IWW IU 620 Education workers sectarian?
Apr 28 2006 06:57
IWW have an industrial union IU 620 Education for workers in education. It is for IWW members only.
I look forward to hearing madashell, Catch, gentle revolutionary, knightrose, rkn etc argue against this kind of blatant sectarianism 
or perhaps the discussion about SolFeds Education Workers Network was about political differences, as in anarchists who see economic separate from political, and those anarchists who do not (=anarcho-syndicalists)?
Apr 28 2006 08:42
#2
I think part of your problem was the name of your network. People seem to have assumed that when solfed launced an 'Education Workers Network' it was a network for eduction workers, when in fact it's a netowork for eduction workers in the solfed.
Apr 28 2006 08:52
#3
aye, i think so too. Not to mention many of us involved not being sure about the status of it either in the first place 
having said that there was a clear debate in that linked thread where you could see some arguing for "broad church" economic networks, eventhough they would not argue the same for political group.
Apr 28 2006 08:53
#4
well yep i'm in IU 620, and am new but will try and pre-emptively deal with the issue
first of all, slofed and IWW are in theory different things. solfed is not a trade union, whereas IWW is (no matter how small and ineffectual, so let's not get started on that old chestnut!). Membership of a trade union is a necessary precursor of participating in it, just as membership of a trade union is (usually) a necessary precursor of it helping you out in an official capacity. now i know the IWW are different in this respect, since theirs is aa solidarity form of unionism, but it is still a trade union all the same so at least similar rules apply.
i really really admire solfed for their openness with the EWN, and hopefully EWN and IU 620 can sork together on stuff, but the two are different types of organisation.
i'm not getting into whether that differentiation is right or wrong, but that's what i reckon is the rationale behind it
Apr 28 2006 08:55
#5
ftony wrote:
solfed is not a trade union, whereas IWW is
Obviously I'm not going to tell an IWW member that's he's wrong about the nature of his organisation. But I will anyway.
Surely the aim of the IWW is to set up industrial unions, rather than trade or craft unions. [/pedantic bastard]
Apr 28 2006 08:57
#6
okayokay but you know what i was trying to get at smartarse 
Apr 28 2006 08:57
#7
ftony wrote:
first of all, slofed and IWW are in theory different things. solfed is not a trade union, whereas IWW is (no matter how small and ineffectual, so let's not get started on that old chestnut!).
I don't want to appear rude, but the IWW is not a registered trade union as understand it. I have to say until it is, I don't see any reason for its existance, other than for old times sake...
Apr 28 2006 08:58
#8
ftony wrote:
okayokay but you know what i was trying to get at smartarse
Where's the tolling gang dancing smiley when you need it?
Apr 28 2006 09:01
#9
paul can i just reiterate
ftony wrote:
let's not get started on that old chestnut!
but i would say in response to this
Quote:
the IWW is not a registered trade union as understand it. I have to say until it is, I don't see any reason for its existance, other than for old times sake
how else can a union get eventually registered? will it magically appear in a puff of smoke?
Apr 28 2006 09:09
#10
ftony wrote:
first of all, slofed and IWW are in theory different things.
maybe, maybe not. When one says that IWW is just economics, IWW members usually counter this (and i used to do so as well as an IWW member). One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does.
Quote:
hopefully EWN and IU 620 can sork together on stuff
with you on this one, no doubt about that. Its just that this issue is an interesting topic to discuss IMO, thats why i brought it up with a provoking title
Apr 28 2006 09:10
#11
Tony - No, but if a decade down the line you are still not registered, why bother?
I can remember going to an IWW meeting in the mid-90s at Conway Hall, and no where then were people being told that the IWW was not a proper union. And I am sorry but if you are not registered ten years later you are still in the same position.
Apr 28 2006 09:19
#12
i completely understand that paul, it's a good point, but without people keeping going then it will never materialise. if there's no demand for a union like the IWW then it will just run out of steam a few years down the line. but it seems like, at the moment at least, it's on the up. which can't be a bad thing, no matter how feeble it is at the moment.
as i say, i am extremely new but it kinda spoke to me, you know.
righ, so JDMF
Quote:
One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does
well i agree. i wouldn't say that the IWW separate the two, they just focus on one more than the other. i guess the IWWs history has an important part to pay in its contemporary identity. although that is only my impression.
[crumbs, where's gentle revolutionary and the Yanks when you need em???]
Apr 28 2006 09:24
#13
ftony wrote:
[crumbs, where's gentle revolutionary and the Yanks when you need em???]
He's probably moved on to the next big thing by now.
Apr 28 2006 09:32
#14
JDMF wrote:
I look forward to hearing madashell, Catch, gentle revolutionary, knightrose, rkn etc argue against this kind of blatant sectarianism ;)
Apr 28 2006 14:31
#15
PaulMarsh wrote:
Tony - No, but if a decade down the line you are still not registered, why bother?
Well, it would be really stupid to fold the biggest libertarian organization in this country (although still very very small) just because it's not certified by the state! Besides, those in favour of recognition won by a very small margin, and I'm actually interested in opening up the debate again.
Certified or not, we're still interested in being a labour union, although recognition or lack of it would have repercusions on the form of unionism that we're pursuing (like minority unionism vs. "trade unionism").
Apr 28 2006 14:33
#16
JDMF wrote:
One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does.
...and the IWW shares the same principle, although it opposes sectarianism and the "party political" (anarchist parties included!) politicisation of the class struggle.
Apr 28 2006 14:34
#17
gentle revolutionary wrote:
JDMF wrote:
One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does....and the IWW shares the same principle.
so they are anarcho syndicalists then?
Apr 28 2006 14:39
#18
Boy you're fast, I've just edited my post, which should also answer your question.
Apr 28 2006 14:42
#19
So if the IWW is a "libertarian organisation," does that mean that you have to be a libertarian to join? I'm sure your members in the Scottish Socialist Party would be interested to know they were members of such an organisation.....
Apr 28 2006 14:44
#20
The IWW accepts everyone who is a worker and abides by the principles of the organisation.
Apr 28 2006 14:46
#21
gentle revolutionary wrote:
JDMF wrote:
One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does....and the IWW shares the same principle, although it opposes sectarianism and the "party political" (anarchist parties included!) politicisation of the class struggle.
To clarify, the IWW doesn't "oppose" anarchist parties either, but it would see them as an inadequate model for building a mass working-class organisation.
Apr 28 2006 14:49
#22
gentle revolutionary wrote:
The IWW accepts everyone who is a worker and abides by the principles of the organisation.
OK. So not an organisation of libertarians. I'm just trying to get clear in my head in what sense the IWW is a libertarian organisation.
Apr 28 2006 14:49
#23
*ftony wipes the sweat from his brow and thanks god G R came online*
Apr 28 2006 14:50
#24
gentle revolutionary wrote:
gentle revolutionary wrote:
JDMF wrote:
One of the SolFeds main principles is that you can't separate economic from political, workplace struggles from community and so on, which is why SolFed organises the way it does....and the IWW shares the same principle, although it opposes sectarianism and the "party political" (anarchist parties included!) politicisation of the class struggle.
To clarify, the IWW doesn't "oppose" anarchist parties either, but it would see them as an inadequate model for building a mass working-class organisation.
The IWW's political principles are about as strict as solfed's - abolition of wage slavery, industrial democracy etc. etc. How is this more inclusive, less "sectarian" or less of a "party" than Solfed?
Apr 28 2006 14:56
#25
The IWW isn't fully 100% inclusive?
Apr 28 2006 15:02
#26
From the One Big Union pamphlet, which is sent to all new IWW members: -
Quote:
No Politics in This UnionIt is sound unionism not to express a preference for one religion or one political party or candidate over another. These are not union questions, and must be settled by each union member according to personal conscience. The union is formed to reach and enforce decisions about industrial questions. Its power to do this can be destroyed by the diversion of its resources to political campaigns.
So that all the workers regardless of their religious or political preference may be united to get every possible benefit out of their job, the I.W.W. must be non-political and non religious. It lets its members attend to these matters as they personally see fit--and with the additional social consciousness, regard for their fellows, and general enlightenment that they derive from union activity.
This does not mean that the I.W.W. is indifferent to the great social and economic questions of the day. Quite the contrary. We believe the I.W.W. provides the practical solutions to these questions. When the industry of the world is run by the workers for their own good, we see no chance for the problems of unemployment, war, social conflict, or large scale crime, or any of our serious social problems to continue.
With the sort of organization the I.W.W. is building, labor can exert any pressure required to restrain the antics of politicians and even more constructively accomplish through direct action what we have often failed to do through political lobbying.
Apr 28 2006 15:15
#27
gentle revolutionary wrote:
To clarify, the IWW doesn't "oppose" anarchist parties either
And while we're about it...
Quote:
Not Political Power:The IWW does not support politicians or any political party. Our Constitution explicitly states "the IWW refuses all alliances, direct and indirect, with existing parties and anti-political sects." This policy has helped us avoid the sectarian feuding that can easily destroy a group.
Politicians are too easily led by money, and are thus too easily allied to the bosses. Throughout history, people with money have realized that they have to buy protection and favors from government if they want to maintain their positions and power. Once this was accomplished through bribery; now it is accomplished with campaign contributions, industrial political action committees (PACs), full-time professional lobbyists, and an army of lawyers that know how to work the professional bureaucracy and massage the rules and regulations to work for them.
It is the government that has carefully crafted the law in such a way as to give "civil rights" to corporations, protect corporate executives from any legal liability for the actions of their companies, and to provide numerous perks and benefits to business at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile this same government as consistently tried to deny workers their Constitutional rights of free speech, assembly, and due process, whenever it threatened the economic ambitions of Capital.
For over 100 years, political parties which have courted Labor and claimed to represent the workers have either turned on us or been ineffective once they found themselves in office. Meanwhile others have steadfastly and openly sided with the corporations against the workers.
The IWW is a labor union, not a political party. We believe that economic justice must be achieved through economic struggle. The institutions of government have always proven themselves to be the allies of Capital, so we do not wait for politicians to free us from wage-slavery. We believe our power lies in the workplace, not in "the vote".
http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/solidarity.shtml
Interesting bits in bold....
Apr 28 2006 15:15
#28
the button wrote:
From the One Big Union pamphlet, which is sent to all new IWW members: -
Yeah but that definition of "politics" - while it's sound - most people would consider the abolition of capitalism and the institution of industrial democracy as something "political" wouldn't they?
Apr 28 2006 15:23
#29
John. wrote:
the button wrote:
From the One Big Union pamphlet, which is sent to all new IWW members: -Yeah but that definition of "politics" - while it's sound - most people would consider the abolition of capitalism and the institution of industrial democracy as something "political" wouldn't they?
True. What interests me is why the IWW (in their official literature, at least) are so keen to stress the "non-political" nature of what they do.
Apr 28 2006 15:35
#30
In order to avoid scaring "ordinary" working-class folks who are allergic to that word, and equate it with less-than-noble aspirations.
Does this mean that some comrades will be members of the AF education workers' network and the IWW one?