Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:33:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: IWW, WW1, WoT



Here are some comments I made about the IWW resolution
on a NZ list shortly after it came out. After I made
these comments I think someone told me I should look
at the history of the IWW on war, so I looked up a
couple of old books and copied some quotes, which I
never got round to posting. I've typed some of them
now under my comments. Interesting that the IWW
attitude to WW1 is very similar to NEFAC's attitude to
the present war, as outlined by Flint on this list.
Btw, Steve, what made you leave the IWW? 


"I don't know if you can say that they are
economistic,
but these resolutions are I think a very long way from
being revolutionary. They oppose the war, but don't
say that workers should end the war with direct
action, though do make the essentially pacifist demand
that workers should keep their hands off the war
machine by refusing to serve etc. They make the
mistake of believing that the West can change its ways
- that imperialism can be cured of wars, when
imperialism by its very nature creates wars. They go
so far as saying that the West should somehow help to
disarm the nasty Third World states, after the West
has gone all nice and pacifist! 

If the IWW is advancing a strategy for revolution in
Third World states it is a Stalinist 'two stage'
strategy, where a 'new democratic' regime of nice
capitalism replaces the nasty puppets (or puppets gone
rogue, in Saddam's case) of imperialism. Nowhere do
they talk about the workers of the Third World and
especially Iraq overthrowing the likes of Saddam on
their own (albeit initially in a military bloc to
repel invasion with the anti-imperialist parts of
their own bourgeoisie). They don't call for the
defence of Iraq, though that was probably too much to
ask. Overall, this is pretty close to what the
mainstream 'Porto Allegre' left is saying about the
war. Sadly, it is pretty typical of all of the
anarchist stuff I have seen on the war [since I typed
this I have seen stronger anarchist stuff -SH]. 

IWW International Solidarity Commission Resolution
Against the War
September 24, 2002

Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World rejects
the crude concepts of “good versus evil”, “first
strike self-defence” and “regime change” as an
ideological mask for the expansion of Anglo-American
imperialist power to dominate and intimidate all
nations and States, enemies and allies alike;

Comment: no problems there

Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World opposes
the recruitment and participation of the labour
movement in spying on domestic populations in search
of “terrorists” as a dangerous and unnecessary
expansion of federal power that puts at risk the
privacy of all citizens and especially the lives and
reputations of people of colour and Muslim believers;

Comment: this is good too, but what about the much
more important role of workers as the oil in the whole
machine of war? If production and transport workers
fold their arms, the war stops. Why not bring in the
example of the ILWU, which took two billion a day out
of the economy? Why not point out that a general
strike could stop a war in its tracks, and recommend
steps towards that goal? And why doesn't the IWW call
on US forces to mutiny, as they (US forces, not the
IWW) did in Vietnam?

Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World recognizes
the United States and United Kingdom as makers and
users of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of
mass destruction and important exporters of weapons to
the world’s conflict zones;

Whereas the failure of Western States’ foreign policy
to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction
to non-Western states is evident and will continue to
degrade the prospects for world peace and endanger the
global environment;

Comment: what the hell do you expect? A foreign policy
that does stop nuke proliferation? To expect that is
to have gross illusions in imperialism. The problem is
not nukes in the hands of uncivilised 'non-Western
states', but the Western states themselves. You have
to get rid of imperialism to get rid of nukes. In the
meantime, demanding that Third World states get rid of
their tiny stockpiles for self-defence is reactionary
in the extreme. 

Whereas the United States sought to counter Iranian
regional influence by providing military and financial
support to the Iraqi regime to prosecute the Iraq-Iran
war and continued to do so even after Saddam Hussein’s
armed forces gassed the Kurdish people in northern
Iraq;

Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World support
the autonomy and self-determination of the diverse
populations within the borders of the Iraqi state;

Comment: what populations? The Kurds, certainly, but
what others? What other national minorities with
national rights exist inside Iraq? Does the IWW want a
Shiite state? Surely not! The Shiites are not a
nation!

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Industrial Workers of the
World call on its members and allies to vocally oppose
the Anglo-American war against Iraq and advocate
against the recruitment and participation of workers
in domestic spying efforts, as is possible through
popular education, pickets, leaflets, email
list-servers, on-line chats, forums and direct action.

Comment: again, good as far as it goes, except it
doesn't go very far. 

Be it resolved that the Industrial Workers of the
World call on the United States, United Kingdom and
their Western allies to immediately stop the export of
weapons and honour their treaty commitments to destroy
their stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons. The West must demonstrate the political and
military futility of these weapons to the rest of the
world and reduce their availability or other States
will never stop trying to develop weapons of mass
destruction.

Comment: why the hell is the West being asked to teach
the rest of the world a moral lesson? Other states
develop weapons of mass destruction to protect
themselves against the West and its puppets, so it is
the West which must give up its weapons. But this will
never happen voluntarily, because the West needs the
weapons, even when it does not use them, to help it
maintain the exploitation of Third World nations. To
get rid of the weapons means to destroy the system by
which the West exploits the Third World - imperialism.
Imperialism is the modern form of capitalism, so we
are talking about a socialist revolution. The First
World War showed that imperilaism and imperialist war
could be stopped by workers' uprisings and socialist
revolution. This what the IWW should be pushing with
talk about a general strike etc

Be it resolved that the Industrial Workers of the
World support the decision-making power of the
population of Iraq in all its diversity to decide
without Western coercion the means and forum to
convene and decide the distribution of territory and
resources, including the option to dissolve Iraq into
smaller democratic political entities. We urge these
peoples to ensure the voices of women and of
minorities are heard and their concerns addressed
justly in this forum. We also urge regional
cooperation among these peoples to prevent conflict
and ensure resources are shared on the basis of mutual
aid.

Comment: The people of Iraq will never be able to
achieve democratic rights as long as Iraq remains
trapped within the system of imperialism, which sees
it
hopelessly dominated by the West. So you need to have
a socialist revolution to have a democratic revolution
in Iraq. There is no 'two stage solution'. Does the
IWW know about the thwarted workers revolution in Iraq
in 1991?


"To [Big Bill] Haywood the war was a puzzling
irrelevance, which was best ignored. 'What is this war
all about?', he once asked Frank Bohn, a firm
supporter of the Allies...Anti-war pamphlets like The
Deadly Parrallel were withdrawn, and IWW members went
off to fight in France. Yet the Wobblies hedged on
their attitude to sabotague in time of war, and no
decision was ever taken." - pg 206, 'The Wobblies',
Patrick Renshaw

"When America joined hostilities the IWW failed to put
its anti-militarism into practice. Haywood told one
Wobbly who wrote to the General Executive Board
demanding a general strike against militarism and war
"Of course, it is impossible for this office...to take
actions on your individual iniative. However I have
placed your communication on file for future
reference.'" - Renshaw, pg 216

"'Keep a cool head...the world war is of little
consequence compared to the the great class war'" 
- Renshaw pg 217, quoting Haywood writing to Frank
Little, an IWW member who counterposed spontaneism and
insurrectionism (stand up cdes Javonovic and Hayes) to
the IWW's reformist line, and I think ended up being
killed after an unsuccesful (of course) rising
somewhere in the Midwest 

"There is no evidence IWW strikes were designed to
interfere with the war effort" - Renshaw, pg 218

"The General Executive Bureau decided to carry on with
a policy of industrial activity in specially selected
areas, where prolonged withdrawal of labour would soon
force the employees to negotiate about conditions of
work" - Renshaw, pg 217

"Unlike the Socialist Party of America, the IWW never
took a firm stand against the war" - Renshaw, pg 218
[I don't think the SPA ever took anything like a
revolutionary defeatist position, so this gives an
idea of how bad the IWW's poition was]

"During the early months of 1917...a division of
opinion grew on how to apply the 1916 resolution
against war [fascinating parrallels with the Basle
resolution and the Second International]. A minority
which included many of the Irish and Finnish members
[ie workers from semi-colonies!]...felt that the IWW
should focus on open opposition to the war and
defiance of the draft. The majority felt that this
would sidetrack the class struggle into futile
channels...the thing to be done was to proceed with
organising the workers to fight the steady enemy, the
employing class, for better wages, shorther hours,
safer and more sanitary working conditions, keeping in
mind the ultimate ideal of world labour solidarity.
There was no opportunity for referendum, but the more
active locals took this attitude, instructing speakers
to confine their remarks to industrial union issues,
circulating only those pamphlets that made a
constructive case for the IWW, and avoiding alliances
with the Peoples Council and similar anti-war
movements" - 'The IWW: the First Seventy Years,
1905-1975', Fred W Thompson and Patrick Murfin (sic?),
pg 115










 


===="Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---