💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › liz-highleyman-love-rage-splits.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:04:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Love & Rage Splits Author: Liz Highleyman Date: 1993 Language: en Topics: Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, anarchist organization, leninism, trotskyism, Fifth Estate, Fifth Estate #343, organization Source: scanned from FIFTH ESTATE #343, Fall-Winter, 1993, Vol. 28, No. 3, page 15
Love & Rage (L&R), a continental anarchist organizing and newspaper
network, underwent a major split at its annual conference in San Diego
last July as a result of long-standing internal differences concerning
structure and goals. The debates which brought the four-year-old network
to a crisis point reflected conflicting ideas about contemporary
anarchist activism.
Several people who left L&R plan to initiate a communication network
promoting mutual aid among local anarchists, while those who remain have
created a more formal organizational structure and changed its name to
the Love & Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (L&R-RAF).
Love & Rage began as a newspaper after preliminary meetings at the 1988
Toronto anarchist gathering, and finalized in 1989 at the San Francisco
gathering. As time went on, L&R grew beyond the paper and began to take
on other projects such as the Anti-Racist Summer Project, support for
political prisoners, and anarchist contingents at national marches.
The network’s decision-making structure included a facilitator
responsible for overall coordination, a ten-member Coordinating Group
(CG) elected by an annual conference to make editorial and
project-related decisions, and a Network Council (NC) made up of
delegates from each participating local group. A Production Group (PG)
in New York City selected articles and produced the paper; a PG in
Mexico City produced a Spanish section for the last four months.
From its inception, a core group of people involved with L&R provided
the bulk of time, effort and money needed to publish the newspaper and
carry out its other projects. They initially included members of the
Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League in Minneapolis (including the
primary initiator and first facilitator, Chris Day), some former members
of the defunct Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) who turned over
their office and printing facilities to L&R, and several other
independent individuals from around the country.
Because of its RSL connection, accusations of Trotskyism have followed
L&R from its inception, although the vast majority of participants over
the years had no connection with any sectarian group, and in fact, many
were probably unaware of L&R’s history. Serious concerns about L&R have
been aired in letters and articles in The Fifth Estate and Anarchy over
the years, with critics charging that L&R was an attempt by a small
group to build a formal organization promoting a specific political
program and to increase their power and influence within the anarchist
movement.
Many people became involved with L&R believing they would have equal
influence in shaping the project, and could help move it in the
direction they felt fit their vision of anarchism. As far as I can tell,
there never was a clear consensus about what the L&R network was trying
to accomplish. It’s apparent, however, that many participants did
believe such a consensus existed, although there were different
understandings of what that consensus was.
Several core participants envisioned a more formal organization with a
well-defined mission and set of political principles which could develop
and disseminate an anarchist analysis of current issues and provide the
nucleus of a revolutionary movement.
For example, Todd Prane, current staff person of the new L&R-RAF stated:
“L&R was formed for a particular segment of the anarchist
movement...anarchists who are in favor of organization and the critical
analysis and construction of it, who want to work for revolution in our
lifetime....”
I joined L&R with the idea it was an open network whose primary purposes
were to improve communications among anarchists, disseminate information
about anarchism, and help facilitate locally-initiated projects and
actions. I joined the Network in 1991 and was subsequently elected to
two terms on the CG, but will not be a member of the reorganized
L&R-RAF.
The U.S. hardly seems on the brink of revolution and any revolution that
is not supported by a large segment of the population is by definition
vanguardist and authoritarian. Many participants in the network favored
a decentralized, bottom-up approach and envisioned L&R as a
communication and mutual aid network, and criticized what they saw as
attempts at top-down organizing.
There was extensive political debate around these and other issues
within the network since its inception. At a 1991 Minneapolis
conference, differences were quite apparent regarding a proposed
statement of political principles (both whether such a statement was
necessary or even possible, and about the actual content of the
statement). A fairly basic, compromise political statement was adopted
which included positions such as anti-statism, anti-racism, anti-sexism,
pro-ecology and pro-queer liberation. Some people felt this “laundry
list” approach to politics was misguided since some worthy cause would
inevitably be omitted while others felt a political statement was
necessary to let people know what the network stood for.
There also were other issues of concern such as the focus on militant
activism, which sometimes seemed to lack much purpose other than
“fucking shit up.” Some believed such a focus was necessary, while
others wanted at least as much emphasis on the creation of
counter-institutions (making the state obsolete through self-help and
community autonomy) as was given to the destruction of the status quo.
There were disagreements about whether to focus on Black liberation and
whether an anti-sexist position implied opposition to pornography.
Another area of contention within L&R has been persistent tensions
regarding the level of support for national liberation movements and the
apparent endorsement of Marxist/Leninist organizations and actions.
Over the course of the project there have been concerns about issues of
power and privilege. There were ongoing tensions between more and less
economically advantaged participants, and between younger and older
participants. There also were arguments over issues of theory vs.
practice (which I believe to be a spurious dichotomy) and debates about
the level of intellectualism and the use of opaque theoretical language,
both in the paper and in political discussions at conferences and among
the PG.
Unsurprisingly, the PG bore the brunt of these tensions (which had
personal as well as political manifestations). It seemed to me (a non-PG
member) that PG members were expected to give their lives to the L&R
project, sometimes spending 24-hour days at the office and going into
serious personal debt. Interpersonal relationships deteriorated
noticeably under such constant strain.
Activists need to take care of themselves and interpersonal
relationships should reflect political values. Expecting people to
sacrifice friendships, sleep and outside activities to the L&R project
is a sure way to rapidly burn out people. Some were willing to give this
level of single-minded devotion, and as a result gained more power and
influence within the project.
At the Atlanta conference in 1992, some persistent differences
concerning structural issues were brought up. Several members of the PG,
CG and others wanted to institute a more formal membership status as a
basis for participation in the network. Their argument was that many
people showed up to annual conferences, took part in the
decision-making, then did nothing to help carry out decisions. It was
argued that people who contributed the most time, effort and money to
make the network happen should have the most to say in shaping its
direction not just those with the time and money to attend conferences.
Others were strongly opposed to formally defined membership and felt
anyone who sincerely wanted to be a part of the project should be able
to, and everyone should have an equal say in major decisions at
conferences which were open to all. Some strongly opposed tying
membership to a financial commitment or adherence to a political
statement.
It was becoming clear L&R was working from two mutually incompatible
models. Some people began trying to move L&R openly toward being a more
grassroots-based, decentralized network, while others wanted a more
formal organization with a clearly defined set of political goals and
strategies. Sentiment seemed roughly evenly divided.
Given the lack of consensus about which direction to go, the network
more or less came to a standstill. Decisions were not made,
communications broke down, and efforts to distribute tasks away from the
New York office did not work out well. The impasse prevented both the
“pro-organization” and the “decentralization” advocates from moving
ahead with what they wanted to do.
In Spring 1993, a draft letter, entitled “Five Concerns,” was circulated
among select participants, signed by 22 people, and published in the L&R
Discussion Bulletin only immediately prior to the San Diego conference.
The letter called for formally defined membership and a political
statement. Only those who agreed with these positions were shown the
draft, and the fact that it was being circulated at all was not made
known to members of the PG and CG and others who held opposing views,
This, combined with ongoing personal and political difficulties, led
four members of the PG (including one of the two co-facilitators elected
in Atlanta), to leave the project.
At the San Diego conference in July, tensions between the
“pro-organization” and the “decentralization” camps came to a head over
the issue of membership, but this issue was reflective of differing
views on overall organizational strategy and revolutionary goals. It was
suggested these underlying political differences should be discussed at
greater length rather than buried under an organizational detail, but
almost everyone was eager to get things resolved one way or the other,
once and for all.
Several people on both sides made it clear they would leave the network
if the membership decision did not go their way. The conference
attendees seemed evenly divided over the issue and it was clear to most
that a genuine consensus was not achievable. Supporters of the
membership resolution included most of the New York and Mexico City PGs
and the producers of the Discussion Bulletin in Minneapolis, and a group
that proposed to open a new office in Oakland. Faced with this, those
who disagreed “stood aside” and allowed the proposal to pass.
“Pro-organization” advocates retained the L&R infrastructure and
production facilities. The name was changed from the Love & Rage Network
to the Love & Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation to acknowledge the
shift in emphasis and take into account the views of those who felt an
organization was not the same thing as a network. Membership will be
defined by general agreement with the stated politics of the Federation,
identification as a member, and payment of a waivable $25 yearly fee.
Various participants summed up the outcome of the charges in different
ways. From Todd Prane, of the new federation: “There already exists an
informal network of anarchists in North America...That was not the
gaping hole that people who supported L&R were interested in working
on...There was no national coordinating presence of anarchists that was
able to address politics at a national, continental and international
level. That is what we are working towards.” In the opinion of one
decentralist from Berkeley: “I oppose this move because I feel it
continued and strengthened the top down approach to movement building. A
revolutionary anarchist movement will be best served by working on
regional information networks which facilitate local groups working
together.”
In effect, Love & Rage has been pulled back into line with what was
envisioned by those who initiated the project, people who have over the
years been among the most vocal and influential participants. As is
often the case in such shake-ups, those who were less influential, less
vocal or less in-the-know about the history of the project ended up
leaving. Some felt forced out because they did not have an equal voice
in shaping the project to reflect their goals.
Some participants did not disagree with the “pro-organization”
direction, but rather opposed what they saw as the manipulative way in
which the reorganization came about.
Former co-facilitator Tommy Lawless expressed these sentiments in her
letter explaining why she will not be part of the new L&R-RAF: “Forcing
a vote on membership without a collective discussion [on the function
and goals of the Network] was a sinister way of skirting the real
issues, of forcing the goals of one faction onto the whole group...The
participatory decision-making process for the Love & Rage Network has
always been at the very heart of its anarchist politics...It is vile
that this [membership] proposal was passed by a minority--not even a
majority of 51%. Shoving this proposal through in this way destroyed the
Network and everything the Network stood for...What happened was nothing
less than a classic leftist coup. A small minority of people came in
with their agenda, got their way, and went home with all the goods,
leaving everyone else out in the cold.”
As I see it, the reorganization of L&R is a positive development. Those
who want a more formalized organization with well-defined membership
criteria and political principles can carry on with that type of
project. Those who seek a more loosely-defined network focused on
communication and skill-sharing can move forward in that direction.
Neither side will impede the other in the pursuit of their goals. While
there is a certain amount of bitterness between the sides, there is not
as much animosity as one might expect.
Current L&R-RAF projects included a day of anti-fascist actions on the
anniversary of Kristallnacht, an International Day of Action Against
Immigration Controls/Anti-Immigrant Violence planned for May 9, 1994, a
poster campaign and actions opposing police brutality. The L&R newspaper
will continue to be published in New York, a new Federation office has
been set up in Oakland, and an active group in Mexico is producing the
(now separate) Spanish paper Amor y Rabia. For information contact
L&R-RAF, PO Box 853, New York, NY 10009.