💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rasmus-hastbacka-greetings-from-sweden.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:39:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Greetings from Sweden: A dual-track syndicalism? Author: Rasmus Hästbacka Date: Summer 2021 Language: en Topics: SAC, Sweden, syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism Source: https://syndicalist.us/2021/07/24/greetings-from-sweden-a-dual-track-syndicalism/ Notes: A slightly condensed version of this article appears in ASR 83 (Summer 2021)
In 2022, the Swedish syndicalist union SAC holds a congress. Some say
that SAC is at a crossroads. But what exactly are the choices? In the
following essay, Rasmus Hästbacka argues that the choice is between
building a popular movement union or a “revolutionary” cadre union.
Hästbacka believes in a popular movement that progresses on dual tracks,
i.e. a movement that builds both syndicalist sections and cross-union
cohesion among workers.
The Swedish labor market has recently been highlighted in
Anarcho-Syndicalist Review and on the Counterpunch website. Two articles
concern the
and a
for collective agreements that SAC has developed. Two more general texts
on the future of syndicalism have been written by
Gabriel Kuhn and Torsten Bewernitz
on the Counterpunch website, and by Gabriel and Frederick Batzler in
Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (issue #79, 2020). The new collective
agreement strategy is being tested (at the time of publication) by
warehouse workers at
in Stockholm. More such experiments await.
Why should an international audience care about tiny Sweden and a
syndicalist union of only 3,000 members? In a globally interconnected
economy, one could argue that the class struggle in tiny villages may
affect the mega cities and vice versa. Business leaders usually react
hysterically even to small sparks of workers’ militancy as if they could
spread wildly. If their forecast is correct, then maybe even the
smallest spark is of interest to us all.
In this essay, I will try to clarify the crossroads that SAC faces by
replying to my comrades Gabriel Kuhn and Torsten Bewernitz. As Gabriel
and Frederick Batzler express the same perspective in
Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, my essay is a reply to the latter article as
well. I also want to highlight a promising way to conduct class
struggle, namely what I refer to as dual-track syndicalism. The essay
draws from an upcoming book,
Swedish syndicalism - An outline of its ideology and practice
, written by me which will be published by the Local of SAC in the city
of Umeå in the autumn of 2021. I want to emphasize that I’m not
presenting the official position of SAC below, but my own opinions.
On the Counterpunch website, Gabriel and Torsten have placed two
projects in opposition to each other. On the one hand, the ambition to
build a mass labor union. On the other, the ambition to train organizers
who bring workers together regardless of union affiliation. Gabriel and
Torsten put formal organization against informal mobilization of
workers. The Swedish SAC cannot grow into a large union, they suspect,
but syndicalists can play an important role in the workplaces.
In short, my two comrades suggest that we abandon the project to build a
formal mass union. Instead, they seem to put their hopes in networks of
workplace organizers. Swedish readers may recognize this perspective
from a recent debate in the SAC magazine
.
I regard the crossroads that Gabriel and Torsten describe as a
misunderstanding. They describe two incompatible paths when these are
actually two parallel tracks that can reinforce each other. Why not
recruit as many members as possible and offer all members training in
organizing? Why not try to build a big union and an even bigger movement
within the working class? Gabriel and Torsten don’t touch on these
questions, but do raise another question: should syndicalists put their
own union or the working class at the center? Their answer is the
latter. I say let’s do both! Let’s put workers at the center and develop
a union in the midst of workers.
In the 1930s, SAC had more than 30,000 members. No one can really
predict if SAC will grow into a mass union again or not. We can only try
and see. Oddly enough, SAC hasn’t made a large-scale attempt since the
1960s. During that decade SAC grew. I believe we need to build both SAC
sections and cross-union groups; at least we need both sections and
cross-union cohesion among workers. The key people on both these tracks
are workplace organizers. What do I mean by these terms?
A section is a formal union in the workplace. The section is open to all
employees except the bosses. Sections practice self-determination in
local affairs and direct democracy. By the term cross-union group I
refer to a group of co-workers who meet regularly, regardless of union
affiliation, for the purpose of discussing and pursuing common
interests. Such a group can be supported by unions or function as an
independent collaboration between colleagues. The cross-union group can
be informal or become formalized. If it adopts bylaws and elects a board
it becomes a union under Swedish labor law.
By workplace organizers I refer to employees who bring their co-workers
together in joint action at work. I’m not referring to paid union
officials coming from the outside, although such comrades can support
workplace organizers. The task of the SAC Locals is to support workplace
organizers. In areas where members lack a Local, new Locals need to be
formed (with central support from SAC).
Below I will elaborate on why organizers need to work on dual tracks –
to create both sections and cross-union groups (or at least cross-union
forums). I also intend to highlight what I regard as the real crossroads
for SAC: should SAC become a broad popular movement or a narrow cadre
union? A popular movement union has low thresholds and welcomes workers
in general. By the term cadre union, I refer to an organization that
requires members to be active and conscious “revolutionaries.” Today,
the cadre idea is invoked by, for example, the British Solidarity
Federation in its pamphlet
.
I won’t comment on the so-called dual-card-idea, that is to be a member
of both a syndicalist union and a bureaucratic/business union. I don’t
necessarily reject this idea, but I don’t know of any positive
experiences of this in Sweden.
Let’s take a look at three successful sections in Sweden. These sections
have succeeded in involving more and more workers in union
conversations, won small conflicts, recruited more members, and finally
mobilized many employees in addition to the section’s own members. The
first section, at a
in the region of SkĂĄne, has won secure (or more permanent) employment
contracts. The second section, at the
in Stockholm, is presently engaged in a conflict about health and safety
issues and basic dignity. For example, pregnant workers are denied
chairs to rest on.
In the Stockholm subway, during the first decade of the 21^(st) century,
a section staged a three-year organizing plan. One of several
long-running conflicts concerned the right for all workers to take
breaks. An interesting experience was that the massive agitation of
syndicalists (both oral and written) could unite the work force really
fast. Thus, a collective attitude was expressed in certain issues that
produced better results than the section’s strikes and blockades. Class
struggle isn’t just about putting economic pressure on profits but
putting psychological and moral pressure on bosses as well.
I will now shed more light on the pros and cons of formal union
organization and informal cross-union struggles. I will do this by way
of two examples from my previous workplace, the university in the city
of UmeĂĄ. These examples are no basis for generalizations, but they
illustrate my point.
Some years ago, a conflict took place in the departments of law and
political science. The concerned staff consisted of about 100 employees.
We put an end to an unpopular reorganization and pressured five bosses
to resign. We won by using petitions, questioning management at staff
meetings, and boycotting smaller meetings arranged to divide us. We also
staged an advisory vote and elected a new boss for the department of
law, which the employer side ultimately accepted.
Our conflict showed the strength, but also the weakness, of informal
cross-union organizing. Our cohesion and militancy quickly faded away.
Informal organizing is often short-lived, and so the wheel must be
invented again and again.
At UmeĂĄ University there is also a small syndicalist (SAC) section. The
section shows the advantage of having a formal democratic union. The
section has remained active since its start in 2006. Compared with other
unions, it provides excellent service in individual cases. But the
section has a weakness. It has a scattered membership in many
departments, and few members have developed cross-union cohesion with
their colleagues. The section conducts client service, but rarely
collective struggle.
What can a section do to develop its capacity for collective struggle?
If the workplace is big (like a university) the section may form smaller
subdivisions. The first steps could be to arrange: (1) cross-union
lunches at departments where syndicalists work, (2) section meetings
where the potential for organizing each department is discussed, and (3)
a committee that visits members at work and supports those who want to
wage cross-union struggles with their colleagues.
Cross-union struggles can generate more members and better cohesion.
This is the basis for building subdivisions of the section or stronger
cross-union groups (or both). The section board can then coordinate all
subdivisions and support all groups. Can a SAC section initiate official
cooperation with other unions? Sure, if these unions are on the side of
workers and follow directives from the shop floor.
I will now move on to the real crossroads that SAC faces: should SAC
develop into a popular movement or a “revolutionary” cadre union? The
founders of SAC in 1910 wanted to build a popular movement union. This
ambition can also be described as building an open and independent class
organization.
Judging from the current bylaws of SAC, the original ambition remains.
The same goes for an official SAC book on syndicalism published in 1984
(
written by Sven Lagerström). On the other hand, current attitudes within
the SAC point in several directions. Popular movement ideas compete with
cadre ideas. The 2022 Congress can clarify what the members want SAC to
be and do. A majority can choose the popular movement path by voting for
a new
, which is on the table.
To me, building a popular movement makes sense. Why? Therein lies a hope
for both immediate improvement of living conditions and, in the long
run, a democratic transformation of society. A popular movement union
can use the strength of dual-track syndicalism. A cadre union, on the
other hand, limits itself to a single track – the informal and
cross-union track. The cadre risks becoming a weak network of workplace
organizers. In Sweden, many radicals have initiated such networks that
have faded away.
In contrast to weak networks, the Swedish
have succeeded in building a democratic and militant union. I regard
their union as the flagship of Swedish unions today. They have a formal
union open to all workers in their industry.
It remains to be seen whether Swedish syndicalists will build a popular
movement union in other industries. As soon as syndicalists express this
ambition, people who label themselves revolutionaries raise objections.
They usually claim that a union that welcomes all workers becomes
hopelessly reformist without the will or capacity to democratize
workplaces and abolish class society. Such a union can win daily demands
within capitalism but nothing more, it is said.
The risk of reformism is real, of course, i.e. that syndicalist unions
become integrated with employers and the state apparatus. Two synonyms
for integration are absorption and co-option. This means syndicalist
unions risk becoming administrators of the system they claim to oppose.
But this risk is real for all unions and struggling workers. It’s a
permanent risk even for non-union networks and supposedly “pure”
workers’ councils and committees.
The only guarantee against integration, as far as I can see, is to
completely marginalize ourselves – to place ourselves in a
“revolutionary” monastery far from the working class. Or maybe, as the
Norwegian syndicalist Harald Beyer-Arnesen put it:
"The only guarantee against co-option is death."
So what can syndicalists do to reduce the risk of being stuck in a
reformist trap? If there is a general formula, I perceive it as follows.
To avoid both integration and marginalization, each syndicalist section
should act within the workforce, develop its ability to mobilize the
staff into collective action and bargaining, and retain this ability. A
prerequisite for maintaining this ability is to practice the basic
principles of syndicalism: rank-and-file democracy, solidarity at work
and a union independent from all religious and political organizations.
It is also important, I think, that SAC and other syndicalist unions are
clear on two crucial points. First, that the union has a long-term
vision: economic democracy and a federalist social order. Secondly, that
the union doesn’t require all members to be convinced supporters of this
vision.
The ambition to build an open class organization is lost if we welcome
only convinced workers. Mandatory belief systems may be natural for
churches and political parties but not for unions. On the other hand,
our class struggle to change society will be lost if we have no
ideological compass. Between these poles – a rigid ideology versus no
ideology – syndicalist unions move forward on a middle path, indeed a
contradictory path.
When a syndicalist union such as SAC adopts a Declaration of Principles,
it reflects the majority views of active syndicalists. The text is not a
package of mandatory opinions. It is enough that all members practice
the basic principles of syndicalism (i.e. rank-and-file democracy,
solidarity, and independence). A Spanish CNT pamphlet contrasts the
union with anarchist groups in the following words: The CNT
"expects nothing more from its members than that they are workers and respect its structures."
People who label themselves revolutionaries usually raise this
objection: how can a syndicalist union implement the long-term vision if
not all members are convinced that the vision is both desirable and
possible to realize? My answer is threefold. First, no union can
implement the vision (and they shouldn’t even try). Only the working
class can do it through SAC, CNT and other unions.
Secondly, at present not all SAC members are convinced supporters of
economic democracy and federalism. It is up to syndicalists who are
convinced to argue their case, not only in their workplaces but within
SAC as well. Let the union be an open marketplace of ideas! I’m not
calling for empty preaching here. When syndicalists win the trust of
co-workers through their union practice, they can recruit and convince
more and more workers.
Finally, if class struggle is pushed to its peak – on a broad front and
in many countries at the same time – then we can move beyond the
prevailing class societies. I suspect that a majority of workers don’t
want to carry out a social revolution until they have pushed the limits
of the current system; that is, until they have achieved all the reforms
possible within the system. Maybe we need a social evolution that
eventually turns into revolution.
It should be noted that my comrades Gabriel Kuhn and Torsten Bewernitz
don’t advocate cadre unions of convinced “revolutionaries” only. But
they hope that a majority of the members will become active organizers.
I think we need to be more realistic and value all union members, from
the most to the least active, and recruit even more workers. The fees
from both active and so-called “passive” members are crucial for
financing union training, magazines, technical equipment and so on.
Gabriel and Torsten want to establish more union halls or worker
centers. Can we afford this if our membership doesn’t grow?
Gabriel and Torsten don’t discuss money, but they make another point:
workplace organizing should be tied to community organizing. I agree.
The same point is made by
in Anarcho-Syndicalist Review. As a union, we should spread our
tentacles in civil society, but we need to rebuild a strong backbone for
this to be meaningful (and the backbone is workplace organizing). In
Sweden, this tradition has been labelled
(in English: movement socialism). This tradition is forgotten but can be
.
Now, let’s shed more light on those who do advocate “revolutionary”
cadre unions. How do these fellows want to counteract reformism (i.e.
integration with the system)? They usually invoke the old cadre idea of
the French CGT (from the beginning of the 20^(th) century). Many CGT
leaders didn’t want to recruit a majority of the working class. They
only aimed for those who they regarded as a “conscious minority” of the
class. The rest were arrogantly and elitistly called “the indifferent
crowd.” Not until a situation of revolution was imminent, the CGT
leaders believed, could the majority become “conscious” and then be
recruited.
To me, the idea of “revolutionary” cadre unions is rather embarrassing.
How can the leaders of such unions be sure that they themselves are so
terribly conscious? And how can the leaders make sure that only
“revolutionary” workers are allowed into the union? The former sounds
like self-glorification and the latter like self-deception. What is this
if not idealistic nonsense similar to the teachings of Leninist parties?
Of course, we could decide that only workers who express radical
opinions are granted membership in our union. But is that relevant?
Anecdotal evidence says otherwise. Many of my former colleagues have
voted for conservative parties and at the same time promoted solidarity
and democracy at work. I’ve met many radical-sounding workers who don’t
promote any of this at work. Many Swedish syndicalists have had similar
experiences.
I find it embarrassing that “revolutionaries,” still to this day, divide
humanity into different degrees of consciousness and place themselves on
top of a consciousness ladder. In Spain in the 1930s, the anarchist
group FAI tried to keep the mass union CNT “clean” from reformism. When
a revolution broke out in 1936, many FAI leaders tried to contain the
workers’ aspirations. Some leaders took seats in the government and
undermined the workers’ self-management of workplaces, villages and
cities. Supposedly “pure” revolutionaries thus acted to limit the
revolution.
Of course, there were also FAI leaders who criticized the participation
in government (for example, the
). A contemporary book on this theme is written by
. Time and time again, the counter-revolutionary nature of states
manifests itself.
As I see it, either we trust ordinary workers, or we trust no one. We
are all terribly non-conscious, at least in some respects, but through
collective struggle, discussion, and education, we can all grow in
insight and competence.
The practical attempts to build cadre unions have in some cases resulted
in anarchist or “revolutionary” clubs whose members don’t organize their
workplaces. If anarchists want to form so called
, that’s fine, but syndicalist unions are something else. Affinity
groups are no substitute for unions.
Let me be clear. I am not only sceptical of “revolutionary” cadre
unions. I also don’t believe in turning SAC into a “revolutionary” mass
union. Why? Because no trade union can be revolutionary. It is the
global working class that has the potential to become revolutionary, to
play a revolutionary role. The workers are the actor. Unions are the
workers’ resource and tool.
The anarchist Murray Bookchin and many with him have advocated
revolution without rooting this aspiration in the working class. Thus,
they’ve promoted a cause without rebels. Bookchin even denied the
revolutionary potential of the class. Instead, he put his hopes in
“citizens in general” and municipal elections – or as Wayne Price put
it:
Syndicalists maintain that the revolutionary potential of workers is
based on the 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. Workers also make up the part of the population that has the most
to gain from revolution.
Another issue is that the term “revolution” may be obsolete, at least in
a Swedish context. We have better synonyms, for example: “democratic
transformation of society.” This is discussed further in my
. Anyhow, the best resource and tool for workers are syndicalist unions,
namely popular movements that practice a dual-track syndicalism. At
least that’s my view on the situation in Sweden.
Maybe I am mistaken. Then I will be grateful if comrades enlighten me.
If I am mistaken, then SAC would be wise to reject the proposed
at the Congress of 2022.
Rasmus Hästbacka, member of the Umeå Local of SAC
Hästbacka has been a member of SAC since 1997. He has mainly been
employed as a worker in the pharmaceutical industry and a teacher at the
university and high schools in Umeå. More articles by Hästbacka in
Anarchist Library
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=H%C3%A4stbacka&sort=
here
.