encouraged a close friend who is a member of the Commune to get involved with SolFed since he is starting work. In general, from what I understand of SolFed's strategy it seems like a positive development, organising on a class basis etc. Even f I have reservations about how this will filter through into practice. But I see no reason why this should be an antagonistic debate, that is no my intention and I have been measured in my posts so as to avoid it happening.

Finally, the idea that left communists on here are not interesting in organising on a class basis just isn't true. Most of them have interesting experiences, in my opinion, from past struggles and struggle groups. I will leave it at that for now as I am bit rushed because I am in the middle of moving out of my flat.

As a SolFed member thats been in three different locals within the last 6 months, pretty much everyone i've talked to in SolFed understands the limitations of taking union positions and in the internal culture of the organisation it is not something thats encouraged (although people can take it on if they feel its tactically useful in their workplaces)

The disintegration of our forerunner the DAM pretty much laid the basis for the culture inside SF of not having a strategy of taking shop steward roles, and its kind of the strategic base upon which the organisation was founded in 1994 - I really wouldn't call it specific to the SolFedders that use libcom.
http://libcom.org/library/winning-class-war-anarcho-syndicalist-strategy

Just quickly, the hostile response was entirely directed at Alf. I think you're wrong, obviously, but you're wrong in good faith. As do several other left communist posters.

Alf, like the rest of the ICC is (ironically) entirely parasitic and have nothing of value to offer, just dead, sterile "communism" learned by rote. He has no interest in changing the world whatsoever, nor even in understanding or critiquing it. Just an unending quest to fit the world into preconceived boxes. Idealism in it's purest form.

... the person who has given the majority of SF's trainings implements a workplace committee in a workplace with a recognised trade union, whilst specifically remaining outside the steward role, and this is mentioned when they give the training.

Sorry to digress, what does this mean?

Edit: Harrison, do mean that DAM just disintegrated as in falling apart/running out of steam? Or that its politics disintegrated and Solfed arsoe out of a reorganization?

BTW, when "Winning the Class War" came out, it was a pretty widely circulated and discussed document in the english spaeking and amongst english speaking anarcho-syndicalists. Still a decent enough pamphlet today.

Just quickly, the hostile response was entirely directed at Alf. I think you're wrong, obviously, but you're wrong in good faith. As do several other left communist posters.

Alf, like the rest of the ICC is (ironically) entirely parasitic and have nothing of value to offer, just dead, sterile "communism" learned by rote. He has no interest in changing the world whatsoever, nor even in understanding or critiquing it. Just an unending quest to fit the world into preconceived boxes. Idealism in it's purest form.

Fall Back: I think your critique was of left communism in general and not just the ICC, but I think it's a good thing that you have clarified your view of the ICC's activity on these boards. I should ask whether this is the general view of the libcom collective.

On the other hand, I am a teacher employed at a sixth form college and over the years have made some attempt to develop a class practice among my fellow workers. I have written a great deal about this on these boards, especially the more recent experience with the 'open discussion forum', although the majority of what I have posted about this has met with no response. Some of these activities have also involved working with Solfed comrades, or certainly discussing with them about practical work, such as Choccy in the period of the education workers group, and more recently with Can't do. I am not interested in denouncing Solfed, but in serious debate and if possible common work

So here's the question: would you accept me onto one of your training sessions? Perhaps it is the only way of arriving at a mutual understanding of the issues raised on this thread.

syndicalist:

I can't claim to know everything about the pamphlet (i wasn't born at the time it was released!), but i'll try to explain what i know:

from what i remember reading written by other ex-DAM members, i think it was a political failure within the group (an attempt to unfold into a syndicalist union that went badly wrong) that led to loads of people leaving - the remaining people who wanted to learn from it and change strategy dissolved DAM and formed SolFed (and moved away from the strategy of rank and file opposition within the TUC unions*)

* different from trotskyist rank and filism, DAMs wasn't aiming to seize the leadership of the union, rather get breakaway branches etc to form into an anarcho-syndicalist union. SolFeds approach was that an a-s union has to be built from the ground up

I may need correcting...

It was aimed at you, your organisation and your particular style of argumentation. Not against left communism in general, since there are several left communists (both on here and elsewhere) who are able to discuss without this method.

Personal capacity. You can tell this because I wasn't posting with with libcom account, nor was I posting in capacity as an admin, but rather as a member of SF.

That would be down to the trainer/hosting local. Personally, I can't see either us or you getting anything out of it.