| |
|
|
|
|
|
Section 1: Defining Anarcho-Syndicalism
The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action and self-management. They are the manifestation in daily life of the application to the workers' movement of the libertarian principles of anarchism. The anarchist philosophy which inspires these basic principles also defines their purpose; that is, to be a tool of self-emancipation from wage-slavery, and as a means of working towards Libertarian Communism (see section 5). Whilst one or another of the principles can be seen in operation in numerous social and political movements, not all of which are necessarily even libertarian, it is the employment of all three which is uniquely anarcho-syndicalist. Bureaucratic trade unions practise workers' solidarity when it suits, but violate the principle of direct action when supporting supposedly "labour" candidates for political office. Racist social movements practise direct action, but violate the principle of solidarity by directing it against fellow workers of different nationalities. In order to be anarcho-syndicalist the principles must be applied in the right way, in order to strengthen the class and further the primary goal of liberation from wage-slavery. The rationale for the anarcho-syndicalist principles of workers' soldarity, direct action and self-management were summarised very succinctly by the individual described by many as the father of modern anarchism, Michael Bakunin: "The [libertarian labour unions] ... bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society which is to replace the old world. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." [1] This statement is the cornerstone of anarcho-syndicalism. It is also expressed slightly differently in the preamble to the IWW constitution: " ... The army of production must be organised, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organising industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." [2] The purpose of the principles of workers' solidarity, direct action and self-management is to facilitate this process; to provide a means of what was once described in the anarcho-syndicalist movement as "revolutionary gymnastics". The idea of revolutionary gymnastics is simply that training is required for a revolution, in exactly the same way as it is required for a football match, or in exactly the same way as musicians rehearse in private before playing to a live audience. Workers' solidarity is the team spirit which unites the players, the team spirit which says that a champion team will always defeat a team of champions, direct action the libertarian tactics the team uses to achieve its libertarian goal, self-management the libertarian form of administration through which the players on the Social Revolution United squad learn to function as such. Furthermore, just as a football team has the goal of victory to inspire it, so the anarcho-syndicalist union has the dream of social revolution to keep the fire in the bellies of its militants. This is entirely natural for a methodology which seeks not to create new tyrants and rulers for the mass of humanity under different names, but rather to facilitate their self-liberation. 1. Dolgoff, S. (ed), Bakunin on Anarchism, Montreal; Black Rose Books, 1990, pp. 255. 2. In One Big Union: The Industrial Workers of the World, Melbourne; IWW, 1999, pp. 2. 1d1. What is Workers' Solidarity? Solidarity is simply a recognition of the fact that other people are in a similar social or economic situation to yourself, and acting accordingly. The principle is perhaps best illustrated by the old IWW slogan, "An Injury to One is an Injury to All." Clearly, there are different types of solidarity. Solidarity amongst the ruling class takes various forms, one example of which is the blacklist, where employers create lists of troublemakers (that is to say, labour activists) and share them with other employers in the same industry, making it difficult, if not downright impossible, for that person to find work. This type of solidarity stems from the recognition of the fact that if a troublemaking labour activist can organise in one workplace, driving up wages and lowering profits, she or he can also do it elsewhere. And that simply will not do. The kind of solidarity we are concerned with, workers' solidarity, involves a recognition of the fact that all workers are subject to the same system of exploitation (that is, wage-slavery), based on the same institution of monopoly and dispossession (that is, the institution of private property, with its protection via the violent forces of the state). Workers' solidarity is merely an expression of the understanding that any attack by bosses on workers anywhere, besides being an evil in itself, has follow on effects everywhere else, driving down wages and working conditions and, in some cases, setting particular precedents that can encourage other bosses to follow suit. Being concerned with real, tangible foundations for a common identity such as class (as opposed to mystical abstractions such as nation, hiding behind which are only the vested interests of economic and political elites), the principle of workers' solidarity crosses national boundaries and unites workers across the entire planet. It forms the basis of anarcho-syndicalist Internationalism. Workers' solidarity is completely pivotal to the anarcho-syndicalist movement. It is the glue that binds the libertarian labour movement together. It is the guiding force motivating individual workers to act collectively. At a less abstract level, the adoption of workers' solidarity as a central tenet of anarcho-syndicalism is based around an understanding of the power politics of capitalist society. While capitalists are powerful insofar as they control vast amounts of wealth, workers are powerful insofar as they are the productive element of society, insofar as the smooth running of the capitalist system relies on their complicity and cooperation. While an individual worker is powerless against the resources available to the capitalist, particularly considering the million of unemployed who can take the place of anyone not prepared to shut up and do what they're told, multiple workers united together on the basis of workers' solidarity cannot be replaced so easily. Workers united classwide and worldwide on a similar basis could conceivably be unbeatable. Simply stated, direct action refers to action undertaken directly between two individuals or groups, without the intervention of a third party. In the case of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, the principle of direct action has a specific meaning: the rejection of participation in parliamentary or statist poltiics and the adoption of tactics and strategies which place responsibility for action firmly in the hands of the workers themselves. The principle of direct action stands in stark contrast to that of parliamentary or legislative political action, and may be interpreted in terms of revolutionary gymnastics (see above); political action in the sense just alluded to creates a habit of deference and dependence and reilance on others. It weakens and stunts the sense of individual initiative, and fosters the belief in those who participate in it that they can do nothing for themselves, or in the case of those who wield political power that those who defer to them are unable of acting on their own behalf. Furthermore, at a pragmatic level, the principle of direct action rests on the well-tested lesson that the real strength of workers lies in their organised, collective power at the point of production. Even many advocates of and participants in so-called labour parties recognise that their political power is limited at best and useless at worst without strong unions to support them. That the principle of direct action demands that individuals take direct responsibility for their own class struggle, not deferring to leaders who claim to speak in their name, is an expression of the process of revolutionary gymnastics, of training for freedom from authoritarianism and wage-slavery. The individual born and bred in the heirarchal culture of capitalist, statist society has few opportunities to practise the day-to-day act of social autonomy, working together with others on a basis of collective decision-making and direct democracy. She or he is trained to defer responsibily to political leaders and to be highly socially irresponsible, considered in and of her or himself. In adopting responsibility for fighting her or his own class struggle with others on a basis of workers' solidarity, freely and voluntarily, the individual working person adopts new habits of responsibility and self-reliance. By doing so she or he begins to develop the capacity for autonomy, for self-knowledge and independent thought. She or he remakes her or himself as a new person, not one conditioned to the habits of slavishness, conformity and mindless obedience, the personality of the wage-slave under the thumb of the capital/state nexus. Rather, she or he transforms her or himself into a strong, free-thinking individual, one capable of living and operating in a society where the bonds of authority have been broken, replaced by one where respect for individual autonomy and dignity is the only rule. If workers' solidarity is the principle which binds workers together, and direct action that which guides their behaviour in struggle against capital and the state, self-management is that which guides the functioning of the workers' organisations in the present, and that of the syndicates which will one day form the basis for social organisation. The principle of self-management refers simply to the idea that the purpose of social organisations should be for the administration of things rather than the government of people. Obviously, it makes social organisation and cooperation possible, while at the same time making possible the highest possible amount of individual freedom. It is the foundation for the day-to-day functioning of Libertarian Communist society, or, in the best sense of the word, Anarchy. Self-management as a new principle or ideas is probably defined best in contrast with the forms of democracy, impoverished that they are, that the world is most familiar with (excluding those that drop out of U.S. bombers, of course). Wheras the principle of self-management places day-to-day decision-making in the hands of the members of the workers' union in this particular case, so-called representative democracy divulges decision-making power into the hands of a political elite -- what was once described by Proudhon as a "dictatorship of five-hundred heads". Whatever the ideological spin placed on the concept, the fact is that the type of democracy offered by the parliamentary model is a very poor vehicle for social and individual freedom (see section 1C for the ideological arguments). For example, on a practical level, in order to gain access to political office, one requires funding. The only people who have the type of funding to support the campaign of a prospective politician is the capitalist class, and no one ever gives money for nothing. The capitalist class require something from the politicians they support, and they tend more often that not to get it. Therefore, politicians are corrupted by the time they get to office by the very process of getting there. To take another example, once politicians, with their campaign backers looking on from behind, get into office, they are completely beyond the reach of the electorate for the entire duration of their term of office. From their first day in the seat of power they can break as many promises as they want, and no one can do anything about it. They can make new promises, backpeddle, change alligences, change their policy positions or do whatever else they want without anyone being able to do anything about it. The purpose of the principle of self-management is to overcome these fundamental flaws in representative democracy by allowing workers in their unions to develop "the facts of the future," alluded to above. [3] If representative democracy is clouded (like thick, muddy clay, some might say), beyond the day-to-day control of the electorate and corrupted by the capitalist system, then self-management must allow for complete transperacy within the workers' organisations. For each individual participating in their self-managed workplace union, it must bring decision-making back to a scale where each individual is not so preoccupied with the daily task of keeping body and soul together that they have no time for paying attention to things being done in their name. Those who hold official posts within the organisation must be accountable for their actions. In order to achieve this transperancy and accountability, anarcho-syndicalists institute a number of practises: delegation and mandate of responsibility, the rotation of delegates, the recallability of delegates, federalism and confederalism (see directly below). The institution of these practises is a manifestation both of the idea of revolutionary gymnastics and of the axiomatic anarcho-syndicalist principle that means must be consistent with ends. In a similar sense to the idea of direct action, the fact that members of an anarcho-syndicalist union practise libertarian, direct democracy in the present prepares them for the day when the union local becomes not merely a society for resistance to capital, but the workers' council through which production is administered collectively after management and shareholding and other forms of parasitism have been abolished. Futhermore, if the anarcho-syndicalist union is indeed to be the "fact of the future (libertarian society)", where a social order of workers' self-management of production guarantees that individual autonomy and dignity are respected, then that order of workers' self-management must logically be instituted immediately. A free society cannot be instituted from above; it cannot be handed over by a supposedly "communist" regime upon the completion of a revolutionary coup d'etat. The development of a free society begins in the hearts and mind and daily habits of individuals; it grows like a flower as isolated, atomised, alienated individuals learn to cooperate in groups, as they learn to work together, as they learn responsibility for themselves and their enviroment and vigilance against the development of new centres of power. This is what is truly revolutionary about the concept of workers' self-management. Political movements have always promised to liberate the workers and to better their situation, but betrayed them as soon as they gained political power. Political power is an instrument of domination; that state socialist movements have willingly or unwillingly failed to recognise this fact is the reason for their consistent and abject failure. Where they have failed, then, the concept of workers' self-management will ultimately succeed, for the simple fact that it recognises a very simple truth about the mechanics of liberation: freedom cannot be given, it must be taken. Any freedom which is given can be taken away again. Only when ordinary people who live outside spheres of wealth and political power decide to take their power back, from and against those who control and maintain the various systems of exploitation and oppression, will a permanent and lasting freedom even come to fall within the realm of mere possibility (much less to say reality).
1. Quoted by Sam Dolgoff in The American Labor Movement: A New Beginning, http://texts.anarchosyndicalism.org/labor.htm
2. Rocker, R., Anarcho-Syndicalism, http://texts.anarchosyndicalism.org/asindex.htm or London; Phoenix Press, n.d., pp. 17.
3. See the introduction to this section of the FAQ: What are the basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism?
In an anarcho-syndicalist union decisions are made collectively when members meet in assembly. Collective decision-making is very simply the process whereby the day-to-day business of a group or local is discussed and decided on by all that such decisions affect. In the context of the anarcho-syndicalist union local, this means every member of that local.
The purpose of collective decision-making is simple: to guarantee and protect the social autonomy of every member of the anarcho-syndicalist union, while allowing socially autonomous individuals the ability to work together and cooperate with others -- a necessary and vital part of being a member of society.
1d3b. What is the delegate system, and how does it function?
Within any institution or organisation, day-to-day tasks have to be carried out in order that it functions. In a union, for example, correspondence and inquiries have to be responded to, dues have to be collected and divided up, publications have to be produced, and so on. Such tasks imply a certain amount of responsibility.
In traditional unions, branches of government, workplaces and other organisations and institutions dominated by power elites and heirarchal structures of decision-making, organisational and administrative tasks are carried out by politicians, bureaucrats, bosses, managers and others separated from the mass of the people. Where decisions are made in the name of the people, as with so-called representative democracy, once the so-called representatives are in power, they are beyind the reach of those they are purported to represent, and can break as many promises and sell out their principles as often as they like for the next several years, until the next election rolls around. While in power they gain access to mountains of information not available to those not in such positions of responsibility. Because they are in positions of reponsibility for so long, year after year after year, they become used to making the decisions and having others following them. The become used to weilding the type of highly concentrated power that comes with political office and to having access to information not available to the average person. This, according to liberal democratic theory, is the best and freest form of social organisation that human beings have ever been able to construct.
The ideas which form the foundation for the day-to-day running of anarcho-syndicalist unions are based on a libertarian critique of this very poor vision of democracy. Where representative democracy sees the elected representative as the mouthpiece for the "general will", it can be argued instead that no one can ever fully know, understand or appreciate the ever-changing, ever-developing ideas and opinions of anyone other than themselves. On a less micro and more macroscopic level, it can also be argued that to try to put concepts of representative democracy into practise on a large scale in flawed by the fact that the "general will" of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is impossible in a society ridden with class privilege. On a pragmatic level, it can be argued that the fact that so-called representatives can be elected for periods of years without having to answer in any meaningful way to those that they supposedly act in the name of significantly reduces accountability and the ability of ordinary people to influence the day-to-day course of their own lives. When the threat of retribution for actions which harm the quality of life of those being governed is removed, those in power feel more secure in carrying out their dirty work on behalf of the wealthy and powerful elite. It is always interesting how those in power seem to be in favour of extending terms of government, whereas many of those they supposedly represent are not.
Out of these criticisms of representative democracy comes the rationale for the anarcho-syndicalist process of delegation and mandating of delegates. Instead of electing a representative who acts, speaks and makes decisions in the name of the rest of the local, members practise collective decision-making (as we have already noted above at FAQ 1d3a) and delegate one of their own to carry out specific administrative functions. The delegate acts according to a specific mandate from the local assembly; that is to say, if that person is delegated to be the secretary of the local, they might collect and answer correspondence and enquiries, collect and divvy up dues, and whatever other activities that local assembly requires them to do, afterwards reporting back at every assembly every aspect of their actions as a member with delegated responsibilities for the previous period of time, the period since the last assembly.
This process of delegation and mandated responsibility guarantees the day-to-day functioning of the anarcho-syndicalist union, while at the same time protecting the autonomy of each of its individual members. The delegate (local secretary, federation secretary, confederal secretary, treasurer, press secretary, delegate to national and international congress, etc.) has a specific task to carry out which is defined in advance by assembly decision, and reports back regularly to ensure that assembly members can keep track of the delegates' actions, thus limiting the ability of that delegate to act outside of -- and possibly against -- the decisions of the mass of the membership.
Unlike supposedly representative politicians, delegates within the anarcho-syndicalist union may not have a tenure of years or even decades. Practises such as these which allow individual to maintain control over the reigns of responsibility for so long inculcate a love of power, and are destructive to social freedom. For that reason delegates within the anarcho-syndicalist union are regularly rotated, meaning that they may be hold a position of official responsibility for a short period of time -- six months, one year or at the outside two -- but must afterwards step aside and allow a different individual to take their place. Any delegate who steps outside of the boundaries of their mandate may be recalled. It is by means of the processes of appointing delegates and making them mandated and instantly recallable that the direct democracy inherant in the anarcho-syndicalist union, and the social autonomy of each of its members, is maintained.
Autonomous anarcho-syndicalist unions combine in a single industry by means of anarchist federalism; that is, a type of federalism in which decision making power flows strictly from the bottom up. In statist forms of federalism, individual states grant certain powers to a federal government, which carries out certain duties and activities on behalf of the federated states. This is a top-down from, much different from that of the anarcho-syndicalist union.
In the anarcho-syndicalist industrial federation, dicussion takes place in each of the local assemblies affiliated to that federation, and then decisions are made collectively on the basis of that full and frank diuscussion. Delegates are then appointed to communicate the discussions and decisions of each of those local assemblies to a meeting of delegates, which typically takes place at a federation congress. Here delegates carry out the mandate of their local assembly and attempt, where possible, to reach compromises with other delegates within the boundaries of their mandate.
The same process as outlined above also takes place in regional federation assemblies, where delegates from various industrial unions in the same geographical area meet to discuss issues relevant to members living in those areas.
Confederalism is the process outlined in Question 1d3c, but extended to include not only delegates from specific industrial federations or regional areas, but from every local assembly in the union, regardless of industry or locality.
Confederal congresses are typically used to formulate policy and direction for the entire organisation.
1d3e. What, roughly speaking, are the branches of the anarcho-syndicalist confederation?
Very roughly speaking, the industrial branches that an anarcho-syndicalist union might be broken up into are: agriculture and fisheries, mining and minerals, construction, manufacturing, transport and communications and public service.
Obviously, these sectors are extremely broad and can accomodate a wide variety of occupations. Sex workers and home workers might form unions within the public service sector, whereas Information Technology workers might fall within transport and communications.
Under construction.
1d3d. In the workers' assembly, why is everyone important, and no one necessary?
The idea that "everyone is important, nobody is necessary" helps to remind those attempting to put anarcho-syndicalist principles into practise of the nature of anarcho-syndicalist organisation; that is to say, that the opinions of every member are no less or no more important than those of any other. Just as importantly, it reminds us that we are all responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the organisation, as well as the action that the union as a whole carries out within the workplace and community. It reminds us continually of the collective and liberarian nature of the union based on anarcho-syndicalist principles, that we operate without leaders, idols or gurus, and that there are no heirarchies, political, intellectual or otherwise.
In effect, this phrase reminds us that we are equally important within our organisations as individual human beings, but that no one individual can carry so much weight within an anarcho-syndicalist union that it ceases to function if they, for some reason, can no longer participate in its day-to-day maintenance. Where this is so, some members much of necessity be in a state of dependence and deference. This is not what we want for a movement whose primary goal is to facilitate the development of individual skills and capacities related which help us to think and act for ourselves. When functioning properly the anarcho-syndicalist union is not a harbinger of new forms of oppression and deference, but rather an association of free individuals developing a culture and practise of freedom, equality and solidarity.
In an anarcho-syndicalist union, and in the future society when our movement is ultimately successful, the workers' and community assemblies are and will be the cradle of direct democracy, the means by which a variety of decision-making which is more harmonious with individual freedom and social autonomy can be put into practise. The forms of decision-making we put into practise now and in the future, will, if done properly, provide a way of getting things done in a way that allows everyone such decisions affect input and influence.
When disputes between individual members of an anarcho-syndicalist union occur for whatever reason, personal, political, or otherwise, such conflict affects the other members of the union in the first place through the dischord internal conflict generates, and in the second through the fact that the members involved in the dispute are expending energy on the dispute that is not going into their regular activities on behalf of the union.
As noted above, the anarcho-syndicalist assembly, when functioning properly, should allow for resolution of these disputes. Not only is it the best forum for resolving disputes between individual members, it is more importantly the proper forum, given that, as noted, disputes also affect the other members of the union local for the reasons stated.
1d3f. What is "confederal time"?
Confederal time means that you should get your backside to the meeting on time, because you're a member of an anarcho-syndicalist confederation and when you're late everyone else is held back. If that happens you're wasting union time, which increases in proportion to how late you are and the more members your local has. Comes from the Spanish "Hora Confederal."
|
|
