Former members of the Anarchist Federation
It has been over a month since the London Anarchist Bookfair
and as a movement we are still reeling, with deep divisions between people who had
respect for each other and once worked well together. We are still shocked,
horrified and saddened by events as are most people, no matter what perspective
or interpretation they have on what happened and the role of the Bookfair
collective.
We were, until recently, members of the AF who did not sign
the initial statement that was issued by Edinburgh AF and signed by two other
AF groups, nor did we support the statement issued by other campaigns and
organisations. We did not want to respond immediately as there are so many
issues involved and emotions are strong. We hoped that after some time we could give a
political assessment of the situation rather than just a knee-jerk reaction
based on our emotional response to events and statements from other groups. Whether
this is in fact possible is another matter.
Firstly, it is important to outline the political tradition
that we are part of. We call ourselves class struggle anarchists or anarchist
communists. We are a distinct tradition within the anarchist movement and have
always been critical of other currents in the anarchist 'movement', including
liberalism, individualism and anarchism as a life style choice. Our aim is to
create an anarchist communist society. This can only be done by the mass of the
working class (broadly defined as all those who have to sell their labour
power) developing an effective revolutionary movement that overthrows class
society, the State and all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, where
people take control of society and their lives and can live co-operatively,
without inequality and injustice and with freedom to be who they want without
coercion. It is not just a question of overthrowing capitalism as an economic
system but also the other oppressive structures and ideologies that are an
integral part of the current system.
This goal has proven to be remarkably difficult. Most people
in the working class, though suffering under the system and often critical of
it, are still reluctant to join us in building a revolutionary movement. And,
within our own class, there are major divisions that are the result of
centuries of social systems and ideologies such as patriarchy, racism and the
colonial legacy, hostility towards those who go against the norm in terms of
sexuality and gender. This is why we support oppressed groups to organise
autonomously. However, we still need a united movement. The big question is how do we actually build
a united movement when such serious divisions exist and in which many are
suffering at the hands of other working class people, including people within
the anarchist movement itself?
Our answer to the first issue is that we need to make sure
as anarchists we are directly involved in struggle, in the workplace and the
community. Without being part of working class struggles we cannot hope to
convince people that a revolution is both desirable and possible. In addition,
we need to be explaining to people what anarchism is, giving possible ideas of
what a future society might look like as well as give an anarchist analysis of
what is going on at the moment. We cannot get anywhere by staying within our
own ghettos, relating only to people who agree with us and writing for social
media sites that are only read by the already ‘converted’. The tendency towards
practices that are inward-looking, destructive, self-referential, etc is not
revolutionary. You need an outward-looking, expansive, genuinely inclusive
approach that accepts degrees of difference if you want to change the world -
or simply save your local library or support a group of workers in struggle.
Our answer to the first question influences our answer to
the second one. We need to be fighting against patriarchy, eg for reproductive
justice and against domestic violence, and against bigotry of all kinds that
leads to discrimination, bullying and violence, from within the working class.
We need to challenge how capitalism and the State create, use and reinforce any
oppressions that they can make use of. However, we need to do more than this-
we also need to challenge these ideas and practices within our class. The key
thing to stress here is that the people we are talking about are still our
class. Yes, there will be some who go over to the other side and became major
obstacles to social change, eg those who become fascists. Nevertheless, we
still have to see the majority of people as basically potentially on our side
or we will never have a revolution and create the kind of society we want to
live in. This was the mistake of the Bolsheviks (amongst others!), thinking
that they could impose a social system on people.
This task is enormously difficult as we are all, to some
extent, prisoners of an all-embracing ideology that we are often not aware of
which means everyone will bring with them into a working class movement, and
more specifically an anarchist movement, a range of prejudices and practices
that are incompatible with creating anarchist communism. So how do we address
these issues without treating the people we are working with as enemies in the
same way as the ruling class is our enemy?
In recent years, within the anarchist and general activist
movement, there has been an increasing amount of people called to account for
their actions and beliefs. This could be seen as a positive thing- oppressed
groups are gaining confidence to speak out and not willing to put up with
unacceptable behaviours from those they are working with. However, what could
be seen as positive has now become a hindrance to positive engagement with
people whose actions are unacceptable in some way.
Using the concept of safer spaces (again potentially a
positive development) more and more people are ‘called out’ and, rather than
dealing with problems in a more informal and personal way, are put through
accountability procedures that in the vast majority of cases don’t lead to a
desired outcome where the person is reintegrated into the group. Instead, much
resentment is created. Often news is spread through social media- ‘outing’ the
person who has been accused. The social media gossip machine comes into play
and the person is ostracised and treated as an ‘untouchable’. It is not a way
we should be treating people who are our comrades and not the class enemy. If a
movement or organisation is too inward looking, there can even be a tendency
for people to look for examples of inappropriate behaviour that they can
expose.
The intentions behind the various policies that have been
put in place are usually based on a sincere desire to try and eradicate
oppressive behaviours in the movement. But the end result has become an
oppressive, authoritarian system in itself, resembling the Cultural Revolution
in China in which Red Guards (guardians of the revolution) set out to expose
‘reactionary elements’. The way they went about it involved humiliation,
emotional and physical abuse and even death for the accused. People were afraid
to speak out and people denounced their neighbours and workmates and even their
own family. This is certainly not something that is compatible with the way we
envisage an anarchist communist society.
Events at the Bookfair
The women who came to the Bookfair to distribute leaflets against the Gender
Recognition Act certainly came to
provoke a debate and ended up negatively disrupting the Bookfair. Helen Steel in her support of their giving
out the leaflet (though she herself did not write it or hand it out) has been
criticised. However, the reaction of what can only be described as a mob is
completely unacceptable. Keeping in line with what we argue above, no one of
our comrades should be treated as the class enemy and be intimidated physically
or emotionally. Helen has been a comrade and an active class struggle
anarchist, involved in campaigns and struggles for decades. At the Bookfair
itself she was involved in giving two meetings and personally has been under
serious attack from the State. This does not mean that she was right but she
should not be challenged by a mob. If people disagree with her views on
transgender issues, then there are other ways of expressing them. And this
leads on to the next question. What exactly is a correct line on transgender?
Increasing numbers of people are questioning their gender
identity and seeking to re-identify as the other gender or to reject all gender
labels and refer to themselves as non-binary or gender-fluid. However, the way
the debate is often framed is, ‘there is no debate and it’s not up for
discussion’. In other words, there is only one ‘correct’ position with no room
for a nuanced understanding, and the trans activists and their ‘allies’ in the
anarchist and other political scenes hold exactly that position. However, it’s
worth pointing out that not even all trans people agree with this ‘correct’
position. Yet anyone who disagrees or attempts to take a nuanced view is labelled
a transphobe or a TERF which means that they immediately move to a ‘beyond the
pale’ status where they are the enemy. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to
hurl abuse, physically evict them from spaces and send death threats.
We acknowledge that within the wider feminist movement, there are some deeply
offensive views and comments with regards to trans women that can only be
described as hate speech. At the same time, to disagree even slightly with the
view that transwomen are women in the same way as those who were born female
and have been socialised to be women is often seen as hate speech. Clearly, it
isn’t. Trans women and those born and socialised as female often face very
different challenges which may need to be dealt with in different ways, even
sometimes separately. To acknowledge this is not ‘transphobia’ and doesn't make
someone a 'TERF' (although we are aware that such 'difference' is made a point
of emphasis and weaponised by some of the more unpleasant elements in the
feminist scene).
The choice seems to be to accept, without question or nuance, the view that
transwomen are women or be moved to the category of enemy that is normally
reserved for the likes of fascists, rapists and capitalists.
It seems that most people prefer, therefore, to just keep
quiet. This situation is toxic. We should not be in a situation where people
who are all struggling for a better society are unable to have open and
comradely discussions about their views. It may be difficult but it is
essential if we are not going to tear ourselves apart.
The aftermath
The statement written by Edinburgh AF and also the Open
Letter signed by a number of other groups not only supported the actions of
those who sought to physically evict Helen. In fact, its main purpose seemed to
attack the Bookfair organisers. There are many serious problems with these
statements. Many points were already addressed in the reply from the Bookfair
Collective. Here we will discuss the political issues with the statements.
Firstly, again we have a situation where individuals are
‘called out’ or denounced in rather aggressive and abusive tones, treating real
people, most of whom are well known personally by many in the movement, as if
they were strangers- strangers who deserve no respect or consideration for
their feelings. And, these criticisms are made by people who have had no
involvement in organising the Bookfair. Many of those signing statements are
not anarchists and did not have stalls or meetings. It is not acceptable to
make such a negative statement from such a position. People certainly can
criticise, but it should be constructive criticism, recognising all the
positive aspects of the Bookfair and offering to help to improve things. Now
some are saying they will organise bookfairs; they will soon realise how very
difficult it is.
One area that was criticised was the issue of security.
People running bookfairs have many difficult decisions to make about having an
open, public bookfair and maintaining security. You can draft all the statements
and policies that you want but it is impossible to prevent anyone who is intent
on disruption doing so. Last year’s disruption of the Syrian meeting was an
example. The collective has tended to go for openness. They are a very small
collective and would find it very difficult to ‘police’ everything that goes on
or to stop individuals coming in. In order to stop any disruption you would
need a very big ‘security’ force as well as know who you were going to stop
going in. And before that you need to decide who can’t come in. The implication
of the statements critical of the Bookfair collective implied that the
collective should be checking any publication that was being sold or
distributed as well as having a long list of banned individuals that different people
find offensive. This would make for a very different atmosphere- very
authoritarian. So it is not so easy to get the balance right.
There is also a serious political contradiction in the
statements. The Bookfair collective was accused of racism. This referred to
their ‘allowing’ slogans such as ‘religion is stupid’ as this might be
considered offensive to religious people, many of whom are Black or Asian, it
is racist. There are several problems with this. Firstly, as anarchist
communists, and we assume other anarchists, we are against religion. This is
because all religions are irrational, based on authoritarian structures and are
one of the main ideological supports for patriarchy and bigotry. One of the
main anarchist slogans is ‘No Gods, No Masters’. Therefore, though ‘religion is
stupid’ is not the best of slogans, we would expect literature and meetings
exposing the problems of religion. And, being against religion does not make
you a racist or a supporter of colonialism. The entire colonialist enterprise
was crucially supported by both the ideology of religion and its practitioners,
eg missionaries. The Bible was used to justify the slave trade and the
incredible exploitation and repression of those colonised. Also, what does the
common accusation of Islamophobia actually mean? If we are against religion
then we are against Islam. Islam also is a religion
originally spread by war and aggression, forcibly converting people as its
jihadists spread out from the Arabian peninsular. And no one would agree with
ISIS and the regime of brutality and reaction. What is important is that we
think about how to go about making our points about religion. We have to make
sure that we expose the general problems with religion without picking on just
one, such as Islam which many racists do. Also, we may be anti-religion but we are not anti the people who are religious.
Most people who practice a religion do not share the beliefs of the more
radical right form of religions. This is why we would of course show solidarity
with religious groups that are being attacked and discriminated against. In the
campaigns and struggles we are in we will often be working with people who are
religious. It is not the place to engage in attacks on religion. But that
doesn’t mean we can’t do general propaganda against religion and support those
who are experiencing repression because of it.
Given the sentiments expressed in the statements, it is
surprising that they are so supportive of religion. Certainly Christianity,
Islam and Judaism would not be particularly supportive of men and women
changing their gender. Patriarchy and distinct gender roles are a key part of
all of these religions. However, they would not ‘call out’ religious believers
or they would then be accused of being anti-Semitic, racist or Islamophobic!
This contradiction is illustrated by the incident at
Goldsmiths College a few years ago. There was a meeting organised by the
secular society with a woman speaker from Iran. She has rejected Islam and was
explaining the difficulties for women in Iran and the problems people have in
rejecting religion. One would have thought this would be someone anarchists and
all those fighting patriarchy would support. Instead of white European
anarchists and feminists parachuting in and telling people what to do in a
particular culture, the speaker was from the culture and was fighting religion
and patriarchy from her own experience. This meeting was severely disrupted by
the Islamic society, invoking the college’s ‘safer spaces’ policy. This is not
surprising but what was surprising is the amount of support the Islamic society
got from the Feminist and LBGTQ societies, as well as from other anarchists in
the usual internet exchange. So we have anarchists supporting oppressive ideologies
and practices in order not to be called ‘Islamophobic’!
Conclusion
The main point of this statement is to stress that we have
to keep in mind what we are actually fighting for. In the current period, with
the world threatened by capitalism-fuelled climate change, wars and conflict,
repression, nationalism and religious bigotry, immense suffering for vast
numbers etc etc, we cannot afford to be
fighting amongst ourselves. We would argue that creating a fundamentally
different society is the only way out of an extremely serious situation: we
would call this society anarchist or libertarian communism. Of course, we must
stress all of these issues will affect certain groups more than others. That is
why it is important to base a strategy and an analysis on an awareness of the
way capitalism and the State amplify and reinforce systems such as patriarchy
and racial oppression. We have to take into account the diversity of the
working class and different experiences different groups and individuals have.
Nevertheless, it is still necessary to come together effectively in order to
have any chance of overthrowing the current system and creating a new society.
This means that it is vital that we work out ways of
overcoming serious divisions within the working class. These divisions are not
trivial or secondary to class. However, without an overall class analysis which
sees us united as a class against a ruling class and a system based on
exploitation and power, it is too easy to get isolated and immersed in one’s own
particular situation. The end result is a narrow political outlook, intense and
bitter conflict (as we have seen) and a working class so divided that it is
ineffectual.
We need to think about how we can create such a united
working class that at the same times takes oppressions within society and the
class seriously. We believe that this would involve a critical look at the
current political culture which is increasingly authoritarian and
inward-looking.
One key way of doing this is to get out of anarchist/activist
ghettos and become involved in campaigns and struggles in both the workplace
and community. Those of us who have been involved in community campaigns for
example Residents Associations, fighting evictions or demolitions, saving
markets etc find that we are working with a diverse range of people. We will
not agree on a range of issues such as migrants and borders and the role of
women in society and belief in religion. And, we would certainly find that many
would have very conservative views on sexuality and gender. However, by working
together with a common aim (and not on the internet!) there are opportunities
to informally discuss many issues and explain our anarchist ideas on these
subjects in a non-aggressive way. Also, many of the people involved in such
campaigns and groups will not be the usual university-educated and/or white
activists. Instead, we all get first-hand experience of different views and
perspectives, offering first-hand experience of what we pay lip service to with
the pious statements about building a movement that is more diverse, often
couched in obscure, political language.
A second important point is that even when we are engaged in
important struggles against particular oppressions we must keep in mind that
there is a bigger picture. It is not just a question of fighting an
individual’s behaviour or attitude. Oppressions have their basis in a whole
system, within structures and institutions. Adopting a wider perspective is
important within the political movements themselves. Your male comrade may be acting in a sexist
way, the white activist may not appreciate the impact of colonialism and racism
on struggles and feminists may not understand the issues facing trans people
but ultimately they are struggling for the same thing you are. In this way we
can perhaps find less aggressive and authoritarian ways of dealing with
oppressive behaviour and ideas within the movement itself. Keep in mind how you
would handle unacceptable behaviour amongst workmates or in a residents association.
An aggressive, ‘call-out’ approach, humiliating a person on Facebook or banning
them from spaces, would not be acceptable and could completely destroy any
chance of your struggles succeeding. (Obviously, there are times when actions
may be so extreme that banning people may be necessary but we have to make sure
that this action is carefully considered.)
We need to take a critical look at the language we use. The
tendency has been to come up with a label for a viewpoint that we don’t agree with.
This is usually labels like ‘racist’,
fascist’, ‘sexist’ as well as ‘TERF’, ‘Islamophobe’, ‘middle class
feminist’, ‘identity politics’. It is an easy way of dismissing the other
viewpoint without actually engaging with the issues. This behaviour is found
throughout political movements as well as in our daily lives. Even the practice
of shouting abuse at the class enemy, eg scum or wanker, though immensely
satisfying, does not actually help explain our views to the rest of the working
class. What is needed is a very practical and thorough discussion of what the
views and practices are and then if there is disagreement, the counter-argument
can be explained clearly and logically.
We also need to think about the use of the internet. The
tendency to be aggressive, to denounce, apply labels and be quite abusive has
escalated with the use of the internet. Unfortunately, it seems a large
percentage of anarchists and other activists spend a large part of their
political activity on forums and Facebook. These mediums make it much easier to
inflame conflict rather than resolve it. Again, we need to come out of ghettos,
and the internet is a kind of ghetto as people are only communicating with
certain people within the activist milieu. Instead we need to be working
together on activities, having discussions and socials and in general getting
to know people who we never see but only exchange abuse with.
It may sound melodramatic, but in many ways the fate of
humanity depends on the ability of anarchists to get their act together and
begin to build an effective revolutionary movement. We would like to work with
others who want to do the same.
