BTW incase anyone is reading this and doesn't get the irony, this is a joke, a deliberate exagerration of stereotypes that take them into the faintly ridiculous, get it?
Like this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-woMUcv5a1E
Can someone explain to me the logic of not allowing discussion on the events of the IWA congress in this thread and suggest a time/space in which it can be held. Honest question.
cos the IWA is a fucking historical recreation society and Durruti never emailed anyone.
we don't need an international to meet people. we don't need an international to destroy the capitalist economy. What I mean by that is : learn from the mistke we did by letting bureaucracy crawling into our organisations. If we could manage an efficient network it would be a big step.
You are so amazingly wrong on this by the way. Without a powerful international we have no hope of destroying capitalism.
The international is the general staff of world
revolution.
We need it to co-ordinate the seizure of productive zones of a number of imperialist metropoli across a region large enough to sustain a cold war against the capitalists.
If we don't do that, as well as maintain a workers militia capable of taking out ICBMs, carrier fleets and satellites and more traditional tanks, fighters, bombers and infantry then we have already given up on world revolution. Any revolutionary strategy that does not factor these issues into is is murderous against the world proletariat.
Dundee you do realise your madder than a Anne Summers party on meth?
Can someone explain to me the logic of not allowing discussion on the events of the IWA congress in this thread and suggest a time/space in which it can be held. Honest question.
Comment
I can't understand! You mean samody say discussion on the events of the IWA congress are not possible here? But why?! It can be absolutly opend in my understanding.
The international is the general staff of world
revolution. [snip]
Fucking hell dundee i think someone could use a lie down!
Can someone explain to me the logic of not allowing discussion on the events of the IWA congress in this thread and suggest a time/space in which it can be held. Honest question.
maybe some members feel like the issues are so fucking embarrassing that they dont wish to be the mouthpieces of conveying those news and messages, because in doing so they would descent into an uncontrollable rant which would then cause problems with their comrades in their own particular local.
Again, just a wild guess like 
Honestly, i have absolutely no idea how long this supposed moratorium is. I happen to believe in open access to information unless it is important for security etc reasons, but i seem to be frequently wrong with issues to do with logic these days.
Honestly, i have absolutely no idea how long this supposed moratorium is. I happen to believe in open access to information unless it is important for security etc reasons, but i seem to be frequently wrong with issues to do with logic these days.
Comment
I did not get it. What moratorium? Who say this? Why?Where did you get this?
No one in IWA can make such disigions but sections.
There is no disigions of majority of sections about that. There were no such disigions. So this is just bulshit. We can diskuss whatever we want.
I think the intent of this (self-imposed?) moratorium on discussing the Congress is so that delegates to it have time to report back to their sections and any decisions taken (and the debates that led to them) don't come as a surprise or get distorted by what people might say on the internet.
Of course, the sensible option here would have been for the IWA Secretariat to have done a press release briefly detailing the decisions of the Congress, with a message to the effect that would people please respect the IWA's internal democracy and accountability and allow some time for these matters to be taken back to sections and discssed. These things do take time - people in small groups that all live in one city can easily feed back, but organisations that cover several cities and meet nationally only once a year face different problems with discussing the decisions and holding their delegates to account.
Regards,
Martin
There is no moratorium it's just that SolFed members seem to be choosing not to post any decisions up. The only one that did got it wrong anyway.
It's ironic that there is so much interest in this Congress given the opinion of many posters is that the IWA is useless or an irrelevant historical society.
Anyway, I look forward to reading more about the actual Congress and the totality of the discussion. Also, be interested to learn what, if any, discussion was held about the US.--mitch
Yeah i would be interested in hearing about the discussions about the US. Any details?
-Rick
There is no moratorium it's just that SolFed members seem to be choosing not to post any decisions up. The only one that did got it wrong anyway.
Comment
Well this is your desigion. Of couse you can have eny moratotiums for yorself- no dauts.
I posted on this thread several days ago and unfortunately I come back and Ive had to wade through alot of obvious rubbishing and the frequent in jokes which is coming all too typical from threads on Libcom.
I attended the IWA congress from the Thursday preparation to Saturday afternoon, generally I thought it was positive and people like Alan are given the wrong impression, it was worth attending for the scope. It was nice to speak to the comrades both international and within in SF, and to take away essentially what is going on and needs to be done inter/nationally. Certainly as members we shouldnt allow congress to be our dominate mode of communicating with other sections, or individuals of other sections.
It as to be said however that the congress wasnt entirely exciting, but coming to collective decisions isnt necessarily easy or fun, you can have counter-argument after counter-argument and even people getting the wrong end of the stick. I remember our Preston local spent ages on some very small details, but surely this is about libertarian means avoiding authoritarian ends associated with centralism etc,.
I noted that some wanted to trash the event based on its 'bureaucratic' tendencies, well I was there and didnt see much of this. What I did see however was a few occassions, people being mandated with new compromises by their different bodies trying to come to decisions with others, this was a little fraught at times. I certainly would like to know what I missed from the Saturday and the Sunday.
Im sure if other committments hadnt have come up I would have stuck around. In terms of reporting back, Im all for transparency, trying to claim a monopoly on the congresses information is ridiculus and people should feel free to pass on information. However it helps moreso if that information is validated and presented coherently and doesnt prejudice anything that comes after it.
Actually Steve, there are some us who are clearly interested in the IWA. There are some of us who are supportive of the Aims & Principles of the IWA and still have friends in the IWA, although we not currently be a part of it.
And since the WSA was put on the agenda (but not invited to the congress) I think it would be good to at least know what went down with us.
While I respect the right of the IWA to work in its own proper manner, it would be fair enough to get proper information. So, if I gather correctly, you were there, perhaps you can share some proper information relative to the US. Fair enough?
Comradely,
mitch
i am sure there are many different views of the conference from different participants. This was obviously my first IWA congress and like i said, the positive sides end to meeting other SolFed comrades and people from all over the world. And of course the conference organising was a positive thing, that was done really well.
Other than that i thought it was terrible and i am hopefully entitled to my own opinion. And i am not talking of the perceived bureocracy or anything like that. The sectarian bickering and witch hunts and constant references to enemy organisations were just too embarrassing.
But lets leave that to one side. Here are the concrete A-S drama decisions:
1. fau stays as it was between the last two congresses, as in the secretariat has a power to kick them out if fau members talk to workers who are members of wrong revolutionary organisations. Please dont ask me more about this because i wont defend it. Vote was close one, i believe 4-6 or something like that.
2. usi got a vote of confidence. Some sections wanted to appeal to usi to leave the RSUs and urged them to seek alternatives. I would have loved to hear these sections tell 2000 strong USI how to succesfully carry out workplace organising drives
blah, hopefully that clears it up. And hopefully we can go back to local organising soon...
(...) 1. fau stays as it was between the last two congresses, as in the secretariat has a power to kick them out if fau members talk to workers who are members of wrong revolutionary organisations (...)
That's nice. Has there been a decision as well to raise membership fees, so that the IWA secretariat is able to hire 300 or so Cheka's to put one at the entrance door of every FAU members flat? I guess, this absurde decision is the best thing the IWA congress could have done to convince everybody that they should better not ever get into contact with an international that punishs contacts of individual members of one of its sections with fellow-workers. Incredible and disgusting!
1. fau stays as it was between the last two congresses, as in the secretariat has a power to kick them out if fau members talk to workers who are members of wrong revolutionary organisations.
Well that wasn't my understanding of it at all 
(and I'm not going to elaborate on here so don't ask me.)
2. usi got a vote of confidence. Some sections wanted to appeal to usi to leave the RSUs and urged them to seek alternatives. I would have loved to hear these sections tell 2000 strong USI how to succesfully carry out workplace organising drives ;)
Sorry JDMF, I don't think you can use size to make a political point, otherwise Unison could say they're over 600 times better than the USI. I mean there are more Unison members at my work than the whole USI, doesn't mean they're not shite.
JDMF wrote:
1. fau stays as it was between the last two congresses, as in the secretariat has a power to kick them out if fau members talk to workers who are members of wrong revolutionary organisations.Well that wasn't my understanding of it at all
well that's fucking brilliant, you don't agree with this assesment but you don't think you should lower yourself to explain why? I suppouse we should all just believe you?
And you wonder why people think the IWA is full of dinosaurs engaging in heretic trials.
I for one am interested in the FAU's position and since you claim JDMF is wrong I'd like to hear why.
exactly when did the IWA turn into the Masons btw?
Steve for someone so passionate about the IWA you really are doing it no favours, if you think people are making unfounded claims then you challenge them, you don't act like some fucking priest who refuses to even lower himself to discuss matters with a heretic.
Or don't you believe in testing your god?
1. fau stays as it was between the last two congresses, as in the secretariat has a power to kick them out if fau members talk to workers who are members of wrong revolutionary organisations (...)
That's nice. Has there been a decision as well to raise membership fees, so that the IWA secretariat is able to hire 300 or so Cheka's to put one at the entrance door of every FAU members flat? I guess, this absurde decision is the best thing the IWA congress could have done to convince everybody that they should better not ever get into contact with an international that punishs contacts of individual members of one of its sections with fellow-workers. Incredible and disgusting!
Comment
I strongly dislike politicks of FAU but i agree with you.
usi got a vote of confidence. Some sections wanted to appeal to usi to leave the RSUs and urged them to seek alternatives. I would have loved to hear these sections tell 2000 strong USI how to succesfully carry out workplace organising drives
Comment
I have not been at the congress bur as for position of KRAS- we do not say what USI must or must not do. We think USI just has to leave IWA becouse they support reformist politicks (RSU)- the same as CNT-Viniol (FRANSE) SAC ets.
As for number of members.. well i know the better organisation then USI- it is Conferense of trade-unions of UK wich is connected with labor party. It has 6.000.000 members! Sure it the best example of revolutionary activity!
clearly numbers are not in themselves a means of justifying anything but in the case of a group like the USI who are themselves arguing over the RSU's I think abit of fucking wit would recognise that matters should be treated with a bit of fucking tact before years of hardwork are just thrown away, especially cos some scrot in russia thinks so.
Tell me this, would expelling the USI help those people arguing against RSU? Or would it just allow a bunch of tiny lil nobody groups in the IWA to feel really big and pure?
Tell me this, would expelling the USI help those people arguing against RSU? Or would it just allow a bunch of tiny lil nobody groups in the IWA to feel really big and pure?
what's your point Joe?
I mean if the USI started backing full time candidates in bourgeois unions or if it ran full timers itself i'd support them being fucked out too. However the USI are clearly aware of the issue, they aren't at ease with it, and they seem to be wanting to get out of it, you and gurrier on the other hand have went the other way of seeking to justify it, rather than even accept it as a temporal compromise.
bourgeois unions
The more you thrash around the funnier you get
Joe everyone on these forums can read and hence they should be able to see that you and gurrier have continously sought to find theoretical justification for the Des Derwin fiasco. Seriously things would be alot easier if you just recognised it was a breach of principle but one youse felt was worth making (i'd still disagree though) but instead you have sought to justify with appeals to all sorts of hypothetical situations and you've basically ended up taking this logically to a trot position on the unions.
Note than i'm know saying Joe and Gurrier instead of the WSM because I've taken flak for ascribing youse two views to the WSM as whole before, and also because I hope that other WSM members don't share your footloose approach to anarchist principles.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
Workers often say that the fear of firings is one of the main reasons it’s so hard to get people to fight back. The power that bosses hold over workers through firings can put them on the curb...
A highly detailed 1979 PhD thesis about the origins of the anarcho-syndicalist international, the International Workers Association.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
As for FAU. I am not sure it is important. This is my personal opinion. They friendly with CNT-Viniol so it is the problem for some sections of IWA. But they will do it anyway.
Olso no real differense between CNT-Viniol and for example USI. And USY stay in IWA. So don't see the problems here.