Direct Action magazine

Steven. ""Best hair at Unison conference""
Posts: 1593 Joined: 27-06-06 Location: London
Submitted by Steven. on 2 February, 2007 - 16:38.

Hi all, now firstly I really don't want this to be taken the wrong way, it's not meant as an attack, it's meant to be honestly constructive comment and discussion, from the point of view of someone who supports SolFed/IWA and agrees with most of your politics and practise. So I hope it doesn't offend anyone.

But right, basically I was wondering what solfed's aim was with DA magazine? Because it's not immediately apparent in the way that the purpose of AF's Organise! is, for example. It's not a theoretical journal, it's not a news sheet… It obviously takes a lot of time and effort to make and I wonder if the time might be better spent differently?

It seems to have a lot of opinion pieces in which are written in a conversational style which comes off a bit like a pub rant. There's a bit of analysis in it, but I'm sorry I think some of it's not really that great. I mean taking as an example the recent piece on immigration, which states that immigration is needed for the following reasons:

Quote:
Yet the reality is that both the USA and Europe need immigrant workers. In Europe, the most pressing problem is an ageing workforce; the ratio of people working to retirees is set to fall from its current 4 to 1 to less than 2 to 1 by 2050. If nothing is done, Europe faces not only economic decline but a virtual collapse in welfare provision, as those working will simply not be able to service the welfare bill. The French Institute of International Relations argues that only by admitting at least an extra 30 million people by 2020 can Europe avoid failing economic performance.

This is basically anarchists supporting bourgeois economics. The ageing workforce nonsense is a media smokescreen – the problem is misallocation of resources by capitalism.

I mean obviously the thrust of the piece is good, the message is right – that we should oppose immigration controls, racism, low wages etc. but some of the arguments aren't very solid. Some of the other stuff I disagree with some bits are a bit prolier than thou, more class "in itself" that "for itself", e.g.:

Quote:
More than this, prejudice, in the form of ‘classism’, is promoted and seen as the way ‘forward’. Old prejudices against the working class are again coming to the fore, just as with the nineteenth century, teetotal puritans. Legislation banning tabs in pubs, standing around having a natter in ‘gangs’ of more than two, standing up and singing at football matches, falling over drunk, farting and laughing – anything these classist bastards don’t like – will have a law against it.
The ‘citizenship’ and ‘English-ness’ that are being promoted, is only done so on the basis that there’s a ‘high’, acceptable culture and that ‘low’, working class, culture should be dumped. This could be because we are now all supposed to be consumers rather than producers, and there’s a blurring of class distinctions. Which means that ‘rough types’ might end up in the same Bistro, drinking the same red wine and getting pissed and laughing instead of sipping it and spitting it out in a bucket while talking about it’s ‘nose’, ‘bouquet’ and their next big pay rise.

But whatever that's a side issue…

The news in brief bits I think have gone now? They weren't great anyway, and were always out of date

Generally I think DA is not very effective at making SF look like a good organisation.

What are other people's views on this, in solfed and out? Does anyone really like it? Does producing it help to tie SF together as an organisation, or bring people in touch with it?

Again I know it must take a lot of energy to do so I hope people don't take this as an attack.

Oh but calling it "Starfucks" is really really lame.

dublin dave
Posts: 89 Joined: 06-11-06
2 February, 2007 - 20:52

Hi John,
I think that constructive feedback is always a good thing so don't worry about offending anyone. I'm sure everyone in SolFed and the DA collective has a thick enough skin.

I'm a relatively new member of SolFed and I'd agree that the current issue of DA is perhaps a bit weak compared to earlier editions. However overall I believe that DA is a very interesting and politically strong magazine. I think that it tries to walk a difficult line between a theoretical mag and a more agitational journal. IMO it generally presents interesting arguments that are understandable to a large numer of working class people.

I think that the article on immigration reflects this. We've all heard racists claim that 'immigrants are taking our jobs' and I think it is a fair point to make that European capitalism needs more workers. It's about making people think about issues from different angles.

On the question of 'classism' I think that this is a legitimate discussion and that if a SolFed member felt strongly enough to write an article about it, and there is space then the DA collective should publish it. This doesn't mean that this is SolFed policy. I'm sure that there are a range of opinions on this in SolFed.

On the question about DA being "not very effective at making SF look like a good organisation" I think you are missing something that is maybe too obvious? SolFed is not an organisation (the term organisation generally suggests in my mind a large degree of centralisation) but is instead a federation of locals. Any weaknesses in DA are fundamentally the responsibility of the locals and not the DA collective.

You say that you are "someone who supports SolFed/IWA and agrees with most of your politics and practise". That's cool and it's great to get feedback but probably the best place to contribute to this debate and to improve DA is inside a SolFed local.
Dave (Preston SolFed)

Devrim "Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol"
Posts: 2969 Joined: 15-07-06
2 February, 2007 - 21:16

Two points without wanting to cause any arguments.

I think that one of the problems with anarchist magazines is that they end up publishing what 'a SolFed member felt strongly enough to write an article about'. Don't people think that to produce a good magazine the editorial committee should decide what is relevant and needs to be in it, and not just wack in whatever people send in. I actually wrote an article in DA over twenty years ago. I think it was a very relevant one (maybe not a good one. I will leave that to other people to judge, but relevant). It wasn't published though because I was asked to do it. It was published because I did it, and sent it in.

Please correct me if the situation has changed, but when I look at most anarchist publications that is the impression I get about how thay are put together.

The second point is about this comment:

Dublin Dave wrote:
SolFed is not an organisation (the term organisation generally suggests in my mind a large degree of centralisation) but is instead a federation of locals. Any weaknesses in DA are fundamentally the responsibility of the locals and not the DA collective.

I used to think that a lot odf the discussions about federalism vs centralism were semantic nonsense. Since I have met anarchists again living in the Czech Republic (we don't have so many in Ankara), I have realised that this isn't true. In The Czecho-Slovak anarchist federation has seven regions, they have no national/bi-national publication, and only one of the regions produces a regular publication. To me the obvious thing would be to make the one publication they have the publication of the entire organisation. Don't anarchists recognise that even some degree of centralism is necessary.

Devrim

martinh "Wears loud shirts for the poor & oppressed"
Posts: 846 Joined: 08-03-06 Location: South East London
2 February, 2007 - 23:29

Hi Devrim,

I think Dublin Dave is wrong - the SolFed is an organisation. It's a federal organisation, but an organisation just the same. I suspect if any local started putting out something praising works councils or advocating them as a tactic this would be resolved beyond doubt. I also think we need to stress that merely by being federalists and anti-state, it doesn't make us anti-organisation, and explain what we mean by organisation, as opposed to what the Labour Party or SWP do.

Re the CSAF - I'd agree with you in principle, though there may be historic reasons that they do this, what with them spanning 2 countries, so I would reserve judegement until I knew about that. Tend to agree about the editorial group commissioning things where possible as well, though resources are always finite. Interestingly, the DA collective have been thinking along these same lines and asking people what areas of expertise they can contribute.

Regards,

Martin