French Syndicalists: CNT-AIT, CNT-Vignoles, CSR

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 22:36
Quote:
But you are wrong about SF. They are revolutionary comrades. In Manchester they are some of the best I know.

Comment
SF suported USI right for membeship in RSU and SF agree with political party members in IWA. Can you imerge that some leninists or social-democrats belong to the same organisation as you and you are doing tha same political, social and ideological work? This is incredible!
But i did not say anithing about SF as organisation. I don't have enough information about SF. But what happen todey is reformist coup in IWA and SF suported reformists at the congress.
If you wright why majority of SF people here are reformists? And why they revolutionarys are silent?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 22:40

Magidd. I really know nothing about how the recent IWA congress went. I was supposed to attend as an AF/IFA delegate, but was ill. I don't want to get involved in arguments about what went on in a fraternal organisation, though I have no problems about discussing general issues of anarchist theory and practice.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 20 2006 23:03
magidd wrote:
Comment
SF suported USI right for membeship in RSU and SF agree with political party members in IWA. Can you imerge that some leninists or social-democrats belong to the same organisation as you and you are doing tha same political, social and ideological work? This is incredible!
But i did not say anithing about SF as organisation. I don't have enough information about SF. But what happen todey is reformist coup in IWA and SF suported reformists at the congress.
If you wright why majority of SF people here are reformists? And why they revolutionarys are silent?

Yes magidd you don't know about the SF and you don't seem to understand the cultural differences between western and eastern Europe. This was one of the points to emerge at the Congress and it is something we have to try to resolve.

I'd just like to add that your comments calling comrades reformist and talking of a 'coup' is getting us nowhere, maybe you should try to find out more about the situation in the UK and not rely on theory all the time after all anarcho-syndicalist theory and practice need to work together. The IWA you want would not include the USI, the CNT-E, or the CNT-F (AIT). There is a difference between being a propaganda group like the SF or CRAS or the FAU and a union. No-one in the SF is a Leninist or a social democrat but we do work within (and beyond) the reformist unions while trying to build an alternative.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Dec 20 2006 23:08
magidd wrote:
Can you imerge that some leninists or social-democrats belong to the same organisation as you and you are doing tha same political, social and ideological work? This is incredible!

I don't agree with the question! You are mixing up levels here, my comrade. As there are different tendencies in our movement, different approaches are used by different organizations. While the model you are trying to develop is an ideological organization model, other revolutionary unions are not ideological organizations, but mass organizations based on libertarian foundations. There is a difference between the role and internal content of the two.

Of course you can not have social-democrats or Leninist in an anarchist ideological organization. But in mass revolutionary organization you can have people who align to variety of ideological trends on the left, even politically illiterate people who are only having the "feeling" etc, since what is important is their practice - direct democratic, solidarity orientated practice which is the foundation for the creation of anarchist consciousness.

What the people in our movement need to understand are those different methods of work, based on same principals, bound by the same goal, of different organizations, and understand that because of that unity of methods and goals there is no need for trying to impose one's own views on revolutionary patterns for organization to others.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 23:14
Quote:
you don't seem to understand the cultural differences between western and eastern Europe... The IWA you want would not include the USI, the CNT-E, or the CNT-F (AIT).

Comment
Not troofe!
There are groopse of revolutionaris in vestern Europs inside CNT-E and CNT-F (AIT). Some organisations have the same or almoust the same positions as KRAS. So you rong: it is not about differens between western and eastern Europe.

Quote:
There is a difference between being a propaganda group like the SF or CRAS or the FAU and a union.

Comment
We are not propoganda groope we are sociaty of resistens and we have groopse of comrades whi work at they factory or area for anarhist perspectiv. And we don't want such unions wich you want. For us this is the end of revolutionary anarho-sinadicalism.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 20 2006 23:16
Quote:
Magidd. I really know nothing about how the recent IWA congress went. I was supposed to attend as an AF/IFA delegate, but was ill. I don't want to get involved in arguments about what went on in a fraternal organisation, though I have no problems about discussing general issues of anarchist theory and practice.

Comment
That's o'key.
I've allredy written to you.
Please answer

booeyschewy
Offline
Joined: 18-10-06
Dec 20 2006 23:23

geebus, can we get back to my original post. Is this board nothing but a constant feud?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 23:24
Quote:
Comment:
you make uneon with peeple evin if jew killors thiy be? if vote thoshans far helecost, becuse tey heve a "fealin", yes?

Revol - you surpassed yourself with that one. How good is your Russian, btw?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 20 2006 23:38

Oh well, I guess I'm just being a liberal twat again?

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Dec 20 2006 23:52
Steve wrote:
Yes magidd you don't know about the SF and you don't seem to understand the cultural differences between western and eastern Europe.

I strongly object to this kind of idealistic explanations of the differences in our movement!

As Maggid has shown there are groups in the western Europe and Argentina who share that approach to revolutionary struggle. It is interesting though to note that group whose tradition the Europeans of that tendency claim to represent - FORA - has also took part in the "reformist coup". This is just showing how silly this Maggids accusation is.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Dec 20 2006 23:55
revol68 wrote:
you make uneon with peeple evin if jew killors thiy be? if vote thoshans far helecost, becuse tey heve a "fealin", yes?

smile) this is so funny

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 21 2006 00:49
Quote:
Of course you can not have social-democrats or Leninist in an anarchist ideological organization. But in mass revolutionary organization you can have people who align to variety of ideological trends on the left,

Comment
1)So what if we have such people in the mass movement (as for example workers soviete)? And they realy make s-d politicks or protect leninism? Well we will fight against tham. We will say that they totaly wrong and they must leave they point o leave movement! And we go this way: we will try to convince of workers assembleas to make anarchist politiks and kick avtoritarians out.
2) IWA is lebertarian-communist organisation: that is written in statuts. It is struglig for libartarian communism- this is collective agrement of IWA. You can not be member of for example labor party and strugling for revolution and libertarian communism.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 21 2006 10:14
revol68 wrote:
are you saying that workers assemblies and soviets are only for ideological anarchists?

Jaysus fucking christ that would be just amazing.

That's not what he said you muppet, he said only libertarian communists should be in a libertarian communist organisation.

You've called me and others trots for the same reason, but tbh if you actually believed that you wouldn't be in an ideologically pure organisation. I mean you wouldn't even be in an organisation with the libertarian communists of the WSM, let alone bloody trots, god squadders, social democrats, homophobes, etc.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 21 2006 10:18
rata wrote:
Steve wrote:
Yes magidd you don't know about the SF and you don't seem to understand the cultural differences between western and eastern Europe.

I strongly object to this kind of idealistic explanations of the differences in our movement!

As Maggid has shown there are groups in the western Europe and Argentina who share that approach to revolutionary struggle. It is interesting though to note that group whose tradition the Europeans of that tendency claim to represent - FORA - has also took part in the "reformist coup". This is just showing how silly this Maggids accusation is.

I did not mean to to explain the differences but it is a factor. The different experiences in regard to Communist parties and Marxist groups for example

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 21 2006 12:25
revol68 wrote:
Secondly, I think your take on how things develop is embarrassingly mechanical.

We've already got a thread on this here, where you are avoiding answering my questions - meanwhile on other threads you're arguing for revolutionary unions to expel or not deal with various people who aren't libertarian communists. roll eyes Why don't we continue this discussion there?

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Dec 21 2006 13:04
Quote:
SF suported USI right for membeship in RSU and SF agree with political party members in IWA. Can you imerge that some leninists or social-democrats belong to the same organisation as you and you are doing tha same political, social and ideological work? This is incredible!
But i did not say anithing about SF as organisation. I don't have enough information about SF. But what happen todey is reformist coup in IWA and SF suported reformists at the congress.
If you wright why majority of SF people here are reformists? And why they revolutionarys are silent?

They are nothing of the sort Maggid. Stop the witchhunt. It's absolutely ridiculous, makes your organisation a laughing stock and demonstrates the anti-organisational approach implicit in your thinking. Calling SolFed names like they're a bunch of fifth columnists does nothing for your credibility.

You've said before that anarcho-syndicalist unions (mass organisations) should consist only of anarcho-syndicalists. You've justified this on some bizarre and inaccurate historical examples. It won't work Maggid. you either have small propaganda groups where everyone is an anarcho-syndicalist, or you have mass organisations with a less tight-knit basis for unity. The SolFed on the other hand appear to take the rather more practical view that in a revolutionary syndicalist mass organisation not everyone will be card carrying anarcho-syndicalists, even as much as they might be willing to submit to that framework.

Heresy! Heresy! Burn them!

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 22 2006 00:12
Quote:
They are nothing of the sort Maggid. Stop the witchhunt

Comment
wink
I am just in the beginig.
Bring me a new witch!
Yacob Shprenger

Quote:
You've said before that anarcho-syndicalist unions (mass organisations) should consist only of anarcho-syndicalists.

Comment
It's realy funny than you talkin about it as about miracle. Be sure butter consist in butter. Are you allright with causality law?
Than you have organisation with anarcho-sindicalist program that meanse that members of that organisation agree with this program. And that meanse they are anarcho-sindicalists. Not leninists, not s-d, not some nutralists, but anarcho-sindicalists. Isn't it?

Quote:
You've justified this on some bizarre and inaccurate historical examples. It won't work Maggid.

Comment
Well well well... that's sad. As i see you have problems not only with causality law but olso with memory. At this forum i gave historically correct example of pure anarcho-communist movement wich was interprofessional federation of workers unions. This integral organisation had about 100.000 members. And olso overs Souf Americal workers unions (FORY, FORCH ets) were based on the same model. There was another one in Jupan (Zenkoky Zeren) with 20. 000. (there were only about 350.000 orgernised workers in Jupan). It was olso clouse to that. If we look at Russian we see the interprofessianal workers aasosiation in Biyalostok in 1904-1907. It has few handred members only, but majority of the workers of this industrial 100.000 shared they ideas.

Quote:
Heresy! Heresy! Burn them!

Comment
Vaw! You impressed me... You know i will not argue. But i'll open you the secret. No one is going to burn you. Tssssssssssssss

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 22 2006 03:57

Uh, excuse me, maybe someone can answer this question. For a number of years comrades of CNT-Boudeax (CNT-AIT) made claims that in addition to trots. being part of Vignoles, there were also maoists. Does anyone know more about this claim?

I also got the sense that some of those who were involved in the original split were folks active in thew FA (anarchist federation)and before that Alliance Syndicaliste (of the 1970s-early 1980s). Anyone know more about this?

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Dec 22 2006 04:35

magidd proposes a "union" that has an ideological litmus test: no one should be permitted to be a member who doesn't agree with "libertarian communism." What magidd is actually proposing is not a genuine mass organization, but a political organization in the workplace. But "the emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the workers themselves". That doesn't say "can only be the work of a libertarian communist minority of the workers".

t.

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Dec 22 2006 06:08

This is what the "Principles of Revolutionary syndicalism" say:

Quote:
1.- Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class.

Nothing of "the workers must be convinced anarchists", nothing of "workers who do not agree to 'Libertarian Communinism®' are reformist scum". Nothing of "it will be small ideological groups to bring us to 'Libertarian Communism®'". The IWA didn't even ever define what a "social life on the basis of 'Libertarian Communism®'" should be in concrete. And it never did it for good reasons, just as it never changed 'revolutionary syndicalism' for 'anarcho syndicalism'. Because the IWA whilst it was really an international of workers was an international of unions not one of ideological organisations. And ever then when one of its member sections stopped functioning as a non-hierarchical, combative union with direct action class-war tactics, most of the workers went away. Just because there interest and need was fighting the class struggle and not academic debates about whether the the pie in the sky should be of apples or may be better peaches. No difference whether we are talking about the CGT-SR, the FORA, the FAUD, the CNT-E in the post-Franco era or somebody else.

May be this is the past and now we need small organisations based on tight ideological principles where everybody has to sign a political program and to spend his or her time to develop this program and bring its light and wisdom to the workers instead of fighting the class struggle. But then we should change the name of the international and stop making it a caricature of what it once was and of what it once was supposed to be.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Dec 22 2006 09:30
robot wrote:
May be this is the past and now we need small organisations based on tight ideological principles where everybody has to sign a political program and to spend his or her time to develop this program and bring its light and wisdom to the workers instead of fighting the class struggle. But then we should change the name of the international and stop making it a caricature of what it once was and of what it once was supposed to be.

I really don't know where is this defeatism coming from. Especially after this IWA Congress, where the proposition for unifying the type of the membership of different Sections was rejected by wast, wast, majority (again!).

You know, defeatism is a political position. And it is a reactionary one.

PS. It seams that here it is impossible to stick to the topic; it seams as the several same discussions are discussed on different topics permanently. And, of course, they are.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 22 2006 09:32
robot wrote:
May be this is the past and now we need small organisations based on tight ideological principles where everybody has to sign a political program and to spend his or her time to develop this program and bring its light and wisdom to the workers instead of fighting the class struggle.

No one has said that - it's a charicature

syndicalistcat wrote:
magidd proposes a "union" that has an ideological litmus test: no one should be permitted to be a member who doesn't agree with "libertarian communism." What magidd is actually proposing is not a genuine mass organization, but a political organization in the workplace.

I'd agree with that. I'd also think that you're being naive if you think an anarcho-syndicalist union like the CNT or group like SolFed isn't a political organisation.

Quote:
But "the emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the workers themselves". That doesn't say "can only be the work of a libertarian communist minority of the workers".

And nor did magidd or anyone say that. By the time of any revolutionary situation it's most likely that the majority of workers will not be lib communists; so I think the question is how best to organise ourselves as a minority.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 22 2006 10:09

Dunno about Leninists but there were FA members very active in the CNT vignoles.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 22 2006 10:31

A number of comments:

First, regarding the original question, it would be very good if somebody who is well-informed could eventually describe the splits in some article/analysis which could appear as a reference so that people who ask about this (and this is quite a common question), have access to reliable information. I don't know if anybody is in a position to do so but perhaps someone can suggest who would do this.

Second, about the thread which developed -

1. For me, there is a clear difference between "unionism" which is meant to win economic concessions from the bosses and anarchist activity meant to abolish capitalism, get the workplaces into the hands of the people who work there and develop cooperation between workplaces outside the realm of capitalism.

2. My goal is the second BUT, as a working person, in a situation where the revolution is far away, where no other anti-capitalists or anarchists work with me, I accept that "unionism" can be helpful in the struggle not to get even worse work deals or even more fucked by the bosses. Can be - not necessarily is - but can be.

3. I therefore accept that it might be desirable to create unions for practical reasons of self-defense in capitalism -but economic unionism alone cannot reach the goals of anarchism or libertarianism - and I think most people here can agree.

4. So then, there is a question of FOCUS and PROPORTION of work done in one direction or another. I think people can develop objective criteria for criticising unions and "revolutionary syndicalist" organizations, should they in fact focus disproportionately (or exclusively) on economic unionism.

This is not to say, again, that I don't think there is a place for economic unionism. However, there is from time to time a tendency to see economic unionism as a goal in itself, or a means to create a libertarian society - which I don't think it is.

At best, I believe economic unionism can:
a. keep the power of the bosses a little in check
b. activate and mobilize workers for self-organization
c. become a tool for creating democratic, bottom-down structures at the workplace
d. becoming a launching point for introducing the ideas of anarchism

5. With this said, you then start to have some clear criteria for accessment:

- is the organization really democratic and effective at activating people, is it participated in by its members, or is it full of passive members and leaders?

- is anarchist propaganda work being done paralleling, or are people trying to hide that they are anarchists?

- is it compromising to gain easy little victories and just acting to postpone more radical workplace action?

6. If I want to access an organization which focuses on unionism, I would want to look at its actual operation.

Further, I think people should be clear on the purposes of such organizations.

What it looks like to me is that many of those who have centered their activity on economic unionism and mass sometimes have misidentified their roles and cannot accept that economic unionism has its limits, does not necessarily develop into libertarian movements and, is in danger of being coopted in various ways.

It also looks as if some of those who reject economic unionism and more convinced that the people involved in it can only go in the direction of reformism and don't chose tactics which can radicalize and use these unions for the benefit of anarchism.

7. In terms of the cooption of economic unions, I am afraid that very often it is the fault of those with the most reformist thinking and the tendency to give in to this which can be blamed.

8. I'm sure that looking at concrete situations is the most helpful.

I've had some experience with proponents of different tactics and can say something concrete about different aspects of the arguments.

For example, about the members of political parties in unions.

I think economic unions by their definition have to be open to different people, but if you have anybody doing agitation or practicing entrism (and isn't that how many different groups work?), then it's counter-productive. It's also counterproductive if you think that you shouldn't "push" anarchism, but then you have people in the organization "pushing" something else.

So I'm against having people play an important part in the organization if they are paralleling organizing things like a Workers' Party. And honestly, I think it's crazy if people pretend as if they don't know that these type of people practice entrism.

As to those with other political ideas, I feel that people should monitor what they are doing - but still I don't think that we even want much to do with certain options, for example, the ones we are supposed to be fighting against.

For the economic unions which allow political party members in their groups, we always can propose clear criteria. We did this in Poland with one group - which advertises itself abroad as "anarcho-syndicalist" but usually says it isn't anarcho-syndicalist here. We said, let's look after 2-3 years at what the results of your strategy is. (And we don't forget about this!) We said, let's see if after 2-3 years more people become anarchist or become something else. Let's see if the anarchists radicalize the workers or if the workers deradicalize the anarchists.

Of course we even can start counting, and it's the best argument.

For example, one guy went from the Anarchists to the Labour Party, which the anarcho-syndicalists insist on dealing with. Other people were not anarchists to begin with. We can count how many of them went to the Labour Party and how many of them went into some anarchist organization. It's an objective criteria and it shows the success of failure of a certain tactic.

We can also ask how many anarchists began to like this form of activism and how many anarchists are disturbed by it. You can count how many people go to solidarity demos. You can see how many anarchists went to a solidarity demo co-organized with the bastards vs. how many anarchists normally come to May Day.

You can also analyse the material being sent around. For example - what are the anarcho-syndicalists calling for? If several years ago there was ALWAYS mention of taking back the factories, kicking out the capitalists or some mention of class war, why is there now some lame "we support the workers' demands for wage increases"?

You can ask - what percentage of your membership is active and which is passive? You can ask whether local groups are equal and have the same position within the organization and whether it is easy to rotate responsibilities.

These are the type of very concrete criteria you can use to judge the soundness of strategies.

Unfortunately, by these criteria, the people who we set the criteria too are failing miserably. Also, even by "victories" they are failing. BUT, there is another criteria: How many people do you have?

And here's the catch-22. They get more people, because they always water down their radicalism and open up to more and more political options. And then they consider themselves a success on that criteria alone.

Then we here this all the time. For example, a delegation from CGT came to Poland. So people are really impressed at how many people there are. And we start to talk to people and even ask them: do you know why CGT is not in the IWA? Do you know the difference in tactics? Etc. etc. And of course, either people don't know or have funny responses.

For example, the IWA are "sectarians". We ask people what it means, but they don't know. They just "heard that".

Of for example that CGT is "better" because "it's more successful". Again, the sole criteria for success being numbers.

When we ask what political points people are personally willing to give up to attract people to them, they can't really say. We ask people if they would take, for example, a nationalist into their collective to get more people. Most people say no. Then we ask if it's OK for anarchosyndicalists to work with nationalists because they have "a common cause". Well, people get confused. Some say then yes or no.

We ask people how it would be for them in their personal situations if they need a 500 zloty raise but got 50 zloty -would they consider it a "big victory" and thank the boss for their generosity? And, if you only got 50 zloty, next time would you only ask for 50 because you think that they'll never agree to more and you've got to make small demands? Well that's also confusing but it shows a persons attitude towards fighting or accepting the situation. Then we ask if they consider getting 50 zloties to be a real victory in terms of undermining capitalism.

The problem becomes and is more a source of conflict when people are confronted with strategy which isn't working, or when they have totally different criteria and cannot accept other criteria as valid.

For example, when people argue to us, which some people did, that it's not valid to ask if more workers joined the anarchists or other political options as a result of cooperation, then we come to the conclusion that they are defensive and not capable of the self-criticism and strategic analysis necessary to develop into a ground for promoting anarcho-syndicalism. Then we condemn this reformist attitude as counterproductive.

Or, for example, when people understand these poor results and try to push for different strategies within the organization, we support them.

But sometimes we simply meet those who are so in love with their positions as leaders of the working class, or who get carried away that the "serious people" like communists or journalists are impressed by them. Those types of people are too personally involved with their image as "successful organizers" to think about what they are doing.

When it gets to that point, that there obviously becomes a gap in strategy which can't be bridged and it's probably wise to be much more critical than cooperative. Because it's very easy to convince new people that the way to achieve anything is to create a "mass", which is in effect equal to power, and only an accumulated "mass" can accomplish anything. And while we agree that we need to build mass movements, we have to also recognize that in creating mass movements, historically people have made huge mistakes when resigning from certain principles for the sake of practicality.

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Dec 22 2006 11:51
rata wrote:
I really don't know where is this defeatism coming from. Especially after this IWA Congress, where the proposition for unifying the type of the membership of different Sections was rejected by wast, wast, majority (again!).

My post was not intended to be defeatism. It was supposed to be polemical. What I described was exactly where maggid's thinking would bring us to. And he is not the only one within the IWA that someway confuses an anarcho-communist or platformist international with one of anarcho-syndicalist unions. Albite for (early) Rockers' sake they are still not the majority. But propably they will not stop trying to turn the IWA into something different:

maggid wrote:
As for russian section Of AIT-IWA we extremly disapointed in resalt of this congress. That means that congress did not stop memboships of reformist trade-union (USI) in IWA. Sincs that moment i did not understand what is the aim of IWA politiks.

Qualifying everybody to be nothing but a reformist trade-unionist reminds me somewhat of blaming every asshole you don't like to be a fascist. You criteria will be blurred once you are confronted with the real ones.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 22 2006 16:07

.- Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class.

Quote:
nothing of "workers who do not agree to 'Libertarian Communinism®' are reformist scum".

Comment
No they don't. But if they don't want to build Libertarian Communism (espesualy if they belong to anty-commiunist political groopes like leninists, or nazy, or s-d, or liberals) they can not be a members of mass organisation
wich want "reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism".

Quote:
Nothing of "it will be small ideological groups to bring us to 'Libertarian Communism®'".

Comment
Sure. That's more about: we want bild strong anarchist workers movement as FORA o Zenkoky Zeren.
And please don't repit miserable arguments. It is not seruious. I still respect causality principle.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 22 2006 16:47

Yo magidd - technical point: to begin quotes use [quote ] (no spaces) to end them use [/quote ] (no spaces). You started and ended them with [/quote ] in that post so it messed up the formatting.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 23 2006 00:28
laureakai wrote:
So I'm against having people play an important part in the organization if they are paralleling organizing things like a Workers' Party. And honestly, I think it's crazy if people pretend as if they don't know that these type of people practice entrism.

I think everyone here know that Leninists and other leftists practice entrism, but they generally just enter the big social democratic unions, and are usually hostile to the small syndicalist ones. The few Leninists who are members of syndicalist unions, mostly do this despite of their party affiliation and contrary to party policy, so I don't see this as a big problem.

Quote:
For the economic unions which allow political party members in their groups, we always can propose clear criteria. We did this in Poland with one group - which advertises itself abroad as "anarcho-syndicalist" but usually says it isn't anarcho-syndicalist here. We said, let's look after 2-3 years at what the results of your strategy is. (And we don't forget about this!) We said, let's see if after 2-3 years more people become anarchist or become something else. Let's see if the anarchists radicalize the workers or if the workers deradicalize the anarchists.

I'm not sure if getting people to become anarchists should be the main goal of syndicalist unions. Which group are you talking about by the way?

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Dec 23 2006 01:00

I wood like to add one more thing. I heard many times that spesific idialogical organisations are very small and this is what happend in general. I am not supporter of idea specific idialogical organisation i prefer integral model of FORA. But if we talk about ideologacal disiplined organisations let me say something.
I don't remember haw meny people was in FAI+ Libertarian Youth + Muheres Libres in 1936 but i think about 200.000?
As for Russia: In 1917 menshivic party had 200.000, Bolsheviks 200.000 and Socialist-Revolytionary Party had... about 1.000.000 members.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Dec 23 2006 01:11

FAI was not a disciplined organization, but a loose federation of groups. No unitary line. It had around 160,000 members at height. Libertarian Youth had at least 150,000, maybe more. Mujeres Libres close to 30,000. That would mean probably close to 350,000 altogether. But CNT by 1937 had somewhere between 2 and 3 million.

t.