Open Letter To Progressive/Left/Radical Activists to Help Gonzalez Win and Build Movement

Amen to the Open Letter

It was about time radicals and the ISO -- apparently -- decided to support Gonzalez. I'm glad to see among those signing some who supported liberal democrats in the general election.

Late, but surely. You did the right thing. Hopefully next time you'll understand the dynamics of electoral politics sooner, your help is always needed.

In this country, any hope for radical politics and left wing organizing will come from the breaking of the bipartisan political regime and particularly of the Democratic Party.

Again, congrats!

Radical

For a long time I've felt that Rahula Janowski and Criss Crass --especially Chris Crass -- are accurate expressions of the left -liberal sanctiomoniousness, upper-middle class narcissism and white-guilt sentimentality that predominates in what passes for an anarchist milieu in the SF Bay Area.

Here, their brand of self-indulgent fake radicalism finds its logical culmination, and it's total practical and intellectual dead-end, in electoral politics anarchism.

Capitalism manages its managers. Changing managers makes no difference whatsoever. It doesn't matter how attractive the packaging. If half of the people who are all jazzed up about the Gonzalez for Mayor campaign put half of their current wasted energy into, say, getting together a city-wide rent strike, aiming at some sort of across-the-board mass reduction of rents for all renters, it could be a big step toward breaking the back of the SF real estate industry. This would be practical action towards catalyzing real mass resistance against what the market economy does to the vast majority of people in this town. (of course, it coundn't just be limited to this town) But nothing of the sort will ever come from the leftist operators, social workers, 'UTNE Reader' contributors and future Democartic Party machine toadies who signed the mini-manifesto above.

In capitalist society, we have politicians who win most of the time. We have politicians who lose most of the time. And then, we have politicians who lose all of the time -- like the jokers on the "Protest ghetto weenies for Matt" thing I'm responding to here.

For a more fleshed-out examination of why the authentic opponents of capitalism are always against voting, without exception, and the unbridigible qualitative gulf separating us from the left-wing of capital's politics apparatus, like the bozos on the list above, here's part of the opening doc on the 'Love and Treason' web site, at:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love_index.html

"...The state is the mechanism the ruling class uses to maintain its monopoly of violence over other social classes. Every government in the world is a repressive apparatus defending capitalist property relations. The state is not a socially neutral institution, or a tool that can be used by working class and poor people. Authentic opposition to capitalism begins with unconditional hostility to all forms of the state, and to bourgeois elections and legality."

"Electoral politics is a psychologically sophisticated scam hustling voters into thinking they have a real say in how they are governed. The right to vote is intended to keep us mystified, atomized and passive, and is amazingly effective in keeping us from taking effective action against the private sector elite. Nothing fundamental can be changed by atomized individuals, and supposed small gains won by working and poor people in elections are inevitably eroded away to nothing by those who really hold power. The only source of positive social change has always been direct action: working class people acting together on the terrain of daily life, where we work and where we live, and fighting for what we need against bosses, corporations and the rich -- outside of and completely against the conventional decision-making institutions of this society."

"Democratic ideology is the central element in a bodyguard of lies maintaining the total power of the capitalist class. The market economy rules as an absolute dictatorship over life on earth today. You cannot vote your way around that fact. Market forces cannot be resisted by voting. Regardless of what they say, anyone who runs for office or attempts to hustle working people into voting is trying to fool us into thinking that we have a stake in the existing state of things. Any form of participation in electoral politics by working people short-circuits the emergence of what we really need; a mass political culture that will be independent of and irreconcilably antagonistic to the market and the state...The class struggle isn’t a peaceful process -- might makes right. Only large-scale, conscious, organized action can bring working and poor people victory in the class war..."

This argument is presented in greater detail in the poster, "Rock the Vote," at

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters3.html

And in "Voting Changes Nothing," at:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters3.html

Fuck elections, and the chumps who try to hustle working people into participating in them,

Kevin Keating

"Voting Changes Nothing" can be found here, not where I listed it in the preceeding post:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters9.html

kevin keating = haaaata (hater)

I don't typically care about white dudes getting off on the anti-capitalist mental masturbation tip in SF-IMC, but I must say that I happen to know Chris and Rahula well enough to know this fool Kevin is nothing but a hater on this thread.

First off, he's showing some pretty capitalist behavior just hating on Chris and Rahula. Doesn't his ass have something better to do than be competitive with his fellow anarchist crowd? And perhaps his role as an anarchist is to mentally masturbate about overthrowing the buroise with his anarchist ideals and criticize everything there is, but it's just not worth a shit at the end of the day.

Kevin, if you're such an anti-capitalist, and criticizing voters for not doing good enough to really make changes happen, then why is it that you're only going as far as rend reduction? How about actually not paying rent or even expropriation? Try organizing that, some have actually done it in this world. Sounds like you're just as hypocritical, sanctimonious, and a puppet of capitalism as everyone else you're criticizing.

Don't mistaken my affiliations though, I am not on the Gonzalez wagon, but as long as there are working-class people and renters in this town who have somethinig at stake in this election, I support voting. Because these people don't have the luxury to read anarchist infoshop.org articles all day and mentally masturbate about overthrowing the capitalist ruling class, even less actually go out and do it when the system is set to brutalize them the moment they try. Rahula and Chris do not have white guilt, and apparently your ass doesn't have any whtie or privilege guilt whatsoever cause you fail to recognize racism and sexism in this country/capitalism/system/etc./etc. while going off about what's good and what isn't when trying to make a change.

Quit being such a hater.

>nessie: It's cool to be on the idealist tip and all, but don't invalidate voting and elections that do have an effect on oppressed people--whether that is utopia they'll gain or at least defend themselves from Prop M and fuckers like Newsom.

"But nothing of the sort will ever come from the leftist operators, social workers, 'UTNE Reader' contributors and future Democartic Party machine toadies who signed the mini-manifesto above. "

Once the inevitable nuclear winter occurs under Bushmoron, the leftist operators and such will be all reduced to one pile of bodies with flesh dripping off most of them. That's when real change can finally start!

This thread is totally weird, because it is eye-opening to see anti-authoritarians signing onto a local electoral campaign. I'm friends with both Chris Crass and Kevin Keating, but I tend to come down on Kevin's side when it comes to this letter. I could maybe understand local radicals asking people to support Gonzalez for reasons like the other asshole's policy on the homeless, but to say that electing anybody to office will "build a movement" is incredibly naive. And for radicals who know anything about anarchism to be working on some election campaign just boggles the mind. COuldn't you all do more to help the homeless by organizing direct action or taking over housing, instead of promoting some green politician?

I saw the facade of green parties back in the 1980s when I studied what the German greens were doing. The tendency is always for the idealists to become co-opted into the establishment. This process has been happening to the German greens for 20 years and now that they have more power they start acting like social democrats.

What are you all going to do when this guy becomes the Green mayor and then decides for personal reasons to become a Democrat to continue his political career. That will happen, you know.

our rulers are never happier than when radicals clamor to manage their system.

I understand that in times of extreme reaction even the most principled among us can be tempted to compromise ourselves politically as an easy path toward building a united front with our more moderate (temporary) political allies. However, it is very unfortunate to see respected anarchist comrades such as Chris Crass blatantly compromise his political ideals for the dead end of electoralism.

Anarchism, at the most basic level, has always maintained absolute antagonism to the concept of anyone holding institutionalized power over others, regardless of how progressive their politics may be. Whether it is rule by the soft glove of liberal-reformism (even on a local level) or the iron fist of fascism, it is power maintained by the State, which is the primary defender of capital and class society, white supremacy and patriarchy.

As anarchists, our role is not to play the petty charade of electoralism. It is to build revolutionary power (ie. popular power, in its non-institutionalized form, developed from below) in our communities, in the workplaces, and on the streets in preparation for future confrontations and upheavals aimed at toppling this oppressive system.

I'm sorry Chris, as much as I have respected your political activity in the past, this recent turn down the dead end path of electoralism has fundamentally undermined your anarchist politics in my eyes. Hopefully it is a temporary lapse, and not a permanent shift.

Solidarity,
-----MaRK, Class Against Class (NEFAC)

"upper-middle class narcissism and white-guilt sentimentality "

Could you explain these terms a bit please? Are you saying that Chris Crass and Rahula Janowski are upper middle class? and what does white guilt mean? or actually I guess what I want to know is, what does white guilt look like in practice? It seems to be a common accusation in the bay area and I'm no sure what you mean by it.

I'm also curious about why you single those two people out when there are several other people known to be anarchists on thelist of signers. Do you have a personal gruge?

as for the rest of it, I'm going to work to get MG elected, and I'm going to vote for him, and I'm going to continue to do the other work I do. I don't think MG will change the world; but he is sooo much better than the alternative, the way I see it is a vote for MG is a vote against all out war on the homeless people of SF, which is what we'd get under Newscum.

It's all about a diversity of tactics; just because some of us vote dpoesn't mean it' s the only thing we do, or even the most important thing we do.

"has always maintained absolute antagonism to the concept of anyone holding institutionalized power over others"

That would be fine if there was more voter apathy than there is, or if the anarchist community was 50x the size it is. But right now, we walk out our doors and see people dying on the sidewalks. You're asking people to put ideology over their reality. And it's an ugly reality here. You're also asking them to put ideology over someone that most of us trust and support, who has risked a lot for US. He wasn't chomping at the bit to run for mayor. He ran because he knew we could lose the city to a right wing asshole if we left it up to Tom or Angela.

Let SF go to Walmart and the Neocons and jail all the homeless for the sake of absolute antagonism?

Go do try in your own city. Maybe Dick Cheney will be running for mayor there and you can stay home and watch tv, or trash a recruiting office, or attend a class on ideology.

I think you missed my point. I am certainly not telling Chris what he should or should not support in an individual capacity, only that his recent political shift falls firmly outside of anarchist praxis.

I know Chris to be an activist with great integrity, and I trust he will accept the full implication of his recent turn to electoral politicking and not attempt to defend this postion while still claiming to be a principled anarchist.

On that note, if you believe radical systematic change can come from personal endorsement of some electoral canidate, than I feel sorry for you. This is about as naive as believing that you can bring down a corporation through your own personal boycott of their product.

I don't know Chris, but I'm glad to hear he's an activist. By the very fact that people are posting on here in anoyance that he has 'broken the rules' of the anarchist clubhouse suggests that he is known beyond the circle of just himself, and therefore, his endorsement may be helpful to people who are figuring things out. If he's someone with integrity, let's respect his decision.

I do personal boycotts all the time. I don't expect to bring down any corporations. I vote a lot of the time. I don't expect my vote to be the deciding factor in the race. But changes come about through both of these. Real change? Hardly. But everyday change, for in the meantime.

The thing is, if you were here, and if you were seeing what's happening, the community that has been created around the this thing, the way that people of all sorts are coming together (almost like affinity groups) and yet remaining with their own identity, doing their own thing but in support for Matt . . . you might like it, or at least, want to discuss it. I've done the grunt work on certain campaigns - not for candidates, but for issues - and I've never seen anything like this. Last weekend we spent all day out on the streets and then in the evening there was a BBQ at the HQ (pretty thrown together, about 2 hours late, mostly vegan), and art films, including We Interrupt this Empire. It was great. People who had helped block the streets in March (like myself) were there and were sharing experiences. The protesters are now the campaign community. The campaign itself has become a place to build community. These days I never see Matt, I see more and more people from all over SF, of all races and ages. Matt's a part of it, but what *it* is, is something that is morphing each day. All I can say is, I've never seen anything like it. And I like it. And it sounds like Chris likes it. Whatever it is.

But it's no petty charade.

What will it be after Matt wins? That's the question. Will these same people show up at the city council? Will Matt's monthly art openings extend into something more? How will Matt the 'leader' engage SF the 'community?'

We shall see.

Since when did consistency become a bad thing in politics?

We have a name for progressive activists with no consistent framework for their politics, and it's called "liberalism".

i hope gonzalez wins the election.

now that i got that out of the way, let's get real:

this argument among radicals about gonzalez's candidacy--here and elsewhere--has gotten complicated because:

1) on the one hand, many radicals--like myself--argue that the prerogatives of capital set the terms and parameters of what is possible under capital's democratic processes and no matter how radical the candidate may be on paper, once in office, s/he will be not only expected but required to administer the present system. the "radical" politician, having affirmed the system by participating within it, must speak in its language and devise programs that conform to its logic. where the conservative argues that capitalism can not tolerate an end to poverty, the radical electoralist in effect argues the opposite! of course, the radical politician quickly learns that his/her conservative enemies are correct--capitalism can not be reformed--and, having forfeited any capacity to attack capital in a way that's effective, s/he proceeds to shine only in finding new ways of prettyifiying THE SAME OLD SHIT. indeed, here again, the radical politician serves to make the system look participatory and ultimately fair. "look, marge, even the communists are for hacking the social wage to death."

2) one the other hand... i'll get to the other hand later. gotta go.

This debate is getting rather abstract, and I think both sides aren't without fault. Let me offer my own personal spin:

(1) Strictly speaking, Keating is correct to point out that true, "pure" anarchists do not use the tools of statecraft because they oppose the state in all of its forms, and do not see it as having any relevance for bringing about a better world.

(2) He is also correct to point out that Chris Crass and Rahula Janowski are not being "true " anarchists by organizing a movement to support one political candidate over another. (I should say that I know both of them personally from past experience, and I'm sure their intentions are genuine and meant well.)

(3)Kevin Keating is long on theory (and I am not necessarily suggesting that he is wrong), but his arguments would carry a lot more weight if he could articulate why his theory is correct by using real world examples. Anyone with half a brain can quote a revolutionary theorist.

HOWEVER...

One could easily ask, "so what?" Here's why:

(1) San Francisco is a county and city, not a state or nation-state. There is a difference of scale, and some self-described anarchists, notably Murray Bookchin, are not opposed to involvement in local elections (critically, of course) for strategic reasons. We can argue until we're blue in the face (or rather until we all have extreme carpal tunnle syndrome) and we're not likely to agree on whether or not this is a violation of the principles of anarchism. I do not really care enough to get into a debate about this tangent, so let's not go there.

(2) I disagree with Keating (et. al.) that this election has no significance whatsoever. In fact, to me it does. Believe it or not, sometimes it is good strategy to consider all of the stances that each candidate stands for and select the lesser of two evils. In this case, Newsom is in favor of scrapping district elections, he is opposed to public power, he favors using the police to crack down on homeless people, he is supported by corporations such as Bechtel, and he is essentially the current regime's hand-picked successor.

(3) Lest you think these issues are irrelevant, I'll argue why I think that position is wrong:

• District Elections - The powers that be want to scrap these completely. (They argue that it results in "balkanization" of city politics, which is Orwellian doublespeak for saying that district elections allow for dissent and diversity of opinions--something that the powers that be don't want). District elections allow for more neighborhood control (localism) than at-large winner-take-all supervisorial elections. District Elections also allow someone without a lot of money to get elected (like Chris Daly).
  
• Public Power - Unless you are an anti-technology wing nut (and if you are, what are you doing using the internet?) the issue of where our electricty comes from should be a major concern. Although a municpally run electrical system (especially one that uses the Hetch-Hetchy hydroelectric dam) is not without its own set of drawbacks, but it is miles ahead of letting an unaccountable private monopoly such as PG&E control our source of electricty. Obviously a decentralized network of renewable energy and a strong emphasis on conservation is best, but the capitaly expenditures that would be necessary to bring about such a system are simply beyond the average person right now.
  
• Attacks on the Homeless - This is a no brainer.
  
• Support From Corporations for Newsom - Ditto.

(4) I don't buy the "voting changes nothing" argument. I think anarchists need to update this long cherished belief. In reality voting does change things. The issue is, are those changes significant. In most cases, they have little or no significance, especially if the vote involves a large number of people and a big entity, such as a state or nation state. The smaller the institution, the more significance a vote can have (depending on the issue).

(5) As for the arhument that "voting is a scam that fools voters (into thinking they can control the apparatus of statecraft)", I agree, but only to the extent that voters asssume that voting is an end in itself (not a means to an end) and those who are critical of voting are unable or unwilling to address those who are not as critical of it to engage in other forms of activism. In other words, it's strategically dumb to tell people not to vote and then do little or nothing to encourage them to engage in other forms of action. It is almost a strategically dumb to tell peopl enot to vote, and then to expect them to be willing to engage in other forms of action. It is strategically wise, in my opinion, to tell people that voting will make only a small difference; it is not enough.

(6) Some of you will argue, "no matter who you vote for, it supports the state and that will only make things worse". Again, only if anarchists sit on their asses and do nothing to organize outside of the electoral system. Again, if you hit people over the head with the "voting is a waste of time" argument, you're not likely to gain the support of those who believe in voting as an exercise.

(7) As to the use of name calling (white, upper middle class guilt), so only working class people can become anarchists? I guess we'll have to burn all of our Peter Kropotkin books then, because he was born into royalty (but later rejected it).

(8) One might argue, OK, public power (*or some other issue that Matt Gonzales or his supporters champion) is good, but Matt Gonzales cannot make it happen as mayor (or worse, he will sell out as mayor), again, only if those who support his campaign sit on their hands and do nothing should he get elected. It is of course incumbant upon those who support him to hold his feet to the fire if he becomes elected.

(9)If you believe that nost people will go home and become complacent if Matt Gonzales is elected (thus making it easier for him to fool people into thinking he is on their side, or making it easier for him to sell out), then what makes you think that as anarchists you will do any better at motivating them to action? Like it or not, more people get excited about elections than they do about abstract theory or even direct action (even though i would agree that the latter are indeed better in the long run).

(10) If you think it's better to have a more reactionary thug than a less reactonary thug running the local machine, because you have some belief that crisis motivates people to action better than organizing and good, solid theory, I would remind you that history proves you wrong. I have noticed that their is absolutely no correlation between crisis and revolution. Revolutions happen because people organize them, not because an invisible hand makes them happen. Sure, conditions must be ripe for revolution, but if you are going to suggest that free will doesn't have any effect, then you are not a very good libertarian in my opinion.

(11) Yes, it is naive to think that a radical movement can be built out of an alectoral campaign, but again, so what. For me that is not the issue. For me the issue is preventing an already lousy situation from becoming much worse.

(12) Kevin Keating suggests we put our energy into a rent strike as opposed to an electoral campaign, because the former would be far more effective in the long run. He may be right --although I would ask why not organize big industrial unions and have a general strike? (I know Keating is just as skeptical of unionism as he is electioneering, but that's not my point--I'm simply pointing out that we all have our chosen methods of revolutionary activity and they don't always coincide). The question is how are we going to organize a rent strike (or a General Strike for that matter)? It is a lot harder to conduct such an action than it is to argue for one. Even if we could organize one, it just isn't going to happen tomorrow. In theory it's possible, but realistically I just don't see it.

Anyway, I have rambled on long enough. I would invite anyone who wants to discuss this to email me personally, rather than to bog down the IMC with more of this, because it really is getting into abstract theory and a discussion about specific individuals "purism" than anything else.

We have a name for activists with an unbending framework for their politics.

stuck.

Everyone thinks they have all the answers depending on which theory they buy into and what happened in 1802.

Things change, people change. Some principles stay the same, always. And some principles that you thought were written in stone - like the idea that we are born with all the brain cells we will ever have - are exposed as having a false premise.

Turns out, we grow new neurons all the time.

Just like birds.

When yer man Gonzalez (and the so-called movement that has developed around him) adequately solves the burning issues of homelessness, police bruality, and economic disparity in San Francisco than you have a perfectly righteous leg to stand on in criticizing the "false premises" posed by anarchists and anti-state communists. In the meantime, your claimed "truths" are nothing but baseless posturing.

Not sure about you, but I lived through the grandiose schemes of the European Green Party movement and U.S. Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s. Newsflash: Nothing changed, and many of the leading idealists of these movements have come full circle in supporting the current neoliberal agenda, poverty politics and war mongering.

Here's an example of authentic anti-state communist actions in the SF Bay Area:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love2.html

Also, see my article about anti-capitalist poster campaigns in San Francisco: 1993 --2001 in the Spring 2002 issue of 'Anarchy; A Journal of Desire Armed.' The point in that article wasn't that hanging posters is the be-all and end-all of class struugle, anti-market, anti-state action, but that the ones I refered to in the article were elements in a larger field of action.

It isn't a matter of "whose the pure anarchist" here. That's a straw-man argument, effectively exposing the wretched character of the pro-electoral politics' people's polemic. The question here is whether your actions are authentically antagonistic to capital, and capital's political apparatus, or whether your actions effectively place you on the extreme left wing of capital's political apparatus.

Kevin's examples are certainly useful. I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed in the posters he lists here: http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love2.html. In fact, I have posted a few of these myself in the past.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that despite Kevin's efforts, little if any of them have yielded any concrete results. Not a single BART or MUNI far has ever been reduced. If anything, they have steadily increased.

That's not to suggest that they're not useful to some extent. I think his arguments against fare increases are 100% spot on, but it's obvious to me that it takes much more than propaganda and individual direct action to change anything.

As for Anarchy Magazine, I say, "big deal!" The only people who read that are so hopelessly marginalized that you're preaching to the choir. Nobody who doesn't already believe in their lifestylist philosophy is going to be convinced by them.

Keating states "The point in that article wasn't that hanging posters is the be-all and end-all of class struugle, anti-market, anti-state action, but that the ones I refered to in the article were elements in a larger field of action." OK fine. What exactly is that larger field of action? How does one organize that? What steps are to be taken? It's not going to happen just by calling for people to riot. Most people won't go for that. It takes a hell of an effort just to convince a random worker to sign a union authorixation card for a bureaucratic, reformist union; what makes you think it's going to be any easier to convince them to riot?

Keating concludes with this: 'It isn't a matter of "whose the pure anarchist" here. That's a straw-man argument, effectively exposing the wretched character of the pro-electoral politics' people's polemic. The question here is whether your actions are authentically antagonistic to capital, and capital's political apparatus, or whether your actions effectively place you on the extreme left wing of capital's political apparatus.'

So it's a straw man argument, eh? Please elaborate how this is so instead of simply barking out that it is. Show me don't tell me Kevin.

And in regards to his last statement, it seems to me that Keatings propaganda of the deed is no more effective at being antagonistic to capital than elections. Again, I point out that BART and MUNI fares are no lower today than they were before Keating published his propaganda against them. I would argue that--while I supported his efforts--they have had zero effect whatsoever (other than educating those of us that oppose the fare increases).

So rather than engaging in sectarian theoretical polemics against those that don't adopt your revolutionary program, perhaps it might be useful to propose one that will actually work! And it is not enough to say, "my program will work, if everyone else does what I think they should.. You need to adopt a program that will make it happen. The big weakness in Kevin's arguments and propaganda is that they don't do this. And I am not convinced that local elections are less effective at bringing about (at least some) desired changes.

"but I lived through the grandiose schemes of the European Green Party movement and U.S. Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s. Newsflash: Nothing changed"

And my protest in the street didn't stop the war. And neither did breaking the windows in the local corpy stores, or doing a postering campaign.

Nothing changed.

If voting is so useless, why do anarchists choose to spend so much effort convincing people of that obviousness?

Why spend so much time taking that option down, rather than building the anarchist agenda? Why take down any anarchist who strays from the agenda or tries something different, rather than simply explaining the important anarchist victories in terms that average non-academic people can understand, and how those could be applied today, then letting people decide for themselves what seems appealing?

Howdy folks,
1. I beliebe that one can be an anarchist and be dynamic, complex and strategic. I do not believe that anarchists must be one dimensional carbon copies of each other that use slogans as the basis of their politics as oppose to slogans summerizing politics. I do not believe that I have steped outside of anarchist praxis. The history of anarchists working on reforms from a "let's build a revolutionary movement" perspective is long and deep. From the Haymarket Martyrs like Albert Parsons and August Spies who championed the 8 hour work day reform as a step towards a cooperative commonwealth. From Emma Goldman's tireless work for birth control that utilized direct action alongside others who worked for reform. Anarchists have led or joined with efforts to win living wage ordinances around the country. Anarchists have worked for prison reform, welfare rights protection. The majority of ananchists I know in San Francisco work to win and defeat local propositions. The majority of anarchists I know in California, work to defeat racist, anti-worker, anti-queer, anti-women ballot initiatives. The majority of anarchists I know are working right now to defeat Gavin Newsom and get Matt Gonzalez in office.

This does not mean that we think electoral politics solves all problems, that we can win through the system, that we do not use direct action or other tactics.
We have a wide range of opinion and one of them is that we are working to build the power of grassroots movement to be able to express their power in a variety of ways and elections is one of those ways. A living wage ordinance was just passed in SF that will redistribute over 109 million dollars a year to tens of thousands of working class people. This did not end capitalism, but it builds the power of working class and oppressed communities to be able to fight for more.

2. I refuse to be intimidated into submission by name calling and accusations that I am a "fake anarchist" or "ouside of anarchist praxis". For far too long the vast majority of us who are doing on the ground work as aanrchists have been attacked, condemned and ridiculed for not being pure (by who's standards). For far too long thousands of activists around the country have decided to not call themselves anarchists, because it seems that other anarchists are constantly trying to prove who is and who is not one of us and it will take time away from the real work they want to be doing. Overhwhelmingly women, queers, people of color, transgendered people, people with children, older people and working class people are deemed outside the bounds of acceptable anarchism, because their lives are far too complex to neatly fit in the box of what it means to be anarchist as defined overwhelming by white men who do not have children, who are in their 20's and 30's, straight and frequently middle class. I am most of those things, but I don't think that my ideas should be the norm/standard of who is or is not an anarchist.

3. Do I really need to quote anarchists from 100 years back to have legitimacy? Alright, let's so that. But let's just be honest. Anarchism in practice is far more complex then anarchism in theory. There's how we want power to be organized and how power is actually organized and we have to negotiate that. Most of us who are anarchists have found inspriration from feminism, queer liberation politics, organizing in communities of color that has taken many forms from anti-colonial national liberation struggles to community organizing. But the fact is anarchism needs to expand, grow and reflect the complexities of reality.

The tenents of anarchism were largely developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Anarchists from Bakunin to Kropotkin to the Haymarket Martyrs all thought that revolution was around the corner. Kropotkin spoke of the inevitable revolution that would be there in 10 years. They were wrong. In the 1920's, the internationally respected anarchist Errico Malatesta, who had been involved in anarchist struggle for decades, reflected back on his work and the movement. In light of this belief that revolution was both inevitable and on the way, Malatesta wrote, "it must be admitted that we have shown very little concern with the ways and means for the achievement of our ideals." He further wrote, speaking about the long-term rejection of electoral work and work for reforms, "While preaching against every kind of government and demanding complete freedom, we must support all struggles for partial freedom, because we are convinced that one learns through struggle, and that once one begins to enjoy a little freedomone ends up by wanting it all. We must always be with the people and when we do not succeed in getting them to demand a lot, we must still seek to get them to want something."

So you see, I stand in the long history of struggle that includes anarchists working for concrete changes with an analysis of movement building and liberation. We can all pick and choose our examples, but the issue for me is not who gets to be an anarchist, it's what are we going to do to further our struggles for liberation and that is what should guide the conversation.

I stand by the ideas expressed in the Open Letter. It is not arguing that a movement will come of electing a Mayor, it is arguing that this election is an opportunity for our movements to grow through the activity of thousands of people all over this city campaigning for worker rights, tenant rights, housing for homeless people and wanting to defeat a corporate canidate. Do I think a mayor will change all that, no. I think our movements make that history and that requires moving on the terrain in front of us with strategy and vision that we set. We cannot rely on the way anarchists have always done it, cuz anarchists have generally failed to make the changes we have set out to make. It's time for us to act from a place of vision and possibility rather then fear of being acceptable to other anarchists. What are we really fighting for?

With love in my heart for the world we build day by day,
chris crass

ps: to Kevin Keating, is this your way of flirting? Are you trying to get me to go out with you and debate politics over beer? Or are you trying to lead up to a mud wrestling match at the next anarchist bookfair?

i've repasted some of what i wrote earlier today but was unable to complete:

i hope gonzalez wins the election.

now that i got that out of the way, let's get real:

this argument among radicals about gonzalez's candidacy--here and elsewhere--has gotten complicated because:

1) on the one hand, many radicals--like myself--argue that the prerogatives of capital set the terms and parameters of what is possible under capital's democratic processes and no matter how radical the candidate may be on paper, once in office, s/he will be not only expected but required to administer the present system. the "radical" politician, having affirmed the system by participating within it, must speak in its language and devise programs that conform to its logic. where the conservative argues that capitalism can not tolerate an end to poverty, the radical electoralist in effect argues the opposite! of course, the radical politician quickly learns that his/her conservative enemies are correct--capitalism can not be reformed--and, having forfeited any capacity to attack capital in a way that's effective, s/he proceeds to shine only in finding new ways of prettyifiying THE SAME OLD SHIT. indeed, here again, the radical politician serves to make the system look participatory and ultimately fair. "look, marge, even the communists are for hacking the social wage to death."

2) the above argument, when directed at Gonzalez's campaign, implicitly accepts--because it need not reject to hold true--that Gonzalez is in fact a sincere radical who's chafing at the bit to oppose the power of capital. but the fact is that Gonzalez isn't even running on a particularly "challenging" platform. from the beginning of his campaign, Gonzalez has taken pains to portray himself as a "FISCAL MODERATE"
and a "REALIST". these are euphemisms for: I'LL PLAY BY CAPITAL'S RULES. this is apparently too subtle for many anarchs and radicals in SF to absorb, let alone critique and oppose, but the ruling rich and all sorts of neo-liberals (like the dreck at the SF Weakly) understand exactly what he's saying and it explains why he's gotten as good press as he has these past several months. while assorted self-ID'd anarchists and radicals flack for Gonzalez, he's viewed as a real charmer (read: no threat) by many who earnestly wish to see capitalism pull out of its present crisis. who better to have preside over budgetary cuts and declining expectations than a guy who sleeps on a futon and throws great art shows and has a cool hair-cut?

if Gonzalez is so fucking splendid--so splendid that anarchists are willing to renounce one of anarchism's central features, anti-electoralism--then why THE FUCK does Joe O'Donahue of the Residential Builders Association support his boho ass? HUH? HUH? HUH?

I think you've asked this elsewhere and no one answered. Looks like no one knows.

If there is evidence that Matt has done favors for Joe, you should post them here. I'd like to see them. If you don't have evidence, then why aren't you looking at how many developers would benefit from FUCKING Newsom?

It's sort of ridiculous, given Newsom's business ties, for you to be focusing on this one guy with Matt, having no evidence yourself.

While the evidence of Joe O'Donahue's support for Gonzales is not certain, I do know that he IS supported by conservative business interests in China Town and by Tony Hall, the MOST rightward leaning member of the Board of Supervisors.

That doesn't mean that Gonzales is a trojan horse for the right--quite frankly I think that's a laughible notion.

Nevertheless, it is a good argument against uncritically supporting electoral politics and Gonzales. However, I say this again, I think Newsom is far worse, and it's enough to get me to vote for Matt Gonzales.

i didn't see Chris's post before i sent my last one, but here are a couple of thoughts:

1) that long list of peoples chris invokes to defend his support for a matt "the fiscal moderate" gonzalez--"women, queers, people of color, transgendered people, people with children, older people and working class"--is sooo tired and feeble. most of humanity fits into that list, and is therefore pointless. hey Chris: have you seen the data on who the Castro District voted for in the largest numbers in the first round? yep--Newsome....

2) note that chris has NOTHING to say about Gonzalez's platform or what he's going to be able to accomplish other than the obligatory "we're not claiming he's going to..." dribble.

3) instead of brainlessly grouping people into camps that they don't identify as being part of, why don't you anarcho electoral-enthusiasts CRITIQUE what it means that Gonzalez has depicted himself as a "fiscal moderate" and "realist" at a time when capitalism is in crisis?

for a revolutionary movement and not platitudes,
aaron

kevin keating,

while your muni transfers activism is appreciated by some, it hardly qualifies for social change. challenging a city-run transportation system isn't only easy, in comparison to privatized transportation in other cities, but it can also hinder the city's ability to fund its other agencies.

your definition of what's "anti-state" is very NARROW. you weren't organizing, because nothing was built from it except a reaction from city gov't. don't go as far as claiming full credit for the city's decision to reinstate the transfers, either.

chris crass,

amen, homeboy. if it wasn't for these anarchists in the many roles you describe, many of us non-anarchists (or at least not identified) who also challenge capitalism would think anarchism has become irrelevent in the movement for liberation.

anarchists and activists and organizers from other -isms and political affiliations who DO NOT recognize the need for variation in their organizing strategies are just as antigonistic towards movement building as they are towards capitalism.

venceremos!

The defensive tone of your response does little to back up your position. Who are these pure anarchists who speak from a position of comfort?

Not sure about you, but I grew up in a poor, blue collar family that subsisted on seasonal work for the cranberry industry and welfare for about half of each year. I am a high school drop-out and have lived on my own since I was a teenager. I have also been an anarchist for about a dozen years, and have incredibly high standards for comrades who's politics I respect.

You can argue the merit of your position on electoral politics all you like, and I have no doubt of your sincerity. However, it is politically insulting to the rest of us who still consider ourselves revolutionaries that believe in the fundemental tenants of anarchism for you to maintain this position and claim it is some innovative new trend in anarchism. It certainly is not, and if electoral politicking is the kind of activity that "most serious anarchists" you know are currently engaged in, well I would certainly question their sincerity and integrity as anarchists.

It is incredibly trendy within post-Seattle activist circles to claim anarchist allegiences, however I tend to believe that many of these so-called anarchists could more accurately be described as liberal reformists with anti-authoritarian leanings. Basically, just because someone calls themselves an anarchist, it does not automatically make it so.

I have to agree with Kevin when he points to the class background and privilege shared by many of these people, as more often than not they have proven themselves entirely incapable of a complete break from bourgeise politics (as is demonstrated by your Open Letter).

Sorry if that comes off as overly harsh or dismissive.

kevin keating,

while your muni transfers activism is appreciated by some, it hardly qualifies for social change. challenging a city-run transportation system isn't only easy, in comparison to privatized transportation in other cities, but it can also hinder the city's ability to fund its other agencies.

your definition of what's "anti-state" is very NARROW. you weren't organizing, because nothing was built from it except a reaction from city gov't. don't go as far as claiming full credit for the city's decision to reinstate the transfers, either.

chris crass,

amen, homeboy. if it wasn't for these anarchists in the many roles you describe, many of us non-anarchists (or at least not identified) who also challenge capitalism would think anarchism has become irrelevent in the movement for liberation.

anarchists and activists and organizers from other -isms and political affiliations who DO NOT recognize the need for variation in their organizing strategies are just as antigonistic towards movement building as they are towards capitalism.

venceremos!

<p>Aaron writes:

<p><i> 2) note that chris has NOTHING to say about Gonzalez's platform or what he's going to be able to accomplish other than the obligatory "we're not claiming he's going to..." dribble.</i>

<p>I have read Gonzales' platform and I happen to support many of his ideas, especially his calls for transit reform and public power (including the idea of using tital energy to generate electricty). Perhaps it would be useful to engage in a discussion if YOU would describe some of the ideas that you DON'T LIKE. As for whether or not MG has a realistic chance of implementing these ideas as mayor is another discussion. I am certain that it won't be easy easily done as said.

<p><i>3) instead of brainlessly grouping people into camps that they don't identify as being part of, why don't you anarcho electoral-enthusiasts CRITIQUE what it means that Gonzalez has depicted himself as a "fiscal moderate" and "realist" at a time when capitalism is in crisis?</i>

<p>Perhaps instead of spouting off a bunch of theoretical Marxist lingo you could perhaps elaborate on your own statement.

<p>In any case, My own critique of MG on this subject is that "fiscal moderate" means:

<ul>

<li>that he won't challenge the fact that downtown businesses are under-taxed; (for example buildings are taxed by footprint and not actual floor area, so that 100 story buildings are not taxed 100 times as much as one story buildings with the same footprint, an obvious incentive to build skyscrapers)</li>

<li>that the city of San Francisco has no manufacturing base of its own (it relies almost exclusively on the financial sector and tourism);<li>

<li>that MG will not challenge the notion of rent slavery (a fiscal radical could create tax incentives, if they had the power, to discourage ownership of more than one dwelling if possible and make the parasitical "business" of absentee landlordism uneconomical, for example); he will merely try and preserve rent control as it is;

</ul>

<p>However, MG does support public power. He does support the idea of a community bank. He does support the idea of local, renewable power generation. These are certainly steps in the right direction.

<p>Newsom is opposed to even these minor reforms.

<p>In any case, here Kevin Keating would e correct to point out that challenging capitalism, indeed, all forms of comodity relations, cannot be done through electoral politics. THAT requires a much greater and deeper movement. And it will take time and organizing. I am all for that. In the meantime, there is no candidate that will bring about an end to capitalism with the wave of a magic wand, so why even raise the issue?


for a revolutionary movement and not platitudes,
aaron

Forgot to mention that I also find it incredibly insulting to see the "real organizer" trump card trying to be played in an attempt to undermine oppsing views in a political debate. As if there weren't hundreds, if not thousands, of anarchists actively organizing in their unions, in their neighborhoods, among tenants, workers and in poor communties who do not fall back on electoral politics! Perhaps this is not the case in the Bay Area, but then again, the world doesn't stop at the Golden Gate Bridge.

2-bee and the other guy:

anarchists and other radicals who are presently flacking for Gonzalez claim that he's "all that" and worthy of their flackery. there's no need to argue--at least not in this forum--that newsome is a piece of shit.

i don't have problem with liberals supporting a liberal like Gonzalez--that's what liberals do. what i have a problem with is self-ID'd revolutionaries and anarchists flacking for G and justifying it in terms of long-term revolutionary strategy.

the thing that's really silly about this is that it's highly debatable whether public support from a bunch of leftist revolutionaries in any way helps G's campaign. sure, a handful of people who would otherwise not vote for G might now do so (whooopeeeeee!) but how many will be less inclined to so because of it?

attacking G as a moderate helps Gonzalez among "prospective voters"--especially in a yuppie haven like SF. attacking the charade of democracy under capitalism strengthens revolutionary politics. put them together, and what do you get: something a quite bit better than this self-important appeal.

"While the evidence of Joe O'Donahue's support for Gonzales is not certain, I do know that he IS supported by conservative business interests in China Town and by Tony Hall, the MOST rightward leaning member of the Board of Supervisors"

So again, if you have evidence that Matt has gone right in support of Tony Hall, or in support of conservative China Town interests, then you should post here. If Tony Hall or conservative businesses support Matt, and you know WHY, then post that evidence here.

If you don't know why they are supporting him, then what's the point in bringing it up?

Do you have NOT A SINGLE friend or associate who is conservative? Is there no one you know who is 'conservative' who might support you if you needed it? If you had to work on a BOARD and there was one highly conservative person on there who identified with you - who knows why, maybe because you both represent the extremes, or maybe because he wrongly assumes you would support him some day - would you tell him to fuck off? Not likely if you have to work with the person every day.

Are you saying that Matt should publically shun Tony Hall and businessmen in Chinatown?

You wrote:

Are you saying that Matt should publically shun Tony Hall and businessmen in Chinatown?

No, not at all. I'm merely pointing out that Matt Gonzales is not perfect and I have no illusions that he is. I was actually arguing that support from conservatives doesn't make Matt Gonzales a conservatve and that said support is NOT enough to make me not want to vote for him.

"challenging a city-run transportation system isn't only easy, in comparison to privatized transportation in other cities, but it can also hinder the city's ability to fund its other agencies."

Part of the point of an action like this is to compel capital's managers to pay for the problems/crisis of their system -- it's not the wage earning classes' system, it's not our crisis.

Class struggle, i.e: for the most part collective actions on an everyday life terrain of the wage-earning class, aren't about "Movement building" with Stalnoids and hand-ringing UTNE reader liberals of the Rebecca Solnit stripe. It means forms of collective, direct action -- where we work, where we live, where we shop; withholding our labor power and other on-the-job actions, rent strikes; mass transit self-reduction stuff like in that doc I posted. Unlike the three-card-monte game of voting, these are forms of action where proletarians tend to constitute ourselves as a community of antagonism to capital, interrupting capital's cycle of value, actions we can learn from and build on, TOTALLY outside of and against the conventional decision-making structures of democratic society.

A small number of people like me in the Bay Area aren't alone in this way of seeing things. There are a number of good groups in Europe; Wildcat and Kolinko in Germany, the AFed in the UK, Osseiu Tempete in Paris, CRAC in Italy, ORAS-Solidarita in the Czech Republic, Ta Padai Tis Gallerias in Greece. Go to the John Gray web site, or 'Antagonism' in the UK and check out what those guys have to say. There are other solid revolutionaries as well in South America and Asia; you'll find them on 'Antagonism.'

The IWW guy's observation that authentic class war (anti) politics hasn't won yet totally misses the point -- all you people who play the systems game are going to lose -- and that's fine with me. (This is giving you a big benefit of the doubt, assuming that your are "sincere" and not just power-hungry bourgies grasping for a government post) I just don't want the parliamentary cretins to be able to function as Judas goats delivering working people to capital; the historical program of social democracy, and the essence of what the left has been all about since the late 19th century.

What's with the "venceremos" jazz, anyway? I'm curious; do you think capitalist Cuba is a revolutionary society? Who conquered in Cuba, anyway, the proles and poor peasants, or Castro's bourgeois regime?

"Movement building" is Stalin-speak for leftist operators creating their own political fife within capitalist society and on capitals' terms...

This coalition isn't about Matt Gonzalez, it's about building power to fight back and win.

We urge you to get involved not because we expect that Gonzalez would solve our problems, rather that a victory by this coalition will help build our power to solve our own problems.

Then why waste all this energy to advocate for this bureaucrat? Oh, wait--I think I already know: It's an opportunity to co-opt as many people as possible for fodder and authenticity/clout for a broader communi--er, I mean "anti-authoritarian" movement. Ha! Just look how many times the word "opportunity" is used in this piece of shit. I like that they're apologizing for their apologism; a nice symmetry. Ugh, and I thought www.punkvoter.com was pathetic; this is a straight-up list of shame. Hey Chris, you're off the soccer team!

My final analysis: The Left has firmly and deeply embraced Doublespeak.

Reformism is the New Radicalism; Resignation is the New Resistance.

From Managers of Revolt to Campaign Managers


Several San Francisco anarchist and assorted radicals – doesn’t that mean going to the root?—have decided to become campaigners for Matt Gonzalez, a politician running for mayor. (See “Open Letter To Progressive/Left/Radical Activists to Help Gonzalez Win and Build Movement” http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1661444_comment.php .) This is perhaps no great surprise in a time when liberal and the left wing of capitalism are somewhat shunned by the Democratic Party and so they have no where else to go but the activist milieu (or a new Party, such as the Greens). The argument is purely tactical. Voting and campaigning is part of a diversity of tactics. (What next, running in the election oneself?) The problem is that no matter how nice and well-meaning Gonzalez is once he is elected we aren’t dealing with a person, but a politician. A politician is a social role with its own logic—the logic of capital. And it is exactly its rationality that is the problem. It would be great if some politician would do the irrational and completely destroy their own position of power—but I’m not holding my breath.

Once in power, politicians have to work with the system and in doing so they have to follow the dictates of the position. As people they may be fine (although I think this is rare) but they act according to their role. Just look at the German Greens. Once in power their politician changed their tune dramatically (was anyone really surprised?). The problem’s not that they had a weak character or they were untrustworthy as people. And this time it will be different; as German Green politicians themselves argued, if they were to be a real political party (i.e. share in the process of apportioning power) then they had to “get serious” and follow the logic of their place of power, of capital. The Green Foreign Minister thus had to argue to an anti-war constituency why they needed to support the war in Afghanistan.

And when a Green was put in charge of running the trains that transported nuclear waste across Germany, she said she had to crack down on the Green and anarchist protestors that were trying to block the trains; it was her role and she had to uphold the law. If she didn’t crack down on “her own movement,” she would either have to lose her position or rip the government apart—and you can’t do that. It would be hard to find two issues more dear to the Green’s original constituency—they grew out of the anti-nuclear and anti-war movement, after all. But that is the logic of the role, and they played their role perfectly. Of course, this was the best way to destroy the movement—give it some share in power and turn it on itself. So much for “building the movement.”

The key when looking at a strategy is to see if it increases our ability to take back our power or not—whether it creates an opening to self-power or just continues or even strengthens power over us. Putting someone in the role of a politician does the later. It does not offer us an opening to taking back our power at all (unless the hope is that Gonzalez will destroy his position once he gets there—but let’s not fool ourselves with that humorous notion, he is a politician and he will do what politicians do: try to get reelected).

Once in power, Gonzalez will surely do a few good deeds for the left wing of capitalism, but he will also make sure that the police crack down on unlawful protest. He will make sure that capital will not leave the city—he will have to be friendly to big business. The list of “compromises” won’t be short. We will be disappointed, and will we try to find someone else, someone who we can trust more? Of course, we have seen this all before and know how this fantasy ends.

Activism is a political game, and here we see it directly taking part in the apportioning of capitalist power, not attempting to take back ones own power in order to destroy capitalism itself.* But that is the role activism seems to take: attempting to affect the policies of politicians through non-electoral acts. So the slide to electoralism isn’t so surprising; it’s the next logical step: from managers of revolt to campaign mangers. The only progress one will get is left wing capitalist progress, and greater legitimacy for the electoral process. “See voting works, you have no right to protest or to direct action. He’s your man.” Legitimacy for law is a blockage to gaining our own power, to acting ourselves to create the world we want to live in. For law is the formalization of the power stolen from us into the state form. It is impossible to break that legitimacy and the political system by playing ones of its roles, by playing within its formal structure. And it must be broken for us to be able to create the world we desire.


* For some articles and debate on activism see the Insurrection, Organization, Activism and Anti-Politics Page at: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/ioaa.html ).

My, what a terribly droll response. Is an English-language translation available?

Why is the example of the German Greens your only sampling of what the Greens have done? US Greens were attacked in Miami along with everyone else last week. We're in the streets of SF. NJ Green Ted Glick got arrested to protest exclusion from the debates and won the rights for all the minor parties to be included in those debates. Other Greens all around the country risk arrest for their causes. Don't presume that the US Greens ARE the German Greens, or must become that.

Even cloned cats are born with different colors.

"The problem is that no matter how nice and well-meaning Gonzalez is once he is elected we aren’t dealing with a person, but a politician"

The fact is, he's already elected. And is that what he is now? A politician and not a person? He hasn't become that so far in his position, not because of being nice or well meaning, but because of being honest and making an effort to be involved in a lot of different ways.

When PG&E calls, Matt turns down the check they offer. Why? Because he's a Green and because he made a conscious decision to become a Green, meaning he can accept no corporate donations. It's one small step. Naturally that's meaningless to you. But will Matt go full circle and make efforts to have activists arrested at PG&E's HQ? It's not his decision, so likely he wouldn't get involved, but activists negotiate with cops, not the mayor. If Matt were stepping in, he'd be overreaching his role as mayor. But since we're using historical evidence, in the recent past, he's acted to help activists in jail, not hurt them.

"The key when looking at a strategy is to see if it increases our ability to take back our power or not"

Power? Interesting . . .

"he will also make sure that the police crack down on unlawful protest. "

Since you have a crystal ball, I can pretty much assume there's no reasoning with you. You already know the future, so how could anyone consider anything different than your version? Apparently Matt's actions already are meaningless to you.

"we have seen this all before and know how this fantasy ends"

How about the anti-capitalist fantasy? How does that end? Explain it to me. Show me your crystal ball. Show me your evidence, your history. Not just your words, and not just the German Greens.

Of course, another question is: even if you wanted to have Newscum lose, if that was your goal and Gonzalez wasn't, then you are going about it all the wrong way. If anything this plea for radicals to work for Gonzalez is probably going to help Newscum more than hurt. Anyone remember Frank's little tussle and lost shoe on Castro? "Anarchists support Gonzalez" is probabaly shooting Gonzalez in the foot. A better tactic--at least more fun--would be to join Newscum's team and fuck it up.

<p>Kevin Keating Wrote:

<p><u>The IWW guy's observation that authentic class war (anti) politics hasn't won yet totally misses the point -- all you people who play the systems game are going to lose -- and that's fine with me. . .</u>

<p>I didn't say that "authentic class war (anti) politics haven't won yet"; I specifically said that <i>none of Kevin Keatings campaigns have yeilded any concrete results</i>. Leaving aside for now the fact that Keating is declaring himself judge and jury on what are "authentic class war (anti) politics" and insulting the millions of tohers who do not 100% agree with him, he isn't addressing my point.

<p>In essence he's saying "my (tactics) haven't yielded any results, but they're ideologically correct, so we should keep using them, and all others will fail just as miserably, because they're ideologically wrong". That sounds pretty sectarian to me, and it isn't very helpful. Keating also cites a number of maximalist tendencies which he likes, but nowhere does he list any concrete achivements that they have made.

<p>Also, Keating doesn't address the fact that what works and what doesn't depends entirely on what the goals are.

<p>I have absolutely no illusions that <i>either</i> candidate for mayor will have any major effect on the nature of capitalist economic relations. I'm sure that Keating would agree that this election will make little (if any) difference in that respect, but I think this is the wrong question (I keep trying to emphasize that point).

<p>Where I think Gonzales <i>will</i> represent a positive difference over Newsom, is the possibility of replacing PG&E with a publicly run utility and reducing San Francisco's use of fossil fuel generated electricty in place of renewables, something Newsom has no desire to address. That is a small issue, and in the long run, it will not and can not address a whole host of fundamental problems, such as the fossil fuel industry as a whole.

<p>But, that doesn't mean that public power is not a desirable alternative to PG&E, and he has offered no evidence whatsoever that electing Matt Gonzales won't or cannot make it easier to achive that goal. Public Power is not by itself revolutionary, but I certainly wouldn't mind cheaper electricty or knowing that it comes from a renewable source. One small step for mankind is better than none.

<p>And, I think Chris Crass is trying to point out that it is OK for revolutionaries to work for small reforms. Just because one favors a reform, doesn't mean they believe that the reform is an end in itself.

<p>Further, as I pointed out in another post (Five reasons to vote AGAINST Gavin Newsom), sometimes it's strategically prudent to vote in opposition to someone else (again that's no guarantee that this will solve all or any problems) . I for one would prefer to pay less rent, and be able to demonstrate in San Francsco without having cops beat me on the head. (I would rather pay no rent at all and abolish cops altogether, and if anyone has a practical plan for achieving this, I would be happy to support it). As Chomsky says, I would prefer to be zapped with the cattle prod a little less frequently, so for that reason I am voting against Newsom.

"Anyone remember Frank's little tussle and lost shoe on Castro"

Since I'm not one of the in-club that knows who you're talking about , I don't remember it. Why don't you explain it?

The previous posted had the key quote: "We urge you to get involved not because we expect that Gonzalez would solve our problems, rather that a victory by this coalition will help build our power to solve our own problems. "

Basically, we urge you to betray your principles to building "our" power. Once you've betrayed your principles, going along with more and similar manuevers will be easy.

The author of that post is Chris Crass, the signers are assorted organizers and crypto-Stalinists (Sharon Martinas, Challenging White Supremacy Workshops - Prairie Fire front group - I'm sure there are plenty of other fronts here).

This campaign isn't even a change from the often-stated goals and tactic of these people. Essentially, they're aiming to get more leverage for their bosses in the charity rackets.

These days virtually anyone can claim to be an anarchist for whatever reasons they choose. Each time a neo-Stalinist like Chris Crass issues another "challenge" to the "anarchist community" to embrace the electoral mud-pit, it can seem "bold", "shocking" and so-forth. Get real. I'm not worried about Chriss Crass because I know he's my enemy. What I'm worried about the somewhat sincere anarchists who are still confused by self-described anarchists taking making these despicable manuevers.

It be nice if this actually got folks aiming for actual resistance to be more coherent in their approach. We'll see about that.

Red Hughs,

http://www.webcom.com/maxang

the last time there was a huge electoral campaign that explicitly involved anarchists was in spain in 1936, when the popular front was trying to regain control of the central government from the center-right coalition that had been ruling for almost two years. the anarch-syndicalist union, which had agressively abstained from the prior national election, decided to tacitly promote the popular front because one of their campaign promises was to free the thousands of anarchist and revolutionary prisoners that were in jail at the time. what sorts of promises did gonzalez and his machine offer to chris and his coalition of the willing? if the answer is "nothing" then some serious introspection is needed. harping on "potentials" and "opportunities" isn't going to help solve anybody's problems. while there might not be such a thing as "pure anarchism" there is certainly a time-tested cluster of principles and definitions of what actions are part of the tradition, and what actions aren't. voting has consistently been an action that does not belong in the anarchist toolbox. the nature of reformism is that each "victory" is only temporary. the ruling class has a long memory--one that stretches across generations; just look at the history of standard oil, anti-trust legislation, the break-up of the monopoly, and the eventual (it took almost a hundred years) realignment of the standard oil companies into one big company again. without agitating to destroy this horrid system to the roots (radical means roots, remember?), activists like crass and the other sincerely misguided volunteers for gonzalez, are only prolonging the misery all of us must suffer. thanks for caring chris, but your words ring hollow. even if gonzalez becomes mayor, he'll have to go up against the democratic party machine that runs city hall, the landlords who run the city council, and the corporate sponsors of all the other politicians. even if he were mouthing radical platitudes--which he is clearly not doing--he'd have to change his tune once in office. that's politics as usual. and when gonzalez loses, how many of those do-gooder volunteer campaigners will be totally disgusted with the entire political process (from electoralism to the phoney grassroots coalition building that you promote under the guise of anarchism)? every lost campaign (electoral or not) means resignation; every "victory" means one more institution that will need to be dismantled in a revolution. opportunism is embarrassing, both for those who promote it and for those who have to witness it.

Sasha K:

Well for one thing, your positions are straight out of "Anarchy Magazine", which in my opinion is a discrediting of anything worthwhile in anarchism (and by the way organization is NOT a repudiation of anarchy or anarchism). I tend to agree with Fred Woodworth as far as "Anarchy" is concerned. They just don't appeal to "the man on the bus" (they certainly make me NOT want to be an anarchist, if their definition of anarchism is the only one available).

Second: OK, I agree that electoral politics are generally a wasteland and not ultimately revolutionary, but what exactly is YOUR proposed reorganization of society? For example, what do you propose to do about the fact that PG&E bilks rate payers out of billions of hard earned dollars? (Just for example). What is your take on Gavin Newsom's position on rent control (he is in favor of abolishing it). How do you propose to deal with the fact that Newsome prefers attracting bib box retailers to San Francisco (resulting in non-union, low wage jobs, traffic congestion, and the sucking of wealth away from San Francisco).

These things are not irrelevant. Perhaps mass insurrection IS a more desirable tactic, but you (and Kevin Keating) seem unable to prove it (saying that it is doesn;t make it so). Of course, the German Greens caved in, but that's a little like saying, "boo hoo! They weren't the revolutionaries they claimed to be!.". I KNOW Gonzales isn't a revolutionary. I have no illusions that he is. My expectations of him as mayor are not particularly high.

I guess it's a little like our use of electricty. Obviously we'd all like it to come from clean, green, renewable sources, but most of it doesn't. Even if we conserve it, we still use it and as such we buy into the usage of fosil fuels. Does that mean we should just not use it? No, in my opinion it doesn't. We should use it AND organize for the renewable energy we want (again, I would argue that if you are anti-electricty, you should not be part of this discussion, because THAT would make you a hypocrite). SOmetimes, using electricty from a bad source with the intention of making it come from a good source is the only means to the end that is available. (undesirable as that option may be).

So please, spare me the theoretical rhetoric and get your hands dirty with some real world examples that are relevant to the debate (city politics). Thank you.

Well, if you read what I wrote you will note that I am not attacking Greens in general--although I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea--but I am showing that problems with the false promise of electoralism. My point was that people, when they take on the role of politician, take on the logic of that role. The problem is structural. But you can ignore that if you want, as you suggest you aren't even anit-capitalist at all, so perhaps it makes sense for you to take part in elections. As I said, that is a fine left wing capitalist position.

But you could look closer to home to see the history of Greens elected to office. Remember what happened when one woman was elected to state wide office from our own place in the world? As soon as she got there she dropped the party and even was one of the first people to attack a certain Congresswoman for voting against giving Bush more war powers after 9.11. She pulled out the patriotism card. That must a hurt after spending all that effort to get her elected, a?

But the real point is, perhaps we have different objectives and we should be clear on that. I'm not surprized a Green isn't anti-capitalist--that is what I would expect. I am a little surprized that someone who claims to be anti-capitalist would think getting someone elected will further their cause.


sasha (earlier): "The key when looking at a strategy is to see if it increases our ability to take back our power or not"

O-town Greens: "Power? Interesting . . ."

Care to comment further on what you find interesting here? Do you not get the idea that anti-capitalism is about taking back our own power stolen from us by the state, capitalism and their institutions? Do you not see how this is pretty impossible, in fact blocked, by an electoral strategy?

I have no crystal ball, but I think it isn't a bad idea to learn a little from history. You could do so looking quite close to home if you like.

Here is the key point: And I would like to hear your answer on this, O-town Greens:::

I don't think it takes a crystal ball to believe that once Gonzalez gets elected mayor he would use to cops to stop us taking back our power, from bringing anarchy to the streets, the work places and elsewhere. Do you really think he will hold them back if there are crowds in the streets smashing the windows of the INS? Do you really think so, or do you actually think taking our own power back to tear down the INS is itself wrong???? I think this is perhaps really where we part company. I hope for CC and the other anarchist signers it is just a difference of tactics and strategy.


sasha

PS: we are all using words here!

"As anarchists, our role is not to play the petty charade of electoralism. It is to build revolutionary power (ie. popular power, in its non-institutionalized form, developed from below) in our communities, in the workplaces, and on the streets in preparation for future confrontations and upheavals aimed at toppling this oppressive system. "

That sounds good in theory, but is it actually happening? I know rich anarchists who work corporate jobs or as independent contractors. I also know anarchists who live in squats but have safety nets in the form of trust funds. There are also many anarchists who work shit jobs without unions and some who manage to find work in co-ops. Some rich anarchists I know hate pacifists and talk about class war and some poor anarchists I know are on the nonviolent side.Some of the anarchists with money (trust funds or high paying jobs) tend to be anti-union in a way that almost seems to reflect class interest more than the anarchist logic they claim is behind their opposition.

What are people actually doing to change things? Organizing at work and fighting for better working conditions is a constructive act. Getting the word out to the general population through protests about government lies can help build opposition to the current status quo. Even fighting things that will hurt the poor in the form of ballot measures or rightwing candidates can have a constructive effect. None of these things will result in a revolution but if they help make people's lives better does that matter?

As for elections, I personally support Gonzales because I dislike Newsom. If I lived in San Francisco I would probably vote for Gonzales. But, I have no illusion that if he is elected he will act much differently from Brown. A Newsom victory will hurt all of us in terms of his support for landlords and will result in many cutbacks in services for the homeless. A Gonzales victory wont mean that we will need to stop fighting city hall, it will just mean that we may be able to stop fighting it on certain issues.

Reformism is attacked by Communists and Anarchists alike but idealism without some pragmistism is no different from religion. I may want Capitalism to collapse but if that doesnt look likely in the short term, that shouldnt stop me from wanting things to either get better or at least not get worse. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense. If you were forced to vote between getting punched in the face or getting killed and it was unlikely you could get out of the situation which option would you chose? Sometimes there is a way out and one doesn't have to chose the lesser of two evils, but local anarchists are not doing anything that I can see that offers an alternative; there isnt a utopian anarchist underground society one can run off to when one's rent goes up or one's wellfare check gets cut due to a Newsom victory.

Sasha K:

Well for one thing, your positions are straight out of "Anarchy Magazine", which in my opinion is a discrediting of anything worthwhile in anarchism (and by the way organization is NOT a repudiation of anarchy or anarchism). I tend to agree with Fred Woodworth as far as "Anarchy" is concerned. They just don't appeal to "the man on the bus" (they certainly make me NOT want to be an anarchist, if their definition of anarchism is the only one available).

Second: OK, I agree that electoral politics are generally a wasteland and not ultimately revolutionary, but what exactly is YOUR proposed reorganization of society? For example, what do you propose to do about the fact that PG&E bilks rate payers out of billions of hard earned dollars? (Just for example). What is your take on Gavin Newsom's position on rent control (he is in favor of abolishing it). How do you propose to deal with the fact that Newsome prefers attracting bib box retailers to San Francisco (resulting in non-union, low wage jobs, traffic congestion, and the sucking of wealth away from San Francisco).

These things are not irrelevant. Perhaps mass insurrection IS a more desirable tactic, but you (and Kevin Keating) seem unable to prove it (saying that it is doesn;t make it so). Of course, the German Greens caved in, but that's a little like saying, "boo hoo! They weren't the revolutionaries they claimed to be!.". I KNOW Gonzales isn't a revolutionary. I have no illusions that he is. My expectations of him as mayor are not particularly high.

I guess it's a little like our use of electricty. Obviously we'd all like it to come from clean, green, renewable sources, but most of it doesn't. Even if we conserve it, we still use it and as such we buy into the usage of fosil fuels. Does that mean we should just not use it? No, in my opinion it doesn't. We should use it AND organize for the renewable energy we want (again, I would argue that if you are anti-electricty, you should not be part of this discussion, because THAT would make you a hypocrite). SOmetimes, using electricty from a bad source with the intention of making it come from a good source is the only means to the end that is available. (undesirable as that option may be).

So please, spare me the theoretical rhetoric and get your hands dirty with some real world examples that are relevant to the debate (city politics). Thank you.

First off: I didnt' get my politics from anarchy magazine. Also, I'm not against organization--where did you get that from??????

I think electoralism is a dead end, and I was pretty clear why in my response to the original letter. But I think the biggest problem isn't that some people think elections are worthwhile to participate in, but the way that the letter suggests that it will somehow build our power. If you are going to slam someone for speaking in abstracts here is a good place to start. How exactly is getting someone elected going to build our power, when it is taking part in the very system that has stolen that power under its own formal terms?

There are plenty of other ways to attack those who dispossess us of the products of our labour and of our lives than taking part in that very process itself. Kevin has made some very good suggestions. But we are creative, aren't we? We can come up with plenty more. People out there without organizational titles are doing this day in and day out, we could learn a little from this history. We need to think clearly, however, about how this struggle comes to be organized and not fall into the easy route of accommodating to the rules of the game.

To me, the key is always asking what builds our power. So if the question is how to oppose corporations such as PGand E, I would say that forms of struggle that build our power while attacking those of the corporations are the ones to choose. Stealing electricity, refusal to pay the bills, proletarian reductions, organized (which doesn't necessarily mean an organization) refusal, etc., all build our power--they all steal back our power that was taken from us in the first place. Voting in Gonzalez does not build our power, although it might build a movement of politicians, of managers of revolt.

I don't care too much whether you vote for him or not; that's your problem. But I will oppose any claim that doing so builds our power to oppose capitalism. I believe that to be false (hopefully only out of bad judgement and not purposely misleading).



Steve says, "So please, spare me the theoretical rhetoric and get your hands dirty with some real world examples that are relevant to the debate (city politics)."

If they only things that are revelvant to this debate are city politics then fine. But there is a lot more to the argument of the original letter than city politics and policies; it argues that elections are a way to build our power (although, to be fair, I'm not sure who the "our" is in their article). That is the point I dispute.

I assume that x334543 is your IWW membership number.

You know, the real IWW, being a product of authentic proletarian antagonism to capital, was always against participation in electoral politics. But the current day, Potemkin-Village version of the IWW is more like a social club for aging hippies, and will clearly tolerate anything.

Tolerance? I can't stand it!

trip says: activists like crass and the other sincerely misguided volunteers for gonzalez, are only prolonging the misery all of us must suffer. thanks for caring chris, but your words ring hollow.

um, speaking of when words ring hollow, let's all thank newscum for how much he "cares" about homeless people. anyone who lives in san francisco and does not vote against newscum, riding his rich boy way to the top on the backs of homeless and poor people in san francisco, and talking out the side of his greasy mouth about how sad it is about homeless people dying on the street.... get the fuck out of san francisco if you can't get over your oh-so-pure ideology enough to be part of keeping this motherfucker out of office.

as far as "our misery" that Chris is prolonging, which "us" are you referring to? are you on GA? did gavin newsom fight to cut your income to $36 a month? if you want to talk about about prolonging misery, let's talk about how pathetic you are if you call yourself a revolutionary and you don't give a shit about working class people in your own goddamn city. the fact is it MATTERS, folks, newscum's boot is fucking heavy on a lot of peoples' necks, and if you're not first in the line of fire you better get your shit together and throw down. you want to talk about class war, decide which side of the line you're on-- taking ten minutes to swallow your mixed feelings or potential nausea and fill out your ballot, or go home and stroke yourself to thoughts of how wonderfully, beautifully, radically more pure you are than everyone around you.
because THAT....

will surely bring about the revolution faster than doing any real organizing.

Once again, I'm a friend to both Kevin and Chris. I appreciate the work that Chris does and I think that Kevin engages in some real activism. Jaded local activists may dismiss Kevin's activism, but I know people that have been inspired by Kevin's creative work that makes anarchist/marxist politics relevant to local politics.

Chris is correct that anarchists have a long tradition of working for reforms, but anarchists have long opposed getting involved in electoral politics. The reason why so many anarchists have psted here about this is that saying that electoralism is compatible with anarchist politics is just plain wrong. This violates basic anarchist ideas about the efficacy of direct action, anti-statism, mutual aid, self-management, and so on. Of course, we are all complex individuals who sometimes engage in activities that are at odds with our politics, but Chris should make it clear that *he* has made a choice to participate in the Gonzalez campaign and that this is not something that is compatible with any kind of anarchism.

Somebody else wrote:

"I don't buy the "voting changes nothing" argument. I think anarchists need to update this long cherished belief."

No, we don't need to change a core, essential element of anarchism. The fact that you don't understand this suggests that you should spend some time reading the Anarchist FAQ. Voting doesn't change anything, which is something that half the population understands with their practice of not voting.

Kevin, your history of the IWW is as inaccurate as your analysis of who composes its membership.

The IWW never once advocated that individual members abstain from participating in local elections; it never even argued that individual members shouldn't RUN in local elections. The IWW Constitution has (since 1908) prohibited the union from making "alliances with any political party or non-political sect". Essentially that means the IWW cannot officially endorse political candidates or donate money to electoral campaigns. Individual members are free to do as they will as long as the Constitution allows it, and since 1908 that has always been the case.

Historically, many IWW members participated in electoral politics (Big Bill Haywood even ran for office on the Socialist Party ticket. So did Eugene Debs). The line in the famous Joe Hill song, "Mr Block" criticizing Block for wanting a socialist mayor (after going through at least several stages of dislluisonment with sacred capitalist cows) also doesn't argue against electoral politics per se, it argues against electoral politics in the absence of economic direct action. Not once is the implication that the two cannot be used in combination with each other or that one necessarily negates the other.

You may or may not agree with that analysis on its merits, but your suggestion that the IWW "was opposed to participation in electoral politics" is wildly inaccurate. But then, I am used to other anarchists getting IWW history wrong (thanks a lot Bob Black). Countless times I have had to debunk the popular myth that there was once an anarchist / socialist split in the IWW or that anarchists were once purged from the IWW's ranks. None of those things ever happened (just as none of the Marxist-Leninist claims of anarchists purging socialists ever happened either).

Keating then says "But the current day, Potemkin-Village version of the IWW is more like a social club for aging hippies, and will clearly tolerate anything."

How the hell do you know Kevin? The IWW has four organized shops in the Bay Area. At least half of the workers in those shops are black and latino, WORKING CLASS industrial workers. The average age of the overall IWW membership is between 20 and 30 years old.

The IWW may have been as you described twnety years ago in the Bay Area when you joined it for opportunistic reasons, as you documneted quite sordidly in an issue of Anarchy Magazine under a pseudonym (I happen to have a copy of that issue and article), but your description of the IWW is sorely out of date, if it was even accurate then (You joined and quit ten years before I did, so I cannot really comment on your analysis based on the attanendence at perhaps two local meetings).

You are free to offer your critique of the IWW and unions in general, but kindly have some basis in facts before you make broad sweeping generalizations or make assertions about things you know nothing about.

I don't go around making generalizations about your like-minded comrades (because I don't really know much about them); kindly pay me the same respect.

Damn, I'm almost getting distracted from the real issues, there's so many people proclaiming "Read a FAQ!" "Read up on Anarchism 101!" "Read these five infoshop.org articles until you really understand what anarchism is about!"

How enlightening... and I was wondering all this time, could someone please give me the lowdown on exactly how to practice anti-authoritarian anti-statist politics? no, I mean can one of you people who has all the answers please send me your ten bullet points on


1. all the RIGHT answers about what is and isn't anarchist political activity (since the world is so black and white, and we live in such simple straightforward times)

2. Exactly why you seem to think that revolution is so closely around the corner that it doesn't matter what our state of living is like for the time until then
and/or
3. why you really, really, sincerely think that damage control action (i.e. keeping Newsom out of office) can't be complementary -- and even, dare I say it, can be mixed with visionary, proactive direct action and grassroots organizing


I'm getting suspicious about a couple of you repeat posters-- with all the time you have to spend on indymedia (especially you out of towners) couldn't you be doing something a little more useful? like throwing together those citywide rent strikes that you refuse to tell us about your strategies for?

Somebody else wrote:

"I don't buy the "voting changes nothing" argument. I think anarchists need to update this long cherished belief."

No, we don't need to change a core, essential element of anarchism. The fact that you don't understand this suggests that you should spend some time reading the Anarchist FAQ. Voting doesn't change anything, which is something that half the population understands with their practice of not voting.

I wrote that, I stand by it, and I still argue that I am an anarchist as mcuh as you or any of the others on this list.

anarchism is opposition to authoritarian power, not democratic process. The problem is that most modern day anarchists have such a shallow understanding of what that means that they adopt really odd positions, such as opposition to voting in ANY form.

The fact is that in some cases voting changes a lot. Suppose I belong to a union and it votes to strike? If I have a choice to vote to strike or not, then voting sure as hell does make a difference; it determines that union's immediate course of action, now doesn't it?

Suppose I live in a city and residents have a choice to vote to adopt a public power system instead of a private monopoly. That sounds like a difference to me.

I think you and I would agree that the FEASIBILITY of achieving desired goals through the electoral process is limited at best, that their are more desirable methods for reaching the goals we seek, and that even if we have the illsuion of a choice through the electoral process, that choice is tainted at best (but sometimes we don't have a feasible alternative). On that point, you would be right.

But don't tell me that "voting changes nothing". That's nonsense. And don't try to convince me that the reason why half the population doesn't participate in electoral politics because they're anarchists or even have beliefs or political views consistent with anarchism. The reason why they don't participate, 9 times out of 10, is because they have no political analysis or they're apathetic and don't care. Granted that the futility of presidential elections is partly what made many of them that way, but don't expect them to come to your next anarchist convergence, becuase for most of them, it ain't gonna happen.

Finally, please don't get into a debate with me about "consensus" process. I consider "consensus" a form of voting (i.e. collective decision making).

ok, I’d prefer to sit on the sidelines here, but having been called out by (gasp) the dread Kevin Keating I guess I should weigh in...although I wonder why he singles out me and Chris when many other people widely known to be anarchists also wrote and/or signed on to the open letter. Still mad about that time I hung up on you, heh Kevin?

Anyway, yeah, I vote, yeah, I identify as an anarchist. I don’t think the one cancels out the other. If I thought voting was the path to revolution, or that what can be accomplished by voting is the ultimate goal, well, that might be contradictory with my anarchist ideals. Voting isn’t a goal and it isn’t the means to reach the world I wish to live in.

When I was doing prison activism, I worked in a group that had dual goals- prison abolition and prisoner support. Some radical purists say that to do prisoner support legitimizes the prison system(it’s a reform thing, after all), and the only true opposition to prisons is to work for abolition, ONLY. Which is an ideologically pure position to take, but totally abandons the people caught in the prison system, basically ignoring their existence and their plight. When we did direct prisoner support, it didn’t extinguish our desire for prison abolition or cancel out the work we did toward that end. I see voting in a similar light; I see it as harm reduction. The anarchist society I want to live in is not around the corner; not even close. Which doesn’t mean I’m not still committed to it or that I don’t continually try to discern what sorts of organizing and activism and daily choices might bring it closer; but although I am as idealistic as all anarchists, I’m not starry eyed. I don’t think it’s particularly ethical to stand by while rich fuckheads like gavin newsom build their wealth and power by scapegoating poor and homeless folks because I believe in an anarchist society as the ultimate goal. I don’t think it is ethical to pretend I have no responsibility, no involvement in the world around me simply because I envision a different, better world. And one of the things that has always appealed to me about anarchist practice has been that we strive to behave ethically. For me, ethics trump abstract theory.

I am not one dimensional. I think the idea that if I vote it cancels out everything else I do and believe in is just stupid. Voting takes about ten minutes; meanwhile in every aspect of my life I am always considering the political ramifications of each choice I make, each step I take. Sheesh. Just because I may have vanilla sex every now and then doesn’t mean I’m not a pervert, too, you know?

This anarcho-elitism, which says that “only people who act and believe what I say is correct” is quite unappealing. Kind of gross, actually. I don’t want to get into the red baiting which seems so popular among the anarcho-purists, but this party line stuff, this rigidity, this fundamentalism, doesn’t fit well with my understanding of anarchism. Which, admittedly, is more based in practice than in theory, so maybe you boys don’t think it’s a valid understanding.

I would never argue that there is anything revolutionary about voting. I also don’t think there is anything revolutionary about NOT voting. Sorry dudes, the revolution will not be a result of your anti-voting sentiment; it’s going to have to come out of some serious organizing and long term struggle.

I wish that anarchists had it together to look at this gonzales thing in a more opportunistic light. There are all these young urban hipsters who’ve been apathetic forever, and now they’re all fired up. What a great opportunity to let them know, “hey, there’s more to changing the world than electoral politics. In fact, there are more options for better world than the ones presented by the electoral arena.” You know, lots of folks who get into these campaigns have never had other possibilities demonstrated. And here we are, bitch slapping each other and trying to get anarchist cred from saying mean things about each other.

Sigh.

Hey Aaron-- you said, “that long list of peoples chris invokes to defend his support for a matt "the fiscal moderate" gonzalez--"women, queers, people of color, transgendered people, people with children, older people and working class"--is sooo tired and feeble. most of humanity fits into that list, and is therefore pointless.”

sorry dude, you are so wrong. The ruling elite in this country are predominantly white, straight, class privileged men. The people who determine the standards and the tone of the anarchist scene are, by and large, straight, white, class privileged men. When that reality changes, then maybe your complaints about acknowledging the rest of us won’t sound so defensive and dinosaurish.

And one other thing, about class. I put a lot of energy into figuring out how my class background influences my politics and my interactions with other activists. I put a lot of energy into challenging the class privileged culture that permeates activist and anarchist scenes. It’s hard to do, and made all the harder when people of my class background are made invisible by assumptions such as kevin’s, that anyone who has different approach than him must be “upper middle class”. Kevin, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and you don’t know anything about my economic background or my current economic reality.

All you anarcho purists really need to relax a little bit.

Love,

Rahula

Sasha Wrote:

First off: I didnt' get my politics from anarchy magazine. Also, I'm not against organization--where did you get that from??????

From your citation of Jason McGuin's arguments against the points raised in the essay, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (I happen to agree with that essay) as one of your postions on anarchism.

I think electoralism is a dead end, and I was pretty clear why in my response to the original letter. But I think the biggest problem isn't that some people think elections are worthwhile to participate in, but the way that the letter suggests that it will somehow build our power. If you are going to slam someone for speaking in abstracts here is a good place to start. How exactly is getting someone elected going to build our power, when it is taking part in the very system that has stolen that power under its own formal terms?

That's a fair question. I happen to agree with you and Kevin Keating that as such, that argument is quite weak. But along with that argument Kevin laced his response with sectarian screeds against voting period and some rather nasty and unwarranted personal attacks on specific activists, and furthermore, he has been challenging my points that have nothing to do with "building power through electoral process".

There are plenty of other ways to attack those who dispossess us of the products of our labour and of our lives than taking part in that very process itself. Kevin has made some very good suggestions.

Such as WHAT? I am quite familiar with Kevin's suggestions. They are generally quite useless if you ask me. Kevin is very strong on analysis of what's wrong with the way things are as well as what is inadequate about most of the movements that cliam to oppose the way things are. I have always thought so and have been willing to give him credit for that, but where Kevin is very weak is proposing a course of action that will build an alternative. He STILL hasn't articulated one as far as I can see. That's OK. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. The solution is to try and combine the best qualities and move forward from there.

To me, the key is always asking what builds our power. So if the question is how to oppose corporations such as PGand E, I would say that forms of struggle that build our power while attacking those of the corporations are the ones to choose. Stealing electricity

Exactly how do you propose we do that, avoid getting caught (if we don't electrocute ourselves in the process), avoid having PG&E find out about it and cut off the squatters, and sustain that for a long term?

refusal to pay the bills

And what happens when PG&E cuts off our electricty?

proletarian reductions

Define these please...

organized (which doesn't necessarily mean an organization) refusal, etc.

Refusal to do what exactly?

all build our power--they all steal back our power that was taken from us in the first place. Voting in Gonzalez does not build our power, although it might build a movement of politicians, of managers of revolt.

It might also give activists a tiny amount more breathing space to organize outside of the system. I'll give you an analogy. Suppose you're trying to make a phone call on your cell phone. Suppose a cop keeps beating you and preventing you from doing it. Suppose you can get the cop to stop doing it long enough to make that phone call (which can lead to the abolition of cops in general, or at leas a significant amount of progress in that direction). Would you shun that option if it didn't immediately result in the abolition of police? I highly doubt it. To me, that's what this election represents. In a way, it DOES build my power as an activist. What it DOESN'T do is solve the core problem, but I don't expect it to do that.

I don't care too much whether you vote for him or not; that's your problem. But I will oppose any claim that doing so builds our power to oppose capitalism. I believe that to be false (hopefully only out of bad judgement and not purposely misleading).

I agree with you almost 99%. Where I disagree with you and Kevin Keating is in your assertion that voting is utterly useless. I assert that it isn't. It isn't going to do much, granted, but for me the effort is relatively painless, so why avoid it?

Well, I think Rahula pretty much said it all... cheers to Rahula, Chris Crass, and all the other anarchists across the country who are not scared of getting their hands dirty-- and by this, I don't mean only voting/ supporting a candidate as a tactical piece of a larger strategy around building grassroots power in SF, power that with principled anarchists in the mix is more likely to stream revolutionary than if all the radicals in this city were too scared of diluting their ideology to risk putting it into (serious) practice.

And I'm sorry, the posters are pretty, Kevin, pretty and well-intentioned and all, but just like posters urging people to key SUVs didn't stop evictions in the mission (direct action organizing was much more useful, but many of the people and organizations doing that were also involved in... GASP... electoral work!! NOOOO!!!!), but as people have mentioned earlier in this thread, did they really bring down City Hall and bring about a new revolutionary society?

Not yet?

So tell me, what does class war really look like?

I think it looks a lot like Gavin Newsom.

So are you ready to fight? Then let's get moving. Because the right wing has a vested interested in lower turnout at the polls-- consistently better results for them. Don't think that it's strengthening class warfare to let them have an easy ride on election day. No rational logic there.

And just curious: I wonder why the boys club of indybay thread heavies have so much more bile and energy (and time?? come on, people) to cuss out other anarchists than to take on the state. Because it's safer? Easier? Tastes great/less filling?

as matt has turned his nose up at the minorities of the city it is hard to see how any educated person could consider voting for him. especially after the statements he made today (trying to cover his tracks) the green party has lied to us AGAIN!

"matt has turned his nose up at the minorities of the city"

You're spending too much time listening to Willie's lies. Go over to Matt's campaign HQ and take a look. Look at his own staff. Look at him! There was a strong counter attack to Willie's attack yesterday, that came from the minority community in the city.

Show me some evidence for that claim in Matt's actions. The ONLY place you'll see it is coming out of Willie's mouth.

it's funny (but not at all surprising) that the anarcho-voters and their supporters consistently set up strawmen to knock over. so by not voting against newsom, everybody is implicated in the increased immiseration of the homeless? will gonzalez really be able to do something better? it's possible, but promoting the electoral option in the explicit absence of any other strategy is called supporting the very system that creates homelessness. so anarchy magazine is a sectarian project, promoting the one true path of anarchism? that's a hoot. so anyone who questions--not just rejects, but merely questions--the wisdom of using the totally corrupt electoral process is a purist? pure to what? the defensiveness and hostility directed at those who dare to disagree with the anarcho-voters is indicative of the shame and embarrassment they know is theirs--not ours. i have to say that kevin's initial alternative (using the energy and organizational skills of the anarcho-voters to organize a rent strike) was the most in keeping with real anarchist principles. and remember, mister wob, direct action gets the goods--not politicians.

" when one woman was elected"

But you don't mention the other women who were elected who did not do that. She is one woman and she did it to the dems as well as the Greens.

"I'm not surprized a Green isn't anti-capitalist"

Oh, so if I'm not using *your* tactics, I'm defined as capitalist?

"in fact blocked, by an electoral strategy?"

No, I don't see how spending ten minutes voting blocks anti-capitalistm.

"once Gonzalez gets elected mayor he would use to cops to stop us taking back our power"

Yeah, the guy went to fucking law school, he has respect for the law. No one said he himself was a revolutionary. And the fact is, the state and feds would quickly move in to take over if people tried it in SF.

"if there are crowds in the streets smashing the windows of the INS?"

As mayor, he won't be ordering cops to do things when they're happening on the ground. He'll be dealing with city policy. If the INS building gets trashed by crowds in the streets, Matt won't really be able to stop it, and the cops will be making deicisions on things as they happen. Matt could influence how it plays out afterwards.

I'm all for destroying the INS building. Burn it to the ground. Sure, the average elected official isn't going to hold the police back on his own, or order them to break the law. Probably he'd end up in jail or murdered if he tried it. He's been jailed before, but not for violent acts in the street. For contempt of court, for what he believed in.

I'm glad to see all this variety of voices on here, and to finally see a real response to the idea that voting somehow extinguishes everything else, or is pointless.

Some of the most amazing experiences I've ever had have been with David Solnit doing direct democratic processes with spontaneous groups in the streets doing direct action to decide what our next move would be. He wasn't a leader, but a mediator, others stood up and became the loudest voices, and everyone had a say, got to speak. It wasn't electoral, but it was direct democracy, and spontaneous.Spokescouncils also. These are really amazing processes, and they take organization and small amount of leadership. Someone needs to take responsibility. In those cases the figurehead is 'dasw,' in this case it's Matt. The difference is that with the spokes, people know that they need to participate to make it happen. With the city, everyone stays at home while the elected officials do the work - that's the problem. If you want to make a difference you need to show up and do the work. You need to go to the city council. You need to meet with groups, attend meetings, make phone calls, etc. etc. Otherwise, it's us who hand our power over.

So I agree with the person who pointed out how exciting this is for all the people who have never been involved before. Imagine if they *did* get involved . . ..

Does one engage in political activity to make a difference or to not feel guilty? Not contributing to capitalism as an individual won't change things but it may make you feel less responsible for what is going on.

All change is gradual in nature. Revolutionary movements that have overthrown governments all grew from some form of mass social movement. If you start off too fundamentalist and never get mass appeal it doesnt matter what your views on revolution are since you will never get enough people to achieve a revolution. At the current stage we are at in the US accusing someone of "not being revoluionary enough" is like accusing a Christain of not fully believing in the rapture (assuming neither happen in the immediate future, what does it matter).

Voting for someone like Matt won't build a revolutionary movement, but discouraging people from voting for Matt may alienate people who were starting to become radicalized (as well as people who will be directly effected by a Newsom victory).

I keep hearing people on this site talk about how "we are at war". What does that mean? To some it means that we need to be be paranoid and not trust anyone in the movement and act in ways that prevent the movement from growing. To others it means that we need to sacrifice certain ideals for longer terms goals. To others it means fetishizing books about war, generals, lack of respect for human life and a strange form of radical machismo. Like it or not, we are not at war. There is no revolutionary underground that is threatening any aspect of the US war machine. There are large groups organizing open protests that may help threaten public opinion that backs the war, but that type of organizing is done in the open without all of the paranoia of security culture. The small groups that engage in property damage cost insurance companies a few bucks and make protests more fun for youth, but pose little threat to the system.

But, you may respond, we are engaged in class war. Again, do you see a threat to capitalism comming from any existing groups in the US. A large percentage of those who talk about class war are young people from wealthy backgrounds who will at later points in their lives be managers and even perhaps CEOs. The mass of poor people in the US are pretty conservative and many dislike radicals more than the rich. I guess if "class war" means the daily struggle to survive just about everyone is engaged in class war, but Im not sure where that gets us.

A lot of radical groups have started to question why there is not mass appeal for radical ideas. Certain "mainstream groups" are chosen to be representative of the oppressed masses and often the fetishization of certain groups (minorties, industrial workers, the military etc..) both alienates members and nonmembers of the focused on group (members see it as patronizing and nonmembers feel left out).

Attacking activist culture can also be alienating to existing activists. If one keeps focusing on nonradicals and keeps criticizing radicals, who will want to stay part of the "movement". This thread alone shows why people might stop being an activist; its not a very friendly community and everyone is quick to turn on former friends and stab them in the back to make political points. There is almost a sense that the activist community doesnt matter since we are fighting for an abstract oppressed population that doesnt include us.

To build a revolutionary movement that grows while keeping members requires achieving tangible results that benefit both the "mainstream" population and activists alike. A local campaign against Newsom may help build a movement since a Newsom victory will be devistating for many people in San Francisco. There are many other struggles in the city that are just as important but unity and a making activism a more positive experience will be necessary to achieve anything. Constructive criticism is needed since many organizations and movements make mistakes and have serious structral issues, but personal attacks, paranoia and all this talk about people "not being real anarchists" and "not being real revolutionaries" is silly.

Trip Writes:

so by not voting against newsom, everybody is implicated in the increased immiseration of the homeless?

I never actually said that, but to an extent, yes, they are. We know for certain that Newsom will try to push his policies (which are similar to Frank Joprdan's, Willie Brown's, and Rudolph Giuliani's) which are MORE repressive than Gonzales'. If you have the power to do something, anything, that can make conditions better (or worse) for yourself and others, you are responsible for your choice. Choosing not to decide is still a choice.

will gonzalez really be able to do something better?

I don't know, but I am certain he could hardly be WORSE than Brown or Newsom. Perhaps he won't be any different, but why does my voting for Gonzales (which takes 15 minutes, one day in 2003) prevent me from working on homeless issues the rest of my life, using direct action or other means? None of the anti-voting crowd has ever been able to answer that question.

it's possible, but promoting the electoral option in the explicit absence of any other strategy is called supporting the very system that creates homelessness.

I agree. But none of those who have agreed to vote for Gonzales have indicated that voting is the only thing they plan to do to address the issue.

so anarchy magazine is a sectarian project, promoting the one true path of anarchism? that's a hoot.

No it isn't. I have been disgusted with Anarchy Magazine from the first time I picked it up. It's another rag by white middle class college drop outs which is sectarian, anti-civilization, anti-technology, publishes essays by John Zerzan, Hakim Bey, and Bob Black (three intellectual masturbators who will NEVER appeal to "the man on the bus" as far as I am concerned) who have called for the "abolition of time", defense of child molestation, and "post left anarchism" (as if anarchism can somehow exist outside of a context with everything else). Shit, Bob Black is a confirmed snitch! Anarchy Magazine is a worthless bird cage liner, in my opinion. Most of the true believers in Anarchy Magazine that I have met are sectarian jerks, their version of anarchy is an extremely sectarian cult of personality that strikes me as more akin to the Manson family than anything I would ever want to be a part of.

so anyone who questions--not just rejects, but merely questions--the wisdom of using the totally corrupt electoral process is a purist?

I never said that. I question the electoral process myself. Questioning is not what you, Keating, and Sasha K are doing, however. Y'all are rejecting without a thorough analysis of why local electoral politics don't work. Keating is so desperate for an argument that he is resorting to personal attacks (he has no PROOF that Chris or Rahula want to be Stalinist bureaucrats or work out of city hall; he just assumes this is the case).

Meanwhile y'all keep citing anarchist history (Spain in 1936, for example--but Spain was a nation-state, not a city, and it was a revolutionary cituation; San Francisco isn't), quoting specific anarchists (usually with no situational or historical context), misrepresenting Wobbly history (I suggest you all stop, because I know it much better than all of you), and proposing tactics (such as "stealing electricty", BART and MUNI fare evasion, and rent strikes--things that may be useful, but thus far have not been organized or successful). But NONE OF THAT provides any conclusive argument AGAINST voting in a local, municipal election!

pure to what? the defensiveness and hostility directed at those who dare to disagree with the anarcho-voters is indicative of the shame and embarrassment they know is theirs--not ours.

I don't see it that way, Trip. If anything, the hostility has come from the anti-voting crowd (Keating engaged in personal attacks and spouted a bunch of inaccuracies about the IWW, for example). The issue for me is not that any of you disagreed with the "anarcho-voters" (As I keep saying, I also have some criticisms of their stance); it's that you disagreed, BUT OFFERED NO LOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THEIR STANCE other than ideological positions.

WHY is voting in this election a strategic blunder? WHAT alternative form of action is there that can be done by December 9th that requires the energy of those working on the campaign? HOW does working on the Matt Gonzales campaign prevent all of those supporting him from organizing a rent strike simultaneously or after the election? NOT ONCE have ANY of the anti-voters answered those questions. If you can show me where they have, I'll admit that I am wrong.

i have to say that kevin's initial alternative (using the energy and organizational skills of the anarcho-voters to organize a rent strike) was the most in keeping with real anarchist principles.

I agree, but have you ever tried to organize a rent strike? Do you have any idea how much work such an endeavor requires? Do you honestly believe (especially under the conditions in which we live now) that you can organize one by December 9th?

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone else from doing so, but I get a little sick and tired of the armchair quarterbacking going on. How come Kevin Keating cannot convince anyone else to organize a rent strike? Why hasn't he said anything about ths until now? If he's called for a rent strike before, how come I haven't heard about it? It's all well and good to propose alternate strategies, but unless you're willing to make them happen, it's nothing more than postuering.

To his credit, Keating does the work of analyzing and critiquing the system and the "official leftist" responses to the system, but he seems utterly incapable of doing more than that. A fellow Wob once explained to me that the world would be perfect if everyone agreed with him and did exactly what he told them to do (he wasn't proposing that he be a benevolent dictator, but he was pointing out that a benevolent dictatorship would be efficient, IF everyone else consented to it). Keating seems to have similar expectations. He keeps leading the horse to the water and expecting that horse to drink. History ought to tell him tat this doesn't work, and yet he keeps trying. Revolution takes more than propaganda. Long time anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, and Malatesta all came to that conclusion in their later years.

and remember, mister wob, direct action gets the goods--not politicians.

You know, I get a little insulted when people use slogans, especially Wobbly slogans to try and make an argument. "Direct Action Get's the Goods" is nothing more than a slogan. History tells me that "direct action when stragically appropriate, and well planned, gets the goods". Sometimes, direct action can just get you killed.

If you actually read any of the thorough, well thought out publications by famous Wobblies (like Ralph Chaplin on the General Strike, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn on Sabotage, or Vincent Saint John on the IWW structure), you'd see that each of them encouraged careful organization and strategic application of direct action. Real direct action is more than a slogan on a bumper sticker or graffiti on a wall.

Again, I am not suggesting that anyone NOT use direct action; what I AM suggesting is that instead of barking about it, why not ORGANIZE it? And for that matter, how the hell do you know what I do with MY time? I'm not working on the campaign. I'm busy with IWW organizing. I just happened to have a little spare time to defend what I consider to be personal attacks on friends of mine. Meanwhile, the election will be over on December 9, 2003.

So, tell me how you are going to organize this rent strike. What do we do first? How do we reach enough residents to make it worthwhile? Which landlords do we target? How do we defend ourselves against the inevitable charges of terrorism? How do we withstand the SLAPP suit by the landlords? How do we get the majority of the tenents in this city (most of whom are black, asian, and latino) to risk being evicted or jailed (people of color have a much greater risk of this than white radicals) especially if they have children? ANd how are we going to do this all before December 9, 2003? Again, I'm not trying to dissuade you; I'm merely trying to point out that talk is cheap.

'Nuff Said.

i don't have time to get into this argument right now, but i do want to point out that rahula janowski is not from a middle class background, never mind upper middle class. but i guess if she acts in ways you don't like, you'll just go ahead and throw whatever label you want at her.

i'm not working on the gonzales campaign, but i respect the people who are. i assume most of the above signers to the letter know that he's not going to be able to make fundamental changes in the system. however, he's certainly going to be a lot better for SF than newscum, and his being mayor may make a practical difference in people's lives, particularly people living close to or on the edge in SF.

Rahula says, among other things, this:

" For me, ethics trump abstract (sic) theory."

Here Rahula unwittingly gets at the core of the cognitive problem for the anarcho-democrats -- they are into a moral trip. A revolutionaries' only concern regarding morality is a clinical one; where did this rubbish come from, and whose interests does it serve? (Check out Marx's writings from the 1840's, and throw in a little Nietzsche, while you are at it.)

For the intellectually challenged anarcho-democrats, any attempt to grapple with the world that demands rigorous critical thought is "abstract." Take it one step further, as they do; for these guys, all "theory" is abstract. Their brand of fake anarchism is a sterile dogma, not a living breathing response to life under capitalism. That's why the mantra of Rahula and Chris Crass, etc. (and I think Chris C. is really more into Maoism-lite, if you read the stuff he writes) is always a variation on the following sad-assed theme:

"I have my nice, warm and fuzzy dogma, but, since it isn't relevant to anything real, I'm a functional democrat. I believe in illusions about the character of my own powerlessness under capitalism that most a-political working people in the US shed a long time ago." (See the article about mass abstention from the voting hustle in SF's Bayview District in this past Weds. SF Chronicle.)

"I have no clue as to what capitalism is, either, other than a laundry list of its moral failings. I am a sanctimonious, sentimental, protest-ghetto chump. Please kick me."

And now for the voter guy from the IWW. In 1993, when we were doing the 'Refuse to Pay' campaign against a planned MUNI fare hike here in SF, we had a core group of three people getting it together -- this at a time when the Potemkin-Village version of the IWW had a Bay-Area-wide membership of about 270 people. I was given that membership estimate by a wob friend back then.

This means your wax-museum version of the long-gone IWW outnumbered our little group of left communist/Situationist/class war anarchist inspired extremists by almost 100 to 1. 100 to 1, dude! Which of us was engaged in a real mass effort with the contemporary wage-earning class in the US today?

Our actions then haven't been the only sort of anti-voting, direct action stuff I've done; I organized rent strikes in Berkeley more than twenty years ago when I was barely out of my teens, and there are other things that have happened along the way as well -- none of it involving even a conditional reliance on voting, on a three-card monte game organized by the capitalist state to validate its own existence. If I'm not doing more of this kind of thing now, its because the political landscape is littered with the voter-registration crowd and self-absorbed protest ghetto scenesters. Unfortunately there are many fake anarchists in this part of the world -- there are almost no revolutionaries.

All you can come up with, IWW guy, other that following your Green vanguard into the voting booth, is a few unionization campaigns in a handful of marginal hippie enterprises on the outmost fringes of the economy.

Which kind of action has the long-range potential to contribute to the dispossesion of the capitalist class and the destruction of their system of exploitation -- direct action on a large-scale around real, material needs, outside of and completely antagonistic to the conventional decision-making structures of capitalist society? Or little itty-bitty unionzation drives, and protest ghetto scenesters pledging alliegance to one of the leading empty gestures of life under democratic capitalism?

As far as Rahula's hanging up on me in some phone conversation years and years ago, in a dispute over a gathering of her fellow servile protest-ghetto types in Oakland on 9/11/01, this was simple proof that you lack the acumen to defend your dippy-liberal perspective, your ice-cream-and-cookies brand of "anarchism" the way any thinking person can, with an articulate use of language. Your inability to hold up your end of an intelligent conversation is your loss, not mine.

Rahula said this in response to my criticism of Chris' invoking his "oppressed list" to justify supporting matt "fiscal realist" gonzalez:

<<The ruling elite in this country are predominantly white, straight, class privileged men. The people who determine the standards and the tone of the anarchist scene are, by and large, straight, white, class privileged men.>>

look, i wasn't talking about the "anarchist scene"--i don't closely identify with it--and i don't dispute that the ruling elite are white. my point is that chris' list of the righteous oppressed is silly and basically a demogogic attempt to dismiss those who think revolutionaries shouldn't concertedly press for the election of G as insensitivie bigots.
!!!!!!!!

i still maintain that public support for G from leftist revolutionaries doesn't even help him. and that's the ostensible reason for this appeal, correct? at election time, revolutionaries should be putting forward a critique of the democratic charade, emphasizing who is served by the appearance of participation elections bestow on life under capitalism--not flacking for some "fiscal realist" with a trendy hair-cut.
!!!!!!!!!!

when Bush is squaring off against some Democratic Party bozo a year from now am i to expect a public appeal from our local anarchists to vote for the Dems? i mean--Bush is pretty damn scary, right? a lot worse than Newsome, right?

i'd hate to see our local anarcho-electoralists being
inconsistent!

start drafting the letter!

i know people are in a bad mood, being stuck at home online with no place to go for Thanksgiving but divisive posts stay around for awhile so its best to think before you type. Drinking and posting can be just as dangerous as drinking and driving.

Laced among Kevin's gratuitous personal attacks and insults is an assetion that he and three of his friends engaged in a grand revolutionary insurrection against MUNI fares ten years ago, while the IWW with a membership of 270 locally did "nothing".

That's an intersting claim, considering that all of Kevin's efforts did nothing--ZERO--to roll back or even prevent a MUNI fare increase. Kevin keeps claiming that he engages in all of this revolutionary activity, but what he cannot show is any RESULTS.

I know precisely what sort of activity Kevin engages in. I even helped him do it once (in response to a BART fare increase proposed in 1996, Kevin, his friends, and others, including myself distributed leaflets decrying BART for its greed, how the fare increase would be an attack on workers, and encouraging riders to "evade" paying their fares). The results of these efforts were a big fat zero. BART fares have been increased thrice since then. I should point out that I was then (as I am now) a dues paying Wobbly. His attacks on the IWW as being a bunch of "do nothings" is not only insulting, it's pure fiction.

Let's look at another historical event, shall we? Does anyone here remember the Neptune Jade picket in October 1997? Does anyone remember how a rag-tag group of workers picketted a ship that had been loaded by scab workers in Liverpool? Does anyone remember that this picket was sustained for four days, that the ILWU refused to cross the picket line, and that the Neptune Jade never unloaded its cargo? Does anyone remember how, after that it went to Seattle, then to Vancouver, then to Japan, and then to Singapore and NOBODY would unload it, because of the inspiration created by the workers action in Oakland?

If anyone doesn't remember this, I suggest you visit this IWW site: www.iww.org/iu510/jade/

Anyway, whom do you think made that picket happen Kevin? Answer: dues paying IWW members (including picket captain Robert Irminger). Whom do you think it was that called from the pilot boat to warn us that the Neptune Jade was coming in 12 hours early? Answer: another dues paying Wobbly. Whom do you think he called? Answer: me. Whom do you think called the picketters that showed up 6 AM the next day? Answer: Me again. Whom do you think I called? You guessed it, dues paying Wobblies.

Where was Kevin during all of this? Did he lift so much as a FINGER to aid in this insurrectionary act? If he did, I sure don't remember it, and if my memory is faulty, then I apologize, but to my knowledge he did ZERO.

Remember the Kaiser Steelworkers Strike? Remember the action at the Tacoma Pier? THAT was ALSO organized by Wobblies (the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Envriornment (for all of their faults) was borne out of that struggle. But I was the one who suggested that the IWW in Tacoma conduct a Neptune Jade style picket.

What did Kevin do for this?

Fast-forward to Seattle in 1999. Does anyone here realize that the reason why so many members of the mainstream media were present is NOT because the black block smashed a few windows, but instead because the labor movement bureaucrats were their en masse? Does anyone here realize that despite their inert presence, they were there because the ILWU had threatened one of their famous coastwide port shutdowns (which in reality was nothing more than a scheduled stop-work meeting--which is allowed in the ILWU contract--with a militant spin, but is still useful nonetheless) and the AFL-CIO wanted to coopt any radical action that their subordinate unions might take? Does anyone recall that the transit workers and city workers in Seattle were negotiating new contracts that year and they were set to expire when the WTO meetings took place? Does anyone realize that the USWA were still striking against Kaiser at the time? Does anyone relize that Wobblies (and other militants) were trying to organize a general strike out of all that?

Oh sure, the black block and the (now disintigrated) Direct Action Network can pat themselves on the back all they want., and to be fair they do deserve credit for pusghing for direct actions WHILE the WTO meetings were happening. But said direct action would never have been covered or reached the attention of mainstream audiences that they did if it weren't for the fact that the media was there en masse and happened to be in the right place at thr right time. And I GUARANTEE you that they would not have been there if the AFL-CIO hadn't been there. I GUARANTEE you that they would not have been there in force if they weren't trying to coopt their rank and file.

Now I certainly don't take all or even much credit for all of these things. I had absolutely no idea that ANY of this would unfold the way that it did. Luck and circumstances had as much to do with the way things panned out as my organizational input did, but for Kevin Keating to sit back and attack me and the IWW from the safety of his keyboard is just ludicrous. But be that as it may, my efforts, and those of other "potemkin Village IWWs", whether intended or not, helped set the conditions that made Seattle in 1999 possible. My self criticism is that we obviously didn't go far enough, but then I haven't a crystal ball or a road map to utopia anymore than Kevin does.

In reality Kevin, you really haven't got a clue. Don't go spouting off about things you know nothing or little about. It really pisses me off.

The IWW may not have much to show for all of its efforts (good and/or bad), but little is better than zero.

Do all IWW members share my dedication (or good luck for that matter), absolutely not. Do all IWW members who pay dues put a significant amount of energy (or any energy) into the IWW or workers organizing? No. I often try and push my fellow dues paying IWW members to do more. Sometimes I feel that I don't do enough. I admit that sometimes I make mistakes that I later realize are strategic blunders, but DON'T YOU DARE PRESUME TO TELL ME THAT WHAT I DO IS USELESS because YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT IT KEVIN.

You can spout iff about all of the rent strikes you have organized and all of the revolutionary leaflets you have published. You can even forget about the ones I have gladly helped you distribute, but the fact is that despite all of your good intentions, all you have to show for it is a big fat zero. That doesn't mean that your analysis is wrong, or that your critique of voting is incorrect, but what it does tell me is that NOBODY here has a particularly glorious track record at bringing about revolutionary change.

Unlike Kevin, however, I let my historical contributions speak for themselves, and I don't engage in gratuitous personal attacks on fellow activists. Kevin can call them "critiques" if he likes, but I see no analysis whatsoever in calling the IWW a "Potempkin Village" or Chris and Rahula "Anarcho-Democrats" (as if being a democrat and and an anarchist are somehow incompatible!). All I see is whining about not being in the "in crowd".

Lest Kevin think that I am in favor of "in crowds" I suggest he think again. I could write a paragraph or twelve about a good number of these "anarcho-democrats" were dues paying IWW members at one time or another and no longer are. I could complian about how I'd rather see them continue to be IWW members and organize workers, but you don't see me doing it. Why? Because whether I like them or not, I respect the choices they have made, and they're not doing anything to stand in my way in the work I do for the IWW. They don't try to tear me down or insult me, and if they offer critiques of the IWW, they usually have a cogent analysis to back them up, rather than nasty insults. Kevin shows no similar respect to anyone, and it makes it very easy for me to see why he has never organized a rent strike with any lasting significance. The answeris that few want to work with him, because he is so alienating to work with.

SO THERE! :-)

Here's what I think about why unions are no longer defensive organization of the wage-earning class, from "Love and Treason," on the Mid-Atlantic Anarchist infoshop, at:

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love1.html

"...The class struggle is the key liberatory force of our time. Class struggle isn’t only our fight as wage-workers against our employers. The class war includes all the individual and collective struggles of exploited and propertyless people all over the world against all aspects of our exploitation and impoverishment...Class warfare involves fights for less work, for more pay, for less oppressive living and working conditions -- and the fight for our power outside of and against capitalist social relations.

Trade unions are capitalist labor brokerages. They exist to negotiate the sale of their members’ labor power to employers, to keep working people in line, and limit the scale of our actions against employers. Unions divert the discontent of union members into harmless channels, transforming wage workers’ struggles into a form of interest group activity. They help us to remain passive spectators in the events that most affect our lives.

At their best, unions were once defensive organizations, attempting to obtain the highest possible price for the labor power of union members. From the 1930’s onward in the US, a vast array of labor legislation helped transform the unions into mechanisms of social control. Unions have ideologically and politically integrated unionized workers into the capitalist system, selling them the bosses’ agenda during times of peace and war. And in more recent years, as their strength and membership numbers have declined, unions in the US have openly advertised themselves as partners of management, protecting the profit requirements of capitalists against the needs of wage earners.

Unions often help employers reduce working people’s living standards through give-back contracts. Unions undercut wage earners’ power in labor disputes. Unions prevent strikes from happening, they prevent strikes from spreading, and prevent strikers from using the hardball tactics that are necessary to make employers cave in to our demands. Unions often use goon squads to keep strikers in line and halt actions that can break the back of a struck company. And when strikers who have been defeated by union maneuvers return to work under worse conditions than they endured before the strike, unions and their leftist camp followers frequently describe their defeat as a "victory."

From the worthless perspective of unions and leftists, anything short of everybody being fired and jailed is a victory, as long as the union apparatus remains in business. Economists, politicians, union officials and most intelligent business leaders all recognize the inherently conservative and capitalistic function of unions. Union bureaucrats occasionally use combative jargon, but this has no bearing on the unions’ real function as labor brokerages for capital. Democratic societies create a marvelous variety of false oppositions to help maintain the status quo, and unions have played their role well in these terms.

Anarcho-syndicalism proved to be a dead-end in France in 1914, in the Mexican Revolution, in Italy in 1920, and, in history’s greatest missed opportunity, at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Unions with an ostensibly revolutionary ideology and a heroic past, like the contemporary IWW, are the empty organizational shell of a long-gone social movement. Today they are impoverished versions of mainstream unions, and their militants often do grunt-work for the bigger labor brokerages. The content of supposedly revolutionary union activity is no more revolutionary than that of any other form of union activity. History proves that syndicalism cannot break with a world defined by wage labor. This has also been the case with new unions in places like Poland, the former USSR, Mexico and the Philippines.

Social struggles often give rise to anti-hierarchical, collective forms of action and organization, like strike committees outside of and against the control of the unions, or mass public assemblies: these can be forms of real working class power. But any permanent formal organization of the working class outside of a context of mass action will end up becoming part of the bosses’ political apparatus, and get in the way of our fight for a better life.

In taking action in the workplace, and in extending actions beyond the workplace, wage workers have to fight outside of and against all unions and unionist ideologies. Our only way forward will be to create new forms of wildcat action and self-organization that won’t be limited to a single job category or industry, or limited to the workplace itself. We will have to do an end-run around the unions and the anti-working class labor laws they serve. This perspective has to become present in even the most limited and immediate struggles. It has to include strategies for large-scale action against employers and governments across regional and national boundaries..."


People in the contemporary version of the IWW will give lip-service to perspectives like this, but they are incapable of offering a strategy for turning their subjective discontent into a materail force in the world.

The IWW is the most comically inept leftist group in the US. When a new member joins some Leninoid sects, the Trots or the Maoists, they will be drawn into a more or less coherent (counter-revolutionary) world-view, and the leftist outfit will get the new member to act in a more or less organized manner with the other members to disseminate the group or parties' ideology.

When you join the IWW, nothing is really asked of you, other than that you pay dues and play along with the charade that the IWW is really a union, instead of an incoherent hodgepodge of vague leftist organization, a union in a tiny number of workplaces, a source of free labor for enemies of the working class like the AFL-CIO unions during strikes, and a social club for leftists.

Most people join the IWW for the same reason I did when I was 21 -- for nostalgia. That's all. Get real. Membership inthe IWW is predicated on having no analysis of what the real IWW was all about, or the reasons why we can't do the same thing in the same way today, 75 years after its heyday. The IWW cannot trranscent its historical baggage. It doesn't go anywhere, and that's not because there aren't some capable individuals involved in it, but because the real IWW was a product of a completely different period of capitalism, a different type of capitalism that produced a completely different composition of the working class. Forms of organization are for the most part only good in their own time, and outfits that celebrate the limits of past struggles as the best thing we can do now can only hobble the emergence of a new type of action and organization that's relevant to today.

I know I'm moving a bit far afield from the issue of anarcho-democretinism, but none of these things exist in a vacuum...your turn, democrats.

O-town, If you want to have a discussion, then try and read what people write before responding to them.

sasha (earlier): "I'm not surprized a Green isn't anti-capitalist"

O-town: Oh, so if I'm not using *your* tactics, I'm defined as capitalist?

sasha (now): I never said you were a capitalist. Try to learn to read people's posts more carefully, it will help us to not waste so much time. I responded to your comment that anti-capitalism was a fantasy by saying that I wasn't surprized that a Green wasn't anti-capitalist. Now where was the logic off there?

sasha (earlier): "in fact blocked, by an electoral strategy?"

o-town: No, I don't see how spending ten minutes voting blocks anti-capitalistm.

sasha (now): Again, read what I said and try to respond to that. I am not saying I care if you vote or not. What I think is a mistake is to CAMPAIGN for someone and claim that such a campaign builds our power. I was very specific on that. But you and most others here don't seem to notice that. Go ahead and vote--I don't care if you do or not. But if one claims that campaigning for a politician is going to build our power or movement then I beg to differ. I also don't care (contra what Rahula and others here seem to think is the core issue) whether you call yourself an anarchist while you go to vote. I don't have any way to stop you from calling yourself an anarchist, nor does it matter to me very much.

The key issue is what campaigning will or won't do to build our power. As I said before, perhaps we have a different deffinition of "movement" or "our" here. THat is quite likely.


o-town: "I'm glad to see all this variety of voices on here, and to finally see a real response to the idea that voting somehow extinguishes everything else, or is pointless."

sasha: Again, I never said voting extinguishes everything else. I do think that campaigning to get people to vote is a block to building our power. Try to respond to the points people are actually trying to make; this will make the conversation and our mutual understanding more smooth.






For some articles and debate on activism see the Insurrection, Organization, Activism and Anti-Politics Page at: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/ioaa.html ).

------------------------

I second Aaron's question: Should we expect a public appeal to vote for Howard Dean or whoever from the anarchist crowd this time next year?

If not, why not? The logic that says we must vote against Newsome because he's so terrible could easily be applied to the next presidential election. Bush is way more powerful and horrid than Newsome will ever be.

An answer would be appreciated.

I guess no matter how many REAL WORLD examples I cite, Kevin will always be right and I will always be wrong.

I guess Kevin doesn't need EVIDENCE to prove his case; he just needs to subscribe to the right ideology. It sounds a bit like he is claiming truth based on belonging to his version of the ONE TRUE ANARCHIST FAITH whereas I'm just a hopeless anarcho-syndicalist NONBELIEVER!

So since Kevin is so sure that he is right, I will say this once more in simply words:

KEVIN HAS NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF WHERE INFORMAL SPONTANEOUS INSURRECTIONARY GROUPS HAVE MADE ANY LASTING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

I have provided a number examples of where formal organizations have done precisely that, and yet, I am wrong and he is right. Why? Because his ideological tarot cards tell him so.

Once again, Kevin thinks most people join the IWW for nostalgic reasons (which is funny, because I am certain Kevin hasn't asked most of the IWW members that I inertact with on a daily basis, whether in person, by telephone, or through the internet). I guess Kevin is also a mind reader, because I just talk to my fellow Wobs.

Most of them tell me they believe in what they're doing, and we actually have some very lively discussions about organizing strategies that meet todays conditions. I haven't noticed Kevin participating in any of these discussions. Perhaps his anarchist crystal ball tells him what we're all doing / thinking / discussing.

Kevin, has it ever occurred to you that your critique of organizations (i.e. that they degenerate into counterrevolutionary bureaucratic cages) is incredibly determinist? Has it ever occurred to you that this is a result of the rank & file not being diligent enough to prevent such deterioration? Has it ever dawned on you that countless theorists (including many anarchists) have maintained that the problem isn;t organization so much as it is individual laziness and apathy that results in hardening of the proverbial arteries? No, I suppose not. Those theorists don't subsrcibe to the one true faith.

And yet, Kevin, you STILL cannot name me one example of where an insurrectionary movement has had any long standing effect on the course of history. If you were to name any, I would be willing to bet that at some point you will find a formal organization responsible for at least part of whayt occurred. This is true for Paris in 1968 and it is true for Seattle in 1999. It was true in San Francisco earlier this year. Spontenaity is NOT the absence of organization, but instead the absence of central planning.

Kevin lists a littany of abuses that bureucratic business unions have committed over the years against their rank and file members (and I happen to agree with him about the egregiousness of them, and they're all true), but he neglects to mention that DESPITE these abuses, workers in many of these unions are STILL materially better off than their non-union equivilants in similar jobs. To me that doesn't tell me that unions are inherently COUNTERrevolutionary. To me that says that they AREN'T REVOLUTIONARY ENOUGH.

Kevin may be entirely correct that unions (as they currently exist in the US and Europe) are not capable of being revolutionary. I have not seen any evidence to disprove that assertion, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE THAT SPONTANEOUS INSURRECTIONARY MOVEMENTS CAN DO ANY BETTER.

As for the IWW signing give back contracts, busting their rank & file workers initiatives, or ending strikes, that has never happened. So for Kevin to lump the IWW into that category of counterrevolutionary tendencies (especially considering that the IWW was formed in response to them) is sectarian bullshit.

If anything, the IWW has suffered over the years, because the "officials" and "true believers" have remained true to democratic union principles and the rank & file have been the ones that wanted to give in to capitalism (for example, an entire metal workers industrial union in Cleveland voted to disafiiliate because the IWW General Executive Board refused to sign the Taft-Hartley anti-communist affidavits in the 1950s). Once AGAIN history does not fit Kevin's ideological model.

So explain just that one part with real examples, not referencing a text, and not how campaigning blocks power. How do you build your power?

Is this same group of anarchists and maoists going to make a public appeal of support for the Democrats in next year's presidential contest?

"Is this same group of anarchists and maoists going to make a public appeal of support for the Democrats in next year's presidential contest? "

Why does it matter? The far left doesnt help a candidate by endorsing them so a lot of this discussion is moot. The far left may be able to help a candidate by going out and getting people to vote, but an endorsement by a Maoist or Anarchist group isnt something most politicians who want to win an election are going to go around bragging about.

Voting isnt a radical act but its also not counterrevolutionary. If my neighbor falls down their steps, is it a revolutionary or conterrevolutionary act if I help them up and take them to the emergency room. I may disagree with how hospitals are run, but Im not going to let someone die because I oppose them.

I think it is weird that much of the radical left and this website has hyped up Matt so much since he will probably be only marginally better than Brown. Its a lot safer to mobilize people to vote against Newsom than try to paint Matt as more radical than he really is. But, I wouldnt accuse someone of being an anarcho-democrat for not wanting Newsom elected unless you want to paint most of the homeless population as anarcho-democrats.

As for attacking unions, I think its kinda like kicking someone when they are down. Large unions have many problems but the rhetoric against unions from the radical left often sounds a lot like the conservative attack on unions. Working conditions are getting worse and a lot of that is due to the decreasing power of unions. Union membership is mainly down due to changes in the economy (from industrial to service and from long term employment to an expectation that one will always change jobs every few years). Unions have lost a lot of power, causing many unions to ask for less, resulting in employees not seeing as much value in unions.But, for all of the problems with unions and all of the criticism of them by anarchists, I havnt seen a real anarchist alternative. Most anarchists I know who oppose unions work at corporate jobs where the employees have little power. While their talk sounds good, their alternative to unions seems to be to do nothing except to fully support the Capitalist system while at work while talking about class war when they are no longer around their Capitalist bosses (more like class complaining than class war).

First, while I don't find this indymedia thread to be the most helpful or effective place to have a meaningful discussion on tactics (due to domination by a couple individuals who have consistenltly used personal attacks to make their points), I do have some thoughts that I would like to share. Also, my head is spinning from all the responses that pulled one or two lines out of a previous posting and addressed the minute details of that sentence without looking at the bigger picture. This is my attempt to take a step back and look at some of the core issues as I see them.

I have found this world we live in to be place of many contradictions. While I have identified with many of the ideals and theories that are described as anarchist, I have found it more helpful to make strategic/tactical decisions about my organizing and activism, both in the long term and in response to specific situations. For a long time I stopped identifying as anarchist because of the stranglehold that intellectual/ideological purists seem to have on the definition of who is and who is not an anarchist. I would rather spend my time engaged in revolutionary organizing than defending my credentials in the club.

I strongly believe in the ideals of anarchism (as well as any ideals that call for the liberation of people of color, immigrants, queers, gender-oppressed folks, working class folks, people with kids, and disabled folks). I have read some theory, though definitely not all of it, and at some point I had to reconcile the theories with the world I see around me. In order to even have a conversation with people, or to engage in meaningful organizing, I have had to balance countless contradictions.

Does voting syphon away energy from a larger revolutionary movement? Can voting create real change that affects marginalized folks in their everyday lives? Will revolution come when our situation can get no worse and the people are miraculously motivated to stand up and fight? Will revolution be a continuous process of fighting small and large battles with various and diverse tactics that will lead to the building of power in our communities?

Voting on ballot measures and local progressive candidates is one tool in the large repetoire of tactics that have been built up over centuries of fighting against colonialism, capitalism, white supremacy, heterosexism, patriarchy, and imperialism. Voting is in the company of other tactics such as political literature and propaganda, postering, direct action protests, workplace organizing, solidarity actions, childcare, strikes, pickets, civil disobedience, workshops, reading groups, media activism, sit-ins, property destruction, armed and unarmed rebellion, and many others. If voting has failed to bring about change in the past, it is more a testament to the power of the system than an indication of the effectiveness of the tactic itself. Voters, as well as striking workers, direct action activists, and many others have been and continue to be violently repressed and the gains made by these tactics have been eroded over time. Does this mean that we should no longer use those tactics, or does it indicate the profound necessity of continued creativity in struggle?

Rather than spending our time arguing over which tactics are 'right' or 'wrong', I want to have meaningful discussions about when to use these various tactics and what specifically we will get out of them.

Finally, I would like to say that organizing and creating real change is a learning process. One of the key ways that I learn is by actual experience. I can read all of the opposing theories on electoral politics and anarchism, but I will only truly learn when I experience those things for myself. Further, no two situations are exactly the same. History can give us incredibly valuable information about our current struggles, but ultimately we must make decisions base on the complicated, chaotic, vibrant, and living world around us.

I have decided to work towards the election of Matt Gonzalez for mayor of San Francisco for many complex reasons. I believe that he can beat the corporate interests and scapegoating of the poor represented by the other guy. I believe that he has showed himself to be a principled person. I believe that he has some good ideas that will be good for the city of San Francisco. But more importantly, I see that this campaign has engaged and excited a large segment of the residents of this city. Any time that large numbers of people are engaged in a campaign or struggle for progressive/left/radical ideals can become a decisive moment for us to work for change. This campaign is a way for us to engage with the larger population of the city and to listen, discuss, and act on important issues that affect immigrants, people of color, queers, women, transgender folks, people with disabilities, and the working class. The capitalist/white supremacist system thrives on the marginalization and oppression of these folks and the defeat of that system hinges on the struggles for liberation initiated in those communities. This campaign will not automatically be a struggle for that liberation. As a friend recently said to me, it is our challenge to bring those issues to the table.

Towards a constructive debate of these issues,
and in solidarity and struggle,
Josh Connor

If Matt Gonzalez is elected mayor of SF he will not overthrow capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy-- no one is claiming this will happen. What many of us do believe is that:

A) the immediate conditions of life in SF will be dramatically different depending on who wins this mayor race. As an appointee of Mayor Willie Brown, and then as twice-elected Supervisor, Gavin Newsom has been a consistant enemy of renters, lapdog of big developers, opponent of district elections, and has built his independant political career on scapegoating homeless people and lying about his policies. These are not minor issues. Anyone who says that “nothing will change” depending on who wins the mayoral race is obviously in a highly priveleged material position, with no real experience of what city policy actual means in the real lives SF’s working classes (primarily families of color).

B) the campaign to elect Matt Gonzalez is an important element of an on-going grassroots movement of the most oppressed sectors of SF’s population. This movement did not begin with this campaign, and, regardless of the outcome, it will not end when it is over. I have had the honor to participate a little in this movement over the past few years. It includes groups and individuals connected affiliated with La Raza Centrol Legal, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), Gay Shame, the SF Tenants’ Union, and the SF Bay View Newspaper, just to name some off the top of my head (and look at the signers of the letter above for more). These are groups with radical agendas, and leadership who have proven their commitment to seriously challenging the rule of capitalism and white supremacy. Working together on a campaign like this, new relationships are formed, ties are strengthened, and idealistic new volunteers are mobilized. As Rahula mentioned, this exposure is a huge potential for those of us with a radical, revolutionary perspective to bring our message out to many who are likely to be highly receptive.

Matt Gonzalez is not a revolutionary. Raising the minimum wage, increasing the power of the Office of Citizen’s Compaints, strengthening rent control: these are not revolutionary demands. But effective revolutionary organizations understand that these struggles not only matter, in the immediate material sense, but that by engaging in them we can influence their course and push our revolutionary politics.

The debate about whether or not to engage in electoral campaigns, in general and in the specific case of Matt Gonzalez’s mayor effort, is an important one. As a left revolutionary, community activist and organizer, I’m really interested in this debate, the different perspectives offered by anarchists, communists, Greens, et al.

Too bad it’s not happening here. And it can’t. Full props to the IMC’s amazing website and the resources it offers, but unfortunately the kind of vitriolic bile that we’re seeing in this debate tends to characterize a lot of what ends up under “commentary” on this site.

Where I’m coming from: the political electoral system of the USA, and all capitalist Democracies will always be made to serve capital at the expense of labor, and will never fundamentally challenge the prevailing ideology and institutions of white supremacy, which is the basis of the USA and Europe’s global militiary-economic hegemony. On a local level, even if the most commited revolutionary were elected to the office of, say, mayor of San Francisco, their actions would be severely constrained by the structural economic power of the white ruling class.

That, said, I’m reminded of something George Orwell said. Orwell was not an anarchist, but during his experience in the Spanish Civil War, came to sympathize strongly with the anarchists, stating that they were the most genuine revolutionary group organizing the Catalonian working classes. Criticising left rhetoric and practice, Orwell once said: “They want to say that half a loaf of bread is the same thing as no bread.” The ‘pure’ anarchists who insist on disparaging those who are working to actually improve real people’s lives in SF may have some way of living on “no bread”, but for the rest of us, the fight to get even “half” is a critical one.

--Jeff Giaquinto

If Matt Gonzalez is elected mayor of SF he will not overthrow capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy-- no one is claiming this will happen. What many of us do believe is that:

A) the immediate conditions of life in SF will be dramatically different depending on who wins this mayor race. As an appointee of Mayor Willie Brown, and then as twice-elected Supervisor, Gavin Newsom has been a consistant enemy of renters, lapdog of big developers, opponent of district elections, and has built his independant political career on scapegoating homeless people and lying about his policies. These are not minor issues. Anyone who says that “nothing will change” depending on who wins the mayoral race is obviously in a highly priveleged material position, with no real experience of what city policy actual means in the real lives SF’s working classes (primarily families of color).

B) the campaign to elect Matt Gonzalez is an important element of an on-going grassroots movement of the most oppressed sectors of SF’s population. This movement did not begin with this campaign, and, regardless of the outcome, it will not end when it is over. I have had the honor to participate a little in this movement over the past few years. It includes groups and individuals connected affiliated with La Raza Centrol Legal, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), Gay Shame, the SF Tenants’ Union, and the SF Bay View Newspaper, just to name some off the top of my head (and look at the signers of the letter above for more). These are groups with radical agendas, and leadership who have proven their commitment to seriously challenging the rule of capitalism and white supremacy. Working together on a campaign like this, new relationships are formed, ties are strengthened, and idealistic new volunteers are mobilized. As Rahula mentioned, this exposure is a huge potential for those of us with a radical, revolutionary perspective to bring our message out to many who are likely to be highly receptive.

Matt Gonzalez is not a revolutionary. Raising the minimum wage, increasing the power of the Office of Citizen’s Compaints, strengthening rent control: these are not revolutionary demands. But effective revolutionary organizations understand that these struggles not only matter, in the immediate material sense, but that by engaging in them we can influence their course and push our revolutionary politics.

The debate about whether or not to engage in electoral campaigns, in general and in the specific case of Matt Gonzalez’s mayor effort, is an important one. As a left revolutionary, community activist and organizer, I’m really interested in this debate, the different perspectives offered by anarchists, communists, Greens, et al.

Too bad it’s not happening here. And it can’t. Full props to the IMC’s amazing website and the resources it offers, but unfortunately the kind of vitriolic bile that we’re seeing in this debate tends to characterize a lot of what ends up under “commentary” on this site.

Where I’m coming from: the political electoral system of the USA, and all capitalist Democracies will always be made to serve capital at the expense of labor, and will never fundamentally challenge the prevailing ideology and institutions of white supremacy, which is the basis of the USA and Europe’s global militiary-economic hegemony. On a local level, even if the most commited revolutionary were elected to the office of, say, mayor of San Francisco, their actions would be severely constrained by the structural economic power of the white ruling class.

That, said, I’m reminded of something George Orwell said. Orwell was not an anarchist, but during his experience in the Spanish Civil War, came to sympathize strongly with the anarchists, stating that they were the most genuine revolutionary group organizing the Catalonian working classes. Criticising left rhetoric and practice, Orwell once said: “They want to say that half a loaf of bread is the same thing as no bread.” The ‘pure’ anarchists who insist on disparaging those who are working to actually improve real people’s lives in SF may have some way of living on “no bread”, but for the rest of us, the fight to get even “half” is a critical one.

--Jeff Giaquinto

>immigrants, people of color, queers, women, transgender folks, people with disabilities, and the working class.

Identity politics weakens the working class. We have a common identity. All our common interests stem from it. We are the exploited. We need nothing else in common to justify our solidarity.

to aaron and all anti-voting lazy ass anarchists:

Are you gonna be with your thumb in your ass, reading anarchist articles when Bush is getting elected like last time around?

I don't expect anarchist revolution with a democratic candidate, I don't expect to even like him, but your approach to resistance is rather pathetic and lazy. It's no wonder the anarchist community never grows. The republicans do better recruiting, retainment, and organizing than anarchists. And they have ideologues that complain about tactics and what is conservative and what isn't that sound just as pathetic as you.

"Identity politics weakens the working class. We have a common identity. All our common interests stem from it. We are the exploited. We need nothing else in common to justify our solidarity."

Bullshit.

by reg'd democrat Friday November 28, 2003 at 01:32 PM

to aaron and all anti-voting lazy ass anarchists: Yeah, voting takes a lot of fucking effort. Don't strain your finger making your selection--you're the real martyr!

>>"challenging a city-run transportation system isn't only easy,
>>in comparison to privatized transportation in other cities, but
>>it can also hinder the city's ability to fund its other agencies."
>
>Part of the point of an action like this is to compel capital's
>managers to pay for the problems/crisis of their system -- it's
>not the wage earning classes' system, it's not our crisis.

It's our crisis if we do have to take MUNI to work or school or just get around in SF. Thus why you did this action. But just how are "capital's managers" going to pay for problems of "their system" when they're doing it with our money? Maybe it's my lack of radical anarchist theory, but where and how realistically are you proposing (or, as more commonly found in anarchism, theorizing) an actual concrete change for us to not be tied to that system which has been imposed on us working class folk? Even if you can theorize it all into a one or two-line response, I challenge you to sell it to the average MUNI rider at a bus stop If you can't even do that, then you may as well be a radical right-winger because there is nothing revolutionary there if it cannot relate to oppressed people.

IT's funny how you mention plenty of antagonists in white places like Europe. There are a lot of people of color and indigenous peoples who also are antagonistic to capitalism, and they've been antagonistic since before capitalism defined itself as such.

The Veceremos "jazz" isn't in reference to Cuba. Separate Che from the island. I only use it as a popular radical term most common in spanish. But I do think Cuba is a revolutionary society compared to SF and Oakland, any day of the week. I'm curious to know, Kevin, have you ever been on a "wa-wa" (cuban bus)? They're free. It wasn't like that between 1899 and 1959 when anarchists like you didn't do shit against U.S. Imperialism in that island.

"Movement building" is not Stalinist, it's actually based on popular ideas, events, and actions that have been around since before any defined anarchists. I care little to argue about this, since it is irrelevant to working-class and oppressed peoples. But Stalinist is you putting down anything and anyone who isn't down with your Puritan Anarchist Cult (PAC) gang of dweebs.

There's a job in Sacramento for all of you PACs. It's at Tom McClintock's office. They could use ideologues with no race or cultural analysis such as yourselves. They don't like authority either and love white men who theorize and criticize all day.

Free palestine!

Is this what passes for a rebuttal these days?

Your ignorance is saddening. Please educate yourself.

Start here:

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/cuba.html

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/ws/2002/72/cuba.html

http://www.seesharppress.com/cubananarchism.html

You imbecile, you haven't refuted my statement with these idiotic links. I didn't learn anything I didn't know already.

Understand two things before I blast you: 1) I am not arguing anarchists didnt' have a role in Cuba. 2) I am arguing that Puritan Anarchist Cults like Kevin K.'s types didn't do shit in Cuba during that 60-year-long period of the Platt Amendment.

In your links:
Nothing is even mentioned about the Platt Amendment--U.S. Imperialist policy #1 between 1899 and 1959. Anarchists involved in union organizing weren't directly taking on imperialism, and they were not the only ones doing union organizing (read your links). Kevin K. most likely won't endorse a union who would make deals with the ruling class, therefore my statement STANDS. For anarchists to claim they came up with a vote and document in favor of independence in 1892 leads me to believ these anarcho-centric idiots like Fernandez want to take credit for the independence movement--nothing is mentioned of Marti and previous movements and ideas for independence by non-anarchist organizations.

I am in no way refuting what Castro's buddies did to anarchists and others who opposed them or weren't in line with their agenda after and around 1959. But many of these anarchists ended up aligning themselves with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, and that isn't saying much for how anarchists "did shit" for Cuba.

I won't even get into the countless fallacies in the depictions of history around 1899 Independence, U.S. involvement, and the 1959 Revolution.

Next time read some books or take a class on Cuba at a local university. Don't just click on google links and read what's preferable to you. Not one course of the numerous ones I took about Cuba ever claimed anarchism had a significant influence in Cuba's fight against imperialism--certainly no more than countless other cuban organizations and communities.

Hey, all you voters on this thread -- check out today's SF Chronicle. Thuggish luxury condo builder Bloated Joe O'Donoghue of the Residentail Builders Association has now joined the glorious Popular Front against Newsomism! Now that you are politcal bedfellows, why don't you guys try to get him to sign your manifesto?

Oh yeah, for those of you slagging me off as an "anarchist purist;" technically, I'm an anti-state communist, or, to be even more sprecific, a left communist influenced by the Situationists and class war anarchism. This will probably confuse you, since figuring out what all that means might involve cracking open a book, and we wouldn't want to take time out from your busy schedule of registering voters and peddaling illusions about the nature of power in capitalist America.

Hail Freedonia!

Gee whiz, that Tom Ammiano sure can field a mighty polemic, can't he!

It would have been difficult for me to be politically active in Cuba before 1959, since I was born in 1960.

That's probably a difficult point for you to grasp. Next time I'll try to type more slowly.

It is interesting that anytime someone tries to uphold some basic anarchist principles they get labelled a purist. Chris Crassius suggests that he is innovative and dynamic for coming up with the idea that anarchists should campaign for a politician. I guess we could also say that Clinton and his fellow DLC members were innovative for deciding to dump the word liberal and move the democrats to the center. Moving to the center is one way of becoming less marginalized--the easest way--but it isn't "dynamic" or innovative.

Labeling people "purist" is one way to ignore the debate. But it doesn't answer the key question: How is working on an election campaign going to build our power. THat is what the letter says. No one has said how that is to happen. To me, it doens't make sense. But I guess that just makes me a "purist" and the question will go unanswered. I don't care too much about who calls themselves an anarchist, nor do I care if someone puts in the huge 10 minute effort to go and vote. But whether it makes strategic sense for an anarchist to campaign for a politician is an important question. Whether it will build our power as the letter states is an important question. It isn't just a "purist" rant.


I must say, it is also a funny way to campaign to say that "he isn't going to change much"--which has been repeated over and over by would be campaigners here -- sounds like a lackluster campaign to me. Then again, perhaps like most campaigners our anarchist campaigners will lie and say "Matt will make important changes that will better the lives of all of you." Whatever gets the goods! But the question for me is, what goods are you getting?

I'm pretty amazed that this Kevin Keating is willing to put (what appears to be) his real name on these posts. I've never met the man, and I sure wouldn't want to: Mr. Keating, do you realize what an asshole you sound like with all this condescending bullshit? I suggest looking over these postings and checking out the tone of the different writers. I mean, does this guy have any friends? Sheesh...

it's become apparent to me that our erstwhile anarcho-maoist electoralists are happy presenting themselves as leaders of the "movement,"--leading it in such an "innovative" and "dynamic" direction!!--but bristle when their line of reasoning is rigorously questioned.

the best argument that can be made on behalf of voting for Gonzalez is a wholly liberal argument: in the same way that Gore would have been better than Bush, so it goes that Gonzalez would be better than Newsom.

the problem is that the anarcho-maoist public appeal for Gonzalez claims far more than that. we are told that Gonzalez will build the movement and our power, and (from an earlier post) that the Gonzalez campaign represents the "most oppressed sectors of San Francisco." (like Joe O'Donahue?!?)

having made such lofty claims, it isn't surprising that the anarcho-maoists behind this appeal have such a hard time arguing their point. in lieu of a CONVINCING argument, they resort to either the garden-variety liberal appeal--Newsom's really bad!--or they invoke all the ills of the world as if that justifies revolutionaries publicly flacking for Matt "the fiscal realist" Gonzalez. indeed, the more befuddled the anarcho-maoist, the more likely s/he is to invoke "colonialism" and "patriarchy" and "white supremacy"....

time to tighten up your arguments guys.

"strategic sense for an anarchist to campaign for a politician"

I don't know. My degree isn't in anarchy, so I'm not expert enough to answer. The discussion is for the limited few who have the time to read all the history and theory.

But, if that anarchist happens to NOT be non-stop 'building power,' then taking a few weekends or a even a few weeks to work on a campaign is not going to stop the movement dead. Calling for others to do the same should not be such a threat if the movement is not really about 'leaders' and such - no one would listen.

A campaign doesn't happen year round, although if someone were that into it, obviously it could. I would assume the anarchist who is 'building power' 24/ 7 wouldn't get that involved.

If you only want to talk about abstract purist concepts, I'd guess that the narrow definitions that are acceptable would never allow anarchists to either work on a campaign or even go camping in the Sierras as processes to 'build power.' It seems there are right ways to build, and wrong ways to build. There is a strict code which must be followed. At all times.

But you're just a regular person, like I am. You're a person who wants to change things. What is it that you're defending so strongly that everyone around you needs to be so wrong?

People like me could try to answer how we think working on a campaign could build power to help us move away from capitalism, but I'd guess that no matter what anyone said, you'd consider it wrong.

To me, a campaign is something where people come together to make change. Everyone thinks they can make the world a better place if their ideas can move forward as actions. Everyone thinks they are doing something good. So things feel good in the campaign, even when you're against all odds.

I don't know why the original person posting can't be allowed to experiment and break new ground. Is it such a threat? What if he ends up creating something that has never existed before?

What if.

Inthe 19th century, anarchism vied with socialism and
communism, but anarchists were by definition terrible
organisers and had little chance against the five-year
planners. Now, though, with the collapse of the Soviet
state, the growth of the anti-globalisation movement and
support in the US administration, it is ready to stage a
comeback.
[In fact, anarchism was then considered the libertarian
branch of socialism, and one variant was called
anarcho-communism. And as to be terrible organisers by
definition, anarchism advocates voluntary organisation.--DC]

The semantics have always been fluid. The derivation is
Greek (an + arkhe) and means absence of authority. The Stoic
philosopher Zeno, who opposed Plato's championing of the
state, has claims to be the first anarchist. The cause
wasn't helped, however, by the fact that Zeno's teachings
were handed down only in fragments - a typically anarchic
approach.

"Anarchy" thereafter had a bad press--it was defined by the
centralising Tudors as "the unlawful liberty or licence of
the multitude". "Anarchism", which adherents insist is not
about the promotion of anarchy but the pursuit of harmony,
fared better. In the English civil war, it signified chaos
and destruction--the first usage listed by the OED dates
from 1642. But a century later, William Godwin redefined it.
"Government," he said, "was intended to suppress injustice,
but it offers new occasions and temptations for the
commission of it."
[I find two 17th-century citations for the word "anarchism"
in the OED: 1642 Sir E. Dering Sp. on Relig. 153 This Bill
will prove the mother of absolute Anarchisme. 1656 Blount
Glossogr., Anarchism, the Doctrine, Positions or Art of
those that teach anarchy; also the being itself of the
people without a Prince or Ruler. The next citation comes
from 1882. William Godwin did not redefine the term. It was
redefined by Pierre Proudhon in his 1840 volume _What Is
Property?_. (The term "anarchist" had earlier been a common
abusive epithet for certain anti-authoritarian factions
involved in the French Revolution.)--DC]

Anarchism's great age was the 19th century, with Proudhon,
Bakunin and Kropotkin developing its philosophical
tradition. Though eventually outgunned by Marxism, it was
always strong in the libertarian US.

from

Word of the week: Anarchy
by Stephen Moss
Wednesday April 16, 2003
The Guardian [UK]

I never went onto one of these lists before, but I heard you stirred up a hornet's nest so Dee and I checked it out. We liked what you wrote. I tried to read the responses but they were giving me a headache so I stopped. It sounds like these boys have a lot of time on their hands. Chris, you put your finger on it, that's exactly why we hesitate to identify as anarchists. Do you have to have a Ph.D. to be an anarchist? Or carharts and purple hair? A penis? I'm so confused. You guys cracked us up, thanks for what you wrote. Good luck with the SF election.

Love,
Dee and Jen

Most anarchists in the US are a much more recent creation than what is often claimed.

1. Earth First! decided to work on more labor oriented issues in the 1990s and many environmental activists started calling themselves anarchists. There were real ties between some green anarchists and earlier anarchist thought, but the bulk of the new anarchists in the Pacific Northwest came into anarchism through environmentalism (I think some of the pagan anarchist connections may be related to this).

2. The Sex Pistols made it cool to be an anarchist with songs like "I want to be anarchy". Some in the punk scene did have ties to earlier anarchist movements but the bulk of new punk anarchists were brought into the movement by trhe equating of teenage rebellion and progressive politics with the word "anarchism".

3. There are also many anarchists who joined Communist movements first. Interestingly the majority of communists who became anarchists were part of the more authoritarian groups (Maoist and Stalinist rather than Trotskyist).

Since countercultural ideals and rejection of dogmatic authoritarianism are the forces that helped to make modern anarchism strong, it is interesting to see all of the new dogmatic authoritarian anarchists posting on here. Perhaps these new anarcho-puritan dogmatists object to the wishy-washy nature of the new meaning of anarchism (it almost means anti-capitalist but not communist in its most used form). But truth be told, if all of the miltant anarcho-purists held themsleves up in a cabin and tried to fight of the government on their own they would most likely have fewer followers than David Koresh did at Wako.

"endure as a People "

I always wondered if anarchism was a religion or an ethnicity but I guess its more like Judaism where its defined as being both?

Small groups can endure with few members well defined beliefs for years (although anarchism is not a well defined belief system and more of a buzz word like "new economy"). Look at the Druze in the Middle East and Zoroastrians in Iran.

Describing anarchism as a subculture rather than a political belief system does seem pretty accurate. Although I would have to say its multiple subcultures rather than a single subculture .Most anarchist subcultures are very homogenous (even compared to other left wing groups) but there is diversity when you look between groups.

I think the talk about anarchist voting is funny in that the problem with violations of anarchist subcultural boundaries always have to do with symbolic actions. A anarchist can work for a big corporation, work as a professor at a university or be a rich professional and there is no problem. Anarchists can use trust funds to fly all over the world to globalization protests and as long as where the money came from is not discussed access to money is allowed to define status within the anarchist communities. But, when talk comes up about organized unions or voting comes up, all hell breaks loose. As with christian fundamentalism anarchist fundamentlism is all about talking about helping those in need while doing everything possible to prevent actual help from going to those in need. Voting against Newsom or supporting a local labor struggle isnt part of the mythology of change (be it Jesus' return or a revolution), so its denounced as heretical. Among a certain sect of anarchism there is even a new puritanical strain where life is seen as a war and anything that doesnt lead to salvation is equated with counter-revolution(sin).

Interesting Wrote:

Among a certain sect of anarchism there is even a new puritanical strain where life is seen as a war and anything that doesnt lead to salvation is equated with counter-revolution(sin).

Actually it's not new. Keating (for example) has been consistently pushing his "left-communist" ideology fro almost twenty years, and he is following in the footsteps of other similarly hard line "purists".

I don't agree with Keating or other purists like him, but they are at least consistent in their beliefs.

I think a watershed moment for them were the May Days uprisings in Paris in 1968. However I need to again point outthat all those accomplished were the collapse of the elected social-democratic government (which was authoritarian and capitalist) and the replacement by it of a conservative government lead by De Gaulle (which was authoritarian and capitalist). The Situationists proved that spontaneous revolution is possible, but where do they lead? It would seem they lead nowhere, just like Keating's transit activism and rent strikes.

Again, this is proof to me that radical analysis is not enough. Keating and others have been slamming me as an uncritical "anarcho-democrat" (they obviously have ignored all of the times where I have acknowledged the limited effectiveness of electoral politics) because I don't agree with them 100%, but they have yet to demonstrate how local electoral electioneering doesn't have at least some effect (good or bad). Like yousay, it reads more like religious dogma than scientific analysis, and I'm positive that is why more people vote than involve themselves in insurrectionary politics.

This is from a response to an anarchist conference in 1995 but it seems relevent to much of what has been posted to this thread:
--
There are special workshops for people suffering these tiresome delusions. These are just basic guidelines for the smooth running of workshops and the quick completion of the plenary sessions. You don't have to read these rules, remember in Anarchism nothing is compulsory, not even listening to or respecting other people and their differences. So grab your clipboards, tousle that hair, practise those quizzical frowns and lets go. (n.b.: `queers' refers to those designated as discussable in the section of extraneous workshops for groups deemed `other' such as those also for women, aboriginal peoples, etc...)

Rule 1) Don't wear a dress, boys or girls or neither. Anarchists have no dress sense and no sense of humour .If you're a boy then you're either parodying women in a derogatory way or along with anyone else in a frock you're dressed impractically for the revolutionary riotting scheduled at lunch break.

Rule 2) Arse fucking is a filthy non-procreative waste of resources (lube and condoms) and energy(calories). The same can be said of vaginal fisting, but dykes don't have sex, bisexuals just talk about it and trannies are stuck in their fish-nets for life... Neither do anarchists, so don't mention it as relevant to any analysis of the operations of dominant culture. Except if people are put in jail or shot by the army for doing it then sex has no place on our radical agenda, but since there are very few instances of this for heterosexual male pursuits in history then if you must bring it up save it for the appropriate group's workshop. If, however,you are a prime time presenter of some big time anarchist issue feel free to make off the cuff derogatory remarks about the practitioners of SM or prostitution or those that raise anything relevant to oppression due to missing out on membership to the angry anarchist boys brigade. And if you can't possibly say anything insightful or productive about an issue such as East Timor then feel free to defer to homophobic, hung-up jokes about arse fucking.

Rule 3) From this you can see that power is a one dimensional concept and thus too is injustice. Which makes everything easy then. It's all about factories and working and growing vegies in Utopia, oh and newspapers and lots of books, books and bookshops. It's not really about the way people relate to each other and rescue each other with love or sex or sharing drugs or shoplifted lollies just to get through this hell hole of industrial culture, but here I digress. (So the rule here is if you can't see it but it makes you feel pain or scared or invisible or worthless or misunderstood and alone, then it is not real, you're just queer or something, take some Anarchism and youÕll feel better. Violence or power or oppression do not operate on levels that involve your mind, your heart, your sex or sexuality or your desire to defy either. They were just joking then; `no one is free till we are all free' has become `when we win we'll be more tolerant than they were' of what we're not sure though. Or maybe this is just the recruitment catchcry of a revolutionary movement that needs as much fucking support as it can get but will not, can not, or just plain won't, regard with any seriousness the issues of people who toil just as hard for change that they discover excludes them.)

Rule 4) Don't say anything about any of the things I've just talked about, don't respond to other peoples exclusion of your reality, don't defy anything that perpetuates any of these already prevalent notions that you may see plastered to the walls or sprawled on the desks cos this will be called CENSORSHIP.(Self-censorship is an acceptable form of anarchistic expression however).

Rule 5) Don't talk about coming out cos this is very 70s, and flares and flicks might be coming back but coming out isn't. It's daggy and obsolete. This should also counteract any of the problems people not yet out might confront by seeing homophobic stuff on the walls of an anarchist conference. Stay in, keep quiet and don't rock the boat sailing to its glorious horizon of visionary dreams. This is a conference about politics not some cosmic personal growth chat session. If you thought that the social, political, cultural context you grew up in operated in its most basic ways by invading the private domains and most vulnerable places of people just enough to make them the agents of their own and each others oppression , and if you thought this central to any dismantling of the operations of power, and if you for a moment imagined that this was an issue necessary to any concept of revolution, then you were wrong and you must want the Oprah Winfrey show down the road, cos we'll have none of that tedious, unmanly, daytime-TV nonsense at this serious, big time conference!? You big sook, we're here to talk about cops and bombs and did I mention books already, yeah lots of books, and bigwig American lecturers too.

Rule 6) Social and personal identity; the fact that power is not something carried out solely by the machines and institutions of the state, but by the people and the societies in whose hands these operate is NOT part of our rhetoric alright, keep this to yourself and your pooncey little social theory books. Remember that the violent, stormtrooping, beige, briefcased, badly dressed, overly-brylcreemed, bile-belching, oh-so-butch blundering that is the western world's passage through history is NOT inextricably, inescapeably (and imperceptibly to some) interwoven with the legitimised and disguised privilege of white heterosexual male self-interest. This is just a boring, monolithic, out-moded load of whingeing by women and queers and blacks and all those OTHER obstacles to a neat revolutionary agenda that isn't too confronting for those who came here not to learn or listen to anything except there own already over-represented voices. Or have I said this already in the previous rules, oh well, not one to worry about going on too much in the same old tired, tested, tried and re-fried deep toned, lisp free vocal tunes. (Repetition and regurgitation is the true trademark of an anarchist; what else are all those old world, european, princely pontifications and formulae for revolution filed away on bookshelves next to the boys own adventure stories for if not this.)

Rule 7) PUT SIMPLY THEN, THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM BY FEMINISM THAT `THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL' IS YET TO BE TAKEN ON BY ANARCHISTS, and until such a time as it is we will hear only what we want from those we've already heard. We don't want any integration of ideas and anlysis into the meaning of what Anarchism is and how it needs to be relevant to EVERYONE desiring freedom. We will maintain the currently well-walled, working definitions and values we have and deflect any critiques to the aforementioned appropriate workshops. We will add what we can cope with to our pot of revolution and stir but NO, WE AIN'T CHANGING THE EXISTING RECIPE IN ANY WAY. We want to hear about practical, idealistic, sane, sanitised ways of getting by in this world in an independent , anarchistic way that are relevant to the experiences of the social reality that the men writing what anarchism is know to be true. And a safe, respectful context of discussion will only be granted to these types of things... -i.e.: If you don't feel comfortable discussing the police by reference to raids on beats and streets, where you might make money or fun and run the risk of violence, rape, harassment, prosecution and the basic psychological intimidation the police give to poofs and women and trannies who need or want to earn money in this way, this is because you aren't meant to bring it up. If you want to talk about the ghettoisation, mafia control , corruption and extreme commercialisation that reigns over many of the only public places queers have for timeout from an otherwise entirely heterosexual world save it for the designated workshop. If you want to challenge male anarchist control of women's access to erotic, political, lesbian material in anarchist bookshops keep it for the workshop. If you think being kicked out of your home when you came out to your parents and trying to get by on the streets or in squats or parks or on the well-spent earnings of the numerous married men like your father who are looking for an economically disenfranchised boy or girl, with flesh like your own to pay for, is relevant to any discussion on the nature of the christian, patriarchal, worker-breeding, nuclear-family-factory-line. If you are pissed off and insulted by sweeping remarks about all sadomasochism made in the major plenary sessions of the conference by a man who knows nothing about underground queer SM culture and its value, practices and meaning, keep it for the queer workshop. If you got arse fucked this morning by your lover before alighting from bed to get to this conference only to find out that Gareth Evans can be ridiculed as weak and pathetic and plundered by portraying him as arse-fucked and you thought you were suddenly back in the high school playground (or at a punk gig of `anarchistically-enlightened', hung- up, hetero- boys who perhaps need a good prostate poke to activate their brains and sensitivity) then once again keep it to yourself and out of the way of activists using `a well recognised working class colloquialism' to make their point. And if you feel ripped off by a large, national, funded student body using fringe, radical, unfunded, queer literature and appropriating it by removing its queer references and using it to their own ends and wonder what kind of Anarchism can do this then you are overreacting and suffering a paranoid, persecution complex. And the fact that a disease wiping out so many of the people you love or fuck or befriend may be less devastating compared to the millions of people suffering daily for no reason other than their race or geography or the agenda of First World industry, but nonetheless it still devastates and isolates and cripples a hardened queer like yourself and remains unmentioned at a conference on Anarchism except by those queers whose lives are riddled with dead friends and the shame, silence and ignorance a state tries to inflict, then this is because it should also be kept to the appropriate workshop.

Rule 8) AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: all of the above issues made reference to are NOT relevant to big issues, to the real work of an anarchist conference or movement. Masculinity, homophobia, misogyny, racism and the basic social, sexual and emotional hangups of those whose interests dominate and rule this world have no part whatsoever in the military-moralistic-macho-muslim-christian-judaeo-job-obsessed -junk-heap-of-machinery of war or rape or cultural genocide and imperialism or exploitation. The fact that impotent, fucked up, sexually repressed, shit scared, sold out, soul less, brain dead, boring people also happen to be those in control of this suicidal mess we call a culture is pure coincidence and don't you forget it.

http://vof.cat.org.au/visions/luka4.htm

There's nothing like completely avoiding the issue....

Hey o-t, try responding to what I actually wrote instead of avoiding it by making up what I didn't say!

O-t: "But, if that anarchist happens to NOT be non-stop 'building power,' then taking a few weekends or a even a few weeks to work on a campaign is not going to stop the movement dead. Calling for others to do the same should not be such a threat if the movement is not really about 'leaders' and such - no one would listen."

sasha: I would never say that it is a problem if anarchists do things other than "non-stop builging power" (your phrase). They can do what they like, but if they claim that campaigning for a politician is building our power (again, the original letter writers must have a very different understanding of this than I, but I doubt they will try to explain here) then I will ask them how that is possible. THE LETTER DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THEY ARE TAKING A BREAK FROM 'BUILDING OUR POWER' TO CAMPAIGN, BUT THAT THE ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN WILL BUILD OUR POWER. That is clear in the letter, no? And it is on that point that I ask, how? But the response I get is, "oh, your a purist so we won't answer." I never said there was some sort of "threat" to some sort of "movement".

o-t: "A campaign doesn't happen year round, although if someone were that into it, obviously it could. I would assume the anarchist who is 'building power' 24/ 7 wouldn't get that involved. "

sasha: Again, I'm not saying it is a problem if they take time off of "building power" and neither does the letter say that. IT SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS TO BE BUILDING OUR POWER THROUGHT THE CAMPAIGN. Try to respond to what is writen by people, it makes for a more interesting and useful discussion, no?

o-t: "If you only want to talk about abstract purist concepts, I'd guess that the narrow definitions that are acceptable would never allow anarchists to either work on a campaign or even go camping in the Sierras as processes to 'build power.' It seems there are right ways to build, and wrong ways to build. There is a strict code which must be followed. At all times. "

sasha: Again, non-issue. ***I don't have a narrow deffinition of building our power, I have a very wide one. Although it is probably very different from the writers of the original letter. Unfortuneately we don't seem to be getting at this important point but only avoiding it by labeling any critique "purism." There is no strict code at all. I would say that anarchism has always been somewhat flexible in this, looking to the everyday practices of resistance found in the working class as well as to insurrectionary moments of rupture like May 1968 in Paris and organized resistance and attack by small or large groups. But one thing has been clear to most anarchists is that electoralism does not build our own power to create our lives and end capitalism and the state. Now if you think they are wrong (which the letter writers obviously do) then I would like to hear the argument made. The letter contains an assertion. The responses here in defense of it avoid the question altogether and instead lable anyone asking a "purist." ***

o-t: "But you're just a regular person, like I am. You're a person who wants to change things. What is it that you're defending so strongly that everyone around you needs to be so wrong?"

sasha: I'm not defending anything. I'm asking the letter writers or their defenders to explain how an electoral campaign to put a politician into power will build our power as they assert it will. I would also like to know what they mean by this, because it is quite likely they have a very different idea of "our" and "power" than most anarchist have. Is that too much to ask????

o-t: "People like me could try to answer how we think working on a campaign could build power to help us move away from capitalism, but I'd guess that no matter what anyone said, you'd consider it wrong."

sasha: Oh, so you decide in advance that there is no need to explain the assertion because you know in advance that I'd consider it wrong. Well, that's very conveneint, isn't it? I might consider it wrong or I might see that we have very different definitions of "our" and "power". I'm not sure since no one has tried to explain the assertion, they have only defensively labled any quetioning of it as "purism" and as "trust funders" and race-baited the questioners. I guess whatever works, a?

o-t: "To me, a campaign is something where people come together to make change. Everyone thinks they can make the world a better place if their ideas can move forward as actions. Everyone thinks they are doing something good. So things feel good in the campaign, even when you're against all odds."

sasha: Sure people might make a "change" (pretty abstract argument); I don't dispute that, but the question is what is the nature of the change? Does it increase our ability to rid the world of the state and capitalism or not? I'm not against feeling good. I glad that you admit that is part of the reason for campaigning, but I am against doing so under certain asserted claims that are much greater than just feeling good.
You might want to ask, why does it make you feel good?

o-t: "I don't know why the original person posting can't be allowed to experiment and break new ground. Is it such a threat? What if he ends up creating something that has never existed before?"

sasha: How said they aren't allowed to experiment in whatever way they want? I don't even have the power to stop them if I wanted to! I feel no threat at all. Well, if you think "something" new is going to be created, I'd like to know what that "something new" is??? How is working on an electoral campaign something new and innovative or even experimental???? IT IS UNFORTUNEATELY QUITE OLD, TRIED AND TESTED. AND IT WORKS VERY WELL, JUST NOT FOR BUILDING OUR POWER, BUT FOR BUILDING THE POWER OF CAPITALISM TO CONTROL OUR LIVES.

Anarcho-puritanism? You people are so full of shit. Chris & Co. want to talk about "stepping outside of anarchist praxis," but I've never seen him actually advocate for anarchism in any form in the first place. Why don't you try stepping inside first? It's not about some kind of purity, it's simply that strengthening the state is the complete antithesis of anarchism. Not because I say so, but because that's what the word actually means.

So, go vote your happy little asses off. We have a list now. I hope Gonzalez wins so that in four years those of us who are actually advocating and working for anarchy every day can laugh at you for advocating whatever flavor-of-the-election candidate you'll then be supporting against Matt since he will have let you down.

After all, it's not the system that's fucked, right? We just need wiser leaders.

...running into the same bay area anarchists in the morning at a generator show at U.N. Plaza for Matt Gonzalez, at the campaign headquarters picking up literature to walk precincts, at a housing takeover on so-called "Thanksgiving," and I'll be getting arrested with them at some future Board of Supervisors hearing at City Hall , no matter who is elected-- we all know this, yet we are campaigning anyway because...



sasha: I'm not defending anything. I'm asking the letter writers or their defenders to explain how an electoral campaign to put a politician into power will build our power as they assert it will. I would also like to know what they mean by this, because it is quite likely they have a very different idea of "our" and "power" than most anarchist have. Is that too much to ask????

okay sasha, kevin, nessie, etc etc:
what none of the "Read my Anarchism FAQ! Read the FAQ!" posters here have addressed is the heart of the question: why are you so convinced that doing work around an election CAN’T be part of a longer term strategy to build more grassroots power? Because as an anarchist who wants to hold both short term and long term goals, I think it can.

Chuck O says: "Anarchism is about empowering people to make radical change to accomplish long-term gains."

This is exactly where I read that the original letter writers, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Chris Crass (who have about 35 years of anarchism between them), are coming from in terms of their goals. Give us "anarcho-voters" at least a little bit of credit for doing a lot of critical thinking.

I have seen membership-based community organizations, including ones focused on tenants rights and housing issues, eviction defense, environmental justice, and DIY arts & culture, build thoughtful multi-tactic strategies that use the momentum and publicity (and real stakes) of an upcoming LOCAL election to:

involve more folks in the community, including people who are disenfranchised from the voting system because of immigration status, status in the criminal injustice system, etc-- in community-wide forums, teach-ins to share knowledge about what's going on in our neighborhoods with corporate and downtown takeover.

what is the real aim of this? Well, I'll tell you that the end goal is not the election of one candiate over the other. But I don't think you can ever expect folks to take you seriously if you tell them that it doesn't matter who is elected, if you don't recognize that the effect these politicans can have in the daily lives of working folks is REAL, and there is a serious differential between Mr. Getty Money Newsom and someone with a voting record like Gonzalez.

The end goal is what Chuck 0 stated above. Using the leverage of local elections to build knowledge, build the coherence of a local community, build our collective voice through doing direct actions coordinated around the ISSUES related to the campaign, and building peoples' SENSE OF THEIR OWN POWER. We have to experience successful actions, meetings that feel productive, an increase in the numbers of people participating, a continuing sophistication of strategy, and a general sense that in fact, we can organize to win. And winning has to start with smaller, tangible pieces before we're going to have a mass movement on the streets dismantling the state.

Cause I don't know what world (or city) you're living in, but we're not there yet. So the question right now is how can we build towards that? And I have seen in the past, and am seeing again with this campaign, stronger alliances being built, more people being drawn in, and a lot of opportunities being taken to use this campaign to really engage people on the street about the real issues: capitalism, racism, U.S. war on people abroad and here in San Francisco.

Tell me how that's not building power. And tell me that anarchists helping shape a grassroots momentum of people becoming activated and empowered doesn't help it move towards revolutionary power.

Movements are out there, growing. The question is, are we as anarchists going to do everything we can to support the kind of power building that can challenge capital and the state starting from the grassroots, neighborhood to neighborhood level? Direct democracy begins on your block, folks. Class war is ON. Are you going to sit up til 3 flaming on indybay, or are you going to throw down and make shit happen, which may involve getting your hands dirty, and certainly will result in the anarcho-fundamentalists disbarring you from their club....

I've known chris for ten years and he has always advocated for anarchism. In fact, he is one of the people who got me excited about embracing anarchism.

"...It's not about some kind of purity, it's simply that strengthening the state is the complete antithesis of anarchism. Not because I say so, but because that's what the word actually means...it's not the system that's fucked, right? We just need wiser leaders."

This succinctly sums up the hypocrisy and uselessness of the government anarchists' perspective. Again, if you examine the content of stuff Chriss Crass has written I think his real points of reference are Maoism-lite and protest ghetto liberalism.

The "big issue" as I see it doesn't turn on the question of whether Gonzalez would be better than Newsom, or for that matter, whether its "wrong" to vote--no, the issue is whether self-ID'd revolutionaries should intervene in an election to flack for one of the candidates and make absurd claims about what his victory will mean.

This isn't about being politically rigid--it's about basic political and intellectual integrity: Should revolutionaries flack for politicians or oppose--critique and expose--the system that produces these politicians?

How long after Gonzalez takes office are all you "Revolutionaries for Gonzalez" going to wait before opposing his policies?

How long will it take before his "fiscal realism" requires counter-measures?

By what criteria can we measure if your "dynamic" and "innovative" strategy has been successful?

"Should revolutionaries flack for politicians or oppose--critique and expose--the system that produces these politicians? "
Sure voting for Matt isnt revolutionary and its pretty silly for anyone to claim it is revolutionary. But without any chance of a real revolution in the US in the near future, what IS revolutionary (aside from sitting at home and reading books about historical anarchist heros)?
People go around attacking "reformists" for not attacking the root problem and only dealing with symptoms but its better to deal with symptoms than ignore a problem altogether. Sure its going to be weird when groups that backed Matt have to fight against him, but things will be better in the city than if Newsom gets elected.

Thank you to "another voting anarchist" for beginning to give an answer to the question of how campaigning for a politician could build our power. Although I think more than anything it shows a pretty different idea of an anti-capitalist anarchist movement than what I have. I haven't posted anything about an anarchist FAQ--don't think I ever read it actually--so I'm not sure why you say I have. Nor do I stay up to 3 in the morning "flaming" on indymedia and then do nothing else. What flames have I posted? I actually asked a pretty legitimate question, and you are the first person that has tried to answer it, instead of just dismiss it as "purism" although you do a little of that as well.

To the point:

voter: "We have to experience successful actions, meetings that feel productive, an increase in the numbers of people participating, a continuing sophistication of strategy, and a general sense that in fact, we can organize to win. "

While I like sucessful actions, it is still a little abstract to me how just any action can build people's power. I see a fundemental difference from taking direct actions (actions that directly accomplish our goal) and actions that are used to get someone else (usually a politician) to accomplish the goal for us. And I see even a bigger difference between between direct actions and those which attempt to get a certain politician elected to office. When I say our power, I mean our power to directly shape our world in the way we desire (I thought this is how most anarchsts would view the phrase "our power"). So to me, it is actions that build that power outside of and in opposition to capitalist and statist forms that are the ones to take. So I see a fundemental contradiction between this type of direct action and attempts to get someone elected.

We probably have a very different idea of our movement as well. The letter is also abstract in that it states it will build our movement. But what type of movement is trying to be built? A campaign can certainly build a movement, no doubt. But I don't think it can build an anti-capitalist and anti-state movement. An electoral campaign is fundementally about convincing people that voting is a way to transform their lives--as someone said in the positive "getting people fired up by the campaign". Perhaps in the short term it gets people "involved" in a campaign but it also disempowers them by channelling that involvement and energy into state power. If nothing else you are going to convince people the system works--that is disempowering if your goal is the end of the system. The short term derails the long term. But again, this all depends on what kind of movement you want to build, what kind of power you want to build.

Your "win" might also be a difference. What is winning for you? Is getting Gonzalez elected winning? Also, I don't think that "meetings the FEEL productive" build our power either. Often they disempower us. Feeling good or productive is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we feel good but we are actually working against our long term goals it is bad. A "continuing sophistication of strategy" is certainly good--but isn't that why we should also debate these things instead of saying any critique is "purism" and should be ignored???? The point is is that I think this is the opposite, a strategy that is getting less sophistocated, not more (polemical claims to "innovation" notwithstanding).

voter: "And tell me that anarchists helping shape a grassroots momentum of people becoming activated and empowered doesn't help it move towards revolutionary power. "

Again, I don't think this is necessarily empowering in the sense of building power to end capitalism and the state. I don't think the momentum of an electoral campaign is in that direction at all. I think that momentum pushes towards legitimating the electoral system by convincing people to wok within the system and reducing openings to our power which is outside and opposite capitalism's state (the only state that exists). Now perhaps you believe another state is possible (a non-capitalist state). I don't, and that is perhaps a fundemental difference.




NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DIRTY HANDS VERSUS SOME SORT OF PURISM OR FUNDEMENTALIST CLUB. Those are easy rhetorical ways to avoid our real differences and ignore the real critique being made. (Even if we end up disagreeing in the end (which is quite likely) critique, when taken seriously, strengthens both sides, no? But ignoring it only makes one weaker.) There are actually some fundemental differences here, in terms of both goals and strategies. I doubt you can see my hands from there.

sasha

PS. Again, I think "anarchists and radicals for Gonzalez" is probably the best way to make sure he isn't elected. And if getting him elected isn't the goal, far from building our power, I think this campaign is manipulative and deceptive.

The problem with American "revolutionaries" is that they are too obsessed with their own individualistic quests of recognition to ever consider joining togeather with others for a real revolutionary cause. Maybe its the American cultural baggage or "rugged individualism," I don't know, but the fact remains is that American "revolutionaries" are too arrogant to follow any kind of programme that could result in social revoultion. These democray worshipping baffoons are just the epitomy of American liberal idiocy, and only support Gonzolas because they think it can give themselves more notoriety as fucking activists in SF, you fucking hippies. They are nothing more than fucking parasites sucking on the tit of political capitalism.

I think its time that the US developed a revolutionary party outside the maoist and stalinst cults which wasn't dominated by anarchist individualist bullshit or revisionist state-capitalist trechory, which is more of a competition between individuals, in other words PETTY-BOURGEOIS BULLSHIT, than a movement for the revolutionary tearing down of capitalist social relations and the destruction of capitalism from the top-down.

The US is about to enter a phase of serious capitalist crisis, and you have fucking social democrats trying to run the show, lets have real revolutionaries take over this operation and lets throw the individualistic petty-bourgeois idiocy to the side of the road.

It's not even insurrection. It's a degrading debasement, stooped too by those who lack the foresight, the insight and the intestinal fortitude to do what it will really take to make substantive change on this planet.

People go out in the street and politely beg the powers that be to please stop doing quite so much evil, at least for a while, as soon as they find it convenient, please sir, if you don’t mind, sir, please.

Revolution!?! Give me a break. That's no more revolutionary than politely requesting your rapist use a little grease.

Even rioting is more revolutionary than protesting. And we've all seen how much good they do. They’re nothing but ways to blow off some steam. In the morning, it business again as usual.

In a riot at, least you get some exercise. But at a protest, all you get is a chance to feel self righteous. Results, you do not get. Change you do not create. Progress, you do not make. Thirteen million people protested on the same day last spring. What frikkin good did it do? Did it stop the war? Did it save a single life or slow imperialism’s advance one iota? What oppression did it eliminate? Who was less exploited afterward?

Protest alone is a dead end. It’s sole and only virtue is as a networking matrix. Outside of that it accomplishes nothing. There is no point whatsoever in appealing to our rulers’ better nature. They don’t have one. They are ruthless, amoral and armed to the teeth. To them, we are nothing but livestock. There will be neither peace nor justice on this planet until every last one of them dies, and all their lackeys with them. There is no other way, and even that will not be enough. We must also prevent others from taking their place, and we must develop the effective social mechanisms we need to enable us to function as an economy without them in command.

And we can do this, all of it and more, if we but have the collective will.

In the meantime, if you really want them to not do quite so much evil, make it physically impossible for them to do so. Destroy the machine that supports their tyranny. Fold, spindle and mutilate it. Break it. Burn it. Smash it down. Put sugar in its gas tanks sand in its gearboxes. Short out its circuits and clog up its intake ports. Erase its data. Blind its sensors. Puncture its tires. Glue up its locks. Jam its valves. Blind its surveillance cams. Flood it with disinformation. Reroute its shipping. Rewrite its inventory reports. Forge bills of lading. Drain its accounts. Confuse it with lies within lies within lies within lies. Lure it into cul de sacs and leave it there to rust. Cut off it’s spare parts supply. Find choke points in its supply chain and attack, attack, attack. Hit and run. Strike from ambush. Leave false trails, strewn with red herrings, and leading in circles. Send it off on wild goose chases and laugh as it passes your hideout. Infiltrate. Exfiltrate. Survive to fight again. Never give up. There’s a planet at stake, and six billion lives.

Enough with symbolic resistance. Get real for a change. Get results.

Talk’s cheap. Put up or shut up. Direct action gets the goods.

Howdy folks,

I want to thank Sasha K for framing this debate in a constructive, "how will this actually build power", "here's why I disagree" discussion. So, thanks for framing this in terms of politics rather then personalities and person attacks. To the people who seem to get something positive out of denouncing me, I'm sorry that our activist culture has this kind of dynamic in it - the devour each other while the ruling class kicks our ass dynamic. I'm all for debate and think people should criticize me and others, but it would be a step forward to leave the name calling behind.

To the people who disagree with voting as a tactic, I agree with most of what you have to say. The piece that Sasha wrote about politicians acting out the logic of capital regardless if they are good people or not, I agree with - for the most part. A also recognize that the practice, as practiced by thousands of anarchists today, of voting and using electoral strategies, is in conflict to the anarchist positions that people mention. I generally agree with those arguments.

Here's where I disagree and here's what is meant by "building power" as outlined in the open letter, which Sasha accurately says is at the heart of this debate.

I believe that we need to have a much more complex reading of how power and state politics operate. My focus has been primarily the local/city level and to some extent the state level - fighting propositions. Here's a couple of ways I think it can build our power.

1. Elections are one of the few times when enormous numbers of people are discussing politics with a common reference point to engage each other on. Issues of housing, poverty, queer rights, immigrant rights, jobs, standard of living, family rights, education and so on are being discussed. As an anti-voting anarchist, I would often spend my time arguing against voting in those conversations, rather then proposing radical concepts and solutions for the issues of housing, poverty and so on. I think we can eaily make the point in those conversations that voting is one way of expressing politics, but that we think there are far more meaningful and effective ways of doing politics and then we talk direct action and so on, in the context of an overall strategy of actually win real positive changes (which means we need to be able to speak to what we want with some ideas of how we can get there in a way realistic enough to convince other people that this would be a useful way to apply their limited time and resources). Arguing against voting , in my experiece puts people on the defensive and rather then hearing our main points, people hear us telling them they're wrong, rather then the system being wrong. I think we can have far more effective political education campaigns coming from this perspective.

2. In doing electoral campaign work to defeat anti-poor people, anti-queer people, anti-women, anti-people of color, anti-worker, ballot initiatives - I have found myself working with left/progressive/radical people from a wide spectrum of backgrounds doing organizing/activist work that sometimes involves electoral work, but general involves fighting landlords and rent increases and getting rights as tenants, fighting as day laborers, workers on welfare, domestic workers, workers in sweatshops for better conditions, better pay and dignity. I've worked with people who are confronting the daily impacts of capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy in creative and radical ways that have inspired me and taught me much about organizing.

So for example, fighting against propositions like those mentioned have helped me and many other anarchists connect with good people and organizations involved in immigrant rights, worker rights, anti-poverty efforts. It has helped people build real relationships over the years that has included white anarchists and radicals providing childcare for immigrant rights groups, participating in civil disoediance and direct action with economic justice groups and more. when it has been harrassed by the police.

In talking with a lot of people outside of anarchist politcs, who are also radical, there is a perception that when people in power come after immigrants, people of color, working people through ballot initiatives or through politicians, that most anarchists turn their backs on them, that anarchists can not be counted on to throw down on local issues that immediately impact oppressed people. Because of Seatte and the mass mobilizations, people are more familiar with anarchists and see them as only concerned about international issues.

Think about your own experience. How do you build relationships of trust and respect with other folks? Through working together and demonstrating that it would be mutually positive to have such a relationship. One of my goals in seeing anarchists thrown down on local elections is to connect with others, conect with people who share aspects of your politics and build relationships that will hopefully mean everyone learning from each other and having solidarity with each other. Building movement takes time and patient work. Building relationships is key to movement building and that is what builds our power. This can happen regardless of the outcomes in the election and if you're working to elect a person, what that person does.

3. As an anarchist, I know that I have often had a very narrow perspective on how state power operates on the day to day level and how grassroots groups that often have to deal with City Hall can influence politics. I'm not talking about influencing City Hall, but in the course of struggling with City Hall have an impact on communities and amongst everyday people in particular. I think direct action focused anarchists have a lot to learn from community based organizing and would suggest people read James Mumm's piece Active Revolution at http://www.infoshop.org/texts/active_revolution.html for a more thoughts on this.

Basically the argument I hear amongst anarchists involved in the SF mayoral campaign is that we need a bottom up, grassroots based analysis of electoral politics. An analysis firmly rooted in direct action, community empowerment, anti-capitalist, anti-oppression politics and puts electoral work in a strategy of liberation that does not mean all electoral work is good or that the state is what will win us liberation, but our own power will set us free.

Thanks, chris

Its a question of pragmatism. MG actually has a chance. When many anarchists realized this, they got excited about his campaign.

What "movement" other than the "movement" to elect MG has excited bay area anarchists in recent years? Seriously!? Why is the only thing that all of you get so excited and unified and self-righteous about the fucking mayoral election?

That shit makes me sad. Look around yourselves, and ask yourselves what radical movement has galvanized your support and absorbed so much of your energy in the same way as MG? Has it come to the point that the only thing radicals can get excited and unify behind is some fucking wiener from the green party? Meanwhile our radical movements and institutions languish.

Vote for Matt if you want. I dont give a shit. That takes 20 mintues. Sure, Ill be the first to say, fuck purity, fuck ideology. But fuck you, fuck you for every dollar you donated to Matts campaign instead of radical institutions, fuck you for every hour you took away from your organizing to spend pimping him.

PS. Noone actually gives a shit about our endorsements. We are marginal and we are going to stay marginal until we invest our energy in building our own fucking institutions.

"I think "anarchists and radicals for Gonzalez" is probably the best way to make sure he isn't elected."

The interesting thing about this election is that many very different groups have come together in order to support Matt because Newsom is so bad.

People I know who would never go to a protest, would never vote for the Green, are supporting Matt. Their explanation is that they're voting for Matt, not the Green Party. And they have their own in-group within the campaign who self-identifies with a title and logo, etc. In this way, many different types of people are involved and get mixed together. Early on in the campaign, a variety of pins began being made - Greens for Matt, Queers for Matt, Spanish ones, Mandarin ones, etc. This came from the natural creativity of the people involved. Small things like that helped to create a fluid system within the campaign. The general confusion of anything with the Greens also helped to keep things from having any rigidity.

Anarchists are only one of many groups, People of Color, Queers, Greens, etc. Even dog-owners have their own group. No one group is going to take it down that easily.

However, the fundamental division between the Dems and Greens is the most likely fault line. It's being handled well so far, but that has the most potential to blow it. Items like Gavin Newsom being exposed as donating to the Repubs in 2000 helps to keep things together.

it might be of interest to you that san francisco is not part of oakland - or as you refer to as oakwood
which is some what of an inarticulate reference to
your own residence.

Chris Crass rationalizes his mystification by & affinity for the electoral process by offering himself up as a straw-man argument -- the logic employed to defend the indefensible can be comic at times! Since his (supposed) earlier opposition to electoral politics was completely nebulous and abstract and not based on anything concrete, his incoherence is supposed to be a rational for people like him to hustle their real or imagined constituency into embracing illusions about one of biggest hustles a sophisticated capitalism runs on its victims.

Electoral politics can bring out an accidental and uncharacteristic clarity in its apologists. And sometimes we can judge people by the company they keep. Chris writes, "..In doing electoral campaign work to defeat anti-poor people, anti-queer people, anti-women, anti-people of color, anti-worker, ballot initiatives - I have found myself working with left/progressive/radical people from a wide spectrum of backgrounds..." He certainly has. His comrades in this effort include what's left of the former pro-Moscow Stalinist "Communist" party in the form of the "Center for Political Education. Stalinism played a leading role in the defeat of every authentic revolutionary movement of the past 70 years, but this doesn't give our anarchist friends reason to pause. Their Popular Front Against Newsomism also involves mainstream, "Utne Reader" type liberals like Rebecca Solnit.

Solnit is a writer who makes a living telling rich, dumb liberals the kind of lies thay want to hear. In her laughable book on San Francisco gentrifiaction, "Hollow City," Solnit defined "radical politics" as being synonymous with the elected officials of the Democratic Party, specifically Tom Ammiano. As a form of mass politics, liberalism is as dead as a dodo bird, but liberals like Solnit perform a final ideological service to Capital by redrawing the boundaries of what's acceptable. For them, "radical" politics means elected government officials and the politics that gells around them. This is what you get with the vision the anarchist politician Chris Crass articulates here as well.

Modern capitalism is an ever-more totalitarian system. Over the past hundred years this system has successfully absorbed and recuperated movement that once opposed it; the classical workers movement, leftist political parties, labor unions, and today's protest ghetto, too. Capitalism has turned all of these phenomenon into mechanisms of social control, ways of diffusing rage against the inequities of this system into harmless channels. By equating electoral politics with other, valid forms of resistance to capital, (rent strikes, undocumented workers taking action in defense of their interests, etc,) Chris and his comrades blur the distictions between a popularity contest sponsored by the capitalist state, and forms of action that haven't yet been turned into a part of the political arsenal of capital; direct, colllective action that could help working and poor people develop an uncompromising autonomy from and hostility to capitalist social relations and the politics apparatus they engender. Chris and his compatriots don't really even know what capitalism is, except as a long list of all the mean things it does or supposedly does to people -- "patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism...". Their hearts may be in the right place, but the analysis is sorely lacking.

Chris Crass unintentionally confirms my central point in this exchange -- the involvement of supposed radicals in electoral politics isn't an exception to an otherwise impeccable track record of direct-action oriented, anti-market, anti-state, working class-oriented activity. The individuals who signed the 'vote for Gonzalez' call that stated this exchange aren't confused or exceptional timid opponents of the existing state of things, but the extreme left-wing of a political continuum that gives the world Bush, Schwartzenegger, Gore, Dean, Lieberman, ad nauseum. The fact that this left-rump of capital's political ensemble manages to lose all the time doesn't morally redeem it!

could kevin please translate this into English, sans the hackneyed buzzwords? the overuse of them makes it sound like it's generated by some formulaic, computer-generated dogma software.

bw

"Capitalism has turned all of these phenomenon into mechanisms of social control, ways of diffusing rage against the inequities of this system into harmless channels"

What makes anarchism different? A better analysis?
What defines not being turned into a mechanisms of social control?

Cult like anarchist and Communist groups that havnt "sold out" but do little except believe they hold the answer to how the world works have little impact on Capitalism or anything else.

Groups that do things can always be portrayed as reformist. I have no problem with rent strikes but what makes that such a radical act? Lets say a landlord actually gave in and you got a building in the middle of the city. To make it livable you still need to take on the power companies, the water companies, etc.. And of course as can be seen by squatting laws in European countries, building takeovers pose little threat to Capitalism. Its possible for a small segment of society to live in abandoned buildings and dumpster dive food, but that living off the refuse of Capitalism not creating an alternative to it (an alternative society that aims to even reform the current society cant depend on it for basic survival). Not that there is anything wrong with squatting; It gives some people a place to live and doesnt make things worse. Farming communes seems like a more logical candidate for a sustainabale alternative society, but while more practical in theory, all attempts I have seen at this in wealthy societies have failed (most communes "sell out" eventually since self sustainability is a lot of work)

I am bothered when one analysis of change is put forward as the one true way and everything else is seen as reformist. Making things better gradually has to be a part of any effort for social change. If your only goal is to piss off the population enough to make it revolt, you would be out trying to get the most rabid Republicans in office and pressure more companies to close factories and treat their workers worse. Some on the radical left denounce reform and try to solve this dillema by the belief that Capitalism's collapse is just around the corner, but there is an aspect to that reminds me way to much of Christians waiting for the world to end.

There was much info to wade thru in this discussion, good points made, but in the end, the illusion of democracy needs to be smashed. I know Chris Crass has good intentions, but come on vato, electoral politics are a dead end. Even if you vote for someone or campaign for them, you should keep that to yourself. You know the real work is outside of electoral politics, why sideline energy into it? It doesn't matter who you vote for, (Arnold proved that to the extreme, remember?) so why bother wasting time on electoral politics? I hope you can come back after the election with some concrete examples of how real and meaningful it was to campaign for another politico. Democracy doesn't work.
Elections are meaningless, it doesn't matter if you vote or not. The real change will always come from outside of that bankrupt model. It's a waste to channel people into that, especially when it's done under an anarchist perspective: that just creates more jaded people.
Later locos, EL CHAVO!

Sorry if I can't dumb this down enough for you, Ben. Better stick to watching Teletubbies -- it's probably more your speed.

There's a technological solution to the problem of landlords, also to the problem of bankers, CEOs and the rest of the parasites:

http://www.righthook.com/silence.html

http://www.pacificnet.net/larder/silencers.html

http://www.rayrilingarmsbooks.com/cgi-bin/rrb455.cgi/7817.html

kevin,

it isn't that you need to 'dumb down' what you are saying, it's just that it's so wooden and cliched that it doesn't sound like a living person produced it. from your website i've found that you're not a trot, but your vocabulary is just as limited as theirs, although no less flat and rigid. you simply recite truths in talmudic fashion and seem to discourage critical inquiry. which, like the leftist/nationalist/religious cults, means we agree with you and are 'revolutionaries' or we diverge from your ideas slightly and use different methodologies and we're instantly
'counterrevolutionaries'. it must not be easy being right all the time in a world where everyone else is incompetent. being the messiah of revolution and the upholder of so much truth doesn't seem to afford you much time to make your gifts accessable to your flocks. too bad, i thought our saviour would be a better writer.

ben

I guess this could be the solution to other types of parasites to such as squatters, drug dealers, protestors, politicians, homeless, criminals, lawyers…

What a sad sad world when people have to come down to this level.

"There's a technological solution to the problem of landlords, also to the problem of bankers, CEOs and the rest of the parasites"

yeah. Unfortunately capitalism is structural enough that it operates even without the support of the elites.

Getting a working city operatng with nonhierarchical cooperatives controlling water purification, electricity, etc.. will be a huge challenge. A move towards public power and even nationalization of industries (or union takeovers of industries) seems like a more realistic step in that direction than most of the actions that have been talked about. The problem in the US is that we don't have the support yet of the majority of the population even for that (and most of the left doesnt see this as a problem since truth is self evident and the good word of anarchism will be accepted by the people come judgement day) so its hard to do anything.

homeless = victims of capitalism

squatters = revolutionary pioneers

drug dealers = performers of a public service

criminals = whoever the rulers proclaim to be one, ie., Jesus, Jefferson, MLK, von Stauffenberg, etc.

protestors = people who waste their time when what we really need is revolution

politicians = parasites

lawyers = a mixed bag. Most suck. Mine, however, does not.

"what we really need is revolution "

Im unclear what this revolution people are talking about is all about? The country is turning against Bush and shifting to the left on social issues but is pretty conservative economically. Opposition to big business in the abstract is growing but not in any concrete sense and opposition to Capitalism is pretty much nonexistent (even Communists and Anarchists use Capitalist style relationships when dealing with each other most of the time). The chance that the US government will get overthrown in the next 30-50 years seems pretty close to zero. And, without some dictatorial top down control, a revolution would be unlikely to change much anyways since Capitalism is so much a part of US culture (prostitutes, fencing operations, drug dealers and most people operating outside the law operate according to the rules of Capitalism sometimes with even more oppressive employee/employer relationships than in the legal economy). At least with reformism, you can aim to change the culture while fighting for small things that might help people in the short term.

Revolutionism, as believed in by many Anarchists and Communists, seems like a variation on Christian beliefs in end times. It probably shouldn't come as too big a surprise since the belief in an eventual revolution to end all revolutions grew out of the millenialist roots of Communism (anabaptists, Muenzer etc..) Aiming to change society for the better is a great idea and I agree with the politics of self described revolutionaries more than most reformists since you can trust revolutionaries to not give in to public opinion (like the Green Party's taking so long to oppose the Afghan war) But, people really have to think long and hard about where this belief in a revolution is comming from. If a utopian society were around the corner I would support a revolution, but it almost seems to me that belief in a revolution (that will somehow be final) is more important to being a Revolutionist than support for an abstract revolution that one finds to be unrealistic. Ideologies that are based off faith that some future event is inevitable and will be final seems like it had to have come from Christianity's concepts of end times since its not a logical conclusion one would expect to have come from a study of history, economics or human psychology (Marx talks very little about the future since it was his weakest argument). If you dig deeper into the myths sorrounding this future revolution you will find many similarities to the Christian belief. There is an underlying belief (more apparent in how poeple argue than what is written down) that we live in a fascist dictatorship that will become more and more oppressive until the people are forced to rise up, ovethrow the tyrants and establish 1000 years of peace and equality (ok the 1000 years is from the Christian bible but the similarity in the fear/belief is amazingly similar) Things are getting worse and we do need to organize to fight Bush, but the underlying belief in the inevitablity of the path the future will take seems like a rationalization of Christian prophesies that have somehow remained a part of otherwise scientific views of the world (anarchism and communism).

to EL VATO, and all:
don't dis' elections so quickly, dudes and vatos. just look at venezuela. the most revolutionary government in the world today that got there without violence.

i don't make the arguement that this will happen in SF or Cali, but most poor poeple don't have the luxury to fight imperialism by just sitting back and theorizing anarchism or socialism or any other -ism when they have to work--or even worse, when they are a community, such as indigenous peoples, who are constantly being attacked. i mean, disenfranchisement isn't even the most pertinent problem to them when they are so marginalized.

in venezuela the elections have been used to empower the people into making changes right away. but it was done first by a lot of grassroots organizing. but what was the first thing the revolutionary movement and chavez did to keep the people going to the election booths? they drafted a constitutional referendum, which became a major platform for what would become the most participatory democracy today.

read up on their constitution and the revolutionary laws affecting agriculture, the environment, fishing, and the oil (and related) industries. this is what caused the coup and why the right-wing and elites keep fighting to survive.

there are many ways to get to revolution.
practice revolution, don't just theorize.

He's so revolutionary, even his parrot wears a red berret.

je je je, that parrot with the beret is great. i'm so sure the right-wing media loves it, probably grinding their teeth as they see it. it's like bush and the turkey up here!

i've heard rumors that chavez even puts on an oakland "just-cause" t-shirt given to him by bay area activists.

cheers to the revolutionaries!

Chavez is definetely my kind of career military man turned demagogic ruler of a capitalist state -- where do all us dumb anarchos line up to get his autograph?

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/art/photography/politics/misc.htm

Makhno was for elections, although not in the Capitalist sense (the "the staff of the Father Makhno Division" was slightly more than equal)

"Electoral procedure:
The peasants and workers are to choose one delegate per three thousand members of the population.
Insurgents and Red soldiers are to delegate one representative per troop unit (regiment, division, etc.).
Staffs: the staff of the Father Makhno Division will send two delegates: the brigade staffs will send one delegate per rank.
The district executive committees will return one delegate per fraction (party representatives).
District party organizations - the ones acepting the foundations of "soviet" rule - will return one delegate per organization"
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/summons.htm

"All political systems in the world today
are the product of the struggle for power
between instruments of governing. The
struggle may be peaceful or armed, such as
the conflict of classes, sects, tribes, parties or
individuals. The result is always the victory
of an instrument of governing -- be it an
individual, group, party or class and the
defeat of the people, i.e. the defeat of genuine
democracy.
Political struggle that results in the vic-
tory of a candidate with 51 per cent of the
votes leads to a dictatorial governing body
disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per
cent of the electorate is ruled by an instru-
ment of governing they did not vote for, but
had imposed upon them. This is dictatorship.
Besides, this political conflict may produce a
governing body that represents only a
minority, for when votes are distributed
among several candidates, one of them polls
more than any other candidate. But if the
votes polled by those who received less are
added up, they can constitute an over-
whelming majority. However, the candidate
with fewer votes wins and his success is
regarded as legitimate and democratic! In
actual fact, dictatorship is established under
the cover of false democracy. This is the
reality of the political systems prevailing in
the world today. They are dictatorial systems
and it seems clear that they falsify genuine
democracy."
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm

"Philosophers, thinkers and writers
advocated the theory of representative
government at a time when the peo-
ples, without realising it, were driven
like sheep by kings, sultans and con-
querors. The ultimate aspiration of the
people of those times was to have
someone to represent them before such
rulers. Even that aspiration was nulli-
fied. Peoples went through long and
bitter struggles to attain what they
aspired to. After the successful estab-
lishment of the era of the republics and
the beginning of the era of the masses,
it is unreasonable that democracy
should mean the electing of only a few
representatives to act on behalf of
great masses. This is an obsolete
theory and an outdated experience.
The whole authority must be the peo-
ple's.
The most tyrannical dictatorships
the world has known have existed
under the shadow of parliaments.
"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm

"Plebiscites are a fraud against
democracy. Those who say 'yes' and
those who say 'no' do not, in fact,
express their will. They have been
silenced through the conception of
modern democracy. They have been
allowed to utter only one word: either
'yes' or 'no'. This is the most cruel and
oppressive dictatorial system. He who
says 'no' should give reasons for his
answer. He should explain why he did
not say 'yes'. And he who says 'yes'
should give reasons for approval and
why he did not say 'no'. Everyone
should make clear what he wants and
the reasons for his approval or rejec-
tion.
What road, then, must human groups
take to get rid, once and for all, of the
tyrannical and dictatorial ages?
Since the intricate problem in the
case of democracy is the instrument of
governing, expressed by conflicts of
classes, parties and individuals; and
since the electoral and plebiscite
methods were invented to cover the
failure of those unsuccessful experi-
ments to solve this problem, the solu-
tion lies in finding an instrument of
governing other than these which are
subject to conflict and which represent
only one side of the society. That is to
say, an instrument of governing which
is not a party, a class, a sect or a tribe,
but an instrument of governing which
is the people as a whole. It neither
represents the people nor speaks in
their name.
No representation in lieu of the people
and representation is fraud. If that
instrument can be brought into being
the problem will be solved, popular
democracy will be realised, mankind
will have put an end to tyrannical eras
and dictatorial systems, and the au-
thority of the people will have taken
their place."
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm

What went wrong...

"If an instrument of governing is
dictatorial, as in political systems in
the world today, the society's vigilance
towards deviation from law will have
only one way to gain readjustment.
That is violence, which means revolu-
tion against the instrument of gov-
erning. This violence or revolution,
even if it is an expression of the feeling
of the society against deviation, is not
carried out by the whole society. It is
undertaken only by those who have the
initiative and boldness to proclaim the
will of the society. However, this
approach is the way to dictatorship, for
this revolutionary initiative increases
the opportunity for an instrument of
governing, representative of the peo-
ple, to arise. This means that the
instrument of governing is still dictato-
rial. Moreover, violence and change by
force are themselves undemocratic,

[39]


although they take place as a result of
the existence of a previous undemocra-
tic situation. The society that is still
entangled around this resultant is a
backward society. What, then, is the
solution?
The solution is for the people to be
the instrument of governing from
basic popular congresses to the Gener-
al People's Congress. The government
administration is abolished and re-
placed by people's committees. The
General People's Congress should be a
national congress where basic popular
congresses, people's administrative
committees, unions, syndicates and all
professional associations come
together. If a deviation from the socie-
ty's law takes place under this system,
it should be dealt with through a demo-
cratic revision rather than by force.
This is not a process of voluntary
choice of the method of change or of
treatment, rather it is an inevitable
result of the nature of such a democra-
tic system. In such a case, there is no
outside group against which violent
action may be directed or which may
be held responsible for deviation.
"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/readgb.htm

"Round ‘em up and herd ‘em off a cliff"

The French Revolution didnt really change much, did it? A new rulling class formed, accumulated money and ended up looking like the previous rulling class.

Social Democrat's main goal is to deal with money accumulation. Sweden had high tax rates that made almost all of the country middle class. It did it through reformism whereas the French revolution largely failed since just killing rich people didn't accomplish much without changes in economic structure.

But, Capitalism is much more than inequality its the economic system that pervades all of society from street corner drug dealers to CEOs to people who sell food at farmer's markets. In Sweden, back during tehir highest tax rates, you still had CEOs and people working for them for wages. The Soviet Union gave in quickly to Capitalism with Lenin's NEP and Stalin created a beurocracy that made the country look like one big corrupt business. Fighting Capitalism is much more than fighting the rich (it can exist without them).

because leaders are nothing more than bosses.

Chris's justification for lining up behind the Gonzalez parade contained all the right PC arguments but fails to convince. I won't argue that Gonzalez would be (slightly) better than Newsom, nor do I have a big problem per se with radicals (quietly) voting. What I, and others, have a problem with is self-ID'd radicals failing to offer a critique of voting and instead depicting a given candidates election victory as consonant with anti-capitalist strategy and goals.

Chris points to his experiences fighting reactionary state propositions as evidence that elections are where the action's at, and therefore an important locus of struggle. He inexplicably fails to mention that radicals' efforts to get out the vote never make any appreciable difference in the election's outcome--indeed, these reactionary initiatives almost always pass overwhelmingly.

Radicals and revolutionaries should critique the system that inevitably poses such viscious "solutions" to the ills of its own making. Radicals and revolutionaries should--in the case of ballot initiatives in particular--organize and prepare to fight their impact. But when we funnel our efforts into "getting out the vote" we're playing by our enemies rules and allowing them to circumscribe our activity. When we throw our efforts into defeating them via approved means--i.e. voting--we lend the entire process, as well as the outcome, legitimacy. These ballot initiatives never stop. Whether or not by design, their effect is to constantly keep us on the defensive--just where THEY want us.

Where can I send a check? Since Gonzo supports giving every homeless person $410 a month, I figure, if elected, all the bums in my city will move to S.F. Hell, I may give them a bus ticket. I'm definitely going to supply them with information about Gonzo's great social programs. Homeless people deserve to know these things, right?

Don't worry - I'll tell them to "be sure to wear a flower in your hair."

Say what you want about radicalism and voting, but the powers that be are amazingly worried abiout Newsom's loss. If the rich can'' get the son of one of their own elected, what can they do?

"Former President Bill Clinton has been asked to make a last-minute campaign appearance for San Francisco's Democratic mayoral hopeful, who faces a tough runoff race against a Green Party challenger, campaign sources said Friday
...
A spokesman for Mayor Willie Brown, who is being termed out after eight years in office, said the incumbent has helped arrange for the Rev. Jesse Jackson to endorse Newsom this weekend, and also lodged his own appeals with Clinton. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/05/state2112EST0139.DTL

What exactly is the anarchist belief in revolution? Is there a belief in historical stages with an egalitarian society being the final stage as one sees in Marxism? Is there a belief in the stability of the resulting society or is there some idea of eternal vigilance being needed to prevent the rise of dictatorships? Are local anarchist societies seen as possible or does an anarchist revolution have to be global to be successful?
.
In a future anarchist society, what will be the legality of small-scale capitalism? Will barter still exist? What about property ownership? If something that is considered personal property also is used as a means of production (like a personal computer), will there be some way to prevent people from using ownership of the means of production to create non-anarchist power relationships? If workers own their means of production, how do you prevent inequality (and the power relationships that come with it) if one co-op has access to expensive equipment while another does not.

What is the difference between reformism and being a revolutionary? Is it bad to make things marginally better in the short term if it doesn’t impact the chances of a revolution in the longer term (like voting)?

How exactly will a revolution take place? If the idea is that there will be a class war, has the highly religious nature of the US working class (that votes Republican more than the middle class) been taken into account. Is the requirement of a revolution that the government acts first? Are we to wait until the government has tanks in the streets of every city and that is seen as the main thing that will radicalize the population? Assuming a revolution does take place, how do you prevent scapegoating of populations as occurred in the attacks on Korean corner stores during the LA uprising? How do you prevent people who are good at war organizing from ending up with power?

After a revolution, how do you allow freedom of speech while preventing "counter-revolutionaries" from organizing to re-establish capitalism. If there will always be power hungry individuals in any human population, how do you stop those individuals from taking over without limiting their freedom to speech and assembly? If a group, co-op, or individual organizes with a hierarchical relationship and starts accumulating power and wealth, at what point can/will it be stopped. If a bunch of people want to play football with coachs will that be legal? What if instead of football its paintball and the people need their own body armor like equipment to play the game. What if a group of people want to play war games with real equipment and hierarchical relationships.

Libya is a case where a man pretends not to be a leader and pretends that popular assemblies hold ultimate power, but in fact it’s a dictatorship with limited freedom of speech. Just stating that one supports equality and antiauthoritarianism doesn’t seem to mean much. Castro denounces the rich and talks about class, but he owns a yacht and lives a wealthy lifestyle.

The recent popularity in anarchism partially stems from the failures of the attempts at Communism in places like the USSR, Cuba, China etc.. It also stems from Communist groups apologizing for barbaric behavior on the part of self-described Communist leaders. Libya is a case where one sees something similar with Anarchism, although luckily few if any Anarchist groups will apologize for Qadafi (or even know he based his ideology off Anarchist teachings) The problem with most of the Communist Revolutions in the past (and even with Anarchist Revolutions if you count Libya), has to do with the power relationships during the revolution and attempts to prevent counter-revolution after the revolution. Unfortunately, attacks on Communism by Anarchists often focus on what went wrong much more than why it went wrong. An Anarchist revolution resulting in a USSR type situation would be a disaster and discredit Anarchism in the same way that the USSR discredited Communism.

Of course, Anarchists and Communists in the US are a very very small minority with no real power or support by any sizable segment of the population. People will support single issue events promoted by Anarchists and Communists (like war protests or antiWTO protests) but that does not reflect on support for a revolution or even a desire to get rid of Capitalism (most steel workers who protested the FTAA probably would not consider themselves Anarchists or Communists.and many were even Republicans, while some people who opposed the war in Iraq are supporting Newsom) This isn’t a reflection of the morality or correctness of Anarchist or Communist analysis, but it does make talk of revolution, reformism and even actions being "counter-revolutionary" seem somewhat nonsensical.

Human consciousness is fluid, not static, and social condition are as well. A perspective that appears ridiculous today may become central to great events 5, 15 or 30 years down the line.

Here are a few thoughts in response to your questions for anarchists, from the opening document on the incredibly witty, sharp, clear-sighted, provocative, implacable, indespensible "Love and Treason" web page!

"...In strikes, riots and a thousand other forms of action the working class must use violence against the dictatorship of the market. The class struggle isn’t a peaceful process -- might makes right. Only large-scale, conscious, organized action can bring working and poor people victory in the class war.

THE ANTI-STATE COMMUNIST PROGRAM
The forces in global capitalist society that make a revolutionary movement possible in one area or region will simultaneously give rise to revolutionary possibilities in many other parts of the world. An international revolt against capitalism broke out after World War One, from Russia in 1917 to Spain in 1937, and a similar upheaval took place all over the globe during the late 1960’s. As capitalism becomes a more globally unified system a working class response to capital can become more globally united as well. Unfortunately war is often the best midwife of a major revolutionary crisis, and this is by far the most likely source of such an event for the United States.

Social revolution will be an international phenomenon. It will require the violent destruction of the state in an armed insurrection or mass uprising, simultaneous with the seizure of the means of production and distribution by the wage slave class. A central aspect of this will be to disperse the police and bring about the collapse of the state’s armed forces through desertions, sabotage, fraternization and mutiny. At its high point, a mass revolutionary movement may acquire an irresistible quality that will sweep aside obstacles with a surprising and improbable speed.

During this period of rapid transition from capitalism to stateless communism, the mass revolutionary movement will have to maintain an absolute monopoly of power over and against the defeated capitalist class. We will abolish all forms of unnecessary toil. There will be no more office work; we will immediately abolish all banks, insurance companies, stock markets and brokerage houses, law firms, advertising, the corporate media apparatus and government bureaucracies; we will gradually dismantle all the ecologically harmful industries and technologies that capital has throttled the earth with, chief among them extractive industries and the private automobile. Most computer systems will be trashed. Social life will move at a much slower rhythm. The most important point of all is that all forms of market relations -- working for wages, trade, exchange, the use of money -- must be quickly, completely and permanently done away with.

The abolition of capitalism doesn’t mean democracy, nationalization of major industries, power in the hands of leftists or workers’ self-management of the economy. The goal of an authentic revolutionary movement is the abolition of wage labor, the abolition of the market economy, the destruction of all states, standing armies and national borders; the emergence of new social relations where poverty is abolished and labor no longer rules social life: a classless, stateless, moneyless, global human community. In a post-capitalist world, productive activity will be performed for the free and direct satisfaction of human needs while respecting the integrity of the Earth’s environment. Everyone will have equal power and can contribute to the best of their ability; we will all have an equal voice in how society is run and equal access to the wealth we create.

In spite of their flaws and limits, the defeated social revolutions of the 20th century, and the mass collective violence of the poor in revolt from Los Angeles to Iraqi Kurdistan, are embryonic expressions of the future anti-statist class dictatorship of the poor against capital worldwide, what must become a consciously communist movement without borders or compromises, a new world trying to come alive. Social revolution, and class struggles that tend towards communism, require despotic action by the dispossessed against the system that dispossesses us -- a dictatorship of our needs against the dictatorship of exchange value. The destruction of commodity relations and the emergence of authentic human community aren’t just measures that will be enacted "The Day After The Revolution". These communist urges live today as an impulse in collective struggles, and in many small gestures and attitudes. Anti-capitalist revolutionaries fight to spread and develop these perspectives with an organized, aggressive, long-term involvement in contemporary social struggles."

Now, obviously, this is a bit far down the line from our current pedestrian concerns with a little old mayoral contest. But there can be no contradiction between the small measures that people who hate capitalism engage in now, and the bigger goals we have for the future -- the one can lead to the other.

" the mass revolutionary movement will have to maintain an absolute monopoly of power over and against the defeated capitalist class"

Who will be in the mass revolutionary movement? Is it realistic to assume the working class in the US would unite behind an anarchist movement. Even if 70% did, what would happen to the remaining 30% of the working class who decides they like their work places as is? Why would the working class not unite in their self interest? It happens. There have been recent local cases of workplaces voting against unions and while people blamed the unions, an even larger percent of the workers would have voted against a worker takeover so the assumption of working class unity seems like a stretch.

" spite of their flaws and limits, the defeated social revolutions of the 20th century, and the mass collective violence of the poor in revolt from Los Angeles to Iraqi Kurdistan, are embryonic expressions of the future anti-statist class dictatorship of the poor against capital worldwide"

Was Iraqi Kurdistan under Saddam anti-Capitalist? Local business moghuls controlled illegal trade with neighboring countries and a few proUS parties had military control over much of the country.

As for LA, it was an expression of anger at inequality and police brutality but was it anti-Capitalist? Did a movement in the effected communities grow out of the uprising that threatens the state or even local corporate control? Local community leaders demanded tax shelters for businesses operating in the areas that got burned down and there was a change in the police force but I dont remember much comming out of that that sounded like a call for more radical change.

One shouldnt dismiss genuine acts of the workingclass rebelling. The LA uprising did come from the poor and working class and represented real anger at conditions in poor communities in LA. But, there is a strange way that every radical leftist group tries to stamp their ideology on such events. Anarchists, Communists and other revolutionary groups all use the LA rebellion to show how radical change in the US is possible. trying to claim credit for a rebellion can easilly backfire. The recent attempts to frame the rebellion in Argentina as anarchist should serve as an example; there were anarchists involved but the masses in the streets were there due to be locked out of their bank accounts (and the result was a government that is center left as the masses who worried about their bank accounts demanded). Perhaps a real anarchist revolt will some day occur in some country, but there is enough crying wolf about existing rebellions it will be hard to know when it is real.

I wish there was more of a movement for an anarchist society comming from the working class. If workers at Wallmart rose up and took over even one store, that would be amazing. If workers at the local refineries cut off the local gasoline supply in protest over their dangerous working conditions or as a protest over the owners support for the war in Iraq, there would be a sense that the anarchist movement had a fighting chance.

"The destruction of commodity relations and the emergence of authentic human community aren’t just measures that will be enacted "The Day After The Revolution". These communist urges live today as an impulse in collective struggles, and in many small gestures and attitudes. Anti-capitalist revolutionaries fight to spread and develop these perspectives with an organized, aggressive, long-term involvement in contemporary social struggles." "

Creating a better society and convincing the public that it works is a way that an anarchist revolution could happen. Im cynical enought that not seeing such a better society among most the anarchists I know, I wonder how the public is going to be convinced that there is a better alternative. When someone working a horrible office job, at a factory, or in a grocery store can quit their job and live a better life as an Anarchist I think we will be at a turning point. While there are collective businesses now, they dont have much pull on the working class since their wages are not always competative and there are rarely many openings (and they tend to be in wealthy areas where they can serve niche markets).

I like the goals of Anarchists, although If an armed Anarchist revolution did occur I wouldnt be surprised if (as with most armed conflicts) a power hungry general didn't emerge as the new ruler (I think Napolean and Stalin reflect the dynamics of war more than reflecting flaws in ideology). But, in its present incarnation, something about Anarchism (and Communism) hasnt yet ressonated among the working classes in the US. It could be that propaganda from the media has people brainwashed and if we could just get through to people they would all be anarchists, but there are times that that seems too similar a belief to evangelical Christianity (although having people going door to door telling the population "the good word" of Anarchist revolutionism would probably grow and diversify the movement compared to current organizational tactics that draw in mainly rebellious youth). Anarchism and Communism are in many ways secular religions. I like them better than other religions but I see some of the predictions about our future in the same light as Christian talk about a future world with no war and people turning swords into ploughshares. I think most people tend to base their support for groups on what causes they work for today and if it will make people's lives better in the near future. I could care less if a group believes that in years we will have a Maoist government, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or Jesus Christ will return and smite the Capitalist sinners.

I think most Anarchist and Communists would find the comparison of their beliefs with religion offensive, but even Evangelical Christian's try to claim that their beliefs are not "religion" but instead "the truth". There is even an interesting comparison one can make between the violence vs nonviolence debate among anarchists and debates about "just war theory" among Christians (its almost the same debate). I wish like followers of Anarchism, Communism and other religions I could believe that history will grind to a halt and everything will some day be better. It is so much easier to get the energy to fight for what one sees as right when there is an inevitablity to the victory and one is sure that the effects of ones actions are certain. Its a lot harder to keep fighting when one doesnt believe in the light at the end of the tunnel. People must keep fighting or things will get worse but perhaps people need a carrot as well as the stick to keep going. Perhaps most activists must believe in a glorious revolution for the same reason that most people have a need to believe in an afterlife.

I'll try to be positive and at least believe in a Gonzalez victory. It wont change the world, but what will?

Anarchists and communists don't claim that anti-capitalist revolution will cause history to "grind to a halt." That's purely a figment of your imagination. If you've ever read any Marx you'd know that he believed that the destruction of class society and its attendant alienation and estrangement would mark the end of "pre-history." While I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending this conception of history, I think it has some merit. Certainly a lot more than your straw-man.

Speaking of straw-men, please name one revolutionary who believes that revolution, like the Christian's second-coming, is inevitable. C'mon name one. Many of us believe that capitalism is a crisis-ridden system that's set on brewing massive destruction and ultimately--yes, *inevitably*--leading our species into an irrevocable dead-end. Unfortunately, there's nothing inevitable about an effective counter-power emerging that can usher in a non-capitalist global human community based on freedom. That will take intelligence, tenacity, organization, imagination and human creativity--not straw-man missives.

Wow. I thought this thread was dead, but someone forgot to put a stake through Kevin Keating's heart cause he's still dribbling on and on and on....

I'm sorry for adding to this ridiculous back and forth, but when I read this:

"Chris and his compatriots don't really even know what capitalism is, except as a long list of all the mean things it does or supposedly does to people -- "patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism...". Their hearts may be in the right place, but the analysis is sorely lacking. "

I almost wet myself. Someone who is dancing spastically away to the tune of "Class War Now" in turned up so loud in their imaginary headphones that they can't hear Chris and hundreds of other anarchists across the country, let alone the world, nudging: "hello, do you have your eyes open? Um, it's impossible to understand capitalism without looking at the centrality of white supremacy, patriarchy and imperialism to the situation here of U.S. capitalism...." what kind of an anti-capitalist thinks that these systems of exploitation are "mean things" capitalism "supposedly does" to people?

could the answer be, economically privileged white dudes with U.S. citizenship who are posturing as having Ownership over Anarchism and are shaking in their boots at being called out for not only not having all the answers, but not being willing to look at where they fit into the picture as something a little more complex?

Yeah, Kevin, keep telling us how white supremacy is supposedly some mean thing that capitalism kinda sorta does to people on the side. That's the way to Lead your Rebellion. Do you really think a Whites-Only, Boys Club is gonna bring about revolution in this country? and do you really think anyone else is going to work with you when you are willing to talk that kind of shit in public?

Never mind, from what I hear from a wide variety of sources, no one wants to work with you anyway-- but since you don't do anything besides put up posters, I guess that doesn't cramp your style too much. So I guess it doesn't matter either that your analysis of capitalism -- some ephemeral phenomenon that exists in isolation from those doggone mythologies called "white supremacy, patriarchy and imperialism"-- has
absolutely
no relevance
to the real lives of most people living in this country.

But thanks for educating us about What Anarchism and Capitalism Really Are. If you ever remove your head from your ass and decide to do some real organizing on the ground, you're going to have an awful lot of apologizing to do. Maybe that's why you continue to dig your hole deeper-- easier to just keep posturing and inflating your feathers.

Thank god for all the anarchists out there who are actually doing anti-capitalist work that understands the structures that generate and reinforce economic exploitation.

Politicians will court different groups to help get themselves elected. Sometimes they will appear hard right or hard left if its advantageous, but many just look at polls and are trying to get a leg up on the competition. When the radical left starts getting into electoralism, will it look behind what the politicans say or just fall for the same old lies. Matt may be real, but one shouldn’t assume that what a politician says today will reflect at all on what they will say and do tomorrow.

see also
http://indybay.org/news/2003/12/1666168.php