AF and nefac

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 29 2006 01:56
AF and nefac

Whats this about the AF helping set up nefac...?

just read this elsewhere, could have, probably have, must have the wrong end of the stick....grin

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Nov 29 2006 20:14

If think we were quite influential.

I believe Little_brother is the person you need to speak to regarding this as he was international secretary to north america at that time.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Nov 29 2006 21:52

**this is all in my humble opinion, from my brief and tumultuous NEFAC years**
Well I wasn't around at the Great Morgantown Founding. But I'd say that the WSM and Alternative Libertaire were greater influences on NEFAC politics than any other groups. The man to ask would be Mark from boston. Mark if you're lurking please clear this up. Didn't your newspaper "we dare be free" start the whole thing off?
Currently I'd say that FdCA and WSM and the espeficistas in south America have much more influence on NEFAC. In fact you never really hear about AF over in the states at all; where as I've personally printed and distributed WSM pamphlets; and have been to an Andrew Flood speaking tour.
About the only thing I've seen from AF EVER here in the states in any medium or forum has been Odessa's critique of Parecon which I totally agree with and which pissed off a certain faction of NEFAC Baltimore. So I'd have to disagree with this idea that AF is some sort of wellspring for NEFAC.
Just one man's humble and possibly wrong opinion.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Nov 29 2006 22:02
guydebordisdead wrote:
How come nefac has good politics then?

;)

I refer you to my previous answer

wink

jack white
Offline
Joined: 7-04-05
Nov 30 2006 05:11

error

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Nov 30 2006 05:42

My understanding from some of the founding members is that AF was an original influence, but thw WSM et al became bigger influences early on.

Also the AF provided a lot of help between the two collectives in Boston and Quebec who provided the backbone of NEFAC's foundationary efforts.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 30 2006 13:36

NEFAC isn't in IFA is it..?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Nov 30 2006 13:44

No

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 30 2006 13:48

We're in the ISL.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 30 2006 13:49
MJ wrote:
We're in the ISL.

gotta link? smile

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 30 2006 15:28
revol68 wrote:
it had economic and political networks.

except it didn't (Jack beat me too it)

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Nov 30 2006 22:20

I can see the site just fine. It's http://www.ils-sil.org/

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 30 2006 22:51

ra, there's some pretty sweet groups in the ISL smile

can someone tell me when and why it was launched? Neither the wiki nor the site do, tho zabalaza refer to it as 'new' on their site circa 2002.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 30 2006 23:07
MJ wrote:
I can see the site just fine. It's http://www.ils-sil.org/

wow man that page is an antique! really going for the retro style there. I like it, but are you sure the international workers movement are hip to the amiga-retro fad?

PS - seriously tho, it doesn't list NEFAC or the WSM[edit] it does, but says they are still 'considering membership' in another bit of the site]

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Nov 30 2006 23:31
Tacks wrote:
Whats this about the AF helping set up nefac...?

just read this elsewhere, could have, probably have, must have the wrong end of the stick....grin

Yeah, the A(c)F was pretty insturmental in helping us get our feet on the ground. They wrote an article in like '98 or '99 in Organise! called 'Quiet Americans' that gave an overview of the North American anarchist scene. They mentioned an anarcho-communist newspaper project I was involved with at the time, and an initative we started to form a federation in our region (which was very much influenced by the politics and structure of the ACF, among other groups). From that article some francophone comrades in Quebec City contacted us and together we launched NEFAC in 2000. Throughout that early period we got alot of direct support from AF comrades, and we continue to have friendly relations today.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 1 2006 00:58
Tacks wrote:
ra, there's some pretty sweet groups in the ISL smile

can someone tell me when and why it was launched?

SIL was launched at an "international libertarian meeting" in Madrid in 2001, if I remember correctly. They never really did too much, though, and at the moment, they seem pretty dead.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Dec 1 2006 01:20
Felix Frost wrote:
Tacks wrote:
ra, there's some pretty sweet groups in the ISL smile

can someone tell me when and why it was launched?

SIL was launched at an "international libertarian meeting" in Madrid in 2001, if I remember correctly. They never really did too much, though, and at the moment, they seem pretty dead.

that's a shame; their website seemed to suggest they were going to be pretty active.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Dec 1 2006 04:45
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Tacks wrote:
Whats this about the AF helping set up nefac...?

just read this elsewhere, could have, probably have, must have the wrong end of the stick....grin

Yeah, the A(c)F was pretty insturmental in helping us get our feet on the ground. They wrote an article in like '98 or '99 in Organise! called 'Quiet Americans' that gave an overview of the North American anarchist scene. They mentioned an anarcho-communist newspaper project I was involved with at the time, and an initative we started to form a federation in our region (which was very much influenced by the politics and structure of the ACF, among other groups). From that article some francophone comrades in Quebec City contacted us and together we launched NEFAC in 2000. Throughout that early period we got alot of direct support from AF comrades, and we continue to have friendly relations today.

I was talking to a certain old school member from baltimore about NEFAC's relationship to AF on the phone the other day, and he put it a different way.
"sure AF was influential at first. thats why we had such a crap ambigious position on unions. Thank god we purged the ultra-left crap early on. One of the good things we got was the name, then they went and changed it; backsliding crypto-synthesists, thats what I say."

grin

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Dec 1 2006 04:49
OliverTwister wrote:
My understanding from some of the founding members is that AF was an original influence, but thw WSM et al became bigger influences early on.

Also the AF provided a lot of help between the two collectives in Boston and Quebec who provided the backbone of NEFAC's foundationary efforts.

i'm so sick of you knowing more than me. You're from atlanta and you're twelve and you know more about the organization I spent two years in. Damn you Oliver! Damn You!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2006 14:20
revolutionrugger wrote:
"sure AF was influential at first. thats why we had such a crap ambigious position on unions. Thank god we purged the ultra-left crap early on.

Er, but now you've got NEFAC members becoming full-time union bureaucrats haven't you? So maybe that's not such a good thing...

What is the truth of the whole NEFAC union official thing? Is it just one ex-member, or is it more or what?

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 6 2006 14:28

When I was in Ireland in the summer I heard a NEFAC member speaking in Dublin (Wayne), at a meeting oragnised by the WSM. Frankly there wasn't much there to distinguish his politics from any vaguely libertarian trot. He had been in Love and Rage and expalined about L&R's views on Race and National Liberation. He then said he was now an anarchist, but mentioned nothing about a change in either set of views. My presumption is that they remain the same. He also expressed incredibly reformist views about the unions. He did seem to be very hostile to the AF - and for once I had kept my trap shut and not stirred things up.
Others in the AF have told me that he does not reflect the views of all of NEFAC and that there is a range of opinion there. If so, then good.
Personally, I'd rather stick to my ultra-leftism and not get into bed with one faction of capital or another.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Dec 6 2006 14:57

I'd along with that, but my impression is that the NEFAC is far from homogeneous

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 6 2006 15:02

If I may, Wayne's views are generally his own and are reflective of his many past lives. I would suspect there are some in NEFAC who take different points of view.

He's a decent and sincere enough person though. I have known--and argued with him--for many years. When he and the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL)were transiting we (NY WSA, then the Libertarian Workers Group)had a public forum in NYC on "Anarchism & Marxism: A Dialogue" and I'd say his views are still pretty close to what he expressed then (1984ish). One day we'll see if we can transcribe this discussion, it appeared in print form in #5 issue of "ideas & action" (Winter 1985)

Wayne likes to write and much of his current stuff is on anarkismo.net. He likes to debate so ...

--mitch

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2006 15:14
knightrose wrote:
When I was in Ireland in the summer I heard a NEFAC member speaking in Dublin (Wayne), at a meeting oragnised by the WSM. Frankly there wasn't much there to distinguish his politics from any vaguely libertarian trot.

Yeah, his views on national liberation are pretty terrible, for example - but they do contradict NEFAC's aims and principles.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Dec 6 2006 16:07
Quote:
Yeah, his views on national liberation are pretty terrible, for example - but they do contradict NEFAC's aims and principles.

What does that say about NEFAC?
Does it answer guydebordisdead's comment

Quote:
How come nefac has good politics then?

We may be the wimpy synthesists, but we do take our A&Ps pretty seriously.
I'll be honest that I know little of NEFAC's views. I'm only commenting on what I heard one NEFAC member say.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2006 17:29
John. wrote:
revolutionrugger wrote:
"sure AF was influential at first. thats why we had such a crap ambigious position on unions. Thank god we purged the ultra-left crap early on.

Er, but now you've got NEFAC members becoming full-time union bureaucrats haven't you? So maybe that's not such a good thing...

What is the truth of the whole NEFAC union official thing? Is it just one ex-member, or is it more or what?

Ugghh... for the hundredth time, we have exactly one ex-NEFAC member who is a lead organizer for a union. He's the infamous "bureaucrat" in NEFAC... who ironically has not been a member, or even lived in the northeast region, since 2003. We also have a few ex-members, and one or two current members, who are low-level paid union organizers. I think we might have a supporter who is also a union researcher. Everyone got it now? Cool.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2006 17:34
John. wrote:
knightrose wrote:
When I was in Ireland in the summer I heard a NEFAC member speaking in Dublin (Wayne), at a meeting oragnised by the WSM. Frankly there wasn't much there to distinguish his politics from any vaguely libertarian trot.

Yeah, his views on national liberation are pretty terrible, for example - but they do contradict NEFAC's aims and principles.

Like Mitch said above, Wayne speaks for Wayne and generally represents one pole (which on many issues is a pole of one) of thought within NEFAC. I would argue that while some of his specific opinions or positions are not generally shared by the majority of people in NEFAC, I have yet to see him outright contradict any of the common politics of the group.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Dec 6 2006 17:44

I love Wayne. He's awesome. I think the problem is more that he never learned to express his theoretical points in an anarchist framework, and still uses a trotskyist rhetorical style and terms.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2006 18:03
revolutionrugger wrote:
I love Wayne. He's awesome. I think the problem is more that he never learned to express his theoretical points in an anarchist framework, and still uses a trotskyist rhetorical style and terms.

I like Wayne too. He's a really good guy and a dedicated revolutionary. Whether I always agree with his conclusions or not, I have a ton of respect for him. He's not out to make some academic name for himself. He really wants anarchism to become a relevant force, and occupies himself researching and writing about all sorts of different issues... particularly ones that are often untouched or left purposely vague by many other anarchist writers. But yeah, I think you're right that alot of his problem is that his rhetoric is very mechanical, and he falls back on alot of Trotskyist framework for his arguments.

booeyschewy
Offline
Joined: 18-10-06
Dec 6 2006 20:38

that makes a lot of sense. I think outsiders can see him as being the 'party-line' of NEFAC since he's so prolific, and we're not privy to the internal debates. I think that's a problem for a lot of groups, some people write a lot (usually the most educated members), others don't, and groups get judged based on who writes.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2006 21:19
booeyschewy wrote:
that makes a lot of sense. I think outsiders can see him as being the 'party-line' of NEFAC since he's so prolific, and we're not privy to the internal debates. I think that's a problem for a lot of groups, some people write a lot (usually the most educated members), others don't, and groups get judged based on who writes.

Honestly, from day one we have gotten attacked no matter what we've ever done. If it wasn't something Wayne published, it would be any number of other things... us not having the perfect line on national liberation, unions, or whatever else... that we're leftists, class reductionists, closet Leninists, soft-Trotskyists, liberal reformists, or whatever other generic insult regular gets thrown our way... that we're soft on union bureaucracy (because, unbeknownst to us, apparently we have a bunch of members who are fat cat union bureaucrats)... or hate animals and the environment... or not ultra-left enough (or else, too ultra-left.).. that we're too academic... or anti-academic... or else, just straight-up violent thugs...

Ho-hum...

*sigh*