By Jeff Shantz, , Wobbly Ecosocialism for the 21st Century, January 14, 2011
Most
approaches to Red and Green (labour and environmentalist) alliances have taken
Marxian perspectives, to the exclusion of anarchism and libertarian socialism.
Recent developments, however, have given voice to a “syndical ecology” or what
some within the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) call “green syndicalism”.
Green syndicalism highlights certain points of similarity between
anarcho-syndicalism (revolutionary unionism) and radical ecology. These
include, but are by no means limited to, decentralisation, regionalism, direct
action, autonomy, pluralism and federation. The article discusses the
theoretical and practical implications of syndicalism made green.
Introduction
Recently,
interesting convergences of radical union movements with ecology have been
reported in Europe and North America. These developments have given voice to a
radical ‘syndical ecology’, or what some within the Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW) call “green syndicalism” [Kauffman and Ditz,. 1992]. The emergent
greening of syndicalist discourses is perhaps most significant in the
theoretical questions raised regarding anarcho-syndicalism and ecology, indeed
questions about the possibilities for a radical convergence of social
movements. While most attempts to form labour and environmentalist alliances
have pursued Marxian approaches, Adkin [1992a: 148] suggests that more
compelling solutions might be expected from anarchists and libertarian
socialists. Still others [Pepper, 1993; Heider, 1994; Purchase, 1994: 1997a;
Shantz and Adam, 1999] suggest that greens should pay more attention to
anarcho-syndicalist ideas.
Pepper
argues [1993: 198] that an infusion of anarcho-syndicalism might shake up the
contemporary green movement in North America just as syndicalism shook up the
labour movement of the 1910s. Martel [1997] argues that confronting ‘jobs
versus environment’ blackmail may require nothing less than militant
labour-based organisations, arming workers with the necessary weapons to
confront the power of capital and to strike over ecological concerns. Still,
little has been said about green syndicalism and its specific red–green vision.
This article attempts to correct that oversight by offering a discussion of the
varied perspectives, the different theoretical and practical strands, which
might make up a syndicalist ecology.
The
Emergence of Green Syndicalism
In
Australia, the ‘green bans’ movement showed a number of features which were
suggestive of a syndical ecology although the primary union organisation behind
the green bans was not a syndicalist organisation [Burgmann, 2000; Burgmann and
Burgmann, 1998]. Beginning in the early 1970s in New South Wales, the Builders
Labourers Federation (BLF) worked to stop the destruction of green spaces,
historic districts and working-class communities by refusing to work on those
projects. The BLF did all of this against its own economic interests, taking
advantage of labourers’ newfound economic clout in the midst of a massive
development boom which was transforming Sydney and destroying low-income
neighbourhoods. Between 1971 and 1975 more than 49 bans halted projects worth
more than A$5 billion [Burgmann, 2000]. Forest and island reserves were
defended and parks were saved from destruction. In what must have been a blow
to the national bourgeoisie, the bans successfully ended plans for a car park
adjacent to the Sydney Opera House which would have threatened the root systems
of Moreton Bay Fig trees. Perhaps most significantly, the BLF was able to make
the connection between destruction of the environment and the destruction of
working-class communities. The union opposed the eviction of tenants and
refused to take part in gentrification projects. Significantly the union’s
actions inspired a groundswell of local opposition to redevelopment [Anderson
and Jacobs, 1999].
During
2000 the Electrical Trades Union resurrected the green ban tactic in an effort
to halt construction of a 34-metre light tower near the Melbourne Zoo. The
union claimed that the light towers would harm the sleeping and breeding
patterns of some animals. In September 2001 a number of community actions were
held to support green bans against construction of a gas fired power generator
and its pipeline in Somerton, Victoria because the pipeline would destroy the
habitat of the endangered Growling Grass Frog.
In
the early 1990s Roussopoulos [1991] noted the emergence of a green syndicalist
discourse in France within the Confédération Nationale du Travail (CNT).
Expressions of a green syndicalism were also observed in Spain [Marshall,
1993]. There the Confederación General de Trabajadores (CGT) adopted social
ecology as part of its struggle for ‘a future in which neither the person nor
the planet is exploited’ [Marshall, 1993: 468].
Between
31 March and 1 April 2001, the CGT sponsored an international meeting of more
than one dozen syndicalist and libertarian organisations including the CNT and
the Swedish Workers Centralorganization (SAC). Among the various outcomes of
the meeting were the formation of a Libertarian International Solidarity (LIS)
network, commitments of financial and political support to develop a recycling
cooperative and the adoption of a libertarian manifesto, ‘What Type of
Anarchism for the 21st Century’, in which ecology takes a very crucial place [Hargis,
2001]. The real contribution of these decisions may not be known until the next
congress scheduled for 2003 in France.
Among
the more interesting of recent attempts to articulate solidarity across the
ecology and workers’ movements were those involving Earth First! activist Judi
Bari and her efforts to build alliances with workers in order to save
old-growth forest in Northern California. Bari sought to learn from the
organising and practices of the IWW to see if a radical ecology movement might
be built along anarcho-syndicalist lines. In so doing she tried to bring a
radical working-class perspective to the agitational practices of Earth First!
as a way to overcome the conflicts between environmentalists and timber workers
which kept them from fighting the corporate logging firms which were killing
both forests and jobs. The organisation which she helped form, IWW/Earth First
Local 1, eventually built a measure of solidarity between radical
environmentalists and loggers which resulted in the protection of the
Headwaters old-growth forest which had been slated for clearcutting [Shantz,
1999].
The
IWW’s Greenward Turn
In
1991 the Wobblies (IWW), following a union-wide vote, changed the preamble to
the IWW constitution for the first time since 1908. The preamble now reads as
follows:
The working class and the employing
class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as
hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and
the few, who make up the
employing class, have all the good
things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle
must go on until the workers
of the world organize as a class,
take possession of the means of
production, abolish the wage system, and
live in harmony with the
earth [emphasis added].
These
seven words present a significant shift in strategy regarding industrial
unionism and considerations of what is to be meant by work. At the same time,
their embeddedness within the constitution’s original class struggle narrative draws
a mythic connection with the history of the IWW and the practices of
revolutionary syndicalism.
The
greening of the IWW was more explicitly expressed through a statement issued by
the General Assembly at the time of the preamble change. It is worth quoting at
length.
In
addition to the exploitation of labor, industrial society creates wealth by
exploiting the earth and non-human species. Just as the capitalists value the
working class only for their labor, so they value the earth and non-human species
only for their economic usefulness to humans. This has created such an
imbalance that the life support systems of the earth are on the verge of
collapse. The working class bears the brunt of this degradation by being forced
to produce, consume and live in the toxic environment created by this abuse.
Human society must recognize that all beings have a right to exist for their
own sake, and that humans must learn to live in balance with the rest of
nature.
This
philosophical shift has been simultaneous with the recent upswing in IWW
activism. While the IWW has never returned to the numbers of members it enjoyed
in the 1910–20s, the last decade has seen a revitalisation of the radical union
as it has organised a number of workplaces in North America. As it was
historically, the IWW is a union which organises the unorganised including the
unemployed. Significantly, the increase in direct actions around ecology have
come from the largest workplace branches, not simply students or unemployed
members. Ecological activism has encouraged a decentralisation of formerly
centrist union projects along with a revival of contacts with other industrial
unions.
Murray
Bookchin’s Anti-Syndicalism
Upon
first reading it might appear curious to seek an ecological or antiindustrialist
theoretic within anarcho-syndicalism. Syndicalism is supposedly just another
version of narrow economism, still constrained by workerist assumptions.
Certainly, that is the criticism consistently raised by social ecology guru
Murray Bookchin [1980, 1987, 1993, 1997].
Bookchin’s
work has served as a major focal point for much discussion, at least in
libertarian Left and anarchist environmental circles. Even, Marxist ecologists,
in journals such as Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, have given much time to
discussions of Bookchin’s writings.
His
recent [1995] re-discovery of social anarchism aside, social ecologist Bookchin
has displayed a longstanding hostility to the possibilities for positive
working class contributions to social movement struggles.
Bookchin’s
critique rightly engages a direct confrontation with productivist visions of
ecological or socialist struggles which, still captivated by illusions of
progress, accept industrialism and capitalist technique while rejecting the
capitalist uses to which they are applied [Rudig, 1985; Blackie, 1990; Pepper,
1993]. These productivist discourses do not extend qualitatively different
forms, but merely argue for proletarian control of existing forms.
Bookchin’s
critique of the workplace, by asserting the inseparability of industry from its
development and articulation through technology, offers a tentative beginning
for a post-Marxist discussion of productive relations and the obstacles or
possibilities they might pose for ecology.
Severe
limits to Bookchin’s social theorising are encountered, however, within the
conclusions he draws in his attempt to derive a theory of workers’
(non)activism from his critique of production relations. Bookchin [1987: 187]
makes a grand, and perilous, leap from a critical anti-productivism to an
argument, couched within a larger broadside against workers, that struggles
engaged around the factory give ‘social and psychological priority to the
worker precisely where he or she is most co-joined to capitalism and most
debased as a human being – at the job site’.
In
his view, workers become radical despite the fact that they work rather than
through their work experiences.1 He concludes that the efforts of socialists or
anarcho-syndicalists who might organise and agitate within the realm of the
workplace are typically only strengthening those very same aspects of workers’
identities which must be overcome in the radical transformation of social
relations. And, moreover, this is correct in so far as workplace discourses are
limited to purely corporatist demands of a quantitative nature [Gramsci, 1971;
Telò, 1982]. However, within Bookchin’s schema the Marxist error is repeated,
only this time in reverse.
For
Bookchin, workers’ relations to capital, rather than being objectively
antagonistic as in the Marxist rendering, are depicted as being necessarily
conciliatory. In each case workers’ positions are drawn as one-sided, derived
from a supposedly external and objective realm, in abstraction from the
diversity of their often contradictory expressions and outside of any
transformative articulation. Bookchin, as with the Marxists, substitutes an
abstraction ‘the proletariat’ for the complex web of subject positions –
including that of ecologist, feminist and worker – constitutive of specific
subjectivities.
Bookchin
is correct in asserting that categories ‘worker’ and ‘jobs’ as presently
constituted are incompatible with ecological survival. Likewise, industrial
production has already been rendered ecologically obsolete. But how can the
authoritarian ‘realm of economic necessity’ [Bookchin, 1980] ever be overcome
except through direct political action at the very site of unfreedom? There is
no disagreement with Bookchin as regards the importance of overcoming the
factory system; a difference emerges over the position of workers’
self-directed activism in any democratic articulation toward such an
overcoming. It cannot be expected, except where an authoritarian articulation
is constituted, that industrialism will be replaced by non-hierarchical,
ecological relations without workers’ confronting the factory system in which
they are enmeshed.
It is
difficult to follow the logic of Bookchin’s leap from a critique of
industrialism as ‘social relations’ to his explicit rejection of any and all
working-class organisation. Bookchin insists upon a grass-roots politics,
including any of the new social movements, but he is unclear how a movement
might be grassroots and communitarian while at the same time excluding an
articulation with people in their subject-positions as workers.
What
he actually recommends sounds more like the radical elitism so often attributed
to ecology [Adkin, 1992a; 1992b]. Bookchin’s rigid dualism of
community/workplace further interferes with his critique of syndicalism. The
idea, which Bookchin attributes to syndicalism, that social life could be
organised from the factory floor is but a simplistic caricature. ‘This caveat
is, of course, pertinent to all institutions comprising civil society. It would
be impossible to nurture and sustain democratic impulses if schools, families,
churches, and the like, promoted an antithetical ethos’ [Guarasci and Peck,
1987: 71]. While he rightly criticises those, such as Earth First! co-founder
Dave Foreman, who permit a wilderness/culture duality he falls into a similar
trap himself in his vulgar separation of workplace and community.2
Finally,
Bookchin’s biases are especially curious in light of his own ecological
conclusion regarding the resolution of ecological problems: ‘[t]he bases for
conflicting interests in society must themselves be confronted and resolved in
a revolutionary manner. The earth can no longer be owned; it must be shared’
[1987: 172]. This provides a crucial beginning for a radical convergence of
ecological social relations articulated beyond a ‘jobs versus environment’
construction. In turn it must be recognised, even if Bookchin himself fails to
do so, that questions of ownership and control of the earth are nothing if not
questions of class.
Theoretical
Syndicalism and Radical Working-Class Histories
For
his part, R.J. Holton [1980] explicitly rejects the characterisation of
syndicalism as economistic. He suggests that such perspectives result from the
gross misreading of historic syndicalist struggles. In the works of Melvyn
Dubofsky [1969], Jeremy Brecher [1972], David Montgomery [1974], and Kenneth
Tucker [1991] one finds substantial evidence against the positions taken by
radical ecologists such as Bookchin, Dave Foreman [1991] and Paul Watson
[1994]. Guarasci and Peck [1987] stress the significance of this class struggle
historiography as a corrective to theorising which objectifies labour. Tucker
[1991] argues that much of the theoretical distance separating new movements
from workers might be attributed to a refusal to explore syndicalist
strategies.
Historic
anarcho-syndicalist campaigns have provided significant evidence that class
struggles entail more than battles over corporatist concerns carried out at the
level of the factory [Kornblugh, 1964; Brecher, 1972; Thompson and Murfin,
1976; DeCaux, 1978; Tucker, 1991]. In an earlier article, Hobsbawm [1979]
identifies syndicalist movements as displaying attitudes of hostility towards
the bureaucratic control of work, concerns over local specificity and
techniques of spontaneous militancy and direct action. Similar expressions of
radicalism have also characterised the practices of ecology. Class struggles
have, in different instances and over varied terrain, been articulated to
engage the broader manifestations of domination and control constituted
alongside of the enclosure and ruthlessly private ownership of vast ecosystems
and the potentialities for freedom contained therein [Adkin, 1992a: 140–41].
From
a theoretical standpoint Tucker’s [1991] work is instructive. His work provides
a detailed discussion of possible affinity between French revolutionary
syndicalism and contemporary radical democracy. Tucker suggests that within
French syndicalism one can discern such ‘new’ themes as: consensus formation;
participation of equals; dialogue; decentralisation; and autonomy.
French
syndicalist theories of capitalist power place emphasis upon an alternative
revolutionary worldview emerging out of working-class experiences and offering
a challenge to bourgeois morality [Holton. 1980]. Fernand Pelloutier, an
important syndicalist theorist whose works influenced Sorel, argues that ideas
rather than economic processes are the motive force in bringing about
revolutionary transformation. Pelloutier vigorously attempted to come to terms
with ‘the problem of ideological and cultural domination as a basis for
capitalist power’ [Holton. 1980: 19].
Reconstituting
social relations, in Pelloutier’s view, becomes possible when workers begin
developing revolutionary identities, through self-preparation and
self-education, as the means for combatting capitalist culture [Spitzer, 1963].
Thus, syndicalists have characteristically looked to labour unrest as an agency
of social regeneration whereby workers desecrate the ideological surround of
class domination, for example, deference to authority, acceptance of capitalist
superiority and dependence upon elites. According to Jennings [1991: 82],
syndicalism ‘conceived the transmission of power not in terms of the
replacement of one intellectual elite by another but as a process of
displacement spreading power out into the workers’ own organizations’. This
displacement of power would originate in industry, as an egalitarian
problematic, when workers came to question the status of their bosses. ‘This
was not intended as a form of left “economism” but
rather
as a means of developing the confidence and aggression of a working class
threatened with the spectre of a “sober, efficient and docile” work discipline’
[Holton, 1980: 14]. Towards that end syndicalist movements have emphasised ‘life’
and ‘action’ against the severity of capitalist labour processes and
corresponding cultural manifestations.
It
might be argued that, far from being economistic, syndicalist movements are
best understood as counter-cultural in character, more similar to contemporary
new social movements than to movements of the traditional left. Syndicalist
themes such as autonomy, anti-hierarchy, and diffusion of power have echoes in
sentiments of the new movements. This similarity is reflected not only in the
syndicalist emphasis upon novel tactics such as direct action, consumer
boycotts, or slowdowns.
It
also finds expression in the extreme contempt shown by syndicalists for the
dominant radical traditions of its day, exemplified by Marxism and state
socialism, and in syndicalist efforts to divorce activists from those
traditions [Jennings, 1991]. Judi Bari [1994: 2001] emphasised the similarities
in the styles and tactics of labour and ecology against common depictions
within radical ecology, as exemplified in the positions held by Bookchin.
Towards developing this mutual understanding green syndicalists have tried to
engender an appreciation of radical labour histories, especially where workers
have exerted themselves through inspiring acts which seem to have surprisingly
much in common with present-day eco-activism. Attempts have been made within
green syndicalism to articulate labour as part of the ecological ‘we’ through
inclusion of radical labour within an ecological genealogy. Within green
syndicalist discourses, this assumption of connectedness between historic
radical movements, especially those of labour, anarchism and ecology has much
significance. In this the place of the IWW is especially suggestive.
The
IWW, as opposed to bureaucratic unions, sought the organisation of workers from
the bottom up. As Montgomery [1974] notes, IWW strategies rejected large strike
funds, negotiations, written contracts and the supposed autonomy of trades.
Actions took the form of ‘guerilla tactics’ including sabotage, slowdown,
planned inefficiency and passive resistance.
Furthermore,
and of special significance for contemporary activists, the Wobblies placed
great emphasis upon the nurturing of unity-in-diversity among workers. As Green
[1974] notes, the IWW frequently organised in industrial towns marked by deep
divisions, especially racial divisions, among the proletariat.
Interestingly,
Montgomery [1974] notes that concerns over ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of strikes
were not of the utmost importance to strikers. Strikes spoke more to ‘the
audacity of the strikers’ pretensions and to their willingness to act in
defiance of warnings from experienced union leaders that chance of victory were
slim’ [Montgomery, 1974: 512]. This approach to protest could well refer to
recent ecological actions. Such rebellious expressions reflect the mythic
aspects of resistance, beyond mere pragmatic considerations or strict pursuance
of ‘interests’.
Contemporary
workers have little, if any, knowledge of historic IWW struggles, even in their
own regions and industries. In my view, green syndicalist articulations are
important in informing or reminding ecology activists and workers alike that
there are radical working-class histories in addition to the histories of
compromise; workers are not always willing pawns. ‘Historically, it was the IWW
who broke the stranglehold of the timber barons on the loggers and millworkers
in the nineteen teens’ [Bari, 1994: 18]. It is just this stranglehold which
needs again be broken – this time for nature as well as for workers. ‘Now the
companies are back in total control, only this time they’re taking down not
only the workers but the Earth as well’ [Bari, 1994: 18].
Workers’
Control: Ecology Enters the Machine
As
the ones most often situated at the nexus of ecological damage [Bullard, 1990;
Kaufmann and Ditz, 1992] workers in industrial workplaces may be expected to
have some insights into immediate and future threats to local and surrounding
ecosystems. Such awareness derived from the location of workers at the point of
production/destruction may allow workers to provide important, although not
central, contributions to ecological resistance.
However,
this possibly strategic placement does not mean that any such contributions are
inevitable. Those people who suffer most from ecological predations, both at
workplaces and in home communities, are also those with the least control over
production as presently constituted through ownership entitlements and as
sanctioned by the capitalist state [Ecologist, 1993; Faber and O’Connor, 1993;
Peet and Watts, 1996]. These relations of power become significant mechanisms
in the oppression of not only workers but of non-human nature as well. Without
being attentive to this web of power one cannot adequately answer Eckersley’s
[1989] pertinent questions concerning why those who are affected most directly
and materially by assaults upon local ecosystems are often least active in resistance,
both in defending nature and in defending themselves. Thus the questions of
workplace democracy and workers’ control have become crucial to green
syndicalist theoretics.
‘The
IWW stands for worker self-management, direct action and rank and file control’
[Miller, 1993: 56]. For green syndicalism workers’ control becomes an attempt
by workers to formulate their own responses to the question ‘what of work?’
Within the IWW, decisions over tactics are left to groups of workers or even
individual workers themselves. Worker selfdetermination ‘on the job’ becomes a
mechanism by which to contest the power/knowledge nexus of the workplace.
Labour
insurgency typically articulates shifting relations within transformations of
production and the emergence of new hegemonic practices. Times of economic
reorganisation offer wide-ranging opportunities for creating novel or
unprecedented forms of confrontation on the parts of workers. The offensives of
capital can provide a stimulus to varied articulations of renewed militancy.
Such might be the case within the present context of capital strike,
de-unionisation, and joblessness characterising cybernetised globalism. Of
course the emphasis must always remain on possibility as there is always room
for more than one response to emerge. Green syndicalists recognise that
ecological crises have only become possible within social relations whose
articulation has engendered a weakening of people’s capacities to fight a
co-ordinated defence of the planet’s ecological communities.
Bari
[1994: 2001] argued that the restriction of participation in decision-making
processes within ordered hierarchies, prerequisite to accumulation, has been a
crucial impediment to ecological organising And it seems to me that people’s
complicity should be measured more by the amount of control they have over the
conditions of their lives than by how dirty they get at work. One compromise
made by a whitecollar Sierra Club professional can destroy more trees than a
logger can cut in a lifetime [Bari, 1994: 105].
The
persistent lack of workers’ control allows coercion of workers into the
performance of tasks which they might otherwise disdain, or which have
consequences of which they are left unaware. Additionally the absence of
self-determination results in workers competing with one another over jobs or
even the possibility of jobs. Workers are left more susceptible to threats of
capital strike or environmental blackmail [Bullard, 1990]. This susceptibility
is perhaps the greatest deterrent to labour/ecology alliances. Without job
security and workplace power workers cannot provide an effective counterbalance
to the power of capital.
Radical
ecology, outside of green syndicalism, has failed to appreciate these negative
consequences of diminished workers’ control for participation in more
explicitly political realms. Only through a development of political confidence
can such activism be engaged. Furthermore, the degree of workplace democracy
can depend largely upon the influence of supposedly exterior concerns such as
impacts upon nature. In recognising the relationship between workplace
articulation and political participation green syndicalism poses a challenge to
received notions within ecology.
Participation
as conceived by green syndicalism cannot come from management. ‘Such awareness
has to question unflinching deference to experts, as part of a more general
attack on centralized power and managerial prerogatives’ [Guarasci and Peck,
1987: 70]. Direct participation is understood as contributing to worker
self-determination, constituted by workers against the veiled offerings of
management which form part of ecocapitalism.
Eco-capitalist
visions leave the megamachine and its power hierarchies intact and thus offers
no alternative. Production remains undemocratic and profitability is the final
word on whether or not resources should be used. Thus, eco-capitalism
introduces to us the wonders of biodegradable take-out containers and
starch-based golf teas [Purchase, 1994].
Green
syndicalism emerges, then, as an experiment in more creative conceptions of
workplace participation. For Purchase [1994, 1997a, 1997b], productive control
organised around face-to-face, voluntary interaction and encouraging
self-determination might be employed towards the freeing up of vast quantities
of labour from useless, though profitable production, to be used in the playful
development of life-affirming activities. Thus a common theme of working-class
radicalism becomes an important element of an ecological theoretic. Leftists
have long argued that eventually human needs must become the primary
consideration of production, replacing profitability and accumulation. Such
critiques of production must now go even further, raising questions about the ‘needs’
of ecosystems and non-humans.
Rethinking
Unionism
The
decreased demand for labour, within cybernetised capital relations, means that
corporations are less compelled to deal with mainstream trade unions as under
the Keynesian arrangement.3 If unions are to have any influence it can only
come through active efforts to disrupt the labour process. These disruptive
efforts may include increased militancy within workplace relations. Evidence
for a rebellion among workers has been reflected typically in such activities
as sabotage, slowdowns and absences.
IWW
activists explicitly agitate for ‘deliberate inefficiency’ as a means to
encourage the desecration of work relations. For green syndicalists the desired
tactics against corporate-sponsored destruction of the environment include such
direct, non-bureaucratic forms of action as shop-floor sabotage, boycotts,
green bans and the formation of extra-union solidarity outside of the
workplace, within workers’ home communities. Of course, strikes, the power to
halt production, is unmatched in its capacity to confront corporate greed.
Environmentalists
can stop production for a few hours or a few days. There is no more effective
counter-force to capital accumulation and the pursuit of profit than the power
of workers to stop work to achieve their demands. Ecological protection, as
with work conditions, benefits or wages, must be fought for. Where workers are
involved this means they must be struck for. This, however, requires that
workers develop a position of strength. This, in turn, means organising workers
so that they no longer face the prospects of ‘jobs versus environment’
blackmail. In order for this to occur, non-unionised workers must be mobilised.
(Otherwise they are mobilised by capital – as scabs.) Recognising this the IWW
gives a great deal of attention to organising the traditionally unorganised.
A
green syndicalist conception of workers’ organisation rejects the hierarchical,
centralised, bureaucratic structures of mainstream unionism. Economistic union
organisations and bureaucrats who have worked to convince workers that
environmentalists are responsible for job loss point up the need for
syndicalist unions organised around ecologically sensitive practices.
Green
syndicalists generally reject the perspective of Fosterism or the practice, as
advocated by William Z. Foster in the 1910s, of ‘boring from within’ the
mainstream unions.4 Examples abound of the difficulties in trying to build
ecological perspectives, committees and work within mainstream unions. Laurie
Adkin [1998] provides detailed accounts of the obstacles faced by activists in
the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), supposedly the most progressive social union
in Canada, when attempting to build rank and file environmental committees.
Ontario’s Green Work Alliance (GWA) provides another instance in which rank and
file workers
were
thwarted by union bureaucrats in their efforts to establish green union perspectives.
In that case union support for Ontario’s ruling social democratic party (New
Democrats) interfered with the GWA criticisms of NDP environmental policies.
Recent divisions between the ‘Teamsters and Turtles’ alliance of the Seattle
anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) protests, especially over labour support
for President Bush’s plan for oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge emphasise the serious obstacles which remain in forging alliances with
business unions [Buss, 2001].
This
is not to say that green syndicalists refuse to act in solidarity with workers
in mainstream unions. Indeed, Local 1 worked in support of workers in Pulp and
Paper Workers Local 49 and Judi Bari points out that many actions would have
been impossible without inside information provided by workers in that local.
Green syndicalists do work with rank and file members of mainstream unions and
many are themselves ‘two-carders’, simultaneously members of mainstream and
syndicalist unions.
Neither
is it true to say that strong environmental policies cannot come from
mainstream unions. Mainstream unions can and do at times take up specific
policies and practices of syndicalism but the lack overall vision and
participatory structures means that such policies and practices are not part of
overall strategy and are often vulnerable to leadership control or the
limitations of bargaining with employers.
While
not a syndicalist union the BLF did adopt a number of policies which are
hallmarks of syndicalism, most notably openess, radical democracy and
participation. It must be stressed that these structural changes were essential
for the development of the BLF’s environmental perspective [Burgmann and
Burgmann, 1998]. Job site autonomy was encouraged, officials’ wages were linked
to industry wages and officials were not paid during strikes. The union also
established a ‘limited tenure of office’ and executive meetings were opened to
all members [Burgmann and Burgmann, 1998]. The BLF also showed the expansive
vision of working
class
solidarity which is a strength of syndicalism. For example, the union banned
work at Macquarie University after a gay student was expelled. The BLF also
offered strong support for aboriginal land rights and squatters and banned work
on the construction of a $1 million maximum security prison block.
Unfortunately the BLF was betrayed by the same authoritarian forces which have
haunted the syndicalists. Maoists and Stalinists within the National conspired
with bosses to impose Federal control over the union, expel leading militants
and end the bans.
The
Question of Work
The
green syndicalist responses might be understood, most interestingly, as
characterising a broader revolt against work. ‘The one goal that unites all IWW
members is to abolish the wage system’ [Meyers, 1995: 73]. Ecological crises
make clear that the capitalist construction of ‘jobs’ and ‘workers’ are
incompatible with the preservation of nature. It is, perhaps, then, not entirely
paradoxical that green syndicalism should hint at an overcoming of workerness
as one possible outcome.
Radical
ecology activists have increasingly come to understand jobs, under the guise of
work, as perhaps the most basic moment of unfreedom, one which must be overcome
in any quest towards liberty. Too often, previously, the common response has
been one of turning away from workers and from questions relating to the
organisation of working relations. Green syndicalism hints that radical theory
can no longer ignore these questions which are posed by the presence of jobs.
Indeed it might be said that a return to the problematic of jobs becomes the
starting point for a reformulation of radicalism, at least along green lines.
Green
syndicalism conceives of the transformation of work as an ecological
imperative. What is proposed is a radical alteration of work, both in structure
and meaning. Solutions to the problems of work cannot be found merely in the
control of existing forms. Rather, current practices of production along with
the hierarchy of labour must be overcome.
For
theorists of green syndicalism [Kaufmann and Ditz, 1992; Purchase, 1994, 1997a,
1997b], among the prerequisites for ecological change is a reduction in the
amount of work being done. Their concern is that much of work, involving
massive appropriation of natural elements, is useless. That includes the
defence and reproduction of work relations in political (ownership) and
economic (circulation) forms. In addition, an even more radical change is
perceived as being required to transform the nature of that work which might
remain towards ecological ends such as recovery, repair, and reconstruction.
Furthermore, the processes of transforming existing work involve those who
perform and are most familiar with the tasks under
question.
Green syndicalists [Kaufmann and Ditz, 1992; Purchase, 1994) envision work
being performed through democratic, participatory means within which work is
conceived more as craft or as play.
Production,
within a green syndicalist vision [Purchase, 1994, 1997a, 1997b], may include
the provision of ecologically sensitive foods, transportation or energy. Work,
newly organised along decentralised, local, democratic lines might allow for
the introduction of materials and practices with diminished impact upon the
bioregion in which each is employed.
Green
syndicalist discourses are raised against the undermining influences of work in
contemporary conditions of globalism. Far from being irrational responses to
serious social transformations, workplace democratisation and workers’
self-determination become ever more reasonable responses to the uncertainty and
contingency of emerging conditions of (un)employment.
Green
syndicalists emphasise workers’ empowerment and selfemancipation – against
pessimistic or cynical responses such as mass retraining which simply reinforce
dependence upon elites. They offer but one initiative towards the overcoming of
work and a movement towards community-based economics and productive decision-making.
Beyond
Leftism and Ecology: Reflections on Green Syndicalist Visions
Green
syndicalism highlights certain points of similarity between anarchosyndicalism
and
ecology. These include, but are by no means limited to: decentralisation;
regionalism; direct action/sabotage; autonomy; and pluralism and diversity.
Syndicalists, however, can no longer disregard, as some Marxists [Blackie,
1990; Raskin and Bernow, 1991) are wont to do, the linkages between
industrialism, hierarchy, and ecological destruction.
The
mass production techniques of industrialism cannot be reconciled with
ecological sustenance, regardless of whether bosses or sturdy proletarians
control them. To be anti-capitalist does not have to imply being pro-ecology.
In this regard the utopians have surely been more insightful. Ending capitalist
relations of production, however, remains necessary for a radical
transformation of the social since these relations encompass many positions of
subordination. However, this is only one aspect of radical politics.
Thus,
green syndicalists reject the workerist premises of ‘old-style’ leftists who
argue that issues such as ecology are external to questions of production and
only serve to distract from the essential task of organising workers, at the point
of production, towards emancipation. Within green syndicalist discourses
ecological concerns cannot, with any reason, be divorced from questions of
production or economics. Rather than being represented as strictly separate
discursive universes, nature, production, economics or workplace become
understood as endlessly contested topographical features in an always shifting
terrain.
The
workplace is but one of the sites for extension of social resistance. Given the
prominent position of the workplace under capitalism, as a realm of capitalist
discipline and hegemony, activists must come to appreciate the significance of
locating struggles within everyday workplace relations. Within a green
syndicalist perspective workplaces are understood as sites of solidarity,
innovation, cultural diversity, and personal interactions expressed in informal
networks and through multiple antagonisms. In turn, those social realms which
are typically counterpoised to the factory within radical ecology discourses –
Bookchin’s ‘community’ – should be recognised as influenced by matters of
accumulation, profit and class. The character of either realm is not unaffected
by workplace antagonisms.
This ‘steel
cage’ appears inescapable only because it remains isolated, practically and
conceptually, from a host of important social, cultural, and political-economic
dynamics operating inside and out of workplaces proper. Critical to any
discussion, work organizations must be seen as series of settings and
situations providing choices that are constrained, but not immutably, by the
broader fabric of the
society
into which they are woven [Guarasci and Peck, 1987: 72].
Green
syndicalism calls for the replacement of profit-driven capitalist production
with socially necessary production through means which are ecologically
sensible [Purchase, 1994]. Production would be organised around human and
ecological considerations rather than the rapacious requirements of accumulation
and expansion characterising capitalist organisation. Syndicalists suggest that
if production and distribution are to be carried out in a dark green manner
workers must stop producing for capitalist elites according to the whims of the
market. Syndicalists are interested neither in profit nor in growth and their
conception of industry
has
nothing to do with the consumerism of advanced capitalism. Finally, green
syndicalist discourses express a realisation that overcoming ecological
devastation depends upon shared responsibilities towards developing convivial
ways of living wherein respectful relations, both within our own species and
with other species, are nurtured.
In
addition, the re-integration of production with consumption, organised in an
egalitarian and democratic fashion – such that members of a community
contribute what they can to social production – may allow for a break with
consumerism. People might consume only that which they’ve had a hand in
producing; people might use free time for creative activities rather than
tedious, unnecessary production of luxuries; and individual consumption might
be regulated by the capacities of individual production, (for example, personal
creativity), not from the hysterics of mass advertising.
Syndicalism
might be freed thusly from requirements of growth or mass consumption
characterising industrialism as ‘social relations’ [Purchase, 1994, 1997a,
1997b; Bari, 2001]. Green syndicalism, as opposed to Marxism or even
revolutionary syndicalism, opposes large-scale, centralised, mass-production.
Green syndicalism does not hold to a socialist optimism of the liberatory
potential of industrialism.
Ecological
calls for a complete, immediate break with industrialism, however, contradict
radical eco-philosophical emphases upon interconnectedness, mutualism and
continuity. Simple calls for a return to nature reveal the lingering
fundamentalisms afflicting much ecological discourse. The idea of an immediate
return to small, village-centred living as espoused by some deep ecologists and
anarchists is not only utopian, it ignores questions concerning the impacts
which the toxic remains of industry would continue to inflict upon their
surroundings. The spectre of industrialism will still – and must inevitably –
haunt efforts at
transformation,
especially in decisions concerning the mess that industry has left behind
[Purchase, 1994]. How can we disconnect society from nature given the mass
interpenetrations of social encroachments upon nature, for example, global
warming, or depletion of the ozone layer? Where do you put toxic wastes? What
of the abandoned factories? How will decommissioning occur? One cannot just
walk away from all of that.
Without
romanticising the role played by workers, green syndicalists are aware that
workers may offer certain insights into these problems. In responding to this
dilemma, green syndicalists [Kaufmann and Ditz, 1992; Purchase, 1994, 1997a,
1997b; Bari, 2001] have tried to ask the crucial question of where those who
are currently producers might belong in the multiple tasks of transformation –
both cultural as well as ecological. They have argued that radical ecology can
no longer leave out producers, they will either be allies or enemies. Green
syndicalism, almost alone among radical ecology, suggest that peoples’
identities as producers, rather than representing fixed entities, may actually
be articulated against industrialism. The processes of engaging this
articulation, wherein workers understand an interest in changing rather than
upholding current conditions, present the perplexing task which has as yet
foiled ecology.
Dismantling
industrial capital, the radical approach to industrialism, would still require
the participation of industrial workers provided it is not to be carried out as
part of an authoritarian articulation. Any radical articulation, assuming it be
democratic, implies the participation of industrial workers in decision-making
processes. Of course, the democratic character of any articulation cannot be
assumed; the possibility for reaction, to the exclusion of workers [Foreman,
1991; Watson, 1994], is ever-present.
One
sees this within ecological fundamentalism or in strengthened corporatist
alliances pitting labour/capital against environmentalists, each calling for
centralised and bureacratic enforcement of regulations. In the absence of a
grass-roots articulation with workers any manner of authoritarian, elite
articulation, even ones which include radical ecology [Foreman, 1991; Watson,
1994], might be envisioned.
For
their part theorists of green syndicalism envision the association of workers
towards the dismantling of the factory system, its work, hierarchies,
regimentation [Kaufmann and Ditz, 1992; Purchase, 1994, 1997a, 1997b]. This may
involve a literal destruction as factories may be dismantled; or perhaps
converted towards ‘soft’ forms of localised production. Likewise, productive
activity can be conceived in terms of restoration, including research into a
region’s natural history.
Reconstruction
might be understood in terms of food and energy provision or recovery
monitoring. These are acts in which all members might be active, indeed will
need to be active in some regard. These shifting priorities – towards
non-industrial relations generally – express the novelty of green syndicalism
as both green and as syndicalist.
For
green syndicalism it is important that ecology engage with workers in raising
the possibilities for resisting, challenging and even abandoning the capitalist
megamachine. However, certain industrial workshops and processes may be
necessary [Purchase, 1994]. (How would bikes, or windmills be produced, for
example?) The failure to develop democratic workers’ associations would then
seem to render even the most wellconsidered ecology scenarios untenable. Not
engaging such possibilities
restricts
radicalism to mere utopia building [Purchase, 1994].
Green
syndicalists argue for the construction of ‘place’ around the contours of
geographical regions, in opposition to the boundaries of nationstates which show
only contempt for ecological boundaries as marked by topography, climate,
species distribution or drainage. Affinity with bioregionalist themes is
recognised in green syndicalist appeals for a replacement of nation-states with
decentralised federations of bioregional communities [Purchase, 1994, 1997a].
For green syndicalism such communities might constitute social relations in an
articulation with local ecological requirements to the exclusion the
bureaucratic, hierarchical interference
of distant corporatist bodies.
Local
community becomes the context of social/ecological identification. Eco-defence,
then, should begin at local levels: in the homes, workplaces, and
neighbourhoods. Green syndicalist discourses urge that people identify with the
ecosystems of their locality and region and work to defend those areas through
industrial and agricultural practices which are developed and adapted to
specific ecological characteristics. One aspect of a green syndicalist
theoretic, thus, involves ecology activists helping workers to educate
themselves about regional, community-based ways of living [Bari, 1994;
Purchase, 1994, 1997b]. A green syndicalist perspective encourages people to
broaden and unite the individual actions, such as saving a park or cleaning up
a river, in which they are already involved towards regional efforts of
self-determination protecting local ecosystems [Purchase, 1994].
The
point here, however, has not been (nor is it for theorists of green syndicalism
generally) to draw plans for the green syndicalist future. Specific questions
about the status of cities, organisation of labour, means of production, or
methods of distribution cannot here be answered. They will be addressed by
those involved as the outcome of active practice. Most likely there will be many
varieties of experimental living — some are already here, e.g. autonomous
zones, squats, co-ops and revolutionary unions. These are perhaps the renewed
politics of organising.
Human
relations with nature pose crucial and difficult questions for radicalism.
Those relations, under capitalism, have taken the form of ‘jobs’ where nature
and labour both become commodified. Indeed nature as ‘resources’ and work as ‘jobs’
provide the twin commodity forms which have always been necessary for the
expansion of the market [Polanyi, 1944].
Thus
capitalist regimes of accumulation, growth and commodification remain crucial
concerns for ecological politics. Questions concerning the organising of life
are still radical questions, though what might constitute acceptable answers
has changed. One might ask: ‘What does work – intervention in nature – mean for
ecology?’ Taking ecology seriously means that the realms of work, leisure (work’s
accomplice), sustenance, need etc. – what might be called production – must be
confronted.
NOTES
1. For interesting accounts of the radicalisation of workers in response to unsatisfying or
degrading workplace experiences see Zimpel [1974] and Sprouse [1992].
2. Bookchin’s criticism of workers’ organisations becomes even more curious given his
attachment to technological solutions to ecological degradation. He remains unclear, for
example, on the matter of who might design, construct, repair or recycle his much desired
eco-technologies [Purchase, 1994]. For a discussion of the technocratic and anthropocentric
dimensions of Bookchin’s writings see Marshall [1993].
3. Montgomery [1974] suggests that workers’ struggles generally belong to two types: control
struggles and wage struggles. Employers spend much energy trying to prevent the
convergence of the two currents. Unions have, since 1945, been preoccupied typically with
wage struggles, while control struggles have been traded for wages and benefits or diverted
through limited participation schemes, as exemplified in recent approaches to management,
or in ‘commitments to quality’. The challenge again confronting organised labour is
precisely to revitalise control struggles. This challenge also faces ‘new movement’ activists
in their attempts to engage with labour.
4. For a discussion of the debates around Fosterism see Bekken [2001]. Recently, Wobblies in
Edmonton, Canada attempted to revive Fosterism within the IWW, a proposal which was
overwhelmingly rejected.
REFERENCES
Adkin, Laurie E. (1992a), ‘Counter-Hegemony and Environmental Politics in Canada’, in W. K.
Carroll (ed.), Organizing Dissent, Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press, pp.135–56.
Adkin, Laurie E. (1992b), 2b), ‘Ecology and Labour: Towards a New Societal Paradigm’, in C.
Leys and M. Mendell (eds.), Culture and Social Change, Montreal: Black Rose Books,
pp.75–94.
Adkin, Laurie E. (1998), 98), The Politics of Sustainable Development: Citizens, Unions and the
Corporation, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Anderson, K. and J.M. Jacobs (1999), ‘Geographies of Publicity and Privacy: Residential
Activism in Sydney in the 1970s’, Environment and Planning A, Vol.31, No.6, pp.1017–30.
Bahro, Rudolf (1982), Socialism and Survival, London: Verso.
Bahro, Rudolf (1984), From Red to Green, London: Verso.
Bari, Judi (1994), Timber Wars, Monroe: Common Courage Press.
Bari, Judi (2001), ‘Revolutionary Ecology’, Hodgepodge, Vol.7, pp.35–8.
Bekken, Jon, (2001), ‘The Tragedy of Fosterism, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Vol.31, pp.13–22,
pp36–7.
Blackie, Duncan (1990), Environment in Crisis, London: SWP.
Bookchin, Murray (1980), Toward an Ecological Society, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, Murray (1987), The Modern Crisis, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, Murray (1993), ‘The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism’, Anarchist Studies, Vol.1, No.1,
pp.3–24.
Bookchin, Murray (1995), Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm,
Edinburgh: AK Press.
Bookchin, Murray (1997), ‘Deep Ecology, Anarchosyndicalism and the Future of Anarchist
Thought’, in Freedom Press (ed.), Deep Ecology and Anarchism: A Polemic, London:
Freedom Press, pp.47–58.
Bookchin, Murray and Dave Foreman (1991), Defending the Earth, Boston, MA: South End
Press.
Brecher, Jeremy (1972), Strike!, San Francisco, CA: Straight Arrow Books.
Bullard, Robert, D. (1990), Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Burgmann, Verity (2000), ‘The Social Responsibility of Labour versus the Environmental Impact
of Property Capital: The Australian Green Bans Movement’, Environmental Politics, Vol.9,
No.2, pp.78–101.
Burgmann, Meredith and Verity Burgmann (1998), Red Union: Environmental Activism and the
New South Wales Builders’ Labourers’ Federation, Sydney: UNSW Press.
Buss, Alexis (2001), ‘What Happened to Teamsters and Turtles? Arctic Drilling, the Labor
Movement and the Environment’, Industrial Worker, Vol.98, No.8, pp.1, 5.
DeCaux, Len (1978), The Living Spirit of the Wobblies, New York: International Publishers.
Dubofsky, Melvyn (1969), We Shall Be All, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Eckersley, Robyn (1989), ‘Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue’, Political
Studies, Vol.37, No.2, pp.205–23.
Ecologist (1993), Whose Common Future?: Reclaiming the Commons, Philadelphia, PA: New
Society Publishers.
Faber, Daniel and James O’Connor (1993), ‘Capitalism and the Crisis of Environmentalism’, in
R. Hofrichter (ed.), Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice,
Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers, pp.12–24.
Foreman, Dave (1991), Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony Books.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971), Selections From Prison Notebooks, New York: International
Publishers.
Green, James R. (1974), ‘Comments on the Montgomery Paper’, Journal of Social History,
Vol.7, No.4, pp.530–35.
Guarasci, Richard and Gary Peck (1987), ‘Beyond the Syndicalism of Workplace Democracy’,
The Insurgent Sociologist, Vol.14, No.2, pp.49–76.
Hargis, Mike (2001), ‘Birth of an International Libertarian Network: A Libertarian Manifesto for
the 21st Century’, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Vol.32, pp.11–16.
Hobsbawm, E.J. (1979), ‘Inside Every Worker There is a Syndicalist Trying to Get Out’, New
Society, Vol.48, No.861, pp.8–10.
Holton, R.J. (1980), ‘Syndicalist Theories of the State’, Sociological Review, Vol.28, No.1,
pp.5–21.
Jennings, Jeremy (1991), ‘Syndicalism and the French Revolution’, Journal of Contemporary
History, Vol.26, pp.71–96.
Kaufmann, Mark and Jeff Ditz (1992), ‘Green Syndicalism’, Libertarian Labor Review, Vol.13,
pp.41–2.
Kornblugh, Joyce L. (1964), Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Martel, Larry (1997), ‘Loggers vs. Greenpeace: Corporate Blackmail’, Canadian Dimension,
Vol.31, No.5, pp.33–4.
Marshall, Peter (1993), Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, London: Fontana
Press.
Meyers, Bill (1995), ‘Kicks Boss Butt?!?’, Anarchy, Vol.41, No.14(3), p.73.
Miller, Arthur J. (1993), ‘Don’t Trash the IWW’, Anarchy, Vol.37, No.13(3), pp.55–6.
Montgomery, David (1974), ‘The “New Unionism” and the Transformation of Workers’
Consciousness in America, 1909–22’, Journal of Social History, Vol.7, No.4, pp.509–29.
Peet, Richard and Michael Watts (1996), ‘Liberation Ecology: Development, Sustainability, and
Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism’, in R. Peet and M.Watts (eds.), Liberation
Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements, London: Routledge, pp.1–45.
Pepper, David (1993), Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice, London: Routledge.
Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Purchase, Graham (1994), Anarchism and Environmental Survival, Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.
Purchase, Graham (1997a), Anarchism and Ecology, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Purchase, Graham (1997b), ‘Social Ecology, Anarchism and Trades Unionism’, in Freedom Press
(ed.) Deep Ecology and Anarchism: A Polemic, London: Freedom Press, pp.23–5.
Raskin, P. and S. Bernow (1991), ‘Ecology and Marxism: Are Green and Red Complementary?’,
Rethinking Marxism, Vol.4, No.1, pp.87–103.
Roussopolous, Dimitrios (1991), Green Politics: Agenda for a Free Society, Montreal: Black
Rose Books.
Rudig, Wolfgang (1985–86), ‘Eco-Socialism: Left Environmentalism in West Germany’,
NewPolitical Science, Vol.14, pp.3–37.
Shantz, Jeffrey (1999), ‘Searching for Peace in the “Timber Wars”: A Report on Nonviolence and
Coalition Building During the Redwood Summer’, Peace Research, Vol.31, No.3, pp.1–12.
Shantz, Jeffrey A. and Barry D. Adam (1999), ‘Ecology and Class: The Green Syndicalism of
IWW/Earth First Local 1’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol.19,
No.7/8, pp.43–72.
Spitzer, A. (1963), ‘Anarchy and Culture: Fernand Pelloutier and the Dilemma of Revolutionary
Syndicalism’, International Review of Social History, Vol.8, pp.379–88.
Sprouse, Martin (1992), Sabotage in the American Workplace, San Francisco, CA: Pressure Drop
Press/AK Press.
Telò, Mario (1982), ‘The Factory Councils’, in Anne Showstack Sassoon (ed.), Approaches to
Gramsci, London: Writers and Readers, pp.200–10.
Thompson, F.W. and P. Murfin (1976), The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, Chicago, IL: IWW.
Tucker, Kenneth (1991), ‘How New Are the New Social Movements?’ Theory, Culture and
Society, Vol.8, No.2, pp.75–98.
Watson, Captain Paul (1994), ‘In Defense of Tree-Spiking’, in J. Zinovich (ed.), Canadas, New
York/Peterborough: Semiotext(e)/Marginal Editions, pp.125–9.
Zimpel, Lloyd (ed.) (1974), Man Against Work, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
1. For interesting accounts of the radicalisation of workers in response to unsatisfying or
degrading workplace experiences see Zimpel [1974] and Sprouse [1992].
2. Bookchin’s criticism of workers’ organisations becomes even more curious given his
attachment to technological solutions to ecological degradation. He remains unclear, for
example, on the matter of who might design, construct, repair or recycle his much desired
eco-technologies [Purchase, 1994]. For a discussion of the technocratic and anthropocentric
dimensions of Bookchin’s writings see Marshall [1993].
3. Montgomery [1974] suggests that workers’ struggles generally belong to two types: control
struggles and wage struggles. Employers spend much energy trying to prevent the
convergence of the two currents. Unions have, since 1945, been preoccupied typically with
wage struggles, while control struggles have been traded for wages and benefits or diverted
through limited participation schemes, as exemplified in recent approaches to management,
or in ‘commitments to quality’. The challenge again confronting organised labour is
precisely to revitalise control struggles. This challenge also faces ‘new movement’ activists
in their attempts to engage with labour.
4. For a discussion of the debates around Fosterism see Bekken [2001]. Recently, Wobblies in
Edmonton, Canada attempted to revive Fosterism within the IWW, a proposal which was
overwhelmingly rejected.
REFERENCES
Adkin, Laurie E. (1992a), ‘Counter-Hegemony and Environmental Politics in Canada’, in W. K.
Carroll (ed.), Organizing Dissent, Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press, pp.135–56.
Adkin, Laurie E. (1992b), 2b), ‘Ecology and Labour: Towards a New Societal Paradigm’, in C.
Leys and M. Mendell (eds.), Culture and Social Change, Montreal: Black Rose Books,
pp.75–94.
Adkin, Laurie E. (1998), 98), The Politics of Sustainable Development: Citizens, Unions and the
Corporation, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Anderson, K. and J.M. Jacobs (1999), ‘Geographies of Publicity and Privacy: Residential
Activism in Sydney in the 1970s’, Environment and Planning A, Vol.31, No.6, pp.1017–30.
Bahro, Rudolf (1982), Socialism and Survival, London: Verso.
Bahro, Rudolf (1984), From Red to Green, London: Verso.
Bari, Judi (1994), Timber Wars, Monroe: Common Courage Press.
Bari, Judi (2001), ‘Revolutionary Ecology’, Hodgepodge, Vol.7, pp.35–8.
Bekken, Jon, (2001), ‘The Tragedy of Fosterism, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Vol.31, pp.13–22,
pp36–7.
Blackie, Duncan (1990), Environment in Crisis, London: SWP.
Bookchin, Murray (1980), Toward an Ecological Society, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, Murray (1987), The Modern Crisis, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Bookchin, Murray (1993), ‘The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism’, Anarchist Studies, Vol.1, No.1,
pp.3–24.
Bookchin, Murray (1995), Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm,
Edinburgh: AK Press.
Bookchin, Murray (1997), ‘Deep Ecology, Anarchosyndicalism and the Future of Anarchist
Thought’, in Freedom Press (ed.), Deep Ecology and Anarchism: A Polemic, London:
Freedom Press, pp.47–58.
Bookchin, Murray and Dave Foreman (1991), Defending the Earth, Boston, MA: South End
Press.
Brecher, Jeremy (1972), Strike!, San Francisco, CA: Straight Arrow Books.
Bullard, Robert, D. (1990), Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Burgmann, Verity (2000), ‘The Social Responsibility of Labour versus the Environmental Impact
of Property Capital: The Australian Green Bans Movement’, Environmental Politics, Vol.9,
No.2, pp.78–101.
Burgmann, Meredith and Verity Burgmann (1998), Red Union: Environmental Activism and the
New South Wales Builders’ Labourers’ Federation, Sydney: UNSW Press.
Buss, Alexis (2001), ‘What Happened to Teamsters and Turtles? Arctic Drilling, the Labor
Movement and the Environment’, Industrial Worker, Vol.98, No.8, pp.1, 5.
DeCaux, Len (1978), The Living Spirit of the Wobblies, New York: International Publishers.
Dubofsky, Melvyn (1969), We Shall Be All, Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Eckersley, Robyn (1989), ‘Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue’, Political
Studies, Vol.37, No.2, pp.205–23.
Ecologist (1993), Whose Common Future?: Reclaiming the Commons, Philadelphia, PA: New
Society Publishers.
Faber, Daniel and James O’Connor (1993), ‘Capitalism and the Crisis of Environmentalism’, in
R. Hofrichter (ed.), Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice,
Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers, pp.12–24.
Foreman, Dave (1991), Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, New York: Harmony Books.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971), Selections From Prison Notebooks, New York: International
Publishers.
Green, James R. (1974), ‘Comments on the Montgomery Paper’, Journal of Social History,
Vol.7, No.4, pp.530–35.
Guarasci, Richard and Gary Peck (1987), ‘Beyond the Syndicalism of Workplace Democracy’,
The Insurgent Sociologist, Vol.14, No.2, pp.49–76.
Hargis, Mike (2001), ‘Birth of an International Libertarian Network: A Libertarian Manifesto for
the 21st Century’, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Vol.32, pp.11–16.
Hobsbawm, E.J. (1979), ‘Inside Every Worker There is a Syndicalist Trying to Get Out’, New
Society, Vol.48, No.861, pp.8–10.
Holton, R.J. (1980), ‘Syndicalist Theories of the State’, Sociological Review, Vol.28, No.1,
pp.5–21.
Jennings, Jeremy (1991), ‘Syndicalism and the French Revolution’, Journal of Contemporary
History, Vol.26, pp.71–96.
Kaufmann, Mark and Jeff Ditz (1992), ‘Green Syndicalism’, Libertarian Labor Review, Vol.13,
pp.41–2.
Kornblugh, Joyce L. (1964), Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Martel, Larry (1997), ‘Loggers vs. Greenpeace: Corporate Blackmail’, Canadian Dimension,
Vol.31, No.5, pp.33–4.
Marshall, Peter (1993), Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, London: Fontana
Press.
Meyers, Bill (1995), ‘Kicks Boss Butt?!?’, Anarchy, Vol.41, No.14(3), p.73.
Miller, Arthur J. (1993), ‘Don’t Trash the IWW’, Anarchy, Vol.37, No.13(3), pp.55–6.
Montgomery, David (1974), ‘The “New Unionism” and the Transformation of Workers’
Consciousness in America, 1909–22’, Journal of Social History, Vol.7, No.4, pp.509–29.
Peet, Richard and Michael Watts (1996), ‘Liberation Ecology: Development, Sustainability, and
Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism’, in R. Peet and M.Watts (eds.), Liberation
Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements, London: Routledge, pp.1–45.
Pepper, David (1993), Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice, London: Routledge.
Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Purchase, Graham (1994), Anarchism and Environmental Survival, Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.
Purchase, Graham (1997a), Anarchism and Ecology, Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Purchase, Graham (1997b), ‘Social Ecology, Anarchism and Trades Unionism’, in Freedom Press
(ed.) Deep Ecology and Anarchism: A Polemic, London: Freedom Press, pp.23–5.
Raskin, P. and S. Bernow (1991), ‘Ecology and Marxism: Are Green and Red Complementary?’,
Rethinking Marxism, Vol.4, No.1, pp.87–103.
Roussopolous, Dimitrios (1991), Green Politics: Agenda for a Free Society, Montreal: Black
Rose Books.
Rudig, Wolfgang (1985–86), ‘Eco-Socialism: Left Environmentalism in West Germany’,
NewPolitical Science, Vol.14, pp.3–37.
Shantz, Jeffrey (1999), ‘Searching for Peace in the “Timber Wars”: A Report on Nonviolence and
Coalition Building During the Redwood Summer’, Peace Research, Vol.31, No.3, pp.1–12.
Shantz, Jeffrey A. and Barry D. Adam (1999), ‘Ecology and Class: The Green Syndicalism of
IWW/Earth First Local 1’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol.19,
No.7/8, pp.43–72.
Spitzer, A. (1963), ‘Anarchy and Culture: Fernand Pelloutier and the Dilemma of Revolutionary
Syndicalism’, International Review of Social History, Vol.8, pp.379–88.
Sprouse, Martin (1992), Sabotage in the American Workplace, San Francisco, CA: Pressure Drop
Press/AK Press.
Telò, Mario (1982), ‘The Factory Councils’, in Anne Showstack Sassoon (ed.), Approaches to
Gramsci, London: Writers and Readers, pp.200–10.
Thompson, F.W. and P. Murfin (1976), The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, Chicago, IL: IWW.
Tucker, Kenneth (1991), ‘How New Are the New Social Movements?’ Theory, Culture and
Society, Vol.8, No.2, pp.75–98.
Watson, Captain Paul (1994), ‘In Defense of Tree-Spiking’, in J. Zinovich (ed.), Canadas, New
York/Peterborough: Semiotext(e)/Marginal Editions, pp.125–9.
Zimpel, Lloyd (ed.) (1974), Man Against Work, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
No comments:
Post a Comment