Not unsurprisingly this split in the AF has attracted some unwanted
interest from other of the tiny groups claiming their place in the
anarchist and communist milieu - from some confused sympathy for the
'Communist Anarchism' element by members of the SPGB to outright
hostility towards both sides of the split and plain nastiness from the
sectarians of the 'Northern Voices' outcasts, well known for their
regular misinformation and lies directed at other anarchists. Not much
sign here of cooperatively tapping in to any 'collective knowledge'.
INEVITABLYChristopher Draper's witty account of the decline and fall of the rather pretentiously labelled 'Anarchist Federation', has stirred-up some chat room types who once spent their lives seeking out left-wing 'talking shops' in pub rooms. Michael Ballard, who on libcom uses the pseudonym 'Spikymike' and has lived in south Manchester for years, originates from the London-set and is one such figure. He seems to have moved to the Midlands as a student and later settled down into a career at Manchester City Council, ultimately rising through the incremental scales to ultimately reach the heights of Housing Manager.
Mr Ballard was very much a white-collar worker who fetishize the working class from afar. He solemnly pontificates upon what he pretentiously describes as 'the anarchist and communist milieu'. Milieu according to one dictionary means 'the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops'.
Yet just now it's easy to see that something has 'occur[ed] and develop[ed]',
with everything falling apart and with the Anarchist London Bookfair organisers
throwing up their hands despair rather than risk another disaster like
last year with the feminist constituency and the Trans community disputing with each other over the who has the right to use of the 'Ladies' toilets.
Mr. Ballard, who although now retired was always anxious to protect his status as a housing manager, has never been at the centre of any action in Greater Manchester. Though, he talks here of the 'anarchist milieu', he has never described himself as an 'anarchist' and he usually hangs around meetings pontificating on the actions of others: like the Manchester electricians fighting the blacklist who he challenged for their lack of consciousness of the 'class struggle' as a bit of a boss himself he knows all about 'class struggle'. Normally, these people represent an interesting 'type' who want to preserve their double life, often have very little to do with themselves, and on a recent thread Ballard has described himself as 'a loner' reduced to putting comments on libcom.
Yet, the fall out which followed with Nick Heath's 'Anarchist Fed.' splitting up, was a natural consequence of the slippage in Mr. Heath's strangle-hold on the federation, after several provincial sections took unilateral action supporting the trans-sexuals faction by signing open letters, and denouncing the feminists and the bookfair organisers.
REJOICE
– the Authoritarian Fraud has been exposed and the AF come unstuck! Once several AF branches issued an ‘Unauthorised’ statement on
the disruption of the 2017 London Anarchist Bookfair we knew they’d
be trouble.
Sharp eyed observers spotted the pronouncement
didn’t carry the imprimatur of AF’s Supreme Leader, KIM JONG
HEATH and predicted he might press AF’s nuclear button.
Admittedly Northern Voices thought he’d incinerate the enemy –
those branches and individuals who’d challenged THE PARTY LINE
would be expelled but instead the worms revolted and the Supreme
Leader along with his entire Politiburo were forced to walk the
plank! – Rejoice!
This
had to happen sooner or later. In the words of 'Monty Python'
this devastating split exemplified, 'The violence inherent in the
(AF) system' for AF was never really Anarchist nor was
it a Federation. In reality, AF was nothing more than a
small authoritarian political party, an ideological sect.
'Anarchist
Federation' sounds very open and free – not only
libertarian, but a federation composed of independent-minded local
branches but the name was always a con, chosen for marketing purposes
because the reality was deeply unappealing. If we go back to
1980 the Supreme Leader’s sect called themselves the Libertarian
Communist Group (LCG) with just 16 members who were regarded by most
anarchists as at best, 'Anarcho-Trots'.
As
if they were determined to rid themselves of the 'Anarcho'
part of the label altogether LCG then fused with the Marxist 'Big
Flame'! By 1984 this Great Leap Forward had resulted in
a party, BF, with a grand total of 17 members!
The
next move was to abandon 'BF' and create the 'Anarchist
Communist Federation', but as this moniker proved equally
unappealing the sect adopted the more consumer-friendly but utterly
deceptive 'Anarchist Federation'. Anarchism is
supposed to be a 'bottom-up' political philosophy, but
this wasn’t AF practice. Firstly there’s the
Catechism or core of compulsory beliefs and policies, or 'Platform'
as they prefer to call it.
To
join AF you not only had to fully embrace the Platform,
but had to have your belief and sincerity tested. Like the
Moonies, a couple of party apparatchiks would call on prospective
disciples to test out your worthiness before you were anointed with
AF membership. In a rare published interview, in 2003,
the Supreme Leader, admitted, 'Each member
has to agree with our ideas and is met by AF members before they
join'. Membership came at a cost, a compulsory levy on
your income was demanded. Lapses in regular payment or
ideological deviation resulted in denunciation and expulsion.
Of
course Comrade Nick Heath never referred to himself as, 'The
Supreme Leader', he preferred instead to call himself 'Battle
Scarred', but as his militancy was confined to a liking for
abusive language and a career as a librarian perhaps he meant,
'Battle Scared'.
KIM
JONG HEATH will doubtless come up with some new mini-political
party although, rather amusingly, at the moment he calls his faction,
'Communist Anarchists', whilst his Leicester
ex-Politiburo associate names his faction, 'Anarchist
Communists' ! A Federation of two.
There
is a positive role for a genuine, open, bottom-up, 'Anarchist
Federation' to play in Britain. Perhaps the faction
continuing the title, cleansed of the Supreme Leader’s
sub-Marxist faction might fulfil that role but first they’ll
have to ditch an awful inheritance of dishonest and authoritarian
practice.
Their
published support for the violent disruption of the Bookfair suggests
the new AF is no better than the old and in this
instance Bakunin’s familiar aphorism seems appropriate:
'The
urge to destroy (the AF) is a creative urge.'
A recently expelled member of the now fragmented 'Anarchist Federation' wrote a complaint about the group last August on libcom, he or she concluded the long epistle by describing the background of the organisation thus:
'Bureaucratic, formalistic,
bereft of ideas, willing to accept a group of leaders because they have
organisational power and its members do not, because they occupy all
spaces within the Federation, allowing no space to other ideas. When it
attempts educational work it is like being in school: there are things
that members must learn and learn to repeat back but never to discuss,
to explore, to refute or reject; that is not allowed.'
This individual account seems to form a basis for what is now happening in the AF, by suggesting the membership organisation was a sort of Sunday School for anarco-commissars who are only capable of cookbook analysis of an half-baked Marxist type..
Anarchist Bookfair Blues
Following the wild attacks on Helen Steel, and what have been described as the 'Radical Feminists' at the London Anarchist Bookfair last October, some elements of the Anarchist Federation outside London began issuing statements and signing open-letters condemning the organisers of the London Bookfair for their tolerance of critics of the proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act. The provincial groups which put the names of their factions to the open letters attacking the Bookfair organisers calling for 'disassociation' included such bodies as the 'AFED TRANS ACTION FACTION'; 'Edinbugh;Anarchist Federation'; Liverpool A.F.; and South Wales A.F.
At the same time there was a deafening silence from the A.F. high-command around Nick Heath in London. Clearly the open-letters published by the provincials were seen in London for what they clearly were, compositions of gross ineptitude.
What very likely followed were attempts by Nick Heath and his Metropolitan elite to get things under control by urging the bumbling provincials to withdraw their corny compositions attacking well respected anarchists like Helen Steel and the Bookfair organisers. Events resulting in the recent resignations of the central core 'communist anarchism' faction, is now demonstrating that that the attempts to get a grip on the provincial supporters of the Trans hotheads failed.
In this way the A,Fed embrace of the exotic Trans identity tendency has resulted in a disaster which would have been a little local difficulty in a bigger body like the Labour Party, but among the tiny tribes of political anarchism it represents the virtual extinction.from the body politic. By embracing gender politics Nick Heath and the AF have gained a few members, but ultimately it has bit them on the arse.*
Fleas Pretending to be Elephants!
On the 20th, November 2017, just over 3-weeks after the London Bookfair debacle the Anarchist Federation issued a Statement which included the following observations: 'The AF regrets that the opportunity has probably been lost to
transform the London Anarchist Bookfair – which in recent years has
developed into one of the most important and representative anarchist
events globally – into an environment where this situation cannot not
reoccur. Whilst the right of people to choose their gender identity is
not up for debate, discussion about the relationship between different
oppressions and their relationship to the wider class struggle are
nonetheless important.'
This is the kind of froth that the general public, if they troubled to
read it, will find wearisome, but to the people inside the bubble of the
interpretive community it may sound impressive. It's full of froth because their Statement is rooted in humbug and hypocrisy. It's hypocritical because members of the AF have often been at the centre of the troubles at the Bookfairs up and down the country.
In October 2012, Nick Heath dismissed the theft of books from a book stall at the London Bookfair by some AF members as 'an unofficial action by some people in the AF'. In December 2012, Nick Heath was at the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair orchestrating Barry Woodling expulsion through an Emergency Exit where he had to climb down a Fire Escape. In October 2013, there was an AF reported altercation outside the London Bookfair against Ciaron O’Reilly accusing him of being a 'rape apologist' for supporting Julian Assange. The Manchester Anarchist Bookfair took place without incident because of a deal struck between the management of the People's History Musuem and an editor of Northern Voices. In 2014, the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair was hit with problems because it became apparent that Ronnie Marsden of the Sol. Fed., Peter Good (Cunningham Amendment) and others were operating a lifetime ban against Barry Woodling, a lad of Jewish origins, who Mr. Marsden from 2012 has accused of being an 'anti-Semite', In 2015, the management of the People's History Museum, after Baron John Monks became involved, finally banned the anarchists around Ronnie Marsden from having any further Bookfairs, and as a consequence there was no Manchester Bookfair that year.
When in December 2017 Tony Wood, one of the distinguished organisers of the London Anarchist Bookfair, was interviewed on Dissident Radio in London** about the decision not to hold another bookfair in 2018, he referred to ongoing conflicts at bookfairs over the last 5- years. It is noticeable that during that period the tiny Anarchist Federation with little political clout in main stream politics, has been close to the centre of the bookfair disputes with the possible exception of the Syrian / Kurd conflict in 2016.
* On the Moral Maze, it was estimated that the Trans constituency
nationally represents about 0.1% of the population, A relatively small
social community, but one substantially larger than the AF membership,
which must be very nearly two in one million or less than 100 in total. In this situation it is not surprising that the gender politicians out-voted the Sunday School League class struggle types.
** Listen to Radio interview on
by Martin Gilbert (31.12.2017) Editorial Note: SINCE Martin Gilbert wrote this report on the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair at the end of December, the Anarchist Federation [AF] in London has fallen apart, and issued a statement on New Year's Day critical of many in its former leadership who have now left the AF party. The Trans' faction having taken over the party are now denouncing these skedaddlers. This curious coup by an exotic tendency has thrown into relief the serious intellectual and moral bankrupcy of affiliated anarchism. ******
BRIANBamford has asked me to
recall, to the best of my ability, the first five minutes or so of
events around a Manchester anarchist book fair. That event was on
Saturday 2nd December 2017, held at 'The Partisan'
Cheetham Hill Road. I have added some back-ground information to that
event, for clarity and to show that the incident was not unique or
isolated. I was in the company of Barry Woodling, Brian Bamford and
Bob Crane.
Owing to past hate-filled
incidents against Barry, and Brian we were all very uncertain about
our reception at that book fair. We all four met the previous
evening to discuss our main purposes of that visit. It was agreed
that we were not looking for trouble of any kind. We wanted to see
the books and pamphlets on offer. My suggestion was readily agreed
to that we should try to negotiate with the book fair organisers
about a better relationship between us.
Some years previously Brian
had published (in my opinion) a highly insensitive obituary of Bob
Miller [in Northern Voices No.12]. No apology was given in any form. Bob’s widow Sally
responded violently. Soon after, at a London anarchist book fair
Sally wrecked Brian’s stall, causing costly damaged. Mr. Ilyan
Thomas, a man in his 70’s was pushed to the ground by Sally’s
supporters when he tried to intervene. For contemporaneous eye-witness report see:
Subsequently, a book fair was
organised in Manchester by the same anarchist faction that had
supported Bob Miller and Sally. They are now very small in number,
calling themselves 'the anarchist federation'.
Barry Woodling has long been a critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza. On attending the Manchester book fair Barry was accused of being 'anti-Semitic' and man-handled out
of the room at the People's History Museum. The accusation was foolish, there being a vast
difference between sympathy for victims of Israeli colonization and
being anti-jewish. It was merely an
excuse to eject one who was and is a friend of Brian Bamford. Also,
Barry Woodling and I are of Jewish extraction.
As we entered 'The
Partisan', I was stood a little apart from my three other
companions. In that first five minutes Brian and Barry were not
recognised immediately. Peter Good, a long time opponent of 'Northern Voices' had his stall close to the entrance. I believe
that Peter Good signalled for Barry and Brian to be removed. Barry
called out that those who were pushing him were following orders. Brian was then seized by young men half
his age, as was Barry. Bob Crane and I were untouched at that
point.
I immediately began explaining the vast difference between
anti-Semitism and being critical of Israeli colonisation. I am a
public speaker with a loud voice. I was then also similarly
assaulted. In this turmoil I glanced that Brian had been pushed close
to Peter Good’s stall and happened to touch it. Brian was pushed
to the floor where he went limp as they carried him outside.
A young man
known as 'Veg' spoke at length with Brian and I, we were not
provoked by his violently insulting language. 'Veg' seemed
to know nothing about the long standing dispute between the handful
of 'class war' supporters and those who are closer to our blog / 'Northern Voices'. A main organiser of that event (who I only
know as 'David-under-the-pavement') then wanted to talk with me.
He apologised for delay in contacting me about a matter of mutual
political interest. 'David' then angrily asked why we had come 'where we knew we were not welcome'. His tone gave no room for
attempted negotiation. It was all 'I will talk and you will
listen'. Days before this book fair I spoke with Chris Draper who
is a long time supporter and contributor to our blog/ magazine 'Northern Voices'. Chris complained that 'David-under-the-pavement'
had accused him of threatening violence against him, a charge utterly without substance.
Eventually, Bob Crane was
allowed to look at the book fair. Later that evening he returned to 'The Partisan', where he got on quite well with other anarchists
who were present earlier at the book fair.
On 4th December,
after the above events I received a phone call from'David-under-the-pavement'.
He again asked 'why had we come…' I argued that we had come
to see a book fair and try to
I really
enjoyed the "tone" of the Kieran Quinn piece from the 6th! I worked for
Tameside Council for some years and lived up the road in Ducky when Roy
Oldham ruled with something of a rod of iron with cronyism being the
main rule of the day and the council being managed like a personal
fiefdom! When I moved darn sarf to Bedford I unfortunately that its the
same all over with Councillors getting elected and then pushing to the
surface ensuring that they are never deselected, several Labour
Councillors have been propping up a Lib Dem Mayor for close on 8 years
now in exchange for in one case £27,000 in allowances and expenses!
(p.s. we left Bedford in 2015 on the off chance that we might get better
jobs!)
Also saddened
to read that Peter Good featured in a blog about the Manchester
Bookfair (in a negative light) Peter was always very irritated that I
enjoyed Northern Voices and doesn't speak to me now as I expressed my
utter delight that I didn't attend the London Bookfair! I dare say that
as he sponsored the Manchester event and I think the forthcoming
Liverpool one this gives him a say in who can and can't come in! Mmmm!
I've said before Brian Bamfords article as regards Bob Miller was
inappropriate and offensive however I don't agree in the way the issue
has been allowed to fester into violence and exclusions !
Nick Heath
came to Norwich mid 2016 to rally the locals behind the banner of the
Anarchist Federation A very aggressive individual who doesn't like his
authority being questioned and in line with several Northern Voices
comments I really do wonder exactly how many members the Anarchist
Federation and the Solidarity Federation actually have and all it does
is reaffirm my view that as soon as you join up, pay your subs and so on
you are on a road to nowhere!
Northern trade unionists confront police at Roberts Arundel
IN Nov 2006,the anarchist historian, Nick Heath* reflected upon his experiences in the UK anarchist movement since the 1960s, and the lessons on organisation and politics he finds valid for anarchists today. His observations include the idea that '[o]rganisational responsibility and discipline should not be
controversial'. [see 'The UK anarchist movement - Looking back and forward'posted on libcom].
Part
way through his long account he ponders the problems of the failures of
anarchists since its high point in the early to mid-1960s
during the rise of the peace movement: 'One of the shortcomings that they had highlighted was the lack of
industrial activity. As Brian Bamford, whom I do not often agree
with, has pointed out: “At the time of disputes at Roberts-Arundel
in Stockport**, Pilkington’s Glassworks in St Helens***, the strikes and
stay-in occupations at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and in engineering,
the miners struggles in the 1970s, the anarchist influence was tiny”
(Freedom 6 August 1994)'
This year it is the 50th anniversary of the Roberts Arundel strike in Stockport, and Stockport Trade Union Council has put on an exhibition to commemorate the occasion.
At the time of the strike at Roberts-Arundel in 1966, mentioned in the above quote from Freedom, the Manchester Anarchist Group [MAG] was far bigger than the small International Socialist body with only 20 members locally and most of whom were students. Both Colin Barker and his then friend and fellow sociologist John Lee, who later like me became an ethnomethodologist, were anxious to engage with me and some of the local working-class anarchists. They knew that I had been involved in the national strikes of the engineering apprentices in the early 1960s, and still edited the apprentice paper Industrial Youth that came out of those disputes; both Colin and John were keen to collaborate with us with a view of building up their own I.S. group. The trouble then was that most of the Manchester anarchists in the MAG didn't have any affinity with factory workers and trade unionists. They were good on peace demos etc. waving their black and red flags, but it was as if they were frightened of engaging with genuine workers at their places of work.
When I was sacked for supporting the apprentices at Robinsons in Rochdale in 1965, the MAG refused to come down because they said they didn't want to be 'authoritarian', and tell the apprentices what to do! Again in 1966, when I was given my marching orders at Tomlinsons up Milnrow the MAG held aloof yet again steering clear of the factory gates. In similar circumstances I doubt that Colin Barker and I.S. would have been so timid, but by that time I had already decided to return to Spain, where I had a job waiting among the more practical and proletarian Gibraltar anarchists.
Under the influence of Ron Marsden, and Alan Barlow**** when the Manchester anarchists discussed the Roberts-Arundel dispute at a meeting at Mother Macs pub in central Manchester, the meeting was swayed and persuaded to not attend a support meeting called by the International Socialists [IS] to support the Roberts-Arundel strikers, the reasoning at that time being that they didn't want to swell the support for the trotskyists in IS. This is significant and relevant to what Mr. Heath is saying, yet I believe both he and Colin Barker draw the wrong conclusions in arguing that the anarchists and international socialists needed a national organisation or party.
In an interview with Colin Barker, now a retired sociology lecturer, in 2015 in the publication RS21 (Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century) vividly describes the situation he found himself with the IS in 1966 at the time of the Roberts-Arundel dispute: 'We
were a group of about twenty people. We’d got the building workers,
and we were talking on very friendly terms with one or two CP
engineers. By then I think we’d recruited one or two. We look as if
we’re going to recruit significant numbers of militant workers to
the branch – I don’t want to exaggerate, but we’re a little bit
confident, a little bit rooted. We’re distinctive. We don’t know
that you can’t do things – that’s quite important, we don’t
know of any limits to what we can do. So we take initiatives, try
things out, sometimes they don’t work and sometimes they do. This
is in ’67 – the next year of course everything changed.' (rs21on
Clearly the advantage that the Manchester International Socialist had in 1965 was not that of a mass organised party, but rather that of disciplined organised body but rather an imaginative tendency that was willing to act on its own initiative. By acting outside the box the IS was enabled to have a great impact in regional industrial disputes such as Roberts-Arundel in Stockpost and at Pilkingtons in St Helens.Meanwhile, the Manchsester anarchists who were so heroic in the peace demos in central Manchester were too timid when it came to turning up at the factory gates.
Drawing up a neat historical narrative
Like all historians
Mr. Heath provides us with neat narrative to explain what was wrong, and
how the anarchist decline could have been avoided in the past, but also
how its continuing fall in the present and in the future can be
stemmed: i] The historic issue, according to Mr. Heath, was that there was 'The increasing frustration with the swamp of pacifism, liberalism
and vague humanism'.
ii] Two now
defunct bodies entitled ASA (Anarchist Syndicalist Alliance) and ORA
(Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists) were potentially Mr. Heath's
ideal tools for social change, but he writes the 'ASA ran
out of steam pretty quickly'.
[I personally was one of the
founding members of this short-lived ASA organisation, which was set-up
around 1970 from remnants of the old Manchester Syndicalist Workers
Federation, and went on to play a role in the Courtaulds Arrow Mill
strike involving mainly Asian workers in Rochdale, and later to successful campaign for shop stewards in
textiles inside the National Union of Textile & Allied
Workers*****]. iii}On the other hand, Heath writes that 'The ORA had started moving away from
the swamp as a result of the dockers and miners struggles and the
influences of French libertarian communists.'
Mr. Heath quotes from an ORA booklet entitled 'Towards a history and critique of the anarchist movement in
recent times' by K. Nathan. R. Atkins, C. Williams [ORA pamphlet no1.
1971]to support his diagnoses about the rise of Trotskyism and the fall of anarchism in the late 1960s and earlier 1970s: 'The IS [the International Socialists which later became the SWP] would
not have attained their size and influence such as it is if a decent
libertarian organisation had existed. It is an unholy mixture of
libertarian and Leninist groups. The attempt by Cliffe (sic) to
compete with IMG by out-trotting Mandel will make this alliance
increasingly unstable. BUT do we have any capacity to attract these
comrades? In fact, the flow has been the other way. Good comrades
(for the most part industrial militants rather than students) have
been lost without anyone attempting to understand why.'
He argues that that was a
true analysis and remains so today. Hence, he claims, that in
spite of what he calls 'the decline of Leninism' it was a 'lack of effective organisation', that has meant that anarchism will be at a standstill
until we rectify this problem of organisation.
What
this shows is that Nick Heath has a mechanistic Marxist approach to
organisation that is rooted in a form of deterministic thinking that is
part of the problem. The main problem among the anarchists, which has
been amply demonstrated in most recent times at the London Anarchist
Bookfair etc., is a psychological inability to engage with real people
in the real world. Some of the left don't have an engaging relationship
with working people. This has been a long term problem which no amount
of management, membership cards, statements aims and principle, mission
statements, or tick lists can solve.
Because Mr.
Heath has been a white-collar office worker (a librarian) for much of
his life he looks at the problem in a top-down way so that all he comes
up with are cookbook solutions. In the same way his close colleague
Mike Ballard - now a retired local authority housing manager - has a similar
cultural problem. Commenting in another essay entitled 'Anarchist communism in Britain, 1870-1919', on the libertarian organisation founded in 1960 called 'SOLIDARITY', Mr. Heath writes: 'Their wilful failure to translate this into the establishment of a
national organisation was a disaster, as International Socialism (the
precursor of the Socialist Workers Party) was able to build on this
territory abandoned by Solidarity (and by the Anarchist Federation of
Britain). They failed to engage as fully with the Anarchist movement as
much as they could have, as their contributions at meetings and
conferences could have considerably strengthened the class struggle
current within it.'
Thoughts on aspects of northern anarchism
There were some protests from southerners and Mr. Heath's type of 'organisational anarchists', when on November 2011, Sidney Huffman wrote his interesting 'Message from a North East Anarchists' on libcom:
'We believe the anarchists may actually be the single largest radical
tendency in the North-East and wider North, yet we remain largely
invisible, rarely initiating action ourselves and instead just tagging
along in ones and twos with events organised by the left and liberals.
We have repeatedly found anarchists who have joined Trotskyist parties
simply because they couldn't find an organised anarchist presence here.
Older comrades coming out of premature retirement spend 6 months looking
for political anarchists and cannot find any during that time. It is
not good enough. If we are serious about change, we have to step up and
make ourselves visible.'
What's interesting
about this statement and some of the protesting comments that followed
it, is the implied organisational and activist nature of what is being
proclaimed. Sidney Huffmann writes about 'tagging along in ones and twos' on other people's events tail-ending other left protests.
In response to Mr. Huffman, Tom Harrison wrote on libcom that the 'SF [Solidarity Federation] and AF [Anarchist Federation] have been turning out regularly at the sparks
strikes/demos/blockades in London, bolstering picket lines and generally
providing the much needed solidarity for these workers. There was a
particularly good SF turnout at the sparks demo on November 9th ... just
watch this vid
and you can see their placards at many point. We're also organising and
attempting to link student militancy with worker militancy.'
Mr.
Heath will recognise from this that despite his efforts nothing has
changed today from the stagnant pond from which anarchists seems unable
to escape. Of course, anarchists in London may have put out more flags
as seen on the video on the electrician's demo, but that is not news.
What would have been news would have been if like Tameside Trade Union
Council they had been in the forefront of the campaign against the
blacklist moving motions to the TUC, manning lonely picket lines in the
early hours since 2003, in the DAF dispute or at the Manchester Royal
Infirmary in 2009. If Mr. Harrison is saying the anarchists are a kind
of rent-a-mob available on street demos well that is part of the problem, because
despite all the talk of organisating they don't seem to have the
initiative to build serious enterprises themselves apart from bookfairs.Now because of narrow-mindedness of some anarchists even bookfairs are becoming a problem for the anarchiststo organise.
What Mr. Heath failed to grasp when he considered the Roberts Arundel strike (in his quote from Freedom
above) was that the lesson from that strike was that the Manchester
anarchists in 1967 failed to engage with the workers in dispute because
they were afraid of real workers at the factory gate. They didn't know
how to address a real worker then, and they still have problems today.
Even in the run up to the campaign against the blacklist in the
naughties people like Nick Heath's mate Mike Ballard, a former housing
manager at Manchester City Council, was describing the Manchester
electricians as not being involved in class struggle because they were
taking 'individualuist' actions by setting up pickets
rather than collectivist actions. Mr. Ballard came up with that claim
at a meeting of the NAN in Burnley, of course it was before the
Information Commissioner made his successful raid on Ian Kerr's office
in 2009, and before Kerr pleaded guilty for keeping an illegal data-base
at his trial at Knutsford Crown Court.
Abstract Anarchists & the ethnographic approach
The
folly of the mechanistic managerialist approach of both Mr. Heath and
Mr. Ballard is evident given that the subsequent development of the
struggle of the 'Boys on the Blacklist' in Manchester,
which Tameside TUC has been in the forefront of since 2003: had this
handful of electricians often acting in opposition to the official
union, using their own initiative not engaged in a series of small
pickets around Manchester after 2003, the office of the Consulting
Association, managed by Ian Kerr, would never have been raided by the
Information Commissioner in Droitwich Spa in 2009. Consequently, the
blacklist with over 3,000 names of building workers would never have
been exposed.
In the mid-1970s, the criminologist Ian Smith and other anarchists used to talk about the contrast between the 'sectarian syndicalists' and 'shop-floor syndicalists' in the ASA, Now we have very opportunistic 'abstract anarchists' like Mr. Heath and Mr. Ballard to contrast with more ethnographic approaches of others anxious to listen to the public.
What
Nick Heath may have in mind when he envisages a future anarchist
organisation is something like what Ken Weller and member of SOLIDARITY, talked about when he described the influence of the British Communist Party in 1956: 'People can’t realise how big an apparatus it was. There were the
embassies, the Friendship Societies, the printshops, the front
organisations, the unions; 120 were employed by the Electrical Trades
Union alone. There were all the agencies of the Soviet government, Tass
[the Soviet news agency], the Moscow Narodny Bank, all these sorts of
things were full of people; I mean, the Soviet Weekly alone employed a
network of people who were distributing agents for the paper, and so on.'
It
must have been exactly like George Orwell said in the 1930s about it
paying some folk to adopt a commie position, but to accomplish that kind
of body among the anarchists would require something more substantial
than what Nick Health has to offer with his own small-scale Anarchist
Federation (AF) with all of its one hundred members paying their fees,
and with perhaps a possible trans-gender platform to stand upon with its
own estimated constituency of 0.1% of the national populous. That
would in any case be a very different approach from that experienced by
anarchists in the early 1960s, when anarchism was at last part of a
genuine social movement; that is the peace movement and the Committee of
100.
With the 'People in the Streets', as Vernon Richards described the peace movement in Freedom in the 1960s, the anarchists had a significant role to play on Ban the Bomb demos and in the Committee of 100 sit downs. Yet
when the social struggle moved to the picket lines, trade unions and
factories after the Roberts Arundel strike in 1967, where the communists
had the great advantage, the Manchester anarchists had very little
grasp of what was required. Only in the struggles for shop stewards up
in Oldham and Rochdale in the failing textile industry such as at
Courtaulds Arrow Mill in 1972, did the anarchists of Manchester have an
impact, and then again in London in the building workers' struggles,
anarchists like Peter Turner had a role to play. None-the-less, in the
significant disputes of the late 1960s at Pilkington Glassworks in St
Helens, Upper Clyde Shipbuilding [UCS] and in engineering sit-ins,
the miners struggles in the 1970s, the anarchist influence was tiny.
* Nick Heath leader of the Anarchist Federation.
** Roberts Arundel strike from 1966-68 of engineering workers against dilution and cheap labour.
*** Pilkington strike in St Helens of glass-workers in the Municipal & General Workers Union [now GMB] in which the workers, frustrated by both the union and the bosses, attempted to set up an independent union.
**** Ron Marsden and Alan Barlow came to Manchester in 1964 and joined the Manchester Anarchist group [MAG], which was then meeting st that meeting in the Lord Nelson in Salford. The MAG had been founded earlier by Graham Lee and James Pinkerton, then International Secretary of the Syndicalist Workers Federation [SWF]. Marsden from Preston, and Barlow originally from Liverpool, had recently become members of the SWF, and were hoping with the help of the Liverpudlian Vincent Johnson also of the SWF, to form a faction within the MAG and drive it in a 'class struggle' direction.
***** COURTAULDS INSIDE OUT: CIS ANTI REPORT No.10. Produced in co-operation with The Transitional Institute. ******
N.V. Editor: The Weekly Worker this week carried a letter from Danny Daly, which questionsthe absurd logic of some narrow-minded anarchists who reject the historical 'melting pot' approach of the successful London Anarchist Bookfair that has been going for 35 years. Particularly loud in calling for disassociation from the traditional London Anarchist Bookfair has been elements within the Anarchist Federation tendency such as 'AFED TRANS ACTION FACTION', 'Edinbugh Anarchist Federation', Liverpool A.F., and South Wales A.F. We publish the letter below because it chimes with what Dave Douglass has said in his statement. We believe in the assertion of a positive freedom which removes those who seek to censor, gag and silence others. We want a policy of diverse views and differences which in recent years has been undermined by certain orthoxies which are now violently intolerant of views they disagree with.
Safest space
AND so we bid farewell, for now at least, to the Anarchist
Bookfair, London’s only major anarchist-orientated event for the
last 34 years. For those who don’t already know, the Anarchist
Bookfair collective this year won’t be attempting a 35th year,
following threats of a boycott and active picketing by certain groups
and individuals.
This is due to a small group of radical feminists handing out
leaflets opposing changes to the Gender Recognition Act. This caused
quite a stir among the trans activists present, who surrounded those
handing out the leaflets and demanded their ejection. When bookfair
collective members such as Helen Steel attempted to intercede to stop
what was likely to spill over into violence, she was herself
surrounded and called names such as “ugly terf”, “terf scum”,
“bitch” and - most amazingly - “fascist”. This was all
justified on the basis of demanding a safe space for trans people to
express themselves. As far as Helen Steel or the collective were
concerned, the bookfair attempted to accommodate both groups to put
forward their positions. But, as far as I’m concerned, nobody was
being threatened by a leaflet debating a big issue for many
feminists.
Of course, the groups who denounced the bookfair did not see it
this way. The logic of safe spaces in this particular instance seems
basically to destroy the very essence of the bookfair itself: namely
a space for all ideas to be exchanged and argued out. But it seems
that name-calling, physical confrontation et al do not
challenge safety at all - as long as only the correct positions are
allowed. A Strange logic indeed.
The bookfair has always been an eclectic mix of political causes
and positions, all loosely orientated around the broad organisational
and historical traditions of anarchism. All the way from anarchist
communism to full-on anti-collective individualism. You would often
see Catholic worker or other Christian anarchists mere tables away
from an old punk with a banner proclaiming all religion as murderous
and bigoted. The understanding obviously being that this was an open
platform for the exchange of ideas, a forum to find common ground for
struggle in the future. And many initiatives were indeed sprung from
this melting pot over the years.
I look forward to the new and ‘completely safe’ incarnation of
the bookfair in the coming years, as seen by those who opposed its
previous model. Without the messiness of the plurality of positions,
those left with the right politics will be able to really buckle down
to the serious issue of winning the hundreds of totally separate
campaigns brought into focus.
And so now the anarchist movement finds itself in a position where
it no longer needs to worry about differences of position or
orientation of activity. Every group and individual can have their
own complete anarchism without fear of challenge or debate, with all
the anxiety-inducing rage such ‘liberal’ concepts seem to bring
up among younger comrades these days. For, as we all know, the safest
space is, of course, no space at all.
AS many people know there was an incident towards
the end of the 2017 London Anarchist Bookfair. Many statements have been
written both supporting and condemning the organisers of the event.
At first, as in previous years, we were inclined to
not respond to these statements. However, because of the claims being
made, and our views about future bookfairs we feel, unfortunately, that
we need to respond. We have produced two statements. The first is a
statement about the events on the day. The second is a response to a
statement being circulated and signed by a number of groups critical of
the Bookfair and its organisers.
We are responding because people have made it clear
to us that we need to. Others may want to continue the discussion. We
won’t be making any further comments.
Editorial introduction: Northern Voices has been aware of an incident that occurred at the London Anarchist Bookfair last Saturday. Last Tuesday, I contacted a bookfair organiser to ask for an official statement as to what happened. The reply we received was:
'The Bookfair collective are trying to find a time we can all meet to debrief,
discuss and talk about putting out a statement. We hope this will be soon but can’t say anything further at this time.'
Northern Voices is still awaiting an official statement from the bookfair organisers, but in the meantime there have been accounts of what happened on various websites including mumsnet; past tense; libcom to mention but a few. The Anarchist Federation has issued a statement and some of their AF sub-groups in Edinburgh, Liverpool and South Wales have been trying to put pressure on the bookfair organisers to specifically legislate against certain people they disagree with. Below we publish a statement from Helen Steel, a well-known campaigner against injustice, police spies and a core supporter of the Blacklist Support Group.
While we haven't formed a view with regard to the plan by the Tories to 'amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to
include Gender Identity as a protected characteristic in law' (see reference in bullet point [1] below), we are deeply concerned about the methods used by some groups to stifle debate. Because of this we are publishing the statement issued last night by Helen Steel, with a link to her full statement.
Our concern doesn't just relate to this one case. Indeed not, it relates to a series of attacks on individuals going back a number of years. This started with censorship in publications like Freedom and the banning of certain groups and individuals at anarchist bookfairs in Manchester, and has now ended up with physical attacks on Helen Steel and others at the famous London Bookfair. The London Bookfair organisers must now consider what they must do to resolve these problems which have become institutionalised in the anarchist community, and we up here in the North don't envy them in this task. ******
HELEN STEEL'S STATEMENT:
I was in the process of writing a longer article around the events at
the Anarchist Bookfair on Saturday, but I am also trying to stay on top
of the rest of my life while dealing with the horrendous bullying of
people around me which is underway by some trans activists and allies. I
have been traumatised by my experiences on Saturday and by events
since, resulting in a lack of sleep and inability to concentrate. I
wanted to complete the longer article, but as lies are being circulated
by those who attacked me, I feel I have to put out a shorter statement
now.
When I refer to trans activists in this statement I mean people who
are activists on trans issues, I do not mean that all of them were
trans, nor that they represent the views of all trans identifying
people. For those who don’t know what TERF means, it is an acronym for
Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but whatever its origins it is
currently used as a term of abuse to dehumanise women and so excuse violence and bullying against them.
I thank everyone who is taking a stand against bullying and I urge
more people to stand in solidarity too. Those trans activists and allies
who are carrying out the bullying can be defeated by growing numbers of
people resisting that bullying. This will facilitate a proper space for
the concerns of women and trans identifying people to be discussed.
Short statement on the facts:
The Tories are planning to amend the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to
include Gender Identity as a protected characteristic in law. This does
affect women and as such, women have a right to express their views on
this issue.
I am aware of three leaflets which were distributed at the Bookfair.
I did not actually write or distribute any of them, but I supported
other women’s rights to distribute them.
Posts
