October 22 Demonstration Against Police Brutality

thanks for the great pictures. really like the black and white.
also thanks for covering this event.

Im waiting for all the anarchist to start yelling around that o22 is a r.c.p. group.

I would say that anarchist made a pretty strong showing, (at least in people that I knew were anarchists), and I know that one of the main organizers at least identifys as an anarchist.

Also, anarchists also helped in pushing the group towards taking to the streets towards the end of the march.

And...yes, the RCP members were annoying as ever.

> good showing by anarchists

Yes, for sure. Many of us usually are part of O22.

> RCP annoying as ever

For sure. I'm glad that we didn't let their annoyingness (or what we perceive as their annoyingness, or, well...whatever) get in the way of participating, though.

The people above said it well. Many, many anarchists in attendance. One of the anarchist groups present had a table with literature and information set up. And yes, the RCP kept bothering me with their newspapers, but nobody let anythin' get to 'em. Good event.

"Im waiting for all the anarchist to start yelling around that o22 is a r.c.p. group."

Not only anarchists critique the RCP...

> not only anarchists criticize the RCP...

I don't think that's the concern as much as not working with a group that the RCP is a part of (for example, World Can't Wait). There's definitely a lot that can be criticized about the RCP.

There's a lot that can be criticized about anarchists (or at least some anarchists) as well, but that's another discussion.

or maybe you already have, and would rather just snivel?

Note the acknowledgement of the change in line about queers, and in how the RCP involves themselves with others.

Essentially, the new RCP approach seems to involve speaking first to shared progressive values (revolutionary change, "change the world," for example), then emphasizing the need for open discussion (including acknowledging they may not have all the answers), and finally affirming the receiver's importance to the discussion. For anarchists, these components sound familiar. They should. Since the 1999 World Trade Organization protests, an ongoing movement of people's assemblies, consultas, social forums and more have brought decentralized principles to the forefront of radical organizing. These strategies are inherently anti-authoritarian, focusing on direct democracy and collective decisionmaking. Such an approach is a far cry from what was long-criticized as RCP dogmatism and secrecy; no doubt standing on the sidelines of every major social movement for the last 25 years has prompted a shift in language. However, it's unlikely its core ideological principles have moved.

Whether you decide to engage in such dialogues is your own decision. Anarchists who tend to support coalition work with the RCP, in my experience, most frequently fall back on the issue as a question of being overly theoretical or "getting something done." The problem is that anarchists, in truth, need to consider what we are seeking, as having those discussions is necessary. Simply moving from one "something" to the next does not build a new world. For people of color, this question should be even more urgent.


http://www.illegalvoices.org/community/apoc_blog_archive/this_october_22,_the_rcp_follows_the_anarchists.html

I was the one who pointed out the RCP can change with the platform change on Lesbians and Gays. However i do not agree that the RCP has gotten better on what used to be called when i went to school "works and plays well with others". I realize that this is subjective as compared to a platform or line change, and different chapters and different individuals may act differently, and may react differently with different individuals they ocmmunicate with. Nevertheless i see the RCP getting more arrogaant and not less, getting more sectarian and not less, getting more cult-like with their Bob worship and not less. I worked with them on No Business as Usual, and they were much more open than they are now (or maybe i was more naive) to new ideas of working togethter. On this World Can't Wait campaign of theirs they seem in their seeming openness, are very controllling of the means and decision-making. There is no participatory decision making. There isn't even any open discussion list of people workign on the event. There are annnouncement lists galore telling everybody what's happening. They are only one way lists. They do not allow for comments, feedback ro new ideas to percolate. Givea and take is not permitted. It is part of the culture of democratic cnetralism rather the culture of assemblies and consultas. All of your other stuff is just window dressing. Thye seemed to have learned some of the correct wording and definitely have a high level of hype and hyperbole, but where the substance?

>RCP not changing

You could very well be right -- I'm hearing mixed replies, but the internet is hardly the best place to sort out who is who and what is what, ya know? I'm trying to keep an open mind.

In any case, we'll find out soon enough...

it was good, but no outreach was done here, that might be why few folks showed up.

"I was the one who pointed out the RCP can change with the platform change on Lesbians and Gays. "


no, you weren't. rather, you got hammered (with the facts) for supporting an online statement criticizing the rcp for a lot, including that old homophobic line, to justify your prejudice against them.

then, when those um misrepresentations were corrected in a documented fashion, you acknowledged that one point without ever engaging the deeper critique of how oh-so-many-but-not-each-and-every-of-the anarchos always seem to be doing just this kind of thing to their political opposition-- pretty much like everyone else, and especially like everyone else you, personally, criticize for not being as good&pure as you, mr. or ms. committed anarchist.

come down off the mountain and talk to the people around you like people. it's just that simple.

let's jsut say they've been proven to be a less than um rigorous source of information, right here in this forum.

surely you noticed, mr or ms noheroes....

"They are only one way lists. They do not allow for comments, feedback ro new ideas to percolate."

neither, apparently, does your mentality, and that hasnt stopped you from relying on that tool.....

>Illegal voices as a source of information

Did you read Greg Lewis' take on the article? It notes that the RCP has changed their platform. The reason that I put the APOC web site up is to show that, appearances to the contrary, not everybody who identifies as an anarchist fits the stereotype.

In several of the discussions on indybay about the RCP i was the first to point out their change in line on the the homosexual question. I was not hammered into that position. You may be lumping all us anarchists together (we all wear black....) but we are all the same.
Maybe i am dense, but i don't get your point int he rest of what you wrote about me. You'd don't know me, i believe. You don't know who i talk to and who i don't talk to.
Like i said many times recently here, if you want to consider a political difference a prejudice, go ahead, but that doesn't mean you'll convicne anyone else. And yes i am a committed anarchist. I hope you're commmitted to your beliefs whatever they may be.

The APOC website, which is run like a pretty tight ship, hosts several attacks on the RCP. What is interesting about the attacks is not their truthfulness. Greg Jackson's piece is so filled with factually incorrect slams that it's not a useful document for understanding much of anything.

What is interesting is the half-life of the pieces. Claims about how dogmatic the RCP is are kind of silly when the supposedly "open" website allows no debate at all on the document. This allows the link to be cut-and-pasted all over the internet with no debate at the central host.

It is totally true that the RCP will be attacked for positions they don't hold, generally anonymously, and then when there is a correction -- the attacker moves on to some new half-truth.

The bottom line is that the RCP is an unapologetic revolutionary organization. They also work in social movements, the arts and have an international tendency that is on quite a roll right now.

I support multi-racial parties. I support committed activism that isn't just about the issue du jour. I support groups that have the tenacity and audacity to BOTH fight for long-term objectives and the issues of the day, tying them together and telling the goddamn truth.

There is an assumption that it is anarchists making most of the attacks, but since they tend to be anonymous -- who the fuck knows? They generally have almost no actual content -- and when they do (and are wrong) you'd think an honest critic would be like "Oh, I thought you did that and was upset -- but since you don't, maybe I was wrong!"

People who hate the RCP should really think about why. And compare that with what they are doing, and what results it is yielding. We have years of very sharp struggle ahead of us -- and honest radicals should just stop slagging. Argue? Sure. But let's argue the real ground we stand on and not the phantoms in our heads.

OK, my support for APOC aside, what Billy Jack Red said is exactly what I am getting at. Only a fool thinks we're going to win this alone. Diversity of tactics, remember?

I simply am *not* the kind of anarchist who waits for the state to wither away, nor am I convinced that spending most of our time focusing on small scale projects that benefit us as much as the community is the answer. I am aware that steps are being made to move past this (for example, anarchist action), but we've got a long way to go.

I honestly wish that there was a vibrant, diverse, community-
involved anarchist movement that I could defend -- but there's not, at least at present. Holding up a few token examples is not enough.

This is somewhat off-topic, but it ties into an earlier thread around World Can't Wait:

From the WCW web site list of endorsers:

Keith McHenry, Founder, Food Not Bombs

Um, NOW do you get it?

relevance of that factoid?

please, folks: if we're going to rationally discuss something, it really helps to lay out the lines of logic by which one draws a conclusion. otherwise we're just throwing "facts" (and more likely opinions) at each other...

>relevance of that factoid?

please, folks: if we're going to rationally discuss something, it really helps to lay out the lines of logic by which one draws a conclusion. otherwise we're just throwing "facts" (and more likely opinions) at each other..<

OK, sorry. Keith McHenry, as a key person in the founding of Food Not Bombs, is well known and respected among many anarchists for helping to start a project that implements positive social change directly. (Just so I'm clear here -- Food Not Bombs isn't an anarchist project per se.) As such, it strikes me as a little weird that a group that he would endorse (World Can't Wait) is under so much heat from some anarchists for being authoritarian, because of their ties to the RCP.

That all being said, it appears that Keith was added to the endorsers list recently, so I suppose my comment was somewhat over the top.

Hope this helps. My apologies if I came across too strong, or as if I just pulled something out of my...well, you get the idea...

"as a key person in the founding of Food Not Bombs, is well known and respected among many anarchists for helping to start a project"

this is different than a leader, how, exactly?


"that implements positive social change directly."

huh?


"(Just so I'm clear here -- Food Not Bombs isn't an anarchist project per se.)"

then how come he isn't just another leader, which is what other groups have in their founding members?

I wonder what Our Founding Fathers would say if they could see Americia Today. Everything America was founded on has been forgotton indeed. Freedom, The People, have been replaced with Trynanny and Cowards! First of all Law Enforcement duties are to protect and serve, here is the question "who are they protecting, serving?" Us The People, not by the demostrations seen October 22, 2005 all throughout America. Well then who are they protecting, serving? Our Government who I might add are supposed to also represent we The People. To look at the above articles it is so sad to see a community divided . When the Police no longer protect or serve the people, they therefore protect and serve the Government, the people then beome their victims. It will take unity of all the people to overcome this, and reclaim America as "The Home of The Brave and Land Of The Free!" We are The People of The United States of America! Amen.

>Keith round two

Well, to be honest? The whole leaders/bosses thing is not why I posted Keith's name. You want to have a discussion about anarchism, that's great -- but I'm trying to stay at least somewhat on point here.

My purpose in putting up Keith's name was to show that WCW has a wide base of support from the left (at least at an endorsement level.) I'm sorry if that's not clear, but I think I my response to you served that purpose.

"The whole leaders/bosses thing is not why I posted Keith's name."


it begs the question of just how much difference there actually is between anarchist and other "leaders"......

beyond mere job title, that is....

> leaders, etc.

Hmm, I just posted something on this. See http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1775643_comment.php#1778001

Somebody tell me how there can be all this energy of conflict between "anarchists" and the "RCP" and not a mention to the real folks who OCT22 was about -- the families?

years earlyier on oct22 no matter what day of week or what city it was healed in (SF OAKLAND)hundreds would come out to protest. this is the second year that nothing really happened.

One because RCP is too small to organize on two fronts. Two Anarchist are too hung up on words like "lead, leadership and so on" to take the lead on build for the day. One can lead without being an authoritarian. And is need for a core group of people to support the families year round.

>Somebody tell me how there can be all this energy of conflict between "anarchists" and the "RCP" and not a mention to the real folks who OCT22 was about -- the families?<

Well, yeah. Thank you. Exactly.

actually, the RCP is at this point large enough to organize on several fronts simultaneously.

They engage in constant and consistant ideological work -- through maintaining an excellent website at:

revcom.us
rwor.org

They have initiated several projects, which by design are broader than they can "direct." October 22nd protests took place around the country, some with heavy RCP presence, and some not -- because it's not a "front group" in the sense that the term impies that they direct it behind the scenes because they don't.

Open RCP and Youth Brigade supporters launched World Can't Wait and are eager for it to grow well beyond the confines of what currently exists. It's no trick. What you see is what you get.

Meanwhile, the RC4 speaking tour of leading African-American members of the Party is on a national tour, their leading political economist Raymond Lotta is also on a national tour of colleges discussing the real history of socialism -- something the anti-communist yahoos of the left would do well to attend. Know the truth, and not just what decades of anti-communism as offical state policy have taught you.

This doesn't mention their ongoing work organizing in proletarian districts throughout the country, which is hardly glamorous and flies off the radar. Nor the solid work they've done engaging artists and intellectuals.

In fact, the RCP is still much to small to take things where they need to go. Which means you -- the person reading this. To make change, we need to get organizing, get involved and get cracking. We need to challenge ourselves and our conceptions of what is necessary. We don't need a movement that preaches comfort and re-affirms rumors and prejudice as analysis and strategy.

This is how the RCP is talking today -- and what they see for tomorrow.

That's what makes them comrades.

If someone wants to attack them by misrepresenting them, look to see what their supporters say -- and much more importantly, what they do day in and day out. If you're serious about making change, meet them and speak with them. Maybe you will disagree, but you'll be disagreeing with the real deal, and not the slag-version their anonymous critics promote.

>years earlyier on oct22 no matter what day of week or what city it was healed in (SF OAKLAND)hundreds would come out to protest. this is the second year that nothing really happened.<

That's what happens when gentrification drives all the activists out, leaving people who are mostly inexperienced and/or privileged and/or jaded.

Now, as to why the people who are left don't get their shit together, you got me. It's kinda depressing. I wish I could be a sparkly ray of sunshine about this, but there's really nothing happy about it. You can't have leaders if people don't step up -- and you certainly can't have collective leadership.

Further, why aren't more experienced activists training less experienced ones? Each one, teach one -- and eventually, you have a movement. Spend all your time talking about the good old days (or *ahem* on the internet, duly busted on that one,) and all you'll get is the predictable same old, same old. This is one area where most of the communist and socialist groups have anarchists beat, hands down -- not because of anything having to do with anarchism, but moreover, having to do with *us*, as anarchists.

Meanwhile, the bodies keep piling up, Bayview is being gentrified, and San Francisco is become more economically divided every day. Lovely.

That is very real. Gentrification has made is nearly impossible to engage in sustained "activism" in both San Francisco and Manhattan. The cost of living is so prohibitive that people are moved out... and not just organizers -- the kind of people to be organized. The center of activist gravity has moved decisively to the East Bay, though that has long been true to a greater or lesser extent. The Panthers in Oakland and the "Berkeley mix" were topics of discussion even back in the 60s when straight-up cultural activism was the common coin on the penninsula.

>In fact, the RCP is still much to small to take things where they need to go. Which means you -- the person reading this. <

Let's get real here, shall we? We're all too small to push things to the next level, anarchists included.

>To make change, we need to get organizing, get involved and get cracking. We need to challenge ourselves and our conceptions of what is necessary. We don't need a movement that preaches comfort and re-affirms rumors and prejudice as analysis and strategy.<

Yup. Look, I hope it's clear by now that I'm not too proud, regardless of my own political beliefs, to recognize that the RCP and other communist groups are starting to realize that "being a vanguard" doesn't really work unless you're listening to people at a deep enough level to effect change. That is what the Zapatistas did in '94, and continue to do. Maybe I'm being naive here -- but ya know, things don't change by repeating the same tired old crap over and over again, I don't care what you believe or who you are. Change or die. For real.

Are the RCP and other communist groups doing this because if they don't, they'll sink like a brick mattress? Listen very carefully: who. gives. a. shit. Change is change -- everything else is "you say potato, I say potatoe." And personally? I ain't about to "call the whole thing off." There's too much at stake.

See you in the streets,

no heroes save ourselves

>That is very real. Gentrification has made is nearly impossible to engage in sustained "activism" in both San Francisco and Manhattan. The cost of living is so prohibitive that people are moved out... and not just organizers -- the kind of people to be organized.<

No fucking shit. Thank you. The Bay Area was a very different place as recently as 8-10 years ago -- and yes, the draining of the activist ghetto play pool is just the tip of the iceberg on that one.

So now what? That's the question.

>The Bay Area was a very different place as recently as 8-10 years ago<

More specifically, you're right -- it's SF and Manhattan. Nevertheless, rental prices everywhere in the Bay Area are through the roof.

...that maybe, the real difference is to be made in ohio, or florida, where people dont even have the right to vote. got some 19th century solutions? take em to the 19th century problems-- and thanks to the neocons, there are plenty of 19th century problems to choose from.

not, however, in the coastal capitals of america. the radicals are all gathered in the places already awash in choices, alternatoves and options.

the problem is, not a lot of people go for much rhetoric "out there..." anarchist or communist. and that's about all any of "us" (if i may speak so loosely) have to offer...

the media is the message? blah blah blah.... people dont see any way to make their lives better, and so give up. that's why half dont vote-- it's not because they're already anarchists.

maybe it's time to admit the 1960s ghetto strategy is a bust. that's really what i'm tryin to say...

Don't fool yourself. There are anarchists everywhere; in Ohio, in Florida, Kansas City, etc.etc., not just in on the east and west coasts. A few and we could use more, even on the east adn west coasts.

do you get out of california much?

honestly.

I was in Baja California about a month ago., and before that i went on a summer long trip all over the country last summer. I am also in contact with people thruout the country via the itnernet and email.

now, how many is "many anarchists"?

1% of the local population?

a large group of 20-30?

3 people with 20 different group/coalition names?

the flip side of this question (a question of empiricism, really) is, how many anarchists are "a few"? "none to speak of"? "fucking red state"? (extra credit if you can effectively explain how red is now the color of republicans, but not to digress...)

and the evidence for this snowballing-movement-out-there is:

a) poll information

b) antecdotal (it seemed like a lot to you when you took a road trip)

c) wishful thinking inflating the same countercultural churn that's represented "growth" on the left since, oh say aboutthe 1980s?


since you seem to know something about what's going on out there, deanosaur, please, do tell us.

>how many are we talking here?

Well, according to the latest Gallop Poll...j/k

Seriously, who knows? It's not huge, but it's growing.

Still, it is small. More like thousands than millions. That's a guess, by the way.

Personally, I'd like to think good things start small. Further, most social movements start small, so your question is somewhat moot. As I see it, our problems are much more centered around issues of privilege, race and gender than head count -- like much of the left.

Nevertheless, we're not the GOP (or for that matter, the Democrats.) We're not bombing countries, or drivng people into bankruptcy (presuming that they can even file bankruptcy.) We stand for liberation without bosses, classes or the state. What do you stand for?

Someone mentioned a few days ago that the families of those who have died from police violence could use support. Any volunteers?

What I stand for is "Facts, Damn Facts." That says it nicely. Standing for things without facts gets pathetic fast. However, it's not about me or what any -->one<-- believes. You show me a working model, and that's persuasive-- to -->any<--one.

If, on the other hand, one has to fall back on ideals to assert a superiority of (not to say monopoly on) truth, then one has very little to distinguish oneself from, say, the RCP. For that matter, the RCP tends to document its facts, and that puts them ahead of the anarcho crowd (a rule to which there may well be fine exceptions).

That is to point out the house made of glass, not to disrespect any given faction on the left as such. I know why you're trying to intervene, Mr/Ms Noheroes, however, this was a line of inquiry regarding Deanosaur's urecalcitrant tendency to attempt to speak for, or from, some superior "truth" which cannot ever seem to be quantified or otherwise tangibly demonstrated. I think s/he's fronting, and I was willing to push it til the logic broke-- because that's all it is. There, I said it. I don't think Mr/Ms Deanosaur is right with reality, and thus, with us. Nothing personal. Please, show me I'm wrong.

That is the point, and it is germane insofar as it goes. I could take or leave the stats, frankly. However, the left always leaves them. How long do you think that would last, if it were measurable in the millions? (I think of all those people geeking out on Gonzales poll numbers...) That makes it sanctimony (which merriamwebster.com defines as "affected or hypocritical holiness.") Again, nothing personal, but I do think your attitude is likewise a front, covering your knowledge that this is a valid point (lack of measurable numbers).

All of this is nothing personal because this tendancy towards selective concern for numbers is so deeply ingrained in activist culture. Consider my intervention an invitation to take an honest look, and change. Which is how this whole thing started-- with an intervention into the social acceptability of expressions of anticommunist bigotry in an activist milieu.

Does that not make sense? Or are you just trying to keep the discussion within the frame you consider acceptable?

Is there somewhere I can pick up a thimble?

And where shall we meet on the beach?

No time to waste-- let's get right to it!!

"I am also in contact with people thruout the country via the itnernet and email."

that doesn't count as getting out of California much.

> Does that not make sense? Or are you just trying to keep the discussion within the frame you consider acceptable?

Well, is it possible to both agree with you, and to put my spin on the debate? I mean, you're doing the same. That's called debate.

But to address your points: The whole numbers, numbers, numbers thing drives me crazy. We are who we are, numbers be damned -- and yes, a valid critique can be made of the left that we're obsessed with numbers. I think part of that comes from a genuine concern that we're not just fronting -- but psychology being psychology and all, going from that to "we're conquering the world!" (so to speak) is sometimes a shorter road than it may seem at first glance. It feels so good to think that we're all and everywhere, when in fact, that isn't always the case.

Or to put it more basically: the tendency to think "as go the coasts, so goes the country" is real. In reality, the country is pretty much split down the middle at this point, red vs. blue, with a gradual leaning towards blue as the Bush administration continues to implode. Anarchists, communists, socialists, whatever -- we're a bit on the sidelines, fright headlines about scary kids in black smashing windows notwithstanding.

In terms of moralizing vs. facts: well, you and I probably disagree there. My feeling is having a political vision is fine, as long as you don't shove morality aside in the pursuit of that vision. Wanting a better world is fine -- committing genocide in the name of that world is not. Is that a slippery slope? Perhaps -- but so is waiting for irrational leaders to act in our interests. It is possible to combine empericism and faith (of whatever stripe).