(Black Flag)Bradford 98 (Black Flag)
Anarchy's True Face (Freedom, 23 May 1998)
Report from the Bradford Conference (Freedom, 23 May 1998)
Bradford '98 (Direct Action)
(Black Flag)
The May Day Celebrations in Bradford this year included not only a march and bands but a 3-day conference organised by anarchists from around the country.
May Day 98 grew out of the desire for change and self analysis that has been making itself felt in the movement for about a year. The main priorities of the conferences were not to produce any orderly proposals or achieve on-paper unity, but to talk to each other without sectarian barriers, to look honestly at our failures and to use our collective imagination as to the way ahead. To achieve this the conference was structured into groups of fifteen to twenty people and participants were split up from their mates to encourage a wider circulation of ideas and to stop cliques from dominating discussions.
The groups had four main themes for discussion, which were: away from the margins, all worked up, land ecology and the environment and dreamtime. Some groups stuck to this, others ignored it and just talked about what they wanted. Topics of note ranged from a discussion of space travel in one group to a big argument about whether we can have cups of tea after the revolution in another (If there's no tea 1 quit now! But we will eradicate lemsip.)
The conference was attended by about 250 people, a quarter women. There had been plans to have a women-only group, but most women felt this would mean the other groups were very male dominated. So instead there was one men only group (not self-selecting and some men weren't too happy about it) so that there were at least a third women in the other groups.
Some felt the conference would have been more productive if it had been more focused, but overall people were positive and felt inspired, especially by the friendliness and lack of backbiting. For me the conference was summed up by the feedback session on the last day, where instead of the usual dismal bureaucracy the room was buzzing, people were laughing, joking and hurling affectionate insults at the speakers. 1 left for once with faith in our movement, and hope for the future.
(Freedom, 23 May 1998)
The bank holiday weekend of 1st May this year saw more than holidaymakers heading for the country. The city of Bradford had the good fortune to be descended on by hundreds of social revolutionaries attending the Reclaim May Day events organised by the anarchist 'One in Twelve Club'. Socialists, left communists, radical greens, as well as hordes of anarchists, talked, partied and drank both day and night away. One of the highlights of these events was the May Day '98 Conference of anarchists and other social revolutionaries. Registration for this occurred on the Friday at the One in Twelve Club and the talks themselves continued for the following three days at a local college. What follows is a personal account of what could turn out to be an historic event. I arrived in Bradford late on the afternoon of 1st May, unfortunately not in time to catch the Mayday parade but early enough to observe some of the day's final festivities. After depositing my bags at a local hotel, I set out to find the acclaimed One in Twelve Club. For a dumb southerner like me, used to grid like street systems, the roads of Bradford were very confusing and I soon lost my way. Fortunately I spied a bohemianly-dressed, well-spoken, middle class couple walking in a similar direction. They must be anarchists, I thought, and followed them. My suspicions proved correct and I soon arrived at the Club.
On registration I was given a white card with two numbers on: one my registration number, the other my group number (for the ten discussion groups into which we were to be divided). "You're number two" I was told with a smile, revealing the continuing influence of '60s libertarian Sci Fi. I don't know who was declared number six but it's a good bet they demanded to know who was number one! We were told the groups were randomly selected to separate us from friends and comrades and get a fair mix in each group. This seemed to be true, with the exception that a deliberate attempt appeared to have been made to get an equal male/female mix - something welcomed by many of us bored with all-male meetings in smoke filled rooms. An offer of an all-female group was made by the organisers, but was not taken up. Obviously revolutionary women are far less separatist than their reactionary counterparts in mainstream feminism.
The following day we gathered with apprehension, and not a little scepticism, at the conference venue. Participants at this stage still clung to their little cliques, occasionally eyeing suspiciously at unrecognised faces. Suddenly a voice piped up asking us to make our way to the main hall for the opening session. A hater of formal meetings, I gloomily made my way there, dreading a long series of speeches by boring prats, but I was to be pleasantly surprised. The opening session was short and succinct and, most surprisingly of all, humorous. What's this, I thought, where's the solemn call for solidarity and hard work? Instead we were told to have fun and enjoy the debates. Whatever happened to good old fashioned puritan anarchism? Dead I hope. The details of the weekend's format were announced and security details given. The session was then rounded off with an appeal for us to respect the opinions of others and be as tolerant as possible. I believe that when I see it, I thought to myself as I made my way to group five.
So there we all were, twenty strangers sitting in a circle like some naff New Age encounter group. We introduced ourselves to each other and our initial facilitators explained the 'rules'. The true purpose of our white cards was then revealed: the long winded and the boring could be vetoed by a general raising of cards hinting they should shut up. How I wished this could be introduced at the London Anarchist Forum! The debate was then begun. It was at this point, I later found out, that many groups spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about the debating style and what should be discussed first. Fortunately we launched straight in to the first topic on the list, adopting an informal system of hand raising and queued selection. By the end of the weekend this had been abandoned and our familiarity, and sense of discipline (installed by those very useful little cards), enabled us to operate more spontaneously in a free flowing debate with very little facilitation.
'Why are we marginalised?' was the first issue. 'Most people think we're odd or crazy' was a common view. 'We are crazy or we wouldn't be here' someone exclaimed. You speak for yourself comrade, I thought. 'Perhaps we're not crazy enough' said a more perceptive soul. It was generally agreed that if we want to change society we needed to interact with it a bit more, come down off our political platforms a and relate as human beings. It was also pointed out that some younger people were far more radical than many anarchists and perhaps we could learn a bit from them. Certainly how to have fun if nothing else. In the days that followed we discussed work, industry, class, consumerism, the environment and finally our utopian dreams. Most of you will be glad to hear that in the latter debate it was unanimously agreed that monolithic socio-economic systems were out and diversity (if not actual plurality) was in. And I'm also pleased to announce that it was also nearly unanimously agreed that after the revolution money will be abolished. So stop worrying about those pensions!
The amazing thing about these debates was that they were actually productive, a dialogue was building up between people of diverse views, not all of them anarchist, and agreements were being achieved. While a pure consensus was never actually obtained (some contentious issues were 'swept under the carpet' and the group had shrunk from about twenty to twelve by the final day) an honest attempt was made to develop compromises and much common ground was reached. For those of us used to finicky arguments, point scoring and bickering, this was stunning. I was genuinely gob-smacked, to say the least. Of course there was a down side, we had all been entreated to be tolerant and respectful and, like good little children, we were very well behaved in this (perhaps conditioned by our classroom environment). This meant conflict and passion tended to be avoided, leading to the glossing over of some of our differences. But as was made clear throughout the conference, the event was not about reaching a global consensus, it was about initiating a dialogue and showing that we can all work together towards a common goal. This was certainly achieved and some concrete proposals for both more dialogue and co-ordinated practical activity were given at the summing up session by group representatives in the final plenary meeting.
Not everyone attended the debates however. Some preferred to take part in or watch the football tournament outside the venue, presumably in a gesture of anti-intellectualism, or perhaps mere pessimism. This event had the side effect of producing the first recorded instance of a 'UFO sighting' at an anarchist conference, as bored spectators suddenly became aware of a strange white object apparently hovering over the venue! Some declared this interloper to be nothing more than a 'bin-liner caught in the wind', 'No, it's a structured object' claimed others. More sober observers suggested the more convincing explanation of a police surveillance device. Who knows?
On the whole the conference seems to have been a success (of the nine groups it was said that only one couldn't reach any kind of real consensus and one split, though without recrimination). The sense of accord achieved should be carried over into practical activity. Certainly more conferences are planned and several working groups were initiated, including one for a possible 'Anarchist Day of Action'. We live in hope ...
Steve Ash
Organised by ex-Class War on the back of the Reclaim May Day events, the conference was generally acclaimed a resounding success by participants. Summing up speeches at the end of the three day gathering emphasised the positive and highlighted some themes of common concern; namely the need to network more, especially on a local level and help break down the habits which lead to marginalisation of anarchists from everyday struggles; to build tolerance and co-operation between the various anarchist strands; to make better use of existing resources and organisation. One woman from Leeds said this was more like the true face of anarchism than anything she had previously seen in the movement.
Based on the 'encuentra' model favoured by the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico, the conference allowed 220 people to discuss a wide range of issues while remaining in the same small groups for the duration. With the aim of exploring new ideas and approaches in the struggle for social change, any controversies and divisions would have to be worked through in the group - there was no other way! At the very least we would have to exercise tolerance and respect.
Speaking with participants from other groups, I get the impression that people had similar experiences. The organisers hope to produce a full report of the proceedings to be compiled from the rather too voluminous summaries produced each day by each of the ten groupings. In the meantime I will try to provide a brief personal impression of what went on in my group. We were eighteen men (there were two such groups to offset the gender imbalance in the other groups) from London to Glasgow to Liverpool, California to Germany, of various anarchistic persuasions, and most of us had not previously met. We had one member of the International Communist Current along too, as had several groups, whose announced intention was to steer us all out of the swamp of anarchism and onto firm Trot territory. We followed the four main themes provided by the organisers, starting with:
Marginalisation. Everyone experienced this in one way or another, but it was obviously a complex question. The man from the ICC suggested a simple answer, namely to sacrifice ourselves for the revolution in the name of class struggle and educating the masses was the only way forward. That provided some room for discussion. People felt there was a use for traditional analyses, but that things had become more complex and less clear cut. Complexity had led to division and diversity, and if we are to move on we must embrace this complexity and not hanker after simple formulas. We want a revolution, but there might be many ways to get there, we need to respect other ways, the personal, the lifestylist, the class struggler and the eco-warrior, and try to overcome the marginalisation amongst ourselves. The Reclaim the Streets and Liverpool Dockers collaboration was the best example of this. The man from the ICC was of the opinion that this only diluted the workers struggle, and staged a walkout just before the end of this first day, co-ordinated with the rest of his comrades.
Work. There is general disdain for the work ethic now being used by the capitalist rulers to beat the workers. This is easy to understand. It is more difficult though to sort out the oppressor from the oppressed. Society is now a complex hierarchy of overlapping and mobile classifications. Some people want to abolish work, others see it as a necessity - both perhaps can learn from the other. Abolitionists are lifestylists who live happily without the consumer garbage of everyday life; others have jobs, families and mortgages. It dismays me how some have little conception of economics and trade, how these are seen as bad things by eco-anarchists. They don't seem to want to consider the complexity of organising a modern technological society. Do things just happen?
Land, ecology and environment. We are assured by men from Earth First that few hold to the 'Green Anarchist' primitivist position, that Earth Firsters do think about organising a society to fulfil the needs of everyone. What is crucial here is the starting point. People react against the rape of the planet and this brings them to a kind of anarchism with a different focus. Others get attracted to the historical anarchist tradition with its different emphases. What is needed is more talk and more working together, which means us going to their meetings and actions and them coming to ours. This is happening all the time, of course, but its worth stating, for there is always a danger that anarchists remain in a ghetto of their own choosing '
Dream Time. It's good to dream, but let's face it we all have different dreams. That's why politics teachers cannot deal with the phenomenon of anarchism which doesn't easily allow itself to be packaged for easy consumption, but is subject to periodic bouts of hibernation and re-invention. The principles on which anarchism is built read like a list of moral exhortations which don't easily fit into standard political texts, but they are nevertheless worth repeating: free association, mutuality, solidarity, respect for the freedom of others, consensus, inclusivity, basis-democracy, a hatred of dogma and the domination of ideologies. They are worth repeating because they will be the strength of anarchism if we learn to apply them among ourselves.
Some of the above are my personal feelings which I took to the conference, but I honestly feel that they were expanded and strengthened by the good will of the people I met in the pleasant and uplifting atmosphere. Well done to the organisers.
JL
Direct Action, Summer 1998
May Day weekend saw hundreds of anarchists from all over Britain (and beyond) converging on Bradford, West Yorkshire, for what has become an annual week of marching, talking, meeting, and doing various arty things - to name a few.
Events were organised by the linl2 Club, the local libertarian club, which has a great 4-storey building, housing bars, cafe, library, office and gig venue.
This year, there was the added attraction of the MayDay98 conference, a 3 day group-based discussion event centred around libertarian ideas, issues, strategy and tactics. Like the other May Day events at Bradford, it was pronounced a resounding success. The open minded, non-sectarian discussion was refreshing - and dozens of new or re-invigorated faces showed up!
There are plans for follow up activities to the conference - if you are interested, contact DA and we'll put you in touch.