By High Priest Wombat, KSC (CircleA Collaborative - RAAN)

This interview originally appeared in the first issue of Praxis, journal of the Red & Anarchist Action Network (Summer, 2003)

Robert Ebright: I suppose I first got interested in activism around my going to the 1996 ARA national conference almost by chance.

HPW: If anyone knows you, it's because of the Autonomous Zone in Chicago, how long have you been with them?

Rob: Three years.

HPW: What projects of interest would you like to talk about that you've done in that time?

Rob: Well I've worked mostly with the Autonomous Zone collective which operates as the administrative body for keeping the infoshop open. We have experimented with various methods of self-organizing and have always strived for a fully involved consensus basis for decision making. I've helped organize various protests and conferences such as the latest TransAtlantic Business Dialogue protest in Chicago and Matches and Mayhem. I have also done a lot of computer work and web development for the Autonomous Zone and helped run the freeware collective.

HPW: What is a federation as opposed to a network?

Rob: A federation is more of a overhead operating body, almost a composite of the groups or individuals involved, whereas a network is more decentralized and functions as more of a communication body than an actual organization.

HPW: Have you ever participated in a Federation or Network?

Rob: Well I have observed many networks in operation, from going to a few Anti-Racist Action national conferences, and I went to a few attempts to form a Midwest anarchist federation that initially failed to collagulate, eventually I believe FRAC- the Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives sprung from one of them.

HPW: Many local anarchist activists seem to be wary of Federations, and is there a historical reason why?

Rob: I can only speak as a Columbusite and Chicagoan, I think that the reason people are wary of Federations is that it involves a certain amount of sacrifice to a greater whole. It means that people are going to have to hold their actions underneath a banner and that others are going to have the chance to criticize or otherwise attempt to influence their actions. It could be people just prefer decentralization.

HPW: What federations and/or networks have existed that you know of?

Rob: Well, in Chicago there are a few different types of federations and networks. There is the FRAC affiliated collective who tend to operate within their small group of friends within the greater anarchist scene. You have the Autonomous Zone which is more or less an open collective, that is they invite people and encourage participation from people who are just getting involved in activism and do everything above ground, meaning no illegal activities. They kind of sit in their own bubble. A few people have tried to set up a network of musicians to organize shows and operate as a record label/union but last time I checked this was still in the formation stages which people just start to take on tasks.

Many of the formal organizations operate as cliques of people who know each other, where as the groups that blatantly say they are a crew or clique of people like the Anarchists Skins and Punks or ASAP actually tend to do more outreach and accomplish tasks.

HPW: Do you think people should organize according to historical circumstance, that we should strive for the most ethical of organizing structures or both?

Rob: I think that people need to build in the present, I believe that we can definitely accomplish very ethical structures of organization but I don't believe we should get caught up in trying to create the most egalitarian superstructure to the point where we lose sight of our immediate goals. I have seen too much debating and ideological bickering over minute details in attempts to try and create consensus among anarchists when really people just want to see things happen their way.

As far as historical circumstance, if you mean that we should consider the real world when we plan our activities I think that is essential if we are to have a real impact, in order to get out of a self-created political ghetto we need to be approachable by everyday people. That means that we aren't all scary leftists who constantly talk about smashing the state every other sentence, and we encourage participation and involvement from people of varying levels of political consciousness.

If our organizations are to succeed they need to be flexible and accomplish the goals they focus on. I think that decentralization is important because people will many times spend too much time worrying about other peoples actions if they are given authority to do so, even in the smallest scenario. We need to allow individuals to focus on their autonomous actions and then network this to build a composite sketch of our world. We also need to start supporting each other financially if we are ever going to get past the starvation level of activism and start altering the course of capitalism. Basically people just need to agree on their goals beforehand and then focus on accomplishing them. Anarchist worker cooperatives are a good hybrid organization that could work to enrich the lives of the participants while providing a much needed example for other people considering the radical lifestyle.

HPW: Do you think there is an ethical decision making model?

Rob: I think that basically ethics breaks down to are you considerate in your actions? Do you think about the effect they will have on a immediate and long-term scale? Do you agree with how they make you feel and other people feel? As far as decision making models go, consensus is utilized far too often without the realization of its implications and potential for abuse, but it is a good model for tight-knit group involvements. I think that coming together to organize in which individuals are given autonomy to organize and contribute on whatever level they feel is good for them is essential. I think that whenever diverse groups come together we need to quit trying to illicit agreement upon abstractions and start working on real life decisions. I think that far too often anarchists are striving for ideological purity when really we need practical autonomy, which means that some people are going to do things that you might think are fucked up, but you can't operate from a level of social arbitrator but instead from the simple level of someone who wants to communicate. Of course accountability for negative actions is essential but it should be facilitated in a way that isn't disrespectful to the people involved. Basically if you want to break it down, the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is an essential anarchist ethic. Or the wiccan rede, Do as thou wilt if ye harm none. Anarchist ethics are pretty essential to human social interactions, they say respect other people and operate from your point of view.

HPW: What are some positive aspects that federations seem to offer? Networks?

Rob: Federations offer cohesion in presentation, they are sort of the corporations of anarchism, it allows disparate groups to form a bigger bubble from under which to operate. They can be good for promotion and growth for people who like organized structures. They also can help create a kind of collective will among groups.

Networks are good for people who want to communicate and share information without losing any of their autonomy. Networks tend to take up less time than federations and involvement with other groups is up to the individual member. They are more loose knit and thus more flexible.

HPW: What are some negative aspects that federations seem to offer? Networks?

Rob: Federations can allow people or groups to get bogged down in the bureaucracy of running a large group. Many times individual efforts won't get the support they need and people potentially could go to the federation looking for approval rather than acting. Many times informal hierarchies will become established with people more or less running things even if they are against that in general.

Networks can be too fractured for their own good. Without individual group initiative many networks will fall apart, or else have member groups that contribute very little to the greater whole. Without a group purpose or operating structure it can be hard for networks to make decisions as a whole and thus to pick projects or ideas to contribute.

HPW: Are there benefits that are overlooked that may point to avoiding both federations and networks?

Rob: Well they are both methods for communication and facilitation, and also human created organizations. Sometimes people need to operate outside of the social role that human groups create in order to be effective. Things are always easier to stop and control or monitor by opposition when you have a visible structure, whereas if things are more personal and done on a level of spontaneous collaboration then it is near impossible to stop people from doing what they want to do.

HPW: Where do federations seem to help where networks don't? Vice versa?

Rob: If you want to work on huge projects or facilitate something that would involve a lot of agreement to certain principles then a federation could accomplish it. Right now some people are forming a tech federation for anarchist technology groups, this sounds like a good idea because it could allow various individual groups to collaborate on bigger projects and sort of focus their attention on certain ideas.

HPW: Where do federations seem weak where Networks aren't? Vice versa?

Rob: Federations can be taken down more easily due to a central decision making body. It is easier to fuck with everyone by fucking with that body, this can happen from the level of individuals to actual state repression. They are also more isolationist in my experience because they allow such a level of control to all participants they tend to not want to let just anybody in, thus many potentially interested people will not hear about it, or if they do not be sure how they could actually join. But that has more to do with open vs. closed organizing...

Networks can be too easily scattered if there isn't an actual purpose to them. Individual groups have a tendency to operate autonomously to the point of not communicating or sharing information with other people. Sometimes by being too open they don't really allow any security or automatic trust relationships between groups.

HPW: Any specific federations you would care to comment on as to how they were flawed or how they were beneficial?

Rob: Well I've seen a few federations operate in the background, NEFAC and FRAC both seem to be very tight-knit ideological groups that put out some decent publications but are also very much centered upon the creation of rules and regulations. Of course my involvement is from the sidelines so I can't really say how their day to day operation is accomplished or how the people involved feel about it, which I believe is the ultimate judge of how effective an anarchist organization is. I think that Love and Rage, the big anarchist federation in the early 90s fell apart because of ideological conflict and a lot of its founders went on to be socialists and work on the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

HPW: Do you think federations harm the revolutionary potential of our collectives and affinity groups? If so, how? Networks?

Rob: I think that if someone takes a superstructure they have created too seriously or allow their initiative to be dampened by other peoples hang ups or inhibitions then yes they will crush or sap the revolutionary potential of the participants, but at the same time this is totally up to the people involved. Some people do better with a very organized working environment with directives passed down and ideas collaborated on a larger scale where they can take a small part in decision making and thus concentrate on action. If everybody wants to make decisions all of the time then you will probably find a rather ineffective organization. This is really the downfall of many anarchist organizations, in that everybody wants to be the head but nobody wants to actually do the work involved in getting things accomplished. This of course doesn't have to be that way if people view federations or networks as a simple tool to facilitate collaboration rather than as an entity all upon themselves they will be able to retain their autonomy and individual identity while working with others.

HPW: Do you think federations help the revolutionary potential of our collectives and affinity groups? If so, how? Networks?

Rob: Well like I was saying before, they can be a useful tool for sharing information and coordinating action. They can actually create an infrastructure to replace corporate and government inherently authoritarian structures, but I think we need to retain our own criticisms of the state and capital when we are working with any group. If we don't allow these groups to become bigger than life then they will still be easily accountable to the participants. If we keep enough personal autonomy to stay comfortable making our own decisions primarily and then sharing our skills and labor for greater projects we can probably see our organizations actually accomplishing the lofty ideals of transforming society. I think that if we realize that both are social tools for engineering our communication and realize that they both have drawbacks and limitations when starting them we will get more out of it. I think one of the real functions of federations or networks right now is they give us a social identity, they make our individual efforts seem and feel to be a part of something much larger and thus this gives us confidence in our actions and allows us to look at a bigger picture then our individual lives. This would be the function of society in a better world, the world we are fighting for.