Some Blockhead troll that populates the New York City Indemedia web site has declared that the IWW is not a "real" labor union. Rather than take the bait, I decided it was better to "fight on my own battlefield" as certain thinkers have suggested. (Somebody on the NYC indymedia site deleted their posts).

This particular blockhead essentially follows the thinking of Fosterites or Draperites, who believe that a small organization with a shoestring budget that eschews electoralism (such as the IWW) cannot have a major impact on the working class. History shows that to be bunk. The IWW (and other independent unions like the IWW) are responsible for most of the gains made by the working class throughout human history. Small, independent, and usually underfunded organizations generally have the greatest impact.

Of course, this same joker argues that the current IWW is a joke and an insult to the "real IWW" (meaning the IWW that existed between 1905-1924 I suppose). I don't think this scissorbill recognizes the sheer irony in that perspective. S/he compares the current IWW to the "original" IWW that has been glorified by history (including many current IWW members). One tends to overlook or forget the fact that the "real" IWW suffered defeats, endured splits and factional squabbles, and dealt with organizational screwups. Several times between 1905 and 1924, the IWW nearly went bakrupt.

Despite these shortcomings, the Wobblies managed great things, Lawrence Textile Strike of 1912, the great gains made by agricultural workers throughout the western United States, or the winning of the eight-hour day in the Timber Industry of the Pacific Northwest in 1917. During that time, the IWW never had a huge strike fund, endorsed political candidates, or paid their officers huge salaries. The IWW's membership probably peaked around 100,000 several times during that period, but most historical accounts suggest that the IWW membership averaged between 7,500 - 25,000 during most of that time.

While the IWW's membership and membership peaks are somewhat smaller these days, the same pattern persists. This jerk obviously doesn't understand the historic, "real" IWW any better than he does the current IWW. Let us take a look at her/his statements:

Statement: Why those claiming the old IWW name should rethink their actions.

Response: We in the IWW are not "claiming" anything. The currently existing IWW is the very same IWW that has ALWAYS existed. There was never a time since the IWW's founding in 1905 that it ceased to exist. Those of us who are organizing and building the IWW are carrying on the fight.

Statement: Without money, resources or even a competent operationational plan anyone associated with you are doomed to failure.

Response: The IWW has money, resources, and a competent operational plan. This individual who claims we don't (it's the same guy using different names every time) has never proven otherwise. S/he simply states very loudly that the IWW doesn't. Repeating a claim over and over again without providing evidence doesn't make a claim true.

It would be true to say that the IWW has far less money than your average business union, but so what! The "real" IWW never had a large treasury either.

Just because a union has a large treasury, a substantial strike fund, or millions of members does not mean that said union will be of any use to its members. One need only examine the Southern California grocery workers' struggle that took place in 2003 to see the truth of this.  The UFCW has one of the largest treasuries, a substantial strike fund, and millions of members. Did the workers win their fight? Hell no! Yes, the rank & file fought admirably (often against their union at least as much as they did against their employers).

Condescending Insult: Playtime is over

Response: You have no idea friend, just how much WORK dedicated members of this organization have done. If you doubt this, visit iww.org and you'll see.

Further nonsense: do the workers concerned a favor, direct them to an actual labor union.

Response: OK, I guess to be a "real" labor union, the IWW would have to do the following:

(1) Charge expensive dues (virtually all AFL-CIO unions);

(2) Pay our officers six-figure salaries (ditto);

(3) Spend Millions of dollars trying to elect pro-capitalist Democrats (or even Republicans!) (do I even have to name them all?);

(4) Subvert rank & file union democracy (most building trades, the ILA, Teamsters, SIU);

(5) Sue our rank & file members for setting up rank & file web sites (like the UFCW or the IBEW);

(6) Sign concessionary contracts that make the rank & file workers represented by them believe that no union" is better than the union they have (most airline unions, UAW, SIU);

(7) Sign contracts with little or nothing to show for the workers, but use them to gauarantee a huge stream of dues money to fund the international (SEIU, UNITE-HERE);

(8) Take over independent locals and demand that their model be replaced with a top-down structure (SEIU);

(9) Place independent locals who challenge corruption in the international union into trusteeship (far too many examples to list here);

(10) Argue that rank & file democracy is unncessary (AFSCME);

(11) Fund Political Action Committees and CIA-front groups (the NED) that subvert union supported, democratically elected governments in other nations (e.g. Iraq in the early 1970s, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua 1981-90);

(12) Deny solidarity to striking union workers whose union seceeded from our federation because they grew tired of anti-democratic corruption in our bureaucracy (The AFL-CIO, IAM, and AMFA);

(13) Split into warring factions when all of our incompetence, malfeasence, and corruption results in the near extiction of our movement (AFL-CIO and CTW);

(14) Actively function as a labor brokerage for the capitalist class instead of a fighting organization dedicated to abolisging wage slavery (virtually all business unions).

If these are the actions of a "real" labor union, then the IWW is probably better off being "unreal".