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 place in the comments thread of the previous post, so if you haven’t already, it probably wouldn’t hurt to read that first. Some discussion also took place on LibCom. I’d also like to mention again the email list that has been started for those interested in discussion towards forming an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation – you can join it by going to http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/aacf.
For simplicities sake, I’m going to divide my thoughts into a few sections:
- Federation or Anarcho-Syndicalist Union?
- Anarchist-Communist or Synthesist?
- Federation or Network?
- The role of local groups
Federation or Anarcho-Syndicalist Union?
One question that has been raised is the question of where the time, energy and enthusiasm of anarchist-communists/class struggle anarchists is best spent. A suggestion that I’ve heard from a couple of people has been that we should be looking to form a union organised along anarcho-syndicalist lines, the thought being that a number of anarchists (especially in Auckland) have put a lot of time into working (both paid and volunteer) with trade unions (predominantly Unite, but also the AWU in Dunedin and others) over the last couple of years, and that if that effort had been put into an anarcho-syndicalist union instead, it may have been much better spent.
There’s two ways I could see this going, if it were to happen. The first is to start an explicitly anarcho-syndicalist union with matching aims & principles that members would agree too. Obviously, the potential membership of such a union would be pretty small – limited to anarcho-syndicalists and anarchists sympathetic to syndicalism. Given the obvious spread (both geographically and in terms of jobs) of those people across Aotearoa, the union would be fairly limited in terms of what it could do – it would be essentially an anarcho-syndicalist propaganda group. If this was to be the option chosen, it would essentially be limiting itself to a smaller membership than an anarchist-communist federation, and a smaller range of activity. Given this, I don’t see any point in doing it.
The more likely option, which (I think, and I may be wrong), is the one that those who suggest this have in mind, is the formation of a union that would not be explicitly anarcho-syndicalist in name, but rather one based on syndicalist ideas. In this model, anarcho-syndicalists would actively go out and attempt to organise work sites. In this, it would be likely to be fairly similar to what was attempted in Dunedin in the last ten years – first with the IWW, and then with the Autonomous Workers Union (AWU).
My main issue with this second model is that it would inevitably end up with much the same division that exist in the mainstream trade unions – that of the “organisers” and the “organised”. If successful, it could potentially use different tactics to those encouraged by trade unions (a greater likelihood of strikes, especially outside of those legally allowed, and sabotage) this would likely lead to crackdowns by the State and employers on the “organised”, while leaving the “organisers” relatively unscathed – there’s a big difference between people engaging in those tactics because they’ve come to the decision that, in a given situation, they’ll be the most effective, and people engaging in those tactics because “that’s the way the union works”. On the other hand, if these tactics aren’t used, the new union would amount to little more than Unite without the Maoist and Social-Democrat leadership. In this, it seems to be quite similar to what Socialist Worker are doing with their Solidarity Union. This, in my mind, is where any proposal for a new union based on this second model falls down – it fails to address one of the key problems with trade unions, that of the separation and hierarchical relationship between organisers and organised.
Anarchist-Communist or Synthesist?
Another question raised by some people has been whether it is desirable to form an explicitly anarchist-communist group, or whether an Aotearoa-wide anarchist federation (or network) is preferable, open to all anarchists. The primary (although by no means only) reason that I’ve heard for the preference of the latter is summed up well in this quote by Omar in the comments thread of the initial proposal – “Only anarchist communists will be involved, meaning smaller numbers than we could get involved in a looser anarchist network.“
There is no question that an explicitly anarchist-communist federation would be smaller than an all-encompassing anarchist federation – undoubtedly only a minority of self-proclaimed anarchists in Aotearoa would either describe themselves as anarchist-communists or agree with anarchist-communist aims and principles to a level that would mean they would be willing to join an explicitly anarchist-communist federation. In this case, however, I firmly believe that numbers aren’t everything.
If we are looking at seriously moving forward towards an anarchist society, rather than simply consolidating those anarchist projects currently existing, we need to start developing theory and practice oriented towards what we are for, as well as what we are against. A synthesist federation cannot do this, whereas an anarchist-communist federation can (and, by the same token, an eco-anarchist one could for the eco-anarchists in Aotearoa, etc etc). As I said in my original proposal, in synthesist groups, “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.“
Of course, being involved in an anarchist-communist federation doesn’t mean that we can’t work with other anarchist (and non-anarchist) groups and individuals where we are in agreement, in specific projects or campaigns, whether the federation as a whole decides it wants to be involved, or individuals from the federation decide they want to. So, just as today, we have (for example) a member of A Space Inside involved in Aotearoa Indymedia or members of The Freedom Shop Collective involved in the 128 Collective, so too could (and likely would) members of an Aotearoa Anarchist-Communist Federation be involved in other groups, in addition to the projects they work on within the Federation itself.
Federation or network?
I’ll start this section off with some definitions, because without knowing what we mean by these two terms, any discussion around them becomes pointless.
A network is a relatively open, comparatively informal method of organisation. Its main purpose would be to aid in communication between different centres, both immediate (eg – conferences or online discussion forums like the old anarchism.org.nz) and non-immediate (eg – via a magazine such as Aotearoa Anarchist). It could be made up of individuals or of explicitly anarchist groups from across Aotearoa (of which there are only 6, by my count – 2 in Auckland, 3 in Wellington and 1 in Christchurch), or of some mix of the two. One would likely become a part of the network simply by contributing to it (attending a conference, writing for a magazine).
A federation is less open, in that it has tighter, more formal, rules around joining (for example, this could be agreeing with a statement of aims and principles, contacting the Federation and contributing to it). It is also more formal in that it would commit itself to regular activities (for instance, annual conferences, a 6-monthly magazine, a pamphlet a year). Like a network, it would serve as a method of enhancing communication between its members in different centres (eg – via email lists, online discussion forums, regular conferences and publications) but it would also serve other purposes like producing propaganda with positions agreed upon by the Federation and acting as a Federation within other groups or in support of specific struggles.
Given the above definitions, I would take a Federation over a Network any day. A Network seems to me to be overkill for the purpose it would serve – if that is all we’re looking for, the status quo can fulfil that function perfectly well. Already, anarchists in Aotearoa have reasonably regular conferences (organised by anarchists in any given centre), a magazine (produced by the Wildcat Collective) and, if the interest was there, anarchism.org.nz could be restarted (a recent attempt to do this floundered due to a lack of interest). It is with a Federation that we could move forward in terms of organisation, of theoretical development and of coordinated activity.
The role of local groups
The last topic I will talk about is the role of local groups in a proposed Federation. Two questions have been raised regarding local groups in an anarchist-communist federation – whether membership will be open to individuals, groups or both, and whether the local groups need to come before the federation or not.
My answers to both of these questions are much the same. As one person put it in the discussion on LibCom, “It would take more effort to form a lasting local group than to form a national federation. By forming a functioning national fed you would be able to pool all the resources and skills of people around the country into one group.” From this national federation, in places where the numbers exist (initially, even at best, this could only be Wellington and Auckland) local groups could be formed, but the reality of the numbers of anarchist-communists and their geographical spread precludes any realistic chance of having local groups come first.
In this, I could see a place for something along the lines of how NEFAC works (see the original post for details) – both individual and collective members, with the aim to have solely collectives, but the recognition that at the present time it may not be possible, and, of course, all possible assistance from the Federation as a whole to those individual members attempting to form collectives.
August 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm
In essence, I think your definitions are flawed. You seem to be saying a federation is simply a more formal network. My understanding of ‘federation’ is that it is an organisation composed of a number of groups. As there aren’t any anarcho-communist groups in Aotearoa, a federation seems to me to be an impossibility. I can see that a federation might admit individuals committed to organising local groups in the near future. But I suspect what you are proposing will be a network of individuals operating (or trying to operate) on a national scale.
‘Network’ is a more general term and needn’t be informal or open – it can organise as tightly and formally as it chooses. I would disagree that there is no need for such a organisation – conferences haven’t been ‘reasonably regular’, and communication between different centres is ad hoc and irregular (at least for most of us) and seems largely based around social connections.
I can’t see why you assert that a ’synthesist federation’ can’t put forward a vision of what anarchists stand for, while an anarcho-communist federation can. It seems to me that the lack of a positive vision of anarchism reflects the confrontational culture anarchism has adopted in the past few years, rather than an organisational issue.
August 27, 2007 at 1:45 pm
It seems to me that Asher is proposing a nationally based group, open to individuals or groups, with a national communication and decsision making system. This seems to me to be more than a network (which I think of as primarily a means of facilitating communication, without neccesarily involving decsion-making). This national (rather than local) group might grow and then develop a federal structure (as local groups develop) but to call it a federation from the outset seems misleading. Why not start with a national anarcho-communist organisation and use it to work towards a federation?
I’d quite like to see a pluralist network (which doesn’t mean the same thing as synthesist) because I have very little idea what is happening in other parts of the country or who is involved. People who travel about might know more than me but I suspect there are a fair few people in my situation.
August 30, 2007 at 11:28 am
Hey could somebody define this term ’synthesist’? Asher referred to it as ‘big tent’ anarchism that brings together all strands of anarchism into one organisation, but the term implies a fusing of the various strands into a whole, as opposed to ‘pluralism’ which is about accepting a diversity of thought within a group, working together, but not trying to create a single platform.
I have a gut level attraction to pluralism as anarchism is about creating a world in which there will be a massive diversity of lifestyle choice, so it seems to be sensible to get some practice in working with people one has significant differences with.
August 30, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Asher- i very much doubt that there are people in Auckland who would put time into an anarcho-communist group. most @’s up here are involved in a space inside anarchist collective and social centre and the majority are anarchists without adjectives and not anarcho-communists.
i think a Aotearoa Anarchist Federation or Network is a much more relevant alternative.
August 30, 2007 at 6:08 pm
First up, Joe, sorry your comment took a few days to appear. It seems it was caught in my spam trap for some unknown reason – I found it and approved it while looking for a post of mine that had got caught also. Weird.
“nationally based group, open to individuals or groups, with a national communication and decsision making system. This seems to me to be more than a network (which I think of as primarily a means of facilitating communication, without neccesarily involving decsion-making). This national (rather than local) group might grow and then develop a federal structure (as local groups develop) but to call it a federation from the outset seems misleading. Why not start with a national anarcho-communist organisation and use it to work towards a federation?”
That’s fairly accurate as to what I’m talking about, yeah. I think its only really semantics as to whether it adopts the name federation from the start or not – I’d prefer it to, in that it would then save the hassle of changing everything (from the website address to any logo used to material produced) once it changes name, but its not something I think matters hugely.
“I’d quite like to see a pluralist network (which doesn’t mean the same thing as synthesist) because I have very little idea what is happening in other parts of the country or who is involved.”
I’m certainly not opposed to this idea – a communication network that exists in order to better facilitate and encourage communication between anarchists (whether individuals, groups or both) across Aotearoa is an idea that certainly has a valuable purpose. However, I don’t think that will actually do anything to move anarchist theory or practice forward in any way. For sure, if there was an email list, or a web forum, I’d probably join it, but its not something I personally would want to put much/any effort into.
Omar – I know of at least 1 person in Auckland who’s pretty keen, but thats besides the point. Any @-commie group doesn’t need to have everyone involved in it, and I’m sure it won’t. As long as it has a critical mass of people required to make it productive, thats a good start.
“i think a Aotearoa Anarchist Federation or Network is a much more relevant alternative.”
What exactly do you mean by this? How do you see it organised, and what would it do? Are you thinking along the same lines as what Joe proposed 2 comments before yours? I’ve heard you say this a few times now, but I’m really still unsure of what you mean by it. In your article for the conference reader, you say “Organise a national anarchist network to maintain channels of communication (a regular publication, regular convergences and the sharing of resources).” If thats what you’re talking about, then my reply to you is the same as my reply to Joe above.
Sam – “I can’t see why you assert that a ’synthesist federation’ can’t put forward a vision of what anarchists stand for, while an anarcho-communist federation can.”
Really simply, because we don’t agree, except on the broadest of possible levels, and sometimes not even then. And I mean this in two ways – both in the long term (as in how any society we envisage would look/function), and in the short-medium term (as in how we want to get there). If a group doesn’t have a shared vision, then it obviously can’t articulate it to people outside of that group.
And when I say we don’t agree, I really mean it – I’m not talking about minor quibbles (such as whether to call something a group, federation or network) but real, tangible differences. Of course, those differences don’t mean we can’t work together where we agree, and they don’t even mean we couldn’t all co-exist in any future anarchist society (with a couple of exceptions…). But they do mean that we can be and are more effective if we work with people we have a generally high level of agreement with – I’m not a platformist, but I certainly believe a good level of theoretical unity is needed for a group to reach its potential.
“Hey could somebody define this term ’synthesist’? ”
A synthesist anarchist group contains a wide range of anarchist schools of thought. The “fusing together” refers to them fusing into a group, which would then take activity on those things where there are political agreement from those in the group. It doesn’t refer to a fusing of the different schools into one platform, unless you call the range of activity taken by the group a platform in itself.
A communication network (like Joe proposed) in my mind cannot be synthesist, as it isn’t about taking action, but rather communication, so any group of that sort would obviously be pluralist.
“I have a gut level attraction to pluralism as anarchism is about creating a world in which there will be a massive diversity of lifestyle choice”
To me, one of the most important tenets of anarchism is that of free association. I agree that in an anarchist society, there would be a diversity of political beliefs and lifestyle choice (I don’t think the latter is overly relevant to this discussion though), but, on a basis of free association, each community would need to have a broad level of political agreement (ie – there would likely be mutualist communities, anarchist-communist communities, etc etc, but people would likely gravitate to those communities where they have political agreement – why would a mutualist not want to live out their beliefs and instead live in an anarchist-communist community?)
I find it especially frustrating (and this came out in a conversation I had last night with another anarchist who’s keen on an @-commie fed) that the discussion around this has turned out the way it is. Rather than those people who are interested discussing what they want to do, and working towards starting a group to do it, it has mostly been people who don’t want to be involved discussing/arguing with people who do. It seems a bit pointless to me really. While I’m not saying if you don’t want to be involved, don’t comment – people’s thoughts are obviously welcome, I do think it has taken over a discussion that could’ve been significantly more productive.
In person, I’ve had some really good discussions with other people who are interested, ranging from short (eg – how can we make this happen?) to medium (eg – what would this group look like, what would it do, how would it function) to long term (eg – in a period of hightened levels of struggle, what do we see as the role of this group). It’s a pity these online discussions have been so different.
September 4, 2007 at 11:04 am
Actually I’ve found this discussion pretty useful and necessary for kicking around various ideas for a national organisation of some sort. I think its been good to hear the different suggestions and see where people are at (and thanks for starting the debate, Asher).
I imagine having had this debate you’ll find it a lot easier to get a specifically anarcho-communist group/federation going without having annoying people coming along to say “Yes, I really want to join, but can it not be anarcho-communist, because I’m a …….. and I think ……. , and you should ……..etc. etc,” which seems to be something that bedevils anarchist projects.
September 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I agree with your point that the people who want to organise some sort of national anarcho-communist group should just get going and do it. But I disagree that calling it a national group or a federation is just “semantics” or “a minor quibble”. I think my concern comes from seeing a rise in an unconscious individualism in the anarchist community (which just reflects the rise in individualisn in society in general) and a tendency to not see organisation as central to anarchism. Coming from a strongly collectivist perspective, and being interested in decision-making processes, conflict resolution, consensus processes, accountability etc. I am interested in people having an accurate understanding of what organisational terminology actually means. If your vision for an anarcho-communist group includes developing a strong body of theory it seems important to get the language right, and calling something a federation when it isn’t seems sloppy at best and misleading at worst.
Obviously it is for the people involved to call their organisation whatever they want. but if a few individuals from around the country decided to call their group a “federation” when it isn’t I’d ask myself why they are doing that? To make themselves sound more important? or because federation sounds more anarchist? Or just because they don’t want to have to redesign their cool logo or rename their website? If this was the case I’d probably regard the group as a bit of a joke and say so, which wouldn’t be a very positive response, but its probably the way I’d feel.
September 6, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Hi again, I wrote yesterday’s comment in a hurry so I’ll add to it today.
To clarify, I’m somewhat suprised that Asher’s definition of a federation is about tighter more formal rules for joining, commitment to regular activities etc. Is there a different understanding about what “federation” means? I have always had the clear idea that federation means precisely an organisation of affiliated groups. In anarchist tradition I have usually heard the term associated with the question of organising on a scale where everyone attending all the meetings becomes problematic (because of travel distance and times, the problem of letting everyone have their say in large groups, or the sheer impossibility of finding spaces for thousands of people to meet. Usually anarchist writings on federations include some sort of delegative process, with delegates recallable by constituent groups, and processes for taking issues back to constituent groups. Asher seems to have a different understanding, with the term federation meaing a group with formal rules for joining, other formal processes etc., but not necessarily a group of groups. Is there a different usage of the term federation in the anarchist community that I’m not aware of?
To explain my comment that I’d regard a non-federation calling itself one as a bit of a joke, the Wildcat Anarchist Collective has formal (albeit brief and simple) rules for joining, including agreement with a brief statement of rules and principles, commits to regular activities (although it doesn’t always realise them) and produces propaganda with the agreement of members. There is at least one Wildcat member in Auckland. None-the-less if we had another member in Christchurch and then started calling ourselves a national federation I would consider this rather silly, a mis-use of the term federation and one that is likely to cause further confusion among anarchists or fellow travellers about the nature of anarchist organisation. At best we would be a nationally based group.
Similarly, I live in a house with my partner and child. We are buying the house. If I were to declare the three of us to be The Brooklyn Anarchist Housing Collective (when at best we are an affinity group or more precisely, a family), and used this as an example of how collectivist housing can work, how anarchists can live without individual property, and suggest this was a more anarchist way of doing things than paying rent to a landlord etc., I could probably impress a few people who didn’t understand what collectivism actually means or what the real nature of my living arrangements were. However informed people would think I was being a prat, treat my claims as a joke, and be miffed that I was confusing people about the real meaning of anarchist or anti-capitalist collectivism.
So I come back to: are there different understandings of what “Federation” means and are they both valid? It wouldn’t be the first time that there have been long running arguments over nothing more than terminology, but it wouldn’t be the first time incorrect terminology has created a lot of confusion.
Finally, I think this has been a useful discussion, at least in getting people to explain what they are saying, it’s a pity it’s not the discussion Asher wants to be having, so I’ll leave it to the anarcho-communists to get on with their work (and best of luck to them) unless anyone needs further clarification of what I’m saying. I don’t believe that creating a federation will take less effort than creating a lasting local group and I have a strong ideological and practical leaning towards creating lasting local groups but people will sort this out for themselves. I would like to have a discussion about what we all do agree on. I disagree that we only agree “on the broadest of posssible levels and sometimes not even then”. I think we probably agree on most things but spend out time discussing areas of disagreement – partly because we are socialised to do this and partly becuse it is more intellectually satisfying and isn’t a bad way of developing our understanding and theory (although it can become pathological if people don’t know what they are doing – a whole other area for discussion).
September 14, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Would a Green Syndicalist fit within this anarchist federation?
I’ve become disillusioned with electoral politics as I’ve witnessed Labour’s continued betrayal of those that they purport to represent in a bid to maintain their hold on power and their continued espousal of neoliberal economic dogma, to the extent that they’re paying money to New Zealand companies to out-source their productive facilities offshore!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=25&objectid=10460754
The Green’s are little better with selling out their core constituency with their refusual to push marijuana reform, because its too “controversial” for middle New Zealand, whilst still being able to carry out their social engineering agenda, not to mention their limpristed unwillingness to hold the premier polluters responsible for their emmissions and allowing them to socialise the costs whilst internalising the rewards.
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/06/green-party-com.html
September 16, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Fu*@, why are anarchists always so long-winded?
If you guys wan’t to attract a wider membership, that is if you want to be taken seriously you’ve got put theory into practice. You’ve got to organise a workplace/business along anarchist lines. If it’s successful it will draw 50 times more people in than any single protest ever will. Furthermore it will provide funding for any political activities you wish to undertake. It would provide continuity and sustanance for NZ’s anarchist movement – something that it’s never had. This would ruin the exclusiveness of many NZ anarchist groups – you may have to associate with non-boho, non-vegan types
. I can feel you shudder with repulsion now!
As to the Union idea – might have worked during the great depression in Spain, but hello? This is the era of the playstation my friends. To build a union movement that is strong enough, and radical enough to ignore all the draconian anti-striking laws in NZ, you need a desperate and hungry working class. As Unite has discovered, the current legal and politico-economic environment limits unions to being bureaucratic and legalistic capitalist apologists (they have done some good consciousness raising work through the media though – i.e. supersize my pay and youth-rates).
-rant ends-
(sorry if this has been a bit intemperate – as you may have noticed, i’m a disillusioned and bitter anarchist type)
September 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm
One section of our economy that is ripe for unionisation is the Forest Industry, which according to a forestry worker that I met who has recently made redundant, they are in desperate need of representation.
He related how in an already dangerous occupation, they are being pressured by greedy bosses to cut corners and speed up their workrate to dangerous levels to the extent that people are dying on the worksite and he personally was almost killed after his boss pressured him to increase his workrate, they’re cheated out of benefits that they’re often not made aware of and their bosses are pocketing the cash, and their pay has not increased substantially over the years despite inflation, nor is it consummate with the risks involved. I’ve only met him once and did not get his contact details nor talked to him in depth, but from that anecdote, I’d assume that its an industry wide problem.
A revived IWW New Zealand branch would be a perfect solution to provide representation for workers in desperate need and a overarching representative body for anarchist activists. As for the former, apparently an Earth First! activist, Judi Bari used her IWW Union organisation to build a alliance between forestry workers and radical environmentalists in the forests of Northern California, because like me she belived that the class struggle and environmental protection were inextricably intertwined. Environmental devastation and the class war are mere symptoms of the cancer that is the capitalist economic system.
http://www.iww.org/en/node/1227
As for the latter anarchist activist aspirations, we have no chance of success until we are able to produce and demonstrate a viable social, political, and alternative even on a small scale. Roger nome is right on target with his comment above.
http://anarchism.org.nz/publications/thrall/03takingover.html
What we need to do is develop a viable and profitable enterprise that allows worker participation in the running of the firm, whilst also providing them a healthy standard of living.
Perhaps we should take inspiration from the Mondragon worker cooperative that was established in the Basque region of Spain after World War II, the and revive the New Zealand cooperative and mutual movements that died off, because of the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s and if I’m right about the impending economic recession/depression that I’m expecting in the next year or so, then the New Zealand working class will have had no more need for it since the Great Depression.
Mondragon Worker Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation
Emilia Romagna Industrial Networks
http://books.google.com/books?id=hpVInBOQ1mMC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=emilia+romagna+cama+network&source=web&ots=YyyoaR0Zj7&sig=CEV0hnrQdvZ7-rol74TxP4qS_bc#PPA166,M1
“The future of co-operative and mutual businesses”
http://www.nz.coop/docs/johnston.html
The reasons I’m expecting a economic “correction” in the not so distant future are manyfold.
a) According to most acknowledged experts in the Oil Industry, there is an expectation that oil prices are going to skyrocket due to the fact that demand for oil is bound to outstrip supply in the next five years and we’re already seeing that reflected in the Oil Markets now, not to mention the fact that most commentators say that the so-called US military “surge” in Iraq has been a dismal failure and that Bush will soon withdraw troops from Iraq, which will substantially impact the security of oil supplies from that country. Alan Greenspan has just confirmed what we all knew was the reason for the invasion of Iraq. It was for oil.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
b) The impact of the collapse in the sub-prime real estate market in the United States in far more widespread than the mainstream media are willing to admit.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html
c) I think that capitalist enterprises’ wage bills are as high as they can absorb in order to earn an adequate ROI, due to the tight labour market in conjunction with the high cost of paying off their debt thanks to the high interest rates, so theres no relief for workers for the fall in house affordability and the across the board grocery price rises due to the surge in soft commodity prices and the price of oil.
“Labour market tight as a drum as jobless drop”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=353&objectid=10456889
“As at the end of May 2007, the national average was 79.3%, up marginally from April 2007 (79.2%), but up much more dramatically from April 2006 (66.8%).
That is, it now takes at least 79.3% of the average take-home pay to afford a standard mortgage payment of a median-priced house, as at May 2007.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0706/S00339.htm
“Rises are expected across the board right through the next few years, unfortunately, due to the incredible price ranges rises in commodities,” says Brenda Cutress, from the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1320238/1349548
“Food Prices Surging, Raising Hunger Concerns”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5106
d) The Reserve Bank’s efforts to cool the housing market is doomed to failure as due to the flaw in our economy and banking system, an ever increasing amount of credit must be issued to ensure continued economic prosperity and now, because of capital flight from finance companies to banks, the banks must engage in a price war on mortage interest rates so as to prevent their interest payments to depositors cutting into their margins so they can attract Home Buyers as they must issue more credit and thus earn interest from the loans.
“Economic growth is a prerequisite for the principals of the loans to be repaid, but that has proven elusive since banking was invented, which is why we have the cyclical economic crisises. So in effect continued economic prosperity requires more and more credit to be issued in order to keep the wheels on the cart, but as it has many time before the wheels are about to fall off.”
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/the-bank-of-england-refuses-to-bail-out-british-banksand-will-let-them-stand-or-fall/#comment-363780
“Bank cashes in on investor flight”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4195995a13.html
“Banks declare interest rate war”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4203799a10.html
October 19, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Hi Asher,
I’d be interested to hear your reaction to the above as personally I don’t see any point in anarchist activism and opposition to the domination by wealthy capitalist elites if we are unable to offer any credible alternatives to their social, political, and economic systems beyond talking and whinging about them. I’d also appreciate a reply to the emails that I sent you over the last couple of weeks.
Regards,
James
October 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Hey James,
I’ve been meaning to reply to ages but havent had time, and with whats going on at the moment I doubt I’ll have much time for anything else for a while! FWIW though, I don’t have any time for social credit or PARECON based systems, and I would say that there have been some excellent work by anarchist-communists and anarcho-syndicalists in the past as to the “credible alternatives to their social, political, and economic systems”
October 23, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hi Asher,
Thanks for your response. I fully understand your inability to reply right now due to the uproar in the activist community stemming from the “anti-terror” raids in the Bay of Plenty.
Re. your admission that you have no time for social credit or PARECON based systems, I’m assuming you’re more interested in some kind of “gift economy”, but I’m attempting to develop economic alternatives that will appeal to a more broad section of society, rather than merely one faction of the anarchist movement.
I am aware that much theoretical work by many anarchists over the years into developing credible social, political, and economic systems, but I have seen little evidence that it has been implemented on a large scale in New Zealand. I’m sure a gift economy may be operational in the small anarchist communities in the main centres, but I’m from Rotorua and am also new to anarchism so I can’t say for sure. I did not mean to denigrate the efforts others.
Hopefully we’ll be in touch once the uproar surrounding the “anti-terror” raids and courtcases blows over.
Regards,
James
December 16, 2007 at 10:54 am
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce