Anarcho-syndicalism is a method of organising that has as its aim a society that is free. Without government, without the State and the abolition of capitalism replaced by a federation of worker/community assemblies that control the means of production. It is a method that is informed by the ideas of anarchism that can be traced back to the First International of the 19th century.
According to a report on 'Notes from Below' the CIT, founded last May in Parma, Italy is considering registering with the ILO, an agency of the United Nations.
There was discussion about coordinating research on international labour laws, and an idea to register the confederation with the International Labour Organisation so as to be able to take cases of abuse of workers’ rights by multinational corporations to international tribunals.
http://notesfrombelow.org/article/uvw-presente-international-independent-union-congr
If the CIT registers with the ILO and continues to claim that they are an anrcho-syndicalist or revolutionary unionist organisation, they will only serve to create confusion about the meaning of anarcho-syndicalism - in whose interests?
I'm all for it, sow
I'm all for it, sow confusion, don't let the bourgeoisie pin us down. Never let them figure what who or what an anarcho-syndicalist is.
Personally, I bathe the neighborhood dogs as anarcho-syndicalist praxis and have the 20 foot banner to prove it.
As far as I know, this was a
As far as I know, this was a proposal of the IWW.
Of course this is a question of a huge difference in tactics. If you actually look what the ILO is, it is a tripartite body, for the state and bosses to moderate the unions through social partnership schemes. It actually received a Noble Prize at one point for "promoting peace amongst the classes".
Historically, the development of the ILO is extremely interesting. In part, the ideological split of the Second International played a role. At the Paris Peace Conference, where the League of Nations (the original attachment of the ILO) was formed, the powers wanted to create something which would counteract the influence of communism, in other words, to channel workers into social partnership with capitalism. Although the reformist socialists were one part of those which ideologically conceived such an international body to achieve labor reforms, it was very quickly directed into the role of helping to moderate the demands of workers and move them away from revolutionary aims. In the period of a few years, we saw the development of distinct visions for international labour. There was the creation of a reformist body - the ILO. The social democrats drifted there. After the Zimmerwald Conference, the split in socialism being clear, part of the communist and internationalist faction went on to form the Comintern. ( I suppose the commission to form the ILO and the formation of the Comintern happened almost at the same time in history, maybe a month apart.) Then there was the IWA,which rejected the strategy of the Comintern.
In any case, personally I am not against achieving some concrete reforms for workers, but the whole question is about the perception of the appropriate instruments for this. Such suggestions show a real divergence in ideas and should be seen in the context of many other legalistic and reform tendencies which appeared among some of the founding organizations.
There is a really poor level among supporters of this trend, which we can see anove and which unfortunately has become too typical on this forum. Instead of analysis, people are baited into primitive discussions and even worse, prejudice and sexism are used to derail critical thoughts. All this shows that a deeper discussion is needed, but it is never going to take place here, or any similar place.
There is a great saying, "you
There is a great saying, "you hear bells and you know where".
On the other hand it´s curious to open a thread to speak badly about CIT and for the secretary of the AIT to do it too, it will not take long for sure that it will lead to CNT is the devil and things like that.
By the way Lugius. ASF has registered as a union in Australia? do you use lawyers in labor disputes? do you adapt to the Australian labor relations system? How do you organize yourself in a company?
My comment is on the origins
My comment is on the origins of the ILO and its role. First it was to lower the influence of the more radical communist labor movement in favor of concessionist social democracy. SInce 1980, its role has more or less been to push the Washington consensus. 1980 is a key year in the development of history, especially in Europe. As it developed, the postulates of a broader workers' movement were channeled into another direction, not incidentally, with the help of the CIA and became an anti-communist tool which ceded to neo-liberalism at a round table.
The historical background of the ILO is clearly connected to the division of socialists and labor in terms of several key points and these differences in aims, tactics and strategies led to 3 models of international organization: ILO, Comintern, IWA.
No amount of trolling,mobbing or continued dumbing down of this site will prevent a public discussion of this history, nor the nature and role of collaborationist institutions in the workers' movements.
Please... I don´t talk about
Please... I don´t talk about your speech about the history of ILO that I can agree more or less, if not about always "leave the kick"
akai
Quote: There was discussion
That we can relocate lo state level as:
And in this point we can remember that Akai sed that the IWA Spanish section is register legally as CNT-AIT.
The Spanish section of IWA use the national courts to win cases.
And everybody knows, the Spanish state is inheritor of the fascist dictatorship that kill thousand of CNT militants. Also we know that the trasition in the 70's was managed by CIA.
Resume:
Let's be serious and analyze the facts. The imagination and speculations for the literature.
Any suggestion that the ILO
Any suggestion that the ILO would be some appropriate avenue of conducting workers' activity does show a divergence of ideas among people who seem to be using the same label. As for the use of courts, I am not against it as a method od defence, although I am against the promotion of any type of syndicalism that reinforces the idea that the struggle should be in the courts and using legal constraints. The struggle needs to come from below and not become reliant on lawyers and legal methods.
The topic of this thread is the ILO and a proposal related to it which appeared at your Congress and was publically reported.
Of course, if CIT wants to reject this idea, they can do so.
Quote: There was discussion
Discussions about how to defend internationally workers rights in international courts.
Al OK.
Perfect, that's the idea and practice of CNT.
I hope everybody remember
I hope everybody remember that FAU can call it self workers Union and act as union because went to an international court, because the German local court said that they were not.
I'm not do sure the criticism
I'm not do sure the criticism is the use of legal methods when appropriate.
Doubtful most (in either camp) would oppose it as needed
Suspecting some of this is how it used, is it a tactic or a strategy.
Also, registering as a non-government agency and involvement in a tri-partite
body departs from long held anarchosyndicalist views. We can debate the merits of local registration versus voluntary international as being different, I would think.
I'm prolly more curious as to the origins of the proposal and
why it's thought to be positive for anarchosyndicalism.
Well, I remember being in the
Well, I remember being in the higher court in Berlin which took a decision on that case. You can watch the video of my speech outside the court, Of course, whether you are a legalized union or not, the whole question is whether or not you can organize a militant struggle and win. FAU won that part of the struggle, but never really organized the workers in the cinema and the working conditions actually got worse there. The militancy revolved around the recognition of FAU as a union, but the actual militancy around the working conditions became subordinate to it.
As to the assessment of CNT-R practice, let's just say that there is a running criticism of the turn towards legalism. And members of IWA can refer to the (disgraceful) discussion at and prior to the 2011 Plenary,
And as CIT has not taken actions yet, I reserve to right to assess its methodology later on.
Example of the legalisms you
Example of the legalisms you refer to:
But not always we can win with the direct action, sadly the companies use the laws against the workers and there are their circumstances where there is no other option than go to the courts. As I said, there are companies in Spain that prefer to close and fire all the workers than have the workers organizer in CNT. Till this moment anybody told me how to win a conflict like this where you can't pressure the company because is close.
Don’t you realise Akai and
Don’t you realise Akai and Lugius will be trolling every single post about CNT or ICL. Let’s see for how long admins will accept that.
By the way Akai, it is CNT,not CNT-R as only you say to piss us off, please stop trolling, after 20 years as IWA member myself it is still embarrassing watching an IWA General Secretary behaving like that, please don’t be childish.
I recommend to follow this
I recommend to follow this conflict of EDE Taldea, a company of the church of basque country.
https://cnttaldea.wordpress.com/
The workers are on strike because the church wants to close the company. We know that is a group of companies. Only with the strike and the direct action is probable the company close and there is nothing to do, the workers are fire and over. We are taking the church to the court and we prove that they have a group of companies, also that the companies is going against the basic rights of the workers taking other workers to do the work of the workers on strike. In this point the fight is to obligate to the main company, the catholic church of Bizkaia, to relocate the workers in other companies of the group.
I could speak about several other CNT conflicts that the companies play with the lows to fuck the workers and only with direct action we could loose.
Actually Melenas, those are
Actually Melenas, those are NOT the legalisms I am referring to.
Yes, let's see if admins will shut down people for critical thought.
akai wrote: Actually Melenas,
akai
You are years saying that CNT doesn't use the direct action and use the legal way as main strategy.
However, you say a lot of things with out sence. One more, one less...
Neither IWA or CIT, Dog
Neither IWA or CIT, Dog Washers Unite!
drakeberkman wrote: Neither
drakeberkman
Very constructive.
As opposed to the totally
As opposed to the totally constructive 2 year long internet argument between akai, lugius, & melenas, and basically everyone else in the world
I come from work and you made
I come from work and you made me laugh drakeberkman jejeje
drakeberkman wrote: As
drakeberkman
Splits are not pretty.
admin: off topic comments
admin: off topic comments removed. People who post content-less one-liners just to antagonise people will get banned
syndicalist
syndicalist
It's been two years. All of the shitposting is coming from one side. Clearly the other side wants to move on.
This logic that starts to
This logic that starts to appear here lately is extremely disgusting. A bunch of leaders instigates a split and tries to hijack the IWA. They create a mass of bullshit in the process and then when they realize they can't go according to the original plan and change the gameplay, they expect that people will act like nothing happend because now we are adults and can go our separate ways freely. It's say telling a rape victim, "please, shut up about it, shit happens, move on; and if you won't, I will spread a stories about you being crazy and not wanting to move on peacefully".
On the other hand, I understand that readers here may be tired of all this. Still, the logic seems striking to me.
Ffs, MT, no, it really isn't
Ffs, MT, no, it really isn't anything like gaslighting someone dealing with the trauma of sexual assault. This is a political split, one as nasty as any I can remember from my experience in radical politics, but the two are so completely different it makes zero sense to compare them.
Fwiw, I completely disagree with Oliver that all the shitposting is coming from one side. Shit is being flung in all directions and everyone's covered in it by now.
Edited to add: While I'm here I might as well say, I think the only interesting question that's been asked so far on this thread, and has so far gone unanswered, has been syndicalist's above:
syndicalist
I'm also curious to hear what CNT/CIT people have to say about this as I find it pretty odd as well.
OliverTwister
OliverTwister
I'd not agree. There's been a fair amount flying in both directions
The rub is, if you are a split, positing yourself as an alternative to an existing international,
then questions regarding differences are fair game.
Anyway, I'm curious about the ILO proposal, it's origins, it's goals and how it applies to anarchosyndicalist practice.
Lugius answered this question
Lugius answered this question already:
Lugius
So its pretty clear that the intention of this thread was to ignite another flamewar.
Ed wrote: Ffs, MT, no, it
Ed
As soon as we have the minutes and statutes published maybe we could start to speak about it.
What I can say speaking with a friend of the union that also is lawyer, is that could be interesting for some circumstances. Till now we use international courts when we know that we can break local lows and the interpretations of the local courts. For example to defense the basic right of health. In Spain is not strange to see how companies fire workers after a work accident. The local courts usually accept that is illegal to fire the worker but doesn't break the worker right of health. Whining this cases the companies is obligated to take back the worker.
I didn't have time to have a deeper discussion about other international courts and ILO.
I think the intention of this
I think the intention of this thread is to question this idea.
akai wrote: I think the
akai
You mean that is better to have an accident, be fired and with some money in the pocket?
remember that to go to the court doesn't mean there is not direct action. We had a case in this way and the company close and then open again a "new" company with a "new" owner and other workers. If you go against the new company they can take you to the court because the case is not related and fuck you all. throw the court you can break their game in several ways. And remember that the SP of the local union of Vitoria was put in prison in the 80s because direct actions, and im not speaking about banners exactly. the union was nearly over after that, and disappear 1 or 2 years later.
I dont know which kind of conflicts do you face and if you dont care when workers loose their jobs, but in CNT we have clear that the anarchosindicalist is made IN the company wining new rights. I refer you again to EDE Taldea, they are in strike and also in the court. If the workers take the money and leave, the union loose, the working class loose and the syndicalist action is over.
One year a go CNT win in the court and was able to change the workers low wining rights for all the workers of Spain. Big part of the secciones sindicales rights was win throw the court in the 80s and 90s.
CNT consigue blindar las garantías de tutela de los derechos fundamentales en los procedimientos laborales
Remember that the big unions and the companies try to dont let CNT to make anarchosindicalims, throw the court we win general rights for all the workers that let as apply our strategy everywhere.
Another example:
CNT airport of barcelona
New readmission at the Aeroport de El Prat GOOGLE TRANSLATE
Please, can anybody tell me how could you pressure a company throw direct action when the company works for other companies and not to the public (they do not give a shit about their public image) also you cant access to the workplace because is an airport control by the police. A company that is loosing with his attitude tens of thousands of euros, and they don´t change.
How do you think that CNT was able to double the number of members in the last 10 years? accepting that the companies fire the workers and saying that the companies are vary bad with as? We use the courts to defend the workers to dont be fire, so the workers keep their jobs and are able to make anarchosindicalims, decide in assemblies and obligate the company to sit down with as to negotiate improvements.
Because the syndicalism is made in the company, no out of the company, not always all the workers support the syndicalist action so you cant be strong enough to obligate the company to take back the workers as we were able to do with the support of other unions in the Port of Barcelona. Also not always you are able to make a company to loose so much money that is better for them negotiate than fire the worker. For that circumstances you cant accept that the worker is fire and the union is over.
In y point of view, if the international courts and ILO can be use to keep our workers in the company so they are able to pressure the company and obligate it to negotiate better conditions with the workers. WELCOME.
drakeberkman wrote: admin:
drakeberkman
So to be clear, I should be making content-less 5000 word essays just to antagonize people to avoid being banned? That's the content that raises the quality of libcom.org, correct?
drakeberkman
drakeberkman
But there was no content to what you've written.
syndicalist wrote: But there
syndicalist
Have you read any of akai's posts over the last two years?
I feel like there's a double standard here
drakeberkman
drakeberkman
I think it's the name calling which pushes stuff over. I don't care if folks are principled and disagree, it's when the personal that negates everything.
---- Signed The Fourth Horseman
I think it is getting pretty
I think it is getting pretty clear from the posts here that maybe some people to do understand that the ILO is not a court and maybe does not understand what it does. That said, I doubt knowing this would change the attitude.
In terms of workers fighting and losing their jobs, I don't think we need any lecture here about the reality of matters. And just to be clear, we showed plenty of solidarity to workers in struggle all over the world, especially to repressed workers in Spain. But in many cases taken for granted and not reciprocated.
In any case, good luck to the workers against the bosses but enough with the illusions.
In developing countries the
In developing countries the ILO works closely with the Solidarity Center to push the labour movement in its desired reformist/pro-US direction. On SC in Bangladesh;
http://libcom.org/news/binds-tie-unions-%E2%80%98solidarity%E2%80%99-civil-society-foreign-policy-bangladesh-02082014-0
RM, the ILO has been pushing
RM, the ILO has been pushing the Washington Consensus for years. From 1980 in fact. This year is no coincidence.
Although clearly we need to sometimes use different options to win concrete gains, one thing that I strongly believe anarchosyndicalists need to be doing is exposing the role of state and tri-partite institutions and all class collaborationist schemes, which can derail the working class. This is part of the statutes of the IWA in fact, which has been something which has set it apart in terms of both ideas and practices.
Unfortunately, not every person who labels themselves anarchosyndicalist or revolutionary syndicalist share the same ideas. This has led to numerous parting of ways, practically since the movement started. Many of these partings have been discussed here on Libcom in great detail.
Concerning another issue briefly touched upon here, there is the question of fighting against privatization and remuncipalization. I can say that I have had years of experience in this matter and we have campaigned against the outsourcing of service jobs and housing privatization. Here we have made really huge steps, but this isn't thanks to any courts or institutions. In fact, I would say that the institutions set up by the government have only served to lead people away from struggle and to give the state time to undermine the movement. But that is for another thread.