Class collaboratinist branches in the IWW
Jan 8 2008 19:13
#122
about severin- the dude mentions poor health. sometimes things are personal, i'd just leave it alone at that yo.
Autonomy- I'm not into the slurs on autonomy. Autonomy doesn't mean do what you want. It means decisions reside in a base, but a base that acts on common principles and rules of a broader organization. I disagree with dundee about needing more managerial and executive solutions to these problems. I think we need to win over hearts and minds on these issues so that we can abolish the stoopid shit in the iww on a long term and widespread basis (i also support those changes, but not as the strategy).
Political positions- I think that anyone holding office in a political party that is trying to capture power both in unions and government creates at the very least a conflict of interest. I support a change to ban any officer of a party from being a member of the union. Banning editors... that is a pretty shameless dig on the ASR folks. I really don't see how being an editor has anything near the conflict of say being a trot who runs for state senate.
Jan 8 2008 19:45
#123
booeyschewy wrote:
I really don't see how being an editor has anything near the conflict of say being a trot who runs for state senate.
Haha!
Jan 9 2008 05:08
#124
Booey,
I'm suprized that you take my postings to only be petty and sectarian. 
Why I posted the comment about editors was because the folks who are most adamant about protecting the IWW from the machinations of "politicians" within the IWW - JB and MH of the ASR are the ones who put forward the banning of paid union officials and I think party officers - base their reasons on tradition. The IWW has sometimes banned members from running for political office, being paid union officers, etc. Somehow they ignore that editors of political magazines were also banned for the period of time the IWW was a threat. In fact, one could assert that the IWW declined only after the ban on editor membership was lifted (approx 1936). 
My feeling is that editors were banned as they are often the de-facto leadership of anarchist political groups "anti-poltiical sects" roughly analagous to the leadership of political parties. Il Martelo and it's editor Carlo Tresca is an example of an anarchist publication which certainly operated much like a political party, which would be the reason Carlo Tresca never joined.
Disclaimer - Carlo Tresca is someone I respect very much. I'm not dissing him, just using him as a factual example.
Personally, I've been ambivilent towards these preemptive injunctions. Certainly the IWW can be manipulated by many sorts of "politicians" editors, union officials, etc. But many of those same folks would make excellent and talented IWWs and never manipulate the organization.
Our Trotskyist friend is a case in point. To my knowledge, she never manipulated her membership in the IWW during the campaign for state legislature. She did mention her membership, but she is, afterall, a member of the IWW as her legal workplace union. She helped organize it and fought against the loose cannon organizer who we've discussed elsewhere.
But I've seen an anarchist publishing house out of Phily - Monkeywrench Press, used IWW funds to print anarchist propaganda, Lorenzo Ervin's works for example. The phily GMB also recieved a grant in the 1990s for organizing and thee moneys were shunted into buying anarchists photocopiers (to the best of my knowledge). Seattle ararchists used IWW funds to make a video in the 1990s on Anarchist Elders. And one could make a strong arguement that the FWs at the ASR have certainly benefited politically from their connections to the IWW more than the IWW has from them.
Who has used the IWW more for their own political gain - the Trot running for office or the Anarchist editors and film makers?
The problem is manipulation pure and simple from anybody, any tendency. I'm not trying to call for "anarchists" out, or anything like that. My point is that manipulation of the IWW is more nuanced than the simplistic bans now pretending to protect the organization from. And that the folks pushing the bans could use them for their own political gains/manipulations.
Jan 9 2008 05:22
#125
Why wouldn't it make sense to ban paid union officials from the wobs?
Jan 9 2008 05:35
#126
They might have more sense?
Jan 9 2008 05:53
#127
fnbrill wrote:
They might have more sense?
If they had sense they wouldn't be trying to get in the wobs. 
Jan 9 2008 12:29
#128
Quote:
Dude, like I've got so much beer.
Well, then let's start our own party. 
Jan 9 2008 12:46
#129
Quote:
But I've seen an anarchist publishing house out of Phily - Monkeywrench Press, used IWW funds to print anarchist propaganda, Lorenzo Ervin's works for example. The phily GMB also recieved a grant in the 1990s for organizing and thee moneys were shunted into buying anarchists photocopiers (to the best of my knowledge). Seattle ararchists used IWW funds to make a video in the 1990s on Anarchist Elders.
While I certainly enjoyed Ervin's book, I don't think anybody would let this fly in the IWW today. I think we've matured a great deal since then (not to say we don't have more to go though).
As far as ASR goes, while many in the IWW read the mag and respect it (some don't though), I think we'd be hard pressed to see JB as the leader of a faction/grouping based around the mag. Loads of people are really annoyed by his personality/style of debate, myself included on numerous occasions. MH on the other hand pretty much sticks to his local branch.
An important key difference from the ban you mention, is that "newspaper editor" back then implied they were paid, made a living and devoted themselves full time to the publication and politics. That's quite different from a volunteer collective that publishes a mag on their spare time. If people did wind up doing this as a job and as part of the IWW, I would consider your position though.
I think the question of whether someone is paid full time to do something is the key question and creates the conflict of interest. If someone runs for an city council or higher office, I honestly don't care alot. If they win the seat and become full time politicians or hire campaign staff during the campaign, then that's where I don't think they belong in the union.
Jan 10 2008 15:46
#130
But Weaver, you are ignoring the point of my argument. The IWW is "used" in many ways by people - both sincerely and 'corruptly' - for their own political agendas. That is the problem, and that the current set of prohibitions simply are heavy handed. To simply state that "politiicans" will abuse the IWW ignores a fairly strong evidence that "anti-political sects" have also abused the IWW.
Jan 11 2008 17:21
#131
Brill- do you think there is a distinction between people who seek to take power in society and those who do not? If not, explain.
True, people manipulate organizations for any number of agendas political or not. What I oppose is people who are officials of organizations that seek to enforce their power over society and organizations their involved in. Not all political parties are like that, and almost no anti-political parties are. I think you'll be hard pressed to make an analogy between the leninist take over or destroy strategy and whatever ideological tomfoolery pseudo-organized anarchists perpetuate in the union.
Jan 12 2008 01:31
#132
Quote:
The IWW is "used" in many ways by people - both sincerely and 'corruptly' - for their own political agendas. That is the problem, and that the current set of prohibitions simply are heavy handed. To simply state that "politiicans" will abuse the IWW ignores a fairly strong evidence that "anti-political sects" have also abused the IWW.
I hope you can answer Booey's comments first... but if someone who's part of the IWW wants to run for office under the socialist or green party and get 100 votes to make a statement, it doesn't follow my politcal priorities, but I could care less. Again, if they won that would be a different question.
I think you should come out that your real issue that you have major beef with ASR and one of their editors. That's fine, you are entitled to think what you like about him. But it seems to me (though perhaps I'm wrong) that you are in a vague sort of way bringing up a certain issue having to deal with lease of the GHQ, which was approved by the elected general executive board, reviewed by two seperate committees of the General Assembly and one local branch committee and all thee times dismissed.
If you are trying to raise up something else, then let's talk about it if it doesn't mean spilling all sorts of internal stuff into the public arena.
Jan 12 2008 02:24
#133
Weaver wrote:
I think you should come out that your real issue that you have major beef with ASR and one of their editors. That's fine, you are entitled to think what you like about him. But it seems to me (though perhaps I'm wrong) that you are in a vague sort of way bringing up a certain issue having to deal with lease of the GHQ, which was approved by the elected general executive board, reviewed by two seperate committees of the General Assembly and one local branch committee and all thee times dismissed.
The lease issue? How you have not attempted to understand my arguements and only seen what you've wanted to see. I have repeatedly said that I didn't support the JP's lease bruhaha and didn't think it was an issue. I have tried to articulate what the criticism actually was - even if I disagreed - instead of repeating the spin from Phily. If you want I could try and find the posts/e-mails where I said this. Would that make you change your mind?
My issue has been and continues to be fairness and democracy in the IWW.
* That the constitution be followed - that officers cannot be allowed to shrug off their constitutional duties, especially ones that are the underpinning of the organizations democracy. If you are not familiar, it's one of those things you agree to do when you join.
* That legitimate members of the IWW cannot be excluded unconstitutionally. The GST and GEB cannot simply ignore non-US members until they quit because it doesn't fit with the officers notions of how the IWW should look like. I an convinced this this occurred during the Buss administration and was openly discussed at a GEB meeting.
* That members whose "principles" vary depending upon if the people involved are members of their political clique, well, their hypocracies will be brought out in the open.
Jan 12 2008 02:33
#134
Here's one post:
Quote:
That's not completely accurate Oliver, just once was the "graft" charge raised at GA. I thought the charges were rather tenuous but had at least some rationality behind them. And the charge was for not filing a NLRB financial report, not for graft.
Hardly ringing support, eh Weaver? Unless tenuous means something different where you come from.
Jan 12 2008 02:43
#135
Brill- let's take an example. 3 wobblies make a zine about liberatory sewing. One is the editor. Does that constitute a conflict?
Can you really argue that unpaid voluntary hob-nailed editors are organizationally the same as a party leader who sets policy and holds people accountable to the strategy a party sets? Weaver's reply i think addressed this. i don't care personally if people edit newsletters. I care about those who seek out the conquest of power.
Jan 12 2008 03:07
#136
Booey -
First, I think your scenario is highly unlikely to occur in the IWW.
Second, I have not argued for editors to be excluded. See my post to you on 09-01-07 above:
Quote:
Personally, I've been ambivilent towards these preemptive injunctions. Certainly the IWW can be manipulated by many sorts of "politicians" editors, union officials, etc. But many of those same folks would make excellent and talented IWWs and never manipulate the organization.
I was arguing AGAINST blanket bans on membership and for coming up with criteria which constitute manipulation of the IWW's interests.
I was pointing out the contradictions in the arguement against "politicians" and observing the folks who pushed for protection from poltiicians - because i suits their ideological perspective - ignore that they would have been banned in the past. This was meant to undercut the pseudo-historic rationale of the bans.
As I said in the same post:
Quote:
I'm suprized that you take my postings to only be petty and sectarian.
A joke, but you and Weaver seem to only be able to read what you have heard about me - that I'm a petty factionalist and sectarian. Perhaps if you took the trouble to actually read what I say you would find otherwise.
Jan 12 2008 03:08
#137
I only care where people's paychecks come from. Leaders of trot groups or whatever, if they're unpaid, fine by me in the union as long as they don't do shady stuff, as much as I don't like their politics. Likewise I don't care if people hold unpaid political office like president of their local school council or water reclamation board, as much as think that stuff is stupid. I think paycheck's the test and it's a really simple one. The only wrinkle is people who get elected to political office cuz then they're paid by the government. All that requires to fix is language in the constitution saying that partisan political office count as paid officers of their political party for the purposes of IWW membership.
Jan 12 2008 03:17
#138
I think Nate's arguement is good, but I disagree. We had one wob-symp here who was president of their local union for 17 years. (xxxx) was in no way going to manipulate the IWW, in fact "it" did the opposite and used (their) local and the local Central lLabor Committee for the IWW on many occasions.
Blanket bans are dumb.
Jan 12 2008 03:31
#139
Quote:
I only care where people's paychecks come from. Leaders of trot groups or whatever, if they're unpaid, fine by me in the union as long as they don't do shady stuff, as much as I don't like their politics.
Serious question. What if they live on a trust fund/inheritance and hence don't need to accept payment?
Jan 12 2008 03:50
#140
catch wrote:
Serious question. What if they live on a trust fund/inheritance and hence don't need to accept payment?
Oh, the ISO and SEP don't join the IWW on principle.
Jan 12 2008 05:23
#141
I think one of fnbrill's main points here was that there are those who do not hold elected governmental office who still wield "power" or otherwise seek to gain personal or organizational benefit from their involvement with the IWW. This I agree with. However, with that as a premise, I come to somewhat different conclusions as to how to deal with the issue, and probably would crack the whip a little harder than most concerning any affiliation with political parties *or* anti-political sects. Just because groups or individuals may not hold governmental office doesn't mean they have any better intentions vis a vis their relations with the union.
Jan 12 2008 05:50
#142
pghwob wrote:
I think one of fnbrill's main points here was that there are those who do not hold elected governmental office who still wield "power" or otherwise seek to gain personal or organizational benefit from their involvement with the IWW. This I agree with. However, with that as a premise, I come to somewhat different conclusions as to how to deal with the issue, and probably would crack the whip a little harder than most concerning any affiliation with political parties *or* anti-political sects. Just because groups or individuals may not hold governmental office doesn't mean they have any better intentions vis a vis their relations with the union.
How would you crack the whip and in what circumstances? This is something I haven't come to conclusions on.
Jan 12 2008 21:01
#143
fnbrill wrote:
catch wrote:
Serious question. What if they live on a trust fund/inheritance and hence don't need to accept payment?Oh, the ISO and SEP don't join the IWW on principle.
They got shit for it from the ISO, but a couple were in the Austin branch.
Jan 13 2008 09:33
#144
Brill, I'm not real pro blanket bans either, but I'm more in favor than I am against -- as long as the principle is who cuts the paycheck. That's one that's subject to the least abuses or use in faction fights I think.
Jan 13 2008 10:41
#145
Brill, apologies for assuming your thinking on this, I was mistaken. I wasn't sure what you were referring to and I haven't seen all your past comments and threads. Sorry to lump you in with the JP mess.
That being said, the issues you raise in your post I generally agree with; though I'm not totally clear (again) on the specifics you are referencing, situations, people, etc if any at all.
Dude, like I've got so much beer.