WSM (Ireland) is no more

As I wrote on my FB page (Mike Harris):

Political disagreements aside, always sad to see the demise of organizations that comrades put lots of time and effort into.

My own contacts with the founders and early members of the WSM go back to the late 1970s. Of course, the WSM was formed in 1984.

The small crew who organized WSM were brave souls in a new land, so to speak. Starting from scratch, both in terms of being the sole anarchists in an Ireland, with a small tradition of anarchism and very non-anarchist workers and social movements. The hills were high and the valley's low. Although the WSM politics were not my own, the small dedicated group worked hard and tirelessly at what they did.

In time WSM grew, expanded and made a name for itself, both at home and abroad. Their on-line and paper resources became notable and substantial.

Although I do not agree with the WSM's position on anarcho-syndicalism, I do believe that for most of its history, the WSM tried to create a working class anarchism. One based in the class struggle. And one that was both within "the class" and intersected with social struggles as well.
As it grew, new people came and went. New areas of activities engaged. For the most part I did not really know the new folksin any meaningful way. Being a generally loyal friend and comrade, my personal affinity has always been with those who sought to build a working class anarchism in Ireland.

Having been a part of a small organization myself (which was also formed the same year as the WSM), I can understand the stresses and strains of trying to maintain a small organization. And the challenges of trying to blend nearly four decades of practices with each succeeding generation of new members.

In thinking about how to close these short words, I am reminded of these verses by the late, great reggae band, The Whalers:

"Good friends we have, oh, good friends we've lost
Along the way
In this great future, you can't forget your past"

Very sad news.
I really rated the WSM and the paper Workers Solidarity as one of the few cogent succinct Anarchist groups.
They were streets ahead of the junk that passed for Anarchism and were a testament to what Anarchism could and should be.

A very short statement with no clues as to the reasons behind this decision. I would have expected a good deal more from the WSM - maybe they or other individuals active in the WSM in the recent past might elaborate in time?

From the Leftist Trainspotters FB page as background for some of the issues which probably leads to its decision. Although a look at the pages of the WSM over the past year sort of indicates its drift.

But I would agree, a more detailed explanation might be of value. Unless, of course, there was no unity around what the final official statement would contain. Or leaving the door open to other things.

"NI: Here’s an analysis of the WSM from one of the future WP people:
https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/bronterre/2012/08/16/the-wsm-a-political-analysis?fbclid=IwAR3OfP3WtNenSFDVNcSB6Iz28JvluUNjIej8xllVMFq1O04i8oPzpvN-XjQ

Here’s a reply by a central figure in the WSM: https://anarchism.pageabode.com/the-wsm-fighting-the-last-war-a-reply-to-james-obrien/…

Here’s a commentary on the exchange from another ex-WSM member who is still an anarchist:
https://kfdoyle.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/anarchism-ireland-wsm/?fbclid=IwAR19oOZJh1xtGYrh3jVnjKI41YKm6_W3eYfDPZ8k-wkU6aWxMErmFZXpQXs "

One of them just did a podcast interview a few weeks back:
https://www.leftarchive.ie/podcast/31-aileen-ocarroll-workers-solidarity-movement/

I have also had political disagreements in the past with WSM folks, but I am also very sad to hear this news. It does seem to be part of a general decline of anarchist organisations in the Anglophone world over the past couple of decades, which is a shame.
What I think would be really helpful is if some former members of the group undertook some work to write a detailed history of it, explaining what went well, what went badly, and what people can learn from their experiences. We would love to host that in the libcom library.

Sad news indeed.

WSM

We intend to maintain existing WSM material on and offline as an archive. We also intend to develop discussions around what the legacy of the organisation is, its achievements and lessons to be drawn for the future.

Glad to hear the archive will be available. And a discussion of the lessons to be drawn from the 37 years of the WSM sounds like a valuable project. Whatever form this is made available in, whether writing or audio or whatever, I hope you'll post it here on libcom.

Steven.

It does seem to be part of a general decline of anarchist organisations in the Anglophone world over the past couple of decades, which is a shame.

That is a shame. In your observation, or the observation of anyone reading this, does this coincide with a decline in, for lack of a better term, "revolutionary leftist" organizations in general? There are some Trotskyist organizations that seem to have disappeared or become much less active, but maybe these have been replaced by other organizations (Trot or otherwise) that I'm not aware of. I'm out of the loop so don't really know.

Steven

What I think would be really helpful is if some former members of the group undertook some work to write a detailed history of it, explaining what went well, what went badly, and what people can learn from their experiences. We would love to host that in the libcom library.

There was an article in Freedom that mentioned something along those lines:
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2021/12/09/ireland-a-farewell-to-the-workers-solidarity-movement/

Former members of the group will be working their own retrospectives over the course of this winter, with a great deal more still to be written about it.

Lucky Black Cat

In your observation, or the observation of anyone reading this, does this coincide with a decline in, for lack of a better term, "revolutionary leftist" organizations in general? There are some Trotskyist organizations that seem to have disappeared or become much less active, but maybe these have been replaced by other organizations (Trot or otherwise) that I'm not aware of. I'm out of the loop so don't really know.

Dunno, hard to say. Would be interested to see the numbers if anyone has any but I don't think there is much in the way of hard figures on this stuff. As has been discussed here and elsewhere, Momentum and the DSA at their heights were probably much larger than any comparable "socialist" project in their countries in recent years; but Corbynism is now very much over and I dunno much about how the DSA's getting on at the moment. And then you have the recent rise in Stalinist groups, but again I don't know what the actual numbers involved in those are.

Good news about those people planning on writing up some retrospectives.
In terms of your question, LBC, I'm not really that familiar with the workings of other left groups. But just from my personal experience, it seems to me that while numbers of people sympathising with anarchist/revolutionary socialist positions in general seems to be growing, most organisations themselves seem to be shrinking or dying.
Perhaps this would be better as a new thread…
With Stalinists, certainly there has been a huge rise in the number of online Stalinists, however I'm not sure about any actual significant growth in Stalinist groups. It seems to me that despite what many of those people say, that they believe in centralism, discipline, absolute dictatorship, etc, most of those people online don't actually seem to be members of official Stalinist organisations. Presumably because they don't actually enjoy being ordered around and told what to do in real life…
With anarchist/revolutionary socialist groups, I can't help but feel that part of the reason for the decline is the growth in social media and the Internet generally. Probably the primary purpose of most left/anarchist groups historically has been producing propaganda/media, like leaflets, newspapers, magazines etc. And because this is quite onerous/expensive, it made sense to join an organisation to put one out. However, nowadays, all you need are social media accounts and website, which anyone can have. And plenty of individuals have way bigger audiences for their ideas than most far left organisations.
In some ways this is a good thing, as is any kind of democratisation of the media, but in many ways I think the decline of many of these organisations is quite sad. And I really wonder what the "anarchist movement", for want of a better word, might look like in, say, 20 years time…

With anarchist/revolutionary socialist groups, I can't help but feel that part of the reason for the decline is the growth in social media and the Internet generally.

And I really wonder what the "anarchist movement", for want of a better word, might look like in, say, 20 years time…

It's a troubling thought. But I guess I'm a hypocrite because I'm not part of an organization and focus on making youtube videos, so I'm part of the problem you describe.

In some positive news, my local Wobblies, which my partner has been active in for many years, has seen big growth since the pandemic began. Not sure if this is the case elsewhere.

Lucky Black Cat

It's a troubling thought. But I guess I'm a hypocrite because I'm not part of an organization and focus on making youtube videos, so I'm part of the problem you describe.

In some positive news, my local Wobblies, which my partner has been active in for many years, has seen big growth since the pandemic began. Not sure if this is the case elsewhere.

Me too, completely. Personally I've tried being part of organisations a few times, but never particularly enjoyed it. Unfortunately it takes a huge amount of effort just to keep organisations running, so normally a small number of individuals and having to spend much of their time just on internal organisational work, which is vital, but then at the same time can make even nonhierarchical, anarchist organisations seem like they are run by small groups of people. But without those dedicated individuals the groups normally fall apart…
Also, in my personal experience many lefty/anarchist groups are also extremely toxic environments on a human level, and so I don't have the energy to get involved in them anymore.
That is positive news about your local IWW. Although not to just be a massive Debbie downer, but my impression as an outsider is that the IWW does seem to be a group which occasionally gets big bursts of growth based on things happening in the news (Occupy, Trump etc) which then just eventually fades away when the reality of years of potentially fruitless hard slog organising sinks in to optimistic new recruits.
Anyway sorry, I do just seem to be being a Debbie downer…

It does seem to be part of a general decline of anarchist organisations in the Anglophone world over the past couple of decades, which is a shame.

If we were to be brutally honest this decline applies to many other organisational tendencies as I keep reminding my own party of its gradual extinction much to their displeasure

The Libcom website's lack of exchanges also reflects the sad state of the Thin Red Line groups.

It too has become an important depository of archival material but little more.

When it comes to actual political action and possessing influence, I detect that we grasp at any involvement, no matter how peripheral as witnessed at COP26.

As for an answer to the way out, I have no idea. I'm waiting for the wisdom of collective class consciousness.

I have put tentative proposals to my own party but those have borne no fruit as yet.

Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic, but I sort of see potential in recent American strikes and the growing popular sentiment of the absurdity and hindrance of capitalism (having billionaires zooming around in rockets while everyone else crawls along, or gets buried under factory rubble) in light of what our production is capable of. There are also a number of unresolved systemic/imperialistic issues (such as ecological disasters and resource depletion due in part to capitalism's end-in-itself pursuit of growth/profit; growth in productivity and the displacement of living labor from the production process; the possibility of conflict with Russia and China, etc.), which while maybe not pointing directly to a socialist society, certainly don't point to the continuation of capitalist "civilization" forever.

No complaints here about the Debbie Downer thing, and also no complaints about Adri's optimism. Realism means taking account of the full picture, both the Debbie Downer side and the Adri Optimist side. For the short-term (my lifetime) I'm pretty pessimistic, though not without hope, and for the long-term I'm an optimist. I think as long as humanity manages not to make itself go extinct we will eventually reach libertarian communism, even if it takes many centuries. At a certain level of economic productivity the rules of capitalism, wage labor, rationing through the use of money, etc. become so blatantly absurd that this absurdity will be apparent to anyone, and communism will just become common sense. I expect it will still require a class struggle and I doubt that will be easy, but at least it will be easy to convince people that communism is the way to go. But that doesn't mean I think we should just sit back and relax and let history take its course. The sooner capitalism is abolished the fewer the number of generations who will have to live and die under these miserable conditions.

Then again, if AI killer robots replace armies and cops, and AI robots build the killer robots, and AI robots mine the ore for the factories, and AI robots ship that ore, then maybe we're fucked forever. Shit, it doesn't get more Debbie Downer than that!

Agree with much of what you say here, LBC. Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say I was generally pessimistic. Just pessimistic about the organisational prospects of I guess pretty much any of the currently-existing anarchist/libcom groups around. This is a very different kettle of fish to the working class/world as a whole.

I'd caution people away from generalising too much. Often its tempting to see the rise and fall of organisations as being to do with larger trends, but often things are much more circumstantial, particularly when you're talking about platformist groups which usually only ever have a few dozen really active people. At that scale, the dynamics of the group are still very much on the individual level.

In Australia there's been like three new anarchist organisations formed in the past year. All three are pretty stable and are consistently active in various things. That's pretty significant for a country with a fairly sleepy anarchist scene all things considered.

You could point to general trends in the background that might potentially explain it all, but from an insiders POV it's much more micro scale: four or five friends involved in student activism get bored with trotskyists and identity politics people, and start doing a reading group about anarchism. They manage to pull together some friends to come along and find some random anarchists floating around the place in the process. Said group stumbles on especifist and platformist texts and reckon they sound pretty good. Yada yada yada, many months, meetings and lengthy diatribes later, an organisation forms. It's a process that I feel could have occurred at any other point in the past 20 years yet for whatever reason didn't.

And I guess it could be much the same things happening in other places that instead result in the disintegration of these small organisations, rather than their growth. I know the WSM was significantly hampered by small handfuls of people leaving, some on more "platformist" grounds, others to go join Marxist parties.

On a slightly different note to the issue of the apparent decline in revolutionary groups, personally, I have really enjoyed being in anarchist communist organisations. Not that the experience hasn't had its ups and downs. But I have made very good friends through the organisations I have been in. I have also had a decent political/historical education by participating in those groups. I have also met many excellent revolutionaries over the years which I probably wouldn't have if I hadn't been in various organisations.
I also think that organisations that actually publish and distribute real magazines and pamphlets and distribute those on the street etc. have some significant value in connecting with people — and having real conversations about life, struggles and resistance in the everyday world.

In regard to the origins of the "Arshinov Platform" it was developed in the mid-late 1920's to assist anarchist federations etc to meet the challenge of the rise of the Communist Parties based to some extent on a misunderstanding of the lessons of the Russian Revolution/Bolshevik takeover of 1917. ( In particular due to the absence of a well established union bureaucracy due to the effectiveness of the Czarist State repression and the Okhrana. In addition the lack ofa mass long established and experienced syndicalist union movement See Voline's book and analysis "The Unknown Revolution". )
At that time in the mid to late 20's the anarchist movement in many counties was hard hit by the rise of the Communist Parties and the rise of Fascism but still overwhelmingly a current in the revolutionary workers movement . Those involved in developing the Arshinov Platform would have been unaware at that time of the subsequent tremendous growth and predominance of mass Stalinism in many countries (to the left of Social Democratic formations or replacing it etc) and seizure of State Power in Eastern Europe toward the end of WWII with the aid of the Red Army. Mass Stalniism seized State Power in various countries in Asia in the post WWII period. In the late mid to late 1920's Stalin had just won factional struggles in the Russian Communist Party and was just establishing predominance and then pursuing forced collectivisatiosn/Industrialisation and then the purges. The "Arshinov Platform" proved ineffectual in meeting the Stalinist Challenge on an international level. Also if anarchist groupings were drawn into competition with the Stalinism - they could be drawn into their vanguardist/Stalinist ways - some anarchist groups identifying with the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) seemed influenced in this way in the early 1930's according to researches by Chris Ealtham. However those involved in various anarchist federations would not have come out of a period extending over 4-5-6 decades heavily shaped by the predominance of mass Stalinism and then the Trot and Maoist groups (the latter in some countries thanks to the US Deep State and FBI according to new research). were heavily affected by the Stalinist legacy considering these depraved ways as a "normal" patr to the leftist political culture and sort of "unconscious". The Stalinist parties were about to seize control or major influence in many countries labour movements. Even here in Australia they came close by a few votes to controlling the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions). Some very interesting new research shows even from the mid to late 30's they had acquired important industrial muscle eg in the Maritime and other unions intimidating the Federal Govt. from outlawing the Communist Party and probably even other left groups. They also of course had Moscow Gold and important international Stalinist contacts and an associated loyal bureaucracy
to maintain the stability and predominance of the CP's for many decades unlike say Trotskyist and anarchist/syndicalist groups/unions succumbing to devastating splits .
So given this back ground and in the wake of the 1968 worker/student global upsurge and gradual decline of mass Stalinisn we can see that so called "anarchist groups" like the WSM in Ireland and other counterparts influenced or not by the Arshinov Platform, were drawn from a very different social base - if you read their documents and met some of them from a mostly students and lower middle class social base and were obviously influenced by the ways of political parties particularly informed by Marxist Leninism and others - seeking to copy their ways . So drawn into support for Arshinov Platform and "unconciously" influenced by the Stalinist legacy and predominance on the. left internationally unlike those drawn into support for the Arshinov Platform and "anarchist party" of the mid-late 1920's.
So given the above social base and influence I see the WSM more as in the sect spectrum - very much copying Trot group/leftist party ways with positions on every issue under the sun and campaign particularly associated with middle class oppressive mongering and the hopeless perfecting of dimensions of capitalist society, The mad recruitment rubbish amongst "activoids". They were active in the Teachers union but that was in line with their social base - workers with high levels of autonomy in their jobs eg teachers. In their twilight years they were drawn into the Stalinist legacy/left middle class subcultural "political correctness" displays of "safe spaces policies.
They were not focusing on one strategic sector - eg transport sectors utilising their limited numbers and resources via some "salting" and their periphery to link up with militant networks in the sector (involving decades of solid work) who due to the decline of Marxist- Leninist groups with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and advances of Neo-Liberalism they would possibly be open to collaboration. In this way helping counter the employer offensive - slow its tempo and be a better position to confront this "crisis" they complain about in their documents and establish the means to help launch strike waves movements (which can lead to major breakaways from the corporate unions) in this context like in France May 1968 the union bosses may be forced to call even General Strikes. Also as mentioned above in the Australian case in the 30's the CPA (Communist Party) was able to avoid a big harmful "crisis" eg a big state crack down without even knowing about it via establishing control of various unions and acquiring industrial influence intimidating the Govt. eg Robert Menzies .
The WSM was unable to conduct the above appropriate strategy for a range of interwoven factors chiefly social base, the left political culture affected by the fortunes of Stalinist/Trot groups legacy, the bourgeois "identity politics" promoted by the capitalist setup and deep state and lack of industrial experience and historical research eg state waves and the employer offensive phases,

"On a slightly different note to the issue of the apparent decline in revolutionary groups, personally, I have really enjoyed being in anarchist communist organisations."

In part you may be referring to an aspect of the sect phenomena with such groups providing a "social club" particularly a student social club". Getting over the alienation of bourgeois society and excuses for social occasions. As outlined above with real revolutionary activity you would be looking at doing the hard yards on plenty of occasions - terrible forced marches in the industrial jungle to regain obscure strategic "hills" lost and must be regained at all costs under the harsh pouring rain, mud and slush of the employer offensive and neo-liberal push - not enjoyable at all on many occasions,

Asn, what you say about struggling to gain working class power in particular strategic industries, I think this is indeed important. But I found Rat's comment about enjoying their time in ancom orgs valuable because it provided an anecdotal balance against Steven's unfortunate experience of encountering toxic interpersonal bullshit. It's good to be reminded that these organizations can be welcoming, friendly places, especially for those of us who've had experiences like Steven, because when members of an organization tear each other down then that's going to sabotage whatever valuable work they may be doing.

According to Von Clauswitz in his book "On War" he refers to "friction" as a normal and obstructive part of military operations and the pursuit of military strategy by armies "the State on the March". We in the class war business wage "psychological" war. We don't normally fire lead bullets, we fire psychological ones which can be much more devastating. In the strategy I have outlined in my previous post, there would be some of this "toxic" atmosphere at times - that would be inevitable particularly give the small scale of organisation occurring and harsh conditions today in the Anglo World and elsewhere in contrast to other eras of major worker class struggle upsurges. You would be forced to collaborate with those who had important experience and skills and are reliable you normally would like to stay mostly well away from. In a large scale of organisation and more people hopefully more compatible to work with, this "friction" would be diminished but still there. Also in the scenario of the current situation of harsh circumstances which may suddenly worsen dramatically eg the COVID-19 outbreak and restrictions you are going to have higher priorities for concerns than this bit of toxicity,
There is the toxity which you would get with sects and cults associated with the unconscious Stalinist ways and hypocracy and deceit and the manipulation of the megalomaniac cult and sect gurus. That situation and grouping which may appear "formally" anarchist but in reality via an examination of their so called activity and documents would be revealed as not so. There is also the problem of different people with hidden agendas joing "formal" anarchist groups leading to toxicity.
In regard to the WSM I consider its formal party like organisation to be inappropriate to the above strategy I have outlined. I would recommend the network form - informal "clandestine or semi clandestine" organisation, Involving a "core" of trusted reliable militants and a periphery of less so but can conduct some regular work but cannot be entrusted with important long term important responsibilities. Needless to say there would be plenty of vetting. It would also be characterised by "need to know" and "compartmentalist" principles. Given in important industrial work you would be drawn sooner or later into a web of intrigue with the union bosses/bosses/ parts of the political establishment and the deep state. There would possibly be more "in the light" activity such as holding public meeting by separate compartments perhaps more open.
So this "being welcoming" is not as simple as it may look re the strategy I am presenting. But some could be drawn into this peripheral zone of work and network organisation.
In regard to Steven's point re dominant militants in groups - these days and say in the strategy I have outlined - they would have to play by necessity a more prominent active role. As I am sure in your "how to book to set up anarchist groups" there is not much mention of many people flaking out and endangering work, and many people's low morale so they don't do much or are more interested in participating in a pseudo church or cult outfit. Also the key militant in my strategy is also all about encouraging scientific processes and historical research and debate, Particularly industrial work related .Quite different than the sect/cult guru manipulation and misusing their experience and skills perhaps gained as union reps etc. Although I have noticed disturbingly that quite a few militant workers don't do much historical research and have an aversion to much reading of history books etc.

Well, thanks to ASN for illustrating some of the reasons why people don't want to spend time around anarchist groups, I suppose.