posi wrote:
ok, but in that case, what sort of positions on "gender, sexuality or religion" are not to do with combatting "discrimination, harrassment or violence"?well I think I cited Manchester SF's pamphlet on free love for instance. Also, critiques of gender roles (or race fwiw) per se. I mean it's perfectly possible to oppose discrimination against women without problemetising the whole notion of 'femininity' (i.e. taking a position that differentiates gender roles and biological sex), likewise to oppose racism without seeing race as an ideological narration (i.e. you could accept the facticity of 'race' but simply not consider it a meaningful or fair way to discriminate).
ok, but that seems to take the distinctive role of the anarchist federation more or less to matters of pure philosophy, of the sort that are discussed in academic journals. While such things are sometimes interesting, I don't see that an organisation which debates things in the purely abstract is so important that it needs a big place in an organisational vision.
I also can't see how a practical opposition to discrimination against trans people in work can avoid differentiating gender from biological sex.
In general, I'd say that on organisational questions it's tempting to try and line up a set of different functions, and fit them onto a set of structural features which seem to make sense and say 'this is how it should be' in what is often quite an idealistic manner. In fact, all organisations act from time to time on the level of ideology, theoretical debate, as organisations of struggle in themselves, and as organisations which encourage others to struggle (whether through temporary or permanent formations, whether in industry, the community, or political spheres).
I would also like to agree with Knightrose's position about the difference between the AF and SF (close to nothing), however I would say this means you could merge. As long as you practice pluralism, there should be no reason to stifle debate or experimentation: in fact, it should intensify debate. Having an organisation with real national coverage could be a real asset in relating to national phenomena like postal strikes and mass unemployment, and in putting out a greater volume of higher quality publications...
The AF idea of 'workplace resistance groups' seems to be quite close to our conception of the informal struggle group of militant workers which comes together to defend the best means of immediate struggle. Perhaps this is because the AF have some conception of why political groups are necessary, judging from Knightrose's post. Hence there is a need for a distinction between the political organisation and the struggle group, for the purpose of clarity of roles. Unfortunately this has been clouded over by the AF's confusing idea that the IWW, which wants to build itself into One Big Union, is a kind of workplace resistance group really.
In some ways this discussion echoes the debate we have had over many years with the IBRP over their conception of 'communist factory groups'. We were against this conception on several grounds, because it blurred the lines between a revolutionary political organisation, which is based on profound programmatic agreement, and a struggle group which has much more limited aims and does not require the same depth of committment either 'ideologically' or in terms of long-term militant involvement. None of this means that communists should not be involved in such groups, but there needs to be a distinction or neither will fulfill their role effectively
We were also against the IBRP notion because it seemed to betray a voluntarist conception. Observing the huge gap between the communist minority and the class as a whole, the IBRP seemed to be coming up with an organisational solution - build networks of communist groups in the factories and you will overcome the gap between 'party' (the revolutionary political organisation, to be more accurate) and class. But this assumed as a solution what had to be solved - the massive presence of communists in the workplace. And this takes us back to the original premise of JK's critique of council communism: his apparent rejection of 'spontaneity' (in the sense that Luxemburg used the term) and his idea that the network of anarchists or communists is primarily the product of the patient day to day 'building' work of the tiny minority of communists or anarchists. In our view, which follows that of Luxemburg very closely, the overcoming of the 'gap' is impossible without profound shifts in collective consciousness within the working class.
Of course councilism as we would define it goes to the 'opposite extreme' of putting everything down to a very reductionist version of spontaneity or to the mechanical effects of the crisis, and almost nothing to the long term work of communist organisation, which for us remains an indispensable component. But it still seems to me that there is an ironic coming together between the anarchist 'revolutionary union' builders and the 'Leninist' IBRP on this question.