what happened to all the 90s political scenes?

[newbie]

That Do or Die piece is well worth a read for anyone interested in this stuff.

indeed. It starts off talking about generational changes among activists before moving on to leaders and led and then nonviolence and so on. Which got me wondering why there's no mention, not even a hint, of the affinity groups that worked so well for the anti-nuclear dissidents of the late 70s and through to the mid 80s.

No doubt there's some really good reason why they've fallen out of favour, but I was at that Mayday (& subsequent ones, & elsewhere) and largely saw individuals waiting for direction, which doesn't really achieve much.

 

[chilango]

indeed. It starts off talking about generational changes among activists before moving on to leaders and led and then nonviolence and so on. Which got me wondering why there's no mention, not even a hint, of the affinity groups that worked so well for the anti-nuclear dissidents of the late 70s and through to the mid 80s.

No doubt there's some really good reason why they've fallen out of favour, but I was at that Mayday (& subsequent ones, & elsewhere) and largely saw individuals waiting for direction, which doesn't really achieve much.

There was a lot of talk about, and use of, affinity groups in the 90s. However there was amongst some of us a push to reduce the reliance upon them that was starting to develop. We saw them as too "exclusive" and reinforcing the concept of activist as elite specialist. Some of us wanted to ensure that our actions were open to non-activist types. Many actions were happening that if you weren't in a Pre-existing affinity group you couldn't really get involved.

 

[DaveCinzano]

No doubt there's some really good reason why they've fallen out of favour, but I was at that Mayday (& subsequent ones, & elsewhere) and largely saw individuals waiting for direction, which doesn't really achieve much.

The affinity group, and the other discrete, function-orientated task groups, was significant in the preparations for J18, and could arguably be said to have been key to the achievement of a large number of tactical objectives on the day (predominantly in the morning or in the days immediately preceding it).

For various of the reasons mentioned here and elsewhere, the base for organising N30 in London was significantly reduced from that involved in preparing J18, but again the affinity group was an important building block, not least in terms of separately organising the numerous smaller actions and events across the city throughout the day.

The London M1 Mayday of 2000 also involved a fair amount of affinity group work (consider the panopoly of events in different locations), even though it culminated in 'one big spectacle' for which a small organising group was (unfairly, in the minds of some) excoriated.

We saw them as too "exclusive" and reinforcing the concept of activist as elite specialist. Some of us wanted to ensure that our actions were open to non-activist types. Many actions were happening that if you weren't in a Pre-existing affinity group you couldn't really get involved.

I certainly recall dialogue about balancing such tensions; I believe the topic was covered in one or more of the Reflections documents.

 

[newbie]

There was a lot of talk about, and use of, affinity groups in the 90s. However there was amongst some of us a push to reduce the reliance upon them that was starting to develop. We saw them as too "exclusive" and reinforcing the concept of activist as elite specialist. Some of us wanted to ensure that our actions were open to non-activist types. Many actions were happening that if you weren't in a Pre-existing affinity group you couldn't really get involved.

do you think, in restrospect, that made what we might as well call 'the movement' stronger or otherwise?

The London M1 Mayday of 2000 also involved a fair amount of affinity group work (consider the panopoly of events in different locations), even though it culminated in 'one big spectacle' for which a small organising group was (unfairly, in the minds of some) excoriated.

I thought the small group actions on the morning of the following Mayday worked really well until lots of groups coalesced in Oxford Circus and (dozily) got kettled.



Times & tactics change, I can certainly see the point chilango is making (the last thing I'd want is exclusivity), but then, by the time of the massive anti-invasion mobilisations of 2003 there was virtually no emphasis on getting together into tight groups (not that I noticed, anyway), which tmm meant that actions at eg Fairford were a little flat, despite the clear example that the Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors provided.

 

[butchersapron]

Already talking about actions here though, assuming that the effectiveness of actions carried out by self-selected groups is both what was required and so therefore a good. No one else had a chance to even break the social barriers of this activism. What if you're not even included in the conversation about what tactics are changed by time? What if it's assumed that you shouldn't be?

 

[newbie]

Actions is what the article you posted is about

But your post raises more question than answer: how would you propose opposition to something rather abstract from the lives of 99.9% of the population here should express itself, if not by actions and demonstrations? Invasion of Iraq say, or bombing Serbia or the G20.

 

[butchersapron]

Actions is what the article you posted is about

But your post raises more question than answer: how would you propose opposition to something rather abstract from the lives of 99.9% of the population here should express itself, if not by actions and demonstrations? Invasion of Iraq say, or bombing Serbia or the G20.

But the thread has been discussing how those actions were often self-isolating. That's sort of why i posted it.

My post wasn't intended to do anything but ask questions about why the affinity group based actions that you you mentioned utterly failed to do what you now demand i give you an answer for. Not even being able to see the mass of people as actors beyond some final revolutionary role is one way in which they failed.

 

[chilango]

If we had focused on tighter affinity groups we could have been more effective activists. For a while. But many (I hope)had begun to see the limits of activism. Newbury should've underlined that lesson to anyone under illusions that the activist model was sustainable.

 

[Disjecta Membra]

Too many foreign chemicals led to stupidity and apathy.

 

[BK Double Stack]

Discussion in the CWI about the 90s: http://patisdead.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/the-1990s-are-over-not-over-the-double-beer/

 

[Coolfonz]

Already talking about actions here though, assuming that the effectiveness of actions carried out by self-selected groups is both what was required and so therefore a good. No one else had a chance to even break the social barriers of this activism. What if you're not even included in the conversation about what tactics are changed by time? What if it's assumed that you shouldn't be?

I've always liked your posts, and I like this one. But I fail to see why you told me off earlier in this thread for saying similar stuff. So now I'm not taking any notice of your scolding Or your Mum's for that matter.

The stuff in ~1997-2001 didn't `fail` as such. That is too easy a thing to say. But the ideas behind it - many of them very popular - did not reach a sufficiently big enough amount of people to really drag society about. You might say the same thing about Occupy etc.

All that energy was good, but very disparate - self-selected groups as above - and much of its image, whether one likes it or not, just doesn't connect with the wider public. At all. The whole eco-lifestyle-clown-yada-yada thing for example. The ultra right wing folks who infiltrated all kinds of nooks and crannies in politics, academia, culture etc don't wear stupid clothes and don't identify themselves. They just infiltrate existing structures and bend them to their will.

So as a theoretical point let us say all those people in 97-01 had infiltrated the Labour party/the Greens/Ukip/The Tufty Club etc with the exact same amount of energy. Would `we` (in the broad sense) have more power or less power? Christ, if everyone had gone off and worked hard to be an oil trader, broker, work in hedge funds even...you have to talk the language of power.

 

[newbie]

But that's not what happens. lifestyler activists, burnt out or not, don't normally become hedgefunders or oil traders, they go work for the council, in social services or housing mostly, or for a charity. Or become teachers. Not all of them, obv, but enough to be noticeable.

And they don't infiltrate the Labour Party just like normal people don't. No-one passes through lifestyle activism without imbibing a huge dose of 'don't vote it only encourages them'. Or gaining friends who'd harangue them as sellouts... not many people want the tirades articul8 gets on here! And anyway, the last serious attempt to drag the LP onto a different course led to Kinnock & the abolition of clause IV. Why would anyone think that's a good idea?

A great deal is action for the sake of it, and sure there are plenty of principled objections to it, but then there's plenty of killjoy tut-tutting at many of the things reckless young people get up to, (particularly from those in their 40s ). Seems to me more or less the only people who take activist stunts seriously enough to criticise earnestly are ex lifestyle activists and fringe political geeks. Few others care, it's just part of the backdrop. To laugh at, without engaging. Until, of course, the stunts become irritating.