Socialist Worker worst ever article on Anarchism, Autonomism

[Stranger Than Paradise]

There's a few autonomists on here who I thought would be interested in this piece by the SWP's site socialistworker.co.uk. Shambolic piece of writing, obviously this isn't uncommon amongst the socialist press but this is particularly misinformed.


The first of Estelle Cooch's new series looks at the ideas of anarchism and autonomism

My first real encounter with anarchist ideas, although I didn’t know it at the time, was at school when I was part of organising a student walk-out against the Iraq war.

One group of friends wanted only a small number of pupils to walk out, and to daub anti-war graffiti on a rival school.

The majority of us, however, argued that our success would depend on the number of students who walked out together. We tried to win a majority using posters and leaflets.

Eventually we were proved right. And more students walking out also meant we could provide solidarity to students who were victimised.

In situations like this, anarchists can appear very radical—let’s take the small group we’ve got and go for it! Marxists, in repeating the importance of “mass action” which involves more than just a small group of activists, can seem a bit tedious by comparison.

Anarchism’s open rejection of authority is appealing and lays the basis for many of its similarities with Marxism.

Britain, unlike other parts of Europe, has never had large numbers of people in anarchist groups.

However, the student movement and the emergence of groups such as UK Uncut in the anti-cuts movement have prompted important political questions about organisation and tactics.

Many activists now call themselves “autonomists”, and more are influenced by autonomist ideas.

Autonomism shares many of the characteristics of anarchism. Its main idea is a rejection of organisation. It believes small, imaginative groups of radicals should act on behalf of the masses.

It says the creation of “autonomous” spaces like occupations allows us to carve out alternative societies within the system.

Usually, differences between Marxism and autonomism rest on three points: leadership, political parties and the state.

When it comes to leadership, autonomists reject the “leadership” of capitalist society, where the wealthiest Eton toffs are in charge. So do we.

And they are also right that the “leadership” offered by trade union and labour leaders is not always a pretty picture. When union officials leave behind the drudgery of everyday work, they can lose touch with those they represent.

But this is not what Marxists mean by leadership. Leadership exists at every moment in history. The person who argues for strikes, the person who shouts “push” against a line of riot police, the person who picks up the stone to throw at Israeli tanks—they are all leaders.

In some university occupations, autonomists argued that voting is hierarchical and creates “leaders”, so all decisions should be agreed by everyone using consensus decision-making.

This can work sometimes—but often it is less democratic than it appears. A tiny minority with time on its hands can block a decision backed by the vast majority. Votes, by contrast, bind people to decisions, making them more accountable.

The question of leadership leads directly to the question of parties. Autonomists rightly reject the corrupt, undemocratic parties in parliament.

But a revolutionary party aims to bring together workers’ different experiences to come to a general strategy for fighting back. The capitalists have a high level of organisation—we need to organise together if we are to challenge them.

One important form of capitalist organisation is the state. The state is a tool the rich minority use to maintain their class rule, sometimes violently.

Autonomists and Marxists often disagree over what to do about this.

The autonomist John Holloway, author of Change the World Without Taking Power, argues that “you cannot build a society of non-power relations by conquering power”.

He suggests that small “cracks” in capitalism can be revolutionary without directly confronting the state. But the problem is that the state is hugely oppressive—we cannot afford to ignore it as Holloway suggests.

The revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said, “The state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms.”

It will attempt to crush any threat to itself, as we can see in Libya. To build a revolution that will last, workers have to smash the capitalist state.

Socialists stand side by side with autonomists in united fronts, in working class struggles and in front of police lines .

Ultimately, however, autonomism cannot be a successful strategy for ending the horrors of capitalist society. Karl Marx identified the key to overthrowing capitalism—the mass power of the international working class.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24453

[Zanthorus]

Yes, this is a fairly terrible piece. Like most 'Marxist' critiques of Anarchism, the author doesn't seem to really understand what it actually is. The discussion of Autonomism is similarly blindingly ignorant. The author seems to be using it as a curseword for people who engage in certain political practices which seem vaguely related to 'autonomy' rather than the actual history of Italian Autonomism and Operaism. If they'd even bothered to skim over Negri's 'Books for Burning' they would have noted that Negri's politics developed out of Leninism. Reading Steve Wright's 'Storming Heaven' it would appear that this was not unusual, as many workerists began their political careers within the Italian Communist Party. The fact that the article doesn't even mention Negri, generally the one whose ideas some people like to boil Autonomism down to (It does mention Holloway, but Holloway isn't really an 'Autonomist' I don't think), or some of the key autonomis ideas like class composition, would suggest to me that the author isn't really interested in engaging with actual Autonomists so much as using the word as a slur.

One of the Anarchists on libcom has written a letter to them regarding the article, it will be interesting to see if it gets published or if the SWP bother to respond:

http://libcom.org/blog/open-letter-socialist-worker-autonomism-07042011

[Q]

http://libcom.org/blog/open-letter-socialist-worker-autonomism-07042011
This thread needs more explaination like this and less stuff like "well, they such and don't understand anything". Like it or not, many comrades, especially younger ones, don't have the slightest idea what anarchism and autonomism are and, as noted, papers like Socialist Worker aren't helping. I suggest this thread moves to more like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_v7pmj2WK5tA/RngAp_qD9ZI/AAAAAAAAAOM/DvrYz7wfBcY/s400/jack+blackboard.jpg

And less like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xhT5uUnSPkA/RjVm07fjGHI/AAAAAAAABCI/C2EnafSJ8PA/s320/BossYellingAtMe.bmp

[Zanthorus]

Q, I think the problem people have is that this is an article from the paper of a fairly large organsiation who surely have the time and resources to do more thorough investigations of Anarchism and Autonomism than what is contained in this piece. Even a brief skim of the wikipedia article on Autonomism would have shown the writer that Autonomism developed out of Marxism rather than being a current opposed to it. It seems fairly clear that whoever wrote the piece is not even trying to give a fair assessment of the movements under discussion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the main problem with most (hell, almost all, actually) critiques of anarchism by Marxists is that they don't bother with any real reading of source material when mounting their attacks. Instead they'll just borrow the talking points of previous theoreticians (Marx, Engels, Lenin etc.) This is not a fruitful course of discussion.

A good thought exercise is to try and develop a critique against your own ideology. Personally I think I'm pretty good at criticizing libertarian socialism at this point.


If they'd even bothered to skim over Negri's 'Books for Burning' they would have noted that Negri's politics developed out of Leninism. Reading Steve Wright's 'Storming Heaven' it would appear that this was not unusual

Weird, I've recently acquired both of these books. I know almost nothing about autonomism, so....should be good.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A good thought exercise is to try and develop a critique against your own ideology. Personally I think I'm pretty good at criticizing libertarian socialism at this point.

A better one is to ditch ideology all together. :)

[black magick hustla]

A better one is to ditch ideology all together. :)

i think some people always try to do this but they end up sounding like ideologues anyway

i dont think its a matter of ideology. like vaneigem said, everything has been said, all knowledge is essentially banal, so the things we end up coming up or agreeing with most of the time are bound to certain group of people that already thought about those things

[black magick hustla]

i think its hard to understand autonomy because autonomy wasnt an homogenous movement. there were the "creative" and "diffuse" faction, as well as the "organized" and "armed" factions. there were also the workerists and the small groups based in immigrant communities

[black magick hustla]

Also that article was dumb. Most of the kids that call themselves "autonomists" are quiet different from the hot automn autonomy. I think its very confusing because in germany there were the autonomen, which lacked the class content that italian autonomists did. I imagine most college autonomists today are more in like with the autonomen.

[Aurorus Ruber]

What is the difference between anarchism and autonomism? They sound pretty similar to me and I've always wondered what if anything distinguished them.

[black magick hustla]

What is the difference between anarchism and autonomism? They sound pretty similar to me and I've always wondered what if anything distinguished them.
Its an overaching term for a lot of countercultural and paraparliamentary activism that happened in the hot autumn and beyond in italy. it is "autonomous" precisely because it was outside the state. Some of the most advanced factions, like the workerists, and the future workers' autonomy stressed the class as a proactive element against the unions, state, and capital. However a lot of workerists had their origin in leninism, not anarchism. Other factions, like "organized autonomy" had a maoist bent, and the "creative autonomy" was full of hippies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that this was not a very fulfilling or in-depth article (the opening anecdote was especially simplistic IMO), but then again I don't think the purpose was really to be an in-depth examination. This seems to be a quick article about some of the main distinguishing features that generally appear in activism. It seems like more of a primer and a sketch for activists, rather than an explanation or history.

I mean most of what was said in one sentence in this article really needs a full article alone - like creating "autonomous spaces" or whatnot - so I don't know if I could have done any better with that amount of space no matter how much research I did. This is doubly true considering whenever some political tactic or idea associated with anarchism (consensus, propaganda of the deed and so on) is criticized, some other anarchist disagrees and says real anarchism is not about that. And they are probably correct and do disagree with whatever is being criticized.

So rather than hear about all the books and thinkers the writer of this specific article didn't read, I'd like to hear a defense against some of the criticism that do apply - or hear which ones are totally off-base.

I read the LibCom response and it was just as unfulfilling as the original article. The response to about 1/2 of the arguments is literally, "No it isn't".


No it doesn't. If anyone claims the contrary, where are their references/evidence?
This isn't right either, but I want to keep this letter short so I won't go into it here.The other responses are just: "Well, not all autonomists think this":


"I would dispute that that many call themselves "autonomists" or that those that do are more influenced by autonomist ideas".

It seems like the defenders of autonomism have the same problem as the critics: it's adherents are not clearly defined or unified enough to say anything definitive about.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So rather than hear about all the books and thinkers the writer of this specific article didn't read, I'd like to hear a defense against some of the criticism that do apply - or hear which ones are totally off-base.

Well, the majority of the article is about autonomism (which, like I previously mentioned, know very little about) but this:


In situations like this, anarchists can appear very radical—let’s take the small group we’ve got and go for it! Marxists, in repeating the importance of “mass action” which involves more than just a small group of activists, can seem a bit tedious by comparison.

is a pretty crude appraisal of anarchist activists. Most people who actually are "anarchist activists" (i.e. activists who belong to anarchist organizations like NEFAC or WSA) while being pretty tiny as far as overall membership numbers are concerned, definitely put foward the view that mass struggle is needed.

[The Red Next Door]

Anarchists don't read book so they are stupid.

[Tim Finnegan]

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that, after commenting that "Autonomism shares many of the characteristics of anarchism", she just lists a bunch of generic criticism of anarchism without ever really attempting to define Autonomism in even the broadest sense. Not exactly the thoughtful examination that the standfirst seems to promise...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i think some people always try to do this but they end up sounding like ideologues anywayI don't think that's the case with, for instance, workers launching a wild cat because they can't take the shit from their bosses any more. And that's the sort of thing that matters.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm pretty sure that ideology goes with the territory, as far as a message board like this is concerned, though.

[Devrim]

There's a few autonomists on here who I thought would be interested in this piece by the SWP's site socialistworker.co.uk. Shambolic piece of writing, obviously this isn't uncommon amongst the socialist press but this is particularly misinformed.

It is possible that this piece of writing is misinformed. Personally I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that not only the writer but also the editorial staff on Socialist Worker are so misinformed. I think 'misinforming' would be a much better term, and it is probably deliberately so.

There is of course the possibility that nobody on the editorial staff has the slightest idea about anarchism. After all most marxists' knowledge of anarchism seems to rest on what Marx wrote about Bakunin. However, I think that it is a small one.

To write an article about anarchism in the Uk without mentioning or referring to the ideas of either the AF or SolFed the two main UK anarchist organisations is absurd. It is not though a first connected to the fact that this article is really about what it refers to as 'autonomism', but characteristic of the approach.

Of course if the SWP were to refer to these organisations it would have to also deal with their politics, and couldn't at all get away with stuff like this:


Marxists, in repeating the importance of “mass action” which involves more than just a small group of activists, can seem a bit tedious by comparison.

Of course the real anarchist organisations argue explicitly for the mass action of the working class. However, if what you intend to do is paint an image of anarchism as something which is akin to the ideas of some people who aren't anarchist militants (i.e. members of anarchist organisations) and have just picked up on a few general ideas that are floating around it is exactly what you would do.

If anarchists were to construct a similar critique of Marxism there are of course no end of examples that they could use ranging from today's pseudo-Marxist intellectuals to the butcher of the Russia revolution.

It could of course be genuinely ill-informed. After all those who are the leadership of the SWP today almost certainly received their political education from reading similar articles.

Interesting in this light is the contrast of Autonomism and Marxism. As anybody who has done even the slightest bit of research on the subject would know, Autonomism considers itself to be a marxist current and it emerged from the Italian Communist Party. John Holloway, the only individual refered to in the article is most commonly associated with the magazine 'Open Marxism'.

I'd like to stress that it is possible that the SWP is really so-misinformed about what anarchism is. In most Marxist organisations this is the case. In our own organisation, the ICC, there is a shocking lack of real knowledge on this subject. However, I think it much more likely that this is just a hatchet-job by people who are aware of what they are talking about.

Either way it reflects very badly upon them as an organisation.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I agree that this was not a very fulfilling or in-depth article (the opening anecdote was especially simplistic IMO), but then again I don't think the purpose was really to be an in-depth examination. This seems to be a quick article about some of the main distinguishing features that generally appear in activism. It seems like more of a primer and a sketch for activists, rather than an explanation or history.

If this is so, and it would be a lot more honest if it were, why attempt to tack anarchism on to it?


This is doubly true considering whenever some political tactic or idea associated with anarchism (consensus, propaganda of the deed and so on) is criticized, some other anarchist disagrees and says real anarchism is not about that.

Neither of the two main anarchist organisations in the UK advocates either consensus as a decision making process, or propaganda by deed.

On the issue of consensus, the IWA, the biggest international anarchist organisation by far says in its statues:


In the international referendums and Congresses, every Section has one vote, and it is recommended that unanimity be sought before one proceeds to the voting.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

I agree that the article reads more like a hackjob, designed to keep new kids away from those dangerous anarchists or something like that. Or "a quick article" if we're going to be charitable. :rolleyes:

Why do they do it? Well, obviously a writer for Socialist Worker can do this because they never have to worry about engaging in debate with anarchists on the pages of Socialist Worker.

[Aesop]

I am not a expert on the history of marxism, but this is ridiculous

"Usually, differences between Marxism and autonomism rest on three points"

It is quite evident that a most autonomists were actually Marxists and a large number of autonomist these days are aswell(The German left seems to field a large number of them). I am pretty sure that autonomism was simply a strand of Marxism like how Leninism and left-communism is.

[Dimmu]

Marxists being afraid of anarchists.. Not a new phenomenon. Crap article, as for Libcoms response. That article does not deserve a better one.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Its an overaching term for a lot of countercultural and paraparliamentary activism that happened in the hot autumn and beyond in italy. it is "autonomous" precisely because it was outside the state. Some of the most advanced factions, like the workerists, and the future workers' autonomy stressed the class as a proactive element against the unions, state, and capital. However a lot of workerists had their origin in leninism, not anarchism. Other factions, like "organized autonomy" had a maoist bent, and the "creative autonomy" was full of hippies.

How did the Leninist origin make a difference in practice?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So no radical activists believe in "creating autonomous zones"? No one believes in working class emancipation without confronting smashing the capitalist state?

As much as the article overly-generalized and simplified things IMO, a lot of the attitudes described are common on the "broad anti-capitalist left". I'd say these ideas are more popular among people on the US west cost than what I'd consider to be the more class-based "real" radical anarchist tradition.

I don't know what all this bullshit about anarchists not reading books or Marxists being afraid of anarchism or misrepresenting it or something. Christ, if half the anarchists here changed their identification to "Marxist" then when they would also be denounced as mis-representing anarchism if they told another anarchist that anarchism does or does not support organizing. Personally I have learned to take anarchists one by one (just as I would when approaching a Marxist group I know nothing about - "Marxist" could mean anything from a syndicalist to Stalinist) and am happy when anarchists who have politics more similar to the ones I support make gains. If the IWW is having success, then good! If anarchists form a group and start organizing collectively, then I see that as a step forward from some of the soft-anarchism or hippy-lifestyle I don't agree with (as a political strategy anyway... I like d.i.y. and counter-culture, just not as a strategy).

So what do people think of these ideas presented in the article - are they part of autonomism or not? Are they valuable?

[bricolage]

Neither of the two main anarchist organisations in the UK advocates either consensus as a decision making process
I think Afed actually does use, to at least some degree, consensus decision making. Maybe a member can clear this up.

[rallycat]

Actually I think in fairness the article is probably written by somebody who is uninformed, rather than being an attempt to deliberately mislead.

The article seems to written in response to the rivalry between SWP members and "autonomists" emerging in the recent university occupations. At my university, the anti-cuts group is mostly composed of Autonomous Students and Socialist Workers Student Society people plus a few of the Union Exec. For the most part, those with mistrust towards the SWP have ended up being drawn towards the autonomous students group. But they are not all autonomists - in fact, I think very few would identify as "autonomists" in the sense that we understand it and there are even some Labour supporters amongst them - many of them simply see the autonomist group as an activist group that isn't tied to any political organisation so join it for that reason. I'm going to assume based on the existence of this article that something similar has happened in a few campuses across the country. Thus, the term "autonomist" has become a bit nebulous because most of the alleged autonomists are not clear on what the term means themselves, so it is not surprising that SWP activists are even less clear.

There are plenty in the SWP who are better informed, but it isn't exactly difficult to get an article published in Socialist Worker. Alex Callinicos of the SWP has a much older but better critique of autonomism which you can read here:

pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj92/callinicos

(can't post links yet so you'll have to copy into your address bar and add the http at the beginning and .htm at the end.)

[Gorilla]

I suggest this thread moves to more like this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_v7pmj2WK5tA/RngAp_qD9ZI/AAAAAAAAAOM/DvrYz7wfBcY/s400/jack+blackboard.jpg

And less like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xhT5uUnSPkA/RjVm07fjGHI/AAAAAAAABCI/C2EnafSJ8PA/s320/BossYellingAtMe.bmp

Why this is a bad article by Gorilla (Stalinist, age 7):


My first real encounter with anarchist ideas, although I didn’t know it at the time, was at school when I was part of organising a student walk-out against the Iraq war.


Danger, Will Robinson! Anecdotal evidence.


In situations like this, anarchists can appear very radical—let’s take the small group we’ve got and go for it! Marxists, in repeating the importance of “mass action” which involves more than just a small group of activists, can seem a bit tedious by comparison.


It's likely that Anarchists are as a group disproportionately inclined to voluntarism/adventurism, but I've seen Leninists pull off some pretty boneheaded adventurist capers themselves, and anarchists pull off effective "mass actions". This criticism does not get to this essence of anarchism/autonomism, and is basically a cheap shot.


Many activists now call themselves “autonomists”, and more are influenced by autonomist ideas.

Oh, this is interesting. What are those autonomist ideas?


Autonomism shares many of the characteristics of anarchism. Its main idea is a rejection of organisation. It believes small, imaginative groups of radicals should act on behalf of the masses.

This is where the teacher says you should put a quote or something from Wikipedia. The next couple paragraphs are basically worthless therefore. Autonomism is not whatever SW decides to say that it is. A good-faith argument would allow autonomists to characterize their movement in their own words.



In some university occupations, autonomists argued that voting is hierarchical and creates “leaders”, so all decisions should be agreed by everyone using consensus decision-making.

"Some"? Oh my.


The autonomist John Holloway, author of Change the World Without Taking Power, argues that “you cannot build a society of non-power relations by conquering power”.

All the theory and action that came out of Italian autonomism in the 70s, Germany and Austria in the 80s, and SW only cites this douchebag Holloway? Lame.


He suggests that small “cracks” in capitalism can be revolutionary without directly confronting the state. But the problem is that the state is hugely oppressive—we cannot afford to ignore it as Holloway suggests.

Grand total of words directly quoted from autonomists (soi-disant at least): 1.


Ultimately, however, autonomism cannot be a successful strategy for ending the horrors of capitalist society. Karl Marx identified the key to overthrowing capitalism—the mass power of the international working class.

The last quote looks like it is supposed to refute autonomism/anarchism but it actually doesn't.

[black magick hustla]

the iso are pretty bad at understanding anarchism too. i think they wrote once a horrible article about it. the only marxists i know that get anarchism are people who came out of anarchism, like myself.

[IndependentCitizen]

My SP branch last night had some SolFed come in and give their position on direct action, and the role of the working class. It was a good debate, and it was really interesting to hear from an Anarcho-Syndicalist point of view.

I think the major assumption that autonomists will fail is unfair. Ideas have to be tried and tested, we cannot constantly look at the past and say 'it failed then, and it will fail now'. The international working class can overthrow capitalism, is engaging in action to do so. I fail to see how a party is the absolute only way to lead a revolution. After seeing the CNT in Spain fight heroically against the fascists and without hierarchy that's in place through parties. I personally feel a party would be more affective than a revolutionary union and etc in organising people, and proceeding in overthrowing capitalism, but that's my opinion - however refuse to believe that it's the only option.

I fail to recognise the SW's conclusion, it doesn't really state anything, and let alone explain it...

[Jimmie Higgins]

the iso are pretty bad at understanding anarchism too. i think they wrote once a horrible article about it. the only marxists i know that get anarchism are people who came out of anarchism, like myself.

What, this?

http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-anarchism.shtml

I thought this was a better and more satisfying article than the short one from the SW UK above or even most of the short articles that have appeared in the SW US. It's more useful IMO because it goes into (and I think the MP3 of a talk this writer did is even better, but I get the article and talk mixed up because a lot of the same information is covered) more of where different radical strands connect or diverge. It also demonstrates an understanding of anarchism as a changing and developing process unlike the worst Marxist critiques which basically write off anarchism as petty-bourgeois liberalism (which some "soft" anarchism is just as Marxism has petty-bourgeois-influenced traditions as well).

Anyway, I like that approach because while there are some differences and it's important to make these distinctions clear, it's also possible for our radical traditions to work together and even become closer in outlook as ideas are tested in struggle. In the ISO we have books like the Zapitistas and Wobblys book as well as Black Flame which we encourage our members and allies to get and read about - there are political differences but there is also a shared tradition and I think when anarchism is organized on an explicitly class basis, it represents some of the best of the radical tradition.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is possible that this piece of writing is misinformed. Personally I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that not only the writer but also the editorial staff on Socialist Worker are so misinformed. I think 'misinforming' would be a much better term, and it is probably deliberately so.

Oh I agree. To be honest it's probably in response to the recent upsurge of talk in the press about anarchism and talk of26th ofMarch's Black bloc. Notice they mention Uk Uncut in the article as well.


To write an article about anarchism in the Uk without mentioning or referring to the ideas of either the AF or SolFed the two main UK anarchist organisations is absurd. It is not though a first connected to the fact that this article is really about what it refers to as 'autonomism', but characteristic of the approach.

Yes I agree, but from the angle they're taking that Anarchism is adverse to organisation and mass struggle it would seem silly to mention the two nationwide anarchist organisations.

[El Rojo]

im a member of the SWP, and i think this article is rather shite. Although the anarchist / autonomous movement is diffuse, the article makes no attempt to differentiate between different orgs. and generalises over them all.

Ive worked with autonomous groups over the past year, and that method of organising - like all methods, has its flaws, specifically the tyranny of structurlessness. Instead of focusing on this, we get vauge sweeps trying to define the undefinable - the UK anarchist mileu. The SW does a great job publishising stories never mentioned in the mainstream media, but stuff like this ruins the paper. Whoever Estelle Cooch is, she should spend more time working with different radical groups before knocking them

[Sam_b]

It's an absolutely embarrassing article, and indicative of the SWP's problem in relating to the class and particularly newly politicised young people on March 26th and in the wider anti-cuts movement. We've been outflanked by the likes of UK Uncut et al who although I have problems with, have made a positive contribution to the movement.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It's an absolutely embarrassing article, and indicative of the SWP's problem in relating to the class and particularly newly politicised young people on March 26th and in the wider anti-cuts movement. We've been outflanked by the likes of UK Uncut et al who although I have problems with, have made a positive contribution to the movement.

You will shortly be purged for not towing the party line, sam.

[Sam_b]

Interesting you should say that actually.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Interesting you should say that actually.

Why so? while my ban is ultimately impending, I shall burn brighter than the sun.

[Sam_b]

I wasn't referring to yourself, and i'm not at liberty to say anything at this point - well, until tomorrow at the least.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I wasn't referring to yourself, and i'm not at liberty to say anything at this point - well, until tomorrow at the least.

I expect to be banned soon, but I shall not be gone, we have prepared for that eventualty.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I wasn't referring to yourself, and i'm not at liberty to say anything at this point - well, until tomorrow at the least.
Lindsey Germain?

[Sam_b]

Nope. It's not referring to any ex-CC member.
EDIT: If anyone's desperately interested, i'll probably have more substancial things to say tomorrow.

[Quail]

I think Afed actually does use, to at least some degree, consensus decision making. Maybe a member can clear this up.
Here's what the constitution says:

DECISION-MAKING: The AF makes decisions on the principle of consensus. We reject the concept of bourgeois democracy in which a simple majority can decide for the entire organisation. At local group meetings, national delegate meetings and conferences, members will enter debates with the intention of reaching a consensus such that the organisation can move forward together.
However, we also reject the idea that a few individuals can hamper the functioning of the organisation by preventing decisions being made that are clearly supported by the vast majority. Therefore, when a consensus cannot be reached after appropriate debate the following procedure can be adopted at National Delegate Meetings and National Conferences:

1/ A member can propose that an indicative vote on a proposal be taken.
2/ The meeting or the facilitator of the meeting may call for a move to an indicative vote if consensus has not been reached. If the meeting decides to move to a vote this is done by means of a straw poll.
3/ If two-thirds of those voting support the proposal, then the vote is carried
4/ If the minority feel that the meeting was not representative, then they can ask for the ratification procedure to be implemented (see next section).
5/ However, in keeping with the principles of individual autonomy, the minority is not expected to implement the policy. It is hoped that they would not speak out publicly against it without discussing this first within the Federation. However, they can argue within the organisation for a change of policy and discuss internally the nature of comments they might want to make publicly. All of this must be done openly within the groups comprising the Federation. However, if their actions are considered to have severely undermine the activity, functioning, and/or security of the organisation or its members, then the individual(s) could potentially be subject to disassociation proceedings.

[caramelpence]

In addition to being shockingly poor in terms of the actual theory and history of currents like Anarchism and Autonomism (which are, of course, not the same, and the former in particular is internally heterogenous and historically complex) this article verges on the internally incoherent. The article asserts that Anarchism and Autonomism are characterized by "a rejection of organisation" before then claiming, in the same line, that they support "imaginative groups of radicals should act on behalf of the masses". The question that comes to my mind is which one is it? If Anarchists and Autonomists do support the kind of elitist actions that this article claims they do (which is sometimes the case) then surely that entails some form of organization, and probably support for tight-knit organization, rather than a rejection of organization as such? The answer, of course, is that Anarchists and Autonomists do support organization, and this has frequently been a point of criticism for Trotskyists when it comes to Anarchism's historical roots as an ideological tradition - Draper, for example, uses Bakunin's support for conspiratorial organization as a way of unfairly tarring the whole of Anarchism and classifies Anarchism as a form of "socialism from above"!

One thing I've noticed about the SWP is how much of a divergence there is between publications like the ISJ and Socialist Worker. The ISJ is a serious publication with theoretical articles, but there seems to be a persistent drive to dumb-down the content of Socialist Worker. It's inconsistent at best and grossly patronizing at worst.