Anarchist Organisation and Strategy Gathering
Easter 1990 Melbourne

Introduction | Presentations | Reflections

Introduction

Formal presentations at the gathering

The order of presentations were drawn out of a hat.

• Presentation - Richard Fields: Anti-mass collectives and Anarchist organisation
  Richard Fields became involved in the organisation of the Sydney anarchist movement during 1974. After the 1976 split in the Federation of Australian Anarchists at the conference in Melbourne, he was part of a small group who established the Jura Literature Service and Sydney Anarcho-Syndicalists in Sydney in 1976, which then established Jura Books in August 1977. When the conflicts over collective organisation occurred during 1981-1982, Richard was part of the group that resolved the dispute by founding another bookshop - Redfern Black Rose. The Black Rose collective spent much time developing collective processes, and using anarchist and related theory to inform a model of collective organisation and action. This paper draws heavily on the observation and experience of anarchist groups in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s.

• Presentation - A.S.F. Melb. North: A.S.F.'s Workplace/Community Strategy in action.
  Susie Russell decided not to distribute a paper before the Gathering, but provided an outline (see below). Some information covered in her presentation is contained in The Melbourne Tram Dispute and Lockout of 1990 by Dick Curlewis.

  This workshop will look at the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation's workplace / community strategy in action. It will deal mainly with the Public Transport industry in Melbourne since May '86 publication of "Sparks" No. 1 up to the present and focus particularly on the ASF's involvement in the January 1990 lockout of tram workers and the campaign to save the Upfield train line.

• Presentation - Bob James: Life of John Olday; Alternative Strategies and Questions underlying strategies eg motivation
        Part One: John Olday in Europe   |   Part Two: John Olday in Australia

  Bringing the life and work of John Olday before people's attention is not an exercise in hero worship, though his activities were often heroic. He is a forgotten part of forgotten Anarchist history, but the past is only useful if we can lean from it. In this case, we can see many different strategies and attempts at organisation being used by the one person over a long period of time. Discussion could bring out many different points of view about the success or failure of these strategies. .... What follows is in two parts: the first was written by the German editor of Trafik magazine, the second part is Olday's own memoirs, at least the Australian section, written in the third person (himself as 'J')

• Presentation - Libertarian Workers: Relevant Anarchist Strategy for Change
  The Libertarian Workers for a Self Managed Society have been active in Melbourne since the late 1970s. They were the group that intiated the Australian Anarchist Centenary Celebrations that was held in Melbourne in May 1986. In 1987 they formed the Anarchist Media Institute to act as an anarchist interface with the mass media. They currently publish a weekly journal of news and commentary on current events and also broadcast a weekly radio program on community radio 3CR.

Reflections on the Conference

Some general comments:

I felt the Gathering was very successful in providing Anarchists from all backgrounds, individuals and groups a chance to meet and talk AND LISTEN. I got involved in organising the Gathering for this very reason. If we do not build tolerances, share ideas and support each other, we will waste our time and energy and remain a marginalised group with limited appeal.
Gary
Published: Anarchist Network Newsletter May 1990

Feedback:
The feedback on the Gathering was mainly positive. The main criticisms and concerns were about the behaviour and the processes in the Circle on Saturday. People were concerned about how the banking system for speakers worked, and also the difficulties with people sitting outside the circle. Because of side conversations, any criticisms, remarks or comments could not be responded to by the group.
From the Report from the Organising Group
Published: Anarchist Network Newsletter June 1990

A small surplus from the Gathering was distributed to the Libertarian Workers, who originally staked the cost of the Gathering, and to the Melbourne A House.

My Reflections on the Easter 1990 Anarchist Conference.

I didn't completely enjoy attending the Anarchist Easter conference in Collingwood, but then again, that was not the particular aim of the conference. The atmosphere was tense with participants appearing fairly serious and tending to be overly defensive - as if they were expecting to be criticised or attacked. It was however infinitely better than the disastrous Anarchist conference held in Easter of 1976, where we split over our ideological and lifestyle differences. No, the Australian Anarchist movement had grown up since then; (and grown older).

We listened carefully to each other and critically discussed the papers presented. St. Richard of the Fields presented the first paper which was to form the background of the Saturday discussion. Richard's position, in his paper "Anti-Mass Collectives", was that small groups of mutually supportive and committed Anarchists having a particular role and a goal was the best strategy for establishing an Anarchist movement. This is, of course, how Australian Anarchists (at least those who work in groups), operate. While conference participants acknowledged that this modus operandi was effective, people pointed out numerous problems with it, namely:

• The group may get too inward looking; it needs a dynamic interaction with the outside world.
• It is unclear how, and if at all, each collective would relate to other collectives. How could Anarchism become a movement in the absence of some federal structure?
• If the collective is responsible only to itself, what is there to prevent it sliding into bad politics - just as many mass collectives do? (After all, power-trippers exist in small collectives too).

The other papers presented on Saturday were also very valuable for discussion. Susie Russell spoke on the involvement of the the A.S.F. In community and workplace struggles, with a detailed account of their support of the long and demanding tramway workers' dispute over the state government's attempts to eliminate tram conductors' jobs by introducing the new ticketing system of scratch tickets. She also talked about the work done by the A.S.F. in mobilising community opposition to the introduction of light rail to replace trams. The role of the Anarcho- Syndicalist transport workers' newspaper, "SPARKS" in informing workers of state government plots and suggesting ways of beating them was also discussed.

Bob James presented an historical paper on a fascinating Anarchist revolutionary, John Olday, who was active in the anti-fascist struggles in pre-war Nazi Gerrnany and later on, in Britain during the war, as an anti-militarist (but not pacificist) activist. There was discussion afterwards on how Olday adapted different strategies for the different situations (an important point!) and on whether or not John Olday was an Anarchist (which was not important and, I thought, irrelevant ... we had come to discuss organisation and strategy, not what Bakunin had for lunch!)

By late afternoon, it was clear from our discussion that the Anarchists were polarised into the group that believed in the relevance and importance of class struggle and in developing a movement to bring this about, and the group that rejected this notion in favour of a power-analysis that would promote a more personal revolution. I was becoming increasingly frustrated by now as many conference participants were doing a great deal of labelling of other participants, over-simplifying each other's positions and misrepresenting them ... e.g. that people who believed in one form of social change did not support other forms; that industrial activists were not also involved in feminism, anti- authoritarianism or environmentalism, etc. I was also irritated by the petty bickering of Anarchists in different groups and by the sloppy thinking. We are in the middle of a maior world-wide period of conservatism ... you just have to listen to the media buzz-words of "efficiency" (read "job-cuts"), productivity (wage-cuts), "responsible economic management" (rip-off the environment), "privatisation" (when a greedy government tries to sell off assets which belong to the people).

The simple truth was that we as Australian Anarchists have been pretty badly affected by being isolated in whatever job and suburb we belong and we too have been unable to escape the really selfish and consumerist consciousness that prevails. The result is that we Anarchists fail to appreciate each other or understand each other's position. Hence we are unable to successfully articulate (let alone agree on) a program of social change. What we seem to to be doing is merely reacting to changes that are coming from the Right. The environment movement is still effectively articulating anti-consumerist and ecological strategies ... why aren't we successfully doing similar things as a coherent and united group (the sum total being greater than its constituent parts)?

The only group to present an attempt at an overall strategy for change in the 1990's was the Libertarian Workers for a Self Managed Society. Theirs was the last paper for the Saturday afternoon. It covered a range of issues. Some it covered quite well, others badly. Its faults were that it over-generalised in parts and neglected important areas of Anarchist strategy eg how Anarchists can provide an actual alternative to the state and to Capitalism.

• We need to work out economic, social and political programs taking us in practical defined steps into the future; How we can build Anarchism as a bigger movement with a louder voice.
• The highly commendable Anarchist Media Institute and work with the mass media are fine but what about how we are going to take on the media-barons who all but monopolise information and consciousness.;
• Non-sexism, non-ageism and non-elitism. What are our policies and how do we enforce them?
• Violent and non-violent struggle - in what situations is one preferable to the other?;
• Education and Training. What is the purpose of education and training at present? How is the Anarchist alternative different to the present system? Will we promote specialised career paths or encourage a variety of types of schooling or encourage a broad general education designed to allow people to participate in a number of different jobs?;
• Police and the Military. What alternatives to them do we recommend? Do we replace them with some form of citizen's militia, and if so will everybody serve? What about courts and prisons? How will an Anarchist society settle a dispute and what will we do to anti-social types eg rapists, murderers and young liberals?;
• Workplace organisation and decision making. How do we physically remove bosses and mentally remove the perceived need for them? What is the relationship between the policy of the collective, co-operative or commune and the rights of the worker and of the outside community?;
• Community control. How will the community have a say in planning decisions that affect them?;
• Taxation and national issues. Will there still be a money economy and if so, who will control the banks and other financial institutions? Will there be any role for a central government?;

As you can see, there is plenty to discuss and, hopefully try to resolve. For if we continue to let others set the agenda, then we Anarchists will become quaint historical footnotes rather than the pathfinders of the 21st Century. The way is ahead but we have to get serious about where we are heading.

by Red
Published: Anarchist Network Newsletter June 1990

Response to Red : 'Reflections on the Easter 1990 Conference'

It's difficult not to be very abusive when faced with Red's writing. It's the same old clap-trap masquerading as 'reflective' thought, the same old suggestions that only others are sloppy thinkers, the same old list of what others 'should' do and why aren't they?

I can do no better than use Red's own words to illustrate:

• in one place: "we anarchists - Fail to appreciate each other or understand each others' position" and in another: "we listened carefully to each other and critically discussed the papers presented"
• in one place: "I was becoming frustrated ... by participants labelling other participants, over-simplifying each other's positions and misrepresenting them" and in another place: "St. Richard of the Fields"(labelling); Richard's paper being about "small group having a role and a goal" as "the best strategy for establishing an Anarchist movement" (simplifying and misrepresenting).

It was not clear "from our discussion" that "the Anarchists were polarised into the group that " etc. It was clear from the lack of discussion before and during the Conference that many people claiming sympathy for anarchism had little idea of what was meant by "the relevance or importance of class struggle" and/or of "a power analysis that would promote a more personal revolution." This lack of understanding was the major reason (I believe) for the Conference and some understanding was obtained by the exchanges that did take place, especially at the Saturday evening discussion (not mentioned by Red) where polarisation was non existent. This degree of understanding happened in spite of an unwillingness by a number of the advocates of a 'class-based' anarchism to enter into dialogue at all. They came, they sniggered, and left. Contribution - Doubtful.

If Bakunin had eaten Jewish babies for lunch, and Anarchism involved being vegetarian, it would be 'important and relevant'. No, he didn't, and Anarchism is not vegetarian-based. But the debate over 'class analysis - power analysis' is for me entirely about what anarchism contributes and what it doesn't. Is Red suggesting that 'Anarchists' are 'anarchists' no matter what they do? Is he suggesting that if I call myself an 'Anarchist' no one has any freedom (note the word) to question my use of the label, no matter what I do? How is it that Red can say that other 'anarchists' are doing 'it' badly, but not reflect on his own performance? If someone is doing 'it' badly (sloppy thinking, labelling, etc, etc) what criteria is he using? How can he make criticism of someone's Anarchism and not (yet) see the point of discussion about whether John Olday was an anarchist or not? Or let me put it this way - How does he know he was at an Anarchist Conference?

(In case anyone feels these are silly questions, let me say here that they are very serious, and I look forward to responses from Red or anyone else.)

Bob James 06/06/1990
Published in Anarchist Network Newsletter July 1990