Why doesn't libcom.org join the AF?
May 13 2005 16:16
Hi,
I was wondering why the libcom.org collective doesn't just join the Anarchist Federation. They defend the 1926 Platform don't they?
Beltov.
May 13 2005 16:22
#2
don't think so- it's a practical issue.
i think it's probably a good thing that they don't join AF unless they all agree that they agree with what they stand for. It would be unfair for the group to join an organisation and have one or two people to be unhappy with it. it could break up the collective.
May 13 2005 16:25
#3
Saii wrote:
Shouldn't this be in thought?
I don't mind if it get's moved. Too late for me to do it now...
Beltov.
May 13 2005 16:28
#4
Beltov wrote:
They defend the 1926 Platform don't they?
I don't think the AF is based around the Platform any more, and I've never heard anything to suggest that the libcom collective like the '26 statement.
May 13 2005 16:28
#5
Quote:
it could break up the collective.
Well yeah that and they'd probly have to do another name change, plus it'd hardly be a general libertarian organising site if it was simply hitched to one of the feds, regardless of the collective's personal politics.
May 13 2005 16:30
#6
(plus at least two of the members are SolFed, and Jack's an individualist primmo reactionary so who knows what he would join 
)
May 13 2005 16:54
#7
Three of us are members of the AF, but the libcom group isn't a political organisation, it's the people who run libcom.org - a website, who happen to have similar politics to varying extents.
As to the platform, it's in our library, and was linked from the front page, but that was written by Dielo Trouda, not the AF. The AF is influenced by the platform, so are some of libcom, but I'm pretty sure the AF isn't a "platformist" organisation in the strict sense.
We've got something written by the Solidarity Group on the front page now - unfortunately we can't join them because they're defunct. 
What's your point anyway?
May 13 2005 18:02
#8
Catch wrote:
What's your point anyway?
The change from enrager to libcom appears to represent a certain evolution towards a more working-class based perspective. I was just wondering where you thought the collective were going: either towards an existing organisation or towards forming a new organisation? It seems you are putting a lot of effort into the site. I'd have thought the members of existing groups would have prefered to put this effort into their own organisations' sites rather than a 'third party'!
Beltov.
May 13 2005 18:05
#9
Beltov wrote:
I was just wondering where you thought the collective were going: either towards an existing organisation or towards forming a new organisation?
neither, its just a website.
May 13 2005 18:40
#10
Beltov wrote:
I was just wondering where you thought the collective were going: either towards an existing organisation or towards forming a new organisation? It seems you are putting a lot of effort into the site. I'd have thought the members of existing groups would have prefered to put this effort into their own organisations' sites rather than a 'third party'!
As gav says - it is what it is - a website. Its not an organisation, and will never be one. I think we put the effort it because we hope it will be worth it. Sometimes existing organisations dont cater for what you want after all 
May 15 2005 10:41
#11
i read that as why doesn't libcom.org join the ALF? and nearly fell off my chair i must get my eyes tested..... 
Jun 8 2005 22:33
#12
I think it would be better for the site to remain non-aligned. this doesn't imply criticism of the Anarchist Federation, but rather that a non-aligned website has the potential to reach out to more people, bring in a wider range of viewpoints, which is a strength.
Jun 9 2005 07:30
#13
i agree with steve, swarthy and I would have never been here if that was the case!
Jun 13 2005 20:46
#14
Everyone should join the Anarchist Federation!
Forward to the workers paradise!
All hail someone or other!
Shouldn't this be in thought?