We in the Anarchist Federation have strongly pushed for more effective organisation within the British anarchist movement ever since we were set up in 1985. Our own organisation has grown quite considerably over the last year or so, but we aim this article at other anarchists in the movement who are either thinking of committing to joining a national organisation but have not as yet done so and those who do not see the benefits of such a national organisation.
Alternatives frequently offered to the national organisation are 1. local groups and 2. networking, that is, relying on loose networks that come together over specific issues or campaigns. We in the AF have never been opposed to the setting up of local anarchist groups. In fact we see the putting down of roots in the local neighbourhood and workplaces as vitally important. Within the AF we strive to be involved in local activity and local issues as much as possible. However we do not subscribe to the idea put forward by some advocates of such groups that on their own local groups are enough for a vibrant anarchist movement. We often need to respond to attacks from the bosses and the State on a national level and that’s one good reason why we need national organisations. Some advocates of the local group idea are not completely opposed to the setting up of national organisations but they say that it must come from the coordination and coming together of local groups on a regional and national level. Whilst we in the AF support all efforts for greater effectiveness either regionally or nationally, we have to confess that we have not yet seen such a process coming about. National organisations and strong local groups are not incompatible, they should be part of the same process. Too often local groups with no connection to national structures can emerge in an area and then disappear followed by the appearance in the same area of another one later on, with no reference to the previous activity and history of groups that came before. Having a national perspective does not mean that this won’t happen again, but at least a national structure can ensure some continuity in terms of local contacts and the memory of what local groups had done before.
Similarly with networking. Whilst some networking has been effective, all too often, thanks to the lack of structures that ensure maximum and equal participation of its members, decision making and control of such networks are taken by informal hierarchies. There is not necessarily any permanence to such networks, with them coming and going, appearing and disappearing, just like local groups can.
We don’t think that the liberation of the working class, and through it the liberation of humanity as a whole, will come about on a purely spontaneous level. The road to revolution has not yet been built. It will come about through the development of a mass movement. That does not remove the need for specific organisations. The role such an organisation can play is not one of making the revolution on behalf of the masses, of being the single and centralised instrument of the revolution. It is above all an assembly of activists who seek to work within struggles and movements. It seeks to act as a memory for the working class, searching out and recalling the history of past struggles, and attempting to draw the lessons to be learned from their successes and failures. One of its functions should be to act as a propaganda grouping, ceaselessly and untiringly putting over a revolutionary message. It acts as a liaison for its militants, conveying information both here and abroad. It acts as a place for debate for militants, where ideas and experiences can be synthesised. By offering this place for debate, it counters localism, and fixation on single issues. It puts into practice its own strategies. It fights for the independence of struggles, for their self-organisation, against their co-option by reformism and electoralism. It puts forward initiatives for practical unity and debate wherever possible. Defending the independence and self-organisation of mass movements does not mean that the revolutionary organisation does not seek to spread its ideas in these movements. More than ever we need a strong and effective anarchist movement in this country ready to take part in the struggles that must come as capitalism in crisis attempts to impose its austerity programmes and cuts on our class and try to make us pay for its own crisis. This cannot come about through a loose and badly organised movement. It has to come about through greater and greater coordination and organisation where anarchists can more effectively coordinate, act and strike together against the enemy. We urge all anarchists to seriously think of joining a national anarchist organisation. Obviously we would like that choice to be the Anarchist Federation. However we are aware that some anarchists might have different emphases and points of view and might be attracted to another national organisation like, for example, the Solidarity Federation. Whatever the choice, think seriously about making that commitment. More and morewe need to be seen as a serious movement, one that can begin to grow and to fight back against the many attacks that have come and will come upon the working class. Organise!
