Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:03:23 +1100 (EST)
From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Unions And Revolution


Max Anger wrote:


>><<SNIP>>

>It's logical if you believe that capitalism will continue to be able to
>impose it's order under normal circumstances. Certainly,
>my position is that capital will indeed be normally be able to do this but
>that extraordinary circumstance will also arise. Those circumstance will
>indeed
>give the working class opportunity to act but here organization into unions
>will hardly help them (I'd be pretty sure under revolutionary circumstance,
>say a more successful urban insurrection than the LA riots, IWW and other
>anarchists would be quite active in the struggle but it's pretty obvious
>that syndicalist politics is pretty irrelevant in a city that has already
>been
>occupied. I imagine that mostly, their position would be as part of the
>revolutionary wing, though the syndicalist might manage to do some
>harm by convincing a few workers to go back and self-manage "their"
>factory(s) in a proprietary manner - but this would depend on what flavor
>the syndicalists were.).

My position is that we can create our own revolutionary circumstances.
Provided the objective conditions exist, as they do right now, it is merely
necessary to try to change subjective conditions, ie. to campaign for
support for the change we want to bring about.

I'm a bit vague about the "flavour" of different kinds of syndicalists, so
I don't follow the point you're making there. I don't regard myself as a
syndicalist or even an anarchist, merely a socialist. Obviously though,
anyone who rejects social ownership of the means of production and wants to
keep it in private ownership ("proprietary") is not a socialist, merely an
aspiring capitalist.
>
<<SNIP>>

>I agree that workers should organize as a class but
>there's a big step from "should organize as a CLASS" to
>"can and should organize in unions."

That is the way the working class has naturally organised, through unions.
It doesn't seem like a big step to consciously organise as a class.

<<SNIP>>
>
>The point is that this situation wasn't been entirely bleak either.
>The working class has come close to more in several places
>in the twentieth century.

<<SNIP>>
>Consider for example, May 68 in Paris, the Shuras movement in Iraq, the
>Russian revolution, even parts of the Spanish civil war, and so forth.
>In each of these situations, the working class had more and was closer
>to over-throwing capitalist relations than it ever has been under a situation
>of  being "organized" by unionism

Well putting aside Spain, I think you're talking rubbish. These (and many
other examples come to mind) were situations of revolt. But most people
were were not consciously demanding overthrow of capitalism, let alone
socialism, they were only demanding reform. The revolt arose because of the
ruling class's inability or unwillingness to provide reform.

"Coming close" to "upsetting the apple cart", is all very fine and
romantic, but such revolt has occurred countless times in history and is
nearly always a disaster. Waiting for such revolt and trying to take
advantage of it to usurp the current ruling class is pathetic. A defeatist
and opportunist strategy, it assumes the working class doesn't have the
capability of consciously organising to take control. But that is how you
think isn't it?
>
<<SNIP>>
>>
>>So organising is just a form of self-education therapy for the workers
>>while we wait for the revolution to start all by itself? MY GOD MAN!! Do
>>you have any idea how absurd that sounds? How fucking patronising?
>>
>It's only annoying for people expecting to march lock-step
>to socialism through the myth of slowly building organization.
>Most people fight for their interests because they are their interests,
>not out of a faith that this fight will otherwise lead someplace, either
>to my or your path to revolution.

Codswallop, most people DON'T fight for their interests. This out of a
belief that such a fight is doomed to lead NOWHERE. You are virtually
arguing that line yourself, a self-fullfilling prophecy.
>
<<SNIP>>
>>>
>>>The phantasy of industrial/syndicalist unionism is also very much
>>>under-cut by the interest capitalists as a whole feel towards
>>>allowing workers to organize as "workers qua workers," as workers tied
>>>to their jobs and only as workers tied to their jobs. The legalities of
>>>unionism are very much tied to forcing activity
>>>to be on the plane of the single skill and the single work place (and
>>>moreover, the makers of laws would make even more if they to find class
>>>struggle unionism at all effective). To go beyond the conditions of job
>>>>>>unionism, it would often be necessary to  break the law - this
>>>obviously
>>>stands against the logic of unionism of satisfying the immediate
>>>interests of the working class
>>>on a continuing basis in the present society.
>>
>>Break WHAT law? I don't believe free association is generally illegal in
>>capitalist countries.
>Oh, you ever hear the term "conspiracy"

"Conspiracy" is to plan, usually secretly, to do something wrong or
illegal. Organising for peaceful social change through unions or political
parties is universally recognised as outside of that definition. Your
strategy on the other hand WOULD be regarded as conspiracy and rightly so.
As such I condemn it, because conspiracy is something which is inherently
undemocratic.

>or "extortion", perhaps "criminal syndicalism"?
>Until the mid twentieth century, virtually any union could be attacked using
>these legal devices and many were. I believe that series of acts that created
>the national labor relations board provided protection for unions from
>these legal devices as well as from anti-trust suits. But these protections
>are only granted to those organizations that qualify as unions under
>these acts. All others are fair game for legal repression (it is true that
>such
>legal devices have only occasionally been applied lately but this also a
>testament to the dominance of mainstream unionism).

Here in Tasmania, until about a year ago, homosexual acts were illegal and
punishable by up to 20 years in prison. However the laws were not enforced,
because such would have been unacceptable to the public. The fact is that
the letter of the law is, and has always been, but one side of the coin,
laws can be passed until you are black in the face, but they will always be
unenforceable in certain situations and against certain people.
>
>>It is in a few of course and even the bourgoisie are
>>often opposed to such laws which undermine their material interests.
>>
<<SNIP>> ... Also, have you notice the recent "anti-terrorism" laws?
>I guess you might be so law abiding that you might imagine these
>are for your protection. But if you think a bit, you'd realize that a
>successful
>industrial union, especially one refusing NLRB mediation and such,
>would be branded a terrorist organization in a quick second (notice how
>various odd right-wing characters lately have labeled "paper terrorists"
>for filing frivolous lawsuits. Terrorism is thus a pretty elastic label).

Being technically legal is no protection anyhow, they can always pass new
laws. But I would argue (and have) that the sensible strategy is to ensure
that you have the consent or approval of the public for your tactics,
because if so, if the public would be outraged by punitive state action
against you, then you render such action counter-productive. It doesn't
matter what the law is for these purposes, what matters in the final
analysis is whether you have public support, which depends on getting your
message across, explaining your actions and aims, convincing people that
what you are doing is reasonable, and finally - getting mass involvement in
such action. You can't get mass involvement in a conspiracy, and a mass
movement cannot be a conspiracy.

<<SNIP>>
>>
>>The real problem with sabotage is that most people do not regard it as a
>>legitimate tactic and more to the point they happily support the state's
>>efforts to crush people who endanger the community by such methods.
>
>There are a few acts of sabotage that directly endanger other workers.
>There are many others that do not.
>It is indeed true that most people today, even working class people "happily
>support the state's efforts to crush people" who deviate from the law in
>virtually any way. But this simply testifies to the ability of the
>bourgeois to impose it's ideologies on society as a whole.

Some take that narrow view, but in my experience not many. Certainly not a
majority, you won't have any trouble finding examples if you look - I gave
one above, could probably think of others, but the proposition I put is so
self-evident that I don't think I need bother.

>>
>>But of course workers can put pressure on their class enemies just as
>>effectively without resorting to such primitive tactics. The capitalist
>>class depend on us to operate the tools of production and create value for
>>them. That is our weapon, a much more powerful weapon and one most
>>people regard as legitimate.
>
>You might be coming off more conservatively than you intend. I'd interpret
>you're last comment as saying that the simple "stay-at-home" strike would
>be a sufficient tactic to carry the working class all the way
>to victory.  Naturally, I'd disagree.

Sure, me too. Victory ensues from sending the boss out the door and telling
him not to come back without his work clothes. What I was trying to get at
is that our objective advantage lies in our strategic position as the
operators of the tools of production. A strike is one tactic that takes
advantage of this position, I used it as merely an example.
<<SNIP>>
>Stay-at-home strikes also reinforces the same job mentality
>as mainstream unionism. With various sorts of support strikes illegal,
>workers can only bargain in terms of withdrawing their labor from their
>particular
>employer. This leads to the normal situation of capitalism - scarcer skills
>or more vulnerable shops jobs wind-up more highly paid.
>And staying at home isolates people even more than work - it doesn't give
>them a chance to exercise social power outside the bounds of capitalism.

Agreed. Its not the be all and end all, but let's not rule it out
altogether either.
>
>Also, it responding to what "most people" accept, it seems that
>you are outlining a sort-of social contract of permitted struggle.
>But such a contract dooms your struggle because capital is always
>re-writing this contract for it's benefit.

As I keep saying, I'm not interested in what the ruling class makes into
the the law of the land, but what the people will support us doing or
tolerate them doing. The ruling class doesn't get to write that contract,
they can seek to influence public opinion, as can we. They may even have
better resources for so doing, but although that puts us under a handicap,
I contend that our biggest handicap is still ourselves. That is the refusal
of left-wing socialists to utilise the political system at all, hence the
refusal to engage in the system that greatly influences public opinion.

>Those who accept the rule of capitalism as a whole just as readily accept
>the changes made for "special situations"; back-to-work
>orders, the illegality of transportation support strikes and other stuff also
>seems quite plausible to "people" - folks obeying the law and outside of
>any struggle.

Not always. Many people only tolerate the present economic system because
they believe it is the lesser of evils.

But you seem to have painted yourself into the corner of arguing that
people will accept ANYTHING. You must be feeling a little uncomfortable
with it? I mean, if this is so, we have no choice but to accept whatever is
imposed on us for all time? That is demonstrably not the case, as you are
surely aware.
>>
<<SNIP>> ... And for union practice legality is the sticking
>point, not popularity.

Not in the civilised world, not in this century. Strikes in this country
have always been of dubious legality, never stopped unions that I can
remember.

<<SNIP>>
>
>The event that prompted to the state to attack the IWW most forcefully
>was the IWW's opposition to World War I.
>Are pacifism and "revolutionary defeatism" also "bad tactics" to be avoided.
>(Myself, I'd say revolutionary defeatism is a good tactic. It's that it's a
>just
>a sort of "double or nothing" type tactic. If you call for the destruction
>of the army of the nation you're in, you can either you get crushed,
>as in the US or you can help to spark a
>revolution as in Russia or contemporary Iraq etc.).

Either way, you get crushed then? How does either outcome make it a "good"
tactic? Or is this some new definition of the word "good" that I'm not
familiar with? Why not just point out why you are opposed to the war and
why you believe people should avoid being slaughtered for such a cause?

[Snip]

>I wouldn't put things in terms of plans but in terms of a battle that has
>been raging for the last two hundred years (in it's present form).
>In that time, the working class and the capitalist class have both
>changed, both inflicted some damage on the other and altogether
>changed a fair amount of the terrain of battle. We certainly have
>some reasons for optimism going into battle knowing situations
>where we have previously come close to victory (see above for details).

No, but I AM suggesting that we go into battle with a plan. You seem to
think this is  pointless, preferring to wait until the battle starts before
you even prepare.

<<SNIP>>

>Take it easy.

That's easy for you to say, your strategy involves doing nothing.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---