Workers Solidarity Alliance and IWA

137 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 20 2007 15:51
WeTheYouth wrote:
After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.

That's good.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Feb 20 2007 16:52
WeTheYouth wrote:
After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.

Glad to hear it.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 21 2007 04:08
WeTheYouth wrote:
After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.

Interesting read. We hope that others will take note of the point that WSA never left the IWA.

While correscting this injustice is important, the WSA continue to forge ahead on the ground.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 21 2007 04:17

For the sake of the historical record, I will be posting some items for your review. I do so not to tarnish the good work of those IWA members who we consider comrades, but to simply get these around to some of the younger comrades. Of course we are aware there are IWA members who read these threads and don't comment but who are keenly involved in the life of their respective section's and the IWA.

For the record:

November 2004
By email only: IWA Secretariat, Sections & Friends

Comrades,

The Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA) would like to reply to the
Secretariat's Report, in particular the "US- QUESTION".

Our reply will be honest, straight forward and critical. While describing
the events as they unfolded we do so not out of malice but to straighten the
record.

As we have previously written, some WSA members have known many IWA members
for decades. We have been disappointed that some of these same comrades have,
since 1999, turned their backs on us and have actively helped AIT-Minnesota
engaged in trying to keep us out of the IWA, dirty our names and our integrity.
While we personally find this painful and a betrayal of trust and comradeship
the WSA must present the facts as they are, not how they are now being
presented.

In spite of our criticisms, we offer them in the hope that only positive
things can come from this experience. We hope that others will not have to
experience what we have and that the IWA as an organization can also learn and grow
in a positive manner.

THE BEGINING: 1999 - 2000

In regards to the US situation, the Secretariat stated: "This question can be
looked upon in three different phases"

We believe that there are actually four phases to the situation

We would characterize the first phase as being crucial as everything else
follows from this phase. We also believe that this phase was left out by the
current IWA Sec. because of the NSF's, Granada and then Oslo's complicity in
creating a negative atmosphere both within WSA and the IWA.

It is our view that the origins of this phase began in October 1999, prior to
the IWA Toulouse Plenary. AIT-Minnesota began to make unreasonable and
inappropriate demands on the WSA. They based their demands on their alleged size,
rather then following WSA internal protocol and procedure. In short, they
wanted to dictate policy rather then collectively discuss and make policy, as was
common practice.

In Toulouse the Minnesota representative (Seamas Cain) did everything he
could to attack the legitimate written positions/mandates of the WSA. To the
contrary of the Minnesota delegates claim, all WSA positions/mandates were based on
documented members written positions. opinions. In Cain's "1999 AIT Plenary
Report" (1)issued by AIT-Minnesota after the Plenary he began his campaign of
repeated, dirty and untrue personal attacks the then National Secretary Mitch
Miller and on the WSA (2).

Further in his report, Cain describes how General Secretary Garcia Rua at the
Plenary rushed over to him and declared that he was "…so happy to learn that
there are authentic Anarcho-Syndicalists in America!". (3) As if to say, all
other WSA members were not.

It was also clear from this report that all efforts were being made by
Minnesota to dirty founding members good names, spread false information favorable
to Minnesota while distancing themselves from both the national organization
and their own previous positions. All in an obviously attempt to find allies in
the IWA Secretariat and Section's.

This was just the start of what the IWA Secretariat calls the "hard clashes".

During this phase, AIT-Minnesota made an effort to find friends and allies
within the IWA, AIT-Minnesota seems to have found a friend in the NSF.

Under the portion entitled: "Gunnar Matheissen and new directions for the
WSA" (4) Seamus writes: "After being introduced to members of the Norwegian
Syndicalist Federation- one of them…insisted on describing to me at length a
problem… Clearly, this conversation involved a formal complaint by an official
delegate of the NSF to an official delegate from the WSA!" (5)

Always having an amicable and comradely relationship with the NSF we wrote
them seeking their feedback whether or not these (and other) comments were
accurate. WSA simply wanted clarification and the letters to the NSF were written
in a friendly and comradely manner. We sent five separate WSA (or personal)
letters over a period of four months to the NSF (6). At no time did we ever et a
reply. We found this very disappointing given our previously good relations.
Clearly the NSF lack of reply indicated their support for Seamus' accusations
against us.

Seamus's Toulouse report and the non-response by the NSF to WSA, provides us
a glimpse of things to come.

Further along this path were the actions of the then Secretariat in Granada.
We had no reason to believe that they would also act in a hostile manner. For
close to 20 years the New York office served as one of the main IWA contact
points here in the US. NY members active in the IWA were known as honest and
active militants. We recall a communication by the Granada Secretariat to one NY
militant stating how they were "very pleased to resume having direct
communication with you." (7)

We suspect that upon the request of AIT-Minnesota that the IWA Secretariat
should ignore our correspondence and we should be removed from the IWA mailing
list. We can only use our creative imagination to conceive what sort of dirt
Minnesota was writing the Secretariat.

We believe the catalyst for this was the failure by AIT-Minnesota, who in
2000 became the WSA Secretariat, to circulate IWA issued materials to WSA
members. Since the NY office were getting the mailings we knew what was being held
back from the WSA membership by Minnesota. Given the fact that AIT-Minnesota
failed to circulate materials relevant to the IWA Congress NY felt it appropriate
to directly circulate them to all known WSA members. By April 2000 the NY WSA
began to publish "Views & Comments". This bulletin, sent to all known WSA
members, contained, amongst other things, the IWA documents that Minnesota was
withholding from the WSA membership.

Concurrent to being taken off the IWA mailing list it appears that a IWA
Secretariat decision was made not to answer any our mail. A situation which to a
large extent still exists today.

The final aspect of this first phase is when, in 2000, AIT-Minnesota became
the WSA Secretariat. We have serious reason to believe that Minnesota engaged
in some highly irregular voting practices, both in this election and in
referendum vote later that year. We know they also kept a member off the ballot for a
regional delegate position.
We also believe that some of the people they claim to exist might not
actually exist at all.

While neither time nor space allows us to go into this election, let us site
one example.

In an undated letter to a previous WSA member, Seamas wrote:

"I enclose a referendum packet for you. Please help us, Sachio! ... If you do
not have the money for dues, I will pay for you: just return the filled-out
referendum ballot." ( 8)

We do not know how many more votes Seamas tried to buy or bought. The simple
fact that Minnesota engaged in vote rigging and buying speaks volumes about
their libertarian ethics and principles.

An orderly transfer of records and funds from NY (May-Dec. 1999 Secretariat)
took place. This was the only orderly things to occur in 2000. Soon after the
transfer it became clear that AIT-Minnesota goal was to ignore and then get
rid of, at a minimum, some WSA members and local affiliates.

Whenever there is a transfer of records and funds the practice has been by
the in-coming Secretariat to "sign-off" that the materials and funds were
received in good order. Not only did AIT-Minnesota refuse to "sign-off", they
refused to answer any of former WSA Secretariat's correspondence and declined to
accept our mail. Mail to their homes and postal boxes were returned by the post
office stamped "Refused. Return to Sender". (9)

Throughout the summer and into the fall of 2000 the Minnesota based
Secretariat applied all the bureaucratic and undemocratic methods known to both
Leninists and trade union bureaucrats. They refused to provide a regional mailing
list to National Committee member (10) (which was a standard internal practice
and to which they had been previous beneficiaries). (11) They further refused
to print or circulate statements or positions of the NY group (12). They
refused our access to their slick looking and externally oriented "Bulletin". They
altered our correspondence to support their viewpoint or to make us look
ridiculous. They further withheld our solidarity letter to the MEI strikers.

At the 2000 WSA national conference held in Minnesota they withheld any
information that they intended to publicly and without recourse expel long-standing
militants. This was not revealed until they issued their so-called report at
the Granada Congress in December. (13)

The final and most severe Secretariat intervention on the side of
AIT-Minnesota came at the Granada Congress when the credentialed WSA delegate was
physically barred from entering and participating in the Congress. Additionally, let
us quote from our
17 November 2004 email:

"[T] his Congress the dishonest and disrespectful lock-out of the WSA
delegate (Miranda) took place. It was also at this Congress the Secretariat gave a
free hand to the
distribution of a deceitful and false report by Minnesota. The Secretariat
also refused to allow any challenges to this report from the floor. Our
locked-out delegate was also refused the right to distribute a WSA statement
specifically sent to her in response to Minnesota report."

Miranda was further refused any floor time to respond to the wild and untrue
claims being by promoted by Minnesota. A review of the Granada Minutes will
show how Minnesota, with the chair's permission, made wild and untrue
statements about the WSA and WSA militants. When the chair (a member of the IWA
Secretariat) makes a statement at the Congress there is "Agreement: [AIT-Minnesota]
has clarified the position. Documentation exists which the IWA can have" (14)
and refuses to allow for floor discussion or WSA presentation, it is only too
clear that he has taken a favorable position to Minnesota.

CLAIMS OF "HOSTILITY" AND "PARALLELISM"

With this apparent IWA intervention, the WSA was now to be considered a
"hostile" organization. Without any independent investigation by the IWA into the
claims and charges made by Minnesota, the WSA was considered hostile. The post
and email feel silent.

We reject the claim that the WSA has ever been hostile to either the
"Principles & Aims" of the IWA or to the IWA itself. Current WSA membership includes
militants who have been active in organizing IWA activities and a Section to
the US since the 1970's.As we previously wrote (17 November 20004), not one
founding WSA member has ever joined AIT-Minnesota. In fact, after the 2000 Granada
Congress and the shameless activities of both the IWA Secretariat and
Minnesota, WSA saw a some former members rejoin, including a couple of founding
members.

Furthermore, throughout the period since the 2000 Congress, the WSA continued
its long-standing tradition of showing solidarity with others in the IWA and
IWA campaigns as we learned about them.

We have seen the rather strange and bizarre email claims by Minnesota about
so-called
WSA "parallelist activities". (15) At no time did the IWA Secretariat allow
us to reply to any of these claims.

As with the "hostility" claims, we reject the label of "parallelism" and
simply see it as a diversionary tactic.

WSA's AFFILATION

Perhaps our disappointment with the IWA Secretariat's and some Section's & Fri
ends refusal to respond to our issues manifested itself in our some of the
correspondence quoted by the Secretariat in their report. Since the IWA
Secretariat refused our continued offers to mutually work together, keep us informed
and updated on campaigns perhaps our correspondence wasn't as precise as it
should have been. We no longer "felt" like a part of the IWA even though we
always believed we never left it.

It should, however, come as no "surprise" to the Oslo Secretariat that the
WSA should be "perceived as the IWA Section in the USA". In their own report
they write "The WSA-office in New York sends us lots of emails, faxes and
posts..." They fail to mention that many of these included documents stating our
positions on what was happening inside the US, with WSA and Minnesota. Documents
which they failed to circulate to the section's and Friends.

THE ROAD AHEAD AND THE IWA IN THE US

In the immediate sense the WSA stands by its position that we never left the
IWA. Since the WSA's formation in 1984 we have not disaffiliated from the IWA.
The WSA has taken our internationalism seriously these past 20 years (and
more).

Should the IWA be unprepared to reaffirm our affiliation at this Congress,
let us suggest that you set-up a representative standing committee to resolve
the issue.

We agree with the comments of the Serbian ASI of 19 November 2003 (16). He
wrote:
"[the WSA] positions should be examined and their documentation carefully
read." He continues in part"... their expulsion without reasonable and sound
explanation (if any!) would give the IWA a bad name in the US."

Although this episode with Minnesota and the IWA practices have given the IWA
a "bad name", we believe this can be changed. The WSA has been a proud part
of the IWA for a quarter of its history. We say to our IWA comrades it is time
to recognize the WSA's affiliation and our contributions to the rebirth of the
IWA and to its future.

For a world without bosses, states or bureaucrats,

WORKERS SOLIDARITY ALLIANCE
------------------------------------------------------
All cited correspondence and documents are available upon written request.
Copies of these are being mailed to the IWA Secretariat in Oslo.

1. "1999 AIT Plenary in Toulouse, France" written by Seamas Cain.
2. 10 December 1999 Mitch Miller issued a detailed response to the Cain
report
3. "1999 AIT Plenary in Toulouse, France", page 4
4. ibid., page 12
5. ibid., page 12
6. WSA to NSF, 12/03/99, 12/16/99,1/28/00,3/11/00 & 4/9/00
7. IWA Secretariat to Mitch Miller, 12-28-98
8. Undated, Seamas Cain to Sachio-Ko-Yin
9. Copies of refused letters and correspondence span a period of close to a
year and are available upon request.
10. 18 September 2000 letter from NY-NJ WSA to Seamas Cain, Nat. Sec.
11. 8 August 2000 Mitch Miller letter to WSA DB, copied IWA Secretariat
12. 25 September 2000 letter from NY-NJ WSA to Seamas Cain, Nat. Sec.
13. At no time were formal charges made against Mitch Miller & Ed Elhauge
prior to their "expulsion". Nor were these members ever allowed any due
process under the WSA's Constitution, a Constitution which was never changed when
AIT-Minnesota became the so-called "US AIT/IWA".
14. Agenda Item 7c), page 9 english version. See Point #13 AOB. The WSA
reply to the Congress Minutes were sent to the IWA Secretariat for distribution
at the Manchester Plenary, 1/2002. This document, to the best of our
knowledge has never been distributed to the Section's & Friends.
15. "The Parallelism of Mitchell H. Miller" 18 January 2002. This was
also sent out with another strange email attacking a French CNT member
("Opposition From Thomas P.")
16. WSA?, 19 November 2003, International Secretary of ASI to Secretariat
and Sections

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Feb 21 2007 06:13

Well comrades it is clear that some really shameful behavior has taken place.

The Serbian delegate was right.

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Feb 21 2007 06:51
WeTheYouth wrote:
After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.

Once the SolFed should decide to raise such a motion, there is no need to wait for the next IWA congress in two years time. This could as well be done by means of an international referendum if there are enough sections that endorse the referendum. Just to add one thing concerning the "Minnesota report". After that report and after Mirandas treatment at the IWA congress the FAU decided to stop any contact with the gang of liars and cheaters at Minnesota. Neither does the FAU understand why the IWA secretariat is still in constant contact with that same people that tried to cheat and trick the IWA with their "report". Just to mention the report on the IWW published by the Norwegian IWA secretariat that was presented at the IWA congress in Manchester and is made up of more than 200 pages of documents provided by the already mentioned Seamus Cain (ASN).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 21 2007 09:49

Does the SAN have a website?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 21 2007 13:42
John. wrote:
Does the SAN have a website?

No website.

In fact, they've never articulated what their "politics" are. There is no published statement of principles, aims or working document (constitution).

The only published materials they issue are attacks against the WSA, WSA militants, the IWW and others. Like the jailhouse snitch, they survive on their ability to rat people out----for things they haven't even done. This seems to curry them favors with .... we'll just let it be at that.

David in Atlanta
Offline
Joined: 21-04-06
Feb 21 2007 16:01

To be totally fair, SAN has, over the years, taken two positive actions. in 2000, working with USI contacts, they were able to coordinate a solidarity strike in Italy for striking metal workers in Minnesota, and in 2001 they compiled and published a anthology of brief writings on immigrant struggles in the united states for a AIT conference. It should be pointed out that most of the authors of the anthology were not members of SAN.

Two decent actions balanced against years of personal attacks and underhanded organizational dealing isn't much to show for a would-be section of a revolutionary international.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 21 2007 16:16
David in Atlanta wrote:
To be totally fair, SAN has, over the years, taken two positive actions. in 2000, working with USI contacts, they were able to coordinate a solidarity strike in Italy for striking metal workers in Minnesota

you got any more info on this?

Quote:
, and in 2001 they compiled and published a anthology of brief writings on immigrant struggles in the united states for a AIT conference.

this online anywhere? or anyone have it in electronic format?

David in Atlanta
Offline
Joined: 21-04-06
Feb 21 2007 17:33
John. wrote:
David in Atlanta wrote:
To be totally fair, SAN has, over the years, taken two positive actions. in 2000, working with USI contacts, they were able to coordinate a solidarity strike in Italy for striking metal workers in Minnesota

you got any more info on this?

Only self-agrandizing after the fact ainfos posts from SAN. There's some archived material on the Duluth local newspaper site, but it has to be paid for. Mitch mentioned that SAN blocked attempts by WSA to show any solidarity with the strike.

Quote:
Quote:
, and in 2001 they compiled and published a anthology of brief writings on immigrant struggles in the united states for a AIT conference.

this online anywhere? or anyone have it in electronic format?

It's mentioned here
http://www.iwa-ait.org/immigration.html
you might want to ask NSF or USI if they have copies.
AH, i poked around a bit and found it.
http://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00381.html

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Feb 21 2007 18:03
robot wrote:
WeTheYouth wrote:
After reading through this thread, i cant beleive that SolFed supported such crap. I think one section of the IWA should raise the re-entry of the WSA as the continued IWA section in the USA, when it comes closer to the next congress i will raise it in my local.

Once the SolFed should decide to raise such a motion, there is no need to wait for the next IWA congress in two years time. This could as well be done by means of an international referendum if there are enough sections that endorse the referendum.

Interesting, are you sure we can do this by referendum?

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Feb 22 2007 05:58
WeTheYouth wrote:
Interesting, are you sure we can do this by referendum?

Well, I don't really like that bureaucratic kind of stuff. But from my experiences within the IWA I would suggest the following:

a. If there were a formal decision of an IWA congress or a plenary that it's section in the USA shall no longer be a member section, than this could be subject to a referendum:

At the request of at least three national affiliated Organizations, an international agreement can be submitted for revision by a general referendum within all Sections. (en) A instancia de un mínimo de tres organizaciones nacionales adheridas, un acuerdo internacional puede ponerse a revisión por referéndum general dentro de todas las Secciones.(es)

b. If the IWA secretariat just stopped treating the US section as a member section because someone there declared to no longer be a member of the IWA then it should be up to the US section to inform the IWA secretariat, that they did not take any such decision. The IWA secretariat must then check whether or not there was a statuary decision of the US section to withdraw from the IWA. If not, the US section has to be treated as still being a member section. This does not apply for those individuals or groups that declared their withdrawel from the IWA.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 22 2007 06:02

Robot, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what he may be refering to.

From the IWA Statutes (my emphasis)

"VI The International Congresses

...
The agreements and resolutions adopted by the International Congresses are binding for all affiliated Organizations, except when those Organizations, by a resolution of a National Congress or by referendum, reject the agreements of the international Congress.

At the request of at least three national affiliated Organizations, an international agreement can be submitted for revision by a general referendum within all Sections.
In the international referendums and Congresses, every Section has one vote, and it is recommended that unanimity be sought before one proceeds to the voting."

http://www.iwa-ait.org/statutes.html

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Feb 22 2007 10:23

Thanks. What is WSA's relationship with the FAU like?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 22 2007 13:11

The (LWG and)WSA has had a very long and comradely relationship with the FAU. Our intitial contact goes back to the anarcho-syndicalist initiaitives even before FAU was formed.

This is not to say we are twins about everything. But we have always had a mutually respectful and comradely relationship.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Feb 22 2007 13:13
syndicalist wrote:
The (LWG and)WSA has had a very long and comradely relationship with the FAU. Our intitial contact goes back to the anarcho-syndicalist initiaitives even before FAU was formed.

This is not to say we are twins about everything. But we have always had a mutually respectful and comradely relationship.

Do you thik that the attacks on the WSA were also because of the support it gave to the FAU call for a referendum on the CNT France split?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 22 2007 14:01
WeTheYouth wrote:
Do you thik that the attacks on the WSA were also because of the support it gave to the FAU call for a referendum on the CNT France split?

This requires a more detailed reply rather than a simple yes or no. The whole internal split with the French CNT dominated IWA discussions for a couple years prior to the vote to expel Vignoles.

Within WSA the issue of the French CNT split was a hot one. The WSA was lietrally split down the middle on this question going into the 1996 IWA Congress. Our delegate was mandated to abstain on the question. As important as the question may have been to our French comrades, the WSA couldn't aford to allow this issue to split us apart.

WSA, along with Solfed and a majority of other Section's abstained on the question. In reality I believe it was only 3 section's (CNT-Spain, CNT-Bordeaux, NSF)who voted for the expulsion of the Vignoles CNT. Under IWA proceedures a majority of those voting in favor of a motion carries the day. So there were, I believce, more than 10 abstaintentions,not sure how many no votes, 3 or so Yes votes. So a grand majority of 3 or so votes carried the day.

I believe that it was on the basis of such a small vote in favor to expel that the WSA delegate to that Congress took the position they did.

The WSA's delegate's position was not without internal WSA controversy. Unlike the FAU, the WSA really did not have a lot of personal friendships on the line with the French comrades. Of course there is more to this and I will have to leave it our good comrades of the FAU to explain their views on the matter.

All I can say is that within the WSA it was not a simple issue. I have severe criticisms of those in the WSA who acted on their own and without mandadte. Personally, I think the matter---all the way around---could have been handled in a much better and constructive manner. It is my personal view that the French split (in addition to all the problems arising out of the Spanish situation) created a real negativity within the IWA. It set the stage for other things to come.

Maybe it's just my nature, but I think you have to go the full mile and make every effort to resolve issues. This isn't to say one foresakes principles, I simply think you have to make efforts to work things out in as a constructive manner as possible. I do not believe that a vote of 3 or so to expel a section (or a portion thereof)constitutes a correct basis from which to operate. Perhaps the wisest thing to have done was to have a special plenary to review the matter one last time and then put it to a vote. Perhas the vote would've been to expel (or not), but at least it would've been a majoritarian mandate.

But i gotta get to work now. I'll come back to it tonight.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Feb 23 2007 01:22

This may be off-topic but I'd be interested to hear the views of WSA, Solfed and FAU members on relations between the IWA and other organisations. Does anyone still see a justification for restricting contacts between IWA affiliates and the CNT-F, the SAC and the CGT etc.? Is there any possibility of all these organisations working together at some level, without necessarily having to be in the same international or abandon their tactical disagreements? I'm asking as someone who's neutral in the anarcho-syndicalist wars.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 23 2007 02:54
JH wrote:
This may be off-topic but I'd be interested to hear the views of WSA, Solfed and FAU members on relations between the IWA and other organisations. Does anyone still see a justification for restricting contacts between IWA affiliates and the CNT-F, the SAC and the CGT etc.? Is there any possibility of all these organisations working together at some level, without necessarily having to be in the same international or abandon their tactical disagreements? I'm asking as someone who's neutral in the anarcho-syndicalist wars.

This could probably make for another thread.

I'll say that I-99 was an attempt to bring differing tendencies together in a neutral space. The idea was to allow for free and open discussion. To allow comrades to agree to disagree on some issues, to cooperate on others while still maintaining ones own affinaties and perspectives. I would say that, in this respect, the various International Solidarity Conferences are of value.

On a practical basis,such as solidarity with strikes, actions, cooperation on an intra-company basis, I think the no contact policy is a hinderance. But local comrades can support locals in any one of the aforementioned organizations and be within the intent of the "no contact" policy. As I understand it, the "no contact" policy applies to cooperation/contact with the national offices of the SAC and CGT. The Spanish CNT has dealings with CGT locals routinely. As for CNT-Vignoles, I think there's a blanket ban. But I'm not 100% sure about that.

My understanding of the local cooperation scheme was explained to me over the past years. The way it was laid out was local-to-local contact is more "organic". Contact with the national offices of either the SAC and the CGT is "inorganic".

Now I suspect if all of these International Solidarity Conferences were organized by local groups and endorsed by locals from other organizations (be they inside or outside the IWA), they would consititue "organic" gatherings. I suspect the label of "parallelist" gatherings would, in a strange way, not apply. That is, they're not organized by national committees or international committees of an organization.

Well JH, I guess I really didn't answer the question as stated. So just chalk this up to an opinion.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 23 2007 10:15

Yeah if people want to discuss JH's question it's best to start a separate thread.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 24 2007 14:17

hello--test--for internationalism

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Feb 24 2007 18:07
John. wrote:
Yeah if people want to discuss JH's question it's best to start a separate thread.

Fair enough. I could start a new thread. It depends whether people actually want to discuss this. I'd imagine it could be a sensitive subject.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 5 2007 19:31

I'd like to see people's thoughts.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 6 2007 19:41
OliverTwister wrote:
I'd like to see people's thoughts.

I've started a new thread at: http://libcom.org/forums/general/can-iwa-work-together-cnt-f-sac-and-cgt

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 21:09

Moved from: http://libcom.org/comment/reply/27525/356517?quote=1#comment-form

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.

Point of clarification: The Duluth, Minnesota entryists claimed they dissolved the WSA at a conference which they called and controlled. It was at this conference they proclaimed themselves as the "US IWA/AIT". They then proceeded to expelled members on their own and in blatant violation of all the proceedures as previosly established in our Constitution.

If I may, the entryists have never once published a statement of who they were, what they stood for or constitution. Aside from never willing to comit in writing anything whoch would identify their politics, means of operation, etc., they were then quickly and without internal IWA discussion adhered to the IWA. This is all clear and the records will show that this is accurate.

And when they disaffilaited from the IWA (soemthing like within a years time) it was for the bizarre reason that some in the IWA were still talking to and working with the WSA! I mean this is in writing, I'm not a science fiction writer!

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Dec 18 2009 21:26

Where are they now? What are their names? Have you got any idea why they did this, or what their background was?

ETA: in case anyone is suspicious of my interest, well I think the WSA is the only good nationwide anarchist group to ever appear in the US, and I think the IWA have a cool tradition.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 18 2009 21:25

From the IWA Congress sidetracked thread:

Quote:
Robot wrote:

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.

Well, from what I know of the Bay-Area WSA, which now has a Pareconist faction if I am not mistaken, politically many of them would be closer to currents in alternative syndicalism than many currents in the IWA. Of course there are exceptions in the IWA, but these are not a majority - hence the reluctance of the majority of IWA sections to lend support to the conferences organized mostly by such groups. (The FAU tending to be the major exception.)

I think that political difference have to be solved in a different way - not by tricks but by frank discussion. I don't know the deepest details of it all, but I know that I didn't believe these people from Minnesota and said it to some IWA members. Again, I suppose that really what was happening was that some people were looking for a pretext to get rid of the WSA. I don't know if the word "trick" is the same. I think that people wanted to believe it and were tricked themselves.

Certainly from today's perspective, people can see where the mistakes were made. But, as I have suggested, ultimately the reason for this must have been related to some anxieties about WSA's actual political positions. Whether or not they were justified is another issue.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 18 2009 21:29
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Where are the entrist scumbags now?

Condiering there might have been 4-5 people in Duluth, with questionable names elesewhere
(we actually think some folks did not exist)....... But they are all disappeared. Maybe in a bluemoon one of them issues a statement. But they only existed in reality to do the dirty deed against the WSA.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Dec 18 2009 21:33
syndicalist wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Where are the entrist scumbags now?

Condiering there might have been 4-5 people in Duluth, with questionable names elesewhere
(we actually think some folks did not exist)....... But they are all disappeared. Maybe in a bluemoon one of them issues a statement. But they only existed in reality to do the dirty deed against the WSA.

I apologise if it seems a bit callous and academic of me (to be fascinated by the idea), but do people have any inkling about why these people might have done this - what could they possibly gain from this behaviour?

I mean I could understand if they were trying to get the WSA disaffiliated so they could set up a new IWA franchise, as that is a powerful concept for some people. But if they just walked away for spurious reasons after a year...