textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000377.txt

Libertarian Labor Review #14
Winter 1992-93, pages 16-19

                      Syndicalism in Norway

The following interview with Lonsslaven (Wage Slave) co-editor
Harald Beyer-Arnesen was conducted October 17th. Lonnslaven is an
independent anarcho-syndicalist journal published in Oslo, Norway.
It has been extensively edited.

LLR: Could you describe the situation in Norway?
     For many years, since the second world war, we have had a
social democratic party in the government called the Labor Party--
not all of the time, but most of the time. And you can say in one
way that you have one big union in Norway, which is not completely
true because you've got another one that's pretty big. But most
workers are in the union, and the great majority among them are
organized in what is called L.O., the country organization, which
has very strong ties to the labor party. This is a long tradition,
from way back, because the labor party started before the L.O. 
     But we have a social democratic government at the moment, and
have had for a long time, and the policies of this government are
pretty right wing. Which is not surprising because of course
they're a government in a capitalistic system, and a capitalistic
system that has grown more and more international. So they can't in
reality do so very much different that a conservative governments,
because they're of course pro-capitalism, though they want to have
an icing. 
     What used to be a social security that people took for granted
is slowly being taken away from people. Their life is much less
secure, you have high unemployment, people can't pay the rent for
their apartments and are losing their apartments. Since the second
world war that's a new situation for Norway, and the same thing is
happening in Denmark and Sweden. Since the war we had had this sort
of deal between the government and the unions that there should be
some sort of social security, and then we'll be quiet. I'm not
using this as a technical term, you still have social security
benefits, but they're cutting and cutting. 
     As more and more people lose their jobs they don't feel very
secure. And the social democratic party says that the methods they
used before in the 40s and the 50s can't be used now; they talk
more and more in terms of markets, which have of course always been
there. There's more privatization, more talk that everything has to
be profitable--also social services and things like that--and in
general that people should work harder and crave less, while the
employing class in reality is getting richer and richer. Which the
social democratic government again says of course they must because
they must have much more capital if they're going to compete on a
world basis. 
     Many old-time social democrats don't recognize this language.
Because even though the social democratic party has long been pro-
capitalistic, if you don't go way back in history, their language
has always been different from the conservative party, but now they
even begin to sound like the conservative party. So you have
growing opposition among members of the labor party and
sympathizers with the party who might have been members almost
their whole life, because they feel that the leaders of the party
have become leaders more for the rich than for the working class.
     Much of this opposition is inside the unions. Within this
opposition are also different left-wing groups. So this opposition
is a very mixed group. It could even be people working for the
conservative party, but the majority would be people that we could
call left social-democrats...
     LLR: What prospects do you see for syndicalism?
     I think the prospects are greater than they have been for
many, many years, for many reasons. One is that people aren't as
satisfied as they seemed to be before, which of course doesn't make
them anarcho-syndicalists but it can make them ask questions that
they didn't ask before and be more open to alternative ideas. At
the same time that the system in Eastern Europe has crumbled, the
old regimes--you can call them state capitalist, whatever term you
choose, they certainly weren't very pleasant--people are seeing
that the capitalist system doesn't function very well either. 
     They see what's happening in Norway, they see what's happening
in Sweden, they see what's happening all over the world. And they
certainly see that the free market in Eastern Europe doesn't
function at all. Which gives anarcho-syndicalist thoughts an
opportunity to spread. In general, I feel that people are more open
to them now than they were before. Because of course we don't have
this Stalinist tradition, we didn't slaughter all the people, we
can say that we have always been for democracy--what we want is
more democracy. The only one of these capitalistic rights we want
to get rid of is the right of property. Freedom of speech we're
for, and always have been; it's not just something we say now when
it's crumbling over there in Eastern Europe.
     I think there is a potentiality if people who have these
ideas--and they're not so many, not many people in Norway call
themselves anarcho-syndicalists--but if those people who do exist
manage to work together, which doesn't mean they have to agree with
everything, but at least not waste their energy fighting between
each other, I think you would have a slow growth. I don't think
anything will happen overnight. The people who will be interested
in these ideas in the beginning will be "impure"; they won't accept
at once all our dogmas, all our proofs, because understanding both
this society and the future and the history takes time. 
     Anarcho-syndicalist groups for a long time will be a small
minority in Norway, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to
spread ideas and practices that tend to point in our direction. And
in reality it's not the most important thing what people call
themselves, but what they do. So if you can get more people to use
direct action methods that point to a better society when they can
see that what they do is not just to some extent points to a future
and gives them at least for a short time they obtain something. I
think those things are important. The spreading of ideas is more a
long process, but spreading ideas is important for doing these
concrete things, they sort of work together.
     LLR: Your paper is called the Wage Slave. Could you explain
how it began?
     A couple of us had worked with the Norwegian Syndicalist
Federation making a couple of papers together with them. Then came
a discussion of what the next issue should contain and we found out
that we wanted different things. So instead of quarrelling about
that, it was better to part as friends and they make their thing
and we make our magazine.
     Broadly, we want to create in Norway a space, a social space
for libertarian views and ways of looking at things--propaganda,
but propaganda that doesn't just repeat old truths. So although we
call it an anarcho-syndicalist paper, it's open to different kinds
of anti-state socialism. The magazine's subtitle is "For the
abolition of wage slavery and anarcho-syndicalist ideas and
action," which is not an exact translation from Norwegian because
the word we use for action has a slightly different meaning, it
means more practice.
     We try to do half and half theoretical stuff and more concrete
struggles. But the perfect article for us is one that takes a
concrete struggle and from that derives the theory--you don't
separate the two things. We have written very little about strikes
in Norway, but there's a reason for that. To say that there was a
strike, which most people know from before, we don't find very
interesting. If something special happens which means that this
isn't just one of those ordinary strikes--almost like a ceremony,
you know what will happen before it begins and no one could really
care that much because they know they will get this 50 or something
and it's all organized from above. But, we're always looking for
strikes or struggles that go a little further than this. Like the
strike in Melbourne in January 1990, I think, where the people
working at the trams said, "Well from today the trams run free."
And they took over the whole tram system. That sort of gives a
direction that says much more than all those little strikes that go
on. So we are looking for strikes and struggles with qualities that
point in the direction we want to go. And then its much easier to
pin the theoretical thing to it--its much easier to communicate
that way. 
     We think its important that, if you want to change the
society, you must understand it too. Which means that we also print
stuff that some anarchists might think a little bit far out. For
example, we would include thoughts from the Situationists, because
we feel some of the stuff, not all of it, shows how many left-wing
groups sort of become a part of the establishment--become one more
commodity that doesn't really threaten the society. Especially the
so-called punk groups--I use punk in a very wide way--which tend to
think that if there are a few people out there in the streets
fighting with the police, which is of course making a lot of
pictures for television, that they're really changing things by
doing that, besides maybe getting us more police. They tend to
believe that if you're seen you change things--if things are
spectacular you change things--but they seem to become just like
another movie. It can be very amusing...
     In the longer run we would also like to, together with NSF or
anyone else that stand for the basic fundamental things that we
stand for, do some practical work too. It could be in support of
strikes and things like that, to have more concrete influence on
the working-class struggles in Norway in a small way--basically
trying to use direct action methods which would be some kind of
propaganda by the deed, but not in the sense of bombs. What I mean
is direct action, where there's a direct connection between what
you do and what you attain. You don't go calling to the government,
saying "can't you please change this." You try to change it
directly. I think that also would help people better understand
what we write.
     LLR: Could you give us a sense of what the NSF is doing?
     I'm not a member, and they should really talk for themselves.
The NSF prints information about anarcho-syndicalist tendencies in
the workers movement earlier in Norwegian labor history--anarcho-
syndicalist ideas had some influence in the early labor movement in
Norway, though they never grew as strong as they did in Sweden, but
very few people knew this. If you look back at the 20s the ideas
that were put forth were much more radical than you would find
today. So they give a historical approach, and then put forth how
they believe that you can build a more democratic union; not that
they believe that they can make the L.O. an anarcho-syndicalist
organization, but they hope to at least move the rank and file
movement in that direction, and more power down to the shop floor.
     Many people are getting tired of the union bosses up very
high, who don't think to give them anything. And not only by so-
called left wing people, but in a situation where you're getting
much more unemployment in Norway, you're getting less social
benefits and so on, people tend to expect more of the union, that
they should do something, which the union bureaucracy of course
doesn't do.
     So within this movement the NSF tries to spread anarcho-
syndicalist but also more democratic ideas. Although much of this
opposition, as far as it's organized, is organized by union
officers at the local level, shop stewards and leaders of the local
union and so on. So the organized part of it is not really a rank
and file movement, although they have sympathy. They try to bring
more democracy into the unions, but also to distribute anarcho-
syndicalist ideas....
     LLR: What role do you see for international solidarity?
     I take it as obvious that capitalism can only be fought
globally. For example, Norway has always been a big shipping
nation, and since shipping is international by nature Norwegian
ships recruited sailors from all parts of the world. Ten years ago,
Norwegian shipowners decided that Norwegian sailors were too
expensive, so they began flagging out to evade their agreements
with the sailors' union. Now only the captain and top officers are
Norwegian--the rest are from India, the Philippines, etc. There is
an apartheid system on these boats. The union fought for laws, but
didn't succeed. Now it's almost impossible for Norwegians to get
jobs on Norwegian boats. The reason is because the sailors never
fought an international fight--they accepted that the wages of
foreign sailors should be lower. If you really have an
international trade, than the only answer is to organize
internationally.
     Today all industry is like ships that sail the oceans with an
international crew, and the only way to fight is to make the fight
global. That's why you got unions in the first place--to keep
workers from being pitted against each other. First they were
local, then national. Now unions must be global.

     In the past century, the social contact of activists around
the world was much greater than it is today. Even though
information is exchanged, the personal aspect is neglected. Its
much easier to understand solidarity when its real people, rather
than just some number or name. Workers should be encouraged to
visit unions around the world to build personal ties, perhaps as
part of their vacations. Rank and file workers, not union leaders.
It could be fun, too.
     LLR: Today many socialists, and some anarchists, say we have
to rethink our approach to markets; that some form of market or
voucher system may be necessary to avoid the bureaucracy of
centralized planning...
     Market socialism is nonsense--no sense, it does not make
sense. Labor vouchers are a primitive form of money, to call it by
another name doesn't change the reality. Vouchers raise a basic
question: Who is going to control? The only reason for vouchers is
that we don't trust people, that somebody has to make sure that
each gets his fair share and decide what that is.
     Money also means that somebody has to give the products a
price, which means for example that you count labor hours. But that
doesn't really say anything because one person can create a thing
in four hours, another eight, it depends on the machinery you use
which means that you always are dependent upon thousands of other
people even to produce the most simple things. 
     These labor vouchers are a very primitive form of money and
they're not very practical. If you want a pair of shoes, you have
a voucher for a pair of shoes, and then you want something else you
need another piece of paper. People would very quickly find out
that you have to have something that can be exchanged for
everything; if not you really get a bureaucracy, it would be much
worse than you had in the Soviet Union. If somebody is going to sit
somewhere and write out notes for all the possible things that
people can buy, and how are they going to count all the things that
do exist? 
     The use of money also implies that you don't see things as a
whole. If you're going to make a house you need nails, you need a
hammer, you need a lot of tools. They're a lot of people involved
in this. If you are going to have nails you have to get iron from
somewhere. Someone made the hammer, what did he make the hammer
from? What equipment did he need to make the hammer? Who made the
equipment that made the equipment that made the hammer? Then you
have to eat of course, and who grew the food. From the beginning
you have a lot of people involved. If you were to do all these
things yourself, even if you worked 24 hours for the rest of your
life you probably wouldn't ever build the house.
     And anyway, if a socialist or anarchist society, whatever you
call it, is a society where people control their own lives, that
means that they also have to control what they produce and what
they produce must be directly related to their needs. Which means
that you don't begin with the production, you begin with the needs.
People have to define their needs, and then find out how they will
satisy these needs. While money implies that you go the other way
around.
     Money is based on social and geographical isolation between
people, and isolation between their needs--its based on isolation
and it also perpetuates it. It's difficult to use money in any
human sense. If you visited a friend and had to pay for a cup of
coffee it would be a different relationship at once. The extent and
ease of travel today makes money even more ridiculous. Neighbors
always helped one another out without pay. Through communication
people talk with each other and make agreements, not by counting
but in meeting each other's needs.
     The work and creativity of others to a large extent is our
freedom--it gives us more possibilities than if we do everything
alone. Freedom means possibilities if it has any meaning at all. If
people can't see that their needs are interconnected it's not
possible to build a socialist society. A socialist society is not
just a technical organization--it's based on human beings, and on
human beings controlling their own lives. Without that it's not
socialism. 

Lonsslaven can be contacted at Postboks 1920, Vika, N-0125 Oslo,
Norge (Norway).