THE OTTER MEMOIR

by Séamas Cain
'I first met Laurens Otter outside a Labour Party Conference in Blackpool in 1959:  he was selling Peace News and I was with some Young Liberals from the North West demonstrating.  Later, in 1960, Laurens came to address the Rochdale Young Liberals on anarchism and worker's control.  He was involved in the peace movement and the Committee of 100, and for some of us he had a big influence on our development as anarchists in this country in the 1960s.  A member of the Syndicalist Worker's Federation, he had been a founding member of the National Rank & File Movement in London in 1959-60.'  (editor) 

LAURENS Otter was a prominent activist in the Ban-the-Bomb Movement in Britain during the late 1950s and early 1960s.  Indeed, he was a strategist and theoretician for The Committee of 100 and Polaris Action.  Mr. Otter has now published a Memoir of his life and activism.  I think it will prove to be of some historical interest.

Over the years Mr. Otter has been a prodigious small-press publisher.  He has published any number of collections of essays, as well as collections of poetry and plays by various authors.  His Memoir, however, provides a wealth of specific details and glimpses of movements that challenged established institutions throughout the world.

Laurens Otter has written:  “My parents knew Gandhi in India — mother had first contacted him when she was in South Africa, she used to fast whenever he did and my elder brother and I (in my case from the age of 4) used to fast for a day or two whenever Gandhi began to fast.”

Martin Bashforth, the editor of The Otter Memoir, has written that “Laurens belongs to a generation who, though they did not know it at the time, laid the foundations for the New Left in the 1960s and beyond.  Laurens was very much one of the activists from that generation — people who gave the movement its practical impetus.  They created organisations, movements, and publications to which those of us born after World War Two could turn as we worked out our response to the world around us.  In particular, during the late 1950s and early 1960s their use of non-violent civil disobedience was an inspiration, even for those of us too timid to adopt these tactics ... The Memoir as it stands admirably sums up the culture on the Left that had been created since 1945 and that deserves to be revisited by today's networked dissident generation.  They need to honour their forebears and learn from them.”

The Otter Memoir is available here as a free download ...

https://oldredfogey.wordpress.com/laurens-otter/

This Memoir contains descriptions of encounters, disagreements/agreements, and/or interactions between Laurens Otter and Richard Acland, Alex Alexander, Frank Allaun, Andy Anderson, Lady Clare Annesley, Pat Arrowsmith, Brian Bamford, John Banks, Donald Bannister, Robert Barltrop, Ernie Bates, Olwen Battersby, Brian Behan, Desmond O'Neill Belshawe, John Bishop, John Boland, Claude Bourdet, Maurice Brinton, Eileen Brock, Hugh Brock, Lily Brown, Peter Copper Brown, Tom Brown, Dr. Noel C. Browne, Oliver Browne, Forbes Burnham, Melita Burrell, Mike Callinan, Mary Canipa, April Carter, Ian Celnick, Ray Challinor, Terry Chandler, Terry Chivers, Stuart Christie, Bill & Joan Christopher, Chichester Clark, Howard Clark, George Clarke, Tony Cliff, Ken Coates, Kelso Cochrane, G.D.H. Cole, Canon John Collins, Phil Cooke, Mike Craft, Rikki Dalton, Lawrence Daly, Sir Tam Dalyell of the Binns, baronet, Dorothy Day, Francis Deutsch, Ian Dixon, Dr. Richard Doll, Kurt Dowson, Peggy Duff, Raya Dunayevskaya, Father Alan Edwardes, Freda Ehlers, Robert Ehlers, Stanley Evans, Marianne Faithful, Baron Brian Faulkner, Leah Feldmann, Michael Foot, George Foulser, Crystal Gates, Dorothy & Norman Glaister, Ygael Gluckstein, Victor Gollancz, David Goodway, David Grahame, Martin Grainger, Eddie Grant, Robert Green, Jo Grimond, Reg Groves, Stephen Gwynn, Denzil Harber, Margaret & Bryan Hart, Ernie Hartley, Ken Hawkes, Stephen Hawking, Eric Heffer, Ammon Hennacy, Wynford Hicks, Axel Hoff, Philip Holgate, Gerald Holtom, Bishop Trevor Huddlestone, Cheddi Jagan, C.L.R. James, Brenda Jordan, Pat Jordan, Francis Jude, Matt Kavanagh, Douglas Kepper, Jim Kilfedder, Father Gresham Kirkby, Charles Lahr, John Lall, Kitty Lamb, Bill Lean, Father Kenneth Leech, John Lloyd, Meng-Tse Lo, Keith Lye, Freddie Lyons, Seán MacStíofáin, Ollie Mahler, Father Donald Manners, Harry Marsh, André Marty, Madame Natalia Trotskaya, Tom Mboya, John McGuffin, Pronchais McGuinness, George McLeod, Harry McShane, Clifford Mélotte, Albert Meltzer, Hélène Michon, Renée & Lucien Michon, Yvonne Michon, Bernard Miles, Rita Milton, Harry Mister, Ron Moir, George Molnar, Sybil Morrison, Ken Morse, Peter Moule, Arthur Moyse, Hilda Murrell, Colin Myers, Mike Nolan, John Olday, Captain Terence O'Neill, Dr. Chris Pallis, Jeanne Pallis, Max Patrick, Geoffrey Payne, Inge & Donovan Pedelty, John Pilgrim, Carl Pinnel, George Plume, Eric Preston, J.B. Priestley, Stu Purkiss, Jim Radford, Mike Randle, Vero Recchioni, Vernon Richards, Archbishop Tom Roberts, S.J., Adrian Robertson, Mary & Jack Robinson, Jeff Robinson, Ernie Rodker, Roger Rolph, Donald Rooum, Father John Rowe, Bertrand Russell, Raphael Samuel, Philip Sansom, Simon Schama, Ralph Schoenman, Father Michael Scott, Natalia Ivanovna Sedova, Mike Segal, Gene Sharp, Dr. Owen Sheehy-Skeffington, Sydney Silverman, Allen Skinner, Jim Slater, Colin Smart, Harry Smith, Joan Smith, Dr. Donald Soper, Harold Steele, Mary & Jack Stevenson, John Stockbridge, Bishop Mervyn Stockwood, George Stone, Douglas Stuckey, Buck Taylor, Carol Taylor, Joe Thomas, E.P. Thompson, Tommy Thompson, David Thornley, Charles Tillon, David Toogood, Peter Turner, Arthur Uloth, Fred Walker, Barbara Wall, Bernadine Wall, Digger Walsh, Nicolas Walter, Colin Ward, Tom Wardle, Will Warren, Kate & Bobby Waters, Kurt Weisskopf, Fran White, Roma White, John Whiteley, David Wicks, Kathy & Wilfred Wigham, Thomas Willis, Tom Wintringham, and Lillian Wolfe.

The Otter Memoir is available here as a free download ...

https://oldredfogey.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/the-accidental-making-of-an-anarchist.pdf

For Séamas Cain go to:

http://www.priosma.net

http://seamascain-writernetwork.org

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.

Anarchist Fed.: Under the Pavement Politics

 by Chris Draper.

 LENIN urged the Communist Party to support the Labour Party 'like a rope supports a hanged man'; the 'Anarchist Federation' (AF) provides a similar facility for the British anarchist movement. AF’s conspiratorial politics are a destructive threat and an ethical affront to all fair-minded anarchists.

AF employs bans, censorship and violence to silence its critics as it pursues a 'semi-secretive' party-building strategy aimed at unifying and dominating the British anarchist movement. Fortunately AF has had limited success and its claimed membership only equals the number of libertarians that in 2013 signed a letter deploring AF violence.

The organisation’s title is the original deceit. Until 2001 AF was more accurately labelled ACF, the 'Anarchist Communist Federation', an organisation whose declared, 'emphasis was on building a Platformist style organisation in Britain'. The name change might have signalled a move towards undiluted anarchism but it didn’t, it was a cynical marketing ploy to ditch a tainted brand. 'It should be noted that the decision was not unanimous and some ACF members argued against the name change because of fears of dilution of our politics' but were reassured, 'this does not reflect a change in political direction'. 'We didn’t change our Aims and Principles!' (nb. text within quotes is taken directly from AF documents, unless otherwise indicated). 'With the name change we hope to create dialogue with those new to revolutionary ideas.'

AF hoped to conceal its continuing Platformist policies in order to attract, 'those new to revolutionary ideas' because, as members of the Direct Action Movement (DAM) observed at the time; 'The Platform was rejected by most of the anarchist movement and denounced as an attempt to Bolshevise anarchism'.   AF appeared to concur as they adjusted and extended their marketing, 'to attract those disillusioned by Leninism'.  The AF’s 'Platform' incorporates the 'Manifesto' of French Libertarian Communist George Fontenis, a proponent of the 'vanguard party' as well as the Council Communist politics of Anton Pannekoek despite admitting, 'the ideas of Anton Pannekoek are situated clearly within the Marxist tradition.  True Pannekoek was never an anarchist but the ideas he espoused hold much in common with and have greatly influenced the ideas of the Anarchist Federation of today.' 

ACF’s second, undeclared, aim in modifying its name was to establish market dominance. Neophytes would assume that this new “Anarchist Federation” embraced the whole spectrum of British anarchism, so why look elsewhere? In 2005 Dave (McLibel) Morris identified AF’s habit of airbrushing from history the work, and indeed the very existence, of anarchist activists outside AF. Responding to a typically jaundiced account published in AF’s journal, “Organise”, Morris wrote to AF to insist, 'there’s a very wide range of anarchist and anarchist-influenced activities which could and should also be acknowledged.'

The third aim in dropping the “C” was to give overseas anarchists the impression that ACF is an inclusive federation representative of the 2,000-3,000 or so anarchists in Britain (Morris’s estimate). This facilitated the organisation’s affiliation to the “International Anarchist Federation” (IAF) enabling the clique running AF to attend IAF meetings and misrepresent the views of the rest of us.

AF might have had legitimate claim to the label if those pushing the name change originated from the Anarchist rather than the Communist wing of the ACF but the founding members of the ACF in 1985 came from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Libertarian Communist Group respectively. The AF planned to establish a single, “specific, unified libertarian communist organisation…with a unified strategy and practice”. Anyone unsure whether this is Anarchy in Action or vanguardist party-building might refer to the organisations “Manifesto and Programme” (I kid you not). Inside AF’s party manifesto we learn their plan is to establish, 'semi-secretive…groups of dedicated revolutionaries'.

These self styled 'semi-secretive revolutionaries' hide their real names and operate either anonymously or behind aliases. Only the names of non-members appear in AF publications, otherwise all articles are unsigned. Their claimed logic is the threat they pose to the system would otherwise make them prime targets for the security services but if they really believe this confounds the State they are even more deluded than I think. Without names there is an obvious distancing from readers and others who come across the organisation. Hierarchies are hidden and accountability absent. The truth is that behind the scenes Nick Heath writes most the stuff and pulls most of the strings.

Ruth Kinna’s excellent “Introduction to Anarchism”, accurately identifies AF as “London-based” and “semi-secretive” but missed comrade Heath’s latest cunning plan for extending his party-building empire. Hints appeared in a 2011 edition of “Organise” where AF claim responsibility for “getting regional bookfairs off the ground in Sheffield, Manchester and Bristol”. Exploiting the well-established reputation of the London Bookfair for unsectarian promotion of all forms and interpretations of anarchism AF bankrolls local fairs to provide sectarian recruitment opportunities.

The recent Manchester Bookfair (November 2014) illustrates AF practice. Whilst a range of libertarians were allowed stalls (Vegans, Anarchist Voices, Cunningham Amendment etc) the “talks” (nb. not workshops or discussion groups) were dominated by AF and their stooges. Everyone attending the “Introduction to Anarchism” talk was handed a free 48-page booklet, not a general intro to the spectrum of anarchist ideas and organisations, such as Kinna’s book or Nicholas Walter’s pamphlet. It was an “Introduction to Anarchist Communism: The Anarchist Federation”. This isn’t anarchist consciousness-raising it’s “semi-secretive” party-building.

A member of the Northern Anarchist Network (NAN) known to be critical of AF politics was denied entry to the bookfair by a member of the venue’s (Pump House Museum) staff on the instructions of organisers “Veg” and “Dave Under the Pavement”. Staff had, apparently, been instructed to also refuse entry to another un-named anarchist. The organisers refuse to state openly the justification for these bans or their intended duration. It remains unproven whether “Veg” or Mister “Under the Pavement” are members of AF or, in Lenin’s (alleged) words, “useful idiots” but it is certain that AF is behind the ban.

At the 2012 London Bookfair an AF gang launched a premeditated violent attack on a lone anarchist tallholder that was witnessed by independent publisher, Ross Bradshaw of “Five Leaves” who reported the incident on his blog:
'Early in the day a small group from Manchester asked the one person at Northern Voices to leave. It was not clear to me at that moment why. It turned out that the magazine had some time ago written a rather unfavourable, and indeed rather unpleasant, obituary of the Manchester anarchist Bob Miller. Some time later in the morning a large group of people, from Manchester and elsewhere, returned to the stall, and when the stall holder refused to leave, wrecked it, stealing most of the material on display and covering the stall-holder and the stall (and one unrelated stall-holder behind NV) with salad cream. Though the stall-holder was uninjured, save for a bruised face when he fell and some irritation from the cream getting into his eyes, he was pretty shocked, as was anyone seeing the incident. I have no doubt that his original article was unwise and should not have been published – the best critique of it appears on NV’s own rather good blog.'

Another independent witness to the incident was a rather frail 78-year-old, Mr Ilyan Hugh Thomas of Carmarthen who happened to be passing just as the AF thugs struck. Mr Thomas kindly, and rather bravely, followed the gang back to their AF stall where he remonstrated with them and attempted to retrieve some of the literature stolen from Bamford’s stall. Despite his obvious age Mr Thomas was punched to the floor by the AF thugs.

A 'Burnley Declaration' deploring AF bans and violence was circulated and rapidly gained 150 signatures. AF characteristically failed to respond. In fact AF action immediately prior to and following the event served to further underline the organisation’s authoritarianism and contempt for the wider movement. (Incidentally I share Mr Bradshaw’s criticism of the obituary and note that NV itself published criticism of editor Bamford, a characteristically libertarian response so evidently absent from publications, organisations or events controlled by AF).

Cumbrian anarchist Martin Gilbert recalls that, on 'The day before the 2012 London Anarchist Bookfair I went to Freedom Bookshop. By chance I met Brian Bamford. After a short time Nick Heath (AF founding father) entered the shop emitting a string of verbal abuse against Brian. Freedom bookshop is visited by comrades from all over the world as well as people who are quite new to our ideas and actions. Nick’s outburst, whatever the cause could only give the worst of impressions.'

Despite this unrestrained public aggression when presented with an opportunity to politely state its case in clear rational terms so the rest of the movement could understand and judge for itself AF prove worse than unresponsive. Consider what happened when the “Burnley Declaration” was submitted to the anarchist newspaper Freedom in December 2012. Freedom’s editor emailed back:
'I am just letting you know that your statement will be appearing in the Jan issue of the paper. I am a bit behind at the moment, but would expect it to be ready to print in a week – ten days from now. I also wanted you to know that in the interests of fairness/not taking sides, I have contacted the Anarchist Federation and asked them whether they would like to write a response to your statement. If they choose to respond then that would also be included in the same issue.

Kind regards,

Matthew.'

AF responded alright but not in a nice way. Presented with an opportunity to either denounce the violence as the isolated acts of a rogue element or to justify their actions AF did neither. As veteran anarchist and member of the newspaper collective, Donald Rooum explains, Freedom 'got a nasty letter from Nick Heath saying if your letter was published, he would withdraw co-operation, including the offer of a book.' Although Donald explains he didn’t approve of AF’s conduct, along with the rest of the collective he gave in to AF threats. Freedom should have made a principled stand and gone ahead and published details of the attack and allowed the anarchist movement to judge the facts for itself but instead Freedom effectively colluded with AF. This was not Freedom’s finest hour but the rot had already set in. The paper was already on the verge of collapse having in recent years systematically driven away most of its regular writers and subscribers through its ever-increasing indulgence in crude, unthinking, confrontational AF-sponsored propaganda. The anarchist movement might have detected the writing was on the wall for FREEDOM as early as 2004 when AF boasted in their house magazine:
'FREEDOM NOW UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT! - MORE ANARCHIST COMMUNIST'!

After so cravenly caving in to Heath it was unsurprising that, the Freedom collective then bowed to his request to formally become an integral member of the editorial group. Heath had previously stated his wish to see the number of anarchist journals reduced to create a 'unified voice' and in 2014 Freedom ceased publication. Freedom continues to publish books and its most recent production is the one referred to above, by a certain Mr N Heath.

AF is not a federation of anarchists but a sectarian, vanguardist party. You are either with them or against them. Fellow travellers are tolerated, even encouraged, but anarchists who reject the revealed truths of the AF creed are fair game for anything from insults to physical attack with censorship, bans, and exclusions all part of the armoury. A disillusioned AF member revealed 'Federation members would routinely ridicule other anarchists' (nb. text in bold italics are the words of disenchanted or ex-AF members). Despite most chroniclers describing the 1960’s and 1970’s as a high watermark of anarchist influence AF characteristically denigrates, distorts and dismisses the constructive work of highly regarded anarchists like Colin Ward and Nicholas Walter; 'Of course, the humanist and pacifist elements that rejected class struggle continued to peddle their forms of radical liberalism within the pages of Freedom and Anarchy.'

'Lifestylist has become a derogatory smear for anyone who does not follow the neo-Platformist party line.'  'Sometimes people would just resort to crass stereotypes about squatters and hippies.'   Mutual respect for comrades pursuing alternative visions of anarchism is alien to AF whose vanguardism is formally denied although their 'leadership of ideas' is loudly and officially proclaimed. AF also modestly claims to embody the 'memory of the working class'.

In 2011, Comrade Heath declared:
'We have to be seen as a serious movement, not one viewed as ineffectual and passive, riddled with dilettantes and cranks.'

Almost a century earlier Henry Hyndman the autocratic founder of Britain’s first Marxist party denounced the iconoclastic libertarian influence of gay pioneer Edward Carpenter and his friends in chillingly similar terms:
'I do not want the movement to be a depository of old cranks, humanitarians, vegetarians, anti-vivisectionists and anti-vaccinationists, arty-crafties and all the rest of them, we are scientific socialists and have no room for sentimentalists.'
Tolstoyan anarchist editor Charles W Daniel responded to such prejudice by renaming his own periodical The Crank and lest that title appeared too modern he later renamed it Ye Crank. As Henry George artfully observed, 'A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions.' Cranks are the very essence of anarchy and the intolerance of AF’s policy and practice the antithesis.

Not every Tom, Dick or Harriet is allowed to join this elite organisation. Although AF members conceal their own identities you can’t join unless you first email your name and address to party HQ. Then follows the vetting procedure; a member of the party faithful first visits your residence to assess whether you’re ideological sound and likely to be loyal. Then you have to sign over a sizeable, regular levy on your income to party funds. Any ideological deviation, unacceptable level of activism, disloyalty or non-payment and you’re out, expelled. 'I just tried to check my emails one day on the AF account and found out I had been deleted'.

Leaving voluntarily is akin to apostasy and much resented with one ex-AF member reporting:
'I wrote a resignation email to explain why I was leaving and share my critique of the organisation’s inactivity and informal hierarchy. The response I got was someone asking me not to post my melodramatic Shakespearian soliloquy on the list. Nice way to respond to someone who has worked in the organisation for five years.'

Fortunately the party building isn’t going too well. AF are a bit like the saloons in the old cowboy films, the frontage looks big and impressive but round the back it’s really just a ramshackle shed. 'I imagined the Anarchist Federation was a lot bigger than it turned out to be…it never seemed to grow in the few years I was associated with it.' The maximum membership claimed by AF is 150 and when 10 members attended their Scottish conference AF considered this a good result. The published list of branches appears quite extensive until you realise that AF considers 3 members constitute a branch and in terms of activism, “many branches barely exist”.

As self-proclaimed anarchists, AF won’t admit the reality of an informal but effective hierarchy but it doesn’t take recruits long to realise AF’s professed democratic structure is a fiction. AF is effectively controlled by an informal group; 'a small friendship clique of the longest serving members…these Elders seemed to have decided long ago to crush youthful initiatives… just like the Trotskyists they claimed to be so different from'.

Writing in 'Total Liberty' in 2007 Peter Good identified this approach:
'Following the collapse of global Marxism…anarchists sought meaning in class-struggle organisations.  Many of which are little different from stereotypical revolutionary groups…the spirit that created them soon gets subsumed under a need to arrive at a unified orthodoxy. In doing so the organisation loses contacts with the context of the everyday.  Before long a system of administration kicks-in and we are witness to all the paraphanalia of bureaucracy, subscriptions, membership, meetings, mail-outs, exclusions.'

A disenchanted AF member reports:
'I am not exaggerating when I say that the vast majority of the time spent at national conference went on discussing internal administrative problems.' A 'unified orthodoxy' is well established and an,
'overly defensive group-mentality exists in AF'. 'It would be better if the whole thing was abandoned and a new organisation formed.'

Good’s analysis shouldn’t be misconstrued as opposing all forms of organisation as he goes on to claim, “The affinity group is the fundamental unit of any Free Society”. Good’s critique does however demonstrate how the ideology of AF dovetails with its authoritarian practice. He goes on to explain, 'The great fallacy of revolutionary organisation is a belief that the root of oppression lies in defective institutions. In demanding a new set of institutions it fails to address the need to change individuals. History is replete with descriptions of how institutional practices of the former society get carried across through personalities of the revolutionaries.'

Or as Gustav Landauer put it:
'The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but it is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.'

Contrast this approach with AF’s:
'Once capitalism has been destroyed, we can set about the exciting task of fulfilling our individual potential and shaping this new community' (AF “Manifesto”, 5th edition, pg 15).

Attacks on comrades, 'semi-secrecy' and 'Under-the-Pavement' politics have no proper place in our movement and I publish this open letter as a challenge to all members of the Anarchist Federation to come out of the woodwork and debate your politics in public. I write as an individual but know from conversations with comrades that many share my perception of AF. I challenge AF to debate, 'Semi-secret Politics versus Open Anarchism' at the next Manchester Bookfair although I suspect AF will simply add my name to the banned list and continue operating under the pavement.

For Peace, Love & Anarchy,

Christopher Draper, Llandudno (December 2014)