Liberals put forward ‘progressive’ ideas for social change that leave intact the exploitative root of Capitalism. More diverse representation in the media, more diverse CEOs in boardrooms, more ethical choices in consumer goods. None of these things are stepping stones toward smashing the economic system that births the social issues liberals care so much about changing. Liberals want to prune the leaves of the weed that is Capitalism. Revolutionaries want to uproot it.

We’d add that liberalism is any idea that claims to seek to destroy Capitalism but fails to make proposals or take actions capable of the task. This is a form of liberalism present on the left that comes draped in radical rhetoric, but is at best ineffective and at worst is an actively disorganising force.

DIVERGENCES IN ANARCHISM:

We reject divergences from the revolutionary, working class root of Anarchist politics that veer into the weeds of lifestyle, consumer choice, subculture and illegalism. We reject the abandonment of the workers movement and workers power as an integral weapon of the oppressed. We feel that unscalable, underground cliques planning political stunts and symbolic actions removed from the possibility of mass participation is a highly inadequate method of organising. We reject the glorification of disorganisation disguised as an ideological commitment to ‘spontaneity’. Spontaneity alone isn’t going to build a highly coordinated revolutionary movement capable of destroying Capitalism, and it certainly won’t produce a highly coordinated post-Capitalist society capable of meeting the needs of the planet.

MIDDLE CLASS LIBERALISM AND GRIFTING FROM THE LEFT:

We reject the middle class influence on radical politics, where movement-building is turned into a social game and used for social leverage, career-building, influencer clout. The focus on symbolic and individual acts of moral goodness that do nothing to build power or shift circumstances for people. In these scenes and informal ‘communities’, there is also weaponisation of identity (class included) and oppression as a social tool of manipulation, punishment, gatekeeping and exclusion of those with less developed politics, or those who use the wrong language.

Liberals can also take radical politics from the streets and reduce them to slogans to sell on t-shirts, producing content for their platforms and businesses. There are those who sit in corporations and nonprofits looking to break into young political demographics, essentialising and tokenising marginalised people as innate leaders performatively shoved into the spotlight. There are those who teach anti-racist seminars to give neoliberal organisations a radical veneer. This layer of so-called ‘allies’ to movements only serving to make capitalism more palatable to regular people while they grift for their own careers.

’DO THE WORK’:

We reject liberal calls to allyship — vague gestures that call upon the individual to educate themselves as an atomised being in a collective society. We recognise that this alienated allyship only leads to political paralysis and division in the left. It assumes there is a unified ‘education’ to undertake and not a mish-mash of contradictory political ideas that people calling for the self-education of others might be referring to.

Built-in training and education within organisations is the answer to the problem of certain groups of people ‘hand-holding’ others through political lessons. We are comrades, not allies. We take responsibility for people’s education in this organisation, whether it’s through workshops, study groups, or being honest with each other in the day-to-day, in order to unlearn individualistic and liberal tendencies we all have. We commit to learning solidarity with all people together in both a highly organised and human way, in direct consultation with our comrades in need of solidarity. Through careful allocation of labour and strong organisation, we can collectivise the process of so-called allyship and make it accountable, useful and consultative.

ANTI-SECTARIANISM:

We are against sectarianism, which means being hostile to various left political groups due to ideological or tactical differences. We disagree with airing leftist conflicts publicly where they could be sorted out in private. We understand sectarianism to be both a liberal and wrecker behaviour and is often a result of anti-organisationalist sentiments within liberal elements of the left. With that said, we would stand against demonstrably abusive groups and the silencing of harmed individuals to protect the reputation of organisations.

ANTI-INDIVIDUALISM:

This is not an organisation for individual activists, who (intentionally or not) seek to ‘use’ the resources of the org to serve their individual ends. Individuals in this organisation shouldn’t see their role as strong-arming the organisation towards adopting their positions and ideas, or to form sects within the ranks to coerce the rest of the group. This behaviour is undemocratic and will be dealt with seriously.

All members should see themselves as part of a collaborative team trying to make the org as strong as possible in alignment with its stated goals. Major disagreement with the org’s stated goals should result in a member attempting to raise aboveboard proposals to change them, or to try to reconcile ideas, suggesting debates on topics in order to convince the organisation of their position or stepping away if agreement isn’t found, not a mutiny that attempts to redirect the org undemocratically.

If the org is missing something it needs, we have avenues for members to express concerns and raise ideas in a supported way. Members should try to contribute their bit to improving the org, rather than expecting the org to be perfectly formed and complete before they join — this is our commitment to organising in good faith.