I guess I should start by pointing out that this article was written a decade ago, which is why the examples quoted go no further than 1994. More importantly, I agree with Tom about there being broad areas of agreement between our two positions. We share a common goal; our differences are friendly ones about how best to achieve that goal.
Are there two or three main classes? If there is a techno-managerial class (as opposed to a managerial section of the working class), what are their specific class interests? And, more to the point, what implications would this have for our daily practice in our unions, communities, and political organisations?
After all, the looting of Enron is but the latest in a long list of swindles which capitalism has seen since its inception. Conflict within capitalism and between capitalists is nothing new. Indeed, they need the state to act as a sort of executive committee determining what is in the best interests of the boss class.
Left to individual bosses, it would be a return to completely unrestricted "robber baron" capitalism as each boss sought to further enrich him or herself at the expense of their fellows, and without regard for maintaining economic and political stability.
In the case of the Stalinist regimes (Russia, China, North Korea, etc.) the capitalist class was too weak to complete the struggle against feudalism and modernise the economy, so we saw "modernisers" use the state apparatus to do the job. In those countries a state capitalist economy was created.
In some of the countries which gained their independence in the years after World War Two (such as many African ones) we saw the same process. However, there it did not culminate in state capitalism, rather it didn't go much beyond creating a minimal infrastructure for the development of "normal" capitalist exploitation and the growth of a native boss class.
To see these economies as being based on public ownership is not really accurate, unless we also hold that state ownership is the same as public ownership (which would mean that the state could be a structure capable of representing the interests of the vast majority).
But Tom, I'm pretty sure, just means that individual ownership was not the basis of the Stalinist economies. He's right, but can capitalists not collectively — through the state — own and control? In Ireland today they still do it in the case of electricity supply, post, trains, the national airline, water supply, etc.
Tom points out that the Workers Solidarity Movement says that our class has not moved forward to revolution because of the ideas that tie our class to capitalism. However, he misunderstands our position when he goes on to say that the lack of exposure to anarchist ideas is not a complete explanation. He is dead right.
Ideas can only become real when people feel the confidence to put them into action. That's why the WSM puts so much emphasis on getting people into struggle for winnable goals (no matter how minor many of those victories may be today). I think we are at one on the importance of experiences which help working people feel able to act for themselves rather than trusting in some outside force to do things for them.
Yes, I agree with Tom that we need our own self-managed mass organisations. That is why WSM members have been to the fore in attempting to create rank and file networks within our unions (e.g. SIPTU Fightback, Teachers Action Group, etc.), and have posed this as the way forward rather than merely trying to get "better" or "more honest" bureaucrats into positions of power.
In some countries the culture, laws and traditions make it possible to build radical opposition unions. That is not realistic in Ireland at present. Apart from anything else, the law in our country does not protect unregistered unions from having their members sued by employers for loss of income resulting from industrial action.
A good example is what happened when almost half of Ireland's train drivers resigned from the two unions which had traditionally represented them and set up their own union, the Irish Locomotive Drivers Association (ILDA). After taking strike action when the company refused to recognize them, they were threatened with being individually sued for the company's loss of earnings.
It would have been great if widespread solidarity action had forced the state to back down. Sadly, the confidence was not there. Other rail workers came out, as did some bus drivers. But it was nowhere near enough. It was only through another union offering them membership (and thus the protection of a negotiation licence) that ILDA survived.
For us, there is also the question of either building a tiny "revolutionary" union or remaining alongside the vast majority of workers who are in the traditional unions. Our option is to be where our workmates are, in order to influence them by being able to participate and speak in the same meetings as them.
This does not mean that we are committed to staying in our existing union for all time, merely that we don't think that splitting the tiny minority of revolutionaries and militants away is a good idea. In any situation of trying to build a new organization we want to be in with a real chance of bringing significant numbers. Otherwise it could mean the self-isolation of the militant minority.
As to organising the unorganised, there can be more possibilities. Indeed, one of our members is in the Independent Workers Union. This a new radical union, mainly based in Cork city, which has been organizing home helps, security guards and others. It, however, can offer members legal immunities as the "licensed" Cork Operative Butchers Society formed the IWU. Whether the IWU can win recognition in enough jobs to deliver real gains and then attract more members remains to be seen, but we are supportive of its efforts.
We also think that any union, because it seeks to organise all workers regardless of their politics, can only go so far in the absence of widespread revolutionary feeling. Historically many workers have joined syndicalist unions, not because they were anarchists, but because the syndicalist union was the most militant and got the best results. Because of this tendencies always appeared that were reformist.
So, maybe the bigger point in this debate is whether trade unions can become revolutionary organisations themselves or whether trade union struggle can provide a means for advancing confidence and consciousness.
We don't think that trade unions will become revolutionary organisations; they were never set up to be that. However from within trade union struggle will arise the embryo of the workers' councils of the future. A new form of organisation suited to new conditions will arise from the old forms of organisation which developed to seek a better deal within capitalism rather than to overthrow it.
The early beginnings of this are seen wherever workers create their own rank & file organisation (without mediation or "all-knowing" leaders) to pursue their class interests.
As Tom says, "A society without classes can only be constructed through the direct work of working people themselves, and this presupposes they have developed their own self-managing organisations". We are in complete agreement about this, our difference is simply about what we think is the best way to achieve it and therefore which strategy we will put our effort into promoting.