Although many years have passed and I sense that relations are very changed, there are other questions regarding the WSA and the IWW which were not touched in the thread on the topic. I am starting a new thread on something I find interesting. This is that at some point the IWW, or at least a certain part of it, also wanted to affiliate to the IWA. However there was already the WSA and apparently, at that time, enough differences between the two.
What were these differences? I remember these times and remember a few, although maybe those directly involved would rather say.
The following are interesting. They come from the Libertarian Labor Review, whose members were active in the IWW. They allude to, but don't describe, some differences / conflict with the WSA and the IWW. The following letter was sent to the IWA at its 1992 Congress:
Fellow Workers,
The Libertarian Labor Review sends greetings to the IWA
Congress. The tasks facing the international anarcho-syndicalist
movement are immense. In virtually every country of the world,
transnational capitalist employers pit the workers of each country
against workers of other countries. National governments and the
official labor unions assist the employers by telling workers that
they must compete with foreign labor if they wish to keep their
jobs. The IWA is one of the few labor federations which seeks to
turn international working-class solidarity from a slogan into
practical reality. As an anarcho-syndicalist journal we are
committed to the same goals as the IWA, and hope that you continue
to make progress.
The Libertarian Labor Review is committed to building
solidarity between anarcho-syndicalists worldwide by providing
information about revolutionary unions. Every issue of the LLR
carries news of the IWA and its sections. This information might
otherwise be unavailable in North America. For example, we know of
no other U.S. publication (aside from the Industrial Worker, which
reprinted our report) that reported on the general strikes against
the Gulf War called by the USI and sections of the Cobas. We also
review IWA literature and reprint articles from your press. And
each issue of LLR includes the IWA's Principles of Revolutionary
Syndicalism, which we endorse.
The members of our collective have also shown solidarity with
the IWA in our practical work. When the CNT 'renevados' split from
the CNT-AIT, our members defended the CNT-AIT and helped influence
the Industrial Workers of the World to adopt its policy of
recognizing only the CNT-AIT. Our members pass along IWA news and
communiques to the IWW press as we receive them. For many years we
have encouraged the IWW to affiliate with the IWA, and we hope that
this will be accomplished soon.
Unfortunately, on March 20 we received an official notice from
Ginger Hutton, National Secretary of the Workers Solidarity
Alliance, objecting to an article in issue #12 of our journal.
(Hutton says she is objecting to #11, which mentions WSA only in an
index to our first 10 issues--her confusion may have been caused by
a production error which resulted in pages of #12 being
misnumbered.) That article criticized a leaflet attacking us that
was circulated by WSA leaers at the IWW's 1991 General Assembly.
Although the main point of our article was self-defense, Hutton
accuses LLR of attacking WSA and issues an ultimatum: "we must...
cease [our] attacks on the Workers Solidarity Alliance and all
individual members of the WSA" or WSA will ask the IWA to
"institute a formal ban on relations with your group" since "an
attack on [WSA] is an attack on the IWA."
We believe that the role of the anarcho-syndicalist press is
not just to give blanket praise to any group or individual claiming
to be anarcho-syndicalist, but to also criticize them for their
mistakes. A free and critical press plays a vital role in
maintaining liberty for rank-and-file workers and in holding our
officials accountable. The point of our article in LLR #12, which
so offended WSA, was that WSA does not want to see the IWW
affiliate with the IWA and has tried to make LLR into a scapegoat
to conceal this fact. In the most recent issue of WSA's journal,
Ideas and Action (#16, p. 36), Ginger Hutton admits that WSA is
opposed to the IWW joining the international: "The best thing that
could happen is that the IWW decides this is not something they
want to do and just drop it... I really don't think it's something
that's going to happen."
This simply reflects long-standing WSA policy. When
representatives of the Libertarian Workers Group (the WSA's earlier
name) attended the 1984 IWA Congress, they urged the IWA to drop
its efforts to get the IWW to affiliate. WSA also made several
derogatory remarks about the IWW, which amounted to a false charge
that the IWW was class collaborationist. When our group of anarcho-
syndicalists, active in the IWW, found out about this, we wrote an
open letter to the IWA to protest these attacks. Thus, our
'quarrel' with WSA dates back to what we saw as a divisive and
sectarian report they made against the IWW.
While the Libertarian Labor Review has serious differences
with the WSA over how to build an anarcho-syndicalist movement in
North America, we wholly support the IWA's priciples. We believe
that revolutionary unionism and international working-class
solidarity are essential to the construction of a free, self-
managed society. Familiarity with the activities, tactics, goals
and aspirations of our fellow workers around the world is essential
to building such solidarity.
At present, we exchange publications with several IWA
sections, and would gladly add other IWA sections to our exchange
list. On occasion, the IWA Secretariat has sent us copies of
communiques, which we have published in our journal and sent to
other labor papers and sympathetic organizations. We would very
much appreciate it if we could receive such information on a
regular basis, and if we could be provided with copies of the
resolutions and other materials acted on by the Congress.
For international working-class solidarity,
Libertarian Labor Review Collective
The WSA complained about attacks on them and the IWA Secretariat wrote to LLR about this. Later, the LLR published an editorial related to the IWA.
(I will not reprint it in full, because the first part is terribly, terribly mistaken. It related to the situation in Russia at that time, when the KAS went under, its leaders taking over the former communist trade unions. It is completely uninformed what LLR writes. I know because I was there. Due to complete ignorance, the SAC popped up there as well, giving a large sum of money to the already dead organization, which was quickly stolen.)
This part related to the WSA, IWW and IWA:
This is not the first time the IWA has permitted sectarian
syndicalist groups to draw the international into internal feuding.
In 1984 we warned the IWA about a similar situation with a group of
anti-IWW syndicalists, the Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA), who
were seeking recognition as the IWA's U.S. affiliate. The IWA
ignored these warnings, and the WSA was given a blank check to
carry on sectarian warfare against the IWW and pro-IWW anarcho-
syndicalists, all in the name of the international. Perhaps it is
not surprising that when the IWW passed a referendum in 1989(?) to
affiliate with the IWA, this received no follow-up from the IWA.
The IWA decided it must rely on the judgement of WSA, who told them
to ignore the IWW's prospective affiliation.
Libertarian Labor Review #15
Summer 1993, page 2
I visited Spain in 1984, some months before the Congress and although the main question at that time was that of the renovados (later CGT), there were plenty of questions and talk about issues in the US. But maybe first somebody else would say from their point of view what that was about.
It is interesting (and true) that at its inception, WSA was thought of as a "sectarian" venture.
On IWW affliation with the
On IWW affliation with the IWA, I think that's come up 2-3 times since the 1930s and there have been votes. At least one of those votes, the pro-IWA came out on top, and then there was some maneuvering by possibly the GST that negated the vote. But this is off memory, and off the memory of WSA listserv discussions 2-3 years ago and libcom threads.
syndicalist sent me a bunch of copies of some of the documents that went back and forth back then. WSA to IWA, a group of Wobs to the IWA, etc.
I'm not going to get into too much specifics because sometimes the past isn't worth bringing back up, in my opinion, but despite disagreeing with some of what WSA wrote (the viability for revolutionary unionism in the U.S., the IWW being a 'political organization'), the group of Wobs were completely out of line with what they were doing and saying. To me, they were relying on fighting with another organization (based on unrelated beef from a common group they had all been in) and bombastic, sectarian accusations to get what they wanted (affiliation with the IWA).
I think WSA's perspective on revolutionary unionism in the U.S. and the group of IWWers way of conducting themselves made any IWW affiliation with the IWA something that was just not going to happen then.
The way I look it at is that WSA's issue were ideological, which is something that be changed,negotiated with, altered, etc. But with the group of Wobs, their perspective was more personal, which is harder to deal with.
There's also, quite a few threads on here that go over all this many times.
Doesn't seem concrete at all
Doesn't seem concrete at all what you are saying.
I don't really see anything as every being "a personal issue". Either the wobs overall wanted to join the IWA or not. Was it just pushing by a small group? Was the interest genuine or not? In any case, behind "the beef" always lies some real issues of tactics, ideology or something.
This shouldn't be a tabu issue, since all sorts of history is discussed here.
I don't recall any threads dealing with this particular issue of the 80s, although I don't read everything here. Also don't read the WSA discussions.
If it doesn't seem concrete,
If it doesn't seem concrete, its because its not worth bringing it up because it has little bearing on stuff today, other than some of us being interested in very specific tendencies of tiny organizations and/or what people we know personally were did. Also, I was 1 years old when this stuff happened, the only reason I know about it is because older members of WSA have told me about it, I've read threads on libcom, or I've got various documents from that period. For me the biggest lesson to come from it isn't some riveting realization on revolutionary unionism or something like that. It's about how not to conduct oneself in their political work. And that political differences can transform into years long personal beef. That's all. I mean, that's a big and important thing, but probably not what you're looking for, and not what others expect when they ask these questions.
And yes, there are conflicts largely based on personal issues. At the root of their beginning, there were differences in how people saw the situation they were in, and what was most valuable for them to move forward, but so what? I have a ton of differences with WSA, but you'll never see me engage in a multiple decade campaign against them that sucks in other groups and publications. Will never happen.
As far as the IWW overall wanting to join the IWA...well, I don't know. Like I said, there have been a couple of votes held, but I don't have much information on them. I'm pretty sure one happened in the 1930s and possibly another one more recently, like in the last 20-40 years. My impression of things is that the biggest push came from a core of people associated with Sam Dolgoff and the Libertarian Labor Review (now Anarcho-Syndicalist Review). At least one of the people involved in this continued this beef with WSA for decades, was kicked out of a class struggle anarchist conference for his raving sectarianism...and eventually was expelled from the IWW over his conduct, which just got out of hand and had similarities to the way he dealt with the WSA over the years.
I think some of this conversation happened in these threads
http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa?page=1&quicktabs_1=0
http://libcom.org/node/7819
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/iww-or-iwa
http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa
No, I am not looking for what
No, I am not looking for what you seemed to gather from it. I wasn't 1 year old when it happened and recall there being many other issues, not personal but political. And I don't know why this topic isn't worth bringing up if just about every other topic under the sun gets some time here. I seem to recall hundreds of posts about WSA and IWA (literally), although this is just as remote and historical.
Thanks to links to the threads.
Simply do not believe too much in accenting the "personal beef" aspect of things people love to refer to around here. All of these "beefs" had more to do with real political issues than personalities.
I know about the old vote in 1936 and actually new people around in those days who gave me opinions on how it looked. So I am more interested if anybody here was in the IWW at that time (one comrade here was) and could comment on how that looked from the inside.
But I guess it would be infinitely more fun for me to ask the expelled member of IWW. :-)
What crap actually. More to
What crap actually. More to follow.
Well, I see clearly what's
Well, I see clearly what's happening here.
Look, I am not interested in any weird stuff but my questions here are rather concrete:
Was there a referendum in 1989 for the IWW to seek IWA membership? If yes, was it followed up, what was sent to the IWA (I can look that up later I suppose) and was the response basically fuck off?
As far as the WSA's objections to the IWW, I never understood them as being "personally motivated". I have a pretty long memory, and, well, I remember rather concrete differences of approach on both sides.
I'm a little disappointed then that it just can't be spelled out as it was. I mean, it looks as if people are trying to deny any differences existed and write it all off as some sort of problem with problematic people. However such an explanation would not be logical, because it would imply that the arguments of the WSA in the IWA really had no basis. Either they had basis and were political, or not.
I don't think it's anything worth hiding. And yes, it is obvious that there are 2 sides to things and I only included those quotes as reference to this question.
Not a good time for me now to
Not a good time for me now to really reply to stuff. And not sure what you “see” friend Akai.
That said..... what I think is crap is the dreging up of the LLR/ASR stuff is crap.
Just not what I liked opening up my emails to in the AM.I also didn't like your comment
that WSA was seen as being sectarian when we were formed. Sectarian by whom?
Punks, crusties, sectarian wobs, who? We have always tried to make an effort not to be.
BTW, I agree w/ Conatz in the sense that most of this was generally personal
between LLR/ASR.
I will come back when I have time to reply.
I'd just like to ask comrades
I'd just like to ask comrades to remember to try to keep their cool. Like Juan mentioned a main protagonist in this "debate" has been relatively isolated now after years of divisive behavior in the class struggle movement in the US.
To address Akai with the limited information I know about this I think the differences were:
WSA took a pluralist stance on the labor question, i.e. if one was in a trade union they'd advocate for workers' self management and anarcho-syndicalist methods, if they were not they'd try to organize independent unions a la IWW, if it was a really hard to organize situation they'd try to do what they could do.
Honestly this approach was very close to what the DAM/SolFed has it's position lately.
LLR/ASR were more specifically concerned with building up strictly the IWW as the main terrain for revolutionary syndicalist organizing.
---
Again I could be wrong about this, but this was my impression.
Friend Akai......by quoting
Friend Akai......by quoting anything from LLR/ASR it just opens a different door and is not productive. Basically, they were the only ones leading the
charge against some of us on a personal level and then against the LWG, Free Workers Committee (TW was involved with that) and then WSA.
The reality as why the Libertarian Workers Group (in 1978) became the US affiliate and not the IWW is sorta simple: the IWW was not interested in joining the IWA during the 1970s and “we” were.
I will try and get to some of the mid-1970s differences. But, truthfully, that was long ago and so much has changed.
I was not interested in
I was not interested in LLR/ASR in this. The quoted texts are only a reference to the issue.
Sabotage thanks. I already knew this of course and that wasn't really my question, but it is a good explanation for readers.
The specific area of interest for me is the following:
It seems that in the 80s, both the WSA (formerly LWG) and the IWW were interested in the IWA. For various reasons, WSA became the US affiliate, not IWW. So these reasons, obviously, must have reflected real political differences. I do not believe that the International preferred one over the other because some individuals called each other names or anything like that. Give me a break.
Of course I also have some information on these reasons but I supposed somebody else would prefer to tell the story. However, see I have hit the tabu area here.
Also, to be perfectly clear, the reference to sectarianism refers to the LLR words. I give absolutely no credibility to people throwing around that word and found it funny in reference to WSA. I guess I should have put a smiley up there.
Really fast, then i can't
Really fast, then i can't concentrate on this for a bit.
The historical context is that in 1978 the NY LWG became an IWA affiliate. At that time the IWW as an organization had no interest in the IWA, although there were some in the IWA (as there are today) who were interested in the IWW.
IWW interest in the IWA in the 1980s was promoted by folks in and around LLR/ASR welll AFTER the LWG then WSA were affilated to the IWA.
Now, Akai, if you want to get into ideological stuff, that's cool. But I don't have the time now to do that. Nor do I think using 1970s context or arguments are useful. This is where I think some of the discussion just becomes somewhat dated. But if you want to sy that the LWG then WSA were declared anarcho-syndicalists, the IWW not, that's fine. And maybe that's all you want to put out there. I think it prolly has more weight in Europe then in north america, IMHO, in 2012.
Sure, this is interesting
Sure, this is interesting history.
I think the information about when IWW had interest in the IWA and WHY is the interesting part for me. When I first came on the scene, some of the old-timer IWW folks were definitely in contact with the CNT in Spain. Franco had recently died, it just came back into play and the folks were really excited about this and new people interested in the IWA. Here's where I am not 100% sure of something, because it was just before I was an anarchist, but there was the tour of Souchy, gathering money for the CNT and the IWW people were saying they organized it. But maybe also the people from LWG were involved? (I don't know.)
So, those folks, who were not around LLR/ASR, were also interested in the IWA, so I am wondering how this looked. LWG got affiliated in 1978 but, if I am not mistaken, so did another American group, the Syndicalist Alliance. So, what about the IWW in those years? I am wrong in thinking that there was just intense internal debates in IWW then? I remember some of these from the mid-80s, so would I be correct in assuming that in the late 70s, early 80s, the sort of more anarchosyndicalist - leaning folks there were in a minority?
When the WSA was founded, people clearly said that they were looking to make some sort of alternative to the IWW - so, was that related to "personal beefs" or real political, ideological and tactical reasons? (I always assumed the latter.)
Oh, even found this, from an article about WSA foundation:
I am interested in what the "b" was.
Anyway, appreciate that "syndicalist" may be busy, but I am sure he is the best source of the answers here.
Piecemeal replies (sorry,
Piecemeal replies (sorry, very crazy & hectic day):
OK, this was in 1976. I was a 21 year old anarcho-syndicalist and IWW member.
So, the Souchy tour was not really done by the IWW, though the IWW was involved. An IWW campaign to raise funds for the CNT existed, even had some form of stamp to be purchased.
There were plenty of anarcho-syndicalists inthe IWW. Most US A/S were also Wobs (which maybe had a total membership of 200 --- the largest on the libertarian left). But the IWW
also had lots of old timers, good "union men and women", many socialists, anarchists and
social democrats (well, not in the sense of belonging to a right wing SD group, but their politics were left liberal, with strong militant trade unionist views. Akai, like some of the old timers were knew in the LBC).
While the IWW was supportive of the CNT, as it was supportive of the SAC, the question of IWA
affiliation came up from time to time. A couple of the LWG founding/early members were part of a 1974 effort aimed at affiliation. Everyone as in the IWW and they established an anarcho-syndicalist "Committee of correspondence for an anarcho-syndicalist liaison group".
The Committee went nowhere and was, as I recalled, criticized by some in the IWW [I'll have to find what was said, but my recollection was the same line that it would adhere IWW members to an anti-religious viewpoint and declare themselves for "communismo libertariao" instead of the "industrial republic").
OK..... so their was a "fraternal" relationship between the IWW, the IWA and indpendent syndicalists of the SAC and French Alliance Syndicaliste, as well as CNT-France. So the view was to have these relations and some were longstanding, but remain neutral to syndicalist splits
and stay in touch with all.
In the immediate years after Francos death, well, no one in the IWW (except for a few of
us) wanted to join the IWA. Have re;ations, but not join.
Gotta run. Sorry for the ramble. More to follow.
Aha, I always thought the
Aha, I always thought the Souchy tour was official IWW. Yeah, there was a stamp and fundraising even for one or two years later. I guess when I was still a kid I gave some of my milk money to the CNT. :-)
I know about the committee and the fact it didn't really gel.
So, the comments of some in the IWW at that time are interesting and I would be curious to see stuff from that time. Or maybe one day I will come across something in my personal archives.
OK, so, probably you don't know the answer for sure, but if only a few people in IWW wanted to join IWA in the 70s, did the IWW really want to join in the 80s? And what made this change, if it really occurred at all?
akai wrote: Aha, I always
akai
--- On the Souchy tour, I can only tell you that in NYC it was a joint event. And it may well have been that across the country. I wasn't involved in the tour. I just recall that the old timers in NY were and they very much had a lid on the thing.
ADD: The LWG was formed late 1977/Jan.1978, a few years after the Souchy tour. NY comrades were members of NY IWW. We also had a very loose and big-sounding east-coastisg group called "The Federation" and we participated in the NY gig as members of that as well.
ADD: The reality is the old timers did the org. and admin work, we mainly did some outreach and "shit work" (which was fine).
-- Without knowing who made waht comments, I can't say. And I've no clue what time period yas talking about.
-- By aout 1985ish I was no longer in the IWW, so I couldn't tell you inside stuff. From the outside, it was clear enough that a small group around LLR/ASR who started pushing the IWA once WSA was formed. This core obviously picked up enough support to get the IWA affiliation on a ballot. But it always, always looked like teeth pulling. And the battle against WSA being part of the IWA was always raised by LLR/ASR folks. I think by the late 198s the IWW was at about 350-500ish members. Mostly, almost exclusively actually, north american.
The support always looked tenuious and there always seemed to be splits in the sort of international work Wobs wanted to do. From the outside, the major fault line was the SAC. Mind you, the IWW has had a historic and longstand relationship with the SAC since the begining of time.
My overall impression has been that as the IWW began to grow, Wobs sincerely wanted to engage internationally. It always appeared that those on the respective international committee were mainly folks close to LLR/ASR or those seemingly closer to the SAC, others more like let's have relations with all independents regardless of affiliation. Some of the IWA stuff looked like it was a mishmash of trying to play on the increased internationalist interest.
From my perspective, the convulsions that went on over the IWW's affiliation to the IWA seems rather dead end. I mean, they would, then they wouldn't and it went on and on. But it was a distraction and WSA would generally have continue to fend off silly stuff by LLR/ASR folks.
The old-timers in NY were
The old-timers in NY were from the IWW, so this led to my assumptions that they organized it all.
Was the battle against the WSA being part of the IWA, or was it that the also wanted to be part of the IWA? Because from what I have read, it seemed more the second, although the first definitely occurred. But this I know more from being in Spain in '84 and having heard stuff. So, this came mostly through the grapevine, nothing I read. And through a rather confused grapeline, I'd have to add. But was it that their objection was that the IWW was a union and a larger organization?
Sometime ago somebody (don't know who now) had this to say:
Were they from Ideas and Action or LLR?
Although I did not consider the IWW to be an anarchosyndicalist union (it isn't) and understand there is a problem with its stance, for example were it to want to join the IWA, the criticism about not intending to build unions I think is fair, although the IWA accepts propaganda groups. But I thought it was a shame, the WSA's choice and that they did unionism through the IWW instead of trying something else.
I know that's going to be an unpopular view with some, but I had it for a long time. Because, frankly, if you start an anarcho-syndicalist group it is very uncomfortable if anarchists are doing the unionism in the mainstream or other alternative unions instead of yours.
Anyway, so this looks clearer for me now. And it is interesting for me in terms of other discussions that were here.
Also, to be honest, I tend to think that talking to the IWW about joining the IWA is always going to be a dead end and better just to have normal friendly relations. That said, anarchosyndicalist minorities in the IWW can form a faction and join. Don't think it's a big possibility, just making trouble. :-)
Right quick.... When I have
Right quick.... When I have some real time to sit and reply, I'll get to the other stuff which you've asked about....and which I'm sure all the lurkers really want to read about.
--- The old timers were mainly Wobs, but you had the strong efforts by the old Yiddish comrades (Freie Arbieter Shittme), the hearty network of the few old old Italian Gallianists, the many exiled Spanairds you never erally hear about much, various anarchist groups and, of course, the IWW.
--In 1979, the Miguel Mesa tour was primarily sponsored by the "Libertarian Spain" newsletter(Dolgoff, Bluestein, etc), the IWW, with local anarchist groups, the ACF and IWW branches cosponsoring.
It's really the former. See, since the mid-19770s a small group of us wanted to be part of the IWA. Even when we were in the ACF we wanted to organize an IWA section. None of the people who later went on to act against the LWG then WSA wanted part. The current editor of ASR was not even on the scene until the end of the ACF.Anyway, the reply (to wanting to form an IWA) was "not now, it's premature" and stuff along those lines.
When we had a break in the ACF, those who were later to be the most pro-IWA forces inside the IWW were those of us who mainly left the ACF. By the end of the ACF, anyway, the LWG and the Milwaukee Syndicalist Alliance were alrerady affiliated (with the LWG really being the mainstay catalyst). So, whatever post ACF splitoff efforts were made, were clearly against those of us affiliated to the IWA. And, it seems like theses folks after years of us being affiliated now wanted affiliation, for whatever reason. But it had to come at our already established efforts and at our expense. I say the latter, cause the attacks were clearly agisnt us. Not we want to be a section, but LWG then WSA can not be and has no "right" to be. So, their desire seems very "after the fact" to me.
Gotta run.
Quote: Sometime ago somebody
[/quote]
For sure and most def. LLR. No doubt. I've read this before and I think someone is playing a joke by inserting I&A. :wall:
Well, I was not playing a
Well, I was not playing a joke because I think it should read "editors of LLR" not Ideas and Action, which is why I asked. The reason that this one came to my attention is that it was republished recently in a platformist publication (p. 26) http://www.prairiestruggle.org. (Sorry, should have given the source above). So apparently those folks got this from the now hacked website related to LLR and, I don't recall the original exactly, but I suppose it was not Ideas and Action and the author of the cut and paste article added this. You might want to let them know of the mistake as the online version can probably be corrected.
Anyway, I think I get the picture rather clearly and thanks.
Where is the quote (or link)
Where is the quote (or link) posred on http://www.prairiestruggle.org.?
It's on page 25 of the
It's on page 25 of the Prairie Struggle magazine, which you can download as a PDF on their site.
Felix Frost wrote: It's on
Felix Frost
I must have a really old computer and be blind, but I can't find the mag.
syndicalist wrote: Felix
syndicalist
http://www.prairiestruggle.org/sites/prairiestruggle.org/files/magazine/PrairieStruggle_Magazine_Spring2012.pdf
syndicalist wrote: Felix
syndicalist
I'll have to write PFO. The article is partisan,incorrect and written from the perspective of those we disagreed with in ACF.
I am very disappointed that no effort to fact check the article was made.
Well then good thing I
Well then good thing I noticed it.
I think a lot more in that article is slanted, Not clear if it represents the way the author sees things or just somebody using random sources and doing a cut and paste job.
Quote: Simply do not believe
Really? Even considering the main editor of LLR/ASR's personality deficiencies? A great many superficially political disagreements are really about egos and rivalry in my experience.
Yeah, I thought that when I
Yeah, I thought that when I read akai's post. I think as many 'political' beefs are about personal problems as there are personal beefs that arise from political problems.
Sorry guys but really cannot
Sorry guys but really cannot agree with you on this. A personality may in fact influence how differences are dealt with and whether matters needlessly get out of hand. But the core of the matter has nothing really to do with this.
The first matter is related to the nature of the IWW. It seems obvious that there are anarchosyndicalists in it and, at different times, they have tried to put it in one direction or another. Joining the IWA would have, in fact, been a radical break with a rather long-standing position of the IWW. Also, it would have given it a more anarchosyndicalist identity.
If there were anarchosyndicalists in the IWW who felt that the WSA shouldn't be representative of US anarchosyndicalism because many anarchosyndicalists were in the IWW, this is a ridiculous political position. The reason is because the IWW did not want to represent anarchosyndicalism, but revolutionary industrial unionism. So, imagine their frustration, that there they were, in a larger and more dynamic organization, but one which could not claim to represent US anarchosyndicalism because the majority rejected that label and approach.
So, even if there was a minority of anarchosyndicalists in IWW, they could not use IWW to be the representative organization of anarchosyndicalism.
Thus, with their own organization indifferent or against this for so long, of course it was not pleasant for them to see other anarchosyndicalists set up a specifically anarchosyndicalist organization. But tough luck. They didn't commit to that, so they shouldn't blame others that did.
On the other hand, there is the question of what the IWA should have done. What you could read between the lines is that some think it should have waited or courted the non-anarchosyndicalist organization which had some syndical activity (which was much less then, but still existed), or try to embrace another group which ideologically was similar but which did not envision the activity.
Sorry, again, but this is a really relevant question, as relevant today as it was 25-30 years ago. Maybe even more so now.
Despite any personal assessments of the style of argument around LLR, I find these questions quite valid. I don't necessary share the opinions of LLR, although in some cases recognize some points.
This is why I am saying that this all is about real issues and decisions. Whether or not this went out of control or even who was more to blame for me is irrelevant because, quite frankly, I don't really care about name calling or any of that.
I don't think that the two
I don't think that the two positions here ('conflict is due to personality' and 'conflict is political') are incompatible -- for the simple reason that in a democratic organisation controlled by its members, the big egos should find it impossible to get support for their feuds unless the conflict is based on a genuine political difference.
Well, and as we know, there
Well, and as we know, there was tension on both sides. However, one thing is telling:
This shows that it was not the IWW which protested, but a few people within it. Meaning obviously that it did not have support of the IWW as a whole.
This being the case, and since the IWW was not previously interested in the IWA, but only a few of its members, again we see this as a matter of ambition which was not shared by that organization. So tough for the anarchosyndicalists who make syndicalism in a non-anarchosyndicalist organization.
With all this taken into account, it certainly then was correct of the IWA to defend the WSA at that point and not get influenced by the arguments of those who didn't even have the support of their organization.
Right quick on the LLR/ASR
Right quick on the LLR/ASR statements. They have generally been hyperbole. The statements, as we know them to be, were of a few folks who were mostly IWW members who were also members of the LLR/ASR. This was acserbated by one of their members initially using their GST stationary to attack the WSA. Then, they and a couple of members had the IWW agree to what was known as the "Kaufman Report". The Report was an attack on the WSA. It was later voted down by the
IWWs membership.
Throughout many of these years I was either the WSA's NS, IS or NC member. I was heavily involved in a) responding to all of the attacks and b) trying to ascertain if the attacks (in the name of the IWW) were actually widely held. To the best of our knowledge (based on significant correcposndence by me), it was clear that most Wobs were not supportive of the various attacks and accusations against WSA. In fact, every good faith effort was made by WSA to assure IWW members we were not anti-IWW. But the LLR/ASR efforts created much tensions, many divisions and was just a real waste of time (for all of us).
On some of the other questions....here's a partial and incomplete reply I started, This is incomplete, does not address all the matters and does not really set-up the time period very well.
I will contend that the LWG of the 1970s is not the same as the WSA of the 2000s. And the 2012 IWW clearly is not the same as it was in 1970s. And, it must be put in perspective that any criticisms which we raised of the IWW are based on our 1970s experiance.
Draft in progress...
In regard to the various questions pertaining to views and events of
more than 30 years ago, it will be some time before I sit down and
reflect on them. This will prolly take some time. I am not a good
writer. I do not think that trying to translate events and consitions
of those years might, at this point, be adequately be transfered in a
clear enough manner for a 2012 audience.
The matter of dual union cards (being a member of a trade union and
the IWW) seems to be a non-issue in 2012. It was a serious issue, a
cause for major conflict and stress in the mid-1970s and for a number
of years thereafter. To try and discuss whether the OBU model is
centralist and not federalist seems to be almost a silly discussion at
this point.
Do I think the IWW and the IWA would be a good fit, probably not.The
many conversations here on Libcom are prolly refective of different
perspectives and outlooks and is instructive enough.
Should north american anarcho-syndicalists should work inside the IWW,
yes, I have generally felt that way for long time. Should it be the
only place we work or foucs our time, no, and in that it would be
consistant with views held by us in the 1970s.
Being consistant with another long held view, "we" have long beleived
that the IWW is one component of the class struggle workers novement,
albiet perhaps a key one for a generation that is mainly unorganized.
Would a criticism "we" held back in
the 1970s that the IWW is the actual One Big Union of all the working
class, I would say still stands. I hope that the IWW will be the OBU
in its efforts in the food and retail sector. But it is doubtful it
would become the OBU of the class. But I tip my hat to all the
hardworking comrades who are trying to advance the IWW and those
trying to advance the revolutionary aspects of the IWW.
[EDIT --- Akai, some of the questions which are asked, require further review, by me,
of the writtten materials of the time. I have been going by memory here thus
far. So any additional replies must be based on my review of the hard
copy stuff]
no1 wrote: I don't think that
no1
I hear you...but.... it didn't exactly turn out that way. Ultimately it prolly did, but for some period of time, the egos with an agenda were in control.
Ok, thanks. Basically I have
Ok, thanks.
Basically I have a good enough idea of what was happening and thanks for your time commenting it.
akai wrote: Ok,
akai
OK. So no further comments need, right? :mrt:
If you want go ahead but I
If you want go ahead but I have no other questions. Will probably look through some things from that time out of curiosity as I am interested in understanding some things from the past, but mostly for my own private understanding / analysis.
akai wrote: If you want go
akai
OK, I can answer any additional stuff privately....you know where to fine me. :lol:
If there are any others who have questions, please ask them. If not, I'll turn the page in this chapter of history.
akai wrote: (I will not
akai
Interesting! I'd be interested in knowing more about this (sad) episode - how come SAC could be so misinformed? Where did the money go?
Also, Prairie Struggle?? I'm
Also, Prairie Struggle?? I'm not familiar with them. When did they come about?
Oh within the last year or
Oh within the last year or so. They seem pretty active.
sabot wrote: Also, Prairie
sabot
I can't speak to their activities, but here's their website: http://www.prairiestruggle.org/
I did correspond with PS about their sloppy and ill-informed use of the LLR article. they said they were sorry. BFD.
dont know but it is clear
dont know but it is clear that sac and other foreign organizations were and are misinformed about a lot if things in,eastern europe. also related to a lust for money on the one side and lust for foreign influence on the other.
in the aforementioned case the money was simply stolen. the thief lied about
what happened but I dobt think anybody was so stupud to believe it, but wIho knows. people amaze me sometimes
No one has info on the votes
No one has info on the votes in the 90s from IWW history?
Here's from syndicalist years back, sources? So IWW did vote to affiliate in 1990? What happened? IWA didn't reply, was that right?
"1990 saw the IWW pass another resolution (71 in favor, 44 against) to affiliate. This lingered and was revived in 1992."
My own read on what has happened in the IWW is that since 1908 anarchosyndicalist positions have been contested essentially continuously though in different forms (around policies from 1908-1916, around particular industrial unions 1916-1924, around things like IWA affiliation, contracts, and anti-communist affidavids 30s-50s, so on). The IWW occupied a particular space because it came out of movements for social democracy, but had strong anarchist currents via indigenous stuff in the US (like IWMA) and immigrant anarchists, all which came to prominence with the expulsion of SLP, purge from SP, and attacks from CP later. None of that was really resolved, and the organization has remained somewhat balanced if pragmatic between different countervailing tendencies. The uptick in concrete activity in workplaces in the 90s complicates the picture, and I think we're dealing with a different set of issues coming out of that.
Still, if we have a situation where membership voted at least twice to affiliate (and two IWW bodies maintained affiliation; Chilean IWW & MTWIU) and twice was defeated through administrative maneuvers, either by IWA or IWW, that's pretty nuts. Any original sources?
Just posted this on
Just posted this on FB------------
Here's the referendum that
Here's the referendum that passed & then was put on hold in 1993. The relevant stuff is from GOBs that have individuals names and stuff that shouldn't be posted online. http://libcom.org/history/1989-iww-referendum-affiliate-iwa
So why wasn't this 1989
So why wasn't this 1989 referendum acted upon?
I notice that there was an understanding that "IWW members in regions where there are existing IWA sections be permitted to maintain IWW membership"
Why would be so? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
Also "the IWW wiil advocate extending IWA/AIT membership to include all revolutionary unions independent of government or party control"
Who did they have in mind?
I have written this
I have written this elsewhere, but the IWW did not officially apply to be an IWA Section, nor did it ever negotiate its conditions. It contacted the IWA at some point. There was a negative reaction from WSA as well. IWW was told WSA was the American section of the IWA and probably to talk to them. (If I remember correctly.) Since there seems to be some interest and I have read the original correspondence and know where it is, I will scan it for historical purposes and people can read it themselves. But it's not in my city, so in a few months at earliest.
yeah as syndicalist said the
yeah as syndicalist said the IWW in 93 basically unvoted the 1990 IWW GA decision:
On 90s IWW and IWA affiliation:
The 1990 GA voted to affiliate to the IWA. This got passed on to the International Committee. But that committee was eventually subsumed into the GEB. The GEB members and GHQ officer workers at the time were generally against affiliation and spoke out against it in the GOB. Eventually in 1992 the GA put to referendum the creation of a four year International Commission to take the load off the GEB to explore affiliation and other international matters, since the reasoning for the International Committee being subsumed into the GEB, was it was a one man show basically, and the GEB was strapped for capacity. This referendum failed. In 1993 members of the GEB and two dual IWW/WSA members and a few others circled a petition for referendum at the GA that the IWW cease to explore affiliation with the IWA, but continue relations with the IWA and WSA. This passed. 1994-96 there are mumblings and arguing about such issues in member correspondence in the GOB but it eventually dies out (short of Ottowa GMB wanting to explore IWA affiliation again at one point, and a bunch of people repeating the same arguments about IWA being too anarchist, even though its just a revolutionary unionist international.)
Weird to see this one again.
Weird to see this one again. The two "dual" members referred to above acted alone and did not act in concert with the Wsa on this. In fact, this was their MO with all things they did in the Wsa's name. So, for the record, whatever they did was on their own
syndicalist wrote: Weird to
syndicalist
Reading these GOBs I concur with syndicalist they were acting on their own for what they thought would be good for the IWW, not as some WSA conspiracy as LLR/ASR types would later lambast them for.
During all the years, not one
During all the years, not one moment was spent on what dual members should be doing in the IWW be it on IWA or internal IWW stuff. There was an unwritten rule that it was verboten
Mainly cause the history has been IWW was not interested in IWA membership. And not wanting to be accused of meddling in the internal affairs of the IWW. The Wsa founding members were very keen to maintain organizational seperation and internal neutrality, though solidarity was gladly given. A number of us, with IWW histories, were keenly away of how certain things would be perceived and we wanted to avoid negativity at all costs.
Hear you. None of this
Hear you. None of this surprises me. Sometimes moves to get close to this or that or to affiliate here or there are mostly the work of just a few people. This has happened a number of times as l see. l am not only talking about the lWW situation. Recent events in the lWA also show this was happening. And outside of the lWW and lWA l know a few cases.
Basically, these things should be discussed more in the general membership, although sometimes some people, including delegated people, are not so transparent in what they are doing or have such a broad mandate that they just pursue what they see fit. lt may be surprising to know that some organization that claims to be in our spectrum actually gave all the powers to join international federations to just the chairperson, but now this goes to the National Commission, so you need 3 people to decide. (Again l am not talking about lWW or lWA. Just saying how these issues can be pushed by a small group of people.)
l also don't find it surprising that there was some grumbling about how the lWA is too anarchist in the lWW. There was a long history of this and we see how long ago Mr. Thompson wound people up against it by claiming that you could not be religious or something like that. Actually, what he said was not true, just that the lWA statutes criticized the role of the church in one place. But it is clear that two things must have been in play: first, as a socialist and with many socialists, they did not want to be "too anarchist" and second, they see themselves as an international.
The second fact, that it is international, not national, would present a problem for lWA affiliation as it is against the statutes of the lWA. (Although personally l think the part it contradicts is outdated and probably should be trashed.) But the first is probably more problematic. This is about an identity issue.
lnterestingly, at least over here where there is more than one organization claiming to be in this realm, we can see that the ones who have the most objection to "anarchism" etc. are leftists organized in other tendencies. (They aren't in our org.) They sometimes publish even publically articles against anarchosyndicalism, etc. and generally are not to interested in these tendencies on the international level. (But contacts are made by the elected officials who say they are anarchists.)
Maybe off-topic, but l suppose any organization that has any critical mass from leftist tendencies are not going to be too interested in anything to politically alligned to anarchosyndicalism. This also is a growing tendency in some sector of the lWA (ex-lWA? TBA)
If it is of any use or
If it is of any use or interest to contribute with an insider-view of IWA of that period…
When we were approached by the IWW with a project of joining AIT at that time, we just couldn’t believe it! Our informations and analysis told us that the official letter from the wobbly-bureau wasn’t an accurate reflection of the wobbly-rank&file. We were considering it at least pre-mature.
But for sure, from the very beginning, we have been protective of our comrades from WSA, I mean, really defensive. And I remember our first reaction was to consult… New York!
(Historical eye witnesses, conspiracies dismantled, libcom is getting better and better every day!)
julio27 wrote: If it is of
julio27
Having been in the thick of this at the time, as a national officer, I'm not really sure of what to
make of what you're trying to say? At the time the WSA was the IWA US affiliate, so, of course, we were asked questions about things relative to the US. As was the cases with all sections being asked about things relative to their respective lands.
EDIT: Julio27 --- Let me suggest you read the whole thread with all of the replies. That might make what we were talking about off list somewhat clearer.
"At the time the Wsa was the
"At the time the Wsa was the IWA US affiliate, so, of course, we were asked questions about things relative to the US. As was the cases with all sections being asked about things relative to their respective lands."
That is exactly what I "am trying to" say. Not only were you asked questions about things relative to US, but you were the first to be asked questions about things relative to US, because you were the IWA section and following the statutes (of that time), we had to ask you first.
Nowadays the question wouldn't be put. (please have mercy and don't try me on this one)
EDIT: please pm me BEFORE you're answering on the thread, that will spare us some time and energy.
julio27 wrote: Nowadays the
julio27
Huh? Basically the Statutes are the same as they been since the 1970s. Well, whatever. Whenever WSA was asked about the IWW as the IWW I think we were honest, truthful, careful in how to frame some of the anti-WSA views of some in the IWW (see above comments) and we always tried to advance cooperation where it could be advanced.
“Nowadays the question
“Nowadays the question wouldn’t be put”
OK, maybe you like this…
And maybe I shouldn’t try complex phrases in a language where I’m “not at home”.
But “nowadays” if “the question would be put” by IWW to affiliate IWA, my guess is the IWA secretariat wouldn’t consult WSA in the first place. It really is banal because WSA is no section of IWA nowadays, if I’m correct. That’s what I was trying to say, basically, with my stupid “nowadays the question wouldn’t be put”. (and deeply regret if it means something else I didn't intend to say)
As for the time “once upon a time” I was talking about, I now openly declare and clarify:
The WSA never was formed as a counter to the IWW by some ex-IWW members and the WSA was non hostile to IWW in those times I was talking about and I can testify about.
Maybe l will try to infer
Maybe l will try to infer what is meant, but please don't kill me if l am wrong because this is just an educated guess and don't start screaming "lies" and so forth if l got it right.
As far as l understand the issue, the interpretation of FAU members was that there could be 2 sections per country, up until 1996. So somewhere, when l was cataloguing the lWA archives l came across a letter to the lWW about this issue and the then FAU Secretariat told them that it is possible to have two Sections, but WSA would need to be consulted about it.
l believe that is what he is referring to.
Of course, that understanding is questionable because, as far as l know, the one section rule was agreed but not but in the statutes before hand. Also being in the lWA, we found that a number of things were agreed but not put in the statutes for various reasons, just like some things were left in after they should have been taken out.
As a historical note, l do know that this push to finally recognize this rule in the statutes was important after the CNT split but also was made more urgent by splits in France and ltaly. But as a curiosity, there was a discussion about whether a second section in one country could join in 1978 and it was not accepted. After 1996, the question was brought again to the 2006 Congress, but it did not pass. And finally, in 2014 the CNT proposed that there could be two sections in another country, (l mean not their own), but it also did not pass.
That all said, my personal opinion on the topic is somewhat different from the lWA regulation, but l certainly agree that our Sections need to be the first ones to decide about the lWA in their locations.
OK, just to beat a dead horse
OK, just to beat a dead horse some more. I am lost here on the one section one country thing then as both the current Statutes and the ones we adhered to in 1979 seem to be pretty clear on the matter..
The current IWA Statutes say:
The Statutes that we adhered to and which were in place when we departed the IWA reas:
[ "V. Conditions of Affiliation",
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/anarchy/rebelworker/spunk041.html ]
I gather that was to deal with splits or unusual matters. Not sure where there are any ambiguities.
OK i'll contribute my
OK i'll contribute my version
Condiciones de adhesión
„A la A.I.T: pueden afiliarse
a) organizaciones sindicalistas revolucionarias nacionales que no pertenezcan a ninguna otra Internacional.
La adhesión de una segunda organización central nacional del mismo país sólo puede admitirse por un Congreso Internacional tras informe de una Comisión nombrada por el Secretariado de la A.I.T. y compuesta de dos miembros de cada una de ambas organizaciones interesadas, es decir, de la organización nacional que desea adherirse, y por el Secretariado de la A.I.T.
b) minorías de sindicalistas revolucionarios organizadas en seno de organizaciones nacionales adheridas a otras Internacionales sindicales, en cada caso solamente si es aceptado por la Organización nacional adherida a la A.I.T. dentro del país, en caso de que la misma exista.
c) organizaciones sindicales, profesionales o industriales independientes o afiliadas a Organizaciones nacionales no pertenecientes a la A.I.T., que acepten la Declaración de Principios y Finalidades de la A.I.T, con el consentimiento previo, sin embargo, de la Organización nacional ya adherida en el país si tal existe."
(Antiguos estatutos hasta la plenaria de Reggio Emilia)
The actual ones :
„Las siguientes pueden afiliarse a la A.I.T:
a) organizaciones Sindicalistas Revolucionarias Nacionales que no pertenezcan a ninguna otra Internacional. En todo caso, solamente existirá una Sección en cada país. Las Secciones afiliadas tendrán que ratificar los Principios, Tácticas y Finalidades de la A.I.T. y mandar una copia de sus Estatutos y Principios al Secretariado. El Secretariado Internacional de la A.I.T. informará a las Secciones del origen del contacto o contactos que hayan solicitado la afiliación.
b) minorías de sindicalistas revolucionarios organizadas en seno de otras organizaciones afiliadas a otras Internacionales sindicales.
c) organizaciones sindicales, profesionales o industriales independientes o afiliadas a Organizaciones nacionales no pertenecientes a la A.I.T., que acepten la Declaración de Principios y Finalidades de la A.I.T, con el consentimiento previo, sin embargo, de la Organización nacional ya adherida en el país si tal existe."
Essentially, a) allowing
Essentially, a) allowing several member organizations in one country if an existing one agrees to it, and b) allowing only one section per country is not the same thing and it is not the same spirit.
(And I do not believe that our grandfathers and grandmothers were anticipating splits, when they wrote the original statutes in 1922. Now what they had in mind is another interesting question. Not the issue and place, here.)
So the reaction in AIT and the answer to the IWW letter by the IWA secretariat has to be seen in the context of this statuary fact of that time.
I’ll leave it here, there has been no intention of harming or discrediting any of the mentioned groups, WSA, IWW or AIT in the past and in the present.
Yes, l agree that the
Yes, l agree that the statutes were only changed in 1996 and according to that, all was in order. However, the topic came up and was agreed differently at least a few times in lWA history, starting in the 30s and this was because CNT insisted that the Secretaries of the time not pursue the possibility of a second organization in Spain, which would have been a faction that did not agree with the policies of the CNT. As l said, this was not formalized in the statutes.
Spirit and intentions are
Spirit and intentions are everything when it comes down to it.
Hear, hear! 100% agree.
Hear, hear!
100% agree.
At the time of the IWW
At the time of the IWW proposal for affiliation to IWA in '90s, I believe WSA wrote a letter to IWW saying that we were prepared to negotiate an arrangement for both IWW and WSA as IWA affiliates. This was in keeping with the older affiliation clause in the IWA statutes which did allow multiple affiliates from a country if this was agreeable to those affiliates. But I believe IWW never wrote us back a reply.
I believe the older IWA affiliation clause was designed to deal with situations where there was both an anarchosyndicalist union & also a syndicalist rank and file opposition group in the reformist unions (as in France).
No they never wrote back
No they never wrote back because it was a bureau initiative and the bureau was changed, if I remember well. I guess the matter wasn't really widely discussed inside IWW, but you sure have more information on that.
As for the design of the old statutes, the reason of the older affiliation clause is mainly the context of 1922 with Rocker and the a/s theories on the one hand and bolshevism on the other, and CNT Spain geting pulled in the red international. It's leeding to far away from this thread, I suppose.
klas batalo wrote: yeah as
klas batalo
Actually it was 1989, not 1990. It was originally given to the GEB and GST, then to the International Committee, then back to the GEB in a span of 3 years.
In any case, overall, I don't think the IWA or WSA took the IWW seriously here, and I don't think the GEB took the membership's desire seriously. Without being around, its hard to know how important this issue was to membership.
Strictly written as an
Strictly written as an individual---What do you mean about Wsa not taking the IWW seriously?
The IWW has exhausted tremendous amount of Wsa time and attention over the years
Mostly, in my opinion, unproductively when it's come to international stuff
I meant that I don't think
I meant that I don't think that the IWA and WSA took the IWW's desire to affiliate seriously. I also don't think that international officers of the IWW took the vote seriously either, which is most alarming to me.
Let me say that I
Let me say that I fundamentally and strongly disagree with your assertion, as it relates to the Wsa and IWA effort each time this came up. Having been intimately and fully engaged (including working on most Wsa replies , etc),Wsa took things seriously, replied timely, replied diplomatically and so forth Not being in the IWW I can't say what was going on in the IWW relative to this. Was this factional, was it real, was it the lets go round the mulberry bush with this again, hard to say.
But to say something which is appears to reflect a certain bias just doesn't cut it.
To suggest the time and effort we put into this really does not speak with a sense of what Wsa put into it and the realities of the time and effort on Wsa's part
Quote: In any case, overall,
Based on what evidence? Actually as I recall we spent some time on what to say to IWW. so obviously WSA did take IWW seriously.
Actually, you guys are right.
Actually, you guys are right. I'm mixing this up in my head with something else. I think the WSA took the possibility of the IWW's affiliation seriously in 1989-1992 and approached the question as such. The IWA Secretariat seemed surprised and not sure what to think. I don't think the international officers of the IWW did their job with this question and their reluctance and inaction would be unacceptable in 2016.
I think there's good reason
I think there's good reason why the IWA was surprise
given the one again and off again almost fickleness regarding the affiliation
Also, I think many were suspect about what factional stuff might or might not have been driving the
affiliation
Juan Conatz wrote: Actually,
Juan Conatz
I agree with that.
"I think the WSA took the
"I think the WSA took the possibility of the IWW's affiliation seriously in 1989-1992 and approached the question as such."
I'd confirm that from the IWA perspective of that time.
" The IWA Secretariat seemed surprised and not sure what to think."
Absolutely true
" I don't think the international officers of the IWW did their job with this question"
Also my evaluation.
"and their reluctance and inaction would be unacceptable in 2016."
no clue, but glad to hear it!
Fwiw, one day I'll write
Fwiw, one day I'll write about this and other things
And my overall opinion of how the IWW relates to
those independent revolutionary workers outside its ranks
Syndicalist, if you’re ever
Syndicalist, if you’re ever going to write a book about this, I’m the first one to buy it. If there is a subscription list open before publication, please tell me! :-)
Now the main idea of IWA’s response to the IWW’s affiliation demand, and prove me wrong if I’m telling the untruth, the main idea of our discussions was, based on the former statutes :
You have to decide if you want to be the second US-section, in that case you have to work it through and together with the WSA; or if you’re considering yourself an international, in that case only two congresses can decide about a fusion of both the internationals.
We never got an answer to that.
And we were all informed about it amongst the sections in the IWA. AIT-Secretariat didn’t do anything behind the back of whomever.
If memory serves me
If memory serves me correctly, I believe you have it generally right, the two questions.
But nothing ever advanced end of story, really. Truthfully, it's not something I really want to spend much time on at this point in my life, going over a 20 something year old matter. I will if it's to set historical records straight.
Yes, l think it was as Julio
Yes, l think it was as Julio and syndicalist said. But also l guess there was some not so n ice th ings from the part of those push ing it in the lWW. l remember read ing something to the effect that they didn't think WSA should represent anarchosynd ical ism in the US. But frankly, despite some criticisms of different things with the WSA over the years, it is the representative of that tendency.
julio27 wrote: You have to
julio27
reading some of the things posted in a few of the relevant threads, these two questions are, in large measure, still relevant. As well as declaring the "political" views of the IWW. Said lovingly, but with much decades of pent up frustration, it's sorta this Dr. Jeykel and Mr. Hyde thing, really. I get why some folks want to have it "both ways", but often it doesn;'t work that way and it usually comes at knocking others. Anyway ....
The WSA has applied to
The WSA has applied to affiliate to the IWA as friends section (it's on the agenda at the upcoming ASF Congress). In my view, it should be a full section in accordance with a previous decision of IWA Congress. The decision to change the status to 'friends' was fundamentally flawed as the sections were not fully informed.
The IWW and the CNT are captive to their own histories. They look backwards fondly. The principle of One Big Union is a sound one - but which one?
Lugis ---- It is my
Lugis ---- It is my understanding that Friends status fits
were Wsa is at regarding IWA participation at this time
While I would say Wsa never left the IWA, it's not something
want to revisit at this time.
yeah it is more about our
yeah it is more about our capacity. we have started the anarcho-syndicalist initiative though to try and start to change the situation in the usa.
There is currently a split
There is currently a split going on so the questions get complicated as the parrallel lWA gets set to form and by the looks of it are going in a different direction. ln any case, l am glad that people are trying to get more impetus in the US.
klas batalo wrote: yeah it is
klas batalo
This is what KB is referring to: http://ideasandaction.info/2016/04/anarcho-syndicalist-initiative-membership-individuals-existing-groups/
Quote: Lugis ---- It is my
syndicalist, I hear you and I understand. I was making the broader point about IWA Congress decisions. If a section is admitted to the IWA, it is a decision of the Congress. The cack-handed attempt by previous IWA secretary to change the status of WSA goes against this principle. Ratification of Congress decisions is a recognition that the correct procedure was adhered to. In all cases, all the relevant information was made available to inform the decision. But in the case of both the WSA and the ASF, information was deliberately withheld. Therefore the decision to change the status of the ASF and the WSA should not have been ratified. This is a failure of process, not attributable to the fault of any one individual. Sections are to be held responsible for the behaviour of individuals.
It's a testament to the strength of resolve of the WSA that they have been able to continue with their declared aims and I commend them.
I hope the WSA turns its attention through 180 degrees away from the Atlantic towards the Pacific in the future.
Although I am currently on
Although I am currently on organizational hiatus, I can not speak in any membership capacity, but simply would to say thank you for:
I'm sure comrades will always be willing to show solidarity as needed.
Always count me in.