SRA is so weird. I have a friend in there who is leaving because it was such a mess.
National doesn’t care about local chapters, they will tell you to figure things out yourself.
Recruitment is a joke, anyone can join the SRA and there is no onboarding process. This means you will have libs who sound suspiciously like feds and your local branch will be full of anarchists.
You think I’m bullshitting but the problem in her chapter was the predominance of anarchists in it. They formed a clique that protected each other and tried to have her removed as a member because she stood her ground on ML opinions. In all the time she’s been there she has yet to see the anarchists successfully organise something. It used to be only them in it and they could control the chapter and its members and just use it as their club, but now they can’t, and they got so mad over that they tried to have her removed. And all national did was say “you guys figure it out”.
An organisation whose leadership does not care about local issues is not one worth adhering to. They cannot claim to have any authority if they behave like this.
Hearing this, the question on my mind is can this problem be rectified?
Who is it in their national organisation that has established this absurd hands off policy and is there any feasible way they can be influenced or otherwise swept aside for a more productive national leadership? Moreover, If this was the case, would it be worth it?
On the one hand, the structure of the SRA’s national organisation revolves around a national assembly of representatives in their 52 current chapters, meaning a substantial national campaign would be required to reform its leadership, almost certainly taking years of work to achieve. On the other hand however, it is already a large organisation of over 10,000 members. Splitting from that in order to establish a competing organisation would serve to dilute the organisational power of the working class in that sphere. So weighing everything up, what do you personally think think should be done? In your opinion, is this an issue on which self-identifying socialists and communists should attack or retreat?
In my country, for a very long time there has been a tendency towards constant splits from imperfect organisations of all kinds, to the point where the class conscious sections of the working class are now all scattered, bickering little sects. Naturally, this leans me towards fighting out issues like this whenever possible and resorting to splitting only as an absolute last resort. In that sense, I find this chapter of Lenin’s Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder sums up my position nicely with regards to this issue. Maybe things have changed and Lenin’s criticisms of his contemporaries in this chapter are now outdated, but I personally believe there’s a lot of value in what he has to say about carrying out work in reactionary organisations.
Considering the abuse my friend has been through in her chapter I would seriously consider telling communists to form their own gun clubs and leave the anarchists to their useless SRA. They couldn’t organise themselves out of a bag.
Edit : if the sra somehow got their shit together and practiced demcent, there would be so many purges that the 10k membership figure would dwindle probably below 5k anyway.
Considering the abuse my friend has been through in her chapter I would seriously consider telling communists to form their own gun clubs and leave the anarchists to their useless SRA.
That’s fair enough. There’re few people more venomous than snotty sectarians, especially anarchists.
if the sra somehow got their shit together and practiced demcent, there would be so many purges that the 10k membership figure would dwindle probably below 5k anyway.
Its a shame there’s no comprehensive survey of the political tendencies of the SRA membership, to my knowledge. It would make it a lot easier to assess whether or not it would be worth the effort to campaign over.
To be clear I’ve never been a member of the SRA; I don’t even live in NA. My friend has been telling me about the problems in her chapter for a year or more now though and she’s been talking about it so much it actually felt like I was there at times.
SRA is so weird. I have a friend in there who is leaving because it was such a mess.
National doesn’t care about local chapters, they will tell you to figure things out yourself.
Recruitment is a joke, anyone can join the SRA and there is no onboarding process. This means you will have libs who sound suspiciously like feds and your local branch will be full of anarchists.
You think I’m bullshitting but the problem in her chapter was the predominance of anarchists in it. They formed a clique that protected each other and tried to have her removed as a member because she stood her ground on ML opinions. In all the time she’s been there she has yet to see the anarchists successfully organise something. It used to be only them in it and they could control the chapter and its members and just use it as their club, but now they can’t, and they got so mad over that they tried to have her removed. And all national did was say “you guys figure it out”.
An organisation whose leadership does not care about local issues is not one worth adhering to. They cannot claim to have any authority if they behave like this.
deleted by creator
Hearing this, the question on my mind is can this problem be rectified?
Who is it in their national organisation that has established this absurd hands off policy and is there any feasible way they can be influenced or otherwise swept aside for a more productive national leadership? Moreover, If this was the case, would it be worth it?
On the one hand, the structure of the SRA’s national organisation revolves around a national assembly of representatives in their 52 current chapters, meaning a substantial national campaign would be required to reform its leadership, almost certainly taking years of work to achieve. On the other hand however, it is already a large organisation of over 10,000 members. Splitting from that in order to establish a competing organisation would serve to dilute the organisational power of the working class in that sphere. So weighing everything up, what do you personally think think should be done? In your opinion, is this an issue on which self-identifying socialists and communists should attack or retreat?
In my country, for a very long time there has been a tendency towards constant splits from imperfect organisations of all kinds, to the point where the class conscious sections of the working class are now all scattered, bickering little sects. Naturally, this leans me towards fighting out issues like this whenever possible and resorting to splitting only as an absolute last resort. In that sense, I find this chapter of Lenin’s Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder sums up my position nicely with regards to this issue. Maybe things have changed and Lenin’s criticisms of his contemporaries in this chapter are now outdated, but I personally believe there’s a lot of value in what he has to say about carrying out work in reactionary organisations.
Considering the abuse my friend has been through in her chapter I would seriously consider telling communists to form their own gun clubs and leave the anarchists to their useless SRA. They couldn’t organise themselves out of a bag.
Edit : if the sra somehow got their shit together and practiced demcent, there would be so many purges that the 10k membership figure would dwindle probably below 5k anyway.
That’s fair enough. There’re few people more venomous than snotty sectarians, especially anarchists.
Its a shame there’s no comprehensive survey of the political tendencies of the SRA membership, to my knowledge. It would make it a lot easier to assess whether or not it would be worth the effort to campaign over.
To be clear I’ve never been a member of the SRA; I don’t even live in NA. My friend has been telling me about the problems in her chapter for a year or more now though and she’s been talking about it so much it actually felt like I was there at times.