Yet another good question. As a practical matter I think you are right that the real lineage of contemporary anarchist thought on workplace organizing has much more to do with the IWW than with STO (although from what I can tell this has generally not been the case in NEFAC). In developing my presentation, I mostly wanted to point out areas of similarity and difference. If anything, I was attempting to use the experience of STO as a mirror to allow critical reflection on the weaknesses I see in NEFAC’s theory of workplace struggles. This definitely stretches the meaning of “legacy,” but hopefully the content of my talk is not damaged by this admission. (In my defense there is a great essay by the Greek/French revolutionary Cornelius Castoriadis with the odd title, “From Marx to Aristotle, from Aristotle to Us,” which perhaps parallels the trajectory I chart in my talk, from STO to the Wobblies, from the Wobblies to Us. Or something like that.)

At the same time, there is an interesting connection here: from its inception, STO also drew inspiration from the experience of the IWW. STO’s founding document, “A Call to Organize,” was bold enough to begin with the classic quote the IWW preamble: “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.” So in a way, the perspectives of contemporary anarchists may share a common root with those of STO. The main difference here is that anarchists have internalized the life experience of the post-war IWW in a way that never happened for STO. This is intriguing in some ways because the modest Wobbly resurgence of the late 1960’s was in significant part the result of efforts in Chicago (see the under-appreciated book Dancin’ in the Streets, edited by Franklin Rosemont, for more on this). Nonetheless, STO treated the IWW as a piece of dead history, from which they took inspiration but with which they felt no direct connection.

In contrast, as you point out, contemporary anarchists have absorbed the contradictory “dualism” represented by the whole 100 years of the IWW’s existence. While I think STO’s insights into the necessary limitations of work within the unions are extremely important and valid, I certainly do not pre-judge efforts toward obtaining better contracts and expanding openness and participation in unions (although for various reasons I think “democracy” is a bit clumsy in the union context). I am somewhat critical of the die-hard Wobblies out there who think that nothing is to be gained from participation in mainstream unions, but are unable to turn the critical lens on the obvious limits of the present-day IWW. (I’m confident most Wobblies aren’t stuck in 1918, but a handful who are seem to post regularly on infoshop.)

Solidarity,
Mike

Do you think that anarchists position on workplace organizing came via STO? I guess I feel like it is a question of if a tree falls in the woods….. With the other ideas I can see a lineage, L&R, ARA, etc. Workplace organizing I don’t see any clear connection.

Rather I would imagine that most anarchists in the past 15 years cut their teeth on radical unionism with the IWW. If anything the IWW has been a good seller of their history and some o.k. politics (with some actually modern day successes!) Anyway, back in the day the IWW was an extra-union union. They did not do contracts, they felt that they were undemocratic and bottle necked negotiations. Real democracy was on the shop floor.

It wasn’t until the 40s or 50s that the IWW took the position that contracts were o.k. And I would imagine that this dualism of IWW history and present positioning has influenced many anarchists on how they approach workplace organizing. When I am working, I will sure as fuck support/initiate a “wobble” - the construction worker term for wildcat (funny huh)- if conditions are bad. But on the other hand I will push in the meetings that we get the best contract we can and push for democracy in the union.

I can’t really say that I get off at the same stop as NEFAC though, cuz I don’t think the real power can be in the unions offices. I suspect that they feel they can increase democracy and the will to fight being in those positions. Odd to me as an anarchist, but…

Thanks for the encouragement, as always. On your questions: I only know a little bit about the various other collectives that merged with Chicago STO in the mid-seventies. Mostly I think they were like the Chicago group in that they emphasized industrial concentration, but were equally drawn to the anti-racist politics that STO articulated so strongly. The initial groups that merged were from Kansas City and the Quad Cities, both classic rust belt cities. The later groups were all started in part because members of STO moved to places like Denver and Portland, so I think those groups had a different composition and trajectory. I’m still working on learning more about the independent political origins of all these groups. More soon, hopefully.

As for NEFAC, a good discussion was had on that topic at my talk in Montreal. It seems that there are multiple strands within NEFAC on these questions, and the one that is most open to business unions was not represented at my talk (apparently a bunch of these folks are now staff organizers for outfits like SEIU and UNITE/HERE who live on the road most of the time). The francophone NEFAC’ers were present, and their position was definitely more critical than was clear from the position paper on workplace organizing. They seemed comfortable with the idea of extra-union work as one approach to workplace organizing. At the same time, I think they found STO’s position to be unworkable in many situations. And that is so even though Quebec has a labor movement whose strength and independence make the US look like even less impressive than it already does. At any rate, we did have a good discussion.

Solidarity,
Mike

I’m glad you found my piece, and responded. Your comment is a point well-taken. I can offer as an excuse that I finished my talk mere hours before I gave it, and thus didn’t do much editing, but you are absolutely right that I short-handed a group perspective by naming it for one of its most prominent spokespeople. My apologies.

(As requested, I will set aside for the time being the electoral question, which I discussed separately a couple years ago. My characterization of the “Chris Crass position” originated there, and was probably just as inaccurate in that context as it is here. Again, my apologies.)

As for your question: I think that what I wrote speaks for itself, but I can say that nothing I’ve read of your writings (including some recent stuff – the interview you and Clare Bayard did that was posted to Infoshop, as well as the Catalyst/Heads Up statement on immigration struggles) contains a vision of revolution. In fact, your interview doesn’t even mention the word “revolution.” Instead, the language of “justice” and “liberation” are adopted in ways that make it seem that both can be achieved with only minor modifications in the structure of society, economics, culture, and so forth. As we both know, “revolution” has a whole range of screwy associations these days, from car sales to US-backed reactionary governments, but most people still understand the word as signifying a fundamental overhaul. In my estimation, race and class relations (not to mention sexual/gender and environmental relations), in all their contradictory manifestations, are in dire need of nothing less than a fundamental overhaul.

This last bit raises another problem in your writings that I connect with liberalism: the lack of a concrete analysis of the contradictions in the global context that frames our struggles, what the old Marxist left called “objective conditions.” For example, I found the analysis of the immigration issue (in your joint call out with the Heads Up Collective) distressingly simplistic: in attempting to create an image of good immigrants versus bad ruling class, the statement ignores any number of messy details: the “guest worker” program backed by Bush and other Republicans, the opportunistic support of many Republican and Democratic politicians (including, according to a Yahoo headline I literally just saw, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg) for immigrants’ “rights,” the grassroots opposition to immigrants’ “rights” inside the African-American community, the embrace of the US flag and other aspects of US symbology by large sections of the immigrant movement, and so forth.

Admittedly, you were writing a thousand word call to action, not a lengthy analysis of the situation, but leaving out these details leaves the impression that “justice” for immigrants can be obtained with a handful of simple reforms – amnesty, better working conditions, and an anti-racist commitment on the part of white folks. Without denying the benefits of all three of these improvements, I maintain that they can be implemented without challenging the basic structure of capitalism or white supremacy. From my perspective, the exciting aspects of the immigrant struggle currently underway are precisely those that challenge the immigrant movement’s reformist (and potentially white supremacist) tendencies – the inherent disregard for legality built into the demographics of the movement, or the call for the general strike on May 1, among others.

I don’t want this to turn into a talk/action distinction: my family and I attended the May 1 march here in Chicago, and we encouraged our friends and comrades to do the same, while also making small efforts to support local organizing in the Mexican community (where we have many friends and where my partner is a public elementary school teacher). But I do think that political tendencies must be judged by their words as well as their deeds, and in that framework, I find your writings to be essentially liberal by default, to the extent that they avoid any approach to revolution. (Of course, one could create some intermediate categories – “progressive,” “radical” – that would straddle the line between reform and revolution, but I think the reformism I’m sensing in your writings meshes well with my understanding of liberalism.)

In closing, I want to be clear that my criticisms, while possibly harsh, are intended to be comradely. I’m glad you and others are doing much of what you do, even as I disagree with how you do it.

Solidarity,
Mike

The question. Aside from engagement with electoral politics how do you understand my politics to be liberal? I ask because I genuinely want to hear more of your analysis on this and I’m currently doing some writing so getting that kind of feedback from you could be really helpful.
Thanks comrade,
-chris

Thanks for your comments. I’m glad you liked my talk. You raise a couple different issues, I think. First, elections. I am fairly dismissive of electoral politics, although it is a subject I don’t feel closed-minded about. For a more nuanced version of my approach to electoralism (and another critique of Chris Crass), you can check this out; it’s a talk I gave in Chicago two years ago.

Second, reforms in general. I’m definitely not one of those revolutionaries who opposes reforms because they only delay the crisis that will lead to revolution. That sort of approach is generally nonsense. It probably won’t surprise you to learn that I more or less take the stance articulated in “Toward a Revolutionary Party” : that efforts to win reforms are to be judged by their ability to shift the consciousness of those who struggle for them (eg. the working class). Reform struggles that expand class consciousness are worth supporting and engaging with. Most often these are precisely those struggles that most thoroughly challenge the traditional notion of what a reform is, because they are less interested in legality and “respectability.” A contemporary example, full of all the contradictions we would expect, is the immigrants’ movement we’ve talked about before.

From this perspective, electoral campaigns are never likely to be the sort of reform struggles that I think are most worth participating in, because there is nothing more respectable and tied to the legal structures as elections. That said, there are sometimes referenda, and even less often actual races for office, that would get me to vote. For instance, if I still lived in Wisconsin, I would go to the polls in November to oppose the anti-queer constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot then. But I wouldn’t use the occasion to vote for the supposedly liberal governor in his re-election campaign, and I certainly wouldn’t waste my time campaigning for him.

Okay, that was more than I planned to write. Hopefully it helps you make sense of my perspective on this stuff. When you have a chance, I’d like to hear yours.

Solidarity,
Mike

Excellent presentation, man. I’m sorry I didn’t get to participate in the oral presentation and discussion, but I’m happy I can at least be involved on some level.

I think you did a great job talking about STO’s stress on the importance of working class self-activity and independent organizing. I have noticed a general shift in emphasis among anarchists today from anti-fascist work towards union organizing.

You are right that there is a failure to articulate the need for autonomous organizing of workers. It seems that, while there is a lot of good work to be done within the unions, that this work in-and-of itself is insufficient to develop the sort of consciousness which situates workers taking the reins of society, no matter how “militant” these organizers or their campaigns are.

I would like to ask you to elaborate more on your criticisms of the Crass version of white-skin privilege. It seems you are somewhat dismissive of electoral politics. While I realize you are fundamentally anarchist in your worldview and while I also understand the sometimes limited and reformist implications of it, I’ve always viewed political reforms as part and parcel of revolution.

I guess this is more of a personal question unrelated to STO or your presentation. I’m certainly not wanting to engage in any tired conversation about authoritarianism or direct-action, just curious about where you stand on this issue today.

Again, I really enjoyed your presentation. I wished I could have been there, even though I’m no anarchist.

Hope you and yours are well.

Your comrade in KC,

Krisna Best