NW United States/Canada Libertarian Communists

There have been a lot of native struggles in BC, some of which they've been involved in so why shouldn't they write about them? Care to cite actual examples of romanticism on their site?

I agree '1st nations' is a rather problematic term, but that's the term the natives themselves use. And the BC insurrectionists aren't supporters of the nationalistic aspects of those struggles, or do you think people seeking to stop logging or mining on their land is necessarily nationalist.

Plus they seem to have played a good role in some of the strikes that have happened in BC - which is arguably the part of the anglophone world where the class struggle is most advanced right now.

I'm not a fan of Bonnano either but so what?

Pete

Actually yes, at least some of the time. Do you think that some tribe trying to keep the miners or loggers off their land is qualitatively the same as Zarquawi's suicide bombers?

And didn't you say on another thread that you support Palestinian struggle against the occupation?

I'll say more later but it's time for Friday night dinner and drinking with the comrades.

I think Peter has a fair point here (yeah dude I'm agreeing with you). I don't think its fair to equate first nations sturggles/land claims with nationalism. These groups are not fighting to establish some monolithic nation state and often what they are asking for is a modicum of control of their own small community. While there are nationalist elements their fight is also largely for survival.

Also you can criticise the coast salish insurrectionists for a lot of things, but I think their connections to the aboriginal radical scene is very real and is not just cheerleading.

Booeyshewy, I know some Portland wobs, you folks have a kick ass group down there and its good to see more IWW folks on here.

Some of you will no doubt be pleased to hear that Friday night's beer-fuelled madness included me getting kicked in the head by a wobbly. Purely accidental though, he bought me a couple of drinks by way of apology, probably not the smartest thing for someone who may have been concussed.

How about the name "Insurrectionary Anarchists of the Coast Salish Territories"?

Yeah see like I said there are plenty of things to criticise these folks on, like calling themselves insurectionist anarchists, I just wouldn't count their support for first nations struggles to be one of them.

Well "British Columbia" is more recognizable - i've seen people thinking that group was located in Algeria.

To respond to booeyschewy's original question...

I'm a left-communist of sorts living in Seattle. I run www.prole.info, but haven't really been involved with any campaigns or organizing since i moved here in February. I haven't heard much about anarchists involved in workplace organizing here except for the sorry Starbucks campaign. And I haven't been too impressed with what I've seen of NFAC--incredibly disorganized for the so-called "organizational pole within the anarchist movement". Still I'm also interested in getting some sort of radical projects off the ground.

Anyone else is in the Northwest?

NEFAC satellite? Well, if that were the case they sure could try a little harder to keep in contact with us. Honestly though, last I heard they were more or less defunct... or at least on the way out. There might still be a few scattered people trying to keep it together, I'm not sure.

As for what internal politics existed within the group I can't speak to specifics (not my group), but the accusation of "boring from within" gets falsely thrown at us too. I think there is a qualitative difference between trying to radicalize social movements from within (through influence and initiative) and the 'Fosterite' strategy of trying to capture leadership positions in order to radicalize from above... which would be "boring from within".

I dunno, if there are any anarchists out there who honestly aren't interested in trying to influence and radicalize social movements you should probably just pack it up and go home.

No real argument about a lack of coherent praxis. Then again, are there any anarchist groups who can honestly claim to have a developed and effective program or revolutionary praxis? I'd be real suspect of any who claimed they did.

I am sure I know which "union bureaucrat" you are talking about, but I think you are confusing him with someone else as far as undermining staff unions. That's a different person altogether, who was never a member of NEFAC. As for poaching our most active members, well, it really wasn't as nefarious as that. There are a couple of ex-members of NEFAC that went to work on a labor campaign, mainly because they needed work. A majority of them were no longer even involved with NEFAC prior to relocating. I am friends with the bureaucrat in question, and know that it wasn't some kind of concerted effort. Its really not that out of the ordinary for aging radicals to fall back on jobs with non-profits, unions, community organizations, or other areas where they can make a living doing something at least progressive, and these were people with skills who were looking for changes in their lives.

I honestly don't think the IWW has a workable praxis. Is it a mass organization or a political group? I'm not sure and I'm not sure they know either, and from what I have seen the contradiction leads to alot of confusion on the ground. Of the syndicalist unions I have come into contact with internationally, it is the "compromised" syndicalists (SAC, CGT, etc.) that largely function as normal unions who continue to grow, and the "pure" syndicalists (CNT, et al.) who exist as ever-shrinking ideological grouplets. I would think that speaks to how effective their praxis is.

All of us will be inconsistant at different periods. As with all struggles, there's highs and lows. There's the human ability (or inability) to maintain a certain level of mass struggle all of the time.

Most organizations grow (or diminish) based on what they do locally, either in their own workplaces or communities. A national or regional organization helps to keep folks in touch with each, acts as sounding board for ideas, maintains relations with others (partiucularly effectively when it comes to the international scene or other national bodies, publishes, organize campaigns and so forth.

I wouldn't say that one organization is more consistant than another. Organizations will grow and subside based on so many different factors. We shall see how some of the aforementioned organizations fair in the next few years ahead. But I don't think anyone's success (or failure) will be based on some ideological basis. Don't get me wromg, ideology is important. But my own personal experiance indicates to me that there are other and, sometimes, more difficult factors which hamper organizations. Alot will be based on energy, momentum and the ability of the participants to navigate the sticky waters staying out of pissing mataches.

The CNT-AIT is not monolithic. There are some in the CNT-AIT who act in a certain way towards others in Spain (and vice versa), there are some who work with the CGT on an issue-by-issue basis and there are some who are very active in trying to build the CNT-AIT as an anarcho-syndicalist union.

We can refer to two recent hard fought CNT-AIT struggles indicating a certain level of unionist activitiy and direction: the Mercadonna and Aussa struggles.

The SAC is an interesting example of a long standing syndicalist union which continues to undergo changes.

The French CNT I also think is evolving.

I suspect the key is not always what an organization says on paper or what its publishing house publishes, but how it operates on a day-to-day basis and intergrates "the ideal" into its activities and practices.

--mitch