1989 IWW referendum to affiliate with the IWA

So what happened with this? Presumably the affiliation didn't go through?

Nope.

Bureaucrats in the IWW let it linger in committee.

Presumably it would have effectively destroyed the IWW in its current form as well, in that the IWW is an international organisation, and the IWA only permits one section per nation state, so IWW groups in countries where there was already an IWA affiliate would essentially have to dissolve themselves into them, which I imagine most/all would be pretty reluctant to…

Well the request to join was accompanied by a request to keep two sections in such countries the IWW one and the previous IWA one. This was definitely one of the confusions that held things up to some degree, though mostly from what I can tell from old correspondence archives between IWW folks, WSA folks, and IWA folks that the length of time between mail around the correspondence was more of a detriment. Also an individual repping IWW GHQ who was not actually given that authority caused a lot of confusion in their communications with the IWA and WSA secretaries. Never mind the negligence of the leadership in this 92 onwards time to pursue the implementation of the vote.

So is it still theoretically an active mandate?

did the IWA (or its constituent branches) publish anything about all this?

I don't have time to go into this. I "lived" through this as a WSA member. Prolly more complex then above explanations, though there were elements of these. The question of the IWW in other parts of the globe (outside of north america where a vast majority of members were at the time) was (and prolly still is) problematic, particularly in areas where IWA was long established.

Said respectfully and comradely, my own view is that the IWW might retain cooperative relations as seperate and distinct organizations, but unity would prolly never occur. This is not to say that active cooperation on campaigns and other things should not be pursued, they should. And it would be in both organization's interests to find ways to avoid "tripping" over each other throughout the globe. Particularly since the IWW has embarked on being a serious international in its own right.

I'm curious as to why this is an anonymous posting?

i think its just a glitch in how it got posted. somethings get glitched out like that at times on libcom.

ps: i'm willing to explain the specifics as i know them at some later date without revealing names, or sharing internal documents to IWA and the IWW. what i wrote earlier was mostly a quick ruff overview.

In June 1990 the IWW GST sent a letter to the IWA secretariat stating as much as the above resolution to initiate discussions of an affiliation. Inclosed were the IWW constitution and bylaws as well as the One Big Union pamphlet, and it requested sharing of comparable rules and principles from the IWA.

The IWA secretariat that June then notified the WSA of the request, explaining that the process would be that of setting up a commission made up of two representatives from the IWW, the WSA, and the Secretariat.

The IWA secretariat letter in reply to the IWW stated the same regarding the commission and asked two questions:

a) In which countries are there organized IWW structures apart from the US and do they have a character of a national, areawide or loca organization?

b) Does "maintaining IWW membership" in countries where there are IWA sections mean working separately as an IWW body or inside the IWA section and in the latter case, will IWW membership just mean a personal attitude and maintaining contacts with the IWW HQ or will it mean maintaining an organized structure inside the respective section?

The WSA national secretary in return sent a copy of the WSA constitution and Where We Stand to the IWW, expressing being quite open to serious discussion of a negotiation between both organizations, and stating that all further correspondence should be sent to both the WSA and the IWA secretariat.

As well the WSA national committee sent a letter to the IWA secretariat seconding the questions asked of the IWW and expressing a desire to have more face to face discussion and direct relationship between the WSA and IWW before setting up such a three way commission. This concern seemed in part because there was a fear that without such direct contact between the IWW and WSA the IWW would just maintain contact with the IWA secretariat, instead of a genuine three way discussion and negotiation. This seems because of the longstanding ASR beef with WSA, and the people behind affiliation being the ASR camp in the IWW.

In 91 the WSA secretary sent a letter to the IWW International Committee stating that the IWW should answer the two questions from the IWA secretariat and that would help move the process along. It also requested that information be provided on how the 1989 mandate of all matters regarding IWA affiliation being entrusted in the GST passed from the GST to the International Committee.

This confusion is because a lone wolf from the IWW sent a letter signed as the GEB and the International Committee to the IWA and it’s sections. This lone wolf shared his personal opinion that though IWW wouldn’t continue to build sections where the IWA already had them, that existing members should be allowed to keep their membership (along the lines of the “personal attitude” expressed by the IWA secretariat). This caused a lot of confusion for all parties because the WSA had copy of a 91 IWW General Assembly resolution that disbanded the International Committee and entrusted all IWA affiliation matters in the GEB. The discovery of this behavior of a lone wolf in the IWW came from correspondence between the 92 IWW GST and WSA national secretary. The 92 IWW GST also shared with the WSA national secretary that “The Board, who was mandated at the 1991 Assembly to take up the duties of the International Committee (including these discussions), has shown little to no interest in the project. Such discussion that has taken place, in our GOB and elsewhere, has shown a general disclination to affiliate.”

Throughout the entire series of these correspondences the IWA, WSA, and IWW showed up most expressions of solidarity and desire to build comradely and closer relationships, regardless of the affiliation question.

So basically the mandate still exists but the early 92 GEB didn’t want to act on it, and there was some differing opinions on affiliation within the IWW as expressed in the GOB, and so people just didn’t act on it, or the political will to see it through either by ASR types, or otherwise didn’t seem to be there?

Also IWA congress was in 92, and IWW general assembly, and WSA convention were going to all have to probably approve of any such negotiation, never mind the commission, so the puzzle pieces just didn't seem to get put together to make it all work out.

Also I might edit the pic for this library article later

“The Board, who was mandated at the 1991 Assembly to take up the duties of the International Committee (including these discussions), has shown little to no interest in the project. Such discussion that has taken place, in our GOB and elsewhere, has shown a general disclination to affiliate.”

Democracy inaction. Elected officers mandated by the organization to carry out a task show "little to no interest" and so nothing happens. I wonder whether any members of the 92 GEB are still in the Union...

Also I'm surprised by syndicalist's attitude that unity is impossible under any circumstances. I would agree that there are a lot of barriers, but if we really believe in the formation of revolutionary unions around the world, and ultimately in libertarian communism, why is it so impossible to imagine two groups that could fit into a small sports stadium and who have no principled or political differences that anyone can elaborate*, finding common ground?

*Seriously I have yet to see anyone show a difference between the IWW and IWA that is more convincing than an Anglo-Saxon vs Latin split.

Yep, Anglo-American vs Latin. Oh! and the SAC and their money...

Right quick.....

klas batalo

Well the request to join was accompanied by a request to keep two sections in such countries the IWW one and the previous IWA one. This was definitely one of the confusions that held things up to some degree, though mostly from what I can tell from old correspondence archives between IWW folks, WSA folks, and IWA folks that the length of time between mail around the correspondence was more of a detriment. Also an individual repping IWW GHQ who was not actually given that authority caused a lot of confusion in their communications with the IWA and WSA secretaries. Never mind the negligence of the leadership in this 92 onwards time to pursue the implementation of the vote.

Time lag, for sure. But the IWW failed to make an attempt to answer any of the questions which the IWA put for reply.

My personal opinion is the whole issue was a rouse by a small group of anti-WSA folks from ASR. It was an attempt by them to end run WSA on the IWA. The WSA did not fall into any sectarian traps they set and we felt the comradely need and obligation to have constructive engagement. As always, true colors always seem to reveal themselves. When the IWW failed to get it together with how to proceed with the IWA, the WSA was blamed (by an ASR member), in both the internal GOB and ASR publication, for the IWWs 4 plus year internal failure to address or move on IWA affiliation.

Also, the IWW second condition on affiliation --- "to extend (IWA) membership to all revolutionary unions independent of government and party control." Certainly a euphemism to open up the doors for the Swedish SAC and Spanish CGT, as being the two unions the IWW associated (and associates) with. That was (is) a no starter for the the IWA.

Time does not permit me to comment further. Nor do I have the materials before me to review. My comments on this matter are neither to make enemies or be disrespectful to those in the IWW. certainly not to many who have come forward in the past decade or so.Nor to any new generation(s) of those identifying with anarcho-syndicalism not associated with the old ASR crowd. I suspect I will make no new friends either by my candid and intimate comments on this matter. Intimate in the sense of being a deeply engaged participant. And one who's ear was to the rail, as they say, with a pretty good understanding of the events as they unfolded.

Let me close by saying that much of this has to be looked with a eye to the events and participants of the day. That comments based on those events may be reflective of those times and events, not necc. of today. But I would say that more so in terms of the few sectarians who were driving the thing more then some of the issues at hand.

OliverTwister

Also I'm surprised by syndicalist's attitude that unity is impossible under any circumstances. I would agree that there are a lot of barriers, but if we really believe in the formation of revolutionary unions around the world, and ultimately in libertarian communism .....

Well, maybe the IWW doesn't believe in "libertarian communism" and therein lies part of the issue (for some in both the IWW and IWA). And, thus far, all that I have read and seen with my own eyes leaves me to believe that unity is not possible for the forseeable future, maybe never.. Like I said, there is clearly a need for cooperation and collaboration.

*Seriously I have yet to see anyone show a difference between the IWW and IWA that is more convincing than an Anglo-Saxon vs Latin split.

I'm not sure I get what you mean.

I mean that there is more internal difference within each organization than between them. Nobody can point to a current difference of politics or practice as being decisive, that does not also exist within either side. We could just as accurately (or just as inaccurately) say that the split is a cultural one between anglo-saxon and latin cultural spheres of influence.

The IWA's statutes say that it is an organization of revolutionary unions. The IWW may not use the phrase "libertarian communism" but we do talk about the workers cooperative commonwealth. Again the point is that if we can't imagine any possible conditions under which unity can occur, how can we imagine a future where there are many revolutionary unions, let alone one where the workers organize as a class, seize the means of production, and live in harmony with the earth?

OliverTwister

I mean that there is more internal difference within each organization than between them. Nobody can point to a current difference of politics or practice as being decisive, that does not also exist within either side. We could just as accurately (or just as inaccurately) say that the split is a cultural one between anglo-saxon and latin cultural spheres of influence.

The IWA's statutes say that it is an organization of revolutionary unions. The IWW may not use the phrase "libertarian communism" but we do talk about the workers cooperative commonwealth. Again the point is that if we can't imagine any possible conditions under which unity can occur, how can we imagine a future where there are many revolutionary unions, let alone one where the workers organize as a class, seize the means of production, and live in harmony with the earth?

In the main I don't disagree in a broad sense. I'm just saying....

Syndicalist speaks the facts.

Hi. I see that syndicalist has already pointed out what I think would have been a major stumbling block to the issue and that is that the IWW tried to put conditions on the IWA which would contradict their own confederal agreements. While the IWA was trying to create a tactical unity in relation to things such as the state and state corporativist schemes. many people in the IWW have played down or completely disregarded the importance of this issue. I think that Oliver here is giving us an example of this as he is pretending like this issue does not exist by claiming that nobody has ever given any explanation of what is different between the IWW and IWA. This does not seem at all true to me because, while there may be many similarities, very few in the IWA would have an neutral opinion about these issues whereas I suppose that quite a few in the IWW would. (Judging from what I have seen and heard.)

There are a number of important organizational differences as well, although these I believe are less important than perceptions around the importance of the use of the state.

Also, following the events in Spain from 1979-1986, a very neutral position from certain persons in the IWW would not have been too welcome. In the past couple of months I came across information about the role of certain persons in SAC in the conflict that I hadn't known before. The rank and file had been generously donating money to Spain. One of the SAC leaders had been staying in that country and money was being funnelled to the reformist sections that wanted to split off. This went on long before the infamous SAC loan to what was to be the CGT. I came across some old things from CNT congresses which show that the fraction of the CNT receiving money did not account for it, meaning that this money was going to pump up and support the split faction before the congress. Checking into this, it does seem like the SAC representive in Spain knowingly encouraged this situation and was in support of this faction. So the SAC money issue went back much further than I had known, being an issue of major contention already in 1979. The interpretation that this was some "normal solidarity" and neutral or favourable interpretation of these events would not likely have been welcome by people who had suffered internal splits and were embroiled in some conflicts.

Further, it is interesting that this faction behind these moves to get the IWW to join the IWA shortly after intervened against an IWA Section in Australia and provided financial support for split offs. One really has to wonder how incidents like this would have played out if the IWW were a candidate to be in the IWA in some way.

Anyway, is hard to speculate about the past but I would say that the issue Syndicalist and I presented only became much more of an issue since that time due to the IWW's tendency to ally itself with other syndicalist tendencies in an uncritical way and due to a few years of very negative positions towards the IWA. I hope the times of the worst negative positions have passed, but I suppose quite a lot of the membership really believe in neutral syndicalism or focusing on the class and being against anarchistic politics in the union, so I think there is quite a legitimate difference between organizations where one approach is dominant and where the other is. Surely there is room for cooperation but I don't see an organizational unity coming out of this.

Leeaving everything else aside, the referendum mandated the officers to continue pursuing affiliation. The officers simply decided not to do this. Nobody else sees that as a problem?

Oliver, I suppose your question if this is a problem is more a question to IWW members but allow me to comment that I see it as a problem. Basically, if an organization mandates a delegate or officer to do something, they are obliged to do it. What's more, they are, in my opinion, obliged to put all efforts into implementing decisions, regardless of what they personally think about it. (I speak about this as a mandated person myself, trying to implement some things even if I personally think there may be some difficulties to them.)

The thing is that officers and delegated persons of all sorts should understand their obligation to report on the implementation of decisions and to be accountable to the questions of the organization on what has or hasn't been done and, if something could not be implemented for any reason, to inform or discuss why.

This is a very basic anarchosyndicalist idea in my opinion.

On the other hand, one might ask what the membership who voted in this referendum did when seeing no action.

I think in general we can learn from stuff like this - first and foremost about implementing decisions. I won't speak about your organization by my own - I see that it is often problematic. My own personal opinion though is that sometimes the problem is that some task needs to be done by larger groups of people or that sometimes there is a bad practice of deciding something then forgetting about it, not putting it on further agendas for follow-up, etc. etc. Maybe this is slightly off topic, but if comrades in the IWW as well as in IWA improved practices in terms of what happens after decisions are made, surely this would be a good thing.

OliverTwister,

Of course, that was/is kind of fucky for sure. However, I don't really think that it'd be appropriate, after all this time, for officers to actively move towards this without yet another mandate (I don't know if this is what you're getting at?). A lot of time has passed, shit has changed. I don't think such a mandate could be achieved in today's IWW.

I don't put alot of value in dumping loads of energy in uniting groups organizationally and feel that such projects can actually end up dampening more important work. I feel that the way forward for IWW/IWA is to look out for each other, act in solidarity whenever possible and share resources when necessary and not step on each-others toes. I see this as a kind of unity. This has happened in recent history.

If folks want to frame this in their mind as "competing internationals" they can, its just entirely unhelpful.

Upon first read, Klas documents the time line pretty well
I need to look the stuff over again, particularly on the mandate issue
But the WSA description pretty much reflects the WSA documentation.

DP

Would have to agree with Bozemananarchy.

Of course the not stepping on toes part I see can be a little difficult in practice but hopefully some improvement can be made there. From what I see, this isn't an imagined issue and can stir up emotions.

Oliver,

The couple years after the IWA "mandate" were some of the worst in the IWW's existence. There was a massive faction fight and dues strike, leaving membership well below 100. That's when GHQ moved to San Francisco, and an anarcho-activist (EF!/FNB) faction took charge who basically didn't believe in any central organization.

I don't think there was any calculated ignoring of the affiliation with IWA vote. I think the IWW was in really crappy shape.

I also think that the vote began to be understood as a sectarian attack on the WSA on behalf of ASR. A majority of the IWW didn't want to give control to the ASReholes so wouldn't go along with them. And certain actions by the WSA in the late 80s could be seen as hostile to the IWW so some folks were a bit bitter towards the IWA, but not willing to take it as far as Bekken.

Brill, thanks for the comments, think they are also important to take into account.

Now I know that lots of people are interested in history. I am too. Maybe looking back into history and explaining why things happen can teach us some lessons.

But my opinion is that this is a bit of a substitute issue. The more interesting issues are about what can happen in the future. Is there a way to really discuss and overcome divisive issues? (Pretending they aren't there is not really a way forward.) Is there a way that despite them there can be better coordination to mutually support struggles when appropriate and possible?

On a deeper level, a question is whether anarchosyndicalist initiatives such as the WSA will be seen as some sort of threat by ones who support neutral syndicalism or class syndicalism once they really start functioning as unions. I remember a lot of old stuff, oral statements even more than written, which now seem to me to indicate that some issues between ASR and WSA where not simply problems of personal ambition, but rather of point of view.

akai: that some issues between ASR and WSA where not simply problems of personal ambition, but rather of point of view.

More then happy to have that conversation elsewhere. Because it is my opinion that ASR manipulated everything to cast a bad shadow on WSA. Even principled tactical disagreements, based on events of those days, were maniuplated to make WSA seem a certain way. I am happy to have that convo elsewhere.

fnbrilll

Syndicalist speaks the facts.

Thanks, he tries.

I want to clarify my last comments.

I was trying to give a historical context to Oliver so he wouldn't see the situation simply as some sort of conspiracy and political plot. I don't think it was one - the IWW's General Administration was simply really fucked up at the time.

I also want to clarify that I think the WSA was never as hostile to the IWW as I maybe made it seem. From what I remember *some* members of the WSA felt the IWW was becoming irrelevant. Certainly not unreasonable at the time.

Akai is also correct there are genuine political disagrements behind the differences between the WSA and ASR faction of the IWW. The issue is that it seems the majority of the IWW never felt the ASR group acted openly and honestly. There's no way to measure or test this, just an observation. But also would explain the contraditary decisions from the majority of the IWW.

Akai: Also I agree that we want to look to the future, My position as an IWW has always been that we aim to work together, but IWW does the IWW's work. If a group of workers chooses the IWW in a country where there are syndicalist groupings I advocate the IWW organize them. Just like the IWA has recognized sections in countries the IWW is in. We work together were we can. Unity comes when it makes sense not because some of our members read the same books.

I will take up that invitation to discussion but another day. Too much stuff to do before tomorrow.

akai

Would have to agree with Bozemananarchy.

Of course the not stepping on toes part I see can be a little difficult in practice but hopefully some improvement can be made there. From what I see, this isn't an imagined issue and can stir up emotions.

Agreed, wasn't my intention to play this issue down.

My thoughts would be that both orgs discuss building internal structures for liason / cooperating / communicating with their sister organization, on international, national and local levels. Emphasis on the local level particularly where both are actively operating in workplace organizing in the same region/industry. A poor analogy to say the least, but they need something like the US-Soviet hotline, red phones and everything. ;-)

akai

I will take up that invitation to discussion but another day. Too much stuff to do before tomorrow.

That's cool. Anytime. I'd look forward to it. As long as everyone conducts themselves in a comradely and respectful manner.

Just to remind people, a lot of the IWW, ASR, WSA and IWA conversation has happened many times on here and can be found in the following threads:

http://libcom.org/forums/history/wsa-iww-iwa-affiliation-29082012
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/iww-iwa-ex-iwa-anarcho-syndicalism-19062006
http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa

To go back to Oliver's comment about there not being much of a difference between the IWW and IWA besides 'Anglo-Saxon and Latin', I'd say there's a lot more, for example:

1) Anarchism and/or libertarian communism as an important self-identifier - the IWA groups place a huge amount of importance on explicitly identifying within the anarchist tradition. The IWW never has and I can't imagine ever will. I've heard some say the 'cooperative commonwealth' could be seen as another word for libertarian communism. Maybe, but if it can, it's because it's such an undefined term for the IWW, not because one can look at it and compare with libertarian communism.

2) Cultural and historical differences - the self-identification issue is partly rooted in the IWW's refusal to align itself with a specific ideology, but it also has to do with its historical suspicion of ideological terms over explanations of what that means in practice. I used to think this was anti-intellectualism, and therefore a bad thing, but now I think it is actually useful. I don't give a shit whether something is 'anarchist' or not. I think arguing around those lines is more about sect territory than anything. I care whether something moves along the self-activity, confidence and ability of the class, free of state-capital-labor collaboration.

Anarchism has never been a major force in the IWW. Despite some of my comrades trying to uncover some hidden history of anarchism being such in the historical IWW, it isn't there. Almost all the known anarchists in the IWW were involved as individuals, and nothing more. Surely there were small, local groups who had some influence on regional IWWs, but almost none of the union's stances which are commonly seen as the same or compatible with anarcho-syndicalism came from anarchists or were adopted because they were seen as anarchistic. That is a drastic difference from the IWA, where probably almost every major decision is checked against whether it is consistent with their understanding of an anarchist tradition.

Even the heroes, who took stances which seem today to be IWA-esque, came from very different perspectives and backgrounds which would make many European anarcho-syndicalists uncomfortable. Haywood was insistently for direct action, against contracts, and against parliamentary socialism but who swung towards centralization of the union, was a major player in the Socialist Party and ended up fleeing to Russia to be a minor part of the Bolshevik state. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn put out pamphlets advocating sabotage and also was a tireless advocate of direct action, but was also in the Communist Party for decades. Father Haggerty was a priest. Utah Phillips, a pacifist. Others either had unknown/unclear/not well known ideological affliations or nothing beyond what the IWW was, such as Vincent St. John, E.F. Doree, Ben Fletcher, etc etc

3) Structural differences - Some of the structural differences have been blown out of proportion in the past, by people with beefs with each other, but they still exist. The IWW is not a federation and never has been. It has no experience with this. I think a lot of people would be blown away at the way decisions happen in the IWA, with one section, one vote, regardless of the membership of the section. This is very different than how decisions are made in the IWW, where the amount of votes you get at Convention is tied to your membership. Additionally, I think the concept of a General Executive Board, as opposed to numerous assemblies, is alien to the IWA.

4) IWW in other countries - the IWW exists in numerous countries, and not in a thought-out way, either. The IWW outside the United States is simultaneously almost a whole different organization, and dominated by the IWW in the United States. You would almost have to look at different regions as completely different groups, in order to get anywhere.

5) Relation to state-capital-labor schemes - The controversy in the IWA with this has, until this point, been limited to what exists in continental Western Europe. How does this shake out for the United States? Canada? UK? Are NLRB elections and contracts the same as works councils? What about registering with the state and all that entails1 ? What about ULPs? Don't some IWA sections sign contracts which mean no striking and file complaints with their state's equivalent of the Labor Department?

• 1In the U.S., unions are required to provide certain amounts of information about voting, officers, money, etc.

Said respectfully and comradely - I suspect Juan has made all the "arguments" why the IWW has never and prolly won't join the IWA.

Another unique thing, and I know that I'm generalizing, is that post-1950s, many if not most anarchist efforts to change the direction of the IWW have been either destructive, such as the ASR people, or have pushed the IWW in the direction of 'apolitical syndicalism' and colloboration with the state. The IWW decided to register with the Department of Labor during the 1960s-1970s, I believe, when it probably had the highest proportion of members and officers that explicitly thought of themselves as anarchists. I can't prove it, but I suspect also the changes in the One Big Union pamphlet, which added or more emphasized 'no politics in the union', came primarily from anarchists, as well. Even today, in the IWW, the people consistently with these stances almost always happen to be anarchists. This applies to branches as well, the branches with the most contracts, with major tendencies against what could be seen as IWA style unionism are probably branches with the highest proportion of self-identified anarchists. That is a uniqueness that I'm not sure Europeans would understand and would surely result in an intercontinental battle over the meaning of anarchism, with the resulting splits, if IWA membership was pushed.

I mention this because I think there are some in the IWA, either out of genuine misunderstanding or from sectarian fights from the past, think that the IWW, because it doesn't explicitly identify as anarchist, this means it is either controlled or has a high level of participation from other currents. This just isn't true. The vast amount of the membership, at least in the U.S., either identifies as anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist or with the IWW's politics. Every so often you encounter someone who says they are a Trotskyist and I know of a couple people who see themselves as democratic socialists or Maoists, but it is pretty rare. There are probably more people who call themselves councilists than these people.

I was in the IWW during the early 1970s when some of the arguments about signing government stuff was debated. It was a mixed bag. Some of the debate was to make the IWW a "real union". Like the many debates over the succeding decades. Different times, different circumstances, same sorta argument about become a "real" union and "doing something" (not said sarcastically).

But being some sort of "ist" doesn't guarantee good politics either.

Don't some IWA sections sign contracts which mean no striking and file complaints with their state's equivalent of the Labor Department?

For the former, I'm not aware of that, and I'm pretty sure it'd create a proper shitstorm if it did happen - that and the fact that US-style no-strike clauses are pretty rare in Europe (although things like minimum service requirements - a la the Paris Metro - are more common).

For the latter, yeah I think that does happen. If I remember correctly (and I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong), didn't the Australian IWA's pizza workers campaign play out in the labor courts?

Good posts Juan.

The IWA according to its statutes organizes revolutionary unions, not just explicitly anarchosyndicalist ones. Those statutes still stand. It's true that the IWW does not make reference to "libertarian communism", and I don't think it needs to, but I don't think it would be out of the question to interpret "seizing the means of production and living in harmony with the earth" as libertarian communism (and for the union as an organization to say so). The other differences you mentioned are definitely important, and complicated, but they are not crucial political or principled differences.

Akai also mentions the IWA's efforts over the past two decades to clarify it's attitudes towards engagement with state labor schemes and state funding. Does the IWA have any written policies clarifying this? After all the CNT is registered as a union with the Spanish government, and registers its workplace sections, so I imagine that there is some guideline about where the union begins to lose its autonomy that would help guide new or potential sections.

There should be more discussion about this stuff because it doesn't translate 100% into the US/Canada context. (Thus we have Europeans criticizing us for not rejecting the government while many of us don't understand why the government is such a big deal over there.) Unions don't generally receive government money here, but the financial aspect of their bureaucratization was solved with the dues check-off during WW2, which has the employer remove the union dues automatically from every employees wages and transfer them to the union. The IWW has rejected this since it's inception. Also, last year, after years of debate and development, we decided as an organization to completely reject no-strike clauses or anything contractual language that would restrict rights to direct action; and to place strict limits on paid staff (specifically banning organizing staff) which are two of the other main pillars of union bureaucratization in North America. This is not to say that the government is not a major obstacle - I think that one of our slogans should be "Get the government out of the labor movement" - but the role that it plays is different in some very important ways.

These questions can only be dealt with by a workers' organization that is rooted in the reality of the country where it exists and not just by trying to emulate what they are doing "over there". This is why I am as wary of Americans trying to carbon-copy European anarchosyndicalism without understanding the context, as I am of small groups on other continents trying to carbon-copy the IWW.

A couple other notes:
-It was Pat Murfin, an SP member and GST, in 1972 who led registration with the Dept of Labor, as far as I've been able to research it was never brought to for a decision at Convention.

-Even if theoretically the mandate to negotiate IWA affiliation still stoof I wouldn't want any officers to pursue it without the discussion being raised again. Democracy in our kind of organization means that the members should take an active, not just passive, role in giving guidance to the officers.

-Brill mentions that we should have solidarity but build the IWW wherever people want to. To me the emphasis should be to build class organizations wherever we can. If workers want their class organization to be called the IWW, that's fine, but five individuals calling themselves the IWW does not change the balance of class forces (and five individuals do not make a class organization). Also if we're serious about our politics, then at some point there will have to be an international organization of revolutionary unions, this will not come about by fishing for disciples, and furthermore using those groups of disciples to prevent unity in the event that the majority wants it, is anti-democratic and a great example of the tail wagging the dog.

-I don't want to imply that I think an Anglo vs Latin split is a great explanation for the historical division between the IWW and IWA. But I do think that the frontier experience in the US and Austrialia gave certain characteristics that were not present in Spain, France, or Latin America. If you look back at some of the IWW documents about the Spanish Revolution, you can pick up a lot of the same anti-Latin racism as during the Spanish-American war for example. SImilarly the church and the state have never played the same heavy role in North America or Australia and so it hasn't seemed as necessary to workers here to struggle directly against them.

The state has played a heavy role in the US, Oliver

Juan is right the IWW is full of self described anarchists who really just have shitty leftist politics adopted from activist milieus, wingnuttery, and big labor.

Yeah but anarchism itself is as much to blame as any of those things.

Chilli Sauce

Don't some IWA sections sign contracts which mean no striking and file complaints with their state's equivalent of the Labor Department?

For the former, I'm not aware of that, and I'm pretty sure it'd create a proper shitstorm if it did happen - that and the fact that US-style no-strike clauses are pretty rare in Europe (although things like minimum service requirements - a la the Paris Metro - are more common).

Not wanting to derail the discussion, but on this point you're right that no-strike clauses are pretty rare here. In many countries, like the UK, even if the union did technically sign such an agreement they would be no legal way of enforcing it, so it would actually be pretty pointless.

With minimum service requirements, they are a bit different, because they are legislated in law rather than agreed with the unions

Chilli Sauce

If I remember correctly (and I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong), didn't the Australian IWA's pizza workers campaign play out in the labor courts?

Yes, it did. Not being a member of either the Australian IWW or the ASF (the Australian IWA section), I did something uncharacteristic and decided to listen rather than talk. My decision was influenced by the fact that I am in Melbourne and the ASF members in the dispute were in Brisbane, so I was not in a position to speak directly to them and would have been dealing with the Melbourne ASF people, on whom I was relying for information.

Anyway, the Brisbane delivery drivers got their money and the SDA (Australia's biggest and yellowest union) got a black eye. Whether the drivers, apart from the one ASF member who recruited them, stayed in the ASF after that I don't know.

What I do know is that any amalgamation between the IWW & the IWA would cause a massive explosion in the class struggle wing of the tiny Anarchist movement here. Key positions in these organisations are held by people who have been in conflict for over 30 years and can hardly stand to be in the same room as each other.

Juan Conatz

Yeah but anarchism itself is as much to blame as any of those things.

Sorry, not sure I get what you mean. Why is "anarchism" to blame? Perhaps "ists" of different revolutionary tendencies are to blame (for?), but surely not the ideals themselves. Unless I'm misunderstanding this.

Maybe anarchists are just as much to blame?

Chilli Sauce

Maybe anarchists are just as much to blame?

"ists" directed at my use?

I'm not sure what the blame is. But I get the drift on how some anarchists have carried out their work in the IWW. And in some years past, not much different from some of the socialists. making the IWW a "real union" has meant making the IWW devoid of anarchist practice by anarchists. As it had by socialists as well.

Look, I'm no one to really talk here (so, shut the f up, I know). I would think the issue for anarcho-syndicalists inside the IWW is to make the practice more in line with the revolutionary labor contebnt of anarcho-syndicalism then anything else. From that other things are possible.
At this point the practice and implementation of anarcho-syndicalism in a real way will act as the guide for others to follow. And, peeps sorta do that on the other end of the scale now inside the IWW. And have for a long time (note the reliance on the NLRB in all these campaigns: http://libcom.org/history/nothing-common-oral-history-iww-strikes-1971-1992).

From afar, my impression/thinking is like using the stuff around "direct unionsm"
( http://libcom.org/library/debate-direct-unionism ) as the door opener to a practice that
is anarcho-syndicalist in essence. And one that's not, per se, caught up on a rethoric that goes no where (at this point) with many in the IWW. I would think that the revolutionizing the IWW is based on the internal practice, not a simple affiliation.

Perhaps I've gone a bit beyond where I should. Just sharing some thoughts.

That the 1988 convention decision to pursue affiliation with the IWA was not acted upon indicates a structural problem. If the GST and the GEB were instructed to act upon it and subsequently did not, it suggests that power is not at the base but concentrated in the GST and/or the GEB.

But it is only a problem from an anarchist point of view which seeks not to obtain power, but to destroy it. Or, at least dissipate power as much as is possible. From an authoritarian point of view, it is not a problem. It demonstrates the opportunity afforded to an enlightened leadership to decide what's best for the members and that they need not be bound by decisions of the general membership when they clearly have made a mistake (as judged by the enlightened leadership).

Juan Conatz wrote:

exist. The IWW is not a federation and never has been. It has no experience with this. I think a lot of people would be blown away at the way decisions happen in the IWA, with one section, one vote, regardless of the membership of the section. This is very different than how decisions are made in the IWW, where the amount of votes you get at Convention is tied to your membership. Additionally, I think the concept of a General Executive Board, as opposed to numerous assemblies, is alien to the IWA.

One section, one vote means that large sections, such as the CNT, are unable to dominate the IWA. The IWA Congress chooses a section to be responsible for the ongoing administration of the IWA, the IWA Secretariat. By contrast, the IWW is dominated by those members in the US as one member has one vote. This means that Americans will always dominate the GEB. Therefore, power is concentrated in the person of the GST and the GEB as they are enabled by the mandate provided to them by the general membership.

Consequently, those who are inclined towards authoritarianism both in outlook and practice, may avail themselves of power by making the entirely legitimate claim that they have been given a mandate by the majority of the individual members.

It is far more difficult for the IWA Secretary to follow suit in this regard as they are always accountable to the local assembly. The structure of the IWA is far more consistent with the practice of anarchist federation than the IWW whose structure bears a greater resemblance to democratic centralism. Have I got that right?

Oliver Twister wrote:

I don't want to imply that I think an Anglo vs Latin split is a great explanation for the historical division between the IWW and IWA. But I do think that the frontier experience in the US and Austrialia gave certain characteristics that were not present in Spain, France, or Latin America. If you look back at some of the IWW documents about the Spanish Revolution, you can pick up a lot of the same anti-Latin racism as during the Spanish-American war for example. SImilarly the church and the state have never played the same heavy role in North America or Australia and so it hasn't seemed as necessary to workers here to struggle directly against them.

I think this explanation is an over-simplification. The IWA is far more multicultural, or at least, reflects a greater diversity of cultures in comparison with the IWW. The characterisation of the two organisations as a split along the 'Anglo v Latin' binary ignores those sections from countries where Slavic languages are spoken, for example. Although it must be said both remain largely confined to the Western hemisphere. Whereas the IWA is based on one country, one section, the IWW presumes a one-size-fits-all template located in a particular cultural sphere that offers no barrier to easy export. This is questionable. Taking the US and Australia as an example, it is true to say that both have frontier/settler legacies and share a common language, the similarities pretty much end there. IWA sections reflect local differences and a greater adaptability. I regard this as a strength of the IWA in compasion to the IWW.

Juan Conatz wrote:

Anarchism has never been a major force in the IWW.

and

The vast amount of the membership, at least in the U.S., either identifies as anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist or with the IWW's politics.

On the face of it, this seems contradictory. If the vast amount of the membership are anarchists but anarchism has never been a major force, then what do anarchists in America think they're doing in the IWW? If the IWW is a revolutionary union, then what would an IWW-inspired revolution look like? If anarchism is no major force, does it imply the creation of a state based on the co-operative commonwealth? And if so, then again, what the fuck are anarchists doing there?

When the IWW was founded in 1905 there was no influence of anarchism at all? It's creation was entirely autochthonous and any resemblance to anarcho-syndicalism is entirely coincidental? I find this very hard to believe!

Many times I've asked IWW members what they imagine an IWW-inspired revolution looks like, and in each case the answer bore an uncanny likeness to anarchism. Then why not just embrace anarchism? Why characterise anarchism as an 'anti-political' sect? Which, if anything, is a gross oversimplification and lacks any intellectual honesty.

It seems to presume that the workers, to whom it is meant to appeal, have no politics of their own and that the goal of taking the means of production is not political. If the 'vast amount' of membership is anarchist, would not then the vast amount avow anarchism? It seems to suggest a kind of vanguardism that cannot reveal its true nature to the workers for fear of confusing or perhaps even frightening them away. Who is scared of anarchy?

Ablokeimet wrote:

What I do know is that any amalgamation between the IWW & the IWA would cause a massive explosion in the class struggle wing of the tiny Anarchist movement here. Key positions in these organisations are held by people who have been in conflict for over 30 years and can hardly stand to be in the same room as each other.

The old chestnut that a lack of co-operation is due entirely to 'personality clashes' is a consequence of wishing to avoid doing any hard thinking about the matter. The personal is political and what often gets passed off as mere clashes of personal conveniently ignores real political differences. It is predicated on the notion that individuals are that important. Even if that is true, then the problem still remains essentially a political one.

My own view on merging of amalgamation is dependent on the question of political difference; if there is a genuine political difference between the IWW and the IWA, then any merger or amalgamation is neither possible nor desirable. If there is no essential political difference, or the differences are merely one of form or style rather than substance, then there should be a complete amalgamation.

Then logically, the IWW in America would comprise the US section of the IWA and IWW sections in other countries would merge with the corresponding IWA sections where there was one or comprise a new IWA section where there was not. This would be entirely consistent with the idea of one big union.

The 1989 decision should either be acted upon or rescinded.

In the absence of any formal agreement, I don't see why either organisation should be concerned with regard to some concept of jurisdiction or territory. If there is no difference in political orientation, then any problem with regard to jurisdiction would resolved by amalgamation. If there is a real and significant difference in political orientation, then conflict is inevitable, sooner or later.

Ablokeimet wrote:

Anyway, the Brisbane delivery drivers got their money and the SDA (Australia's biggest and yellowest union) got a black eye. Whether the drivers, apart from the one ASF member who recruited them, stayed in the ASF after that I don't know.

In my experience, most workers engaged in a dispute don't give a fuck if you are an anarchist or a Catholic. They pretty much want to know if you will support them and how that support manifests itself. Consequently, a total of 26 pizza delivery drivers joined the ASF affiliated General Transport Workers Association in 2012, an initiative of members of ASF Brisbane. They joined not because the ASF had the correct line but because the ASF were conducting a campaign to recover lost wages.

As a result of the campaign, the Fair Work Commission issued a legally enforceable instruction to DPE to pay AUD590,000 to just over 3,000 DPE delivery drivers across Australia who among the lowest paid in the country.

One part of that campaign was a process initiated in the Fair Work Commission, a statutory authority of the federal government that governs industrial relations. This was done on the advice of an industrial lawyer working for a major firm on the condition of anonymity. The ASF is not a registered union. Consequently, it may not negotiate awards like the SDA but it can advocate in the Commission. Copies of all the relevant documents were forwarded to the IWA Secretariat.

The other part of the campaign was protests organised by the ASF outside DPE outlets around Australia and supported by other organisations most notably the Sydney and Perth IWW. The culmination of which was the International Day of Action organised by the IWA and supported by a number of IWW branches and groups in North America (among others).

A number of DPE workers, sympathetic to the campaign but not directly involved as delivery drivers, emerged in a number of places and provided valuable information, again on the condition of anonymity.

It is my understanding the it was the DoA that had the greatest effect on the recruitment of delivery drivers.

Problem: almost all of the delivery drivers had no experience of unions let alone revolutionary ones. Once the money came through there was a drop off in interest in the work required to maintain organisation. Some subsequently left the job. I know of one that graduated and returned to India. This is the nature of low-paid, high turnover jobs. This why you need an organisational infrastructure in the form of general membership unions.

It also demonstrates that co-operation with the IWW is entirely possible at a local level despite any wankers with personality disorder issues. It also shows that the reason for the existence of the IWW (as separate from the IWA) is based on a false premise; workers are more likely to join 'non-political' unions than avowedly anarchist ones.

Again, the question arises; how serious are the differences between the IWW and IWA that it would act as a barrier to the creation of one bigger union that is even more 'of the world'? Is it worth the price of the apparently precious and separate identity of the IWW?

The thread has lots of interesting points. A few comments.

Juan, I think that you did a good job pointing out most differences. There could be more added but to limit it, one would fall into the structural differences but should be mentioned. That is about affiliation. In the IWA an organization already exists and has a history (long or short) and applies; affiliation is decided by all the members, through the votes of their national sections. I think in practice this is a major distinction. As well as the fact that we do not have individuals considered part of the one big organization before there are any real local structures functioning in their location. A second thing which could be pointed out is the difference between the concept of One Big Union versus the concept of a federation of unions. In the IWA model, there are organizations which have their own separate origin and history, developed in different ways, have their own internal policies which can be quite different. I imagine this could exist to a limited extent in the IWW as well, but in general it works on a franchise-like principle that people in different countries are acquiring a brand name, know-how and sort of set of ideas and way of functioning.

About a few things that Oliver said... first, about the question of „revolutionary syndicalism” vs. an anarchosyndicalist identity in the IWA. Recently I received some complaints about one of your IWW comrades who is trying to „educate” his friends about the IWA by claiming we are not anarchosyndicalist, but „revolutionary syndicalist” and it was interpreted as an attempt to manipulate understanding of the International. So Oliver, I'd ask you to tread carefully with this since you may be causing confusion. Although I will admit it is our fault if our statutes may also cause confusion due to the terminology. I will explain a bit about this, but keeping in mind that somebody else might find it differently.

The statutes of the IWA, which is heavily anti-statist and the decisions of the IWA that all member Sections must agree with the struggle for libertarian communism leave it clear that it seeks the abolition of the state and we all know this is an anarchist vision. The question why, in the statutes, the IWA doesn't use the term anarchosyndicalism is probably a bit long. There are historical reasons. In recent years, there was a proposal to change the term from „revolutionary syndicalism” to „anarchosyndicalism” in the statutes, but it was not approved. I only have scant notes of the discussion, but it seems to me that this was probably done for two reasons: first, that many in the IWA have sort of an adversion to changing the historical statutes and second, I would suppose it could relate to thinking that the „a” word is a little scary or alienating. I don't know. I do know that there was a discussion when writing the most recent IWA brochure: http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/iwa-brochure Then it was decided to use the term „anarchosyndicalist” instead of revolutionary syndicalist. And the reason was that it was felt that the term „revolutionary syndicalist” is unclear and that it does not imply any clear relation towards the abolition of the state.

Oliver, you have been saying that there are no major differences between two organizations, IWW and IWA and, it seems to me as if you are implying that both are „revolutionary syndicalist”, and that both see each other in the same way. But here I am pretty certain that what some in the IWW might label as „revolutionary syndicalist” would not be too welcome in the IWA, since there just isn't a tendency to neutrality on certain questions. I will admit that there have appeared one or two cliques in the IWA which maybe identify more with the revolutionary syndicalist identity, but there is no support for this and my feeling is that if they cannot provoke more support, they will just be gone. Without getting into this too much – sure, there are lots of ways to cooperate, especially if it comes to mutual campaigns or issues. But this is a far cry from what some people, for whatever reason, seem to be implying about the revolutionary syndicalist nature of the IWA.

Also, you ask about some written position documents on some issues. Unfortunately, I think our statutes are not too good in this respect. I would definitely like to see improvement and clarifications, as well as more modern language used. But I think unfortunately we will not see this any time soon. There seems to be a strong tendency against the revision of the historical statutes, except on certain concrete issues and decisions against plans to study the statutes with a view to updating them were made at Congress. As much as I would like the statutes to be clearer, I personally have no desire to pursue this in the nearest future due to the Congress decision and also to the fact that there is too much work to be done to implement the useful decisions already made in Congress. But yes, a clearer exposition of our positions would be helpful.

One thing were I see abundant confusion is about „the state” and the use of the state. Although I would say most of this confusion is from US IWW members. Always the NLRB being compared to work councils, questions about registration and court cases. Maybe I can clarify it – but again I'd point out that some in the IWA might see things slightly differently.

In general, we do not oppose registration for operative reasons. In terms of the sections, this is up to their autonomy to decide what is more practical and beneficial for them. We realize there is no one universal position to have on this because the possible situations vary greatly. In some countries, our comrades would like to be registered but are prevented by the state. In different places, registration implies different things. It can be easy or difficult. I can talk about our particular case. In our country it is extremely easy to set up unions, but they are bound by bourgeois laws. So far we haven't seen anything that we can't do unregistered that a registered union can do – except for getting paid unionist status, which we don't want to do anyway. If you think that being a registered union means they have to negotiate with you, you are mistaken. There are lots of unions which are locked out of negotiations. But you can get the bosses to talk to you by action. That said, we wouldn't be opposed to any specific unions in our federation seeking legalized status if there was a legitimate reason.

In general, we also do not oppose the use of courts or inspectors, provided that our strategy does not rest on its use. (Although there certainly may be some which avoid them on principle.) I know of many other unions in the world which do not advocate direct action and tell workers to stay quiet and leave the case to the court. We don't agree with that type of attitude. These institutions can be helpful backups but are not our main tools.

What gets our opposition generally tend to be state-organized or sponsored schemes which distort the workers' movement and which promote representative workers' movements instead of grassroots ones. So it is not so much against using instruments of the states to gain concrete rights or win concrete claims in individual situations, but the continued use of state instruments to participate in the schemes that disempower workers or distort the balance of power over a longer period. For example: if a union is heavily state-subsidized, it creates advantages for certain ones which are conforming to the requirements of the state and the bosses. This money does not come no-strings attached. In terms of the work councils, we are also talking about workers' representation. Because in most situations people are elected to represent workers – literally. These workers do not have to be members of your union, thus the representatives are not even accountable to those who elected them. It is structured so that negotiations go on between a representative and the bosses. The representatives often are professionals – liberated from work duties. In our country these people destroy trade unionism because their first interest is to keep their union job, which has it's concrete perks (like not working at the job). This means they will agree with bosses to keep the status quo.

Some people make theories about maybe how „good people” who „won't be corrupt” can be „good representatives” but in fact, we don't want the representative system. We want workers organizations that decide in assemblies, not union representatives.

And what applies to union representatives also goes for political representatives. You won't find any of us promoting strategies of running for political office in elections like what happens in certain organizations, ie in France or in Poland.

I don't think this difference should be so hard for anybody to understand.

Finally as to Lugius' last comment: I wouldn't undermine the value of the IWW identity to those who have it since identity is one of those things important to many people. For some, it is very, very real, since they spent hard hours working to build something and really, just respect for that. For others it is like a label to show you belong somewhere and is like a substitute religion. I am not talking about the IWW in particular here, but just in general how people behave towards labels, towards groups they are in, towards legends and mythology of certain movements, etc. etc. You know, IWA also has its legends and all around the world you can find some CNT geeks. Also there are some who have a strong IWA identity. So I don't find it productive to go that way in discussing things.

On the other hand, I totally agree with what you say about workers and anarchism. I mean, false as fuck that workers will be afraid of you if they know you are anarchist or not want to join --- unless of course you are one of those useless drunk lifestyle anarchists that can't be bothered to wake up for the action. I mean – I am an anarchist and there is no way I would join any of their organizations. :-) I really know this is not true first hand. Many workers trust us because we hate all politicians and the state, I have heard this many times. Then if people can find out more about our ideas for a libertarian society, it is quite OK.

We were giving out issues of our last newspaper yesterday. On the back cover is an article explaining why we boycott elections and how we think society should be run, not by representatives. And people really understand this. And there was something about how we are different than mainstream unions and the story of one of our comrades who was fucked by the mainstream unions – again, people understand it perfectly. Personally I prefer not to avoid any of these issues, but just spell them out in clear, understandable ways.

And this is a big difference between us and any other so-called „revolutionary” union in our country because their people will run in elections and try to convince people that the most important thing is „good representation [sic]” instead of „bad” one amd which act in the mainstream way.

But I don't want to go off-topic, so I'll leave it there.

Lugius

Ablokeimet wrote:

What I do know is that any amalgamation between the IWW & the IWA would cause a massive explosion in the class struggle wing of the tiny Anarchist movement here. Key positions in these organisations are held by people who have been in conflict for over 30 years and can hardly stand to be in the same room as each other.

The old chestnut that a lack of co-operation is due entirely to 'personality clashes' is a consequence of wishing to avoid doing any hard thinking about the matter. The personal is political and what often gets passed off as mere clashes of personal conveniently ignores real political differences. It is predicated on the notion that individuals are that important. Even if that is true, then the problem still remains essentially a political one.

My own view on merging of amalgamation is dependent on the question of political difference; if there is a genuine political difference between the IWW and the IWA, then any merger or amalgamation is neither possible nor desirable. If there is no essential political difference, or the differences are merely one of form or style rather than substance, then there should be a complete amalgamation.

My observation was not meant to imply that there are no political differences. I recognise that there are definite differences in politics between the IWW in Australia and the ASF. The problem is that the personal conflicts between key members of these organisations are a huge barrier to tackling the political differences. If the personal conflicts didn't exist (or at least were vastly less), it would be possible to start working through the political issues to discover whether they were resolvable.

Lugius

Problem: almost all of the delivery drivers had no experience of unions let alone revolutionary ones. Once the money came through there was a drop off in interest in the work required to maintain organisation. Some subsequently left the job. I know of one that graduated and returned to India. This is the nature of low-paid, high turnover jobs. This why you need an organisational infrastructure in the form of general membership unions.

This is what I expected. The outcome of the dispute was a victory, but the combination of the tactics employed and the drop-off in membership meant that the long term benefits were limited. If substantial membership had been retained, this could have been used as a basis for further organising and struggle. If the tactics employed had been more militant, the workers would have taken the lessons of these tactics into their future work, whether in their current jobs as delivery drivers or in other jobs in the future.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it was a waste of time. Getting $590k out of the boss is a genuine achievement and the ASF deserves credit for it, especially as the SDA was given a black eye in the process. My point is that it looks like it will stand as an isolated achievement, rather than leading on to greater things.

Nah. I personally have confidence that the ASF comrades will have more campaigns and victories in the future. Most realistically, they will come from time to time - and that's normal. Even in places where there are much larger movements, the victories can come in intervals.

As for the syndrome of people joining and then dropping out, it certainly is something that unions need to talk about and try to figure out how to counter, but I wouldn't say that this is unusual. Again, I know unions which are even much bigger which have this problem and a much greater problem of turnover.

Lugius

That the 1988 convention decision to pursue affiliation with the IWA was not acted upon indicates a structural problem. If the GST and the GEB were instructed to act upon it and subsequently did not, it suggests that power is not at the base but concentrated in the GST and/or the GEB.

Meh. Probably had more to do with the fact that IWW membership was at an extreme low point and administration was inept. Power is not concentrated in the GST, which is more an administrative position. There is more power in the GEB, but it is pretty limited. Important decisions mostly have to go to delegate convention and then union wide referendum.

One section, one vote means that large sections, such as the CNT, are unable to dominate the IWA. The IWA Congress chooses a section to be responsible for the ongoing administration of the IWA, the IWA Secretariat. By contrast, the IWW is dominated by those members in the US as one member has one vote. This means that Americans will always dominate the GEB. Therefore, power is concentrated in the person of the GST and the GEB as they are enabled by the mandate provided to them by the general membership.

I understand why those in the IWA who agree with that system of voting agree with it...I just don't. Nor do I think it can be held as a prime example of something that is objectively democratic. I'm not particularly concerned with democracy for the sake of democracy, but it does seem strange to me that an extreme minority could hypothetically push things through or veto decisions desired by a vast majority. I think it shows that as much as some try to distance themselves, pro-organization anarchists are not that different from the 'lifestylist' consensus types they write polemics about.

Also, I don't really think you understand how the IWW is structured or run. I certainly agree that it is dominated by the U.S., but this has nothing to do with the existence of a GEB or GST. It has to do with the fact that it has been mainly a U.S. organization, and recently it has expanded, but with little thought about how best to do this.

It is far more difficult for the IWA Secretary to follow suit in this regard as they are always accountable to the local assembly. The structure of the IWA is far more consistent with the practice of anarchist federation than the IWW whose structure bears a greater resemblance to democratic centralism. Have I got that right?

I can't speak on how much room the IWA secretary has. I know they are free to implement decisions made by IWA Congress, which is a pretty similar role to what the GST and GEB do for the IWW.

Of course, the IWA as an anarchist federation is going to look like an anarchist federation. I'm not sure what the point of stating that was. And your tossing out of the phrase 'democratic centralism' makes it clear to me that you neither understand this phrase, nor the IWW.

Whereas the IWA is based on one country, one section, the IWW presumes a one-size-fits-all template located in a particular cultural sphere that offers no barrier to easy export. This is questionable. Taking the US and Australia as an example, it is true to say that both have frontier/settler legacies and share a common language, the similarities pretty much end there. IWA sections reflect local differences and a greater adaptability. I regard this as a strength of the IWA in compasion to the IWW.

I think there's some truth to the IWW and the one-size-fits-all thing, but I think it applies even more to the IWA, which is way more strict about what its member sections do. It's no secret that sections have been kicked out or left based on what they have decided to do. It obviously takes a one-size-fits-all attitude on a number of issues it sees as key. I generally agree with them on these things (works councils, etc), but we should call it what it is.

On the face of it, this seems contradictory. If the vast amount of the membership are anarchists but anarchism has never been a major force, then what do anarchists in America think they're doing in the IWW? If the IWW is a revolutionary union, then what would an IWW-inspired revolution look like? If anarchism is no major force, does it imply the creation of a state based on the co-operative commonwealth? And if so, then again, what the fuck are anarchists doing there?

It's not really contradictory. The first comment is directed to some IWW comrades who lately have seemingly been trying to find some historical holy grail of anarchism in the IWW that proves how much the IWW was influenced by anarchism. I don't think this exists. I think the main politics and direction of the historical IWW was driven by particular American conditions in which the pre-Bolshevick era of socialists advocated and pushed stuff that anarchists could agree with. The lines between socialists and anarchists weren't as hard then. To a large extent, and for better and for worse, the IWW still reflects this long gone time period.

I think right now, if you had a time machine and transported someone in the leftwing of the Socialist Party in the 1910s to the IWW in 2014, they would probably feel at home, because it is still largely a reflection of that time period. Even as anarchists have dominated the membership for decades, I don't think they've pushed their view into the union in any significant way.

When the IWW was founded in 1905 there was no influence of anarchism at all? It's creation was entirely autochthonous and any resemblance to anarcho-syndicalism is entirely coincidental? I find this very hard to believe!

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure anacho-syndicalism as a declared anti-political tendency did not exist at that point in time. Certainly not the term. The IWA wouldn't be formed for another 17 years and I don't think the CGT in France was well known at all in the dissident labor movement in America.

Many times I've asked IWW members what they imagine an IWW-inspired revolution looks like, and in each case the answer bore an uncanny likeness to anarchism. Then why not just embrace anarchism? Why characterise anarchism as an 'anti-political' sect? Which, if anything, is a gross oversimplification and lacks any intellectual honesty.

It seems to presume that the workers, to whom it is meant to appeal, have no politics of their own and that the goal of taking the means of production is not political. If the 'vast amount' of membership is anarchist, would not then the vast amount avow anarchism? It seems to suggest a kind of vanguardism that cannot reveal its true nature to the workers for fear of confusing or perhaps even frightening them away. Who is scared of anarchy?

I don't think the IWW should call itself anarchist, but I imagine that this has not happened for similar reasons of why the IWA doesn't put 'anarchist' much in the IWA statutes....because they are looked at as things from a different time that have tradition that should be not tampered with lightly.

I interpret the anti-political sect language pretty specifically and see it as against formal organizational alliance. It is often trotted out against certain positions or politics, but I think this is wrong. I don't think there's any reason the IWW couldn't come out as explicitly anti-state and would be for such a move. I'm not sure how much this would mean practically, as currently without such a position, the IWW seems pretty similar to the IWA when it comes to use of the state in organizing, etc, but would be important nonetheless.

syndicalist

Sorry, not sure I get what you mean. Why is "anarchism" to blame? Perhaps "ists" of different revolutionary tendencies are to blame (for?), but surely not the ideals themselves. Unless I'm misunderstanding this.

Anarchism has a real tendency to elevate localism, autonomy and democracy to a principle that trumps others, for one. Where it makes sense to defend no-strike clauses because workers should have the 'autonomy' to 'democratically' decide to have one if they want.

Yeah, but really these bourgeoise visions of democracy have to go. If we want to form federations of organizations with similar ideas, we want to find ways to work together to represent everybody's interests. This stuff about the domination of minorities sounds too much to me like the right in Poland which claims that homosexuals who want rights are "forcing" their ideas on "the majority". It's bullshit this stuff about "force" whereas real problems abound in the world of the rich and developed world having more people, resources and everything to push their agenda. This federation is no IMF or EU or anything like that where larger groups and richer groups of people dominate. We all assume that we want more or less the same thing and try to find a common way. The only time there are "problems" are when cliques of people claim all the votes of their passive members in porportional systems - then they gain more representative power thanks to the fact that a small number of their members vote. It's their tool to gain influence and they are not happy when deprived of it.

Juan Conatz

syndicalist

Sorry, not sure I get what you mean. Why is "anarchism" to blame? Perhaps "ists" of different revolutionary tendencies are to blame (for?), but surely not the ideals themselves. Unless I'm misunderstanding this.

Anarchism has a real tendency to elevate localism, autonomy and democracy to a principle that trumps others, for one. Where it makes sense to defend no-strike clauses because workers should have the 'autonomy' to 'democratically' decide to have one if they want.

Of course, the flip side is centralization. Or a strict union position on certian questions.

akai

This stuff about the domination of minorities sounds too much to me like the right in Poland which claims that homosexuals who want rights are "forcing" their ideas on "the majority". It's bullshit this stuff about "force" whereas real problems abound in the world of the rich and developed world having more people, resources and everything to push their agenda. This federation is no IMF or EU or anything like that where larger groups and richer groups of people dominate. We all assume that we want more or less the same thing and try to find a common way. The only time there are "problems" are when cliques of people claim all the votes of their passive members in porportional systems - then they gain more representative power thanks to the fact that a small number of their members vote. It's their tool to gain influence and they are not happy when deprived of it.

And the the elevation of a small group of people to determine what a bigger group of people can do sounds like Stalinism to me.1

• 1See? I can throw bombastic rhetoric out there that compares people's perspectives with reactionaries, too!

Your view of things probably comes from certain assumptions. If federated people have similar ideas and goals, there isn't such a problem as you imagine. The problem only happens when the goals or politics are too diverse and are mutally exclusive. This is not a problem of the IWA but also of individual organizations and I'd say even more so there. If you have any organization with majority voting, you can have large minorities who could claim they are "forced" to do something. So a question is how people understand being in an organization and "force".

I think that the issue of having different sized groups and groups with slightly different perceptions can be solved - if there is good will. For example, there can always be attempts to discuss more with those who are against anything and try to get some compromise position. For me, I only usually see problems happening when votes are distorted by proportional voting with small groups taking over the representation of larger numbers of passive members, or when there is lack of good will or highly authoritarian personalities who have to push their way, despite seeing a lot of dissatisfaction.

What I see from years of experience is that such issues become hot where there is more political variation and less so where there is more agreement to begin with.

I also think that sometimes this thread is just falling into stereotypical IWA bashing based on some certain perspective. I mean, although this was not a party to the original thread, I wonder here why nobody discusses how things are voted in the Red and Black Coordination, which has much greater size differences in the organizations, ranging from the 60,000 CGT to the 30-40 person ESE. Apparently nobody is making an issue about the difference in the sizes of their organizations. We have nothing in the IWA like organizations that are 2000 times the size of others. And I spoke with comrades from ESE who told me it is not an issue for anybody.

It should also be said that this system has been in place since 1922 and also in the 20s and early 30s, there were differences in the size of organizations. This bothered nobody, until the Spanish faction which were really fucked were making their political manoeuvres. I think that we can consider them to have moved into a different political ideology at that point.

A little deeper thought is needed, not just repeating the crap.

Going back to some older stuff in the thread- I personally think labels are fairly unimportant though content is important. The thinkers of the FORA rejected syndicalism and anarchosyndicalism (with good reason in my view), instead preferring to talk about workers organizations who's objective is anarchist society. That's my own goal. Getting sucked into leftist-identity politics of picking sides in people's intellectual curiosities is wading into a swamp. What matters ultimately is how the objectives and values meet with practice, and having a functional anarchist praxis posturing aside.

With the IWW, there was always a balance of different tendencies. Similar to the IWMA though, there was an indigenous anarchism that developed out of people's experiences. For instance there was a current that repeatedly tried to ban all parlimentary politics explicitly in conventions starting in 1908 but continuing. The battles between the decentralists and centralists was explicitly carried out in terms of authoritarian socialism versus decentralized socialism in various places. It's less interesting to me what people called themselves than it is to reinforce the fact that there is no formula we can apply to solve concrete problems today. Even in the IWW of old, there was constant debate, conflict, and contestation on how to impliment what they wanted. The task is the same, and we should do things to reinforce our experiences in the past two decades. I'd like to see us have a more democratic practice relying on activity in base collective bodies and move away from a largely representative leadership model that we have now due to inactivity often. Likewise we should strengthen our critique of the state and reformist practice, especially as this is picking up. Those are the issues that matter, and that even a short browsing of IWW history shows that it's always been struggled over with different factions at different times.

It's also pretty unrealistic to paint the IWW as insulated from the history of global syndicalism. The CGT in France directly impacted the IWW at certain periods. The CNT likewise. Tom Barker, famed Australian IWW, was a member and delegate of the FORA when he was in Buenos Aires. The OBU Monthly ran reports and content about global syndicalists. The IWW participated in the conference that led to the 1922 IWA founding. There was mutual influence across the globe and different currents in the syndicalist pantheon co-evolved. I don't see any of those experiences as trumping all others or giving a clear path to health and victory.

Ultimately in our era when neoliberalism is transforming and unionism as we know it is unraveling, we need to be experimenting, learning from experiences as broadly as possible, collaborating, and supporting initiatives in a non-sectarian manner. Organizational nationalism (likewise ideological nationalism) is mutually destructive and feeds bad social dynamics that makes everyone worn out and unmotivated. The barriers that are holding back libertarian social projects will not be solved by taking the right positions or battling other left sects, but will be worked out through sustaining a living libertarian practice.