Ukip Scrap & Political Violence at Freedom

Donald Rooum Ruminates on Trotsky's violent death & 'Scuffles' in politics

MR. Hookem, the Ukip MEP, who is alleged to have been involved in an altercation with another Ukip MEP, Steven Woolfe, in the European Parliament last week described it as a mere 'scuffle'.  Donald Rooum, a Friend of Freedom Press (anarchist), similarly told Northern Voices in last month that the scrap at Freedom Press, the anarchist HQ, at the time of the Friends of Freedom Press Annual General Meeting on the 22^nd, June (the day before the referendum vote), was 'only a scuffle', and he added that the police should not have involved.

Violence seems to be becoming more common in politics in the UK these days!

The Ukip  'punch-up' at the European Parliament had something to do with the struggle for control of Ukip; likewise the problems at Freedom are about who influences the management of the administration of Freedom Press and the sale of the building on Whitechapel High Street. 

Some people describing themselves as 'The Freedom Collective' wanted to prevent the directors on the Friends of Freedom of Press from considering proposals presented by a group from the North of England who describe themselves as 'Our Friends in the North'..

Donald Rooum, is an octogenarian veteran of English anarchism, who has been associated with Freedom since the 1940s, despite that it is only relatively recently become a Friend or director on the board of the Friends of Freedom Press.  Last month, he engaged in a correspondence in Private Eye's Pedantry Corner discussing Trotsky's death:

'... Robert Thomson's cartoon (p5, Eye 1425) depicts a man with a mountaineer's ice axe in his head.  'Could this be a misunderstanding of a historical account of Trotsky's death?

'Trotsky was killed with an ice pick, a stiletto used by bartenders in the 1930s, when refrigerators houses supplied ice in big blocks, for picking out bits of ice to put in drinks.  Nothing to do with mountaineers.'

Donald Rooum, who is a supporter of the 'Freedom Collective' group occupying the premises and has recently taken on the role of their sugar-daddy even financing them out of his pension, told Northern Voices that 'I am not interested in any suggestions from you!'

Presumably he was referring here to our practical program for the sale of the building being presented by a group calling itself 'Our Friends in the North', and he wants to protect his own babies on the so-called Freedom Collective.

Mr. Rooum, excusing the attack on me at the Friends of Freedom Press AGM, said: 

'You shouldn't go getting the police in, it gets people in trouble, it may sometimes be necessary to bring in the police but not just for a scuffle.'

Rooum's reputation and legacy now rests upon the survival of the 'Freedom Collective' as his baby. When the long-term owner of Freedom, Vernon Richards, withdrew from direct active involvement in Freedom newspaper in the late 1990s shortly before the Millennium, he had apprenticed Charles Crute to takeover as editor.  It now seems that Donald had been doing much to undermine Charles' position at one point trying to stir things up over a joking remark I made about Vernon Richards going off the cultivate tomatoes at his home in East Anglia.  That attempt misfired, perhaps because Donald wouldn't know a 'Gardener's Delight' from a  'Super Marmande' beefsteak tomato, but then Donald's opportunity to overthrow Charles came later when a dispute broke out over our attempt to produce an issue of The Raven on Noam Chomsky's politics and linguistics.  Harold Sculthorpe (an old Friend of Freedom Press) and myself had arranged with a group of Manchester academics involved in the Manchester Ethnography Group to help produce an issue on Chomsky ultimately entitled 'Chomsky & his Critics' (2001), but when I sent Chomsky an article and a covering letter to the MIT, the great man Professor Chomsky took exception to one of the articles by Rupert Read now in the Green Party, and his former 'political secretary' intervened to stop this publication of The Raven after Charles Crute had given it the go-ahead.   Because Charles had OK'd the original article by Rupert in a letter and said it would be published, Donald Rooum was then able to install his own man, Toby Crowe*, a 'lapsed' Marxist from the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who was to ultimately become  the editor of Freedom newspaper when Charles Crute was forced out.  Mr. Rooum later referred to Toby as 'a big' strapping lad who quickly got rid of  what Donald called the 'wasteful practices' such as paying Charles Crute a small salary and then forcing him out of Freedom to seek work at a supermarket.  Toby Crowe failed to benefit Freedom, and has now been identified as the start of the decline which ultimately resulted in its closure in 2014


*  Mr. Crowe left his job as Freedom editor and after a period of study was later to be appointed as the now Revd Toby Crowe a Rector of Elmdon Church in 2012.  In that capacity according to a website he seems to have been more successful than he was at Freedom Press.  Donald Rooum has told me that he is still in contact with the Revd. Crowe, but he does not seem to have kept up any contact with poor Charles Crute.

Refugees: People Help as Government's Argue

LAST weekend, hundreds of Austrians drove over the Hungarian border to pick up and help refugees fleeing from war in Syria.  They did this despite warnings from the governments of Austria and Hungary that they may be breaking the law, and could be arrested. 

Had the anarchist newspaper Freedom still been in existence, and still have been being edited by someone of the abilities of say Vernon Richards or Charles Crute, I could well imagining them writing an editorial welcoming this action by people, while many governments dispute the pros and cons.  Of course, for well over a decade Freedom has not had a proper editor who could do the job convincingly. 

Last Friday, as the humanitarian crisis involving tens of thousands of migrants worsened, the Hungarian authorities introduced changes to the penal code that would place tougher measures on migrants, including a law that would make crossing or damaging the new fence 110-mile fence on its boarder with Serbia punishable by prison or expulsion.    

So bad is Hungary's seeming animosity for migrants that the United Nations has said that the Hungarian leaders had rejected assistance from the agency that supports refugees, including for the migrants at Keleti, the main Budapest railway station, where thousands were stranded last week.   

In Britain, David Cameron shifted his ground last weekend following criticism of what some critics called his apathy to the crisis, and has now agreed to accept 20,000 more Syrians, but only from camps in Syria.  Dan Bilefsky in the New York Times wrote:

'Mr. Cameron, who is trying to manage anti-immigration sentiment in the country as well as in his own Conservative Party, had been critized for dismissing on Wednesday (last week) the idea of Britain's adherence to a quota system for taking in asylum seekers who searched Europe.'

 Cameron had originally declared:  'I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more refugees.'

Mr.Cameron was later shamed into a u-turn by the photos of victims floating in the sea.  In contrast, the German government under Mrs Merkel has agreed  to take millions of refugees.

Note on the C.V. of Charlotte Dingle:

CHARLOTTE Dingle,  became editor of Freedom in April 2013 only to sink with the ship when it was abandoned by the crew in April 2014.  The paper was once known as the 'Anarchist Weekly', and below Charlotte proudly displays her achievements.  The newspaper that was once a respected publication on the British left fell into decline this century when Charles Crute, its previous editor, was disposed of.  From then on it became clear under the influence of Donald Rooum and a series of lack lustre editors that the paper was living on borrowed time.  In the end it was left to Charlotte Dingle to terminate Freedom, and thus the paper founded in 1886 by the distinguished radical anarchist Peter Kropotkin, ended its long life in April 2014.



Editor of Freedom Press

Charlotte’s period in office:  April 2013 – May 2014 (1 year 2 months)

www.freedompress.org.uk

 Freedom newspaper was a radical left-wing political journal first published by Kropotkin and others in 1886. It remained in print for a further 125 years before moving online.

 Responsibilities and achievements included:

 * Deciding on lively, relevant content, ensuring that I communicated regularly with community groups and activists concerned with social justice.

 * Writing and editing strong, interesting and fluent articles on a range of topics including news, economics, analysis, literature, philosophy and art.

 * Quickly and accurately sub-editing and proofing articles.

 * Sourcing appropriate and impactful photographs.

 * Laying out the monthly free-sheet in an attractive and readable design.

 * Sending out a timely and informative monthly html email digest.

 Green Party Candidate Charlotte Dingle?

	Readers will note that Ms. Dingle above doesn’t describe ‘Freedom’ as an 'anarchist newspaper', but rather as a  ‘radical left-wing political journal’.  Moreover, can this be the same Charlotte Dingle, who in the May 2010 local elections was known as the 'Charlotte Eleanor Rainger Dingle' standing as the Green Party candidate for the Ladywell Ward in London? www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/...2010/.../Pages/ladywell.aspx

Who Killed Freedom?: an unauthorised history 4.

The End but Not for Everyone…

by Chris Draper

ON March 10^th, 2014 FREEDOM announced:

“We have come to realise that a solid hardcopy newspaper is no longer a viable means of promoting the anarchist message…An underlying problem has been a lack of capacity to sustain it. We had hoped that Freedom would be adopted as THE paper of the anarchist movement…Although Freedom Press has changed from a political group with a particular point of view to a resource for anarchism as a whole, we have not managed to shake the legacy of the past and get different groups to back it as a collective project…the shop, publishing and book distribution will continue…As will the use of Angel Alley for meetings, events, offices…”   

Four aspects of this statement deserve close scrutiny:

1. no longer viable
2. a resource for anarchism as a whole
3. not managed to get groups to back it
4. shop, publishing, book distribution…meetings, events, offices.  

I dispute all four, interconnected, elements.  

Viability

FREEDOM’s viability was adversely affected by the development of the internet but in 2000 Freedom Press published a quarterly journal, the Raven, and a fortnightly newspaper so it should now be possible to finance a monthly paper.  The premises are owned freehold (and contribute almost 6K annual rental income), Aldgate Press printed the paper free (which alone equates to a 10K annual subsidy), hundreds of subscribers paid upfront, the paper had an established brand name and distribution network so FREEDOM enjoyed huge commercial advantages over other aspiring anarchist publications but as I’ve attempted to illustrate, successive collectives took all this for granted, alienated existing writers and readers and failed to secure a new constituency.

 

Resource for All

Under Charles Crute’s editorship FREEDOM welcomed articles of every variety of anarchist thought and practice.  When two articles presenting opposite sides of an argument were submitted both were published. Until 2001 FREEDOM relished controversy and open debate, after Toby’s ascendancy a narrow class-struggle line was enforced.  The collective’s claim to be a resource for 'anarchism as a whole' whilst consistently refusing to publish material that challenges their party line exemplifies their arrogance and dishonesty. 

Not Managed to Get Groups to Back It

I lied about disputing this section of the statement, for it indicates a rare flash of insight on the part of the collective.  As I argued from the beginning, groups, like SolFed and AF have enough problems maintaining their own organisations to put much effort into FREEDOM.  It’s the bit claiming:  

We have not managed to shake the legacy of the past'  that I dispute. 

Successive editors have not just shaken the legacy; the intellectual, moral and political legacy of pre-Crowe FREEDOM has been razed to the ground. 

Spoils of Class War (shop, book publishing, offices, meeting rooms etc)

Having provided a political play-school for aspiring class warriors FREEDOM newspaper is no longer of interest.  Like the Revd Toby Crowe, several members of the collective past and present have gained other pulpits for their sermons. Political organs from libcom to Morning Star now 'benefit' from the opinions of interns schooled in Angel Alley.   The alumni’s attention is now focussed on other assets in the FREEDOM portfolio and the collective privately admit that most were always more interested in getting their hands on the building than producing the paper.   'Within the Freedom Collective only a small minority were involved in producing the paper, not so much lack of commitment as not seeing it as central to what Freedom as a building was for.'   Vernon Richards must be spinning in his grave.

Conveniently situated between Aldgate East tube station and Whitechapel Art Gallery; the premises now provide convivial clubrooms for members and friends of the FREEDOM collective. Class-struggle groups might not have done much for the paper but ironically FREEDOM now provides them with convenient London meeting rooms.

FREEDOM’s book-publishing business was initially exploited by the clique to produce the decidedly dodgy,'Beating the Fascists'.  In 2014 they reprinted John Quail’s, 'Slow Burning Fuse' with the added 'benefit' of a new introduction penned by collective member and leader of AF, Nick Heath.

The collective have grand ambitions as Andy Meinke, who now runs the bookshop explains:

'At some point we want to move out of here, somewhere on a street front to get more passing trade.'  Sale of the freehold could raise around a million pounds.

Many of FREEDOM’s lesser assets have already been disposed of to friends and associates of the collective. In 2008, former FREEDOM editor John Retty discovered classic books from the shop of no appeal to class-struggle types were being destroyed en masse.  Confiding to friends at the London Bookfair that he’d managed to salvage a few copies of his own literary works, he appeared gloomy and depressed as he reflected on the significance of the destruction.

FREEDOM’s archive of historic books and newspapers has been similarly looted:

'We have multiple copies of pretty much every issue ever printed of our august newspaper, along with a big batch of foreign publications…Multiple copies are already kind of getting promised out…With the books, we’re hoping to keep a lot of them but of the ones which are going it’ll probably be first come first served.'   'I was in Freedom this week with Iain Mckay flicking through back issues of Freedom and War Commentary…We in AF have been discussing setting up an archive…its our history and pretty interesting too'.  Pretty interesting it undoubtedly is but is it not outrageous that individuals and groups like AF and Black Flag who unceasingly denigrated FREEDOM now exercise proprietorial rights over its assets?  

Authoritarian Asset Strippers

The takeover of FREEDOM didn’t require much planning, the new boys on the block were astonished how easily they gained control, 'When Vernon Richards died (2001) he handed over FREEDOM to the “Movement” on a plate but it was too surprised to notice, it was comrades coming out of the Anarchist Youth Network (AYN) who saw the opportunity with the paper and reclaimed it for class-struggle.'

Whilst the class warriors consider this coup commendable, to me it was invasive, cynical, dishonest and exploitative. The people who piled into FREEDOM had nothing but contempt for the paper’s political outlook. FREEDOM embraced a gentle, considered, constructive range of anarchist ideas and practice that contrasted sharply with the class-struggle politics of alternative anarchist organs (Class War, Black Flag, Organise! etc).  The new regime swept into power on a triumphant wave of youthful enthusiasm. Once Simon Saunders found his feet, stopped admitting his own ignorance and started proclaiming his infallibility there was no going back.  Gainsayers were systematically treated with contempt.

In 2006 Saunders described FREEDOM stalwarts as:

'reeking of allotments, of forgetting class, of irrelevance and reformism.'   

An obvious, yet demeaning, reference to Vernon Richards who ran a commercial organic market garden and Colin Ward who wrote extensively about allotments as a model of mutual aid.

Crowe, Saunders, Talent and associates ridiculed FREEDOM’s prefigurative politics and dismissed the paper’s distinctively anarchist critique of Britain’s welfare state, characterised by David Goodway as, 'Freedom Press being unswervingly hostile to the Labour governments and their nationalization and welfare legislation.'  

As a disenchanted subscriber posted on the History Workshop web-site following FREEDOM’s demise:

'The problem is that, for many years now, Freedom has been run by dimwits.  It has had nothing of value to say for a long while.   It is such a shame that this historically important paper has been ruined…In recent years, every edition of Freedom was anti-denationalisation and pro-welfare.  It was often difficult to tell it apart from a left Labour paper except for the juvenile photos of people in masks throwing things at the police.'

In 1986 Tony Gibson could still claim:

'FREEDOM has survived while many other anarchist journals have failed, because among its many virtues it has been flexible, intelligent and able to withstand periods when this or that bunch of bone-headed zealots have striven to turn it to the service of their own narrow creed.'  

From 2001 the 'bone-headed zealots' imposed 'their own narrow creed' with predictable consequences. 

Although the zealous class warriors had a range of apparently more appropriate newspapers available in which to indulge their class struggle fantasies they latched onto the fact that capturing FREEDOM offered them unique advantages.  FREEDOM loyalists were too polite, trusting and geographically scattered to react as swiftly and determinedly as the situation demanded.  Those of us who spoke out were constantly frustrated by the censorship and evasion of the new regime.

FREEDOM was taken over by entryists with no allegiance to the organisation whose assets they have now monopolised and exploited for more than a decade.  The collective have doubtless convinced themselves of their entitlement but are living off the hard won gains of anarchists they despise.

In the end just 2 of the collective of 14 voted against ending FREEDOM. For most of them, their heart was never really in it, their allegiance lay elsewhere.

Collective member, Nick Heath dismissed the newspaper as 'a pole for liberal anarchists' and used an internet thread mourning the passing of FREEDOM not to offer condolences but to advertise his own newssheet ('if you want to spread real class struggle anarchist ideas then think about ordering a bundle' ) until informed by a fellow contributor that it was;'in bad taste on a thread about the ending of another paper.'

Collective member Meinke was always, 'very sceptical of its (FREEDOM’s) liberal bent'  whilst Jim Clarke wasn’t at all bothered about FREEDOM’s disappearance:  

'I’m not sure FREEDOM had much of an illustrious history…I’m more concerned about Black Flag to be honest'. 

The tone of Charlotte Dingle’s joyful celebration of the ending of the newspaper more befits a party invite than the passing of an invaluable institution:

' * Waves * Hello, Freedom editor here…Frankly I am overjoyed that the paper is going online…(SMILEY FACE)…'

What is to be Done?

Those of us who loved FREEDOM are not prepared to sit back and see its ideas traduced and its legacy misappropriated by authoritarians. The primary aim of this essay is to puncture the myth and challenge self-serving accounts of the downfall of FREEDOM propagated by successive editors since 2001.

This is also an extended appeal to Steven Charles Sorba (Aldgate Press); Sonia Markham (Retired Illustrator), Richard Parry (Solicitor); and even rather plaintively to Donald Rooum (Cartoonist and collective member), the directors of the holding company, FRIENDS of FREEDOM PRESS Ltd. to belatedly get a grip on the legacy, both intellectual and material, handed down to us by anarchists who didn’t hide behind aliases or enforce their own narrow political creed.  Please do not allow the collective to sell the building without yourselves ensuring that the whole anarchist movement benefits not just the current ruling clique.

Finally the destruction of FREEDOM should give all anarchists pause for thought.  The very openness of FREEDOM left it vulnerable to subversion of its political ideals. We tolerated illiberal behaviour for too long and allowed authoritarians to take over.  FREEDOM stalwart Nicolas Walter had forewarned us:

'In a sense, anarchists always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject what is good in either they betray anarchism itself.'  

A Final Challenge

I challenge any, or all of the current clique that closed down the paper to leave your comfy clubrooms for the day, come up North and politely debate, 'THE FATE of  FREEDOM' at the next (2015) Manchester Anarchist Bookfair. Hopefully you will offer a positive response, though I rather suspect open debate is not your preferred medium.                         

                                                            Christopher Draper, Llandudno, February 2015

Who Killed Freedom?: an unauthorised history 3.

Talent for Trouble 

WITH only layout artist Jayne Clementson and cartoonist Donald Rooum remaining on the editorial collective from the old days it was no wonder yet another class warrior, Dean Talent of SolFed replaced Saunders. Having previously ousted FREEDOM loyalists Charles Crute and Kevin McFaul on the claimed grounds of economy and with the paper pleading poverty the collective curiously agreed to reinstate the stipend for Dean.

By 2009, FREEDOM had comprehensively alienated former supporters yet demonstrably failed to secure the support of a new network. Anarchists belonging to national organisations continued to prioritise the interest of their own organisations.  FREEDOM by then offered little to those of us with less narrowly defined anarchist outlooks who preferred informed and considered debate to hectoring demands and political posturing.  Nevertheless, when FREEDOM published a tendentious account of its history culminating in a panegyric to the Revd Toby Crowe I felt obliged to submit a comradely yet challenging alternative account. Predictably, Dean Talent refused to publish or even justify his refusal.

In 2011, Dean and the collective discovered they couldn’t treat everyone with such contempt and get away with it so easily.  Their arrogance and incompetence created the worst crisis FREEDOM had faced since the stick up of 1944.  Talent persuaded the collective to publish a book that had already been turned down by several other publishers (including the anarchist press, A.K.). 'Beating the Fascists' was the title and Sean Birchall the purported author, although this was widely held to be the alias of Gary O’Shea, leader of the now defunct Marxist 'Red Action' (R.A.).   Illustrated throughout with photographs of violent confrontations between fascists and anti-fascists the book presents Red Action’s version of how AFA (Anti-Fascist Action) physically fought the fascists off the streets. 

As soon as FREEDOM advertised the forthcoming publication they were, 'inundated with negative emails' and a blizzard of bad publicity; 'R.A. – a posturing bunch of macho bullies…shame on Freedom for giving them publicity';  'It is sickening to see Freedom publishing this inveterate anarchist hater';  'Why on earth are Freedom publishing this…would they publish Trotsky’s memoirs on Kronstadt?' 

Much of the criticism focussed on the character of the collective;  'A friend of mine emailed to see if they would be interested in publishing the first English translation of anarchist former prisoner Xose Tarrio’s book Hay! Hombre Hay!   She didn’t even get the courtesy of a reply, let alone the red carpet treatment Red Action have received';  'The stupidity of the current Freedom Collective…If they had any sense they’d have told R.A. to publish it themselves';  'Dean you are a fucking moron!”; “Freedom’s reputation has been very badly tarnished by all this'.

Anarchy in Action?

'Beating the Fascists' should never have been published by Freedom.  It is a paean to political violence.  Whilst some anarchists believe in going beyond defence to proactively seek out and attack supposed fascists most reject this strategy.  The former do not need Marxists to write the history of anti-fascism and the latter don’t want to promote such violence in any case. Although the collective voted only 5 for and 4 against publication FREEDOM went ahead evidently unconcerned that it is standard practice for anarchists to secure consensus before collective action.  Even that majority was questionable as Dean Talent was absent and voted by proxy.  A critical insider noted that, 'The four collective members had a choice of either supporting a project they disagreed with or resigning.  This is fundamentally un-Anarchist.  What kind of society do Freedom believe in if their collective is run in such a way?' 

The collective also gave scant regard to another traditional practice, checking copyright before publication.  Not long after 'Beating the Fascists' went on sale they heard from press photographer, David Hoffman that FREEDOM had included several of his pictures without permission, credit or payment.  FREEDOM initially refused to acknowledge their error, apologise or offer recompense. A political radical, sympathetic to anarchism, as a professional photographer, Hoffman nonetheless relies on the sale of his pictures to make a living and some of the included photographs even had his claim to copyright stamped on the back yet no-one contacted him pre-publication.  FREEDOM didn’t have a legal leg to stand on and as the book was being sold through commercial channels (Amazon etc) and bore the © Freedom Press imprint they had no moral justification either. 

In Hoffman’s experience the collective proved an extremely slippery customer.  FREEDOM either knowingly took a commercial gamble on overlooking copyright obligations or acted out of ignorance.  Either way once Hoffman showed up it was time to eat humble pie and beg for a low tariff on the pictures.   Instead FREEDOM tried to take the moral high ground, accused him of trying to unfairly extract money from an impoverished organisation and initiated a vicious hate campaign against him on the web.  Members of FREEDOM’s  editorial collective variously described Hoffman online as a, 'piece of shit', 'rat bastard cunt' and a 'piece of excrement'.

This debacle dragged on for another 13 months before FREEDOM finally handed over four thousand pounds to avoid court action (part of this sum was paid by Hoffman to the widow of Mike Cohen, whose copyright pictures had also been used).  Hoffman claims he would have settled for far less if the collective had acted honourably but:

'The greed and hypocrisy of the current incompetent collective has stained a previously respected organisation and it’s that issue that Freedom’s few remaining friends really need to address.'

The End is Nigh

By August 2012, FREEDOM was politically, morally and financially bankrupt.  The holding company still owned the building and Aldgate Press still printed the paper for free but the writing was on the wall, and the fate of Dean Talent?  In his own memorable words, 'I was slung out of the collective', so neophyte turned know-it-all Simon Saunders popped up to announce, 'Freedom Press is in some difficulty, both financial and in terms of volunteer labour – basically we need you…we are proposing to have a series of meetings…and discuss how we can drag the paper, the bookshop, the publishing house and the building out of trouble.'

Unfortunately this 'series of meetings' didn’t extend beyond London and the appeal soon proved entirely disingenuous. That very same month all copies of the popular magazine Northern Voices produced by a band of Manchester-based, unaffiliated anarchists were removed from the shelves of FREEDOM bookshop as the collective objected to an article it contained.

When, just a few weeks later, an anarchist was attacked at his stall at the 2012 London Anarchist Bookfair, and his publications stolen by a bunch of Anarchist Federation thugs the FREEDOM collective (which includes an AF faction) refused to publish an account of the incident.

The paper limped on with caretaker editors nominally in charge, whilst Saunders and chums remained behind the scenes, ready to tighten the leash whenever there was any danger of a politically challenging piece being published.  In January 2013 for example, editor Matthew Black promised (by email) to publish an article by anarchist Barry Woodling before being overruled by the ruling clique.  Unsurprisingly Matthew left before the end of the year to be replaced by an editor with even less knowledge or experience of anarchism than a freshly minted Simon Saunders.

Charlotte Dingle, a Green Party local election candidate was handed the, by then, poisoned editorial chalice.  She, no doubt, appreciated the editorial internship and political platform but her appointment only served to reinforce suspicions that the real power brokers had lost interest in the paper. Yet there was still time to squeeze in a bit more censorship. In October 2013, FREEDOM accepted a review from Northern activist Paul Salveson, with editor Charlotte Dingle confirming publication before being overruled by the ruling clique.

In the next installment Chris Draper assesses who is to blame  at Freedom Press, and asks if the asset strippers will take-over?

Who Killed Freedom?: an unauthorised history 1.

by Christopher Draper

FREEDOM the world’s oldest anarchist newspaper is no more.  Founded in London in October 1886, for over a century FREEDOM was universally recognised as the most thoughtful, open-minded, newspaper of the British anarchist movement.  In October 2014 this unique institution, having survived police raids, violent attacks and two world wars, was declared dead by its editorial collective.  FREEDOM blamed its demise on the combined effects of declining interest in print media and insufficient support from the anarchist movement.  The truth is rather different.  FREEDOM was destroyed by three young men deficient in knowledge and authoritarian in practice and one old man who knew better yet encouraged these miscreants to do their worst.  The consequence, though tragic, was utterly avoidable. 

Democratic Clique

FREEDOM was never officially the newspaper of the anarchist movement. It was started in London in 1886 by a small band of anarchists with no formal ties to any other political organisation.  As David Goodway observed:  'It was published monthly as a sober and thoughtful journal surviving while other publications appeared and soon folded in the tempestuous and often violent world of contemporary anarchist activism.'  Despite initially promoting debate between individualist anarchists and those of a more socialist persuasion FREEDOM soon adopted an explicitly anarchist-communist outlook. Other interpretations of anarchism continued to be expressed and debated within the paper and throughout its long, varied and sometimes interrupted history FREEDOM continued to provide open-minded, unsectarian coverage of anarchist affairs.  Although nominally controlled by a self-elected libertarian collective FREEDOM not infrequently relied on key individuals within the group to safeguard the newspaper’s anarchist integrity.  When Tom Keell in 1915 acted precipitously to keep the paper out of the hands of Kropotkin’s pro-war faction he was denounced as a dictator by fellow editor George Cores but backed by the wider anarchist movement. Once again in 1928 FREEDOM was kept alive as an irregular bulletin through the dedication of Keell who published it from his home at Whiteway Colony.  From 1930 until his death in 1934, John Turner carried the editorial baton and then after a two year gap the paper was revived in a new guise by Vernon (Vero) Richards. 

Benevolent Dictator

The role of Vernon Richards in maintaining the libertarian character of the paper for over sixty years cannot be overestimated. From the launch of Spain and the World in 1936 through War Commentary, renamed as FREEDOM in 1945, Richards actively edited the paper until 1968 and then for another 30 years remained the power behind the editorial throne.

In 1944 Vero and Mari-Louise Berneri even resisted an armed stick-up staged by syndicalists Tom Brown, Cliff Holden and Ken Hawks, who demanded control of the paper but finally settled for £25 to start their own organ, Direct Action.  Throughout the post-war years Vero's money and determination kept the paper out of the hands of class war dogmatists like Albert Meltzer and his Black Flag followers.  Until Vero’s death in 2001 FREEDOM’s columns remained open to anarchists from across the spectrum of the movement.

Born Vero Benvenuto Constantino Recchiono (anglicised to Vernon Richards) in 1915, Vero was far from the woolly liberal claimed by the current clique at FREEDOM.  His father had been a comrade of the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta and Richards described himself as an anarchist-communist in the Malatesta mould.  Assisting his father with propaganda work against Mussolini he was arrested in Paris and extradited from France in 1935.  Imprisoned for nine months for inciting disaffection in the armed forces in 1945, his publications include, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution and Errico Malatesta - His Life and Ideas. 

Ironically, it was FREEDOM’s undemocratic structure that prevented it falling into the hands of any of the more zealous anarchist factions that came and went throughout the course of the twentieth century. Whilst controversies and antagonisms were reported in the paper, FREEDOM maintained a certain gravitas that never allowed it to be entirely blown off course.

Although Vero gradually withdrew from day to day oversight of the paper to tend his Essex smallholding, whenever he considered FREEDOM’s essential character was in danger he returned to exercise proprietary oversight. It wasn’t ideal but it was effective. Vero finally ceded control just before he died in December 2001.  Then, as a representative of the current collective described in a published interview (Oxford Left Review) there was, 'a shift in the people attracted to FREEDOM. Until 2002, it was virtually owned by someone who was of a rather liberal bent and that has shifted'.  The 'shift' was significant, the oblique reference to Vero a self-serving lie.  The changes were disastrous. 

'A Philosophical Middle Class Organ'

In 2000 neither the form nor contents of FREEDOM were cutting edge, but they never had been. Back in 1897 a bunch of impatient, class war warriors demanding to replace the paper with a weekly agit-prop newssheet denounced FREEDOM as:

'a philosophical, middle-class organ , not intelligible to the working classes, not up to date in late information and…less revolutionary than Comic Cuts…edited and managed by an inaccessible group of arrogant persons worse than the Pope and his seventy cardinals and written by fossilised old quilldrivers.'

They had a point.  There have frequently appeared more militant, racy and visually appealing anarchist papers but none survived for long.  FREEDOM’s uniquely enduring appeal lay in its open, carefully considered, tolerant and invariably polite approach to anarchist politics. Freedom was never perfect and production was never entirely regular but at a minimum it continued to provide an invaluable newsletter and propaganda medium for the wider anarchist movement.  FREEDOM didn’t pretend revolution was just around the corner but carefully reported and encouraged cooperative forms of social organisation as much as it denounced authoritarian injustice and inequality.   FREEDOM was in it for the long haul, promoting the germ of the new society within the shell of the old.  Class-struggle was not denied but neither was it over-emphasised.

In 1926. Max Nettlau perfectly captured the unique essence of the paper:

'FREEDOM was always kind and gentle, faithful and hopeful, fair and reasoning, tasteful and well-proportioned. It excels by such qualities ever so many Anarchist periodicals and other publications which…are the mouthpieces of vigorous organisations with all that is inseparable from organised life, predominating creeds, uncharitable criticism of dissenters…All this may create a stronger impression for the moment, but it passes away…But to FREEDOM one turns back with pleasure…the basis of all was unswerving faith in freedom, fairness in reasoning, and gentleness in feeling'.

Sixty-six years later Peter Marshall, in his magisterial history of anarchism, 'Demanding the Impossible', could still fairly claim, 'The thoughtful centre of anarchism in Britain has remained the Freedom Press Group'. 

The Politics of FREEDOM

Colin Ward and Nicolas Walter were familiar exponents of the FREEDOM approach. In his best selling FREEDOM booklet, 'ABOUT ANARCHISM' Walter explained 'Anarchism may be seen as a development from either liberalism or socialism, or from both liberalism and socialism. Like liberals, anarchists want freedom: like socialists, anarchists want equality.  But we are not satisfied by liberalism alone (my emphasis) or by socialism alone.'   Claims dismissing pre-2001 FREEDOM as “liberal” are either uninformed or lies.  Assertions that FREEDOM was pacifist are similarly incorrect, for Walter emphasised, 'To repeat (anarchists) are anti-militarists, but not necessarily pacifists.'

Walter explained that, 'Anarchists do not agree with Marxists that the basic unit of society is the class.'  The problem is authority.  'If we refused to obey rulers, authority would disappear…if we refused to work for the rich and powerful, property would disappear. For anarchists, property is based on authority and not the other way round…But at least it is agreed that the present system of property must be destroyed together with the present system of authority.'

Colin Ward maintained FREEDOM’s constructive approach to anarchism, 'far from being a speculative vision of a future society…(anarchism) is a description of a mode of human organization, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trends in society.'  FREEDOM demonstrated, 'an anarchist society, a society which organizes itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and the bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism.'

As Walter explained, FREEDOM, 'always tried both to give a clear voice to a broad central interpretation of anarchism and to give a fair hearing to all other varieties of anarchism.'

Friends of Freedom

In 1981 Vero set up, The Friends of Freedom Press Ltd, an inactive company legally responsible for the assets of FREEDOM PRESS. Four old stalwarts of FREEDOM were appointed to serve as Directors of this holding company.  The most valuable material asset is the building in Angel Alley, 84b Whitechapel High Street, London, bought by Richards in 1968 to provide a permanent home for FREEDOM.

When Vero died in 2001 FREEDOM retained a hardcore of regular writers, hundreds of subscribers and thousands of readers and supporters.  Two of Vero’s personal appointments had long been in place, Charles Crute had been editor for a decade and Kevin McFaul had managed the bookshop for just as long.  Aldgate Press had printed the paper for twenty years, Jayne Clementson had laid out the paper for ages whilst cartoonist, columnist and collective member Donald Rooum had chalked up a half-century at FREEDOM, so no-one expected dramatic change to arrive with the dawning of the new millennium. 

'There is No Such Thing as Human Society!'

…said Margaret Thatcher (or something similar) but she was merely quoting FREEDOM stalwart Donald Rooum as the phrase opens Rooum’s article, 'Anarchism is About Individuals' in FREEDOM’s 1986 centenary edition which elaborates his Stirnerite philosophy.   So the movement naturally looked to Donald to safeguard FREEDOM’s profoundly libertarian character after Richards’ death. Having supported Vero’s mission to keep crude class war politics at bay for fifty years, just as Richards was fading Donald became smitten with 'a big, energetic, young man' (Donald Rooum’s own description) who promised to boost the paper. Donald had apparently decided his long-time co-workers at FREEDOM Charles and Kevin 'meant well but persisted with wasteful practices' and should be replaced.

In 2001, Toby Crowe, Donald’s 'big energetic, young man' was installed at FREEDOM, nominally as 'joint-editor' alongside Charles but it was immediately clear to everyone that henceforth, Toby was in charge. Crowe and Rooum then acted in concert to cancel the 'stipends', that had operated for 15 years, paid to Charles and Kevin making them effectively unemployed (Charles went off to fill shelves at Sainsburys to earn a crust).

It was a complete volte-face for Donald who replaced Richards’ appointments, the guardians of FREEDOM’s integrity with a 'big energetic' Marxist, Toby Crowe, a past General Secretary of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB).  I wasn’t the only correspondent to find this editorial appointment inappropriate and inexplicable but our criticisms fell on deaf ears. 

Donald’s New Best Friend

Toby Crowe was quick to make his presence felt, 'enforcing a strict class first line…he broke with much of the old support network…severely weakened the structure of the paper…readers had been alienated, writers had stormed out, sometimes never to return' (n.b. text within quotes are throughout the words of FREEDOM insiders who prefer to remain anonymous, unless otherwise indicated).

Having been a regular contributor under Charles Crute’s editorship, I immediately noticed the effects of regime-change. As articles were delayed and altered I raised my concerns with Toby but to no avail. My experience was commonplace. It seems, 'most of the copy he got in he rewrote'.

I particularly objected to the worthless populism of, 'NEW FREEDOM', citing pieces on Eminem and Hannibal Lecter as just two typical examples. I wasn’t alone, Tom Jennings complained those particular pieces, 'gave little or no meaningful context or analysis” and simply “copied the exaggeration and false moralising used in today’s tabloid politics.'

In January 2001 John Roe submitted a letter questioning a rant posing as a film review.  His letter was severely cut 'for reasons of space' but sufficient space was evidently available to include alongside a similar sized 'smart alec' response from editor Toby Crowe.  When Roe wrote to complain Crowe appended another slice of sarcasm to this second letter. No wonder correspondents and readers deserted in droves.  Suspicions that Socialist Worker was Toby’s style guide were reinforced with his introduction of a 'What We Say' column, which I also objected to at the time. 

Crowe or Cuckoo?

Toby did not belong at FREEDOM. I could see that, numerous writers, readers and other assorted anarchists could see that and eventually even Toby recognised his incongruity.  In 2004 the Marxist reborn as an 'Anarchist' was born again, as a devout Christian.  Toby flew the nest to train as an Anglican priest at Ridley College, Cambridge.  After serving as a Canon at Alperton, near Wembley the Revd Toby Crowe was appointed Rector of Elmdon Church, near Birmingham.

I recently contacted Toby to offer him an opportunity to explain his serial conversions but he was uncharacteristically lost for words.  Having wreaked havoc at FREEDOM he feels no moral responsibility to provide any explanation to the wider anarchist movement.  It is a response shared by his successors at FREEDOM.

We are left to speculate whether the Revd. Toby shares with parishioners his past perceptions of society, 'the fucking steaming pile of horseshit we live in' (14.4.2000) or entertains the congregation with his old Hyde Park/SPGB trick of theatrically dismissing religion by throwing a bible into a litter bin.

From Bad to Worse

Toby was a control freak who single-mindedly recast FREEDOM in his own image, and then abandoned it.  It was clear to me then and should have, at least by 2004, become obvious to Donald and the rest of the FREEDOM collective that;

•             Toby pursued the wrong marketing strategy

•             Toby preached the wrong politics

•             Toby practised the wrong editorial policy

Donald should have held up his hand, admitted his mistake and invited Charles back to edit and belatedly help FREEDOM repair the damage but he didn’t.  Toby’s 'class first' line and utter disregard for wider anarchist ideas and practice had driven away loyal readers whilst his 'editor-knows-best' rewriting and censorship had alienated long-standing contributors.  His policy of pursuing anarchist groups such as AF, Class War and SolFed for both sales and contributions was doomed to fail.  These organisations were happy to have their propaganda reprinted for free in FREEDOM but as they couldn’t sell their own papers why on earth should anyone imagine they would put any effort into selling FREEDOM ?

Toby’s regime supplanted seasoned anarchist supporters of FREEDOM and replaced them with a bunch of impatient, games playing, techno savvy, whizzkids.  Simon Saunders was the most ambitious of this new breed of internet activists attracted to FREEDOM by Toby’s class politics.  In 2004 Toby left but having learnt nothing, the new collective condemned themselves to repeat the same three cardinal errors with the appointment of Simon Saunders as editor. 

If you want to find out what Simon did the next installment of 'Who Killed Freedom' will be posted tomorrow.