Why do I partially agree with the content of this article?
Many years ago I had illusions about the US and Europe, I thought, that kind of councilist tradition (like "Socialism and barbarism") and anarchist tradition of class struggle based on the principles of direct action and direct democracy there remained alive.
Unfortunately, the supporters of the Workers ' Councils are grouped into small sects (with all my respect to them), and so-called syndicalist-anarchists turned out to be in most cases (though not always) ordinary peaceful trade unionists who collude with bosses and appeal to state courts during labor conflicts.
But even this was not the main disappointment.
It turned out that most of the Western anarchism is not a class struggle at all, but some discussions on the topic of homosexuality, transsexuality etc: I'm sorry, maybe I don't know enough of that terminology, I studied Freud's classical psychoanalysis a bit, but I think even he would be surprised by such discoveries. But the most important thing is that I do not understand what the hell all this has to do with anarchism and the power of the workers' assemblies?!
Of course, anarchists protect free relations, so any person has the right to sleep with anyone, he can also consider himself anyone. But that incredibly active discussion around these things is some kind of painful phenomenon of degradation. I would understand if, as a result of all this, millions of gay and lesbian people joined the ranks of anarchists, but I am not watching anything like this. Some marginalized groups are discussing forms of human sexuality. But why? What do we care about that? If a person is an worker, engineer, teacher, nurse, doctor, etc., he's interesting to us as, and I don't care who he sleeps with. If he is a bourgeois, he is our enemy, and I, especially, do not care about his sexual partner...
Identity politics should be left to liberal human rights defenders. If they want to give someone humanitarian aid within the bourgeois society, let them do it.
Sexuality or orientation has nothing to do with revolution. Millions of homosexuals (or haw do you call them todey? queer? I don't understand your Newspeak) make excellent careers under capitalism and they don't care about us, and anarchists shouldn't care about them. Class relations of hierarchy and the struggle of self-organized labor or territorial communities became the historical cause of social revolutions from the Commune of Paris to the workers 'Councils of Budapest, from the Councils of workers' deputies in Sulaymaniyah to the people's Assembly in the Korean city of Gwangju. Everything else has nothing to do with the social revolution. There are NO other examples of revolutions.
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/it-somewhat-gives-me-vision-what-ongoin...
P.S. No censorship will shut the mouth of anarchists and supporters of the councils, who are fed up with all this endless and senseless fuss around bourgeois identity policy.
So I agree that the hypothetical of a reactionary picket line is a bad hypothetical to discuss this real issue.
The impression I've got (nothing quotable though) is that the person confronted was 1. Not a picture house worker but a minor trade union official 2. Is an actual TERF.
Given there is not a proper public accounting of the facts of this case, let's try to break down the possibilities:
1. Picturehouse worker somehow known to have shared some transphobic stuff, not an organised TERF
2. Picturehouse worker who's an organised TERF
3. Trade union official known to have shared some transphobic stuff, not an organised TERF.
4. Trade union official who's an organised TERF
I think it's fair enough to challenge person #4. #2 might be tricky (if they've doxxed people who went to support the picket or attempted to get them fired from their jobs? You couldn't exactly hang out with them as if nothing's happened so you'd either have to turn around or challenge their presence I'd think), #1 and #3 should be challenged but would agree a picket is not a good place to do it.
Taking person #4, we don't know who this person is, but I can think of another trade union official who I'd personally find it hard to avoid giving a mouthful to if I saw them in person regardless of circumstances: Paul Embery of the FBU, who also campaigns very publicly for stricter immigration controls:
Writes for Spiked Online: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/author/Paul%20Embery and speaks at their events https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/speaker/paul-embery/
Writes for the Sun about 'liberal elites' shafting the workers and this is why they vote for the BNP because there's too much immigration:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6206841/london-brexit-immigration-working-...
Lots of anti-immigration posts for Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/paul-embery/
Member of Blue Labour, campaigned for Leave.
Supporter of 'The Full Brexit': https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/the-full-brexit-allianc...
And here:
https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/the-full-brexit-allianc...
And head of Trade Unionists Against the EU which is an RMT/Arron Banks mash-up:
https://www.theredroar.com/2018/04/rmt-teamed-up-with-ukip-donor-arron-b...
Embery is giving trade unionist cover for wide ranging attacks on the working class, from massive, well funded right-wing national platforms. He's like the modern equivalent of Havelock Wilson except fortunately not an MP and the head of the union.
So on-principle if Embery turns up should you keep quiet?