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

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 14 2017 00:48
Juan Conatz wrote:
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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Sep 14 2017 22:27

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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Sep 14 2017 22:38
syndicalist wrote:
Juan Conatz wrote:
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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 14 2017 22:38

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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Sep 14 2017 22:58

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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 15 2017 04:30
melenas wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
Juan Conatz wrote:
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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Oct 29 2018 22:19

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

New Round of Purges in the CNT-CIT

Quote:
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's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Oct 30 2018 20:18

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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Oct 30 2018 20:44
OliverTwister wrote:
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.

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Nov 5 2018 08:13

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.

Salvoechea
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Nov 5 2018 14:24

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.

Ugg's picture
Ugg
Offline
Joined: 17-08-17
Nov 6 2018 09:14

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?

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Nov 6 2018 18:41
Ugg wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
Can anyone tell me what the ICL plans to do differently from the IWA-AIT?

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.

Ugg's picture
Ugg
Offline
Joined: 17-08-17
Nov 7 2018 00:43

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?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Nov 7 2018 17:51
Ugg wrote:
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.

nokta
Offline
Joined: 4-02-15
Nov 8 2018 08:43
Ugg wrote:
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 wrote:
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...

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Nov 9 2018 00:59

Ugg wrote:

Quote:
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

Quote:
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).

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Nov 9 2018 02:30

Ugg wrote:

Quote:
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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 12 2018 07:57

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?

Quote:
"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/

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 15 2018 20:17
syndicalist wrote:
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).

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 15 2018 23:01
Felix Frost wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
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.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 16 2018 20:07

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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 16 2018 20:17
Felix Frost wrote:
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:

Quote:
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.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Dec 16 2018 20:26

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

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 16 2018 20:32

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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 16 2018 20:33

Call me cynical.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 17 2018 06:08

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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Dec 17 2018 13:59
akai wrote:
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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 17 2018 20:09

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,

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Dec 17 2018 21:04
akai wrote:
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.