A-Infos (en) Australia, MAC-G on the convergence, and other opinions too

MAC-G on the convergence* ---- During the Easter weekend there was an Anarchist 
Conference in Melbourne. About 60 people attended, with a maximum count of 55 
people being in the room at any time. About 43% were women. ---- One of the main 
aims of this Conference was the forming of an Anarchist Federation (of a 
synthesis type) after the relevant proposal by the Mutiny Collective from 
Sydney, supported by Melbourne Anarchist Club (MAC) and others since last 
November-December. But in the Conference has been disovered that there are a lot 
more questions of shared politics to be worked out, as well as ideas of what the 
structure & purpose of an Anarchist Federation would be.

Participants have reacted to that in a mature way by deciding to find what 
common agreements are possible now, including one to explore the potential for a 
Federation. So, a Federation has not been formed. Instead, the Conference 
decided to form a network with the purpose of working towards a Federation and 
seeing whether one is possible.

The delegate of the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) carried the 
thoughts and proposals by the group:

The MACG’s position on the proposed Anarchist Federation was that, firstly, it 
welcomes the discussion about a possible Anarchist Federation as a sign that the 
Anarchist movement in Australia is developing and becoming more serious. MACG 
has no objection in principle to a Federation. It is the correct way to operate 
in a single organisation, but the key is to know what we are doing and do it 
correctly.

The biggest problem is that the current Anarchist groups in Australia have 
little experience of working with each other and there is little understanding 
of common politics and therefore what we had to work out at the Conference was 
only the beginning of what it is necessary to know. Thus, MACG considers that an 
Anarchist Federation in Australia at the moment is premature and the best 
outcome that could come of the Conference was the formation of a formal network 
of groups who make a commitment to working with each other with a view to 
deciding over the course of a year or two, whether a federation is possible.

MACG also noted that any Anarchist Federation must be a Federation of groups, 
not of groups and individuals together. The latter would create major problems 
in decision-making and be a haven for cranks and destructive personalities. The 
groups would have to be real ones, with common principles and acting in their 
own names. Phantom groups for the purpose of admitting scattered individuals 
would not count. At the most, individuals would be able to participate in the
Federation as observers. Any Anarchist Federation must be based on a clear set 
of shared principles so that its members can be able to come to agreement on how 
to act. Without a strong set of shared politics, every practical proposal will 
be the subject of endless argument. This is a recipe for bitterness, division 
and ineffectiveness.

Also something that MACG considers extremely important is that any Anarchist 
Federation must be based on a clear class analysis. Class is not an “issue” to 
be put alongside other issues, but a fundamental dynamic of how the world works. 
The new world will be created by a revolution of the working class, or not at 
all. Problems such as the oppression of women, racism, homophobia and the 
destruction of the environment can only be eliminated by the overthrow of 
capitalism. This does not mean that all non-class oppressions have to wait till 
“after the revolution”, but rather that it is the duty of the entire working 
class to fight them here and now. Just as there will be no women's liberation 
without workers' revolution, there will be no workers' revolution without 
women's liberation. An injury to one is an injury to all.

A class analysis means a recognition that the power of the working class is 
based on our ability to stop capitalist production and the flow of profits. The 
strategic orientation of the Anarchist movement needs to be towards building 
workplace organisation, for that is where our power is. All other activities 
should be seen in the light of their contribution to that strategy.

The lack of a class analysis leads Anarchists, like it does others, into 
dead-end strategies. Some of them include parliamentary reformism, lifestylism 
or insurrectionism. A criticism of lifestylism does not mean that we should not 
try to live our lives as Anarchists as much as possible in the here and now, but 
rather that making personal efforts in that direction is not a substitute for a 
workers' revolution. Insurrectionism derives, in part, from using class as a 
badge of identification rather than a strategic orientation for action. The 
revolution will not be made by making riots against the police, however 
despicable they are, but through workers taking over their workplaces and 
defending them against all comers.

If, despite MACG’s objection, an Anarchist Federation was to be formed at the 
Conference, the MACG would not join. Instead, MACG would establish close 
relations with its constituent groups with a subjective class struggle 
orientation for the purpose of having co-operation on shared priorities and 
helping them deal with the issues that arise. Our attitude to the Federation 
will be supportive and not hostile. We will not rule out joining the Federation 
at a later date should it evolve into a form we support.

An excellent discussion on class occurred on the third day. A lot of people had 
criticised class analysis on the second day, but when we got down to the actual 
discussion the next day, a lot of ideas were clarified. Several others from a 
range of different groups were putting forward arguments that seemed to be based 
on a genuine working class position.

During the Conference, it became known that in Sydney that there is a small 
group of Anarchist Communists there who are interested in setting up a group 
like MACG in Sydney. There is also another group in Sydney called Alarm which is 
still in forming by young anarchists and which is moving along anarchist 
communist lines.

Though the Conference demonstrated that the general level of consciousness and 
maturity in the Anarchist movement in Australia is still very uneven, but there 
are a number of serious groups and individuals and the balance is shifting 
gradually and strongly towards a higher level than we have seen before.

@ndy
--------------------------------------------

Another Leigh Location: Melbourne, Australia by MAC member


MAC (the Melbourne Anarchist Club) is putting together a response to the 
convergence soon (like, this week).

Princess Mob from Mutiny zine sent me some questions re my thoughts on the 
conference. I'll put my response here. Hope I'm not ruining any exclusive 
stories or summink.

I should emphasize that this is just what I reckon about the weekend. The parts 
where I say what I think MAC's perspective is conjecture, and just based on 
where I think we're going and how it was received. We've kind of talked about 
it, but haven't formulated a response together.

     <quote>
     1. what did you expect of the conference?

Going in, I was expecting it to be as much a meet-and-greet session as anything. 
While I think all anarchists should work toward federation, it seems pretty 
obvious that we need to lay the foundations for that first. I guess I expected 
both the individuals and groups to have asked themselves what a federation would 
be good for, and if they could see benefits for establishing these relationships 
with others, they would come to the conference. I was hoping that connections 
between groups could be developed through a program of mutual aid. I know from 
MAC's perspective we really need the input of other anarchists on a very 
day-to-day level, and I personally thought it was realistic to expect 
connections with like-minded groups to occur.


2. how do you think it went?

Overall it was positive and I'm pretty comfortable saying that it was a 
significant event in the history of anarchy in Australia. In terms of its stated 
aims, and what I was hoping to get out of it, we fell short of some ambitious 
goals. As one of the organisers and as a member of the collective that runs the 
space, I think we made some significant fuck-ups in terms of format and 
preparation that I'd like to talk about at some point in the near future. There 
was a lot of enthusiasm and participation on the first day that was squandered 
on discussions on process when there was clear general agreement anyway. There 
were a lot of parallels to Queeruption in 2005 if anyone remembers that, 
although nowhere near as bad and, of course, we actually achieved some things!

I think one of the most interesting things, that was also predicted in advance 
of the conference, was the extent to which people who were not anarchists or 
interested in talking about federation and co-operation were attracted to the 
event. MAC was only really interested in taking to anarchist groups about the 
possibilities of federating, and the initial call-out got us pretty excited that 
others were thinking along the same lines. That call-out was revised later on to 
be broader than, I think, we could find useful in terms of our project; we're 
explicitly anarchist and primarily wish to work with other anarchist groups, 
although obviously not exclusively. That said, what worked about the conference 
was the open spaces which we used to seek out other anarchists.

3. what did you find dissapointing?

The extent to which "federation" in the anarchist sense was misunderstood (or 
deliberately obscured) and the tendency for individuals and non-anarchists to 
drive the agenda away from this discussion. On reflection, it seems there was an 
attitude that if organised anarchist groups go ahead and co-operate or create 
agreements with each other that this is somehow authoritarian. Federation 
describes a series of agreements between groups to co-operate, and looking back 
it's kind of weird to expect a conference made of such disparate groups and 
practices to be able to declare whether an anarchist federation (or libertarian 
federation or whatever) could exist or not. In my opinion, this was partly a 
reflection of the desire to create consensus and move forward together (yay for 
that), but the way consensus was defined in terms of process meant that those 
who opposed certain agreements could block others from discussing this openly. 
Fuck that for a joke. If a federation exists, it will be because of necessity 
and practice, not declaration.

We could have sorted this out prior to the conference by defining what was meant 
by 'federation', although why people can't just google it is beyond me.

A lot of the facilitation was sub-par and a little too free'n'easy for my 
tastes. I was the one really pushing for the Two Minutes of Infamy sessions, and 
the modifications to the format really did not work, and probably wasted 
people's time more than anything. It's a very Melbourne thing, I think, and I 
probably should have explained it more. They're great when they're done 
properly, I promise.

Yeah, so the crap facilitation (I mean the lack of clarity and purpose, not 
necessarily the facilitators them/ourselves!) and lax attitude to the agenda 
served to make some sessions very boring, especially when a few people would go 
off on some long, largely irrelevant tangents. I think the dwindling numbers 
over the course of the conference reflect that. Having said that, maybe the 
format was all wrong for our purposes, and the problems stem from that. I'd be 
interested in hearing what others think about it.

4. what was heaps good?

Meeting other anarchist crews and seeing how much commonality we already have. 
There was one meeting in particular between MAC and Jura about the bureaucratic 
stuff of running a space that just snapped everything into focus for me; imagine 
being able to call on other anarchists for that kind of advice all the time. It 
demonstrated to me that there is a real need for anarchists to work together on 
the basis of mutual aid, and all this politics and theory is just bullshit to 
fill the time. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, because there's obviously a 
need to spread anarchist ideas and discuss these things, but how this practice 
can really work was great to see happening right in front of me… and we were 
talking about fucking tax and GST!

 From a MAC point of view, I think it made us realise that there's a very real 
possibility of federating locally. MAC already has agreements with groups like 
Barricade, ADA and the ASF, so why not extend this to being a local federation? 
That's the question in front of us as a result of the conference. We'd be 
kicking goals if we did, and it'd sort out so many problems associated with 
everything being a bit scenesterish and the need to look out for each other. 
Even the vague possibility of this happening is very bloody exciting. This was 
an outcome of hearing groups like ADA talk about their goals and desires, which 
oddly enough, we hadn't really made space for previously. For me at least, the 
conference helped realign (and reconfirm) my priorities as an anarchist.

There's also the practical outcomes and the conference for next year, but I'm 
sure others will cover that.

Holy fuck, and that alcoholic ginger beer. Whoever introduced that is bloody genius.
            </quote>

----------------------------------


Wink poster's website anarchist instigator


I strongly agree for the most part with what MAC-G or rather the delegate from 
MAC-G said, especially in regards to groups and class analysis. It was a great 
weekend in terms of the discussion that went on and i felt there was a lot of 
connection and commonality with the other anarchist groups as Leigh already 
mentioned. I do however think that anarchist groups (whether federated or not) 
need to work on a simple publication that isn't aimed at other anarchist groups, 
but at Australian working people in the here and now in order to throw off the 
misconceptions that Australian people have of anarchism. If anyone would be 
interested in working on something like this, please contact me.

_________________
AKA: KADET

"Freedom cannot be bought, it must be stolen!"

Melbourne Anarchist Club | Barricade Books | Only the Truth is Revolutionary

www.onlythetruthisrevolutionary.blogspot.com

---------------------------------------------

Literary Piano

<quote>  anarchist instigator wrote:
     I strongly agree for the most part with what MAC-G or rather the delegate 
from MAC-G said, especially in regards to groups and class analysis. It was a 
great weekend in terms of the discussion that went on and i felt there was a lot 
of connection and commonality with the other anarchist groups as Leigh already 
mentioned. I do however think that anarchist groups (whether federated or not) 
need to work on a simple publication that isn't aimed at other anarchist groups, 
but at Australian working people in the here and now in order to throw off the 
misconceptions that Australian people have of anarchism. If anyone would be 
interested in working on something like this, please contact me.
</quote>

There's been talk of that in Sydney, too. But its been pushed that it would be 
sort of a federation publication.
Interesting dicussions on it here.

In regards to the first post, regarding MACG's position, I strongly agree with 
MACG. Class analysis

One other criticism I had with the anarchist federation was that I found that 
the idea was to be molding already existing groups - e.g. Mutiny, ADA - into the 
federation.
The problem I see with this is that, in the cities in Australia, there exists 
numerous anarchist groups already, which work together only on an occasional 
basis - communication is okay, and so on.

Instead, I think that anarchist groups should be formed directly by and for the 
federation - as branches, groups, or what have you - which exist in each city, 
and if big enough, are broken up into sections within the city (e.g. Northern 
Sydney branch/group, Inner West branch/group).

The reason this is that, a/ the purposes of these already existing groups does 
not need to be changed, and their purpose continues as was (for example, if they 
considered themselves more insurrectionary than organizational, this doesn't 
have to change, or alter the politics and organization of the federation, nor 
the group itself, but yet provides the opportunity for those who don't consider 
themselves either [insurrectionary or organizational] to be involved in both).

It also makes the groups, and the federation, more welcoming, in my opinion, to 
people who want to become involved in the anarchist movement and organizations, 
its more inviting (especially because it's not insurrectionary, and thus the 
groups members aren't threatened by new members either).

I wanted to propose this at the conference, but alas, the circumstances I find 
myself in prevented that.

***********

Also, for anarchist communists, anarcho-syndicalists, and so forth, in Sydney 
(or NSW generally), an anarchist communist group is in the process of being 
organized at present.

The next meeting for this group is on the 20th of April (i.e. this Sunday) at 
1pm, at Jura Books (440 Parramatta Road, Petersham).
for more info, contact black[dot]red[at]gmail[dot]com or PM me.

***********

'"We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; 
there is not the slightest doubt about that.
We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." - 
Buenaventura Durruti

------------------------------------------

Anarchist instigator

I think what 'literary piano' was referring to in regards to 'Insurrectionary' 
is perhaps best summed up by the in-fighting going on in Greece between the 
'Insurrectionists' and the 'organisational'. Heres an article on it, theres an 
even better one on anarkismo but i can't seem to find it Sad

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070408112944402

and also the MAC webpage is going to see some improvements if and when its 
available again, if you want some infomation on MAC Literary Piano, you know 
where to find me Wink

_________________
AKA: KADET

"Freedom cannot be bought, it must be stolen!"

Melbourne Anarchist Club | Barricade Books | Only the Truth is Revolutionary

www.onlythetruthisrevolutionary.blogspot.com

---------------------------------------------------------

Literary Piano

<quote>
     @ndy wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your rationale for the forming of new groups in order 
to constitute a federation. I'm also not sure what you mean by the term 
'insurrectionary'.
</quote>

I tried to explain it in the previous post, but the purpose was that, the 
existing organizations wouldn't have to mold into the federation, but groups 
would be formed for the purpose of the federation and for building large 
anarchist groups in the cities (and towns).
(Thats not to say, that they couldn't mold, and just move the membership as to 
being part of the federation in which ever City they're from)

The point I was making is that anarchist groups which exist now often have 
different purposes - some which aspire to things like violent direct action, or 
specific purposes (e.g. Mutiny was [I don't know if it still is] an anarchist 
anti-war collective. I don't think that the objectives of Mutiny should change 
for the federation, but instead new groups - or branches - of the federation 
should be formed for the purpose of organizing on a different level, and ways, 
to that of groups like Mutiny, or direct action groups, or affinity groups).

And by insurrectionary, as far as 'groups of anarchists' go, I mean groups that 
wish to inspire revolution by action, as opposed to organizing.

(In which case, I'm not saying the former is wrong, or unnecessary, quite the 
opposite infact, but there is a need for both)

********************************
<quote>
     anarchist instigator wrote:
     I think what 'literary piano' was referring to in regards to 
'Insurrectionary' is perhaps best summed up by the in-fighting going on in 
Greece between the 'Insurrectionists' and the 'organisational'. Heres an article 
on it, theres an even better one on anarkismo but i can't seem to find it Sad

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070408112944402

and also the MAC webpage is going to see some improvements if and when its 
available again, if you want some information on MAC Literary Piano, you know 
where to find me Wink


The bullshit going between anarchists I found out about from Anarkismo, but I 
assume this article is much the same, if not entirely. Smile
I think the conclusions of the author are spot on, as well.

Anyway, hopefully I will meet some MAC people when I go to Melbourne next. I 
want to see the new space.

---------------------------------------------------------

@ndy

<quote>

'K.

I'm somewhat familiar with the debates over insurrectionary anarchism, both 
contemporary and historical. Like the distinction between 'social' and 
'lifestyle' anarchism, I think it's largely unhelpful. That said, I think KKA is 
a neat-o publication:
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/
Willful Disobedience is also interesting:
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbutterfly.html
As are the writings of Alfredo Bonanno and the like:
http://www.re-pressed.org.uk/pamphlets.htm
As for the situ in Greece, dunno. The anarkismo thang is here I thinks:
http://www.re-pressed.org.uk/pamphlets.htm

I'll respond to the stuff about the fed later.

---------------------------------------------------------

Leigh

In my view, it isn't possible to speak of an anarchist movement without an 
anarchist federation anymore than it is possible to speak of being an anarchist 
without being in an anarchist group.

Since the FAA collapsed in June 1976, the only organisation to practice 
anarchist federation has been the ASF.

The FAA's biggest error was forming as a federation of groups and individuals. 
The issue that caused its collapse was class. It reflected the battle of ideas 
between anarchism and liberalism.

If an anarchist federation is to form in Australia I think it will most likely 
start on a regional level first and most likely in Melbourne.

One question worth posing is 'Why has there been no anarchist federation in 
Australia since 1976?'

The Melbourne ASF has, on two occasions previously, attempted to initiate 
projects with the design of creating an anarchist federation in Australia, once 
in 1997 and again in 1999. On both occasions the proposal was greeting with 
either disinterest or hostility by the anarchist scene.

In my view, this is because what passes for or is referred to as an anarchist 
'movement' is in fact a middle-class liberalist discourse that merely 
appropriates the signs and symbols of anarchism.

How shall we organise an anarchist society if we can't organise an anarchist 
federation?

-------------------
Copied from: http://bull.anarchy.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=446
======================================
* The Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group has a website here: 
http://melbourneanarchistcommunistgroup.org/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en