Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 01 2002 @ 09:41 PM CDT

So, apparently those of us who think that labor unions might not be the best avenue to pursue should \"put down this journal, go to Hot Topics at the mall, and buy yourself a new shirt with a nice big circle A in the middle of it...[and t]hen go start the class war.\" Furthermore, it would appear that a good number of us (although I\'m not sure who) are \"too lazy and self-centered to be able to dedicate themselves to the extreme it takes to be an organizer in an organizing union.\"

As a matter of fact, the class war started a long time ago, and we\'re all in it already, whether we like it or not. You would think that anyone from a working class background would instinctively understand that. Leaving that aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of NEFAC members seem to have attitude problems?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 01 2002 @ 11:44 PM CDT

no, but i\'ve noticed a lot of lifestylists resort to these cheap, innuendo-driven personal attacks on NEFAC when they are roundly beaten on the ideological level :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 01 2002 @ 11:50 PM CDT

Uh huh...and where exactly has this \"lifestylist\" (actually, I\'m about as social as they come) been beaten on any ideological level? Questions of ideology aside, it seems abundantly clear that I\'m not the one \"resort[ing] to...cheap, innuendo-driven personal attacks\" here. Try again, and give it a little more thought next time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 12:16 AM CDT

Okay Nightwalker let\'s break your comment down.

2 sentances from the entire article taken out of context.

1 no brainer: \"As a matter of fact, the class war started a long time ago, and we\'re all in it already, whether we like it or not.\"

1 sideswipe at class baiting the writer: \"You would think that anyone from a working class background would instinctively understand that.\"

1 personal attack \"has anyone else noticed that a lot of NEFAC members seem to have attitude problems?\"

Not exactly a well thought out critique of unionism, NEFAC, or anything else for that matter. Let me know if you ever come up with one, I\'ll read it with interest.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 12:33 AM CDT

Mick, you get the \"Missing the Point Entirely\" Award! I wasn\'t aiming for a well thought-out criticism of either unions or NEFAC. I generally support unions and attend their demonstrations regularly. Nor do I have any particular problems with NEFAC, beyond the one that\'s obvious here.

My problem was with the generally condescending tone of this piece, and I used to quotes to illustrate it. Surely you can understand the difference between starting an ideological debate and pointing out that someone is being obnoxious?

I fail to see how my \"sideswipe\" was unnecessary; either we are in the midst of a class war or it is our lot to start one. You can\'t have it both ways. Furthermore, what you characterize as a \"personal attack\" was, in fact, central to the point I was trying to make. The fact that you are unable, or unwilling, to recognize this reinforces my point about some (but by no means all) NEFAC members.

Incidentally, how did I take those quotes out of context? Looking over the article, I fail to see what redeeming value can be found in the surrounding sentences and paragraphs. Clarify this remark, please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 12:56 AM CDT

I think this article was rather well written and concidered, the questions Duke asks the organizers are excellent choices, and the responses the organizers gave make plenty of sense to me. I\'ve done environmental canvassing, community organizing and attempted to organize a union at my workplace, and my problems with their bureacracies are plenty, one of them being a high profit-motive to canvass or community organize (organize your own pay check or get fired quickly). I can\'t say I worked with any real union while I was attempting to organize one, because it was my own workplace, and my own individual desires for the workplace was to be organized against the bureacracy as well as the boss and for our own collective benefit. But from the sound of it (correct me if I\'m wrong), \"professional\" union organizing seems to vary from autonomous organizers to ones that must regularly stay in contact with the bureacracy, depending on the union.

Differences of organizing I should detail. Workplace organizers can be fairly flexible with which union they accept, they don\'t answer to a bureacracy, and they don\'t have to remain in the same trade or industry for the areas they desire to salt.

Union organizers usually have to remain in the same trade or industry, it varies as to the amount they must answer to a bureacracy, and because they are already affliated with a union, they push for the union they are organizing for.

At first workplace organizing might seem better, but you tend to be more disconnected from what is going on and how to properly organize a union in the workplace, you aren\'t recieving a paycheck for your troubles, and you have less of a chance to get the union you want in place if you are organizing the workplace against both the union bureacracy and the boss (in my case, I pushed for IWW, another pushed for the Teamsters, and a larger segment pushed for something within the AFL-CIO). It perhaps would\'ve been better to of chosen the union by myself, but because I had the choice of what union I would go for, I chose the IWW which was far too radical and was rather unknown for the workers to accept. I didn\'t want the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO because I generally didn\'t agree with them...and after that, there really is no choice in America.

If you are a Union organizer, things are a little better, you know plenty about the union you are choosing rather than doing tons of studying on various unions and are more convincing due to this specialty because real wins can be discussed, and then the union organizer can always turn to other organizers for advice within the union, which the workplace organizer lacks, so the chances of actually getting a union in place increases. If you present a convincing case for your union, more than likely a union will be decided on (usually the one you are pushing for as well), rather than giving such a large variety of choices it leaves the workers confused and disorganized and achieving a union at all is less likely.

Workplace organizing shouldn\'t be dismissed, and perhaps the pitfalls that I had could of been avoided if I knew what I was doing and made a solid and educated decision and went out of my way to meet with professionals in depth to ensure a union got put in place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 01:07 AM CDT

\"I didn\'t want the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO because I generally didn\'t agree with them...and after that, there really is no choice in America.\"

Don\'t say that until you\'ve checked out the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America:

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org

True, they\'re not the IWW, but they\'re sure as hell not the Teamsters, either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 07:16 AM CDT

\"If you think the world\'s that simple, put down this journal, go to Hot Topics at the mall, and buy yourself a new shirt with a nice big circle A in the middle of it. Then go start the class war.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 07:18 AM CDT

\"The bulk of the anarchist movement is already doing really productive work in other areas and the rest are too lazy and self-centered to be able to dedicate themselves to the extreme it takes to be an organizer in an organizing union.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 09:21 AM CDT

It is great to see this kind of article being put out there. I am tired of being called a \"unionist\" or some other randomn term in a condescending tone. I organize with the United Steelworkers which is a generally old school conservative union. However, it is also a fighting union (or at least used to be, and could be again). Alot of these dudes (i use that term on purpose, it is a very male dominated union, but we are working on that, expanding our base of organizing) have no problem with militancy. It tends to be very self absorbed though. \"I want my union wages and other workers can fuck off.\" Union organizing is a way to help improve peoples lives in your own communities in a fairly immediate way. And it shows people that unions are ways that workers can get shit down that they can\'t all by themselves.

As we bring new workers into this movement, organize solidarity within the greater community (which could be, hopefully, more out of the closet anarchist groups and collectives) and also radicalize already unionized folks i think we have something. we must all remember that unions are one of the last bastions of class ideology in the US. We shouldn\'t ignore that. Sure the bearacracy sucks but grass roots organizing can still be very effective.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 10:01 AM CDT

Nightwalker is one of the least \"lifestylist\" anarchists that I know. They are a pretty good organizer, so I\'d be inclined to take their comments seriously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 10:21 AM CDT

There is aplace for nefac and there is a place for more lifestylist pursuits in the anarchist movement. One does not necessarilly take precedent over another.

I respect NEFAC for the important work they do but I am greatly annoyed by the divisive, nasty, remarks they always seem to throw into their otherwise right on analysis\'.
There does seem to be a real attitude and elitism among NEFAC members which is disheartening.

The condescending remarks that Duke feels the need to throw in are totally unecessary and overly defensive. We all get annoyed with lifestylists and crimethinc\'s often annoying shit but we have to realize that we are all anarchists, and if we can\'t stick together at this stage of the game what are we going to do when shit really hits the fan.

And whatever you might say about anarchist kids (lifestylists in particular)\"stealing slurpies from 7/11\" or whatever bullshit remark Duke feels the need to throw in, in DC on friday those were the kids putting their asses on the line getting beat down by the pigs and getting carted off to jail.

I\'m not saying constructive criticism isn\'t needed but backstabbing nasty remarks are in no way constructive. Otherwise I appreciate the articles and analysis from NEFAC just keep it on target and focus on who the real enemies are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 10:38 AM CDT

The Teamsters are still part of the AFL-CIO (for now). The unions that aren\'t in the AFL-CIO in the US are the Carpenters, UE, PCUN, CIW, and IWW. However, the AFL-CIO is an umbrella organization for alot of different unions, and then their internationals are umbrellas (or headquarters) for a lot of different locals. There is alot of diversity there. Some International unions in the AFL-CIO can be cooler than others... for instance, HERE is alot better than it was year ago (however there are still some really messed up locals). In other cases, it\'s the other way around with real cool locals (like the folks down at Jeffboat) in really bad internationals (The Teamsters). Sometimes you have dramatic difference between unions (both in the AFL-CIO) who have organized in similar industries, compare the ILWU on the west coast ports, with the ILA on the east cost ports.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 11:42 AM CDT

Whatever,

I found Dukes writing style to be rather refreshing and sprinkled with a sense of humour which is usually lacking in the NEA as well as this website.

Workers of the world, relax.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 12:43 PM CDT

\"The bulk of the anarchist movement is already doing really productive work in other areas\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 01:06 PM CDT

Did anyone notice the author\'s name attached to this article? Does it carry a formal endorsement by NEFAC as a whole? Is the hundred some odd other people involved with the federation to be blamed for everything each individual in NEFAC ever puts to print? Really, if you have a problem with the condescending tone of the article, blame Duke. He is his own person, who is more than capable of defending his confrontational writing style.

Furthermore, it has been long ago established that the only NEFAC people with attitude problems who post to this website are me and Duke (okay, maybe Mick on occasion). Everyone knows Flint is a big muffin with only nice, constructive things to say. Anyways, that\'s his problem. As for everyone else in NEFAC, they don\'t seem to give a shit about these message boards and avoid them altogether.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 01:29 PM CDT

Fuck you and your dread-mullet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 01:34 PM CDT

MaRK,

Fuck you and your Mullet-Dread.

:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 02:52 PM CDT

all those comments up there don\'t sound a hell of alot like me. i can\'t believe I wrote them really...there wasn\'t even a single insult at any pathetic fucking worthless no good lifestylist peice of trah. no flaming about how useless the revolution of everday life is. no attacks on summitt hoping puppet making morons. no cussing out of the anti-organizational idiots that want all power to the affinty groups and don\'t want to organize more of them. and last but not least I didn\'t even get to talk any shit of the folks that organize public sector workers as lazy bastards that just sit around and smoke their fat cigars in their big fancy leased cadilacs...

now that doesn\'t sound like me does it...I should have thrown some of that in there, but maybe I\'m just growing out of it...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 03:20 PM CDT

I agree that Duke\'s tone is the usual, patronizing, single-minded, insulting, bottom-of-the-barrel one he always uses. I can tell you that reading that laundry list of pseudo-platitudes at the beginning (Hot Topic? Seriously...) made me want to close the window and forget about what promised to be another silly bout of groundless, self-righteous mud-slinging from him.

Fortunately, I didn\'t put it down. I enjoyed the comments from the organizers, and I\'ll give Duke credit for asking some critical (though vague) questions, especially since he brooks no dissent elsewhere (you\'re either with him or against him in everything else, it seems).

I still maintain that union organizing has had its day and proven itself not up to the task of bringing the working class to revolution. Not a case of bringing a horse to water and being unable to make it drink, the union movement never brought to working class much near water, and we know the bureaucrats would have no ethical issues with compelling the working class to do it\'s bidding. Duke can disagree all he wants. His enthusiasm and black-and-white attitudes tell me he does not consider the whole picture.

But that aside, those he interviewed seemed to have a good idea of what they were doing, their role in the union as well as that of unions in contemporary American capitalism as a whole(something that the capitalists themselves realized long ago). As a former union member myself, I found myself nodding along to several of the comments (that must infuriate Duke, I\'m sure). Many of the critical comments jived with my experience.

Anyhow, that\'s about as close to praise for Duke as I\'m ever going to get (I imagine - he could surprise me). So, for the future, Duke, keep doing the interviews, but keep the usual par-for-the-course idiocy out of it. It can only improve your work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 03:26 PM CDT

Maybe you just wanted for folks to focus on your ideas and expierences, instead of focusing on what you see as their shortcomings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 02 2002 @ 04:54 PM CDT

Wow, that\'s the first time my name has ever been plagerized? Now I feel all special like Makhno.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 08 2002 @ 10:22 PM CDT

Duke is obviously an obnoxious jerk, which isn\'t really all that problematic with this article. The real problem is that he calls for anarchists to be involved with unions at all and has a bunch of other wankers talk about their crap experiences. The working class is what has held back any serious revolutionary action in north america. Forget them. They\'ll never get with it. Ever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 15 2002 @ 07:16 PM CDT

you\'re nuts

[ Reply to This | # ]