Leafing through the archives, we found this text published in the
CNT-AIT newspaper, Le Combat syndicaliste, n°134 of July 1955, but which
still seems very relevant to us! ---- The division born from two
tendencies which clash in the congresses and assemblies of the CNT comes
from the fact that, for some, so-called revolutionary trade unionism
must be and remain neutral of any philosophy or economic system: it is
sufficient to himself, they say; for others, classic unionism having as
its emblem the charter of Amiens cannot lead to social transformation
without privilege, it is necessary to give men the philosophical and
social economic principles of anarchism, without which society would
inevitably fall back under the authority of a party.
I am one of those who espouse this latter way of seeing, rejecting the
Charter of Paris (a sort of improved Charter of Amiens adopted at the
Congress creating the CNT in 1946), as well as the current structure of
the CNT, revealing itself to be the faithful continuation of the old
CGT[from the 1900s]. Will the first way of seeing have the same fate as
the second? Or will the anarcho-syndicalists react against this union
neutrality in order to restore an emancipatory character to the CNT?
The anarchist ideal must be the driving force of the CNT, without which
it would have no meaning and would be hardly better than the other
centrals; neutralism is not enough, it is a question of knowing what we
want and whether or not we are moving towards what we want.
Will we work alongside activists whose only motive for action is their
wallets, ready to make concessions for units that relegate our
principles and make us something other than bastard revolutionaries
without convictions?
Will we accept that the structure of the CNT is still federation
corporatism, while we advocate economic equality and thus divided in
action, we go against what we proclaim in our declarations? Will we keep
for a long time this structure which lets each federation title its own
demands, draw up its own leaflets, organize in a word its federal,
compartmentalized union work, pumping a good number of activists into
the office, etc.? So much time, money and physical expenditure absorbed
by this disappointing system. We must immediately shake up this routine
and come strictly to the local, departmental unions, leaving the
industry federations in the shadows until after the social revolution.
Do our present demands live up to what we claim to be? Do they
correspond to reality? No. We set a minimum subsistence level of 35,000
francs and are only ahead of other centers on this point; can we
honestly believe that an average family of three can live on this
amount? Considering that living in this century means being able to
access the benefits of modernism in the home, or would our struggles be
limited only to subsistence?
Can we follow the activists advising our participation in organizations
such as works councils, even for tactical reasons, since we know that
inevitably, this would mean collaborating directly with our enemies,
whether they are bosses or workers, and working together to consolidate
the operation?
Should the possibility of becoming a staff representative in a company
encourage us to be elected for reasons of impunity and comfort in action
alone; because, in fact, what is our power once elected: to defend the
legality of collective agreements, to demand, for those who work
excessive overtime, that these hours be well paid; take an interest in
the boss's loyal employees who are exploited like no other, but who
never strike and come to work during; take care of a lot of little
things, showers, toilets, sinks, etc., ultimately a lot of wind for not
much; our position must be clear on this subject (non-participation),
delegates on the job[during a strike and designated by the assembly of
strikers], yes, and for the duration of the engaged struggle only.
It is time to become serious about our orientation, our structure, our
Charter, we have to clarify what we must really be (anarchosyndicalists)
with all that that entails, and not revolutionary syndicalists without
baggage, without definition, we we will also avoid the regrettable
confusion which allows a good number of Marxists and neo-Marxists
(revolutionaries, too) to come and cause trouble in our organization; we
will also prevent pure syndicalists from wasting their time among us,
who have chosen anarchism as a system of existence.
Let the activists of the CNT understand all this and work accordingly,
shouting matches and fist fights do not improve an inevitable situation
permitted by a Charter which is not at all clear. It would be good to
take an example from the organization of the FORA, which seems to me of
certain value in terms of its firmness.
R. THIEBLEMONT.
Postscript: 50 years later, the activists of the CNT-AIT arrived at the
same conclusions and drew the consequence, affirming that yes, the
CNT-AIT is clearly anarchosyndicalist - and therefore anarchist - and
not vaguely "revolutionary syndicalist ". To find out more about the
experience of the FORA, you can read the brochures: THE FORA: ANARCHIST
WORKER ORGANIZATION and GLOBALIST ANARCHISM AGAINST "REVOLUTIONARY
UNIONISM" Send electronic versions by request to
contactchezcnt-ait.info, to receive the printed version write in the
newspaper.
https://cntaittoulouse.lautre.net/spip.php?article1380
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
CNT-AIT newspaper, Le Combat syndicaliste, n°134 of July 1955, but which
still seems very relevant to us! ---- The division born from two
tendencies which clash in the congresses and assemblies of the CNT comes
from the fact that, for some, so-called revolutionary trade unionism
must be and remain neutral of any philosophy or economic system: it is
sufficient to himself, they say; for others, classic unionism having as
its emblem the charter of Amiens cannot lead to social transformation
without privilege, it is necessary to give men the philosophical and
social economic principles of anarchism, without which society would
inevitably fall back under the authority of a party.
I am one of those who espouse this latter way of seeing, rejecting the
Charter of Paris (a sort of improved Charter of Amiens adopted at the
Congress creating the CNT in 1946), as well as the current structure of
the CNT, revealing itself to be the faithful continuation of the old
CGT[from the 1900s]. Will the first way of seeing have the same fate as
the second? Or will the anarcho-syndicalists react against this union
neutrality in order to restore an emancipatory character to the CNT?
The anarchist ideal must be the driving force of the CNT, without which
it would have no meaning and would be hardly better than the other
centrals; neutralism is not enough, it is a question of knowing what we
want and whether or not we are moving towards what we want.
Will we work alongside activists whose only motive for action is their
wallets, ready to make concessions for units that relegate our
principles and make us something other than bastard revolutionaries
without convictions?
Will we accept that the structure of the CNT is still federation
corporatism, while we advocate economic equality and thus divided in
action, we go against what we proclaim in our declarations? Will we keep
for a long time this structure which lets each federation title its own
demands, draw up its own leaflets, organize in a word its federal,
compartmentalized union work, pumping a good number of activists into
the office, etc.? So much time, money and physical expenditure absorbed
by this disappointing system. We must immediately shake up this routine
and come strictly to the local, departmental unions, leaving the
industry federations in the shadows until after the social revolution.
Do our present demands live up to what we claim to be? Do they
correspond to reality? No. We set a minimum subsistence level of 35,000
francs and are only ahead of other centers on this point; can we
honestly believe that an average family of three can live on this
amount? Considering that living in this century means being able to
access the benefits of modernism in the home, or would our struggles be
limited only to subsistence?
Can we follow the activists advising our participation in organizations
such as works councils, even for tactical reasons, since we know that
inevitably, this would mean collaborating directly with our enemies,
whether they are bosses or workers, and working together to consolidate
the operation?
Should the possibility of becoming a staff representative in a company
encourage us to be elected for reasons of impunity and comfort in action
alone; because, in fact, what is our power once elected: to defend the
legality of collective agreements, to demand, for those who work
excessive overtime, that these hours be well paid; take an interest in
the boss's loyal employees who are exploited like no other, but who
never strike and come to work during; take care of a lot of little
things, showers, toilets, sinks, etc., ultimately a lot of wind for not
much; our position must be clear on this subject (non-participation),
delegates on the job[during a strike and designated by the assembly of
strikers], yes, and for the duration of the engaged struggle only.
It is time to become serious about our orientation, our structure, our
Charter, we have to clarify what we must really be (anarchosyndicalists)
with all that that entails, and not revolutionary syndicalists without
baggage, without definition, we we will also avoid the regrettable
confusion which allows a good number of Marxists and neo-Marxists
(revolutionaries, too) to come and cause trouble in our organization; we
will also prevent pure syndicalists from wasting their time among us,
who have chosen anarchism as a system of existence.
Let the activists of the CNT understand all this and work accordingly,
shouting matches and fist fights do not improve an inevitable situation
permitted by a Charter which is not at all clear. It would be good to
take an example from the organization of the FORA, which seems to me of
certain value in terms of its firmness.
R. THIEBLEMONT.
Postscript: 50 years later, the activists of the CNT-AIT arrived at the
same conclusions and drew the consequence, affirming that yes, the
CNT-AIT is clearly anarchosyndicalist - and therefore anarchist - and
not vaguely "revolutionary syndicalist ". To find out more about the
experience of the FORA, you can read the brochures: THE FORA: ANARCHIST
WORKER ORGANIZATION and GLOBALIST ANARCHISM AGAINST "REVOLUTIONARY
UNIONISM" Send electronic versions by request to
contactchezcnt-ait.info, to receive the printed version write in the
newspaper.
https://cntaittoulouse.lautre.net/spip.php?article1380
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten