DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

who is wobbly?

me
21% (10 votes)
not me, but i felt like voting for the sheer craic of it all
43% (20 votes)
not anymore, but i used to be
17% (8 votes)
me, and I'm in a national fed - AF, SF etc.
19% (9 votes)
Total votes: 47

Posted By

ftony
Apr 20 2006 14:32

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

ftony
Apr 20 2006 14:32

just out of interest, how many people are actually members of the IWW on these boards?

erm

that's it. smile

the button
Apr 20 2006 14:33

It would also be interesting to know how many Wobs are also in the AF, following their recent conference decision.

As for me, I used to be Wobbly, but I'm not anymore.

Joseph Kay
Apr 20 2006 14:42
the button wrote:
As for me, I used to be Wobbly, but I'm not anymore.

so what you're saying is you wobbled in your wobblyness? grin

Steven.
Apr 20 2006 14:43

He went to the gym.

Boom-boom roll eyes

ftony
Apr 20 2006 14:48

oh dear maybe this thread was a bad idea after all...

Joseph Kay
Apr 20 2006 14:49

oh yeah and i'm not a member. as Lazy would say, 'whats in it for me?' wink

and John. roll eyes

Jacques Roux
Apr 20 2006 14:58

I made the poll more interesting... sorry ftony.

ftony
Apr 20 2006 15:00

that's cool. it does make it more interesting

nastyned
Apr 20 2006 15:02
the button wrote:
It would also be interesting to know how many Wobs are also in the AF, following their recent conference decision.

We seem to be getting over run with wobblies at the moment. There's been a few AFers in the IWW for quite a while but recently there seems to have been a real upsurge.

I'm still not convinced myself but there you go.

ftony
Apr 20 2006 15:05
Quote:
There's been a few AFers in the IWW for quite a while but recently there seems to have been a real upsurge.

probably because they heard i was planning on joining 8)

nastyned
Apr 20 2006 15:06

Yes, i remember that was a cause of great excitement at the recent conference.

OliverTwister
Apr 20 2006 15:07

I voted the "nat'l fed" thing even though I'm in the USA b/c i'm also in a political collective that is pro- nat'l fed

BB
Apr 20 2006 15:09

Not paid my dues for a long time, so i guess officially that's a no. Should change my tag, really...

Tacks
Apr 20 2006 16:21

no you should pay ur dues grin

i have voted cos i almost joined in london but will join up here now.

In fact i'll call someone about that now.

Deezer
Apr 20 2006 17:09

I'm not a member, though I have met lots of sound people who are or have been members. There are as far as I know two wobblies in Organise! There used to be more and one claims that he didn't renew his subs cos they were becoming a legally registered union (not sure if that was a real reason or whether it had more to do with other stuff though).

Couple more outside Organise! in the IWW though motivation does seem to vary a lot in terms of reasons for joining, I get the impression that the oul' James Connolly historic society thing can often be a motivator over any actual desire to practice this particular brand of revolutionary unionism. The other problem seems to be that the membership in Ireland never meet or attempt to organise and any active members (active as, for want of a better term, 'anarcho-syndicalists' that is) seem to be in Organise! anyhow.

Its not really providing an alternative to the existing trades union movement rather than an aspirational one, maybe if it was in a position to it'd grow in size and relevance - but then the same could be said for a specifically anarcho-syndicalist movement.

circle A red n black star

gentle revolutionary
Apr 20 2006 17:25
Tacks wrote:
no you should pay ur dues grin

i have voted cos i almost joined in london but will join up here now.

In fact i'll call someone about that now.

Great news mate, we'd be glad to have you:)

I'm also a wob. We've had phenomenal growth last year - about 50 new members (yeah, a lot of them just "red card romantics"), we're at 150-160 members atm. And since the strategy isn't simply starting a "proper" union from scratch (see http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9394), and is more in the minority movement tradition, I think we've actually got potential of gaining some clout.

JDMF
Apr 20 2006 17:49

i used to be in IWW, couple of years put some serious blood sweat and tears in it, good memories, maybe got something done, maybe not, learned a few things...

...and now a happy SolFed member smile

Lazy Riser
Apr 20 2006 17:50

Hi

I have the power to hire and fire. I certainly allow plumbers to compete for my custom, and worse.

And besides, what's in it for me? Ho ho.

Love

LR

ftony
Apr 20 2006 17:52
Quote:
And besides, what's in it for me?

a lovely red card with little stickers in it smile

WillsWilde
Apr 20 2006 18:06

...must get out to Berkeley/GMB to deposit pocket change/add stickers to little red card.

interestingly,L.R., the Knights of Labor did accept small business employers/contractors.

Some Wobs might differ w/me on this but there are subjective differences between small-business employers and larger...many small business run on a defacto more collective basis, sometimes owners can't even pay themselves, sustain w'credit. They can still fuck your life up, tho.

Joseph Kay
Apr 20 2006 18:21
WillsWilde wrote:
They can still fuck your life up, tho.

indeed ... i've had much more leeway working for a bureaucratic multinational than for a small (<50 workers) petit-bourgoise firm, i could never have got away with posting on libcom (or surfing net even) there. red n black star

WillsWilde
Apr 20 2006 18:28

I've manage to avoid working for corporates but small-biz can run from everything to co-op cozy, to private and petty tyranny, to my last job which had health care and profit sharing (neither of which i'd ever had before), but the work was so grueling , the yuppie clintele so goddamn insulting I couldn't take it anymore. Now I'm back to another shit job which pays me the same as I made when I arrived a year ago, but it is much less stressful/no politics/and the bosses are just sort of harmless dorks. Long commute tho.

The CNT's policy of relative non-interference with small-holders and shops would have to be practiced here, easing up the rents and lines of distributions would help to equalize things. If you have a shit boss, there should be a union shop or collective for you to go to.

OliverTwister
Apr 20 2006 18:31
WillsWilde wrote:

The CNT's policy of relative non-interference with small-holders and shops would have to be practiced here, easing up the rents and lines of distributions would help to equalize things. If you have a shit boss, there should be a union shop or collective for you to go to.

What exactly is this policy?

Lazy Riser
Apr 20 2006 18:31

Hi

Quote:
i've had much more leeway working for a bureaucratic multinational than for a small (<50 workers) petit-bourgoise firm, i could never have got away with posting on libcom (or surfing net even) there

I’ve been inside a lot of firms, big and small. I concur. You work for a small firm, you feel the pinch of every customer leaving.

Love

LR

WillsWilde
Apr 20 2006 18:39

Well, and i'm sure to be corrected here, is that the 'individuals' were allowed to maintain their biz outside of the collective if they did not take on any hired labor. In many cases the 'individualists' were actually helped out all-round and relocated to better plots of land, etc. i.e., just because they didn't 'jump in the pool' doesn't mean they were hung out to dry.

There were 1000's of collectives tho and circumstances varied widely, Gaston Leval's book is the most comprehensive I know of. wink

OliverTwister
Apr 20 2006 19:12

I didn't know whether you meant it was a current policy or one in the 30's.

I think you may be right - which raises the question, was it right? In a situation of civil war one can excuse a certain pragmatism (and this clearly was not the most important contradiction for the CNT to face), but what should be the position towards families who want to maintain their own land and sell on the market? How about those who seek to hire labour?

Do people have a right to as much land as they can till? What if they have machines?

What if people can earn more money by selling their labor to those who own machines than by working on the collective farm with no capital?

What if international capitalists offer artifically high prices for the machines or the labour-power of the workers on a collective in order to break it up?

What if international capitalists offer artificially cheap goods into the syndicalist market place in order to regain a monopoly?

WillsWilde
Apr 20 2006 19:42

all very good questions. all worthy of extensive debate

- it was their policy in the 30's....and as revolutionary unionists, should still be their aim In revolutionary sitruations, the syndicate becomes the catalyst/pre-organized form for collective discourse, policy/production/distribution, etc. councilists and Sits would argue against union hegemony...but to me a council is a commitee is a soviet,etc. Given a directly democratic forum I would only argue against a syndicate leader (ship) and vote against if I thought the motives weren't right...a no-asshole policy. the rank and file make proposals, they are discussed/refined, the delegates simply look back to the rank-and file for ('paid')volunteers to push them through.

Quote:
position towards families who want to maintain their own land and sell on the market

Well I think that the 'markets' were basically redounded by the collective arrangement. The manifest intent of revolutionary economics should include the elimination of 'markets', I think, there are human needs and desires, and there are 'markets' which I see as a form of mass (sometimes self-)hypnosis. But I would really talk to one of the marxists here, my understanding of finer economic points is willfully simplistic.

What's the family like? Can we, as libertarians, coerce them to split apart their thing? If there is a way to make it work, find it. The collectives 'regulated', actually just accounted for productuion and consumption to prevent waste and hoarding. Folk wisdom.

Quote:
those who seek to hire labour

would have to offer something that the collectives can't.

Quote:

What if they have machines?

Then they had bloody well better learn how to use and maintain them. A factorie's worth of machines (or more land than you can possibly work yourself, efficiently) will 'get you expropriated'.

My computer, instruments, amplifiers and such can and have been 'means of production and distribution' but i'll be damned if I surrender them to the collective, heh., heh. What's in between? This is about the middle class, I think.

Quote:
What if international capitalists offer artifically high prices for the machines or the labour-power of the workers on a collective in order to break it up?

What if international capitalists offer artificially cheap goods into the syndicalist market place in order to regain a monopoly?

well we're talking about an international economic civil war which we have to fight on our own terms. Solidarity, federations of unions (industrial armies), co-ops and affinity/propaganda groups (my desire). John? I know you've got something to say here.

Really, I don't have answeres, certainly not in 'market' terms.

Nice Post Oliver red n black star red n black star red n black star

P.S. Wildcat's critique about the collectives being self-managed capitalism may be relevant here. It's important to note that many aof the collectives actually did go so far as to dispense w/money altogether.

McCormick
Apr 20 2006 23:01

A large number of IWW members would not consider themselves anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists and, with some exceptions including the AF people, the recent growth has been amongst people far removed from the anarcho 'scene'. The IWW is beginning to be attractive to a layer of militants who maybe 10 years ago would never dream of 'dual unionism' or have talked in terms of direct action, self-organisation etc. It's encouraging but we need to remain realistic.

red n black star

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 00:53

I would join if it was being used to co-ordinate salting and entryism within trade union branches and so on. I see these as the only current justifiable purposes of the organisation. Are members moving workplaces and so on to facilitate organisational drives within target workplaces?

McCormick
Apr 21 2006 10:11

Salting, which means getting a job in order to organise within it, is something wobblies have used extensively in the past. Are you saying, Dundee United, that you have a target workplace and wish to set-up an organising drive there?

In terms of 'salting' business union branches, IWW members are generally pretty open about our membership and Industrial Unionist ideas in our dual union branches. We are attempting to build Industrial Union networks across business union lines and are trying to reach FWs in those unions.

It strikes me that, given your interest in organising, you would do well to speak to your local IWW branch, which I believe is Clydeside? Dynamic organisers are always welcome!

If you require details of branch meetings send me a PM.

OBU