CNT-IWA asks for new structure of la AIT
Oct 8 2008
Hola,
the CNT-AIT aks the next IWA congress to limit the status of IWA section to those unions with al least 125 members and to implement some sort of voting proporcional (now it is one section one voto). The smaller groups, that are not yet working unions, shall become "amigos de la AIT". What do you think about that?
Oct 8 2008
#2
Rubbish.
Oct 8 2008
#3
If this is true (and people seem to be sceptical), it amounts to liquidising the IWA.
Devrim
Oct 8 2008
#4
I see no need to talk about proposals that are complete nonsenses that will never happen...
Oct 8 2008
#5
Devrim wrote:
If this is true (and people seem to be sceptical), it amounts to liquidising the IWA.
Devrim
It is true, as it was passed as a part of the congress documents on behalf of the IWA secretariat a few days ago. It would in fact restrain the IWA to three or four sections and a couple of groups or organizations with a consultative status. I do not think the proposals will be adopted, but I guess the spanish CNT wants to set a strong signal, that an international of unions where little more than one among three sections have more than 100 members must urgently do something about that situation. The question of how to be represented in votes has always been difficult, I guess the CNT and the FAU have some sort of a proportional vote (with percentual benefits for the smaller syndicates) other have a one syndicate–one vote system even a per capita vote. Nevertheless on the IWA level there are comrades that are not really happy with the fact that a section with several thousand members has only the same representation as one with 10 members. This may be no problem so far, because in distinction to how the sections are organized, the IWA is little more than a loose federation where votes are of little importance at present. But once this changes–and that is what we are hoping and working on–the question of decision making will propably become more important.
Oct 9 2008
#6
The proposal is exclusionary and creates two tiers/classes of membership.
By way of memory, when the 1970s crew joined the IWA none of us would have been a "bone fide" section under these guidelines. Not the German FAU, not the Norwegin NSF, not the British SWF and certainly not our NY Libertarian Workers Group or the Milwaukee Syndicalist Alliance. The Argentine FORA, the Bulgarian CNT and the FORVenezuela would have dropped back from full membership.
I think some of this "blow-back" is because some in the IWA played with fire. In the quest for some rigidity of position, the smaller groups attacked, in particular, the USI-AIT & the FAU.
Anyway, it's not like the CNT doesn't usually get most of its proposals passed within the IWA. I say this factually, not in a mean spiriited way.
Having been in the IWA for more than 20 years, I see nothing positive with this idea or proposal. If my dear comrades in the FAU are supporting it, I can only ask them to think back when they were the IFAUD and their early years of existance.
Oct 9 2008
#7
It's a proposal worthy of the state - or the opponents of the IWA. Solves nothing and will do nothing to attract new people and get more people into the smaller sections. I would suggest Antonio read the previous thread which dealt with this.
A different proposal then: why not just go to the alternative international that Vignoles want to set up? Half of those who would survive this proposed purge probably wouldn't mind. It makes real sense to try to split up your organization with such proposals right at the time when this new international is about to germinate.
I wonder how so many people in the CNT lost their minds.
Oct 9 2008
#8
laureakai wrote:
A different proposal then: why not just go to the alternative international that Vignoles want to set up? Half of those who would survive this proposed purge probably wouldn't mind.
I am no friend of the proposal either, because it does not solve the structural problems of the IWA. But bearing in mind Laures somewhat cynical proposal: May be there would have be no need to deal with yet another international if the IWA politics within the past 15 years would not have driven several groups into the arms of the CGT.
Oct 9 2008
#9
So how many groups would it leave the IWA with? Is it three or four (Spain, France, Italy, and Germany) as Robot suggests?
Devrim
Oct 9 2008
#10
Look, Devrim, stop the shit again. There is a CNT proposal that will be obviously refused and even CNT know that!!!! And we now move to who would stay in IWA?! wtf?
Oct 9 2008
#11
Heh, the IWA "branch" in my country is only amigo de la IWA! haha
Needless to say, this proposal is silly.
Oct 9 2008
#12
What 'shit'? It is a question. Nor is it who would stay in the IWA. It is who would pass a qualification line of 'unions with at least 125 members'.
Somebody asks for people's opinions. I respond, and you throw abuse. It is a pretty shocking way to behave really.
Devrim
Oct 9 2008
#13
I think that the CNT do not want to exclude any group. Even the union who proposed that within the CNT knew the proposal would not be approved.
It is more a rude -and may be inadequate- way of promoting an urgent debate: Which is the nature of the IWA? Is the International working? How should we be organised? Was our no-contact policy effective to our proposals or it helped the CGT international strategy? Is the CNT-CGT split extrapolable to other countries? Who might become a Section?
Another thing is that the proposal would not be applied to currrently existing Sections (or that could be added). And becoming "Amigo de la AIT" for a new group is not being excluded from the IWA, on the contrary, is a first step towards the creation of an anarcho-syndicalist union with the support of an International Federation.
Things can be seen by different sides. And all of us must achieve a minimal agreement.
Oct 9 2008
#14
Quote:
rude and inadequate
yes, that's what it is and perhaps these words are even too soft...
Oct 9 2008
#15
Some of you, like Robot, are seriously mixing up issues.
The questions of size and portionality are questions related to the conception of federalism.
The question of the IWA's politics of the last 15 years is not strictly related to the size of its member groups nor to the proportioanlity of voting. For this to true, you would have to be able to prove that:
a) the larger groups share a more or less common vision of politics
b) the smaller groups share a mroe or less common vision of politics
c) that groups of 125 people or more, if voting without the smaller groups, would have agreed on substantially different policy for the IWA
Obviously this is not really so.
Oct 9 2008
#16
laureakai wrote:
Some of you, like Robot, are seriously mixing up issues (...) The question of the IWA's politics of the last 15 years is not strictly related to the size of its member groups nor to the proportioanlity of voting.
Ok Laure, you caught me red-handed 
and I apologize for that. In fact I mixed two questions up. But it was you who kicked the pass with your proposal. So don't be too upset
Oct 9 2008
#17
Ok, so this is a proposal from 1 CNT LOcal Union? Is this a seriious proposal being placed before the IWA Section's?
What makes the 125 members the threshold?
Oct 9 2008
#18
The proposal was agreed by CNT as such. Otherwise it would not be in the IWA congress agenda. As far as I know, there is however another one from CNT in the similar line.
Oct 9 2008
#19
We'll never go past 124 just to spite them.
Seriouly, I wonder is they were sitting around with a Ouija board and were pointed to the magical number 125.
Well, I can only comment that local people who don't like the IWA have been getting a good chuckle out of this one. Just think - a few months ago I was trying to convince people that certain ideas, like size matters more than quality - were necessarily true during the international meeting in Warsaw which had strong anti-IWA overtones, There the audience heard a representative of the IWW describe in disdain how SolFed was in the IWA but was much smaller than the IWW - so how could that be possible? Who do they think they are? The upstarts! Now we have the CNT basically supporting this philosophy. Next time the alternative syndicalists, (especially the guys from ESE, ha ha) come to town and argue that the IWA is shit because it has some small groups, I'll make sure to add that the CNT decided that you were right but have come around to your way of thinking. Give them time and they'll eventually stand in union elections and finance themselves by the state.
Surely this will go a long way in restoring the harmony in the anarchosyndicalist movement.
Personally, I think that the smaller groups should make a direct action and leave the IWA with just CNT, FAU and USI and let them fight it out. (Note, I'm being sarcastic here.) This will decide things much quicker. There could be different possible outcomes:
a) FAU and USI will get sick of CNT and quit, leaving the CNT by itself with no international
b) They'll find some big compromise and make peace with the alternative syndicalists, claiming that all the differences they always had are no longer important
The rest of the former IWA in the meantime could set up an internet bookmaker and fund themselves by taking bets on the outcome.
Oct 9 2008
#20
laureakai wrote:
b) They'll find some big compromise and make peace with the alternative syndicalists, claiming that all the differences they always had are no longer important
Actually I don't think this is so implausible. If you read some of the discussion on alasbarricadas it's clear that many CNT members don't have much of a problem with the non-IWA syndicalists, apart from maybe the CGT. There are plenty of more sectarian views as well but I get the impression that opinion is moving the other way. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a majority in favour of improving relations with other organisations.
Oct 9 2008
#21
First, I'd say that proposition it's not part of some kind of plan for take power in the IWA. It's only a try to answer (possibly, absolutely wrong) of the necessity of grow up of the IWA (ok, you can say "the way to hell is full of good intentions"), which as robot said is something which every section are working on now.
I think laureakai is going too far. It's not the end of the world. Finally, I think the common sense will win and this proposal will be refused and the IWA will continue with its way. Although this proposal were from the CNT, I think is wrong seeing the CNT as a whole. Anyway, most (I could say, ever, all) people in CNT are with the basic principles which lead to the creation of the IWA.
Quote:
I would suggest Antonio read the previous thread which dealt with this.
Sorry, which one?
Quote:
Just think - a few months ago I was trying to convince people that certain ideas, like size matters more than quality - were necessarily true during the international meeting in Warsaw which had strong anti-IWA overtones [...]
Did you mean that size isn't neccessarily more important than quality or the opposite?
Oct 10 2008
#22
Of course I was exaggerating. The betting part was also a joke.
Sorry, I should have said "weren't necessarily true". Language lapse.
There is a very gross simplification and interpretation that I have heard from many who seem to lack any deeper analysis and that is, if your organization is bigger, then you have got the right analysis, the right politics, and this proves that your methods are better than those of any smaller organizations. Surely some people here would use size as a true indicator of success, but I say that there is more to it. After all, if size was most important, we should all aim to be like the AFL-CIO.
I don't see, really, how this magic number 125 determines anything.
Looking at concrete examples, we can see that numbers are not the best indication of whether or not an organization is functioning.
I can look at my own organization, operating in a right-wing country currently suffering a mass brain drain. We are getting rather small growth at the moment but are doing what we can. When we were founded, not long ago, there was a big discussion about whether we'd be a union or an organization which works in a union it sets up and whether or not to have an organization separate from the union which could have a wider membership. And when the union was founded, right away more than twice as many people joined the union based on anarchistic principles than the organization. And what? The union doesn't really do much and only now it looks like there will be some new union groups that could be more active. In the meanwhile, the smaller group based on some ideology works.
Now if we were to believe that being more is being better, we would be signing more and more people up, even indiscriminately. But we found out, unfortunately, that having non-radicals is your union makes it less effective, not more if it is truly democratic. So we prefer to have a smaller group of people who have a good idea than a larger group which doesn't.
Obviously, we WANT to grow and have plans for how to do it. Some of us are working quite hard. Now some people would assume that this must be an attitude problem, if you are not "open" to new people. But that's a simplistic explanation, far from reality. We are quite open to cooperating with lots of people, but we realistically see that signing everybody up is not the best way. I think we'd be much better off having large groups of people to cooperate with who, in time, could become members if they develop that way.
I could compare this to the strategy of others around us which is the opposite: sign everybody up. Even dead souls. We even know that it's happened that somebody takes somebody out for vodka and they wake up with a membership paper next to their bed.
In this situation (at least here) where you then get a large non-anarchist or not-so-conscious majority, the only way to "keep things anarchist" (at least by logo) becomes to set up officers and leadership positions and get the anarchists there and try to run things by enpowering the officers more than should be, not using real mandates, etc. In other words, don't really use universal voting on issues.
After reading this thread, the concrete reaction one comrade had was that maybe we need to consider just signing people up, since he started to get complexes that this is all that people see. Granted if we are talking about a few individuals, we can afford some risks but the level of consciousness is very low locally and bad choices can really negatively affect an organization. (The Polish Anarchist Federation was a clear victim of this strategy.) Somebody on this thread mentioned that the CNT people just want to send a clear signal to people. So I ask them to consider what signal they really are sending. Let's not be theoretical - let's look to concrete places like here or other places in Easter Europe where there may be potential friends of IWA. The signal is loud and clear and everybody heard it - especially some people who never liked the IWA to begin with who read this thread and were quite satisfied with this situation.
I think that, when considering the groups for the IWA, of course it is legitimate to ask about membership, and it would be great to get thriving organizations. But people can also judge the length of time operating, the work that the said organizaion has done, the ideas behind it and the context within which it is working.
I certainly would hope that good strategy is developed for expanding the movement and that people work consistently towards doing this. Surely we could all improve in this, and maybe there are mistakes being made. But one of the bigger mistakes would be to relegate the developing movements to second-class status.
Quite another question would be cooperating with the developing movements to make sure they avail themselves of opportunities to go forward to the maximum extent without having to resort to total selling out.
I am convinced that some smaller IWA sections could have done more or acted smarter while others are just facing really an uphill battle. I don't want to pass any judgment here now. It's just common sense though that the solution to this problem is really better cooperation, more solidarity, more plans, more outreach, and not simplistic solutions like the CNT's one. That's why I say it's worthy of the state. For me it's like the assholes who want to solve the problem of violent crime by putting people in jail: it doesn't have the intended effect.
I would like to point something out, particularly to the CNT members who read this thread: members of the CGT have been here to Poland and keep in contact with some people regularly. Members of CNT haven't - although we are sure that having people from the CNT here would do much to improve the image of that organization in this country. (It has been the victim of a negative publicity campaign for years. The amount of disinformation is astounding.) The CGT did more to expand its network of contacts and ideas here than the CNT. Very simple. The "new international" will find more adherents here not only because because more reformist politics always have greater appeal, but simply because they put more effort into it. We see that CNT expanded locally, but it could do more to help the IWA as a whole expand internationally. Your 125 idea is not going to inspire other people to grow. Only becoming more proactive is the way forward.
Oct 10 2008
#23
Quote:
After all, if size was most important, we should all aim to be like the AFL-CIO
You are missing the point. Of course, we should all aim be like the AFL-CIO, or even bigger, but preserving our aims and principles.
In relation to numbers, there is no magic number which distinguish a big and active union from a small and passive organization. Numbers can only be imprecise and orientative. But the fact is that a union which works tends to join certain number of workers, even if the union is inspired in anarchist ideas; and an anarchist group tends to join only a few. We see that in Spain: a "union" in a city which operates like an anarchist group tends to be small, when they make an effort to to union action, they tend to grow. People in the CNT has experienced that, and want an International of a/s unions (when possible).
Very interesting your experience in Poland. You have to find your own way of doing the things... and I am sure you will. May be you could come to Spain, and see how non-anarchist workers join the union, become active, and become revolutionaries. While hunderds of workers join the union, only a 10% become militants, and that growth of militants is not a threat to the CNT revolutionary orientation (there is some kind of arithmetic: the more members, the more -10%- militants). May be a synthesis between the union and the group could work in Poland, as is working in the CNT now (and without hierarchic structures and authoritarian leaderships).
Of course, we could object that each country has different situations. We could include exceptions. In Colombia, for example, it is safer to take part in a guerrilla than in a labor union. We could add exceptions.
On the other hand, I have to recognise the bad international strategy of the CNT. I think in the last years, the only visits to another country took place in order to avoid contamination by contact with other organizations, or even to expell "reformists" from the IWA. No proactive nor constructive activity. The same could be said to the previous IWA Secretariados. But it was other times... now we have to look forward, and try to build a strong International movement. Making contacts and supporting struggles from all around the world, even with non selfcalled a/s organizations.
By the way: It is curiuos, that when the CNT is displacing the bureaucratic CGT in many Spanish cities, because of our invreasing labor action, the CGT is becoming a mixt betwen a bureaucratic union and a social movement. They are getting the diseases of the State unions (CCOO y UGT) and the disseases (marginality) which charactirised the CNT. No future for them.
Oct 10 2008
#24
Organised wrote:
You are missing the point. Of course, we should all aim be like the AFL-CIO, or even bigger, but preserving our aims and principles.
this is precisely the paradox at the heart of anarcho-syndicalism (and i say this as a solfed/IWA member). almost by definition you don't have a large mass of (pro-)revolutionary workers outside of a revolutionary situation, even the CNT at its 1930s revolutionary peak endorsed counter-revolutionary actions in joining the state (although this may have been to some extent a fait accompli, it underlines the paradox). this anarcho-syndicalist 'unions' are likely to remain minority organisations in wider struggles, and should base their strategy and activity accordingly.
Oct 10 2008
#25
revolut wrote:
Quote:
I would suggest Antonio read the previous thread which dealt with this.Sorry, which one?
I think laureakai is referring to this thread - http://libcom.org/forums/organise/iwa-how-big-30072008 - the discussion about the IWA voting system starts somewhere on the second page.
Oct 10 2008
#26
antonio wrote:
Hola,the CNT-AIT aks the next IWA congress to limit the status of IWA section to those unions with al least 125 members and to implement some sort of voting proporcional (now it is one section one voto). The smaller groups, that are not yet working unions, shall become "amigos de la AIT". What do you think about that?
Makes sense to me. I really don;t see what people are complaining about here, if your in a section thats smaller than 100 such as solfed then surely your immediate goal should be to make your orgaisation bigger thus you've got yourself a concrete goal in term of membership and/or organisational capacity.
Its not like the proposal indicates that you'd have no votes, just a proportional one. I haven't read the full proposal but i'd imagine 2 votes for a section 1 for a ''friends of the IWA'' group or something along those lines.Thats how most federations work, in that all locals get an equal vote but there are clear numerical limits on how big you have to be to be a local and if your below that limit you can only act as an individual within the organisation.
Also fair enough if your disagree with the proposal but all this stuff on this thread about getting really angry because the status of your small group got changed slightly and threatening to leave the IWA just seems bizarre to me. Whats the big deal? I mean take solfed, we're a good way under the 125 threshold so we go to being a supporter group, so we have a bit more focus on getting bigger and outreach, but its not like theres going to be any other affect on how our locals interact or how we go about our business.
.
Oct 10 2008
#27
Quote:
now we have to look forward, and try to build a strong International movement.
It is very important to realise this thing. It just shocks when you consider this should be done by proposals you made for IWA Congress... It is a real pity and shame.
Oct 10 2008
#28
Quote:
Also fair enough if your disagree with the proposal but all this stuff on this thread about getting really angry because the status of your small group got changed slightly and threatening to leave the IWA just seems bizarre to me. Whats the big deal?
I see no threats here. and we all know this curiosity will not be adopted. But perhaps you just could ask yourself a question why should you be in an international where your organisaiton has no voice. Where you are treated unequally. Why to federate internationally (in IWA)?
Also, what seems bizzare to me is that someone wants to open debate and encourage smaller sections to be more active with such absurd proposal. All I see is just discouraging people. CNT just thinks that their experiences with growth should be exported and everyone should follow their strategy of growth. Otherwise, they are not allowed to have a voice in IWA. Also it means total lack of infromation about what other sections are facing in their countries.
I could go further with other negative aspects of this proposal but I might just end up repeating what laure already said.
Oct 10 2008
#29
MT wrote:
I see no threats here. and we all know this curiosity will not be adopted. But perhaps you just could ask yourself a question why should you be in an international where your organisaiton has no voice. Where you are treated unequally.
Again with the certain level of outrage that seems to be stated on this thread. Its not that big a deal, you just get slightly less of a vote in proportion to bigger groups and you have more of a clear goal in terms of gaining members, which in fairness some of the smaller sections, solfed included could do with.
How else do you imagine its going to effect you in the day to day business of publishing material, organising at work or doing various solidarity actions? In short what actual concrete concerns do you have with this proposal?
Oct 10 2008
#30
No concerns. The outrage comes from the fact that someone can propose something like this at all with real intentions being different to those proposed. and with explaining that it is just to encourage us, when it fact it just poses a view of "the big" kicking "the small" out of decision making.
If this is not such a big deal for you thatn for me it is, because it comes just in time when our organisation is trying to do more. That means - for your hard attempts to change things you just get a proposal saying "you really should try harder or fuck off".
you can find weirdos everywhere... it just will be voted against and that's all.