There are presently two anarcho-syndicalist projects in Australia, the ASF and the IWW.
Both the ASF and the IWW claim to be unions, but at present neither of these two groups organise workplaces. They are small political groups advancing the concept of syndicalist unionism.
In a recent article, Socialist Alternative member Daniel Lopez argued that the IWW in Australia were not really Anarchist at all. He was writing about the 1910s IWW, the same argument could be made about the modern Australian claimant to the IWWs legacy.
The IWW denies that it is anarchist, it’s publications make use of Marxian economics (labour theory of value, surplus value, etc), and it consistently argues that the working class must liberate itself or not at all.
But the IWW is anarchist. Syndicalism is part of the anarchist tradition, it is an anarchist strategy. Syndicalist organisations utilize Marxian economic understandings because Anarchists critically appropriate Marx’s analysis of capitalism.
And Syndicalist organisations include Marxists, because when Anarchists attempt to build mass organisations, they do not make anarchism a pre-requisite for membership. Anarchists seek to draw in militants of all stripes who are in broad agreement with Anarchist aims[1].
Daniel Lopez advances several critiques of the 1910s IWW’s political practice:
It is important to account for why the IWW was wrecked … So long as capitalism is stable, unions of any size are going to accept industrial legality. Either this, or be de-registered and wrecked, as with the Builders Labourers Federation.
…
Organising a separate, radical union in opposition to the mainstream ones is a mistaken tactic 95 percent of the time.
…
Rather than take the fight to the bureaucrats, constantly organising within the unions against them, it leaves them unchallenged within their own organisations, and has the effect of separating the best militants.
…
they didn’t have a perspective for building a party. Such a perspective can anticipate and cope with periods of illegality.
(Ben Debney of the IWW’s Melbourrne GMB responded here[2]).
The decision to deny or announce a syndicalist organisations commitment to Anarchist practice is a tactical one, and in part it ties into that critique of the IWW that Lopez highlights.
In Australia, the ASF announces it’s anarchism. Like the IWW, identity as an anarchist is not a prerequisite for membership:
Being a member of the ASF does not require you to be an anarchist but to simply agree to work within the Aims Principles and Statutes upon which we organise.
But the fact that their name is the “Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation” has much the same effect, deterring non-Anarchists from participation. In the fight against reformism, this has it’s advantages, but it hampers the task of building the kind of mass organisation that syndicalist strategy requires.
From it’s beginnings, the IWW has sought to unite workers of diverse levels of politics, strategically denying it’s anarchist connection helps achieve this. But an organisation that is less explicit in its politics faces a greater challenge in ensuring that it remains revolutionary and does not descend into reformism.
As an ASF comrade pointed out to me recently, these are old debates. But they are still debates that Australian Anarchists have yet to resolve.
Almost all organised class-struggle Anarchists in Australia are involved in either the IWW or the ASF. Whether they are drawn to one or the other seems to depend on where they stand on the tactical question of explicitly anarchist syndicalist organising, or implicitly anarchist syndicalist organising.
They are both tiny groups, neither organise workplaces at this point in time, they are only at the stage of advancing the idea of syndicalist union, yet the effects of this decision are still apparent. The political education of IWW members is lower[3], the ASF’s members have clearer politics, but fail to make the recruiting gains of the IWW[4].
Is Syndicialism the wrong strategy? Socialist Alternative would say so, but they only concieve of Syndicalism as anarchist attempts to build new unions from scratch. Whilst this has been the focus on Anarcho-Syndicalists in Australia, it is not the be all and end all of Syndicalist strategy.
Syndicalism is a radically democratic model for union organising that can be advanced within existing unions, in new unions, or through grassroots solidarity movements that cut across the union movement. The challenge faced by anarchists is not to build new syndicalist organisations, but rather to advance anarchist ideas (and thus syndicalist practice) throughout the labour movement. The decision as to whether to focus on critically engaging with existing unions, or building grass roots solidarity organisations, or to build new unions, should not be made a general principle. It’s a decision to make depending on the present circumstances in particular industries.
This flexibility of approach cannot be undertaken by an organisation that sets itself up as a syndicalist union in competition with the trade union movement. Be it the ASF or the IWW, these organisations are effectively locked into one strategy in all situations.
The alternative for organised Anarchists is to create specifically Anarchist organisations, that bring together committed militants, seek to understand the situation in various industries or political situations, and then advance anarchist ideas using the strategy that best suits the conditions encountered[5]. An effective syndicalist strategy requires organised Anarchist groups.
The gut reaction of many Anarchists is to condemn this as vanguardism.
In his response to Daniel Lopez’s article on the IWW, Ben Debney of the IWW’s Melbourne GMB is quick to highlight Stalin, Red Terror and Totolitarianism. As Ben says, Anarchists seek to build organisations that “[maintain] a basic harmony between mean and ends”, an authoritarian party that seeks to lead the workers delivers a dictatorship, whereas the decentralised organisation of the entire working class makes dictatorship impossible.
Critics of specific, united and organised anarchist groups argue that they would function as Lenninist parties, and thus contain the same seeds of dictatorship. But there is a fundamental difference. An organisation of anarchist militants would not seek to make “the revolution”, “lead the working class” or establish a dictatorship of the party.
An organisation of Anarchist militants would seek to build mass popular organisations along syndicalist lines, and advance anarchist ideas in these organisations. If true mass organisations on Syndicalist lines can be built, an organised minoritty of any stripe would be unable to establish control, they could only seek to exert influence. Organised Anarchists seek to develop such organisations to the point that the popular power they embody can topple capitalism. It is through syndicalist organisation that Anarchists seek to topple capitalism.
There is a danger of dictatorship when a single organisation seeks to monopolise power, take leadership in the name of the working class, claim a monopoly on the right ideas and centralise popular power into a single party.
Which brings me back to Daniel Lopez’s recent article on the IWW.
Lopez’s article shows a great respect for the IWW of the 1910s, for a reason. Socialist Alternative seek to appropriate the legacy of the IWW for their version of Marxism.
Lopez’s critique of the IWWs practice is not unique to Marxist observers. Syndicalist practice in Australia to date has been limited. Syndicalism it is a powerful and radically democratic method of Anarchist organising, but without specifically anarchist organisations, it is an incomplete strategy.
[1].Black Flame Chapter V: Anarchism, Syndicalism, the IWW and Labour, for more.
[2]. I must confess, I can’t really work out what Ben D is getting at, beyond a general assertion that Vanguardist organising is a recipe for dictatorship and Syndicalism, despite it’s organisational faults, is not.
[3]. I will be eaten alive for saying this! I am not a member of either the ASF or the IWW, I make this judgement on the basis of observing IWW and ASF groups on FB. Hardly scientific!
[4]. Of course both are tiny, microscopic compared to the union movement they seek to reshape (from little things…), but the IWW is several times larger than the ASF.
[5]. FARJ, Social Anarchism and Organisation.
UPDATE, 6:00pm, July 6: via Andy Fleming:
According to El Universal, and contrary to other reports , Felicity has not been arrested but rather is being sought by police, to which end a warrant has been issued for her arrest by the Mexico City attorney general. Migration authorities and Interpol have also apparently been alerted.
UPDATE, 11:00pm, July 5: This statement was published on various spanish language sites earlier today [machine translation here]. It pruports to be from 19 different Insurrectionist Anarchist (and similiar) groups.
Again, I don’t speak Spanish, and through a machine translation parts of it are very unclear, but it appears to state that neither Mario Hernandez nor Felicity Ryder have any direct connection to any Mexican Insurrectionist groups. It states that Mario and Felicity were involved in the editorial collective of Conspiración Ácrata, an English language publication focused on Insurrectionist Anarchism in Mexico.
The statement states that the arrest of Felicity is part of an ongoing attempt by the Mexican state to criminalise dissent, and that the arrest of Felicity reminds them of the 2009 arrest of Ramsés Villareal (a student framed by Police for previous bombings). A brief run down of the Ramsés Villareal case:
Federal agents snatched Ramses Villareal Gomez, a 27-year-old Mexico City university student, and put a bag over his head before they took him to the Federal Attorney General’s Office. …
Villareal Gomez reports that during the interrogation following his arrest, police demanded that he tell them who threw the bombs or they would rape his wife when they searched her home. …
Police immediately attempted to paint Villareal as a student-terrorist. They claimed that when they searched his home following his arrest, they found a 22 caliber rifle, a pistol, explosives, and documentation linking him to a “subversive” movement. …
On October 2, a judge ordered that the government release Vilareal Gomez. The judge ruled that the arrest of Villareal Gomez was illegal due to lack of sufficient evidence against him. Following his release, the Federal Police had to admit that they were “mistaken” in claiming that they had found weapons, explosives, and incriminating documents in Villareal Gomez’s house. Villareal Gomez’s lawyer is now preparing to file charges against the interrogators for psychological torture.
UPDATE, 1:34am, July 4: A statement pruporting to be from Mario Hernandez was posted on a Mexican anarchist website, Material Anarquista. I don’t speak Spanish, and it’s not clear through a machine translation what exactly Hernandez is claiming [Update 6 July, English text here]. It is clear that he does not mention Felicity Ryder [Update 6 July, with access to a better English translation, it seems he may be referring to Felicity at one point.]
* * *
Last night [July 2nd] The Age newspaper reported that:
AN Albury woman has been linked to bombings carried out by a Mexican anarchist group.
Melbourne Anarchist Andy Fleming has compiled what information can be found online about the matter here. I’ve been asked by some in Albury Wodonga what my thoughts, as an Anarchist and an Albury Wodonga resident, are on the matter.
- According to Mexican media, on the 27th of June Mario Antonio Lopez Hernandez was injured by an incendiary device he was carrying. Mexican Police claim that during questioning, Hernandez confessed to being responsible for a number of bombings, and mentioned Felicity Ann Ryder in some way.
- The Anarchist Black Cross (Mexico) and the Group of Lawyers in Solidarity with Anarchist Prisoners [Correction July 5: ABC Mexico statement is different to Group of Lawyers statement, below is ABC statement, Group of Lawyers statement is here] have published a statement raising concerns about the way in which Hernandez was questioned. They point out that Hernandez was questioned whilst recovering from anaesthesia, having just undergone significant skin graft surgery. They also point out that:
it is unclear what the charges for his arrest are as they have varied each time clarifications were requested, which seems to indicate that they are trying to put together a case, with the most recent being criminal damage and attacks against public property. The comrade Mario testifies to be an anarchist but categorically denies being part of the ‘#yo soy 132’ movement or the ‘Tenochtitlán Salvation Front (FST)’ mentioned in the Press.
- Beyond the fact that Mexican Police are either questioning or seeking to question (there are conflicting reports) Felicity Ann Ryder, there is presently no information linking the Albury resident to recent incendiary attacks in Mexico city.
Whilst it is unclear what Felicity Ann Ryder’s personal political position is, or what her involvement in Mexican anarchism may or may not be, let me state:
- Felicity Ann Ryder and her family have my solidarity in this trying time, and if there is anything I can do in my limited capacity to support them at this moment, I will.
- I would not take at face value anything the Mexican police and authorities claim about Anarchism or the alleged actions of Anarchists, especially in light of troubled recent history.
More broadly I have been asked whether, as an anarchist, I support “these kinds” of tactics.
Whether it’s firebombing buildings or kneecapping executives or breaking windows; individual destructive or terroristic acts in no way challenge the basis of capitalism or exploitation.
They do however provide a lovely pretext for repression, and alienate many people that real anarchists are trying to work with in order to achieve change.
Capitalism cannot be dismantled by blowing up key buildings or killing key individuals because capitalism is not a small group of bad people or a handful of repressive organisations. It’s a total system of social organisation, that can only be dismantled by the mass action of the majority society.
If you think your act will somehow transform people’s perceptions and inspire mass resistance, you are wrong. A violent or destructive act is perceived according to the ideas held by the observer. You might think that broken window demonstrates resistance against the banking system, but unless the people observing share your ideas, all they will see is a broken window. “Propaganda of the Deed” doesn’t work, Anarchists have known this for a hundred and thirty years (and even in the 1880s, the vast majority of anarchists rejected insurrectionist tactics).
I recommend the following:
- You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship is a joint pamphlet of Australian Anarchist groups in the late 1970s, outlining the case against terroristic or vanguardist politics. I get the feeling that it’s directed more at the then Maoist scene, but it’s relevant to all anti-capitalists debating questions of violence.
- Social Anarchism and Organisation, on the organisational, political and social work we need to undertake if Anarchism is to ever pose a serious challenge to capitalism.
Having said this, I should note that neither I, nor the vast majority of Anarchists in Australia, advocate a strict pacifist rejection of all ‘violence’. If Police or strike breakers are busting up a picket line, I would never tell workers not to push back!
And during mass action, it may of course be necessary to take action in self defense.
The measure of tactics has to be their effect. In our present situation, we know that individual acts of violence and destruction achieve nothing, harm our ability to organise, and distract from the real political work that needs to be undertaken.
If it does in fact turn out that Felicity and Mario are connected, and are involved in these kinds of tactics, they, like all imprisoned for their involvement in the struggle, will still have my support as comrades, even if I criticize their choice of tactics.
Solidarity.
I’ve been reading the recent english translation of FARJ‘s 2008 document, Social Anarchism and Organisation. There’s much to recommend, but their section on class is odd to say the least. It contains a rather strange attempt to define “the exploited classes” in terms of the dependency theory notion of “the periphery”.
Core-periphery provides a useful framework for understanding aspects of the geography of the capitalist world-economy, but attempting to use this framework to identify “the exploited classes” can only result in vague, imprecise and in key places, wrong conclusions.
This strikes me as an example of anarchists going to great lengths in order to arrive at a formulation different to that of classical Marxian political economy, simply to differentiate Anarchism from Marxism.
There is also a sense that the authors might be arguing with a common caricature of Marx, in particular where they quote Rudolf de Jong:
The anarchist conception of the social forces behind social change is much more general [...] than the Marxist formula. Unlike Marxism, it does not afford a specific role to the industrialised proletariat. In anarchist writings we find all kinds of workers and poor, all the oppressed, all those that somehow belong to peripheral groups or areas and are therefore potential factors in the revolutionary struggle for social change
Any modern application of a Marxian definition of class would surely arrive at the same conclusion; the modern working class extends well beyond the factory!
Something else to note are their references to ‘peasants’. I seriously question the idea that ‘the peasantry’ still exist. The term seems to be used to lump together two groups (with very different class interests), landless agricultural workers, and the most vulnerable and tenuous of the agricultural petit bourgeoise.
Anarchists critically appropriate and use a great deal of Marx’s political economy. Attempting to deny this for sectarian reasons will only leads us into this kind of odd theoretical cul-de-sac. Where Marx is right, let’s just say “and here we agree with Marx” and move on!
Recommended: Wayne Price, Marx’s Economics for Anarchists: An Anarchist’s Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy.
Teachers in Victoria are struggling to defend their pay and conditions. EBA negotiations have come around, and the Victorian Liberal government have offered state school teachers a technical pay cut. The Baillieu government’s proposed “pay rise” of 2.5% falls below the rate of inflation.
The Australian Education Union is highlighting a 2010 election promise by the Baillieu government to make Victorian teachers the best paid in the country.
Western Australia teachers at the top of the scale are already paid 10% more than Victorian teachers, with further pay rises of 8.25% over two years to come.
The Baillieu government has also announced that it’s 2.5% pay ‘increase’ would have to be offset by ‘efficiency gains’, their policy is in effect a pay cut, increased work load for teachers, and decreased standards in public schools.
The left must support teachers and their unions against this attack on public education by the state government. But amongst anarchists there is sometimes a sense of equivocation.
When on the 7th of this month, over ten thousand Victorian teachers participated in their biggest ever stop work meeting, Melbourne anarchist Andy Flemming posted “Good luck to the teachers…” along with this youtube video:
Anarchists wholeheartedly critique the current system of education. Our education system is a system of indoctrination. compulsory education is a contradiction in terms. The school does reproduce the social relations of capitalism, teaching students their place in relation to the figure of authority. Schooling teaches us to:
confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. [The student's] imagination is “schooled” to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. – Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society
Compulsory schooling creates prisons for young minds. Anarchists can and must advance a critique of education under capitalism. But we should not let this task distract us in our support for all workers in their struggle against the boss.
There is no contradiction between advancing a solid critique of the system of education, and offering our unequivocal support for education workers in their industrial struggles.
1. Teachers are workers.
Teachers sell their labour power, are paid a wage, and largely do not control what they do during their working day. The teacher’s working day is controlled a school administration, a curriculum, and an ever increasing raft of policies handed down by the Department of Education.
The labour of teachers, even in the public education system, is exploited. Teachers are not paid the full value their labour produces. Public education is not a business, but there is still a surplus. The returns on public education are reaped by capitalism in the form of more useful and pliant workers. The wages of teachers are minuscule in comparison to the added value to capitalism of each years formal education of a young worker.
2. Teachers are not the gaolers.
School is a prison, and prisons have their gaolers. Does this mean we should not support the industrial action of teachers? I would never argue, for example, that we should support the industrial action of the Police.
Teachers appear to have the role of gaoler as a result of the compulsory nature of education. The school exerts control over students, and control is a primary function of the schooling system. However teachers are, first and foremost, employed to teach. It is the entire education system, backed by the legal framework of the state and the armed force of the Police, that interact to make school a place of detention for students.
Teachers produce value in the form of the service they perform, however imperfectly the system of education allows them to do so. To the extent that teachers appear to be gaolers, the role is foist upon them, just as the role of security guard is foist upon workers in retail tasked with checking the bags of customers for theft.
By way of comparison, societies’ actual gaolers do not produce value, their whole function is the maintenance of social control. The Police are not part of the working class, but part of the apparatus of repression utilized by the sate. Were we discussing industrial action by Police, I would not argue for solidarity with their wage claims. The only solidarity anarchists should have with Police is support for individuals who wish to cease being Police.
First and foremost, teachers are workers. A critique of the controlling aspects of the schooling system should never involve rejecting solidarity with teachers, just as a critique of McDonalds would never lead anarchists to question solidarity with the industrial action of McDonalds workers.
3. Teachers will benefit from the liberation of education.
The school obstructs education. Unequal power relationships, compulsory attendance, and a curriculum handed down from on high all act to disrupt a healthy and productive learning relationship between teachers and students.
Teachers bemoan the fact that students are disengaged. The compulsory classroom and student disempowerment manufacture uninterested and disengaged students.
Young children before they begin their schooling are eager learners, constantly questioning and exploring the world around them. Within a few short years compulsory schooling beats curiosity out of students, and generates contempt for school and teachers among many (especially working class) students. The overwhelming majority of students dream of nothing but escape from captivity, looking forward only to the end of the school day, the start of the weekend, the holidays, and the end of their formal education.
When you contemplate the creativity of and the enthusiasm for learning among young children, it seems astounding that any institution could be so powerful as to utterly crush this spirit and transform the young child of yesterday into the burger flipper of tomorrow. Yet this is what the school achieves.
When students are liberated from these structures, teachers will be free to engage with students as equals, and facilitate learning and creativity without constraint.
4. The working class loses in the states attacks on public education
School acts as a powerful system of social control, yet public education also contributes to a marginally better position for the working class within capitalism.
The state and capitalism obviously want the benefits of a more educated and compliant work force, but not for a dollar more than is absolutely necessary. The public education system presently costs more than these ends require.
The ideology of universal compulsory education is one of social mobility, if all students have access to education, class barriers will evaporate, and students can advance on merit! In practice, there is a limited scope for a small degree of social mobility. Public education still effectively sorts students by class, as the hidden curriculum of school privileges society’s dominant ideas.
But funding public education for any amount of social mobility is a cost in excess of what capitalism requires from education. An education system far more beneficial to capitalists would operate on several tiers, with the children of the ruling class able to buy their way into superbly funded private education, a segment of the working class able to access a second tier of private education or ‘select’ public education with pathways into university, and the rest of the working class consigned to an underfunded public education system with pathways to the TAFE system or entirely unskilled employment.
Incidentally, over the last twenty years government in Australia has actively moved away from universal public education, to just such a multi-tiered system.
And so…
In general, it is important that anarchists advance a thorough going critique of the education system under capitalism.
In the present, we should oppose developments that will further inequality and attack the position of the working class. As such, we should defend the institution of public education, without surrendering a critique of the nature of the schools within it.
We should argue that teachers will benefit from education liberated from the present system of schooling, and we should defend and support teachers as workers struggling under capitalism.
We should argue for student support for teachers’ industrial action and student support for public education, whilst advancing a critique of the semi-imprisonment of students in the present education system.
To confuse teachers with the oppressive aspects of the schooling system would only serve to divide one group of workers from the rest of the struggle against capitalism. The role of anarchists should be to do the opposite, to build bridges between the every day struggles of workers, and a critique of capitalism.
Evaluating Sedition: the sorry state of Anarchist theoretical development in Australia
Originally posted at Anarchist Perspective.
In issue 64 of Mutiny, pseudonymous reviewer ‘Princess Mob’ offered extensive criticism of the new joint publication of Australian anarchist groups, Sedition.
I have already responded to one piece in the new publication here, but I feel that in light of Princess Mob’s review, it is worth responding to Sedition issue 1 is a whole.
The Need for “Sedition”
Sedition is billed as “A Journal of Australian Anarchist Thought”.
In order to develop an Anarchist movement in Australia, Anarchism requires two types of publication for two very different tasks. The first of these tasks is the development of Anarchist theory in the Australian context. A movement requires a theoretical base that understands and offers insights about the situation in which it seeks to operate.
In observing the publications of Anarchist groups in Australia, I argue there are broadly three different approaches to undertaking this task; their merit varies greatly and all are deficient.
The first involves a study of the anarchist tradition of Europe in the 19th century. A worthwhile approach, but only a beginning. At present, our publications show little evidence that anarchists in Australia are taking the ideas of this anarchist tradition and testing them in the Australian context.
The second approach seems to involve observing living Anarchist traditions in other parts of the globe, and trying to import them to Australia. This is a flawed approach, there are no short cuts to undertaking the work of developing Anarchism in the Australian context. A wholly imported tradition, developed in a different context, will not offer meaningful explanation or insight into the Australian situation. This is not to say that an Australian anarchist tradition cannot learn from studying other contexts, but the hard work of testing and developing ideas against the situation in Australia still has to be undertaken.
The third approach is disastrously common. The third approach is to deny there is any need to develop anarchist theory in the Australian context at all. In fact, many deny the need for Anarchist theoretical work full stop. People advancing this approach might argue that Anarchism can mean whatever the beholder wants it to mean, that there is no “right” anarchist approach, and therefore there is no point in seeking to develop it.
This approach is a block to developing any anarchist movement at all. Anarchism in Australia will only be advanced if it is able to offer would be anarchists a set of understandings and insights that ring true, that explain what is happening in the Australian situation, and that offer a way forward in the struggle against capitalism, privilege and domination in all their forms.
I would argue that at present there is no where near enough progress on the development of Anarchism in the Australian context.
A common project to understand anarchism more broadly, to test Anarchist understandings in the Australian context, and to further develop Anarchist ideas in our situation is essential. This common project cannot be confined to one city, or one small group. To bear the greatest fruit this project of understanding, relating and developing theoretical understanding must draw in Anarchists from across Australia geographically and socially.
Anarchism in Australia needs a journal. Initially the audience would be anarchists in Australia. As the level of anarchist thought develops, the scope of the publication can expand, to sharing that body of thought with would be anarchists.
The second task is qualitatively different, and it requires an entirely different type of publication.
Once we begin developing a coherent Anarchist understanding within the Australian situation, the task becomes relating this understanding to concrete events in Australian society.
This second type of publication is aimed at non-anarchists, it’s purpose is to convince non-anarchists of the merits of an anarchist understanding, by showing them that understanding in practice.
This calls for a magazine or newspaper.
At present, no publication by Australian anarchists fulfils either role. Without a developed set of understandings about the Australian situation, Australian anarchist publications have been unable to offer concrete understandings of current events.
The author ‘Princess Mob’ states it is “hard to work out who the intended audience” of Sedition 1 is. This is because the journal contains a mix of articles that “vary from the unfunny in-joke” to “a very introductory article on the Zapatistas”, and that all of these articles are brief, lack depth, and do not engage in sufficient critique.
In that sense, ‘Princess Mob’ and Sedition issue 1 have summed up the malady that is the level of anarchist theoretical understanding and development in Australia.
“A Journal of Australian Anarchist Thought” is desperately needed, as part of a project by Anarchists in Australia to expand their level of theoretical education, and begin the tasks of relating and developing Anarchist understandings in the Australian context.
More Specific Responses
‘Princess Mob’ make a few remarks about the writing style on display in Sedition. It “lacks spark and passion”, it’s “oddly formal, big word, jargon heavy writing” and it lacks precision.
Sedition’s Editorial Collective could take a more involved role, encouraging authors to better develop and express their thoughts, rather than simply compile what has been submitted. An anarchist theoretical journal cannot simply be a grab bag, compiling whatever dross individuals deigned to submit.
‘Princess Mob’ states that “An editorial collective with a defined political commonality could explore political ideas in more depth”. If Sedition is intended as a journal for developing Anarchism in the Australian context, then this doesn’t have to be the case. A journal of anarchist thought should be a forum for disagreement about ideas, but the editorial collective do need to have a vision to make it such.
‘Princess Mob states that:
Brendan Libertad’s article on the philosophical origins of anarchism is a partisan argument disguised as neutral history.
Anarchists, of all people, understand that history is not neutral!
Anarchists in Australia need to have an argument about Anarchism’s philosophical origins. It affects our practice if we believe that anarchism is something innate in all people through out time, rather than a relatively modern response born of the industrial era.
A realistic assessment of what anarchism is and where it comes from, is a necessary basis for embarking on the further work of developing that theory in the Australian context.
In that respect, Brendan’s article was probably the most substantive in issue one of Sedition.
I have already responded to Jeremy’s article, ‘Organising in Australia’, at some length.
Gab’s ‘Casualisation & Flexible Work: How far can the Bosses Push Before We Snap’ offers a brief description of an issue that Anarchists should engage with, but doesn’t undertake the task of looking at it in terms of Anarchist theory.
The arguments about media engagement that Nick A summarises would, one hopes, be non-issues if Anarchists in Australia had a better understanding of who they were and what they’re on about. Anarchist practice must flow from a solid anarchist understanding of the situation we are operating in, and debates about “complicity, traitors and compromise” show that this understanding is presently lacking.
‘Princess Mob’ describes Ash’s piece on Occupy Sydney as “politically confused”, an understatement.
Ash writes:
And what are we asking for? Just that the authorities tolerate a hundred or so citizens occupying a few dozen square metres of their own city.
The tactical purpose of an occupation is, if anything, to create a situation that cannot be ignored, that has to be responded to.
Ash writes as if surprised by the hostility of city authorities and the brutality of the Police!
The piece on animal liberation again highlights the confused ideas that exist about the nature of anarchism, fortunately someone (one of the editors I presume) has taken the time to rebut this nonsense.
‘Princess Mob’ describes the article on Zapatismo as “introductory” and the piece on Intersectionality as “far to brief”. In a sense that could describe Sedition issue 1 as a whole.
Sedition issue 1 provides an interesting baseline. It’s content may indicate the shallow depth of current anarchist theory in Australia, but it’s existence shows that at least some Australian anarchists are beginning the work of developing Anarchism in the Australian context.
Originally posted at Anarchist Perspective.
Sedition, a new journal of Australian anarchism, was launched 10 March 2012, I’ve taken my sweet time in getting around to read it.
A few points of response to Jeremy’s[1] ‘Organising in Australia’, Sedition #1, pp 2-4.
The Situation in Australia
Jeremy offers a brief description of the present situation facing anarchists seeking to organise in Australia. In his opening remarks he states:
The Australian system of capitalism and government offers a range of comforts and opportunities to the exploited in order to keep us docile.
Australia does have a comparatively advanced system of social supports available to the working class; public education, healthcare and social security. But to describe these as ‘offered’ is inaccurate.
Healthcare, education and social security are concessions wrought from capitalism by the working class as a result of struggle. These concessions are under constant attack, by a capitalist state that would happily place the burden of paying for these things directly upon the working class if it could.
There is a delicate balance of attack and pacification, mediated by a variety of institutions, the union movement and the labour party in particular.
Later in the article Jeremy states:
There is widespread discontent and resistance among millions of people in Australia. They talk to each other and build networks and take a variety of political action.
This is mistaken.
At present, there is no widespread discontent in Australia. There is a high level of dissatisfaction with the current political leader, but it is expressed only in terms of an intent to vote for someone else. There is no widespread discontent with the system, and there is no widespread resistance to it.
As Jeremy mentions earlier in the article, there is a pervasive system of propaganda by which the dominant ideology is maintained in Australian society. At the present time, this system is working, and the vast majority of Australians accept the dominant assumptions, Australians still accept the idea that “this is as good as it gets”.
Discontent and resistance are presently marginal in Australian society.
There are however small opportunities.
The Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement of 2011 have resonated with a small subsection of Australian society.
Indigenous Australian discontent with the Northern Territory intervention continues, and the spread of welfare quarantining to the rest of Australia will affect Australians in major population centres for the first time.
A minority of Australians continue to be disgusted with the treatment of refugees, and resistance inside the system of immigration detention centres continues.
The decline of the manufacturing sector is accelerating and the mediocre response of mainstream unions, the Labor party and the government could cause discontent amongst some workers in that sector.
The election of conservative governments at the state level has seen a new round of attacks on public services, which the union movement has been more assertive in responding too.
The storm clouds of global financial crisis continue to grow on the horizon, whilst Australia has thus far been isolated, the situation continues to cause a sense of unease. Were a deepening of the global crisis to significantly affect Australia, the situation for Australian workers could change rapidly, and resistance could develop or falter in any number of ways.
In summary, the scope for anarchist organising is presently limited, discontent and resistance are low, but the scope for the advancement of anarchist ideas in our society does exist.
Realism is far more important than optimism.
The Union Movement
The organising model is a step forward, but ultimately unions continue to operate as if they were a sort of specialist business within capitalism. It is up to activists and agitators to join our unions, work to democratise them and bring anti-capitalist politics into the organising model.
I am not presently in a position to assess Jeremy’s remarks about the union movement.
I do agree, on the basis of Jeremy’s description, that the organising model that Australian unions now increasingly adopt is an improvement on the service model, and offers a growing chance for anarchists to make tentative links to the union movement.
Every anarchist should be a union activist in their workplace. This seems a far more realistic strategy for building links to the industrial struggle than any attempt to build a new syndicalist union.
Anarchist Organising in Australia
I am in wholehearted agreement with Jeremy’s argument that Anarchists in Australia must organise.
Anarchists who oppose political organising in effect support the continuing status quo. The ongoing attacks of capitalism may, from time to time, provoke seemingly spontaneous displays of resistance, even political crises. But unless anarchists organise and work to build a mass, conscious, culture of resistance, capitalism will survive every crisis and defeat every example of ‘spontaneous’[2] resistance.
Jeremy is right to note the difference between the political routine that the Leninist groups engage in and the problems with their “authoritarian, opportunistic and dishonest” approach to organising.
The political routine of selling papers, conducting stalls, holding public meetings and so on can be undertaken by anarchists without “treating people as numbers or sheep, to be recruited and then managed and used”. In fact, it is essential we do this if we are to build something resembling a real anarchist movement in Australia.
Jeremy relates what the Jura collective have undertaken in the past year. Every anarchist in Australia who is serious about throwing off the shackles of hierarchy and exploitation needs to look at what a small group like Jura has been able to do.
We can and must organise as anarchists.
There is no waiting for the revolution, get organised now.
1. Disappointingly, each article in issue 1 of Sedition is attributed to a pseudonym or to a first name only. A rather unnecessary step for a movement that is not underground.[Back]
2. There is no such thing as mass spontaneous resistance. What appears spontaneous is the product of organising we haven’t accounted for.[Back]
Originally posted at Anarchist Perspective, where there has been some interesting discussion about the state of the IWW, and the value of Anarchist engagement with Trotskist organisations and ideas.
Socialist Alternative’s Marxism 2012 was, for this anarchist, worth the effort.
The Easter long weekend sees Socialist Alternative’s yearly Marxism Conference held at Melbourne University, and after a couple of years of false starts, this year I was finally able to attend.
Naturally my keenness to engage with this conference raises the occasional eyebrow. The objection I get from anarchists when I suggest engaging with this or similar events, “It’s not worth the effort”, “there are real struggles to engage with”, and so on.
Of all the small Marxist groups on the far left in Australia, Alternative’s political orientation should be of the greatest interest to Anarchists.
Their position that the so-called socialist countries after WWII were not socialist but “state capitalist” class societies bears more than a passing resemblance to an Anarchist description of these states. Alternative rejects the dictatorships in Cuba, Vietnam and elsewhere, and do not foster delusions about the nature of events in Venezuela and Bolivia. Alternative does not carry the baggage of having to simultaneously reject their connection to Stalin whilst defending the legacy of Stalinists in Cuba (and elsewhere).
As a result of this positioning, of all the vanguardist groups in Australia, Socialist Alternative has been the one that has been able to recruit an increasing number of the university students who arrive on major city campuses with some basic interest in the ideas of the left.
Socialist Alternative is growing in significance within the small pond that is the far left in Australia. They are probably correct in their claim to be the largest far left grouping in Australia at present (related discussion at Slackbastard). Their presence at demonstrations, the readership of their magazine and website, and (importantly for this article) the scope of interest from outside their party in their yearly conference, are probably more important measures of their growing influence that a raw count of dues paying members (~250).
And Anarchists exist within the far left. We exist within the small activist milleu who’s far left element is increasingly dominated by Socialist Alternative.
Any attempt to claim otherwise is self deluding. There is no significant separate anarchist movement in Australia. There are no social movements heavily influenced by anarchist ideas. There is no real presence by anarchism in the union movement.
The IWW in Australia at present is NOT a union. Individual activists within the IWW and individual anarchists are members of larger unions, some are even delegates. None is in a position to bring anarchist ideas to a wider audience. The IWW is at present in the same position as other small groups on the far left, trying to convince individuals of the merits of their ideas, one by one. It is at present no mass vehicle through which anarchists can advance their ideas.
The criticisms of the insular world of social issue activists circles and what passes for the student movement are valid. The activism milleu is not the wider of Australian society, and it does not at present offer anarchists the means to advance their ideas to people outside this milleu. It is insular, it does have an air of unreality about it.
But the fact is that this is where anarchism in Australia is presently located. There are no other great avenues through which anarchist ideas can be advanced, no other areas in society into which anarchists are embedded. In the present situation, refusing to engage in the struggle of ideas within this milleu is the same as refusing to advance the ideas of anarchism at all. We have to start with an understanding of where we are.
Which brings me to Marxism 2012.
Socialist Alternative is an organisation of no more than three hundred members. This years conference at Melbourne University drew nearly one thousand participants. These were a whole cohort of people with whom anarchists should want to engage.
Of course the formal conference structure offered little to no broad opportunity that anarchists could use to engage with these people as a group. All sessions were chaired by Socialist Alternative members, and all but the international speakers were well versed members of socialist alternative. The question and answer sessions that followed gave some small forum for different views, but only within a structure that saw them heavily rebutted by Socialist Alternative members, before discussion was capped off by a Socialist Alternative chair.
As a project of Socialist Alternative, we should expect nothing less from this conference!
But even within this structure there were still a multitude of opportunities.
The biggest opportunity is to learn. In order to engage in a contest of ideas, it pays to have a more accurate understanding of the ideas others are advancing, rather than to simply try and engage with straw men and caricatures. It was apparent in this conference that Socialist Alternative members do not have that advantage when it comes to engaging with the ideas anarchism. It pays for anarchists to experience the level of critique a product of Socialist Alternative’s process of political education has of anarchism, and to practice engaging with it in a respectful manner (I struggled!).
Moving away from the narrow issue of what Socialist Alternative had to say about anarchism in this conference, it pays for anarchists to understand in a more sympathetic way where the largest grouping on the far left has come from, and how they understand their ideas. “They’re all authoritarian! KRONSTADT and STALIN!!!” is not a sufficient basis of understanding for engaging the ideas of this or any group.
Then there is the opportunity to learn about things we agree on! Anarchists critically appropriate Marxist political economy; any attempt to deny or cover this up is self defeating, and simple declaring “Marx plagiarised Proudon!!!” is both silly and inaccurate. There is not an anarchist I have met in Australia who would not do well to advance their understanding by studying and critiquing what Marxists are saying about economics and history. The series at the conference was genuinely interesting and enlightening. I am not saying we should ever remove the guard of critical engagement.
Then there is the opportunity to learn about struggles in the wider world. Simply by organising the largest far left event in this country, Alternative is able to attract speakers from struggles around the world. Filtered through the prism of Socialist Alternative interpretation they may have been, they were still absolutely wonderful sources of information and inspiration for anarchists.
Every anarchist who rejected attending this conference because it was not worth the effort missed the chance to hear about a seven month occupation of university campuses in Chile in the struggle for free education. A struggle that has brought together and resulted in significant political debates between Lenninists and Anarchists in Chile.
There were first hand accounts of struggles from the Philippines, Afghanistan, the US Occupy Movement, Japan, Palestine and others. Every one of these sessions were absolutely worth putting up with the strictures of a conference hosted by a vanguardist organisation!
Then there was the chance to observe, observe the products of Socialist Alternative’s process. Observe the way young members approached you, and asked the SAME questions every time, and tried to lead you into the SAME conversation every time. There was the chance to observe how the leading lights of this organisation and younger members interacted. Observe the things that lead unaligned participants to grate at the process.
I always find it fascinating to try and observe and interpret what I am seeing of the dynamic of an organisation in different situations. It is far more useful to be able to discuss this organisation based on conversations with its members and your own observations than to simply rely on the rumour and name calling that amounts to understandings of an organisation form the outside.
And there is the opportunity to test.
This was something I consciously decided to avoid at Marxism 2012. Gatherings like this offer us a chance to test our understandings and argument against the body of ideas we inevitably have to critique or argue against in broader settings.
As a lone anarchist, who acknowledges how much more I still have to learn, I did not feel confident in fully utilising the opportunity this conference presented to get up and argue for an anarchist alternative, either in question and answer sessions or in the informal social gatherings. Next year I would like to!
But purely in terms of emotional self defence, I think this will require organising a small group of anarchists to attend the conference. Because the other thing that has to be said about this conference, was that as someone who is not a member of Socialist Alternative and who does not passively agree with everything I am presented, this conference was incredibly hard work.
In simple terms of self care, it would have paid to have small group prepared to the atmosphere of event so totally dominated by an organisation so hostile to anarchism, who could debrief at the end of the day over a beer.
I will be attending Marxism 2013. It’s already booked in, and I have no doubt Socialist Alternative will again muster an impressive range of speakers and (in terms of Australia’s far left) a gathering well in excess of their own membership. I hope that anarchists who want to grow an anarchist movement on the far left in Australia will consider joining me.
Video
Alternative is progressively publishing videos of the major sessions on Youtube, and audio recordings of the minor sessions (the most interesting in terms of studying and engaging Alternative in my opinion) will be available on CD in the coming months.
Two absolute highlights of the conference were Malalai Joya (video and my thoughts here) and Saeed Amireh. Saeed’s presentation alone… just watch it.
Other Reviews
Socialist Alliance’s Sue Bolton, writing in Green Left Weekly, welcomed the broader focus on this years “Marxism Conference”, noting that Socialist Alternative had invited a larger number of international speakers and invited other far left groups to have stalls at the event, however -
the discussion could be even richer if the event evolved to become a conference of the whole left, including speakers from other socialist groups and allowing these groups to have workshops.
Socialist Alternative member and blogger John Passant argues that the conference shows -
that Socialist Alternative is an organisation serious about understanding the world around it, engaging with it and changing it where possible
And Humphrey McQueen declared in his review, written and published before the event, that Marxism 2012 was “evading the class struggle”.
The Age reveals that AFP, ASIO and private subcontractors spy on environmentalists, protesters and left wing organisations opposed to a variety of environmentally destructive commercial developments.
Surprise surprise.
There is nothing abnormal about this. Create a secret intelligence gathering agency, and they’ll act like a secret intelligence agency. If a government has a secret intelligence gathering agency, it will try to use it. If it doesn’t have one, it will seek to create one.
The pursuit and maintenance of power demands information about threats and opponents. The state, business, political parties, it doesn’t matter. Once created, the agency has it’s own self-perpetuating interest. Their job is to to identify and gather intelligence about threats, so threats will be identified, intelligence will be gathered.
Whether it’s the dirt unit within the office of a political power broker, the state’s official intelligence agency, a de facto political unit in a Police force, or private consulting firm; it exists and if you’re being effective, it’s trying to spy on you*.
These tools of power are not your friend, they are not a-political, and they are not legitimate. And we cannot simply hope to bring security agencies to heal by electing the right government, or appointing the right overseer.
Environmental groups involved in opposing coal seem gas, coal mining and coal power need to recognise they are opposing something fundamental our present political system. They are opposing the relentless pursuit of profit in favour of a sustainable future.
They have to expect that effective action will demand a state response, and as such, they can expect to be spied on, just as they can expect to be beaten, arrested and imprisoned.
The Green movement as a whole needs to come out against police violence, state surveillance and intimidation. Everyone from The Greens, the corporate NGOs, to the various community coalitions, would do well to adopt the default position of most far left groups in opposing the work of intelligence agencies and political Police.
1. Anyone exposed as an ASIO agent, police informer against activists, or ABCC informer in the workplace should be publicly identified and completely ostracised. By everyone, forever.
2. Work on construction or supply for security organisations should be subject to a permanent and unremitting black ban.
3. Any and all channels used by ASIO and friends to gather “intelligence” from the public should be jammed.
And we should issue a warning.
To anyone working or informing for ASIO, the ABCC, or a politically motivated Police investigation anywhere: when we finally gather on the streets and storm the headquarters of your organisations, we will identify you.
On that day, you will find no comfort anywhere, for as long as you live.
If that day seems distant, remember that as a file turns thirty, it’s contents become publicly available, and even though your name might be blacked out, we’ll sure as hell work out who you are and act accordingly.
We will not forget.
A Caution…
The revelation that elements of the state are spying on a movement, can see people respond with fear and secrecy. I think the following advice from Gene Sharpe’s From Dictatorship to Democracy is pertinent:
secrecy is not only rooted in fear but contributes to fear, which dampens the spirit of resistance and reduces the number of people who can participate in a given action. It also can contribute to suspicions and accusations, often unjustified, within the movement, concerning who is an informer or agent for the opponents. Secrecy may also affect the ability of a movement to remain nonviolent.
In contrast, openness regarding intentions and plans will not only have the opposite effects, but will contribute to an image that the resistance movement is in fact extremely powerful.
* Most people who think they have ASIO files don’t, because most people who think they have ASIO files are completely and totally ineffective. I include myself in that.
The Indonesian state continues to murder on behalf of Australian companies.
The ABC reports that Arc Exploration had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting of eight protesters by Indonesian police in the Sumbawa town of Sape four days ago.
The ABC reports that Arc Exploration conducts “meetings with local people” and that “extensive consultation process with local community leaders and authorities” and that this “resulted in these parties confirming their support for [the company's] activities”.
Hidup Biasa reports that after a five day occupation of the Port at Sape Indonesian Police opened fire on protesters killing eight and injuring hundreds.
The Port was occupied by villagers (and student supporters) opposing minging developments in Sumbawa, like this one near the town of Barawera.
Here is a photo of the proposed development. The development would involve digging out the green bit.
Two days after the Police killings, three hundred people gathered on the streets of Makassar to denounce the police brutality.
A police station, banks and advertising billboards were pelted with stones. Two people were arrested, two other arrests were foiled by the mass intervention of demonstrators. According to the awful google translation I am relying on:
Protesters claimed that what happened in Bima and elsewhere caused by the greed of capitalism to exploit the environment which then threaten people’s lives
Word.
A commenter on Indymedia notes that ANZ are a major investor in Arc Exploration, the same happy chaps who are major investors in Gunns and a key source of finance for the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill in Tasmania.
It’s all one struggle.
It’s Christmas, a time when all of us wannabe commentators produce at least one predictable piece bemoaning the crass commercialization of Christmas.
These commentators assume that underneath the consumption is a meaningful cultural tradition worth saving. They assume that Christmas is merely debased by consumerism.
I call bullshit.
The modern Christmas is a modern invention, and commercialization is not it’s debasement, but it’s whole purpose.
In a recent comic, Randall Munroe noted that so much of the lyrical tradition we assume is a timeless part of Christmas, is in fact a product of 1950s America.
Randall Munroe theorises that a tradition is “anything that happened to a baby boomer twice”.
I would argue that these modern traditions are a product of what was happening in the most developed capitalist economy in the aftermath of the second world war.
The 1950s see the baby boom and the long post war boom in American economic growth. The industrial capacity utilized by the war could not simple lie idle, the pursuit of profit mandates that capital be reinvested. Without the war, a new market was required.
That market was domestic consumption.
American companies developed and sold all manner of goods to fill needs that the American working class never before knew they had. Marketing and mass media were the tools with which American business directly and indirectly created the new wants, the new needs, and the new culture, that we now identify as consumerism.
Those cultural traditions that supported consumption were emphasized. New cultural traditions were invented, existing traditions were transformed beyond recognition.
It was in this crucible that the modern Christmas was born. Christmas was re-written, it was transformed to serve the needs of a market predicated on selling ever more consumer goods to the working class.
Christmas today is little more than an amalgam of marketing strategies brought together under a faux cultural-religious brand. Any call to separate the tradition from the consumerism is now meaningless.
This piece was prompted by Ben Habib’s I’m Dreaming of a ‘Light’ Christmas.