'Anti Fascism' Can't Deliver...

[michele cryer]

www.redaction.org/news/june_04.html#19_06_04


Does anybody have any comments they would like to make about this article?

[Steve]

Well it starts off as a news item about the last election and makes some good points but then as you get to the end it becomes a propaganda piece for the IWCA (Independent Working Class Association). What it fails to mention is that Red Action are the prime force behind the IWCA in much the same way the SWP are behind Respect.

I’ve only come across the IWCA at a distance but to me they are going for a populist approach aimed at a narrow section of the population they deem working class. Their slogan of “working class rule in working class areas” doesn’t really make much sense. Who defines the working class? Who defines the “working class areas”? Does that mean middle class rule in middle class areas? What if “working class rule” includes reactionary ideas based on racism, sexism and homophobia, Is that all right?

They seem to have an idealised view of the working class and don’t recognise the diversity within it. They also seem to totally ignore the workplace as an area to organise in which I think is pretty central to working class life.

We have to offer an alternative to the disillusioned people who are not voting but that alternative has to include an injection of our politics done in a way that is up front, makes sense and is not pandering to any one group within society.

[michele cryer]

Thank you Steve,

I hope that by reprinting certain articles it is not understood that I agree with everything that is written in them...or that I fully understand everything that I read...that is why I asked for your opinion, and am very grateful for it too!!

Sometimes I understand parts of what I am reading but not all of it...thanks for making some things about this article clearer for me...

[octoberlost]

Freedom did a really good criticism of the IWCA, they are reformist but radically different from the rest of the left and I would say counter to what steve says, actually quite an engaging group.

www.enrager.net/newswire/stories.php?story=04/08/05/0754748


As for the article you posted it sounds almost bang on, although Im not in favour of entering into elections. Respect is the worst form of communalist politicing ever seen in this country. A fully stand by this arguement..

It also needs to be emphasised that the core message was aimed in a cross-class fashion at Muslims collectively not the working class nor any progressive element perceived to be within it. Worse, as the overwhelming majority of Muslims come from one ethnic background, the racial imperative lurking within is hardly deniable either. It follows then that should Respect and the BNP ever confront each other at council ward level, as George Galloway is threatening to do in London's east end within the next five weeks, then the racial polarisation that must inevitably result could prove explosive and would play directly into the hands of the far-right.

[Mitch]

Steve said:

They seem to have an idealised view of the working class and don’t recognise the diversity within it. They also seem to totally ignore the workplace as an area to organise in which I think is pretty central to working class life.

We have to offer an alternative to the disillusioned people who are not voting but that alternative has to include an injection of our politics done in a way that is up front, makes sense and is not pandering to any one group within society.

I'm not sure about the workplace being the key and only place of focus for organisation - I'd look to the community much more, and how we live co-operatively in the everyday. Many groups don't identify with work as the key activity in their lives - pensioners, younger people, the unemployed, people who are sick or have mental health issues.

With the nature of work increasingly becoming casual and unstable, I'm not even sure that people who work actually identify with the workplace as the key focus in their lives? Especially if that workplace may be different from one week to the next - which is a scenario in an area like Burnley.

What of homeworkers? They work in the home - where work and home activity often blends into one and overlaps. (homework often creates a lot of mess and chaos in the home by the way).

I'd like to hear more of your arguments Steve on why you see the workplace as the key area of focus for organisation.

[Steve]

I didn’t say the workplace was the “the key and only place of focus for organisation”, that is your interpretation. It seems no matter how many times we say it people see ‘anarcho-syndicalist’ and equate it with just the workplace. It’s not. It’s about integrating workplace and community struggles. It’s about recognising that political and economic struggles are linked (homeworking being a good example). Other anarchists (& Marxists & reformists) want a separation into the economic (the union) and the political (party or anarchist group). That produces a political elite to tell the poor bloody workers where they are going wrong and what they should be doing next.

If you’re a homeworker home is also your workplace, if you’re a casual worker there is still a workplace, it may change from week to week but that does not mean you are not being economically exploited. Political decisions made by governments can affect both the community & the workplace. The links between workplace & community organisation means that those who do have several or changing workplaces can link together with those who don’t. Earning a living is a pretty basic requirement under capitalism and for those unable to work it would give them more strength to fight their corner if they were linked with those in work who at least have the ability to withdraw their labour.

Yes there are a lot of people to who the workplace may be meaningless at the moment but there is a hell of a lot more who do find themselves in some sort of work situation. This includes working class students who have to work to get through university, often in crap conditions.

Workplace organisation is in a sorry state at the present time. What do we do? Ignore it and concentrate on the ‘community’? I grew up in a strong working class community and can now appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of it. Many of those communities have been destroyed and people often work far away from where they live. Some communities can very conservative and reactionary in their outlook so it’s not all a rosy picture some groups seem to imagine. It can be easy for communities to pick on scapegoats for the problems they face without realising who the real culprits are.

The workplace is somewhere where we can come together as workers and face the harsh reality of capitalism day-to-day. It’s not easy but given the sad state of the unions we need to provide an alternative. To me that means creating a permanent anarchist presence built on sound principles of direct action and solidarity. There is a long way to go and it is vital that the links between workplace and community organisations are made at the outset.

[Mitch]

Steve said:

I didn’t say the workplace was the “the key and only place of focus for organisation”, that is your interpretation. It seems no matter how many times we say it people see ‘anarcho-syndicalist’ and equate it with just the workplace. It’s not. It’s about integrating workplace and community struggles. It’s about recognising that political and economic struggles are linked (homeworking being a good example). Other anarchists (& Marxists & reformists) want a separation into the economic (the union) and the political (party or anarchist group). That produces a political elite to tell the poor bloody workers where they are going wrong and what they should be doing next.

Perhaps I suspected a misunderstanding/interpretation here, which is why I posed the question from a desire to learn more - find out for myself. If this perception has formed - it has been derived from other anarchists which is interesting. This strategy makes perfect sense to me Steve, and really it has been my approach since coming into activism although I have not called it 'anarcho-syndicalism, which if you don't mind me saying sounds a little intimidating as a description/term - perhaps that's part of the problem. I'd be grateful for a definition of the word 'syndicalism' for a start.

This being a most common sense approach - what's the plan of action in East Lancs - I've a few ideas.

Steady on the defence hey - from my part I finally feel I'm connecting with likeminded companions and want to learn more from them - that's where I'm coming from

[Steve]

It’s interesting that your interpretation of anarcho-syndicalism has come from other anarchists. Sorry if I sound too defensive but that is the trouble. People see what they want to see and for many anarchists it’s easier to dismiss our ideas as ‘just about the workplace’ than actually deal with their own shortcomings and lack of strategy in that area.

When I first encountered anarchism I was one of those people who thought it was a nice idea but unworkable. I came into it not from reading theory but from being an active trade unionist who was looking for some alternative to reformist unions and sterile top down politics. Anarchism only makes sense to me in the form of anarcho-syndicalism because it recognises the need to organise today to bring about change tomorrow. It also sees the need for that organisation to reflect the ideals of the future society. The ends and the means must be the same.

Syndicalism came from the French word for trade unionism, but as a political idea came to mean much more. Of course there are some syndicalists who only believe in workplace organisation, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) for example, and some anarchists are members of this as it fits in with their view of the separation of the economic and the political. Anarcho-syndicalism, when properly applied, links the political and the economic. Personally I like the word anarcho-syndicalism because it’s a definite idea and concept.

The following is something that will probably be in the soon to be published intro pamphlet to the Solidarity Federation.

Essence of SolFed membership
1. Solidarity Federation is a federation of groups of people who want a society based on solidarity and self-organisation.
2. Capitalism exploits and oppresses people and the environment, so we must replace it.
3. Not all oppression is economic, but can be based on gender, race, sexuality, or anything our rulers find useful; we oppose all use of prejudice and oppressive acts.
4. The state maintains hierarchy and privilege, so we do not collaborate with it or its structures and we have no need for it.
5. To work effectively we organise in local groups using direct democracy, which is based on equality and consensus.
6. Capitalism is especially oppressive in the workplace, so for waged workers, we also organise to defend ourselves at work.
7. When numbers permit, we will organise neighbourhood and workplace assemblies, and revolutionary unions, to start running our own communities and workplaces.
8. A better future can only be achieved by people working together, using direct action and solidarity to empower ourselves and each other. Our culture of resistance will grow as we take direct action, in autonomous-based, federal associations both regionally and globally.

Anarcho-syndicalist tactics are many and varied, but the common theme is that people organise themselves into groups based on locality (i.e. community). In SolFed, everyone joins their nearest local group (often simply called the ‘local’), and may join a workplace network too. The former is the core organising unit, and locals meet together a couple of times a year in a federation structure (free association). The latter, however, is also important. Since social changes can only come about through fundamental economic change, we need to organise to fight for this in workplaces, since at work the ‘cutting edge’ of capitalism invariably on our lives pretty sharply.
If you do not do waged work, this does not make anarcho-syndicalism any less relevant, nor are you any less relevant to the local group. There are thousands of inequalities outside waged work (indeed, unwaged/voluntary work is one), there are battles to be fought and won, and prejudices to be overcome. While the self-running workplace is critical to any successful revolution, so is the self-running community. We can only be free of oppression when we have built a culture of equality which ensures we respect each other in every aspect of our lives.

As for East Lancashire personally I would like to see a SolFed Local established there but that is not up to me it’s up to people in that area, that’s why we call them Locals. Only the people who live in an area can decide the priorities for themselves. A good start would be to join together in an anti-casualisation campaign which can link in with the issue of homeworking. By the way one of the items on the agenda at the IWA Congress in Granada in December is a call for international action in April 2005 on these issues.

[michele cryer]

Steve, thanks for that great reply and for the quote from Solfed...very clear!

[Mitch]

Steve said:

When I first encountered anarchism I was one of those people who thought it was a nice idea but unworkable. I came into it not from reading theory but from being an active trade unionist who was looking for some alternative to reformist unions and sterile top down politics. Anarchism only makes sense to me in the form of anarcho-syndicalism because it recognises the need to organise today to bring about change tomorrow. It also sees the need for that organisation to reflect the ideals of the future society. The ends and the means must be the same.

Anarcho-syndicalism, when properly applied, links the political and the economic. Personally I like the word anarcho-syndicalism because it’s a definite idea and concept.

As for East Lancashire personally I would like to see a SolFed Local established there but that is not up to me it’s up to people in that area, that’s why we call them Locals. Only the people who live in an area can decide the priorities for themselves. A good start would be to join together in an anti-casualisation campaign which can link in with the issue of homeworking. By the way one of the items on the agenda at the IWA Congress in Granada in December is a call for international action in April 2005 on these issues.

Steve, this is most helpful - yes I have been thinking about strategy and I have come to similar ways of thinking that you state here through experience (recently) rather than reading theory - although I'm concerned that I've had no time to read because I have been consumed by activism locally. But I think often experience and actually being active in the local can often lead you to make decisions/take action - then you move back to the reading/theory.

I am heartened by the inclusion of point three in SolFed membership - I would struggle to align myself to a federation which sees oppression only as economic.

Yep, I would support a SolFed Local in East Lancashire, and at this moment I am in total agreement that an anti-casualisation campaign should be the focus locally here rather than a social forum, which may or may not come later. At local meetings here there has been inconsistency, a lack of thinking on strategy and a danger of us slipping into personal attacks - wasted energy.

I like consistency, planning and a thoroughly thought out strategy in the local linked outwards to the national/global, total long-term commitment and bottom-up grassroots organisation with companions supporting each other (this way takes much time & hard work). I do not like one man band cowboys, inconsistency, and those who stir up a challenge yet do not support the challenge, reactive short-term campaigns and people who do not pay equal attention to the means as well as the end. (this way is quick, easy, top-down, and usually burns out fast)

Just recently several anarchists have flitted into Burnley and Pendle - offering much advice and CRITICISM, but little action - they have been perhaps a little repelled by my honesty and cutting humour, but I am interested in strategic long-term action.

I expected the insinuations/rumours of 'spy in our midst', she's an entrepreneur, she's this she's that from the SWP locally, because I am honest and because I speak my mind and make up my own mind - but I was not expecting this from certain anarchist circles. Still, all is well and good, and these things help you make decisions. People seem allergic to honesty these days. I've no interest in personal spotlights, and whilst I think it has been important to confront and openly disagree with the SWP approach locally, I'm interested now in working alternatives.

For my part after much thought, and as usual a little pain along the way which I'm hardened to now - I'm in total agreement with your idea of to start with a focus on an anti-casualisation campaign in East Lancs. Other anarchists must decide for themselves.

It remains now to meet, discuss strategy and get on with moving forward. See you at Bolton no doubt, I need to get back to my reading a little now.

Your quiet consistency from the start on this web forum has impressed me much. I speak my mind from the position of an anarcho-feminist journey - a little alarming to some it seems. But I'm driven by a desire here locally particularly to assist working class women to organise. An anti-casualisation campaign would do much to assist this intent.

Best Mitch