Fly-by shit stir

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 10:53

If somehow FAU leaves IWA then USI could do it too... so lets see what CNT will do as their unions are not too happy with the current situation of IWA, and without FAU and USI, CNT will feel alone with small groups with very little possibilities of real growth (apart from SF). Maybe we are seeing the ending of IWA project and new things will come. Maybe we will learn from our mistakes and start over with solid feet in the ground.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 12:18

Maybe if we don't bother to assert ourselves about what it is that we want AND what we do not want - then we will have nothing to speak of tomorrow.

Yepa, if we go by what you seem to be recommending - there would probably be an unstable "International" of incompatible and contradictory organisations - which will be the subordinate of social partnership trade unions - consisting of selected purely economic organisations (some who can take part in decisions, others who are muzzled because a faction of reformers in control speculate that they are not big enough). Such an organisation exists already, it's called the red and black coordination.

franco8's picture
franco8
Offline
Joined: 19-03-14
Mar 19 2014 11:31

You mean knowing what they want and do not want?

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 11:46

-Edited-

Sorry, I totally misunderstood.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 11:48

You are a member of CNT who prefers that the IWA breaks up? Explain your malevolence towards the IWA, and how this is revolutionary, as opposed to adventurism?

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 12:17

I do not prefer that IWA brakes up, I want IWA to be an international of mass revolutionary workers organizations (anacosyndicalist). But as an atheist who does not believe in another life and as revolutionary I want practical and efficient tactics that everyday take us a step closer to our revolution, I do not want to wait for 50 or 100 years, I want results, in my organization and in my international. Some people could be very good comrades, but without growth revolution will never be possible. What I do not want is to finish with an international similar to those crazy troskysts internationals with 5 crazy members in every country thinking that they are the chosen ones and the purest. I am not saying that that is the situation of IWA now, but yes, it is a danger. I much rather prefer an organization like FAU that have a constant growth and that starts to get involved in workplace issues and real working class problems that 50 sections of 20 people with no possibilities of change this world.

I also think a real revolutionary has to try different tactics, if something after 50 years seems not to be working, maybe we should try a different way, stay the same is conservative.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 12:58

I read links to the websites that were referred to in the discussion the last time you were on these forums, there you were discussing with another adventurer like yourself that the CNT and CGT should merge, but that suggestion was shot down because it is unworkable - this gives an indication of your politics. The working class and the CNT has nothing to gain from participation in social partnership, and such type organisations and such adventurism would probably lead to the withering away of the CNT and abscence of any revolutionary workers union in Spain - but you dress this up as "revolutionary".

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 19 2014 13:15

There is a coordination of critical unions in Spain which includes both the CNT and CGT as well as others, though some locals of the CNT are opposed to this. I think this is a good step to take given the situation in Spain today.

When I said they were a right-wing, pro-state split, I was referring to the context of the split itself. Today, there is no real relationship between them and the CNT any more than between them and any other critical union, so there is no reason to measure them against the CNT.

Max_Anarchies
Offline
Joined: 16-10-12
Mar 19 2014 13:16

I like how there are people in the CNT that complain perpetually about how sections aren't growing and then when sections ask for financial aid (you know, to help them grow) they vote against it.

You know what won't help growth?

Sitting on a giant pile of cash.

You know what will help growth?

Funding the sections.

If the CNT want the smaller sections to grow and develop, build some links with them, fund them, help them, don't try and squeeze them out with shit motions on voting.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 19 2014 13:48
AES wrote:
You are a member of CNT who prefers that the IWA breaks up? Explain your malevolence towards the IWA, and how this is revolutionary, as opposed to adventurism?

AES - looking at the last thread about the IWA on alasbarricadas there seem to be quite a few CNT members talking in terms of leaving the IWA, though I don't know how far this reflects opinion away from the internet. I don't think it helps to go on the attack - better to try and understand where people are coming from.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 13:51

People can come and go as they wish. If there is another revolutionary option - what is it?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 13:54

Not that I want to see a split in the IWA. Can you provide link to the alas barricades AIT discussion

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 13:58

I didn't save a link because it seemed to be people 'thinking out loud'. I found it while browsing using www.translate.google.com

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 19 2014 14:04

EDIT: cross-posted with AES. This is a follow on from Tommy Ascaso's last post.

I have say, as another basically ex-member of SF, I very much share those sentiments.

I guess, for me, it came down to sorting stuff out within SF before we could actively engage with the international but, even then, I found it very difficult to become enthusiastic enough to engage with wider IWA issues in the first place.

And it's not that I think IWA affiliation was worthless. There were times when solidarity callouts went out there were incredibly beneficial, but I'm not sure the formalized structure of the IWA (I mean, Jesus man, my head still hearts from having read some of those motions that came through...) is necessary to coordinate the sort of solidarity that, for me, is the major advantage of belonging to an international.

Iskra's picture
Iskra
Offline
Joined: 14-07-09
Mar 19 2014 14:22

I was reading this thread and thinking should I comment or not. I generally didn't wanted, because I don't think that this thread has anything more to offer as OP is answered and I didn't wanted to be dragged into some pointless conflict.

But what I'd like to discuss (and maybe it would be cool if we would make another thread for that - if there's people interested, ofc) are actual differences between IWA and SAC. Maybe also IWW (US). I've visited SAC in 2008 (I think) and I had a lot of contacts with IWA sections and activists and recently a lot of IWW (US not UK) members have visited me here in Croatia. I do understand differences that any of these groups will put it out (a lot of them were repeated in this thread), but I don't find them too valid (so to speak). Or at least, I don't think that they are the reason for conflict.

For example, all organisations participate in juridical system (which is necessarily thing for any unionist/syndicalist activity) and some of IWA sections are even registrated (other are trying to and fail or they don't even try, because of political reasons). So, to me argument that SAC is working with "the state" fails here. Also, if CNT (Spain) locals can work with CGT (Spain) if they choose to, why would then organisation as such have hostile politics to CGT? Or why would they be hostile to groups like IWW (US)? I think that stuff like this makes no sense.

Anyhow, this is probably for some other thread. My point would be that while nobody should sing kubaya around fire and love everyone, I don't see why there should be so much hostility... Instead of that cooperation on points of agreement and open discussions would probably be quite better.

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

I don't share this adventuristic pessimism about the future of the IWA. The IWA has defined itself as a worker association in contrast to social partnership, it has acted and continues to act as a working class organisation with both political and economic motivations and content. Besides, most sections have grown and have strengthened over recent years.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 14:33

Sorry but.... have you just imagine that I want to merge CGT and CNT? Thats bullshit. I could agree to do some coordinated actions with working class organizations. I was always defending "isolation" after 30 years I see that does not work so I decide to do things together with others.... maybe that will not work but al least I try it. In my local union, a small city, very small, we always were arround 40, now we are 120, more tha nthe most os IWA sections, ridiculous, i know.... we must be doing something good, just ask yourselves if you are

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 19 2014 14:53
syndicalist wrote:
Not that I want to see a split in the IWA. Can you provide link to the alas barricades AIT discussion

Here ~ http://www.alasbarricadas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=57085

People seem to have got the wrong end of the stick on there and are talking about a threat of FAU being expelled from the IWA. It might be a good idea if someone who's a member of the IWA explained that this isn't the case (at least I hope it isn't the case).

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 14:50

Thanks

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 15:02
syndicalist wrote:
Thanks

For the link I mean

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 19 2014 15:03

I do not believe Yepa or his couple of internet buddies who spend more time stirring shit up on the internet and dreaming about mergers with state-funded organizations than making any useful contribution to international projects will prove to be indicative of CNT policy. In my opinion, just doing negative service to other comrades, both in Spain and abroad. And I am not being "paranoid" of whatever the favourite insult of the day is, but it is quite hard to use the word "comrade" or have comradely feelings towards any person who does not recognize the hard union activity being done in different countries and just brushes writes off all sorts of people. If this person doesn't see people like us doing our union activity, it just means he has his head deep up his ass. People can go and judge for themselves which IWA sections are organizing in the workplaces and doing what and judge over some period of time by looking through publications like the IWA Bulletin and informing themselves as to what is happening. I do not say that all sections have equal activity, since our sections operate in really different circumstances, but I would say that this would give a fairer view on the activity.

Tommy Ascaso has also been remarkable in smear tactics. I mean, he is one of the people trying to create a very false image of the IWA as being "controlled" and a very false image that supposedly "big organizations" both have no say in "policy" and that they vote substantially differently than others.

This puts us all in a stupid position, since we really cannot tell about how people voted about this or not, but without the facts, people might believe those who are essentially misleading people.

The facts are that I made a survey of this issue and can send the results to IWA members, if they please. This survey debunks this false image, which itself is quite paranoid. SF members can review their section's congress decisions and see if there are patterns and ask themselves if they are a participant in making IWA policy or not. It is ABSURD to suggest that it isn't and well, who knows what "policies" Jim is talking about, but I assure you that every Section is free to make motions and vote. SF members who review their votes will find like any that their votes are sometimes on the side which passed, sometime on the side that failed, but it is not like there are any such things as voting blocks. Just people on the same wave length on many things.

SF and other members may also review issues from this last Congress, for example relating to some alliances with other organizations and see how everybody voted. People created an internet stereotype that a certain organization wants alliances and is blocked, but everybody who saw the vote knows the truth.

Finally, I have to say, I am not so concerned about people having different opinions on this thread as I am about very bad tendencies of individuals going and creating confusion and rumors on the internet instead of writing to the official organs of the international these things concern and people who are poorly informed multiplying incorrect information.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 16:32

Akai.... dreaming about mergers???? Wtf I only hope that you are not the Akai who is IWA Secretary... stop spreading bullshit, lies are not revolutionary. Why you put things in my mouth that I did not say? Honest revolutionaries we see IWA as a joke and we see that there is a lot of work to do and or we row all in same direction or better do not waste energies in something useless.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 19 2014 16:56

This thread is absolute poison. It neither represents nor reflects anything like the positions or views of the composite Sections of the IWA. There are certain shit-stirrers on here and people are falling into their hands by giving them oxygen.
Anything connected to the idea of the IWA being in trouble or the FAU leaving is nothing but rumours. Problems are commonplace within any international and one thing that is commonplace above all, is that an open forum between a handful of members and hostile non-members is not the place to even speculate.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 17:20
AES wrote:
I read links to the websites that were referred to in the discussion the last time you were on these forums, there you were discussing with another adventurer like yourself that the CNT and CGT should merge, but that suggestion was shot down because it is unworkable - this gives an indication of your politics. The working class and the CNT has nothing to gain from participation in social partnership, and such type organisations and such adventurism would probably lead to the withering away of the CNT and abscence of any revolutionary workers union in Spain - but you dress this up as "revolutionary".

Yepa wrote:
Sorry but.... have you just imagine that I want to merge CGT and CNT? Thats bullshit

Yepa wrote:
.... dreaming about mergers???? Wtf I only hope that you are not the Akai who is IWA Secretary... stop spreading bullshit, lies are not revolutionary. Why you put things in my mouth that I did not say?

Yepa, see your posts, including the terms of your proposal on Unification CGT-CNT / Abierto el Debate

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 19 2014 17:34

Yes, I have had very mixed ideas about posting here at all, since it is clear what a few people are trying to accomplish. But many comrades have been privately pointing me to this thread and some have asked for comments since some are pretty fed up with stuff going on on the internet. (Which also largely accounts for a lot of people I know just staying away from this place.)

I agree this thread is getting pretty bad. I thought some people made an honest attempt to simply explain some issues but people have come here with an agenda. OK. I will comment to a few things to set the record straight.

I have been asked to explain why I "threatened to expel FAU", only again this is just shit stirring. If anybody is in the IWA, they can refer to the documents, including the acts of the XXI, XXII and XIII Congress.

The XXI Congress condemned the way that FAU did not abide by Congress agreements. I think that it is OK for me to write this hear, since it has been referred to on the internet at numerous times. Since the FAU did not abide by the decision, as the XXI Congress asked, there was a motion of the CNT of Spain to the XXII Congress which was about what to do if FAU continued this way.

These documents are available for all IWA members and I sent a reminder of this in the IWA recently. (p.40-41 in the originals)

This so-called "threat" is actually an IWA Congress decision, which was again voted (with more support) at the XXIII Congress.

So, as far as I am aware, people who take responsibilities in the IWA are responsible to inform and remind of Congress decisions and implement them - not break them, not ignore them. If anybody is in doubt, they should check.

I would point out that we were simply not a part of the IWA in the years of those Congresses. We did not vote on these issues - but we are mandated by the latest Congress including mandated to compile binding Congress decisions - presumably to remind people of them.

So now I am criticized I guess for reminding of the Congress decision instead of breaking it. Perfect.

No, just to inform people a little better, a certain group of people have been busy over the last few years building up stereotypes that "IWA policy" is made by a small group of "paranoids", from small sections. Tommy Ascaso was saying something in this light just a while ago. But again, if we look at the actual voting, we something a little different. The particular IWA decision (aka "policy") I refer to in internal IWA correspondence was actually motioned by the CNT. And supported by different Sections. And the "crazy little paranoids"? The ones that people allude to but never mention by name. I will make a list of people who abstained on this issue: NSF, PA, Czechs (former sections), KRAS, FORA.

So, let the truth come out. This particular situation is born of a CNT motion, not of some group of small unions that supposedly control the IWA.

Further along. I am extremely curious about the "huge level of administration" that anybody thinks is involved with being in the IWA. Actually I am laughing my guts out on this. This huge administration, as far as I know, for the Sections entails paying dues, passing on international correspondence and of course voting in international meetings. Congress every three years.

Now, for the ones that happen to speak English as a native language, you get your mail in your native language (unlike us). And not because you get it and translate it yourself, but because some little invisible people who work a lot do it.

And of course several larger organizations have been asked to take responsibilities in the IWA, like be Secretariat, but they don't take them, so actually, people from smaller organizations have to spend some long hours of their personal time to do the real administration work.

So I find it not so very nice that anybody is crying over doing too much work in the international, especially if they don't really do it themselves.

Finally, the CNT or USI does not break Congress agreements in their behaviour and CNT can have relations with who they want in their country - but doing some concrete actions with CGT is not the same thing as having some official relations with that whole coordination. But I really wonder why somebody can have enough imagination to assume that our comrades in USI are a bit upset about some things because of hostility against them, but fails to consider that anybody else might be upset by the same reasons.

I hope I won't have to come back here to this thread with more nonsense, because I have to go to our meeting and, frankly speaking, I am a little too busy actually trying to help newish members with their actual work conflicts to be bothered with this crap.

Yepa
Offline
Joined: 26-09-09
Mar 19 2014 18:59

AES I think you are misunderstanding all. In that post I am beeing terribly sarcastic... totally clear for any spanish speaker. I am actually very strong defending the oposite.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 19 2014 19:08
Yepa wrote:
AES I think you are misunderstanding all. In that post I am beeing terribly sarcastic... totally clear for any spanish speaker. I am actually very strong defending the oposite.

AES - as Yepa says this is perfectly clear in the Spanish. I guess google translate doesn't really do sarcasm.

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 19:26

Ok fair enough, which is the point I am making - that such open-ended adventures are not likely to result to anything useful.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 19 2014 19:29
akai wrote:
If anybody is in the IWA, they can refer to the documents, including the acts of the XXI, XXII and XIII Congress.

The XXI Congress condemned the way that FAU did not abide by Congress agreements. I think that it is OK for me to write this hear, since it has been referred to on the internet at numerous times. Since the FAU did not abide by the decision, as the XXI Congress asked, there was a motion of the CNT of Spain to the XXII Congress which was about what to do if FAU continued this way.

These documents are available for all IWA members and I sent a reminder of this in the IWA recently. (p.40-41 in the originals)

This so-called "threat" is actually an IWA Congress decision, which was again voted (with more support) at the XXIII Congress.

So, as far as I am aware, people who take responsibilities in the IWA are responsible to inform and remind of Congress decisions and implement them - not break them, not ignore them. If anybody is in doubt, they should check.

I would point out that we were simply not a part of the IWA in the years of those Congresses. We did not vote on these issues - but we are mandated by the latest Congress including mandated to compile binding Congress decisions - presumably to remind people of them.

So now I am criticized I guess for reminding of the Congress decision instead of breaking it. Perfect.

No, just to inform people a little better, a certain group of people have been busy over the last few years building up stereotypes that "IWA policy" is made by a small group of "paranoids", from small sections. Tommy Ascaso was saying something in this light just a while ago. But again, if we look at the actual voting, we something a little different. The particular IWA decision (aka "policy") I refer to in internal IWA correspondence was actually motioned by the CNT. And supported by different Sections. And the "crazy little paranoids"? The ones that people allude to but never mention by name. I will make a list of people who abstained on this issue: NSF, PA, Czechs (former sections), KRAS, FORA.

So, let the truth come out. This particular situation is born of a CNT motion, not of some group of small unions that supposedly control the IWA.

No hostility intended but the thing that strikes me about this is that these congress decisions were made quite a few years ago. My impression is that the majority position in the CNT has changed a lot since then. Would CNT members still support these motions if asked now?

AES's picture
AES
Offline
Joined: 15-02-04
Mar 19 2014 19:51
Quote:
No hostility intended but...

Topic locked