The ACG presents its important new pamphlet on identity politics –
The Politics of Division: An engagement with
identity politics
A contribution to the debate
To be human is to negotiate a balance between individual identity and
collective action. We are each simultaneously individuals and social
animals. This pamphlet does not seek to negate identity. Identity is
important to our humanity, as well as being a major focus for oppression.
What it seeks to do, rather, is to place revolutionary politics in the
collective sphere. When anarchist-communists echo Kropotkin in saying
“What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!” we are
advancing a vision for a free society, the society we want to build.
In recent decades politics has moved a long way from expressing what it is
we want to achieve and has instead refocused on expressing who it is I am
and what I believe my heritage or essential characteristics to be, and this
is often an emotive and painful issue, especially where, as so often, there
has been a history of oppression and subjugation. While these are indeed
important enquiries and will of course inform each individual’s perspective
on what needs to change in our quest for a better society, this pamphlet
argues that to be effective revolutionary politics must be about that
shared future we seek to build. What makes each of us an anarchist
communist – or whatever vision it is you might hold – is that set of values
we will build the future upon.
This pamphlet is presented with respect for our many struggles and in
anger at our many experiences of oppression, determined that our
collective efforts will build a better future.
Cover price £3.
Ordered through social media/website/email below £2 plus postage.
Can be ordered from our website: www.anarchistcommunism.org or
contact: [email protected]
To offer some feedback from
To offer some feedback from an SPGB member
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/acg-pamphlet-on-identity-politcs/#post-221153
The SPGB would rather sit
The SPGB would rather sit alongside the biggest cunts in the UK in parliament than support Black Lives Matter or Sisters Uncut?
ajj, Bit premature to
ajj, Bit premature to criticise it on here as most of us haven't had time to read it yet. Maybe the full text will appear on libcom eventually.
fozzie wrote: The SPGB would
fozzie
Of course, all those groups lack the essential insight of The One & Only Party and anything outside it is inherently inferior and irrelevant. The whole history of SPGB and its ever closer realisation of its goals proves it is the only viable form of advancement. All groups that emerge from the needs of specific struggles lack the eternal abstract imagined 'correctness' of the Party debating sect. If nothing else, SPGB's massive delusions and pretensions measured against their actual influence on anything are mildly amusing.
Isn't feedback worthwhile? I
Isn't feedback worthwhile? I always thought so.
Spikey, somebody has to be first and now ALBs review should spur others to buy it to confirm or deny his opinion
Hhhmmmm?
Agreement expressed on 21 pages out of 25 but the divergence of view on one particular point expressed within the pamphlet brings criticism that the SPGB is being dogmatic
I'm reminded of the pot and the kettle
Fossie, the SPGB might sit alongside our class enemy sometime in the indeterminate future but its hostility to them is very clearly expressed in its Declaration of Principles.
Red, I think I have referred several times in the past to a great lack of influence and almost total absence of any presence within the workers' movement held by all the groups represented here on Libcom.
Again pots and kettles
ajj wrote: Red, I think I
ajj
Yes, you have: but those other groups don't express and repost the ridiculous group arrogance that you did above.
Red, rather than resort to
Red, rather than resort to ridiculous accusations, why not offer a reasoned response to ALB's criticism.
Is he right or is he wrong in his opinion that the pamphlet presents a contradiction?
Or is debate and discussion too much to ask for on this forum?
I can't comment on the content of the ACG pamphlet because like Spikeymike I will have to await it to be uploaded to the net to read.
And so far nothing posted here offers anything worthy of note to respond to on what the pamphlet actually has said
Oh, as for our arrogance, the SPGB has the most modest and self-affacing members of any political group in the world
[sarcasm]
And while I am at it, Red,
And while I am at it, Red, ALB was responding to the link and the re-posting of the original statement from ACG here, which I placed verbatim on our forum.
Ridiculous and arrogant of me to help promote the circulation of another organisation's literature in such a non-sectarian manner.
But others here can vouch that I often advertise meetings and articles from Libcom-based groups.
And despite the lack of appreciation by the likes of yourself, I will continue the practice.
And again while I'm here, why
And again while I'm here, why do you think I have taken to starting new topics?
Is it merely the arrogance of posting SPGB links?
Or perhaps that I detect a similar trend that is occurring to our own forum, a drop in those regularly participating and endeavouring to reverse the fall in popularity.
By posting I am hoping to stimulate other contributions and links so that Libcom is what I always admired and respected it for - a gateway to libertarian communism, where different anarchist and socialist organisations interacted.
Some of my SPGB comrades suspect I hold too much of a conciliatory attitude to Libcom groups yet others on here reject my inclusive approach to John Crump's concept of The Thin Red Line.
I feel an affinity to earlier generations which saw Joseph Dietzen taking over the editorship of the anarchist journal when the Haymarket Martyrs were being persecuted
Or later the example where the American Marxist activists such as John Keracher, Paul Mattick and our own WSPUS Isaac Rab could view one another as comrades-in-arms but still hold disagreements and debate friendly and fraternally.
As an SPGBer, I naturally hold to much of our own analyses in relation to rival Marxist interpretations but in the end, I want my fellow workers to have the last word and the final decision on whose ideas to endorse and go with, hence I am very happy to draw attention to those positions of others in the non-market camp as alternative visions.
And as Fozzie should know full well, we have through all the decades held firm to our hostility clause to oppose both avowedly pro-capitalist parties and false "friends" within the labour movement, spurning all opportunist appeals to spurious "unity" with non-socialists.
.
You haven’t really dealt with
You haven’t really dealt with what I said, only expressed resentment at me saying it.
ajj
Dunno, haven’t read it.
Claiming that;
Meaning what? "Separate" to what considers itself the one and only true workers party. The SPGB being overwhelmingly white, old & male considers its dubious parliamentarian 'class analysis' to have all the answers for the struggles of diverse groups having particular problems based on their gender and race. Your stance mirrors the old Stalinist CP line that the invariant Party analysis would resolve neatly these issues in the bye and bye (which in reality suppressed or sacrificed them for Party discipline & convenience). No doubt some groups based on race & and gender do lack a class analysis but it isn't always true (eg, Indian Workers Ass., DRUM etc.) and such arrogant dismissals only reveal an ostrich-like inability to even begin to deal with diverse particularities and needs of those outside your immediate situation. Your advocacy of a neat, simplistic 'one-fits-all' 'analysis' only mirrors the separatist ideas you criticise by reducing class analysis to a homogenous parody that fails to deal with real divisions imposed by capitalism. You want to gloss over all that and pretend that membership of SPGB and possession of its dogma resolves the problems of race and gender within the working class and bourgeois society. Which, like your hostility clause;
SPGB
is at least as sectarian as any gender or race-based grouping. Pots & kettles indeed.
Quote: "the separate
Perhaps you should direct your question to the authors of the pamphlet because my reading is that with ALB's use of apostrophes, he is quoting the pamphlet to indicate where two statements within the pamphlet contradict one another “support the self-organisation of oppressed groups into autonomous groups.” On the surface of it, the statement is not compatible with the later political position policy of saying they “support the self-organisation of oppressed groups into autonomous groups.”. Perhaps, ALB is being intellectually dishonest and omitting ACG's lengthy justification and many caveats, I simply don't know and like yourself will have to wait and read for myself.
However, my view of socialism or libertarian communism is that it should be the umbrella that all social activists muster under for one agreed goal.
No doubt ALB acquired a review copy of the ACG's identity pamphlet and I think there is a good chance a full review of it will subsequently appear in the Socialist Standard, although I may turn out to be wrong.
As for our hostility clause, it is an upfront statement of opposition against other political parties rather than exercising unwritten and undeclared animosity, under a cloak of inclusiveness and tolerance.
The SPGB has never been hostile to fellow workers lessening their misery and striving to improve their conditions through self-organisation and resistance. That is a parody that you feel you wish to relay and one that ignores our writings through the decades, which always was a nuanced analysis of the class struggle.
It has, though, remained firm to the belief that such mitigation of their oppressions cannot be achieved through reform appeals to government and that permanently ending them cannot be accomplished while the root cause remains which we attribute to the capitalist economic system which you yourself share with us when you said "real divisions imposed by capitalism".
As for your examples DRUM and Indian Workers Association, I have to plead my own individual ignorance of what the SPGB has specifically said of them. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
For sure, there are many accompanying and complicating factors but it is the competition fostered by capitalist relations that is the core cause and which requires to be primarily addressed, not the symptoms. You call it dogma, a one-size-fits-all analysis, simplistic and even Stalinist. Sorry, but you embarrass yourself with all that hyperbole.
You can remain committed to your belief that such a condemnation of capitalism and the recognition of its social power over all groups within working people is sectarian and accuse the SPGB of economic determinism but it certainly does not say that membership of the SPGB resolves all the problems of the race and gender. But we do from our foundation in 1904 say
We also have a healthy internal debate about such matters as identity politics from vegetarianism to transgenderism, two topics that have appeared on discussion forums of recent. We are not a homogenous body other than coming together and accepting certain political principles but individually disagreeing and arguing about various aspects of society and its expression.
I already indicated my approach to comrades of other organisations on Libcom is often challenged by some other members of the SPGB. But I haven't been purged.
Sorry if this is
Sorry if this is inappropriately shifting the conversation, but does the SPGB believe that "the separate autonomous organisation of specific [identity] groups is diversionary and contrary to a class analysis” in all cases? Although groups like this can fall into identity-essentialism or identity-reductionism and so on, this isn't necessarily the case.
One obvious exception that everyone here is probably familiar with and hopefully respects is Mujeres Libres, which, among other things, did outreach to working-class women to try to encourage them to get more active in class struggle. This was done through material support like babysitting for women so they could attend their local CNT meeting, and also consciousness raising, education, and emotional support to give women the confidence to speak their mind at these meetings. Spain had a deeply patriarchal culture that resulted in a class struggle with far too little participation from women, and Mujeres Libres was instrumental for increasing women's participation, thus bringing more workers, more energy, more intelligence, more action, more strength to the movement. Therefore Mujeres Libres was an asset not just for women but for the class struggle overall.
I'm not making any assumptions about your own views, Ajjohnstone; I'm sure SPGB members have a diversity of views. But it sounds like in general the SPGB could use some nuance on this issue.
(Btw, I think it's cool that you promote stuff by groups from libcom at your party events.)
Actually I think it is a very
Actually I think it is a very good pamphlet that deserves to be widely read. It marshals all the arguments, theoretical and practical, against identity politics. I have myself ordered extra copies to give away. I was just pointing out in a quick note what on one page appeared to contradict the other 24.
ACG Support for "the
ACG Support for "the self-organisation of oppressed groups into autonomous groups.” is hardly a revelation. It's enshrined in the Aims and Principles of the ACG, and before that in those of the ACF and then AF, so it's a concept that has been around from at least 1986. As in:
2.
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. But inequality and exploitation are also expressed in terms of race, gender, sexuality, health, ability and age, and in these ways one section of the working class oppresses another. Oppressive ideas and practices cause serious harm to other members of our class, dividing the working class and benefitting the ruling class. Oppressed groups are strengthened by autonomous action which challenges social and economic power relationships.
Surprising then, that only now is the SPGB picking up on it. Both Red Marriott and Lucky Black Cat have admirably explained the logic behind this concept, so I don't feel inclined to add much more.
LBC, can I ask from your own
LBC, can I ask from your own knowledge of Mujeres Libres if it was "separate and autonomous" from the rest of the CNT and FAI?
Or was it complementing them and interrelated rather than independent?
A part of the whole?
From my reading of past social revolutions, which I consider the Spanish Revolution to be, there are always expressions of a variety of freedoms, a liberatory culture of many sections of society, which find their own individual paths to a common shared objective.
For women in the 1917 Revolution, didn't Alexandra Kollontai symbolise a much wider awakening of many unknown anonymous women across Russia? Or was she merely a privileged aristocrat? I would judge the former, not the latter.
Risking the danger of being accused of being a Maoist, let a thousand flowers blossom.
I find it difficult to partition particular elements of social revolution into different compartments.
There will always be overlaps and spill-overs of influences. Hence the obvious use of the term "social".
In art, the Russian Revolution gave us proletarian realism, in the 20s we had dadaism. The 60s brought us situationism.
Weimar is celebrated for its diverse sexuality and gave the world Marlene Deitrich.
The socialist revolutionary moment will result in...what?
On this question of yours, LBC, I will concede to Red that I am perhaps offering a too simplistic an interpretation for complex interactions of what can be generalised as social evolution.
I am no oracle.
The criticism was not of
The criticism was not of autonomous groups as such (nothing wrong with them) but to their self-organisation on some other basis than class eg “race” or gender.
I don't think this discussion
I don't think this discussion was helpful on the back of a simple advert for a booklet but......I suppose at some point there is scope for a more detailed discussion of what 'support' for independent 'autonomous oppressed groups' by genuine communist political organisations actually means in practice and the relevance or otherwise of incorporating such 'autonomous structures' within a communist political organisation given most anarchist groups attachment to 'federalism'. I have previously been critical of what that has meant in the past (and today) for the UK Anarchist Federation. Possibly the ACG has a different approach these days.
ajj; It's not clear from your
ajj; It's not clear from your initial post, quoting ALB, exactly who is saying what but both myself & Fozzie took it as a criticism of autonomous orgs. Meaning "Yes, some organisations still do" 'see separate orgs as diversionary' as being the SPGB - which could be seen as in line with your ancient hostility clause.
Though the original intention of the clause may be more liberally interpreted now, you remain in a great minority in your evangelism here; SPGB still has an official position of
You are aware that the
You are aware that the Socialist Studies group you cite were expelled and one of their more common criticism is to accuse the SPGB of now being anarchist.
While they opposed a new policy of dropping "of Great Britain" from much of our literature to focus on the "The Socialist Party" brand, the accusation of the SPGB falling into the hands of anarchists stemmed partly from a 1984 conference decision which committed the SPGB to the “immediate abolition of the state” rather than the orthodox Marxist position that the State would die out. This was rescinded in 2004 when Conference passed the following resolution;
“That the 1984 Conference Resolution, ‘This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State,’ be rescinded and replaced with; ‘That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use.’”
In short, the working class only needs to retain the state for as long as it takes to end class ownership of the means of life, which today needn’t take very long. The purely administrative and non-coercive aspects of the ex-state would then be integrated into the democratic administrative structure of socialist society.
The 1984 resolution was in response to those who went on to become the Socialist Studies that there would be “gradual decline” of the state.
Most members were opposed as being overly-conservative but the resolution did go too far in the opposite direction by talking of the “immediate abolition” of the state.
But it wasn’t for this that they were to be expelled. It was for repeatedly and deliberately flaunting a conference resolution and a Party poll, on the use of the Party name as I have already mentioned.
However, that resolution was the reason they accused us of having become anarchists.
I personally prefer to say that the socialist revolution will begin the dismantling of the State. An emphasis on that it is a process, not an all-encompassing instantaneous act.
That is a whole different debate for another time and place and I only refer to it here to clarify that the Socialist Studies group do not reflect the views of myself and current members or policy of the SPGB.
As you correctly said, the hostility clause has very much been re-interpreted more liberally and if there had not been a relaxation of its previous strictures, I would not have re-joined and I doubt in earlier times I would have been allowed to stay a member.
We do not disguise the fact that we differ and oppose the anarchist understanding of the mechanics of social change to socialism aka via political action to capture the state machine. Nor do we try to disguise the fact that we disagree with much of the workers' council analysis of what is called left communism. We have also opposed the syndicalist SLP and IWW industrial unionism as a strategy of revolutionary change.
However, importantly, is the recognition of these groups' thinking as not being pro-capitalist and not deserving of being subject to the hostility clause.
Individual members of the SPGB may view these ideologies with varying threat-levels to achieving socialism. As we are seen as possibly being counter-productive by non-SPGBers.
Not all our members see the possibility of cooperation and collaboration as I do. That view is equally shared by and has been voiced by many non-SPGBers here, in the past.
So be it and I am happy to take the contrary opinion.
In the end, I suggest it is up to respective organisations to campaign for their version of revolution and to convince our fellow workers of the correctness and validity, for them to act as they see fit.
And just to end, this is why we have to address identity politics superseding class politics, especially in the shape of our fellow workers identifying with nationalism and religion and lifestylism which have dominated over our socialist aspirations.
Deepest apologies for
Deepest apologies for confusing you with those renegades and splitters. But - given, eg, the Party's reaction to your claim that the SPGB was the 'parliamentary wing of anarchism' - my impression is that the SPGB majority would agree with the SS critique of anarchism.
We will be the "armed" wing
We will be the "armed" wing of the anarchist movement, the vote is our weapon for the capture of political power to dispossess the employing class.
The struggle takes place both inside and outside Parliament, just as it happens inside the factory and outside it within the wider community.
As Joseph Dietzgen argued, "For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference."
And yes I am presently very much a minority of one within the SPGB and on Libcom.
But who can disagree with William Morris when he said,
You are the future. Tomorrow
You are the future. Tomorrow belongs to you. You WILL lead the next SPGB government.
I recall that the first
I recall that the first anarchist literature of any kind I bought was Freedom's edition of Alexander Berkman's ABC of Anarchism bought in a pub, the price of about two pints at the time, if I remember.
Then the next was Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, advertised always in the WSPUS Western Socialist
If socialism and anarchism supplement one another, surely it is these two works of essential reading.
I do recognise your attempt at irony, and history has shown that one power has been achieved by a party, they are loathed to yield it up and step down.
I'm too much of a contrarian to be even a good anarchist much less a true follower of any party line.
For your musical entertainment
https://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2021/08/for-your-musical-entertainment.html
Apologies for prattling on
Apologies for prattling on but I suppose it is incumbent upon myself to explain why I do not believe that once captured through the electoral process, the State will remain intact and in the hands of Parliamentarians. Bakuninists have said it is a forlorn hope
I think the Communist Manifesto indicates why it won't happen that way
And as Eugene Debs said
“I would not be a Moses to lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you into it, someone else could lead you out of it.”
ajjohnstone wrote: LBC, can I
ajjohnstone
Yes it was autonomous. Afaik most members were involved in other organizations of Spain's anarchist movement: CNT, FAI, and Juventudes Libertarias. But they were their own thing.
Autonomously organised but
Autonomously organised but not a separate ideology or differing aims, LBC?
They shared the aims of
They shared the aims of anarchist social revolution but added to that the aim of liberation for women and girls. So on the second thing they did have different aims, as most of their male comrades were not concerned with this.
I understand the desire of
I understand the desire of the ACG to get it out as an advert only initially given the need to recoup their print costs so made the effort to get a copy for myself and would recommend others to get hold of it as well. It is an excellent first, if short, attempt to distinguish a clear class struggle anarchist communist politics from what can reasonably be understood as 'identity politics' expressed across a broad range of everyday capitalist political culture from left to right. In following up on my earlier post #18 I'd just add that whilst in the section at the end referring to support for ''...autonomous groups, that still have a link to the general working class movement.'' is clear in its intent, some further clarity might help, in so far as I doubt that the ACG would necessarily offer support, critical or otherwise to every such separate 'autonomous group' that arises from time to time. And I guess that such support does not necessarily extend to treating the specific anarchist communist political organisation itself as a simple collection or federation of autonomous anarchist identifying identity groups?
The SPGB's Socialist Standard
The SPGB's Socialist Standard review of the pamphlet
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1407-november-2021/book-reviews-153/
Oh dear such a sad effort
Oh dear such a sad effort from the spgb, which starting off with a vaguely positive comment then spends nearly half the content trying to find something critical to say about its reference to 'autonomous groups' and then ''suspecting'' without any explanation that 'guess what'!! this must be about anarchist rejection of parliament, which enables them to conclude that this ''marks them out as a tendency which misunderstands an important element of how capitalism works'. Well for my part and many other genuine revolutionary communists that misunderstanding is very much in the camp of the spgb and its associated 'parties'. Of course the ACG could usefully spend a bit more time explaining their reference to 'autonomous groups' and the relationship between class and oppression but that is not an area of politics that the spgb can teach the ACG much about, (see my post #29 above).
I fear the ACG in their
I fear the ACG in their friendly email response to the spgb published in the current Socialist Standard have missed an opportunity to more effectively contest the spgb's bland rejection (as simply reformist) of any role for 'autonomous' class struggle based 'oppressed' groups as a contribution to the practical advancement of independent class struggle, by engaging in a rather abstract and formal debate on the merits or otherwise of communists using parliament (the spgb's favoured territory). They might have faired better challenging the spgb on its own claimed, if confused and limited, support for sections of the working class engaged in defensive action short of 'revolution' in relation to the merits of 'direct action', rather than referencing the failures of the Labour Party that both parties agree on.
The E-mail and the SPGB
The E-mail and the SPGB response
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2020s/2021/no-1408-december-2021/letter-from-the-acg/
The International Communist
The International Communist Current's review of the ACG pamphlet:
https://en.internationalism.org/content/17126/acg-and-identity-politics-very-inadequate-break
Overlap with the SPGB in the matter of 'autonomous' groups. (But without 'revolutionary use of parliament' involved in the matter!)