Can anyone recover their face value by attacking the ASF?

Published under the pseudonym "Wildcat Wob," this memoir sheds light on the internal dynamics of Melbourne's anarcho-syndicalist movement and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation (ASF) during the 1990s. While externally structured in the style of fiction and appearing exceptionally vivid, fluent, and well-composed, it appears deeply one-sided and biased when judged by the standards of theoretical and political critique. Rather than offering deep political analysis, it feels like a prolonged expression of personal grievances, frustration, and resentment. The primary objective of an objective historical or political memoir should be the impartial unearthing of structural flaws, ideological deviations, economic or social contexts, and historical events. However, in the text under discussion, personal malice, character assassination, and a lingering psychological bitterness toward specific individuals have taken precedence over structural discussions. Instead of objectively evaluating the organizational decisions made by certain comrades within the ASF, the author's tendency to mock their personal habits, pub culture, ways of speaking, and minor behaviors reduces the entire piece from a theoretical discussion to personal rivalry and gossip.

A clear and persistent self-contradiction runs through the author's entire narrative. On one hand, he presents himself as a quiet-natured worker who was marginalized and cornered by the movement, and who merely wanted to reach ordinary people and stay away from all these infighting; on the other hand, he claims that he played a central role in crucial tasks such as creating the "Anarcho-Syndicalism 101" website in 1996, purchasing domains, and restructuring the ASF. This contradictory stance gives rise to deep and logical questions in the reader's mind: Was the author truly a blameless and oppressed worker, or did he fail to achieve his expected position or importance within internal power struggles, factionalism, or leadership competition, and consequently choose this intensely aggressive and pessimistic stance out of resentment? The political arena frequently witnesses such characters—those who, upon failing to reach the center of power or to have things entirely their way, lose faith in the core structure of a group or movement, after which their primary goal becomes disparaging their former organization.

To comprehend the depth of this mindset and trace the origin of its political immaturity, a small, real, and symbolic example can be drawn from the pages of memory. Many things happen in our childhood that, at first glance, appear very simple or trivial, yet clearly lay bare human psychology and the politics of social relationships. Once, my two friends and I were on the verge of being caught red-handed while trying to steal a raw papaya from a neighbor's garden in our village, and we faced a rigorous chase. Yet, in rural Bangladeshi society, that papaya was such an undervalued fruit, and its market price so negligible, that its cost was far less than the money or assistance we regularly gave to poor people or beggars. Despite having the financial means or capacity in our pockets to buy hundreds of papayas, we stole it from the garden instead of buying it from a shop. The reason was not greed for the papaya or the fruit; rather, it was the thrill of taking risks with friends in childhood and the feeling of victory or heroism that came with success. In a word, it was a form of peer or subcultural thrill.

What happened was that a villager, watching this theft from afar, came running after us with a stick. Though we somehow managed to escape with the papaya, one of our friends was caught and out of fear named everyone. Later we came to know that the person who chased us and beat the drums across the entire village for that minor papaya theft wasn't actually the owner of that garden or tree. He was an entirely different neighbor who had previously been caught red-handed in various village thefts multiple times and had completely lost his minor social respect and dignity in the eyes of society. Upon making inquiries, we realized that this thieving individual had blown this minor incident completely out of proportion and spread it across the market to restore his lost respect or social acceptance among the villagers. Because he knew that our familial and social position or honor in the village was comparatively high. If this minor mistake or crime of ours could be blown out of proportion, our high position in society would be somewhat diminished, thereby lightening the weight of his own guilt.

After that incident, my friends and I made various clever plans to hush up that minor offense and give that thief a fitting reply. But looking back at it today with age, I realize that the thought of taking revenge on such trivial matters or wasting one's valuable time and energy behind such negligible people was the ultimate expression of our childish, immature mentality at that time. Today, I have not the slightest desire, nor any need, to waste time on such trivial matters or people.

Similarly, when the author of the discussed text describes getting involved in Australian politics at the age of twenty or twenty-one and builds mountains of complaints page after page regarding the internal squabbling of the ASF or the Melbourne group, it stands as a perfect document of his political shortsightedness and intellectual stagnation of that era.

Throughout the essay or memoir, there was ample opportunity for deep theoretical and objective discussion on complex subjects such as Melbourne's underground leftist politics, the historical successes of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, the crisis of its isolation from the trade union movement, class-reductionism, petty-bourgeois liberalism, or international political economy. Yet, quite consciously avoiding the path of theoretical discussion or deep analysis, the author chose pub chats, beer glasses, who is talking to whom, whose emails went unanswered, minor psychological misunderstandings, and personal gossip as the core tone of his writing. This makes it clear that personal grievances and slander took precedence over politics or ideology for the author. Curiously, the author presents the emotions, reckless attitude, personal ego, and flaws of that twenty-year-old self in his present age with the exact same immature, angry, and sarcastic language. This arouses suspicion in the reader's mind: Has the author only developed physically, while his political and theoretical growth or maturity remains trapped within the confines of that specific age of twenty? Has he failed to develop himself theoretically?

The most disappointing and self-destructive aspect of this writing is the author's politically absolved, escapist, and utterly pessimistic message at the end. Instead of showing the younger generation any constructive path to join the anarcho-syndicalist movement or class struggle, he directly advises them not to waste time in the anarcho-syndicalist movement, but rather to play the guitar or form a band to gain personal benefits in life and build their futures. Such utterly pessimistic and anti-movement talk from someone who claims to be an anarcho-syndicalist, a former organizer, or once a pioneer of revolution or change is a clear sign of utter shortsightedness.

Factionalism, bureaucratic mentalities, misunderstandings, or cliquishness exist in any political, social, or labor movement; wherever human society exists, these types of flaws and power struggles are inevitably present, because the current capitalist social structure cannot survive without practicing these. Even if I look at my own political life, I will see that I have had to face this reality multiple times. Working with various political trends in Bangladesh, I have seen how dogmatic, undemocratic, and sometimes autocratic the internal culture of many political parties here is. Even while working in various political and ideological spheres in the past, I have been subjected to physical abuse, mental pressure, and extreme intolerance. Still, should I or any conscious organizer abandon the entire ideal or concept of struggle simply by looking at the behavioral flaws of individuals inside those parties? We do not wage an anti-capitalist movement out of attraction to a leader or at the instigation of an individual, so the personal behavior of any individual or organization cannot drive me away from the anti-capitalist struggle. Therefore, when I saw flaws in the leadership, I stepped away from their party, and if I had the talent for singing, I would not have taken it as a means to feather my own nest, but rather thought about how to integrate it with the anti-capitalist movement and advised others to do the same. Is this not logical?

Similarly, while studying the theoretical practices and histories of various trends of international communist comrades—such as organizations like the International Communist Current (ICC) or the World Socialist Movement (WSM)—I have seen that no matter how flawlessly they claim themselves to be theoretically, their organizational working procedures, internal activities, and the personal behavior of many organizers often reflect extreme arrogance, autocracy, and psychological perversion, let alone meeting the standards of communist or minimal human etiquette. Despite that, when I or we criticize those organizations, we do not lament the personal chat culture of their leaders or complain about who did not reply to whose email; rather, we objectively and theoretically highlight their organizational structural flaws, trends of theoretical deviation, limitations of parliamentary or narrow trade union methods, and historical political stances.

Yet, the author of the text under discussion has done the exact opposite. Without making the slightest intellectual or theoretical effort to prove the ASF or the anarcho-syndicalist movement theoretically wrong, he has merely gathered the personal behaviors, egos, and hangout spots of certain individuals, with the objective of trivializing and rendering irrelevant the core idea of the entire movement or struggle. This tendency to judge an entire organizational philosophy or the history of class struggle through the personal limitations or flaws of a few individuals inside a specific organization, and ultimately discouraging people from the movement through the metaphor of a band, is merely a symptom of political bankruptcy, theoretical insolvency, and ultimate escapism.

Therefore, this writing does not fall into the category of objective organizational criticism, theoretical documents, or historical review. It is primarily a long narrative of personal psychological defeat, inferiority complex, anger, and the lingering pessimistic echoes of many years ago—which, instead of illuminating the path of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, merely prolongs the darkness of personal malice, casting the blame onto anarcho-syndicalism itself. Therefore, I took the matter seriously and recently spoke with the accused person to understand the context.

It is learned that "Wildcat Wob" is essentially the author B.D. (since he writes under a pseudonym, his full name has not been published considering his security and context)—which is one of the numerous pseudonyms he has used. In 1995, B.D. first met the accused ASF comrade in Melbourne. The accused ASF comrade recalls that upon first meeting, B.D. told him that he had written a constitution for the Anarchist Federation. The accused ASF comrade replied that such a conclusive document could never be written by a single individual and was only possible through the joint effort of the component organizations agreeing to form a federation. According to the accused ASF comrade, this was the first sign of a problem that plagues what has been driven as the anarchist movement in Australia, and is a peculiar characteristic of the anarchist movement in the Anglosphere (though not limited to it)—the great thinker, the white savior, and the hero of the "people."

It is further learned that B.D. joined ASF Melbourne North in 1997 and subsequently became increasingly frustrated as other members failed to recognize his intellectual skills and innate leadership abilities.

The accused ASF comrade recalls the last meeting with B.D. B.D. had proposed publishing a booklet titled General Strike - Italy 1920. It is learned that this proposal was placed on the agenda and discussed for about 20 minutes. There was very little enthusiasm for the proposal, as it was felt that the ASF's limited resources should be spent on publishing booklets that were more contemporary and more relevant to where we are. Because this proposal did not pass, B.D. became angry; the accused comrade recalls B.D. saying, "You don't take my ideas seriously." In response, the accused comrade noted that the meeting had discussed the proposal for 20 minutes. The accused comrade explained that disagreeing does not mean failing to take a proposal seriously. Then, after being a member for only 18 months, B.D. resigned without notifying anyone.

It is learned that B.D. subsequently joined the Melbourne branch of the IWW, but left after about a year. Right after that, he joined another ASF affiliate, "Education Workers." His behavior during meetings was complained about by all other members. Within six months, this affiliate collapsed. At this stage, the accused ASF comrade highlighted a distinction between ML (Marxist-Leninist) organizations and anarcho-syndicalism, stating that organizations occasionally have members who create trouble, harass other members, etc.—this happens in any body, and the larger the organization, the higher the incidence rate. In an ML organization, the Central Committee can expel a member. They are given that power by the very membership that elected them. On the other hand, anarcho-syndicalism is organized in such a way that any individual's power can be curtailed, and coordinating bodies like the IWA Secretariat have a clearly defined and limited mandate. They do not have the power to expel any specific individual. The accused ASF comrade noted that according to the anarchist principles of the federation, the responsibility for an individual member's behavior rests upon the affiliate of which that person is a member. If that affiliate fails to take appropriate remedial action for any reason, it risks losing its affiliation by a decision of the Congress. The accused ASF comrade argued that these processes, developed as a result of the collective experience of the labor movement, are designed to disperse power from the center outward. Contrary to vertical organization, this is horizontal organization. The accused ASF comrade stated that at the meeting of the ASF affiliate "Education Workers," complaints were raised by all other members regarding B.D.'s behavior, and within the next six months, that affiliate collapsed.

B.D. rejoined the IWW around 2000. The accused ASF comrade said that B.D. quite liked this because he was made the paper editor of the Regional Organising Committee (ROC) of the IWW in Australia. He found prestige in this title and became intensely attached to it personally.

The accused ASF comrade mentions a turning point in 2012. Both ASF Melbourne North and the Melbourne branch of the IWW had booked exhibition tables at the Melbourne Anarchist Bookfair that year. Three ASF members had volunteered to sit at the tables, but when an ASF woman member saw that B.D. would be present, she stated that she could not attend. Incidentally, the woman comrade mentioned the reason that she was facing sexual harassment by B.D.– where she had faced a series of gaslighting, text messages, and emails from B.D. Naturally, this placed ASF Melbourne North in a dilemma; if the ASF, knowing about such behavior, took no action regarding it, wouldn't it become complicit? In other words, should sexual harassment be condoned by the ASF? No.

At that time, the ASF was keen to maintain good relations with the IWW. The ASF approached the IWW for cooperative action, but those initiatives were rejected. However, regarding B.D., the ASF decided to write an email to Melbourne IWW to formally lodge complaints. In response, the Melbourne IWW took the complaint seriously and launched an investigation. This triggered a chain of events that led to B.D.'s expulsion from the IWW.

Since then, the accused ASF comrade has observed that from 2012 onwards, B.D. has spent most of his time writing long and scathing critiques against those he feels wronged him, which includes the IWW, but most prominently the ASF and by extension the IWA. Additionally, B.D. runs a website where he claims to be South-East Queensland IWW—an organization that seemingly does not exist and is not part of the IWW's ROC in Australia.

However, many things become clear from this conversation. The papaya episode from my childhood becomes metaphorically relevant here. Just as a professional thief wanted to recover at least some face-value by filing a single papaya theft charge against me, did B.D. also want to recover his face-value by leveling simplified accusations against the ASF or comrades associated with the organization? In fact, B.D.'s history displays a consistent manifestation of authoritarianism—which naturally shattered in the face of the ASF's continuous resistance. And this is where a sentence from Freudian psychoanalysis sheds light on the entire matter. Indeed, we are forced to bury our desires alive, and they dig their way out in monstrous forms. My realization throughout this entire affair is that B.D. He was forced to bury alive his intense desire to become a hero, a leader, and someone important—a suppression that, after more than a decade, manifested in a distorted or terrifying form, ultimately culminating in publication under the title 'The ASF After 1989'.