Founding Congress of the new international anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist.

Tbh akai Yepa's right, the split has happened, they're nowt to do with the IWA any more and having the IWA's secretary making snide comments about the new grouping comes across as undignified and more than a bit bitter ex.

edit: Also who's downvoting me for pointing out the CNT-CIT thing? C'mon it's mildly amusing

which comments do you mean and why do you think they are snide (especially, in the context of all the bullshit comments the hateful members of CNT-CIT and IWW wrote here)? This debate is far from nice but it is interesting to see that the attacks can be made against akai but when she gives facts, she is expected to rather refrain from commenting. Also, we see that the IWW NA has already failed in keeping in line with their mandate and I wonder what is the case of WAS and ARS, since at least WAS had a clear mandate to just observe. I can understand that many people don't care about such facts, but is it such a problem to accept that it matters to some and they think it actually is imporant and should be exposed?

Oh come on MT half her comments are just straightforward sniping. And I don't give a crap about what the CNT people are saying (other than the comments I've already made repeatedly about how everyone should stop being childish), they're neither in my international nor representatives of anything.

Valid, respectful criticism of an organisation is fair enough. But many of the comments in this and related threads are just trolling (from the same crowd). Admins should warn and then delete constant sectarian comments - whether it's against the unions in the new international or the IWA.

Seems a bit premature to be making public accusations that people violated their mandate when all the information that seems available is brief, Google Translated articles.

Yes perhaps somebody will kick me off here for pointing out that what was claimed in the text against their organization's mandate, that would be pretty much in line with the type of behaviour that has been all too problematic in some organizations.

As for MT's questions, WAS did not attend but sent a greeting. They wrote and I will forward. As for ARS, people tried to ask and it seems like nobody kniws. You can ask yourselves but they haven't joined. But it's best to ask about such things directly to avoid rumors.

For the people in the old IWA, not sure if you care what I think, but as someone who sympathised more with your perspective in the split than the other side, unfortunately the way you are seeming to come across in subsequent discussions is showing you in a very negative light.

The split has happened, you can't change that. It would seem that the best thing for you to do is move on and focus on your organising work and concrete struggles you are involved in, not getting involved in silly spats with organisations you are now unconnected with.

Deleted comment.

Steven didn't actually mention you akai, and I did so only in the context that you're the secretary of the IWA. I'm calling everyone involved in this argument childish regardless of gender, the only difference with you is that you are the formal representative of the international I'm affiliated to.

Merging with the 1922 IWA sounds great but I don't think time travel is really a goer.

I know what about WAS position since we talked about it with them. I was pointing out at how it was "sold" here to uninformed readers:

Which sounds like if they were about to join. Maybe this is just a translation issue, but at least to me it sounded misleading. Still, I think that making such a comment shouldn't be considered inappropriate. If anything, it is rather inappropriate to use IWA Friends in kind of pissing contest. And interestingly, no-one cares about the authors of this comment and prefers to criticise those who point at the way the CNT-CIT present information about the congress and other groups.

Pardon my ignorance, who is WAS and ARS?

I figured it out when someone wrote "parallel", then looked at IWA site.
Thank you anyway.

The IWW delegates have stated in an attempt at clarification that despite the CNT declaration on their website that says all these unions founded the CIT / ICL all they agreed to was the statutes, and are not a founding union (CNT, USI, FAU, FORA are supposedly the only CIT unions at this time), that this will indeed go to referendum.

Apologies if I was a bit anarcho-lawful neutral but certain folks have pushing this as a shot gun wedding. Ultimately I trust there will be robust IWW debate and deliberation.

A couple of things. There is no problem if WAS wanted to observe anything. They are honest, told about it and said why. Association or not with us is free. There is a big difference if somebody wants to observe things and even cooperate or if they cross some boundary where they want to refound things without the agreement of others. If people do something new, that is their choice. If, by contrast, some had acted straightforward like that instead of like they did, there would be fewer problems in the world.

In any case, the press releases, CNT web sites, etc.,say something different. But it's not the same time. In Barakaldo there were also incorrect statements.

Hope that people work things out. As I see now, some people in Spain are also surprised they were volunteered to do the Secretariat, while some people say it just "needs to be ratified". But everybody should be working to instruct delegates not to oblige the organizations to things before the membership has voted.

That's just a general comment.

IWW will take their agreements, as will do the the rest of the unions that took part in the congress. Of course, all respect to the process of each union and their times.

The truth is that the proposals of IWW were important in the congress.

In my point of view, if you take active part in something like a congress making proposals and voting you are a founding union. But as I said, each union will see the result and take its agreements.

About WAS and ARS, I was expecting this reaction. Basically because is how works some people in IWA. The internal control that make some sections to others is not sane.

I'm curious what this means in a practical, formative sense.

Could you be precise about what were you expecting? It is not clear.

I wasn´t in Parma, but comrades told me is that for example the agreement about how much will pay each section is base on IWW proposal. They told me other things but with out being there is very easy to write things that are not right.
In one month I will visit some delegates I know so I will have more direct information a part from the agreements.

I thank you.

The reaction of Akai, she was aggressive and became more aggressive.

Agressive? Hehe. No, I am having a good laugh really.

Like I never stigmatized people for people small or anything, only you. But you are very happy that the smallest Friends wrote a letter and think somebody will have a fit about it. Not that I am criticizing them, but there's some irony in it.

Please, have fun.

Could you please quote the aggressive reaction? I cannot see it.