I always assumed thats what the iww constitution meant by the term, but there's never to my knowledge been a ban on iww members being members of any political or anti-political sect they wanted to. There used to be and probably still are, it's been a while since it's been at all relevant to me, rules limiting wobs being staff/paid officers of such. I can't think of any anarchist groups in the us or uk where that would apply though.
Are Anarchist Organizations Anti-Political Sects?
As I recall, it's listed right after political parties in the constitution, which could account for the awkward wording.
Yeah, I think it means anarchist organizations. Which I think is silly, since they're clearly not anything like political parties. My GMB recently worked on a campaign with a business union-sponsored workers center. That's not a party nor an anti-political sect, but I could see an anarchist organization doing the same kind of work they do (albeit WAY better).
i think the iww should always be respected for what it stands for and what it has done... but like the constitution of the usa, written in a completely different time, old organizational principles designed for different times can end up blinkering us... it almost definitely needs some reworking... but it's been updating itself pretty well to handle new situations, and i hope it grows more and more.
i disagree with the "IWW's too old" theme. I thought just that when I first joined the IWW back in the late 1970s. But it was the only place to be.
I realize some of this will sound harsh, but I don't mean it as such.
The IWW came out of huge and important struggles of our class. It embodies a set of lessons learned from the Knights of Labor on.
What I've found in trying to make the IWW "real" again, to not mess with it's structures, etc. leave them be. Too often it's structures are messed with for *potential* activity, to cover for poor organizing on miniscule organizing campaigns (if only X was different, then our strike of 4 people would have turned out different) and for ideology-by-the-book . I cannot think of one occurance in 30 years where changes in the structure of the IWW has actually aided it's growth.
In fact when the IWW becomes more like it's old self internally, it becomes more itself. Here in Portland we purposely got the Branch(es) out of the anarcho-ghetto and guess what - they grew! At one point, we had about 300 people in and around the IWW here. That doesn't mean that we toned down our radicalism or kicked out the anarchists, far from it. What we did was made the IWW the place in town where radicals of various stripes, labor militants as well as workers looking for organization/help could work together.
There's no need to be very descriptive since the IWW isn't anarcho syndicalist anyway. So the CNT in any period, really. What I mean is that the IWW still claims to be anti-political in a naive pre-WWI CGT revolutionary syndicalist style, despite the highly political implications of its preamble, whereas anarchosyndiaclist union acknowledge the implications of their final goals.
I think the IWW should allow anarchist "anti-political sects" but sects of any other political tendency should be expelled.
Quote:
I think the IWW should allow anarchist "anti-political sects" but sects of any other political tendency should be expelled.
Or maybe, just maybe when it comes to actual on the ground class struggle having the correct analysis before you get into the fight isn't even half as important as drawing the right conclusions from your experiences after the fight. If you have so much faith in the practicality and correctness of your ideas 888 you should be able to argue for them on the basis of your own organising and experience.
Furthermore I've seen enough dogmatic anarchists in my short time on this earth completely sell out in practice (sign contracts with no strike clauses, run off an become staff organisers for yellow unions and campaign for political parties) that I know having the right political line is not the whole equation to having fighting working class organisations.
Kicking out all the other sects and letting the anarchists stay has nothing to do with an actual commitment to building working class power. All it means is the anarchists can scramble to find short cuts to doing the tough work of building strong collective working class practices on the job and a self reliance on the part of working people. If you think anarcho-syndicalism has a monopoly on these committments then I think you need to go out and read more widely.
Now I'm actually all for working against authoritarian elements in our organisation but you don't beat trots by amending the constitution to ban them like any social democratic political organisation would. You beat them by organising better and having a stronger argument.
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
All it means is the anarchists can scramble to find short cuts to doing the tough work of building strong collective working class practices on the job and a self reliance on the part of working people.
Sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
Quote:
If you think anarcho-syndicalism has a monopoly on these committments then I think you need to go out and read more widely.
What other organisations have that don't ultimately end up being reformist and/or controlled by their permanent staff?
888 wrote:
There's no need to be very descriptive since the IWW isn't anarcho syndicalist anyway. So the CNT in any period, really. What I mean is that the IWW still claims to be anti-political in a naive pre-WWI CGT revolutionary syndicalist style, despite the highly political implications of its preamble, whereas anarchosyndiaclist union acknowledge the implications of their final goals.I think the IWW should allow anarchist "anti-political sects" but sects of any other political tendency should be expelled.
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), Anarcosindicalismo: Basico, 1998 wrote:
No ideological qualification is necessary to
be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organisation
in which decisions are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous,
federalist structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of professional
bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a respect for its rules,
and from this point of view people of different opinions, tendencies and ideologies
can live together within it. Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties... can be
part of the CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of view
about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the anarcho-union
is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian structure.
The CNT seem to disagree with you.
Devrim
Quote:
Now I'm actually all for working against authoritarian elements in our organisation but you don't beat trots by amending the constitution to ban them like any social democratic political organisation would. You beat them by organising better and having a stronger argument.
I agree with what you wrote, except for this. I think that the principle that many anarchosyndicalist unions have/had of having restrictions on members of political sects (banning them from being officers if not altogether from membership) comes from real working class experience just as anything valuable in the IWW does.
In fact we used to be at least a little bit closer to that position, at one point it was required that IWW officers swear that they uphold the principles of "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common" and (I believe) "The emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves". (for this second one you could check w/ Jim C. or find an old consitution, which i can't be arsed to do).
David in Atlanta wrote:
... there's never to my knowledge been a ban on iww members being members of any political or anti-political sect they wanted to. There used to be and probably still are... rules limiting wobs being staff/paid officers of such. I can't think of any anarchist groups in the us or uk where that would apply though.
That's the way I recall it too. The ban of office bearers etc is/was a practical ban to prevent takeovers, much like the ban against bootleggers being members. One of the crucial distinctions being the IWW and the CNT etc, as I have always understood it is that the IWW doesn't tell you how to relate to the electoral system. If that has been changed I think it is a pity but I don't think it has....
The ban goes both ways doesn't it? Ie members of parties or "anti-political sects" cant be office bearers of the
IWW? That might be more of an inconvenience given the large anarchist membership of the IWW, but it is surely only likely to be a problem where the IWW itself is tiny.
888 wrote:
I think the IWW should allow anarchist "anti-political sects" but sects of any other political tendency should be expelled.
But that would make the IWW in effect an anarchist front organization, and the great strength of the IWW
is that it isn't a front for anyone. The association of the IWW with anarchism is due to the compatibility of its aims and methods.
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
David in Atlanta wrote:
... there's never to my knowledge been a ban on iww members being members of any political or anti-political sect they wanted to. There used to be and probably still are... rules limiting wobs being staff/paid officers of such. I can't think of any anarchist groups in the us or uk where that would apply though.That's the way I recall it too. The ban of office bearers etc is/was a practical ban to prevent takeovers, much like the ban against bootleggers being members. One of the crucial distinctions being the IWW and the CNT etc, as I have always understood it is that the IWW doesn't tell you how to relate to the electoral system. If that has been changed I think it is a pity but I don't think it has....
The ban goes both ways doesn't it? Ie members of parties or "anti-political sects" cant be office bearers of the
IWW? That might be more of an inconvenience given the large anarchist membership of the IWW, but it is surely only likely to be a problem where the IWW itself is tiny.
I think someone proposed that once but it didn't fly. Too many people who were capable and willing were members of something or other. fnbrill, you remember that?
If memory serves, the recent ban on party and union officials dates back to the early-mid 1990s. It was proposed by the ASR folks, because the IWW always used to ban political/union officers. Not that it was a problem at the time.
Funny thing though, the IWW used to ban membership for editors of political magazines, but the ASR folks never proposed that... Go figure. 
fnbrill wrote:
If memory serves, the recent ban on party and union officials dates back to the early-mid 1990s. It was proposed by the ASR folks, because the IWW always used to ban political/union officers. Not that it was a problem at the time.Funny thing though, the IWW used to ban membership for editors of political magazines, but the ASR folks never proposed that... Go figure.
Where would that have left Industrial Worker...
without an editor?
Does the IWW define what anti-political sects are? Does this include anarchist organizations? There seems to be a lot of crossover of membership.