It's commonly thought that the state of the left in Britain is pretty bad. The same could be said of much of the anarchist movement. It's a sad state of affairs when the far right is seemingly colonising some white working class communities while Islam is making inroads into black ones. Anarchism is, or at least should be, the politics of working class self-liberation. The fact that our influence in general is less than that of these clearly anti-working class movements says a lot. It says that we have to get our act together.

Having spent a lot of time in our movement, I'm constantly impressed by the quality and positive nature of anarchist ideas. Then I look around and see how little of these ideas is applied in practice. Sometimes I think we forget that we agree with each other 95% of the time. We seem, after all, to spent 95% of our time discussing the 5% we disagree over. Perhaps we could spend more time discussing how to apply the 95%?

I think part of the problem is that we lack focus, a strategy for constructively applying our ideas. I don't think it's a coincidence that anarchism grows in influence when anarchists apply their politics in concrete ways. The syndicalist unions in Spain and Italy, for example, gave anarchists a practical avenue for their ideas. They allowed people to get involved in practical projects. By giving an example of "anarchy in action", they also helped undermine the accusation that anarchism is utopian.

Similarly it's no coincidence that anarchism in Britain grew during the miners' strike of 1984-85, during the poll tax demonstrations of 1989-90 and now during the wave of "anti-capitalist" demonstrations. These movements presented a focal point, a means of applying our ideas constructively and practically. Without this, anarchism withers.

What I'm saying is nothing new. I'm just repeating the arguments of the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta. The question is, what next?

I've constantly argued that the current "anti-capitalist" movement needs to apply its ideas within our communities and workplaces. Some activists are already doing this. Demonstrations, no matter how much fun, won't get rid of capitalism. At best they're a symbol of resistance, of our rejection of the status quo. At worst they become a substitute for constructive grassroots organising. This organising is easier said than done, I know. But it has to be done.

When fascist boss Le Pen got into the second round of the French presidential elections earlier this year, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. The French CNT and Anarchist Federation were at the front of that wave of protest. Both are serious organisations, with regular and impressive newspapers.

In Britain we have various good organisations and journals, but a distinct lack of vision and presence. The most frequent newspaper we have is *Freedom, which - sadly - many activists don't read or contribute to. While this may be for historically good reasons, times are changing. *Freedom is improving and hopefully we can too.

By far the most positive things I've attended in recent years were the Mayday conferences in Bradford, Glasgow and London. People actually talked to each other, discussed their ideas, their similarities rather than their differences. This needs to be done on a smaller scale, as a means of constructing an anarchist movement which thinks strategically, rather than one which merely reacts to events. The starting point must be how we apply our ideas in practice.

The ideas of community organisation and industrial unionism are basic. Community organisation takes its inspiration from the anti-poll tax groups and, of course, from recent events in Argentina. By forming community assemblies based on direct action, anarchists can create a clear alternative to electioneering. They can build links with communities and reinvigorate them.

Industrial unionism doesn't automatically mean syndicalism. It means a creating a network of activists who can raise ideas which unite both syndicalist and non-syndicalist anarchists - ideas of workplace struggle organised by assemblies. What it's called isn't important. What it does is. The success of Italy's base-unions suggests that such a strategy can work.

But it would mean evaluating how we work with trade union members and the non-organised. What role is there, for example, for the Industrial Workers of the World and the Solidarity Federation's Industrial Networks?

In other words we need a constructive programme, one that offers a practical avenue for our ideas. Unless we have one, few people will become anarchists. Having the right ideas is important, but ultimately it's ideas with action that change the world.

Looking around at the resources we've currently got, there's a lot of potential. This newspaper is improving and could be a voice for positive anarchism. Magazines like *Black Flag, *Direct Action and *Organise! can contribute to its development by providing a more substantial analysis and debate, flavoured with the differences in emphasis the movement must have.

The various national federations can help the movement by getting involved in it and encouraging its growth. This isn't a call for them to be dissolved. It's a call for their cooperation in a movement that builds on what they share in common.

What could such a movement be like? Perhaps it could be a clearing house, a means of coordinating activity, holding joint actions and meetings, creating a focus which is outward-looking. This could work like the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, which organises protests at summits in North America.

Perhaps it could be an "Anarchist League", a federation of local groups which unites different anarchists based on what we have in common, leaving the disagreements to the existing federations to discuss at their leisure.

Perhaps it could be both, the "movement" organising actions, its constituent bodies discussing strategies and ideas. Who can tell? There's a lot of potential out there. We shouldn't waste it.


Iain McKay