Nazis in CGT-E

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 10 2010 23:48

If anyone knows about the internal structure of the CGT, that could discredit the Publico report straight off, since if they don't have officers capable of fobbing off members (i.e. if branch meetings are sovereign), then clearly the claim they did so is untrue. If they do, well to be honest that's what you get for pretending to be anarcho-syndicalists (and internal structure is really lowest-common denominator stuff, without getting into taking state money, participating in works councils etc).

i don't know anything about Público, wikipedia says:

Wikipedia wrote:
Escolar and Mediapro founded the paper as an alternative to Spain's best-selling center-left newspaper, El País, and as the country's first national newspaper geared toward youth. Público is two-thirds the length of its competitors and its price is less than half. The paper's original press run was 250,000 daily.
revolut
Offline
Joined: 21-08-08
Aug 11 2010 00:58
Quote:
If anyone knows about the internal structure of the CGT, that could discredit the Publico report straight off, since if they don't have officers capable of fobbing off members (i.e. if branch meetings are sovereign), then clearly the claim they did so is untrue.

In CGT union meetings are sovereign, but there's (or there was) only the statutory obligation of convoking one meeting per year. This gave way to some abuses in the past, I'm not sure if they're worked out. On the contrary, the National Comitte of the CGT can temporarily "expel" a individual member of the organization.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Aug 11 2010 01:15
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
it doesn't mean because I am not in the IWA that I can not be a principled anarcho-syndicalist.

Unfortunately many in the IWA would disagree with you ...

You know, that's fine. For many years it mattered to some of us. Now, not so much. We've got a big nut to crack here at builing the WSA. While the internationalim and personal contacts were great and are important, the world doesn't end when that falls tothe wayside.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 11 2010 01:41

nor, necessarily do personal contacts. one of libcom's uses.

revolut
Offline
Joined: 21-08-08
Aug 11 2010 01:41
Joseph Kay wrote:
i don't know anything about Público, wikipedia says:
Wikipedia wrote:
Escolar and Mediapro founded the paper as an alternative to Spain's best-selling center-left newspaper, El País, and as the country's first national newspaper geared toward youth. Público is two-thirds the length of its competitors and its price is less than half. The paper's original press run was 250,000 daily.

Publico could be described as a 'zapaterista' newspaper, in contrast with 'El Pais' (which is nearer to the old guard of the Socialist Party that governed 12 years during the 80s and 90s). They gave attention to some social issues or the 'Memoria Histórica' (they supported unconditionally the judge Garzón) but it's not strange seeing articles attacking the workers (for example to the air controllers or pilots, or about the Underground strikes in Madrid). In the issue of the thread, they've denounced corruption cases in other unions like CC.OO. (the other main union) but they hardly ever criticize the 'socialist union', the UGT.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 11 2010 01:44

thanks for the context. i'm actually off to Spain in less than 24 hours and i'm hoping to read some papers to practice my Spanish.[/off topic]

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 11 2010 01:53
Dead End wrote:
Maybe it's true or maybe it's not, but foaming at the mouth doesn't make your point more convincing, (some of you) IWAers. You're acting like Sparticists.

I really don't see who of IWAers is foaming at the mouth and acting like Spartacits. The only foaming came as a reaction to my spot of interesting news for the libertarian community from people who either relativize differences between revolutionary and reformist organizations, have personal problems with some of the decisions IWA made, or ones which are openly support CGT state funding.

It is funny to see how those "neutral" persons, or ones who were "always" supporting CNT are ready to jump against spotting of a bizarre incident to say at least, but don't see the need to do that in numerous time in which IWA was denounced and attacked by the reformists. I mean, look at that state-funding-of-revolution guy lunacy which is passing here with approval from syndicalist.

Joseph Kay wrote:
If anyone knows about the internal structure of the CGT, that could discredit the Publico report straight off, since if they don't have officers capable of fobbing off members (i.e. if branch meetings are sovereign), then clearly the claim they did so is untrue. If they do, well to be honest that's what you get for pretending to be anarcho-syndicalists (and internal structure is really lowest-common denominator stuff, without getting into taking state money, participating in works councils etc).

It seams National committee of CGT can do that (!), but that's not the point here. The Publico article quoted a response to enquiring CGT members by CGT Tecnocom union section persons /in which the Nazi leader was/. The response praised the guy, who was obviously CGT representative - as he is described in the response as working better than other representatives:

Publico wrote:
Algunos miembros del sindicato ya denunciaron en marzo pasado los hechos a varios miembros de la sección sindical de CGT en Tecnocom, pero la respuesta que recibieron por correo electrónico fue la siguiente: "Desde que le conocemos, el comportamiento de Juan Antonio, cuando formaba parte de CCOO y ahora que ha pasado a nuestras filas, siempre ha sido el mismo: coherencia en la defensa de los derechos de los compañeros y siempre intentando implicar a los mismos en su defensa. Es más, siempre ha trabajado por encima de la media del resto de representantes".

This was not disputed by the article of the two CGT members, as they only said that they are going to try to verify it, and that in case that it's true they will get everybody involved in the thing expelled:

2CGT wrote:
El problema parece ir más allá,un periodista denuncia que en la seccion de Tecnocom de CGT pudiera algún afiliado o simpatizante del MSR, algo que CGT está intentando verificar y de lo que no tiene constancia, así mismo denuncia que dicha sección trabaja en conjunto con la gente expulsada en el comite de empresa, algo de lo que el Secretariado Permanente de CGT no tiene constancia. En el caso de que sean ciertas las acusaciones, se pondrán en marcha los mecanismos internos para expulsar del sindicato a todas aquellas personas que hayan hecho la vista gorda o hayan convivido con esta gente, incluido si es necesario, la expulsión de la Sección completa de Tecnocom.

And that is in the same time response to Laure's question who are "they" - they are CGT union secion in Tecnocom.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Aug 11 2010 02:19

Rata.... sometimes the emporer has no clothes, and sometimes I think you should be the last to sit in judgement about others.

But I laugh, you weren't even around during the splits and have no concept of where we stood. Down the line we stood by the CNT-AIT. Oh, I forgot, that was about 30 years, maybe a bit too long ago, eh?

I am interested in knowing about the nazis inflitration, etc. I thought that was the theme of this thread, that is my point. If you want to engage Syndicalist about his politics and world views, you're welcome to do that elsewhere. But I think I have posted enough on Libcom over the years for one to either like or hate me. In the long run, does it really matter what those who don't accept anyones line all the way? Unlikely.

So let's get back to the issue of neo-nazi inflitration.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 11 2010 02:25
syndicalist wrote:
Rata.... sometimes the emporer has no clothes, and sometimes I think you should be the last to sit in judgement about others.

What does this mean? I guess I wasn't the last to sit in judgments about others when I pushed in ASI to propose IWA Commission about WSA.

syndicalist wrote:
But I laugh, you weren't even around during the splits and have no concept of where we stood. Down the line we stood by the CNT-AIT. Oh, I forgot, that was about 30 years, maybe a bit too long ago, eh?

No, it's not too long, but that is the point, it was 30 years ago, now you obviously have different opinion.

syndicalist wrote:
I am interested in knowing about the nazis inflitration, etc. I thought that was the theme of this thread, that is my point. If you want to engage Syndicalist about his politics and world views, you're welcome to do that elsewhere. But I think I have posted enough on Libcom over the years for one to either like or hate me. In the long run, does it really matter what those who don't accept anyones line all the way? Unlikely.

So let's get back to the issue of neo-nazi inflitration.

This is a blunt lie, you were not interested in it at all, but just in proving that it shouldn't have been brought up at all. You attacked the spot from the post one on this tread, and labelled it as "shit-stirring for no reason".

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Aug 11 2010 03:02

Rata...yes, but you chickened out at Granada when our delegate was locked out of the conference and the WSA viciously attacked. As did evey other so-called comrade of principle. Of course the ASI acceptance into the IWA took precedance over the principle.

Yes, I found your posting shit stirring...because you posted something that was not fully researched. You then went on to list every complaint you have with the CGT.

I remember full well the history of the CNT-AIT and have stood by it, even as members of the CNT-AIT worked against the WSA. The written record of WSA support for the CNT-AIT is long and there. In the long run, WSA solidarity has only proven to be a one way street. But it has been given because it was the right thing to do.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 11 2010 08:20

I have the impression, that some of the main topics of this discussion are "purity/impurity" and "guilt by association"

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Aug 11 2010 09:12

JK asked a question about CGT structure... I'm not in Spain at the moment, so I can't give you a very good answer, but CGT have some paid full time officials. It's not that many, in Andalucia they have two full timers. I don't know how many people have paid "union hours".

robot's picture
robot
Offline
Joined: 27-09-06
Aug 11 2010 11:00
Entdinglichung wrote:
I have the impression, that some of the main topics of this discussion are "purity/impurity" and "guilt by association"

This is not only your impression wink Looks as if certain people have lots of times to waste on negligibilities...

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 11 2010 13:47
syndicalist wrote:
Rata...yes, but you chickened out at Granada when our delegate was locked out of the conference and the WSA viciously attacked. As did evey other so-called comrade of principle. Of course the ASI acceptance into the IWA took precedance over the principle.

It seams you are mixing two Granada Congresses: the one you are talking about is XXI IWA Congress in Granada in 2000. I was 18 than, and attended the Congress as observer of Belgrade libertarian group - and I wasn't aware of what was happening behind the closed doors. I wasn't aware of many things, as it was the first time I attended IWA Congress (I was at a Toulouse plenary the year before that, but this was something that is on a much larger scale), and many of the relations and actions were unclear to me. Again, my position there was of an observer, not delegate. IAS-ASI was created in 2001-2, and we were accepted in 2004, on XXII IWA Congress, that was also held in Granada. But since we were accepted in IWA we started requesting that WSA thing is solved. That happened on the first next Congress of IWA, and US Commision was created in 2006 to travel to US and clear up the things there. But, than you told us that only one or two members of WSA can meet us, and that the rest of the organization is not interested. So, I really don't see where do you get the nerve to criticise me in this fashion, when everything I ever did was to try to sort out things in a positive way, even if I had my doubts and hughe reservations about this social-democratic pareconist who are among WSA's most prominent members..

I just see now that you have edited your post in which you just quoted and approved madness of the vanila ice babe about Spanish and Serbian people thinking that you can not be principled anarcho-syndicalist if you are not in IWA. You changed approval of that idiocy with your usual wining about how you were treated badly, despite being a good friend for many years with some people. As if that is important in anyway when discussing political principals.

syndicalist wrote:
Yes, I found your posting shit stirring...because you posted something that was not fully researched. You then went on to list every complaint you have with the CGT.

Well, you will have to decide what is your position, are you interested in the topic as you said few posts before:

syndicalist wrote:
I am interested in knowing about the nazis inflitration, etc. I thought that was the theme of this thread, that is my point.

or you are not interested, as it is not fully researched. Maybe it will sound crazy to you, but you can not research anything if you don't know about it.

The point is that from your post one on this tread you were screaming shit-steering even if until than there was no big discussion, and only things which are known were discussed, with the reference to the text in the papers. That is the whole point: you are not interested in finding out if Nazi's had positions in CGT, you think that the whole idea of talking about it is shit-steering, and that cover-up kind of work is usual for reformists who don't want to show their positions and practices publicly. And I think this proves my point, about your position changing since the period in which you were pro CNT-AIT to today, when you will gladly help relativizate CNT-CGT conflict, and even try to engage in discrediting any info that appears on new fails of the CGT, not because you know better or have different data, but by automatism, because it's discrediting CGT.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Aug 11 2010 16:17
Quote:
Rata: I just see now that you have edited your post in which you just quoted and approved madness of the vanila ice babe about Spanish and Serbian

I'm trying to locate that whole reply, think this is it below...... I remember when using part of it I specifically left off mention of both Spain and Serbia. I'm almost certain this reflects what I said:

Quote:
syndicalist wrote:

it doesn't mean because I am not in the IWA that I can not be a principled anarcho-syndicalist.

Quote:
Vanila Unfortunately many in the IWA would disagree with you ... [I snipped mention of Spain & Serbia off]
Quote:
Syndicalist: You know, that's fine. For many years it mattered to some of us. Now, not so much. We've got a big nut to crack here at builing the WSA. While the internationalim and personal contacts were great and are important, the world doesn't end when that falls tothe wayside.

I'll come back to some of the other stuff later. I want check my records on something relative to the first of the Granada conferences. I'd like to check something from whatever the pre-ASI
group was called.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 11 2010 16:28
robot wrote:
Entdinglichung wrote:
I have the impression, that some of the main topics of this discussion are "purity/impurity" and "guilt by association"

This is not only your impression wink Looks as if certain people have lots of times to waste on negligibilities...

the term "apostolic succession" came also to my mind ...

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Aug 11 2010 22:18
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
it doesn't mean because I am not in the IWA that I can not be a principled anarcho-syndicalist.

Unfortunately many in the IWA would disagree with you, especially in Spain and Serbia!

This is pure trolling.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 11 2010 22:28

This all thread needs the bin.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Aug 11 2010 22:39

Perhaps some of the Spanish comrades could shed light on this but it seems that the fascists were not regular workers who joined the CGT on the shop floor (even with a view to infiltration); they were representatives on the shop committee:

kaosenlared wrote:
De los 8 delegados que pasaron de CCOO a CGT, son expulsados los 4 que tenemos constancia que pertenecen al MSR.

This means that they receive paid hours to do union work, as well as other privileges, and are a major component of the bureaucracy. Furthermore, the article mentions that they joined the CGT after being expelled by the CCOO, but suspiciously does not say why they were expelled.* Why would several members of the CCOO, important and popular enough to win elections to a works council, be expelled - if not for being fascists? And if that is what they are expelled for, how would the CGT workplace section not have had any idea?

* This is, of course, one of the problems with the works councils - the delegates can not be recalled, even if they are expelled or resign from the union that they were elected for.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 11 2010 22:48
Entdinglichung wrote:
robot wrote:
Entdinglichung wrote:
I have the impression, that some of the main topics of this discussion are "purity/impurity" and "guilt by association"

This is not only your impression wink Looks as if certain people have lots of times to waste on negligibilities...

the term "apostolic succession" came also to my mind ...

Very original!

revolut
Offline
Joined: 21-08-08
Aug 11 2010 23:51
Quote:
Why would several members of the CCOO, important and popular enough to win elections to a works council, be expelled - if not for being fascists? And if that is what they are expelled for, how would the CGT workplace section not have had any idea?

According to Publico, the e-mail sent from the CGT defending the nazi as a "combative worker" wasn't sent from the CGT's union, but from the section in the company. It's quite possible that the CGT branch union didn't know too much about the details of the Tecnocom's CGT section. It's not unusual that the unions hasn't a real control over the workplace sections ('secciones sindicales'). Did the CGT company section know that they were nazis? Did they believe the version of the nazis without checking the details? I don't see any alternative of expeling the whole workplace section in the company, if the section behaviour was as it seems.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Aug 13 2010 00:27

Comrades, if I may, I'd just to to respond to some things Rata wrote. I'll then leave it at that or we can take the conversation elsewhere.

syndicalist wrote:

Quote:
Rata:
It seams you are mixing two Granada Congresses: the one you are talking about is XXI IWA Congress in Granada in 2000

In deed, my error.

Quote:
Rata:

US Commision was created in 2006 to travel to US and clear up the things there. But, than you told us that only one or two members of WSA can meet us, and that the rest of the organization is not interested. So, I really don't see where do you get the nerve to criticise me in this fashion, when everything I ever did was to try to sort out things in a positive way, even if I had my doubts....

I think you have left out half the story. You explicitedly told me that the IWA would not visit the US because the wreckers from Duluth refused to answer the IWA's overtures to be visted and interviewed, not because only a few WSA members would meet with the IWA Delegation.

As to why only a few WSA members were interested, basically 5 plus years passed since the IWA intervention into the WSA's affairs (by supporting the wreckers). WSA reached out many times to move things along, with nothing positive coming from the IWA. Most people
lost interest or felt that the IWA was too hostile to the WSA for anything positive to come of a meeting. I would also say, in hindsight, WSA was just about starting to regrow, with new members slowly starting to come on board. They were too new and not so informed/interested/concerned with the past.

On the last point, this May our new members instructed the WSA secretary to reach out to one IWA section who we share a common language and many things in common. The comrades thinking was, hey, we share much in common, can communicate freely and let's see if we might be able to develop some working relations. The reply we got back was "[we are]
part of the IWA and greeting should be sent to the IWA secretariat." The reply was odd and basically turned off a younger group of comrades as to how some in the IWA work. Not a way to try and generate interest or explore building bi-lateral relationships.

Quote:
Syndicalist:
Yes, I found your posting shit stirring...because you posted something that was not fully researched. You then went on to list every complaint you have with the CGT.
Rata:
Well, you will have to decide what is your position, are you interested in the topic as you said few posts before:

syndicalist wrote:

I am interested in knowing about the nazis inflitration, etc. I thought that was the theme of this thread, that is my point.

or you are not interested, as it is not fully researched. Maybe it will sound crazy to you, but you can not research anything if you don't know about it.

Perhaps if you simply said, "Does anyone now anything about this situation?" Rather then stating "Continuation of reformist decadence..." to me that's shit-stiring.

Quote:
Rata: The point is that from your post one on this tread you were screaming shit-steering even if until than there was no big discussion, and only things which are known were discussed, with the reference to the text in the papers. That is the whole point: you are not interested in finding out if Nazi's had positions in CGT, you think that the whole idea of talking about it is shit-steering, and that cover-up kind of work is usual for reformists who don't want to show their positions and practices publicly. And I think this proves my point, about your position changing since the period in which you were pro CNT-AIT to today, when you will gladly help relativizate CNT-CGT conflict, and even try to engage in discrediting any info that appears on new fails of the CGT, not because you know better or have different data, but by automatism, because it's discrediting CGT.

Whatever. I just completely disagree with you here. I think good, solid political debate is more valuable then name calling and rethotoric spewing.

At this point, I can say day and you will say night. Like I said before, the written record history of the WSA's support for the CNT-AIT is there. Having been elected more times then I wish to positions of responsibility in the WSA (and the Libertarian Workers Group before), I would say that I have penned countless reports and solidarity letters on behalf of the CNT-AIT, so I think I have a sense of our solidarity.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Aug 13 2010 09:25

Rata, you complained at one point that people weren't treating this with respect and seriousness. But your original post had a air of crowing about it:

rata wrote:
Continuation of reformist decadence...

http://www.publico.es/espana/331567/neonazis/infiltran/cgt/tratar/captar/obreros (Spanish)

No analysis, just gloating. If you'd wanted a decent discussion, it would have been better to start from a different point!

Surely the real issue is that this kind of occurrence is only to be expected when a group of anarchists set out to represent workers. They end up in no short time simply replicating the same kinds of nonsense that other unions come up with. That's the difference, surely, between the CGT and the CNT?

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 13 2010 15:40
knightrose wrote:
No analysis, just gloating. If you'd wanted a decent discussion, it would have been better to start from a different point!

And how is what you wrote a different point? You are talking about the same thing:

knightrose wrote:
Surely the real issue is that this kind of occurrence is only to be expected when a group of anarchists set out to represent workers. They end up in no short time simply replicating the same kinds of nonsense that other unions come up with.

which means that if you choose to use reformist strategy (""anarchists" set out to represent workers") you will end up getting more reactionary as the time passes ("in short time simply replicating the same kinds of nonsense that other unions come up with").

And what else does "Continuation of reformist decadence..." means?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Aug 13 2010 16:13

I agree with you. I'm complaining about the way you chose to present the argument - like you were either spoiling for a fight or gloating. In any event, I was just making the point and politically we have nothing to argue about.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Aug 13 2010 16:25

lol at this entire thread.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 13 2010 16:33
knightrose wrote:
I agree with you. I'm complaining about the way you chose to present the argument - like you were either spoiling for a fight or gloating

I think it would be hypocritical of me to do it in any other way, and usual reformist stockers would have reacted in a same manner anyway.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Aug 13 2010 16:47

It would be helpful for us ignorami if someone could summarise the key points in the split between the CNT and the CGT, or point us to a relevant document.

Salvoechea
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Aug 14 2010 17:29

.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Aug 13 2010 18:37
Salvoechea wrote:
And nobody knows how ... the CNT delegate accepted as well.

This says no more about the CNT and its theoretical foundations than the nazi infiltrations say about CGT (although the CGT can clearly be criticized on different grounds, as a reformist anti-working class apparatus, which some people have been doing above, albeit tangentially). This thread is not really about the CGT or the CNT. That is not to say that the info in the OP is not relevant or interesting (weeler pretty much nailed it when he said that this sort of thing is inevitable with much of the "anti-capitalist" left), but what follows is just schoolboy squabbling.