The following are statements  by the Anarchist Communist Group since and prior to its formation in February 2018, in reverse chronological order.

11 August 2019

Statement on Transphobia

We in the ACG oppose transphobia. In our aims and principles we stress the importance of ending all oppressions as well as an end to capitalism and the State.

In an anarchist communist society there will continue to be differences between people, a flourishing of diversity as people are freed from the indoctrination and limitations of this society. However, these differences will not mean new hierarchies or inequalities. We fight today against all oppressions and inequality both because of the hardship and suffering it causes and because we need to unite as a class if we are to be effective in our struggles.

We fully recognise that the experience of transgender people has been one of inequality, discrimination and violence. The struggle for equality is difficult and needs to be supported.

The particular relationship between trans women and women who are born female and socialised as women has been fraught and has resulted in extreme polarisation, making it very difficult to unite against patriarchy, gender oppression and capitalism. Sensitivity and understanding of the oppression that different groups experience – females socialised as women, trans women, trans men, and non-binary – is needed in order to move forward.

We must come together to end all oppression as well as help create a united working class movement which can effectively challenge capitalism and hierarchical society.

18 April 2018

Syria: No War But The Class War!

A hundred cruise missiles were launched against the military installations of the Assad regime. In the aftermath the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, stated that the United States was “locked and loaded”. Together the US, France and Britain have engaged in bombings that will be of no benefit to the Syrian masses suffering under the murderous regime of Bashar Assad.

It can be seen that all three regimes in the USA, France and Britain have their own domestic problems, and that a military adventure is always a good ploy to divert attention. Trump is wrestling with the ongoing Muller investigation, the revelations of ex-FBI Director Comey, and ongoing legal wrangles with porn star Stormy Daniels and polls that show his lack of popularity. Theresa May is faced with serious divisions in her own Party, deepening problems over Brexit, not to mention that she is hanging on to power thanks to an alliance with the DUP. Macron faces increasing unrest at home with what looks increasingly like a re-run of May 1968.

Trump was elected President on a populist programme, but part of that programme was that he would withdraw troops from Iraq and not be involved in military adventures in the Middle East. This was in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton who maintained an aggressive stance towards Russia and calls for a no-fly zone over Syria that would have caused confrontation with Russia, Assad’s ally. Now Trump has betrayed his populist base, to the horror of some of his previous conservative backers.

Haley has stated that the US would maintain its troops in Syria and would start sanctions against Russian firms doing business with Assad.

Some of the most virulent critics of Trump have been papers like the Washington Post. In a lead editorial just after the bombings it criticised the joint US, French and British attack as inadequate and attacked Trump for saying that he had been ready to withdraw American troops from Syria. Similar views were aired in anti-Trump paper the New York Post. It is clear that a substantial part of the US ruling class wish to pursue a more aggressive attitude towards Russia and its allies. They are concerned by the new alliance between Russia, Turkey and Iran and the weakening US influence in the Middle East.

For the last quarter of a century, the US and its allies have been engaged in constant warfare, using fabricated excuses like the bogus weapons of mass destruction to dismantle the regime of their former ally Saddam, overthrow Gaddafi in Libya because of an “imminent” massacre of civilians and now the gas attacks by the Assad regime.

The attacks on the Syrian regime were not a last minute response but the result of plans prepared over many months as can be seen by the high level of coordination between the three state powers.

Large sections of the US ruling class including the leaders of the military have little confidence in Trump being able to oversee moves against Russia and its allies. That is why the campaign against Trump is increasing in intensity at the same time as aggressive moves by the US and its allies. This has been explicitly stated by neo-conservatives who link the removal of Trump to the expansion of war moves.

In the USA, France and Britain there is widespread anti-war feeling and this has been aggravated by the bombing attacks. In Germany, sections of the ruling class there have expressed the need to re-arm and, at the same time, pursue foreign policies less dependent on the USA. This turn is justified by lauding German “high moral and humanitarian standards”.

Assad is a bloody dictator and it is highly possible that he used gas attacks against the Syrian population. However those who condemn Assad are the same States that justified mass bombings of Hamburg and Dresden and two atom bomb attacks on Japan during World War Two, the use of the chemical Agent Orange in Vietnam, as well as the deployment of napalm there and previously in Greece, and the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah by Saddam, then the ally of the West. More recently, the British government has had few qualms about providing the weaponry used by the Saudi Arabian military to kill numerous civilians in Yemen.

The USA realised it has lost influence in the Middle East. It and its allies initially backed the Islamist militias in their attempts to overthrow Assad. Now ISIS is a shadow of its former self and Assad controls 75% of Syria. Russia had been warned before the bombing attacks with the hint that its own forces and bases there would not be touched. Nevertheless it was implied that the USA was still the only surviving superpower and that Russia should not overstep the mark.

Russia will not easily abandon its ally, Syria. It needs the Mediterranean ports that Syria provides. On the other hand the USA would like to confine Russia to the Black Sea and is seriously concerned about the new alliance, temporary though it may be, between Turkey and Russia and the increasing strength of the Shiite axis in Iran, Iraq and with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israel launched its own attacks on its old enemy, Syria, obviously with the approval of the USA. For its part, Turkey is looking to increase influence and presence in Syria and has moved against the Kurdish controlled enclave of Afrin, exploiting the tensions between the great powers.

Whatever the outcome, it is clear that the different world and regional powers are gearing up for more armed conflict. In Syria over 400,000 people have been slaughtered and many more have been displaced. The situation is the same in Iraq. The masses there have nothing to gain from the murderous and barbarous depredations of the different armed gangs, whether they be Russian, American, Turkish or Islamist etc. Only revolution to overthrow all these regimes offers any alternative.

For now, we call on all internationalist and class conscious workers, communists, anarchists and revolutionary socialists to come together under the ‘No War But The Class War’ banner to promote working class resistance to the bosses’ war machine.

War Is The Health of The State!

No War But The Class War!

3rd April 2018

Afrin: An Internationalist Position

We deplore the invasion of the city of Afrin by the Turkish state and its armed forces. The main reason for this military adventure is Turkish government concerns that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – primarily controlled by Kurdish forces, which include the PYD (Democratic Union Party), the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), closely affiliated to the PKK, the Kurdish nationalist party operating within the borders of the Turkish state – have attempted to set up a zone of influence close to Turkey’s borders. Having a Kurdish zone so close by scares the Erdogan regime in Turkey, which dreads the encouragement this would give to the 16 million Kurds living within the borders of Turkey.

For its part, Russia has entered into alliance with Turkey, which represents problems for its client, the Assad regime in Syria. Russian air forces controlled the skies above Afrin, so the capture of this city by the Turkish army is with the tacit approval of Russia.

The Assad regime is concerned about US support for the YPG. The USA has backed the SDF in its attacks on the ISIS jihadists, as well as furthering its interests and influence in the region. It has established ten temporary bases in order to facilitate these aims.

The Assad regime wants to see the withdrawal of all occupation forces in Syria, including those of the Americans and Turks. Russia, who up to now fully supported Assad has established relations with Turkey and wants an end to the war in the region which until recently involved its own intervention in the region with the use of air strikes and the deployment of special forces. The Assad regime is itself concerned about the development of Kurdish enclaves but is aware that the Turkish state wishes not just to destroy those enclaves but to dismantle Syria, with its support for jihadist armed forces.

The USA has supported the Kurdish forces not out of some concern for “democracy” but to use these forces to combat ISIS and to gain access to oil and gas resources. The YPG for their part were happy enough for this support. Now though, the USA is concerned that its alliance with the Turkish state is jeopardised by the Turkish government’s increasingly cordial relations with Russia and this accounts for the US decision to end support for the Kurds.

For us as internationalists our first aim must be to condemn and mobilise against the Turkish invasion and against continued British arming of the Turkish state.

As our comrades in the anarchist communist group in Turkey, Yeryüzü Postası, note:

“We can see that power-holders in different countries are rubbing their hands with glee about the Afrin operation. It is understood that Russia and USA are constructing their plan on dividing Syria in line with their spheres of influence and probably they have agreed on it. As far as we’ve inferred from statements of England, they are willing to take a share from oil reserves and other natural resources – possibly, again, via a partnership between Shell and Koç Holding. France wants to re-establish its activity in the region.”

For its part, the Democratic Self-Administration of the Afrin province, which is the de facto government of the area and controlled by the SDF has actually called on Assad to come to their aid. In other words, support from a murderous regime that they want autonomy from.

As one Kurdish anarchist has remarked,

“I can conclude that in Bakur and Rojava a couple of high-disciplinary and authoritarian political parties, PKK and PYD, are behind building democratic confederalism in both Kurdistan, Bakur and Rojava. It is these parties that are the ones making major decisions, planning and designing the policies, and also setting up diplomatic relationships with other countries and other political parties. It is they who negotiate with their enemies or the states, and make war or peace. Of course, these are very big issues and extremely important as they shape the future destination of the society. However, unfortunately it is the political parties which are making these decisions and not the people in their own assemblies and mass meetings, or through direct action.”

The imperialist powers are as usual taking sides according to what suits their interests and not what is best for the people of the Middle East. As anarchist communists we do not support any faction in an in inter-imperialist war, even if some of them might appear to side with those being attacked by ISIS or by Turkey. We also do not support nationalist political parties who have the goal of establishing new States, no matter how libertarian the rhetoric may be. There may well be examples of self-organising in areas of Rojava but the problem is that they are still ultimately controlled by authoritarian political parties who have made a cult out of their leader Öcalan. It is not a move towards genuine self-organisation if you are able to do it because the great leader has said that this is what you should do. The situation is very complicated and though we must stand in solidarity with all those who are being killed and resisting Turkish forces, Syrian forces, ISIS etc, we do not then support uncritically the nationalist parties such as the YPD which have assumed the leadership of the resistance.

It is the masses of the Afrin province and of Syria, the peasants and workers who suffer from the depredations of all these murderous gangs, whether they be those of the Turkish state, the different jihadi outfits, the USA and Russia, the Hezbollah and Iranian units. It is the masses who suffer displacement, massacre, bombing, mass rape and the destruction of their land and homes. Neither can there be reliance on the Kurdish nationalists who seek time after time to form alliances with different regional and world powers, only to be betrayed on every single occasion. The only answer to the unfolding situation is the development of a strong working class movement against war and against capitalism itself.

20th February 2018

Founding Conference of New Anarchist Organisation, the Anarchist Communist Group

On Saturday 17th February, anarchist communist militants met in Leicester to found a new organisation, the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG).

Those present adopted  Aims and Principles and a constitution. The preamble to the Aims and Principles reads:

“We are a revolutionary anarchist communist organisation made up of local groups and individuals who seek a complete transformation of society, and the creation of anarchist communism. This will mean the working class overthrowing capitalism, abolishing the State, getting rid of exploitation, hierarchies and oppressions, and halting the

destruction of the environment. To contribute to the building of a revolutionary anarchist movement we believe it is important to be organised. We are committed to building an effective national and international organisation that has a collective identity and works towards the common goal of anarchist communism, whilst at the same time working together with other working class organisations and in grass roots campaigns. We do not see ourselves as the leaders of a revolutionary movement but part of a wider movement for revolutionary change. In addition, we strive to base all our current actions on the principles that will be the basis of the future society: mutual aid, solidarity, collective responsibility, individual freedom and autonomy, free association and federalism.”

The discussion document “Potential Activities Of A New Organisation” was discussed and adopted. Initial emphasis would be on agitational literature and activity around Land Justice, housing and the NHS. In addition, there was a commitment to street agitation-stickers and posters.

It was decided that the ACG should focus on the campaign against Universal Credit using the Disabled People Against Cuts slogan “Stop It and Scrap It”. Leicester ACG agreed to make and circulate leaflets and stickers in regards to Universal Credit, capable of being locally adapted.

It was also agreed to hold Annual Day Schools. The first of these will be in early November 2018 in London on the subject of “Advancing The Class Struggle: Problems and Issues for the Anarchist Communists”.

It was agreed to bring out a newspaper that will be primarily agitational. The first issue should appear in April of this year. In addition we will be establishing a new website soon. We will also soon be producing a series of pamphlets.

It was agreed to seek affiliation to the International of Anarchist Federations and to attend the forthcoming international conference in Slovenia.

A motion was passed on Anarchist Communist Unity. It reads:

“Whilst recognising the differences between our organisation and others on the libertarian communist spectrum in Britain – Anarchist Federation, Solidarity Federation, Libertarian Socialist Federation, etc. – we should seek to promote where possible: joint solidarity work with comrades facing repression, imprisonment, bad health, either here or in the rest of the world; joint solidarity work over workplace struggles – joint bulletins where possible, joint fundraising and publicity etc.”

The conference was marked by a spirit of enthusiasm and by a business-like approach. We intend making ourselves known through our activities, propaganda and development of theory.

Enquiries about the ACG, membership, etc. should be sent to

Class Struggle Anarchist Statement on Bookfair Events and Aftermath

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’!


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.

1st January 2018

Resignations from the Anarchist Federation

We are a significant number of Anarchist Federation members, including all surviving founding members, who resigned from that organisation on 17/12/17.

This was due to disagreements over the recent political direction of the AF. These disagreements came to a head over the differences in responses to events at the London Anarchist Bookfair in October.

We disagreed with the statements put out by Edinburgh AF and the ‘Trans Action Faction’. We put forward an alternative statement for discussion which was received with extreme hostility and uncomradely behaviour from a vocal minority. We were no longer able to work in that environment.

Those of us who have left the AF are re-grouping and re-organising in early 2018. We will focus less on what is essentially a small, vague anarchist sub-culture, but instead, will re-orient towards an outward looking, wider working class politics.