Syndicates and Councils

[Mitch]

libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5394&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Hey up Fred, or any anarchist who can help me on this one,

I've got a question about this 'ere very interesting thread on Libcom, and I'll be damned if I'm going on there to put some of my queries to get eaten alive (is this a symptom perhaps of how some of the syndicalist oriented groups - Solfed and the like make it very difficult to learn/query or challenge as they've made up their mind and will shoot you down if you stray from the 'ideology' as someone has referred to anarcho-syndicalism now, rather than a tactic as it used to be).

Anywise, I digress. On this thread I'm pretty sympathetic to a lot of where Yozee is coming from, after my recent experience here in Burnley, and what appears to be tension between the organisation or coming together of small groups in communities of anarchists and libertarian mindeds - organising autonomously and larger syndicalist/workplace organising anarchist groups who have decided the structure for organisation and if you don't fit that then your irrelevant.

I think Yozee has a point when he says the working class in their own communities will decide how they will organise around the issues that concern them. Surely the role of larger national/international syndicalist groups is to understand how they can support this, rather than coming in top down to communities and telling people this is how it's done.

I don't have the knowledge and history of anarco-syndicalism, but I've a little experience of community organising and I think there are many things missing from this thread, and indeed I think the tone of it is all wrong. For a start people are coming at it from a theoretical standpoint of what anarcho syndicalism is and how it will work as a theoretical blueprint in communities (where are the examples in the UK where this is happening?), rather than thinking about what is actually going on in working class communities like Burnley and Nelson at the moment and what kind of support communities might need. This seems to me top/down. The tone is agenda/blueprint rather than support/trust in how the community wants to organise themselves.

The importance of local/small group organisation seems to me to be being dismissed by some in this thread, and that's daft as a strategy. There's not a lot of nitty gritty detail around organising in this thread either. Nothing about helping to build self-confidence in communities, looking for ways to create spaces (say like a community magazine) where working class people can speak for themselves.

It's looking a bit Trot top down like to me - I sympathise with a lot of what Yozee is saying. What do you think. Can you explain clearly what some of the tensions are arising in this Libcom thread as well.

I keep hearing that anarcho-syndicalism is not just about workplace organising, but also about community organising. Well that's good on paper, but urr recently it hasn't been my experience in practice Perhaps Yozee has had a similar experience? ;D

I guess the crux of my question is, are there real tensions between anarchist workplace organising and anarchist community organising. Daft if there is as the two seem to me to be intrinsically linked.

There is no chance of supporting homeworkers locally in this area without a strong local community network behind it (a community council if you like). Workplace organising falls down here as a strategy, as most homeworkers are isolated from each other, have a huge fear of losing their jobs and what little pay they get from them, they work in their own homes and many have low self-esteem and low confidence. This calls for strong locally organised groups that they know well, that they trust, who can support them swiftly in terms of direct action or support to put pressure on employers, or with advice or friendly support.

The same could be said for casual workers, many of whom round here change workplaces often or are on short-term contracts.

[michele cryer]

Oooh, Mitch...it's a bit of a heavy-going thread for us 'newbie' anarchists, I think. I must say I hate all the 'anarcho-syndicalist' 'anarcho-communist' name dropping...it really confuses me...if the people involved all want the same as each other then why keep having different names from each other...and if you're anarchist, how can you be communist as well? Like you said, it does sound like some of the people on that thread want to control the populace in the same way as some of the recent Left Wing groups we have had dealings with, and I thought that anarchism was about getting away from all this.

On a 'lighter' note...I must reprint what Boulcolonialboy said on the 2nd page of the thread, regarding how we would cope with the health system etc. if we overthrew capitalism...anyone care to comment?

"Oh, I can see capitalism crumble - to the allotments fellow revolutionaries we have a world to feed! Sorry but there really isn't anywhere in my estate to grow enough food to feed everyone who lives here. None of us know much about agriculture either as far as I know. How are you gonna generate power for our estates and our hospitals, maintain the water and sewerage services, while we're all hemmed up in our estates having run away from our workplaces leaving them to the bosses and people who (quite rightly) reckon that this 'revolution' is being carried out by a bunch of hippy crack pots??? Yeah, I can see the experimental alternatives to 'work' kicking off in the housing estates now - fuck them ems round in Blah Street are churning out the cookers, Sidney has invented a new environmentally friendly freezer but fuck who cares that we don't have the facilities in the social centre to produce any - sure everyone runs away from work anyway. Jesus fucking christ. Oh look theres a massive fucking gas leak but all the gas workers have fucked off to Majorca. Boom! "

[Francis]

Anarcho-Syndicalist Unions and Factory Councils. Both are the result of working class experience over the last 100 or so years. I should be interested in knowing just what experience of either threads the writers have? Up to now I get the impression that one works in a council(?) office whilst another works for a newspaper.It isn't encouraging.I suspect that many of the other writers have simply read the theory. To say that the A/S Union is anarchist whilst the Council is Council Communist I think is rubbish. The Direct Action Movement was the best Anarchist group in my lifetime and it put forward the idea of Workplace Councils. The Syndicalist Workers Association in the 1940's and 50s also pressed the idea of workers committees. Some Syndicalists are romanticists who look back to the CNT and the Spanish Revolution. They are dreamers!.
We should as anarchists develope either idea as circumstances allow. We should not descend in to dreaming, except in bed.

[michele cryer]

Thank you Francis...you do have a way with words...spelling things out much more clearly than our 'intellectual' buddies!

[octoberlost]

Anarchism generally is an ideology, the difference of the syndicalism and communism is the emphasis on stratergy and tactics. Though in real terms they are practically the one and the same thing, the belief that co-operation, collective action and mutual aid by and for the working class is the seed for a post-capitalist society.

Mitch asks
"I guess the crux of my question is, are there real tensions between anarchist workplace organising and anarchist community organising. Daft if there is as the two seem to me to be intrinsically linked."

The idea is that anarchism is apractice, and that through collective action, the working class wrestle more and more power from private enterprise, the state etc. This means co-operatives, unions, various forms of socities etc. Anarchism isnt about 'dropping out' or doing 'activism' but about making an infrastructure which people can live their lives in, therefore its about us addressing needs and not abstract theoritical postering.

So I see no reason for conflict, since few sections of the working class have conflicting needs. The exception is when workers work in circumstances which are detrimental to others, such as baliffs and bomb makers...but were there to challenge that.

Michelle asks
"and if you're anarchist, how can you be communist as well?"
Communism is a movement to abolish class, since authoritarian strands of socialism require a state and a hierarchy to bring about change, they are unable to attain a classless society. Russia is a good example, as are other 'Socialist' countries like Cuba, North Korea etc. A movement based on co-operation however can resolve these problems.

As for how a libertarian society will operate, you have to understand the context. The idea we could ad hoc run things now, would prove to be a little bit of a shamble, Kropotkin gives the example of a drug addict having his drugs taken from him, it will take time before he functions 'normally'.

The idea is that functioning community co-operatives, socities, unions, etc are able to take over running or control of certain districts, industries on a democratic co-operative basis for the benefit of users and workers. And that others will do so likewise, much like say how public libraries do to some extent and also say mountain and sea rescue. (maybe these arent the best examples!)
But essentially this means creating something new, in the here and now, and challenging and reclaiming various aspects of our lives from those who currently manipulate us.

Present society is based on waste in the sense of - unecessary competition, bureaucracy, hierarchy, over-production etc.etc. Our job is to reclaim it back by practice solidarity....

Hope that helps, ask more if you can!
Solfed produced a very good book called 'The Economics of Freedom' or something, which explains it much better.
Otherwise Rockers account is good and revealing though its actually not that heavy going, but it can be dry in places.
www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html

Also Bakunin sketches a sort of blueprint, though it can be tough going
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

[Francis]

Anarchy doesn't mean life without organization, it means without Government. We propose a life lived in collective harmony with our neighbours. A life where one gives what one can to the collective and takes what is needed. But life has to be practical. It will have a certain amount of order and this I expect will be through the means of Neighbourhood Councils, known in Russia as Soviets and in Industrial life we would have Workers Councils. We will be communists because we hold the means of production and indeed life in our communal hands. We will have private personal goods, as long as it isn't at someone
Else's expense.

[Thomas]

"Are there real tensions between Anarchist workplace organising and anarchist community organising?" From Mitch.

No! Because the working class or the order takers, will be the mainstay of both aspects of social life. There will be conflicts of issues, but these can be negotiated between the different bodies. Answers have to come from pratical reality. Theory might help and provide some guide but in the end it will be experience that counts. Don't forget everyone has a home even if it is only a box under an aqueduct.

Following on from other points in your missive. Yozzee is quite correct when he says,'that the working class in their own communities will decide. " It is as you suggest the role of the Syndicalist Groups to give support to the communities in struggle and during the Miners Strike the DAM, gave a marvellous example of how this could be done. Not only did they support the Miners through the local miner support groups , they collected money world wide through anarchist sympathisers and came up with a scheme to call for workers councils and a call for Councils of Action.In this they worked with the Miners Union and a bunch of Labour People in Westminster including Tony Benn and John McDonald now an MP.. It was hoped to apply solidarity from workers outside the coal industry to the strike to challenge the Thatcher Government. Even if this didn't do the job, it would cause a ripple effct against a beleaguered Thatcher Government. The trouble was the scheme depended upon support from all sides of the working class and their supporters. A weak link were the Trots.They and their friends tried to ,indeed did, sabotage the event quite openly and regularly .No shame. (Ask Dave Douglas).I think the theorising ,that so up sets you, comes from enthusiasts without much experience of working class life. There will always be problems, we get over them today and hopefully will in the future.
Fred.

[Mitch]

The sense and the comradeship in these replies fills me with great hope and rejuvenated energy, thanks so much all. I will reply in more depth a little later.

For now I'll just bob this up as I'm doing a lot of sciving from homework lately so must get back, but this'll do the trick for the minute hey! I want the working class (especially my working class women friends like Michele, Jules, Karen and others I haven't met yet!) to speak for themselves, and I'll support anarchist activity and practice that supports this, and only this. I'll also work to support their chosen forms of organisation and coming together. Our most recent idea to get us women together is Ann Summers parties, and I'm looking into that. Any gruff syndicalists out there who would like to join our Ann Summers parties are most welcome - titter! ;D

"That's life, that's what all the people say.
You're riding high in April,
Shot down in May
But I know I'm gonna change that tune,
When I'm back on top, back on top in June.

I said that's life, and as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks,
Stompin' on a dream
But I don't let it, let it get me down,
'Cause this fine ol' world it keeps spinning around

I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate,
A poet, a pawn and a king.
I've been up and down and over and out
And I know one thing:
Each time I find myself, flat on my face,
I pick myself up and get back in the race.

That's life
I tell ya, I can't deny it,
I thought of quitting baby,
But my heart just ain't gonna buy it.
And if I didn't think it was worth one single try,
I'd jump right on a big bird and then I'd fly." (Frank!)

And this from a Mujeres Libres (Free Women) activist,

"We are engaged in the work of creating a new society, and that work must be done in unison. We should be engaged in union struggles, along with men, fighting for our places, DEMANDING to be taken seriously".

[bryan]

On the LIBCOM thread you refer to Mitch there has been a challenge about the bureaucracy of anarcho-syndicalist unions. I have tried to put this into perspective:


History & Bureaucracy.

I find the arguments about the CNT, anarcho-syndicalism and councils on LIBCOM, a bit abstract in the main. They lack any historical or practical grasp.

There are degrees of bureaucracy in modern society which are impossible for us to avoid if we are to continue to interact socially. Even in the Manchester Social Forum it has been necessary to keep minutes, because people can’t always remember what decisions have been taken from one meeting to the next. And in the case of a campaign against the sell-off of Council Houses some years ago in Tameside, one union boss working for the Council who had proposed the campaign in the first place tried to deny he had any connection with it at a later stage when things turned nasty. Minutes of meetings are it seems to me ‘necessary bureaucracy’ in most organisations today.

Max Weber was trying to describe ‘bureaucracy’ or to typecast it. It is true Weber saw ‘bureaucracy’ as the most efficient method of large-scale administration. The CNT undoubtedly had bureaucratic characteristics. But the issue is not just about a technically efficient union machine: that would be sterile. It’s about how do you best blend the maximum human individual initiative with social cohesion inside the movement. Clearly some bureaucratic administration would be necessary; the argument is how much?

Even Weber, though he regarded bureaucracy as an efficient system, did not says Professor Wesley Sharrock ‘view its seemingly unstoppable spread with unqualified approval’. Weber likened modern life to ‘life in an iron cage’ and Sharrock says ‘the extension of bureaucracy, the attempt to make human behaviour calculable, predictable and therefore controllable, meant the dehumanisation of human relations.’

Perhaps it might be interesting to look at how Wes Sharrock says Weber differed from Marx, on the likely course of capitalism:
Sharrock says: ‘To Marx socialism would mean an awakening from the nightmare of capitalist society; to Weber, the extension and intensification of that nightmare.’

The thing is, as Sharrock argues bureaucracy is ‘an instrument of administration to be used by politicians as in the government of the State, its tendency is to convert all political problems into administrative ones, and to constrict and eliminate the role of the politician.’

From this it follows, according to Sharrock that ‘the development of socialism would, in all likelihood, be the triumph of bureaucracy over politics, and therefore, the establishment not only of a bureaucratized State but a bureaucratized society too.’

All this seems a good prediction of what happened in the USSR and the other State socialist States. I understand Weber was known to attend anarchist meetings.

It seems it would be harder to apply this ultra bureaucratic model to the 1 million strong CNT in Spain in the 1930s. But easier to apply it to the 1930s German Socialist/communist organisations.

The CNT was founded in Oct. 1910 (see Gerald Brenan ‘The Spanish Labyrinth’). Brenan claims the Semana Tragica (Tragic Week) and which was used as an excuse to execute the anarchist educationalist Francisco Ferrer in 1909, forced the anarchists to found the CNT at that time. Historical circumstances made it necessary to unite then.

Brenan says:
‘The conditions on which this great union was formed were laid down clearly. Syndicalism was to be regarded, not as an end, but as a means of fighting the bourgeoisie. The end was of course Anarchism. The syndicates were to be organised on a local basis - that is to say, there were to be no national craft unions. The subs.. were to be small- 30 to 50 centimes a month (In Andalucia, where the wages were exceptionally low, members were not required to pay anything) There was no social insurance and no strike funds, nor were any of its leaders or secretaries to be paid. This at once gave it, in Spanish eyes, moral superiority over the Socialist trade union, the UGT., which had a considerable paid secretariat.’

As I understand it the CNT federations were managed regionally, not nationally.

To show how the CNT contrasted practically with the ‘ultra bureaucratic’ model described by Weber, it is worth describing Brenan’s account of the ‘riders’ this 1910 CNT Congress outlined:
‘the material emancipation of the workers could only come as the result of their moral emancipation. When they had ceased to feel like slaves they would be free. And everyone who did not think for himself and act spontaneously, following his own reason, was a slave:
“But workers cannot feel free so long as they have overthrown the old regime will inevitably set another in which they will be privileged.’

The notion of ‘moral emancipation’ as well as ‘material emancipation’ is very Spanish, and shows how the Spaniards were aware that culture & ideas must impact on the bureaucratic structure of the union.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

[Mitch]

Thanks Bryan, yes it's the theory in the abstract and without practical examples - it's not linked to experience on Libcom - it'll be no good as I and others cannot connect without the practical examples.

I said the same thing in an anarcho feminist thread on libcom several months ago.

I don't reject theory, I reject theory which is used as a tool to alienate, confuse and generally lord over others. I shall crash in on Libcom every now and then to remind them of their idiocy, and look at Freedom. Seems to me your points about both are pretty accurate.

[bryan]

I'm afraid I may have added to the confusion by mangling the CNT rider quote; I hope this below makes more sense:

“But workers cannot feel free so long as they feel the need for emancipators or leaders, who as soon as they have overthrown the old regime will inevitably set another in which they will be privileged".

[Barry Woodling]

Brian in his excellent contribution on Syndicalism and Council Communism refers to Max Weber and his analysis of bureaucratic rationalisation. The following quotations from Weber may assist in throwing further light on this very important issue for anarcho-syndicalists. "The permanent character of the bureaucratic machine. Once it is fully established bureaucracy is among those social structures which are the hardest to destroy....The individual bureaucrat cannot squirm out of the apparatus in which he is harnessed...The professional bureaucrat is chained to his activity by his entire material and ideal existence....The ruled, for their part, cannot dispense with or replace the bureaucratic apparatus of authority once it exists. The idea of eliminating these organisations becomes more and more utopian".

Although anarchists would clearly disagree with the pessimistic conclusions of Webers argument nevertheless his model of bureaucracy is clearly worth studying as a theoretical construct. Incidentally Weber also refers to the "naive idea" of Bakuninism of destroying the basis of "acquired rights" and "domination" by destroying public documents which Weber believes overlooks the settled orientation of man for keeping to the habitual rules and regulations that continue to exist independently of the documents.

This whole issue of bureaucracy is of the utmost importance in the context of recent developments within anarcho syndicalist organisations.

Barry Woodling

Northern Anarchist Network

[Barry Woodling]

Anyone interested in Max Webers views on Power and Bureaucracy can consult the following rereferences. Max Weber. Wirtschift und Gesellschaft. 1922. Reprinted in Talcott Parsons (ed) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation.1947. pp324-25 and 328-325. Hans Gerth and C Wright Mills (eds and trans). From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1948. pp214-216; pp 228-230

Barry Woodling

Northern Anarchist Network

[Mitch]

Barry said:

Anyone interested in Max Webers views on Power and Bureaucracy can consult the following rereferences. Max Weber. Wirtschift und Gesellschaft. 1922. Reprinted in Talcott Parsons (ed) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation.1947. pp324-25 and 328-325. Hans Gerth and C Wright Mills (eds and trans). From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1948. pp214-216; pp 228-230

Barry Woodling

Northern Anarchist Network

Thanks Barry, I'll look these up. Great to hear from you on the board as well, please come back and post more, your posts are fascinating.

Do you think anarcho-syndicalism may not be the only area facing a barrage of bureaucracy - I have seen it in many areas - community groups are a good example, and the bureaucracy in local government now makes it a monitored tool of central government.

Bureaucracy it seems to me makes a few people look very busy, can be used to control/restrict/limit creativity and spontaneous action, plus it blurs things so the form filling and the administration takes over. So, you forget what it was you were initially trying to do in the first place. I've had this feeling quite a few times recently.

New Labour have used bureaucracy as a tactic for control - measurements/rules/criterias for funding etc. Urr 'The Third Way' is no new way, it is neo-liberal ideas with a bureaucratic gloss is it not.

Anyway, don't want to detour away from anarcho-syndicalism, but my point is simply that bureaucracy it seems to me is now is being used as a tactic for control and accountability of us, but who are the bureaucrats accountable to?

Answer - noone.

[michele cryer]

Thank you everybody for your plain speaking posts...very helpful indeed to me...Thank you for reassuring me about the links between anarchism and communism (with a small C...unlike in the USSR) and why they go hand in hand. I think I was confusing the communist ideas with the hierarchy of the current Left Wing organisations that are around, and that is why I asked the question.
Great responses by everybody....keep 'em coming!

[aeneas]

ALBERT FERKINSHAW, ADDRESS'S THE 1999 WHALLEY ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST CONFERENCE ON TWO DEVIATIONIST FOOTNOTES IN THE 1875 GERMAN TRANSLATION (LIMITED EDITION) OF THE LATE ARTHURIAN MOYSE'S UNTITLED AND UNFINISHED PAMPHLET CONCERNING REVISIONIST TENDENCIES IN THE BOLTON BLACK PUDDING OPERATIVES TWO HOUR STRIKE OF 1874.

"Comrades , brothers, sisters. Fraternal greetings.Preston revolutionary anarchist workers fifth cell of the Blackpool Libertarian secretariat were unable to send a delegate due to this months investigation of counter revolutionary printing methods employed in the admission tickets to last years dance at Bakunin Hall.
Identified lumpen prolatariet elements infiltrated the Bolton black pudding branch of the Union of Shop and Distributive Allied Workers. Mostly Stirnerites, posing as neo Marxist Vanguards, liberated from the unattached trots and affiliated to the militant activist Radical Left Front against Stalinist Sections of organised Maoist infiltration in to revolutionary and socialist groupings in the Blackburn Tripe and Trotters Peoples Section representing Darwin Free Library book selection covering commune organisation of agriculture and state collectives in communal held villages during the insurrectionary situations amongst vanished Peruvian peasant cultures.

This conspiracy of individualsand therefore reactionaries and class elements, was uncovered two weeks before
the Bolton black pudding operatives two hour strike of 1874.They'd brought in,scabs, left adventurists,,liberals,unorganised politicos and other fascist garbage. All anarcho-syndicalists surely knows that the Great Strike needs order and disciplined leadership.
Organisation! Organisation!

On page eight hundred and fifty paragraph five ,line eight of the Japanese translation, sixth reprint of Arthurian Moyse's pamphlet,(itself directly translated from the Turkish Translation based on fifty years study of the original manuscript which was destroyed in the Swiss Anarchist fire of 1925; suspected to be the work of dissident anarcho-pacifist arsonists). The word,'worker' is clearly explained in footnote five as being,'he who works for a general strike,'.Conversly in the anonymous 1875 German Translation the footnote on page eight hundred and fifty one (footnote fifty) translates as, 'he or she who works towards a general strike '. Thus inferring that Arthurian Moyse and therefore the anarchic tradition,( for only anarcho-syndicalism is truly anarchist) anticipated and supported the movement towards female emancipation. This is analytical rubbish and presupposes some psycho-sexual inspired political naivety in the translator or translators or possibly counter revolutionary revisionism by printer or publisher.

Again on page one thousand in the Japanese (foot note ten ) and page one thousand and (foot note sixty) in the German Translation, there is a fundamental dialectical heresy revealed .The Japanese textual version records clearly and accurately that the industrial working class are historically ordained, in syndicalist prphecy, to be the instruments of the Great Strike. Conversly in the mistaken German translation 'military worker', is substituted for 'industrialised working class,'

It is now clear to us that opportunist bourgeous counter revolutionary revisionists, if not liberal unorganised individualists have sabotaged this unfortunate translation with adventurist heresies.Authoritive guidance on such unorthodox and eccentric foot note inclusion was given by Final Manifesto Word of the one millionth Black Flag splinter reform group presently supported by Pope Alberto. 'Nazi Bullshit', Hippie degeneracy,''unsyndicalist' were fierce phrases contained in the incisive invective used to demolish its spurious pretensions.

Comrades , you are from this moment forbidden to read the uncensored, un- expurgated 1875 German Translation of Arthurian Moyse's untitled and unfinished pamphlet on revisionist tendencies in the Bolton, Black Pudding Operatives strike of 1874. Failure to observe this directive will result in expulsion from the ranks 1999 Whalley anarcho-syndicalist Conference .

Dave Cunliffe, (Author. ) Taken without permission from the archives of Anarchism Lancastrium. Number 7.