So should the IWA still aim to be an association of revolutionary unions - or should it be more of a grouping of political organisations?
Seems that, at least in theory, that the IFA already meets that definition. Course, there isn't a US affiliate, so I have no experience with it. Thanks for posting this though, very informative.
There was an IWA affiliate from 1978 (LIbertarian Workers Group, Syndicalist Alliance) to 2000 (Workers Solidarity Alliance). Currently there is no US Section.
The IWA, particularly in the post WW2 period, has always been a mix of union and propaganda groups. This generally worked well.
The USI criticism is based on a particular set of circumstances that arose in the few years leading up to the last IWA Congress.John is essentially correct when he wrote
"it was a response to the proposal to expel USI ... from the IWA - which ended up being rejected." I believe we have discussed this elsewhere on libcom a year or so ago.
The IWA, particularly in the post WW2 period, has always been a mix of union and propaganda groups. This generally worked well.The USI criticism is based on a particular set of circumstances that arose in the few years leading up to the last IWA Congress.John is essentially correct when he wrote
"it was a response to the proposal to expel USI ... from the IWA - which ended up being rejected." I believe we have discussed this elsewhere on libcom a year or so ago.
It was discussed at length at the time - although I don't think this article was translated. I was reminded of it by some of the comments about the CNT on the mass revolutionary organisations during periods of class retreat thread, where catch, John and others argued that the CNT should limit membership to people who agree with the ideology and shouldn't aim to act like a "real union", supporting the expulsion of people who want it to move in a more pragmatic direction.
John wrote:
Well, if it wanted to grow fast, then yes, but the CNT wouldn't want to grow fast and compromise its principles. They booted the "pragmatists," the CGT, ages ago to maintain them, which they should get credit for.Well yes they should, but it's obvious that it's also a reason why they're small now, and won't be able to organise the majority of workers or a create a big international union federation etc. like they still say they want to. revol still appears to be trying to argue that you can have your cake and eat it too. I think the CNT isn't doing this - it's sacrificing size to maintain some principles, and doesn't appear to be functioning as a union (i.e. in those big strikes it appears to act as a minority political organisation - I'll have to read that Puerto Real article). I'm sure it has people in it who'd like it to - and hopefully they'll keep getting chucked out.
Actually it seems very positive to me that the CNT is getting more involved in practical union work but that obviously isn't everybody's view. And if people are consistent it would seem logical to have similar views about the IWA as a whole and oppose what USI are saying here. Hence the question.
I think that the text printed here is not very productive in terms of discussing the issues.
I would like to see anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists go beyond using semantically loaded labels and speaking about some divide between "sectarians" and "specific anarchists" and "unions" and "pragmatists".
The real issue is how to be open to people, to work effectively yet to maintain anarchist operating principles. If people were able to define more clearly what they consider to be such operating principles, then it is much easier to discuss, based on concrete practice, whether or not a given group is using these principles or not. Such discussions should be based on clear information and open discussion of the real issues.
In the case of the union from Pakistan which applied to the IWA, there was discussion of their statutes and the fact that they are rather hierarchically organized, with a paid leader running things. In fact, probably too little is known about how things really look in practice, since contact is through the leadership, not the rank and file.
In such a situation, it's clear that people can explain how they envision horizontal organization and how anarchist principles should be applied in a union. If those people do turn out to be interested in these ideas, they may take steps to reform their organization. If not, just some contact can be maintained.
I won't comment on the internal matters of IWA, but it seems to be that if anarcho-syndicalist unions and organizations are to go forward and expand, it shouldn't be at the cost of watering down core principles, but rather should be done by convincing people to adopt certain practices themselves.
So should the IWA still aim to be an association of revolutionary unions - or should it be more of a grouping of political organisations?
Obviously nobody told you that revolutionary unions are political organizations.
It has often been charged against Anarcho-Syndicalism that it has no interest in the political structure of the different countries, and consequently no interest in the political struggles of the time, and confines its activities to the fight for purely economic demands. This idea is altogether erroneous and springs either from outright ignorance or wilful distortion of the facts. It is not the political struggle as such which distinguishes the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the modern labour parties, both in principle and in tactics, but the form of this struggle and the aims which it has in view.http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker-chapter-5
Obviously nobody told you that revolutionary unions are political organizations.
I don't actually disagree with you on this but there is a distinction between unions and the kind of political organisation which Devrim was advocating on the other thread. I can see his argument but I think that, for example, a lot of the successful new organising that the CNT is doing now in Spain would be impossible if people had to agree on all the politics before they could join. That isn't to say that a left communist type workplace based political organisation couldn't operate through the assemblies that seem to be a feature of disputes in Spain - or that the CNT couldn't operate in this way if it had tighter restrictions on membership.
Devrim wrote:
I think a revolutionary political organisation must be based on revolutionary politics. The CNT doesn't:Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998 wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to
be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation
in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous,
federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional
bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules,
and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies
can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be
part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view
about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union
is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.As for the Solfed 'Princples of Revolutionary Unionism', either the organisation agrees with them, or it doesn't. I suspect that it doesn't, in which case maybe changing them would be a good idea.
Devrim
I'd also strongly disagree with this stance on membership - it presumes that everything can be solved by 'anti-authoritarian structure' and leaves itself open to exactly the same issues that revol claims 'spontaneous' organisations will suffer from.
I've also seen solfed members, not just the CNT, suggesting that an actual anarcho-syndicalist union (as opposed to solfed itself) would have similarly loose requirements for membership. This again goes against revol's conception of a minority, specifically revolutionary group. agitating both within and parallel to unitary organisations thrown up by struggle.
rata wrote:
Obviously nobody told you that revolutionary unions are political organizations.I don't actually disagree with you on this but there is a distinction between unions and the kind of political organisation which Devrim was advocating on the other thread.
Yes, there is. But Devrim is not an anarcho-syndicalist, he is not a member of any IWA Section or Friend group, nor he ever claimed to be, so I'm still puzzled with that false dichotomy that you made for the opening of this thread. If you wanted to discuss union - ideological organization differences you could have done that elsewhere on the forum and didn't have to spend time translating the text which was published 2 years ago and obviously is not actual anymore. Except, in case you wanted to steer shit, in a manner that for ex. A-infos, pet project of the loony platformist psychologist, is doing, by presenting CGT and other reformists as anarcho-syndicalists while IWA and CNT are presented as "anarchist federations", in which case I'm sorry for you.
Yes, there is. But Devrim is not an anarcho-syndicalist, he is not a member of any IWA Section or Friend group, nor he ever claimed to be, so I'm still puzzled with that false dichotomy that you made for the opening of this thread. If you wanted to discuss union - ideological organization differences you could have done that elsewhere on the forum and didn't have to spend time translating the text which was published 2 years ago and obviously is not actual anymore.
The USI article is another one I started translating early last year when it seemed relevant to the discussion around the IWA congress, and didn't get round to finishing. I think there's a parallel between the way USI portray the problems in the IWA at the time and the argument Devrim was making, which is interesting.
Except, in case you wanted to steer shit, in a manner that for ex. A-infos, pet project of the loony platformist psychologist, is doing, by presenting CGT and other reformists as anarcho-syndicalists while IWA and CNT are presented as "anarchist federations", in which case I'm sorry for you.
Some people in the CGT are anarcho-syndicalists and some aren't. In everything I've read they present themselves as an anarcho-syndicalist union. I'm not that clear about how it all works in practice. The IWA combines anarchist groups and unions and I think there are built in tensions with this, which I think also exist within the CNT. I'm not against the CNT, the CGT or the IWA but I don't think uncritical support is particularly useful either. My impression is that the CNT is going in a more positive direction than it has for a long time and I'm glad the IWA got through the last congress without anyone being expelled. I think the issues are still worth discussing though. I'm not a big fan of Floreal Castilla.
Some people in the CGT are anarcho-syndicalists and some aren't.
That's not the point at all. I really don't care about what the people in CGT are. CGT is not anarcho-syndicalist organization, and the fact that some people there feel like that doesen't change the fact that they are part of the social-democratic project. But we are not going to go into non-recallable delegates, prison-guards discussion again here. Are we?
The IWA combines anarchist groups and unions
What you said is just... not true:
V Conditions of affiliation
The following can affiliate to the IWA:
a) National Revolutionary Syndicalist Organizations that do not belong to any other International. In every case only one section will exist in each country. The affiliated sections have to ratify the Principles, Tactics and Aims of the IWA, and send a copy of its Statutes and Principles to the Secretariat. The International Secretariat of the IWA will inform sections of the origin of the contact or contacts that have applied to affiliate.
b) Minorities of Revolutionary syndicalists organized inside other national organizations affiliated to other trade union Internationals.
c) Union organizations, crafts, industrial or general that are independent or affiliated to national organisations that do not belong to the IWA, which accept the Declaration of Principles and Goals of the IWA, with the prior consent, however, of the national organization already affiliated in the country, if such organization exists.
Crafts, industrial or general union organizations that have left or have been excluded from an organization affiliated to the IWA can only be granted affiliation upon the unanimous decision of a Conference consisting of two delegates of each of the affiliate organizations; that is, of the organization that has withdrawn or been excluded, two from the national Organization of the IWA and the Secretariat of the IWA.
d) Every Organization of revolutionary unionist propaganda that accepts the Declaration of Principles and Goals of the IWA and that works in a country where there is no national organization affiliated to the IWA.
and than, based on your false premise you build this kind of wrong conclusion:
and I think there are built in tensions with this, which I think also exist within the CNT.
I'm not against the CNT, the CGT or the IWA but I don't think uncritical support is particularly useful either.
Bah. Who is preaching for uncritical support here?
My impression is that the CNT is going in a more positive direction than it has for a long time and I'm glad the IWA got through the last congress without anyone being expelled. I think the issues are still worth discussing though.
I do think the issues are worth discussing, and I do think that CNT and IWA are going in a more positive direction than they were for a long time, and I do believe that it has to do with general radicalization of the proletariat in recent times and growth of contradictions within the capitalist system, as well as with the clear triumph of our ideology against Frankenstein type of social-democrat syndicalist models that we got rid of in time. But I don't think that wrong premises and false dichotomies are way forward for a sound discussion, and I would beg you to double-check your data before posting.
I'm not a big fan of Floreal Castilla.
Real shame. I am.
rata wrote:
CGT ... prison-guardsLook, I don't support the CGT but you've been called on this bullshit before. Cut it out.
What? Re-read the fucking thread with that topic. I posted a link to the catalan cop union in which it's clearly stated that they were founded with CGT help...
That's not the point at all. I really don't care about what the people in CGT are. CGT is not anarcho-syndicalist organization, and the fact that some people there feel like that doesen't change the fact that they are part of the social-democratic project. But we are not going to go into non-recallable delegates, prison-guards discussion again here. Are we?
A discussion of the CGT would probably be better on another thread. Still I think it's simplistic to reduce it to a question of whether to call the CGT anarcho-syndicalist or not. It would be more interesting to look at what is happening in disputes in Spain at the moment. There's Frape-Behr where the CNT has a minority presence, the TMB bus drivers strike where the CGT is the largest union, and the Madrid metro cleaners strike which has just been settled where the CGT and CNT were both involved. In all these disputes decisions have been made by assemblies rather than the individual unions, and the CNT and CGT have both been pushing for this, as have other smaller unions which definitely aren't anarcho-syndicalist but seem to have some similar ideas about organisation. There are probably a lot of questions here about the relationship between the unions involved, the comités de empresa and the assemblies - which might make for a constructive discussion.
JH wrote:
The IWA combines anarchist groups and unions
What you said is just... not true
The CNT and USI are unions. Solfed is an anarchist group. I don't see what there is to argue about here. I'm not saying that the IWA shouldn't include different kinds of organisation - just that this might bring some problems and differences in outlook.
A discussion of the CGT would probably be better on another thread. Still I think it's simplistic to reduce it to a question of whether to call the CGT anarcho-syndicalist or not.
When you say for some organization that it's anarcho-syndicalist it implies certain things and leaves much of the unnecessary discussion behind..
It would be more interesting to look at what is happening in disputes in Spain at the moment. There's Frape-Behr where the CNT has a minority presence, the TMB bus drivers strike where the CGT is the largest union, and the Madrid metro cleaners strike which has just been settled where the CGT and CNT were both involved. In all these disputes decisions have been made by assemblies rather than the individual unions, and the CNT and CGT have both been pushing for this, as have other smaller unions which definitely aren't anarcho-syndicalist but seem to have some similar ideas about organisation. There are probably a lot of questions here about the relationship between the unions involved, the comités de empresa and the assemblies - which might make for a constructive discussion.
Yes, I would agree with you that it could be a constructive discussion, but I also agree that it would be much better to start another tread with that topic, than to continue it here without proper context...
The CNT and USI are unions. Solfed is an anarchist group. I don't see what there is to argue about here. I'm not saying that the IWA shouldn't include different kinds of organisation - just that this might bring some problems and differences in outlook.
Obviously you are one of those who have problems with labels. Solfed is clearly a syndicalist propaganda organization. Yes, the majority of people propagating anarcho-syndicalism are anarchists, but they are not part of IWA based on the fact that they are anarchist, but on the fact that they are working towards creation of revolutionary unions. To claim that anarcho-syndicalist propaganda groups are anarchist group is true only in this manner: they are anarchist group as much as anarcho-syndicalism is anarchist. And if you read anarcosindicalismo basico, you'll see that there is a difference between the two.
Solfed ... are not part of IWA based on the fact that they are anarchist, but on the fact that they are working towards creation of revolutionary unions.
Just to stick my oar in, and like to ask how many people in Solfed believe they are ' working towards creation of revolutionary unions'. I'd be surprised if you got a majority.
Devrim
Looking back at the original USI post, I see how certain things get repeated in certain circles without much reflection of consistency. The incident which I'll refer to also concerned SolFed, and, as it was mentioned here, I think it's relevant.
A few months ago there was an international meeting in Warsaw organized by the group CKLA. Present were activists from CGT, CNT-Vignoles, the IWW and ESE. From Poland there was a speaker from WI. I was present at the open part of the meeting.
Somebody from the audience (actually who is a supporter of those groups) asked about relations with the IWA.
There were rather negative comments from one guy from the IWW and from the guy from ESE, The IWW guy gave an argument almost exactly the same as in the article above about SolFed - that it is a very small organization and claims to be a section of an international.
The argument was rather devoid of sense. The logic of it seemed to be that you earn your place in an international in terms of size rather than anything else. The guy seemed really pissed off that some group smaller than the IWW could represent itself in such a way, as if it was usurping some authority or misrepresenting itself.
It was devoid of sense in part because this opinion was expressed in much harder terms by the vanguardist from ESE. In his opinion, most of the IWA is fake. (Maybe he'd agree with USI, except he had to be reminded by me that they are part of the IWA.) He criticized the IWA as a bunch of tiny groups pretending to be an international. Then later he went on to talk about how a new international should be built.
I assume this guy from ESE would like to see his group (with all their 20 or 25 members) as a central part in building this new international of "real syndicalist organizations". It may have impressed the authoritarian leaning folks in the crowd and the 17 year old novices, but I saw this as nothing more than posturing meant to raise ones status by demeaning others.
The whole thing was even more hypocritical in the context of the local situation where you have leftist critics of the IWA using the argument of size to show which brands of syndicalism are better than others in the form of CKLA, which until recently was most widely known as a group that needed to have one letter in their organization's name for every member of the organization. If we take size as the sole criteria for assessment or legitimacy, then one wonders how that group, which after so many years still has only two sections and less than a dozen people, is worthy of finding itself in the same company as their illustrious guests. By comparison, the Anarchist Federation has 27 sections, ZSP has 8 and about 3 times as many members in less than one year of operation, and even the confused juveniles of WRS have more members. If size determines who's right and who's not, than what the fuck are they doing with the big losers in the Polish scene?
Of course I don't agree with that approach and calling them "losers" is just a provocative rhetorical device. I just find it completely annoying that those sort of ideas are bounced around and get repeated as some sort of revolutionary wisdom.
My gut feeling is that this is some sort of projection of penile complexes onto politics.
It's hard to say whether or not nods constitute support as people could be nodding in agreement with the new international idea or any other part of what the guy was saying. I can speak of what I assumed, but that could be incorrect. It seemed like the others were in agreement but that the CGT representative was reserved about the issue. He also seemed to be the least agressive person on the panel towards the IWA, but this may reflect his manners more than opinions.
In terms of the closed meeting which was held the day before, I only know what was discussed from heresay, since I am one of the last people they would invite or discuss such matters with. Whether or not this is true, rumours of the new international are around Poland. These may be nothing but rumours made by people who brag too much, or take things out of context. I consider the sources of the rumours to be untrustworthy, so these can likely just be bullshit.
Nobody from SAC showed up at this meeting, despite being invited.
My feeling is that this "new international" idea is being promoted now by some platformist groups. It's unclear whether larger union groups really have interest in these smaller platformist propaganda groups, exactly for the reason mentioned earlier - that there may be different needs of larger unions and small propaganda groups.
My feeling is that this "new international" idea is being promoted now by some platformist groups. It's unclear whether larger union groups really have interest in these smaller platformist propaganda groups, exactly for the reason mentioned earlier - that there may be different needs of larger unions and small propaganda groups.
News to me...
I hope I haven't mispoken here. I've heard this from some individuals - don't know if they represent views of entire groups. It seems this way, but on reflection, one cannot take the ideas of individuals as representative.
Are you from NEFAC?
If so, has there been any discussion whatsoever about this w/ your comrades on the other side of the pond?
My feeling is that this "new international" idea is being promoted now by some platformist groups. It's unclear whether larger union groups really have interest in these smaller platformist propaganda groups, exactly for the reason mentioned earlier - that there may be different needs of larger unions and small propaganda groups.
I assume this is a refrence to the WSM but not sure what you heard about our plans. Our only position on this is at http://www.wsm.ie/story/848 but as the paper says the only thing we are up to at the moment is
7. In order to reach a situation where an international anarchist-communist organisation can be formed we must start preparing the way now. Our tasks are to:(1) Establish and maintain contact with other anarchist-communist groups, and tendencies within other organisations moving in the direction of our politics.
(2) Making the politics of both the Workers Solidarity Movement and the 'Platformist' tradition more widely known within the anarchist movement abroad.
(3) Take part in debates within the international anarchist movement with an aim of explaining the policies of the Workers Solidarity Movement, and of getting the various groupings to clarify their political positions. In particular these are the need for theoretical and tactical unity, imperialism and trade unions.
(4) Proposing concrete international co-operation on specific issues where there is agreement between ourselves and other organisations.
There isn't even any discussion beyond this in the secret dictatorship within wsm or in our covert plans. Unless of course there is a higher level that i don't know about yet. I am only a level 12 platformist you see so they don't tell me everything.
Despite this internal situation the IWA continues to be a pole in the world with enormous potential for organisation and development. It is enough to think of the recent request for affiliation presented by strong unions from Pakistan and Indonesia. These unions surely have practices and trajectories different from the classic ones of the IWA, but an interchange of opinions and a profitable and supportive relationship would permit the association to introduce itself in the areas that are strategically most important and “hot” of world social conflict.
who are the "strong unions" from Pakistan and Indonesia that requested to join the IWA? Anyone got any info on them? Any info or leads would be appreciated.
No, I wasn't speaking about the WSM.
The clear statement on this made by the ESE guy was said in public at a conference, so I have no problems with repeating this here. Other comments of the sort have been made in personal and unofficial contexts, to be fair, with no indication that these are organizational views. That said, I don't feel like they should be repeated here and they are hearsay and may stir up shit.
Sorry to have brought it up in the thread. I rephrase the sentence to "I have heard some other platformists speak of the need for a new international (in a personal capacity) ". Hope that is a more accurate description.
Please note that the ESE guy made this statement in public at the conference. It is not clear whether that view is representative of ESE or just that guy, although at least a couple of people have said this seems to be the view of ESE.
New clashes between locals and riot police erupt in the south Corfu town of Lefkimi over the construction of open refuse dump.
First issue of an irregular workers' bulletin put together by users of the website, libcom.org. This issue focuses on the 2008 pay dispute over sub-inflation pay offers.
This is a rough translation of part of an article that was put up on the USI website before the last IWA congress and now appears to have been removed. Presumably it was a response to the proposal to expel USI and FAU from the IWA - which ended up being rejected. The rest of the article gave a brief and uncontroversial history of the IWA.
So should the IWA still aim to be an association of revolutionary unions - or should it be more of a grouping of political organisations?