Split in IWA

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 14 2017 03:30
Split in IWA

I was wondering what is the practical difference between the sections remaining in IWA and gone. But please, do not say that the opponents are the "bureaucrats and autoritarian manipulators". It's not interesting, because left-wing faction always say that about each other.

The thing Interesting to me is the practical difference in policy.

1. What is the attitude of the factions to collective bargaining agreements with the business. For or against.

2. What about the practice of filing complaints against the businessman in court or participating in other systems of state. For or against.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Sep 14 2017 12:18

I would like to see a basic rundown too.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 14 2017 12:25
Quote:
But please, do not say that the opponents are the "bureaucrats and autoritarian manipulators". It's not interesting, because left-wing faction always say that about each other.

Or the "group of friends" vs. "real union because we've got lots of members" schtick. Also not very interesting. Sadly, I am sure this thread will degenerate pretty soon if all the other IWA threads are anything to go by.

In any case, I'd also like to know what the actual differences are between IWA and neo-IWA.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Sep 14 2017 13:26

Tbh, i don't think it's possible to adequately answer these questions at this time for several reasons. You seem to assume that the split neatly maps onto some political differences, but that's only part of it and it is just as much the result of some sections' internal power struggles, and tensions between sections that were not resolved and allowed to fester for years if not decades.
Personally I think it's very unfortunate that sections have left the IWA in the way it's happened, but one of the good things is that the IWA is no longer paralysed. So it's now possible to move forward with really important projects that had been stalled for a long time, such as developing workplace organiser training and growing outside of Europe, hopefully making anarcho-syndicalism less Eurocentric. I guess another likely outcome is that IWA and "neo-IWA" will probably try to define more clearly what anarcho-syndicalism means to them, what their respective strategies are, so perhaps if you wait for a couple of years there will be answers to your questions.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 14 2017 13:34

I guess another likely outcome is that IWA and "neo-IWA" will probably try to define more clearly what anarcho-syndicalism means to them,

Ok but what anarcho-syndicalism means to them todey? What is the difference between them? I still do not understend.

It seems to me that outside of these groups no one is interested to hear about the typical bickering like: "fraternal organization consisting of comrades" against "totalitarian sects," or "our cute friend" against their "authoritarian leader", or "our federalism" versus "sectarian autocracy" or... well there all the people heard this a million times. It is not interesting.

I would like to know about the practical difference in regard to the organization of strikes, the relationship to collective agreements with business, to cooperate or not cooperate with the state institutions (the arbitration Commission, the judiciary, the official factory councils, municipal authorities), attitude (pozitivnoe or negative) to membership representatives of political parties, etc.

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Sep 14 2017 16:20

meerov21, some things may not be interesting, but you cannot deny that some may be true, even only as a simplistic shortcut. I am not saying that those that you use are valid for this situation, but I think you go a bit too extreme in your "not interesting" perspective.

As for the remaining perspective (regarding union work), I think that you cannot use it here. There are groups that might agree with union tactics of the "different" camp.

Your original questions are fine, but - most likely - they would provide answers that really don't answer the general question behind them (that is reasons behind the split). So, I think the title of this topic is misleading. A clickbait:)

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 14 2017 18:29

But I am not interested in personal relations between the factions, their financial conflict, sexual scandals, sources of income or exceeded or not powers of Secretary, for example, CNT, or his Deputy. Even in the best of the libertarian organizations personal squabbles are inevitable. I am interested in the attitude to the questions that I asked in the post, and, more broadly, the differences in terms of the ideology and practice of anarchism

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 14 2017 18:35

As for the remaining perspective (regarding union work), I think that you cannot use it here. There are groups that might agree with union tactics of the "different" camp. There are groups that might agree with union tactics of the "different" camp.

What does it mean? There is no real difference in theory and practice?

MT
Offline
Joined: 29-03-07
Sep 14 2017 21:23

I am not sure if we understand each other, but don't want to make you repeat yourself again by repeating myself againgrin

As for the difference in theory and practice, perhaps you could be more specific as I don't understand the question. What I meant is that groups in different countries are different. And autonomous. But the differences are not set by the topics that you mention in your questions. In other words, if you want to know what is the position and practice of organizations related to the topics that you mention, you should ask each organization to get proper answer.

Just out of curiousity, have you read the IWA statutes?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Sep 14 2017 20:40
Quote:
I am interested in the attitude to the questions that I asked in the post, and, more broadly, the differences in terms of the ideology and practice of anarchism

And people are telling you there's no easy answer to that, as it'll have to be worked out over time. The CNT/FAU/USI groups are still working out what exactly they want out of their new federation, and the remaining IWA sections are adjusting to a removal of some influences, the introduction of others etc. That's as "proper" an answer as you're going to get.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 14 2017 23:42
Quote:
MT As for the difference in theory and practice, perhaps you could be more specific as I don't understand the question. What I meant is that groups in different countries are different. And autonomous. But the differences are not set by the topics that you mention in your questions. In other words, if you want to know what is the position and practice of organizations related to the topics that you mention, you should ask each organization to get proper answer.

From what you say, I have the impression that the causes of the split in the IWA do not have any relation to the practical social work or revolutionary anarchist theory. Otherwise, I would long ago have given clear answers to my questions. As i already asked I am interested in the attitude to the questions that I asked in the post, and, more broadly, the differences in terms of the ideology and practice of anarchism

Just out of curiousity, have you read the IWA statutes?

Oddly enough, I read it 10 years ago. Since then, much time has passed so i don't rememeber what was that and I don't know what changes there were made for 10 years. Also I'm not interested.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 15 2017 10:28

I don't really think you're going to get an answer to these questions, as the split was not along political lines, on these questions or anything else. The split was basically between the large and small groups in the IWA.

So I'm pretty sure there will be more different opinions on these questions within individual sections, than between different sections.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 15 2017 11:01
Steven. wrote:
I don't really think you're going to get an answer to these questions, as the split was not along political lines, on these questions or anything else. The split was basically between the large and small groups in the IWA.

So I'm pretty sure there will be more different opinions on these questions within individual sections, than between different sections.

"The split was basically between the large and small groups in the IWA." ---------- Oh, cool! Size matters!

bizantino
Offline
Joined: 12-01-15
Sep 15 2017 12:09

The Split comes from the lack of internal democracy within the iwa, five groups of less than one hundred people each impose their position on four groups of more than 1000. And of course the affiliates of these unions ask to have similar decision-making power smaller groups. Otherwise the statutes do not change much except that in the new Iwa allows more than one section per country, each section is allowed to have international contacts beyond the new iwa, you want to legalize the association and therefore those are the schisms, apart from that the expelled unions have something more of union reality and more capacity of work.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 15 2017 12:19

Ok. So will new IWA work together with CNT-Vignol and with SAC...and with spainish CHT?

I think it would be natural, since there are no fundamental ideological differences between You. And so I realized that there were no fundamental ideological differences between the new and the old IWA too.

bizantino
Offline
Joined: 12-01-15
Sep 15 2017 12:44

With cnt-vignols I think it's working, with sat do not know, locally it converges in many sites and companies with CGT (there are usually many differences when it comes to working).

In my opinion, perhaps cnt-vignols, solidaridad obrera and cnt-catalunya can be accommodated in the new iwa, and it seems that specific alliances will be sought with groups of workers from other countries where there is no section of the new iwa, in case of union conflict in a company.

This os only mi opinión and the new iwa is birding yet.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Sep 15 2017 18:08

In fact, that's what I was thinking: between all these groups there is no fundamental ideological differences, as there are none between the new and the old IWA. What I do read here, generally confirms this view. In any case, thanks for the informative response bizantino.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 15 2017 18:21

So if I understand this correctly, there really is no fundamental difference ideologically or even in the approach of some of the questions meerov21 has asked? And that the real difference is between large vs small groups, and hence a question of the degree of influence, power or control over the international federation? Sure, I get that some ideological differences may rise to the surface after neo-IWA has been actually founded, but after reading all those other threads where IWAers were furious at each other, I got the (wrong?) idea that there was some deeper schism going.

nokta
Offline
Joined: 4-02-15
Sep 15 2017 22:04

Well I do think different ideas how an international should work and how modern day anarchosyndicalism could look like play into it. But the points raised before are of course true too.

This can be seen if you look into the case of the expulsion / suspension of FAU. That expulsion was based on an IWA congress decision from the early 2000s that said that the FAU could be expelled if they would go on to have relations to non-IWA (anarcho)syndicalist unions. I think one of the reasons for that proposal was the organization of the i02 conference in 2002 by FAU, an international conference where all different kind of anarchosyndicalist, syndicalist and unionist militants / union members where invited too. The members of different unions where invited, not the unions itself; e.g. SAC members attended.

In general the FAU had a more "pragmatic" stand concerning to international relations. E.g. there was a conference decision in the early 90s to have contact with SAC and the "contact ban" concerning splits of IWA sections (CNT-F) or non/ex-IWA (anarcho)syndicalist unions (SAC) was rejected. The FAU also stressed that the situation in the countries of the sections can be quite different and so there must be some degree of autonomy in strategies and tactics (e.g. "work councils" can mean something very different in each country or in Spain a shop floor union group has some rights and protection whereas in Germany they don't etc.). The FAU was quite alone on these standpoints in the 90s and early 2000s, the IWA congress decision that threaten the FAU with expulsion for its international relations was indeed crafted under a IWA secretary from the CNT.

In the 2010s this power dynamic changed, which does not mean that CNT and USI share all of FAUs standpoints but I guess growth, union work and especially solidarity welded these three sections together.

So in some sense, this is all but a new split. And in some sense you could say that the new international will be more in the tradition of the i02 conference: lets concentrate on the things we have in common not the things that differentiate us (every country and section has its own tradition, history and situation), build unity inside but also be more open to organizations from the outside.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 15 2017 22:16

Thanks for that nokta. That explains the split a bit better than what so far has been suggested.

spaceman spiff
Offline
Joined: 9-12-11
Sep 15 2017 22:19

This whole thing is absurd and sad. We're in the worst economic depression since 1930 and a bunch of anarchists split up the international in some bizarre conflict that no one even understands.

bizantino
Offline
Joined: 12-01-15
Sep 15 2017 22:31

There is a clear ideological difference, the most important one that can be confused with power struggles but that I conceive as a clear ideological base, that 20 people direct without debate or consideration a small international of about 6000 people has a name, verticality, political party structure where some decide the course and the others submit.

The new IWA, which basically maintains the old IWA statutes, is to make it a more open organization, it is possible to have more than one section per country, leaving each section that has relations with other unions outside the new IWA, but democratically trying to give each affiliate of each section the weight it deserves (proportional voting), returns to the roots of anarcho-syndicalism that is revolutionary syndicalism, makes training and the exchange of experiences one of its axes of work as you can see in the summer school of transpinedo, coordinating workers for transnational as you can now see with Deliveroo and the platform workers.

There are those who point to the legalization of the organization in order to work in authoritarian countries, use of international labor regulations, support to countries that experience natural disasters or wars ...

There are profound differences from one to the other, both ideological and practical.

bizantino
Offline
Joined: 12-01-15
Sep 15 2017 22:47
Quote:
This whole thing is absurd and sad. We're in the worst economic depression since 1930 and a bunch of anarchists split up the international in some bizarre conflict that no one even understands.

It may seem an absurd dispute indeed, the ways in which organizations that formed more than 90% of the membership of the IWA (FORA / USI / FAU / CNT) have decided to leave it have been very sad, but seeing the current results we see that the march of these unions was very necessary.

But that is part of the past now with the incorporation of the North American IWW to the project of new international and more possible sections of other countries that are thinking about it, we are going to take a qualitative leap in what workers internationalism refers to.

It is more like the people who work ends up finding, nothing prevents that in future there are more incorporations of unions from the old IWA to the new, even collaborations between the old IWA and the new IWA..

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 15 2017 22:52

If the FAU has long believed that the policies and practices of the IWA were not compatible with its form and style, it didn't have to belong. It could have gone independent and most could probably understand that. And at some point the actions of wanting to belong say more than the words. I am not happy to say this as I have known and worked with FAU comrades since the 1970s. Sorry, sometimes its hard to just say some things.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 15 2017 22:59
bizantino wrote:
The new IWA,

But you can't have a "new IWA" if the "old IWA" still exists. So you want to build a new international, just call itself a new name. I think it makes the situation of distrust and dislike that much deeper when you call yourselves something you are not and which still already exists.

bizantino
Offline
Joined: 12-01-15
Sep 15 2017 23:00

I used the terms that came using the participants of the forum, the project that is forming is a new international other than the IWA in many things, of course in the name too, although that is not important do not get angry syndicalist ....

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 15 2017 23:10
bizantino wrote:
I used the terms that came using the participants of the forum, the project that is forming is a new international other than the IWA in many things, of course in the name too, although that is not important do not get angry syndicalist ....

I think the more you perpetuate a myth, the more you believe it.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 15 2017 23:25

since IWA means International Workers Association any new federation of anarcho-syndicalist unions would technically be an IWA

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Sep 17 2017 17:11
syndicalist wrote:
bizantino wrote:
I used the terms that came using the participants of the forum, the project that is forming is a new international other than the IWA in many things, of course in the name too, although that is not important do not get angry syndicalist ....

I think the more you perpetuate a myth, the more you believe it.

Clearly.

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Sep 17 2017 17:55
syndicalist wrote:
If the FAU has long believed that the policies and practices of the IWA were not compatible with its form and style, it didn't have to belong. It could have gone independent and most could probably understand that.

Seems like they did, and it seems like several other sections did too.

At first I was pretty disheartened by this whole situation, but if the level of pettiness, paranoia, and sect-like behavior that I've seen from current IWA posters (including the secretariat!?) on here is at all indicative of the level of discourse within it, then I'm just happy that those sections were able to extract themselves...

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Sep 17 2017 18:04
redsdisease wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
If the FAU has long believed that the policies and practices of the IWA were not compatible with its form and style, it didn't have to belong. It could have gone independent and most could probably understand that.

Seems like they did, and it seems like several other sections did too.

At first I was pretty disheartened by this whole situation, but if the level of pettiness, paranoia, and sect-like behavior that I've seen from current IWA posters (including the secretariat!?) on here is at all indicative of the level of discourse within it, then I'm just happy that those sections were able to extract themselves...

It takes two to tango. And I suspect all of the anger and frustration and pettiness shown on all the postings, by all the various libcom postings, has been building for many, many years. It's easy to target individuals, harder to tackle problems.