WORKERS' ANARCHISM

Sommier théorique et affinités idéologiques !

WORKERS' ANARCHISM

Messagepar magidd » Mardi 21 Mar 2006 12:27

Michael Magid
ait-Russia


WORKERS' ANARCHISM


Permanent crises of anarcho-syndicalism

Many times, all sections of the IWA-AIT say they are against reformism. They promise to be against collaboration with the state, against trade unionism. This is really funny as again and again reformism has taken power in AIT. There must be an explanation. And we can not say, "Oh, that's the result of a conspiracy, reformists are everywhere and they want to destroy us". That is crazy and it would be real Stalinism to say that because it is a Stalinist method of explaining everything with enemy conspiracies.
We have to say that anarcho-syndicalism is in a permanent crises. If we look at the past, we see the same situations and problems. The Spanish CNT had a revolutionary experience before 1936. There were thousands of revolutionary workers and peasants. Some of them had experience with insurrections. They had anarcho-communist ideas. CNT members and other workers took over plants in Barcelona, organised communes in Aragon and Valencia. But what happened? Why did the CNT join the government? Why did the CNT collaborate with Leninists and bourgeois democrats? Why did the CNT participate in the politics of bourgeois modernisation - the creation of a regular army, state control of industry and exploitation of workers ? Why did CNT fighters leave the barricades in Barcelona in May 1937 and give the city into the hands of the Leninist bureacrasy and Spanish capitalists?
Modern spanish CNT says,"there were mistakes". But it is not an explanation at all. Or if you want, it is also a Stalinist or post-Stalinist explanation. The Communist Party of USSR said after 1956 that " Stalin made some mistakes". But we are not talking about mistakes because both (Stalin and the CNT) supported (in 1936) the politics of state-capitalism and bourgeois modernisation. It was a long term policy, not "some mistakes".
I don't think we have to discuss Stalinism here, so let's go back to the CNT-E. We see a paradox - this organisation had revolutionary and counter-revolutionary members at the same time. And what happens if you mix a cup of honey with a cup of shit? Yeah, you will get 2 cups of shit. What is the reason for having even 100,000 anarchist militants and insurrectionists if they can not make a revolution because of a collective agreement with counter-revolutionary elements? Why give rifles to workers if they cannot use weapons against the state? Revolutionary anarchists who must compromise with their counter-revolutionary comrades (!) cannot make a revolution. Durruti's friends and other revolutionary groups of the CNT almost destroyed the police in Barcelona in May 1937 but then left the barricades because they were afraid to cause a split in the CNT with people who want be friendly to the police and the state!
Part of the explanation is inherent in anarcho-syndicalism itself. Anarcho-syndicalism is a compromise between anarchist workers' organisations such as FORA and neutral syndicalism which talks only about economic struggle and about direct action in the work place but not about anarchist society.
Neutral syndicalist organisation is open for everybody. Syndicalists do not ask what ideas you have. They care only about direct action, workers' assemblies which make economic strikes or even take over plants. Neutral syndicalists believe that common direct action will change the mind of people and make them revolutionary in the end. So it is not important what kind of ideas they have at the moment- workers have to leave all of their political ideas out of the union. Or anyway, their ideas will be changed during the struggle, to be sure!
I think neutral syndicalists (or revolutionary syndicalists) were impressed by the dynamism of the workers' movement at the beginning of the 20th century. They were right to say that only a rank-and-file proletarian movement can become the basis of a social revolution. They were right to say that without rank-and-file proletarian activity, 90% of people cannot change their mind. Resistence is an important part of the social transformation if it is going in a rank-and-file way. Where else and how else ca people get experience in self-organisation? But neutral syndicalists did not understand two important things.
Number one. People never leave their ideas out of the union. That's what FORA said - human beings live, love, work, make strikes, have political or philosophical ideas, dreams.. and who can cut his life into isolated sectors? That is impossible. Everything influences everything else.
Number two. People who start rank-and-file strikes are open to new ideas, dialogue and discussions. Whoever has never seen that will never understand the point. People open collective activity and dialogue for may be the first time in their lives and they see that life is not totally alieneted anymore and that life can be changed. But this is only one side of reality. On the other side, the assemblyist movement is open to different ideas. It can be anarchism, leninism, reformist socialism or even fascism. And what happens if people for example agree with trade unionism and leninism? They will stop the assemblies sooner or later and say it is better to make a compromise with the state. When will they come back to direct action? Maybe in 50 years.


From anarcho-syndicalism to FORA

We have to talk with people, help them to make their own leaflets or newspapers, tell them about other workers' movements and say, "You do not like this society, do you? But what is a good society? There could be a place where workers' assemblies (and council which are totally controlled by the assemblies) control everything - the factory, territory and life itself. And this is a place without money, the state and property. Because assemblies create a new life through dialogue and they do not need anybody else, no institutions like the state or free market. And this is workers' anarchism.
And we can have a collective of militants who can make this work - both make strikes or other forms of assembly resistence (with other workers) and at the same time spread anarchist ideas. This is an integral anarchist union, this is the model of Argentinian FORA, the model of most revolutionary groups of Russian workers, of anarchism at the beginning of the 20 century (like the Federation of Anarcho-communists in Bialystok). The best way this concept was explained was in the text of French comrades from Cannes "Anarcho-syndicalism and People's Autonomy". (They use the word <syndicalism> but they're OK). They support the model of FORA and they say it must spread anarchist ideas, initiate strikes and and cooperate with assemblies but not with trade unions and not with beaurocracy.
So what is the anarcho-syndicalism of the IWA-AIT? It was a compromise between the models of FORA and neutral syndicalism. And it is not working. It can't. The CNT say they are an anarchist union but not a union of anarchists. What does that mean in practice? They have a lot of people who are not anarchists but trade unionists. What happened with USI? The same - they have leninists in their organisation. There is no revolution but we see 1936 again and again. Anarchists 'protect their social rights' in the RSU, cooperate with trade unionists and political party members, and even.. fight for trademarks in the state court with another reformists! What else do we need to say - we need to have a finalist movement, <International FORA> or else we are nowhere.


Integral organisation

Anarchist workers' organisation must be antiautoritarian and integral. Relationships between man and women, struggle against nationalism are important points. But I would like to add something. If we look at the proletarian insurrections like the european and Russian revolutions of 1917-1923, Spain 1936, Budapest 1956, Kvandju 1980, Suleimania 1991, Albania 1996, Argentina and Algeria 2002, what do we see are their causes?

1. People struggle against conditions of their lives
2. People struggle against war.
3. People struggle against police or army violence.

Well, we also can remember the ecological movement in Germany and Japan in 1970-1990.
Of course revolution stem from many reasons and we can not explain them totally by such simple things. But I can not imagine a feminist revolution or antifascist revolution.
Anti-fascism was the main slogan in Spain in 1936 and we remember it was a counter-revolutionary slogan because it was connected (first of all) with an agreement between all anti-fascist groups like anarchists, Leninists and democrats. I am sure that the anarchist workers' movement must destroy fascists. But not together with a state coup or red fascists (leninists) or anybody who are not better then fascists.
Feminism, if it is the main point of the movement, will bring us to women's separatism. That is why the Spanish women's anarchist movement Mujeres Libres did not call themselves feminists in 1936. Thay said they were against feminism because feminism separates people, isolate women from men and makes the collective anti-capitalist fight impossible. That's exactly what we can see today. As for Russian feminists, they are more or less separatists.
I do not want to discuss words like 'feminism' or 'anti-fascism'. They can be good or bad -it depends how you use them. I know Czech comrades have revolutionary experience with feminism and anti-fascism. I just wanna say if we want revolution, we need communication between different proletarian groups in the zones of permanent social conflicts like factory, poor proletarian area and university. If we forget the class struggle we become a simple anarchist federation. They don't have roots in community, no groops who permanently work in the zones of social tension. And they never have influence like the old class struggle anarchists.


International synthesis

People are strongly separated and isolated in modern society. Men and women, immigrants and others, black and white etc. And what you do with all of that? I see only one basis - solidarity in the common struggle of proletarian people. That's not enough but we can't change life without it. I understand it sounds banal but it is forgotten by anarchists.
Look at the problem of fascism. We can not destoy fascism until we have no cooperation between people of different nationalities. Anarchist federations can invent only antifa activity. But antifa are struggling (sometimes it's really important) against the results of national division, not against its roots. On the other hand we can not change things without fusion of different cultures, without a new cultural synthesis. And this culture must not be result of state violence like in the USSR but a result of spontaneous self activity.
I am not talking about multiculturalism. If we look at the modern society we will find a lot of ethnic communities with their charches, newspapers, children's organisations, schools etc. All of those organisations are controlled by capitalists and bureaucrats. They compete in the free market and in the state, they spread only hate. (States sometimes make ethnic cleansing which are terrible but free competition between ethnic communities is the preparation for that cleansing).
The majority of workers' organisations are also nationalists. Even the CNT in 1936 were nationalists. (For example it rejected the idea to help Jews who escaped from nazi Germany. The General Secretary of the CNT Mariano Vaskes said that if Jews came to Spain, they would increase the power of capitalism).
I think we have to research the experience of FORA also because it was an organisation of immigrants which united Itallians, Spanish people, Serbs, Germans, Jews and Arabs. It opened the space not for ethnic 'peace negotiations' (we know that peace negotiations between national bourgoise communities or states are just preparations for the next war) but a place for common struggle, equality and self-organisation. This whole space was permeated with the idea of a golden age - anarcho-communism.
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar lucien » Mardi 21 Mar 2006 20:21

The best way this concept was explained was in the text of French comrades from Cannes "Anarcho-syndicalism and People's Autonomy". (They use the word <syndicalism> but they're OK). They support the model of FORA and they say it must spread anarchist ideas, initiate strikes and and cooperate with assemblies but not with trade unions and not with beaurocracy.
Comrades from Caen and not Cannes ! :lol:
Avatar de l’utilisateur
lucien
 
Messages: 3012
Inscription: Dimanche 31 Oct 2004 15:32
Localisation: Caen

Messagepar magidd » Mardi 21 Mar 2006 22:13

lucien a écrit:
The best way this concept was explained was in the text of French comrades from Cannes "Anarcho-syndicalism and People's Autonomy". (They use the word <syndicalism> but they're OK). They support the model of FORA and they say it must spread anarchist ideas, initiate strikes and and cooperate with assemblies but not with trade unions and not with beaurocracy.
Comrades from Caen and not Cannes ! :lol:


O! I am sorry.
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar magidd » Mercredi 22 Mar 2006 14:50

As far as i understand there were only one point of critisim: rong name of your lovley city.
Any other qwestions or comments?
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar goldfax » Mercredi 22 Mar 2006 22:15

Maybe, this weekend !... :wink:
goldfax
 

Messagepar magidd » Vendredi 07 Avr 2006 21:32

So? :o
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar Léa » Jeudi 13 Avr 2006 18:05

magidd a écrit:So? :o

So now, and since the movement has been broke-down, we gonna have more time to answer to your question... :wink:
Yet some universities which are not on easter holidays are still fighting hard.
Elu par cette crapule
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Léa
 
Messages: 2363
Inscription: Samedi 19 Fév 2005 21:16
Localisation: Pas très Loin. Derrière toi !

Messagepar magidd » Jeudi 13 Avr 2006 21:50

Léa a écrit:
magidd a écrit:So? :o

So now, and since the movement has been broke-down, we gonna have more time to answer to your question... :wink:
Yet some universities which are not on easter holidays are still fighting hard.


That's good! I was afreid movement is finished allredy.
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar goldfax » Vendredi 14 Avr 2006 21:12

magidd a écrit:So? :o


I don't know a lot the Spanish CNT history. So I can not discuss a lot... :roll:
Meanwhile, I find your arguments really interesting. :wink:
On the whole, I agree with you. I didn't analyse in details, otherwise, so I will think of it and find some questions to ask. :wink:
Now, it's time to sleep ! Hasta la vista, companero !!
goldfax
 

Messagepar magidd » Vendredi 14 Avr 2006 21:32

goldfax a écrit:
magidd a écrit:So? :o


I don't know a lot the Spanish CNT history. So I can not discuss a lot... :roll:
Meanwhile, I find your arguments really interesting. :wink:
On the whole, I agree with you. I didn't analyse in details, otherwise, so I will think of it and find some questions to ask. :wink:
Now, it's time to sleep ! Hasta la vista, companero !!


Hasta la vista!
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar Invité » Mercredi 28 Juin 2006 21:50

So, i can see you read texts of FORA. What do you think about indebntity of friench CNT? What do you think about contradictions between "FORA
Anarchisme ouvrier" and "syndicalisme révolutionnaire"?
Invité
 

FORA anarchisme ouvrier contre syndicalisme révolutionnaire

Messagepar Invité » Mercredi 28 Juin 2006 21:53

So, i can see you read texts of FORA. What do you think about indebntity of friench CNT? What do you think about contradictions between "FORA
Anarchisme ouvrier" and "syndicalisme révolutionnaire"?

Michael Magid
AIT-Russia
Invité
 

Messagepar Invité » Jeudi 29 Juin 2006 23:29

Again you 've forgotten to log-in :wink:

There are effectivellly some diferences between "Arnacho-Syndicalisme" and "Syndicalisme Révolutionnaire". I guess you can find some textes of relevance between both AS & SR.

For instance in France the CNT-AIT is more AS tendency, and the CNT-f (Vignoles) is more with SR perspective. So at some point, there are some "mismatching" (in addition to other things). As for the FORA, I'm not specialist enough, so I hope someone else will answer to you.
Invité
 

Messagepar Léa » Jeudi 29 Juin 2006 23:33

Again you 've forgotten to log-in :wink: like myself above :oops:

There are effectivellly some diferences between "Arnacho-Syndicalisme" and "Syndicalisme Révolutionnaire". I guess you can find some textes of relevance between both AS & SR.

For instance in France the CNT-AIT is more AS tendency, and the CNT-f (Vignoles) is more within a SR perspective. So at some point, there are some "mismatching" (in addition to other things). As for the FORA, I'm not specialist enough, so I hope someone else will answer to you.
Elu par cette crapule
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Léa
 
Messages: 2363
Inscription: Samedi 19 Fév 2005 21:16
Localisation: Pas très Loin. Derrière toi !

Messagepar tomatok » Samedi 01 Juil 2006 23:13

Léa a écrit:I hope someone else will answer to you.

not in your strange language ! :lol: :lol: :lol:
mais bon je dirais qu'on se revendique tous +- de l'anarchosyndicalisme à la CNT-AIT même si il peut y avoir évidemment différentes façons d'apréhender les choses, des anarchoysyndicalistes plus "traditionnels" on va dire peuvent cotoyer des personnes plus intéressées par des formes d'organisation/conceptions style FORA, ... à ce sujet je pense que le meilleur texte (concernant en tout cas la position de mon syndicat) pour clarifier tout ça se trouve là :
http://cnt-ait.info/article.php3?id_article=1241
tomatok
 
Messages: 1851
Inscription: Vendredi 20 Jan 2006 1:48

Re: WORKERS' ANARCHISM

Messagepar magidd » Vendredi 28 Juil 2006 16:56

I am sorry, but if anybody has time, can he (or she) translate what tomatok say?
Olso i can add something.
Anrho-sindikalism is resalt of compromise between FORA ideas (workers anarhism) and nutral (revolutionary) sindicalism. Anarho-sindikalism failed in Spane then CNT cooperated in 1936-1939 with government and partisipated in exploatation of workers. Anarho-sindikalism (not revolutionary sindikalism) was the idea of CNT.
Of cous you can use any wods and use tham your oun way. Like anarho-sindikalism for example (and may be for you anarho-sindikalism is something like FORA stile). But misunderstanding of wods can be reason of misunderstanding of situation.
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar goldfax » Vendredi 28 Juil 2006 22:17

tomatok a écrit:mais bon je dirais qu'on se revendique tous +- de l'anarchosyndicalisme à la CNT-AIT même si il peut y avoir évidemment différentes façons d'apréhender les choses, des anarchoysyndicalistes plus "traditionnels" on va dire peuvent cotoyer des personnes plus intéressées par des formes d'organisation/conceptions style FORA, ... à ce sujet je pense que le meilleur texte (concernant en tout cas la position de mon syndicat) pour clarifier tout ça se trouve là :
http://cnt-ait.info/article.php3?id_article=1241


"Well but i'd say we claim more or less anarcho-syndicalist ideas at the CNT-AIT even if there can be obviously different ways to comprehend things. More "traditionnal" anarchosyndicalists - we'll say this - can coexist with people more interested by forms of organization/conception like the FORA... About this subject, I think the best text (concerning the position of my syndicate) which gets it clearer is here :
http://cnt-ait.info/article.php3?id_article=1241"

Here's the translation of Tomatok's intervention... :wink:

I'm sorry I've not got yet time to read the first text of the subject... I'll do it now... in ten minutes ! :wink:
goldfax
 

Messagepar goldfax » Vendredi 28 Juil 2006 22:58

goldfax a écrit:I'm sorry I've not got yet time to read the first text of the subject... I'll do it now... in ten minutes ! :wink:


Oups ! I think i've already read the text... Am I going mad ? :roll:
Nonetheless, I have nothing to add. In general and in details, I agree with you. :wink:
goldfax
 

Messagepar magidd » Dimanche 30 Juil 2006 13:03

Thank you!
magidd
 
Messages: 153
Inscription: Mardi 21 Mar 2006 0:00

Messagepar tomatok » Mercredi 02 Aoû 2006 9:55

merci goldfax ! :wink: j'essairai d'avoir moins la flemme la prochaine fois ;-)
tomatok
 
Messages: 1851
Inscription: Vendredi 20 Jan 2006 1:48

Suivante

Retourner vers L'anarchosyndicalisme

cron