Nothing concrete has been decided yet about a conference in christchurch. Anarchist Round Table (ART) have talked about it, and most of us think its a good idea and are planning to work towards a conference probably late next year possibly around late October - early December.

Anyone wanting to get involved in ART or helping organise the conference can contact us either by email: anroundtable (at) hotmail.com or by post PO Box 22-076 Chch

Lata,
YudA

I'd like to see discussion about the progession of projects we decided on starting continue on www.anarchy.org.nz in the forum space maybe each project could have a seperate forum.

Also on anarchist conferences, I'd like to host a practical green anarchist conference somewhere around (just out of) wellington, close to a suitible 'target' so we can do some actions during the conference. With skill sharing and campaign networking being the main focus. But first we are going to have to get the direct action camp out of the way.

I've set up a projects forum at www.enzyme.org.nz/anarchy/modules.php If any of the projects needs it own space let one of the admins know

It went so well at Marama-iti and because it's intended as a place for such meetings, I assumed we'd be back there next year, but that's up to the hosts I guess.

Hello,

I was one of the people was critical of the conference advertising and programme, not just because of the "Living outside of capitalism" talk, but because most of the topics advertised seemed to me to be entirely about lifestyle stuff, not about politics.

eg deschooling, non-monogamous relationships, natural contraceptives, tree climbing etc. Some of these sound like fun, some of them sound stupid and pointless and some might be useful to some people, but NONE have anything much to do with building a movement capable of overthrowing capitalism.

from all I have heard it was quite good and not at all as bad as I first thought it would be, but the point is, that myself and presumably other people, were put off by the advertising, and did not go.

If we have to have tree climbing and herbalism at an anarchist conference, lets at least make them optional extras, and not advertise them as the main attractions..


Mark (still wanting a revolution)

Kia Ora all

I attended two days of the conference and was impressed and with the workshops, facilitators and the many younger "full of fire in the belly" anarchists. Although the workshops steered more towards middle of the road issues, nevertheless there were elements within all of them that if implemented with true anarchist ideology and applomb, can only be positive and forward thinking for the anachists movement, such as the rope workshop that was good, which was taken by two very dedicated Anarchists, I even learned how to operate a slingshot awesome bro's. The bookbinding workshop would have been good as well as with more articles, books and pamphlets, newsletters and stuff out there can only mean further longevity for the movement. Even the Wendy O Matic talk was informative what a different society we could create.

The Marama Iti site I believe is perfect for this annual anarchist tea-party type conference, although it could be better prepared to accommodate the many, with better sanitation and comfortable accommodation for the women and children and older ones looked at in future. Clearing of the section for tents would be appropriate as well. I felt the woolshed was too small for the sixty to seventy people there although everyone managed well. Marae style accommodation would be good, maybe we could raise some funds in our respective areas through film evenings, cake stalls, raffles, Punk fest concerts, anarchist forums, government funding etc and have regular working bee's during the summer months to redesign or refurbish the barn, to include toilets, showers, kitchen area (separate buildings) leaving the main sleeping area for conferencing as well. We could clear the long grass at the working bee and prepare it for the next conference. To pay for this we should levy all anachist groups nationwide on top of their registration fees to the Teaparty to put in money for this purpose. That way we can contribute to Marama-Iti as an ongoing venue, and not overstay the welcome of our awesome hosts Lucia, Geoff and Liam, in the end we would be providing a safe place for them and a safe place for anachists.

However I like all, am concerned with the generisization of methods we as anarchists might want to employ or are employing as a collective organisation in overthrowing the capitalist system here in Aotearoa. Secrecy is paramount as my ancestor Puhi kai Ariki one of the first anarchists on the planet stated in 5000BC "let not the right arm know what the left arm is doing for fear of having to bite it off yourself" in reference to the common practice of indigenous peoples having cells of terrorists let loose on capitalism to undermine her and to then replace her.

So to all you special people I met last weekend, ya'all are so cool!
tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa

Geoffrey Karena

Mark,

I personally get really annoyed when people create the personal vs. political dichotomy. Isn't that one of the key things to come from the feminist movement? - the personal is political and vice versa? You can't simply create all these neat little spheres and compartmentlise different parts of your own life!

I think deschooling is extremely political. School is one of the pivotal institutions to the running of capitalism. It reinforces the dominate/submit relationship that the nuclear family fisrt instills in us. School also teaches dominant ideologies, that is, the ideologies of our oppressors which stifles resistance. School also prepares us for work - it teaches us how to follow orders, how to behave and the skills necessary to enrich the fucking parasites.

The tree-climbing workshop was actually about direct action techniques for eco-anarchists/green-anarchists. That is directly political.

The natural contraceptives was about empowering the individual to help make her own choice over his own body. The alternative being relying on corporations and specialists selling us pills and synthetic "gloves" upon which we can come to rely on. That is also political to some degree.

I wouldn't brush stuff off like you seem to have done simply because it's not as political as you may think. It's dangerous to get so narrow in one's perspective and forsake the rest of life.

Besides, and most importantly, this was an anarchist gathering and I think it's a given it would be collectively run to a large degree (at least I was aware that this was the case before I attended the @TP) so if you weren't happy with what was going down you had every opportunity to come along and do "political" workshops of your own - which is exactly what me and Bobo did with our worhshop on "Clarifying Anarchism and Moving Forward". That's called taking control of your own situation and is exactly what the spirit of anarchism is all about!

The US-NZ occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

The rollback of civil liberties and workers' rights at the hands of 'anti-terrorism' legislation

The theft of the seabed and foreshore from Maori, and the danger of bourgeois Maori in the 'Browntable' taking a stranglehold on protests against this theft

The declining real average wage in NZ over the past two decades

The decay in social services over the same period, especially in the health and education sectors

Moves toward a free trade deal with the US that would see the rollback of state funding for drugs and labour rights legislation

The anti-union provisions of the Employment Relations Act and the continued existence of an alliance between the unions leaders and the Labour government, which keeps a lid on effective action against all the above issues in NZ

These are probably the half-dozen burning issues for us in the Communist Workers Group. Be interested to hear what the Marama-Iti meeting had to say about them, and what plans were made for tackling them.

sorry if this stuff is a little off the mark, just having read the various comments I feel like getting in there.

1. One of anarchism's drawbacks is that it is so marginalised. If the 'average' person is completely unable to related to the lifestyle choices of most anarchists, they will percieve the politics as even more looney fringe than it is. Not suggesting anarchists should change their lifestyles themselves, more that strategically they shouldn't be so evangelical about them.

2. As a veteran of the anarchist and anarcha-feminist movement in the early 90s, we had loads of network-building, momentum-generating, communcating, attracting more people type stuff going on. For some reason it didn't really work. Most of the people present at those events are no longer active in any form of activism, most no longer even identify as anarchists these days. I would really like to know why this happened - some have commented they they found the level of lifstyle restrictions perceived to be inherent in being an anarchist activist too difficult to maintain. As a consequence the anarchist movement seems to be kept alive by the dedication and committment of a few key individuals, with fluctuating amounts of transient support.

I would be interested to see if there is any analysis done of why such efforts to maintain a movement have been largely ineffective. At the time I left the country I had largely given up movement building activities, in anarchist, anarcha-fem and McGillicuddy because I found them so bloody frustrating.

Anyway, this is not a quick comment really, good luck, hope it works, looking forward to dancing on the ruins thus engendered...

People sick of funding activist groups out of their dole and faced with no viable alternatives to investing their time and energy in the establishment decided they might as well have some real clout inside it. This combined with the change to MMP and the emergence of the Greens from behind Anderton's skirts led to a resurgence of interest in electoral politics. If you want to know what happened to all the people in your generation of anarchists/ activists look at the Greens, the current Alliance and the various tiny partylets outside parliament.

This tells me one important thing. No amount of single-issue campaigning can substitute for a holistic analysis of the nature of the establishment and how its structures and principles are propogated. This is what the so-called 'lifestylist' aspects of the Tea Party were aimed at addressing, as Torrance observed. I agree that the anarchist movement I became involved with nearly 10 years ago was overly concerned with policing political correctness in its participants. Which is why changing the focus of cultural politics towards building practical, co-operative networks that free up people's time and resources for issue-based campaigning seems like a positive step.

In my opinion we didn't need to spend formal meeting time at Marama-Iti discussing the sort of issues CWGer mentions because the anarchist movement in Aotearoa is not currently large enough to have separate ongoing groups on single issues. Therefore developing anarchist positions on these issues might as well be done through debates in local anarchist groups and national forums like Anarchynz or Anarchy.org.nz. Advancing those positions can be done by anarchists working with campaigning organisations like the Peace Action and GE Free groups and within convergence spaces like Indymedia and the Social Forum.

Politics is now just about knee-jerk reactions to current events. Fundamentally it is about increasing our options and reducing our dependence on authoritarian systems in every aspect of our lives.

CWGer:

I am personally quite interested in the issues you raised. My question to you is, have you:

(a) contacted the organizers and asked them to put these issues on the agenda?
(b) attended the meeting and raised those issues?

If you have not done either, you might like to try contacting anarchist groups in your local town and raising these issues with them. You can't expect plans to magically materialise. From my own memory at least some of these have been brought up during informal discussion.

In case you are unfamiliar with how anarchists organize, I shall explain. Anarchists hold that no-one should make decisions on behalf of others. The idea of a small group making a decision on behalf of a large group is completely alien to anarchists. The gathering at Marama-iti consisted of a minority of Aotearoa anarchists. Do you see where I am going with this? If you want action, find a local group, talk to them and ask them about what action they are taking.

KT:

Watch out, you'll get me started ranting.

It's difficult for squares to take their political theory from filthy punk kids. It's hard to win people over when so many anarchists become so moralistic and puritanical their interaction with "moderate" activists is reduced to confrontational tactics so typical of the sectarian radical left. Telling people that they/their lifestyle/their politics are a pile of shit isn't a good way to win friends. It's hard to take the anti-racist/anti-sexist/class war rheotoric seriously when so many discussions are dominated by mostly male, mostly white, mostly young, mostly middle-class people.

You can talk all the crap about equality you want, but if your female comrades feel like discussions are male-dominated, you are male and you won't shut up, you're part of the problem, buddy. (By the way, this isn't a personal dig at anyone, but come on!) Be conscious about how you relate to other people, there's nothing uglier than hypocrisy in a revolutionary. If personal is political, pay attention to how your lifestyle affects your politics. I think if there is a big crossover between punk culture and anarchist culture, the decline of punk culture since the 1980s might just have something to do with the decline of anarchist culture, huh? Come on, kids, take anarchism out of its little ghetto and do a little outreach outside your comfort zone for once!

well ,not quite, but they raise a good point and I dont think Strypeys response is good enough

Strypey said:
In my opinion we didn't need to spend formal meeting time at Marama-Iti discussing the sort of issues CWGer mentions because the anarchist movement in Aotearoa is not currently large enough to have separate ongoing groups on single issues.

erm, its certainly bigger than the CWG (who have less then 10 members as far as I know)
anyway, the point is, those issues can be discussed now, without waiting until you have enough people to do a campaign or something about them. and, more importantly, since anarchsits have limited resources and limited time and energy, we should be discussing where to focus our efforts so as to have the most effectiveness.
And it might be said that some issues are far more important than others, and the list the CWG made seem to be the big issues, so lets discuss them.

Mark

"since anarchsits have limited resources and limited time and energy, we should be discussing where to focus our efforts so as to have the most effectiveness."

And that is the focus of the next issue of _imminent rebellion_. So maybe you should write something about it, huh?

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.

The CWGers recent post hit the nail on the head I think.

The problem is that the anarchist movement does not see itself as part of a wider struggle. There is a whole lot of bad stuff happening in the world, and there are movements and campaigns opposing this, but for the most part, the anarchist movement sees itself as seperate from all this.

There are exceptions, and the exceptions tend to be the class struggle anarchists like those in ART in Chch, but most of the anarchist movement tends towards organising seperately from the rest of the left, or not organising at all (in some cases).

Todays anarchist movement seems almost entirely an inward looking counterculture alternative lifestyle movement. For most, there is no sense of being part of a long tradition of resistance and struggle going back a hundred years. Anarchists were active in all the major struggles in NZ last century, from 1913, the unemployed movement in the 1930s, the 1951 lockout, the anti veitnam war movement, etc. Anarchsits were active in a whole lot of stuff in the 70s (unemployed rights, anti racist patrols against muldoons dawn raids on pacific islanders etc) then it all faded away. The 1990s movement (which I was part of) was based a lot on the punk and mcGillicuddy scenes and so was very based in alternative lifestyel stuff. Interestingly, the few non punk/non hippy folks there tend to be the ones who are still around. most of the rest dropped anarchism along with the silly haircuts and kilts.

The 1990s anarchist movement fizzled and died, with most of the active people either leaving politics altogether or going into the green party (KT is right, 2 Green MPs and half a dozen of their current parliamentary staff came thru the 1990s anarcho/McGillicuddy scene). KT asked if there had been any analysis done of why such efforts to maintain a movement have been largely ineffective. Unfortunately there hasnt been. the anarchist scene just chugs along with the help of a burst of enthusiams every few years as a new batch of keen young folks come along.

Almost the entire 1990s anarchist scene has disappeared from anarchism
Most were just passing through looking for a good time before they had to think about jobs kids careers etc. Some realised they werent getting anywhere and left anarchism for the green party, "single issue" campaign groups (nothing wrong with that, its what Im doing, but its not a replacement for anarchism), or they became old and grumpy like me. Some discovered class struggle anarchism (and at the same time discover that most of the anarchist movement is not keen at all on debate or criticism, especially if its to do with class politics) and some still plod along happily mingling with the next generation of young keen folks who will soon move on, not realising that they are in a rut.

Going round and round in circles without getting anywhere does not make you a revolutionary :-)
(gosh that was quite witty and clever wasn't it, I think I will write it down!)

Mark

"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."

Can you please detail where the Alliance advocated lobbying and appeals to 'international law'. All members that I know where involved with all the other left and progressive groups trying to grow the mass movement. As a party we passed a motion at our conference after the election which said precisely that, and I don't think it mentioned anything about lobbying etc.

All too often people reduce anarchism to an abstract ideal which is divorced from everyday struggle. They see anarchism in stark black and white terms: anarchism is good, authority is evil. The strategy of most anarchists is to convert people to this ideal or to recruit people to an anarchist identity or lifestyle which people have to conform to. This
semi-religious strategy appeals to a few people, which is undoubtedly valid and good for them, but the problem is that it simply does not appeal to most. Indeed, this strategy can at its worst lead to an elitism whereby those who don’t share this ideal or lifestyle are dismissed as “sell outs” or “bogans” or whatever.
Instead of the ideological approach outlined above, I think anarchism originates in the struggles of the oppressed. Ultimately the relevance of anti-state communism or anarchism is dependent upon the level of class struggle in society. Class struggle is part of our lives. Struggle against the imposition of capital and the commodity goes on everyday at work, at school, at home, at shopping centres, anywhere and everywhere. Sometimes this resistance is quiet, almost invisible; sometimes it is overt and explosive. Far from being passive, working class people revolt against work
everyday: we goof off at work, we go slow, we phone in sick, we steal on the job, and sometimes we go out on strike. Once these minor rebellions blossom into open revolt, anarchist communism -– a world without classes, money and the state -– will become possible and realisable. This struggle prefigures a joyous society in which life is not determined by the commodity and wage-work, but by the co-operative endeavour of fulfilling our own needs and desires.
Sure, the level of class struggle in Aotearoa is low
at the moment. But there is much potential for revolt. Many people in Aotearoa are really pissed off by having to work longer and faster for less pay. The imposition of the harsh neo-liberal regime by the boss class has revealed to many of us the ugly side of capitalism. Capitalists pocket soaring profits while the living standards of 80% of us are cut back. If this class anger is translated into overt resistance, anarchism will become more relevant.
-- Toby

Some of what the CWGer was saying about the International Women's Day committee in Auckland is rather askew:

The CWGer wrote:
>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.

The IWD committee is not open to all. In Auckland there is a debate going on inside the committee around whether the committee should be women only. This is the wish of some feminists.

A number of us in the committee have argued against banning men. If we ban men we are asserting that they are the problem, not capitalism, not the system, not the government - not the main forces of power. A ban on working
class men also negates the role of the working class in IWD.

There has also been discussion around keeping the focus of the committee on working class issues and in this sense the committee is not open to all women. For instance, we are not looking to unite with female representatives of the
ruling class. The Marxists in the committee are putting forward the argument that our interests lie with working class men in order to overthrow the system to really achieve liberation.


>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.

This is interesting, because a woman on the committee told us she had done a lot of web work for CWG and in return for this she asked that they provide some photocopying for the committee. Isn't it undermining her hard work and *her* donation to the committee by claiming this is *support* from CWG?

However, this year we are in the fortunate position of having a number of organisations and individuals donating photocopying facilities for the IWD committee.

Daphna

Hi folks!

Mass-based civil disobedience over a whole range of issues, where the people are encouraged
to take direct action themselves to help stop the corporate agenda, is the way forward, in my opinion.

Human rights vs corporate rights
The people vs big business

Draw these common threads together on all the issues and unite in action on the basis of principled unity, where debate and discussion on different viewpoints is done in a way that maximises debate while maximising unity
in action. (that's my considered opinion on the path forward).

Demand the human rights to which we are supposed to be entitled and back it up with direct action!

It works!

EG: Ike Finau signs case. (Freedom of expression)
Council and Court backed down, an international legal precedent was set (Ike was not legally represented and didn't represent himself - didn't even bother turning up to Court -" I have more important things to do I'm going fishing" said Ike on national radio. (words to that effect)
Bare-faced defiance - love it! (And so did the public)
It was eyeball to eyeball Ike vs the Council (a very right wing Council at that) and the Court.
They blinked first.
Ike's signs stayed up!

EG: Water disconnections (Right to water)
Local Govt Act changed - no longer allowed to disconnect.
We won that on the street - literally - with our street dig ups.

It is the real alternative to the 'electoral road'.
RELY on organising - not voting, to bring about change that serves the people not corporate capital.

(Not saying don't vote - saying don't rely on voting - rely on action independent of the electoral process if you want to bring about change within the electoral process.)

Interesting that opposition to privatisation or 'user-charges' didn't appear to be listed on the CWG post as a 'burning issue'?

Why is that?

Rather key issues currently facing the working class I would have thought?

Cheers

Penny

Don't really know what Daphna's getting at. Our offer to provide photocopying for IWD stands. Hopefully we can all work together to make the event a success. If the IWD cmtee decides on women-only meetings we'll form a male support group for IWD, as has been done overseas.

Agree with Penny about privatisation being a burning issue (see our recent post here about the selloff of Hamner hospital grounds). But can a coalition of 'the people' defeat privatisation and win on other burning issues? Who exactly are 'the people'? Is Doug Myers one of 'the people'? 'The people' always means the workers plus another class, and usually the other class is 'progressive' NZ businesses. But NZ bosses are no different from US bosses, and are no more likely to be enthusiastic about workers' direct action. The CWG's view is that we need a United Front of the working class not a Popular Front of workers and local bosses of the sort promoted by the Alliance, the Green Party and most of the trade union leaders.

I agree that the Aliance was trying to grow the mass movement - that's why we were working alongside Alliance members. We distributed literally thousands of GPJA anti-war leaflets in Auckland, along with our own stuff.
But I never saw any sign of the Alliance calling for or promoting strike action and occupations of military facilities to help stop the war. I'm sure that many individual rank and file members were in favour of such action, but in Auckland we ran into a brick wall with the leadership in GPJA and the trade unions. It was very much 'let's build the numbers so that we can pressure Labour and make them listen', whereas DAWA was like 'Let's build the numbers so we can get thousands of people onto the runway at Whenuapai and into the US consulate and walking off the job'. Be interested to hear if it was different in Wgtn.

Here's a report on the biggest anti-war demo in Auckland, a demo which saw a confrontation between the 'pressure Labour to act for peace' and 'direct action' strategies:
www.indymedia.org.nz/front.php3

I went to the Alliance site but couldn't find any of the old press releases or Mike Treen speeches on there. Here's a couple of quotes from the Alliance's foreign policy programme which are in line with my suggestion that the party looked to international law and international multilateral institutions to stop the war:

"The Alliance is committed to active participation in international mediation and peacekeeping and will work toward global nuclear disarmament; an end to nuclear testing and the elimination of chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction...

We strongly oppose unilateral actions by any nation against any other nation. The Alliance will only consider the use of New Zealand forces as part of an international strike against another country if the action was taken under the direct authority and control of the United Nations."
International Affairs Policy 2002
www.alliance.org.nz/info.php3

..'we ran into a brick wall with the leadership in GPJA '
When exactly was that?

Ummm - must have missed that meeting(s)?
Having been fairly active in GPJA, on the organising cttee( which is open to anyone who wants to come along)
I don't remember any debates on this issue?

(I was away in Kyoto during March - maybe I missed something then?)

Who from DAWA was supposed to have brought this up?

Who from DAWA regularly attends GPJA meetings? (Organising meetings or GPJA Forums?)

Where's the debate and discussion been on this issue?

"But I never saw any sign of the Alliance calling for or promoting strike action and occupations of military facilities to help stop the war"

I don't recall where DAWA called for such action at any GPJA meeting where it hit any 'brick wall'.

Be fair folks!
GPJA has a lot of activists who have had quite a track record in taking action over the years on various issues.
Let's be balanced and reasoned in our criticisms, and keep it based on the facts.

Very keen to know the facts.
WHERE WAS THE 'BRICK WALL'?

(Incidently - just a small reality check for those who want to call for a 'General Strike' - it is useful to remember that only 17% of workers are currently members of ANY union.

Having had a bit of background in the union movement myself, I know that to organise general stoppages of any type involves stop work meetings, discussions on the job, votes over taking action - on the job.

When workplaces don't have union members, let alone job delegates - how are meetings going to be organised?
Who is going to call the meeting?

It's not like flicking on a light switch! (bugger)

In my experience, it takes a lot more work than calling for a 'General Strike' for it to actually to happen - and while
only 17% of workers are even members of unions in NZ - such a call is just plain silly - with all due respect.

Call for specific strikes maybe, but general strikes - with the current level of union organisation - no.
(In my considered opinion)

To make working class, work place-based action happen - it has to be organised.
At the workplace.

Cheers

Penny

..'we ran into a brick wall with the leadership in GPJA "


seems they are not even allowed to say Dow. Strange reaction to something that should have been very central.