AF Public Meeting in London
Mar 24 2009 13:20
World Economy in Crisis- Who Pays the Price?
And How Do We Resist?
Public meeting organised by Anarchist Federation (London) 7pm on Wednesday April 22nd at Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1Nearest tubes: Kings Cross and Chancery Lane
Mar 24 2009 15:16
#2
The ICC? Who are they again?
Mar 24 2009 16:06
#3
The AF told me to tell the ICC that they can come but only if they rudely butt in and try to change the topic up for discussion.
Mar 24 2009 17:00
#4
I think it's a great topic for discussion. I don't think we'd derail that one...
B.
Apr 20 2009 15:57
#5
This Wednesday- now jointly organised with Solidarity Federation (London)
Apr 20 2009 17:35
#6
AF & SF comrades,
We're working towards some of the same topical stuff here.
Please feel free to share any written or audio stuff with us at:
wsany@hotmail.com.
--Syndicalist, NY-NJ W.S.A.
Apr 23 2009 01:35
#7
Apr 23 2009 08:36
#8
Thanks for enlightening all of us anarchist thickies, David
Apr 23 2009 10:20
#9
I wasn't at the meeting but surely saying "the subject was almost more like ‘Is there a class struggle today and should anarchists support it?’" is just taking the piss. Or is that the best you can come up with?
Apr 23 2009 10:22
#10
He did come out with the gem that a million workers striking in France is nothing.
Apr 23 2009 11:23
#11
"enlightening all of us anarchist thickies"
What is the basis for this? I repeatedly refer to good things about the meeting and what people said. And it's not rude or offensive or whatever to disagree with people! I don't think people have some sort of right to be immune from other comrades' opinions. If you disagree with the politics of the article, write a comment on its politics, don't just accuse me of being patronising.
"He did come out with the gem that a million workers striking in France is nothing"
No, I said that the one-day strikes in France were largely under the control of the trade union confederations' bureaucracy, and that these leaderships lacked strategy to win. I didn't say they were "nothing", did I?
Apr 23 2009 11:27
#12
Without your article or presence, we'd all still be in the dark as to what we, as a movement do, innit.
You dismissed it as being ultimately useless. You didn't make the point that having a million on the street is amazing in itself.
Apr 23 2009 11:32
#13
No , but sorry, your general tone in the article came over as patronising at least that is how it has been perceived by many, and yes "saying "the subject was almost more like ‘Is there a class struggle today and should anarchists support it?’"" was ironic considering you were surrounded by many veterans of class struggle who were at it before you were born
Apr 23 2009 11:36
#14
David, we've never met, but I've always had respect for what you've written even when I disagreed with it. The problem with your review of the meeting is that it comes across as being amazingly patronising. That's not really the way you are going to engage people in useful debate or influence their ideas.
Apr 23 2009 17:07
#15
fucking hell imagine having to live a commune with you lot 
Apr 24 2009 07:00
#16
Quote:
the subject was almost more like ‘Is there a class struggle today and should anarchists support it?
Tad unfair, the discussion got sidetracked in parts because apparently someone was dismissive about the idea the UK had workers, comparable to say third world super-exploited. So several speakers from the floor challenged this including yourself David. The discussion was aimed at the public as far as I am aware, so thats something to bare in mind and your criticisms of the first speaker are wrong, because the comrade deliberately made space to accomodate the speaker who was to follow.
In my eyes the discussion could and should follow up with something practical we can do (difficult given the general subject) but as a general opener I liked what both speakers said and it set a good precendence for the two organisations working together, and who knows others might feel so inclinned.
Im unclear why battlescarred doesnt make clear it was an AF/SF intiated event in his opener 
Apr 24 2009 08:26
#17
Because that was first organised by the AF before SF agreed to do it and when it was first posted. It was advertised as a joint event ( by me) on other listings.And I actually posted this on this thread later "This Wednesday- now jointly organised with Solidarity Federation (London) "
So please don't try to insinuate that I'm trying to get AF to have all the glory, because that would be very silly.
Apr 24 2009 08:28
#18
And anyway, that person who said that about workers in Britain was being deliberately provocative, he doesn't really believe that.
Apr 24 2009 08:45
#19
It doesn't really matter if DB was patronising or not (although on balance his comments do read that way) but what is the content of what he's saying. For someone to say they're "looking for practical and meaningful steps forward" without saying what these might be is the big issue. What is the role of the unions? What can revolutionaries do? In the face of a developing economic crisis how is the working class actually responding and what are the obstacles workers face?
Even more important is a clear view of what "the commune" actually represents. Are they in any way a break from Trotskyism, or are they just the same old leftist shtick with a hint of libertarian side salad? DB makes remarks about not copying "our European cousins" but. say, the struggles at the end of last year in Greece were inspiring, as were the anti-CPE struggles in France in 2006, When it comes down to it, when workers fight it doesn't matter where they are, or where you are for that matter.
On another matter, this was another meeting where the ICC was not present. As opposed to Manchester, Liverpool or Brighton, where we have been at AF or AF-connected meetings without any difficulties, the London AF (or at least one of them) isn't keen on debating with us and has enforced a ban for several years. The ICC knows that discussion is bound to include people that you don't necessarily agree with, but that doesn't seem to be universally accepted.
Apr 24 2009 08:52
#20
No one asked if the ICC could come though, this time.
Apr 24 2009 09:05
#21
Quote:
No one asked if the ICC could come though, this time.
Not true. Little_brother posted that this meeting was being jointly hosted between the AF and Solfed. So on the 29th March I PM'd him to ask:
Quote:
hi there, I noticed it's now a collaborative effort between yourselves and the AF. As you no doubt know, the ICC is still banned from Af meetings (in London, no where else) - is it still the case for this joint meeting?regards
I got no reply, and we subsequently made a decision about our non-attendance.
Apr 24 2009 09:10
#22
He's not even owt to do with London AF. Decadence theory wouldn't have had much place in the discussion anyway.
Apr 24 2009 09:23
#23
In light of the discussion careful to avoid being patronising, but seriously, fucking nice one guys!
Joint meetings and working like this (on this kind of principled basis where we don't obscure our genuine political differences) are exactly where we should be going.
It's definitely a big step on from the endless round of discussions that never go anywhere about why the AF and SF should merge etc. etc. I'd much prefer we work together as much as possible and carry on doing stuff like this, joint presence on demos etc. etc. then go through another dreamland round of people talking about merging.
Apr 24 2009 09:51
#24
"Decadence theory wouldn't have had much place "? Oh no? If we're talking about the economic crisis and the response of the working class, then it matters a lot if you see the current crisis as just another part of the 'business cycle' of booms and slumps or further evidence of the fundamental bankruptcy of capitalism. Did all the people who lost their jobs in the early 1980s subsequently experience a revival in the economy and find themselves back in work? No. In Britain the Conservatives fiddled the figures and Labour basically carried on where the Tories left off. Already some establishment figures are saying that unemployment might go up to an official figure of 4 million. Is it right to see this as part of a 'boom and bust' cycle or that it is part of the crisis of a system that can't feed a billion and hasn't got jobs for increasing millions? Do the struggles of the working class achieve meaningful reforms of capitalism, or do they come up against the full power of the state if they even begin to threaten the domination of capital?
Apr 24 2009 09:54
#25
Quote:
He's not even owt to do with London AF.
Fair enough, maybe I should have pm'd someone else, however as tranchone points out above it is particular individuals who seem to be enforcing a ban, with others not seeming to know much about it.
Quote:
Decadence theory wouldn't have had much place in the discussion anyway.
Judging from the report and the (limited) comments in response on this thread, it strikes me that the questions tranchone has raised, i.e. "What is the role of the unions? What can revolutionaries do? In the face of a developing economic crisis how is the working class actually responding and what are the obstacles workers face?" despite being 'old' ones, are exactly the ones that should have been asked, decadence theory or not.
One can be clear on the counter-revolutionay role of the unions, as many are here, without accepting decadence theory. The problem is, unfortunately, even those who are generally 'clear' all too often end up tail ending those very self same unions. Having a framework, then, means having a framework of understanding which doesn't shilly shally depending on which way the wind is blowing...
Apr 24 2009 10:38
#26
And who says the ICC are a humourless bunch?
There are no "particular individuals"; there is no conspiracy at work here. Truth is, we don't give a toss that much to be honest.
Apr 24 2009 10:58
#27
"we don't give a toss that much to be honest " says jolly roger. But who is the "we" that doesn't give a toss? Certainly not those members of the AF who are prepared to discuss with the ICC. As for "particular indibiduals", we are well aware that different prejudices prevail in different parts of the country, and that some are prepared to discuss and others don't want to. Look at the comments about DB from "the commune" - you can of course make sarcastic remarks about his tone etc, but what would be more interesting would be some sort of criticism showing where his point of view is wrong (or mistaken or whatever). The bottom line for the working class is clarification - where is the class struggle going? what are the problems it faces? is the economi crisis part of a cycle or something more serious? whose side are the unions on? how do those who claim they want to see the destruction of capitalism relate to each other and to the rest of the working class?
Apr 24 2009 11:15
#28
Why are you so keen to come to AF meetings? Why don't you just organise your own- I know you do and forget about this.
And can I ask - are the AF still part of the LeftWing of Capitalism as you have previously pronounced??
Apr 24 2009 11:27
#29
More to the point - why is London the only part of the AF that has a problem with the ICC?
Apr 24 2009 11:38
#30
No, you answer my question first
I think this is the point where the ICC says can we come, and the AF replies that they can't and the ICC then says but it was ten years ago when you banned us, and the AF says...
Hopefully this brief preview of the argument will save comrades the time and effort of having to go through it again.
Devrim