Fly-by shit stir

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
timo thy
Offline
Joined: 14-03-14
Mar 14 2014 01:06
Fly-by shit stir

Admin: was 'IWA in trouble?'; binned - shit stirring post by fly-by newly registered account.

Can someone confirm this? I heard that FAU is planning to leave IWA, allegedly because of its sectarianism. I hope that's true. This would give some hope to me that something could break up in internationalism, quitting this fucking isolating policy.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 14 2014 01:50

Welcome to libcom. Great first post.

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Mar 14 2014 04:10
timo thy wrote:
Can someone confirm this? I heard that FAU is planning to leave IWA, allegedly because of its sectarianism.

Define planning. Do you mean, they had a referendum or a motion at a convention and voted to leave? Or, there are some people in the FAU who are grumpy with the IWA and have said that they want to leave?

timo thy wrote:
I hope that's true.

Seems quite odd to wish the breakup of an international group because it's sectarian and isolationist.

And really, if it was true, I wouldn't expect anybody who's involved to talk about it on here first.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 14 2014 05:24

I generally share the most riveting internal information with newly registered users on public internet forums.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 14 2014 10:04
Juan Conatz wrote:
I generally share the most riveting internal information with newly registered users on public internet forums.

Not commenting on this issue in particular, but on splits in general, I would imagine that these days the internet would be exactly where these issues would play out.

Devrim

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 14 2014 10:20
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
the FAU have been breaking the IWA policy of no organic contact with the SAC by sending an official representative to their congress (and this isn't the first time that has happened).

Seriously, is this policy still in force?

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 14 2014 12:57

I seem to remember West Yorkshire SolFed took it *very* seriously... roll eyes

~J.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Mar 14 2014 14:05
jolasmo wrote:
I seem to remember West Yorkshire SolFed took it *very* seriously... roll eyes

Not sure if this is widely known but West Yorks left SolFed (i.e. IWA).

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 14 2014 16:27
no1 wrote:
jolasmo wrote:
I seem to remember West Yorkshire SolFed took it *very* seriously... roll eyes

Not sure if this is widely known but West Yorks left SolFed (i.e. IWA).

I imagine they still take the 'no contact' rule very seriously, though.. wink

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Mar 14 2014 16:36
Ed wrote:
no1 wrote:
jolasmo wrote:
I seem to remember West Yorkshire SolFed took it *very* seriously... roll eyes

Not sure if this is widely known but West Yorks left SolFed (i.e. IWA).

I imagine they still take the 'no contact' rule very seriously, though.. ;)

Yeah, really, you have to be quite crazy to seriously consider idea that an international should take a unified position against a hostile organization...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 14 2014 19:13

SAC isn't "hostile" towards the IWA at all, if anything it's the other way around, at least formally. But yeah outside of the more sectarian groupings the whole "don't talk to the Swedes" thing tends to get ignored by the vast majority of IWA folks.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 14 2014 19:24

No-one says "don't talk to the swedes" you're talking bullshit - and West Yorks were not the only SolFed members unwilling to have the IWA formally drawn into the dramas of SAC, CGT, Vignoles, etc

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Mar 14 2014 20:06

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think IWA had a similar "no contact" thingie with WSA. As far as I can tell, it isn't taken very seriously.

About "hostile" orgs, that is laughable, but the OP of this thread seems a little sketch.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 14 2014 20:08

The Internet is no way of measuring the true feelings of any organisation that contains hundreds of members.. It might be considered a more comradely position not to discuss rumours as though they are established positions?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 14 2014 20:22
bozemananarchy wrote:
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think IWA had a similar "no contact" thingie with WSA.

I don't think that's true. There was bad blood, no doubt, but I think the only no relations rule was with the SAC as far as I know. Syndicalist might be best to speak to all that though....

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Mar 14 2014 21:30
Rob Ray wrote:
SAC isn't "hostile" towards the IWA at all, if anything it's the other way around, at least formally. But yeah outside of the more sectarian groupings the whole "don't talk to the Swedes" thing tends to get ignored by the vast majority of IWA folks.

SAC is state-funded organization which is financing, cooperating and coordinating with organizations which are directly hostile towards IWA Sections, such as IP in Poland or "USI" Roma, best known for trying to sabotage general strikes called by USI-IWA in Italy etc. In fact, apart from some loony SF member on Libcom who are talking only on behalf of themselves, majority of IWA in fact doesn't engage in official relations with SAC. While different models of "talking to the Swedes" are ongoing and in fact encouraged by some of the previous IWA Congress decisions...

On the other cases, that are not SAC, but were mentioned - like Vignoles, WSA etc. They all come from lack of understanding of basis of anarchist federalism amongst many of the English speaking internet anarchists - it is a question of one of the founding libertarian principles. If IWA has a Section in a country, that Section alone is free to decide about politics in their own region. That means that nobody can do anything in their region without consulting them, because that would break federalist principles, and especially not cooperate with organizations in some region which are hostile to IWA Sections in the same region. That is basic logic, clear to anybody who is interested in serous political activities.

It is really sad to see this kind of infantile critique of basic anarchist principles, which is totally ignoring what revolutionary politics are and should be, and are substituting it with personal favoritism and hear-say analyses...

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 14 2014 22:25

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 14 2014 23:33
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
You posted something the other day which showed the FAU have been breaking the IWA policy of no organic contact with the SAC by sending an official representative to their congress (and this isn't the first time that has happened).

Had to go back and check cuz I totally missed that, but...If you're saying posting a December 2012 article written by someone else that was published in an external newspaper is the equivalent of sharing internal information....well, we're working with vastly different definitions.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Mar 15 2014 01:04
Quote:
I don't think that's true. There was bad blood, no doubt, but I think the only no relations rule was with the SAC as far as I know. Syndicalist might be best to speak to all that though....

Whoops, yup, just did an email search, wasn't/isn't the case. Bad blood is one way to put it.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 15 2014 08:17

I have to say Libcom often serves just as a place where rumors float around and where individual activists push their agenda, sometimes taking whole organizations with them. I suppose this thread is put up by somebody who supports syndicalist involvement with the state and is rooting for more activists to turn a blind eye to this and live in "one big happy family" with the unions which take such tactics, under the dogma of "anti-sectarianiam". With such an idee fixe, no wonder someone comes out of the woodwork to try to drum up enthusiasm for wishing the IWA to have troubles.

The first comment to make is that if there is something to be said about this issue, then it will be said by the IWA, on the IWA web page. Libcom is not a place for announcing IWA business and of course opinions stated here are those of private individuals.

As being opinions of private individuals, they can also be misleading or incorrect. For example, Rob Ray misinforms readers about what he thinks the "majority of IWA Sections do". We can assume it is lack of knowledge of what others do, but I would ask people to refrain from making such statements if they are not sure. Or to stop projecting their ideas on the rest - it doesn't match reality.

What Rata wrote is actually correct. There is no ban on talking to the WSA. Stop spreading rumors. Also, in terms of SAC, the IWA has no official relations with it. I have also some documents in which FAU claims that its relations with SAC are "not official", but matters of individual parts of FAU, not the organization as a whole. I won't speculate on any of this. IWA individual members of course can speak to members of SAC and Rata is correct, that at some Congresses it was even encouraged to do so. But the general rule is against official relations because of financial and other support for splits and organizations which pursue state collaborationist tactics.

Since the time of that decision, no organization in IWA has motioned to change the SAC policy, so it remains in force.

I would comment that there may be one or two individuals of certain organizations speaking out here in a critical way about this, which is their right - but it is not their right to mislead anybody or to, by virtue of internet dynamics, imply that their organization has been organizationally against this. If that were true, one would expect that such an organization should make a motion to start a discussion on the subject inside the federation - especially if they thought that they had support of a majority of member unions.

I find this to be something rather negative. If people have comments or proposals as to the functioning of international federations they belong to, they should make them to those federations. The correct procedure is to ask your national to support a motion to bring internationally. Using an internet forum, which, as far as I can see, is not used by 99% of the members of said federation, but often is used by outside commentators who are negatively inclined to that federation, does not create a dialogue with the proper parties.

This thread of course can be viewed as something of a fishing expedition.

If IWA members have questions as to any of these issues, they may get the answers through their delegated Secretaries. But I would stress that they should be going to their organizations first for official information from Sections, the Secretariat, etc., and not participating in a rumor mill on public forums.

There are certainly different opinions on whether rumors etc. should be addressed publically if they appear. Personally think it could be better to do so that let them get out of hand. But we must be cautious in this process. For example, it is really the decision of the parties involved whether to divulge internal discussions outside. This is for various reasons, including the ability to avoid undue speculation, influence, etc. on these processes. And I know for a fact that FAU does not even want their internal business discussed in the IWA so much, so even worse to just put crap on the internet.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 15 2014 12:45

I'm on cell now. Need to read from a computer Lets just say with WSA a full storm erupted over a whole host of things....including allegations of "parallelism"
The fact of the matter is the WSA has remained in solidarity with Principles of the IWA. With some of this going back to the earlish 1970s

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 15 2014 12:52

Sorry can not edit from cell. Although there never was a ban against the WSA relations were significantly different and WSA, even post IWA continued to engage some IWA sections stand in solidarity with some campaigns. But it was different and not every relationship was retained

For transparency. WSA is discussing some form of reengagement with the IWA

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 15 2014 15:56

What happen to West Yorks SF? A PM would be fine.

Edit:

On this:

Quote:
This would give some hope to me that something could break up in internationalism, quitting this fucking isolating policy.

Whatever you think or not of the IWA, SAC, FAU, others, there is no logic to this statement.
Respectfully comrade, it shows certain immaturity and lack of reality. Not to get into a peeing or disrespectful conversation, but anytime there are real or potential splits on this stuff doesn't further internationalism in any way. In some respects, it's the exact opposite.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 16 2014 09:43

Tommy Ascaso, you are misleading people. There is an IWA policy, made by IWA Congress decisions. It is publically known even. To say "some sections perceive" this as a policy is rather misinformation. I think the truth is rather that some individuals in a couple of IWA sections are either not aware of the decisions of the Congresses or don't agree with them. If anybody in the IWA is in doubt, they can contact IWA delegated people and receive copies of all Congress decisions to that effect.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 16 2014 23:43
Quote:
syndicalist wrote:
What happen to West Yorks SF? A PM would be fine.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 17 2014 09:45
jolasmo wrote:
I seem to remember West Yorkshire SolFed took it *very* seriously... roll eyes ~J.

no1 wrote:
Not sure if this is widely known but West Yorks left SolFed (i.e. IWA).

Ed wrote:
I imagine they still take the 'no contact' rule very seriously, though.. ;)

syndicalist wrote:
What happen to West Yorks SF? A PM would be fine.

syndicalist wrote:
What happen to West Yorks SF? A PM would be fine.

Solfed internal issues are not public issues, and should not be discussed in public (or directly with non-members) unless if consent is asked and given.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 17 2014 13:14

Jolly day to you too

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Mar 17 2014 14:04

WY SolFed didn't agree with the direction of SolFed and felt progressively more alienated, so they disaffiliated. As political organisations go there's nothing remarkable about it.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 17 2014 14:36

"Solfed internal issues are not public issues, and should not be discussed in public (or directly with non-members) unless if consent is asked and given."
Which group was it that said the same thing recently. Hmmm, oh yes, the SWP.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 17 2014 15:28
Battlescarred wrote:
Which group was it that said the same thing recently. Hmmm, oh yes, the SWP.

No.

We should use federalist methods at times of agreement and disagreement, with decisions and arguements considered by the full/relevant membership - as opposed to hæmorrhaging members or splits forming at each disagreement or difficulty - or as in this case, where I have objected to smug comments being made on a public forum against former members of a local which has since disbanded, so they cannot respond.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Mar 17 2014 15:28

I don't blame the IWA folks one bit for getting their hackles up over this thread. I mean a political controversy in one national section is hardly the same as an entire international organisation being "in trouble" and looks a lot like shit stirring.

There's a lot of us in the IWW though that want closer ties with the IWA and to compare notes, particularly in sections that are doing industrial work, like the CNT and the USI. We already have a pretty constructive relationship with Solfed where we circulate a lot of their literature inside the IWW and even reprint some of their stuff on Recomposition. So here's the issue:

1. Is the no contact rule a barrier to this stuff? Is there going to be pushback now?
2. Who does the no contact rule apply to? Like does it apply just to the SAC, the SAC and WSA? The IWW? That isn't clear, though the International Secretary seems to be pretty clear the rule is still in place.
3. Is this rule actually practical? Because it sounds like it is selectively enforced and the degree it is enforced varies from time to time.
4. What is the goal of a all of this? Personally I think there are some important lessons inside the IWA that we could learn from and I actually think some of what we have done in the IWW has informed at least Solfed. I want those exchanges to continue and to build on that experience and I'm concerned the No Contact rule could be a barrier to this.

Topic locked