Other PressΑπό το δεξί μάτι του... 17:26 Nov 02 0 comments Nota Fundacional - Organização Anarquista "SOLIDÁRIOS" 08:00 Sep 19 0 comments L'Anarchiste Révolutionnaire N°6 17:06 Jun 09 0 comments New website of Barricade Collective (Hungary) 22:41 May 29 0 comments Resistance bulletin reaches issue 150 after 15 years 05:46 Apr 12 0 comments more >> |
Recent articles by klas batalo
USA: Breve storia del processo di riavvicinamento degli anarchici per ... 0 comments Recent Articles about North America / Mexico Anarchist movementAre Republican “Libertarians” Anarchists? Oct 22 13 People United: Colin O’Malley Talks Especifismo in Texas Oct 02 13 USA: Breve storia del processo di riavvicinamento degli anarchici per ... Aug 01 13 A Brief History of the Rapprochement Process of US Class Struggle Anarchist Organizations
north america / mexico |
anarchist movement |
feature
Thursday August 01, 2013 23:54 by klas batalo - Common Struggle, Workers' Solidarity Alliance
A short history of the rapprochement process between US anarchist groups the last few years: "The first weekend of February 2013, delegates representing Common Struggle (Boston, Providence, Western Mass., Buffalo, and at large) Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago), Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, Rochester Red and Black, Wild Rose Collective (Iowa City), and Workers Solidarity Alliance (Bay Area, St. Louis, Northeast, at large) convened in Rochester, NY for our first delegate convention. Discussion centered around drafting points of unity and a constitution for our proposed new organization, as well as establishing a time line for our continuing regroupment towards this goal." [Italiano]
A Brief History of the Rapprochement Process of US Class Struggle Anarchist Organizations1) BeginningsDuring the late 2000s, individual and collective consciousness began developing around the fact that not only were U.S. based anarchist and syndicalist organizations of previous generations persisting and growing in size, but, simultaneously, new groups identifying with these tendencies were emerging all over the country. The membership of these nascent organizations was comprised of veterans of previous groupings and struggles as well as energized newcomers, all representing diverse experiences of politicization. Most importantly, these groups seemed to benefit from an understanding of the failures and successes of past formations as well as the opportunities provided by a particularly ripe political moment. Instead of burning bright and fading away over a short period of time, these groups persevered and began to put down roots. In the shadow of a looming economic crisis, comrades around the country were preparing to take up with renewed vision and heart the old struggle against capitalism and the State.The founding and proliferation of these new organizations coincided with the rapid, massive expansion of communications technologies. The new communications paradigm very soon became fertile ground for the seeds of international collaboration in struggle, best represented by the collaboration of international anarchist organizations that produced the websites Anarkismo and Anarchist Black Cat. In fact, it was within and by means of the new communications paradigm that a discussion, begun on the (international) Anarchist Black Cat in 2008, soon developed into a project, mutually supported by old and new class-struggle anarchist groups in the US, to start on a process of regroupment aimed at achieving a coast to coast anarchist federation. 2) Early PeriodThe first Class Struggle Anarchist Conference was called in June 2008 in New York City. Following New York, there were three more CSACs: Detroit (2009), Seattle (2010), and Buffalo (2012). These conferences were organized by members of the participating organizations and attended by their memberships and sponsored observers. They featured speakers, workshops, trainings, open discussions, and activities designed to excavate political similarities and bring to light situations for possible collaboration and mutual aid.By the end of the Seattle CSAC, there was a collective will to take things to the next level -- that is, to create a formal network of participating organizations. A shared listserv and website were created and groups elected delegates to participate in monthly conference calls. By the end of the Buffalo CSAC, a delegate track was begun, where political documents and positions were hashed out, furthering progress towards the idea of building a unitary coast-to-coast anarchist organization. Over the course of time, many groups participated in the CSAC process. Some groups disbanded, others emerged, and new members continued to join the ranks of participating organizations. Some groups also exited the process - which by then had come to be called Rapprochement - citing a variety of reasons for why this was not a good match for them politically or strategically. Those who remained continued to work on weaving the network work together and testing again and again for similarities and controversies. 3) Middle PeriodIn the fall of 2012, the question was called: has the process of rapprochement finally brought us to a point where we can form a new organization that reflects the best of what all the participating organizations and individual members have to offer?4) The Rochester ConferenceThe first weekend of February 2013, delegates representing Common Struggle (Boston, Providence, Western Mass., Buffalo, and at large) Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago), Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, Rochester Red and Black, Wild Rose Collective (Iowa City), and Workers Solidarity Alliance (Bay Area, St. Louis, Northeast, at large) convened in Rochester, NY for our first delegate convention. Discussion centered around drafting points of unity and a constitution for our proposed new organization, as well as establishing a time line for our continuing regroupment towards this goal.5) Looking ForwardFollowing the Rochester convention, our groups have continued working on our founding documents, through a process of committee edits, organizational amendments and membership referendum. Our membership recently approved a constitution, and we are aiming for a hard launch of our new organization in late 2013.
|
Front pageMelissa Sepúlveda "Uno de los desafíos más importantes es mostrarnos como una alternativa real" Declaración del FAO ante la coyuntura electoral chilena y el quiebre en el movimiento libertario Are Republican “Libertarians” Anarchists? Tareas del Anarquismo social chileno. Lo “libertario” como espacio de disputa. Brasil: Nova invasão policial do local da FAG El confederalismo democrático, propuesta libertaria del pueblo kurdo Biel-Bienne: Anarchist Bookfair 2013 A 40 años del golpe: recuperando la iniciativa, construyendo la alternativa popular Ante el Paro Nacional y la ola de desobediencia popular en Colombia La “primavera árabe”: reconfiguración del mapa del Norte de África y Oriente Medio [Colombia] 19 de Agosto, paro agrario y popular, ¿un nuevo punto de inflexión en la lucha de clases? Questões Organizativas do Anarquismo Combative Unionism: Waging Class War within Labour La democracia de masas: una apuesta libertaria para el actual período La rue égyptienne plus forte que les urnes Solidaridad contra la persecución hacia la Federación Anarquista Gaucha Tear Gas & Twitter in Taksim - an anarchist eyewitness analysis from Gezi Park, Istanbul Lutar Contra o Aumento da Tarifa Pela Força e Vontade das Ruas! Les assassins de Clément Méric devront répondre de leur crime Latest NewsNorth America / Mexico | Anarchist movement | en Sun 15 Dec, 08:43 Communiqué of the Mexican Anarchist Black Cross following the declarations of the FD Govt. 23:15 Tue 18 Dec 0 comments New Atlanta Anarchist Blog 12:04 Tue 13 Nov 0 comments Workers Solidarity Alliance Holds 2012 Continental Conference 23:42 Wed 22 Aug 0 comments The creation of Prairie Struggle Organization, its politics and its goals 16:00 Tue 05 Jun 0 comments M1 Mayday Statement 21:54 Mon 30 Apr 0 comments last call for NYC Anarchist Book Fair workshop Proposals 13:58 Thu 15 Mar 0 comments Northeastern Anarchist #15 available now! 23:54 Thu 05 May 0 comments Mayday Greetings from the First of May Anarchist Alliance 23:11 Mon 02 May 0 comments Common Action dissolves 22:19 Mon 29 Nov 0 comments The UCL launches its new website 18:05 Tue 01 Jun 0 comments more >>Opinion and AnalysisFighting for the Future Apr 17 0 comments Building Power and Advancing: For Reforms, Not Reformism Mar 03 0 comments Platform of Rochester Red & Black Dec 31 0 comments Fragmented thoughts on political organization in North America Jun 16 0 comments Re-Building Infrastructures of Resistance Oct 28 0 comments more >>Press ReleasesNew Atlanta Anarchist Blog Nov 13 Heat Index 0 comments Workers Solidarity Alliance Holds 2012 Continental Conference Aug 22 Workers Solidarity Alliance 0 comments M1 Mayday Statement Apr 30 First of May Anarchist Alliance 0 comments last call for NYC Anarchist Book Fair workshop Proposals Mar 15 0 comments Mayday Greetings from the First of May Anarchist Alliance May 02 First of May Anarchist Alliance 0 comments more >> |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (8 of 8)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8The origins of CSAC falls short. The concept actually originated with NY WSA, with very early support for the first conference and concept from NEFAC (CS), with May First (Michigan-Minnesota Group) in close order. Additional comments to follow.
It's good to see you all writing up a little something saying where you all are at and where you are wanting to go. I wish you all the best and look forward to future networking, discussions and collaboration.
I do think that the outline and presentation of the Class Struggle Anarchist initiative is skewed and simplified, however. I say this as someone who was involved in the first couple years of organizing the initial conferences and then what became part of the "Rapprochement".
At the beginning, the CSAC came from loose conversations on the old Friends of NEFAC list where it was determined that given a recent wave of workers struggles (auto, transit, aircraft mechanics) that it would be a good thing for us to come together, get reacquainted and educate ourselves on a number of our common histories and experiences, and from there maybe figure out some practical forms of working together inside these emerging and future struggles.
The Regroupment aspect was never the primary basis for networking. It was a small tendency that grew but was never agreed upon by all groups or individuals. I was and remained opposed to Regroupment although I and my comrades were open to arguments in its favor. But I felt that a satisfactory argument in favor of Regroupment was never offered.
The course that I was a part in advocating (as well as other members of the pre-First of May Anarchist Alliance affinity group, the Michigan-Minnesota Group) was that the existing class struggle and social revolutionary anarchist and anti-authoritarian formations should develop various ongoing networks around labor, social justice, housing, etc. Through a decentralized, heterogeneous network that nonetheless had programs, principles and collective strategies for intervention and action, we would be building a revolutionary and anarchist presence in the mass movements. We would also, through principled collective collaboration, be developing a sense of shared politics. We felt this was a better (and organic) way of constructing what might be a down-the-road "federation". But we had the long view rather than the immediate "let's get all the groups together now" approach of the regroupment tendency. In fact, this debate was had in the open plenary of the second Class Struggle Anarchist Conference that was held in Detroit 2009. We were part of a bloc that included Open City (NYC NEFAC), MAS, Solidarity and Defense, and some individual members of the WSA.
Later that year MAS issued the Rapprochement proposal, which while I was skeptical of, I and others participated. My primary feeling of the Rapprochement process was that it was too close to and would be a cover for a simple regroupment and the creation of a unitary organization in which important political and strategic differences would be minimized in favor of a drawing together of as many groups and individuals as was possible under the rubric of a Platformist influenced class struggle anarchism. In the course of the Rapprochement Process discussions I feel this is exactly what happened and questions of internationalism, self-determination of the oppressed and an anti-Empire politic were never agreed upon and in fact positions that were at diametric odds were purposefully minimized.
For the record, I am in favor of self-determination (even within nationalist struggles) and anarchist involvement in class fronts within these struggles. I consider this an important point rather than a blanket rejection of nationalism or a plague on both houses approach. Given the limits of international class struggle and social revolutionary anarchism, we have to develop practical relations with a number of movements who we may have political differences with. This is not an easy avenue but what is easy and if anarchism is to be a viable alternative in these struggles then we have to consider a different approach rather than abstentionism.
This all said, I think that you all continuing to discuss and organize together is positive and as I said, I look forward to future networking around struggles.
I'd largely agree with these comments and observations:
"At the beginning, the CSAC came from loose conversations on the old Friends of NEFAC list where it was determined that given a recent wave of workers struggles (auto, transit, aircraft mechanics) that it would be a good thing for us to come together, get reacquainted and educate ourselves on a number of our common histories and experiences, and from there maybe figure out some practical forms of working together inside these emerging and future struggles.
The Regroupment aspect was never the primary basis for networking. It was a small tendency that grew but was never agreed upon by all groups or individuals. ..."
I would share these thoughts as well. But I would also say that the collective we never really got it together enough to make such happen. Even though a few of us tried:
"The course that I was a part in advocating (as well as other members of the pre-First of May Anarchist Alliance affinity group, the Michigan-Minnesota Group) was that the existing class struggle and social revolutionary anarchist and anti-authoritarian formations should develop various ongoing networks around labor, social justice, housing, etc. Through a decentralized, heterogeneous network that nonetheless had programs, principles and collective strategies for intervention and action, we would be building a revolutionary and anarchist presence in the mass movements. We would also, through principled collective collaboration, be developing a sense of shared politics. We felt this was a better (and organic) way of constructing what might be a down-the-road "federation"
That said, I think we share a minority point of this on this. The correct one ( -:) ), but a minority one.
The criticisms make some valid points: It is good to have unity in practice, in labor and other arenas, before merging. It would be good to have unity in theory and program. This is especially true of taking a clear stand in favor of self-determination for oppressed nations, races, and communities (considering that we are living in the major imperialist power on earth, rotten with racism!).
But it would be a mistake to let these weaknesses hold up genuine movement toward merger, to creating a national federation of revolutionary, class-struggle, anarchists. These are anarchists who (whether influenced by the historical Draft Platform or not) believe in dual-organizationalism (specific revolutionary-anarchist organization and general labor and community organizations). While building it and organizing it, we would be working on our unity in action and program. These are not either /or tasks.
"This is especially true of taking a clear stand in favor of self-determination for oppressed nations, ...."
There will never be a unified point of view on this. I mean, after 20 plus years of the same discussions, you would think that closer view points would have developed, wouldn't ya? At best, all we prolly can do is comradely agree to disagree on this point.
Mitch, Wayne says "it would be good", not we "have to". I think he agrees to disagree on this point.
To me the actual issue here is that it was difficult for the various groups to come to common consensus of what work to collaborate on. Part of this was that joint work between the groups was, for some, never a priority, or at best joint work would follow once political agreement was made.There should have been, and remains, an importance to determine how various campaigns intersect, match, parallel and diverge. Coordinating our forces would have and could still lay the foundation for a real regroupment. Despite saying " These are not either /or tasks" Wayne seems to be stressing that ideological coherence rather than practical action deserves more attention towards "genuine movement toward merger, to creating a national federation of revolutionary, class-struggle, anarchists". What does genuine mean? Without practical work, which should necessitate us all to examine in a critical manner, ourselves and the other parties were working with, then how do you arrive at "genuine" agreement and possible unity? Any overemphasis on ideological concerns disconnected from organizing is abstract at best.
I dont want to make light the difficulty at developing joint work, its easier said then done. But in its absence its easy for us to move on and sometimes it's what is necessary.
I in no way speak for M1, and this has to be seen as my personal position, but I felt that the Regroupment/Rapprochement initiative had no clear direction forward, definitely not with on-the-ground work, and thus the main task became drafting and debate over a series of documents. I feel that M1 as a (very)small group had to decide what time and energies we could contribute and how it fit into an approach of both identifying and aiding in the development of social struggles as well as our own organizational development. Housing, labor, anti-racist, Occupy (when it initially emerged), etc,. These were areas we were or became more heavily involved in and for good or bad, they trumped what appeared to be a stagnant Regroupment/Rapprochement process.
At the particular time (2011- 2012) I'm not sure we were in a position to formulate or argue for a renewal of the Regroupment/Rapprochement process and so we eventually resigned, wishing all well.
I think it would a mistake to think that a position on anti-imperialism/self-determination is the core issue for M1. It isn't, although it is an important one. However, it became at a certain point the most acute issue and encapsulated the bigger differences in political orientation and strategies. Possibly even greater an issue, could have been on questions of how social revolutionary anarchists interact with NGO's, non-profits, the union bureaucracies, and voting. These issue themselves never came up in a serious way and and I think many would be surprised to see the variance of positions within the anarchist movement(s). Rather than me cite my groups position I would direct interested people to read, Our Anarchism: http://m1aa.org/?page_id=57 which gives a brief and cursory view of my position as articulated by the organization I am a part of and which I agree with.
Anyway, on the issue of self-determination, if there was a flattening of those differences within the Regroupment/Rapprochement process what else would be minimized in the sake of organizational "unity"?
I would agree with Xtn in this respect. Common work is key to forward motion. Very little of this has taken place. And where it has, it has been uneven at best. Organization building has to be organic on a number of levels. Ideological and interaction between comrades. Sometimes ideological difference get worked out as folks work together, sometimes not.
But I suspect, there are some with already exisiting politics which are close enough where there's a bunch of movement to regroup. My own read is that numbers of folks feel isolated and that some form of national would break that down. Personally, I'm much for hesitant and reserved. Some of this just goes back to my own ideological orientation, other, the fact that there's been no real close cooperation and working projects.