A new Anarchist Organisation!

177 posts / 0 new
Last post
Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 14:33

Jimmy wrote: "But, having said that, the WSM did engage positively with what was there, helping to set up grassroots gatherings, being generally fairly open and not dismissive of working with people whose politics we’d regard as…vague."

This is very true Jimmy and the WSM is to be commended for it.

But the relative strength of the libertarian left outside of the organisational model and political perspective favoured by groups like the AF, NEFAC, the WSM, Organise, etc… is negligible in Ireland by comparison with Britain, there maybe unaligned individuals, some what you might call libertarian reformists, a couple of projects (which would include WSM participation), there isn’t several different political tendencies, with a something of a worked out theoretical perspective, and entire networks with lots of sub-sections, of similar size to, or larger than, the WSM, and around for as long as it, or longer.
The nearest thing in Ireland would be the very short lived and mostly non-Dublin based Gluiseacht.
Thereby making the relative position of the WSM in the milieu quite different, eg it was core to a lot of the "grassroots" activity, which wouldn't have been the case if there were many stronger or as strong other groups.

I also object to the vague description, I know people with very sophisticated perspectives, on the libertarian left, who wouldn’t be into the model favoured by the groups listed above, I also know people of less political sophistication, again on the libertarian left, but with good grounds for not being enamoured of the class struggle anarchist organisations.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jul 23 2007 14:50
Quote:
You also seriously overestimate what we could have done with the anti-globalisation scene.

Like entryism into the Green Party .

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jul 23 2007 14:50

<Accidental DP>

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 23 2007 16:17
John. wrote:
I would also agree with this. In fact the higher the general level of struggle the exponentially greater the influence of pro-revolutionary groups, since their ideas have more fertile ground.

I'd agree with this as it happens. I don't know where anybody gets the idea that I think that communist political organisations are a total waste of time. I wouldn't be in the AF if I thought that. My point was more that it's not so important how many people are in them. Of course, we can disseminate our ideas better as an organised group, and the more people involved with that, the better, but getting more people into those groups is not the be all and end all, or even hugely important, IMO.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Jul 23 2007 17:01
Terry wrote:
But the relative strength of the libertarian left outside of the organisational model and political perspective favoured by groups like the AF, NEFAC, the WSM, Organise, etc… is negligible in Ireland by comparison with Britain, there maybe unaligned individuals, some what you might call libertarian reformists, a couple of projects (which would include WSM participation), there isn’t several different political tendencies, with a something of a worked out theoretical perspective, and entire networks with lots of sub-sections, of similar size to, or larger than, the WSM, and around for as long as it, or longer.
The nearest thing in Ireland would be the very short lived and mostly non-Dublin based Gluiseacht.
Thereby making the relative position of the WSM in the milieu quite different, eg it was core to a lot of the "grassroots" activity, which wouldn't have been the case if there were many stronger or as strong other groups.

It also wouldn't have been the case either if we had concentrated on highlighting the fact that the RTSers / Gluaiseachters were damned tree-hugging, liberal hippy lifestylists and publishing "why you lot are totally wrong" articles about them and repetitively slagging them off on the internet rather than engaging positively with them.

I'm sure that many would contest that description as being a caricature of what actually happened, but, having read a good bit of libcom and the English anarchist press, I am pretty much unaware of any other perspectives to dealing with anti-globalisation stuff within English class struggle anarchism.

It is also fairly strange to conclude that the existance of a larger loosely-libertarian milieu in the UK would have made the job harder. To me, that just means that you've got a bigger audience that's already close to you, which makes the job easier. Sure, this milieu in the UK may have been more organized, with more clearly identified and coherent polls of thought - but that's hardly a bad thing either. It means that you can effectively address larger numbers of people by debating against specific points of shared ideology that you disagree with. It makes it easier to work alongside large numbers of people on areas where you agree, overcoming the suspicion that everybody has towards political groups - which can turn out to be cults. It's not as if we aren't confident that we can persuade people of our points of view, even when they might disagree with their own firm convictions and, heck, we even pick up good ideas from others that help us to be more effective as an organisation.

Quote:
I also object to the vague description, I know people with very sophisticated perspectives, on the libertarian left, who wouldn’t be into the model favoured by the groups listed above, I also know people of less political sophistication, again on the libertarian left, but with good grounds for not being enamoured of the class struggle anarchist organisations.

Spare us the post-modern relativism. If you think an idea has merit, you adopt it. If you adopt it, defend it. If you don't adopt it, it's because you disagree with it and, by definition, you don't think it has as much merit as your idea.

Either:
1) you believe that there are good grounds for not being enamoured of the class struggle anarchist organisations and that model of doing things.
or
2) you do not believe that there are good grounds

Saying that other people have good grounds for a political position is just weasely in general. If the grouds were that good, you'd accept the position and defend it.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 17:53
Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "It also wouldn't have been the case either if we had concentrated on highlighting the fact that the RTSers / Gluaiseachters were damned tree-hugging, liberal hippy lifestylists and publishing "why you lot are totally wrong" articles about them and repetitively slagging them off on the internet rather than engaging positively with them."

Seeing as I was mostly, though, not exclusively, referring to groups with an ecological bias:

Growth and degrowth - revolutionary approaches to saving the planet and making a happier future
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue67/decroissance_growth_and_degrowth.html

Twyford Down and the State (Summer 1993)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/twyford.html

The Greens
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue41/the_greens.html

Militant Eco-Action (Spring 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue42/militant_eco-action.html

Diary of an Anarchist-Communist Road Protester (Spring 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue42/road_protester_diary.html

- Account of a few days at the Newbury by-pass protest camps.

Roads Out Ahead (Summer 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/roa.html
- interview with an anti-roads protester.

Return of the Diggers (Summer 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/ret.html
A critical examination of a ‘The Land is Ours’ squat.

Green Politics.
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/asp.html
A brief overview (Summer 1996)

Review of ‘Eco-Fascism’ Janet Biehl & Peter Staudenmaier
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue44/eco.html

Capital Eats Greens
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue45/recycle.html

Ecology and Industry: Friends or Foes:
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue45/ecoind.html

The Land and Ecology
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/organise55_web.htm#land

Genetix can really spoil your day
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue51/genetix.html

GM Food at the Crossroads:
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist54.html
(2003)

Burning for Profit
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist24.html
Foot and Mouth Crisis - 2001

Capitalism Kills! (2002)
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist39.html
- workplace death and inury

Mississippi Drowning
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist78.html

Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans October 2005

Social Change Not Climate Change; January 2005
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist80.html

Not to a New Killer (March 2006)
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist82.html
Government’s plans to expand nuclear power, with the pretext that it is ‘carbon free’.

Burn the Bosses, not the Planet.
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist2006_climate_change.html
Resistance Climate Change special, November 2006.

The Mutants Are Coming
http://www.afed.org.uk/online/gmfoods.html

GM crops article from 1999

Who’s afraid of Nanotechnology?
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue63/nanotechnology.html

There is also an AF meeting at the forthcoming climate camp.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 17:58

I also mentioned the Social Centres....

Quote:
Terry wrote earlier:
"Members of the AF for instance volunteer in a couple of those social centres and have been involved in setting up a couple more."
Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 18:12

The issue that many people, including people engaged in it between 1999 and 2001, became critical of the focus on summit protests in subsequent years, is a different one, in that such protests are not the sum total of what you call the "larger loosely-libertarian milieu in the UK". I don't think incidentally it is necessarily all a "larger loosely-libertarian milieu", again an implication of vague politics, publishing an annual book for instance like Do or Die! involves a degree of worked out ideas, just not necessarily ones I would agree with, see above on the adoption of Robert Michels.

Finally...

Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "Spare us the post-modern relativism. If you think an idea has merit, you adopt it. If you adopt it, defend it. If you don't adopt it, it's because you disagree with it and, by definition, you don't think it has as much merit as your idea.

Either:
1) you believe that there are good grounds for not being enamoured of the class struggle anarchist organisations and that model of doing things.
or
2) you do not believe that there are good grounds

Saying that other people have good grounds for a political position is just weasely in general. If the grouds were that good, you'd accept the position and defend it."

Well you know sometimes I’m not arrogant enough to assume I know the rightness or wrongness of a particular question, people have made good arguments to me on an issue, they seemed to have good grounds to what they were saying (which was about class struggle anarchist organisations not a set of ideas).

Bottom line more market choice in the libertarian left milieu in Britain.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jul 23 2007 18:17

the particulars aside, its good to see comrades from the main feds in the UK thinking along the same lines.

Not every day you can say libcom leads to closer relationships between the 2.

Nice one smile

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 23 2007 18:42
guydebordisdead wrote:
The same lines being 'no room for more anarchist groups' yes, very healthy.

AFAIK, one person said that. Feel free to carry on lying about us all though, comrade smile

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 23 2007 19:07

Drama queen am I? Why don't you fuck off and start another thread about getting a well deserved slap at some poxy, parochial gig, you fucking hypocrite.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Jul 23 2007 21:19
Terry wrote:
Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "It also wouldn't have been the case either if we had concentrated on highlighting the fact that the RTSers / Gluaiseachters were damned tree-hugging, liberal hippy lifestylists and publishing "why you lot are totally wrong" articles about them and repetitively slagging them off on the internet rather than engaging positively with them."

Seeing as I was mostly, though, not exclusively, referring to groups with an ecological bias:

Growth and degrowth - revolutionary approaches to saving the planet and making a happier future
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue67/decroissance_growth_and_degrowth.html

Twyford Down and the State (Summer 1993)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/twyford.html

The Greens
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue41/the_greens.html

Militant Eco-Action (Spring 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue42/militant_eco-action.html

Diary of an Anarchist-Communist Road Protester (Spring 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue42/road_protester_diary.html

- Account of a few days at the Newbury by-pass protest camps.

Roads Out Ahead (Summer 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/roa.html
- interview with an anti-roads protester.

Return of the Diggers (Summer 1996)
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/ret.html
A critical examination of a ‘The Land is Ours’ squat.

Green Politics.
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue43/asp.html
A brief overview (Summer 1996)

Review of ‘Eco-Fascism’ Janet Biehl & Peter Staudenmaier
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue44/eco.html

Capital Eats Greens
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue45/recycle.html

Ecology and Industry: Friends or Foes:
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue45/ecoind.html

The Land and Ecology
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/organise55_web.htm#land

Genetix can really spoil your day
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue51/genetix.html

GM Food at the Crossroads:
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist54.html
(2003)

Burning for Profit
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist24.html
Foot and Mouth Crisis - 2001

Capitalism Kills! (2002)
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist39.html
- workplace death and inury

Mississippi Drowning
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist78.html

Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans October 2005

Social Change Not Climate Change; January 2005
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist80.html

Not to a New Killer (March 2006)
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist82.html
Government’s plans to expand nuclear power, with the pretext that it is ‘carbon free’.

Burn the Bosses, not the Planet.
http://www.afed.org.uk/res/resist2006_climate_change.html
Resistance Climate Change special, November 2006.

The Mutants Are Coming
http://www.afed.org.uk/online/gmfoods.html

GM crops article from 1999

Who’s afraid of Nanotechnology?
http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue63/nanotechnology.html

There is also an AF meeting at the forthcoming climate camp.

Okay, from reading that list (and glancing at some of the articles), I can see some evidence of positive engagement with some parts of the movement back in 1996 (although I'm guessing that this was no more than 2 people). Certainly, if I was active in one of the environmental networks or anti-globalisation outfits, I don't think that would affect my impression of how class struggle anarchists see me when compared, for example, with the amount of abuse I'd see on here. The rest are just anarchist propaganda about the environment - most of them seem pretty good to me and I agree with their general thrust - capitalism being the underlying problem, but they contain no evidence of engaging with any external movement.

Quote:
I’m not arrogant enough to assume I know the rightness or wrongness of a particular question, people have made good arguments to me on an issue, they seemed to have good grounds to what they were saying (which was about class struggle anarchist organisations not a set of ideas).

Typical po-mo evasion. Having an opinion does not mean that you think that the opinion is eternal truth. It does mean that you think it's the best opinion at that particular time.

Anyway, enough of weaseling around behind other people's good grounds, what are your good grounds?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jul 23 2007 21:23

fwiw brighton solfed are arranging a regular film night at the cowley club, which is mostly a haunt of the 'wider libertatian milieu.'

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jul 23 2007 21:32
Quote:
The rest are just anarchist propaganda about the environment - most of them seem pretty good to me and I agree with their general thrust - capitalism being the underlying problem, but they contain no evidence of engaging with any external movement.

The underlying problem is the working class’s unwillingness to be the responsible bearers of society. It remains to be seen if Paxis can grasp the nettle where others, from the Anarchists to the Greens, have failed.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 22:45
Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "Okay, from reading that list (and glancing at some of the articles), I can see some evidence of positive engagement with some parts of the movement back in 1996 (although I'm guessing that this was no more than 2 people)."

You would also be ignoring the material from after then eg GM circa 1999, and the other examples I have cited, eg social centres, meeting at the climate camp.

Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "Certainly, if I was active in one of the environmental networks or anti-globalisation outfits, I don't think that would affect my impression of how class struggle anarchists see me when compared, for example, with the amount of abuse I'd see on here."

For sure, and you will have noted this is a behaviour I challenge. However you should know the libcom boards are not representative of any strand of British anarchism, for starters there are many regular posters from Ireland, the United States, Canada and other parts, and there are a lot of people in the movement in Britain who do not post here, like what 4 or 5 members of the AF post here, and how many of them are responsible for abuse, I don't think any of them even post that much at all.

In any case none of this is particularly relevant to the central point I was making which is that the anarchist movement doesn't fit into irrationaly angry's "formal political organisation" (eg AF, WSM, NEFAC, etc) focused understanding, someways so in Ireland this could be held as being accurate to some degree, but totally not so in Britain, case in point, outside of this particular discussion, the SWP in Britain have the party organised AFAIK Bookmarx shop and distribution,
compare with AK Press, Active, 56a, and Freedom, all outside the "formal political organisations" or federations.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 23 2007 22:54

If ability to see that someone has a point, has grounds, a basis to their argument, y'know as in "yeah well they have a point", something I can't just answer but will require further thought about, and so on, is post-modernism, then I'm a post-modernist.

In addition as regard to the critique of anti-globalisation protests the piece that most influenced me in that was put out in something published by RTS London, and subsequently in Do or Die!

In regard to abuse I reckon I could find posts of the nature you refer to here from a WSM member, is that representative, I would say no.

IrrationallyAngry
Offline
Joined: 23-06-05
Jul 24 2007 01:55
Terry wrote:
In any case none of this is particularly relevant to the central point I was making which is that the anarchist movement doesn't fit into irrationaly angry's "formal political organisation" (eg AF, WSM, NEFAC, etc) focused understanding, someways so in Ireland this could be held as being accurate to some degree, but totally not so in Britain

I wasn't aware that I had claimed that the British anarchist movement was centred around formal political organisations. In fact, rather central to my point was the observation that the class struggle groupings in Britain are very small compared to the more loosely defined anarchist milieu and that this, in my view, can only be seen as a failure on the part of those organisations to win larger parts of that milieu to pro-organisation, class struggle politics.

I certainly take your points that other political tendencies are better established and perhaps more coherent within the British anarchoid family then they are in Ireland, but those represent poles of attraction within what is still a significantly bigger and very politically confused milieu. That objective context is not inherently less favourable to the British class struggle groups because (a) there is still a much larger layer who are not forever committed to some other brand of politics and (b) because their politics if skillfully presented should be more coherent and more attractive than their lifestylist or anarcho-green or anti-organisationalist rivals. A class struggle group should be able to demonstrate the advantages of coherent organisation. It should be able to bring a class analysis to radicals who lack one. But to do that it would have to make a serious effort to engage in the first place.

Here's another comparison some here won't like. I would guess that all of the SWP, Socialist Party, Workers Power / Revo and the AWL/No Sweat have recruited more people from that milieu over the last decade then any of the class struggle anarchist groups in Britain. That's despite starting with the disadvantage of having politics further from those of the anarchoid family.

I was on a London Mayday a few years back. Various anarchists had organised a load of city centre events, although organised is perhaps an overly generous word to use, separate from the trade union march. I went along with an organised group of Socialist Party members and spent the day moving from event to event. We got hostile reactions from a few of the more politically hardened anarchists, but it was still one of the easiest days I've ever had in terms of talking to people, making contacts, convincing people to come to our next branch meetings and so on. There are still people active in the SP who first met us that day. But while we were wandering around doing that, the only other group I saw making a similar (but smaller) intervention were the AWL. All day I saw one copy of a class struggle anarchist groups magazine and a handful of leaflets. This in a situation where there were thousands of people around who had come to the events because they considered themselves to be radicals, anarchists or anti-capitalists, many of whom had as far as I could see no particularly hardened politics beyond that. The AF or SF, as anarchist groups, had a much easier "in" to that milieu but they weren't taking the opportunity it presented.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 24 2007 04:30

But why would we focus particularly on the anarcho-activist milleu? They represent a tiny and particularly atypical minority of the working class. Aiming our prop at them would be counterproductive at best.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 24 2007 07:22

I said I didn't think there's much chance of another fed starting up here. It's not a hostile statement, just realistic. As I also suggested, if I'm proved wrong, then good.
I was active in the roads protests back in 96/97. Our politics got a decent reception. But the activist scene also contains a whole set of perspectives that are hostile to anarchist communism. In some ways I'm not surprised that disillusioned activists drift off into trot or other mainstream groups.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Jul 24 2007 09:06
Quote:
Here's another comparison some here won't like. I would guess that all of the SWP, Socialist Party, Workers Power / Revo and the AWL/No Sweat have recruited more people from that milieu over the last decade then any of the class struggle anarchist groups in Britain. That's despite starting with the disadvantage of having politics further from those of the anarchoid family.

Exactly. Funny that, eh?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2007 09:26
Jack wrote:
John. wrote:
I would also agree with this. In fact the higher the general level of struggle the exponentially greater the influence of pro-revolutionary groups, since their ideas have more fertile ground. I'm not sure why you'd say this jack?

Pro-revolutionary groups, yes. But I reckon that while previously existing anarchist groups might influence them and their formation, currently existing anarchist groups would be swept away and left behind, or hopefully dissolve themselves into new organisations that struggle throws up.

What's your historical precedent for that?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 24 2007 09:27
Jack wrote:
But I reckon that while previously existing anarchist groups might influence them and their formation, currently existing anarchist groups would be swept away and left behind, or hopefully dissolve themselves into new organisations that struggle throws up.

I don't see why you think this, Jack. 'new organisations that struggle throws up' will generally be by there very nature unitary organisations of workers, not political organisations (although, I am not denying that some may emerge). In my opinion it would be a huge mistake to disolve political organisations into these unitary one. Be assured that nobody else will, from the Labour lefts to these anarcho-social democrats who keep going on about organising the working class.

Jack wrote:
I don't think groups that get created in the current context are going to bring about communism - for example,

I don't think that anyone thinks thse groups will create communism. It will be created by the working class, or not at all.

Jack wrote:
while I think Sol Fed may well help in the formation of revolutionary unions, I don't think it's going to become a revolutionary union itself

I think that the idea that thee will be revolutionary unions emerging in the UK is seriously delueded.
Devrim

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2007 09:42
revol68 wrote:
John. wrote:
What's your historical precedent for that?

are you joking? Tiny lil groups see themselves disolve into larger ones all the time as struggles circulate, I mean the CNT didn't start off with 20 fannies in a room and then grow to thousands, it was formed from hundreds of different groups.

Yes, 30 years before the revolution. It wasn't formed in 1936 as loads of little groups dissolved into it. Ditto the FAI, the Bolsheviks in 1917, and just about every other significant "revolutionary" group ever.

Quote:
Do you really think we'll just see a linear growth in the existing federations?

No, not at all, I didn't say that. I don't think there's a historical precendent for significant political organisations to emerge from nowhere during revolutionary situations (bodies like councils and assemblies excepted - but no one's suggesting not having anarchist [political] organisation within/alongside these)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2007 09:55
revol68 wrote:
since when did it have to be a revolutionary situation?

Since that's what we're talking about:

John. wrote:
Jimmy wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Jack wrote:
I agree with madashell that anarchist organisations aren't going to mean fuck all in any revolutionary situation,

I disagree strongly with this. I think in times of mass struggle more radical organisations automatically come to the fore.

Agree with Devrim. They’ll be no withering away of the political organisations.

I would also agree with this. In fact the higher the general level of struggle the exponentially greater the influence of pro-revolutionary groups, since their ideas have more fertile ground. I'm not sure why you'd say this jack?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2007 10:07
revol68 wrote:
he clearly meant the current crop aren't going to mean much or rather they will have changed so much/ been supersceded in struuggles.

No, he said anarchist organisations as a whole. The "current crop" probably won't mean much because in all likelihood they won't exist come the revolution simply due to the passing of time.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Jul 24 2007 10:08

Dundee, I'd be interested in seeing these position papers when they're done.
Ta
B

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 24 2007 10:28

Yes, I'd be interested as well to actually see something about the new group on this thread!

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 24 2007 10:34

Irrationally Angry I think I've demonstrated that a lot of the class struggle pro-organisation anarchist milieu exists outside of the federations, see comparaision between say Freedom and AK Press, and bookmarks, hence focusing just on the federations isn't apt, nevermind the broader family. Your original point was in regard to the small size of these groups, representing a failure to organise and grow, my point is that such growth doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in growth in one particular brand and type of organisation, for instance this website is run by a group independant of either of the federations.

Also there is an implication there that there is an anarchoid family out there that is mostly radicalised excitable young people just ready for the insertion of the right ideas which I think is quite misplaced.

But you are right if you say there is a widespread 'anti-organisational' position in the British anarchist movement, against the model of say AF or NEFAC or WSM style groups, it is for instance the position taken up in Benjamin Franks' 'Rebel Alliances', despite an obvious sympathy in it to the politics of the AF and Class War, and you are right to say that this is a failure of the groups who favour that sort of organisational model in that they havn't overcome this, what you miss is that the 'anti-organisational' position is a legacy of Leninism.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 24 2007 10:44
Jack wrote:
revol68 wrote:
he clearly meant the current crop aren't going to mean much or rather they will have changed so much/ been supersceded in struuggles.

That does sound quite different from

Quote:
I agree with madashell that anarchist organisations aren't going to mean fuck all in any revolutionary situation,
Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 24 2007 10:49
Quote:
Gurrier wrote: "Certainly, if I was active in one of the environmental networks or anti-globalisation outfits, I don't think that would affect my impression of how class struggle anarchists see me when compared, for example, with the amount of abuse I'd see on here."

I'm curious as to what this abuse is exactly, does it include a two word summarisation of opposing development destructive of a scenic area as “romantic toss”, a one liner blanket claim to the effect that all of Earth First! have “absolutely atrocious politics”, or the advocacy of a ‘no platform’ policy on deep ecology.

I'm also curious as to why what some people say on the libcom boards can be taken as representative of groups across the water, but not be, by the same token, representative of the WSM, after all 3 WSM people post here fairly regularly.