News briefs

[sabotabby]

Shorter Hugo Chavez:

"From Chavez's ongoing speech upon the inauguration of new ministers: Apparently, when he called Jose Ramon Rivero to ask him to become the new minister of labour, Rivero said, you know, president, I am a Trotskyist.

Chavez's response: What does it matter? I am a Trotskyist-- - I believe in permanent revolution!" (Hat tip: ARA mailing list.)

In other sectarian news, the IWW resolution to adhere to the Sixth Declaration of the Lacondon Jungle failed by a narrow margin. That's just embarrassing. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter all that much, given how small the Wobblies are, but it means that the organization that I'm part of and that I identify with the most, ideologically speaking, does not have its head screwed on straight at the moment.

Oh yes, and one other little thing. The U.S. just murdered 31 Somali civilians and hardly anyone's said a peep about it. (Hat tip: douglain.)

Comments

[jhfurnish.livejournal.com]

Is Alexis Bus still the Secretary General? What is Jon Bekken doing in the IWW presently? Any news?

Why would a resolution like that fail, anyway? Anything supporting the ecology is good. Do people just not care?

[sabotabby]

Alexis resigned; the new General Secretary is Mark Damron. There are new editors for the paper, too. Bekken is still around, but I don't know much about what the Philly branch is up to.

Why would a resolution like that fail, anyway? Anything supporting the ecology is good. Do people just not care?

Oh, don't get me started. A resolution like that should be a no-brainer. There were some issues around the translation (two different translations were circulated) and process, but those were trivial. Basically, there's a tendency in the union that for some reason wants to make it the Industrial Workers of America and is being idiotic with regards to international solidarity. I just don't get it.

[jhfurnish.livejournal.com]

There probably needs to be a split, but with the present numbers, that's no good either. I'd say that the IWW may not be long for this earth.

I think that it's too late in the game for the concepts of the IWW to work - in the present environment, capitalism is far too powerful and the population far too meek to educate sufficiently to bring down the system. In the short term, we're fucked. However, if there is some way we can accelerate the crash of the system so we can pick up the pieces, we may have a chance. This is my present philosophy.

This is not to say that the IWW is wrong, or that it ever was. It was certainly right before the present situation arose. It had an intelligent, workable solution: the problem that stopped it in its tracks is that the American People are stupid, and don't have the political will to effect that solution. Anarchy, in any form, requires an intelligent, self-educating populace - which the IWW requires its members to be, wisely. Sadly, this is far too much to ask from Americans. That's the real reason why the IWW is unlikely to be successful.

I thank the Wobblies, nonetheless, for bringing me into the Left and for teaching me so much. Without them, I'd still be intellectually and spiritually tracked by the Boss. I can't imagine what else could've brought me here.

[sabotabby]

Well, we've made it through 101 years, and it rises and falls. I think there's a clash between people who were around before the recent surge of interest and have a lot emotionally invested in the Wobblies As Leftist Historical Club vs. young people who might not have a lot of organizing experience but want to use the fluid structure of the organization to get shit done. To make things work, we need both organizers and policy wonks, but there has to be some kind of balance.

Whenever I think that the American people can't make positive and progressive changes, I think back to last May Day and the walk-outs and massive rallies. There's political will, and educated communities, but it's largely under the radar.

[aaronfreed.livejournal.com]

The mainstream media just don't give a shit.

Well, actually, that's not really accurate. I'm more inclined to think their corporate overlords feel threatened by any sign of a discontented populace, and so do everything they can to pretend it doesn't exist.

[sabotabby]

The mainstream media don't give a shit, but that's no excuse for us to not notice.

[jhfurnish.livejournal.com]

When I was still in the IWW, the raging battle was all about Lifestyle Wobs vs Activist Wobs. Lifestyle Wobblies were about the trappings of anarchism and about lifestyle/orientation/cause issues, while Activist Wobs were more about organizing and 'getting shit done'. Lifestylists often scorned going to meeting, settling for paying dues.

Perhaps there's still some time, but it's getting easier for Them to track what we do and who we are. I think the clock's ticking.

[sabotabby]

I think there's also a divide, and somewhat of an unfair one, between Wobs who think that the main task should be organizing job shops and Wobs who think that we need to get more engaged in broader working class and international solidarity struggles. I say it's an unfair divide because both are important, and part of what ought to make the union unique.

[jhfurnish.livejournal.com]

I think the IWW needs to redefine itself in a major way. In its present form, it has become, effectively, a clearinghouse for Left teaching and communication. It's also something of an entry-level point for new Leftists (I know). However, this was said of the IWW by the people who recruited me, in 1995.

[jenlight.livejournal.com]

What does "independently verified" mean?

[sabotabby]

The report came from black people, therefore it doesn't count to the American media?

[r1vethead.livejournal.com]

actually im against the sixth declaration of the selva lacandon. I think the Zapatistas are persuing a path that leads to social-democracy.

[sabotabby]

They may very well be, although I didn't get that from reading it. But even so, it's their decision to make. They've asked for our solidarity, and we lose nothing by giving it.

[r1vethead.livejournal.com]

true dat.

but what practically solidarity can the IWW afford anyone at this point?

essentially it is an internally divided organization, struggling to represent a very small number of workers as a union [the BCGEU union local I sit on the executive of has 5000 members alone], and at the same t9ime preserve a membnership that is largely composed of loosely-united labour and community radicals. The IWW has in many ways taken on the form of a nostalgia cult -- although it's primary use is as a rallying point for like-minded radicals, but their common work is often hlated by the lack of a program or common strategy, aside from pretending to be an industrial union.

[sabotabby]

but what practically solidarity can the IWW afford anyone at this point?

Practically? Only on a local level, and to some degree through building links with larger industrial unions in other countries. But that shouldn't stop us from at least making the token gesture with the hopes that the IWW will grow enough to actually do something useful.

[r1vethead.livejournal.com]

I think the IWW has a lot of potential as a network of labour activists that are connected together alone some common principles, but I think it would be a mistake to conflate them with real industrial unions in other countries. And I think that the IWW mistaking itself for an industrial union, instead of fessing up to what it really is, is something really holding them back. I think they would meet with much more success if they acknowledged they weren't an industrial union.

[culpster.livejournal.com]

I found a wob board that suggested that the resolution conflicted with the 'nothing in common' preamble line. I have this thread to credit for me finally passing my eyes over the declaration, and I couldn't see how this was the case. But I could be wrong, I DID get hippie-squirmy on some of the language, which is my prejudice no doubt. Insights welcome.

But another thing. I (as a non-IWW member) have sometimes read the line in question to mean 'nothing in common' as in 'the common wealth,' more or less simply meaning that rich people do not share property with poor people, not that they share no absolute interests or common characteristics. Gloriously malleable, at least. A declaration that 'the ruling class has toenails' could be defeated on the same basis. Anyone?

I can imagine really dreading a meeting where someone started thumping the bible like that.

What would passing it have meant in concrete terms?

[sabotabby]

But another thing. I (as a non-IWW member) have sometimes read the line in question to mean 'nothing in common' as in 'the common wealth,' more or less simply meaning that rich people do not share property with poor people, not that they share no absolute interests or common characteristics. Gloriously malleable, at least. A declaration that 'the ruling class has toenails' could be defeated on the same basis. Anyone?

Thank you. The "nothing in common" has to do with economic interests—basically that the structure of capitalism is such that workers' economic well-being and employers' profits are in conflict. Because, hell, my boss and I both like reading science fiction. And to be less flippant about it, there are cross-class interests that can happen (I am starting to sound like a Maoist), although it's right to understand the limits of such allegiances and to be critical of them.

What would passing it have meant in concrete terms?

Nothing at present, which is why I haven't quit in disgust over that and the other nasty international issue, which was the failure of the IWW to pass a resolution condemning Israel's bombing of Lebanon and Gaza.

[lovableatheist.livejournal.com]

will you be taking part in the super-ultra-fantastic wobbly gathering?

[sabotabby]

HELL YEAH. Not only will it be super-ultra-fantastic, but it's the kind of thing that's crucial to putting the W back in IWW.

[5-miles.livejournal.com]

I think a portion of the negative reaction to this resolution was the circumstances surrounding its mail out. Apparently a large number of copies of the resolution were mailed out with a portion missing. If it was missing on purpose or if what was missing was considered offensive and not conducive to getting the resolution passed, I'm not sure. I have heard some speculation to that effect, but I am not sure what to believe.

[sabotabby]

That's what I heard too. But if it has to do with mailing, then the results of the election as a whole ought to be thrown out. FWs in my branch didn't get ballots, despite me e-mailing and snail-mailing GHQ repeatedly.

[5-miles.livejournal.com]

gee, that sounds familiar. So annoying, how are we going to win the class war when we can't even got our mailers out on time?

[roter-terror.livejournal.com]

What were the reasons for rejecting it?

[sabotabby]

Well, it was a vote, so I can only speculate as to the reasons. 5_miles brought up issues around the mailing, and I also heard there were issues around translation, but those objections seem a bit trivial. Maybe the vote should have been deferred or something, but I can't see the ideological reasons for rejecting it.

[khalinche.livejournal.com]

Chavez also just nationalised the media and when the secretary general of the Organisation of Aemrican States questioned the decision Chavez called him 'un pendejo desde la p hasta la o' 'an arsehole from the a to the e'. It seems like all the embarrassing things other politicians say when they think the mic isn't picking them up ("major league asshole"), Chavez just says outright.

*sulks a bit that you never commented when I wrote about hearing Chavez speak and being in a riot*

[sabotabby]

I do suck, yes. I've only been intermittently reading my friends page, and I missed the post. Having read it now, AWESOME.

I kinda love that Chavez doesn't censor himself at all.

[jhfurnish.livejournal.com]

Chavez: a leader with spine AND a triple-digit IQ.

Why can't we have someone like this? Because the 'handler' types don't let anybody get that close to power...

Shit.

[dobrovolets.livejournal.com]

The evening newscast on France 2, which I watch, said 20 civilians. Either way, horrid. Contrasting that with the non-coverage in the U.S. media gave me that warm fuzzy feeling of being propagandized.

When I read the news about Chávez, I thought, "Great. After 40 something years of Fidel discrediting 'Marxism-Leninism' in Latin America, now we're going to have Chávez discrediting 'Trotskyism'. I may have to find something different to call myself."

[sabotabby]

Today, the Globe and Mail said that U.S. estimates were five to 10. I doubt it.

I suspect that Chavez was kidding about the Trotskyite thing. It made the local ARA list (divided between Trots, undefined commies, Stalinists, and yours truly) go totally apeshit, though.

[r1vethead.livejournal.com]

I don't know why people are bitching about Chavez. I don't think the Venezuelan model of "socialism" is perfect or something that should or even could be realistically emulated, or something that people are striving for, but i will say this:

Venezuela is the last country in the hemisphere that should come under criticism.

If you look at the life expectancy, literacy, and so on, Venezuela and Cuba stand out way above everyone else, and in Venezuela that's a huge change in a short period of time. I support what Chavez is doing because it's having a real impact on people's lives in the here and now.

I think it's important to critically analyze what's going down in Venezuela and do understand the particular context in which things are taking place, but at the same time every other country in latin america is far more deserving of criticism.

Chavez is creating a lot of space for socialism. When the ambassador from Venezuela came to a university here, he gave huge props to the international shock battallion of CNT/FAI militias during the Spanish Civil War. In Venezuela, Chavez is allowing factory occupations and has setup a long term program of encouraging dual power formations through popular general assemblies in the working class neighbourhoods.

When Chavez says stuff like "I'm a trot" i don't take it literally - he's building a broad tent, and he's worknig the geostrategy. They know they have to unite as broad a force of latin americans as possible to create something of a pan-latin american coalition that can begin to take on US imperialism and the Monroe doctrine - that's what they're doing, and that's why Chavez will work with Uribe, even though with the same breath he supports the FARC.

As far as I'm concerned the "anarchists" in groups like El Libertario in Venezuela are complete enemies of the people.

[sabotabby]

I think it's very good and healthy that the left criticizes its own. A lot of my friends, communists and anarchists alike, don't seem to think that Chavez is going far or fast enough. But I am so, so sick of leftist puritanicalism. Venezuela is better off than it was before. If someone more radical emerges, great. Bashing the guy because he's not doing things the way North American leftists wants them done just gives me a headache.

[r1vethead.livejournal.com]

yeah, I also agree that a certain type of critcism is really important, even of more progressive projects, but it's important to contextualize and measure it.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

...the organization that I'm part of and that I identify with the most, ideologically speaking, does not have its head screwed on straight at the moment.

Speaking of which, I still have no idea what's up with my membership. It really shouldn't take this long to sort out, methinks.

[sabotabby]

Holy crap. I <3 Damron and everything, but GHQ is ridiculously disorganized and we're probably losing members--not to mention internal union democracy--because of it.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not sure what I should do about it. I've already bugged you and GHQ about it enough, I think.

[sabotabby]

Well, you can keep bugging GHQ. All I can do is re-sign you up, which I'm happy to do but doesn't solve the problem of GHQ being totally disorganized.