Federation co-operation

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 8 2009 02:07
Steven. wrote:
See these estimates of site traffic from Alexa.com:

Alexa's getting less and less accurate (unless they changed their statistics recording methods), however there's other sites which do nice graphs too:

http://attentionmeter.com/?d1=libcom.org&d2=anarkismo.net&d3=socialistworker.co.uk&d4=&d5=

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/libcom.org+anarkismo.net+socialistworker.co.uk/

The Outlaw's picture
The Outlaw
Offline
Joined: 6-12-09
Dec 8 2009 03:31

I don't think they should work under one organisation, maybe an umbrella group that passes information between groups.

If we work together we can achieve alot more and have a greater impact.

The Outlaw's picture
The Outlaw
Offline
Joined: 6-12-09
Dec 8 2009 03:33

I don't think they should work under one organisation, maybe an umbrella group that passes information between groups.

If we work together we can achieve alot more and have a greater impact.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 8 2009 12:10
The Outlaw wrote:
I don't think they should work under one organisation, maybe an umbrella group

I may be misunderstanding you here, but that's basically what a federation is, it's a group of groups coming together to cooperate.

~J.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 8 2009 13:16

I think you underestimate what we mean by a federation J. The AF, for example, aims for "theoretical and tactical unity" - that makes us a bit more than a group that comes together to cooperate.

I have little interest in an umbrella group. I have a huge interest in groups working collaboratively where they are in common areas, whether geographical or otherwise (like industrial).

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 8 2009 13:26
Quote:
I think you underestimate what we mean by a federation J. The AF, for example, aims for "theoretical and tactical unity" - that makes us a bit more than a group that comes together to cooperate.

Even the most basic cooperation in fact requires some degree of theoretical/practical agreement (otherwise you'd have nothing to cooperate on!). The AF requires a high degree of theoretical unity which is entirely appropriate for an organisation like the AF, but not necessarily for every type of organisation.

Quote:
I have little interest in an umbrella group. I have a huge interest in groups working collaboratively where they are in common areas, whether geographical or otherwise (like industrial).

I agree, but if this did begin to happen on a widespread basis it would be extremely silly not to build on that cooperation on a national level.

~J.

The Outlaw's picture
The Outlaw
Offline
Joined: 6-12-09
Dec 8 2009 13:52

Why are groups so secular and petty?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 8 2009 15:21
Quote:
Why are groups so secular and petty?

I don't think we are. AF groups work closely with groups and members from Solfed, Class War and L&S on joint projects. We even make the effort to search out issues to work together on.

I'm in favour of even greater unity - I've said before I'd like to see at least the AF and Solfed merge. But doing that requires working closely together first to build bridges and overcome some of the confusions and suspicions that exist. It may be that it can never happen as well.

That said, I'm not in favour of grand schemes to bring together the existing federations in some vague confederation. The effort required to set it up would probably be far greater than that required for the natural working together which goes on at the moment and would detract from the good work the feds are currently doing.

The Outlaw's picture
The Outlaw
Offline
Joined: 6-12-09
Dec 8 2009 15:28

I think if it became institutional the chances for corruption would be fucking massive.

I wasn't just refering to anarchist groups, i haven't had much experience with any. I want to join AF and Liberty & Solidarity.

I tried joining some other groups aligned to the left, they turned out to be arrogant wankers.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 8 2009 15:40
The Outlaw wrote:
I think if it became institutional the chances for corruption would be fucking massive.

what are you talking about?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 8 2009 15:42
The Outlaw wrote:
Why are groups so secular and petty?

I don't think that any of the organised anarchist groups are sectarian (I assume that's what you meant to say there) or petty. Do you have any examples of this?

The Outlaw's picture
The Outlaw
Offline
Joined: 6-12-09
Dec 8 2009 15:51

I've seen arguments between groups on these fucking board already! and i joined yesterday, with groups "dissing" one another. I believe this to be completely fucking petty, because the enormity of the task that lays ahead of us, outweights any pathetic and childish notions that gets carried. Though i was refering to the "left" in general, Trots,Maos,Stalinist,Leninist and whatever fucking names they can think of to divide themselves.

And steven, if there was one all-powerful-in-charge group, the fucking bolsheviks could just happen all over a fucking agian.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 8 2009 16:35
Quote:
I want to join AF and Liberty & Solidarity.

It's not a good idea to join more than one of the feds. They all require you to agree with their aims and principles - and to join AF and L&S would mean having to disagree with one or the other - hence to lie.

I'd suggest reading their stuff as thoroughly as you can and then deciding which one you agree with 100%. Don't be afraid of entering into discussions with them before joining - in fact, I'd encourage it. Then you'll be in an organisation you agreer with and feel happy in.

Joining one does not mean you can't work with the others as well. We're not sectarian like the trots, but we do sometimes engage in some quite intense criticism of each other. It can at times appear nasty, but generally it isn't meant that way.

If you want to talk about the AF, pm me.

Halifaxclasswar
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Dec 8 2009 17:11

Not to jump to any conclusions about your intentions outlaw but you seem to be derailing quite a productive conversation. I think it would be good to get back on track with this thread, about ways that the larger groups can co-operate and to what extent they should. Rather than just complaining about trots and sectarianism, we should be focusing on a solution rather than just the problems we've already established.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 8 2009 18:25
Quote:
to join AF and L&S would mean having to disagree with one or the other - hence to lie.

Yeah, you can't agree with:

L&S wrote:
Liberty & Solidarity believes in a shop steward approach. The shop stewards movement of the past was hugely catalytic of a fighting unionism. Shop steward organisation, and building fighting union branches in general, helps to prefigure the kind of fighting union of the base that we would anticipate would prefigure future workers, or stewards councils.

and

AF wrote:
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.

I don't think either group would accept you as a member if you endorsed the other group's approach to this issue.

~J.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 8 2009 18:32
Quote:
I've seen arguments between groups on these fucking board already! and i joined yesterday, with groups "dissing" one another.

You're 'dissing' us right now by saying we're petty and secular, but I don't care because I don't think everyone being nice to one another is necessary for productive discussion. Yeah, I and others on here 'diss' other groups pretty regularly on here, notably L&S, the ICC, the WSM etc. I don't think any of them are personally offended by it, at least I hope not, the point is to try and clarify our ideas and practice. I'm not in the business of point-scoring, but I won't pull any punches in an argument just cos it's my fellow anarchies I'm arguing with - just the opposite.

~J.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 8 2009 20:02
knightrose wrote:

I don't think we are. AF groups work closely with groups and members from Solfed, Class War and L&S on joint projects. We even make the effort to search out issues to work together on.

There is no precedent as far as I am aware of L&S working with any other anarchist group in joint activity. They have 'intervened' at both the planning meetings for the Anarchist Conference and the planning meeting of LEWG.

AF and SF's relationship is detailed in depth elsewhere, and outside of London I am aware that Class War are amicable to others.

Thrashing_chomsky
Offline
Joined: 3-06-07
Dec 9 2009 09:55

What do people think of a new fed, that has just five really simple As and Ps,

1. Anti-Authoritarian

2. Anti-Capitalist

3. Anti-Prejudice

4. Class Struggle

5. Direct Action

That everyone can be a part of?! SolFed, CWF, AF, L&S, and all those class anarchists and groups that sit on the side at our meetings wishing they could vote but they don't agree with our stance on X or our method of Y?

Just an idea.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 9 2009 10:08
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
What do people think of a new fed, that has just five really simple As and Ps,

1. Anti-Authoritarian

2. Anti-Capitalist

3. Anti-Prejudice

4. Class Struggle

5. Direct Action

That everyone can be a part of?! SolFed, CWF, AF, L&S, and all those class anarchists and groups that sit on the side at our meetings wishing they could vote but they don't agree with our stance on X or our method of Y?

Just an idea.

3.Anti - Prejudice. The AF would major fail with its non exceptance of religious members. I think its principle 10. I understand why they do this as they don't want a bunch of religious nuts taking over the federation and the no gods no masters thing but at the same time they could put a ruling in that no one can try and convert other members to their religious beliefs or something. Its not like all people who call themselves muslim or christian are devout anyway. Class Struggle is the most important point out of them I think.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Dec 9 2009 11:33

What would be the point? We can work together on joint projects and in organisations like LCAP, LEWG etc on specific issues so why create/duplicate another organisation.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 9 2009 11:57
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
allybaba wrote:
3.Anti - Prejudice. The AF would major fail with its non exceptance of religious members. I think its principle 10. I understand why they do this as they don't want a bunch of religious nuts taking over the federation and the no gods no masters thing

Except that this isn't why we have principle 10. We have it because the theory and practice of the AF is based in our materialism. If you believe in magic you are unlikely to be a useful member of the group.

I don't really understand what is meant by the term "anti-prejudice". Don't really think it's politically useful; I wouldn't describe myself as against prejudice per se.

~J.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 9 2009 12:09
BigLittleJ wrote:
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
allybaba wrote:
3.Anti - Prejudice. The AF would major fail with its non exceptance of religious members. I think its principle 10. I understand why they do this as they don't want a bunch of religious nuts taking over the federation and the no gods no masters thing

If you believe in magic you are unlikely to be a useful member of the group.

~J.

How so?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 9 2009 12:19
Quote:
1. Anti-Authoritarian

2. Anti-Capitalist

3. Anti-Prejudice

4. Class Struggle

5. Direct Action

They are far too vague. What do any of them mean? Lots of trots would probably claim to agree with them. Certainly many of the woolly types that hang around the scene would. They instantly need explaining - which brings us back to proper Aims and Principles again.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 9 2009 12:23
knightrose wrote:
Quote:
1. Anti-Authoritarian

2. Anti-Capitalist

3. Anti-Prejudice

4. Class Struggle

5. Direct Action

They are far too vague. What do any of them mean? Lots of trots would probably claim to agree with them. Certainly many of the woolly types that hang around the scene would. They instantly need explaining - which brings us back to proper Aims and Principles again.

it would get rid of people who don't believe in class struggle though.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Dec 9 2009 12:33
allybaba wrote:
it would get rid of people who don't believe in class struggle though.

You mean people who don't care about the fight between Labour and the Tories, then?

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Dec 9 2009 12:43
BigLittleJ wrote:
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
allybaba wrote:
3.Anti - Prejudice. The AF would major fail with its non exceptance of religious members. I think its principle 10. I understand why they do this as they don't want a bunch of religious nuts taking over the federation and the no gods no masters thing

Except that this isn't why we have principle 10. We have it because the theory and practice of the AF is based in our materialism.

Nonsense, not allowing people in your group who beleive in god isn't a materialist approach in practice at all, its a fundamentally idealist one.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Dec 9 2009 12:54

Christsakes* not this again. Can we actually not derail this somewhat interesting discussion of inter-fed cooperation with this tired old thing. If anyone is really interested in looking at this subject in depth - again - can they please start a new thread.

~J.

*Oh the irony.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Dec 9 2009 13:00
cantdocartwheels wrote:
BigLittleJ wrote:
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
allybaba wrote:
3.Anti - Prejudice. The AF would major fail with its non exceptance of religious members. I think its principle 10. I understand why they do this as they don't want a bunch of religious nuts taking over the federation and the no gods no masters thing

Except that this isn't why we have principle 10. We have it because the theory and practice of the AF is based in our materialism.

Nonsense, not allowing people in your group who beleive in god isn't a materialist approach in practice at all, its a fundamentally idealist one.

how could the group be materialist if the members are not?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 9 2009 13:05
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
What do people think of a new fed, that has just five really simple As and Ps,

1. Anti-Authoritarian

2. Anti-Capitalist

3. Anti-Prejudice

4. Class Struggle

5. Direct Action

That everyone can be a part of?! SolFed, CWF, AF, L&S, and all those class anarchists and groups that sit on the side at our meetings wishing they could vote but they don't agree with our stance on X or our method of Y?

Just an idea.

TBH, I don't really see what the point in that would be. I'm all for practical cooperation between difference class struggle anarchist groups, but I can't really see what a federation of federations could do that the existing feds aren't doing already.

Halifaxclasswar
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Dec 9 2009 13:20

Thrashing makes a good point about people sat on the side lines whos beliefs differ slightly from the core groups though. Not that i think one big vague fed would work, or even more lax membership, but i think someone could collaborate effectively without adhering fully to the same politics. For example a 'friends of' group around the core group.