Jura Books (Sydney)
We felt it would be valuable to look at a range of other organisations in order to highlight what we do and don't mean by the organisational principles we have set out above. As our bookshop was borne out of a split at Jura Books in Netown, and many of the issues involved in the split were one of organisational practice, this seems to be the logical place to start.
Jura had been going for about 5 years at the time of the split and some of the founders of Black Rose had been there from the beginning. Immediately after the split there was virtually no contact between the two collectives. This situation has changed somewhat in the intervening 3½ years with the passage of time and the arrival of new people on the scene. Never the less, what follows is based largely on extrapolation from the situation 3½ years ago in the light of what was said by the people who remained at Jura; with some fresh information gleaned in conversation with members of the Jura collective and others who have had contact with them.
Strictly speaking, Jura Books is the bookshop at 417 King Street (Newtown - Ed) occupying the shop and an office upstairs. The rest of the building is shared with a variety of other groups including 'The Rebel Worker Group', 'The Fanya Baron Library', 'The Everything Collective', a poster archive, and from time to time such short lived projects as a whole food buying co-op, bicycle repair co-op. The bookshop is ostensibly set up along similar lines to those of Black Rose, with a clearly delimited project and a carefully defined joining procedure. However the joining procedures are less rigorously applied than at Black Rose. Membership does not involve any special responsibility to attend meetings or maintain any specified minimum level of activity. Some people feel that anybody who contributes in any way to the shop is thereby a member of the collective on an equal footing with everybody else.
In practice however the bookshop is managed by a core group who attend meetings regularly and have long established knowledge of what is going on. Jura doesn't attempt to use consensus decision making. It is seen by people there as being impractical, and given the overall working practices it probably is. This is why Black Rose insists on all members attending meetings regularly and having minimum input into other areas of the shop's activity. It is also why we have adopted the various meeting procedures which we use.
Jura doesn't spend as much time in theoretical discussion as Black Rose. It's weekly meetings are confined to "business" matters, and there are supposed to be quarter yearly "direction finding" meetings involving everybody around the shop. These are often missed unless some crisis has developed. This reflects, in part, a different attitude to the various established schools of anarchism.
Both groups refrain from identifying with any specific school, officially recognising all (except the so called anarcho-capitalists) as equally legitimate users of the name. Black Rose attempts to put them together into a meaningful whole, resolving differences where possible and adopting whatever seems appropriate to our project from any of them. Jura, on the other hand, tends to see the differences between the various strands as a barrier to adopting practices from any one of them, for fear of alienating partisans of the other schools. Jura's refusal to implement meeting structures like sharing circles, affirmation exercises, or cooperative games reflect a philosophical disagreement with Black Rose.
We at Black Rose believe that human beings are innately capable of a wide range of social behaviour, some of it anarchic, some of it hierarchical. What we actually end up like depends upon our socialisation and on the nature of our ongoing interactions and experiences. The capitalist, patriarchal world around us has developed in such a way as to encourage the hierarchical side of human nature to an overwhelming extent. If we are to learn and develop anarchic behaviour, then we will need to set structures suited for that purpose. Those at Jura, on the other hand, believe that our innate character is fundamentally anarchic. If we can peel away the influence of the oppressive society around us by creating a space as free as possible from any structures at all, this will allow that natural anarchism to shine through.
Jura does support the principle of job rotation, but their approach is quite different from that of Black Rose. We would be more inclined to call their practice 'job sharing' rather than 'job rotation' in that they tend to break down jobs into their smallest possible components and then distribute these amongst those members of the collective interested in that aspect of the collective's work. This approach is most clearly seen in the area of book ordering where each person orders from one or two publishers. These sub-jobs are usually handed on when someone leaves or when new members make a request to be included in the process, although in principle all jobs could be declared vacant at any time. Clearly, the intention behind all this is to distribute the workload and knowledge of the group's working as widely as possible without adopting structures which push people or require them to take on anything they are unsure of. In fact, the element of 'compulsion' in Black Rose's job rotation system and meeting structures are something which Jura regards as anti-anarchist.
It is also worth remarking on the relationship of Jura to the other groups at 417 King Street. Virtually all the groups have some overlapping membership with the bookshop collective and some have been wholly made up of bookshop members. Some people in the Jura collective are involved in several of the projects, and at least one of them is involved in several projects outside. From our point of view this reflects a failure to choose a focus and weakens all the projects accordingly. The tendency for this process to dissipate energy and lead to a general collapse is restrained in practice by the ongoing and established bookshop work which tends to draw people back in. Never the less, Jura has complained of a shortage of money since the split and has also had trouble maintaining regular opening hours even when the bookshop has claimed a large collective membership. In this respect Jura seems to function in a permanent state of crisis which appears to be demoralising for the people involved and inhibiting to coherent theoretical development. Over time this has lead to a gradual watering down of the high anarchist ideals which accompanied the bookshop's opening. The latest step in this process being the increase in markup to 25% and taking out of the till a small amount to pay part of the overheads account.
When compared with our suggested structure for the anarchist movement the Jura bookshop stands up as a viable small group with differences from our internal practices reflecting a clear difference in interpretation of anarchist principles. However, when the relationship with the other projects at 417 King Street is taken into account a certain degree of fuzziness creeps into the picture. This appears to be enlarging over time and threatening the long term coherence and viability of the bookshop project.
These worrying aspects of Jura's practice were carried to their extreme in the Anarres Centre in Brisbane. Named after the anarchist planet in LeGuin's 'The Dispossessed', it opened as an anarchist social centre for about 9 months in 1985. The centre set out to provide a bookshop, library, food co-op, natural health clinic, children's play area, Saturday night dinner, and entertainment venue, and a meeting space for various other groups, like anarcho-syndicalists and feminists.
A weekly general meeting decided issues and policies regarding the centre and a person from each of the 'collectives' running the activities listed above would report on their activities. A dinner and formal discussion session were held on a separate night with a different topic being discussed each week.
Right from the start the centre was beset with problems. Although there were always plenty of enthusiastic people eager to get involved, they set out to do too much. They just didn't seem to realise the limits on time, money, expertise and support that doing so many things would inevitably run up against. Many people at the centre were involved in several of the collectives simultaneously, spreading their energies and commitment far too thinly. Those involved set up a centre and then hoped that collectives would gather support within it and grow. We are not surprised that this failed to happen as we saw this approach as being unsound from the outset.
Membership of the centre was never properly defined. People just seemed to come and go which caused many problems. It undermined the commitment necessary to keep such a project going. At the same time, when people did not turn up for meetings on a regular basis they could easily become unaware of vital issues concerning the centre. It also wasted a great deal of time and energy going over things again and again, reversing decisions from week to week depending on who turned up. On top of this, because no real commitment was demanded of people there, a group of hangers on developed who had little regard for the people who were working to keep things going.
So, when the ever difficult area of sexual politics became the subject of a major dispute there was no properly established forum where the questions could be adequately explored. With no coherent structure or group identity there could be no sharing circles, affirmations, cooperative games or effective facilitation of any sort. The result was that the conflicting and over blown expectations of the people involved tore the project apart the first time they came to the surface.
In short, the Anarres Centre provides us with a copy book example of how not to proceed. Starting the 'network' and then trying to set up collectives to fit within it is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. We believe it would have been far more effective for people to get together and start a collective for one clearly defined purpose, be it a bookshop, women's refuge, food co-op, radio program or whatever.
Libertarian Workers for a Self Managed Society (Melbourne)
This reversal of focus can also be seen in the activities of the Melbourne based group, Libertarian Workers. Established in Melbourne in 1977 the Libertarian Workers for a Self-Managed Society describe themselves as anarcho-communists; seeing workers' and community councils as central to a society in which individuals have "equal decision making power and an equal share of goods produced". Their main aim is the propagation of anarchist ideas through the production of their bulletin and promotion of an internationalistic Anarchy. The group also produces a half hour fortnightly radio show which it distributes to other radio collectives, and the group provides an important focus through which much correspondence is channelled.
The official structure of Libertarian Workers is not the direction which we would like to see the anarchist movement following. It is a very traditional structure which reproduces many aspects of political parties, being more concerned with spreading anarchist propaganda rather than developing anarchist practice. Although on paper the Libertarian Workers sets out to be a large embracing organisation, in practice they have formed a tight knit and well defined autonomous collective which reflects much of what we are advocating.
In recent years we have observed a commitment to personal growth within the group, something which has led to an improvement in relationships with other groups. The lack of material written by members of Libertarian Workers in the last edition of their bulletin reflects a certain lack of interest in their own practice, although the reprinting of Bob James' article would seem to indicate otherwise.
In summary we see two Libertarian Workers. One on paper and one in practice, the latter being more in keeping with what we are suggesting.
Coalition Against I.D.'s (Sydney)
How the lack of focus on internal structure in an anarchistic group can negatively affect its ability to be successful is seen in the Sydney based group, the Coalition Against I.D.'s. The Coalition was set up to campaign against the proposed identity card, and includes a member of the Black Rose collective. While it was envisaged as an umbrella organisation for both groups and individuals, it quickly lost all ties to other organisations, two of which have ceased to exist.
The coalition has virtually no visible structure. The only such aspects are a chairperson, treasurer and secretary, and even the chairperson does not chair meetings or perform any other specialised function. There is no defined membership, no agreed meeting procedure, such as consensus or voting, use of agenda and the like, and there is no statement of the aims and objectives of the group. The Coalition is simply a name, a bank account, a Post Office Box and whoever happens to be in the room at the time.
Much of the group's low profile and lack of effectiveness can be traced back to not having an agreed and visible structure. Because there is no expectation of, let alone a responsibility to, a viable level of commitment, people become frustrated at the lack of seriousness and action and leave. It is only possible to tell if somebody has left the group if they don't turn up for meetings for a month or two. Because the structure is invisible and totally informal, the Coalition has little to entice an interested person to find the initiative for the commitment which membership would require. Because it asks nothing of members the Coalition receives very little from them. While the group is aware of its shortcomings, finding the energy to overcome them is difficult. At the moment modest attempts to do so are being made and the Coalition expects an improvement in the future.
Women's Refuges - Delvena and Marrickville (Sydney)
There are projects which are far more in keeping with our hopes for well defined and stable collectives. Within the Sydney area there are several women's refuges which are organised and run on a collective basis. Marrickville and Delvena are two which contain some of the elements which we see as positive developments towards a growing anarchist society. The specific goal of the refuges is to provide free shelter and food for victims of domestic violence. These refuges, run by women for women, reflect the feminist idea that only women can liberate themselves from their position in the male dominated society. In trying to fulfil this goal and idea, the internal structure of these two refuges challenge the hierarchical social structure around them.
Delvena is collectively run by seven full time paid workers and various volunteers, most of whom are ex-residents. Both collectives, in order to overcome the cultural and language barriers between migrant and aboriginal residents and white Anglo workers have self-imposed criteria of always including at least 2 migrants and one aboriginal in the collective. The wages and the number of people needed to keep the refuge open is decided by the collective as a whole. In order to allow for more ex-residents getting the experience and the chance to work in the collective, there is an attempt to limit the time spent as a paid worker to two years. The seven workers do have separate jobs like 'child-care', 'book keeping', making follow up visits and the like, but all the workers help each other out when it is needed. Rather than job rotation, this leans towards a flexible form of job sharing, but the aim is still to spread skills and equalise the workload.
Decisions about the collective and the day to day running of the refuge are reached through a consensus approach at weekly meetings. The residents are urged to attend these meetings and to become a part of the collective process. At the meetings, a weekly schedule is drawn up which includes designating a worker and resident to do the shopping for the refuge and a rotation of the cleaning, cooking and washing jobs amongst the residents. These meetings are also a time for general discussion about the refuge, the collective and problems which arise between residents or between residents and workers. At Marrickville there are also monthly meetings so that all the people involved with running the refuge: part-time workers and volunteers, night staff and any ex-residents are actively involved in the decisions of the refuge. Both refuges also have annual meetings where the wages and financial needs of the refuge are reviewed.
Out of these annual meetings come the government funding requests. The fact that these refuges are funded by the government and rely upon those funds to stay in operation does not negate the many positive aspects of the collectives as long as the internal structures and goals of the refuges are not dominated by demands from the government.
These refuge collectives are exactly the kind of thing which will contribute towards creating an anarchist future. They have a specific goal and feminist focus which they fulfil whilst challenging present social structures. Their goals and focus add to the diversity of autonomous collectives, more of which are needed throughout Australia. They show that hierarchy and domination can be challenged in another aspect of social life and also attempt to ensure the freedom to self determination and the right of free association.
Worker Co-ops - Inner City Cycles (Sydney)
There are also examples of small groups breaking away from mainstream capitalist business practices to create worker c-ops with a string political motivation, although a large degree of compromise is required to survive within the wider capitalist context. One particular example in Sydney is Inner City Cycles which has gradually developed into a "Worker owned ownership company" (of which there are 15 registered in N.S.W.). The current membership of Inner City Cycles is 2 women and 2 men.
In joining the collective, all prospective members are required to complete a 6 month probationary period to decide whether they and the other collective members can work together. After being accepted they are required to place a nominal amount of share capital into the collective and to take an equal responsibility for the shop's affairs. There is also a policy to maintain equal numbers of men and women in the collective which involves encouraging women into what has been a very male dominated industry and sport.
All members of Inner City Cycles participate in all decisions relating to the business, accounts, selling, repairs, wheel building, etc. This is done in regular collective meetings where all decisions are discussed before being acted on. Inexperienced and newer members are especially given space and encouragement to say their piece.
Jobs are rotated on a regular basis to alleviate monotony and maintain interest. Summertime is when Inner City Cycles does most of its business. It is run at a profit and most of the surplus is re-invested into stock to cater for the 'instant' demand of customers who tend to want equipment on the spot (a reflection of Western society supplying instant gratification for its consumers). Winter sales slacken off and by mutual agreement members of the collective take 'time off' in the form of holidays to counter this period of decreased activity.
The decision making process evolved to its present format (its still growing) from 5 years ago when the shop first started with one man and two women and the man making all the biggest and most important decisions to the annoyance of the women. This resolved itself when the man left to take up the editorship of a cycling magazine, although the people concerned feel it would have been tackled anyway by the women becoming more vocal and taking equal control of the decision making processes.
The members have also decided not to have personal friends in the collective as they found that decisions can be unduly swayed by the bias of friends having too much influence on certain discussions and processes thus setting up undesirable power blocks.
Their ability to learn this kind of lesson and develop in this kind of way is the sort of thing which makes us point to Inner City Cycles as a good example of the autonomous collectives we are advocating.