the opposition probably came from the remaining socialist party people in the IWW. the only reference to anything related to religion in the IWA principles are an opposition to the "centralism of the state and church." the idea that the IWW could declare for revolution and not be "political" is a very peculiar notion.
IWW and IWA
Is there not some where in IWA material that professes atheism? I think I read it sometime ago, but I could be totally wrong on this. There is a fairly decent article in a back issues of Anarcho-Syndicalist Review discussing the IWW's relations with various internationals. You might be able to find it on their website.
Folks, before everyone gets hot and bothered about this, the basis for the Fred Thompson resolution on the IWA are based on the following portions of the IWA Statutes.
I haven't had a chance to look at my 1933 edition of the Statutes. This is based on the current Statutes. If memory serves me correctly, these sentences are pretty much the same as the historical ones in question.
There were two (2) points in the IWA Statutes which allowed the non-anarcho-wobblies to call for a re-vote on IWA affiliation.
On the so-called declaring a members religion:
"4.- Revolutionary unionism is opposed to all organizational tendencies inspired by the centralism of State and Church, because these can only serve to prolong the survival of the State and authority and to systematically stifle the spirit of initiative and the independence of thought"
On the matter of committing the IWW and its members to an ideology:
"11.- Only in the economic and revolutionary organizations of the working class are there forces capable of bringing about its liberation and the necessary creative energy for the reorganization of society on the basis of libertarian communism."
II THE PRINCIPLES OF REVOLUTIONARY UNIONISM
http://www.iwa-ait.org/statutes.html
pghwob wrote:
And yes, Thompson was a socialist.
I think left Social-Democrat would be a more precise description.
The entire affiliation with the IWA issue iin the 1930s is proof of my thesis that a major weakness in the IWW is a lack of organized discussion/debate/decision about organisational direction. The Maritime Workers IU of the IWW joined the IWA, then the entire IWW did, then it was observed that the principles of the IWA contradicted the IWWss and we witdrew.
That's pretty sloppy decionmaking.
Just flipping through my copy of The Industrial Workers of the World: Its First 100 Years By Thompson and Bekken, and came across its sole mention of the IWA, where it says
What the heck does "declaring for its members" mean? I don't have any particular interest in the current IWW formally affiliating with any of the other syndicalist unions around the world, so much as I'm just curious about the reasons for not doing so.