An article about a meeting of three Spanish anarcho-syndicalist labor unions and a joint statement they released.
Originally posted: April 13, 2023 at Autonomies
Last Monday, April 10, at the premises of the Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation in Madrid, the three anarcho-syndicalist forces of our country jointly presented a shared document that calls for the confluence and unity of action of militant labour unionism.
Thirty years after the division of historical anarcho-syndicalism, the three main organisations in Spain, the General Confederation of Labor (Confederación General del Trabajo-CGT), the National Confederation of Labor (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo-CNT) and the Solidarity Workers Union Confederation (Confederación Sindical Solidaridad Obrera) have presented a joint document entitled To the working class: For mobilisation and confluence. Maribel Ramírez, Secretary of Trade Union Action of the CGT, Antonio Díaz, General Secretary of the CNT and José Luis Carretero, General Secretary of Solidaridad Obrera intervened in the public presentation of the document. The act was held at the headquarters of the historic Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation, linked to the CNT and depositary of the main archive of the libertarian movement in our country.
In an atmosphere of camaraderie and good intentions, the three spokespersons spoke of the significance of the agreement reached. Antonio Díaz of the CNT stated that the confluence has as its objective the “fomenting the working class struggle”. For her part, Maribel Ramírez from the CGT stated that “it is everyone’s responsibility to begin to come together and carry out a joint fight against the aggressions that are taking place by capital and the State”. In this sense, José Luis Carretero of Solidaridad Obrera stated that the unity of action proposed by the document comes when we find ourselves at a “historical crossroads” and added that the three organisations share a “common past” and that what is being proposing is “a present agreement, to build a future”.
After the shared congratulations and the declarations of intent, the act developed the points mentioned in the statement, beginning with the claim for decent public pensions. Antonio Díaz expressed that we must “promote the idea that those of us who have to fight for pensions are the workers”, and not only pensioners. Maribel Ramírez added that it is necessary to try to get the youth involved in this fight, and José Luis Carretero gave as an example of the struggle that is taking place right now in France, with the fight over the retirement age. Continuing with the discussion of the public declaration, the union struggle against the wage gap, the claims of feminism and the defence of public services were also spoken of.
The three anarcho-syndicalist union representatives also shared the idea of the union as “new institutions of the commons”, in the words of José Luis Carretero, that represent a diverse working class, with a “multiplicity of subjects”, encompassing workers of strategic companies/industries, but also of small businesses, those with precarious jobs and self-employed women. They also made it clear that there are “organisational differences” between the three union forces, but as Maribel Ramírez said “they are united by the same purpose”, jokingly adding that it was necessary to thank “capital and the State” for having favoured by their actions against the interests of the working class “the coming together of the three organisations at the same table”.
The three anarcho-syndicalist organisations also expressed their concern about the war in Ukraine, of which they have stated that the main victim is the working class. Antonio Díaz recalled in this regard that “anti-war” is a hallmark of anarcho-syndicalism. José Luis Carretero pointed out how precisely the war curtails public liberties, produces authoritarian drifts, and strengthens laws such as the Gag Law that in our country has resulted in people “going to prison for writing a tweet.” In this sense, the representative of Solidaridad Obrera indicated that the unions present should be “shields in defence of the rights won.”
Precisely on the basis of the logic of confluence, mutual support and class solidarity, throughout the event the situation of the CNT comrades retaliated against by the La Suiza pastry shop, in Xixón, was very present. Maribel Ramírez expressed it clearly and forcefully: “If they touch one of us, they touch us all”. The act closed with different interventions from the public who congratulated those present on the agreement and who have actively encouraged it as a first step for further joint initiatives, not only at the level of labour struggles, but also in addressing social issues in villages, neighbourhoods and cities. Indeed, for Miguel Fadrique, General Secretary of the CGT, “the exercise of responsibility that the three organisations are assuming must go beyond a statement and a press conference. That responsibility has to lead us to build a serious labour union and social alternative, a space that works together day by day and in which the majority of the working class sees itself reflected. Above the initials of the organisations is the defence of increasingly deteriorated labour and social rights; and faced with this, only the unity of the working class will be able to reverse this situation”.
CGT, CNT and Solidaridad Obrera: To the working class: For mobilisation and confluence
The National Confederation of Labour (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo-CNT), the General Confederation of Labor (Confederación General del Trabajo-CGT) and the Solidaridad Obrera Union Confederation (Confederación Sindical Solidaridad Obrera-SO) are three organisations that recognise themselves as heirs to the workers’ tradition of anarcho-syndicalism. The memory of those who fought for the construction of the labour movement in the territory that we share, and the objective of building a libertarian society, in which exploitation and oppression have disappeared, that we have in common, we maintain and promote.
In the present situation of crisis and war, we call on workers to mobilise to make the following demands:
-The defence of public pensions, bearing in mind that the planned cuts in them are an aggression, not only against pensioners, but also against the working class as a whole. The defence of the purchasing power of pensions, salaries and the guarantee of basic household supplies, preventing employers from continuing to increase their profit margins in a context of high inflation, in which the pro-government unions abandon the fight for wage increases. The defence of public services, demanding the reversal of privatised services and the laws that allow it, as well as an increase in staff and budgets for services such as health, education or dependency.
-The defence of equality in the workplace, guaranteeing the disappearance of the wage gap between men and women and the prevention of risks in the face of occupational pathologies that affect women to a greater extent. The defence of the right to housing for the working class, against the evictions that increases in interest rates will have as a consequence, and the demand for sufficient public housing with socially accessible rents. The defence of migrant workers, who are subjected to illegality and violence, while they produce a large part of the wealth. The defence of nature, guaranteeing the emergence of a new society and a new economy, respectful of the ecosystem. The end of Spanish participation in any of the wars in which it is participating, including the one in Ukraine, which is unleashing an arms race on the continent and a growing social and economic crisis.
-The end of the repression unleashed against the social movements and against the labour movement. We demand union freedom and basic civil liberties, which are in danger due to ignominious events such as the repression against the CNT comrades from the La Suiza pastry shop, in Xixón. We demand the freedom of all the people who are being made the objects of reprisals for participating in social struggles.
The CGT, the CNT and Solidaridad Obrera have decided to overcome the isolation imposed on us by the dynamics of partial struggles and focus on what we have in common; to overcome the dispersed mobilisations and try to overwhelm the official trade unionism by promoting a great joint process of mobilisation of militant trade unionism. We call on the working class to fight for their rights and win their emancipation, in these moments of crisis, through struggle and unity of action.
(alasbarricadas.org, 03/04/2023)
Comments
I wonder whatever was the…
I wonder whatever was the outcome of this April 2023 meeting? Also, wondering the position of the CGT and SO on the Spanish CIT's legal actions against the CNT-AIT?
But are any of them really…
But are any of them really anarcho-syndicalist? All of them from my understanding work within the framework of the Spanish Industrial relations/contract system and accept various restrictions on taking industrial action.
Not sure if the above…
Not sure if the above comments were directed to me but I'll respond in the interest of encouraging more discussion on the site.
Not sure the result of this meeting. I don't keep up with what's happening in the world of anarcho-syndicalism like I once did, although as you can tell from my return to posting material here, I've been trying to.
I don't know if CGT or SO have any position on the conflict between the CNT-CIT and CNT-AIT in Spain. I haven't noticed any statements from them.
I'm not aware of any change in how the CNT-CIT/ICL approaches Spanish labor law, asn. Have you seen something that indicates a change?
As far as what is 'true' anarcho-syndicalism... if that is how an organization refers to themselves, that's usually what I'll refer to them as. I think there are practices that I disagree with but I'm not that interested in arguments over terms. For example, I firmly believe anarcho-syndicalism is a mass-based strategy or approach and I disagree with organizations that are purposefully merely political organizations rather than unions, or whose orientation towards their state's labor laws by default makes them a tiny sect. I don't find these practices to be within the tradition of the anarcho-syndicalism that I find important personally. But those political organizations or small proto-unions I will still refer to as anarcho-syndicalism, as that is how they describe themselves.
Participation in fixed term…
Participation in fixed term contracts enforced by the State would be in breach of a fundamental aspect of a-s - commitment to direct action in line with classic writings such as those of Rudolph Rocker etc. A sect is a sort of pseudo church - with its members doing things as sort as an end in itself or as stooges of the corporate union bosses. Divorced from the revolutionary/workers' control project. A key feature of the sec/cult is particularly about is members getting over the alienation of bourgeois society. . You can have little ones which can often morph into extreme ones - cults and big ones known as churches.
However an a-s catalyst would be involved in facilitating workers self organisation on the job and major direct action to break out of various countries industrial relations set ups. Promoting the strike wave/direct action wave movement and in this way tackling the employer offensive - slowing its tempo and defeating it. In this context encouraging major splits from the existing "corporate" unions and transitional steps toward a genuine a-s mass industrial union confederation. A catalyst via its workplace publications and activity would be getting feedback and contributions from militant workers and be involved as part of this facilitation of workers' self organisation in encouraging militant workplace cultures.
asn wrote: Participation in…
Sounds very ecclesiastical.
Yeah, I disagree. I don't…
Yeah, I disagree. I don't think ancient scriptures written by people who lived and worked prior to pretty much anything resembling the modern capitalist state existed should govern everything of what people do now.
With fixed term contracts, there's too much variation in their restrictions to place a blanket principle on whether to sign those or not. In Canada, as I understand it, you cannot engage in strike action if you have a contract. It's 'read-in'. In the US, this is not read-in, but it is usually a separate clause within the contract. Europe and other places I imagine are different, I don't know.
Post-WW2, the laws governing labor unions in all of the advanced capitalist states became more complex and it became increasingly difficult to avoid engagement with them or difficult to resist them influencing the conduct and activity of the labor union.
For example, in the United States, if you want to be an actual labor union, you have to disclose your financial records to the state and disclose the names of officers with some kind of financial control. This is required of all 'labor organizations', a phrase which is defined by the activity you do. If you do not provide this information to the state, dues income is taxable, the union can be subject to heavy fines and officers can be subject to fines or imprisonment. Turning over information to the state and letting them examine your finances is surely not only a violation of what could be considered revolutionary unionist principles, but of unionist principles period. But if you want to do anything resembling union organizing, it is a required compromise.
US labor law also requires drawn out secret ballot elections for many democratic decisions and elections of officers. This is a violation of the revolutionary unionist commitment to worker mass assemblies, decisions made through assemblies and the ability to instantly recall an elected officer. If you do not do this, the state will invalidate your elections or may send functionaries to run your election themselves in compliance with their laws. But if you want to do anything resembling union organizing, it is a required compromise.
Also, there are restrictions on what kinds of strikes and actions you can engage in, regardless of whether there is a fixed term contract. You can't strike in sympathy with another strike. You can't refuse to handle goods made by scab labor. You can't target a third party that does business with your employer to pressure them to not do business with your employer. Doing so can result in heavy fines and imprisonment of officers and/or rank and file members. But again, if you want to do anything resembling union organizing, it is a required compromise.
Maybe these aren't as signifgant or as much of a violation of principles as the tradeoffs inherent to participation in Spanish works councils...I don't know. But it seems that all revolutionary unions have to compromise some of their principles if want to exist as an actual union and not a propaganda group, book club or perpetual proto-union.
If they have the industrial…
If they have the industrial muscle in strategic sectors and associated raised morale of workers mass syndicalist unions can of course defy various Industrial relations systems various restrictions. Why not? Today of course these above so called a-s unions in Spain and elsewhere are encircled by the corporate unions with many workers having low morale so they are forced to adopt their ways to an extent and avoiding direct action and of course drawn into contract negotiations and all that - losing the plot of what a-s is all about. Also some have a big focus on real estate ownership eg the Patrimony - historic assets of the CNT seized by Franco. However they hark back to a romantic/legendary past of the CNT and red and black color schemes . You also have various other allegedly a-s groups in other countries getting up to similar but even ludicrous stuff particularly seeing themselves as the nucleus of a mass a-s union movement eg in Germany the FAU set up a "pupils' union' obviously throwing serious strategic industrial organising out the window and getting ever more drawn into the weirdo ways of the left subculture and identity politics. Others have been involved in setting up imaginary unions and those which seem to have union halls in largish phone booths etc.
In 1969 in Australia we had the defeat of the Industrial Court penal provisions associated, .
with the general strike/strike wave over the Clarrie O'shea jailing and use of the industrial court penal provisions. It was the back drop to a subsequent strike wave and major grass roots upsurge - the bureaucratic reformist union bosses of those days had to "run with the wolves" so to speak and various restrictions on industrial action were thrown out the window. The NSW BLF was a very important example of this phenomena very much resorting to direct action in its various forms which we anarcho-syndicalists advocate. (But it had a formally bureaucratic structure and registered with the IR court system of those days.) There was also a very big workers'. control movement in those days. The NSW BLF and some bureaucratic reformist unions of those days played a significant role in promoting it. Particularly the famous "Green Bans". workers control conferences etc. Alas the union bosses/ALP godfathers later got back in the saddle of bureaucratic control and of course we have seen the emergence of the "corporate union" phenomena collaborating closely with the industrial court. As presumably the union bosses fear heavy fines for "illegal industrial action". The reality is of course behind the scenes the union bosses, the Govt, Govt. Departments, Deep State, Legal fraternity, ALP Octopus, Corporate media are all entangled or cover up a massive web of corruption/ pay off's and "illegal activity."
Juan I think you are looking at the industrial front in conventional terms. When a radically different strategy is required which I am advocating. Involving focusing on one strategic sector which could spear head a strike wave movement. Linking up and assisting with outside-the- job organisation via workplace papers and other activity with long existing militant networks there. They would mostly be members of the existing corporate unions. (1) See 'From Corportate Bureaucratic Unionism to Grass roots controlled direct action unionism: Perspectives for Activity & Strategy for Australia today" in Rebel Worker Vol.41 No.3 (235) Dec. 2023 - Jan. 2024 on www.rebelworker.org and libcom.org
A very interesting example of a catalyst pursuing strategic industrial organising is the "Socialism or Barbarism" group in France in the prelude to the events of May 1968. It was more of a catalytic network - not a formal group -the major driving force in it was Cornelius Castriadoris. It was neither a sect or cult. He was not a cult guru running a pseudo church. (In the Australian context we have a couple of these cult gurus who masquerade as anarcho-syndicalists misusing their former experience as union reps/industrial activists to manipulate young and inexperienced some with psychological/hormonal issues members in their cults heavily informed by the Stalinist/Trot legacy.) The Social or Barbarism network was engaged in activity which made strategic sense. Particularly linking up with a network of militant anti-Stalinist workers in the largest factory in France Renault Billancourt Paris and assisting with the production/distro of a workplace paper. The SouB members were getting very important feedback and interaction with militants in a sector which could launch the strike wave across industry. It was a major stronghold of the CGT/French Communist Party in its Stalinist phase, so for anti-Stalinist militants likely quite dangerous. This work commenced in the early 1950's and in late 1950's inspired similar initiatives in other factories/firms forming an anti-union hierarchy and anti Stalinist pole of attraction of importance in the spread of the massive strike wave of May 1968. (2) See Socilisme ou Barbarie: A Revolutionary Group by Marcel Van Der Linden from Left History 5.1 (1997) on Lincom.org and other articles about this group on the internet.