OscailtNew ZACF formedOn December 1, by mutual consent of all its members and following consultations with the WSM (Ireland), OCL (Chile) and FdCA (Italy), the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation was replaced by a new, unitary organisation, the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front. The new ZACF retains all the assets of the former federation. On December 2, the members of the new ZACF held talks with our Swazi comrades with a view to establishing a new unitary organisation in Swaziland. The new Front's constitution follows. [ http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=7014 ] [ http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=7024 ] [ http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=7144 ]2007-12-05T09:01:26+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=7000http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifKind of confusinghttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72712007-12-05T09:01:26+08:00FutureblissWhat's the difference between the new and old ZACF - except what the last letter...What's the difference between the new and old ZACF - except what the last letter stands for?changeshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72732007-12-05T12:26:14+08:00toddCan ZACF comrades clarify the changes? <br />
<br />
thanks!<br />
toddCan ZACF comrades clarify the changes? <br />
<br />
thanks!<br />
toddClarificationhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72792007-12-05T21:50:51+08:00Michael SchmidtThe organisations are indeed almost the same, but the differences between the Fe...The organisations are indeed almost the same, but the differences between the Federation and the Front are the following:
1) The Front is a unitary organisation of individual militants, whereas the Federation was a federation of militant collectives. This means individuals are directly responsible to the entire Front and there is no additonal "layer" between the individual member and the policy-making Congress of all members.
2) The Front is organised within South Africa, whereas the Federation linked collectives in South Africa and Swaziland. In practice, communication troubles has meant it has been difficult to democratically endorse each and every Swazi decision by having to poll the South African membership (and visa versa). It is easier for the Swazis to run their own collective which will remain affiliated to, and supported by, the Front.
3) The Front's membership rules (not its politics, but the responsibilities of membership) have been relaxed somewhat to allow those who are unable to be fully committed due to work, domestic or other pressures, to nevertheless remain involved.
ps: the Anarchist Black Cross SA is now an autonomous collective, but it has some cross-membership with the Front, which will ensure the Front's continued support for its efforts.All the Besthttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72802007-12-05T22:21:53+08:00ajohnstoneajsc21755 at blueyonder dot co dot ukSocialist Banner ( formerly African Socialist ) wishes your venture much success...Socialist Banner ( formerly African Socialist ) wishes your venture much success in the future . <br />
<br />
For a world of mutual aid and free association .okhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72882007-12-06T07:48:28+08:00m(A)ttcircleamatt at gmail dot comSo what was the reason for the organizational modification? It's an interesting ...So what was the reason for the organizational modification? It's an interesting difference, and I'd like to know what the motivation is, and if it's been put into practice already, how your success has changed.Good luckhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72972007-12-06T21:05:32+08:00mitchwsany at hotmail dot comZACF comrades, good luck with your efforts to make anarchism a reality in your p...ZACF comrades, good luck with your efforts to make anarchism a reality in your part of the globe.<br />
<br />
Special good luck with your red & Black outreach forums.<br />
<br />
Yours for a world without states, bosses and bureaucrats.The best of revolutionary luck!http://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment72992007-12-07T02:11:01+08:00Sean MalloryBest of luckBest of luckthankshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment73062007-12-08T02:46:54+08:00Michael Schmidtthanks for the kind wishes. ever since our movement re-emerged in the dying days...thanks for the kind wishes. ever since our movement re-emerged in the dying days of apartheid, we've always been marginal, but militant. still, to answer m(a)tt in part, the change was occasioned both by our failures and our successes. the original federation, founded in 2003, was in fact overinflated in size if one took into acount the number of convinced anarchist-communists in its ranks. this led to strategic dissonance and later, the dissolution of some collectives (the migrant labour status of many members was also a factor). so a smaller, tighter organisation was felt to be better, one in each country that would be closely allied, but operate autonomously.Interesting developmenthttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment73172007-12-09T11:27:42+08:00Adam W.This is an interesting development with ZACF and seems to reflect a trend gainin...This is an interesting development with ZACF and seems to reflect a trend gaining steam- that of unitary vs. 'collective' organizations. I'm not sure if this reflects ZACF's experience, but here's what I have experienced in organizational efforts in the US around building a federation of collectives: Collectives begin to develop seperate political/social identities from the larger group, which become probelematic- people do not see themselves as all part of that same organization in quite the same way; it can create a 'competition' between collective; strange dynamics can occur where members feel more accountable to their collectives than the org as a whole; and it create strange dynamics of influential members who are part of a collective. Other dynamics that I've heard about are collective not being based on practical divisions, but on relationship or perosonal fallouts between individuals (not healthy either!).<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the relaxation of committment for members. People with children or caring for relatives or working long hours can have a hard time participating in high-committment organization (especially if many members are younger folks with more time and fewer fixed responsibilities). What were the problems folks faced in the previous set-up and how do people feel the new structure would improve the situation? How will this work out practically? If folks in other orgs have something to share on this too, please do.<br />
<br />
Your answers would help my personal thinking around some of these same questions. Thanks!Problem solvinghttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment73242007-12-10T08:39:55+08:00mitchwsany at hotmail dot comAdam writes:
"that of unitary vs. 'collective' organizations. I'm not sure if...Adam writes:<br />
<br />
"that of unitary vs. 'collective' organizations. I'm not sure if this reflects ZACF's experience, but here's what I have experienced in organizational efforts in the US around building a federation of collectives: Collectives begin to develop seperate political/social identities from the larger group, which become probelematic- people do not see themselves as all part of that same organization in quite the same way; it can create a 'competition' between collective; strange dynamics can occur where members feel more accountable to their collectives than the org as a whole; and it create strange dynamics of influential members who are part of a collective."<br />
<br />
I think this has been a perpetual problem. Its happened with our ACF, has happened inside our WSA and I see it happening in certain other North American organizations.<br />
<br />
Some of this happens because of the uneven growth of groups; sometimes signifcant differences in local conditions and the practicalities of some groups to be more active than others.<br />
<br />
Other times you will have the more active or larger groups begin to "feel their oats" and try and informally (or not) dictate their point of view.<br />
<br />
The question of ideological or organizational "ownership" can be a drag on the organization and totally ties things up as well.<br />
<br />
Does this put into question an organization based on collective only membership? <br />
<br />
After the break-up of the ACF, some of us agreed that a collective based form of organization, while optimal, is not always desireable. What some of us have come away with is the need for a mixture of local groups and indivisual memberhip based organiation. But the basis of affiliation would be a set of principles and manner and method of doing international business.<br />
<br />
What I'm finding curious is the devolution of certain "platformist" organizations in this regard. Very strong statement of internal organization, but slippage in adhering to them without becoming authoritarian in application thereof.<br />
<br />
While still maintaining the common sense of purpose and minimum projects, how to maintain cohesion is a fine balancing act.<br />
<br />
I'm of the opinion that you can not too tightly wrap an organization. That there has to be some gray flexible areas. Of course if the goal is to be small tight organizations with a strict adherence policy, well, you can only tightly wrap an anarchist organization only so far.Correctionhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment73352007-12-10T22:04:26+08:00mitchI mistakingly wrote:
"But the basis of affiliation would be a set of principl...I mistakingly wrote:<br />
<br />
"But the basis of affiliation would be a set of principles and manner and method of doing international business."<br />
<br />
Should read: <br />
<br />
The basis of affiliation needs to be a set of principles and a manner and method of doing internal business"Best wisheshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/7000#comment73662007-12-14T00:20:48+08:00Nick HeathI wish the South African comrades the very bestI wish the South African comrades the very best