The direction of the AF

209 posts / 0 new
Last post
Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Mar 8 2009 21:16
Jonathan Cottam wrote:
you will there for recruit a lot of people who who Django considers to be "loonies" I was surprised that this started off a whole lot of loonie calling because that is really backward, and in fact, it is the post left or insurrectionalists like 325 who seem to recognise mental health issues more, dedicating part of their site to it, it is extemely offensive for people like django to designate people "Loonies" people with mental heath issues are a very oppressed group who do not have the same rights as other people these comments wil drive them into the woodwork where they can not express their oppression, in my view also Django's comments are still ill informed and not helpful, and he was responsible for most of the flaming, if he had called women "bitche's" he would most likely of been removed, yet he can call people who may or may not be mentally ill loonies.

You are being completely dishonest. Where have I called you a loony, or flamed you? In fact, I've gone out of my way to be polite.

What comments are ill informed and unhelpful? How can they be worse than calling for anarchists you don't agree with to be shot.

Feel free to give any examples of me flaming you, or "designating" you a "loony". The strongest thing I've said is to call your reasoning "bizarre." That you are coming out with demonstrable bullshit like this should tell readers a lot about your accusations about the AF.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Mar 8 2009 19:49
Jonathan Cottam wrote:
I know that the mainstrem anarchist movement is dominated by young middleclass men, there was even a thread on acod that revealed that not only are a huge amount of people university educated, but come from priviledged back grounds in the first place

The fact that there are so many unemployed graduates, and graduates doing unskilled work which doesn't require a degree tells you a lot about how useful university education is as a barometer of class.

The "middle class" is a mostly useless concept. If it were being used to refer to a class of management it might be useful, but here you are using it in sociological terms, and describing a section of the working class.

jonathan cottam
Offline
Joined: 12-07-07
Mar 8 2009 20:05

Everything breackout said. Compadre!! laugh out loud

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Mar 8 2009 20:14
breakout wrote:
Quote:
who in any case often bastardise the ideas by taking class out of the equation and attacking a hilariously two dimensional strawman that they present as 'leftist' anarchism, as is the case with Bob Black.

Django, this is just not true.

I think you have not even read the most basic texts from the insurrectionist current, like this one, I quote now from, a question of class:

"We think that the concept of class is not only valid, but necessary. It is an instrument to guide us through the flux of the various aspects of social reality. What we are not interested in are the mystical claims about the destiny of the industrial working class"

"While we reject the marxist claims to the historic role of the industrial working class above all the other exploited, it is obvious that society is still divided into opposing classes. The terms of this division are changing with the modification of capital. It is important to recognise this in order to address our attack towards the right objectives in the struggle."

Also, Bob Black does not identify as 'insurrectionist', afaik.

the end of the myth of the centrality of the working class.
Now, in a situation where the working class has practically disintegrated, the possibility of an expropriation of the means of production no longer exists. So what is the conclusion? The only possible conclusion is that this set of instruments of production we have before us be destroyed.
...
This collective subject, who was probably mythical from the start, no longer exists even in its mythical version
- Bonanno, The anarchist tension

jonathan cottam
Offline
Joined: 12-07-07
Mar 8 2009 20:20

You called people loonies, a lot of people have used that term on here. I will check that but I'm sure it was you, it is much worse than sayng solfed should be shot, which was a glib comment but I doubt it opppressed a real section of society. To define a social section as working class to demonstrate their greater oppression, including by some of the people who oppress them such as teachers and social workers and doctors, some of whom are the priveledged members I refered too. Do you want to glaze over peoples oppression so no one can point the spot light at you and others some of whom may be part of that oppression. I would rather use a different class analysis which is still a class struggle analysis, that is to categorise as excluded and included, white priveledged males might well join the excluded but they are included, the wide definition of working class used by you was largely not used in the eighties when most of the movement was working class in a social sense, your lot have taken over and expanded the sense into one used by autonomous marxists. You are glazing over important differences to avoid poeple pointing the finger at you, I expect you to cybertrol this message and not get the point, since you have only recently, if at all shown any sign of wanting a reasonable discussion, something you still seem to find hard, I think maybe you should relax, run a bath and have a spliff, then post on here.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 8 2009 20:25

I'm in solfed and I thought that was pretty fucking cold dude, I'd definitely rather have a 'what a loon' insult thrown at me (where did django say it btw?) than a 'I want to shoot you and all your comrades' one - which to be honest does come across a bit, well, mad.

Edit: Actually I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply, clearly he's only actually thinking about what people write when they agree with him.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 8 2009 20:42
jonathan cottam wrote:
You called people loonies, a lot of people have used that term on here. I will check that but I'm sure it was you, it is much worse than sayng solfed should be shot, which was a glib comment but I doubt it opppressed a real section of society. To define a social section as working class to demonstrate their greater oppression, including by some of the people who oppress them such as teachers and social workers and doctors, some of whom are the priveledged members I refered too. Do you want to glaze over peoples oppression so no one can point the spot light at you and others some of whom may be part of that oppression. I would rather use a different class analysis which is still a class struggle analysis, that is to categorise as excluded and included, white priveledged males might well join the excluded but they are included, the wide definition of working class used by you was largely not used in the eighties when most of the movement was working class in a social sense, your lot have taken over and expanded the sense into one used by autonomous marxists. You are glazing over important differences to avoid poeple pointing the finger at you, I expect you to cybertrol this message and not get the point, since you have only recently, if at all shown any sign of wanting a reasonable discussion, something you still seem to find hard, I think maybe you should relax, run a bath and have a spliff, then post on here.

Jon, I think you're getting Django mixed up with other AFers on this thread, he hasn't called you a loony and he hasn't said anything that could be considered trolling. He's also not a university graduate, so far as I know.

To be honest, I find it quite ironic, you attacking AFers for supposedly being university graduates/students (two out of three for me, incidentally), while making a big deal out of the recent struggles in Greece, where students were a big part of the movement.

It's innevitable that people with a lot of time on their hands and no major personal obligations are going to feature quite prominently among activists in non-revolutionary times, which tends to mean students and young unemployed or casually employed people with no family. Really, being a student or a university graduate in today's Britain doesn't confer any great deal of social privelege on you anyway, of the few students I know personally, most work part time, some work full time in addition to full time studying, those who have no job and don't live at home or have wealthy parents tend to struggle quite a bit with money.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Mar 8 2009 20:57
jonathan cottam wrote:
You called people loonies, a lot of people have used that term on here.

I'll ask you again, where?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Mar 8 2009 21:13
Rob Ray wrote:
Edit: And what the fuck are you talking about with the Italians? Was there or was there not a fascist coup which wiped out most of the anarchist movement and drove the rest of it underground?

I thought this point was about the followers of Galleani in the US, who some consider to have been more successful and had less repression than the IWW due to their violent militancy. I'm not entirely convinced as the IWW were pretty violently militant, and Sacco and Vanzetti were still judicially murdered. But as i said earlier there could be a useful discussion in here somewhere. I did find Galleani's 'The end of anarchism?' an interesting read .

Dumfries
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Mar 8 2009 21:38
BlackStarNorth wrote:
. My subs were collectable and I was contactable, as proved when I was abruptly sent the farewell message. Therefore my removal was purely for the words I expressed in what was a private mail.. And that's all I can tell you without ever repeating a word.

I have now read the message that you sent to the Scottish comrade and it seems to me that either you were not aware of what you were saying or you are purposefully trying to make it seem that you were "expelled".

Reading your message it would seem to me that you do not want to be in the AF. From your message:

Message wrote:
I'm sorry to say that I now consider the AF to be a ‘roadblock to revolution’ to coin a comical Trotskyite phrase. And from now on I will instead be giving my intellectual and moral support to the recently formed Preston Collective.

That seems pretty clear to me that you no longer want to be a member of the AF. I can post the whole message if you like? In any case, if you are saying that your intention at the time was contrary to what you wrote then why write it? If you wanted to stay in the AF why say what you said?

I think it's completely unfair of you to make these accusations that we expelled you when in actual fact the Scottish comrade interpreted from your message what anyone would have: That you didn't want to be a member of the organisation.

If you are saying that you want to be a member and this was a mistake then that's great, but that clearly isn't the case, is it?

jonathan cottam
Offline
Joined: 12-07-07
Mar 8 2009 22:37

Aparently it was not you who used the term loony Django, it was some other AFers, I would not go so far as to apologise given some of your other posts, but I concede you didn't write it.

madashell I don't think I am attacking AFers for being students, if I have that is not my intention, it is my intention to define them socialy so I can differentiate with a more oppressed group whose struggle they should understand. Its my class analysis that students do not fall in to one of the most oppressed group of society and to do so is to cloud over real differences such as being able to identify some one whose culture is 'lower' because of their oppression as a mentalist or a loon. It is sometimes very difficult for me not to flame up because of the things that go round in my head, granted there are many working class people who have managed to extricate themselve from this social problem, but in my view, I was called a loony because of the problems of my oppression, and do have difficulties sometimes, even with other anarchists, who can not relate to my cultural norms, I have many friends and comrades who are students and I don't think the proletariate is the leadership of the people by destiny, I am just very concerned that the problems of oppressed groups are realised and not swept under the carpet, for instance, how am I to come across to some one whose father was a lawyer or what ever, who lived in a big house, as in any way normal when I lived on the roughest estate in Preston, had to fight for my life a lot of the time and had confrontations every day, including years in Prison? I have been able to get around it because I have had enough of a stable social environment at periods in my life, for instance political involvment, but still my habits, social mannerism remain underclass.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 8 2009 22:53

It's fair enough if your norms are to act in a certain way jonathan but that shouldn't mean you start trying to make yourself out to be the big man because of your activism and declaring everyone who isn't with you 100% to be basically against you. There's cultural norms and there's acting like a jackass.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Mar 9 2009 00:10
jonathan cottam wrote:
madashell I don't think I am attacking AFers for being students, if I have that is not my intention, it is my intention to define them socialy so I can differentiate with a more oppressed group whose struggle they should understand. Its my class analysis that students do not fall in to one of the most oppressed group of society and to do so is to cloud over real differences.

If we're looking at it this way, students are much less 'oppressive' of the poorest in society than members of the skilled working class. My mate training as a teacher will never earn as much as my uncle, who is a well-off electrician, without taking up some kind of managerial position.

I have actually been to uni, but can only get unskilled clerical and retail work, and thanks to the recession clearing lots of that out have been unemployed for three months. I'm much worse off, financially and in terms of prospects, than mates of mine who never went to uni but trained as plumbers, etc. I hope to start an apprenticeship in September, which would lead to becoming a highly trained manual worker - a course which, like the work I get, I could have done without a degree and the debts involved. Given apprenticeships in this kind of work definitely lead to above-average salaries, unlike university degrees, I think I'll be more 'oppressive' of the 'underclass' when I'm training for a skilled blue collar job than when I was a student. These days, going to uni is what kids who do well are expected to do even though you are pretty likely to end up in a badly paid clerical, retail or callcentre job at the end. Calling students 'oppressive' doesn't make any sense at all to me. And as Madashell pointed out, many students are also workers. The fact that the future is so bleak for many students in Western countries was a big factor in the youth revolt in Greece, which you've been talking about approvingly as proof of your politics.

So by the same token I don't see much difference between unskilled work - whether its data entry done by graduates, or someone packing boxes in a warehouse - as unskilled work. I don't see much of a difference between skilled work whether its 'middle class' skilled work, such as teaching, civil servce or nursing, or 'working class' skilled work, like mechanical fitting, oil and gas line maintenance, train driving, etc. And historically its tended to be the better off sections of the working class who have been most militant - autoworkers for instance.

There are of course issues with kids who go to uni being disproportionately from higher-income earning families, which simply reflects the fact that kids who do well at school are disproportionately from higher-income families.

Jonathan Cottam wrote:
It is sometimes very difficult for me not to flame up because of the things that go round in my head, granted there are many working class people who have managed to extricate themselve from this social problem, but in my view, I was called a loony because of the problems of my oppression, and do have difficulties sometimes, even with other anarchists, who can not relate to my cultural norms, I have many friends and comrades who are students and I don't think the proletariate is the leadership of the people by destiny, I am just very concerned that the problems of oppressed groups are realised and not swept under the carpet, for instance, how am I to come across to some one whose father was a lawyer or what ever, who lived in a big house, as in any way normal when I lived on the roughest estate in Preston, had to fight for my life a lot of the time and had confrontations every day, including years in Prison? I have been able to get around it because I have had enough of a stable social environment at periods in my life, for instance political involvment, but still my habits, social mannerism remain underclass.

Its fair enough if you've had a tough lot. I sympathise. I don't think anyone would deny that there are differences within the working class. But thats not the same as saying that if you are sociologically 'middle class' you are 'oppressing' someone who isn't.

It certainly doesn't excuse unfounded accusations (who has called you a loony?), calling people Stalinists, and calling for anarchist comrades you disagree with to be shot.

jonathan cottam
Offline
Joined: 12-07-07
Mar 9 2009 00:34

Django, it may surprise you that I agree with most of what you said, some middle class jobs do have an imediate effect on sections of the working class, such as social workers, in the vien of what you said about skilled workers we could also include cops as oppressors of the working class. A comment I made was taken as off tilt mentally and started a discussion on loonies being attracted to the anarchist movement, I find this offensive to me and the mentally ill. The mentally ill in this country suffer an oppression akin to that of a police state. They are monitored by social worker and CPN's constantly they can find themselves frequently being moved or coming from the roughest of estates, they can be pretty much arbitrarily locked up and for an indefinite period, life in some cases, for a minor act of self defence, I don't think theyre fair game, and to talk about "loonies" the way some people talked about it on here is deeply offensive. A mate of mine was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia after a psychotic episode on amphetamine, years later he was picked up after a small fight where two people were slightly injured, he was imprisoned and a psychiatrist said he was unfit for trial after a year in prison, he was then taken to a secure hospital on a section 37/41, he was entitled to a tribunal every year in front of a judge, an magistrate and a forensic psychiatrist, he remained there for another seven years even although he was well through out, because the doctor said he would get ill and reoffend, I wouldn't like to say to him, join the anarchist movement, fight your oppression to hear comments like that, and there are a lot of people in the anarchist movement who do suffer or have suffered from mental ilness.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Mar 9 2009 01:18
Quote:
and there are a lot of people in the anarchist movement who do suffer or have suffered from mental ilness.

That's very true...

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 07:06

I would like to congratulate the AF on getting rid of this person. The problem if anything is that you didn't expel him earlier. To me there were two very clear reasons to do it. Firstly, he had very different politics than you (the thing about him being pro-angry brigade for example), and secondly he completely violated organisational discipline (by not paying his dues), well done AF.

To address some of the more recent points on the thread:

Jonathon Cottam wrote:
To define a social section as working class to demonstrate their greater oppression, including by some of the people who oppress them such as teachers and social workers and doctors, some of whom are the priveledged members I refered too. Do you want to glaze over peoples oppression so no one can point the spot light at you and others some of whom may be part of that oppression. I would rather use a different class analysis which is still a class struggle analysis, that is to categorise as excluded and included, white priveledged males might well join the excluded but they are included, the wide definition of working class used by you was largely not used in the eighties when most of the movement was working class in a social sense, your lot have taken over and expanded the sense into one used by autonomous marxists.

Before getting on to your point Jonathon, I would just like to reassure you that I am not a university graduate, left schools at 16, and have spent the majority of my working life doing manual jobs.

As I remember it, and I was a member of a UK anarchist organisation back in the 1980s, teachers were not widely defined as middle class. In fact it came up from two sources, one outside anarchism the council communist group 'Wildcat', and in the anarchist group 'Class War'. I can't comment on the sociological origins of the people putting this line forward in 'Wildcat', but the ones that I heard putting it forward in 'Class War' were certainly the most (upper) middle class ones. Incidentally Class War was the only place I ever (knowingly) met people who had been to public school in the UK and they were amongst the ones putting forward those arguments about teachers.

In reality, teachers have always historically been see as a part of the working class by the workers movement, and indeed in some countries including ours have been at the front of the struggle. The big public sector strikes in Palestine a few years ago would be a good example.

In reality the whole concept of class being argued by Jonathon here is a sociological concept used to divide the working class.

Actually though, Jon, just to tarnish my credentials a little, my wife is actually a doctor, the kind of doctor who joined with other doctors as well as nurses and ancillary staff at her hospital in taking strike action last year during the general strike, obviously complete middle class scum standing there on picket lines trying to integrate themselves with the 'real workers'.

Actualy I am not going as far as to say that all doctors are proletarians, but I wouldn't say that none of them are either.

Django wrote:
I have actually been to uni, but can only get unskilled clerical and retail work, and thanks to the recession clearing lots of that out have been unemployed for three months. I'm much worse off

Django, I don't think that you should approach it like this. It isn't really a competition about who is the most oppressed, and I certainly don't think that you should apologise for going to university and having a degree. I wish I had gone, but then I suppose I have quite a reasonable job now, and am probably better paid than you so it is swings and roundabouts. I don't think that working class people should have to apologise if they have a few nice things in their life though.

Devrim

Dumfries
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Mar 9 2009 08:21

Dev,

Jonathan wasn't expelled and he certainly wouldn't have been expelled for not paying his subs.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Mar 9 2009 08:26
Jonathan Cottam wrote:
Django, it may surprise you that I agree with most of what you said, some middle class jobs do have an imediate effect on sections of the working class, such as social workers, in the vien of what you said about skilled workers we could also include cops as oppressors of the working class.

Sure, I didn't write it for the sake of some forum war, but to have a political discussion about something which is important and relevant.

Cops are workers, in terms of their relation to capital. But they are unquestionably part of the coercive apparatus of the state, and so don't deserve our support (unless of course they stop being cops and come over to our side in a revolutionary situation - but this is a good way off)

Theres a difference between the role cops, prison guards, professional soldiers etc play, and the role teachers, medical staff and similar workers play. There may be coercive aspects to their jobs, but there has been a significant coercive side to the retail work I've done (watching CCTV, being sent to follow suspected shoplifters, reporting thefts to the cops etc). There was an element of coercion of customers when I was working in a library too, or at least the threat of it.

Devrim wrote:
Django wrote:

I have actually been to uni, but can only get unskilled clerical and retail work, and thanks to the recession clearing lots of that out have been unemployed for three months. I'm much worse off

Django, I don't think that you should approach it like this. It isn't really a competition about who is the most oppressed, and I certainly don't think that you should apologise for going to university and having a degree. I wish I had gone, but then I suppose I have quite a reasonable job now, and am probably better paid than you so it is swings and roundabouts. I don't think that working class people should have to apologise if they have a few nice things in their life though.

Devrim

Sure Dev, I agree with you - plenty of people I know who didn't go said they would have loved to spent three years with access the learning resources I had. I was making a point to criticise Jonathan's logic about students forming an 'oppressive' strata of society, which is why I followed this up by talking about how the militant blue collar manual workers that letists often fetishise are often in the better off section of the class.

For me, and for the AF, class is about your relationship to capital (i.e. the w/c is those dispossessed of it who need to work for a wage). Sociological definitions, or definitions based on income aren't useful. Senior management, etc, however are on the other side.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 08:34

Yes, John I realised that. I wrote:

Devrim wrote:
I would like to congratulate the AF on getting rid of this person. The problem if anything is that you didn't expel him earlier.

I meant expel him earlier than you got rid of him (however it happened). Maybe it didn't come out like I meant it to.
On the point of the subs, surely if somebody doesn't pay their subs for a long period they are not a member of the organisation. There is, of course, a difference between somebody going to the treasurer and explaining that they have lost their job and can not pay, and somebody just not paying.
But then as the AF subs are so low I can hardly see that being a problem:

AF wrote:
You also get to pay dues! Sadly as we live in a capitalist world we need money to do stuff. The lowest rate is £16 a year for unemployed people, £24 for those with a job. It goes up depending on how much you earn. We reckon 1% of wage or salary is reasonable – but obviously people with kids aren’t expected to pay the same as those without.

In my opinion people who aren't prepared to contribute to the organisation and take part in its activities can't be members. What is the point of having subs if people don't have to pay?

Devrim

Dumfries
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Mar 9 2009 09:07
Devrim wrote:
On the point of the subs, surely if somebody doesn't pay their subs for a long period they are not a member of the organisation.

No.

Quote:
In my opinion people who aren't prepared to contribute to the organisation and take part in its activities can't be members.

Well, you're not a member of the AF, so...

Quote:
What is the point of having subs if people don't have to pay?

People do have to pay them and they do, but not doing so doesn't mean you're not a member.

Of course if not paying subs is coupled with being uncontactable and not participating in the organisation then of course you can't consider yourself a member in any meaningful way.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 09:20
Joe Roe wrote:
Well, you're not a member of the AF, so...

Well no, but then I wasn't talking about the AF, I was talking about organisations in general.

What you seem to be suggesting though is that subs are an option for members, which to me is absurd.

Devrim

Dumfries
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Mar 9 2009 09:21
Devrim wrote:
Joe Roe wrote:
Well, you're not a member of the AF, so...

Well no, but then I wasn't talking about the AF, I was talking about organisations in general.

What you seem to be suggesting though is that subs are an option for members, which to me is absurd.

Devrim

If people can pay, they do. If they can't, they don't.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 09:42
Joe Roe wrote:
If people can pay, they do. If they can't, they don't.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you have members who can't afford £0.30 a week. I am sorry, but I think that is laughable.

Devrim

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Mar 9 2009 10:53
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you have members who can't afford £0.30 a week. I am sorry, but I think that is laughable.

There are a few in that situation, yes. Not everyone gets benefits. In any event the few I know like that make money for the organisation by volunteering on WBC events.

Dumfries
Offline
Joined: 17-05-04
Mar 9 2009 11:40
Devrim wrote:
Joe Roe wrote:
If people can pay, they do. If they can't, they don't.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you have members who can't afford £0.30 a week. I am sorry, but I think that is laughable.

Devrim

It's got absolutely fuck all to do with you and I really don't care what you do or do not find laughable. Laugh away...I'm under no obligation to justify AF members sub payments to you.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Mar 9 2009 12:14

Its fairly amusing to see a member of the ICC describing the AFed as laughable grin

While I'm in favour of strict and moderately high subs you're always going to need exceptions frankly.

jonathan cottam
Offline
Joined: 12-07-07
Mar 9 2009 12:30

Devrim. apparently I am responsible for all the bad will on here yet you say "I would like to congratulate the AF on expelling this person."

Is that constructive? you know nothing about my time in the Anarchist Federation, you basing your view on me on a few posts, further all the information is wrong.

You say I should of been expelled because "Clearly he has very different politics from the AF, such as supporting the Angry Brigade" All I have to say about that is that about twenty AFers on that thread came out in support of the Angry Brigade, fot which you would have them expelled"

You say "The social view of class in the 80's came only from class war" isn't that a good excuse for your wife, in fact the whole of the Militant, a group of eight thousand people and the majority of said movement would never of considered any one, teacher or doctor etc, as working class, it was a blue collar organisation, I was in it I know.

It seems for a lot of people on here, it doesn't matter what is said if it is said to me because of course I'm the "loonie" to use some ones very offensive word. i don't suppose what you said is offensive then because you used nice middle class words. Considering every one was really oh so reasonsonable I suppose it was all in my head why I was crying in front of my girlfriend that night, havin also just found out we had acumulated debts we had no way of paying. From what a lot of people said I am quite glad to be out of the AF, even worse out the circumference of some of its fellow travellers. There has been lieing, manipulation on here, and backwards attitudes, but no it was all me, portrayed as a lone 'nutter', isolated and quantified so nothing I could say would be a threat, has been what a lot of people did on here. Most of things said about Preston, that they were not active in the AF, didn't contribute to IB's, left of their own accord fraternally, could'nt be got in touch with, these things are lies, half lies and exagerations.My view is, yes, there were reasons to doubt our keeness on being AF members, but the timing was all to convenient, when you say we were uncontactable, it plainly isn't true, there were AF members in Preston you could of used to contact us, when you say, you could not contact us through email, clearly you could, since we all realised straight away we had been taken off AF membership. And when some one says "we contacted Preston AF and had reasonalble discussions about them leaving" then the whole thing is aparent to me, this person is lieing to do two things, portray me as a lone voice, disgruntled, as in, "Preston are reasonable its just him." then as "they were given every oportunity" the AF covers its back. Some else says, "I'm glad you're making a clown of yourself because it discredits what you were saying" not offensive words those are they? They are also the admission of a tactic that has been used. The whole thing smells of public school bullying.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 12:36
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Its fairly amusing to see a member of the ICC describing the AFed as laughable grin

I wasn't referring to the AF, but to the idea that people can't afford to pay £0.30 a week in subs. I am not really sure what that would buy in the UK, but I imagine that it would be less that the price of a Mars bar for example.

vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
While I'm in favour of strict and moderately high subs you're always going to need exceptions frankly.

From the figures I have heard, I think that subs in UK anarchist organisations are pretty low. I don't think it is a general anarchist thing. AKİ in Turkey for example set subs at 10% of income, ten times higher than the AF, (and also higher than the ICC's).

Of course there can be exceptions. I agreed with that before, but they must be discussed with the treasurer, not somebody just not paying.

Organisations need money. Django addresses another aspect of it earlier in the thread:

Django wrote:
Yeah I think its fair. An eight page paper once a month and a thirty page magazine twice a year isn't particularly impressive for an organisation of our size. This has come up before here actually, by comparison to what (the late) EKS and the Commune were doing. I think the Commune, though I have political differences with them, should be setting the benchmark for activity given how much they do with a fraction of the that membership we have.

Fortunately the ICC press in Turkey makes money.. However, I know this isn't true for WR in the UK and I doubt it is true for the AF either. The publications of revolutionary organisations rely on their members subscriptions. It is not only this though. The whole activity of an organisation relies on its budget. How would we pay the rent on our office, or the train tickets to send members to demonstrations in other cities if we didn't have money?

Paying subs can not be 'optional'.

Devrim

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Mar 9 2009 12:51

Dev - paying subs isn't optional. But as you say there are exceptions. Many of our comrades work for the organisation over the summer months - pulling pints at music festivals and donating the money to the AF. That is also how we keep our subs low.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 9 2009 12:54
jonathan cottam wrote:
Devrim. apparently I am responsible for all the bad will on here yet you say "I would like to congratulate the AF on expelling this person."

Is that constructive? you know nothing about my time in the Anarchist Federation, you basing your view on me on a few posts, further all the information is wrong.

Actually the line you quote from me in speech marks isn't accurate, but never mind. I don't say that you are responsible for all the bad will. I don't think that that has anything to do with it. I think though that support for armed actions such as those of the angry brigade has no place in revolutionary politics. I would be for expelling people from an organisation that I was in if they supported those type of actions. I have respect for many AF members and presume they have very different politics from cheer leading those sort of groups.

Do you think that people with totally different politics should be in the same group?

jonathan cottam wrote:
You say "The social view of class in the 80's came only from class war" isn't that a good excuse for your wife, in fact the whole of the Militant, a group of eight thousand people and the majority of said movement would never of considered any one, teacher or doctor etc, as working class, it was a blue collar organisation, I was in it I know.

Actually, I was talking about within UK anarchism, and here you have completely made up the quotation in between the speech marks. On the point of the Militant though, I can personally remember meeting many members of the militant who were teachers, and as for the whole idea of them being 'a blue collar organisation' they controlled the civil service union the CPSA at one point. In the industry that I worked in, the Post Office, I met more clerks in the Militant than postmen.

As for my wife, I don't need an excuse for her. She isn't a communist, and she doesn't need to excuse what she does for herself.

Devrim