ANARCHY IN THE UK!

Uncle Joe | 27.01.2006 18:03 | Analysis | Workers' Movements

News on the state of the main anarchist groups in Britain.

Those who are new to far-left politics are often bewildered by the array of different Marxist, Trotskyist, Communist and Socialist parties. I know that I was!

However, it is interesting to note that anarchists also organise themselves into membership organisations, which some people think is slightly contradictory. However, anarchists argue that their organisations are organised non-hierarchically as compared to other political groups.

Furthermore, there are various political strands within anarchism which could probably be analysed as sitting relatively further left or right on the political spectrum of ultra-leftism. The main groups I know of in the UK representing the main trends of anarchism are (in alphabetical order):

Anarchist Federation -

http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/

Class War -

http://www.londonclasswar.org/news.htm

Solidarity Federation -

http://www.solfed.org.uk/

I have not noticed any posts from these groups on Indymedia in the last few months, so I would be interested to know what their relationship with IM is, and are there any members of these groups who are moderators and technicians on IM.

Uncle Joe

Download this article in pdf format >>

Email this article to someone >>

Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Comments

Hide the following 22 comments

(A)

27.01.2006 18:45

I can't speak for the Anarchist Federation, Class War and Solidarity Federation. But from my experience, an attempt to run a local Anarchist group and IM would be pretty foolish. Even simply mantaining your own website is time consuming enough. I don't think there anyone in IM (I am not a member of IM nor do I speak for them.) who is a openly known member of a Anarchist group.

Also please don't assume that nothing has been posted on IM for a while mean that Anarchisms is dead. At this time of year people tend to do things locally and it is just simply a case that nothing is news worthy to report.

Your best bet is to view the above mention groups home website for more info.

Joe
Homepage: http://www.libcom.org

Who would waste their time 'playing' at politics

27.01.2006 20:10

I am puzzled as to how the concept of 'anarchy' fits into the definition of 'the left'. "If you think for yourself, you can be your own boss" would seem to define the ACTUAL philosophy of powerful people found on the 'right'.

Anyway, this thought reveals how phoney the 'left/right' definitions tend to be for ordinary people, since in practice both systems seem to split populations into 'sheep' and 'the elites' that exploit them.

Decent people do not consider socialism and social justice to be 'left-wing' or any such 'control-word' psy-ops nonsense. Decent people consider socialism and social justice to be RIGHT as in the opposite to WRONG.

Those of you that get excited with your labels, and political theories, have an intellectual persuit as valuable to the Human Race as trainspotting. However, unlike trainspotters, you sure are useful to those evil scumbags found within 'the elite' that seek to control and enslave us.

twilight

old & new

27.01.2006 22:04

In the late-90s it was common to talk of old anarchism, as in the organisations posted above, and the new anarchists who might not label themselves publicly as such, but were.

The London Anarchist Bookfair came alive and got busier and busier from the early 90s onwards with the waves of (ecological) direct action, with this new wave.

One example is Earth First!, which is organised that much on anarchist lines that it could not nationally declare itself anarchist!

http://earthfirst.org.uk

new anarchist

ho hum

27.01.2006 22:35

Yes, and anarchists are AF, SF, and CW?! They are the minority of the anarchists. Have little or no influence and end up being half a dozen people concentrating on their small scale interventions. come on, sounds like more bullshit from libcom anarcho-left-hobbyists. Fuck off and write a book. cocks!

anarchist wit attitude

www.wombles.org.uk

Reply to comments.

28.01.2006 01:15

(A) / Joe wrote:
""I don't think there anyone in IM (I am not a member of IM nor do I speak for them.) who is a openly known member of a Anarchist group.
Also please don't assume that nothing has been posted on IM for a while mean that Anarchisms is dead. At this time of year people tend to do things locally and it is just simply a case that nothing is news worthy to report.""

If you don't know IM , how do you know that none of them are members of these groups?

I didn't assume anarchism was dead, I always thought it was irrelevant! If people are doing things locally, why aren't they posting on IM - that is what the promoted wire is there for!

twilight said:
""am puzzled as to how the concept of 'anarchy' fits into the definition of 'the left'....etc""

I am including a link to the online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. Please insert anything you would like to know about anything into the box on the left and there will be info on it. Then you won't sound like such an uninformed, paranoid fool when you post on IM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

new anarchist said:
""One example is Earth First!, which is organised that much on anarchist lines that it could not nationally declare itself anarchist!""

I think if you read a bit more about anarchism, you will understand it has (or should have) a class-based analysis. So, environmentalism, feminism, animal rights, etc are merely a subset of anarchism for middle class liberals and students.

And finally,
Dear Womble, learn how to fucking read. I am not am not an anarchist or supporter of any of those groups. I said:
"The main groups I know of in the UK representing the main trends of anarchism are....."

Regards,

Uncle Joe

oh no uncle joe

28.01.2006 09:41

"I think if you read a bit more about anarchism, you will understand it has (or should have) a class-based analysis. So, environmentalism, feminism, animal rights, etc are merely a subset of anarchism for middle class liberals and students."

First off, anarchism deals with oppositon to hierarchy in all its forms and wherever it is found. it is true that a great deal of analysis deals with a stricltly class-based analysis however this does not mean that other forms of oppression should not also be tackeld.

of course a class-based analysis is vital to any discussion yet i see no reason why this focus should outweigh a focus that also deals with other forms of oppression such as patriarchy, race, state or enviromentalism.

to say that something such as feminism is just a subset of anarchism is a great insult to those women (and men) who have struggled and continue to do so against the constraints imposed upon them. how fighting against something such a domestic violence can be dismissed as being just for "middle class liberals and students" is beyond me.

i am not saying that class is not important, of course it is. However, oppression takes many forms and needs to be tackled in all those areas. a marxist type analysis that says just tackle class and everything else will just fall into line just simply will not work. of course class impacts other area of oppression but these areas also impact upon class. more than a one way approach is needed.

Steve

Reply to Steve

29.01.2006 01:56

>First off, anarchism deals with oppositon to hierarchy in all its forms and wherever it is >found. it is true that a great deal of analysis deals with a stricltly class-based analysis >however this does not mean that other forms of oppression should not also be tackeld.

Sounds reasonable.

>of course a class-based analysis is vital to any discussion yet i see no reason why this >focus should outweigh a focus that also deals with other forms of oppression such as >patriarchy, race, state or enviromentalism.

Well, of course we live in a post-modern world where meta-narratives are dead!!!

I am a Marxist - I don't believe there is a patriarchy. It is quite simple to express - if there is a male dominant society where women have no rights, why is the monarch a woman? Why was the PM a woman in the 80's? Why do the Labour Party have all women shortlists?

>to say that something such as feminism is just a subset of anarchism is a great insult to >those women (and men) who have struggled and continue to do so against the constraints >imposed upon them. how fighting against something such a domestic violence can be >dismissed as being just for "middle class liberals and students" is beyond me.

Cry me a river! Do you also fight for the 25% of domestic violence sufferers who are men with violent women? Why not screech about rape as well? Anarchism is bullshit.

>i am not saying that class is not important, of course it is. However, oppression takes >many forms and needs to be tackled in all those areas. a marxist type analysis that says >just tackle class and everything else will just fall into line just simply will not work. of >course class impacts other area of oppression but these areas also impact upon class. >more than a one way approach is needed.

Well, maybe it's just Indymedia but it strikes me that most IM users are middle class liberals who want to sound so radical as being anarchistes. Anarchism is nowheresville, Arizona. No working class people will ever become anarchists - save the whale, et al - They'de rather vote for the BNP and I don't blame them with some of the shit I read on Indymedia - so MI5 have done their job well!

Uncle Joe

Whatever happened to Unity in Diversity?

29.01.2006 10:14

It's so disheartening to see the kind of divisiveness that goes around in these spaces... we are such a small group of people in the globe who actively spend our time thinking about revolution, change, liberation, etc... (be that the result of privilege or not)
Y'all are arguing over who's philosophy/perspective/approach to change is right- and don't get me wrong, I think a diversity of ideas is beautiful, essential, really- but to resort to name-calling and isults... why?
If we could engage in constructive dialouge about how to change this world and move toward a freedom from oppression, we might actually get somewhere. But if we spend our energy fighting with one another and pointing fingers, this cause (though we may have different visions of it) feels so lost.
Peace.
ps- I'm from 'nowhereseville, Arizona', well, Flagstaff Arizona anyway- and there is beautiful, revolutionary thought and action going on there, too! Perhaps we here in London could take a lesson from the small-town activists who depend on one another and support each other...

Lola_Lyon

We live in an equal society - my arse!

29.01.2006 11:59

Hey jo,

we were doing so well - no insults until your last post. when apart from throwing insults you did say

why is the monarch a woman? Why was the PM a woman in the 80's? Why do the Labour Party have all women shortlists?

why is the monarch a woman? - why will your monarch always be protestant?

Why was the PM a woman in the 80's? - Coz the white men who rule the conservative selction process dictated so.

Why do the Labour Party have all women shortlists? - apart from it being selection on the basis of sex it may be due to the fact that women represent more than 50% of your electorate.

You should never confuse tokenism with true equality, the power base of society has never changed it is still white men meeting in unconstituted groups without any loyalty to anything other than turning the 'buck'

Middle aged white male

reply to uncle joe

29.01.2006 19:34

Joe,

first off, you claim that you do not believe that patriarchy exists and cite a number of examples to back up this laughable claim.

i am sure that you are aware that britain had a female monarch in queen victoria yet at that time women were not allowed to own property and had minimal legal protection from physical or sexual abuse by their husbands. yet by your reckoning this does not constitute oppression due to the token gesture of a female monarch.

likewise people of colour have risen/been apointed to positons of authority in the UK and US yet any analysis of the social situation in these countries would conclude that institutional racism is still rife. maybe you disagree?

your arguement can also be applied to class. people of working class origin have risen to prominant positions in our societies. hence by your reckoning a class-based analysis is redundant. are we in agreement here? i guess not.

i do not argue that the current anarchist movement is awash with working class support, but neither are the various marxist parties. the main difference is that anarchist activity is aimed at strengthening working class people (and all oppressed people) thus enabling them to free themselves. alternatively, marxism aims to lead the people because, as we all know, you marxists are so clever and the oppressed so dumb that they need your guiding hand. it is strange that you condemn IM for being middle class dominated when marxist parties utilise the worst borgeoise traits such as hierarchy in order to attain the parties' goals.

Steve

A Reply

30.01.2006 11:44

The old school of thought about Anarchism is to do things locally, I have often heard complains in the pass that Anarchism is becoming too national/international that that locals matter are being ignored. As for "why aren't they posting on IM - that is what the promoted wire is there for!" well I am currently sorting out work matters i.e. sexual harassment case which has now been sorted and at this very moment in time sorting out five work colleagues back pay. It is hardy newsworthy thing to report.

Anarchism can take on in many forms not just out in the streets. It has alway been said that the best way to promote Anarchism is at the work place and that is exactly what I am doing .

Having read some of the articles here, it is very sad and disappointing to see people are still petty and divided despite an huge international effort last year in the U.K.

Joe
Homepage: http://www.dissent.org.uk

herring

30.01.2006 11:55

Ridiculous! - trust no one - ESPECIALLY any idiot(s) who wish to ORGANISE anarchists.

If u are leftists - then serves you right for failing and becoming redundant and irrelevant - if u are anyone else then, GOOD TRY ARSEHOLES.

We are already organised (around the planet)- LOL!

See you at out next spontaneous event - btw - the (anal) precious types at UK indy are becoming famous for the wrong reasons!

CENSORSHIP might have something to do with it. [O, how 'precious' we are, DARLING!]

kol

Replies to comments

30.01.2006 18:53

middle AGED WHITE male said:
!""is the monarch a woman? - why will your monarch always be protestant?
Why was the PM a woman in the 80's? - Coz the white men who rule the conservative selction process dictated so.
Why do the Labour Party have all women shortlists? - apart from it being selection on the basis of sex it may be due to the fact that women represent more than 50% of your electorate.
You should never confuse tokenism with true equality, the power base of society has never changed it is still white men meeting in unconstituted groups without any loyalty to anything other than turning the 'buck' ""

We wern't alking about religion - wetalking about gewnder (btw Im a republican).
The Labour Party have all women shortlists because feminism has permeated and perverted the lowest to the highest levels of socity.
The most powerful people may be mainly white men, this doesn't mean there aren't a hell of a lot of men out there with little or no power - feminism is a fraud.

Steve said:
""first off, you claim that you do not believe that patriarchy exists and cite a number of examples to back up this laughable claim.
i am sure that you are aware that britain had a female monarch in queen victoria yet at that time women were not allowed to own property and had minimal legal protection from physical or sexual abuse by their husbands. yet by your reckoning this does not constitute oppression due to the token gesture of a female monarch.""

Keep up Steve I didn't say there wasn't oppression of women, I said there is NOT a patriarchal conspiracy of men to keep women down. The main diviasion in society is social class (ie how wealthy someone is), not gender, race, religion, or any other crap anarchits mayu wish to add in.

Steve said:
""i do not argue that the current anarchist movement is awash with working class support, but neither are the various marxist parties. the main difference is that anarchist activity is aimed at strengthening working class people (and all oppressed people) thus enabling them to free themselves. alternatively, marxism aims to lead the people because, as we all know, you marxists are so clever and the oppressed so dumb that they need your guiding hand. it is strange that you condemn IM for being middle class dominated when marxist parties utilise the worst borgeoise traits such as hierarchy in order to attain the parties' goals.""

How does anarchist activity like save the whale, feminists reclaim the streets, or stop the bypass, help working class people to free themselves? The whole point of my article was to stimulate a discussion on the anarchist movement because I am disillusioned with the Marxist left (esp. the SWP). And regardless of what you claim, anarchist groups and IM DO have hierarchies, they just claim not to.

Joe said:
""Anarchism can take on in many forms not just out in the streets. It has alway been said that the best way to promote Anarchism is at the work place and that is exactly what I am doing .
Having read some of the articles here, it is very sad and disappointing to see people are still petty and divided despite an huge international effort last year in the U.K.""

Yes, the best way to promote anarchism may be in the workplace, though you have to be quite a brave and confident soul to do that - it depende where you work as well. As I said to Steve the point of my article was to stimulate a discussion - not to be divisive. The huge international effort last year didn't reach my neck of the woods.

Uncle Joe

(A)UK...

31.01.2006 01:10

My 2peneth...

I consider a lot of my way of living/thinking to be anarchistic, I don't belong to any organisations.
I don't feel the need to have to do so..

Uncle Joe.. thanks for posting this up - I'll have a look at those links when it's not so late (12.50am).

kol (herring) An anarchist will only 'allow' himself to be organised if he decides it's o.k. if not then he will not
be organised.

Joe.. nice thought about what you're doing in your workplace.. the place I just got made redundant from has cctv for 'crime detection' - they use this now to show their camera images on a plasma screen to anyone who walks into reception.. see

http://www.ico.gov.uk/documentUploads/cctvcop1.pdf pp.7. para.3: pp.13-16; pp.26.
Who do you report this kind of abuse to??

Anarchism/activism/environmentalism isn't about being on the biggest most dangerous demo.. sitting the longest in a tree till they have to rip you down. It's about anyone saying "No" very clearly & distinctly (in Whatever way shape or form that takes) whenever there is something going on that oppresses people, or is ruining our planet, or making the world poorer (be that in terms of experience, health, whatever).. It's about us all living Quality lives - not in the consumerism sense ("feel the quality") but in how we feel about who we are & how we fit in with the world around us.
You may think that sounds too 'fluffy'.. well I wont apologise for it because I don't have to & it's when we say .. no anarchism should say or be this or that & start to dogmatise it.. then our thinking & our views become rigid & more unbending & then we're only thinking with a %age of our capabilities.. and we're also only a small step away from the establishment mentality which we all (generally) agree is going wrong somewhere.
Lola - I know what you mean.. divided we all don't stand a chance.. we're all humans & we all want a better world (& that doesnt mean we go & take it off another country/person/neighbour)... how complicated is that??? yet that encompassses all the 'struggles' going on in the world..
again to you all, peace....

Dave
mail e-mail: davethehat@hotmail.com

there are no hierarchical anarchists

31.01.2006 01:21

"Yes, the best way to promote anarchism may be in the workplace, though you have to be quite a brave and confident soul to do that - it depende where you work as well"

I don't believe in spreading anarchism - if folk want to be led, then let them - but the workplace is certainly one of the best places to encourage dissent. You can do more good in the heart of the beast than on its talons. When I was a suit amongst suits and someone asked me my politics I'd always say anarchist - suits just think its juvenile posturing, which is permissible. We are selected for obedience, and the most obedient are given the most power and money - however, many of them are rational people who are ripe for turning. If any software packager is reading this, you have to consider how much damage you alone could inflict on whatever corporation that you work for. I promise anyone if they bring any corporation to it's knees for a day then they are guaranteed a shag from some lovely young peace protestor, several delicious meals and an end to your posh isolation. The following words are only to attract potential corporate surfers to this request for help [ SMS PACKAGER CONTRACT MONEY LOVE FREEDOM ], I hope this doesn't break IM guidelines or if it does then it is overlooked this once.

"And regardless of what you claim, anarchist groups and IM DO have hierarchies, they just claim not to."

I've heard this theory before, normally from other twisted loners. Anarchist groups are just bunches of friends, and so have no more hierachies than any other bunch of friends. Some people try to form hierarchies but they are just ridiculed. Speaking as a peasant yuppie wannabe doley, I find it is mainly middle class people who led sheltered childhoods who form into groups with names, most of us went through the 'gang' stage when we we 10 and are embarrassed enough at labelling ourselves as 'anarchist'. The thing is though, with 'true' anarchists (sick), even the heirarchies that exist between friends are constantly challenged, it's like a constant game of one downmanship and any peace camp or collective looks from the outside much like Big Brother with physical squalor and moral certainty. So yes, people do start little hierarchies in non-hierarchical communities, and it never works for long. Example:

Me - Collapsing at the dead campfire at Faslane after a long drive - Hiya Jamie, how are you doing ? - [ I hadn't seen 'Friends' at that point' ]
James - Oh, good to see you - any chance of a lift to Glasgow this evening ?
Me- Nae problem. Make me a cup of tea.
Jamie - Fuck off. I'm not your slave.
Me - Fuck off yourself, theres a happy sign outside that says 'Stop in for a cup of tea'
Jamie - I never put it up.
Me - You never took it down. I got a cup of tea last time without asking
Jamie - Ha - so you have already had the cup of tea that the sign promised ?
Me - What's your problem with me asking for tea ?
Jamie- You never asked for tea, you told me to make you tea. That's the difference. Your problem is starting the cooker - you know where the the tea and the wood is, there's the axe. What'd your last slave die of ?
Me- I was giving my last slave a lift to Glasgow one night when I was too tired and after they had refused to make me a cup of tea, and I fell asleep at the wheel and crashed my car car into an oncoming lorry. If I spoke with a command tense it wasn't meant as an order, it was meant as a demand in a negotiation for an exchange of labour and a safety tip to help preserve your life.

So I got tea but something to think about too. Orders insult.

Good luck with getting the SWP tendencies out of your system - there are so many self-confessed converts from them I often think they are anarchies best recruiting agency. , either that or this is some mass-infiltration bid.

Danny

To Twit

31.01.2006 05:14

"I am puzzled as to how the concept of 'anarchy' fits into the definition of 'the left'. "If you think for yourself, you can be your own boss" would seem to define the ACTUAL philosophy of powerful people found on the 'right'."

I have felt the same thought and too few people have, I salute your criticism. The most successful capitalists are indeed almost anarchist, like the elite in any unbalanced sytem they have freed themselves, which is the first and easiest step. However the distinguishing point is that anarchists don't only free themselves, they oppose all power structures and value other peoples liberty as highly as they value thier own. While Capitalists only free themselves and care nothing for other peoples liberty. Real anarchists support everyones liberty and refuse to participate in unfair power structures Its dead simple to say this, its dead hard to implement. Jihad, eh ?

Danny

Joe

31.01.2006 12:11

"Yes, the best way to promote anarchism may be in the workplace, though you have to be quite a brave and confident soul to do that - it depend where you work as well"

I hate to disappoint you I am the least brave person on earth! I only by getting involed with the G8 movement, I realise doing “stuff yourselfs” isn’t as hard as you may fear. The biggest problem is we have been brought up through state education system thinking that you need leadership and guildance.

It’s couldn’t be far from the truth. If you want something done, you get it done, don’t wait for somebody to do it for you.

Even now over the weekend I have been thinking long and hard about organising a no vote campaign in my mainly "Blue Tory" area. There are issue that local people are concern about but because the area I live in are mainly Tory voters there little chance for people to show dissatisfaction.

I have build up some workable material and ideas in my head. Now begins the long money fund raising campaign. So what do I hope it will acheive? Well I hope to make people think. It isn't alot but it is a start.

Just to point out to people who think I am working in a group well I am not. I am working alone. If one person can do this just think how many a hundred can do?

Me brave?

Anarchist loners

31.01.2006 18:12

"Just to point out to people who think I am working in a group well I am not. I am working alone. If one person can do this just think how many a hundred can do?"

I never expected that you'd be working in a group. Almost be definition anarchist usually work alone. Groups rarely work out, they split, fight, or fail to make decisions. A hundred anarchist will achieve little more than one working by themselves.

Anarchy is a great idea but collectively we seem unable to put it into practice in a way that enables us to work together. I wish it were different but that's how it is.

only one

The Only Ones

31.01.2006 21:27

Another Girl Another Planet.

"Anarchy is a great idea but collectively we seem unable to put it into practice in a way that enables us to work together. I wish it were different but that's how it is."

I'd agree with the gist of your post but there are a few long-term, stable collectives/groups/communities throughout the country who do get a lot of work done, more throughout the world. You might not want to be part of one but it's good to visit them to see why they work where others break. Solidity has its comforts and lessons but I think the strength of anarchists is in their liquidity. 'Be like water' - Bruce Lee on strength.

Danny

Ho Hum indeed

01.02.2006 14:30

I doubt you are a womble, this sort of pointless shit stirring, can only lead to disruption of the anarchistetc mileau. Your intention perhaps.

william Morris

Who?

02.02.2006 12:24

Quote - I doubt you are a womble, this sort of pointless shit stirring, can only lead to disruption of the anarchistetc mileau. Your intention perhaps.
william Morris - End Qoute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who? you or me???? I certainly wasn't...

Joe