CNT proposes reorganization of IWA

781 posts / 0 new
Last post
akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 4 2016 07:45

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

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 4 2016 15:20
augustynww wrote:
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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 4 2016 20:20

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.

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
May 6 2016 06:03
akai wrote:
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

augustynww
Offline
Joined: 19-07-14
May 6 2016 06:09
syndicalist wrote:
augustynww wrote:
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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 6 2016 09:29

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.

julio27
Offline
Joined: 13-05-07
May 7 2016 19:34

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

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 8 2016 07:54

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.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
May 8 2016 15:26

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.

julio27
Offline
Joined: 13-05-07
May 9 2016 16:58

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.

Sleeper
Offline
Joined: 19-10-15
May 8 2016 19:18

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!

julio27
Offline
Joined: 13-05-07
May 8 2016 19:40

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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 9 2016 05:00

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. smile

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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
May 9 2016 11:19
akai wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:
And some of the same parties that supported its last renovacion in the 80s are supporting the current one.

Who?

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 9 2016 14:29

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.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
May 9 2016 15:23
akai wrote:

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 wrote:
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?

julio27
Offline
Joined: 13-05-07
May 9 2016 21:02

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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 9 2016 21:57
augustynww wrote:
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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 9 2016 22:00

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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 9 2016 22:48

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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 9 2016 22:56

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.

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
May 10 2016 01:30

Steven wrote:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 10 2016 05:46

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.

sacho
Offline
Joined: 10-05-16
May 10 2016 14:26

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

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
May 10 2016 16:03

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.

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
May 11 2016 00:45

Yepa wrote:

Quote:
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.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
May 11 2016 06:00

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.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
May 11 2016 12:14

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.

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
May 11 2016 08:34

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...

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
May 11 2016 12:18
Quote:
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.