Bad night out revol?? 
cunts!
revol68 wrote:
sorry folks just had an argument with a cunt from the green party which got me thinking of the unprincipled cunts knocking about here!libertarian communism for real y'all!
We kinda guessed you may have had a lil conflict in your Sun eve.
Glad you have perked up a bit!! 
you've seen the trailers, now coming soon, the full official cunt-list
at least hypothetically i hope its coming soon and would be most dissapointed if it wasn't, even though it sounds more like the sort of pathetic bollocks they'd get up to at TTG than anything else
revol68 wrote:
My views on the Vignole/(ball)SAC etc hasn't really changed, I don't like some of the IWA's ubber sectarianism either but in general they are alot closer to my politics.
revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT and all those other social democratic fuckwits who would suck off a cabinet minister for a grant!
Would you care to enlarge on this?
JH wrote:
revol68 wrote:
My views on the Vignole/(ball)SAC etc hasn't really changed, I don't like some of the IWA's ubber sectarianism either but in general they are alot closer to my politics.revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT and all those other social democratic fuckwits who would suck off a cabinet minister for a grant!Would you care to enlarge on this?
Ohhhhh matron!
SAC/CGT relationship to the state through various forms of funding (not just the unemployment benefit) and works councils, their full timers and bureacrats.
One could argue that these things are necessary evils but either way they aren't anarcho syndicalism.
revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT relationship to the state through various forms of funding (not just the unemployment benefit) and works councils, their full timers and bureacrats.One could argue that these things are necessary evils but either way they aren't anarcho syndicalism.
Then what kind of relationship do you think anarcho-syndicalists in other countries should have with the SAC and the CGT (or with SAC and CGT members who consider themselves anarcho-syndicalists)?
JH wrote:
revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT relationship to the state through various forms of funding (not just the unemployment benefit) and works councils, their full timers and bureacrats.One could argue that these things are necessary evils but either way they aren't anarcho syndicalism.
Then what kind of relationship do you think anarcho-syndicalists in other countries should have with the SAC and the CGT (or with SAC and CGT members who consider themselves anarcho-syndicalists)?
i think there should be no barriers put in the way of workers discussing their experiances and struggles. I do however think it's fair enough for IWA sections to refuse communication with officials in the SAC/CGT. I also think it's ridiculous that IWA sections should have to communicate through the secretariat, it's outdated shit made all the more absurd by the internet.
As far as i'm aware rank n file CGT members have worked alongside CNT members in numerous struggles in Spain.
revol68 wrote:
JH wrote:
revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT relationship to the state through various forms of funding (not just the unemployment benefit) and works councils, their full timers and bureacrats.One could argue that these things are necessary evils but either way they aren't anarcho syndicalism.
Then what kind of relationship do you think anarcho-syndicalists in other countries should have with the SAC and the CGT (or with SAC and CGT members who consider themselves anarcho-syndicalists)?
i think there should be no barriers put in the way of workers discussing their experiances and struggles. I do however think it's fair enough for IWA sections to refuse communication with officials in the SAC/CGT. I also think it's ridiculous that IWA sections should have to communicate through the secretariat, it's outdated shit made all the more absurd by the internet.
As far as i'm aware rank n file CGT members have worked alongside CNT members in numerous struggles in Spain.
Are you actually against people going to i07? To me it sounds positive - even if there might be a lot to disagree with.
JH wrote:
revol68 wrote:
JH wrote:
revol68 wrote:
SAC/CGT relationship to the state through various forms of funding (not just the unemployment benefit) and works councils, their full timers and bureacrats.One could argue that these things are necessary evils but either way they aren't anarcho syndicalism.
Then what kind of relationship do you think anarcho-syndicalists in other countries should have with the SAC and the CGT (or with SAC and CGT members who consider themselves anarcho-syndicalists)?
i think there should be no barriers put in the way of workers discussing their experiances and struggles. I do however think it's fair enough for IWA sections to refuse communication with officials in the SAC/CGT. I also think it's ridiculous that IWA sections should have to communicate through the secretariat, it's outdated shit made all the more absurd by the internet.
As far as i'm aware rank n file CGT members have worked alongside CNT members in numerous struggles in Spain.
Are you actually against people going to i07? To me it sounds positive - even if there might be a lot to disagree with.
of course not!
i was just drunk. still i don't fancy spending my money going to Paris to debate the basics of anarcho syndicalism with people who should know better, especially when the Primavera Festival is later that month.
i had an argument with a green at the weekend. it went like this:
"i agree with alot you say, but a revolution is never going to happen"
"maybe, but you're never going to be pm"
"agreed then"
i find that one can talk to almost anyone about anything poiltical if you tell them you don't ike unions! i hate having to say i'm a marxist tho (it makes me all insecure)
Hate to get serious in Libcommunity, but JDMF asked that no one talk to Revol on his thread, so...
Revol I'm certainly not thrilled about the CGT, i'm much closer to the CNT of spain. However I also think the best idea is that of Solidaridad Obrera who have proposed re-unification with the others (and the CNT Catalonia split).
I'm also not thrilled about some of the opportunist choices that SAC and Vignoles have made (with the encouragement of the platformists in ILS) but it seems like their members are trying very hard to make working revolutionary unions that aren't hobbled by sectarianism. The SAC especially seems to be constantly coming away from the period when they were a small social democratic union with a good past - cutting staff, trying to organize a general strike with those represented by business unions or those who are unrepresented.
What funding does SAC get from the state besides the unemployment commission?
Anyways its not surprising that these groups get close to those on an international scale to those who encourage them to leave anarchosyndicalism further and further behind, since the anarchosyndicalists have given them a lot of lies and slander (especially in the case of the SAC and Vignoles). Maybe if anarchosyndicalists tried to have real discussions about how to have permanent, functioning revolutionary unions and still be able to deal with locals who wanted to make compromises (and I don't mean admitting parliament members, i mean cynically and critically participating in shop steward elections) when its the workers themselves deciding to make the compromises.
Anyways you don't have any consistency if you're always banging on about how any organization or group of workers will make compromises but anarchosyndicalism has historically dealt with this the best (and you've even said that you don't have a huge problem with the workers themselves making compromises), yet you agree with those who want to dream about anarchosyndicalist unions where nobody will ever make a compromise.
OliverTwister wrote:
What funding does SAC get from the state besides the unemployment commission?
the SAC gets funding for numerous projcts off the Swedish state, they are given money to do charity work and case studiesin the third world and then come back and tell kids in schools what good the charity is doing.
Quote:
Maybe if anarchosyndicalists tried to have real discussions about how to have permanent, functioning revolutionary unions and still be able to deal with locals who wanted to make compromises (and I don't mean admitting parliament members, i mean cynically and critically participating in shop steward elections) when its the workers themselves deciding to make the compromises.
Whose discussed shop steward elections? The issue is works councils something rather different. Secondly there has been discussion on this and it's why the USI aven't been fucked out of the IWA. The CGT on the other hand see no real problem in the works councils and it would seem like to boast of 'representing' millions of workers.
Quote:
Anyways you don't have any consistency if you're always banging on about how any organization or group of workers will make compromises but anarchosyndicalism has historically dealt with this the best (and you've even said that you don't have a huge problem with the workers themselves making compromises), yet you agree with those who want to dream about anarchosyndicalist unions where nobody will ever make a compromise.
Of course workers make compromises, every time they go back to work after a strike for example, that is not the issue, it is when compromises in themselves compromise the autonomy and control of the workers over their own struggles, which is why even though the majority of the CNT backed collaboration it was totally correct for minority groups to organise openly against it.
Also some thing you might not know about the CNT Vignole is that it had a position of arguing for a lift on an arms embargo to Bosnia, a position I find quite astonishing, afterall Bosnia wasn't in the middle of social revolution it was involved in a intra nationalist blood letting, this funnily enough didn't help matter during the split.
The IWA regularly accuses the SAC and Vignoles of participating on works councils. There are none in Sweden, and Vignoles only participates in shop steward elections (though apparently there was one case where some immigrant subway workers wanted to participate in the steward elections but these were linked to the council elections - anyway it was the decision of that group of workers and not of the organization).
Quote:
Also some thing you might not know about the CNT Vignole is that it had a position of arguing for a lift on an arms embargo to Bosnia, a position I find quite astonishing, afterall Bosnia wasn't in the middle of social revolution it was involved in a intra nationalist blood letting, this funnily enough didn't help matter during the split.
Yeah i've heard this once before but somehow i think if it was true it would be fairly widely reprinted. Can you provide any sources? (and i mean on their position as a union - a couple of bozos in the IWW support palestinian or israeli boogy fucks but its hardly the IWWs "position").
OliverTwister wrote:
The IWA regularly accuses the SAC and Vignoles of participating on works councils. There are none in Sweden, and Vignoles only participates in shop steward elections (though apparently there was one case where some immigrant subway workers wanted to participate in the steward elections but these were linked to the council elections - anyway it was the decision of that group of workers and not of the organization).Quote:
Also some thing you might not know about the CNT Vignole is that it had a position of arguing for a lift on an arms embargo to Bosnia, a position I find quite astonishing, afterall Bosnia wasn't in the middle of social revolution it was involved in a intra nationalist blood letting, this funnily enough didn't help matter during the split.Yeah i've heard this once before but somehow i think if it was true it would be fairly widely reprinted. Can you provide any sources? (and i mean on their position as a union - a couple of bozos in the IWW support palestinian or israeli boogy fucks but its hardly the IWWs "position").
that's bullshit about Vignole they do participate in works councils because i've spoken to people int he group who aren't very comfortable with it, and the thing about Bosnia is also true, it came out whilst IWA sections were still pledged to keep contact with Vignole after the iniatla split with Bordeaux.
yes the SAC don't participate in works councils as far as i'm aware but I think that would be the least compromising thing about them considering their relationship with the state.
regarding the USI well I don't know what will happen and I don't know what will happen with the FAU, as i said there are alot of problems with the IWA but that should not obscure the fact that the SAC/CGT/Vignole have all shat on the very basics of anarcho syndicalist tradition over the years.
Quote:
as i said there are alot of problems with the IWA but that should not obscure the fact that the SAC/CGT/Vignole have all shat on the very basics of anarcho syndicalist tradition over the years.
And inventing a mythical category called "parallelism" is consistent with the very basics of anarcho syndicalist tradition? How about expelling two large sections of two major organizations on a vote of two to one (when one of those in favor was a runt group that had not even a tenth the experience of trying to be a real syndicalist union that the two expelled sections had)? How about telling the third largest organization, and one of the oldest, in whats left of the "international", that they would be expelled for attending the same international conference that the mascot of the IWA team will be at (in the form of the CNTs exterior section).
I mean give me a fucking break. When SAC tried to open discussions with the IWA about reunification in the 90s, rather than a reply they got a policy of "no contact".
Now they're even discussing whether the IWW is "parallelist".
You know well that contrary to what the anti-platformist platformists in the IWA say, the first basic principle of anarcho syndicalism is free contact between self-managed worker organizations. Who's shitting on that: those who invite broad sections of worker organizations from around the world to meet and discuss, or those who threaten expulsion to any of their groups who attend?
OliverTwister wrote:
Quote:
as i said there are alot of problems with the IWA but that should not obscure the fact that the SAC/CGT/Vignole have all shat on the very basics of anarcho syndicalist tradition over the years.And inventing a mythical category called "parallelism" is consistent with the very basics of anarcho syndicalist tradition? How about expelling two large sections of two major organizations on a vote of two to one (when one of those in favor was a runt group that had not even a tenth the experience of trying to be a real syndicalist union that the two expelled sections had)? How about telling the third largest organization, and one of the oldest, in whats left of the "international", that they would be expelled for attending the same international conference that the mascot of the IWA team will be at (in the form of the CNTs exterior section).
I mean give me a fucking break. When SAC tried to open discussions with the IWA about reunification in the 90s, rather than a reply they got a policy of "no contact".
Now they're even discussing whether the IWW is "parallelist".
You know well that contrary to what the anti-platformist platformists in the IWA say, the first basic principle of anarcho syndicalism is free contact between self-managed worker organizations. Who's shitting on that: those who invite broad sections of worker organizations from around the world to meet and discuss, or those who threaten expulsion to any of their groups who attend?
why are you telling my own criticisms of the IWA back to me?
All those things are ridiculous, fortunately they are by and large irrelevant to actual on the ground struggles and stay in the soap opera that is the IWA, where they are played out by tiny lil sects trying to make eyes at whatever anally retentive toss pot the spanish CNT have let be International Secretary. As i've said plenty of times before, i don't have much time for the IWA, i do however have a lot of time for many of it's individual sections.
All I'm saying is that whatever problems there are with SAC and vignoles (and i do think there are some) have to be put in context: when certain types claim that real fighting anarchosyndicalism is an impossibility and that the aim should be to be like the CGT, dropping as many principles as possible until you are just a fairly non-hierarchical, leftist trade union, the IWA hardly poses a counterexample to that.
I really like the CNT on the ground too (and it might pain you to know that the IWW actually gave money to them for Mercadona), I also like some of the other groups' on-the-ground activity such as USI, ASI, FAU...
However when I, or any of the other anarchosyndicalists in the IWW, convince our FWs of anarchosyndicalist ideas, it's generally *in spite* of the IWA.
On the other hand despite any of their faults, the SAC and especially vignoles give us some sort of roadmap of how to go from a pitifully tiny revolutionary union to a small but potent one. Thus it hurts to see when they make compromises because that will have an echo in the IWW; on the other hand its really good to see the SAC steadily returning to its anarchosyndicalist roots, and good to see what mistakes and successes vignoles make as they deal with becoming more than 10 times their former size in little more than a decade, and fighting lots of great struggles along the way.
these people/organisations are unprincipaled oppurtunist cunts!
IWW scotland! (see how i don't even give those scottish cunts a capital letter)
Various AF members who seem to have forgotten their aims and principles in favour of sucking off the collection of retards who make up the IWW UK.
SAC/CGT and all those other social democratic fuckwits who would suck off a cabinet minister for a grant!
The Green Party NI who got their only seat in North Down, the most middle class of middle class areas ever! Shove your campaign for locally produced food and 'fair' water charges up your fucking arse!
oh and an extra big fuck off to all the animal rights cunts!