Aims & Principles

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ernest Everhard
Offline
Joined: 22-03-08
Mar 22 2008 13:14
Aims & Principles

Greetings Comrades,

I am new to Libcom so I hope you dont mind me asking a few questions abour the Anarchist Communist Federation. [An organisation I was once linked with a number of years ago].

Is the ACF what is commonly termed a "platformist" group. Your aims and principles don't make this clear. I thought that the organization wasn't. But you sell what I understand to be platformist literature like the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism and Role of the Revolutionary Organisation. I would be grateful if you could clarify this for me.

I was also under the impression that one of the key organisational tenets of anarchist -communism was the establishment of workers councils - but I note this is omitted from the aims and principles?

I look forward to hearing from you

Your fraternally

Ernest

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Mar 22 2008 14:42

No we are not platformist. Some members are influenced by platformism, some call themselves platformist, most wouldn't call themselves either.

And yes, a key element is the establishment of workers councils. They are referred to in other pieces of our literature.,

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 22 2008 15:23

Role of the Revolutionary Organisation is not platformist, it merely asserts the need for a revolutionary organisation, something platformists do not have a monopoly on and never have.

David UK
Offline
Joined: 5-09-04
Mar 25 2008 11:16

The AFs line is that it adopts from platformism, but is critical of it in other ways.

little_brother's picture
little_brother
Offline
Joined: 30-01-06
Mar 27 2008 16:50

It's also worth noting that Role of the Revolutionary Organisation is written by us, whereas the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism is by George Fontenis (1953) but published by us - we recognise that it is flawed and say so here: http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/

The best thing you can read to understand AF's approach to organisation is to look at section C2 of http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html which is more recent than Role of the Revolutionary Organisation.

You can also read more about our influences here: http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue52/roots.html

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Mar 29 2008 17:00

Presumably you will be revising Section C2 'Industrial' in terms of 'workplace resistance groups' 'permanent organisation' and 'alternative unions' now that a good section of your organisation are actively promoting the IWW in Britain, or is this self proclaimed 'industrial union' perhaps a 'workers resistance group' in disguise?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 8 2008 09:39

Hmmm...tricky one isn't it. In the US branches of the IWW have recently been found to be acting as badly as any other union, but in the UK it definitely seems to be doing good stuff and many AF members see it as the closest we've got to 'workers resistance groups'. Maybe we'll just have to be vigilant for when to stop supporting it and start denouncing it!

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Apr 8 2008 10:23
nastyned wrote:
In the US branches of the IWW have recently been found to be acting as badly as any other union, but in the UK it definitely seems to be doing good stuff

Hmm...

To me it sometimes looks the other way 'round.

Actually i think there is lots of good stuff on both sides of the pond, and some serious problems.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Apr 8 2008 11:17
Quote:
Actually i think there is lots of good stuff on both sides of the pond, and some serious problems.

This is just an inevitable function of branch autonomy surely, with the solution being to either accept that some branches are weaker (ie, less militant and more prone to lying down) than others and slug it out in the delegate meetings when any fed-wide issues come up, or for stronger branches to club together and start bashing away at weaker branches until they get their act together – expelling them if they can’t do so.

First option is likely to lead to more growth, but severe weaknesses in the main union down the line as militants are outnumbered and policies will get watered down as a result, second option is likely to kill growth but lead to a more cohesive end product.

A third one of course would be to consolidate current gains by doing a combination of the two (ie, hammer at/get rid of the worst offenders while vetting any new entrants/blocking weak links, initially killing growth until the membership is more reliably militant, and then open the doors again).

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Oct 9 2008 17:29

Any news on your promised clarification of your groups workplace strategy as referred to earlier in this thread?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 10 2008 16:32
Spikymike wrote:
Any news on your promised clarification of your groups workplace strategy as referred to earlier in this thread?

We're still working on this. It doesn't look like we're going to have a final version until some time next year.

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
Oct 30 2008 10:28

The draft is looking good, and its been a very educational and interesting process to be involved with. smile

Personally I think its healthy that we're taking the time to discuss the issues at length (and lots of other interesting discussions have been spawned from it too) to work through disagreements and explore options. As a relatively new AF member I've been pretty impressed with the internal processes but I realise that from the outside you can't see any of that.