CNT proposes reorganization of IWA

I agree with you mntg, CNT should just get out and not trying to reform anything. In fact I guess is looking to be kicked out. That document proposal about reforming IWA has made clear to me that there's no point in being organised together to certain people.

There was no talk of 'proportional representation' because it was understood that 'democracy' based on proportional representation is premised on the bourgeois notion that posits the rights of the individual over the rights of the union. There was no talk of 'proportional representation' precisely because it was understood that the IWA is a federation of national sections where each was regarded equally with respect; one section, one vote. The organisational basis of the IWA is founded on the understanding of anarchist federation which has as its central purpose the dissipation, dispersal and attenuation of power.

Just wanted to highlight this, as I think it's an important thing to remember when speaking about voting rights. But this is an outsiders opinion so I won't add anything more.

lol If you knew about what you're talking...

hehehe the rest we are waiting to see how it turns out disastrous

PD: if numbers are the only relevant factor of a federation, you're ridiculous compared with CGT and you're pure shit compared with CCOO/UGT (the main syndicates on Spain). Maybe you should learn about that organizations, they outnumber you so they have to be more useful to the working class. That's your way of thinking.

Obvious, the CGT is even compared to ccoo/ugt shit. And the CNT more shit in comparison, already do not say of the groups of friends of many sections of the IWA and those expelled from the CNT.

The only difference is that the CNT wants to cease to be, wants to grow, is winning fights, improving the Organization and training of its members.

Jared, that is the problem, an anarchist Federation as a revolutionary Union or anarcho-syndicalist isn't the same. This last operates by direct democracy, by the law of majority, by collective discipline, in short, is the proletarian army organized.

Law of the majority sounds like bourgeois democracy to me. I understand direct democracy to allow for the voice of minorities through direct and equal participation.

Carnet of CNT during the civil war, it has some sentences in it:

- El anarcosindicalismo y el anarquismo organizado, se rigen por la ley de mayorías.

- El militante tiene derecho a opinar y defender su tesis, pero viene obligado a acatar las decisiones mayoritarias, aunque sean contrarias a su sentir.

- El sello confederal es el único ingreso que tienen los Comités Regionales y Nacional. No cotizarlo, es sabotear la obra que has encomendado a estos Comités, los cuales no la realizarán, por falta de medios económicos.

- Rechazamos el autoritarismo individual, pero aceptamos, y hay que cumplir, el mandato colectivo y mayoritario. Sin ese reconocimiento, no hay organización.

- Agilidad mental para ver el peligro y superarlo con rapidez, es lo que hace falta. Perder el tiempo divagando en reuniones, con disquisiciones filosóficas, es antirrevolucionario. El adversario no discute, actúa.

Google translator:

- The anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism organized, are governed by the law of majorities.

- The militant has a say and defend his thesis, but is obliged to abide by majority decisions, though contrary to their feelings.

- The confederal seal is the only income they have Regional and National Committees. Not quote it, it is to sabotage the work you have entrusted to these committees, which will not do it, for lack of economic means.

- We reject individual authoritarianism, but we accept, and must be met, the collective and majority mandate. Without such recognition, no organization.

- Mental Agility to see the danger and overcome it quickly, it is what is needed. Digress waste time in meetings with philosophical disquisitions, is anti-revolutionary. The adversary does not discuss acts.

For those who can read Italian -- this are the decisions of the USI extraordinary congress last weekend at Parma:

http://www.usi-ait.org/index.php/notizie/1129-le-mozioni-del-congresso-straordinario-dellusi-ait

Ovvero: L'Anarcosindacalismo internazionalista in marcia! Le Mozioni del Congresso straordinario dell'USI-AIT

Il Congresso straordinario dell'USI-AIT si è tenuto, in un clima di grande unità, partecipazione e solidarietà, nei giorni 9 e 10 aprile 2016 a Parma. All'ordine del giorno le questioni legate al processo di involuzione autoritaria dell'AIT (l'Associazione che dal 1922 raggruppa i sindacati rivoluzionari del mondo) in atto da alcuni anni, la necessità di rifondare l'AIT su basi libertarie e reale progettualità sindacale/sociale e le tematiche internazionaliste, oggi piu' che mai indispensabili per costruire un fronte mondiale dell'anarcosindacaslismo. Accogliendo le indicazioni della CNT Spagnola e del suo recente congresso, anche l'USI-AIT si posiziona all'interno del percorso di riattivazione dell'Internazionale portando il suo contributo espresso dalle due mozioni del Congresso di Parma (una su analisi/progetto, l'altra su questioni più tecniche). Quella che pubblichiamo è la prima delle due mozioni in oggetto.

Ordine del Giorno congresso USI-AIT:

- analisi e valutazione attuale AIT – decisione se e come continuare l'esperienza dell'attuale AIT
- Quale prospettiva anarcosindacalista perseguire sul piano internazionale e con chi
– Individuazione linee di indirizzo di un nuovo statuto.

1° Mozione approvata.

Da circa una ventina d’anni l’AIT sta presentando una profonda involuzione. Si è progressivamente chiusa in sé stessa, divenendo incapace di diventare un reale punto di riferimento per tutte quelle realtà sindacaliste che, esprimono la necessità e la volontà di un coordinamento a livello mondiale di organismi sindacali in lotta frontale con tutte le forme di capitalismo e neoliberismo.

L’attenzione principale espressa dagli ordini del giorno dei vari Congressi è stata focalizzata sulla presunta necessità di alzare un muro tra l’AIT ed i suoi nemici, che non sono –come verrebbe da pensare- il capitalismo globalizzato, il neoliberismo e gli Stati, ma le organizzazioni sindacali che non aderiscono a questa AIT.

E' stata così modificata la normativa interna (compresi alcuni punti statutari fondamentali) rendendola sempre più stringente e tesa alla conservazione degli equilibri interni piuttosto che a una crescita reale dell’Internazionale.

Per questi motivi il congresso straordinario dell'USI (Parma 9-10 aprile 2016), accertato che, attualmente, l'internazionale ha deviato dai dettami anarcosindacalisti e/o sindacalisti rivoluzionari cosi come definiti dal congresso fondativo di Berlino del 1922,

ritiene necessario e improrogabile dare vita ad un processo che porti alla riattivazione e/o rifondazione di una internazionale anarcosindacalista e/o sindacalista rivoluzionaria, che sia motore di un processo di lotte e conquiste sociali internazionali dei lavoratori; sospendendo da subito il versamento delle quote.

Si valuta di non dover dare alcuna dimissione.

Infine, aderisce alla proposta avanzata dalla CNT-E per un percorso di riattivazione dell'AIT. Si auspica, altresì, che il convegno precongressuale convochi il congresso di riattivazione dell'AIT il prossimo dicembre a Berlino.

Google Translate

The Extraordinary Congress of USI-AIT was held in an atmosphere of unity, participation and solidarity, on 9 and 10 April 2016 in Parma. On the agenda issues to the authoritarian involution AIT process (the Association which since 1922 brings together the revolutionary trade unions of the world) in place for some years, the need to re-establish the AIT of libertarian bases and real trade union planning / social and internationalist issues, now more 'than ever indispensable to build a world front dell'anarcosindacaslismo. Welcoming the signs of the Spanish CNT and its recent congress, even the USI-AIT is positioned within the path of the International reactivation bringing his contribution expressed by the two motions of the Parma Congress (one of analysis / project, the 'of other more technical issues). That we publish is the first of the two motions in question.

Agenda USI-AIT Congress:

- Current analyzes and evaluation AIT - the decision whether and how to continue the experience of the AIT
- What outlook anarcho-syndicalist pursue internationally and with whom
- Identification of a new statute guidelines.

1st Motion approved.

For nearly twenty years the AIT is presenting a deep involution. Has gradually closed in on itself, becoming incapable of becoming a real reference point for all those trade unionists who, expressing the need and willingness to coordinate global union bodies in frontal fight with all forms of capitalism and neoliberalism .
The main focus expressed by the agendas of the various Congress has been focused on the alleged need to raise a wall between the AIT and its enemies, who are not-as one might pensare- globalized capitalism, neoliberalism and the states, but the trade unions that do not adhere to this AIT.
E 'was amended internal regulations (including some basic statutory points) making it more and more stringent and aimed at the preservation of internal balance rather than a real growth of the International.
For these reasons, the extraordinary congress of USI (Parma 9 to 10 April 2016), established that, at present, the international anarcho-syndicalists has deviated from the dictates and / or revolutionary syndicalists as well as defined by the founding congress of Berlin of 1922,
It considers it necessary and urgent to create a process that will lead to the reactivation and / or re-establishment of an international anarcho-syndicalist and / or revolutionary syndicalist, which is the engine of a process of struggle and international social achievements of workers; immediately suspending the payment of the allowances.
It is estimated to not have to give any discharge.
Finally, it adheres to the proposal made ​​by the CNT-AIT And for a reactivation path. It is hoped also that the pre-congress conference would convene the reactivation of the IWA conference this December in Berlin.

Ragnar wrote:

Mood Lugius, since the new section you would like to ride in Spain will be friends of the "León de la Alhambra"

So what? The responsibility for the "León de la Alhambra" lies directly with the CNT. It is the CNT that is responsibile for "León de la Alhambra" and no one else.

If you are familiar with the method of anarcho-syndicalism you would understand this. The responsibility for the IWA Secretariat lies directly with that section responsible by an IWA Congress.

How is the "León de la Alhambra" any different from the current CNT Secretary insofar as rigging votes?

Now I hear that the process of ratification of of the XI CNT Congress involved no more than seven 'regional secretaries'. What happened to ratification of Congress decisions taking place in the assemblies?

The decision of the CNT XI Congress now has real questions over its legitimacy.

Arnt wrote:

I find it regrettable the current situation. No one doubts that there is a problem in the IWA. But instead of seeking solutions, we seem comfortable enlarging the differences.

CNT, FAU and USI organizations are still small, but they are making a name among the working class at the expense of working hard. It seems incredible that finds people who prefer us out. Do not forget that we are partners and all are doing anarcosindicalism.

Yes, we should be seeking solutions but the CNT is not interested in seeking solutions they are interested in the IWA insofar as they can control it. Sadly, it's been this way for some time but particularly since 2000

The current IWA Secretariat is only carrying out what the CNT pushed for for years, now the CNT has changed its collective mind and they have the expectation that the rest of the IWA will follow suit. Now they are desperately trying to justify their arbitrary action of presuming they own the IWA and are entitled to 're-found' it.

Yes, Arnt, you are right about the CNT, FAU and the USI being small but in their view their respective memberships so greatly outnumber the memberships of the other sections that this, and this alone, makes them right. i.e. Might is Right. Would any comrade care to chance a guess as to where the concept of 'Might is Right' is on the political spectrum?

Let us say that the membership of CNT is 5000 (I've heard everywhere between 8000 and 3000 so who knows) the USI is 1000 and the FAU is 500. To represent a 'small' section we can have the ASF with 50. I use approximate figures to illustrate a point. The membership of the IWA is based on national sections, not total membership i.e. it is not a general membership organisation. Taking these figures of 'quantity of members we can say the CNT is a hundred times greater than the ASF, the USI twenty times greater and the FAU 10 times greater.

So the respective populations of the nations represented are Spain 48 million, Italy 60 million, Germany 82 million, Australia 24 million. On a per capita basis; CNT 104 per million, USI 16 per million, FAU 6 per million and ASF 2 per million. Looking at these figures, The CNT is no longer a hundred times greater but only fifty times greater, the USI is no longer twenty times greater but eight times greater and the FAU is no longer ten times greater but only three times greater.

Requiring at least 100 members applied across the board effectively excludes sections from countries with small populations.

Wouldn't the CNT proposed voting system be fairer if it were based on per capita? The proposed voting system has nothing to do with proportional representation and everything to do with power and control.

I agree with some of you in that the sectionis the subject of decission, and therefore it makes sense that all have the same votes.

Of course, the IWA is a federation of national sections. The membership of the IWA is not made up of inviduals, consequently, proportional voting does not make sense. The CNT is being disingenuous pretending the IWA is a general membership organisation as opposed to a federation of affiliated sections. A fact they have known for some considerable period of time and only become a problem for them now.

For example, the IWW is a general membership organisation and each individual member gets one vote when voting for the General Executive Board. Consequently, the GEB is not only dominated by members living in America, it is dominated by members living in certain parts of America, like Chicago. So while they may aspire to be 'of the World' they really are of Chicago. So if you live in Chicago, inevitably you'll have greater say and more influence.

The FAU is the German section but not really. Because of proportional representation and the Berlin section having a greater membership than the rest combined means that all decisions by the FAU will be made only by those in the Berlin section effectively disenfranchising the rest of the membership.

The CNT proposed voting system is exclusionary and consistent with other exclusionary policies introduced recently in the CNT; excluding the pensioners and raising the minimum membership requirement from 5 to 15 are examples. The CNT proposed voting system is about maintaining power, control and exclusion.

Should focus on growth, not supervise others. A very small organization has limited resources and focus on growth is the best strategy. And do not forget that after all, the IWA is an international union. We can have small groups in growth, but call unions some of them is a bit pretentious.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'supervise others'. Does that mean that one section should not ask for proof of claimed numbers of members by another section? What if a section has 1,000 members entitling it to 2 votes (under the proposed system) How much incentive would there be on the Secretary to approach his wife's cousin's milkman's brother's lawyer to sign up today thus making 1,001 members and gaining that crucial extra vote?

How will a 're-founded' IWA grow if it excludes sections from places it is not? Is it fair to make a comparison with sections from countries that are small in population and little in the way of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist tradition?

Is the problem of having small sections with a vote so great as to warrant an entire 're-founding'? Would there not be an alternative course by which to seek a resolution? Not if you aim to concentrate the decision-making power into to the hands of the few.

he Extraordinary Congress of USI-AIT was held in an atmosphere of unity, participation and solidarity, on 9 and 10 April 2016 in Parma. On the agenda issues to the authoritarian involution AIT process (the Association which since 1922 brings together the revolutionary trade unions of the world) in place for some years, the need to re-establish the AIT of libertarian bases and real trade union planning / social and internationalist issues, now more 'than ever indispensable to build a world front dell'anarcosindacaslismo. Welcoming the signs of the Spanish CNT and its recent congress, even the USI-AIT is positioned within the path of the International reactivation bringing his contribution expressed by the two motions of the Parma Congress (one of analysis / project, the 'of other more technical issues). That we publish is the first of the two motions in question.

Agenda USI-AIT Congress:

Who would've guessed that the rank and file of the USI would have more or less the same idea as the rank and file of the CNT at more or less the same time?

convene the reactivation of the IWA conference this December in Berlin.

Hey, that's the capital of Germany! I wonder if the entire membership of the FAU are thinking the same thing?

I'm hoping CNT_Exteriores can shed some light as no one so far has explained how the CNT or any other section has the authority to 're-found' the IWA. How does the CNT Congress arrogate to itself authority to decide for the IWA and not the IWA Congress?

Can anyone explain?

melenas wrote:

Carnet of CNT during the civil war, it has some sentences in it:
Quote:

- El anarcosindicalismo y el anarquismo organizado, se rigen por la ley de mayorías.

- El militante tiene derecho a opinar y defender su tesis, pero viene obligado a acatar las decisiones mayoritarias, aunque sean contrarias a su sentir.

- El sello confederal es el único ingreso que tienen los Comités Regionales y Nacional. No cotizarlo, es sabotear la obra que has encomendado a estos Comités, los cuales no la realizarán, por falta de medios económicos.

- Rechazamos el autoritarismo individual, pero aceptamos, y hay que cumplir, el mandato colectivo y mayoritario. Sin ese reconocimiento, no hay organización.

- Agilidad mental para ver el peligro y superarlo con rapidez, es lo que hace falta. Perder el tiempo divagando en reuniones, con disquisiciones filosóficas, es antirrevolucionario. El adversario no discute, actúa.

Google translator:
Quote:

- The anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism organized, are governed by the law of majorities.

- The militant has a say and defend his thesis, but is obliged to abide by majority decisions, though contrary to their feelings.

- The confederal seal is the only income they have Regional and National Committees. Not quote it, it is to sabotage the work you have entrusted to these committees, which will not do it, for lack of economic means.

- We reject individual authoritarianism, but we accept, and must be met, the collective and majority mandate. Without such recognition, no organization.

- Mental Agility to see the danger and overcome it quickly, it is what is needed. Digress waste time in meetings with philosophical disquisitions, is anti-revolutionary. The adversary does not discuss acts.

This represents the weakness of the argument for proportional representation. It is a false analogy. This google translation of a CNT document of 1936 pertains to individuals in an assembly not the national sections of the IWA.

- The militant has a say and defend his thesis, but is obliged to abide by majority decisions, though contrary to their feelings.

As the individual militant is 'obliged to abide by majority decisions' of the assembly of which they are a member, so the national section is obliged to abide by the majority decision of the IWA. This includes the CNT, USI and FAU.

We reject individual authoritarianism, but we accept, and must be met, the collective and majority mandate. Without such recognition, no organization.

Same applies to individual national sections within the IWA as it does to individual militants in the assembly.

Lugius

convene the reactivation of the IWA conference this December in Berlin.

Hey, that's the capital of Germany! I wonder if the entire membership of the FAU are thinking the same thing?

First, the said conference appears in the report on USI's extraordinary congress concerning the IWA question. So you'd better ask the USI about it. Second, I do not know what exactly you are understanding bay “the same thing“. If you think of the critics the Spanish CNT and USI expressed concerning the actual situation of the IWA I'd guess that about 95 to 98% percent of the FAU rank-and-file are backing it. The FAU will have it's regular 2016 congress in may. You will propably come to know it's decicions once they are ratified.

do not know what exactly you are understanding bay “the same thing“.

I think you do know what I'm talking about and your just being coy.

I'd guess that about 95 to 98% percent of the FAU rank-and-file are backing it.

Ok, I can confirm that Berlin FAU is backing it, so why bother with a Congress?

You will propably come to know it's decicions once they are ratified.

I think I know its decision now. I think a lot of people know what the Berlin FAU thinks. What Berlin FAU thinks, FAU thinks.

If the FAU Congress does anything other than back the CNT proposal, I'll walk backwards to Perth.

Lugius, how would I dare to argue with you, the brillant know-it-all from down-under? Why questions, when you obviously already know everything better (though you in fact know little to nothing)? So, let's just leave it at that.

(though you in fact know little to nothing)?

You're absolutely right, Robot. But what little I do know is serious cause for concern.
I certainly don't know the whole story I'm so far away. But I'm sure there are people who do.
I don't have PhD in semiotics but I know bullshit when I see it.

Again, I put the question; by what right does the CNT presume to 're-found' the CNT. What justifies such a drastic step?

The FAU has maintained international contacts with organizations in Poland whose members were involved in local elections with openly far-right individuals and which openly cooperate with political parties. The FAU of course knows about this and was informed about it by the local IWA section. It decided to ignore it, because why would cooperation with political parties and running in elections with the far-right be a bad thing?

Why did the FAU decide to do that? Because they were made to believe that the organization they work with is "big" because it gets people to sign up through the internet and doesn't care if the members agree with anarchosyndicalist principles. It doesn't matter, because the decisions are made in a closed internal group made of 6 people (and that's officially in the statutes).

So, in fact, they are just looking for contacts with mainstream unions and this is why I recommended they join Verdi, which is bigger and since principles do not matter. They can keep their flags and the cat for sentimental reasons, I am sure the leadership of Verdi will agree to that.

Comrade Z, l know that this outrage is the first in your mind since this has affected you, me and many others directly and we know how unacceptable this is and are extremely upset about the intervention of the FAU in matters concerning the development of the movement in our country. However, please do not mislead people when writing. The situation with FAU started many years ago and the current procedures were started as a result of the agreements of there Congress of June 2014. Being well aware of the influence of a number of individuals who were looking to go out of the lWA, knowing that at the Congress of 2013, members of the FAU delegation asked USl and CNTE if they would join them in leaving, seeing the Congress decisions of 2014, seeing the projects to create other networks (which did not do so well), seeing the non-participation of FAU in the lWA Plenary discussing contacts with other organizations, seeing the motion on the FAU Congress agenda to leave lWA (supported by 60% but that doesn't pass in FAU since they need a bigger majority), the agreements of the FAU Congress were to be interpreted. Of course they showed a pattern. Anybody with a grain of intelligence could see that for a while there was a tendency to split the lWA into larger organizations (deemed worthwhile) and the others. FAU does not and did not see organizations in the lWA, for example ours, as part of their 2014 Congress international expansion plans, but they prefer even organizations which are not really libertarian.

This is the basis of what it is all about.

We could talk about it forever on Libcom, but, to be frank, l don't think it is too productive. Also, there are apparently a lot of posibilists in the world who don't care really about facts or criticism of unions that make decisions through a central committee. Of course we know that the majority of workers in a certain other union in our city have split off because of the deplorable actions of the central committee and we wonder what the fuck took them so long or why they even were there in the first place. The world is not kind to people who try to work on principle and don't believe that any method can achieve our goal, which is not to be just a union. But we just have to stay the course, even if it means that the folks from the West are not satisfied with our work performance. (hehehe)

“On the Extraordinary Congress of USI – Against the Illegitimate Use of the Name IWA”
Submitted by Secretariat on Sat, 04/23/2016 - 15:15

http://www.iwa-ait.org/languages/english

Does anyone else have any further news about the USI extraordinary Congress held in Parma over the weekend of 9/10 April?

I google translated this from CNT Levante website;

The Regional Confederation of Levante, consisting of unions Albacete, Alcoy, Elda, La Marina Alta, Sagunto, La Plana and La Safor, has the agreement and the moral obligation to declare the following statements and purposive considerations emanating from all our assemblies, conferences and full post-processing of inorganic desfederación.

First, as unions and afiliadxs desfederados fraud, against all rules and moral libertarian (decision over thanks to biased reports prepared by the "observers" of the previous SPCC, today expelled for being corrupt was taken), we continue to constitute Regional Levante CNT-AIT, while we never cease to be.

Secondly, we believe that many of the agreements that have been taken in the CNT in the last decade away the Confederation of anarcho-syndicalism and its own Principles, Tactics and Aims; and lead a path we do not know where it will end, but we are convinced that the revolutionary syndicalism away. We see no need to dwell much, but we can not enumerate some of these changes:

• Increased number of afiliadxs to form a union and obligation to spend a year as confederal core before they can form a trade union, even taking
sufficient affiliation. This is an attack on federalism and centralization of decision-making capacity around major cities and towns.

• Changing the voting system to favor the formation of simple majority, rather than forcing the search for consensus.

• Progressive change model of union militants to model services union, focusing solely on getting all possible affiliation although not translated into militancy, giving up entirely to direct action, to the involvement of employee lending propixs in struggles , etc. The best example of this is the SOV of Valencia, which claims to have 180 afiliadxs but in their assemblies is not able to collect more than twelve people usually as one of the last driven out of the SOV.

• disproportionate to the ability to contribute Importance coming to take the vote to the unions if their members have trouble paying the fee; and even resorting to charge lxs afiliadxs and regional through monthly bank statements

automatic, which is a flagrant contradiction with our anti-capitalist principles, as well as being completely unnecessary.

• Replacing the Cabinet of Legal and Pro-Prisoners for Confederal Technical Office that leaves aside presxs vegan, by focusing solely on labor disputes. This Cabinet is a terrible economic drain for unions, and in most cases only performs consulting functions, which could carry out more economic and efficient ways. This also implies the existence of trabajadorxs contratadxs by the CNT, which puts the Confederation in the role of exploiter.

• increasingly more vertical and less horizontal in decision-making, with Plenary Committees that make proposals and make decisions, leaving only the role of assemblies ratify or character. This was what happened during our desfederación process, without going any further. The inevitable consequence of this drift is living recently in the form of "irregularities" in the Treasury.

• aberrant frontism that in addition to calling campaigns and events with subsidized as the CGT unions, has come to degenerate into share based unnecessarily political parties as we (and white markings) or CUP, or double militancy in such political parties and CNT at the same time.

• Confrontation with the AIT because it refuses to accept the proposals of the CNT, which does not conform to abandon its idiosyncrasies and its historical characteristics, but also try to drag the International him and, when he sees that fails, arises leave or "refundarla".

• Expulsion of those who do not conform to this change of course, using various excuses. In our case they were alleged breaches of organic standards, if they can be described as such a thing, since there are regional that work continuously in the same way without this being a problem. In the case of compañerxs otrxs, excuses are different. The real reason is that we must purge those struggling to get the CNT remains what it has always been.

We could go on, but not what we need. After all, we understand that our comrades and unions to which it is addressed are already fully aware of the posibilista drift that is taking the CNT. We want to focus on what is in the proposed solutions to this problem.

The CNT may not be the caricature of union deliberately deformed step by step, congress to congress, its lines and categories that have always defined: its internationalism, solidarity, direct action, federalism and autonomy. It is not acceptable to stop and look how they change the background and image of our Gloriosa to the finalist reformism, syndicalism service, centralized, unsupportive, pactista, corrupt and yellow. That's not the CNT, nor let it be.

Given the absurdity and discrediting of the various committees responsible for these anomalies and intentional diversion of the anarcho-syndicalist and fraternal history of the organization, we declare our intention and desire to restructure the CNT from below, together with the unions still maintain a minimum of coherence in theory and revolutionary practice.

Therefore, we call on the unions to take clear position regarding the kidnapping of the CNT and premeditated disarmament of its principles, tactics and goals. Regional propose the organization of the anarcho-syndicalists unions today inside or outside the CNT; so that, with the Regional reorganized and Levante, a National Confederation of Labor representative of the principles of the AIT in the territory of the Spanish state is present. This does not necessarily mean the departure of that "CNT kidnapped" by the union so deems appropriate, pending a (in our opinion) unlikely change of address or be expelled without saving them work.

We restructure our CNT among whom we feel part of it in consistency. We constitute the CNT Regional Confederation organized as outside who are not anarcho but are claimed as such; reorganize Regional and go from a National Conference of Trade Unions to a Congressional process reaffirm syndicalism and AIT in the territory occupied by the Spanish state and that feat for revolutionary dimension to the CNT that unites us into a revolutionary objectives and with means in strict accord. Work, definámonos and defend ourselves from below, together, as befits us without vanguards.

Here syndicalism has not failed, we can not even blame it fundamentally structural errors CNT: we have failed its members, as to the lack of moral, clear and effective response to attacks suffered. knowing ourselves also partly responsible, now we propose this step we want to take together. We believe it is time to plant firmly face, overcoming past mistakes and dejaciones, as we learn from them to continue on our path: the better we understand that we can bring a life into anarchy.

The situation created after the last congress of the CNT and the relationship with the AIT accelerates the need to take an active initiative in defense of anarcho-syndicalism, and this seems to measure all non-extendable. Levante formally asked to join the International not

only because it has excluded us from the last binding decisions Confederal position the CNT against AIT, while simultaneously make winks to antagonists to anarcosindicalismo organizations; also because we understand that the defense of anarcosindicalismo implies the defense of the AIT.

Who really believes that our tool is no longer yours has and has always had to leave the door open to other organizations, without hatred or rancor; what is not acceptable is dynamiting the essence and meaning of the CNT to make it a carnival mask, because in addition to that already exists CGT and his "anarcho domesticated". authoritarian vices, although not directly orders, privileges or promises of parliamentary sign, have taken root in the CNT, today led to shame; and we are decididxs to arrive where it is needed to counter it, not in vain nosotrxs we are the CNT and anarcho-syndicalism remains the best tool we know.

Health and anarchist social revolution.

Long live the CNT! Long live the IWA!

yeah! There you have the last expelled by rigging votes mainly, as well as insulting and defaming the CNT and yours members.

I will be generous, 5 member unions by 7 Unions I get a calculation of 35, but I inflated this, Let's say that they are 50 members. Ask yourselves, what trade union activities are they? only one makes something.
Levante 3 Unions, than if in CNT, added nearly 280 members with very much activity

Moreover, this statement lies are already answered along the thread

I can confirm what Ragnar says... they are maximum 45 members... actually the issue witrh them (one of them) was that those "unions" had 2 or 3 members for the last 30 years, and they didn´t pay their dues, but they "made up" a system were they could control Levante federation, of course they were expelled disafiliated, kicked out for cheating.

CNT Levante is this:
http://www.cnt.es/levante (around 300 members, it is one of our smallest federations)

The ones that made that are just 45 people with hundreds of thounsands of euros stolen from CNT in buildings, we will get them back. They are just a group of freaks Actually for Elda´s "group" fault CNT is having to pay half a million euros, for their incompetence, because CNT buildings are property of CNT and CNT has a liability over them, even if they are "squatted" by these freaks.... This didn´t happen in the 30s, they fixed these things quicker with a couple of "courtesy visits", well... modern times are diferent.

Ragnar, Yepa; you make claims based on numbers nobody can verify. Moreover, any attempt to verify is denounced as 'spying' or 'monitoring'. Are we meant to simply take your word for it? And if so, on what basis?

I am following CNT Levante website as means of finding as much as I can, here's the latest;

We want to begin this statement by mentioning the fact that unions Albacete, Alcoy, Elda, La Marina Alta, La Plana, La Safor and Sagunto, which form the Regional Federation of Levante CNT-AIT, were desfederados last year of the yellow CNT (CNT we'll call plain, without -AIT); in the removal process, the organic rules of the CNT much more severe form that the alleged breaches of it by those who in theory we are desfederaba was broken. We will not enter this statement to analyze the unjust and illegitimate desfederación from which we were subjected. Just we want to point out that, at the time of the desfederación, our Regional chose not to make any public statement.

However, we can not remain silent and indifferent to the last statement that the CNT has published on its official website and cynically call "In Defense of AIT", as in this statement is insulted, slandered and publicly attacks the AIT, the International Workers' Association, which morally we have always belonged and still belong. We want to respond to that statement, that offends not only the members of the AIT but the anarcosindicalismo in general, since the CNT sadly today is no longer anarcosindicalista.

First, we find it unacceptable that since that statement was defames the AIT insinuating that consists of several groups "with very little commitment to union work in their territory and they do, however, enormous efforts to monitor the activities of other sections I do make this area their priority. " The context of the anarcho-syndicalists fellow AIT in other countries is radically different from Spain. Not only by repression or legal, but also by the previous development of the anarcho-syndicalist movement in these regions.

In Spain, when the CNT-AIT turned to legalize the late 70s, the initial membership of the Confederation was about 200,000 companions. Today, the number of members of the CNT in the country does not reach five figures. We understand that in Spain there have also been difficulties in all this time, but that makes it no less ridiculous than an organization that has lost more than 95% of its membership in recent decades is created with the right to criticize other sections that did not have that starting point and had to start from scratch, and the acknowledgment of "little dedication to union work"; which it is also false, and just be aware of circulars AIT (which from the CNT are blocking from reaching the membership) to realize the enormous work being carried out. The AIT has been making contacts all over the world to create new sections and strengthen existing ones in countries such as Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Honk Kong, Taiwan, etc. In the AIT it is working to extend the revolutionary trade union action around the world, and to say otherwise is simply lying.

Regarding the trade union work of the CNT in Spain, "dunk in trying to get a greater presence and relevance in its territory, which tested strategies, develop conflicts and has an impact" not only fails, but lost on the way its principles anarcosindicalistas daring even to give lessons to others with their nefarious example ... it is worth remembering that the CNT has signed agreements with CCOO and UGT, with all that they entail; and is proud of the agreement signed in Extractions Levante, despite containing the formation of a joint commission on reconciliation between the employer and its employees, the style of jurados and joint committees of the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera.

It is also curious that the CNT criticize some sections supposedly "inquisitorially monitor the activities of others." When, for several years, it is carrying out a purge to get rid of unions that do not conform to all the atrocities and corruption that are happening within the Confederation. In their eagerness to expel these comrades, they do not hesitate to watch what the fractious unions remaining in the CNT, to find some excuse with which to desfederarlos. In Andalusia, it is monitored very closely to certain partners and has reached unfederate two unions to organize joint actions with unions previously desfederados. And in Galicia they came to forcibly enter the email from one of Galicians desfederados unions. Who is acting inquisitorial?

It is quite striking that in the public statement to which we are responding, it is said that "it is not in any event large or small sections" and "are larger or smaller, anyway." In the above we mentioned the expulsion of two Andalusian unions to maintain contacts with other unions previously expelled. Note that initially were four unions did such a thing, and desfederación of the four was raised, but eventually two were "pardoned" and why this was done (and thus appears officially collected) was these two unions had more affiliation.

But most important is still noted that in recent years the CNT has taken a series of measures with the aim of favoring unions with more affiliation (irrespective of their activity) and harm the unions with little affiliation. In the X Congress, the voting system was changed for unions with many affiliates have full power of decision in the regional and confederal plenary sessions. In the XI Congress agreed that the minimum to form a union of the CNT rose from 5 to 15 people. In addition, this yellow CNT tried to implement a new voting system in the AIT, which happen something similar. We will return to this matter. The fact is that in the CNT, even now say the opposite, yes they value most large unions at the expense of small, whether or not activity, or implantation, without regard to the different territorial realities, which determines a centralized organization that promotes large cities ninguneando the rest. There are unions in the CNT are set as examples to have 180 members, yes, paying religiously by direct debits their dues (remember that money are votes for them and that membership in a big city does not mean a great implantation) and have gotten a couple of victories magnified in several trade disputes, but only attend their meetings, in the best case, a dozen people.

They speak in the CNT of "ideological control" issue that should not even mention if they had an ounce of shame. CNT in the last few years there has been an ideological drift away to the organization of anarcho-syndicalism and floods of approaches and closer to social democracy that libertarian principles that have always characterized the proposals. As mentioned above, they are not few unions have attempted to oppose such reform drift. The consequence has been a purge that has already cost down twenty unions of the Confederation, many expelled and others who have decided to leave on their own feet. Probably more in the future, as the ideological persecution against all those who do not like the new idiosyncrasies of the CNT continues.

It was precisely the CNT which has been intentionally conflict internationally. The CNT has made many efforts to try to spread to other sections of the AIT your posibilista derived for the principles are a drag. It should be clarified that the AIT has always been considered the core International is Section, not the member, because it is considered that the idea that the basis of a process of collective decision making is the affiliate, corresponds to a bourgeois and individualistic conception of representative democracy that has nothing to do with federalism, in which the base is the assembly and not the individual. For this reason, the AIT all sections have one vote regardless of their membership.

Because the voting system, which in the statement of the CNT described as "peculiar", the CNT failed to spread their corruption to the rest of the AIT, as only two other sections sympathized with these approaches. Since they could not gain ideological control of the AIT with the votes, they tried to change the voting system to have more decision-making. Again this, who had managed to do within the CNT itself in the X Congress, they went wrong in the AIT. That, and no other, is the real reason we now propose the reestablishment of a parallel AIT: they can not exert ideological control over it for votes.

To continue, the statement asserts that "because of these contradictions, was being forged an important internal crisis, which erupted with the expulsion of the German section, the FAU". This section, which had been systematically violating the agreements of the AIT for over ten years, and was excluded as a precautionary measure in the XXII Congress of the AIT, held in Granada in December 2004. And yet, the FAU has never It has been ejected from the AIT, because today it is only temporarily suspended. So the CNT lying when he says that the FAU has been expelled, and in any case justifies its anti-federalist attitude.

We also want to point out something that the public statement of CNT do not mention is the fact that, after seeing that they could not control the AIT convincing sections of its proposals, the CNT decided to stop paying dues to the International. It was argued that the AIT supposed a terrible economic burden for the CNT. It is quite inconsistent to argue such a statement defending both the existence of the Confederal Technical Office, which not only means that the CNT plays the role of entrepreneur and contradicts the principle of direct action, but involves an economic drain for all unions want it or not (the payment of part of the fee for the GTC is required) although not absolutely necessary. It has also been lavished money on advertising outrageously with videos whose production has cost around € 6000 when industry professionals say the same video could have done with a budget six times less. Not to mention the scandal that has led to the lack of finance reports for several years despite the complaints of many unions, and the subsequent discovery that the former Permanent Secretariat of the Confederal Committee of the CNT had stolen a quantity of five figures Heritage funds.

Paradoxically, despite the above, in the CNT not only they have expressed concern about the alleged economic burden posed by the AIT, but also expelled several unions of Galicia for not paying dues. The debt of one of the unions did not reach even the 500 €. All this is very contradictory with the waste that has been made in the CNT in recent years, waste from the examples above are just a few. But we want to point out the fact that the CNT has not allowed that some unions are delayed in quotas, and at the same time refusing to pay its dues to the AIT. If the CNT expels unions do not pay their dues, how can you have the nerve to not pay theirs to the AIT?

To make matters contradictions, the decision taken by the CNT is not to leave the AIT. We speak of a CNT repeating again and again the critics unions that if they did not like decisions being taken, could leave whenever they wanted; but that if they stayed in the CNT they should accept agreements plenary sessions and Congress. Tips sell and me do not have, because now the CNT, instead of leaving the AIT, chooses to boycott it economically and attempting to create an AIT parallel to his image and likeness, which reminds us of some authoritarian bearded and conspired against the first international in the late nineteenth. To this CNT is Marxism are short and add a good dose of Machiavelli their premeditation.

This insulting purpose of "refounding" had another precedent that can not go unnoticed. The XXV Congress of the AIT was held in Valencia in December 2013. In it, the union itself of Valencia, the main protagonist of the inorganic process desfederación Regional Levante CNT-AIT, next to the kleptomaniac who was then Secretary General CNT, organizers of the Congress, committed a number of gross "irregularities". According to the report itself AIT SP, dated 19/08/2013 and the 26/08/2013 transacted, among other niceties, the organizers of the Congress delegates threatened AIT in order to prevent their participation and documentation encroached congressional.

We are facing a emanated attack last Congress of the CNT, which is an attack and attempted usurpation full-fledged AIT, because apart from stop paying the quota, among other gems, slanders the AIT and establishes the form of supplanting creating a parallel organization. It is unacceptable for a member section to publicly denounce the organization that supposedly belongs. It would be a blatant act of unfair and unseemly informality. The CNT with this agreement has been, obviously, regardless of the AIT. The AIT at its next Congress can only report the self-desfederación of the CNT, for practical purposes and theoretical, you can not expel an entity that is not a member of an association.

From the Regional Levante CNT-AIT completely defend the role of the AIT as a tool to globalize the struggle for the emancipation of the working class and applaud all the work done by its members worldwide. We are confident that this work will bear fruit, if we know the possibilism defend and internal conflicts that it takes forever associated. We also denounce the manipulation and attempts to discredit the AIT that the CNT is conducting; and we encourage sections of the AIT to take steps to defend against these attacks. The anarcho-syndicalist CNT is longer, and therefore has no place in the AIT.

Finally, we urge anarcosindicalistas fellow Spanish State, in and out of the CNT, to organize and take steps to restructure the CNT-AIT so that the International does not lose its presence in the mainland, while give anarcosindicalismo presence and strength to defend this country and the trends have now made owners of the organization and are completely opposed to the principles, purposes and anarcho-syndicalist tactics that always characterized the CNT-AIT.

We will not let them keep fooling anyone.

For libertarian communism, long live the CNT-AIT!

True, easy for the cenetistas to know it. But is also easy for you, ask for sindicalyst activity that they have and making each "union", also asked to have affiliation, just want it to say. Another option is to use the search engine of google on news of CNT in those locations, you'll be amazed.

There is a saying that historical events sometimes may happen twice - the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. If one considers the manufacturing of the CNT-Fs split and its IWA aftermaths in the 90s as the tragedy, then now we will experience the farce.

I do not want to comment on that alleged Ex-CNT Levante with their claims that the CNT is a "yellow union". Everyone who once visited the region knows, what kind of "SOV" those are and that their members are far more busy with their acivities in the different anarchist federations than they ever have been in the CNT.

Thats not of any importance anyhow, as they are just the "useful idiots" for those that write the statements for them - both inside and outside the Spanish state. Anyhow, the IWA will propably get what many within it are looking for, some new networks of affinity groups that may continue the fight for the bones of the cadaver - and of course its well equipped cashbox.

A rather grotesque statement, especially the last part, when we consider who actually robbed the CNT. As for your conspiracy theories, I am sure somebody is foolish enough to buy them but the reasons for this statement and dozens of similar complaints have nothing to do with anything but the actual complaints of cnt membership, current and former. We can put up a list, but yeah, the anarchist opinions of people who aren't managing big unions should just be dismissed as the ravings of lunatics I suppose. Now we see how power wins out.

If clear Akai. That coincidence that all those expelled are lying, slander, cheating with votes, insult fellow... even reaching grotesque things like poison with marijuana-cupcake to members or rub the fanaticism of a religion. Also what a coincidence that do not form or want to know nothing of making syndicalism (for some, at least, had been well) and is funny, because they are the Akai will be gladly at your AIT. Ah! quiet, it gives us quite like that because it opens a new era of possibilities for the CNT.

Akai please, take all the Talibans remaining in CNT to stop hindering, above all those of the "SOV Madrid" that are very boring.

It's interesting to watch this thread because it makes the hypocrisy of the akai-lugius-faction pretty visible. They are (maybe rightfully) outraged about the open discussion by CNT of using the name IWA-AIT for the new to be formed international but are already supporting a (tiny) excluded faction of the CNT that calls itself CNT-AIT(!).

In general though everything seems to have been said here. The positions are more or less clear. Also don't forget that the very heated discussion here and in general takes mostly place between a few figures, most members on both sides are not that interesting in century-long fight, so we should handle this like adults handle a bad relationship: Part ways, maybe try to stay friends and who knows maybe someday we can get back together.

Nokta, l have not supported anything here, so why are you saying l did? But to clarify my personal opinion, l support every union in the CNT which voted against this plan to split the lWA. Of course, my personal opinion is just that - a personal opinion. lt's the Congress which decides who is or is not in the lWA.

Other comments to Lugius, if you want to verify how many people are where, just ask people directly. Don't elicit information from other parties like this. But yes, this is a small federation.

Robot, l guess you are lucky to be in FAU, not CNT. One wonders how long a 3 person union without syndical activity would be tolerated elsewhere. Well, in CNT (or even in ZSP), you wouldn't even be allowed to join. But we will see the realities soon enough, No doubt some 3 people unions are more equal than others.

How perfectly luxurious it must be to be able to tag along painlessly and cheer on those who constantly belittle the smaller organizations. Give the nod and pretend you are not one of them.

Nokta, l think it is fine to part ways but none of this is very friendly, And it is especially interesting to know that l am in some sort of "corpse". As far as l see, my organization, although far from perfect, is working, getting new members and is involved in deeper national coordination now. l really feel anything but dead. ln addition, l personally am fine being away from people like some of the ones l find on this forum. On the other hand, we have no intention to "divorce" from those anywhere who didn't want to divorce from us.

Finally, there was an important reason why Bakunin was against inheritance. Now we can see how the situations break down. The CNTE inherited millions - money, buildings... This was passed down and made the CNT probably the richest of all organizations in our realm. The property is the property of "all" ... but there is a problem if you want to leave or are expelled. The same with divorce. How many people do l know who do not divorce because they cannot afford to live alone, or they have a common municipal flat? There is a moral question... but the answer is made simple by some here. "Courtesy visits" are like the euphemism for the raid of one expelled CNT union, which was violent and took over their property in exchange for the space that they didn't give up. Or another form of eviction. At present, everybody has seen this and knows that critism can lead to expulsion and attempts to take over offices. Nobody actually knows how many people stay federated because they actually agree with all this and how many people stay because they have been in CNT 20, 30 or even 40 years and don't want to give up their name, identity or property. ln any case, we know what a key role the property plays for you, so we just hope that we don't keep hearing about more and more defederations accompanied by risk of eviction.

Personally, l am not in favor of cheating or not paying dues -which is a complaint l have against CNTE's majority faction actually. And questions of whether X, Y or Z union will be an appropriate member of the lWA in the future is a question for the lWA to decide, nobody else. Of course we know that all the arguments for and against the different defederations were documented in the CNT and we can take everything into account ourselves.

Of course l see that the CNT is not likely to let its unions who do not support leaving the lWA stay federated, which is also one solution that would at least preserve the idea of free association.

"Robot, l guess you are lucky to be in FAU, not CNT. One wonders how long a 3 person union without syndical activity would be tolerated elsewhere. Well, in CNT (or even in ZSP), you wouldn't even be allowed to join. But we will see the realities soon enough, No doubt some 3 people unions are more equal than others."

This is wrong, you can join to CNT, those 3 people will go to the more near Union and in your city or town will a "nucleo confederal" until they can be a Union of at least 15 members minimun.

Someday she will stop telling lies about CNT

According to the report of the CNT on the Extraordinary Congress of the USI held in Parma over the weekend of 9/10 April, the USI has something in common with the FAU; an organisation with one large affiliate dwarfing all others. In the case of FAU, this is the Berlin affiliate which, due to proportional representation, calls the shots and the rest will follow.

So the USI is basically the Milan affiliate with a collection of tiny affiliates attached. I don't know if USI also makes decisions based on proportional representation but it wouldn't surprise.

With all, I want to transmit a note, not exactly euphoric about the situation. Usi is an organization with very unequal development, it is generally sparse. The union in Milan represents an enormous percent of the total organization and the rest of the more than 30 unions are only small groups without syndical development in the majority.

This raises questions about the actual size of the USI. If the CNT describes the USI as "generally sparse" and "more than 30 unions are only small groups without syndical development" does this not undermine one of the central justifications for 're-founding' the IWA? It makes a mockery of their 'might is right' argument.

In their 5 April statement the CNT asserted "...a small group of sections, despite their scant presence in their own territories and total lack of orientation towards union activity, could impose their criteria upon the rest of the international".

In addition to the Extraordinary Congress of the USI, there was a meeting of the CNT, USI and FAU which mapped out the proposed schedule for the 're-founding' of the IWA. It was agreed that there would be a conference in June, participation in which will be limited to "the sections of the IWA that decide to join the process" and then a further conference in September in which "organizations outside the IWA that was agreed to invite" will participate.

For me, this demonstrates the centralised decsion-making process that has been going on in the CNT, USI and FAU. It cast serious doubt on the claim that the majority of individual members of IWA affiliates want the IWA to be re-founded. It appears that the decision-making process is confined to a select few.

I wonder which organisations outside the IWA will be involved? Any wobblies on libcom know anything about this? If the IWW is invited to participate, who decides to accept the invitation? Will the question be put to the members in union-wide referendum or is it up to the General Executive Board to decide?

It is also interesting to note the speed at which this decision-making process is moving; barely a week after the CNT makes it announcement to 're-found' the IWA, an Extraordinary Congress of the USI is held and agrees with CNT proposal. How is it that such important decisions are made so rapidly?

Lugius

This raises questions about the actual size of the USI. If the CNT describes the USI as "generally sparse" and "more than 30 unions are only small groups without syndical development" does this not undermine one of the central justifications for 're-founding' the IWA? It makes a mockery of their 'might is right' argument.

This is actually surprising, isn't it? The people who are trying to prove they're bigger than everyone else are actually the same people who are trying to prove that they are bigger than they really are. Common pattern.

Lugius

According to the report of the CNT on the Extraordinary Congress of the USI held in Parma over the weekend of 9/10 April, the USI has something in common with the FAU; an organisation with one large affiliate dwarfing all others. In the case of FAU, this is the Berlin affiliate which, due to proportional representation, calls the shots and the rest will follow.

Lugius, maybe you should just stop talking of things you do know little to nothing about. What you call “dwarfing all others“ by proportional representation in fact is that one of the unions within the federation (that roughly helds 1/3 of the total membership) on the last congress held 18 out of 85 votes. Sometimes the motions of that union are accepted, but quite often they aren't.

Even if a union within the FAU would have 75% of the membership they would have far less than half of the votes. Because our system of proportional voting is not linear but benefits the smaller unions. Just like the one CNT proposed for the IWA in the past. And I guess that on the 2016 congress the proportional representation of the Berlin union will be smaller than last year, because over the year many other unions had a substantial increase in membership as well.

I am not a number cruncher, but as you wanted want to talk about numbers - even if you would subtract the FAUs Berlin local from the membership, the rest would still be about 75% of the total membership of every IWA section accept for CNT-E, USI and FAU. That does not make us any better than others, but noone understands why two people sitting around a kirchen table in Oslo or three sitting around a kitchen table in Moscow should have as much decision making power in the IWA as people from a couple of dozen of villages, towns and cities. That's just unfair and against common sense. At least as long as we are not talking about a loose network or coordination that does not take decisions and does not try to impose them on their members. But the IWA claims to be something different from that.

EDIT -> Corrected a couple of misspellings

I am not a number cruncher, but as you wanted want to talk about numbers - even if you would subtract the FAUs Berlin local from the membership, the rest would still be about 75% of the total membership of every IWA section

The numbers talked about are the numbers of individuals. It is not I who talks about the numbers it is the CNT, USI, FAU who are positing the rights of individuals over the rights of sections.

The IWA is a federation of sections which are treated equally - all sections are equal and have one vote at IWA Congress. It was that way when the FAU joined was it not?

The CNT twice put a proposal for minimum numbers and proportional representation at the IWA Congress and twice it lost - that is the decision of IWA Congress.

CNT, USI and FAU are free to leave the IWA, no problem, they can have their proportional representation and the members can vote for their leaders and their leaders can claim a mandate.

But the idea that the CNT or any other section, alone or in company, can make decisions with regard to the IWA on the basis of decisions taken at the CNT (or any other) Congress demonstrates their contempt for the principle of equal decision making.

I put the question to you, robot; by what right or from what mandate does the CNT (or any other) presume to make decisions for the IWA?

noone understands why two people sitting around a kirchen table in Oslo or three sitting around a kitchen table in Moscow should have as much decision making power in the IWA as people from a couple of dozen of villages, towns and cities. That's just unfair and against common sense. At least as long as w

But that is precisely the arrangement that the FAU agreed to when joining IWA is it not?

Whether or not it is unfair or makes common sense is beside the point. The FAU and the CNT were more than happy to have the Norwegian section have a vote for quite some period of time. It seems that the CNT and the FAU were happy with one section, one vote as long as they were in agreement. The moment it doesn't suit, they want to changes the rules. This demonstrates their contempt for the IWA.

Robot, you haven't addressed the issue of the FAU in attendance at a meeting in Parma 9/10 April to organise the parallel international. Was the decision made by the FAU to attend this meeting given a mandate by the members of the FAU in accordance with the principle of proportional representation? Or was the decision made by the officers of the FAU alone?

Proportional representation is a thoroughly and wholly bourgeois notion that politicians use to represent the voters and claim a mandate. One section, one vote is a mechanism to restrain, disipate, attenuate and disperse excessive power and is what every section in the IWA signed on for when they joined.

noone understands why two people sitting around a kirchen table in Oslo or three sitting around a kitchen table in Moscow should have as much decision making power in the IWA as people from a couple of dozen of villages, towns and cities. That's just unfair and against common sense. At least as long as w

If it is such a problem, why not propose the disaffiliation of the offending section? Why posit the rights of individuals over those of unions? Why attempt to found a parallel international?

noone understands why two people sitting around a kirchen table in Oslo or three sitting around a kitchen table in Moscow should have as much decision making power in the IWA as people from a couple of dozen of villages, towns and cities. That's just unfair and against common sense. At least as long as w

A system of proportional voting based on an absolute number e.g. 100 that does not take into account the populations of the respective countries is grossly unfair to workers who live in countries with small populations.

The system of voting proposed by the CNT has nothing to do with common sense or justice and everything to do with power - a power the CNT has become habituated to, and are prepared to found a parallel international to maintain it.

You want to jump on and ride the tiger? Go ahead.

Listen, first to this Ragnar guy, l did not lie. What l meant is that 3 people cannot join as a union with voting rights. ln some lWA organizations. ln some organizations they can. To Lugius, l would be careful about arguing that Berlin has all the votes or things like that because obviously while it might have the majority of FAU membership, and the most votes, it does not in fact have the majority of votes - ie, it cannot decide alone. l know this is confusing. Whether or not it is the most influential or what not is an entirely different question.

But of course the worst inaccuracy here is Robot, who, in the tradition of the CNT trolls who have been writing notes to various organizations, makes interesting exaggerations. Everytime the arguments of these people include telling people that small organizations consist of 2 or 3 people. l have actually answered this question to people who received such nonsense. One of the members of the CNT actually claimed the whole lWA outside the Troika is 50 people - which of course the Australian comrades or Polish comrades or SF comrades (just to name ones that l know read here), know is the sort of exaggerated bullshit of a small group of people who have been trying to fuck others and sway people against certain sections. The Australians have got even some new affiliates since l visited, the SF and ZSP can well pass the Troika qualifications - although we see that USl thinks that all the 50 people Sections can also stay... how nice. lt seems they would only like to take voting rights away from Sections like PA, who always act in solidarity with everybody, pay their dues on time (unlike them) and participate in the work of things, making some valuable contributions.

l won't even comment the fact that plenty of times we have seen that larger organizations make decisions with only a couple of people around the table. ln fact, FAU likes to have relations with these types of organizations that officially have some provisions in their statutes where literally 2 people can take important decisions on behalf of many others. But again, l suppose that this is OK and even "natural" since that's what happens when you are big - you need executives or even to pay people.

We have our Congress in a few days, so maybe something official will be published after that. But based on our previous positions on all this nonsense, and the intense opposition this has raised. l am certain we will be staying with the Sections who have shown that they can work together with us and have been in regular solidarity. We are of course disgusted by this all but we hope that still we can manage to discuss some more positive proposals to actually help us all go forward and we will be submitting them as soon as they are ratified.

akai

Nokta, l have not supported anything here, so why are you saying l did? But to clarify my personal opinion, l support every union in the CNT which voted against this plan to split the lWA. Of course, my personal opinion is just that - a personal opinion. lt's the Congress which decides who is or is not in the lWA.

You're lying once more. Whoever reads this thread can check how you've clearly questioned legitimacy of last CNT Congress, taking stand for a minority that is fortunately out of the CNT. You don't respect what an IWA Section has already decided. You're the IWA Sec., so you're not supposed to question anything about sections' agreements. You talk a lot about statutes, but you're the first one who has exceeded your "authority" under a nickname on a public forum. No to mention one more time your linguistic juggling by making up a new term: "suspension". Or your meddling in FAU issues about motions for its last congress, amog other things said here.

akai

Robot, l guess you are lucky to be in FAU, not CNT. One wonders how long a 3 person union without syndical activity would be tolerated elsewhere. Well, in CNT (or even in ZSP), you wouldn't even be allowed to join. But we will see the realities soon enough, No doubt some 3 people unions are more equal than others.

As the comrade said, 3 people can indeed join the CNT as a "núcleo confederal" and have the right to vote in the local union assembly in which they are member. Until they don't get a minimum to form an union, they work together with their comrades. It's like a branch union. If you don't have, let's say, 25 teachers, you cannot have an education union, but teachers aren't deprived of their rights as CNT members. Practically all CNT "núcleos confederales" last years have become actual CNT local unions, and nobody was crying about this "injustice".

akai

Finally, there was an important reason why Bakunin was against inheritance. Now we can see how the situations break down. The CNTE inherited millions - money, buildings... This was passed down and made the CNT probably the richest of all organizations in our realm. The property is the property of "all" ... but there is a problem if you want to leave or are expelled. The same with divorce. How many people do l know who do not divorce because they cannot afford to live alone, or they have a common municipal flat? There is a moral question... but the answer is made simple by some here. "Courtesy visits" are like the euphemism for the raid of one expelled CNT union, which was violent and took over their property in exchange for the space that they didn't give up. Or another form of eviction. At present, everybody has seen this and knows that critism can lead to expulsion and attempts to take over offices. Nobody actually knows how many people stay federated because they actually agree with all this and how many people stay because they have been in CNT 20, 30 or even 40 years and don't want to give up their name, identity or property. ln any case, we know what a key role the property plays for you, so we just hope that we don't keep hearing about more and more defederations accompanied by risk of eviction.

Please, could you tell us openly which "eviction" you're talking about? Are you actually saying that a family or people were living in a CNT building and were evicted? False accusations are a nasty business...

What manipulations. l never questioned the legitimacy of the last CNT Congress, only pointed out that 1. some unions that are still in the CNT were not there (boycott) and 2) there was not overwhelming support for the proposal past. (Although of course you will just say "lies, lies" - so why bother.) This actually has nothing to do with any people defederated from CNT, but the ones still in it who do not share the opinions expressed in the official statement. Of course speaking here with you especially, one of the people working in the shadows to spread hate and orchestrate a split, is pointless.

What manipulations. l never questioned the legitimacy of the last CNT Congress, only pointed out.....

<-Manipulations start there

The boycott almost didn´t exist (I think just 3 or 4 unions followed it), even most of the unions that did not come to the congress said it wasn´t for the boycott, it was because they did not had enough free time in their working and private lifes. (not everybody can afford to travel 1000 Km and pay a hotel for 3 or 4 days)

And again, yes, the decisión was overwhelming (80% or something like that, I do not have the numbers here). It is true that there was a second decision to be taken, starting the process before or after IWA congress, slightly more than half said before the congress, that was not overwhelming.

Stop manipulating, as an IWA General Secretary your behavior is shameful, and it is one of the reasons why most of us are very upset.
You can keep calling us trolls because we say things that you dont want to hear, sorry, that is life, you are IWA General Secretary and your behavior is fully open to criticism.

With all regard to the negotiating proposals To tell you the truth I would even supporte CNT, if they are revolutionary syndicalists. But in practice I see no difference between the modern CNT, FAU or even SAC. They are all the usual peaceful trade unions, using for some Brent's reasons black and red flags but in practice they do the same. What's the point of these discussions? CNT doesn't want small sections interfered with a policy of large trade unions. They probably want to make steps in the direction of the Association with those groups of "anarcho-syndicalists" (but in practice trade unionists) who are close to them, perhaps with FAU or may be somebody else. This is logical.

akai, I don't understand what do you want them to do. They are ordinary trade unionists. 10 years ago i was saying who they are. If the ZSP wants to return to the Real revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism (ZZZ-ZSP), based on the practice of "Polish strike" (the occupation of the factory) and not going to court for complaints against the boss, why are you even in this discussion with CNT?

P.S. Opinion about syndicalism
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/prospects-anarchism-revolutionary-syndicalism-29042016

Lugius

If the IWW is invited to participate, who decides to accept the invitation? Will the question be put to the members in union-wide referendum or is it up to the General Executive Board to decide?

It depends on which body is contacted. If it's the European Regional Administration in the UK & Ireland, the Regional Organizing Committees in Germany/Austria, Iceland, Greece, Canada, or Australia, the branch in Norway, or the groups in Belgium, Lithuania, and Turkey or countless other countries, then any one of those would respond however they've devised their policies internally.

If they contact the General (i.e. International) Administration in Chicago, then the elected International Solidarity Commission of the IWW would respond and be responsible for sending a representative if they decide to.

If the (whole) IWW was to affiliate with the "new" IWA or any other body, it'd be put to the general referendum for the whole membership to vote on just like it was the last two time the IWW considered affiliation.

However, the IWW is not a national organization like the CNT, FAU, USI, or any other IWA affiliate, it's an international all its own, so I don't see why it'd be accepted as an affiliate organization, especially in Germany where the new IWA will already have a section.

I feel like a lot of these questions regarding the IWW and (any) IWA have been pretty thoroughly talked through on here so I don't see why the IWW's modus operandi is being pulled up as a red herring to discuss the IWA's apparent inability to sort out its internal conflicts.

drakeberkman

However, the IWW is not a national organization like the CNT, FAU, USI, or any other IWA affiliate, it's an international all its own, so I don't see why it'd be accepted as an affiliate organization, especially in Germany where the new IWA will already have a section.

You are right of course. With the current model of the IWA and if there will be a new international that is oriented on the structure of the IWA, the IWW probably won't be able to become a section (wether it wants or not).

But we shouldn't think that restricted, i.g. there could be a more formal cooperation with the IWW, better structured and fluid exchange of information and discussions etc. I even think we shouldn't stop with the work on an functioning anarchosyndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist international. At least for Europe we need a more broad international network of left base unions and above that a international network of community- and workplace-based, grassroot radical left and anarchist organizations (see: M31, Beyond Europe, Transnational Social Strike). The hostility against everything outside the IWA has made it difficult to work on new international projects and on strengthening our international links and deepening an open exchange of ideas, strategies and experiences.

nokta

The hostility against everything outside the IWA has made it difficult to work on new international projects and on strengthening our international links and deepening an open exchange of ideas, strategies and experiences.

Example: In 2002 the FAU was almost thrown out of the IWA for organizing the i02 conference in Germany. The conference was a meeting of rank and file members (not a delegate conference of organizations) of different anarchosyndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist organizations inside and outside the IWA. I think WSA collected similar hate for helping organizing i99.

Several things. First, neither l or my organization are against any organization because they are not in the lWA. l was a speaker at the 02 conference (although it was there l understood why some people in the lWA don't like those things). My union and l cooperated with many unions outside the lWA, have made solidarity actions, joint strikes with other unions in Poland. So this is really an exaggeration. lf FAU has ever been criticized by us, it's been for bad practices that go against the collective process in the lWA or undermine solidarity with the lWA Sections. Of course we have explained this many times, but there is not a lot of comprehension about it.

About the lWW, of course organizations like mine have done concrete solidarity work, organized pickets, participated in phone zaps and have written solidarity letters. Also we have received solidarity on several occasions.

But just since somebody was talking about the lWW joining the lWA or something like that, the ironic part of the discussion is that lWW allows national branches to form with 15 people. So, let's say that the lWW was part... it would mean that an existing lWA organization with say 40 people is not welcome, or is welcome as a Friend but without a voice, but an lWW affiliate with 15 people is more than welcome? There is something fishy about this all and actually, the fact that you affiliate new organizations with 15 people is one argument we have against changing the numbers to 100.

But actually, l don't think these people mind your 15 people organizations.

akai

But just since somebody was talking about the lWW joining the lWA or something like that, the ironic part of the discussion is that lWW allows national branches to form with 15 people. So, let's say that the lWW was part... it would mean that an existing lWA organization with say 40 people is not welcome, or is welcome as a Friend but without a voice, but an lWW affiliate with 15 people is more than welcome? There is something fishy about this all and actually, the fact that you affiliate new organizations with 15 people is one argument we have against changing the numbers to 100.

But actually, l don't think these people mind your 15 people organizations.

I just brought up how y'all're using the IWW as a red herring in your arguments about internal IWA matters and yet you continue to do it immediately afterward.

So what's the TL;dr on this thread?

Khawaga

So what's the TL;dr on this thread?

"The CNT is right - and so is the FAU and USI"

"No, the CNT is wrong and also corrupt and scheming"

"I'll attack your character personally!"

"Not if I attack yours first!"

Drake said: I just brought up how y'all're using the IWW as a red herring in your arguments about internal IWA matters and yet you continue to do it immediately afterward.

Sorry, l was not reading everything here exactly. But actually, this was not put up as a red herring issue at all.

l am sorry if you don't like that l mentioned the lWW, but that comment about 15 member organizations was something included in my organization's official viewpoint presented at the 2013 Congress of the lWA as one of about a dozen arguments we presented.

We are completely sick about repeating this point all the time and CNT's way of using coercion in this discussion.

Among our opinions on this topic was actually the point that the lWW is currently easier to enter than the lWA. That is because the lWW allows people to feel like they are part, even when they are just a handful of people trying to set up the wobs, they encourage training and people become wobblies when they have 15 members. l think this is a rather good thing that lWW encourages people to join and is seen as supportive.

We argued that, for new people, they might be more inclined to join lWW than lWA, because it might take a really long time to get 100 people and in the meanwhile, it is positive for them to join something.

So this was the context of that paragraph and we felt it was legitimate to talk about what other people do, to compare their policies. Also we mentioned that the Red and Black Coordination took in an organization with just 30 people, whereas its biggest member had 60,000. (That org is more than 30 now.) Somehow it does not seem to have caused them any problem.

Nota bene, l personally would not be inclined to have new 15 member organizations as lWA Sections, but my organization is against the numbers as criteria. We are interested in having stable organizations which are working to organize in the workplace or around work related conflicts. But now we have the situation where the last three organizations that became Friends or want to become Friends have 50 people or more and for them, they think they are not strong enough to be Sections. For me that's OK, but it just shows that people's self-perception is that they would like to be stronger to join the lWA as a Section, so l consider the question to be a lot of noise over nothing when it comes to the future member Sections. lt is not exactly like organizations are beating down the door to join, although l think we should be doing everything to change this situation. This scandal does nothing to help that and l am pretty much certain that some of those involved in the manufactoring of the split have done this because they don't want to be with smaller organizations. (People have said it openly to me more than once.)

Tomorrow we will discuss the question in more detail at our Congress, there is a motion to publish our positions openly. But that was the reason we mentioned lWW as a small part of our overall argumentation. And l would note that in some places in the lWA there are people who would not criticize your policies about joining but spend a lot of energy pushing the minimum membership issue in our federation, which has been divisive.

Notwithstanding all, CNT.

No matter what the international brand is, a group of 15 people is going to have a very hard time integrating themselves into the class struggle of their country. This is especially compounded when they are expected to put a lot of time, energy, and thought into the internal bureaucratic functioning of an international. It will tend to promote individuals who would rather focus on the internal bureaucracy than on integrating their organization into the class struggle of their country.

We have certainly seen this happen in the IWW, with the Uganda group being a prime example.

But, at least in theory, new national IWW groups are "organizing committees", ie they are supposed to be preparatory to something larger.

More importantly, there is no voting by national sections in the IWW. The General Convention has proportional representation by branches, and then there is a referendum which allows each individual member a vote. Thus there is no mechanism for a small group in Uganda to have an equal vote to all of the members in the US, Canada, UK, or Germany.

The IWW's international structure is haphazard in many ways and we are in the middle of a multi-year effort to streamline and rationalize it. I'm looking forward to seeing the final proposal of the committee which is working on that.

OliverTwister

a group of 15 people is going to have a very hard time integrating themselves into the class struggle of their country. .

Sometimes you have to start somewhere, right?

syndicalist

OliverTwister

a group of 15 people is going to have a very hard time integrating themselves into the class struggle of their country. .

Sometimes you have to start somewhere, right?

No doubt, and I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise.

I'm just wary of small organizations pretending to be big ones (when even our "big" organizations are incredibly tiny), and I'm wary of trending towards warring micro-sects.

I'm wary of ending up having three micro-sects in a country which distinguish themselves only by the "shibboleth" of which international brand they prefer (IWA, IWW, or Red/Black Coordination). This could then heighten tension between the larger international brands, or be seen as a proxy war. This has certainly happened enough among the 57 varieties of Trotskyist "international", and we should heed the warning.

I was nervous that this might end up happening in Greece, but it seems like at least two of the three small revolutionary unionist groups there have been collaborating closely, which is good to hear. The Greek situation in particular calls for unity among our miniscule forces.

Of course I'm kind of a syndicalist a la Kautsky.

I'm just wary of small organizations pretending to be big ones (when even our "big" organizations are incredibly tiny), and I'm wary of trending towards warring micro-sects.

Well, if one has their head on their shoulders, think modestly, build slowly and aim ahead as constructively as possible, this won't happen. If one thinks they either have a brand name or will knock down all doors with large pronouncements, well, that's a problem

I was nervous that this might end up happening in Greece, but it seems like at least two of the three small revolutionary unionist groups there have been collaborating closely, which is good to hear. The Greek situation in particular calls for unity among our miniscule forces.

Not everyone is going to agree on everything all the time. Perhaps not everyone wants to be in the same organization for a variety of reasons. For me, it's a question of how folks deal with their differences, how they try and coordinate when needed and how they do not have to have aggressive and negative attitudes those not in their organization.

Of course I'm kind of a syndicalist a la Kautsky

Lost me on that one, sorry. What might you mean?

EDIT--- I see that ref to Kausky was a link to an article
Which I still need to read beyond the first and
last paragraphs Cringe

We obviously need to start small where we have nothing.

And obviously sometimes disagreements are real, are substantial, and should not be ignored. But there can also be meaningful disagreements inside an organization, as long as the relationship to the class struggle is stronger than the sectarian tendency to prioritize one shibboleth or another.

I guess I'm just skeptical of some political tendencies whose priority is having representation in the highest number of countries possible, even if that just means 2 or 3 people who have a high level of formal agreement with some particular position. Modern Trotskyism is a great example of where this leads.

Of course I want to see revolutionary unions all around the world. But, as someone in the Southeastern US, I'm much more excited to confront the difficulties of building a presence in Alabama than Albania. Whereas I think there is a notable trend for some comrades in the US to be much more focused on and willing to invest more resources in Albania than Alabama.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion of what constitutes sectarian
I don't share the unitary view here in the US, never have
But have consistently expressed and showed solidarity with your organization
and have not engaged in sectarian attacks. So for me being sectarian is the exact opposite,
never showing solidarity and always attacking

When i heard akai is secretary of the IWA i knew there is a split on the horizon. Its 3rd organization i know of. good job

Yes of course l made the conflicts from 20 years ago and l also made the CNT start with these proposals before l was even in this federation. And l personally rigged the votes of all the member organizations who voted against them, twice, even the first time when l wasn't in the federation. Then l proceeded to purposely destroy everything and everybody and nobody was able to do anything because l decide everything, because the federation gave all the decision making power to a secretary.

lt really is surprising how moronic people can be. Even if l am a devil, l don't control how any organizations vote on this or that issue, not even my own. l also do not influence if any Sections thinks organizations are operative or not, or whether they prefer to federate in one way or another. That's a matter of their own politics.

l

augustynww

When i heard akai is secretary of the IWA i knew there is a split on the horizon. Its 3rd organization i know of. good job

I've known akai since she was a teenager. While we are very different people in terms of style and approach and often times opinion, it's really unfair to blame a majority of IWA problems solely on her. My own IWA history/experience goes back into the 1970s, and I can tell you there have been many disruptive people (including in previous secretariats) who helped to create a lead up to some of the issues now facing the IWA. The current IWA problems go back a long time, and some of the dissenting section's are as much at fault as some they criticize.

That said, it is my hope, and the hope of many, that the current issues ripping the one and only IWA apart can be worked out. Obviously with all internal battles, time can heal wounds if comrades are willing to find constructive solutions and work, in good faith, towards resolution ands implementation.

l don't think there is actually too much of a willingness to do this. Some of the things have been piling up for years with no action at all and l think the most typical reaction has been to put heads in the sand and just hope it would all blow over or at least never blow up. But it has been heading that way. To be perfectly honest, we probably could have indulged people a bit more with shit, kept our heads down and out of trouble, (although there was a lot done to provoke). lt would have just put this off a bit in time, not avoided it completely. Because it is simply a matter of differences of opinion that are growing wider and nobody has come up with any proposals about how to deal with this matter.

We had our Congress and we have constructive proposals on how to help encourage the development of the Sections and we think that, given the real circumstances, this is the most concrete thing that we could do to benefit our comrades. That said, we've been trying to get this work off the ground (ie syndical education and coordination in branches) for some years, there are already Congress decisions, but the most syndically oriented organizations do not participate in this. But we are going to stress this again and we feel that given the situation, we will get more mobilization from the other sections to get our shit together. Because most probably the time of those troika unions in the lWA is over so whether we function or not is going to depend on us.

Our Congress did not find any way to find a solution to these issues. We do not agree to disaffiliate any Section just because they are smaller than some numbers thoought up by the troika. We entered the lWA on the conditions and under the conditions set up in 1922. We entered not because we were any history geeks or have some high-flung ideas the revolution tomorrow, but because we agree with and have good cooperation and respect with sections from our region and we wanted to coordinate with other like-minded organizations on concrete matters. So there is no middle ground for us. They will not get our consent to through out the comrades from the other end of the Tatras or the other end of the earth.

Right now, instead of any discussion worth having, we have lots of bullshit... for example, assholes who claim that X group is 4 people or that people work for Putin or whatever. The level of such "debates" are so bad they are pathetic.

akai

Yes of course l made the conflicts from 20 years ago and l also made the CNT start with these proposals before l was even in this federation. And l personally rigged the votes of all the member organizations who voted against them, twice, even the first time when l wasn't in the federation. Then l proceeded to purposely destroy everything and everybody and nobody was able to do anything because l decide everything, because the federation gave all the decision making power to a secretary.
lt really is surprising how moronic people can be. Even if l am a devil, l don't control how any organizations vote on this or that issue, not even my own. l also do not influence if any Sections thinks organizations are operative or not, or whether they prefer to federate in one way or another. That's a matter of their own politics.
l

the fact is you and mr Ż were in the center of all those conflicts and splits. every time you generate some conflict or push existing one into major conflict and split. It happens over and over again.
also your excuses are the same every time

syndicalist

augustynww

When i heard akai is secretary of the IWA i knew there is a split on the horizon. Its 3rd organization i know of. good job

I've known akai since she was a teenager. While we are very different people in terms of style and approach and often times opinion, it's really unfair to blame a majority of IWA problems solely on her.

My own IWA history/experience goes back into the 1970s, and I can tell you there have been many disruptive people (including in previous secretariats) who helped to create a lead up to some of the issues now facing the IWA. The current IWA problems go back a long time, and some of the dissenting section's are as much at fault as some they criticize.

That said, it is my hope, and the hope of many, that the current issues ripping the one and only IWA apart can be worked out. Obviously with all internal battles, time can heal wounds if comrades are willing to find constructive solutions and work, in good faith, towards resolution ands implementation.

I'm not saying she's solely responsible for anything but she push those conflicts further like she did earlier.

Again you know shit of what you are talking about since these types of proposals to disenfranchise people are divisive and l have nothing to do with their generation since they proceed me. So stop trying to use this problem for personal attacks. These are ideological and organizational issues.

A new organization of AIT would only make sense if :

- there would be more than one member (=organization) possible in one country, as iwa statutes allowed before Reggio Emilia.

- the union strategy in every country would be free, that is the shop strategy is only the matter of workers of the respective workplace

As for these ideas, under the condition that member orgs agreed tactics, there are those who would support the first option. (Even me). But the second is more problematic. I mean, why would we want to have collaborationist unions? Just because they have people?

I am not up on what the current leader faction of CNT thinks on that topic but officially it still does not encourage works councils or liberados. Does it want to federate with such? I don't know, I only know that some in the troika faction don't mind and have strange practices internally. But I guess that this is up to that faction to decide. I doubt it would get much sympathy from the rest.

Finally a correction about the one union pet country policy. Actually this came from the CNT. The first time was in the 39s when Besnard talked to radical factions in Spain. Not only Besnard- some of the directions of CNT were generally unpopular in the IWA. I could say more about it another time. Then it was brought up as a topic and confirmed at the 1979 Congress, again by CNT which did not want any recognition of the first renovados movement (now CGT). And of course USI had a split and has always been against contacts with its parallel and also did not support having more than one per country last time this was discussed (2006).

Now there is a real question, especially with the situation in Spain, whether this all makes sense. My gut tells me that those people wouldn't mind this is some other countries just as long as Spain is theirs.

Fwiw,originally it was the CNT who promulgated the "no contact"
policy within the IWA. Basically as a way to freeze out the old renovados.
This was then extended to the Sac and anyone else who had relations or contact ( in any form) with the cgt. Then extended to Vignoles CNT split. I believe the one section aspect has long been on the books, so to speak.

The issue with Besnard is interesting I'll only give a little taste of some if this
During the revolution the IWA basically coordinated international solidarity with the CNT, with Besnard as gensecty. He was critical if the CNT governmental engagement. In retaliation for his, and others criticism, the CNT organized the SIA (international solidarity aid). It essentially froze out the IWA and critical sections in this important area.

I can not speak to the current IWA or CNT dynamics or lack thereof.
And I hope there can be a meaningful resolution between the sections
But it's important to remember that historically the CNT has carried it's views into the IWA, folks have gone along with them. And when, in the historical context, the Spanish comrades felt besieged with criticism they pulled the plug on the IWA in the key area of international solidarity. A

As one who walked many a picket line in support of the underground CNT, who has steadfastly stood by the CNT over the decades, I do hope cooler and more long term thinking heads will prevail. An effective IWA does not have to be a monolithic one, a direct image of oneself. That said, the place of an effective IWA, I would think, is to help comrades globally who
may not have the history and resources if those in other more anarchosyndicalistaly advanced lands.

On the issue of several sections per country, the statutes written by Rocker, Shapiro & alia haven’t been changed from 1922 to 2006.[Error in the date: 1922 to 1996! ; see post #374] Referring to Reggio Emilia, neither do I have the minutes.

The pattern of the CNT-Spain hegemony has been a discussion for decades and there are enough libcom-threads regarding to that matter.

The dominance of Spanish CNT was already an accusation when the rule was one section – one vote. What will be if IWA should be ruled under proportional vote, whatever present or future faction leeds? And this, notwithstanding the fact that for the far greater part of its history the – mythical - CNT has worked and lived with the ‘one union one vote’ principle.

The question about this innovating initiative (the “coup de theatre” that started the thread) is:
To what end? Help us to conquer back that hegemony we lost? The majority we gambled away…
! Ay que politiqueo ! Either change things from inside or leave…

Once again, I’m frankly startled about this project of a parallel international from inside IWA.
At this point, the proposal appears a very short-sighted reaction driven by some personal experiences and recent events, nothing else. It’s a rather narrow concept of international policy.

As an anarchist rather than an anarcho this or that, I have to say I've always found the British section of the IWA/IWMA to be like a closed shop that people are expected to either jump through hoops to join, or of course know someone, probably family.

As a committed trade union member, a member of many unions over the years, I can tell you I've always been welcomed by other trade union members wherever I have found myself, anywhere in the world.

I have never had that kind of welcome from any IWA member in Britain, never!

To the second issue: I disagree about reducing the idea of open union tactics to union collaborationism. Everyone here knows that the legal, social, economic and cultural facts in different places of the planet aren’t the same. To define a single strategy with a clear independence from state and capital (or a “non-collaborationist” one) is already a large debate, even more if you try to define one line of workplace tactics in one organization.

How should that work in several organizations in different countries? To me it is not practical and the answer can’t seriously be to keep the international union small and monolithic.

Julio 27, OK, somewhere you have the history mixed up but it is not important. l have the minutes of Reggio Emilia (as does everybody in the lWA - since l put it in the database years ago). There was actually no discussion of the issue then. The written ammendment of the statutes was adopted in 1996 (point XlV) although it was agreed some time before.

That's not too important, but that's how it was. :-)

As for the union tactics, it is a discussion. Obviously there is a lot of room to discuss and workplace unions could do different things. However, there is always some point when a union can be vertical and collaborationist and l don't think it is our goal to practice this.

We could talk about it a long time, because there are lots of possibilities. lt is not a theorectical discussion though - it is about the practice in the workplace. There are reasons why we don't have supervisors in the union, or are not in work councils or the management board, but these reasons are explained by how this looks in practice and what has happened in other unions.

lt is quite obvious that a libertarian union might have a different situation and have to function differently, but it is also quite obvious that for decades there have been unions which have turned much more mainstream due to their tactical choices. This latter is what we would like to avoid.

About what Syndicalist said, l agree with this. l also have stood on many picket lines in solidarity. l was young when the CNT came back after Franco's death, but l donated my lunch money, which turns out to have been pretty naive as l needed the cash much more than they did. But you know, one can read a lot of books and get carried away by the impression.

The CNT's problems with lWA, or maybe we should say the lWA problems with CNT, were not only during the 30s. Syndicalist was correct with SlL - and there were a number of other issues. One of the Congress proposals of CNT in 1937 was that only legal organizations should be in lWA - which is amazing considering that the CNT was not legal soon thereafter. But this was just one of the methods they had to try and marginalize or not include the voice of some of the sections. That Congress was very irregular and voices were actually excluded. The next Congress of the lWA just overturned that Congress.

The next hard attack on lWA came at the end of the 70s - beginning of 80s when the renovados wanted to do something else. Of course the renovados also had a heavy Marxist, Trotskyist and even police infiltration, although the latter was not really involved with international issues.

Taking a longer-term view of it all, the CNT has been unstable. lt has numerous splits and split-off factions. lt's attitude towards the lWA changes every so often, in a rather opportunistic way. Also, in the longer term, there have been issues about how the CNT views authoritarian communist organizations and the influence those people have had in the organization. First, they might have joined the Comintern had Rocker not been able to convince their delegate that the revolution was not as it seemed in Russia. Despite this, issues continued for years. One can read this: http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/pk0q0r Just an example. Just to say, there has been a tradition of criticism and debate but usually there was somebody to support the CNT because it was big and was doing important things. ln a certain sense, the current derive is just part of a historical cycle. And some of the same parties that supported its last renovacion in the 80s are supporting the current one.

akai

As for these ideas, under the condition that member orgs agreed tactics, there are those who would support the first option. (Even me). But the second is more problematic. I mean, why would we want to have collaborationist unions? Just because they have people?

Only you speak about collaborationist, CNT doesn't want it.

akai

I am not up on what the current leader faction of CNT thinks on that topic but officially it still does not encourage works councils or liberados. Does it want to federate with such? I don't know, I only know that some in the troika faction don't mind and have strange practices internally. But I guess that this is up to that faction to decide. I doubt it would get much sympathy from the rest.

In the moment that I see someone speak about factions in CNT i understand that or doesn't know any thing about CNT or wants to create a blurry image of CNT. the varaiety of people and of points of view in CNT is very big, and this simplification you make only answer to some interest of some people. example is to see whats happen with the unions that left CNT or where expelled. lots of them doesn't speak between them.

what you call "But I guess that this is up to that faction to decide" again is not what faction decided is what all the members of CNT decided in their assemblies

Again you came back to nice words, "Trioka" "Trols" etc. is interesting to see how the same events depending who make them you change how you speak about them. For example if CNT take a decision about something and you dont like it, fast you speak about how many unions toke the decision or that there are unions that doesn't agree with it, but when for example we speak about IWA agreements all this disappear and the if some one make a critic about it, you call him Troika troll or whatever. If CNT or USI or whoever use IWA name in a way you dont like very fast you make a public statement, in the last months we have 3 examples, but when does it someone that you like, there is no statement or any nothing. For example there is a group of unions that are using the IWA name with out being part of IWA and look like is ok for you (you recieve a mail from them), also is the example of the group of cadiz that toke part in IWA congress. I remind you that in the past yo send mails to unions that are not part of IWA to stop using the name of the International even they were asking to be part of it.

Of course you are not responsible of anything as you explain before, things happen around you because all the rest are very bad, is all by chance.

However, the main things that tired the militants in Spain is to see how some people can put the nose in sections issues, manipulate, attack the autonomy of sections, make political trials to other sections, and a long etc. of things that were explained in the forum. And was very important what had happened with FAU. The fact that the secretary put a generic point for congress about FAU, then not being an agreement on suspension in the AIT the secretary suspend FAU, then use the generic point about FAU to take a decision about the suspension. The CNT militant could not understand how a secretary can put a point like this to IWA congress when are the sections the ones that make the proposals and more in something so important like this. can´t understand how is possible to invent something that doesn't exist in IWA (suspension), and sock the fact that IWA secretary is held by a section that is directly affected in all this. nearly any body could understand all this, even they think that FAU didn't act in a good way, we can speak that 99% of CNT members saw it as a totally bureaucratic way of acting that is totally out of anarchosindicalist aims. the fact that later in the congress all this was approve doesn't change any thing, a wrong way of acting approve doesn't became it right, only is accepted. the same happens when some people attacks CNT speaking about the ex general secretary, i already spoke about it, how is acting CNT about the issue and how acted IWA.

even CNT members doesn't see logical 1 section 1 vote in the actual situation (sections of 10 or 15 people compare with other of hundreds or thousands) i don´t think so their will have any problem if is not approve the proposal. I explained before, the fact that CNT insist about this is only because thinks in that way, not because wants to obligate to anybody to do what ever CNT wants. if a person makes a proposal to his union and his union approve it and then CNT approve it this proposal will be make to the IWA congress, stop to see CNT as a uniform thing, there is thousands of people in it, is not that CNT is obsess with voting, is that someone make a proposal and it is approve, that is all.

A big majority of CNT members join the unions the last 10 years, all this past fights are not their issues and doesn't want to know about it, wants to look ahead.

akai

And some of the same parties that supported its last renovacion in the 80s are supporting the current one.

Who?

Melenas, when l talk about the faction that needs to decides about tactics and who they want to federate, l am talking about the unions who want to split the lWA. Maybe you don't want to federate with collaborationists and that is good news. Let's see who FAU wants to go with.

As for the situation with them, it was explained completely enough. Maybe if some people in CNT don't understand what mandate CNT pushed in the lWA and gave to the Secretariat, it means they are poorly informed. Of course your Secretary (the thief) calling me a liar and the other one (his accomplice) trying to stop one comrade from reviewing the subject was also very telling.

You should stop with bullshit, like saying l invited a union to the Congress when they showed up and none of your delegates and observers (around 40 people) noticed it until later. l had nothing to do with the credentials at the Congress, it was the job of the Commission. About writing to people to stop using the name lWA, many Sections (including your own) did it for the USl-Roma, because USl asked us to. l don't recall writing to anybody else about that matter, although of course there were some people who once showed up out of nowhere and called themselves lWA. But that was before my time and the then Secretariat wrote to them.

And guess what - this is just stupid to discuss here on an open forum. lf you want to discuss how your expelled people snuck into the lWA Congress, you can have your people write to the lWA and not throw accusations here. But the issue was handled at the Congress, the credentials people were fooled or not warned about this and actually apologized for it.

akai

As for the situation with them, it was explained completely enough. Maybe if some people in CNT don't understand what mandate CNT pushed in the lWA and gave to the Secretariat, it means they are poorly informed. Of course your Secretary (the thief) calling me a liar and the other one (his accomplice) trying to stop one comrade from reviewing the subject was also very telling.

The agreement was to expel not to suspense, in the moment that IWA take the decision that only a congress can expel a section (CNT vote in favor of this) the secretary could not expel FAU, and suspense doesn't exist. what doesn't understand the union was how was managed the situation, not even the unions that were agree that FAU didn't act according with the IWA agreements were totally against in the procedure with FAU.

Please call him ex-secretary and do not forget that is as thief as rata, with the difference that one is not eny more member of IWA and the other one yes.

akai

You should stop with bullshit, like saying l invited a union to the Congress when they showed up and none of your delegates and observers (around 40 people) noticed it until later. l had nothing to do with the credentials at the Congress, it was the job of the Commission. About writing to people to stop using the name lWA, many Sections (including your own) did it for the USl-Roma, because USl asked us to. l don't recall writing to anybody else about that matter, although of course there were some people who once showed up out of nowhere and called themselves lWA. But that was before my time and the then Secretariat wrote to them.

You should learn to read or stop to manipulate, please tell me where i said that you invite them?

Syndicalist : just about another “important detail of history”. It is my understanding that the no contact policy already existed towards SAC in the late 70s, because since they left the international (50s), they systematically tried to establish contacts inside IWA wherever there was internal fight in those times; and even though this attitude has somewhat altered since. But for sure, the CNT split and crisis (renovada, later CGT) has exacerbated things with SAC and reinforced the “no contact” position inside IWA.

augustynww

When i heard akai is secretary of the IWA i knew there is a split on the horizon. Its 3rd organization i know of. good job

We've said it before and we'll say it again: this kind of personal abuse is completely unacceptable, and if you continue it you will be banned.

Now, at the mornings out of the way I have a practical question about the future.

It looks like the "troika" is going to approve the CNT proposal and go ahead with it. So that being the case is the best option for the rest of the IWA to:
- basically split the International, and have a long fight about who is the "real" IWA or
- to join the "refounded" international, and have some sections lose votes

I can understand why some would not want to do the second. However, how important really are any of the votes at international congress? I would have thought that the most important stuff is just decided on a day-to-day basis at a local union level.

So while I think that the CNT proposal is unfortunate (as opposed to trying to work out a compromise as I have mentioned earlier), would it really be that bad? I don't follow the decisions of the IWA that closely, but the ones I'm aware of seem to mostly be pretty pointless declarations about this or that, or downright counter-productive bureaucratic rules like noncontact with rivals.

Steven, you have commented and intervened a lot of this thread. You certainly have the freedom to speak and ask questions (although you interfere with others' rights in a selective and uneven way).
l personally think that the most important thing is working and doing things together and, if we really are about the same thing, the issue of everybody having equal votes should not matter. lt is actually the CNT which made the vote issue so divisive, not anybody else. (Although now they are supported by two others.)

l don't know why you are trying to play some sort of role here. Basically, it is up for the Sections to discuss what they want to do and a few comments from outsiders on a forum that almost nobody in the lWA participates in maybe only are read and considered by a few people. But OK, if you want to talk to the individuals here, they can give you an opinion.

l can refer to our Section's official position though. Parts are published oepnly here:
http://zsp.net.pl/position-x-congress-zsp-sections-and-friends-lwa
Parts will only go to the lWA.

So we will definitely not participate in this or recognize any legitimacy to it, unless it is recognized by the official lWA Congress.

Other Sections are free to do what they choose, but l sincerely doubt that most of them would want to go there.

Further, your suggestion shows that you give legitimacy to this process, which is another huge disappointment. lf organizations have federative responsibilites like paying dues, they can't spend years on and off boycotting to exert political pressure. ln most serious organizations, these people would have already been out, without any discussion for only that reason. lt is extremely troubling that anybody thinks that some organizations can do what they want just because they are bigger and suggest to others they should just go along with that. This is pretty much bullshit and it's quite easy to see where this is going.

Answer: For us, yes, it would really be that bad to overturn the decisions of two Congresses taken by the overwhelming majority of participant Sections because just some decided. lt is basically giving unstatutory veto power to a few members Sections. This is a deplorable question in my opinion. But stuff here never ceases to amaze or shock me.

We joined the lWA, under the traditonal Statutes. Not the lMF where the ones with the most money and power decide.

The international work will go on without the split faction as far as we are concerned, because all the solidarity comes from the others.

Steven wrote:

It looks like the "troika" is going to approve the CNT proposal and go ahead with it. So that being the case is the best option for the rest of the IWA to:
- basically split the International, and have a long fight about who is the "real" IWA or
- to join the "refounded" international, and have some sections lose votes

It is obvious that the 'Troika' has already left the IWA, which is their right and consistent with the principle of free association. This is clear from the report of the CNT on the USI plenary where the CNT and the FAU were in attendance (See post #335). So those that remain in the IWA are not the 'rest of the IWA', they are the IWA.

Your suggestion to join the 'refounded' IWA means accepting and acknowledging the CNT has ownership of the IWA, that is, it sees itself not as some constituent part of the IWA but as a separate organisation over and above the IWA. Their claim that this is what the 'majority of people in the IWA' is based on the entirely false premise that the IWA is a type of general membership organisation which it is not; it is a federation of sections.

You seem to be suggesting that the 'rest of the IWA' is splitting the international. On the contrary, it is the 'troika' that is leaving the IWA to found an international that they presume they have the right to do so as 're-founding the IWA'. By what right or justification? I've put this question before and it remains unanswered precisely because there is no legitimacy to the CNT's claim.

The split is not in the IWA, the split is in the CNT and due to its power and influence afforded to it by its size, this split inside the CNT is spilling out all over the IWA.

I can understand why some would not want to do the second. However, how important really are any of the votes at international congress? I would have thought that the most important stuff is just decided on a day-to-day basis at a local union level.

If important stuff is decided at a local level is more important than votes at an international congress, then why have an international congress in the first place? Why bother with international organisation? What if I told you that some issues at the local union level involve disputes with transnational corporations? How useful would it be to be organised internationally?

So while I think that the CNT proposal is unfortunate (as opposed to trying to work out a compromise as I have mentioned earlier), would it really be that bad?

It depends. If the CNT proposal means that they assert their claim over the IWA by means of legal action in the courts (as opposed to the decisions of the IWA Congress), then I'd suggest that's a bad thing particularly from the point of view of opposing the interference of the State in workers organisation. i.e. it's a bad thing from an anarchist point of view and brings into question the CNT's claim to be practitioners of the methods of anarcho-syndicalism.

However, if the CNT proposal means the creation of a new international known by whatever name they so choose...Beauty! Good on 'em! For it will mean that, at last, the IWA will be free of all the deleterious effects of the interminable shitfighting that has been going on in the CNT for decades. It will be no longer dominated by a section that has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the IWA and its constituent sections.

It will provide a once-in-a-lifetime oppoprtunity to expand the IWA beyond the narrow confines of Western Europe, something that the CNT has done everything to stymie and thwart because they perceive it (correctly) as a threat to their hegemonic power. It will mean that the IWA will be no longer captive to the consequences of changes in the CNT leadership. It means that the IWA will now have an opportunity for a bottom-up reappraisal and reevaluation of every aspect of the IWA practices with a view to develop a sustainable strategy to expand the IWA right across the globe. It also means that there is now an opportunity to build new sections in Spain, Italy and Germany and any other place where the IWA is not.

and have a long fight about who is the "real" IWA or

There are billions of workers around the world outside the Francophonie, Hispanidad and Anglosphere who won't give a shit, I suspect. The only people who will care whether the 'real' IWA is real or not will be the comparatively tiny number of those who inhabit the internet, pens poised, ready to spill much ink arriving at judgements about what is correct, valuable and worthy.

The CNT has been in a slow and steady decline since 1979. Let the USI and the FAU and any other organisation, currently in the IWA or not, join them if they so wish. Let them deal with the debilitating effects of CNT shitfighting and mood swings that occur with monotonous regularity. I wish them luck as they will need plenty of it.

Basically a good summary.

But since we know that both CNT and USl representatives have told FAU that they would not support them in the lWA if they cooperated with their splits, but don't give a shit what FAU might do elsewhere, anybody who joins them should also expect to soon learn what we did. That these people expect almost a blind obiedience and loyalty to their own interests, but will quickly take a shit on everybody else.

ln the meanwhile, instead of any discussion, we have elsewhere the USl gatekeepers trying to convince people we have no workers, no experience, etc., as a sort of smear campaign, lt's been going on a long time and those pushing the split have been at this for a while, long before any FAU situation, etc. Given all this, it is time to reassess the history a bit and question why we put so much belief in what they said. People had been warning us for years and now it turns out certain people are not reliable.

Personally l am looking forward to the day we don't have to deal with this crap anymore and can just go about our business. This is the chance to free ourselves from living in the shadows of the past and creating a new future.

Well, right, this is Akai's and Żaczek high argumentation level

well, as a CNT member, I tell you both you can come whenever you want to Spain and just try

What Akai and Żaczek doesn´t understand, because maybe their organization doesn´t work like this, is that the Confederal committee is just doing what we, the members, are ordering them to do. Our General Secretary, Martín Paradero, is just following our orders, this has nothing to do with him, it was us, the members, that horizontally took those decisions.
It is very easy to blame Martin Paradero, but if you want somebody to blame, you should blame the entire CNT (or at least the 80% of it that voted yes).
You should remove that authoritarian way of thinking. I invite you to read some of the classics of anarchosyndicalism & anarchism like Rocker or Malatesta, maybe you will learn how we, the anarchist, get organized and how our decissions are taken.

Maybe in ZSP you have a "leader" and all others follow orders, but CNT is a radical democratic anarchosyndicalist organization.

Yepa wrote:

Our General Secretary, Martín Paradero, is just following our orders, this has nothing to do with him, it was us, the members, that horizontally took those decisions.

So was it you who ordered the General Secretary to trademark the name IWA?

Is seeking property rights by legal action in the courts reflective of a "radical democratic anarchosyndicalist organization"?

So you are responsible for the Lion of Alhambra?

Yes, that's right. It is not individuals who are the problem, it is the organisations that put them there.

I agree with you , Yepa, the CNT betrayed the principles of anarcho-syndicalism some time ago. The CNT are responsible for all the IWA secretariats they put forward (more than any other section). Including the Lion of Alhambra who falsely accused the ASF of participating in parallelo activity without producing one scintilla of evidence, who deliberately withheld relevant information from IWA Plenary in Toulouse in 1999 in an effort to have the ASF status changed to 'friends' on an entirely entirely false and manufactured premise for the purpose of rigging the vote at IWA Congress. The CNT did precisely the same injustice to our comrades in America, the WSA. The CNT owes the ASF and the WSA an apology for its contemptible behaviour toward them. A clear demonstration of the CNT's attitude to sections that have the misfortune to lay outside the holy land of Western Europe.

Why? Because it can. Its great size affords it this power, But it's not the size of the dog in the fight that wins, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

About withholding information to the membership, there is also a report from ZSP which was not sent to the rank and file membership. l guess that the general membership also ordered their Secretariat to do that.

Some games look like they are very old.

Other things l won't comment but think there are two ways forward: 1. work to always have clearer and more transparent procedures 2. stop letting CNT bend the procedures.

We see that the second is still a huge problem. For example, sending proposals to the Plenary 36 hours before it started and insisting people vote on it, submitting anti-statutory proposals to Congress (and getting angry that nobody voted for them), not paying dues, etc. etc. And now this stupid renovation, the most anti-statutory of all.

But in this all, l would have to say that the CNT is not guilty by itself. Lots of people sat by and didn't manage to propose anything more transparent and, in fact, we see that it was easy to do. lt turns out to be a lot more difficult to get people to comply, but that's another issue. We all agreed to a more transparent way of handling dues problems and making a procedure for reductions, if needed, but we see who were the first to go around this and as it turns out, it is enough to make a fuss, throw a fit and disrupt the Congress to avoid any procedure. That's what happens if you are a big Section - the rules don't have to apply to you.

lnstead of talking about this, which l consider to be a major problem, there is pressure to shut up because the big Sections cannot be questions or asked to comply with procedures. lt's at the root of the problem.

Agree with parts of it.
Sad as it sounds, the actual IWA was "created" as a mirror of CNT in 90s. An inefective, paranoid organization, more worried about what others are doing than in do things rightly.
Nowadays CNT militants can only say sorry. Sorry for all those years of contagious paranoia, for all the internal problems. I can say some excuses, as before Eliseo nobody actually readed all that papers that came from IWA, and just few militants took decissions.. but they would be just excuses.
I entered CNT in the late 90s, we owe the generation of 80s & 90s a lot, when all radical left-wing organizations disapeared in Spain, CNT still exist. The CNT-CGT split left us very weak, and with the constant need of our fight for survival. We coun´t afford to let CGT win and transform Spanish anarchosyndicalim in part of the state system. They succeed, CNT succeed, but for a price, just a handfull of militants left, a CNT in constant "internal war"... when I entered CNT just the most stuborn militants survived, most of them totally burned out.... but more than 20 years has passed, new militants are not seeing anymore CGT as the main enemy, they just see them as "one more mainstream union, part of all this crapy system", but with no special hard feelings agains them, no diferent than CCOO or UGT. And better I don´t talk about labour conflics, about conflicts at workplaces, in a month todays CNT has more conflicts that 80s & 90s CNT in 25 years, far, far, far more.
The fact was that we couldn´t grow with that mood, we couldn´t advance, nobody wants to enter an organization were there is no place for joy and friendship, for comrades, just for hate and enemies.

Our fight for a new IWA (or whatever the new name) is actually our fight with our own ghosts.It is a fight to get back that revolutionary impulse that allways was part of CNT, we want to be the PEOPLE again, so we should stop treating the people as malipulated idiots.

Yepa, good luck with your project. Leave the IWA, keep your dignity and let all live and grow in whatever ways they want. That would be the plain and simple story with all the sides happy.

But one just wonders why the CNT chooses rather the option of hijacking the IWA and usurping a power it has no moral or statutory right to exert, instead of just leaving the IWA and starting a new project?

Anyway, you obviously wish to build the new project on a rotten, dishonest and power-hungry soil. Let's see how it all turns out for you...

But one just wonders why the CNT chooses rather the option of hijacking the IWA and usurping a power it has no moral or statutory right to exert, instead of just leaving the IWA and starting a new project?

Anyway, you obviously wish to build the new project on a rotten, dishonest and power-hungry soil. Let's see how it all turns out for you...

I honestly think all that will change after the first conference, because as you said, we can not build a new project with that soil. My personnal opinion is that the wrong name has been choosen "refundation of IWA", and I almost sure that at the end of the day that will change...

It is a waste of time to enter a fight for IWA name, we will see what happens.

Yepa, you are doing a fantastic job loving people. The CNT statement has just spread the love from your country to the whole world. But guess what? The IWA was not created as a mirror of the CNT. Maybe there were some sycophants, but people have their own history and traditions. Neither the world or the confederation revolves around you.

Good luck and leave us out of your plans cause we think you guys have done the most to make our members sick of you.

Maybe if you had discussed more the situation could have evolved differently but not with the attitude that you created this or that or that everybody us a loser.

please spread this love elsewhere cause I don't wanna get syf.

Creating a mess and then walking away from it doesn't clean it up.

If anybody knows what could be a solution for the main questions then I am all ears. But serious ones, not like Steven. Besides this, there should be some will. Or else the best solution is doing ones one thing. Staying in a bad situation helps nobody.

yepa

My personnal opinion is that the wrong name has been choosen "refundation of IWA"

Ok, heard and agreed. That’s the first step. The second would be to bring into question: to whom are you speaking? To those inside and outside IWA says the text, very well:

- Inside IWA, friends of the CNT : USI, FAU + ???
- Outside IWA : Declared enemies of IWA : SAC, CGT, CNTF
- Neutral to IWA : IWW
- Ignorant of IWA : some interesting class war unions outside Europe + US

Do you really thought it through before entering the international arena? Do you think addressing to all those people, inside and outside, on a proportional vote basis and just in order to empower you again will be appealing for anybody?

Salud y suerte (good luck)

Akai “you have the history mixed up but it is not important.”

1996, not 2006, correct. About mixing history up, generally spoken, I don’t think so. You could say I’m shortcutting things and I could live with that. But I do agree that this “truly important historical issue” may be discussed at another moment, the main theme being the actual proposal about a so-called re-foundation of IWA.

And starting from the “re-foundation” text here I was just trying to think it through before I began to comment it. That’s why I brought up these questions of union tactics, of proportional vote and multiple sections in one country (including changes of IWA-statutes).

“as does everybody in the lWA - since l put it in the database years ago”

Errr – that’s exactly the point and the problem. :-) Anyway, the hint with Pierre Besnard is interesting, and: thanks, syndicalist, for the “little” more details!

Wow, as a complete outsider (I'm a commie not an anarchist) is this another epic internal anarchist meltdown?

If Schmidt has done his thing to discredit the platformist tendency in anarchism, then is this discrediting anarcho-syndicalism? Certainly puts me off. Seems to have a lot of the same problems, such as the personal invective on both sides (but at least, thankfully, not the racism and fascism this time around!)

So are there others like me? There seems to be a bit of an image problem here at the least. Also, to link to the broader class struggle, are perhaps these internal disputes in the European anarcho-syndicalist milieu related to the decline of European protest and class struggle since the wave of struggle around the GFC and the austerity cuts that brought, or this is too reductionist? (I assume that there is a general decline in Europe?)

Finn MacLean “Also, to link to the broader class struggle, are perhaps these internal disputes in the European anarcho-syndicalist milieu related to the decline of European protest and class struggle[…]?”

Good idea but I don’t think so. Class struggles and social protest are regaining in Europe in this moment (Spain, Greece, France...). Rather could it be that whenever some anarcho-syndicalist group in some place has a little dynamic, they soon tend to think they have “the” recipe and revolution’s coming soon… Btw it’s not exclusive to libertarians.

akai

Basically a good summary.

But since we know that both CNT and USl representatives have told FAU that they would not support them in the lWA if they cooperated with their splits, but don't give a shit what FAU might do elsewhere, anybody who joins them should also expect to soon learn what we did. That these people expect almost a blind obiedience and loyalty to their own interests, but will quickly take a shit on everybody else.

And here it again Akai with her half information. I already answer to you about it, but, of course, you continue with your campaign. In a discussion about the agreements of CNT that change some positions of the past, you insist to speak about the positions of the past to attack to CNT knowing that CNT changed it.

Autonomy, openness, and dynamism

We believe that it is urgent to reverse the exclusionary dynamics of the IWA and the politics of internal control between the sections and to work towards much more open and flexible politics. Basing ourselves always in direct action as our means of struggle, we must give ourselves the capacity to develop a wide range of international contacts with workers organized in different sectors and struggles, which can only result in strengthening our capacity for the international work of anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary unionism.

While it is often important to have more tightly focused international campaigns limited to organizations in the International, it is essential to also have the ability to perform open campaigns at the international level, which can engage with a diversity of organizations and workers’ initiatives. This can only help strengthen the IWA.

The sections have the autonomy to have temporary relationships in the course of their labor conflicts.

In international work we should always use the name of the Chapter next to the acronym for the International (IWA-AIT). In this way we can limit the self-interested use of a section’s name by outside groups. Any kind of external contact will be made with good faith and maximum transparency.

I don´t know how many of your lies I had to correct to you till now. however, the only thing you do is to show to everybody the kind of person you are.

Continue with your business.

The CNT and the IWMA/IWA are two seperate organisations. For a start the IWMA was created before the CNT and for different reasons that had nothing to do with revolutionary unionism. -

As an anarchist and someone who has studied our history I am with the CNT/FAI, and continue to be with the organised working class where and however we find themselves organising, within recognised unions or new unions created by us. What I'm not interested in is a little group, an umbrella group, who act like they should be in control.

Sleeper, I see you are not informed. There is no such thing ad CNT/FAI - there is CNT and FAI. Also I think you are really confused about the anarchist issue. FAI is an anarchist federation. CNT has some anarchists in it.

Also the understanding of CNT and IWA is incorrect. IWA is a federation which that organization was part of, along with others. There is no umbrella group.

Melenas, I am referring to April 24, 2015, which is not really "the past". And of course since your delegates only do what "the people" tell them, we all have to assume that this was agreed by the rank and file of the CNT.

Again, this all was sent to the lWA Sections and people can read it themselves, provided they are not blocked access in anyway by anybody.

Finn, is this discrediting anarcho-syndicalism? Yes and no. Certainly, I agree with you - this stuff is off-putting, but, frankly, it was intended to put people off the federation. And nobody likes a he-said, she-said discussion, especially when they have no idea.

For me, and I suppose being in one of those orgs so i have a different point of view, there is a question of whether gaining more and more members always has to be a deradicalizing experience. There are many historic examples to work on. We always like to think though that the determining factor is the people and the organizational culture, not the idea. Although i know many people who would argue that the idea is flawed and such turns are inevitable.

Bad turns, bad examples or organizations gone wrong, in my opinion, are not enough to discredit a wider idea - unless there is only one org representing an idea. In order to discredit an idea, I think one would have to argue that in most cases, the idea leads to something opposite than what it intends.

If we go back to the Schmidt case, we certainly cannot say the idea of one individual condemns the whole idea. Of course if everybody or an overwhelming majority had the same crap views, we could see a pattern.

I think we can question whether anarchists or libertarian people always handle conflict, tough situations, etc. in the correct way. I would argue that it is very different. But this is certainly an important thing. In some ways, this shows a commitment to our ideas.

If you would venture to think that we are handling our conflict in a wrong way, I would agree with you here. There are many reasons, many mistakes, a lot of blame we can put - but there is a 20-year old situation and for some, it has been festering. And also the situation of the last years about "renovating". On the other hand, prior to this, we can only see that the lWA is improving its activity and organization. These things are also connected.

We can assess internally and reflect and this is really necessary. I hope it will clarify issues, but suppose it has already degraded to the blame game. Also, these moves by the CNT have been the last straw for some and makes it very hard to impossible to come to any common position.

The anarchist movement? It has been filled with failures, mistakes and so on. Part of life. Some would say that this discredits our idea totally, but I don't think so. l know some who would also argue that what happened in the 30s should discredit anarchosyndicalism, but again, l don't think so. l suppose the assessment of this all can also be influenced by what one would like to people.

For example, I have debated with communists from different points of view and some say that anarchists supported the bourgeois state and some say that anarchists undermined the revolutionary state. Really different assessments. But something still worthy of discussion judging from the number of people i have seen discussing it.

About decline, etc., l don't think the general class struggle is in decline, but I do think the position of the working class in some countries is getting more precarious and this could be a factor that influences behaviour.

akai

Melenas, I am referring to April 24, 2015, which is not really "the past". And of course since your delegates only do what "the people" tell them, we all have to assume that this was agreed by the rank and file of the CNT.

Again, this all was sent to the lWA Sections and people can read it themselves, provided they are not blocked access in anyway by anybody.

Im not able to understand why you repeat something that is not any more as you say. There was an agreement that a congress decided that is not any more the positions of CNT.

Maybe your idea is to say: look how bad are the ones of CNT that doesn't care if FAU has contact with organizations where IWA has a sections but doesnt let FAU to contact CGT. Good try, but in the moment that CNT toke new agreements as you can read because are public, is a bit ridiculous to continue repeating the same all the time.

l think a lot of people found this situation far from ridiculous. But if you are saying that the Xl Congress of CNT agreements mean that nobody has any problems with FAU contacting any other organizations in Spain, then again good luck to you. l hope that applies to everybody else, not just FAU and we can assume this applies to the "defederated" as well as CGT, SO, etc.

But if you, Akai, are the one in contact with the defederated. And you been trying to get CNT out of IWA even before you reach the Secretariat. Shall we talk about León? Shall talk about Madrid? Tell me so, I will explain.

While Melenas brings up this topic, members of lWA Sections can read pp. 7, 19 and 20 of the circular. ln it we see some interesting points which actually have been touched on at previous meetings of the lWA.

The lnternational Secretary of FAU explains that FAU respects the "lWA ban on contacts with the CGT" and has done so for years. (l could argue with this, but never mind.) ln the same text talks about relations with different organizations in countries where the lWA has Sections. ln a response, it is explained that the lWA never had any ban on contacts with the CGT. The lWA decision is that relations should go through the local section. lf that Section does not care or mind about these relations, it is fine.

Part of the problem has been that for years there has been a double standard and sorry, just because Melenas claims the CNT has "changed it mind", it does not either change the lWA decision nor do away with the issue that a double standard on this issue, and not only, has been in the lWA and left bad blood.

We won't talk about the other instances, but in the case of Poland, it was not so simple and just contacts were not the issue, although people prefer to discuss through situations like when an lWA section comes to make public presentations in our country. lt concerns other countries as well and one instance was reported from another country a couple of months ago.

This has been going on for many years and we can see a pattern, but it all comes down to different treatment of Sections. A lot of fuss is made by those who support this biased pattern, l suppose mostly in an attempt to whitewash and uphold this discrepancies.

ln any case, if l present this issue, it is because it has been brought up as a cause of conflict and much as you try, it will not be resolved by just implying that CNT doesn't care about this.

well,Laure, but what about your contacts with Spanish defederated? Where, by whom was that aproved? Please, tell us all

Well Sacho, just because some crazy guy who turned out to be a thief falsely accused me of going to Cadiz* doesn't mean l've ever set foot in that city. (*Defederated union that they are apparently obsessed with.) lf l know anybody who was defederated, then it is probably because they were once in the CNT. So your ex-lnternational Secretary got us in touch with defederated Huelva because of strawberry workers and knew all about this, so if l still know these people, this is the reason. Or that people from Alcoi were at the lWA conference. This means maybe l have a few defederated on Facebook and talk to them. l am not going to, for example, defriend an individual because you threw them out or they left (unless l think they did something to warrant my disgust).

This is not the same as the lWA keeping any official contacts with the defederated, although already at least one Section has asked that we do it. But the opinion of one Section is not enough. Of course the defederated send the lWA and its Sections mail, which l don't pass on, except for last time, when it concerned the question of holding a congress parallel to the lWA. ln this situation, the right of Sections to know what's up and to know about this plan outweighed other considerations. The Sections can criticize this or not. We can also compare this "crime" to the fact that a few Sections were sharing this information among themselves, but not telling the others.

So just to be clear, l personally know people from all sorts of organizations and really don't practice not talking to people because of what organization they are in. ln any day l can talk privately to somebody from SAC, CGT or whatever, as an individual. lt is really surprising for me that the complaints about who l talk to usually come from people who keep talking about "autonomy". This is a little crazy for me.

But Sacho, maybe you will explain this all to me because Melenas has got me confused. :-) Just what is it that the CNT has decided? That Sections should be able to have contacts with whomever they want? That Sections should be able to have contacts with whomever they want, except the organizations CNT doesn't want? That Sections should be able to have these contacts but not CNT member unions (who can get expelled for this)? That FAU can do what it wants, but not the rest?

Why are you people avoiding saying a straight answer? ls it because your agreements actually are not as clear as you say they are? Or is this question too difficult? Or do you think that just keeping making personal attacks will mean that nobody will read my questions or points?

Sacho, yes, also l am quite interested in hearing what you accuse me of doing in Leon. Getting the CNT out of the lWA? This is going to be an interesting conspiracy theory.

ln any case, if anybody outside the lWA has no idea what this is, neither do l. :-) l was in Leon once, with at least 2 dozen other comrades from the lWA and another couple of dozen from CNT at an lWA conference. l really have no idea what crime l committed there. :-) Maybe because l didn't eat the soup.

Sleeper,
“As an anarchist and someone who has studied our history I am with the CNT/FAI”

That’s the spirit! My gut feeling is also I’m always and for ever in the true CNT-FAI-AIT :-)

But FAI doesn’t control CNT anymore (if it ever did) and that would be another interesting –historical – discussion. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the current problem.

“What I'm not interested in is a little group, an umbrella group, who act like they should be in control.”

Neither do I, believe me. But I do not think that an umbrella group is controlling CNT or IWA at this moment, and such an analysis would in no way help to understand the actual crisis, be it Spanish or/and international.

Akai, I know what both are and their history, and I deliberately brought both organisations back in to to the discussion for a reason.

For a time there was such a thing as CNT/FAI as workers from both organisations were able to work together for what what was considered a common good during the Spanish Revolution.

CNT members have always been open to ways to ensure a working class/proletarian solution to any problems.

akai

Sleeper, I see you are not informed. There is no such thing ad CNT/FAI - there is CNT and FAI. Also I think you are really confused about the anarchist issue. FAI is an anarchist federation. CNT has some anarchists in it.

Hello julio27,

Let me expand my analysis a little now. I don't believe anyone but the membership is controlling the CNT, or ever has. Now for various politicos that is going to be a problem because those kind of people expect to be in control and don't take kindly to being sussed out and ignored.

The CNT is a working class union that has managed to not only reach the 21st century, but also grow in numbers as 'advanced capitalism' plays itself out...

The small umbrella group I'm talking about is the IWA.

julio27

Sleeper,
“As an anarchist and someone who has studied our history I am with the CNT/FAI”

That’s the spirit! My gut feeling is also I’m always and for ever in the true CNT-FAI-AIT :-)

But FAI doesn’t control CNT anymore (if it ever did) and that would be another interesting –historical – discussion. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the current problem.

“What I'm not interested in is a little group, an umbrella group, who act like they should be in control.”

Neither do I, believe me. But I do not think that an umbrella group is controlling CNT or IWA at this moment, and such an analysis would in no way help to understand the actual crisis, be it Spanish or/and international.

SLEEPER!

Thanks for your clarification on the “umbrella” - in fact I believed an umbrella-organization is one of those two-to-three-membership groups taking refuge under an umbrella when it’s starting to rain seriously (what would be a nice metaphor). But “julio” – non-native speaker – thought it better, and made some research about it…

OK, considering the rest of the IWA I do not think it would be realistic nor would it be fair to see them as the ones providing resources or an identity to the whole; nor the opposite: is it really wise to look at the one big organization as that one which is providing resources or an identity to the smaller organizations, the “rest of the IWA”?

If you are on the side of the “true cnt-fai”, you will agree that the spirit and intention counts, not the numbers. Are you willing to build up class-struggle unions or workplace fights against capital and state or not? This should be our measure.

And considering our mythical cnt, I agree we actually have quite a regaining of membership and work-site struggles, maybe even a re-emergence of our cause in Spain. But let’s not start to be cocky here.

Because when an outsider-comrade asks us: “hey what’s going up? I don’t get it! Who’s in and who’s out? What is it about?” I know but one answer: Your questioning is a pretty good résumé of big cnt’s history.

Finally, about “politicos”: If you knew how many little Bonapartes I have seen passing through... The problem is, there are so many who want to be head of the rat rather than being tale of the lion. Ay Carmela! Anyway, we are still here! And: we're here to stay!

Hello julio27

You have a good metaphor and one that makes sense. Who are holding the umbrella and who is huddled underneath when it is raining. Then what happens when the hard rain starts to hit us.

So I think we are agreed that it is CNT members who hold the umbrella for others to be protected, rather than a couple of moaners in the IWA. If things need to be changed it is always through your union, not by trying to seize control and impose.

julio27

SLEEPER!

Thanks for your clarification on the “umbrella” - in fact I believed an umbrella-organization is one of those two-to-three-membership groups taking refuge under an umbrella when it’s starting to rain seriously (what would be a nice metaphor). But “julio” – non-native speaker – thought it better, and made some research about it…

OK, considering the rest of the IWA I do not think it would be realistic nor would it be fair to see them as the ones providing resources or an identity to the whole; nor the opposite: is it really wise to look at the one big organization as that one which is providing resources or an identity to the smaller organizations, the “rest of the IWA”?

If you are on the side of the “true cnt-fai”, you will agree that the spirit and intention counts, not the numbers. Are you willing to build up class-struggle unions or workplace fights against capital and state or not? This should be our measure.

And considering our mythical cnt, I agree we actually have quite a regaining of membership and work-site struggles, maybe even a re-emergence of our cause in Spain. But let’s not start to be cocky here.

Because when an outsider-comrade asks us: “hey what’s going up? I don’t get it! Who’s in and who’s out? What is it about?” I know but one answer: Your questioning is a pretty good résumé of big cnt’s history.

Finally, about “politicos”: If you knew how many little Bonapartes I have seen passing through... The problem is, there are so many who want to be head of the rat rather than being tale of the lion. Ay Carmela! Anyway, we are still here! And: we're here to stay!

"If things need to be changed it is always through your union, not by trying to seize control and impose."

Yep. But also: If things need to be changed it is always through your federation (that is in this context: international), not by trying to seize control from “inside-outside” and impose yourself based on proportional vote. It’s rather rough and rude to intend to breathe new life in the body you’re threatening to kill.

Again: who wants the “cnt hegemonica” to be empowered again, inside or outside? And for what purpose. Do I make myself clear?

CNT, USI and now FAU have already called for a new International.

http://www.fau.org/artikel/art_160517-093532

Google translation:

Restructuring of the international anarchosyndicalism
Statement of FAU Congress 2016

In many countries grow strong misanthropic ideologies in a neo-liberal background. To repel the intensified attacks of capitalism, we need to develop trade union activities on an international scale.

Our International, the International Workers' Association (IAA), for quite some time is no longer able to accompany the class struggles active. The internal debates revolve primarily to abstract ideological questions, instead of analyzing the class relations in which we move every day. Unfortunately, we have failed in recent years to realize a reorientation towards emancipatory struggles.

In this context, the Congress of the Free Arbeiterinnen- und Arbeiter-Union welcomes the initiative in 2016 our sister unions CNT (Spain) and USI (Italy), to conduct a re-formation of the anarcho-syndicalist movement at the international level in the way. This process we want to actively shape.

We seek International to be conducted in the pluralist debate in a solidary atmosphere, International in which collective learning processes can be developed and the transnational working structures be established. Such International may open a practical perspective on a world beyond the neoliberal and right-wing populist madness.

Sondershausen on 16 May 2016

This is all a pity. The WSA put in for Friends status this year.

The following comment is only based on the google translation, not on the german original.

We have now “re-structuring” and “re-formation” instead of re-foundation (term of the cnt-text), what would not mean a new international, but to transform the “old”one from inside.

Also: “This process we want to actively shape.” - seems like a diplomatic answer to the cnt. But when they say,

“We seek International to be conducted in the pluralist debate in a solidary atmosphere, International in which collective learning processes can be developed and the transnational working structures be established.”

it sounds rather optimistic, considering the actual posture of an overwhelming cnt wanting to decide it all, or at least to give the answers before having discussed it in common. If you want collective work, you have to be collective first and in the beginning.

We’ll have to wait and see, maybe some german anarcho-syndicalists here will give us more explanations.

julio27

(...)We’ll have to wait and see, maybe some german anarcho-syndicalists here will give us more explanations.

The FAU had its anual congress this weekend at Sondershausen / Thuringa. Amongst many other topics we had a discussion about international issues in general and the IWA question in particular. Several international guests amongst others those from the spanish CNT and the USI attended the congress.

The congress decided to publish a general declaration that has been put on our website. There will be translations in a couple of languages within the next few days.

In addition the congress endorsed a couple of proposals concerning the IWA question. Those proposals will go into our post-congress decision making process, i.e. they are subject to a referendum amongst our syndicates. Once those proposals should be approved in a couple of weeks from now they will be our guideline.

Without being able to go too much into details now, I can tell you, that the general understanding at the congress was, that our comrades from the Spanish CNT and the USI have made a couple of valuable proposals and that those proposals will have to be discussed and agreed upon amongst those that want to join the process along with possibly more aspects and ideas to be added to the discussion.

Hello robot :-)

You also posted the decisions of USI-AIT’s internationalist congress…

Do you have any further information about the mentioned “congress of re-foundation of IWA in Berlin” next December?

Are German anarcho-syndicalists inviting to it? Or is this an initiative from Italian anarcho-syndicalists alone?

I mean, we all know what a (re)foundation congress of IWA in Berlin means: big symbol - big threat? Let’s not be silly!

julio27

Do you have any further information about the mentioned “congress of re-foundation of IWA in Berlin” next December? Are German anarcho-syndicalists inviting to it? Or is this an initiative from Italian anarcho-syndicalists alone?

AFAIK this is a proposal of the USI-AIT.

So, robot, I take your answer for an affirmation that there won't be a parallelo-congress in Germany.

julio27

So, robot, I take your answer for an affirmation that there won't be a parallelo-congress in Germany.

As for now I do not know of any motion for a congress in Germany, be it parallelo, perpendicular, hyperbolic or whatsoever. BTW: Did you know that in non-euclidic geometries parallels might touch in the infinite?

They can only touch (in the infinite) if they are two of them. Does anyone of the youngest parallel want to get in touch with the older project (CGT/SAC/CNT-F/CNTSO/ESE/USI-Rome)? Tell us more about the infinite ways of parallel galaxies...

robot, be serious !

While I can still follow some of akai's arguments (although Iam quite impressed by the frequency, length and rhetoric of her posts — maybe it is indeed not the first time that she anticipates a split), I cannot say the same for lugius and julio27, It feels like we live in two different dimensions.

Anyway: If you follow this thread and have any questions regarding whats going on and the sections involved, please do not rely on any information that is presented here but get in touch with the concerned sections directly.

And, robot, just as a joke : I hope it's not another "periferico" thing more,
because you forgot that one in your enumeration: "peripheric congress" :-)

nokta

While I can still follow some of akai's arguments (although Iam quite impressed by the frequency, length and rhetoric of her posts — maybe it is indeed not the first time that she anticipates a split), I cannot say the same for lugius and julio27, It feels like we live in two different dimensions.

Anyway: If you follow this thread and have any questions regarding whats going on and the sections involved, please do not rely on any information that is presented here but get in touch with the concerned sections directly.

sorry - what can't you follow precisely?

Stuff like this:
Lugius

It also means that there is now an opportunity to build new sections in Spain, Italy and Germany and any other place where the IWA is not.

Who's the "parallist" now?

l don't see what is objectionable here. FAU reportedly agrees to follow the CNT plan, which is an attempt to split and having declared these intentions, some Sections consider that you have left. Of course this is not for any Section to decide but if the Congress decides that indeed you are not federated, it is clear that applications should be taken and discussed.

But to add a concrete point to this, our Section is looking forward to having other contacts in these places in the future and this is not even about being in the lWA or not the lWA. Facts are that we proposed to build branch networks of workers internationally in the lWA, this was agreed by the Congress ... but the Troika sections did not contribute at all to this project. lnstead they declare that the lWA doesn't work and declare that they split so that they can do things like build networks of workers. :-) So of course if you boycott the work in the lWA for years, which is what has been happening, then of course it is not going to start to work.

The Congress of ZSP made an assessment of this lack of contribution and has published a statement and article. ln it you can find that we think that these unions have not helped us to make contacts in these countries, have not helped (and even hindered) contacts with workers in the same branches, and do not have workers in international companies where we do. ln such a situation, we did not find them so helpful either for building an international movement.

.

Here you are. The schism. Good luck with them
https://levantecntait.wordpress.com/

La Confederación Regional de Levante de la CNT-AIT convoca a todos los sindicatos, grupos e individualidades, contrarios a la deriva de la “CNT amarilla”, a una Conferencia Confederal a celebrar el 25 y 26 de junio, con el objeto de re-estructurar la CNT-AIT.

They're calling for a conference in June of all branches, groups, and individuals who are opposed to the drift of the "yellow CNT" in order to re-structure the CNT-AIT.

Stuff like this:
Lugius wrote:

It also means that there is now an opportunity to build new sections in Spain, Italy and Germany and any other place where the IWA is not.

Who's the "parallist" now?

To answer your question, which I shall take literally as opposed to rhetorically; The CNT in company with the USI and the FAU.

As a consequence of a decision by the XI CNT Congress, the CNT has announced that it shall 're-found' the IWA. Although by what right or mandate is unclear. But if the CNT arrogates to itself the right to 'refound' the IWA, then why should not the CNT Levante Regional Federation arrogate to itself the right to refound the CNT? This may be an unintended consequence of the XI Congress' unilateral decision.

That the CNT, USI and FAU have left the IWA means that, as of now, there is no Spanish, Italian or German sections in the IWA. Therefore, given that the IWA seeks to facillitate the foundation of sections in every country in the world, why should it not do so in Spain, Italy and Germany?

In my view, it is further evidence that the architects of the new parallel international have not done due diligence and thought this through carefully. e.g. setting the minimum requirement at 100; why 100? What data was analysed to arrive at this formula? It appears to me that this figure was plucked from someone's hat.

Just recently, a member in good standing of ASF Melbourne moved to Berlin currently working and residing in Kreuzberg. There is a long-standing and well-worn procedure followed where ASF members move to countries where there is an IWA section; membership is transferred to the nearest affiliate in accordance with previous agreements. This has certainly been the case in the past with a number of transfers occurring between CNT and ASF and to a lesser extent the SolFed.

If an ASF member moves to a country (as opposed to a temporary holiday) where is no IWA section, bad luck for them, for to be a member of an ASF affiliate, one must reside in Australia. This has been the practice in the past. However, due to current circumstances, an exception has been made where the Asia-Pacific region is concerned as a temporary measure as there is no IWA section in any direction for some considerable distance.

But what of our comrade all on his lonesome like a shag on a rock? In my view, the IWA now needs to develop a plan for expansion that would include a mechanism whereby new initiatives could be created and sustained by sections outside of those countries where IWA sections are not.

I would like to see an agreement made at IWA Congress that the globe be divided up into areas roughly resembling the world's continents where existing sections could take responsibility for developing new sections in their immediate region.

Lugius

Just recently, a member in good standing of ASF Melbourne moved to Berlin currently working and residing in Kreuzberg. There is a long-standing and well-worn procedure followed where ASF members move to countries where there is an IWA section; membership is transferred to the nearest affiliate in accordance with previous agreements.

Well, as the FAU will be an IWA section until the next IWA congress in december will kick us off, your comrade is of course invited to join the Berlin FAU. Berlin FAU has a very good Foreign Workers Section with comrades from all over the planet and English as their working language. They are pretty much into defending the rights especially of migrant workers and one of the active components of the Berlin FAU local. And maybe joining them might be a good cure against prejudices – if one likes to.

Salvoechea

Here you are. The schism. Good luck with them
https://levantecntait.wordpress.com/

La propuesta de nuestra regional, es la de reestructurar la CNT, presentarnos como los legítimos representantes de la AIT y no dejar de ser miembros de ella e ir a un Congreso de reestructuración de la CNT, en el que se decidan finalmentre los horizontes del futuro anarcosindicalista en el territorio.
[...]
Los sindicatos, individuos o colectivos que se integren aportando y haciendo suya nuestra propuesta, serán el día de mañana la sección española de la AIT o compañeros solidarios de la misma...

From this it seems they're aiming to take on the CNT's membership of the IWA.

Lugius

That the CNT, USI and FAU have left the IWA means that, as of now, there is no Spanish, Italian or German sections in the IWA. Therefore, given that the IWA seeks to facillitate the foundation of sections in every country in the world, why should it not do so in Spain, Italy and Germany?

Would the IWA's no-contact rule then apply to the CNT, USI and FAU?

Lugius : IWA sub secreteriates have existed in the past (for example latin america and northern europe). Not saying, good or bad idea, just saying it was possible, so why could it not be possible again.

Mark : Could you please post the official "no-contact rule"? Not insinuating anything here, comrade, things have already gone wrong and worse enough (also on this thread). Just let us clearly discuss about documents and texts.

I'm not sure how 'no-contact' works or what the logic was behind it. If anyone in the IWA feels like clarifying then please do.

robot wrote:

Lugius wrote:

Just recently, a member in good standing of ASF Melbourne moved to Berlin currently working and residing in Kreuzberg. There is a long-standing and well-worn procedure followed where ASF members move to countries where there is an IWA section; membership is transferred to the nearest affiliate in accordance with previous agreements.

Well, as the FAU will be an IWA section until the next IWA congress in december will kick us off, your comrade is of course invited to join the Berlin FAU. Berlin FAU has a very good Foreign Workers Section with comrades from all over the planet and English as their working language. They are pretty much into defending the rights especially of migrant workers and one of the active components of the Berlin FAU local. And maybe joining them might be a good cure against prejudices – if one likes to.

I've passed your invitation on the comrade, late of Melbourne now of Berlin. But why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that is involved with the creation of a parallelo organisation? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that has demonstrated nothing but disdain, contempt and hostility towards the ASF? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that was the only one that voted against recognising the ASF as the Australian section of the IWA?

What was the reason for that? Too small? Not worthy enough? (I hope I'm not unduly inquisitorial posing these questions)

If you're talking about 'a good cure for prejudices', shouldn't the FAU have a good long hard look at itself?

I passed your invitation on to the comrade but I recommended getting in contact with the ZSP or the PA or any other IWA section based in Europe to see what assistance the comrade could get in establishing an IWA initiative in Germany. Failing that, I'd encourage the comrade to join Berlin FAU as deep cover and transmit intelligence back to Melbourne and feed the FAU's insatiable appetite for paranoid conspiracy fantasies about the IWA spying on them.

While I'm at it, why does the FAU have a separate section for 'foreigners'? No such distinction is made in the ASF, there is plenty of 'foreigners' here. More than 50% of the population of Australia is either born elsewhere or have at least one parent born elsewhere. Having a separate 'foreigners' section doesn't make sense - can you explain?

Mark wrote:

Lugius wrote:

That the CNT, USI and FAU have left the IWA means that, as of now, there is no Spanish, Italian or German sections in the IWA. Therefore, given that the IWA seeks to facillitate the foundation of sections in every country in the world, why should it not do so in Spain, Italy and Germany?

Would the IWA's no-contact rule then apply to the CNT, USI and FAU?

An IWA Congress decision would be needed. My understanding is that 'no contact' applies only to official contact between Secretariats.But others may know more about it.

Lugius

While I'm at it, why does the FAU have a separate section for 'foreigners'? No such distinction is made in the ASF, there is plenty of 'foreigners' here. More than 50% of the population of Australia is either born elsewhere or have at least one parent born elsewhere. Having a separate 'foreigners' section doesn't make sense - can you explain?

Why sections for women, the unemployed, teachers, truck drivers, etc? 50% in Australia is either born elsewhere, so are you saying that people from other countries have no problem because they are "foreigners" in Australia? Yes, sure...

The foreigners section was originally started by a group of non native German speakers who were finding it difficult be involved in union activity at various times as they had a low level of German.It is relatively common in the last ten years that a lot of foreign workers have been moving to the city with little to no German skills but can speak English so the FS provides a space for people to get involved and active in the union without the barriers of needing to speak a good level of German.

A lot of people have passed through the section and join their relevant industry sections when they have enough German to participate and in recent years translation has been easier to come by. Some people have stayed put as they prefer to organise around issues in regards to precarious conditions facing foreign workers or work a job which is not covered in a active industry section. We also have a bunch of people active in both FS and their relevant industry section.

Over the years the section has been involved in a lot of different struggles and campaigns and has grown to be as far as i know the biggest official section in the Berlin local. Also organising with comrades from around the world has led to interesting discussion and strategic initiatives that would have been originally alien to the German movement at the time.

If your comrade is interested then send them a link to us, we don't bite and we currently have Australian comrades active and have had quite a few in the past before they moved back home.

https://berlin.fau.org/strukturen/foreigners

Thank you phospherous for the info. It's the comrade's decision entirely but could you help me with this;

But why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that is involved with the creation of a parallelo organisation? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that has demonstrated nothing but disdain, contempt and hostility towards the ASF? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that was the only one that voted against recognising the ASF as the Australian section of the IWA?

What was the reason for that? Too small? Not worthy enough? (I hope I'm not unduly inquisitorial posing these questions)

Haven't noticed this being posted, but CNT Levante put out this statement in English:

https://levantecntait.wordpress.com/response-to-the-yellow-cnt-on-the-iwa/

Perhaps cnt_exteriores would care to comment.

From the Regional Levante CNT-AIT (IWA) we defend without reserve the role of the IWA as a tool to spread universally the struggle for the emancipation of the working class and applaud all the work done by its members worldwide. We are confident that this work will bear fruit, if we know how to fight the possibilism and the internal conflicts always associated with it. We also denounce the manipulation and attempts to discredit the IWA that the CNT is conducting; and we encourage the IWA sections to take steps to fight against these attacks. The CNT is no longer anarcho-syndicalist, and therefore has no place in the IWA.

Finally, we urge anarcho-syndicalist fellows of the Spanish State, in and out of the CNT, to organize themselves and take steps to restructure the CNT-AIT so that the International does not lose its presence in the Peninsula, and at the same time give anarcho-syndicalism presence and strength in this country, defending it from trends that have now taken possession of the organization and are totally opposed to the principles, purposes and anarcho-syndicalist tactics that always characterized the CNT-AIT.

We will not let them keep fooling anyone.

For libertarian communism, long live the CNT-AIT!

This is encouraging as it seems the IWA will be able to build a section in Spain whatever happens.

Is it just me or is it somewhat odd if not unnecessary to 're-found' everything all over again?

Problems are always going to be there but problems are not the problem; the real problem is how to solve problems in a manner consistent with principles of anarcho-syndicalist practice.

Announcing the arbitrary act of 're-founding' the IWA is not consistent with this practice. It asserts the authority of the CNT over and above the IWA. How is this beneficial? How is this justified?

The reasons given for justifying a 're-founding' are couched in vague terms and lack completely any substantive evidence.

l think the members of the Australian Section are perfectly aware of what happens when local folks spend time in the foreigners section and return home. ln other words, new parallel activity of "FAU" in places where our Section is.

Could you maybe care to elaborate a bit more on that Akai? Which situations are you referring to about ex FS members?Did J jump ship in recent times into a parallel organisation or could you maybe be more clear about what you mean exactly? Sadly i don't personally keep track of the large membership of ex section member's when they move away from Berlin.

But why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that is involved with the creation of a parallelo organisation? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that has demonstrated nothing but disdain, contempt and hostility towards the ASF? Why would an ASF comrade want to join an organisation that was the only one that voted against recognising the ASF as the Australian section of the IWA?

phospherous, may I presume you will not answer these questions? Yet, you seek answers!

I had to run for an appointment so didn't have time and i found the cryptic comment from Akai far more interesting.Maybe because your comrade might be interested in building struggles where they are currently living?Maybe they can come and ask questions themselves or maybe make up their own mind about our organisation after meeting some of us and seeing us in action?Who knows maybe they will even join and have a different opinion on the issue after being engaged with both groups! We have a demonstration on Saturday against the repression currently facing are union in Berlin. Maybe they would like to come and give some solidarity or maybe the the English speaking open office might be a better opportunity which is every 3rd Friday of the month. If your around Melbourne or Sydney you probably know some of our ex members so possibly you can ask them?

I guess it's not too hard to understand what Laure was referring to, given that FAU always had the policy of developing their own international network instead of feeling the need to support the growth of organizations which are already in federation with them. Even at the cost of undermining them, which apparently the FAU doesn't give a rat's ass about. Of course this is not something they understand, so that discussion is quite hopeless. Another thing is how much the FAU membership really knows about what goes on in international relations, which is not all that much as I have seen.

I'm well aware of what's been going on since my time in the F.A.U in regards to international relations but im curious who set up a parallel organisation presumably in Poland after they had been a member of the FS. If i understand the statement i can only think of one person who was associated with the section but never officially joined and i imagine that if he set up a parallel organisation competing with the ZSP that the sky has indeed fallen! I'm just looking for a bit of clarification on the topic as with so much of the problems being put out into the open on this forum whats one more accusation between comrades right?

Or was i misreading and hosting a info meeting on prior experiences organising as a foreigner abroad for a group in a related tendency now count as "paralell activity"? I imagine that if a sister organisation who wanted the same info evening they could also have asked for it? Who knows maybe it could have also pushed some of the audience towards Anarcho Syndicalist practices and they might indeed start organsing themselves! If the ASF comrade would like to host an info evening about struggles in Australia i and other comrades would gladly go even if hosted by another "parallel organisation" in Berlin of whatever left radical or Anarchist tendency wherever they decide to be active.

Now, that sounds like a really sleazy way of avoiding to comment on the problems FAU caused to the IWA by their autonomy fairytail. Or perhaps, that is what the real answer is supposed to be.

Everything written here is written in a personal capacity and i do not claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge on every aspect of the problems between the F.A.U and parts of the I.W.A but i know from what i have read and experienced the last few years.I think giving an answer talking about why this comrade should contact us and suggesting to meet in person is not such a sleazy way of dealing with the situation, even though things in the international might change and certain hostilities come to the surface we offer a place for all foreign radical unionists who want to engage in struggle in their new home in Berlin. Hopefully i'll bump into this comrade sooner or later and we can have a chat over a pint or in the office and we can see if we can sort something out.

Like I said, this discussion is hopeless with so much denial.

Seriously whats wrong with you (Akai, Lugius, zaczek)? phospherous gave a completely nice and comradely invitation and tried to reach out to ASF and you react like this is some kind of conspiracy?!

Maybe this thread should be closed, seems like nothing will come out of it and the leaders of the "Anti-Troika" just make things worse...

I agree

I do not understand all the implications of the whole last page of messages...

only understood phospereous was trying to reach his hand out and got a lot of shit rollling over him for an answer.

Fau suspending is not statutory

and the original dispute with them is about expelling CNT-F, which was an error of AIT, maybe even not confirmed

so far as a voice of exterior

I for one leave this thread.

phospherous wrote:

I had to run for an appointment so didn't have time and i found the cryptic comment from Akai far more interesting.Maybe because your comrade might be interested in building struggles where they are currently living?Maybe they can come and ask questions themselves or maybe make up their own mind about our organisation after meeting some of us and seeing us in action?Who knows maybe they will even join and have a different opinion on the issue after being engaged with both groups! We have a demonstration on Saturday against the repression currently facing are union in Berlin. Maybe they would like to come and give some solidarity or maybe the the English speaking open office might be a better opportunity which is every 3rd Friday of the month. If your around Melbourne or Sydney you probably know some of our ex members so possibly you can ask them?

Like I said, I've passed your invitation on to the comrade, late of Melbourne now of Berlin. Whatever the comrade wants to do with the invitation is entirely up to him. He is under no direction from the ASF as he is no longer a member of ASF. He is carrying a credential from the ASF affiliate he was most recently a member of. There is a clear procedure with regard to the status of members of ASF affiliates when they move to another country; if they move to a country where there is an existing IWA affiliate, they are encouraged to transfer their membership to that affiliate. It has certainly happened in the past and in the case of the CNT and the SolFed, it has happened both ways.

But in this case, given that it is clear that the FAU intends leaving the IWA to set up a parallel international with the CNT and the USI, the comrade has moved to a country where there is not an existing IWA affiliate. In this event, comrades are encouraged to contact their nearest IWA affiliate.

To phospherous I put the question why is the FAU so hostile to the ASF as evidenced by its behaviour towards the ASF, specifically, why did the FAU vote against the proposal to accept the ASF as the Australian section. It is clear that no answer will be forthcoming. I presume that either you don't know why or you do but you don't want to say. If you don't know why, it raises the question of how well-informed FAU members are when it comes to making decisions with regard to IWA Congress agenda items. If you do know the reasons, why wouldn't you say? For security reasons? The absence of an answer only invites speculation.

If your around Melbourne or Sydney you probably know some of our ex members so possibly you can ask them?

Two members of the FAU arrived in Melbourne early last year, neither of whom made an effort to contact the ASF Melbourne. Perhaps they didn't know there was an ASF affiliate in Melbourne or perhaps they didn't know there was the ASF. But they did appear at an event organised by a local platformist group, Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group, like a lot of platformist groups eschew anarcho-syndicalism in favour of a kind of 'boring from within' existing reformist unions.

By chance, a member of ASF met the FAU members at an antifascist demo in April last year. The FAU members were invited to come to a meeting of ASF Melbourne but the never showed up nor made any other contact.

Taken all together, wouldn't it be a reasonable conclusion to draw; the FAU doesn't much like the ASF? Why?

How should relations between sections be conducted? At an official level, the process is clear. What of individual members of unions that are affiliated to the IWA? These are questions that it would be reasonable to examine.

this is so interesting!

Well, there was also "FAU"'s workplace organizer workshop in Australia.

After many years of experience with such situations, it is clear that the answer is usually the same: that nobody in FAU knows anything about what "FAU" is doing, etc. etc. But it is rather clear for me why such things happen, which result from a larger question of attitude.

Lugius though this is off-topic, just a few words on whether the FAU likes the ASF or not. As far as I do remember, there was nothing “personal” in not accepting the ASF into the IWA. But there was a decision not to accept affiliation of groups any more that apply for affiliation just a couple of month before IWA congresses. We have seen lots of small "friends" groups and sections over the decades disappearing as fast as they came up and asked for affiliation. Therefor there was a discussion at the time that we would not agree with affiliations once we were not sure that an organization has gathered experiences as a (proto-)union for a couple of years and that it is more than a nine day wonder. That's all about that mystic issue.

BTW the way I really pity you for your latest spanish comrades. While you asked the CNT for some sort of apologies for letting the “lion of the Alhambra“ kick-off the ASF from the IWA –and you are pretty right with this– you now have decided to make exactly those people who were the responsibles for the coronation of GR as the secretary general of the IWA your new friends. Go and ask them for apologies for GRs manipulations and manouevres. I am pretty curious what they will tell you...

robot

that we would not agree with affiliations once we were not sure that an organization has gathered experiences as a (proto-)union for a couple of years and that it is more than a nine day wonder...

There you go again...talking about a well established union in an insulting and disdainful way once again, without even knowing what you're doing. "Why do they hate us, we're so nice to people". What a joke :-D

Again with the manipulations. Actually l was at the 2006 Congress where the ASF status was discussed and all of those minutes are available. So we can see that they were trying to years to become a Section again and this "a few months before the Congress" is complete bullshit. At that Congress they had to face questions from FAU and USl about whether or not they had syndicalist activities. For me that was a fair question. What is ridiculous is that people try to convince others that things happen because of one person or another when they are and were actually discussed in a Congress. So this question was at the 2006 Congress and we can see the action of the Sections there. We can also see that the Sections had copies of the famous report by that time at least.

ASF in 2012 organized a very good campaign at Dominos Pizza which resulted in getting the drivers' wages reinstated at Dominos having to pay almost 600,000 in back pay. lf we do a comparison, this turns out to be one of the highest payouts won by any lWA organization. (l believe only the CNTE won more.) And certainly l don't know of any such victory in FAU (and l follow the results very closely).

This type of stupid Robot mentality (and please remember this is a guy who for years has sat in an armchair and is member of a 3-person group) is nothing but the nasty politics of guys who want to sit in a big boys club, not having any real achievements of their own.

This type of stupid Robot mentality (and please remember this is a guy who for years has sat in an armchair and is member of a 3-person group) is nothing but the nasty politics of guys who want to sit in a big boys club, not having any real achievements of their own.

Im going to copy this, because is exactly the opposite of what you are saying along this discussion. I love how easy is for you to say something and the opposite and be always right.

Yes please do and add it to your collection of compromats. Of course l don't expect anybody from you to understand the irony with which is l pointing this out. While you are busy with your attacks on small unions, much of the FAU and USl locals are no bigger than anybody else, but are quite busy pretending. You may have a good collection of sayings from me which you think are illogical, while l have a similar collections of sayings that l know are hypocritical.

But we all know that some animals are more equal to others.

akai

Yes please do and add it to your collection of compromats. Of course l don't expect anybody from you to understand the irony with which is l pointing this out. While you are busy with your attacks on small unions, much of the FAU and USl locals are no bigger than anybody else, but are quite busy pretending. You may have a good collection of sayings from me which you think are illogical, while l have a similar collections of sayings that l know are hypocritical.

But we all know that some animals are more equal to others.

Im also started a small union, what I wasn't doing is to call reformist to the big ones and giving them lessons of how to organize internally, putting my nose in their internal process of taking decisions or making a persecution of them.

I see your irony when you insult to everybody that dont kiss your feet in this forum.

good luck with your manners, you are building a grate IWA. Do not forget that with what did rata or you as secretaries of IWA, the union of CNT expelled the secretaries in the past, the last one not so far. is not a mater of size is a mater of being serious.

the proposal of ZSP for the congress leave clear that what you did was wrong and out of IWA statutes.

Good luck

For your info....From CNT-AIT Levant.....conference Call to relaunch CNT-AIT
https://levantecntait.wordpress.com/anarchosyndicalist-conference-call/

if you knew those fellas you wouldn't be so happy to have this kind of IWA sections in Spain. They are not syndicalists. They just are propaganda groups.

Oh, be sure we are happy to work with groups that want to contribute to develop the IWA and not try to actively sabotage it. Nothing has been more destructive than this neurotic drive for more "numbers" which, more often than not, is entirely fake.

the “yellow CNT”

A company or "yellow" union is a worker organization which is dominated or influenced by an employer, and is therefore not an independent trade union.

Calling the majority faction of the CNT a yellow union is just stupid and shows a lack of arguments and attitude.

Also: If the IWA-east supports a split of CNT that wants to claim the name CNT they shouldn't be surprised if the new international takes the name IWA/AIT too.

nokta

Also: If the IWA-east supports a split of CNT that wants to claim the name CNT they shouldn't be surprised if the new international takes the name IWA/AIT too.

There is no iwa-east and looking at the world this way provides one more proof of your western eurocentrism. Pathetic, really.

nokta

IWA-east

Really not cool.

The slavo-asiatic syndicalist hordes!

robot wrote:

Lugius though this is off-topic, just a few words on whether the FAU likes the ASF or not. As far as I do remember, there was nothing “personal” in not accepting the ASF into the IWA. But there was a decision not to accept affiliation of groups any more that apply for affiliation just a couple of month before IWA congresses. We have seen lots of small "friends" groups and sections over the decades disappearing as fast as they came up and asked for affiliation. Therefor there was a discussion at the time that we would not agree with affiliations once we were not sure that an organization has gathered experiences as a (proto-)union for a couple of years and that it is more than a nine day wonder. That's all about that mystic issue.

This demonstrates your ignorance of the ASF and raises a question with regard to a core principle of anarcho-syndicalist organisation; how can you practice equal decision-making without equal access to all information relevant to the decision?

It is the responsibility of the FAU Secretariat to provide all FAU affiliates with the information necessary to make informed decisions. If the FAU Secretariat is withholding relevant information, then it is exercising power over those who do not have access to that information. An entirely unequal relationship that is not only an anathema to the principles and practice of anarcho-syndicalism, but redolent of the worst hierarchical practices of reformist bureaucrats.

Had the members of FAU had access to all the relevant information they would probably not describe the ASF as a 'nine-day wonder'. They would be aware that the ASF is not even the first IWA section in Australia - indeed, not even the second but the third. They would be aware that the first IWA section in Australia was CNT-B-in-exile established in Sydney in 1956. They operated under the name 'Sydney Anarchist Group', a tiny propaganda group (and I don't use the term perjoratively) that struggled for years in adverse circumstances with very little to show for it. The CNT-B-in-exile Secretariat moved from Paris to Sydney in 1968. The 'Sydney Anarchist Group' dissolved in 1986 and all remaining members joined the ASF. Unfortunately, none of these comrades remain alive.

Had the members of FAU had access to all the relevant information they would be aware that a CNT-E-in-exile section was established in Melbourne in December 1965. They operated under the name 'Grupo Cultural Estudios Sociales de Melbourne' which still exists today. They established Cruz Negra Anarquista in Melbourne and produced numerous Spanish-language texts and publications and sent parcels to numerous companeros in jail around the world.

The FAU members would know, had they been properly informed, that the ASF was founded in 1986 by Bulgarian and Spanish exiles and Australian comrades and was admitted to the IWA at the 1988 Congress. They would know that the record of the ASF supporting workers in struggle is unmatched by any other anarchist organisation in Australia or indeed, any organisation of anarchists. They would know that the ASF affiliated Public Transport Workers Association produced the most popular industry-based anarchist publication in the history of Australia. They would know has continued to organise in the hospitality industry and other precarious industries for almost two decades now. They would know that the campaign for wage justice for delivery drivers resulted in a pay out of over half a million dollars to over 3,000 drivers.

But they did not know either by design or ignorance or both. If the members of the FAU are ignorant of the relevant information with regard to the ASF, it begs the question; what else are they not aware of? What other decisions have been made by the FAU based on incomplete or inaccurate information? And further, how is this consistent with the core principles of anarcho-syndicalism?

robot wrote:

BTW the way I really pity you for your latest spanish comrades. While you asked the CNT for some sort of apologies for letting the “lion of the Alhambra“ kick-off the ASF from the IWA –and you are pretty right with this– you now have decided to make exactly those people who were the responsibles for the coronation of GR as the secretary general of the IWA your new friends. Go and ask them for apologies for GRs manipulations and manouevres. I am pretty curious what they will tell you...

In my view, your comments reveal a shallow understanding of one of the core principles of anarcho-syndicalism that pertains to the relationship of the individual worker to the union. The individual member engages in in equal-decision making in the workers assembly s/he is a member of and of which decisions are binding on all members. All comrades are important but not one comrade is necessary.

Every trot group in Australia imagines that if they get the right people into positions of power in the reformist unions, the unions will become revolutionary. But people are not the problem, it is the hierarchical structure of the union that empowers some individuals over others.

The behaviour of the individual is the responsibility of the union/affiliate/section of which they are a member of. From time to time, there have been individual ASF members who have behaved badly or inappropriately. However, the ASF Secretary has no power to expel individuals (nor should they) as the affiliate is held responsible for the behaviour of their members and if the affiliate is unable to deal effectively with the offending member by methods of their own choosing, then that affiliate risks disaffiliation. This prevents power residing in individuals and puts it squarely at the base in the workers' assembly.

Consequently, the Lion, as an individual, is not the problem. The Lion was nominated by the CNT to take responsibility for the office of IWA Secretary therefore it is the CNT that is responsible. Similarly, Akai was nominated by the ZSP, therefore it is the ZSP that is responsible.

But because the office of IWA Secretariat is ultimately the responsibilty of the IWA Congress which is comprised of all sections, all sections ought bear that responsibility.

The FAU delegate to the 1999 IWA Plenary at Toulouse witnessed the ASF Delegate hand the report with regard to the situation of the ASF, directly to the then Secretary of the IWA (the Lion) for presentation to the Plenary. The FAU delegate witnessed the complaint of the ASF delegate that the report was not tabled. The FAU delegate said and did nothing as did every other section present. Why not? Who dares stand up to the CNT? Certainly not the FAU.

This makes the personal attacks on Akai by the CNT, USI and the FAU not only a monument to gross hypocrisy but clear evidence of ignorance (wilful or otherwise) of basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism that posits the collective (the union) over the individual.

The position of the ASF is clear as evidenced by the resolutions at ASF Congress that refused to ratify the decision of IWA Congress to change the status of the ASF to a 'friends' section (effectively denying it a vote) on the basis that the decision was made in error due to an deliberate withholding of relevant information.

notka wrote:

Also: If the IWA-east supports a split of CNT that wants to claim the name CNT they shouldn't be surprised if the new international takes the name IWA/AIT too.

This is premised on the assumption that the CNT has the right or the mandate to decide for the IWA. It does not. It does not now nor will it ever.

The CNT has a legitimate right to leave the IWA and form a new international with whomever, an action entirely consistent with the principle of free association. But the presumption of the CNT to 're-found' the IWA has no legitimacy whatsoever.

The announcement by the CNT to 're-found' the IWA was made in March, the announcement by CNT Levante Region to announce a 're-founding' of the CNT was made in June.

If it is sauce for the goose, is it not sauce for the gander?

In my view, the announcement of the CNT to leave the IWA is symptomatic of an already existing split within the CNT over what appears to be a variety of issues. It also means effectively, as of right now, there is no IWA section in Spain. I would expect the IWA Secretariat to do whatever it could to assist in the founding a new section. The most obvious place to start would be those (former?) CNT unions that wish to be part of the IWA.

Could any body call split to 2 or 4 people expelled or that leave a organization of 100?

thanks.

Here you have the new vanguard of the Spanish anarchosyndicalism:

https://levantecntait.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/fragua-social-nc2ba0-quinta-c3a9poca1.pdf

They accuse the CNT of "reformism" or "possibilism" and at the same time account themselves moral heir of Manuel Villar and Gaston Leval... wait...

So I guess you don't like re-founding when someone else does it? How ironic.

I was just having fun reading some of the new library editions and saw this.

Actually, Zacek has a point.

That said, the promotion of the split on this site has laid bare the splits within parts of the movement. As an independent observer, it all sucks.

Anyway, still waiting for all the promised translations of all the other things discussed at the conference. Figured there never would be any.

https://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/splits-within-the-cnt-behind-the-split-with-the-iwa/

Links in Spanish

alasbarricadas thread on the CNT split conference

Report on the conference

The discussion on the alasbarricadas thread seems better than it sometimes is there (so far at least). The comments from moai, a former CNT Levante member, are worth reading.

For a critical discussion of the IWA crisis and a way forward
See on the internet - a-infos Book Review from Rebel Worker Vol.34 No.2 (226) July-Aug. 2016
Review of "Unruly Equality: US Anarchism in the 20th Century" and on web site www.rebelworker.org

That's the most complete crap yet.

akai

That's the most complete crap yet.

FWIW, agreed.

So you're not going to give them $750,000 to buy an office in Sydney?

Rebel Worker has moved: Over a ten year period, Jura Books has mutated into a non-anarchist project resembling more so a Trotskyist group. After 10 years of bullying and lies, their final act of outrage was to use force to illegally remove us from the premises. Please note we (as Anarcho-Syndicalists) are no longer associated with Jura Books. Our correspondence address and email remain the same. We are now forced to seek donations for a
space for Anarcho-Syndicalists in Sydney.

A$750,000 is urgently sought to buy premises for the proposed Rebel Worker- Anarcho-Syndicalist Network Media Centre. Please make out Cheques to Black Cat Media and forward to PO Box 92 Broadway 2007 NSW, Australia

might just be the best front page disclaimer on the entirety of the internets...

asn

For a critical discussion of the IWA crisis and a way forward
See on the internet - a-infos Book Review from Rebel Worker Vol.34 No.2 (226) July-Aug. 2016
Review of "Unruly Equality: US Anarchism in the 20th Century" and on web site www.rebelworker.org

I think these people could become a new IWA Section. They claim to be anti reformist...

Revolutionaries take advantage of criticism - the points raised are definitely not the one's you may want raised but are of vital concern to building mass syndicalist unionism. Confront the issues raised rather than going all silly and throwing red herrings around. See back issues of RW and articles on archive section of www.rebelworker.org for serious work the ASN has conducted in the strategic transport industries for many years and certainly deserves support.

asn is admin: name removed, don't use real names , a fucking scab.

He crossed a CPSU picket line in Sydney during a strike by DSS workers in 1987.

He was positively identified by a CPSU member in 1993.

Question: is it ok to cross a picketline if it is a reformist union?

Fuck off x you low down dirty dog scum sucking scab!

militant-proletarian wrote:

asn wrote:

For a critical discussion of the IWA crisis and a way forward
See on the internet - a-infos Book Review from Rebel Worker Vol.34 No.2 (226) July-Aug. 2016
Review of "Unruly Equality: US Anarchism in the 20th Century" and on web site www.rebelworker.org

I think these people could become a new IWA Section. They claim to be anti reformist...

Correction: 'this person' not 'these people'

But if you like talking to scabs, you could ask the following questions;

Why did the 1984 IWA Congress reject the application of the Rebel Worker Group to be the Australian section?

How much money did he receive from Jon Bekken over the years for publishing 'Rebel Worker'?

If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

ASN - l would have no problem discussing the merit of your opinion piece / slash article guised as a book review .... if there was any merit. First, as a book review, it is valueless as the reader has no idea what the book actually says - you just mostly off-topic about your pet peeves. Second, it is rather amazing that somebody who is a "militant" of a two (or maybe three) person "network" of anarchosyndicalists is busy condemning "microunions" and "sects". As far as l see, you fit the description quite well. Not that l like to use these words, but in this case might be appropriate. Your descriptions are uneducated and you've made some things up from your imagination.

And yeah ... the appeal for the huge amount of cash for headquarters for your publication that you can make with your network sitting around your kitchen table is just classic.

I would honestly like to know the specifics of the disputes that lead them to leave. They don't really explain it, they kind of just alluded to a vague development of bureaucracy. I'd also like to hear the AIT's side of the story.

The above comments illustrate my case - how many of you are hopelessly lost in "sect" and "cult" land - building groupings which are largely ends in themselves - pseudo churches heavily informed by the stalinist legacy to varying degrees with all the shabby and underhanded practices which go within it. And the impossibility of having any rational discussion with many of you. What I am arguing for and which the ASN plays this role - which has nothing to do with childish "numbers games" (so beloved of leftist sects) and massaging of micro and macro bureaucracies is as a catalyst in strategic sectors to assist workers self organisation which can help slow the tempo of the employer offensive, create the transitional step to mass syndicalist unionism, build an expanding syndicalist movement across industry and wipe out the base of corporate unionism - that is certainly not happening in the US or much elsewhere to my knowledge and that is the type of organising we need to re-establish the international syndicalist movement on lines similar to when the IWA formed in 1922 when it consisted of mass syndicalist union movements. I just am raising these issues and the need to get the necessary precision long range industrial work and the orientation going to achieve it. It is definitely of immense importance for us to day. However some of you are getting all silly again..

Right let's have no more comments about ASN. If you want to talk about these wingnuts start a new thread, otherwise this thread is for discussion of the proposals around the IWA.

deathspiritcommunist, any official opinion of the lWA on the whole matter would only really be possible after the Congress, and then probably the Sections might want to ratify a text, so, it's a way off. Factual information could be given, but not a "side", meaning an opinion, yet. Besides the fact that the lWA hasn't met and voted on the different proposals related to all this, there is also the fact that there is some contradictory information and confusion. For example, it sounds like the CNT left, and actually they are meeting about the misnamed "refoundation", but some in the CNT insist that was not the intention and that there are no agreements about how this process really should look and with whom. USl on the other hand called for a parallel Congress, but when asked if they are leaving, refuse to give any answer. They still submit things to lWA's internal communication. On the other hand, some already don't care for any belated explanations and are looking to move forward. Some opinions on the subject have been sent to the lWA and even published openly, but l suppose a couple have not made an organizational statements yet.

Lugius

militant-proletarian wrote:

asn wrote:

For a critical discussion of the IWA crisis and a way forward
See on the internet - a-infos Book Review from Rebel Worker Vol.34 No.2 (226) July-Aug. 2016
Review of "Unruly Equality: US Anarchism in the 20th Century" and on web site www.rebelworker.org

I think these people could become a new IWA Section. They claim to be anti reformist...

Correction: 'this person' not 'these people'

But if you like talking to scabs, you could ask the following questions;

Why did the 1984 IWA Congress reject the application of the Rebel Worker Group to be the Australian section?

How much money did he receive from Jon Bekken over the years for publishing 'Rebel Worker'?

If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Maybe you don't understand sarcasm. It's the same logic you use about your revolutionary comrades expelled from the CNT. I mean they claim to be true anarchist against the CGT reformism within the CNT, bla bla bla

akai

deathspiritcommunist, any official opinion of the lWA on the whole matter would only really be possible after the Congress, and then probably the Sections might want to ratify a text, so, it's a way off. Factual information could be given, but not a "side", meaning an opinion, yet. Besides the fact that the lWA hasn't met and voted on the different proposals related to all this, there is also the fact that there is some contradictory information and confusion. For example, it sounds like the CNT left, and actually they are meeting about the misnamed "refoundation", but some in the CNT insist that was not the intention and that there are no agreements about how this process really should look and with whom. USl on the other hand called for a parallel Congress, but when asked if they are leaving, refuse to give any answer. They still submit things to lWA's internal communication. On the other hand, some already don't care for any belated explanations and are looking to move forward. Some opinions on the subject have been sent to the lWA and even published openly, but l suppose a couple have not made an organizational statements yet.

CNexit

This is being circulated to IWA members, might help to clarify the situation

(en) levante cnt ait: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SYNDICATES FOR THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE CNT/AIT TO ALL THE AIT SECTIONS (ca)
Date Tue, 6 Sep 2016 12:36:46 +0300

The National Conference of Trade Unions convened by the "Levante Regional" was held from June 25th to June 26th as a previous step towards a congress process for the restructuring of the CNT/AIT. ---- The "Levante Regional" would like to pass the following conclusions related to the AIT on to the union members of the syndicates from all the sections: ---- It is necessary for all the AIT sections to know about the congress process promoted by the "Levante Regional", as well as the reason which has promoted it. The Trade Unions of eastern Spain , expelled because of their compromise with the Principles, Tactics, and Aims (PTF) which rule the organic regulations of the CNT, are against the authoritarian, vertical and reformist drift of the CNT.

The reformist CNT is trying to give the image to the different sections of the AIT, that expelled unions are affinity groups without any trade union activity at all. The AIT sections ought to know that this is not true. The expelled unions have never ceased to be syndicates keeping on with their labour conflicts and information support to the workers, as well as carrying out a strong activity in support of the campaigns and conflicts of the federated syndicates that are critical with the reformist line. This is evidenced by numerous actions like the pickets in support of the conflict against Red Cross (Cruz Roja) in Alicante; the campaign against the layoffs in Mercadona; against The Phone House, and so on. This information can easily be found on the Internet. Trade union activity has never been left aside. On the contrary, for the expelled syndicates the anarcho-syndicalist activity represents a continuous work of support, diffusion and the promotion of the labour conflicts, which constitute the opportunity to start reaching the ideological and practical workers self-tuition, and according to our ideas, they are the catalyst for the revolutionary strike. They, the reformists, are the ones who want the CNT to stop being anarcho-syndicalist, not us.

The Levante syndicates, attendant of the conference mentioned above, are expressing our support to the AIT, as well as our rejection to the creation process of a renewed AIT or a new International, that the reformist CNT is plotting, along with other syndicates such as the SAC. In spite of the blockade of the AIT circulars on the part of the official CNT, we are aware of the huge work displayed by the AIT sections and we know that the assertion of their supposed «little dedication to trade union work» -claimed by the syndicates fostering the reformist re-founding process in AIT- is not justified. It is completely clear for us that their contempt for the actions of international solidarity has to do with their pursuit of turning into a professional job the trade union work . Here in Spain it has led to the creation of an abomination such as the Confederate Technical Bureau or GTC (Gabinete Técnico Confederal) which is absorbing the confederate funds and has been also pushing the syndicates into their ideological line. They are real customers of the corrupt elite ruling CNT up to this day because of their taking advantage on an unfair voting system. The yellow trade-unionism model that they want to establish, has not only shown to be an ineffective system itself, but would lead us to lose the ideals our organization is fighting for. We make a call to the international membership to open their eyes and to tackle the reformist attempt of re-founding the AIT.

We wish to draw the attention to the fact that in the XI Congress of the CNT, held in Zaragoza in December 2015, there was no clear agreement on the process of re-founding the AIT, on the organization of a new international, or the adoption of another way to unionism. The agreements on the re-founding of the AIT mentioned in the official web of CNT do not exist.

We consider that the resolutions of the XI/Eleventh Congress concerning the AIT were against the statutes of the CNT, as it was the case of the anarcho-syndicalist unions expulsion. A great number of the official CNT assemblies know it and disagree with those expulsion processes.

We support the international fight of the workers.

We are going to maintain working relations among the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain and worldwide, and we are going to develop the co-ordination of the AIT and the libertarian movement.

It is our purpose to maintain relationship with the true AIT, not with the re-founded one. We will give our support to the sections of the true AIT, and the federated syndicates of the CNT which are critical with the reformist line.

We wish to inform the AIT sections that there will be a new Federation in Spain as a result of a Congress, the first part of which will be held in November. All the AIT sections and groups in favour of our line, besides the CNT syndicates also in favour of making up the anarcho-syndicalist CNT, will be invited.

For the Libertarian Communism

On behalf of our true anarcho-syndicalist identity

Long Life to AIT!

https://levantecntait.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/announcement-from-the-national-conference-of-syndicates-for-the-restructuring-of-the-cntait-castellano/

how who what where and when?

Juan Conatz

I was wondering when SAC would be mentioned within the context of a conspiratorial plot to subvert the IWA..

I'm surprised it took that long!

Put the IWW in for good luck too.... I really don't find any of this funny. Maybe some people do.

And the IWW is playing into it.

Edit: Strictly a personal opinion.

You get my point.

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

I think it is unfortunate to bring SAC up, although some individual members played some role in shaping sentiments, it is clearly not the same situation as in the 80s. My thought is that also in the 99s a lit of what went on with them was more the work of individual opportunists which the rank and file didn't completely understand. The same is true of organizations which might involve themselves in this mess now. I suppose they are partly naive, partly misled and not inclined to stay neutral. Although nobody really gave their executives any plan of what to do and with whom. I wouldn't blame the rank and file wobs for playing into this shit but probably somebody else will because people tend to naively believe that people understand what they are doing to a deeper extent.

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

It is an instruction from Convention to the GEB, rather than a constitutional change or a statement of union policy, and therefore doesn't go to referendum. The Convention already has the authority to give the GEB instructions.

Perhaps this whole discussion thread could be moved over to the 'Anarcho-Syndicalism' Forum where it could be safely contained lest on reaching 1000 posts it might explode into a thousand tiny ineffectual and harmless pieces! Really you guys and gals are doing yourselves no favours.

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

such attitude sounds quite surprising from someone whose organization applies for a Friend of the IWA (correct me if i'm wrong). isn't a proper term here fencewalking? ;)

l think such a decision basically counts as getting involved in a split attempt where it is known that the organization involved hasn't even discussed it. Pretty disappointed but not surprised given the history.

OliverTwister

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

It is an instruction from Convention to the GEB, rather than a constitutional change or a statement of union policy, and therefore doesn't go to referendum. The Convention already has the authority to give the GEB instructions.

Oh well since I hadn't seen notes yet, I just assumed. Regardless I think it's not some big deal change in policy for IWW. We send folks to syndicalist conferences all the time, and try to show solidarity with everyone generally without taking a sectarian stance.

MT

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

such attitude sounds quite surprising from someone whose organization applies for a Friend of the IWA (correct me if i'm wrong). isn't a proper term here fencewalking? ;)

This has generally been the attitude of most syndicalists in US. Some may have sympathies for one side or another, but usually try to show solidarity with all.

klas batalo

MT

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

such attitude sounds quite surprising from someone whose organization applies for a Friend of the IWA (correct me if i'm wrong). isn't a proper term here fencewalking? ;)

This has generally been the attitude of most syndicalists in US. Some may have sympathies for one side or another, but usually try to show solidarity with all.

I did not refer to "most syndicalists" but to the context of WSA, but whatever...

MT

klas batalo

MT

klas batalo

https://twitter.com/IWWConvention/status/772549094266982400

The IWW voting to send delegate(s) to Spain to observe the conference I don't think counts as playing into sectarianism. This vote still has to pass referendum anyway.

such attitude sounds quite surprising from someone whose organization applies for a Friend of the IWA (correct me if i'm wrong). isn't a proper term here fencewalking? ;)

This has generally been the attitude of most syndicalists in US. Some may have sympathies for one side or another, but usually try to show solidarity with all.

I did not refer to "most syndicalists" but to the context of WSA, but whatever...

My opinions are my own and not that of the WSA or the IWW, both of whom I'm a member of.

I was just surprised about how supportive/uncritical your opinion was. Like if that was another random thing and not a meeting organized by someone who claims to refound the IWA and breaking its statury rules (which is a fact obvious to anyone with at least a little bit of brain, isn't it?). But I understand that it is more comfortable to view this as just another solidarity building meeting.

I'm not sure if I'm supportive or not, to be honest I've not made up my mind on this conference or not yet, I don't feel I'm informed enough on the nature of it, and if it is being respectful of IWA rules or not. I haven't had time to read this whole thread or others like it around this issue yet. So perhaps you are right that I'm being uncritical.

Fwiw I was just sharing what I figured would be a wobbly response in regards this, that we will want to build relationships of solidarity. As far as I do know this is certainly a head nod or invitation of sorts to IWW and other revolutionary syndicalists to get into the fold, and I was told as much by a CNT member, but as far as the IWW goes, it's long-standing culture around not forming alliances with political or anti-political sects, basically trying to maintain a non-sectarian stance will in long term probably not be fruitful for those in the IWW who'd want such an alliance. Everytime the anarcho-syndicalists in the IWW have tried to align with the IWA or other anarcho-syndicalists it's been rejected or overturned by the Marxist or rank and file wings of the union. Those wings would want solidarity but no alliances, and probably prefer the IWW be it's own international organization.

"you guys" meaning who?!

IWW is a position where it doesn't have to choose sides and do whatever they like to, no doubt. If that is a positive or negative thing, that is up to everyone to decide. My opinion is that to start from the view that all the interorganizational conflicts are generally same (petty, counterproductive etc.) and therefore can be ignored and we should take only what is useful for us, is not OK. I wonder if this is coming from lack of experience with what such problems entail, or perhaps too much experience and some kind of history lessons learned?, but to me taking part in a conference in the middle of an issue that, however, is to be soon resolved, is weird and thoughtless.

Respectfully, this isn't just random some meeting. Ya'll do as you see fit, everyone that is, but let's just be real about what this meeting is all about. Seriously, people.

Everytime the anarcho-syndicalists in the IWW have tried to align with the IWA or other anarcho-syndicalists it's been rejected or overturned by the Marxist or rank and file wings of the union

Not quite true, though, the Chilean IWW was a member of the IAA/IWA/AIT at least until 1926, if I remember correctly.

I'm saying that this just not a simple meeting. And anyone who has read this and the one and only CNT translation committee document can figure this out. That there are reasons why the meeting is taking place. That's it. I find no innocence and I really just see a whole lot of politicking and people playing each other off.

So, yeah, basically, I don't buy it being a simple meeting. I don't buy that there hasn't been back door channels with some on this. And in the final analysis my opinion is my own and as I am not active prolly doesn't matter. I have already given decades to the movement and am on the way out of engaging on this stuff. But time will tell what peoples intentions are and what the realities ultimately be.

For the record, my views are my own. Any fireworks or the like can be directed at me. Not any organization that I have been previously associated with.

"MT, by "you guys", I mean the European syndicalist movement." That sounds like an offense. Just that I rather laught at such comments. Seriously?:)

If you attend during a conflict, that is taking sides. If you attend a few months later when the conflict is resolved, then it is taking sides, too. So, where is the difference? I would say ethics, at the very least...

As far as l know, the lWW has voted to attend a meeting not on the topic of building relations with the CNT, but specifically on "relaunching the lWA" - without the majority of the lWA Sections and in breach of the actual statutory requirements of the federation. So, for the just clueless muppets who l suppose were in the majority in deciding this, they will wind up very surprised that this is viewed negatively by anybody. But we are sure that the ones with the agenda will just answer that people are being "silly sectarians" that have some strange "problem" that organizations with nothing to do with the internal matters of the federation go to a meeting which pretends to be about its future.

As for all the solidarity and the rest, this does not seem like an act of solidarity to me. The federation has not met yet to discuss its internal problems. lf the lWW wants to meet with any lWA Sections, that is the business of that Section, but if it wants to meet on the topic of the future of the lWA, it is the business of everybody.

As far as our organization is concerned, we have had productive relations with some lWW unions, we did solidarity and people did solidarity with US. We are satisfied with this... and it didn't need any delegations to meetings or anything. Just some honest good will. But of course such moves right now probably will be not appreciated at all and the fault won't be about anything other than a lack of political sensitivity.

I found these links helpful:

http://iwa-ait.org/content/publication-cnt-spain-regarding-iwa
http://iwa-ait.org/content/extraordinary-congress-usi-against-illegitimate-use-name-iwa

Still have to read this giant thread I guess.

I think that those two links sum things up pretty well, but if you want to see the bigger picture and read bits of the "other side" and the way these bits are written, I would recommend to read it all here.

To reiterate in as plain words as l can find, if the CNT wants to meet with the lWW, that's the business of those 2 organizations. But if this is done in the current framework of this "refoundation process", then the lWW has just decided to give legitimacy and defacto support to the split. Furthermore, although this is more complicated to understand, it has given support to one faction of an internal debate in Spain.

l am pretty sure a lot of rank and file people in lWW are clueless and just thinking of "solidarity" but this is not achieved by getting used by people with various agendas in split processes. What actually happens is something else.

Of course proponents of certain forms of syndicalism or anarchosyndicalism eventually will end up more on one side or another and l have no illusions about how things will go. However, the decisions to hold process meetings (which were not clearly defined at CNT Congress) on refoundation before the lWA has a chance to meet is an attempt to subvert the legitimate progress, which requires that all proposals be submitted with sufficient time for organizations to conduct democratic internal debate and make difficult decisions.

People like Juan, who nota bene rushed to bring this sensation to Libcom, seem to be pretending that they don't know what they have been invited to attend and what the implications are. Or maybe really the whole thing is just to be reduced to some annoyances about "you people", the crazy Europeans with their different flavours.

Several weeks ago in an unrelated thread I said

I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the differences in organizational form and the divergences between what we say we mean and what we actually do. I think a reasonable person can argue anarchists sometimes fetishize form over function. I even think some of these questions need to be asked within the entire libertarian milieu especially in light of the current problems in the IWA (as in, taking away the personality conflicts, was there anything that could have been done differently to solve the inherent conflicts between smaller and larger sections?)

No one responded, and honestly, it's tough to imagine a constructive conversation in this thread. But I figured I'd give it a go. Obviously, there are other equally intractable differences in this shituation than the point I made above, but it does seem to be fairly central to the conflict. Does anyone have constructive ideas stemming from all of this?

l did not read that comment and it actually is interesting. l would say first off that l think there are some flaws and things l don't agree with in some details of the comment itself- for example, l don't think that personality conflicts played any significant role, although at various times people tried to make issues into personal ones. l don't agree with the remark about anarchists. But leaving aside the reasons, the question is interesting and legitimate and l will give my opinion.

First, l don't think there is an inherent conflict between smaller and bigger sections. l think this is how some people wanted to simplify it, but it was not so clear a divide. l say this because l can analyse, over a period of time, how people vote, what they propose, etc. and it does not show this suppose division of interests. For example, if you make a proposal, there are assessments that don't have to do with any size. There are perhaps different assessments about how to proceed with things.

ln my opinion the divide has been caused mostly by shifts towards more integration with different political scenes and changing perceptions of the tactics used for conducting activity.

Could anything have been done differently? Unfortunately, my answer is yes and my conclusion is that it was not done because some people were lobbying for exactly this solution (a break) for some years. l will give concrete examples and perhaps when l am in a different situation, go into more details.

One question which needed to be handled differently was the question of new global contacts and cooperation. The CNT proposed, for the 2009 Congress, a topic of "expansion of the lWA". (Maybe first l should be clear that my Section was admitted at that Congress, so we did not make any opinions or proposal on matters until the next international meeting, the 2011 Plenary, which we hosted in this country.) lt should be completely obvious that the issue is important for everybody and everybody wants to expand, but the devil lies in the details and the details were not thought out. ln addition, there were a lot of questionable issues and statements, such as things like, well, in the third world, you can't really expect people to be anarchists and so on. As l have mentioned elsewhere, since this topic was not developed with concrete proposals of any meaningul sort, the CNTE was asked to develop it and bring it back at the next international meeting.

As this was a pending topic, any Section could also bring their proposals, related in any way, to the topic. We brought a number of proposals, some of which passed, some not, related to ways to concretely go forward. One proposal l guess did not pass because it was not concrete enough. And so we could talk together about this and make agreements.

The CNTE did not submit a continuation of their proposal. lnstead, with our meeting starting on Friday, on Thursday they submitted a proposal to make some common networks or actions - it was not at all concrete and, most importantly, did not name any concrete organization. To clarify, organizations cannot submit proposals one day before a meeting, only in the case of a Plenary, 3 months, to give the Sections time to read, discuss and vote. What's more, most delegates were on the spot on Thursday and hadn't even seen it. We were asked to vote and the FAU delegation supported it, leaving huge questions as to that process. Of course we proposed later discussion in a referendum. At the same time, but not at all submitted to the process, we were invited by FAU to work in an alternative networks. ln other words, they wanted to build some other networks than lWA.

l went to the FAU meeting but ultimately we were critical of the process for a number of reasons due to transparency. Also, we did not like the idea of leaving the issue up in the air in the lWA, but starting processes like that. ln other words, we thought that if some lWA Sections want to start some new networks which include anarchists or anarchosyndicalists, it would be better to discuss in our Federation as a whole whether to just start official relations in the lWA.

Due to this situation, we decided that we need to have a discussion at the next Plenary, with a view towards seeing what we agree with and finding out who we should start different forms of cooperation with, in which scope, etc. So we move to the 2012 Plenary and what happened.

CNT did not make any decisions, any positions and did not send any delegation (only an observer). FAU did not come or send any opinions. USl hosted it, but did not say a word or express any opinions.

So basically, there was no discussion with them because of their choice not to participate in that.

The next time was the 2013 Congress and we received a proposal from USl about strategic alliances. Now we can see a very tragic example of improper communication and behaviour. For example, my Section is in favour of having some alliances, for example, just for some solidarity campaigns. But this proposal we received was literally one sentence or two and without a single detail. So we wrote to everybody and said, OK, we are discussing all the proposals but can USl specify what exactly, who, etc. And we received an answer that "at the Congress we will explain". And we said, hmm, listen, we are discussing and voting, so we need details now to vote. (Or of course we can listen at the Congress and vote another time, like the next meeting. But why delay.) But no answer and and the Congress, USl was withdrawing proposals instead of discussing.

At the same Congress a couple of FAU delegates started to put out feelers asking CNTE and USl delegates if they would also leave the lWA if they did. And they started this processes, including an internal campaign and vote about leaving.

Then l suppose most of what happened later is known.

This is only one topic, but the way things were not discussed and not dealt with in my opinion was deplorable practice. There was no lack of trying on the part of certain people (including me because l actually took a lot of time talking to different people in that period). My personal point of view is informed perhaps differently than some other comrades who maybe did not have occasion to discuss issues for so long with some of those involved.

lf the goals were to improve the functioning of the lWA Sections, then the correct form of action, in my opinion, would be to develop a common and realistic plan to do so and trying to implement it. Keeping in mind that the improvement would be slow in some instances and, maybe in 1 or 2, not at all. ln my opinion, in the period 2009-2013, visible improvements were made, namely, a larger percentage of the Sections became involved in developing syndical activity. There was no time since the 30s when such a high portion of the Sections were doing things. A lot more improvements could have been made because positive tendencies were occuring. Not everywhere and we had (and have) some difficult situations, but nothing so drastic that we should split apart a federation that had functioned so long.

However, the larger Sections did not participate in any of the ideas to improve the functioning or make expansion. This shows that they had another idea and their ideas hinged around getting rid of or marginalizing most Sections. For some the idea also revolved around increasing work with other organizations instead of inside.

There is a lot more because there are a number of issues. But that is my response to whether things could have been different.

ln the course of this all, we found ourselves in a difficult situation because we are a union organization and it is our focus, so we should have been able to concentrate on what we wanted to do. (Which we proposed and passed.) This was to build branch networking inside lWA (and even without, but inside first). For this to work, we needed cooperation of those who had workers in similar branches or companies, which tended to be CNTE, USl and with others, but because of smaller orgs, with the others it might be to a more limited extent. (But we see a lot of potential anyway and have to add that the other comrades have been keener.) Unfortunately, instead of facilitating the process, we got no help or interference, so, despite the fact that there are workers around in those organizations, if we are not able to contact them (which is sometimes literally the case) and if we have to face numerous problems with executive figures, then our conclusion was that we do not benefit in any way and are better off with people who at least exhibit willingness to cooperate, share experiences and show concrete solidarity when needed. So it did not happen that a split occurred strictly on the lines of those conducting "union activity" and those not, because we are focused on it and several of our sister sections have such activity, although maybe to a more modest extent.

Will anything constructive happen out of this? l consider this a major blow for anarchosyndicalism, which is in a bad enough position already, what with the retreat from ideology and the problems of bringing anarchist practice to society. However, what happens depends on many things we cannot predict.

lnside our organization, a lot of clarity happened and this was a good thing. But we also worry that some comrades will be left behind in a way, because they have problems of different sorts - sometimes relating to bad local conditions, sometimes relating to what we think is a lack of focus or feeling of despair. Under normal conditions, we think it is reasonable to realize that we have different possibilites and capabilities and it is just going to be normal in any federation or organization that things go better for some. Although we are all interested that everybody do as best they can. However we think we were but under conditions similar to living in a capitalist meritocracy, with the bosses looking to fire those who did not perform. This is not our model for our new society and people really need to think about it. Now we are under some sort of external pressure to influence us, which comes in different forms. Usually it comes in quite dogmatic formulas and often have the presumption that simply anarchosyndicalism is not viable, but that we should go instead into common class front strategies - basically, there are plenty whose solution is to revert back 150 years to common struggle with statist elements against capitalism.

We don't agree with this assessment and we want to set our own goals and criteria of being successful. Our criteria is not going to be if we have 10,000 members, but whether our organization functions as it should, whether we can mobilize enough people to win some struggles and whether we are successful at communicating our basic ideas and criticism of capitalism and the state to working class people. We want to be able to assess ourselves, without having to fit in some mould that other people are building and trying to convince is the "only way". We are usually our own clearest critics, we know our weaknesses but also our strengths. We need to develop in a sustainable way that won't undermine our plans.

We worry that things will go slow on a more global level and we see a tendencies for people to like faster solutions. This usually means compromises we don't want to take and which we think won't benefit us in the long run. So we think we will face some time where we will come even under attack for taking another road. So be it - we expect it. We only hope that comrades will stay the course and intensify their work.

We also see at the same time some very bad turns in some formerly comrade organizations and, in at least one case, divisions which have turned really bad. ln these cases, which we wish we didn't have to deal with, we think there are serious deviations from practices we see as core to our ideology, so we consider this to be a serious ideological crisis. We hope that constructive things will happen, for example, a clarification of principles and some reaffirmation of common ideas.

l cannot answer the question about constructive things coming out of this any more because a lot depends. Unfortunately, these developments are all deeply disappointing and l have seen things that challenge the faith that we can ever be what we want to be and what we claim we want.

Yes, sure, blame the ineffectiveness of IWA only on FAU, CNTE and USI. Surely your actions and inoperative sections' didn't have to do with all of this. Maybe you should mention how the IWA Sec. expelled the FAU by making up new terms or how during years you and the "anarchists" tried to forbid the FAU to talk and cooperate with workers around.

No worries, you're the IWA Sec. and are allowed to say whatever you like...

I don't know what it is what you take, but perhaps you should cut down on it and then you might be able to write something like akai did, which contains very deep and contextual information. So far you have been acting here more like a rabid animal.

Most of what you say is only information (or, sometimes, rather complete nonsense) without being able to provide any real context.

The main problem the leaders of troika have with the secretariat is that it was able to see through their shit and give sections important information. The real problem of troika is not secretariat or sections, the problem is at home...

Any IWA section can propose improvements to the IWA. It was proven several times that FAU, CNTE and USI deliberately refused to go in this direction and in the end chose the road of manouvers and basically sabotage. If all the discontent was sincere, CNTE, USI and FAU would fuck off of the IWA years ago. Instead, they break rules and try to start "refounded IWA" while not being able leave the IWA in dignity and honesty and then do whatever they please. So, tell us, how the evil sections and secretariat made troika to act in this sleazy way. I am really curious.

Seriously? You alienate three big sections (CNT, USI, FAU), throw out one for dubious reasons (FAU) and expect that nothing happens? If I am shitty to my friends for too long, some day they don't want to be my friend anymore...surprise.

And even worse: Now that it is clear that there is a split inside the IWA you go on like there is one giant conspiracy and sent mails around to make organizations afraid of this new initiative. All the IWA-secretary has done is making this issue worse, and now it's clear that this has been their agenda for some time.

And your arguments...it's not even granted that this new initiative will try to reclaim the name IWA, as I understand it this isn't a closed issue. So what will be your argument if the identity of IWA will not be touched by the new international? SAC booooh?!

My post was not really about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the federation as a whole or of any of its individual member sections; the point which l believe was brought up was about the break-up and if anything could have been done. Obviously, one can go on forever analysing decisions, what individual sections contributed or not to common projects, wrong turns, etc. However, l am relating directly to what my immediate experiences were and that is that in the period directly after we joined, some efforts were being made on the local level in a number of places to increase activity, especially in a syndical matter, some efforts were made to improve coordination of international actions, some efforts were made to reach out to more people and improve contacts, efforts were made to improve information flow internally and externally. l was personally involved in a lot of this, but l don't say that for any other purpose than to state that l am therefore in a position to know who was working on certain collective efforts and who wasn't in that period. Whenever there was a project that the lWA should do together, or that would have had some collective benefit towards improving matters, the Sections with the most people and resources simply did nothing. Whenever there were attempts to discuss some things more deeply, there was literal refusal to do it. We know who showed some goodwill and effort on these matters and these are comrades we value and that's it.

l know it is very popular to personalize things and try to hang everything on one person, especially if that person (me), was involved in doing something hard, but the facts still stand: l personally had nothing do to with the start of the drive to reorganize the lWA (l wasn't even in the federation when it started), l had nothing to do with choices like not going to a Congress or Plenary and choosing not to discuss stuff, l also had nothing to do with actions like making talk about leaving the lWA and trying to split it then (2013) by seeing if CNTE and USl would come, or deciding after that to conduct internal (and external) anti-lWA campaigns in your Section and motioning to leave. That's all stuff you all decided to do and you all decided to make cleansing the lWA of most of its member Sections the propositional priority of your organizations. lf l had any reaction, it was a reaction to what you were doing going towards a breakup.

Now we have arrived at a moment of truth - those who wanted only really to be with CNTE and USl and to move towards news alliances have actually achieved this, but it seems this is not the end thing, that there is the continued fight against other people or tendencies they do not agree with or identify with. Things were emotional and it is hard to avoid the provocations but in the end, you have chosen your path. Back in the 50s, the SAC was more honest, because they chose their path and since it didn't coincide with the others, they just went and went about their business. You guys all made your decisions so maybe fuck off with all the victim shit because you made conscious decisions to go that way and you didn't want to be with the rest of us anyway. All you were droning on about for years was having no "small sections". Fine - make a new federation and do what you want, just leave people to get on with picking up the pieces and trying to go forward.

Going back to the what if's and if things could have been different, l think that different issues involving FAU are known outside the federation, people have heard them, each can have their own assessment and probably has, according to what they know or according to their own personal views on matters. Conflicts had been going on for ages, prior to 2014 FAU had held votes on whether to leave lWA 2 or 3 times already. They were not happy then obviously, Among the many comments l have heard when speaking to their members were ones from people who didn't want to go... not because they were satisfied, but basically because they didn't want to just go by themselves. ln other words, better to cause a shakeup and go with the ones they still wanted to be with - or even better, take things over. Thus the importance places on changing the vote.

Well, of course nobody wanted to have it. Rather than having more straightforward and honest discussions about what people wanted to achieve in the lWA, about how to come to some common positions, maybe some compromises and how to realistically go through some processes to achieve some positive changes, we had power plays, attempts to exclude, backdoor dealing, working outside the framework of lWA instead of together, etc. etc. With such things going on, nothing good was going to happen. There may be much deeper histories as to why people started to act this or that way, but this was before my time and l only describe the state of affairs from after the time we joined.

Again about the constructive things, either those of us left are going to have to be very constructive or we will literally bite the dust.

l personally do not intend to bite the dust and despite the concerted efforts directed at my person, which have included rather scummy ones l won't even go into, l am cannot be bullied by you. Say what you want - it means nothing and our efforts to take on the battle against the bosses continue and we won't stop organizing. As for the rest of the lWA comrades, who know what they will want to do, but we have our path. We hope to continue with those who see sense in it and whose relations with us have been mutually beneficial. lf someone doesn't feel that way, then sorry, maybe something was not right, maybe we weren't good comrades or maybe just the ideas about what to do in general are different.

That's all l have to say right now and these are my sincere observations and reflections. l don't expect any crank who was only involved in complaining to like them or agree with them but l just add that l never found anything the "militant prole" said to be constructive, only complaining about everyone in a crude way.

You should get your dates straight, you are ridiculous...

Refounding the IWA is what the CNTE came up with. There was no mention of "no, we don't mean the THE IWA" until FAU made comments. So, make up you minds people and find some honesty in you. Don't like IWA? Then leave the fuck IWA and do whatever you want...

Edit: This was written as response to nokta, before noticing akai's response.

Nokta, yes, seriously. Compare versions of events for a reality check.

What l have explained basically is that for some years (actually a few decades), there have been troubles and FAU has questioned whether they want to be in lWA and vice versa, Sections have questioned whether they want you. No need to go into all the details. At the moment we joined, a number of things were happening. CNTE was in transformation and wanted to transform some things in lWA. These were rejected. FAU was half-in, half-out, not going to half the meetings (also not at the Congress when we joined), not taking part in collective international projects inside the federation, but looking to form international projects outside. Among some members of FAU and CNTE there was increased talk of leaving or doing something else (although this was not on the official agenda yet). On the other hand, efforts to coordinate better, some local improvements and some very successful international solidarity campaigns.

The FAU delegation was very angry at 2013 Congress, some making overtures and sending feelers to CNTE and USl about leaving and some complaining about the whole thing. Afterwards the start of new internal anti-lWA campaigns preceding a vote on staying, increased parallel activity.

The Secretariat receives complaints and knows Sections (plural) are preparing motions against FAU and after long reflection uses the mandate to bring the question of FAU affiliation to 2014 Congress. Admittedly, this was questioned by some and caused anger and probably pushed the split initiative a bit forward in time.

The other version which seems to be promoted is that we were persecuted terribly but we were all happy and good comrades with no problem - except we were surrounded by incompetent losers who never wanted to become unions because they are crazy. And then we got this organization from Poland and inside it, somebody was making a plot all along to rid the lWA of the unions. At first she was making all this solidarity with everybody, but we guess it was just all a trick to carry out the devious plot. Then, somehow, she tricked everybody and was elected Secretary, despite the long line of volunteers who wanted to do that job and after that, used her unilateral powers to single handedly and for no reason whatsoever (except for the secret plan), kick us out and then, just because of this, there was a split. And that was the plan.

Further as to my "trying to scare people", l think l have written here very clearly that if people want to meet with you or anybody else, it is your business, but it is not anything endorsed by the lWA. The lWA meets in December and only the Congress can decide if it wants to refound the lWA. l sincerely doubt that will happen. So anything done in that framework at this point is a split initiative.

Quite frankly, if people who were never in the lWA want to take part in this illegitimate refounding, they are just doing something stupid that will have unpleasant consequences. Why should these people have any say about lWA when you are trying to go around the legitimate membership with this whole process?

lt is also quite clear you all can go and form whatever you want with whoever you want if you are not satisfied with others. lt's a basic thing.

As for making matters worse, it's a little hard to do it if people don't want to discuss or if they prefer to just make loud public announcements instead of going through the organic process internally.

Just saw this on the IWA site....
http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/misconceptions-over-split-conference

Disappointed in the splits, but glad that the IWA is mature to write: "We stress that in no way do we imply that any organizations avoid either the lWA or the split faction in matters such as international solidarity, which must continue even through this difficult time."

http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/misconceptions-over-split-conference

syndicalist

Just saw this on the IWA site....
http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/misconceptions-over-split-conference

syndicalist

Disappointed in the splits, but glad that the IWA is mature to write: "We stress that in no way do we imply that any organizations avoid either the lWA or the split faction in matters such as international solidarity, which must continue even through this difficult time."

http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/misconceptions-over-split-conference

syndicalist

Just saw this on the IWA site....
http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/misconceptions-over-split-conference

The only problem is that this is what says in public, to look nice and mature, in privet the IWA secretariat send mails to the organization that are not IWA to avoid to have contacts with CNT, USI and FAU.

The IWA has tried not to involve other organizations in these internal matters or ask them to take sides in the split. The split faction however has decided to do just that. We ask that people be cautious about such circumstances so that the situation not have new negative repercussions.

As i said, this is not true, months ago IWA secretariat sent mails to the non IWA unions.

melenas

The IWA has tried not to involve other organizations in these internal matters or ask them to take sides in the split. The split faction however has decided to do just that. We ask that people be cautious about such circumstances so that the situation not have new negative repercussions.

As i said, this is not true, months ago IWA secretariat sent mails to the non IWA unions.

I would like to see the letter. You can share either publicaly or privately

syndicalist

melenas

The IWA has tried not to involve other organizations in these internal matters or ask them to take sides in the split. The split faction however has decided to do just that. We ask that people be cautious about such circumstances so that the situation not have new negative repercussions.

As i said, this is not true, months ago IWA secretariat sent mails to the non IWA unions.

I would like to see the letter. You can share either publicaly or privately

I will try but depends on the union that receive it, if they want to make it public. Also the people of IWA secretariat that is in this forum can put it if they want.

melenas

syndicalist

melenas

The IWA has tried not to involve other organizations in these internal matters or ask them to take sides in the split. The split faction however has decided to do just that. We ask that people be cautious about such circumstances so that the situation not have new negative repercussions.

As i said, this is not true, months ago IWA secretariat sent mails to the non IWA unions.

I would like to see the letter. You can share either publicaly or privately

I will try but depends on the union that receive it, if they want to make it public. Also the people of IWA secretariat that is in this forum can put it if they want.

Respectfully comrade, you made the charge, so it's your responsibility, not someone else's

If the international structure proposal that would change the IWW to be an organization of regional sections with separate administrations passes the IWW's union wide referendum, the motion to attend the CNT meeting in November will have the effect of the North American section sending a strictly mandated delegate and probably European sections sending their own delegates. The motion that passed Convention only empowers the delegates to make proposals at the meeting about card exchange, joint meetings in areas both the IWW and other unions exist, and sharing organizing trainings.

^^^^. Explaining that there will be attendance at a IWA split confence?

Sorry, if it's been explained that this is a split conference, and folks voted to attend it, that's disappointing. Sounds like a bait and switch to
me. Given all that I experianced with some in the IWA, you'd think I'd be happy. But I am not and I feel that feeding into internal splits just does a real disservice

klas batalo

If the international structure proposal that would change the IWW to be an organization of regional sections with separate administrations passes the IWW's union wide referendum, the motion to attend the CNT meeting in November will have the effect of the North American section sending a strictly mandated delegate and probably European sections sending their own delegates. The motion that passed Convention only empowers the delegates to make proposals at the meeting about card exchange, joint meetings in areas both the IWW and other unions exist, and sharing organizing trainings.

It sounds like if you are just saying the same thing that you said before - that it is OK that IWW attends a conference which is in fact an act of split by the CNT, FAU and USI and is a ground to create a parallel IWA. No wonder that the tricks the CNT have played for a long time seems to work. Mixing the major and key thing with the minor "for show" thing is something that many people are very happy with. The fact that the regular IWA Congress is in December and it is completely strange that the organizations jump on the illegitimate conference of the troika, simply cannot be viewed as just "solidarity side of the thing" or, maybe it can - a show of solidarity with the acts of usurping another organization. Good luck with such attitude...

Anyway, this meeting is about so-called "refoundation of the IWA" and it was such from the very beginning. If this is not what was clearly told to people (IWW members in this case) then that is a very interesting thing indeed.

Well, just to clarify, l have actually sent the link to this statement on the lWA to one organization, that is lWW because of the fact that here on Libcom it seemed as if some in the lWW were not aware of the nature of the meeting - but in fact, the invitation to it is clearly entitled "Invitation to the Bilbao international conference for the preparation of the IWA refoundation". The folks at the lWW were so kInd to send me a copy of the resolution, which confirms my suspicion that the whole thing was presented slightly differently to the convention, without mention of the refoundation.

Prior to this l sent one piece of correspondence on the matter to one organization only. The reason for that was that that organization is in contact with lWA affiliates from the non-split faction, it was at an officially sponsored lWA event and even one of its members was abroad and somehow involved with one lWA Section (temporary member or just visitor - not sure). ln any case, the content of the letter basically the same and it was sent because members of lWA in the reason referred to the fact that members of that organization were asking questions.

That's the extent of it.

Another issue of course is just to Klas and lWW, because probably it wasn't considered. Basically, the lWA practice, according to our statutes, has been that if members of any lWA union go abroad, they should join the lWA affiliate in that country. So, up until now, CNT members have been joining unions like SolFed in Great Britian. Of course you mention that US and European lWW may be separate, but you know, lWW should think about proposals like that, that maybe there are other organizations that CNT members would like to join in places where lWW exist. The other issue is about joint meetings in other areas where lWW and other unions exist. lt is of course up to the particular unions in those areas if they want to have joint meetings with you or not. That type of proposal is best made to those directly involved. As far as l know, the this doesn't concern the CNT since the lWW does not operate in the "area" the CNT operates, unless by "area" you are referring to a larger geographical area. ln any case, would be curious to know what area means.

So if the issue is that the IWW sent members to the CNT convention under mistaken (or even false pretenses) surely they will attend the convention and get a good read on what is happening there? Who knows maybe our delegates will decide not to do anything at this time.I don't see what the issue is if a group of syndicalists want a closer relationship with another group. That closer relarionship still needs to be determined. If there are other groups that want a closer relationship with the IWW I would encourage us to meet with them too.

The important thing is we get past the turf wars, 'no contact' rules, denounciation in lieu of honest and earnest debate and get on with building the workers movement.

I don't think it's a question of "turf wars" or "no contact" relative to this conference.

The Call is for IWA Refoundation and I'm not sure how anyone could have missed that or misrepresented it. I have often been reminded that curiosity killed the cat. And, as an outsider to both the IWA and the IWW, I am surprised about peoples judgement and spin on this particular conference and the nature of it. Actually, if a split in the IWW occurred, announced the formation of a new IWW, i hope that IWA people would not attend the founding meeting of the split.

I think No Contact is at the very root of the issue though. Historically the IWA has had a very particular relationship to other currents with a similar orientation. A lot of the arguments on here is that we should respect that orientation when we don't share it.

The issues around the FAU and their near expulsion has to do largely with violating the No Contact rule. The arguments used even in the last post from the IWA secretary reference the IWA's rules about only having certain kinds of arrangements with IWA sections in any given country.

I think if the IWA reached out to a split in the IWW it would obviously cause some frustration. I also think it would make a lot of sense if we were on the same page about important questions of international relations and working towards a less sectarian movement. Feelings aren't the only factor here.

I've said this in internal IWW forums so I may as well say it here, if the IWA secretariat wants to extend a similar invitation and share similar plans as the breakaway faction did I would be in favour of that too.

I can't stop wondering about people's ethics and politics in this thread... It is really scary to see how easily it is to play games with some. What we have here is a conference to illegitemately "refound" the IWA. First, people are not told about (that is my understanding from what was written here, my apologies if I am not correct). Then when this is revealed, it is downplayed with "who cares, something positive might come out of it" (the sleazy type of argument for basically any problematic situation). I have seen so many crazy things like this but it never stops to astonish me...

As for the no contact issue - I think this is a non-issue. Perhaps my memory fails me, but I have never heard of no contact rule of the IWA regarding the IWW. I mean in 2008 there was a global day of actions against Starbucks organized by the IWW and IWA and I don't remember any decision since then that would mean that such things should never happen again, or anything related to "no contact".

I don't know why people who are so remote to the issues feel the need to throw their 5 cents here. There is something weird in the IWW related to the troika conference, so instead of giving strange justification, be honest and face it. It is not worth the embarassment.

I think the real dividing line in this debate is between those who are interested in maintaining the same dysfunctional state of affairs, drama, and dead end political fights that have dominated the last 20 years and those who are interested in building something more useful for working people.

We've all been watching this for decades and it's really encouraging to see some folks wanting to step past it.

Pehraps "you" should ask your "folks" why they don't leave the IWA if they are so brave and build something useful for the working people (that's in fact an interesting leninist twist:))

Well, l think Edmonton Wobbly, like many, are reading what they want to read into things and that informs their opinion.

The lWA Secretariat cannot invite you to anything since it was not decided at our Congress to organize any such event. lt was also not decided who to invite to what at the CNT Congress, but l suppose such issues are of no concern to anybody. On the other hand, as l have pointed out elsewhere, there are no policies against lWW and never have been boundaries for cooperation, perhaps except in people's heads. As far as l know, there are some dual members, in some countries there is cooperation and there have been numerous solidarity actions. l know that my union answered a number of calls from wobblies and vice-versa about that. And as far as l am concerned, there have been a number of events with both lWA and lWW in attendance, l organized 3-4 such event, l was at a wobbly event speaking... you know, it's not as if nobody ever invited anybody in the lWW to anything.

Am very disappointed at some people who do not seem to understand the full implications of what they are doing. l suppose people being willfully mislead.

It could also be that we disagree. Mature people can do that. We don't even all have to be evil, irresponsible, scheming or deluded. We can just have a different take on things and different priorities in our organising.

MT

klas batalo

If the international structure proposal that would change the IWW to be an organization of regional sections with separate administrations passes the IWW's union wide referendum, the motion to attend the CNT meeting in November will have the effect of the North American section sending a strictly mandated delegate and probably European sections sending their own delegates. The motion that passed Convention only empowers the delegates to make proposals at the meeting about card exchange, joint meetings in areas both the IWW and other unions exist, and sharing organizing trainings.

It sounds like if you are just saying the same thing that you said before - that it is OK that IWW attends a conference which is in fact an act of split by the CNT, FAU and USI and is a ground to create a parallel IWA. No wonder that the tricks the CNT have played for a long time seems to work. Mixing the major and key thing with the minor "for show" thing is something that many people are very happy with. The fact that the regular IWA Congress is in December and it is completely strange that the organizations jump on the illegitimate conference of the troika, simply cannot be viewed as just "solidarity side of the thing" or, maybe it can - a show of solidarity with the acts of usurping another organization. Good luck with such attitude...

Anyway, this meeting is about so-called "refoundation of the IWA" and it was such from the very beginning. If this is not what was clearly told to people (IWW members in this case) then that is a very interesting thing indeed.

I'm just relaying the information so people can know what's going on with IWW. As much was recently shared Monday to IWA Secretariat by the GST.

EdmontonWobbly

It could also be that we disagree. Mature people can do that. We don't even all have to be evil, irresponsible, scheming or deluded. We can just have a different take on things and different priorities in our organising.

Comrades can agree to disagree on tactics, forms of organizing and priorities, for sure. It just gets complicated and sloppy when splits are involved. It creates the potential for ill will when there need not be. And I think this is what folks have been trying to say.

So, if IWW sends a delegate to check what is going on in Bilbao IWA-AIT would consider that as a war declaration?

Amazing

As much as this conference is a split conference, it's also more then that. CNT, USI and FAU are/were the three biggest sections of the IWA and it's clear that this will be a new process with new directions, e.g. there is talk about abandoning the "one country, one section"-rule. Don't sending delegates, even if just for observation, if your organization is invited would be stupid.

And also remember this all started when FAU got kicked out of IWA (although some users here try to frame it differently), so it's more of a forced split. Those being upset about the conference and trying to push other away from this new international are the once responsible for this situation.

Besides the IWW, I'd be interested to know what the position on this issue is by other organization or militants of other syndicalist organizations or even IWA sections (besides akai and MT – we know your take on this no need to reply) ?

"to check what is going on"
"a forced split"

masters of deceit have spoken...

Open invitation letter to the Bilbao International Conference, 26-27 November, 2016 for anarcho-syndicalist and revolutionary syndicalist organisations

Dear comrades:

CNT-E, FAU and USI are sections of the International Workers' Association (IWA), founded in 1922.

We consider essential and urgent the existence of an active and inclusive anarcho-syndicalist International, which participates in and promotes struggles of workers worldwide and facilitates social improvements for them through this. Unfortunately, we have to admit that despite our best efforts the IWA has deviated from its principles and practices. Instead of concentrating on union activity, it has become bureaucratic, dogmatic and isolationist with regard to the labor movement. Considering this, we need to rebuild our International.

We believe that our International should restrict itself to general principles that express the commonalities that the members sections have, despite their different histories, traditions and social-economic situations. For us these general principles include:

- being an anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary syndicalist organization as well as a bottom-up organization;

- not receiving economic funding from the state due to being a union or carrying out union activity;

- not supporting as an organisation any electoral project, neither of a political party nor of individual candidates.

In addition, we believe that member sections should have at least 100 members nationally. We believe that smaller groups can carry out propaganda activities or local conflicts better and should concentrate on developing at the national level, before taking part in the complex decision-making process of an International. In order to support groups which have less than 100 members we will have the status "Friends". We wish to help such groups grow and would be pleased to have them take part in our international solidarity campaigns.

At the same time, we do not presume to know or be aware of every other initiative worldwide that might fulfil these requirements. Therefore, we are issuing this open invitation to the Intenational Conference, to be held in Bilbao (Spain) on November 26-27, 2016 during which we will be able to work towards a congress to rebuild an IWA. At the conference you will have a chance to present your organisation and its work, get to meet other similar initiatives, assess the benefits of joining us in this endeavor, make contributions and proposals towards the congress agenda and the rebuilding of an IWA, and explore, in any case, the possibility of joint international actions and solidarity.

Even if your organization is not interested in joining this project on a more formal capacity, or ultimately decides not to, we still invite you to contact us to collaborate in international solidarity campaigns.

A proposal for the conference agenda and more practical info will be sent at a later date to those organizations that have expressed an interest in participating in it.

You can contact us on any of the following email addresses to express your interest, confirm your attedance, raise queries or concerns, etc.:

CNT-E, [email protected]

FAU, [email protected]

USI-AIT, [email protected]

In solidarity,

¡Viva el anarcosindicalismo! ¡Viva la AIT!

http://cnt.es/en/news/open-invitation-letter-bilbao-international-conference-26-27-november-2016-anarcho-syndicalist-

With one revision, namely being the main point of denial.

I would say that it is rather deception than denial. and I would add "deception as usual"...

denial fits better for those who still believe troika's half-truths and lies despite numerous disclosures.

Why not just call yourselves something else?

syndicalist

Why not just call yourselves something else?

From following the discussion on alasbarricadas I get the impression there are plenty of people in the CNT saying the same. For example, and pretty much at random, this response to the Bilbao conference invite on the current thread:
ganapia

Creo que es una buena oportunidad para revitalizar la acción internacional, tomar contactos con organizaciones que pasan olimpicamente de la AIT e intentar crear redes de solidaridad, federaciones de ramo y secciones de empresa internacionales en multinacionales.

Personalmente creo que se debería apostar por un nombre diferente a la AIT.

Why did a proposal get put forward to 'refound' the IWA, rather than just leaving it and setting up something new? I guess the reason may simply be that it would have been harder to get a majority to agree to this, even if it's what many CNT members would prefer.

akai

With one revision, namely being the main point of denial.

Maybe the change in the heading of the invite just reflects internal disagreement over whether they should be laying claim to the IWA name.

what do you mean by majority, mark?

i would not put off the table also another explanation - the leaders could have a plan (whatever crazy) to seize the iwa funds for their new adventures along the way...

Most probably reasons are related to legal claims since the CNT broke its own statutes. Also, the proposal was not formulated this way so there was never any clear mandate.

Most probably reasons are related to legal claims since the CNT broke its own statutes. Also, the proposal was not formulated this way so there was never any clear mandate.

MT

what do you mean by majority, mark?

A majority within the CNT willing to back a proposal.

Edit: I was referring to decision making within the CNT, not within the IWA. I probably didn't make this very clear.

i am not a cnt member, so hard to say, but i've herad that people in cnt say that cnt leaders were never given mandate to create this split

Self-removed

MT

what do you mean by majority, mark?

i would not put off the table also another explanation - the leaders could have a plan (whatever crazy) to seize the iwa funds for their new adventures along the way...

MT

i am not a cnt member, so hard to say, but i've herad that people in cnt say that cnt leaders were never given mandate to create this split

Yes, you herd that someone have a friend that told him that he red in a forum that ....

Are you serious?

Are you able to tell as which was the proposal with more support about international strategy and IWA of CNT in the XI congress?

I give you a clue, had a support of more than 70%

I do agree with you Juan. There's no point in calling ourselves the same thing as the group we leave. I think there's quite a few people left in CNT, USI, FAU that want to keep the name for emotional reasons. In my opinion (I belong to CNT) if we're building a new thing, use a new name. I don't see any problem. Right now IWA is seen as a sectarian group of unions (propaganda groups) around radical left also thanks to the sectarian action of CNT in the past. It's better to move on and try a fresh name to begin new collaborations with other unions.

I feel all of this situation is fault of CNT. In the french exile spanish CNT was a political party with no interest in doing any kind of unionism. The way those guys explained to new generations what anarchism was, modelled the type of militant we got in the 70s around the anarcho-syndicalist millieu. We need organisations useful for the working class not 1936 fanclubs.

My late Father used to say: "The way you make your bed is the way you lay in it."

So I prolly have exhausted all my thoughts and comments on this.

The lines are clearly drawn and now only time will tell.

lnteresting "analysis" by Salvochea. ln the France exile, the split revolved around participation in the exile governments and was largely based on the reflections and criticisms coming out of the CNT collaboration. ln the 1970s, well, we can imply from Salvochea, the CNT got "bad types" of activists. One can only assume the types that didn't split off and form the CGT. As time goes on, things get clearer and clearer about the recent transformation and expulsions in CNT and what ideology stands behind it.

Me personally, l have no big interest in any myths of 1936 and am most interested in union building. But there are more games here than anything else and as MT as pointed out, a lot of deceit.

When I speak about the split in the exile is to say that both parts where doing basically low level politics. In Transition CNT was able to attract so many people because it was seen as a democratic union, and not so much seen as a revolutionary union. In Spain there was a huge wave of strikes beginning in 1970 and ending in 1977. When CNT was reborn (76) the wave was decreasing. Inside CCOO there were big leftist sectors, some of those favouring radical/socialist ideas. This left opposition was mainly an assambleistic movement, that also it was called 'autonomous' (not in the Italian or Germany way, it has a different connotation). Anyway, CNT was able to attract these new people. In the spring of 78 CNT was huge, counting around 250.000 members. But for that same year the exiled anarcho-syndicalists 'political parties' had managed to seize upper committees beginning an internal war ending in two splits, one in 1980 (congreso de Valencia) and the other one in 1984 (congreso de Reunificación), both of which gave as a result CGT. The other part, CNT-AIT, was mainly a sect. I remember going to their local in my town and I thought they belonged to another time. CNT managed to rebuild itself mostly thanks to Juventudes Libertarias in 90s and some remnants from the 80s (but only in Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Puerto Real/Sevilla; as for the rest of Spain CNT was virtually non-existant).

When I began into anarchism back into 90s I didn't like CNT at all. To me it was a kind of political party, similar to the Communist Party, but one that didn't run for elections... like many other in spanish radical left though. It smelled naftaline. So I focused in social movements. I affiliated to CNT in 2010, when I realised they had totally changed their path and were doing useful stuff: base unionism. CNT changed its mind in 2003 during Tomares garbage strike (Seville) and 2005 with Mercadona (supermarkets), after that some local unions realised they could do workplace syndicalism, and many of its problems were not fault of CGT at all. Whatever, things changed and the wave caught most of the unions. Not everyone, its true. That's why you might see some people in the internet complaining about 'reformists'. But all unions in cnt (even so-called 'radical' ones) do the same stuff. There's no secret: if you do a hard job by picketing streets, offices, restaurants, factories... sooner or later you will have some results. Even ZSP grows :) and I'm glad about that. Believe me.

Now IWA is so difficult to change from within (I directly blame CNT in the 50s-70s-80s-90s for creating an International explicitly to exclude SAC) that the next step is what you see. I think CNT should feel sorry for our responsibility in all of this. But our union has changed and we need another kind of international. We need real unions, maybe still small but doing some real work, and no more propaganda groups.

and you are free to do what you like. just leave the IWA and create something OTHER THAN "THE IWA". is it so hard to do it? because so far it seems that it really is and instead you prefer playing games with people. and this in fact puts in doubt the whole story you try to portait now...

Well, this is all interesting what Salvochea says and l am sure he believes in it. l have a different point of view, because l don't like mainstream unionism and don't like going in that direction. When l first was an anarchist, l only had contact with syndicalists who weren't too anarchist and quite mainstream and l didn't like it. l became interested in anarchosyndicalism after visiting the CNT in 1984. There l got information about why the renovados split off to do their own thing (the future CGT) and that was the first time l saw that there could be another possibility besides mainstream unionism and something that is "alternative" but acts a bit similarly. Over the years l have learned a lot more, read a lot of history and source documents. l have never come to the conclusion that it is a shame that the careerists of the CGT left. Of course l have heard others say it, but it tends to be those who are much less concerned about what tactics they use and their relation to the state, and which belong to organizations with more neutral ideas about the actual role of the state.

For me, a changing of principles and an influx of people with new priorities is what you see.

However, let's come back to lWA, which usually is being discussed as if CNT was never in it and never shaped it. The following should be pointed out. CNT says it could not change lWA. Well - let's see what it tried to actually do. Did it bring a proposal, for example, that we should discuss relations with some other organizations? Actually... there was exactly this proposal submitted by my union and l will say exactly how the discussion looked in terms of the split faction: CNT did not send a delegate or have any decisions on the matter, FAU did not come, USl was there but said zero, not a word. Literally that is how the topic was treated at the Plenary when another union brought this issue.

The fact is that the only thing actually being pushed was kicking out most of the lWA from the lWA. lt was CNT which decided not even to discuss with people and actually learn what others thought.

l am very sorry for this, because you threw out the baby with the bathwater. But the long and the short of it is that why have no need to rid ourselves of organizations like our neighbours to the south, because they make valuable contributions, show solidarity and are trying. lf we have more need for them than we have for you, it speaks volumes about how completely unuseful your sector of CNT has been towards helping to develop anarchosyndicalism in my locality. And as far as l know, your sector is just moving to helping develop shady syndicalism in this region.

All l can say is that as we grow as a union, l hope we will never wind up developing like you. No personal offense intended.

Salvoechea

When I speak about the split in the exile is to say that both parts where doing basically low level politics. In Transition CNT was able to attract so many people because it was seen as a democratic union, and not so much seen as a revolutionary union. In Spain there was a huge wave of strikes beginning in 1970 and ending in 1977. When CNT was reborn (76) the wave was decreasing. Inside CCOO there were big leftist sectors, some of those favouring radical/socialist ideas. This left opposition was mainly an assambleistic movement, that also it was called 'autonomous' (not in the Italian or Germany way, it has a different connotation). Anyway, CNT was able to attract these new people. In the spring of 78 CNT was huge, counting around 250.000 members. But for that same year the exiled anarcho-syndicalists 'political parties' had managed to seize upper committees beginning an internal war ending in two splits, one in 1980 (congreso de Valencia) and the other one in 1984 (congreso de Reunificación), both of which gave as a result CGT. The other part, CNT-AIT, was mainly a sect. I remember going to their local in my town and I thought they belonged to another time. CNT managed to rebuild itself mostly thanks to Juventudes Libertarias in 90s and some remnants from the 80s (but only in Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Puerto Real/Sevilla; as for the rest of Spain CNT was virtually non-existant).

When I began into anarchism back into 90s I didn't like CNT at all. To me it was a kind of political party, similar to the Communist Party, but one that didn't run for elections... like many other in spanish radical left though. It smelled naftaline. So I focused in social movements. I affiliated to CNT in 2010, when I realised they had totally changed their path and were doing useful stuff: base unionism. CNT changed its mind in 2003 during Tomares garbage strike (Seville) and 2005 with Mercadona (supermarkets), after that some local unions realised they could do workplace syndicalism, and many of its problems were not fault of CGT at all. Whatever, things changed and the wave caught most of the unions. Not everyone, its true. That's why you might see some people in the internet complaining about 'reformists'. But all unions in cnt (even so-called 'radical' ones) do the same stuff. There's no secret: if you do a hard job by picketing streets, offices, restaurants, factories... sooner or later you will have some results. Even ZSP grows :) and I'm glad about that. Believe me.

Now IWA is so difficult to change from within (I directly blame CNT in the 50s-70s-80s-90s for creating an International explicitly to exclude SAC) that the next step is what you see. I think CNT should feel sorry for our responsibility in all of this. But our union has changed and we need another kind of international. We need real unions, maybe still small but doing some real work, and no more propaganda groups.

Having supported the CNT-AIT since underground days,
I am profoundly disturbed by this.

Syndicalist, if you want to practice Spanish, l can recommend this: http://kaosenlared.net/el-sindicalismo-revolucionario-hoy-realidad-o-deseo/ l am not recommending it because l agree with it.

Also you can recommend this as well:
http://www.portaloaca.com/opinion/12223-anarcosindicalismo-sin-trabajadores.html

Ragnar

Also you can recommend this as well:
http://www.portaloaca.com/opinion/12223-anarcosindicalismo-sin-trabajadores.html

Syndicalism without anarchism is just better unionism. Anarchism without syndicalism is just a poor anarchism. I'm not for isolation, but not for a sterile unionism either.

so what is this cleam? do you said that it´s sterile the struggle to Uber, Deliveroo and Cleaners in London?
What is in the facts revolutionary syndicalism - anarcosyndicalism? not in the theory and the crystal tower as talking Octavio.

l think Syndicalist was very clear here. lf you need to know more, l'd recommend Solfed's pamphlets, especially Fighting for Ourselves, which is in Spanish if you need.

Not, it´s not clear. Is the same abstract rhetoric have been listening for 11 years in Spain.
Akai reply... the problem is not the language, your reply is out of place, i would like to know Syndicalist opinion, not a book...

So what basicaly says Octavo arbeloa is that a union is not revolutionary till the moment that is able to make the revolution and try to do it. You don't need to write so much to say that revolutionary is the one that make the revolution. The difference between a reformist and a revolutionary organization is that the reformist doesn't work in social dinamics and relationships in the soziety, changing them to put the base for a revolution. After saying this CNT was always reformist till was able to make the revolution.

And now, why to share literature instead to share this?

http://valencia.cnt.es/2016/10/cnt-convoca-huelga-parcial-indefinida-en-la-empresa-extracciones-levante/

The power of CNT 80 years a go wasn't because they had people writing nice literature, was because the example they were giving every day.

My point is you have to have a combo of both
How that gets work together is obviously the work of those in the union

Somehow I find it hard to believe the CNT of all unions is having a debate
as to whether to be more if one or the other. And surely the CNT just didn't discover union work

Will you want that to be true about CNT! hehe and you didn´t answer my question in the practice. sorry about that.

The true is that anarchistes in CNT are developping to work as union: planning, organize and to call more workes to participe inside the union and struggles in them companies. Obviosly not with cleams ideological if not the practical influence and a basic point "the emancipation of the workers will be the work of the workers themselves or not to be"
Anarchist assumptions of CNT leaving is because they are very sectarian, they don´t work together with olther not so ideologized workers.
Therefor i tell you that is binomial analysis of syndicalism / anarchism doesn´t work

And i think that this question stand up of level international is the real problem of current AIT