đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș combativeunionism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:39:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Combative Unionism Author: Prairie Struggle Language: en Topics: anarcho-syndicalism, platformism, position paper, the platform, North America Source: Retrieved on 10th December 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/combative-unionism-waging-class-war-within-labour][libcom.org]] and [[https://libcom.org/library/combative-unionism-clarifications-our-position-paper Notes: Position paper on Combative Unionism by Prairie Struggle Anarchist Communist Organization of the Prairies
As anarchists, we at the Prairie Struggle Organization have dedicated
much time and effort to agitation within the working class and its
labour organizations. Despite our various efforts, wins, losses and
relationships created we still find ourselves questioning the most
effective method to agitate on the shop floors, within schools and in
our communities.
Within the broader radical left it has been discussed many times by
various organizations and non-affiliates, whether or not the labour
movement can be an area to work towards positive change. Some have been
very critical to the point of negating the usefulness âif anyâ of
unions. Others have been completely uncritical, underlining every
victory, and attacking any who voice critique regarding unions and the
labour movement. We see this debate as jaded and in certain instances
un-reconcilable. While acknowledging this debate exists, for us the
question is not one of support for unions within this system, but one of
tactics and what can be done under these conditions to promote
revolutionary change. The question is not if we should be involved
within the labor movement, but how?
In bringing forward insights that aim to make us more effective in
reaching our goals as revolutionaries, here we lay the basis of our
position paper. âCombative Unionismâ illustrates a specific strategy
that should be applied within the labour movement.
In this position paper we hope to contribute to the relevant work and
theoretical development that has been done or is already underway. We
salute our comrades within the revolutionary left that are active in
undermining bureaucratic control over working class power.
Throughout the last 50 years in North America, despite a very active
minority within labour such as the IWW (Industrial Workers of the
World), WSA (Workers Solidarity Alliance), elements of NEFAC (North
Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists), and other elements within
the broader revolutionary left, a majority of the left has moved away
from organized labour and into campaigns regarding the more marginalized
segments of our society.
The focus of these efforts touch on homelessness, unemployment, womenâs
rights, queer and trans rights, racism, migrant rights and an endless
list of other various oppressions/struggles, the majority of which
having been abandoned by the contemporary labour movement. We feel these
struggles should be taken up by revolutionaries and their organizations.
When leading the battle of ideas in an effort to encourage working class
control, every opportunity should be taken when it comes to defending
all segments of the working class.
Historically, the revolutionary left has always played an important role
within the labour movement and put forward a program of Bread, Roses and
Revolution lead by the working class. So why are important segments of
our movements today choosing marginality, which holds many limits,
instead of finding ways to agitate within the broader working class and
building solidarity by addressing root causes of all our struggles? The
answer to this question is long and complex.
Tactically, it has been easier to organize within smaller segments and
communities among the more marginalized. When viewed from a short-term
perspective, outreach within communities that are more oppressed due to
precarious conditions caused by homelessness, joblessness or citizenship
status (to only name a few) are fruitful grounds for organizing because
in some respects they are highly vulnerable and mobilize to fight for
basic means of living and dignity. Other aspects of marginality are
close to anarchism because they reflect a less urgent, but more
lifestyle, discontented culture associated with anarchism (punk,
dumpster diving, diy and zine culture etc.).
If we look at the long-term effects of such strategies, we can see that
these tactics and ideas have produced positive results within the
marginal sectors of the working class but in some respects only act to
alienate the movement from our own class. Like oppositional lifestyle
cultures, the concern becomes that organizing on marginal lines
reinforces new binaries on the same lines of those they wish to abolish.
Organizing to fight with the marginal is a goal, but not when these
efforts result in redefining who is excluded, and especially not when
these results act to exclude and/or reject the working class, a class
within which the marginal are members, and is historically excluded and
dispossessed. Unlike lifestyle cultures (that alienate by their sheer
contrast to modernity), this form of alienation is dangerous because it
commonly acts to remove these struggles from working class terrain, and
acts to demobilize rather than organize. While in some instances this is
successful, the revolutionary potential of this strategy isnât tested.
1. Prairie Struggle Organization understands that no revolution can or
will occur without organizing huge segments of the workforce into a
combative labour movement because ultimately, the ruling class gains its
power through the wealth and privilege extracted from our labour. The
overthrow of this system will ultimately rely on removing the source of
their power, which is capital generated through our exploitation. In
saluting the efforts of our sisters and brothers that are involved
within the various struggles mentioned above, we argue for the
fundamental necessity to fight all oppressions. However, we stress the
importance that revolutionaries need to make every attempt to agitate
and mobilize the broader workforce despite the degree of marginalization
or how un-marginal, un-receptive and unpopular they are among the left.
Here we offer a brief look at the CGT (General Confederation of Labour)
in France which is one of the founders of syndicalism in order to
understand the core principles of this theory and some of their union
counterparts.
Before the arrival of syndicalism and the CGT in France, it is important
to acknowledge that associations of workers of the same trade have
existed since the Middle Ages. For the most part their purpose was to
negotiate wages and working conditions; they resembled mutual aid
organizations more then unions. Being banned by the Le Chapelier Law in
1791, which was later kept in the Napoleonic Code, these Workersâ
associations continued to exist underground and it was only in 1864 that
they were permitted to come out as a tolerated body. In 1884 they were
legalized.
In 1895 various trade unions and other workersâ organizations joined
together to form the CGT (Confédération Générale du Travail or General
Confederation of Labour) which in 1902 declared its objective to be âthe
disappearance of the wage system and employersâ. In 1906, the CGT
adopted at its congress in Amiens its core principles and points of
unity. We have underlined core points from the âCharte dâAmiensâ[1]
below (in a modern translation). We feel these points are paramount to
the creation of a combative labour movement today:
âThe General Confederation of Labour unites, independent of all
political groupings, all workers who recognize the struggle to be
carried on for the abolition of the wages system [...]â
âCongress considers this declaration to be a recognition of the class
struggle which, on the economic field, places the workers in revolt
against all forms of exploitation and oppression, material and moral,
carried out by the capitalist class against the working class.â
âRegarding day-to-day needs. Trade Unionism pursues the co-ordination of
the efforts of the workers, the increase of the workersâ welfare through
the realization of immediate amelioration, such as the shortening of
working hours, wage increases, etc.â
But this is only one aspect of its task. Trade Unionism is preparing
complete emancipation, which can only be realized by the expropriation
of the capitalist class. It favours as a means to this end the general
strike and considers that the trade union, now a unit of resistance,
will in the future be the unit of production and distribution, the basis
of social re-organization.
âCongress declares that this two-fold task, for day-to-day life and for
the future, arises from the actual position of wage-earners, which
forces the working class and imposes on all workers, whatever their
opinion and political and philosophical views, the duty to belong to the
basic organization, the trade union. Therefore, so far as individual
members are concerned, Congress declares complete freedom for every
Trade Unionist to participate, outside of the trade organization, in any
forms of struggle in accordance with his political or philosophical
views, confining itself only to asking him, in return, not to introduce
into the trade union the opinions, which he professes outside it.â
Anarchists were also involved in the elaboration of what we have come to
know as Anarcho-Syndicalism. Here we find many similarities in Rockerâs
Anarcho-Syndicalism despite being worded differently:
the trade union, the syndicate, is the unified organisation of labour
and has for its purpose the defence of the interests of the producers in
the existing society and the preparing for and the practical carrying
out of the reconstruction of social life after the pattern of Socialism.
It has, therefore, a double purpose:
enforce the demands of the workers for the safeguarding and raising of
their standard of living;
them acquainted with the technical management of production and economic
life in general, so that when the revolutionary situation arises they
will be capable of taking the socio-economic organism into their own
hands and remaking it according to Socialist principles[2].
From these historic examples, Prairie Struggle Organization draws the
following conclusions:
class interests of the workers. They come to existence by the need of
workers to organize on class lines and advance their own interests in
opposition to those of the bosses[3].
day-to-day issues; and, secondly, providing the democratic
organisational structure through which workers can seize and self-manage
the means of production in the building of a new world.
Prairie Struggle makes the distinction between four different kinds of
union organizations. From the evolution of mutual aid groups, to the
development of revolutionary unions that preceded the contemporary
labour movement, the following styles of unionism are relevant today.
Even though Syndicalism has shaped modern unionism, in a huge way this
does not mean that unions are impenetrable and cannot be co-opted to
serve the ruling class. Even with state repression and law at the
disposal of those who own the means of production and profit from the
exploitation of the working class, there is no better tool to render
unions ineffective than unions themselves. These Trojan horses carry
with in their belly the effective tools of exploitation.
Lobby unions, despite having no official ideology aside from being
unions for those who donât wish to be unionized, are characterized by
the idea that within capitalism, no one exploits anyone. The belief
within these unions is that society is based on the foundation of
justice and democracy, which translate to the legal and just exchange of
services for a honest days work[4].
Lobby unions serve the ruling class as a way to stimulate sedition and
artificial separation within the working class under the pretext that
our struggle is one of the same between two radical antagonisms. The
primary role is to stop the advance of business and combative unions so
that collective agreements serve the interest of bossâ. More often
associated with reactionary political forces, these unions favor social
peace and in times of conflicts, systematic repression. Among many, we
find within the ranks of lobby unions the Christian Labour Association
of Canada (CLAC), The Specialty and Temporary Employers Union (STEU),
and the Syndicat Quebecois de la Construction (SQC) to only name a few.
It is needless to say that we do not consider lobby unions as an area
that revolutionaries should invest any time in. These unions are unfit
to sport the title of âunionâ being as they do not exist to defend
workers. They are the enemy within and should be dealt with extreme
hostility.
The major difference between lobby unions and business unions is that
the second was born within the working class for the defense of the
working class. Despite their rich history of often being sparked by
syndicalist tendencies, these unions have now become complacent.
Business unions, despite having roots in working class organizing, rely
on a network of legal and bureaucratic channels . The effect has been
the rise of a bureaucratic class within these unions that handles all or
most aspects of the day to day functioning of the union. While these
bureaucrats have often worked on the shop floor, and rose within the
labour movement through active participation, their total removal from
members affected by their decisions often leads to a lack of risk
taking, and a lot of compromise with the bosses at the expense of the
workers.
The legal nature of these unions means that the fundamental tools used
for self-defence by the working class, such as strikes and other job
actions, are now subject to legal overview by contracts and by
government.
Lastly, many union bureaucrats have extensive ties to political parties
and governments. Prominent relationships include that between business
unions and the Democratic Party in the U.S, and the New Democratic Party
in Canada. The effect is that organizing often looks a lot more like a
partisan campaign than an attempt to mobilize workers for gains.
Business unions can be characterized by the principle of âle partage du
gateauâ or the sharing of the cake with the boss[5]. They donât develop
class antagonisms, but they do offer services that represent workers and
space to fight for better gains and protection in the workplace.
The revolutionary potential that was present in the early history of the
North American labour movement has been largely supplanted by the
compromising positions of the business unions. Stemming back to the
early 1900s, we saw a new political direction arising. Rather than
engaging in class antagonisms, and adopting politics that are
anti-capitalist and syndicalist in nature, these new groups and their
affiliates were aligning their interests with political parties, and
failing to focus sufficiently on shop floor organizing.
This strategy has paid off for the business unions â some have managed
to secure their status through the development of specific laws
mandating the conduct of unions in all matters, including the strike,
dues deduction, organizing, and contract enforcement. This legal
direction enveloped unions into the pro-capitalist and oppressive
framework of the state, making both the bureaucratic centralism of the
unions and the new political strategies they adopted permanent and the
dominant paradigm.
This strategy that focuses more on political allegiances rather than
shop floor organizing has weakened the status of unions within their
legal framework. The establishment of a bureaucratic class of permanent
workers within the unions themselves is much to blame. The effect is
they now function to coordinate the legalization of worker struggles,
and the pacification of grassroots militancy. Further, because these
bureaucrats effectively have a monopoly on the day to day functions of
the union, they perceive themselves as having more experience and
knowledge than the workers on the shop floor. The result has been
detachment from the struggles as well.
While the ruling class has always worked against unions and workers, in
the past 10 years the legal and structural weaknesses union bureaucrats
have exposed our unions to is mounting. The very existence of unions is
under attack from the erosion of laws; whatâs more, interpretations of
laws themselves are increasingly favouring employers over employees.
Many union workers are detached from the politics of class antagonisms,
if not from the union altogether, and strikebreakers are beginning to
move into the realm of acceptance, instead of being labelled as the
filthy scabs they are. Only when these changes have begun to attack
union dues and the source of bureaucratic income and job security have
they actually begun to acknowledge there is something wrong with their
legal strategy.
Thus, we now see business unions engaging in more grass-roots
strategies, such as the OurWalmart campaign, Fight for a Fair Economy,
and the Fast Food Forward campaign. However, what must be noted is that
these struggles are still bureaucratically controlled and directed.
Therefore, moving forward with the realities this presents, Prairie
Struggle Organization recognizes that we as revolutionaries need to take
back these struggles from bureaucratic control rather than slip further
into the collective coma that bureaucratic unionism has put us in. While
it is wished that combative unionism would take hold in these unions,
the current potential for this is slim. However, through radical
organizing and engagement under the principles of combative unionism, we
hold that confrontation and challenge to these bureaucratic orders from
the âshop floorâ is a much needed step towards reinvigorating the base
of these unions, the members. It is this process that will proliferate
combative unionist ideas under the context of business unionism, and
escalate antagonisms with the bureaucratic class to both expose and
challenge their authority.
Combative unions derive from the principle of âby the workers, for the
workersâ. Whereas business unions favour bureaucracy, combative unions
and their militants favour member participation and dedication. Based
and regrouped on the parameters of class, these unions draw a clear line
between them selves and the boss. Their tactics are often decided on the
criteria of effectiveness and disregard unjust laws put in place to
limit their struggles. From top down of its structure we find the
General assembly, Committees and executives to ensure the respect of
direct democracy. A very important point to note is the massive use of
alternative & independent media to assure the distribution of
information and theoretical development within the membership.
Looking more particularly at the history of combative unionism within
the broader workforce in the 1960âs and 1970âs, we notice that outside
the student movement in Québec, combative unionism was not practiced by
one union but by militant revolutionaries within most of the major
federations of labour such as the âConfĂ©dĂ©ration des syndicats
nationauxâ (CSN), The âCorporation des enseignants du QuĂ©becâ(CEQ or now
known as the CSQ), and small elements with in the âFĂ©dĂ©ration des
travailleurs et travailleuses du QuĂ©becâ (FTQ) like the Firestone
workers who eventually joined up with the CSN. These militants actively
strived for worker control within the federations and battle bureaucracy
on a daily basis. While Combative unionism spawns from revolutionary
intellectual circles, it had a hard time laying roots within the
majority of the unionized working class mostly regrouped within the
FTQ[6]. Despite these difficulties, revolutionaries still made sizable
impacts on the positions of these federations. For example, in the 1970s
the federations each released position papers taking clear
anti-capitalist stances, a clear demonstration of the impact the
revolutionary left had:
âNe comptons que sur nos propres moyensâ (We only count on our own
means) â CSN
âLâĂtat: un rouage de notre exploitationâ (The state: A gear in the
system of our exploitation) â FTQ
âLâĂ©cole au service la classe dominanteâ (Schools at the service of the
ruling class) â CEQ
Despite the appearance of combative unionism within the workforce and
student movement around the same time, these two groups disagreed on one
fundamental element. Though both agreed that in the short term unions
need to fight for bread and roses issues, and that in the long term, the
preparation of a better world; they did not agree on how to achieve the
last. The workforce movement advanced the idea of the creation of a
political force. This political force would find its place within the
idea of a revolutionary working class electoral party[7]. The student
movement on the other hand practiced complete autonomy from any
political parties. Prairie Struggle takes the position that partisan
engagement dilutes our struggle and therefore, we agree with the
autonomy put forth by the student movement.
More recently in Canada we have seen one of the most powerful and
combative social movements emerge out of Quebec within its student union
movement. Spearheading this movement is lâAssociation pour une
SolidaritĂ© Syndicale Ătudiante (ASSĂ). Lâ ASSĂ was founded in February
2001 and is responsible for the 2005, failed 2007 and 2012 student
general strikes. LâASSĂ who subscribe to âsyndicalism de combatâ or
combative unionism counts more than 70,000 members. From LâANEEQ
(National Association of Quebec Students) to the MDE (Democratic student
movement), these organizations have been leading the Québec student
movement always in a more syndicalist direction. Lâ ASSĂ has inherited a
rich history of student syndicalism that spans into the 1960âs and has
led the push for a democratic, combative and autonomous union movement.
Other organizations such as SUD Ătudiant in the French student movement
also subscribe to combative unionism (Syndicalisme de Lutte). The Quebec
student movement has in the past been a focus of Prairie Struggle
Organization, and we have appended a document detailing the movement
produced by the key speaker of our Canada-wide tour on the 2012 general
strike below. (
)
Marginalized
As we acknowledge in North America the existence and rich history of the
IWW, we also notice Europeâs history and the existence of revolutionary
unionism via the CNT/AIT and CGT among many others. This form of
revolutionary unionism attacks bureaucracy and corporatism by its
methods of organization, which is reflected in their revolutionary
anti-capitalist, and anti-hierarchical stances and positions. We also
recognize that these unions constitute a major amelioration of the
current problems related to unions, and reiterate that we are an ally of
these organizations and fight along side them in the struggle for worker
control of unions.
Despite being close to most of our positions on unions and the labour
movement, Prairie Struggle does not foresee any endorsement to this
strategy in our own context. We disagree that the creation of such
revolutionary unions from scratch in this current state of affairs of
North America is the most effective direction. We share the need to
establish a growing combative revolutionary union movement but disagree
that this can happen outside the current labour movement and its unions.
Our âendsâ are the same but strategy is our point of disagreement.
Some advocates of workersâ councils point to the evolution of work, the
rise of precarity, and the inability of business unions to effectively
challenge capital as proof that these unions are no longer able to act
on existing class antagonisms. While on the surface this critique makes
valid points, the solutions proposed by advocates of workers councils
raise more questions than answers. While we agree with most critiques of
the current labour movement put forward by these advocates, we donât
agree the solutions to these problems can be found in pushing towards
new forms of worker organizations that are aimed at radicalizing workers
in trade wide networks. In theory, these solutions are extremely
attractive, but the question that remains to be answered is how we
organize rank and file workers towards this direction, and how these
organizations themselves will differ from unions. Many advocates of the
councils point to these organizations as a hotbed for radical
organizers, but then the question that remains is, how will these
radical council organizers avoid becoming yet another marginalized
anti-capitalist ghetto? To sum up the argument, we view the dialectic of
council communism as an interesting direction for the labour movement,
and believe that at some point the position put forward in this paper
intersects with some of these ideas; however, the question we are
seeking to answer is not one of proposing alternatives, but a question
of how we organize towards these alternatives meaningfully.
The current unions historically belong to the workers and many of its
core members still see it that way. We argue that if workers are not
capable or willing to fight for their own institutions in spite of
faults, the creation or joining of a revolutionary labour movement is
even more unlikely. We feel that confrontation within the current labour
movement for more effective, combative and democratic means are what in
the long run will establish a more revolutionary labour movement. With
direct confrontation, and exposure of class antagonism within labour,
radicalization is the outcome.
We acknowledge that some who identify with revolutionary unionism or
council communism already practice Combative unionism in the perspective
of creating a revolutionary labour movement out of the old labour
institutions. We would like to clarify that our critiques are not
pointed at them, but comrades who strictly practice these pure
traditions.
Looking at the current state of the labour movement, it is hard for some
to see opportunities in possibly turning the tables to fight effectively
against corporatist, lobby-like unions. Facing this obstacle, parts of
the movement that are still loyal to a certain form of involvement
within labor focus on alternative labor institutions such as workerâs
centers, solidarity networks or revolutionary unions. Historically, the
labour movement once put much energy into building more alternative
institutions. Mutual aid functions were provided through workersâ
organizations that would create a network of cooperative institutions
like schools, daycares, popular soup kitchens, homes for the aged,
health and cultural centers, insurance plans, trade related education,
housing, etc. We recognize that even though much of these services are
provided for most workers (though unfortunately not those people without
status or citizenship), revolutionaries should actively strive to build
self-managed social services that are controlled by the workers
themselves. We also understand that with the coming of age of
Neo-liberalism, these services have been greatly reduced due to budget
cuts and austerity measures.
Prairie Struggle Organization is an advocate of a dual power strategy,
otherwise known as Counter power, which mandates a seizure of power over
services rendered by the state and subsequently contests the existing
power structures of state and capitalism. We take a position in favour
of creating worker owned and run services under capitalism, on the basis
that the working class benefits from these services. We believe that
such institutions and programs open up space for experimentation of a
limited form of self-management under capitalism. However, we stress
that alone this does not constitute a strategy for revolutionary change
and the overthrow of capitalism. Its subjects do not substitute
capitalism peacefully. It must be integrated within a program that holds
the tools to fight recuperation, appeasement and repressions.
Here we point to the core principles of combative unions using the
student movement to draw out the relevant positions. It should be noted
that while we use the Quebec student movement to draw out these points,
most of these principles are also found in those practicing combative
unionism within labour unions, and the workplace. If these principles do
not already exist in the workplace context, part of the task for these
militant workers is to create them.
These organizations are again oriented on the principles of class
despite sometimes organizing within non-homogenous sectors of society
containing both rich and poor. In the student movement, the emphasis on
class derives from the âcharter of student syndicalismâ or later known
as the âCharte de Grenobleâ. In 1946, the National Union of French
Students, or UNEF by its French acronym, adopted this founding document
which defined the student as a young intellectual worker.
Article 4: âAs a worker, the student has a right to work and rest in the
best of conditions and in material independence, both personal and
social, guaranteed by the free exercise of syndicalist rights.â
Article 7: âAs an intellectual, the student has a responsibility â to
seek out, propagate and defend Truth which entails sharing and advancing
culture as well as drawing the meaning of history â to defend liberty
against all oppression, which constitutes, for the intellectual, his
most sacred missionâ[7].
The idea of combative unionism is that a union is ârun by its members.
For its membersâ, meaning that the use of a bottom up structure that is
directly democratic through the general assembly of the union as its
decision making apparatus âšand a militant rejection of representative
democracy.
Within unions affiliated to LâASSE, the executive boards only implement
the decisions of the assemblies and run the everyday operations of the
unions. All executive positions are on a voluntary basis and are elected
by its general assembly. These unions are militant in making a statement
to limit the bureaucracy within the union by organizing members into the
various union structures. LâASSĂ only has one paid employee (secretary),
and when negotiations are underway, delegates have clear mandate or
positions to defend but have no authority to accept any compromise.
In order to stimulate member participation and keep members informed on
all aspects of the unions, alternative and autonomous methods such as
leaflets, newspapers, websites, posters and social media are used on a
grand scale. In contrast to lobbyist student associations (like the
Canadian Federation of Students) that spend most of their comparatively
large budgets on PR campaigns and salaries, these combative unions
operate at a similar capacity using a lot less financial resources.
Their militant tactics come from the understanding that the state is not
a neutral institution where the whole of society has equal
representation. They understand the stateâs role is the defense of
business interests and finance. From this realization they see that the
state is at the service of capitalism and that the laws confining their
methods of action are also developed to protect capitalism and
capitalist interests. The actions used by these militants, therefore,
are not decided by the legality of the actions, but rather how effective
they are in forcing the hand of the state to accept their demands.
Their main weapon is the general strike to force the state(or employer)
into accepting their demands. The student movement pushes their demands
by shutting down educational institutions and occupying them, and the
general strike uses direct action outside these institutions to disrupt
business as usual within the city to add pressure to negotiations. While
they are not always successful in shutting down these institutions, and
in other actions, mass mobilization, direct action and the general
strike increases the potential to win student demands.
Typically, the intensity of actions is decided by involved members of
the unions through mobilization committees. They are led by a principle
or tactic called the âintensification of the methods of actionsâ. Most
campaigns and general strikes start with symbolic actions, protests,
national days of strike and as the negotiations lead to an impasse,
these one-day strikes and actions turn to general strikes, economic
blockades and occupations. This escalation continues until the movement
wins their demands or loses momentum.
Participatory democracy leads to its logical conclusion through
Autonomy. While not universally adopted by all combative unionists
outside of the student movement, the members within the student
movements (and many outside of it) control these unions and in order for
this to materialize they practice complete autonomy from the state and
its political parties. They see no point in participating in any state
apparatus or political party when their nature is the defense of the
ruling class. In order not to be co-opted for electoral goals, they
practice autonomy from right wing and left wing political parties alike.
Even though some of these parties incorporate portions of the student
demands, these unions understand that these political parties will
eventually compromise on their positions for their own gains. Regardless
of this principle, electoral parties still make attempts to co-op these
unions under a guise of aid, and have potential to compel members
towards this slippery slope. While some social democratic advocates
within these unions defend the idea that there is something to gain by
allying with political parties, at the heart of combative unionism lies
the contradiction between direct action and electoralism. The former
running counter to principles of representative rule while the other
reinforces it.
COMBATIVE UNIONS
Combative unions have a multitude of committees and working groups to
facilitate the everyday work of the unions, but in universities,
colleges and workplaces where there is no combative union, these
mobilization committees are what combative unionists use to undermine
the bureaucracy and lobbyist unions.
These mobilization committees organize outside the current union
structures knowing fully that the business unions they face exist to
oppose any radical change to business as usual.
By organizing outside the union, the mobilization committee is used to
unite the grassroots of their institution under the principles of
combative unionism. Class oriented, they bring about the social glue
needed to rally for the base under a program of free and accessible
education for all (in the student movement). Democratic means of
organizing assures everyone involved an equal standing within the group,
laying the basis for radical change within the unions. Combativity
breaks with the usual attitudes of unions that now more frequently
resemble social clubs and political parties than organizations that
fight to defend student and worker rights. Lastly, autonomy takes away
ground from political parties to recruit and co-opt the union, making
the union fertile ground for radicalization.
The mobilization committees attack union bureaucracy little by little.
They mobilize the grassroots for general assemblies, putting in place an
alternative media, proposing changes to the union constitutions in order
to make the executives more accountable and mobilizing within
non-combative unions along side the combative unions during strikes and
actions. The mobilization committee is key in undermining the
bureaucracy and moderates who has hold on the union. They wage a war
upon the apparatus of disinformation and expose the corruption and
co-option taking place. It prepares the terrain for an eventual takeover
of the union by its membership.
WAR WITHIN LABOUR
We believe that our organizations should aim to revolutionize the
existing labour movement in the same manner that our comrades in the
student movement have done and are currently doing. If the workplaces,
neighbourhoods and schools are battlegrounds in the class war, so too
are union halls. Unions and the broader labour movement reflect all
elements we find within society, including class antagonism. Prairie
Struggle Organization believes that the unions and the labour movement
should not be spared in the battle of ideas to win over the working
class to revolutionary politics and we stress that this cannot be done
outside of it. Nestor Mahkno once said: âIt is necessary to never forget
that if trade unionism does not find in libertarian communist theory a
support in opportune times it will turn, whether we like it or not, to
the ideology of a political statist party.â It is safe to assume that
this is well underway and that much work is needed to empower the
working class within labour.
Prairie Struggle Organization adopts Combative unionism as its
organizational model within labour and social movements. Its adaptation
of combative unionism is the following:
To bring sense and focus to our organizational efforts within labour, we
organize with a working class orientation and make this the glue that
binds our efforts. This also is used to identify class enemies within
labour and society as a whole. If struggle changes everything, it is due
in part to exposing class antagonisms. These antagonisms are what foster
the ability to plant the seeds of radicalization.
In order to facilitate the proper development of militancy and
participation, we organize under the model of direct democracy and
radically oppose representative democracy. It should be made clear that
the objective is to give full decision making power to the general
assembly and that executive powers are revocable at any time by the
assembly. This empowerment through the general assembly is ground for
experimentation and development for the basis of a new world.
In opposition to reliance only on bargaining, we adopt militant
combative tactics to win struggles as prescribed in the context of a
continued escalation of tactics. Our ultimate weapon is the general
strike.
If a tactic is effective, but not illegal, we believe it is only a
matter of time until new laws are put in place to limit the effects of
our tactics. In this view, we understand that the current laws are there
to service the ruling class and their interests, and can be changed to
serve this purpose. With this realization, we advocate when practical,
the breaking of these laws and injunctions in order to make our tactics
effective.
The question of violence is always a pivotal point when it comes to
combative unionism and public opinion. The tactics we advocate come from
the perspective of defending the rights of the workers and their
legitimate strikes and actions. If these are under attack by the state
and its apparatus of repression, we advocate when possible the use of
self-defence. Tactics such as economic blockades, sabotage and the
destruction of property do not harm anyone physically and therefore are
not violent methods of action. This does not mean that we advocate the
use of these militant tactics every step of the way. These tactics must
be used when pragmatic and must be supported by the majority of the
union membership.
As a class, we have our own interests. To defend these interests and the
union from outside influences, we oppose any collaboration with the
state or political parties and declare without compromise our autonomy
from them. Despite the existence of political parties that are left wing
and may embody many of the unionâs ideals and demands, we advocate that
the union needs no one to represent its own interests.
Complete autonomy from the state and its institutions assures, to an
extent, that no outside interest may interfere with the unionâs efforts.
This does not mean that we oppose initiatives for unions to cooperate
and mobilize together with in the same national organization. We believe
that federalism is a decisive aspect of how effective a labour movement
is, but see this federalism under directly democratic, anarchist lines.
It is obvious that storming the gates of our unions with these 7 points
will not achieve any positive reaction from the union leaders,
bureaucracy nor likely many of our fellow workers. The mobilization
committee becomes the militant wing of the union where the active
minority assembles, coordinates and plans its campaigns against those
who oppose combative unionism and wish to keep control of the union. By
organizing outside the union structure, the active minority use these 7
principles to organize within the membership so that the rank and file
can progressively gain control of their union, and defend the interest
of the rank and file.
The mobilization committeeâs task within the union is no small one.
Taking back our unions involves fighting an entrenched bureaucracy and
reinvigorating a membership that no longer feels compelled to denounce
and fight union elites. This is why combative unionism must be initiated
with recognition that this is a long and delicate process of exposing
internal class antagonisms and bureaucratic control, and that it will
likely encounter many barriers, and defeats.
It is important that the objectives of the committee be realistic and in
touch with the union base. Radicalization can happen through propaganda,
but most often happens through struggle for better conditions. This is
why we see combative unionism through a process of bread, roses and
revolution. We believe that the mobilization committees should strive
for the amelioration of everyday working conditions and through the
process of struggle and radicalization, place the foundations for a new
tomorrow. Thus, progress made through the mobilization committees must
build victories upon victories, and adapt to defeats to meet the
membershipâs level of demand, rather than expect them to meet yours.
Organizing on these directly democratic principles fosters this process,
and ensures struggle is personalized rather than implemented from above.
As a result, members gain an increased stake in the radicalization
process, and are more likely to participate in the union, and in
actions. Admittedly, while a prescription that instructs how this
process unfolds in necessarily elusive, the central tenet is that
through involvement and struggle under the conditions we and our
co-workers face, class antagonisms become increasingly visible, and when
complemented by engagement with radical forms of organizing creates the
potential for increased actualizations of revolutionary ideas, and
social movement.
Combative unionism is an engagement that must be prepared to withstand
powerful opposition, not only to create a situation of combative
unionism, but also to sustain its existence. In a combative union, the
aim is to combat resurgence of powerful bureaucracies, and authoritative
leadership. This is not without need to exercise the struggle for
leadership as a strategy in pushing authoritarians, bureaucrats and
reformists away from control over the unionâs institutions. In an
established combative union, this leadership acts as described above,
merely as a tool to execute the decisions of the membership, and this is
not to be stigmatized and opposed as many do. On the contrary,
democratic leadership should be shared and held accountable. In business
unions with militants actively mobilizing towards combative strategies,
this level of engagement is next to useless. The constitution and bylaws
that give power to bureaucrats, reformists, and national/international
affiliations are still in place, and they will use tools afforded to
them to isolate radical executive members. This is why we only advocate
fighting for leadership in an already combative union, to sustain its
democratic nature. In business unions, some militants may advocate this
strategy as an act of desperation. This isnât necessarily a useless
strategy. However, when these documents cannot be challenged from the
membership level, and when a well organized, radicalized membership is
being successfully oppressed by those wielding institutionalized power,
the solution may be found with more ease in separating the radical
membership from the union altogether, and building a new organization.
This is where we see intersectionality between combative unionism, and
revolutionary unionism.
Prairie Struggle Organization is not a vanguard, nor is it a party. We
believe the role of anarchists, but also all those identifying as
revolutionaries within the workplace is not to âleadâ the workers
towards revolution. We recognize that a successful revolution can only
be carried out directly by the working class. The intention of this
paper is not to theorize the path of every workplace struggle, but
rather to argue principles that we, as revolutionaries, should recognize
for their potential to radicalize, and proliferate revolutionary ideals
meaningfully to all in our communities. As anarchists, we are an active
minority within our workplaces, schools and neighborhoods. However, it
is not enough that we as individuals put our efforts into legitimate
social struggles. In order to be effective in the various areas of
struggle, we see the organization as a place for anarchists to organize
the active minority with the objective to radicalize mass movements and
popular struggles where they exist, or agitate for the creation of such
popular movements. In doing so we have the potential to combat
authoritarianism and reformist tendencies giving way to the maximum
political potential of revolutionary anarchist-communist ideas within
the working class. We believe combative unionism gives us the political
and organizational platform to do so and this is why we strongly believe
that the revolutionary left should adopt Combative unionism as its model
to organize through the use of the mobilization committee as its
structure. We see the principles of combative unionism as being very
close to anarchism if not being anarchist theory to start with.
We believe these principle can be adapted in many more places than the
shop floor or union halls. The principles of combative unionism give us
a structure and ideology from which we can start organizing effectively
in many situations.
Organizing under the principles of direct democracy, combativity,
autonomy and solidarity bring about the necessary framework needed to
lead battles within our respective communities. From antifascist
organizations, cop watchâs, anti-gentrification committees, immigrant
rights networks, neighborhood defense committees and many more,
mobilization committees working under these principles can initiate
struggles beyond the shop floors on issues that may not be related to
labour at all.
Though this cannot be called combative unionism, its adaptation within
different contexts of the principles advocated here such as direct
democratic structures, combativity, autonomy and solidarity demonstrates
clearly why we as anarchists should use this method within various
struggles. There is no doubt that many, if not most strains of anarchist
theory advocate as such, nor is there much doubt that many comrades
organize with these same principles and find much familiarity with them.
Our position is not one of inventing the wheel, but rather drawing
conclusions from decades of revolutionary struggle within the labour
movement, and putting them into practice.
Towards democratic, combative, and autonomous labour and social
movements!
Prairie Struggle Organization
Adopted during the summer congress of juin 2013
Our deepest appreciation goes out to all the comrades in the WSA, Common
Cause, the IWW and comrades from Montreal who took the time to critic
and edit our paper.
Shortly after the release of our position paper on âcombative unionismâ
which sparked much criticism and legitimate questioning, members of
Prairie Struggle set about reviewing the critiques and debating the
position paper and its legitimacy. Though the process of creating this
position paper entailed much debate and thought, the process is a
continuous one.
The sentiment that theory and practice is always evolving to better
adapt to its conditions is one all members of Prairie Struggle share. It
is in this spirit that most if not all critics and questions where
received; with enthusiasm, as we feel that the question of involvement
within the labour movement and its labour organizations is one that is
too often dismissed by a broad bass within the anarchist movement.
Though many of the debates surrounding the paper developed online and
face to face, we were very grateful that one of our comrades, Klas
Batalo, took the time to critique and review the document. Klas Batalo
illustrates in great detail many elements that are confusing and perhaps
wrong about the paper. Though we feel that much of the confusing
elements can be explained due in part to geographic reasons, we also
feel that that Klas Bataloâs review serves as a good review for us to
clarify our positions in this paper. This is the reason why we will be
using Klas Bataloâs review as a starting point to the debates
surrounding the paper. You can also find attached in full Klas Bataloâs
review.
âOne thing I think could help clarify PSOâs position is making more of a
clear distinction between the labor movement and the unions.â In the
review it is noted that the words labour and unions are used
interchangeably through out our position paper. Our justification to
this can be mostly explained due to the specific geography (the Canadian
prairies and Quebec) where the inspiration for our position paper is
drawn.
Generally speaking, in Quebec and the Canadian prairies, the word labour
and union go hand in hand. Specific revolutionary groups or unions who
operate outside mainstream unions are generally small in size and form a
very small minority tailored for the radical crowd. Often, if not
always, these groups exist to exist and when these groups practice
industrial actions or solidarity, it is generally attended by the same
folks and most often in solidarity with unionâs that are part of the
mainstream labour movement who are engaged in labour disputes. When
actions do take place to support members of the working class who are
not within the labour movement or unionized, these individual rarely
join the groups from which they are receiving support. Thus, they
resemble less of an organized movement and more of an interest group.
For example, the workers solidarity network (montreal 2005â2008 group
started by NEFAC) would regularly conduct solidarity campaigns with
unions on strike and retrieve unpaid wages for precarious workers. Most
often precarious workers were themselves radicals or part of the broader
left. Actions in support of precarious workers that where not part of
the âsceneâ were far and few between and most often these individuals
would not radicalize or join the network. When the network did try to
break out of the â radical Ghettoâ by establishing a geographical union,
it failed and subsequently announced its disbandment. This is only one
example of radicals trying to establish themselves within the labour
movement. Other examples can be drawn from the IWW in Quebec and the
prairies, which are most likely the only organized alternatives to
mainstream labour that the left has in these particular regions. They
form a small, but noticeable part of labour, yet hold little political
weight in comparison to their mainstream union counterparts. This is why
we use âlabourâ and âunionâ interchangeably at times. This does not mean
we see no difference between the different groups who identify
themselves as such. It goes in pair with the general public perception
of the words and Prairie Struggle does not wish to define these words in
the pure form due to the fact that where we live, generally speaking,
there would be little more to include under a broader meaning.
âThey state that it is not a strategic issue of if they should support
unions but âone of tactics and what can be done under these conditions
to promote revolutionary change...not if we should be involved within
the labor movement, but how.â As in this example they use these terms
many times throughout the paper interchangeably. This is unfortunate
since they do spend quite a good while defining different types of
unions and workers organizations such as: Lobby Unions (for US readers
these are yellow unions, or employers/vertical unions), Business Unions,
Combative Unions, Revolutionary Unions, Workersâ Councils and
Mobilization Committees.â
âWhen they use the terms interchangeably it can become confusingâ
Klas Bataloâs review mentions that using these words interchangeably is
confusing, and we understand and agree that in some instances we could
have been more precise in the use of these words. Here we do agree âin
general the piece could benefit from more readability by adjusting
(words) for these considerationsâ.
Words that also seem to cause much confusion in Klas Bataloâs review was
the use of the words âwithin labourâ or âin labourâ.
âthe reader is left to assume that when PSO says we should intervene as
âcombative unionistsâ in the labor movement, they mean the Business
Unions.â
Klas here along with many others see the use of the word âwithinâ or
âinâ under the wrong light. We do believe that âWeâ should intervene as
combative unionists among the MEMBERS of the labour movement including
members of business Unions. Our justification for this is not that we
believe that Business unions are working class organizations, but that
their base is.
Though this may not be clear in our position paper when we say âBusiness
unions and Combative unions are organizations based on the class
interests of the workers. They come to existence by the need of workers
to organize on class lines and advance their own interests in opposition
to those of the bosses.â We are in agreement with Klas Batalo that
business unions âused to be workersâ organizations, but now they are
notâ. These unions have been overrun with bureaucrats, and legalization
to now resemble organizations that offer bargaining services in exchange
for salaries and benefits.
To question if business unions are working class institutions is
engaging the debate on the wrong line of questioning. Despite their
integration into the state and capitalist system, we recognize that
their subsistence still relies on worker participation (real or legal)
for survival. The current form of bureaucratization and legalization of
these institutions is a) relatively new, and b) a capitalist
intervention to pacify worker control. Thus, when we say business unions
are working class, this isnât a description based on their current
function, rather an insight into where business unions draw their
resources, power, and origin. These are sources not lost because of the
level of bureaucratization, and legalization, rather they are sources
currently being micromanaged and controlled for the interests of âlabour
peaceâ, whatever the fuck that means.
Business unions hold two potential areas for anarchists or combative
militants to engage in. The obvious one is to fight for workers rights
against capitalist owner ship of the means of production. The second is
to engage in class warfare against the bureaucratic elements within the
union for worker control therefore making business unions an interesting
terrain to engage in to develop class antagonisms.
Klas Batalo wonders âwhat is more important to the concept of Combative
Unionism the base or the leadership?â. For us the question of leadership
is a fundamental one which we mention on multiple occasions in our
position paper.
We advocate that âIn order to facilitate the proper development of
militancy and participation, we organize under the model of direct
democracy and radically oppose representative democracy. It should be
made clear that the objective is to give full decision making power to
the general assembly and that executive powers are revocable at any time
by the assembly. This empowerment through the general assembly is ground
for experimentation and development for the basis of a new world.â
Klas Batalo rightfully points out that within coalitions such as CLASSE,
which was a large strike coalition composed of combative and non
combative unions, that âthe executive of CLASSE during the movement of
2012â were continually âfacing a militant base often opposed to itâs
decisions.â. Even though lâASSE, a combative union, does not function
like the CLASSE coalition, it would be wrong to assume that executives
within combative unions such as LâASSE never surpass their mandates as
they can most certainly internalize similar dynamics. What we argue for
within a future framework of combative unions are executive committees
who hold clear and precise mandates to administrate the day-to-day
âpoutineâ of the union. These âadministratorsâ would be revocable by the
general assembly at any time and would hold no legislative powers. It is
clear that we advocate that all powers be in the hands of the general
assembly fundamentally creating radical opposition to executives who
would surpass their mandate.
For us, the question of having executives is not a focal point of
combative unionism. We see the use of these elected, revocable
executives with clear mandates as a way to facilitate the internal
functions of the unions. We see the use for elected Internal
secretaries, external secretaries, finance secretaries ect... as a more
viable option then informal division of fundamental tasks. The way and
shape that these internal administrative committees take are ultimately
up to the general assemblies to deliberate and decide on and we donât
believe each of these executive or administrative elements within
combative unions will be the same. We simply recognize the need for some
form of formal structure to take place in order to promote the
continuation and proper functioning of assemblies, meetings and such.
In our position paper we argue that combative unions hold total autonomy
from political parties as one of their defining points. It would be
wrong to assume that all local unions within the Quebec student movement
believe in this core ideal. Klas Batalo points out that she/he is
âunsure if this is necessarily so, and would seek clarification about
autonomy from party politics within the student combative unions,
because it isâ her âunderstanding that much of the movement got side
tracked towards the end of Summer 2012 with support for Quebec Solidaire
and pushing for electoral victories for other parties.â. Klas here,
confuses combative unions with the whole of the Québec student movement.
The Québec student movement is composed of many independent local
unions, combative unions (affiliated to lâASSE), and unions affiliated
to the reformist federations (FECQ, FEUQ) who have been characterized by
their affiliations with the âParti QuĂ©bĂ©coisâ. It is true that political
recuperation of the 2012 student strike took place. Even though lâASSE
spearheaded the mobilization for this strike, they did not form the
majority of the movement. The coalition that was formed by lâASSE, which
was composed of combative unions and independent local unions opposed
the end of the strike and the deal offered by the âParti Quebecoisâ. So
it would be false to assume under the example given by Klas that
combative unions within the student movement may not be opposed to
partisan politics.
As we have mentioned in our position paper, the combative unionist
elements of the 60âs/70âs within the labour unions in Quebec did in some
way support the creation of a âproletariat political forceâ. Jean Marc
Pillot who was an influential militant within this period and movement
openly declared that one of the goals of combative unionism would be the
eventual creation of a socialist political force. He eventually did join
such a force, lâUFP (Union des Force Progressist who would eventually
become Quebec solidaire) and has been betraying some of the core
principles of combative unionism ever since with his recent declaration
during the 2012 strike, that âdirect democracy is only a vehicle to
establishing a representative democracyâ. It is clear that there are
grounds for concern within combative unionist history. What we find
interesting and draw our conclusions from are the positions taken in
lâASSE and the student combative unionist movement against partisan
politics. Therefore it would not be wrong to assume that entire elements
of combative unionism oppose partisan politics, especially within the
student movement, and it would also not be wrong to assume that even
within lâASSE, militants of Quebec Solidaire work day in and day out to
soften the position of complete autonomy from political parties.
What we argue for is that complete autonomy from political parties be a
founding principal in the creation of a combative labour movement.
In our position paper, we argue that building combative unions is a path
of least friction for the Canadian prairies and other province alike.
Sure, in Canada there are regroupements of revolutionary unionists along
with a few little, but active branches of the IWW. Some IWW members
support a dual card strategy, which we are in favour of to begin with
and support. Some of our members hold or have been IWW cardholders for
some time. In all honesty, we see these initiatives of IWW members
mobilizing within their existing mainstream unions to radicalize the
debate as a combative strategy. Where we part ways with the IWW is, how
to create revolutionary unions in the now. It would not be false to
state that the dual card strategy isnât widely accepted within the IWW
and is even source of vigorous debates and friction. For us we see a
disconnect between the goals that revolutionary unions fix for
themselves and the strategies applied.
Combative unionism is not a plea to establish âfrom scratchâ a new form
of unionism within the revolutionary left or mainstream labour. It is a
strategy that revolutionary unionists have been using for over 40 years
in Quebec and France. The reasoning behind not stating this in our
position paper and openly dividing combative unionism from revolutionary
unionism is that in some way, revolutionary unionism in Canada finds
refuge in being divorced from labour when we believe that it has every
interest to fight for its place within our conception of the mainstream
labour movement. The creation of such revolutionary unions outside the
current labour movement sometimes derives from some sort of analysis
that âif we build it, they will comeâ. There is also a strong desire for
some to self identify as ârevolutionary unionistsâ within the movement.
Sometimes, these attitudes translate into a purist position where the
strategy is overshadowed by identity. This is partly why we distance
ourselves from certain revolutionary unionist who claim to be involved
within the labour movement, but negate the fact that mainstream labour
is part of the labour movement at all. We agree though that this is a
generalization that is not totally accurate everywhere and that some
militants within the IWW and factions of council communism have been
trying to combat such a divorce. This is why we are not in opposition to
the IWW. We see much intersectionality between our strategy proposed and
the work being done by these groups and individuals.
Also, it is important to mention that combative unionism is a strategy
that has been tailored to the mainstream labour movement for multiple
reasons. We donât debate that this should be the only strategy and that
mainstream unions should be the only place to apply revolutionary
unionist politics. Much of our members are or have been involved within
mainstream labour for some time. The main reason this paper is focused
on mainstream labour comes from witnessing a large section of the
revolutionary left completely scratching out this section of the working
class organized under such bureaucratic organizations. The Combative
Unionism paper we published had as an objective to reinitiate debate on
whether or not we should engage in some way the mainstream labour
movement and how.
Klas Batalo also points out that we describe combative unions as
apolitical. The use of the word in our position paper is confusing to
some and in some respect misguided. When we advocate the need for
combative unions or combative mobilization committees to be
âapoliticalâ, we donât mean in the literal way that they should be
without politics.
What we do mean is the need for such combative organizations to be
completely detached from political parties or political groups. For
example, the IWW is neither anarchist nor socialist. What defines it is
the method in which they organize and take action. Essentially we
believe that combative unionist should use this as a template.
The approach we take here is one of baby steps towards radicalizing the
base of such mainstream labour orgnizations. We believe that
antiauthoritarian, anticapitalism, and socialist politics can transpire
through action, structure and strategy without using alienating symbols
or labels. This is why the strategy of combative unionism is based on
class orientation and solidarity, direct democratic structures,
combative tactics and autonomous means of organization. Class
antagonisms created by capitalism and other systems of oppressions can
be unifying, but must be presented in a way in which workers can relate.
There is a great need for revolutionary politics to become relevant and
we believe focusing on strategies can establish our political desires.
Essentially, we argue the need to tailor revolutionary politics to the
working class, not tailor the working class to revolutionary politics,
which is what typically happens when revolutionary unionist history and
tactics are transposed in a totally different context.
Though this paper does not especially lay out what should be done when
effective mobilization committees come to existence or assemblies manage
to regain power from bureaucracy, it does lay some sort of foundation
for the debate. Whether or not we should set about some sort of new
independent labour international or join the already existing
revolutionary unions is for us an area for which requires much more
debate and where combative unionist will need to experiment and explore.
What our debates have concluded for the time being is:
When combative mobilization committees manage to effectively mobilize
the base, it should set about exposing the existing class antagonism
within the union, build radical opposition towards reformist and
bureaucratic elements who seek to take the power away from the
assemblies and eventually set about creating links with other
mobilization committees within other unions.
When practicable these committees should set about building a strong
local union under democratic, combative and autonomous principles laying
grounds for a future disaffiliation. Whether or not this takes place
through a coordinated effort among multiple mobilization committees in
many unions or not is still questionable. We believe that a strong local
union can still be undermined by the national/international bodies and
must when pragmatic; separate itself from these internationals to keep
power within the assemblies.
Inexperience in the development of strategy and position papers has
definitely contributed to confusion in certain elements of the position
we take. Errors and contradictions may take place in the paper. As we
have mentioned above, this debate for us is not a closed one and is
continually ongoing. We are very greatful for Klas Batalos and otherâs
contribution in this debate. We hope that our intentions are seen as
open, and sincere in the establishment of a radical combative labour
movement.
[1] C.G.T âCongrĂšs dâAmiens sur les rapports entre entre les Syndicats
et les Partis politiquesâ. 1906. Retrived on March 29^(th), 2013 from
marxists.org/francais/cgt/works/1906/10/cgt_amiens.htm
[2] Rocker. R. Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. 1949 Retrieved on
April 1, 2013 from
[3] Berkman A. What is Communist Anarchism? 1929. Retrieved on April 1,
2013 from
[4] Piotte. JM. Le Syndicalisme de Combat. 1977, Pg, 27.
[5] Ibid; 28,
[6] Ibid; 121 [7]Ibid; 23
[7] Raza. J âThe history of the Quebec student movement and combative
unionismâ. 2012. Retrived on April 1, 2012 from