Jeff Monson talks about his support of the modern Communist party of Russia.

What a ridiculous post.

As far as I know, the IWW doesn't expel people for being Stalinist, Trotskyist, anarchist or members of the Labour Party. The idea is it supposed to organise workers rather than politicos of whatever stripe. Mind you, I thought that Jeff Monson was supposed to be an anarcho-communist with his red and black star tattoo, etc. Politically, he's let himself down there, really fucking badly. Still, I wouldn't be inclined to argue with him about it ;)

I heard that Noam Chomsky was a member of the IWW and that he works at MIT. I bet he has some grad students he can fire.

It's never been an expellable offense to be a Stalinist in the IWW, although you're probably not going to get very far with your ideas. I think it's funny though that you use Bill Haywood as an example since he ran off to Russia and was a functionary for the Soviet state until his death...

Juan Conatz

It's never been an expellable offense to be a Stalinist in the IWW, although you're probably not going to get very far with your ideas. I think it's funny though that you use Bill Haywood as an example since he ran off to Russia and was a functionary for the Soviet state until his death...

I mean, I don't know how far is far to you, but there was a Stalinist on the GEB last year.

Don't think I could consider the CPUSA a Stalinist organization considering they expelled the anti-revisionists back in the 1950s-1960s. But in any case, that person did not promote any ideas I'm aware of that were accepted that could be attributed to CP membership or Stalinism.

Sure you could be any variety of left and be an officer, but that doesn't mean you'll get anywhere with those politics in the IWW. The Trotskyist carpenter who was on the GEB a few years ago came to that same conclusion and washed out of the union.

meerov21

Was Bill Heywood a Stalinist, when He worked in IWW in USA?

Stalinism didn't exist when Haywood was in the IWW

meerov21

Was Bill Heywood a Stalinist, when He worked in IWW in USA?
And by the way, what kind of specifically Stalinist works has done by him in Russia?

Is there a point to this thread?

Juan Conatz

Is there a point to this thread?

Something about CPRF and how the IWW is really just a bunch of reformists/Leninists/statists because they're not really anarchists

I don't know, it's all part of that whole noise about how the IWW isn't something or other

If I remember correctly (I'm not a member), the IWW doesn't allow members to promote political parties from an IWW platform. I guess you could argue celebrity wobs are a walking IWW platform (if IWW members wanted to do anything about it), but generally any union of reasonable size is going to have some percentage of people with, er, eccentric politics.

Juan Conatz

Don't think I could consider the CPUSA a Stalinist organization considering they expelled the anti-revisionists back in the 1950s-1960s. But in any case, that person did not promote any ideas I'm aware of that were accepted that could be attributed to CP membership or Stalinism.

Sure you could be any variety of left and be an officer, but that doesn't mean you'll get anywhere with those politics in the IWW. The Trotskyist carpenter who was on the GEB a few years ago came to that same conclusion and washed out of the union.

I heard rumors when I lived in Europe that the IWW was controlled by the Socialist Party because our GST from 2006-2009 had previously run for office on a Socialist Party ticket.

This was even expressed once as "The IWW are a tool for the Socialist Party to infiltrate the anarchist movement."

It's funny until you realize that for some people, creating and spreading rumors like this counts as serious political activity.

meerov21

OK, I'm just trying to understand the principles. How it works. If man is a Stalinist he can be in the organization. So what if he is a supporter of the ideas of Mussolini?

As far as ideological policing of its members, only the far right get thrown out of the IWW. It's always been this way, whether 2016 or 1929.

The list from which this query/complaint is drawn is a list of planned or actual biographies of individuals who were at least at one time members of the IWW. Many of the biographies, including Monson's, are unwritten. To determine if Monson is still an IWW member you'd have to query the HQ. Lots of luck.

In any case there are quite a few individuals on that list who were either not anarchists to begin with (Eugene Debs, Daniel Deleon, Thomas Haggarty) or who later joined the Communist Party (William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, James P. Cannon, Bill Haywood, Lucy Parsons and again Thomas Haggarty). At the time when these people 'deserted' anarchism appeared to be a 'lost cause', and the full murderous reality of Stalinism was still unknown or denied by American radicals. The Leninist vanguard party had the romantic appeal of appearing successful. What it succeeded at only became clear and well known later. Haggarty later 'sobered up' and left the CP. Cannon, of course, became a dissident Trotskyist. The extent of Flynn's commitment to Stalinism is in dispute.

These are only the names I recognize at sight. A full search of the list might dig up more. The difference between all of these people and Monson is that they all actually contributed some substantive political work during their lifetimes. Who was Monson and what has he done (or is doing) ? He was a star gladiator in a particularly brutal 'sport' who made a few 'anarchist' noises and got himself into some legal troubles for vandalism and domestic abuse. He pled guilty to the first but has yet to pay his fine, and the charges regarding the latter were dropped. He became the darling of a legion of internet 'anarchists' who fantasized being big, rough and tough like him, and his almost certain *lies* about being vegan fed into their fantasies.

On the fight circuit he found that Russia was more than happy to employ him as low grade entertainment. At present he is riding high on kleptocrat and FSB money, probably oblivious to the fact that he will be discarded once the muscles become saggy and he is no longer of use. If he's wise he'll be stocking up his money while it lasts. Poverty in Russia is not so pleasant. As to the 'Communist' Party of Russia it is a fully integrated (very) junior partner of the present regime and is certainly more useful than Monson is.

Whatever one may think of the politics of many of the people on the list they were indeed significant influential political militants who sometimes changed their allegiances during their lifetimes. They are probably all worthy of biographies for simple historical or personal interest. Even Foster, though a person might have to hold their nose at that one. Monson - no, except perhaps as an illustration of the sad state of American 'anarchism'. The musicians on the list are also significant in that they contributed extensive dissemination of their ideas via their art. Biographies of them are also valuable.

The IWW has never claimed to be fully 'anarchist', and in my opinion this is a good decision in its American context. One should always be aware of how Leninist methods are antithetical to not just the IWW's ideals but to simple human decency - even Trotskyists who are a cut above Stalinist/Maoist cults. That being said I can't see Monson's present opinions are being grounds for expulsion. Mock him. Denounce him. Whatever. It's likely, however, that his IWW dues are amongst the list of bills he hasn't paid. Expelling somebody who maybe sent in a few dollars years ago is hardly high priority.

Haywood is a special case, but that for another time.

drakeberkman

Juan Conatz

Is there a point to this thread?

Something about CPRF

a party representing the social interests of some minor capital factions (especially of the former Soviet military industrial-complex) in Russia and aligned parts of the former state bureaucracy capitalizing on pensioners' yearnings about a better past whose CC's responsible figure for "marxist education" during the 90ies/2000s was an open anti-semite

I'm with Juan now, what is anyone even talking about in this thread

Having watched that video posted by the OP, I think Monson has been punched far too many times in the head to be making political statements.

Are we on the left so desperate that we are looking for celebrity cage wrestlers to champion our causes?

meerov21

Why? Why do the fascist can't be in IWW, and Stalinist can?

If you want to discuss whether fascism and Stalinism are equivalent things, I suggest you start a new thread with an explanation of why you think so. That would probably be more productive than whatever is going on in this thread.

l don't think there is a problem with the question on this thread although some parts like about Haywood are out of place given how he evolved. The Russian Communist Party is beyond unacceptable and, besides being a clique involved in capital management, it has been involved in various coalitions with fascists for the last 25 years. Monson clearly has deplorable politics, as has any who support this band of jackals.

l find the question of why a fascist can't be in lWW and a Stalinist can to be perfectly legitimate and think it is really annoying of people to ask a person from Russia to explain what Stalinism is and was. Millions and millions of people suffered and this is nothing abstract for people in many countries of E.Europe. Furthermore, the Stalinists were the butchers of anarchists. When the revolution was really happening, we saw over and over again what the Stalinists really felt and did.

However, l would suggest to Meerov that this is not really a good place to discuss this and find any sympathy. l mean, literally l told about anarchosyndicalists running in elections with fascists and the response was something like well, we have to think about what is best for the class or something like this.

Although l can often disagree with what Meerov writes, l think he is spot on to point this out and put up a red flag on this person's politics. On the other hand, for people in some other parts of the world, they see Stalinism as something just strange or stupid and don't take it as seriously because these people are far removed from real power.

Finally, l disagree with some part of the idea that if you organize in a group of any size, you are bound to get a lot of Stalinist wingnuts. lf you organize inside the working class in general, statistically you would not have a lot of Stalinists. ln the case of the US, statistically you would get something else. However, if your union has a leftist profile, you will likely get a disproportionate number of people which hold these ideas in the union - l mean disproportionate to their actual presence in society. So l would argue that this doesn't happen because the union is in a very broad segment of the population, but because the one it operates in is more narrow.

akai

Finally, l disagree with some part of the idea that if you organize in a group of any size, you are bound to get a lot of Stalinist wingnuts. lf you organize inside the working class in general, statistically you would not have a lot of Stalinists. ln the case of the US, statistically you would get something else. However, if your union has a leftist profile, you will likely get a disproportionate number of people which hold these ideas in the union - l mean disproportionate to their actual presence in society. So l would argue that this doesn't happen because the union is in a very broad segment of the population, but because the one it operates in is more narrow.

I think this is true with Stalinism specifically, not sure about 'eccentric' views more generally. E.g. I've known people who are good militants who are also prone to a bit of conspiracy theory, or who sometimes have an electoral swoon, or just come out with really liberal shit some times. Maybe those things too are over-represented among leftist politicos, but I'm not sure.

I mean there should be red lines, and like I say I think wobs could argue celebrities are a walking IWW platform, if they were so inclined. But iirc the wobbly constitution doesn't give a lot of scope to boot people for views expressed in a personal capacity. (I'm not sure the SF one does either, iirc party membership isn't banned, but could be construed as not abiding by the a&p's, doubly so if it was a homophobic/nationalist/racist party).

JK, l understand your angle, but l think there are also other questions as far as an organization is concerned.

Just to point out before l start with my personal opinion, l am a member of 2 organizations which are separate entities although somehow joined and in both there are various people, some with sometimes ideas l don't agree with. lt sometimes happens that people cannot distinguish personal opinions and this is something happening more often in internet culture l am afraid. So it also happens that people confront you about the politics of your comrades.

ln our orgs, we are usually tolerant of things provided people don't cross certain lines. My personal opinion of it all includes another aspect: is that person in your organization as a worker in concrete struggle or as a political activist? Because, for example, if you are cooperating with a group of workers which have a real struggle and the reason they are in your organization or cooperating with it is because most of them agree with your grassroots ideas or most of your ideas, you aren't gonna get too huffy if one of them has some different ideas. However, if that person came out during an action with something clearly unacceptable, we would act immediately on this and we have stopped cooperation with individuals because of this. Luckily, this hasn't been any of our members, but we try not to have this situation.

Another matter entirely is if somebody enters the organization as a political activist who wants to promote ideas and is not directly involved in any workplace organizing. lf somebody is like that, than at least you can require that the ideas be reasonably similar to your own and that they do not go about making counter-propaganda. For example, in a certain organization l don't like, they had politicians and when one was running for office, they somehow got an anti-anarchist article in their bulletin and he was going around telling people that anarchists are impractical dreamers and to vote for him. lt is clear that a organization can serve as a platform for self-promotion or that agitators can try to use it in different ways, or can misrepresent it. Although said person is a celebrity too, it is a strange advertisement for an organization which once pretended to be against the government if their most well-known member is calling anarchism crazy. (This was 10 years ago though, just to be clear.)

ln the Monson case, l think that at least the lWW has a stronger rep and he is truly not representative of them, nor is he the first thing people think of when they think of the wobblies. Still, what he says and does is completely unacceptable for me and my opinion is that libertarian people should distance themselves from these ideas.

Recently there was an interesting thing regarding my organization. Some union bureaucrat from Solidarity is angry that we made a lot of contacts with workers in his branch and are organizing meetings towards a strike movement, or at least a national protest. A network is formed and more and joining. So in order to try and discredit us, Solidarity (cause it was on 2 official pages) decided to distort the history of the former ZSP organization and claim that it sold out to Stalinists and declare us Stalinists to scare off workers. lt sort of worked a bit, sort of backfired, because we can show we are not even remotely associated with Stalinism, authoritarian communism, etc. ln situations like that, it is fortunate that we have nobody who supports these views and of course didn't have to deal with some individual defending the Soviet state or something, because really we could have witnessed the death of an independent workers' coordination just on rumors like this.

What workers think of us is more important than being open to all left tendencies, however contradictory. But that doesn't mean that we pander to the mainstream ideas in the society. At least then, when we get into deeper talks with people about our ideas, which happens and which we have been doing more of recently, then we can honestly say we are not about that type of repressive statist shit that Stalinism represents and there are no wingnuts out there contradicting this. l think it would be a little hard to be credible if l said this to people but my comrade was all tankie in personal capacity, which tends to be all too public these days.

l understand various organizations see this question differently, obviously, but still think it is legit for Meerov to bring it up and l support his disgust.

Also, sorry, the ComPartia is not theoretical for me and armed conflict in that country is also not theoretical because l have seen it first hand. You put guns in some people's hands and suddenly it turns out they are not like friendly kooks in a picket line in some Western country. lf the shit ever hits the fan again in Russia, wonder what side he would be on. And just to stress that none of this is theoretical, one only has to consider the fiasco in Ukraine where some dumb-ass machos actually got caught up fighting to preserve the interests of the Russian state.

meerov21, now that you've perfected your shit stirring skills, where will you go next?

However, l would suggest to Meerov that this is not really a good place to discuss this and find any sympathy. l mean, literally l told about anarchosyndicalists running in elections with fascists and the response was something like well, we have to think about what is best for the class or something like this.

This happened on libcom?

Joseph Kay

But iirc the wobbly constitution doesn't give a lot of scope to boot people for views expressed in a personal capacity. (I'm not sure the SF one does either, iirc party membership isn't banned, but could be construed as not abiding by the a&p's, doubly so if it was a homophobic/nationalist/racist party).

Pretty much. The only real prohibition on political parties is that you cannot advocate for them from an IWW platform and you cannot be a member if you are an officer of a political party. I'm not aware of people from organized fascist organizations trying to join the IWW, but I know of some people who have been expelled for being unaffiliated ideological fascists. I imagine membership in fascist organization would also be an expellable offense because it is opposed to our aims.

This probably wouldn't happen with members from Stalinist sects because the IWW more or less still has a non-specific far left ideology that allows people who self-identify from various tendencies to join. It is not a political organization with strict requirements.

TBH, if members of Communist Parties weren't banned in the 1930s, when the IWW was in actual conflict (sometimes physical) with members of the CP, it isn't going to happen now, at least not in the U.S., where these parties are pretty irrelevant and not likely to join anyway. I imagine things are different in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe.

Yes Chili. And a Russian person was suggested to go explain why Stalinism is as bad as fascism.

So here, Juan's answer above is more direct about the situation and is an answer to Meerov. He might ask again why Stalinists are not treated as anything bad, but l suppose he will not get any answer that would satisfy him. That said, l still support this question as an ideological challenge.

Speaking of the thirties, Sam Dolgoff and Abe Bluestein used to complain that while the folks in NY were recruiting people to fight with the CNT, Fred Thompson sent people to the brigades run by Stalinists. (l once found a document from one of those sent that would support this, that there wobblies sent there.) So part of the wobs went on one side, part on the other, and they wanted to think they were on the same side.

So l agree with Juan that if these things were not sorted out then, when Stalinists were murdering our comrades on a rather large scale, they won't be know. lt is part of the wobbly tradition.

That all said, l hope for the day when Stalinism and all such abominations wind up where it belongs - in the dustbin of history. (Although the way things are going, it looks like the authoritarian ideas are going strong and gaining strength in many parts of the world. ln Poland, Bolshevism has a new following for the first time in a couple of generations and fascism is growing. lt is going to take a huge effort for anarchism not to become the obsolete idea.)

akai, does the IWA prohibit members of political parties from being members of its unions and groupings?

There was such a motion some years back at an lWA Congress but it failed. The reason for this is that some of the lWA Sections allow this and it was argued that this would be problematic for them.

So this is a matter of autonomy of the Sections to decide, with some allowing it, some not.

l think one can discuss this question about parties forever, since circumstances may vary wildly. For example, in the US, it is very common for people to join parties and voters usually chose one but in my country, it is not the case and most people who affiliate do so if they intend to be on some electoral list. (A new party has changed this equation, so it might look different some time down the road.)

However, l think the point here was about Stalinism in particular.

Yes Chili. And a Russian person was suggested to go explain why Stalinism is as bad as fascism.

Not that I disbelieve you, but could provide a link?

I only ask because - let's be honest - there have been some colorful characters on libcom recently. And I'm not saying you do this, but sometimes people have propensity to take one thing one person says on libcom and attribute to "the libcom position" or some sort of generally shared belief of the the regular posters.

akai correct me if i'm wrong but i figured you would know about this. i've heard that meerov is basically for red/brown unity and said some ethnic riots were not pogroms. what's up with this?

Just as a point of interest I believe there as an article in the Industrial Worker last year about IWW members murdered by the Stalinists in Spain during the Civil War. I'll see if I can find the reference.

akai

There was such a motion some years back at an lWA Congress but it failed. The reason for this is that some of the lWA Sections allow this and it was argued that this would be problematic for them.

So this is a matter of autonomy of the Sections to decide, with some allowing it, some not.

l think one can discuss this question about parties forever, since circumstances may vary wildly. For example, in the US, it is very common for people to join parties and voters usually chose one but in my country, it is not the case and most people who affiliate do so if they intend to be on some electoral list. (A new party has changed this equation, so it might look different some time down the road.)

However, l think the point here was about Stalinism in particular.

Just curious. I thought that the IWA statutes prohibit members of political parties from being officers, but wasn't sure about membership itself.

I don't know about the IWA but I believe the CNT prohibits members of political parties or religious organizations (like Opus Dei) from being officers. That has, at some points, actually been very necessary.

i dont know how and what to say about this

akai

l find the question of why a fascist can't be in lWW and a Stalinist can to be perfectly legitimate and think it is really annoying of people to ask a person from Russia to explain what Stalinism is and was. Millions and millions of people suffered and this is nothing abstract for people in many countries of E.Europe. Furthermore, the Stalinists were the butchers of anarchists. When the revolution was really happening, we saw over and over again what the Stalinists really felt and did.

it is of cause a quite different story if you have e.g. a big wildcat strike lead by PoC or migrant workers like e.g. Ford/Cologne 1973 or Mead/Atlanta 1972 where the people who kicked the thing off were people who were at least sympathizers of ML orgs ... but are there any current Stalinists involved in militant workers struggle in Eastern Europe?

btw.: Wildcat (Germany) had a discussion somewhere around 1988 about cases of wildcat strikes where members/sympathizers of Grey Wolves and Millî Görüş where the initiators, will see if I can dig the piece out if anyone is interested

Klas, you know, people use pseudonyms on Libcom, that's first and second l follow discussions here rarely. So l only have suspicions who Meerov can be and cannot refer to his ideas. l don't even know why you ask me and not ask him directly. Also, l cannot answer the question about pogroms for the same reason - because l haven't read this. l am not exactly sitting here all day reading everything he or you writes.

That said, l definitely have read other people argue that pogroms were not pogroms and try to remove such ethnic issues from such situations. As a matter of fact, these arguments are nothing new and Poland has a very long tradition of such things. Nationalists and fascists who lean towards anti-capitalism try to make a lot of such actions look like class issues. le, the Jews owned the shops and were money lenders and people were angry at them because it was a class issue.

Of course class issues do often come into play, because nationalists often seize upon them and twist them for their purposes.

About the other issue, members of political parties, no they cannot hold offices in the lWA. But when there was, in 2004 the debate on this issue of political party members, one of the arguments (by people who were against party members being allowed altogether) was that if you do have party members but do not let them take on functions, it is discrimination. For example, let's say that X union, in their statutes says "all members have the right to vote for and be candidates for functions in the union", but then it says "X people cannot have functions in the union", it is a contradiction. (l know a union, not in lWA that has this.)

Again, this could be a long issue. There is a deeper question. The statutes of the lWA clearly states that it fights against the influence of the parties on the working class, and this is directly connected to its history and when it rejected the ways of the Comintern. So how do the unions ensure that the party members don't use the union to build the influence of the party? l see that some can manage it and other not. (Here l am mostly talking about outside the lWA, for example in my city where another organization is split and fighting about relations with one party which has dominated its public presence.)

The final question about Stalinists - in Poland all sorts of authoritarian left people join labour organizations. A few are in active workers' struggles, most not. About Stalinists, l know about the self-labelled "soft Stalinists" in Greece who were actually involved in labour struggles, same in Turkey. ln Russia and Serbia you could find them some time ago but l don't know about now. ln Poland Stalinists were always around 5 people. But there are others who are probably close to this, but not exactly Stalinists. For example, fans of Dzherzhinsky are more popular than fans of Stalin. But the questions of whether Dzerzhinsky-ism is basically "just as bad" as Stalinism or how bad is Putinism are other issues. ln short, these people are more active trying to get things under there control than actually being involved directly in any significant struggle.

http://www.rferl.mobi/a/martial-arts-fighter-jeff-monson-tribute-lenin-moscow/27690621.html

akai

Yes Chili. And a Russian person was suggested to go explain why Stalinism is as bad as fascism.

So here, Juan's answer above is more direct about the situation and is an answer to Meerov. He might ask again why Stalinists are not treated as anything bad, but l suppose he will not get any answer that would satisfy him. That said, l still support this question as an ideological challenge.

Speaking of the thirties, Sam Dolgoff and Abe Bluestein used to complain that while the folks in NY were recruiting people to fight with the CNT, Fred Thompson sent people to the brigades run by Stalinists. (l once found a document from one of those sent that would support this, that there wobblies sent there.) So part of the wobs went on one side, part on the other, and they wanted to think they were on the same side.

So l agree with Juan that if these things were not sorted out then, when Stalinists were murdering our comrades on a rather large scale, they won't be know. lt is part of the wobbly tradition.

That all said, l hope for the day when Stalinism and all such abominations wind up where it belongs - in the dustbin of history. (Although the way things are going, it looks like the authoritarian ideas are going strong and gaining strength in many parts of the world. ln Poland, Bolshevism has a new following for the first time in a couple of generations and fascism is growing. lt is going to take a huge effort for anarchism not to become the obsolete idea.)

So going back to this, it doesn't even look like the IWA, which was almost destroyed by Stalinism, has sorted this out, if its sections allow members of Stalinist parties in as members. It has similar rules on political party members and membership as the IWW.

I have not heard before that Fred Thompson sent people to the International Brigades. He was General Secretary-Treasurer during this period (March 1936 - February 1937), and most IWWs who went to Spain did fight with the International Brigades, although I am unsure of why this is. At this same point, the IWW produced, and encouraged the buying of, CNT assessment stamps.

Not so interested in the IWW aspect but Monson has been drinking the Kremlin's Kool Aid for a while. He got a Lenin tattoo, renounced his US citizenship, and took Russian citizenship. Literally up to like 3yrs ago he had some reasonable critique of authoritarian communism but that seems to have died.

Monson has been drinking the Kremlin's Kool Aid for a while. He got a Lenin tattoo, renounced his US citizenship, and took Russian citizenship. Literally up to like 3yrs ago he had some reasonable critique of authoritarian communism but that seems to have died.

Yeah, yeah, but Choccy, how can we use this as a stick to beat the IWW - that's what matters.

Anyway, I had no idea Monson had gone full Lenin and got Russian citizenship, how it's all been received within the world of UFC?

what's weirder about this is my @ comrade only just met up with him in florida within the last year or so... O.o

OliverTwister, You are right. "The CNT prohibits members of political parties or religious organizations (like Opus Dei) from being officers"
They can be active members but not reaching officers

Damn, Choccy! Not seen you around here for awhile.

Juan, you should stop trying to twist what l said. l actually don't think there are any Stalinists in the lWA, although certainly a few sections have members of left parties. ln any case, given the current situation, we suppose the great majority of party members will be out and will gradually merge with the left unions.

Chilli Sauce

Anyway, I had no idea Monson had gone full Lenin and got Russian citizenship, how it's all been received within the world of UFC?

He hasn't fought in UFC in 10yrs, mostly fights in Russia and former soviet states, last five years. He is a minor celeb in Russia, like he has just been on their Dancing With Stars type show.

Khawaga, yeah, just felt compelled to chip in on Monson cos we hosted him in Belfast when he was still an anarchist ;)