In reply to SolFed a party? by tsf (not verified)
Thanks for this comment.
I think you're right that what an organisation like SolFed aspires to be is something like a synthesis between the party and union "forms". Obviously, the question of whether such a synthesis is a) possible and b) desirable is a key difference between anarcho-syndicalists and "partyist" Marxists of various sorts. I won't retread that debate here, except to say that I think while the historic high points of such attempted syntheses (the US IWW in the early 1900, the French CGT in the late 1800s/early 1900s) are absolutely heroic episodes in class struggle history, their ultimate fate, and the fact that many of their central leaders drew decidedly "partyist" conclusions from their experiences might tell us something.
On dual-carding... okay, so SF members dual card. Fair enough. I still think SF's overall strategic perspective amounts far more to attempting to build an alternative labour movement from scratch, as opposed to a strategy of revolutionising the existing one. The latter isn't something I think is preferable for reasons of expediency or anything like that, it's something I regard as a historical necessity without which a working-class revolution won't be possible. There's no road to a revolutionary workers' movement that doesn't go "through" the historically-developed labour movement as it actually, currently, exists.
Finally, it's simply not the case that solidarity actions with workers' struggles internationally "isn't something that mainstream unions can organise." The potential for international coordination and solidarity across and between "mainstream" unions is absolutely vast. That they take international solidarity actions of any kind only rarely is far more a product of bureaucratic inertia and the fact that "internationalism" in some unions actually amounts to little more than "spending thousands of pounds to send bureaucrats, and aspirant bureaucrats, to the Havana May Day parade". It's nothing to do with the fact that "it's far easier for the state to restrict and constrain them", it's a matter of subjective factors within the unions that can be challenged and changed via oppositional struggle within them.
Thanks again for contributing, would be interested to read further responses.