💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tommy-lawson-anarchy-and-its-allies.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:20:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchy and its Allies Author: Tommy Lawson Date: November 3, 2021 Language: en Topics: anarcho-syndicalism, Especifismo, Australia, left unity, working class unity, Spanish Revolution, Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, Italy, anti-fascism Source: Retrieved on 4th November 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/anarchy-its-allies-united-front-groupings-tendency Notes: An article introducing the concepts anarchists have used to frame collaboration with other tendencies during struggle. Including the United Front, Popular Front, Workers Alliance and the Combative Tendency.
Anarchism in the Oceanic region is entering a new stage of development.
The birth of several new organisations in Australia and the increasing
co-operation between them speaks to the need for theoretical clarity.
The functional basis of efficient work is theoretical clarity, and as
such understanding how and why anarchists engage in work in social
movements, who they make alliances with and how they struggle is
fundamental.
As we know, revolutionary movements do not make up the mass of society.
If they did, there would be socialism already. Therefore, every
revolutionary tendency must address questions related to its isolation
and potential alliances, its minimum and maximum goals, and the
strategic and tactical means to achieve them. Relations between
revolutionaries and reformists, conjunctural analysis of material
conditions, the prospects of defensive and offensive work, and the
political level at which alliances are to be made are all further
considerations. Finally a realistic appraisal of relations with the mass
of the working class further informs conceptualisation. Theoretical
frameworks, fleshed out with the benefit of past experience, help us to
clarify what works and where.
A common framework for collaborative struggle employed by socialist
revolutionaries was the United Front. The United Front was theorised in
the early 1920’s by the Marxist Comintern and further developed by Leon
Trotsky. At almost the same time, a similar model was articulated by the
Italian anarchists Armando Borghi and Errico Malatesta. Any
understanding of the United Front must be contrasted to the Popular
Front, advocated by the Stalinist parties and the Comintern in the
1930s.
But the United Front, still employed by Marxist and Anarchist groups as
a strategy today, does not stand as a solution for all times and places.
The space of intervention, the intermediacy of goals and political
context require different frameworks to articulate correct approaches
towards political work. In response to various contexts, anarchists of
different tendencies have articulated other approaches; the UAI’s United
Proletarian Front and Singular Revolutionary Front respectively, the
CNT’s syndicalist Workers Alliance, the Anarquista Federación Uruguaya’s
Combative Tendency and the modern especifista Grouping of Tendency. Each
of these have contributed to frameworks of how anarchists can, and
should, approach collaborative work with other social forces.
Social struggle mobilises not only people of various classes, but
evidently also those of different political ideologies. In any concrete
situation there will be a variety of forces working to achieve sometimes
different, sometimes similar goals. For example, those opposed to a
monarchy might be everyone from the progressive bourgeois republicans,
through to socialists and anarchists. Against a conservative government
in a liberal democratic state might be everyone from social democrats to
anarchists. Furthermore, in a moment of social revolution there will be
various factions willing to ‘go all the way’, even if they differ
somewhat in their visions for a post-revolutionary society.[1] Within
social movements and trade union struggles the questions posed are
different yet again.
To organise in any situation requires theory that can provide a
framework for assessing a concrete situation, what can be achieved and
how the movement can be pushed further forwards. A balance of forces
must be analysed and a path forwards developed. That is, a theoretical
framework should provide a strategy. Historically there have been
several conceptual frameworks and subsequent strategies adopted by the
far-left in regards to guiding work not only during a revolution, but
also during day to day campaigns and struggles. It is worth briefly
addressing each of these most common strategies in order to clarify
strengths and weaknesses and then to propose an alternative framework.
The first framework we will look at is the Popular Front. The Popular
Front was the name of the electoral coalition of socialists and
left-wing Republicans during the 1936 Spanish elections. In France, a
similar coalition adopted exactly the same name. (Cooper, 2021) The
strategy of nominally proletarian, revolutionary organisations entering
and subordinating themselves to coalitions with progressive bourgeois
forces was articulated by the Comintern in the face of the international
threat of fascism. The logic was that the revolutionary goals of the
working class were for the moment unachievable, thus its organisations
must form an alliance with progressive bourgeois forces. Workers, it was
argued, could not defeat fascism alone.
The Comintern by 1936 however also had the ulterior motive of supporting
Soviet national interests over the international revolution. The turn to
the Popular Front was a sharp about-face for the Comintern affiliated
parties, following a period of ‘ultra-leftism’ that had begun in 1928.
(Hallas, 1972) During the so-called “Third Period” leading to the
Popular Front, Communist Parties had refused to work with even other
left-wing proletarian forces. The zig-zag of Comintern politics over the
decade reflected the immediate needs of what had already developed as
Soviet imperialism.
As such, when revolution began in Spain it was brought under the thumb
of the Soviet Union. Support, in the form of weapons, was conditional to
rolling back revolutionary aspirations. Collectivisation was abandoned
in order to ‘win the war’ by attracting support from foreign,
non-fascist bourgeois states. But the Popular Front was an utter
disaster. Not only did foreign ‘democratic’ nations not support the
Republic against the fascists, bourgeois forces took advantage of the
alliance to smash working class forces. The result was a severely
constrained revolutionary impetus that could have possibly emerged from
such a severe crisis of capitalism. The rolling back of collectivisation
had a secondary effect, the crippling of both morale and the economy.[2]
for a post-revolutionary soci At the same time, France and Belgium
experienced massive waves of strikes and factory occupations. The
potential for international proletarian struggle to aid the Spanish
revolutionaries was then betrayed by the French Communist Party under
the logic of the Popular Front.
As the Italian Left-Communist journal Bilan noted at the time, the
Spanish Revolution was ultimately defeated under the slogan of
Anti-Fascism. (Communist Workers Organisation, 2011) Since the defeat of
the Spanish Revolution, the Popular Front strategy has since been
employed to largely disastrous results during the Second World War, the
sequence of National Liberation Struggles and even Salvador Allende’s
government in 1973 Chile. (Cooper, 2021)
The Popular Front must of course be contrasted to the United Front. The
United Front, as it is popularly understood, was a strategy developed by
the Bolshevik Party and implemented via the Comintern in various other
national contexts. It was a strategy for the defensive period following
the Russian Revolution. International revolutionary movements,
particularly those in Italy and Germany, had failed and the likelihood
of international revolution had seriously declined. (Choonara, 2007)
In Italy, at the beginning of the 1921 fascist reaction, the famous
anarchist Errico Malatesta proposed the Fronte Unico Rivoluzionario.
(Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici, 2003) The intention was to form a
defensive, Anti-Fascist United Front. Italian workers had initially
formed Workers Defence Committees, uniting proletarians at the rank and
file to meet fascist onslaught. These Defence Committees soon joined
with left-wing ex-servicemen, establishing the anti-fascist militia, the
Artidi del Popolo. (Fighting Talk, 1996) Tragically, in Italy the
Socialist Party and the Communist Party both withdrew from the Artidi,
leaving the anarchists, syndicalists and republicans to fight fascism
alone. (Price, 2012) Leon Trotsky further articulated the Anti-Fascist
form of the United Front in the 1930s, arguing that German workers’
organisations must unite on a practical level for mass action to
confront the fascist threat.[3] (Trotsky, 1931)
In basic terms, the United Front suggests revolutionary proletarian
organisations should form tactical and strategic alliances with
reformist proletarian organisations, such as social democrats. Firstly,
in the defensive form it is a strategy to be applied when radical forces
are in a minority. (Trotsky, 1922) It is imperative in these alliances
the revolutionary organisation maintains its right to independence. In
the fight to achieve concrete, shared political aims, the social
democrats will do what they inevitably do. They will falter, stop short
of the goal, or betray the class. The other side of this, is that during
a period of struggle workers develop a taste of their own power. They
may wish to put even more radical demands forward, which reformists will
not wish to pursue. In either of these situations, revolutionary
communist organisations can point out the failings of reformist
politics. This can potentially result in winning over the rank and file,
and sometimes even the leaders, of reformist organisations with whom
revolutionaries have been working side by side. All of this can
accumulate towards a period when revolutionaries may return to the
offensive.
A slightly different form of United Front had also been proposed by
Italian anarcho-syndicalist Armando Borghi in 1920 during the height of
the factory occupations. Known as the Proletarian United Front, this was
an offensive position. (Malatesta, 2014) Borghi hoped to bring workers
organisations, all nominally committed to revolution, into a shared
front to make socialist revolution.[4] This included a number of trade
union bodies and socialist parties. While the anarchists realised with
the proposal they may not win over the leadership of the less
revolutionary organisations, they hoped on the shop floor they could win
over the workers. This offensive version of the United Front failed. The
Socialists, despite their affiliation to the Third International, and
the reformist trade union body, the CGIL, voted not to pursue social
revolution. (Lawson, 2021)
There can be no doubt that overall, the United Front has solid strategic
logic as a defensive concept. But of course, it also has its
shortcomings. They are not however nearly as dire as the Popular Front.
The United Front model can be confusedly applied by some Trotskyist
groups to all manner of situations and levels of political struggle. For
example, to Choonara of the International Socialists the United Front
can include campaign work, where progressive alliances actually include
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois organisations. (Choonara, 2007) This can
result in socialist organisations tailing or subsuming their politics to
Social Democratic and liberal forces who vastly outnumber them. The
International Socialists in Australia were an organisation that fell
victim to such mistaken analysis. Debates around the United Front formed
part of the basis of the Socialist Alternative and Solidarity split.
(Armstrong, 2010)
The mistaken employment of the United Front in campaigns can function as
cover for liberal politics. Furthermore, in more serious political
alliances the United Front can risk being interpreted by workers as a
betrayal of revolutionary principles. Especially if at crucial moments
reformist forces do not live up to their agreed task in action to
achieve particular goals, or if Social Democratic forces turn on
revolutionaries. In both situations this risks leaving revolutionary
forces isolated and appearing as adventurists. Finally, the agreement by
leadership of organisations to a United Front does not guarantee
co-operation at a rank and file level. Ultimately, what makes a United
Front effective is both the trust built by working together at base
levels of the constituent organisations, the political and social
level[5] at which the United Front is to operate, and a correct analysis
of the conjuncture.
As discussed before, there can be no denying that the Popular Front was
the beginning of the end of the Spanish Revolution. With hindsight the
failures of the Spanish proletariat to complete its tasks in making
revolution are apparent. However in the years preceding ‘36, the
anarcho-syndicalist movement faced other moments that were potentially
revolutionary.
In particular, in 1934, the mining region of Asturias erupted in a
revolt coined by history as the ‘Asturian Commune.’[6] The revolt was a
planned uprising in response to a fascist organisation, CEDA, joining
the newly elected Government. (Samblas, 2005) It was precipitated by a
revolutionary coalition known as the Alianza Obrera, or (Revolutionary)
Workers Alliance. Initially formed by the anarcho-syndicalist trade
union CNT, the socialist dominated UGT, it was later joined by the PSOE
(Spanish Socialist Party), the BOC (Worker-Peasant Bloc, left wing
Marxists), the Communist Left and the Communist Party. (Hernandez, 1994)
In Asturias the rank and file of the socialist movement were far more
left-wing than the rest of the country, and the local federation of the
CNT sought to unite with fellow workers for revolutionary aspirations.
(Palomo, 2017) In the mind of the majority of the Asturian CNT, unity
could be formed on the basis of the workers’ economic basis and around a
basic program of workers’ democracy. (Fernández, 1934) That is, their
existence as producers was enough to unite workers in revolutionary
aspirations, rather than ‘political’ loyalties. This anti-political[7]
attitude was typical of anarcho-syndicalists more broadly.
Outside of Asturias however, national tensions between the political
forces undermined efforts at forming a country-wide Workers Alliance.
The top down approach of other political forces, combined with a history
of PSOE repression and UGT scabbing against anarchist workers fed into
an untimely sectarianism. The FAI in particular was hostile to the
Workers Alliance. When the revolt erupted, the alliance failed for
various reasons in every other region. Though a majority of the country
went on general strike, it left Asturias to fight alone. The workers
held out for a fortnight, establishing a form of proletarian
self-governance until crushed by the military. (Hernandez, 1994)
There is an incredibly complicated history to the relations between the
UGT and CNT which is not the task of this article to delve into. However
we can draw a number of lessons on the anarcho-syndicalist conception of
the Workers Alliance. Firstly, the Asturian syndicalists were correct in
their analysis of the potentially productive relationship with socialist
workers. However, the national movement lacked the capacity to make
appropriate analysis of the conjuncture they were situated in. (Palomo,
2017) Part of the flaw in their thinking was the naive belief that
workers could be united purely on the basis of their proletarian
existence. This reflects the anarcho-syndicalist mistake of collapsing
of the social and political levels.
During the Spanish Revolution, this mistake would again rear its head.
CNT members would join revolutionary committees at various levels with
UGT members on the basis of their ‘proletarian unity.’ However Stalinist
members of the PSUC would use their UGT cards to enter these committees
and argue against revolutionary ends.
Where the Workers Alliance was correct was the understanding of the need
to fight together. There was a correct analysis that a positive
relationship with the rank and file of the UGT in action could win
workers over to increasingly revolutionary perspectives. This was made
more difficult by the confused anarcho-syndicalist approach to politics,
and the split basis of the labour movement in Spain.
The third example we will turn to is that of the unique experience of
the Federación Anarquista Uruguay (FAU) during the 1960’s and 70’s. The
FAU’s insight of coalitions of struggle on three levels marks a unique
moment in proletarian history and a break from the political realities
which produced the first United Fronts.
Firstly, the Combativa Tendencia. During the end of the 1960’s the FAU
helped precipitate the forming of a new national union body in Uruguay
that would compose over 90% of unionised workers. The majority of these
workers who were members of political parties belong to the Uruguayan
Communist Party, a reformist organisation obedient to Soviet interests.
Within the CNT, the FAU set about organising with more militant Marxist
groups, such as the MLN-Tupamaros. Together, these groupings made up the
Combative Tendency voting block. (Kokinis, Forthcoming)
While the CP attempted to push progressive movements and organisations
toward their electoral project, the Frente Ampilio (Broad Font), the FAU
and the Tendencia grew in the vacuum left by CP leadership in the labour
movement. While the Frente Apilio proved an abysmal failure, by 1973
even unions that were traditional Communist Party strongholds were
breaking party policy, striking and occupying factories. As an internal
FAU document from the period notes, “in the end.. what matters… is who
organises and practically leads the struggle. Not who has the majority
at congresses.” (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, 2021) Amid the
escalating tension of class war, the military launched a coup in June
1973. The CNT launched a nationwide general strike and factory
occupations in response. The CP returned its unions to work within a
week, leaving more militant Tendencia unions isolated to fight.
Eventually these also gave in, and the military assumed control of the
country.
In exile, former members of the Frente Ampilio broke away from the
Communist Party, and instead formed a Frente Nacional de Resistencia
which included the FAU. This finally smashed Communist Party hegemony,
but only in exile. (Kokinis, Forthcoming) The FAU and Tendencia had
found a way to encourage class struggle and channel it towards
transformative direct action methods outside the control of a much
larger, institutionalised Communist Party. They believed the labour
movement was the only thing capable of overcoming the looming military
coup, but were left too isolated to achieve victory when the moment
came.
The secondary aspect of the period is known as the Las Dos Patos, or
“Two Feet” strategy. This included a mass organisation, Resistencia
Obrero Estudiantil, or Workers Student Resistance (ROE) which aimed to
bring together the emerging struggles both in the workplace and social
movements. The ROE effectively integrated over ten thousand people
broadly on the far left, including radical Marxist groups. (Kokinis,
Forthcoming) The ROE was used to caucus along joint lines of action
within the unions during the period the FAU was illegal and hence
underground. This secondary level of organisation allowed for the FAU to
find a functional apparatus above ground, united broader social groups
behind labour conflicts, and allowed different radical groups the
ability to ‘strike together.’
The other side of the Las Dos Patos was the People’s Revolutionary
Organisation (OPR-33), an armed wing of the FAU. Subordinated to
political organisation, its primary tasks were the undertaking of
missions that supported the mass workers’ struggle. This included
kidnappings only when the labour struggle had reached its maximum
potential during strikes. Industry moguls like Molaguera, a baron in the
rubber industry, was taken but not harmed. Somewhat surprisingly, this
tactic usually led to successful conclusions for labour struggles.
(Sharkley, 2009) This is perhaps related to the close basis the OPR
militants had in the concerned workplaces.
Such actions occurred in the context of a continental wide surge of
armed struggle inspired by the Cuban Revolution. The OPR however
differed sharply on the strategies and reasons for employing armed
struggle, with the FAU offering scathing critiques of vanguardist
Marxist groups in the region. (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, 1972)
This did not however, stop them from engaging in joint action with
groups like the MLN-Tupamaros at crucial times in the national
struggle.[8]
Unlike the prior examples of Italy, Russia and Spain, Uruguayan
revolutionaries faced a uniquely difficult task. Not only were they
building capacity for revolution, but also confronting a situation of
popular struggle dominated by the hegemony of a Communist Party that was
revolutionary in name but reformist in practice. As we can see, the FAU
navigated the dynamics of a turbulent social period with unique insight.
This was made possible by the high level of political clarity, based
around unitary theory and a programme, which the former anarchist
organisations discussed often lacked. The methodology of performing
concrete analysis of where practical alliances can be made and to
achieve what ends feeds into the next conception further developed by
South American especifist groups.
A model that some especifist anarchists have developed in order to frame
and direct their own intervention into movements and struggles is the
Grouping of Tendency. It is different to the aforementioned Popular and
United Fronts, as it operates at the levels of both social movements and
political struggle. The clear distinction between the social and
political levels in especifist theory allows for a concrete analysis of
what alliances can be made and where across society.
For the grouping of tendencies, in any situation where a coalition of
forces is gathered to achieve a particular aim, anarchists attempt to
establish an intermediate form of organisation based on a set of
coherent definitions of practice and ideological affinities. (Federação
Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, 2008) This model can be seen to be
inspired by the work of the FAU via the Resistencia Obrero Estudiantil.
It is practical in a situation where both the anarchist organisation and
the social movement may be better served by participating through a
broader organisation. Before establishing a Grouping of Tendency,
organisations involved study the material conditions and prospects of
achieving the end goals to assure it is the right strategic choice. It
is quite possible that direct participation in a social movement as an
anarchist organisation is the correct strategy, and the Grouping of
Tendency risks the similar mistake that certain Marxists groups use in
employing the United Front. However, the distinction of having a
theoretical framework for social movement and union work as opposed to
revolutionary situations is not to be underestimated.
As we have seen from only a few examples, the history of anarchism has
been rich with practical struggles. There are lessons from countless
contexts to draw upon when informing our analysis of potential outcomes
at any conjuncture. That the Popular Front was a disaster cannot be
disputed, with the subsumption of revolutionary movements and
organisations to the interests of bourgeois politics. The lesson that
proletarian organisations must maintain their independence is written in
the blood of Spanish revolutionaries.
The United Front, undoubtedly rich in history both amongst anarchists
and Marxists, is a concept that can be refined and drawn upon in
important situations. From potentially revolutionary moments, to the
harrowing work of anti-fascism. The mistakes of the Italian and German
Marxists in rejecting the defensive United Front are stamped in history
as great proletarian tragedies. But that does not mean it is a model to
be applied to all manner of social work. As we can see, even in the
Australian context, it can be mistakenly applied when an organisation
does not have a theoretical framework for social work at various
political levels. Engaging with other organisations with a framework
also helps avoid the pitfalls of unprincipled sectarianism. Knowing
when, where and why to argue against another organisation is a standard
of an organisation or tendency that is serious about its goals and how
to achieve them.
The Grouping of Tendency, developed from the experiences of the FAU and
further refined by the experience of especifist organisations can be a
useful framework for engagement. Again, this depends on the tasks at
hand and the means of achieving them. Revolutionaries should ask
themselves: what approach best serves both the movement and the growth
of the ideology? With what means can we achieve the ends we seek in a
particular moment? What are the balance of forces? Are we working in
unions, social movements or facing the prospect of revolutionary
transformation? Will betrayal or repression smash us, our allies, or the
movement? How does the international situation inform prospects?
The situation faced today is immensely different to those faced by the
organisations discussed in this article. Ultimately, a framework is a
useful guide based on previous experience. However it is not a
substitute for politics, the ability to think critically and
collectively analyse a situation.
There are countless factors that must be analysed in any situation.
Correct understanding requires not only concrete involvement in the mass
struggle, but theoretical unity and a sense of direction. This is the
strength of the specific anarchist-communist organisation, avoiding the
mistakes of other anarchist tendencies and some former movements. In the
end, what matters is that our actions contribute to the development of
working class power.
Armstrong, M. (2010). The origins of Socialist Alternative: summing up
the debate. Marxist Left Review.
Choonara, J. (2007, 12 18). The United Front. International Socialist
Journal.
Communist Workers Organisation. (2011). Spain 1934–1939: From Working
Class Struggle to Imperialist War.
Cooper, S. (2021, 1 16). How We Fight to Win: The United Front versus
the Popular Front. Left Voice.
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. (2008). Social Anarchism and
Organisation. Zabalaza Books.
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya. (1972). COPEI: Commentary on Armed
Struggle and Foquismo in Latin America. Black Rose Rosa Negra Anarchist
Federation.
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya. (2021, 2 18). 7 FAU Letters and Two
Trade Union Documents. Anarkismo.
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici. (2003). Anarchist Communism: A
Question of Class. The Anarchist Library.
Fernández, V. O. (1934). The Platform of the Workers Alliance. Libcom.
Fighting Talk. (1996, 7). Arditi del Popolo — The First Anti-Fascists.
Libcom.
Hallas, D. (1972). Against the Stream: The Origins of the Fourth
Internationalist Movement. Marxists.Org.
Hernandez, J. L. (1994). The Asturian Commune of 1934. Kate Sharpley
Library.
Kokinis, T. A. (Forthcoming). An Anarchy For The South: Third Worldism,
Popular Power and the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation. In Transatlantic
Uruguay. Routledge Press.
Lawson, T. (2021, 3 7). Anarchists In A Workers Uprising: Italys Biennio
Rosso. Libcom.
Malatesta, E. (2014). The Method of Freedom (1^(st) ed.). AK Press.
Palomo, R. Á. (2017, 3 23). Orobón Fernández and the Workers Alliance.
Libcom.
Price, W. (2012). Left Communism: An Anarchist Perspective. The
Anarchist Library.
Samblas, R. (2005). Lessons of the Asturian Commune, October 1934. In
Defense of Marxism.
Sharkey, P. (2009). The Federación Anarquista Uruguaya: Crisis, Armed
Struggle and Dictatorship 1967–1985. Kate Sharpley Library.
Trotsky, L. (1922). The Question of the United Front. Marxists.Org.
Trotsky, L. (1931). For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism.
Marxists.org.
[1] Ie, Trotskyists, Maoists, Autonomists, Syndicalists etc.
[2] In particular, the so called ‘Bread Wars’ of Barcelona, orchestrated
by a Stalinist minister returned the working class population of the
city to near starvation levels. Socialised production and distribution
was smashed and returned to speculators and private ownership,
decimating the ability of many families to feed themselves. When the
priority becomes food, there is also less time for politics.
[3] The long history of betrayal between German Social Democrats and
Communists fed into a hostile relationship, further damaged by the
Cominterns ‘ultra-left’ opposition to United Fronts at the time. This
had dire consequences. Similarly in Argentina, anti-fascist work was
marred by hostile relations between anarchists and Marxists. Anarchists
would not work with Marxists who would not speak up for their imprisoned
comrades in Russia. Sometimes in anti-fascist work, it can be more
important to swallow our pride.
[4] For more on the Proletarian United Front and the limits of
collaborative action, see Vernon Richards “Life and Ideas: The Anarchist
Writings of Errico Malatesta”, PM Press.
[5] For example, during revolutionary action, anti-fascist organising,
and social movements. All these situations can require different
alliances, strategies and tactics and should not be confused. Hence the
importance of the correct conjunctural analysis.
[6] For a comprehensive overview of the events of 1934 in Asturias, see
Matthew Kerry, “Unite, Proletarian Brothers! Radicalism and Revolution
in the Spanish Second Republic”, University of London Press.
[7] It is a common myth that anarchist ‘anti-politics’ means to
completely ignore politics. It actually means to abstain from
parliamentary politics, and fight for political gains using economic
methods, i.e. trade unionism, strikes, boycotts and workplace sabotage.
While syndicalists may refuse ‘politics’ at times, the flipside of this
abstentionism can be opportunistic alliances.
[8] For a brilliant critique of terroristic armed struggle see the
Brisbane Self-Management Groups pamphlet “You Can’t Blow Up A Social
Relationship,” alternative published by the Australian Libertarian
Socialist Organisation.