A new Anarchist Organisation!
Jul 13 2007 08:47
Apparently, the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement are involved in launching a new Anarchist organisation called Praxis (which is not exclusively an Irish organisation) which 'officially' goes live in September. Discuss.
Jul 13 2007 09:00
#2
Jul 13 2007 09:23
#3
it's not being launched by the WSM, it's an independent scottish group - i just think they're helping out.
Jul 13 2007 13:13
#4
Ballsed that one up didn't I. Durr. Thanks for info Jack and Ftony.
Jul 13 2007 15:30
#5
Quote:
Discuss.
Hmmm. Yes. I think it would be a good thing. 
Jul 13 2007 16:13
#6
Dundee_United is one of the main people behind it. We (the WSM) aren't not launching it we just think its a good thing to happen, we have pretty close links with the group.
Basically what's happening as far as I know is 5 or 6 people are setting up a platformist group in Glasgow and it'll be called Praxis.
Why dont they just join an existing federation? Cos neither of them are great and neither exist in Glasgow.
Jul 13 2007 16:15
#7
georgestapleton wrote:
Why dont they just join an existing federation? Cos neither of them are great and neither exist in Glasgow
the second point is kinda irrelevant since they're starting a whole group from scratch anyway
Jul 13 2007 16:16
#8
georgestapleton wrote:
We (the WSM) aren't not launching it
So you are? 
Jul 13 2007 16:25
#9
no
Jul 13 2007 16:50
#10
Quote:
Basically what's happening as far as I know is 5 or 6 people are setting up a platformist group in Glasgow and it'll be called Praxis.
Sorry I should have responded more positively.
No the WSM are not launching a group!
It's entirely Scottish based folks, sorry tongue wagglers!
They have however been quite supportive of our efforts so far.
We are also not aiming to undermine the main federations either. It is likely we will have a presence in Inverness and branches in Edinburgh and Glasgow to begin with. Currently there are about a dozen people involved, and some more on the margins who are interested supporters.
I will post more on this later tonight. At present we are refining our position papers on various organisational questions and sorting out how we will deal with growth of the organisation from a core group of four or five people who all basically agree with each other and have a backgroound in struggle together to a wider organisation (as it already looks like we are now).
Jul 13 2007 19:04
#11
Jul 13 2007 19:17
#12
Hey, Jimmer, I don't think that's the same organisation 
Regards,
Martin
Jul 13 2007 22:20
#13
Quote:
At present we are refining our position papers on various organisational questions
and before it's even born it locks its gaze inwards
Jul 13 2007 22:57
#14
Quote:
and before it's even born it locks its gaze inwards
Actually precisely.
We have to know what we are for in detail before we can hope to affect the world around us in any organised fashion. Haven't Nick Heath's history of the anarchist movement, located on this site? He makes the point repeatedly that during growth periods for the anarchist movement organisations were literally boughed under with the weight of internal contradictions as individuals new to politics joined groups then because it wasn't firmly set out what those groups were about (largely because they were starting as affinity groups like ours) these groups came under a lot of internal pressure from differences of opinions and the starting points of individuals. I've seen that first hand so many times now and I really don't want to be part of another vague coalition of people hitting from vaguely the same ballpark. Both SolFed and the AF in fact at least recognise this as well (although the approach to it differs to ours) - that's they have manifestos and aims and principles.
Jul 14 2007 10:41
#15
Then you need to advocate a programme of action, not work on your moral deliberations of what is wrong with the world. Positions only determine what marches one attends.
Jul 14 2007 15:26
#16
Quote:
Then you need to advocate a programme of action, not work on your moral deliberations of what is wrong with the world. Positions only determine what marches one attends.
I don't diagree. We're actually on the case Lazy.
Jul 17 2007 19:18
#17
Best of luck!
Jul 17 2007 19:55
#18
yeah, best of luck from me too
met one of you lot at Projectile, was a really sound chap, talked all weekend. Bit too old to have been dundee though.
Jul 19 2007 09:17
#19
Well, I know Nick Heath very well, and he told me that this was not really what he was saying and only really applied to the Anarchist Federation of Britain and the Anarchist Workers Group(spookily enough the latter was a strictly platformist group with a clear set of A&Ps etc)
Jul 19 2007 09:20
#20
George Stapleton:"Why dont they just join an existing federation? Cos neither of them are great "
and neither of them support nationalisation
Jul 19 2007 17:19
#21
Yeah thats why 
Jul 19 2007 22:23
#22
Quote:
George Stapleton:"Why dont they just join an existing federation? Cos neither of them are great "
and neither of them support nationalisation
Actually we will be modelling our programme on our comrades from the Communist Party of Britain; they are a group who have tirelessly argued the principled stand of following Socialisim (the Chinese way), never succumbing to the opportunism of the leftist running dogs of imperialism!
Battlescarred, there really is no point in engaging in this level of debate.
If you are hostile to our attempts to form a new group (which as has been pointed out is not being done just to wind up or undermine the AF, but because a group of us think a particular approach is valuable and we want to organise in this way) just state that and let that be it.
Ridicule is not helpful here and I feel sure you don't speak for the whole of the AF in this respect.
Jul 20 2007 06:06
#23
I think he was having a pop at george stapleton, rather than you.
Mind you, you've said some things about us, particularly on unions, that show you don't really understand our positions.
I'll be interested to see how you do. I'm more than slightly sympathetic to the platform. Presumably if your group gets established there will be scope for joint work in a non-sectarian manner.
Jul 20 2007 09:48
#24
Dundee, keep your wig on! That comment was aimed at GS and his snide, asinine and unhelpful comments.
It amazes me how you can go off on one about a comment aimed at someone else and attribute all these views to me , none of which I have voiced.
( And the CPB is far more a fan of North Korea and Cuba than China, by the way)
Jul 20 2007 10:27
#25
Knightrose wrote:
Mind you, you've said some things about us, particularly on unions, that show you don't really understand our positions.
To be fair, it is actually quite difficult to understand what the AF say about the unions. I don't think it comes across very clearly at all.
I get the feeling that when the ACF adopted what is now the AF's position on the unions that most of the organisation didn't understand it either, and that the actual discusion was between two very small groups within the ACF, didn't involve the majority of the organisation, and certainly didn't change theACF's orientation to industrial struggles after it had been adopted.
Dundee_United wrote:
Ridicule is not helpful here and I feel sure you don't speak for the whole of the AF in this respect.
While in no way accusing you yourself of this behaviour Dundee, maybe Madashell is not by any means the worst offender here.
Dundee_United wrote:
If you are hostile to our attempts to form a new group (which as has been pointed out is not being done just to wind up or undermine the AF, but because a group of us think a particular approach is valuable and we want to organise in this way) just state that and let that be it.
What do you mean by 'hostile'? I don't see 'Platformism' as a positive current in any way, but I am not 'hostile'.
Knightrose wrote:
I'm more than slightly sympathetic to the platform. Presumably if your group gets established there will be scope for joint work in a non-sectarian manner.
Would you say this to the SWP? If not, why do you say it to DU? Are their politics so different?
Devrim
Jul 20 2007 10:49
#26
Quote:
Would you say this to the SWP? If not, why do you say it to DU? Are their politics so different?
I'll find out when they go public. In the meantime I'll make no early or premature judgements.
Jul 20 2007 11:30
#27
Devrim wrote:
While in no way accusing you yourself of this behaviour Dundee, maybe Madashell is not by any means the worst offender here.
What do I have to do with it? 
Best of luck to DU and the rest in Praxis, anyway.
Jul 20 2007 11:33
#28
madashell wrote:
Devrim wrote:
While in no way accusing you yourself of this behaviour Dundee, maybe Madashell is not by any means the worst offender here.What do I have to do with it?
Best of luck to DU and the rest in Praxis, anyway.
Sorry, I meant Battlescared. I don't know how I mixed them up.
Devrim
Jul 20 2007 11:48
#29
You "get the feeling" about the ACF, and its internal politics, but really you have no experience of them and no knowledge as your ill-informed comments point out.
Jul 20 2007 12:15
#30
Battlescarred wrote:
You "get the feeling" about the ACF, and its internal politics, but really you have no experience of them and no knowledge as your ill-informed comments point out.
No, but at the time these things were happening, I worked quite closely with ACF people in CWG, who were involved on one side in that debate, and discussed these issues with them. I have also spoken to people who were involved in it since, and have read your publications. Of course, I have never been a member of the ACF, or AF. I don't think that that should prevent somebody from commenting though. My comment is that your stuff on the unions seems vague, and stratergy towards industrial disputes is far from clear.
Devrim
Been at least 2 threads on it already - I'll find links