|
Post by Steve on Sept 30, 2004 15:22:17 GMT
I'm certainly not finding this boring. I haven't time to explore the ins and outs of the history of this as I'm too busy locally, so I'm grateful for this summary. Can you be more explicit Steve on where Solfed and anarcho-syndicalism stands in working locally say in a social forum where there may well be those with a more reformist agenda - would you be resistant to this? What I'm interested in now is information on how this apparent rift plays out in the everyday - being specific to the North West/Lancashire would be helpful. There's obviously bigger issues/disagreements behind this Spanish example - and they are obviously important and I'd appreciate them clearly stated by both yourself and Brian so I can make up my own mind. Why do certain individuals want to manufacture rifts in the IWA. 'Mischief making' in my experience (having created a little mischief of my own from time to time) often comes from strong discontents with how things have been working before. On a local level - if I'm getting your concern about reformist agendas and those working within or with the State (a concern I share as I see many community groups and Unions poisoned by State policies) - things become a little more complex as there are many, some anarchist, working within. I guess what I'm trying to gauge is whether you're suggesting resistence to working with anyone who isn't 'pure' anarchist - this is not practical on a local level, and err not conducive to forming a social forum in Burnley & Pendle. SolFed & anarcho-syndicalists in general work with all sorts of people. One of the things we advocate in the workplace is decisions being made at workplace level by workplace meetings. That means working with other workers who do not share our politics. Our aim is to spread anarchist ideas and methods of organising within the workplace and in communities but we can only do this by being a part of those workplaces and communities and not aloof. I know Manchester SolFed send delegates to the Manchester Social Forum and have worked alongside other organisations. In the anti-casualisation campaign SF work with others if they share our views. They don’t have to share all our politics but must be willing to work in open democratic structures. I myself have been a shop steward for a reformist union. Other SF members still are. Others have sat on branch committees etc. What we won’t do is accept any paid positions within these organisations. This applies to all what we do. The Spanish rift happened 20-odd years ago. At a practical day-to-day level CNT and CGT members will work together. They will also work with other Spanish unions as highlighted in Brian’s post Obviously I’m biased but I think there is a lot of jealously of the IWA. Various organisations have attempted to set up a rival international but the only thing that they can agree on is their enmity to the IWA. Some anarchists who are otherwise very critical of syndicalist methods (accusing us of being prone to reformism) are willing to cosy up with more reformist syndicalists. Here in Preston we worked in the Radical Preston Alliance that contained a variety of groups and individuals. It could be said this was a kind of social forum but obviously not the same as the ones being advocated now. We will continue to work with groups and individuals as the need arises. Obviously, through past experience, we are wary of some groups (and individuals) so we sometimes tread carefully. We have our own priorities within our group and things that we feel we can achieve. If someone does set up a social forum in Preston then we will certainly look into it. However I do not feel the situation is right at the present time and Preston SF certainly haven’t got the time or the resources to do this. Hope this makes things a bit clearer.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Sept 30, 2004 16:42:22 GMT
The important thing here is getting our own people to adopt more effective European methods for fighting their own disputes. That was discussed at the NAN also: for while the bosses here are becoming more Americanised, it seems that we must become more Europeanised in our methods of fighting back. So it's a question of opening up trade unionist in this country to the ideas and ways of organisations like the CGT and CNT. Now what could be wrong with that? brian Thanks Brian - interesting - what do you mean by 'we must become more Europeanised in our methods..?' Likewise, I would query the vague 'Americanised bossess in the UK. I can think of many European multinationals who pertain to the rigorous or lets say more rigorous employment legislation/relations in their own country (as compared to the US & the UK), but when they operate in countries like the US or UK will get away with what the host country allows them to and behave entirely differently. A prime example would be the Danish Multinational ISS - facilities services company. The State in Germany and France may pull multinationals into touch within their own borders, but won't give a S**T what Hurel Hispano (French multinational) is upto in Burnley in Lancashire - for example making redundancy announcements of casual workers over a tannoy across the entire factory/hiring and firing of casual workers at will dependent on demand. When you say European methods are you thinking specifically the approach of the CNT - of which I'd like to know more as regards tactics. What tactics are you keen to open upto Trade unions in the UK - can you outline further the approach behind the support of the Manchester Electricians. In my mind several things have to come into play:- Unions realising they're in crisis, and have to change (a big one here, much top-down deadwood) Input and rigorous research coming from outside traditional Union ranks, e.g. from community workers, local activists and other community groups (broadly supported campaigns with a diversity of expertise) Grassroots led campaigns - leaders identified from grassroots Tracing supply chains, identifying companies all the way along the supply chain, and strong direct action hitting companies where it hurts with negative confrontational publicity preferably with a humorous angle (you're familiar with this aren't you Brian?? I'm thinking goats??) Probably a few more factors - did any of these happen during the Manchester Electricians Campaign?? As regards opening up trade unionism - I'd like to hear more here about the Manchester Electricians campaign - and trade unionists and the Trades council supporting. In Burnley and Pendle it will be hard. Yesterday I sat through a workshop by the GMB (once the biggest union in Burnley/now in membership crisis with many local branches closed recently) at a community groups gathering in Burnley and became rather depressed by what I witnessed. Instead of changing within, recognising that they need to change, and focusing on organising, particularly casual/atypical workers in Burnley who are increasingly become the majority in this area) their strategy locally mimics that of 'Best Value' in local government - most businesslike - more training courses, legal advise and employment rights advise, workplace focus - what of the numbers of homeworkers in this area? It's a dodgy dark 'servicing' road the GMB are taking here - whose interests are being serviced? There were a number of people from Burnley Borough Council in the workshop - and it was them that the talk was directed to. Pictures of key Lancashire GMB officials shaking hands with Jack Straw and John Prescott. The GMB in Burnley seem to be seeking funding from Burnley Borough Council via training fees and other advisory services. All the buzzwords were there - 'Partnership', social/economic regeneration and the real vomit one - 'Life Long Learning' - go for it boys I shouted! Remember those letters and emails I sent you seeking support for homeworkers organisation in Burnley & Pendle - we didn't get them they said. Also both Burnley and Pendle Trades Councils, i'm sorry to say it but can't think of any other word, are - DEADWOOD - parts of the system - interested in maintaining their own little boys network positions of power, ploddin on, grunting occasionally so peole know they're still alive. Both have strong links with the SWerps locally (this is a big concern I think) - top-down not to mention boys clubs stick together. I'm wondering if the social forum might take a slightly different shape in Burnley & Pendle than Manchester. Anyway I'm keen to learn more for the Manchester experience, and Calderdale as you suggest - would anyone over there in Calderdale be interested in loggin on here and entering the debate. Would be most useful to learn from other social forums, and the Radical Preston Alliance that was before we convene for Burnley Social Forum Any top tips for Burnley Brian - there are differences in the contextual climate - to put it mildly. Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 30, 2004 23:34:26 GMT
Personally Mitch I don’t think the unions can be reformed. We have to be flexible in our approach and work within them (without becoming dependent on them) where appropriate and outside of them as well. An example of this is the ‘Workmates’ on the London Underground who use the RMT to organise workers who are members of the union alongside those who aren’t. They have recallable delegates and decisions are always made by the workplace meetings.
I’m a member of the T&G but I’m not sure what good it does me anymore. Nothing happens at branch level and the membership is scattered through numerous little workplaces. What’s the point in me trying to get others in the voluntary/community/charity sector to join the T&G. Some of us are hoping to start a network of workers in this sector to try and do something different.
As for Trade Councils I think they are a waste of time. They are moribund institutions that have no meaning. I think you hit the nail on the head with your description. The Preston one is more old Labour/CP types. If anyone wants to make the effort they can get on to them but to me it’s pointless.
Homeworkers would be as well looking to form their own organisation/network. After all any strength shown in unions come from shopfloor/workplace organisation not from the bureaucracy. Only when workers stand together can anything be achieved. Union leaders are usually a brake on any militancy. Look what happened to the Fire-fighters.
|
|
|
Post by octoberlost on Oct 1, 2004 12:38:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 1, 2004 12:53:26 GMT
From Wikipedia
This misses out an important element of anarcho-syndicalism, namely community organisation.
Also we see the workplace and community organisations being linked and forming the basis of the transition to a new society which we do not have a blueprint for. We recognise that we cannot go overnight from the present society to full libertarian communism. Ther would obviously be resistance from those in power now which is why we argue for the creating of alternative structures within present day society. Building the basis of the new society in the shell of the old – a new world in our hearts!
Oh and one last point.
From Wikipedia
The IWW is not an specific anarcho-syndicalist organisation although they do have members who are anarchists. They also have Marxists and social democrats as well.
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Oct 2, 2004 10:44:42 GMT
My God Mitch, you know how to wound!
Yes, I was making 'vague' generalisations about 'americanised bosses in the UK' & about us adopting 'more Europeanised methods' to combat them. Generalisations are always dangerous, but I think there's a truth in this one.
By 'Americanised bosses' I mean the US concepts of management techques that have invaded Europe, but especially the UK, since the early 20th Century from about Fred Taylor onwards: In England this has been stepped up from the time of Thatcher. You say European multi-nationals act the same. Yes but it is the US ideological imperialism of management studies which is corrupting us all. This is hitting even the middle class professionals now - with targets for everything; Macho-management; and the latest jargon on how to squeeze more out of us.
This hasn't just damaged relations at work, but its undermined life in communities like Burnley thru management planning decisions disrupting our towns (see Northern Voices 1,2 & 3).
The 'European methods' we may adopt are more radical & imaginative direct action. The big threat to the UK bosses will be an unpredictable workforce.
Inthe 1950s & 60s the unofficial strikes by small groups of workers were a big threat to the bosses by retaining the focus of conflict on the shopfloor thru the shop stewards committees.
In the late1960s, 70s and early 80s, the uniom bosses became more bold: first in engineering and at UCS Glasgow among the shipyard workers, and later among the miner's branches. These were big strikes backed by big unions like the AYEW (now AMICUS), TGWU & the NUM. The defeat of the miners in 1985 and the later industrial legistlation of Thatcher, changed the balace of power in the bosses favour, and the big union backed strike became less ineffective for unions faced with massive fines.
By 'European methods' of resistance I mean the type of direct action used in the Latin countries - Italy, France, Spain: occupations, boycotts; work-to-rules; go-slows; and other forms of disruption.
Did this impact on the Manchester electricians?
During the first few months of their dispute we had little contact with the picket. The electricians came to the Peoples Assembly (now Manchester Social Forum) in JUne v2003 & had a stall & had a collection. They didn't attend the Oct. Peoples Asemby/Social Forum
In Jan. 2004 the electricians came to the Manchester Social Forum weekly meeting and told us their union - the T&G, had stopped their hardship money just before Xmas. The union said their action was not now an 'iindustrial dispute', but just a 'protest'. Immediately, the Manchester Social Forum gave them £250 out of their own funds.
Then our campaign began. Setting ourselves up as a Support Group we contacted the loal Manchester Trade Councils and organised a public meeting of supporters. In all this I & other Northern anarchists were co-ordinators between the different groups: the Social Forum; the Trade Councils; the local trade union branches and other anarchists such as the Sol. Fed. The meeting was an overwhelming success.
Then the Socal Forum and the electricians asked me to produce a booklet on the dispute. The first issue (250)was asell-out in no time - patying for itself and providing the electricians with well over £100. work immediately began on another booklet No2 (850), which came out in May 2004. This sild out in a month But during this time we had held 2 more support meetings with the electricians and their supporter - raising more money and support.
We intend to produce another booklet on the history of the dispute and the cconquences for the building trade. The electricians did loads of research on their boss - DAF. Northern anarchists did some on the main contractor Carrillion and Dave Whyte and the Hazards campaign and a Professor at Manchester University did work on health & safety in the building trade. We northern anarchists, the Social Forum and Manchester Trade Councils challenged the Man. City Council, which put out the original contract for the work but didn't go on to ensure the safety on the site and didn't make sure local labour conditions were uphewld.
The men's employer DAF is not the only culprit here: Carrillion, the Manchester City Council and the union AMICUS have more to answer for - in their dealings in this dispute.
If Burnley wants Preston Sol. Fed on board for a Social Forum movement, you will have to use all your most seductive charms to entice them in. I can't help but notice they a bit shy socially and politically. They are not good mixers and need encouragement to overcome their lack of confidence. Some may say they are 'politically agrophobic'; like wall-flowers at a dance - anxious of contact with people they don't know too well. It always takes them a long time to take the plunge and get mobile.
Like steve says: 'we are wary (and) sometimes tread carefully.' This is an understatement!
As for our record - the record of northern anarchism - this is no secret:
1996 to 1998: Groundswell, the anti-JSA campaign & the unemployed worers campaign in the North West. 1998 to 2000: Support Group for the Tameside Careworkers. 2003 to 2004: Work in the Social Forum movement & the Manchester electrician's dispute.
This is not everything, because we have also launched a region publication with Northern Voices. But here we are boasting and we don't want to tempt fate or the Gods, because that is not the way we English should proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 2, 2004 11:44:06 GMT
If Burnley wants Preston Sol. Fed on board for a Social Forum movement, you will have to use all your most seductive charms to entice them in. I can't help but notice they a bit shy socially and politically. They are not good mixers and need encouragement to overcome their lack of confidence. Some may say they are 'politically agrophobic'; like wall-flowers at a dance - anxious of contact with people they don't know too well. It always takes them a long time to take the plunge and get mobile. You do take the biscuit Brian. What do you know of Preston and the situation here? You certainly know nothing of Preston SF (it has only existed a month). Its predecessor, Lancashire SolFed, was the main mover (along with Lancaster Anarchists) of the Lancashire Reclaim Mayday Roadshow putting on five events in three towns in three days. Not bad the "politically agrophobic". Nothing much was happening in Lancashire until Lancashire SF got together four years ago. Just four of us spread about but it started something. I went along to two NAN meetings in Hebden Bridge and Bury when we formed but was met by total indifference. I personally went over to Burnley to support the comrade there to hand out anti-fascist leaflets when no else was around. No sign of “northern anarchists” then. He was behind getting something started in Burnley and remains a member of SF.
|
|
|
Post by octoberlost on Oct 4, 2004 15:40:07 GMT
If were hoping to get out of the ghetto so to speak, we have to stop silly snippings and find more appropriate ways of discussing issues in a constructive and comradely manner....
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Oct 4, 2004 16:11:37 GMT
Well said Octoberlost...I tend to avoid posting in this section as I feel it is more 'educational' to me...but really would appreciate some show of solidarity!!
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Oct 4, 2004 16:22:32 GMT
If were hoping to get out of the ghetto so to speak, we have to stop silly snippings and find more appropriate ways of discussing issues in a constructive and comradely manner.... I disagree Octoberlost - there's some important issues here underlying this debate which I've no doubt pertain and are felt within anarchist networks in general. I'm a believer in thrashing things out in an open and honest way - I see this debate perhaps leading to some very positive conclusions. Doesn't seem like snipping to me - just two sides of an issue felt strongly by both individuals - concerning reaching out, coalitions and I think strong concerns about watering down of issues and plans moving forward. I can see both sides - and I lean towards certain points made by each. To Steve, I would say it was not your contact here in Burnley who reached out to me (active in Burnley for over a year now) and other Libertarians in Burnley & Nelson - it was Fred/Francis and yourself Octoberlost. On Union transformation - well yes I can relate to the negativity on this ever happening, but I will meet with Regional GMB and try anyway - if it's a no go then I do what I always do and work around. If they don't change people are and will find other ways of organising. To Brian I would say - gee, thanks Brian for that lesson on Employee Relations, and wounded I doubt you are. I agree on strategies around direct action going forward. If Preston Solfed say they're wary - from my own experience I wouldn't necessarily imply sectarianism from this - after a year of the SWerps in Burnley & Pendle and their grip on some local networks and Union contacts, I'm wary over here - Preston context must be similar considering SWerp stronghold over there. I can be pretty sure that the SWerps would make every attempt to dominate a Burnley Social Forum - if it's working differently over in Calderdale then I'd like to learn more about that. Debates like these are important - I want to hear them. Good god, we've got to hurry up and work through these issues, as there is urgency now. Let it flow I say PS. In a heated debate with a SWerp in the pub the other night I asked him if he would jump out of a window if the SWP asked him to. Definite hesitatation before he answered NO!
|
|
|
Post by octoberlost on Oct 6, 2004 13:04:47 GMT
Mitch I was more concerned with having a personalised dispute than having a political engagement....
I think the essential thing is that we are talking stratergy/tactics and not the limitations of anarcho-syndicalism.
Mitch - why not endeavour to come to the next SF meeting this tuesday with thismachinebleeds?
|
|
|
Post by thismachinebleeds on Oct 6, 2004 14:46:09 GMT
basically, as i only have about 10 mins on this computer and a whole backlog of posts to read, i cant comment exclusivley on each intrinsic disagreement, but, i think that we need to look at the picture of building a community relation, regardless of wether the approach is anarcho-syndaclist, individualist, or mutualist etc, we have to remember that our ideas are leading to the same basic outcome, peoples ultimate freedom. what we have to do is instill ideas in peoples minds. i think that if groups, who want the same basic ideals as other groups and who dont work together on issues regarding said ideals then weve already lost before weve begun. if this post doest really count towards the discission, then tell me to shut up and buy me a computer for my house so i can keep up wi the discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 6, 2004 14:58:07 GMT
The answer to all this is simple. Work where you can and with whoever will work with you on an issue. Remembering that we are anarchists we should stop sniping and trying to build the organisation at the ideas expence
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Oct 7, 2004 1:26:58 GMT
Thank you Thismachinebleeds and Jim...very good comments from you both...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Oct 7, 2004 10:18:00 GMT
basically, as i only have about 10 mins on this computer and a whole backlog of posts to read, i cant comment exclusivley on each intrinsic disagreement, but, i think that we need to look at the picture of building a community relation, regardless of wether the approach is anarcho-syndaclist, individualist, or mutualist etc, we have to remember that our ideas are leading to the same basic outcome, peoples ultimate freedom. what we have to do is instill ideas in peoples minds. i think that if groups, who want the same basic ideals as other groups and who dont work together on issues regarding said ideals then weve already lost before weve begun. if this post doest really count towards the discission, then tell me to shut up and buy me a computer for my house so i can keep up wi the discussions. You might not spend a great amount of time on this forum TMB, but the time you do spend are wise words indeed. At next meeting, lets discuss general access to the web - you are welcome here any time to access the web at my house. Also, there's our other companion in Burnley who is also struggling to get web access. We must sort that out together. If anyone is misconstruing my comments as personal then they are much mistaken. I attack dominance where I see it from an anti-authoritarian standpoint, and I would call for an open and honest debate on strategy. There can be no social forum until certain issues are cleared up - that's why I think it's important to discuss these issues first, as well as talking to many libertarians, activists and people active in community groups and people in Burnley and Pendle generally. What you must understand is that there has to be much 'laying of ground' before you implement ideas and bring people together. Both Michele and I have been busy doing that - a reason why we would struggle to attend SF meetings in Preston at the present time Octoberlost. So Jim, before you send out your letter re: social forum - you must gain support, come to the play in late October and talk to people. (we should perhaps have a leaflet with a meeting date for Burnley & Pendle Social Forum at this play on 23rd October, because there will be many local people there. By the way Jim, I do have a large mailout list of local addresses, which I know you've been enquiring about so I would suggest asking me for that when we do a social forum mailout - noggin!!! We must learn from each other - and listening works both ways!!!! There is noone better connected to local issues and people round here than Michele who set up this genius web forum - you would all do well to learn from her. If she, and other women are not coming into this debate, then you must ask yourselves whether you're really listening! It is one thing to have ideas/theories, another to implement them - it will take much work, are you ready? I certainly am and my commitment to all your ideas - anarchist, libertarian and anti-authoritarian is like a rock, but I cannot be everywhere. All of you miss much work that goes on behind the scenes to bring people together - it is this that makes me rather weary and short tempered with you all!!!!!!!!!!! There are libertarians who have been working in Burnley for many years - you must connect and seek them out - community groups and resistence are strong here - you must connect with them, support them, seek them out! Estimados compañeros/Estimadas compañeras Tenemos que ser como uno, tenemos que nos confiancer implicito y mas, tenemos que vivir que es en nuestros corazones cotidiano”. "Dear Companions, We need to be as one, we need to trust each other implicitly, and most of all we need to live what is in our hearts in the everyday". Anyone done any LETS trading recently? Come to the play on the 23rd Oct - all groundwork for the social forum and people of like minded anti-authoritarian ideas coming together - you woodentops. Best Mitch x
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Mar 6, 2005 21:35:50 GMT
RISE & FALL OF BRITISH ANARCHISM: SPLIT PERSONALITY POLITICS.
Last year, in the thread entitled ‘SPANISH ANARCHISM’ both Mitch and Michele asked about the rise of our native anarchist movement. Steve promised some ongoing history of the Syndicalist Workers’ Federation- SWF (1950s to 1970s) ~ Direct Action Movement-DAM (1970s to 1990s) ~ Solidarity Federation- Sol. Fed. (1990s to present), but nothing has been forthcoming.
Any objective current analysis after half a century would have to address the lack of results and ask why organised anarchist movement in this country is so insignificant. It is true that of the Sol. Fed. publication ‘Catalyst’ was named in cross-examination of the electricians at a recent ‘Remedies Hearing’ at the Manchester Industrial Tribunal in February 2005. But it was referred to with other left publications, so as to discredit the electricians’ case. The electrician in the witness box denied knowledge of the publication ‘Catalyst’, and when asked said ‘the electricians during their dispute were approached by many political organisations like the Socialist Workers’ Party, but kept them all at arms-length’.
This exchange on 15th, February 2005, shows how all the political organisations or ‘smelly little orthodoxies’ in this country are generally regarded. They are kept at arms-length. It also shows that anarchists and the left generally are not taken seriously by working people and even disowned by them.
Why are organisations like the Solidarity Federation and Socialist Workers’ Party such an embarrassment to English workers so that they are only too happy to disown them? To find an historical reason for this we would have to look at the development of the English working class and the separate evolution of the body politic. The Sol. Fed. and S.W.P., despite their protestations, are part of the English body politic. The working class both male and female are mainly in a distinct tradition that we may call the ‘syndicalist tradition’.
William Godwin wrote ‘Political Justice’ in 1793, it was a work of philosophical anarchism, but its circulation was limited to what E.P. Thompson describes as ‘a small and highly literate circle’. E. P. Thompson in his book ‘The Makings of the Working Class’ talks of two cultures in England; both critical of Utilitarian capitalism. The Romantic culture coming from Shelley, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge and the artisan culture of the Radical craftsmen. Both cultures, he says: ‘running its parallel but altogether separate course.’ ‘After William Blake’, Mr Thomson writes, ‘no mind was at home in both cultures, nor had the genius to interpret the two traditions to each other.’
This separation between the workers’ movement and the English intellectuals probably has to do with the rapid development of the Industrial Revolution in this county and revulsion towards the consequences of the French Revolution. On the ‘collective self-consciousness’ and ‘the spiritual gain of the Industrial Revolution’ E.P. Thompson remarks: ‘From Tudor times onwards this artisan culture had grown more complex with each phase of technical and social change... Enriched by the experiences of the seventeenth century, carrying through the eighteen century the intellectual and libertarian traditions...forming their own traditions of mutuality in the friendly society and trade club, these men did not pass, in one generation, from the peasantry to the new industrial town. They suffered the experience of the Industrial Revolution as articulate, free-born Englishmen’
‘Hence the workers’, writes E.P. Thompson, ‘who have been “insolently placed without the pale of social government” developed stage by stage, a theory of syndicalism or of “inverted masonry” (Man 13th, October 1833)’. This may have appeared to be the case in the 19th and early 20th century, but in the late 20th century and 21st century it is harder to convince ourselves that English working class consciousness is more developed or more articulated than it was 100 years ago. This could have something to do with the culture of the factory. The dumbing consequences of big industry. As Ignazio Silone wrote of the Germans in the 1930s: ‘The growth of big industry has been a powerful help in reinforcing the tendency of Germans - workers included - toward zusammenmarschieren (marching together). Their interparty struggles are essentially struggles between different machines. Individual initiative has been reduced to zero.’ To some extent what was true for the industrial Germans has been true for the British factory worker.
Thus syndicalism or ‘inverted masonry’ or British trade unionism ultimately became, on its own, an inadequate foe for international capitalism. British trade unionism lacked that anarchist dimension which Spain clearly had in 1936. And it lost, if we believe E.P. Thompson, because of that rupture between the Romantics and the craftsmen at the beginning of the 19th century.
To be continued
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Mar 6, 2005 21:41:28 GMT
Part 2: RISE & FALL OF BRITISH ANARCHISM: SPLIT PERSONALITY POLITICS.
BRITISH ANARCHISM IN THE LAST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY.
In the 1950s Jim Pinkerton said the membership of Syndicalist Workers’ Federation (SWF) could comfortably fit on a box camera postcard-size photo. During the 1960s SWF membership rose significantly owing to the direct action perpetrated by the Peace Movement, but it was still tiny compared to overall British anarchist movement. At the time of the arrest of the Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie in Madrid, in August 1964, the size of the British anarchist movement was reckoned to be 5,000, according to press reports at the time. At the time of his arrest Christie was a member of the SWF.
At that time the Manchester Anarchist Group had 20 at its weekly meetings: most were not in the SWF. There was an apprentice paper entitled ‘INDUSTRIAL YOUTH’ edited by me and influenced by the anarcho-syndicalists, which had a circulation of 1,000 and was distributed during the engineering apprentice strike of November 1964. Perhaps 1,000 would annually march behind the black and red anarchist banners on CND demos. The International Socialists (IS), which later became the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), was clearly smaller than the anarchists both in Manchester and nationally.
The British anarchist movement was swollen by its interaction with the peace movement and direct action through most of the 1960s. But by 1967 CND was losing influence, vigour and support and the anarchist movement was slow to adjust to the growing activity of the trade unions. In 1967, the Manchester Anarchist Group failed completely to involve itself in the Stockport based Roberts-Arundel strike. In so doing they left the door open to the International Socialists (IS) to gain influence and become a serious alternative to the Communist Party on the left. The INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS in Manchester were led by two young sociologists - Colin Barker and John Lee - they published a pamphlet on the dispute which was well written and gained them credibility in the engineering union: the AEU. Barker is still in the SWP, but John Lee, a lecturer at Manchester University, left the party and became involved in a school of sociology called ethnomethodology (the study of peoples’ methods). This is a form of grassroots sociology which has influenced me and some ex-Marxists such as Professor Wes Sharrock.
There was a general fear of involvement among anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists of the 1960s in industrial activities and pickets. At times it seemed that even the Syndicalist Workers’ Federation was frightened of the workers. In this situation cheeky Trotskyists like the International Socialists were bound to prosper. A shyness was demonstrated at Robinsons engineering in Rochdale in 1965, when someone involved in INDUSTRIAL YOUTH was sacked and the Manchester anarchists and syndicalists sat back and did nothing: arguing that anarchists couldn’t go to a factory and tell apprentices what to do. But one cannot help but think that the anarchist attitude was that they saw the workers as lepers and avoided contact as much as possible even when they called themselves ‘anarcho-syndicalists’. Then as now in some quarters there was much talk of ‘the workers‘, but very little contact with real workers; the factories and picket lines were viewed as leper colonies.
Thus in a period of rising industrial action and trade union activity in the 1970s the Syndicalist Workers’ Fed. in particular shrunk too almost nothing, but the anarchist federations maintained a presence in protests against the Vietnam War. Fortunately in the late 1960s and early 70s, the editors of ‘FREEDOM’ Peter Turner and Bill Christopher and others there were industrial anarchists or syndicalists. In 1970 the Tory Government came to power under Edward Heath and set about introducing their INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT. At Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS) in Glasgow where the John Davis, Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, had just announced the lay-off of nearly 9,000 employees the workers occupied the shipyards for 2 months, occupations of engineering factories by workers dispute had already been adopted as a form of protest. The bombs of the Angry Brigade, according to Stuart Christie, were also a response to this legislation against the labour movement.
These new developments in the tactics of industrial struggle might have been influenced by the events in France in May 1968, when the students and workers occupied the streets, universities and their factories. These events were of international importance, but again they showed up the division between the split personality of the organised labour movement and the intellectuals. In the end the French trade unions (Communist dominated) and the workers locked out the students and intellectuals from their factories and workplaces.
Further evidence of the U.K. culture of split-personality which was historically fingered by E.P. Thompson is to be found in Sheila Rowbotham’s essay in ‘BEYOND THE FRAGMENTS’ that draws on Fernando Claudin who stressed the way left parties- ‘regard overall political action as a private reserve and try to restrict other organisations - trade unions, organs of grass roots democracy, the woman’s movement etc. - each to their “specific problems”, preventing them from taking initiatives in relation to major general questions’(Eurocommunism & Socialism).
In the North we tried to draw the Manchester anarchists into shopfloor activity after the Arrow Mill dispute involving the sacking of four Asian doffers and a white weighman. After that the Manchester anarchists organised a campaign for shop stewards in textiles in Oldham, Rochdale, Shaw and Royton. In this campaign we had the support of some young Kashmiris such as Zafa Khan one of the original doffers who were sacked at Arrow Mill. In Rochdale an anarchist was involved in the founding of the alternative publication Rochdale Alternative Paper (RAP), one of the best local efforts over the ten years to 1983. This publication reached across the cultural split-personality to become acceptable to the general public with a monthly sale of 7,500. Here was a monthly journal which appealed to both the political mind and the general public. In the 1970s & 80s there were other such successful journals across the North of England.
to be continued
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 6, 2005 22:12:38 GMT
Can't wait until we get to Rochdale DAM and their imaginary membership!
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Mar 7, 2005 12:50:32 GMT
Bryan..thanks for your 'history' of the Anarchist Movement in the UK...it seems a little biased towards the view that the anarchists, on the whole, are not capable of working with the working classes as they appear to be 'too intellectual'?
I would like to ask our other member, Fred/Francis...various nicknames!! if he could write about the Burnley Anarchists to which he has been attached since the 1950's and tell everybody about all their efforts working with the local people of Burnley during the 70's and 80's against local govt. action on housing etc, and their work with striking miners during the 84/85 strike, as that could provide a little balance to the history...
If any other anarchists wish to add their own stories of their locals working with the factory workers or others in their communities, against oppression, please print them here...
This was supposed to be a history, but obviously it appears that the various anarchist movements over the years and around the country need to show that they have worked effectively in the local community...
|
|
|
Post by Sean McHeathen on Mar 9, 2005 11:13:45 GMT
That bryan bloke don't half go on don't he? He don't like the Sol. Fed either do he?
Isnt that fred/francis gadgy a bloody christian? Or am I mixing him up with someone else in BurnelY?
|
|
|
Post by Francis fred on Mar 9, 2005 12:07:28 GMT
You hit it on the head , right first time' I am a Christian. What's it to you though or anyone else? I'm also an anarchist and have been one for some 40 or 50yrs. Any objections?
|
|
|
Post by Sean McHeathen on Mar 9, 2005 13:06:37 GMT
Can't see how you square the two myself but what the hell. Must be confusing though. I suppose you just pray to JC and he oks it. Personally I don't like any religion. I was belted on my head by a priest when I was a kid and then when I got to my teens I figured out that all religions were just superstitions that people hadn't managed to rid thernsleves of. No offense like but I'm with those spanish anarchos who shot the priests in 1936.
|
|
|
Post by Spartacus on Mar 9, 2005 14:39:58 GMT
How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?
|
|
|
Post by Sean McHeathen on Mar 17, 2005 13:15:52 GMT
Its all gone quiet aint it?
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Mar 17, 2005 14:48:58 GMT
Don't worry Sean, I'm sure someone will reply when something is posted that is worth replying to.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Mar 17, 2005 18:25:36 GMT
Hi all...got this piece in a letter from Jim/Fred/Francis...so have copied it here to show part of the history of Burnley Anarchists..
There was some kind of group in Burnley at the turn of the 19th, cent. I joined up with two comrades in 1959 after about some five years of criticism by opponents of not being a socialist but an anarchist. This followed an attempt in 1955 to form an Anarcho-Communist Group. This failed because on of the three participants died. (Vilmer. Lettice was her real name.) Ithen joined the I.L.P,. a Revolutionary socialist party that my Grandma and Grandad had been in before Victoria died. They were part of the original Labour Party but quit them because the L.P was to conformist and had no socialism.but in 1959 two people emerged who lived in Burnley and were anarchists.
One was Tom White from Sabden and the other was John Johnson who died only last year. Both men had been in the armed forces during the war Tom as a soldier and John as a sailor. He had been torpedoed about five times, or more also he had been taken along with others , from the naval base at Alexandria to El-Alamein to fill a gap at the first battle there in July 1962.
Whilst both were anarchists the fact that no local anarchist group took any action meant they felt obliged to pursue the class war through membership of the Labour Party in Tom's case and The C. Pn the case of John Johnson. Together we formed Burnley Branch of the Independent Labour Party. However, It became obvious we did not belong there and left them after about twelve months to become the Burnley Anarchist Group.
It was an active time in Burnley around the early 60's. The Labour Party was as sterile then as it is now.The Communist Party was active but lacked any policy other than tailending the Labour party and trying to influence it. We declared that we were anarchists and followed anarchist ideas from a anarchist ommunist perspective,with syndicalism as the prefered tactic. Like the trots today we sold papers .The names changed with the different editorial groups, "Red and Black," or for a change,"Black and Red." this happened a few times. Black Flag was one of the best sellars and of course when these little groups disappeared we sold Freedom which has over a hundred years history. We went door to door and for the best part of 40yrs one of us sold in the town centre inspite of the Labour councils attempt to ban us. We suffered from the attention of the police on many occasions and one time we were stood outside Woolworths when the police started to cause trouble saying we had no license and were committing an offence,there were two of them. It was snowing and the flaming stuff was around our ankles when the police came. We were just discussing wether to clear off because of the poor conditions when the coppers came. We said we wouldn't go, they said they would take us when help arrived. We were saved by the passers by who rounded on the police for interfering . The Sergeant didn't like it but made excuses and cleared off. We lasted till a few years agowhen the Labour Council instituted a regime of permits. At first we resisted and refused unlike the SWP to ask for one. One day the issues flared up on the market square pitch ,again it was snowing and the decision was made to apply for a license.It was bad enough to stand there week after week, but all the flaming hassle was something else. A friend of mine who worked for the Corporation as a solicitor asked if we hadn't had enough? he was told about our decision to apply and he told us that our application would be refused. Inquries had been made by officials and it had been found out that the anarchist papers were not registered for Mail purposes. The Socialist Worker was .The decision having been made by Labour officials to use this as an opportunity to rid themselves of long standing opposition by refusing us a license. Initially records show that we used to sell a paper every 5 minutes on average in the early days. Just before the millenium we sold 1 an hour. And we sold more than the socialists. Another anarchist paper was "Bread and Roses" the publication of the Anarchist Communist alliance.
At the beginning anarchism was a dream of the few. It was associated with bombs and riots and all kinds of things so we reckoned education was the thing.Hence the paper selling. We extended this to pamphlets and leaflets giving the latter out on the doorsteps about all kind of subjects. The Vietnam war brought about a resurgence of anarchist activity.. Locally the struggle was directed by Les Marsden the secretary. We were involved in that as well as Racism. As far back as 1960 we held a meeting on Racism to put the anarchist case. It was well attended. We were simpletons and were shocked by the level of racism in the area. We held regular meetings on the subject and when a local asian organisation asked for help of Burnley people we affered our assistance. Initially we were the only ones who replied. We were instrumental in forming a Burnley Integration Society. It flourished for quite a while and only succumbed when the Race Relations board took its place. WE opposed fascist marches over immigration and indeed led the opposition. The Trades Council took up the leadership and when a titled lady ,whose name was Lady Birdwood held a march in the town the Trades Council hitch was divided between Labour and the C.P. decided to hold a counter demo. At the last minute they shifted the focus of the demonstration from the March to the side st of Burnley Centre. It was a fiasco.But all was not lost one of our members, a teacher returning from Leeds ,where she taught got off the Bus and followed the march to Fulledge Rec' where she barracked the fascists. She was supported by a group of Asians and Les. It made the headlines and took the limelight from the Fascists. We also replied to a Young ialist request for support for a anti-racial march from nelson to Burnley. When we greached the starting point the response was poor and it was snowing. The Bolsheviks seized the opportunity to back down by saying they could not ally themselves with a revolutionary group of anarchists.If we took part they wouldn't. In the event 8 anarchist and about five young socialists walked from Nelson to Burnley on a snowy evening. If anyone saw us we didn't see them. The anarchists whatever name the goup used, ie,Burnley Anarchist, Burnley Action Group and Burnley Anarchist Communist Group took a definite lead on the racism front and we began to receive hate mail by the ton. AS tension mounted it was thought advisible toopen the anti-racist front on a wider scale. A meeting was called on a Sunday Night at 7pm at the Red Lion pub. On the Friday previous to the meeting a notice appeared in the local evening paper to the effect that local labour people and trade unionists were also calling a meeting on the same subject at 2pm on the same Sunday. We were thrown at first, thenSpider one of our leading members suggested "Why not attend their meeting and off er our support if they put a good case. This was done.The Labour leader, a one time Burnley Councillor and a Lancs County Councillor stated that the Labour Party was withdrawing its support as they couldn't countenace a revolutionary group taking part. No one bothered and they were ignored and it was decided to found N.E.L.C.A.R. THE NORTH EAST LANCS CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM. At one time the initial F. was placed at the end of the anacronym f. for Fascism. This was dropped because the politico's ,including the SWP and various Asians thought it went to far. The first meetings were held in Nelson where the Labour Council had put the Council Chamber at our disposal . We had delegates from the Lib's and the Conservatives who I must admit all played their parts leafleting, organising and attending meetings as well as paying regular subscriptions. The people who were missing and didn't subscribe or support in any way were the BURNLEY LABOUR PARTY. The Burnley Trades Council did marvels, raising money, putting on meetings with agreed speakers and their officials such as Tom Jackson , a socialist and shop steward took the treasurers job on. The dominant group were however the Anarchist Group known later as the DAM.
|
|
|
Post by Filthy McNasty on Mar 23, 2005 13:57:44 GMT
A wee bird has told me that amember of the NAN will be campaigning for the liberal-democrats in the election. Anybody else heard this or know why?
filthy aka sean
|
|
|
Post by Gonzo on Mar 23, 2005 15:51:03 GMT
Gonzo poses proudly by the old Burnley CND banner. Hey up, Gonzo 'ere, intrepid cat reporter extraordinare, king o' the tenaments in Nelson, and currently working on some fascinating research on the activities of Burnley CND in days of old. Here's a little snippet from an interview I got me claws into with renowned Mcheathen filthy nasty Shaun - a difficult man to track down: Gonzo: Do you always bark like a dog, Mr Mcheathen filthy? Filthy: whoof
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Mar 23, 2005 17:23:23 GMT
LOL...Gonzo, your rare visits to this site are always amusing! Keep up the good reporting... ;D
|
|
|
Post by bryan on Mar 23, 2005 22:43:21 GMT
Regarding Sean! I don't think he can have read a word I've written judging by his comments. Or he would know that I am critical of the whole of the British left, which in my view is derilict and full of slum landlords. Our job, as northern anarchists, ought to be to put them out of business.
That is the aim of NORTHERN VOICES and it should be the aim of the NORTHERN ANARCHIST NETWORK if it's going to do a proper job.
|
|