I'll start with a disclaimer. I have been actively involved in the anarchist movement for over a decade, and have absolute commitment to the ideals of anarchism. However, I feel myself becoming increasingly alienated from the anarchist movement. This is an attempt to explain why. The content of this article is obviously not aimed at all in the movement, but particularly of the lifestyley lot.

Over the last couple of years, I have become increasingly involved with my union, and through that, grassroots organizations within the union movement, such as my local trades council. This has given me a chance to see how much ordinary people respond to unions and similar campaigning groups, and how irrelevant the anarchist movement has made itself to most ordinary people.

Firstly, unions, while some are more radical than others, answer the concerns of ordinary people. They will fight for local hospitals to stay open, local jobs to be saved etc etc. (Yes, I am aware that most unions are shitty an beurocratic - if anything, this is an argument that we should get involved and radicalise and democratize them). Many anarchists on the other hand, will campaign around more global issues, or aim straight for the downfall of capitalism, with no room for reform. Reform is important to ordinary people, it makes their lives better. Of course the end goal is revolution, but I am alarmed at the number of anarchists who shun campaigns aimed at alleviating peoples shitty living and working conditions in favour of a puritanical revolutionary goal. It is of course intersting to note that it is the involvement in reformist campaigns that has turned many people into radicals/revolutionaries. Even when some anarchists do get involved in community campaigns, the diy punk asthetic so prevalent in the movement only serves to make us seem 'different' from others. In my years of campaigning, the best response I have had from most members of the public is a passive agreement about my stated aims. I feel that this is because we are so deep in a subcultural ghetto that our clothes, language and behaviours are alienating to the average person. If we are serious about revolution, shouldn't we be willing to move past this petty divide to make our politics more acceptable and accesible to the mainstream? I think we need to reconsider some of the campaigns we hold most dear, such as squatting. While there is nothing wrong with squatting, if the average person ever squats, it will be in their own home, when they can no longer afford to pay rent. We seem to emerse ourselves in activities and campaigns that most people have no time or enthusiasm for. Arguments around squatting, as presented by many in the anarchist movement simply have no relevence to the lives of most ordinary people. It is also this focus on squatting, bin diving, work refusal and loads of direct action (in the 'chain my head to this', rather than the workplace sense) that ensures that the current movement will only ever be accesible to a relativley young, commitment free group. In my time with my union, people have been much more willing to listen to me. I think this has something to do with the fact that I am seen more as 'one of them'. I look like them, they know i'm a worker, and in an organisation they are familiar with. Even though I argue the same radical arguments I always have, people are more receptive. So, this isn't a pop at our politics, but more the way we present them (and ourselves).

The specific issue that prompted me to write this article was the alleged threats made by the SWP high-ranker Chris Banbury against anarchists at the Tory demo. My first thought was of condemnation of him (an if he did it, that remains my feeling), but there is another side to the coin.
To most people on the left, we are an unknown quantity. We don't turn up to their meetings (which could be our meetings as well, if we turned up and made our arguments loudly and convincingly), take part in demo planning (except our own blocs) and we don't often attempt to intergrate in any kind of united front. Is it really any wonder that when we turn up, masked up, ofetn without even a leaflet to explain ourselves, we get treated with confusion, or even hostility. It is funny how many swp/unionists react when they hear anarchist ideas explained by someone who is 'one of them'. Many of them have never been exposed to anarchist ideas before, and their only perception of us is the masked up fighty ones on demos. We don't talk to them, we don't explain our position, we just turn up, and most of the time, kick off. They are genuinley suprised to hear that we have any serious ideas at all, and are often impressed by out level of analysis - we just often don't share it well.

I think we have gone too far with the 'I hate the SWP' thing. Sure, we have MAJOR differences with them, but is the idea of a critical and cautious united front on the issues that we agree on so ridiculous? That way, we may actually start to have an influence in large campaigns, meaning we have a say on how the demo or campaign goes, rather than always being on the outside. I am worried that in some cases, a macho 'more radical than thou' attitude prevails in the movement which views working alongside 'less revolutionary' groups or individuals as some kind of a climbdown from our purist revolutionary pedestal.

I don't see anything wring with a constructive dialogue with SWP/unions etc and think this could be done without watering down our principles. Throughout history, working class groups of all left persuasions have cautiously worked together, and formed strong and productive alliances as a result (CNT-POUM in the spanish civil war etc).

I'm not trying to let the SWP/lefties off the hook. I think there has been a chronic breakdown in communications from both sides which needs to be bridged for the common good. The reason that this is aimed predominantley at anarchists not socialists is the fact that this is the movement I know, not the SWP. I am also aware that we have been horribly screwed over by the SWP in the past, but we have also smashed up their paper stalls etc to the point where hatred exists between two groups who - while they have obvious differences - should be able to work constructivley togther on some level.

Comments? It would also be interesting to hear comments from socialists/unionists of their impressions/knowledge of the anarchist movement.