Anarcho-syndicalism in the 21st century ---- Introduction ---- In this final chapter, we
set out our vision of anarcho-syndicalism today. We discuss how to move from being a
simple political propaganda organisation to a revolutionary union capable of taking the
initiative in organising and catalysing class struggles in the economic and social
spheres. Central to this strategy is the potential for direct action to build confidence,
capacity and self-organisation amongst the working class, and thus for struggle to serve
as 'the school of socialism'. We argue that a revolutionary union is an essential
component of a revolutionary workers? movement. Not only for organising and catalysing
struggles, but providing both a physical and organisational infrastructure for the working
class, and a point of departure for numerous anti-oppression, self-education and cultural
initiatives, both inside and beyond its ranks.
We set out how this kind of political economic organisation can help the re-emergence of a
militant and revolutionary workers? movement, and the necessity for this to seek to unite
all the revolutionary workers of the world. Finally, we will sketch what a social
revolution might look like on a world scale, and the role that revolutionary unions should
play in this process.
From propaganda group to revolutionary union
In many ways it is easiest to start from what not to do. History furnishes us with ample
cautionary examples. Certainly, anarcho-syndicalists do not want to function as a
political organisation of anarchists. Political organisation leaves the organising of
struggles either to reformist organisations (such as the trade unions), or to spontaneous
action by workers. If we leave it to reformist unions or other organisations, the methods
they will use will be representative, disempowering ones. This short circuits the power of
direct action to serve not just as a means to achieve results but a school of social
change. The main thing we learn from struggles organised along reformist lines is how to
be marched out on strike and back in again, feeling thoroughly demoralised when union
leaders snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We certainly don?t experience
self-organisation, control of our own struggles and the confidence and exhilaration of
forcing concessions directly through collective action.
On the other hand, we reject the idea that the conditions created by capitalism will
spontaneously lead to workers? resistance. Conditions may shape struggle; they do not
guarantee it. For us the key determinant in workers? resistance is organisation; the
greater the organisation, the more resistance, the greater the chance of success. It is
notable that when council communists like Pannekoek (for whom ?organisation springs up
spontaneously, immediately?171) championed workers ?spontaneously? organising strike
committees in Germany and elsewhere, they did so from the base of highly organised union
shops. So when the union bureaucracy didn?t back their actions they were in a position to
launch wildcat strikes, form strike committees and so on. A similar pattern has been seen
in the UK in recent years, with unofficial action concentrated amongst highly organised
workers such as in the postal service, refuse collection, and rank and file electricians.
In the absence of such organisation (and even many unionised workplaces are not organised,
as we set out in Chapter 1) capitalist offensives far more often result in resignation,
demoralisation and defeat, as has overwhelmingly been the case in Britain since the
neoliberal counter offensive from the 1980s. As this culture of defeat sets in, it becomes
ever more entrenched, until it becomes impossible to imagine doing things differently as
the neoliberal mantra of ?there is no alternative? takes root.
So we can neither leave the organisation of class conflicts in the hands of reformists,
nor wait for struggles to emerge spontaneously. We need to organise struggles ourselves
along direct action lines. And if we?re not capable of doing so at present, we need to
aspire to that capability; we need to move from being a political propaganda group to
being a revolutionary union. The Solidarity Federation describes itself as a revolutionary
union initiative to signify this intent. So far, the struggles we have initiated have been
small scale and often focussed on individual grievances. But that merely reflects the
limits of our present capacities, capacities we are always seeking to expand. Specific
political organisation is not sufficient to this task. We seek to become an organisation
which is at once political and economic.
We can also reject the fanciful notion of reforming the bureaucratic unions, commonplace
amongst socialists and not unheard of amongst anarchists either. Bureaucratisation is a
one way process. Or rather, while it could theoretically be reversed by a strong enough
rank and file movement, it would be a misdirection of energy to pursue union reform at the
expense of direct action (a mistake that helped co-opt British syndicalism, as we saw in
Chapter 2). Whatever energy and self-organisation it would take to dislodge entrenched
bureaucracies, backed by the state, would be far better spent organising struggles
directly, and regrouping workers into organisations based on the principles we espouse ?
revolutionary unions. This does not mean we should tear up our trade union cards, but
rather abandon any pretensions to reforming the existing union structures, and regardless
of trade union membership seek to pursue an anarcho-syndicalist strategy.
An argument commonly raised against revolutionary unionism is the numbers game. Unions, it
is said, are ?mass organisations?, which far exceed the scale of what it?s possible to
organise along revolutionary lines. Thus, we are told, you can be revolutionary, or you
can be a union, but never the twain shall meet. This gives rise to a reformist argument
masquerading as ?pragmatism?, that we must drop our ?ideological? opposition to reformist
methods ? works councils, full time officials, representative functions, state funds,
compliance with the law and so on ? in order to grow into such a ?mass organisation?. This
may be the way to ?build?, but build what? We have no interest in building new
bureaucracies, which is the sure fire result of building a union on anything other than
clear anti-capitalist and anti-state principles. In the ?post-political? neoliberal world,
we should be wary of anyone denying ideological motivations. The denial itself is the
surest sign of ideology! Reformist ideology always presents itself as post-ideological
?pragmatism?, as if this somehow makes its embrace of class collaboration any less
ideological. Sure, revolutionary unionists are starting out as a tiny minority of the
working class. That doesn?t mean we can?t organise class conflicts beyond our limited
numbers, and win workers over to revolutionary unionism through the victories we win in
the school of struggle.
In any event, a closer look at the trade unions should dispel the simplistic notion that
they are ?mass organisations? in any meaningful way. It is true that in this country, the
trade unions together maintain a membership numbering millions, with several of the
largest topping a million members each. But what does this mean in practice? On a day to
day basis, the union is run by a bureaucracy of paid officials and a minority of lay reps.
These reps ? shop stewards, health and safety reps and so on ? are often the most militant
workers in their workplaces. It?s not at all uncommon that less militant workplaces don?t
even have a rep, or regular members? meetings. When members? meetings are held, and we
sometimes encounter opposition from the bureaucracy to doing even this, typically only a
tiny minority of the paper membership attends. This only changes in the course of a big
dispute, when meetings may swell to most or all of the membership, and new members may
even sign up to participate. So in practice, in the workplace the trade unions are
organisations of worker activists which, in the course of disputes, organise mass meetings
of the workforce. The strategy we are setting out merely recognises this reality of what a
union is.
The trade unions are centralised, bureaucratic and hierarchical organisations, and so they
don?t link worker activists horizontally with one another. Rather, workplaces are only
linked to one another via the branch or the region, often staffed by full time officials
or lay reps with an eye to becoming full time officials, and not infrequently by
?revolutionary socialists? with their eye on a trade union career path. Consequently, they
work against the circulation and co-ordination of self-organised struggles. Worker
activists such as shop stewards in different areas or departments are limited to
communicating with one another through ?the proper channels?. This gives the union
apparatus the chance to mediate, diffuse and control the rank and file should they get any
ideas above their station (such as carrying on a strike which has been called off by head
office despite strong rank and file support, a fairly frequent occurrence in recent
British industrial relations). This leads many on the left to advocate some form of rank
and filism, i.e. a networking of rank and file activists independently of the union structure.
Our predecessor, the Direct Action Movement, was involved in such rank and file networks,
but came to the conclusion that the very nature of these groups, and of the politics of
those who have tried to organise them, has meant that they were doomed to failure. Since
World War II we have seen various political groups try to set up rank and file networks,
from those set up by the Communist Party (CP) in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Flashlight
and the Building Workers? Charter, through to the SWP dominated rank and files of the
1970s and, of course, the Militant Tendency (now Socialist Party) dominated Broad Lefts.
Needless to say, such Marxist groups were not slow to manipulate rank and files for their
own ends, even if this was to the detriment of those rank and files and the workers
involved. For instance, Building Workers? Charter, which had widespread support in the
building industry, failed to appear in the massive and bitter building workers' strike in
the early 1970s due to the manoeuvring of the CP. Thus, they not only failed to provide an
alternative lead to the reformist unions in a crucial strike, but so demoralised
supporters of Building Workers? Charter that it led to its eventual collapse. Again in
1973, when the International Socialists (IS; now the SWP), tried to set up a national rank
and file movement, the CP dominated rank and files boycotted the conference organised to
launch the movement, with the Morning Star newspaper denouncing the whole event as an IS
plot. We saw it once again with the 2011 implosion of the National Shop Stewards Network
(NSSN), when the Socialist Party made its long anticipated move to try and turn it into an
anti-cuts front, and most of the anarchist, syndicalist and independent activists walked out.
It would be a mistake, however, to put the lack of politics down simply to malign Marxist
influence. Instead, we should look at the nature of rank and file groups themselves. They
are not made up of masses of ordinary workers but trade union activists (often members of
political groups), sinking their political differences to the lowest common denominator ?
militant trade unionism. Perhaps a quote from the paper of one of the more successful rank
and files of the 1970s, the NALGO Action Group, will illustrate this. An editorial stated:
?the future development of NALGO Action Group remains as it always has, in the hands of
its supporters whose political persuasions are less important than their common desire to
work for greater democracy and militancy within NALGO and [the] larger trade union
movement.?172 Here, the problems are similar to those of 'neutral' syndicalism. The result
is not the desired horizontal networking of workplace activists, but lowest common
denominator trade unionism. This means many well meaning militants and revolutionaries end
up being foot soldiers for leftist agendas, such as reforming the union or party political
adventures (this was certainly the experience of DAM). This is not to say rank and file
initiatives cannot also be a vehicle for workers to begin to take struggles into their own
hands. The recent victories for the 'Sparks' electricians are a clear example of this
potential, notably organising around a specific grievance (pay cuts) rather than a union
reform agenda. But for anarcho-syndicalists, rank and filism, much like trade unionism as
a whole, is no substitute for revolutionary unionism.
So while it is always necessary to organise with as many workers as possible on a class
basis, the unions we seek to build cannot afford to water down their principles to the
lowest common denominator. Nor should we content ourselves with tailgating the struggles
organised by the mainstream unions which, under neoliberalism, normally means defeat sold
as victory. Rather, we should be seeking to build a revolutionary workers? organisation
based on clear anti-capitalist and anti-state principles which can take the initiative in
organising struggles. This is what the Solidarity Federation means when it describes
itself as a revolutionary union initiative. Having recognised that the existing unions are
but minority organisations of activists, and dispensed with the fallacy that ?politics
begins with millions?, we can recognise that everyday struggles are political. The
question becomes a practical one ? how to organise collective direct action for ourselves?
We unite the political and the economic because it reflects the realities under
capitalism. The working class is at one and the same time oppressed and exploited. If we
are ever to be truly free, we must challenge both capitalist exploitation and the power
capitalism and the state have over us. The coming together of exploitation and oppression
can be clearly seen in the smallest of workplace or community actions. When workers
organise they challenge the management?s ?right? to manage. When tenants organise they
challenge the Iandlord?s ?right? to their private property. It matters little whether this
takes the form of a fight for increased wages, or reduced rents, or a fight to resist
attempts to impose new working or residency conditions. In fighting one we fight the
other; the economic and the political cannot be separated. Should the workers win a strike
for increased wages, their power to win better conditions improves and vice versa. The
revolutionary union unites the political and the economic, seeking to organise collective
direct action in the here and now, not waiting to follow the lead of reformists or for
struggles to arise spontaneously.
The role of the revolutionary union in the everyday class struggle
What we are describing is sometimes called ?minority unionism?, but this is somewhat
misleading on two counts. First, as we have argued above, even million strong trade unions
are in practice, in terms of their presence in the workplace, minority organisations. It
is not uncommon for there to be no workplace activists in a given ?unionised? workplace.
Even when there is, it's most commonly one or two shop stewards for a whole department or
employer. It?s rare for a trade union to have a large density of workplace activists in a
single workplace. So all unions, in terms of everyday activity, are as Emile Pouget said,
?an active minority.?173 Secondly, we are not a minority out of aspiration, but out of
recognition of reality. We, of course, seek the widest possible adoption of
anarcho-syndicalist ideas and methods throughout the working class. It?s just that we see
no reason to wait until then to organise. We need to use what capacity we have to organise
what struggles we can in the here and now.
When we talk of organising direct action, what most immediately springs to mind is the
strike. But in truth, a strike requires significant organisation to pull off, and often we
may find ourselves setting our sights on other forms of action. Generally speaking, the
fewer the number of participants, the less direct economic pressure we can bring to bear,
and thus the more we rely on moral pressure. This could be as simple as shunning the boss,
such as the members of a team refusing all non-essential communication, perhaps all verbal
communication full stop, until their concerns are addressed. This type of action can
certainly be organised by individuals, and any propaganda organisation capable of bringing
out a newspaper can surely orient itself to such practical activity as well as, or indeed
instead of, propaganda activities. Doing so and shouting about it has been, in our
experience, a way to attract more militants of a similar persuasion.
Conversely, the greater the number of participants, the more economic pressure we can
bring to bear and the less we need rely on moral pressure. At this end of the spectrum is
the insurrectionary general strike. We will discuss this more in the following section,
which discusses the role of the revolutionary union in the revolutionary process. Needless
to say, such an action requires the ability to mobilise millions of workers, and thus a
serious level of organisation far beyond anything existing today. We are not saying we can
grow into such an organisation by sheer force of will. Such a revolutionary union could be
formed by many possible means, and probably through some combination of all of them:
simple membership growth, radicalised breakaways from other unions, recruitment from wider
waves of struggles, mergers between existing and new organisations along
anarcho-syndicalist lines? What we are saying is that by organising class conflicts along
anarcho-syndicalist lines in the here and now we can, via the school of struggle, develop
both an organisation and wider culture of solidarity and direct action within the working
class greater than that which exists at present. The exact path between here and the
revolutionary process remains to be trodden. The important thing is that we begin to walk
it. What role does the revolutionary union have to play in this process?
The aim of the anarcho-syndicalist union is to act as an organisational force in the daily
lives of the working class. We seek to organise workplace and community resistance, and to
constantly link this to the need to overthrow the double yoke of capital and the state. We
seek the overthrow of capitalism, and for it to be replaced by the self-managed
libertarian communist society. Though the physical organisation of resistance is central
to our ideas, we do not reject revolutionary theory. But for anarcho-syndicalists, theory
grows out of practice and as such, should be seen as an aid to organising workers struggle
and not, as so often is the case, a means of dominating and controlling it. And as
capitalism is dynamic with conditions constantly changing, so must the methods used by
workers to fight it. Engaged in this daily struggle we are best placed to ensure our
theory keeps pace.
As anarcho-syndicalists, we oppose all forms of political parties. We reject the notion
that governments act in the interest of the working class. They may bring forward minor
improvements in order to make electoral gains, but fundamental change can only come about
through the power of organised labour. We also reject the so called 'revolutionary'
parties, on the grounds that, like all political parties, they seek state power. Our aim
is the democratically controlled, self-managed libertarian communist society, not one in
which the capitalist parties are simply replaced with a Marxist dictatorship. We argue
that the workers must take control of their own struggles, as opposed to relying on
politicians. We argue for, and seek to organise, direct action both as a means by which
workers can democratically control their struggles, and as the most effective weapon in
the fight against capitalism. As opposed to voting every few years for some useless
politician, we argue that people must organise and confront capitalism and the state head on.
For anarcho-syndicalists, direct action is much more than a tactic to be employed against
capitalism. Through the use of direct action, we seek to build a culture of solidarity and
mutual aid in direct opposition to the dominant capitalist culture, based on narrow
self-interest and greed. Through direct action, the working class can develop the skills,
confidence, and understanding of the nature of society needed to administer the future
libertarian society. Direct action doesn?t just meet our immediate demands, but frees us
from the stultifying reliance on political leaders and the state. Through direct action,
the working class can forge the bonds of solidarity that will form the ethos that will
underpin the future libertarian communist society. Through direct action, workers can
begin to build the foundations of the future libertarian communist society now.
The aim of anarcho-syndicalism is to build militant workers? organisation, but from a
clear revolutionary perspective. It fully realises that conditions in society may vary,
and accordingly so will the possibility of organising class struggle. But no matter what
the conditions, anarcho-syndicalists argue that militant workers' organisation cannot be
achieved by a political group organising outside of the workplace. Organisation in the
workplace will have to be built by the revolutionary union that involves itself in the day
to day struggle of workers. But the aim of anarcho-syndicalism is not to enrol every
worker into the revolutionary union, but rather to organise mass meetings at which the
union argues for militant action. ?Mass? does not necessarily mean ?massive?. If a team
consists of five people, then a meeting of four is a mass meeting. Obviously, at the other
end of the spectrum, these could include hundreds of workers. But such large meetings can
stifle opportunities to participate, and so splitting into smaller meetings, co-ordinated
by a delegate council may be more appropriate. The precise forms employed by the
revolutionary union are dictated by the needs of the struggle and not by theory. And the
revolutionary union does not limit itself to the workplace. Class struggle also takes
place against landlords, property developers, the benefits regime, letting agencies, temp
agencies, the tax authorities, the prison regime, and other representatives of capital and
state.
But neither should the anarcho-syndicalist union be seen as a monolithic organisation that
seeks to organise every aspect of human activity. Our aim is to build a revolutionary
culture within the working class that will form the basis of the future libertarian
communist society. And this revolutionary culture will be as rich and diverse as humanity
itself. It will comprise of countless groups and interests, formal and informal, that will
operate both in and outside of the union. The role of the union is to bring this diversity
together on the basis of class in opposition to capitalism and the state. At the heart of
the anarcho-syndicalist union is the Local, which aims to be at the centre of community
and workplace struggle in the surrounding area. But the role of the Local goes beyond
that. It provides the physical space where a diverse range of groups, such as oppressed,
cultural, and education groups can organise. The Local acts as the social, political, and
economic centre for working class struggle in a given area. It is the physical embodiment
of our beliefs and methods, the means by which workers become anarcho-syndicalist not just
on the basis of ideas but activity.
The Local aims to be a hive of working class self-activity in the area, inside and outside
the union, a catalyst for workers? self-activity, an infrastructure and tool of struggle
for the working class. It?s a base not only to organise against capital and state, but for
all sorts of marginalised and oppressed groups to organise. If we?re serious about
prefiguring a libertarian communist society, we must challenge patriarchy, racism, and
bigotry of all forms within society and, when necessary, within our own ranks too. So long
as we don?t have our own premises, we can use drop in sessions in whatever venues are
available, we can use picket lines, or hold regular stalls, to discuss organising with
workers. And out of these we?re likely to find fights to pick with capital and the state.
In the early days, these fights are likely to be small, attempts to collectivise
individual grievances. We can only bite off what we can chew. But by taking on instances
of wage theft, stolen deposits, and the other everyday little attacks, we can both win
concrete demands but also start to build a culture of direct action, and normalise the
idea of standing up for our interests, of fighting for ourselves.
Casualisation is often said to be a new phenomenon which undermines the possibility of
organised labour. But this is only partly true. Short term contracts and temp jobs will
mean building up a permanent organisation on the job will likely prove difficult to
impossible. But this simply calls for different tactics and forms of struggle, in which
the Local can play a central role. The Local is the place for casual workers to meet,
discuss and develop tactics adequate to their conditions. Remember the casual workers who
formed the militant backbone of the early French CGT, and recall the IWW?s itinerant
agitator organisers with branches in their satchels. Capital will always seek to break
down our areas of strength. But this only forces us to develop new tactics. If we are
lucky, we can turn our weaknesses into strengths. Workers may move between jobs too
frequently to build up lasting collective organisation on the job, but they?ll often
remain in the same sector. So, for instance, restaurant workers belonging to a Local could
share ideas and knowledge about employers, and draw on the Local to organise pickets to
enforce demands. The flipside to casualisation is, if you?re not going to be in the job
long anyway, the threat of losing your job for standing up for yourself is much reduced.
For those in more permanent positions, building up solid workplace organisation which
could resist victimisation would likely be a better approach.
The typical vanguardist position is that consciousness precedes action. This is, after
all, why the vanguard party, bearer of ?revolutionary consciousnesses,? must lead the
working class. This attitude is explicit in Leninist Marxism but implicit in many other
political organisations, even when they seek only to be ?the leadership of ideas.? For
anarcho-syndicalists, it is the other way around. Workers may not all share our goals of
overthrowing capitalism and the state, but we?re not asking them to sign up to that as a
precondition of organising. We?re simply asking them to take direct action with us in
their own interests. If, in this process, anarcho-syndicalism begins to make more sense to
them, then the union gains another member. It should be explained that this is not any old
union, concerned only with bread and butter issues, but a revolutionary one also pursuing
radical social transformation. This isn?t a question of identifying as an
anarcho-syndicalist, but rather of identifying with our methods and goals, whatever your
preferred political label (or lack of). It doesn?t do us any good to be recruiting workers
who don?t share our aims and methods, nor does it do workers any good to be joining a
union whose aims and methods they don?t share. But we should not be afraid to actively
recruit through activity either, as this is the only way to expand beyond the existing
pool of politicised militants. Revolutionary union activity can expand the pool.
Workplace organisations may be militant but that does not automatically make them
revolutionary. We cannot just limit ourselves to organising workplace meetings and hoping
they will, as if by magic, gain a revolutionary perspective. Many a militant struggle has
demanded union recognition, won it, and then settled down into the normal routine of
mediated industrial relations. Our aim is to organise militancy as a stepping stone to
revolutionary thinking. The revolutionary union can play a catalytic role in creating such
a culture of solidarity and direct action amongst the working class, recruiting those who
share our aims and goals into our ranks. As well as raising issues and, where possible,
organising action, we should be putting out regular propaganda, attempting to organise
workplace meetings, and generally attempting to draw people into SF. In the long term, the
aim would be to increase the organisation to the point where workplace meetings will
slowly transform, from being simply militant, or primarily economic, meetings to being
meetings of revolutionary workers. In effect, the workplace meeting would become the
foundation of the anarcho-syndicalist union branch in a given workplace. A similar process
can take place in the local area through the Local, which is especially important for
casual, unemployed, domestic or retired workers.
We sometimes hear the argument that, by negotiating within capitalism, we risk becoming
part of it. But this does not stand the reality test. This is to equate negotiation with
class collaboration. But as every demand short of revolution is a negotiation, this
approach would in effect brand every organisation that did not demand revolution in every
situation as reformist. This is nonsense and pure posturing. Negotiations are simply
meetings between workers and the enemy, whether management, the letting agent, or whoever.
The factor that determines the nature of negotiations is who is doing the negotiating. Our
approach to negotiations is to see them as part of class struggle. Negotiations should be
done en masse, or by delegates mandated by all the workers taking action. The
revolutionary union does not negotiate on behalf of workers, workers negotiate for
themselves, but we don?t shy away from being delegated. We don?t seek negotiations looking
for a ?just? or ?fair? result, but rather to demand as much as possible in any given
circumstance. If an action has management on the run, then we do not limit ourselves to
the original demand but rather, we seek to press home our advantage and make as many gains
as possible. Revolutionary practice consists of the relationship between means and ends.
It is the use of direct action to win immediate demands in such a way that builds the
confidence, solidarity, and culture needed for further struggles, and ultimately,
revolution itself. Revolution is a matter of deeds not words, in our everyday struggles as
well as the future upheaval.
It has to be understood that direct action is economic war carried out at a distance. As
such, it is always hard to assess what effect a dispute is having on the other side. The
only time that the two sides come together is during negotiations. One of the primary aims
of negotiations, therefore, is for one side to try to assess what effect the action is
having on the other, while attempting to conceal any weaknesses of their own. Should it
become clear that the effect of the action is having a greater effect than first thought,
then obviously the demands made should increase. The anarcho-syndicalist goes into
negotiations as a mandated delegate. But only an idiot would not ask for more if it
becomes apparent that management are on the run. Negotiations also have a further role in
that they can be used as part of the process of demoralising management. The
anarcho-syndicalist union engages in class war, and as in any war, morale or alternately
demoralisation plays an important role in the battle. The anarcho-syndicalist union seeks
to instil in management a sense of fear, hatred and bewilderment. We want to get to a
point where they?re tearing their hair out at our ?unreasonable? demands and are desperate
to make it stop. On this note, one of our members was once involved in an action which
forced the manager to go and buy everyone ice creams on a hot day. When the manager
relented and offered to pay for ice creams, they insisted he went to buy them in person.
This is the kind of ?unreasonable? and demoralising power we seek to have over management.
And needless to say, ice cream does not equal reformism.
The anarcho-syndicalist approach is to pick fights we can win, and use these victories to
attract more workers into our orbit and to demonstrate the validity of our anti-capitalist
and anti-state approach. It is true that most workers don?t share our perspective at the
present time. But this is not a fixed fact, but dependent on numerous variables, some of
which we can control and others which we cannot. In practice, we have found that at least
some of our fellow workers are open to our revolutionary ideas and methods, whereas
reformism is most often pushed by politicos convinced that 'ideology' puts off 'the
workers' (remember the Treintistas). And we should add, the distance between
disillusionment in your job and party politics, attitudes which are widespread, and a
revolutionary perspective is not as great as many specialists in ?revolutionary theory?
like to insist. Many of us have traversed it, and there?s nothing special about us. Being
against capitalism and the state in the abstract doesn?t make much sense. But when it?s
expressed through direct action, asserting our independence from those we struggle
against, it?s almost common sense. Through the process of struggle, we are confident our
perspective will come to appear more and more self-evident, even as it evolves through
these experiences.
For example, it is often difficult to conduct anything resembling direct action in the
streets these days without coming into conflict with the police. Marching without prior
permission, or leaving the route of a march (or sometimes for no apparent reason at all),
is likely to attract police repression. Police repression vindicates our anti-state
perspective. Many of our newest members have been politicised by the baton in the recent
struggles over tuition fees and austerity. But the police are in a bind. If they don?t
respond with repression, then we?re free to organise direct action, such as picketing temp
agencies and organising economic or communications blockades. When these tactics get the
goods, they vindicate our anti-capitalist, direct action ethos. If our understanding of
the nature of society is broadly correct, then struggles should expose the fault lines
between the working class on the one side and capital and the state on the other. Through
waging the everyday class war, anarcho-syndicalist ideas can become a working class common
sense. Deposit stolen? Picket, occupy, and blockade the bastards. Problems at work? Get
some workmates together and get organised.
SF members in the same industry also form industrial networks. At present, these are small
and function mostly as email lists for discussion and the production of propaganda. Unlike
Locals, Networks are geographically dispersed and so lack the immediacy of face to face
organisation, and are thus limited in what they can do, for now at least, with most
practical activity being carried out through Locals. But as we grow, there is the
potential to form industrial Locals, as well as workplace branches of SF, which linked
together through the industrial networks, will form embryonic revolutionary industrial
unions. We, of course, do not mean ?industrial? in the sense of smokestacks, but in the
sense of ?one workplace, one union?. So for instance on a university campus, porters,
cleaners, teaching assistants and academic staff (assuming they were not bosses of some
sort) would form a workplace branch, which in turn would form part of the Education
Workers? Network. For us, this is still in its early stages. For our sister-sections in
Spain and Italy, workplace branches and industrial unions are far more advanced. British
conditions, particularly with regard to trade union legislation, are somewhat different.
But that only impacts the details, not the broad thrust of what we?re trying to do.
As we are presently a tiny minority of the working class, we will need to organise beyond
our membership. Even if we were 10,000 times larger, this would still be the case; as we
saw, it was even the case in Catalonia in 1936. Various organisational forms can be
employed for this purpose: from workplace committees, mass meetings, neighbourhood
assemblies, and strike committees, through to factory committees, delegate councils, or a
fully fledged federation o4f workers councils. None of these forms are a panacea and all
have their drawbacks as well as benefits. Rather, they are democratic means of organising
which can be employed by the revolutionary union as the needs of the struggle dictate. The
particular forms of organisation we employ reflect the content of the struggle. In Puerto
Real, workplace and community mass meetings were a vital part of the struggle. But we have
also attended ?mass meetings? organised by reformist unions, where a string of top table
speakers mouth platitudes to a bored audience, or which simply serve to rubber stamp
decisions already made elsewhere. In the case of the Workmates collective on the London
Underground, the delegate council they set up was sidelined by action coming directly from
the mass meetings. But if similar mass meetings were happening across multiple work sites,
something like a delegate council could have proved indispensible in joining up the
struggles. The content of the struggle must shape the forms we use. The role of the
revolutionary union is to take the initiative in organising struggles in the first place.
The role of the revolutionary union in the revolutionary process
Just as the anarcho-syndicalist union cannot and does not wish to organise all aspects of
human activity, nor does it seek to organise the revolution on behalf of the working
class. For us, revolutions come about when the anger of the oppressed can no longer be
contained by the power of the oppressors, leading to an explosion of anger that drives
revolutionary change. Revolutions break out, they cannot be planned, they cannot be
predicted, they cannot be organised. But if they are to succeed, revolutions have to move
quickly from anger to decisive action. The revolution has to be advanced and defended,
people have to eat, they need water and electricity, and these things have to be
organised. The role of the anarcho-syndicalist union is to act as a catalyst and
organising force within the revolution to ensure its success.
Within the revolutionary process, the anarcho-syndicalist union seeks to organise the
insurrectionary general strike as the means by which the workers take control of the
streets and the workplaces. This means that, amidst strike waves and street
demonstrations, riots and political turmoil, the revolutionary union looks to generalise
the strikes, to turn them from walkouts into expropriations, restarting production and
distribution under self-management to meet social needs. The insurrectionary general
strike marks the start of the process of building the libertarian communist society. The
production and distribution of goods and services is taken over under workers? democratic
control and run on the basis of human need. The revolutionary union seeks to organise a
system of free councils without subordination to any authority or political party, bar
none. These organisations of the working class both administer production and distribution
according to needs, and supplant the authority of the state. Militias are formed to defend
the revolution from the external forces of capitalism and to shut down the forces of the
state. The building blocks of the new society are put in place on top of the foundations
laid by the preceding struggles.
In truth, the idea of revolution in one country always belonged to the bourgeois
revolutionaries, who sought to seize control of the state and turn it into an instrument
of capitalist development. The 20th century is a striking indictment of the notion that
revolution in one country could ever result in anything remotely communist. Isolated and
surrounded on all sides, even the most impeccable revolution would leave revolutionaries
stranded on an island, facing the permanent threat of military intervention, and the
necessity to source resources unavailable domestically from the world market. Whilst
defensive forces can be organised in a non-statist manner through workers militias, it is
hard to see how a permanent war footing in such an embattled revolutionary pocket could
establish and maintain libertarian communist social relations. The necessities to engage
with the world market and to maintain war production would undermine the reorganisation of
society to meet human needs. The revolution we seek will be worldwide or it will not be at
all.
Thus, the revolutionary process we have described should not be conceived of as a national
one, or even a series of national revolutions one after the other. Indeed, there is no
reason to think such waves of class struggle will respect national borders. The
international wave of class struggles following World War I certainly did not, and nor did
the wave of struggles from 1968. To be sure, national identity is a powerful force for
many workers, but the daily work of the revolutionary union in its cultural and
educational aspects, as well as practical international solidarity, should have helped to
undermine its appeal in favour of working class internationalism. As Rudolf Rocker wrote
of the First International, it ?became the great school mistress of the socialist labour
movement and confronted the capitalist world with the world of international labour, which
was being ever more firmly welded together in the bonds of proletarian solidarity.?175
Language too is a material barrier to the international circulation of struggles. A true
revolutionary international could only assist in this process of circulation and
co-ordination. Here too, there is much work to be done. The IWA is mainly centred in
Europe and South America. Many of our sections, including ourselves, are not (yet)
functioning unions. We hope this text can help in the movement from propaganda groups
towards revolutionary unions across the International. But even then, there is still work
to do. It is now impossible to conceive of the kind of worldwide revolutionary wave we?re
discussing, without the working class populations of China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam,
and countless other countries playing a prominent part. Conditions for organising in many
of these places are hostile to say the least. But yet they have seen massive waves of
autonomous struggles outside the control of the official unions which dwarf the struggles
in Europe in recent years. If we are serious that ?all the revolutionary workers of the
world must build a real International Association of Workers?, we must find ways to open a
dialogue with such groups.
It is difficult to know where to start. This is a profoundly practical question beyond the
scope of this text. It will require much discussion, and trial and error to move towards
an answer. We raise it here simply to acknowledge the scale of the task we have set for
ourselves. Perhaps this process could begin with making anarcho-syndicalist materials
available in Mandarin, Cantonese, Hindi, Arabic, Farsi? and by seeking to initiate a
dialogue around revolutionary unionist practices, translating any correspondence that
results back into European tongues. Perhaps we could seek out and build contacts in parts
of the world where the IWA lacks a presence, then seek to turn contacts into sections,
small sections from propaganda groups into unions, and for union sections to begin to
weave a culture of direct action into the daily life of the working class. Perhaps there
are already radical workers? groupings operating along similar lines and we simply are
unaware of each others? existence. Such working class internationalism represents a
practical task of vital importance to the prospects of any global revolutionary wave that
sweeps away capital and states to instantiate libertarian communism.
However a global revolutionary wave starts, somewhere goes first. Some factory or office
or infrastructure is the first to be taken over. The drive for this is likely to be
material necessity. People need to eat, people need electricity, people need water. If the
revolutionary wave isn?t sparked by an economic crisis, it?s sure to provoke one. With a
worldwide wave of strikes, occupations, demonstrations and riots, workers will begin to go
hungry, while the capitalists, who have the deepest pockets, will be stockpiling reserves.
Thus, within this process, the revolutionary union seeks to generalise the strike wave,
across industries, localities, and national borders. And as it generalises, it seeks to
organise for the strikes to become occupations. To expropriate the expropriators and seize
back social production for human needs.
Everything we know about social revolutions suggests they are messy, contradictory
processes, an open clash of opposing forces that sees advances and retreats,
consolidations and capitulations. They proceed unevenly in fits and starts, ebbs and
flows, and all the more so when we're not talking about the overthrow of one state, but
200 or more! The rupture with capitalism is likely to follow this pattern, developing
unevenly, with revolutionary surges battling counter revolutionary inertia and attempts to
restore the sanctity of private property. Some of these clashes are likely to be armed.
However, revolution is not principally a military question but a social one. Stripped of
their capital by workplace occupations, and stripped of their states by the beating back
of the police, and mutinies amongst the troops when ordered to fire on ?their own?, the
ruling class will represent a much diminished force. Still, they will likely unleash
whatever violence they can via the state or mercenary forces to crush the revolution, and
this will need to be met with violence, organised along libertarian lines through a
militia system.
The libertarian communist revolution is a process. It is a movement. It will likely
develop and blossom from strike waves to expropriations over a period of years. This isn't
a 'transitional phase', it is what the revolution is. We do not wake up one morning and
find that libertarian communism has been proclaimed. We seize back society from capital
and the state as much as we can, and push for libertarian communist social relations as
much as possible. We aim for the abolition of wages and the distribution of goods and
services according to need. We aim for the abolition of all state power and the
destruction of all social hierarchies, whether based on gender, colour or anything else.
Through direct action in our daily struggles, the working class forges the bonds of
solidarity and forms the ethos that will underpin the future libertarian communist
society. The foundations will have been laid by the preceding struggles. The idea of
revolution as a glorious day was born on the threshold of the Bastille and embellished
with the Bolshevik mythologising of the storming of the Winter Palace.177 We must let it go.
Any global revolution will have its dramatic days, but the idea of revolution as an
instantaneous transition belongs to those who wish to seize power in a single state. It is
utterly inadequate for the overthrow of an entire mode of production. Libertarian
communism is not something to be established ?after the revolution?. The revolutionary
process is the process of creating libertarian communism, a process which is likely to
build in rising waves, rather than be achieved on a single glorious day. As more and more
workplaces are seized, and as the state forces are weakened and states begin to crumble,
private property becomes a mere memory of a bygone era, like tithes and tributes before
it. Expropriated workplaces do not relate to each other as isolated enterprises trading in
a market. They federate together into a single entity, pooling resources on the basis of
needs under self-management, and doing away with wage labour, as the necessities of life
become available to the working class directly from our own efforts, without the mediation
of the market.
The revolutionary union is vital to play both a preparatory role for these decisive
struggles, and to generalise the libertarian communist movement within them towards the
insurrectionary general strike when they erupt. Yes, the task is a great one. But of
course, we only want the world
/6
Home »
» Britain, The Solidarity Federation's book, Fighting for ourselves: anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle - Chapter V (5/6)