this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
34 points (92.5% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
12 readers
1 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This could be of use: https://www.plutobooks.com/blog/wobblies-radical-world-history-iww/
Thank you! See? This is all I wanted, it’s all I ever wanted; just a link or even a title plus the author would’ve been fine. This is the only place I can ever get information without judgement or vitriol.
You're welcome. Hopefully it's helpful! It says something about the Wobblies/IWW, at least. If it doesn't help, there's this, too: https://libcom.org/article/syndicalism-introduction – can't say I know too much about this org. Both links are a little obscure, though, as it's not clear to me from either source what ideology underpins the org.
The IWW website says they accept all 'workers' but no employers; which makes some sense but creates a theoretical problem e.g. for: workers who are also managers; employers who work alongside their employees and are sub-contracting off the real 'not-employer employers'; and 'workers' who run/manage temp agencies or sub-contracting firms. The internationalism suggests it's a Trotskyist org but that doesn't really align with these three example problems as I'd expect Trotskyists to have a more nuanced concept of class. Which suggests instead that it's anarchist. According to the second link (the first one in this comment), the IWW represents 'Industrial Unionism', which is related but different to anarchy-syndicalism. Who ever said the left is divided? On top of that, the IWW is a union in the sense that it does not dictate a political line; all workers are welcome (subject to the above contradictions, which I have no idea how it resolves).
With this brief understanding, I can see how the IWW or its members could get embroiled in tricky situations, such as protecting reactionaries (although I wouldn't want to guess and I'm not certain that it was the IWW who was accused of supporting cultural conservatives in your example).
It would be a lot easier if everyone who cared about life on planet earth just became an ML. Far less confusing, for a start, and they might be more effective.
Yeah, see that’s why I asked them if they had an article or book about that specific scenario, but instead of giving me the information they decided to be a dick about it and say I can’t read because I’m an anarchist sock puppet. They mentioned the IWW in terms of them never being able to unionize a Starbucks compared to the amount of change the Chinese Communists made. So maybe their “anarchists protecting cultural conservatives” wasn’t about the IWW, and it probably wasn’t but that just confuses me even more.