placing Red Action --> IWCA theoretically
Sep 9 2008 15:19
i'm pretty well versed with RA's personal theory and the transition to the IWCA, but if was, say, writing a bullshit essay on them and needed to reference bullshit theoreticians, where would i place them?
It doesn't need to be particularly accurate, we can always established they don't really sit within a certain theoretical grouping.
So lets see what we have:
antifascism a big priority
militant action - from antifascism to republican violence
class beyond economic production - the workers not important because they can switch off production. Focus in the working class in and of itself, not as part of a grand marxist scheme to change the world. Post industrial class analysis?
might it be worth looking at the ideological background of Sinn Fein, cos that's who they were kinda based on?
Sep 10 2008 07:04
#2
Are the IWCA/RA unique to these isles? I always get the feeling they are a very much a product of the British left.
Sep 10 2008 11:26
#3
Isn't there some similarities with Class War? I have always been surprised with the "class militancy" of these groups WITHOUT talking about the workplaces (is the focus on communitues bigger because of a high rate of unemployment in Britain?).
Sep 10 2008 11:53
#4
Apparently WCA split in Dublin then one of their main men tried to get the local election labour party nomination and didn't. Their politics seem to be based around hardman stuff, crude anti-imperialism and appealing to the sociological working class through community activism. Not very theoretical at all tacks.
Sep 10 2008 13:37
#5
Kim Müller wrote:
Isn't there some similarities with Class War? I have always been surprised with the "class militancy" of these groups WITHOUT talking about the workplaces (is the focus on communitues bigger because of a high rate of unemployment in Britain?).
The IWCA certainly have an identitarian concept of class - its not your position in the structure of wealth creation that matters, but how you self-identify culturally. There's a similarity here with Class War I think. This way of thinking certainly seems peculiar to Britain, though I may be wrong.
Sep 11 2008 08:42
#6
It would be pertinent to look at their attitude towards struggle at work, shown here in there FAQ
Quote:
''Britain was the first industrialised country..... The collapse of large-scale industry such as mining, steel and shipbuilding has not only rendered the industries redundant but has also led to the methods of resistance, like trade unions, becoming defunct as well.
Millions of workers now operate in businesses employing 25 people or less. Understandably, though they might personally benefit from being in a union, collective bargaining through trade union representation is not an option for them. Unions too have adapted .........., there is no longer any wider social or political role whereby unions can advance the interests of the working class as a whole.''
This isn;t to say they haven't done some good stuff, but they are coming at it from the wrong angle and have developed a rather poorly formed post-industrial class analysis for themselves. This stuff about us all working in small businesses definitely doesn't pan out in my experience. If i were to look through the jobs section of the paper tommorrow, i'm pretty sure that ''25 employees or less'' wouldn't reflect the reality of the jobs market at all.
Sep 11 2008 08:46
#7
May I point out here that Red Action members in Glasgow physically attacked other anti-fascists (including anarchists) and RA nationally did nothing about it. In fact, a few years later they published a justification for the attack in the newspaper (after Black Flag mentioned the event).
So remember that when discussing this organisation.
Sep 11 2008 09:49
#8
Crappy behaviour, yes, but members of the ABC physically assaulted people from libcom a while ago - unacceptable bahaviour does happen, but it's not fair to write off an organisation because of single incidents, unless the organisation has/had a policy of attacking anarchists?
Sep 11 2008 10:58
#9
weeler wrote:
Apparently WCA split in Dublin then one of their main men tried to get the local election labour party nomination and didn't. Their politics seem to be based around hardman stuff, crude anti-imperialism and appealing to the sociological working class through community activism. Not very theoretical at all tacks.
Did they join the PD'S then?
'Sociological working class'?
Maybe you should not rely on the internet for all your information weeler.
Sep 11 2008 10:59
#10
Anarcho wrote:
May I point out here that Red Action members in Glasgow physically attacked other anti-fascists (including anarchists) and RA nationally did nothing about it. In fact, a few years later they published a justification for the attack in the newspaper (after Black Flag mentioned the event).So remember that when discussing this organisation.
People dont attack others for no apparent reason. Is it the violence that was unacceptable or the reason behind it?
Sep 11 2008 21:37
#11
Connollyite wrote:
Anarcho wrote:
May I point out here that Red Action members in Glasgow physically attacked other anti-fascists (including anarchists) and RA nationally did nothing about it. In fact, a few years later they published a justification for the attack in the newspaper (after Black Flag mentioned the event).So remember that when discussing this organisation.
People dont attack others for no apparent reason. Is it the violence that was unacceptable or the reason behind it?
Ah, right -- so fellow anti-fascists can attack their "comrades" and it is fine? Sure, solidarity in action!
And the reason? Long story, which involved anarchists and others being sick of being treated like cannon-fodder by RA, seeking more democracy in AFA, being subject to intimidation by their "comrades" before unprovoked physical attacks.
But apparently unprovoked physical attacks are okay for some.... When I read comments like this I realise why the revolutionary movement in this country is a joke.
Sep 11 2008 21:40
#12
Rob Ray wrote:
Crappy behaviour, yes, but members of the ABC physically assaulted people from libcom a while ago - unacceptable bahaviour does happen, but it's not fair to write off an organisation because of single incidents, unless the organisation has/had a policy of attacking anarchists?
You are joking, right? They tolerated the attack and then justified it in their newspaper. Perhaps they do not have a policy, but they seem happy to tolerate it. Which is the point, surely? I'm sure that anarchists working with RA people will be happy to know that they are working with an organisation which will not act if their members attack them.
As for the ABC, is that the Anarchist Black Cross? And has the ABC done anything about the assault?
Sep 11 2008 21:45
#13
Physical attacks aside, something more politically important is them opposing the living wage for council workers when they actually get councillors.
More generally they're a mishmash of Leninism, authoritarian internal politics, class war style cultural politics, abandonment of workers at the point of production, populism, leftism, support for anti-imperialism etc
Sep 11 2008 21:46
#14
Anarcho wrote:
Rob Ray wrote:
Crappy behaviour, yes, but members of the ABC physically assaulted people from libcom a while ago - unacceptable bahaviour does happen, but it's not fair to write off an organisation because of single incidents, unless the organisation has/had a policy of attacking anarchists?You are joking, right? They tolerated the attack and then justified it in their newspaper. Perhaps they do not have a policy, but they seem happy to tolerate it. Which is the point, surely? I'm sure that anarchists working with RA people will be happy to know that they are working with an organisation which will not act if their members attack them.
As for the ABC, is that the Anarchist Black Cross? And has the ABC done anything about the assault?
No ABC hasn't.
Can you provide more details on these RA 'attacks'?
Sep 11 2008 21:47
#15
Anarcho wrote:
Rob Ray wrote:
Crappy behaviour, yes, but members of the ABC physically assaulted people from libcom a while ago - unacceptable bahaviour does happen, but it's not fair to write off an organisation because of single incidents, unless the organisation has/had a policy of attacking anarchists?You are joking, right? They tolerated the attack and then justified it in their newspaper. Perhaps they do not have a policy, but they seem happy to tolerate it. Which is the point, surely? I'm sure that anarchists working with RA people will be happy to know that they are working with an organisation which will not act if their members attack them.
As for the ABC, is that the Anarchist Black Cross? And has the ABC done anything about the assault?
Rob, actually I think it is fair if the organisation then fails to do anything about it.
Sep 11 2008 22:35
#16
It wasn't acceptable when the ABC let members get away with violence towards other anarchists, and its not acceptable for RA to do it either.
Sep 14 2008 22:45
#17
Anarcho wrote:
Connollyite wrote:
Anarcho wrote:
May I point out here that Red Action members in Glasgow physically attacked other anti-fascists (including anarchists) and RA nationally did nothing about it. In fact, a few years later they published a justification for the attack in the newspaper (after Black Flag mentioned the event).So remember that when discussing this organisation.
People dont attack others for no apparent reason. Is it the violence that was unacceptable or the reason behind it?
Ah, right -- so fellow anti-fascists can attack their "comrades" and it is fine? Sure, solidarity in action!
And the reason? Long story, which involved anarchists and others being sick of being treated like cannon-fodder by RA, seeking more democracy in AFA, being subject to intimidation by their "comrades" before unprovoked physical attacks.
But apparently unprovoked physical attacks are okay for some.... When I read comments like this I realise why the revolutionary movement in this country is a joke.
So it had nothing to do with Anarchists in Glasgow talkin to Special Branch then and then forming their own 'anti-fascist' organisation in the same city? Unity eh?
Oct 8 2008 11:19
#18
Jess wrote:
It wasn't acceptable when the ABC let members get away with violence towards other anarchists, and its not acceptable for RA to do it either.
Was it done in the name of the ABC?
Edit. Just spoken to someone from B'ton ABC and that's a definate no from them.
The RA action was?
Oct 8 2008 11:12
#19
Quote:
Anarchists in Glasgow talkin to Special Branch then
Serious accusation. Evidence?
Oct 8 2008 12:53
#20
BB wrote:
Jess wrote:
It wasn't acceptable when the ABC let members get away with violence towards other anarchists, and its not acceptable for RA to do it either.Was it done in the name of the ABC?
Edit. Just spoken to someone from B'ton ABC and that's a definate no from them.
I don't think this makes any difference really. If a member of an anarchist group say beat their wife and the group was aware of it, it wouldn't matter if he was doing it "in the name of" the group, if the group didn't take steps to address it (for example saying if he didn't stop he would be expelled) then they would be at fault.
Rob Ray: of course he's not going to have any evidence of that nonsense.
Oct 9 2008 14:42
#21
I'm not saying I believe it, I'm saying they should prove it if they can.
Oct 9 2008 15:00
#22
Quote:
Was it done in the name of the ABC?Edit. Just spoken to someone from B'ton ABC and that's a definate no from them.
Whilst it was not done offically as an ABC action, it resulted from a thread on here, that was highly critical of the ABC support for certain prisoners (It was one of the low points for LibCom last year IMO). My SolFed local formally approach Leeds ABC to condemn their member's behavior and suggested than this wasn't the way to settled disputes, even highly emotive ones. We received no reply. This implies to me that they thought such actions as acceptable and appropirate. To my knowledge Brighton ABC haven't made any public statement on this matter.
Oct 17 2008 09:12
#23
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
Anarchists in Glasgow talkin to Special Branch thenSerious accusation. Evidence?
Do you refute those claims?
Oct 17 2008 09:31
#24
If you make wild assertions, it is not up to other people to refute them until you provide some evidence that they are true. And that it means something (i.e. not like some anarchist's cousin worked in special branch and he spoke to them at a wedding)
Oct 17 2008 11:26
#25
As Steven says, it's not up to me to refute them, I'm merely asking for some sort of proof, as I wasn't there or politically active at the time. I try not to dismiss anything out of hand, but like anyone over the age of about five I've seen enough distortion and inaccuracy (wilful or otherwise) in my life that I need a bit more than some internet alias telling me something is true to believe it without question.
Oct 18 2008 17:26
#26
Obviously I dont have any evidence but could someone here plsease tell me why Anarchists in Glasgow tried to form their own AFA org?
Oct 19 2008 22:34
#27
Connollyite wrote:
Obviously I dont have any evidence but could someone here plsease tell me why Anarchists in Glasgow tried to form their own AFA org?
That's a pretty serious accusation to make when you don't have any evidence isn't it.
Quote:
And the reason? Long story, which involved anarchists and others being sick of being treated like cannon-fodder by RA, seeking more democracy in AFA, being subject to intimidation by their "comrades" before unprovoked physical attacks.
That's from the post you replied to (and quoted) when you accused them of working with Special Branch.
Oct 19 2008 23:48
#28
Connollyite wrote:
Obviously I dont have any evidence but could someone here plsease tell me why Anarchists in Glasgow tried to form their own AFA org?
A comrade in Edinburgh I have spoken to described the 90s anti-fascist scene to be heavily dominated (taken over) by hard-men types (a la INLA). I heard the same was being done in Glasgow.
Oct 23 2008 09:49
#29
Jacque wrote:
Connollyite wrote:
Obviously I dont have any evidence but could someone here plsease tell me why Anarchists in Glasgow tried to form their own AFA org?A comrade in Edinburgh I have spoken to described the 90s anti-fascist scene to be heavily dominated (taken over) by hard-men types (a la INLA). I heard the same was being done in Glasgow.
Well as a former supporter of the INLA I wouldnt consider myself a hardman. So Republicans involvement in AFA turned a lot of Anarchists off then?
Oct 23 2008 09:52
#30
jef costello wrote:
Connollyite wrote:
Obviously I dont have any evidence but could someone here plsease tell me why Anarchists in Glasgow tried to form their own AFA org?That's a pretty serious accusation to make when you don't have any evidence isn't it.
Quote:
And the reason? Long story, which involved anarchists and others being sick of being treated like cannon-fodder by RA, seeking more democracy in AFA, being subject to intimidation by their "comrades" before unprovoked physical attacks.That's from the post you replied to (and quoted) when you accused them of working with Special Branch.
Sounds very ambiguous to me. From an outsider looking in, it looks like the Anarchist didnt like some of the people involved and started their own group.
In placing them within the a 'post industrial analysis' I'd also raise the issue of the 'end of ideology' in their dropping of the term socialist and their quietism on larger macro level class issues like war, in favour of a parochial oppurtunism.