Anarchist movement in Australia, the UK and the US.
Jul 27 2008 11:52
Hi! I wasn't sure where to post this, so sorry if it's in the wrong place.
The anarchist movement in Australia; which is it more similar to? The UK or the US?
And why/in what ways?
Was it historically closer to one but is starting to move towards the other?
If possible can you give me examples to demonstrate what you mean?
Thanks a lot!
desmog
Jul 27 2008 12:40
#2
Thanks, asn 
If you can give a serious reply please do, I'd really appreciate all the responses I can get 
desmog
Jul 27 2008 12:43
#3
My impressions from the other side of the Tasman sea - a bit of both. There's a heavy eco-influence among Australian "radicals" (many of whom might not call themselves anarchists, but in most other countries probably would) which is reminiscent of both the 1990s UK road/forest blockades, through to RTS-esque carnivals as well, and also similar to the general US Earth First scenes. This is still the dominant tendency, and is closely related to the dropout / punk / Food Not Bombs / squatting (in Melbourne especially) tendencies.
There seems to be an increasing move towards recognising the need for organisation and a class analysis amongst some anarchists in Sydney (and to a lesser extent Melbourne) over the last couple of years too.
If you want to be a little more specific in your questions I could possibly help more...
edit - just saw asn's reply - he is being serious, although that doesn't mean he's correct. asn tends to troll a lot around anything to do with Australian anarchism, due to past personal (and political) conflicts with other Australian anarchists. Best to ignore him when he makes posts without any substance in them.
Jul 27 2008 13:31
#4
what I was getting at was the activity of of most of those using this label not having anything to do with steps toward the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the realisation of anarchist society one day and being related to utopian approaches and lifestylism eg veganism and food not bombs-and their gatherings, discussion meetings, conferences, etc being an end in itself - an excuse for social occasions and displays of political correctness - eg jura books meetings in recent years and black rose for many years since its formation - if there has been a recognition of the need for "organisation" - its the "formalism" - "micro bureaucracy" of organisation and aping of the leftist sects - positions on every issue under the sun - no doubt such "existential organisation" would also provide excuses for social occasions and getting away from the alienation of bourgeois society -
Jul 28 2008 02:07
#5
desmog wrote:
The anarchist movement in Australia; which is it more similar to? The UK or the US?
And why/in what ways?Was it historically closer to one but is starting to move towards the other?
If possible can you give me examples to demonstrate what you mean?
Well, since i'm in NZ i cant comment on the current Aussie anarcho mob. But i can offer a few sparse comments on the historic Aussie anarcho mob in the 1950s 1960s 1970s. I would say back then the Oz mob/scene followed more the British one in general. eg. the Sydney Libertarians were closely aligned with the liberal anarchists of the Freedom Press group -- they used to write a lot for the Anarchy zine put out by Colin Ward. Sydney Libertarians were basically lifestyle anarchists who dissed class struggle anarchism.
The Brisbane self-management group of the 1970s were modelled on Solidarity in the UK.
Other Aussie anarchists in the 1970s were carnival anarchists, and were not so much following the British scene, but more the Yippies and Diggers and Kabouters and Provos and so on.
I am sure ASN will have some interesting things to say about the carnival anarchists.
Even if the carny anarchists were more influenced by the US counter-culture, they seemed to have closer links with the British anarchist scene eg. when a few carnies moved to England in the late 1970s, they got involved in putting out Black Flag.
I would say this was the case for many reasons. some of them i cant think of would be simply cos of the Australian colonial heritage. also the australian cultural tradition of doing your overseas trip back to the "mother country" (which is Britain or Ireland for most? white Australians),* and how Australian culture was more British than American back then (poss still is??)**, and how i assume it was way easier back then for Aussies to move to the UK and get work permits etc than to move to the USA. might be many other reasons i suspect.
Now i might be wrong about all this cos I dont know the aussie scene closely, and have only picked up snippets from various interviews and chats i have had. as well as some very limited research.
* not sure how many white aussies come from southern or eastern europe as compared to Britain and Ireland
** today most white new zealanders would prob consider themselves more culturally closer to the British than Aussies, but not sure abt how aussies see themselves these days
Jul 28 2008 12:50
#6
In regard to the Sydney Libertarians or "Sydney Push" in the 1950's they contributed to the destruction of an attempt to get an anarcho- syndicalist grouping, (particularly launched byBulgarian exiles) going - they were allowed to use the centre of this group - a room at the italo-australian club which was located near central station to hold their "social occasions" which was the major focus of their "activity" - in particular outrageous drunken parties - which caused the loss of the lease and the considerable bond money due to their destructiveness - they were quite numerous in comparison to the anarcho-syndicalists and predominated at the centre - there is a rather "rose tinted" view of the sydney libertarians in a book called "Sex & Anarchy" - no gory details of the drunken revels
- in the late 60's - there was a similar takeover of a centre of this anarcho- syndicalist grouping know as the "anarchist cellar" located in a basement in Darlinghurst - this takeover entailed LSD connected ultra lifestyle types associated with a certain Bill Dwyer - the anarchist centre was turned into an LSD den of iniquity and was raided by the police and a subsequent mysterious fire destroyed it -
- in the US there was a similar takeovers in this period eg of the syndicalist oriented group called the "Libertarian League" based in New York by extreme New Leftists which seem to be similar to the Sydney Carnival Anarchists but fascinated with violent action in the mid 1960's which disrupted the Libertarian League's meetings and led to its disolution - Sam Dolgoff's book "Fragments" discusses the history of the Libertarian League -
- the current situation in Australia has similaries to these above phases - like in the 50- mid 60's a period of a relatively low level of the class struggle and the unions controlled by the alp (in the 50's - mid 60's by also the Stalinist Communist Party), in the case of jura books in sydney since the mid 1990's a series of attempts by lifestylists/sect builders attempts to takeover which have been effectively resisted by anarcho-syndicalists - and in other states such as Victoria - the complete takeover of anarchist centres by extreme sectarians eg the A-House.
Jul 28 2008 13:25
#7
asn:
Quote:
Anarchists but fascinated with violent action in the mid 1960's which disrupted the Libertarian League's meetings and led to its disolution - Sam Dolgoff's book "Fragments" discusses the history of the Libertarian League
Comrade, I think this is a bit inaccurate. I knew the Dolgoff's and knew something about the LL. I never heard this aspect of its demise.
Sam writess in Fragments: "In its ten year existence the League never succeeded in attracting enough militants to replace those who left. The chronic, deplorable situation shifted the burden of carrying on the League's expaning actvities to Esther, {Russell) Blackwell, myself and a few others." [Fragments, Page 91] Sam concluded it was the lack of people power that led to the demise of the LL.
Perhaps the side effect of the 1960s was a loss of younger comrades to different activies and away from a more anarcho-syndicalist organization such as the LL. But even here, there seems to be a disconnect in what asn has written. Perhaps a friendly mistake of mixing events together.
Jul 29 2008 11:35
#8
according to the interview with Sam Dolgoff in Paul Avrich's "Anarchist Voices" Abridged Edition page 231
Sam Dolgoff elaborated on the reasons for the disolution of the Libertarian League "a new element of crazies, nuts, acid heads and junkies, some with authoritarian tendencies came in. Their talk was dominated by sex, drugs and violent action . They were disruptive and did little constructive work. The problem became how to remove them or expel them. .....the group then collapsed amid bickering and quarrels. "
Jul 29 2008 12:55
#9
Interesting contradiction between the two versions, and what Sam told us.
Jul 30 2008 07:12
#10
asn wrote:
- in the late 60's - there was a similar takeover of a centre of this anarcho- syndicalist grouping know as the "anarchist cellar" located in a basement in Darlinghurst - this takeover entailed LSD connected ultra lifestyle types associated with a certain Bill Dwyer - the anarchist centre was turned into an LSD den of iniquity and was raided by the police and a subsequent mysterious fire destroyed it
I'm okay with the critique of 'lifestylism', but to speak of "an LSD den of iniquity" is a bit much. "Den of iniquity" is not exactly a term that libertarians tend to throw around much, at least not in my experience. It smacks of a prudish moralism, with a possible dash of latent authoritarianism (how else to put an end to all this iniquity?) But I'm curious as to who or what was the real culprit of all this iniquity back then: the immoral acid heads or the dreaded LSD itself?
Jul 30 2008 11:06
#11
Bill Dywer was using the place for commercial dealing in LSD and hired criminal elements to act as strong arm men - in the case of those who failed to pay up presumably and maintain his hold of the place. Associated with this activity were illusions he and others held about the personal liberatory role of LSD, quite common amongst sectors of rebelious youth at that time - As a result of the criminal element he hired - the few anarcho-syndicalists around were unable to dislodge him and his set up and regain the place for anarcho-syndicalist purposes. In the late 1970's we met someone who was of the sydney criminal milieu who claims to be one of those hired strong arm men. The police raid on the place and Dwyer's arrest and imprisonment appears to be connected in not paying off the police.
On the question of the "carnival anarchists" which Skaeling refers they were a very good example of ultra lifestylists - they were all squatters and mostly financing their "anarchist lifestyle" from small scale scams.A marxist would characterise them as "lumpen proletatrians". There origin was from different classes but particularly from the middle class. They were very much into organising stunts to expose "contradictions in the capitalist setup" and the gaining of media publicity. Similar to the British Class War in this regard. However they were not interested in establishing a sect - a micro party - which class war went onto form the "Class War Federation' as they were opposed to all forms of "organisaiton. They of course had no time for serious long range industrial activity.
Jul 31 2008 11:20
#12
Dwyer did some very dodgy things, but didn't know he had paid strong men. he was dealing commercially, but he said a lot of his profits went back into financing anarchist activity, like his pamphlet and may day marches. he also, word has it, gave a lot of the money he made away to his friends, and even hired a bus to take his friends to the beach.
didnt know dwyer might have been imprisoned for not paying off the police. he also got deported to ireland. quite ironic as the irish convicts got deported the other way round.
didn't know that the cellar was anarcho-syndicalist b4 dwyer arrived -- i assumed it was centre for the bulgarian anarchists?
re: carnival anarchists: are you sure most were middle class? all the ones i have met i would say are working class apart from maybe one. mind you not a representative example tho. GM told me that the carnival anarchists were all working class, while the anarcho-syndicalists were all middle class.
i agree that the carnies were lumpens, and kinda like class war (except they in NZ seemed to do any stunts so long as it amused them, regardless if they had class content or not) but disagree that they were anti-organisation. anti formal organisation, most certainly. but as far as i know they were big into informal affinity groups and talked about them being a sort of basis of revolution -- the ones i interviewed seemed to think these the affinity groups were the real radical groups in 1930s spain, and not the CNT. actually, i cant remember them saying that, just my impression anyway.
also they seemed to believe this sixties individualistic psychology thing that revolution would be made/sparked by a few individuals who had completely deconditioned themselves of the dominant culture -- getting rid of the cops in your head sort of stuff (the SF Diggers called them 'life actors') -- i am the revolution sort of stuff. this has obvious vanguardist implications not to mention the solipsism! i suppose you could call this 'ultra-lifestylism'
Jul 31 2008 12:54
#13
It wasn't an exclusively - Bulgarian anarchist group with an anarcho-syndicalist orientation- they were trying to reach out to people of other ethnic backgrounds - and they recognised the importance of english language literature -quite different from say the italian anarchist groups in the 20's and 30's in Australia who just focused on italian language literature and italian cultural and worker stuff and similar to ethnic anarchist groups in the USA discussed in Avrich's Anarchist Voices - in those days before desk top publishing, lithography, xerography and photocopying - having things printed was an expensive proposition and in particular setting up your own print shop with lino types, skilled operators, etc - so they were unable to have much of their literature printed . They had ideas of getting access to cheap printing via one their members whose father owned an ethnic publishing/printing set up - I don't think this worked out too well and the "anarchist cellar" was located in the basement of this guy's house. The key figure in the group mentioned to me about the role of Dywer's "heavies" as I was curious why they didn't boot him and his lot out. It was a lot more difficult on "the ground" to tackle the problem. The Sydney Libertarian also were allowed to use the "Anarchist Cellar" for their meetings, despite previous bad experiences.
An interesting question is what effect would these groups have had assuming they survived in exerting syndicalist influence in the more favourable period of 1968-1974 which experienced in Australia, the USA etc a great surge in worker militancy and syndicalist style worker movements eg the nsw blf and associated rank and file movement. When I and others became involved from the mid 1970's onward we had to "reinvent the wheel" re syndicalist activity .
Aug 2 2008 16:26
#14
G'day desmog,
I'm not sure if the anarchist movement in Australia is more similar to the movement in the UK or the US; I think to answer that question requires an understanding of what those movements are like, and in what sense one may be distinguished from the other. In other words, what do you think is the difference between the anarchist movement in the UK and that in the US? My understanding is that movements in all three regions are fairly diverse, both in terms of historical perspective, but also in the contemporary context, with a number of regional variations. Having said that, I think that the movement in Australia is likely 'closer' to the UK, if only because Australia was established as a British penal colony, and in its origins in the 1880s the anarchist movement was dominated by those of British descent. This began to change with an influx of anarchists from Italy and Spain in the 1920s and 1930s, and especially with the immigration boom following WWII. Over time, and especially in the post-WWII era, Australian society and culture generally has begun to be shaped more extensively by US culture -- on the other hand, the major political institutions are British, and the majority of the population -- approximately 3/4 -- is of British (English, Irish, Scot and Welsh) descent. So, I think the situation is somewhat complex, and to be honest I'm not sure if the movement in Australia is more or less akin to that in the UK or the US.
Regarding Asher's comments on the influence of movements in the UK on developments in Australia, I think that's partially correct, but would also add that environmental struggles in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of a number of developments that, in turn, fed into environmental struggles in the UK. Some of these linkages are documented in the text Direct Action in British Environmentalism (Benjamin Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty, editors, Routledge, 2000): for example, tripods were first used in Australia to block bulldozers by rainforest campaigners in the early 1980s; later, they were adopted for use by anti-roads campaigners in the UK. Australia also witnessed the pioneering use of green bans on building sites, a tactic employed by the NSW BLF in the 1970s (see Green Bans, Red Union: Environmental Activism and the New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation, Meredith Burgmann and Verity Burgmann, UNSW Press, 1998). The NSW BLF was also influenced by anarcho-syndicalist principles and organisational practices, and to a remarkable degree.
On a more general level, I think what are often claimed to be two highly distinct approaches to political activism -- and here I refer to debates around 'lifestylism' -- are often, in practice, very closely intertwined...
Inre to comments by asn, Skraeling and syndicalist: there have been a number of publications on The Push in Sydney. For example: Anne Coombs, Sex and Anarchy: the Life and Death of the Sydney Push (Viking, 1996); Judy Ogilvie, The Push: An Impressionist Memoir (Primavera, 1995). In general, I think The Push can be credited with propagating a libertarian philosophy which sometimes complemented but also conflicted with a more thorough-going anarchist politic. More broadly, it provided a space within which anarchist and other ideas from other traditions could be discussed and introduced to a wider audience and a left dominated by social democracy on the one hand and Marxist orthodoxy on the other. Probably the best source of historical texts on anarchism in Australia is provided by Takver --
http://www.takver.com/history/index.htm
-- who's also compiled a bibliography of writings on anarchism and syndicalism (ie, the IWW) in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand:
http://www.takver.com/history/biblio.htm
A collection of links to contemporary anarchist groups and projects is available on my blog:
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1192
I wrote:
Quote:
Like the numerous Marxist organisations anarchism in contemporary Australia is a fringe movement, and in terms of its organisational framework and popularity, even more so. Anarchism also has far fewer allies in the academy and the media, no regular journals of any standing, and fewer historical roots. To the extent that ‘anarchism’ has influence within contemporary Australia, therefore, it’s largely through culture, and the adoption of broadly ‘anti-authoritarian’ ideas and practices within other social movements — the environmental, peace and women’s movements in particular, but also on the fringes of the labour movement.Having said this, there are a small number of formal, self-consciously ‘anarchist’ groups and projects currently in existence, almost all concentrated in the two major cities of Melbourne (Pop. 3,850,000) and Sydney (Pop. 4,300,000). Further, individual anarchists are involved in a broad range of campaigns, groups and projects: animal liberation/rights, anti-racist and anti-fascist, ecological/environmental, feminist, media, queer, indigenous and prisoner solidarity, squatting, student, and union, among others.
On the role of the Bulgarian anarchists in Australia, the best source is probably Jack Grancharoff, who I believe can still be reached via P.O. BOX 6012, Quaama, NSW 2550.
Aug 2 2008 16:37
#15
Just to clarify:
Quote:
Regarding Asher's comments on the influence of movements in the UK on developments in Australia, I think that's partially correct, but would also add that environmental struggles in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of a number of developments that, in turn, fed into environmental struggles in the UK.
I wasn't saying that what happened in the UK was the main or even a cause of what happens in Australia, but merely that the two share similarities.
Aug 2 2008 17:50
#16
On Nestor's Cellar and Bill Dwyer:
Quote:
Liberty Hall had been a good venue for meetings and for parties and even, occasionally, as a place to doss for the night. With its passing the Libertarians were again on the lookout for a room they call call their own, especially as the Royal George [a pub] became more crowded with 'tourists'.A solution was offered them by Nestor Grivas. It was probably at the Greeks that they met Grivas, who was then working for the Hellenic Herald. Grivas had a couple of brothers who were communists and played in a folk band called The Grivas Brothers that specialised in revolutionary songs. Nestor was an anarchist and soon became friendly with the Libertarians. He was a thickset man with heavy features, curly hair and a loud Australian voice. He helped the Libertarians by teaching some of them to typeset, and by printing the Pluralist and other publications, including the Simmonds and Newcombe poster, at the Hellenic Herald. He eventually took over that paper. Later, when the censorship battles were on, Grivas was an important ally.
In about 1961, Nestor offered the use of a cellar underneath his house as a meeting place. The house was in Oxford Street, Paddington, opposite the Rose, Shamrock and Thistle Hotel, where a few Liberatrain meetings were held around the same time. Nestor dug out the cellar and some of the Libertarians finished it. Roelof, George and others helped with the brickwork and concreting the floor. Above the cellar was a tailor's shop and above that the flat where Nestor lived. Someone once described it as 'Greek Revival Paddington-fifties-style', every wall a different lurid colour, and decorated with bright glass ornaments.
Grivas and the Libertarians put some effort into making a proper meeting room out of the cellar. Frank Moorhouse recalls chipping in to buy an urn and a pie-warmer so they could have hot food. 'Nestor's Cellar', as it was known, became one of the longest-lasting Push venues. It was here that Germain Greer gave one of the first, controversial, papers on the clitoral orgasm (delivered to elicit maximum laughs); where Paddy McGuinness and others debunked some Libertarian scared cows; where communists and anarchists and social democrats came together as 'The Left Club'; where card games went all day and parties all night; where loans were made and illicit drugs bought...
Nestor's Cellar became the locale for those moving in the new direction [contra "Jim Baker's Libertarian line of pessimistic anarchism"]. It was a far less intimidating venue than the Philosophy Room. Perhaps because of this, more women gave papers there than they did at the University. Roseanne Bonney recalls giving one on Simone de Beauvoir, in a session chaired by Greer; Liz Fell gave a few and so did Lynne Segal, who delivered a denunciation of Reich's simplistic 'genital character'.
Many non-university people also gave papers at Nestor's Cellar. They became known as the 'lumpen intelligentsia'. Michael Taussig, now [1996] a lecturer in anthropology at Columbia University in New York, says an atmosphere of passionate knowledge-seeking was created; from Greek philosophy to Fabianism...
From the mid-1960s, Nestor's Cellar began to be used as a shop where you could go to buy drugs. There had always been drugs of one sort or another around the Push, but they had had a minor role to play. Booze was the drug of choice for most. For some years Peter the Peddlar had been the source for methedrine and dexedrine. By the late 1960s marijuana was readily available and LSD was interesting some.
Bill Dwyer, an Irishman and anarchist who was known as one of the best speakers at the Domain, decided on a rather novel way of raising money for the anarchist cause. Although Nestor's Cellar was no longer used as frequently as a place for paper-giving, it was often a party venue. Dwyer began selling LSD from the cellar at a time when the laws on this comparatively new drug had yet to be tightened. By 1968 he was selling about 1000 'tickets' a week at $2 each. His profit on each ticket was about 50 cents. Dwyer took little of the money for himself. He spent some of it on fitting out the cellar and other sums on printing his newspaper Anarchy Now.
He apparently made no secret of how he was raising money. When the laws were toughened he was charged under the Poisons Act with selling a drug of addiction. He was convicted and sent to Goulburn Gaol.
The Libertarians -- the younger ones in particular -- were sympathetic to Dwyer while he was in prison. In one letter, Dwyer wrote:
"When I advocated the use of acid in the Domain, as an anarchist, it was purely because of the legal position. Anything that can have a man incarcerated deserves inquiry by anarchism. I always qualified my espousal by pointing out the need for care and mature thought on its use. For example, it would have been unethical in my view to sell morphine or heroin, because of their pernicious effects."
Bill Dwyer was an acid king with attitude and when, after his release, he was deported to Ireland there was some guilt among Libertarians who felt they should have done something to prevent it.
~ Anne Coombs, Sex and Anarchy: the Life and Death of the Sydney Push (Viking, 1996), pp.182--186.
Quote:
Dwyer was an exciting speaker and attracted many people; he worked on Anarchy Now with George H., who 'improved' some of the ideas. After six months or so in Australia from New Zealand, Dwyer began selling LSD and taking groups on picnics. Jack G. dropped out again, but George H., Chris E. and Col Pollard tried to work with him and the young 'hippy-Beatles' types who increasingly infested 'The Cellar'.George H. was very much against 'The Cellar' being used as a 'crash-pad' and for selling drugs. Dwyer brought in mattresses, music and psychedelic lights, to cater for 1-200 youths. He built a cage, curtained so that only his hand was seen, from which to sell the drugs and put sentries on the wall. George H. told him the police were already inside, disguised. George told the police that this wasn't an anarchist group and had nothing to do with anarchism, and told Dwyer he was crazy to take the police to see his drug supplies, or to sell to the police, which he was doing.
George H. says that Dwyer found a cheaper source ('a professor?') at the University and dropped his other supplier who had police 'protection?' 'The Cellar' was raided by police 1 1/2 weeks later! George H. didn't wish to help or be involved, but paid the bill for Anarchy Now which was still at the printers (700 pounds). Dwyer was held in jail for 12 months then deported to Britain where he involved himself in Free Festivals.
In any event, partly because of Dwyer's charisma and because of world events, the anarchist presence in Sydney was quite marked, especially at May Days, where George H's red and black car shared a procession with 200+ marchers, with many flags. Wollongong saw similar processions. In Sydney the Trades Hall tried to stop the anarchists. As an example of the effect on the movement of Dwyer's activities, George remembers 100 or so people waiting at a meeting, some had come more than 50 miles, in response to paid advertising, to hear Dwyer speak. He turned up stoned, mumbled something and walked out. George H. was very angry, ran after him and abused him, but Dwyer just pushed him away.
George H. thinks Dwyer could have been very productive if there had been no drug involvement, but doesn't absolve the other anarchists at the time who also 'walked away' and made no attempt to pressure Dwyer, 'to save him from himself'. Perhaps Dwyer was not sufficiently acquainted with anarchist ideas and perhaps many others were not either, but he could have been influenced to channel his talents into more effective paths.
'The Club' collapsed after the police raid, and the media sensationalism, and Nestor brought a farm, became an alcoholic and was killed by a semi-trailer when on the wrong side of the road.
From 'The Cellar' to Jura Bookshop there was a gap for George H. He did go to the Glebe Point Rd house once, but there ail the 'anarchists' were stoned, so he just walked out again. Similarly with Tharunka and the like, George H. thought there was too much obscenity, and emphasis on 'fuck' which must alienate people. He wanted a more serious, committed approach.
~ Notes from interview with George H. by Bob James, 1985
Aug 2 2008 17:52
#17
Asher wrote:
Just to clarify:Quote:
Regarding Asher's comments on the influence of movements in the UK on developments in Australia, I think that's partially correct, but would also add that environmental struggles in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of a number of developments that, in turn, fed into environmental struggles in the UK.I wasn't saying that what happened in the UK was the main or even a cause of what happens in Australia, but merely that the two share similarities.
Sweet. I agree. I also wanted to draw attention to the ways in which strategies and tactics circulate among radical milieus, making comparisons slightly more complicated.
Aug 3 2008 10:55
#18
there is some confusion here -- the Sydney Libertarians were not the same thing as the Sydney Push. The Sydney Libertarians were largely academic anarchists who put out their incredibly shoddy looking publication broadsheet. They were eclectic theoretically and critical of "utopian anarchism". I will argue someday when i get round to it they were forerunners of the ideology of post-structuralism -- they were into permanent opposition and very very critical of, and removed from, class struggle. (I use ideology in the Marxist of the word. For those of you who know the Sydney Libertarians work, I am being ironic here, cos they somehow believed they were beyond ideology while promoting a middle class academic elitist ideology).
I have already written this about them elsewhere: eg. "Georg Lukacs criticised his former Frankfurt Marxist colleagues for preferring to remain in a “grand hotel abyss”, a beautiful hotel where one could contemplate the void in first class comfort. I believe the same could be said of critical drinking, which consisted of mocking society from the safety of the pub. " The grand hotel abyss is a beautiful metaphor. Sums them up in three words. Shit, should have stuck that in me book.
see http://www.takver.com/history/sydney/indexsl.htm for some of their texts
upon re-reading some of them, i see syd. libbers like Molnar presented a very crude caricature of Bakunin and Kropotkin in order to criticise them -- eg. Kropotkin did not believe humans were by nature co-operative. I get the impression their work was intellectually sloppy. Bookchin and others got stuck into their sloppiness and piecemeal reformism in the journal Anarchy edited by Colin Ward. Bookchin wrote a great one or two page rejoinder to Molnar which I don't think has been republished anywhere yet.
The Push was a much much broader social scene, in which Sydney Libertarians participated. The Push was not explicitly anarchist. It was just a drinking and party scene, I think. Sure, the scene was guided perhaps by the Syd. libertarians desire to live as freely as possible in the here and now (cos they despairingly believed that radical social change was impossible: they were a product of their time: a lull in class struggle and affluence, meaning that they [the sydney libbers) didnt see class struggle as important no more: instead they withdrew from the world, and turned to romaniticising the offbeat, the lumpens, the down and outs: sound familiar????).
The best description of the push is in the book Days of Wine and Rage by Frank Moorhouse, i think. moorhouse was in the later sydney push, unlike the others who have written about it.
IHMO Coombs' book is journalistic, gossipy, lacks any theoretical clarity, and romanticises personalities in the sydney push and treats Darcy etc as some sort of counter-cultural star or celebrity.
George H is wrong about Bill Dwyer being deported to Britain -- he was deported to his native Ireland first, then moved to Britain. if you want to learn more about Dwyer in his pre druggist days/haze may i humbly suggest people read my book Rabble Rousers and Merry Pranksters -- he became an anarchist in NZ in the 1950s, was involved in waterfront struggles, but also romanticised illegal action from an early age -- sly grogging, shoplifting and so on. i also have a brief summary of the sydney libertarians, becos many of them were NZers and some sydney libbers moved to NZ for a while too.
btw, Dwyer disliked the Sydney Libertarians, seeing them as "armchair phonies" (quote).
Aug 3 2008 15:01
#19
Cool. I look fwd to reading yr book.
I unaware of any "anarchist movement" in Australia. However there is a bourgeois subculture which uses this label and various sectlets