Means and Ends: Anarchist vs Marxist praxis

Posted on 14 September 2016 by Anarchist Affinity

“The very revolutionaries who claim that they are against the state, and for eliminating the state…see as their central task after a revolution to build up a state that is more solid, more centralized and more all-embracing than the old one.” – Ron Taber, 1988 (1).

By Mitch

The remarkably common attitude among revolutionaries of all stripes is that “the means justify the ends”. We’re told it is acceptable to embrace authoritarian organisational practices because these practices are necessary to achieve an anti-capitalist revolution. As Anarchists we argue that the theory and organisational practice of revolutionary groups must be consistent with the principles upon which we want a future society to be based. We believe that the praxis of groups which seek communism should point them toward communism, and not toward statism, authoritarianism, hierarchy, and centralism. This is not mere idealism, the cold hard fact is that “ends” do not justify “means”, rather “means create ends”. Revolutionaries that embrace “means” that are in contradiction with the kind of society they wish to create will consistently fail to create that society.

Amongst Marxist-Leninist political tendencies the contradiction between means and ends starts with the idea of the vanguard party as the vehicle for social change. The vanguard party is supposed to be comprised of the most enlightened and class-conscious members of the working class. In practice, the vanguard party begins as a self-selecting minority. It seeks to draw in the most militant elements of the working class, but its structure remains centralised and authoritarian. This minority occupies centralised leadership positions and directs the political activity, strategy and tactics of the party. Whether or not there is real democratic accountability within the vanguard party on some intermittent basis, the vanguard party is a command structure in which decisions are made by a minority, and the majority is expected to put the plans and desires of the leadership into action.

The end goal of the vanguard party is to prosecute a revolution and achieve control of a ‘workers’ state’. During a transitional period between capitalism and communism called, ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, the vanguard would utilise this authoritarian, hierarchical, and centralised state, in order to coordinate the running of society.

The structure of the vanguard party prefigures the structure of the workers’ state after the revolution, but it does not achieve the directly democratic communist society it claims to aspire toward. As a centralised minority, the party would have gained control over all the working class in a society. The same working class that historically and necessarily did the grunt-work to bring the revolution to that point.

Vladimir Lenin himself said, “a party is the vanguard of a class, and its duty is to lead the masses and not merely to reflect the average political level of the masses” (2).

According to Leninists, the vanguard party is necessitated by the idea that the working class is too burdened by ‘the muck of ages’ to emancipate itself, for itself. This means that the ruling ideas of capitalism plague people’s ability to be satisfactorily class conscious. These ruling ideas include sexism, racism, homophobia, and nationalism.

This is the historically-selective and pessimistic base on which the enlightened vanguardists decide that their party is necessary.

Yet the vanguard, who set out on a convoluted road which is ‘diametrically opposed to communism’ are plagued by some muck of their own (3). The latent authoritarian and hierarchical nature of the capitalist state remain as unchecked cornerstones of the workers’ state.

As Murray Bookchin argued in ‘Listen, Marxist’, ‘…the deep-rooted conservatism of [so called] “revolutionaries” is almost painfully evident; the authoritarian leader and hierarchy replace the patriarch and the school bureaucracy; the discipline of the Movement replaces the discipline of bourgeois society; the authoritarian code of political obedience replaces the state; the credo of “proletarian morality” replaces the mores of puritanism and the work ethic. The old substance of exploitative society reappears in new forms, draped in a red flag, etc…’ (4).

Classical Marxist and Leninist analyses of the state fail to acknowledge the way that assuming state power changes any ‘workers’ who do so. Contrary to what Marx argued, workers cease being workers when they take control of a state. They become self-appointed managers of workers, and so they cement themselves as a new managerial class, entirely distinct from the working class.

Mikhail Bakunin was correct when he argued that the ‘workers state’, “will consist of ex-workers. And from the heights of the State they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves” (5).

It’s a perversion and a contradiction of the politics that originate these theories that workers should die in droves to overthrow thousands of bosses and replace them all with one boss — the state. Especially when this boss conceals its class status; cloaks itself in the guise of a fellow worker, of a comrade. It deviously calls itself a worker and not a manager of workers to justify its authority.

Leon Trotsky was right when he complained of Stalinism that, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat” (6). It is ironic that he saw no contradiction in this state of affairs when he was so intimately involved in constructing Russia’s one party state.

It seems the over-worked proletariat is destined to remain the over-worked proletariat but a few enlightened workers graduate to a privileged position where they coordinate what work will be done, by whom, and by when. The creativity, initiative, and the ideas the emancipated working class have for the new society are apparently disposable in the eyes of Marxists. At least, they’re not worth as much as the ideas of the vanguardists who make the familiar and misguided claim that they know what’s right for people better than people do themselves.

It is evident that the praxis of vanguardists doesn’t prefigure anything beyond their own ascent to power. After they have gained power, the so-called ‘withering away’ of the workers’ state is a barely developed and meaningless sentiment based on the false idea that no classes would exist after workers (read: ex-workers turned administrators of workers) take power. This means that the fixed state institutions; its armies; its centralised networks of production; its education and media facilities that fill the society with the state’s own ideas, would magically disappear with the abolition of class.

The workers’ state won’t and can’t wither away. All ruling minorities have an interest in maintaining their position as such. A newly installed ruling minority will use its power and authority to further justify and entrench its own power and authority. It will have under its thumb a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in a society, which has historically been used to give the workers’ state the authority to eliminate the state’s non-reactionary dissenters. Instead of encouraging the expression of ideas for the betterment of society from all who make up that society, the workers’ state creates itself with its own elitism and belief in the superiority of the ideas of the ruling vanguard. This is a fundamental part of the praxis leading to it. In order to maintain its rule, the so-called workers’ state will actively combat any opposing ideas with propaganda through the centralised control of media outlets and educational facilities, if not with direct force.

Fabbri notes that the state has ‘bureaucratic, military and economic foundations…’ and that ‘…in a short space of time what one would have would not be the state abolished, but a state stronger and more energetic than its predecessor and which would come to exercise those functions proper to it – the ones Marx recognised as being such – “keeping the great majority of producers under the yoke of a numerically small exploiting minority”’ (3).

Anarchists argue that while a revolutionary force is being built to smash the capitalist state, we must also be building the kinds of prefigurative institutions that will make libertarian socialism possible. Our task is to argue for and build a practice of neighbourhood, community, and workers councils. The alternative to a vanguard party is the creation of federations of participatory democratic bodies, outside the control of this or that political faction. To the greatest extent possible, before, during, but most importantly, after a revolution, these directly democratic, horizontal, and decentralised institutions must replace the centralised, state-run equivalents. In this way, anarchists seek to build the embryo of communism within the capitalist system, with the aim of both providing for the people where the state can’t, and of building the new world in the shell of the old.

When the capitalist state is smashed by the popular uprising, these decentralised institutions and councils can continue functioning, and any remaining useful functions of the state become coordinated by further federated councils of workers and regular people. If we have built the practice of participatory democracy, a centralised workers’ state is never required.

Of course, there would be the need to defend the revolution, and to this end anarchists argue for a people’s militia ‘rooted in workplaces and communities… and directed overall by the federation of councils [would] enforce its will against armed counterrevolution or foreign invasion,’ according to Wayne Price (7).

If we are opposed to the domination of a ruling class, clique or party, we must build a libertarian socialism that involves the participation of the mass of society in the process of decision making, economic coordination, and military defence.

The partisans of the ‘workers’ state’ and the vanguard party have a revolutionary program committed to anything but communism. Given they propose a society where power and initiative are both necessarily centralised features belonging only to the state and not to every person equally, they are not creating the necessary basis for communism, but rather totalitarianism.

Anarchists wish to create a society where no one person can exploit another for their own gain, and so the stepladder to power that is the state must be knocked over so that it can’t be reassembled — Not left to stand, and certainly not used to govern with a pessimistic fear that the people necessary to the revolution’s success are incapable of creating a new society through their own organising efforts.

Further reading:

(1) Taking a Critical Look at Leninism by Ron Taber.

(2) Speech on the Agrarian Question November 14 by Vladimir Lenin

(3) The Poverty of Statism: Anarchism vs Marxism.

(4) Listen, Marxist! by Murray Bookchin

(5) Marxism, Freedom and the State by Mikhail Bakunin.

(6) The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky

(7) Confronting the Question of Power by Wayne Price

Position Statement: Against Authority and the State

Posted on 23 July 2016 by Anarchist Affinity — No Comments ↓

1. Scope

A position statement outlining Anarchist Affinity’s understanding on the state and related issues. This position statement draws significantly from a handful of articles by Mikhail Bakunin. We agree with Bakunin to the extent that we have quoted, but we are far from uncritical defenders of the entirety of Bakunin’s work, writings or political action!

In our opinion Bakunin’s utility lays in the fact that his writings synthesize arguments around authority and the state that anarchists were having with Marxists during the First International. It is these questions and criticisms made by anarchists of the period, rather Bakunin as an individual, that we find useful and worth defending.

This position statement reflects our understanding at the time it was adopted. It is our intention to develop, expand on, and refine this position.

2. The Idea of Authority

A critique of authority and authoritarian relations, practices and structures, are central to anarchist political practice.

Anarchists are irrevocably opposed to the “principle of authority”, “that is to say on the … idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed on them from above” (Bakunin, ‘Marxism, Freedom and the State“).

We seek to replace the “principal of authority” with decision making that is decentralized, directly democratic and participatory. For example, decisions about a strike should be made by the workers on strike with all able to speak and participate. In contrast, decisions about the management of a river system should be made by and involve all people who depend on that river system, which may require a structure of re-callable delegates, meeting, debating and reporting back to affected communities.

Anarchists oppose “the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few” (Malatesta, ‘Anarchy’).

The idea that a minority should command and the majority should obey (however that minority is appointed and however the need is rationalized), always threatens to recreate structures of power that can ultimately solidify into a new class structure.

Authoritarian socialist critics of anarchism routinely misrepresent this critique of authority. The UK based Socialist Workers Party argued (in an article regurgitated by the IST tradition and it’s various descendants ever since) that “anarchism is generally taken to mean a rejection of all authority” but that “not all authority is bad”.

As an example of the “good authority” that authoritarian socialists claim anarchists reject, Socialist Worker argued that: “A picket line is ‘authoritarian.’ It tries to impose the will of the striking workers on the boss, the police and on any workers who may be conned into scabbing on the strike”.

This argument advanced by authoritarian socialists misrepresents both anarchism and the anarchist critique of the “principle of authority”. The picket line is not a ruling minority demanding from on high that the masses submit. A picket line of workers on strike, making decisions democratically and seeking to extract concession from the ruling class, is the antithesis of authoritarianism.

By confusing authoritarianism with its antithesis, the authoritarian socialists preserve the ‘principle of authority’ for their own use. The authoritarian socialists defend the idea that in some certain circumstance “the masses … incapable of governing themselves, must submit … to the benevolent yoke” of the party.

3. The State

There is an inseparable relationship between the state and class domination. The maintenance and reproduction of any system of class rule requires political and economic power structures, legitimating ideology, and recourse to the threat and use of violence.

We agree with Bakunin when he wrote that “The State is nothing else but this domination and exploitation regularized and systematized”. There is no class rule without some form of state apparatus. The inverse is also true.

“The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, and aristocratic class, a bourgeois class, a finally a bureaucratic class, when, all the other classes having become exhausted, the State falls or rises, as you will, to the condition of a machine; but it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of the State that there should be some privileged class or other which is interested in its existence. And it is precisely the united interest of this privileged class which is called Patriotism.” (Bakunin, Marxism, Freedom and the State).

The existence of a state apparatus in turn produces a privileged minority interested in its maintenance at the expense of the mass of the ruled.

Marxist critiques of this position may argue that it is possible to conceive of a ‘workers state’. Their position is mistaken.

In any situation where the working class successfully overthrows capitalism, one of two situations will emerge. Either a ruling minority will be entrusted (or more accurately will take power and claim to be entrusted) to make decisions on behalf of the majority, and will then claim the power to enforce those decisions where necessary, or there is no ruling minority and everyone in the ‘workers state’ will share in the decision making process, with equal access to this decision making process for all.

In the first situation the working class as a whole does not in fact rule, in the second there is no state. In either situation, the term ‘workers state’ is a lie. When authoritarian socialists trot out the lie of the ‘workers state’ they are ultimately defending the idea of minority rule.

We agree with Bakunin when he wrote (in Statism and Anarchy):

“But, the Marxists say, this minority [the government of the “workers’ State”] will consist of workers. Yes indeed, but of ex-workers who…cease to be workers. And from the heights of the State they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves”.

Irrespective of the purported ideology of this or that state, all states are the enemies of human solidarity, and thus of any conception of socialism worth fighting for.

4. Further Reading

Anarcho, Marxism and “Anarchism”: A reply to the SWP, http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/swp.html

Andrew Flood, An Introduction to the Russian revolution from an anarchist perspective, http://www.wsm.ie/c/russian-revolution-anarchist-introduction

Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

Errico Malatesta, Reformism, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-reformism

Mikhail Bakunin, Marxism, Freedom and the State, https://libcom.org/library/marxism-freedom-state-mikhail-bakunin

Position statement: Privilege and Oppression

Posted on 6 June 2016 by Anarchist Affinity — 1 Comment ↓

Anarchist Affinity Position Statement – Privilege and Oppression

1. Scope and Purpose

This position statement is intended to sketch some initial points of agreement concerning our understanding of ideas about privilege, oppression and intersectionality. These points are neither complete nor final, and it is our intention to expand on and develop these points as our collective understanding develops.

2. Points of Agreement

2. 1 There are numerous interacting systems of oppression that are experienced in a variety of ways by different actors in our society. These intertwined oppressive systems include (but are not limited to) sexism, racism, queerphobia, anti-trans bigotry and ableism. We think fighting against these forms of oppression is just as important to the creation of an anarchist society as fighting capitalism and the state. Only by working to eliminate oppressive power relations within the working classes will we be able to create a revolutionary movement capable of genuinely transforming society. And only by organising against all oppressive and exploitative systems of power will we create a society worth fighting for – rather than one which simply installs a new elite in place of the old.

2.2 We reject the idea that any struggle against any form of oppression has to “wait”, for the revolution or anything else. All oppressive systems are unjust, and all people struggling against oppressive systems are right to do so. The idea that confronting manifestations of oppressive systems within the working class only divides and weakens working class struggle is mistaken. When we tolerate the manifestations of oppressive ideology and practice we are divided and weakened. Systems of oppression divide us now, attempts to ignore or paper over this reality do nothing change this situation. We must identify and confront sexism, racism, ableism, queerphobia and transphobia in order to erode the divisions that exist amongst all people who are variously oppressed by these systems and exploited by capitalism.

2.3 It is our position that both an anti-oppression analysis and an analysis of capitalism, class and the state are useful, and that these analyses are more useful when integrated. If we do not make the effort to understand the dynamics of different oppressive structures we will not be able to understand the complexity of capitalism and the state, and our resistance strategies will suffer as a result. Developing an analysis of capitalism and the state also strengthens and deepens our understanding of the functioning of other oppressive systems. We need to understand how transphobia, white supremacy, queerphobia and patriarchy are institutionalised through the economic and political structures of our societies if we are to successfully abolish them.

“These structured inequalities and hierarchies inform and support one another. For example, the labor of women in child-bearing and rearing provides new bodies for the larger social factory to allow capitalism to continue. White supremacy and racism allow capitalists control over a segment of the labor market that can serve as stocks of cheap labor. Compulsory heterosexuality allows the policing of the patriarchal family form, strengthening patriarchy and male dominance. And all structured forms of inequality add to the nihilistic belief that institutionalized hierarchy is inevitable and that liberatory movements are based on utopian dreams” – Deric Shannon and J. Rogue.

2.4 There are some important differences between capitalism and other systems of oppression and exploitation. Capitalism is a system of class rule founded upon control of the means of production (private property, such as land, factories, resources). The class rule of capitalism is buttressed by ideological and cultural structures but it is primarily a system of economic control and class exploitation. Other systems of oppression typically rely upon class hierarchy and exploitation as a key tool for maintaining the subordinate position of the oppressed group. For example, patriarchy and white supremacy could not be sustained without the exploitation of the labour of women and people of colour, which keeps them in an economically powerless position. However, economic control is less central to these forms of oppression. Instead, social institutions, such as the family and the gender binary, play a more central role in fostering these oppressive power relations.

The economic character of capitalism means that there are some key differences in how we abolish the power of the capitalist class, in comparison to struggles against white supremacy, anti-trans bigotry, queerphobia and patriarchy:

“[W]e aim to end capitalism through a revolution in which the working class seize the means of production from the ruling class, and create an anarchist communist society in which there is no ruling class. For the other struggles mentioned, this doesn’t quite work the same way – we can’t force men to give up their maleness, or white people to give up their whiteness, or send them all to the guillotine and reclaim their power and privilege as if it were a resource that they were hoarding. Instead we need to take apart and understand the systems that tend to concentrate power and resources in the hands of the culturally privileged and question the very concepts of gender, sexuality, race etc. that are used to build the identities that divide us” – the Anarchist Federation’s Women’s Caucus (UK).

2.5 Broadly speaking, all systems of oppression create two groups: a group in a position of relative privilege and a group that is subordinated and oppressed. The group in the position of privilege does receive a relative benefit from this situation, whether or not there appears to be some form of direct transfer of benefit from the oppressed to the privileged group. This occurs whether or not it is acknowledged. “The privileged group do not have to be active supporters of the system of oppression, or even aware of it” (AFED, 2012) in order to experience the relative benefits of their position in this structure.

It is important to understand this real sense in which people privileged by systems of oppression benefit or receive advantages due to their privileged status. It is also true that, in another sense, the vast majority of people stand to benefit from abolishing these systems of oppression along with capitalism and the state. Both of these senses of ‘benefit’ are important for an anarchist analysis of oppression. Those privileged by systems of oppression (white people, men, able bodied people etc) must realise that these systems of oppression are fundamentally destructive, and that a revolutionary transformation of society will be impossible while they hold sway with significant portions of the working class. Thus, there is a real sense in which it is in the interests of all oppressed and exploited people to challenge these systems of oppression. It is also important, however, to understand and acknowledge the relative advantages and benefits which lead those in privileged power positions to perceive it to be in their interests to maintain oppressive structures. While the benefits and advantages that privileged people receive (not being required to do as much reproductive labour, having a comparative advantage in capitalist job markets) do not outweigh the ultimate interest we all have in abolishing these forms of oppression, they do pose significant, weighty obstacles to the pursuit of an anarchist society. We are bound up in these systems, whether we like it or not.

2.6 We believe the concept of privilege is useful for pointing out how being in a dominant social position can make it easy to fail to pay attention to the struggles of others. Thinking about privilege helps us interrogate whose needs are seen as important, and whose are sidelined, in our political struggles.

“To talk about privilege reveals what is normal to those without the oppression, yet cannot be taken for granted by those with it. To talk about homophobia alone may reveal the existence of prejudices – stereotypes about how gay men and lesbian women behave, perhaps, or violence targeted against people for their sexuality. It’s unusual to find an anarchist who won’t condemn these things. To talk about straight privilege, however, shows the other side of the system, the invisible side: what behaviour is considered “typical” for straight people? There isn’t one – straight isn’t treated like a sexual category, it is treated like the absence of “gay”. You don’t have to worry about whether you come across as “too straight” when you’re going to a job interview, or whether your straight friends will think you’re denying your straightness if you don’t dress or talk straight enough, or whether your gay friends will be uncomfortable if you take them to a straight club, or if they’ll embarrass you by saying something ignorant about getting hit on by somebody of the opposite sex. This analysis goes beyond worries about discrimination or prejudice to the very heart of what we consider normal and neutral, what we consider different and other, what needs explaining, what’s taken as read – the prejudices in favour of being straight aren’t recognisable as prejudices, because they’re built into our very perceptions of what is the default way to be” – the Anarchist Federation’s Women’s Caucus (UK).

References/Further Reading

The following pieces were cited in this position statement.

AFED Women’s Caucus, 2012, “A Class Struggle Anarchist Analysis of Privilege Theory,” https://afed.org.uk/a-class-struggle-anarchist-analysis-of-privilege-theory-from-the-womens-caucus/

Abbey Volcano and J Rogue, 2008, “Insurrections at the Intersections,” https://libcom.org/library/insurrections-intersections-feminism-intersectionality-anarchism

Deric Shannon and J. Rogue, “Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality,” http://anarkismo.net/article/14923

Anarchist Affinity, 2013, Statement of Principles, http://www.anarchistaffinity.org/principles/

Upcoming event – 23rd & 30th of April – Workplace Organising Skills 101

Posted on 26 March 2016 by Anarchist Affinity — No Comments ↓

RSVP: http://goo.gl/forms/IIFYBHsqK0

A two-day organiser training workshop, presented by two comrades from the anarcho-syndicalist union the FAU (Berlin section).

When: 11am-5pm on Saturday 23 April and Saturday 30 April. Persons wishing to participate need to be available for both dates.

Where: Activity Rooms 1 & 2, Kathleen Syme Library and Community Centre (251 Faraday St, Carlton).

As many bosses increasingly emphasise flexibility, adaptability and competition between workers as the values founding the modern workplace environment, precarity and abuse of power has become rife. As workers, many of us can easily identify the issues big and small within our workplaces which negatively impact on our received wages, the amount of hours we are expected to spend in our workplaces, our health and safety concerns and our right to be treated with dignity, equality and respect whilst at work. If you are experiencing violations within any of these aspects of your work life (or others) they do not have to be tolerated! There are always steps that can be taken for workers to level the playing field once we are armed with the right skills!

Anarchist Affinity is hosting Organiser Training 101 to help you build these skills. Based on Australian, British (Solidarity Federation), and North American (Industrial Workers of the World) experiences, the Organiser Training is an intensive, hands-on, two day workshop where participants learn basic tools needed to successfully organise and operate their workplaces democratically. OT 101 takes participants through the early development of an organising campaign. Over the weekend you will learn what exactly it means to be organised, why we do it, and techniques to carry out your own campaign.

FAU Berlin Foreigner’s Section comrades Madelaine and Carmen will take you through role plays, group facilitated discussion, and interactive lectures.

Topics include: gathering contact information, approaching co-workers, and building an organising committee relevant to workers who participate in workplace organising.

The training is for free and open to everyone who wishes to participate. We warmly encourage people to attend who have had no prior union experience or organising/activist experience. You don’t have to be working in an industry that is traditionally union-based, as long you have co-workers (in whatever capacity) we can devise a strategy to get you started! In fact if you know other colleagues in your workplace who want to see some change, bring them too. We especially encourage attendance from workers who experience disproportionate exploitation, including people of colour, first nation people, women, LGBTI workers and workers with disability.

Basic snacks and refreshments will be provided on both days, there are a variety of places to get lunch near the training venue.

If you are going to attend please send an RSVP to the Anarchist Affinity before 9 APRIL with the following information:

Name:
Phone #:
Occupation (Industry):
Other notes (i.e. dietary requirements):

But seriously, RSVP because knowing who’s coming helps us plan.

Facebook event here.

Upcoming event – 31st of March – Taking On The State! Social Anarchism, Individualism And Lifestyle Politics

Posted on 26 March 2016 by Anarchist Affinity — No Comments ↓

Our first discussion meeting for the year will be on Social Anarchism, Individualism And Lifestyle Politics

When: 6:30pm, 31st of March
Where: Multipurpose Room 1, Kathleen Syme Library and Community Centre (251 Faraday St, Carlton).

Anarchism is a political philosophy committed to freedom, equality and justice – seeing capitalism, the state and oppressive social relationships as the barriers to the realisation of these goals. With such a simple definition, you’d wonder why anarchism is such a broad church.

In this talk Anarchist Affinity will be looking at the historical development of the two ‘tendencies’ that are often brought together under the umbrella of anarchism: Social Anarchism and Individualism. What are they? What are lifestyle politics? We will talk about how these philosophies have shaped anarchism’s development, and how they manifest in approaches to anarchist politics and action today.

After the talk, a lively discussion and debate!

You can find facebook event page for the event here.

Position statement on anti-fascist political work

Posted on 15 November 2015 by Anarchist Affinity — 1 Comment ↓

Position statement adopted 6 Sep 2015, modified 4 October 2015.

1. Purpose and Scope

1.1. This position statement is intended to sketch some initial points of agreement in order to facilitate Anarchist Affinity’s continued involvement in anti-fascist work in 2015. It is neither comprehensive nor complete, and we recognize that this position will have to be re-visited, reviewed and developed on as the situation and our understanding develops.

2. Basics

2.1. The Australian state is inherently racist; both the state and capitalism in Australia are rooted in racist premises and racist practice.

This commenced with invasion, and continued (and in many ways continues) with acts of dispossession and genocide perpetrated against this continent’s first peoples. It continued with the establishment of control and domination over the entire continent, and with the fostering of a ‘white Australia’ nationalist ideology.

Despite periods of modification, notably the brief period of official multiculturalism, the legitimating ideology of the Australian state has been an exclusionary one that pits a predominantly ‘white Australia’ against perceived internal and external threats. This racism permeates all levels of Australian society; popular racism interacts with the state and capitalism.

2.2. There has long been a small and often irrelevant fascist milieu operating on the fringes of Australian nationalism. The far-right, including fascist actors, seeks to break out from and reach an audience outside of the its milieu. The most significant break-out by the far right in recent political history was the short term success of the One Nation party in 1998.

2.3. The effect of the far-right achieving mainstream success in 1998 was to break the official multicultural consensus and to open the space for the Australian state to move further to the right, most notably on immigration and indigenous affairs.

2.4. In 2015 we have witnessed attempts by fascist actors to utilize the political opportunities opened by the Abbott government’s renewed attacks on the Muslim community. For the first time in several years fascist actors are reaching a wider political audience on the basis of anti-Muslim racism.

3. Position of Anarchist Affinity

3.1. Anarchist Affinity contends that the far-right must not be allowed to achieve wider political traction. A growing far-right represents a particular threat to all groups seen as outsider to the narrative of Australian nationalism.

3.2. Where there appears to be a genuine threat of far-right groups cohering and gaining traction among a significantly wider audience, Anarchist Affinity will seek to act in concert with other groups and actors who wish to counter the threat of the far-right and who understand this threat in similar terms to ourselves.

3.3. Anarchist Affinity seek to support self-organisation and self-defense by communities experiencing racism and colonisation. We seek to amplify the voices of people who experience racism (including anti-Muslim racism) and other communities attacked by the far-right.

3.4. Where possible Anarchist Affinity seeks to identify and organize cooperatively with the libertarian anti-state elements of any wider campaign against the far-right.

3.5. In anti-fascist work Anarchist Affinity rejects nationalism, appeals to “Real Australian” national identity, and appeals to the state. Anarchist Affinity opposes racism at all levels of Australian society.

3.6. In anti-fascist work Anarchist Affinity argues that the working class, which includes the diverse communities attacked by the far-right, can and should organise to defend itself. We seek to support, facilitate and engage in grass-roots resistance to attacks by the far-right.

3.7. The political minimum we will argue for in working with other actors on this issue:

3.7.1. Direct action to confront and disrupt the far-right is appropriate where there is a genuine prospect of far-right groupings gaining access to and cohering in an audience significantly wider than their own circles;

3.7.2. No appeals to the Australian state, legal system, or the police to ‘deal’ with the far-right;

3.7.3. Any critique of the far-right must also critique the racist practice of the Australian state, in particular in relation to both colonisation and the border regime.

3.8. On the basis of the above political minimum, Anarchist Affinity will continue to participate in the Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, as well as the autonomous anti-facist network. This position will be periodically reconsidered.

Motion regarding Michael Schmidt

Posted on 9 November 2015 by Anarchist Affinity

The following motion was adopted at Anarchist Affinity’s general meeting of 31 October 2015:

As a group we’ve read the recent series of articles by Alexander Ross and Joshua Stephens with substantial shock and concern.

Michael Schmidt is an author we have read, hosted in public events, and published in our magazine. The documents and information published by Ross and Stephens demonstrate that Schmidt has argued for and advanced deeply racist and white supremacist politics since at least 2006.

The explanations offered by Schmidt have been seriously unconvincing. The argument advanced by Schmidt that his racism on Stormfront and elsewhere was part of an undercover investigation (undertaken for eight years without result) stretches credulity. Even were this explanation accepted, the internal correspondence by Schmidt, that Ross and Stephens have published, demonstrates deeply unacceptable racism.

Whilst there have been reasonable objections to the manner in which the Schmidt material was announced and published; these are significantly less important than dealing with the problem that a prominent anarchist author, someone many in our tradition (including Anarchist Affinity) have drawn on, has concealed deeply racist views and practice for a number of years.

As a group, Anarchist Affinity has decided to cut ties with Michael Schmidt, and to remove works by Schmidt from our website.

The articles by Ross and Stephens are located here. The internal ZACF document by Michael Schmidt that Ross and Stephens refer to in their first article has been uploaded here.

Statement: Anarkismo Editorial Statement

Posted on 6 September 2015 by Anarchist Affinity

Adopted at the Anarchist Affinity general meeting of 6 September 2015.

1. Anarchist Affinity endorses the Anarkismo editorial statement. The editorial statement is consistent with our politics, strategy and stated principles.

2. Anarchist Affinity endorses and supports the concrete goals of the Anarkismo project.

Appendix – Editoral statement

We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the “platformist”, anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and not an end point.

The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:

Theoretical Unity
Tactical Unity
Collective Action and Discipline
Federalism

Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a “leadership of ideas”.

A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic organizations of the working class (labour organizations, trade unions, syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass organizations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930’s CNT. However, the unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist political organisation(s).

We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and direct action.

We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the workers’ movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.

We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.

We recognise a need for anarchist organisations who agree with these principles to federate on an international basis. However, we believe the degree of federation possible and the amount of effort put into it must be determined by success at building national or regional organisations capable of making such international work a reality, rather than a matter of slogans.

A quick guide to staying safe and being effective: all out against ‘Reclaim Australia’!

Posted on 3 April 2015 by Anarchist Affinity

If you’re going out against Reclaim Australia tomorrow, it’s totally legitimate to feel a bit anxious or worried about what the day might have in store. We hope that this quick primer will provide you with a few tips and resources about how to be keep one another safe, how to be effective and (hopefully) have a bit of fun running the racists out of town.

Get organised:

If you’re not already involved in organising against Reclaim Australia, there’s still time. Search for the counter rally page in your city, read up about what’s going on and consider making contact with the organisers to answer any questions you might have.

Talk to your friends, your family and anyone else about what you want to do, and get them to come along with you. The more of us there is, the easier & more fun this is all going to be.

Have a plan:

1. Check out the transport options, figure out with your friends how you’re gonna get there on the day and then stick to that plan. Getting out of bed on time really matters tomorrow! Also sort out how you are going to get home in advance, and have a back up plan in case of changing circumstances.

2. Know where you’re going & what the protest area looks like. Look at a map & try to memorise the layout of the streets around it. Figure out how you will move between transport & the rally area.

3. Dress appropriately for the conditions in your city. Whatever the weather, hats and sunglasses are going to be useful if you’re standing outside all day & they can also help protect your identity (if that’s something you are concerned about). It’s also a good idea to stash a change of top in your back pack, in case you want to change it up on your way home

4. Bring water, snacks, sunscreen, umbrella/raincoat, a bit of cash, photo ID and any medications you require (in their original packaging)

Get informed:

There’s plenty of really useful stuff on the internet about preparing for an action like this. At the very least, it would be worth checking out Fitzroy Legal Service’s Activists Rights Handbook for basic stuff about your legal rights when on a political demonstration or action.

We also think this guide from South London Antifascists is useful, although not all the points they raise are relevant to activists in Australia.

Also important to have a look at is the Melbourne Street Medic Collective’s website. They have an extensive list of resources available covering many different aspects of political action including preparation, staying safe & self care.

Safety & strength in numbers:

This is pretty common sense really but it is worth repeating.

Any time you got out on an action, no matter what sort, we reckon it’s worth buddying up. This will not only help you communicate, co-ordinate and get things done on the day, but it will keep you all safe.

Pick a buddy, stick with them, and co-ordinate amongst a broader group of people so everyone can check in & be accounted for.

Whatever dangers do exist when dealing with the far-right can be effectively minimised on the day provided we stick together & look out for one another.

If you don’t have a buddy or a group of contacts to coordinate with, then ensure you to get to the event before the scheduled start time, stick with the crowd & try to make some friends.

Remember that solidarity is contagious. If you are feeling nervous, chances are someone else is too. Speak up, reach out & support one another.

A few points about Nazis:

Given that every nationalist, white-supremacist & neo-Nazi organisation in the country (including the Australia First Party, the Australian Defence League, Nationalist Republican Guard & former Australian Protection Party Nick Folkes’ vanity project the ‘Party For Freedom’) is being encouraged to attend the Reclaim Australia rallies, consider the following points.

1. It is important to consider the potential threat posed by hardcore nationalists without overstating it. Though they claim to be the “master race”, and love to act real tough, they’re rather less impressive in person. Some are individually dangerous but it’s easy to avoid this danger with a few simple precautions.

2. Different towns in Australia have different levels of far-right activity, so it really depends where you are as to what flavour of racist bonehead you might be dealing with. Some general rules still apply though: if you’re walking down the street and a gang of boofy blokes wearing flag-capes comes towards you, consider walking somewhere else.

3. Current fuhrer of the Australia First Party (formerly the Australian Nazi Party) “Dr” Jim Saleam has issued a series of dictats to his swastika-licking mates about how they ought to behave themselves on the day. They’re encouraging people to leave the nazi getup & sieg-heiling at home, wrap themselves in the Aussie flag (presumably to cover up any fascist tattoos) & spread the word about good ole Adolf in a gentle, less threatening way. Basically, they’re going to try to be on their best behaviour.

4. Fascists on di attack? We will film them back! Though self-appointed leader of Reclaim Australia Shermon “shit on a mosque” Burgess is trying to play down his connections to racists, fascists and boneheads around ‘Straya, we are well aware of the company he keeps. Unfortunately, this information doesn’t seem to matter much to his followers, but it is still important to identify the nazis on the day, both to keep people safety, but also to try & make Reclaim organisers sod the nazis off (like they promised to).

5. The most important thing you can do to stay safe is to look out for one another & stick together. There is no more important time to do this than when the rally breaks up & everyone goes home. Fascists are bullies, but they’re also cowards & some may hang around in the city to look to pick a fight. We can protect ourselves from this threat by making sure we move in a group (to the station etc), with purpose & with a clear idea of where we’re going. Know the location, know the exit routes & stick to your plan.

Be careful around the police:

It doesn’t matter what you actually think about the police, love em or hate em, you will definitely have to deal with them on the day. The Activists Rights Handbook is a much more rigorous & comprehensive guide for dealing with the law than we have room for here, but here are a few tips:

1. Don’t talk to them unless you are detained or arrested. You don’t have to speak to the cops, and no matter how nice they are, the reason they speak to you is to gain information that they may attempt to use against you or someone else. Better to be safe and say nothing at all.

2. Elect a police liaison to negotiate on your group’s behalf. Instead of allowing the cops to decide who they want to put pressure on, choose a confident person whose job it is to communicate with the plod if/when it is necessary.

3. Don’t waste your time trying to reason with them about why nazis shouldn’t get to parade around in public. They either don’t care, or it’s their job to not care. An organisation as corrupt and institutionally racist as the police force cannot be used as a tool to confront racism.

4. Use your common sense & don’t do anything silly. By all means defend yourself & your friends if attacked, but don’t initiate anything with the boneheads, no matter what they say or do. Collective action is what makes antifascism effective, not individual bravado.

Have fun:

For the most part, the kind of muppets who will drag themselves along to a rally about the “evils of Islam” on a bloody public holiday are pitiful, pathetic and ridiculous. Make good use of that fact.

It’s likely that most of their attendees are so attached to their silly conspiracy theories that they are well beyond rational debate. But they are not beyond ridicule.

Blast them with music, sing them songs, chant them down. Dance your ass off to anti-racist tunes, explain to passers by why they’re plonkers, bring along a vuvuzela.. whatever!

The most effective forms of resistance involve everyone participating how they’re best able, so bring your skills, creativity and your friends and let’s make a go of it!

Stand together, stay safe, no pasaran.

Bonus!

No Platform for Transphobia

Posted on 14 June 2014 by Anarchist Affinity — 1 Comment ↓

Transphobia is hate speech.

We do not use the phrase ‘hate speech’ lightly. When we describe something as ‘hate speech’ we are talking about speech qualitatively different from mere bigotry, prejudice or ignorance. Hate speech is a weapon, wielded against the marginalised. Hate speech serves, constructs or reinforces systems of oppression that operate upon its targets. Hate speech is characterised by an attempt to dehumanise and delegitimise the very existence of its target, and in this sense it is ultimately eliminationist. By dehumanising its targets, hate speech encourages and supports further violence, marginalisation and oppression.

At its core, transphobia denies the legitimacy and reality of sex and gender diverse peoples’ experience of gender. It is worth highlighting the extreme consequence of this denial. Trans people face extremely high levels of homelessness, poverty, physical and sexual violence, and social ostracism. Other systems of oppression, such as sexism and racism, deny the humanity, intelligence and worth of their targets. Transphobic attacks, in denying the reality of trans peoples’ experience of gender, in effect deny that trans people even exist.

Transphobia is advanced in our midst by those claiming to be radical feminists. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists portray trans people as gender ‘imposters’ and argue that they undermine feminist organising. This is often accompanied by the intentional misgendering and involuntary outing of individual trans people. Through their actions and ideas, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists promote discrimination, bullying and create the ideological basis for the further oppression of an already marginalised group of people

While these ideas are often put forward under the guise of feminism, they are no part of a genuinely libertatory feminist or anarchist movement. Those advocating transphobia must be confronted and rejected in the same manner we should confront and reject racists, homophobes and misogynists. We must deny those advocating hate speech any legitimacy in our midst.

Anarchist Affinity calls on all other anarchist groups and individuals to join us in rejecting transphobia by refusing to provide a platform to any person or group advancing transphobic hate speech, and by refusing to share a platform with persons perpetuating transphobia.

Anarchist Affinity.
14 June 2014.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: