The article below is one I have written for the reader for the upcoming anarchist conference in Auckland in September.
What is to be done?
A proposal for an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation
By Asher (title stolen from Lenin – after all the bastard did to anarchists, I figure he deserves it)
In this current period of low levels of social struggle, anarchism across Aotearoa is failing to make any serious headway. Worker’s struggle, while possibly beginning a resurgence over the past 18-24 months, is undoubtedly low. Meanwhile, students are pacified with interest free loans and the days of registry occupations seem long gone, and the struggle for Tino Rangatiratanga remains subsumed in the Maori Party and electoral politics.
Anarchists currently engage in a wide range of activity, from explicitly anarchist projects and groups (such as A Space Inside in Auckland and Wildcat and The Freedom Shop in Wellington) to more broad based projects (like the Save Happy Valley Coalition and Radical Youth). Generally, anarchists in each city work autonomously of the other centres, with a limited amount of interaction between Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, mostly based on friendships. Anarchists in Dunedin and smaller centres nationwide are mostly on their own, with only the occasional conference/anarchist tea party or larger protest (like the 2004 anti-racist demo in Wellington) providing opportunities for larger scale communication and cooperation between the centres.
Generally, what little explicitly anarchist activity there is takes place in a synthesist fashion. Synthesist (or “big tent”) anarchist groups can involve people from across the anarchist tradition – from anarcho-syndicalists to post-leftists, from platformists to individualists. Because of this, the activity that takes place and the theory that is developed tends to work within the commonalities between all these wide-ranging facets of anarchist theory – generally confined to an opposition to capitalism and the state. This causes few problems, but what is missing from this is activity and the development of theory towards what we are aiming for – our agreement is generally limited to what we are against and very broad and vague statements of what we are for, but getting any more specific in this will bring to light the differences between our schools of anarchism.
Another issue in Aotearoa anarchism is the lack of intergenerational continuity. Anarchism has gone through several waves, with only a very small number of people staying involved across waves. One of the reasons for this is the activist/protest oriented nature of much of the anarchist activity currently engaged in. For many people, arrests are something that become less and less appealing and worthwhile, especially for anarchists with children or work commitments. At this point, many people drop out, even if their political beliefs have not changed. Additionally, while the number of children increases, it is still frequently a struggle for anarchists with children to remain actively involved. With much of the anarchist community being based on protests and friendship circles, those who find themselves unable to participate in these can easily find themselves left out entirely.
There is a way to move towards a solution to these issues – the lack of Aotearoa-wide anarchist co-ordination and communication, the lack of concrete action and development of theory towards what we are for and the lack of generational continuity. This is the formation of a non-synthesist specific national federation. In this, there are many current examples in other parts of the world that we can learn from, both in terms of their organisational structure and their action. The two examples I will discuss here are the Anarchist Federation (AF) in the UK, an anarchist-communist grouping (1) that is a member of the International of Anarchist Federations (2), and the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) in the USA and Canada, a platformist federation (3). In using these two examples, I don’t mean to say that they are the best examples we could look at, but simply that, as both are English speaking (NEFAC, a bilingual group, also has a French speaking section) and have a decent internet presence, they are comparatively easy to find out about.
The AF is organised into local groups who operate autonomously – having local meetings, writing and distributing propaganda and being involved as a group in other campaigns where they see fit. Nationally, the AF gets together once every three months with 1 day meetings of local group delegates, and once a year for a 2 day national conference. In order to join the AF, you need to agree with the aims and principles (4), make a commitment to be active in your local group and pay dues (a small percentage of your income) to fund the Federation. Nationally coordinated AF activity includes putting out two publications – the monthly bulletin Resistance (5) and the more in depth twice yearly magazine Organise! (6). Additionally, some local groups produce their own regular news sheet. As individuals, AF members are also involved in a wide range of other projects, such as agitation in their workplace and anti-fascist organising with Antifa (7).
Like the AF, the basis of NEFAC is in its local groups (collectives), spread across the north-eastern part of North America. NEFAC also has individual members in areas where member collectives do not exist, but “individual membership can only be seen as a temporary measure. It is the individual’s duty to join or form new groups, and the individual will have all the help of the Federation to this end.” Members (whether individuals or collectives) are those who agree with the aims and principles (8) and position papers (9) and commits to fulfilling the member responsibilities (10). If these conditions are met, the person then becomes a trial member for 6 months, and can only become a full member by means of a vote at a NEFAC conference. As well as members, NEFAC also has supporters (both individuals and collectives), who agree with the aims and principles and wish to work with NEFAC but either do not wish to or cannot fulfil the member responsibilities at the time. There is at least 1 NEFAC conference a year, focussing either on “internal organisation and theoretical development” or on “our intervention in the struggle of our class and our plan of action”. NEFAC produces a number of publications in both English and French, including the English magazine Northeastern Anarchist (11), and is also involved with the online platformist news and theory website Anarkismo (12). Collectives and individual members are also involved in local anti-war organising, workplace agitation and a range of other activities.
The creation of an anarchist-communist federation would be an extremely positive step in the development of anarchist theory and practice in Aotearoa. National co-ordination and communication could come from annual Federation conferences, and electronically via a Federation email loop and regular video-conferencing between mandated delegates from each local group. With a strong anarchist-communist basis, the local groups could organise self-education sessions, in the form of talks by one of the members or reading groups, and they could co-ordinate on a theoretical Federation publication. A more regular newssheet could also be published and distributed more widely. The permanence of the Federation would hopefully lessen the dropout of anarchists as they get older and/or have children, providing plenty of options for activity that can fit with people’s lives, and a ready-made place for the sharing of knowledge and experience between older and younger anarchists.
The existence of a nationally coordinated Federation of local groups would also be an effective organising tool when events occur that anarchists would want to be involved in. Last years lockout of Progressive Enterprise workers in Auckland, Palmerston North and Christchurch is a good example of this. There were a number of anarchists who spent a good deal of time at the picket lines in Auckland with the locked-out workers, and organised and took part in solidarity actions around the city. In Wellington, anarchists helped raise thousands of dollars for the workers, travelled the 3 hours to Palmerston North to support the workers there and blocked scab trucks. Christchurch anarchists were involved in creating a support group for the workers which picketed, leafleted and fundraised. This extensive anarchist involvement however, was mostly done on an individual basis, and outside of individual conversations with workers on the picket lines, our politics remained hidden. If there had been an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation during the lockout, we could have mass-produced our own leaflets supporting the workers for use during leafleting and fundraising. We could have put out a special issue (or issues!) of our newssheet with details of the lockout, interviews with the workers and details on how people could get involved in supporting them and distributed it across the country via our local groups. We could’ve used our resources to organise public meetings with locked-out workers speaking to raise money for the workers who spent a month without pay.
So, assuming there are people reading this and nodding their head in agreement, how can we create an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation? If there are, for example, a handful of people in each of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and perhaps in other centres, then all that is required is for us all to link up in our centres into local collectives with a commitment to working together to work out the details of how the Federation would function. In this we have the examples above to learn from, and there are plenty of other examples only a website away. If you are interested, visit http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/aacf and subscribe to the list to be involved in the discussion.
“Though strong local groups and initiatives are the basis of an effective national organisation, co-ordination and sharing of ideas must happen on the widest level if we are ever to organise a revolution. In addition, this organisation must be permanent, in the sense that it continues to exist and be active regardless of what big events may be taking place or how active particular individuals are. We need an organisation that can continue to exist, regardless of whether some individuals drop out or become less active.”
Anarchist Federation (UK)
(1): Anarchist Federation – http://afed.org.uk/
(2): International of Anarchist Federations – http://www.iaf-ifa.org/
(3): North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists – http://www.nefac.net/
(4): Aims and principles of the AF – http://afed.org.uk/aims.html
(5): Resistance, AF monthly bulletin – http://afed.org.uk/res/
(6): Organise, AF magzine – http://afed.org.uk/org/
(7): Antifa – http://antifa.org.uk/
(8): Aims and principles of NEFAC – http://nefac.net/node/104
(9): Position papers of NEFAC – http://nefac.net/node/26
(10): NEFAC member responsibilities – http://nefac.net/node/106
(11): Northeastern Anarchist, NEFAC English magazine – http://nefac.net/node/110
(12): Anarkismo – http://www.anarkismo.net
August 8, 2007 at 1:57 am
Nice. I’m with you all the way, albeit in Oz, and more likely enviro confederation than anarchist.. have started work on http://www.grassrootsenvironment.net, for that very purpose, but it’s gonna take a while.
and can only become a full member by means of a vote at a NEFAC conference.
I always view voting as a bit of a cop out – sure it saves time, but it also silences people who might have some valid concerns/criticisms, especially if it’s 50%+ voting. Guess it’s unlikely to be a real problem when it comes to allowing new members to join, but if voting can be avoided it should. I’m not sure if I agree with the last paragraph either – I’d think that a bottom up federation should float on it’s members. if they collapse, it should collapse.
Some of it feels too bureaucratic, but most of it’s great, I hope you get something started!
August 8, 2007 at 9:17 am
It really depends how the voting is done, if it is a simple majority then your critisism is valid. When the Anarchist Round Table (ART) was operating we would operate by consesis if that couldn’t be reached the decision would be held over for another meeting if after that there was still deadlock it would go to a vote where there had to be a two-third majority. Nothing ever went to a vote.
I tend to agree with naught101 about the bottom up organising – our means have to reflect how we want society to look, I kinda feel some of the overseas anarchist federations are almost in name only. There has to be a strong focus on groups at a local level. At the moment there are few groups I could think of that exist (certainly none in Christchurch) which I could think of which would want to be a part of a wider anarchist federation – maybe one or two in wellington and auckland each. Possibly this should be the first step to create viable local groups.
I look forward to some of the discussions this brings
August 8, 2007 at 9:22 am
btw here is the anarchopedia article on ART:
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Anarchist_Round_Table
August 9, 2007 at 1:42 am
however, I do think that any super-network is good if it serves purely as a skill and knowledge sharing device – ie. it has no decision making power, and no public voice. That kind of thing is ALWAYS useful.
August 9, 2007 at 3:33 pm
My interest is in the lack of intergenerational continuity. Why do many activists leave the movement as they grow older?
I think there is a change in focus as you age to doing less riskier activity. And those who decide to have children find their time for activism grossly diminished. Some people probably get a little disillusioned and fall back into expected behaviour models of surviving in society.
I think building a culture (or subculture) that supports activism in all stages of ones life is important. Providing alternatives to the nuclear family, so that the pressure (and joys) of parenting can be shared around more. I have been involved in co-parenting and shared/communal housing for 25 years, and these structures have helped sustain my activism, and the activism of the people in my households. Certainly raising children in a loving communal environment benefits the adults and provides more robust support for children in modeling different behaviours and in their sociability. But it also won’t be the solution for everyone.
Having different roles or activities that people can get involved with is important. Some people don’t feel safe at attending protests but will willingly work for hours in a bookshop or helping with a mailout. So we need a diversity of activities to maintain the culture.
Just as important, is the need for shared joy, entertainment and celebration to counterbalance the sweat of hard work and adrenalin involved in direct action. So we need to have parties, concerts, picnics and celebrate birthdays and events.
Lastly, those of us who have lasted the distance need to offer our wisdom and insights, put them down in writing, make suggestions for how to improve current campaigns based on our own experience, and above all else, hang in there.
August 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Nice thoughts John, I’d agree – especially with the last paragraph
August 9, 2007 at 6:12 pm
There’s a couple of things here – first I agree with Kerry that there’s a lack of local groups to form the base of a federation, and apparently still a lack of interest or commitment to organising collectively.
Secondly, on what you call “big tent” anarchism (I tend to use the word “pluralism”), the reasons for organising in this way in the 1990s generally reflected the low numbers of anarchists and the small size of cities in Aotearoa, making it hard enough to get a useful sized anarchist group together at all, let alone trying to do so with a group that had more specific politics. However, this methodology, though born out of circumstance, had some plusses.
The mix of people added variety and a range of voices, skills and experience that I’ve often found lacking in politically tighter groups, and prevented the petrification of thought and practice I’ve also seen in groups that last long enough to get to that point.
Secondly, people learned to cope with difference and continue to work together, which is an essential skill if we seriously want to work (and live) collectively. Anarchism is, after all, largely a philosophy based on a realisation that we are all different, and require freedom in order to exercise our disagreements. Activists that insisted on much stricter political programmes as a requirement for participation in a collective usually ended up as a collective of one, or largely dropped out and grumbled from the sidelines.
I feel a bit uncomfortable of your vision of the role of a collective, based on what it could have done during the Progressive Enterprises lockout, which sounds a bit like the way Marxist groups colonise other people’s struggles. Genuine support for other people often means taking a fairly low-key approach. We have our own struggles and campaigns where we stand up strongly as anarchists. When we choose to back others we need to back them, not elbow our way to the front.
Having said that, I think a federation will be a useful thing and might lift the game a little. I’m not sure exactly what form it should take, but it seems a necessary step, sooner rather than later.
August 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Hi all,
yup Ashers rant hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways.
I think some sort of national network of
anarchist communists is just what we need.
while it is true that we dont have strong local
groups in the main centres, I think given the
size of the ‘movement’ and the geography of
this funny little country we are in, we should
try and figure out a way to at least start with
a national network, even if its just a “publish
stuff and have a conference once a year” thing.
I agree with Asher when he says “big tent”
synthesis anarchism is limiting and we need to
get beyond it, and also about the
intergenerational thing.
I think one solution may be to have a network
or group that can function without fulltime
activists. One of the problems is that the
folks with kids, jobs etc, cant be fulltime,
and the young hyper activists end up by default
dominating the group just cos they do more, so
then the others feel out of touch etc. the more the young fulltimers do, the worse this problem becomes and the less others are able to feel involved. So maybe taking it slowly and doing just a little bit at a time might be the way to go. It might only involve 10 or so people nationally and take a year or two to get off the ground, but I do think starting slow and small is the way to go. (and please, just anarcho commies, not open to everyone who thinks they might be an anarchist, that will delay us by another decade!)
And Sam, I have no problem with anarchists being visibly and vocal in a campaign or struggle. I disagree with marxists about leninism and authoritarianism, not because they sell newspapers and wave flags!
Mr G
August 11, 2007 at 11:13 pm
The one real positive I could see that could come out of a federation of anarchist communists is giving people coming into anarchism the feeling of a local anarchist history. I considered myself an anarchist for many years before getting involved with any anarchists then when I decided to get involved I did some homework to a degree and found a real lack of any local anarchist history. This has been addressed to a small degree with Frank’s writing and stuff rebel press and katipo have and will be publishing.
Anarchist groups tend to wax and wane and I was lucky enough to get involved when there was a bit of an upturn and I’m too stubborn to throw the towel in during the boring bits, So having a federation that can ride above any local downturns in local activity could be a positive step.
I just thought I might add something positive about a federation cause my other coments might have come across a bit negative.
August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm
There’s more discussion going on on LibCom if anyone is interested – http://libcom.org/forums/oceania/what-be-done-proposal-aotearoa-anarchist-communist-federation-07082007
Sam – For sure, I can certainly see a point for synthesist organising from what I’ve heard of anarchism in the 90’s, but I think circumstances have changed, and I certainly don’t feel that synthesist groupings (especially in Wellington and Auckland, with their greater numbers of anarchists) are desirable or even necessarily productive at the moment.
As for the Progressive lockout comment, I think that what I suggested in my piece would have been better for everyone involved – it would have lifted the profile of an Anarchist-Communist Federation AND (and this is more important) would have been more effective for the Progressive workers themselves in their struggle – the two things certainly aren’t mutually exclusive.
And unfortunately, I’d disagree with your comment that “We have our own struggles and campaigns where we stand up strongly as anarchists.” I certainly think we could – and I believe that a Federation is an excellent starting point for this, but I can’t particularly think of any struggles or campaigns where we do this currently.
“the petrification of thought and practice I’ve also seen in groups that last long enough to get to that point.”
Certainly this is an issue, but it is one that I believe can be confronted by a commitment to internal development of theory that is at least as active as the development of external propaganda.
Kerry – “So having a federation that can ride above any local downturns in local activity could be a positive step.”
For sure – thats essentially the reason I used that quote from the Anarchist Federation at the end of my piece.
Like you, I considered myself an anarchist (and before that a libertarian socialist) for a while before I began working with (or socialising with) other anarchists. I’d been to The Freedom Shop a few times, and got the odd pamphlet, but I had a prejudice against Wellington anarchists that they were all punks (which I wasn’t) and relatively ignorant (which they weren’t). It wasn’t til I met one through Jewish circles, and through her met a bunch of others, than I realised that my prejudice had been bullshit.
Having said that, for many people, that anarchist = punk assumption probably still holds true. Having a more organised, different public face (not to say that there wouldn’t be punks in an Anarchist-Communist Federation, but that the Fed would put out an image that wasn’t exclusively punk) would be a big plus in my opinion, and certainly provide another way for people to get involved or at least meet other anarchists.
August 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“I have no problem with anarchists being visibly and vocal in a campaign or struggle”
Me neither.
“As for the Progressive lockout comment, I think that what I suggested in my piece would have been better for everyone involved – it would have lifted the profile of an Anarchist-Communist Federation AND… would have been more effective for the Progressive workers themselves in their struggle”
Don’t know if it would be more effective or not, but in my opinion, the most effective thing would be for Progressive workers to form an anarchist union themselves, but obviously this isn’t going to happen. My point is that when you choose to support a struggle, you need to be accountable to the people you are supporting and I think anarchists need to do a whole lot more groundwork before most people out there will publicly welcome us as allies.
I’m not sure people associate anarchists with punk so much these days – I suspect the ‘masked hoodlum’ stereotype so beloved of the capitalist media has taken over, but in any case, people who percieve anarchists as either of these probably won’t be mad keen to be associated with us. But I’d agree that a federation can make progress towards creating a movement that people don’t percieve to be a liability as an ally. I just think we have some way to go before that happens.
“I’d disagree with your comment that “We have our own struggles and campaigns where we stand up strongly as anarchists.” I certainly think we could…”
Fair point – actually I think I meant to say “where we can stand up as anarchists” and I agree a federation could be a boost here.
August 13, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Yeah, you’re probably not too far off with the “masked hoodlum” comment…
It was interesting up at the Mangere distribution centre picket line – there were quite a few anarchists (or anarchist sympathisers) there, myself and Radical Youth members mostly. There were also lots of Workers Party people (and the odd Socialist Worker and Communist League person). By and large, we were accepted far more than the WP people – who were mostly there in a dual role as WP member and Unite or NDU organiser, and frequently seemed to seperate themselves from the workers on the picket line, whereas we just mingled and chatted and took our lead from them. We were certainly more accepted than the WP people because of this.
August 15, 2007 at 1:37 am
Damn, I wrote this whole comment and I didn’t put in my email and couldn’t click back to get the words back damnit.
Firstly, I support the idea of an anarchist-communist/syndicalist/class network. Federation it may be , but lets not call it that publically? And lets definetly not call it the Anarchist Federation of Aotearoa. Some people aren’t going to want to join who are anarchist. This isn’t necessarily a problem. We aren’t stopping any other anarchists creat something. I think if we have a succesful campaign strategy and develop it may help other people solidify or form their anarchist ideas.
I think things should be kept simple. A simple website, with contacts, basic info. That should be done anyway. A year conference with papers worked on before the conference and published afterwards with further papers for a yearly journal. We should all submit stories to the Aotearoa Anarchist which we can do anyway.
I reall ythink we already know who everyone is that will be involved. Creating a network isn’t magically going to get us doing things. I think locals are important. Sorry trying to make it short as I’m falling asleep. COmmunication and al lthat can be done now. There’s no reason why we can’t submit stories to Aotearoa Anarchist now. (I haven’t yet but I’ve got heaps of stories not specifically anarchist about workplace stuff.)
I think Ashers comments about the WP and the Mangere picketline are slightly silly and maybe even sectarian. the WP were on the picket line a lot. Mark Muller was there everyday and worked hard and got respect. The only anarchist there more or more involved that WP would be Ingrid who also works at the NDU. Some other WP’s were there a lot but not as much and I was often in the office doing the press work if i wasn’t in the bus. I think the whole relating to the workers thing is silly. THey are people, we are people. Communications not complicated. I don’t think WPers seperated themselves.
The point about solidarity support is key. I think that’s one of the main things we definetly should be doing. There was a need for more of that. But Sam is also right. We should be supporting the workers for them to do it themselves and through the hard work people will respect us. If our ideas and methods are succesful they will be more open to our other ideas. Idon’t think we’ve actually got the skills to necessarily have as big impact as people suggest, but I also think that the possibilities of wha twe could do ar ethe most exciting thing for a while.
Sleep now.
Simon
August 16, 2007 at 11:35 am
It does sound like we are talking about a network, rather than a federation, and I think we need to be clear about that, before the word ‘federation’ gets stuck in people’s heads. Probably the big question now is how tightly defined the politics of the network need to be.
August 16, 2007 at 11:40 am
Personally I think if we are planning on creating an anarchist-communist/syndicalist/class network then we should call a spade a spade and call it what it is. I don’t think we should water down the politics of the group to become overly inclusive. Why would people join an anarchist federation who are not anarchists?
August 18, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Asher your mother was a whore
August 18, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Wow, thats original Nic. Been caught looking in any young girl’s windows lately, you perverted fuck?
August 19, 2007 at 10:32 am
Nic, your a clown, everybody knows that your a clown.
Now do us all a favour and fuck off and join the circus.
Did I say circus? I meant freak show.
Still having sex with underage girls Nic? You nonce!
August 19, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Firstly I disagree that the focus of a federation should be tailing the struggles of workers but rather on organising workers through some kind of syndicalist-style union.
My major concern with forming an @-communist federation as opposed to a more loose anarchist network is that it will prevent the growth and spread of anarchism in theory and practice.
Why?
1. Only anarchist communists will be involved, meaning smaller numbers than we could get involved in a looser anarchist network.
2. the local groups that I would conceive of being the building blocks of a federation or network are A Space Inside and Wildcat. Neither of these are based around anarchist-communism.
“strong local groups and initiatives are the basis of an effective national organisation”. On this basis and bearing in mind that the only strong anarchist groups are Wildcat, A Space Inside and the anarchist info-collectives: Freedom Shop, Katipo and Blackstar Books, we would be much better to form an anarchist network, with a commuication subnetwork for anarchist communists who at a later date may be in a better position to form an anarchist communist federation.
We are soon going to have an @-commie federation, an @-syndicalist network, an @-feminist network and a Christianarchist network. All with seperate zines, comunication networks, collectives, websites and conferences.
A broader anarchist network could unite all of these tendencies while giving them their own autonomy-the best of synthesis or pluralist anarchism combined with the theoretical rigour and tactical unity that local collectives can develop.
August 19, 2007 at 8:40 pm
At this stage, pre-conference it is good to see debate on how a Federation could be organized and the criteria for joining.
I would prefer to see a Federation started but without attempting to unite the different threads of Anarchism.
In order for a Federation to succeed I personally believe that collectives joining the Federation would have to be united in in common theory and practice.
Attempting to unite @-syndicalist with say @-Fem’s is a potential recipe for disaster, other Federations have become hamstrung with indecision and a an inability to organize effectively.
Individuals pose a problem as well, To my way of thinking only Collectives should be invited to join any Federation.
This will leave a number of Collectives and Individuals out in the cold, this is not to say that a Federation could not work with them on specific projects.
I would personally prefer to see a Federation set up as opposed to a Network for a number of reasons but mainly I see a Federation as the most effective way to build a Anarchist Movement as opposed to the current counter culture we now have.
Hopefully see you all in Auckland.
August 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Why would’nt A syndicalists and A feminists get on in the same organisation?
August 20, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Oh heres some shocking news for you dear readers.Its true my mother was a whore and Sid Wilson is my natural father.
August 20, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Asher, I’m told that you may have been refering to the Communist League and not the Workers Party at the Progressive picket line. I didn’t see their involvement so I am unable to comment, but most of them are members of the NDU. They do have a strange non-involvement policy in the workplace which is quite strange.
Simon
August 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Haha an anarchist federation is it,not likely.You bunch of LUNATICS couldnt even organise a mayday parade,cause your all going in different political directions.Aye asher dream on
August 22, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I am a bit cynical about calls for a federation – I’ve heard them before, and I can’t quite get my head around who would be federating. I don’t understand how a federation would operate unless there are well organised local groups who choose to federate, otherwise it would seem like the federation would be leading the local groups when it should be the other way around. Surely the first step is not to set up a federation but to build up some local groups?
Setting up a federation would require all the effort of setting up a local group and more, given the intricacies of communication and decision making that would be needed – if people haven’t the energy to set up local groups (and I assume people don’t since local anarcho-communist groups aren’t there), then where will the energy and commitment to set up a more “permanent” federation come from? From people who are more attracted to the idea of working for a national federation than in setting up local groups?
On the other hand I can see the need for some sort of network – prefearbly reasonably pluralistic – just to get more idea of what people in other centres are doing.
August 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm
asher-i am interested to hear your response to “the networkers”. i.e. those who would prefer a network to a federation…
August 23, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Omar – Yep, for sure, I’m in the process of writing a post that will respond to some of the questions/thoughts raised in this comment thread. Should be done either today or tomorrow, if all goes to plan.
August 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I Adolf Hitler,have to inform you dear readers that I am HOMOSEXUAL and HIV positive.
August 25, 2007 at 11:52 am
I wonder if someone suggested that a federation would be best if it didn’t include Anarchist People of Colour, another minority within the Anarchist middle class scene, people/men might suggest that this could possibly be racist? Doesn’t anyone think that not including anarchist women and/or anarcha-fems is sexist, I personally think sexist men should be the ones excluded, not women.
August 25, 2007 at 11:57 am
though perhaps I should say unapologetically sexist people, supposing that we all have work to do.
August 25, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I [a fascist] say dear readers we dont want darkies in the anarchist scene.There nothing but a fucken waste of time.And dont forget dear readers that we anarchists are mostley Jewish Filth
August 27, 2007 at 12:57 am
I’m finishing off the post with my thoughts on some stuff raised here (and in conversations), but one thing that isn’t gonna be in the post that I thought I should reply to was Simon’s comments about the Workers Party and the picketline at the Mangere Progressive lockout. And no, I wasn’t referring to the Communist League – I met two of their members on the line, and yeah, they seemed nice but a bit weird, but I’m referring specifically to WP members (Mark, Jared, Daphna, Rebecca…).
“the WP were on the picket line a lot. Mark Muller was there everyday and worked hard and got respect. The only anarchist there more or more involved that WP would be Ingrid who also works at the NDU. Some other WP’s were there a lot but not as much and I was often in the office doing the press work if i wasn’t in the bus. I think the whole relating to the workers thing is silly. THey are people, we are people. Communications not complicated. I don’t think WPers seperated themselves.”
First, I just want to mention that this isn’t anything personal against the WP people who spent time at the picket line – during my conversations with them, they were always friendly.
I think a lot of the issue I raised has to do with the role that the WP people played – that of a union organiser, whether it be with the NDU (in Mark’s case) or Unite (in the case of the others). The WP people spent a large amount of the time in the bus (much of it plotting and planning, but not all of it), which, for better or worse, meant that they were seperated from the locked-out workers who were on the line itself (and their families that were there supporting them). Even when they weren’t on the bus, they spent much of the time with each other. Because of the way the NDU (and indeed all unions) are organised, this “elite” planned what would happen and then came out, called a meeting (for example) and told the workers what was happening. This position of power is guaranteed to occur in any trade union – in this case, however, the people in that position were members of the Workers Party. If those people had been there without being union organisers, if they’d been there in a personal or WP organisational capacity, then the situation may have been different – but thats not something anyone can know.
It may have been different in times when you were on the picket line, but during the time I spent there, it was certainly something I noticed strongly.
August 27, 2007 at 6:14 am
Further thoughts on Aotearoa anarchist organisation
Since I wrote What Is To Be Done? A proposal for an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation, there’s been some interesting questions raised by other anarchists which I thought I’d post my thoughts about here. Some of the discussion took pl…
August 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Frank wrote “Why would’nt A syndicalists and A feminists get on in the same organisation?”
A-Syndicalists and A-Femminists can and do get on in many organisations however i have always believed that when it comes to putting together a Federation theoretical unity is important.
I have no problem with a model where different Federations existed, say a A-Communist Federation along with any Eco/Fem Federations.
What worries me is that by trying to include different schools of Anarchism inside one Federation i suspect is a recipe for indecision and inaction.
September 26, 2007 at 1:22 am
[...] network (and in the event it was created, I had questions about its purpose and structure, see this and this). I certainly wasn’t the only person sceptical of it – on Saturday morning, I had a [...]