& Iain McKay's Misplaced Critique!

BELOW Iain McKay addresses an e-mail to me in which he gives me

too much credit.  I can only assume that has responded in

such haste that he has failed to notice that I am not the author

of the critique on which he exercises so much passion. 

The author of all the critiques about 'Who Killed Freedom'

is clearly Christopher Draper who lives in Llandudno, and

though Mr. Draper writes for Northern Voices he is, as any one who

knows him will realise, very much his own man.  Iain ought to

understand that the words Northern Voices is in the plural, and

 is not one of those smelly little orthodoxies in which everyone speaks in chorus.

Dear Brian,

I'm sick and tired of your petty insults and smearing good comrades -- I also don't appreciate you twisting of my words.
Here is what I actually wrote:
'And what of "Total Liberty"  ?  If this analysis were accurate then that should have gone from strength to strength.  If I remember correctly, it became 'Anarchist Voices' -- does that still exist? I can find issues up to 2010 on-line.  It looks like it "lost its way" long before Freedom did...' compare that to Brian's 'Flaunting his ignorance, McKay celebrates the demise of the magazine "Anarchist Voices", which "lost its way long before FREEDOM did" but I can reassure Iain that it’s alive and well...'


The bad faith and dishonesty is clear. ' Flaunting my ignorance'... oh hum.  I guess that my going through the 'Freedom' archives from the 1880s to the 1960s to produce a Peter Kropotkin anthology amount to nothing... as does my reading of the paper from the late-1980s -- so I have 'flick[ed] through copies of FREEDOM before 2001.  Rest assured, the Freedom of the 1880s to 1930s was class-struggle focused, was communist-anarchist -- even if it opened its columns to others (and why not, if the articles are of sufficient interest and quality).   It is interesting to note that a single quote from 1919 apparently overturns the self-proclaimed communist-anarchist position 'Freedom' had from 1886.  Its recreation in the 1930s was also on this basis.  This did not exclude other anarchists writing for it -- as did other anarchists after 2001.  Something I have noted many times but which Brian fails to acknowledge.


So, all in all, I'm not sure why you are doing this Brian -- all you seem to be achieving is alienating people. Your insults on Richard Griffin are disgraceful (he is no 'useful idiot' and to suggest so shows you do not know him).   I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by these poisonous emails -- given what you have written about me all I can say is that I would suggest that your readers take everything you write with a very large pinch of salt.   All in all, I really do have better things to do that reply to obvious distortions and insults. 


If you want to help build the anarchist movement in the UK, well, that would be good but, to be honest, it does not look like you want to do that -- if you did, you would not be writing such nonsense.   For the other people cc-ed into these bile-filled emails, if you want to do something constructive then please consider getting involved with Black Flag -- like the 'Freedom' Kropotkin helped create, it is a communist-anarchist journal. If that is not your version of anarchism, get involved with something more suitable for you (apparently 'Anarchist Voices' is still going).

Iain (McKay)

Richard Griffin reply to Chris Draper's critique

Jez.  I don't know where to start in respect of what you have written about me - 'a useful idiot'!  This is your answer to the FACT that my writing on the subjects I did for Freedom (and The Raven for that matter) undermines your whole argument that the paper closed off non class war contributors. You really think the collective used me as a cloak to mask its evil intent!?  I wasn't the only person to write on non class issues. 

I love the idea of you slagging me off for issues I didn't raise or was even asked to address (like a critique of AF).  I am not going to bore people with detailed responses to this rubbish other than this one.  You have a go at me for not offering an analysis of why Freedom failed.  Well you know what I wrote one and you know who for?  Jonathan Simcock and Anarchist Voices. 

I knew responding to you would be a mistake.  You are not interested in honest, constructive debate just twisting confirmation bias.  I thought anarchists were better than that. 

Sorry to anyone else whose inbox this nonsense is cluttering.  I wont respond again. 

Who Killed FREEDOM?: update two: April 2015

by Christopher Draper

IN 2014 the world’s oldest radical newspaper, FREEDOM, ceased publication. In February 2015 I (with help from NV comrades) identified the culprits and causes of its destruction in a detailed critique, 'Who Killed FREEDOM?' (available on this website). If you’ve been following the thread, here’s the latest update…



1. Despite their angry responses not one member of the FREEDOM collective has had the courage to accept our challenge to come up North and publicly debate Who Killed FREEDOM? at a Manchester Bookfair.



2. Two recent FREEDOM respondents, Iain McKay and Richard Griffin, are no exceptions. Both signally failed to offer any substantive analysis of why a paper that had survived so long through such a variety of adverse circumstances should now find it impossible to continue. As the authors of an excellent analysis of the failure of alternative organisations observed:
'If we refrain from rigorous criticism for fear of upsetting our friends we can be sure our enemies will be much less restrained and when reality eventually kicks in our initiatives will continue to collapse' ('What a Way to Run a Railroad', Commedia, 1985).


The FREEDOM collective’s continuing refusal to accept responsibility or properly analyse its own failure adds insult to injury.



3. Both McKay and Griffin have nothing to say about key issues such as FREEDOM’s refusal to print criticism of Anarchist Federation intimidation or the paper’s censorship of further specified articles. Neither confronts the fundamental criticism that FREEDOM abandoned its core role of fostering open-minded anarchist debate and instead introduced a regime of simplistic, sub-Marxist rhetoric enlivened by images of masked, missile-throwing juveniles.



4. When McKay claims FREEDOM from “the 1880’s until the 1940’s was always a class-struggle journal” he exemplifies his limited understanding of the FREEDOM tradition perhaps best illustrated by an example that appears in FREEDOM’s centenary edition, published in October 1986.  When Tom Keell, the paper’s editor in 1919 heard that anarchist William Charles Owen had returned to England he asked him to write for FREEDOM.  As Owen had grown sceptical of the merits of communism he wrote back pointing out that as an Individualist he thought his writings might not suit the readers of an Anarchist Communist paper, 'but on being told we were Anarchists first and foremost, he consented'. That is the point, for 115 years FREEDOM was 'Anarchist first and foremost'.  From 2001, in the words of editor Simon Saunders, FREEDOM 'enforced a strict class first line'. 



5. Griffin claims his contributions to FREEDOM on 'gardening, architecture, skateboarding etc' lacked class analysis and still got published.  Sadly he failed to draw the obvious conclusion that he served the collective as a 'useful idiot'.  His offerings challenged nobody, he had and apparently still has, nothing to say about the collective’s censorship or abusive treatment of critical contributors.  His sycophantic attitude is embarrassingly obvious from his pat on the back to Comrade McKay,  'Well said Iain, couldn’t have put it better myself'. 



6. It is apparent to impartial observers that Iain McKay and Simon Saunders, assisted by cabin boy Griffin are better suited to sailing off into the sunset under the 'Black Flag' of vicious old sea-dog, Captain Meltzer (deceased) who never let facts get in the way of a good story.  It is to my profound regret that before doing so they first drove the graceful old flagship FREEDOM onto the rocks.

7. Flaunting his ignorance, McKay celebrates the demise of the magazine 'Anarchist Voices', which 'lost its way long before FREEDOM did' but  I can reassure Iain that it’s alive and well and the current issue contains some excellent articles, including one by myself and a chap named Richard Griffin!   Interestingly, in his 'Anarchist Voices' piece Griffin reveals that he actually stopped reading FREEDOM many years ago but omits to explain whether it was his own or Iain McKay’s articles that caused him (along with many others) to loose interest in the paper.  



8. Echoing McKay’s mix of arrogance and ignorance, Griffin advises, 'Rather than spending hours on this (critique) why don’t you produce and distribute something along the lines you think FREEDOM should have taken?'  It’s clearly escaped Griffin’s attention that besides writing for 'Anarchist Voices' us Northern anarchists have also recently produced 'Boys on the Blacklist' and 'Northern Voices' magazine.  Anarchist campaigns and literature that not are only exemplify lots of imaginative ideas absent from FREEDOM but also popular and bought by ordinary people uninterested in the tired, formulaic nonsense trotted out by recent FREEDOM editors (copies available from the editor of this website).  For further ideas Griffin and McKay could also flick through copies of FREEDOM before 2001 where they’ll readily find articles written by myself and others that don’t simply reduce to their latter-day, 'fight capitalism and create heaven on earth' formula.  If they’re inspired enough they might belatedly reconsider another idea of ours, proposed back in 2001, that FREEDOM practices what anarchism preaches and introduce federated editorial control  (ie - each region contributing a couple of pages per issue through a local editor).  Despite the rhetoric, London wouldn’t accept our idea, retained central control and cultivated group-think.



9. None of this should have happened. Formally, the assets of FREEDOM are not ultimately controlled by the editorial collective but safeguarded by a Board, 'THE FRIENDS OF FREEDOM PRESS Ltd (FFP)'.  As the main purpose of the enterprise is to publish the newspaper FREEDOM if it ceased then FFP are supposed to step in and appoint others to take over production but this did not happen. We will, in the course of time, reveal exactly what has been going on at FFP, for the time being we will simply say all is not well.  In 1982 the FFP Board was constituted with seven directors.  There has been much irregularity since and suffice it to say there is now urgent need to appoint additional directors with integrity and political credibility to restore proper oversight of the activities of the collective and recommence publication of FREEDOM. On the 24th June 2015 FFP are scheduled to hold a meeting to consider the appointment of two new directors; long-time peace activist, Ernest Rodker and libertarian writer and academic, Dr. David Goodway.  Predictably, the collective are already scheming to promote their own tame, rival candidates so the outcome of the Board meeting will have critical significance.  The result is not a foregone conclusion as the legitimacy of some Directors is open to challenge and there is a serious issue of conflict of interest. We will most assuredly reveal more in a future update.

Chris Draper replies to his critics

DEAR N.V.,

Thanks for publishing, WHO KILLED FREEDOM?

I leave readers to judge the accuracy of my analysis for themselves but it seems polite to respond to a couple of correspondents who appear aggrieved.

Matthew Black makes 3 claims:

* He is a not a member of the Anarchist federation (AF) *  Illness was the deciding factor in his decision to leave Freedom *  Matthew insists that having agreed to publish an account of Anarchist Federation (AF) violence on a specified date it was entirely his own decision to go back on his written promise and suppress all mention of the incident.  He was not 'overruled', 'it was my decision'.   As I did not claim Matthew was a member of AF I readily accept his first point.  On the second point, I know he had pneumonia and this may have been an overriding factor in his resignation but his discomfort could only have been exacerbated by his role in the suppression of 'The Burnley Declaration'.

This document described and denounced the violent attacks launched by AF thugs upon two elderly anarchists, it is an important statement organised by Barry Woodling and signed by 150 concerned individuals. In December 2012 Matthew emailed its organisers to say, 'I am just letting you know that your statement will be appearing in the Jan issue of the paper (my emphasis)…I have contacted the Anarchist Federation and asked them whether they would like to write a response to your statement.'  Whether Matthew changed his mind or had it changed for him readers can judge for themselves for on 10th January 2013 his fellow collective member, Donald Rooum emailed (the organisers) to say:

'Poor Matthew. Just been appointed editor of Freedom, and already faced with this controversy. He circulated the collective asking for views on whether your letter should appear and got a nasty letter from Nick Heath saying if your letter was published, he would withdraw co-operation, including the offer of a book… Regardless of Nick’s threats, I ask you to withdraw your letter.'

Precisely how and why Matthew went from a promise to publish to colluding with suppression requires psychological determination rather than the historical explanation I offer but common sense suggests some link between the activities of the collective and Matthew’s volte-face.  In any event, as I make clear in my original essay Matthew was only put in at the end, after the key players had decided the paper was no longer their prime concern.  Any difference of emphasis between my interpretation and Matthew’s leaves my original account unaffected, except to belatedly note Donald Rooum’s role in trying to persuade those promised publication to perform an act of self-censorship and effectively collude with their own oppression.  In contrast to Matthew’s modest, reasoned submission Simon Saunders’ response is an ill-considered farrago of lies and unsupported assertions. Although it’s not always clear what point Saunders is trying to make I’ll endeavour to answer each in turn; * 'quotes' - Where possible I’ve quoted from easily accessible sources so readers can judge for themselves whether my selections are a fair representation.
* 'A habit of slinging emails at random people I’ve never met' - This is a lie and a spectacularly inept one at that for I am well known as someone who rarely and reluctantly communicates by email and never 'sling emails at random people'. * 'financing' – In the current radical argot, 'Check your privilege' Simon!

Unlike Saunders I come from a working class background; born in Warrington, cleaner/dinner lady/factory worker mum: Co-op stable boy/railway clerk dad: council house and the rest of it and know how difficult it is in the real world to talk to ordinary people about anarchist ideas. People like me don’t take to being lectured on class by posh boys from privileged backgrounds. * 'gaming' – I believe Simon’s addiction to computer gaming shapes his absurdly simplistic politics. This point runs in to the next, in that his avatar ('Rob Ray') operates as an anarchist whilst Simon Saunders inhabits the real world.

* 'name' - If our politics are to mean anything we must be our real selves in the struggle. Throughout my forty-year working life I was always “out” as an anarchist and despite being told by an employer that I was blacklisted I refused to hide my identity or politics. I would encourage all anarchists to come out of the closet and openly argue for anarchism. Simon Saunders was involuntarily outed because he colluded in the attempted cover-up of AF violence. Simon’s petulant assertion that 'no-one wants to work with you anymore' is an absurd claim more reminiscent of a playground taunt than serious political debate.

* 'readership' – In 2014, 'A Statement from the Freedom Collective' announced…the number of paying subscribers has fallen to 225. As a result annual losses now amount to £3,500 an unsustainable level for our shoestring budget”, yet Saunders claims, “Readership of the paper remained broadly stable from the time Vernon died (2001) until it closed”. If the position was stable as Saunders now claims then its financial stability remained unaltered, if as the collective announced on closure the number of subscribers had fallen to an unsustainable level then Saunders is once again indulging in falsehood.

Further evidence is supplied by Richard Griffin who Saunders in 2006 described as, 'among the best stalwarts…always reliable'. Griffin records that whilst he was at Freedom, 'from memory we sent out 600 or so'. In 2014 Griffin published an article recording the death of Freedom in which he stated, 'Falling subscribers and fewer volunteers means the paper made an annual £2,500 loss in the end'. Such glaring discrepancies are alone sufficient grounds to prompt fair-minded observers to question the un-accidental death of an anarchist newspaper.

* 'killed it' – Saunders claims that because the paper survived for years after he finished editing, 'neither Toby nor I killed it.'  He misunderstands; I do not accuse Toby or Simon of stabbing the paper to death. I claim that between the years 2001 to 2014 Donald Rooum, Toby Crowe, Simon Saunders and Dean Talent sometimes acting jointly but more often individually effectively poisoned Freedom. It was a slow lingering death, sapping the vitality and integrity out of the institution. For more than a decade several of the aforementioned continued to play a more or less active role until in 2014 Simon Saunders, Donald Rooum and ten others finally delivered the coup-de-grace.

* 'incongruity' – there is none! I learned lots of useful skills writing for anarchist magazines that came in very handy when I secured commercial book contracts. * “smear campaign” – Whilst I’m flattered to learn Simon is now a regular reader of my critical essays I feel he might be exaggerating to claim my study of the Anarchist Federation (AF) amounts to a “campaign”. I suppose I should accept it as a back-handed compliment. In any case I’m content to let readers judge the AF piece on its own merits.

* 'long history' – I certainly have a long history of anarchist activism dating back well before Simon was born and I’m touched that he has made some effort to learn more about my career.  However I fear he may have confused me with someone else for as I intimated earlier I have no record of slander etc.  He might care to flick through a few old issues of Freedom, Total Liberty, Anarchist Voices, Libertarian Education or many other mags or papers and actually read what I’ve written about constructive anarchism. Of course I can’t prove a negative but it won’t have escaped readers’ attention that Saunders’ lie is yet again entirely unsupported by evidence.

* 'decade-old decision from Toby' – Ultimately, of course, my critique of those who destroyed Freedom is no more than a splenetic discharge of long fermented bile originating from my 'decade-old' ejection from the columns of the paper by Toby Crowe, or so Saunders claims, referring to, 'The decade-old decision from Toby that you weren’t worth dealing with'.  Unfortunately for Simon I retained my original correspondence with Toby who in contrast to Saunders was unfailingly polite, reasonable and scrupulously honest.  I rejected Toby’s semi-Marxist politics and after several discussions and letters I made it perfectly clear that I no longer wished to write for the paper until open-minded anarchism was restored. Toby continued to try to persuade me to change my mind:

'So the dilemma is to reconcile arguing for my vision of what Freedom should look like while at the same time persuading you to carry on writing for it.'
'I want you to continue writing for the paper.  We seem to differ over our views of what Freedom should look like, ultimately over what it is for.'
'I have always thought the stuff you wrote was excellent and that is why I am particularly keen that you should carry on submitting material for the paper.'
'I would urge you to reconsider your decision to stop contributing.'

* It requires no further comment from me to show why Simon Saunders should never have been allowed anywhere near editorship of Freedom he has achieved that most eloquently for himself.