Others might find this interesting.

Basically: while there’s no direct proof of any nationalist chauvinism in the IWW, though the citations do mention the work Settlers as if to make note of possibly valid criticisms, it does seem that the IWW could only go so far in its revolutionary culture. It is obviously very much based in the “Anglosphere,” so to speak. That being said: I’m not sure how much of the “parameters” (as the author says) is based on any sense of “Anglo” nationalism or “Anglo” anything; it may just be historically-based parameters. By that, I mean that it was the turn of the 19th century into the 20th century and, obviously, people were not going to be as far-reaching and far-thinking as we are today.

Still, it’s an interesting discussion to be had and you could make this discussion with the entire communist movement, I suppose (with then attitudes on LGBTQ peoples and women and so on and so forth). I’m still going through the article, but I think that while it’s a worthwhile discussion to be had, I would argue that we need to also see as these earlier movements setting up the current discourse and culture of our own movements, of a link between the movements of the First International (including Marx and Engels) and the 21st century movements.

Without these earlier movements, we would’ve never gotten to where we are today.

I hope I’m getting across my point.