On 1 May 2012, a new anarchist communist organization called Collective Action was launched in the UK, together with the release of a statement (Where We Stand: Formation of a new Anarchist Communist project in the UK). In an attempt to clear up some points that were not clear from the statement or from the other documents published by the organization, Anarkismo.net has carried out this interview, in which the answers to our questions represent the jointly-held positions of Collective Action's members.
Can you elaborate on the circumstances that gave rise to Collective Action?
Over the last few years some Collective Action members had attempted to bring about political and organisational changes to the Anarchist Federation. These changes were not forthcoming and after a period of time they became increasingly frustrated at what was perceived to be a liberal cultural attitude dominating the organisation, as well as, ironically, a reluctance to change. At the same time we – as a group of anarchist communists – felt that it was necessary for the preservation of the anarchist communist tradition in modern Britain, for like-minded people to refocus their activity – primarily on understanding current class composition and how that best informs how we insert our ideas and tactics within our class. We describe this process as “Regroupment” and believed a separate association, independent from other organisations, was the best way to organise that process.
How do you see Collective Action with regard to the other national anarchist organisations in the UK – Solidarity Federation, Anarchist Federation and Liberty & Solidarity?
The Solidarity Federation is an anarcho-syndicalist union and as such has very little to do with our perspective. Collective Action should be looked upon as a current within the anarchist communist movement seeking Regroupment. In that respect, we are fundamentally divergent to the ideas and aims of a group like SolFed. Likewise, the Anarchist Federation is essentially a propaganda outlet that has a lackadaisical attitude towards organisation, which is in contrast to how we believe an anarchist communist group should operate. Also, as far as we can tell, AFed does not agree with our outlook that a process of Regroupment is necessary or even desirable. Liberty & Solidarity is a socialist-syndicalist group affiliated to the Anarkismo Statement. As an organisation of this type we do not perceive many areas of commonality between us. L&S members are active within housing campaigns and the UK section of the Industrial Workers of the World (where we also have militants). Like Collective Action, Liberty & Solidarity emerged as a project from dissatisfied Anarchist Federation members. However, we think both our analyses and proposals for alternatives are ultimately at odds. This is both in terms of our principle focus on Regroupment as well as our political disagreements regarding our analysis of the conservative character of the trade unions and their ideological orientation towards a socialist-syndicalist (as opposed to anarchist communist) position. They have also proposed various cosmetic changes to anarchist activism – such as abandoning the label "anarchist” – which we are strongly opposed to.
In your launch statement you provide a pretty damning analysis of the anti-austerity movement in the UK. Do you believe there are any grounds for hope in this respect?
There is always hope, but we shouldn’t let hope blind us into thinking that something can be successful just because we want it to be. There is a structural problem with the anti-austerity movement; this is obvious in the way that the TUC and Marxist Left have, as always, sought to create and to dominate power structures that have led and will always lead to stagnation. Intervention by anarchists in that respect has been negligible and there have been no meaningful alternatives presented to counter those worn-out Leftist strategies. There is also a more pervasive ideological problem that the anti-austerity movement faces, in that the nature of the struggles do not follow the necessary trend of building a counter-power capable of eventually creating communist reconstruction. What is meant by that is that we are not confident that existing struggles have the ability to be radically transformed into something that can meaningfully forward our objective of taking control of the means of production.
How do we resolve this particular problem? For us, we are not sure whether it is even worth attempting, since the actual struggles that the anti-austerity movement is involved in are struggles for a minority, a privileged section of the working class, whose conditions do not speak to the marginalised majority, who in recent months have actually demonstrated a willingness to build a counter power – look at the August riots. This was the beginning of a genuine expression of rage that, if armed with the right ideas, could have cemented an escalation of class conflict. Collective Action wants to investigate how we insert anarchist communist ideas and methods into these communities and connect the politics to the otherwise disconnected expressions of frustration and anger that exist towards capitalism and the State. As such, we are not sure how these parochial anti-austerity “groups” fit into that long-term objective.
In your launch statement you describe the principle objective of CA as "Regroupment", to revisit and rekindle your politics. Could you elaborate on what this means?
Regroupment essentially means sitting down together and working out what is going on and, in that context, what we want to achieve and how we aim to achieve it. It’s as simple as that. More broadly, we see Regroupment as the reorientation of revolutionaries to re-engage with anarchist communist ideas and history as well as engaging with new ideas and theory that is being published. This is why we are looking at Specifism and the Platformist tradition, as well as taking very seriously the ideas of the new autonomist Regroupment current Plan C, which has emerged in the UK, as well as the theoretical Sic Communisation Collective.
This collective education and engagement with contemporary ideas will help us develop our analysis and better inform our activity. We understand that some will consider this to be “navel gazing”; largely because of an anti-intellectual attitude that seems to exist in the anarchist movement, but also because there is this misconception that what anarchists have to be doing is “action”, irrespective of what it means or how it fits into a general strategy for victory. Ultimately, we say that if people feel the activity they are participating in is genuinely working towards building communist reconstruction, then that’s great. We recognise that in reality the current activity of the movement cannot achieve victory and therefore a refocus on our movement and how we operate is necessary, whether we like it or not. Having said that, we continue to be militants in our localities, involved in struggles that we consider appropriate and therefore our thinking and discussions are informed by our past and ongoing experiences.
As a self-identified "Specifist" group do you perceive any points of distinction in respect to the UK anarchist movement?
"Specifism" (or Especifismo) is a political current principally associated with the theory and organising practices of the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janiero (FARJ) and the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU). In the English-speaking world it is often considered simply a variant of anarchist Platformism, but as the FARJ argue, and we agree, the ideas are much broader and richer than this. Neither are these ideas just that of the FARJ and FAU, as they locate their ideas in the spirit of the organisationalist theories of Malatesta, Bakunin and Kropotkin (this is actually also true of the Platform but is rarely acknowledged). We think this notion of engaging in a more critical reappraisal of these original anarchist thinkers is valuable and allows us to bypass the more cultural articulations of anarchism that have become intermingled with anarchist practice in the latter half of the twentieth century. However, it needs to be clear that this process is not about re-affirming some form of ideological purity; we revisit these thinkers because of their role as organised revolutionaries whose ideas were earned through experience of social struggle. Our task in this sense is to identify the comparable contexts and lessons while also updating and modifying our approaches for the conditions and class composition under advanced capitalism. There has been a recent re-emergence in the English-speaking world of classical anarchist literature, e.g. Van Der Walt and Schmidt's Black Flame and McKay's volume on Proudhon, which has proved very useful in respect to this.
In terms of points of differentiation, specifism – as a form of praxis – has a strategic and programmatic focus that we see as lacking (or at least partially lacking) in other organisations. We see this as related to the prevalence of a spontaneist current in anarchism, quite distinct from the organisational theories of Bakunin and others.
Specifists argue that, foremost, anarchists need to understand their role as a revolutionary minority and how they relate to a wider and much more complex terrain of social struggle. We believe these questions are increasingly pressing in respect to the current economic and social climate and the clarity of the specifist approach is a useful tool to begin answering them.
We reject the, currently quite popular, idea that anarchist activity is simply about broadening and escalating resistance. Undoubtedly this is a component of building class confidence and solidarity, but as a strategy in itself it doesn't do justice to our ideas. The questions that revolutionaries should be putting to themselves now is not just how they can fight cuts and break the consensus on austerity but what part they can play (however small) in escalating social struggles (or playing their part in organising new ones) towards a consolidation of counter-power and process of communisation.
How do you conceive of anarchosyndicalism, given that you (critically) support it in some format, but clearly differ from Solidarity Federation?
Liberty & Solidarity's interest is in "independent" – as opposed to anarchist – syndicalism (which they endorse uncritically). For AFed it would be fair to say that both them and SolFed have a close working relationship and co-operate on many campaigns. There is also joint membership in some instances, although AFed are nothing like an organised faction within SolFed. It's only in recent years that SolFed have begun to operate as an organising union so in terms of both their and AFed's activity as propaganda groups they were often quite close. AFed make it clear in their literature that they do not support the organisation of mass, anarcho-syndicalist unions, seeing them as both impractical and open to co-option. Instead they talk of the need for informal workplace resistance groups. This concept, however, is often applied quite broadly and has been argued to include some aspects of anarcho-syndicalist strategy. We have criticised this on the basis that it lacks a clear and programmatic focus.
For us the issue is more about the context and how certain methodologies relate to both the existing class composition and the resources available to organisers. In this sense we recognise that some elements of anarcho-syndicalist strategy are almost universally applicable – being basic elements of organisational anarchism from the time of Bakunin – while also stressing the need for continual and critical investigation on the part of disciplined and organised anarchist communist militants.
Why do you describe yourself as an "association"? Is there any political significance to this term?
In very practical terms it denotes the scope of our project – a small number of comrades coming together for a specific purpose with shared goals. We felt it was important not to adopt the labels of "federation" or even "organisation" prematurely. These labels should be meaningful where they are applied.
The term "association" does, however, also have a deeper meaning within our tradition. Early Utopian socialists favoured the term "associationism" to characterise the voluntary yet still organised basis of free communism. Malatesta even went so far as to say the term should replace anarchism for anarchists.
How would you describe your orientation in respect to the Anarkismo project?
Anarkismo, and the Anarkismo groups, have been a strong influence on our theoretical development to this point. Our study of Anarkismo texts, alongside recent investigations into communisation theory, and their resonance with our own experiences are key factors in terms of both the initiation and continued development of the CA project. We feel the North American groups in particular are facing similar contexts, and answering similar questions, to ourselves. There are a number of points of principle in which we currently disagree with the Anarkismo Statement. These are issues that we hope can be clarified and debated through the international platform that Anarkismo provides.
What is the current focus/activity of the group?
As we aim to understand more concretely the present situation and how we relate to it as a movement, our focus – as an association – is to collate our investigations, ideas and analysis into a series of articles. We are currently working on two series, one of which is entitled the “Class Composition Series” and the other the “Regroupment Series”. We see this process as very much a practical one. We want to work out what activity is necessary and how best we implement that activity to achieve agreed objectives.
Within the process of Regroupment we are also aiming to participate in movement-wide public discussions with our sister Regroupment organisation Plan C. Our first talk will be at the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair on Saturday, 23rd June. There we will discuss how we have felt the need to develop these Regroupment currents and how we see ourselves moving forward.
Your membership criteria has been criticised as being “hierarchical”. Why have you chosen to structure things in this way?
The first thing we have to make clear to people is that we are not a membership organisation per se. We do not seek to build membership as other groups do, making their membership criteria extremely simple, to the detriment of political stability. We don’t have the aim of getting as many people as possible to join us, and do not consider ourselves a big tent. We do not accept that people with varying degrees of agreement on core principles and values can become members without there being any concern for the theoretical and tactical integrity of the organisation. This is why we take potential membership seriously and why we have structured the process in the way that we have.
Our aim in terms of membership is to build a base of anarchist communist militants and organisers who share full agreement on theory and tactics and who can equitably contribute in both time and ideas to the association. We recognise that people are at varying and different levels in both knowledge and time and therefore, to safeguard the integrity of the organisation (in terms of theory and function), we have chosen to use a system of membership whereby we can ensure that militants are empowering themselves and the organisation through their activity. This structure allows us to address openly the individual needs of members, especially in terms of their relationship to the organisation and the theory we are trying to build. Having an associate membership period is the most accountable way to achieve this. Some may see this as a hierarchy of membership, but if that’s the case then it is our view that the concept of “hierarchy” is being misused. No-one in Collective Action has any authority over anyone else; no power relationship is being replicated by having full members and associate members – it is a voluntary, equitable and accountable process.
Recent years have seen the emergence of new forms of politics and political protest, such as the mobilizations around the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement; how does what CA is doing relate to that?
These issues are of interest to all revolutionaries at this point. In the past few years, on a global scale, we've seen an explosion in social unrest. In many ways these new forms of protest (although how practically new they are could be open to debate) sets the stage for the Regroupment process. Are our existing models of intervention sufficient? Are we organised along the right lines under the correct terms? Are we using all the opportunities available to us? Etc., etc. In respect to many of these, we felt the anarchist movement in the UK was lacking clear answers. This was a sentiment shared by a project emerging independently but at a very similar time to ours – "Plan C". At present we are both still working on our ideas (although we consider ourselves to be on fraternal terms with the network) so wouldn't want to make many substantive statements on this. However, we think that on a broader level it shows that this process of questioning and self-criticism is both required and emerging.
Anarkismo.net Editorial Group
- Collective Action's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Can comment on articles and discussions
Comments
JC,
Might I suggest that the ability of revolutionary minorities ''to organise struggles'' is dependent on their size, location, practical organisational experience and political influence and the 'objective' conditions in which they find themselves.
Even if such minorities (not of course limited to just the current particular groups) were to grow far beyond current experience they would still be minorities in relation to a growing class movement of social dimensions.
It is not a question of ''waiting'' for things to happen or collective struggles being dependent on such
'ideologically' based minorities as are the contestants in debates on this site.
Don't set up false polarities.
I too look forward to the long awaited new SolFed pamphlet.
Apology
Cdes: I've just read through this thread again. I still retain that CA need to get their wording of things clearer and reject nothing of the content of what I wrote. Such certainty, bullishness and resistance to accepting even simple mistakes of ideas/wording cannot lead to a process of regroupment of libertarian revolutionaries - or of learning together.
However, I believe my style above, or the sarcastic comments at the end of each of my contributions were not contributing to the learning process either, rather a reaction to CA's own certainty, bullishness, etc.
Now the discussion is becoming clearer; that it is about the relation between total union/class struggle approaches belonging to the past, and the newer rapidly growing diversity of social struggles.
Recognising the growth of the service sector, feminist, ecological, anti-racist/fascist, anti-imperialist, social justice, information technology, etc; yet trying to grasp all this in the context of old language, practices, ideas; this is not easy, and we should all be perhaps less certain, more amiable to belonging to a joint learning process. Maybe even use a modern dictionary?
This general machoism does nothing to encourage women comrades to join in the process of libertarian revolutionary development - and I apologise for my role in this. And I do applaud libcom.org for tackling this in recent years, apparently it used to be really bad - though much work still has to be done in developing this new culture.
Due to other time-pressing writing I cannot contribute fruitfully on this thread at the moment.
solid - stevey
Spikymike covers some of this in the above, but for me it's less an issue of the tasks of revolutionary minorities, it's more about the basis for unity and the conditions that give rise to each organisation (anarchist groups can be both tools for intervention as well as means of formenting specifically anti-authoritarian organisation within the parameters of the Bakuninist concept of organisational dualism).
The specifically (specifist) anarchist communist organisation is based on an ideational unity between the most advanced elements of the class. In this sense it aims to act as a point of continuity and resource for the development of either economic or political-economic struggles that will be subject to the mediations, ebbs and flows of class struggle. Mass revolutionary consciousness is generally "won" or "lost" through social struggle. The revolutionary minority aims to bypass this as a historical process through immediately representing the best lessons from the class and developing its strategies accordingly.
Now the FARJ talk about a relationship to "social movements", that has a specific contextual meaning that doesn't quite carry through for us in the UK. If you study their analysis, however, their meaning becomes a little clearer in the sense that a) they use this to denote the fact that it is organs of popular struggle - neighborhood assemblies, indigenous groups, workplace councils - which are the critical motor of social revolution to which revolutionary minorities are ultimately subordinate and b) that what they describe as "social movements" are generally forms of organisation that develop within the terms set by Capital, i.e. based on material interest or issues arising from the social contradictions produced by capitalism and the state. In respect to b) then the task of the specifist anarchist communist organisation is to move these struggles from their logic within Capital to a point where they aim to supercede it. Both in an immediate sense, e.g. promoting methods that pre-figure communisation - seizure of property, illegality, non-representation - and as a longer process. This could either be in thr form of intervention or more pro-active means of organisation, e.g. a union. If unsuccessful, e.g. the struggle becomes co-opted or simply smashed by the state apparatus, militants are drawn back to the specifist organisation to re-group, re-focus and theorise alternative strategies.
This is a simplified picture but I'm trying to provide the broadest outlines of the model.
Discussing the finer points is all very well and good; but really! - 5 blokes and a dog forming a study group is not the storming of the Bastille. Let's have some sense of proportion here. This appears to me as a genuine attempt to form a national organisation of thinkers with not even enough members to call a small local group. I'm no longer amused.
why not actually engage with the ideas?
Essentially, I feel you's have shot your bolt. Electing yourself as house think-tank and is not what engages me.
so that's a no then...
I find this a bit dismissive. When you consider all anarchist / communist organisations are tiny, even when taken in aggregate, so some sense of proportion is definitely required.
I am not sure what the issue is with them forming a study group either.
Aye, steady on fella. I've a lot of respect for a couple of the CA folk. Let's not be mean spirited.
Certainly not meant as an attack on a personal level with the comrades within CA. I feel they need to make up there collective minds whether they're a new anarchist-communist organisation or a think tank.
If they're a new an-com org then why on earth go to ground to regroup?
If they're a think-tank - why cede from Afed?
It's frustrating to find that both SF and Afed have toiled for years to get where they are now - still small, but growing well - and then we're served with a bowlful of where we're going wrong. Yum yum.
That's life our kid. It's not the first and it won't be the last time this sort of thing happens. I prefer to leave the door open for the sound members of CA, just in case they one day see the error of their ways
and decide to come back to the AF.
The label of "think-tank" is one attributed to us. We do not consider this to be the case. We are an anarchist communist group - that is what we are. The idea that an anarchist communist group cannot exist and "think" at the same time is just completely baffling to us. We are an anarchist communist group...Thinking. This might seem completely inexplicable, but that's what is happening.
The reason we ceded from the AF is because we didn't see a way for us to exist within it. The reason we are "regrouping" is not to "go to ground", it is to reconnect with anarchist communist ideas and work out how we move forward, since the anarchist communist movement has failed and continues to fail in the fight against capitalism.
If you read our documents this is repeatedly explained.
I agree with your first paragraph, but would add minorities have the ability to change objective conditions to a certain extent. I'm also aware that such minorities would be remain as minorities within the class. Where have I said collective struggles are dependent on anarcho-syndicalists or other revolutionaries instigating them?
We can't rely on other people to start collective struggles, the trade unions have made it pretty clear over the years it isn't something that they're interested in doing and such struggles rarely ever start spontaneously.
To gain practical organisational experience we are generally going to have to start collective struggles ourselves, of course we'll be a minority in such struggles and their success and limitations will be practically decided by the objective conditions.
Now this is something I think Collective Action would generally agree with as if I remember correctly they're also nearly all involved with the IWW and a solidarity network?
I'm not sure when the pamphlet is going to be released but I will look forward to hearing your thoughts when it does come out!
Thanks for simplifying that! There are still a couple of things I'm struggling with, but it sounds pretty much like the AF strategy but wrapped up in especifismo language? From what you've said it sounds like your main issue is with the AF as an organisation rather than what they're trying to achieve?
Jim just wrote'
I can't resist intervening on this important question.
For revolutionaries, 'objective conditions' are only grasped by a realistic appraisal of what is potential and/or possible out of present circumstances.
Present circumstances require as objective as possible an appraisal of what character the present period is that we are going through; of its past, present and future trajectory - as all three belong as one arrow or time line in developing current perspectives.
As such, the 2008 banking/financial crisis brought on a first wave of global rebellion that began in the winter of 2010-11 and continued throughout 2011; with the students here, Tunisia in Dec 2010, then Egypt, the whole Arab Spring, southern Europe's protests and strikes, the English August riots and of course the global Occupy movement. Paul Mason responded with a book on, 'Why its kicking off everywhere', where he wrote, 'It's as if physics has been replaced by quantum physics, but in every discipline.'
For the new non-linear sciences challenging mechanical, reductionist, Newtonian science which still dominates bourgeois politics, economics, social and practical actions - have been steadily mounting up since the early 1800's. It began with Marx's dialectic, then deepened further with Darwin's Origin of Species, further with Einstein's relativity; then quantum physics, complexity and chaos theories, systems dynamics, etc, etc.
The dynamics of quantum science particularly proved not a world of iron laws, but one of potentials and probabilities. This along with relativity deepened the real dialectic method. But the Marxist 'followers' of Marx took the mechanical iron-laws interpretation of the dialectic, almost instantly becoming its opposite. Marxism became the new hierarchical science.
Quantum dynamics is brilliant for grasping the role of organised spontaneity and self-organisation in revolutionary libertarian activities, which should be guided by quantum patterns of potential, possibility and probability. When Jim states 'struggles rarely ever start spontaneously', he is right. This is especially important in us developing accurate perspectives of what this volatile period we are in is really about.
When Holloway states 'We are the crisis of capital', that is spot on, as it is only when we revolutionaries learn the patterns, tendencies and rhythms of the various forces at work as capital goes from crisis to crisis, all in a downward spiral - and how to intervene scientifically, spreading this knowledge and experience into the radicalising working class and the plethora of the forces of humanity - that we become the crisis of capital.
So Jim, and others, we should seek in this period to be optimistic, trying to weave this web and encourage potentials to become possibilities then probabilities - it's the new science you know.
Jim writes, "we are generally going to have to start collective struggles ourselves".
So, how do we do this? Solfed or AF cannot do this alone. One way is to use the basic method I've briefly outlined above. But what are the forces at work today that can do this 'starting'?
I would suggest that generally here in Britain the combined forces of Solfed and AF cooperate closer, and draw in the ever-wider layers of young potential libertarian revolutionaries into practical cooperation in such work. This experience would maximise limited resources, and would prise them away from lifestyle 'anarchism' and mindless violence towards the serious practice of both AF and Solfed, both of whom would gain.
I've now gone on too long, and this should really be part of another discussion, but what the hell, I needed a break and to spleen.
solid - stevey
While there are undoubtedly common threads in all of those struggles - which Mason did a good job of analysing, it is important for us to recognise the individual circumstances in each place where they have arisen. Students here have been defeated and have shown little interest in continuing the struggle, Egypt saw a military coup that crushed the revolution, the August riots are over and the police are prepared for a rematch, and the Occupy movement is a joke. I'm not sure what's happening with Tunisia at the moment but I'm pretty sure they don't have communism yet. There are some interesting things happening in Greece and Spain at the moment, but the working class in both countries are still losing.
To be honest I'm finding it very difficult to be optimistic, all I can see are a series of defeats around the globe. Wherever we look people lack faith in their own ability to change the world, are reluctant to take direct action in their own interests, don't show enough solidarity with each other, let others control their struggles etc. There are of course reasons to be cheerful as all of those struggles have shown but we need to honestly appraise their limitations rather than having blind faith in their ability to succeed.
SolFed members are putting a lot of time and effort into doing this at the moment and a handful of members are having successes so we can do this alone. I would have thought you would have looked a bit more into all of this before joining the organisation. There are plenty of discussions on the internal forums where people talk about what they've been doing. I'm also not sure the method you briefly outlined was basic, I don't understand most of it and it doesn't sound that useful.
SolFed and AF co-operation is not going to lead to a significant number of young people becoming libertarian communists. I'm also not sure why we would want to work together just to draw people away from lifestylism, we can do that easily enough as separate organisations. Our problem at the moment is not a lack of libertarian communists, it is a lack of working class power. We need to be concerning ourselves with rebuilding working class power at the point of production (and points of re-production). If workers across the country were taking direct action in their own interests, controlling their own struggles, and showing solidarity with each other then it wouldn't matter how many of us are sat around discussing theory.
You seem to have joined both AF and SF with the sole intention of bringing about closer co-operation between both organisations. While I can see why this is an enticing strategy for building a libertarian communist movement, there are a number of problems with this approach. By ignoring the previous discussions between members of both organisations you are unable to argue for co-operation on issues that would suit the needs of both organisations. As I've said above building a bigger libertarian communist movement is not a priority and should not become one. You were also initially hostile to Collective Action who have decided they wanted to be in a smaller organisation. If you'd asked within SF about them you would have found out that while they were in the AF they were some of the members keenest on the kind of joint work you're suggesting and there were a number of joint initiatives that took place.
We need to be building on the joint work that has already taken place while focusing on rebuilding working class power, not assuming that a more powerful libertarian communist movement can ever be a substitute for that power.
The question that emerges from this thread IMO is, how do libertarian communist organisations assess their success? Is anything short of communism a failure? Obviously not, but by what measure are we failing/succeeding or at least on the right track?
That true?
Some CA members are involved in IWW in their locale.
As a strictly personalopinion, I hate to break the bubble, but the dual political organizational membership (as opposed to dual union membership or membership in both a political organization and union) really doesn't work very well. Perhaps alliances of organizations, but dual membership, not so good IMHO.
agree, but i don't think Collective Action are pursuing an organised intervention within the IWW (which got l&s into a lot of hot water)
I have to say I agree. I just can't see it working realistically for most people. I think formal cooperation between organisations is a much more appealing option than overlapping memberships.
~J.
Oh, maybe I misread something.... I thought in one of the latter posts there was a suggestion for tri-org. membership (CA-AF-SF). My bad if I quickley read and misunderstood.
http://insipidities.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/combination-of-loose-and-strict_23.html
translation: "I'm so alone..."
please tell me you didn't write that.
score to me for getting denounced in that blog post
oh oh dear
tr: They were mean to me. Bullies... (*sniffle*)
What the....Great Caesar's ghost!!!