From freevoice@igc.apc.org Tue Dec 20 17:52:42 1994 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by fido.wps.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA12472; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:52:41 -0800 Received: from igc2.igc.apc.org (igc2.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.39]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.54 ) with SMTP id RAA17487; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:52:37 -0800 Received: (from freevoice) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.5 ) id RAA01735; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:52:36 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:52:36 -0800 From: Freevoice Message-Id: <199412210152.RAA01735@igc2.igc.apc.org> To: sciww@fido.wps.com Subject: geb stuff Cc: deke@fido.wps.com, maile@fido.wps.com Status: OR Dear Tai, Thought I'd give you my best assessment on this whole philly\geb-gst thing, because our conversation last night was really not very helpful overall in conveying the situation from our side (I think :)). This is only my take on the situation and is not a n official communication by the gmb. I am writing this as a friend to a friend, not a member to a board member. First off, the philly membership does not feel particularly subservient to the geb or gst. This is not a macho-defiant stand, it's just that most people here don't even understand why the geb and gst exist other than to act as leaders, which around here is a big slur. I'm considered dubious because I even interact with the geb and gst. Frankly, our branch membership was largely against voting in the last referendum at all (there were only about 8 reluctant votes even though we were on the ballot and t here was big support for lorenzo, the fwo, and against the dues increase) Membership was more interested in figuring out how to abolish the clearinghouse, etc. (no, they are not willing to put it on the referendum, or have people vote on it :)) While Bob would probably engage the geb/gst on the issues they have raised, he would hardly be representing the branch, and would probably be more inclined to macho-defiant stances than anything else. As for me, while I do not want a breach within the IWW, I do not feel that its a good use of my time to appease people who do not seem to be building a movement, organizing, producing resources for others, or bringing in more membership. Frankly, in th e last 2 1/2 years I feel that I have done a lot more for them than they have done for me, and while I do not begrudge them there projects or interests, I do not feel particularly compelled to endlessly placate them (especially since to me they seem to b e responsible for a colossal waste of resources) Second, I do not think that any of this really has anything to do with use or misuse of funds. I think it is more fundamentally an attempt by some in the union to establish a relationship of dominance over philly, largely because we are being active and public. Since we don't really make any secret of our pro-local autonomy stance, I do not think this is unreasonable on the part of those in favor of centralization (that is, I'm not claiming we are innocent victims, since we framed our identity this way intentionally before I was even a member of the branch) While Bob recommends our "taking them on", personally, I feel that discredits what we have done so far and are continuing to do. We did not start off to change the constitution or establish the do minance of our ideology, we started off to build the resources for a real living IWW, by doing organizing, building a movement... Third, in philly we are basically not interested in legality or legalism. We are not engaged in CD, court fights, or arguments based on adherence to documents. As such, I'm sure that if someone wants to make a case for our being in violation of the con stitution, they will not have to work hard, and consequently, arguing that we are constitutional or "within the spirit of the constitution" is probably a waste of time on anyone's part. As we are not that interested in the constitution or legality, we ar e also not that interested in legal/constitutional authority, or any sanctions it may wish to impose. In other words, telling us that we should be concerned about the constitution is like telling anarchists about the merits of democratic centralism. Fourthly, unless phyric victories are what they want, the geb/gst sanctioning philly will not be particularly effective. It will not get them the money, they will lose membership (both in philly and elsewhere), and they will loose the considerably great er resources that philly has brought to the union (frankly, Anarchism and the Black Revolution is getting more interest in the IWW than any other recent activity of the union since WBI, let alone other activities philly has been very involved in [by the w ay the near $4000 spent to produce @ and the Black Rev. was done entirely without geb funds]) Fifth, philly separating from the IWW would not be a major inconvenience for philly. While I am against a split, there are certainly enough people here who would gladly claim the heritage of the IWW and continue without geb/gst sanction to be the IWW as well as other possibilities of renaming etc. In any event, our most concrete ramifications would be not having to send money to SEMich, losing a mediocre paper, and a GOB which is seldom informative. In many ways, a split might help focus on more perio dical publication, regional organizing, etc. which might very well be an improvement. As to our relations with other IWW activists, if they are serious to begin with, they should be able to continue regardless of our IWW status. Lastly, I do not want a breach in the IWW. I do not begrudge the ga/iw the remaining $100,000 or so. I have no desire to tell SE Mich or SF or SC how they should behave or account. I am willing to try and maintain financial record keeping, etc. for th e benefit of the gst/geb and whoever else, including the fbi, might want records. I do not have any time or inclination to debate with the geb/gst on issues of accountability, constitutionality, or centralization. If you and deke and d' amore can figure out what will make everyone happy, I will certainly support that, not because of reverence for the constitution, but because of solidarity with everyone including Fred Chase. I do, however, think this impasse is an internal contradiction which will have to be addressed sooner or later. With more revolutionary concern than passion Josie, x341890 PS Members in philly are slowly moving towards discussing the situation, but it is basically not of much interest. We might be able to get a meeting together in mid January around the Union Hall (The Ben Fletcher Center) which might discuss the geb/gst s tuff as an aside.