WSA, IWW and IWA affiliation

Right quick on the LLR/ASR statements. They have generally been hyperbole. The statements, as we know them to be, were of a few folks who were mostly IWW members who were also members of the LLR/ASR. This was acserbated by one of their members initially using their GST stationary to attack the WSA. Then, they and a couple of members had the IWW agree to what was known as the "Kaufman Report". The Report was an attack on the WSA. It was later voted down by the
IWWs membership.

Throughout many of these years I was either the WSA's NS, IS or NC member. I was heavily involved in a) responding to all of the attacks and b) trying to ascertain if the attacks (in the name of the IWW) were actually widely held. To the best of our knowledge (based on significant correcposndence by me), it was clear that most Wobs were not supportive of the various attacks and accusations against WSA. In fact, every good faith effort was made by WSA to assure IWW members we were not anti-IWW. But the LLR/ASR efforts created much tensions, many divisions and was just a real waste of time (for all of us).

On some of the other questions....here's a partial and incomplete reply I started, This is incomplete, does not address all the matters and does not really set-up the time period very well.

I will contend that the LWG of the 1970s is not the same as the WSA of the 2000s. And the 2012 IWW clearly is not the same as it was in 1970s. And, it must be put in perspective that any criticisms which we raised of the IWW are based on our 1970s experiance.

Draft in progress...

In regard to the various questions pertaining to views and events of
more than 30 years ago, it will be some time before I sit down and
reflect on them. This will prolly take some time. I am not a good
writer. I do not think that trying to translate events and consitions
of those years might, at this point, be adequately be transfered in a
clear enough manner for a 2012 audience.

The matter of dual union cards (being a member of a trade union and
the IWW) seems to be a non-issue in 2012. It was a serious issue, a
cause for major conflict and stress in the mid-1970s and for a number
of years thereafter. To try and discuss whether the OBU model is
centralist and not federalist seems to be almost a silly discussion at
this point.

Do I think the IWW and the IWA would be a good fit, probably not.The
many conversations here on Libcom are prolly refective of different
perspectives and outlooks and is instructive enough.

Should north american anarcho-syndicalists should work inside the IWW,
yes, I have generally felt that way for long time. Should it be the
only place we work or foucs our time, no, and in that it would be
consistant with views held by us in the 1970s.

Being consistant with another long held view, "we" have long beleived
that the IWW is one component of the class struggle workers novement,
albiet perhaps a key one for a generation that is mainly unorganized.
Would a criticism "we" held back in
the 1970s that the IWW is the actual One Big Union of all the working
class, I would say still stands. I hope that the IWW will be the OBU
in its efforts in the food and retail sector. But it is doubtful it
would become the OBU of the class. But I tip my hat to all the
hardworking comrades who are trying to advance the IWW and those
trying to advance the revolutionary aspects of the IWW.

[EDIT --- Akai, some of the questions which are asked, require further review, by me,
of the writtten materials of the time. I have been going by memory here thus
far. So any additional replies must be based on my review of the hard
copy stuff]

I hear you...but.... it didn't exactly turn out that way. Ultimately it prolly did, but for some period of time, the egos with an agenda were in control.

OK. So no further comments need, right?

OK, I can answer any additional stuff privately....you know where to fine me.

If there are any others who have questions, please ask them. If not, I'll turn the page in this chapter of history.

Interesting! I'd be interested in knowing more about this (sad) episode - how come SAC could be so misinformed? Where did the money go?

Also, Prairie Struggle?? I'm not familiar with them. When did they come about?

Oh within the last year or so. They seem pretty active.

I can't speak to their activities, but here's their website: http://www.prairiestruggle.org/

I did correspond with PS about their sloppy and ill-informed use of the LLR article. they said they were sorry. BFD.

No one has info on the votes in the 90s from IWW history?

Here's from syndicalist years back, sources? So IWW did vote to affiliate in 1990? What happened? IWA didn't reply, was that right?
"1990 saw the IWW pass another resolution (71 in favor, 44 against) to affiliate. This lingered and was revived in 1992."

My own read on what has happened in the IWW is that since 1908 anarchosyndicalist positions have been contested essentially continuously though in different forms (around policies from 1908-1916, around particular industrial unions 1916-1924, around things like IWA affiliation, contracts, and anti-communist affidavids 30s-50s, so on). The IWW occupied a particular space because it came out of movements for social democracy, but had strong anarchist currents via indigenous stuff in the US (like IWMA) and immigrant anarchists, all which came to prominence with the expulsion of SLP, purge from SP, and attacks from CP later. None of that was really resolved, and the organization has remained somewhat balanced if pragmatic between different countervailing tendencies. The uptick in concrete activity in workplaces in the 90s complicates the picture, and I think we're dealing with a different set of issues coming out of that.

Still, if we have a situation where membership voted at least twice to affiliate (and two IWW bodies maintained affiliation; Chilean IWW & MTWIU) and twice was defeated through administrative maneuvers, either by IWA or IWW, that's pretty nuts. Any original sources?

Just posted this on FB------------

Here's the referendum that passed & then was put on hold in 1993. The relevant stuff is from GOBs that have individuals names and stuff that shouldn't be posted online. http://libcom.org/history/1989-iww-referendum-affiliate-iwa

So why wasn't this 1989 referendum acted upon?

I notice that there was an understanding that "IWW members in regions where there are existing IWA sections be permitted to maintain IWW membership"

Why would be so? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Also "the IWW wiil advocate extending IWA/AIT membership to include all revolutionary unions independent of government or party control"

Who did they have in mind?

yeah as syndicalist said the IWW in 93 basically unvoted the 1990 IWW GA decision:

On 90s IWW and IWA affiliation:

The 1990 GA voted to affiliate to the IWA. This got passed on to the International Committee. But that committee was eventually subsumed into the GEB. The GEB members and GHQ officer workers at the time were generally against affiliation and spoke out against it in the GOB. Eventually in 1992 the GA put to referendum the creation of a four year International Commission to take the load off the GEB to explore affiliation and other international matters, since the reasoning for the International Committee being subsumed into the GEB, was it was a one man show basically, and the GEB was strapped for capacity. This referendum failed. In 1993 members of the GEB and two dual IWW/WSA members and a few others circled a petition for referendum at the GA that the IWW cease to explore affiliation with the IWA, but continue relations with the IWA and WSA. This passed. 1994-96 there are mumblings and arguing about such issues in member correspondence in the GOB but it eventually dies out (short of Ottowa GMB wanting to explore IWA affiliation again at one point, and a bunch of people repeating the same arguments about IWA being too anarchist, even though its just a revolutionary unionist international.)

Weird to see this one again. The two "dual" members referred to above acted alone and did not act in concert with the Wsa on this. In fact, this was their MO with all things they did in the Wsa's name. So, for the record, whatever they did was on their own

Reading these GOBs I concur with syndicalist they were acting on their own for what they thought would be good for the IWW, not as some WSA conspiracy as LLR/ASR types would later lambast them for.

During all the years, not one moment was spent on what dual members should be doing in the IWW be it on IWA or internal IWW stuff. There was an unwritten rule that it was verboten
Mainly cause the history has been IWW was not interested in IWA membership. And not wanting to be accused of meddling in the internal affairs of the IWW. The Wsa founding members were very keen to maintain organizational seperation and internal neutrality, though solidarity was gladly given. A number of us, with IWW histories, were keenly away of how certain things would be perceived and we wanted to avoid negativity at all costs.

If it is of any use or interest to contribute with an insider-view of IWA of that period…

When we were approached by the IWW with a project of joining AIT at that time, we just couldn’t believe it! Our informations and analysis told us that the official letter from the wobbly-bureau wasn’t an accurate reflection of the wobbly-rank&file. We were considering it at least pre-mature.

But for sure, from the very beginning, we have been protective of our comrades from WSA, I mean, really defensive. And I remember our first reaction was to consult… New York!

(Historical eye witnesses, conspiracies dismantled, libcom is getting better and better every day!)

Having been in the thick of this at the time, as a national officer, I'm not really sure of what to
make of what you're trying to say? At the time the WSA was the IWA US affiliate, so, of course, we were asked questions about things relative to the US. As was the cases with all sections being asked about things relative to their respective lands.

EDIT: Julio27 --- Let me suggest you read the whole thread with all of the replies. That might make what we were talking about off list somewhat clearer.

"At the time the Wsa was the IWA US affiliate, so, of course, we were asked questions about things relative to the US. As was the cases with all sections being asked about things relative to their respective lands."

That is exactly what I "am trying to" say. Not only were you asked questions about things relative to US, but you were the first to be asked questions about things relative to US, because you were the IWA section and following the statutes (of that time), we had to ask you first.

Nowadays the question wouldn't be put. (please have mercy and don't try me on this one)

EDIT: please pm me BEFORE you're answering on the thread, that will spare us some time and energy.

Huh? Basically the Statutes are the same as they been since the 1970s. Well, whatever. Whenever WSA was asked about the IWW as the IWW I think we were honest, truthful, careful in how to frame some of the anti-WSA views of some in the IWW (see above comments) and we always tried to advance cooperation where it could be advanced.

“Nowadays the question wouldn’t be put”

OK, maybe you like this…

And maybe I shouldn’t try complex phrases in a language where I’m “not at home”.

But “nowadays” if “the question would be put” by IWW to affiliate IWA, my guess is the IWA secretariat wouldn’t consult WSA in the first place. It really is banal because WSA is no section of IWA nowadays, if I’m correct. That’s what I was trying to say, basically, with my stupid “nowadays the question wouldn’t be put”. (and deeply regret if it means something else I didn't intend to say)

As for the time “once upon a time” I was talking about, I now openly declare and clarify:
The WSA never was formed as a counter to the IWW by some ex-IWW members and the WSA was non hostile to IWW in those times I was talking about and I can testify about.

OK, just to beat a dead horse some more. I am lost here on the one section one country thing then as both the current Statutes and the ones we adhered to in 1979 seem to be pretty clear on the matter..

The current IWA Statutes say:

The Statutes that we adhered to and which were in place when we departed the IWA reas:

[ "V. Conditions of Affiliation",
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/anarchy/rebelworker/spunk041.html ]

I gather that was to deal with splits or unusual matters. Not sure where there are any ambiguities.

OK i'll contribute my version

Condiciones de adhesión

„A la A.I.T: pueden afiliarse
a) organizaciones sindicalistas revolucionarias nacionales que no pertenezcan a ninguna otra Internacional.
La adhesión de una segunda organización central nacional del mismo país sólo puede admitirse por un Congreso Internacional tras informe de una Comisión nombrada por el Secretariado de la A.I.T. y compuesta de dos miembros de cada una de ambas organizaciones interesadas, es decir, de la organización nacional que desea adherirse, y por el Secretariado de la A.I.T.
b) minorías de sindicalistas revolucionarios organizadas en seno de organizaciones nacionales adheridas a otras Internacionales sindicales, en cada caso solamente si es aceptado por la Organización nacional adherida a la A.I.T. dentro del país, en caso de que la misma exista.
c) organizaciones sindicales, profesionales o industriales independientes o afiliadas a Organizaciones nacionales no pertenecientes a la A.I.T., que acepten la Declaración de Principios y Finalidades de la A.I.T, con el consentimiento previo, sin embargo, de la Organización nacional ya adherida en el país si tal existe."
(Antiguos estatutos hasta la plenaria de Reggio Emilia)

The actual ones :

„Las siguientes pueden afiliarse a la A.I.T:
a) organizaciones Sindicalistas Revolucionarias Nacionales que no pertenezcan a ninguna otra Internacional. En todo caso, solamente existirá una Sección en cada país. Las Secciones afiliadas tendrán que ratificar los Principios, Tácticas y Finalidades de la A.I.T. y mandar una copia de sus Estatutos y Principios al Secretariado. El Secretariado Internacional de la A.I.T. informará a las Secciones del origen del contacto o contactos que hayan solicitado la afiliación.
b) minorías de sindicalistas revolucionarios organizadas en seno de otras organizaciones afiliadas a otras Internacionales sindicales.
c) organizaciones sindicales, profesionales o industriales independientes o afiliadas a Organizaciones nacionales no pertenecientes a la A.I.T., que acepten la Declaración de Principios y Finalidades de la A.I.T, con el consentimiento previo, sin embargo, de la Organización nacional ya adherida en el país si tal existe."

Essentially, a) allowing several member organizations in one country if an existing one agrees to it, and b) allowing only one section per country is not the same thing and it is not the same spirit.

(And I do not believe that our grandfathers and grandmothers were anticipating splits, when they wrote the original statutes in 1922. Now what they had in mind is another interesting question. Not the issue and place, here.)

So the reaction in AIT and the answer to the IWW letter by the IWA secretariat has to be seen in the context of this statuary fact of that time.

I’ll leave it here, there has been no intention of harming or discrediting any of the mentioned groups, WSA, IWW or AIT in the past and in the present.