Class collaboratinist branches in the IWW

we have a charges process for a reason. we need to rebuild the structure and discipline within this union and thus reinforce the democratic and anti-capitalist principles.

Can we not keep conflating local autonomy with democracy? Just because some people think branches can do whatever the fuck they want does not make for a democratic organization. It's the tail wagging the dog.

they fell behind on dues before we could expel them.

i was talking about the msps but the job branch has been dissolved.

Now I must admit, I haven't followed the SSP and IWW thing too closely, or some of the other IWW stuff for that matter. But there will be times when opportunists will join the IWW (or a political group) 'cause they feel they can get something out of it---I mean in the most crass and opportunistic way.

Not on the point of the SSP/IWW thingy, but there are workers who jump from union to union to union for a variety of reasons. Some 'cause they want a better organizational set-up. Others 'cause they think they can get a better deal. Some of it real democracy issues or against sell-out officaldom, others for purposes of ego and self-promoton. In an open and democratic set-up, sometimes it's hard to suss such opportunists out. Or sometimes the need to "organize" something, anything, over-takes common sense reality.

BTW my good brother Nate, what a terrible headline. Ok, an attention grabber for sure, but it plays into the worst slag-off of IWW detractors. But you did catch my attention.

It would be more romantic to think of it that way. It's not true though. I'm no fan of the SSP, but they are not politically capable of acting in as structured and cynical a way as that. They are not a hardcore Leninist outfit. The MSPs joined the IWW years before cos one SSP wobbly asked them too, and they stayed in it cos they liked us. Let's be clear here - we're talking about Rosie Kane and Caroline Leckie; whatever you might think of them, they're not really in that mould. They've 'left' the IWW cos nobody's chased them up about their dues. Stop frothing.

The central issue is that the way the dispute was handled at times will have created the impression of IWW allegiance to one socialist party in the minds of Solidarity members. Solidarity is currently imploding (predictable), and the non-CWI, non-SWP members have already left. The question is really whether or not those non-aligned members would join us, and whether they constitute a large enough constituency for us to be concerned about it. I'd say no and no to both of those questions, but they are questions. Currently SSP people know that we'll stick up for our members and that we are not an anarchist union (a perception which has been a major barrier to us growing). I'd say that's a net positive to come out it.

This was a question of who we admit and what our basic political position is and extended to the IWW altogether rather than sole branches. 'Autonomy' was used in this way but actually the group acted relatively homogenously in defending it. The US executive line on deriding 'branch autonomy' was entirely weak because their statement against it at the time was no more democratic than letting in political representatives in in the first place.

You could argue that.

You could also argue that CEOs aren't bosses because a company is owned by shareholders.

Have you been reading our bulletins?

They were parliamentary workers for MSPs. Of course they were their bosses. I honestly don't even think it's worth discussing, it's so blindingly obvious. I don't know what the exact bullshit set up the SSP had for them, and whether they were nominally employed by the group or the individual MSP. In any and every way that counts, the MSP they worked for was their boss.

The IWW job branch in question seem to have answered it for us, anyway. They said they were in dispute with the 2 MSPs who left the SSP, not with the SSP group. You know, the 2 people who had the exact same job and role as the 2 MSP members of the IWW.

The whole thing isn't up for a big argument tho, anyway. As far as I'm aware, pretty much every IWW member on here accepted the whole situation was a fuck up, but saw it as something they'd learned from and was behind them. The only reason it is any kind of issue is because Dundee is trying to pretend that nothing wrong was done. Which kind of runs counter to the idea that lessons were learned.

Nate - let one of us know if you want the title changed.

Thanks, could you answer my second question as well? I am not out to continue the sh*t slinging genuninely interested. PM if you don't want it discussed publicly.

No I'm not. Outside of Scotland it was a PR disaster. In Scotland our role in the dispute was overall seen in a positive light, with some negative effects. In England and North America where people seem to willfully misunderstand the Scottish political context of the time, or seem very poorly educated on it, it has pissed off some anarchist elements.

It's also a complete left sandpit which is really annoying. That's largely why it keeps getting talked about, despite it not actually being in any way the priority of the IWW at the time, or subsequently. Most libcom posters and much of the anarchist left fail to realise that life is messy. With poor management practices mistakes will be made. We should use stuff like this to sharpen up. However most folks prefer to avoid the work and wait for the perfect organisation to manifest - the messiah to come and lead them to the promised land. It's utter wank. Imagine if we had 100,000 members. There'd be all sorts of fuckups, PR blunders and disputes of dubious benefit, even with the best will in the world. The CNT which so many of the same posters venerate had an organised social democratic factions and in places launched risings which killed off hundreds of decent militants. Life is messy. The facts however speak for themselves. In the time since the Scottish parliament dispute the IWW in the UK has doubled in size and now has a number of shops, several national organising drives and increasing infrastructure. We remain committed to an anti-partnership, grassroots approach and our union is still a socialist one, which is committed to developing and strengthening our internal democracy.

I know. However I'm talking about the perceptions from SSP members. The standard of internal education in the SSP is shite. Anarchists are generally seen as some weird grouping of people whom they'd consider 'whites' or liberals or hippies. They don't understand anarchists.

To put this in context in 2005 the SSP had 3000 members in a country of 5 million. It had 6 MSPs. It had an annual income in the millions. It had a newspaper distributed in local shops across the country, with 6 paid fulltime journos working on it. It had the RMT (a UK transport and energy industry union) affiliated, it was in talks with the Fire Brigade union and the PCS for affiliation. They had subsumed nearly all left groups of more than 6 or 7 members within their organisation and it was looking increasingly powerful. In 2006 they'd launched headfirst into meltdown and the dispute was part of that. They now have 800 members and a weekly income of just under £10,000 and they are without any direction. Many of their current members however are now quite friendly to the IWW, in the past they were not and saw it as an anarchist project. The IWW is seen as being a positive organisation by most SSP folks. Solidarity members generally irritated at our involvement in the dispute but they only ever had about 200-300 members and there are a lot less of them now. Byrne and Sheridan were most definitely in the wrong though.