CNT proposes reorganization of IWA

781 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Apr 7 2016 03:44

Jim writes:

Quote:
think akai needs to accept some responsibility for this situation. While the tensions between the "unions" and the "initiatives" have existed for some time (as Congress minutes show), the breaking point which has created the current situation was the suspension of the FAU. Had that not happened I do not think the CNT would be calling for the IWA to be re-founded

This is grossly unfair to Akai as she did nothing other than carry out the tasks mandated at previous Congresses. If there is anyone responsible for the IWA Secretariat it is the IWA Congress that made the decision to have the ZSP responsible for the IWA Secretariat.

What would you have her do?

Lugius's picture
Lugius
Offline
Joined: 19-04-10
Apr 7 2016 03:51

Building the IWA in the most populous counties in the world

1. China 1,367,485,388
2. India 1,251,695,584
3. United States 321,368,864
4. Indonesia 255,993,674
5. Brazil 204,259,812
6. Pakistan 199,085,847
7. Nigeria 181,562,056
8. Bangladesh 168,957,745
9. Russia 142,423,773
10. Japan 126,919,659

Which of these countries has an IWA section?

Of the countries that currently have IWA sections, how do they rank on a per capita basis?

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Apr 7 2016 05:28
Lugius wrote:

1. China 1,367,485,388
2. India 1,251,695,584
3. United States 321,368,864
4. Indonesia 255,993,674
5. Brazil 204,259,812
6. Pakistan 199,085,847
7. Nigeria 181,562,056
8. Bangladesh 168,957,745
9. Russia 142,423,773
10. Japan 126,919,659

Which of these countries has an IWA section?

Russia and Brazil. Obviously the IWA sections there are so prominent that you don't even have heard of them so far. The United States used to have one, but they got eliminated by the Alhambra and their friends. Ok, they have the IWW there with a per capita representation that exceeds that of many IWA sections. But I know, those guys are "enemies" to quite a couple of IWA sections. Too less anarcho, too much syndicalist propably. Bangladesh might have had a section in the past, if it would have been an international of revolutionary syndicalists unions more than one of anarcho-buddies.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Apr 7 2016 05:35

I don't know quite what to make of this dispute frankly. I was a member of WSA from its founding in 1984 to 1994 (I later rejoined in 2002), and I was a WSA delegate to the IWA Congress at Bourdioux in 1988. At that Congress WSA opposed the "no contact" rule.

The whole process of expulsion of WSA, which apparently was engineered by "the lion of the Alhambra" and backed up by that guy in Belgrade when he was IWA secretary, left me with an impression of an organization that had degenerated into sectarian behavior of the worst sort.

During the '80s-90s period, I did get the impression of the IWA as a very Eurocentric organization which had no clue about the sorts of organizing conditions we faced in USA. So I agree in principle with Lugius that the IWA does need an outward focus on developing contacts & organizations in other countries. WSA helped with this somewhat, developing the contacts in '90s with the group that became the Nigerian affiliate (tho it became inactive & disbanded later), and we have contact with a new organization developing in Mexico.

But I also think the emphasis on extreme ideological purity of some groups really gets in the way of an outward focus. Again, I think that is another expression of the Eurocentricity in thinking of many militants in Europe.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Apr 7 2016 08:20
syndicalistcat wrote:
But I also think the emphasis on extreme ideological purity of some groups really gets in the way of an outward focus. Again, I think that is another expression of the Eurocentricity in thinking of many militants in Europe.

Could you expand a bit on what you mean by extreme ideological purity?

People critical of the IWA usually bring this up together with the 'no contact rule' as an expression of supposed sectarian madness - but the present conflict is perhaps instructive. The current conflict in the IWA has a lot to do with the FAU developing its own international relations in contravention of IWA decisions, and more specifically in Poland cooperating with a union that is a rival organisation of the Polish IWA section. Now, you may agree with the FAU that this cooperation is justified in the name of solidarity with members of the IP, or you may agree with the ZSP that the IP's electoralism and pacts with fascists are a threat to the workers movement. But I think the underlying issue is that an organisation such as the IWA cannot function if its member sections are allowed to consistently disregard federal decisions, and for member sections to do things that undermine their sister sections. Is this what you call "extreme ideological purity"?

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 08:23

It's certainly quite retarded to blame single individuals for complex problems involving entire organizations over decades. I guess this level of debate is not worth going into.

However, the substance of this latest CNT project is sadly even less brilliant. It seeks "growth" by depriving growing sections of their votes, as if this could magically lead to mass unionization in countries that did not have a radical tradition of this kind. Even in Spain the effect of this is quite opposite, as shown by the massive shedding of sections in the CNT itself since this centralization process started.

Somehow, someone can honestly think that creating members on paper (in effect buying votes) and depriving sections that do not create paper membership of voting rights will build a grassroots organization that is not bureaucratic. This is really sad.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Apr 7 2016 09:10

Yes, yes.... Akai what a great Secretary, constantly trying to use her position for his personal targets, constantly disrespeting IWA members online(as she said I am being provoked , if you get provoked so easily you are not the person to hold that position) and in internal communications, She was telling direct lies of IWA members in internet on regular basics. Yes, she did some things ok, she could have been a very good IWA secretary, but her mistakes, are so, so big that directly she has destroyed IWA, the duty of a secretary is to cold down internal conflicts so sections can take decissions with a clear mind, but she is expert in adding gasoline to fire.

We can continue with this for ages, but one thing is cristal clear, 90% of IWA members, the ones part of the big groups, are leaving, we do not feel conformable in a sectarian, paranoid organization.

Maybe their are not the only ones to blame, or not the full of it, you just wanted to believe a 5% of CNT and their lies, and you repeated their lies. If CNT pays a fee to a labour lawers firm to help us with the big and complicated conflicts that afect docens or hundres of workers, you believe that we have them under an imagination payroll (?!?!)... and you repeat it. And many other lies like this.

So I hope this is not a surprise, now 90% of IWA members (problably much more I did not make numbers) are leaving IWA... and she keeps with the same actitude, not interestest at all in keeping us in IWA.... so bye bye, we leave and we´ll never come back. you can keep our money (because these 3 organizations put 99% of IWA´s money).

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Apr 7 2016 09:13

More nonsense from the peanut gallery.

Yes, some Sections of the lWA are trying to reform it by pushing on proposals rejected twice by every single Section that is not in the Western European core and even by most in it. By disenfranchising the lWA of every single voice outside of Western Europe (even ZSP, which has more than the magic number but rejects these ideas), they think this is not Eurocentrism.

OK, I wasn't around for the Bangladesh vote but talked about it to both the lWA delegate to there and the SAC delegate (many years ago). The lWA maintains contacts with these people but the report showed that this is a professionalized union of women members without voice and mostly male management. So, it didn't seem to people exactly like what they wanted.

Of course we had two processes about who to have contacts with, what to do, who to talk to: in 2011, to a lesser extent and a whole topic on it in 2012. Let me explain literally what happened: the FAU did not come or send any opinion on anything, CNT had no votes or official delegation, USI said no word.

At a point where people are going on the internet and complaining about "groups of friends" this sounds very nice for haters and trolls jacking off on this, but the reality is that, again, the people who are complaining actually refused to discuss or be part of shaping things. The prefer to complain, do their own thing and then complain again that people did one thing and not another.

This is just a fact. And this is one reason why all this huffy puffy BS is BS for me. I was there.

That said, Robot, we used to be quite friendly and I always wanted to talk to you with respect, but you know, we are sitting here thinking of the irony of it all: you are sitting in what - a 3 person local organization? A five person organization? And you are on the internet all indignant about "groups of friends".

Jim
Offline
Joined: 30-04-06
Apr 7 2016 09:13
no1 wrote:
People critical of the IWA usually bring this up together with the 'no contact rule' as an expression of supposed sectarian madness - but the present conflict is perhaps instructive.

If you think the FAU and IP working together/talking to each other helps advance our class interests, then the decisions the IWA have reached meet the very definition of sectarian. Particularly if those decisions have been reached to prevent ZSP from being undermined. This is arguably putting the interests of an IWA section ahead of those of the class.

Did the IWA form a commission to investigate the claims ZSP were making about FAU and the IP? It's strange that a commission was formed and thousands of hours spent investigating both sides of the French split before anything was done, yet FAU were suspended by a member of ZSP without any prior discussion within the broader IWA.

no1 wrote:
But I think the underlying issue is that an organisation such as the IWA cannot function if its member sections are allowed to consistently disregard federal decisions, and for member sections to do things that undermine their sister sections. Is this what you call "extreme ideological purity"?

The underlying issue is the way IWA decisions are reached, having one section one vote means sections which have a handful of members have the same voting power as revolutionary unions with thousands of members. If the decision making structure the CNT is advocating was adopted by the IWA I can think of numerous decisions made over the years which would have been made differently, I imagine this is the main reason why they're leaving/re-founding the IWA.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Apr 7 2016 09:25

zaczek, what centralization process??? where is the massive shedding of sections??? YOU LIE.

I can tell you exactly why every single case of local unions kicked away were for.

-Poison a demo with a weed cake, making our members (some with children) to get stoned in the highway back home at 120KM/h (many of them met in the hospital, they didn´t know what was going on). (Galicia)
-Creating fake votes to control the regional secretariaries (levante)
-Make false accusations of other unions, that had been proved false (andalucia)

And even like this the members out were not even 6% of CNT.

And I know all these because we, the local unions decided from botton up. we voted, we have´ve show proof, we had hear both sides and we took a decision (always almost with 80% of votes).

So stop spreading lies, there is no centralization process, there is no paid members, CNT is now stronger that in the last 40 years, hundres of workplace sections, several of them of around 100 memebers, our membres are twice the members in 2010. Everytime there is a general strike we have to deal with docens of members arrested, thounsands of euros in fines for sabotages and riots... We are really puting our lives on this, we accept comrades to help each other, but we are not here to waste time in stupid games. If IWA is not useful for us we leave IWA, that was costing us a fortune every year.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 09:54

Lets continue analizing the coments of Akai:

Quote:
¨So to sum up, a warning: this idea is not approved by the lWA, what is being proposed is against the statutes of the lWA and not organic, the CNT has no right to organize any conference in the lWA name, only the sum of the Sections can do it, CNT is using incorrect arguments to make their case and all this hype was in fact passed by just 50% of the CNT. Also l can point out that the CNT is not in good standing and actually, my Section is against the Sections not in good standing having any vote in the lWA process. Most serious organizations we know have rules about it... including the CNT! So it's really hard to know why they think that organizations like ours, who are in good standing and, last time the CNT paid, we actually had almost twice as many paid members - why we even should be listening to their proposals. But we have no problem discussing with them as a courtesy.¨

First of all Akai should explain from were she toke the wrong idea that this was approve by 50% of the participant in the congress, something that is a totally lie, she could go to the congress, ZSP was invite, and see it with her on eyes, but she didn't want to go. But now came to forums to lie about CNT decision. Greate work for a Secretary of IWA.

about the payments why you doesn't explain that CNT made a proposal in a congress to reduce the amount to pay by militant but because your section and some more where already paying a reduce quantity you bote against because this could men that you will pay more, even CNT explain that didn't want to grow the amount that were paying that sections (one of them not even was paying). At the end the situation is that CNT has to continue putting several tens of thousands € every year when other continue with the reduce payment. then when CNT has a economical issue because an accident, all are problems to ask to reduce the quantity.

Quote:
"Yeah, a lot of stuff here that CNT has no business writing about, including false claims. For example, l know that the CNT hasn't paid it dues in a while, but l really wonder about why they are saying that we keep lWA money in personal accounts when they are in organizational accounts. Well, but guess what - l don't think this topic is one for the internet and poses security concerns. The members of CNT will of course get an explanation of this since they don't seem to know and they can expect a nasty comment."

Yes, in organizational accounts that are not property of IWA. Lets continue, why you don´t explain that was approve by IWA congress to be the vice-secretariat of IWA in Spain, that CNT didn't choose the person or persons you wonted and choose the person that the unions of CNT thought was better for that position. That you had the mandatory obligation to provide to the vice-secretariat all the information about this accounts give access to them and also access to the mails and server of IWA. this was approve to don´t have again the same issue IWA suffer when a secretariat was imprisoned and IWA stay for a long time with out internal coordination. You not even got in contact with the Vice-secretariat approve by IWA congress. And you had more than one year to do it.

so we have not only a secretariat of IWA that lies about the sections in public forums, also we have a secretariat that doesn't follow the mandatory decisions taken by sections in IWA congress.

Quote:
¨Because of the unfortunate attitudes of certain folks in the lWA, cooperation with part of the CNT has been blocked. You know, the ones who make disparaging comments all the time and just try to plan our rehabilitation without speaking to us, That's not all the CNT but the ones who speak officially for them¨

Lets explain to people something about your accusations. as i told CNT provide to all IWA sections complete information about the contact made and the develop of them in different countries. maybe the reason is that a lot of people in CNT got fed up is because when they ask for information they never receive it. maybe some people provide to you info thinking that you are a comrade and later see that you manipulate this info to attack to a section. In that point CNT members start to think that there are some people like you that are not comrades, that you only take care of your interest for your own profit instead of working for the common interest. Maybe the fact that every time CNT was traveling to other countries to get in contact with other organizations your first reaction was to attack this work and then ask for information. Maybe CNT members loose the confidence in you when they see that you make inorganic contact with members of sections that provide to you lies (you call it information) and then you send this leis to other sections, making a meddling to the internal decision process of sections. and this you do it with the official IWA mail (maybe is that the reason you didnt want the vice'secretariat to have access to the accounts).

Quote:
"Guys from the IWA, the reason that the CNT executives did this gross thing of printing their agreements is actually they are hoping to promote stereotypes and manipulate with disinformation."

It is funny to see that the IWA executive attack CNT permanent secretariat when they only made what CNT unions mandated them to do.

And how you cal when you lie about CNT reality? only in this forum you put more than 5 lies about CNT, some of them very easy to prove them.

Quote:
"That aside, for clarity, the XI congress had almost half the participation of the last one, but maybe a quarter of these unions were disenfranchised between the congresses. This means the boycott was from a portion of those left and only amounted to about one third of the unions. So yes two thirds took part and as I said, passed thus proposal at 50 percent."

Lets answer to this manipulation. First of all you say "disenfranchised" speaking about expeled unions because for example they give votes in regional meetings when they doesn't have them by the CNT statutes? or when they make accusations with out proves as made cadiz? or when they never pay any money? please try to have a common criteria, don´t change it when you speak about your self and when you speak about others.
Is funny that first you make a accusation, and then you say that maybe...
the boikot was followed by less than 10% of the unions. from the X congress to the IX congress local federations like Sevilla and Granada pas from 4 and 3 unions to 1 and 1 to reduce the burocracy and spend the energy in the actions and develop of the unions. so only here disappear 5 unions (there are other local federations that made the same). between expelled unions and the ones that leave CNT we can speak about 20 unions that represent around 200 people (to compare and have abtter idea of this number of people, between the unions of bilbao, barakaldo and vitoria had grow more than 200 members from the X congress). some other unions had join with others near to have less bureaucracy, and other unions didn't take part in the congress because there were focus in their local work.

I´m going to ask you something. Why do you lie so much about CNT? Why do you try so hard to manipulate the information about CNT? what are you trying?

Quote:
Actually yep a your group is calling for kicking most sections out of the iwa and organizing an inorganic split conference. It is beyond appalling to demand or suggest I represent you in that. Fuck off.

Again depend what you speak about you use different words. For example, you say that FAU is not expel, is suspend, but FAU doesn't have access to the information and doesn't have right to vote. CNT proposal give complete access to the information and to take part in all the international live, and only put a limit of minimum members to be a section with right of vote. is not the first time you do it, since the first time that CNT made this proposal, you were not in IWA, you use the same way of speaking to refer to it. Of course then are other the ones that manipulate, and of course you have to finish the comment with your typical and famous bad words, like when you insult the CNT delegation in Porto congress.

I have to remember that in CNT there are groups in towns and cites that are part of bigger unions, that are not unions with vote but that have more members that 50% of IWA sections, they have the right to be union (more than the minimum approve) but understand that is better to wait till they are stronger to make this step. This is a mater of responsibility, if you are a small grope that is trying to develop you should understand in your own that is better to spend your energy to learn and grow, not to loose the time giving lessons of purity to sections of thousands of members.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 09:58

Maybe the people should know that, CNT, since the 80´s didn't have more members than now, we have a clear syndicalist strategy and we are wining very strong conflicts. We have hundreds of workers assembles in companies, some of them of more than 100 members. This are facts that I don´t know why some people doesn't speak about them and try to give a negative view about CNT reality.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Apr 7 2016 10:32

So are there any political differences between the CNT and the "Eastern European sections", or is this a strictly organizational issue? (I'm aware of the criticisms towards IP, SAC etc., so I'm not asking about that.)

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 10:44
jura wrote:
So are there any political differences between the CNT and the "Eastern European sections", or is this a strictly organizational issue? (I'm aware of the criticisms towards IP, SAC etc., so I'm not asking about that.)

There are differences between the Troika (CNT, USI, FAU) and the rest. The Troika favors proportional voting and depriving smaller sections of voting rights. The rest of the sections don't and have rejected this repeatedly in the only legitimate forum for such decisions inside the IWA, which is the IWA congress. The Troika knows they can't have their way in an organic fashion, so they came up with this putsch idea. Let's see how it works for them.

This strategy is a complete non-starter and leads to the inflation of paper membership in order to boost the number of votes in the pathetic struggle for control. It also provides no incentives for new groups to form and develop and indeed the centralist-minded don't care about this. The only effect is bureaucratization, centralization and in effect just creating mainstream unions. Not really what anarcho-syndicalism is about.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 10:52

In my point of view, the main problem is how understand the organization each section. For example some sections admit that there is no problem if the secretariat monitors the sections, and other sections says that anarchosindicalist is the opposite, the assemblies monitors the secretaries. some sections think that is normal that a secretary try to interfere in internal process of taking decision of the sections and other sections think that the sections are independent and no one can put his nose in their internal issues. some sections thinks that pay a company to transport a package is reformist and against IWA aims and other think that is something normal that has be done always. Some sections think that if a secretariat doesn't justify thousands of € in expenses its ok and approve it, other doesn't think is this right and that should be consequences. Some sections think that pay a lawyer is to have pay positions (is the last slander that some sections invent) and is reformist, other thinks that this was something done during the whole history of IWA (first international till today). Some sections think that can have contact with other groups because conflicts with respect to local comrades other think that if you are near fiscally to bishop you became catholic. some sections defend that the sections have to be of anarchy people other says the opposite (about this there is a text defending this idea in IWA website).

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 11:01
zaczek wrote:
jura wrote:
So are there any political differences between the CNT and the "Eastern European sections", or is this a strictly organizational issue? (I'm aware of the criticisms towards IP, SAC etc., so I'm not asking about that.)

There are differences between the Troika (CNT, USI, FAU) and the rest. The Troika favors proportional voting and depriving smaller sections of voting rights. The rest of the sections don't and have rejected this repeatedly in the only legitimate forum for such decisions inside the IWA, which is the IWA congress. The Troika knows they can't have their way in an organic fashion, so they came up with this putsch idea. Let's see how it works for them.

This strategy is a complete non-starter and leads to the inflation of paper membership in order to boost the number of votes in the pathetic struggle for control. It also provides no incentives for new groups to form and develop and indeed the centralist-minded don't care about this. The only effect is bureaucratization, centralization and in effect just creating mainstream unions. Not really what anarcho-syndicalism is about.

Again a Lie, remember that FORA vote to remove the IWA secretariat.
the centralization happens when a secretariat try to monitor the sections, when a secretariat put point for congress and suspends sections on their own. the centralization comes when a secretariat discriminate the decisions of some sections by their own point of view with understanding that they are nobody to decided witch decision of a section is taken in the good way, the centralization comes when a secretary doesn't put on practice the mandatory decisions taken by IWA congress.the centralization comes when a secretariat keep contacts with members of a section backwards to the section, and has meetings with local groups backwards to the section.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Apr 7 2016 11:06

Oh Zaczek, please light CNT with what anarcho-syndicalism is about...

I personally prefer in IWA 1 vote per local union, because why a city like Warsaw has 50 times more votes that a city like Barcelona? or even 1 vote per member! The problem with this is that CNT with more than 100 local unions will have almost all votes.... so my comrades are so kind and gentle that could accept some unfairness, but definitely not 100 members in 6 countries controling 70% of votes of thounsands.

Jim
Offline
Joined: 30-04-06
Apr 7 2016 11:08
jura wrote:
So are there any political differences between the CNT and the "Eastern European sections", or is this a strictly organizational issue? (I'm aware of the criticisms towards IP, SAC etc., so I'm not asking about that.)

I think the differences are more in terms of practice than in theory.

Yepa wrote:
I personally prefer in IWA 1 vote per local union, because why a city like Warsaw has 50 times more votes that a city like Barcelona? or even 1 vote per member!

Both of these would make more sense than the CNT's proposal. Even if it led to the CNT local unions wielding more influence in the IWA, it would be more democratic than the current decision making structure and the one which the CNT is proposing.

To be honest, I don't really see the need for different sections in different states. The IWW has a better structure than the IWA for organising across borders. Having a section in the British state, the Spanish state etc. which then federate is at 19th century model for organising.

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 11:18

Melenas, as much as you like to discuss about IWA internals here, the question was about the political differences. And it is clear as anything that the political difference is about proportional voting (favored by Troika) and equal section voting (favored by everyone else). The Troika is blind to the differences between countries where the anarchosyndicalist tradition either never existed or was terminally broken by the II WW and the stalinist period, and countries where this tradition was not broken. A difference that has a profound impact on the possibilities to develop organizations of size.

Quite a stupid blindness, I would say.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Apr 7 2016 11:19
Lugius wrote:

This CNT, it seems to me, wants to renovate the IWA into a Europe-only union. At least that is consistent with the CNT attitude to efforts outside of Europe to build anarcho-syndicalist unions.
[...]
It's clear to me that the CNT doesn't want to expand beyond its small circle of friends in western Europe.

The discussion I've seen in Spanish, now and in the past, doesn't suggest this at all, more that many people in the CNT see the IWA in its current form as an obstacle to building links with unions outside Europe. I don't see them wanting to create a Europe-only IWA. Whether this will in fact be the effect of their actions is another question.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 11:26
Jim wrote:
Yepa wrote:
I personally prefer in IWA 1 vote per local union, because why a city like Warsaw has 50 times more votes that a city like Barcelona? or even 1 vote per member!

Both of these would make more sense than the CNT's proposal. Even if it led to the CNT local unions wielding more influence in the IWA, it would be more democratic than the current decision making structure and the one which the CNT is proposing.

To be honest, I don't really see the need for different sections in different states. The IWW has a better structure than the IWA for organising across borders. Having a section in the British state, the Spanish state etc. which then federate is at 19th century model for organising.

In my point of view, if all the sections are workers unions with more than 500 members, i´m sure we will not be speaking about the proportionality of vote. the problem comes when there is so big difference and when such small groups control the international.have no sense that 4 sections that has mach more than 90% of the militants of IWA are relegate and accuse systematically with lies.

Of course now can came the discussion about what is and what is not a union and how much effort they make, Everybody make a big effort and even in a town of 30.000 people a group of 30 people is not a union, is a good base to work but is not a union, and i say this because i toke part in the develop of a group like this and i can see the big differences with local unions of hundreds of workers that were near to as.

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 11:32

Melenas, I am glad you admit this finally. This is about control. You want the bigger sections to have control.

Right now, you have to take into account the voice of smaller sections in countries removed from the historic core of the anarchosyndicalist tradition. The putsch is an attempt to gain control and disregard the voice of everyone else, a voice that has been expressed at IWA congresses on many occasions.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 11:38
zaczek wrote:
Melenas, as much as you like to discuss about IWA internals here, the question was about the political differences. And it is clear as anything that the political difference is about proportional voting (favored by Troika) and equal section voting (favored by everyone else). The Troika is blind to the differences between countries where the anarchosyndicalist tradition either never existed or was terminally broken by the II WW and the stalinist period, and countries where this tradition was not broken. A difference that has a profound impact on the possibilities to develop organizations of size.

Quite a stupid blindness, I would say.

really if you are not able to see the difference between political difference and organization difference, there is no discussion. A proportional voting is structural, is about how to organizes. till now i had take part in to different sections of IWA, CNT and other very small. a aprt of that also i toke part in other organization in other country also an small organization. i see perfectly that there are differences between countries and cultural situation and legal situations, but this is not solve by one section one vote, because that is not the problem, the problem is that the small sections are not unions, are not able to understand the issue and the needs of big sections, but doesn't loose time to call them reformist and give them lessons of how to organised.

a Part of that, if you travel a bit maybe you are able to understand that in side of the European Union you can have very similar strategy because all the countries had signed some lows that affect to workers rights and base on them you can make a great work.but for this you need first to know about syndicalist action that is farther more complex that go with a flag to the entrance of a company.

I´m agree about the Stalinist that broke the libertarian tradition, now a days we suffer the Stalinist tradition in IWA.

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 11:48
melenas wrote:
a Part of that, if you travel a bit maybe you are able to understand that in side of the European Union you can have very similar strategy because all the countries had signed some lows that affect to workers rights and base on them you can make a great work.

Really? Like we didn't know that the laws that have been imposed on Spain and Portugal have been tested 20 years before in Poland and other Eastern European countries. Of course this doesn't even answer what I wrote about the differences between political traditions in different countries.

melenas wrote:
but for this you need first to know about syndicalist action that is farther more complex that go with a flag to the entrance of a company.

A fine example of the disdainful attitude that the Troika has presented for quite some time now. And complete ignorance of the results that the supposedly "non-unions" have managed to achieve (such as successful wildcat strikes, or forcing the employers to employ our union members, etc) Of course you wouldn't bother to learn about those things, because all you care about is your own turf.

melenas wrote:
I´m agree about the Stalinist that broke the libertarian tradition, now a days we suffer the Stalinist tradition in IWA.

So in order to fight the imagined "stalinism" (which is how you call organic decisions of Sections of the IWA) you want to introduce more centralization and power. Again, this is really pathetic.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 12:05
zaczek wrote:
melenas wrote:
a Part of that, if you travel a bit maybe you are able to understand that in side of the European Union you can have very similar strategy because all the countries had signed some lows that affect to workers rights and base on them you can make a great work.

Really? Like we didn't know that the laws that have been imposed on Spain and Portugal have been tested 20 years before in Poland and other Eastern European countries. Of course this doesn't even answer what I wrote about the differences between political traditions in different countries.

You didn't understand any thing ones again. There is something call European laws about working rights and main human rights, i´m not speaking about local laws. farther more there are international lows signed by EU countries that obligate them to follow. but however continue in your way, insulting and with out understanding any thing.

zaczek wrote:
melenas wrote:
but for this you need first to know about syndicalist action that is farther more complex that go with a flag to the entrance of a company.

A fine example of the disdainful attitude that the Troika has presented for quite some time now. And complete ignorance of the results that the supposedly "non-unions" have managed to achieve (such as successful wildcat strikes, or forcing the employers to employ our union members, etc) Of course you wouldn't bother to learn about those things, because all you care about is your own turf.

What you call Troika, is doing what you say long time a go, i don´t know why for you is Troika-reformist if do it CNT, and if you do it is wildcat strike.

zaczek wrote:
melenas wrote:
I´m agree about the Stalinist that broke the libertarian tradition, now a days we suffer the Stalinist tradition in IWA.

So in order to fight the imagined "stalinism" (which is how you call organic decisions of Sections of the IWA) you want to introduce more centralization and power. Again, this is really pathetic.

Do not manipulate, Stalinist is to monitor sections by the secretariat, and all the things that i describe in previous comments and are happening now a days in IWA. could be nice if the secretary put on practices the decisions and pass all the info to the vice-secretariat no? or the secretary only have to put on practice the mandatory decisions of congress that she likes?

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Apr 7 2016 12:24
Quote:
So in order to fight the imagined "stalinism" (which is how you call organic decisions of Sections of the IWA) you want to introduce more centralization and power. Again, this is really pathetic.

Our point is exactly the oposite.
Right now the decision making process is in hands of very very small groups of individuals, leaving thounsands with no voice. When we have a proposal of bring back the decission making process to the thounsands, and leave the small groups with their real weight (almost irrelevant, beacuse that what they are, and that´s a fact, even us are almost irrelvant), you accused us of centralist.... ridiculous, out of common sense. You are the centralist, and the authoritarian. that´s anti-anarchist. who are you¿? the choosen ones? why 1 vote of a cleaner in Spain worths 500 times less of one in Russia??? don´t you see any unfairness there??? And it is even worst, that little groups that control IWA are giving lesson to the big ones, with constant insults, and telling them waht they have to do.... people with almost no experience in workplaces, with no arrested members every year, with no constant walks to courhouses for labour conflicts... we are fighting the law, the state and the capitalism, we are not going to accept lessons from people that suffer almost no repression, I can respect EZLN, YPG... even if I am not agree with them... I know I can learn from them... but from you I learn nothing, but we are keen to teach.
And about anarcho-syndicalism tradition I would like to remember you that we were smashed by fascism years before WWII, our members were killed or sent into exile till late 70s.

All this ofcourse is just my opinion as CNT member, for CNT official opinion better ask CNT_Exteriores for sure more polite and diplomatic than me

zaczek
Offline
Joined: 29-05-07
Apr 7 2016 12:43

Yepa, you can pretend all you want the problem of inflated paper-only membership doesn't exist, but there is enough evidence of it and enough people in Spain are openly talking about it. You can't defederate them all to silence them, hard as you might try.

You can also pretend that every decision of the CNT executives has been consulted with the proverbial "1 cleaner of Spain" but enough people have said it is a lie. So, no, this is not about giving a voice to the "1 cleaner of Spain", but a way to put more numbers and more power behind the decisions of a caste of bureaucrats that has developed from the proportional voting process.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Apr 7 2016 12:50

I know CNT very well, there is no such a thing a votes on paper.... I know for example a case of a union of 120 members in a city of 100.000 acussed of fake members, and I know the members and I know it is 100% a LIE, members are 100% real,
Just imagine, for 1 second that you´ve been told lies, You will see, we will leave IWA, and maybe some expelled unions of CNT will join your IWA corpse, you will see how many of them are... but then it will be too late.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Apr 7 2016 12:59
jura wrote:
So are there any political differences between the CNT and the "Eastern European sections", or is this a strictly organizational issue? (I'm aware of the criticisms towards IP, SAC etc., so I'm not asking about that.)

I'd say, looking from outside, that there are political differences internationally that also reflect political differences between majority and minority factions in the CNT.

melenas
Offline
Joined: 10-12-14
Apr 7 2016 13:14
zaczek wrote:
Yepa, you can pretend all you want the problem of inflated paper-only membership doesn't exist, but there is enough evidence of it and enough people in Spain are openly talking about it. You can't defederate them all to silence them, hard as you might try.

That a clear lie. exactly what happens in CNT historically is the opposite, the unions pay for less member than what they have. Thats the problem when you inform your self throw FB or a friend of a cousin that her uncle live in the same building that a member of CNT, that at the end you say big lies.

That is whats happens when you put your nose in issues of others, that for CNT members you look like someone that doesn´t know a shit about CNT and is attacking the union instead of focusing in develop his organization. Is exactly what we are saying all this years.

zaczek wrote:
You can also pretend that every decision of the CNT executives has been consulted with the proverbial "1 cleaner of Spain" but enough people have said it is a lie. So, no, this is not about giving a voice to the "1 cleaner of Spain", but a way to put more numbers and more power behind the decisions of a caste of bureaucrats that has developed from the proportional voting process.

And you continue in the same line, more lies about CNT. perfect, what i start to think is that there is real ideological problem in IWA. because this way of acting and this arguments look like are your every day way of working.

Something funny, CNT doesn't say any thing about other way of taking decisions, obviously, is not CNT issue and is a basic idea of autonomy, but here (IWA) everybody is monitoring CNT organic work, giving lessons and dispersing what ever bullshit the read in FB. And this is not today, this are years of continuous interference in internal questions of CNT and not only with CNT.

Thanks zaczek to make so clear example of what is the IWA issue about.