Propaganda groups and the IWA
Dec 7 2006 11:27
Quote:
Solfed don't claim to be a union, saying that I don;t think groups like Solfed should be in the IWA.
To avoid further splitting the AF and nefac thread...
Revol - do you think then that IWA should only be USI and CNT-E? 'cause they're the only ones (other than arguably CNT-F) that act as real unions. Or do you think that IWA as it exists is just of no value? Is there any point in anarcho-syndicalists without anarcho-syndicalist unions to be organised internationally?
Dec 7 2006 11:39
#2
revol, the unions don't seem to have a problem with the propaganda groups being part of it...
Jack - CNT-F (Vignoles) is not in the IWA. CNT-AIT is, and it's pretty small, and not a union.
Dec 7 2006 11:40
#3
I'm somewhat torn on this. I mean I think I do "support" Sol Fed being in the IWA - but I find that hard to reconcile with thinking that KRAS etc. shouldn't really be.
Altho I think it may be more a structural problem - if the weight of groups like Sol Fed, KRAS, the Norwegians etc. bore some relation to their comparative size, then it'd be different. I mean I really just don't see it as federalist if a group of 7 has equal weight to a functioning union of several thousand.
Have Organise! taken an active decision not to join the IWA? Or has it just not come up as an issue? If the former, what were the arguments?
Dec 7 2006 11:43
#4
John. wrote:
Jack - CNT-F (Vignoles) is not in the IWA. CNT-AIT is, and it's pretty small, and not a union.
CNT-F is what I've generally seen CNT-AIT called at any time it's not being compared to Vignoles- especially if there was potential to confuse it with another CNT. If the others were meant I'd say Vignoles.
I've heard that CNT-F (AIT) acts in some ways as a rudimentary union in France, which is possible due to the different structure of the French labour movement - I guess someone else could confirm.
Quote:
the unions don't seem to have a problem with the propaganda groups being part of it...
Not always.
Dec 7 2006 11:43
#5
we took an active decision not to be in the IWA or anyother international on the basis that internationalism grows from struggle and not the other way and we think such formal international groupings are at present pretty much a distraction.
We also don't think tiny propaganda groups should have such a disproportionate influence.
Dec 7 2006 11:46
#6
Jack wrote:
Revol - do you think then that IWA should only be USI and CNT-E? 'cause they're the only ones (other than arguably CNT-F) that act as real unions.
Is the USI still a 'real' union or simply a fairly large propaganda group claiming to be a union?
The highest recent estimate I've seen for its membership is 500, in a country of 58 million. Now the IWU in Ireland claims 2,000 members on an island with a tenth of that population and it only just abouit acts as a real union in some locations.
Genuinely curious about this - it may be that most of those 500 are in one or two locations in which case overall population are irrelevant.
Dec 7 2006 11:49
#7
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Jack wrote:
Revol - do you think then that IWA should only be USI and CNT-E? 'cause they're the only ones (other than arguably CNT-F) that act as real unions.Is the USI still a 'real' union or simply a fairly large propaganda group claiming to be a union?
The highest recent estimate I've seen for its membership is 500, in a country of 58 million. Now the IWU in Ireland claims 2,000 members on an island with a tenth of that population and it only just abouit acts as a real union in some locations.
Genuinely curious about this - it may be that most of those 500 are in one or two locations in which case overall population are irrelevant.
I'm basing this on being told by comrades (who aren't prone to exageration on this sort of thing) that USI is around a couple thousand. If that's wrong, then certain people aren't as good at anarchist trivia as they think they are. 
In some area/sectors they definitly do act as a union tho - health in Rome being the main one. I'd assume that the chances are lots of these will be in one hospital or something like that.
Dec 7 2006 12:31
#8
revol68 wrote:
we took an active decision not to be in the IWA or anyother international on the basis that internationalism grows from struggle and not the other way and we think such formal international groupings are at present pretty much a distraction.
that sounds sensible to me.
Dec 7 2006 12:58
#9
Jack wrote:
[I'm basing this on being told by comrades (who aren't prone to exageration on this sort of thing) that USI is around a couple thousand.
I emailed a comrade in Italy about this and the reply I got confused me further but from the sound of it you may have the USI AIT ( http://www.usiait.it/ ) confused with the USI-AIT ( http://www.ecn.org/usi-ait/ ). He says the USI outside the IWA (USI AIT) has a thousand members and is particularly active in Rome in Health, Education, council workers and precarity sectors. The USI inside the IWA (USI-AIT) probably does have around 500 but this includes a real union presence in Milan. Both sets of figures are his guess as neither USI reveals details about its size.
How about that for confusing!
Dec 7 2006 13:04
#10
I dunno, if you've ever met martinh you'd not believe he'd ever get a figure wrong.
Dec 7 2006 13:19
#11
i have had comrades looking at the french two CNT web sites and getting really fucking confused who is the friend and who is the enemy
Anyways, regarding the original question. As an anarcho syndicalist I of course do not regard any group without real union activity as properly anarcho syndicalist. This should be the aim and immediate goal of each A-S group on the planet.
but what constitutes union activity is the one which is trickier to define. I think SolFed, for all its faults and limited resources, does a lot of union like activity already with its practical advice and help in representation in disciplinary procedures and so on. Also workplace agitation and production of organising material fall into this category not to mention spreading so9lidarity culture among workers. As the size grows, these functions will have more depth and spread.
Dec 7 2006 13:25
#12
Jack wrote:
John. wrote:
Jack - CNT-F (Vignoles) is not in the IWA. CNT-AIT is, and it's pretty small, and not a union.CNT-F is what I've generally seen CNT-AIT called at any time it's not being compared to Vignoles- especially if there was potential to confuse it with another CNT. If the others were meant I'd say Vignoles.
No Jack in that case either you or they were confused.
CNT Vignoles is the nickname of CNT-France (CNT-F), because its headquarters is on Rue Vignoles. The IWA group is CNT-AIT. AFAIK France has some minor union activity - like the McDonalds and Frog pubs strikes - but as for AIT I've never heard of anything like that. We covered lots of CNT-F activity in our CPE coverage.
Also it surprises me that the non-IWA USI is bigger than the IWA one (though that would echo similar situations elsewhere of course...).
Dec 7 2006 13:27
#13
JDMF wrote:
i have had comrades looking at the french two CNT web sites and getting really fucking confused who is the friend and who is the enemy
CNT-AIT is http://cnt-ait.info/ and http://www.cnt-ait-fr.org/
CNT-F (vignoles) is http://www.cnt-f.org/
Dec 7 2006 13:35
#14
who really uses the Vignoles name apart from international anarcho geeks? Surely they dont use it themselves, its just CNT?
I personally use the CNT-F name. Need to ask from someone involved which name they use (predicted answer: CNT!)
Dec 7 2006 13:38
#15
JDMF wrote:
who really uses the Vignoles name apart from international anarcho geeks? Surely they dont use it themselves, its just CNT?
It is the CNT, yes - it's all over their site/flags/banners etc. (At their HQ they have a flag room full of red+black CNT flags). Vignoles is mostly used by IWA and international anarcho types to distinguish them from AIT; I use -France though because that's more their way of distinguishing themselves.
Dec 7 2006 14:19
#16
yeah but John in the IWA the CNT-AIT is referred to as the CNT-F as to distinguish it from the spics.
Dec 7 2006 14:27
#17
revol68 wrote:
yeah but John in the IWA the CNT-AIT is referred to as the CNT-F as to distinguish it from the spics.
Presumably the "F" stands for "froggies", then.
Dec 7 2006 14:28
#18
the button wrote:
revol68 wrote:
yeah but John in the IWA the CNT-AIT is referred to as the CNT-F as to distinguish it from the spics.Presumably the "F" stands for "froggies", then.
No you racist prick, just frogs!
Dec 7 2006 14:29
#19
Distinguish from the who? Man, here in the US the term "spic" is equal to the "N" word. I'd drop that word right quick. Is this word commonly used in england?
Dec 7 2006 14:32
#20
syndicalist wrote:
Distinguish from the who? Man, here in the US the term "spic" is equal to the "N" word. I'd drop that word right quick. Is this word commonly used in england?
well see this ain't the states and we don't have a spanish speaking hyper exploited proletariat, so the word doesn't have the same connotations, plus it was as always self aware, so all fine. 
Dec 7 2006 14:41
#21
revol68 wrote:
the button wrote:
revol68 wrote:
yeah but John in the IWA the CNT-AIT is referred to as the CNT-F as to distinguish it from the spics.Presumably the "F" stands for "froggies", then.
No you racist prick, just frogs!
Unfortunately, my proposal that all IWA sections apart from SolFed be referred to as the CNT-JF* didn't make it to the conference. 
* Johnny Foreigner
Dec 7 2006 14:44
#22
the button wrote:
revol68 wrote:
the button wrote:
revol68 wrote:
yeah but John in the IWA the CNT-AIT is referred to as the CNT-F as to distinguish it from the spics.Presumably the "F" stands for "froggies", then.
No you racist prick, just frogs!
Unfortunately, my proposal that all IWA sections apart from SolFed be referred to as the CNT-JF* didn't make it to the conference.
* Johnny Foreigner
Like a proposal actually has to be made prior to conference, just ask the CNT-JF-S to propose it on the hop.
Dec 7 2006 14:58
#23
John. wrote:
No Jack in that case either you or they were confused.CNT Vignoles is the nickname of CNT-France (CNT-F), because its headquarters is on Rue Vignoles. The IWA group is CNT-AIT. AFAIK France has some minor union activity - like the McDonalds and Frog pubs strikes - but as for AIT I've never heard of anything like that. We covered lots of CNT-F activity in our CPE coverage.
Yes, I know this. However, in the IWA, CNT-F means CNT-AIT. Presumably because we don't recognise Vignoles can use the name CNT. Since I was talking about IWA groups from different countries, it made sense to say CNT-F as opposed to CNT-AIT (esp. since CNT-E is presumably also called CNT-AIT within spain).
They are small (100-200 I was told the other night as opposed to about 500 for Vignoles), and don't do as much 'union activity' as Vignoles - however, I'm assured they do some - they certainly would be considered qualitativly differently to say KRAS or FORA.
Dec 7 2006 15:03
#24
The technical terms, according to Rolf Petter Larssen (sec. of the IWA) are:
CNT-F: Also known as CNT-Vignoles. Expelled section.
CNT-AIT: Also known as CNT. Included section.
So there you go. Straight from the horse’s mouth as well cos I asked the secretariat direct as part of an interview on the IWA and its sections in an unpcoming issue of Freedom 
.
Dec 7 2006 15:05
#25
Saii wrote:
The technical terms, according to Rolf Petter Larssen (sec. of the IWA) are:CNT-F: Also known as CNT-Vignoles. Expelled section.
CNT-AIT: Also known as CNT. Included section.
So there you go. Straight from the horse’s mouth as well cos I asked the secretariat direct as part of an interview on the IWA and its sections in an unpcoming issue of Freedom
So exactly how do you distinguish between the CNT-AIT Spain and the CNT-AIT France?
It's fecking CNT- Vignole and CNT- France, and nothing will change that it in my mind.
Dec 7 2006 15:09
#26
Saii wrote:
The technical terms, according to Rolf Petter Larssen (sec. of the IWA) are:CNT-F: Also known as CNT-Vignoles. Expelled section.
CNT-AIT: Also known as CNT. Included section.
So there you go. Straight from the horse’s mouth as well cos I asked the secretariat direct as part of an interview on the IWA and its sections in an unpcoming issue of Freedom
I hope you went through first your nearest local and then the International Secretary?
Dec 7 2006 15:15
#27
I'm lost. Is it the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front?
Dec 7 2006 15:16
#28
knightrose wrote:
I'm lost. Is it the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front?
No it's the IFA hohoho
Dec 7 2006 15:25
#29
CNT Spain is CNT-E, duh.
Actually I did cc. all correspondence to the Solfed international secretary .
Dec 7 2006 15:26
#30
Internally within the IWA, the Spanish CNT is usually known as the CNT-E.
I wouldn't want to make some arbitrary cut off point but I think small groups like Solfed should do the decent thing and not take on full membership.
Though considering I think the IWA is completely fucked and superflous that's all by the by, init. But having tiny lil groups acting as inquisitions for every transgression certainly doesn't help it function as a useful means of communicating and extending workers struggle. BTW i'm not lumping Solfed in with the Inquisition.