The Bankruptcy of Contemporary UK anarchism [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 13:50

There is this annoying layer of people claiming to be anarchists, like this douche, who'll be Green Party activists in five years and Labour supporters in ten but I'm not sure if that's really the state of anarchism in the country.

Anarchists standing in bourgeois elections is not new. Ian Bone did it in Bristol and there are groups in London who call for this. Even if this guy is just a randomer who calls himself an anarchist (which I suspect he isn't), doesn't it demonstrate something about the nature of contemporary anarchism and its coherency and clarity, that someone can just say "I'm standing as an anarchist MP"?

I'm from a small city and I know some good anarchists with a good grasp on theory (even if I disagree with some of it) as well as action. The main problem they have is spending too much time on facebook and not actually organising.

Case in point, right? If you summed up the collective activity of the anarchist movement in the UK, what would it be? If it's not classtivism, outright activisty event-hopping, electioneering or internet warriorism, what is contemporary anarchism in the UK?

Syndicalist unionism a la Sol Fed apparently amounts to picketing shops, the Anarchist Federation has done nothing for a long time and this anarchafeminist conference, while important, is completely movement focused; the student autonomist groups seem only interested in building mass events, and then what is left? Single issue groups and solidarity networks that are either not interested in class politics beyond their own issues or they're dominated by leftists and unions.

Also, I think argeiphontes was just joking. :P

Yeah, I thought that must have been the case. It was too weird not to be...

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 14:07

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 14:45

In a world where Obama can simultaneously be a high ranking jihadist and a marxist bent on forcing Americans to become atheists, I dont think categories of a political nature actually mean a whole lot when it comes to the general public. This dude is a joke but I don't think it's a reflection on anarchism. I know people who call themselves socialists because they're in favor of universal healthcare, I dont think thats a reflection on socialism, they just don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

I think it's really easy to just call someone a joke and dismiss them as lacking seriousness than actually address the fundamental and structural problems that anarchism as a movement faces. This is not an isolated incidence*, and when you take it as part of a whole, it exposes severe problems that just being dismissive won't really address.

*http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/thinking-of-standing-as-a-class-war-candidate/

*http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/martin-wright-election-statement/

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 14:55

If a sizable chunk of anarchists started advocating for this kind of participation, I think you would be right. But a kind of random amalgamation of people with a poor grasp of anarchism doesn't represent a crisis in anarchist thought anymore than the existence of 'national-anarchism' does, in my mind at least. This reminds me of that 'former anarcha-feminist' who was posting a few months ago who later admitted to not having a clue about anarchism or feminism, she had just given herself that title for some reason. Why people would give themselves a title that totally doesn't fit is interesting to me, but like I said it doesn't seem like much of a crisis.

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 15:06

If a sizable chunk of anarchists started advocating for this kind of participation, I think you would be right. But a kind of random amalgamation of people with a poor grasp of anarchism doesn't represent a crisis in anarchist thought anymore than the existence of 'national-anarchism' does, in my mind at least.

You think Martin Wright and Ian Bone are random people with a poor grasp of anarchism?

This reminds me of that 'former anarcha-feminist' who was posting a few months ago who later admitted to not having a clue about anarchism or feminism, she had just given herself that title for some reason. Why people would give themselves a title that totally doesn't fit is interesting to me, but like I said it doesn't seem like much of a crisis.

If the UK anarchist movement is not classtivism, activism, electioneering and internet warriorism, what is it?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 15:17

I would say it's demobilized like every other revolutionary ideology under the sun in the west. That's a crisis, I guess, but I don't think it's unique to anarchism nor do I think that's any kind of new observation. I'm not familiar with the names, maybe they're a big deal. To take a slightly different American example, when Chomsky tells anarchists to go vote for the Democrats every 2 years, does that represent a crisis in anarchist thought to you, or is Chomsky just kind of an idiot?

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 15:22

I would say it's demobilized like every other revolutionary ideology under the sun in the west.

That isn't really addressing my question. You're saying that electioneering is just a few random people (that apparently includes Martin Wright and Ian Bone), so if anarchism is not electioneering, if it is not classitivism, or directionless activism, what is it?

If the anarchist movement is not these people and these things, what is it?

That's a crisis, I guess, but I don't think it's unique to anarchism nor do I think that's any kind of new observation.

Just because the anarchist movement is part of a broad Left that is failing isn't really relevant to anything. Surely the point is that anarchism should be striving beyond that, rather than just accepting its current failures...

I'm not familiar with the names, maybe they're a big deal. To take a slightly different American example, when Chomsky tells anarchists to go vote for the Democrats every 2 years, does that represent a crisis in anarchist thought to you, or is Chomsky just kind of an idiot?

As far as I'm aware, Chomsky doesn't call himself an anarchist.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

7th February 2014, 15:24

In a world where Obama can simultaneously be a high ranking jihadist and a marxist bent on forcing Americans to become atheists, I dont think categories of a political nature actually mean a whole lot when it comes to the general public. This dude is a joke but I don't think it's a reflection on anarchism. I know people who call themselves socialists because they're in favor of universal healthcare, I dont think thats a reflection on socialism, they just don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Isn't it, though? A reflection on the state of socialism, I mean. The movement is so atomized, demoralized and so close to social democracy in the main that most people think socialism is "an economic system" to be implemented by a bourgeois state (that, or the gummint taking their guns so they can't defend themselves against the muslamic ray guns), a "more left" form of social democracy in fact. And the existing socialist orgs just reinforce that notion.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 15:29

He's an 'anarcho-syndicalist' whatever that means in 2014. I don't know, maybe I'm totally out of touch with UK anarchism, are you saying those two guys + the dude in the op represent a sizable portion of whatever movement is left there? The fact that you needed to point this out seems like they represent a minority. If electoralism was such a driving force in anarchisim there in the UK why are you only able to point out a handful of individuals actually advocating and participating in it? I'll take your word that these guys know what they're talking about, but why do you feel they're representative of anarchism as a whole?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 15:37

Isn't it, though? A reflection on the state of socialism, I mean. The movement is so atomized, demoralized and so close to social democracy in the main that most people think socialism is "an economic system" to be implemented by a bourgeois state (that, or the gummint taking their guns so they can't defend themselves against the muslamic ray guns), a "more left" form of social democracy in fact. And the existing socialist orgs just reinforce that notion.

I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of people socialist groups reach with their messages. The ruling class dictates what the public knows about socialism. I definitely see your point though.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

7th February 2014, 15:45

I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of people socialist groups reach with their messages. The ruling class dictates what the public knows about socialism. I definitely see your point though.

I would say that many socialist groups are themselves instruments of the ruling class - and besides, it's not as if most people in, say, Britain, will not have heard of one of the hundreds of Trotskyist, Maoist or eurocommunist groups in the UK at least once in their life.

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 15:47

He's an 'anarcho-syndicalist' whatever that means in 2014. I don't know, maybe I'm totally out of touch with UK anarchism, are you saying those two guys + the dude in the op represent a sizable portion of whatever movement is left there?

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that this trend is indicative of a bankrupt movement that has lost focus, lost coherency and has no grounding in the class or the tradition.

The fact that you needed to point this out seems like they represent a minority. If electoralism was such a driving force in anarchisim there in the UK why are you only able to point out a handful of individuals actually advocating and participating in it? I'll take your word that these guys know what they're talking about, but why do you feel they're representative of anarchism as a whole?

I don't 'feel' that. I really wish people would read my posts properly.

I don't think electoralism is a driving force for anarchism, nor have I said that. This isn't about numbers, but let's bear in mind that there's only about a 1000 active anarchists in the UK anyway, and that's an exaggerated estimate. What this is about is what the anarchist movement has become. And though I keep asking you to clarify that for me, you've evaded answering that question three times now.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 15:51

Criminalize Heterosexuality

7th February 2014, 15:55

I can't speak for the UK but I would be shocked to find that more than 10% of the population in the US has been approached by a socialist and had the positions explained to them. I've done my share of being a crazy on the street with newspapers and yeah, I had entire days where people wouldn't even make eye contact with me /cringe.

But how many people in the US have, for example, heard of SAlt and their recent Seattle campaign, and how would this influence their view of socialism?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 15:58

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that this trend is indicative of a bankrupt movement that has lost focus, lost coherency and has no grounding in the class or the tradition.

I don't 'feel' that. I really wish people would read my posts properly.

I don't think electoralism is a driving force for anarchism, nor have I said that. This isn't about numbers, but let's bear in mind that there's only about a 1000 active anarchists in the UK anyway, and that's an exaggerated estimate. What this is about is what the anarchist movement has become. And though I keep asking you to clarify that for me, you've evaded answering that question three times now.

Then I've misunderstood I guess, yes the "anarchist movement" is bankrupt in that's it's an anachronism that has no place in our world anymore. But TAT this isn't new and its true for everything left over from the 20th century. Sorry for the pointless discussion, your OP gave the impression that electoral politics had become a focus for what was left of the anarchist community.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

7th February 2014, 16:00

This isn't about numbers, but let's bear in mind that there's only about a 1000 active anarchists in the UK anyway, and that's an exaggerated estimate. What this is about is what the anarchist movement has become. And though I keep asking you to clarify that for me, you've evaded answering that question three times now.

There have been numerous studies of cults (i'm not calling anarchism in the UK a cult, at all) whereby their lack of a relationship with wider society (as evinced by the often tiny numbers in cult organisations) led to a detachment from reality, and sham political lines.

Could we posit that the tiny milieu of anarchists left in the UK (down to a few hundred, you say) are merely struggling from the fact that, short of taking up armed struggle, their numbers disavow them from any meaningful attachment to the class struggle?

Queen Mab

7th February 2014, 16:03

I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of people socialist groups reach with their messages. The ruling class dictates what the public knows about socialism. I definitely see your point though.

When people think of 'socialism', they think of the USSR and Old Labour. And almost all 'socialist' parties descend from one or both. I don't think the current ruling class had much to do with the degeneration of the Second International or the failure of the Russian Revolution.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 16:03

But how many people in the US have, for example, heard of SAlt and their recent Seattle campaign, and how would this influence their view of socialism?

The only real life person that I've actually heard mention it was my girlfriend and she only brought it up because she thought I would be interested in hearing about it :/

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 16:06

Then I've misunderstood I guess, yes the "anarchist movement" is bankrupt in that's it's an anachronism that has no place in our world anymore. But TAT this isn't new and its true for everything left over from the 20th century.

I don't agree that anarchism is an anachronism or that it no longer has a place in the 'world'. The development of anarchism in the late 20th and early 21st century is new and has created new problems, and they are things that require addressing.

Sasha

7th February 2014, 16:07

Sorry TAT but weren't you a platformist a few months ago followed by a anarcho-maoist flirt and in either afed or solfed (or both?) before that? maybe do some self criticizing on the subjects of focus, coherency and tradition instead of kicking at the whole of anarchism as a pedantic child?
It could very well be that the anarchist movement, esp in the UK, needs some hard criticism but posting a article about a idiot with no context supplied and with a thread title like you gave this one is helping no one.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 16:09

When people think of 'socialism', they think of the USSR and Old Labour. And almost all 'socialist' parties descend from one or both. I don't think the current ruling class had much to do with the degeneration of the Second International or the failure of the Russian Revolution.

How many people do you think even know what the second international was? I'll give you a hint, it's probably on par with the amount of people who actually know anything about the Russian revolution. I've never encountered a non-leftist with any kind of accurate information about the ussr, good or bad. I feel confident in saying that western knowledge of socialism is distributed via the ruling class in almost all cases.

The Feral Underclass

7th February 2014, 16:14

Sorry TAT but weren't you a platformist a few months ago followed by a anarcho-maoist flirt and in either afed or solfed (or both?) before that?

I still am a platformist and continue to have great affection for Spontaneous Maoism. I left AFed about two years ago after being a member for eight years, and left for these very reasons, and have never been in Sol Fed.

If you're confused about my politics, all you have to do is ask, rather than make wild assumptions about it.

maybe do some self criticizing on the subjects of focus, coherency and tradition instead of kicking at the whole of anarchism as a pedantic child?

I've done much of those things, which is why I have arrived at my criticisms.

I'm not kicking at the whole of anarchism -- I'm kicking at UK anarchism. I've been quite clear about that. And there is nothing pedantic about my criticisms, they are broad, clear and justified.

It could very well be that the anarchist movement, esp in the UK, needs some hard criticism but posting a article about a idiot with no context supplied and with a thread title like you gave this one is helping no one.

I made two statements (if you include the title), both of which are true. It has generated a discussion. I don't really understand why you're so irritated. If you have some analysis of UK anarchism that demonstrates it is more than an activist orientated, unfocused morass of utter nonsense, then provide it. It would contribute to this discussion far more than you just personally attacking me.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

7th February 2014, 16:22

I feel confident in saying that western knowledge of socialism is distributed via the ruling class in almost all cases.

But why would it be any different?

The ruling class controls the means of production (they keep us in work) and the state, which in most countries directs education (ideas of the ruling class).

The main propaganda in a class society will always be disseminated by the ruling class, until such point as the continued existence of the class society is in doubt.

Queen Mab

7th February 2014, 16:28

How many people do you think even know what the second international was? I'll give you a hint, it's probably on par with the amount of people who actually know anything about the Russian revolution. I've never encountered a non-leftist with any kind of accurate information about the ussr, good or bad.

I don't disagree.

I feel confident in saying that western knowledge of socialism is distributed through via the ruling class in almost all cases.

Yeah, so? The ruling class got the idea of socialism = welfare state from self-described socialist parties themselves. When during the 1950's by far the biggest 'socialist' movement on the planet was the USSR and the official communist parties, was it evil propaganda to use the word socialist to describe them? It seems to me beside the point to bemoan the improper usage of the term by millions and decry the bourgeois state for not listening to a few thousand ultra-left wackos. Honestly I don't think they actually know or care about us. It's not conscious propaganda, they just see the degeneration of the turn of the century revolutionary movement and take it at face value.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

7th February 2014, 18:54

I don't disagree.

Yeah, so? The ruling class got the idea of socialism = welfare state from self-described socialist parties themselves. When during the 1950's by far the biggest 'socialist' movement on the planet was the USSR and the official communist parties, was it evil propaganda to use the word socialist to describe them? It seems to me beside the point to bemoan the improper usage of the term by millions and decry the bourgeois state for not listening to a few thousand ultra-left wackos. Honestly I don't think they actually know or care about us. It's not conscious propaganda, they just see the degeneration of the turn of the century revolutionary movement and take it at face value.

I think we're on the same page about this. I know that no one outside of the milieu gives a shit what the proper usage of our terms are, thats what I meant with my statement about Obama. I'd be interested in seeing if the bourgeois parties actually got their strawman directly from the sell out parties of if the sell out parties transformed themselves to fit the narrative.

fear of a red planet

8th February 2014, 09:02

I think this is a good idea for a thread - the anarchist movement in the UK certainly is bankrupt.

However this new initiative from Ian Bone and friends under the Classwar banner (and it's not just 3 blokes there's about 20 candidates identified for the 2015 general election now around the country) is not a sign that the "movement" has suddenly or even recently become bankrupt.

The signs have been there from the beginning really. The voluntary self organisation of the class struggle anarchists into a multititude of often fairly short lived and always tiny groups that often position themselves either concsiously or unconsiciously in oppositition to the rest of the far-left (and often each other) and again either by design or accident focus on recruiting the flotsam and jetsam in the larger far-left orbit, and the people departing from their fellow organisations.

A total failure on the part of most of them as individuals or organisations to engage with wider social movements in a productive or useful way - either the Labour movement or really the activist/green/anti-capitalist movements. While they have done some limited good work in both of those they have failed singley to make any real impression to offer leadership.

And where they did make a positive and effective contribution - in Anti-Fascist-Action and in the sort of generalised anti-Yuppie/anti-Thatcher/anti-Polltax stuff in the eighties and early nineties they have lapsed into ineffective self parody and sealed knot style reenactment societies IE: Ian Bone/Classwar and Antifa/Antifascist Network etc.

People who identify as anarchists or class struggle anarchists do some good important work out there in a few places in Britain, for instance Haringey Solidarity Group who do form a broad current for social change in the wider movement in their area, but even the groups like them have no strategy for change, no strategy for helping people take power and remake things - and the other half of the anarchist movement spend their time writing articles criticising them which most of them will probably never read.

Solfed have done some good work on a tiny scale around supporting workers in individual or very small cases but again seem to have no strategy for growing their work.

Boycott Workfare - have done some good work on a larger scale and are probably the most successful and high profile camaign dominated by class struggle anarchists at the moment. But it's a single issue campaign and seems to have stagnated recently.

If you want to see evidence of the decline of the UK class struggle anarchist scene look at Libcom, Facebook, Urban75, twitter etc.

Look at the pointless circular rows between the radical intersectionalists and the people they annoy.

If you can bare the smell go to the Anarchist Bookfair in London and attend the chaotic, meetings on meaningless boring subjects which are well attended, and meetings on useful important subjects which are poorly attended. See the handful of non scene people attending the first time and being stared at and mumbled at by the wild haired scruffily dressed people behind stalls decorated with poorly printed pamphlets or obscure journals with a circulation of about 5.

The Feral Underclass

8th February 2014, 12:11

There have been numerous studies of cults (i'm not calling anarchism in the UK a cult, at all) whereby their lack of a relationship with wider society (as evinced by the often tiny numbers in cult organisations) led to a detachment from reality, and sham political lines.

Could we posit that the tiny milieu of anarchists left in the UK (down to a few hundred, you say) are merely struggling from the fact that, short of taking up armed struggle, their numbers disavow them from any meaningful attachment to the class struggle?

Anarchists are involved in class struggle type activity, the problem is that it is completely lacking in coherency and focus. Take AFed for example: They have done nothing meaningful in god-knows how long and when they finally announce something purposeful, it is completely movement focused and lacking in objective.

Anarchist organisations consistently fail to look at their activity strategically, which leads to incoherent and meaningless nonsense.

Quail

8th February 2014, 12:35

Anarchists are involved in class struggle type activity, the problem is that it is completely lacking in coherency and focus. Take AFed for example: They have done nothing meaningful in god-knows how long and when they finally announce something purposeful, it is completely movement focused and lacking in objective.

The anarcha-feminist conference (if that's what you're referring to) wouldn't have to be so "movement focussed" if there wasn't a significant amount of sexism within the anarchist movement. I think it's a really good opportunity to acknowledge that the way that anarchists who identify with an "anarchist movement" organise is alienating to people who aren't (for the most part) straight white men, and reach out to people who may share our goals and ideas, but who do not feel that the anarchist movement as it exists has anything to offer them. I think the conference really has some potential to begin transforming the anarchist movement into something which seems relevant to wider society.

The Feral Underclass

8th February 2014, 13:08

The anarcha-feminist conference (if that's what you're referring to) wouldn't have to be so "movement focussed" if there wasn't a significant amount of sexism within the anarchist movement.

Ultimately, what is the anarchist movement?

I think it's a really good opportunity to acknowledge that the way that anarchists who identify with an "anarchist movement" organise is alienating to people who aren't (for the most part) straight white men, and reach out to people who may share our goals and ideas, but who do not feel that the anarchist movement as it exists has anything to offer them. I think the conference really has some potential to begin transforming the anarchist movement into something which seems relevant to wider society.

I can understand why women would want to address the structural oppression that exists within the disparate anarchist scenes, because it frustratingly mimics the structural oppression within wider society. But it just strikes me that organising this conference specifically to address those straight, white men within those scenes prioritises them specifically over straight, white men inhabiting reality more generally.

Objectively speaking, what is the strategic outcome here? What does addressing the straight, white men within the anarchist scenes achieve specifically? Is it not far more useful to ensure the organisation of which you're a member has addressed these issues, has a clear strategy with specific objectives for combating patriarchy, and is orientated towards the class and not towards people that call themselves anarchists?

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 13:39

Quial has a very valid point.

A few years back a similar discussion was started by TC about the revolutionary scene being rife with sexism. I later regretted arguing against her on that debate (which I did based on the fact that the article she posted was contested by many feminist groups in the scene as divisive in itself..and because well...TC was an asshole) not because I was necessarily wrong but because of the tone of animosity between me and TC the debate failed to address this very important issue which could have contributed to a broader understanding on the board.

This topic is still very much alive to such an extend that women and other groups don't feel comfortable within the larger movement which fails to provide a safe space for women activists.

I don't have to argue, or I shouldn't have to argue, that this poses a real obstacle to creating more influx of members and in creating a wider inclusive movement. I don't see it as something "I understand that woman want to address" but as something that absolutely needs to be addressed a priori to addressing sexism in general.

I think it is a very valid point to address how the issue is debated. But ultimately the same mentality that creates a wider social divide as a result of patriarchy ironically and tragically prevents/frustrates the same discussion of attitudes within the groups.

And yes...I do absolutely agree with you when you state:

Is it not far more useful to ensure the organisation of which you're a member has addressed these issues, has a clear strategy with specific objectives for combating patriarchy, and is orientated towards the class and not towards people that call themselves anarchists?

But before our own houses are in order; the female comrades are forced to fighting a battle on two fronts. This kind of distracts from the orientation towards class when the groups pretending to do so hold the same patriarchal values and fail to recognize that.

fear of a red planet

8th February 2014, 13:40

The anarcha-feminist conference (if that's what you're referring to) wouldn't have to be so "movement focussed" if there wasn't a significant amount of sexism within the anarchist movement. I think it's a really good opportunity to acknowledge that the way that anarchists who identify with an "anarchist movement" organise is alienating to people who aren't (for the most part) straight white men, and reach out to people who may share our goals and ideas, but who do not feel that the anarchist movement as it exists has anything to offer them. I think the conference really has some potential to begin transforming the anarchist movement into something which seems relevant to wider society.

While I fully support your objectives - the fact is anarchist scene is not even appealing to 99.9% of straight white men.

So hopefully you will manage to make anarchism more appealing to people who are not just straight white men - But it would be good if you could develop a strategy to grow beyond just those who already have some sort of radical critique of or disillousionment with everyday life.

Quail

8th February 2014, 13:55

Ultimately, what is the anarchist movement?
The anarchist movement as I see it is the subset of people who identify as anarchists who involve themselves in the struggle against capitalism. There are however people who are essentially anarchist in their beliefs and they way that they organise, but who don't identify as anarchists and who would be wary of working with people who called themselves anarchists because in the past anarchists have organised in a way which excludes them, which ignores the specific ways in which they are oppressed and which replicates the oppression they face in wider society. I think that is a fundamental problem which needs to be resolved. Anarchism in theory has a lot to offer people who are marginalised in capitalist society, but if in practice anarchists are excluding those people then they are shooting themselves in the foot and creating a barrier to building an effective working class movement.

I can understand why women would want to address the structural oppression that exists within the disparate anarchist scenes, because it frustratingly mimics the structural oppression within wider society. But it just strikes me that organising this conference specifically to address those straight, white men within those scenes prioritises them specifically over straight, white men inhabiting reality more generally.
The actual content of the conference is still up for discussion, and while there will be time dedicated to the way that the anarchist movement replicates the oppression we face in wider society, there will also likely be time dedicated to talking about the struggles that are actively going on around us and how best we can engage with them.

Objectively speaking, what is the strategic outcome here? What does addressing the straight, white men within the anarchist scenes achieve specifically? Is it not far more useful to ensure the organisation of which you're a member has addressed these issues, has a clear strategy with specific objectives for combating patriarchy, and is orientated towards the class and not towards people that call themselves anarchists?
I don't think it's an either/or situation. Obviously we are tackling issues around sexism as and when they arise within the AF as well, but the AF is not the wider anarchist movement and I think we should be going further than only looking at our own organisations. I should also point out that the anarcha-feminist conference is being organised by a variety of people, most of whom are not in the UK Anarchist Federation.

The "strategic outcome" of this conference, for me at least, is to really challenge the way in which anarchists organise and how we relate to various groups of people. I want to make anarchism seem more relevant to people and I think this conference could be a really promising step in that direction.

The Feral Underclass

8th February 2014, 15:36

The anarchist movement as I see it is the subset of people who identify as anarchists who involve themselves in the struggle against capitalism. There are however people who are essentially anarchist in their beliefs and they way that they organise, but who don't identify as anarchists and who would be wary of working with people who called themselves anarchists because in the past anarchists have organised in a way which excludes them, which ignores the specific ways in which they are oppressed and which replicates the oppression they face in wider society. I think that is a fundamental problem which needs to be resolved. Anarchism in theory has a lot to offer people who are marginalised in capitalist society, but if in practice anarchists are excluding those people then they are shooting themselves in the foot and creating a barrier to building an effective working class movement.

I think this broad definition of the anarchist movement being people/groups who call themselves anarchist, or perhaps organise themselves non-hierarchically and whom fight capitalism is part of the problem. What is being done here is that we incorporate into our understanding of the anarchist movement anyone and everything that calls itself anarchist, and then we determine that to be the 'movement' and begin to focus on its problems, because of course this definition will present significant ones.

That begs the question whether this is really a problem about sexism or a problem of coherency. Of course sexism is a problem, but it is a societal problem that inhabits part of a 'movement' that calls itself 'anarchist'. For me, the question therefore, is not how do we make these people less sexist, but why are they anarchists in the first place? By understanding that they are not, the issue of combating sexism then becomes a societal issue, of which they are part, rather than a 'movement' issue, of which they shouldn't be part.

You are right in saying that the sexism in the 'anarchist movement' could put people off from wanting to associate with the 'movement', but if the 'movement' is an incoherent, unfocused, ahistorical amalgamation of anyone or anything that calls itself 'anarchist' then of course it's going to be a put off, because it clearly demonstrates that to be an anarchist doesn't really mean anything. If the 'movement' was a highly organised, highly visible, responsible, coherent, unified militant force that had its shit together, then these problems would be far easier to detect and deal with, if they existed at all.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Obviously we are tackling issues around sexism as and when they arise within the AF as well, but the AF is not the wider anarchist movement and I think we should be going further than only looking at our own organisations. I should also point out that the anarcha-feminist conference is being organised by a variety of people, most of whom are not in the UK Anarchist Federation.

My intention is not to present it as an either/or choice. Of course you can do either. My question, if I was to reduce it down to its bear bones, is why would you bother? I could see some use in bringing together the class-orientated anarchist organisations to discuss these problems. If these variety of people are outside of that milieu, then I can see why that might be a problem.

The actual content of the conference is still up for discussion, and while there will be time dedicated to the way that the anarchist movement replicates the oppression we face in wider society, there will also likely be time dedicated to talking about the struggles that are actively going on around us and how best we can engage with them.

[...]

The "strategic outcome" of this conference, for me at least, is to really challenge the way in which anarchists organise and how we relate to various groups of people. I want to make anarchism seem more relevant to people and I think this conference could be a really promising step in that direction.

I wish you luck, but I'm sceptical of its outcome. Not because I think people who are organising it are are not capable or justified, but because I think the problems that exist within the 'movement' are not about form, they are about content. The issues exist because there are fundamental structural and theoretical problems with what the 'anarchist movement' is and believes. Trying to tackle issues of gender oppression while there are profound foundational schisms is ultimately doomed to failure.

Quail

8th February 2014, 16:56

I think this broad definition of the anarchist movement being people/groups who call themselves anarchist, or perhaps organise themselves non-hierarchically and whom fight capitalism is part of the problem. What is being done here is that we incorporate into our understanding of the anarchist movement anyone and everything that calls itself anarchist, and then we determine that to be the 'movement' and begin to focus on its problems, because of course this definition will present significant ones.
I don't think that the definition I gave is as broad as you took it to be. In case I wasn't clear enough about it, I essentially meant class struggle anarchists who identify as such.

That begs the question whether this is really a problem about sexism or a problem of coherency. Of course sexism is a problem, but it is a societal problem that inhabits part of a 'movement' that calls itself 'anarchist'. For me, the question therefore, is not how do we make these people less sexist, but why are they anarchists in the first place? By understanding that they are not, the issue of combating sexism then becomes a societal issue, of which they are part, rather than a 'movement' issue, of which they shouldn't be part.
In my view, it partly about the failure of anarchist men to examine their own sexism and an ideological issue. Obviously anarchism is inherently feminist in that we can't create a free and equal society without also smashing patriarchy, but many people dismiss feminist concerns as "divisive" or a distraction because it may not be immediately obvious how they relate to class struggle. Feminism should be seen as an integral part of class struggle, and something that everyone should engage with, but I think we have yet to win a significant number of people round to that viewpoint.

You are right in saying that the sexism in the 'anarchist movement' could put people off from wanting to associate with the 'movement', but if the 'movement' is an incoherent, unfocused, ahistorical amalgamation of anyone or anything that calls itself 'anarchist' then of course it's going to be a put off, because it clearly demonstrates that to be an anarchist doesn't really mean anything. If the 'movement' was a highly organised, highly visible, responsible, coherent, unified militant force that had its shit together, then these problems would be far easier to detect and deal with, if they existed at all.
I think these problems would still exist regardless of the state of the movement, to a greater or lesser extent. It would greatly depend on how the movement was organised. We're all products of a sexist, racist, etc., society so unless all sections of society, especially the people who are most marginalised by capitalist society, were all actively involved in creating such a movement it would still suffer from the same problems. A movement where the ideas of white men dominate is always going to overlook the concerns of everybody else because when you don't have the lived experience it's much harder to know what those concerns might be, if you even notice they exist at all.

My intention is not to present it as an either/or choice. Of course you can do either. My question, if I was to reduce it down to its bear bones, is why would you bother? I could see some use in bringing together the class-orientated anarchist organisations to discuss these problems. If these variety of people are outside of that milieu, then I can see why that might be a problem.
As I said above, the purpose is to make anarchism seem relevant and inclusive of the most marginalised groups in society. Or at least, that's my reason for getting involved.

I wish you luck, but I'm sceptical of its outcome. Not because I think people who are organising it are are not capable or justified, but because I think the problems that exist within the 'movement' are not about form, they are about content. The issues exist because there are fundamental structural and theoretical problems with what the 'anarchist movement' is and believes. Trying to tackle issues of gender oppression while there are profound foundational schisms is ultimately doomed to failure.
I think I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. But we can't just sit around and wait for people to realise on their own the importance of feminism and other anti-oppression politics. For me, the choices are either I get involved with something that challenges the way in which anarchists continue to replicate the structures of oppression in wider society, or I get angry and disillusioned. If male anarchists continually refuse to listen to us, we need to make them listen.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th February 2014, 13:29

I think this is a good idea for a thread - the anarchist movement in the UK certainly is bankrupt.

Bankrupt of what, though?

Clearly, as the examples you yourself point out below, the anarchist movement in the UK is not wholly 'bankrupt' in every single way, as some good local work is done currently, and some good anti-fascist work has been done on a larger scale in the past.

It's fine to declare the UK anarchist movement unfit for revolutionary purpose, if that's what you're trying to do, but just blanket defining it as 'bankrupt' is as unhelpful as the commentaries that do the rounds criticising the rest of the left movement that never get read by anybody.

So i'll ask you (or anybody else): what particular aspect of the UK anarchist movement do you see as bankrupt, or lacking in purpose/method/achievement? Clearly the size and efficacy of the sum of revolutionary movements in the UK points to a lot of deficiencies, but what specifically would you say these are?

As an outside observer, someone who wouldn't self-identify as an anarchist, i'm interested to hear the specifics from people who are or have been involved in the UK anarchist movement over the past few years.

And where they did make a positive and effective contribution - in Anti-Fascist-Action and in the sort of generalised anti-Yuppie/anti-Thatcher/anti-Polltax stuff in the eighties and early nineties they have lapsed into ineffective self parody and sealed knot style reenactment societies IE: Ian Bone/Classwar and Antifa/Antifascist Network etc.

People who identify as anarchists or class struggle anarchists do some good important work out there in a few places in Britain, for instance Haringey Solidarity Group who do form a broad current for social change in the wider movement in their area, but even the groups like them have no strategy for change, no strategy for helping people take power and remake things - and the other half of the anarchist movement spend their time writing articles criticising them which most of them will probably never read.

Solfed have done some good work on a tiny scale around supporting workers in individual or very small cases but again seem to have no strategy for growing their work.

Boycott Workfare - have done some good work on a larger scale and are probably the most successful and high profile camaign dominated by class struggle anarchists at the moment. But it's a single issue campaign and seems to have stagnated recently.

If you can bare the smell go to the Anarchist Bookfair in London and attend the chaotic, meetings on meaningless boring subjects which are well attended, and meetings on useful important subjects which are poorly attended. See the handful of non scene people attending the first time and being stared at and mumbled at by the wild haired scruffily dressed people behind stalls decorated with poorly printed pamphlets or obscure journals with a circulation of about 5.

As a first-time, 'non-scene' person this year, I didn't find that this was fully the case. There were some issues relating to gender politics which have been well documented, but actually the fact that some lectures and meetings were well attended points to the fact that they weren't 'boring', and if they attracted first-timers to anarchist bookfairs like myself and friends, then they weren't meaningless at all, they served as a way in to some of anarchist politics for new people.

fear of a red planet

9th February 2014, 17:57

So i'll ask you (or anybody else): what particular aspect of the UK anarchist movement do you see as bankrupt, or lacking in purpose/method/achievement? Clearly the size and efficacy of the sum of revolutionary movements in the UK points to a lot of deficiencies, but what specifically would you say these are?

Pretty much everything and even the good examples such as Solfed and HSG dont amount to a hill of beans between them.

The fact is the anarchist scene in the UK has no resonance outside itself beyond a small and diminishing circle of people who have passed through the more Trotskyist left beforehand.

Let's breakdown the reasons why it is a totally dead and bankrupt scene as far as social change goes.

They do not relate to anyone outside themselves.
They have no strategy for helping/encouraging the working class to build power/win victories/defend anything that's left.
They have no strategy for promoting a specific libertarian class struggle approach within and beyond the labour movement.
They exist as a cliquey subculture or set of little subcultures complete with their own music and fashions and hangouts.
Inarticulate rage seems to be increasingly the method by which they communicate with the disinterested outside world.

The Feral Underclass

9th February 2014, 18:06

Pretty much everything and even the good examples such as Solfed and HSG dont amount to a hill of beans between them.

The fact is the anarchist scene in the UK has no resonance outside itself beyond a small and diminishing circle of people who have passed through the more Trotskyist left beforehand.

Let's breakdown the reasons why it is a totally dead and bankrupt scene as far as social change goes.

They do not relate to anyone outside themselves.
They have no strategy for helping/encouraging the working class to build power/win victories/defend anything that's left.
They have no strategy for promoting a specific libertarian class struggle approach within and beyond the labour movement.
They exist as a cliquey subculture or set of little subcultures complete with their own music and fashions and hangouts.
Inarticulate rage seems to be increasingly the method by which they communicate with the disinterested outside world.

And those anarchist organisations who do claim to have strategies suffer from unclear objectives, a lack of ambition, internal disunity and organisational practices that don't reflect confidence and a coherent methodology.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th February 2014, 18:46

Pretty much everything and even the good examples such as Solfed and HSG dont amount to a hill of beans between them.

The fact is the anarchist scene in the UK has no resonance outside itself beyond a small and diminishing circle of people who have passed through the more Trotskyist left beforehand.

Let's breakdown the reasons why it is a totally dead and bankrupt scene as far as social change goes.

They do not relate to anyone outside themselves.
They have no strategy for helping/encouraging the working class to build power/win victories/defend anything that's left.
They have no strategy for promoting a specific libertarian class struggle approach within and beyond the labour movement.
They exist as a cliquey subculture or set of little subcultures complete with their own music and fashions and hangouts.
Inarticulate rage seems to be increasingly the method by which they communicate with the disinterested outside world.

So, are you saying you wanted to incorporate groups like solfed, hsg etc. into any future movement for revolutionary social change?

What do you see a future anarchist movement (or its replacement) in the UK looking like, in the broadest terms? And what do you think needs to be achieved to get there/make progress towards a new movement?

fear of a red planet

9th February 2014, 19:57

So, are you saying you wanted to incorporate groups like solfed, hsg etc. into any future movement for revolutionary social change?

What do you see a future anarchist movement (or its replacement) in the UK looking like, in the broadest terms? And what do you think needs to be achieved to get there/make progress towards a new movement?

There are plenty of nice, decent, committed and non alienating people involved in the UK anarchist scene at the moment who could and possibly will play a role in any future movement for real social change.

At the moment I think there are two tasks both of equal importance.

One is to engage properly with trade union activists - the fact is the vast majority irrespective of what union they are in do want better things for themselves, their friends, families and fellow workers. Work with them to support them in winning small victories that can build confidence and develop skills. Also become them - don't be afraid of becoming union activists and going on official union training courses.

Two engage with people in non unionised industries and help them get organised into forms which are hopefully more appropriate to their lives - they key aspect of this overlaps with the first lot as it involves community organising. Work with people in their local communities again to win small victories and slowly increase power.

Use the opportunities created by the tasks above to duscuss your politics and ideas with people - win the right to talk to them about radical social change by showing you have the skills to pay the bills.

However both tasks and the opportunities need to be approached with patience and humbleness. The fact is class struggle anarchists are not a vanguard whatever they subconciously believe - neither they nor the rest of the revolutionary left have all or even many of the answers.

Also lastly use proper project plans - even Gantt charts to map out their strategy for the next few years with regular periods to review progress and change if needs be.

Now I don't claim that the above possible tilt at a strategy will be successful - but it's got to have more of a chance than the current mess.

Oh and edited to include one more point.

If the above is successful it wont lead to a bigger anarchist scene but instead a more libertarian workers movement that is capable of winning real change whatever form that change may take.