Admin - split from here
Hey Joe - you've got the stated aim of setting up a WSM type group over here, haven't you? So what would be the problem?
In any event, I prefer the idea of seriously talking about the differences between the WSM and the AF. Having spent a couple of days sick in bed , trawling through your website
, I reckon they revolve around a couple of points only:
1. attitudes towards the unions - though in reality the difference may be less than you think. Most of us are in unions where we can be, attend branch meetings and try to argue for militant action. One or two of us have been and at times are stewards and union reps. What we don't do is try to reform them.
2. Nuances around the national question. You've obviously been doing a lot of thinking about it yourselves recently, judging by your psoition paper on Ireland and partition.
3. You have a better organisational structure and demand more of your members.
We do function as a federalist group. We have regular delegate Meetings which decide policy between the annual conference. The conference decides on collective issues, hears reports from (elected) officers, decides on policy - for example our collective decision to invlove ourselves in the Defy ID campaign.
We don't discuss lengthy position papers, though we do hold theoretical discussions. I'm not sure what is best.
We do actively recruit (although not actively enough - I like your idea of three meetings then be asked to join). We are trying to build a unified anarchist movement.
Our paper Resistance serves a similar function to Workers Solidarity. The editors try to ensure that the content reflects the collective view of the AF.
Although we often aim for consensus, we are happy enough to take majority votes on issues.
We are serious about international work. Joining IFA and functioning as the current secretariat is proof of that.
Like I say, I think there's more that unites us than divides us.
can you get rid of my effort at a split then?