(en) US, WSA Ideas & Action: Another Review of Fighting for Ourselves: Anarcho-Syndicalism and the Class Struggle by Klas Batalo

Fighting for Ourselves: Anarcho-Syndicalism and the Class Struggle tries to move in the 
direction of providing a framework and questions that can help the contemporary class 
struggle anarchist movement move past its? current impasses, and fight back against the 
austerity crisis, as well as take the initiative against state capitalism. It sets out to 
share strategy suggestions for our present conditions by the Solidarity Federation, SolFed 
for short, the UK section of the International Workers? Association (IWA). Below will be 
some of my own comments on the text, with the hope of providing a comradely critique as 
well as general summary of what I feel is important to bring out in their arguments. ---- 
One of the first major frameworks they put forward is that unionism usually serves a mix 
of two particular functions, one associative, that is an association of workers to defend 
mutual and class interests, and another representative, that is to provide a vehicle for 
workers? representation in the economic/social sphere, much like a typical political party 
would through parliament.

SolFed make the case that revolutionary anarchists should organize within the spirit of 
the first function as much as possible, and that is what separates anarcho-syndicalism 
from the other forms of prefixed unionism, trade unionism, craft unionism, industrial 
unionism, etc. Forms of unionism that they point out often have bad or other connotations 
within the workers? movement. In an interesting self-contradiction they put forward that 
they prefer the term anarcho-syndicalism over plain ?unionist? because it has nationalist 
connotations with the UK context, but throughout the small book they often refer to 
needing a revolutionary unionist approach, and that they are a revolutionary union 
initiative. They use this later term to denote that they are currently actively moving 
away from being just a political propaganda group towards being more of a revolutionary 
workers? association or organization of struggle. Considering most of book makes excellent 
arguments against the need for the majority of what the mainstream workers? movement as 
well as radical workers? movement has known as parties or approaches to union struggle, I 
am left wondering why they chose such language, considering the connotations? Not to dwell 
too long on semantics though, I assume this is mostly because of the tradition they find 
themselves coming from, and it is the content more than the label that matters.

These preliminaries all said SolFed, lays out quite a compelling argument for the forms 
and content of a contemporary anarcho-syndicalist they and practice, as well as dispelling 
some of the more common myths. They make a substantial effort towards the explanation of a 
revolutionary alternative form of ?unionism? that can be anti-capitalist and anti-state 
without neglecting to organize with all workers, and participate in the larger labor 
movement, while maintaining a political as well as economic core set of ideas and methods.

The first chapter delves into the mainstream workers? movement and SolFed?s argument 
against the separation of the political and economic hindering it. The traditional 
workers? movement whether through trade unions, so called revolutionary workers or labor 
parties, most often made a distinction between the two, advocating for and thus creating 
representation within the economic sphere of the workplace, and leaving politics and 
concerns of the social sphere to politicians. The early unions went from being small 
organizations that would fight around class conflicts to a service oriented strategy that 
recruited more workers but neglected the daily class struggle and moved in the direction 
of representation between the workers themselves and capital (bosses? management, state 
bureaucrats, etc). They argue this makes perfect sense in the absence of a revolutionary 
perspective, if you can?t imagine a world without capitalism, you can only argue for a 
better seat at the table within it. In this critique of the old workers? movement they 
make many astute observations, especially that this applies not only within the space of 
the labor movement but also with the lack of an explicitly anti-parliamentary perspective. 
History has shown us a movement that instead of defending class interests bargained away 
our class? demands to have social needs met, with the promise of labor peace for the 
capitalists, and mere recognition for our representatives efforts.

A few astute observations SolFed makes are that often workers? join such organizations or 
become members of such parties exactly for such representation. They also argue 
convincingly that even if we as revolutionaries find ourselves as we often do in the 
position to become such representatives ourselves we should be careful to avoid the many 
pitfalls of such an approach. Becoming stewards or small rep/delegate positions within the 
unions often gives us more room to organize, but we also need to have a clear anarchist 
strategy for workers? self-organization, using the unions more like a host body to launch 
initiatives in the actual interest of the workers. They also point out that most unions 
today are not even that much of a ?massive? movement rooted directly in workplaces. Local 
branch meetings often consist of a minority of workers, staff, and deal with internal 
union business not applicable to the shop floor. Often if there even are regular meetings 
they are filled with members who don?t even know each other, and are instead of being 
democratic are lectured to on the next activist endeavor cooked up by union officials or 
leftists. In this they argue that in reality most union activity contrary to popular 
belief exists outside of workplace related situations.

Their critique of revolutionary workers? parties is also quite interesting and hopefully 
informative for anyone who has ever had to debate a Leninist on the nature of the 
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Often later day Leninists argue that Lenin?s State and 
Revolution shows that Marx and Marxists argue for smashing the bourgeois state and for 
forming in its? place via the workers? councils some form of semi- or non-state. The 
anarchist and SolFed?s argument against this is that Lenin and Marxists just shift the 
plane of politics from a bourgeois parliament to trying to forge the direct expression of 
the workers in their workplace committees and city wide community councils to becoming 
sort of constituent assemblies as a workers? government, political competition and all, 
instead of the direct self-management of a libertarian and free communist society. This 
completely strips the concept of workers? councils from their revolutionary 
political-economic content, and instead proposes them as an alternative forum that mirrors 
bourgeois politics. The argument can be made that this is just a bunch of complaining and 
that regardless of our visions or road maps different parties and interest groups will vie 
for power anyways, but the main issue at stake is we need a stronger culture of 
solidarity, direct action, and culture that can counter such efforts away from workers? 
self-management and the social transformation towards a freely communist society.

The second chapter delves into more radical currents in the workers? movement, mainly 
anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism. In its section on anarchism it overviews 
two various traditions of dual organizational anarchism, the arguments for specific 
political organization by synthesist Malatesta against Monatte, and the similar arguments 
for a more united revolutionary organization by the Platformists. Instead of making much 
of a critique of the need for united revolutionary organizations, SolFed argues against 
the strategies argued for by both these camps. The main of their argument throughout the 
book is aimed at Malatesta?s separation of the political and the economic. In his famous 
debate with revolutionary syndicalist Monatte, Malatesta argued for the need not only for 
a revolutionary and apolitical syndicalism, but also for a specifically anarchist 
political organization. Their main difference is not their desire for apolitical 
revolutionary syndicalism regrouping most workers, but in exactly the need for separate 
political organization. On a contrary basis the Platformists SolFed argue, worked closer 
towards an anarcho-syndicalist method of trying to ?anarchize? the unions instead of just 
leaving them to apoliticism or reformism. Instead of like many anarchists they do not 
condemn the Platformists as ?anarcho-Bolsheviks? which they feel is unfair, but that such 
a strategy is inadequate for the current day situation. SolFed argue our efforts would be 
better spent organizing direct struggle via a dual unionist approach within the unions 
when we find ourselves there using anarcho-syndicalist methods of self-organization or 
possibly forging revolutionary breakaways, instead of reforming the existing unions for 
anarchism, an approach similar to ?boring from within? which they reject as extremely 
unrealistic.

Their critique above also contributing implicitly to their critique of traditional 
apolitical revolutionary unionism, with a few exceptions of great tactical/strategic leaps 
made by the IWW?s historical forms of minority unionism, left me most interested in 
SolFed?s critique of council communism. They argue that it is not the advocating of the 
council form which makes the council communists unique among Marxists but their 
anti-parliamentary and at most extreme anti-party perspective. For the council communists 
the main question relevant to the needed development of Marxist theory is who should 
operate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the revolutionary party or the united 
strength of the working class in their councils. SolFed give a short overview of the 
history of the council communist current within the communist left that would be very 
instructive for anyone unfamiliar with it. They point out that the KAPD the Communist 
Workers? Party of Germany was a distinctly anti-parliamentary party and that it saw itself 
as the political arm to the AAUD, General Workers Union of Germany which it was members 
of. The AAUD itself was founded mainly in inspiration from the heavily Marxist influenced 
revolutionary syndicalism of the IWW. SolFed?s main critique of this pairing is similar to 
their one of Malatesta?s separation of the political and economic.

Instead SolFed have more praise for the AAUD-E (General Workers Union of Germany ? Unitary 
[Organization]) of Otto R?hle and co. This comrade was expelled from the KAPD and 
separated from the main AAUD, and moved the closest in the direction of 
anarcho-syndicalism, rejecting the need for a separation between ?party? and ?union? 
forms. SolFed?s critique of the AAUD-E and council communism in general amounts to their 
rejection of everyday struggles, though within acknowledging that they were involved in a 
revolutionary situation where continuing reform struggles would have been counter 
revolutionary. It is debatable in my perspective if such organizations would have moved 
back to traditional Marxist formations, i.e. separation between political and economic or 
necessarily reject day to day struggles, most later day council communist offshoots like 
the KAUD, Communist Workers? Union of Germany didn?t (and were a political-economic 
minority organization), or like the GIKH, Group of International Communists of Holland 
were too small to tell, with a variety of activity split between action and discussion 
groups. The rest of their critique of the council communists revolves around latent 
spontaneity from an overly determinist analysis of capitalist crisis/decline, and a 
rejection of a tendency towards workerism that I feel is warranted considering their 
inspiration from the IWW, though SolFed goes on to describe some of the efforts by the IWW 
towards an early anti-racist praxis, it is unclear if struggles outside the workplace were 
tackled by council communists, and Otto R?hle is quoted as saying outside the factory the 
proletarian is bourgeois.

The third chapter delves deep into the differences of context and organization mostly 
within the classical anarcho-syndicalist movement. In the introduction to this section I 
feel they overstate their emphasis on anarcho-syndicalism having ?always rejected the 
division of the worker?s movement into economic and political wings, and rejected 
representation in favor of associations of direct action.? Their following accounts, 
especially in the case of the historical CNT reject this assertion, and clearly show how 
there were often reformist and revolutionary currents within these organizations, not that 
later day organizations and these contradictions did not pan out in splits, or 
unfortunately in some cases disaster. SolFed mainly analyzes the FORA of Argentina, the 
FAUD of Germany, and the historical fiasco within the CNT.

The FORA of Argentina probably came the closest to the council communists and is often 
contrasted with the CNT. They advocated a more ideological unionism based on regional 
federal organization over geographic territories uniting all workers, compared to a more 
traditional industrial organizational form. They took on a more specifically anarchist 
communist politics probably because most of their members were immigrants with no voting 
rights, and were thus more clear about the need for an anti-state struggle. Argentina was 
also late to industrialization and so many of the FORA?s members including main theorists 
were in favor of a more small scale agrarian and ecological free communism. It was also 
more concerned with political agitation for a direct struggle compared to building the new 
world within the shell of the old within themselves as the vehicle for struggle, instead 
seeing themselves more as a catalyst of struggle. In this approach I think SolFed takes 
liberally. They were self-styled as an ?anarchist organization of workers? and did not 
concern themselves only with economic issues, but also ones of a pressing social or 
political nature. This strategy was impressively successful in securing the 6 hour work 
day in the 1920s. Eventually much like the CNT though there did end up being a reformist 
current within the organization, so it split in two with the original but smaller 
organization joining the IWA. Their main contribution to this day is organizing in a way 
to destroy capitalism and the state instead of imitating it.

The case of the FAUD of Germany was interesting mostly for its contribution towards 
organizing a day to day culture of solidarity, direct action, and resistance. It faced 
many of the same problems as their council communist cousins in Germany, and 
anarcho-syndicalists in Russia, in having to compete with opportunist social democrats and 
Bolsheviks within the councils who wanted to turn them not into bodies for self-management 
but for a new ?worker?s state.? Unfortunately unlike their counterparts in the FORA they 
could have benefited from a propagandizing a more clear anti-parliamentary perspective. 
The major lesson drawn by SolFed is that preparation was one of their key assets making 
them one of the largest revolutionary organizations after the immediate revolution in 
Germany in 1918-1919, but that they might have been even more successful if they had a 
clearer critique of the pitfalls of the council form.

Most devastating is SolFed?s critique of the historical CNT. When given the opportunity to 
create a dual power situation, they abstained out of the fear of being substitutionist of 
creating an ?anarchist dictatorship.? Even though in the workplaces and communities they 
had already been working in alliance with the UGT socialist forces, they had ruled out 
using a council system after watching the experience in of the Bolsheviks using it to 
their advantage in Russia. Instead they prepared much like the FAUD for building a culture 
that could replace the new world internally. In this they took on the desire to be the 
vehicle of struggle like many other forms of apolitical syndicalism, and thus feared that 
since most of the workers? had still not yet joined the CNT, they would replicate the same 
problems they had seen with the Communist Party in Russia. As SolFed details they failed 
to be anarchist enough and smash the state when they had the chance because of these 
fears. In this way ?building the new world in the shell of the old? was adapted more as 
?build the new world in the old.? If they had only came to similar conclusions as the FORA 
they may have seen their chance and take it. This is all the more unfortunate since rank 
and file groups within CNT, as seen by the FAI and the Friends of Durruti were proposing 
just such a dual power strategy of uniting with other forces like the UGT in the cities, 
as well as a revolutionary junta, and agrarian communes.

This failure to smash the state and fill the power gap was not their only problem though. 
SolFed goes on to suggest that it was structural in that the CNT was conflicted and both 
adopted an apolitical traditional syndicalist approach to recruitment simultaneously with 
a libertarian communist program, leaving space for a separation between the political and 
economic, reformist and revolutionary forces both competing for leadership of the union. 
Overall this critique strikes me as more damning of apolitical unionism than one of dual 
organizationalism of the FAI or Friends of Durruti. Structurally it was the choice to be 
open to all workers that befell the CNT the most it seems, whereas the FAI and Friends of 
Durruti might have been strategically misguided or blind in their argument to anarchize 
and for a dual power strategy respectively regardless of how seemingly right that may have 
been on the surface. It left me wondering if SolFed would propose in such situations 
instead to split off and form more specifically revolutionary political-economic 
organization. Regarding smashing of the State, SolFed argue they should have without fear 
having been an organization that was leap years beyond the Russian Communist Party in how 
it was controlled from the assemblies at its base, and not all struggle needs to be 
contained within one organization, revolutionary pluralism can be a good thing. In total, 
SolFed argue that the CNT both tried to be ?neutral syndicalist? as well as ?revolutionary 
anarchist? without being enough of an anarchist or syndicalist synthesis.

The fourth chapter of the Fighting for Ourselves mostly goes into a contemporary analysis 
of post-WW2 movements and the neo-liberal counter revolution. As much as its analysis is 
dead on, there isn?t much new here in my perspective that couldn?t be read elsewhere. It 
delves into current class composition, casualization, offshoring, etc. The fifth chapter 
is where we really get into the nitty gritty of what SolFed proposes as a way forward for 
the 21st century. They borrow from Marcel van der Linden?s analysis of an ideological, 
organizational, and shop floor (I prefer community, social, or popular) levels that are 
all key requirements for a balanced revolutionary organization and perspective. On the 
shop floor or social level we must realize that struggles even around seemingly bread and 
butter issues are also political issues, exploitation and oppression overlap and are 
integrated into each other. That anti-racism and anti-sexism, etc., often intertwine with 
struggles around workplace or neighborhood issues. This is a pretty core anarchist 
observation. At the organizational level we should be prefigurative and follow principles 
of voluntary association over representation. At the ideological level an opposition to 
integration into the state, the management of capitalism, and being working towards communism.

Organizationally from the previous chapters we see that SolFed has learned from the more 
historical CNT that if we are facing a situation of a plural unionism we need to find a 
way to organize with others without dividing along union lines. They point to the 
struggles of the later day CNT in the shipyards of Puerto Real, where they actively pushed 
for mass assemblies of all workers to be the vehicle of struggle, and carried the struggle 
beyond that point even when that assembly movement died down. They point out such bodies 
have the same weakness as worker councils, but that is a weakness of being participatory, 
and if the workers do not want to use revolutionary methods little will do to convince 
them otherwise, but hopefully through struggle participants can be convinced of such a 
need. Overall they propose that the ?revolutionary union seeks to organize class conflicts 
using direct action, in such a way as to prepare workers for revolutionary social change 
by experiencing self-organized struggles, practical solidarity and taste of victories won 
by our own efforts.?

By taking this more ideological approach SolFed do not propose abstention from 
participating like dual organizationalists advocate in other unions or movements but that 
anarchists participate in them on a principled class basis. Anarchists might respect a 
trade unions? picket line, even though such a union might not respect theirs, however 
direct appeals can be made to workers. However SolFed assert that if we leave it to 
reformists to take the initiative they will organize in a reformist and disempowering way, 
leaving us tailing them, by abstaining from taking action ourselves. Regardless as 
mentioned earlier such organizations are rarely ?massive? and often their daily activity 
is taken on by a minority of officials or in the case of many community struggles the 
staff of NGOs. Overall the more organization we have the more organized we will be when 
bigger ruptures happen but also recede. Past these suggestions SolFed largely proposes an 
organizing program similar to that developed in the discussion paper circulating around 
the current day IWW, called Direct Unionism, in fact a SolFed member who is from North 
America helped write it, so it is no surprise. Mostly it is a strategy of direct action, 
self-organization, building a culture of resistance via struggle committees, and mass 
assemblies that are cross sector and union affiliation when possible. Taking on small 
fights and larger collective ones when possible, not being afraid of being a minority but 
aspiring to be much more. In general, Fighting for Ourselves makes a convincing case for a 
reapplication of anarchist and syndicalist core values, enhanced with a review of past 
mistakes. Hopefully class struggle militants will continue to debate this important book.