IWA Congress report-backs?

171 posts / 0 new
Last post
akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 17 2009 16:17

The topic of the thread is the IWA Congress. If somebody wants to continue talking about WSA, I think it should go on the WSA thread, or the WSA-IWA thread.

I am not surprised that anybody tries to change the topic back to current issues with IWA sections since the WSA topic got out of control. I am not against the topic, just think there are already threads for that.

Back to the work of the IWA sections:

There is a benefit for the Belgrade 6 on Saturday.

The comrades from ASI are preparing new information, posters and an event in Serbia to support the comrades. Hopefully there will be information about it soon. The support network has been re-energized in the past few days, so we can probably expect a new round of events - not necessarily protests, but maybe this also.

On Saturday FAU is also organizing a demo to Kino Babylon. Maybe it would be good if different sections somehow supported this demo: at least try to bomb the Kino with faxes and phone calls at this time - or some other actions.

There are other things up as well, but these are two rather urgent issues.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Dec 17 2009 23:39

A longer report from the CNT (in Spanish), which may answer syndicalist's original question a bit better.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Nov 4 2012 17:08

.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Dec 18 2009 00:28
Syndicalist wrote:
Comrade, the WSA made a good faith effort from 1999 to, I believe, it was 2006 to deal with this internally inside the IWA. It's not like an effort wasn't made. Given our experience, it will be curious to see how the matter of a certain newly revived section was just recently handled.

I am glad you have finally come out with your agenda here. If you had just said this in the first place this would have been a lot clearer for everyone. Now I don't doubt for a moment that you have a genuine interest in other issues discussed at the IWA congress. But you have revealed yourself here as having prior knowledge about what happened at the congress, so your innocent OP does not really wash. Having said that I can understand your particular interest in this issue, I have no more knowledge than you on this subject at present, possibly less, so cannot answer any questions. I also don't see you as being hostile to the IWA, but you clearly still feel very wronged. I don't think the WSA issue was dealt with very well, but I do know at the time it was difficult to understand what was going on. How we deal with issues like this in the IWA has been a weakness in our organisation, which does need addressing, but I am not sure that any review of the WSA expulsion would satisfy you. Or what practical result it would have for the WSA today. But certainly it might prove useful for the IWA.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Dec 18 2009 01:11

If you are reporting back on the congress or adding links to reports please post here

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 04:11

Jason, I have no agenda when I try and ask factual questions. Do I get snipets of stuff, yes, of course I do. As much as people think it's ego and as much as thery hate to hear about the past, I mean, I do know folks and some for decades. Yes, some stuff filiters to me, much not. That said, it doen't mean that when I first wrote the posting I have any information

I think Jack is probably right, I should not be curious and just let stuff take its natural pace.

Do I feel the WSA was wronged, yes. But this does not drive the interest in the IWA.

OK, I'll just let it rip here. I suspect it will be the first & last time.Am I looking for the IWA trip over its feet and fall and become marginal and irrelevant, no. As much as some don't want to hear about the past, a more than 20 year relationship should have some meaning and value. And not to still maintain an interest in something you did not chose to leave on your own is somehow deemed wrong here. As much as some of you want to think whatever you want to think, in spite of feeling that the WSA was wronged, the Principles & Aims of the IWA and the few few friendships built will alway remain meaningful to a few of us here, it will for me. But I guess, according some here that's egotistical. Yes, because I actually give a shit that the good name and reputation of the IWA was tarnished here in north america. Yes, that makes me angry. So excuse me that I am one of the few people who actually care. yeah, ego...no, it's called putting in hard work and hours of time trying to build an IWA affiliate, one that was more than a paper affiliate.

Do I think it would have been simple enough to actually ask WSA to make a presentation at the Congress they were not allowed in, yes, that would've been appropriate. Or any of the following IWA meetings where WSA asked to make a presentation and were denied. Ok, it means nothing to folks at this point. I get it. It all has no relevance to anyone, I get it. Because it may not have any relevance to folks, doen't mean things didn't happen.

It is clear that anyone who is not in the IWA and asks questions on this listserv automatically have a negative agenda. Well, that is the pity.

Yes, of course I have an agenda but not the one folks think I have. My so-called agenda is to find out what's positive going on, what I can report back as good things happening with IWA Section's and "the IWA" in general. How can I use the positive stuff to build relations and break down barriers that have grown over the past decade.

Jason, comrades, what would a fair review of those events reveal today? What would it mean for the IWA and the WSA today? The die has been cast and there obviously is no changing that.

If comrades feel there are internal weaknesses in the IWA, respectfully, they should be identifed and corrected. Use the WSA example (and any others) of how not to do things. Turn what was a negative experiance into a positive. Don't repeat past mistakes.

What would be fair to the WSA? A simple on-the record and recorded in the minutes. recognition by the IWA of that an error occured in how the WSA situation was handled.
And a simple written apology would be just fine to the WSA and to our delegate Miranda who was physically barred entry to the Granada Congress (after her credentials were pre-approved and paid airfair from the US to Spain). Yeah, that would probably be the fairest thing for all at this point.

Look, it is clear enough to me that our or my participation on Libcom having anything to do with the IWA will be deemed in a certain manner. I think I have said what needs to be said and wish you all good tidings.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 18 2009 04:35

I fail to see how hijacking this thread as served to forward the interests or the grievances of the WSA.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 04:43
october_lost wrote:
I fail to see how hijacking this thread as served to forward the interests or the grievances of the WSA.

Comrade, please go to the top of the thread. I asked how did the congress go? Somewhere else someone asked why there was no section in north america, I gave a link in reply to the question. That constitutes hijaking? I was absolutely not interested in raising the issue, but I wasn't going to ignore the question either.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 18 2009 11:47

As far as I am concerned, if the WSA is not interested in reapplying to the IWA, as suggested, then there no reason to harp on the issue if it is not connected with any concrete proposal for a way forward.

I think that several people admitted that they felt the WSA situation was not handled correctly. There are also people who feel that other decisions made about sections with an unclear status were problematic. I felt that this was also a problematic issue at this Congress, although this wasn't related to the WSA. In my personal opinion, it was the only real problematic issue in an otherwise fairly good congress. That said, it is now up to the IWA sections to find a positive way to deal with these types of situations so that they don't happen again.

As I said, I already sent out some proposals for discussion. My sincere hope is that this will develop into a workable proposal of some sort. I am fairly sure that nobody in the IWA wants unequal or arbitrary treatment of its sections.

One thing I will repeat, although somebody denied it was true, is that often the problems of the unclear status of sections are caused by the behaviour of the sections themselves - lack of proper communication or different factions sending conflicting information. It also has to be understood from this angle.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 19:31
akai wrote:

One thing I will repeat, although somebody denied it was true, is that often the problems of the unclear status of sections are caused by the behaviour of the sections themselves - lack of proper communication or different factions sending conflicting information. It also has to be understood from this angle.

Comrade, I would tend to agree to the following extent, confusion arises with conflicting information. It also does not help when there are some within the ex-Secrteraiat who are also engaged in engineering a split and with-holding information from the Sections (which we are pretty convinced occured in our instance). That said, the role of a mature and interested IWA
is to bring all the facts together, difuse the facts (or documents) seek a commission or other method for dealing with the question at hand an have a meaningful inquiry and seek a resolution. I mean this is not unheard of and I can recall many years of actually doing this with other Section's. If things are not set up to be equal, they will not be equal.

Well, I hope that comrades inside find meaningful solutions to these sort of issues. It can only strengthen the internal dynamic and life of the IWA.

Again, good luck inyour efforts one and all.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 18 2009 19:33

Well, I think information on the split can go into a "what happened with the WSA" thread, if this topic has not already been somewhere here. Although I think the title "why somebody wanted to help purge certain elements out of the WSA" might prove more provocative.

That said, a commission was actually called. The part of the WSA which claimed that you people were out, did not want to meet with the IWA. Rata could say all the details if he weren't in jail, but since I spoke to him a few times about it, I can remind you of it. There was then no need for any commission to the US and it was suggested to the WSA that they should reapply to the IWA. As I understand the WSA position, it believes that it wrongly lost its status and would only accept some revocation of the original decision.

The real question is whether or not the majority of sections were acting in good faith and were only confused about the differing information coming from different parts of the WSA or whether there was some sort of plot behind this all.

I cannot answer that but tend to doubt it, supposing that it was more likely that some people supported what they believed was a more radical element in the WSA when they started to create a split. This looks to have been a mistake in terms of trusting those people, but it is probably also reflective of a uneasiness some people must have had with certain politics and practices within the WSA.

Don't mean to stir up shit, but might as well be frank.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 20:04

Akai, I'll be happy to discuss the matter, answer additional questions and so forth on another Libcom forum. Perhaps here: http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa

I'll respectfully let my contribution on this "IWA Congress report-backs" die out and be about what I originally sought feedback on.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 18 2009 20:16
akai wrote:
it was more likely that some people supported what they believed was a more radical element in the WSA when they started to create a split. This looks to have been a mistake in terms of trusting those people, but it is probably also reflective of a uneasiness some people must have had with certain politics and practices within the WSA.

here again i begin to see a political element to the unpleasantness. if the IWA's treatment of the WSA was based on something more than personal viciousness (tho' it certainly seems to have been vicious and needlessly so, i've read all the accounts on this board, and i've noted AES' tone), could it be that, from the point of view of many IWA sections, WSA had too many currents in it to call itself an anarcho-syndicalist organization (as AES said above), or that WSA included in their statement bits that are extraneous to anarcho-syndicalism in a pure sense (comparing the WSA statement with the IWA statement)?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 20:43

Comrade Petey and others, while I appreciate the interest, I request that this discussion be moved off here and moved to here http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa or another forum.

I would agree with my IWA comrades here that this should be about the original topic and we can discuss the other stuff elsewhere.

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Dec 18 2009 20:49
petey wrote:
here again i begin to see a political element to the unpleasantness. if the IWA's treatment of the WSA was based on something more than personal viciousness (...) could it be that, from the point of view of many IWA sections, WSA had too many currents in it to call itself an anarcho-syndicalist organization or that WSA included in their statement bits that are extraneous to anarcho-syndicalism in a pure sense (comparing the WSA statement with the IWA statement)?

While this is the wrong thread (IWA Congress report-backs?), my personal feeling is that this was not at all the reason for the IWA's treatment of the WSA. The main reason was that the bay area WSA supported the i99, an international syndicalist open conference endorsed by the IWW. That conference was qualified as "hostile" by a majority of the IWA sections. What happened then was a series of attempts to trick the WSA out of the IWA by any means necessary. The key for it was an entrist bunch of scumbags (I guess they were from Minnesota) that tried to kick the other members out with some manouevres worth any trot infight-manual. The others within the WSA didn't realize it until was too late. And even worse, the scumbags even tricked the IWA by presenting obviously faked "evidence" against a couple of long-standing members and they got support for that by the Garcia Rua faction within the Spanish CNT and others in the IWA. Later the entrists dissolved the WSA – mission completed.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 20:58

Short reply posted here: http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 18 2009 21:06

I'll respond on the other thread.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Dec 18 2009 21:18
robot wrote:
petey wrote:
here again i begin to see a political element to the unpleasantness. if the IWA's treatment of the WSA was based on something more than personal viciousness (...) could it be that, from the point of view of many IWA sections, WSA had too many currents in it to call itself an anarcho-syndicalist organization or that WSA included in their statement bits that are extraneous to anarcho-syndicalism in a pure sense (comparing the WSA statement with the IWA statement)?

While this is the wrong thread (IWA Congress report-backs?), my personal feeling is that this was not at all the reason for the IWA's treatment of the WSA. The main reason was that the bay area WSA supported the i99, an international syndicalist open conference endorsed by the IWW. That conference was qualified as "hostile" by a majority of the IWA sections. What happened then was a series of attempts to trick the WSA out of the IWA by any means necessary. The key for it was an entrist bunch of scumbags (I guess they were from Minnesota) that tried to kick the other members out with some manouevres worth any trot infight-manual. The others within the WSA didn't realize it until was too late. And even worse, the scumbags even tricked the IWA by presenting obviously faked "evidence" against a couple of long-standing members and they got support for that by the Garcia Rua faction within the Spanish CNT and others in the IWA. Later the entrists dissolved the WSA – mission completed.

Where are the entrist scumbags now?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 21:22

Vanilla, others, see: http://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa?page=2#comment-171839

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Dec 19 2009 00:40

Just to remind folks

Jason Cortez wrote:
If you are reporting back on the congress or adding links to reports please post here