30th Congress of the CNT France : Consolidate International Solidarity !
Oct 5 2008 17:55
30th Congress of the CNT France : Consolidate International Solidarity
The 30th Confederal Congress of the CNT took place on the 19th, 20th and
21st of September in the Northern French town of Lille.
This Congress was important to the CNT, as it finds itself in a situation
where social movements are demoralised and incapable of responding in a
co-ordinatedfashion to the arrogance of Capital. Moreover the CNT is
facing the frontal attacks against Union rights, in the front line against
the reform of Union representation laws.
This Congress needed to determine our organisational ability to respond to
the policies of the Sarkozy government and to adapt our strategy to face
the new threat to union representation.
No fewer than 67 CNT locals, from all regions of France, were represented
at Congress.
We were also able to welcome delegations from organisations with which we
collaborate on an international basis: CGT (Spain), FAU (Germany), USI
(Italy) and the ASSI (Spain).
Other organisations, unable to send delegates, send greetings to the
congress: CGT (Burkina Faso), SISSA (Italie), ASOINCA (Colombia),
Solidaridad Obrera (Spain), CNTG (Guinea), IWW (Great Britain), SAC
(Sweden) and ESE (Grece).
The Confederation will launch a campaign against bosses and the state in
the months to come.
In terms of our International Strategy the congress in Lille voted by a
large majority in favour of "Reinforcing International Solidarity". This
motion was historic, as for the first time since our expulsion from the
IWA in 1996 the CNT has decided to mandate its International Secretariat
to aim, in the medium and long term, towards the creation of a new
International. The International Secretariat and the CNT will be
launching, in the next few months, an appeal to all of their international
contacts.
The International Secretariat of the CNT, composed of fifteen members is
from now on co-ordinated by three mandated members: Jérémie BERTHUIN, Fred
SIMEON et David DUSLAM.
Long life anarcosyndicalism !
Long life international solidarity !
Long life libertarian comunism !
International Committee of CNT France
Oct 10 2008 01:12
#2
Maybe the IWW (Great Britain) will get on board?
Oct 11 2008 16:30
#3
Yeah ! The trotskization of anarcho-syndicalism is marching on.
For support I have no news but the tidal wave is on
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=37755&sid=ff7f044fd40e1e4ec6db57ccfd5facd2
Oct 11 2008 19:21
#4
I'll go with this comment from the alasbarricadas thread.
opiloc wrote:
La verdad: me da una pereza mortal entrar en las discusiones sobre la limpieza de sangre, el color y su espesor. Además éste no es el motivo del post. A estas alturas todos nos conocemos muy bien y sabemos quien es quien y quien hace que. (Aunque me parece que a la CNT-fr se la conoce poco aquí, quizás por una equivocada tendencia a igualarla con la CGT-española).Del Congreso de la CNT-fr, en el que estuve invitado, decir que en seguida me di cuenta de lo importante que era para ellxs pues Sarkozy está embistiendo fuerte contra todo. Ha sido momento de replantearse actuaciones y acciones.
Una cosa que me sorprendió bastante es la calidad del debate entre compañerxs, la participación y las reflexiones. Fue un gozo. El compañerismo con el que se tratan (y nos trataron a los de fuera) es desde luego para agradecer.
Volviendo al congreso "puro y duro" podemos hablar de la estrategia internacional de CNT-fr que ha recibido un buen empuje gracias a este congreso. La verdad: muchxs pensamos que París va a jugar un papel muy importante en la coordinación anarcosindicalista internacional, y miramos hacia allí con muchas ganas y esperanzas.
También dan un paso en la acción social al implicarse en nuevos proyectos autogestionados muy interesantes.Compañerxs: es más lo que nos une que lo que nos separa. Pero nunca avanzaremos con posturas puristas e intolerantes. No confundáis al enemigo.
Oct 12 2008 22:04
#5
Well, I suspect everyone within the syndicalist world are shaking things up these days.
Oct 14 2008 08:30
#6
Hello Comrades! Can someone please tell an inactive Anarcho-Syndicalist why the CNT-F was expelled in 1996 and if the IWA is split what are the respective numerical strengths?
Oct 14 2008 10:15
#7
freemind wrote:
Can someone please tell an inactive Anarcho-Syndicalist why the CNT-F was expelled in 1996?
freemind - here's a Black Flag article from 1997 written, I think, by a solfed member:
http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/biblio/en/Principle_Peter_-_What_is_anarcho-syndicalism.html
I'd disagree with a lot of the article but it does give a description of the 1996 IWA congress and the expulsion of the CNT-F. I don't know enough to say how accurate it is as a description of the arguments or the events. This has been discussed on libcom before - just do a search on CNT-F or "Vignoles" and be prepared for some demoralising and sectarian debates.
Quote:
A long-running controversy in the IWA was the participation of the CNT-F in elections for Works Councils, for propaganda purposes on an abstentionist basis (or so we have always been told). This section was also traditionally the "revolutionary syndicalist" source of opposition to the affiliation of anarchist-dominated anarcho-syndicalist "propaganda groups", as opposed to revolutionary/anarcho- syndicalist unions only. The former issue was a matter of debate within the French CNT, but the majority position remained that unions might participate in elections on an abstentionist basis, and that this fell into the sphere of union autonomy.[ ... ]
Having reached an impasse through the proper channels, the minority within the CNT-F who were implacably opposed to any involvement with Works Councils or elections to them decided to internationalise the dispute. This they did by engineering a split (although outwardly conciliatory, the majority appeared quite happy to let this happen), and demanding the IWA Secretariat recognise them, not the majority, as the true IWA Section in France.
Quite rightly the General Secretary declined to interfere in the internal business of a Section, and for this he was vilified by the Swiss, who then offered themselves as "impartial mediator" in the dispute! Matters spilled over at a Plenary of the IWA held in London in 1994, which involved provocative dossier flicking by the minority faction, known as "Bordeaux" who claimed that some of the unions in France had only one member, and were a paper majority. It culminated in a walkout by the minority faction from the next Plenary in Cologne when they weren't endorsed as the sole representatives of the French Section.
This coincided with the build-up of an increasingly poisonous atmosphere in Spain, sparked by the receipt of the patrimony from the state, and disputes about its distribution. Certainly the then General Secretary of the IWA was under pressure from his Section, in breach of the rules, to take sides in the French dispute. Eventually he resigned under the pressure.
[ ... ]
This process has been confirmed at the XX Congress of the IWA, held at Madrid in December 1996. The CNT-E tried to exclude one of the parties to each dispute - in France and Italy - at the stage of confirmation of credentials, before any debate had taken place. Attempts to investigate the disputes fully, in order to have sufficient information to make the right decision, were rejected. This led to only two Sections voting to expel the majority in France and the Rome-based split of USI - CNT-E and Norway's NSF.
The rest abstained due to insufficient information, and the British Section were told by the hosts that they were not following their mandate in an attempt to get another vote for expulsion. In fact the Solidarity Federation's mandate was based on full investigation and reconciliation where possible, and it is a measure of the proprietorial attitude of the host Section that they should regard another Section's delegates as accountable to them.
The decision to expel the majority in France was greeted by cheering from many Spanish observers and the bus-load of "Bordeaux" CNT-F who had turned up. An atmosphere of intimidation and confusion was encouraged by the hosts, and exploited to slip through changes to the Principles of Revolutionary Unionism and the Statutes of the IWA without proper discussion or consideration of their implications. A comrade from the British Section was abused by another from Spain when trying to establish some order and clarity from the chair.
EDIT: I should probably add that I've no wish to take sides between rival organisations or internationals. If people can't work together in the same organisation then generally I think it's best to maintain links and at least try to work together where there's some common ground.
Oct 14 2008 11:00
#8
JH;Many thanks for the article and info. regarding the IWA split circa 1996. It was a help and provided some useful info. on the situation-Good luck!
Oct 14 2008 11:34
#9
One short adition, for me the key informations of the Black Flag look correct. At the discussion about this topics on the 96 congress the chair, a comrade from SolFed, resigned because it was impossible to organise a "normal" discussion. One young comrade from the CNT-E took over the chair and pushed the expulsion. As far as I remember CNT-E and Norway's NSF voted for the expulsion and the FAU against .
The CNT-F has two articles (in french) on their website about this - from their point of view - http://www.cnt-f.org/international/spip.php?rubrique21
Oct 14 2008 11:54
#10
KC; Thanks for the info. and i feel the Black Flag article seems very plausible and i can vouch for the dictatorial nature of the CNT-E chair at the Bourdeaux IWA Congress as i was present.
Oct 14 2008 12:54
#11
This Congress was, to a very large extent, a turning point in the IWA's history. We can debate till death the merits or the demerits of the French CNT split. To a large extent there is enogh guilt to go around to both sides in the split. Clear enough, however, was what extent do anarcho-syndicalists engage or not with labor structures set-up by the State. Fair issue.
Where the IWA began to sour was how it began to deal with internal dissent on issues, such as France or Sweden --- reallly the two main issues of the day. The question of the CGT was pretty marginalized, except to the extent that some felt the SAC and CGT would form a parallel international. Out of this period, there came a period of, in my opinion, "intolerance" for different points of view. Not all the points of view were black and white. Some, such the WSA's, tended to be more nuanced in terms o external relations.
The French situation was unavoidable. WSA voted to abstain at the 1996 Congress in terms of expelling (or not) CNT-Vignoles. Our organization was, candidly, split down the middle on this question. We choose not to split the WSA over an international issue. For this, there are some in the IWA who felt that we had to be "paid back" for this perspective.
In retrospect, I think our position was the correct one. Our (WSA) unity was more important than a vote to expel Vignoles. Vigonles and Bourdeax (French CNT-AIT) were on a course to explode and this is what happened. Their split was inevitable. Where I would say (and have said) is that one of the WSA delegates clearly acted outside their mandate at this Congress beyond voting to abstain. In this respect, I share some of the criticism of that comrades action. Elected delegates are to work within their mandates and when they do not, these create misunderstandings and misimpressions. *
If there are some lessons to be learned, I think, it would need to be in how to deal with tough, difficult and heavy issues. To deal with them in a way which is fair but principled. And to deal with dissent in a similiar fashion. When we don't, we fall into "politcal" traps. Traps of manipulation and "wheeling and dealing" in a senseless and bureaucratic fashion. I am all for debating and fighting out principled disagreements. They sometimes exist, but how we fight them out is at issue.
EDITED COMMENT: I think in the age of the Internet, "Blackberries", Cell phones and so forth, communication between a delegation and their respective organizations are a bit more simplified. But back in the pre-rapid electronic communications day, delegatations had only strict paper mandates to abide by.
Oct 14 2008 14:54
#12
Hey freemind, I remember comrades from DAM had been in Bourdeaux 88 with one or two vans but some of the young comrades did not wake up until they have been on way back home 
. The strong continental beer...
Oct 14 2008 15:26
#13
Back to the communiqué : I really do not like the „political" tune (as if it was an anti-Sarkozy party), but one positive and very interesting thing, that could contribute to push discussions forward to interesting points, not sectarian ones, is that they put their union strategy at the end of the statement. Unluckily not in the English version, but one may read it in the Spanish version, cited above. It’s a try to be transparent, I guess and I wonder if any union EVER did this that way.
Oct 14 2008 15:45
#14
I want to come back to the "new International"
In a report from the CNT-F congress our FAU delegate wrote that the decision was something like ...an intensivation of their Contacts and to create a more stable network. Not far away from this is the text of Jérémie from CNT-F's IS on top of this page "... to mandate its International Secretariat to aim, in the medium and long term, towards the creation of a new International".
I don't believe that the CNT-F really want to organise an reformist international with the CGT-E, the "Vignoles" has too many different positions and the strategy doesn't fit too. The same I would expect from the SAC which moved step by step nearer to anarcho-syndicalist positions the last years and our a-s comrades seem to get more and more influence within their union.
As far as I know neither CNT-F nor the today SAC like the CGT-E and their reformism, but both need solidarity, support and advice from unions in other countrys. I think only if all other doors are locked "in a medium and long term" they may would follow the call of the CGT-E for a new international.
Oct 14 2008 18:41
#15
Hey KC! Unfortunately for some comrades the DAM stood for Direct Alcohol Movement! I however was somewhere in the middle(just)!!!
Oct 14 2008 21:13
#16
syndicalist wrote:
This Congress was, to a very large extent, a turning point in the IWA's history. We can debate till death the merits or the demerits of the French CNT split. To a large extent there is enogh guilt to go around to both sides in the split. Clear enough, however, was what extent do anarcho-syndicalists engage or not with labor structures set-up by the State. Fair issue.
I agree with you on the turning point thing. I still remember the former IWA secretary Ralf A. who's analysis back in the 80th was, that on the medium turn the french anarchosyndicalist movement was the one with the best prospects in Western Europe. He was obviously correct. Sadly enough that the renaissance of anarcho-syndicalism in France not only produced a split in the Hexagone itsself that weakend the movement in the crucial moment of the 1995 revolt, but was as well the focus of an IWA infight that has paralyzed the international for more than a decade.
Oct 14 2008 21:56
#17
There is some information of the Congress in question here
And the breakdown in relations between various sections of the IWA/AIT and the French 'Vignoles' CNT has off course kept that organisation on a more reformist path and driven them even closer to other militant but reformist organisations. And yes, the 'no contact' policy of the AIT/IWA has done nothing but damage the AIT/IWA. To the extent that we see a ridiculous proposal being formulated by the CNT AIT Spain that its claimed they do not even want to see implemented.
Oct 14 2008 22:07
#18
R OBOT-I remember Ralf well and he was a good comrade.It seems there is almost a faultline in contemporary Libertarian organisation which is due to several factors,factors that Anarcho-Syndicalist organisations cannot afford.Until Anarchists confront these issues mistakes will be repeated ie; people
joining organizations without fully knowing the aims and principles of which i fully admit and also not accepting that sometimes ideological purity is not
feasible and compromise and tactical moves come into play(fundamentals being non negotiable of course).All to often Anarchists are trapped in futile and
ephemeral discourse which stifles real debate and allows egos and charlatans to hamper development.
Oct 17 2008 12:55
#19
A note: in my experience the SAC views the spanish CGT as a close ally and it's theory and practice pretty much matches the revolutionary syndicalism expounded by the SAC. The general view in the SAC regarding ideas about new internationals is that it will be a mistake to build such a structure without stronger base of functioning base democractic, revolutionary syndicalist and anarchosyndicalist unions. But that is how is I have percieved it... Anyone know more about this?
Oct 17 2008 13:35
#20
This has generally been my impression from this side of the Atlantic. I think there was a period of time (1980s) where some in the SAC might have wanted something more. Even during the darkest days after the immeidate split in the CNT-AIT, folks who I had contact in the SAC said they were against a new international. That siad, I think there's always been a desire (by the SAC) to network with syndicalists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarchists who were friendly towards them.
Oct 17 2008 21:31
#21
altemark wrote:
The general view in the SAC regarding ideas about new internationals is that it will be a mistake to build such a structure without stronger base of functioning base democractic, revolutionary syndicalist and anarchosyndicalist unions. But that is how is I have percieved it... Anyone know more about this?
There's this article written by the SAC international secretary in 1998 - http://libcom.org/library/an-open-letter-to-the-iwa-from-sac-1998 - though things have probably moved on since then. It's also interesting as a reply to the Black Flag article I quoted earlier.
Quote:
Let me try and make clear SAC's position regarding the relationship to the IWA.Firstly we do not seek to form a new International. This is reaffirmed time and time again at our congresses.
Secondly, the SAC does not lie still but actively seek co-operation with libertarian socialist, direct democratic or otherwise fighting trade unions which work independently of political parties, nothing at all odd in this, at best we serve a good example and this only strengthens syndicalism. We are especially concerned with having good relations with ideologically related organisations. There is no conspiracy behind this wish but a firm belief that if revolutionary syndicalism is to have a future we must all learn to deal with our problems and differences in an open and mature fashion. This is a precondition for all co-operation.
The SAC does not propose itself to be the perfect workers organisation and we continually seek to improve the democratic structure so that it might serve as a tool in the shaping of a future libertarian socialist society. We do not propose to dictate our way upon others nor do we engage in defaming our libertarian sister organisations.
There is the palpable risk that sooner or later the continued false allegations, like a self-fulfilling prophesy, will force the SAC membership to write off the IWA further paralysing the future of syndicalism.
Oct 18 2008 04:30
#22
altemark wrote:
A note: in my experience the SAC views the spanish CGT as a close ally and it's theory and practice pretty much matches the revolutionary syndicalism expounded by the SAC.
Is this still valid? My impression was, that there was an important reorientation in the SAC type of revolutionary syndicalism – turning away from the ombudsmen system with its professionals and moving towards a strategy based on job-floor direct action. At the same time the CGT converted into something more bureaucratic and less combatitive than ever, looking for new international allies amongst unions and political organizations that can in no way be qualified as revolutionary syndicalist. Has this process really been without consequences for the relationship between SAC and CGT?
Oct 21 2008 06:55
#23
I would say the SAC and the CGT have different methods and tactics but still, the SAC have a very open mind on which organisations to collaborate with and have no problem with the CGT. They seem to like us so we of course have better relations with them than with organisations that are hostile towards us, that is just natural. One thing though - the SAC doesn't have any direction for the locals, syndicates and sections on these issues. Some have good relations to some organisations and others have good relations to comletely different organisations, this is for me a good thing. Also - international contacts seem to me to be something mostly long time members cultivate and much of the reorientation have been from quite recent members. I guess you also inherit contacts because it is easier than to make completely new contacts?
Oct 22 2008 11:45
#24
it may be a couple of years ago, but didn’t SAC decide and ask to reintegrate IWA?
Oct 22 2008 12:46
#25
Julio,
See http://libcom.org/library/an-open-letter-to-the-iwa-from-sac-1998
With some supplemental comments on the international here http://libcom.org/library/sac-sweden-interview-1998-freedom
Oct 29 2008 12:50
#26
CNT-F comrade,
Is there an actual Congress resolution? Is it available on-line?
Thanks.
Oct 31 2008 17:03
#27
syndicalist wrote:
CNT-F comrade,Is there an actual Congress resolution? Is it available on-line?
Thanks.
I would be quite interested in that too. I have only read the CNT-F international secretaries comments so far but I did not find the words of the congress resolution (if there is one) so far. What's up?
Nov 4 2008 14:12
#28
"This Congress needed to determine the organisational ability to responsd to the policies of the Sarkozy government..." There's the trap immediately laid. The problem is not the crisis of capitalism but the policies of one dispensable section of the French bourgeoisie.
Nov 4 2008 14:37
#29
That's right because we need to respond to capitalism in it's totality, never any of the specifics. Baboon stop trying so hard to prove your left communist credentials.
Nov 4 2008 15:38
#30
robot wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
This Congress was, to a very large extent, a turning point in the IWA's history. We can debate till death the merits or the demerits of the French CNT split. To a large extent there is enogh guilt to go around to both sides in the split. Clear enough, however, was what extent do anarcho-syndicalists engage or not with labor structures set-up by the State. Fair issue.I agree with you on the turning point thing. I still remember the former IWA secretary Ralf A. who's analysis back in the 80th was, that on the medium turn the french anarchosyndicalist movement was the one with the best prospects in Western Europe. He was obviously correct. Sadly enough that the renaissance of anarcho-syndicalism in France not only produced a split in the Hexagone itsself that weakend the movement in the crucial moment of the 1995 revolt, but was as well the focus of an IWA infight that has paralyzed the international for more than a decade.
And because of this internal meltdown, whole generation (post-Seattle) anarchists, at least here in north america, sought out a different class strugge anarchist path. Ok, not the only reason, but surely an important one.
I see the call for a new reformist international has been met by a tidal wave of positive support.
Long live Anarcho-syndicalism!