Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Autonomy in the UK

Fisher_Gate said:
Both groups have a bastardised version of maximum/minimum programme in which they proclaim the need for socialist revolution in broad abstract terms, but then operate around agitational slogans for immediate bread and butter issues.

Neither group has a strong approach to 'united front' work either.
Click to expand...

So how do you think the need for socialist revolution and bread & butter agitation should be co-ordinated?

And what do you think would be a storng approach to 'united front' work.

There hasn't been much discussion on here from people from groups that consider themselves to have an autonomist flavour of specific examples of mass campaigns that we could look at.
 
dennisr said:
if its so stupid why is the critique of democratic centralism central to the arguements i hear?

or is it the word 'purity' you don't like??
Click to expand...
Well, that at the implication that anarchists don't consider the content and activity of an organisation ("the nature of the organisation") to be important. Having an organisational structure and culture that allows the members to control the organisation is important, not because the "purity" of the organisation must be preserved (what do you even mean by that?), but because we seek to establish a society which is directly controlled by it's members. Means and ends are interdependent.
 
In Bloom said:
Well, that at the implication that anarchists don't consider the content and activity of an organisation ("the nature of the organisation") to be important. Having an organisational structure and culture that allows the members to control the organisation is important, not because the "purity" of the organisation must be preserved (what do you even mean by that?), but because we seek to establish a society which is directly controlled by it's members. Means and ends are interdependent.
Click to expand...

I think you 'doth protest too much' then (so it was the purity bit you didn't like...). I was saying anarchists tend to attack marxist forms of organisation and counterpose thier own forms of organisation - so they clearly do see the nature of the organisation as important. I was saying they are confusing structure with politics. I was saying there is no easy organisational 'solutions' (ie to maintaining the balance of means and ends - 'purity'). No implications there (apart from the joke about purity)

I agree with your point on 'means and ends' - A marxist could say exactly the same thing about their organisational settup and the reasons for it - in fact I have in various ways throughout this thread. I remember someone pointing out somewhere that the WRP had the most democratic constitution on paper - as we both know the reality was somewhat different. The same could be applied to many organisations - weather self-professed 'marxist', 'anarchist' or whatever. One of the 'anarchist' critisisms constantly levelled at marxists is about the organisational forms used - the reason my comment was not stupid, simply based on the views of those critics

Ironically, the practice of anarchist organisations from what i have seen in the UK lends itself to domination by small cliches (is that the right term? - anyway - you know what I mean) - just as much are marxist counterparts.

Maybe worse though - it lays itself open to state infiltration - I never had the level of state 'interest' in my own activity until after working closely with anarchists. That is either a) because they are seen as more of a threat; b) full of mouthy gobshites with the wrong priorities who talked too much; or c) unfortunately, open to infiltration. Maybe a bit of all three. Maybe it reflects the nature of the work being done - maybe any organisation would have been under closer survellence than normal - but it is the ease of which the state was able to map out leading individuals (and I can only presume therefore much of the actual organisational setup) that was interesting to see close up and something not seen to the same extent at all when working in the same 'field' seperatly. It is things like this which make me sympathetic to an organisational structure which can 'close ranks' when necessary to defend its members

As you say 'means and ends' are interdependent - paper constitutions are meaningless without a self-educated, critical membership and that comes through the activity and involvement of that membership in making decisions etc. That is also practical - in any serious turn of events these people will have to think and function for themselves.
 
dennisr said:
ronically, the practice of anarchist organisations from what i have seen in the UK lends itself to domination by small cliches (is that the right term? - anyway - you know what I mean) - just as much are marxist counterparts
Click to expand...
I don't think this is necessarily true, at least not for the more organised groups, where we have specific officer positions with clearly established remits, a clear distinction between who is and isn't a member and a properly laid out decision making structure.

Though there is a tendancy towards this with the sort of informal networks that are fashionable at the moment within the anarchist milleu. Though quite old, and aimed at the feminist movement rather than anarchists in particular, The Tyranny of Structurelessness articulates the problems of this approach quite well.

Sorry, you added this while I was posting:
Maybe worse though - it lays itself open to state infiltration - I never had the level of state 'interest' in my own activity until after working closely with anarchists. That is either a) because they are seen as more of a threat; b) full of mouthy gobshites with the wrong priorities who talked too much; or c) unfortunately, open to infiltration. Maybe a bit of all three. Maybe it reflects the nature of the work being done - maybe any organisation would have been under closer survellence than normal - but it is the ease of which the state was able to map out leading individuals (and I can only presume therefore much of the actual organisational setup) that was interesting to see close up and something not seen to the same extent at all when working in the same 'field' seperatly. It is things like this which make me sympathetic to an organisational structure which can 'close ranks' when necessary to defend its members
Click to expand...
Would you mind explaining what you think it is about anarchist forms of organisation that caused this? If the state wants to infiltrate a group, it will, short of either intensive background checks on every individual applying to join or a totally loose, informal cell structure, I don't see how you could get around this.

As you say 'means and ends' are interdependent - paper constitutions are meaningless without a self-educated, critical membership and that comes through the activity and involvement of that membership in making decisions etc. That is also practical - in any serious turn of events these people will have to think and function for themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree, as it happens. But that doesn't mean that organisational forms don't matter.

One of the things I like about the AF is that we do, IMO, have a pretty good organisational culture, there's room for improvement (particularly on the issue of internal education) but isn't there always?
 
In Bloom said:
One of the things I like about the AF is that we do, IMO, have a pretty good organisational culture, there's room for improvement (particularly on the issue of internal education) but isn't there always?
Click to expand...

Sure. And none of us should ever be satisfied with what we have at any point. I don't think the SP is perfect - it the best I can see to work among and to do so I make 'concessions' as an individual. A bit like the rest of life.

My original comment was in reply to Udo's assumptions - his point on 'fossilised organisations' with the strong implication that these were those organisations with a democratic centralist approach. All that any organisational approach is trying to achieve is the best it can within the limitations given and we agree on most of the limitations and much of the resulting nesesary form
 
In Bloom said:
Sorry, you added this while I was posting:

Would you mind explaining what you think it is about anarchist forms of organisation that caused this? If the state wants to infiltrate a group, it will, short of either intensive background checks on every individual applying to join or a totally loose, informal cell structure, I don't see how you could get around this.
Click to expand...

I thought about that that after posting the original and thought it was relevant as an example of concrete experience. Probably not well explained.

i don't think it is an inevitablity of 'all anarchist organisation' (otherwise I would be guilty of the same presumptions as those about the nature of marxist organisations). But, it is an example of how not taking the nature of organisation seriously lays folk open to infiltration.

And yes, agreed there is, ultimately, no safe organisational answer. One can minimise damage though.

And to do so I think it goes back to your point on 'ways and means' - how the two are interconnected. I suppose my comment extends that point. It is the understanding of those involved, their understanding of when to talk/boast or not, understanding of the role their activity has within a wider organisation etc (is it a central propaganda tool or a side activity for other means - for example). I was talking specifically about anti-facsist work. For the group I worked with before working with some anarchist groups more closely I think our understanding of what we were doing was very different to that of those we later worked with - so the resulting approach generally kept us under the state radar (with only individuals targetted)
 
By coincidence I picked a recent copy of - The Subversion of politics, which links autonomist movements from various Black Bloc initiatives right back to autonomen and the various Italian movements.

I would have thought that autonomist groups in the UK are either tiny, essentially practicing something passed on, especially in the squatting scene and therefore may not identify strictly with the theory or the label but neverless do exist. I think you have to understand that essentially fordism in Italy led autonomism to become a mass movement and was broken in down in a small part because of the sects. The same theories didn't take route in the same way in other countries, at least thats my understanding.
 
Udo Erasmus said:
Well, I'm not an anarchist, I consider myself a kind of libertarian marxist. I have never found my ideal socialist organisation, as it doesn't exist, so I have linked up locally with whatever existing projects are going on and it is often important to have the back-up of some kinda national network to be an effective organisation. When I was in the SWP I thought that a massive upsurge of class struggle would transform the internal culture of the organisation, but who knows? I have much respect for the intellect and activism of many of my former comrades and have learnt much from them.

I have many disagreements with the SP, though to be honest it seems to me ridiculous that the SWP and SP are in separate organisations, they should be factions within a broader marxist organisation. I do believe that these divisions based on historic disagreements shouldn't dictate the present or the future of the left, as Marx said, "The traditions of dead generations weigh upon the brains of the living like a nightmare", I also believe in a greater flexibility of tactics.

As I've never been an activist in the SP I can't really comment on its internal culture, but from what I have heard from others it is quite top-heavy.

In my experience, some more libertarian forms of organising are deceptive, Consensus decision making, for example, while it is good to have consensus as a group and mutual respect, this process promotes conformity (people don't want to break the consensus and look confrontational by proposing an alternative view) and also means that a tiny minority can veto anything (within the Social Forum movement it has meant the most conservative reformists can dominate the process).

Many libertarian groups have 'no leaders' or 'hieararchy' this means that you either have to spend hours at meetings to be part of the process, or more generally that there are people who act as an informal executive who organise stuff between meetings and set up the meetings, but because they are not openly designated as officers of a campaign they are not democratically accountable.
Click to expand...

Hannah Sell, who will probably take over as a Leading Figure after Peter Taffe
reminds me a little of a lot of SWP types in eighties.

"I have many disagreements with the SP, though to be honest it seems to me ridiculous that the SWP and SP are in separate organisations, they should be factions within a broader marxist organisation."

You obviously have no understanding of the politics, organisation and outlook of these two organisations.
The SP has a more practical and workerite outlook, especially around T.U. work, its not always saying the revolution is around the corner. Organisationally it practices internal democracy, and although it does embrace some of the cultish nature of Trottery, there is'nt the same blinkered mindset of SWP.

The SWP, in my opinion could have been an extremley dynamic organisation, but for lack of internal democracy in the early eighties, which has lead to the two dimensional cult it is today.

Anyone who thinks the Trots could organise between themselves, only has to look at the debacle within the SLP, especially at their second conference!
 
dennisr said:
Maybe worse though - it lays itself open to state infiltration - I never had the level of state 'interest' in my own activity until after working closely with anarchists. That is either a) because they are seen as more of a threat; b) full of mouthy gobshites with the wrong priorities who talked too much; or c) unfortunately, open to infiltration. Maybe a bit of all three. Maybe it reflects the nature of the work being done - maybe any organisation would have been under closer survellence than normal - but it is the ease of which the state was able to map out leading individuals (and I can only presume therefore much of the actual organisational setup) that was interesting to see close up and something not seen to the same extent at all when working in the same 'field' seperatly. It is things like this which make me sympathetic to an organisational structure which can 'close ranks' when necessary to defend its members.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the rigid, top down and ultra-hierarchical structure of groups like the SWP is far more vulnerable to infiltration than the Anarchist models, to be honest.

Given that, in the SWP anyway, the Central Committee decides pretty much everything that goes on in the party, all it would take is to have one informer (and I'd say there are probably more) on the CC to have the powers that be knowing SWP party business and policy changes even before the rank and file members do.

More than one informer (and I'd be very surprised if there weren't several on the SWP CC) and the State would be in a position to not only find out policy before the rank and file membership, but even to influence and possibly decide what policy should be. And, given the SWP's long-established habit of recruiting anyone that's breathing and capable of fre movement, getting informers into positions of power and influence shouldn't be too difficult. IIRC, didn't the BNP manage to infiltrate members into UAF at one time? The name Joe Finnon ring any bells at all? If the boneheads can do it then the likes of Special Branch or MI5 shouldn't have too much trouble.

If the likes of the SWP were actually serious about their security then they'd maybe adopt a different structure. The ALF (and I'm neither a member nor an apologist for the ALF) works, IIRC, on a cell structure. The cells function entirely independently of one another and members of one cell are unlikely to be able to identify many if any members of another. The ALF seems to operate a structure that is run with the maximum of decentralisation.

When I was in the SWP, we had not one single lecture about security. Not one. It wasn't until I began to get involved with groups like Trident Ploughshares and Earth First! that the concept of activist security was even being openly discussed and debated.
 
Bakunin said:
I'd say that the rigid, top down and ultra-hierarchical structure of groups like the SWP is far more vulnerable to infiltration than the Anarchist models, to be honest.

Given that, in the SWP anyway, the Central Committee decides pretty much everything that goes on in the party, all it would take is to have one informer (and I'd say there are probably more) on the CC to have the powers that be knowing SWP party business and policy changes even before the rank and file members do.

More than one informer (and I'd be very surprised if there weren't several on the SWP CC) and the State would be in a position to not only find out policy before the rank and file membership, but even to influence and possibly decide what policy should be. And, given the SWP's long-established habit of recruiting anyone that's breathing and capable of fre miovement, getting informers into positions of power and influence shouldn't be too difficult. IIRC, didn't the BNP manage to infiltrate members into UAF at one time? The name Joe Finnon ring any bells at all? If the boneheads can do it then the likes of Special Branch or MI5 shouldn't have too much trouble.

If the likes of the SWP were actually serious about their security then they'd maybe adopt a different structure. The ALF (and I'm neither a member nor an apologist for the ALF) works, IIRC, on a cell structure. The cells function entirely independently of one another and members of one cell are unlikely to be able to identify many if any members of another. The ALF seems to operate a structure that is run with the maximum of decentralisation.

When I was in the SWP, we had not one single lecture about security. Not one. It wasn't until I began to get involved with groups like Trident Ploughshares and Earth First! that the concept of activist security was even being openly discussed and debated.
Click to expand...

The IRA were heavily infiltrated by state agents and their security was probably the tightest of all groups.

Read Spycatcher by Peter Wright and you'll see that the CPGB (not Weekly Worker) was also heavily infiltrated.

Wright also stated that the SWP was about as dangerous as a pond of ducks.

And rumour has it that Class War was also being monitored in the 80's.

Joe Finnon was involved locally with a UAF group in Manchester and had little affect as it turns out. More of an embarassment really, particularly to German and Galloway who appeared in a photo alongside the then BNP member. Whatever happened to him?
 
Autonomists were less concerned with party political organisation than other types of Marxist thought; instead it focuses on self-organised working class action and the development of its theoretical tools in accord with actual working class struggles
Click to expand...

Sounds alright to me.
 
MC5 said:
The IRA were heavily infiltrated by state agents and their security was probably the tightest of all groups.

Read Spycatcher by Peter Wright and you'll see that the CPGB (not Weekly Worker) was also heavily infiltrated.

Wright also stated that the SWP was about as dangerous as a pond of ducks.

And rumour has it that Class War was also being monitored in the 80's.

Joe Finnon was involved locally with a UAF group in Manchester and had little affect as it turns out. More of an embarassment really, particularly to German and Galloway who appeared in a photo alongside the then BNP member. Whatever happened to him?
Click to expand...

you do realsie that this interesting post will now mean you shall be called a conspiraloon :rolleyes::eek::D
 
butchersapron said:
That's my site - or was, nor updated it in years, was an attempt to get what were rare or nearly impoossible to find texts back into public circulation and out of the hands of the specialists. A masterpiece of design.

(I'll comment on the actual thread later)
Click to expand...

A very good site!
 
butchersapron said:
That's my site - or was, nor updated it in years, was an attempt to get what were rare or nearly impoossible to find texts back into public circulation and out of the hands of the specialists. A masterpiece of design.

(I'll comment on the actual thread later)
Click to expand...

The site has many interesting documents indeed. Read Cilliga's Russian Enigma a long time ago. Didn't he have a state cap analysis of russia? Have seen/own some of the early Solidarity stuff. They were an early split from Gerry Healey's SLL. Haven't cross referenced, but some of this stuff would probs be welcome on the Marxist Internet Archive these days - they publish a lot of 'critical' type stuff. People interested in the relationship between marxism and more critical stuff should visit www.dkrenton.co.uk He produced a good piece on Marx's son-in-law and 'the right to be lazy' linky here http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/lafargue.html
 
Yes, Ciliga developed a theory of state capitalism during his time in the gulags and isolaters in the 1930s, influenced by the discussions amongst the various factions (esp at Verkhne-Ural´sk amongst the workers group, workers truth, decemists etc) and by Smirnov's postion. He didn't elaborate it at any great length though. He came to believe that Leninism (and later trotskyism) was essentially a national-development movements substituting the party for the classical bourgeoisie. He was one of those who fell out very hard with Trotsky in the late 30s (see also Serge).

MIA has already taken some of the texts.

As for Dave R, well, he's a nice chap (he was very helpful to me some years back over some Korsch stuff) but his researches into the 'hidden marxist tradition' is very very orthodox. and still based on many of the assumptions that the tradition explicity rejects, in fact, their starting points are usually based on those rejections Still, at least he recognises this stuff exists and is prepared to engage with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
3K
likesfish
likesfish
Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
193
Views
6K
bcuster
bcuster
ska invita
  • Poll
Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
7K
weltweit
weltweit
mojo pixy
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
74 75 76 77 78
Replies
2K
Views
62K
Gramsci
Gramsci
tim
Anyone worried about the UK becoming a one party state?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kid_Eternity
Kid_Eternity
Back
Top Bottom