đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș anarcho-reports-on-bradford-mayday-98.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:32:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Reports on Bradford MayDay â98 Author: Aileen OâCarroll Date: January 30, 2009 Language: en Topics: May Day, reportback Source: Retrieved on 29th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=177 Notes: These are some of the thoughts that have been mulling around in my mind since the Bradford conference. I am very aware that it is so much easier to criticise than to offer solutions, so bearing this in mind I would like to throw out five things
Iâm an Irish anarchist, a member of the Workers Solidarity Movement.
These are some of the thoughts that have been mulling around in my mind
since the Bradford conference. I am very aware that it is so much easier
to criticise than to offer solutions, so bearing this in mind I would
like to throw out five things (not solutions unfortunately) that came to
mind in Bradford. I should emphasise, that as an Irish anarchist, my
experience of the situation in England, Scotland and Wales is extremely
limited. Sometimes outsiders can see things that those in the thick of
things miss, sometimes outsiders get things completely wrong. Who knows?
My hope is that this will contribute to the debate that is beginning at
the moment.
The beginning is a very good place to start. The group I was in at
Bradford began with the question, are we marglinised. The discussion
revealed that yes, politically our ideas were in the minority, but that
the marglinisation we felt as individuals was no different from the
marglinisation that was experienced by most of society. As anarchists we
feel like outsiders because so few others understand or agree with our
world view, yet we should also be aware that this feeling of exclusion,
of loneliness, is felt by the majority of people in todayâs society, no
matter what their political persuasion, gender, race, whether urban or
rural. To live at the end of the twentieth century is to live on the
periphery. For me this discussion highlighted that any discussion of the
state of the anarchist movement in the UK, must start from an awareness
that as anarchists we are not separate from the society we want to
change, we donât look on from the outside. Being part of todayâs
society, we are vulnerable to the changes of mood, of political and
social climate that affect society in general. The bottom line is that
if we are looking for the reasons for weak state of the anarchist
movement in the UK at the moment, not all the answerâs will be found by
looking at anarchism. In many ways the movement seems to have reflected
changes that have occurred elsewhere in the world.
For example, in my group many people, with great honesty, expressed
their sense of demoralisation, of depression and a growing cynicism of
politics. These are views I have heard many times before, from both
people who were politically activ, and relatively apolitical. Although,
theoretically, it was predicted that the fall of the Berlin wall and the
changes that followed, would deal a body blow to political idealism, the
practical effect of living through such times were never really
expressed. The idea that progress is possible has been severely
undermined. The idea that it is possible to create an alternative future
has been severely undermined. The idea that people have power and a
creative ability to decide their own destinies has been severely
undermined. In a sense, that this was going to happen, was obvious and
was predicted, however perhaps words can never guard against the bitter
experience of living in a time that is characterised by defeat and
retreat. What I want to emphasis is that, it isnât all that surprising
that activists feel demoralised. Indeed it would be surprising if it was
otherwise. Only an extremely strong, cohesive and coherent anarchist
movement, of the like that has never existed in the English speaking
world, could have buffered the movement against the dwindling of hope
that has occurred in the world at large. That movement didnât exist, and
here we are now. What to do?
Our starting point should be to recognise that we are part of society,
and as such it is important to understand how far that affects our
political ideas and work. The anarchist movement needs to become more
self aware. We need to ask ourselves, what are we doing and why? Are we
like bits of wood in a river, tossed this way and that or are can be we
more like salmon, consciously swimming against the tide towards our
goal. The following sections identify some of the questions I think we
should be asking ourselves.
At the Bradford conference, I felt that there was little sense among the
participants, that an anarchist movement existed at the moment, or,
indeed any understanding of the importance of creating such a movement.
There seemed to be confusion as to what an anarchist movement was, with
some people equating it with the creation of one all encompassing
organisation. To explain, an anarchist movement isnât an organisation or
a structure, rather it is a sense of solidarity and comradeship that
exists between different organisations and individuals. It is an
understanding that though we have our differences, we are working
towards a common goal, and as such we will work in tandem, when
possible. It is the idea that when we co-ordinate our activities, it is
not simply because it is a more effective way of attaining our goal (for
example strike support) but also, and equally important, because in
doing so, we are building an anarchist movement. It is the realisation
that we should exchange ideas, organisation with organisation, and in
this way use our diversity of experiences to create a stronger anarchism
that benefits us all.
This understanding of an anarchist movement doesnât seem to exist at the
moment. From what I can work out, in England and Scotland, a variety of
local networks exist, and cooperate on the basis of activity. The
impression I got, was that these local area-based supports co-ordinated
activity but didnât see that they had any role in creating an anarchist
movement, they worked together to achieve specific aims, but not to
build anarchism. However, as I said, Iâm looking in from the outside,
and I would be very interested in hearing how those involvled in such
networks define their goals.
An Anarchist movement is an ideal, an entity, that exists across time
and space. In contrast, Anarchism in the UK seems to exist solely in the
here and now. There was no sense of being part of an Anarchist heritage
that stretched into the past or of creating an anarchist tradition that
would be carried forward into the future.
Such a tradition would buttress the movement against the ups and downs
of political optimism and opportunity that we experience It would give
the gives the work we all do, in our own areas, a larger purpose. When I
spend a rainy Thursday evening writing an article such as this, part of
my motivation comes from the fact that I see myself as adding to the
work done of thousands of others. If Louise Michel could take the time
in 1871, if Emma Goldman could take the time in the 1920âs, if the women
of Mujeros Libres could do so in Spain in 1930âs, I can certainly do so
now. There are very few anarchists in Ireland, and so I take my support
and inspiration from those anarchist women who took the time in the
past. To reject your heritage, to cut yourself off from those who
struggled before you is to deny yourself a sense of place in history and
a source of motivation, inspiration and support. As marglinised people,
can we afford to do this?
Furthermore, I get the impression that tradition is equated with
history, so that an anarchist tradition is seen as nothing more than
dead, dusty and redundant knowledge. Yet, at the core of anarchist ideas
is the idea of creation. People have the ability to create a new
society, to create new ways of organising our lives, to create new ways
of struggle. An anarchist conception of tradition, for me, is bound up
with this idea of creation. Tradition is something that must be made,
that evolves, that changes. When anarchists are active, they create and
recreate their tradition. Tradition is never static and bound in books.
What an anarchist tradition gives us, is the idea that we are adding to
a body of knowledge and experience that will continue to be drawn on and
used in the future. It gives our anarchism a life that is greater that
each individual that makes it up.
At Bradford, a common experience seemed to be, of small groups existing
for short periods of time in certain areas, only to die when those
involved relocated. This is a very difficult problem to solve. In
Ireland we faced similar difficulties, as generations of young activists
emigrated. There are no easy solutions, but the creation of an anarchist
movement, that is bigger than any one individual or location, would at
least ensure, that where an individual is forced to drop out, the work
they have done will remain part of the greater movement.
Another thing I noticed in Bradford was the isolation of the anarchists
I met there. There seemed to be little awareness that an anarchist
movement existed beyond the shores of England, Scotland and Wales, and
within the island anarchists seemed only to communicate with others on
an extremely local level. A national Anarchist movement can in some way
mimise the problems of relocation mentioned above. In order to create
such a momement we need to be able to extend beyond local areas (more of
this latter). Secondly, an Anarchist movement should draw on the
experiences of other anarchists. It should seek to find out what is
happening in other countries. I travel to anarchist conferences as often
as possible because I find them both a source of inspiration and of
information. It is remarkable, how many of the problems we face in
Ireland are similar to those faced in England, Italy, France etc. In
order to overcome the isolation felt, anarchism in the UK, needs to
change the way it sees itself. Rather than picturing oneself as a member
of a small group of activists located in a particular part of the
island, each anarchist needs to see him or herself as part of a greater,
world wide movement. By broaden its horizons, the British anarchist
movement can start availing of the resources and experiences of
anarchists abroad. Of course, this wonât solve all problems, and
language barriers and financial constraints will always limit how much
communication is possible.
In order to succeed, anarchists must be able to speak with confidence.
In order to communicate our ideas, we must have confidence in our
ability to say, âthis is how things areâ. Again, I felt this seemed to
be missing from Bradford. Perhaps this is because in the past confidence
was equated with dogmatism, division and sectarianism. Certainly we need
to address how differences within the movement are dealt with, and as
far as I can remember, one of the closing statements emphasised that we
should respect other peoples opinions. However, we should also be
careful, that fear of disagreement, doesnâ t lead to a watering down of
opinion, or the avoidance of taking a position. As I said, we
consciously or unconsciously reflect the society we belong to, and one
of the developments of modern day thought, is that all opinions and
ideas are equally valid and true. While this sounds egalitarian on the
surface, it is also a recipe for stagnation, for if an idea is accepted
as given, it will never be explored in greater depth. Truth emerges from
the clash of ideas. If we speak with strength, we are convincing. If we
are challenged with equal strength by our comrades, we are forced to
re-evaluate and modify. Out of this process, of debate and discussion,
of give and take, the theory and practice that we need to build an
anarchist society will emerge (isnât this process the essence of
anarchism in action?). Again perhaps one of the greatest problems that
Anarchists in Britain face is how to undergo this process without
leading to sectarian division. Perhaps the answer lies in realising that
there is a difference between division and sectarianism, while the
former can be a positive response to disagreement, the latter never can
be.
Related to this is the question of theory. At Bradford, some raised the
old call, âwe need new theoryâ. I agree with them, but would like to
make a few points. It is worth considering what we mean by theory and
how it is created. If you see in theory, the anarchist holy grail, you
are bound to be disappointed. No theory exists or can exists that will
solve all our problems. It is futile to wait for a theory to appear that
will lead us all to liberation. What is theory? Theory is an
understanding of how the world is organised. It is an understanding of
why we do, what we do. Where does it come from? If comes from our
experiences, our struggles, our campaign work. Theory is what we create
in small rooms when we discuss why Tony Blair is introducing the JSA? is
it stoppable? and if it is what are the best tactics we should be using?
Theory informs our practice (tells us what to do) and comes out of our
practice (what we do informs our theory). As such, it should be obvious
that theory doesnât grow overnight, it develops over time. And no theory
is ever finished, it is always open to re-evaluation, re-discussion as
times change (or donât change). So yes, anarchists need theory, but this
is not something that we can divorce from activity, or indeed wait for.
Instead we need to ensure that the we constantly analysis the work that
we do, that we examine our activity, that we question the society we
live in. We need to write this stuff down, exchange it with others,
invite criticisms, force ourselves to come to positions. This is the
process that both developes our understanding of the world and developes
our confidence in explaining our ideas to others.
Finally, a word about organisation. When I went to Bradford, I was
convinced that a major weakness of the British anarchist movement is its
extreme aversion to organisation. I still believe that without the
development of strong organisations, anarchism in England, Scotland and
Wales will always be weak and susceptible to the ebb and flow of the
political climate. It seems that the issue of organisation has never
been discussed in depth. It is true that many national organisations
have failed in the past, and many problems have arisen from the way
national organisations have operated. However, rather than seeking to
identify those problems or to look for new solutions, many anarchists,
with a simplistic and superficial analysis, throw the baby out with the
bathwater, and reject any form of national structure. It is simply not
good enough to reject national organisation with the aphorism âthey
donât workâ. If they donât, why donât they? How can they be made to
work? The following words were written by Russian anarchists in 1926. I
re-read them recently, after returning from Bradford, and was struck by
how true they still rang today.
âIt is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably
positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the
forthrightness and integrity of anarchist positions in the facing up to
the social revolution, and finally in the heroism and innumerable
sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for libertarian
communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and
has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a
small event, and episode and not as an important factor.
This contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of
libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist
movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which
the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational
principle and practices in the anarchist movement.â
Following the conference, I realised that lack of organisation was not
the only problem facing British anarchists. Given this however, sooner
or latter the movement will have to debate how best to organise itself.
When it does, I urge you to read the Organisational Platform of the
Libertarian Communits (from which quote above is taken). It is no holy
grail, but it is, in my opinion, a good starting point, on the road to
building a strong anarchist movement.
If I was asked to describe a single word that describes the state of
anarchism in the UK, it would be fragmented. And if I was asked to
describe the single problem facing anarchists in the UK it would be this
fragmentation. Again itâs interesting to remember that in many ways our
movement is made in the image of the society we live in. We have a
fragmented movement, for a fragmented world. In the course of this
(long) discussion I highlighted four issues that need to be taken on
board, in order to rebuild anarchism;
we mean by an Anarchist movement? Why is it useful? How do we go about
creating one?
confidence
at?
To conclude, I would like to say that I very much enjoyed the Bradford
conference. I found it very inspirational. It was wonderful to be able
to meet so many fellow travellers, to be able to talk politics with so
many others. I was impressed with the dedication of many of those I met.
Many of those at the conference had a long term commitment to anarchism
and had developed a wealth of experience. Its a good place to start, I
wish you the best of luck.