Anarchist and Marxist/Communist unity

[Bilan]

What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?

[JazzRemington]

It depends on the type of Marxist. Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, and what have you, I doubt would want to work with anarchists.

[Iron]

anarchists and marxists have few quams, though i doubt that a stalinist and anarchists would even be able to work together. soo i believer yes it is workable and happens all the time.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think it is essential to our struggle. I like Anarchists and see them as the watch dogs of the revolution.
Alas, some Marxists are just so in love with their dead man. :P

Let's just stay progressive people.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is inevitable for some sort of unified front to arise between all of us.

A socialist revolution will be made by the working-class through their own respective organizations, but leadership of certain sections will be prevalent; there will be scattered bands of fascists, anarchists, radical bourgeois parties, and revolutionary parties here and there. If we are to secure control over the political power, one revolutionary organization cannot afford to not cooperate with another, so it would be essential to secure some sort of temporary alliance to defend themselves against armed fascists and imperialists.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 28, 2007 12:51 pm
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?
I am a member of such organisation, the Syndicalist Youth Organisation. It works perfectly. I myself am a marxist and so are others, while some are anarchists. We all draw some influences from both marxist and anarchist thought. It does not matter what you prefer to call yourself as long as you share the same goals, and we do. It would probably have been different if we were for example dogmatic marxist-leninists or dogmatic individual anarchists, but were all quite undogmatic and put the class struggle first, before our organisation (it is just a mean to an end) and everything.

We do however cooperate well with left-wing social democrats, marxist-leninists, trotskyists, labour unions and all kinds of leftist groups.

[Random Precision]

I don't think that it is advisable to form unity organizations, no. In the daily struggle right now we see more than enough of Anarchists and Marxists screaming at each other about Lenin, and I don't see how either group could get anything done if we tried to form unity organizations. However, this is not at all to say that I am against alliances between the two groups during a revolutionary situation. In fact, if people on either side manage to keep their hostile impulses toward one another in check, I don't see why the workers of each group could not rule and continue the revolution jointly. As for right now, I believe the climate is far too acrimonious, but it may take a revolution for everyone to wake up and see that we're stronger together.

[Bilan]

Maybe I should've specified which Marxists I meant.
The non-Leninist-type of Marxists.
More traditional Marxists.

I suppose both that Syndicalist Youth Organization and RAAN are examples of this - ignoring what you think of RAAN's actions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If even left-communists have good reasons not to form a united organization with anarchists, how much more with the "Leninists" (the real deal, and not the spinoffs to their "right"), let alone the Trotskyists (sorry, RedDali :( ), Stalinists, Maoists, etc.?

My reasons against this (as someone in between the left-communists and the spinoffs as a "Leninist") are two-fold: organizational (that the Ukrainian anarchists eventually resorted to a caricature of "Leninist" organization just to survive a short while longer) and tactical (namely certain anarchists being hooligans by throwing crap at police in the midst of their human shields during protests).

[Bilan]

tactical (namely certain anarchists being hooligans by throwing crap at police in the midst of their human shields during protests).

View TAT's response in the "neo-anarchism" thread.
And also, thats not a sufficient reason for anarchists and communists not to organize together.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:58 am
If even left-communists have good reasons not to form a united organization with anarchists...
Personally, and I know that I don't speak for the communist left here, I would have no problem with an anarchist joining our organisation. Of course they would have to agree with the basic positions of our organisation (http://eks.internationalist-forum.org/en/basic-positions), and agree to act under the direction of the organisation. I don't think that anything there contradicts any fundamental premise of anarchism.

There are many good anarchist workers. It is just that when they get better they stop referring to themselves as anarchists.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe I should've specified which Marxists I meant.
The non-Leninist-type of Marxists.
More traditional Marxists.

I find an organization compromising this kind of unity between Marxist (Left Communists, Libertarian Marxists, etc) and Anarchists (Anarcho-Communists, maybe some kinds of anarcho-syndicalist) to be an ideal organization (one I would like to join).

Although I don't find any organization (in the US) yet that I would like to join that follows this idea of unity...

hmm

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 29, 2007 12:05 am
Maybe I should've specified which Marxists I meant.
The non-Leninist-type of Marxists.
More traditional Marxists.

I suppose both that Syndicalist Youth Organization and RAAN are examples of this - ignoring what you think of RAAN's actions.
Oh, of course, my mistake. Lenin=bad, and those who uphold him cannot possibly work together with anarchists, because we'll end up killing them all, plus everyone who doesn't agree with us, (especially if they're proletarian and revolutionary!) and form a tyrannical government, just like Bakunin said we would, because that's just how we Leninists are. :rolleyes:

[YSR]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 28, 2007 05:51 am
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?
IWW.

(Of course, most of the Leninists have left to form parties, fearing "trade union consciousness" but I've met a couple M-L wobs.)

[Labor Shall Rule]

(To Hammer)

I am only saying that it would not only be most advisable, but inevitable, for an alliance to arise out of all anti-capitalist forces during a revolutionary situation - the mandating of policy however, would be determined by the leadership, which will most likely be concentrated into a party, league,or club that represents a large portion of the most advanced section of the working class.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:12 am

Maybe I should've specified which Marxists I meant.
The non-Leninist-type of Marxists.
More traditional Marxists.

I find an organization compromising this kind of unity between Marxist (Left Communists, Libertarian Marxists, etc) and Anarchists (Anarcho-Communists, maybe some kinds of anarcho-syndicalist) to be an ideal organization (one I would like to join).

Although I don't find any organization (in the US) yet that I would like to join that follows this idea of unity...

hmm
Well, there are a couple, as mentioned:

There is the IWW (http://iww.org) and there's also R.A.A.N (http://www.redanarchist.org).
The latter's not to popular here though, it seems. :P
You could always just start one?

[Axel1917]

It is plausible in united front type things, but I am a bit unsure about social revolution, as I would not be surprised if many anarchists ended up supporting the capitalists to crush the revolution under the guise of "eliminating Leninist tyranny." Then again, some anarchists may come over once they see that those lies about Lenin being totalitarian hold no water, proven in practice by proletarian dictatorship. This would especially be the case in a revolution in the advanced countries, where the conditions for the possibility of Stalinist political counter-revolution are absent. It will largely be worked out by history in an overall manner.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:34 pm
This would especially be the case in a revolution in the advanced countries, where the conditions for the possibility of Stalinist political counter-revolution are absent. It will largely be worked out by history in an overall manner.
Be careful, though. "Stalinist" reaction is merely one of many forms of reaction that can happen. Even Trotsky linked "Stalinism" (bureaucratic reaction) to the "Bonapartisms" (military officers' reaction) in France after he himself was outmaneuvered out of anti-Bonapartist fears by the bureaucracy itself (all those fears of Trotsky using the Red Army to oust Stalin and his supporters).

The specific form of bureaucratic reaction in 1920s Russia can be avoided, but only because of 20-20 hindsight. However, because class antagonisms intensify under the DOTP, there will be several if not many attempts at "slow" reaction that need to be kept in check.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:34 pm
Then again, some anarchists may come over once they see that those lies about Lenin being totalitarian hold no water, proven in practice by proletarian dictatorship. This would especially be the case in a revolution in the advanced countries, where the conditions for the possibility of Stalinist political counter-revolution are absent. It will largely be worked out by history in an overall manner.
I think if you started talking about Lenin and the lies about him in a social revolution now, people would just tell you to shut up. :lol:
It's not relevant to the task at hand; which in the current situation, is the over-throw of the capitalist system and the state, and the implementing of a socialist system.


It is plausible in united front type things, but I am a bit unsure about social revolution, as I would not be surprised if many anarchists ended up supporting the capitalists to crush the revolution under the guise of "eliminating Leninist tyranny."

Yeah, just like in Paris 68 :lol: :lol:
Or maybe in the Spanish Revolution :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Wouldn't it be advisable for Marxists and anarchists to sort out their internal differences first, before trying to build bridges between the two groups?

I've always been an advocate of pan-Marxist unity. Yes, that means all you Trots and M-L "stalinists" should get over it. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the question of whether the USSR and other similar societies were truly workers' states has become little more than a historical curiosity. Everyone now agrees that counter-revolution of some kind occurred in the Soviet Union at some point (at the very least, it occurred under Gorbachev; Trots say it began under Stalin, anti-revisionists say it began under Khruschev) and that we should take measures to avoid such an event happening in any future workers' state.

[p.m.a.]

I can speak from experience on the topic: I've been a Marxist for a long time, originally a Trotskyist with a soft spot for Mao, despite his Stalin worship. When I realized I didn't like any one "vanguard" party, though, I felt pretty lost. I found, however, a call over the internet for Marxists in my metropolitan area to meet up, in attempt to establish a non-sectarian Marxist group. I met up with the people, and originally we had about twelve people, some involved in the ISO, some in the SP:DAT, and others with various Redskin groups. We established a cross-identified Marxist collective, participated in some anti-war and antifa demonstrations, and did a lot of flyering around shows and in neighborhoods on different topics.

A few months into the group, however, problems arose. They existed between the Leninist and non-Leninist factions, but they weren't drawn along ideological lines. We wanted to take our actions a step further, either start doing spectacular actions such as rooftop occupations downtown, or continue organizing concerts regularly. But the Leninists didn't take the rest of us seriously enough in order to actually put more energy or effort into the group. You see, they had all found the vanguard party that fit their views, and worked regularly with those parties. In fact, most of their contributions were recommending we participate in their groups' actions. But those parties only accept people who align with Trotsky, or Mao, or Schatman, or whatever. For a Leninist, and I know this from my work with the SWP for a long time, the Party is your first priority with your time and your life. It's where your serious efforts are put. Everything else, save maybe your personal relationships, comes second. Most labor-oriented Leninists even work in particular industries their parties want to recruit in.

So, while in theory it was nice to try to build a meta-marxist group, but in practice, a Leninist cannot as devotedly work with a non-Leninist, let alone an anarchist, if he or she already participates in party work. And because these people in our group were holding us back from pursuing more of what we wanted to organize, we decided simply to boot them and reform as a indiscriminate RAAN crew. And it was through this experience that I came to reject Leninism: all the organizational flaws I saw during my disillusionment with the SWP, the RCP, and every other xxP, I saw manifesting in the operations of this new group. I came to my own conclusion that Leninism is simply a stagnant organizational paradigm; to cling to it in the 21st century is anachronistic, considering it was conceived to solve organizational problems faced a 100 years ago, in an entirely different socioeconomic structure. It didn't make sense for me to stay with it, and instead I moved onto libertarian marxist, and then ultimately autonomist theory.

So, basically, I think red & black unity is imperative to whether or not the revolutionary left will rebuild itself in the 21st century. But, I agree with RAAN (which is why I participate in the project), that we must define what we mean by "communist" in that equation. And for organizational necessity, we must exclude Leninist and other authoritarian, statist ideologies.

[Clarksist]

I find an organization compromising this kind of unity between Marxist (Left Communists, Libertarian Marxists, etc) and Anarchists (Anarcho-Communists, maybe some kinds of anarcho-syndicalist) to be an ideal organization (one I would like to join).

Luckily, most any leftists nowadays would agree to the terms "anarcho-communist" or "libertarian marxist". There are still many leninists, maoists, and trotskyists, but in the end - most lefties are pretty mixed with anarchist and communist views.

I really think mass unity is really possible. Most leninists aren't these complete authoritarian assholes many anarchists make them out to be. And most anarchists aren't these middle class mallcore kids leninists make them out to be. It's mostly just a problem of communication, and putting a stop to ideological vanity.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 30, 2007 03:35 pm
Wouldn't it be advisable for Marxists and anarchists to sort out their internal differences first, before trying to build bridges between the two groups?

I think Anarchist and Marxist unity could be a means to solve this issue.

[BobKKKindle$]

I actually find that disagreements arise because Anarchists do not fully understand the meaning of certain words in Marxist terminology, and thus perceive Marxists as authoritarian and unreceptive to any form of rational debate whereas, in reality, this is not the case. An example of this is state - Marxists understand the state to mean an institution of class oppression based on armed bodies of men, and advocate a democratic workers' state similar in structure to that of the Paris Commune - not a one-part dictatorship as is often assumed by Anarchists! If this lack of semantic clarity were eliminated, cooperation would be much easier.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 pm
I actually find that disagreements arise because Anarchists do not fully understand the meaning of certain words in Marxist terminology, and thus perceive Marxists as authoritarian and unreceptive to any form of rational debate whereas, in reality, this is not the case. An example of this is state - Marxists understand the state to mean an institution of class oppression based on armed bodies of men, and advocate a democratic workers' state similar in structure to that of the Paris Commune - not a one-part dictatorship as is often assumed by Anarchists! If this lack of semantic clarity were eliminated, cooperation would be much easier.
I think you can understand why we'd assume that, no?

[BobKKKindle$]

I think you can understand why we'd assume that, no?

Yes, given the outcome of the Russian Revolution. However, I think it is simplistic to attribute the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution to the theory of organisational structure of the Bolshevik party - we have to examine a diverse range of factors including those over which the Bolsheviks were unable to exercise control and to which they (and other Marxists) cannot be held accountable, for example, the failure of the revolution to spread abroad. A good Socialist should always be open to other viewpoints and be willing to make concessions when necessary.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:03 pm

I think you can understand why we'd assume that, no?

Yes, given the outcome of the Russian Revolution. However, I think it is simplistic to attribute the bureaucratic degeneration of the revolution to the theory of organisational structure of the Bolshevik party - we have to examine a diverse range of factors including those over which the Bolsheviks were unable to exercise control and to which they (and other Marxists) cannot be held accountable, for example, the failure of the revolution to spread abroad. A good Socialist should always be open to other viewpoints and be willing to make concessions when necessary.
Of course, but not entirely what I was getting at; I was just making the point that it was because of the way said theories played out historically which has led it to be met with such hostility.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:02 am
A few months into the group, however, problems arose. They existed between the Leninist and non-Leninist factions, but they weren't drawn along ideological lines. We wanted to take our actions a step further, either start doing spectacular actions such as rooftop occupations downtown, or continue organizing concerts regularly. But the Leninists didn't take the rest of us seriously enough in order to actually put more energy or effort into the group. You see, they had all found the vanguard party that fit their views, and worked regularly with those parties. In fact, most of their contributions were recommending we participate in their groups' actions. But those parties only accept people who align with Trotsky, or Mao, or Schactman, or whatever. For a Leninist, and I know this from my work with the SWP for a long time, the Party is your first priority with your time and your life. It's where your serious efforts are put. Everything else, save maybe your personal relationships, comes second. Most labor-oriented Leninists even work in particular industries their parties want to recruit in.

So, while in theory it was nice to try to build a meta-marxist group, but in practice, a Leninist cannot as devotedly work with a non-Leninist, let alone an anarchist, if he or she already participates in party work. And because these people in our group were holding us back from pursuing more of what we wanted to organize, we decided simply to boot them and reform as a indiscriminate RAAN crew. And it was through this experience that I came to reject Leninism: all the organizational flaws I saw during my disillusionment with the SWP, the RCP, and every other xxP, I saw manifesting in the operations of this new group. I came to my own conclusion that Leninism is simply a stagnant organizational paradigm; to cling to it in the 21st century is anachronistic, considering it was conceived to solve organizational problems faced a 100 years ago, in an entirely different socioeconomic structure. It didn't make sense for me to stay with it, and instead I moved onto libertarian marxist, and then ultimately autonomist theory.

So, basically, I think red & black unity is imperative to whether or not the revolutionary left will rebuild itself in the 21st century. But, I agree with RAAN (which is why I participate in the project), that we must define what we mean by "communist" in that equation. And for organizational necessity, we must exclude Leninist and other authoritarian, statist ideologies.
I'm sorry you came to such a conclusion. :(

However, my take is that most of the self-declared "vanguard" parties today are mere opportunists or sectarian-minded (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744) (I know I'm recycling this link, but this self-proclaimed "Leninist" needs to clarify his position to avoid confusion).

[p.m.a.]

we have to examine a diverse range of factors including those over which the Bolsheviks were unable to exercise control and to which they (and other Marxists) cannot be held accountable, for example, the failure of the revolution to spread abroad.

A revolutionary paradigm is supposed to solve these problems beyond the revolutionaries' control, though. After all, the capitalist class will fight to the bitter end, so we must presuppose there will be a long period of civil war. The strength of a revolutionary paradigm is how well it can deal with these external factors, without betraying its ends to its means. And Bolshevism clearly demonstrated it was not possible to do this. And the end result was the slaughtering of anarchists, left-communists, and other dissidents, and the formation of one of the most undemocratic non-fascist states history has ever seen.

If your plan for revolution can't deal with bourgeois revolts, civil war, and rests entirely upon the presupposition that another country will follow you in revolt, and supply you with what your economy can not; this is poor Marxism, my friend, and we should really be weeding this out of the left.

[Clarksist]

If your plan for revolution can't deal with bourgeois revolts, civil war, and rests entirely upon the presupposition that another country will follow you in revolt, and supply you with what your economy can not; this is poor Marxism, my friend, and we should really be weeding this out of the left.

Agreed.

The whole 'socialism in one country' isn't an inherently bad idea if you replace Stalin's actions with socialist ones. The need for revolution to proliferate isn't a very sturdy support for a whole country to rest its future on. In fact, it is very very very very very very very foolish to base the future of revolution on international revolutions.

The problem remaining, is that the third world is where revolution is going to take place first, which makes it very difficult not to depend on other countries. Along with that, comes the need for a revolution to prove itself extremely early on, otherwise the international bourgeois community will be screaming "we told you so!" and it will hamper international revolution.

These logistical complications can be overcome, and it is precisely through Marxist and Anarchist unity (oddly enough) that will overcome them. With the whole of the left working together, we can bring the best traits from our different theories into a better and fuller functioning system. The hope is that, like in Catalonia and Barcelona, once revolution has taken over, the workers themselves will make good the difference... which is historically pretty reasonable to assume.

[catch]

The dichotomy in revolutionary politics isn't between 'anarchism' and 'Marxism' but between social democratic and communist (or more specifically ultra-left - athough Devrim will disagree) positions. As well as those two, I think we'd have to add in radical liberalism- especially in the US, although that's broadly social democratic in most instances.

There are both anarchists and Marxists who share similar positions on internationalism, the unions, even political organisaiton to a large extent, and in many cases agreement on most of the major historical questions. Similarly there are both anarchists and Marxists who defend the trade unions, support national liberation movements etc. etc as well.

So within both anarchism and Marxism there are wider divergences than where the two traditions meet. As such, attempting to reconcile the divide shouldn't be seen as a 'unity' project, but ultimately an attempt to reject the large parts of both traditions which have become incorporated/recuperated by capital in one way or another. At the moment, I'd describe myself as neither, although I started out as an anarchist and have a lot of respect for those Marxist current that broke with social democracy - the left and council communists of the '10s and '20s, and the later splits from Trotskyism, operaismo etc.

edit: I think a big issue with many groups today is their particular allegiances to anarchism or Marxism - even very good ones tend to make far too many allowances for people from 'their' traditions - so they end up being anarchist or Marxist unity projects themselves - even the small ones that on the surface look like their ideas are quite mature.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:59 pm

If your plan for revolution can't deal with bourgeois revolts, civil war, and rests entirely upon the presupposition that another country will follow you in revolt, and supply you with what your economy can not; this is poor Marxism, my friend, and we should really be weeding this out of the left.

Agreed.

The whole 'socialism in one country' isn't an inherently bad idea if you replace Stalin's actions with socialist ones. The need for revolution to proliferate isn't a very sturdy support for a whole country to rest its future on. In fact, it is very very very very very very very foolish to base the future of revolution on international revolutions.

The problem remaining, is that the third world is where revolution is going to take place first, which makes it very difficult not to depend on other countries. Along with that, comes the need for a revolution to prove itself extremely early on, otherwise the international bourgeois community will be screaming "we told you so!" and it will hamper international revolution.

These logistical complications can be overcome, and it is precisely through Marxist and Anarchist unity (oddly enough) that will overcome them. With the whole of the left working together, we can bring the best traits from our different theories into a better and fuller functioning system. The hope is that, like in Catalonia and Barcelona, once revolution has taken over, the workers themselves will make good the difference... which is historically pretty reasonable to assume.
I'm not sure you understand what the meaning of socialist revolution is. Not only is it international in scope, but the material conditions for socialist revolution are present within that entire scope (ie, such that "national" socialist revolutions could occur only in rapid succession).

However, because Lenin differentiated between socialist revolution and something called "revolutionary-democratic" tasks, the question of building the latter exclusively in one country is a separate question.

[Devrim]

I agree whole heartedly with Catch's last post.
Devrim

[Clarksist]

Not only is [socialist revolution] international in scope, but the material conditions for socialist revolution are present within that entire scope (ie, such that "national" socialist revolutions would occur in rapid succession).

Socialist revolution in general is an international task, but it is going to happen nationally. Nation by nation. We must make revolutions that prove to the worldwide proletariat that hope lies in socialist revolution, and we cannot rest the success of a whole nation on worldwide revolution as a rule. We need to first make sure we can feed, clothe, and house every person based on the resources allowed at the current time, otherwise we will set ourselves up for a striking and painful fall if all the chips don't line up as we want/need them to.

Now I agree that we also need to wait for times where a revolution is most likely not going to be isolated, but we also cannot depend on global revolutions as the only means of survival.

[which doctor]

I predict a genuine revolutionary upsurge of proletarians will trump all exist anarchist/communist organizations currently in existence. I'm not saying these exist organizations are counter revolutionary, it's just that I think they will be less important in a genuine proletarian liberation movement than some of us give them credit for. During revolutionary times spontaneous organizations often erupt that are non-sectarian by nature as they are pro-proletarian liberation without any explicit political doctrines besides nothing less of a complete social revolution. Of course they may work parallel with exist political groups, especially if these existing groups have resource to offer to a greater movement.

That's just my vague, unsubstantiated two cents to the discussion. Perhaps a bit off topic, but my side of the argument is that anarchist and communist unity certainly is possible sometimes, but sometimes it also is not. Closely related political affiliations will often work together regardless of what they call themselves. Political groups that are not closely related will not work well together due to simple conflicts of interest. I don't predict anarchists and Trotskyists working together on a large scale any time soon.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?

I have absolutely no problem with anarchists, but they tend to be sectarian, and interested in ostracizing themselves from the rest of the Revolutionary Left.

[syndicat]

I don't favor either term as the basis for a political organization. I've belonged to several political organizations, one called itself "anarchist-communist", the other defined itself as a non-Leninist "revolutionary socialist" group (except it wasn't revolutionary, which is why i left it, but that's another story.) Both had internal conflicts due to differing views about direction, and both split up.

There are certainly a variety of things that have been called "anarchism" and a variety of kinds of organization that claim some continuity with Marxism. Marxism is a bit more defined because it is anchored by a particular body of social theory, and a certain organizational tradition...but that can also lead to dogmatism and regarding a received paradigm as some kind of Holy Writ.

Our understanding of reality should be rather regarded as a set of hypotheses that we are always prepared to adjust in the light of the results of practice and new information and our various internal debates. This is why i favor defining a political organization in more immediate, concrete language, of how we understand the institutions of the existing society, and of our strategy and vision for change. An advantage of this is that an organization defined this way can contain people whose political "identity", in terms of traditional labels, isn't the same. I suppose that people would regard me as an anarchist of some sort because I'm against a parliamentary strategy, for the destruction of the state and its replacement by a new working class-controlled polity, based on assemblies in workplaces in neighborhoods. But i prefer to avoid the "anarchist" label as I see it as too confused.

Nonetheless, even if one avoids labels and tries to define the organization in ordinary language, a viable political organization is still going to have limits to the degree of variation in viewpoints about strategy and tactics and aims.

[abbielives!]

I will work with marixists if they agree to operate within an anarchist structured group.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 06, 2007 08:17 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 06, 2007 08:17 pm)
Proper Tea is Theft
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?

I have absolutely no problem with anarchists, but they tend to be sectarian, and interested in ostracizing themselves from the rest of the Revolutionary Left. [/b]
In 20+ years of political activity, I have found more sectarianism in communist organisations in the U.K. than within the anarchist movement. We all percieve what we will doesn't make it true. ;)

One area that does cause friction at times, is the way communists persist in using 19th century language. Believe it or not that really pisses some folks off and makes communists look, from the outside at least, like a bunch of intellectual snobs to some, a bunch of backward looking intellectuals to others. In my younger years I believed former, and many friends believe the latter.


Commies and anarchos have worked together in the recent past in groups like A.F.A. where there is strong common ground. There is no reason why this unity shouldn't be across a wide array of areas as long as both groups accept each others differences.

[Forward Union]

I have said it before, I will say it again.

Unity between Anti-state and pro-state communists is a bad idea, at the very least it wont work, at worst it will result in one or both of the traditions destruction. It will parylize any form of organisation, with it's contradictory theory, internal strife, and different stances on action plan.

Not only are our theories in direct conflict with eachother but so are the practical action plans that come form it.

Success for the authorotarian political programe means the liquidisation of all oposition to the state. Including, as history has shown, the libertarian communist movement.

The idea of unity between Authorotarian and Libertarian traditions is as absurd and utopian as a 'peaceful revolution'.


I have found more sectarianism in communist organisations in the U.K. than within the anarchist movement

There is a bit, but generally we all get along. Solfed, Afed, the IWW and Class War all work together and have overlapping membership.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 09, 2007 11:16 am

I have found more sectarianism in communist organisations in the U.K. than within the anarchist movement

There is a bit, but generally we all get along. Solfed, Afed, the IWW and Class War all work together and have overlapping membership.
I meant that comment more tongue in cheek than anything. We inevitabley see our side of the fence in a better light than our nieghbours. Both communists & anarchists have a tendancy to be sectarian, and we inevitabley employ those ole rose tinted specs. If we are to work together we must recognise our differences as well as similarities and avoid sweeping generalisations like the one I quoted.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Cencus+October 09, 2007 12:44 pm--> (Cencus @ October 09, 2007 12:44 pm)
William [email protected] 09, 2007 11:16 am

I have found more sectarianism in communist organisations in the U.K. than within the anarchist movement

There is a bit, but generally we all get along. Solfed, Afed, the IWW and Class War all work together and have overlapping membership.
I meant that comment more tongue in cheek than anything. We inevitabley see our side of the fence in a better light than our nieghbours. Both communists & anarchists have a tendancy to be sectarian, and we inevitabley employ those ole rose tinted specs. If we are to work together we must recognise our differences as well as similarities and avoid sweeping generalisations like the one I quoted. [/b]
I agree. We have the same goals, we just don't agree on how to attain them. We should not be attacking others on the Left, but instead attacking the liberals and the Right, both of whom are class enemies.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:44 am
I meant that comment more tongue in cheek than anything.
Well, I would have to disagree.

Theres no serious sectarianism on the Libertarian side of the fence, in the UK at least. The only two splits that can cause contention, are between platformism and non-platformism. And perhaps between eco/individualist anarchism and communism. But these splits still seem to work together where possible, (Dissent, No borders, Mayday, bookfair) they organise meetings and events together, and even in somecases these individuals are part of the same organisations!.

I know there was some disagreement between NEFAC and the UK Anarchist Federation about the New York bookfair, but as far as I know that was largely personal, and has not manifested in any real way.

Contrast this with when I was in the Socialist Party a good 5-10 miniutes of every meeting would be dedicated to slagging off the SWPs reacent newspaper, or something a member of RESPECT said, to the extent it was basically an invisable agenda item. In Anarchist meetings our different publications are often shared, and given equal, constructive criticism.

There are no splits within the Anarchist movement as deep and unbridgable as say, that of Trotskyism and Stalinism, which are both Leninist ideologies. So the reality is, we are less sectarian!


I agree. We have the same goals, we just don't agree on how to attain them. We should not be attacking others on the Left

We don't have the same goals. They want to establish a workers state, and we want workers self-organisation. They would be forced to destroy us if they ever got to a position of power, because a system of democratic workers councils contradicts the idea of party leadership.

The Authorotarian communist political program is a threat to our success in the here and now!

I don't advocate violence against them. But we should accept our rivaly and try to overtake them in all areas. Pushing them to the back of workers strugles, and putting our platform out ahead of theirs.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 09, 2007 11:57 am
Theres no serious sectarianism on the Libertarian side of the fence, in the UK at least. The only two splits that can cause contention, are between platformism and non-platformism. And perhaps between eco/individualist anarchism and communism. But these splits still seem to work together where possible, (Dissent, No borders, Mayday, bookfair) they organise meetings and events together, and even in somecases these individuals are part of the same organisations!.

I know there was some disagreement between NEFAC and the UK Anarchist Federation about the New York bookfair, but as far as I know that was largely personal, and has not manifested in any real way.

...

There are no splits within the Anarchist movement as deep and unbridgable as say, that of Trotskyism and Stalinism, which are both Leninist ideologies. So the reality is, we are less sectarian!

No, there is just so much liberalism within anarchism that they will tolerate anything.
Devrim

[Forward Union]

I have no problem working with Syndicalists, non-platformists, libertarian-marxists, autonomist marxists etc. Because I don't feel the theoretical differences between what I think, and what they think warrent it.

Are you calling me a liberal? or perhaps just my attitude?

If that's liberal then what the fuck would you call the attitudes of those arguing for an alliance between the libcomies and the authorotarians!

I will concede that there are liberal attitudes in the broader anarchist movement. Particularly in America (Crimethinc, food not bombs, other pacifist shit) but the unity between different libertarian communist ideas and organisations is not one of them.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 09, 2007 02:07 pm--> (William Everard @ October 09, 2007 02:07 pm) Are you calling me a liberal? or perhaps just my attitude?

[/b]
I wasn't referring to you in particular. I was referring to a lot of what trades under the name of anarchism. Actually, I was half joking, but there is a lot of truth in the statement.


Originally posted by William Everard+--> (William Everard)I have no problem working with Syndicalists, non-platformists, libertarian-marxists, autonomist marxists etc. Because I don't feel the theoretical differences between what I think, and what they think warrent it.[/b]

What do you mean by work with? I worked with syndicalists in the UK Post Office about twenty years ago. Eventually, we got to the point where we could no longer work with them. It was to do with them wanting to put 'why we need a syndicalist union' into every publication. It didn't mean I couldn't speak with them, or even co-operate on some level, but some level of joint work were impossible due to political differences.

Why are you a member of a political organisation? I would imagine because it has different politics from other organisations. Therefore there are already levels that you aren't working with people.

Actually you know as well as I do that there have been big political arguments within anarchism. Take the arguments between WSM, and Organise! as a start.


William [email protected]
If that's liberal then what the fuck would you call the attitudes of those arguing for an alliance between the libcomies and the authorotarians!

I don't really think that these terms have any relevance, or even meaning today.


William Everard
I will concede that there are liberal attitudes in the broader anarchist movement. Particularly in America (Crimethinc, food not bombs, other pacifist shit) but the unity between different libertarian communist ideas and organisations is not one of them.

It is impossible to be in agreement with all of the 'libertarian communist organisations'. Take Ireland for example. You can't agree with both the WSM, and Organise! because their ideas on some issues directly contradict each others.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:36 pm
some level of joint work were impossible due to political differences.
Right. That situation is charictaristic of when Authorotarian and Libertarian communists attempt to coordinate together. Whereas a socialist party may have to stop working with the syndicalists at some point, we would not have to. Because we're theoretically and practically close enough, or even, flexable enough to do so. This has been historically true for example the cooperation between the CNT-FAI (Interestingly Solfed and the afed are both the equivelant organisations)


Why are you a member of a political organisation? I would imagine because it has different politics from other organisations. Therefore there are already levels that you aren't working with people.

Im a pragmatist before a politician. I find myself closer to the AF than Solfed politically, but I still don't fully agree with the AF. And could comfortably join either Class War or the Solfed were I confident they had greater potential than I currently feel they do.

As I said, we have overlapping membership already. Some of the bigest debates between us have been over whether or not to merge!


Actually you know as well as I do that there have been big political arguments within anarchism. Take the arguments between WSM, and Organise! as a start.

You are right. We shouldn't float off into the clouds, we do have debates. largely entrenched around The Organisational Platform. Which has lead to certain problems. But Organise! is the Irish branch of the AF, which I am a member of, and yet I find myself more in agreement with the WSM.

We have sectarianism but nothing to the extent of Stalinists and Trots (or even Trots ant trots) suffer from.


I don't really think that these terms have any relevance, or even meaning today.

One is a communist tradition that argues for the utilisation of the state post-revolution. The other believes that to be an inherantly fatal move, and argues instead for the creation of workers councils. These definitions seem to have meaning and relevance, as you pointed out earlier, saying that you could not fully work with the syndicalists.


You can't agree with both the WSM, and Organise! because their ideas on some issues directly contradict each others.

I can't agree with them both on those specific issues, but I can agree with them both on a majority of their theory.

[catch]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 09, 2007 03:05 pm
This has been historically true for example the cooperation between the CNT-FAI (Interestingly Solfed and the afed are both the equivelant organisations)

The FAI was a part of the CNT, not an entirely separate organisation that worked with it.


You are right. We shouldn't float off into the clouds, we do have debates. largely entrenched around The Organisational Platform. Which has lead to certain problems.
I think the differences between Organise! and the WSM have very little to do with the platform, most of it's been around their attitude to the trade unions, national liberation and nationalisation. There is a tendency amongst contemporary platformist groups (who tend to coalesce around anarkismo) to have similar positions on national liberation and the trade unions, but I don't think this has much to do with the draft by Dielo Truda.


But Organise! is the Irish branch of the AF, which I am a member of, and yet I find myself more in agreement with the WSM.
Organise! is not the Irish branch of the AF, in fact the AF has an Irish branch of one member iirc who stayed in the AF after the Irish section merged into Organise! It's not affiliated with either the IWA or the IFA either.



I can't agree with them both on those specific issues, but I can agree with them both on a majority of their theory.
I'd say the trade unions and national liberation make up more 50% of what I'd consider for minimum agreement with an organisation.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:40 pm
There is a tendency amongst contemporary platformist groups (who tend to coalesce around anarkismo) to have similar positions on national liberation and the trade unions, but I don't think this has much to do with the draft by Dielo Truda.
Right, I will admit im not entirely familier with the specifics of those debates. But I was about to add that even if it's not strictly a matter of Platformist politics against non-platformist, there is certainly a tendency for the issues you mentioned to be fought over between those two factions.


Organise! is not the Irish branch of the AF, in fact the AF has an Irish branch of one member iirc who stayed in the AF after the Irish section merged into Organise! It's not affiliated with either the IWA or the IFA either.

Yea, I simplified the situation to make a point. But you're wrong to say they are different groups, Ireland AF has now merged with Organise! "Welcome to the Anarchist Federation in Ireland. We are now part of the wider group, Organise Ireland" from their website here (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ireland/)


I'd say the trade unions and national liberation make up more 50% of what I'd consider for minimum agreement with an organisation.

Well that seems like a pretty sensible position to take in terms of membership. But it's still not quite as clear cut as that. Take the issue of trade unions as an example. The Anarchist federation states that "Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow" However, many of our members are also part of the IWW, and members of the Afed have been a part of Preston Solidarity (who are solfed) who would definitely believe radical syndicalist/anti-capitalist unions could play a part.

I personally believe trade unions can be useful tools in the overthrow of capitalism. I wouldn't say they are capable of it's overthrow entirely, and that the AFs criticism is fair in regard to reformist, mainstream unions like the TUC or CWI. And yet I do find myself in disagreement with various members of the AF. However, as anarchists, believing in the free association of men. I am allowed to dissent, as long as I admit that my position is not that of the group which I am a member, it's 'ok' to disagree.

In otherwords I seem to find that there is so much overlap, disagreement seems to manifest as a matter between individuals and not organisatons. If you turn up to the AF stand at the Anarchist bookfair while me and TAT are there you will see what I mean :P

[Barry]

I think that Marxists and Anarchist could join toghether in certain conflicts but i couldnt see them having a permenant unity as they will disagree on some things. Should a revolution actually happen only then could i see all the left unite. Stalinists would never be able to unity with other left wing groups as they are too authocratic

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:08 am
One area that does cause friction at times, is the way communists persist in using 19th century language.
Well, for one thing, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" really needs to be shortened to something like "proletocracy" or something. If other words like "particracy" can be added to the English language, why can't this one?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Cencus+October 09, 2007 05:08 am--> (Cencus @ October 09, 2007 05:08 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 06, 2007 08:17 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 06, 2007 08:17 pm)
Proper Tea is [email protected]
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?

I have absolutely no problem with anarchists, but they tend to be sectarian, and interested in ostracizing themselves from the rest of the Revolutionary Left. [/b]
In 20+ years of political activity, I have found more sectarianism in communist organisations in the U.K. than within the anarchist movement. We all percieve what we will doesn't make it true. ;)

One area that does cause friction at times, is the way communists persist in using 19th century language. Believe it or not that really pisses some folks off and makes communists look, from the outside at least, like a bunch of intellectual snobs to some, a bunch of backward looking intellectuals to others. In my younger years I believed former, and many friends believe the latter.


Commies and anarchos have worked together in the recent past in groups like A.F.A. where there is strong common ground. There is no reason why this unity shouldn't be across a wide array of areas as long as both groups accept each others differences. [/b]
You are on to something there. Communists like me, need to speak in the working class vernacular. I'm not saying we should talk like dumbasses, but we should try not to sound arrogant.


abbielives!
I will work with marixists if they agree to operate within an anarchist structured group.
Oh my, how non-dominant of you!!!!! :lol:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 09, 2007 03:05 pm--> (William Everard @ October 09, 2007 03:05 pm)
Originally posted by devrimankara+October 09, 2007 02:36 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 09, 2007 02:36 pm) some level of joint work were impossible due to political differences. [/b]
Right. That situation is charictaristic of when Authorotarian and Libertarian communists attempt to coordinate together. Whereas a socialist party may have to stop working with the syndicalists at some point, we would not have to. Because we're theoretically and practically close enough, or even, flexable enough to do so. This has been historically true for example the cooperation between the CNT-FAI (Interestingly Solfed and the afed are both the equivelant organisations)

[/b]
Actually, it is funny that you say this William. I take it that you are too young to remember the events that I am talking about, but it would not be wrong to say that the two main factions in this split were the ACF, and DAM (forerunners of the organisations that you mention).

The CNT-FAI analogy is very week.


Originally posted by William Everard
Im a pragmatist before a politician. I find myself closer to the AF than Solfed politically, but I still don't fully agree with the AF. And could comfortably join either Class War or the Solfed were I confident they had greater potential than I currently feel they do.

As I said, we have overlapping membership already. Some of the bigest debates between us have been over whether or not to merge!

This does raise an important point. Before we get onto it though let's just lay one idea to rest. There has been vague talk about the UK anarchist organisations merginging for the past twenty years. It is no closer now than it was then.

The important point is about the political weakness of the anarchist organisations. Basically, they don't stand for anything in specific, and what they do stand for they are not that serious about. Outside of London people attracted to anarchism may gravitate towards which ever one is active locally. This fact, and the fact that anarchism tends to play down the divisions in its big happy world of anarchism means that 'sectarianism' is not so prevalent. It also come from a misundertanding of what sectarianism is.

Let's look at one example:


Originally posted by AF aims and principles
Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow


Originally posted by William Everard+ AF member--> (William Everard @ AF member)I personally believe trade unions can be useful tools in the overthrow of capitalism.[/b]

Now from this quote, I understand that you are in direct opposition to your organisations aims, and principles. To me this suggests that the AF will let anybody join (when I was in London a couple of years ago I met an AF member who believed in God, which tends to prove the point. When I enquired about this a leading member of the AF told me that they try to talk to people before they join). THe AF's 'Aims and Principles' are pretty short. They are meant to be the basic points of agreement of the organisation. Yet, they don't even have agreement on these points.

This is not an obscure point. This is about how we relate to the trade unions, which is a vital component of the class struggle.


William Everard
However, many of our members are also part of the IWW,

And what exactly is the AF's position on the IWW. I read that you conference agreed to disagree. To me this summarises Anarchism. There is no political policy. People are 'free' to do what they want. One member can think that the IWW is the way to move the struggle forward, and one member can think that the IWW is an obstacle to class struggle. Yet, you all live happily within the same organisation.

How on Earth do you intervene in the class struggle as an organisation?

I think the answer is that you don't*.


Originally posted by William Everard
And yet I do find myself in disagreement with various members of the AF. However, as anarchists, believing in the free association of men. I am allowed to dissent, as long as I admit that my position is not that of the group which I am a member, it's 'ok' to disagree.

The reply that I can imagine coming to this is something along the lines of you not being clones, and not all thinking the same. This is not the issue here. A political organisation is a voluntary association of people who hold similar ideas. The problem is that the AF is not a political organisation, but a club for those with 'anarchist' ideas. You don't even agree on your own 'Aims and Principles'. It is not about being able to dissent. We have lots of political disagreement in our organisation. It is about the fact that you can't agree on what is supposed to unite you even.


Originally posted by William Everard

Originally posted by Devrim
I don't really think that these terms have any relevance, or even meaning today.

One is a communist tradition that argues for the utilisation of the state post-revolution. The other believes that to be an inherantly fatal move, and argues instead for the creation of workers councils. These definitions seem to have meaning and relevance, as you pointed out earlier, saying that you could not fully work with the syndicalists.

I am well aware of what these terms are used to mean thanks you. As we have seen before the reasons that we (including ACF members) could not work with the syndicalists is not because I am some sort of big bad 'authoritarian', but because, to put it on a very basic level, we argued for the creation of workers' councils, and they argued for a syndicalist union.

The reason that I said that these words seemed to be meaningless is because I do not believe that the average Trotskyist wants to institute a 'dictatorship' over the proletariat' at some unforeseen point in the future. The reason that our current is against the Trotskyists is because of what they do today. Take the 'Militant' when I lived in the UK for example. Their idea of struggle was to take over municipal councils. In this they integrated themselves into the state. It ended up with the farce of 'revolutionaries' sending out redundancy notices to workers. This is why we are against the Militant**.

I don't need to condemn people for a disagreement over historical analysis when they are acting against the working class today.

Finally on disagreement within the anarchist movement, you wrote:


William [email protected]

Catch
I can't agree with them both on those specific issues, but I can agree with them both on a majority of their theory.

I'd say the trade unions and national liberation make up more 50% of what I'd consider for minimum agreement with an organisation.

Catch is absolutely correct here. The two main issues in the North of Ireland are nationalism, and class struggle. The questions here are very clear. Do you support a group that advocates people voting in elections for unions General secretary? Do you support a group that, to say the very least, is soft on Irish Republicanism? To me these are two classic positions of the Trotskyist groups. The fact that the WSM dresses them up in some 'libertarian language' doesn't make them any better. I see them as basically the same. Organise! although they are anarchists have different politics completely. They are politics that to a large extent I can find myself in agreement with.

The difference today is not between anarchism, and Marxism, but between communist politics, and 'leftist' politics. Anarchism straddles a fence between them. Clarification of these differences is not 'sectarianism'. It is the struggle for class politics.

Devrim

*This is not saying that AF members are not involved in the class struggle, and do not do good work on an individual basis.

**This is only an example. There are many other reasons why we are against these organisations.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:12 am
Actually, it is funny that you say this William. I take it that you are too young to remember the events that I am talking about, but it would not be wrong to say that the two main factions in this split were the ACF, and DAM
I wasn't about for that one, no, but you seem to be attempting to disprove a strawman. I never made the statement "There is no sectarianism on the libertarian left" nor did I claim that it never causes problems.


The important point is about the political weakness of the anarchist organisations. Basically, they don't stand for anything in specific, and what they do stand for they are not that serious about. Outside of London people attracted to anarchism may gravitate towards which ever one is active locally. This fact, and the fact that anarchism tends to play down the divisions in its big happy world of anarchism means that 'sectarianism' is not so prevalent. It also come from a misundertanding of what sectarianism is.

I'd say these are all fair criticisms. Although I am not sure what you mean by "play down"? what exaclty does this mean, and how do we do it?


Now from this quote, I understand that you are in direct opposition to your organisations aims, and principles. To me this suggests that the AF will let anybody join

No, not anybody. But you do adress a very real problem with anarchist organisations.

I largely agree with the point on unions, but I feel it is worded really badly and stands as a criticism of reformist unions only (Incidently, we are re writing the As&Ps). Not revolutionary syndicalist ones. Part of the problem is that it's not clear what it means! and peopel can join with their own interpretations. Saying they have no part to play is mad, especially considering Anarchisms history.

All this apologising aside. We do have a massive problem, and you are correct to highlight it. Theres not much in the way of accountability in Libertarian politics, reponsability, or even mechanisms of removal. Locally this has meant that we've had members join who actually brought up questions like "whats wrong with capitalism" it's a disgrace.

I feel the platformist groups' use of things like position papers, collective responsability, etc, do provide a solution to this.


A political organisation is a voluntary association of people who hold similar ideas. The problem is that the AF is not a political organisation, but a club for those with 'anarchist' ideas. You don't even agree on your own 'Aims and Principles'. It is not about being able to dissent. We have lots of political disagreement in our organisation. It is about the fact that you can't agree on what is supposed to unite you even.

Again, I agree, and at the next NDM there will be, I suspect, a lengthy debate over a proposal I raised, that goes some way toward adressing this point.


I do not believe that the average Trotskyist wants to institute a 'dictatorship' over the proletariat' at some unforeseen point in the future.

Right, so your objection is to the actual words used to describe the two traditions. But regardless, the terms are what they are, and have some meaning, relative to eachother. A state necessitates less individual liberty, even Lenin said so. But I understand the objection to being called "Authorotarian" In my opinion it's far too simplistic.


They are politics that to a large extent I can find myself in agreement with.

I find myself largely in agreement with the WSM on most issues. And having now read your entire post, you seem to be saying many of the things me and some other comrades have been saying for some time now within the AF and larger Anarchist scene ( I say scene not, movement)

What do you say to joining the AF in time for the NDM, just say everything you said here! :D

(appologies for spelling mistakes, have to make this post incognito because my boss is a ****)

[Devrim]

I think that there are a few points you have misunderstood me on. I would just like to clarify those first.


Originally posted by William Everard+--> (William Everard)
Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)They are politics that to a large extent I can find myself in agreement with.[/b]

I find myself largely in agreement with the WSM on most issues. And having now read your entire post, you seem to be saying many of the things me and some other comrades have been saying for some time now within the AF and larger Anarchist scene ( I say scene not, movement)[/b]

I don't know if you read this as me finding myself in agreement with the WSM. It certainly wasn't meant to. The 'politics that to a large extent I can find myself in agreement with' are those of Organise! certainly on the national issue.

I think that the WSM are like an anarchist version of the SWP.


Originally posted by William Everard
What do you say to joining the AF in time for the NDM, just say everything you said here!

I don't know if you have noticed, but quite apart from any political differences I have with the AF, I live in a different continent, the user name sort of gives it away. :) I worked in the UK about twenty years ago.


Originally posted by William Everard
Right, so your objection is to the actual words used to describe the two traditions. But regardless, the terms are what they are, and have some meaning, relative to eachother. A state necessitates less individual liberty, even Lenin said so. But I understand the objection to being called "Authorotarian" it's far too simplistic.

I don't think that the issue is at all about the state. Any anarchist worth their salt believes in a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whether they choose to call it that is another matter.But the power of the workers' councils is the dictatorship. I have heard anarchists describe their ideas in exactly the same way as I have heard Marxists do it. I am not really interested in creating a semantic argument.

There are important details about the period of transition, but the most important thing about the leftists is how they show themselves to be anti-working class today.


Originally posted by William Everard
I wasn't about for that one, no,
Two links, the first written by somebody who had been in the ACF at the time.
http://libcom.org/library/communication-wo...ique-subversion (http://libcom.org/library/communication-workers-group-rank-file-critique-subversion)
http://libcom.org/tags/communication-workers-group

Anyway, back to the point:


Originally posted by William Everard
Now from this quote, I understand that you are in direct opposition to your organisations aims, and principles. To me this suggests that the AF will let anybody join

No, not anybody. But you do adress a very real problem with anarchist organisations.
...
All this apologising aside. We do have a massive problem, and you are correct to highlight it. Theres not much in the way of accountability in Libertarian politics, reponsability, or even mechanisms of removal. Locally this has meant that we've had members join who actually brought up questions like "whats wrong with capitalism" it's a disgrace.

I think that proves my point.

I think though, William that there are two questions, which are in some ways unrelated.

One is the organisational question. I can understand why some anarchists look towards 'Platformism' on this one. After all the 'Platformists' look rather well organised compared to what you have been describing.

The second issue though is the political content. In my opinion 'Platformism' comes across as very similar to leftism. The only thing that separates them from the Trotskyists is in my opinion their views on parlimentarianism, and a bit of 'libertarian' rhetoric. They hold identical position on the unions, and national liberation.

I don't think that this is something that is intrinsic in 'Platformism' though. It is the way the 'Platformists' have evolved.


William [email protected]
I largely agree with the point on unions, but I feel it is worded badly and stands as a criticism of reformist unions (We are re writing the As&Ps actually). Not revolutionary syndicalist ones. Saying they have no part to play is mad, especially considering anarchisms history. As I said, dissent is permissable, as long as you don't claim that your views represent those of the entire membership.

The discussion about the IWW shows both issues. On an organisationally level the idea that members make up their own minds on 'industrial strategy' is plainly absurd. Why bother having an organisation at all. The other problem is as you rightly point out the activity of members of your organisation seems to, if not go directly against, certainly be brushing against the 'Aims and Principles'.

The second is a political point on the IWW, and whether it is possible to build revolutionary unions today. I don't think here is the best place to go into it.

In another way both of the problems are intertwined as solving of the organisational problems will lead to politics taking a more central role.


William Everard
(appologies for spelling mistakes, have to make this post incognito because my boss is a ****)

Install a spell check on your browser. It helps me. :rolleyes: (he is looking at how you spelt apologies).

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:02 am
I don't know if you read this as me finding myself in agreement with the WSM. It certainly wasn't meant to. The 'politics that to a large extent I can find myself in agreement with' are those of Organise! certainly on the national issue.

I think that the WSM are like an anarchist version of the SWP.

No I did understand. I oppose their position on national liberation also, but largely agree with them. And also, the criticisms you have made of the AF.


I don't think that the issue is at all about the state. Any anarchist worth their salt believes in a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whether they choose to call it that is another matter.But the power of the workers' councils is the dictatorship. I have heard anarchists describe their ideas in exactly the same way as I have heard Marxists do it. I am not really interested in creating a semantic argument.

Sure, I agree with the idea of a workers dictatorship, in a manner of speaking. I disagree however with a centeral state. But I would rather keep discussing how crap anarchist groups are, and ways of fixing these problems. Than these semantics.


After all the 'Platformists' look rather well organised compared to what you have been describing.

They are rather well organised!


In my opinion 'Platformism' comes across as very similar to leftism. The only thing that separates them from the Trotskyists is in my opinion their views on parlimentarianism, and a bit of 'libertarian' rhetoric. They hold identical position on the unions, and national liberation.

I wouldn't say it is rethoric. They object to the formation of a workers state, that means they are part of the libertarian tradition. Could you explain what you mean exactly by "leftism" ?


I don't think that this is something that is intrinsic in 'Platformism' though. It is the way the 'Platformists' have evolved.

That's what I was going to add. The platform was afterall, a discussion document, not a manifesto.


The idea that members make up their own minds on 'industrial strategy' is plainly absurd

I find it remarkable that you seem to be repeating comments I have made within the AF only a few weeks ago!. I proposed that we formulate position papers on various issues, including The Environment, the EU, Immigration etc, at the moment the AF has absolutely no stance on any issue. It met a fair amout of hostility, and the original proposal has now been watered down now. It will be discussed in a few weeks at the NDM. I am looking forward to it.

Interestingly TAT has shown some major objection to organisation, I hope he posts in this thread at some point.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 10, 2007 11:52 am
I find it remarkable that you seem to be repeating comments I have made within the AF only a few weeks ago!. I proposed that we formulate position papers on various issues, including The Environment, the EU, Immigration etc, at the moment the AF has absolutely no stance on any issue. It met a fair amout of hostility, and the original proposal has now been watered down now. It will be discussed in a few weeks at the NDM. I am looking forward to it.


I don't think that it is that remarkable. A lot of it is just common sense. I don't think that it is necessary to have 'position papers' on all of these issues though. I think the important thing is that you have a level of theoretical unity. If you asked different members of our organisation for an opinion on some issue, you would get a very similar response. That is not because we are all clones, and have learnt the party line (it would be the same on a issue we had never heard of before). It is because their is a basic level of political agreement. Therefore we don't need an 'position paper' on the EU, as we would all have a very similar analysis.


Sure, I agree with the idea of a workers dictatorship, in a manner of speaking. I disagree however with a centeral state. But I would rather keep discussing how crap anarchist groups are, and ways of fixing these problems. Than these semantics.
...
I wouldn't say it is rethoric. They [the Platformists]object to the formation of a workers state, that means they are part of the libertarian tradition. Could you explain what you mean exactly by "leftism" ?

I think that it is an important part of the question. I don't think that a 'rejection of a centralised state' is really a common point of departure. The view of the majority in our organisation is that there will be a state after a revolution. However, we do not go on about a 'workers' state'. We think the state is a reactionary organ, which will exist in a transition period, and that the working class will have to maintain its dictatorship separate from, and when necessary against that state. However, one could be in our organisation, and hold much more anarchistic conceptions. It is not the common point of departure for us.

When someone says that this organisation is 'Leninist', and this organisation is 'Libertarian'. It means nothing to me. I think it is far better to start from looking at the organisations politics.

To put it very simply we are looking at three basic questions;
1) War, and national Liberation
2) Parlimentarianism,
3) Trade Unions

On two of those we would be in disagreement with the 'Platformists', and I think that actually the anarchists are more shaking on parliamentarianism than we are.

As for what we mean by 'leftism', it is the left wing of the capitalist political apparatus.
Even that is shorthand for a quite a deep concept. Basically, it is those who cling to the ideas, and practices of the old workers movement, which have now become incorporated in bourgeois politics.

Devrim

[catch]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 09, 2007 09:53 pm
Right, I will admit im not entirely familier with the specifics of those debates.

You should get on libcom (more?) then.


But you're wrong to say they are different groups, Ireland AF has now merged with Organise! "Welcome to the Anarchist Federation in Ireland. We are now part of the wider group, Organise Ireland" from their website here (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ireland/)
Yeah that's what I said - but when they merged they ceased to be a part of the AF, or the IFA.



Well that seems like a pretty sensible position to take in terms of membership. But it's still not quite as clear cut as that. Take the issue of trade unions as an example. The Anarchist federation states that "Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow" However, many of our members are also part of the IWW, and members of the Afed have been a part of Preston Solidarity (who are solfed) who would definitely believe radical syndicalist/anti-capitalist unions could play a part.
Yes I think this shows a lot of members of the AF don't really get the As&Ps (or at least have a completely different reading to them than I did when I joined), and had I been an active member when this happened, I would've opposed it. This doesn't mean I won't work with IWW or solfed members, but there are good reasons why there's different organisations - because the politics are different.


However, as anarchists, believing in the free association of men. I am allowed to dissent, as long as I admit that my position is not that of the group which I am a member, it's 'ok' to disagree.
I think there are limits to this, otherwise there's no point to being in an organisation. There was an AF member who ended up in the AWL and was basically spouting trot rubbish by the time he left - should he have been allowed to stay in?


In otherwords I seem to find that there is so much overlap, disagreement seems to manifest as a matter between individuals and not organisatons. If you turn up to the AF stand at the Anarchist bookfair while me and TAT are there you will see what I mean :P
Yes I think this is because most of the UK anarchist organisations have wider disagreements within them than between them, and because of organisational loyalty.

[Random Precision]

Malcolm X once said that "there can be no black-white unity until there is first black unity". I think this is a good stance to take on anarchist-Marxist unity. This means unity between Trotskyists and Stalinists (as many problems as that will cause), unity between Leninists and Left Communists, and so on. While I don;t know a whole lot about the anarchist movement, I think that would be a good guideline as well. I don't really think we should even consider trying to unite Anarchists and Marxists until there is unity in each group, if that is even possible.

[Herman]

Can we all agree that we all want socialism?

This is the first step.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+September 30, 2007 07:51 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ September 30, 2007 07:51 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 05:33 pm
I actually find that disagreements arise because Anarchists do not fully understand the meaning of certain words in Marxist terminology, and thus perceive Marxists as authoritarian and unreceptive to any form of rational debate whereas, in reality, this is not the case. An example of this is state - Marxists understand the state to mean an institution of class oppression based on armed bodies of men, and advocate a democratic workers' state similar in structure to that of the Paris Commune - not a one-part dictatorship as is often assumed by Anarchists! If this lack of semantic clarity were eliminated, cooperation would be much easier.
I think you can understand why we'd assume that, no? [/b]
sorry for "butting in", but interesting bits of history come into play here, during the spanish civil war "trotskyists" i.e. anyone not a member of the communist party, but a revolutionary socialist, just the same, found themselves fighting alongside and sharing the same ideological aspirations as the "anarchists".
it would seem, on the surface, that the main differences between "anarchists" and "trotskyists" are not political but organisational.
"trotskyists" believing in the need for a "central structure" to organise and drive the revolution forward, whist "anarchists" disavow the need for any kind of "centralist organisation".
correct me if i'm wrong.

[Barry]

Yes i agree, all parties wish for a socialist soceity,however the term Marxist is now being used by many groups who can disagree on some points. Over all i think that Marxists and Anarchists could unite as they agree on the aims but disagree on the method.
Their are still those who are impossable to unite with certain parties as they are tooauthocratic or as i have seen with man that claim to be left wing have taken a swing to the right wing. In Ireland there is a need to reclaim the trade unions from their conservative leaders. Other parties must reorganise only when all thhe left have met disscussed main aims and reorganised their groups can a alliance of the left occur

[YSR]

I don't really think we should even consider trying to unite Anarchists and Marxists until there is unity in each group, if that is even possible.

I'm not even totally sure that this is important. What does "unity" mean? I don't really agree with some of the things that cats like Earth First! do, but they're still anarchists and I'm down with that. Same with platformists like NEFAC.

I guess we're "unified," even if we bicker a little bit. The thing is that plenty of us are okay with not having a "unified" revolution. Revolution is decentralized, so if different communities want to run themselves in different ways, that's solid with me.

And I don't think I'm being sectarian here when I say that "unity" on the Marxist side is sort of far from occurring. I mean, how many splits and expulsions have even one "ideology" of Marxists in just the U.S. had? Let's take Trots, for instance. I don't even have an idea how many Trot parties there are here.

(This post isn't really making a point, it's just sort of rambling. Sorry.)

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:15 pm
Can we all agree that we all want socialism?

This is the first step.
Yeah, but not if its Totalitarian Socialism, if a revolution turns out totalitarian then I would regret the revolution ever happend. Free Socialism is the only type I want, unfree Socialism is not much better than Capitalism in my book.

[Herman]

I don't think anyone wants a "totalitarian" socialism.

[Herman]

Sorry, double post.

[Revolting_Rebel]

Anarchism and Marxism are not opposed ideas. Although some will debate, Marx considered the First International and himself anarchist. Anarchism is the riddle, socialism is the answer.

Some have even argued that Lenin himself abandoned the vanguard party, his own creation, after he saw the soviets and realized that the party was not the revolution, the self-activity of the workers is the revolution. Later, in the Trade Union Debates, Lenin argues for the need of both the soviets and the trade unions as independent bodies, and the necessity for the discipline of the proletariat, the rank-and-file, upon the party, and even upon the workers in the party.

Regardless, there are plenty of Marxist who reject the vanguard party. Love & Rage had such potential, but the Marxists never worked out a sufficient critique of the vanguard party, and probably the Anarchists, turned off by their experiences with vanguardists, were not that motivated to figure out the quagmire of Marxist ideologies to find the original Marx. And even if this task were done, the real task is what does it have to say that is relevant to todays realities. The temptation is to rush, to oversimplify, or in just give up becomes it seems too difficult.

I think all non-vanguardists, or the various anarcho-socialist and Autonomous Marxists tendencies, need to find a way to clarify the debate, not for leftists, but to insert the anarcho-socialist paradigm into the public debate. Lenin's real contribution I think in What is to be Done, is that publishing a zine or newspaper can be a revolutionary act. Something we probably take for granted now, but don't think as seriously about.

Anyways, I came across this site today and saw this thread and had to jump in because I've been wanting to start such an anti-vanguardist zine, not to be an organization, just a zine. If anyone would want to write or help with such a thing, send me a message here.

And, hi people. Nice to meet you all, even the Stalinists :-)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 10, 2007 07:12 am--> (devrimankara @ October 10, 2007 07:12 am) Let's look at one example:


AF aims and principles
I personally believe trade unions can be useful tools in the overthrow of capitalism.

Now from this quote, I understand that you are in direct opposition to your organisations aims, and principles. To me this suggests that the AF will let anybody join (when I was in London a couple of years ago I met an AF member who believed in God, which tends to prove the point. When I enquired about this a leading member of the AF told me that they try to talk to people before they join). THe AF's 'Aims and Principles' are pretty short. They are meant to be the basic points of agreement of the organisation. Yet, they don't even have agreement on these points. [/b]
What you have to understand is that people join the AF and agree with the Aims and Principles but then as their politics develops they attempt to assert their own changed agenda on the organisation, which is exactly what William is attempting to do.


When I enquired about this a leading member of the AF told me that they try to talk to people before they join). THe AF's 'Aims and Principles' are pretty short. They are meant to be the basic points of agreement of the organisation. Yet, they don't even have agreement on these points.

Yes, and that's an issue but it's not a theoretical one, which is what William and his band of merry platformists would have us all believe. The fact of the matter is that if you don't agree with the Aims and Principles, you can't join. The fact that people change their opinions while being members is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is not a weakness.

You're attacking an organisation because of one person on an internet forum who has changed his politics. That's unfair.

[The Feral Underclass]

EDIT: I'm not going to get into this on this forum.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 10, 2007 12:52 pm
Interestingly TAT has shown some major objection to organisation, I hope he posts in this thread at some point.
You can't possibly be saying that because I oppose your platformist agenda I am against organisation...? Surely not? That would just be crazy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 09, 2007 10:53 pm
If you turn up to the AF stand at the Anarchist bookfair while me and TAT are there you will see what I mean :P
Please explain it to me, because I don't know what you mean? What will happen at the NDM is that you will propose your watered down proposal that has already essentially been agreed and then you will write it with whoever wants to help you out? There's nothing contentious about that.

Unless of course there is something else that you are planning that you are just keeping secret from the organisation?

[Random Precision]

I'm not even totally sure that this is important. What does "unity" mean? I don't really agree with some of the things that cats like Earth First! do, but they're still anarchists and I'm down with that. Same with platformists like NEFAC.

You're okay with those who don't accept the class struggle? How will you rectify that difference when the revolution rolls around?


I guess we're "unified," even if we bicker a little bit. The thing is that plenty of us are okay with not having a "unified" revolution. Revolution is decentralized, so if different communities want to run themselves in different ways, that's solid with me.

As devrim pointed out, this is why the modern anarchist movement could not successfully carry a revolution forward. Lack of organization and a coherent line.


And I don't think I'm being sectarian here when I say that "unity" on the Marxist side is sort of far from occurring. I mean, how many splits and expulsions have even one "ideology" of Marxists in just the U.S. had? Let's take Trots, for instance. I don't even have an idea how many Trot parties there are here.

That's true enough. I think it may well be that we won't get any sort of unity in the revolutionary leftist movement in any country until a genuine revolutionary situation occurs. Then the wheat will be separated from the chaff, to use a common phrase.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 10:37 pm
Yes, and that's an issue but it's not a theoretical one, which is what William and his band of merry platformists would have us all believe. The fact of the matter is that if you don't agree with the Aims and Principles, you can't join. The fact that people change their opinions while being members is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is not a weakness.

You're attacking an organisation because of one person on an internet forum who has changed his politics. That's unfair.
I don't think that it is on the basis of one person. Yes, he is one example, but also he gave examples of people who didn't know why capitalism is bad, I gave an example of somebody who believed in God, and the example of somebody saying that you try to talk to people.

In my opinion this is pretty poor. If you were honest, you would admit it was too.

Devrim

[Marsella]

Regardless, there are plenty of Marxist who reject the vanguard party. Love & Rage had such potential, but the Marxists never worked out a sufficient critique of the vanguard party, and probably the Anarchists, turned off by their experiences with vanguardists, were not that motivated to figure out the quagmire of Marxist ideologies to find the original Marx. And even if this task were done, the real task is what does it have to say that is relevant to todays realities. The temptation is to rush, to oversimplify, or in just give up becomes it seems too difficult.

I think all non-vanguardists, or the various anarcho-socialist and Autonomous Marxists tendencies, need to find a way to clarify the debate, not for leftists, but to insert the anarcho-socialist paradigm into the public debate. Lenin's real contribution I think in What is to be Done, is that publishing a zine or newspaper can be a revolutionary act. Something we probably take for granted now, but don't think as seriously about.

Here are links critiquing Leninism (vanguardists) from a Communist stance:

The Curse of Lenin's Mummy (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1144100099&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

Leninism: A Radical Middle Class Ideology (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1136115064&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

Platonic Leninism: Saving the Paradigm? (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083427108&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

On Leninism (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082734280&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

And of relevance to the thread of Anarchist and Communism Unity:

Anarchism vs Leninism (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082916220&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Bilan]

hehe, way to link RedStar2000 5 times. :lol:
Another good one by him is "In Defence of Anarchism...sort of"

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 13, 2007 07:54 am--> (devrimankara @ October 13, 2007 07:54 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 10:37 pm
Yes, and that's an issue but it's not a theoretical one, which is what William and his band of merry platformists would have us all believe. The fact of the matter is that if you don't agree with the Aims and Principles, you can't join. The fact that people change their opinions while being members is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed, but it is not a weakness.

You're attacking an organisation because of one person on an internet forum who has changed his politics. That's unfair.
I don't think that it is on the basis of one person. Yes, he is one example, but also he gave examples of people who didn't know why capitalism is bad [/b]
Such as who? I don't know of these people? I don't see how, if this is true, it is possible for them to have joined the AF? I think William is mistaken about something here. It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone who supports capitalism join a specifically anti-capitalist organisation...?


I gave an example of somebody who believed in God

Yes, I think that is a particular issue, but nothing in the aim's and principles says that you are not personally, in your own head, disallowed from believing in god.


and the example of somebody saying that you try to talk to people.

:o

Someone who tries to talk to people!


In my opinion this is pretty poor. If you were honest, you would admit it was too.

I think that it is important to establish with people that they fully understand and accept the aims and principles in full.

But if someone says "yes I agree with the Aims and Principles", what more can one do? Unless, as William has suggested, we test them?

[The Feral Underclass]

Dev,

After talking to William it turns the people he was talking about in regards to them not thinking "capitalism is bad" are members of RGA not AF.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 13, 2007 10:52 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 13, 2007 10:52 am) After talking to William it turns the people he was talking about in regards to them not thinking "capitalism is bad" are members of RGA not AF. [/b]
Ok, I have no idea what RGA is. I am hardly to blame for this though when it came from one of your members.

Also, the person that I referred to as believing in God came across to me as someone who wouldn't know what class politics were if they hit them in the face with them


Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected]
Someone who tries to talk to people!

I think that either I didn't explain this well, or you misunderstood me. My problem here was not that they talked to people. The problem was that he said that they tried to talk to people before they joined, but that they didn't always manage it. That was why I put 'tried' in italics.


The Anarchist Tension
I think that it is important to establish with people that they fully understand and accept the aims and principles in full.

But if someone says "yes I agree with the Aims and Principles", what more can one do? Unless, as William has suggested, we test them?

Well, I would do more than try to talk to them. Of course, I am not suggesting an exam, but I think that a series of discussions is necessary.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 13, 2007 12:41 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 13, 2007 12:41 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 10:52 am
After talking to William it turns the people he was talking about in regards to them not thinking "capitalism is bad" are members of RGA not AF.
Ok, I have no idea what RGA is. I am hardly to blame for this though when it came from one of your members.

Also, the person that I referred to as believing in God came across to me as someone who wouldn't know what class politics were if they hit them in the face with them [/b]
I'm not blaming you for anything, mate. RGA is Reading Grassroots Action. It's a local activist organisation in Reading, which is about 12 miles(?) out of London.


Also, the person that I referred to as believing in God came across to me as someone who wouldn't know what class politics were if they hit them in the face with them

Then that's clearly an issue, but it is one isolated issue. Who is this person you are talking about?



The Anarchist Tension
Someone who tries to talk to people!

I think that either I didn't explain this well, or you misunderstood me. My problem here was not that they talked to people. The problem was that he said that they tried to talk to people before they joined, but that they didn't always manage it. That was why I put 'tried' in italics.

You cannot become a member of the AF until someone has met and spoken with you.


Well, I would do more than try to talk to them. Of course, I am not suggesting an exam, but I think that a series of discussions is necessary.

This is standard practice. Anyone who is an official member of the AF without having ever spoken to someone in person or who has no thoroughly understood the A&P's and agrees with them has slipped through a process and should not be a member.

That's pretty self-evident, surely? I don't see that as a sign of a major internal issue. There are issues of course.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:15 pm
Can we all agree that we all want socialism?

This is the first step.
No, you'd have to agree what socialism (or communism) is first.


Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. - Marx, German Ideology. So "wanting communism" makes little sense in that context, it's about how to get there, tendencies that exist now.

[catch]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 10:31 am

Such as who? I don't know of these people? I don't see how, if this is true, it is possible for them to have joined the AF? I think William is mistaken about something here. It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone who supports capitalism join a specifically anti-capitalist organisation...?


I gave an example of somebody who believed in God

Yes, I think that is a particular issue, but nothing in the aim's and principles says that you are not personally, in your own head, disallowed from believing in god.

It's not just one person:

Jesus is my friend to the max (http://libcom.org/forums/introductory/jesus-is-my-friend-to-the-max)


political group membership: AFed

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by catch+October 14, 2007 12:31 am--> (catch @ October 14, 2007 12:31 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 10:31 am

Such as who? I don't know of these people? I don't see how, if this is true, it is possible for them to have joined the AF? I think William is mistaken about something here. It doesn't even make sense. Why would someone who supports capitalism join a specifically anti-capitalist organisation...?


I gave an example of somebody who believed in God

Yes, I think that is a particular issue, but nothing in the aim's and principles says that you are not personally, in your own head, disallowed from believing in god.

It's not just one person:

Jesus is my friend to the max (http://libcom.org/forums/introductory/jesus-is-my-friend-to-the-max)


political group membership: AFed [/b]
Dude, that was two years ago.

Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.

If there are members of AF who believe god exists I know of only one who has openly expressed it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Incidentally, I am the poster named Joe Roe...

[p.m.a.]

I don't really feel like wading through the last few pages of posting, but I came upon a piece that fits well with Marxist/Anarchist unity. In my experience with RAAN, a lot of turbulence has come up about the Marxist DofP. RAAN broke through this by explaining semantics over theory aren't practical in praxis: left-communists want to build horizontal networks of revolution just like anarchists, so it isn't an issue. But my interest in Hakim Bey lately lead me to his work The Temporary Autonomous Zone (http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz3.html#labelTAZ). I'm going to repost a segment below:


Originally posted by "Hakim Bey (Peter Lambord Wilson)"
Waiting for the Revolution
HOW IS IT THAT "the world turned upside-down" always manages to Right itself? Why does reaction always follow revolution, like seasons in Hell?

Uprising, or the Latin form insurrection, are words used by historians to label failed revolutions--movements which do not match the expected curve, the consensus-approved trajectory: revolution, reaction, betrayal, the founding of a stronger and even more oppressive State--the turning of the wheel, the return of history again and again to its highest form: jackboot on the face of humanity forever.

By failing to follow this curve, the up-rising suggests the possibility of a movement outside and beyond the Hegelian spiral of that "progress" which is secretly nothing more than a vicious circle. Surgo--rise up, surge. Insurgo--rise up, raise oneself up. A bootstrap operation. A goodbye to that wretched parody of the karmic round, historical revolutionary futility. The slogan "Revolution!" has mutated from tocsin to toxin, a malign pseudo-Gnostic fate-trap, a nightmare where no matter how we struggle we never escape that evil Aeon, that incubus the State, one State after another, every "heaven" ruled by yet one more evil angel.

If History IS "Time," as it claims to be, then the uprising is a moment that springs up and out of Time, violates the "law" of History. If the State IS History, as it claims to be, then the insurrection is the forbidden moment, an unforgivable denial of the dialectic--shimmying up the pole and out of the smokehole, a shaman's maneuver carried out at an "impossible angle" to the universe. History says the Revolution attains "permanence," or at least duration, while the uprising is "temporary." In this sense an uprising is like a "peak experience" as opposed to the standard of "ordinary" consciousness and experience. Like festivals, uprisings cannot happen every day--otherwise they would not be "nonordinary." But such moments of intensity give shape and meaning to the entirety of a life. The shaman returns--you can't stay up on the roof forever-- but things have changed, shifts and integrations have occurred--a difference is made.

You will argue that this is a counsel of despair. What of the anarchist dream, the Stateless state, the Commune, the autonomous zone with duration, a free society, a free culture? Are we to abandon that hope in return for some existentialist acte gratuit? The point is not to change consciousness but to change the world.

I accept this as a fair criticism. I'd make two rejoinders nevertheless; first, revolution has never yet resulted in achieving this dream. The vision comes to life in the moment of uprising--but as soon as "the Revolution" triumphs and the State returns, the dream and the ideal are already betrayed. I have not given up hope or even expectation of change--but I distrust the word Revolution. Second, even if we replace the revolutionary approach with a concept of insurrection blossoming spontaneously into anarchist culture, our own particular historical situation is not propitious for such a vast undertaking. Absolutely nothing but a futile martyrdom could possibly result now from a head- on collision with the terminal State, the megacorporate information State, the empire of Spectacle and Simulation. Its guns are all pointed at us, while our meager weaponry finds nothing to aim at but a hysteresis, a rigid vacuity, a Spook capable of smothering every spark in an ectoplasm of information, a society of capitulation ruled by the image of the Cop and the absorbant eye of the TV screen.

In short, we're not touting the TAZ as an exclusive end in itself, replacing all other forms of organization, tactics, and goals. We recommend it because it can provide the quality of enhancement associated with the uprising without necessarily leading to violence and martyrdom. The TAZ is like an uprising which does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it. Because the State is concerned primarily with Simulation rather than substance, the TAZ can "occupy" these areas clandestinely and carry on its festal purposes for quite a while in relative peace. Perhaps certain small TAZs have lasted whole lifetimes because they went unnoticed, like hillbilly enclaves--because they never intersected with the Spectacle, never appeared outside that real life which is invisible to the agents of Simulation.

Babylon takes its abstractions for realities; precisely within this margin of error the TAZ can come into existence. Getting the TAZ started may involve tactics of violence and defense, but its greatest strength lies in its invisibility--the State cannot recognize it because History has no definition of it. As soon as the TAZ is named (represented, mediated), it must vanish, it will vanish, leaving behind it an empty husk, only to spring up again somewhere else, once again invisible because undefinable in terms of the Spectacle. The TAZ is thus a perfect tactic for an era in which the State is omnipresent and all-powerful and yet simultaneously riddled with cracks and vacancies. And because the TAZ is a microcosm of that "anarchist dream" of a free culture, I can think of no better tactic by which to work toward that goal while at the same time experiencing some of its benefits here and now.

In sum, realism demands not only that we give up waiting for "the Revolution" but also that we give up wanting it. "Uprising," yes--as often as possible and even at the risk of violence. The spasming of the Simulated State will be "spectacular," but in most cases the best and most radical tactic will be to refuse to engage in spectacular violence, to withdraw from the area of simulation, to disappear.

The TAZ is an encampment of guerilla ontologists: strike and run away. Keep moving the entire tribe, even if it's only data in the Web. The TAZ must be capable of defense; but both the "strike" and the "defense" should, if possible, evade the violence of the State, which is no longer a meaningful violence. The strike is made at structures of control, essentially at ideas; the defense is "invisibility," a martial art, and "invulnerability"--an "occult" art within the martial arts. The "nomadic war machine" conquers without being noticed and moves on before the map can be adjusted. As to the future--Only the autonomous can plan autonomy, organize for it, create it. It's a bootstrap operation. The first step is somewhat akin to satori--the realization that the TAZ begins with a simple act of realization.

(Note: See Appendix C, quote by Renzo Novatore)

I think the reconceptualization of the state as necessitated by an authentic revolution (that is, the rejection of previous modernist conceptions of the state, including Leninism) fits consummately with the Temporary Autonomous Zone. The occupation and establishment of TAZs would be the institutionalization of a DofP, that is, of the class will of the multitude over the bourgeoisie; but it presupposes prefigurative methods of organization, and thus from it eventually a new socioeconomic model would be derive after the revolutionary process.

While anarchist and Marxist schools of thought have always had this great divide on how to institute new class rule without recreating systems of power, in the post-modern era the development of human technology and radical thought present the congruencies of the two as being overwhelming to the distinctions. Anarchist and Marxist unity is thus a necessity in the desire for revolution today.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:59 am
The occupation and establishment of TAZs would be the institutionalization of a DofP, that is, of the class will of the multitude over the bourgeoisie
Perhaps its just me, but I can't really see any meaningful connection between the TAZ and the DofP. The rejection of the concept of Revolution, the focus on culture and "festal purposes", the bizarre waffle about "History", the lack of challenge to the State, the "temporary" and "autonomous" nature of TAZs, the complete rejection of any mention of class whatsoever... In fact, I'd put the DofP and TAZ at completely different areas of the spectrum.

Maybe I've missed something, but TAZs seem to me hippy (and paedophile?) crap that has nothing to do with any decent form of Anarchism and certainly nothing to do with Marxism.

[catch]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 12:11 am

Dude, that was two years ago.

Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.

If there are members of AF who believe god exists I know of only one who has openly expressed it.

2007 then:


It's not knee-jerk at all. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what I found out and thus became a Christian, whoa crazy times!
Of course I'm very selective, but I've already said this quite a few times. I only follow the teachings of what Jesus taught when He came to earth. And since he was neither sexist, homophobic or oppressive, it works just fine for me.


I believe He was the son of God because I just do and think it's true.
And that's about it.


Nope. As I'm a human being and not Jesus, so I don't have endless love for everyone. What you do with your life is entirely up to you, not me.
Of course I'd prefer it if you had the same beliefs as me and accepted Jesus. But then again I'd prefer it if everyone agreed with anarchism too.


Not at all. God exists and I believe that He have left us somewhat to our own devices.
http://libcom.org/forums/news/socialist-wo...s-people?page=1 (http://libcom.org/forums/news/socialist-working-muslims-and-other-religious-people?page=1)

and in 2006



Yesterday I emailed Afed, so I'm going to join and not be crap anymore hooray for me! Also, for lent I'm giving up meat how silly am I?
[...]
dude I love Jesus to the max

http://libcom.org/node/6350

[catch]

Originally posted by Marion+October 14, 2007 12:29 pm--> (Marion @ October 14, 2007 12:29 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 02:59 am
The occupation and establishment of TAZs would be the institutionalization of a DofP, that is, of the class will of the multitude over the bourgeoisie
Perhaps its just me, but I can't really see any meaningful connection between the TAZ and the DofP. The rejection of the concept of Revolution, the focus on culture and "festal purposes", the bizarre waffle about "History", the lack of challenge to the State, the "temporary" and "autonomous" nature of TAZs, the complete rejection of any mention of class whatsoever... In fact, I'd put the DofP and TAZ at completely different areas of the spectrum.

Maybe I've missed something, but TAZs seem to me hippy (and paedophile?) crap that has nothing to do with any decent form of Anarchism and certainly nothing to do with Marxism. [/b]
Yep paedophilic. Bey also claims that the fascist republic of Fiume was a TAZ as well. - torture with castor oil, run by a mate of Mussolini etc.

[YSR]

Originally posted by catch+October 14, 2007 08:49 am--> (catch @ October 14, 2007 08:49 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:29 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 02:59 am
The occupation and establishment of TAZs would be the institutionalization of a DofP, that is, of the class will of the multitude over the bourgeoisie
Perhaps its just me, but I can't really see any meaningful connection between the TAZ and the DofP. The rejection of the concept of Revolution, the focus on culture and "festal purposes", the bizarre waffle about "History", the lack of challenge to the State, the "temporary" and "autonomous" nature of TAZs, the complete rejection of any mention of class whatsoever... In fact, I'd put the DofP and TAZ at completely different areas of the spectrum.

Maybe I've missed something, but TAZs seem to me hippy (and paedophile?) crap that has nothing to do with any decent form of Anarchism and certainly nothing to do with Marxism.
Yep paedophilic. Bey also claims that the fascist republic of Fiume was a TAZ as well. - torture with castor oil, run by a mate of Mussolini etc. [/b]
Wait, I don't get how Bey's feelings on sexual relations enter into this discussion.

Clearly Bey represents a strain of the "post-left" anarchists. But I think the TAZ can actually be refashioned in the image of the revolutionary Left.

One example I can think of in my area was the Minnehaha Free State, a several-month-long land occupation by indigenous people, Earth First!ers, and local residents, trying to stop a reroute of a highway over a park land that was sacred to a local tribe. They managed to create a space where the cops were not accepted. Eventually, the cops came in en masse and kicked everybody out (biggest police action in Minnesota history!) While the "war" was lost, the liberated space created lots of productive dialog and represented a moment of manifest challenge against the Empire.

I see the strategy of the TAZ, if used by the working class, as a type of propaganda of the deed, but way more successful. Illustrating that the state is not all-knowing and all-powerful can be incredibly liberating and inspire more people to become revolutionaries. I can't tell you how many people I've met that never considered organizing against capitalism until they took that step "off the curb" and into the streets. Now they're Wobblies, revolutionaries, anarchists, lots of stuff.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 28, 2007 11:51 am
What are the thoughts on Anarchist and Marxist unity organizations?
Is it a plausible? Is it workable?
Decent non-sectarian trotskyists (who see the need for extensive democracy, decentralization post-revolution) can work very closely with decent non-sectarian anarchists (who see the need for good organisation). In fact, in practice, the actual divide between these two groups is made up of semantics and old fueds (for example: they didnt show up for this demo 7 years ago, they didnt want to work with us on that issue 10 years ago, they *****ed about the amount of signs from our org at some demo 5 years ago). When they were to put aside their differences they would see they're so close together they might as well merge.

As for stalinists, maoists on the one side and individualist and "post-leftist" anarchists on the other, co-operation with them is in my mind only possible on single-issue stuff and close co-operation is mostly out of the question.

(this coming from a decent anarchist [at least, thats how i see myself] in a decent trotskyite organisation).

[Marion]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 14, 2007 08:13 pm
Wait, I don't get how Bey's feelings on sexual relations enter into this discussion.

Clearly Bey represents a strain of the "post-left" anarchists. But I think the TAZ can actually be refashioned in the image of the revolutionary Left.

One example I can think of in my area was the Minnehaha Free State, a several-month-long land occupation by indigenous people, Earth First!ers, and local residents, trying to stop a reroute of a highway over a park land that was sacred to a local tribe. They managed to create a space where the cops were not accepted. Eventually, the cops came in en masse and kicked everybody out (biggest police action in Minnesota history!) While the "war" was lost, the liberated space created lots of productive dialog and represented a moment of manifest challenge against the Empire.

I see the strategy of the TAZ, if used by the working class, as a type of propaganda of the deed, but way more successful. Illustrating that the state is not all-knowing and all-powerful can be incredibly liberating and inspire more people to become revolutionaries. I can't tell you how many people I've met that never considered organizing against capitalism until they took that step "off the curb" and into the streets. Now they're Wobblies, revolutionaries, anarchists, lots of stuff.
Well, one of the difficulties seems to me that, certainly in the piece cited earlier, the TAZ comes across solely as an area that the State does not control. There is no awareness that action that is "against the state" or aims at setting up an "autonomous" area is not necessarily a good in itself. Particularly if it, as Bey seems to do, rejects any notion of revolution or class politics. As Catch suggests, this results in the crap that Fiume can be praised. Rather there needs to be some sort of political analysis of what any "autonomous" area is trying to do. Any decent attempt to use "the strategy of the TAZ" in a way consistent with working class politics will end up with something which is not a TAZ at all.

As a result, your example of Minnehaha would need to be examined critically. Simply because the cops were kicked out and land occupied wouldn't necessarily make it worthwhile politically in itself (I'll make it clear here that I know nothing about the incident so can't really comment on specifics - apologies for my lack of knowledge). Of course, people obviously had the time to discuss issues and perhaps to learn, but although the creation of time to reflect is positive it doesn't legitimise a struggle.

PS If an author's writings are entirely consistent with a certain "practice" which they have been linked with which, to say the least, is reprehensible it is entirely relevant to bring it up. You're probably right, though, in that its not really necessary as the TAZ's can be criticised on so many levels, but it kinda acts as a signal that the concept is fairly dodgy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by catch+October 14, 2007 03:46 pm--> (catch @ October 14, 2007 03:46 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 12:11 am

Dude, that was two years ago.

Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.

If there are members of AF who believe god exists I know of only one who has openly expressed it.

2007 then:


It's not knee-jerk at all. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what I found out and thus became a Christian, whoa crazy times!
Of course I'm very selective, but I've already said this quite a few times. I only follow the teachings of what Jesus taught when He came to earth. And since he was neither sexist, homophobic or oppressive, it works just fine for me.


I believe He was the son of God because I just do and think it's true.
And that's about it.


Nope. As I'm a human being and not Jesus, so I don't have endless love for everyone. What you do with your life is entirely up to you, not me.
Of course I'd prefer it if you had the same beliefs as me and accepted Jesus. But then again I'd prefer it if everyone agreed with anarchism too.


Not at all. God exists and I believe that He have left us somewhat to our own devices.
http://libcom.org/forums/news/socialist-wo...s-people?page=1 (http://libcom.org/forums/news/socialist-working-muslims-and-other-religious-people?page=1)

and in 2006



Yesterday I emailed Afed, so I'm going to join and not be crap anymore hooray for me! Also, for lent I'm giving up meat how silly am I?
[...]
dude I love Jesus to the max

http://libcom.org/node/6350 [/b]
You seem to be failing at understanding me when I say: We do not exclude people who believe that god exists.

You may disagree with that and in which case that is a different argument but your quest to prove what I have already told you twice is a fact is now beginning to irritate me.

What point are you trying to make?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 15, 2007 12:15 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 15, 2007 12:15 am) Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.
...
You seem to be failing at understanding me when I say: We do not exclude people who believe that god exists.

You may disagree with that and in which case that is a different argument but your quest to prove what I have already told you twice is a fact is now beginning to irritate me.

What point are you trying to make? [/b]
Why is their no justification for excluding people who believe that God exists?.

What about this?:


AF 'Aims and Principles'
10. We oppose organised religion and religious belief(s).

Devrim

[catch]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 14, 2007 08:13 pm

Wait, I don't get how Bey's feelings on sexual relations enter into this discussion.

Because he puts forward sexual relations with pre-pubescent children as one form of TAZ.


Clearly Bey represents a strain of the "post-left" anarchists. But I think the TAZ can actually be refashioned in the image of the revolutionary Left.

One example I can think of in my area was the Minnehaha Free State, a several-month-long land occupation by indigenous people, Earth First!ers, and local residents, trying to stop a reroute of a highway over a park land that was sacred to a local tribe. They managed to create a space where the cops were not accepted. Eventually, the cops came in en masse and kicked everybody out (biggest police action in Minnesota history!) While the "war" was lost, the liberated space created lots of productive dialog and represented a moment of manifest challenge against the Empire.

I see the strategy of the TAZ, if used by the working class, as a type of propaganda of the deed, but way more successful. Illustrating that the state is not all-knowing and all-powerful can be incredibly liberating and inspire more people to become revolutionaries. I can't tell you how many people I've met that never considered organizing against capitalism until they took that step "off the curb" and into the streets. Now they're Wobblies, revolutionaries, anarchists, lots of stuff.
There's no autonomy under capitalism. There's also a long history of occupations, street fighting etc. in the workers movement, and trying to bring them under the banner of a phrase no-one really knows the meaning of coined by an American paedophile won't get you very far.

[catch]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am

Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.

Well belief in God as a purely personal thing is hard to prove. Personally I wouldn't want to produce political literature alongside someone who had such a belief. There's also a difference between personal belief and evangelism.




You may disagree with that and in which case that is a different argument but your quest to prove what I have already told you twice is a fact is now beginning to irritate me.



Dude that was two years ago
[...]
If there are members of AF who believe god exists I know of only one who has openly expressed it.


This is why I brought it up. On this thread so far, Organise! has been put forward as the "Irish section of the AF" which it isn't, and you've claimed there's only one person in the AF who believes in God, when there's at least two (actually I can think of one guy who was very into buddhism as well).




What point are you trying to make?

You have aims and principles that place you in opposition to religious belief (let alone organised religion). Now I've met the AF poster I quoted, they're perfectly nice, but there's clearly a difference between your As&Ps and "Jesus is my friend to the max". Especially given the announcement of a membership application and that statement were on the same thread, I'd kinda hope someone would bring it up, but apparently it's not a problem anyway.

For the record, I think it's less important organisationally than the IWW stuff, but you've got people in the organisation who clearly have disagreements with some of the A&Ps, and hence people in the same organisation who completely disagree with each other on some questions. When I was in, there was a guy ( initials D. J.) who posted as Gentle Revolutionary on libcom, and with his real name elsewhere. He ended up in about 9 different anarchist organisations, eventually SolFed chucked him out, then he was down to the AF and IWW, then he resigned from the AF after I and a couple of others challenged him on some crazy stuff he was saying, now he's in the AWL and essentially a trot.

My point is there seems to be very little internal political discussion, and people can just drift in and out with only nominal agreement on particular issues. William Everard essentially agreed with this, although I don't think position papers are at all the answer to that problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 15, 2007 07:15 am--> (devrimankara @ October 15, 2007 07:15 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am
Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.
...
You seem to be failing at understanding me when I say: We do not exclude people who believe that god exists.

You may disagree with that and in which case that is a different argument but your quest to prove what I have already told you twice is a fact is now beginning to irritate me.

What point are you trying to make?
Why is their no justification for excluding people who believe that God exists?.

What about this?:


AF 'Aims and Principles'
10. We oppose organised religion and religious belief(s).

Devrim [/b]
Believing in the existence of god and being apart of or supporting a church and it's propagation of ideas are two totally different things.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by catch+October 15, 2007 09:22 am--> (catch @ October 15, 2007 09:22 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am

Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.

Well belief in God as a purely personal thing is hard to prove. [/b]
Why do we need to prove it? If someone says "I believe god exists", that's pretty much definitive.


Personally I wouldn't want to produce political literature alongside someone who had such a belief.

Well, that's your problem.


There's also a difference between personal belief and evangelism.

Which is the crux of the issue here. If someone in the AF attempted to convert other members to their beliefs or attend a church there would be grounds for expulsions; but simply believing to oneself that god is real is not a matter for me or you or an organisation.

Any attempt to make it so would clearly be authoritarian.


You have aims and principles that place you in opposition to religious belief (let alone organised religion).

Organised religious beliefs. We do not oppose people believing that god exists. We oppose people who attend Church, support its institution and proslytises.


My point is there seems to be very little internal political discussion

Ok...? If that's true then do something about it.


and people can just drift in and out with only nominal agreement on particular issues.

I don't accept that this is as big an issue as you are implying it is. As far as I can see, there are no examples that you have provided that actually prove what you are saying.

[catch]

Well, that's your problem.[/qutoe]
Given the reactionary role of religious institutions in the class struggle, for centuries, not it's not just my problem. I'd say the mysticism that's been prevalent since the '70s has also had a reactionary role to play in anarchist organisations (Starhawk or whoever it is in the US for example). I have absolutely no problem working with religious people (as individuals) in terms of workplace organising etc., and have done so recently. But I wouldn't write a pamphlet with them or encourage them to join an anarchist/communist organisation.

[quote]Which is the crux of the issue here. If someone in the AF attempted to convert other members to their beliefs or attend a church there would be grounds for expulsions; but simply believing to oneself that god is real is not a matter for me or you or an organisation.

Any attempt to make it so would clearly be authoritarian.
It's quite possible for someone to hold racist, or nationalist, or sexist views, and not do anything about them. I doubt they'd be welcome in the AF, and I think you'd laugh if I said it'd be authoritarian to exclude them. If there's a basis for political agreement that's a requirement to join, then it's not authoritarian to enforce that.


Organised religious beliefs. We do not oppose people believing that god exists. We oppose people who attend Church, support its institution and proslytises.


I'm gonna go to church on Christmas day man I'm core link (http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-eaten-6-mince-pies)

To be honest, I don't think it matters so much if people go to church once a year, lots of people who don't believe in God go to church at Christmas. I recently attended a funeral for my uncle, and my Dad's a (recently retired) vicar, so despite being an atheist since I was 12-ish (or earlier), I very occasionally turned up over the years after that. I've also been to both Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples whilst religious ceremonies have been in progress. The combination of belief and attendance is a bit different though. Having said that I think my Dad probably believes in (and talks about) God much less than at least one member of the AF, plus he's fighting the CofE on industrial industry at the moment so not exactly a fan of the Church either. I think it's only not a big issue within the AF because the UK is a very secular country, and because the established churches are extremely weak (and increasingly secular themselves). In East London, where there's a wide prevalence of both evangelical christians and devout muslims, it becomes more of an issue. I've had the bible (and weird new age management stuff) quoted to me at work a fair few times, and other people trying to organise at work have seen both christian and muslim managers trying to foster a sense of 'community' around it with rank and file staff, so it does have an impact. Where Devrim is it's significantly more of an issue than that of course.



Ok...? If that's true then do something about it.
A good friend of mine left the AF at around the same time I joined. He spent a good two-three years trying to increase political discussion, orientate Resistance towards actual working class struggles rather than anarchists/activists etc. and met a lot of resistance (excuse pun). When I joined, I was less confident in my politics than I am now (this was four+ years ago), and by the time the ID cards (which I think is a waste of time) and IWW (which I think is worse than a waste of time) stuff came up, I was already inactive since I'd not found tangible things I wanted to get involved with. So I had a choice of getting involved in things I wasn't that interested in so I could argue against them, or withdrawing further - becoming a parent made that decision for me.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some great individuals in the AF, and don't think it's a particularly bad organisation. I just don't think there's any particular benefit to anyone of being in it, since the contradictions make it hard to have concerted activity - to me it's the concerted activity (like libcom's attempt to produce and distribute Dispatch for the public sector strikes) that comes first, and the organisation should be a result of that.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not going to address your other points on religion. I've made my point clear and I'm not going to repeat myself.

It seems to me that you are making a case to have an AF member expelled. If you find this issue to be contradictory to the A&P's and think such a process should exist then instead of trying to prove it to me on an internet forum you should raise it internally. That would be the more honest and productive thing to do.


I just don't think there's any particular benefit to anyone of being in it, since the contradictions make it hard to have concerted activity

Not only do I find that to be highly unfair but also incredibly infuriating. Sheffield AF is probably one of the mots active Federations in the country, much like East Kent, Nottingham and Manchester.

We don't find it hard to have "concerted activity" so really, this is nothing but an excuse. We all work damn fucking hard to do the things we do and we do it on a basis of co-operation, mutual aid and solidarity and the fact that we have a member of the AF who believes in god has absolutely nothing to do with hard work comrades do within the AF.

[catch]

It seems to me that you are making a case to have an AF member expelled. If you find this issue to be contradictory to the A&P's and think such a process should exist then instead of trying to prove it to me on an internet forum you should raise it internally. That would be the more honest and productive thing to do.
I'm not an AF member any more, and I've got no particular interest in expulsion or otherwise. Devrim brought the issue up, and you denied there was an issue at all, so I wanted to see whether you didn't think it was a problem because you were unaware, or because you didn't think it was a problem full stop. It appears the latter is the case. I don't think I would've bothered had there not also been claims that Organise! is the Irish section of the AF on the same thread.

I did think "Gentle Revolutionary" should've been expelled if he hadn't left himself, but he resigned pretty quickly as soon as the relevant issues came up. I also think the AF will need to rewrite it's A&Ps to take into account the changed attitude towards the IWW, perhaps this is underway already, I don't know. Expelling people isn't particularly nice - that's why both me and Devrim have been implying that slightly tighter entry criteria might be good.


Not only do I find that to be highly unfair but also incredibly infuriating. Sheffield AF is probably one of the mots active Federations in the country, much like East Kent, Nottingham and Manchester.
These are local groups, I'm aware there are some good ones. In practice, the AF tends to work locally with Solfed members in at least one or two of the places you mentioned quite effectively as well. I'm not aware of any concerted by the federation as a whole - i.e. as an organisation in its own right, which is what I was referring to.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 15, 2007 10:40 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 15, 2007 10:40 am)
Originally posted by devrimankara+October 15, 2007 07:15 am--> (devrimankara @ October 15, 2007 07:15 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 15, 2007 12:15 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 15, 2007 12:15 am) Look, we don't exclude people who believe that god exists. We have no justification for doing so.
...
You seem to be failing at understanding me when I say: We do not exclude people who believe that god exists.

You may disagree with that and in which case that is a different argument but your quest to prove what I have already told you twice is a fact is now beginning to irritate me.

What point are you trying to make? [/b]
Why is their no justification for excluding people who believe that God exists?.

What about this?:


AF 'Aims and Principles'
10. We oppose organised religion and religious belief(s).

Devrim [/b]
Believing in the existence of god and being apart of or supporting a church and it's propagation of ideas are two totally different things. [/b]
To me that says 'organised religion and religious belief(s)'.

I think that it puts belief in God outside your aims, and principles.


The Anarchist [email protected]
It seems to me that you are making a case to have an AF member expelled. If you find this issue to be contradictory to the A&P's and think such a process should exist then instead of trying to prove it to me on an internet forum you should raise it internally. That would be the more honest and productive thing to do.

This was addressed to Catch not me, but I would like to comment on it. I don't think that anybody wants to get anybody in particular expelled. Why on Earth would we? The subject came up from a discussion of the weaknesses of anarchism. To me one of the weaknesses is the 'liberalism' that we see here. Surely it is necessary to agree with an organisations basic principles to be a member. I don't think that leftist groups like the SWP are much better on this issue.

The first question with anarchists, even those in organisations, often seems to be whether a serious political organisation is necessary.

Do members of the AF think that it is important that people agree with, and understand their aims, and principles?

It is an important question.


Catch
Expelling people isn't particularly nice - that's why both me and Devrim have been implying that slightly tighter entry criteria might be good.

Not very nice, but sometimes very necessary. I am not advising anyone to expel anybody though. I am merely pointing out what I, and others, think is a real problem. If AF members also think it is a problem then it is up to them to solve it.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:13 pm
I also think the AF will need to rewrite it's A&Ps to take into account the changed attitude towards the IWW, perhaps this is underway already, I don't know.
Why? Have you actually read the section of the A&P's. It doesn't say that people cannot be members of unions, it simply makes it clear that we do not accept that Unions can be a vehicle for revolutionary change.

If you are going to criticise the AF, at least understand the points you're trying to criticise.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 15, 2007 12:42 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 15, 2007 12:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:13 pm
I also think the AF will need to rewrite it's A&Ps to take into account the changed attitude towards the IWW, perhaps this is underway already, I don't know.
Why? Have you actually read the section of the A&P's. It doesn't say that people cannot be members of unions, it simply makes it clear that we do not accept that Unions can be a vehicle for revolutionary change.

If you are going to criticise the AF, at least understand the points you're trying to criticise. [/b]
The section is here:


AF Aims and Principles
Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trades unions divide the working class (between employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist unions are constrained by the fundamental nature of unionism. The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different from ours. The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it, we have to realise that reforms we may achieve today may be taken away tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be the complete abolition of wage slavery. Working within the unions can never achieve this. However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist communism. What's important is that we organise ourselves collectively, arguing for workers to control struggles themselves.

As I remember when it was adopted, it was a compromise between two factions, and the vast majority of the membership didn't understand the argument.

With regards to Catch's point about the IWW though, there is a difference between being a member of a union, and actively being involved in building one.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you think that because of that point members of the AF cannot be members of unions or actively attempt to build one?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 01:01 pm
Do you think that because of that point members of the AF cannot be members of unions or actively attempt to build one?
No, it doesn't say that. I think it is because the section in the Aims and Principles was a bit of a compromise, and although it is comparatively very long, it doesn't say much practical itself.

It is understandable that people would expect some analysis of it though.

Devrim

[catch]

Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)Surely it is necessary to agree with an organisations basic principles to be a member. I don't think that leftist groups like the SWP are much better on this issue.[/b]
Actually the SWP has a constant need to recruit people that it can use for paper selling, block voting and its other antics so it's understandable why they're so lax in terms of their organisational needs. Having said that, a BNP infiltrator did get quite high up the organisation, got some very poor articles published in its press etc. so they've gone beyond their own needs in letting anyone in. The AF has no such need to for this kind of revolving door membership, which is why the apparent laxness confuses me.


Not very nice, but sometimes very necessary. I am not advising anyone to expel anybody though. I am merely pointing out what I, and others, think is a real problem. If AF members also think it is a problem then it is up to them to solve it.
Yes I agree with this.


The Anarchist Tension


Why? Have you actually read the section of the A&P's. It doesn't say that people cannot be members of unions, it simply makes it clear that we do not accept that Unions can be a vehicle for revolutionary change.
Including syndicalist unions. If a syndicalist union was organised at my workplace, I'd probably join it, this isn't the same as trying to build one up though as Devrim says. If you're a member of the IWW, which is currently a group of politicos trying to organise a union, not a union in any real sense, then you must think it's a potential 'vehicle for revolutionary change". If you don't, then there's no reason to be in it.

There's a few options here for members of the AF in the IWW, I think all of them have some truth:

1. They think syndicalist unions are a good idea and want to help build them up, and therefore disagree with the A&Ps of the AF (although they're a bit vague, so it'd be possible to interpret them to suit this, that doesn't make it right though)

2. They still think syndicalist unions aren't a good idea, but they think the IWW could be made into a "network of militants" or "workplace resistance group".*

3. They think the IWW is an actual union (albeit a different one) and join it for that reason.

*I'm aware this is the justification by some AF members for joining, I think they're wrong on this. The Scottish Parliament 'dispute', the recent negotiations with the AWL/No Sweat around Starbucks/Barista organising makes it look as if the IWW is going to be firmly into this kind of campaign based unionism at least at a national level, rather than a network of militants and semi-clandestine groups in workplaces. Obviously as with most organisations, there's conflicting views within it, but that's the way it seems to be going.



If you are going to criticise the AF, at least understand the points you're trying to criticise.
I'm well aware of the points thank you

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore; or what I'm defending for that matter.

[brokendoor]

hpwombat, a RAANista here. I noticed mention of RAAN and figured I'd chime in. I'm currently working with the RAAN hub on a restart for the website and we're hoping for more participation in defining the restart. We decided a couple years back to de-emphasize the role of the hub in RAAN activities, but recently I've felt that it might help to re-organize and develop a place to encourage above-ground RAAN networking. Though a full return to the discussion forum of yesterday is unlikely, I am hoping we can develop a space for people to talk about RAAN and the activities of those that choose to affiliate with the network. I am critical of other practices, but we only offer ourselves and our actions as a supplement to break past the rotations of the normal, seeking to make time in our lives for the actions we desire without compromise. I do not hold any monopoly on this perspective, offering but one voice on how I interpret RAAN. I'd like to encourage others to discuss what they could do in RAAN to make it relevant to them or what is preventing individuals, affinities, collectives and parties from joining this inclusive network. While my perspective is focused on the United States, we are international organization.

[Ultra-Violence]

Were is RS2K when we need you!


yeah i can definitly see Left-communist and libertarian marxist workin with anarchist . Definitly

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

IWW

Again: the IWW is a union. It is not "anarchist."


There are no splits within the Anarchist movement as deep and unbridgable as say, that of Trotskyism and Stalinism, which are both Leninist ideologies. So the reality is, we are less sectarian!

Sectarianism doesn't mean refusal to work with other organizations. Sectarianism means putting the program of your sect above the interests of the working class.

[SonofRage]

Unity between the libertarian left, whether Anarchist or Marxist, has been something I've been interested in for a long time. I'm a member of Bring the Ruckus (http://www.bringtheruckus.org) and we have members who come from both backgrounds.

SoR

[Sickle of Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:02 am
I can speak from experience on the topic: I've been a Marxist for a long time, originally a Trotskyist with a soft spot for Mao, despite his Stalin worship. When I realized I didn't like any one "vanguard" party, though, I felt pretty lost. I found, however, a call over the internet for Marxists in my metropolitan area to meet up, in attempt to establish a non-sectarian Marxist group. I met up with the people, and originally we had about twelve people, some involved in the ISO, some in the SP:DAT, and others with various Redskin groups. We established a cross-identified Marxist collective, participated in some anti-war and antifa demonstrations, and did a lot of flyering around shows and in neighborhoods on different topics.

A few months into the group, however, problems arose. They existed between the Leninist and non-Leninist factions, but they weren't drawn along ideological lines. We wanted to take our actions a step further, either start doing spectacular actions such as rooftop occupations downtown, or continue organizing concerts regularly. But the Leninists didn't take the rest of us seriously enough in order to actually put more energy or effort into the group. You see, they had all found the vanguard party that fit their views, and worked regularly with those parties. In fact, most of their contributions were recommending we participate in their groups' actions. But those parties only accept people who align with Trotsky, or Mao, or Schatman, or whatever. For a Leninist, and I know this from my work with the SWP for a long time, the Party is your first priority with your time and your life. It's where your serious efforts are put. Everything else, save maybe your personal relationships, comes second. Most labor-oriented Leninists even work in particular industries their parties want to recruit in.

So, while in theory it was nice to try to build a meta-marxist group, but in practice, a Leninist cannot as devotedly work with a non-Leninist, let alone an anarchist, if he or she already participates in party work. And because these people in our group were holding us back from pursuing more of what we wanted to organize, we decided simply to boot them and reform as a indiscriminate RAAN crew. And it was through this experience that I came to reject Leninism: all the organizational flaws I saw during my disillusionment with the SWP, the RCP, and every other xxP, I saw manifesting in the operations of this new group. I came to my own conclusion that Leninism is simply a stagnant organizational paradigm; to cling to it in the 21st century is anachronistic, considering it was conceived to solve organizational problems faced a 100 years ago, in an entirely different socioeconomic structure. It didn't make sense for me to stay with it, and instead I moved onto libertarian marxist, and then ultimately autonomist theory.

So, basically, I think red & black unity is imperative to whether or not the revolutionary left will rebuild itself in the 21st century. But, I agree with RAAN (which is why I participate in the project), that we must define what we mean by "communist" in that equation. And for organizational necessity, we must exclude Leninist and other authoritarian, statist ideologies.
AGREE!!!

[Labor Shall Rule]

How do you define 'authoritarian' ideology?

It is unmaterialist to say that we can not cooperate with one another, simply because in a revolutionary situation, our 'ideas' will not matter when faced with our enemy.

As I have made clear in other threads, anarchists recognize the unity between theory and practice, that all tactics are subordinated to revolutionary strategy, wit the ultimate goal being the elevation of the working class to a position of empowerment.

In other words, they have what it takes to be leaders in the worker's movement.

If this is truly a conflict between wage labor and capital, rather than 'leftists' and 'conservatives', then there is no reason that we can't be allies.

[Sickle of Justice]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 01:45 am
How do you define 'authoritarian' ideology?

It is unmaterialist to say that we can not cooperate with one another, simply because in a revolutionary situation, our 'ideas' will not matter when faced with our enemy.

As I have made clear in other threads, anarchists recognize the unity between theory and practice, that all tactics are subordinated to revolutionary strategy, wit the ultimate goal being the elevation of the working class to a position of empowerment.

In other words, they have what it takes to be leaders in the worker's movement.

If this is truly a conflict between wage labor and capital, rather than 'leftists' and 'conservatives', then there is no reason that we can't be allies.
in a revolutionary situation, yeah. but working subversively within capitalism is a different story. everyone has different methods, some of which actively contradict others ideology. although i bear no hatred for lenninists, i disagree with them, and find them difficult to work with. anarchist and authoritarian communist groups can work together, but not as i single whole. they are different facets of the same revolution, but when they try to combine they often just get in each others way.