Whether anarchy should be part of the left of course is an ongoing debate, but it is true that a fuck of a lot of newcomers to radical politics who are shopping around for a group to join do look to the SWP first (I did) seeing as they're the largest and loudest organisation, and that's a problem.

So like, yeah. There's a debate worth having on how to make the SWP seem like less of a natural home for radicals, and a mass anarchist or semi-anarchist organisation, however flawed one would inevitably be, might be welcome if it was getting people who otherwise might be sucked into a leftist sect involved in democratic and participatory activism.

The reason why I'm not involved with the AF (went to a couple of meetings a while back but decided not to get involved) is because that form of organisation isn't really as relevant to my everyday life as local activity, informal networking and discussion with my friends. I expect a lot of other people feel the same.

In London the monthly London Underground has just started up again. Every first Sunday of the month (i.e. this Sunday) 2pm at LARC (fieldgate st. near whitechapel tube).

It is basically a place where new people can come and get involved and meet people from various non-hierarchical groups. There is also a film showing and free food.

It isn't a mass organisation, obviously, but it is a nice, friendly un-intimidating place that people can network in - but we need new groups to get involved!

anarchists are still very much around. check out LARC or the Radical Dairy in london- if you want to get involved. as for the swp debate- i agree they are reactionary, backward, authoritarian and the most telling of all dull. their politics- based on my personal subjectivities from taking the route many have-hanging w/ them and then realising they don't value you unless you tow the line- are unrealistic and have no room for personal beliefs, diversity, multiplicity or any understanding of ecological issues or spiritual concerns (which is arguably where the "revolution" needs to come from, not the work floor). but that said- i don't feel like many do that we should ignore or marginalise them. let them be the petty, bitter ones. lets invite them into the fold, debate with them, argue with them, but ultimately love them as all life. time to spit the bitter pills out but if they prove to be as antagonistic, and unwelcoming as past demonstrates, well hit them back, then negotiate a peace contract. the revolution will not be bolshevik.

good points xyz, nice to see some constructive ideas...

Since when has being in the AF stopped anyone from getting invovled in "local activity, informal networking and discussion with my friends". In fact AF members have helped set up many local anarchist groups.

BUT local activism and informal networking isn't enough. We need to organise nationally and internationally as well - we can do so much more that way.

Well I'm one of those mayday 'anarchist' protestors you refer to. I have not got involved with the AF because I disagree with parts of your programme. In particular your views about imperialism (or lack of them);and your complete disregard for the progressive nature of many third world national liberation struggles. In general, however, the problem I have found when debating with anarchists (on the internet discussion pages) about these issues is any willingness to face up to these issues short of dismissing them! There seem to be far to many anarchists who place anyone on the revolutionary left who talks about imperialism or third world national liberation struggles into a Trotskyist box. Well I'm no Trotskyist; yet I oppose imperialism and support the progressive national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people! If only more 'anarchists' would do the same!
The key problem with the libertarian left at present, I think, is the lack of an organisation which is committed to direct action and yet also has a basic programme that combines the best elements of Marxism and anarchism. As there is no such organisation that does this, I -together with some of my friends- are not part of any group. We simply attend Mayday, various other demos, and travel to summits'. This is clearly not enough if the anti-capitalist movement is to progress beyond its present level of development but there is not much else we can do short of a new organisation emerging along the lines suggested above.
Concerning the London underground meeting mentioned by, I think, Red and Black, I attended this meeting some months ago but my impression of the meeting was that this was a forum intended for existing established groups to forge new links rather than for unaffliated individuals to come together to forge a NEW organisation. Consequently, I can not see much progress on the libertarian left unless people reject the sectarian polarisation that is evident between 'Trots' and 'anarchists'; i.e., framing ideas around the notion of adopting the opposite of whatever the Trots suggest etc. This leads to a rather infantile view of some issues amongst some 'anarchists'; witness the confusion on the anarchist left -with a few notable exceptions- on the issue of opposing US imperialism and expressing support for the struggle of the Palestinian people.

I agree with 'International Revolutionary'; we desparately need a new organisation on the libertarian left that is not tainted by the sectarianism of the past. A new programme ?-yes I think that is needed as well. There are too many anarchist groups out there that are simply built around a direct action tactic; as good as this is it is not enough. We need an organisation that also has a clearly worked out set of ideas -a clear revolutionary theory. In this way the libertarian anti-capitalist movement might then be able to progress into new waters.