10. SEPARATE ORGANISATIONS?
The revolution and the honour of the workers obliges us to declare
... that we make war on the same enemies: on capital and authority,
which oppresses all workers ... The bourgeoisie of all countries and
nationalities is united in a bitter struggle against the revolution,
against the labouring masses of the whole world and all nationalities
...
The path toward the emancipation of the workers can
only be reached by the union of all the workers of the world. Long
live the workers international! Long live the free and stateless
anarchist commune.
Makhnovist Army and Nabat Anarchist group, May
1919, "Workers, Peasants and Insurgents. For the Oppressed, Against
the Oppressor- Always!", leaflet issued in the Anarchist-led
revolution in Ukraine, 1918-21. Reproduced in Peter Archinov, History
of the Makhnovist Movement, 1918-21. 1987 Freedom Press edition.
1. INTRODUCTION
PLEASE EXAMINE OTHER POSITION PAPERS FOR FULLER ANALYSIS OF CLASS
STRUGGLE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE FIGHT AGAINST ALL OPPRESSION.
1. As Anarchists/Syndicalists, we stand for class struggle between
the bosses and rulers, on the one hand, and the workers, peasants and
the poor, on the other hand. We therefore call on working and poor
people to organise separately from the class enemy, the rich and
powerful. All working and poor people have essentially the same
interests, and can only defeat capitalism, the State and all forms of
oppression by organising separately on the basis of CLASS, and only
class. We stand for maximum unity amongst the oppressed classes. We
oppose any alliances between the oppressed classes and the oppressing
classes.
2. WSF COMMISSIONS
2. Having said this, we do recognise that there may be a need to
organise special commissions (committees) of the Anarchist political
organisation, the WSF, to concentrate on all the various issues
relevant to the working class and poor: forexample, racism, sexism.
Also, in the long run it may be possible to set up WSF youth and
other sections e.g. a "Syndicalist Youth" wing.
2.1. The point of WSF commissions is to make sure that all issues
relevant to the working and poor people are dealt with in a
comprehensive and effective fashion. Examples: commissions on women's
freedom, trade union democracy etc. Such groups would be set up by
WSF National Conference. SEE WSF CONSTITUTION.
2.2. Neither commissions nor sections should be go-it-alone
isolated bodies with no aid from other structures, or as "ghettos" to
which controversial issues can be assigned and forgotten. Instead,
they should be seen as integral parts of the WSF.
3. The WSF is a class-struggle based organisation- we promote
organisation and struggle on the basis of class as the means to
change society. We oppose divisions between working and poor people.
Given that the working-class/ peasantry are multi-national and
multi-racial, this clearly means that the WSF must be an integrated
non-racial, non-sexist organisation. It also implies that the working
class struggle must be fought on non-racial, international lines.
3. WHY WE OPPOSE NON-CLASS SEPARATE ORGANISATIONS
4. As noted above, we call for the working and poor people to
organise separately from their class enemy: the ruling class.
However, we do not support the tactic (advocated by some political
currents) of forming non-class based separate organisations. For
example, women-only movements (advocated by radical feminism),
Black-only movements (advocated by Black Consciousness), gay-only
movements etc. Although we recognise that such approaches are capable
of gaining fair amounts of support and publicity, we nonetheless
argue that they are a weak and flawed approaches unable to deliver
liberation to the groups whose interests they profess. At the same
time, we unconditionally defend people's basic democratic right to
associate with whoever they wish .
4.1. Typically, approaches that call for non-class based separate
organisation fail to correctly identify the source of the oppression
of the group in question. They typically fail to even provide
critiques of capitalism and the State; even where they do, they fail
to provide workable strategies for liberation. these to It is typical
For example, radical feminism argues that all men benefit from
women's oppression, and that, as a result, women must organise
separately from men (the enemy). Such an argument fails to identify
the real roots of special oppressions (primarily in capitalism and
the State), or to recognise that no workers actually benefit from
such oppression. It thus fails to realise that only class struggle
can end special oppressions, and that the real allies of specially
oppressed groups are other working and poor people (in this case,
men). It thus fails to see the need for united organisation, and thus
for class consciousness, and class power.
4.2. Another questionable claim that is sometimes used to promote
these non-class based separate organisations is that "they are
necessary to make sure that the group in question is not marginalised
by other forces". For example, some Black nationalists argue that
Blacks must organise separately so that they are not bossed around or
ignored by whites in progressive struggles. This is a legitimate
concern, but it does not follow that separate organisation is the
best way to deal with it. On the contrary, separate organisation is a
particularly weak approach to the problem.
4.2.1. Firstly, separate organisation often tends to reinforce and
deepen the marginalisation of the voice of a given group. (a) The
existence of a separate organisation often allows the "ghettoisation"
of that group's concerns. For example, men can say that issues of
women's oppression should be dealt with by the women, and are thus
able to avoid changing backward ways of behaving (e.g.. sexism) that
are, ultimately, against the interests of all working/ poor people.
Instead, all sections of the working class and poor need to won to a
programme of opposing (rather than ignoring) all forms of oppression.
(b) Even if these other sections do not themselves have first hand
experience of a given form of oppression, it does not follow that
they cannot be won to a position of opposition to that oppression.
Such a position is in their own interests because no workers really
benefit from oppression. In addition, all workers share a common form
of oppression as workers which provides a basis for unity. We reject
the notion that "the facts" can only be understood by members of a
given group- social-scientific analysis can produce reasonably
objective, context-free knowledge.(c) Third, separate organisations
can lay the basis for the isolation and defeat of a specially
oppressed group. For example, the Black minority in the USA is too
small and weak to overthrow the US ruling class on its own. It needs
allies. Yet the logic of separate organisation advocated by US Black
nationalists is to oppose all such alliances, because it effectively
claims strength flows from isolation, and denies the very real common
interests of all workers.
4.2.2. Secondly, this view expresses a lack of confidence in the
abilities of Blacks, women etc.. to function in integrated
organisations. But it is folly and patronising to assume that, for
example, Black people in such organisations will always be passive
followers of "White leaders". Exactly the opposite is true. Even
within Europe and the USA, Black workers will be in the forefront of
the struggle, a crucial part of the layer of activists whose role is
so vital to the revolution. In South Africa, the Black working class
will be the agent of revolutionary change. To claim that Black people
will "always" be reduced to passive followers in integrated leftist
movements is to be blind to the capacities of the Black working
class.
4.2.3. Taken to its logical conclusion, separate organisation
divides the working class into competing and even hostile sections to
the detriment of all. Why stop at Black-only or women-only movements?
The basic idea of separate organisation readily leads to an emphasise
on difference, and a process of continual fragmentation: blacks
versus whites versus Asians versus blacks of one sort of origin (e.g.
America) versus those of another (e.g.. African) versus blacks of one
sex (e.g.. men) versus those of another (e.g.. women) versus blacks
of one sexual preference (e.g. straight) versus those of another
(e.g. gay) versus blacks of one religion (e.g. Christian) versus
those of another (e.g. Islamic) etc. etc.. Such fragmentation of
political struggle is common in many countries. Instead of
emphasising difference, and using it to justify separatism, we need
to find points of agreement and common interest; divided we are weak,
united we can win. Class provides the basis for uniting the vast
majority of the world against the key source of poverty, oppression,
and domination: capitalism, the State and their ruling classes.
4.2.4. The claim that only separate organisation can prevent the
marginalisation of a group's concerns is false. On the contrary: the
most effective way to, for example, commit the working class to the
struggle for women's freedoms is not to confine the issue of women's
rights to small women-only groups, but to win all working-class
people to a position opposed to sexism. This increases the support
for such demands, and strengthens the struggle for such demands.
Moreover, since it is in the interest of all working/ poor people to
support the struggle against all oppression, the task of winning all
workers to this position is quite practical/ possible.
4.3. Separate organisation on a non-class basis is by NOT always
progressive. Whilst we defend the right of free association, and
defend and support progressive organisations that fight oppression,
we also recognise that in some cases separate organisations are
clearly a reactionary and a backward step.
4.3.1. Separate organisation in the workplace (e.g.. women-only
trade unions) is not acceptable in any case where industrial unions
of all workers exist. The logic of trade union organisation is to
unify different categories of workers, who can only find strength in
their unity. Where the unions exclude categories of workers, these
workers should be organised to separate unions as a transitional
step, but in all cases United Front action between the different
unions should be promoted because its strengthens struggle, and
because it helps lay the basis for future unification. Maximum unity
on a principled basis (i.e. anti-racist etc.) must be promoted.
4.3.2. Separate organisation is only admissible as a tactic for
liberation in cases where workers face a special oppression. We do
not, for example, support tribalist movements such as the Inkatha
"Freedom" Party because Zulus do not face a special oppression as
Zulus.
4.3.3. Separate organisation that is not on a class struggle basis
is dangerous because it almost always lays the basis for multi-class
alliances as it is based on non-class identities and (supposed)
non-class common interests. As argued in POSITION PAPERS on
FIGHTING RACISM,
WOMEN'S LIBERATION etc., only class
struggle (not cross-class unity) can end racism, imperialism, sexism
etc.
4. RELATING TO ALREADY EXISTING MOVEMENTS
5. In practice, as we have noted elsewhere, working and poor
people have responded to the repression, exploitation and injustices
of capitalism in a variety of ways. For example, at the ideological
level, people have supported various political ideologies. Some of
these ideologies share much ground with anarcho-syndicalism (e.g..
other types of socialism); and others with which we have relatively
little in common and/or reject (e.g.. nationalism).
6. In addition, people have organised themselves to fight against
capitalism in a variety of ways and areas of social life. Two key
forms of response are:
6.1. "Political" responses. For example, some people work to build
parliamentary parties (e.g. the ANC) , or build wings of political
parties (e.g. SASCO or PASO). What these approaches have in common is
that they recruit people on the basis of a specific set of political
beliefs (e.g.. the Congress tradition).
6.2. "Economic" responses. For example, civic associations,
rent-strike committees, youth structures, self-defence units, and, of
course, trade unions). What these organisations have in common is
that they are broad-based grassroots structures which organise people
(regardless of their political beliefs) to fight for their daily
needs against the power-that-be i.e. on the basis of their economic
and social interests (for example, more rights, better schools, lower
rent, better working conditions). Such organisations typically have a
class dimension in that they are based largely amongst working-class
people and address issues relevant to the workers and poor. Class
struggle is not just about wages-it is about every action by working
and poor people to resist the bosses and rulers. The economic and
class aspects of these structures remain true, no matter which
political ideologies influence their membership (a variety of
political currents are commonly present within these structures).
7. Organisations with homogenous memberships (for example, only
Black members) may exist within both types of response (i.e. 6.1 and
6.2). Some of these organisations have such a composition because it
reflects members' political beliefs. For example, AZAPO. Therefore it
is a "political response" (belief in non-class based separate
organisation). The composition of other structures reflects their
grassroots base. For example, a township-based civic is almost
certain to be entirely Black in membership. Nonetheless, such a
structure is an "economic response" in the sense outlined above and
should be treated as such.
8. The following "rule of thumb" should be applied by the WSF when
relating to these two types of body:
8.1. Political groups. In other parts of these Position Papers we
have criticised both the strategy of using parliament for social
change, and the strategy of using non-class based separate
organisations. SEE OTHER POSITION PAPERS AND SECTION 3. OF THIS
PAPER. This means that we do not do political work within such
organisations. However, we are more than ready to work alongside/ in
co-operation with such organisations through the tactic of United
Front action (see POSITION PAPER ON PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR WSF
ACTIVITY).
8.2. Economic groups. We would generally work within such
organisations (inlcuding through WSF commisions) to win them to our
programme. Our aim:8.2.1. promote class-consciousness, an explicitly
working-class programme, an end to class collaboration (as opposed to
nationalism, support for politicians etc.).8.2.2. put control into
the hands of the working-class grassroots, not middle- and
upper-class politicians and "radicals".8.2.3. promote unity with
other mass economic structures because of the common interests of the
workers and poor, and because of the need to prevent isolation
leading to defeat. Promote principled and progressive co-operation
with unions. 8.2.4. also, we take up arguments about the need to
support the struggles of specific part of the working class (e.g.
women) with other sections of the working class (e.g. men).SEE PAPER
ON CLASS STRUGGLE, CAPITALISM AND THE
STATE.
8.3. As indicated in the UNIONS
Position Paper, our aim is to unite and merge all of these
"economic"/class struggle bodies: those at the workplace should unite
into "One Big (Trade) Union"; those in residential areas should unite
into "One Big (Community) Union"- into integrated fighting structures
that rally all working class people against capitalism, the State and
all oppression. The actual process of unification would not exclude
tactics like united fronts, WSF commissions, work with caucuses (e.g.
women's caucuses) .These workplace and community "unions" will lay
the basis for self-governing worker and community councils in the
Anarcho-syndicalist future. See ROLE OF
REVOLUTIONARY ORGANISATION, Part 5.
This page hosted by
Get your own
Free Home Page
Go to the
CapitolHill GeoPage