It is interesting to see the different points of view in this discussion, but I think there's some misunderstanding about the CWG's attitude to anarchists, and more generally about our attitude to movement-building. There's such a lot of misinformation and bad faith on both sides of the Marxist-anarchist debate that I'd like to ask permission take the time to explain our views clearly, and also to issue a couple of comradely challenges to our anarchist critics.

Just to clarify one point, I asked about the conference because the CWG is having a meeting tommorow night and I wanted to be able to report on any actions or initiatives that came out of it.

We have already worked with anarchists at times this year - for instance, as members of the Direct Anti War Action United Front in Auckland we worked with Bobo, amongst of course many others, in organising pickets of the US consulate. When Bobo did a weeklong picket we supported him as part of DAWA. Earlier this year we took part in a picket of Whenuapai Air Base which was coordinated with an action outside Harewood in Christchurch, an action which ART was I think involved in planning.

I didn't necessarily think the meeting would have decided on a formal line on any of the issues I posted (though doing so would certainly not be contrary to class struggle anarchist tradition, which allows for the use of delegates). I did assume that any political meeting held in New Zealand in 2003 would have to give some serious attention to issues like the US-NZ occupation of Iraq, the war on civil liberties at home, declining wages and social services, and the state of the trade union movement. Those are the burning issues.

Strypey reckons the anarchist movement is too small to set up its own groups to deal with issues like the war. Good! The last thing we'd want to see is groups setting up their own little front groups on single issues - that's been tried at different times and it's failed. As Mark points out, our own group is tiny. (It's unrealistic to expect any revolutionary group to be very large in NZ at present - NZ ain't Bolivia or Argentina.)

So why should tiny groups bother to talk about the big issues? We don't work out analyses and strategies around issues like the war because we think we can stop the war alone - we work them out because we want to try to sell them in the broader left and the workers' movement.

To put it another way: every left outfit, from the Alliance to the CWG, is just a faction of the workers' movement. Each faction has its own vision about how the movement should work, but you see the underlying unity whenever a picket line or major demonstration forms up, and all the factions end up standing side by side, selling or giving away their papers, handing out their leaflets, and arguing over strategy and tactics.

In the anti-war movement earlier this year, for instance, we put forward as part of DAWA a different strategy to the Alliance - we argued that the movement should rely on mass direct action and not lobbying and 'international law' to stop the war. But we still marched alongside Alliance members. We worked with those who agreed with us on ends (stopping the war) so as to be able to try to convince them about means (direct workers' action).

The arguments for direct action lost out to the arguments for pressuring Labour and for appealing to the UN. The trade union leaders kept control and avoided anti-war strikes. The organisers of the anti-war marches in Auckland mostly managed to keep a pretty tight rein on mass activity. That's life on the left in NZ - as I say, this ain't Bolivia. Putting revolutionary politics on the agenda depends on strengthening the working class, which is still very weak here after the defeats of the last two decades.

It's sometimes surprising, though, what small organised groups can achieve. In the last couple of weeks there have been some interesting internal ructions in UNITE, the union for beneficiaries and low-income workers, as rank and file members have stood up to the union leadership. Rank and file members in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch have all been organising to oppose first the sellout conference with the cops to rewrite the history of the 1913 General Strike, and then the bureaucratic structure of the union. The upshot of this activity is that last week two revolutionaries and rank and file members were elected to the National Executive of UNITE. This is an excellent achievement and an example for work in other unions.

Success in UNITE only came because a) the militant rank and file members worked together where they agreed, despite ideological disagreements on some big issues and in some cases membership of different groups; and b) the rank and file members talked about bread and butter, practical issues - the sort of 'burning issues' I posted.

For instance, when they opposed the alliance with the cops made by UNITE leaders in Auckland over the 1913 conference they pointed not to some abstract point of Marxist or anarchist theory, but to the reality of creeping attacks on civil liberties caused by 'anti-terrorism' legislation. Members pointed to the recent arrest and harrassment of Bruce Hubbard and said - 'do we want to deal with the cops when they're doing this? That ain't logical. It shows what side of the class divide they're on'.

But arguments like that would never have succeeded if there hadn't been union members to argue to. The rank and file members of UNITE who opposed the cop conference and who opposed bureaucratic structures in the union are people who have recruited to the union. One of them has been doing a recruitment drive amongst Mobil workers in Christchurch; another has recruited students; another has recruited casual cafe workers; another has been politicising psych survivors on sickness benefits and getting them involved.

All of these members are doing brilliant work, and it's no wonder they have gained credibility in the union and been able to win some arguments. But to communicate with the people they've been recruiting they've needed more than abstract theories about how awful capitalism is - they've needed concrete answers to everyday problems, stuff like the 'burning issues' which I posted.

I was originally attracted to the ad for the conference at Marama-iti by its link to information on early anarcho-syndicalism in NZ. The webpage at the end of this link relates early anarchism in NZ to the Red Feds and the General Strike of 1913. The Red Feds were a militant, organised body of workers who raised concrete demands over the burning issues of their day and acted collectively to challenge the rule of capital in this country. It is their story which was being threatened by the conference with the cops the UNITE rank and file were protesting. It's not hard to see why the UNITE rank and file were attracted to the defence of 1913 - they embody the spirit of 1913, though of course they are a tiny, tiny group compared to the mighty Red Feds.

It was disappointing to go from the excellent coverage of 1913 on the Troublemakers site back to the ad for the conference at Marama-iti. There was a not a single mention of the working class in either the ad or the report on the conference. There were promises of classes in tree climbing, rope skills, herbal remedies, and so on, but not a single mention of any of the burning issues I listed - nothing about Iraq, about the decline of wages and social services, about the state of the unions, about civil liberties.

Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against some of the lifestyle options and hobbies that apparently were discussed at the conference. It's a very good idea for leftists to have varied, interesting lives outside of their activism - if they don't, how can relate to ordinary workers, and avoid the cliches of the loony left or the humourless lefty? Of course everyone in the CWG has hobbies outside of politics. For instance, several of us are pretty keen league fans and follow the Warriors games every season (we actually had an internal argument over one cde's decision to put money on the Penrith Panthers against the Warriors in this season's playoffs - the traitor justified his choice by claiming he was being an internationalist!:)

But none of us would argue that supporting league was the way to socialism. If we went into a union meeting or a United Front meeting and argued that everyone ought to become a league fan, workers would think we were taking the piss, at best.

Jay argues that sexism is still a problem on the left. We completely agree. But how do get rid of the problem? Not, I'd suggest, by getting more 'squares' into punk music. I can't see how punk is more politically progressive than league - in fact, I could probably put my tongue in my cheek and argue that league was more progressive, since it has a mass working class following! But arguments over lifestyle choices lead nowhere, because they assume the logic of the market and treat workers as consumers rather than producers. We have to get to the point of production - that's where the power is!

I suggest that a much more effective way of opposing sexism both in society at large and in the left is to try to build up International Women's Day celebrations in New Zealand. The International Women's Day Committees in Auckland and Wellington are beginning right now to meet to plan this event, which takes place I think on March the 8th. Last year's IWD in Auckland was a big success, with perhaps eight hundred women and men marching down Queen St, chanting militant anti-war slogans and demanding equal pay and a raise in the DPB.

Crucial to the success of IWD is the way it brings together different parts of the left, and also challenges the trade union movement for support. The IWD committees are open to all, and they provide a place where different analyses of and strategies to oppose working women's oppression can be tested. In Auckland the CWG has volunteered to cover the printing costs of IWD educational material like leaflets and posters, and we're looking to get involved in supporting the event in other ways too. Support gives us a framework in which to put our arguments across.

I would love to see anarchists committed to a lifestyle model of politics put their ideas to the test of practice, by getting involved in organisations like UNITE and events like IWD. I'm confident that Jay would have to reconsider some of his/her politics, when s/he found that 'square' working class women were more interested in wages and social services than in music, and that punk couldn't boost the pay packet and pay off the student loan. I'm confident too that unemployed lifestyle anarchists who joined UNITE would soon find that the burning issues were more important than rope skills and kiln building.

The CWG is not challenging the politics of Marama-Iti because it wants converts. We don't do conversions - those who join our group recruit themselves, which is why the few who join tend to stay rather than leave via the revolving door. We are aware of the deep differences between class struggle anarchism and left Trotskyism, let alone lifestyle anarchism and left Trotskyism. These differences can only be overcome through practice, over long periods of time.

We're not asking anarchists to come into the CWG - we're asking them to come into the working class movement.
That's what you'd expect from people who claimed the Red Feds as their forebears.