💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rasmus-hastbacka-swedish-syndicalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:39:15. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Swedish syndicalism Author: Rasmus Hästbacka Date: 2021 Language: en Topics: SAC, Sweden, syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism Source: Retrieved, october 25 from https://www.sac.se/LS/Ume%C3%A5/Nyheter-uttalanden/Ny-bok-om-syndikalism-New-book-on-syndicalism Notes: A simple layout of a forthcoming book. It will be published in printed form, as an ebook and audio book, both in English and Swedish, by
In 2021, a member meeting in the Umeå Local of SAC decided to publish
this book. Rasmus Hästbacka is the author of the text. Hästbacka is a
lawyer. The afterword is written by Niklas Averstad Ryd and Jonas
Hammarbäck. Averstad Ryd is a primary school teacher and Hammarbäck is a
care worker. The translation into English is done by Tobias Hübinette
and Nicklas Hållén. Hübinette is an Associate Professor and Lecturer in
intercultural studies. Hållén is an Associate Professor and Lecturer in
English literature. The original title of the book in Swedish is Vad
vill syndikalismen? En ideologisk grundskiss.
More articles by the author in Anarchist Library
.
Syndicalism is an international trade union movement. In Sweden,
syndicalism is represented primarily by the Central Organization of
Workers in Sweden (abbreviated as SAC — in Swedish Sveriges arbetares
centralorganisation). SAC organizes employees in all industries and
excludes only the bosses. SAC was founded in 1910. This book presents
SAC’s ideology, the ideas that guide trade union practice. The ideology
does not contain any definitive truths and should be seen as a starting
point for further discussions.
The book consists of four parts. Part 1 presents guidelines for
successful organizing at the workplace. In Part 2, the trade union is
contrasted with parliamentary parties and other political organizations.
Here we explain why the trade union is superior as a class struggle
organization. Part 3 provides general advice for recruiting and
activating members. In Part 4, labour struggle through unions is related
to the long-term vision of syndicalism to democratize the workplaces and
build an equal society. By organizing in unions, the broad masses of the
people can seize power over their lives and communities.
The book does not touch on the details of trade union work. These are
instead treated in SAC’s organizer courses and in study groups that are
open to all members. At the end of the book, a proposed plan for study
groups can be found.
SAC is not a trade union in the narrow sense: an association for only
one craft or one industry. SAC is an organization for all workers as a
social class. It is a class organization with a dual function. SAC is a
tool in the struggle for daily demands and for fundamentally changing
society as a whole. In labour struggles, syndicalists strive for the
widest possible solidarity across organizational boundaries.
[]
[]
Arbetsplatsorganisering (APO) Workplace organizing. The process by which
co-workers develop and use their collective strength in a systematic
way.
Branschfederation Industrial federation. A nationwide association of all
industrial branches within an industry. Corresponds to national trade
unions within LO (in Swedish: fackförbund). However, syndicalist
industrial entities (section, industrial branch and federation), are
open to all occupations in an industry, both blue-collar and
white-collar workers (except bosses).
Branschsyndikat Industrial branch. A local association of all sections
in an industry. Corresponds to industrial branches of LO unions (in
Swedish: avdelning).
Direkt aktion Direct action. Action without representatives carried out
by the workers concerned themselves. Expressed in another way, the term
encompasses collective pressure exerted by the staff.
Driftsektion (DS) Operating section. A local union in a workplace for
all employees except the bosses. Corresponds to a local job branch of LO
unions (in Swedish: fackklubb). Swedish syndicalists often use the
shorter term section.
Facklig organisatör (FO) Union organizer. General term for organizers at
all levels within SAC. Central organizers train and support LS
organizers, who in turn support workplace organizers.
Lokal samorganisation (LS) Local. An association of all individual
members in an area. Encompasses all sections and industrial branches. LS
is a local class organization.
LS-organisatör LS organizer. A person elected at LS level who trains and
supports workplace organizers. Can be a member of the LS board or a
special organizing committee.
Organisationsplan Organization plan. SAC’s Organization plan provides a
preliminary target image. It’s an image of what the organization might
look like when SAC (once again) has achieved a strong position in one or
more industries, based on many sections. The plan also contains
guidelines for building such an organization. The plan is not intended
to be mechanically implemented. Sections, industrial branches,
federations, etc. are built when the need arises in workplaces. The plan
should help all parts of SAC to cooperate in the struggle for both daily
demands and a new society.
Registermetoden The register method. An alternative to strikes,
collective agreements and the idea of general strike as a path to
economic democracy. Practiced by Swedish syndicalists from the late
1910s to the early 1950s. Syndicalists kept records of available work
and dictated the price and conditions for doing the work. The method
included struggle inside the workplaces, union-run employment services
and collective deals without industrial peace obligations. LO unions
also used the register method.
Råd Council. A body for workers’ self-management. Workers’ councils are
elected by general meetings at workplaces. The long-term vision of
syndicalist sections is to establish councils. This can be achieved, for
example, in such a way that the section’s member meeting becomes a
general meeting for all workers and the section board becomes a workers’
council. Read more in Part 4 of the book.
Sveriges arbetares centralorganisation (SAC) Central Organization of
Workers in Sweden. The sum of all Locals (LS) plus central bodies for
cooperation and joint decisions. SAC is a nationwide class organization.
Tvärfacklig grupp Cross-union group. A group of co-workers who meet
regularly, regardless of union affiliation, for the purpose of
discussing and pursuing common interests. Can be supported by trade
unions or function as independent cooperation between colleagues.
Syndicalism is a trade union movement with a distinct ideological
compass. The ideology has emerged from practice at the shop floor and
new ideas are continuously being tested in practice. SAC’s ideology
offers union active employees an overall guideline. By the term
ideology, this book refers to three things: (1) a critical perspective
on the labour market and on class society of today, (2) guidelines for
successful organizing and (3) a long-term vision of democracy in the
workplaces and an equal society.
The best expression of SAC’s ideology is the members’ self-organization
in their workplaces. At the same time, the ideology needs to be
articulated and spread to wider circles. That is why this book has been
written. The book is suitable for both individual studying and study
groups.
The book consists of four parts. Part 1 presents guidelines for local
organizing. The focus is on workplace sections and cross-union
cooperation between colleagues. Here we also touch on cooperation
through industrial branches, Locals (LS) and other forums. Part 2
describes the idea of the class organization. The trade union is
contrasted with parliamentary parties and other political organizations.
Here we explain why the union is superior as a class struggle
organization. Part 3 provides general advice for recruiting co-workers
and for activating members in the section. In Part 4, the daily trade
union activity is related to the long-term vision of syndicalism.
The book does not touch on the details of union work. These are instead
treated in SAC’s organizer courses and in study groups. To be a
syndicalist is to participate in a learning process. Knowledge builds
self-confidence and inspires respect at work. We educate each other and
the union schooling is never finished. You are welcome to contribute
with your skills in our education programmes!
Syndicalism has a long history. Thus, its terminology partly consists of
archaeological findings. This book is written in an updated and everyday
language. This means that some terms, which many syndicalists hold dear,
are abandoned. In the book, we comment on several outdated terms and
suggest contemporary synonyms. The purpose is to make it easier for you
to introduce the trade union to your co-workers. The book presents
certain special concepts that are, after all, important in trade union
work.
Sources and reading tips are listed at the end of the book. The book
leans, on the one hand, on the syndicalist tradition as it is conveyed
through older syndicalist books and documents. On the other hand, the
book mirrors struggle on the labour market of today. Knowledge of the
tradition facilitates union renewal while ignorance means that old
mistakes are repeated and the wheel must be reinvented.
A contemporary source that is important for the book is recurring
re-ignitions of rank-and-file activity within SAC. In the 1980s, union
reorganizing became a buzzword for such re-ignitions. In the early
2000s, another re-ignition took off. These waves of re-ignitions have
left their mark on SAC’s education programmes and governing documents,
which are referenced to in the book. The book finally draws on new
experiences from militant unions in other countries.
The book is primarily a starting point for organizing and further
discussions. A critical reading is not only welcome but prescribed.
Syndicalists who want to meet for discussions on the internet can log in
to SAC’s forum via the website (www.sac.se). Articles about this book
published on the internet will be collected on our local website
(www.sac.se/LS/Umeå).
Syndicalism is an international trade union movement. The word
syndicalism comes from the French word syndicat which means a trade
union. The French term syndicalisme, directly translated, thus means
trade union movement (or trade union activity). But syndicalism is not
just any union movement. There are certain guidelines that define the
movement. To get a good grasp of what syndicalism is, you should of
course read this book in its entirety. However, here is a short summary.
The purpose of syndicalism is to organize employees in all industries
for immediate improvement of working conditions. In this book, the word
employee refers to all wage earners except bosses. Syndicalist trade
unions include both workers in the narrow sense (i.e. blue-collar
workers) and white-collar workers. The syndicalist unions are based on
member democracy, solidarity and independence from all religious and
political organizations.
The democratic guiding star of syndicalism is that everyone who is
affected by a decision should have the right to influence that decision.
The long-term vision is to democratize the workplaces and thereby build
an equal society. Within today’s trade unions, syndicalists practice
what is known as base democracy and federalism. That is the basis for
member-run trade unions. By building member-run unions, employees can
develop the collective strength and competence to introduce staff-run
workplaces in all industries.
You can read more about base democracy and federalism below (see
questions 13, 16 and 17). The project to organize for daily demands and
a long-term vision, syndicalists usually call the dual task. Read more
about the dual task and the vision (see question 22 and Part 4 of the
book).
In Sweden, syndicalism is represented primarily by the Central
Organization of Workers in Sweden, which is abbreviated as SAC (Sveriges
arbetares centralorganisation in Swedish). SAC was founded in 1910. SAC
stands in sharp contrast with the dominant Swedish trade unions of LO,
TCO and Saco. They are in their turn characterized by top-down
government, centralism, tycoon rule and loyalty to the employer side. LO
and to some extent TCO are also hampered by loyalty to the Social
Democratic Party. TCO and even more so Saco are furthermore
characterized by craft egoism.
The magnitude of syndicalist currents has always been significantly
greater than the membership of SAC itself. Syndicalism means independent
labour struggle. As soon as employees agree and unite against the
management and act to increase their influence, one can speak of a
syndicalist tendency. In that sense, syndicalism is simply common sense
and a natural approach to organizing.
All Swedish trade unions speak beautifully about democracy, but almost
all are at the same time characterized by tycoon rule. Tycoon rule means
that unions are governed by representatives and paid officials (in
Swedish the latter are called ombudsmän) who do not share the everyday
life of members at the workplace. It is a separate social stratum that
has other interests than the member base. Tycoon rule means that those
concerned do not make the decisions. Therefore, decision-makers are not
affected by the consequences of their own decisions.
SAC has many barriers to tycoon rule. The most important barriers are:
formal democracy according to our union bylaws, the fact that the union
activity is built and governed by non-paid members, rules and routines
for rotation at all positions of trust (i.e. elected boards, committees
etc.) and norms for positive leadership.
SAC is based on non-paid activity and commitment. To a limited extent,
members are elected to remunerated positions of trust, full-time or
part-time. Their main task is however to promote the non-paid activity
and commitment. All paid members receive the same compensation at a
worker wage level. Parachute agreements do not exist. Remunerated
persons do not have the authority to make the crucial decisions within
SAC. They instead implement decisions made by non-paid members.
Remuneration lasts for a limited period, after which the members return
to their ordinary wage labour.
Rotation is crucial on both non-paid and paid positions of trust.
Rotation requires a well-thought-out handover of assignments so that the
knowledge of resigning persons is transferred to new elected
representatives. Rotation is also promoted by the general union
education programmes. Read more about syndicalist leadership below (see
question 18).
The syndicalist movement has emerged from class struggle. The
syndicalist ideology contains important lessons from that struggle. The
class struggle is a struggle over how the riches we produce should be
used and how the power over our lives and communities should be
exercised.
The central arena for class struggle is the workplaces. Roughly
simplified, the conflict of interests consists in management gaining
from commanding a minimum workforce to toil to the maximum for minimal
wages, while the interest of employees is the opposite. The workforce
benefits from offering resistance, pushing its positions forward and
increasing its influence. The class struggle is an always on-going power
struggle.
The conflict of interests at the workplaces is built into the
hierarchical relationship between workforce and management. This
hierarchy is based on the fact that we who do the work do not control
the means of production. The term means of production refers to
resources used in the production of goods and services. It encompasses
everything from fixed and real assets (such as land, buildings,
machinery and vehicles) to financial and immaterial assets (such as
patents and trademarks).
To support ourselves, we have to sell our labour power to private or
public employers. In the private sector, the means of production are
controlled by the capital-owning class and its representatives. In the
public sector, the means of production are controlled by the political
and bureaucratic classes and their subordinate bosses. Public employers
can also have a special position by holding a monopoly on or owning the
exclusive rights to certain sectors. The class struggle is usually
summarized as a conflict between labour and capital.
This crude class analysis can be refined depending on what you want to
investigate. With the help of different concepts, different governing
strata can be identified (one can for example speak of a privileged
intelligentsia, technocrats, political castes, military elite groups and
a coordinator class). The essential point is that the population is
forced to sell its labour power to a class of bosses or owners and thus
submit to the buyers’ domination and exploitation. The purpose of SAC is
to participate in the class struggle with emphasis on the workplaces.
SAC is an association of Locals (abbreviated LS — lokal samorganisation
in Swedish). The task of the Local is to co-organize union activities in
all industries in a certain area. You become a member of the Local that
encompasses your place of work. If you do not have a job, you can belong
to the Local at your place of residence. SAC also organizes the
unemployed, students, pensioners and self-employed (i.e. entrepreneurs
without employees).
The Locals of SAC encourage members to organize operating sections. An
operating section is a local union for all occupations in a certain
workplace except bosses. The operating section is both a forum and tool.
It is a forum in which co-workers can agree on what needs to change in
the workplace and a tool for enforcing that change. The Swedish word for
operating section is driftsektion (abbreviated: DS). The term operating
refers to the vision that employees should take over and operate the
workplace themselves. We often use the shorter term section.
Sections are similar to local job branches (in Swedish: fackklubbar)
within LO, TCO and Saco. A crucial difference is that syndicalist
sections have a dual task and are part of a class organization for all
employees except bosses. See question 22 below regarding the dual task.
We elaborate on the idea of the class organization in Part 2 of the
book.
A section can be formed if there are at least three members at a certain
workplace. The members hold a constituent meeting, adopt bylaws for the
section and elect a board. SAC has basic bylaws for all sections that
can be supplemented and adapted to the local situation. A section can
include one workplace or several connected workplaces. The scope of the
section is defined by the section itself. The section’s counterparty can
also be one or more employers. It all depends on how the production of
goods or services in question is structured.
In legal terms, the section is a non-profit and non-governmental
organization. It is a legal person who has the right to collective
bargaining, stage industrial action and enter into agreements. A modern
synonym for industrial action is collective action. According to SAC’s
bylaws, the section practices self-determination in local affairs and
direct democracy. The section itself thus decides whether to stage
strikes, blockades or other forms of industrial action. This principle
is called local right to industrial action. Within LO, TCO and Saco, it
is the central boards at national level that command members to strike.
In SAC however, it is the members that take the union out on strike. It
can also be described as the member collective calling itself to go on
strike (through the union democracy).
In SAC, workers are treated as adults, and that is rare on the Swedish
labour market. In most unions, the role of members is limited to handing
over power to representatives and paid officials. Ever since 1910, SAC
has rejected that kind of management as a form of guardianship. When SAC
was formed in 1910, a manifesto was issued criticizing the LO leadership
for being “inclined to regard the workers as a collection of stupid
children, who, however, are endowed with a phenomenal ability to choose
good and excellent leaders”.
The workplace operating section is a flexible and handy organizational
form. Its structure is adapted to local circumstances and to the
section’s current phase of development. No template is suitable for all
situations. Syndicalist sections show a great variety as far as
organizational models go. The essential point is that the section
promotes the ability of employees to stick together and act together.
The structure of sections should promote the struggle you want to wage.
For those who are the only syndicalists at their workplace, the question
arises: should I recruit colleagues and start a section first or start
engaging with concrete union issues and form a section later? Is it best
to do both at the same time? There is no general truth here. Whatever
you do, the basis is to discuss the work situation with colleagues. It
is important to find concrete union issues to pursue together.
You can start by examining the interest in forming a section. Is the
interest weak? Start by gathering colleagues to cross-union meetings,
i.e. meetings for employees regardless of union affiliation. Such
meetings are of course also open to colleagues who do not belong to any
union. Try to make a dispute demand and win against the employer.
Demands that may seem modest are often a good start, such as free work
shoes, a new coffee machine or greater influence over the scheduling.
Choose methods of influence that many employees are willing to use. Get
help from your Local of SAC and win the trust of your co-workers. This
will probably open new opportunities for recruiting members.
Regardless of whether a section is formed or not, it is highly
recommended that you develop the cross-union meetings into a stable
group that grows. Both sections and cross-union groups can get help from
your Local. Support can be coordinated by the board of your Local or a
special organizing committee. See also the advice on how to get started
at work in the book’s Appendix 1 (the plan for a study group).
According to the basic bylaws for all Locals of SAC, you can recruit all
colleagues except the bosses. Exactly where the line between employees
and employer should be drawn can be discussed, but drawing a line is
natural for a serious trade union. Before a section is formed, it is
important that this line is clarified. The section is fully independent
of any religious and political organizations. Therefore, the section can
welcome all employees as members regardless of their religious beliefs
and regardless of how they may vote in parliamentary elections. The
crucial point is that the union is not used as a platform for religious
activities or party politics.
A syndicalist is first and foremost a good co-worker. SAC expects all
members to act in solidarity at work. At the same time, SAC does not
require everyone to hold the same set of views and opinions. A
prosperous section is characterized by a breadth of views and
open-minded discussions. Syndicalism rejects dogmatic thinking and
sectarianism. Trade union solidarity should not be confused with
charity. Charity is a one-sided action in a hierarchical relationship.
Solidarity is about a common struggle for common interests. It is about
mutual aid for mutual benefit. All employees simply benefit from
supporting each other. Compassion and a passion for justice are of
course a part of union solidarity, but a strong solidarity is rooted in
common class interests.
In SAC’s basic book Syndikalismen it is emphasized that SAC is an open
union that does not exclude workers due to “non-syndicalist” views (see
the 1984 or 1996 editions written by Sven Lagerström). All members
should have read SAC’s Declaration of principles but are not expected to
swear allegiance to every point and syllable. Every member must respect
that SAC has a long-term vision of a new society, but not everyone must
be a convinced supporter of this vision.
Even if the section recruits broadly, there are of course limits to what
behaviours can be accepted. Everyone who is recruited should therefore
be informed about the section’s basic values. All members must follow
the union’s democratic decisions, act in solidarity at the workplace and
respect the union’s independence from religious and political
organizations.
Subscribing to these values — democracy, solidarity and independence —
is what all members of SAC have in common. It is the lowest common
denominator. The basic values are there for two reasons: on the one
hand, the section must be able to recruit as many employees as possible,
and on the other hand, the section and SAC as a whole need to unite and
act for common goals. Common struggle in the workplaces requires certain
common values. To comply with these values is to respect the basic
bylaws for all Locals of SAC.
Once you and some co-workers have become members of a Local of SAC, it
is recommended to form a section. Through the section, you have the best
opportunities to unite the workforce and create a better workplace for
everyone. This requires that you create a sense of trade union
community, a safe starting point to improve conditions. The fellow
members in your Local will assist with education, forums for exchanging
experiences, production of agitation material and other initiatives that
facilitate your organizing efforts.
Through the section, you and the fellow members of the section raise
union demands and put collective pressure on the employer to enforce
demands. You raise issues that you think can unite the workforce. You
use methods that involve many co-workers or at least have a broad
support. You choose the battles that the staff has the best chance of
winning. The union is behind your section and the decision-making power
is in your hands.
In the event of a strike or other labour conflicts that results in a
loss of wages, union members receive economic support. Each Local of SAC
has a local conflict fund that is supplemented by SAC’s joint conflict
fund. The economic support does not cover the loss of wages to one
hundred percent. Support is there to help you and your co-workers carry
out a successful labour conflict. If you so wish, your struggle can also
be supported in other ways, for example through a media strategy and
public rallies. But that question is determined by members of the
section and no one else.
Members of a section have several alternatives for action at work. They
can act formally through the section or informally but with the support
of the section. The latter is also called extra-union mobilization. The
section can initiate official cooperation with other unions. In that
case you must be sure that the other unions are on the side of employees
and follow directives from the shop floor. We always seek cooperation
with our colleagues, but not with union representatives who ruin
cooperation.
In order to build collective strength, it is important to work on two
tracks at the same time: both develop the section and create cross-union
cohesion among colleagues. These two tracks are mutually reinforcing
each other. If no official cooperation is initiated between trade
unions, the cooperation between colleagues can be developed anyhow.
An example of how syndicalists improve the working conditions of all
employees is a creative notice of action that was declared within
Stockholm’s commuter trains. The employer was reluctant to provide staff
with warm winter uniforms. The bigger unions within LO and TCO got
nowhere in negotiations. The syndicalists therefore announced that they
would use extremely ugly uniforms that they had designed themselves,
with a photo attached to the notice. The employer then gave the entire
staff new uniforms.
Another example is the syndicalists at Eco Glocal, a subcontractor to
Volvo Trucks in the city of Umeå. The employer agreed with the local job
branch of LO on wage reductions of several thousand Swedish kronor a
month. In response, the syndicalists initiated a collective slowdown
(i.e. reduction of the pace of work). The old system of remuneration was
thereafter reintroduced.
A successful section conducts collective struggle for collective deals.
It can be described as establishing a floor for wages and working
conditions. It can also be described as a barrier against underbidding
competition and increased exploitation. Underbidding competition is also
called social dumping.
Older syndicalist texts advocate “constant struggle” at the workplace.
That should not be interpreted as constant industrial actions. It is
about continuous organizing. After a completed negotiation, labour
conflict or a lengthy organizing campaign, it is good to maintain a
plateau. That is a period when you evaluate the results, analyse the
situation and gather strength for the next effort.
When it comes to the Swedish labour market, the collective agreement is
the most common type of collective deal but not the only possible type.
The collective agreement has a certain definition and certain legal
effects according to the Swedish Co-determination Act (abbreviated as
MBL — medbestämmandelagen in Swedish). You and your colleagues can learn
more about collective agreements and alternatives to collective
agreements through SAC’s courses. You may also familiarize yourself with
labour law, including rules that can be used by health and safety
representatives (in Swedish: skyddsombud). Legal knowledge is important
for every section, but union strength is built primarily by organizing.
The dominant Swedish unions within LO, TCO and Saco usually talk about
organizing in a very narrow sense. They mean recruiting members and
administrating a trade union. Recruitment and administration are
certainly vital for any union, but still hopelessly insufficient.
There are different definitions of the term organizing that overlap.
Organizing is about developing and using the collective strength in a
systematic way. The strength rests on the fact that the employer side is
dependent on our labour power. The strength grows as we become better at
uniting and acting together.
Organizing is a social process and an important competence for
organizers is simply social competence. Both self-respect and respect
for co-workers are a cornerstone here. Syndicalists emphasize that the
workers concerned are the driving force. That is why we often talk about
self-organization. Very few people are born organizers. To organize is a
skill that you can learn.
Workplace organizing can be divided into three dimensions: (1) we build
a formal section, (2) we develop a movement and (3) we mobilize around
collective struggle and bargaining. Successful bargaining is the final
step in a successful organizing process.
The formal dimension of organizing is about writing well-thought-out
bylaws and plans, adopting a budget and using meeting techniques that
are both democratic and effective. A formalized union makes it possible
for members on the shop floor to elect, control and (if necessary)
remove leaders. A formal section can also meet the employer side as an
official union party and enter into binding agreements.
The movement dimension of unions is about participation and a sense of
community. The movement is built up before a collective action or
negotiation takes place and is further developed thereafter. The
movement should be larger than the syndicalist section and mobilize more
than its members, preferably the entire staff.
We are building a formal section to give the movement stability and
bridge the ups and downs of union activity. The movement can also be
formalized by a cross-union group agreeing on rules for its activities.
A cross-union group can be supported by trade unions or function as
independent collaboration between colleagues.
Negotiations can be conducted through formal collective bargaining based
on MBL and requested by the section. An informal way of confronting
management can take the form of employees that support each other at
staff meetings. Another way of making demands is to hold cross-union
meetings that elect representatives to meet the management.
The most well-known methods of labour struggle are strikes and
blockades. Strike means work stoppage. A workplace is closed down due to
a large number of strikers or by key employees stopping their work. A
blockade means that you refuse to perform certain parts of the labour
process or refuse to deliver products and new labour power to a certain
workplace. However, labour struggles are nowadays rarely conducted
through strikes and blockades (this is at least the contemporary
situation on the Swedish labour market). There is no reason to
romanticize that kind of open industrial conflict. It is instead the
concrete results that count.
Union struggles include all the methods we develop to defend and advance
our positions. The larger the toolbox the better. It is usually better
to plan several methods in a compound strategy than to prepare only one
single method. Read more about methods below (see questions 9 and 10).
The three dimensions of organizing are summarized in the figure.
[]
All three dimensions are equally important. If you rush directly to
struggle and bargaining, there is a risk that only a few employees will
confront management. It usually gives quite meagre results. The people
at the front also risk being left without the staff’s support if the
management responds with retaliation. The people then become dependent
on external support from union negotiators and activists. External
support does not have the same weight as support from co-workers. You
therefore need to build a union movement inside the workplace.
However, a movement without formal structures easily becomes
short-lived. When the movement ebbs out, it suffers from memory loss and
the wheel must be reinvented. A stable organization is a learning
organization with a growing bank of experience. However, a formal
section without movement and collective struggle becomes an empty shell
or a dead bureaucracy. Once all three dimensions are in place, the
section’s influence and membership can grow.
The first step in organizing does not have to be the start-up of a
section. You can start by uniting with your co-workers and act in other
ways. But as soon as a good opportunity arises, it is highly recommended
to form a section.
The section can choose to hold its meetings for members only or have
meetings that are open to other colleagues as well. At the section’s
decision-making meetings, only members have the right to vote, but the
meeting may decide that non-members can attend and also make proposals.
If the section chooses closed meetings, it is important that members
also promote discussions for all employees who want to change the
workplace. This can take the form of, for example, cross-union lunches
every week, an on-line forum or cross-union workshops after work where
common strategies are drawn up.
If the staff benefits from both a section and a cross-union group, then
of course you strive to develop both groups. See also Appendix 2 of this
book for an illustration of the section’s role in the workforce.
Syndicalism has emerged from the working class. A class perspective is
therefore fundamental. Over time, SAC and other currents of the labour
movement have been enriched with feminist perspectives.
SAC was the first union in Sweden to call itself a feminist union. This
happened at the SAC congress of 1994. The feminist perspective was
expressed there as an insight and a goal by the way of additions to
SAC’s Declaration of principles. The insight concerns the fact that
women as a group are subordinated and discriminated against in society.
People with non-binary identities are also punished for deviations from
a gender norm. The goal of SAC is to achieve equality between the sexes
with a focus on the labour market and our union.
As the term equality has traditionally ignored women, the concept of
gender equality is used to shed light on the power relationship between
the sexes. The Swedish word for equality is jämlikhet. A new term,
jämställdhet, has been coined for gender equality.
The Union program of SAC, adopted in 2006, emphasizes that the class
struggle must be permeated by an understanding of structural injustices
affecting women as well as ethnic and sexual minorities. In SAC’s
Declaration of principles, adopted in 2009, it is emphasized that
discriminated and severely exploited categories of workers must be given
a significant influence in the class struggle. These governing documents
express a development of the aspirations for equality in the class
struggle. The intention is to broaden the struggle, include more
categories of workers and support self-organization especially among
those who suffer the worst positions and conditions.
As early as the 1920s, the syndicalist Elise Ottesen-Jensen emphasized
that the labour movement cannot realize the liberation of humanity until
unions change their internal male domination. We are unfortunately not
there yet. Expressing a feminist goal at a union congress is one thing.
To strive for gender equality in practice, both inside the union and on
the workplace, is another matter.
SAC’s Gender power inquiry (in Swedish Könsmaktsutredningen) which was
presented in 2010 emphasizes that an internal homosociality must be
counteracted. The term refers to men associating with men primarily and
promoting each other and excluding and ignoring women (consciously or
unconsciously). A necessary counterweight to homosociality is that union
democracy follows clear formal structures. The feminist perspective also
needs to be included in union education programmes to break the
traditional macho culture of trade unions in general.
Feminism becomes a part of the class struggle when the perspective is
integrated into workplace organizing. When the perspective is present on
a section level, the union becomes stronger and better at advancing the
positions of all employees. The formation of more sections is in itself
an element that facilitates women’s participation in the union. In
syndicalist sections, union activity is conducted mainly at work during
working hours. That is advantageous for everyone who is attributed and
bears heavy responsibility for family and household, the unpaid
reproductive work.
However, more workplace organizing does not automatically produce gender
equality. The feminist perspective needs to be presented already at
introductory meetings for new members. Workers’ solidarity under the
banner of SAC, presupposes concrete knowledge of how women are
discriminated against and subordinated, as well as solid tools for
breaking these patterns — both within the union and at the workplace.
Read more about the importance of a feminist perspective for a trade
union community, for the leadership in sections and for the recruitment
of members (see questions 11, 18 and 41). See also Part 4 of the book
(question 47).
A central concept of syndicalism is direct action. Direct action means
action without representatives. It covers all methods that we employees
develop in our unmediated struggle. Some examples of direct action are
to produce petitions, boycott the company party, arrange Christmas
dinners without the bosses, criticize management in a workplace union
paper or stage sit-in strikes. Such methods become relevant when the
staff has urgent demands but the management is not receptive to
arguments and facts.
Direct action means that we do not hand over our affairs to union
representatives, politicians or courts. If we lose control and do not
use our collective strength, we always risk losing the labour struggle
itself.
The term direct action is sometimes mistaken to mean impulsive or
ill-considered action. On the contrary, all direct actions should be
carefully thought out and be well prepared. Direct action is action
without representatives conducted by the concerned workers themselves.
Unfortunately, the term is sometimes used in the sense of one group
falsely claiming to fight on behalf of another group. This means that
political groups outside the workforce take action that the workers have
not requested. Such actions are, of course, both arrogant and
destructive. That is not the direct action of syndicalism.
Direct action is struggle by the concerned workers themselves,
supplemented (if necessary) with solidarity actions approved by the
workers. To avoid misunderstandings, it is usually best to use the
expression collective pressure by the workforce instead of direct
action. It is about using the power we possess as producers of goods and
services.
The Union program of SAC, adopted in 2006, emphasizes that the labour
struggle must be proactive, not just reactive. The struggle becomes
vulnerable if it only consists of reactions to employer attacks.
Employees should instead take the initiative and preferably be one step
ahead of the counterpart. SAC’s Tactical statement of 2009 emphasizes
that the choice of methods should be creative and adapted to the current
situation. The strength of unions requires that tactics change when
needed. Predictable unions become vulnerable if the employer side learns
how to trump a certain tactic that is repeated over and over again.
In general, it can be said that successful labour conflicts take the
form of planned escalation. North American unions use the term
escalating organizing campaigns. The workforce then proceeds from simple
and relatively soft methods of pressure to more demanding and effective
pressure. As a complement to the actions of employees, it is recommended
to set up a media strategy, partly to put pressure on the employer at
the current workplace, and partly to attract more employees to join
future campaigns.
The early labour movement (starting in the 19^(th) century) often spoke
of “sabotage” in a trade union sense. If the term direct action can be
misunderstood, the word “sabotage” causes even worse misunderstandings.
According to modern Swedish criminal law, sabotage is an act that
endangers the health or safety of several persons. The early labour
movement used the word in an essentially different way. The trade
unionist “sabotage” was a general label for various alternatives and
complements to strikes.
Some examples of such alternatives are slowdowns (i.e. to slow down the
pace of work), so called work-to-rule (exceptional obedience to
regulations at work, again to slow down the pace) or to inform consumers
as whistle-blowers if for example the company’s products are of bad
quality.
Another example of “sabotage” in the unionist sense is the method good
service. This means that employees provide consumers with such a good
service that the rest of the work is delayed. Another example is to take
the tools out on solidarity strike. This method is a protection against
strike breaking. This could mean, for example, that striking transport
workers leave their vehicles standing and take the keys with them. In
today’s digitalized society, this method can mean making it impossible
for strike breakers to log in to office computers or to access factory
robots.
The purpose of unionist “sabotage” is usually to defend the health and
safety of workers, consumers or other members of society. However, the
very word “sabotage” is far too vague and completely outdated. The
alternative is to use more descriptive terms such as slowdowns,
work-to-rule, take the tools out on solidarity strike, etc.
It sometimes happens that employers dig up old union writings about
“sabotage” in order to tarnish the union’s reputation. Bosses then
accuse the representatives of advocating “sabotage” and play on the
term’s connotations to assassinations and even terrorism. The bosses
recite words out of context and in bad faith. The union solution is
again to be clear in the communication. Always let slander blow back on
the slanderer.
At many workplaces, employees are not ready to exercise collective
pressure for the simple reason that there is not a strong enough sense
of community. The first step for syndicalists is then to build that
community.
Union community does not arise just because you start a formal section.
Community is cultivated and organized. It is not enough for employees to
have an insight or awareness of common interests towards management. A
strong sense of “We workers” is needed, a cohesion that is nurtured and
developed. Co-workers need good relations among themselves and trust in
each other, as opposed to management demanding loyalty and obedience.
The workforce is usually more or less divided and fragmented. Employees
can be divided along the lines of different occupations, forms of
employment, gender, ethnicity, different groups of friends, generations,
etc. This division needs to be overcome. That is one of the crucial
reasons why SAC is a feminist and anti-racist union.
The union community is destroyed if colleagues push each other down. A
community of men that excludes female colleagues is not a union
community. A racist jargon at work cannot be accepted. A workplace where
homosexuals and transgender people do not feel welcome is not a union
community.
You and your co-workers cultivate community, for example, when you help
each other in daily tasks, support each other in relation to management,
establish norms for a culture of solidarity, resolve internal conflicts
independently of bosses and arrange social activities outside working
hours.
An important part of organizing is to analyse and map the workplace. It
is almost impossible to change the situation if you do not understand
it. You and the colleagues who want to bring about a change are wise to
reflect on the composition of the staff and how management directs the
labour process. You will then find ways to strengthen cohesion and
methods to increase your influence. Knowledge is power and unity is
strength. These expressions are clichés that may sound worn but they are
still true. See also an example of mapping the workplace in the book’s
Appendix 1 (the plan for a study group).
While the workplace is an arena for conflicts with the employer, the
trade union is a platform for cooperation. In a broad union, internal
conflicts can hardly be avoided but minimized.
The motto of syndicalism is to always focus on conflicts with the
counterparty, and not to get caught up in conflicts within the workforce
or inside the union. SAC’s motto is to put job conflict before internal
conflict. This is a precondition for building union community. The
purpose of unions stands and falls with the ability to cooperate
internally and handle conflicts with the counterparties.
Most syndicalist sections start as a minority union in the workplace.
But syndicalists always form a majority with other colleagues against
the management.
A newly started section strives to become what Swedish syndicalists call
the real or substantial majority union. This means that the section is
the union that has the most impact on the workplace (even if it has not
recruited a majority of the staff). The real majority union pursues a
line in concrete union issues which has the support of the staff and
preferably also mobilizes the whole collective for action.
In the longer term, the section’s goal is to also become the formal
majority i.e. the union that recruits all or most employees. At the same
time, SAC members continue to act together with employees of other
unions and with non-unionised colleagues.
When SAC was formed in 1910, the French syndicalist union CGT was an
important role model. But SAC deviated from the leaders of CGT on a
crucial point. SAC wanted to organize a majority of workers while the
leaders of CGT only aimed for those who they regarded as a “conscious
minority” within the working class. The rest were arrogantly and
elitistly called “the indifferent crowd” by CGT leaders.
Not until a situation of social transformation was imminent, the CGT
leaders believed that the majority could become “conscious” and then be
recruited. This notion was and is alien to SAC. SAC wants to become a
majority union as soon as possible. The ambition is to become the real
majority union in every workplace and, as the process advances, also the
formal majority. At the same time, SAC always strives for cooperation
with employees who belong to other unions.
You do not create a “consciousness” worthy of the name by isolating
yourself in small groups that require adherence to strict doctrines. We
workers grow in skills and insight through broad union struggles,
discussions and studies. The trade union movement needs to once again
become an open school and workshop for the whole working class.
A common misconception is that trade unions must be governed either by
representative democracy or by direct democracy. Syndicalism combines
both forms of government. We call it base democracy.
At the section’s base level, the rank-and-file level, direct democratic
decisions are made through member meetings or the ballot box. Members
are elected to positions of trust at a representative level. They
implement decisions, coordinate activities and make decisions in urgent
matters or in matters of minor importance. Their mandate can be
specified in directives from the base. The figure below summarizes how
base democracy works. The thinner arrow illustrates that elected
representatives not only implement decisions but also make certain
decisions.
Every step in the union’s work — formulating demands, choosing methods
of struggle and concluding agreements — is always decided at the base
level, unless a limited decision-making power has been explicitly
delegated to elected representatives. The rank-and-file thus sets a
strict framework for its representatives.
[]
In sections, the crucial power belongs to a number of member meetings
per year. The annual meeting is the most significant meeting. Here,
among other things, a plan for the coming year and a budget are decided
upon. At the annual meeting, representatives are elected to the section
board and various committees. If the member base deems it appropriate,
the board may be mandated to appoint committees. Representatives can
also be elected at regular member meetings. The elected representatives
are accountable to and can be recalled immediately by the member
meeting.
The main rule at the member meetings is that decisions are made by an
absolute majority, i.e. a proposal wins if it receives more than 50
percent of the votes cast. The chairman of the meeting asks the
participants to say YES to approve a certain proposal or YES to reject
it. The chairman assesses whether approval outweighs rejection or the
other way around. If someone requests a vote count, all individual votes
are counted instead.
If the section is to organize a strike or other industrial action, the
action should be based on a qualified majority decision or preferably
full unanimity/consensus. Decisions on industrial action must be made by
a large majority at a well-attended meeting. Once the decision has been
made, it is binding for all members.
Industrial conflict requires strong unity. A collective action should
not be organized if only a small majority of the members have voted in
favour of it.
SAC’s Union program of 2006 highlights a trap that many unions step
into: that client service dominates the union. This means that the union
mainly delivers service in individual cases. The service consists of
negotiations and sometimes actions outside the workplace. When a union
neglects to organize, the client service usually takes over. The concept
of organizing was highlighted above (see question 7).
Client service usually renders meagre results for the served member,
even though the people who provide service make a great effort. The
reason is that client service neither uses nor develops the collective
strength at the workplace. In the absence of collective strength, the
primary method becomes defensive legalism. This means trying to assert
rights according to laws and collective agreements, rather than pushing
the position forward. That is also the path which employers and the
state try to push militant unions onto.
Legalism is a flawed method for both offensive and defensive purposes.
It is entirely possible for employers to have a lousy workplace policy
and still follow laws and collective agreements, for example to use
understaffing and day labourers. In such situations, legalism is no
counterweight.
Even when employers break rules and employees are right according to
law, it can be difficult to assert the same rights. Employees can be
regarded as troublemakers and become harassed. If you sue the employer
in the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen in Swedish), the outcome is often a
lottery. In some cases, negotiation is a quick and easy way to defend
rights, but this is not something you can count on.
For the reasons just mentioned, client service usually yields meagre
results. Client service also has a strong tendency to exhaust
negotiators.
There is no substitute for the collective strength at the workplace.
External activists and negotiators can be an important complement, but
nothing more. The key people for building collective strength are the
workplace organizers i.e. members who organize at their own workplaces.
When members lack sections at their workplaces, client service at the
level of our Locals easily arises. Therefore, the Locals of SAC promote
collective self-organization rather than service in individual cases.
Locals promote the formation of sections, cross-union groups and
industrial branches. A branch is an association of all sections within a
specific industry in the area (read more about industrial branches under
questions 16–17 below). The Swedish word for industrial branch is
syndikat.
There is a risk that client service arises and dominates also in
industrial branches. This is the case if the branch negotiates for
members who lack workplace sections. Therefore, the primary task of the
industrial branch is to organize workplace by workplace and form
sections, not to negotiate. This is stated in the basic bylaws for all
industrial branches.
In a section that encompasses a large workplace or several workplaces,
there is also the risk that client service will dominate. Those sections
are strongly recommended to form smaller subdivisions or departments
within their area of activity. The Swedish word for such a department is
avdelning. In a department you engage in union activity with your
closest colleagues.
Trade unions can hardly avoid client service altogether, but the
emphasis should be on workplace organizing; that is the core of union
business. Client service is an emergency solution, available when urgent
problems arise and there is no time to build collective strength. You
cannot build a movement by constant fire brigade calls in individual
cases. But when a member raises a case, it can be a good opportunity to
start organizing.
An operating section that encompasses several workplaces or a large
workplace can form smaller departments. This is stated in the basic
bylaws for all sections. A department is just like the larger section a
forum and tool for acting together.
A department brings together a work team, a craft or another naturally
defined group of employees. An example of a situation where colleagues
may find it natural to form a department is when colleagues already meet
in daily tasks at work. Another situation may be that people in a craft
are scattered and do not meet but have a need to start meeting around a
craft interest.
The department becomes the members’ meeting point in the immediate
environment. Each department has a workplace representative, a contact
person (in Swedish: arbetsplatsombud). The representative maintains
personal contact with the department’s members and is a link to the
overall section board. Representatives can move from simple tasks to
more demanding assignments.
The role of the department evolves gradually. A reasonable starting
point may be that the members have regular lunch meetings and recruit
co-workers within the area of their department. They can handle notice
boards and folder stands, welcome new members and lead study groups. The
department establishes the union presence in everyday life. It is based
on the members’ self-organization. It cannot be administered by the
section board. Then it will be an empty shell or an inhibiting
bureaucracy.
When the time is right, departments become more formal units with
decision making meetings, written minutes and their own elected
representatives. Former representatives/contact persons with simple
tasks are given more demanding assignments. Each department can then
solve problems for its specific staff category through, for example,
collective bargaining and small-scale industrial action. At the same
time, representatives from all departments come together in the overall
section board to pursue common interests.
In a large-scale union that feels anonymous, no sense of community
exists. Therefore, smaller departments are needed. The department is a
personal forum of members. A member may be familiar with all the fellow
union members in the department, but not with several hundred or a
thousand members in a large section. Each department and the section as
a whole also need to be represented by familiar faces, fellow workers
who enjoy the trust of the entire membership collective.
A common misconception is that trade unions are either centralized and
strong or decentralized and weak. In fact, both centralism and too
far-reaching decentralism weaken a union. Centralism inhibits and
destroys the members’ labour struggles. A too far-reaching decentralism
makes cooperation and joint decisions difficult.
Syndicalism practices a synthesis or mixture of decentralism and
centralism. It is called federalism. Federalism enables
self-determination in local affairs, but also cooperation and joint
decisions in regional and nationwide affairs.
The section is self-determining but should not be isolated. A section
has everything to gain from collaborating with other parts of SAC. It is
vital to collaborate on for example education and exchange of
experience, agitation and recruitment. This lays the basis for
cooperation around bigger campaigns, labour struggles and collective
bargaining.
Several sections in the same industry (for example the education
industry) may form an industrial branch in the local area (for example
an industrial branch of education). The Swedish word for industrial
branch is, as mentioned, syndikat. The branch is a cooperative body of
sections. The branch is an industrial forum and a tool for organizing
more workplaces and act together towards the employer side. The branch
is just like the section a flexible and handy organizational form. The
structure of a branch is adapted to the current circumstances, locally
and in the industry in question.
Sections and branches in all industries in an area cooperate through the
Local (LS). The Local is a platform for solidarity across industries.
Several nearby Locals collaborate through regional districts. All Locals
also collaborate through SAC. When there are enough branches in an
industry, a nationwide federation is formed (for example a federation of
education). Several sections within a corporate group can also benefit
from forming a union cooperation body that encompasses the corporate
group.
SAC advocates industrial unionism, not craft unionism. In Sweden, it is
primarily the Saco unions that divide the workforce into different craft
unions. This makes it harder to raise common demands against the
employer side. Industrial unionism is about uniting the entire workforce
at all workplaces within a particular industry. This does not preclude
different crafts from raising their specific issues, but industrial
organization makes it possible to assert common interests as well.
Two old Swedish term for industrial organization is “industriell
organisering” and “industriförbunds-principen”. Nowadays, people instead
use the term branschorganisering since the Swedish word “industri” is
associated with manufacturing industry in big factories, not associated
with a line of business in general. Another synonym for industrial
organization is “varuprincipen” (in English: the commodity-principle).
This principle means that all occupations within a line of business that
delivers a certain type of good (or service) should be organized within
the same union.
SAC’s industrial federations have a counterpart in LO which are called
fackförbund in Swedish. Syndicalist sections and industrial branches
have counterparts in LO’s fackklubbar and avdelningar (in English: job
branches and industrial branches) A crucial difference is that SAC’s
industrial bodies have a dual task and are part of a class organization
for all employees except bosses. SAC is a nationwide class organization
and each Local (LS) is a local class organization. Thus, our Locals and
SAC are not fackförbund in the LO sense. Read more about the dual task
(see question 22) and read about the idea of the class organization in
Part 2 of the book.
The democracy of an individual section has its counterpart in SAC as a
whole. Above, we have described base democracy as a combination of
direct and representative democracy (see question 13). Federalism is a
synthesis of decentralism and centralism. All parts of SAC are permeated
by base democracy and federalism.
It has been stated above that SAC has a double structure. SAC has a
structure along industrial lines where the smallest units are workplace
sections and a geographical structure where the Local (LS) is the basic
unit. On the one hand, the sections form federations in the form of
industrial branches, which in turn form nationwide industrial
federations. On the other hand, a Local that is fully developed,
constitutes a federation of all local industrial branches. All Locals
then form regional federations (districts) and the nationwide federation
SAC.
Each federation respects the self-determination of its local units,
while the local unit respects the co-determination of the federation.
Thus, federalism combines self-governance in local matters with joint
governance in common matters. No one may act contrary to a federation’s
joint decisions, neither direct democratic decisions nor decisions made
by elected representatives.
Through the federalist structure of SAC, members can to a large extent
cooperate horizontally between local units. This means that members do
not necessarily have to delegate decision-making vertically to a
regional or nationwide body. In this way, cooperation becomes smooth and
the more cumbersome decision-making processes can be limited.
In concrete union terms, federalism means that members can wage labour
struggles that are locally rooted, mobile and adaptable to local
conditions. A collective of employees can strike directly at the
employer’s weak points, at the right time and in coordination with other
collectives, without bureaucratic detours.
A common misconception of direct democratic unions is that everyone
interferes in all decisions all the time. Federalism instead means that
the right to decide is limited to those concerned. Local issues are
dealt with locally, regional issues are dealt with regionally, and so
on. Federalism is dynamic, not carved in stone. Through new decisions,
issues can be transferred from local units to regional and nationwide
units or returned to local units. In the same way, base democracy is
dynamic too. The mandate of elected representatives can be extended,
limited or recalled.
The federalism of SAC means that there is not just one supreme
decision-making body but several. In local affairs in the workplace, the
section’s annual meeting is the highest decision-making body. A section
exercises local self-determination within the framework of joint
decisions made by its industrial branch, the Local and SAC. In
nationwide affairs for the entire membership, the congress of SAC is the
highest decision-making body. Congress decisions sets the framework for
all parts of SAC.
The base democracy and federalism of SAC offer a practical school of
democracy, with the long-term vision of taking over the operation of all
workplaces.
A common misunderstanding is that direct democratic unions do not have
any leaders. Our sections have both formal leaders (elected
representatives) and informal leaders (grassroots with a lot of
influence). The task of the elected representatives is above all to lead
the implementation of decisions made by the member base. Members at the
grassroot level can become informal leaders by being a driving force or
having extensive knowledge and long experience.
In theory, informal leaders may be avoided if all members are equally
active and have equal knowledge in all matters. In practice, that is not
realistic. Therefore, the union needs to maintain norms of positive
leadership. The same norms also guide formal leaders.
Positive leaders promote the members’ activity and influence in the
union. A cornerstone is to promote transparency, that is everyone’s
overview of the union business. For a feminist organization like SAC, it
is important that women are given a place as leaders and thereby give
the union a face. Female role models inspire more women to participate
in union activities.
Through the section, you and your co-workers can grow as leaders.
Positive leaders promote a sense of union community where everyone feels
welcome. Leaders encourage more members to play a leading role as well.
The ideal is that all members lead the section as a joint project, even
if they are responsible for different parts of section activities. A
valuable leadership skill is to be a good educator who conveys knowledge
to others.
A lack of a clear and positive leadership means having unwilling,
passive or anonymous leaders. Then the union will stop or move backward.
In the worst case, one leaves space for authoritarian and destructive
leaders to take control.
Positive leaders are good listeners and organizers, not political
agitators or chief ideologues. This applies to both formal and informal
leaders. The task of individual leaders is not to push through their
personal opinions in every issue. The leaders of a section should
promote discussions about collective interests against the employer
side, so that a collective line of action can be pursued.
In most Swedish unions, authoritarian and destructive leadership is a
solid phenomenon. The unions are characterized by top-down government
and centralism. Unions try to sell the illusion that representatives can
perform miracles in the workplace through individual service or
bargaining above the head of employees. When the illusion breaks, the
bitterness weighs heavy.
According to the common bylaws for all unions within LO, decisions on
industrial action must lie with the central union boards at national
level. This has been the case since the LO congress of 1941. Members are
rarely allowed to vote on new nationwide collective agreements and vote
results are only advisory. Thus, the union boards at national level have
the right to ignore voting results.
In some cases, Swedish unions stage strikes and blockades. The national
union boards usually direct members like chess pieces. Conflicts are
seldom well-prepared or well-conducted. Sometimes it is nothing more
than a sad ritual, almost a rigged match. In SAC, it is the member
collective that calls itself to go on strike (through the union
democracy).
As soon as grassroots in LO, TCO and Saco try to play a leading role,
they are usually treated as a threat by the union bureaucracy. Members
who become active locally, demand more democracy within the union and
try to act collectively with their colleagues are actively fought on by
paid officials and union representatives.
The repressive powers vary between different unions in Sweden. One
method is to stifle the financial resources of local units. The default
is not to open the central strike funds for strikes initiated by the
member base. Another method is to slander individual members. Within LO,
it can be extra painful for those who are not loyal to the Social
Democratic Party.
It also happens that paid officials negotiate redundancies and buyouts
of militant members. Further measures are that national union boards
remove local union boards or close entire job branches, start new
branches and appoint boards that are loyal to the national board. The
authoritarian leadership is a systemic flaw that is built into LO, TCO
and Saco. Replacing representatives will only make a marginal
difference.
Members of SAC have the union with them instead of against them. As wage
earners, it is enough to have two opponents: the employers and their
allies in politics. We do not need a third opponent to enrich our lives.
In Swedish workplaces, there are often several established unions. When
a syndicalist section is started, it is often the smallest union at the
workplace. An often-repeated myth is that the largest union is always
the strongest union. To believe that a large number of members or a high
union density always reflects real strength is to engage in numerical
mysticism. A large union can be an empty shell or a dead bureaucracy.
Employees don’t become strong by being many in a membership register.
You become strong by being many co-workers who stick together and act
together. The best trade union is therefore the organization that
promotes cohesion and collective action. That is an organization based
on democracy, solidarity and independence. Then the members have the
union behind them and the decision-making power in their hands. The
syndicalist section is a such union.
Employees don’t become strong by being many in a union register,
especially not if the power in the union is concentrated in the hands of
representatives and these representatives cultivate a close consensus
with the employer. Then the union usually stands as a bureaucratic brake
pad in front of the employees, rather than as support behind them. The
union may have recruited a majority of the staff, but the bureaucracy
still counteracts joint action. Then the strength is illusory. The
beautiful union statistics become a facade and the employer will easily
call the bluff.
When union tycoons of LO cannot convince workers to choose their union
over SAC, they usually claim that syndicalists are “splitters”. This
accusation casts a shimmer of ridicule over LO. As early as 1922, the LO
congress made a decision to break all SAC strikes. LO workers who have
nevertheless participated in SAC strikes have been denied compensation
from LO strike funds. Sometimes LO members have been expelled because of
their solidarity.
Syndicalists work for the cohesion of all employees, regardless of
whether the staff belong to one or many unions. The best starting point
for achieving cohesion is to organize from below, inside the workplace,
rather than a union bureaucracy imposing a line on employees from above
or the outside.
As soon as there are three syndicalists in a workplace, it is meaningful
to start a section. This requires the syndicalists to work on two tracks
at the same time: building the section and promoting cohesion among more
and more employees, regardless of union affiliation.
When syndicalists organize at a workplace, all employees become winners.
The section can advance the position of employees by influencing the
management directly or indirectly. A direct impact is achieved when
syndicalists, together with colleagues in other unions, raise common
demands and put pressure on management.
An indirect impact is achieved when the section pushes other unions in
front of it. Such an impact often takes place in a kind of triangle
drama at the workplace. In many Swedish workplaces, there are not just
two parties (union and employer) but three. These are the staff on the
shop floor and the management at the top together with representatives
of consensus-seeking unions. The latter, consensus unions, are the
unions within LO, TCO and Saco (with the exception of some militant
branches). Between these parties, a triangular drama often takes place.
The consensus unions dampen the staff’s demands and militancy and makes
it easier for management to implement its plans.
When a section begins to pursue collective interests of the staff, it
gives both the consensus unions and management a new incentive to meet
the staff’s demands. Otherwise, the consensus unions risk losing members
to the section, which can spur more militancy. If representatives of the
consensus unions nevertheless take the side of management, the section
can recruit more co-workers and become even stronger.
A syndicalist section creates win-win situations for all employees. Even
very small sections can drive consensus unions and management in a
positive direction. The basis is good relations on the shop floor so
that syndicalists enjoy trust by many co-workers.
When you have gained momentum in organizing inside the workplace, you
can consider cooperation with external groups who may want to support a
union campaign and have something to gain from a union victory
themselves. Some examples are that healthcare employees can collaborate
with patients, employees in the education industry can collaborate with
parent groups, employees in commerce can collaborate with consumers, and
so on.
The most ambitious approach is what North American unions call whole
worker organizing. This mean that they look for alliances with all
conceivable groups and networks (formal and informal) that may be
interested in contributing to a union success. Thus, the union is
building broad alliances in civil society. This way of working is a
continuation of a long tradition that the political scientist Mats
Dahlkvist has given the Swedish label rörelsesocialism (in English:
movement socialism).
When you and your co-workers start a section, build cross-union
community and develop leadership, you have continuous support from your
Local. It is an exciting and educational process, but it can also be
difficult and frustrating. You will not receive any patent solutions.
You will instead learn as you try and experiment. But we are many who
want to give advice and support. So, your project is our joint project.
Syndicalist unions have a task of a dual nature. It can also be
formulated as fulfilling a dual function in class struggle. We are here
talking about class struggle in the short and long term.
In the short term, the struggle is about enforcing reforms or daily
demands: better wages, reduced stress, shorter working hours, stronger
employment protection, better working environment, an end to sexual
harassment and racism, strengthened freedom of expression, protection of
privacy, better work-life balance, etc. All union demands, conflicts and
negotiations have a common purpose: that the workforce should seize more
and more power over the workplace.
In the long run, syndicalist unions are tools for a complete
democratization of workplaces. Everyone affected by decisions made, must
also have the right to influence those decisions. This requires that the
working population takes control of the means of production and
establishes new administrative bodies. Those who do the work should
manage the workplaces — in the interests of all members of society and
within the framework of the ecosystem. SAC believes that the only
legitimate management is the management that the workers have elected,
that follows directives from the shop floor and that can be recalled
immediately from below.
SAC uses the Swedish term driftsektion (in English: operating section)
because the long-term vision is to take over and operate production. The
base democracy and federalism that is practiced within the union today
gives a clue as to how the economy can be managed in the future. The
North American union IWW express this aspiration in the following way in
the Preamble to its constitution:
“By organizing industrially, we are forming the structure of the new
society within the shell of the old.”
In short, syndicalism strives for economic democracy. We also use the
expression workers’ self-management. As is well known, the word
democracy means rule by the people, and we believe that the people
really should rule. Economic democracy is the core of SAC’s long-term
vision, but the vision is bigger than this (read further in Part 4 of
the book).
In today’s workplaces, economic dictatorship prevails, even if the
political system is formally democratic. Employees are obliged to obey a
class of bosses or owners which they have not voted for and furthermore
do not have the right to control or recall. This is not a worthy
situation for adult people. In addition, bosses and business owners
enrich themselves on the working population.
The hierarchy in workplaces is a basis for class society as a whole. The
individual workplace is a class society in miniature. The prevailing
class society is a capitalist society. It is characterized by the fact
that most of production is owned by private capitalists. The goal of
capitalists is to maximize profits and their power (or at least to
maintain their power). Production, the surrounding society and politics
are subordinated to their goal of profit maximization.
The early labour movement described the dictatorship and exploitation in
the workplace as wage slavery and employer rule. We syndicalists hold
fast to this critique even though the wordings can be updated.
The dictatorship in the workplace is the central component of
capitalism. Capitalism rests on the productive and creative activity of
the working class. At the same time, it is our creative capacity that
can bring forth a new social order. Economic democracy would make it
possible to produce for human needs, instead of profit for the few.
Economic democracy lays the foundation for an equal society, a classless
society. That would mean a fundamental transformation of society.
Class struggle is an inevitable consequence of a boss and owner class
having a monopoly on the means of production. The conflict between
labour and capital cannot be abolished within the framework of
capitalism. It is through the offensive struggles for daily demands that
we approach the long-term vision. A future transformation of society is
the ultimate consequence of class struggle.
A prerequisite for fulfilling the dual task is to put emphasis on
self-organization and collective struggle. If a trade union is dominated
by client service and defensive legalism, then it is important to make
new investments in organizing. Client service was discussed above (see
question 14).
Client service is in itself a trap if it becomes dominant. It could lead
the union stepping into two additional traps. One trap is that the union
representatives move up, above the workforce and are integrated with the
employer side. The second trap is that organizers are marginalized. They
then end up outside the workforce and lack influence. The solution is to
work within the collective of employees and mobilize co-workers in
struggle and bargaining. See the illustration of the two traps in
Appendix 2 of the book.
A necessary prerequisite for fulfilling the dual task is to build strong
local trade unions. But it is not enough to form sections, job branches
and cross-union groups that are isolated from each other. The local
organizations need to cooperate through a larger class organization.
Part 2 of the book presents the idea of the class organization.
Syndicalism is an international trade union movement. Syndicalism
emphasizes the economic and social interests that unite us workers,
rather than the religious, political and national affiliations that
divide us. We organize ourselves in a union because we have a common
interest in improving everyday life for everyone. We do not organize and
come together because we have the same opinion on every issue. Union
organizing has the potential to unite workers in every workplace, within
and across industries.
Common to all workers is a subordinate position in the production of
goods and services. We are employees, not bosses or employers. This
makes us the largest and potentially strongest social class. The
interests of all workers are essentially the same. Therefore, SAC is a
class organization for all, not a political organization for this or
that set of opinions.
What characterizes political organizations? Of course, they show a great
variety, from parties to extra-parliamentary groups. But political
organizations have a typical characteristic: they recruit people who all
adhere to a certain package of opinions (regardless of which social
class they belong to). SAC, on the other hand, welcomes anyone with a
subordinate position in production. SAC does not require everyone to
accept certain opinions. The important thing is to act in solidarity at
work and in the union.
SAC is an interest organization for sellers of labour power. All
employees except the bosses are welcome. SAC also welcomes those in the
working class who are not wage earners (unemployed, people on sick
leave, pensioners, etc.). Each Local (LS) of SAC strives to unite the
working class locally.
The primary guiding star of syndicalism is class solidarity. This does
not mean that all workers must belong to the same trade union. What is
needed is a common organization or alliance between workers in different
organizations. This is emphasized in the bylaws for all Locals of SAC.
Class solidarity requires that a feminist and anti-racist perspective is
integrated into workplace organizing. Otherwise it will primarily be a
solidarity between male workers of a certain ethnicity. This was
addressed in Part 1 of the book (questions 8, 11 and 18). See also
questions 41 and 47.
Even though SAC welcomes workers in general, organizing requires
prioritizing. Some workplaces have a greater potential than others. Our
human and financial resources are limited. If one tried to recruit,
organize and fight everywhere at the same time, it would probably not
yield success anywhere.
At the level of our Locals, to prioritize might mean for example
targeting a specific industry in the organizing efforts for a period of
time. An industrial branch can invest in one workplace at a time. A
section can focus on a specific occupation or department within the
company and so on.
Syndicalist organizers are looking for organizing opportunities. These
arise when syndicalists meet with other members but also when reaching
out to non-members. Meetings can be arranged both in workplaces and
other social contexts where a prioritized group resides. The purpose of
targeted initiatives is to promote self-organization in larger and
larger parts of the working class.
The focus of a trade union is on the workplace. Here lies great
potential. Our daily work is the foundation of the production of goods
and services and it literally builds our society. Through union
organizing, we can develop the power to change our living conditions and
the direction in which society should move. The individual worker may be
a cog in the machinery, but as a collective we can stop its wheels and
dictate new conditions for social development. Here an incredible power
resides if we only learn to use it together.
Political organizations are not built for workplace struggles. They are
basically useless for this purpose. This applies to both parliamentary
“labour parties” and extra-parliamentary left-wing groupings. Left-wing
organizations repel employees who don’t identify as leftists, employees
who don’t see themselves as part of the left. Such organizations can
also be open to bosses and employers and be led by people in the
political establishment.
“Take heed! Do not antagonize these people, who produce everything and
who need only to stand still to become terrifying.”
Honoré Gabriel Riqueti de Mirabeau (1749–1791), politician during the
French Revolution
Since political organizations are not built for workplace struggles,
they are ill-equipped to use the means of power that the working class
possesses in its capacity as producer of goods and services.
The idea of a class organization is fundamental to syndicalism. It has
arisen in a large number of countries. The most well-known expression
(among the oldest examples) is the International Workingmen’s
Association. This organization was founded in 1864 and became known as
the First International. The first class organization in the United
States, the Knights of Labor, was formed in 1869.
One of the prominent figures of the First International, Michail
Bakunin, emphasized the open nature of the class organization: “the
International does not ask any new member if he is of a religious or
atheistic turn of mind. She does not ask if he belongs to this or that
or no political party. She simply says: Are you a worker?”
The class organization brings workers together in struggle in their
capacity as producers. The common interests unite workers or at least
have great potential to unite workers. Multiplying through division into
political factions is not the idea of the class organization.
A common misconception is that syndicalism was invented in France and
then exported to the rest of the world. Syndicalism has been created by
workers on all continents. However, the French CGT has become one of the
most well-known syndicalist organizations. When the CGT was formed in
1895, the independence of the class organization was emphasized. The
so-called Charter of Amiens (adopted in 1906) stated that CGT organizes
workers “outside every political school”. The workers must come together
“whatever their opinions or their political and philosophical
inclinations may be”. The CGT emphasized that the “combined
organizations should not, as trade union groups, involve themselves with
parties and sects”.
The basic bylaws for the Locals of SAC are not as strict as the Charter
of Amiens. Our bylaws do not prohibit all contact with parties. That is
a matter for each Local to decide, based on local circumstances, whether
cooperation on certain issues for a limited time is favourable or not.
However, the bylaws are very clear that Locals cannot demand their
members to support a party.
One of SAC’s many sister unions is the Spanish CNT. This organization
has always been influenced by anarchist ideas, so much so that CNT
labels itself anarcho-syndicalist. But CNT too emphasizes that it is a
class organization. The anarchists in Spain have separate political
organizations. The requirement for becoming a member of CNT is that you
are a worker and respect the democratic structure of the organization.
Another matter is that CNT’s choice of label appears to be detrimental
to its ambition to attract workers in general. CNT describes itself as
an anarcho-syndicalist organization but underlines that it is not an
anarchist union. Anarchists often form so-called affinity groups — small
groups of friends or close anarchist comrades who hold roughly the same
views. This is no basis for class organizing and that is not the
intention either. Therefore, anarchists are in addition often active in
syndicalist unions and other popular movements.
Unfortunately, the CNT has had a hard time living up to its ambition as
a broad class organization. It has turned certain tactical positions
into dogma, which has led to a split into two organizations: the CNT and
the more pragmatic anarcho-syndicalist trade union CGT. The North
American union IWW bears neither the syndicalist nor the
anarcho-syndicalist label. But IWW too is a class organization and a
sister union to SAC.
SAC’s nature as a class organization finds its expression in the double
structure. The organization rests on two legs: an industrial leg and a
geographical leg. On the one hand, all workplace sections in the same
industry in one area form an industrial branch. Several sections within
the same corporate group can also form a union inside that group. All
industrial branches in a single industry form a nationwide federation.
On the other hand, a Local brings together employees in all industries
in the area. All Locals form regional districts and are united through
SAC.
Why does SAC have a double structure? In order for a trade union to
challenge the buyers of labour power, the organization must match the
way in which production is organized. SAC’s ambition is to match the
fact that the economy is divided into different industries, corporate
groups and workplaces. SAC also wants to create bonds of solidarity
between workers across these divisions.
Collective struggle for collective deals establishes a floor for wages
and working conditions. A floor that sets a high standard in one
workplace helps employees in the rest of the industry to achieve the
same standard. When the standard is raised in an entire industry, it
helps workers in other industries do the same. Correspondingly, an
employer’s attempt to cut back on benefits and wages in one individual
workplace is an attack on all employees in that industry and, by
extension, an attack on the entire working class. Underbidding
competition and increased exploitation makes for a downward spiral.
Class solidarity makes for an upward spiral.
The image below illustrates the double structure at the local level in
relation to the employer side. The example is of the healthcare
industry. In the image, there are three sections (Swedish abbreviation:
DS) that cooperate through an industrial branch (in Swedish: syndikat).
The members in the front have the union behind them. The Local (LS) is a
platform for solidarity across industrial boundaries. Not visible in the
image, is that the industrial branch preferably also cooperates with
other industrial branches in the healthcare industry through a
nationwide federation. The three employers (AG) belong to an
association.
[]
The double structure of SAC is intended to multiply solidarity and
strength in the workplaces. The purpose is to limit exploitation and
block underbidding competition in larger and larger parts of the labour
market. This ambition is bolstered by the fact that we syndicalists
promote cross-union cooperation in the workplaces and areas where we
live our daily lives.
SAC’s membership has undergone an industrial and geographical
transformation. This is described in SAC’s Union program, adopted in
2006. Until the 1970s, SAC had a strong foothold with industrial
federations in the construction, mining and forestry industries. SAC’s
center of gravity has shifted from rural areas to cities and new
industries. The membership has also gone from consisting almost
exclusively of men to a growing proportion of women.
At present there are no industrial federations within SAC, but new
sections and industrial branches lay the basis for future federations.
SAC’s current Organization plan was adopted in 2009 (with amendments in
2015). The plan aims at building federations along the following eight
industrial lines: education, healthcare, commerce and services,
manufacturing industry, transport, construction, culture/IT/media and
municipal/government employees. The figure below summarizes the
guidelines for industrial organization.
[]
Sometimes the double structure of SAC is confused with the Social
Democratic combination of political party and trade union, (S) and LO.
This means mistaking our Locals, districts and SAC for being a political
organization in contrast to a trade union organization (sections,
industrial branches and federations). In actual fact, the whole
organization is a trade union organization. The purpose of SAC is to
participate in the class struggle with emphasis on the workplaces.
Another misconception is to regard the sections as bodies for only the
short-term day-to-day struggle and our Locals as bodies for the
long-term vision (economic democracy). In fact, the sections stand in
the frontline of both tasks. The Swedish term for section is
driftsektion (in English: operating section) because the vision is for
all employees to take over the operation of workplaces. The role of our
Locals is to support the sections, both in the short and long term. When
an industrial branch is formed in a specific industry, the branch
fulfils this role in that industry. The Local will co-organize
industrial branches, which in turn coordinate the sections.
The historical attempts to build strong class organizations have been
thwarted by battles between political factions in the workplace. Swedish
unions have seen a century-long interference from Social Democratic and
Communist parties as well as extra-parliamentary left-wing
organizations. On the European continent trade unions have also been
divided by religious conflicts.
Due to the collapse of “state socialism” (in both the East and West),
new opportunities have opened up as regards building strong class
organizations. But after a century of political factional strife, the
very idea of a class organization has been forgotten. New attempts at
class organizing must therefore dispel a number of misunderstandings.
A common mistake is to view all trade unions as political left-wing
projects. Is SAC a left-wing organization? The short answer is no. The
right-left scale is primarily a parliamentary scale while the trade
union is an extra-parliamentary organization. The condition for becoming
a member of SAC is not that you identify with the left or hold a set of
leftist opinions.
SAC, of course, do organize workers who regard themselves as part of the
left. There is, of course, an extra-parliamentary left. But it is
misleading to describe SAC as a left-wing organization since SAC also
accept as members workers who vote on centre-right parties and do not
label themselves left-wing. It is also the case that SAC excludes all
left-wing persons who are bosses or employers. Such is the Central
organization of workers in Sweden. The organization is open to all
workers and independent of the political left.
Our union is a force against the left when the left holds political
power and act as public employer. We also challenge union
representatives in left-wing clothing who sides with the employer side.
We are also a force against the political right and centre when these
camps hold political power and act as public employers. SAC is simply a
union for all workers.
In the conflict between labour and capital, SAC organizes labour. Our
union cannot be placed on a parliamentary right-left scale. SAC is at
the bottom of a class scale, a vertical scale if you will. We organize
ourselves down here, in the base of class society, against the rulers at
the top.
The political establishment, from right to left, usually agree that the
working population must be subjugated under the guardianship of one
class or the other. Workers must submit to capitalists and business
leaders or to public bureaucrats and their subordinate bosses. Leaders
of the Swedish Social Democratic Party usually describe the trade union
movement as a “left-wing force against the right”. This reflects a view
on unions as a supporting body for the leaders’ own power aspirations.
Syndicalists insist on the need to build independent class
organizations. Such organizations challenge both employers and
politicians and improve the living conditions of all workers.
SAC’s long-term vision is economic democracy. In Sweden today, the
vision is often associated with the political left, but economic
democracy is not something that the left own a patent on.
Large parts of the political left have traditionally been opposed to
economic democracy, namely Social Democratic and Communist parties of an
authoritarian type. Leaders of such parties have opposed
worker-controlled companies. Instead, they have advocated that the
economy should be controlled by bureaucrats (under “state socialism”) or
by capitalists (under welfare capitalism) or by trade union bureaucrats
(according to authoritarian variants of wage earners funds). Among party
grassroots, there have of course been opposition to the leaders’
attitude.
From time to time during the history of the labour movement, economic
democracy has appealed to broad sections of the population. In the
United States, for example, the vision has been advocated by outspoken
socialists as well as liberals and conservatives, by ardent atheists and
deeply religious workers. In the 19^(th) century, slogans against wage
slavery were raised by both liberals in the New York Times and
conservatives in the Republican Party
In Spain today, to name another example, many Catholics keep the vision
of economic democracy alive through trade union organizing and the
related phenomenon of producer cooperatives. This is done with reference
to the Christian faith. However, there is no reason to isolate economic
democracy in a religious or left-wing political camp. We syndicalists
want to make the vision popular again.
Economic democracy is a project that has the potential to once again
inspire and mobilize broad masses. The simple reason is that the project
is in the interest of the whole working class.
Economic democracy means nothing less than employees seizing the power
currently held by employers. Those who defend dictatorship in the
workplace usually label economic democracy as “extremism” or an “extreme
position”. But if one views democracy as perfectly reasonable, then the
conclusion is, on the contrary, that those who advocate dictatorship are
the extremists.
When we syndicalists demonstrate that we take democracy seriously, it is
not always met with appreciation by employers and bigwigs in other
unions. A standard method of counteracting syndicalists who organize at
work is to claim that SAC is not even a trade union but a “political” or
“extremist” left-wing organization. It’s an understandable tactic. There
are ample opportunities to attract employees to a free fighting union,
but it is difficult to recruit many members if SAC is mistaken for a
political group only for those who identify as left-wing.
Political parties are harmful to trade union activity when they try to
control it. In Sweden, the LO unions have a long tradition of acting as
a supporting body and election machine for the Social Democratic Party,
a state-supporting party. It is devastating to allow vote pandering and
party bickering into the union. It is equally devastating for a trade
union to have loyalty ties to a party, a state and a public employer.
When the leaders of the Social Democratic Party talk about supporting
“the unions”, this means cooperating with the union bureaucracies that
work against the union grassroots, rather than supporting the grassroots
who build the movement.
When parties to the left of the Social Democrats talk about
“radicalizing” the LO unions, it often means people with radical
opinions getting appointed to local union boards, rather than building a
movement from the shop floor. This is not only pointless but can be
harmful. If the collective of employees elect a supposed “opposition” of
“union innovators” as representatives, who then use the union for vote
pandering and party propaganda, then the collective can lose all its
motivation.
Political organizations do best not to interfere in union organizing.
All workers who identify with the left or the Social Democrats are of
course welcome to join SAC, provided that they distinguish between union
organizing and political organizing. The bylaws for all Locals of SAC
emphasize this:
“As the syndicalist movement as such principally refuse to engage in
political party activities, the Local as an organization stand outside
every political party. On the other hand, the Local does not have the
right to prevent or prohibit a member from supporting or participating
in political party activities outside the framework of the Local, unless
it is of such a nature that it is contrary to the interests of the
workers or is otherwise incompatible with the tasks of the Local.”
Our union wants to be as inclusive as possible. But we cannot accept
that a member uses our Locals or the workplaces as an arena for politics
if the member thereby harms our union or the unity of the workforce in
relation to employers. This of course applies to politics in general —
from left to right — that harm union organizing. An example from the
right wing is when members of the Swedish party Sverigedemokraterna
(Sweden Democrats) harass Muslims at work, and therefore cannot be
members of our union.
The trade union is an organization of and for workers — as opposed to a
politics that is imposed on workers from outside or that divides the
collective from within. It is perhaps obvious that party politics is
harmful in the workplace. But it is important to understand that
extra-parliamentary politics is problematic too, namely when the
politics is rigid.
Union organizing grows from below, among us who work inside the
workplaces. Parties as well as many extra-parliamentary political groups
approach the workplaces from above or from the outside, with established
policy programs. Their primary goal is for workers to believe, think and
vote “the right way”. Workers’ own assessments, needs and competence
become secondary. This kind of politics is arrogant and destructive. In
short, the politics is rigid.
When a political line is imposed on a trade union, the worst outcome is
a divided and resigned workforce. It does not matter if the policy is
imposed by “labour parties”, centre-right parties, extra-parliamentary
left-wing groups or other political currents. Another variant of rigid
politics is when members of a union push their most dearly held issues
through, regardless of whether it unites or divides employees. This way
of conducting politics is also destructive.
Syndicalism stresses that union demands and methods must be shaped by
the employees themselves in accordance with how they perceive their
common interests and assess the tactics. Syndicalists discuss these
common interests with their colleagues. The important thing is the
process to reach a collective line of action, not some pre-established
opinion programs. Either we gather around concrete union demands or we
get nowhere.
Obviously, syndicalists agitate. This means we try to influence values
and views in the workplace. We discuss and argue in order to push the
general attitudes in the direction we consider desirable. But everyone
must be prepared to reconcile different views. Everyone must respect the
democratic majority decisions made by the collective concerned.
The starting point in a workplace can be a variety of needs, wishes and
opinions. When these converge into collective action, that’s what it
means to organize — regardless of political and religious differences.
That is independent class struggle. You can learn more about the steps
that can be taken at work to develop a collective line of action in the
book’s Appendix 1 (the plan for a study group).
SAC is an extra-parliamentary organization. This means that SAC does not
interfere in how members vote in parliamentary elections. The
extra-parliamentary stance should be distinguished from an
anti-parliamentary strategy. The latter means discouraging people from
participating in elections. SAC neither advocates nor advises against
voting.
SAC is an extra-parliamentary organization, but not indifferent to
parliamentary politics. Politics affects all workers, which is why we
should also influence politics through trade union organizing.
The parliaments can be described as large bargaining table, where
politics is shaped by the extra-parliamentary means of power held by the
capital-owning class. The capitalist class exercise great bargaining
power rooted in ownership, investments and lending. All societies depend
on their investments. Therefore, capitalists can largely dictate the
economic, social and political conditions for starting and expanding
production. They can also decide to shut down or relocate production if
the profit expectations are not met.
The class that own and control the economy also has a dominant influence
over the state. The classical liberal and educator John Dewey
(1859–1952) put it this way: “politics is the shadow cast on society by
big business.” Of course, not all governments are identical, but the
framework for policy making is ultimately dictated by the capitalists.
Therefore, the best way for the population to influence politics is to
challenge capital directly where it is formed, that is, in the
workplaces. Inside corporations and the public sector, employees can
build a popular counterforce.
A strong pressure from the shop floors can change politics to the
advantage of the working class. This has occurred many times throughout
history. The trade union movement is a decisive factor behind the
development of tyrannical states into liberal and parliamentary states,
characterized by the rule of law, and later on into welfare states as
well.
In a pamphlet from 1939, the syndicalist Anders Ek describes welfare
reforms as the capitalists’ “insurance premiums” against socialism, as a
response to rebellious workers (you can read about the term socialism in
Part 4 of the book). The simple dynamic is that due to the threat from
the working class the ruling classes have given up a small part of their
power and wealth, in order not to lose everything.
“The costs that capitalism pays in the form of taxes to the state, due
to the reforms, are simply ‘insurance premiums’ against socialism.”
Anders Ek (1891–1964), syndicalist and author
The statutory rights that we enjoy in todays’ labour market is the
result of collective battles that were first won in the workplaces and
then left their mark in legislation. This includes, for example, a
40-hour working week, employment protection, paid holidays, the right to
organize in unions and bargain collectively. The collective strength in
the workplaces is also the guarantee that our rights are upheld. When
our strength is undermined, employers move their positions forward and
shape legislation against the interests of the working class.
The struggle between labour and capital permeates state bodies and
supranational regulatory bodies. Conflicts within the political
establishment sometimes open up new opportunities for trade union
influence. One example is the labour law reforms of the 1970s in Sweden.
At the time, the Social Democratic Party tried to use legislation as a
weapon against independent unions outside LO, TCO and Saco, against SAC
amongst others. According to one of the proposals for a new
co-determination act, the right to bargain would be significantly
limited for SAC. At that time, two parties (Folkpartiet and
Centerpartiet) opposed the proposal, due to major lobbying efforts from
SAC.
“Laws and government may be considered (…) as a combination of the rich
to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the
goods which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the
poor”
Adam Smith (1723–1790), philosopher and economist
The overall purpose of trade union organizing is to shift the relations
of power between labour and capital in favour of labour. This has a
democratizing effect on the workplaces, on the political system and the
social order as a whole.
However, syndicalism stresses that the state apparatus primarily is a
state for the capitalists, not the workers. It is also a state of
politicians and high-level bureaucrats, not a state of the people. As
long as power in society is concentrated at the top of the business
world, state and supranational bodies, it simply means that the power of
the broad masses of the people is severely limited.
In our workplaces, the state basically acts as the protector of
employers. The state maintains the capitalist control over companies —
ultimately through the monopoly on violence. In the public sector, the
state of course maintains the bosses’ control over employees as well. In
short, it is a class state that enacts class laws. The courts function
as class courts when they maintain the superior position of employers.
That is why we should all organize in unions for a complete
democratization and equal society.
Workers in all countries have common interests against the capitalists,
their state apparatuses and supranational bodies. Exploitation and
underbidding competition in the labour market is a global phenomenon.
Poor wages and working conditions in one country undermine the
conditions in other countries. Workers therefore need to work together
across national borders to defend and advance their positions. The
actual need for cooperation varies greatly between different industries,
but the need intensifies and includes more and more industries as the
economy goes through globalization processes.
At the central level, many unions have amicable contacts across national
borders. So does SAC. But the international coordination of struggle in
the workplaces is often underdeveloped. Here we will only mention three
different avenues that deserve to be explored. One is to organize within
transnational corporate groups, i.e. to build some form of international
unions or networks within a corporate group. Another avenue is
industry-wide organization that encompasses companies in the Nordic
countries, Europe and other continents.
A third avenue is to organize along international production chains.
This means cross-industry organizing from raw material sources to end
product and sales. The most relevant avenue varies between different
parts of the economy. Each category of employees must examine and test
what is feasible based on their situation.
Syndicalists have always described the trade union movement as an
economic movement and the trade union as an economic fighting
organization. It is an economic organization in the sense that its base
lies at the point of production and that members use their power as
producers. A classic document for syndicalism is the so-called London
Declaration, adopted in 1913 by trade unions from fifteen countries. The
document comments on the economic fighting organizations as follows:
“The congress concludes that these organisations only can become
successful in their struggle when they cease to be divided by political
and religious ideologies, and declare that the struggle is an economic
struggle, which means that their goals cannot be attained by ceding
their struggle to a government, but only through the workers’ use of
direct action, trusting the strength of their economic organisations.”
Being an economic organization, SAC stands in stark contrast to the
political activities run by states and parties and also by many
extra-parliamentary organizations (anarchist associations, Marxist
associations, autonomous left-wing associations, etc.). The base of the
economic organization lies, as stated, at the point of production. SAC
welcomes all employees as members, even though not everyone holds the
same opinions or views. SAC is building a union community, not a
political club or church.
SAC differs from parties in that the goal is not to seize political
power in the state apparatus. The long-term vision is for all workers to
seize economic power in the workplaces.
There are two labels that create serious misunderstandings when imposed
on syndicalist unions, an old label and a newer one. The old label is
the word “apolitical”. The newer one is the word “political”. To set the
matter straight, extra clarity is required when presenting SAC.
SAC is an independent trade union. In older syndicalist texts, the union
is sometimes described as an “apolitical” or “non-political”
organization. This means that the union is independent in relation to
the state and parties and other political organizations. The point is
also that the condition for becoming a union member is not that you vote
for a certain political camp or adhere to a package of opinions. In
short: it is an economic fighting organization.
However, the very label “apolitical” must be considered outdated. The
label is often perceived as suggesting that syndicalist unions are not
committed to social change. Considering this, it is better to describe
SAC as an independent union.
SAC is a community-oriented and visionary union. The purpose is to build
a popular counterforce in relation to both the business world and the
state. But there is a crucial difference between SAC and most political
organizations. SAC is a community-oriented union but not a platform for
just any issue that is held dear by this or that group of members. The
issues we do pursue are carefully selected. The issues need to benefit
organizing in the workplaces (or at least must not counteract
organizing).
Syndicalists pursue both union core issues (wages and working
conditions) and other social issues. Some classic social issues that
Swedish syndicalists have pursued are the right to contraception,
antimilitarism and the fight against so-called AK Labour (a government
labour market measure, in Swedish: AK-arbete). Contemporary examples are
defence of the unemployment insurance funds, general welfare and the
right to strike.
In SAC, our local self-determination is the starting point for both
union core issues and other social issues. How do you select social
issues that benefit workplace organizing? A guiding star is to build
from below, that the rank-and-file choose the issues and that both the
demands raised and methods used are anchored in the workplaces. If it
proves feasible to organize the workforce around a certain social issue
in a workplace, then the issue can be raised at the level of the
industrial branch and Local and be tested in more workplaces.
Thereafter, it may be appropriate to pursue the issue throughout
industries and districts and even by SAC as a whole.
Workplace organizing can be supplemented with demonstrations in the
streets and other actions of support. If class struggle is conducted in
arenas other than the workplaces (neighbourhoods, urban centres, village
centres, etc.), it is important that this struggle too is built locally
and benefits workplace organizing or at least does not counteract it.
If the choice of social issues were to begin at the other end, at the
central level of SAC, there is a risk that it will become a politics
from above that divides the membership. Thus, the door would be opened
to precisely the kind of politicization of the trade union movement that
syndicalism opposes. It would be to imitate the Social Democratic
Party’s control of the LO unions.
The task of union representatives is to support the line pursued by the
member base, not to guess which line the members wish to see. We
syndicalists are proud of the local self-determination in our union. It
is a platform for down-to-earth class struggle.
Nowadays, syndicalist unions are rarely called “apolitical”
organizations. Instead, it happens that they are labelled “political”
organizations. This also creates misunderstandings.
SAC is a union that is politically independent. The aim is to unite
workers as a class, not to unite the political left (or right or
centre). Local units of SAC pursue common interests of workers, starting
from the point of production. Union representatives within LO usually
pursue the party line of the Social Democrats, regardless of whether the
party line is supported by the workers or not. Representatives of TCO
are usually loyal to the party line too. SAC does not pursue any line
that is not rooted with the rank-and-file in the workplaces.
A common way to cause misunderstandings about the purpose of the class
organization is to describe SAC as a “political” organization. Workers
may support rivalling parties and political groups that cannot be
united. The task of SAC is to unite workers independently of such
groups. This is also exactly what syndicalists succeed in doing when we
build a strong collective of co-workers
The labour struggles of SAC include carefully chosen social issues. SAC
has a long-term vision of democracy in the workplaces and an equal
society. However, there is no reason to label this the “politics” of SAC
when one can talk about labour struggles, social issues and a long-term
vision. SAC wants to fully pursue the common interests of workers, to
push labour struggle to its peak. This is, in short, syndicalism.
It is certainly true that no one owns the word “politics”. You can
choose to define the word in such a way that “everything is politics”.
Then SAC and all other organizations can be said to be “political”
organizations. But then there is also a risk of obscuring the idea of
the class organization. If SAC is presented as a “political”
organization, then our union is easily mistaken for being a party or a
political faction among other factions. The union is suitably described
as politically independent.
Feminism has popularized the expression “the personal is political”. The
expression points to an important observation: that the private sphere
and the unpaid reproductive work is an issue of general concern in our
society. It is an arena of struggle against social hierarchies. As a
feminist trade union, SAC agrees with the observation and welcomes such
a struggle for equality, not least with regards to reproductive work.
A synonymous way of talking about the matter could be to say that the
personal is a social issue of general concern. In any case, there is a
connection between reproductive work and the labour market (between
reproduction and production). Increased equality in reproductive work
also promotes women’s conditions as employees. It also facilitates
women’s participation in union organizing. SAC conducts feminist
struggle through union organizing.
While the terms labour struggle and union struggle are quite
unambiguous, the word “politics” can be interpreted in a variety of
different and contradictory ways. If the labour struggles of SAC are
presented as “politics”, then the word needs a clear definition,
otherwise the idea and purpose of syndicalism risk being misunderstood.
The simple alternative is, in short, to talk about labour struggle. A
word for workers’ struggles in a broader sense is simply class struggle.
Syndicalists conduct organizing from below rather than politics from
above.
A recurring misconception is that syndicalism was invented by some
prophet or by a clique of socialist preachers (anarchists, Marxists or
some other school of thought). In actual fact, syndicalism has emerged
from the working class in a variety of countries.
Several attempts have been made to trace the “founding father” of
syndicalism to one of the prominent figures of the 19^(th) century. Some
of the candidates, usually proposed, are the anarchists Michail Bakunin
and Fernand Pelloutier and sometimes even Karl Marx. The search for a
“founding father” rests on the prejudice that the working class cannot
think for itself or create something independently.
The supposed “founding fathers” were, in fact, skilled samplers (to
borrow a modern English term). They mingled with workers and put their
organizational forms and ideas in print. These samplers also added new
analyses and proposals, but syndicalism has never been loyal to any
single author or agitator. We pick and choose. We do not worship
authorities.
France has often been singled out as the “birthplace” of syndicalism.
Focus is put on the French trade union CGT, which was formed in 1895.
Sometimes the slightly bizarre French philosopher Georges Sorel has also
been claimed to be the “father” of syndicalism. In any case, a
full-fledged syndicalist movement already existed in Spain in the 1870s.
Predecessors existed in the 1830s in England and in the United States in
the 1840s. When the French CGT was formed, inspiration was drawn from
British syndicalism and vice versa.
Syndicalism has simply grown out of the working class internationally
since our class is international. Influences across national borders are
significant, but a single “birthplace” or “founding father” is nowhere
to be found.
Another problem with pointing out “founding fathers” is that you ignore
the female pioneers of the labour movement. Even before Bakunin and Marx
came into the spotlight, working class women agitated against wage
slavery and advocated economic democracy. One example is women in the US
textile industry in the 1840s. These became known as The Mill Girls of
Lowell. They saw economic democracy as a continuation of the American
Revolution and the idea of a republic of free and equal people.
“When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell
your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and
becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that
threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave
and oppress.
Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of
machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic
principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and
rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new
commercial feudalism.”
Wage slavery according to The Mill Girls of Lowell, Massachusetts.
Pioneers in the US trade union movement in the 1840s.
Syndicalism has always been an inquisitive popular movement. It is a
proletarian and intellectual movement. We draw influences from, for
example, classical liberalism, guild socialism, anarchism, Marxism,
contemporary research and new social movements. We don’t let political
blinders limit our production of knowledge. Syndicalism is still a broad
popular movement, not an exclusive club for Marxist or anarchist
disciples.
The crucial differences between SAC and most political organizations are
as follows. SAC is an interest organization for sellers of labour power.
All employees except bosses are welcome. The condition for becoming a
union member is not that you swallow a package of political opinions.
Nor are you expected to vote in a particular way in parliamentary
elections. We organize ourselves on the basis of our position in
production. SAC also welcomes those parts of the working class who are
not wage earners.
When labour struggle through unions is brought to its peak, the door to
democracy in the workplace and equal societies opens. That is the
long-term vision of syndicalism. The realization of the vision requires
extensive class solidarity across national borders.
Every member of SAC does not have to be a convinced supporter of the
syndicalist vision but must have read the SAC Declaration of principles
and respect that it is the vision of the union. The requirement for
membership is that you follow democratic decisions in the union, act in
solidarity at work and respect the union’s independence from all
religious and political organizations.
The union is superior as a class struggle organization, but it is not a
universal solution to all social problems. There are, of course, a
number of issues that the union shouldn’t or even cannot pursue. Members
of SAC are free to pursue these issues through other branches of the
labour movement or through other social movements (tenants’
associations, consumer associations, village associations, etc.).
A union in the workplace is not built by itself. It is built by members
who agitate. We agitate to recruit members, strengthen cohesion among
employees and set the workforce in motion. To agitate means we try to
influence values and views in the workplace. We discuss and argue in
order to push the general attitudes in the direction we consider
desirable
To agitate does not mean standing on the coffee table and giving a fiery
speech. Agitation is primarily about talking to co-workers about current
issues in the workplace that concern you all. As is well known, half the
conversation is about listening. See Appendix 1 of the book (the plan
for a study group) about initiating forward-looking conversations rather
than just complaining and calling for union representatives to solve
problems.
You can ask your colleagues if they belong to a union and mention your
SAC membership. If they show interest, give your best arguments for
starting a syndicalist section. Gather those who want to build a section
for a meeting at work or after working hours. Ask fellow members in your
Local to lend a hand.
A syndicalist is first and foremost a good co-worker. If you show
commitment to common interests, you can recruit colleagues and build a
strong section with them. It is worth repeating: the first step in
organizing does not have to be setting up a section. Colleagues can of
course raise issues together in other forms.
However, as soon as a good opportunity arises, it is recommended to
start a section. Then it is important to build the section and at the
same time strengthen the cohesion between employees regardless of union
affiliation. A general advice is to be open to cooperation with other
unions, but clear on the conditions: that the unions are directed by the
staff on the shop floor.
Concrete union issues are always more important than promoting the
section. But a section can be profiled and attract more members when the
section pursues the issues. A responsive section reconciles a variety of
wills among employees into a coherent line. This will become a popular
message which can mobilize the workforce for joint action.
A union with a growing membership has a future. A shrinking union does
not have it in the long run. The knowledge and non-paid commitment of
members are the most important resources of a union. Recruitment
therefore needs to go hand in hand with educating and activating more
members. A well-functioning section holds introductory meetings for new
members and offers additional courses.
The section also benefits from conducting what syndicalists call the
second recruitment or internal recruitment. It is about continuously
informing members about union courses and conferences and encourage
fellow members to apply for elected positions. A feminist trade union
prioritises women in internal recruitment in order to achieve gender
balance. Part 1 of the book also touched on the importance of women
leaders to inspire more women to get involved in union work (see
question 18).
The responsibility for internal recruitment may lie with a nomination
committee or other elected representatives. Experience shows that
personal contacts and tips are more important than mailings and
advertisements in the member magazine. Union education and internal
recruitment encourage more members to make use of their membership and
stay in the union. However, a certain outflow of members is inevitable.
Outward recruitment is needed for the inflow of members to be higher
than the outflow.
In the section, all members are important, from the most active to the
least active. So-called passive members have chosen to be active in
issues other than union issues. Passive members are an asset, not a
burden. Active members may view passive members as a burden if the
section has a skewed focus on client service. Sections should prioritize
organizing and collective action over individual service. See Part 1 of
the book regarding the trap of client service (question 14).
In the section, the proportion of active members can be expected to have
its ups and downs. A consistently high proportion is less likely.
Passive members can become active members. In any case, they contribute
to union activity through their membership fee.
Money is the most important resource of sections next to the knowledge
and non-paid commitment of members. Non-paid work also costs money: room
rents, travel costs, workplace magazines, compensation for lost earnings
when attending union courses, etc. The section can also benefit from
paying organizers to pursue specific projects. If a section is not
interested in strengthening its financial resources, then the level of
ambition is probably unnecessarily low.
The more members the section has (both active and passive) the better. A
large number of members makes it easier to communicate with the entire
workforce through the section’s outward information material and
internal member information. The better the communication, the better
the chances of training and mobilizing the staff.
The best recruitment is union activity and the personal conversation at
work. Concrete examples of syndicalists transforming workplaces will
make people take our ambition to change society seriously. Experience
shows, however, that successful union action is not enough for a union
to grow. On the contrary, the union can shrink while winning labour
conflicts and negotiations. Therefore, the SAC membership needs to be
“sold in”. This is conducted in the best way when union members step out
of the comfort zone and speak for their union among colleagues.
The written material is important in recruitment and open meetings for
interested colleagues as well. Language and jargon are crucial. Make
sure to use everyday and inclusive language in all written material!
Leave outdated and charged concepts in the museum of syndicalism but
highlight the ideas themselves in an updated language. Avoid all odd
expressions if there is no time and space to explain them.
Experiences from trade unions in Sweden and many other countries show
that the personal conversation is absolutely crucial for successful
recruitment. Agitation between four eyes is the key. Get help from
fellow members in your Local of SAC to formulate answers to the most
frequent questions from your colleagues.
You can count on representatives of the employer and other unions
spreading incorrect images of SAC. You will probably hear that
syndicalist sections have no right to collective bargaining. This war of
words is part of the organizing process. Just take it easy! Simple
falsehoods show that the sender lacks arguments. Just repeat: see
section 10 of the Swedish Co-determination Act (Medbestämmandelagen,
MBL).
If there is a union that has recruited a majority of the staff, its
tycoons may claim that they stand for “unity” while SAC is a “splitter”.
The syndicalist answer is to promote, in word and deed, a cross-union
community that includes more and more employees.
You will probably hear that SAC is not even a trade union but a
“left-wing political” organization. Just repeat: we are a union for all
employees, not a political group only for leftists. We exclude bosses
from membership, including those bosses who are left-wing.
You may hear that syndicalists are “extremists”. Such is usually the
response to taking democracy seriously. Syndicalists really want the
people to rule. We take democracy extremely seriously — in the trade
union, at work, in society — that is absolutely true. But syndicalism is
really just common sense, because what is more natural than those
affected by decisions also having the right to influence decisions? No
sensible person is against democracy.
Be patient! Starting and developing a section is worth the effort. In
fact, any shitty job can suddenly become fun or at least bearable when
you get started. When you and your co-workers organize, you can stand up
for your dignity, improve living conditions and, in the long run, change
society. Your project is our joint project.
The purpose of organizing is to strengthen the cohesion and influence of
the workforce. An ideal development is a constant increase in workers’
power. But this is hardly realistic because the employer side will
sooner or later try to divide the employees and regain lost power.
[]
In the section, you can count on progress being followed by setbacks. A
won position can always be lost. But your knowledge and ability to
organize can actually increase almost indefinitely. If you evaluate the
section’s efforts and experiments, then the failures too will develop
your ability to organize; this lays the basis for greater progress. You
can turn adversity into success as your pool of experience grows.
For syndicalists who often change jobs, starting a section may seem like
a wasted investment. But each new experience of building sections makes
it easier to plant sections in more workplaces. Those who start a
section will hand over a valuable union to fellow members
for further development.
If a section becomes isolated from organizing drives at other
workplaces, there is a risk of stagnation. We build industrial branches
and meet in Locals and districts to inspire and help each other.
All sections benefit from documenting and exchanging experiences. When
it is well known that the positions are pushed forward at a workplace,
the chances of successful organizing increase at other workplaces too.
If a section chooses not to use media strategies in an ongoing labour
struggle, it is still of great value to the entire SAC if the section
announces its victory after the conflict.
SAC is a class organization that wants to fully pursue the common
interests of workers. We want to take power over our labour and over the
riches we produce. Why settle for crumbs and a position as subjugated
labour power? The long-term vision of syndicalism is democracy in the
workplaces, economic democracy. The vision has already been touched on
in Part 1 of the book (see question 22).
Economic democracy is the classic core of socialism. All consistent
democrats reject dictatorship in the workplace and thus take a stand for
socialism. However, the word socialism has become almost impossible to
use. It has been pasted on extremely authoritarian societies. A warning
example is the Soviet Union, where the state exercised both political
and economic dictatorship. The Soviet Union called itself both
“democratic” and “socialist”, but it was the exact opposite of democracy
and socialism.
In the Soviet Union, a political and bureaucratic class replaced the
private capitalists. The state-owned enterprises were not the
enterprises of the people or the workers other than on paper.
Authoritarian principles that characterize capitalist corporations were
applied to society as a whole. That is why syndicalists have sometimes
referred to the Soviet Union as state capitalism.
The Soviet Union can also be described as a variant of Henry Ford’s
factory on an unusually large scale. The leaders of the Russian
Bolshevik Party, Lenin and Trotsky, were staunch supporters of the
authoritarian factory model advocated by Frederick Taylor and practiced
by Ford. The Soviet Union also developed an advanced form of state
surveillance and terror. In Eastern Europe, a feudal and partly
capitalist class society was replaced by a new class society.
If economic democracy were to be introduced, the question arises as to
how the wealth produced should be distributed. Should distribution be
handled according to need? Should one be rewarded for extra effort and
sacrifice? Should everyone have a basic income? SAC has no reason to
swear allegiance to a single principle. The important point is to
determine distribution in democratic forms. Thus, principles can be
voted on that a majority of the population perceives as fair.
Establishing economic democracy will have a huge impact on the climate
and ecosystems. The SAC Declaration of principles, adopted in 2009,
states: “Where capitalism is allowed to ravage freely, violence and
destruction follow in its footsteps, as does ruthless exploitation of
natural resources that threaten the human environment and living
conditions worldwide.” Economic democracy is a rescue operation for the
ecosystems.
Soviet “state socialism” is lost to history. But the current “state
socialism” of the Western world is also incompatible with democracy in
the workplace. In parliamentary welfare states, high-level bureaucrats
and their subordinate bosses control the workers in public production of
goods and services.
Socialism excludes all bureaucratic classes that enrich themselves on
our labour, classes that we have not elected and cannot control or
recall. That is why syndicalists speak of libertarian socialism as
opposed to authoritarian “socialism”. One can also capture the core of
the vision with the expressions economic democracy or workers’
self-management.
Economic democracy is a necessary precondition for a classless society,
but not a sufficient precondition for an equal society. An equal society
means that the social hierarchies based on gender, ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation and functional variation are also abolished. It would
bring equality in all types of work — including reproductive work in
families and households.
Unfortunately, the term libertarian socialism has a vague meaning for a
wider public. The term can also cause misunderstandings associated with
the word socialism without adjectives. On the other hand, economic
democracy can also appear vague. Regardless of the choice of words, the
long-term vision of syndicalism needs to be concretized (see questions
50–55 below). But this is seldom necessary in everyday union organizing.
economic democracy?
Economic democracy is a project in the interest of the entire working
class. Both workers in the narrow sense (i.e. blue-collar workers) and
white-collar workers have everything to gain from a democratic
transformation. In this sense, socialism is a class issue. It is a
vision that is realized through class struggle. At the point of
production of goods and services we can develop the ability and power to
take over the management of our workplaces. No “labour governments” or
political organizations outside parliaments can do it for us. We can do
it through our economic fighting organizations, that is, through our
trade unions.
If the state apparatus is run by left-wing politicians, then the
struggle for economic democracy must probably be waged in conflict with
such a left. All states have a strong tendency to fight the workers’
aspirations for influence. Many “labour governments” around the world
have pushed back on worker demands for economic democracy. The methods
range from legislation and repression to prisons and outright massacres.
It is not surprising that state policy favours the class that owns the
corporations. Nor should it come as a surprise that red politicians and
high-level bureaucrats defend their own positions of power — against
workers who demand more influence in the public sector.
When there is strong pressure from the shop floors, both capitalists and
the state can give in to demands for economic democracy. In rare cases,
politicians even take initiatives to facilitate such democratization.
But even in such a situation, the leaders of the state cannot introduce
economic democracy. The “state socialist” notion that politics can save
us through orders from above is superstition. It is to attribute to the
state a creative capacity that it doesn’t have. It is to mystify the
state.
democracy?
Only we who do the work can take over production and create the
democratic bodies needed there. Either we conquer our workplaces or we
don’t. Our longing for freedom and equality, our growing competence and
collective strength decide the matter. The First International expressed
this insight in a famous phrase: “the emancipation of the working class
must be the act of the workers themselves”.
The First International emphasized that “the economic emancipation of
the working class is the great goal under which every political movement
must be subordinate as a means.” Are political organizations useful as a
means? Does the working class need parties or other political
organizations in addition to the economic fighting organizations?
Syndicalists hold a variety of views. The individual SAC member is free
to get involved in political groups that conduct studies, opinion
formation, parliamentary politics, etc. The condition is, as previously
stated, that members don’t hinder workplace organizing.
The road to economic democracy is basically an economic struggle. We
move the frontline forward when we develop the means of power we have as
producers. Earlier in history, syndicalists have sought to elevate a
primary means of power to transcend class society, a leverage above
others. One such leverage was the idea of a definitive general strike
that turns into worker’s self-management. It has sometimes been
described as a general lockout of the capitalist class.
At an early stage, SAC abandoned the idea of general strike as the
primary means of power. This shift found its expression in the 1922
Declaration of principles. SAC developed another idea. The idea was to
use a certain method of labour struggle, in Swedish the so-called
registermetod (in English: the register method), and develop the method
into a strategy for gradual takeover of the economy. The idea has been
described as evolutionary syndicalism or a gradualist notion revolution.
The SAC of today doesn’t point out a primary leverage. We describe the
way forward in general terms. The road to democracy is an independent
class movement with its basis in the workplaces. It is by offensive
struggle for daily demands that we move towards the vision. We are
aiming for a series of phases in the workplaces that, in total, lead to
democracy. A tool for thinking forward can be found in the book’s
Appendix 1 (the plan for a study group).
If all employees are to take over production, if everyone is to run the
economy in democratic forms, then who should own the means of
production? The answer of syndicalism is: all in common, primarily
society as a whole. Why? The reason is simple. It is not only producers
who have a legitimate interest in influencing production. The consumers
or those who use the goods and services also should have a say.
Likewise, other citizens (or members of society) should influence the
framework for production.
In addition to companies owned by society, some companies can be owned
collectively by those who work in them. This includes producer
cooperatives and family companies where only family members work. Such
groups own only the means of production with which they work themselves.
They do not buy labour power that they exploit and control. The same
applies to self-employed individuals who don’t employ others.
Syndicalists support a combination of community-owned companies and
worker-owned companies.
“In order to restore democracy, one thing and one thing only is
essential. The people will rule when they have power, and they will have
power in the degree they own and control the land, the banks, the
producing and distributing agencies of the nation.”
John Dewey (1859–1952), classical liberal and educator
In all societies, wealth is a product of the labour of the population.
The enormous wealth that a small capitalist class has now amassed is
therefore to be regarded as stolen property. The combination of
community-owned companies and worker-owned companies would mean that
wealth is returned to its creators, the population. This must of course
be done without compensation to the capital owners. You do not reward
the thieves after the stolen goods have been returned.
What would it mean, in concrete terms, that society owns the means of
production? The goal of syndicalism, as already stated, is not
nationalization under a political dictatorship or under the current
parliamentary state. To answer this question, one must raise the
question what the syndicalist vision would mean for the future of the
state.
Economic democracy means that the concentration of economic power is
dissolved, both in capitalist companies and in the public sector. The
long-term vision of syndicalism is to dissolve the concentration of
political power in the state as well. Power should be transferred down
to the people. Parliamentary democracy is a historic step forward, but
not the end of history. The system can and should be transcended.
Syndicalism defends parliamentarism against totalitarian tendencies. An
ever-present totalitarian force is the economic dictatorship of
capitalist corporations. At the same time, syndicalism wants to develop
democracy. After all, the meaning of the word democracy is rule by the
people, not top-down rule or minority rule. Democracy advances when the
broad masses of people conquer power over their everyday lives and
communities. This means challenging the holders of power in both the
business world and the state.
“Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather,
forced on parliaments from without. (…) The peoples owe all the
political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or
lesser measure, not to the good will of their governments, but to their
own strength. (…) Great mass movements among the people and whole
revolutions have been necessary to wrest these rights from the ruling
classes, who would never have consented to them voluntarily.”
Rudolf Rocker (1873–1958), syndicalist and historian
The term state can be defined in different ways. Syndicalists usually
point to the extreme concentration of power as a defining feature of
modern nation-states. One can then choose to describe the long-term
vision of syndicalism as a “stateless society” or as a society with a
fundamentally “new state”. However, both these options are
unsatisfactory.
To talk about a “new state” can be perceived as advocating continued or
even worse concentrations of power, for example an alleged “workers’
state” of the Soviet kind. To talk about a “stateless society” says
almost nothing about what kind of society it is. It could, for example,
be a situation of chaos, lawlessness and mafia rule. The early labour
movement raised the slogan “abolish the state”. Although the vision is
still reasonable, the wording is outdated. One must therefore ask what
kind of institutions syndicalism proposes in positive terms.
The syndicalist vision entails societies based on base democracy and
federalism. The democratic guiding star is that everyone who is affected
by a decision should have the right to influence it. The terms base
democracy and federalism were explained in Part 1 of the book (see
questions 13, 16 and 17).
Syndicalists have reflected on a number of possible institutions. The
reasoning revolves around local assemblies or general meetings (in
Swedish: lokala stormöten). Such meetings should be held in workplaces,
city districts and villages. A common term for general meetings in
workplaces is workers’ assemblies. A term for meetings in city districts
and villages is popular assemblies. Meetings should take place at the
base level and elect some form of workers’ councils, consumers’ councils
and citizens’ councils.
The reasoning runs further. The bodies at base level and their elected
councils should form industry-wide and geographical federations, from
small-scale local federations to regional federations and large-scale
international federations. Delegates in workers’ councils must work in
the companies over which they make decisions. In the same way, delegates
in consumers’ and citizens’ councils must be rooted in the local
communities they represent.
In a federalist social order (as outlined here), economic democracy
means that federations of local communities own the companies and that
federations of workers manage them — for the benefit of consumers and
within a framework that all citizens have the right to influence. This
is socialized production as opposed to nationalized or state-owned
production.
As a synonym for federations of local communities, syndicalists also use
the term federations of municipalities (in Swedish: federationer av
kommuner). Here it should be noted that the idea is not to transfer
power from central state bodies to currently existing municipal bodies.
The idea is to build a popular democracy from below that dissolves
concentrations of power in both the business world and the state.
In a socialized production, the publicly owned companies and the wealth
produced would in practice become property of the people. Science,
technological development, education and the mass media would also serve
the people to a much greater extent than in current class societies.
These resources and creative enterprises would no longer be tools in the
hands of the ruling classes because these classes would be dissolved or
removed.
In a nationalized or state-owned production, people certainly refer to
public property as “the people’s property”. However, these are empty
phrases when the people lack control over the property. Without a
functioning democracy and worker’s self-management, the people’s
property is a legal fiction, a “state socialist” illusion. In a top-down
managed state economy, the political and bureaucratic classes control
the property and lives of the working class.
A major challenge in every economy is the so-called allocation problem:
how should the resources be distributed and how should different parts
of the economy be coordinated? Syndicalists have advocated decentralized
planned economy, socialist market economy and various combinations of
plan and market. SAC has no reason to swear its loyalty to a specific
model.
The vision of syndicalism can be summed up as economic democracy and a
federalist social order. The emancipation of the working class is an
international project. Solidarity cannot stop at national borders. These
borders are largely drawn through wars of states in the interest of the
ruling classes. Nor can the working class accept the limits set by
supranational structures such as the EU. Syndicalism seeks economic
democracy and federalism on a global scale.
Syndicalists are not content with utopian dreaming. Our ideas are based
on a long tradition of practical experiments. The tradition can be
traced to the so-called Paris Commune of 1871 and even further back.
The dual task of syndicalism entails the ambition to sow the seeds of a
classless and equal society in the present society. The trade union
democracy we are developing today reflects the forms of management we
want to see in the future. In this way, organizing along industrial
lines indicates how production can be managed by workers’ bodies at base
level and their elected councils. Trade union structures in corporate
groups and along international production chains also provide clues for
the future. In the same way, geographical organization in Locals,
districts and SAC gives an indication of how federations of
municipalities can be structured.
Syndicalists have also put their visions into action, especially in the
large-scale Spanish Revolution of 1936. Several million workers took
over the management of workplaces, neighbourhoods, villages and entire
cities. It is a source of inspiration for future experiments.
In Spain, the self-management died of external attacks, but it did not
collapse due to its internal functioning. The revolution was crushed by
all the totalitarian and liberal governments of the world that had an
opportunity to influence the outcome. The Spanish left-wing government
also attacked the self-management of working people.
The Spanish Revolution is, of course, not a template for all times and
places. An obvious flaw in the revolution was that women were still
treated as second-class citizens (although women also experienced
progress). It would be absurd to try to establish a general template. It
would also be absurd at present to make a detailed plan for a specific
region in the distant future. Individual authors can provide detailed
proposals if they so wish. But in the end, only practice can show what
is actually possible and desirable.
Syndicalism offers visionary sketches and practical experiments. Unlike
many utopian dreams (or nightmares), syndicalism has never tried to
carve a final destination in stone. Organizing through unions, however,
points in the direction of employees’ taking over production.
Historical experience shows that the takeover can be carried out in many
different ways. One way is that employees simply take over the operation
through their operating section. Another way is that several unions
merge into base level bodies and councils for all workers. Another
variant is that employees find that trade unions have become
bureaucratic brake pads and therefore establish new bodies of
self-management.
The fundamental ideas of syndicalism have passed the test over time.
Organizing through base democratic unions offers a path to socialism in
freedom. In the SAC Declaration of principles of 1922, the fundamental
ideas are contrasted with “state socialism” as follows:
Syndicalism claims “that the political parties or the legislature are
incapable of carrying out the socialist reorganization of society either
through political democracy or through party dictatorship or otherwise,
but that this task, which is primarily an economic task, must be carried
out by the economic organizations of the working masses.”
The same document expresses the idea that the double structure of unions
(industry-wise and geographically) should “displace, overcome and
replace” the ruling bodies of capitalism and the state. One hundred
years later, we can conclude that the “state socialist” paths have led
to parties managing and preserving class society or to the parties
introducing new class societies.
The hope for a future of economic democracy and equal societies lies in
organizing through base democratic unions. This hope can be fulfilled if
the working class overcomes the divisions that run along political,
religious and national lines.
Economic democracy is not just an attractive vision to strive for. It is
also a project to avoid the risks of social and ecological disasters. If
a social order is approaching collapse, we need democratic popular
movements that are ripe to take over. Otherwise, we risk authoritarian
forces seizing state power: fascists, religious fanatics, bolsheviks,
etc. The popular movements must be built. They do not arise by
themselves.
To take a stand for economic democracy in a situation of employer
dictatorship is to express a radical opinion. To build operating
sections and cross-union cooperation that actually democratizes the
workplaces is to develop a radical activity. Labelling oneself a
“radical” or “democrat” is of little interest. The point is to build a
trade union movement that changes workplaces and in the long run changes
society as a whole.
Economic democracy on a broad front would mean a fundamental
transformation of society. In that sense, the long-term vision of
syndicalism is revolutionary. The Swedish word syndicalism is derived
from the French term syndicalisme révolutionnaire. The whole term,
directly translated, means revolutionary trade union movement.
However, it should be emphasized that trade unions are not really
revolutionary. It is the global working class that has the potential to
become revolutionary, to play a revolutionary role. The class is
revolutionary when it has developed a capacity to carry out revolution.
The workers are the actor. The union is the workers’ resource and tool.
“Power today resides in control of the means of production, exchange,
publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the
life of the country”
John Dewey (1859–1952), classical liberal and educator
The revolutionary potential of the working class is based on its
strategic position in the production of goods and services. This
position allows workers to develop the capacity to establish economic
democracy. The workers are the only social class that can develop such a
capacity and thus carry out a revolution worthy of the name. It is also
the part of the population that has the most to gain from revolution.
The word revolution is unfortunately very loaded. It is associated with
political revolutions imposed on the population through state power.
This includes coups, terror and blood baths. Syndicalists have always
strived for an economic and social revolution, a transformation from
below.
It inevitably creates misunderstandings to describe syndicalism as
revolutionary. The aspirations of SAC need to be described in a
contemporary and more comprehensible language. A number of wordings have
already been suggested in this book. Instead of revolution, one can
speak of a social transformation, a democratic transformation or
complete democratization. SAC can be described as a visionary union.
The word revolution is loaded for two more reasons. First, revolution is
often perceived as the opposite of reforms in the sense that one must
choose either or. Syndicalists have, of course, always advocated both
reform and revolution. Small improvements in living conditions make
greater progress possible.
Secondly, revolution is often interpreted as a social “turning of a
pancake”, i.e. as one single and rapid social transformation. This
excludes the scenario that democratization can proceed in several steps
and at different speeds in different parts of the economy. Therefore,
some syndicalists prefer to talk about social evolution rather than
revolution.
It deserves to be repeated: it is the working class that can carry out a
democratic transformation through its trade unions. No self-proclaimed
revolutionaries can do it for the workers, nor can SAC do it. However,
SAC emphasizes that the best tools of the working class are unions of a
syndicalist nature.
Syndicalists advocate reforms but criticize reformism in its actual
practice. In the latter case, we refer to how the leadership of trade
unions and “labour parties” manage the system they claim to be against.
The leaders manage class society in agreement with employers and the
state. A consensus is created above the head of the working class.
Proponents call it “social responsibility” (in Swedish: samhällsansvar).
We call it class collaboration.
Reformism and class collaboration hinder systemic change. A far-reaching
reformism also hinders reforms within the capitalist system. In the
worst case, reformist leaders administer a deterioration of working
class living conditions and aggravate class society. Against reformism
and class collaboration, syndicalists raise independent class struggle.
Class struggle opens the door to new reforms. This is social
responsibility worthy of the name. We syndicalists take responsibility
for a better society.
“They [syndicalists] have revived the quest for liberty, which was
growing somewhat dimmed under the regime of Parliamentary Socialism, and
they have reminded men that what our modern society needs is not a
little tinkering here and there, nor the kind of minor readjustments to
which the existing holders of power may readily consent, but a
fundamental reconstruction, a sweeping away of all the sources of
oppression, a liberation of men’s constructive energies, and a wholly
new way of conceiving and regulating production and economic relations.
This merit is so great that, in view of it, all minor defects become
insignificant.”
Bertrand Russel (1872–1970), philosopher, educator and Nobel laureate
When the state merges with business leaders and trade unions, it is
usually referred to as corporatism. The most extreme variant was the
corporatism in Italian Fascism. There, trade unions were expected to
submit to a political dictatorship and allow themselves to be led by the
employers (and thus cease to be trade unions). Similar to the Soviet
Union, the Fascist state applied authoritarian principles, which
characterize capitalist corporations, to society as a whole. But private
property was retained in Italy. The capital-owning class was not
replaced by state bureaucrats.
Corporatism in parliamentary states combines political democracy with
economic dictatorship. The trade unions are still intended to be a
counterpart to political power and private business. However, union
independence is jeopardized when union leaders seek a close consensus
with the state and business world. This is the case with Swedish LO, TCO
and Saco. That is why SAC emerged as a free fighting union just over a
century ago. SAC is and remains a counterforce to corporatism and class
collaboration.
The fact that syndicalists reject class collaboration does not mean (of
course) that we reject all forms of cooperation between employees and
employers. These parties cannot opt out of cooperation within the
framework of class society. They have to cooperate to some extent, if
only to produce wealth to quarrel about. Syndicalists are waging class
struggle to change the conditions for cooperation. That is the purpose
in the short term. In the long run, we want to abolish the employers’
domination and exploitation altogether.
What we oppose is top-down consensus, that unions seek consensus with
employers above the heads of employees. Such strategies lead to union
representatives being integrated with the employer side. This is a dead
end and is usually followed by unions retreating (see the illustration
of this trap in Appendix 2 of the book). Class struggle from the shop
floor opens new paths forward.
political decentralization?
When syndicalists advocate community-owned companies, we are not urging
the current state apparatus to seize all companies. SAC does not pursue
a general line against (or for) privatizations. Nor does SAC operate any
producer cooperative experiments within the framework of prevailing
capitalism. Through our union, employees can increase their influence in
all companies and in all tax-financed workplaces. There we can
democratize the economy.
A complicated question, within current class society, is whether one
should work for a formal decentralization of political power in certain
cases, for example from the state to municipalities, or conversely for a
centralization in certain cases. Such issues are not on the current
agenda of SAC.
SAC emphasizes another shift in power. By organizing in the workplaces,
we develop a counterforce in relation to the holders of power in both
the public and private sectors. This is how popular power grows. This is
real democracy built from the bottom up.
Syndicalism is an independent labour movement. There are many
stakeholders who claim to represent some branch of the labour movement.
These include representatives of bureaucracies in parties and trade
unions, in the Swedish Hyresgästföreningen (an association of tenants)
and Folkets hus (user-controlled communal houses), in the state
apparatus and its municipalities. One might question whether they
represent a labour movement, if the term labour movement means labourers
in movement in workplaces or other arenas of class struggle.
Successful class struggle builds a larger and broader movement. This is
how workers in all countries can conquer worthy living conditions. The
movement opens up a historic opportunity to transcend capitalism and
build equal societies around the world.
While we organize for daily demands, we need to strengthen the hope that
another world is possible. The notion that there is no alternative to
capitalism is the best friend of those in power because it creates an
obedient population. Massive agitation for economic democracy and
federalism is needed that appeals to broad masses of the people.
An inspiring vision makes it easier to choose appropriate strategies and
evaluate whether we are moving forward or not. Visions of a better
future can spur us on through union victories, setbacks and new attempts
to organize. In the long run, we want to displace capitalism and all
oppressive social hierarchies and put it all in museums where it
belongs, next to the bronze axe and the spinning wheel. Our vision is
nothing less than a world of free and equal people.
Below is a proposed plan for a study group based on the contents of the
book. A reasonable number of participants is at least three and a
maximum about eight people in a typical study group. The participation
has two purposes: to get a good grasp of the ideas of syndicalism and to
help each other get started with workplace organizing. Participants can
benefit from the study group in two different ways. One way is to attend
meetings and prepare for upcoming organizing efforts. The other way is
to test the methods immediately i.e. to alternate the meetings with
practical experiments at your workplaces. Participants simply decide
this among themselves.
The plan includes four meetings. Each meeting has a theme that focuses
on some aspect of workplace organizing. A set of questions are dealt
with in free discussions or discussion rounds. Rounds mean that one
person at a time may comment on a certain question. Below you find the
prepared questions for each meeting. These questions link discussions to
the participants’ workplaces.
At the first meeting, everyone introduces themselves. A study group
leader is appointed no later than at this first meeting. The leader
ensures that everyone is given space to speak and that the set of
questions is dealt with within a certain time frame. A reasonable time
frame is one and a half hours per meeting. The leader’s task is also to
remind all participants of upcoming meetings (for example via cell phone
messaging or by email).
It is always best to hold physical meetings, but meetings can also be
arranged via the SAC online forum or a tool for video meetings
(www.sac.se/user/login). Contact fellow members in your Local (LS) of
SAC to find a format that suits your group. At the meetings, one thing
deserves to be repeated: there are no stupid questions!
Preparatory reading: the Key terms, Introduction and Part 1 of this
book.
Initial questions: Has the text triggered new thoughts or questions? Is
the text’s picture of reality and advice reasonable?
The rest of the meeting is devoted to participants analysing their
workplaces in order to start trade union conversations with co-workers.
In the worst case, employees quarrel with each other and are loyal to
the management. What divisions exist at your workplace?
best and worst thing at your workplace? How is discontent within the
workforce usually expressed?
places where co-workers can talk to each other without being interrupted
by bosses. Which colleagues should you start talking to? That is, which
colleagues want to change the workplace and not just complain or hope
that trade union representatives will solve the problems? Write down the
initials of these persons on the map.
meet after working hours? Do you need an internet forum? Try to arrange
regular cross-union meetings that grow, i.e. meetings that more and more
employees attend regardless of union affiliation. Feel free to invite
informal leaders of the workplace, meaning employees who gets things
done and are respected among colleagues. The harsh reality is that many
employers put a lot of energy into identifying informal leaders to make
them loyal to management. These colleagues are, on the contrary, needed
in union organizing.
study group meeting! Also reflect on whether you want to recruit
colleagues and start a syndicalist section or start off by pursuing
union issues and forming a section later. One possibility is to do both
at the same time.
Preparatory reading: Part 2 and 3 of this book. Feel free to re-read
about methods in part 1 (questions 9 and 10).
Initial questions: Has the text triggered new thoughts or questions? Is
the text’s picture of reality and advice reasonable?
The rest of the meeting is devoted to finding a concrete trade union
issue, a common concern, for your workplace plus appropriate methods to
exercise influence.
wages and influence at the workplace. Which issues engage you and your
co-workers? In what issue are the chances of exercising influence the
greatest in the short term? Which union demands can unite employees? The
workplace is an arena for everything from feminist struggle to LGBTQ
issues and antifascism. Which issues are pursued by other trade unions
at your job? Are important issues ignored?
pressure on management are both effective and likely that many employees
want to take part in? What support do you need from your Local? Is there
a social issue (in addition to the union core issues) around which the
staff can be organized?
demand? How can your collective action be organized? Do you have a
cross-union group that can take the initiative? Can a syndicalist
section do it? If a section is ready, how do you involve colleagues who
are not members of the section? Can the section cooperate with other
trade unions or is it better to act independently of them?
If you and your co-workers are ready to act collectively, tell us at the
next study group meeting how it went! Or are you not ready? Continue the
conversation at work and involve more colleagues. If it takes time to
build a community and a readiness for action, be patient and keep
striving for it.
Preparation for the meeting: write down your experiences of starting
union conversations with your colleagues! If you have begun to organize
through a cross-union group or a section, write it down! A few notes on
a piece of paper will suffice. If you do not have such experience yet,
then read about an example of a union struggle from other workplaces.
See the reading tips in this book or ask the study group leader for
reading tips!
The meeting is devoted to participants evaluating the organizing efforts
at their own workplaces or learning from examples from other workplaces.
a growing cross-union group?
pressure? Is there a section at the workplace or is there an interest in
building a section?
do well? What can be done better in the future?
conversations, tell us briefly about a labour struggle that you have
read about! Highlight methods, results and lessons learned!
Preparatory reading: Part 4 of this book and the afterword. Feel free to
re-read about the dual task (see question 22).
Initial questions: Has the text triggered new thoughts or questions? Is
the text’s picture of reality and advice reasonable?
The rest of the meeting is devoted to the participants’ organizing
efforts, either on-going organizing or various initiatives that
participants may take. At the meeting, we also raise our eyes to our
long-term vision: to democratize the workplaces and thereby build a
future equal society.
influence? In which issues, if any, do you have a great deal of
influence? Workplace issues can be categorized as follows:
the workforce to succeed in enforcing collective demands? A stronger
cross-union community? Better methods of influence? A larger section?
More support from your Local?
strength be used to change society at large? Which social issues should
a union movement prioritize? Which alliances can our trade union build
with other actors in the class struggle?
The study plan ends at the fourth meeting with an evaluation of the
whole period. Everyone gives their opinions in a discussion round. The
study leader writes a short report to the board of your Local,
preferably together with a group photo. The leader gives the
participants tips on upcoming courses. Information about available
courses is obtained in the Local from those responsible for education
matters. A fitting continuation of union education can be that everyone
who has participated in the group registers for the same course.
Don’t forget member meetings in your Local!
The four themes (described above) are also suitable for regular member
meetings in the Locals of SAC. They are suitable at least in those
Locals where many members lack sections. A possible plan for one year is
to deal with four themes at four meetings during spring and repeat the
themes during autumn. New experiments at the workplaces mean that these
themes are never exhausted.
Likewise, the set of questions (listed above) can be used at regular
meetings. This of course presupposes that the prioritized item on the
agenda is the participants’ workplaces. Instead of everyone being
expected to have read this book in advance, the meetings can begin with
someone presenting the basic ideas.
Many Locals hold regular member meetings on weekday evenings. For
members who do not have the opportunity to participate, it is important
that Locals also set up study groups during weekends or during the day,
in the form of physical meetings or via the internet. Use this book and
modify the plan to the needs of the study group!
The four themes are less suitable for member meetings in large Locals
with many industrial branches and sections. Then the primary role of
Local meetings is to coordinate industrial branches, which in turn
coordinate the sections. But for members who have not yet formed
sections, the four themes are a good starting point for organizing.
[The whole workforce has a strong sense of “We” and act collectively
towards the management.]
[A variety of “We” and “I” that do not raise demands together and in the
worst case quarrel with each other.]
[A “We syndicalists” arises, a community and commitment that encompass
the whole section.]
[A “We workers” is growing through a cross-union community which is
larger than the section.]
[The section and the cross-union community continue to grow.
Syndicalists and other workers act together.]
[]
As representatives, they end up above the collective in close consensus
with the management. It easily happens if the workforce has bought the
myth that “tough” or “skilled” negotiators are able to land big
victories for employees. It is kind of like a football team sitting in
the stands and expecting the coach to win the game. The extreme case of
integration is that the trade union turns yellow, i.e. becomes loyal to
the employer at the expense of the interests of the workforce.
[]
Critical and oppositional voices end up outside the collective and lack
influence. They become radicals in the stands who comment on the issues
but do not take part in the game itself. It easily happens if radicals
primarily strive for a sense of ideological “purity” and to hold the
“right” opinions.
[]
To avoid both integration and marginalization, it is important to work
within the collective, develop the ability to mobilize and retain that
ability.
It is often said that syndicalism is primarily a movement and secondly
an ideology. This means that it is primarily a tool for us in the
working class. Through organizing, we unite around common interests and
together we strengthen our ability to utilize the power that comes from
our position in production. Without us and our work, there will not be
much when it comes to goods and services in society. We are the ones
building the world. That is our strength.
Syndicalism also has a pedagogical task. The struggle becomes a tool for
us as workers to examine and understand our position in society. A
collective, self-managed and democratic organization gives us the skills
and the know-how we need to eventually take over production. Through the
power over production, we create the conditions for a truly free and
just society, that is, a society that we own and manage together.
But if syndicalism is primarily a movement, then why do we choose to
publish a book about ideology?
During centuries of struggle, an enormous amount of experience has been
accumulated. This has led to analyses, discussions and new practices,
which in turn have led to new experiences.
Capitalism is also constantly changing. New ways of producing and
organizing work have led to new opportunities and difficulties. We live
differently, work differently and think of ourselves differently today
than, for example, thirty years ago. The class society also looks
different — even if the principles for it remain.
Finally, syndicalism is a movement that deals with everyday struggle.
Through daily demands and small and medium-sized conflicts, we are not
just laying the foundation for another society. We improve the situation
for us as workers here and now.
It is in relation to all of this that the syndicalist tradition of ideas
— our ideology — fulfils a function. If we do not frequently evaluate
our methods against our long-term goals, if we do not think about and
try to understand how a self-managed society is possible based on the
conditions of today, the ideology will soon become nothing more than an
appendix. An ill-fitting and a little embarrassing costume that we only
take out at special holidays.
A living ideology, on the other hand, can be one of the most important
tools we have. It both helps us to understand where we are, why we
encounter the obstacles we encounter, and what can be done to overcome
them — but also why we stick to principles and organizational forms that
in some situations may seem unnecessarily cumbersome (thus not saying
that these do not need to be evaluated).
By constantly bringing our ideological principles and long-term goals to
the fore, and by discussing them, we democratize a debate that can
sometimes seem narrow and difficult. We reduce the risk of losing
ourselves among daily demands and short-term victories and we avoid
ending up as just another organization that has no imagination to ask
for anything else than longer chains and larger cages. We also avoid
developing into a reformist labour movement which, like an authoritarian
one, ultimately only manages subordination in the name of the people.
Syndicalism wants something else.
Finally, ideology is a tool for us to look beyond the capitalist
ideology that surrounds us and not suffer from hopelessness in the face
of a system that constantly floods us with the idea that this is the
only possible way to live together. But to create a living ideology, a
living debate is needed, and this is where this book comes in.
The first draft appeared in 2015 on an email list with the aim of
evaluating SAC’s union reorganization. Union reorganization is a term
used to describe a movement within SAC, away from a more politically
coloured organization with a high degree of remunerated representatives
and union officials, and towards a re-ignition among the grassroots and
collective — rather than individual — action in the workplaces.
Rasmus Hästbacka wrote a proposal for a text and sent it out. He
received a response, updated the text and sent it out again. In this
way, the text emerged. It has since then been further developed after
discussions at SAC’s internal online forum, in a study group within the
Umeå Local of SAC and it was the basis for a national ideology seminar
arranged in 2021.
In other words, even if the text is written by one person, it is not
created in a vacuum. This was taken into consideration when we in the
Umeå Local chose to support the publication. That we did so does not
mean that we stand behind everything that’s in it, nor that we hope that
it will form the basis for a new Declaration of principle or the like.
Rather, we see this basic sketch as a reasonably correct description of
SAC’s ideological heritage of today. But above all, it is our hope that
the publication will speed up a much-needed debate, both within and
outside the organization. We hope that the book, rather than saying the
last word about the syndicalist ideology, will be the starting point for
further discussions, both about the contents of the book and about how
syndicalism can better respond to the current development of society.
So, in order to start and open up for such a discussion right now, we
want to end by raising some points that we think should be discussed.
The production of goods, services and societal functions has changed.
But how have we as a movement been able to adapt to it?
An important change is what has been called globalization. What was
previously produced by an industry, within a nation or region, is today
spread across continents. One and the same factory roof can span the
entire globe.
The relationship between one workplace and another in another country,
but within the same company structure, is increasingly similar to that
between two departments within the same building. It becomes difficult
to win any demands at all in one workplace, without at the same time
organizing the other. As organizers we face new challenges when the
relationship “between colleagues” does not come as naturally.
The requirements on and efforts in international organizing are tougher,
but so is the possible gain. If we succeed in organizing an entire
industry globally, we will move further and further away from what has
historically been the labour movement’s biggest obstacle: national
borders and national belonging. We are also moving further and further
away from the catastrophic idea of achieving socialism by taking power
over the nation-state.
On the other hand, we need to think about how we create the conditions
for becoming part of a new internationalism, without at the same time
losing important principles such as self-determination and
decentralization. Some questions that arise are:
Which demands, in turn, does globalization place on the syndicalist
structures and the idea of a “Swedish” SAC — a Central Organization of
Workers in Sweden?
Do we need deeper international cooperation — perhaps even a plan for
international mergers — and what could such a thing look like?
Another factor we need to consider is that a large part of the
production today is not only unnecessary, but ecologically destructive.
Unfortunately, it is not just about how it is governed and by whom, but
about what it actually looks like. Infrastructure, warehousing,
transport systems, machinery, land use – the entire chain from raw
materials to production, loading and end product, is adapted to a
certain mode of production with a certain industry standard.
All stages of production would need to be reviewed and probably also
fundamentally changed as a whole.
In the same way that one can say that the factory roof has been
stretched across the entire planet, one can say that each production
chain — perhaps even production as a whole — has increasingly come to
resemble a single large machine. It is difficult to get rid of a cog
without replacing the entire machine. Here we as workers — unlike, for
example, as “citizens” or “consumers” — have a unique position, by means
of the power and influence we can exercise. But it places demands
especially on an organization that aims to take over production from
below.
We do not only need to have an idea of how we want to organize things
“after the revolution” or demand “another production”. If we don´t think
that capitalism have managed to deal with the ecological catastrophe in
time, we must also consider investing at present in the construction of
alternative systems that could be scaled up. We think it raises the
following questions:
What does the demand for climate transition mean for a syndicalist
practice?
How do we integrate it into a fighting labour movement and what role
can, for example, the Locals of SAC play?
How do we deal with the fact that we as workers on one level are also
dependent on a destructive production?
What experience is there from other attempts to build alternative
structures?
Which initiatives can we support or even initiate and which parts of
production are particularly important to change?
As in the arena of production, society in general has gone through
changes. The syndicalist ideology must consider how developments outside
the workplace will have an impact on organizing. Otherwise, there is a
risk that we continue to do things based on assumptions about a world
that no longer exists.
The future has never been as uncertain in the history of capitalism as
it is today — on a personal, societal and planetary level. At the same
time, we are all part of a system that is more individualised than any
social system has been before. Many people feel conflicted by
contradictory demands, mental health concerns and a general lack of
focus, time and energy for collective projects.
How do we build a movement that instead is able to approach this
situation and offer community, meaning and collective joy?
What support structures do we need to meet these obstacles and what
roles can the ideology of SAC play in this? What, for example, does it
mean to say that our goal is “economic democracy” rather than for
example “anarchy” “communism” or a “classless society”?
Society is perhaps more polarised and politicized now than only 5–10
years ago, not just in social media but also in workplaces, between
friends and in public discourse.
Which effects does this have on our ambition to fight for a different
society, without positioning ourselves on a political left/right-scale?
Is it possible to achieve this today and if so, how can it be done and
is it even desirable?
The working class too has transformed. The tendency to move production
overseas has started to give way to a situation where it is workers from
these countries that migrate. The global division of labour that has
been in place for a long time is now present locally in the West.
Migrant workers work in similar conditions here as they did in their
countries of origin. Ethnicity has become an increasingly important
factor on the labour market and the conditions of individual workers in
the same workplace can differ immensely.
This is not really something new, however. The working class has never
been as homogenous as some would have it. But the present situation
gives rise to certain questions concerning syndicalist organizing and
how we think about the working class.
Another stratification of the labour market is the generational.
Security and conditions that were taken for granted among older
generations are today unachievable for younger workers. It might be true
that the calm on the labour market of the West was not achieved only by
submissive trade unions, but partly because workers could actually
expect concrete material improvements in their lives. If that’s the
case, then the present situation does not only pose a serious problem.
The lack of prospects for younger generations could lead to a general
loss of loyalty to the system in general. This could of course become a
double-edged sword, but it is not inconceivable that a movement such as
syndicalism could channel this discontent.
Furthermore, we see significant changes in how work is organized, or in
other words the division and directing of labour. The most conspicuous
example is what is called the gig economy. The middle management and
administrative levels have been done away with and replaced by digital
platforms — left are the owners way over there, and the workers way down
here. The workers perform low-paid and stressful work without job
security and through an app that has the role of both middle management
and a work tool. But this trend also has an impact on the rest of the
labour market, and in particular low-security jobs.
Digital solutions, often adopted from the gig economy and staffing
companies, are used to circumvent already weak labour laws. Younger and
immigrant workers — particularly in traditional female-dominated sectors
— are particularly vulnerable to these developments.
In later years we have seen successful examples of how gig workers in
other countries have organized through syndicalist unions. Since the
bureaucratic unions in Sweden have so far failed to face this situation
with anything other than useless collective agreements that they always
pull out when they want to give the go-ahead to things they are too weak
or not particularly interested in doing something about, it is only a
matter of time before workers choose to organize themselves in some
other form. If we could make ourselves relevant in this, we could make a
significant change.
What do different sections of the working class see as the benefit of
being a member of a syndicalist union?
What does syndicalism offer — and what is the likelihood that
syndicalism will take root — in different groups, occupations and
industries?
Workers who know other nation’s traditions of working class organizing
also provide the movement with a better repository of experiences and
knowledge. How people think about what a union is, and how they think
about the ideas of the Swedish labour movement, differs between groups.
How can we best relay the experiences of the Swedish union movement and
its relevance to groups where union organizing means something
different?
How can we make the movement benefit from, integrate and transform
through the experience and knowledge that exist within the working class
of today?
SAC aims to be a union for all workers. However, there are norms today
that condition what people see as an “ordinary worker” and these norms
do not match up with reality. The neutral is never really neutral.
Privileged groups set the standards of what is seen as normal,
apolitical and non-radical, and this determines what people see as
radical and political work. This can become a problem, not just for our
ability to attract workers. There is a risk that SAC attracts a
privileged section of the working class instead of groups who have a
greater need for and interest in syndicalist methods and our long-term
goals.
What ideas, behaviours and groups are seen as neutral and why?
How do we create a movement that mirrors who we actually are, where we
are from and how we live and work?
How can we make ourselves available to more vulnerable groups of
workers, who really have more in common with our methods and goals?
How should this affect the way we speak to people, our practical work,
structures and how we use our
resources?
We want everything we have chosen to mention here to have an impact on
our ideology. Not just on how we talk about things, how radical we want
to be or whether or not we want to present ourselves as “one union among
other”, but on a profound level. It is not just a question of form, but
content.
What do syndicalists want?
It is up to us as a movement and as workers to answer this question. But
in order to do so we have to revisit our ideological standpoints — many
of which are discussed in this book — and review them in the light of a
society as it actually is, and our goal of a life beyond capitalism.
At the same time we have to organize. We must try things out on a
practical level, create spaces for interaction with others and mobilize
more of the people we say we want to build a future society with —
ordinary workers like you and me. A vital ideology can only emerge from
a vital movement.
We must do all of this in full awareness that in this time of crisis,
the climate crisis is the worst that the working class and humanity in
general have ever faced. If we don’t begin serious attempts to build a
movement for a life beyond capitalism soon, there will probably be no
opportunities to do so in the future.
Niklas Averstad Ryd & Jonas Hammarbäck
Commissioned by the member meeting of the Umeå Local, May 1 2021
At SAC’s courses and conferences, you get the most up-to-date reading
tips on concrete trade union work. The books and articles listed below
should be seen as a Swedish smorgasbord to pick from. You don’t have to
consume the entire list to become a workplace organizer. Below are
listed sources and reading tips related to each part of the book. They
are available on the internet, at libraries, through the SAC publishing
house Federativ and at the bookstore Syndikalistiskt forum. You can
obtain SAC’s governing documents from your Local (LS) or digitally on
SAC’s website (www.sac.se). Quotes in this book that were originally
formulated in Swedish have been translated into English. The sources
from where the quotes are derived are accounted for below.
/
www.arbetaren.se
www.federativsforlag.se
www.syndikalistisktforum.se
See the SAC website (www.sac.se) to read:
Contact the SAC Secretariat to order these inquiries:
Linda Magnusson, Viveca Nording, Ida Pettersson and Bea Rimmerfors.
Record number 10–098.
union organizing. Completed in 2018 by Frederick Batzler. Record number
18–065.
anti-strike law. Compiled in 2020 by the SAC Legal Committee. Record
number 20–105. Available to members here:
www.sac.se/strategiutredningen. The website also has video lectures,
articles, a pocket guide, etc. based on the Strategic inquiry.
Apans anatomi (podcast) (2020). Organisera, inte bara mobilisera.
Interview with the syndicalist Daria Bogdanska:
Bohlin, Rebecka (2005). XX — Feministiska samtal, idéer och utbrott.
Federativs förlag. A collection of articles from Arbetaren.
Bonk, Erik (2021). “Arbetsplatsorganiserng” in Syndikalisten, online
edition:
. A series of basic articles.
Bonk, Erik & Hästbacka, Rasmus & Stendahl, Jenny (2021). “Ny strategi på
galen arbetsmarknad” in Arbetaren, online edition:
A summary of SAC’s Strategic inquiry of 2020. In English below.
Bonk, Erik & Hästbacka, Rasmus & Stendahl, Jenny (2021). “A syndicalist
strategy for the Swedish labour market” on the website Counterpunch:
Bradbury, Alexandra & Brenner, Mark & Slaughter, Jane (2016). Secrets of
a successful organizer. Detroit: Labor Notes. See also:
/. The book will be published in Swedish by Federativ in the autumn of
2021.
Broberg, Emil & Hästbacka, Rasmus (2021). “Fackliga myter om
kollektivavtal skadar löntagarna” in Arbetaren, online edition:
Calleman, Catharina (2020). Genusperspektiv på arbetsrätten: en annan
historia. 2. uppl. Uppsala: Iustus förlag.
Class Power on Zero-hours [yellow edition]. New preface. 2. uppl.
London: AngryWorkers. A group of workers in London writing about their
organizing while also doing it.
Falk, Kristian & Hästbacka, Rasmus (2021). “Hitta alternativ till
strejk” in Arbetaren, online edition:
. About destructive fixation on strikes.
Fransson, Susanne (2020). “Hundra år av kvinnostrejker”. A video
lecture:
Hamnarbetarförbundet 50 år. A documentary project about the Swedish Dock
Workers Union:
Hästbacka, Rasmus (2021). “Sex myter om facklig kamp” in Arbetaren,
online edition:
Lindblom, Julia (2021). Amazon: bakom framgången. [Stockholm]: Verbal.
Lynd, Staughton m.fl. (2015). Solidarity unionism: rebuilding the labor
movement from below. 2. uppl. Oakland: PM Press.
Ottesen-Jensen, Elise (1980). Arbetarrörelsen — männens eller
mänsklighetens rörelse? Ett urval av Elise Ottesen-Jensens
kvinnopolitiska artiklar i Arbetaren och Brand på 20-talet.
Sahlström, Olle (2008). I skuggan av en storhetstid. Stockholm: Atlas. A
book about the decline of European trade unions from movements to
bureaucracies and new organizing initiatives.
Sjöö, Ingemar (2011). Fackliga fribrytare. Episoder från hundra år av
svensk syndikalism. [2., uppdaterade uppl.] Stockholm: Federativ. The
quote from French CGT in this book can be found in Sjöö’s book on page
34.
Slaughter, Jane & Ancel, Judy (red.) (2005). A troublemaker’s handbook.
How to fight back where you work and win! Detroit: Labor Notes.
Tillsammans: gemenskap och klasskamp på samhällsfabrikens golv. En
antologi. By the group Kämpa tillsammans! (2009). Lund: Pluribus.
Tuuloskorpi, Frances (red.) (2010). Hopsnackat: folkrörelse på
arbetsplatsen. D. 1 En antologi. 2. uppl. Norsborg. As an ebook here:
folkrorelselinjen.wordpress.com
Wikander, Ulla (1997). Delat arbete, delad makt: om kvinnors
underordning i och genom arbetet. En historisk essä. 7. uppl. Uppsala:
Uppsala univ. Can be found as a PDF file here:
See the SAC website (www.sac.se) to read:
IWW Declaration of principles in the form of a Preamble to the IWW
constitution (originally adopted in 1905). Available here:
/
Ahrne, Göran, Stöber, Niels & Thaning, Max (2018). Klasstrukturen i
Sverige: Struktur, klass och inkomster. Kontinuitet och förändring
1985–2015. Stockholm: Katalys. Can be found as a PDF file here:
Anarcosindicalismo: Basico by CNT Sevilla. A pamphlet, translated into
English by Jeff Stein and it can be found as a PDF file here:
Arbetarhistoria www.arbetarhistoria.se
Issue 14–15. Tema: Syndikalismen
Issue 87–88. Syndikalismen — historiska erfarenheter
Bakunin, Michail (1869). “The policy of the International”, originally
published in the paper L’Égalité in 1869. The quote from Bakunin in this
book can be found in the second paragraph of the article, which is
available here:
Bantman, Constance & Berry, Dave (red.) (2010). New perspectives on
anarchism, labour and syndicalism. The individual, the national and the
transnational. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The book can be
found as a PDF file here:
Bogdanska, Daria (2016). Wage slaves. Stockholm: Galago. A graphic
novel.
Casparsson, Ragnar m.fl. (1923). Vad är och vad vill syndikalismen?
Stockholm: Federativ. Three introductory texts that are still relevant.
The book can be found as a PDF file here: www.sac.se
Chomsky, Noam (2017). Requiem for the American Dream. New York: Seven
Stories Press. The quote from The Mill Girls of Lowell in this book can
be found in Chomsky’s book on page 121. Originally taken from their
publication Factory Tracts in 1845.
Dahlgren, Edvin (2018). “Val 2018: Bygg facket och erövra städerna!” in
Arbetaren, online edition:
www.arbetaren.se/2018/09/07/val-2018-bygg-facket-och-erovra-staderna/.
An essay about what has been called rörelsesocialism in Swedish
(movement socialism), with a focus on the 21^(st) century.
Dahlkvist, Mats (1999). “Den instängda demokratin. Rörelsesocialism och
statssocialism i svensk arbetarrörelse” in SOU (1999:112), pages 7–68.
This article is available here: www.regeringen.se/
Ek, Anders (2000). Arbetarklassens kampproblem. Syndikalism — reformism.
Ny utg. Göteborg: Nisse Lätts minnesfond. The quote by Anders Ek in this
book can be found in Ek’s book on page 15.
Furuland, Lars (red.) (1999). Arbetarförfattarna och syndikalismen.
Stockholm: Federativ.
Garneau, Marianne & Lee, MK (2020). “The leftwing deadbeat” on the
website:
Hästbacka, Rasmus (2020). “Gör ekonomisk demokrati folkligt igen!” in
Arbetaren, online edition:
www.arbetaren.se/2020/05/29/gor-ekonomisk-demokrati-folkligt-igen/
Lagerström, Sven (1996). Syndikalismen: en grundbok. 3.uppl. Stockholm:
Federativ.
Lindberg, Ingemar & Neergard, Anders (red.) (2013). Bortom horisonten:
fackets vägval i globaliseringens tid. Stockholm: Premiss. Contains both
case studies and theoretical reflections.
Lundh, Christer (2008). Arbetsmarknadens karteller: nya perspektiv på
det svenska kollektivavtalets historia. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska
förlag. The author describes trade unions as a force against
underbidding competition.
Montgomery, David (1987). The fall of the house of labor: the workplace,
the state and American labor activism, 1865–1925. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press. The book illuminates, among other things, the popular
support for economic democracy.
Pack, Spencer J. (1991). Capitalism as a moral system. Adam Smith’s
critique of the free market economy. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. The quote
by Adam Smith in this book can be found in Spencer’s book on page 129.
Price, Wayne (2015). “Murray Bookchin: Anarchism without the working
class” on the website:
. A critical examination of the eco-anarchist Bookchin.
Price, Wayne (2018). “An anarchist view of the class theory of the
state” on the website:
Svärd, Per-Anders (2020). “En grön Lenin?” in Arbetaren, online edition:
. A review of Malm, Andreas (2020). Corona, climate, chronic emergency:
war communism in the twenty-first century. Brooklyn: Verso Book.
Tuuloskorpi, Frances (2011). “Vi behöver inte upprop, vi behöver
nedrop!” in Brand issue 2/2011 and available here:
/. About conflicts between class organizing and the political left.
Wright, Erik Olin (2012). “Att förstå klass” in Wennerhag, Magnus m.fl.
(red.) Fronesis issue 40–41 Klass. Stockholm: Fronesis. A leading
Marxist sociologist and researcher writing on social class.
See the material in SAC’s plan for study groups entitled “Bli en
arbetsplatsorganisatör!” (“Become a workplace organizer!, Swedish
abbreviation: APO-cirkeln). Retrieve this from your Local of SAC or by
logging in to the SAC website (www.sac.se/user/login).
Hill, Niklas & Sjöström Hederberg, Angeli (2014). Medlemsmodellen:
rekrytera, aktivera och behålla medlemmar. 3. uppl. Stockholm:
Trinambai.
Hästbacka, Rasmus (2021). “Att bygga fler LS inget självändamål” in
Arbetaren, online edition:
Debate on the future of SAC with links to previous articles by Toivo
Jokkala and Gabriel Kuhn.
Bewernitz, Torsten & Kuhn, Gabriel. “Syndicalism for the Twenty-First
Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy” on the website
Counterpunch:
. Related to the debate on the future of SAC above.
Hästbacka, Rasmus (2021). “Greetings from Sweden: A dual-track
syndicalism?” on the ASR website:
.
Related to the debate above.
See SAC’s website (www.sac.se) to read the 1922 Declaration of
principles and the current documents. See also the interpretation of the
1922 Declaration of principles.
Ackelsberg, Martha A. (2005). Free women of Spain: Anarchism and the
struggle for the emancipation of women. Oakland: AK Press. The book can
be found as a PDF file here:
Albert, Michael (2004). Parecon: livet efter kapitalismen. Stockholm:
Ordfront. The word “parecon” is an abbreviation of the English term
“participatory economics”. See also:
/
Albert, Michael (2021). No bosses: a new economy for a better world.
Washington: Zero Books.
Andersson, John (1952). Internationalerna. Stockholm: Federativ. The
quote from the First International in this book, originally from a book
by the feminist Flora Tristan (1803–1844), can be found in Andersson’s
book on page 5. See also Tristan’s book below.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1972). Workers’ councils and the economics of a
self-managed society. London: Solidarity Group. The book can be found as
a PDF file here:
/
Chomsky, Noam (1989). What was Leninism? An excerpt from a lecture,
filmed in Wisconsin, USA:
. About anti-socialist “state socialism”.
Doyle, Kevin & Chomsky, Noam (1995). “Anarchism, Marxism & hope for the
future” in Red & Black Revolution issue 2. Doyle interviews Chomsky.
Available here:
Eriksson, Jan (red.) (1971). Syndikalistisk syn på ekonomisk demokrati:
en skiss. Stockholm: Federativ. The book can be found as a PDF file
here: www.sac.se
Gröndahl, Britta (red.) (2006).“En ny värld i våra hjärtan”. Här talar
syndikalisterna. Gävle: Federativ. The quote by Rudolf Rocker in this
book can be found in Gröndahl’s book in the section “Syndikalismens
metoder” (The methods of syndicalism).
Hahnel, Robin (2012). Of the people, by the people. The case for a
participatory economy. Oakland: Soapbox Press. A short and accessible
presentation of participatory economy.
Hahnel, Robin (2021). Democratic economic planning. Abingdon: Routledge.
The author addresses the problems of large-scale planning and long-term
social investments.
Hedin, Bengt (1969). Federalismen — i en socialistisk ekonomi.
Stockholm: Stockholm LS. A short pamphlet originally published in 1939
by Federativ. Available as a PDF file here:
Hästbacka, Rasmus (2020). “En annan värld är löjlig?” in Arbetaren,
online edition:
www.arbetaren.se/2020/07/08/en-annan-varld-ar-lojlig/
Le Guin, Ursula K. (1994). The dispossessed: an ambiguous Utopia. New
York: Harper Prism. A science fiction novel about attempts to build free
and equal societies.
Lorenzo, César M. (1972). Syndikalismen vid makten. Spansk
anarkosyndikalism före, under och efter inbördeskriget 1936–39.
Stockholm: Federativ. A biased inquiry that can be read together with
other polemical writings, for example the pamphlet by Friends of Durruti
(1978), Towards a fresh revolution. As a PDF file here:
Lund, Arwid (2001). Albert Jensen och revolutionen: syndikalismens
revolutionära idéer 1900–1950. Stockholm: Federativ.
Pannekoek, Anton (2003). Workers’ councils. Introduction by Noam
Chomsky. Oakland: AK Press. The book can be found as a PDF file here:
. Pannekoek was one of the foremost educators within council communism.
Pateman, Carole. (1975). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press. The political scientist Pateman is inspired by
syndicalism, guild socialism and the liberal John Stuart Mill.
Persson, Lennart K. (1993). Syndikalismen i Sverige 1903–1922. [Ny utg.]
Stockholm: Federativ. See in particular Chapter VIII.
Rocker, Rudolf (1920). “The Soviet System or the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat?” originally published in Yiddish in the journal Fraye
Arbayter Shdme. In English here:
. About workers’ councils, how the idea arose in the First International
and was passed on by, among others, syndicalists. The Russian term for
council is “soviet” but the so-called Soviet Union was actually an
anti-soviet union.
Russell, Bertrand (2018). Proposed roads to freedom. Reading Classics.
Franklin Classic Trade Press. Originally published in 1918. The quote on
syndicalism in this book is taken from Russel’s book.
Schecter, Darrow (1994). Radical theories: paths beyond Marxism and
social democracy. Manchester: Manchester University Press. A critique of
authoritarian Marxism and Leninism. The book deals with syndicalism,
anarchism, guild socialism, council communism, market socialism and
green post-industrial socialism.
Severin, Frans (1924). Excerpt from Severin’s book Är syndikalismens
statsfientlig? in the anthology Sabotage (2006) which is edited by
Rikard Warlenius. Stockholm: Federativ, pages 144–218. About
syndicalism’s relation to modern nation-states.
Tristan, Flora (2007). The worker’s union. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press. A classic socialist and feminist book from 1843.
Westbrook, Robert (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press. The quotes from John Dewey in this book can be
found in Westbrook’s book on pages 442, 440 and 453.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1998). The retreat from class: a new “true”
socialism. Rev. ed. London: Verso. The book provides a perspective on
the strategic position of workers in production.
Writings on the register method of Swedish trade unions and evolutionary
syndicalism:
ideologiska perspektiv inom svensk syndikalism 1922–1952. Lic.avh.
Stockholm Univ.: Ekonomisk-historiska institutionen.
av syndikalism. Sveriges arbetares centralorganisation 1910–2010.
Stockholm: Federativ, pages 181–190.
svensk syndikalism. [2., uppdaterade uppl.] Stockholm: Federativ. See
chapter VII.
As this book is an attempt to capture majority views among active
syndicalists, the author has also read a large number of articles in
Syndikalisten and Arbetaren and furthermore SAC congressional minutes,
especially from 2002 onwards, as well as SAC’s educational material
(see: www.sac.se/user/login).
The author has also tried to act as a sampler of contemporary
syndicalism by participating in SAC union conferences since 2001,
arranging ideology seminars, initiating debates in Syndikalisten and
Arbetaren, by participating in an online forum (administered by the
Göteborgs Local of SAC and the bookstore Syndikalistiskt forum) and then
on the email list SAC-utveckling together with more than 100 active
syndicalists.
The first drafts of this book were presented on the mentioned email list
in 2015. Responses to drafts were later obtained in SAC’s online
discussion forum. The email list has been terminated in favour of the
discussion forum.