Workers Solidarity Federation

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 5 2010 06:12
madashell wrote:
Surely that's a question of varying degrees of tactical unity though, rather than the structure of the organisation? What I'm wondering about is how ICC members reconcile having "central organs" that make tactical decisions that other parts of the organisation must abide by with claiming that their organisation is not hierarchical.

I don't think that the central organs do make the 'tactical decisions'. The 'tactical decisions' are made by the International congress. Between those congresses the tactical decisions are made, on an international level, by the international bureau, which contains delegates from each section. On a national level, they are made by similar organisations which contain delegates from each local/branch*.

There is an International Secretariat, which is a body which takes care of the day to day running of the organisation. It is an elected body with a mandate. I believe that the IWA has a similar post**.

Devrim

*internal ICC terminology can sound a bit confusing on this point as it refers to both the national sections, and local branches as 'sections'. When we were joining it often confused us as to which was which.

**I think in the IWA's case it is a position, whereas for the ICC it is a small committee.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 5 2010 06:29
888 wrote:
Do the central organs make decisions that the local groups carry out, even just in the interim between general assemblies, or do they serve to coordinate and unify the decisions made in local groups, using mandated delegates?

Elected organs* fulfil their mandate, and complete the tasks mandated to them. I will try to give an example. I am on one committee, the 'press commission' of the Turkish section. I am not a member of any of the international committees, nor am I the Turkish delegate to the IB (mentioned in the last post). We make decisions concerning the press and the website. We try to do this as much as possible in conjunction with the section as a whole. If the section doesn't like the work we do it can revoke our mandate either at the next conference, or if we really screwed up, immediately. On a day to day level, however we handle the publications and website. If there is a big decision to take, we refer it back to the (national) section as a whole, as we are currently doing with one issue in Turkey at the moment.

The same principle operates through out the organisation. One of the responsibilities of the IS is the International Review, which is published in three languages in full every three months, with six monthly versions in, I think, another four. Recently there was a question on which the IS thought that the entire organisation should have an input on, and they took the mandate from the mandated delegates from all the sections, who in turn took it from their sections. Of course if people aren't happy with the performance of the IS, their mandate can be revoked either at the two yearly international congress, or if they are really unhappy mechanisms exist to do it earlier.

Devrim

*I am not sure I like that word either. It sounds a bit phallic. Maybe committees would be better.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
May 5 2010 22:44

Devrim wrote:

Quote:
Elected organs* fulfil their mandate, and complete the tasks mandated to them.

Devrim wrote:

Quote:
*I am not sure I like that word either. It sounds a bit phallic. Maybe committees would be better.

Sorry if this seems like semantic nit-picking, but I don't think that the term organ is strictly commensurable with committee (Nor is organ necessarily phallic; after all, it could be the liver or the kidneys - 'You are offal, but I like you', as Dick Emery might have said). A committee is a committee. An organ is, characteristically, part of a body - whether biological or social. The characterisation of human society or elements of human society as a body - 'the life of the organisation', so to speak - opens up a whole can of worms. Even with the organic metaphor, there's always the implication that the body is, in fact, a corpse.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
May 11 2010 23:00

"there's always the implication that the body is, in fact, a corpse." are you sugesting that membership of the ICC is akin to necrophilia? laugh out loud

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
May 11 2010 23:18
Quote:
are you sugesting that membership of the ICC is akin to necrophilia?

Ooh, you are awful!

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
May 28 2010 21:02
Quote:
I think that the point about the anarchist book fair in London is that, as far as I know, it is not organised by people who most on this board would consider to be anarchists, but by people here would possibly kick out anyway.

Devrim

It's fairly amusing to see you trot out these lies about the Bookfair collective every year - all of the current organisers are certainly class struggle anarchists, and though they allow some people to have stalls that I would prefer weren't allowed or encouraged they certainly would not allow the LA.

They are wrong to allow animal lib types and some of the primmo types in, in my view - but they are certainly right to refuse entry to the tedious parasites of the ICC. It is not a communist bookfair as others have mentioned.

If you want to organise a left communist bookfair go ahead, good luck with it.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
May 29 2010 00:33
Quote:
They are wrong to allow animal lib types and some of the primmo types in, in my view - but they are certainly right to refuse entry to the tedious parasites of the ICC. It is not a communist bookfair as others have mentioned.

See? See what it feels like? This is why you shouldn't call people names...

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 29 2010 04:23
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
It's fairly amusing to see you trot out these lies about the Bookfair collective every year- all of the current organisers are certainly class struggle anarchists,

I thought my post made it quite clear that I wasn't aware of the facts. I'm quite happy to stand corrected. I think being called a liar is a bit heavy though.

Quote:
and though they allow some people to have stalls that I would prefer weren't allowed or encouraged they certainly would not allow the LA.

The LA were given a stall when I lived in London in the 80s.

Quote:
but they are certainly right to refuse entry to the tedious parasites of the ICC.

I wouldn't expect them to do any differently than they do. I am not sure what you are so het up about really.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 29 2010 04:26
BigLittleJ wrote:
Quote:
They are wrong to allow animal lib types and some of the primmo types in, in my view - but they are certainly right to refuse entry to the tedious parasites of the ICC. It is not a communist bookfair as others have mentioned.

See? See what it feels like? This is why you shouldn't call people names...

I don't. I have never called anybody a 'parasite', and have stated both publicly and within the ICC that I think that there is little more to the whole 'theory' than calling names.

Devrim

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
May 29 2010 06:31
Devrim wrote:

I wouldn't expect them to do any differently than they do. I am not sure what you are so het up about really.

Devrim

I dunno you sound pretty het up to me, you certainly drag this same tired argument out quite a lot and have been called up on it before as well.

As for the Bookfair letting the LA in in the eighties, well given that the collective was entirely different people in those days I don't think it is relevant to the current ban on the ICC.

Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
May 29 2010 07:53

What is the rationale behind the ICC being worse than lifestylists and liberals?

(not trying to start a fight)

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
May 29 2010 09:34
Tarwater wrote:
What is the rationale behind the ICC being worse than lifestylists and liberals?

(not trying to start a fight)

I personally think the ICC have better politics that lifestylists and liberals. smile

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 29 2010 16:12
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
I dunno you sound pretty het up to me, you certainly drag this same tired argument out quite a lot and have been called up on it before as well.

Er...no, I think you completely misunderstand me. Maybe it is my fault and the way I present things, but as it is only you making an issue of it, I suspect not. Maybe it is though.

So for the record, I don't expect that the ICC will be given a stall at the Anarchist Bookfair in London. I understand that the UK section applies every year for a table, gets refused, and ends up outside. Personally I think it is a better place to be.

Quote:
As for the Bookfair letting the LA in in the eighties, well given that the collective was entirely different people in those days I don't think it is relevant to the current ban on the ICC.

It certainly doesn't make me het up at all that an ICC section in another continent doesn't get a stall at some anarchist event. Last time I was there, two years ago, I sold over £250 worth of stuff personally. Why would I need a stall?

But the real point is that here I was discussing things in a pleasant manner with people. I make a point about the people running the anarchist bookfair, Martin H corrects me, which is fair play, there are lots of other points, the thread is going on reasonably enough, and then you stumble in accusing me of being a liar.

OK fine, if it makes you happy.

Devrim

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
May 31 2010 20:09
Tarwater wrote:
What is the rationale behind the ICC being worse than lifestylists and liberals?

(not trying to start a fight)

Personally I don't think theyre worse than, they're on about the same level.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 31 2010 20:51

.

Anarchosyndicaliste
Offline
Joined: 14-12-09
Jul 9 2010 22:51
Quote:
Between those congresses the tactical decisions are made, on an international level, by the international bureau, which contains delegates from each section. On a national level, they are made by similar organisations which contain delegates from each local/branch*.

There is an International Secretariat, which is a body which takes care of the day to day running of the organisation. It is an elected body with a mandate. I believe that the IWA has a similar post**.

Well not exactly ...

The IWA international secretariat is only a "post box". It doesn t have the power to make political decisions (what you call "tctical decision"). It is not a decision body, a leading body, as the ICC international bureau is in your description.

In IWA all the initiative comes from the local sections ("rank and file") not from the central body ("head").