Freedom Press: Who is to blame?

I think Chris Draper should be congratulated for exposing the frightful mess at Freedom Press.  A board of trustees (Friends of Freedom Press, F.F.P.) found to be asleep on the job, while a bunch of useless tossers, run amok and have turned the building, into an 'anarcho-hang-out'!  If this is how so-called anarchists, run a magazine, then spare us all, from an anarchist society.


However, while Draper seems to blame the 'oiks' and 'morons' of the Freedom collective, for much of this debacle at Freedom Press, this is not where I feel blame ultimately lies.  The fundamental question, is who brought these people on board in the first place? 


The recent Private Eye article, quite rightly referred to a 'somnolent' FFP, but it was the Freedom veteran, Donald Rooum, who seems to have had his hand on the tiller, for much of the time, and who made, most of the appointments.  Donald may well have thought the Rev. Toby Crowe, (definitely not an oik with a name like that), a 'big strong boy', but is this a sufficient qualification, to edit an anarchist magazine?  And Toby, seems to have been one of Rooum's better appointments after the collective, gave Freedom editor, Charlie Crute, the heave-ho, to make way for one of their cronies.

Given that the trustees barely met before Draper gave them a kick up the arse, should anybody be really surprised at what has been going on at Freedom Press.  They're lucky they've got any assets left.

 DP (28th, Oct. 2015) 



LETTING IT ALL HANG OUT ...

The article below was published on page 10 of the last edition of Private Eye:

 SINCE it was founded in 1886 by the Russian geographer Peter Kropotkin, the anarchist journal Freedom has included among its contributors and supporters George Orwell, Alex Comfort, Augustus John, Herbert Read, Benjamin Britten, and Cliff Harper.  For almost 50 years it has owned its own building, next to the Whitechapel Art Gallery in east London. 

However, after the death in 2001 of Vernon “Vero” Richards, who had presided since the days of the Spanish civil war, it was run into the ground:  first  under the editorship of Toby Crowe, who was more hardline Marxist  than anarchist and eventually packed it in to become an Anglican vicar; then under a young thruster called Simon Saunders, whose consuming passion is for computer games. 

Last October the paper closed down altogether, with a final edition that bizarrely boasted:  'Never mind, Kropotkin might have started it but we fucking finished it!' 

The build at Whitechapel High St, recently valued at £1.1m, is now occupied by a bunch of scribblers, activists and Class War enthusiasts who style it an 'anarcho-hang-out' and call themselves the Freedom Collective – though one veteran Freedom supporter tells the Eye it's less a collective than 'a bunch of oiks and morons' whose anarchism seems to consist largely of swearing a lot.  One denizen rejoices in the moniker Gawain 'the Cunt' Williams. 

Needless to say, there was much jubilation at Class War's '#fuckparade' assault  last month on a nearby hipster cafe selling breakfast cereal. 'The Cereal Killer cafe is a legitimate target,' the Freedom Collective's website declared.  'Yes hipster businesses aren't the actual problem  - capitalism and landlords are – but it is certainly a good thing that these people are made to feel unwelcome.' 

But will the oiks themselves be made unwelcome soon?  The building owned by a formerly constituted company, Friends of Freedom Press Ltd, and under its articles of association its board is obliged to sell if the magazine ceases regular publication, and to use the proceeds for other editorial ventures. 

The hitherto somnolent board of FFP Ltd – mostly old-style anarchists – will meet in London on 21 October to initiate formal eviction procedures.  Meanwhile, despite having spectacularly failed to publish a newspaper, the occupants of the anarcho hang-out refuse to recognise the board's authority and claim ownership of the building 'on behalf of the movement'. 

Regular visitors to Whitechapel Art Gallery can anticipate some lively impromptu performance-art next door in Angel Alley in the coming months. 
And, naturally, a lot of swearing.  

INTERPRETING BALKAN FAIRYTALES

'Serbia's October Revolution'

The article below was written in January 2001 by Brian Bamford
then working as Northern Editor for Freedom, and was first published on the
  A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E   http://www.ainfos.ca/ 
 after being sent to them on Sun, 25 Feb 2001 from Madrid by
Chris Robinson, a Canadian anarchist then linked
to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist trade union CGT trade union. 
It was published on that site after having been rejected by
Freedom then edited by Toby Crow, a friend of Donald Rooum. 
The article below is of some interest now because Serbia is now on
the route to Hungary being followed by many of the refugees from
Syria.

   ________________________________________________

WAS the storming of Belgrade by enraged citizens of Serbia in October of 2000 really a piece of showmanship comparable with the script in Eisenstein's film October?  Some independent writers in the Belgrade press and the Belgrade anarchists are sceptical about some of the more theatrical scenes portrayed in the media, with crowds leaping up the steps of the Federal Parliament and flames flaring from the television studio RTS on October 5 2000 while the NEWS cameras whirled. 

What the Belgrade anarchists are cautioning is that people should distinguish between those features of the Serbian October revolt which were orchestrated and those that were spontaneous. And if stage management occurred who was behind it? 

My main contact in Belgrade, Vladimir Markovic, called what happened on the final day the Agit-Prop Revolution". He urged us to consider the stagecraft and media management used to arouse in the public mind the idea that something world shattering was happening - something like a 'revolution'. On reflection, he and other Belgrade anarchists feel the events of October 5th, with the change of rulers of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, though  necessary and overdue were less significant than the media images suggest.   

BELGRADE ANARCHIST INSIGHTS

The Belgrade anarchists do not just base their doubts about the degree of  political change in Yugoslavia after October on their own anarchist dogma.  They are employing practical reasoning and straightforward observation of the groups, parties and individuals acting in Serb society. 

They are keenly aware of the entrenched nature of the economy which has evolved since the West imposed sanctions in 1992. And because they have insights into the developments in the regime which go beyond the websites and newsprint, they know what to expect from opposition leaders like the Federal President, Vojislav Kostunica and Zoran Djindic the boss of the DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) coalition. More importantly for anarchists, they have grave misgivings about 'Otpor' (Resistance) in which many anarchists outside Serbia have had high hopes.

The British anarchist paper Freedom ran in October (2000) a front page report stating:

'The biggest catalyst for change ... has been the movement known as Otpor (Resistance), a leaderless (and for that matter anarchistic) organisation, with no formal membership.' 

Ratibor Trivunac disputed this in his Summary of the General Strike in Serbia, in October last year. When I spoke to Vladimir Markovic, Ratibor's friend and another Belgrade anarchist,  he confirmed Ratibor's criticisms and gave me an outline of the nature of Otpor. 

Otpor was founded in 1998 and was made up mainly of students. It claims to be a 'leaderless movement'. Markovic admits that as an organisation in the universities Otpor was a useful campaigning group to begin with, and it still has decent people among its members. But Markovic claims the organisation does have senior figures in it who lead the organisation, and that this leadership is composed of about ten key individuals. 

These star figures, it is suggested, work closely with both elements within the party system of the new regime and co-operate with foreign agencies. I wasn't given hard facts, the local anarchists in Belgrade are in the main working on hunches here. Their claim that the US authorities are linked to the Otpor leaders can only be speculation. What they do argue persuasively is that here is an organisation which seems to be well funded, and had no trouble mounting expensive protests during the era of Milosevic and his Socialist Party of Serbia. Markovic argues that eventually Otpor got backing from people inside the Milosevic establishment, from media people and from people in the opposition parties. 

Inside Otpor Markovic says the Council of Otpor operates. He says this is made up of professors from the universities and members of the Academy of Arts and Sciences. The novelist and politician, Dobrica Cosic, has links with this Council of Otpor. Cosic was President of Yugoslavia in 1992 and 1993. He has long been a promoter of the idea of the culture of Serb nationalism.

Misha Glenny, in his book The Fall of Yugoslavia (1992) claimed 'Cosic and some like-minded academics from the Serbian Academy of Sciences had been behind a notorious document called the Memorandum - in 1986 - (t)his bitter attack on the Kosovo policy of the then Communist authorities anticipated the atmosphere of national intolerance which was about to smother reason in Yugoslavia.'  

Curiously both Misha Glenny, the BBC journalist, and Vladimir Markovic, the Belgrade anarchist, identify the intellectuals at the Academy as being the chief culprits culturally creating the conditions of new Serb nationalism.

Misha Glenny argues 'The Memorandum (of 1986) both prepared the ideological ground for Milosevic by focusing public opinion yet more tightly on the Kosovo issue and indicated to this ambitious apparatchik that here was a real base among intellectuals for a nationalist assault .. '

Some anarchists, like most Marxists, are intellectual snobs who focus readily on the politician's dirty hands but who avert their eyes from the vanities of the ideas merchant who creates the cultural conditions in which the politician works. Vladimir Markovic was one of those anarchists who wanted to stress the danger of what George Orwell called The Dictatorship of Theorists.

Here we have the image of the intellectuals at the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences and theologians in the Serb Orthodox Church sowing, while politicians like Milosevic merely reaped. Markovic maintains that the Serb intellectuals were the dogmatic nationalists, and the politicians practical people at once more utilitarian and pragmatic. But it was these practical men who ended up with dirt on their hands. Meanwhile the illustrious theorists, like Dobrica Cosic, at the Academy and in the church go on to sow more seeds.

ETHNIC NATIONALISM TO CULTURAL RACISM : A MAGGOT BECOMES A BLUEBOTTLE

The Balkans, with its legacy from the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs, is often seen as a bridge between East and West. This seems to be important to understanding what is going on in the new governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Serb Republic and, importantly, in Otpor.

The theorists of Otpor, according to my informants in the Belgrade anarchists, have developed their ideas rooted in ancient attitudes and hatreds of all things they see as being 'Eastern'. These ideologues are stirring up the concept of a culture clash in Serbia between two traditions - one eastern, the other western.Vladimir Markovic calls this Cultural Racism; the dichotomy is thus defined:

An alien Asian, oriental culture which was introduced by the Turks in the 14th century and continued by Tito in the 20th century. Crudely classified as 'Oriental Despotism', an era of Turks, Sultans and Communist Commissars, belonging to a history which the Serbs should shed, together with the music and way of life that goes with it, like dead skin. 

The Otpor idea is that Serbian 'real' culture is Western, European and of the Enlightenment, but curiously it also embraces the Serbian Orthodox Church as part of this tradition. This approach proposes the spirit of individual enterprise and liberal values in contrast to Muslim and Middle Eastern ideas and values. This, according to Markovic, is a Western Enlightenment vision at once intolerant, totalitarian and ignorant.   

Let us consider the sinister sequence of events which started in 1986 with the Memorandum; in April 1987 Slobodan Milosevic made his dramatic speech at Kosovo Polje which one Kosovo Serb, Miroslav Soljevic later said 'enthroned him as a Tsar'; on May 8th 1989 Milosevic assumed the presidency of Serbia, but timed the ceremony to coincide with the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, which took place on June 28th at Gazimestan on the battlefield in front of all Yugoslavia's top politicians and an audience of one million.   

The Memorandum was put together by academics at the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, some then in the Serbian Communist Party (now re-named the Socialist Party of Serbia); today some of these same people, like Dobrica Cosic, are now influentially linked to Otpor and the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS). In an essay written last June, entitled 'The Serbian opposition during and after the NATO bombing', Vladimir Ilic warns us about the efforts of the then opposition to the Milosevic regime to recruit 'elite' figures from the University, Writers' Union, Academy of Arts and Sciences.

He says 'These institutions were the ideological strongholds of ethnic nationalism in Serbia and gave a big contribution to the creation of the  phenomenon that is most frequently coupled to Milosevic's name.'   

What the Belgrade anarchists and other critics are now arguing is that, with the fall of Milosevic regime and development of the new system dominated by the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, Serb politics is undergoing metamorphosis. This is the kind of change which occurs when the maggot becomes a bluebottle. Thus Serbian intellectuals at the Academy of Arts and the Universities, who previously influenced the Serbian Socialist system of Milosevic, are now admired by the elements in the new regime of Kostunica and Djindic, and among the supporters of Otpor (Resistance). 

Markovic illustrated this by describing an Otpor demo last year in his in southern Serbia.  At that demo the organisers invoked the epic poem The Mountain Wreath, declaring:

Have done with minarets and mosques!

Let flare the Serbian Christmas-log;

Paint gaily too the eggs for Easter-tide;

Observe with care the Lent and Autumn Fasts,

And for the rest - do what is dear to thee!

It continues in a warlike tone:

Though broad enough Cetinje Plain,

No single seeing eye, no tongue of Turk,

Escap'd to tell his tale another day!

We put them all unto the sword,

All those who would not be baptiz'd; .

We put to fire the Turkish houses,

That there might be nor stick nor trace

Of these true servants of the Devil!

Now however suitable this kind of literary epic may be in seminars at the Academy, one wonders if it is seemly that it should be profiled at a political function in Nis. Least of all at a gathering of Otpor, who some claim has libertarian and anarchistic credentials, and many credit with contributing to the popular overthrow of Milosevic and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS),. Time Judah writes in his book 'The SERBS - History, Myth & the Destruction of Yugoslavia' " . it is essential to understand that many Bosnian Serbs went to war in 1992 elated and in the spirit of . The Mountain Wreath.'

THE NATURE OF SERBIAN ANARCHISM

Under the Tito regime the ethnic elites in Yugoslavia sought to restrain the nationalism of their various regions. In June 1968 there was uproar at Belgrade University as it followed in the trail of events in Paris, Prague and other places that summer. The Belgrade student strikes focused on conditions at first, but quickly became political. Authoritarianism, unemployment and the Vietnam war were denounced, but there was no sign of Serb nationalism. Much of the inspiration came from the philosophy faculty of Mihailo Markovic and others associated with Praxis, the liberal Marxist journal.  

Initially Tito declared his backing for the students. He went on TV and protested that the nation's bureaucracy had obstructed the common aims he shared with the students. Two weeks after the students surrendered the University, Tito demanded the sacking of Markovic and others in the philosophy department on grounds that they were corrupting the country's youth.

Some of today's anarchists in Belgrade trace their history back to those events in 1968. By the 1970s Zoran Djindic, now leader of the governing coalition in Serbia - the DOS - became an anarchist and remained so for about 10 years. Today younger people are in evidence among the Belgrade anarchists.

Some of these young anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are wary of the students in Otpor and the whole university scene. Ratibor Trivunac claims:

'Otpor is a nationalistic, neo-liberal organisation which is led by a few organisers . , they are also funded by western countries.'  

Even in 1991, Misha Glenny describes how the politicians were using the students:  
'I bumped into Zoran Djindic organising his student battalions.  Djindic was in his element - a leading and respectable D.S. (Democratic Party) parliamentarian, he had never been able to discard his Marcusian memories gained as a disciple of the Frankfurt School.'  
The political writings of the anarchist academic, Noam Chomsky, had been selectively published under the Milosevic regime to justify its own case against the west. In such publications Chomsky was not identified as a libertarian socialist.

These Belgrade anarchists now look to the workers' movement and some of the trade unions as a focus of resistance to the new DOS regime of Djindic and Kostunica. To them the General Strike and the spontaneous actions of workers in the coal mines, at Cacak and in Belgrade, were crucial to the final overthrow of Milosevic. They see the more photogenic scenes outside the Federal Parliament on October 5th, 2000 as largely froth.

The Belgrade anarchists are seeking a meeting with Branislav Canak, President of 'NEZAVISNOST' - United Branch Trade Unions (UGS). This union federation has 157,000 members based in engineering, education, public utilities, transport, agriculture and mining. Canak himself voiced his backing for the demonstrations in Seattle against global capitalism. The fairytales which the Belgrade anarchists are challenging are: the 'anarchistic' credentials of Otpor; the 'revolutionary' status of the new regime and the nature of its transformation, which they would liken to metamorphosis; and the 'radical' role of the intellectuals in Serbian society. The Balkan experience ought to warn us all against absurd generalisations and cookbook critiques drafted in a rush on far-flung  campuses to prop-up some grand theory of global politics. 

BRIAN BAMFORD

Northern Editor of Freedom UK, January 2001

Tussle Over Death of 'Freedom'

IAIN Mckay answers Chris Draper's Critique in an e-mail comment below:

'(CHRIS Draper writes) - Angry members of the collective attempted to portray my critique as mere personal criticism and proffered no substantive refutation'

 I'm glad to see that members of the Freedom collective have echoed my comments on these disgraceful emails being no more than personal attacks.

 I have written for Freedom but never been a member of the collective -- I have always found the editors to be open to printing articles from many viewpoints and they regularly put things into the paper I wish they hadn't.  The notion that Freedom closed its doors to other views is wrong -- it opened them and this seemed bother the reformist-liberals (as can be seen from the quotes from Jonathan Simcock below).

"It appears the destructive implications of regime-change engineered by Toby Crowe were presciently anticipated in Spring 2004 by Jonathan Simcock of Total Liberty in the magazine’s editorial column:   'Sadly, the longstanding flagship of British Anarchist journals, namely FREEDOM, has increasingly abandoned the broader church of Anarchist ideas, and has metamorphosed into a poorer version of Black Flag’.”

 A 'poorer version of Black Flag' is far better than being a poorer version of 'Total Liberty' (which showed how well it knew anarchism by proclaiming the so-called "Libertarian Alliance" as allies!).  As for "the broader church" (church, really?) of anarchism, Freedom regularly put in articles from a wide range of views -- which provoked responses from other readers.

In the following edition, Simcock rammed home his analysis and critique:
'To reach ordinary people Anarchist papers need to re-evaluate Anarchist ideas and to hold an open debate. I am afraid the regular dose of 19th century Marxist and Class Struggle dominated viewpoints to be seen in FREEDOM will repel not attract people to anarchism.  FREEDOM has lost its way.' 

The notion that class struggle has something to do with '19th century Marxist' views is pretty ignorant of the views of the anarchists who founded Freedom in 1886 -- and relaunched it in 1936. It is nice to see that Simcock would not be happy to see Freedom opened up to the likes of, say, Kropotkin...

 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...

As Richard noted, 'Black Flag' is still going and if you want to do something constructive for anarchism in the UK rather than ignorantly slang others off, we would like to hear from you.  It's is, as noted, an anarcho-communist paper -- in the same way that Freedom was when Kropotkin helped found it.

The major problem with the movement seems to be an unwillingness for people to get actively involved in projects -- that is the fundamental reason why Freedom is no more.  Perhaps rather than produce nasty little attacks on individuals, perhaps a more constructive activity could be found? Show us all how it is done... that would be a nice change.

Who Killed FREEDOM?: an update: March 2015

by Chris Draper

IN 2014, the world’s oldest radical newspaper, FREEDOM, ceased publication.  In February 2015 I identified the culprits and causes of its destruction in a ten-page critique, 'Who Killed FREEDOM?'  Angry members of the collective attempted to portray my critique as mere personal criticism and proffered no substantive refutation, excepting the claim by Simon Saunders that, 'readership of the paper remained broadly stable from the time Vernon (Richards) died (2001) until it closed – around 300-400.'  More typical responses endorsed my analysis and forwarded supplementary evidence.  As a brief update I summarise a small selection of these new insights:

1.  In response to Saunders’ claim, I’ve been reliably informed that in the summer of 2003, Toby Crowe, the editor responsible for introducing FREEDOM’s controversial 'class-first' regime addressing a meeting at Height Gate, Hebden Bridge claimed, 'that the circulation of FREEDOM was then around 800 copies.'

2.  It appears the destructive implications of regime-change engineered by Toby Crowe were presciently anticipated in Spring 2004 by Jonathan Simcock of Total Liberty in the magazine’s editorial column:
'Sadly, the longstanding flagship of British Anarchist journals, namely FREEDOM, has increasingly abandoned the broader church of Anarchist ideas, and has metamorphosed into a poorer version of Black Flag.'

In the following edition, Simcock rammed home his analysis and critique:
'To reach ordinary people Anarchist papers need to re-evaluate Anarchist ideas and to hold an open debate. I am afraid the regular dose of 19th century Marxist and Class Struggle dominated viewpoints to be seen in FREEDOM will repel not attract people to anarchism. FREEDOM has lost its way.'

3.  A third correspondent offered a graphic illustration of the regime’s determined imposition of its collective will, not only on recent contributors but also on FREEDOM’s political legacy.  Colin Ward’s 1971 classic statement of peaceful, constructive libertarianism, 'Anarchy in Action' was, in 2008, given a makeover insurrectionary cover featuring hooded youths and an anonymous “anarchist” lobbing a missile.  A grotesque, perversion of the political philosophy of an author who believed, 'Ideas not armies change the face of the world,' whose self-declared intention was, 'to put anarchism back into the intellectual bloodstream, into the field of ideas which are taken seriously.' 

4.  An example of FREEDOM’s abuse of editorial responsibility so upset one subscriber that he recalled the incident (and forwarded the evidence to me) fully 5 years after the event, though not themselves the injured party.
'I have been a subscriber to FREEDOM for some 30 years at least, and so it is with sadness that I have decided I no longer want to receive the paper', wrote Ian Pirie to FREEDOM in January 2010. 'Two recent issues of the paper finally made me realise I had enough.'

Mr Pirie, whose father, incidentally had subscribed to FREEDOM long before him, was no longer prepared to put up with the paper’s use of gratuitously offensive language and celebration of violence.
 
Pirie cited recent publication of the 'Bookfair Song' with its first line ending 'you cunts', asking 'How are you going to get anarchism a broader public if you print such sexist and frankly juvenile, stuff?'  ('It’s the place to settle scores / And you know you’re getting yours” and “our scene is not a playground / For wankers to hang out').

Pirie further cited an article by Ian Bone praising the group Os Cangaceiros, who apparently 'join demos armed with sling-shots, rice flails and an array of martial arts weapons' and linked in the paper with Mesrine, described in the same issue as a 'loony who killed two policemen…beat his wife up…kidnapped and tortured a journalist.'

Wondering 'What has this thuggery got to do with anarchism?' Pirie concluded; 'I will continue to do my best to propagate the positive and constructive aspects of anarchist politics where I can. But FREEDOM is no longer any help to me in doing this.'

Rather than reflect on the implications of loosing yet another long-time subscriber the paper printed a mocking response from “Gawain the cunt Williams” (his self-chosen appellation) of the 'Whitechapel Anarchist Group':
'Ian Pirie wrote how this paper no longer represented his liberal whining politics because it printed the word ““cunt”” and apparently his pacifist eyes couldn’t handle it…  Throughout the ‘70s the feminist movement fought against its use. I wasn’t around then so I don’t know if cunt actually meant cleft of venus then, but I know that since I’ve been on this earth it sure as fuck hasn’t. Instead it describes people who are muppets, arses, tossers…  People who hate the word cunt seem to hate it because they’re tired of being called one or because they’re middle class cunts trying to impose some sense of decency on working class men…Makhno was a great anarchist because he used to shoot people. If you can’t handle people being called cunts then how are you going to handle an article about Mahkno?...  Finally, Mr Pirie, maybe you should realise that if the word cunt offends you so much it might be because you are in fact…a cunt. FREEDOM’s been doing a cracking job under its new editors.'!

Future updates will include observations and conclusions from inside the final collective and the Board of 'FRIENDS OF FREEDOM PRESS'.  For now I’m content to leave readers to contemplate the implications of an editorial collective that derides the constructive, intellectually respectable anarchism of Colin Ward as 'reeking of allotments, of forgetting class, of irrelevance and reformism' yet receives such glowing commendation from Gawain “the cunt” Williams.

Christopher Draper, Llandudno

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 2.

Horny Handed Son of Mum & Dad

Unlike Toby, Simon Saunders had no track record of Marxism, in fact he had no track record of anything:  'I had no idea what I was doing…bear in mind my politics, whilst veering towards class-based, were very much those of a left-liberal at this point. I had read Kropotkin, and some of the Anarchist FAQ, but I had only a vague idea of what I wanted to see happen in society.  Days before I started, when a guy commented about a bunch of SolFed pamphlets I was handing out “You’re a syndicalist then?”, I’d had to shamefacedly admit I had no idea what they were talking about'

What Saunders lacked in knowledge and experience was more than made up for in middle class confidence, for the kids of the affluent middle class expect to inherit whatever section of the earth they fancy, whether Parliament, the City, charities, the media or editorship of FREEDOM.  Ignorance was no check on Simon’s ambition or opinions and, as editor, he was soon dismissing the ideas of seasoned anarchists with arrogant aplomb.

Financed by mum and dad ('one parent a Liberal, one a Tory') FREEDOM provided a valuable internship for Simon who, just out of college, fancied a career in journalism and was duly enabled to gain an NUJ card. FREEDOM was less fortunate, under his regime the paper exhorted readers to revolt whilst its editor hid behind the fantasy name 'Rob Ray'.  Simon’s adolescent obsession with computer games, especially, 'Dracula in London', shaped his politics.  Whilst his avatar 'Rob Ray' fearlessly roamed the world proclaiming violent revolution on screen and throughout the pages of FREEDOM, in real life he was the mild mannered Simon Saunders un-associated with anarchism lest it limit his career prospects ('I keep my real name off such things…as it becomes immensely easy for a prospective employer to keep me out of a job').  Before Toby Crowe, editors of FREEDOM had the courage of their convictions, after 2004 anonymity and aliases became commonplace at FREEDOM.  Anonymity might be essential in the immediate period before revolutionary overthrow, but has no proper role in our everyday political task of 'pre-figuratively' modelling a better, more anarchist society.

Under 'Rob Ray’s' editorship examples of self-help and mutual aid so meticulously identified, described and promoted by FREEDOM anarchists from Kropotkin to Colin Ward were notably absent as the paper echoed the politics of other 'class-struggle' publications.

Anarchists who weren’t yet entirely alienated by the paper’s content continued to be discouraged by the offhand treatment they received as prospective contributors. Cumbrian anarchist Martin Gilbert was first asked to submit a collection of articles on 'Anarchists in Social Work' for publication by FREEDOM as an edition of its journal the RAVEN but when this was closed down by Toby, Martin financed publication out of his own pocket. FREEDOM under Simon first agreed to review the book but then didn’t.  Martin Gilbert subsequently asked me to review the book and this review was duly submitted to the collective.  Determined to force FREEDOM to belatedly acknowledge the value of Martin’s work I persevered until Simon eventually published my review but it is illustrative to read the accompanying admission (reproduced verbatim): 

'There has been a catalogue of errors and let downs regarding both the book and this review.  In the case of the book, the manuscript was originally intended for the Raven, but this journal ceased publication before his hard work could appear.   He then, as Chris mentioned, printed it himself and got Chris to review it for him.  The review was then lost, found, lost again, re-found and finally disappeared completely.  Following his letter in the last issue, we had it re-sent to us, and have now finally printed it here.'

At least as an authoritarian Toby was efficient; under Saunders’ editorship, 'Correspondence went missing or unanswered, features were lost and former disagreements and feuds went unnoticed, only to resurface months down the line as the group struggled to cope…Freedom’s organisation began to unravel.'

Having belatedly learnt the meaning of 'Syndicalism' Saunders joined the 'Solidarity Federation'  (SolFed) and as FREEDOM’s editor continued to pursue Toby’s failed strategy of appealing to 'class-struggle anarchist organisations' to support and sell FREEDOM with a similar lack of success.  In 2009 Saunders resigned his editorship (but remained part of the editorial collective) to spend more time writing articles for the newspaper of the British Communist Party.

Perks for the Privileged

By 2009, little remained of the paper’s former politics and sales continued to nosedive yet FREEDOM provided perks for a privileged few.  For A.F. and SolFed FREEDOM supplied free advertising, an enhanced profile and a convenient central London location for meetings.  For student radicals it offered informal political experience and credibility that led on to other fields, professional journalism for Saunders and editorship of libcom website for others (collective members Jim Clarke and Steven Johns for example).  FREEDOM’s book publishing business offered another invaluable opportunity that the collective were soon to exploit with disastrous consequences.

In tomorrow's exiciting installment of 'Who Killed Freedom...' we get another star turn of anarcho-syndicalism with Dean Talent of the Solidarity Federation and the Copywrite Kid!