membership in IWA unions

"spanish type" for me pls.

But are the criticisms of the IWW based around the fact that we don't ask workers for their agreement on the events of 1936, or that members have used a lot of 'autonomy' to sign contracts which are against our principles or to sign up SSP members of parliament?

The ones which find themselves in agreement with "Basic Anarcho-Syndicalism" on the issue of membership accepted to the union. That term is not used generally, I was just using it to try to make distinction with FORA-ist organizations which are forming revolutionary unions of anarchist workers.

I think you misunderstand me. Steven said that the criticisms of the IWW, which he agrees with, would also extend to the whole IWA (minus the FORAists).

I asked which criticism that was that applies to the IWA - criticism that we don't demand ideological agreement from workers who join, or criticism that some members try to do things which are clearly against the principles of our organization and the class struggle? (I was being sarcastic when I said autonomy, because that is often cited as a defense).

I disagree with the first criticism, but it would also apply to the CNT and some other IWA sections. I agree with the second criticism of the IWW, but don't think it applies.

Intersting discussion.

In all the years we were a part of the IWA, we never thought of the FORA as having any real or different approach then anyone else. In fact, it probably was never discusssed. Yes, of course, they had their own style and were clear that they considered themselves anarchist-communists before anarcho-syndicalists, but there never seemed to be a contradiction to everyone. I guess the general thinking was they were IWA, had a proud history and were mainly old timers keeping the flame alive until a younger generation would pick up the torch. Funny, how over time certain thing become more of an interest or take on a different meaning in a new decade. Not a criticism, just an observation.

The question of "resistance socities"(which the FORA calls em) and not unions (in the immediate phase) raises certain questions for militants unable to immediately build mass unions (or community organizations).

I would think that having "open unions" (my term) with anarchist principles is not so much a contradiction or problem. Miliant workers usually tend to gravitate towards a militant organizations. The real question is the follow-though education. How does the grand sounding ideas on paper get translated into membership understanding will always be the key question.

I look forward to more and interesting conversation on this thread.

Booey, my understanding is that at least one local of the French CNT-AIT views itself in the FORAista tradition The others consider themselves within the histroical anarcho-syndicalist relm.

The other French CNT (non-AIT) is usually refered to as Vignoles. They consider themselves in the tradition of a more revolutionary syndicalist manner and within the spirit of the Charter of Amiens. A bit less emphasis on the anarchist part (with anarcho-syndicalists partipiating almost as the dominent tendency within it).

I hope this hasn't make it as clear as mud. The bottom line is the FORAista tradition is really one that intially took hold in Argentina and no where else. It now appears in the early years of the 21st century that FORAism has found some adherents predominantly in Russia (KRAS), apparently the ASI in Serbia and some adherents inside the French AIT Sction in the north of Paris.

I believe Rata was saying that the ASI tend to follow the 'other model', that of the Spanish CNT.

I think the french CNT-AIT has more members/sections influenced by the FORA than just the North Paris section (which used to be the 2eme UR). I've read something by them which claims that they take influence mostly from anarcho-syndicalism, but also from council communism and the situationists.

In fact, this is why IWA is described as International which is gathering revolutionary unions. Those revolutionary unions can be of this or that model - FORA or the other one.

I'm sorry, I guess my English is making a problem here. Yes. This is what I wanted to say, that within CNT-AIT in France, some locals are FORAist and some are not. This is a very rough distinction, and I use terms FORA-is very loosely to try to explain the present situation.

There are more than one "FORAist" type of union within French CNT-AIT. Though, they are not the majority of the unions within IWA French Section.

Apart from the fact that I don't see anything revolutionary syndicalist in the work of Vignoles, except for the symbols and names they are using, I don't think anarcho-syndicalists are majority there anymore. There are some Vignoles people on the board, that could be relevant in confirming that.

On the other hand, it is true that Vignoles types are insisting on Charter of Amiens, the "apolitical" syndicalist document, while our CNT-AIT comrades in France are linking themselves to Charter of Lyon, from the CGTSR founding congress which saw participation of Pierre Besnard, that has showed the emptiness of the idea of politically "neutral" syndicalism and lead the anarcho-syndicalist line that that predescessor of CNT-AIT (F) took. In that way Vignoles is just trying to go back in time, to the stage that our movement has passed almost 100 years ago.

I hope so too. Again, I repeat, ASI is not coming from FORA-ist tradition - we are, more or less, "standard" anarcho-syndicalist organization, while, apart from FORA and KRAS, other Latin American comrades as well as some other unions within the French CNT-AIT have taken the FORA-ist road.

Yes, that is true, apart from the last segment. CNT-AIT Paris Nord was not 2eme UR before. They united, and than later splitted with them again, after Paris Nord was founded in Paris.

Perhaps rata is referring to a more distant past than you assume? Not sure, thats how I read it though (only cos I've not heard of them splitting again recently).

Lets await some illumination on the subject before jumping to conclusions though.