💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-the-affinity-group.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:42:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Affinity Group
Author: Anonymous
Date: 2001
Language: en
Topics: affinity groups, organization
Source: Retrieved on July 19, 2009 from http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/affinitygroup.htm

Anonymous

The Affinity Group

Contrary to what is often believed, affinity between comrades does not

depend on sympathy or sentiment. To have affinity means to have

knowledge of the other, to know how they think on social issues, and how

they think they can intervene in the social clash. This deepening of

knowledge between comrades is an aspect that is often neglected,

impeding effective action.

One of the most difficult problems anarchists have had to face

throughout their history is what form of organisation to adopt in the

struggle.

At the two ends of the spectrum we find on the one hand the

individualists who refuse any kind of stable relationship; on the other

those who support a permanent organisation which acts on a programme

established at the moment of its constitution.

Both of the forms sketched out here have characteristics that are

criticizable from an insurrectional point of view.

In fact, when individualists single out and strike the class enemy they

are sometimes far ahead of the most combative of the class components of

the time, and their action is not understood. On the contrary, those who

support the need for a permanent organisation often wait until there is

already a considerable number of exploited indicating how and when to

strike the class enemy. The former carry out actions that turn out to be

too far ahead of the level of the struggle, the latter too far behind.

One of the reasons for this deficiency is in our opinion lack of

perspective.

Clearly no one has a sure recipe that contains no defects, we can

however point out the limitations we see in certain kinds of

organisation, and indicate possible alternatives.

One of these is known as “affinity groups”.

The term requires an explanation.

Affinity is often confused with sentiment. Although not distinctly

separate, the two terms should not be considered synonymous. There could

be comrades with whom we consider we have an affinity, but whom we do

not find sympathetic and vice versa.

Basically, to have an affinity with a comrade means to know them, to

have deepened one’s knowledge of them. As that knowledge grows, the

affinity can increase to the point of making an action together

possible, but it can also diminish to the point of making it practically

impossible.

Knowledge of another is an infinite process which can stop at any level

according to the circumstances and objectives one wants to reach

together. One could therefore have an affinity for doing some things and

not others. It becomes obvious that when one speaks of knowledge that

does not mean it is necessary to discuss one’s personal problems,

although these can become important when they interfere with the process

of deepening knowledge of one another.

In this sense having knowledge of the other does not necessarily mean

having an intimate relationship. What it is necessary to know is how the

comrade thinks concerning the social problems which the class struggle

confronts him with, how he thinks he can intervene, what methods he

thinks should be used in given situations, etc.

The first step in the deepening of knowledge between comrades is

discussion. It is preferable to have a clarifying premise, such as

something written, so the various problems can be gone into well.

Once the essentials are clarified the affinity group or groups are

practically formed. The deepening of knowledge between comrades

continues in relation to their action as a group and the latter’s

encounter with reality as a whole. While this process is taking place

their knowledge often widens and strong bonds between comrades often

emerge. This however is a consequence of the affinity, not its primal

aim.

It often happens that comrades go about things the other way round,

beginning some kind of activity and only proceeding to the necessary

clarifications later, without ever having assessed the level of affinity

required to do anything together. Things are left to chance, as though

some kind of clarity were automatically to emerge from the group simply

by its formation. Of course this does not happen: the group either

stagnates because there is no clear road for it to take, or it follows

the tendency of the comrade or comrades who have the clearest ideas as

to what they want to do while others allow themselves to be pulled

along, often with little enthusiasm or real engagement.

The affinity group on the other hand finds it has great potential and is

immediately addressed towards action, basing itself not on the quantity

of its adherents, but on the qualitative strength of a number of

individuals working together in a projectuality that they develop

together as they go along.

From being a specific structure of the anarchist movement and the whole

arc of activity that this presents — propaganda, direct action, perhaps

producing a paper, working within an informal organisation — it can also

look outwards to forming a base nucleus or some other mass structure and

thus intervene more effectively in the social clash.