An article by Vadim Damier from 2012 critiquing the CNT model of anarcho-syndicalism
One philosopher has once told that the one, who doesn't study history, is doomed to repeat its errors. The problem consists just in looking for what was made may be not correctly or not very well in the past. This can give a possibility to avoid some mistakes in the present and in the future.
Of course, it would be unreasonably and conceitedly to give advices to comrades living in a country removed in thousands of kilometers, with quite other situation and with differing conditions of social and workers struggle. But when I turn around back on history of anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain, I see not only brilliant victories and the Great Revolution, but also certain internal problems. And these problems remain the same throughout all history of heroic CNT.
The attempts of Bolshevist usurpation in the beginning of 1920s; the permanent discussions about participation in the politic; the cooperation of leading group of Pestaña and Peirò with oppositional politicians in the struggle against the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera; the Treintismo; the refusal of realization in July of 1936 of Concepto confederal del comunismo libertario adopted on Zaragoza congress; the “Ministerialismo” in the Civil War; the common front of “internal” fraction with authoritarian parties in the struggle against Franco in the 1940s and 1950s; the “Cincopuntismo”; the massive infiltration of the Reformists and then finally the splits which led to a creation of the CGT; and finally the actual troubles with the “heterodoxos” and attempts to force some of their most active critics out of Confederation…
ABOUT “CONTRADICTIONS”
So we can say that the CNT led through all its history a stubborn struggle against reformism. The Reformism was every time beaten but it emerged anew again and again. We never will cure this illness if we will not understand whence it arises.
There is a point of view that similar problems are inevitable for anarcho-syndicalism as such. That the anarcho-syndicalism acts in a cramped tension or “dialectical contradiction” between final goal and everyday achievements, between some “maximalism” and some “reforms”. That this way is very narrow, and so it is easy – or even “naturally”– to drive sometimes to some kind of “reformism”. But it is impossible to cure an illness simply declaring it “natural”: one day it can become deadly. Only the Marxists with their Hegelian schemes of “negation of negation” can estimate contradictions as the base of every development. The Anarchism seeks harmony as it goal, and this goal can be achieved only by the means of annihilation of contradictions and of restoring of harmony. An organism which is broken off by contradictions never can operate coherently, intelligently and purposefully. In the long term, it is doomed to defeat.
It is one of general principles of Anarcho-Syndicalism that, in this combination, the Anarchism is the goal and the Syndicalism is a mean. What is more, the anarchist workers movement or the anarchist Syndicalism is the sole form of MASS anarchism known in the history because it makes possible through the everyday concrete struggles to restore the solidarity and self-governmental capacity between people and to show them the perspective of a new live without hierarchy and domination. So the everyday syndical action is one of the best methods of achieving anarchist goals but no a value-in-itself for people which want to be free. Nobody in our movement doubt about it officially. But the reality looks sometimes differently…
OPENESS “TO ALL WORKERS”?
The peculiarity of the Spanish CNT was always a foundation of it strength and it splendid success. But it was also basis of some of its problems too – even although certain of these problems were “imported”.
Without making any deep voyages in the past, we remember that the Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo in Spain were found in 1910 on the crossing of two different traditions. The one sprang from the Spanish Regional Federation of the First International and it workers organizations: they had a clear and open libertarian goal, struggling not only for everyday betterments but also for a free and stateless society. The second tradition was of the French CGT with it Revolutionary Syndicalism based on direct action. The influence of this growing movement in the neighbour country was so big, that the workers associations in Spain abandoned even the former name of “Sociedades de Resistencia” and adopted the French name “syndicates”. Together with the French Revolutionary Syndicalism, some of it key notions traversed the Pyrenees: the openness of workers organizations “to all workers” independently from their ideas and social goals (an ideologically “neutral” syndicalism) and the view of a future society as a federation of syndicates rather than of the libertarian free communes (the key points of the Chart of Amiens of the French CGT).
But the significance of this CGT tradition was different for France and for Spain. For the France, the adoption of revolutionary syndicalism was an obvious progress because it appeared to be a rupture with a former domination of authoritarian Marxists in the workers movement. The Chart of Amiens was a compromise between the Libertarians, the authoritarian Socialists and the pure Trade-unionists, but it gave to the Anarchists for some time a very good possibility to extend the influence of libertarian ideas in the working class. But the Spanish anarchist workers movement didn't need such sort of compromises. It was enough powerful itself.
The notions which were “advanced” for a situation in France created a confuse duality in Spain. The CNT adopted both things simultaneously: the goal of libertarian society and the openness of syndicates “to all workers”. A very serious contradiction was created: how a worker which refuses a libertarian goal can be only and simply “as a worker” a member of any organization struggling not only for the partial betterments but also for a libertarian society? This gave birth to a permanent problem in the CNT between the “anarchist” and the “syndicalist”(it would be true to say, more “neutral”-syndicalist) tendencies.
The principle of “openness” cleared the way in the CNT not only for Revolutionaries but also for Reformists “as workers”. This was supported also by some Anarchists which shared a “Malatestian” position in respect of trade unions: they didn`t consider the unions as a mean of struggle for a libertarian society and viewed them as per se reformist. From both the “non-ideological Syndicalism” and Anarchism of Malatesta resulted the “openness” to “all workers” and the pursuit of quantitative growth of number of members in anarcho-syndicalist unions, at high speed and almost at any cost. And the partisans of a “syndical structure” of a future society (as Treintistas) tried to convince that the bigger the anarcho-syndicalist unions will be, the nearer is the revolution.
But this “quantitative”, “numerical” approach has also some further logical results. To be bigger, the syndicalist unions must “soften” their ideas and become more attractive for “normal”, that is for no-revolutionary, “moderate” workers so as not to scare them. They must be more “heterodox”, less anarchist, less “ideological”, more ready for compromises with politicians and reformists. In other words: they must themselves become reformists. Since then, the “openness” and the forced growth regardless of “ideal quality” become the banner of all Reformist with damaged the CNT from within.
ANARCHISM VS. “LESS-IDEOLOGICAL” SYNDICALISM
The more “anarchist” tendency in the CNT diagnosed the danger very quickly and they tried to repel it. In the beginning of 1920s, they showed an interest for an experience of anarchist workers movement in Argentina, FORA.
The “Forism” rejected both the “non-ideological syndicalism” and the position of Malatesta. Like the CNT, it proclaimed openly the anarchist-communist (libertarian communist) goal of anarchist workers unions. But it refused categorically the principle of their “openness” to “every worker” independently from his ideas and convictions and the numerical growth at any cost. The “Foristas” proposed “la formación de un movimiento sindical propio, con el programa del anarquismo, compuesto por anarquistas y simpatizantes que demonstrarán prácticamente al resto de los trabajadores, con quines conviven diariamente en la vida productiva, los métodos más eficaces de lucha y el verdadero fin de todos nuestros esfuerzos». (Emilio López Arango, Diego Abad de Santillan. El anarquismo en el movimiento obrero. Barcelona, 1925. P.163).
It was a notion of an anarchist workers organization which was in the same time syndicate and “ideological” association, or more correctly, a syndicate with clearly and openly defined anarchist ideas. There was no place for those who have fundamentally disagree with the anarchist social goal (as partisans of political parties), or who were simply looking for any “more efficient” trade union. It was a syndicat of “anarquistas y simpatizantes”.
Many people in European anarchist movement misunderstood this approach. There are opinions until now, that the “Forism” want to build a kind of anarchist political party: an organization where all members declare themselves consciously “AnarchISTS”, know libertarian theory, join anarchist philosophical or affinity groups etc. This is very far from the truth. The FORA was not only for “conscious” people, it was also for “spontaneous” Anarchists, that is also for people which may be didn`t know anarchist theory or didn`t declare themselves “Anarchists” but which shared anarchist goal of a free stateless communist society. “Frente a ese anarquismo filosófico o politico presentamos nuestra concepción y nuestra realidad de movimiento social anarquista, vastas agrupaciones de masas que no eluden ningún problema del anarquismo filosófico y que toman al hombre tal qual es, no solo como adepto de una idea, sino como miembro de una fracción humana explotada y oprimida” (Ibid. P.165).
In the face of political elusions of Pestaña and Peiró, quite a number of Spanish Anarchists and Anarcho-Syndicalists expressed in 1920s their sympathy for “forist” options. This can be read in the known book of Juan Gómez Casas about the history of FAI. But in the end, another option prevailed: to unite all anarchist affinity groups in the FAI and to try to act as Anarchists in the CNT for counter the reformist tendencies of “less ideological Syndicalism”. Now, we know, that this approach has only a limited success and only for a very short time. Moreover, it even reinforced the “anarchist – syndicalist” duality in the CNT and not solved the contradiction mentioned in the beginning. It there are “special” Anarchists in any organization, it supposes that the others (a large majority) are not.
The problem influenced obviously the destiny of the CNT in the Spanish Revolution and remains unresolved until now.
WHAT NOW?
The actual situation in the anarcho-syndicalist movement (not only in Spain) indicates that this duality of anarchist tradition and of “revolutionary syndicalist” tradition of Chart of Amiens becomes a strong weapon in the hands of reformist tendencies. They seek to utilize it for struggle against revolutionary militants and unions worldwide, softening the “ideal” content, forcing the numerical quantitative growth of membership at cost of some “deideologization” of anarcho-syndicalism and imposing close cooperation with reformist trade unions and political forces. Their expectations are clear. We live in the situation of worldwide capitalist offensive when the big “official” reformist unions don`t want and also can`t organize the workers defense. The syndicalist reformists hope to take their place. But in the consequence of social atomization and of fuzzy workers class consciousness, they can recruit many people only refusing the “extremist”, “too revolutionary” and “too ideological” approach of revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism. Their aim is to become very “normal” trade unions (may be, a little more “radical” and persistent) without any goal of libertarian transformation of society. This would be a definitive return of “no-ideological syndicalism” to the Social-Democracy.
But the most of these hopes will be in vain in a long-time perspective. The “after-Keynsian” capitalism doesn`t need the persistent “social partners”; it need the destruction of organized labour, a capitulation. In this context, there are no place for the reformists which hope to coquet with own imaginary “radicalism”. To organize surrender, the big “official” trade unions are sufficient.
Without giving something for the workers, the reformist “deideologized” syndicalists can however kill the anarcho-syndicalist movement. Now, they throw off practically the old “duality” of anarchism and “openness”. Defending it, we will lose. We shall discuss new options, new alternatives in the anarcho-syndicalism. That is why the “forist” experience of real unity of anarchism and syndicalism and the “model” of anarchist workers organization can be useful in the actual situation.
Comments
Oh, not seen this before ...
Oh, not seen this before ... i'd love to hear a CNT reply to this. On da GRIL...
This article was solicited
This article was solicited for and published by a magazine published by some unions of the CNT. As in any situation, there would be agreement and disagreement with it, so it is unwise to give the impression there might be a single "CNT" reply. There is no such thing as a "CNT" opinion, unless it is one voted on issued by a Plenary.
OK, it would be interesting
OK, it would be interesting to hear the many opinions of many CNT members.
I'm on some forum where I
I'm on some forum where I suppose it was discussed so I can ask if I can forward something, but it's in Spanish. I am afraid anything you might get in any other language would not really be too representative. I don't think there was too much debate about it though, if I recall. I can ask Vadim.
The translation is a bit
The translation is a bit rough. I'd happily give some of my time to clean this sort of thing up. How do we go about that? I would just go ahead, but someone else might be doing it.
For me, spanglish is not a
For me, spanglish is not a problem. I'm just interested in what peoples comments might be.
Personally, FORAismo has elements I like and,perhaps, are more oriented to certain conditions or places or even smaller organizations. But I do not feel it is a replacement for building anarchy-syndicalist unions where immediately (and sometimes historically) possible.
You know where to find me if ya gots anything....
might not be a problem for
might not be a problem for you but I often read articles, sometimes just posts :) which I need to rearrange as I read them, and think "I'd love to clean that up"! Kind of distracting from the content.
Pikel wrote: might not be a
Pikel
I hear ya....but growing up in a community where english was a second language to many (including in the family), I guess i work ok with crappy and rough language. :groucho:
i'm pretty sure this was
i'm pretty sure this was translated from russian, akai is discussing translating forum posts from spanish.
Right, talking at cross
Right, talking at cross purposes! I am talking about this article, it could be modified to read in more "idiomatically correct" English, even without access to the Russian original, which wouldn't help me anyway as I don't know more than a few words of Russian.
The article was published in
The article was published in Spanish: http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/anarquismo-y-sindicalismo
It is here in Russian.
Maybe next week I'd have a chance to fix it, but I suppose somebody else would get around to it quicker than I.
syndicalist wrote: Oh, not
syndicalist
akai
syndicalist
alasbarricadas thread
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=58596
Most respectfully, I totally
Most respectfully, I totally forgot about this article.
Why is the alas barricadas discussion happen like all this time later?
And are the folks even CNT?
While I am convinced that syndicalist unions will have, at first, a diversity of members
But without helping to develop the member along anarchosyndicalist path, the union simply becomes a trade union as opposed to a revolutionary union
You are right. And everybody
You are right. And everybody knows it. But there are straight trade unionists and authoritarian leftists trying to influence and with their own ideas about what path to take.
I don't go on this forum, neither do most of my friends. There is no real discussion possible, problems with bad censorship. etc.
Anyway, I think the "dilemna" is a little different than presented in this article but that organization has a long organizational problem which keeps on repeating, making me sure that it is not a good model for us, although there are things certainly we can learn from and some aspects of the organization which should be commended and can give us good ideaas.
So let's see, a guy from a
So let's see, a guy from a Section with no union activity at all trying to teach a lesson about anarcho-syndicalism? Thank goodness he never wanted to "give advices to comrades..."
Historical rigor = zero
Respect = zero
When he's fit to lick Peiro's or Pestaña's boots, he may insult them. Otherwise, remain standing with your wackos of Adarga against the reformist ghost.
with posters like MP, the
with posters like MP, the libcom discussion culture really goes down...
Well, times that by 10 and
Well, times that by 10 and you unfortunately can imagine how discussion may look in certain corners.
Also the guy is involved in union activity in his workplace personally.
Anyway, when all is said and done, I think that the author of the article will have left a series of interesting texts for activists to read and think about while MP ... well, unfortunately we will all witness very quickly where his thinking will land him.
Personally, I don't agree
Personally, I don't agree with some main theses of the article, while other points I think are important and relevant. And my personal thoughts don't come from any armchair position, but actually from union experience. In terms of the relevance, I would have to say that every anarchosyndicalist organization at some point discusses questions of this nature, so I find the text, if not all its conclusions, to be very legitimate.
As for the question of depoliticizing, it is very relevant. If certain anarchosyndicalist organizations (at least one I know of) have approved plans which call on the organization to be less political and more "practical", it means that said organization is building conditions to move its orientation, although it might be that some members did not understand that yet.
- La AIT es una organización
- La AIT es una organización abierta a todos los trabajadores.
- Es independiente de partidos, sectas y grupos de presión.
- Defiende que son los trabajadores los que han de llevar a cabo su propia emancipación.
- Los anarquistas NO pueden ejercer una función de tutela o dirección de los trabajadores.
- Los anarquistas SÍ deben estar en la lucha sindical. Deben mostrar valor, actividad, energía. NO deben intentar dirigir los sindicatos.
- Los trabajadores se bastan y se sobran para transformar el mundo, a través de la lucha sindical.
Es completamente falso que en los foros españoles no se pueda debatir debido a la censura. Lo que realmente ocurre, es que hay gente incapaz de argumentar en ellos, que se retira del debate cuando se le muestra otra manera de pensar. El anarquismo tiene en todo caso, que estar con quienes piensan diferente. Hablar a los que piensan como uno, sirve solo para escucharse uno a sí mismo.
Salud, y anarquía. Ni Dios, ni amo, ni tutela de los anarquistas.
Fwiw .... I'm sympathetic to
Fwiw .... I'm sympathetic to both dilemmas. But at some time the chicken has to cross the road
That the paper principles have to be more then that. How that is translated into reality and at what pace is not for me to determine for others But at some point you are or you aren't what you say in principle and written word you claim to be.
MT wrote: with posters like
MT
What kind of discussion could we have if this article is full of dogmatic nonsense? This guy has no respect at all and no historical rigor.
akai wrote: Anyway, when all
akai
Please, enlight me: where my thinking will land me?
Quote: Please, enlight me:
In Parliament
militant-proletarian
militant-proletarian
I said "discussion culture", but I see that this is something incomprehensible to you.
La AIT defiende la
La AIT defiende la independencia de los trabajadores, y que la emancipación de los trabajadores ha de ser obra de los propios trabajadores.
En ninguna parte dice que la emancipación de los trabajadores ha de ser obra de los trabajadores tuteados por los anarquistas que impiden su deriva reformista.
Es más: habría que ver quién es más reformista, si el anarquista que"lucha contra el reformismo", o los trabajadores que hacen la revolución.
Lloviendorailes, podemos
Lloviendorailes, podemos discutir mucho sobre sus ideas, pero hay que empezar con un hecho. Lo que tu escribes no es ninguna posicion de la AIT. Tus declaraciones sobre la AIT son productos de tu pensamiento y entendimiento pero no productos de los estatutos o de decisiones tomadas por la federación o de su práctica.
Sobre la cuestion de la afiliación, no podemos decir que la AIT es abierto a todos, porque las Secciones determinan que puede afiliarse, quien no. Si no quieren miembros de partidos políticos, trotskistas etc., no deben aceptarles.
Los estatutos de la AIT son mucho más claros si hablamos de la misión de la AIT. Usas palabras y concepciones no claros diciendo que la AIT es independiente de ¨sectas¨ y ¨grupos de presión¨ sin definir que es esto. Estas sentencias no vienen de los textos o conceptos aprobados de la AIT. En los estatutos de la IWW hay una sentencia sobre ¨sectas antipoliticas¨, que signifca grupos especificas anarquistas. Hablando contra ¨tutela de los anarquistas¨¨, alguien puede pensar que anarquistas son organizadas en ¨¨sectas¨o son ¨grupos de presión¨¨ dentro organizaciones sindicales. Y estos ideas son en contradición de los estatutos de la AIT que dicen que el objeto de la internacional es promover el comunismo libertario, construir organizaciones que luchan para la sociedad futuro anarquista, etc.
Creo que esta visión es muy cómoda para los sectores anti-anarquistas que quieren depoliticizar las organizaciones de la AIT.
It might not be cool to
It might not be cool to respond in Spanish or refer to the post without making a full translation, but I will try to cover the main points.
Lloviendoraíles wrote that the IWA is an organization open for all workers and is independent of parties, sects and pressure groups. He also wrote that anarquists cannot play the function of tutelege and direction of the workers. Anarchists should be in the union struggle but cannot try to lead the unions. And that the workers are enough to transform the world, through the syndical struggle.
I thought this was worth responding to these ideas. But first one thing has to be perfectly clear.
Unfortunately, we see a problem from time to time with individuals making statements about what the IWA is, which in no way reflect decisions or positions taken by the IWA. In this case we see certain contradictions with reality.
For example, in the context of the article here, some have questioned what can happen when an organization is open for all persons of all sorts of political and tactical persuasions. Lloviendorailes contends that the IWA is an organization open for all workers. The problem is that this assertation does not stem from any decisions of the IWA, its statutes or its practice. The truth is that each member organization decides who its membership consists of and if „all workers” can join or not.
Then Lloviendorailes writes another statement which maybe reflects his interpretations or wishes, but does not stem from IWA documents and decisions saying that it is „independent of parties, sects and pressure groups”. This is very unclear and, as I said, is does not originate in the documents of the IWA. A reference to „sects” is in the IWW bylaws. http://www.iww.org/history/myths/8 As is explained here, the term „anti-political sect' „was specifically included to rule out exclusively anarchist organizations or tendencies as well”. So, in fact, having no definition of the word „sect”, this is dangerous language. One could believe it refers to specific anarchist organizations – but why would the IWA, whose specific goal be the creation of a future anarchist or libertarian communist organization, refer to any anarchist organization, which is fighting for the same thing, with such a negative word as „sect”.
The IWA statutes http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/statutes is what all IWA Sections should be in agreement with and in my opinion, they are rather clear. The IWA fights against the state and its organizations try to exert influence on other tendencies in the aim of spreading the struggle against capitalism and the state. The statutes read „Revolutionary unionism has a two-fold function: to carry on the day-to-day revolutionary struggle for the economic, social and intellectual advancement of the working class within the limits of present-day society, and to educate the masses so that they will be ready to independently manage the processes of production and distribution when the time comes to take possession of all the elements of social life.”
So, while we might all sort of try to understand the intenton of Lloviendorailes, these things can be interpreted in different ways and, in any case, pose a serious contradiction to what is actually the stated mission of the IWA.
Now, many anarchists of course are not very keen on being vanguardists and „leading people”, but the whole purpose of making an organization in the IWA is to introduce working class people to our ideas, to spread them and make our organizations models for the future self-managed society. If the ideas of anarchism are to guide the organization, it is clear that the majority of members have to adhere to these ideas, or at least be open to their practical application.
If we have an organization „open to everybody” (including people of different ideologies, authoritarian leftists, political party members, etc. etc.) and anarchists are being told „not to lead”, it is pretty clear that there is a chance that the others outnumber the anarchists and change the focus of the organization and how it acts. Obviously, if anarchists or anarchist sympathizers and numerically superior, it is not a question of them „leading” any union, but that the union acts in the spirit of the IWA, towards creating the libertarian society, and that this results from the members.
So the very idea posited by the writer implies that the unions are not anarchists, but anarchists are „participants” in a struggle of workers, most of whom are not (and will not be) anarchists.
The other question is whether the workers' syndical struggle is enough to transform the world. I think if we look at things historically, few IWA organizations have taken that position. I very much doubt that many of its current organizations would make such a statement.
In my opinion, these sorts of arguments strengthen the need for debate about neutral syndicalism, the syndicalism of the International before the split with the Marxists and the political aspect of the IWA. Making the idea behind the article more relevant.
However I personally don't agree with some ideas behind the article. The first, although not directly stated, is the implication that there is an either-or choice between two models. I personally reject both as being inappropriate for our specific needs and reality of our organization, although in both organizations historically we can find both inspiration and things to avoid.
To give a concrete example, our organization is NOT open to all workers. It does not aim to be. We are not open to members of political parties, to people actively promoting authoritarian leftism which contradicts our principles, to cops, supervisors who hire and fire people – we are not open to racists, nationalists, etc. etc. Despite this, we have a very high percentage of our members involved in struggles in the workplace and a very large percentage of our members do not come from the anarchist or any political movement. They came to us because they have problems at work and they read about us or see us and like the way we act. As to the exact principles of the organization, they should agree to them or not join. In terms of their level of belief in the revolutions or deep political understanding, well... that can be different, but we ask that all people who join try to understand and at the very least, not act against the goals of our organization.
How does that influence things? Well, yes, that means we do not take into our organization everyone we could possibility take. For example, we have a new campaign in one workplace. There are more than 50 people involved, but only a part of them are our members. Because we basically say that anybody in the workplace who wants to fight – we will fight together. This is how our union works. If you agree with our ideas (more or less), you can join. If not really, you don't have to join to work together in the concrete workplace struggles as equals. In this way, even the whole of the workplace can participate in its own struggle, not just the union. (After all, it is also our goal that the most people are engaged.)
Some people in the IWA would support this and some would be very critical. We always discuss with comrades in a comradely way about why we do this or that, but it is our choice. We have seen how some other organizations (here I am talking about outside our federation) develop. We know of one where they put everybody on paper and sign them up regardless of anything. Then they have no idea about anything and, in fact, a very small group of leaders wind up hierarchically controlling the unions because the members are passive and where not prepared in any way to be part of a non-hierarchical organization. Chairpeople of all the unions exist and in fact do most of the work and make the decisions. These are workers' representatives. We think that in order that anarchists are not representatives of workers, or the avant-garde class of the organization, the best way is that the people who do not come from that background be aware of what we are and that we are always acting to educate people – in our case, more by practice than by theoretical articles.
In this way, I have witnessed some really good moments. Some people who joined were not anarchists before, but they became so. Or, at least they are able to understand, in a very clear way, how these ideas influence the structure, functioning and way of taking action of the organization. I have seen a few times where people who did not come from a political background explain to new people about our ideas in a very clear way, based on a lot of empirical knowledge. I am talking about people who never read any of the „classics”, but read our newspaper or website or participate in discussions and just get the ideas. For us, these people are very good types of members of our organization.
What would be a bad development for us is having people who are actively against our ideas in the organization. I do not even want to think how it would look if we had lots of people agitating for legalistic methods, working through politicians or arguing for using tools of representative power to achieve our goals. I suppose if we had to have these types of discussions, we would just waste time, instead of concentrating on our concrete activity.
To sum up, currently there are some very unclear and contradictory ideas floating around some corners and some of them involve ideas about the „role of anarchists”, usually striving towards depoliticization. Other ideas feed into this strain, including ideas that call for the anarchists to stand down in their own organizations, claiming they are „workers' organizations” and the workers' revolution is sufficient. A number of similar ideas create the arguments for depoliticization and build up the position of the non-anarchist contigent in these organizations. Some of the proponents of these positions include anarchists whose ideas confuse the goals with the goals of direct democracy movements, who argue that the use of direct democracy is equal to the social revolution.
La AIT es una organización
La AIT es una organización que se dirige a TODOS los trabajadores Akai, para que se agrupen en organizaciones económicas. La AIT considera que únicamente estas organizaciones sindicales son capaces de organizar la sociedad de una manera comunista, y libertaria. La AIT apela al trabajador en su condición de productor. En ninguna parte dice que el trabajador tenga que ser anarquista, no se le exige tal cosa en ninguna parte.
La AIT es una organización que pretende unir a todos los trabajadores, al margen de partidos, para luchar contra el capitalismo. No es una organización de anarquistas que luchan contra su despolitización.
Es un sarcasmo que se diga que quienes queremos una AIT amplia, de trabajadores, queremos "despolitizarla", dando así por sentado que el anarquismo no es más que una tendencia política más, que se dedica a decirle a los trabajadores cuál es el camino correcto.
Los anarquistas "luchan contra el reformismo"..., JA, cuando en la práctica sindical, cuando la llevan a cabo, hacen exactamente lo mismo que los reformistas que combaten. ¿Cuál es la diferencia, por favor?
Los anarquistas lo que tienen que hacer, no es luchar contra el reformismo, ese fantasma, si no dar la cara activamente en el sindicato, cumplir los acuerdos y engrandecer a la AIT.
Lugius wrote: Quote: Please,
Lugius
Where have I defended that bullshit? Are you serious?
My name is Lugius, I'm mentally 15 years old, I read some books from which I learnt a lot about a very, very bad thing called "reformism". There were some "reformists" in the CNT during the 30s called "treintistas". This guy has a picture of a famous "treintista", so my simple mind tells me this guy is pro-Parliament (???). Viva la anarquía, muerte al reformismo!
Miles de millones de
Miles de millones de trabajadores NO son anarquistas, pero la AIT quiere agrupar a los trabajadores, a todos, para que se emancipen.
¿Tiene que esperar la AIT a que se hagan anarquistas?
¿Se desea una AIT de unos cientos de anarquistas, o una internacional de trabajadores que se organicen al margen de partidos y políticos de todas clases?
Lloviendoraíles wrote: Miles
Lloviendoraíles
Rough translation:
Voy a repetir que estás
Voy a repetir que estás poniendo una definición de la AIT que no viene de la AIT. Lo expliqué suficiente en inglés, que es el idioma de este foro.
En general, tu pregunta es normal, pero no tus definiciones que no provienen de decisiones de la AIT. Pero te puedo decir sólo una opinión personal. O las posiciones de nuestras organizaciones.
Como dije en inglés, en mi organización, los del movimiento anarquista no son una mayoría, el mayoria son personas que vinieron a hacer algo en su lugar de trabajo. Sin embargo, no estamos abiertos a todos y cada. No estamos abiertos a los supervisores, miembros de partidos políticos o ideólogos que van a utilizar la organización para tratar de ponerlo en una dirección ideológica diferente. No estamos abiertos a los racistas, fascistas, etc. En definitiva, las personas que agitan activamente para algo diferente que nuestro objetivo no son bienvenidos.
Como no hablo inglés, hablo
Como no hablo inglés, hablo en lo que sé hablar: castellano o español. Y como hablan de la CNT de España, intervengo. Uso los traductores para entender qué dicen. Y no traduzco al inglés porque no sé si la traducción es buena.
Akai: lo que digo es lo que dice la AIT. ¿No estás de acuerdo? No es mi problema. No confundas tu opinión, con la AIT.
La AIT quiere organizar a los trabajadores. Los trabajadores no son anarquistas. Los anarquistas son una muy pequeña minoría. Según tus ideas, que no son las ideas de la AIT, la AIT tiene que ser una muy pequeña fracción de las organizaciones de trabajadores. Estará solo compuesta de anarquistas, y de algún trabajador que "se convierta".
Según yo expongo, la AIT se dirige a los trabajadores en su condición de productores para transformar el mundo y crear un sistema económico, comunista y libertario. Quiere que todos los trabajadores, se integren en sindicatos de cara a su emancipación.
En ninguna parte dicen los estatutos que la AIT estará dirigida por anarquistas que lucharán contra el reformismo de los trabajadores.
Así que te confundes Akai.
Hay que leer los estatutos.
Hay que leer los estatutos. El objeto de la AIT es crear una sociedad fuera del estado, la sociedad del anarquismo y comunismo libertario. Y crear organizaciones de trabajadores que van a llevar esto a cabo. Esto no significa que todos los trabajadores deben ser anarquistas, pero si la creación de la sociedad libertaria y anarquista es el objeto, y es porque solo los anarquistas quieren eliminar el Estado, no es posible que el anarquismo es una ideologia que puede ser tratado como cada otra.
Este movimiento de emancipación no puede aceptar las líneas de conducta indicadas por aquellas tendencias del movimiento obrero que aspiran a la armonía entre el capital y el trabajo, deseando una paz internacional con el capitalismo e incorporándose en el Estado burgués. Tampoco puede aceptar las tendencias que propagan los principios de la dictadura del proletariado, contrarios a la finalidad de la mayor libertad posible y del bienestar para todos, pues ésta es la finalidad de todos los obreros conscientes.
…..
Con esta perspectiva y esta finalidad delante de sí, el deber de los trabajadores consiste en la participación en toda acción que implique fines de transformación social, siempre con la intención de aproximarse a la realización de nuestros propios fines; haciendo sentir, en dicha participación, el peso de nuestra propia fuerza, esforzándonos para dar a nuestro movimiento, por la propaganda y la organización, los medios necesarios que le permitan sustituir a sus adversarios. Lo mismo, en todas partes donde sea posible, hay que realizar nuestro sistema social a título de modelo y ejemplo, y nuestras organizaciones deben ejercer, en el marco de sus posibilidades, la máxima influencia sobre las otras tendencias para incorporarlas en nuestra propia acción, es decir, la lucha común contra todos los adversarios estatales y capitalistas, siempre teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias de lugar y de tiempo, pero conservando fielmente las finalidades del movimiento emancipador de los obreros.
…..
El sindicalismo revolucionario, basándose en la lucha de clases, tiende a la unión de todos los trabajadores dentro de organizaciones económicas y de combate, que luchen por la liberación del doble yugo del capital y del Estado. Su finalidad consiste en la reorganización de la vida social asentándola sobre la base del Comunismo Libertario y mediante la acción revolucionaria de la clase trabajadora.
Y Lloviendorailes, perdóname si no quiero pasar horas aquí discutiendo contigo, porque en realidad tengo trabajo que hacer con luchas reales en los centros de trabajo. Quiero comentar que muchos de vosotros están involucrados en tratar de decirle a los compas de la AIT lo que la AIT debe ser desde un punto de vista ideológico y muy pocos de vosotros están cooperando o apoyar las luchas reales que hacemos.
This thread is getting
This thread is getting off-topic.
As I said to the Spanish poster, if he asks questions about the direction of the IWA, it is fine, but it is a little slippery to say what it is, if that does not come from what was agreed.
The translation into English are only part of the questions. I consider them legitimate, but this is a question rather for internal debate in the IWA. I wrote how it looks in my organization.
What I don't agree with is what was not translated by MP, which was the idea that anarchism is only one of the many ideologies telling workers what they should do. I think this is a textbook example of what many have criticized the anarchist movement and even the CNT.
The IWA is a federation which explicitedly aims to create a libertarian communist society outside of the state. Maybe somebody wants to use the words libertarian communist, but anyway you look at it, it is an anarchist society. Therefore, in the situation of the IWA, anarchism is not just one of many ideologies to be treated the same as any other. The IWA statutes reject the statist ideologies which try to organize the working class.
We of course have to discuss this in a simple way with workers who want to know what we are about, but it is absolutely amazing (and frankly sad) to have to discuss this here like this.
The Spanish poster does not understand or agree with my words about certain people who seek to depoliticize, but saying that anarchism i just one of many ideologies seeking to direct the workers and implying that it does not define the objectives of the IWA qualifies as that to me.
I don't know where these ideas come from, but as I said before, it sort of smells of the influence of the direct democracy movements which think that achieving direct democracy is the goal itself. It seems the poster is saying that forming independent economic unions is the goal itself, not the creation of anarchist or libertarian communist societies.
I won't speak of the poster, because I don't know him (I think, who knows), but relegating anarchism to the position of "just one of many" ideologies is part of the ideas of the non-anarchist contigent, some of whom come from authoritarian leftist parties, but it is also sometimes taken up by the wooly type of anarchist which has always in the history of anarchist movements tended to back away from the specific anarchist goals in search of "the revolution". Which has often been betrayed by those who wouldn't fight for it when the time came.
An interesting topic for discussion. But I can't spend time here as I have to actually prepare actions related to workplace struggles. It is very sad for me that some people spend so many hours trying to convince other people to not be so anarchist instead of supporting the struggles,
Lo siento por mi espanol, leo
Lo siento por mi espanol, leo mas que yo puede escribir...
Si crees que hay anarquistas ideologica y trabajadores sin ideología (pues en minimo, sin ideas anaquistas), entonces anarquismo está una 'idea precioso' solo, y la practica sindical no puedes ser anarquista. Pero, si crees que anarquismo está una practica de luchando aútogestion, sin jerarqía, sin representación, con participación directo, etc, esta binario no es una problem.
Por ejemplo, Akai es hablando sobre luchas real donde muchas compañeros no estan anarquistas ideologica (obviamente!), pero tambien, que no les gusta los métodos de los sindicatos normal, o partidos politicos. Algun trabajadores se unen el sindicato, otros se participan en el luchando, las asembleas, etc. Es similar en mi ciudad; la campaña es mas gente que el sindicato, pero el sindicato crece con cada lucha (ver aqui).
Las ideas anarquistas no son solo cualquier ideología, pero ideas muy cerca a los practicas luchando mas eficaz sin jerarqía etc. Por otros ideologías (exepto algun los radical) no es el caso. El guión en 'anarco-sindicalismo' significa que anarquismo no es una idea precioso, pero una arma y una practica.
Muy bien escribes, pueden
Muy bien escribes, pueden entender todo! :-) (Y soy de acuerdo)
Leyendo las páginas de la CNT y su folleto oficial, veo que ya no tienen miedo decir que la base filosófica de la CNT es el anarquismo. http://cnt.es/la-base-de-la-filosofia-de-la-cnt-el-anarquismo
Para mi, el folleto de la CNT es claro. Pero las discusiones de algunos individuos en la CNT son muy confudidas y creo que reflejan más confusión ideologica que se presenta en un pais con tantos corrientes y la frustración de gente que tienen ambiciones que no corresponden a la realidad.
Es que yo soy anarquista
Es que yo soy anarquista Akai. No confundas el anarquismo con tus opiniones. Tú no eres el anarquismo, ni el que escribe el artículo tampoco. Yo y muchos más anarquistas, no compartimos lo que dice ese artículo.
Otra cosa: si no quieres discutir Akai, pues no discutas. No pierdas el tiempo.
La interpretación que tú haces de los estatutos de la AIT es una de las muchas posibles. Los estatutos no marcan al centímetro lo que hay que hacer o no hacer. Mi interpretación es tan buena, como mínimo, como la tuya. No confundas la AIT, con tus opiniones.
Mi interpretación es simple: una organización de trabajadores, con principios anarquistas, no tiene que estar compuesta por trabajadores anarquistas. Es imposible, dado que la mayoría de los trabajadores, ni son anarquistas, ni lo van a ser a corto plazo. Y menos si se les va con sermones.
Digo también: Es falso que en CNT se rebaje el discurso para atraer a trabajadores no concienciados.
Los sindicatos encuadrados en la AIT, tienen que atraer a los trabajadores, a todos, mostrando que son útiles, y que sus tácticas son buenas: acción directa, federalismo, decisiones desde la base, no entrar en instituciones y parlamentos, tener independencia económica y tener independencia de partidos políticos.
Eso lo cumple la CNT a rajatabla.
En cuanto a que no puedes discutir porque estás muy atareada en luchas reales, me parece muy bien. Si no puedes discutir, no discutas.
Salud y anarquía. Y no confundáis el anarquismo o la AIT, con lo que opináis cada cual con la lectura de los Estatutos.
Es el anarquismo algo
Es el anarquismo algo vosotros creéis, o algo vosotros hacéis? Si este último, la contradicción entre una organización de trabajadores y una organización anarquista no es absoluto. Hay siempre 'anarquistas' quien hacen (por ejemplo) elecciones, y muchas mas trabajadores abierto a las métodos anarquistas sin la identidad politica. No creo que Akai han dicho que todos los miembros tienen que ser anarquistas ideologicas? Si entiendo la posición, ella dices que es mejor tener miembros sin la ideología quien entender los principios y la practica, que tener miembros quien es anarquistas ideologicas pero quieren las practicas contra los principios anarco-sindicalismo.
Quote: Si entiendo la
No creo que ella ha dicho nada asi. Ha dicho que la organizacion no debe estar abierto a todos los trabajadores, que no debe permitir entrar a personas que representan ideologias contrarias
.
Parece que segun Akai la organizacion debe ser compuesto por trabajadores anarquistas y trabajadores no-politicos, sin dejar entrar a trabajadores politicos no-anarquistas.
No veo que ella habla de anarquistas quienes van contra los principios.
~~~~
Joseph said that Akai would prefer having non-ideological members who support the practice, than ideological anarchists who go against it. I said I don't think she's said that, and quoted where she says the organization should not be open to members of political parties. In other words, it looks like she would want an organization composed of anarchists and non-political workers, but without allowing political workers who aren't anarchists.
Oliver Twister, thanks. I'll
Oliver Twister, thanks. I'll let Akai speak for herself, rather than speculate further based on my rudimentary Spanish.
In SolFed, specific roles are denied membership (police and prison officers; those who have the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties; bailiffs; full-time trade union officials;
officers or holders of executive positions in political parties; scabs; those who have ultimate power to hire and fire or those whose primary role in the workplace is to hire and fire.) Membership is an agreement to abide by the aims, principals and constitution. This is clearly not 'all workers', but neither is it some test of anarchist ideology. ZSP may be different, of course.
En SolFed, profesíones específicas no pueden ser miembros (policía; carceleros y similar; alguaciles; funcionarios pagados de otros sindicatos; funcionarios o dirigentes en partidos politicos; esquiroles; gente que pueden contratar y despedir). Ser un miembro es una acuerdo atenerse a la constitucíon. Claro, este no es 'todos trabajadores', pero ni es solamente anarquistas ideologíca. Por supuesto, quízas ZSP es diferente.
Hi Oliver! I really don't
Hi Oliver! I really don't have much time to discuss, but maybe I need to clarify.
I was not talking about my opinions about who should be in IWA organizations, I am speaking of the agreements and practices of my Section. I mentioned them because they present a different option that other ones presented.
It's correct - I did not say what Joseph said. But he is also correct in that there is a practice and agreements in my organization that would not make it open to anarchists who, for example, ran in elections or were bosses, or cooperate with fascists... because in this country we have all of these things too. It is not about what I personally prefer or not – these are the policies of the organization. I also agree with them personally.
Workers who are not in contradiction with the practice we use in the organization or not promoting something else are welcome. I don't think this should be strange or confusing. We don't use work councils or go on management boards or use the collaborationist methods. Somebody who thinks they are good and wants to agitate to use them is not in agreement with our practice. We are against the state, somebody who wants to be a politician is in contradiction to us. We are against professional union bosses and activism, somebody who wants to be a full-time paid union representative doesn't belong to us.
I would not use the term „political” or „not political” here. Many people have very good politics but were not members of any political organization. Further, there might be political organizations whose members could be in line with us and fit in perfectly fine. But these are not the authoritarian leftists who practice entrism into organizations to move them in their line.
Finally, we have to take into account what our local situation is. In some places there is a wide array of political people who might consider themselves in the non-party left. In this place, there are few people like this, the left is mired in electoralism and opportunism, cross-front strategies are on the rise and the right-wing has a very strong social position. And organizations which refuse to make choices about their membership get riddled with nationalists, totalitarian communist freaks, homophobes and sexists and so on. These people can destroy the very purpose of your organization. So, no thanks.
Joseph, the ideas here are
Joseph, the ideas here are similar, only a few slight differences. The same is that membership is an agreement to abide by the tactics and principles but for us also not to actively agitate against the long term goals and egalitarian ethic. We don't allow bosses and supervisors, cops, border guards and other agents of repression either.
One difference I suspect is due to local specifics, about political party members. In some countries political parties have large memberships of people who are supporters but play no active role in the party, leadership, etc. Here, very few people join political parties and being in a party usually means a much more active role and almost always these people run for power. And running for power is usually a grotesque attempt to get right-wing people to vote for you, which is why so-called left unionists ran in elections with fascists. (Not only this year.) Given this shit or what people are willing to do to get into power and the fact that social movements, unions, etc. are used a mere springboards for their opportunism, we stay clearly away.
The biggest headache in local social movements are politicians who try to coopt them and convince people to "let them handle" whatever problems occur, discouraging them for taking direct action or acting outside the framework of the law.
La cuestión de fondo, es el
La cuestión de fondo, es el papel de los anarquistas en la CNT. Y en la AIT.
En el artículo, se afirma que tienen una actividad de "lucha contra el reformismo". Lo cual es completamente falso.
La CNT no rebaja su discurso para atraer a trabajadores de todos los tipos. La CNT atrae a trabajadores, porque muestra que es útil, que resuelve problemas, que arregla conflictos laborales. Y los anarquistas en CNT, no luchamos contra ningún reformismo: damos la cara, trabajamos activamente en el sindicato, y exponemos nuestros puntos de vista en la asamblea.
Que se diga que "los anarquistas" tienen que "luchar contra el reformismo", es una mentira. Es falso. Es no conocer el funcionamiento de la CNT.
CNT no se presenta a elecciones, no tiene miembros en comités, no recibe subvenciones estatales, tiene su centro de decisión en la asamblea, no permite la entrada de policías en el sindicato... ¿De qué reformismo habla el autor del artículo mencionado?
Recuerden que cuando la CNT fue más grande, fue cuando en sus estatutos agrupaba a trabajadores de todos los tipos, con independencia de credo u opinión.
Anarquista: no confundas el anarquismo, con tus opiniones personales.
OK, why have
OK, why have anarcho-syndicalist unions at all? I mean, if the anarcho component can not be worked into the unionist component what's the sense of even doing a/s unions? The logic of "keeping politics outside the union hall" just makes no sense in a red and black situation. Nor does "organize anarchist workers only" as a union. At some point there would have to be a conversion between "militant worker" and "anarchist worker", I would think. Otherwise, just close the door and turn the lights off.
Lloviendorailes, voy a
Lloviendorailes, voy a comentar otra vez. Necesito mas tiempo para explicar algo en espanol. Pero digo una cosa - este articulo fue publicado en una revista publicada por miembros de la CNTE que piensan que la cuestion es importante. Entonces, no todos los anarquistas piensan que no hay problemas con esto en tu propria organizacion. Salud.
Alai, a mí me da lo mismo que
Alai, a mí me da lo mismo que respondas o no. Si te cuesta mucho trabajo, o tienes mejores cosas que hacer, por mí perfecto. Yo estoy contestando al artículo, no a tus opiniones personales.
Ese artículo habla de "los anarquistas", como luchadores "contra el reformismo". Y es completamente falso que esos sean "los anarquistas". Serán un grupo de anarquistas que opinan así. Muchos otros anarquistas opinamos de otra manera. Vuelvo a decírtelo: yo soy anarquista, y no lucho contra el reformismo. Porque tal cosa no existe en la CNT. I'm an anarchist, and not fight against reformism. Because no exists reformism in the CNT.
CNT no tiene liberados.
CNT no participa en elecciones.
CNT no tiene ningún apoyo económico del gobierno o del Estado.
CNT no admite cuerpos de seguridad en sus sindicatos.
CNT solo mantiene relaciones puntuales con otras organizaciones para cuestiones concretas.
No hay ningún problema de reformismo en la CNT. Así que contra lo que lucha ese grupo de anarquistas, de la AIT, de la CNT, o de donde sea, no es contra el reformismo.
Que lo sepan los afiliados de la AIT.
Syndicalist: Mi opinión, es
Syndicalist: Mi opinión, es que CNT es anarcosindicalista:
- Democracia directa.
- Decisiones en asamblea
- Estructura libertaria
- Finalidad emancipadora.
Los trabajadores se unen al sindicato no por ser anarquistas, si no por problemas laborales, lucha de clases. Y emplean una estructura anarco-sindical, porque les es útil, les gusta. No por haber leído Bakunin o llevar bandera con la A.
Evidentemente, los anarquistas estamos ahí, dando la cara, y el trabajador simpatiza con las ideas de unión y no-dominación.
Yo como anarquista intento ser "uno más". No el dirigente "anarquista".
Lloviendoraíles wrote: La
Lloviendoraíles
The question is really the role of anarchists in the CNT. And the IWA.
In the article, it affirms that their activity is "fighting reformism". Which is completely false.
The CNT doesn't lower its discourse to attract workers of every type. The CNT attracts workers because it shows that it is useful, that is resolves problem, that it handles workplace conflicts. And the anarchists in the CNT, we don't fight against any reformism: we show our face, we work actively in the union, and we explain our points of view in the assembly.
Let it be said, that "the anarchists" have to "fight against reformism", is a lie. It's false. It's a misunderstanding of the functioning of the CNT.
The CNT doesn't go for elections, doesn't have members in committees, doesn't receive state subventions, it has it's center of decision making in the assembly, it doesn't permit police to join the union... What reformism is the author speaking of?
Remember, when the CNT was larger, that was when its statutes grouped workers of all types, regardless of creed or opinion.
Anarchist: don't confuse anarchism with your personal opinions.
Lloviendoraíles wrote: Alai,
Lloviendoraíles
This article speaks of "the anarchists" as those who fight "against reformism". And it's completely false that those are "the anarchists". It's a group of anarchists who have an opinion. Many other anarchists have a different opinion. I'll say it again: I'm an anarchist, and I don't fight against reformism. Because no such thing exists in the CNT.
CNT has no "liberados" [full-time union activists who are paid by the company]
CNT does not participate in elections
CNT has no economic support from the government or the State.
CNT does not admit security forces in its member unions
CNT only has temporary relations with other organizations about concrete issues.
THere is no problem of reformism in the CNT. So whatever is being fought against by this group of anarchists, from the IWA, from the CNT, or from wherever, it's not reformism.
The members of the IWA should learn this.
I won't comment on those
I won't comment on those opinions, I would only say that some people are making way too much of this. Looking back at the original article, I think Vadim clearly wrote about the different positions of anarchists on this matter and everybody on this forum already knows that anarchists do not take the same positions on the same matters.
I invite people to spend their energy more productively in upcoming months.
Akai, te repito una que yo no
Akai, te repito una que yo no te estoy pidiendo tu opinión, que si tienes muchas cosas que hacer, no quiero hacerte perder el tiempo.
El artículo de Vadim, creo que es un verdadero disparate de principio a fin. No sé qué organizaciones habrá estudiado para llegar a semejantes conclusiones.
Por eso yo también les invito: Dejaros de perseguir fantasmas, y uniros a la batalla sindical. La de los precarios, la de los parados, la de los sin techo, la de los inmigrantes, la de la lucha de clases. Respetad el federalismo, respetad las decisiones soberanas de los sindicatos. Es preferible dejar que cada cual se equivoque como prefiera, a que intentando que todo funcione bien, se creen divisiones, escisiones, expulsiones y mil conflictos estúpidos.
Por una AIT grande, libertaria, de trabajadores.
Un saludo a todos y todas, y
Un saludo a todos y todas, y aquí lo dejo.
Lloviendoraíles
Lloviendoraíles
Gracias para su opinion. Yo entiendo espanol, pero yo no escbrien o habla bueno. Possiblemente yo escrien en inglis otra vese.
Hombre yo creo que comentar
Hombre yo creo que comentar el texto que acusa a la CNT de reformista es muy grave para despues decir que tiene mejores cosas que hacer...
La CNT con sus mas de 100 años de historia con sus grandezas y sus miserias, ha conseguido y esta consguiendo logros muy importantes para el movimiento libertario a nivel estatal e incluso internacional.
Hace muchos años antes de la formacion de este sindicato los anarquistas se dieron cuenta que no lograban llegar a el pueblo, que contaban con muchos grupos muy ideologizados que formaban su discurso dentro de unos circulos muy cerrados y que de esa manera era muy dificil llegar al objetivo de la revolución social.
Idearon distintas estrategias para que el pensamiento libetario no solo fuese pensamiento, llegase a ser un movimiento fuerte. Una de ellas fue el anarcosindicalismo, a la vez organización que funciona de manera libertaria y es una herramienta para ganar mejoras, siendo una heramienta util para que los trabajadores se acerquen a ella.
Esta claro que siendo un puñado de personas nunca se puede llegar al objetivo de la revolucion, por eso, en españa practicando este modelo de sindicalismo rozaron y consiguieron en algunos casos el proyecto de una sociedad sin clases.
Los viejos fueron inteligentes e ese razonamiento y el tiempo les dio la razon, ahora nos ncontamos con una reedicion de esos circulos cerrados (por fortuna son minimos) sin influecia en la sociedad que se esmeran en devolver al movimiento libertario en la comodidad de elaborar discursos vacios, fuera de la realidad, este escrito del que hablamos, desde el desconocimiento o desde la mala intención intenta apoyar la postura de un anarcosindicalismo unicamente de anarquistas, algo inviable e incomprensible.
El objetivo del anarcosindicalismo es juntar cuanta mas gente pueda dentro de sus organizaciones, para que despues de ver como se funciona de manera anarquista, se vuelvan anarquistas.
La CNT es un sindicato muy pequeño, sin posibles cotas de poder actualmente (ni recibe subvenciones, ni tiene liberados) lo que hace que el reformismo en sus filas no se beneficie de nada.
La labor que esta haciendo actualmente es revitalizar sus secciones sindicales dentro de las empresas, formando a sus militantes y afiliados y ganando influencia en la sociedad alli donde es capaz de demostrar su funcionamiento y capacidad frente a otras organizaciones sociales, politicas y sindicales. Lo esta logrando, esta creciendo de lo que deberiamos alegrarnos y seguir ese ejemplo de trabajo en vez de criticarlo.
Los trabajadores se convierten al anarqismo cuando ven a los anarquistas como ejemplos a seguir, no cuando los que se dicen anarquistas pretenden dirigir al pueblo, en ese momento dejan de ser anarquistas a convertirse en comunistas autoritarios.
Otro ejemplo historico del absurdo de los lideres anarquistas, cuando la FAI en tiempos de guerra civil no reaccionaba, los mas de un millon de trabajadores de la CNT se lanzaron a organizar milicias y colectivizar los medios de produccion, aconsejo encarecidamente al compañero de la KRASS que en vez de analizar organizaciones que viven realidades muy distintas a la suya, analice a la KRASS y vean de una vez como pueden covertirse en una organizacion anarcosindicalista y ganar influencia en la sociedad Rusa, espero que tengan los mismos logros que esta teniendo la CNT ganando huelgas, mejorando condicones de trabajo y ganando afiliacion.
Buenas tardes a todos. Me
Buenas tardes a todos. Me meto porque leí la nota y estoy afiliado a la FORA
Concuerdo con Lloviendoraíles sobre el concepto de la AIT, siempre fué así, la AIT es abierta a todos los trabajadores y debe seguir así.
No hace falta esperar ningún congreso ni plenaria para que los afiliados a la AIT digamos lo que es: una internacional de todos los trabajadores y abierta a todos. Cuando los conceptos están claros en la base, es decir entre los trabajadores, no nos preocupa demasiado que algún congreso ratifique de que forma y en que tono se puede expresar lo que ya se sabe desde hace 150 años
Creo que es un error el querer clasificar a las organizaciones de esa manera, porque el compañero ruso está teniendo una visión política de las organizaciones obreras. En defensa de los trabajadores asociados creo que varias secciones de la AIT son heterogeneas. Esa idea de que la FORA es una "organizacion anarquista" es errada. Por mas de que se la quiera idealizar en su doctrina tanto la CNT como la FORA son abiertas a todos los trabajadores, simplemente eso, es así y hay que comprenderlo...
Se confunden los términos. La CNT tiene mayor actividad sindical (eso no la convierte en sindicato neutro ni reformista). La FORA tiene prohibida la representación sindical (eso no la convierte en una federación de grupos anarquistas). Hay secciones que estan bajo mas represion que otras pero tienen activiadad gremial y eso no las convierte en ningun partido politico anarquista.