Anarchist organizations

I know some people in WSA see things this way, but I wasn't aware of that this was the official policy of the group. When I was a member, my impression was that members had a wide range of views on the subject. Also, on your website it says that the conditions for membership are:

If you are really a closet platformist group, perhaps you should tell people about it before they join?

Of course WSA is a small propaganda group, and not a mass organization, but this is the case for most IWA sections. And my impression was that the WSA was more like a synthesist organization than a platformist one.

haha I love that especifismo is already being treated as "closet platformis[m]"...

Felix, You note that one of our conditions of membership is agreement with our political statement. The political statement has a fairly worked out analysis on things like anti-racism, gender oppression, gay liberation, ecology, and our dual strategy on labor organizing -- both independent organizations in the context of the AFL-CIO unions, and new self-managed unionist formations. Having such a worked out perspective as a condition of membership should suggest WSA is not a "synthesist" organization. WSA also has no concept of autonomous collectives affiliating. We are an individual membership organization. We don't want the individual branches developing a local branch chauvinism or an ideology distinct from that of the national organization. I think this comes out of our experience in the ACF, where the local collectives often developed their own identity and "line" that led to the ACF's disfunction and breakup.

It's true, tho, that this is a subject that WSA has never had an overt internal debate on. At our last convention we decided to begin a process of re-writing our political statement, and I'm sure that clarifying our organizational self-conception will be a part of that. But i have no idea what you mean when you use the phrase "closet platformist group." I didn't say anything in my statement above about platformism.

Our failure to discuss our concept of the role of WSA as an organization in our political statement has led to no end of misconceptions about WSA. Because of that failure, for example, many people thought WSA was supposed to be a union or proto-union. The reality of WSA has mainly been that of a "propaganda group" but I think we have aspired to be more than that. At times we have been able to work in a concerted way on particular campaigns, as in the Taco Bell boycott support work, which was the WSA's only national priority in the years leading up to the CIW victory. In the late '80s and early '90s we also had a focus on defense of reproductive rights. We had three gruops, in Knoxille, San Francisco, and Ohio working on defense of abortion clinics. So, at least some of us do have the concept of WSA being a group of activists involved in struggles and mass organizations. Having a small, dispersed membership has made it difficult to always carry this out.

t.

Not as far as I know. The ex Love and Rage people seemed to have joined NEFAC in 2002 see the statement
'Why We Joined NEFAC'
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=02/12/09/9805876

But NEFAC was formed at a conference in Boston in 2000, there are some details of the formation in
We Learn As We Walk: Looking Back on Five Years of NEFAC
http://nefac.net/node/1702

So when you say

Your appear to be wrong.

I'm not simply being pedantic here - I think that it is important to understand that platformist groups tend to form through unification processes. The couple that did form from splits I'm aware of didn't last very long.

This I understand to be one of a number of struggles NEFAC has been involved in, one that was victorous in winning a 40% wage hike and recognition. As its presented in the NEFAC account - http://nefac.net/node/1903 - the decision over which union to join was made by those working in the cinema after much discussion. This is a 'social insertion' strategy, insisting that the workers could only join a union chosen by the anarchist communists on ideological grounds would not be compatable with 'social insertion' as I understand the term.

The whole point of social insertion is that the anarchists do not demand that workers join some form of anarchist organisation but rather than the anarchists are willing to engage with the organisations of the working class as they exist.

As 'syndicalistcat' has already posted

But the same article also says

The article is a very useful self-criticism but you mistake 'we haven't done enough' for 'we haven't done at all'. Unfortuantly the anarchist movement is prone to exaggerating its coherancy and importance - so if that is what you are used to this article is perhaps hard to understand for what it is.

To me this is the problem with your approach. You have started with a set of conclusions and then gone on to assume the evidence to support the conclusions. When its shown that your assumptions are wrong rather than doing the sensible thing and re-evaluation your conclusions you simply assume some new facts or try to redefine your original claims. If we do enough rounds of that type of discussion you will probably get to a set of assumptions that no one on this board knows enough about to refute.

Somone else has answered this but obviously it would be quite a trick for an Irish organisation to arise as a split from a British organisation that had not yet come into existance. (WSM founded 1984, ACF/AF founded 1986).

And apart from the original fusion back in 1984 when the WSM was created there was a second fusion in 1991 with the 'Anarcho-communist group' of which I was a member. It might be illustrative to say that our inital contact with the WSM was prone to the sort of 'search for something to disagree about' that seems to be going on here. Rather oddly what terminated that behaviour was a conversation with a trotskyist friend when he asked us why we didn't simply join the WSM and rubbished the rather weak differences we had 'discovered'.

Anarchists seem to be rather prone to this finding reasons not to join particular organisations. I'm sure if I sat down and went through all the North Eastern Anarchists I could get quite a long list of things I disagree with together (incl. the union organiser thing). But that wouldn't stop me joining NEFAC if I was that side of the atlantic as I clearly agree with the basics if I'd have difference on some questions of tactics.

My experience from the three years I was a WSA member is that local groups and individual members were free to work pretty much any way they wanted, as long as they agreed with the goup's general political principles. This is what I would consider a "synthesist" approach, as opposed to the "theoretical and tactical unity" that define the platformist groups. So some members could work with rank and file groups inside the AFL-CIO unions, or try to build independent unions, while others would work on building the IWW. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to have a common strategy around these issues.

If there have been no congress decisions or membership vote on this, let alone "overt internal debate," I don't understand how you can put this forward as the policy of the organization, as opposed to the personal view of some of its members.

OK, so you were talking about having a concept very close to
especifismo, and not platformism, but I've understood these two concepts to be very similar. I haven't read much about especifismo though, so I might be misinformed.

Felix, when i describe what the WSA's approach to organization is, I'm giving my personal perception of what it is, based on my involvement in the debates around the organization's founding, and having been a member of WSA from 1984 to 1994, and again 2002 to present. The WSA obviously differentiates between mass orgnizations and a political organization. You say a local WSA group could do what it wants, but you don't say that among these things is being a union or presenting itself as a mass organization. WSA members are active within a variety of mass organizations and campaigns. This is implicitly an acceptance of "organizational dualism." Nor do you say that a WSA local branch could adopt a different "line" than a different WSA branch. In fact they couldn't. You don't say what a "synthesist" organization is, in your opinion, but in my understanding it would be like the ACF of the late '70s in having different collectives with different identities and lines. We explicitly wanted to avoid that when we formed WSA in 1984.

I would say, as an organizational self-criticism, that in practice WSA was too loose in its organizational practices. This was shown by what happened in the late '90s with the entryist attack by the Duluth group.

What the stance of WSA on its organizational self-conception is is something that I would like to see WSA discuss and decide at its next national conference. As I said, it's not something that has an official WSA statement, and you should infer, therefore, that, as I say, my comments here are my own perceptions. Others in WSA might conceivably see things differently.

t.

I don't think it is. Just because individual WSA members are involved with a lot of different organizations and campaigns, don't mean they nessesarily see the need for a separation of political and mass organizations, where the political groups "intervene" in the mass struggle in an organized manner.

But if there is no statutes or congress descisions about it, what is to stop a local group from developing a different "line" than the other locals? For instance, the San Francisco local organized the I99 conference on its own, an event that was very controversial within the IWA. And the Minnesota local definitly had a different "line" than the rest of the organization.

I said:

"WSA members are active within a variety of mass organizations and campaigns. This is implicitly an acceptance of "organizational dualism.""

Felix replies:
"I don't think it is. Just because individual WSA members are involved with a lot of different organizations and campaigns, don't mean they nessesarily see the need for a separation of political and mass organizations, where the political groups "intervene" in the mass struggle in an organized manner."

The WSA's ability to intervene collectively is very limited due to its small size and dispersed membership. Nonetheless, I've already provided examples of where we have done so. After we went to a lot of effort in the late '80s to develop an analysis of structural gender inequality and adopt this as part of our statement, we also had a focus as an organization, reflected in ideas & action, and group practice, around defense of reproductive rights, with three WSA groups involved in abortion clinic defense. I also mentioned how in 2002 WSA adopted as a national priority work on the Taco Bell boycott. Our collective work on the boycott was recognized by CIW in inviting WSA to be one of the groups to present our perspectives at their victory celebration in Louisville.

I think in practice it is very clear that WSA differentiates between the political organization -- WSA -- and mass organizations. We NEVER envisioned WSA as a union or proto-union or mass organization. The fact that we didn't make this explicit in our political statement has been the cause of endless confusion about this -- including your apparent confusion about it.

I wrote:

"Nor do you say that a WSA local branch could adopt a different "line" than a different WSA branch. In fact they couldn't. You don't say what a "synthesist" organization is, in your opinion, but in my understanding it would be like the ACF of the late '70s in having different collectives with different identities and lines. We explicitly wanted to avoid that when we formed WSA in 1984."

Felix replies:

"But if there is no statutes or congress descisions about it, what is to stop a local group from developing a different "line" than the other locals? For instance, the San Francisco local organized the I99 conference on its own, an event that was very controversial within the IWA. And the Minnesota local definitly had a different "line" than the rest of the organization."

It's implicit when we say that agreement with the political statement is a condition of membership. But you're right, in a way, that this is in fact a weakness of our original statement. WSA is very aware that our old political statement has holes and is outdated. WSA already decided at the last convention to rewrite it. And this issue of the organization is precisely one of the main issues that needs to be clarified.

I wasn't a member of the San Francisco branch of WSA at the time of the I-99 conference. But it is my vague understanding that it was two members of WSA, who were also members of the IWW, who organized I-99. It is the position of WSA, I believe, that I-99 was NOT organized by WSA, including the S.F. branch. People who were members of WSA at the time could correct me if i'm wrong.

In any event, the definitive answer on what WSA's concept of itself as an organization is will have to wait til it is discussed, and some new statement agreed to, at the next
national convention.

t.

I don't think I'm confused about this. I don't think anyone in WSA suggested that WSA should turn itself into a union. For those who believe in building a revolutionary union in the present situation in the US, the natural thing to do is to join the IWW, which is what many WSA members did, myself included.

But it's one thing to say that the WSA is a political organization, and another to say that it is an "espesifist" organization that wants to "inject itself" into social struggles.

And the original call for the I99 conference was issued by the Bay Area WSA branch, although it's true that the people involved were also members of the IWW.

Felix writes:

"I don't think I'm confused about this. I don't think anyone in WSA suggested that WSA should turn itself into a union. For those who believe in building a revolutionary union in the present situation in the US, the natural thing to do is to join the IWW, which is what many WSA members did, myself included."

Right there you show you don't have a clear understanding of the WSA perspective. The WSA NEVER took the position of advocating that its members join the IWW, and never tried to organize its members inside the IWW to affect IWW direction. That's because WSA never had an orientation to building the IWW or getting it to pursue some path. It's true that in the past 15 years or so close to half the WSA members have also been IWW members. This was a personal decision of those individual members.

But WSA has never taken the position that the "natural position" for revolutionary unionists in the USA is to join the IWW. The WSA's position has combined (1) advocacy of rank and file shop organization, in situations where people are members of AFL-CIO organizations, to encourage mobilization and organization independent of the brueaucracy, and (2) advocacy of autonomous self-managed unionism outside the AFL-CIO unions. This has taken the form of support for workers' centers (as in the WSA support for CIW), as well as attempts to form independent unions (such as the formation of an independent union of university employees at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, which some WSA members particpated in). WSA does not have an organizational preference for organizing self-managed solidarity unionism via the IWW versus some other type of independent union.

And if you want to talk about "social insertion", then you'll need to define how you interpret it, and we can talk about the degree to which WSA's practice and perspectives, as reflected in activism supported by WSA over the years, reflects this or not. I gave my interpretation, and argued that it is basically the same as the WSA perspective. You might go back to what i wrote there and see what you disagree with. Since you've conceded, it seems, that WSA has had a distinction,implicit in its perspective and practice, between mass organization and political organization, what other way is there of understanding the relationship, from a revolutionary Left-libertarian point of view?

t.

Yes, I know that of course. In fact, that's exactly my point. WSA members decided on what political activity to pursue on a personal basis, not based on any "organizational strategy" or "tactical unity."

Well, personally I don't see the role for political organizations as "intervening in" or "inserting itself into" mass struggle. Rather, I see two main functions for specific anarchist organizing:

1. Outreach: publishing magazines, maintaining websites, organizing public meetings, etc

2. Keeping in touch with and networking with likeminded comrades.

I don't actually see any reasons why this necessarily have to be done by formal organizations either, as opposed to informal networks and affinity groups. As for participating in mass struggle, yes of course anarchists should do that, but I don't think this needs to be mediated by formal anarchist organizations.

And I see building revolutionary mass organizations as the main task. While I'm not opposed to setting up specific anarchist political organizations, I don't see them as really necessary either.

Yikes! And I was going to post my holiday season book list for Nate.....

Ok, before I can't keep up with this very, very interesting multi-organization thread, let me briefly try and address the T. and Felix discussion.

When WSA was formed in 1984 (of which I'm a founding member) we identified ourselves as an anarcho-syndicalist "propaganda group". Same throughout our affiliation to the IWA (1984-2000). Never a union or proto-union as T. rightly states.

Of course the main misconception about anarcho-syndicalism is that it automatically means you're a union (of course we advocate for revolutionary workers organization).

WSA has always been organized around a Stement of Purpose ("Where We Stand") and has been pretty loose in regards to local and individual activist autonomy---as long as it wasn't in conflict with our principles or worked against the common good of the organization as a whole. We recognized that WSA wouldn't "pre-package" the application of our ideas to local conditions or comrades abilities.Yes, of course there are parameters of what we are involved in, but a certain flexibility to allow militants spread across 3000 miles the ability to carry out their work.

What I think T. is getting at is an observation of what WSA's practice has mainly been. Aside from specific WSA campaigns or publishing projects, WSA members have generally carried out their work as militants in their workplaces, their unions (be it mainstream or IWW), community and social organizations. I believe this is the "duality" that T. is refering too.

While I would consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist (first and foremost) and anarchist communist (non-platformist variety),I would say that WSA mainly stayed away from "buzz words" for exactly (well,sort of) the reason for T. and Felix's symantic sparring above.

For the most part, what folks called themseleves mattered less to us than their agreement with our aims, acted in a comradely manner and worked to build a libertarian workers movment that was as far reaching as possible. The core of WSA's perspective is anarcho-syndicalist.Some folks called themselevs a/s,others libertarian socailists, some class struggle anarchists and Felix, well, he was our good vikking friend who would never label himself. But the core was agreement with the WSA principles and that of the IWA (to which we were affiliated). There was always a healthy inter-mixing of ideas and folks mostly took each others word in good faith. The bottom line is are a working class libertarian (anarchist)organization. We advocate for a classless society, based on the principles of direct action, direct democracy and self-managment.

We are not "synthesis" as the term is currently thrown abot. We are not loosey-goosey as we are for class organization. WSA has ideas and viewpoints and tries to advance those views in the leat rethorical manner possible. Sometimes we do a better job than other times, but we try and present the viewpoint in a manner most folks might understand.

What seems to get lost sometimes (and is evident in the above T. & Felix emails) is that should organizations continue in a drone and monolithic fashion. That they shouldn't look at themselves and try and understand how they developed or should develop over time. Now, I know this isn't what anyone said, but the undercurrent is there.

WSA has been around for 22 years and it is probably fair enough to say that we have been an an organization of conscious of libertarian workers for this whole time. An organization that has carried out its work both independent of other organizations and within other organizations. This has developed on its own and without effort to mirror any defunct or existing organization, both here and abroad. This so-called "especifismo" (I wouldn't use the term, but I undersatnd our context) has been organic and a direct reflection of our activities.

In today's parlance, the term "especifico" conjurs up its own ideological meaning. While I agree in the broad sense with T., I wouldn't personally use the term. Yet I wouldn't argue against it as defined by T.

I would like to address the following Felix statement, as both items raised are a sore spot for me.

Felix writes:

"But if there is no statutes or congress descisions about it, what is to stop a local group from developing a different "line" than the other locals? For instance, the San Francisco local organized the I99 conference on its own, an event that was very controversial within the IWA. And the Minnesota local definitly had a different "line" than the rest of the organization."

In both of these instances it was not simply a matter of proper "statutes or congress descisions". In both matters it was more a lack of good faith, acting in a comradely way and collectively working with other members in a concerted and unified way. I would agree that if the WSA had certain provisions as to membership voting privilages would that have helped in the Duluth situation, yes, probably so.

The problem with these situations is that there was no collective self-discipline. The I-99 and the split in the French CNT questions weren't simply a matter of politics, of which we can debate another time. It was a case where our ex-San Francisco comrades said they were going to do whatever they wanted and however they wanted. They took no advice from others and acted in such a way as to harm the WSA. And where are they today?

The Duluth problem was that of entryism at the weakest point in the WSA history to destroy the good name and reputation of the WSA and some of its members (myself included). They had no political "line". They never articulated one political position. It was all personal. They acted out of ego and self-promotion. Duluith wanted to be THE IWA in the US. To do this and acted as a shill for those in the IWA who wanted to take revenge against the WSA for I-99 and our belief in maintaing our priniciples, while at the same time retaining our autonomy to talk others who may not be a part of the IWA. Ironically, these same arse-holes in Duluth voted--yes voted--for I-99 and the recall of the question on CNT-Vignoles! So, there was no "line" here, just opportunism.

I can say that the one thing WSA always prided itself on (up until the end of the 1990s when things turned sour) was our ability to act in a comradely way and work things out. We always enetered our national conferences with respect for our other comrades and always left with the same respect--even when there were sharp differences. What both ex-SF and Dulth refused--repeat refused---to do was to work together. They both took the attitude and actions that were self-centered and screw everybody else. This was not the WSA way of doing things.

So on the question of locals developing their own "lines", ok, people will come to different viewpoints on different matters. The real question here is how these differences are worked out. How to develop commonality where appropriate and respect where differences may exist. We will all be alot better off when we can find the balance.

---mitch

ok, while my eyeballs are still in my head. I would define a political organization as one which comrades of like mind come together. Ideological agreement can be fixed or a bit more general. But concious people come together to work with like minded folks to advance a certain set of ideas or program. I would not--repeat, not--define it as a cadre organization.

A mass organiation might be a trade union, community group, tenants group, anti-racist group and so forth. An organization that reaches mass numbers but isn't in and of itself an anarchist organization. I suspect in the case of the IWW, the concious anarcho-syndicalist would work to keep the IWW on a libertarian path. Obviously as anarchists we have our views and promote them in the broadest possible fashion. I would say that we seek to push for radical,libertarian and self-governing directions within these mass organizations. And, of course, to make new contacts and convince as many folks as possible to become anarchists (in both thought and action).

I dunno, maybe others see it another way.

My answer to the question just posed:

A mass organization is open to anyone who is affected by some area of struggle, such as a workplace. A mass organization may have a vision or political perspective but being affected by, and motivated to participate because of, the context of struggle is what defines it as a mass organization. A political organization has agreement with its political perspective typically as the reason someone belongs to it, not a particular context of mass struggle. That's how I would make the distinction.

Back to the WSA discussion:

It's true, as Mitch points out, that WSA called itself a "propaganda group" at the time it was formed. It had only about 20 some odd members at that point, and its visibility was mainly through its magazine, ideas & action. Even then, however, the New York branch had an industrial concentration in the garment and textile industries, and formed the Needle Trades Action Committee as a base for organizing among the rank and file in the textile and garment industries.

But rather than get hung up about what WSA was, I think it is more important what WSA should be, or what kind of revolutionary activist Left-libertarian organization we should have, our way forward. What follows is my own opinion, not necessarily shared by other WSA members.

I personally think it is mistake for a political organization to limit its self-concept to being a propaganda group. The danger there is that it can become a mere church or sect. And shouldn't the ideas have some bearing on the role of the acttivists in practice? And how do you test your ideas if not in practice?

What role should the activists and their political organization play in mass organizations? A left-libertarian organization should not act to try to concentrate expertise, positions, power in its hands. What it should do, as I see it, is the opposite. Its aim should be to encourage ordinary folks to be involved, and to assist them in gaining the skills and information needed to be self-reliant, control their own organizations, avoid domination by bureaucratic hierarchies. The idea should be to try to develop mass organizations as self-managed movements, and to look for ways to develop organization this way.

As I see it, part of the role of the revolutionary libertarian activist/organizer is to develop this kind of self-managed organization and also develop a base, an area of influence, for our ideas and the practices of struggle and organization that we advocate.

What an organization can be also is affected by how many members it has, and how concentrated the membership is, in locations, and areas of struggle, mass organizations, etc. Anarchists in my experience often don't appreicate that what an organization can accomplish, the influence it can have, grows exponentially with increased numbers.

t.

I think someone has has already given the two liner but the article below written by someone who was a member of the Chilean CUAC as a contribution to an internal debate in the WSM is very useful in the context of this discussion

The problems posed by the concrete class struggle and popular organisation
The levels of the organisation are determined by the merging of both a programme of action and the social nature of the actors alongside whom we fight. To go any further, let us first agree on an unavoidable dilemma of every revolutionary movement: the acknowledgement that only the unity of the working class can overthrow the ruling class and the fact that the working class is not a homogeneous block - there are different levels of awareness and class consciousness, there are different ideas, opinions, tendencies, some being more inclined to a libertarian pole, and others more towards an authoritarian pole. Therefore, unity is necessary, but an absolute unity is just not possible
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1743

Cadre is a military term basically meaning the officer caste of a standing army around which in times of need a mass draft army can be built.

In the (limited) anarchist usage of the term it bascially means that the organisation should be limited to militants willing to dedicate huge amounts of time and energy to the struggle. Such militants will then be in a position to provide a 'leadership of ideas' in mass struggles and indeed to the much looser anarchist movement in general.

I think its a mistaken strategy born out of an understandable fustration with the disorganisation of much of the anarchist movement.

Their is a lengthy critique of the idea of an anarchist cadre organisation written by a WSM member after the collapse of the AWG
What went wrong with in the AWG?
Like all organisational form, the cadre is a reflection of more deeply rooted ideas. It does not appeal to just anyone. Instead, in regard to its role in political change, it is indicative of a certain conception of that change, how it will occur and what responsibilities different sections of society will have in bringing it about. The defining feature of the cadre organisation is the crucial role it ascribes to its own ideas and position.
http://struggle.ws/awg/awg_wrong_kevin.html

I think the original political usage for the "cadre" concept of revolutionary politics came out of the tail end of the Black Panther Party. Specifically the east coast or New York section that was under heavy police repression and attack from the west coast leadership.

It reflects the deline of the mass aspect of the party and although the pamphelet calling for a Cadre Organisation was written annonumusly its pretty clear to me that it was written by an individual or group that went on to form the Black Liberation Army.

I would repeat the analyisis of the above post that it has largely apealed to people working within anarchisn at time or in areas where defeatism was rife and a sort of elietism apeald to some people.

I dont think there has every been an organisation that has built itself around a cadre idelogy that hasnt been armed.

Ive come across reference to it by dirstro groups close to the ABCF. Mabey BTR has an element of it aswell.

On that note do BTR still exist?

I also wated t adress the mistaken impressio that platformism means the group decides everything its members do.

In NEFAC we state the a member cant do work that will contradict a position the organisation has taken. This dosnt mean that the organisation takes positionas on everything, or when we do we advocate one specific line of thought.

Most areas of struggle are wide open. The organisation has taken very few firm lines and they have been on issues that we have come to collective agreement on after lots of trial and error.

This hs mabey been a bit of a weakness in the area of public image. As it seems many people now think we have soe kind of position on union organuser jobs. In truth we have lost a good comrade or two who thought the oposite, that we were too critical on paid organiser positions.

In reality we bounce back and forth on the issues with most people having an accepting but highly critical position on members accepting paid organiser positions. When people do take the jobs it tends to be not from some "party mandate" but from a will of the individual to leave a shitty dead end job and getting the oportunty to do some work that is better paying, seems some what stimulating and politically productive.

I would say this is the case 80% of the time.

The English section of the FdCA site (under "organization") has some history of the organization on it. Basically the FdCA was formed 20 years ago by a fusion of the (nationwide-based) ORA and the (Tuscany-based) UCAT as part of an attempt to gather all Italy's anarchist communists under one roof (others did in fact later join the new org). Previously (ie until 1985) there had been many anarchist communist orgs in Italy: some national federations, quite a few regional orgs and a few local groups.

The early '70s had seen many organizations come and go, on local, regional and inter-regional level, and there were various attempts at creating a national anarchist communist federation (like the National Convention of Anarchist Workers) or adapting the FAI into one. Most "platformists" were kicked out of the FAI (or left) in 1973 after a failed attempt to move it towards becoming a federation of tendency again (as distinct from a federation of synthesis). During the '60s the FAI had seen some anti-organizationalist groups split off and the class-struggle tendency take the upper hand, but the late '60s saw a return to synthetist positions.

nestor

Thanks for the information Nestor.

I'm reading Rev. In the Air about US Leninist history, and it uses the term cadre several times per page, talking about groups of political organizers who were not involved in armed struggle. Or social insertion. (Wink. What they were invovled in were "mass" organizations controlled by a party/supposed vanguard. I imagine that doesn't bear much description, as we've likely all seen it up close.) Of course using the term cadre, and the "cadre ideology" rebelworker refers to, may not be identical.

BTW, sorry to hear that virulent strain of post leftism has escaped north of the border. Thought that was a US bug.

Randy

Bring the Ruckus, Ruckus Collective, Phoenix:

Differences Of Strategy and Organization, Nicholas Phebus, La Nuit (NEFAC-Quebec City):

Build the Cadre, Abolish the White Race, Roy San Filippo:

Flint's post from a 2002 NEA again raises the question- is BTR still kicking? How have they fared over the last five years with the cadre model? (We know what became of AWG, and of the cadre groups i refered to earlier- disappeared, or devolved into sects.)

BTR still has a web site, but as far as I could tell not much had been added since the 2004 election. [url=http://www.bringtheruckus.org/join/index.htm [/url]

interesting discussion, thanks everyone.

I find it a bit funny how political terminology comes about - I've only discovered through these boards that the strategy i've been using in WSM is called 'social insertion'.

er i guess two decent books might be
http://libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-browns
http://libcom.org/library/anti-parliamentary-communism-mark-shipway

Generally these days in terms of class struggle anarchism you either have the 'old church' but somewhat stale and rigid, and at other times mind numbingly historically obsessed (see the iww for a classic example) syndicalist groups of varing types (eg iww, solfed and so on) and a few certain syndicalist groups that are either 'softer' (eg sac) or in practical terms have a slightly less workerist position (eg organise), You also have anarcho-communist federations like nefac and afed which tend to be smaller, more tight knit and at times more activisty. You a smattering of ultra-leftist and left communist groups of varying utility and sanity and more commonly you have the various local groups which are massively varied in there approach and can be quite transcient and of course last but by no means least you have the various unaffiliated theoretical and practical groupings often around websites, bookshops, events or journals, such as the group around which libcom was formed.

Face it, your politics are boring as fuck.

You know it's true. Otherwise, why does everyone cringe when you say the word? Why has attendance at your anarcho-communist theory discussion group meetings fallen to an all—time low? Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation?

So comrades, which way forward for the North American anarcho-syndicalist, class struggle anarchist and anarchist-communist movements?

There are quite a few anarchist organizations in the United States.

You can find many of the local ones here:

http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Anarchist_Neighborhood

Also good:

Overview of Contemporary Anarchism in the United States
http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Overview_of_Contemporary_Anarchism_in_the_United_States

Syndicalist didn't ask about "anarchist organizations" but "class struggle anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists".

your list of publications doesn't include "Worker Solidarity". WSA has 50 percent more
members than you attribute.

SCAF in L.A. was dissolved.

t.