Workers Solidarity Alliance and IWA

I don't recall WSA ever taking an official position on the question of IWW-IWA affiliation. A former wsa secretary and formner member made a remark in an interview that some pro-affliation wobs took as an official policy statement opposing it, but that was a bit of a stretch. I personally opposed, on the grounds that the IWW constitution and the one-country-one-section rule of the IWA would make it impractical.

All i can say about the IWW as a revolutionary union is that they explicitly call for the abolition of capitalism using workers direct action. Their practice might not allways live up to the rhetoric, but who's does?

Hello all....lots of stuff to go over but i have no time.

I will try and address all of the WSA issues. I guess since I've been through it all I may have some insight.

Oliver, on the WSA and IWW, I would not use the LLR/ASR articles as a guide. These were written at a time of "bad blood". Both ASR and WSA have avoided going at it for the past few years. WSA does not intend to revisit those and I think this should close that conversation.

Briefly, on the IWW 1990s consideration of affiliating with the IWW, WSA was not opposed. The IWW has put forward at least 3-4 resolutions over time to affiliate with the IWA. This resolution also failed as did previous ones. The WSA position was neutral in the sense that it was an internal matter. WSA did have some questions pertaining to general affiliation. I will have to look thses up in our records. respectfully I do not care to turn this thread into one about the IWW and the IWA. I think there's already another thread for that.

Gotta run.

I think this is probably pretty accurate.

BTW, pretty much all of the WSA documentation from 1984-2000 (or so) is in hard copy. None of this stuff is electronic. We have on disk WSA stuff from the Granada Congress (2000) forward. These consist mainly of WSA replies & correspondence to the IWA. Some of this stuff may be archived on the anarcho-syndicalism@lists.riseup.net (or blackflag) lists.

We can probably email folks whatever we have on disks. No of it is private.

PM me with private emails and we'll see what we can do.

Syndicalist, gato, and felixfrost, thanks for the replies. This is something that had been on my mind since I went through the LLR/ASR archives in the local IWW office.

Revol this is pretty inconsistent with everything else you say about the IWA.

The IWW has a lot of contradictions, and had more in 1990, but it had 500 members and called for workers to "take possession of the earth and the means of production" and "abolish the wage system".

Maybe if the IWW's proposal, which as I understand it was for the IWA to hold a "unity conference" of sorts with the fellow traveling groups outside of it, had worked, then the IWA wouldn't be the melancholic joke that it is today, and maybe anarchosyndicalist ideas would be held in more esteem in other groups, like the IWW.

I mean, FFS, its really hard to talk to wobs (or anyone else) about anarchosyndicalism when they can say "well, what about the IWA?"

For that matter, maybe anarchosyndicalism would look attractive to workers in Nepal or Bangladesh...

i'm interested but the link doesn't work!!

Also I should say that I'll drop the matter of IWW and IWA on this thread. Another time...

beauty

I know its been a long hard day for me and my head is tired, but I have no idea what you're talking about Oliver.

What "unity conference"?

On the topic of anarcho-syndicalism: it is what you make it.

The IWA created its own mess here in the US. Will that stop the WSA from being anarcho-syndicalist? Will that stop us from promoting A/S views in the manner we see appropriate? Will that stop us from acting in solidarity with others? No. Nor should the assinine errors of others stop you from talking up A/S within your organization.

Gotta have some dinner.

Briefly on the question: NO, no and no. I-99 was never meant to be anti-IWA, pro-"parallelist" or the like.

It was meant to be an open space for syndicalists--regarless of affiliation---to come and share ideas and experiances in an open, non-binding and free-flowing way.Sorta of like the former East_west meetings, only with a clear syndicalist theme and format.

Whatever differing WSA viewpoints there were on how to go about organizing I-99, no one that I'm aware of, saw this event as anti-IWA or a first step towards the formation of a new syndicalist international. WSA would've rejected this outright.

Well of course you a aware of some of those who think that the I-99 was exactly that first step towards the formation of a new syndicalist international. Like for instance Mr. Garcia Rua, the then secretary general of the IWA who told us at the IWA Reggio Emilia plenary (where the FAU asked the sections to endorse the I-99) that the aim of the I-99 was nothing else "but to open North America to the SAC". In my opinion the Minnesota coup d'etat and later the infamous "Minnesota report" was nothing but Garcia Ruas bill for WSA endorsement of I-99.

in my house it still is

One way or another, handing over the secretariat to a group we didn't know wasn't the brightest move we've ever made.
i hope this drawn out saga is giving comrades a study of mistakes to avoid. to spell it out, unresolved internal disagreement over the conference project (I99) made this possible. The only contact with what became SAN i recall off hand from this period was a phone call about the name change. i told them i'd never been all that brand identified with wsa as a name, but their proposal was clunky and meaningless and i wouldn't vote for it.

Shortly after they started kicking out comrades and friends i might have been annoyed but was not seriously angry with and it reforged unity. It even raised a protest from a syndicalist journalist who hadn't had a kind word to say about WSA since it's founding.

If the "coup" was, as robot and others have stated, "payback" for i99, why on earth was it targeted at the New York group and not the rest of us? Whatever wrath anyone in the IWA might have thought we'd earned with that, New York had opposed it! I don't entirely discount the possibility, but the heavy-handedness and absurd inventions used to justify it would force me to question not only the principals but the grasp on reality of whoever promoted the intervention

i also entertain the notion that the duluth folks were just a bunch of unprincipaled wankers who caught WSA at a weak point and played to people in the international who were disposed to accept, which doesn't let them off the hook.

yes, i would agree with this -- 100%.

I think it was a bit more complicated than this. I'll try and backtrack later.

After I-99 the san Fran. comrades literally dropped the ball. They said, in mid-term, they didn't want to do the Secretariat and we're sending everything to NY---and you (NY) folks do it!

NY didn't want the Secretariat as we had it so many times. It wasn't healthy for the WSA, nor for NY WSA.Of course we did as we we're not irresponsible people. And did so on the basis that it was on an interium basis. I think there was something like 6 months left. I think this was summer 1999.After I-99, the initiators (SF WSA) simply walked away from the WSA and left us with a mess to sort out.

The Duluth people came forward and said they were interested. At this point there was minor concern about them, but not a whole lot. By late summer/early Fall 1999 it became apparent that the Duluth people were starting to manouvre. All hell broke loose in Oct. 1999 at the time of the IWA Plenary (in Bourdeax). From this point forward and into the election for a new National Committee and Secretariat (for 2000) the Duluth people--with the apparent support of then IWA Sec. (Granada), the NSF, USI to a degree and a wink and a nod by SF --- used every trick in the book to capture the WSA. Of course, they really didn't have to as the WSA was pretty weakened at this point to begin with.

The irony of all this bru-ha-ha by Duluth and the IWA is that they really didn't have to go through such intrigue, such dirt and such low-life tactics. From a personal point of view I was tired. I need to be NS and involved with national/international stuff like I needed a hole in my head. My mother died from cancer in 1998, my father died suddenly in late 1994 and I had so many other things on my plate that I really needed some personal time. Aside from that, the NY group was only holding together by a string at this point.

The Duluth people and the IWA are poor strategists. Fools and schemers filled with illusions and paronia maybe. Instead of knowing who they (the IWA) were dealing with in Duluth, they were so hungry to, as robot says, "stop the SAC's north american entry". In place, they tried to spoil people reputations, isolate an active section and, basically, destroy the reputation of the IWA here in the US.In the end the IWA got nothing out of this but a black eye.

You know, you don't mess with a junk-yard dog---even a sleeping one. This is what happened. While the IWA thought it was getting its way within its own house, the WSA actually started to grow again. Old timers rallied around the WSA and some new folks as well. As David alluded to, even someone who was not friendly to the WSA (let's say an editor from ASR) even came forward and affirmed his disbelief in what was happening.

Again, speaking personally, I just want to acknoledge my gratitude to David. David was probably the first old time comrade to come forward and publically say that what was happening to the WSA was absolutely wrong. From this other folks outside WSA started to come forward. For this, I am indebted to David's decency and comradeship

Well, NY didn't quite oppose it, but we weren't gung-ho either. We (NY) said to folks in San Fran. to approach it differently; to get the IWA involved from the ground-floor; to stop poking people in the eye with a certain aggressive tact and so forth. I'll try and come back to that in another email.

Why was NY targeted? Why have I been the subject of so many mean-spirited personal attacks, lies and slanders? I suspect we were simply the best target due to our longstanding association and participation in the movement.
I suspect I bemae the personal target as you all have elected me so many freakin' times to things---and i the idiot accepteed -:)--that it was easy enough to focus in on NY. The irony of it all, is that it shows how little respect some in the IWA have for the good hard work that others do.

I agree. But even beyond the WSA, they have created such disrespect for the good name of the IWA that they have created a different and larger problem. All of this is a real pity.

Got to get to work.

Syndicalist wrote: "...even someone who was not friendly to the WSA... came forward and affirmed his disbelief in what was happening."

Well. Glad to hear that.

All a bit sad this but understandable given the history. The response of libcom Solfed members has been positive:

What do WSA members think needs to happen to sort out relations with the IWA? What do you think are the reasons for the current problems in the IWA? What needs to change?

Quote gatorojinegro: "I can't speak for other WSA members. All i can tell you is that we've voted twice to reject the IWA's suggestion that WSA re-apply for affiliation. WSA will never do that. It's the position of the WSA that WSA never disaffiliated. I suspect that WSA members would probably say that, to undo the wrong that was done, the IWA needs to accept officially, via IWA congress vote, that the WSA did not disaffiliate."

I would say this is the spirit from which most WSA appraoch this.

Here's a few emais concerning the NY WSA's office. In this is in responce to a part of the Duluth report on all sorts of bizarre stuff concerning the WSA, the IWW and others.

The IWA Secretariat, in a report distributed to IWA sections on the IWW, liberally quoted from the Duluth report. A report which was "copyrighted" no less!
--------------------------------------------------
Feb. 1, 2007

To IWA Sections & Friends

Comrades,

We would like to bring to your attention an item which appears in the very
silly and sad Duluth, Minnesota report which was attached to the
Secretariat's Fall 2006 report supposedly on the IWW.

In making all sorts of the usual wild and insane claims against the Workers
Solidarity Alliance, the half-balanced folks from Duluth claimed that
somehow the building that the WSA has offices in is affiliated with the
socialist party. And that our office is some kind of grand palace.

The building is owned by the Muste Institute and we republish a description
from their website below. Anyone who has been to our office knows the shape
it's in. We welcome all of you to come and paint it. Obviously the Minnesota
spies have some very poor intellegence. Perhaps they served on George Bush's
pre-war Iraq"intellegence" team -:)

Over the years our office has housed a few libertarian groups and has been
the only consistant anarchist space for more than 20 years. Our low rent is
paid out of our own pockets and has been that way from the start.

The other building tenants consist of different sorts of solidarity,
political, cultural and peace and justice types. We have little to no
interaction with most of them. Of course we all say "Hello, how are you?"
when passing each other in the halls or starirs. Tho most of the anarchists
inter-act with the War Resisters League.

While we will address other aspects of the so-called report, we thought it
would be easy enough to start the demystification process with this email.

Lastly, anyone travelling to NYC is welcome to stop by our offices. We'd be
happy to see you.

Mitch
for NY WSA

"The Muste Building

In 1978, with a dream of establishing a permanent home in New York for the
nonviolence movement, the Muste Institute purchased a three-story loft
building in downtown Manhattan from the War Resisters League and began
managing it as part of our program work. By subsidizing the office rents for
our movement tenants, and using income from several commercial storefronts
to offset expenses, the Institute provides a way for activist groups to
maintain low-cost offices in a convenient location, freeing up vital
resources for their social justice work. As the real estate market in New
York City tightens, 339 Lafayette Street - affectionately known as the
"Peace Pentagon" - remains a sanctuary for the movement."

http://www.ajmuste.org/ajbuildingpg.html
In a message dated 2/4/2007 3:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, rab.writes:

Here's another piece you can add to the 'demystification' process:

In the bizarre SAN 'report' it is claimed that Seamas Cain (or Jim Cain as he
was known then) was 'threatened' by IWW member Henry Pffaff in 1973. I met
Henry in 1973 when visiting some friends in Buffalo. He and his wife were
well in their 70's and living in a small house in a working-class district of
the city. Mrs. Pfaff made coffee and strudel (and excellent strudel it was,
her being from Hungary) and they told many stories about IWW acitivities and
organizing during the 1920's and 30's. They were warm and gentle people and
of course they are long dead, so that they cannot speak in their own defense,
but if Mr. Cain felt 'threatened' by Henry Pfaff, I feel sorry for him, because
he must be a very timid and easily frightened person (which would not match
the Cain who I met in 1975 when he came to NYC).

Steven R.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott R.
>Sent: Feb 4, 2007 1:24 PM
>To: A list for members and active supporters of Workers Solidarity Alliance
>Subject: Re: [WSA-members] SAN and the NY Office
>
>The WSA office is one room in a 3-storey building in lower Manhattan in a
nondescript neighborhood of small businesses, a convenient distance to the
subway stop. It need paint and perhaps some organization, but I trust Mitch and
others can find stuff if need be. I saw a big War Resisters League office, a
conference room and a little socialist group office [I forget which faction].
Everything in Manhattan seems expensive to me so it is a good deal that we have
this space. Consider how many infoshops, peace centers and co-op houses have
failed over the past 15 years---I know of several in the Los Angeles area.
>
> I got involved with the WSA because I thought they had a lot of experience
and potential and I wanted to contribute my political labor somewhere where
people were behind me and not in my way.
>
> I never heard of our naysayers on the reputation of their deeds; only their
complaining. I won't speculate what their trip is, but they seem to want
attention for their "club". I've met plenty of Twin Cities (A)ists who I know by
their deeds, not complaints. This kind of competion is for Marxists!
>
> Scott

Further in the Duluth report, distributed by the IWA Secretariat, Tom was accused of being a "Marxian libertarian municipalist"

In their report "The 'Alternative Unionism' of the IWW: a critical statment by the Syndicalist Action Network". Syndicalist.Action@gmail.com. Copyright(c)
2006. September 12, 2006.

"Between 1995 and 2001, Tom Wetzel, another member of the rump 'WSA', openly identified himself as a 'Marxian libertarian municipalist.' He participated, as such, in the Lula-sponsored event in Brazil"

In a message dated 1/31/2007 1:31:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, tom wrote:

i think what they probably mean is that i gave a
paper on the city and talked about "self-managed
cities" and advocated neighborhood assemblies, along
with worker assemblies. I suppose that anyone who
does that is, in their book, a "libertarian municipalist."
That's crazy since the CNT in the '30s advocated neighborhood assemblies. And since Murray was anti-marxist how can one be a "marxist libertarian municipalist". And i wonder what i said that makes them say "marxist"? i've never called myself a "marxist". in fact i think in some of the stuff i wrote for the WSF talks i criticized marxism.
t.

Over the years various IWA Secretariats and others have criticised I-99 as being the begining of a "parallel" international.

I thought this would be of some interest as it's clear what the participants intentions were.This report appeared in the WSA internal discussion bulletin.

From "WSA-SF Report on the International Solidarity Conference '99 (I-99)- 10 Nov. 1999"

"At the I-99 Conference that took place the weekend of June 1-5th, 1999. we had 110 registered participants from all over the world, including Australia,Canada, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, as well as from all over the USA.

"Although there were diverse groups of people we found that we have many of the same struggles, but often use different tactics. ... We saw the need to overcome our own boundaries, both geographically and ideologically.

"... Given the fact that the IWA is the current International, no one felt the need to discuss forming a new one. ...Some industrial organizing strategies
were discussed especially among computer, timber, food service industries as well as students.

"The most immediate task at hand was to establish and strengthen international communications. We decided to both share the experience and stay in contact with each other via the internet."

On the question of WSA's position concerning the SAC (when we were in the IWA). Here's our position submitted to the Oct. 1999 Tolouse Plenary. This was the last Pleanry WSA attended before the full-scale war between WSA, Duluth and the IWA.

Our position, as you will see, hardly can be considered "parallelist". It is, indeed, constructive and pragmatic.

The reference to Point #9, etc. was to its order on the Plenary Agenda and on the subject of a Commission concerning the SAC and the IWA. This Commission (which never came about) was oft spoken about in the late 1990s.

"Point #9) Commission on the SAC

There should be an on-going commission to examine the historical context of the conflict between the IWA and the SAC. The ultimate goal of this commission should be to work towards some resolution of this long-term problem. In the
interim, IWA Sections should be able to exchange publications, correspond with and extend solidarity to either the national SAC or its affiliated bodies. IWA
should engage in a period of discussion before making a major change its existing policy."

There's more about relations between SAC and the IWA in this period at
http://libcom.org/library/an-open-letter-to-the-iwa-from-sac-1998

And here's what the IWA has to say about it all:

"Defence of the IWA and anarchosyndicalism"
http://www.iwa-ait.org/Defence2.html

After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.