From the point of view of framing this one as a conference specifically for the anarchist movement, i’ve had my own concerns from the beginning, for similar reasons that Brian outlined in the original post.

While we cited Bradford as a good organising format (a number of us were impressed attendees – and some involved in the organising itself), its clear to me at least, that the aspirations of Mayday 98 and this conference are focused very differently – and so i think format is where the comparisons between the two should end.

Between Bradford 98 and London 09 we have seen and played a part in a movement, taking to the streets in cities across the planet and throwing up visions of a new world at each and every juncture, through to a decade that has allowed capital to reimpose its discipline through war, fear of terror, a strong state, crisis. From a crest to a trough and now perhaps, we hope, starting to feel new possibilities presenting themselves again. So we approach the conference in 2009 at a very different point in the cycle to where Bradford took shape.

Back to the matter in hand, I have my own reservations about the conference being consciously defined for the anarchist movement. Many of the class struggle anarchists out there might balk at their comparison to ‘lifestylism’(a term widely used to slate some of the more counter-cultural elements in our scene a decade or so ago). But there is an irony that in tying oneself to a particular body of historical ideas, and so seeing politics only through the prism how its activity measures against its ultimate goals, passes over all those examples of popular self activity in recent years (the summit mobilisations in the north, the landless peasants and farmers movements in the south et al). There is a strong sense that to ‘become’ an anarchist today requires a state of being than about doing. More about preservation of an identity than joining with others and working in a more dynamic relationship to work out a vision of a new world through trial and error….

Such manifestations I mention have made great efforts to defy classification or else were simply not aware of externally imposed definitions. Yet these are often claimed as ‘anarchist’, where to attach a definition seems to be unhelpful or irrelevant.

That aside (and I have leapt through a massive debate as I don’t have much time right now), all I wanted to say is despite the decision to name the Conference 2009 as an anarchist movement event, I really hope that other non-aligned independent minds are encouraged through the doors to challenge us on this definition and widen the debate. Every intention has been made for free debate to be encouraged – the facilitators are working very hard for this. The only real limitation I think has been that because many people felt it needed to happen this summer, there has not been enough time for discussions over content to mature and bear fruit. Still as allesio says, should a future conference happen, I hope that we can use the lessons of organising this one to reflect the multiplicity of experiences, traditions and identities that are allied against capital.

That’s all for now

@The Lady – there as been a few comments about whether this conference is just aimed at members of exisiting anarchist organisations. That isn’t the aim, as we have always stated that most people are not in anarchist organisations, for what ever reason and therefore the conference is aimed at everyone. The idea to replicate the Bradford format was precisely to split up those comrades from organisations so that they are exposed to different point of views and not approach the conference as a member of a group but as an individual.

Saying that, it may seem daunting that we have plasted anarchist all over the conference, and we have chosen to use it as a vechicle to mobilise people – I think it is worth a shot. It may be a london thing, where we have tried all sorts of anarcho-type lables – anti-authoritarian, autonomous – we wanted to be open about who and what we are associating ourselves with – lets see if it works, if not we do something else next time.

…However…you seem to have made a strange circular argument. Are you saying the conference has been given it’s name because of the shared political origins of those who will attend it? But this hasn’t happened yet. Surely it’s the other way round. The name of the conference will dictate the attendants. My point isn’t that there’s any dishonesty here but simply that it’s a shame the scope isn’t broader when there seems to be no good reason for it not to be and that this might present a barrier which hampers the development of ideas.

Having said that, I can see that using the term anarchist might be a quick and easy way to ensure that it doesn’t fill up with adherents of the orthodox left with whom nobody wants to waste a weekend arguing.

The conference makes no pretence, it is for and by anarchists. How people choose to be alienated or not because of that political definition is up to them. I understand the questioning on defining the conference anarchist, and speaking as one of the people who voted for the Mayday 2000 conference to be called “anti-capitalist” rather than anarchist – I would say now that it is make or break with this movement we have been involved with for so long.

Is another anarchist organisation and network on the cards? I doubt it. Is there are opportunity for us once to sit down, discussing where we are going (wrong/right) and plan to move things forward? The conference will provide this function, and thats all it can do, define a political environment, format and some ideas of what should/can/could be discussed and see where it ends up.

There is already talk that it is a yearly event, but for it to become more outward looking and on the same scale as other political conferences (like Marxism). I would like it to become a yearly focal point for all anti-authoritarian, libertarian and autonomist marxists and anarchists as a way to truly develop a strong movement. At the end of the day we are also influenced by things outside of the anarchist tendency, we should acknowledge and embrace it.

The conference is a start point, lets meet, discuss and see what people what to do with this project. I would say it is vital then that as many people with constructive and critical views but who are also comitted to building a popular movement come down. without thesis there is not antithesis…etc.

In the run-up to that conference, Class War published issue 73, including an “open letter to revolutionaries”. Huge chunks of that still make sense:

At the moment, those of us interested in revolutionary ideas are few in number and have a limited influence. Class War has always believed in screaming from the rooftops and has always acted on the belief that we can make our own history, that we can change the world in the here and now. Anarchism or communism is not some torch that we carry for future generations, something that we wait maybe 500 years for – it is something which exists in what we actually do now.

We have always believed that we can have an effect. But if the rest of the working class aren’t up for it, we can’t force them and no matter how loud we shout, this isn’t likely to change in the short term. Over the last ten years too many people in Class War and elsewhere have fallen into the trap of thinking that ‘one more leaflet’ or ‘one more picket’ will magically bring success. The end result has been burnt-out, disillusioned cynics. But it is not just the wider world that we are concerned about here, it is ourselves and others who are like-minded. Because within the pond that we (the Left) inhabit we can have an enormous effect. But we are split into tiny groups, riven by sectarianism, dominated by personalities, refusing to work together, refusing to talk, spending too much time fighting each other. Are we revolutionaries or are we fools?

(I am of course a revolutionary madman)

I take Alessio’s point, although I still worry that the ‘anarchist movement’ tag may become more of a barrier than a political marker. In fact, the worst outcome I can imagine would be the birth of a new ‘organisation’ or ‘network’ that recognises the dynamic history of anarchism but starts to act as if it has all the answers.

But of course, getting a whole bunch of people together to talk and do anti-capitalist politics is a great thing. I’ll be there.

Furthermore, I’m not sure I understand the wisdom of using the term anarchist on account of it representing a common point of political origin (if so, why not the ‘arguing with our dads conference’ or the ‘playing truant conference’) and I’m not sure whose common point of political origin it’s supposed to be either. The organising collecitve?

So anarchist ideas are open to development. But why develop anarchist ideas? doesn’t this pressuppose a subscription to the idea of building a particular organisation or a particular ideologically cemented millieu? Why not develop ideas relating to resistance and capital irrespective of ideological tags and in the (unlikely?) event that these lead back to anarchism, so be it. Even if it was desireable to focus on developing specifically anarhcist ideas, wouldn’t we stand a much greater chance of being able to do this if the scope of the conference was larger and more open?

I’ve been further sapped of the enthusiasm I felt when plans for a conference were first discussed by the recent publication of the themes for discussion. It is very difficult to find anywhere within these that someone who doesn’t particularly feel themselves part of an ‘anarchist movement’ might be able to contribute (though I appreciate, or at least assume, that these themes are posed as loose starting points). This brings me back to the point above. From the wording on the publicity, it would seem clear that far from the word anarchist being used to denote a common origin, it would be necessary to identify as one now.

I can just about see the logic of reconstituting an anarchist movement in London at this time (although that’s not to say that I think it’s a good idea particularly and would say with Brian that this has very little relevance up here in Leeds) but I can’t help but think of all the libertarian Marxists in their 50s and 60s that I know who flocked to the large left-wing organisations at the height of the cold war out of the desire to be in a big gang but who now feel a wee bit foolish.

Shut up Gareth. Don’t be so mean-spirited. It can be no bad thing having a big gathering of people discussing anti-capitalist politics together.

Though I wanted to respond in defence of the reason the conference is titled “the anarchist movement” conference. The term anarchist is where we all pretty much originated from politically, it was the start for many of us of rejecting the traditional left and questioning the much wider system of political representation and conflict management/recuperation that the left in general participate in. I agree that any ideological label can become a barrier in participating and engaging in struggles beyond the margins we seem to exist in. But that view is always based solely on what we may perceive is the problem with anarchism, not neccesarily the experiences of people who involve themselves in campaigns or activity without reducing their presence to the concerned local citizen or do-gooder.

We shouldn’t forget that anarchist ideas are open to development and this development over the decades (good and bad) has been based on this understanding. With that, this conference goes forward as a space where we can develop anarchist ideas, where those in attendance don’t neccesarily declare themselves anarchists in every context but would appreciate that such a gathering under the anarchist banner will atleast allow them to discover and develop their own ideas.

The anarchist label is about connecting us with a large and dynamic history that goes beyond what is defined as purely anarchist struggles but the wider acknowledgements played by many working class militants. The same who not only engaged in organising against expliotation but also against the domination of political parties and trade union bosses.

It would be a shame if people missed this opportunity based solely on the labels of the conference.