Following a split, a battle has been going on in Spain for some time over the rights to use the name ‘CNT’, with the larger (ICL-affiliated) CNT taking the smaller (IWA-affiliated) CNT to court. While we might consider this course of action regrettable, one thing supporters of the IWA section tend not to want to talk about, apparently, is how things got to that point in the first place. Why might the ICL section not want to be confused with the IWA section? Why also was there a split?
Supporters of the IWA generally studiously avoid such questions and their import. We know enough of the recent history of the CNT, however, enough to gather some sense of what the complaints from the other side were. These are not far removed apparently from criticisms of vulgar leftism more generally: the penchant of some for hiding from the practical challenges of class struggle inside ghettos of revolutionary purity, where radical politics become less about the working class becoming conscious of its own power, and more about virtue-signalling radical credentials amongst the initiated with a view to elevating one’s own status.
Indeed, the recent history of the CNT tells of a growing divide between unions sections looking to organise workers on anarchist principles, and aggressive sects (what it calls ‘The Taliban’) looking to group together adherents to anarchist ideology in the abstract. Anarchists can and should organise affinity groups based on political convictions, but this is not syndicalism. Ideologues in the IWW appear not to understand the difference between organising on the basis of convictions and organising on the basis of class interests either. To its own account, the CNT left the IWA because of microclusters of sectarians trying to tell functioning unions how to organise; maybe it makes sense that the IWA cares more about identity than struggle.
We would do well to remember that the IWA is also the international that expelled, at a single congress in Warsaw, the CNT-E (which was leaving anyway?), the USI (Italy), the FAU (Germany) and the FORA (Argentina). In light of its penchant for exclusion and doctrinal purity, it seems counterintuitive to say the least that the IWA claims the legacy of anarcho-syndicalism as its own. It does not appear it has much of a leg to stand on in being upset about the existence of another international formed out of sections it decided it didn’t want anymore.
In any event, one gets no sense, as Rasmus Hästbacka explains, that
Syndicalists emphasize the economic and social interests that unite workers, rather than the religious, political and national affiliations that divide people. We build unions because we have a common interest in improving everyday life for everyone. We do not organize and come together because we have the same opinion on every issue. Union organizing has the potential to unite workers in every workplace, within and across industries.
That the IWA affiliate in Spain has changed its name from ‘National Confederation of Labour’ to ‘Anarchosyndicalist Confederation’ arguably reflects the dogmatic concern with grouping anarchist beliefs rather than class interests on an anarchist basis (the ASF in Australia is an even more extreme example of the same mentality, and excels at sectarianism while doing conspicuously less well at having any workplace presence to speak of at all). They are still in no sense, however, a root cause of conflict.
Confederation Anarcosindicalista-AIT smears writes:
The CNT-AIT, due to legal requirements and having exhausted all avenues of appeal against the National Court’s ruling on the lawsuits filed by the CNT-CIT, has been forced to relinquish its historical name and acronym. The new name of our organization is the Anarcho-Syndicalist Confederation (CA-AIT).
Feelings of anger and sorrow do not prevent us from facing this critical moment with the certainty of knowing who we are, what our history is, and how we will continue to organize ourselves against all forms of exploitation, inequality, and authoritarianism.
We know what the acronym CNT-AIT means for anarchism and the history of workers’ struggles worldwide. Due to denunciations by the CNT-CIT, we are forced to change our name to avoid being destroyed and to continue our struggles.
However, we will not allow our history to be exploited by a union organization that is the antithesis of the principles of horizontality and federalism; where its leadership decides everything without informing the assemblies, where there is not the slightest transparency in the accounts, which means that numerous embezzlements have occurred, and even been covered up and tolerated, for years; that speculates with historical assets; that requests police evictions of our union premises in court in order to sell them and profit; and that uses the repressive apparatus of the State against anarchist comrades and organizations, while at the same time not tolerating any internal dissent or criticism.
The struggle and the organization are much more than a name or an acronym. Our ultimate goal remains the emancipation of humanity. Repression and deception cannot stop the torrent of the struggle for liberation. The Anarcho-Syndicalist Confederation – AIT will continue to adopt anarcho-syndicalist values, practices, and structure.
All the unions that made up the CNT-AIT remain federated at the national and international levels within the AIT. As before, we will continue to practice direct action under anti-authoritarian principles, without subsidies or full-time union officials, against the exploiters and the structures that maintain their privilege.
We might put unevidenced smears regarding the nature of the CNT-CIT down to sour grapes, crowing about its own revolutionary credentials down to the toxicity of more-radical-than-thou ghettos of revolutionary purity. For an affiliate to an international that produces new internationals by expelling its own largest sections to complain about organisational malfeasance recalls the problem of throwing stones from inside glasshouses. However we feel about the state, the facts were on the side of the CNT-CIT. If the IWA was so concerned about using legal routes to solve disputes, maybe it might want to consider its own patent problem with aggression; in the face of its own organisational attitude malfunction, what would it have had the CIT do?
It does not seem much like the problem was ever to do with revolutionary theory and practise, or of holding to anarchist ethics, the good of the class struggle. If the longstanding traditions of the ASF are anything to go by, it was about being right and coming out on top. The ASF cares about initials because it only cares about being more anarcho-syndicalist than thou; initials matter more than the practice of anarcho-syndicalism as a means of organising on the basis of class interests because being seen to be right-on matters more than defending rights and advancing class interests using nonhierarchical means that let us live values at the same time. We can all start organising workers once we’ve read the entire collected works of Rudolf Rocker. Maybe that’s why they haven’t managed to organise any workers yet.
Interestingly enough, the new website for the Confederation Anarcosindicalista, while taking time to denounce the heinous apostates from the International Confederation of Labour, somehow has managed not to keep focused on their core reason for existence:
For their part, the CNT-E is keeping busy. Maybe it’s a good thing they got to keep the name after all.
