Irish Anarchism and Organisation
Jan 22 2006 14:43
Hiya,
I'm starting this thread largely due to points raised at the post Chomsky discussion the other day and my interest at continuing a debate about the anarchist movement in Ireland today. The crowd at the Teacher's Club was large and pretty mixed and I'm not sure there was a real possibility of a coherent discussion, but it was clear that some people who post on this forum had some serious points to make.
So, what do people think about the current state of anarchism in Ireland and what do they think can/should be done to continue its growth?
Jan 22 2006 19:58
#2
oi - I wrote that a couple of years back in a particular context. The upshot was not what the proposals envisaged but the formation, out of Anarchist Prisoner Support, the Anarchist Federation in Ireland and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, of Organise!
Things have moved on to an extent, Organise! have around a dozen members, mostly in Belfast and Co. Armagh, while the WSM have as far as I've been told around 28 in Dublin and Cork. The Anarchist Youth thing looks to have involved more people - though we'd need imput from them on that. And there are various other libertarian-socialists and anarchists involved in a wide range of campaigns and projects.
The question is do people think starting this sort of process would be beneficial or do we look at other ways in which our efforts can be better co-ordinated and see how such co-ordination and joint work develops? What opportunities are there for bringing such discussion forward? And importantly how much of a desire to see this sort of development is there?
Maybe we should just start with looking at the current state of anarchism in Ireland and take it from there?
Cheers;
Jan 22 2006 21:55
#3
Anarchist youth has roughly 20 people after two meetings, of course it's too early to say that they're all dedicated or whatever.
There's also a radical feminist collective called "RAG" in dublin as well as Anarchist Prisoner Support and a few other small collectives.
Jan 23 2006 01:21
#4
heya, i think if you're talking about close organisation a la wsm or whatever then it'd have to be class struggle which would rule out people in prisoner support and probably a bunch of AY and RAG. if you're talking a 'network' so beloved of our movement then anyone could join (who accepted the PGA hallmarks for example 
) but you'd never get unity on long term projects -it'd only work for short term things like the G8 (shut up jack) or mayday or whatever. (if it looks like there's gonna be another war then i think one of these would have to be set up).
so er, what im saying is that we should define the function before talking about forming an organisation, y'dig?
err, on a possibly troublesome side note, does there still remain a substantial divide between organise and wsm since their latest souped up position paper? (dont answer this if people are gonna start being mean about it)
Jan 23 2006 11:48
#5
Yeah I'd rather hoped there would be more concrete discussion of that after the Chomsky meeting and a lot less of the 'what I think we should do in the next 3 months'. Not that this doesn't also always have value but we do need to sometimes collectively discuss organisational questions.
I think things break down into two tasks
1. Improving communication and decision making in 'the movement' as a whole. I think our experiences of the Grassroots Gatherings, DGN and of GrassrootsDissent show that this is possible and allows a lot to be acheived but they also shown that it is difficult to sustain in particular in periods where there is not so much happening. Taken together I think that means these sorts of projects will always wax and wane.
2. Creating or bringing people into specific anarchist organisations based on a degree of programatic unity. At the moment we are talking of WSM and Organise! - most of the other groups around are project/sector based rather than programatic in nature. I'd like to see a lot of the people involved around these and the type 1. groups to also decide its time to get involved in (or create if there is sufficent disagreement with what exists) groups of this type.
Seperately there is also the question of building up sector/issue groups like Womens Anarchist Group, Anarchist Youth, Prisoner Support, etc.
Suggested reading
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1743
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=712
ronan wrote:
, on a possibly troublesome side note, does there still remain a substantial divide between organise and wsm since their latest souped up position paper? (dont answer this if people are gonna start being mean about it)
I didn't think there was that much of a divide before hand so obviously in my opinion this remains the case. There are some disagreements on tactical questions (e.g. what approach to take to the summit protest movement) so the question is whether tactical disagreements justify such a division (I'd say no).
Jan 23 2006 14:55
#6
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
oi - I wrote that a couple of years back in a particular context. The upshot was not what the proposals envisaged but the formation, out of Anarchist Prisoner Support, the Anarchist Federation in Ireland and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, of Organise!...
The question is do people think starting this sort of process would be beneficial or do we look at other ways in which our efforts can be better co-ordinated and see how such co-ordination and joint work develops? What opportunities are there for bringing such discussion forward? And importantly how much of a desire to see this sort of development is there?
Maybe we should just start with looking at the current state of anarchism in Ireland and take it from there?
I'm aware of the 'particular context' but I still think the main motivation behind it is still relevant and a good one. I was in a rush last night and just C&P. I'm not sure we need that 'process' either. But the questions you raise here are pertinent and where I think this discussion should flow. (?) (still in a rush 
) Joe has also touched on some of the more important questions that came out of the discussion last week.
Jan 23 2006 20:21
#7
so what is the state of irish anarchism?
that's a question that is difficult to answer without qualifying the terms we're using. So i'll try to be as precise as possible.
In terms of anarchists, people who identify with anarchism and consciously work to some degree or another towards social revolution, we are few, a couple of hundred, perhaps. From what other people have said, this is a major development from a few years ago and there is reason for a degree of optimism. It might be reasonable to suggest that anarchism is the strongest body of radical left politics in ireland today (although perhaps our Northern companeros and companeras could correct me if this is wrong in their context). the coinciding of the Anarchist Bookfair with Marxism 2006 may offer the chance to laugh at the irrelevance of the SWP, but that in itself is not a major achievement. certainly, I think there is a large amount of people who would identify with anarchism to some extent, but are not active in any way. I frequently meet people who identify as anarchist or libertarian but are not active beyond their haircuts.
Perhaps the relative size and coherence of anarchists in ireland can be attributed to the diversity that the word allows.
In terms of a climate of resistance, its a lot harder to say. There are various community struggles, mainly around planning issues and a lot of these take on non-hierarchical forms. As far as I can see, we are at a moment where there is a growing mistrust of the government, but there is no left-leaning electoral coalition to capitalise on this. Perhaps there is the beginning of a cultural change away from partnership and towards more oppositional approach among community groups and trade unions. I am very interested to see how the partnership talks will proceed and what the union membership's reactions will be.
How can anarchists contribute to this potential movement towards more mass resistance? I think, in JoeBlack's words, we should avoid making a "shopping list" of actions and struggles and should start to think strategically about what degree of commonality there is in irish anarchism and how this can be used as a basis for cooperation. Certainly, I don't think we should form an anarchist organisation simply because it would be more effective at recussitating the anti-war movement. Nor do i think we should conflate a strong organisation with a strong movement.
I think the first questions that should be asked is what are we working towards? and how do we plan to get there?
Jan 23 2006 21:38
#8
dara wrote:
I don't think we should form an anarchist organisation simply because it would be more effective at recussitating the anti-war movement.
Just a note to say that there are already two anarchist organisations in Ireland so forming another one wouldn't be major priority in my opinion. If you're interested in having a specific anarchist organisation it'd be logical to check them and see if you're in substantial agreement with both their aims and methods as there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Personally I'm in favour of a high level of agreement, obviously never 100%, if I'm going to bother being in an anarchist group. There's enough broad campaigns: residents associations, unions out there as well as yokes like grassroots which are fairly broad. I likes me political organisation to have a high degree of internal agreement.
The primary function of the anarchist organisation is to popularise the ideas and methods of anarchism through propaganda and the campaigns we're involved in. I think it's useful for like-minded anarchists to combine our resources in order to magnify our ability in this regard. Eventually we hope that libertarian ideas will be the dominant ideas amongst working people in terms of political and social organisation. I yapped on about this in more detail at http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67107
Quote:
I think the first questions that should be asked is what are we working towards? and how do we plan to get there?
time for a couple of well worn phrases:
a)Towards the establishment of a libertarian communist society.
b)Via mass direct action by workers.
If people feel the present organisations are unclear what they mean by this, and I hope they will as it's only two lines, it would be worth while engaging in a dialogue with them, both to clarify the WSM's and Organise's position and one's own.
Jan 24 2006 12:31
#9
H'mm we got derailed there for a while ..
Anyway Dara I think the question of which level of the movement you are talking about organising (networks, sectors, programatic groups) is an important starting point. We try and do all three although quite where the effort goes depends on what is going on. 2000-2004 was mostly about the network level (eg GG, DGN, CAZ) and 2005 was split between all three with perhaps the programatic level getting the most attention due to us having to restructure to take account of growth and fix things we had neglected during 2000-04.
2006 looks like a year in which the sector stuff (AY, WAG, Social Centre, 'issues' stuff) may dominate although I think there is also a good potential at the programatic level for considerable quantitive growth. The network stuff looks a lot more tricky as it is clear there are quite deep divides on what activity to prioritise with the activity some see as most important being seen as irrelevant by others. This tends to bring out the worst in networks because one thing they can't do is sort out priorities when there are such divides.
One concrete thing that could be done at the network level is for the GD to take the initative and set up a group to organise GG11 in Dublin. This would at least maintain communication and might realise some way of agreeing joint activity.
Disclaimer All this is of course liable to be overturned by the instrusion of the real world. It's only intended as an abstract sketch of the general patterns of movement building and what might make sense in the short term.
Jan 25 2006 11:16
#10
Boul can I suggest you split off the exchange betwen IrrationallyAngry, Gurrier and myself from the original thread. It's a seperate discussion worth pursuing but its derailing the original thread
Jan 26 2006 14:56
#11
Perhaps the first step towards discussing organisation within the irish anarchist movement is to to clarify what we mean when we say 'irish anarchist movement' and discuss the level of commonality there is.
In terms of anarchist groups, we have WSM and Organise! as groups which are specifically devoted to social revolution as well as various other groups which are dealing with specific issues. RAG (i think) are addressing issues that affect the members as feminists and anarchists, such as abortion, sexism within the anarchist movement and so on. Anarchist Youth are (i think) attempting to set up a way for younger people to educate themselves about anarchism and to get involved in anarchist activism. Then, Anarchist Prisoner Support are pretty self-explanatory.
There also exists larger anarchist milieus, which are sustained socially and not necessarily in an organised way. But, anarchists are involved in various other groups such as Seomra Spraoi and in specific campaigns such as Shell to Sea, and of course there are anarchists who are active in trade unions, residents groups and so on.
So, a couple of questions might arise from this:
1. To what extent do these various groups constitute an anarchist movement, is there sufficient commonality to call it this?
2. Should these sectoral groups set up some sort of structure by which they can communicate and make collective decisions for an anarchist movement, would this be at all useful?
Jan 26 2006 15:39
#12
Might be getting covered on the other thread but...
So, a couple of questions might arise from this:
Quote:
1. To what extent do these various groups constitute an anarchist movement, is there sufficient commonality to call it this?
Probably
Quote:
2. Should these sectoral groups set up some sort of structure by which they can communicate and make collective decisions for an anarchist movement, would this be at all useful?
In my opinion, not really. We’d essentially be creating a very loose organisation which would inevitably require time and energy to sustain, and I can’t see what significant advantages would come from such an organisation. If one is interested in being involved in an ongoing organisation active in multiple fields then, as I said above, it makes sense to check out (in particular) Organise! and the WSM. If they don’take your fancy then it’d be time to think about something new. Otherwise there is a big danger, I think, of creating an extra layer of meetings for no major reason.
If there is an overarching project then the groups will probably get together for that anyway or through yokes like grassroots, seomra spaoi. Personally I’d say it’s more important that we orient ourselves towards the wider class than to be overly navel-glazing, which I get a whiff of.
What do you think a loose anarchist organisation would do? How would it operate?
Jan 26 2006 15:47
#13
dara wrote:
1. To what extent do these various groups constitute an anarchist movement, is there sufficient commonality to call it this?
To me 'movement' is a delibretely vague term designed to describe a braod number of individuals and groups who are likely to find they have common objectives from time to time and a common way of loooking at things. I don't think it can be tightened up as a definition much beyond that.
dara wrote:
2. Should these sectoral groups set up some sort of structure by which they can communicate and make collective decisions for an anarchist movement, would this be at all useful?
I think this is where practise is more useful then theory. We have had a number of years of trying to do this through the grassroots and related networks. Quite a few theoretical models have been tried out.
From this you can say decision making in that manner only works in a very loose way and really only around topics that everyone feels are central. Otherwise they can be quite devisive - the one attempt at GG voting (Limerick) led to bad feeling and the decision at the next GG that it wasn't a decision making body.
From time to time an obvious issue will be central (Mayday 2004, Shannon 2003) but at other times what will be an obvious issue to some (eg Rossport) will be seen as a waste of time by others. In a formal group you have mechanisms by which the organisation can still make a decision and act on that decision but this doesn't work for a network. The best you can hope for is a agreement to split into groups working on each of these.
Your other problem with a network is that when there isn't an obviously central issue it tends to flounder unless some group within it put a lot of effort into driving it forward. But that tends to turn that group into an informal elite and creates problems in the future. Networks (because of their looseness) lack the ability to formally sit down and set up structures to formally do this and hold these structures accountable.
We spent quite a bit of time a couple of years back discussing this and a while experimenting. From this I don't think it makes sense to try and formalise networks because all you get is something with most of the disadvantages of a formal organisation, the disadvantages of a network and which doesn't work very well as either. Of course there may be exceptions to this.
Jan 26 2006 16:15
#14
yeah, i think i agree with the issues raised. certainly, i'm not sure what it means to say anarchist movement, which is why i used inverted commas.
i started the thread largely due to the post-Chomsky discussion and various people's contributions about being more strategic and having a plan as to where anarchism in ireland is going and whether organisation can help this.
i don't think we're at a stage where another programmatic anarchist organsation would be at all useful, it would probably just end up in more meetings by the same people. i certainly don't want to be doing more meetings at the moment. perhaps it would be interesting to discuss whether a qualitative shift in class struggle is likely, but perhaps we should leave that till we know the outcome of the social partnership talks.
Jan 26 2006 18:22
#15
...
Jan 27 2006 03:07
#16
dara wrote:
perhaps it would be interesting to discuss whether a qualitative shift in class struggle is likely, but perhaps we should leave that till we know the outcome of the social partnership talks.
if you think this has even the slightest relevance to the (a) 'movement' you're dreaming
Jan 27 2006 18:26
#17
Quote:
if you think this has even the slightest relevance to the (a) 'movement' you're dreaming
social partnership is irrelevant to anarchists? 
Feb 4 2006 11:05
#18
on shorty's post about my proposals there is more information on how this developed on this thread http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5584
Just a note - reading over this I noticed that references were made to the SSN - I think in the period we're talking about that should have been ASF.
Feb 5 2006 18:22
#19
flickerx wrote:
dara wrote:
perhaps it would be interesting to discuss whether a qualitative shift in class struggle is likely, but perhaps we should leave that till we know the outcome of the social partnership talks.if you think this has even the slightest relevance to the (a) 'movement' you're dreaming
I think flickerx isn't an anarchist and so is probably unaware that anarchists in Ireland have been involved in anti-partnership campaigns in the unions since the start of partnership. He probably reckons we are all students who live in caves and will become bankers or some similar substitute for thinking.
Feb 5 2006 21:39
#20
on that point, would you mind giving me some idea as to how partnership feeling within siptu is at the moment? the papers said that the unions decided to re-enter partnership talks by an 'overwhelming majority', but i'd be interested in the truth of this.
also, i noticed that MANDATE have refused to enter talks, they're the ones who Joanne Delaney is a member of. Interesting, any insight from anyone?
btw, i don't know any students who live in caves 
Feb 5 2006 22:34
#21
dara wrote:
on that point, would you mind giving me some idea as to how partnership feeling within siptu is at the moment? the papers said that the unions decided to re-enter partnership talks by an 'overwhelming majority', but i'd be interested in the truth of this.
SIPTU has around 200,000 members so there would be few qualified to say how they all think. The problem is that years of partnership mean
1. Many members don't see an alternative
2. There is very little rank and file debate so what the union suggests tends to be what is accepted.
Feb 5 2006 23:21
#22
i didn't mean for you to go around asking everyone personally...
but i was under the impression that there was a vote about going into talks. i was curious as to what the figures for this vote were.
Feb 6 2006 09:10
#23
irish times text me all of their breaking news, got one the other day that read
"siptu votes overwhelmingly in favour of returning to partnership talks"
or similar - i'm sure you could find more info here - www.ireland.com
Feb 6 2006 10:17
#24
The SIPTU press release is at http://www.siptu.ie/HeadlineNews/Name,3666,en.html
From it
"SIPTU delegates voted by an overwhelming majority to open exploratory talks on a new national partnership agreement to succeed Sustaining Progress. SIPTU General President, Jack O'Connor said in the light of the Irish Ferries demonstrations, unions could now call on the combined strength of over 600,000 workers if the talks process failed to deliver."
This would have been a Special Delegate Conference with delegates being appointed by each branch committee (branches typically comprise 1000-2000 members). The branch committee consists of officers elected by the branch AGM (which only 1-2% of members attend in my branch) and delegates from the sections of the branch. In a lot of branches the branch official has a lot of influence on branch committee decisions and as the SIPTU leadership was recommending going into talks he/she would have been putting forward that position.
The decision to go into talks doesn't tell you a huge amount about what the ordinary union members are saying in most circumstances although a rejection of the recommendation of the leadership would be quite significant. Traditionally only a few SIPTU branches have a record of opposing entry into talks.
If you look at the wording of the motion you'll see how the leadership were able to make it quite hard to vote against it
'Conference authorises support for participation in talks on a new national agreement to replace 'Sustaining Progress' in order to explore the potential for achieving substantial progress on measures to combat job displacement and exploitation, improve the standards of living, advance the relative position of the lower paid and enhance the quality of life of our members and workers generally.'
Cut and paste from another thread;
Hello folks;
I'd like to take this opportunity to throw open a proposal, initially
to some of the unaffiliated individuals, who are involved in the
Anarchist movement across Ireland.
I feel that while the war may well be 'over', at least insofar as
this stage of it is concerned (the impact of US imperialism, with the
UK as junior partner, on Iraq will most likely lead to a period of
long, drawn out and bloody strife and conflict of a lower intensity)
that recent events have thrown up some real opportunities for the
anarchist movement in Ireland. Opportunities which may only last a
short number of months.
As such I'd like to suggest that people seriously consider and help
develop proposals aimed at building a better organised and united
anarchist 'federation' in Ireland. At present we have three
organisations in Ireland, two of which with the misnomer 'Federation'
in their titles and one of which called a 'Movement', none of these
groups are in actual fact a Federation or a Movement on their own.
They are small, largely locally based groups, which are attempting to
build either a Federation or a Movement through recruitment to their
own particular organisations. I do not feel that this is how a
Federally structured anarchist movement in Ireland will emerge, and
we do have the very real possibility before us of building such a
movement.
First lets look at why we need to do this;
We need to structure our movement and use the tactics which will
build the potential for libertarian revolution in Ireland, to allow
us to best attack the enemy and best defend ourselves from attack,
and which will embrace all the positive elements of the political and
social life of our class. Liberty, mutual aid, co-ordination,
solidarity and social revolution must be the watchwords, the guiding
themes, of any effective anarchist organisation. The results we will
obtain will depend on our actions or lack of action.
If we declare as our goal the transformation of social relationships
and the full development of the individual and the collective to best
garantee economic, political and social emancipation and liberation,
we must work together to try to reailise this goal.
We must encourage practical activities which lead us closer to the
realisation of a self managed society. On a community level we must
work together with other working class people to identify and deal
with the numerous problems facing us in our everyday lives.
Prisoner support and political education; recent months have shown
that we are among a minority of activists who actually have the
conviction and principles to act in accordance with our beliefs. We
have also seen, north and south, the repressive wing of the state
being used specifically and in a targetted fashion against our
activists. We have also been made painfully aware that the only
people we can rely on to support our own prisoners, and those
arrested for using tactics many of us would promote, are ourselves.
Some valuable lessons have been learnt, some excellent work has been
done (credit where credits due) but in terms of supporting prisoners
in anything but a haphazard fashion we are still woefully iIl
prepared and badly organised.
I do not believe, personally, that an all island Anarchist
organisation/federation, or for that matter anarcho-syndicalist
federation/union can be built on the basis of any of those active at
present trying to achieve this on their own and in competition with
each other. For one organisation or another to talk about itself as
being a federation with such low memberships as exist at present is
ridiculous. If Anarchists really believe in building an organisation
that is federal in structure there first needs to be a basis in
reality to build such an organisation on. I believe that the basis
for building such an organisation exists at present, in the growing
numbers of individuals active in the Anarchist movement across
Ireland and yes, in Organise! - ASF in Belfast, Derry and Portadown,
in the WSM in Dublin and Cork, Anarchist Support in Dublin, CAZ in
Cork, Anarchist Federation in Warrenpoint/Newry and Galway, in
various distro and activist based groups. I am also convinced that it
would be a great disservice to our goals and ideals, and a terrible
loss of opportunity, if we do not now take steps to realise such an
organisation in Ireland.
There is also a growing realisation that a small, largely city or
town based, groups do not contain all the necessary skills to build
upon and that a greater sharing of skills, and resources, is
necessary. There is I believe an opportunity to build an organisation
which could be much bigger than the sum of the membership of the
existing organisations.
I do feel that we have to be talking about an organisation which can
reflect the traditions and history of anarchist organising that have
existed prior to its 'foundation'. In relation to Belfast I feel that
this means staking a claim not only to the work done by Organise!
over the years, such as support of the Liverpool Dockers, Montupet
strikers, Richardson's occupation etc;, but also going further back
and claiming initiatives such as the Belfast Anarchist Collective and
Just Books as part of our tradition - a tradition of resistance and
Anarchist organising going back in Belfast to 1978 and beyond. This
is to use examples which I'm familiar with, there have been other
initiatives in other parts of Ireland.
So maybe this sounds like a great idea but you're not convinced
everyone will buy into it. Put simply they have to people have to at
least start discussing the idea of an Irish anarchist federation.
Personally I would suggest that we base the organisation on affinity
groups, collectives and 'factions'. We should aim to create an
organisation which everyone can feel is theirs.
Affinity groups, which would be the basis for the federation, could
be formed around local areas, membership of the same trade union, be
employed in the same industry, or around specific issues or
collectives such as prisoner support or book distribution. The
presence of factions would allow the AF, WSM and Organise! - ASF the
opportunity to maintain an identity within the broader federation. We
would need to discuss how this will work in practise when (if) we
progress far enough with these ideas.
I would envisage a federation, with a common and agreed aims and
principles, which put Anarchism as a revolutionary alternative in
Ireland firmly on the map. Such a federation should aim to have
affiliated groups in most major cities and could certainly include at
least Belfast, Derry, Dublin and Cork. It should aim at producing a
common newspaper/publication which could appear once a month with an
all Ireland circulation of 10,000. It should become something which
we could all belong to and which would provide us with a framework
for a stronger, revolutionary anarchist movement in Irealnd. One
which could debate and adapt to the challenges we are and will all
face in a way which strengthens us all.
If anyone is interested in pursuing this please respond ASAP. I have
previously discussed some of these ideas informally with Joanne and
Johnny from Anarchist Support. I would be interested in a meeting
with people who would be interested in this to discusss the
possibility of getting people together in the near future. To look at
the areas we would need to concentrate on in order to get the most
possible agreement in order to move forward. To discuss areas for
inculsion in any Aims and Principles.
For myself to pursue this the project would have to be a 'class
struggle' based initiative.
Sorry if this email hasn't been set out in the clearest of forms, I
feel I could spark initial discussions in Belfast outside the ASF and
hopefully within it. What sort of interest would their be elsewhere?
We can build an organisation that can provide a home for us all. An
organisation which is not altogether a 'new' creation but a bringing
together of the best of what currently exists to provide a real
alternative to mealy mouthed and manipulative trots, the party
political system and capitalism.
Could propose more but I think it'd be better to await a response
from yourselves.