Britain, Organise #80 - Anarchist Federation on Solidarity Federation Fighting for Ourselves: Anarcho-syndicalism and the class struggle

Since its publication in October of last year, Fighting for Ourselves has been the subject 
of much discussion and deserved interest in the broad libertarian left. The book 
constitutes the first major exposition of the political perspectives of the British 
section of the International Workers Association since Winning the Class War, their 
previous attempt at providing such an outline in 1991. ---- The book attempts to give an 
historical overview of the workers? movement, in what it describes as its ?mainstream? and 
?radical? forms, before describing the phenomenon of 20th Century anarcho-syndicalism 
through the experience of three unions in Germany, Spain and Argentina. Indeed, the bulk 
of the book is taken up with history; only the last 17 pages focussing on present day 
anarcho-syndicalism and specifically the Solidarity Federation?s (SolFed) strategy for 
moving from being a ?simple political propaganda organisation? to a ?revolutionary union? 
(p.94).

The historical section contains justification for why the SolFed believe that their 
particular version of anarcho-syndicalism has both universal and particular (or local) 
application.

Before considering the historical precedents that have helped SolFed formulate its present 
perspectives, the book outlines its understanding of the nature of unionism itself, in the 
chapter ?The Mainstream Workers Movement?. At the centre of this is the notion of a 
difference between a union as simply an ?association of workers?, which can take many 
forms, and what they describe as its ?representative? function. They argue that these two 
possible roles have become merged in the form of mass trade unions, which act as mediators 
between the membership and capital. This, it is argued, has tended to mirror the 
consciousness of the membership, which is not anti-capitalist. Subsequently, the structure 
which proceeds from this representative role and which accepts the legitimacy of 
capitalism becomes a break on any potential rank and file initiative that should emerge. 
The bureaucratic and class collaborationist unions of the TUC are the result of this. The 
alternative offered is a union that maintains the associational form but does not involve 
itself in representation. In some senses, the SolFed idea of what constitutes this 
associational unionism has parallels with the Anarchist Federation?s espousal of Worker?s 
Resistance Groups.

The book subsequently deals with ?radical currents? within the historic workers? movement 
that developed differing perspectives to the mainstream (social democratic or reformist) 
labour organisations: specifically anarchism, syndicalism and council communism. The 
discussion of anarchism, although relatively brief, is interesting and partially echoes 
the traditional anarcho-syndicalist criticisms of those anarchists who questioned the 
fusion of anarchism and syndicalism (the very meaning of anarcho-syndicalism, of course). 
Whilst considering the SolFed as within the anarchist or libertarian communist tradition, 
Fighting for Ourselves sees many faults within that tradition. Notable is a claimed ?lack 
of focus primarily on the labour movement? (p. 31) within the early anarchist communist 
movement. Presumably, this is a comment on the failure of anarchist communists such as 
Kropotkin to abandon the idea of the commune as the essential model of revolutionary 
transformation (see article elsewhere in this issue of Organise!) in favour of the 
workers? unions, but as this is not made explicit we cannot be sure.

Malatesta?s well-known 1907 conflict with the revolutionary syndicalist Monatte is also 
discussed. In this, the former criticised the latter?s belief that a politically neutral 
syndicalism alone could bring about social revolution. Malatesta also argued against 
establishing purely anarchist unions but for the necessity of anarchist involvement in the 
labour movement. Although the authors dismiss this as an attempt to keep the anarchist 
movement ?pure?, the international experience of those anarchists who do involve 
themselves in the labour movement without advocating the fusion of anarchism and unionism 
suggests their motivation is far from a fear of ?dirty hands?.

This section also looks at the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, the 
sadly controversial document published in 1926 by exiled Russian and Ukrainian anarchists, 
which argues for a specific anarchist communist organisation based on theoretical and 
tactical unity. The Platform informs the practice of both ourselves in the Anarchist 
Federation and others in the international anarchist movement, such as those around the 
website/network Anarkismo. Interestingly, Fighting for Ourselves does not reject the 
essential political premise of the Platform. This is certainly a welcome development from 
SolFed, who have historically tended to regard Platformism as a form of anarcho-Leninism. 
The authors rather focus on the attitude of the Platform to syndicalism. The Platform did 
not reject anarchist unions per se but, written in a period where large syndicalist unions 
still played a significant part in the international labour movement, considered organised 
intervention in these as the priority for anarchists.

Fighting for Ourselves then turns to syndicalism itself, considering the first mass 
?revolutionary? syndicalist union, the French CGT, and the Industrial Workers of the World 
(IWW). The formers rapid growth and the relatively conciliatory approach of the French 
state and capital in the 1910s are used as an explanation of its transformation, from an 
ostensibly revolutionary union into one that would support the First World War. However, 
although anarchists and others of the extreme left were indeed swamped by the influx of 
hundreds of thousands of new members, the call to defend the French nation was supported 
by a majority of the union?s militants ? many anarchists included. The lesson that the 
book appears to take from the experience of the CGT is that its main failure was it 
?apolitical? nature, which lead to its rapid growth and therefore reformism.

From its brief outline of the rise and fall of the IWW, it is obvious that the SolFed 
perceive limitations in the tendency of the ?Wobblies? to look to create One Big Union and 
thereby potentially dilute the revolutionary small p politics of its preamble. The IWW was 
(and indeed still is to some extent) eclectic in the makeup of its rank and file, with 
Marxists, anarchists, syndicalists and others working amongst a membership that was mostly 
politically unaligned and attracted to the union through its inclusive solidarity and 
effectiveness. However, it is also obvious that SolFed are influenced by the Solidarity 
and Direct Unionism of the present day IWW in the United States and Canada, which we shall 
look at later.

If Fighting for Ourselves pleasantly surprises on the Platform, then its engagement with 
the experience of Council Communism is revelatory. It is stated that Council Communism ? a 
form of anti-Leninist Marxism that emerged from the revolutionary upheavals in Germany in 
the period 1918-1923 ? arrived at ?some similar political and organisational conclusions 
to anarchism and syndicalism? (p.45), and empathy is expressed for the tendency within 
Council Communism that favoured a ?unitary? workers? association that dispensed with any 
separate political organisation. However, whilst this seems to echo the 
anarcho-syndicalist idea of creating political-economic unions, the essential difference 
that Fighting for Ourselves claims is that the anarcho-syndicalist union is permanent and 
engages in workplace activity beyond the dissemination of propaganda, whereas Council 
Communist ?unions?, of the 1920s and early 1930s, saw themselves as essentially temporary 
formations, bringing together convinced communists in workplaces for educational and 
propaganda purposes.

Finally in the historical section, the authors look at three anarcho-syndicalist 
antecedents they consider of particular importance to the development of their own vision 
of a ?unitary? or ?political-economic? unionism: the Regional Workers Federation of 
Argentina (FORA); the Free Workers Union of Germany (the FAUD) and the National 
Confederation of Labour of Spain (CNT). Whilst the authors state that they cannot ?pluck? 
any of those unions from history as a ?ready-made blueprint?, they do see them providing 
models that modern anarcho-syndicalists can learn from and perhaps adapt to contemporary 
circumstances. Certainly the three unions demonstrate definite diversity amongst 
historical anarcho-syndicalists.

The FORA was essentially a minority (though still mass) union of ideologically committed 
anti-industrialist anarchist communists engaged in a brutal struggle against semi-feudal 
bosses. The FAUD had been formed during the German revolution and constituted a small but 
vibrant part of both the libertarian left and the broader radical labour movement. The 
authors suggest that FAUD was greatly sustained during the decade following the final 
defeat of the German revolution through its cultural and political work, which if anything 
they underplay ? as the union declined as an economic organisation it actually grew as a 
workers? cultural-educational-social association ? until its destruction under the Nazi 
regime.
Finally they turn to the most legendary of anarcho-syndicalist unions: the CNT, which the 
authors describe as a ?contradictory amalgamation of syndicalist union and anarchist 
organisation? (p. 55) ? a situation which they argue led to the eventual compromises the 
union made with the bourgeois state under the Popular Front in 1936. They suggest that the 
union was simultaneously not syndicalist enough (i.e. not preventing a bureaucracy) and 
not anarchist enough (i.e. failing to ?smash the state? when it had the opportunity in 
Catalonia). This is certainly a controversial interpretation.

So what does the history lesson in anarcho-syndicalism bring to the theory and practice of 
the Solidarity Federation? This is not made very explicit but it can be guessed at: From 
the FOR A, they seem to take the idea that a union committed to an overtly anarchist 
communist perspective can still be a mass organisation given the right circumstances. From 
the FAUD, they perhaps conclude that a strong cultural-educational-social role is 
important, not least because it can sustain an organisation through difficult times. From 
the CNT, they suggest that a successful union requires an organic unification of the 
political (anarchism) and the economic (syndicalism), which requires a complete 
identification of the two.

Fighting for Ourselves brings us up to date with discussion of the period from the Second 
World War to the present, covering the post-war social democratic settlement and the brief 
period of relative social and industrial peace, broken internationally by the May 1968 
events in France and the Hot Autumn of workers struggles in Italy the following year. At 
home, the Winter of Discontent is seen as the turning point where capitalism began to shed 
the niceties of social partnership with the trade unions and neoliberalism began to 
massively restructure whilst launching wave after wave of assaults on working class living 
standards, which have only intensified in the period of recession since 2008.
The final chapter, ?Anarcho-syndicalism in the 21st century?, attempts to put forward 
SolFed?s vision for the here and now. This part of the book most closely resembles their 
Winning the Class War pamphlet. It might be useful to begin with what the authors actually 
reject as ways forward. These include attempts to reform the existing trade unions; to 
function as a ?political organisation of anarchists?; involvement in union rank and file 
movements; recruiting workers into the revolutionary union as a priority; and seeing the 
anarcho-syndicalist union as a ?monolithic organisation?. Let?s look at these individually 
to see where there may be a commonality between SolFed and ourselves.
With their argument that attempts to transform the existing trade unions into 
revolutionary workers organisations are a waste of time and energy, we are in full 
agreement. Neither organisation will be spending any time capturing leadership positions 
in the TUC unions or attempting to build reform caucuses when we could be building rank 
and file confidence and autonomy.

The Anarchist Federation believes that building a political organisation of anarchists is 
one of our central tasks; one that is active in all spheres of working class life, 
including the cultural and social, as well as ?economic?. However, it is obvious that this 
is also what SolFed have themselves built, albeit with the desire to become something 
else. It is hard indeed, not to regard our SolFed comrades as anarchist communists in 
their working clothes. Whether they continue as a political organisation or transform into 
the political-economic association remains to be seen; although we are convinced of their 
sincerity in this aim.

Like the SolFed, we also have great reservations about the various predominantly Leninist 
dominated union rank and files and left caucuses, and see little point in putting energy 
into endless debates with left activists when we could be talking directly to other 
workers. That said, some rank and file initiatives that are not party fronts do have the 
involvement of both SolFed and Anarchist Federation militants (for example the Civil 
Service Rank and File); and we should perhaps consider how we can work together to 
encourage their continued vibrancy and autonomy.

Related to this is the continued engagement of SolFed members in the revolutionary 
unionist/syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World, in which many Anarchist Federation 
members are also active. The model of unionism in the IWW in the UK may at times lean more 
towards the representative one, but the dominant model remains ?Solidarity Unionism? ? a 
variety of which, known as Direct Unionism, has obviously been an influence upon SolFed.

The SolFed?s approach of not opening up their Industrial Networks to militants unwilling 
to join SolFed itself, which can be seen as an attempt to prevent the dilution of their 
politics, is on one level understandable. On the other hand, if the organisation is to 
make the desired transition from propaganda group to revolutionary union, outside of any 
large scale resurgence of class struggle, then its intention not to prioritise recruitment 
of workers into that union begs the question of how far they can go along the route from 
political to political-economic association.

SolFed?s acknowledgment that not all libertarian (nor indeed, working class) activity can 
take place within the confines of the anarcho-syndicalist union is welcome. Although 
other, broader struggles, are mentioned in Fighting for Ourselves, it is plain that their 
orientation is essentially towards the workplace. Despite that focus of struggle remaining 
pivotal, the fight against capitalism, the state and hierarchy does not end at the call 
centre car park.

Fighting for Ourselves has set out the vision of the Solidarity Federation, providing a 
substantial historical context, with a definite internal consistency. The question now is 
how this perspective will be applied in practice. The authors make clear that they see 
this as a case of trial and error, and that they are far from even organising workplace 
branches, never mind the insurrectionary general strike. As the revolutionary union 
movement that SolFed want to see emerge remains at the speculative stage, it prevents them 
(and us!) from ascertaining whether their particular model of non-representative unionism 
is realisable. What is certain is that their attempts to put the model into practice over 
the next years will be watched with supportive anticipation.