A Regional Solidarity Network? Callout for September Hui
Following on from the release of our document: Beyond Representation — tactics for building a culture of resistance in Aotearoa http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/beyond-representation-tactics-for-building-a-culture-of-resistance-in-aotearoa/, Beyond Resistance invites you to a two day Regional Hui to establish such a network.
The date for this Hui will be Saturday 25th & Sunday 26th September in Otautahi/ Christchurch.
Loosely the idea would be to establish a single network with those who agree with the principals of direct action, solidarity, self-management/promotion of self-activity, workplace and community assemblies, co-operation and mutual aid. This network could act as a resource base and for agitation, enabling better communication, solidarity and organisation in struggle, whether in the workplace or the community.
If it became successful it may evolve into one broader national network with local/regional branches within it.
There are solidarity networks that have been established internationally, that we have drawn inspiration from e.g. Seattle Solidarity Network (http://seasol.net/).
Solidarity Federation in the UK has also inspired and influenced our thinking and is another example of some of the ideas we envision (http://www.solfed.org.uk/).
What we propose is for the Hui to run over two days.
Day one could be dedicated to ideas about a network, with examples, plus education i.e. films, workshops and discussion on the ideas/tactics of solidarity networks.
Day two could be dedicated to discussion and brainstorming, working to establish a local and/or regional/national network, ending with its formation.
If you would like to register, submit ideas, be involved with organising, assist with workshops and/or participate in this Hui please get in touch with us at otautahianarchists (at) gmail.com
We have also set up an email list for those interested in participating in discussion about the network as well as “Beyond Resistances strategies” and activities more generally. If you would like to subscribe please send an email to the link below and follow the prompts.
discussionbeyondresistance-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
If you are thinking of attending from out of town please let us know, as we can help with organising accommodation, travel equalisation and childcare if you are thinking of bringing children.
Beyond Resistance is committed to creating safer and child friendly spaces
http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/how-we-work/
So please feel welcome to bring the kids.
In solidarity,
Beyond Resistance.
http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/
Comments
A quick note on 'assemblies'
I wonder if the term 'mass assembly' in our text is throwing a few people off? Maybe workplace or open meetings, or group discussion, better conveys what we mean? Obviously we want to start small, and mass assemblies don't spring up out of thin air. More like they esculate to that eventually (and maybe more concrete forms of organising, such as a move from a network to a revolutionary union). But I do feel to get there we have to encourage their growth, through involving everyone in decision making and activity.
I don't see the role of this network to turn up at other meetings or pickets in order to only encourage 'mass assemblies'. Obviously, to support pickets is paramount, but ultimately I feel this is an outsider position and is typical of a lot of current anarchist practice. Rather, the network could build slowly, operate where members are based themselves, whether that is their own workplace or community.
For example, in the London underground, a SolFed member has been involved in lots of long-term and ongoing organising — however when some platformist-leaning anarchists turned up for the first time at a big public meeting about the SolFed guy facing the sack for his efforts, they 'intervened' in quite embarassing fashion to tell the assembled RMT militants (who'd just agreed to strike if the SF guy was sacked) about this 'new tactic' from the 'activist left' called 'direct action.' The example is extreme, but it illustrates difference in approach from outside insertion to ongoing involvement.
Something to think about...
Jared
BR comrades, apologies that
BR comrades, apologies that I've taken my time in formulating a response to your proposal, however I am glad that you are putting these ideas forward and certainly some kind of a network for militant workers could have some generally positive effects on the level of class struggle and the confidence of workers in this country. That said, I have some criticisms which I put forward hesitantly, since they are based on my own experiences of work and may not be representative of the situation for many workers.
Having worked pretty much exclusively in hospo I have to say I feel incredibly sceptical that agitating for 'mass' assemblies (by mass I assume you mean a dozen or so people?) would be a worthwhile endeavor. The majority of workers in the hospo industry, and I believe this may be true of many other industries, work in small workplaces of half a dozen to a dozen people. They are in close proximity to their boss and this inevitably creates a social atmosphere which is not at all conducive to organising struggle around basic grievances, even where those grievances are plainly obvious. At all of the places I've worked the likelihood of organising a direct action which has the support of all my workmates would be pretty much nil. The likelihood of calling a meeting to organise that direct action even less. Therefore, imo, I think a better way forward would be to provide some kind of network for militant workers to support each other, share ideas and to carry out direct actions which may neither involve nor have the support of many of the workers in a workplace, but which nevertheless are sufficient to win some basic demands for some or all of the workers in that workplace. Returning to my own experiences, I think this could have actually been effective when it came to addressing some of the grievances people had, and certainly a minority of my workmates would have been in support. So really the answer is to link together different workplaces and to provide a means by which militant workers can push struggles forward, not to provide democratic structures which in all honesty seem to be a product of a fetishistic (<-- is that an actual word?) concern for form rather than a focus on content.
This is more of a SeaSol style approach and is different to SolFed, even though you appear to equate the two groups. In all honesty I also think you are overly optimistic about the success of SolFed's industrial networks, perhaps they can be useful in certain circumstances but so far there seems to be little evidence to support your theory that we ought to base a network here on the SolFed model.
Also perhaps I have rehashed much of what Fydd mentions, however again I would like to reiterate that my opinions here are based on my own experiences since they are the most logical starting point. Over time any network could possibly become reformist, a tool for politicos and unionists or more likely just irrelevant, however in the short term at least it very well could contribute to an increase in class struggle which would make it possible to initiate more ambitious projects. However our approach ought to start with a grounded analysis of what is possible considering the state of class struggle at present.
All thoughts of an young, inexperienced worker and anarchist and I am happy to be proven wrong.
Olly
Therefore, imo, I think a
Exactly mate! This is exactly what we're saying and promoting. And we don't pretend to think everyone in a workplace is on the same page (my small workplace is a perfect example of the complexities involved). Surely though, open dialogue via mass assemblies (meetings whatever) to discuss how to win such demands would help push things forward?
Couldn't there be both? Both a linking of people interested in more militant action, and the promotion by those militants of mass assemblies to win grievances and to push the struggle forward? I don't see them as being incompatible. In fact, I'm not sure how else you'd go about it, without falling into the trap of current representational/union models. It seems logical to try and talk with those around you when such an issue affects everyone, and widen them through a network premised on solidarity.
Thanks by the way :) Sounds like we're in the same kind of situation.
Jared
Surely though, open dialogue
No it probably wouldn't, that is precisely what I'm saying. If I had called a meeting at my old workplace to organise a strike action for example chances are about 80% of my workmates would be opposed, would socially ostracize me, yabber to the boss (who everyone is already mates with) and get me in some serious shit. So for one thing the idea of conducting a struggle which is in any way democratic, at least in my old workplace, would be a complete waste of time. On the other hand, say a picket of a dozen or so people turned up every friday evening (our busiest time) demanding the boss give a $1 pay rise to all workers earning under $15 p/hr, then perhaps after a few fridays he would have given in, or at least come to the bargaining table (in which case those involved could give a militant from the network a mandate to negotiate with him). Note that in this scenario the minority of workers who are on low pay, and who are keen for militant direct action (probably about 2-3 of us in my case) could get our demands met while in no way being directly implicated in the struggle against my boss. Likewise those workers who have a larger amount of responsibility, and a (significantly) bigger weekly pay check, and who would therefore be opposed to this kind of action are not given any opportunity to sabotage the intiative before it gets going. And, if I were to get fired, the network could again be called into action to get some kind of compensation or whatever.
I'm just spewing thoughts here, however at least in my situation the above approach (though it is by no means ideal) could yeild better results than calling a meeting coz some anarchists said I should. Now maybe there are workplaces and communities where agitating for 'mass assemblies' could be a much more viable strategy, however I for one am certainly in no position to do that and at least for now I'm reasonably certain the same would be true of the bulk of people likely to join a network, anarchist or otherwise. I think this is an example of why the strategy for a network needs to be determined by the workers involved since chances are they will have a much better idea than you do when it comes to what sort of approach will be best applicable to their situation.
I think what this also highlights is the extent to which capitalists are refining their ability to divide and rule through various management strategies, which is again why I feel democratic forms are not necessarily whats needed right now. Amongst my coworkers, no amount of reasoned argument could win many of them over to taking action since they were already on much larger pay and had been assigned various mangerial responsibilities, which in turns gives them an emotional attatchment to the well-being of the business. And some those who were not already in this situation were being groomed to climb the ladder. On the other hand some of us were on minimum for a long time (one guy for two years!), were consistantly assigned the shit jobs, and also copped a lot of shit from the boss (often in a jolly manner, but still, even a dogmatic anarchist like myself has feelings) so we would go guns blazing but we were a minority.
Of course all of this is based on my own experiences and much reflection I've done about why it was so hard to even bring up grievances in the workplace let alone lead a wildcat strike or whatever. We all did the usual shit like steal when the boss wasn't around, slack off and lie about our hours, but actually intiating open confrontation with the guy would have been a much different kettle of fish precisely due to the social atmosphere which is pervasive in small businesses. A minority would have been keen, but that is precisely why a democratically managed struggle would have been useless. I fully admit though that my experiences do not speak for all workers, so I'm not absolutely dismissive of your proposal, its just that at least in my case it would not have been particularly worthwhile.
Olly
Hey Olly,I think if we viewed
Hey Olly,
I think if we viewed them as a possible goal rather than an arbitrary tactic then we'd be able to weld both approaches and do what seems right in each situation. I totally agree that in some situations it wouldn't make sense, and that it may be only after months of stuff on the sly with a minority that such a situation may arise where it feels right to then widen things. It could be viewed as an ongoing tactic rather than a one off move.
Jared
Workers assemblies
Hi.
I'm confused. What is the difference between a "workers assembly" and a union meeting of as many union members are on the shift? And why the emphasis on this rather than the basics - like the fact that 80% of New Zealand aren't even organised in a union let alone an alternative form of organising. Firstly, how are you going to communicate to them? Union's work pretty well at getting a pay rise, perhaps not changing the world, but most people want a pay rise. But people don't all get up and join unions. And don't tell me it's because people don't like them. Research shows that those who know about unions would join if they were asked. How is a small group of activists going to communicate some ideas to other kiwis and immigrants when unions with all their money can't do it?
Just a simple question from a simple person.
John.
Truth is they are too busy preaching to each other!
You raised a valid question, but as you can see by the thread they are too busy exchanging information at their level. They talk to the converted and do not really understand to bring a message across to "the masses" as they like to put it. They live in their own world of pseudo revolution and never catch on with the ordinary guy. So it is a waste of time trying to discuss with them, because they expect you to approach them and listen to them uttering slogans rather than they listen to and talk with you.
The so-called left in NZ is a sick joke and a lost fringe movement. The way they are going, the way they are split into little niche movements, they cannot get it together, they have no real answers and that is it! Perhaps investigate movements overseas and learn from that. There is a lot happening in Latin America, parts of Europe and even some Asian countries. You may be able to start your own movement or union learning from that.
There is potential to have a truly working class movement established in NZ that really gets things moving. With the lot that claim their claims so far, we will get nowhere.
John, thank you for bringing
John, thank you for bringing this up as it is an issue I have been pondering myself. On the one hand I think a workers network could be invaluable to many workers who are currently underemployed or unemployed and who primarily work as temps or on casual contracts. This kind of precarious existence is becoming ever more commen and quite clearly does not in any way lend itself to traditional trade union organising. The other point would be to simply give militant workers the kind of back up they need to actually organise in their workplaces, because as I mentioned in my previous posts, where there is a grouping of somewhat militant workers they tend to be a minority. A network would allow them to be more ambitious and more confrontational since they will have the support of many other workers, most of whom would not be in the same workplace.
On the other hand it could be of use to those who are already unionized but who are pissed off because their union effectively does nothing. I have several friends working in supermarkets who are being faced with this problem, since the company is cutting costs and passing those cuts onto the workforce, and the union will not do anything about it.
As for your final question, do the trade unions actually need to organise extensively? I would say that tough anti-strike laws (which apparently are only going to get tougher) combined with a social-partnership ideology has gone on a long way in creating the kind of inertia on the part of the unions that we see today. The other point, which I mentioned, is that the composition of the working class in NZ has very much changed since the 80s and I don't think trade unions have managed to adapt.
Cynic, if you were to read my posts I think you would find that your accusations here are somewhat unfair, as I have been trying to base my thoughts here in a grounded analysis of my own experiences in the workplace. However if you could elaborate on the movements in 'Latin America, parts of Europe and even some Asian countries' that we could learn from, then I would be thankful.
My apologies cynic, I would head on down to the pub to grab a pint and talk footy, but I just get so caught up talking about teh aNarKyZZ sometimes that I plum forget about pretending to be interested in things I'm not particularly interested in so that I can be at one with 'the masses', as I like to call them.
"I have several friends
"I have several friends working in supermarkets who are being faced with this problem, since the company is cutting costs and passing those cuts onto the workforce, and the union will not do anything about it."
Call the union office. They are dealing with the issue in Auckland and where they know if is happening. But the contract isn't that strong because density is low. Your talking as though the union is this big thing out there. It's not, it's the members. Are your friends in the union and active?
'NDU member' my apologies
'NDU member' my apologies since I am only passing on second hand information to you here, and am therefore not particularly filled in on the details. I'm not sure whether they have called the union office, though considering how angry they are at the action being undertaken by management and the inactivity of the union, I would expect that they have probably gone down that alley by now. Though I will be sure to inform them that they can try calling their union office just in case it has not occured to them.
Cheers,
Olly
They won't know it's
They won't know it's happening unless someone tells them. The unions dont have so much power they know everything that is going on. For some reason unions seem to always get blamed for a crap pay rise or hours being cut. Its the company that is paying shit wages and cutting hours, not the union. The union is there to provide support for members to organise themselves. The union has as much power as the members give themselves. If members don't do anything the union can't do much. And if the member does nothing and expects the union to do stuff then the union is acting like a service. And isn't the point that we don't want the union to be a service but social movement!
Supermarkets
Hi. I organise Pak 'n Save's in Auckland in the NDU. If your mates work in one of these stores they can call me on 021922551. Foodstuffs sites outside of Auckland (except a few) aren't unionised. Countdown, Foodtown and Woolworths have dedicated organisers across the country. Get them to call 0800 GET NDU. Cheers.
Good to hear you are
Good to hear you are organising this - and best of luck. Just one quick question - what do you mean by 'regional'? Is it intended to be for Canterbury people, South Islanders or who?
And I think you are right to can the 'mass' word. 'Mass' always sounds slightly creepy to me. In any case, one should never use jargon when a more broadly understood term exists that means much the same.
Thanks Sam, and point taken
Thanks Sam, and point taken about the term 'mass', it's been a reoccuring criticism so we will need to think about that.
Initially: Christchurch region. But we've had a lot of interest from Dunedin and peeps of the West Coast, so now I'd say it may encompass the South Island, with locals in 3 areas. And depending on North Island interest, it could easily link to there too.
All depends on the hui really.
Jared
A ready to print pdf of
A ready to print pdf of 'Beyond Representation' is free to download HERE.
Ideological strategy versus strategy based on workers' struggle
I have lots of questions. Why are you setting up a fully formed network that has had its major aims and strategy already decided by one tiny group? I am talking about this document http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/beyond-representation-tactics-for-building-a-culture-of-resistance-in-aotearoa/ Why haven't you called for input from others into your network until the hui? It is like the network has already been decided, and then you expect people to join it, without letting them to have a say in the way it is set up. Is this the case?
How is this network not going to be seen as a front group for Beyond Resistance? Don't you think a network in order to be successful and involve outsiders ought to be independent of any political group? Wouldn't people who are not in BR or who are not anarcho-syndicalists find it offputting? Is this anarchist network you are proposing open to non-anarchists? I'm not an anarchist. But I have been exploring the idea of a similar (yet non-anarchist) network for years. So then could i join? (However, i wouldnt want to join, but this is just a hypothetical question). Are you aware that all of the similar networks you talk of overseas are not anarchist in orientation, but more direct action solidarity groups that have a wide variety of people in them? How can you take successful direct action without involving non-anarchists? (It is clear to me from reading your document that the network will be imbued with explicit anarchist ideas, so then it is an anarchist network).
How is this relevant to current class composition in NZ? Here small workplaces predominate. Open, mass assemblies are just not possible in small workplaces. Do you have any idea just how difficult it would be to hold meetings open to all workers in a workplace? Both managers (who at my workplace would not such meetings to take place) and unions would actively oppose and subvert them for obvious reasons, and many workers themselves would be opposed to them. Besides, most workers at my workplace hate meetings, because we are sick of having endless work meetings that go on and on and on and we get yabbered and yabbered and yabbered at by some manager who pretends we are 'consulted' but in reality we have to sit there all quiet and obedient and listen to the latest managerial mumbo-jumbo they are trying to inflict on us, or some pathetic version of health and safety (apparently that is all about earthquakes and fire alarms and first aid training, not stress from being overworked!).
Anyway, such a strategy of mass assemblies is more applicable to period of intense class conflict, when the working class is actually coming together and breaking down boundaries, like the popular assemblies that sprung up in Argentina a while back. In NZ it would have been useful during the big student occupations when student bureaucrats attempted to control the struggle and the mass assemblies we used to hold. But that was 15 years ago during a period of much community based struggle. Or it's more suitable to the UK with its larger population and larger workplaces.
Besides, your strategy seems a bit vague. Having mass meetings is no guarantee of a successful struggle. If you are into anarcho-syndicalism then why not call for instantly recallable delegates as well as open mass assemblies? Your strategy is very much one of organisational form (open meetings as decision making bodies) over content. Where is the content? Why not call for higher wages given wages in NZ are so low, and for less work given we are forced to work so hard? is this content too reformist and not revolutionary enough for you? In other words, i think you've set yourself some very hard long-term goals, but not the more short-term ones that you need to win in order to progress to harder goals. So why does not this network have concrete, short term goals?
So it should be obvious now that I think much of the problem with the call out was that its too abstract, too ideas based, and does not have concrete examples of what you exactly mean. Now SEASOL is mentioned, but they don't call themselves an anarchist group (but contain a few anarchists, obviously). The call out also does not actually look at class struggle in NZ, apart from the first paragraph, which assumes that workers are passive and everything is shit. Why so? What i see around me is a contradiction: where both the acceptance and refusal of capitalist labour coexists. I think you ask the wrong question: what should anarchists do to break the malaise? rather than: what are workers doing? the two are different questions in my view. take your simplistic dismissal of unions for example. unions are rightly criticised as hierarchical and bureaucratic and unable to be reformed. but that seems to me to be asking the question: what can anarchists do to change unions? and your answer is: they can't. which is true. but what are workers' actual practice towards unions? in my experience, workers show a complex practice towards unions. Some are pro-union, some are anti-union (often because they want to get on with managers), some are both at the same time, or both in different contexts and situations, and many are indifferent. Yet in practical, concrete disputes, their attitude towards unions is more likely to be based on practical considerations, rather than ideological ones like yours. Their criterion is more like: is there something to be gained by following the union? (ie. workers believe it or not actually use unions occassionally) Or by acting outside the union? By the anarcho-syndicalist critique of unions you put forward just seems to see workers as duped by bureaucratic, hierarchical, useless unions, and does not relate itself well to the concrete daily contradictory relationship that presents itself in unions (and in workplaces). This doesn't mean i think unions are reformable -- indeed, i think they are capitalist to the core -- but that workers like myself ought to use them when it suits them.
I think any strategy ought to build upon the actual strategies used by workers on the shop floor, except in a more clear, systematic and coherent way. If strategies are not a product of workers’ direct experience or actual struggles, then they are likely to become either artificial and lacking any support (eg. setting up “pure” anarcho-syndicalist networks or unions) or lead to a top-down approach where workers are manipulated by a few bureaucrats, organisers, delegates or politicos. Organising should just reflect concrete needs and experiences, not the latest overseas fashions in anarchist ideology.
If you asked the question what should workers do? what is the current class composition of NZ? how could networks relate to increasing casualisation and the like? if you think outside the mindset of anarchist ideology and attempt to relate to actual conditions workers face everyday you might come up with some really interesting answers. What are the major fetters on workers attempting to strike at the moment? Why dont you attempt to use the direct action network to get around that particular leg-iron on labour?
Finally, apart from the post above from Jared, how come the text does not address the major weaknesses of similar networks overseas? like outside organising, rearguardism/tailism, offering a social service ('direct action casework'), just aimlessly following struggle after struggle thus leading to burnout etc etc etc.
I know Jared and BR in general seem to be sensitive to criticism, so it wont surprise me if they react badly to this post, and also given that most NZers seem to think that political criticism ought to be taken as some sort of deathly personal insult for some strange cultural reasons. But this is not meant to be taken personally. Please note I am coming from a different tradition (communism) with a different perspective. Hopefully it will open up debate about more down to earth, practical stuff.
Fydd (a personal opinion).
Hi Fydd, thanks for bringing
Hi Fydd, thanks for bringing up these important questions and challengings what is proposed. My reply's are just that, mine, in a personal capacity and not that of Beyond Resistance.
I have lots of questions. Why are you setting up a fully formed network that has had its major aims and strategy already decided by one tiny group? I am talking about this document http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/beyond-representation-tactics-for-building-a-culture-of-resistance-in-aotearoa/ Why haven't you called for input from others into your network until the hui? It is like the network has already been decided, and then you expect people to join it, without letting them to have a say in the way it is set up. Is this the case?
The network is not formed, merely proposed at this stage. The major aims and strategy will be decided upon by those who think it necessary and worthwhile forming and being apart of the proposed network. BR has merely put forward a document and some of what we see as important as a starting point for conversation. Nothing is set in stone and the valued opinion of people like yourself will hopefully help shap it.
We intend to start the network locally, where we are and hope that the ideas about solidarity networks grow and are established across the country in a decentralised fashion but linked nationally.
We have been discussing this for sometime and there has been conversations on various forums and list. This Hui is for those who wish to have input and help establish the network. To repeat, "it has not been established and will be established by those who participate in the Hui." Your more than welcome to be involved in this.
Some of the questions in this paragraph sound a lot like the criticisms some had about the formation of AWSM, I think Jared had some questions at the time. I hope this isn't some sort of tit for tat thing?
How is this network not going to be seen as a front group for Beyond Resistance? Don't you think a network in order to be successful and involve outsiders ought to be independent of any political group? Wouldn't people who are not in BR or who are not anarcho-syndicalists find it offputting? Is this anarchist network you are proposing open to non-anarchists? I'm not an anarchist. But I have been exploring the idea of a similar (yet non-anarchist) network for years. So then could i join? (However, i wouldnt want to join, but this is just a hypothetical question). Are you aware that all of the similar networks you talk of overseas are not anarchist in orientation, but more direct action solidarity groups that have a wide variety of people in them? How can you take successful direct action without involving non-anarchists? (It is clear to me from reading your document that the network will be imbued with explicit anarchist ideas, so then it is an anarchist network).
I agree that the network should be independant of any political group and it is intended that it be completely seperate and independant of BR. That doen't mean that members of BR won't be members. Nor so for others, like possibly even members of AWSM, but in my opinion as long as there are some core principals attached e.g. direct action and solidarity, what's to stop it being used by union officials or politicians? I guess project x has some similarity as well as some differences and sounds promising but I believe thay are asking these questions also?
To me it's also about people acting in their own interests where they are either in the community or workplace i.e self-activity. I might note that I personally would like to see a network be about struggles in the community as well as the workplace. A broad network for workers both employed and unemployed, in the home or where ever.
Anyway, such a strategy of mass assemblies is more applicable to period of intense class conflict, when the working class is actually coming together and breaking down boundaries, like the popular assemblies that sprung up in Argentina a while back. In NZ it would have been useful during the big student occupations when student bureaucrats attempted to control the struggle and the mass assemblies we used to hold. But that was 15 years ago during a period of much community based struggle. Or it's more suitable to the UK with its larger population and larger workplaces.
I agree and I think the use of mass assembly as a term is problimatic and could be confusing. I don't think however that it is a foriengn idea and when I've been involved in struggles in my community the first step has usually been what one could consider a "mass assembly", except it's called a public meeting.
I know when I was involved in my community's fight against removal of bill paying facilities/post shop closures, there were well attended 'public meetings' of over 150. Unfortunately because of the manipulation by community 'leaders' wanting local labour paty politicians involved, numbers dwendled as people became pacified by the 'leave it to our politicians to sort out' representative mentality.
This is one reason why I think it's important to promote the idea of community public meetings/assemblies or whatever we call them, as the place that people make decisions about the struggle they are involved in so they control it and decide on strategy etc. Not representatives of the community or labour party politicians who are attempting to immerse themselves in community struggles.
This doesn't mean i think unions are reformable -- indeed, i think they are capitalist to the core -- but that workers like myself ought to use them when it suits them.
I feel the same way and it's why I'm involved with my union and I'd encourage others to do the same.
There are other really valuable questions you raise after this point that I'll attempt to address later as this is getting long and I've got to go somewhere.
I know Jared and BR in general seem to be sensitive to criticism, so it wont surprise me if they react badly to this post, and also given that most NZers seem to think that political criticism ought to be taken as some sort of deathly personal insult for some strange cultural reasons. But this is not meant to be taken personally. Please note I am coming from a different tradition (communism) with a different perspective. Hopefully it will open up debate about more down to earth, practical stuff.
I personally think we are open to criticism, in fact I welcome it. I haven't heard that many criticism from yourself or AWSM so don't know where your getting this from, unless your've been talking to Grant? I think criticism is really important and if it done in a comradely way can be positive.
I have noticed though and also experienced it, that personal attacks and damaging abuse can often be dressed up as 'critique'.
On a finale note I'd personally like to see a good working relationship develop between BR and AWSM but from what I've been hearing it is 'personal politics' as opposed to ideology/politics that is getting in the way. Is this true?
If you'd like to email me in person about anything Asher has my email address.
In solidarity,
Al.
Hi Fydd, thanks for your
Hi Fydd, thanks for your comments. Al has made some really good points and I don't want to repeat them, as he said it well. Also I'm not sure why you think we're not open to criticism? We actually pride ourselves on our transparency, inclusiveness and dialogue with others (see our aims and principle no 12) and even have a list for that very purpose. So I'll talk more on your points about form vs content.
Those discussions and critiques on international examples are taking place on Libcom.org if you want to check them out (here: http://libcom.org/forums/organise/direct-action-casework-groups-04032009), and I would agree with your questions about their problems (ie a focus on an employee once they've left their workplace, a tendency to become a help-line styled org which reacts rather than attacks etc etc). We even talked about them last Monday in a BR meeting. But I really think our text above couldn't take into account such factors, as it's meant to be a short text to encourage such discussion online and in a future hui — where we could think about the very questions you pose. I would invite you to come to the Hui to add your valuable knowledge.
No text could ever pre-empt or cover every possible factor (in such a short amount of space), which is why the hui is taking place over two days, to try and tease some of these questions out.
And while I do think we shouldn't hide our politics, it's through practical action with others (non-anarchists or anarchists) around shared, real needs (any of which you mention) that will put those politics into practice. That's why we did concentrate on form, because such a form would allow the widest possible scope for involvement, regardless of political conviction (although membership of a network would be different to the action of a network). So the networks activity could involve non-members, while the network's members could keep a relative focus and anarchist critique while doing it. As we say above:
I guess the article takes direct action as a given, and should have expanded on this — rather than a focus on how that direct action could be talked about or initiated. And hence the lack of detail on recallable delegates (we aint that far along yet, but I'd take that as a given also).
However I'm a bit confused by some of your comments. At the start of your text you lament that the network is pre-formed and has aims already set in place. Then further down in your text you mention that there is too much abstraction, a focus on form rather than content, and not enough concrete goals.
Because as Al mentions (quite well I believe), we've put this text out to encourage the formation of such a network. We've concentrated on form because we feel such a form doesn't currently exist. So that when people interested in some kind of network do come together in an open Hui (September), an idea of form is in place so it could get down to the issues (content) which could concern those in such a network.
In plain speak, the reason it's lacking on content and issues to struggle on is because we're not at that stage yet. The Hui is open, still to be planned and is over two days to allow for as much dialogue and input as possible. Which means we aren't viewing this network as a BR front group, but as a separate and autonomous body. And it may be that what forms is completely different to what's in the text: that's fine too. But we wanted to put these ideas out there well in advance.
I really do think such a network, which encourages the sharing of skills, connected people interested in direct action (whether in the workplace or community) and helped agitate around real (not perceived) needs is the key. The reason we didn't list such needs is the recognition that we didin't want to conflate our needs (as anarchists) with the needs of others without such an analysis. This involves two way dialogue, a learning from those 'on the ground floor', and a humility which such things as mass assemblies (open discussions, group meetings, etc etc) could foster. Again, we didn't want to pre-empt this process of learning, but we did have clear ideas around structure. Hence the focus on form.
Some of the questions you pose are spot on and add another dimension we will have to discuss in the Hui, which I'm quite excited about. Putting aside differences and critique, I'd really hope you (and others) would like to become involved.
Cheers
Jared
On anarchism as ideology
I never said you're not open to criticism. I said something like you are sensitive to criticism. There is a difference. I don't really think you've attempted to answer my criticisms, so there is not much to say. My criticism still stands. It will be interested to see you reply to the important stuff on class composition and thinking beyond anarchist ideology and slogans.
To repeat myself. I don't think a network should be an anarchist network. I don't think its strategy should be anarcho-syndicalist as suggested in your leaflet/pamphlet. I do think calling for an anarchist network based on an anarcho-syndicalist strategy will be offputting for those like me who are not anarchists and not anarcho-syndicalists. Indeed, i find anarcho-syndicalism and talk of 'dual power' (a term used by Leninists and platformists) incredibly offputting, as i just really don't like it as I explained previously (are you aware of the communist critique of all forms of unions, revolutionary or reformist? of self-management as self-managed exploitation? of the workerism of anarcho-syndicalism? etc etc).
I mean if I attempted to set up a revolutionary communist workers' network, that had its core aims communist aims such as the self-abolition of the working class, the refusal of work, and the constant subversion of all unions and parties (Leninist, green and social democratic) and parliament as counter-revolutionary instruments of working-class manipulation, and laced my call out with communist slogans, quotes from Marx, and the communist critique of the outdated ideologies of anarchism, Leninism and social democracy etc etc would you not find it offputting???? The network would get nowhere cos no one want to join.
If your document was really a discussion document, then why did it not talk of various alternatives? It is like you've decided anarcho-syndicalism is the way to go for the network, and that other models, like SEASOL, Union Solidarity, McDonalds Workers Resistance, The Solidarity Collective, etc etc. are off the page because they are not fully explicitly anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist. If I were to write a discussion document, I would talk of different models and their strengths and weaknesses. I repeat: Your approach is ideological. (I hope you know what I mean - I am using the term ideology in the Marxist sense of the word - for a precise and very good critique of anarchist ideology see Debord's book Society of the Spectacle thesis 92 here http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/4.htm).
Now you have clarified that you think the network will involve non-anarchists, but seemingly on anarchists' terms. It is like you seem to think that so long as non-anarchists do direct action, self-management [insert other anarcho-syndicalist slogans here] and participate in an anarchist structure then they are ok. Why? Why do anarchists have all the answers? Why does the network have to be anarchist? Perhaps because anarchism is just so evidently true (a self-evident truth) to you then no discussion is required? or because of the mere talismanic word anarchy which seemingly wipes away all forms of authority at the mere mention of the word?...or maybe because you just haven't explained anarchist ideology well enough for dummies like me to understand it properly? To me, it is like you think if only the workers adhered to your brand of anarchist ideology then everything will be ok. That is getting things the wrong way around, and seeing workers as passive vessels that need to be implanted with the correct ideas (much like Leninism). Your looking at the world through anarchist ideological lenses, but then offer non-anarchists a crumb by saying we will learn from non-anarchists over questions of content (but not form or structure, which has to be...let me guess...anarchist). Why? Why can't we learn from workers over form as well as content? What forms are workers using when they resist at the moment? Let me think...is it mass assemblies? NO!!
While it is good you think the tactics and concrete aims should be decided by those involved in the network, i really do think for a project like a network needs to have some pretty clear concrete goals in mind that it can have a go at. These concrete goals are the things that will attract people to a network, not anarchist ideology or slogans. That's why they are crucial. While I agree there is a danger of substituting the needs of minorities for the needs of the broader class, i still think talking about practical goals really, really is the key here.
While these comments might seem harsh, I guess I am becoming more and more intolerant of inflexible ideologies as I age.
Hi Fydd,My kowledge around
Hi Fydd,
My kowledge around class composition and autonomist marxism is pretty limited, nor are we the apostles of anarchism. This document was an attempt to formulate constructive and positive action — that it comes from an anarchist ideology reflects where we are as a group and how we think. That's all we can really do in our own lives, is argue from where we are, with the knowledge we personally or collectively hold through our own experiences. This may not be an academic approach, or the widest possible overview, but we're trying and learning as we go. None of us are theorists, we do what we can.
I'd love to learn more from you and others, but sometimes I find that your comments discourage that — instead of a positive attitude and the possibilty of sharing knowledge, they make me feel like some kind of dunce who could never reply because I don't have the theoretical know-how (and I'm aware my comments do that to others too). I'm not anti-intellectual, but the way it can intimidate. I don't think you're allowing for the fact that everyone is on their own personal and theoretical development, and that just because you may have a lot of knowledge or a different theoretical framework, doesn't mean we're all there just yet.
Umm we do mention those models at the bottom of the text (Seasol, 'Strategy and Struggle', which talks of the resistance groups you mention) and are indeed 'on the page', as is other approaches (Dauve is there too...). As I said to you on Black Cat, we're happy to move away from labels and concentrate on tactics regardless of semantics. I don't think we are inflexible, far from it! We've consciously used language such as 'could' throughout the text and spoken from our own experience with the Linwood Post Shop struggle. Yes, it's ideological in that we are anarchists, but ideology doesn't have to stiffle progress — rather it could be a pointer towards the most effective action. As I pointed out, in our A&P's we're happy to change and grow.
I don't see this in the document, at all. I'd argue this is your conception of anarchism, not ours. As we've repeatedly pointed out (and in the document), we need to learn, to engage with real (not perceievd) needs and encourage dialogue, rather than preach at the 'masses' from our ideological freesheets or speaking tours. We're trying to get away from that, as much as possible. In fact, you're basically repeating my criticisms of AWSM and Platformist organisation.
I do feel the document we wrote came from our own experiences in unions, community struggles and past groups. We don't have all the answers, far from it! But we do know that the struggles we've been involved in have been limited to representational forms of struggle. If we are to look closely at workers responses to current attacks (as you say and as we do in the first section) then it is pretty limited to this form (and by the way, we're workers too). As you say, peeps in NZ aren't calling for mass assemblies. But by this mindset, are we to limit ourselves to the current practice of workers resistance, to lobbying, union defeats and representational politics? NO!
So, what are we to learn from this? What can we do instead? How do we counter the decentralised nature of the workplace, individualism in the community, and the increasing stratification of the working class into smaller sites of production and specialisation? How do we foster the solidarity needed to fight atomisation? We've put forward one strategy. What we are trying to do is offer a possible alternative to the current forms of struggle. So let's discuss this openly and comradely, or some other possible appraoches. You obviously have ideas and knowledge around this, so why not share it? What is your suggestion? Some possible insights and alternatives, as well as critique, would be really nice from you at this stage.
Theory aside, what are some possible strategies to move forward?
This is really good. So lets' get talking on possible goals, instead of rehashing past syndicalist/communist theoretical divisions or critique from the sidelines that doesn't move us forward. That's what we will try to do in the Hui. That the initial document wasn't in the kind of framework (communist) you'd prefer is because we either don't share that kind of framework or don't know much of that framework (yet?). Let's move forward together, with a focus on our similarities, rather than our differences. Olly (and others off indy) have already said some positve things, I'm thankful for their imput and hope you will add your experience and vision to the mix as well.
Jared
blah
Well, first, I don't think this debate has been theoretical at all. If you think this is a heavy debate, then you haven't seen anything yet. And secondly, in any case I think theoretical debate is actually necessary. It clarifies, teases out, brings out tensions, explains, and leads to better practice. A huge problem in the NZ left is the anti-intellectual culture, the dominance of mindless activism, the lack of intellectual clarity and consistency, the horror shown towards critical thinking and engagement, the attempts to shut down critical engagement in the name of activist unity, the fear of disagreement and conflict...it is often through disagreement and conflict that your ideas and praxis are refined, and clarified. We need it. For example, you might find it useless to go over old debates between anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism, but there are so many gems in those debates that we can learn from that it seems to me blinkered not to learn of them. Believe it or not, and contrary to anarcho-syndicalist mythology, many if not most anarchist communists oppose anarcho-syndicalism, and don't see the two as compatible.
OK to repeat myself: I still think your approach is ideological. The basic method of your piece is to assert that workers are under attack, but they are not really fighting back, and the fight back is limited to inneffectual and reformist methods, but: VOILA! we group of tiny revolutionaries have the answer! We want to give you a new ideology from the outside!!! It is a new shiny potion called anarcho-syndicalism(TM)! it contains such wonder ingredients as self-management, direct action and not relying on representatives and other amazing slogans, sorry practices. I mean if i was an anarcho-syndicalist i would look for proto anarcho-syndicalist tendencies that already exist in society, so that they have some basis in society and are grounded in what is rather than what ought to be. I am sorry if you don't like this appraisal, it is not meant in a way that makes you feel like shit but in a way that I hope you re-evaluate your method a bit. (By the way, I am often hugely more critical of anarchist stuff i see posted on indymedia, which i often think is simply atrocious and scatter brained, but bite my tongue, as I don't think it is worth engaging with, nor on worthwhile topics).
You should read some stuff on networks and class composition. It might actually back up your views a bit eg. some suggest the mobile, fluid network form of organisation is in sync with today's casualised, mobile, fluid workforce, thus has great potential.
"If we are to look closely at workers responses to current attacks (as you say and as we do in the first section) then it is pretty limited to this form (and by the way, we're workers too). As you say, peeps in NZ aren't calling for mass assemblies. But by this mindset, are we to limit ourselves to the current practice of workers resistance, to lobbying, union defeats and representational politics? NO!"
Whoa! Where did you get the idea workers' resistance is limited to lobbying, union defeats and representational politics? I don't think that is a fair assessment. Certainly, a few lobby, a few rely on union reps to do stuff for them, but the everyday resistance I see is much different. On the shopfloor, because we are confronted with demands to work harder and faster while at the same time as they are cutting back resources and laying off staff, we are forced into various forms of direct resistance rather than representational ones. At my workplace (which has experienced major cut backs and a few layoffs), the main form of resistance is job quitting (getting another job). Other major forms of resistance I have noticed include stealing, ignoring orders, working slowly, surfing the net and emailing friends, taking long lunch breaks, taking sickies, using social cliques as proto-collectives to look after each other and do all of the above (while unfortunately stabbing in the back workers not involved in the clique), etc. etc. All of these forms of resistance are limited and not that radical but at least they are not representational. And we did go on strike and work to rule over a period of 4-5 months too (well some of us did), but that was when we forced our union reps into action for once (and not the other way around). And we got some gains from those strikes. Certainly, my workplace might be pretty unique in that we did actually strike, but i think the above picture (minus the strikes) holds true for most workplaces.
By the way, I am not against calling for open assemblies and setting up instantly recallable delegates elected from these assemblies. It's all very council communist (rather than, say, anarcho-syndicalist). All you need to include in your slogans calls for workers' councils and extra-union shop floor committees (instead of revolutionary unions, parties (including anarchist orgs) and the state) and you've got council communism.
In terms of a network, I am made it pretty clear what I am for. I am against a narrow anarcho-syndicalist network, or a communist network, or a council communist network, or a Leninist network, or a [insert preferred theory here] network. As I have said above, i think a narrow network will attract very few people and be inneffective as a result. Hence I am for a broader, effective, militant workers' network, that has concrete short term aims, open to people from different backgrounds (including shock horror Leninists, greens, soc democrats, independents and all sorts of non-anarchists) that has the long term aim of being run by workers and not politicos, all joined together by their common concrete aims. I would like to be involved in something that can be of use to workers, and can have a go at circumventing anti-strike legislation in creative ways. I don't even think this network ought to be run on anarchist principles (as in little a anarchism rather than big A) as Snooch suggests. I don't think anarchist ideas and practices are automatically correct, nor always useful for furthering class struggle. Certainly we can use and steal anarchist ideas and practices when they are useful and work, of course. I think the content and form ought to be decided by the people in it. So that means finding middle ground, compromises, debate and room for change and modification according to concrete experiences.
I have a few ideas as to concrete aims but i would like to discuss them with interested people in Wgtn first, and hear from them what aims they think would be good.
Now I realise that a broader network will have its disadvantages and problems. But every approach has its drawbacks and strengths. It's just at the moment, and given the reality of the NZ situation, I don't think an anarcho-syndicalist network is realisable. Go ahead and prove me wrong!
BTW, to Al, it is utterly wrong to see this as a BR and AWSM thing. There seems to be a lot of unnecessary reading into things. I think a lot of conflict b/w BR and AWSM has been comical and unfounded - eg. allegations that AWSM is platformist, when it is not. Indeed, platformists overseas are critical of AWSM. I think it fair to say AWSM is closer to AFED rather than WSM in its politics, and in general WSMers don't like AFED much. There is a lot of common ground between AWSM and BR and my loathing of anarcho-syndicalism is very much a minority view so really should be taken as an individual view. I think most if not all people in AWSM would disagree with my above comments because I reject anarchism. There are lots of people in AWSM who like anarcho-syndicalism. Just cos i loathe anarcho-syndicalism does not mean I cant or won't work with anarcho-syndicalists.
Can I just say it's really
Can I just say it's really nice that dialogue is opening up on practical activity and future action. Thanks to everyone (here and on the email list) who have added their comments and their enthusiasm.
Let it continue up to and through the hui in September!
Jared
The Layer Cake
Right-e-o, here's my two cents worth:
I reckon there is a shit load of confusion over the meanings of words and terms that are muddying the waters horribly...if we take a step back and look at what is trying to be achieved I reckon we'll find that many of us are on the same page.
Beyond Resistance has called a Hui. The Hui's most obvious aim is to work to establish links between various groups and individuals, in the hope that we may see a benefit for the unrepresented and represented working people of Aotearoa.
BR is anarchist syndicalist, in some of their writings it would seem that the hui hopes to create a 'coalition, network, organisation' run on anarchist syndicalist principals.
I think we'll find at the hui that our common grounds will be with core anarchist principals, rather than if we are agreed on communist/syndicalist/libertarian/individualist/etc,etc positions.
If that is the case then we will have to look at this 'network/group' as something that is not overtly anarchist, but is firmly rooted in anarchist principals. By doing so we open the doors to everyone who would want to engage with, need assistance from or help assist a group that is based on for example; direct democracy and accountability.
This presents the cake layers of such a group. All who engage with it have their own affiliations, political ties and union backgrounds, some may be in complete contradiction to others but that doesn't matter so long as the group's core principals are adhered to and positive changes are being made.
This would leave space for internal education and debate, whilst we are all working to support and show solidarity to our wider community.
The potential for a newsletter or spreadsheet, evening classes on workers rights, etc etc is huge...let's not blow a great opportunity because at the moment I'm worried we're getting bogged down in theory.
Thanks Snooch, well said.
Thanks Snooch, well said.
Can i put a small spanner in
Can i put a small spanner in the works by suggesting what I believe and that is that these networks actually already exist? But yeah not under the umbrella of BR, or strictly Anarchist, but which BR and anyone working for radical (lefty)change are a part of. They aren't strictly formalised but then why should they be? There are many people and groups in this network already, maybe it's time for BR to reach out to some of these instead of reinventing the wheel...again. (and again and again).
Networks aren't created in
Networks aren't created in two days, and can't be "made" by one group.
Hi Jo,Can you give us an
Hi Jo,
Can you give us an example of what you mean? Do you mean that there are various vegetarian groups, transitions towns, neighbourhood accociations in CHCH etc etc? Or do you mean more loosely that the radical peeps in Christchurch already know and network togther? Because I don't think we all work together that well at all, or are that visible in what we do. I think formalising these connections isn't reinventing the wheel but oiling it so it rolls smoother....
You comment about a network can't be formed in two days isn't that helpful: of course it takes time and energy. The hui is just part of that wider journey.
Hope you can make it and get behind it all, would be good to have you involved!
Jared
bitchin' you are probably
bitchin' you are probably quite correct when you say that workers networks may already exist in an informal sense, however I do think it is necessary to provide some kind of formal organisation in order to allow militant workers to communicate and support one another on a regular basis. Fragmentary groups of workers, based on social networks, will inevitably take on some kind of role in resisting capital however they will also probably be quite weak. I think the point here is to take what already exists and help turn it into something which is really capable of challenging the capitalists, rather than just irritating them. At least that is why I think formal organisation is necessary.
Olly
@Jared- none of the above,
@Jared- none of the above, think you're abit off track there and umm yeah I think I'm really busy that weekend, what is it I'm doing again hmmm??
@Olly- I agree. Not sure that another Anarchist/BR Hui is actually what is needed to achieve this though.
Any ideas on what would
Any ideas on what would instead would be very welcomed : )
Jared
The failure of anarchists
The failure of anarchists attempts to develop a formal network in recent years in Aotearoa should be enough evidence that there is ground work to do. I'm of the opinion we should be focusing on this work in our localities, and in reversing that culture pointed out by Fydd of anti-criticism/intellectualism along the way. The work is what needs to be done, effective struggle is what matters, not whether or not it's part of something granduer.
"A network could also offer important solidarity to those who are isolated (such as sub-contractors, temps, causal workers, the unemployed and those at home) and help build a sense of community. It could act as an important source of skill sharing and education — doing all the useful things the current unions do (acting as source of advice, sharing knowledge on labour law, foster solidarity etc) while critiquing their legalist and bureaucratic frameworks. Advice on employment law, community law, bullying at work, health and safety, WINZ and benefit changes — these are all important needs that a network could meet."
How a network offer these? A network is just connected people/groups, if we are already doing this work as people/groups (or not) then what changes when we go under a banner?
"If the activity of such a network related to real needs, was structured so that it involved the wider community in meeting those needs, and illustrated anarchist ideas in practice, it would show that anarchism is relevant to everyday life more effectively than a flyer, discussion group or theoretical journal ever could."
To me this is hypothesis abstracted. Revolutionary struggle invovles flyers, discussion groups, journals, meetings, actions. I think we would find in the current context, that a network would become irrelevant to the struggles at hand, rather quickly, while we are busy focusing on them instead of whether or not the next city agrees with the local strategy or predominant ideology, and the politics of the network.
I do think networking is generally useful but doesn't everyone know each other anyway? theres probably only fifty 'anarchists' as it is, with little sign of growth. The anarchist movement needs to develop before an anarchist network can be of proper use. I think there needs to be relations of support and solidarity in workers and community struggles in order to develop. Anarchist have acheived this to a degree but there's along way to go. However, there are many oppurtunities at the moment.
I hope the hui goes well of course as someone sympathetic to anarcho-syndacalism I'm generally interested to see where it will go, given the context in Aotearoa at the moment.
BR Hui
Hey everyone,
I am a member of SeaSol and I found this thread via libcom. First, a disclaimer: I know nothing about NZ or BR and had never even heard the word Aotearoa until SeaSol was contacted by some of the folks putting on this Hui. So, forgive me if my ingnorance causes me to miss anything. That said, I am going to go ahead and weigh in.
From what I am reading it seems that perhaps your call for a Hui may be a little to abstract. Are you calling for people who actually are interested in starting something not unlike SeaSol or are you calling for people to come argue/discuss the idea? In my mind these are not the same thing at all, because the second group of people will quickly bog down the conversation and make it impossible for the first group to get anything done. Or maybe you just hope to recruit the most serious people from the broader discussion at the Hui and then have another meeting?
Also, is it really likely that you will be able to found multiple branches of this network on the same weekend? Do you think you could accomplish this if it is not even clear yet exactly what you may be founding? In Seattle it took about three years of growing stronger and demonstrating that we had an effective model before we could expect any serious interest in what we were doing. It is only in the past couple months that we have been asked to give some presentations/trainings to other groups in the nearby cities of Tacoma and Olympia who are just now getting started with their first fights. That is not to say that it need necessarily take that long, but that's how long it took us.
I am also curious if you think it is important to be explicitly anarchist right out the gate? I am not necessarily oppossed to it, I just don't really see that it helps that much. Mostly, I just don't think we are really at a point in the struggle right now where it is very useful to get hung up on theoretical debates. I think as long as anarchists like us remain at the front of struggles we can win people over to our ideas as we go and our organizations can develop a little more organically without feeling like we need to have it all planned out in advance. I should add that I like everything you wrote and enjoyed reading it, I just wonder if it you think it has any real utility?
At any rate, I'll leave it there for now. I am tremendously excited to hear how things develop in Aotearoa and I look forward to talking with you all more.
Anarchists
"I think as long as anarchists like us remain at the front of struggles we can win people over to our ideas as we go and our organizations can develop a little more organically without feeling like we need to have it all planned out in advance."
BINGO
i guess that the idea of
i guess that the idea of plonking a "network" on top of already existing networks in Christxhurch just doesn't feel very Anarchist to me. There's are dozens of networks and organisations working for social change and whilst the organisations themselves aren't explicitly Anarchist (because they have to work in a culture of Capitalism)they and the people in them work in radical ways for the people, they are very much worth networking with..not over. I don't have all the answers and if I did well I couldn't think of myself as Anarchist and I wouldn't be the type of person who should network with people really. Big Ego's tend to not be liked or tolerated for long in groups/org's unless no-one has a choice cos they're the boss. In fact "know it all's" are very disruptive to real work/change happening.
I also find the defining of "workplace" and "community places" confusing, it's all work to me baby. Here's a practical idea..how about BR spend a day or two writing/phoning and making contact with org's in christchurch (south island) working for change and ask them how could BR be involved and support their work, send them info on who you guys are and make those connections in a positive way..what do you have in common etc. That would be network building in my view.
and not just "org's" working
and not just "org's" working for change (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you can understand the type of groups that I meen here) but people/individuals as well, and not just spam-ish emails but personal contact and friendly phone calls etc..thats how it's usually done.
"I do think networking is
"I do think networking is generally useful but doesn't everyone know each other anyway? theres probably only fifty 'anarchists' as it is, with little sign of growth."
No - lots of people don't know lots of other people (the suggestion that there's "only fifty 'anarchists'" bears that out), particularly when you are talking about people who don't live in the main centres. There's a real need for more formal networking in order to help the anarchist movement develop and become more effective.
Hey thanks everyone, both
Hey thanks everyone, both locally and internationally, for adding your comments. We never expected such an amazing response, so thank you.
I feel we need to step back a bit (so to speak) and just keep in mind that nothing, not even the Hui itself, is planned. It is still open and quite abstract (as you point out Adroobus). We don't really know what the agenda for the hui is yet, let alone the outcome (we were hoping this kind of discussion would help, which it has). Once we do then we will be spreading the word more widely. It may seem odd that we've opened up our process completely and so early, but we want to be as transparent as poss and take in as much critique as possible.
The hui may form a local network, or it might start the ball rolling towards another hui with clearer focus and goals (maybe the call out was a bit too definitive in that regard). But we felt it was important to start, and start locally, but to include those from out of town who have shown interest over the last months (since our discussion group on networks in May) and anyone else who might want to share knowledge or be a part of this process. And we do see it as a long term process.
So far we've had discussions, put out a text and made it known via email and lists that a Hui will be taking place. The next step (as Jo points out) is to contact interested people/groups leading up to September. We've actually been doing this, especially in the areas we live in (mainly Linwood and Addington).
Jo, you're right about the workplace/community divide. It is arbitrary but if we didn't put that in we felt a lot of peeps would only see this as a workplace thing. Unfortunately we've been conditioned to think of women's and community struggle to be secondary to workplace struggle (even by the left via traditional trade unions). Hence the reason we had to make it so obvious.
So, keeping in mind that its still early days and very open, any advice and views on what people would like to see at the hui — and what they'd like to get out of it — would be very welcome.
Jared
The difference between
The difference between workplace and community place, to me atleast, is that the former is where we are forced to sell our labour, a place maintaining the capitalist order, the latter is one involving various other social practices and institutions.
How to build a adapable movement
Kia ora Filoi
Having just finished off lecturing the Filoi of BR on their email list about the differences between sectarian slag-offs and constructive criticism, I feel obliged to respond to Filos Fydd's comments about sensitivity to criticism.
There's nothing wrong with criticising another activist or group for their ideas, strategy, and tactics by offering sound reasons why you don't like them, backed up by logical arguments and evidence from practical experience (ie theory *and* practice). This gives the person/ group being criticised something they can use - they can respond with their own arguments and evidence if they think the criticism misses the mark, they can take it on board if it seems valid, and they can seek clarification if they aren't sure which is which.
Slag-offs on the other hand, offer nothing but emotional catharsis and self-congratulation for the critic, whether their wording is crude ("you guys are a bunch of gay lefty faggot fuckwits") or sophisticated ("anarcho-syndicalism is an archaic ideology, eurocentric, patriarchal, and heteronormative in its orientations, ergo any strategy or tactic based on anarcho-syndicalist method is doomed to marginality and ultimately irrelevance").
Filos Fydd's "criticism" veers between fair comment and slag-off, and he/she pre-emptively defends this by accusing BR of being "sensitive to criticism". Various other comments, like those of Filos Bitchin', do the same. Full credit to Filoi Al, and Jared, for keeping their cool, and responding to the various comments in a diplomatic and constructive manner.
BR have proposed to try something new to advance their own struggles, and they invite others to participate if they want to. For this they deserve to be congratulated and encouraged. Solidarity means supporting other people's choices about how to organise, even if it's not what I would do in their situation. That's not to say we can't criticise, but surely we can do that by giving reasons why we don't think their strategy or tactics will work, and offering alternatives based on our own self-theory and experiences, not by knocking them for coming up with a plan of action at all or worse, just for being who they are.
Those who say we don't need a new network because informal networks exist are either getting caught up in semantics, or you don't understand what BR are proposing. I agree that a network that is simply attempting to gather all existing anarchist groups under a formless umbrella for the sake of superficial unity is useless. That's not their proposal. That's the proposal of the Decentral Uncommitted, who scoff at the petit-borjwah notion that politics is useful. BR's propsal isn't even for an anarchist network at all, as I understand it, just admitting that their involvement will inevitably push a certain amount of anarchist theory and practice into it.
What they seem to be proposing is an experiment in adapting the successful model of SeaSol for use in cities in Aotearoa. A cluster of people who stay in touch, and come together as a group when people need support to defend themselves from arsehole landlords, bosses etc. A network (for the lack of a better word) that includes the best of the unemployed movement, without losing or abandoning people when they become employed. That includes the best of workplace unionism, without losing or abandoning people when they become unemployed, or change job. That acts as a defensive thread in a revitalisation of neighbourhoods and communities that must involve many threads, including the various groups Bitchin refers to.
My experience working in hospo was very similar to Olly's, and although I contacted Unite at one point, I never followed up for all the reasons Olly gives. A 'community union' network that I could be involved in and target my boss without getting me in trouble with him or my workmates would have been heaps more helpful than even as novel a trade union as Unite. It could play a role in targeting councillors doing dodgy deals, preventing evictions and demolitions, fighting slumlords by uniting *all* their tenants without putting them in the firing line, targeting WINZ and other bureacracies when they start abusing people etc
>> I know when I was involved in my community's fight against removal of bill paying facilities/post shop closures, there were well attended 'public meetings' of over 150. Unfortunately because of the manipulation by community 'leaders' wanting local labour paty politicians involved, numbers dwendled as people became pacified by the 'leave it to our politicians to sort out' representative mentality. <<
I understand your frustration, but in my experience there are many reasons why such public meetings always attract many more people than will actually participate in the campaign. There are those who will come to a public meeting just to get briefed on what's going on, and take the issues back to groups they already work with. They may seem to disappear, but in fact they're just working at their own level, in their own way. Others are willing to be involved in anything, and consequently end up overcommitted, with defensive campaigns the first casualties when they start cutting down their committments, or just burn out.
In other cases it's actually the size of a successful meeting, combined with a lack of opportunities for engagement, that is the problem. People see a large group of people, don't find a niche in which they comfortably fit in the effort, and drift away thinking with so many people involved one person like themselves won't really make a difference. In some ways experienced activists can unintentionally alienated these people as much, if not more so than the involvement of other politicos (politicians, "community bureacrats" etc). We we have our resource people, and our workflows (pre-established ways of communicating and getting things done), and we are often rough on people who are learning how to find a task that fits their skills and available time, and stay in touch with other people in the campaign to ensure their output is actually helpful. That's if we don't just fail to notice them, or ignore them, because we don't know them, and assume they're just going to be in the way.
So what can we do? I think it's crucial to realise that people cluster in all sorts of different ways. Friendship networks, interest networks, spiritual/ religious networks, political ideology networks, formal groups, organisations, and coalitions etc Any given "mass assembly" is going to be cross-threaded by a chaotic tangles of these networks, and if we assume a simple mesh network exists between every person simply because they are present, we are deluding ourselves. To me it seems key that everyone that comes is welcomed by someone, whether it's the person that invited or encouraged them along, one of the meeting organisers, or just someone that sense a commonality. Starting the meeting with name rounds can be useful, so everyone can expose their affiliations and biases, and some of that chaotic tangle of connections becomes explicit. This can be time-consuming at larger meetings, which is why beyond a certain size it becomes more practical to divide the meeting into groups, and use spokes, who can summarize the nature of the cluster they are speaking for. Making sure that everyone leaves the meeting with a sense of how their input can be valuable, and contacts for others working on similar stuff so they can follow each other up, and a master list circulated to everyone on it, so no organiser or organising group becomes a single point of failure (from external threats or internal agendas).
This has got long so I'll leave it there. Look forward to seeing other's thoughts.
Insurrectionary greetings
Filos Strypey
"What they seem to be
"What they seem to be proposing is an experiment in adapting the successful model of SeaSol for use in cities in Aotearoa."
I am not sure if they are. Jared explicitly argues against a SEASOL type non-anarchist network because according to him networks without explicitly anarchist positions are economistic, waters down its politics, seeks to recruit as many members as possible, and does not have a revolutionary critique of work and politics etc. This is what Jared has written:
from http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/beyond-representation-t...
Strypey, if you had actually read what some of us are posting on here, we are questioning Jared's proposal of setting up a narrow, ideologically based anarchist network, and arguing for something broader, more inclusive and thus more effective. I think i'm arguing more for something more similar to SEASOL than Jared is.
Seasol.... they crop up in
Seasol.... they crop up in all of the BR stuff as an example of a successful network... strange that you can come to the conclusion that BR is against this type of network Fyydd.
So you're
"arguing for something broader, more inclusive and thus more effective. I think i'm arguing more for something more similar to SEASOL"
You sure? sounds like yr just argueing full stop.
Please read the comment by
Please read the comment by Jared from his piece. He is explicitly arguing against a SEASOL network because to him it lacks the necessary and explicit anarchist position. He argues for an anarcho-syndicalist network.
I think BR are confusing a lot of people because they are confused and muddle-headed. On the one hand, Jared argues for a purist a-s network. On the other, they put forward non-purist groups like SEASOL as examples of what they are after. It will be interesting to see which they choose in practice.
Hi Fydd,I don't believe we
Hi Fydd,
I don't believe we are confused and muddle-headed, rather we are open to discussion. As I keep pointing out, we haven't even had the hui yet, this is early days.
Now the document doesn't explicitly argue against SeaSol. While SeaSol may lack an explicitly anarchist position it doesn't mean it should be equated with the 'pure syndicalist' unions/networks of the past that we were criticising. You're seeing things in black and white: it has to be one or the other: a-s network or SeaSol. We don't look at it like this at all. There's the possibility of an influence and welding of the two (and other) models, an exploration of the grey areas. That's why we included them as examples and why the hui is still open to whatever the majority involved decide.
The document points out that ideally an explicit anarchist position would be my preference. But again, that doesn't have to equate it to a full blown a-s network. Nor does it exclude such a network as SeaSol.
Jared
Hmmm. I disagree. I think you
Hmmm. I disagree. I think you do argue against a SEASOL network. You argue that is necessary for a network to have an explicit anarchist ideology, and an anarchist critique of work and politics etc, hence you reject a SEASOL style network which does not have an explicit anarchist ideology, nor as far as I know an anarchist critique of work and politics. You argued against any network that does not have the correct anarchist ideology (as decided by you), not just 'pure syndicalist' ones.
I still think you guys are confused and muddle-headed. If you weren't, then why did you launch such your document putting forward the need for an anarcho-syndicalist network with such hoopla, and then afterward call a meeting at which you're going to discuss various non-anarcho-syndicalist networks, and probably not even going to set up an anarcho-syndicalist network? I mean, i find it all a bit strange for an organisation and shows you prob. don't have much internal coherence.
Anyway, that aside at least you guys anywhere near as incoherent as the latest publication from Socialist Aotearoa.
Wow there is some real action and discussion here for a change
I enjoy reading the various posts here. It is good to see more participation and debate, that is what I have always looked for on Indymedia. Naturally some I can and will not agree with, but it is most important that this becomes more of an open forum for truly robust debate!
So there are some positive developments after all. I look forward to read more in coming days!
That's why we included them
Jared! Whatever happened to consensus?? Process??
They are clearly open to
They are clearly open to ideas. I look forward to seeing you there with your ideas for action and if you can't come, I look forward to your emailed suggestions.
I am not looking foward to anyone who wants to spend all the time talking about process at the expense of getting stuff done. I've seen more workshops on consensus that actual activism!!
I think Jared agrees there should be a more participatory process, but they have also made it clear they want to set something specific up. There is nothing to stop others from organising their own groups.
In solidarity.
Never!! An Anarchist
Never!! An Anarchist organised conference without consensus decision making! Patriarchy rules!!
Always!! An anarchist
Always!! An anarchist organising conference without content because it was all about consensus decision making! Idiocy rules!!
Of course decision making is important. It's just it always seems that's ALL it's about.
To me, consensus seems to be
Yeah Margaret Thatcher was opposed to consensus too..it's ALWAYS about HOW you do things.
in my experience of anarchist
in my experience of anarchist hui, consensus usually means the lowest common denominator comes out on on top as the group/plan etc is diluted to pander to the one person who in all honesty just shouldn't be there - they should be with the crew who are into adhoc, structureless cliches of friends specialising in knee-jerk activism.
So I'm in ChCh and coping flak with the boss; who do I call? Ms Bitchin?
Unfortunately you can't
Unfortunately you can't please everyone. But I would direct anyone to our page on how we see decision making and process: http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/how-we-work/
Here it is in full:
It is the spirit in which these decisions are made that is the most important criterion in the decision making process.
If there is a lack of goodwill, even the best process in the world can be thwarted. (For example, a person with lack of goodwill and cooperation could use the consensus process to block a good idea supported by the rest of the group.)
Consensus Decision MakingThis is the process whereby an idea is floated by a member or members and it is discussed and debated thoroughly by all in the group. If the idea is not, or is only partially supported by others, it is discussed further. The idea is changed if necessary, and ultimately everyone ends up agreeing, or the idea is discarded.
This process only works well when everyone in the group is valued and no power dynamics are occurring. An ideal group would have equity amongst all and no power struggles. We acknowledge we are reflections of a far-from ideal society, therefore any processes we use could be flawed.
There must be room for individual members to dissent and there must be no pressure from others to agree on all ideas put forth – especially ideas coming from those who may hold positions of power – perceived or real.
With this in mind, decisions are ideally made using the ‘consensus process’ which is embraced with goodwill and with power dynamics held foremost. Some people will simply agree to ‘stand aside’ so that the group can move forward in its endeavours.
Any important decisions such as changing the Aims & Principles, How We Work etc must be made with a quorum of the core membership present at a meeting.
Direct DemocracyIf needed, decisions can ultimately be made by voting, via direct democracy.
A quorum of the core membership must be present.
A quorum is at least two thirds of the core membership.
Three quarters of these members agreeing will signify a decision.
Look I didn't say I didn't
Look I didn't say I didn't like consensus. I said I don't like when you don't talk about content because all we are talking about is consensus. Round and round in circles.
Really? I can't say I've been
Really? I can't say I've been to any meeting/hui's where all thats been talked about is consensus (except as a workshop and at school)..possibly I've just been going to different meetings than you for the last 12 years..(?)..and with that thought perhaps a workshop on consensus is in order!
awesome thread !i'm curious
awesome thread !
i'm curious as to how much people hea know about
-being a free man on the land, the magna carta, lawful rebellion and real sovereignty, the uniform commercial code and maritime admiralty law
thea is a great nz website - relatingtolife.com which covers much of this stuff.
i'm also curious where spirituality may fit in. for me its an integral inseperable part of being a socially aware conscious being -
being a former member of some well left groups - i've observed a real aversion to mysticism, psychic and paranormal phenomena - i've also got an insight into why there is so much division between 'the left' people who do want to take responsibility and be active in change.
nick lyons