I dug your post and your comments were very, very helpful. I’ve been reading James P. Cannon’s “A History of American Trotskyism” as part of an ongoing study of Trotskyism. This book was initially a series of lectures that Cannon gave to the SWP in early 1942. Definitely a good read, despite Cannon’s theoretical and methodological problems.

Anyhow, the chapter I’m reading now deals in pretty good detail (presumably not as much as Dobbs’ books) with the Minneapolis strikes of 1934. What’s clear is that, yes, the Communist League of America (the Trotskyist opposition in the CP that became the SWP) did accept the union structure and logic and not simply as a site wherein workers can struggle for their own independent organization. As a matter of fact, I think they would have called independent organization ultra-left, which is how they characterized the Comintern’s Third Period phase. (The CP’s “Red Union” approach certainly may have been ultra-left, but Cannon seemed to think that posing an alternative to the AFL or the “mainstream of the labor movement” was ultraleft in itself.) I’m not 100% clear if Cannon would have argued against independent organization in this context.

But it seems they did play a very valuable part in the general strike, coming out of their years-long propaganda phase into important mass work. I need to think about more about what part they played concretely. I know they mobilized all their forces, participated in the informal organizing committee, but yet seemed to appeal to the left-wing of the union bureaucracy (Bill Brown), as Jomo says.

As a tangential question, I wonder how much of the SWP’s perspective on unionism can be attributed to their Trotskyism and yet how much is related to the particular historical conjuncture where the unions (I am assuming) had not been drawn as much into the process and discipline of production as it had by the time the Johnson-Forest Tendency began making sense of it in the 1940s. I don’t know how this leap could have been made without the material basis for it and if industrial unionism in the 1930s wasn’t it, then what was it?

One of the most impressing things about the truck drivers and helpers strike then was the amount of preparation that went into it. They created their own ad-hoc hospitals, developed communication systems to mobilize flying squads where scab trucks attempted to move, and countless other aspects which Jomo laid out above. They organized to win and risked everything to do it. This is a feature of struggle we just don’t see these days.

could you explain this a little?

I have read critiques that instead challenge the Trotskyist organizers for being too popular frontish in its relationship both toward the union bureaucracy — seeking to incorporate the radical leadership into the bureaucracy rather than challenging its existence at all — as well as its relationship with the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Olson. Rather than denouncing Olson right from the beginning as a collaborator with the Citizens League, instead the revolutionaries sought to hold him accountable to the labor constituency that had elected him into power. Of course it was all games because Olson was the one who later calls in the National Guard to pressure the strikers to get back to work.

I think this is a common situation revolutionaries will find themselves in. When we are working with broader formations, how can we make clear where we stand and at the same time, be responsive to where people are? How do we not just become armchair ideologues who piss on anything and everything that isnt radical enough, be consistent builders of a movement, and yet, also be honest and upfront about our proposals, and try to draw the more militant crowd that is ready to move? If we play by the status quo all the time, then what is the need for revolutionaries?

Some responses to ibn jubayr’s questions.

I agree with the points that gila has laid out. The more militant steps people are willing to take is a combination of the situation we face, as well as our level of confidence. I would lean more toward the level of confidence — seeing other people move, and seeing other people win, generally make people want even more. The amiseration theory doesn’t always cut it from my experience. I think one of the things that an organization of workers can do is to gauge peoples sense of militancy. When workers are on their shift, they are also organizing, gauging where other people are at. This relationship building is precious because they can get fed back into the organization’s actions. Organizations can offer a framework for mobilizing large numbers of people if the mood in the air is charged. Not to say these things dont happen spontaneously. They often do, but organizations that are responsive are able to continue and follow through from these spontaneous movements/actions so they go on to demands more, bring in more people, and fight for a longer period of time.

For a fighting organization, relationship building is important for pulling together a sense of community, but it will mean nothing if the group isnt also a fighting one that is also based around a particular vision and method of organizing. This is not to say relationships dont have independent validity, or are not important. But one thing I can’t stand are “scenes” or “cliques” that call themselves activist groups when they are really just a group of friends hanging out. One of the key characteristics of a fighting group is that it breaks new ground, creates new ways of looking at the same problem, shifts the paradigms. I would say incorporating this sentiment into our organizational culture is key for us to continue to be flexible and responsive toward whats on the ground.

I hope this gets at what you are asking.

In Democracy Insurgent’s campaign with the custodians at the University of Washington, i would say we have seen rises in worker self-activity when two things happen:
a. When there is a sense of desperation – for example when the entire night shift was going to be cut. Right now, we see it to a lesser extent with the massive expansions of work areas.
b. However, there have also been examples of desperate situations when workers failed to organize amongst themselves. So, the other necessary ingredient is confidence. With the large rallies in opposition to the night shift cuts last spring, we saw hundreds come out and militantly confront managers and University of Washington administrators. But, the more important component of confidence is the sense of leadership workers have inside the workplace. It is the time in between rallies and actions; the one on one meetings with other workers; the facilitation of impromptu, emergency meetings; the phone calls; the circulation of flyers – these are the best indicators of confidence. Of course, this confidence and self-activity can only go so far if there is not a sense of wider community support. At the University of Washington, students, for the most part, have not come out to fight alongside the custodians; neither have other staff or faculty. Without this broader support and sense of struggle on campus, the custodians and trades feel isolated and too exposed to managerial retaliation.

how are you and the other folks in Democracy Insurgent thinking about the big strikes, and the sky-high level and complexity of worker self-activity described in the excerpt on the behind-the-scenes work at the union hall?

in Austin, we’re reading “I’ve Got the Light of Freedom” by Charles Payne on the day-to-day work of SNCC organizers in the south, which Payne describes as “slow and respectful” work.

i think many times organizers only see the big demos and strikes that serve as excuses for an analysis of movement building, but are really nothing more than a tabloid history. i think this accounts for much of the demo-hopping that characterized the anti-war and anti-globalization movements.

SNCC workers would knock on hundreds of doors, meet with people 2, 3 maybe 4 times before they even sat down to talk to them, let alone came to a meeting or registered to vote.

similarly, the workers’ movement in Egypt is telling of the need for workers’ self-activity, as opposed to the Left calling meetings without any social connection to the day-to-day lives of the workers. Payne argued that movement building was relationship building.

but at what point are leaps made in terms of worker self-activity in terms of committedness, organizational complexity and militancy in regards to both the bosses and the union bureaucracy? how have y’all seen these 3 things related?

One question I had was the relationship of organized revolutionaries to these struggles, if any. I have the impression they were involved in the Toledo and Minneapolis struggles of this time, though not sure about the San Francisco stuff. Does the book go into this much, and if so, what is the relationship?

I also notice that this is one of four books on the Teamsters. I wonder if Dobbs takes this issue up in the others, if not here, or if he’s simply not interested in these issues, if they don’t appear anywhere. That would be odd though, since he was involved with the Trot groups I always understood were involved in the Teamsters and these rebellions.