Sunday, 13 May 2018

ACG statement on Windrush

Tories, Labour, LibDems ALL Guilty!
Thanks to Windrush, Amber Rudd has fallen. She became the necessary sacrifice to save the Theresa May government. She has been replaced as Home Secretary by Sajid Javid, the first Black, Asian Minority Ethnic member to sit in one of the three most important positions within the State.
Rudd was forced to resign because she was caught lying about targets for deportation and to save Theresa May herself, the previous Home Secretary.
In 2016 almost 40,000 people were removed from the United Kingdom or left “voluntarily” after receiving threatening letters. Many others have been detained at ferry terminals and airports and sent to another country under the “deport first, appeal later” process. In addition, at least 10,000 others have waited for more than six months for decisions on claiming asylum and because they cannot work, live on an allowance of £37.75 a week, which reduces them to extreme circumstances.
This hostile environment, this intimidating atmosphere did not originate under Rudd and neither did it under Theresa May. We have to go back to the Labour Party under Blair for that. In fact “hostile environment” was first used as a term in February 2010 in a Home Office report which said: “This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse our hospitality.” This was the Home Office presided over by Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson. He gloated over the destruction and clearance of the “Jungle camps” by the French authorities in 2009. When asked in Parliament “Would you deport a family whose children know no home other than the United Kingdom?” Johnson replied: “It is not my personal job to do the deportation. If that was the judgement, having gone through due process, then yes”.
It ended up with the Labour election campaign of the same year with the slogan “Controls on immigration. I’m voting Labour” on mugs and badges. And only 18 Labour MPS (including Corbyn and Diane Abbott) voted against the Immigration Act in 2014.
The hostile attitude to immigrants continued under the coalition government with the nodding complicity of the Liberal Democrats and then under the Conservatives ruling alone. Rudd escalated the policy as she had promised to the previous Home Secretary and now Prime Minister Theresa May. This was all done knowingly, with an awareness of the terrible consequences for so many working class families.
The destruction of thousands of documents related to Windrush incomers also points to a hostile environment, making it more difficult for people to prove their status.
Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry backed the checks on people looking for jobs, homes and healthcare, which were brought in by the 2014 Immigration Act. She defended Alan Johnson by saying that “The words were used but the culture was not!!
We should also recall that after the referendum on the EU in 2016, Corbyn stated on several occasions that immigration controls would remain in place under Labour. Diane Abbott went on to state that Labour did not condone an amnesty, and when questioned, remained silent on what Labour would do about illegal immigrants.
So far, the controversy has centred on Windrush migrants but already tens of EU citizens have been refused permanent residence. We should resist the attempt to divide people into “good migrants”, those who emigrated to Britain from the Commonwealth from the 1940s onwards and “bad” migrants, those from the EU. In particular Boris Johnson is pushing this line with his hard Brexit politics which envisages the re-establishment of better relations, both economic and trading with the Commonwealth countries.
So will the appointment of Javid make a blind bit of difference? The answer is a categoric NO! Many residents of the UK are under the illusion that they have the right to live in Britain. They are kept in the dark about the need to apply for “settled status” whilst others under threat include all those family dependents like children and the elderly who believe that other family members are UK citizens just because they live here!
Javid will change the language from emphasis on targets and deportations but in fact it will be business as usual. He has already been caught out after denying that any members of the Windrush generation had been illegally deported. In fact, this went beyond them and included someone originally from Somalia who was a legal British citizen. The head of Home Office Immigration, Hugh Ind, admitted that such illegal deportations had taken place and said he did not know why Javid and the immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, claimed to be unaware of this.
It should be remembered that in the past Sajid Javid has supported every aspect of the “hostile environment” policy including voting to extend powers to deport before appeal on human rights grounds.
Meanwhile members of the Windrush generation are excluded from Britain after having gone away on holiday, are interned in camps like Yarl’s Wood, are illegally deported and are harassed with threatening notices and denied work and access to health services after checks. Some have lost earnings because their employers sacked them after immigration checks.
At the same time we heard of the women who went on a hunger and work strike at Yarl’s Wood after being detained there indefinitely. In response to the strike they were issued with letters threatening them with accelerated deportation if they continued with their protest. This was all condoned and enacted by Caroline Nokes.
Capitalism and the State use racism and xenophobia to divide and weaken us. We should resist the increasing levels of racism and xenophobia that both the May regime and the mass media are peddling. We should argue against the false divide between “deserving” and “undeserving” migrants. We should mobilise against the “immigration removal centres” like Yarl’s Wood run by companies like Serco, where conditions are appalling and detainees are treated abysmally, and we should fight for the closing down of these centres.
The treatment of the Windrush generation is appalling but we can’t just say that and forget about those who have not been here for as long who are suffering the same treatment. We should not draw any difference between which refugees and immigrants we show solidarity with.
Oppose All Borders! For Internationalism!

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Steenking badges!

The ACG have brought out 2 new badges, one with the ACG logo and one with a picture of a jackdaw! If you'd like one let us know.

New! ACG Pamphlet

New! An ACG pamphlet The Wilhelmshaven Revolt: A Chapter of the Revolutionary Movement in the German Navy 1918-1919 by Ernst Schneider. No 1 of the Classic Revolutionary Reprint Series. Only ££3.75 including postage. for 42 pages You can pay by PayPal to  

Tuesday, 1 May 2018

May Day Greetings

"Today too, wheresoever the toilers have freed themselves from the tutelage of the bourgeoisie and the social democracy linked to it (Menshevik or Bolshevik, it makes no difference) or even try to do so, they regard the first of May as the occasion of a get-together when they will concern themselves with their own affairs and consider the matter of their emancipation. Through these aspirations, they give expression to their solidarity with and regard for the memory of the Chicago martyrs. Thus they sense that the first of May cannot be a holiday for them. So, despite the claims of "professional socialists," tending to portray it as the Feast of Labour, the first of May can be nothing of the sort for conscious workers.
The first of May is the symbol of a new era in the life and struggle of the toilers, an era that each year offers the toilers fresh, increasingly tough and decisive battles against the bourgeoisie, for the freedom and independence wrested from them, for their social ideal."
Nestor Makhno

Friday, 27 April 2018

Jackdaw No2 out now! May Day Special!

Jackdaw Number 2 out now!
Jackdaw No2 the paper of the Anarchist Communist Group has just appeared!
May Day Special
Contains articles on:
the anarchist origins of May Day
state, police and capital
France, May 68
other revolts in ’68.
Posh printed version available on demos, street distros, in various shops and social centres. Or download the cheapo version from here:

Thursday, 26 April 2018

ACG Stall and Meeting at London Radical Bookfair on June 3rd

London Anarchist Communist Group will be running a bookstall at the London Radical Bookfair at Goldsmiths University, 81 Lewisham Way, London S.E.14 on Saturday June 2nd. In addition it will be holding a meeting at the Bookfair:

Land and Liberty 
‘Land and liberty’ has been a key anarchist slogan through-out the world. This is because without land, one cannot survive, and without liberty, we cannot live. Though often associated with peasant struggles, the struggle for land is as much as issue today in urban areas as it is in the haciendas of Latin America. All our struggles in the city are arise because we do not have control and access to land. Houses, food, community and social spaces, parks and open spaces all are at the mercy of whoever owns the land. And this is extremely unequal. Although a majority of us have a small stake in the 5% of UK land upon which our housing is built, the majority of land (70%) in the UK is owned by just 0.6% of the population. But even land owned by the government is not land controlled by us. Think of Grenfell and the lack of control residents had over their homes that were meant to be in public ownership. Think of the land owned by the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence.  
This talk will discuss why demands for land justice need to be at the heart of our struggles, both to have common ownership but also liberty to organise how we use the land for the benefit of all. There will be some historical and international examples as well as examples from London.  

Wednesday, 25 April 2018

Ideas and Struggles: anarchism yesterday, today and tomorrow Notes from ACG meeting on April 19th in London

Ideas and Struggles: anarchism yesterday, today and tomorrow
Notes from ACG meeting on April 19th in London
Anarchism today is part of a long tradition of thought and struggle. This discussion meeting, presented by Brian Morris, will show how many of the ideas of past anarchists, such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, are still relevant today. The reason for this is that their ideas emerged from actual struggles of the working class. However, this does not mean that we should treat these ideas as religious doctrine. They were very much products of their time and issues such as the oppression of women were not at the forefront of their thinking. Though many of the fundamental conditions are still the same, like capitalism and the State, there have been many changes and new struggles which have become relevant. Therefore we need to look for new ideas. But where do we look? The corridors of universities or people involved in struggles? Brian will focus on environmentalism as one of the important new struggles.
Brian’s talk
The only political tradition that is worth anything today is anarchist communism; this is the tradition that comes from such anarchists as Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman. In fact, their ideas are if anything more relevant than at any time in the past.
Bookchin, in 2002, suddenly declared that he was no longer an anarchist. Why at the age of 81 did he say this? Why does he trash his old heritage? But this is not actually the case. He was always a libertarian socialist/anarchist communist. What he meant was that he was not the kind of anarchist that emerged in the 1990s. He was against the ‘post-Left’ anarchists, anarcho-primitivists and other forms of so-called anarchism that emerged at that time. For example he was against those that looked to Nietzsche – a poetic rebellion, you don’t have to do anything, just express yourself. He was against Bahro in Germany who argued that the state of the world is so bad we need a Green Adolf. Bookchin was saying that if this is anarchism then he did not want to be an anarchist. The essential features of anarchism for Bookchin were a confederation of municipalities, a libertarian communist society and direct democracy.
What is anarchism?
There have always been anarchists around, eg hunter-gatherers- practice of sharing and individual freedom. In all societies there are example of people organising their social life. People have always rebelled. Some people argue that anarchism is just anti-State and anti-authority. A book written in 1900 by Fritz Brupbacher took the ‘seven sages’ approach and this has continued in other writings about anarchism until this day. These 7 are Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker, Stirner, Tolstoy, Bakunin and Kropotkin. When there was an upsurge in interest about anarchism in the 1960s, people who write books focused on the ideas of key people. For Peter Marshall, in his book Demanding the Impossible, he included everyone who was anti-State, including Thatcher. So with this 57 varieties of anarchism, the impression is one of complete incoherence.
But there is another way of looking at anarchism. It is not a group of ideas or rebellion against authority, it is a social and political movement which emerged in the 1870s. It is not based on iconic figures or celebrities. Bakunin and Kropotkin became known because they wrote books but they were part of the social movement that broke away from the 1st International in 1872 as a response to the authoritarian tendencies represented by Marx. It was not just a European movement and they didn’t call themselves anarchists, rather libertarian socialists or non-authoritarian socialists. One recent collection of essays argues that what we need is libertarian socialism that would bring together Marxists and anarchists. But this is incorrect as those who broke with the Marxists in the 19th century were already libertarian socialists. Other names include anarchist communism. The point is to bring together an emphasis on liberty with co-operation and equality.
Summary: Main features of anarchism.
1.   They were against anything that restricts individuals’ freedom to develop their personality; the movement is anti-Marxist, anti-workers’ State.
2.   They have always been anti-capitalist.
3.   Vision of society based on mutual aid, and co-operation. Post-anarchists critique of anarchists is that they are starry-eyed idealists. They did have ideals, but they were historical thinkers. Humans have not always had a State or capitalism. There have always been elements of an anarchist communist society; it is a real possibility.
4.   Anarchism is based on philosophy, defined as how we see the world. They learned a lot from Darwin and Marx. Their ideas are based in evolutionary naturalism- ours is a material world. This is the basis of Bakunin’s thought. There is no room for God or spirits. They are anti-religion.

What anarchist communists are against

Anarchist communists often define themselves in relation to others.

1.   Stirner
He is very popular amongst academics.. He is anti-authoritarian, anti-government. It is a book of rebellion. He argues against equality, freedom, morality, justice. He goes to the extreme with the autonomy of the individual. He wants power over others; the world must be his property if he is to gain full enjoyment. ‘The State is me’. For anarchist communists this autonomy is not the same as liberty. They do not see the individual as sovereign; you only have liberty as long as you respect the equal liberty of others. It is human solidarity that is also important.
2.   Marx
Anarchists began as a movement that critiqued Marx.
3.   Individualist anarchists
They gained their inspiration from Proudhon and then Tucker. Examples of these are American liberals who are keen on private property, the market system and competition.
4.   Religious anarchists
Tolstoy doesn’t like the State or the Russian church. Still he believes in praying to God. Anarchist Studies publishes articles in support of religion, criticising the anarchist communist position. Anarchist communists are not against religion as such- you can believe what you want. But they are against using religion as a support for the political system. Religion sanctifies political power. Every system has used religion: India, China, Turkey. And all of these are pro-capitalist. In Mexico, the anarchist Magon spoke of the ‘dark trinity’- capitalism, political rulers and clerics.
5.   Anarcho-primitivism
The argument is that humans have gone wrong since the beginning of agriculture. But we cannot go back to being hunter-gatherers.
6.   Post-anarchism
This comes from academics. They attempt to put together anarchism with modern theoeries, eg Lacan, Leotard, Heidegger, whatever is trendy at the moment. They are anti-reason, completely distorting the ideas of the earlier generation of anarchists. It is a slash and burn approach. You destroy what went before, accuse a whole generation of anarchists. But they have misunderstood the human subject and the concept of power. Bakunin did not see humans as a disembodied ego. We are social beings. They also use the concept of post-industrial, arguing that the working class has disappeared. But the working class is very much alive- not just production but services, tourism etc. Working people rather than producing people. And, industrial workers have not disappeared. They very much still present around the world. Bookchin said that we will not change anything without working people.
Some of the issues covered include:
1.   The environment. Though early anarchists such as Reclus seemed concerned about the environment it was not until after WWII that the full impact of capitalism on the environment became apparent. Bookchin was talking about climate change back in the 70s. He disagreed with Marxists who seem to think that we will get control of nature through technology.
2.   Many writers today are really just calling for Keynesian policies, eg Monbiot and Klein. They have a good analysis of what is going on but they are really just calling on the State to intervene to stop capitalism.
3.   Discussion of why we need to create our own structures, our own mutual aid, eg Greece, Black Panthers.
4.   Issues with academic anarchists who set themselves up as experts when they have no link to an actual social and political movement, unlike anarchist writers such as Bakunin. Academia puts various pressures on people, to be original- to come up with some supposed new idea- often that is phrased in such obscure terms that nobody can understand it. Anarchism should not be something that people make a career out of- it is a set of ideas and practices that need to be firmly embedded in a movement and developments of the ideas should come from experience of struggles.