Anarchist Conference 09: Some Feedback and Analysis

Last weekend saw several hundred Anarchists gather in east London for a conference looking to debate and discuss where we are at, what we are doing and where we are going. 

Obviously the answer to the question where are we going has traditionally been to the pub, but around the drinking there was two full days of structured debate and discussion. So what happened?

Well first of all I had never been to an event like this before, and the organisers pulled of a phenomenal job in shaping the event. Delegates were spilt into something like 15 groups of 12-15 people, with the groups doctored to ensure they were not dominated by any particular block or group of activists, and that there was a reasonable mix of ages, genders etc. Four discussion topics had been pre-agreed - around the idea of an Anarchist movement, resistance, class and turning ideas into reality. 

I had the dubious honour of being one of the facilitators for Group 7 (yes being old fashioned I prefer the term Chairman as well, but I went with the flow) Our group included people from London, Bristol, Sheffield, and Leeds and from several different countries. I had only previously met two of the people in the room, so it was very much a case of being thrown together and left to get on with it. And we did. 

Over two days people listened to one another. We shared our experiences, our hopes and our fears. It actually worked really rather well. Speaking to people in other groups during breaks, it seemed others were less fortunate, and some had simply not flowed at all. I suspect that was reflected in the summary session on Sunday afternoon, where some came back with proposals for action, some simply wanted to meet again, whilst others had hit gridlock. 

Group 7's conclusions went something like this:

• That Anarchism was an approach - a way of doing things. 
• Not all of us used the term Anarchist to describe ourselves, but we shared an opposition to all types of oppression.  
• Anarchism can be recuperated. Amusingly some of the Visteon strikers in north London recently praised the 'work of the SWP'  - when the people they were talking about were Anarchists!
• Is it Britain that's shit? We are all slightly envious of the more rebellious approach to life in  countries like  Greece, Italy and even (whisper it) Germany! 
• The importance of space and territory is clear. We need our own places, and to improve what we already have 
• The group was negative about summit hoping events like G20 
• Anarchists in the anti-fascist movement have not developed a viable strategy to counter a BNP that is first and foremost an electoral beast
• Critically the Anarchist movement lacks  institutions and structures. if you don't want to go on a demo or action, and don't fancy joining a group, what is there to actually be a part of? 
• People's attitudes were supportive towards trades union and community struggle

Group 7's proposals were:

• To set up a Sharing Resources Network. This could be something that people laid off, redundant, or simply skint could use in the current economic crisis. It would make use of the skills we have in the Anarchist movement - legal advice, welfare advice, leaflet design, printing - all things we do regularly, that many of our neighbours perhaps don't. 
• A UK Anarchist webforum, to discuss the conference and take issues forward.  
• A non-electoral manifesto to be developed for elections. This would state what we want, what we do, and why there's no point standing in elections that only capitalists can win  
• If future events developed, a joint mission statement for action would be published.   

I nearly did not go to the concluding plenary, (I was longing for my Sunday afternoon lie down with a glass of warm milk) but went along to be harangued by masked activists from the feminist No Pretence Group. It seems that that the three best Anarchist events I've been to this year - Class War Speed dating, the Speakers Corner rally before G20 and this conference were all bedevilled by the exclusion of women and women's voices. 

No Pretence illustrated this with a superbly produced video. On closer analysis though, the only people excluding women's voices were ..........No Pretence themselves. 

The Class War speed dating leaflet they object to - was designed by a female comrade. Other leaflets for the event included two gay black men, and one of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, taking the piss out of Match.com. Still why let facts get in the way, when you have an argument you wish to develop? 

The best speakers at Hyde Park were two female Londoners (One from Liberty & Solidarity, the other from Lambeth) who get up and told it like it is. Sadly they were excluded from the clips No Pretence showed, in a rather dishonest attempt to suggest only men spoke at the event. These clips were juxtaposed with MP's speaking in the House of Commons. No Blair Babes or shots of Jacqui Smith taking away civil liberties here - only male politicians were shown. 

Oh well - lets hope better arguments are to follow. 

So - Where Next?

As I slipped away for my warm milk, I was still broadly positive. I was questioning about this conference before hand. I'm glad I went. Some good ideas were put forward. So, listening to a small number of groups feedback, were some silly one's. 

Lets see what - if anything - happens next. 

Comments

[Ray]

Thanks Paul. Just the positive report I have been waiting for. Obviously I now wish that I had gone!

[matt d.]

I agree with most of your thoughts on this mate, thought it was a really good event, and made me feel positive about labeling myself an anarchist, rather than anything else...

Speaking purely for myself I sort of enjoyed the radical feminist invasion, however flawed the video with it's selective editing, and brainwashing music.

But hey who doesn't enjoy the occaisional feminist intervention?

[me]

the point of the feminist intervention was to demonstrate the dominance of male voices. saying that the rally had 2 women speaking out of 15 or so does not actually undermine that point. and yes the class war poster may have been designed by a woman, and there were other (less promoted) alternatives inc gay men etc, but the social context around images of women is different! plenty of women work in the mainstream media and push sexy naked images of women to sell products. its not as simple as you are maing it out to be.

why quibble with the details in this way? Is it because you can't bear to accept that they have a point? Women call out sexism in the movement and are met with jeers (a man in the audience asked 'are you going to do a dance for us?') criticisms and denials.

They didnt do the intervention for fun. they did it because it needed to be said, and they were speaking from their own experience as female anarchists. To dismiss it using whatever tiny cracks you can is dishonest, self-protecting, and anti-anarchist.

[billy]

i agree the film was crap but re-reading their statement a lot of it makes sense. i love the audacity of the action above all :)

[Dave e]

Looks like the feminists should have a quick 'word' with this TSG sergeant - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/11/g20-woman-assault-police-investigation

[hilldrop crescent]

the point of the intervention was to demonstrate the dominance of male voices? piffle! did the massed ranks of mcps a) shout down the feminist invasion, or b) listen to statement and watch the video without repelling boarders? what i saw was a small unrepresentative group of likely professional malcontents present a statement and film lacking in honesty, with a breathtaking disregard for the truth. i think the footage of martin wright was from the opening speech at the 28/3 anarchist rally - the speech where he called for anyone who wanted to say anything to address the throng. it's particularly reprehensible to edit out the women who spoke there, one of whom blew most of the other speakers away.

if the participants in this little stunt had participated in the conference - they'd have found that anarchist men aren't all sexist pigs, but in the main amenable to reason.

what particularly struck me about the statement is that anarchist women like voltairine de cleyre, louise michel, lucy parsons - or the great emma goldman - don't seem to have inspired their modern sisters. i don't think any of the ladies named in the statement is (or was) in fact an anarchist; i wonder why not.

the history of the anarchist movement is littered with lost opportunities, and this was yet another. the reluctance of this cabal to enter into debate with their peers was notable: not only did they refuse to take part in the conference, as their statement indicates, they showed no sign of wishing to defend their position.

what a pity.

[hilldrop crescent]

spent an interesting hour finding out about angela davis and mujeres libres. see i was mistaken - but i would be interested to find out from no pretence which indigenous influences they draw on.

[Paul Stott]

I can't help thinking we have a problem of pace following on from this conference.

I wish I had spoken up during the plenary when TW said there would be a follow up meeting at the Anarchist Bookfair (which is in late October). That's too late. I know some taking things forward meetings were held after the plenary, but people were flagging by then.

When I used to help run conferences in the rail industry, we often had similar sized events to last weeks (but on a much fatter budget!) If I had turned round to my boss and said a follow up what not occur until four months, he would have kicked me up the arse.

Waiting until October does have a whiff of parking the whole bus, rather than driving it forward?

[Ed]

paul - the anarchist movement operates on anarchist time, not real time!