💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cnt-the-cnt-s-revolutionary-principles.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:49:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The CNT’s Revolutionary Principles Author: CNT Date: 1997 Language: en Topics: revolutionary anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, principles, Libertarian Labor Review Source: Retrieved on 27th January 2021 from https://syndicalist.us/2016/11/03/the-cnts-revolutionary-principles/ Notes: From Libertarian Labor Review #21, Spring 1997. Translated by Jeff Stein.
(This is the third and last installsment of a three-part series about
the Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist
union. It is translated from the pamphlet Anarcosindicalismo, Basico.
The CNT presently has about 35,000 members.)
Anyone can voluntarily belong to the anarcho- union, with the exception
of police, soldiers and members of security forces. No ideological
qualification is necessary to be in the CNT. This is because the CNT is
anarcho-syndicalist, that is, it is an organization in which decisions
are made in assembly, from the base. It is an autonomous, federalist
structure independent of political parties, of government agencies, of
professional bureaucracies, etc. The anarcho-union only requires a
respect for its rules, and from this point of view people of different
opinions, tendencies and ideologies can live together within it.
Ecologists, pacifists, members of political parties … can be part of the
CNT. There will always be different opinions, priorities and points of
view about concrete problems. What everyone has in common within the
anarcho-union is its unique way of functioning, its anti-authoritarian
structure.
Revolutionary syndicalism defends itself against the maneuvers which
would convert the union into a tool of the political parties, or
profit-making enterprise for some individuals, or a platform for
leaders, or a personality cult, or a rigid ideological structure.
Because of this the CNT usually repels hierarchical or authoritarian
personalities. The CNT is an open structure, but its members have to
know where it stands and for what.
The anarcho-union is based on three fundamental principles:
Self-Management, Federalism and Mutual Aid.
Self-management means self-government. The anarcho-union desires that
individuals, workplaces, villages, cities and all other entities, manage
their own affairs, without the interference of any authority.
Federalism presupposes autonomy, and is the bond which joins in free
union all groups, as much economic as social. Federalism is the basic
principal that prevails within the structure of the CNT, which is
nothing but a confederation of sovereign organizations, not subject to a
central power.
Mutual Aid is seen as a better system of development, in contrast to the
competition which exists in the capitalist system. Mutual Aid sees the
world as a whole, in spite of different races, languages and cultures.
In consequence, anarcho-syndicalism is anti- authoritarian,
anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, anti- centralist, anti-theocratic,
anti-nationalist… Or if you prefer, libertarian, communists, pacifist,
secular, internationalist…
The word tactic signifies action taken on the terrain of concrete
situations. Direct action presupposes action without intermediaries, the
direct solution of problems by the interested parties. Direct Action is
a rejection at the same time of the activities of parliaments,
magistrates, [bureaucratic] committees, governments, etc. in the affairs
of the people.
Example:
terms of employment and to stop implementation of management’s
production plan. The same strike with the same strike call can be
carried forth by means of Direct Action, made in an assembly of all the
workers and their delegates elected from the different departments of
the workplace; or by Mediated Action, in which the strike is called by
the [official] enterprise committee, which negotiates without informing
nor asking the opinion of the assembly, and with the intervention of the
[government] labor authorities who can dictate a settlement.
as the problem of the anarcho-union and by your fellow workers, who
spread the word, exert pressure, job actions, sabotage, etc. in order to
get your reinstatement. Mediated Action goes directly to a lawyer and
awaits the action of a magistrate.
The only type of action approved by the anarcho-union is the tactic of
Direct Action, in all its congresses since 1910.
Nevertheless, and to be frank, it is necessary to consider the times and
our [meager] forces. We have to resort at times to a type of mediated
action by way of our legal offices and the labor magistrates. We always
prefer to solve our problems without resort to lawyers, who tend to put
our sovereignty into the hands of the judicial system, prolonging
processes which could be more quickly resolved without it, and spending
a great deal of money to maintain an expensive, parasitical, pernicious
and useless legal system.
But there are times in which for lack of a resolution, or support from
the people… there remains no other remedy than to resort to a lawyer, or
else do nothing. For this reason on occasion it has been proposed to
accept into the accords of congresses, the use of direct action
preferably, but mediated action when other remedies don’t exist. It has
not been done, because as long as Direct Action is held to be the only
tactic acceptable to anarcho-syndicalist militants, we will maintain a
commitment to it, and every time that we act contrary to Direct Action,
we are aware that we are breaking an accord. If we admit a type of
tactics against our structure and we swallow the indigestible, it is
possible that when we have enough strength and enough people to carry
out our point of view without supporting legal norms, we will not be
able to see it and will routinely appeal to the tribunals. [It might
make more sense to adopt a clearly defined and more consistent policy on
when legal means may be used, and set some limits, than to officially
denounce such tactics but pretend not to notice that the union is using
them. – Translator’s note]
Direct Action is always quicker, cheaper and more effective than
recourse to mediation. It has the disadvantage of requiring more energy
and courage to carry out.
Anarcho-syndicalism wants to transform society. It wants to abolish the
capitalist system and the state. It believes that no one has the right
to impose their will on others in order to rob and exploit their labor,
and to maintain this system supported by an apparatus of organized
violence and terror which is the state and its police system. There
exists a large quantity of literature dedicated to a critique of the
capitalist system, and we are not going to dwell much on this theme.
In order to arrive at this transformation, the anarcho-union affirms
that there exists no other means than the Social Revolution, an abrupt
change by which the authoritarian structures are demolished. It is the
end of a process and the beginning of something new. The revolution
occurs when the people collectively see it as necessary, when the moral,
ethical, philosophical and economic basis of the system is seen as
bankrupt. It is not a predictable phenomenon, nor realized by a
minority, but you prepare for it, then there comes a moment when it is
possible, something breaks loose, and it happens. The role of the
anarcho-union is to build upon the contradictions of the system, to make
clear to the people the falsehood, the deception, the exploitation
committed by a ruling minority, and to be present during the
revolutionary process to incite it if possible, and to avoid on the side
of the revolution the self-seeking benefit of minorities, vanguards,
parties, etc., and on the other, when the counter-revolution comes, that
the people lose as little as possible of what they gained. The
revolution must abolish property, the state, governments, police, the
army, universities, churches, banks, industries, the competitive and
individualist mentality… and establish new structures and forms of life.
The revolution is thought, liberty and desire in action. People who have
lived through revolutionary times describe them as a festival of lights,
sounds and joy. It is not a bath of blood and violence such as they show
on television. The people stop in the street and talk, this happens
always and is very important. They talk about everything, they talk with
people of other languages and they understand them because they want to
communicate with you. They talk about things that nobody before had ever
said and that now comes out naturally, without effort. They accomplish
things which days before would have been inconceivable… Whoever has seen
such moments on any occasion will never forget them.
The revolutionary act is an act of the people. It is realized by the
existing people with all their defects. There has been a debate over the
centuries whether the revolution could be brought about through normal
beings, who are more or less as forceful, authoritarian, violent as is
this sick society, or by people who are better formed and who carry
within them the form of future behavior and have been changed by
education and other methods. In general, although there are as many
opinions in the anarcho-union as there are persons, the CNT holds the
opinion that the revolution will be realized by the people as they are
today, and that the way to form persons in liberty and responsibility is
first to have a social transformation. That is to say that it is first
necessary to change the social structure and the people will change
afterward. It likewise happens that the revolution purifies people, at
least until the time in which the counter-revolution comes, and the
longer the revolution lasts, the better they become.
In spite of this idea, the anarcho-union makes an effort to turn the
union into a school of the people, transmitting through it by means of
constant debate with other schools of thought, and foreshadowing the
future society by creating here and now, a structure similar to that
which we hope to substitute to authoritarian society, a new moral and
ethical way of life.
The capitalist state has taken on the responsibility over the decades,
with the valued aid of the establishment unions and political parties,
of inculcating us with the idea that revolution doesn’t bring anything
more than disasters, and that in our developed western civilizations,
democracy is the only viable invention. The CNT is certain that the
social revolution is the only worthwhile, sincere and realistic future
for the human species, that the revolution is not the bloodbath depicted
in films and history books. The revolution must be treated as a process
that is gestating now, that will arrive, as it always arrives, and we
should be prepared to meet it without fear, and add fuel to the blaze.
Whether it will be provoked by a strike, by a military coup, by a crash
in the stock market, by the refusal to pay taxes, by a capitalist war,
by factory occupations, by an invasion of immigrants, is something that
we can’t know. That which is certain is that a large CNT, merged with
the people, will be the revolution’s best guarantee of triumph, and that
what has happened in previous attempts, in which the state has
reasserted itself and the same conditions in a different guise, does not
happen again.
The structure that society will take once the revolution is carried out,
is that which the confederation calls, Communismo Libertario
[Libertarian Communism], an economic system in which each person will
take from society what they need, and will give in exchange what they
are able.
The CNT and the Spanish people had the opportunity of developing the
most profound and beautiful revolution in human history, during the
period of social war from 1936 to 1939. They put into practice the ideas
which have been expressed above, and demonstrated that a free life and
equality doesn’t depend on anything more than free will. For capitalism
it was necessary to wage a war of extermination, in order to destroy
Utopia for the moment.
In the CNT voting is avoided and agreements are reached by consensus.
Unfortunately when there are large numbers of people involved in the
discussion it is more difficult to reach agreement and there comes a
time when it is necessary to take a vote.
In local union assemblies this problem is resolved with ease. Normally
votes are not taken because people within the union know each other
directly and from their daily contact they are accustomed to having more
or less the same ideas, and if it becomes necessary to vote by the
number of those agreeing, each one gets a vote.
The problem arises when decisions have to be made in local or regional
plenaries or congresses. It is already been explained that the basic
structure of the CNT is the industrial union branch, or where these do
not exist, the union of various occupations [SOV – Sindicato de Oficios
Varios]. Well then, there is no completely fair method for making
decisions through voting.
same voice in decisions as a union of 50. Two unions of 25 (2 votes)
could impose their opinion onto a union of 1,000 (1 vote).
have 2,000 votes, and 100 unions of 20 members would have the same voice
in decisions as just one union. The geographical distribution of 100
unions is wider than that of just one, but an agreement obligates all
unions equally even though a small union would have the same
responsibility to enforce it as a big union, in spite of the greater
difficulty for the small one.
decides to go on strike by 400 votes against 350, and would have to
support its decision to strike, since that was the outcome of its
assembly. Union B of the same local federation says no to the strike by
100 votes to 25. Union C of the local federation says yes by a unanimous
15 votes. There are thus two unions in favor of the strike and one
against, so a strike would be called if based on one vote per union. But
adding the negative votes together, 450 voted against the strike,
leaving 440 in favor. In order to avoid these possible inequalities in
the anarcho-union, when a vote is needed a proportional system is called
upon, which bases the decision on the number of people voting one way or
the other according to the following table:From 1 to 50 adherents – 1
voteFrom 51 to 100 – 2 votesFrom 101 to 300 – 3 votesFrom 301 to 600 – 4
votesFrom 601 to 1000 – 5 votesFrom 1001 to 1500 – 6 votesFrom 1501 to
2500 – 7 votesFrom 2501 and beyond – 8 votes
This system benefits minorities, but its results may be disputable. For
example, ten unions with 25 adherents would total 250 members having 10
votes. This would be more votes than a union of 2,500, which with 10
times more members, would only have the right to 7 votes. As you can see
it is a mess. [Although perhaps no more so than in a representative body
like the U.S. Congress in which tiny states like Rhode Island have
proportionally more representation per citizen than populous states like
California. – translator’s note]
The reason the CNT does not look for another system is because in the
present day it is not necessary. The agreements consented to after
discussions can seem absurd to those who started with something else in
mind in the anarcho-union, but they are extremely important for the
union or region which defends their position. What one thinks about the
outcome of all forms depends on your frame of reference.
Whenever there is voting, one has to recognize that what is being
discussed is a problem of power, and in the anarcho-union therefore one
must try to vote as little as possible, and reach agreement by
consensus. All our votes are open, and with raised hands. They are never
secret.
The CNT is not an anarchist organization. This is something which must
be made clear. The CNT is an anarcho-syndicalist union. Although there
are many similarities between both things, there are also differences.
Anarchism is by definition illegal, a negation of the state which cannot
give it permission to live. Anarcho-syndicalism moves within legality:
it legalizes its union sections and federations in order to function
more easily. Anarcho-syndicalism operates inside of major
contradictions.
The base of anarchism is the affinity group, a group of close friends,
without regard to jobs, or geographic location. The base of
anarcho-syndicalism is the [local] union of various occupations or the
industrial union branch.
Anarchist action is theoretically more revolutionary than that of the
anarcho-syndicalist. Anarcho- syndicalism struggles for immediate
demands, a reformist activity, even if it is outside [capitalist]
institutions and based upon its own forces.
Anarcho-syndicalism permits the coexistence within it of people of
various ideologies: marxists, christians, anarchists… it only requires
that they be workers. Anarchist organizations are necessarily formed
only of anarchists.
Anarchism functions more on the ideological level, in education,
propaganda, information, cultural activity, as well as within
anarcho-syndicalist unions… The union acts above all within the places
of work.
Anarchism is more than an idea. Anarcho- syndicalism is more than a
structure. Anarchists are supposed to be better persons than the social
average, with better ethics and less egocentrism. Anarcho-syndical-ism
expects nothing more from its members than that they are workers and
respect its structure.
Anarchism does not direct anarcho-syndicalism. For the latter it is more
than enough to push forward its own projects. Besides, in Spain it has
been anarcho- syndicalism which on more than one occasion has carried
along, directed and employed for different purposes the anarchist
organizations which supported it.
There exist good relations, fraternal, between the CNT and the different
libertarian organizations on a national scale, which are in Spain, the
FAI [Spanish Anarchist Federation], the FIJL [Spanish Anarchist Youth
Federation], and Mujeres Libres [Anarchist Women’s organization], as
well as with clubs, groups and individual anarchists. The vast majority
of anarchists work within the CNT, and their organizations generally
help the anarcho-union without conditions.
The three parts of this series were excerpted from a longer pamphlet. I
dropped the historical quotations which accompanied the original to
concentrate on the contemporary material as well as to save space and
translation time. I also did not include the material concerning CNT
positions on various bargaining topics like salaries, hours,
redundancies, etc., as well as social issues like militarism, ecology,
gay rights, etc. This material would have added little to the text since
CNT positions on these issues do not differ from standard left-wing
socialist and labor positions. What is unique about the CNT, and
separates it from other Spanish unions, is its anarcho-syndicalist
structure and practice.
What is important about this look into the CNT is it shows the
similarity between the CNT and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the
World). Although the IWW is not officially an anarcho-syndicalist union,
it functions in much the same way. Like the CNT, the IWW emphasizes
building worker-run industrial union branches at the point of
production. In geographical areas where this is not immediately
possible, the IWW allows its members to organize into General Membership
Branches, similar to the SOVs (Sindicatos de Officios Varios) of the
CNT. Like the CNT, the IWW maintains that direct action is the most
effective form of worker resistance to employers, but also like the CNT
the IWW is ready to use whatever legal recourse it can to protect its
members when direct action is not possible.
There are differences between the CNT and the IWW, of course. Unlike the
CNT, the IWW is not federalist. The branches and industrial unions of
the IWW are self-governing, but the IWW has a mass elected General
Executive Board with policy-making powers, although the Executive
Board’s actions can be overridden by member referendum. The IWW also
gives its members an appeal process whereby union disciplinary actions
or constitutional violations by local unions can be overturned by higher
bodies. These elected central bodies and powers give individual members
in the IWW more protection from arbitrary actions by local unions than
in the CNT, but it is at the expense of diminishing local authority.
Neither the CNT’s federalism nor the IWW’s elected representation is a
perfect system, and both depend on their membership’s vigilance and
common sense to see that their system is not abused.
The CNT may have some lessons for the IWW. In the coming months, the
financial crisis within the IWW may force it to reevaluate the way it is
structured. Maintaining a central office with a paid General Secretary
Treasurer and paid office helper may no longer be affordable. If the IWW
can’t straighten out its finances, a shutdown of its central office or a
shift to an all- volunteer staff might be necessary. If this happens how
will the IWW function as a centralized organization? Can its General
Executive Board direct a non-existent or part-time General Headquarters?
Perhaps adopting a more federalist structure with a General Secretariat
composed of volunteers from the same or nearby General Membership
Branches could be a solution. What this would mean for IWW members
living in areas where there are not enough Wobblies to form a branch, is
unclear. Would these individuals be forgotten by a decentralized IWW?
Would a Secretariat based upon a single branch or region, serve the
whole union’s interest or just a local one? If the CNT is to be used as
a model, we need to look at both its faults as well as its benefits.
In a forth coming issue, I would like to see a study of the SAC, the
Swedish syndicalist union. The SAC may have its own answers to how to
maintain a labor organization with workers’ control. Stay tuned.