KRAS document discussion continued

Hi!
This is my article.
Sorry for my english. I work with this text long time and do it only with real help of my friends.
I am member of Russian section od IWA.
I can answer to some qwestions.

1) Yes, in general it is possition of all russian section of IWA.
2) We are talking about model of integral organisation. It is for lebertarian communism from one side (no members of any politikal partis or politikaly nutral people) and for evreday strugle and direct action at the workers plase from another side. FORA model and olso some tradishions of japanis and russian anrhism is close to that. For example the briliant experiense of workers anarhists in Belostok sity (1903-1907). Olso we intresting in some over revolutionary tradishins like s.-r maksimalism and counsilism. But in generaly we close to FORA model (FORA-5). This is model. But FORA EXISTED long time as organisation with 40.000-120.000 members in a long period of time.
Moden FORA are the friends of us. It is groing after argentinian uprising in 2001 but it is still not big.
3) We far from Platforma. Platforma is based on sentralist prinsip. And also platformists are working sometimes in tred-unions. We think- tred-unions are the part of capitalism (as state and corporations) and they must be desperssed.
But if some platformists not for unions and not aftoritarian we are not against them and think they can be friends.

Thank you!
Well i want to add something. My friend russian saeintist Damie had i diskussion with Murrey Bukchin. Buckin tell about antisemitism in spanish CNT in 1936, give some facts.
But i ask Damie and i hope i'll give you soon more information about that Mariano Vaskes.
Another point. Das enybody here can read russian? I can send some intresting textx about jewish anarho-communists in 1903-1907 in Russia, espesualy about Bialistok. Belive me this is the same level of radikalism, strugle and insurrection as in Machno- movemen. And it is absolutly unnoun in the Vest!

Magidd, in our publishing collective we have a fellow who can translate Russian, I'm sure he would love to help translate them. How many of these texts are there?

Comment
Well, it can be. But i met with differen peoplle. Where are you from?

Comment
I think we are similar, be sure. I olso don't like unions ets.

There are some texts of Ouer group about Cоmmunist anarhism, Proletariat, Kapitalism and Catastrofy (Capitalism and Nature) and some others.
If One day anybody have time- can try to translate that.
But i think Bialostok is the most intresting text. And it was written in 1909 by member of anarhist groop.

Depending on the format, this would probably go in either our news or library sections. You can always post up here and we'll try to format it for you. - Just read the rest of the thread - translations by Edmonton Wobbly's mate would be very cool.

...just goes to show there are all kinds of anarcho-syndicalists in IWA!

Personally i would see the cricis of anarcho-syndalism in totally different terms, for instance the prevalence of small tight political groups in IWA rather than functioning fighting unions, but it sounds like KRAS folks think it is other way round.

Comment
First of all i do not think they prevail. There are diffirent groops in IWA- big or small with different ideas. Small politikal groops (wich are unite workers and work for class struglle)heve different ideas olso. There is nothing coomon for example between russiam section and ugoslavian.
Secondly (this is much more importent in my understanding) "functioning fighting unions" if it is not integral libertarian-communist organisation like FORA or "Zinkoky Zeren" is absolutly reactionary structure. Maximum it can do is to repit fail of spanish revolution of 1936 or do even more. 1936 for europian anarho-sindikalism was the same as 1914 for II International an as 1933 for III International. I explane why in this artikle.
What happen? You have strike. After that some active wirkers join to USI or CNT-E. They are not revolutionaris, not anarhists- just activ workers. End in the end you get normal tred-unionist organisation, what else? May be more redical tred-union then modern AFT, but still tred-union.
Look at IWA naw. It supports idea to make... juristikal prosses in the state coot angainst unions who use BREND of IWA organidsations! This is normal reaction of capitalists corporation- don't tuch my brend or you pay money. This is not even shame.

yeah, sounds like our politics are quite different, despite us both being in IWA (i am in solidarity federation). Not a problem in my opinion, unless this leads to sectarian bickering and the usual stuff which our international is sadly a bit too famous of...

Will you, or someone else from KRAS, be coming to Manchester IWA congress in december?

yeah, sounds like our politics are quite different, despite us both being in IWA (i am in solidarity federation)

Comment
Please just read continuation of my answer to you...
Can you explane what is the differens?

Not a problem in my opinion, unless this leads to sectarian bickering and the usual stuff which our international is sadly a bit too famous of...

Comment
There is another problem. Do the people in IWA have enouth common for being together?

Will you, or someone else from KRAS, be coming to Manchester IWA congress in december?

Comment
Can be. But we are not sure. We have work and we have some problems with pasports.

Hi ALF! A think i remember you.
The role of integral organisation?
1)It is spread anarho-commynist ideas and the practis and ideas of direct action at the factory, and at the proletarian teritory were people live, and espessualy in the zones of social class conflicts.
2)If integral organisation has fors to inishiate assamblearist strike or lokal movement or riot we do this.
We understand that in the begining majority of partisipants will talk esspesualy about economical conditions. So we work in it as autonomous groop of militants who make anarcho-communist propoganda and spread anti-aftoritarian ideas and olso we are partisipating in direct action (blokades, oquppation of factoris, Etc.)
3) We are not vaingard in marcsist-leninist sense. We do not want to rool movement. Olso we strugle against any attempts of any groops of minority control the movement. We are organisation of militants who spread practis and ideas of anarho-communism, and must give examples of revolutionary strugle to workers assembleas and counseles.
4) If workers assembleas move to wrong way we will critisise that. We are not automaticly agry with disitions of majority.

Hi magidd - I moved your pogrom/uprising atricle to our international forum:
http://libcom.org/forums/world

so if you have all these problems with anarcho-syndicalism, is there any particular reason you decided to join IWA? Do you still believe in revolutionary unionism and the basic statutes of IWA:
http://iwa-ait.org/statutes.html

JDMF
so if you have all these problems with anarcho-syndicalism, is there any particular reason you decided to join IWA? Do you still believe in revolutionary unionism and the basic statutes of IWA

Comment
People from Russian Section say that it dependes what do you call revolytionary sindikalism. Souf American sections olso use that word but they allwais mean integral orgnisation like FORA.
In Fact we think that you can not have libertarien commism as the main goal of organisation (wich is olso point of IWA dokumenets) and have not libertarian communist members in you organisation. You can not have not revolutionaru memders or members of politikal partis in your organisation becouse they do not egry with the goal if IWA.
If you go this way you rapit catastrofy of 1936 evry time when ypou have chanse to do something for revolution.

dont even entertain the idea of c. workers being convinced about anarcho-syndicalist model of organising and its potential to run the economy. I mean we are so special that it just cant be possible that workers would share our politics in any considerable number

hey, anarcho-syndicalism doesn't have to be so fucking complicated that not even dudes who have read all the books, listen to anarchist music and grow a massive beard cant quite agree with all points and therefore rather stay in the sidelines.

WeTheYouth
Its not the failings of anarcho syndicalism that caused the CNTE to be defeated it was external pressures and state power which defeated the CNTE. What happened was military coup resulting in dictatorship, looking backward and going they should have done this or should have done that is utter bollox, for fuck sake it was a revolutinary mass working class organisation and it is the membership which decdided how the local syndicates and national conferedation went, that is anarchism, we do not dictate or lead. To criticise the workers of the CNTE for doing what they did is wrong, what would you prefer a revolutionary vanguard. This whole article stinks of pseudo leninism.

Comment
I think that you position is a tipical mistake and measlead of some europian siundicalist. You talk about CNT-E as about sort of Holy organisation! This is way bolsheviks talk abot Lenin's party in 1917. And anybody who disagry is sort of anemy, isn't it? ;)
You based not on the real history but on myf.
CNT-E in 1936 JOIN THE BURGUA GOVERNMENT. It betrayed all tradishion of anarhism and social-revolution. It prefers sort of fucking antifassist unity with burgua partis and betraid strugle for revolution. It agree with state control under the industry. CNT-E become the part os statist sistem of burosratik control and state-capitalist explotation.
It cooperated with burosrossy, roole the state and make ideologikal propoganda of in they newspapers. CNT send workers to regular army of burgua repablick wich was not better then fassist state. And in the same time this repablik shoot revolutionary anarhists and proletarions and kill them. CNT burockrassy with other unions burocrassy and state burocrassy becoume owner of Factoris. They exploit workers.
All of that facts are famous. I recomend you for begining to read Mitchel Seidmen, and Jiles Dove

http://libcom.org/library/workers-against-work-michael-seidman-1
http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/whenidie/index.html

Also i can say as for state capitalism wich CNT build together with republikan State- even some spanish anarhists were agree that it is like that. Becouse workers collectiv cooperate with unions burocrassy and state.
This regim was close to Yogaslavian state capitalism wich apeard after 1939-1945 imperialist war.
CNT did not save aragon communes that they werу destroid by anti-fassist of general Lister! CNT has 100.000 military eqipt militants or more and it DID NOT WANT to save anarhist communes then anty-fassists move to Aragon troops of Enriko Lister FROM "antifassist front". CNT ledeachip order barselonian revolutionary warkers LEAVE BARRIKADES in may in Barselona 1937 were thay effectivly fight with leninists and polise of Katalonia. Do not forget- antu-fasists destroy spanish revolution. Fassists just finish they work.
We preper naw 1000 pages book about revolutionary movement in Spane, CNT and over rev.sindikates of 1930-1945 and we have alot of informatiom abot all of that things.
Well- personaly i learn history of Russian revolution not spanish. But memeber of Russian section Damie's spesialisation is spanish revolt. I think he can join to this diskussion in few weeks.

To criticise the workers of the CNTE for doing what they did is wrong, what would you prefer a revolutionary vanguard. This whole article stinks of pseudo leninism.

Comment
This is funny. As i allredy said we are against minority which is try to rool workers class. We think Proletarian can rool itself by jenerall assambleas and counseales. But we olso think we need revolytionary organisation wich can GIVE EXAMPLES of selforganisation and revolutionary strugle and olso spread anarho-commynist ideas. Where is vaingardism here? )
And CNT-E was not such organisation. It join the government and cooperate with state buroctrassy! What are you talking about? CNT-E become in 1936 vangardist organisation wich controll proletariat by state-mashin (together with burgua and leninists). So i can not not see even elementary logic in your possition. If you protect CNT 1936 that means you protect vaingardism, not we. You protect the idea of minority wich rool workers class and all seciety!
There were revolutionary proletarians in 1936. And olso revolutionary groops like Durruti Friends and some Libertarian Youth and some opposition wich was against line of CNT. But they were in minority and they cooperate with CNT. And so they can not do what they must do- to fight against all kind of burgua statists. If CNT has not 1 million different people (revolutionaris or not-revolutionaris) but 200.000 revolytionary anarhist members it can do that probably. And it cood give good examples of strugle for other parts of proletariat, to millions of hesitating proletarians.
There was the problen becouse that 200 or 300 thausends CAN NOT make revolutionary strugle becouse they were paralised by collectif dissiplin of CNT.
This is the reason for us to deny CNT logik, to deny logik of europian sindikalism and stay on position of Afgentinian FORA wich has sometimes 120.000-150 000 members and were not vangardist leninist organisation of couse.