Anarchy in the AF
- This topic has 19 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It seems that there has been some sort of split in the Anarchist Federation:
https://libcom.org/forums/anarchist-federation/whats-going-afed-27122017
Only clue as to what it might be about is this passage in a link posted on that thread:
Quote:We are opposed to 'big tent' anarchism aka 'the scene' or the 'anarchist ghetto' and firmly believe that any meaningful anarchism has to be communist, class struggle and firmly rooted in working class experience, or it is nothing.Sounds like they may be the better lot. In any event, doesn't say much for the other side, whoever they are.
But does anyone know what it's about?
It's to do with the fallout of the incident at the bookfair.There's a segment (probably a large one) of people within the organisation that think that if you do not 100% agree with them on their definition of what a woman is you are no better than a fascist. Some, mostly more long standing members, questioned this but the environment within the organisation became one in which discussion could not be conducted. So some members decided there only option was to leave.They were concerned with how predominant liberal identity privilege politics had been within the organisation, at the expense of class struggle anarchism.I may be oversimplifying somewhat but this is the picture I have got through a few friends on Facebook.
https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.uk/
Quote:As former members of the Anarchist Federation (previously Anarchist Communist Federation) we contributed to the initial writing up and development of the Aims & Principles of that organisation. Consequently, we still adhere to the AF Aims & Principles presentedIn terms of activity, we see things similarly to how Solidarity group said it fifty years ago: Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.With the possibility of the Libcom forum folding and a division within AF, I wonder if they have their own Pvt Frazer expressing gloom and doom.
You forgot to mention the possible demise of the Anarchist Book Circus. But, don't worry, anarchism will survive as the amorphous blob that it has always been.Personally, I've never understood why even class-struggle anarchist-communists have been prepared to accept anybody (except anarcho-capitalists) who calls themself an anarchist as part of a broader movement. In fact they have more in common with us than with most of those calling themselves anarchists.It looks as if they made a mistake when thirty years ago they dropped the word "communist" from their name as one result may have been that they attracted anarchists who weren't really communists or had other priorities.Their concentration on day-to-day struggles at the expense of popularising the idea of a classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society won't have helped here since you don't have to have any longer term aim to take part in such struggles.
Well here’s a new statement from those that left:https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/resignations-from-anarchist-federation.htmlAnd here’s the latest statement from the AF. It really has gone down the pan…https://www.facebook.com/Anarchistfederation/posts/2231949820163757edit: Those that left the AF have also added a longer statement:https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/class-struggle-anarchist-statement-on_1.html
As you say, pathetic, absolutely pathetic:
Quote:The AF has been a large part of recent developments, not least our co-organising of the AFEM 2014 international anarcha-feminist conference. However, the result of development of anti-colonial and even more inclusive thinking around colour and gender has clearly challenged the cohesiveness of the anarchist movement which, apart from small pockets of individualism that still exist, has all but adopted a social anarchist perspective in recent years. At this year’s bookfair the distribution of a leaflet against transgender rights (concerning an amendment to the Gender Recognition Act which would allow trans persons to more easily self-identify) was incendiary, being both pre-meditated by Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists and pre-empted by a large number of bookfair attendees who choose to take direct action.For the AF (and the ACF before our name change) we are proud of our having made explicit the need for struggle against ‘other’ oppressions and independent organisation by oppressed minorities as a core principle of a class struggle organisation since our inception 31 years ago, and this has become more concrete in recent years by inclusion of caucuses (for Gender-oppressed, LGBTQ and most recently for members who have disabilities or mental health problems), a safer spaces policy and production of a text on Privilege Theory. However, differing responses to the bookfair events, and a few years of tension preceding this within AF, has led to 12 of our membership (including all of our remaining founder members) leaving on the grounds that this has gone too far – it being diversionary from the class struggle, merely identity politics being expressed as inward looking sub-cultural disputes, whilst the majority of us who strongly disagree with that view are having to regroup in 2018 to consider the consequences for the AF and our movement (seeing as the Bookfair won’t happen, with the 2017 collective having resigned). Gender politics will be a big part of this, as no doubt will be a more nuanced anti-colonial thinking.I hadn't realised they were that bad but thought the AF was an anarcho-communist organisation that aimed at the sort of classless, stateless, moneyless, wageless society like us. I was wrong as I didn't realise how deep they had sunk into the bog of so-called "identity politics" (more properly, misidentity politics). We have nothing in common with them. No wonder the original founders left. It would be nice to think there'll be others (including somebody we know).
ALB wrote:I hadn't realised they were that badMe niether. I would have thought the person we know has already left them, if he had even fully joined in the first place.
Murray Bookchin saw this coming and was why he stopped calling himself an anarchist:https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-social-anarchism-or-lifestyle-anarchism-an-unbridgeable-chasm
Here's an explanation from one of them as to why the anarcho-communists in the AF left (from Libcom forum thread on this):
Quote:The AF's steady degeneration into identity politics and its public 'acceptance' of concepts such as privilege and intersectional theory was also never resolved. It should be clear that at no point was any formal decision made by the Anarchist Federation to endorse ideas such as intersectionality, privilege theory or to move to a more identity-based politics. However, official AF website and facebook posts have since been written as if the AF is indeed such an organisation. Those of us who criticised these ideas were told we needed to go away and write a proper critique of privilege theory. However, when we did this, we were met with open hostility, immediately attacked and denounced – it was also implied by some that we were borderline racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Meanwhile, a number of the pro-privilege/intersectionality people threatened 'mass' resignations if the critique was ever published on the website.So, we stepped back for fear this would lead to a split in the organisation. This was a serious error on our part because it basically meant giving free reign to people who had little conception of anarchist communism as it had always been understood in the ACF/AF. Now, a couple of years down the line, this increasing orientation towards identity based politics has pretty much shat all over what was once a fine revolutionary class struggle anarchist communist organisation.I suppose the lesson of this is that, if you want to maintain yourself as a revolutionary organisation, you need to be careful as to who you admit into membership with voting righst, as we do despite being mocked by Andrew Neil and others for having an "entrance exam".Incidentally, does anybody know what "privilege and intersectional theory" isactly. I know they are to do with class-dividing, (mis)identity politics, so-called Idpol, but what exactly?
ALB wrote:Incidentally, does anybody know what "privilege and intersectional theory" isactly. I know they are to do with class-dividing, (mis)identity politics, so-called Idpol, but what exactly?Actually the Wikipedia entry isn’t too bad:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionalityhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(sociology)Or this YouTube channel:https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-ASw3fKJNgXx8Lrh-FRMAlDplNxdkSlfEDIT: and this:http://libcom.org/library/insurrections-intersections-feminism-intersectionality-anarchism
Thanks but I'm not all that much the wiser. If I've understood the acadamese correctly it is the theory that there are degrees of privilege and underprivilege amongst the majority class in society (those forced to try to sell their working ability for a wage or salary to live) in a hierarchy with white "middle class" males at the top and black handicapped "working class" lesbians at the bottom and the rest in between. And that the solution is to redistribute amongst them the artificial scarcity that capitalism imposes by bringing up those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top so that everybody ends up "socially equal". Hardly a formula for working class (in the proper sense) unity. Just the opposite in fact. But what about socialism, where with the artificial scarcity gone, everyone can have access on the same basis to what they need in terms of food, education, health care, enjoyable work, etc in return for contributing what they are able to.
Abbey Volcano and J Rogue wrote:Intersectionality has been, and often still is, centered on identity. Although the theory suggests that hierarchies and systems of oppression are interlocking, mutually constituting, and sometimes even contradictory, intersectionality has often been used in a way that levels structural hierarchies and oppressions. For instance, “race, class, and gender” are often viewed as oppressions that are experienced in a variety of ways/degrees by everyone—that is, no one is free of the forced assignations of identity. This concept can be useful, especially when it comes to struggle, but the three “categories” are often treated solely as identities, and as though they are similar because they are “oppressions.” For instance, it is put forward that we all have a race, a gender, and a class. Since everyone experiences these identities differently, many theorists writing on intersectionality have referred to something called “classism” to complement racism and sexism. This can lead to the gravely confused notion that class oppression needs to be rectified by rich people treating poor people “nicer” while still maintaining class society. This analysis treats class differences as though they are simply cultural differences. In turn, this leads toward the limited strategy of “respecting diversity” rather than addressing the root of the problem. This argument precludes a class struggle analysis which views capitalism and class society as institutions and enemies of freedom. We don’t wish to “get along” under capitalism by abolishing snobbery and class elitism. Rather, we wish to overthrow capitalism and end class society all together.Sums it up quite succinctly no?
I think there is a lot of this class politics versus gender orientation type politics going around elsewhere ie on Leninist revleft and even in soft left circles. I criticised the focus or over emphasis of gender politics on revleft and was also promptly accused of homophobia and fascism etc. I merely pointed out that the UK had one of the best legislative frameworks for that kind of thing etc according to the Wikipedia site on the subject. And that the advanced capitalist class were themselves eg where I work are against gender orientation discrimination. We were all sent on a equality and diversity training courses which was very good, and effective telling us why it was stupid to treat these kind of people differently. It was mostly about workers treating other workers the same irrespective of stuff like ‘race’ gender and sexual orientation as it interferes with us co-operating and working effectively together etc etc. I work in Bernard Manning country as regards prejudice white working class north Manchester. 20 years ago people re racism people could be called things by even management that would lead to instant dismissal now. Not that there were many of ‘them’ there then. Homosexuals etc had to stay underground. It has been quite successful in that I think some of the ex racist and homophobes who are still there, I know who they were, have actually changed rather than just been driven underground themselves. On the soft left like Chris Hedges who is into the ‘black lives matter’ thing and stands above political posturing by engaging with ‘these’ people by giving them lessons on ‘Hamlet’ in prisons etc. He even is getting hacked off with this non class based Hilary Clinton thing about cross dressers being allowed to use women’s toilets. I went to a gay pride festival in Manchester a few years ago with a ‘black’ feminists and ‘she’ didn’t like men in dresses going into the women’s toilets. Incidentally, just as you feel obliged to defend your integrity etc. I was actually labelled as a homosexual where I work in the 1980’s on the evidence that I looked like Freddie Mecury, I did have the moustache and I am still called Freddie today, had a squeaky voice and declined the advances sexual advances of a pretty woman [she was a trollop]. I bravely roaded it out until I was inned upon discovery I was having sexual relations with a ‘black’ feminists. But I did discover who was gay in the factory as they came out to me.
Also, it is left unstated, that these layered oppressions are structured by class. Wage differences only exist because of the labour market, and the barriers that "race", "sexuality" and "gender" put to partcipation in them. While gay capitalists have faced persecution and emotional trauma, etc. they remained capitalists and able to live (likewise the odd aristo).If we all had unrestricted access to the means of living, and enforceable inteests in the common wealth and production of society, then these priviliges are abolished. This is not to belittle or deny the various categories of discrimination.
Saw, in a different context, someone linking to this article earlier today:https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1903/negro.htmForgiving the archaic language:
Debs wrote:I have said and say again that, properly speaking, there is no Negro question outside of the labor question—the working class struggle. Our position as Socialists and as a party is perfectly plain. We have simply to say: “The class struggle is colorless.” The capitalists, white, black and other shades, are on one side and the workers, white, black and all other colors, on the other side.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.