Anarchic update news all over the world - Part 1 - 14.09.2019

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Britain, Anarchist Communist Group: Virus In The Body
      Politic (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  Russia, avtonom: Do not choose your master: boycott the
      "election" - mani [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 3.  South Africaza, zalazabooks.net ZACF: Building Working Class
      Unity in South Africa by Jonathan Payn, Jakes Factoria, Tina
      Sizovuka and Warren McGregor (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1






At recent coordinating meetings of the Anarchist Communist Group, it was decided to bring
out a new theoretical magazine which would also include articles on history and culture,
as well as reviews, etc. This would supplement our programme of producing pamphlets and
our agitational newssheet The Jackdaw.
It was decided to name the magazine Virus in the body politic in memory of the late Colin
Parker, one of the founders of the Anarchist Communist Federation, a precursor of the ACG,
who set up and singlehandedly ran a magazine of the same name which then became the
magazine of the ACF.
Virus should be appearing in the month of October. Stand by for further announcements.
FB

------------------------------Message: 2





On September 8, "elections" will again be held in Russia, including "elections" to the
Moscow City Duma, which have already provoked mass protests in Moscow . Otherwise, as in
quotation marks, the word "elections" cannot be used here: they are completely staged even
from the point of view of standard representative democracy. A total lack of independent
candidates on formal grounds, repression, administrative pressure on public sector
employees, a clear willingness of the authorities to falsify if necessary: in general, a
complete set. On the other hand, the opposition in the person of Navalny suggests "smartly
voting" for any eligible candidates, if only they were not from United Russia. What should
an anarchist do in this situation?
Events surrounding the "elections" to the Moscow City Duma mean an increase among
Muscovites (and not only) of interest in monitoring the situation at the local level. And
we are sorry that many of them do not know a mechanism other than bourgeois representative
democracy.

"Autonomous Action" has always called for a boycott of "elections." We don't think that
your participation in this dirty story can at least somehow affect the authoritarian
dictatorship established in Russia, even if you vote not for edros, but for the Communist
Party of the Russian Federation or other ghoul that suits the government (and does not
suit the "elections" admit). A protest in the form of a vote "for anyone except EdRa" is
meaningless: all candidates graciously admitted to the "election" either have no influence
on politics or are completely subordinate to the Kremlin. The regime fully controls the
electoral system, and we should not participate in its further legitimization.
Participation in the "elections" is, in fact, a recognition that they mean something and
that you agree with the system as a whole. But we do not agree!

The boycott of "elections" means the requirement to at least return the normal (at least
from the bourgeois point of view) elective legislation, and at the very least - transfer
power to the grassroots level. But in addition, it is also an important symbolic action, a
sign to everyone around you that you do not support the Putin system and do not consider
it legitimate. Even if the boycott is not massive, the anarchists must still be consistent
in their actions and uphold their views, even when they are unpopular. Of course, you need
to do this openly, declaring as publicly as possible that you are boycotting the "election".

Yes, "smart voting" is good because it can provoke a squabble in the "elites", as well as
mass protests as a result of the inevitable falsification of the "election". This can be
useful. But we believe that the negative consequences of a symbolic act of obedience to
the regime in the form of participation in the "elections" are much more important.

In addition, in the long run, a massive boycott of the "election" in the same way (and
even better) could trigger a crisis of legitimacy, which ultimately leads to the collapse
of the system. Naturally, not a boycott per se, but in combination with other forms of
civil disobedience: first of all, this is a general strike, that is, a situation where
most of the working population refuses to do their job for a certain time.

The country rests on those who work: behind the wheel of a car, in an office or in a
factory. "But if you don't go to work, then you'll be fired right away?!" you say. Yes,
one person will be fired. But you cannot suddenly dismiss all employees who decided to go
on strike - this is death for the enterprise.

The strike hits the most vulnerable spot of the ruling class: their wallet. After all, the
country that has embarked on a strike is a breakdown of contracts, lost profits. You can
shout at rallies until you turn blue, but as long as the money flows into the wallets of
the "elite", they won't give a damn about it.

There are examples of successful political strikes: for example, in 1980 in Poland it was
from the strike at the shipyard in Gdansk that the campaign of mass civil resistance
began, which ultimately led to the fall of the authoritarian regime.

Strikes are different: it is not necessary not to go to work at all. It is possible, for
example, to organize an "Italian strike" - to work in an effort to fully comply with the
formal rules of procedure - so that labor productivity decreases. You can use other
options for the strike or its support - everything is limited only by imagination. Of
course, it is most important that the strike - organized by a decentralized "bottom" and
not controlled by trade unions - be supported by "backbone" workers: public utilities,
railway workers, air traffic controllers, dockers, and drivers. But workers in other areas
can and should support the protest in word and deed.

This method of struggle is much more effective and much more honest than "smart voting".
We believe that this is precisely what anarchists should be called upon to do.

On the whole, of course, we propose generally replacing representative democracy with
direct . You can read more about anarchist and libertarian alternatives to the
representative system, for example, at Cornelius Kastoriadis or watch lectures from the
seminar on direct democracy held by the AD-Tyumen group in 2012 .

Media project "Autonomous Action"

News , Campaigning , AD Projects , Actual Articles and Journalism
Alternatives to the system , Anarchist movement , No "election"!
Russia
Cornelius Kastoriadis , Alexey Navalny
Add a comment

https://avtonom.org/news/ne-vybiray-sebe-gospodina-vyboram-boykot

------------------------------

Message: 3






Lessons from United Fronts in Germany, Italy and Russia -- This pamphlet is a collection
of articles exploring the concept, history and anarchist/syndicalist approaches to United
Fronts - and their relevance and potential for building working class unity in South
Africa - written in the context of the National Union of Metalworkers (Numsa)'s
resolution, following its historic 2013 Special National Congress, to break with the
ANC-led Alliance and form a ‘United Front against neoliberalism' ---- First Zabalaza Books
edition, July 2019 ---- Contents: ---- Introduction: Class Struggle, the Left and Power by
Jonathan Payn (ZACF) ---- Chapter 1: NUMSA and the ‘United Front against Neoliberalism' by
Jonathan Payn (ZACF) ---- Chapter 2: Anti-Militarist United Fronts and Italy's "Red Week",
1914 by Jonathan Payn (ZACF) ---- Chapter 3: The 1917 Russian Revolution and United Front
by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Chapter 4: United Working Class Action and the Workers' Council Movement in Germany,
1920-1923 by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Chapter 5: The General Approach of Anarchists/Syndicalists to the United Front and NUMSA
by Jakes Factoria and Tina Sizovuka (ZACF)
Chapter 6: Left Unity, Left Co-Operation or a Working Class Front? by Warren McGregor (ZACF)
Building Working Class Unity in South Africa: Lessons from United Fronts in Germany, Italy
and Russia
Introduction: Class Struggle, the Left and Power
Twenty-five years into democracy the black working class majority in South Africa has not
experienced any meaningful improvements in its conditions. The apartheid legacy of unequal
education, healthcare and housing and the super-exploitation of black workers continues
under the ANC and is perpetuated by the neoliberal policies it has imposed.

These troubles are part of the world's troubles; this neoliberalism is part of global
neoliberalism. As the global economic crisis deepens, the global ruling class is making
the working class pay, transferring the costs to workers and the poor, leading to
increased poverty, unemployment, inequality and insecurity. And so in South Africa
neoliberal oppression is piled on top of national oppression.

The only force capable of changing this situation is the working class locally and
internationally. Yet to do so, struggles need to come together, new forms of organisation
appropriate to the context are needed; and they need both to be infused with a
revolutionary progressive politics and to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Some such struggles have occurred over recent years, including the historic platinum
mineworkers' strike and farmworkers' strike in 2012; but the many struggles have not yet
pulled together into a new movement.

Outside the ANC alliance, there have indeed been many efforts to unite struggles - but
these have largely failed to resonate with the working class in struggle and form the
basis of a new movement.

Nowhere is this more evident than with the newly-formed Socialist Revolutionary Workers
Party (SRWP) - which got less than 25 000 votes in the national elections, despite the
fact that the union that conceived it, Numsa, claims nearly 400 000 members.

NUMSA's Non-Moment
When the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) announced its resolutions,
following its historic 2013 Special National Congress, to break with the ANC and SACP and
to form a "United Front against neoliberalism", many on the left were hopeful that this
would give working class movements the new ideological and organisational direction they need.

The United Front, Numsa said, was not about building a new organisation, party or labour
federation but "a way to join other organisations in action, in the trenches", gaining
community support for Numsa campaigns and building "concrete support for other struggles
of the working class and the poor wherever and whenever they take place".

It looked as if there hopes were not misplaced when, for example, unemployed youth and
community activists across the country responded positively to Numsa's call by supporting
the 19 March 2014 actions against the Youth Wage Subsidy. Branches were set up and,
despite initial scepticism, community activists joined.

By August 2017, however, the Johannesburg branch of the United Front had declared that,
"After the initial enthusiasm, there is now a feeling the UF has largely collapsed, with
only a couple of local structures still active." Numsa had shifted its focus and resources
to establishing a "Movement for Socialism" because "the working-class needs a political
organisation committed in its policies and actions to the establishment of a socialist
South Africa".

Having gained some community support for its campaigns, including the United Front itself,
the success of the United Front in building working class unity going forward depended on
whether Numsa would reciprocate by putting its resources and capacity at the service of
building "concrete support for other struggles of the working class and the poor wherever
and whenever they take place".

Instead, Numsa put its energies into calling for a new workers' party, while presenting
itself as the vanguard of the whole working class, and in so doing missed its moment.

The SRWP won't set you free
Numsa undertook to "conduct a thoroughgoing discussion on previous attempts to build
socialism as well as current experiments to build socialism" and "commission an
international study on the historical formation of working-class parties, including
exploring different type of parties - from mass workers' parties to vanguard parties". But
it already knew what it was aiming for. It had said that a new political party was on the
cards - to replace the SACP, which had become corrupted by the neoliberal state, as the
political vanguard of the working class.

The potential of the United Front approach for building working class unity is precisely
because it accommodates ideological differences in order to build the unity of working
class formations in struggle. But Numsa still looks to the legacy of Communist Parties.
And these parties have historically used united fronts to create unity in action in
struggles against capitalist attacks, but also with the aim of winning over the majority
in these struggles to their programme - in this case the formation of a new party, that
they would lead - under their Party leadership and no one else's.

While Numsa has broken with Cosatu and the SACP organisationally, it has not broken with
them ideologically. The Numsa bureaucrats' belief that they are the vanguard of the
working class and their insistence on building a party to contest state power are founded
on the same ideological certainties and theoretical understandings of class, power and the
nature of the state as the SACP - with the same strategic implications that, invariably,
will have the same disappointing outcomes.

If we really want to build a movement for socialism, and to avoid merely replacing one set
of rulers for another, the authoritarian left needs to rethink its understandings class,
power and the nature of the state in light of the imperial evidence and learn from the
mistakes of the past, instead of repeating them and expecting a different outcome.

This pamphlet is a collection of articles - written in the context of the National Union
of Metalworkers (Numsa)'s resolution, following its historic 2013 Special National
Congress, to break with the ANC-led Alliance and form a ‘United Front against
neoliberalism' - intended to contribute to that discussion by exploring the concept,
history and anarchist/syndicalist approaches to United Fronts and their relevance and
potential for building working class unity in South Africa.

Jonathan Payn

Chapter 1: NUMSA and the ‘United Front against Neoliberalism'
by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Part 1 in a series of articles on the concept and history of the United Front. This
article first appeared in Workers World News.

The resolution adopted by the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) to
form a ‘United Front against neoliberalism' - as well as its decision not to endorse the
ANC in the elections - represents an interesting development in the political landscape,
one which activists should look at carefully and engage.  Due to the language used by the
media, the Left, NUMSA's critics and even NUMSA itself much confusion surrounds the debate
- leaving many questions: Is the ‘United Front' an organisation or attempt to build a new
labour federation or political party? Is it an attempt to revive the 1980s United
Democratic Front (UDF)? Why NUMSA's sudden interest in community struggles?

This series, of which this article is the first, aims to clarify these and other questions
by looking at the proposal and history of united fronts locally and internationally to
clarify key issues and draw lessons that activists can use when engaging the pros and cons
of NUMSA's United Front proposal and if and how they think it should be developed.

Global Capitalist Crisis and a stalled Revolution
To understand NUMSA's decision to break with the ANC and SACP, and the potential its call
for a united front could offer for building a working class-based alternative to the
ANC-led Alliance and its neoliberal policies, activists must contextualise these decisions
and unpack what NUMSA understands by the United Front.

NUMSA has noted that, twenty years after the democratic transition, the majority-black
working class has not experienced meaningful improvements in its conditions. At the same
time, however, a small black elite has become super wealthy. In South Africa NUMSA has
noted that the neoliberal restructuring, implemented by the ANC government and supported
by its Alliance partners, has been aimed at benefiting the capitalist class and has
resulted in the increased dominance of finance capital, in massive job losses and
increased poverty and inequality.

‘A Weapon for Uniting the Working Class'
NUMSA claims not to see the United Front as a new organisation or party but a mechanism
"to mobilise the working class in all their formations into a United Front against
neoliberalism". Whereas NUMSA sees the Alliance as "simply a mechanism for mobilising a
vote for the ANC", it envisions the United Front as a "mobilising tool to organise and
coordinate working class struggles".

The United Front is also not about building a new labour federation as NUMSA is calling on
COSATU to join it in breaking with the Alliance and building a new movement. Nor is it an
attempt to simply revive the UDF. Rather, it is "a way to join other organisations in
action, in the trenches", through sharing common struggles.

NUMSA says that "better working conditions are inseparable from the working class
community struggles for transportation, sanitation, water, electricity and shelter" and
that it wants to break down the barriers that exist between worker and community
struggles. The two pillars on which its United Front would stand are gaining community
support for NUMSA campaigns and building "concrete support for other struggles of the
working class and the poor wherever and whenever they take place".

‘NUMSA is part of the Community, and NOT the Community'
For many community activists the question then is why now, after ignoring community
struggles for so long, does NUMSA claim to want to support them? Moreover, why does NUMSA
think it should lead this unification process? After all, community activists long ago
identified the ANC's neoliberal character.

Despite the fact that its members come from the communities NUMSA has not supported
community struggles in recent years. Yet now it seems NUMSA wants to support community
struggles and lead them in building a united front. While it might have a role to play,
some community activists feel NUMSA cannot legitimately take the lead in uniting community
struggles.

Instead they feel NUMSA should focus on building unity with other unions before
approaching communities. Similarly, communities should first work together to unite their
own struggles from the bottom up; a process that is already underway in parts of the country.

Only once community struggles are united and coordinated from below, by the activists
involved, can they feel confident in uniting community and worker struggles without fear
of bigger, more resourced organisations like NUMSA imposing themselves on them.

Conclusion
A good thing about the United Front is that it accommodates ideological differences in
order to build the unity of working class formations in struggle. However, Communist
Parties have historically engaged in united fronts to create unity in action in struggles
against the onslaught of capitalism, but also with the aim of winning over the majority -
who mostly (but not exclusively as there were other revolutionary currents) supported
reformist social democratic parties - involved in these struggles to their programme and
lead as a Party. When engaging the NUMSA United Front proposal, then, it is important to
ask whether or not NUMSA also sees the United Front as a tactic to win what it has
sometimes unfortunately described as leaderless and unorganised community struggles to its
perspectives and to ensure they accept its leadership in struggles.

Community activists across the country have, despite scepticism, responded positively to
NUMSA's call by supporting the 19 March actions against the Youth Wage Subsidy.

Will NUMSA reciprocate by putting its resources and capacity at the service of building
"concrete support for other struggles of the working class and the poor "wherever and
whenever they take place"?

The possibility of NUMSA playing any relevant role in fostering working class unity
depends on the answer to this question.

Chapter 2: Anti-Militarist United Fronts and Italy's "Red Week", 1914
by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Part 2 in a series of articles on the concept and history of the United Front. First
published in issue 87 of Workers World News.

The United Front tactic - aimed at uniting masses of workers in action and winning
Communist leadership for the working class - was adopted as policy by the Communist
International (Comintern) in 1921 and will be discussed later in this series. However,
there are important examples of working class unity in action which predate Comintern
policy and bear relevance to the united fronts discussion. One often-cited example is the
united front to defend the gains of the February Revolution from a military coup in Russia
in 1917, which will be discussed in the next article in this series.

Before looking at this, however, there is another example of proletarian unity in action -
that didn't seek to win Communist leadership - which warrants attention; that of a
revolutionary worker-peasant alliance. This conception of united front action found
expression in Italy's anti-militarist "red blocs" and it is to these that we now turn.

Prelude to Rebellion
In the early 1900s, there was strong worker and peasant opposition to Italian colonialism
and military involvement in Eritrea, Abyssinia and Libya, and to the repression of the
Italian working class by the state's armed forces.

Workers and peasants saw that, although soldiers came mostly from the working class and
peasantry, the military and its colonial adventures only served the interests of the
ruling class in its search for new markets and new sources of cheap labour and raw
materials - as well as to suppress local working class struggles.

However, divisions emerged in the Italian socialist movement between its rank-and-file and
the Italian Socialist Party's (PSI) reformist leaders, who rejected revolution -
represented by anarchists, Bolsheviks and syndicalists - in favour of a gradual electoral
transition to socialism. Shortly before Italy invaded Libya in 1911, the PSI's youth wing,
the Italian Socialist Youth Federation - which rejected "reformism" - met with syndicalist
youth organisations and agreed to co-operate in anti-war efforts. This co-operation,
extended to anarchist youth as well, laid the basis for an anti-militarist united front or
"red bloc".

1914 "Red Week"
By 1914, a twenty thousand-strong united front of workers and peasants from different
political tendencies was organised against militarism. On Constitution Day, June 7 1914,
this anti-militarist front organised a national demonstration against militarism and war.
Fearing this front could lay the basis for a revolutionary "Red bloc" the government
ordered troops to suppress the protests. Clashes between troops and anti-militarists
erupted leaving three workers dead.

The proletariat took to the streets in response and rebellion engulfed the country. Before
the dominant General Confederation of Labour (CGL) had responded the Italian Syndicalist
Union and Chamber of Labour called a general strike. Dock and rail workers asserted their
power in a crippling wave of protests and 50 000 workers marched in Turin in "iron ranks
of class solidarity" when the CGL joined the call.

Although the socialist leadership had been divided over the call for a general strike the
masses embraced it with revolutionary fervour. Barricades sprang up in the northern
industrial centres. Self-governing communes were declared in smaller towns and government
officials forced to flee. About a million people participated and for ten days the city of
Ancona was under the control of rebel workers and peasants.

The uprising, called the "Red week", differed from previous uprisings in extent and
intensity - it spread across the country from north to south, in cities and countryside,
and was offensive rather than defensive in nature. Many workers and peasants believed that
revolution was possible and pushed to realise it.

Betrayal and Collapse
However, the reformists restated their view that socialism wouldn't be achieved by the
masses' revolutionary impulses and rejected the need for a revolutionary rupture. They
believed that the working class was not ready for socialism, that its "impulsiveness" was
harmful and that socialists should "educate and civilise" the proletariat in order to
prepare it for a gradual transition to socialism.

On seeing the situation develop into a potentially revolutionary uprising that they could
not contain the CGL called off the strike after two days - over workers' heads and without
consulting the PSI or other working class formations. In doing so they gagged the most
conscious and rebellious working class militants and the revolutionary movement collapsed.
Although ten thousand troops were needed to regain control of Ancona and in Marcas and
Romagna anarchists, revolutionary socialists and Republicans maintained their posts in the
streets, side-by-side, for a few days more.

Alternative Ending
However, not everyone shared this view and some socialists did believe that the masses
were ready for and capable of revolution and that this was how socialism would come about.

Errico Malatesta, an anarchist leader of the uprising, pleaded with workers not to obey
the CGL's order to end the strike; believing instead that the monarchy was collapsing and
that revolution was indeed possible. For revolutionaries like Malatesta socialism would be
achieved not through class compromise and elections, but through a working class
revolution from below. Through the self-activity and self-organisation of the masses. For
them socialists should encourage and stimulate this working class self-organisation and
self-activity in preparation for the revolution, which would be cultivated by constant use
of the strike weapon, culminating in a revolutionary general strike.

For these revolutionaries, the lesson of the Red Week is that the working class can be
revolutionary and that it is strongest on its own terrain; outside and against the state.
Rather than being harnesses to and held back by electoral parties it should organise
independently as a class, across ideological lines, to overthrow the state and capitalism
and replace them with directly democratic organs of working class self-governance.

After the Red Week uprising had been suppressed Malatesta declared, "Now... We will
continue more than ever full of enthusiasm, acts of will, of hope, of faith. We will
continue preparing the liberating revolution, which will secure justice, freedom and
well-being for all."

Chapter 3: The 1917 Russian Revolution and United Front
by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Part 3 in a series of articles on the concept and history of the United Front.

In the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik Party, together with other
revolutionaries, overthrew the Provisional Government established in February and -
together, initially, with left Social Revolutionaries - seized power. How did the
Bolsheviks - a minority just eight months earlier, when the February Revolution overthrew
the Tsar and established the Provisional Government - come to power so quickly? How did
this small force emerge from relative obscurity to win large sections of the working class
to its programme and take power? Herein lies the root and essence of United Front policy
in a traditional Marxist sense.

Soviet Democracy and Revolution in February
During the February Revolution, workers, peasants and soldiers spontaneously rose up and
seized land and factories throughout Russia establishing workers', peasants' and soldiers'
councils - mass democratic organs of working class counter-power. These councils, known as
soviets, elected their own delegates and had representatives from different political
tendencies from (reformist) Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries to (revolutionary)
anarchists and Bolsheviks. Through the soviets workers co-ordinated strikes and other
forms of struggle, using them to govern themselves as a class. They were, in effect,
united fronts organised from below by the working masses in pursuit of specific demands:
food, land, democratic reforms and an end to the war.

In a few short weeks the Tsar, whose family had ruled Russia for generations, was forced
to abdicate and a provisional government formed. The soviets developed alongside the
liberal Provisional Government and a situation of dual-power emerged. Initially, the
soviets supported the Provisional Government as a hesitant expression of workers'
democratic aspirations but, as the war dragged on and the Provisional Government failed to
implement even modest social reforms, discontent arose. Many workers and soldiers trusted
the soviets more than the Provisional Government; but the new government was not strong
enough to disband them.

Discontent and Reaction in August
The Provisional Government, headed by Kerensky, faced a crisis by the end of July. The
growth of revolutionary ideas was fuelled by worsening economic conditions, unpopular
government policies and peasant unrest.

The ruling class became unhappy with Kerensky's weak-kneed government. In August, the
reactionary General Kornilov broke with the Provisional Government and plotted to
establish himself at Russia's head by seizing Petrograd - the stronghold of the
revolution. If the Kerensky government could not deal with the soviets he would do so himself.

Barricades and revolutionary defence committees were established by workers and soldiers
spontaneously across Petrograd to defend their hard-won democratic advances from General
Kornilov's forces. The Bolsheviks, like most other revolutionary currents, entered into
these committees as a minority but played a prominent role in the Committee of
Revolutionary Defence. They established Red Guard units and provided military training.

Bolshevik "Upswing" and Revolution in October
The coup, which was rightly seen as a reactionary attempt to crush the soviets, was
defeated. The workers' victory shifted the balance of forces leftwards and Bolshevik
support surged. Later, this "upswing" in Bolshevik support was attributed to their united
front-style tactics.

According to this analysis, by participating in the front-lines of the struggle against
Kornilov while maintaining their political independence, providing political leadership
and not taking responsibility for the inadequacies of Kerensky's policies, the Bolsheviks
won the majority over to their leadership. Faced with a common enemy different workers'
parties were united in action and, both by supporting the (non-Communist) mass of workers'
demands for land, peace and bread and by exposing their reformist leaders' inability to
satisfy these demands, the Bolsheviks managed to win the majority to their programme.

Within two months, the Bolsheviks had led a revolution against the Provisional Government
and established what appeared for a short while to be soviet power. This, for traditional
Marxists, was the "great lesson" of the Russian Revolution.

Another Approach: Revolutionary and from Below
However, many leftists - including some prominent Bolsheviks - were critical of the
Bolshevik approach to the struggle against Kerensky. The reformists believed that instead
of dissolving the Constituent Assembly they should have formed a socialist united front
government with other socialist parties - the Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and
Bolsheviks - which together had a majority, as the Constituent Assembly elections in
November showed.

For them such a government, enjoying majority support, would bring peace and through the
economic stability enabled by these conditions could gradually introduce socialist reforms
from above. They said a Bolshevik-only government would lead to "a regime of terror and to
the destruction of the revolution".

However, there was another revolutionary position - represented by the anarchists,
syndicalists and communist left. This position held that the working class was already
united in revolutionary action in February 1917. They argued that the soviets were already
a majority and didn't need the support of the Provisional Government or Bolshevik
leadership but, rather, could have built on the class confidence gained through Kornilov's
defeat to dissolve the Provisional Government and truly disseminate all power to the soviets.

This position held that what was needed to advance the revolution was not centralised
state power under the leadership of an all-powerful party, but the decentralised power of
a federation of armed workers', peasants' and soldiers' soviets; a revolutionary united
front from below.

The Bolshevik argument was that you couldn't have a revolution without Communist Party
leadership because the working class would vacillate in its absence. However, there were
in fact many episodes throughout 1917 where the working class was more revolutionary than
the parties, Communist included. Many parties thus tailed the working class and even the
Bolsheviks changed their programme to be more in line with the revolutionary working class
- only to change it back once they had consolidated power.

While we will never know what would have happened had this alternative position triumphed,
history has vindicated the argument against one-party Communist rule.

The next instalment in this series will look at another important episode in united
working class struggle and its contribution to United Front policy - Germany in 1920-21.

Chapter 4: United Working Class Action and the Workers' Council Movement in Germany, 1920-1923
by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)
Part 4 in a series of articles on the concept and history of the United Front.

A "revolutionary alternative from below" that was not quite to be but holds pertinent
lessons for movements today.

In 1919, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) organised the suppression of workers
that, together with soldiers, had overthrown the German imperial government in the
1918-1919 German Revolution and brought an end to the First World War. The SPD restored
capitalist and state power but, despite being brutally repressed by the SPD, the German
working class continued to struggle against the government until 1923.

Right-wing forces also wanted to oust the SPD-led government, recapture direct state
control and reverse the results of the Revolution.

United action against the Kapp Putsch
In March, 1920, right-wing military forces occupied Germany's capital, Berlin, under the
leadership of Wolfgang Kapp and the SPD-led government fled. All left parties, excluding
the KPD (German Communist Party), called for a general strike to counter the coup and
defend democracy. Soon, the strike had spread across the country.

Workers spontaneously organised an insurrectionary offensive, forming armed defence and
strike committees to unite workers from different political tendencies and co-ordinate
their actions.

This regrouping of the workers' movement in the form of workers' councils and action
committees - which had been widespread during the 1918-1919 Revolution - united workers
across political parties. The newly-formed "red army" was organised around three main
geographical centres under the influence of the USPD (Independent Socialists); KPD and
Left USPD; and revolutionary syndicalists and KPD left-wing respectively.

Facing nation-wide armed resistance and an insurrectionary general strike Kapp's forces
gave up and fled Berlin, but the insurrection continued in pursuit of a new government.
The three "workers" parties (SPD-USPD-KPD) did not support the workers' struggle for a new
government and opposed workers' attempts to arm themselves and act independently.

Following the flight of Kapp's forces the central government returned to Berlin, called
off the strike and attempted to form a "workers" government comprising the SPD, KPD and
USPD. The KPD was divided over whether such a government could play a progressive role.
The left-wing majority - which in April 1920 left to form the anti-parliamentary KAPD
(Communist Workers' Party) - distrusted this government and said it would be similar to
the SPD coalition government established after the 1918 uprising, which had brutally
repressed workers and helped restore capitalist rule in the form of social democracy. They
opposed a return to parliamentary activity because they believed that the workers' council
movement had superseded parliamentary activity and that the call to return to parliament
was a betrayal of the revolution. They said there was already a revolutionary situation in
Germany at the end of 1918 and almost all left politics in 1919 took place in the workers'
councils, not in parliament, and it was in fact the workers' faith in bourgeois democratic
institutions - promoted by the "workers" parties in order to get themselves into power -
that had led to the demobilisation of revolutionary workers.

However, there was a minority that - wanting to replicate the role of the Bolsheviks in
the Russian Revolution - felt it was similar to the Bolshevik call, in 1917, for the
Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries to break with the bourgeoisie and form a united
front government. The USPD, however, rejected the proposal and so it was never tested.

As with the November 1918 revolution the working class had conquered power again in 1920
without being conscious of it and, "had gone in its actions far beyond its explicit
demands - and far beyond the consciousness it had of its own activity and desires. Now it
had to decide whether to consolidate its new found power (i.e., create a genuine council
system) or revert back to the realisation of its initial demands (i.e., peace, food, and
parliamentary democracy)".

The mass of workers having effectively taken power through their councils failed to
consolidate the gains made and effectively divested their power to party
"representatives". Those revolutionaries that wanted to go further were shot down by the
same army which had supported the rightist coup and to which the government, as it
inevitably does, now turned for support.

The right, having reappeared on the political scene with the coup, shifted the political
centre of gravity rightward and the SPD relinquished power in the June 1920 elections and
in August the centrist parliament passed a "disarmament" law.

The Last Flicker of Hope, 1923
In the years following the abortive Kapp putsch there were numerous mass demonstrations
and strikes around Germany, however parties like the KPD and SPD were able to capture the
direction of these movements and lead them away from a revolutionary direction. The KPD
consistently pushed workers' struggles away from insurrection and towards parliamentary
activity under the instruction of Moscow; which didn't want to upset imperialist powers,
such as England and France, and risk destabilising the Bolshevik regime until they had
consolidated power.

The German working class last engaged in mass struggle on a national level in August,
1923, where workers spontaneously arose in response to increasing inflation and
deteriorating living conditions. Workers' councils and armed defence committees were again
established. The KPD's defensive implementation of a united front policy won them the
support of a large number of SPD members, but its attempt to form an alliance with the
right-wing around a national programme left it disoriented. Rather than providing
revolutionary direction the KDP, interested only in bringing social democratic workers
under its party leadership, consistently betrayed the revolutionary working class by
reinforcing illusions in parliamentary activity and diverting workers away from
insurrectionary struggle at times when the working class itself had effectively taken
power and established democratic forms of working class self-administration.

Due to its isolation and divisions within the working class the 1923 uprising was soon
defeated and the workers' movement was weakened beyond recovery.

A Revolutionary Alternative from Below
In opposition to the move to institutionalise - and thus control - the workers' council
movement by drawing it into parliamentary activity there existed an alternative
revolutionary position represented, particularly, by the council communist KAPD and the
revolutionary syndicalists. These currents struggled against the ideas of party-rule and
state control by attempting to put into practice concepts of the workers' council movement
in pursuit of direct workers' self-determination. They acted as an extra-parliamentary
opposition to the reformist and statist left parties and "educated people to act on their
own political initiative, independently of any representatives".

Although the objective conditions existed for revolution the subjective conditions were
not fully developed; the masses did not look forward to building a new socialist society
but - influenced by the "workers" parties - back to the restoration of pre-war liberal
capitalism and the completion of the reforms started before the war.

Thus, the clear revolutionary path desired by the so-called ultra-left (council
communists, anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists) was not possible in light of the
prevailing attitude of the mass of workers, who were still under the illusion - promoted
by the "workers" parties - that their power lay in having "their" representatives in
bourgeois democratic institutions and consistently divested the power they had effectively
taken with the establishment of workers' councils to party representatives.

Chapter 5: The General Approach of Anarchists/Syndicalists to the United Front and NUMSA
by Jakes Factoria and Tina Sizovuka (ZACF)
In this section we address questions that have been posed to ZACF militants. We are
sharing these discussions because we think these are important and pertinent issues in
Southern Africa. If you have questions you would us to address in our next issue, please
get in touch!

In this column, comrade Themba Kotane, a union militant, asks:

Will the United Front (UF) address the crises we are currently facing in South Africa? I
am concerned about how the UF works and who leads it. In my own view we don't need a
leader, we need to all have equal voice. How can we build the UF as a basis for a
stateless, socialist, South Africa?

Jakes Factoria and Tina Sizovuka respond:

What the UF will do, will depend on which perspectives win out in it. Our general
anarchist/ syndicalist perspective is that the UF (as well as the unions, like the
National Union of Metalworkers of SA, NUMSA) should be (re)built, as far as possible, into
a movement of counter-power, outside and against the state and capital.

This means UF structures and affiliates should be developed into radical, democratic
structures (in the workplaces and in communities) that can fight now against the ruling
class, and that can eventually take power, directly. The UF should be (re)built into a
direct action-based, direct democratic-structured movement for anarchist revolution. That
means building structures in communities (street and ward committees and assemblies) that
can replace municipalities, and developing the unions in the workplaces (through
shopstewards committees and assemblies) into structures that can take over and run
workplaces. This is not such a foreign concept in recent South African history: NUMSA's
predecessor, MAWU, was involved in the movement for "people's power", which took many
steps in this direction during the anti-apartheid struggle in the 1980s.

For this to happen, a second step is needed: mass movements like UF and unions must be
infused with a revolutionary counter-culture. This means the masses are won over through
anarchist political education, which is partly about building up the confidence and
ability of workers and poor people to run society, including the understanding amongst the
majority, that the tasks ahead are bigger than simply voting in elections or campaigning
for reforms to the system. When we talk about the masses, we mean the broad working class,
including the unemployed and poor, and working class people of all races, South African
and immigrant.

The tasks are to build for anarchist revolution, using the strategic perspectives of
counter-power and counter-culture. This means fighting for a self-managed society from
below, won through revolution. The corrupt and oppressive political system (the state) and
the exploiting and authoritarian economic system (capitalism) are completely and obviously
unable to create a decent society, real democracy or eradicate the apartheid legacy.
Radical change is needed, involving the overthrow of the (multi-racial) ruling class by
the broad working class, collectivization, self-management and participatory planning, and
a reign of economic and social equality and direct democracy.

Therefore, all our activities must ultimately be structured around the goals of winning
larger mass movements like the UF and the unions to these revolutionary, anti-party,
anarchist perspectives. We, as the working class, have to stop making the same mistakes,
of putting power in elite hands, of misleading people into electoral participation, and of
limiting ourselves to reformism (i.e. to small, legal changes).

We, frankly, do not have the forces to win the UF over at this stage. A discussion of the
best tactics to use in this situation belongs to another discussion. However, we must by
all means at least raise the anarchist/ syndicalist perspectives of anarchism/ syndicalism
in the UF and NUMSA where possible, as a basis of building a larger red-and-black
anarchist/ syndicalist network.

Some Limits of the NUMSA Project
We do think, however, that it is just not enough to see the problem as lying solely in
neo-liberalism or the ANC, as NUMSA seems to do. Neo-liberalism is the latest phase of
capitalism; it does not arise from bad policy advisors or undue World Bank influence, but
from the deep structure of the global political economy. Therefore it is absurd to think
neo-liberalism can be gotten rid of simply by getting rid of the ANC. Any party in office
would be under huge pressure to adopt much of the neo-liberal programme.

Since reformed forms of capitalism like the Keynesian Welfare State are no longer feasible
(if they ever were in South Africa, but that is another story), it is problematic to pose
the solution as keeping capitalism, but dumping neo-liberalism. This, however, is the
direction in which both COSATU and NUMSA lean: despite their Marxist-Leninist rhetoric,
their actual policy proposals - active industrial policy, protectionism, demand
stimulation etc. - really amount to a programme of social democratic reform that is
impossible to implement.

Second, while the ANC is part of the problem, it is not the whole problem. The whole
political system is rotten. Parliament is a place where elites connive against the poor:
the state itself is an apparatus of ruling class power, as bad as any capitalist
corporation, which means that any party would end up as disappointing as the ANC. Both of
these points mean that it is completely pointless to blame the ANC.

Given the power of the ANC in the minds of large parts of the working class, steps to
discredit it are welcome. However, the idea that the solution is to replace the ANC with a
better party should be firmly opposed. These ideas are very current in a sector of the
NUMSA leadership, as well as in a certain sector of the UF, particularly amongst the
Marxists. We oppose them, because we have no faith in the project of forming a "mass
workers party" (MWP).

The Protest Politics of "Doing Stuff"
We also disagree with the many activists in SA who see the task in movements like APF and
UF as simply building protests and fighting around immediate campaigns. From this
perspective, the main aim of these comrades is to get as many people involved in actions
as possible.

A key problem with this approach is that it is very short-term in outlook. There is no
real discussion of how the protests can lay the basis for radical change; in fact, the
aims are quite modest, and involve mostly fighting around some of the most immediate evils
in our society, like electricity cut-offs. Politics becomes a matter of running from one
event to the next; there is no real plan to build and expand mass movements; political
debate and education is always kept at the level of issues like the problems of
privatization; bigger issues like the ANC, the need to abolish the state and capitalism,
and so on, are left out.

The problems people face have deep roots: while it is vital to fight around problems like
cut-offs, these are rooted in major problems in the power industry, in the way the state
runs, in the crisis of the capitalist economy. Therefore, to really solve the problem, you
need radical changes, including a massive reallocation of resources to abolish poverty and
inequality - and this means, revolution.

But for the protest politics people, this does not matter. So long as there is a big
demonstration, these comrades are satisfied. This means that politics becomes reduced to
the problem of getting the maximum turn-out at events. This often translates into
recruiting "leaders," each claiming to represent a "community," who can then deliver
masses on the days of action. No real care is taken to build multiple layers of activists
to ensure the construction of strong democratic structures based on mandates and
delegates. The protest agenda is also normally set here, by a small group, which also
writes the press statements and discussion documents, and sets the slogans. Mass
participation often involves little more than the masses being bussed to events, where
it's really rent-a-crowd.

 From the anarchist / syndicalist perspective, that does not take us anywhere, since our
aim is to build working class movements that can resist today... but also take control in
the future.

Again, against the Party building Agenda
It is precisely because of the short-sighted nature of the politics of "doing stuff" that
many comrades argue for an MWP as a means of breaking people from the ANC, of deepening
political education, of uniting people. The idea is also that the MWP can somehow get
control of the state, and use it to undertake massive reforms, perhaps even revolution.

In this sense, the MWP approach is a step forward from the protest politics approach, in
that it recognizes that a focus on short-term issues and low levels of political
education, are serious problems - that imply that real change is needed.

But the problem is that the MWP strategy cannot work. The existing situation does not
allow a radical shift from neo-liberal policies via the state: there is little doubt that
any radical party going into parliament will be corrupted, paralyzed or coopted. As
experiences like Cuba and the Soviet Union show, putting a party in charge of a new
"revolutionary" state creates a situation at least as bad as what we have - where an elite
runs the show while the the masses are left outside.

A further problem is that the "party builders" see mass movements as a way of achieving
something else, a means to an end. They do not see these movements as themselves the
potential basis of a new society. The political perspective here is to get movements to
endorse a party. The party is seen as the real and best way of struggle - and this almost
always translates into running in elections. "Party builders" are often less concerned
with building educated, bottom-up and democratic movements, than with pushing the party
idea through. Often this programme is pushed through the unions and community structures
by all sorts of questionable, top-down methods that are unable to bring the masses along.
This is completely pointless, even damaging.

Our Line of March
Where do we differ? The difference is that anarchists/ syndicalists want to build a free
society through class struggle. Concretely, the perspective is to build movements -
including unions, community organizations, UF-type structures - in a way that leads to
this goal. Form and method become central: leader-dominated, uneducated, "stepping-stone"
movements that do not transcend protest, cannot generate a free society.

Counter-power requires more than a few leaders calling protests according to their own
whims, and then arranging transport for everyone else to attend; it means active
participation in decision-making, masses that run the organisations and set the agenda,
clued-up, critical and questioning members that can avoid the trap of elections and
control by parties or by a few leaders.

Mass movements like the UF need to be transformed in two ways in order to make them
capable of such a task. They need to become organs of counter-power, and they need to be
infused with revolutionary counter-culture. The CNT in 1930s Spain is a good example,
where in some areas of Spain, the trade union itself took over the running of industry,
transport, and distribution of goods - under direct control of union members.

Working within, Organising
How can we go about this? Clearly anarchist ideas won't spontaneously appear out of thin
air. Although its insights have been derived through struggle, it has taken years of
debate, discussion and active involvement by millions of people for anarchism to
crystalize into a coherent ideology. Within that, we argue that a specific political
organisation is necessary in order to fight for anarchism within the battle of ideas, to
work within and alongside mass movements like the UF for democratic structures,
participatory practices, and an anti-party, anti-state (anarchist) consciousness. The
purpose is not to rally the masses under our "leadership" (like political parties,
including so-called workers' parties do), but to rally the masses around the leadership of
a specific set of ideas and practices (counter-power and counter-culture).

"Boring from within" mass movements requires non-sectarianism, and we do not object to
working with other organisations of the left in committees or on campaigns where
necessary. But we are not convinced by the calls for building unity within the left, since
that is not our goal. Our orientation is not towards the left, but towards the masses - in
their organisations in workplaces and communities - and our projects are often vastly
different and require very different strategies that are often incompatible with much of
the left's. By working in movements, we aim to retain our political independence, and
operate by a clear plan, which means avoiding both "do-stuffism" (actions which do not tie
into a clearly thought-through programme), and "liquidationism" (dissolving your own
politics into that of another group).

We would also argue for raising specific slogans and ideas, like anti-electionism,
collectivisation (over nationalisation/ privatization), self-management. The UF would also
need to focus its work at the base, and not on committee work, while opposing the culture
of demagogy that has affected many movements in SA. Related to this, there is a strong
need to combat the tradition of political manipulation that currently grips much of the
labour movement, and return it to a politics of openness, debate and political pluralism.

Chapter 6: Left Unity, Left Co-Operation or a Working Class Front?
by Warren McGregor (ZACF)
A call for socialist Left unity is heard widely today in South Africa, but is usually
taken as a call for unity of praxis (unity in theoretical programme and action). This is
sometimes framed as transcending old divides (these seen as outdated, divisive or
dismissed as dogmatic), and sometimes as unity in order to have action (rhetorically set
up as the opposite of "arm chair" theory).

What do we as revolutionary anarchists think? We think this approach is fair in intention,
asks important questions and aims at addressing the crisis of the left and working class
movements.

However, the idea that divisions are outdated, divisive or dogmatic is incorrect. The
"left" - taken here to mean socialist, and not which side of the Parliamentary aisle you
sit on - is a spectrum in which a wide variety of anti- and non-capitalist ideologies and
traditions rest, from the more reformist social-democracy on one end, to the revolutionary
anarchist and Marxist sets, on the other.

Having these very different approaches is not what weakens the left. A call for left unity
as a unity of praxis misunderstands (or ignores) the value of difference and progressive
debate to theoretical development and strategic innovation. This development and
innovation strengthens the left and is best antidote to being dogmatic -  so long as it
involves honest and open (but respectful and constructive) debate and disagreement. In
other words it contributes to social change.

This process requires real engagement and thus also requires avoiding a politics of
labelling opponents in a derogatory way or with caricatures in order to dismiss instead of
engage them. Dismissing whole sets of ideas and experiences by labelling them dogmatic,
divisive or outdated (or ultra-left or reactionary etc.) is itself dogmatic.

The term "left", and the term socialism, are not and cannot be reducible to any one of
these ideologies, and in particular, are not reducible to Marxism.

If left unity means real unity of praxis it would mean a synthesis. However, a synthesis
is not truly possible, given how radically different left traditions are. Either it will
create something incoherent or extremely vague (how can you, for example, really blend
Leninist vanguardism with anarcho-syndicalist counter-power?) or it will be a unity in
name only, but where one pre-existing outlook is imposed.

If it's the former, it will not do anything to take the left forward but remove clarity.
If the latter, it involves prescribing, somewhat arrogantly, one specific theoretical
approach while labelling other views as outdated, dogmatic, divisive etc.

This latter approach, unfortunately, has become common practice in many contexts,
including in South Africa. It usually means dismissing other views, then prescribing a
programme that is basically a brand of Leninism or a left version of social-democracy,
often under labels like "21st century socialism," "democratic socialism" or socialist renewal.

Disastrous past failures are skipped or excused or presented in the best possible light.
It is not explained how, for example, Leninism will not (yet again) end in a dictatorship,
after it has had over 30 dictatorships and not one example of anything like a workers
democracy. It is not explained how, after every single Keynesian government failed in the
face of capitalist globalisation, social-democratic schemes will suddenly work now, under
global capitalism.

A lot of what is presented as new or as innovative is old wine in new bottles. Ideas get
put in new bottles. For example, the idea of building a solidarity economy of cooperatives
to end or exit capitalism is very old, going back to P.J. Proudhon in the 1840s; the idea
of state-funded worker-run farms goes back to Louis Blanc in the same period. Both
approaches have failed to create anything able to end capitalism for over 150 years and
it's not clear why they should be tried yet again.

A different call for left unity calls for a Mass Workers Party.  But this idea is rooted
in the Marxist tradition. The call skips very serious debates, particularly over state
power, the role of unions, electoralism, representative versus participatory democracy,
vanguardism etc. It does not engage with whether an approach based on capturing individual
states can achieve anything under neo-liberal globalisation.

While both Marxists, social democrats and nationalists are agreed on a project of
political parties capturing state power, anarchism arises as a working class socialist
ideological movement that rejects exactly this approach. It is a critique of the standard
Marxist political programme but tied to a distinctive anarchist analysis of the state
itself as a fundamental site of minority class rule.

Now, there may be many ideas common to both Marxist and anarchist branches of the
socialist family, such as the necessity of mass working class struggle, anti-capitalism,
etc. But there are deep differences of philosophy.

These include, but are not limited to, on one hand theory, such as anarchism's very
different analysis of what the state is and how it works, what class is, whether
capitalism can be progressive, etc. This approach leads to the anarchist view that states
and parties aiming at state power cannot be used to create a free, non-capitalist social
order. On the other hand, as regards application, see also anarchism's vehement insistence
on democratic, collective self-reliance and individual freedom within a cooperative
communal society; versus the state and party-centred approach that has overwhelmingly
dominated in Marxism. An approach, located in its own historical canon, which anarchists
argue, amongst other claims attributed to it, gives Marxism its fundamentally
authoritarian and anti-democratic nature.

These differences are not a matter of dogmatism or sectarianism. They should also not be
erased in the name of "left unity", which effectively puts the South African left back on
the statist track.

Obviously there are and will be many areas of cooperation and campaigning - would there
really be any serious division over, for example, opposing gender-based violence, climate
change, organizing workplaces, fighting for land reform?

There will always, however, be a parting of ways over how to pursue these aims, over
long-term vision and so on, as per the dictates of ideological difference.

Silencing the debate in the name of unity might be well-intentioned, but it shuts down
useful debates and democratic space. Additionally, it prefigures a politics that views
difference as dangerous. Historically this, when taken to extremes, saw Marxists in state
power lining up left opponents for jail, exile and/or execution, and social democrat-led
governments crushing revolutions.

What is of greater importance is a unity through organisation around and in working class
struggle. It also means realising the inevitability of conflict, but utilising it as a
means of revolutionary institutional and theoretical development. Most surely, a programme
of action is needed if these, our organisations seek transformation of society, and if we
aim to create unity across the many sites of working class organization and struggle.

However, this programme, its philosophy, key concepts and ideas for change and
reconstruction must be tested and reformulated in struggle. Here, struggle is not only
meant the fight for better day-to-day working and living conditions, greater political
freedoms, and so on. It also involves the constant and consistent development of ideas and
action. This requires engaging ideas in an open, honest, critical and self-reflective way,
contributing to the development of the instruments of revolutionary, socialist class
struggle: the workers' organisations (like unions and community-based organisations) to
build the power for thorough-going socio-economic reconstruction (the revolution).

This internal developmental struggle in movements should be waged as a battle of ideas
between, yes, competing ideological sets for influence in, but never imposed onto the mass
movement. To claim that your theory not only understands the path of history, but the
eventuality of the destination and thus its own theoretical purity, is pure delusion. We
can safely predict particular patterns based on historical precedent, but such definite
assertions and teleologies are unscientific, uncritical and effectively impose a claim on
and structure of leadership. These leadership forms develop and assert immovable control
over movements, suck the creative life out of movements and are fundamentally
authoritarian, no matter the initial individual characteristics of those making them.

It is deeply misleading to present theory as a pointless distraction from struggle as it
is shaped by and builds it. Anti-theoretical approaches present difference as a problem of
dogma or sectarianism - and therefore cannot see that differences are useful - or present
theory as a lazy "armchair" indulgence that prevents us "doing" things. But theory is both
a process and an instrument of human action and socialist theory cannot, therefore, be
divorced from progressive socialist action.

Thus any call for left unity, no matter how well-intentioned, fails to address the fact
that many left ideologies exist, and misses the point altogether as to what should drive
the socialist social transformation many of us are working towards.

What we should think of, rather, is building and strengthening a working class front,
based on unions, community-based movements, left groups, cooperatives, etc., which can
cooperate around specific campaigns and demands. These movements should be internally
democratic, politically pluralist in which different left groups can cooperate with one
another - and frankly, much more importantly - engage the mass movements. Movements in
which different perspectives are encouraged, developed and tested. No group surrenders
political independence - the right to have, express and campaign for their views - in the
name of unity, but all can cooperate on specific issues.

The idea is not to wish away difference, and to create a party for the working class, but
to unite big and small working class formations; the idea is not to pretend difference
doesn't exist, or to conflate the working class movement with one ideology; the idea is
that difference and debate are essential, not outdated, dogmatic, pointless. It is
destructive only of centralised authority, of dictatorship.

This does not mean a conference or symposium of the left is in and of itself useless, but
previous attempts have almost certainly descended into different groups and individuals
giving their positions, without a useful discussion of convergence or divergence. More
important is to have debates and discussions within the larger working class and its
movements beyond the left, where there is working class engagement with different ideas,
the test of practice, using an ongoing series of workshops, meetings, locals, media and
campaigns. In such a situation there is a battle of ideas and a battle for the leadership
of ideas, most surely, while guarding against a manipulation of processes, closing debates
by labels, or a "big man" politics of demagogy.

https://zabalazabooks.net/2019/07/18/building-working-class-unity-in-south-africa-lessons-from-united-fronts-in-germany-italy-and-russia

------------------------------