It's also worth noting that Role of the Revolutionary Organisation is written by us, whereas the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism is by George Fontenis (1953) but published by us - we recognise that it is flawed and say so here: http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/
The best thing you can read to understand AF's approach to organisation is to look at section C2 of http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html which is more recent than Role of the Revolutionary Organisation.
You can also read more about our influences here: http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue52/roots.html
Presumably you will be revising Section C2 'Industrial' in terms of 'workplace resistance groups' 'permanent organisation' and 'alternative unions' now that a good section of your organisation are actively promoting the IWW in Britain, or is this self proclaimed 'industrial union' perhaps a 'workers resistance group' in disguise?
Hmmm...tricky one isn't it. In the US branches of the IWW have recently been found to be acting as badly as any other union, but in the UK it definitely seems to be doing good stuff and many AF members see it as the closest we've got to 'workers resistance groups'. Maybe we'll just have to be vigilant for when to stop supporting it and start denouncing it!
In the US branches of the IWW have recently been found to be acting as badly as any other union, but in the UK it definitely seems to be doing good stuff
Hmm...
To me it sometimes looks the other way 'round.
Actually i think there is lots of good stuff on both sides of the pond, and some serious problems.
Actually i think there is lots of good stuff on both sides of the pond, and some serious problems.
This is just an inevitable function of branch autonomy surely, with the solution being to either accept that some branches are weaker (ie, less militant and more prone to lying down) than others and slug it out in the delegate meetings when any fed-wide issues come up, or for stronger branches to club together and start bashing away at weaker branches until they get their act together – expelling them if they can’t do so.
First option is likely to lead to more growth, but severe weaknesses in the main union down the line as militants are outnumbered and policies will get watered down as a result, second option is likely to kill growth but lead to a more cohesive end product.
A third one of course would be to consolidate current gains by doing a combination of the two (ie, hammer at/get rid of the worst offenders while vetting any new entrants/blocking weak links, initially killing growth until the membership is more reliably militant, and then open the doors again).
Over 14 million people could find themselves in fuel poverty in the near future, if new figures from gas giant Centrica predicting a 70% rise in gas prices prove accurate - nearly a quarter of the population.
How the ICC is perceived by a very disillusioned ex-member.
Theoretical reflections on the workers' movement in the 20th century and the prospects for revolution.
First issue of an irregular workers' bulletin put together by users of the website, libcom.org. This issue focuses on the 2008 pay dispute over sub-inflation pay offers.
Greetings Comrades,
I am new to Libcom so I hope you dont mind me asking a few questions abour the Anarchist Communist Federation. [An organisation I was once linked with a number of years ago].
Is the ACF what is commonly termed a "platformist" group. Your aims and principles don't make this clear. I thought that the organization wasn't. But you sell what I understand to be platformist literature like the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism and Role of the Revolutionary Organisation. I would be grateful if you could clarify this for me.
I was also under the impression that one of the key organisational tenets of anarchist -communism was the establishment of workers councils - but I note this is omitted from the aims and principles?
I look forward to hearing from you
Your fraternally
Ernest