IWW North America have decided to participate in creation of the new international with CNT et al.

What would that mean for IWW Germany? (I don't believe IWW has a group in Spain or Italy) Would it mean it merging with FAU? What do German comrades think about that?

I was tolled that they voted to affiliate.

Steven.
In the New International could be more than one section per country, this is the idea. Then it is compatible with FAU and IWW Germany.

If you read this from the CNT International Secretary (not to be confused with the CNT applying to re-affiliate to IWA) it's clear that they intend to pursue 're-founding' the IWA.

https://revolutionary-iww.org/beyond-iwa-interview-cnts-international-secretary

Forming a new international is fine and no problem but the idea that the CNT (or any other section) can arrogate to itself the authority to 're-found' the IWA is, in and of itself, authoritarian.

Going by the noise on social media, it seems there are a lot of wobblies are confused as to what it actually is they voted for. It looks as if the greater p[art of the IWW membership is the victim of a monster snow job.

If you don't have access to all the relevant information when making a decision (or worse, the relevant information is deliberately withheld) you don't have equal decision-making. Indeed, you have hierarchy with those who have the info in a position of power over those who don't.

So much for 'democracy'.

For those who have gone to the conference in Frankfurt it is very clear that the aim is to create a new international with a different name. That is one of the consensus.

Ragnar

Steven.
In the New International could be more than one section per country, this is the idea. Then it is compatible with FAU and IWW Germany.

okay thanks for the info. Although that does seem quite strange. If the groups are so close they form one international organisation, then what is the difference between the two organisations in Germany? And what do FAU/IWW Germany members think about that? Not trying to stir here by the way, just genuinely wondering, especially as we have had a fair few FAU members posting here over the years, like robot

As far as I know, FAU and IWW Germany are in collaborative processes. Why they maintain separate organizations, in my subjective opinion, has to do with some problems in the past and personal problems that are not overcome overnight.

In any case it is a question of being able to work with revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism in the same international. Maybe Solfed wants to join at some point also even though IWW UK is also there.

If someone from FAU can answer as well, I hope I am not out of mind.

My US perspective on the dialogue surrounding this;

Information has been spotty, weird and at times contradictory.

Examples;

CNT announces refoundation conference and doesn't pay dues for a long time which together represent effective leave of the organization (fair enough, but I do say there are more constructive ways to take ones leave). Much later, IWA meets at normal conference time and basically has a procedual removal of the exiting organizations (who at this stage have already met in conference). The info and narrative deliberately spread in the US by numerous sources described a mad-hatter IWA expelling with hostility those thousands of members. I witnessed this repeated ad nasuem in my IWW communications, some of which turned hostile quickly.

Many serious charges have been leveled against the sec. IWA but these all seem to be merely utterances with no evidence and no one willing to pursue in a serious way. Such a tactic is one whose goal is confusion over clarity.

Now, we see this announcement on libcom, which is a half truth. Us rank and filers still get to debate this and vote individually in referendum. The title of the thread is an excellent example of the confusing use of words that has sorta followed this shitshow from the start.

This whole thing is a confusing shitshow

boozemonarchy

My US perspective on the dialogue surrounding this;

Information has been spotty, weird and at times contradictory.

Examples;

CNT announces refoundation conference and doesn't pay dues for a long time which together represent effective leave of the organization (fair enough, but I do say there are more constructive ways to take ones leave). Much later, IWA meets at normal conference time and basically has a procedual removal of the exiting organizations (who at this stage have already met in conference). The info and narrative deliberately spread in the US by numerous sources described a mad-hatter IWA expelling with hostility those thousands of members. I witnessed this repeated ad nasuem in my IWW communications, some of which turned hostile quickly.

Many serious charges have been leveled against the sec. IWA but these all seem to be merely utterances with no evidence and no one willing to pursue in a serious way. Such a tactic is one whose goal is confusion over clarity.

Now, we see this announcement on libcom, which is a half truth. Us rank and filers still get to debate this and vote individually in referendum. The title of the thread is an excellent example of the confusing use of words that has sorta followed this shitshow from the start.

I read it several times and from the first it was totally clear that what vote IWW was only to take part in the Congress, and you didn't say anything thing different.

About charges against IWA sec. At least CNT always did it base on proves that are accessible to every IWA member. But no reason to bring back that kind of things.

boozemonarchy, I understand that you, as a member of WSA-IWA, want to be the champion of the defense of that international. But coming here to drop shit again is not good tactics.

I also understand, that you, as a member of IWW USA you did not like the result of your congress, which is to participate in the creation of the new international, which is not going to be called IWA. And that after it becomes a new international IWW USA will call a referendum to finish joining or not. I see it quite wise, I do not know why you do not.

Just a few words regarding the question on FAU and IWW in Germany. As always my personal opinion. The FAU proposed that within the new international project there should be the possibility for more than one union per region / country to join. As far as I understood this was the idea of most if not all others at the Francfort conference as well. So I guess it won't be a problem for both FAU and IWW in the German language region (Germany, Switzerland and Austria) to join.

While there are of course quite a couple of questions that would be agreed upon by the FAU as well as the IWW, they are in fact to different organizations with their respective political and union culture. While for instance the FAU defines itsself as an anarcho-syndicalist union (though by far not everyone in the FAU would tend to qualify itself as being an anarchist), the IWW in the German language region does not. The wobblies got quite a couple of more leninist leftists in there ranks that have their problems which the supposed anarchist character of the FAU.

There are some differences on the job floor as well. While the IWW in Germany advocates takng part in work council elections as an industrial strategy, FAU doesn't take part in those elections. We rather focus on the job floor union than on the councils and in one case managed to force a company to equip our job floor union with about the same rights the council would normally have,

I guess there might as well be a problem with the number of union members. FAU outnumbers the IWW in Germany by about 6 to 1. That's not always the best precondition for a merger.

Nevertheless, there are quite a couple of double-carders and there is a lot of support during workplace conflicts. The first industrial workshops for the German Wobblies were organized with experienced FAUistas and FAU members are taking part in IWW workshops. So while we have a couple of different strategies and cultures, there are a lot of things we share.

Ragnar

boozemonarchy, I understand that you, as a member of WSA-IWA, want to be the champion of the defense of that international. But coming here to drop shit again is not good tactics.

I also understand, that you, as a member of IWW USA you did not like the result of your congress, which is to participate in the creation of the new international, which is not going to be called IWA. And that after it becomes a new international IWW USA will call a referendum to finish joining or not. I see it quite wise, I do not know why you do not.

Okay, first paragraph is reading like some sort of dark alley psuedo threat, so I'll just leave that there. Totally inappropriate. ?

Second, you can just ask for my total position rather than attempting to infer it, you did a shit job.

1. Anyone looking at the split objectively would determine that it was undertaken in a sloppy and harmful way that looks horrible internally and externally to all anywhere remotely close to a revolutionary type of syndicalism.

2. But, these things happen and we have to move forward and look to the positive. I think the IWW joining with other revolutionary unionists abroad is really a right and natural development that should be pursued. That said, I'm unsure if information and discussion within the IWW has been accurate or robust enough, or that it was undertaken with a serious concern for democratic engagement on what is a big question. The situation is somewhat extraordinary in that it raises constitutional and to a lesser extent, (see Robots post) practical concerns.

3. If you asked for my prediction - I would say the referendum will probably vote yes on affiliation by a slightly closer margin. Though I can't see in the future, I honestly hope it helps all involved grow and deepen their movements and that whatever tensions that linger down the line can be soothed with practical solidarity stuff. Said respectfully, I hope the CNT cools down a bit on how it handles international stuff and is a better partner in the new international.

4. I may be critical of how this all went down but I'm more concerned with finding ways to move on, as in, practical solidarity down the line.

Thanks for your comments, robot, appreciated

Interesting Robot.

I am reminded of the time when FAU-Berlin was engaged in the Babylon Cinema back in 2009. (https://libcom.org/forums/organise/fau-berlin-call-solidarity-labor-conflict-cinema-babylon-29062009 )

Although WSA was not part of the IWA (FAU was), we did our small part in standing in solidarity with the FAU. But I recall how it was impossible to get a number of dual WSA/IWW members to get interested in the campaign. It fell back in the lap of some of us older members. I found it strange how some of the dual members would favor IWW organization over IWA organization in lands where the IWA had a historical membership and active sections. The German situation I particularly found odd, but at least I have some understanding as to the composition of that IWW branch.

All said and done, yesterdays cold shoulder is todays warm embrace, I guess.

boozemonarchy

Now, we see this announcement on libcom, which is a half truth. Us rank and filers still get to debate this and vote individually in referendum. The title of the thread is an excellent example of the confusing use of words that has sorta followed this shitshow from the start.

I don't believe that is true. I believe usually only Constitutional Amendments automatically go to referendum. Some things get settled at Convention, although I'm not absolutely sure on this.

Never mind. Question withdrawn

I know I've gone on and on in the past on letting what the IWW does in relation to this stand or fall on its own merit. There's something about this issue (formal relationships with mostly European anarcho-syndicalist/syndicalist organizations) that leads some people to do all kinds of dishonest stuff like pocket vetos, lying, red-baiting, anarcho-baiting etc.

For example, the former chair of the GEB is publicly encouraging people to be cautious of these conferences, even claiming that European IWWs are not participating. That's incorrect. Both WISE-RA and GLAMROC have sent living, breathing human beings to these conferences who have made suggestions and circulated reports internally! Either this person is straight out lying, or as the person who was responsible for carrying out the 2016 Convention mandate, chose to not really inform themselves.

Again, let this stuff stand or fail with honest discussion and arguments, without lies, exaggeration and misinformation.

Juan Conatz

boozemonarchy

Now, we see this announcement on libcom, which is a half truth. Us rank and filers still get to debate this and vote individually in referendum. The title of the thread is an excellent example of the confusing use of words that has sorta followed this shitshow from the start.

I don't believe that is true. I believe usually only Constitutional Amendments automatically go to referendum. Some things get settled at Convention, although I'm not absolutely sure on this.

Thanks for correction, retracted. Seems to have been some confusion all around - at beginning of August you described the process as including referendum in that IUC thread. Anyway, sorry for adding ng to confusion.

I wasn't at Convention so I'm not absolutely sure. But I know just from what has happened in the past that Constitutional Amendments are the only motions that automatically go to referendum. Others get settled at Convention. Usually if they are seemingly contentious, an amendment to the motion will be made to send to referendum. It's not clear if that happened here or not. It's confusing because 'common sense' in the IWW says that everything at Convention goes to referendum. That's what is often said, but that's never been how it works in practice.

Juan Conatz wrote:

Again, let this stuff stand or fail with honest discussion and arguments, without lies, exaggeration and misinformation.

What's this then?

https://revolutionary-iww.org/beyond-iwa-interview-cnts-international-secretary

It's clear from this interview with the CNT International Secretary (not to be confused with the CNT applying to be admitted to the IWA) that the IWW is signing on to 'refound' the IWA.

This is not creating a new international, this is the CNT/FAU/USI/IWW et al. arrogating to itself the authority to 'refound' the IWA. btw, how do you 'refound' something that is already founded?

Rank and file wobblies are getting snowed big time.

I would assume if it kept the IWA name that would be a non-starter for the IWW. They should just let you have your little club tbh

your little club

An appeal to the authority of public opinion is in and of itself authoritarian. Might is Right, yeah?

Assume whatever you wish but it remains clear that the CNT think they're 're-founding' the IWA but rank and file wobblies have been told the proposal is to create a new international. How can you have equal decision-making without access to all the relevant information? If some have the facts and others don't is that not hierarchical given that information is power?

Again, let this stuff stand or fail with honest discussion and arguments, without lies, exaggeration and misinformation.

For CNT is creating a new international that reflects the spirit of the old IWA of 1920, that added revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism.

I repeat, in Frankfurt there was already a very clear consensus that the IWA exists and that this new (and not so new) project must have a different name. If you want to continue with the story of the dairy as yourself.

OliverTwister

Those who oppose the IWW engaging with the new international have had over a year to make their case within the IWW, but they have only resorted to trying to find ways to prevent the discussion from happening, or to muddy the waters. And now that the memebership has had a chance to vote, we see that 90% of branches were in favor of participating in this project.

Pretty much. Although I'm not involved or pay as much attention to IWW discussion as much as I used to, the only thing I've really seen is stuff like "we haven't discussed this enough" (false, it has thoroughly been submitted through proper channels and decided through delegate democracy), or "it is being pushed through" (false, it has been submitted to Convention in the normal timeline and has been voted on by branches).

A few people I've seen have briefly brought up concerns about what they think may be aiding a split, which I think is an actual valid objection to make. However, unless I'm missing something, I've not seen anyone really push that further. I've also seen a few individuals make objections revolving around that the IWW is not anarcho-syndicalist.

What's left of the IWA or their sympathizers keep bringing up the name thing but they really don't care about that. Not really. What they want is for organizations to freeze the CNT, FAU and the USI out so that they are isolated and pay for what they have done. Then maybe they'll come crawling back on what's left of the IWA's terms. They're not mad about "taking sides" in a split, they're mad that their side isn't being took.

Doesn't matter how many times we explain to Lucius the things, he continue repeating the same. However, in Frankfurt was clear that the name mast be different to IWA. CNT went to Frankfurt with an agreement in the same line, not to use the IWA name for the new international.

melenas

Doesn't matter how many times we explain to Lucius the things, he continue repeating the same. However, in Frankfurt was clear that the name mast be different to IWA. CNT went to Frankfurt with an agreement in the same line, not to use the IWA name for the new international.

I would really like to ask this in a simple way: why was the original conference literally calling for the "refoundation of the IWA"? I mean, it was out there in black and white. That obviously what the original thinking was. Now maybe that has changed, but it was initially proclaimed as being a conference to discuss the refounding the IWA.

Juan Conatz

What's left of the IWA or their sympathizers keep bringing up the name thing but they really don't care about that. Not really. What they want is for organizations to freeze the CNT, FAU and the USI out so that they are isolated and pay for what they have done. Then maybe they'll come crawling back on what's left of the IWA's terms. They're not mad about "taking sides" in a split, they're mad that their side isn't being took.

I don't think thats completely accurate. And I do think that the split is tragic for all anarcho-syndicalists.

Personally, no winners on either side in my book. And the IWW involvement this split
is a sort unnecessary side show to the issues of anarcho-syndicalists working their shit through.

I'm going to explain again something that I explained several times. The international agreements that took CNT was a mix of several proposals. Is something that usually happens in CNT and I can imagine that also happens in other more or less big organizations. There are several proposals and each union take agreements for each one. When the organization vote each one at the end has some approve and others no. With the ones approve or with big support, a group of member of the union meet during the Congress and try to join all of them in one text and the unions vote again if are agree with that. This circumstances can provoque that having a good agreement this is not totally perfect or complete, but is was approve the unions. There was several international proposals, no one was to leave IWA, but there was one to refundate the international. With this agreement the only could do the CC of CNT was what you wrote. As son as there was a plenary of regionals and the unions made new proposals to complete the agreements of the Congress this point was define correctly.

I don't think that in any moment the unions of CNT wanted to create a new international with the same name. I see it more as a consequence of what I explain. The refundation was the agreement, within or outside but refundación base on the historical aims.

syndicalist

Juan Conatz

What's left of the IWA or their sympathizers keep bringing up the name thing but they really don't care about that. Not really. What they want is for organizations to freeze the CNT, FAU and the USI out so that they are isolated and pay for what they have done. Then maybe they'll come crawling back on what's left of the IWA's terms. They're not mad about "taking sides" in a split, they're mad that their side isn't being took.

I don't think thats completely accurate. And I do think that the split is tragic for all anarcho-syndicalists.

Personally, no winners on either side in my book. And the IWW involvement this split
is a sort unnecessary side show to the issues of anarcho-syndicalists working their shit through.

You mean that IWW can't take part in a proposal to create a new international? That is not good? the unions should not take part in the proposal to create a new international and leave alone to CNT, FORA, USI and FAU?

Please explain your self better because I don't understand very good what you mean.

Comrade, refundation starts from within, as a form of renewal. I basically think both "sides" misplayed your hands. So in ten years or so time, we will all be revisiting the question of unity.

Unity, I think in Spain is something we spoke about it the last 40 years. Organizational unity can be a desastre, other thing is solidarity and unity in the action.

melenas

syndicalist

Juan Conatz

What's left of the IWA or their sympathizers keep bringing up the name thing but they really don't care about that. Not really. What they want is for organizations to freeze the CNT, FAU and the USI out so that they are isolated and pay for what they have done. Then maybe they'll come crawling back on what's left of the IWA's terms. They're not mad about "taking sides" in a split, they're mad that their side isn't being took.

I don't think thats completely accurate. And I do think that the split is tragic for all anarcho-syndicalists.

Personally, no winners on either side in my book. And the IWW involvement this split
is a sort unnecessary side show to the issues of anarcho-syndicalists working their shit through.

You mean that IWW can't take part in a proposal to create a new international? That is not good? the unions should not take part in the proposal to create a new international and leave alone to CNT, FORA, USI and FAU?

Please explain your self better because I don't understand very good what you mean.

I'm not for a new international. Can't say I'm happy with either "side" as things have transpired over the past few years (personal opinion only).

I believe in an anarcho/libertarian syndicalist international that has cooperative relations with a wide range of organizations. But I strongly believe in the IWA Statutes & Principles that originally attracted me to the IWA early in the 1970s ( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/anarchy/rebelworker/spunk041.html ). They lay out pretty much most of what I believe, are clearly within the tradition of the Bakuninist wing of the First International.

Someone mentioned the FORA. As to why some have become closer to FORAismo, hard to say. My own observation is as some anarcho-syndicalists have moved away from the the anarcho-part to a sort of pre-WWI revolutionary syndicalist part, some may feel that the next step backwards is towards a militant trade unionism and from there who knows what additional steps backwards. I'm not a FORAista, so I am just guessing here.

I am curious as to those belonging to the CIT opinion/side of this:

New Round of Purges in the CNT-CIT

Two women are in the hospital and an occupation is ongoing after a raid by unions of the CNT-CIT on the Tirso de Molina offices in Madrid.

This is a new episode in the repeated attempts of the autoritarian faction of the CNT-R to take control of the organization by purging organized anarchosyndicalist elements.

Members of Madrid's large and influential SOV union and Metal union are banned from the CNT and plans have been made to replace them in a very shady manner that circumvents the CNT statutes and go against the principles of anarchosyndicalism.

Continued ....

https://newworldinourhearts.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-round-of-purges-in-cnt-cit.html?fbclid=IwAR2foIBc4_z8ditkvhRTip0SHblfNY9WpSLhbtw1ZKFt3Kxwo84krnzT1ZI

OliverTwister

Do you want to start with your opinion?

You have a long history of making short posts trying to stir up drama and backing out like you aren't.

I asked a question. You don't have to give an opinion. And that's OK too. I am trying to find out the accuracy of the linked account of what went on. Your problem is, you only think there's one side of the story with all things. I don't. Nothing is black and white. Accept my rationale at face value or not.

I too, am curious about the CIT affilated opinion on this;

https://newworldinourhearts.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-cnt-capitalist-model-eliminates.html?fbclid=IwAR0vCmeFZUeOMqDBkQ1Yb8GjYsa3eHIROr0iwoisAo0SFfkMe9GNVPZxoQw

My opinion, which I am happy to share, is that CIT are worse than reformist unions because reformist unions don't pretend to be anything much beyond reformist unions. CNT-CIT are pretending to be anarcho-syndicalist.

With such confusion it is little wonder that some people think national anarchism or anarcho-capitalism are actual things.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a practice, this is what defines it.

The IWW should not be judged by these standards as they are NOT anarcho-syndicalist;

https://www.iww.org/history/myths/8

But the rank dishonesty of the FAU and the USI should be condemned.

CNT doesn't pretend to be perfect, it just tries to be operative. This is the origin of this conflict. From 2010 on (even years before) SOV union of Madrid has actively boycotted the organization, putting it into internal problems, ignoring congress agreements or even boycotting the congress. In the last 3 years the internal climate in Madrid has been unlivable with constant harasses, insults, agressions, disloyalty towards collective agreements and so on, that led Graficas and Transports to act harshly.

The last straw was the bus travel to Logroño, when in the bus some members from SOV and Metal were notoriously drunk, smoking, ignoring the complaints of the bus driver, making him to stop the bus to pee... then disappearing in a gas station... and finally insulting everyone. One of the same committed anarchosyndicalists disrespected a picket of hotel workers from cnt villaverde, by showing the ass. Ok, the list of complaints is rather long, like harassing people with name and surname in the facebook, insulting other social movements of drinking till late at the union offices - alcohol had to be banned in july. Their unions didn't want to act against these attitudes.

To be remembered is that SOV Madrid did more or less the same in the 90s by expelling libertarian youth and the metalworkers union, and now they're the victims. If they act cleverly, in the end you guys from IWA will have a nice IWA-Spain section of about 300 or 400 people. Well, if they don't kill each other (they may hate reformists but they also dislike what others do).

And now my take: the origin of everything is that in CNT there have coexisted to different lines of what anarchosyndicalism is. For SOV anarchist syndicalism is to have an anarchist collective doing some union activism, while for the rest is to prepare the union (moved by some principles) for a) collective bargaining b) to seize a company c) to seize economy in workers hands (we're still in a) ). When SOV lost influence in the direction of CNT during 2005-2010 they began to behave uncomradely accusing everyone of reformism and treason, when themselves started a network to control unions and committees, while led to antisocial behaviour - if you see everyone as an enemy you'll end up treating them like so. Whatever, time will say who's right, but in fact CNT-Madrid has been broken for years.

I have a few concerns with the IWW joining the ICL.

1. I really don't like how you need to have at least 75 members to have a single vote in the ICL.

I understand disliking the 1 national=1 vote rule that exists in the IWA but why couldn't they just make it so 1 person=1 vote? If that's too hard for some reason why couldn't they just make it so that for example 3-25 members gets you one vote, 25-50 gets you 2 two votes etcetera?

2. How will joining or not joining affect the IWW's relationship with the IWA-AIT?

3. I'm going to have to re-read both the IWA-AIT constitution and the ICL proposal very closely again but they seem almost exactly the same aside from the above proportional representation issue.

Can anyone tell me what the ICL plans to do differently from the IWA-AIT?

Ugg

I have a few concerns with the IWW joining the ICL.

1. I really don't like how you need to have at least 75 members to have a single vote in the ICL.

I understand disliking the 1 national=1 vote rule that exists in the IWA but why couldn't they just make it so 1 person=1 vote? If that's too hard for some reason why couldn't they just make it so that for example 3-25 members gets you one vote, 25-50 gets you 2 two votes etcetera?

The reason is that we think that a group of less than 75 people should be focus more in growing and local issues than spend their time (being part of an international is an effort for the organizations in all the ways) in the international. organize your self, develop your organization make syndicalist action, ask for support to the international and we you start to a organization with experience you will vote. I understand that there is people that is not agree with this point of view but the experience of the unions that create the international prove that is a healthy idea.

Ugg

2. How will joining or not joining affect the IWW's relationship with the IWA-AIT?

This is something that only IWW and IWA can answer. In CIT the sections are autonomous and no sections of CIT will say anything about how manage IWW their relationships.

Ugg

3. I'm going to have to re-read both the IWA-AIT constitution and the ICL proposal very closely again but they seem almost exactly the same aside from the above proportional representation issue.

Most probable are very similar, the biggest difference is in the autonomy of the sections and how put each organization in practice what they say they will do. Think that each section of each international has an experience in syndicalist action, this experience is what let them take agreements about the strategy in the work place to have success and be able to win conflicts and to negotiate workplace rules that improve the workers quality live and the influence of the union to transform gradually the society. the same agreement in practice can change a lot from one to other international, because in one the sections already have knowledge to put in practice the agreement and in the other they are not able.

Ugg

Can anyone tell me what the ICL plans to do differently from the IWA-AIT?

[/quote]
The difference is not the plan, is the action. you and me we can plan the same and one put it in practice and the other one is not able. The basic idea is not going to be different, is the capacity to put in practice the main difference.

I'm very new to being involved in an activist organization so I am ignorant about a lot of things. I'm sorry for not liking some things because I know everyone probably worked hard on it!

1. I don't understand how it helps a growing syndicalist organization to not have any say in the international. Why isn't it possible to do both at once? I understand it can be work but I feel like the whole point of an international is to help each other.

What do larger organizations even get out of being in an international then if there is no benefit for smaller organizations?

Even if for some reason you can't have delegates from every small organization just being able to become members and vote in some way would be something. Maybe there could be a delegate for alll the small sections, I don't know.

2. Would people in the ICL be open to working with the IWA-AIT in the future if it could do so on their own terms?

Ugg

I 2. Would people in the ICL be open to working with the IWA-AIT in the future if it could do so on their own terms?

I recall when the Spanish CGT split from the CNT-AIT some years ago. I recall floating the idea of a common front of the two to fight the austerity attacks on the Spanish working class at the time. I recall being laughed off and told I did not understand how deep and personal the split was. I suspect for the foreseeable future, your question will prolly end a similar fate.

Ugg

1. I don't understand how it helps a growing syndicalist organization to not have any say in the international. Why isn't it possible to do both at once? I understand it can be work but I feel like the whole point of an international is to help each other.

What do larger organizations even get out of being in an international then if there is no benefit for smaller organizations?

Even if for some reason you can't have delegates from every small organization just being able to become members and vote in some way would be something. Maybe there could be a delegate for alll the small sections, I don't know.

I think you have to approach the international context from another perspective then local or national level organizing. Most international organization only have congresses where real voting on proposals happens every couple of years. Between these congresses the main task of an international should be to facilitate the international connections between the members of the international, help members grow, solidarity, campaigns etc. The ICL has especially emphasized this part of the international work.

Organizations that do not meet the criteria (yet) of a full section can still become a member of the ICL as a friend or initiative. They can take part in all activities and even receive funds but can not vote on the bigger congresses (but still speak!) until they are a full section. I think this is a very good way.

In the IWA it was a big problem that there were a lot of very small sections that put most of their energy into the international work, did not develop a lot on the national level and had a disproportionate power (that some used) inside the international. This is neither healthy for an international nor for these sections.

Ugg

2. Would people in the ICL be open to working with the IWA-AIT in the future if it could do so on their own terms?

Of course. One of the grievances with the IWA was the way contact to organizations that were deemed "enemies of the IWA" was policed...

Ugg wrote:

1. I really don't like how you need to have at least 75 members to have a single vote in the ICL.

I understand disliking the 1 national=1 vote rule that exists in the IWA but why couldn't they just make it so 1 person=1 vote? If that's too hard for some reason why couldn't they just make it so that for example 3-25 members gets you one vote, 25-50 gets you 2 two votes etcetera?

Good question. In 2010, the original proposal put to the IWA Congress was to limit voting rights to sections with 125 members or more. At the time the CNT, USI, FAU and SolFed were the only sections to qualify effectively reducing the number of votes to count at IWA Congress realising a centralisation of power into fewer hands. Not surprisingly, those sections (mainly East European) who this proposal would disenfranchise voted against it.

In 2013, the exact same proposal was put again modified only by a reduction in the minimum requirement from 125 to 100. Again, the CNT, USI, FAU and SolFed were the only sections to qualify. The subtext was clear; keep voting on this proposal til you get it right. This was an act of bad faith as the proposal had already been decided on. It was clear that the proposal had nothing to do with 'democracy' and that its purpose was to realise the centralisation of decion-making power within the IWA.

But why couldn't a proposal be framed, as Ugg has suggested, to give smaller sections (3-25 members in Ugg's example) a vote? Because the original proposal made at IWA Congress in 2010 was about exclusion with the aim of centralising power, not inclusion with the aim of extending anarcho-syndicalism right around the globe.

But there is another consideration that was not taken into account; does not an arbitrary figure extracted from one's hat penalise those from countries with small populations? The US = 329m, Aotearoa(NZ) = 4.5m. This arbitrary figure disadvantages those organisations originating from countries with small populations.

The proportional voting model of the CIT (ICL) is a clumsy compromise between a general membership organisation (the IWW model), a model that places the emphasis on the power of the individual; and an anarchist conception of federation (the IWA model) that places the emphasis on the power of the collective.

Ugg wrote

2. How will joining or not joining affect the IWW's relationship with the IWA-AIT?

Currently, it is IWA policy to regard the IWW as a fraternal organisation and to pursue fraternal relations with the IWW. It is a policy that all sections of the IWA are expected to adhere to. In my view, I cannot see this policy surviving beyond the next IWA Congress now that the British IWW has signed on and the US IWW are going to. How can you have fraternal relations when CNT-CIT are pursuing CNT-AIT in the courts for defamation with the intention of ruining them financially?

But this is the aim. The proponents of the IWW joining up with CIT have long regarded the WSA (the US section of the IWA) as an existential threat. If you accept the desirability of workers organising internationally for workers revolution, why would you choose the IWW (confined to the Anglosphere) over the IWA (greater cultural diversity, wider geographical spread)? The proponents of the IWW joining up with CIT hope that it will 'freeze out' and isolate the IWA making it pay for its insolence in the hope that it will come back on its terms (See post #29).

Ugg wrote:

I'm very new to being involved in an activist organization so I am ignorant about a lot of things. I'm sorry for not liking some things because I know everyone probably worked hard on it!

1. I don't understand how it helps a growing syndicalist organization to not have any say in the international. Why isn't it possible to do both at once? I understand it can be work but I feel like the whole point of an international is to help each other.

What do larger organizations even get out of being in an international then if there is no benefit for smaller organizations?

There is nothing wrong with being new and, consequently, less informed and don't be sorry for not liking things even if a lot of effort has been put in.

The minimum requirement is not about 'growing', it's about consolidating. The consolidation of hegemonic power unrestrained by accountability or transparency, interpreted as an 'inquisition'. To those habituated to privilege borne by power, equality appears as oppression.

At the 2013 IWA Congress, there was a proposal to restore full section status to the ASF as the Australian section of the IWA. The FAU were the only section to vote against it but gave no explanation. In 2014, when it was proposed that the IWA Secretary host IWA events in HK and Taipei, the USI denounced it as 'a waste of money'. Both of these organisations are founding members of the CIT and both have demonstrated little interest in expanding beyond the narrow confines of the West. The FAU did involve themselves in an effort to assist in the creation of a section from Nigeria but failed due to the prevailing attitude of condescending paternalism on the part of the FAU. That they were apparently unaware of this peculiar kind of chauvinism was a measure of it. (The IWW is far worse as they operate on the premise that their model of syndicalism is universally applicable).

Their fear of new sections having votes was exacerbated by their experience of those sections from Eastern Europe that failed to demonstrate a deference to more established sections commensurate with their status. One section, one vote was fine as long as the CNT got its way and it always did. But this is now a problem for ICL as the CNT-CIT will call the shots coz they got the votes. Presuming the full section candidates from Indonesia and Bangladesh will be admitted to the IWA at the next Congress, it will signal the inexorable shift in the centre of anarcho-syndicalist gravity in a more easterly and southerly direction and not a moment too soon.

I was reading the interesting "Work Areas of the CIT" and saw this.
Candidly rather surprising as the IWW has always said it was not anarcho-syndicalist.
Why would they want to poach from the anarcho-syndicalist movement if they are
not a declared part of that movement? This neither in nor out approach has always been bothersome to me. I mean, you are or you aren't anarcho-syndicalist?

"Between the FORA and the IWW, we should make contacts with anarchist movements in Central and South America to form anarcho-syndicalist initiatives or make contact with already established unions."

http://www.icl-cit.org/work-areas/

syndicalist

I was reading the interesting "Work Areas of the CIT" and saw this.
Candidly rather surprising as the IWW has always said it was not anarcho-syndicalist.
Why would they want to poach from the anarcho-syndicalist movement if they are
not a declared part of that movement?

I don't think the IWW has any plans to try to poach members from Latin American anarchist groups. I think all that quote is saying is that the ICL is hoping to gain new affiliates in the geographical area between the US (IWW) and Argentina (FORA).

Felix Frost

syndicalist

I was reading the interesting "Work Areas of the CIT" and saw this.
Candidly rather surprising as the IWW has always said it was not anarcho-syndicalist.
Why would they want to poach from the anarcho-syndicalist movement if they are
not a declared part of that movement?

I don't think the IWW has any plans to try to poach members from Latin American anarchist groups. I think all that quote is saying is that the ICL is hoping to gain new affiliates in the geographical area between the US (IWW) and Argentina (FORA).

Sorry old comrade, just put me down as cynical. Nor does it address the question of basically declaring itself anarchosyndicalist.

I don't think the IWW has declared itself anarchosyndicalist either. The CIT define itself as being made up of "anarcho-syndicalist unions and/or revolutionary unions", and the IWW has always considered itself the latter.

Felix Frost

I don't think the IWW has declared itself anarchosyndicalist either. The CIT define itself as being made up of "anarcho-syndicalist unions and/or revolutionary unions", and the IWW has always considered itself the latter.

This is whet THEY write:

Between the FORA and the IWW, we should make contacts with anarchist movements in Central and South America to form anarcho-syndicalist initiatives ...

OK, feel free to parse it any one wishes. It just reads odd to me. Just saying.

The ICL is an international for revolutionary unionists and anarcho-syndicalists. IWW only joined because of that openness to syndicalists beyond anarcho-syndicalists.

It also adds "or make contact with already established unions", which presumably wouldn't be defining as anarchosyndicalist. The document describes that ICL aims to recruit both anarchosyndicalist groups and other organisations which are moving towards revolutionary unionism. I'm not really sure what the big deal is here.

In any case, I think you are reading too much into one conference statement.

Call me cynical.

Several times the document uses the word "anarchist", not even anarchosyndicalist. It is quite muddled in that respect. Additionally there are even ridiculous moments, like referring to the need to use the Portuguese Section of the IWA (SP) in order to help build their international and inviting them to it. Basically after blasting the IWA for having small organizations it wants to invite the smallest to it. This part, and many in the document, is actually a copy-paste of an internal document from one of the CNT unions, which shows a lot about what level of discussion must have gone into the document published. That line is really ignorant. As are the references to anarchists.

akai

Several times the document uses the word "anarchist", not even anarchosyndicalist. It is quite muddled in that respect. Additionally there are even ridiculous moments, like referring to the need to use the Portuguese Section of the IWA (SP) in order to help build their international and inviting them to it. Basically after blasting the IWA for having small organizations it wants to invite the smallest to it. This part, and many in the document, is actually a copy-paste of an internal document from one of the CNT unions, which shows a lot about what level of discussion must have gone into the document published. That line is really ignorant. As are the references to anarchists.

As cynical as unions of IWA asking for solidarity to FAU after all had happened.
The problem is not CIT, is the interpretations you made and you continue making. However, if you didn't understand anything till now, you are not going to start today.

None of fhe personal attacks will change the fact that the document both signals a strategy to seek out anarchist groups and shows at least one highly unrealistic idea about who would be interested in joining in. Of course this is a weird idea of some people in CNT who don't seem to know what is going on in the next country and I suppose just nobody else cared about these things,

akai

None of fhe personal attacks will change the fact that the document both signals a strategy to seek out anarchist groups and shows at least one highly unrealistic idea about who would be interested in joining in. Of course this is a weird idea of some people in CNT who don't seem to know what is going on in the next country and I suppose just nobody else cared about these things,

Maybe you had never being part of AIT-SP, I was and my union has supported in the past AIT-SP and they to as. Get relax, there is no personal attack, I don´t put memes insulting CNT general secretary with the face and name in social media as you do.

ICL and IWA are competing/rival syndicalist federations that are inevitably going to be drawing from similar pools of people in whatever country we're talking about. I don't get what syndicalist is getting at. Did you think that after the splits, accusations of authoritarianism/impurity/physical violence/racism/fascism, etc., that everyone is going to be mindful of some hypothetical ideological "territory" when considering spreading elsewhere? I don't think so.

Juan Conatz

ICL and IWA are competing/rival syndicalist federations that are inevitably going to be drawing from similar pools of people in whatever country we're talking about. I don't get what syndicalist is getting at. Did you think that after the splits, accusations of authoritarianism/impurity/physical violence/racism/fascism, etc., that everyone is going to be mindful of some hypothetical ideological "territory" when considering spreading elsewhere? I don't think so.

I think you are missing my point.

That said, on the matter of "raiding"other organizations. Perhaps I am old fashioned and (mainly respectful) of the old "code" of not raiding others organizations even after splits. It is one thing if elements of existing non-split organizations seek to join another organization, on their own. In the context of the two internationals, I think it would be fucked up if, say, existing IWA sections decided to "raid" IWW locals. And I think the same if CIT organizations try to do the same to those in the IWA sphere.

I guess being principled about this sort of thing is old fashioned and not a matter of unwritten code of ethics any more. But why should I expect less in this day and age?

syndicalist

I think you are missing my point.

"raiding"

You're right. I assumed that you weren't saying that one organization has a monopoly on a political ideology and I assumed that you weren't equating competing over members with business union style raids. That seems what you're saying, now. If it was clear that is what you were saying before I wouldn't have responded.

I'm not ever for poaching of existing organizations

The other point was seemingly the IWW declaring itself
anarchosyndicalist. Maybe this section is just very
poorly written. Though I just tend to be cynical
on that score As the aim seems to be clear enough
as written

Time to move on.

From guys like you. Yup

Edit: All opinions expressed by me are my own.

Final Edit: Let me just end by saying, I have long been cynical about the way folks act in international organizations, be it the IWA, the new-CIT and IWW. So, really, a lot of what I say can be applied to all. The shame of it all, there are lots of people in all the aforementioned internationals doing some decent stuff within their respect organizations. When it comes to international stuff, it all just seems to fall apart in many ways.

I wonder how this has worked and worked out for the IWW?

syndicalist

I wonder how this has worked and worked out for the IWW?

I don't think it has had much practical impact. I don't really follow what's going on in the North American IWW that closely, but my impression is that they have more than enough dealing with internal affairs, and little energy is left for interacting with the rest of the international syndicalist movement.

Incidentally, the "Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England Regional Administration" of the IWW has now also joined the ICL. I don't expect that will have much practical impact either.

Thanks, Felix