Anarchist, schmanarchist…

April 30, 2009

Things have been quiet on this blog (we’ve been getting on elsewhere with life, birth & death, among other things). But the other night I got pulled up over my reservations about the forthcoming anarchist movement conference. So here are some rambling responses…

There’s all the usual trivial stuff about what “anarchism” means. Like a lot of people, I have a love/hate relation with the label. In the grand scheme of things, it’s clear that my politics are probably more “anarchist” than anything else. And at certain times it has been really useful to play up to that – a handy way of positioning myself in relation to other groups and practices. In the 1980s, for example, it was a really convenient short-hand for cutting out all the party hacks and robo-Trots. And during the struggle against the Poll Tax, “anarchist” came to mean someone you could depend on, utterly (they wouldn’t sell you out or grass you up).

But more often than not, I’ve found it a barrier, a limit to what can be done. Partly this has to do with how piss-poor most anarchist thought is (or was, certainly when I was growing up). It was never enough to say you were an “anarchist” – you had to say you were a “class struggle anarchist” to distinguish yourself from the 99 different varieties of nutter. But that brought up the whole thorny problem of the Left. However much we denied it at the time, anarchism rode on the coat-tails of the Left it despised (just as the Left was parasitic on the Labour Party). Anything that smacked of the Left (including any sort of critical Marxism) was anathema. It had to go. And what room did that leave for thinking? I can remember when a few people in Class War were talking about sticking the hammer and sickle icon on the Class War banner. “Can you imagine the cops’ faces when we come round the corner? Can you imagine the Left’s look of horror?” They were only half-joking. Shame, really…

But that’s really a side issue. Much more important is the whole idea of how movements come into being, and how they operate and where they end. It’s hard to pick fault with the spirit of the cal l, but in a strange way it seems so unambitious. In the face of a global economic meltdown, is re-constituting ourselves as an Anarchist Movement in the UK really the best option? We can’t tell from here how things are going to pan out, but maybe that sort of (activist) politics is dead. Sure, you’d hope that libertarian, anti-capitalist ideas and practices would now make more sense than ever, but that’s not to say they have to be wrapped up in all the trappings of politics-as-we-know-it. In fact, those trappings may prove to be a limit, hindering our ability to move rapidly and act flexibly as things unravel. It’s a possibility we should at least consider.

To be fair, some of this has to with London exceptionalism: I guess there are enough anarchists in London to make them appear a viable independent force (although a recent post by Ian Bone says otherwise). Out here in the sticks, it’s a little different. We don’t have the luxury of only working with “–ists”, and that’s not a bad thing.

Re-reading this, it does sound really negative. Sorry. I do have a lot of time for the spirit behind the conference, not least because it’s consciously based on the MayDay 98 conference. As I remember it, that event was really successful in reinforcing a new pragmatism and openness. It was part of a wider moment where movements coming from different directions opened themselves up to the prospect of ‘contamination’ (cross-fertilisation). There was a definite unfreezing of sectarian attitudes. Of course, one of the criticisms of that conference was that it didn’t result in a New Organisation. But that was never the point; and I’m not sure it would have had the same impact if that had been its aim.

8 Comments

Alessio May 6, 2009 at 10:25 am

Interesting comments.

Though I wanted to respond in defence of the reason the conference is titled “the anarchist movement” conference. The term anarchist is where we all pretty much originated from politically, it was the start for many of us of rejecting the traditional left and questioning the much wider system of political representation and conflict management/recuperation that the left in general participate in. I agree that any ideological label can become a barrier in participating and engaging in struggles beyond the margins we seem to exist in. But that view is always based solely on what we may perceive is the problem with anarchism, not neccesarily the experiences of people who involve themselves in campaigns or activity without reducing their presence to the concerned local citizen or do-gooder.

We shouldn’t forget that anarchist ideas are open to development and this development over the decades (good and bad) has been based on this understanding. With that, this conference goes forward as a space where we can develop anarchist ideas, where those in attendance don’t neccesarily declare themselves anarchists in every context but would appreciate that such a gathering under the anarchist banner will atleast allow them to discover and develop their own ideas.

The anarchist label is about connecting us with a large and dynamic history that goes beyond what is defined as purely anarchist struggles but the wider acknowledgements played by many working class militants. The same who not only engaged in organising against expliotation but also against the domination of political parties and trade union bosses.

It would be a shame if people missed this opportunity based solely on the labels of the conference.
Gareth May 8, 2009 at 1:08 pm

I have to agree with Brian here.

Furthermore, I’m not sure I understand the wisdom of using the term anarchist on account of it representing a common point of political origin (if so, why not the ‘arguing with our dads conference’ or the ‘playing truant conference’) and I’m not sure whose common point of political origin it’s supposed to be either. The organising collecitve?

So anarchist ideas are open to development. But why develop anarchist ideas? doesn’t this pressuppose a subscription to the idea of building a particular organisation or a particular ideologically cemented millieu? Why not develop ideas relating to resistance and capital irrespective of ideological tags and in the (unlikely?) event that these lead back to anarchism, so be it. Even if it was desireable to focus on developing specifically anarhcist ideas, wouldn’t we stand a much greater chance of being able to do this if the scope of the conference was larger and more open?

I’ve been further sapped of the enthusiasm I felt when plans for a conference were first discussed by the recent publication of the themes for discussion. It is very difficult to find anywhere within these that someone who doesn’t particularly feel themselves part of an ‘anarchist movement’ might be able to contribute (though I appreciate, or at least assume, that these themes are posed as loose starting points). This brings me back to the point above. From the wording on the publicity, it would seem clear that far from the word anarchist being used to denote a common origin, it would be necessary to identify as one now.

I can just about see the logic of reconstituting an anarchist movement in London at this time (although that’s not to say that I think it’s a good idea particularly and would say with Brian that this has very little relevance up here in Leeds) but I can’t help but think of all the libertarian Marxists in their 50s and 60s that I know who flocked to the large left-wing organisations at the height of the cold war out of the desire to be in a big gang but who now feel a wee bit foolish.

Shut up Gareth. Don’t be so mean-spirited. It can be no bad thing having a big gathering of people discussing anti-capitalist politics together.
Brian May 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Actually seeing the themes has made me warm slightly to the conference (sorry Gareth) – not because they’re particularly outstanding in themselves but because they seem to suggest a more questioning/critical outlook, much like the one we tried to encourage at MayDay 98.

In the run-up to that conference, Class War published issue 73, including an “open letter to revolutionaries”. Huge chunks of that still make sense:

At the moment, those of us interested in revolutionary ideas are few in number and have a limited influence. Class War has always believed in screaming from the rooftops and has always acted on the belief that we can make our own history, that we can change the world in the here and now. Anarchism or communism is not some torch that we carry for future generations, something that we wait maybe 500 years for – it is something which exists in what we actually do now.

We have always believed that we can have an effect. But if the rest of the working class aren’t up for it, we can’t force them and no matter how loud we shout, this isn’t likely to change in the short term. Over the last ten years too many people in Class War and elsewhere have fallen into the trap of thinking that ‘one more leaflet’ or ‘one more picket’ will magically bring success. The end result has been burnt-out, disillusioned cynics. But it is not just the wider world that we are concerned about here, it is ourselves and others who are like-minded. Because within the pond that we (the Left) inhabit we can have an enormous effect. But we are split into tiny groups, riven by sectarianism, dominated by personalities, refusing to work together, refusing to talk, spending too much time fighting each other. Are we revolutionaries or are we fools?

(I am of course a revolutionary madman)

I take Alessio’s point, although I still worry that the ‘anarchist movement’ tag may become more of a barrier than a political marker. In fact, the worst outcome I can imagine would be the birth of a new ‘organisation’ or ‘network’ that recognises the dynamic history of anarchism but starts to act as if it has all the answers.

But of course, getting a whole bunch of people together to talk and do anti-capitalist politics is a great thing. I’ll be there.
Alessio May 8, 2009 at 8:06 pm

@Gareth “whose common point of political origin it’s supposed to be either.” Surely it should be clear that those who attend and are anarchist, or were involved in the anarchist movement, are the ones which have as their “common point of political origin” as anarchism.

The conference makes no pretence, it is for and by anarchists. How people choose to be alienated or not because of that political definition is up to them. I understand the questioning on defining the conference anarchist, and speaking as one of the people who voted for the Mayday 2000 conference to be called “anti-capitalist” rather than anarchist – I would say now that it is make or break with this movement we have been involved with for so long.

Is another anarchist organisation and network on the cards? I doubt it. Is there are opportunity for us once to sit down, discussing where we are going (wrong/right) and plan to move things forward? The conference will provide this function, and thats all it can do, define a political environment, format and some ideas of what should/can/could be discussed and see where it ends up.

There is already talk that it is a yearly event, but for it to become more outward looking and on the same scale as other political conferences (like Marxism). I would like it to become a yearly focal point for all anti-authoritarian, libertarian and autonomist marxists and anarchists as a way to truly develop a strong movement. At the end of the day we are also influenced by things outside of the anarchist tendency, we should acknowledge and embrace it.

The conference is a start point, lets meet, discuss and see what people what to do with this project. I would say it is vital then that as many people with constructive and critical views but who are also comitted to building a popular movement come down. without thesis there is not antithesis…etc.
Gareth May 9, 2009 at 8:13 am

Sorry Alessio. It’s easy to sound scathing without the benefit of body-language. I look forward to discussing it with you at the event.

…However…you seem to have made a strange circular argument. Are you saying the conference has been given it’s name because of the shared political origins of those who will attend it? But this hasn’t happened yet. Surely it’s the other way round. The name of the conference will dictate the attendants. My point isn’t that there’s any dishonesty here but simply that it’s a shame the scope isn’t broader when there seems to be no good reason for it not to be and that this might present a barrier which hampers the development of ideas.

Having said that, I can see that using the term anarchist might be a quick and easy way to ensure that it doesn’t fill up with adherents of the orthodox left with whom nobody wants to waste a weekend arguing.
The Lady May 9, 2009 at 8:29 am

i feel both protective of this conference, and also concerned that it might not be all it has the potential to be because of some of the points raised above.
if there is a threat of a mass flocking to larger organisations, than this conference is a timely one, so those discussions can be had and, hopefully, the foolhardiness of such action be laid bare.
the organisers of this conference had to, of course, have some common identity to stage the event around, and having that as Anarchist does indeed exclude many of the disruptive groups of the Left from coming, the green party etc. which is a good thing. The conference publicity also lays out anarchism as a very broad identity. However, there does seem to be, and I share Gareth and Brian’s fears here, an element of appealing to anarchist organisations and members of, rather than the wider category of loosely involved individuals. it is perhaps the emphasis on a singular movement, rather than anarchist, that, for me, makes me uncertain.
Alessio May 9, 2009 at 8:55 am

@Gareth – No worries, I am open to all opinions and I do take on board what you say. There were other discussions happening regarding a more “movement of movements” type conference, or atleast one which wasn’t defined by the anarchist label. The problems were that we felt that it could/would attract alot of unwanted lefty groups and hippies. We think it was the best thing to do to gather our immediate consituency – anarchists – to start an initial discussion. I am not the only one by the way who feels that this idea of a conference should grow and include the general population who are interested in the ideas we espouse.

@The Lady – there as been a few comments about whether this conference is just aimed at members of exisiting anarchist organisations. That isn’t the aim, as we have always stated that most people are not in anarchist organisations, for what ever reason and therefore the conference is aimed at everyone. The idea to replicate the Bradford format was precisely to split up those comrades from organisations so that they are exposed to different point of views and not approach the conference as a member of a group but as an individual.

Saying that, it may seem daunting that we have plasted anarchist all over the conference, and we have chosen to use it as a vechicle to mobilise people – I think it is worth a shot. It may be a london thing, where we have tried all sorts of anarcho-type lables – anti-authoritarian, autonomous – we wanted to be open about who and what we are associating ourselves with – lets see if it works, if not we do something else next time.
Dermot May 23, 2009 at 11:18 am

only just found my way here. As another of the organisers of the conference, i thought i’d add a bit of counter-balance to allesio’s comments and respond in general to some of the other remarks. As you’d expect there’s a going to be a whole range of views on the aims of the event and the ‘target market’ among the people involved in the process, much less those watching from the wings.

From the point of view of framing this one as a conference specifically for the anarchist movement, i’ve had my own concerns from the beginning, for similar reasons that Brian outlined in the original post.

While we cited Bradford as a good organising format (a number of us were impressed attendees – and some involved in the organising itself), its clear to me at least, that the aspirations of Mayday 98 and this conference are focused very differently – and so i think format is where the comparisons between the two should end.

Between Bradford 98 and London 09 we have seen and played a part in a movement, taking to the streets in cities across the planet and throwing up visions of a new world at each and every juncture, through to a decade that has allowed capital to reimpose its discipline through war, fear of terror, a strong state, crisis. From a crest to a trough and now perhaps, we hope, starting to feel new possibilities presenting themselves again. So we approach the conference in 2009 at a very different point in the cycle to where Bradford took shape.

Back to the matter in hand, I have my own reservations about the conference being consciously defined for the anarchist movement. Many of the class struggle anarchists out there might balk at their comparison to ‘lifestylism’(a term widely used to slate some of the more counter-cultural elements in our scene a decade or so ago). But there is an irony that in tying oneself to a particular body of historical ideas, and so seeing politics only through the prism how its activity measures against its ultimate goals, passes over all those examples of popular self activity in recent years (the summit mobilisations in the north, the landless peasants and farmers movements in the south et al). There is a strong sense that to ‘become’ an anarchist today requires a state of being than about doing. More about preservation of an identity than joining with others and working in a more dynamic relationship to work out a vision of a new world through trial and error….

Such manifestations I mention have made great efforts to defy classification or else were simply not aware of externally imposed definitions. Yet these are often claimed as ‘anarchist’, where to attach a definition seems to be unhelpful or irrelevant.

That aside (and I have leapt through a massive debate as I don’t have much time right now), all I wanted to say is despite the decision to name the Conference 2009 as an anarchist movement event, I really hope that other non-aligned independent minds are encouraged through the doors to challenge us on this definition and widen the debate. Every intention has been made for free debate to be encouraged – the facilitators are working very hard for this. The only real limitation I think has been that because many people felt it needed to happen this summer, there has not been enough time for discussions over content to mature and bear fruit. Still as allesio says, should a future conference happen, I hope that we can use the lessons of organising this one to reflect the multiplicity of experiences, traditions and identities that are allied against capital.

That’s all for now