|
Author
|
Topic: Anarchist position on workplace struggles
|
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753
|
posted 16 December 2005 11:22 AM
I'd be interested in reading what people on this board think of this document.
quote:
NEFAC workplace position paper The struggle toward libertarian communism must be brought about by the whole of the working class, the workplace and labor unions are an essential point of agitation and struggle. Anarchist-communists must organize within the ranks of labor unions, active in this struggle as both advocates of social revolution and as fellow workers in a collective battle against exploitation. Class struggle is by no means confined to workplace. Class conflict occurs everyday in neighborhood-based battles for decent housing, the fight for welfare, the battles for access to quality education, the struggle against prisons and police brutality, in the arena of popular culture, and especially against racism, sexism, and other oppressions that stratify and divide the working class. However, as anarchist-communists, we have a particular strategic interest in workplace struggles due to the ability to directly challenge the material interests of the capitalist class Independent rank-and-file tendencies within existing unions, coupled with workplace resistance groups, solidarity networks, and, eventually, workplace assemblies and coordinating councils, provide a glimpse at the kind of self-managed workers movement needed to not only effectively challenge the employers, but also develop the unity and revolutionary class consciousness needed to overthrow the capitalist social order. Read more...
From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 16 December 2005 11:33 AM
I agree that the place to attack capitalism is the workplace where the inequalities that exist there give capitalists their power to neuter our hard-won electoral democratic power.But I think that the statement (which I only read half of) is too much too soon. And I'm not sure if I agree with all of the precepts anyway. Next week, I'll have more time to give your post the consideration that it deserves. It is a very important post, and, I think, a contribution to the movement that we have to undertake if we're to keep humanity from destroying itself.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
wobbly
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10872
|
posted 16 December 2005 07:31 PM
I really, really liked it. I don't there is much new as far as content, but what is important is how these issues are tied together into a broader strategy. Much of it sums up and puts into context a lot of the activism I've been involved in over the last five or so years.In particular their analyses of how unions operate, and their role in capitalism is pretty good, as well as outlining the forms of organization that have some potential of winning. I think a lot of labour activists need to stop looking at the unions as they are and trying to get paid jobs in them,as this ties you to the bureacracy too strongly. Rather they should build rank and file initiatives like flying squads, and workplace resistance groups. I also liked the mention of student-labour groups. As someone who had their start in union activism on a university campus I think it is really important to organize students around something more long term. Building class consciousness in classrooms can pay big dividends once these activists enter the workforce. Sure it was a little dry, but it's a position paper, generally they are dry. [ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: wobbly ]
From: edmonton | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 16 December 2005 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mick:
I'd be interested in reading what people on this board think of this document.
As far as this document goes, it is typical of the anarcho-syndicalist project, as it has been expressed for the past hundred years. It projects the prospect of a communist revolution taking place under the leadership of a radicalized and militant trade union movement, by way of the tactic of general strike.It is curious that the document emphatically states that "the struggle toward libertarian communism must be brought about by the whole of the working class." No explanation is given for this proposition, so I guess it must be considered self-evident that a revolution can't be made only by the most militant and best-organized sectors of the working class; the backward and unorganized elements have to take part as well. Does that mean they have a veto if they don't want to participate? The document calls for working within the existing trade unions as well as organizing parallel workers' organizations to involve the broader working class. Though the document does not mention it, the overwhelming majority of the working class is not organized into unions, and the percentage of workers in unions is declining. In the mid-1980's 40% of workers in Canada were organized. Now just 30% are. When you remove the public sector from that statistic, it drops to a mere 18% of the private sector work force. One wonders, first, whether the non-union sectors of the working class can be organized by the anarchist movement, when the existing trade-union movement, with its vastly larger resources, has been unable to do so. One wonders, second, why the anarchist movement feels it must recapitulate from scratch the centuries-old struggle to organize the unorganized. The document does not acknowledge the necessity of independent labour political action. Evidently, the libertarian communist revolution will take place without a political party to lead it - the workers will go on a general strike and eventually the capitalist state will just disappear and a classless society will emerge fully-formed. After all, who needs a revolutionary political party if there won't be any government left on the morning after? No consideration is given to a transitional society between capitalism and communism, as if it were possible for a capitalist country to morph overnight into a classless communist society without similar revolutions taking place simultaneously in most of the other major capitalist societies of the world. ["Socialism in a single country" has been a non-starter ever since Stalin used the concept as an excuse to abandon revolutionary movements in other countries.] The anarchist project, of course, disdains the idea that a revolutionary society needs a state to organize it, to defend it against its enemies domestic and foreign, to regulate international trade, to plan its economy, to administer its laws, and to forge international alliances with other revolutionary societies. It is utopian to the core; no revolution has ever taken place in this manner.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 17 December 2005 01:11 PM
quote:
It is curious that the document emphatically states that "the struggle toward libertarian communism must be brought about by the whole of the working class." No explanation is given for this proposition, so I guess it must be considered self-evident that a revolution can't be made only by the most militant and best-organized sectors of the working class; the backward and unorganized elements have to take part as well. Does that mean they have a veto if they don't want to participate?
Effectively, yes. I think the statement is a recognition of the fact that unless the whole working class is involved there is not going to be a revolution. Sounds like a reality based politics to me. The likelyhood of this happening under various conditions is a different discussion.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
