Interview with a CNTista

[RednBlack]

Over the summer, Abbey and I spent some time with Madrid's section of the CNT. I ended doing an interview with their corresponding secretary. Very solid, good folks and glad to have met them. The interview is here:

http://ideasandaction.info/2010/08/interview-with-a-cntista/

[booeyschewy]

born again M-Lists are super annoying! It's a similar crass analysis to any partisan who is like the problem is X-ideology (taken in it's worst form) and its inherent to my interpretation of X that X is the problem. Then you cherry pick your history, and paint a picture of your new found ideology as the syllogistic solution and again cherry pick history. It especially helps if you throw in some stuff about race and identity politics.

In general I think these kind of articles illuminate more about the sad state of the left than anything else. Rather than having real material analyses and independent contributions that arise from a praxis of struggle, politics is conducted abstracted from the real forces of our time and look more like an intellectual tennis match than an active engagement. It isn't much of a surprise then that the conclusion of Day's politics is a rightward drift culminating in an alliance with the social-democratic Maoist movement embroiled in NGO money and electoral politics.

[RednBlack]

born again M-Lists are super annoying! It's a similar crass analysis to any partisan who is like the problem is X-ideology (taken in it's worst form) and its inherent to my interpretation of X that X is the problem. Then you cherry pick your history, and paint a picture of your new found ideology as the syllogistic solution and again cherry pick history. It especially helps if you throw in some stuff about race and identity politics.

In general I think these kind of articles illuminate more about the sad state of the left than anything else. Rather than having real material analyses and independent contributions that arise from a praxis of struggle, politics is conducted abstracted from the real forces of our time and look more like an intellectual tennis match than an active engagement. It isn't much of a surprise then that the conclusion of Day's politics is a rightward drift culminating in an alliance with the social-democratic Maoist movement embroiled in NGO money and electoral politics.

Think you might have the wrong thread, comrade. The CNT folks certainly never said anything resembling this commentary!

[jacobian]

Think you might have the wrong thread, comrade. The CNT folks certainly never said anything resembling this commentary!

On the other hand I noticed they couldn't help but take a random swipe at the CGT.  That seems to me to be pretty similar to the general argument of obsessive ideological adherence to abstract principles while cherry picking history.  In general I think a lot of our various sectarian battles are born out of weakness, lack of imagination and lack of success.  I really think that we need to be more experimental, less dogmatic and keep a fuzzy view of history and the future while zeroing in on practicalities as we come closer to the present.

[RednBlack]

In general I think a lot of our various sectarian battles are born out of weakness

It'd be difficult for me to agree with this more. In general, I think we orient ourselves way too much to the Left (or even more bewildering--to other anarchists) and not near enough to the class--well, here in the States anyway, but I do think that's broadly generalizable in some contexts. Seems pretty obvious why, too--other radicals are fairly weak targets compared to the state and capital!

[syndicalist]

I would probably most respectfully disagree with Jacoban.  I think the comrade makes the same error as he believes the CNT comrades does about "sectarian swipes". The CNT and the CGT will never agree to tactics.  The CGT uses elements of state sanctioned workplace machinery, the CNT does not. That said, the CNT uses the capitalist courts and health agencies. So, they both engage in the use of the state on one level or another. I think they sharply disagree in one key area, workplace elections.

Anyway, it's obvious that international anarchist movement  will never agree about who's right or wrong in Spain. So why even bother?

[Briareus]

One thing I was most interested about was their idea of political organization being something involved in State politics, and then it seemed weird how they answered the FAI question. It seems they thought the question meant does the FAI have any official role in the CNT, rather than what role does it play practically as a sister org to the CNT, like how they work together.

Also, the last bit about how they organize: "...one or more workers get together, create a union section and inform the company"

I'm curious to this, what do they mean "inform the company" does that mean tell your boss you are in an anarcho-syndicalist union? That seems real odd to me, wouldn't they just get tossed out the door, like I would if I were to tell my boss I was in the IWW? It seems odd to believe wholeheartedly in class struggle and then also believe in telling your boss, before a shop is fully organized that you are in a union that seeks the full abolition of capitalism just seems counter-intuitive. But then again, maybe the bosses aren't so extreme like they are here?

[clydesider]

The CNT and the CGT will never agree to tactics.  The CGT uses elements of state sanctioned workplace machinery, the CNT does not. That said, the CNT uses the capitalist courts and health agencies. So, they both engage in the use of the state on one level or another.

You could put it like that but, of course, the CGT's strategy is incompatible with genuine direct action and requires that they represent workers and negotiating on their behalf. Their involvement in works councils makes them far more amenable to industrial peace and a reformist force in the workers' movement.

I really think that we need to be more experimental, less dogmatic and keep a fuzzy view of history

I agree that having a fuzzy view of history would be helpful in dumping the most basic of revolutionary principles.

[syndicalist]

Also, the last bit about how they organize: "...one or more workers get together, create a union section and inform the company"

I think what they're saying is, that once they organized a workplace section of the CNT, they tell the boss s/he's now got to deal with the  union section. That's how I read it.

[jacobian]

You could put it like that but, of course, ...

I will put it like that.  What relevance would the CGT be if the CNT didn't have size envy.   Seriously - if the revolutionary programme of the CNT was seriously on, they wouldn't need to swipe that CGT, they'd be too busy making revolution in Spain.

General weakness tends to lead to these sorts of pissing matches.

I agree that having a fuzzy view of history would be helpful in dumping the most basic of revolutionary principles.

History is necessarily fuzzy because it is through the lens of the people who wrote it.  On top of that it doesn't pay to take too narrow a view of a political lineage lest you lose sight of fellow travels.  In addition adherence to  "revolutionary principles" has nothing to to with making revolutions successfully.  Lots of libertarians, maoists and communists have been holding steadfastly to their dogmatic tenants for decades with nothing to show for it.

[cat]

You could put it like that but, of course, the CGT's strategy is incompatible with genuine direct action

okay, then you're going to have to explain the various strikes the CGT has been involved in, such as the recent strike of drivers on RENFE (state railway), or the assembly based series of strikes by the bus drivers in Barcelona in 2006, or the strike at the big Ford Almusafes plant to protest the firing of their union president there, etc.

the CGT delegates on the state-sponsored bargaining councils are often the only ones to vote "no".

[A-train]

You could put it like that but, of course, ...

I will put it like that.  What relevance would the CGT be if the CNT didn't have size envy.   Seriously - if the revolutionary programme of the CNT was seriously on, they wouldn't need to swipe that CGT, they'd be too busy making revolution in Spain.

General weakness tends to lead to these sorts of pissing matches.

I really don't think it is this easy, we see political disagreements on the smallest of scales even amongst class struggle anarchist organizations.  I think all of us take ourselves seriously and building to the point where our politicals and movements were serioiusly on takes enormous capacity.
 
There is a tendency of the left to split over ever disagreement, especially amongst trots, maoist and friends.  I personally think they are so small because they don't organize, they really try to "build the party" like a preacher building a church.  In my opinion, it's not always worthwhile to fracture when our resources and personal are few.  Historically, the CNT has had splits even between "the 30" and their founding of a revolutionary syndicalist union because of the CNT's move towards more radical politics of the FAI. 

I think the question comes down to how do we introduce our politics and methods into our work and unions, which includes the CNT and CGT.  I think there is a serious ongoing question of cooperation with the state legal methods that on one hand can protect and serve workers and the other, fundementally are created to destroy the threat of revolution.  In the U.S, the wagner act and later Taft hartly act did exactly this. 

[clydesider]

You could put it like that but, of course, the CGT's strategy is incompatible with genuine direct action

okay, then you're going to have to explain the various strikes the CGT has been involved in [...]

It's a syndicalist union and one of the better of the mainstream unions in Spain. CGT members themselves aren't necessarily sell-outs or reformists; they can still perform direct action and challenge their union structure etc. But they're not part of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation and their union itself is restrictive.

Seriously - if the revolutionary programme of the CNT was seriously on, they wouldn't need to swipe that CGT, they'd be too busy making revolution in Spain.

They're quite right to 'swipe' at a reformist union calling itself anarcho-syndicalist.  Their members still co-operate all the time and it doesn't impede their own organising.  There's sectarianism and there's real, crucial differences that need to be argued.

Do you think revolutions are made by having the right programme? Or by reeeally putting your energy into it? I've got my own criticisms of the CNT but I happen to think they're pretty sound.  This doesn't mean they're going to make the revolution tomorrow.  But then to reduce organisations' validity to this is simplistic to say the least.

[jacobian]

Do you think revolutions are made by having the right programme? Or by reeeally putting your energy into it?

A bit of both.  This hardly has much to do with the question though.  My point was that if they (CNT/CGT etc.) *had* the right programme, it would become apparent as they manage to become a major force [if any programme can in fact succeed given the objective conditions - if not then any programme is irrelevant].

I've got my own criticisms of the CNT but I happen to think they're pretty sound.  This doesn't mean they're going to make the revolution tomorrow.  But then to reduce organisations' validity to this is simplistic to say the least.

It becomes a swipe pretty much whenever people say lazy things like "reformist".  Unions are based on getting reforms.  They are all reformist.  They are trying to obtain better conditions and wages or at least protect the gains that have been made as a way of uniting workers.  "reformist" is just used as a dirty smear word and is pretty much devoid of content.  The question we want to ask is whether the reformist stance brings us on a trajectory closer to our aims.

I'm all for talking about the details of what might bind one up in relationships with the state that cause pacification or conversely that we can use the existence of the state institutions as a focus on which to bring demands to a larger forum. 

Social partnership in Ireland has caused incredible pacification and I think it's quite clear to anyone whose looking that this is not desirable.  The same can not be said about the affect of the CGT's strategic orientation.  They've had strikes and conflict over the cuts.  If you want to say that their approach is worse than then one taken by the CNT, it's going to take a bit better analysis than socialist curse words.