3. THE TRADE UNIONS
It is necessary to never forget that if trade unionism does not
find in anarchist theory a support in opportune times it will turn,
whether we like it or not, to the ideology of a political statist
party.
Nestor Makhno, Peter Archinov, Ida Mett et al, The
Organisational Platform of the Anarchist Communists, 1926 (published
by the WSF (SA)).
... according to the Syndicalist view, the trade union, the
syndicate, is the unified organisation of labour and has for its
purpose the defence of the interests of the producers in the existing
society and the preparing for and the practical carrying out of the
reconstruction of social life after the pattern of [libertarian]
Socialism. It has, therefore, a double purpose ...
Rudolph Rocker, Anarcho-syndicalism, 1938
(republished 1989, Pluto Press),p86
1. THE WORKPLACE STRUGGLE
1. The working class (and/ or the working peasantry) create all
wealth under capitalism <1>.
1.1. Because of their position in society these classes, as the
producers of all wealth, are the only social groups that are capable
of destroying the class system and other forms of oppression and
creating a free, stateless, classless society based on direct
democracy, and distribution according to need <2>.
1.2. As the producers of wealth, these classes, through workplace
action are a force capable of powerful mass actions against the
present set- up even in the pre- revolutionary period <3>.
1.3. So why don't we use our numbers and power and recreate
society in our own interests? The main reason is that we are told
that we are not capable of doing so, by the schools, media etc. These
teach us that the workers can only follow orders and that this is the
natural order of things.
1.4. However, this pro- capitalist propaganda that teaches us to
feel powerless and that hides the truth of class rule is challenged
by the experiences of the masses when they struggle to force the
capitalist system to meet their needs for education, housing, jobs,
wages, freedom from racism etc. In particular, workplace action, the
use of our collective power that runs the factories, offices, mines,
schools etc. to stop them gives us a glimpse of our potential power
<4>.
2. THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
2. Trade unions are one of the most important mass movements of
the working class and one of the main focuses of our activity as the
Workers Solidarity Federation. We take this position for a number of
reasons.
2.1. The trade unions are organisations based on the specific
class interests of the workers. There is no other way to explain the
formation of trade union movements except by the need of workers to
organise on class lines to defend and advance their own particular
interests in opposition to those of the bosses <5>. No amount
of bureaucracy, reformism or backwardness in the unions can remove
this essential fact.
2.2. Because of this fundamental feature of the trade union
movement, it forms an organisational stronghold of a specific class
consciousness that to some extent cuts across race, gender, religion
etc.
2.3. The trade unions are based at the point of production and
hence wield the strongest weapon of the workers under capitalism: the
withdrawal of their labour. They therefore allow the workers to
injure the bosses and they give the workers an idea of their
potential power and ability to run their own lives.
2.4. We stand in solidarity with the mass organisations and
progressive struggles of the working class. We must take up Anarchist
arguments throughout the working class and its structures. We oppose
all oppression, we stand in solidarity with our class. We believe
that mass struggle is the best strategy for social change, gives the
class confidence in its own abilities, and provides the best forum to
win Anarchist ideas. Therefore we engage in grassroots union work.
3. We reject the argument that all unions inevitably end up
"selling out" the working class.
3.1. Workers would not support the unions if the unions did not to
some extent defend and advance their class interests. Even the most
bureaucratic and deformed union must ultimately respond to the needs
of the rank-and-file membership if it is to retain their support.
3.2. Not all reformist demands can be won in the framework of
capitalism. Therefore even the most bureaucratic union will in some
circumstances clash with the imperatives of capital and the State. In
other words the unions can never be totally "integrated" into
capitalism.
3.3. All unions depend in the final analysis on their ability to
mobilise their members in direct action against the bosses. It is the
threat of a withdrawal of labour power that gets the bosses to
recognise the demands of the workers and not some sort of devious
plot to co- opt the working class. Therefore we say that unions are
mass combat organisations of the working class.
3.4. The bosses do not set up or support the unions as a means of
fooling the workers. The bosses will attack and if possible destroy
even the most moderate unions if they have the opportunity (e.g.. the
recent attacks on Trades Union Congress (TUC) in Britain; on AFL-CIO
in the USA <6>.). It is nonsense to say that capitalism "needs"
the unions for stability, social peace or somesuch. The bosses will
only grant some sort of recognition to unions if there is mass
struggle. The bosses cannot always give in to workers demands to "buy
off" struggle.
3.5. The existence of a union bureaucracy is not inevitable. The
Spanish Anarcho- syndicalist union the CNT (National Confederation of
Labour) had more than a million members in the early 1930s but at no
point had more than two paid officials. Union work was done as much
as possible by activists during work hours, and leadership posts were
regularly rotated <7>.
3.6. It is not true that a bureaucracy always develops in the
unions because the bosses will only deal with "respectable" leaders
who can be relied on to get the membership to accept and abide by the
deals negotiated after mass actions. The bosses negotiate because
they are forced to, not because they "like" or "approve" of the union
leadership. In addition, if the union is democratic, the negotiators
represent the interests of the membership, and are not prefects or
policemen for management.
3. THE TRADE UNION BUREAUCRACY AND REFORMISM
4. Unions have taken different ideological and organisational
approaches in different times and places. They have varied from
revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalist unions aiming at destroying
capitalism, to sweetheart bureaucratic unions.
5. At present most unions in South Africa are characterised by the
dominance of reformist ideas. These hold that the bosses and the
workers must co-operate to "save the economy", "reconstruct and
develop the country" etc. It is generally held that capitalism can be
made into something more humane. It is believed that unions must
reach some sort of accommodation with capitalism, rather than
overthrow it <8>.
6. The actions of the unions are increasingly dominated by a
bureaucracy of full-time, often unelected, officials. At the same
time, the unions, particularly COSATU (Congress of South African
Trade Unions), have strong tradition of grassroots democracy and
accountability e.g.. the shopsteward system. This leads to serious
contradictions, as when the leadership condemns the strike actions
and ignores the concerns of the union membership (e.g..) the truckers
strike of 1994, and the nurses strike of 1995 <9>.
6.1. The union bureaucracy is not responsible to the membership in
any real sense except in the most formal way. They have far too much
power and influence. On top of this they earn much more than the
rank- and- file, they are able to avoid overtime and are also
protected from short- time and retrenchments in a way that ordinary
workers are not. In addition, they may sit on company boards,
government commissions, high- level negotiating structures such as
NEDLAC (National Economic, Development and Labour Council), and may
enjoy a variety of perks.
6.2. The privileges of the bureaucracy may even be set to increase
in the larger unions, as concern grows with preventing leaders from
being lost to the bosses and the government, both of whom are willing
and able to offer very attractive employment opportunities to skilled
negotiators with some sort of working class background<10>.
6.3. In short the union bureaucracy enjoys a way of life that is
quite different from the people that they are supposed to be working
for. Some of them have never even worked in an ordinary job.
7. As a result of its privileges and power the union bureaucracy
develops a distinct set of interests <11>..They generally put
their own special interests before those of the workers as a whole.
7.1. Because the bureaucrats privileges depend on their role as
full- time negotiators and mediators who can help the bosses avoid
industrial conflict they will rarely initiate or lead strikes.
Instead they are ready to negotiate until the cows come home to reach
a so- called "reasonable" solution. They prefer conciliation to class
warfare. Their lack of accountability reinforces their tendency to
negotiate rather than pull out all the stops to secure the maximum
benefit for the union rank and file.
7.2. The full- time officials do not usually lead strikes but they
sometimes will, such as when employers are refusing to negotiate or
when negotiating procedures are threatened. Generally however they
will go to almost any length and accept almost any deal in place of
industrial action. They will not hesitate to condemn unofficial and
illegal strikes (strikes that are not approved of by themselves).
7.3. It is important to remember that the bureaucracy behaves as
it does because of its privileges and power, and not because its
individual members are "sell- outs", "bad people" etc. The
bureaucracy is by its very nature authoritarian and opposed to
workers self- activity on most occasions.
7.4. The opposition of the bureaucracy to mass actions, except in
extreme circumstances has many negative consequences. It dampens the
fighting spirit of the membership and leads to demobilisation, and it
reduces the extent of gains that could have been won if mass action
was used.
8. However, as we pointed out above, the bureaucracy in the unions
can never become totally unresponsive to the demands of the
membership. This would result in the end of their power, privileges
and careers as ordinary people would leave the unions. Within this
constraint, however, the bureaucrats will still swing between the
role of mediator and defender of the status quo.
9. It is self- evident that the more power, initiative and control
that lies with the full time officials, the less that lies with the
rank- and- file membership on the shopfloor.
4. CORPORATISM, TRIPARTISM AND "STRATEGIC UNIONISM"
10. We are totally opposed to the current drift of the unions into
collaboration with the bosses and the State (e.g.) forums such as
NEDLAC which deals with macro- economic policy. We believe that
tripartite and bipartite arrangements will not bring any real
benefits to the workers and the poor. Instead they will serve to
demobilise and weaken the unions <12>.
11. This trend towards collaboration with the bosses and the
rulers is most noticeable in the growing involvement of the unions in
a variety of policy negotiation forums.
11.1. Involvement of the unions in "policy- making": Basically
this means that the unions draw up complex proposals as the basis for
negotiations with the bosses and the State in order to formulate
long-term policies binding on all parties. In practice these are
drawn up by experts with no real worker input. Because of the
domination of nationalist ideas in the unions, these proposals also
tend to be reformist and aimed at creating a better capitalism.
11.2. Sitting in policy forums: The unions try to get these
policies accepted by the bosses and the State, and as a result
participate in various forums, both at national level (NEDLAC- which
deals with labour law and macro- economic policy- e.g.. tariffs,
training, taxation), and at sub- national forums (like "participatory
management" schemes and "workplace forums").
12. These forums are nothing but a trap for the working class,
even though unions (like COSATU) may see these forums as a way of
gradually winning control away from the boss and moving to socialism.
12.1. These forums create a pretence of democracy that ignores the
massive and systematic inequality between the bosses (who own
everything and control the State) and the workers (who have nothing
but their numbers, fighting spirit and ability to disrupt
production). These forums do not challenge this class inequality
because they are based on the idea the bosses and the workers are
partners in development and economic growth and that both are
legitimate interest groups. As a result they cannot fundamentally
change the balance of power between bosses and workers that exists
under capitalism.
12.2. The forums are a threat to the unions because they take
control out of the hands of ordinary members and place it in the
hands of the full- time leaders and "experts" who sit in the forums
and draft "policy". By focussing on policy they shift the focus of
union activity from grassroots action and workers self- activity
against the bosses (the real source of workers power) to high- level
negotiations, and elite bargaining.
12.3. These various forums also promote the false idea that the
bosses and the workers share the same interests as each other, and
that the bosses are a good and necessary part of society. In this way
the forums help to teach workers to accept capitalism in the name of
"democracy".
12.4. While there is an appearance that the agenda for negotiation
is open and democratic, in reality all that is discussed is how to
make capitalism run more smoothly. Lower level forums like
"participatory management" do not give the workers power over the
bigger capitalist economy; at most they give a little bit of a say in
hiring and firing, working conditions and improving the efficiency
and competitiveness of the firm in the capitalist economy. Higher
level forums like NEDLAC only deal with improving the broader
framework in which capitalism operates. e.g.. protection on imports,
worker training, improving productivity; because agreement must be
reached in order for policy to be implemented (usually on the basis
of consensus), anything that threatened the State and capital would
be rejected out of hand by the representatives of these groups and
will thus always be vetoed.
13. This is not to say that we are opposed to the struggle of
workers to win economic improvements in their lives and more control
over their work and the economy. The point is that these gains must
be won through mass actions organised through a democratic,
grassroots, militant and independent/ autonomous union movement, and
not through collaborating with the enemy in the naive belief that we
can be "partners in reconstruction and development".
5. THE REVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL OF TRADE UNIONS
14. We stand within that tendency within class struggle Anarchism
that believes that the unions can perform a double role of firstly,
mobilising workers for mass action on day- to- day issues; and,
secondly, providing the organisational structure through which
workers can collectively seize and self- manage the means of
production. Work in the union movement is not only important as a
means of winning workers to Anarchism, but also as a means of laying
the organisational basis for the new society in the shell of the
old<13>.
14.1. This tendency (Anarchist- Syndicalism or Anarcho-
Syndicalism) is rooted in the work of Bakunin, and the Anarchist-
aligned Spanish, Swiss and other sections of the First International
Workers Association (in the 1860s and 1870s), and the International
Working Peoples Association in the USA in the 1880s <14>.
14.2. Anarcho- syndicalism underwent a massive revival from the
late nineteenth century. Not only did it come to dominate the
revolutionary left, but in a number of countries, it became the
dominant influence on the union movement (e.g.). Spain, Portugal,
Brazil, Argentine, France, Mexico, Uruguay. In others it formed a
substantial minority current (e.g.). Italy, Britain, the United
States, Japan, Germany, Bulgaria, Australia.
15. We reject the idea that trade unions can only become
revolutionary in "revolutionary conditions". This is a one- sided and
deterministic view. Revolutionary conditions are not just something
that happens to workers. They are also the result of the actions of
the workers themselves, and in turn these actions are influenced by
the strength of revolutionary ideology and the level of self-
activity that the workers engage in. Therefore we say that
revolutionary trade unions can themselves directly contribute to the
creation of revolutionary conditions.
16. We reject the claim that unions only exist to improve the
conditions under which workers are exploited, rather than put an end
to the system of exploitation itself. In other words, we are opposed
to the idea that the unions always and everywhere cannot go beyond
"partial struggles" within capitalism and must always compromise with
the bosses at "the end of the day".
16.1. This view is totally ahistorical. Just because the balance
of forces under capitalism generally favours the bosses and the
rulers, with the effect that many struggles (by unions as well as
other progressive formations) are only "partial" does not mean that
the unions will always be forced to compromise with capitalism. It is
necessary to examine both the objective and subjective factors in
existence at a particular time (e.g.). strength of revolutionary
ideology amongst the workers, existence of a crisis in ruling circles
etc. The logic of the "partial struggle" position is that any
fighting organisation that is unable to overthrow capitalism whenever
it feels like it is inherently reformist.
16.2. This view is inaccurate. In response to an attempted fascist
coup in Spain in 1936, the Anarcho- Syndicalist union the CNT
(National Confederation of Labour) successfully spearheaded the
formation of workers militias that halted the fascist coup, and led
the movement by up to nine million workers and peasants to seize and
self- administer the land and factories. The rank- and- file of the
CNT literally tore down the capitalist system <15>.
16.3. It is wrong to see the outcome of every day workers struggle
as a "compromise". Many such struggles are an unconditional victory
for the working masses in that they forced totally obstinate bosses
to give in against their will and lose a bit of their power and
wealth. Such struggles may be limited in their effect but they are a
direct and successful attack on the rule of the bosses.
16.4. Finally, a compromise cannot always be reached. In a number
of circumstances, such as economic downturn, the bosses may be unable
to concede on the workers demands. In these cases even a "partial
struggle" brings the workers into conflict with the very fabric of
the capitalist system and moves their demands from "partial" ones to
objectively revolutionary ones. It is not, however, inevitable that
such situations will have a revolutionary outcome.
17. The existence of a union bureaucracy is not inevitable. The
Spanish Anarcho- syndicalist union the CNT (National Confederation of
Labour) had more than a million members in the early 1930s but at no
point had more than two paid officials. Union work was done as much
as possible by activists during work hours, and leadership posts were
regularly rotated.
6. BASIC IDEAS OF ANARCHO- SYNDICALISM ON THE UNIONS
18. As Anarcho- syndicalists we believe that the unions can not
only defend the workers in the existing capitalist society, but
prepare them for, and practically carry out the reconstruction of
society in the direction of Stateless Socialism <16>.
18.1. In practical terms, this means that the role of the unions
must be expanded from that of simply defending and advancing the
interests of the workers in the daily struggle, to preparing the
workers to take control of the economy by informing them about the
technical management of production and distribution, and by spreading
among them the revolutionary ideas needed to create a free,
stateless, socialist society (anarchism).
18.2. The unions are more suited to accomplishing these tasks than
political parties. They organise the workers to use their economic
power to fight injustice and help to make the workers aware of their
strength. They help to create a spirit of solidarity and
combativeness. They can give the workers the ideological and
organisational preparation needed to reconstruct society.
18.3. In accordance with this outlook we emphasise mass/ direct
actions by the workers as a means of defending and advancing their
political and economic rights. Examples of these immediate methods of
struggle are boycotts, go- slows, strikes, and work- to- rule.
18.4. It is not true that Anarcho- syndicalists believe that all
that is necessary to make a revolution is a General Strike lasting
for a few days. The General Strike is the strongest weapon of the
workers and is used in a variety of situations. In some
circumstances, it may be the prelude to the revolutionary uprising of
the working class.
19. The tasks of the Anarcho- syndicalists are thus two- fold.
19.1. On the one hand, they devote themselves to the Socialist
education of the masses: that is, revolutionary propaganda work that
links a criticism of capitalist society to a vision of how society
can be reorganised in the interests of the masses. Such work is of
course aided by the experience of struggle at the workplace.
19.2. On the other hand, as opponents of centralisation and
supporters of the maximum self- activity of the masses, they are
opposed to the existence of bureaucratic and undemocratic structures
in the union movement. The unions should be structured as follows.
The basic unit of the union is the workplace section (made up of a
general assembly of all workers in a particular part of a workplace);
these sections each elect a mandated delegate, together making up the
factory committee.
19.3. The different plants are then federated with each other in
two directions. Firstly, with all equivalent organisations in the
same industry and related trades (to form industrial and agricultural
alliances e.g.. in transport). These industrial unions are in turn
federated into a Federation of Industrial Alliances. Secondly, with
all such union structures in a given district or town (to form a
Local Chamber of Labour). These are joined in a Federation of Labour
Chambers. Taken together, these federation constitute the General
Confederation of Labour. All these structures are linked by mandated
delegates and not by a bureaucracy.
19.4. The point of this union structure is to unify the workers in
a structure that makes possible common action, keep initiative with
the rank and file, and lay the basis for the future economic order.
In addition, the Labour Chambers also act as centres for local
propaganda and education.
20. We reject the "a-political" version of Anarcho-syndicalism
that argues that State and other institutions of the ruling class
will automatically collapse after the unions seize the means of
production <17>.
20.1. The State will not simply disappear following the
revolutionary seizure of the means of production. It will actively
organise counter-revolutionary activity in order to repress the gains
of the workers. The working class must take power in its own name,
and smash the State from day one of the revolution.
20.2. The State must be smashed and power based on rank and file
committees, in the unions, the militias and the communities. There
must be no power centres in society other than the mass organisations
of the working class. The mass organisations must be integrated and
co-ordinated in a "social power" or revolutionary committee at the
national and international level in a revolutionary situation.
7. THE WAY FORWARD IN THE UNIONS
* The Need For a Specific Anarchist Political Organisation
21. The question naturally arises at this point as to how we set
about "anarchising" the union movement, that is to say, imbuing it
with a revolutionary spirit and building in it a decentralised
structure.
22. In our view the precondition for such work is the creation of
an Anarchist political organisation on the lines suggested by the
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists by Makhno and
others. The Workers Solidarity Federation is an example of this type
of political organisation.
22.1. The Platform argues that Anarchism needs to become the
"theoretical driving force" of the revolution of the working class
(and/ or working peasantry). In other words the masses must make the
revolution by and for themselves, on the basis of a clear criticism
of this society and a clear idea on what sort of society should
replace it.
22.2. In order for this to occur it is necessary to build a large
and effective Anarchist political organisation that will spread
Anarchist ideas through the working class and its organisations. This
organisation must be based on shared ideological and tactical
positions and be organised on a federal basis.
22.3. The Platform explicitly endorses Anarcho-syndicalism,
writing that "the ways and means of Anarchists' attitudes vis a vis
trade unionism" are "groups of Anarchists in companies, factories and
workshops, preoccupied in creating Anarchist unions, leading the
struggle in revolutionary unions for the domination of libertarian
ideas in unionism, groups organized in their action by a general
Anarchist organization" (p25).
22.4 Endorsement for Anarcho-syndicalism is implicit in the
arguments of the Platform. If Anarchist propaganda work wins over the
majority of union members, the unions will necessarily have been
restructured on Anarchist principles. What can this mean but a union
movement organized in a democratic and anti- bureaucratic manner and
filled with revolutionary purpose (ie). Anarcho- syndicalism?
22.5. We agree with the Platform that Anarchist activists in the
unions need to be united with each other in, and coordinated with
each other by the Anarchist political organization, that the
Anarchist political organization must retain its organizational
independence from the union, and that the Anarchists do not restrict
their activities to the unions (pp24-5).
23. To sum up, the first step towards creating Anarcho-
syndicalist unions is to build an Anarchist political organization
that aims to spread Anarchist ideas as far and wide as possible in
the working class and its structures. Such an organization will
obviously also take up the battle against the power and privilege of
the union bureaucracy.
* Why We Need To "Bore-From-Within" Existing Trade Unions
24. We believe that the Anarchist political organization should
aim to "anarchise" the existing union movement. We are totally
opposed to the idea of "dual unionism": either in the form of
breaking away from the existing unions and setting up new unions, or
in the form of setting up new unions on purely revolutionary
principles to compete with the established unions <18>. We take
this position for the following reasons.
24.1. A basic problem of breaking away to form new radical unions
is that has the effect of taking the minority of combatitive and
radical workers out of the old union, thus leaving it at the mercy of
the bureaucracy and reformist orientation that provoked the split in
the first place. We urge the militants to stay in the union and fight
to win over the membership.
24.2. In addition, the effect of a radical breakaway is often to
create a small sectarian breakaway that is isolated from the masses.
The masses, knowing the merit of a large and powerful organization,
generally prefer to gravitate to the large established unions rather
than the small dual unions and breakaways.
24.3. The working masses often lack a revolutionary political
consciousness and are thus not readily attracted to the radical
slogans of dual unions. In fact they may even be alienated by the
rhetoric of these unions. The workers also trust and look to the
established unions. It is important that we organize wherever workers
are organized, and that we relate workers everyday concerns to the
goal of Anarchism. For these reasons, also, we work in the existing
unions.
24.4. The existing unions also tend to attract a lower degree of
hostility and attacks from the bosses and the State than radical dual
unions. It is therefore easier to establish a basis for the initial
revolutionary work by action in the existing unions than by setting
up small dual unions.
24.5. Most importantly, the history of the union movement shows
that small groups of revolutionaries can achieve impressive results
by working in and building up the existing unions (eg) the Haymarket/
Chicago Anarchists/ International Working Peoples Association were
able to help launch the great 8 hour day movement in 1886 on this
basis; the victory of the Anarchists in the Argentinean Regional
Workers Federation (FORA) in 1904; the victory in the General
Confederation of Labor (CGT) in France by 1906; the rise of the
Spanish Anarcho- syndicalists to preeminence in Solidaridad Obrera,
the predecessor of the CNT, in the 1910s <19>.
25. While we oppose attempts to set up dual unions, we ultimately
defend the right of the workers themselves to make this decision.
Where dual unions are created, we will attempt to set up WSF sections
in both unions. The Anarchist political organization will organize
wherever workers are organized.
*Rank-and-File Movements
26. It is important to emphasize that work in the existing unions,
based on a militant fight for daily demands, does not mean taking
over the unions with an unchanged structure. The privileges and undue
power of the union leaders must be removed, the unions must be
decentralized and restructured in accordance with Anarcho-
syndicalist ideas, and different unions in the same sector should be
amalgamated together where possible.
27. We are more than willing to work alongside other rank and file
members to build a rank- and- file movement of militant workers who
are prepared to fight independently of the bureaucracy, and against
it where necessary.
27.1. This type of movement arises when workers go into struggle
and are attacked not only by the bosses but by their own union
officials. A program or set of demands for such a movement should be
broad enough to attract workers who are militant but would not see
themselves as having a particular political outlook. A general guide
could be (i) for union democracy (ii) for womens' rights in the
workplace and the union (iii) against wage restraint (iv) for jobs
(v) support for strikes (vi) foghting acial discrimination.
27.2. While we will fight for our politics in this movement, we
want the movement (if it arises) to be independent of any one
political organization. We want to win as many workers as possible to
our position but we will not do so in an opportunist manner at the
expense of the growth of the movement. The role of a rank- and- file
movement is to provide a focus for workers moving to the left and
wanting to fight; it should never become a front for the
revolutionary organization.
27.3. In the same way as the specific Anarchist political
organisation is vital to the victory of revolutionary ideas in the
unions, so too is the rank-and-file movement a key force in the
battle against the union bureacracy and for full union democracy.
28. What should we do if we prove unable to remove the entrenched
union bureacracy? Two scenarios present themselves.
28.1. If it proves impossible to dislodge the bureacrcacy in a
pre-revolutionary situation despite consistent and sincere efforts by
the rank-and-file movement, despite the actions of the Anarchist
political organisation, and despite the support of the ordinary union
members themselves, the call for a massive majority split-off by the
rank and file movement that basically brings out almost all union
members (excluding the bureacracy) into a new union federation may be
acceptable. This is a very serious decision and must not be taken
lightly. The rank- and- file movement and existing grassroots union
structures would in this case provide the nucleus of a new union
federation.
28.2. If in a revolutionary situation the bureacracy is still in
place, then the rank-and-file movement and existing grassroots union
structures will themselves undertake the task of the revolutionary
general strike in defianmce of the union bureaucracy to take over the
means of production and institute workers self-management.
28.3. These are tactical issues that will have to be dealt with
when they arise; they are not and should not be interpreted as, a
principled adoption of "dual unionism", which is a strategy that we
argue cannot work (see elsewhere in this paper).
*Organising the Unorganised
29. If the existing unions do not organise sectors of the
workforce, then we should match our work within existing unions with
organising drives amongst the unorganised. These drives should
whenever possible get support from existing unions.
29.1. If possible, the newly organised workers should be
incorporated into the existing unions. Otherwise, seperate unions
will have to be establishedIn such cases, however, there must be a
consistent promotion of united front action (cooperation on specific
issues) between the established unions and the new unions. This unity
in action can serve as a basis for the unification of the old and new
unions. Such unity must be a principled basis that opposes racism ,
sexism etc. We should always hold the "unification" of all unions
into "One Big Union" as an end goal, a goal as important as the work
of "education" (ideas) and "organisation" (restructuring the unions).
29.2. This organizing work must be done on conjunction with
revolutionary propaganda work in the new unions with the aim of
genuinely winning the membership over to an Anarchist perspective.
Unless this is done, we can end up with a membership that disagrees
with Anarchism but joins the union anyway because it has no real
alternative if it wants to organize.
29.3. Attempts to establish a full-time bureacracy in new unions
must be opposed.
8. ORGANISING BEYOND THE WORKPLACE
30. It is not enough to organize revolutionary unions in the
workplace. We need to organise throughout the working class, poor and
worlking peasantry. Anarcho-syndicalists have almost always
recognised the nmeed to organise both within and outside the
workplace.
30.1. It is necessary to organize throughout the whole working
class (including women, youth etc.) and to build an Anarchist
political organization that will fight for the leadership of the
Anarchist idea throughout the working class (and peasants etc.). We
need to be active in community-based campaigns such as rent strikes,
always bearing in mind the need for class struggle and for vigilance
against middle class opportunists posing as "community leaders"; we
do not hide, but highlight, the class differences in residential
areas, addressing ourselves to the exploited and the poor (the
working class community) rather than to shopkeepers, priests,
businessmen, politicians. We support struggles in the education
sector. We need to work out ways of organising amongst the poor in
the "informal sector" (the self-employed who do not employ others)
<20>. We need to organise amongst the peasantry, although the
union form of oprganisation can often be applied to this sector with
ease.
30.2. However, we always seek to bring the power of the unions to
the aid of other progressive struggles. The workplace is a repository
of great power, and it is invaluable in aiding other struggles. We
must link the workplace struggle of trade unions to the rural
struggle of the exploited masses (peasants, sharecroppers etc.).
30.3. The future Anarchist society will not be based purely on
union structures (syndicates). There will, in addition, be community
committees, which together with the syndicates will make up the free
self- governing city (commune). The communes and syndicates will be
federated together, along industrial, bio- regional and national
lines. There will also be a democratic workers army to defend the
revolutionary society <21>.
9. IN DEFENSE OF ANARCHIST TRADE UNIONISM
31. We reject the argument that Anarcho- syndicalism is flawed
because it can supposedly only organize in the workplace.The Spanish
Anarcho- syndicalists organized rent strike committees, the
Libertarian Youth, the women's organization, Mujeres Libres, as well
as community schools and centers <22>.
32. We reject the argument that Anarcho- syndicalism believes that
workers are tied to capitalism solely by bureaucratic union
structures that remove all initiative from the rank-and-file, and
that all that is needed to change this is to restructure the unions.
Anarcho-syndicalists do not neglect the role of ideas in
revolutionary change.
32.1. Anarcho-syndicalism is correct in pointing to the importance
of a democratic, non- bureaucratic and decentralized union structure
in preparing workers for revolution. Democratic participation in
struggle is an essential part of changing people's consciousness of
their capabilities <23>.The call to return power to the union
rank-and-file is also an implicit critique of the capitalist- Statist
ideology of leaders, centralization, control from the top down.
32.2. However, Anarcho- syndicalists also take up the battle of
ideas, making revolutionary propaganda that links a criticism of this
society to a vision of how a future society could be organized. This
propaganda has been spread in a variety of ways (eg). propaganda
leagues inside the existing unions (such as the Syndicalist League of
North America); the Labor Chambers and workers schools associated
with Anarcho- syndicalist unions (for example in the Spanish case);
the press of Anarcho-syndicalist unions (eg. the CNT controlled
thirty- six daily papers, including Solidaridad Obrera, the largest
of any paper in Spain, and published millions of books and pamphlets)
<24>. In other words, the Anarcho- syndicalist union once
established can aid the Anarchist political organization in its
propaganda work.
33. We reject the argument that Anarcho-syndicalist unions, when
established, are always compromised by their method of organizing
(ie). as unions they must organize all workers regardless of
ideological affiliation because this is necessary to be effective in
the workplace.
33.1. We do not deny that this opens the door to reformist
currents. Such currents, sometimes calling themselves "pure
syndicalists", emerged in Anarcho- syndicalist unions in Italy,
France and Spain.
33.2. This situation, however, only points to the need to keep up
the battle of ideas in the union. These reformist groups can be
stopped. The Anarchist political organization will clearly play a
central role here. We are opposed the merger of Anarchist political
groups into Anarcho-syndicalist unions once the latter have been
established because it is necessary to have an organized force to
battle reformist tendencies. This has a precedent: the Iberian
Anarchist Federation (FAI), set up in 1927 with the aim of
safeguarding the Spanish CNT's commitment to Anarchist
principles<25>.
33.3. We do not expect Anarcho- syndicalist unions to attract
large numbers of reformist elements, no matter how militant and
effective they are, as these unions usually bear the brunt of State
and boss repression as compared to moderate unions (eg). repeated
banning of CNT in Spain. Committed reformist workers will find a more
comfortable, safer environment in moderate unions.
34. We reject the argument that the rank-and-file of historically
existing Anarcho- syndicalist unions were not Anarchists. If internal
democracy existed, then a union that is openly Anarcho- syndicalist
in policies and structure could only be one where most members do
agree with Anarchist ideas; if reformist tendencies in the union
involved more than a minority this would be reflected in the union's
activities, statements and structure. (eg) the French CGT, once the
most famous Anarcho- syndicalist union, was taken over by Marxist and
Social Democrat elements soon after World War 1.
35. We reject the argument that Anarcho-syndicalism is inherently
"a-political". Organizations such as the Anarcho- syndicalist
International Workers Association (IWA) explicitly recognizes
"violence as a means of defense against the violent methods of the
ruling classes in the struggle for the possession of the factories
and the fields by the revolutionary people ... the defense of the
revolution [must] be entrusted to the masses themselves and their
economic organizations" <26>.
9. WORKERS SOLIDARITY FEDERATION ACTIVITY IN THE UNIONS
General perspectives
36. The major obstacles to the unions playing a revolutionary role
have already been indicated above: the dominance of reformist ideas
and the trade union bureaucracy. In order to "anarchise" the trade
unions we will work to build a section of the Workers Solidarity
Federation within the existing unions.
36.1. A crucial activity of this group will be the struggle to win
as many workers as possible to an Anarchist position. This will
include the following: aiming to unify different sectional struggles
into an awareness of the overall struggle between classes; to explain
the lessons of past struggles; to take on the politics of Marxism and
reformism in the movement; and to spread the Anarchist idea,
including the view that the unions can become the battering ram that
destroys capitalism, and that the unions need to be restructured in a
decentralized and anti- bureaucratic manner.
36.2. A second crucial activity will be to fight for union
democracy. By this we do not mean that we want to elect new
individuals to the same bureaucratic posts. We want more
accountability, mandating, elections, information for members etc.
Our long term goal is the restructuring of the unions on Anarcho-
syndicalist lines. SEE BELOW.
37. In general, we aim to encourage the workers themselves to take
up the fight against the State, bosses, and union bureaucrats. Our
focus of activity is the shopfloor.
38. We are in favor of 100% union membership and all WSF members
must belong to their appropriate union.
39. No member of the WSF will accept an unelected post in the
unions that gives power over the membership.
39.1. Members elected as shop stewards are to consider their
position as that of a delegate accountable to and mandated by the
members rather than a "representative" who can act over the heads of
the membership.
39.2. When going forward for elective positions we make it clear
that we are not accepting the union structure as it now exists. We
will fight for more accountability, mandating, information for
members etc.
Guidelines for day-to-day activities
40. The following points serve as guidelines for our day-to-day
activity and link it to our goal of Anarchism, because of the method
that lies behind them.
PARTY POLITICS
41. In South Africa, like in other countries, there are formal
links between political parties and the unions (ie) the Tripartite
Alliance between COSATU , the African National Congress and the South
African Communist Party.
41.1. We are opposed to this, firstly, because it places the
workers in a formal alliance with capitalist and State interests (eg.
in the ANC) which compromises their ability to fight. We must be
independent from the class ebnemy, particularly in our key class
organisations.
41.2 Secondly, it has the effect of encouraging workers to look to
politicians ("our comrades in government") to solve their political
issues, rather than relying on their own power.
41.3. Thirdly, it ties workers into the elections for parliaments,
which is a futile strategy given the nature of the State. We
unconditionally support and defend the right to vote, and the other
civil and political rights that go alongside it in a bourgeois/
capitalistdemocracy. Rights and gains are not won by participation in
Parliament, they are forced on Parliament by mass actions. But the
State is not some neutral tool at the disposal of the majority, but a
weapon of the bosses and rulers.
42. We are opposed to the call for the unions to establish a Mass
Workers Party. This is partly because of the futility of
parliamentary politics. It is also because history has shown that
participation in Parliament turns worker leaders into a conservative,
privileged and elitist stratum with its own sectional interests, and
because any socialist politics that workers parties have is generally
toned down so that the party can attract the majority of the
electorate.
STATE INTERFERENCE
43. We are opposed to all laws that restrict the right to strike,
and all laws that aim to interfere in the internal affairs of the
union. We are opposed to "union bashing" by the State and bosses.
44. We are opposed to all schemes for "workers directors" and
"workers participation". We call for the withdrawal of the unions
from all macro- economic policy forums such as NEDLAC. These schemes
are a confidence trick that hides the rule of the bosses and the fact
that the workers and the bosses have absolutely different interests.
We are against participation in all bodies that try to destroy the
independence of the unions by involving them in "social partnership."
We are opposed to the unions buying stock in any company, no matter
how this is justified.
45. Where possible, we encourage the workers not to use the
Industrial Court and other supposedly "impartial" institutions.
Instead we call for solidarity action.
POLICE UNIONS
46. The police and prison warders are part of the repressive
apparatus of the State, exist to protect the ruling class from the
workers and the poor. We stand in opposition to this "army of the
rich" and will therefore not in any way support or do solidarity work
with the police unions. We are opposed to the presence of the Police
and Prisons Civil Rights Union in COSATU.
WAGES, JOBS AND THE UNEMPLOYED
47. We are for a national minimum wage.
48. We are opposed to the idea that the unemployed should be
thankful for any job that they are offered. Instead we call for
decent jobs (ie) ones that are well paid and socially useful.
49. We oppose all job losses and believe that these must be fought
through workplace occupations and strike action backed up by the
maximum possible solidarity action throughout the union movement. All
closures should be met with the demand for continued employment with
no reduction in pay, or worsening of conditions and union rights. We
are not concerned whether this is done by nationalization or by
bringing in a new owner.
50. We point out that nationalization is not a cure- all, and that
State ownership does not bring us one step nearer to socialism (given
the nature of the State, and our conception of a grassroots socialism
from below). We are, however, totally opposed to the job losses
associated with the privatisation and "restructuring" of State
assets.
51. We are opposed to all productivity deals that bring job
losses.
52. We are opposed to forced early retirement, attacks on women's
right to work outside the home, and the "natural wastage" of jobs.
53. We are for full membership rights in the unions for the
unemployed, and for unemployed sections within branches. Where
possible organizations for the unemployed should be set up. These
should keep in close contact with those still in work by helping on
picket lines and building links with unions. The unemployed
organizations should also build closer links with genuine civic and
tenants organizations. We call for trade union support for the
unemployed (eg) providing facilities, refusing to cut off services
like water etc.
54. We are for putting pressure on the State to inject money into
industry that is both labor- intensive and socially useful. We call
for a crash program of house building that uses direct labor employed
by the local authorities.
WOMENS' RIGHTS
55. We are for the positive encouragement of women to participate
in the unions, and to take elected office. We oppose the idea of
"reserved places" on union committees for women. It is undemocratic
and tokenistic and it fails to address the real issue: getting the
unions to take up women's issues seriously.
56. We are for equal rights and benefits for all members of the
unions, regardless of sex, age, or whether they are full- time or
part- time workers.
57. We are for six months paid maternity/ paternity leave. We are
opposed to the use of maternity leave by the bosses to disentitle
workers to pay- related benefits.
58. In order to enable women to attend union meetings, we call for
the unions to provide child care provision at their own expense.
59. To defend women's right to work outside the home we call for
child care provision at the expense of the bosses, and under the
supervision of the workers using it.
60. We support "flexitime" arrangements where workers with
children desire it.
61. We aim to commit the unions to support a women's right to
control her own fertility, including the right to access to
contraception and abortion, and to give moral and material support to
campaigns seeking to achieve this aim.
62. We call on the unions to support the rights of gay and lesbian
people to live their personal lives as they see fit, free from
discrimination or harassment by workers or the employers.
UNION DEMOCRACY
63. We fight to change the role of the full- time officials,and
not just the people sitting in these posts. Their decision- making
powers have to be removed and returned to the rank- and- file. The
number of full- time officials should be reduced the absolute minimum
possible. The officials should earn no more than an ordinary salary
and should, after a fixed period, step down and return to ordinary
work. All positions need to be made elected and genuinely accountable
to (and mandated by) the rank and file membership. Our ultimate aim
is the restructuring of the unions on Anarcho- syndicalist lines.
64. We are for regular branch and workplace meetings, in working
hours where this is possible.
65. We are for direct elections to all committees, conference
delegations and national offices, subject to mandating and recall.
66. All strikes should automatically be made official so long as
they do not contradict trade union principles. There must be support
for all disputes, official or unofficial, in pursuit of higher wages,
better conditions, trade union rights, or any other issue in the
interest of the working class.
67. We call for the publication of the minutes of all union
meetings.
68. Where revolutionaries can gain enough support to win election
to a national office in a large union, or even a small one, they
should not use this support just to win an election. Instead they
should use it fundamentally change the structure of the union in such
a way that will return power to the rank and file and turn the
officers in administrators and resource persons rather than decision
makers.
SOLIDARITY WORK BY WSF
69. Because we recognize the need for solidarity, the WSF will,
within the bounds of its resources, offer aid to workers involved in
a dispute. But we will do this solidarity work WITH the workers, not
FOR them. We are not aiming to "provide a service" but to encourage
self- activity among the strikers. We push them to pressure the union
for material help, and only when this fails will we provide leaflets
etc. We will help with fundraising, collections, publicity and
contacts for solidarity actions.
70. Our immediate aim in any strike is to win a victory. But this
is not our only aim. We are also political militants and we argue our
politics. We aim to spread our ideas and to win members for our
organization.
TO SUM UP
(1) We defend, support and work within, the unions. We are for a
revolutionary class struggle approach to trade unionism.
(2) We are opposed to the existence of a union bureaucracy and
reformist ideas that hamper the ability of the unions to defend and
advance the conditions of their membership
(3) We call for the withdrawal of the unions from participation in
schemes for "social partnership" between the unions, the bosses and
the State as these structures hide the rule of the bosses and
undermine the unions
(4) We call on the unions to become wholly independent of all
parliamentary parties
(5) The unions have the potential to overthrow capitalism and to
lay the basis for an Anarchist society, but in order for this to take
place we must secure maximum union democracy, and the leadership of
the Anarchist idea amongst the rank- and- file of the existing unions
(6) The precondition for "anarchising" the unions is the
construction of an Anarchist political organization with ideological
and tactical unity that will fight to popularize the Anarchist idea
(7) We do not restrict our activities to the unions but organize
throughout the entire working class. We do not just focus on those
workers already In unions, but strive to organise the entire working
class into one big union.
NOTES
<1>. see, among others, Makhno, Archinov et al, [1926], The
Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, reprinted by
Workers Solidarity Movement. Ireland. p14,16; R. Rocker, (1948),
"Anarchism and Anarcho- syndicalism," in F. Gross (ed) European
Ideologies: A Survey Of Twentieth Century Political Ideas.
Philosophical Library. New York. pp370-371; A. Berkman, (1989), What
is Communist Anarchism? Phoenix Press. London. pp3,5-6,72-4; A.
Berkman, (1964), ABC of Anarchism. Freedom Press. London. p50.
<2>. "Any class may be revolutionary in its day and time;
only a productive class may be libertarian in nature, because it does
not need to exploit" (A. Meltzer, Anarchism, Arguments For And
Against, pp14-15).
<3>. see A. Berkman, (1989), What is Communist Anarchism?
Phoenix Press. London. chapter 12; R. Rocker, (1948), "Anarchism and
Anarcho- syndicalism," in F. Gross (ed) European Ideologies: A Survey
Of Twentieth Century Political Ideas. Philosophical Library. New
York. pp370-1.
<4>. Rocker makes a similar point when he says: "Only as a
producer and creator of social wealth does the worker become aware of
his strength" (1948: 371).
<5>. Berkman, (1989), pp63-4.
<6>. see H. Pelling, (1992), A History of British Trade
Unionism. Penguin Books. chapter 15, for a discussion of the bosses
assualt on the British unions in the 1980s; see M. Davis, (1986),
Prisoners Of The American Dream: Politics And Economy In The History
Of The US Working Class. Verso. London. for the American unions.
<7>. M. M. Breitbart, (1979), "Spanish Anarchism: an
introductory essay," in Antipode: A Radical Journal Of Geography. 10
(3) & 11 (1). p65. This is a good article but is very seriously
marred by the author's totally inaccurate assumption that "Spain is
the only country in the twentieth century where Anarcho- communism
and Anarcho- syndicalism were adopted extensively as revolutionary
theories and practices" (p60). Anarchism has been the dominant
influence on the revolutionary left and union movements of many
countries in the twentieth century (eg). Spain, Portugal, Brazil,
Argentine, France, Mexico, Uruguay, China. It formed a powerful Left
and union current in others (eg). Italy, Britain, the United States,
Japan, Germany, Bulgaria, Australia.
<8>. For a critical look at the shift to accommodation with
capitalism by the Left in South Africa Harris, L., (1993), "South
Africa's Economic and Social Transformation: from 'No Middle Road' to
'No Alternative'" in Review of African Political Economy, no. 57.For
an example of the type of arguments that are being used to justify
the collaboration of the unions with the bosses and the State see
Joffe, A., Maller, J. and E. Webster, (1993), "South Africa's
Industrialization: the challenge facing labor," History Workshop and
Sociology of Work Unit Symposium. University of the Witwatersrand.
<9>. The growing power of the union bureaucracy is discussed
in D. Collins, (July 1994), "Worker Control," in South African Labour
Bulletin. 18 (3); D. Keet, (May/ June 1992), "Shopstewards and Worker
Control," South African Labour Bulletin. 16 (5); B. Marie, (May/ June
1992), "COSATU faces crisis," South African Labour Bulletin. 16 (5).
<10>. This problem is discussed in S. Buhlungu, (July 1994),
"The Big Brain Drain," South African Labour Bulletin, 18 (3).
<11>. On the union bureaucracy see Berkman (1989). pp64-5.
<12>. A helpful summary of the problems that corporatist and
tripartite arrangements create for the unions is provided in B.
Vally, (1992), A Social Contract: The Way Forward?. Taj Printers.
pp46-67.
<13>. Basic statements of this idea are R. Rocker, (1948),
"Anarchism and Anarcho- syndicalism," in F. Gross (ed), European
Ideologies: A Survey Of Twentieth Century Political Ideas.
Philosophical Library. New York. pp362-386; A. Berkman, (1964), ABC
of Anarchism. Freedom Press. London. chapter 10-14.
<14>. For overviews of the history of Anarcho- syndicalism,
see Rocker, (1948), pp363-70, 381-6; W. Thorpe, (1989), The Workers
Themselves: Revolutionary Syndicalism And International Labour
1913-23. Kulwer Academic Pubs (Dordrecht, Boston, London) &
International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam); M. van der
Linden and W. Thorpe (eds), (1990), Revolutionary Syndicalism: An
International Perspective. Scolar Press (England). These histories
are marred by their incomplete focus, and by their occasional failure
to draw a sharp enough distinction between Anarcho- syndicalism in
the true sense of the word, and reformist/ revisionist forms of
syndicalism (sometimes called "pure" syndicalism). An excellent
history of the International Working People's Association is P.
Avrich, 1984, The Haymarket Tragedy. Priceton University.
<15>. see E. Conlon, (1993), The Spanish Civil War:
Anarchism In Action. Workers Solidarity Movement. Dublin; D. Geurin,
(1971), Anarchism: From Theory To Practice. Monthly Review Press.
pp114-143; anon. Anarchism in Action: the Spanish Revolution. Aldgate
Press. London. Also see Breitbart (1979).
<16>. This section is based on Rocker (1948), pp370-81. See
also Berkman, (1964), esp. chapter 10; G.P. Maximoff, (1985), The
Program of Anarcho- syndicalism. Monty Miller Press. Australia.
<17>. For example, the Spanish CNT is reported to have
argued that the seizure of the means of production would
automatically lead to the "liquidation of the bourgeois State, which
would die of asphyxiation" (in D. Geurin, (1971), p128).
<18>. The tactical issue of how Anarcho- syndicalists should
relate to the existing unions has historically been a point of
contention. See P.S. Foner, (1965), "The Debate over
'Boring-from-Within'" in his The Industrial Workers of the World,
1905-17 (International Pubs. New York. chapter 18) and William Z.
Foster, (1936), From Bryan to Stalin (Lawrence and Wishart. London.
chapters ) for an example of how this issue split the US Anarcho-
syndicalists. Foster, the author of the second book, later became a
Marxist and the reader of his book is advised to keep this in mind.
<19>. For the Haymarket/ Chicago Anarchists, see P. Avrich,
(1984), The Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton. esp. pp72-3 and John R.
Commons et al. (1918), The History of Labor in the United States, vol
2. New York. pp290-300. On the FORA see R. Munck et al. (1987),
Argentina: from Anarchism to Peronism. Zed Books. London and New
Jersey. chapters 4-6. On the CGT see Thorpe, (1989), chapter 1 and
Foner, (1965), p417. On Solidaridad Obrera, see Thorpe, (1989),
chapter 1, and M. Bookchin, (1977), The Spanish Anarchists: The
Heroic Years 1868-1936. Harper Colophon Books. New York. Hagerstown.
San Francisco. London. chapters 7&8.
<20>. Some interesting initiatives in this area have been
taking place in west Africa, where the unions have begun to help
organise the informal sector. See P. Horn, February 1997, "The
Informal sector: Wesr African Women Organise", in South African
Labour Bulletin, vol. 21, no.1.
<21>. On the theory of the syndicates, communes and regions
as developed by classical Anarchism, see Guerin, Daniel, (1970),
Anarchism: From Theory To Practice. Monthly Review Press. New York
and London. Chapter 2, esp. pp56-60. See also G.P. Maximoff, (1985),
The Program of Anarcho- syndicalism. Monty Miller Press. Australia.
pp42-8. The addition of the bio- regional dimension is found in
Purchase, Graham, (1991) Anarchist Organisation: Suggestions And
Possibilities. Black Rose. and Purchase, Graham, (1990), Anarchist
Society and its Practical Realization. San Francisco. See Sharp
Press. On the defense of the revolution, see Makhno et al, [1927],
pp29-31; Berkman, (1964), chapter 14; Maximoff, (1985), pp 49-55.
<22>. On Anarcho- syndicalist community organizing, see N.
Rider, (1989), "The Practice of Direct Action: the Barcelona rent
strike of 1931," in D. Goodway (ed), For Anarchism: History, Theory
And Practice. Routledge. London and New York. On Mujeres Libres
(Anarchist womens' group in Spain) see M.A. Ackelsberg, (1993),
"Models of Revolution: Rural Women And Anarchist Collectivisation In
Spain," Journal of Peasant Studies, 20 (3); P. Carpena, (1986),
"Spain 1936: Free Women- A Feminist, Proletarian And Anarchist
Movement," in M. Gadant (ed), Women of the Mediterranean. Zed Books.
London and New Jersey; V. Ortiz, (1979), "Mujeres Libres: Anarchist
women in the Spanish Civil War," in Antipode: A Radical Journal Of
Geography 10 (3) & 11 (1). On storefront schools and cultural
centers, see M.A. Acklesberg, (1985), "Revolution and Community:
mobilization, de- politicisation and perceptions of change in Civil
War Spain," in S.C. Bourque et al. (eds), Women Living Change. Temple
University Press. Philadelphia.
<23>. For a defense of the idea that participation and self-
activity in struggle and social change (such as is made possible by
decentralized and anti- bureaucratic union structures) is an
essential part of preparation for the revolution, see M.A.
Acklesberg, (1985), "Revolution and Community: mobilization, de-
politicisation and perceptions of change in Civil War Spain," in S.C.
Bourque et al. (eds), Women Living Change. Temple University Press.
Philadelphia.
<24>. For example, Foner, (1965), pp147-157 for an extensive
discussion of the propaganda work of the US Anarcho- syndicalist
organization, the Industrial Workers of the World; see Foster,
(1936), chapter 6 for a discussion of the propaganda work of the
Syndicalist League of North America; on workers education centers in
Spain, see Acklesberg (1985); the figures for the Spanish Anarchist
press come from Rocker (1948), p384.
<25>. Bookchin, (1977), p213.
<26>. The quote is from the Declaration of the Principles of
Revolutionary Syndicalism, adopted by the founding congress of the
IWA. See Thorpe, (1989), Appendix D.
This page hosted by
Get your own
Free Home Page
Go to the
CapitolHill GeoPage