CNT need support and solidarity

[Bilan]

To send faxes, emails:

Tel: 91 404 82 95
Emergency Phone: 607 36 02 12
Fax: 91 404 50 72
[email protected]
[email protected]
The UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND WOOD of the CNT Madrid on behalf of an injured comrade demands to NOR WELL-SL

-immediate withdrawal of the unjust sanctions imposed

-replacement of wage arrears.

-regularization of all money perceived in black and to br included in his payroll.

-Personal protective equipment for the employees.

-compliance with the agreement of the sector in the allocation of work clothes. (4 months each clothing and shoes every 6 months.)
-Provide all the elements of collective protection.

-adjusting guards in relation to breaks following the current legislation. (24 hours on duty must involve 12 hours of rest regardless of whether or not there is any intervention.)

-PLUS PAYMENT OF NIGHT SHIFTS.

-OFFICIAL PERMISSION FOR ACCESS TO CONFINED AREAS.

STOP WORK HARASSMENT IN WELL-NOR S.L.
MORE RESPECT FOR THE WORKER.

[Devrim]

I never quite understand why anarchists, for all of their talk of direct action, end up asking people to send faxs and e-mails complaining to employers.

Devrim

[Colonello Buendia]

because most of us can't be there in person, I'm sure the CNT are doing direct action on the ground. but most of us can't go all the way to Spain

[Devrim]

But what on earth is it supposed to do? I am well aware that I can not show practical solidarity with every small strike in the world. Is this sort of thing meant to be to alleviate people's consciences or does it have a practical application.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

im suprised how good at attacking the policies other ideologies ICC members are,#
if they had any policies themselves i would defo consider joining them

[Devrim]

It is very easy to attack the policies of others. The point is though to ask questions that make people think, think about what they are doing, and whether the way they have always done things is the best way to go about them.

So I am asking what is the point of this. I haven't seen an answer yet.

Devrim

[Pogue]

This is good - in fighting and crticising is precisely what has got the socialist movement so far in the last century. Keep it up lads.

[Devrim]

This is good - in fighting and crticising is precisely what has got the socialist movement so far in the last century. Keep it up lads.

Are you going to explain what the point of this activity is, or are you just going to make inane comments?

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

the race to the bottom in pettiness is really taking off.

[Holden Caulfield]

Are you going to explain what the point of this activity is, or are you just going to make inane comments?

inane comments


the race to the bottom in pettiness is really taking off.i win

[chimx]

end up asking people to send faxs and e-mails complaining to employers.

I imagine the idea is to put international pressure on the company, which could have a small effect depending on the nature of the company and if a healthy national or international image is seen as beneficial by the employers.

The same can be said for faxes and emails to foreign governments. That is how Amnesty International has done some good things.

And of course, emailing the unions with messages of solidarity is always a good morale booster for workers going through hard times.

To ask you a question, what do you see as being negative about this kind of activity?

[Devrim]

I imagine the idea is to put international pressure on the company, which could have a small effect depending on the nature of the company and if a healthy national or international image is seen as beneficial by the employers.

As it is the Construction union, I would imagine in this case that the company is a builder. I would say its international image probably means nothing to it.


The same can be said for faxes and emails to foreign governments. That is how Amnesty International has done some good things.

I don't think that they have raised working class living standards (not that they claim to). I don't think that sending messages to governments can do that.


And of course, emailing the unions with messages of solidarity is always a good morale booster for workers going through hard times.

This argument has more of a point. It is not what the discussion is about though. I can understand people sending messages of solidarity to striking workers.

I must say though in all the strikes I have been involved in, including national ones involving hundreds of thousands of workers, I have never seen a message of solidarity. Maybe nobody ever sent them to us. Maybe the union officials never bothered to read them out. I don't know.


To ask you a question, what do you see as being negative about this kind of activity?

I see it as negative in that it makes people think that they are doing something when they are doing nothing. It is not a terrible thing to write an e-mail complaining to a company. However, it is something that I imagine outraged liberals doing rather than revolutionary anarchists.

On a more important note. I think that one of the lessons that the working class needs to learn is that despite what the media seems to say public opinion doesn't, in general, win strikes. Economic power does.

Revolutionaries should know this.

So in my opinion the worse effect of things like this is on the workers involved in a dispute. It convinces them that they are doing something to win, and there can act as an obstacle to discussing what really needs to be done.

A good well known historical example would be the NI strike in the UK in the late 80s. What was needed at the time was a generalisation of the strike to Fleet Street. The union argued against this, and directly opposed its public opinion campaign to this strategy. The workers lost.

The best way to win strikes is to call directly for the solidarity of other groups of workers. The way to win struggles is to extend them. This means workers going directly to other workplaces to talk to other workers and ask for their solidarity, flying pickets.

The feelings of solidarity that somebody on the other side of the world may have are not going to win struggles.

Devrim

[chimx]

The feelings of solidarity that somebody on the other side of the world may have are not going to win struggles.

I certainly agree with that. My opinion is that is simply couldn't hurt. Honestly what I think is more effective is mailing local papers and such in that area and writing letters of disgust about an employers union practices.

Winning the publicity battle is an important factor that I think is often overlooked. You want to make the employer look shitty, and do outreach to workers.

[Devrim]

I don't agree at all. I think that the 'publicity battle' is overemphasised. I think that the whole concept of public opinion is used against striking workers to make them feel isolated.

Really it doesn't matter what the 'public' thinks. When the media informs us that public opinion is against a strike, should we be really surprised? The middle class oppose workers' power. It is not really big news is it. Despite the relative numerical smallness of the middle classes, they do punch above their weight in certain areas, the formation of public opinion being one of them.

The thing to do is to reach out to other workers as workers, not as individual citizens reading a bourgeois newspaper. That means sending delegations of striking workers to other workplaces. If writing letters to newspapers in any way obscure this neccesity, then it is an obstacle to class struggle.

Devrim

[chimx]

I think that the whole concept of public opinion is used against striking workers to make them feel isolated

Well I just disagree. I think it's important that in this day and age with such lower class consciousness to publicize class struggle efforts whenever possible so that it is giving other working people's talking points, i.e.: making strikes something that is being discussed on the lunch break or at the water cooler. It would be nice if we had the kind of grassroots solidarity and networking delegates that you're talking about, but I think we have to be honest with ourselves and realize that we just aren't there yet.

[Colonello Buendia]

even if it serves to annoy the bosses I think it's not an entirely wasted endeavour. I would send messages to them because participating in a street action is impossible for me. It may not do alot but I can't do alot anyway so anything is better than nothing

[Bilan]

I more posted this so people would be aware of the situation in Spain.

[Devrim]

Well I just disagree. I think it's important that in this day and age with such lower class consciousness to publicize class struggle efforts whenever possible so that it is giving other working people's talking points, i.e.: making strikes something that is being discussed on the lunch break or at the water cooler.

And you are going to change this by writing letters to newspapers? Strikes dominate discussion when they are big powerful strikes. The strikes that have been discussed at my work in the last year were the three most important ones.


It would be nice if we had the kind of grassroots solidarity and networking delegates that you're talking about, but I think we have to be honest with ourselves and realize that we just aren't there yet.

But I am not talking about 'networking delegates'. I am talking about workers sending delegations directly to other work places. It doesn't need any 'networking'. You take a group of you and go to some other workplace. What it does need is the consciousness of the striking workers that this is a necessary step.


even if it serves to annoy the bosses I think it's not an entirely wasted endeavour.

Why on Earth would it annoy the bosses? It might annoy some secretaries but I don't imagine it will annoy the bosses.


I more posted this so people would be aware of the situation in Spain.

It is not the situation in Spain though is it. It is the situation in one company in Spain. It doesn't even tell us much about that company. Is there a strike there even (it doesn't sound like it), or is their whole campaign based around people complaining to the bosses.

Devrim

[chimx]

And you are going to change this by writing letters to newspapers? Strikes dominate discussion when they are big powerful strikes. The strikes that have been discussed at my work in the last year were the three most important ones.

I'm not. I have better things to do with my time, but if other people want to then good for them.

Strikes often span over many weeks or months and it is good to keep discussion going. Often there will be discussion at the onset, but not a month and a half deep into it. Out of sight, out of mind... It's a way to keep things in sight, just as sending delegates to other shops is.

[Trystan]

I can't believe that an actual argument is breaking out over this. Wow.

[Devrim]

I can't believe that an actual argument is breaking out over this. Wow.

I think it is a really important discussion.


Strikes often span over many weeks or months and it is good to keep discussion going. Often there will be discussion at the onset, but not a month and a half deep into it. Out of sight, out of mind... It's a way to keep things in sight, just as sending delegates to other shops is.

I think that you have misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I expressed it badly. The point of sending people to other shops is not some sort of information giving mission, but to bring them out on strike.

Devrim

[chimx]

The point of sending people to other shops is not some sort of information giving mission, but to bring them out on strike.

That is something that can be very difficult for unions as many collectively bargained contracts have protocols for striking that legally make wildcat strikes non-existent. What you are suggesting puts workers at risk of loosing their union, loosing the gains they made in their contracts, and loosing their jobs.

I'm not opposed to wild cat strikes, but I think that the workers movement, at least here in the US, is not organized enough to do what you are suggesting.

[PRC-UTE]

That is something that can be very difficult for unions as many collectively bargained contracts have protocols for striking that legally make wildcat strikes non-existent. What you are suggesting puts workers at risk of loosing their union, loosing the gains they made in their contracts, and loosing their jobs.

I'm not opposed to wild cat strikes, but I think that the workers movement, at least here in the US, is not organized enough to do what you are suggesting.

It's better to uphold far leftist principles workers aren't even aware of then to keep workers organisations intact, let alone win any actual battles (sarcasm, I'm agreeing with you)

[Devrim]

That is something that can be very difficult for unions as many collectively bargained contracts have protocols for striking that legally make wildcat strikes non-existent. What you are suggesting puts workers at risk of loosing their union, loosing the gains they made in their contracts, and loosing their jobs.

I'm not opposed to wild cat strikes, but I think that the workers movement, at least here in the US, is not organized enough to do what you are suggesting.

It is something that can't be done through the unions. In fact it is something that has to be done against the unions. There may have been times when the mass strike has ended up organising unions, but the unions will not organise the mass strike.

It is not a question of 'the workers movement being organised enough to do these things'. It won't. They are things that workers have to do themselves.


It's better to uphold far leftist principles workers aren't even aware of then to keep workers organisations intact, let alone win any actual battles (sarcasm, I'm agreeing with you)

It is not about upholding principles. It is about discussing what needs to be done to win strikes.

Devrim

[Herman]

It surprises me that the CNT gives some leverage to the bosses. I might've believed that the CGT would do that, but not the CNT which is more radical. I mean, those demands look exactly the same as the demands a social-democratic trade union would make.

[chimx]

It is something that can't be done through the unions. In fact it is something that has to be done against the unions. There may have been times when the mass strike has ended up organising unions, but the unions will not organise the mass strike.

It is not a question of 'the workers movement being organised enough to do these things'. It won't. They are things that workers have to do themselves.

Well first of all, I disagree about your reading of union history. Unions most certainly have organized workers and called for mass strikes. Usually when this happens it is from the bottom up when workers reclaim the organs of the trade union from the bureaucracy, but it still has occurred from within the framework of the union.

Second, worker consciousness is not nearly developed enough in the United States IMO.

[Devrim]

Please give an example, say since the Second World War of unions organising the mass strike.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is something that can't be done through the unions. In fact it is something that has to be done against the unions. There may have been times when the mass strike has ended up organising unions, but the unions will not organise the mass strike.

It is something that can be done through orange (class-strugglist) or red unions, which can organize mass strikes.


It is not a question of 'the workers movement being organised enough to do these things'. It won't. They are things that workers have to do themselves.

All you left-communists do is "agitate" and "educate," as opposed to ORGANIZE (Wilhelm Liebknecht). :(

Workers doing this spontaneously means low levels of organization. Without HIGH levels of organization provided by CLASS PARTIES, the class CANNOT emancipate itself.


It is not about upholding principles. It is about discussing what needs to be done to win strikes.

Devrim

Sure. :rolleyes:

[chimx]

Please give an example, say since the Second World War of unions organising the mass strike.

Devrim

Most recently Korean unions come to mind, such as the 1996 general strike:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996-1997_strikes_in_South_Korea

If you're looking for American examples, you won't find any after WWII for obvious reasons. The rise of the American economy in the 50s and 60s led to the idea of partnership between unions and employers. This model became so ingrained with many organizers that they didn't know what hit them when industry was sent over seas a in the 70s and 80s.

But if you want examples from the 30s of unions calling for this, I would be more than happy to oblige. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Please give an example, say since the Second World War of unions organising the mass strike.

Dominican Republic shaken by general strike (http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/dominicanrepublic.html)

[Devrim]

Dominican Republic shaken by general strike (http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/dominicanrepublic.html)

A 48 hour general strike is not a mass strike.


Most recently Korean unions come to mind, such as the 1996 general strike:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996-1997_strikes_in_South_Korea

I think that this case proves my point. There was a one day general strike called for by the trade unions, but it only developed into the mass strike when workers took their own initiative. It was not the unions who brought in other sectors, or extended the strike.

Devrim

[Bilan]

A 48 hour general strike is not a mass strike.
Devrim

I don't follow: What is the difference between a mass strike and a general strike?

[Devrim]

I don't follow: What is the difference between a mass strike and a general strike?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm

Devrim

[chimx]

I think that this case proves my point. There was a one day general strike called for by the trade unions, but it only developed into the mass strike when workers took their own initiative. It was not the unions who brought in other sectors, or extended the strike.

I don't think that is an honest interpretation Devrim. The FKTU was essentially a yellow union that was created by the military in 1961 following the coup d'etat of Park Chung Hee. But as the country liberalized workers were able to reclaim this union, and in 1996 the union called on well over a million workers to go on strike.

After the union initiated the general strike. other trades that hadn't been associated with the FKTU also began to participate, which was great to see that kind of momentum grow -- but the FKTU's call for the general strike certainly acted as a catalyst.

[Devrim]

Did the union call an unlimited strike or a limited one day action?

Devrim

[chimx]

No, I don't believe it was a 1 day strike (although I'm not sure actually if it was unlimited. I had assumed until the government repealed the legislation at hand). The general strike was actually originally called for by the KCTU, another union federation, and the FKTU pushed for a general strike with them shortly there after. The issue was anti-labor legislation.

[Devrim]

I am quite sure. I remember it happening. They organised a one day strike, and then it got out of control.

Please, find an example.

Devrim

[chimx]

Are you sure that you aren't thinking of another call for a general strike in Korea?

[Pogue]

Can someone make it clear excactly what they want us to do, so I can do it? Anything to help my comrades in the CNT, a truley brilliant organisation both historically and in the present day.

[zimmerwald1915]

It is something that can be done through orange (class-strugglist) or red unions, which can organize mass strikes.
Your thinking is muddled in that your sentence has two objects. In the first part of your sentence, cross-workplace contacts have to be made "through" unions, implying that the subject is something other than the union. Perhaps it is a group of workers. It's not specified. In the second part of your sentence, the unions themselves become subjects, organizing mass strikes. Which is it? Do the peculiar structures of "orange" or "red" unions make it possible for workers to organize themselves across workplace lines, or do the unions themselves do this as subjects?

I would argue that even the most "red" unions are hostile to anyone attempting to usurp their control over "their" workers in "their" workplace, and that no union acts as a subject. Basically, workers have to organize themselves against and in spite of all unions.


All you left-communists do is "agitate" and "educate," as opposed to ORGANIZE (Wilhelm Liebknecht). :(

Workers doing this spontaneously means low levels of organization. Without HIGH levels of organization provided by CLASS PARTIES, the class CANNOT emancipate itself.
Class parties emerge out of the experience of the class itself. Artificially created "parties"--which go in quotes because they do not deserve the label--are degenerate from the start even with the most advanced class positions (the PCd'I is a fair example). There is no organization without the practical political experience of the class to bolster it, and while revolutionary groups may exist, without the class moving to an advanced state, they cannot develop into a party.

Obviously the situation is more complex than that, particularly as there is a dialectical relationship between groups and class where the group intervenes in the class (educates and advocates) so that the class can organize itself better while the experience of the class weighs on the group so that it can test its positions and develop practically and theoretically, but the underlying point is the same: there is no party without the prior development of class consciousness.

[Pogue]

Can someone make it clear excactly what they want us to do, so I can do it? Anything to help my comrades in the CNT, a truley brilliant organisation both historically and in the present day.

This.

[chimx]

??? you're quoting yourself?

[zimmerwald1915]

I think it's so his comment doesn't get lost on the previous page. I think I might start doing that myself :D

[Lamanov]

It surprises me that the CNT gives some leverage to the bosses. I might've believed that the CGT would do that, but not the CNT which is more radical. I mean, those demands look exactly the same as the demands a social-democratic trade union would make.

Ehm? It's just a struggle for better conditions. A workplace quarrel. Those demands reflect that. I don't see any class collaboration or anything like that.

P.S.

Devrim, I believe that sending letters to employers has psychological effect; they might be more willing to back down; and it's not "complaining", it's more like demanding what fellow workers demand.

Or, better yet, threats are issued if they could be upheld - that has an actual practical implication.

[Devrim]

Devrim, I believe that sending letters to employers has psychological effect; they might be more willing to back down; and it's not "complaining", it's more like demanding what fellow workers demand.

Well, I don't agree, but at least it is an argument for doing it.

Devrim

[Junius]

I'm willing to bet that if they aren't concerned with paying wages in arrears and providing personal protective equipment, that employers will not be too concerned over a fax that they will probably never hear of, lest of all read.