Anarchist Federation

[Nigel]

The AF is explicity not a synthesist organisation and its formation was on the basis of a rejection of synthesism.

Is this a good thing, I mean the split with the Anarchist Workers Group.
I know it was mainly initiated by them, however the outlook of the ACF, being so rigid might have had something to do with it.
Was this really necessary?

 

[the button]

Is this a good thing, I mean the split with the Anarchist Workers Group.

The AWG was a split from the anarchosyndicalist Direct Action Movement, though.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/awg/awg_editorial1.html

 

[butchersapron]

Oh ffS. Are you doing this on purpose? The AWG had sweet FA all to with the A(C)F. The AWG tried to get the A(C)F involved in their troterry and were told to fuck off.The AWG was a 'split' (if you want to call it that) from another federation, not the A(C)F.

I know this thread is a gossip magnet, but i'm not sure if you're genuinely confused or getting things mixed up on purpose.

 

[Nigel]

Oh ffS. Are you doing this on purpose? The AWG had sweet FA all to with the A(C)F. The AWG tried to get the A(C)F involved in their troterry and were told to fuck off.The AWG was a 'split' (if you want to call it that) from another federation, not the A(C)F.

I know this thread is a gossip magnet, but i'm not sure if you're genuinely confused or getting things mixed up on purpose.

There were definitely members of what was to become the AWG in the ACF when I was around it.
Thought they left over disagreements with the ACF?
People in Luton Group for example?

 

[In Bloom]

I agree that Resistance is a pretty uninspiring read, though kudos in at least publishing a regular free monthly. It is a shame that it isn't funnier, more pertinent, better designed-or written

We're working on that

 

[durruti02]

Oh ffS. Are you doing this on purpose? The AWG had sweet FA all to with the A(C)F. The AWG tried to get the A(C)F involved in their troterry and were told to fuck off.The AWG was a 'split' (if you want to call it that) from another federation, not the A(C)F.

I know this thread is a gossip magnet, but i'm not sure if you're genuinely confused or getting things mixed up on purpose.

trying to force my mind back but think you wrong on this butch .. i think awg did have ex-acfers .. they then got involved with some ex rcpers i think

 

[butchersapron]

There were ex acefers but they were not an organsational split from A(C)F.

Let the AWG be lesson to you all, you busy men behind the scenes, men about town, shush, go through me no one else style bravados

 

[In Bloom]

Edit: nevermind.

 

[barney_pig]

i think awg did have ex-acfers

there were ex swpers in the awg as well- I know I expelled them from southampton swp, but that doesn't mean that the awg came out of the swp.

they then got involved with some ex rcpers i think

i don't know the minutiae of this, but afaik they were well and truly infiltrated by the rcp who took over the whole group and introduced them to the wonders of frank furedi thought
- are any of the ex-awgers still involved in the IoD or spiked?

 

[october_lost]

The AF is explicity not a synthesist organisation and its formation was on the basis of a rejection of synthesism.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The AF have several clearly stated positions on industrial organising, and I have come across syndicalists and people promoting insurrectism as a political trajectory within the AF.

 

[The Black Hand]

I guess with any group of more than a dozen people, there'll be some you like and some you don't. Most of the AFers I know are personable and pretty solid, who are involved in range of community and workplace campaigns, and willing to co-operate with others in a friendly and honest manner (which is more than can be said for a few more mainstream groups and parties). Though it may be different in different regions/districts.

In fact most os the people I've know from a range of anarchist groups over the decades (Class War, EF!, SolFed) have been pretty decent.

I agree that Resistance is a pretty uninspiring read, though kudos in at least publishing a regular free monthly. It is a shame that it isn't funnier, more pertinent, better designed-or written, but then I doubt any of its critics produce anything better, or are willing to help improve it.

Good stuff Ungrateful. Given that we all such 'a nice bunch' then, why don't we all meet up politically more often on campaigns, or regionally, or nationally then to improve what we do? The curious case of the anti organisational organisational anarchists

You know I am not sure that it would be enough to improve 'resistance' a bit. I think the problem is that it is from the AF who, like some other anarchists, are too into their 'party', who put a party line before class struggle. I also think it is wrong to say that other writers couldn't improve resistance. I am sure that there is the personnel is there to make a brilliant monthly paper, think the recent attempt to launch a Rumble. The trouble is organisation and finance. There are simply too many people not in the organisations.

 

[october_lost]

There are simply too many people not in the organisations.

Including your good self

 

[The Black Hand]

Including your good self

Of course

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Isn't the weakness of anarchism shown in the inability to set up a national organisation of some kind?

Resistance I find a bit dull, but Organise! is quite an enjoyable read.

 

[butchersapron]

Saying it doesn't make it so. The AF have several clearly stated positions on industrial organising, and I have come across syndicalists and people promoting insurrectism as a political trajectory within the AF.

A couple of slightly differieng views on one issue within a broader context of wider across the board agreement does not suffice to make an organisation synthesist. It it did then all organisations past present and future will or would have been synthesist by definition. What defines synthesism is the organisation explicity encouraging those with opposing and contradictory views to join and doesn't ask that memebers agree to a common set of principles that define the groups aims, structure etc

Which is not to seek to present the mirage of total unity and argue that this is (or was) the case - of course there's disagreements and debate, different views and so forth, it would be madeness to deny this healthy situation - but it's not sythesism not by a long shot, you wouldn't see an anti-class struggle indivisualist being able to join for example, whereas they would be welcomed into a consistent syntesist group.

 

[The Black Hand]

Isn't the weakness of anarchism shown in the inability to set up a national organisation of some kind?

Resistance I find a bit dull, but Organise! is quite an enjoyable read.

Indeed. All there is, is a selection of 'want to be national organisations, comprised of several ares, which comprise a proportionately small space of the UK'.

There are at least 3 of these 'want to be' national organisations - some with as little as 3/5 members in London (paper members/real members?). Though, '20 members in London' would still be pathetic. If all 3 joined up it would just about be deserving of a label such as a 'National organisation'.

 

[The39thStep]

Indeed. All there is, is a selection of 'want to be national organisations, comprised of several ares, which comprise a proportionately small space of the UK'.

There are at least 3 of these 'want to be' national organisations - some with as little as 3/5 members in London (paper members/real members?). Though, '20 members in London' would still be pathetic. If all 3 joined up it would just about be deserving of a label such as a 'National organisation'.

Is there not a role for you in unifying the national anarchist scene?

 

[october_lost]

Indeed. All there is, is a selection of 'want to be national organisations, comprised of several ares, which comprise a proportionately small space of the UK'.

There are at least 3 of these 'want to be' national organisations - some with as little as 3/5 members in London (paper members/real members?). Though, '20 members in London' would still be pathetic. If all 3 joined up it would just about be deserving of a label such as a 'National organisation'.

Your being disingenious and a wanker to boot. The platform (L&S I believe) was setup only a few months ago and both CW, SF and AF do not present themselves as 'national organisations' but rather currents which likeminded politicos can join. They represent very specific approaches to the idea of organisation, stratergy and tactics.

This repeated call for single body which most anarcho's can refer to is daft, differences will be ironed out when our movement as more strength, and our politics evaluated in the full light of practice.
Since you yourself aren't in an organisation I find your snipe bizarre

 

[october_lost]

A couple of slightly differieng views on one issue within a broader context of wider across the board agreement does not suffice to make an organisation synthesist. It it did then all organisations past present and future will or would have been synthesist by definition. What defines synthesism is the organisation explicity encouraging those with opposing and contradictory views to join and doesn't ask that memebers agree to a common set of principles that define the groups aims, structure etc

Which is not to seek to present the mirage of total unity and argue that this is (or was) the case - of course there's disagreements and debate, different views and so forth, it would be madeness to deny this healthy situation - but it's not sythesism not by a long shot, you wouldn't see an anti-class struggle indivisualist being able to join for example, whereas they would be welcomed into a consistent syntesist group.

I stand corrected on the definition.

 

[The Black Hand]

Your being disingenious and a wanker to boot. The platform (L&S I believe) was setup only a few months ago and both CW, SF and AF do not present themselves as 'national organisations' but rather currents which likeminded politicos can join. They represent very specific approaches to the idea of organisation, stratergy and tactics.

This repeated call for single body which most anarcho's can refer to is daft, differences will be ironed out when our movement as more strength, and our politics evaluated in the full light of practice.
Since you yourself aren't in an organisation I find your snipe bizarre

Gradually, the anarchists, lost all ambition...

They have represented themselves and have been talked about as national organisations by themselves and many others in the past.

Funnily enough I don't want an homogeneous organisation or movement, i have never called for that.

BTw i am in MANY organisations

I would like to see more honest and open exchanges of ideas and the decision making processes because at the minute it does not exist. The anarchists have very low standards...

 

[In Bloom]

Saying it doesn't make it so. The AF have several clearly stated positions on industrial organising...

While we're soemwhat less than consistant on industrial strategy at the moment, I'm not sure what you mean by "several clearly stated positions". We've got that bit in Beyond Resistance about workplace resistance groups and on of our aims and principles, neither of which contradict each other.

 

[The Black Hand]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attica
There are simply too many people not in the organisations.

Including your good self

But what about the infamous Autonomous Class War?

 

[Paul Marsh]

Is there not a role for you in unifying the national anarchist scene?

Attica has already done that.

He has united all the UK anarchist groups, and the main anarchist event in the area where he lives, into a position where they will not touch him with a barge pole.

Why else do you think he has to do his own magazine and constantly spam this site promoting it?

 

[The Black Hand]

Attica has already done that.

He has united all the UK anarchist groups, and the main anarchist event in the area where he lives, into a position where they will not touch him with a barge pole.

Why else do you think he has to do his own magazine and constantly spam this site promoting it?

You are so full of shit Paul, as usual you know nothing! When you get a real education let me know - hows life on the dole btw

 

[mk12]

Ah, laughing at people on the dole. It's so funny.

 

[The Black Hand]

Ah, laughing at people on the dole. It's so funny.

It is at Paul I can't wait till his money runs out then lets see how the 'holier than thou high and mighty' survive.

 

[The39thStep]

It is at Paul I can't wait till his money runs out then lets see how the 'holier than thou high and mighty' survive.

Actually he comes across as a very nice bloke

 

[mk12]

Unlike someone else...

 

[The Black Hand]

Actually he comes across as a very nice bloke

Apart from being a wanker you mean?

 

[The Black Hand]

Unlike someone else...

Well you should go to some classes or something.