Why join AFed?
Jan 20 2006 09:35
I'm debating whether or not i want to joing the anarchist federation, and was wondering what all of your motivations were? Personally, I'm fed up of the political system here in britain favouring the middle classes and the top of the food chain i suppose. And this capitalist model just seems to be advanced all over the world with increasing globalisation.
Not many anti-capitalist organisations seem to help the interests of the working class. To me, they all seem too elitist and so just continuing the tradition of dominating middle classes. What do you all think? Why did you lot join?!
Jan 21 2006 09:50
#2
For me, being in the AF makes life easier. I've got comrades I can rely on, it's not all up to me. My propaganda is more effective as I don't have to produce it all myself, though I do produce some of it. There's friends who can support me, can help me develop my ideas and who I can trust to let me know when I'm being a prat.
I know others are doing the same stuff as me and I don't get embarrassed by what they are up to. We're part of an international network, so I get a feel of what's going on elswhere.
And I've got loads of friends in it. That makes me stronger too.
And we do fun things too, though not often enough. There should be a summer camp/gathering this year, which'll give us a chance to relax as well as being political.
To be honest, a lot depends on where you live and how well you'll be able to keep in contact with others. We';re setting up a northern AF this weekend to improve contacts along the M62 corridor, that'll help us for example. London has a strong group. Manchester a small one. There's the makings of groups in Sheffield and Liverpool, good contacts in Nottingham, Hereford and a number of other towns/cities.
Jan 21 2006 13:54
#3
Hello there Jessica.
I'm an AF member- the reasons being mainly that I am a class struggle anarchist, and it makes sense for those of us who share the same approach and politics to be as organised as possible. That is not to say the AF is perfect, but joining together with other organisational anarchists makes everyone stronger, as comrade knightrose points out.
Shared resources, propaganda (leaflets, pamphlets, magazines etc), contacts (both international and within this country): these are some of the benefits of being in a group. Having a network of like-minded people connected together over a large area means that action can be taken in a more effective manner , and information can be shared about on-the-ground developments (like council-house sell-offs and the like).
Jan 22 2006 22:20
#4
Jessica wrote:
Not many anti-capitalist organisations seem to help the interests of the working class. To me, they all seem too elitist and so just continuing the tradition of dominating middle classes. What do you all think? Why did you lot join?!
Well I joined because I think that spreading anarchist ideas is imprtant, and I like the idea of being organised. Plus i said I would if the AF called a particular demo, and they came through.
If you're not in an area where the AF is active, the benefits might be small, though. PM someone with where you're based, if you like, and they can probably suggest an active anti-capitalist group near you. The middle class domination thing is difficult to get over, I can't give you any guarantees about any groups in the UK, I'm afraid.
Jan 29 2006 06:26
#5
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Well I joined because I think that spreading anarchist ideas is imprtant, and I like the idea of being organised. Plus i said I would if the AF called a particular demo, and they came through.
You can't have an organised anarchist group, anarchy symbolizes no control, no government, no teams. You are the worst anarchists ever.
Jan 29 2006 08:12
#6
So that's where we went wrong. Nice to know.
Jan 29 2006 08:47
#7
I especially like the failure to understand what 'symbolises' means - it's not a fucking painting you know.
Jan 29 2006 11:44
#8
anarchyisstupid wrote:
You can't have an organised anarchist group, anarchy symbolizes no control, no government, no teams. You are the worst anarchists ever.
If anarchy is stupid then would the worst anarchists ever be very clever or very stupid? I hope he comes back to clear it up.
Jan 29 2006 14:06
#9
Quote:
You can't have an organised anarchist group
Yeah that's exactly what The Man would like you to think...
Jan 30 2006 01:02
#10
anarchyisstupid wrote:
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Well I joined because I think that spreading anarchist ideas is imprtant, and I like the idea of being organised. Plus i said I would if the AF called a particular demo, and they came through.You can't have an organised anarchist group, anarchy symbolizes no control, no government, no teams. You are the worst anarchists ever.
lol, is this guy banned now or what?
Jan 30 2006 02:19
#11
if you look up anarchism in a dictionary, it says,
"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."
So, you banding together to make an anarchist society is an oxymoron.
Jan 30 2006 07:27
#12
anarchyisstupid wrote:
if you look up anarchism in a dictionary, it says,"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."
So, you banding together to make an anarchist society is an oxymoron.
Well, you're obviously either a troll or outrageously misinformed, but I'll humour you.
Not everything in life can be described entirely within a brief dictionary definition.
Even the most devoted of dictionary lovers would admit that there is, in most if not all walks of life, vastly more to it than a few words in a dictionary.
A simple reading of the Libcom library should make things a little clearer.
Jan 30 2006 09:38
#13
anarchyisstupid wrote:
if you look up anarchism in a dictionary, it says,"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."
Hey smart guy - do you know how dictionaries work?
Firstly, dictionaries aren't meant to be political tracts, they're at best short approximations. Secondly they give a few different definitions, all of which are true - they are not all combined.
Therefore "blue" means something that is the colour blue, or something that is depressed - not something that is both depressed and actually blue.
So anarchism is not "Absence of any form of political authority, Political disorder and confusion, Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose" all combined. Political anarchism is just "Absence of any form of political authority". Which doesn't make any form of anarchist society "an oxymoron" because there are and have been many human societies without "any form of political authority".
Jan 30 2006 16:47
#14
You can't join together to make an anarchist society because it defeats the point. If you join together, it is no longer anarchy.
Jan 30 2006 16:54
#15
Hi
What about Crass or the Dead Kennedys? did they cease to become anarchists as soon as they played “together as a team”. Anyway, I agree. Anything whose own dictionary definition discredits it must be stupid. What do you think of “communism”, do you like it?
Love
LR
Jan 30 2006 17:00
#16
anarchyisstupid wrote:
You can't join together to make an anarchist society because it defeats the point. If you join together, it is no longer anarchy.
You're an idiot.
Jan 30 2006 18:20
#17
Saii wrote:
Quote:
You can't have an organised anarchist groupYeah that's exactly what The Man would like you to think...
Feb 1 2006 12:05
#18
Now come on John we should give him the benefit of the doubt, he may just be a bit slow.
There are two definitions of anarchy.
1. Absence of order/chaos. This is what you seem to be saying, and it's an imcomplete interpretation taken on its own.
2. Absence of authority. This does NOT mean absence of order, but simply absence of a leadership class maintaining control over a larger group. There's nothing in that definition which prohibits organising on any other basis.
Feb 3 2006 01:59
#19
i'm always at a loss to what these people seriously expect to happen. like we're all going to go, "oh man, i never thought of it that way, i'm now a paleoconservative!"
Quote:
You can't join together to make an anarchist society because it defeats the point. If you join together, it is no longer anarchy.
ok, so banding together is no way of achieving a society with no social links at all. that's awfully nice, but not what anarchists actually want. so, the 'stupidest' thing we're guilty of via this line of argument is the mere matter of misusing the word 'anarchy'. which, i'm fairly sure, we can bring ourselves to live with.
They’re a sound lot.
They’re in the tradition of anarchists that are well organised — the real deal.
The more you put in to this group, the more you’ll get out of them. They’ve got a good critique of the general state of play with the leftwing and anti-globalisation scene. Also they’re well connected with all sorts of campaigns and other organisations.
Dan.