IWW, IWA, ex-IWA, and anarcho-syndicalism
Jul 15 2008 00:11
#92
Quote:
By 1936 (under the direction of Fred Thompson) the IWW chose not to affiliate with the IWA.
I didn't know the union had dictators. Please provide proof of your statement.
Jul 15 2008 00:58
#93
pghwob wrote:
I didn't know the union had dictators.
How about when a couple of people hold the union's paper hostage in order to get some money out of the union?
Jul 15 2008 02:35
#94
fnbrill wrote:
pghwob wrote:
I didn't know the union had dictators.How about when a couple of people hold the union's paper hostage in order to get some money out of the union?
What does that mean?
Jul 15 2008 02:44
#95
thugarchist wrote:
fnbrill wrote:
pghwob wrote:
I didn't know the union had dictators.How about when a couple of people hold the union's paper hostage in order to get some money out of the union?
What does that mean?
JB and the Phily IWW have decided that they want $300 a month to mail the Industrial Worker instead of the budgeted/agreed upon $100. They are threatening to not mail the next IW unless their demands are met retroactively (several months). Not mailing the paper means a potential loss of USPS mailing priviledges.
Jul 15 2008 03:44
#96
*yawn*
Jul 15 2008 04:52
#97
I'm sure Fred Thompson did some shady stuff, i would be shocked to heaer about any famous iww who didn't.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the philly GMB are tired of mailing the paper after ten years with no one stepping forward. Should the rest of the union hold them hostage?
Jul 15 2008 06:02
#98
OliverTwister wrote:
That has nothing to do with the fact that the philly GMB are tired of mailing the paper after ten years with no one stepping forward. Should the rest of the union hold them hostage?
Uh, i don't know what ass you pulled those facts out of. 
Detroit had the newspaper from 2000-2002, before that it was Ypsilanti. The mailings have usually been done via GHQ to save money. Phily kept it on to save money fir the entire union
Now they want more $ when ghq is having financial problems. I think financial rewards of the mailings have little to do with doing them for "10 years"
Jul 15 2008 06:55
#99
pghwob wrote:
Quote:
By 1936 (under the direction of Fred Thompson) the IWW chose not to affiliate with the IWA.I didn't know the union had dictators. Please provide proof of your statement.
Hey folks, it's late, about 225AM, so let me be brief and on Pghwobs point. Any typos in the quoted text are my own. I'm tired.
In 1936, the final and last time until the 1990s set of votes and revotes, Fred Thompson was the IWW's GST. It is common knowledge to most folks who have been around that Fred was against affiliation to the IWMA from the start. It was Fred who, in 1934, convinced others that affiliation to the IWMA would decalre the IWW in favor of certain libertarian positions he and others did not share (see above).
In 1934 IWW Convention Report, under "Report of the Resolution Committee," Motion 3 "That on July 1 the GEB shall issue a ballot with the following question on it: "Shall the IWW affiliate with the IWMA?"
"M/S (Mahler-Thompson) That we do not occur. 4 yes; 5 No. Lost"
In Fred's 1936-1937 GST Report to the Convention. Subheading "Foreign Relations", I quote in full so there's no accusation of selective quotating.
"With the IWMA and the CNT, we have very friendly correspondence, and we have collected and sent to the CNT almost $600.00. I have ased the CNT for some motion pictures of the great struggle there which they have had taken, but they inform me that there have been technical difficulties with these pictures and that they have promsed custody of them to ana narchist group who upon repeating the request of which I had informed them were given preferential consideration. This policy which tends to foster a situation where the great mass of American labor is asked to send funds through the conservative unions while only the IWW and libertarian groups send money through the CNT , is typical of the obvious control of the IWMA and the CNT by anarchist theoreticians who use this splendid fighting union in Spain cjiefly as a menas to lend publicity and glory to the leading theoreticians of their philosophy, all of which forces me to conclude that it is indeed fortunate that our organization deceided not to affiliate with them. On this matter there is ectensive correspondence for your consideration."
Jul 15 2008 11:15
#100
OK., so he had a strong opinion -- I am aware of that. But that's different than saying the union was under his direction in the way that you did, which implies he was the one to make the decision about affiliation, which is not the case.
Jul 15 2008 12:45
#101
I think his opinions were more than strong. Fred had certain ideological differences and would not have considered himself close to the policies of the IWMA. Clear enough in his statement.But it is true enough that he was against IWMA affiliation and worked to see that it did not happen. Now, there probably were others of less stature and influence. Surely Fred was no dictator--and I didn't use that term nor would I-- but he was a person of stature and influence and, from what I can tell as of today, was directly behind the movement not to join the IWMA. So we can slice this a thousand ways.
Jul 16 2008 21:13
#102
Correct me if i'm wrong, but it was the result of the 1935 referendum to join the IWMA, and this was later nullified in some form by GHQ, right?
Jul 17 2008 05:57
#103
OliverTwister wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but it was the result of the 1935 referendum to join the IWMA, and this was later nullified in some form by GHQ, right?
No, I wouldn't say that. It was [b]not[/ b]gerry rigged by some folks at GHQ. I think that would be a absolute mis-statement of fact and would imply something I would surely disagree with being accurate -- or at least from what I can tell. I simply think that a certain group of folks were against IWMA affiliation and found a way to win the IWW to its position --- above board. Though, if you read the above, it seemed like there were a lot of hoops and hurdles placed before the pro-IWMA Wobs. They lost the vote and have continued to do so ever since 1934.
Jul 17 2008 06:09
#104
except the MTWs (iu510) who affiliated in the 1920s without the rest of the IWW.
Thompson played allot of semi-sleazy political hardball. He pushed Ralph Chaplin out of the IWW as well as did some stuff around the Cleveland Shops in 1950.
Jul 17 2008 09:39
#105
what exactly was this semi-sleazy political hardball stuff that fred thompson was upto in the iww?
Jul 17 2008 17:52
#106
I surely don't want to get into mud slinging or trash talking about Fred. I am, hoever, interested in some of the particulars of Ralph Chaplin and Cleveland IU 440.
It was always my impression that Chaplin left the IWW because, well, he just didn't agree with it anymore. That he had moved towards the conservative end of the labor movement.
What happened to Ralph Chaplin? His political activism continued after his release from prison, but he became disillusioned with the path labor was taking. Nor was he particularly fond of New Deal liberalism. As the government appeared to take on a caretaker role, Chaplin also saw the specter of communism overshadowing the country.
In 1941 he wrote, "In our young foolishness some of us thought the Bolshevik revolution marked the birth of a free society. Instead, it started a monstrous reversion to the world's oldest form of tyranny. Free government, free labor and free enterprise in the American sense-they meant little to us until we saw them being consigned to destruction...."
Chaplin continued to serve his community and fight for workers rights, but he also joined the Sons of the American Revolution, began attending church, and often found himself shunned by former friends who saw him as a "red baiter." Yet, his views were complicated:
The communists have one thing in common with the old IWW-to both of them the labor movement was a Cause. To the less imaginative bosses of the AFL it was merely a business. Gompers gave the American labor movement a body. It took Haywood and Debs to give it a social conscience.
A low point in Chaplin's crusade against communist infiltration of labor occurred one day when he found himself drowned out by crowds expressing their dissatisfaction with his ideas by singing loud choruses of "Solidarity Forever." They had no idea he had written it.
http://www.wshs.org/wshs/columbia/articles/0201-a1.htm
I would be interested to know what you mean about his activities in Cleveland. He was Cleveland IU 440 Metal & Machinery Workers Branch Secretary during WW2. For a period of about 10 years the IWW organized its most stable base in Cleveland. Is the suggestion that this base was simply a better, more rank and file oriented union base that, under the pressures of Taft-Hartly, would not be able to support the IWWs radicalism? Or that there was a friendly relationship between IWW Cleveland and Mechanics Educational Society (MESA) and deals were cut to bring them into MESA?
(By deals, I mean brining all the units into MESA and giving jobs to some of the former Wobs? In particular Richard B. Tussey? *)
Be curious to hear your thoughts on these.
--------------------------------------------------------
* Richard B. Tussey was active in the labor movement as an organizer, educator, editor, negotiator and administrator for over thirty years. A Pittsburgh native, he moved to Cleveland as a Socialist Labor Party organizer in the 1940s. After World War II, he served as executive secretary and organizer for the Metal and Machine Workers Industrial Union #440, the last Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) local in Cleveland. When his local voted to affiliate with the Mechanics Educational Society of America in the late fifties, he became an organizer and educator for MESA. In 1958 he played an important role in the labor coalition that defeated a ballot proposal for a right-to-work law in the state of Ohio.
Mr. Tussey was active in support of civil liberties and antiwar causes. In 1960 he made three trips to Cuba and helped organize the Cleveland chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which led to his appearance before the U.S. Senate Internal Security Committee and his dismissal by MESA. For the rest of his career he worked as an international representative on the staff of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen (later called the United Food and Commercial Workers). Mr. Tussey died in June of 1981 at the age of sixty-two.
The papers of Richard B. Tussey consist of correspondence, minutes, proceedings, grievances, publications, reports, flyers, pamphlets, clippings and other material reflecting his activities with the IWW, MESA, and UFCW. To a lesser extent, they reflect his political interests.
Jul 17 2008 20:39
#107
A quick lunchtime response regards Thompson, Chaplin and Cleveland.
1) Thompson got the GEB to take away Chaplin's job as IW editor and give it to Thompson, who was GST at the time (1934?). So Thompson was double dipping. Chaplin was understandibly bitter about what he took as a betrayal. i could look up his resignation letter in the GOB as it's quite shocking and sad.
2) Cleveland 440 voted to withdraw from the IWW when the IWW wouldn't decide to sign Taft-Hartly anti-communist provisions. Their withdraw coincided with the IWW's referendum on T-H. Thompson kept the results of the Cleveland Shop withdraw from being announced until the votes were tallied so the Cleveland votes would be counted and thus the IWW sign T-H.
3) Thompson and the IWA has been discussed above.
4) Chaplin's post-IWW career is a much more complex than he's given credit for. I don't agree with his politics, but ASAIK he remained a man of principle towards a independent and free labor movement. He fought with the better sections of the AFL (eg the SUP) against what he saw as CP thuggery. He wound up in Tacoma editing the weekly Labor Paper there until his death in 1961. He's autobiography, Wobbly, was so heavily edited for the post-War red scare period he refused to have it republished.
He became a Catholic after the suicide of his son, but hung with the Catholic Workers. Again, I wouldn't make that choice, but it is not out of range of human actions given the context.
He was friendly with the Republicans, but in the context, Republicans in the Northwest at that time were to the left of the Democrats. For example, much of what is consider progressive in Oregon - land use planning, environmental protections, etc were implimented by the Republican Party with Democratic opposition.
One of my favorite wobblies ever - Ottile Markholt - from Tacoma, was friends with Chaplin till the end. She was an anti-CP radical, I always thought it said something.
IMPORTANT - most of what historians write about Chaplin comes from CP histories - eg Foner. They had an ax to grind because Chaplin was a serious and credible enemy and they wanted to defame him as well as possible. I find it important that folks wanting to understand the IWW's hostory that too much of it reflects the CP's perspectives.
5) As stated above, the Cleveland 440 shops wanted to remain in the IWW, but the *ahem* anarchist loggers wanted them out because the 440s signed contracts and also wanted to sign the T-H agreements against communists. The cleveland shops withdrew into an independant union to try and strong arm the IWW into signing, that failed, they went independent and eventually merged with MESA, whom the IWW had good relations with. It was basically a work-cultural difference between settled factory workers, and the older migratory backbone of the IWW. Politically similar to the CNT-AIT and the CGT split.
Jul 18 2008 02:02
#108
fnbrill wrote:
He was friendly with the Republicans, but in the context, Republicans in the Northwest at that time were to the left of the Democrats. For example, much of what is consider progressive in Oregon - land use planning, environmental protections, etc were implimented by the Republican Party with Democratic opposition.
not unlike here in NYS.
Jul 18 2008 02:04
#109
fnbrill wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
fnbrill wrote:
pghwob wrote:
I didn't know the union had dictators.How about when a couple of people hold the union's paper hostage in order to get some money out of the union?
What does that mean?
JB and the Phily IWW have decided that they want $300 a month to mail the Industrial Worker instead of the budgeted/agreed upon $100. They are threatening to not mail the next IW unless their demands are met retroactively (several months). Not mailing the paper means a potential loss of USPS mailing priviledges.
Hilarious. What's next? Beating teachers and destroying the stewards system?
Jul 18 2008 02:59
#110
Naw, just organising a staff union. 
Jul 18 2008 14:07
#111
Quote:
fbrill: 1) Thompson got the GEB to take away Chaplin's job as IW editor and give it to Thompson, who was GST at the time (1934?). So Thompson was double dipping. Chaplin was understandibly bitter about what he took as a betrayal. i could look up his resignation letter in the GOB as it's quite shocking and sad
Yes, I would like to see this letter.
Wasn't it in 1933 that Chaplin wrote "The General Strike for Industrial Freedom"?
The ideas are pure Wobbly and I still think as radical today as then: So, was FT's beef with Chaplin personal?
Jul 18 2008 14:55
#112
syndicalist wrote:
So, was FT's beef with Chaplin personal?
I don't think so. My hunch, but I can't find all the dates though is that FT's daughter had been just born and he needed more money and security that the yearly elected GST job. Chaplin's job was vulnerable, so he "took" it.
Jul 18 2008 19:53
#113
fnbrill wrote:
A quick lunchtime response regards Thompson, Chaplin and Cleveland.1) Thompson got the GEB to take away Chaplin's job as IW editor and give it to Thompson, who was GST at the time (1934?). So Thompson was double dipping. Chaplin was understandibly bitter about what he took as a betrayal. i could look up his resignation letter in the GOB as it's quite shocking and sad.
2) Cleveland 440 voted to withdraw from the IWW when the IWW wouldn't decide to sign Taft-Hartly anti-communist provisions. Their withdraw coincided with the IWW's referendum on T-H. Thompson kept the results of the Cleveland Shop withdraw from being announced until the votes were tallied so the Cleveland votes would be counted and thus the IWW sign T-H.
3) Thompson and the IWA has been discussed above.
4) Chaplin's post-IWW career is a much more complex than he's given credit for. I don't agree with his politics, but ASAIK he remained a man of principle towards a independent and free labor movement. He fought with the better sections of the AFL (eg the SUP) against what he saw as CP thuggery. He wound up in Tacoma editing the weekly Labor Paper there until his death in 1961. He's autobiography, Wobbly, was so heavily edited for the post-War red scare period he refused to have it republished.
He became a Catholic after the suicide of his son, but hung with the Catholic Workers. Again, I wouldn't make that choice, but it is not out of range of human actions given the context.
He was friendly with the Republicans, but in the context, Republicans in the Northwest at that time were to the left of the Democrats. For example, much of what is consider progressive in Oregon - land use planning, environmental protections, etc were implimented by the Republican Party with Democratic opposition.
One of my favorite wobblies ever - Ottile Markholt - from Tacoma, was friends with Chaplin till the end. She was an anti-CP radical, I always thought it said something.
IMPORTANT - most of what historians write about Chaplin comes from CP histories - eg Foner. They had an ax to grind because Chaplin was a serious and credible enemy and they wanted to defame him as well as possible. I find it important that folks wanting to understand the IWW's hostory that too much of it reflects the CP's perspectives.
5) As stated above, the Cleveland 440 shops wanted to remain in the IWW, but the *ahem* anarchist loggers wanted them out because the 440s signed contracts and also wanted to sign the T-H agreements against communists. The cleveland shops withdrew into an independant union to try and strong arm the IWW into signing, that failed, they went independent and eventually merged with MESA, whom the IWW had good relations with. It was basically a work-cultural difference between settled factory workers, and the older migratory backbone of the IWW. Politically similar to the CNT-AIT and the CGT split.
1) I thought Chaplin quit the IW Editorship in 1936 citing political differences. It's on microfilm
2) But Cleveland didn't withdraw from the union, per se. There was a dispute over the Taft-Hartley issue and they agreed to withold dues until the situation was decided by the Convention. There was apparently some miscommunication, but I think it went the other way, with folks thinking they had quit. (Of course, one could argue dues witholding is the same thing, but apparently Cleveland IU440 branches wrote a long letter about it which was not properly disseminated. ) I can try to ask the lone remaining IU440er I know about it. I do believe there was discussion about the dues witholding or quitting in the GOB before that Convention. I think I have a copy of that one at home.
3) N/A
4) Concur. There is a good recording of him around 1960 on Joe Glazier's album (now, I do believe Glazier was a repentant red baiter)
5) I think there was a component of migratory-homeguard split, but more a difference between those in organized industry and what I believe were ideological hangers on...though there was some organizing amongst the lumberjacks into the mid-30s, at least.
Jul 18 2008 20:58
#114
PGh-
I'll try and get into the Glaberman Library where all my files are now living (in the FN Brill Memorial Wing). But they've changed the locks and never gave me a new key. Subtile.
I'm running on memory, so as always, I'll be happy to be wrong in dissing wobbly heros. 
Jul 18 2008 22:30
#115
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
Naw, just organising a staff union. ;)
Y'all should sponsor the RNC now. 
Jul 19 2008 03:51
#116
I really don't remember Chaplin talking much about being replaced as editor of the IW in Wobbly, the Rough-And-Tumble Story of an American Radical. I remember how disappointed I was in reading it. Like a number of anti-Soviet radicals of the late 1940s-1950s period, their autbiographies were filled lots on anti-CP and anti-Soviet stuff. Not that I'd be one to defend the authoritarian socialists myself, but their written words seem so conservative.
Jul 19 2008 03:58
#117
He doesn't talk about it at all. He just obliquely discusses leaving the IWW. I only found out about 5 years ago reading old GOBs from the period.
As stated above, old IWWs that I knew out here who knew him in his "conservative" period all held him in high regard.
Jul 25 2008 07:25
#118
In 1986 I had several conversations in which the issue of the IWW and IWA and the events of 1934-1936 came up. This was during the course of long talks I had with people about the events around help from US anarchists to the CNT and participation in Spain but also around one discussion I had with an old wob after running into the socialists at the Haymarket Monument during the Centennary and trying to get more insight into relations between anarchists and socialists. Unfortunately, I don't recall some of the details, but remember the general picture.
The people I spoke to were 3 old-time wobs. This is of course their personal interpretation but I think it was likely that way.
One of the people, who was actively involved in helping the comrades in Spain during the time of the civil war, was quite upset about the behaviour of Thompson and some others; he referred to Thompson as "a son of a bitch". According to him, Thompson was not favourably inclined towards the CNT in particular and was constantly looking for some pretexts not to help or to undermine the work or opinions of those who favoured it, in particular of people working around ULO. (Two other old-timer anarchists, one working with ULO and one who was in Spain, in separate conversations, seemed to confirm this. They also complained to me that some wobs had taken the side of the Negrinists. Taking "their side" is surely a bit of an exaggeration, but they had been of the opinion that defacto, that had happened.)
Back to Thompson, the above-mentioned old wob was convinced that he "had an agenda" but said that since there was some strong support for the CNT, he was trying some backhanded ways and trying to find pretexts. (Here there were a few examples of specific events, but I don't recall them exactly or some at all.) This guy had several theories as to the agenda. The couple that I remember related to Thompson's personal ambitions to be the head of a growing IWW international movement. At the time, the IWW was in particular trying to grow in influence in Latin America. Some people, who were fans of the CNT, were sending their material, or material about them to Latin America. The old comrade felt that Thompson saw this as ultimately some sort of competition and was strongly convinced that he was trying to undermine relations in some indirect way.
Another one of the three old wobs talked to me a number of times about relations between the socialists and anarchists in the IWW. This person, I should point out, had been trying to recruit me into the IWW for a couple of years, so I sometimes felt he was glossing over some things, but at times the conversations bore some interesting and perhaps more honest details. (At least that was my impression.) Even though he was a proponent of the wobbly socialist-anarchist mix, he often said that some of the socialists were "problematic" or had different political interests. He was of the opinion that anarchists needed to get more anarchists in the IWW and implied that this was the way to counter the influence of any socialists who were capable of pushing their line. He mentioned a few of the problematic individuals, in his opinion, including Thompson. It was his opinion that Thompson often managed to push his line, despite the fact that sometimes this did not reflect the majority opinion.
All three of those old wobs felt that the socialists, in the past, were trying to have disproportionate influence in the IWW and were threatened by those who were more strongly anti-party, even including some who were anti-Bolshevik. As I recall, one of those wobs, plus the two other anarchists mentioned above, were of the opinion that, although the socialist wobs were anti-Bolshevik for the most part, they allowed themselves to be duped by the likes of CPUSA on more than once. One of those anarchists, who was in Spain, complained that "some people in the IWW' were sending people into the hands of the Negrinists, which of course is undeniably true. One of the wobs mentioned above felt this was "a mistake", some sort of naivite, while two of the other wobs felt that this was partly influenced by animosity towards the CNT and the anarchist who wasn't a wob was rather convinced it may have been a political mistake, but one that people were committing on purpose.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Rather then derail the Starbucks discussion (http://libcom.org/forums/news/global-day-action-against-starbucks-here-we-are-05072008?page=1 )
I'm replying to JH here.
JH wrote:
On another forum I replied to this question in about as factual manner as possible, quoting directly from the printed sources. Here's what we got so fa:
The tension between the IWA and the IWW is basically over the IWW's use of, in the US, the labor board, collective agreements and the more traditional trade union stuff. There's also some huff and puff about there being a whole connection with the Socialist Party USA, etc.
I believe the first vote was in 1934 to affiliate with the IWA. (The IWA was organized in 1922). The 1934 referendum sought to explore affiliation, but there was never real clarity of opinion.
Ok history geeks (myself included) here comes the dope straight from the horse’s mouth........
"IWW Resolution Committee Recommendations (21st Convention, Chicago, 11/34) Regarding Affiliation to the IWMA:
Committee recommends that the IWMA pamphlet: "The IWMA -- Its Purpose, Aims & Principles" * be published in three installments in the GOB and that 30 days after the 3rd installment is published that a General Ref. Ballot with the following question: "Shall the IWW affiliate with the IWMA?" Also that we instruct the editor of the Industrial Worker to call attention of the membership to the importance of the GOB & urge them to read it".
[The Report Committee voted to:]
"That the vote on the committees report regarding the IWMA signified that the majority of the convention delegates favor putting the question on the ballot and does not involve the question of affiliation."
Industrial Union Vote:
Jarvis #110 (Ag. workers) -- Yes Edwards #120 (Lumber) -- Yes
Anderson #310 (Gen. Construct. wrkers)) --- No Lowes #310 -- No Tarasuk #330 (Bdlg/Const) ---- No Haiman #510 (MTW) Hanson #510 --- No Kazciban GRU --- Yes Thompson GRU --- Yes Mahler GRU ---Yes Chair. Dahl #210 - Yes. Motion carries
Haiman, Hansen, Tarasuk, Anderson, Lowes wish to be recorded as in favor of affiliation."
By 1936 (under the direction of Fred Thompson) the IWW chose not to affiliate with the IWA.
From the "Resolution on the IWMA Affiliation (22nd Convention, Chicago, 11/36) Regarding to the:
"Even though. The IWW did not affiliate with the IWMA; we hope that continuous cooperation and harmony will exist between these two organizations. It is also hope that this Convention will devise additional ways and means of aiding our fellow workers in Spain who are in the death grips with the fascists there. The present [IWW] administration has done what it could through giving the struggle proper publicity and pushing the sale of CNT Stamps which were sent to us by the IWMA".
Fred Thompson writes in the "IWW: its First 70 Years, 1905-1975"
that joining the IWA would declare "for its members their religious and political attitudes which it [IWW] always left to the individual" (Pg 177)
The IWA Statutes declared:
"Revolutionary syndicalism is opposed to every centralist tendency and organization, which is but borrowed from the State and the Church." **
The Statutes further declared:
"Only in the economic and revolutionary organizations of the working class are there forces capable of bringing about its liberation and the necessary creative energy for the reorganization of society on the basis of free communism."**
1990 saw the IWW pass another resolution (71 in favor, 44 against) to affiliate. This lingered and was revived in 1992.
The 10/92 issue of the IW published the 1992 Convention "Resolution on IWW International Policy".
The resolution stated, in part, "It is the policy of the IWW to establish contacts with all revolutionary unions around the world." The resolution listed a number of actions to be taken. The aim of these action would be towards “exploring affiliation with the AIT".
"A standing Interl Commission shall be established to coordinate international relations, including affiliation with the AIT."
The matter of IWA affiliation lingered again for another few years and was voted down in a 1996 referendum.
That seems to be it ... hope this is helpful
* "The International Working Men's Association. I.W.M.A., its policy, its aim, its principles." Publisher N.pl. : International Working Men's Association, 1933. 19 p. Photocopy on file at WSA office.
** (Adopted at 1st Congress, 1922 and 2nd Congress, 1925. Verbatim from "The IWMA" pamphlet
*** The current IWA Statues say “libertarian communism”.
Additional footnote on the 1933 IWMA pamphlet. In Section II, the “Fundamental principles of the IWMA, the IWA declares the following.
“Each country has its own traditions, its own methods of work. Its own outlook upon events. Yet the fundamental guiding lines remain the same for all. And if some revolutionary labor movements are not yet represented in all the councils of the IWMA, this is due to the fact that either certain misunderstandings have not, as of yet, been entirely dissipated, or that wanton misrepresentation of the aims, policy and principles of the IWMA have not been permitted the rank-and-file to obtain straight forward and frank statement of the case.
“An outstanding of the undefined relations with the IWMA are the Industrial Workers of the World of America.
“The IWMA has repeatedly appealed to the IWW to clear up the matter as to its stand on international revolutionary labor problems and on international affiliation.
“The whole case, on the side of the IWW rested finally upon two cardinal points: First, that the IWW were, in themselves, an international organization – its very name suggestion it --- and that there was, therefore, no necessity of affiliating to another International body. Secondly, that the system of organization of the IWW --- in industrial unions --- was opposed to the system of organization of the Syndicalists – in trade and craft unions.
“Let us examine these two arguments.”
[to be continued—syndicalist]