Question on the relation between solfed and CNT practices

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 29-09-06
Jan 17 2013 16:59

Wow, look at how badly I speak English.

Rob, I haven't said anything about abolishing chat. What my intention was to say is that chat about internal IWA matters is not as productive as discussion in the IWA. It is especially unproductive if there is sort of a public rejection of an IWA policy before a Section has voted on this or raised a discussion in the IWA. I hope you understand that it is also this type of stuff that creates rumors and misunderstandings. I will end the lecture on that, but think this needs some reflection.

In terms of white washing or not, there are volumes of papers on the WSA situation. And I had an opportunity to go through many previously unknown to me when I was doing the shit work of cataloging the IWA archives this summer. There was discussion, including at the last 4 Congresses, of the American situation. There was a point, at the last Congress, where it was discussed. I was not present then, nor was I a delegate to this Congress, just an observer from a non-member Section at that point. Had I been there and been asked, I am sure that I could have clarified some issues on the situation, but I don't think that would have changed anything. Because the facts are that WSA went through a crazy period which lasted for some years, the material sent did not prove one thing or another and there were too many strange things, ranging from emotional personal reactions to public declarations against the IWA coming from the US. Personally, I think there was a little fuck up with getting reliable information on time, but this is part of the effect of having chaos coming from the US, completely different information from one part of WSA, which was officially elected the Secretariat and the other, and this information being completely inconclusive and mostly long and repetitive personal tracts. Sorry, but from an objective point of view, it just looked like some internal fights and nonsense. I say that knowing a bit more about the situation, so I could make some judgment, but if I didn't, it would just be a headache.

Anyway, this may be an unpopular view here but this is from someone who, in the space of a few years literally spent hundreds of hours helping prepare documents and get information to the sections in situations of conflict on unclarity on the sections: the Sections themselves have an obligation to the others to keep clear and verifiable internal documents to support claims and, in the case of internal conflict, they need to provide that to the others, not long letters with accusations, not big long personal letters or speeches, etc. etc. Nobody can really get through that and we shouldn't have to waste hundreds of hours doing shit like this, dealing with things that are not conclusive.

The comrades from the IWA can see how the process is maybe necessary, but spending a lot of time trying to get information does not necessarily make things clearer. Again, I am saying this as a person from the IWA who tends to get involved in making sure the sections have information ....

Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. I have plenty of documents and results of investigation I can always share, but there is little point on it since WSA has repeatedly stated in non-desire to be in the IWA and has chosen a position of collaboration with all types of syndicalism. It can only serve as reflection on how to react when there are splits in the IWA or contradictory information, but personally I also think that this issue also is improved and the tendency is towards having fact finding commissions and this has worked over at least the last few years.