DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Do you guys have an organisation in Ireland?

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
greasy
Offline
Joined: 21-01-08
Jan 21 2008 19:48
Do you guys have an organisation in Ireland?

Interested in anarchist organising in Ireland and kinda like some of your stuff. Are you organised in Ireland?

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 21 2008 20:33

The Anarchist Federation in Ireland merged with the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation and Anarchist Prisoner Support to form Organise!

You can contact us at organiseireland@yahoo.ie if ya wanna.

All the best;

Boul

playinghob's picture
playinghob
Offline
Joined: 5-05-07
Jan 21 2008 22:29

...and what is the relationship with the Workers Solidarity Movement?

Dust
Offline
Joined: 6-02-06
Jan 22 2008 00:20

Hey Greasy,

The WSM is another anarchist goup in Ireland. - www.wsm.ie
We have 3 branches in Dublin and one in Cork as well as contacts all over the place. We are busy getting other branches set up around the country at the minute too. We are active in lots of campagins (rossport, weelocks, pro choice etc) as well as in our unions and communities.
We produce a paper every two months and a bi annual magazine.

The other anarchist group that springs to mind is the radical anarcha feminist goup (RAG). The are based in Dublin and hold women only discussion circles on a weekly basis produce a magazine.

eta: Sorry guys. Just noticed that this was in the AF forum. embarrassed

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 22 2008 11:11

[refer to next post]

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 22 2008 12:18

WSM is organised in the north and south and so too (at least until recently?) is Organise, both organisations certainly aim at being all island in spread. In terms of making a choice the best thing would be to review the publications and activity of each, you'll get a good idea of what is going on from their respective web sites and I'm sure both organizations will provide further detail if you email / meet them.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 22 2008 12:26

really?

woops, i had no idea.

will edit my post.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 22 2008 12:52

actually it's slightly more complicated smile Isn't it always? But, if you like the AF's politics, you'll probably find Organise closer to you. In the end, though, the important thing is to be actively working in a group. You'll probably find enough in either group you agree with, but as I say, Organise is closer to us - though not the same.

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 24 2008 23:33

There will be a wsm branch in Belfast in the next couple of weeks, so feel free to get in touch at www.wsm.ie

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Jan 25 2008 01:16

How many teachers, lecturers and students are in the WSM? Better not tell Bobby.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 25 2008 17:26
revol68 wrote:
guydebordisdead wrote:
Turning them away now. Class. They should definitely join the AF and be the only member.

hardly turning them away, just being honest, there are a few differences between Organise! and the AF politically, we certainly wouldn;t want people thinking we are the Irish equivalent, especially since they have a member in Ireland and all.

which is what I said and I'm AF as you know.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 25 2008 22:36

Mind you, it'd be interesting to actually get together and sort out what are the differences between the AF and Organise ...

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jan 26 2008 06:36

Great thread!

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 26 2008 12:53
MJ wrote:
Great thread!

i know i thought it was a pretty good effort grin

Long way to go tio reach american standards, but not a bd start.

PS - knightrose, what are our differences? Revol68 is probably our main bone of contention. Not a large one, mind you wink

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 26 2008 19:57

I'm not too sure what they are. Organise are more syndicalist. I'd really like a chance to meet up and discuss things face to face. Presumably as we operate in the same political entity there ought to be enough common issues?

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Jan 28 2008 13:15

I think the offer should extend to the WSM also.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 28 2008 13:46

seconded with much gusto.

jack white
Offline
Joined: 7-04-05
Jan 28 2008 20:32
Volin wrote:
I think the offer should extend to the WSM also.

I think this is an interesting idea. Speaking with my International Secretary hat on I think that if you want this to happen the best thing would be to send us an email. wsm_ireland (at) yahoo (dot) com

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 28 2008 23:44
guydebordisdead wrote:
I think the differences are rather obvious though no? Positions on unions and national liberation, attitude towards organisational issues too.

I think the AF should finally reply to the AWG - http://struggle.ws/awg/to_acf_2.html

grin

ha ha ha, yeah:

wrote:
The Anarchist Workers Group will continue the task we have set ourselves: the building of a libertarian communist workers organisation capable of winning the battle of ideas and making our revolutionary politics a Ieading influence in the working class. To this end we are always willing to debate with any groups or individuals sharing those aims.

Continue the task, as in fold after five minutes and all become trotskyists?

lol

Not that i have any major disagreement with you guy, but fuck me, pick a better group to champion.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 29 2008 03:22

I think he was bring sarcastic. This was a good thread though.

David UK
Offline
Joined: 5-09-04
Jan 29 2008 13:59

I'd join the WSM in a heartbeat if I lived in Ireland. I wish there was an equivilent organsiation in the UK, I have some issues with their politics on a purile level, but that's an acceptable compramise.

I'd reccomend joining the AF if you lived in England, but as you dont...

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jan 29 2008 15:04

The AWG? What a joke that was!!

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 29 2008 18:29
guydebordisdead wrote:
Regardless of what a joke the organisation turned out to be, your reply to their letter is the real punchline here.

I don't see why the ACF's reply is funny. Obviously they thought that there were real political differences that were to great to breach. What is wrong with that?
Devrim

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 29 2008 19:05

Why bother replying?

You never had to live with the AWG. Disruptive and arrogant - even ended up having a fight with No War But the Class War, if I recall. That was when they sided with Saddam, if I recollect correctly. Basically trots even when claiming to be anarchists.

Don't confuse forms of organisation with politics. (This btw is coming from an AFer who has sympathy for the Platform)

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 29 2008 21:03

calm down dear, its just a commercial.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 29 2008 21:08
georgestapleton wrote:
I think he was bring sarcastic.

nah grin

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jan 29 2008 21:10
guydebordisdead wrote:
Devrim wrote:
guydebordisdead wrote:
Regardless of what a joke the organisation turned out to be, your reply to their letter is the real punchline here.

I don't see why the ACF's reply is funny. Obviously they thought that there were real political differences that were to great to breach. What is wrong with that?
Devrim

Funny in the context that the same differences addressed in the letter remain between WSM and AF (more or less).

[/pers cap]

Yeah but AF was right then and they're right now.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 29 2008 21:49
knightrose wrote:
Basically trots even when claiming to be anarchists.

But what made them 'Trots'? Yes, I know some of them ended up joining the RCP, but why did people think they were Trots before? Was it their politics, historical analysis, organisation practices?

GDID wrote:
Funny in the context that the same differences addressed in the letter remain between WSM and AF (more or less).

I can see what you are saying though I think that the WSM's politics are national liberation are not as 'strong' as the AWG, and maybe the AF's position on the unions is not as 'hard' as it was.

Devrim

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 29 2008 22:07
Quote:
Funny in the context that the same differences addressed in the letter remain between WSM and AF (more or less).

Having met a fdew of you guys, I'd suggest that they are a bit less than more these days.

I presume you didn't go running around at the start of the first Gulf War telling folk to support Saddam? They did. They just parroted the "lesser of two evils" line that was doing the round of the trots at the time.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 29 2008 22:18
Devrim wrote:
maybe the AF's position on the unions is not as 'hard' as it was.

Well, the ACF's original position was:

Quote:
Trade Unionism, as it is presently constituted, plays an important part in maintaining class exploitation, insofar as it regulates and justifies it through collective bargaining and bureaucratic structures. Nevertheless, it is important to work within the trade union movement, in order to build up a rank and file workers' movement which encourages workers' control of struggle and cuts across sectional boundaries.

Which later became:

Quote:
Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trades unions divide the working class (between employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist unions are constrained by the fundamental nature of unionism. The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different from ours. The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it, we have to realise that reforms we may achieve today may be taken away tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be the complete abolition of wage slavery. Working within the unions can never achieve this. However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist communism. What's important is that we organise ourselves collectively, arguing for workers to control struggles themselves.

I like the first one better, myself, though I wouldn't say one was "harder" or "softer" than the other.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jan 29 2008 22:37
Quote:
Knightrose: as our int sec said, just get your secretary to get in touch if you want better relations -

I've already emailed him about something else. The issue of better relations though is something that has to come through our Delegate Meeting. Mind you, as I said, or implied, the reality of relations on a personal level isn't that bad, is it? It strikes me that both organisations should try stopping shouting at each other - and I know I've been guilty of it in the past.