Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Train in vain?: A critical analysis of our effort to foment a "social strike" on SF's MUNI
The following is the beginning of a work-in-progress. 'Train in Vain' analyzes the recent attempt by a number of us to foment an Italian-style "self-reduction" campaign against the Sept. 1st MUNI fare hike, service cuts and intensified exploitation of MUNI operators.
TRAIN IN VAIN?
The following article analyzes the strengths -- and there were a few -- and the larger failings of an effort in the summer and fall of 2005 to catalyze an Italian-style self-reduction movement against austerity measures on San Francisco's MUNI transit system.
...Most of the anarchists involved in this effort put an admirable amont of time and effort into the social strike -- on an individual basis. But collectively, we, myself included, failed to function in any kind of resolute COLLECTIVE anti-capitalist manner, with regard to the pro wage-labor left who attached themselves to this effort. By pro-wage labor left I mean people who wanted to see the fare hike and service cuts resisted without any larger opening for an anti-market/anti-state, direct action politics among working people emerging out of the issue.
This effort, and everything that happened city-wide with regard to it, was initiated by people in Muni Social Strike. But the initiative got taken away from the aspiring anti-capitalists by some of the usual crowd of leftist failures. At the end with both the press conference and the ridiculous, empty ritual march to City Hall, the anarchists had become the camp followers of liberals and at least one Leninist. This has happened time and again with anarchists, and it's extremely fucking exasperating to me.
The first pro-wage labor leftist who grafted himself onto the project was able to steer the larger struggle into a statist and completely un-radical direction. He was aided and abetted in this by people in Muni Social Strike not being capable of collectively deciding what we believe in as a solid group, and moving forward on that basis against leftist hustlers in a determined and resolute manner.
From the get-go, it was clear that Muni Social Strike was to be about:
--Drivers and riders taking action together,
--using direct action,
--antagonistic to electoral politics, market relations and the state.
There was no escape clause in any of this, saying, this will be a direct action, anti-statist effort, until someone who is more decisive than us comes along and plays us for suckers, at which point we will turn into work-within-the-system guys.
Everybody involved appeared to be clear on the character of the effort and agree on it. There was nothing vague or abstract or equivocating about it.
1. To begin our efforts, we held three town hall meetings to rally public opposition to the austerity measures.
Soon after the second town hall meeting, this other group, Muni Fare Strike, with a name almost identical to Muni Social Strike, sprung up toadstool-like, positioned to the immediate political right of Muni Social Strike. It rapidly became clear that Muni Fare Strike was going to be just like Muni Social Strike, only with all the better aspects shaved off. They wanted this to be exactly the sort of thing that leads to empty gesture demos on the steps of City Hall.
The leaflet that became the main tool for MFS's perspective said nothing about joint action with drivers; this was moronic for the practical effectiveness of the effort, as well as flat-out politically wrong. An effort like this could never fly if the drivers weren't at least passively going along. And an effort like this should never be mostly about the immediate smaller goal, but always mostly about the bigger goal, which has to be the creation of a larger movement of working people acting around our own needs against capitalist social relations, rooted in the everyday life conditions we face in the main problem country of the world. That means all exploited people together; not just some exploited people balkanized into a sort of sub-identity as an interest group of transit system riders.
The Muni Fare Strike leaflet was bereft of any argument for why Muni riders should engage in an action that doesn't have any precedent in this part of the world. It made no effort to pursuade. Being un-persuasive and un-radical in five languages only compounded the political worthlessness of the Muni Fare Strike leaflet. Working people around here need a convincing argument for why they should try something that might get them ticketed or arrested; this isn't Italy or Argentina, there's no collective culture of resistance right now in the US, here people are generally very timid and mystified. And from beginning to end nothing Muni Fare Strike did or said articulated any larger opposition to the world of wage labor and the market. The reasons for this are clear -- the leading figure of the Muni Fare Strike group, Marc Norton, is a pro-wage labor, pro-state leftist. Muni Fare Strike, its perspectives and its all-too-predictaible actions, were a function of the essentially pro-system politics of Marc Norton. Regardless of their subjective intentions or occassionally overheated workerist jargon, the leftists who grafted themselves onto the project proved to be a part of the left-wing of capital's political apparatus...
To be continued shortly...
The following article analyzes the strengths -- and there were a few -- and the larger failings of an effort in the summer and fall of 2005 to catalyze an Italian-style self-reduction movement against austerity measures on San Francisco's MUNI transit system.
...Most of the anarchists involved in this effort put an admirable amont of time and effort into the social strike -- on an individual basis. But collectively, we, myself included, failed to function in any kind of resolute COLLECTIVE anti-capitalist manner, with regard to the pro wage-labor left who attached themselves to this effort. By pro-wage labor left I mean people who wanted to see the fare hike and service cuts resisted without any larger opening for an anti-market/anti-state, direct action politics among working people emerging out of the issue.
This effort, and everything that happened city-wide with regard to it, was initiated by people in Muni Social Strike. But the initiative got taken away from the aspiring anti-capitalists by some of the usual crowd of leftist failures. At the end with both the press conference and the ridiculous, empty ritual march to City Hall, the anarchists had become the camp followers of liberals and at least one Leninist. This has happened time and again with anarchists, and it's extremely fucking exasperating to me.
The first pro-wage labor leftist who grafted himself onto the project was able to steer the larger struggle into a statist and completely un-radical direction. He was aided and abetted in this by people in Muni Social Strike not being capable of collectively deciding what we believe in as a solid group, and moving forward on that basis against leftist hustlers in a determined and resolute manner.
From the get-go, it was clear that Muni Social Strike was to be about:
--Drivers and riders taking action together,
--using direct action,
--antagonistic to electoral politics, market relations and the state.
There was no escape clause in any of this, saying, this will be a direct action, anti-statist effort, until someone who is more decisive than us comes along and plays us for suckers, at which point we will turn into work-within-the-system guys.
Everybody involved appeared to be clear on the character of the effort and agree on it. There was nothing vague or abstract or equivocating about it.
1. To begin our efforts, we held three town hall meetings to rally public opposition to the austerity measures.
Soon after the second town hall meeting, this other group, Muni Fare Strike, with a name almost identical to Muni Social Strike, sprung up toadstool-like, positioned to the immediate political right of Muni Social Strike. It rapidly became clear that Muni Fare Strike was going to be just like Muni Social Strike, only with all the better aspects shaved off. They wanted this to be exactly the sort of thing that leads to empty gesture demos on the steps of City Hall.
The leaflet that became the main tool for MFS's perspective said nothing about joint action with drivers; this was moronic for the practical effectiveness of the effort, as well as flat-out politically wrong. An effort like this could never fly if the drivers weren't at least passively going along. And an effort like this should never be mostly about the immediate smaller goal, but always mostly about the bigger goal, which has to be the creation of a larger movement of working people acting around our own needs against capitalist social relations, rooted in the everyday life conditions we face in the main problem country of the world. That means all exploited people together; not just some exploited people balkanized into a sort of sub-identity as an interest group of transit system riders.
The Muni Fare Strike leaflet was bereft of any argument for why Muni riders should engage in an action that doesn't have any precedent in this part of the world. It made no effort to pursuade. Being un-persuasive and un-radical in five languages only compounded the political worthlessness of the Muni Fare Strike leaflet. Working people around here need a convincing argument for why they should try something that might get them ticketed or arrested; this isn't Italy or Argentina, there's no collective culture of resistance right now in the US, here people are generally very timid and mystified. And from beginning to end nothing Muni Fare Strike did or said articulated any larger opposition to the world of wage labor and the market. The reasons for this are clear -- the leading figure of the Muni Fare Strike group, Marc Norton, is a pro-wage labor, pro-state leftist. Muni Fare Strike, its perspectives and its all-too-predictaible actions, were a function of the essentially pro-system politics of Marc Norton. Regardless of their subjective intentions or occassionally overheated workerist jargon, the leftists who grafted themselves onto the project proved to be a part of the left-wing of capital's political apparatus...
To be continued shortly...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Instaed of denouncing others who basically are on the right side of the Muni issue, why not find common ground with them and work together? This is so common among the "lefter than thou" radicals who cannot work with anyone, and use their divisive "analysis" to paralyze any progress at all. It's all or nothing with you guys and the end result is always NOTHING.
A true looney, a joke. Unable to engage in menaingful debate/dialogue/discussion, he is reduced to cowardly hit and run trollery in which he predictably runs regurgitated talking points/spin that he has dutifully memorized from AM-whack job radio like the sheep that he emulates.
You're dismissed Steve--the tides are turning, people (not you obviously) are starting to wake up. Your God, A-h-nold, lost ALL his propositions....LOL!
You're dismissed.
You're dismissed Steve--the tides are turning, people (not you obviously) are starting to wake up. Your God, A-h-nold, lost ALL his propositions....LOL!
You're dismissed.
This looks like a repost of a comment from the other thread. To be an an "analysis" it would help if it could manage to make sense to people who do not know you.
um, sorry Kevin. But you let the cat out of the bag on this one. I think the reasons why there was a divergent yet similar group doing exactly the same thing as Muni Social Strike is that fact that YOU were involved with the Social strike. You don't get it, do you?
The fare strike and resistance to fare increases in the whole bay area is critical. But, I watched all of this from afar because I wanted to see what would come out of it and can't sit around for an hour listening to your ideological grandstanding.
Sorry, you're just gonna have to face the fact that even though your politics are right some of the time, you need to pass the mic and LISTEN to what other's are saying. I mean, you do want a collective effort, don't you?
The fare strike and resistance to fare increases in the whole bay area is critical. But, I watched all of this from afar because I wanted to see what would come out of it and can't sit around for an hour listening to your ideological grandstanding.
Sorry, you're just gonna have to face the fact that even though your politics are right some of the time, you need to pass the mic and LISTEN to what other's are saying. I mean, you do want a collective effort, don't you?
I'm still on strike.
1. Yes, I want efforts like this to be a collective effort. But the content of the politics are at least as important as the number of people involved. I think I'm already making that point very clear.
2. I put "In Vain?" with a question mark after it; if I offer all the answers at the beginning of the article, then there's no reason to read it, is there?
2. I put "In Vain?" with a question mark after it; if I offer all the answers at the beginning of the article, then there's no reason to read it, is there?
iremember when a guy named nestor makhno suggested that we trash all the yuppie cars parked in the mission.
no one did it of course, so the yuppies took over and drove people out by the thousands.
maybe we should have listened to nestor makno afterall....
Nothing... It is all a sad hoax.
Kevin, I think I made myself clear when I said your political ideas and strategies DO NOT belong on a pedestal. Let others participate.
If you have learned anything from your centuries of sectarian activism, anarchists don't like to be told what to do. Not by a paternalistic state, not by authoritarian boobs, and certainly not from rambling ideologues such as yourself.
Good luck with the next social strike, I'm sure you'll be even less effective.
If you have learned anything from your centuries of sectarian activism, anarchists don't like to be told what to do. Not by a paternalistic state, not by authoritarian boobs, and certainly not from rambling ideologues such as yourself.
Good luck with the next social strike, I'm sure you'll be even less effective.
Only a labor strike can be effective. A rider takes the risk of being cited and it is an extremely individualistic, alienating kind of action to be alone in refusing to pay the fare. When all the workers at Muni go on strike to demand no fares, higher wages and more buses and trains, their collective action works very well.
"Only a labor strike can be effective."
This is not entirely true. Although, you are right that more worker actions are key to having a social strike. If the unions did not make it so hard to talk with workers in the various transportation industries, we would have seen a much better result.
This is a double-bind for them, because when it comes time for the community to support MUNI strikers it will be harder to communicate with the workers themselves, thus making it harder to effectively help those workers. We saw this happen with the hotel workers. We should consider this to be a big problem with organizing, and promote autonomous organizations within the unions made up of workers. The labor movement in the bay area would sprout new wings if this were to happen. It would help organize those unorganized, promote solidarity, and break the stranglehold that professional union beurocrats have over the workers.
I applaud Kevin for trying to get a social strike to happen with MUNI, but in his ideological grandstanding, failed to recognize that the autoreduction movement in italy was actually started by unions. Mass worker support was needed in order to collect fares on the buses. In fact, the unions took over completely the economic transfer of money for the transportation system. Thus, making it a movement not just of riders, but also of worker self management.
We are certainly not at the point where the workers of MUNI, BART or SamTrans will take such actions. The autoreductions are certainly a good strategy, but, we live in a different time and a different country in a different political realm. Kevin can't see this and in fact helped to allienate anyone who would have been interested in helping. (Do I even need to mention "ice-pick head"?)
This is not entirely true. Although, you are right that more worker actions are key to having a social strike. If the unions did not make it so hard to talk with workers in the various transportation industries, we would have seen a much better result.
This is a double-bind for them, because when it comes time for the community to support MUNI strikers it will be harder to communicate with the workers themselves, thus making it harder to effectively help those workers. We saw this happen with the hotel workers. We should consider this to be a big problem with organizing, and promote autonomous organizations within the unions made up of workers. The labor movement in the bay area would sprout new wings if this were to happen. It would help organize those unorganized, promote solidarity, and break the stranglehold that professional union beurocrats have over the workers.
I applaud Kevin for trying to get a social strike to happen with MUNI, but in his ideological grandstanding, failed to recognize that the autoreduction movement in italy was actually started by unions. Mass worker support was needed in order to collect fares on the buses. In fact, the unions took over completely the economic transfer of money for the transportation system. Thus, making it a movement not just of riders, but also of worker self management.
We are certainly not at the point where the workers of MUNI, BART or SamTrans will take such actions. The autoreductions are certainly a good strategy, but, we live in a different time and a different country in a different political realm. Kevin can't see this and in fact helped to allienate anyone who would have been interested in helping. (Do I even need to mention "ice-pick head"?)
Keating thinks you can wage a magic wand--or, rather, wage some magic rhetoric--and make a social strike happen. He likes to cite Italy in the '70s as if simply citing it (and dare I say, exaggerating it) enough times will move working class people to action here and now. Though he likes to make baseless attacks on SF Fare Strike for being reformist, the fact is that it understood that the only way a social strike on the Muni can possibly occur is through *organizing.* We made countless contacts with Muni riders in the months before September 1st, something Keating was too busy writing tendentious polemics to do himself. Sure, the fare strike didn't fulfill our wildest dreams, but the ground is now better prepared for successful action in the future. Can Keating claim his involvement has done any such thing?
Also, as a note on Keating's incoherence: Isn't it strange that Keating attacks SF Fare Strike as "leftist" and then, moments later, attacks it for being to the right politically of Social Strike? Great analysis, Keating.
Also, as a note on Keating's incoherence: Isn't it strange that Keating attacks SF Fare Strike as "leftist" and then, moments later, attacks it for being to the right politically of Social Strike? Great analysis, Keating.
I'm not sure whether or not the fare strike groups have disbanded or given up on the campaign, but, rider sentiment is at an all time low. Most riders that I spoke with about striking obtain MUNI passes on a monthly basis. MUNI was pretty smart in not raising those rates. It made it effectively impossible for most riders to strike. The main reasons riders are currently pissed are the cuts in service. I'm not sure that this sentiment was as acute before and during the strike as it is now. But it's something to think about for future actions.
Keating aside here - I remember a proposal of creating a bay area transit riders union. Seems like it would make sense to make a formal group around the idea of transit justice in order to continue the struggle from here on out. What ever happened to that?
Keating aside here - I remember a proposal of creating a bay area transit riders union. Seems like it would make sense to make a formal group around the idea of transit justice in order to continue the struggle from here on out. What ever happened to that?
I've been engaged in a dialog of the deaf with this slow-witted guy Aaron for more than a decade now. I had to break things off with him last fall because he can't get the qualitative differences between the same old failed politics of the Bay Area's pro-wage labor left -- the sort of politics he is most comfortable with -- and efforts to start something very new and different in this part of the world; efforts that are necessarily outside of and against the politics of failure that guys like him hold dear.
1. In realtion to an authentic opposition to capitalist social relations, or an opposition that at least aspires to be authentically antagonistic to capital, the left is 'on the right.' This is undoubtably beyond the cognitive reach of comrade Aaron, so I won't belabor the point.
2. The main thing Aaron appears to have learned from becoming the underling of the leading cadre of a one-man Leninist party in the recent effort is how to tell lie about guys who are more radical than him. I put a dog's amount of effort into the recent effort around MUNI. I have nothing to prove to decietful dullards, who can't produce an intelligent or persuasive analysis of the recent efforts, but can only snipe at the better efforts of others, befitting their self-appointed role in life as internet smurfs.
1. In realtion to an authentic opposition to capitalist social relations, or an opposition that at least aspires to be authentically antagonistic to capital, the left is 'on the right.' This is undoubtably beyond the cognitive reach of comrade Aaron, so I won't belabor the point.
2. The main thing Aaron appears to have learned from becoming the underling of the leading cadre of a one-man Leninist party in the recent effort is how to tell lie about guys who are more radical than him. I put a dog's amount of effort into the recent effort around MUNI. I have nothing to prove to decietful dullards, who can't produce an intelligent or persuasive analysis of the recent efforts, but can only snipe at the better efforts of others, befitting their self-appointed role in life as internet smurfs.
FUCK YOU kevin keating.
no one listens to you because you can't say anything without insults.
we should be all thankful that as least some people stand up to your self-absorbed and egomaniacal bullshit
[no name--so as not to be denounced as a *counter-revolutionary*]
no one listens to you because you can't say anything without insults.
we should be all thankful that as least some people stand up to your self-absorbed and egomaniacal bullshit
[no name--so as not to be denounced as a *counter-revolutionary*]
With Keating it's the same ol' loop over and over and over. His disses have no sting because they're not customized for their target. He could have written his last post in his sleep, precisely because he's written the same well-worded garbage so many times before.
But being a perseverating fool doesn't excuse lying. Keating didn't break things off with me last fall. I made up my mind long before then that working or being associated with Keating is a huge liability. He's a self-absorbed dogmatist and an asswipe who's never successfully organized anything in his life. He's detested by almost everyone who knows him. For Keating, it's all about feeding his ego. "Revolutionary politics" are important to him to the extent that it acts as a vehicle for media exposure or some other means of self-aggrandizement.
Keep watching that same comic strip, Keating (you know, the one with you as the commie superman with all the ladies).
But being a perseverating fool doesn't excuse lying. Keating didn't break things off with me last fall. I made up my mind long before then that working or being associated with Keating is a huge liability. He's a self-absorbed dogmatist and an asswipe who's never successfully organized anything in his life. He's detested by almost everyone who knows him. For Keating, it's all about feeding his ego. "Revolutionary politics" are important to him to the extent that it acts as a vehicle for media exposure or some other means of self-aggrandizement.
Keep watching that same comic strip, Keating (you know, the one with you as the commie superman with all the ladies).
"Vanity Smurf" Keating,
Let us know when you have the revolution all planned out and we'll give you a cookie for all your hard work.
Meanwhile, most of us have better thing to do -- like organizing without rabid ideobots such as youself.
Let us know when you have the revolution all planned out and we'll give you a cookie for all your hard work.
Meanwhile, most of us have better thing to do -- like organizing without rabid ideobots such as youself.
An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.
Ad hominem is appropriate, and just what the doctor ordered.Since discussion revolves around just how much Keating sucks, and hence, how it is impossible to organize with him.But if you can explain how to say that in a non- ad hominem way, then please do.
That's what I mean. The discussion is not about the topic.
The topic is "the recent attempt by a number of us to foment an Italian-style "self-reduction" campaign against the Sept. 1st MUNI fare hike, service cuts and intensified exploitation of MUNI operators."
Kevin postulated that problems included hijacking of the issue by pro-wage labor leftists and an ill worded leaflet. His postulates were addressed, when at all, only in passing. He himself was attacked instead. This is not constructive.
Whether the attacks had merit, i.e., were both true and germane, is irrelevant. Either way, they were ad hominems, not rebuttals. Now that you have gotten them out of your systems, it would be far more constructive if at least some of you would address the substance of what he said.
The topic is "the recent attempt by a number of us to foment an Italian-style "self-reduction" campaign against the Sept. 1st MUNI fare hike, service cuts and intensified exploitation of MUNI operators."
Kevin postulated that problems included hijacking of the issue by pro-wage labor leftists and an ill worded leaflet. His postulates were addressed, when at all, only in passing. He himself was attacked instead. This is not constructive.
Whether the attacks had merit, i.e., were both true and germane, is irrelevant. Either way, they were ad hominems, not rebuttals. Now that you have gotten them out of your systems, it would be far more constructive if at least some of you would address the substance of what he said.
** Kevin postulated that problems included hijacking of the issue by pro-wage labor leftists and an ill worded leaflet.**
if anyone reads indybay and has followed any of this at all, the above is total bullshit. first, how did they *hijack* it? secondly, just calling them *pro-wage labor leftists* doesn't make them so. how are they *pro-wage labor*?
keating seems to imply that the activist who does the most also insults the most. and thats how he gets the most results in building a movement towards revolution. in his fantasy world, no lies, personal attacks or deceptions are too severe if theyre done in the name of *communism*. how is this stalinist revisionism different from any other other?
> his
Once again, an ad hominem is not a rebuttal. Please focus on the substance.
> keating seems to imply
It will be far more constructive to talk about what he actually said, and not what various people assume that he meant. It will be a whole lot simpler, too. What people assume, varies widely from individual to individual. What he actually said is a matter of public record.
>first, how did they *hijack* it?
According to Kevin, "after the second town hall meeting, this other group, Muni Fare Strike, with a name almost identical to Muni Social Strike, sprung up." It came into being after the initial group formed. appropriated most of the name, and can't not have siphoned off time and energy. That's a hijacking. This is not a matter of debate. This is what actually happened. What is being debated is what effects it had, and the relative merit of each, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Sometimes, a hijacking does a lot more harm than good. Other times, it turns out later to have been the only way to have saved the day. Each case is different. What is the case here? Did the hijacking hurt or did it help? If it helped, how did it help? How did it further the cause to split over personality clashes? Was it really over personalities, or was it over politics? I don't know. I wasn't there. You tell me.
Was the split a good thing or a bad thing for the working class?
For the strike itself?
For the future?
For you (pl) personally?
Just wondering.
>secondly, how are they *pro-wage labor*?
According to Kevin, they "wanted to see the fare hike and service cuts resisted without any larger opening for an anti-market/anti-state, direct action politics among working people emerging out of the issue.
One can only either be anti-market/anti-state or pro-market/pro-state. There is no middle ground. If you're not anti-, you're pro-. Whether this is a good thing or not is also open to debate, but this thread isn't where. It would be too confusing. Let's keep it simple. It's easier that way, and more productive, too.
>just calling them *pro-wage labor leftists* doesn't make them so.
It doesn't make them *not* so, either. Ergo, while true, it is not germane.
What's at issue here is not what they are called, or even what they actually are. What's at issue here, according to Kevin, is the effects they had, and/or and or continue to have.
Let's hear about the effects themselves. Were they, as Kevin postulates, deleterious? Or were they constructive? Or were they some combination thereof?
Once again, an ad hominem is not a rebuttal. Please focus on the substance.
> keating seems to imply
It will be far more constructive to talk about what he actually said, and not what various people assume that he meant. It will be a whole lot simpler, too. What people assume, varies widely from individual to individual. What he actually said is a matter of public record.
>first, how did they *hijack* it?
According to Kevin, "after the second town hall meeting, this other group, Muni Fare Strike, with a name almost identical to Muni Social Strike, sprung up." It came into being after the initial group formed. appropriated most of the name, and can't not have siphoned off time and energy. That's a hijacking. This is not a matter of debate. This is what actually happened. What is being debated is what effects it had, and the relative merit of each, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Sometimes, a hijacking does a lot more harm than good. Other times, it turns out later to have been the only way to have saved the day. Each case is different. What is the case here? Did the hijacking hurt or did it help? If it helped, how did it help? How did it further the cause to split over personality clashes? Was it really over personalities, or was it over politics? I don't know. I wasn't there. You tell me.
Was the split a good thing or a bad thing for the working class?
For the strike itself?
For the future?
For you (pl) personally?
Just wondering.
>secondly, how are they *pro-wage labor*?
According to Kevin, they "wanted to see the fare hike and service cuts resisted without any larger opening for an anti-market/anti-state, direct action politics among working people emerging out of the issue.
One can only either be anti-market/anti-state or pro-market/pro-state. There is no middle ground. If you're not anti-, you're pro-. Whether this is a good thing or not is also open to debate, but this thread isn't where. It would be too confusing. Let's keep it simple. It's easier that way, and more productive, too.
>just calling them *pro-wage labor leftists* doesn't make them so.
It doesn't make them *not* so, either. Ergo, while true, it is not germane.
What's at issue here is not what they are called, or even what they actually are. What's at issue here, according to Kevin, is the effects they had, and/or and or continue to have.
Let's hear about the effects themselves. Were they, as Kevin postulates, deleterious? Or were they constructive? Or were they some combination thereof?
You fail to understand?
Pretend that you started a group to do an action (a really neato, right-on action, like a fare strike), and everyone that joined, you proceeded to smash in the face with a bowling ball. Later, after the effort dwindled, you wrote up a criticism about what went wrong, something about failed politics of the left, and conveniently left out the fact that you are a shithead who smashes people in the face with a bowling ball.
Get it now?Or not?Maybe what these people are saying is constructive.Maybe there is no more constructive or correct criticism of the fare strike than this one: Kevin Keating was involved!!!
Pretend that you started a group to do an action (a really neato, right-on action, like a fare strike), and everyone that joined, you proceeded to smash in the face with a bowling ball. Later, after the effort dwindled, you wrote up a criticism about what went wrong, something about failed politics of the left, and conveniently left out the fact that you are a shithead who smashes people in the face with a bowling ball.
Get it now?Or not?Maybe what these people are saying is constructive.Maybe there is no more constructive or correct criticism of the fare strike than this one: Kevin Keating was involved!!!
I get that you don't like Kevin Keating. What I don't understand is why you would be willing to sacrifice the possibility of success at an action, just to avoid working with someone with whom you didn't personally get along.
I question those priorities, because I, personally, view the resistance to capitalism as something more than a hobby. So maybe I'm being subjective here. To my way of looking at things, one's personal taste in individual companionship is a perfectly valid criteria upon which to, oh, say, to decide whom go out to dinner with. Going out to dinner is optional. Resistance to capitalism, on the other hand, is not optional. The only alternative to active resistance, is willing submission. For me, willing submission is simply not an option. I recognize that to a certain personality type, it is not only an option, it's the preferred option. I'm not very happy about this, but I accept that it exists.
What I don't get, it that among people who do not willingly submit, that anything, least of all individual tastes, would ever take precedence over resistance. Capitalism presents a categorically different set of problems to solve than do boredom and a rumbling stomach. If you decide to not go out to dinner, there's always those leftovers in the fridge. But unless we resist capitalism with all our might, with every tool available and every comrade willing, we have no chance of success at all. This means that we who resist, must reason pragmatically, and not with our egos. We need to sometimes be willing to work with people we don't like and to do thing we might not otherwise do, because having everything our own way is not as important as mounting effective resistance. History allows us the luxury of choosing our friends. History doe not allow of the luxury of choosing our allies.
Had splitting the organizing into two different processes, simply to avoid having to attend meetings with Kevin, proven to be a more effective tactic that produced a more effective action, I would support the move whole heartedly. We should do what works. Sometimes that's to split. If the split had led to better politics, and therefore a more effective action, then it would have been the right thing to do. However, I fail to see any evidence that such a thing actually happened. Au contrair. The strike's effect was minimal at best:
• Some people struck for a while, then gave up. This is not because Kevin was involved. This is because they are Americans. Americans are a people to whom instant gratification is the measure of success. This is as true of American workers who can't see past payday as it is of American CEOs who can't see past the next quarterly report.
• Other people are still striking, because their consciousness was substantially raised by the experience of striking. It taught them that one really can get away with flaunting the law.
• Yet others have been striking all along anyhow, some for decades. On these people, the effects of the action were minimal at best.
So the only truly positive, long lasting effect of the strike has been to raise the conscious of an unknown, but presumably small, number of workers. That it raised the consciousness of any worker, even one, is a measure of success. So the strike was not a failure. It was, however, a very limited success. It never turned "Italian" because, Americans aren't Italians. Americans lack the political sophistication and hard won collective organizing skills of Italians for a variety of cultural and historical reasons, none of which are Kevin Keating. To scapegoat Kevin, or any single individual, for the failings of an entire people is sloppy analysis, bad politics and above all counter productive. It's like sewing seeds on rocky ground and them blaming one farm hand for the lack of a crop.
This is not to say that working with Kevin is not problematical. It is. Kevin could certainly do a better job of being Kevin than he does. But this is true of all of us. Kevin is, IMHO, dead right about the failures of leftism. I believe this, not because Kevin has done a particularly good job of convincing me, but because I knew already. To reject an analysis, even though it is correct, simply because you don't like the guy who stated it, is bunk logic, puerile, and counter productive. The truth is the truth, no matter who says it or why. The truth of the matter is leftism, as we know it, and as Kevin has pointed out repeatedly, has failed utterly, especially around here. It's long past time we reevaluate, and come up with plan B.
This is not to say that Kevin's confrontational f2f style or his pedantic writing style is, per se, a viable alternative to the failures of leftism. Evidence of that is lacking, too. If it were, you'd be working with him, instead of slagging him in public. But his analysis of leftism's failure is right on, and easily demonstrable. Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That pretty much sums up leftist politics, particularly in this part of the world. What are we, crazy?
He's right about the content of the propaganda, too. If we are not presenting a clear critique of capitalist social relationships, we're part of the problem. Where I differ with Kevin is in his belief that his own propaganda is any better. Kevin's an egghead. He writes for other eggheads. His critique is precise, but it's not very clear to the vast, overwhelming majority of us who are not eggheads. Leaflets crammed to the edge with tiny font polemics can never have the visceral, i.e., effective, results of a simple, stenciled slogan like "Busses belong to the People" or "We can't pay. We wont pay."
Personally, I like reading Kevin's stuff. That's because I'm an egghead, too. I eat, sleep and breath radical politics. So I'm able to understand what he's saying, at least most of the time. Not so the average MUNI rider. As Maletesta pointed out nearly a century ago, effective propaganda, whether of the word or of the deed, must be instantly understood, and immediately approved of, by the least literate worker who sees it. This is why the old school tactic of <a href="<a href="url">link">giving away free passes was more effective than than the hoopla this strike relied upon. For self reduction to become the effective tactic that it is in some parts of the world, it must be adopted by the culture at a grass roots level. That, I feel, should be our focus, not the historically proven failed tactic of carrying signs and encouraging top down reform. We'll get a lot more mileage in the long run by teaching self reductions to people one at a time, than we ever will shouting it from a soapbox. Shouting it from a soapbox was a nice try, but it didn't work. Switch to plan B.
I question those priorities, because I, personally, view the resistance to capitalism as something more than a hobby. So maybe I'm being subjective here. To my way of looking at things, one's personal taste in individual companionship is a perfectly valid criteria upon which to, oh, say, to decide whom go out to dinner with. Going out to dinner is optional. Resistance to capitalism, on the other hand, is not optional. The only alternative to active resistance, is willing submission. For me, willing submission is simply not an option. I recognize that to a certain personality type, it is not only an option, it's the preferred option. I'm not very happy about this, but I accept that it exists.
What I don't get, it that among people who do not willingly submit, that anything, least of all individual tastes, would ever take precedence over resistance. Capitalism presents a categorically different set of problems to solve than do boredom and a rumbling stomach. If you decide to not go out to dinner, there's always those leftovers in the fridge. But unless we resist capitalism with all our might, with every tool available and every comrade willing, we have no chance of success at all. This means that we who resist, must reason pragmatically, and not with our egos. We need to sometimes be willing to work with people we don't like and to do thing we might not otherwise do, because having everything our own way is not as important as mounting effective resistance. History allows us the luxury of choosing our friends. History doe not allow of the luxury of choosing our allies.
Had splitting the organizing into two different processes, simply to avoid having to attend meetings with Kevin, proven to be a more effective tactic that produced a more effective action, I would support the move whole heartedly. We should do what works. Sometimes that's to split. If the split had led to better politics, and therefore a more effective action, then it would have been the right thing to do. However, I fail to see any evidence that such a thing actually happened. Au contrair. The strike's effect was minimal at best:
• Some people struck for a while, then gave up. This is not because Kevin was involved. This is because they are Americans. Americans are a people to whom instant gratification is the measure of success. This is as true of American workers who can't see past payday as it is of American CEOs who can't see past the next quarterly report.
• Other people are still striking, because their consciousness was substantially raised by the experience of striking. It taught them that one really can get away with flaunting the law.
• Yet others have been striking all along anyhow, some for decades. On these people, the effects of the action were minimal at best.
So the only truly positive, long lasting effect of the strike has been to raise the conscious of an unknown, but presumably small, number of workers. That it raised the consciousness of any worker, even one, is a measure of success. So the strike was not a failure. It was, however, a very limited success. It never turned "Italian" because, Americans aren't Italians. Americans lack the political sophistication and hard won collective organizing skills of Italians for a variety of cultural and historical reasons, none of which are Kevin Keating. To scapegoat Kevin, or any single individual, for the failings of an entire people is sloppy analysis, bad politics and above all counter productive. It's like sewing seeds on rocky ground and them blaming one farm hand for the lack of a crop.
This is not to say that working with Kevin is not problematical. It is. Kevin could certainly do a better job of being Kevin than he does. But this is true of all of us. Kevin is, IMHO, dead right about the failures of leftism. I believe this, not because Kevin has done a particularly good job of convincing me, but because I knew already. To reject an analysis, even though it is correct, simply because you don't like the guy who stated it, is bunk logic, puerile, and counter productive. The truth is the truth, no matter who says it or why. The truth of the matter is leftism, as we know it, and as Kevin has pointed out repeatedly, has failed utterly, especially around here. It's long past time we reevaluate, and come up with plan B.
This is not to say that Kevin's confrontational f2f style or his pedantic writing style is, per se, a viable alternative to the failures of leftism. Evidence of that is lacking, too. If it were, you'd be working with him, instead of slagging him in public. But his analysis of leftism's failure is right on, and easily demonstrable. Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That pretty much sums up leftist politics, particularly in this part of the world. What are we, crazy?
He's right about the content of the propaganda, too. If we are not presenting a clear critique of capitalist social relationships, we're part of the problem. Where I differ with Kevin is in his belief that his own propaganda is any better. Kevin's an egghead. He writes for other eggheads. His critique is precise, but it's not very clear to the vast, overwhelming majority of us who are not eggheads. Leaflets crammed to the edge with tiny font polemics can never have the visceral, i.e., effective, results of a simple, stenciled slogan like "Busses belong to the People" or "We can't pay. We wont pay."
Personally, I like reading Kevin's stuff. That's because I'm an egghead, too. I eat, sleep and breath radical politics. So I'm able to understand what he's saying, at least most of the time. Not so the average MUNI rider. As Maletesta pointed out nearly a century ago, effective propaganda, whether of the word or of the deed, must be instantly understood, and immediately approved of, by the least literate worker who sees it. This is why the old school tactic of <a href="<a href="url">link">giving away free passes was more effective than than the hoopla this strike relied upon. For self reduction to become the effective tactic that it is in some parts of the world, it must be adopted by the culture at a grass roots level. That, I feel, should be our focus, not the historically proven failed tactic of carrying signs and encouraging top down reform. We'll get a lot more mileage in the long run by teaching self reductions to people one at a time, than we ever will shouting it from a soapbox. Shouting it from a soapbox was a nice try, but it didn't work. Switch to plan B.
someone asks:
"I get that you don't like Kevin Keating. What I don't understand is why you would be willing to sacrifice the possibility of success at an action, just to avoid working with someone with whom you didn't personally get along."
What part of smashing EVERYONE in the face with a bowling ball didn't you understand?This is not a matter of individuals' personal opinions.Everyone gets attacked.The right question to ask is:
Why would you be willing to sacrifice the possibility of success at an action by working WITH Keating (especially if you don't like him anyway)?That's probably the biggest mistake "naiive anarchists" made.
"I get that you don't like Kevin Keating. What I don't understand is why you would be willing to sacrifice the possibility of success at an action, just to avoid working with someone with whom you didn't personally get along."
What part of smashing EVERYONE in the face with a bowling ball didn't you understand?This is not a matter of individuals' personal opinions.Everyone gets attacked.The right question to ask is:
Why would you be willing to sacrifice the possibility of success at an action by working WITH Keating (especially if you don't like him anyway)?That's probably the biggest mistake "naiive anarchists" made.
"Kevin is, IMHO, dead right about the failures of leftism. I believe this, not because Kevin has done a particularly good job of convincing me, but because I knew already."
Exactly.You don't need Kevin to appreciate his politics.Now, since you are articulating a practical approach to revolutionary political activity, here is a principle you might agree with:
1. No anarchist effort should depend on the participation of one individual.
And then there is a corrolary:
2. If an individual proves to be a significant liability to the project, then excluding that person may be advisable and permissible for the health of the project.
These are basic principles of voluntary association.So I don't see why people see a need to defend this implied "right to participate".We're not the feel-good brigade, or the i'm-ok-you're-ok training wheels summer camp for radicals. And if that's what we want to be we will fail because we deserve to fail.
Exactly.You don't need Kevin to appreciate his politics.Now, since you are articulating a practical approach to revolutionary political activity, here is a principle you might agree with:
1. No anarchist effort should depend on the participation of one individual.
And then there is a corrolary:
2. If an individual proves to be a significant liability to the project, then excluding that person may be advisable and permissible for the health of the project.
These are basic principles of voluntary association.So I don't see why people see a need to defend this implied "right to participate".We're not the feel-good brigade, or the i'm-ok-you're-ok training wheels summer camp for radicals. And if that's what we want to be we will fail because we deserve to fail.
That's a straw man. What I am actually criticizing is your own insistance on your right *not* to participate in anything Kevin participates in, even when by doing so you harm the cause.
Prove to me you didn't harm the cause, and I'll retract at least some of my criticism. Don't go off on another straw tangent. That. too, is part of the problem. Focus, please. This is not about any one individual. It's about the movement itself.
Should we decide what our actions shall be on the basis of personal likes and dislikes, or on the basis of what works and what does not?
Prove to me you didn't harm the cause, and I'll retract at least some of my criticism. Don't go off on another straw tangent. That. too, is part of the problem. Focus, please. This is not about any one individual. It's about the movement itself.
Should we decide what our actions shall be on the basis of personal likes and dislikes, or on the basis of what works and what does not?
It actually appears to be about one egomaniac defending another egomaniac.
Neither one able to comprehend why the masses do not line up behind their perfect visions of the revolution.
Let's focus on anti-capitalism, they say, and ignore the man behind the curtain pulling all of the strings.
As if either of them would simply line up behind something because the stated mission were somehow noble. Yet they expect the rest of us to do just that.
Neither one able to comprehend why the masses do not line up behind their perfect visions of the revolution.
Let's focus on anti-capitalism, they say, and ignore the man behind the curtain pulling all of the strings.
As if either of them would simply line up behind something because the stated mission were somehow noble. Yet they expect the rest of us to do just that.
While all of you are debating the merits of allowing a wrecker to go around denouncing people with ad hominems, none of you in the debate society are talking at all about what really happened in the fare strike. The following account is one person's perspective on it:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Transit Fight
by Tom Wetzel; September 04, 2005
(from Z-net)
Despite heavy police presence at major bus transfer points, at least a couple thousand passengers rode the buses for free in San Francisco on Thursday, September 1st — the opening day of a fare strike in North America’s most bus-intensive city. In the days leading up to September 1st, more than 50 people were actively organizing for the fare strike, with new groups endorsing the effort in the last week. More than 20,000 leaflets had been distributed and 10,000 stickers were attached to bus shelters and poles throughout the city — in Spanish and Chinese as well as English.
Muni — San Francisco’s city-owned bus and streetcar network — raised its adult cash fare to $1.50 as of September 1st. This is the second hike in two years, representing an increase of 50 percent since 2003. Although organized pressure from community groups forced Muni management to back down on a proposal to raise the monthly pass, many low-income people have a hard time getting together the cash to buy the monthly pass. The weekly pass was a more financially accessible discount option for them. Muni never adequately advertised the weekly pass and has now raised it from $12 to $15.
Muni is also proposing to slash service on many lines, starting September 24th. Layoff notices were issued earlier in the year to 150 drivers. Muni management is eliminating 83 of these jobs through early retirement. This means a loss of good-paying unionized jobs. For the rest of the job cuts, they’re firing all of the part-timers. The fare strike has three demands: No fare hike, no service cuts, no layoffs.
Muni’s bus network is very intensively used. In a typical year there are an average of 270 public transit rides for every resident in San Francisco — the same level of transit-dependency as New York City. But in San Francisco three-fourths of the rides are on the electric and diesel buses that ply the city’s streets. There are already standing loads on many lines at various times throughout the day. Loss of drivers will lead to overcrowding, with people standing in stairwells and drivers passing people up at stops. People will be late for work. Low-income people often work at jobs where they are not given much slack about when they can arrive. Fare strike advocates say that these cuts in service and hikes in the fare are an attack on the poor, a regressive tax on those least able to pay. More crowding and more rider complaints will also add to the stress of the driver’s job.
On the morning of September 1st, the fare strike groups concentrated most of their people at about eight major nodes in the Muni bus network, with banners, strike placards, bullhorns and leaflets. About half of these nodes were on the Mission-Van Ness corridor. Two of these sites were 16th and Mission and 24th and Mission in the Mission District’s “main street” retail center — the heart of San Francisco’s Latino community. With over 85,000 rides on a typical weekday, Mission-Van Ness is one of the world’s busiest bus operations. During the last two weeks of organizing, the day laborers had gotten involved in the fare strike campaign and had taken over the tabling and leafleting on Mission Street and other areas in the city with large numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Support for the fare strike was particularly strong in the Mission District.
Muni targeted the Mission District for a heavy show of force on September 1st. When I got to 16th and Mission at 8AM, there were about 20 cops, virtually the entire Muni fare inspector force, and a squad of Muni “security assistants” — temporarily employed young people, mainly African-American, outfitted in bright green vests. Paunchy middle-aged Muni bosses had gotten out of their offices and were overseeing the operation. Gerardo, one of the day laborers, told me he had coaxed several crowds of passengers to get on buses for free before the cops arrived.
In recent years Muni has had a practice and policy of permitting pass and transfer holders to enter the buses through the rear doors. However, in the last couple days before the fare strike, Muni applied stickers with a large red “Stop” sign to the back doors, with instructions to use the front door. This will have the effect of slowing down bus service. The main job of the security assistants was to herd passengers away from the rear doors. This led to an incident at 16th and Mission where a female security assistant illegally grabbed a man by his pants as he was entering through the rear door, leading to a physical altercation.
Fare strike advocates distributed about 8,000 leaflets with the demands of the fare strike but in the shape and graphic style of a Muni bus transfer, and reproduced on the same flimsy newsprint. These transfer-shaped leaflets were very popular with riders. They felt more comfortable with something they could flash to the drivers.
The police claim this is illegal counterfeiting but fare strike advocates claim it is merely a leaflet, and therefore constitutionally protected free speech. At 24th and Mission, Moe, a lawyer with the fare strike team, smiled at the cops and challenged them to issue him a citation for passing out the transfer-shaped leaflets. Moe wants to take this to court. Faced with a lawyer, the police backed down. Eventually a Muni fare inspector wrote Moe a citation.
Deploying heavy security where fare strike groups were visibly concentrated was intended to intimidate both drivers and riders from participating in the fare strike. Meanwhile, small teams of fare strike activists were surfing the bus lines in various neighborhoods. They’d get off at a busy stop and then lead by example, bringing on groups of people to ride for free with them. Their hope is that people will get comfortable with the idea and then do it on their own.
The corporate media parroted the Muni management party line in downplaying the fare strike. The S.F. Chronicle claimed they did a “random check” on a number of lines and found “only a handful” of fare strike participants. On a transit system that handles over 700,000 rides every weekday, a handful in a small sample translates into a significant number of people. The Corporate Free Ride With nearly 50 million square feet of office space compacted into San Francisco’s city center, the structure and employment pattern of San Francisco is very downtown-centered. In the early ‘70s, when the BART regional metro was being built, San Francisco changed its downtown zoning to discourage parking. Allowing scarce downtown space for lower-value parking structures would take away space from highly profitable office and retail uses. The vast capital value of downtown as a corporate headquarters and financial center and major retail center depends heavily on Muni — to deposit shoppers at downtown stores and carry the thousands of employees to their jobs. About two-thirds of the people who reach downtown on a given weekday arrive by public transit. But downtown building owners and corporations pay nothing special for this service which is essential to their profit making. Corporations are externalization machines — they systematically work to shift their costs onto others. In this case, they work to shift the cost of the public transit service onto the riders and the government.
In 1994 a broad-based coalition of community groups, working with liberal Supervisor Sue Bierman, shook up this status quo when they got Proposition O on the ballot. Prop O would have taken the first steps to set up a downtown transit assessment district, to force the downtown building owners to pay for Muni operations. However, Prop O was defeated at the polls through a massive disinformation campaign, financed by the Shorenstein Company — the largest office building owner in downtown — and the Building Owners and Managers Association.
Muni’s structural deficit first became evident in the mid-‘90s when Muni suffered through five years with 20 percent of the driver and mechanic positions left vacant. This generated problems of overcrowding and unreliability. To stave off another move to tax the downtown elite for Muni, the business elite moved pro-actively to impose their own solution to the structural deficit. The Chamber of Commerce began floating the idea of taking control of Muni away from the Board of Supervisors (the city council) and handing it over to an “independent” agency. The aim was to free the coordinator class cadres — Muni managers and professional staff — to solve the deficit by attacking the unions and forcing the riders to pay more. In 1998, SPUR (a business-oriented think tank) worked out a specific proposal but had a hard time gaining much acceptance for it.
The very broad-based ridership of Muni, combined with San Francisco’s ongoing gentrification, mean that there is a substantial minority of professional and business people who ride Muni. In 1998 a group of white professionals used the deteriorated condition of transit service to build a riders organization, called Rescue Muni. The politics of the all-white leadership of this organization range from mainstream liberal to neo-liberal. Rescue Muni has supported both of the Muni fare hikes in 2003 2005.
Rescue Muni provided a mass base for SPUR’s plan for “fixing” Muni, which was put on the ballot in 1998 as Proposition E. Prop E provided no new funding for Muni, but created the sort of independent agency the downtown elite were looking for, called the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA). With the local labor movement and political left asleep at the switch, Prop E was approved with little public debate. Under Prop E, the Supervisors have no line-item control over Muni and its budget. The MTA Board — politically connected lay people appointed by the Mayor — are in charge. Without their own source of information, they are putty in the hands of the Muni managerial staff.
Management empire building has been one result of Prop E. While cooking up ambitious expansion plans, much of the professional staff were moved out of rent-free, city-owned office space into expensive digs on Market Street, paying a rent of $53 a square foot. For a few years during the dot-com boom, Muni’s structural deficit was hidden, as the city was rolling in cash. Even after the financial crunch re-appeared with the 2001 recession, top management continued to give substantial bonuses to scores of professionals and managers making over $100,000 a year. This bloated coordinator hierarchy at Muni is a source of inefficiency. One of my neighbors, a former operator who now works as a street supervisor, believes the highly paid top brass aren’t even needed. “All we need to run the system,” he tells me, “are the drivers, maintenance people, and” street supervisors like himself.
This year’s struggle on Muni began in February with Muni management announcing another projected deficit. To fill the hole in the budget, the initial management proposal was a huge attack on the riders — a $1.75 fare, another hike to the $45 monthly pass, and charges for transfers. Tenant organizers employed by local non-profits initiated a Coalition for Transit Justice to fight back. With endorsements from over 35 community groups, the Coalition mobilized people to come out to MTA Board hearings to protest the proposed fare hikes and service cuts.
The protests did gain some concessions. Muni management backed off on their proposals for a hike in the monthly pass and charges for transfers, and reduced the proposed fare hike to $1.50. On the other hand, it’s possible that the more extreme management proposals were there to give them room for making concessions. Moreover, the MTA Board’s plan includes widespread cuts in service on many bus lines. The Coalition’s focus then shifted to the Board of Supervisors, to get the Supervisors to overrule the proposed fare hike, service cuts and layoffs. To do this, they’d need eight votes to reject the entire MTA budget. One of the Coalition’s groups, Families in SROs — a group of Asian women and Latinas who live in residence hotels with their kids — trooped to city hall en masse to lobby the Supervisors in groups. In July, however, the Supervisors voted 8 to 3 to endorse the Muni management proposals for a fare hike, service cuts and layoffs.
This left Muni riders with no recourse but collective direct action. The proposal for a fare strike was initiated by groups of anti-capitalist radicals back in March. The first of these groups to come together was Muni Social Strike (http://www.socialstrike.net), initiated by two anarchist groups. Some time later, another group came together under the name Muni Fare Strike (http://www.munifarestrike.net). Despite personal and political differences, the two groups were able to cooperate and coordinate their efforts during the last weeks leading up to the onset of the fare strike on September 1st.
In the late ‘70s transit workers in Turin, Italy, carried out a type of on-the-job strike. The transit workers had their own issues but there were also popular demands for a lower transit fare. The workers continued to run the vehicles while refusing to collect fares, thus building solidarity with the riders. At the time, British libertarian Marxist writer Adam Cornford coined the phrase “social strike” to refer to this type of worker action where the benefit of their work is still provided to the consumer. The young anarchists who formed Muni Social Strike wanted to encourage this type of worker/rider alliance in San Francisco. For the first several months, the Social Strike group focused its efforts on outreach to the drivers.
The great majority of Muni drivers are workers of color. The 2000-member drivers’ union, Transport Workers Union Local 250A, includes the largest group of unionized African-American workers in San Francisco. The Social Strike group were able to hook up with the Drivers Action Committee (DAC) — a group of about 40 dissident members of Local 250A. Several African-American bus drivers from DAC attended townhall meetings called by Social Strike to help further a driver/rider alliance.
In late April, DAC were able to get a Local 250A union meeting to endorse a mass refusal to cooperate with the next Muni general signup. In a general signup, drivers put in their preferences for which run they want. If the drivers refused to cooperate with the signup, it would not be possible for Muni to implement its proposed service cuts.
On June 17th, Bari McGruder and Victor Grayson, two African-American bus drivers who are active with DAC, were quoted in the S.F. Examiner to the effect that the leadership of TWU Local 250A are “in bed with management.” They were quoted as calling for a one-day walkout. Grayson — a former Black Panther Party member in his 50s — says that his stance is motivated by “solidarity with the riders.” He views the people who ride his bus as “just ordinary working people like me.” He sees the current Muni struggle as part of a larger conflict with the “corporate rich.”
The Examiner quotes provided the executive board of Local 250A with a pretext to clamp down against the dissidents in the union. McGruder and Grayson were brought up on charges by the executive board, fined $1,500 each, and suspended from the union for three years. This action threw the dissidents in the union on the defensive. It appears that the union’s April call for non-cooperation with the general signup wasn’t enforced, as the signup for the reduced-service schedules has apparently gone off without disruption.
Attitudes of drivers during the fare strike varied. Some drivers were playing by the Muni management game plan, refusing to move the bus if people didn’t pay. But this was a minority. As some Muni drivers told us, the union contract only requires the drivers to tell people what the fare is. In one incident, when an activist announced he was on fare strike, the driver said “The fare is $1.50. You know the rules.” She then stared straight ahead, smiling as he moved into the bus without paying. In another incident, when a group of people got on the bus with money in their hands, ready to pay, the driver told them “Why pay? Today is the fare strike.”
The fare strike requires intensive work by dozens of activists. It’s not clear how long they can keep this up. Muni management is hoping to ride out the storm. What about the longer run? If the consciousness-raising and momentum of the fare strike campaign were used to build a mass riders’ organization controlled by its members — a democratic Muni riders’ union — the struggle could be continued by other means after the fare strike (marches, jamming city meetings, etc). At least a militant minority of working class Muni riders would have an organizational vehicle through which to self-manage their on-going struggle with Muni management, city leaders, and the corporate elite. The pressure could be maintained. But thus far there has been no effort towards the building of a member-controlled riders’ union.
Comments to: tomwetzel [at] riseup.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Transit Fight
by Tom Wetzel; September 04, 2005
(from Z-net)
Despite heavy police presence at major bus transfer points, at least a couple thousand passengers rode the buses for free in San Francisco on Thursday, September 1st — the opening day of a fare strike in North America’s most bus-intensive city. In the days leading up to September 1st, more than 50 people were actively organizing for the fare strike, with new groups endorsing the effort in the last week. More than 20,000 leaflets had been distributed and 10,000 stickers were attached to bus shelters and poles throughout the city — in Spanish and Chinese as well as English.
Muni — San Francisco’s city-owned bus and streetcar network — raised its adult cash fare to $1.50 as of September 1st. This is the second hike in two years, representing an increase of 50 percent since 2003. Although organized pressure from community groups forced Muni management to back down on a proposal to raise the monthly pass, many low-income people have a hard time getting together the cash to buy the monthly pass. The weekly pass was a more financially accessible discount option for them. Muni never adequately advertised the weekly pass and has now raised it from $12 to $15.
Muni is also proposing to slash service on many lines, starting September 24th. Layoff notices were issued earlier in the year to 150 drivers. Muni management is eliminating 83 of these jobs through early retirement. This means a loss of good-paying unionized jobs. For the rest of the job cuts, they’re firing all of the part-timers. The fare strike has three demands: No fare hike, no service cuts, no layoffs.
Muni’s bus network is very intensively used. In a typical year there are an average of 270 public transit rides for every resident in San Francisco — the same level of transit-dependency as New York City. But in San Francisco three-fourths of the rides are on the electric and diesel buses that ply the city’s streets. There are already standing loads on many lines at various times throughout the day. Loss of drivers will lead to overcrowding, with people standing in stairwells and drivers passing people up at stops. People will be late for work. Low-income people often work at jobs where they are not given much slack about when they can arrive. Fare strike advocates say that these cuts in service and hikes in the fare are an attack on the poor, a regressive tax on those least able to pay. More crowding and more rider complaints will also add to the stress of the driver’s job.
On the morning of September 1st, the fare strike groups concentrated most of their people at about eight major nodes in the Muni bus network, with banners, strike placards, bullhorns and leaflets. About half of these nodes were on the Mission-Van Ness corridor. Two of these sites were 16th and Mission and 24th and Mission in the Mission District’s “main street” retail center — the heart of San Francisco’s Latino community. With over 85,000 rides on a typical weekday, Mission-Van Ness is one of the world’s busiest bus operations. During the last two weeks of organizing, the day laborers had gotten involved in the fare strike campaign and had taken over the tabling and leafleting on Mission Street and other areas in the city with large numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Support for the fare strike was particularly strong in the Mission District.
Muni targeted the Mission District for a heavy show of force on September 1st. When I got to 16th and Mission at 8AM, there were about 20 cops, virtually the entire Muni fare inspector force, and a squad of Muni “security assistants” — temporarily employed young people, mainly African-American, outfitted in bright green vests. Paunchy middle-aged Muni bosses had gotten out of their offices and were overseeing the operation. Gerardo, one of the day laborers, told me he had coaxed several crowds of passengers to get on buses for free before the cops arrived.
In recent years Muni has had a practice and policy of permitting pass and transfer holders to enter the buses through the rear doors. However, in the last couple days before the fare strike, Muni applied stickers with a large red “Stop” sign to the back doors, with instructions to use the front door. This will have the effect of slowing down bus service. The main job of the security assistants was to herd passengers away from the rear doors. This led to an incident at 16th and Mission where a female security assistant illegally grabbed a man by his pants as he was entering through the rear door, leading to a physical altercation.
Fare strike advocates distributed about 8,000 leaflets with the demands of the fare strike but in the shape and graphic style of a Muni bus transfer, and reproduced on the same flimsy newsprint. These transfer-shaped leaflets were very popular with riders. They felt more comfortable with something they could flash to the drivers.
The police claim this is illegal counterfeiting but fare strike advocates claim it is merely a leaflet, and therefore constitutionally protected free speech. At 24th and Mission, Moe, a lawyer with the fare strike team, smiled at the cops and challenged them to issue him a citation for passing out the transfer-shaped leaflets. Moe wants to take this to court. Faced with a lawyer, the police backed down. Eventually a Muni fare inspector wrote Moe a citation.
Deploying heavy security where fare strike groups were visibly concentrated was intended to intimidate both drivers and riders from participating in the fare strike. Meanwhile, small teams of fare strike activists were surfing the bus lines in various neighborhoods. They’d get off at a busy stop and then lead by example, bringing on groups of people to ride for free with them. Their hope is that people will get comfortable with the idea and then do it on their own.
The corporate media parroted the Muni management party line in downplaying the fare strike. The S.F. Chronicle claimed they did a “random check” on a number of lines and found “only a handful” of fare strike participants. On a transit system that handles over 700,000 rides every weekday, a handful in a small sample translates into a significant number of people. The Corporate Free Ride With nearly 50 million square feet of office space compacted into San Francisco’s city center, the structure and employment pattern of San Francisco is very downtown-centered. In the early ‘70s, when the BART regional metro was being built, San Francisco changed its downtown zoning to discourage parking. Allowing scarce downtown space for lower-value parking structures would take away space from highly profitable office and retail uses. The vast capital value of downtown as a corporate headquarters and financial center and major retail center depends heavily on Muni — to deposit shoppers at downtown stores and carry the thousands of employees to their jobs. About two-thirds of the people who reach downtown on a given weekday arrive by public transit. But downtown building owners and corporations pay nothing special for this service which is essential to their profit making. Corporations are externalization machines — they systematically work to shift their costs onto others. In this case, they work to shift the cost of the public transit service onto the riders and the government.
In 1994 a broad-based coalition of community groups, working with liberal Supervisor Sue Bierman, shook up this status quo when they got Proposition O on the ballot. Prop O would have taken the first steps to set up a downtown transit assessment district, to force the downtown building owners to pay for Muni operations. However, Prop O was defeated at the polls through a massive disinformation campaign, financed by the Shorenstein Company — the largest office building owner in downtown — and the Building Owners and Managers Association.
Muni’s structural deficit first became evident in the mid-‘90s when Muni suffered through five years with 20 percent of the driver and mechanic positions left vacant. This generated problems of overcrowding and unreliability. To stave off another move to tax the downtown elite for Muni, the business elite moved pro-actively to impose their own solution to the structural deficit. The Chamber of Commerce began floating the idea of taking control of Muni away from the Board of Supervisors (the city council) and handing it over to an “independent” agency. The aim was to free the coordinator class cadres — Muni managers and professional staff — to solve the deficit by attacking the unions and forcing the riders to pay more. In 1998, SPUR (a business-oriented think tank) worked out a specific proposal but had a hard time gaining much acceptance for it.
The very broad-based ridership of Muni, combined with San Francisco’s ongoing gentrification, mean that there is a substantial minority of professional and business people who ride Muni. In 1998 a group of white professionals used the deteriorated condition of transit service to build a riders organization, called Rescue Muni. The politics of the all-white leadership of this organization range from mainstream liberal to neo-liberal. Rescue Muni has supported both of the Muni fare hikes in 2003 2005.
Rescue Muni provided a mass base for SPUR’s plan for “fixing” Muni, which was put on the ballot in 1998 as Proposition E. Prop E provided no new funding for Muni, but created the sort of independent agency the downtown elite were looking for, called the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA). With the local labor movement and political left asleep at the switch, Prop E was approved with little public debate. Under Prop E, the Supervisors have no line-item control over Muni and its budget. The MTA Board — politically connected lay people appointed by the Mayor — are in charge. Without their own source of information, they are putty in the hands of the Muni managerial staff.
Management empire building has been one result of Prop E. While cooking up ambitious expansion plans, much of the professional staff were moved out of rent-free, city-owned office space into expensive digs on Market Street, paying a rent of $53 a square foot. For a few years during the dot-com boom, Muni’s structural deficit was hidden, as the city was rolling in cash. Even after the financial crunch re-appeared with the 2001 recession, top management continued to give substantial bonuses to scores of professionals and managers making over $100,000 a year. This bloated coordinator hierarchy at Muni is a source of inefficiency. One of my neighbors, a former operator who now works as a street supervisor, believes the highly paid top brass aren’t even needed. “All we need to run the system,” he tells me, “are the drivers, maintenance people, and” street supervisors like himself.
This year’s struggle on Muni began in February with Muni management announcing another projected deficit. To fill the hole in the budget, the initial management proposal was a huge attack on the riders — a $1.75 fare, another hike to the $45 monthly pass, and charges for transfers. Tenant organizers employed by local non-profits initiated a Coalition for Transit Justice to fight back. With endorsements from over 35 community groups, the Coalition mobilized people to come out to MTA Board hearings to protest the proposed fare hikes and service cuts.
The protests did gain some concessions. Muni management backed off on their proposals for a hike in the monthly pass and charges for transfers, and reduced the proposed fare hike to $1.50. On the other hand, it’s possible that the more extreme management proposals were there to give them room for making concessions. Moreover, the MTA Board’s plan includes widespread cuts in service on many bus lines. The Coalition’s focus then shifted to the Board of Supervisors, to get the Supervisors to overrule the proposed fare hike, service cuts and layoffs. To do this, they’d need eight votes to reject the entire MTA budget. One of the Coalition’s groups, Families in SROs — a group of Asian women and Latinas who live in residence hotels with their kids — trooped to city hall en masse to lobby the Supervisors in groups. In July, however, the Supervisors voted 8 to 3 to endorse the Muni management proposals for a fare hike, service cuts and layoffs.
This left Muni riders with no recourse but collective direct action. The proposal for a fare strike was initiated by groups of anti-capitalist radicals back in March. The first of these groups to come together was Muni Social Strike (http://www.socialstrike.net), initiated by two anarchist groups. Some time later, another group came together under the name Muni Fare Strike (http://www.munifarestrike.net). Despite personal and political differences, the two groups were able to cooperate and coordinate their efforts during the last weeks leading up to the onset of the fare strike on September 1st.
In the late ‘70s transit workers in Turin, Italy, carried out a type of on-the-job strike. The transit workers had their own issues but there were also popular demands for a lower transit fare. The workers continued to run the vehicles while refusing to collect fares, thus building solidarity with the riders. At the time, British libertarian Marxist writer Adam Cornford coined the phrase “social strike” to refer to this type of worker action where the benefit of their work is still provided to the consumer. The young anarchists who formed Muni Social Strike wanted to encourage this type of worker/rider alliance in San Francisco. For the first several months, the Social Strike group focused its efforts on outreach to the drivers.
The great majority of Muni drivers are workers of color. The 2000-member drivers’ union, Transport Workers Union Local 250A, includes the largest group of unionized African-American workers in San Francisco. The Social Strike group were able to hook up with the Drivers Action Committee (DAC) — a group of about 40 dissident members of Local 250A. Several African-American bus drivers from DAC attended townhall meetings called by Social Strike to help further a driver/rider alliance.
In late April, DAC were able to get a Local 250A union meeting to endorse a mass refusal to cooperate with the next Muni general signup. In a general signup, drivers put in their preferences for which run they want. If the drivers refused to cooperate with the signup, it would not be possible for Muni to implement its proposed service cuts.
On June 17th, Bari McGruder and Victor Grayson, two African-American bus drivers who are active with DAC, were quoted in the S.F. Examiner to the effect that the leadership of TWU Local 250A are “in bed with management.” They were quoted as calling for a one-day walkout. Grayson — a former Black Panther Party member in his 50s — says that his stance is motivated by “solidarity with the riders.” He views the people who ride his bus as “just ordinary working people like me.” He sees the current Muni struggle as part of a larger conflict with the “corporate rich.”
The Examiner quotes provided the executive board of Local 250A with a pretext to clamp down against the dissidents in the union. McGruder and Grayson were brought up on charges by the executive board, fined $1,500 each, and suspended from the union for three years. This action threw the dissidents in the union on the defensive. It appears that the union’s April call for non-cooperation with the general signup wasn’t enforced, as the signup for the reduced-service schedules has apparently gone off without disruption.
Attitudes of drivers during the fare strike varied. Some drivers were playing by the Muni management game plan, refusing to move the bus if people didn’t pay. But this was a minority. As some Muni drivers told us, the union contract only requires the drivers to tell people what the fare is. In one incident, when an activist announced he was on fare strike, the driver said “The fare is $1.50. You know the rules.” She then stared straight ahead, smiling as he moved into the bus without paying. In another incident, when a group of people got on the bus with money in their hands, ready to pay, the driver told them “Why pay? Today is the fare strike.”
The fare strike requires intensive work by dozens of activists. It’s not clear how long they can keep this up. Muni management is hoping to ride out the storm. What about the longer run? If the consciousness-raising and momentum of the fare strike campaign were used to build a mass riders’ organization controlled by its members — a democratic Muni riders’ union — the struggle could be continued by other means after the fare strike (marches, jamming city meetings, etc). At least a militant minority of working class Muni riders would have an organizational vehicle through which to self-manage their on-going struggle with Muni management, city leaders, and the corporate elite. The pressure could be maintained. But thus far there has been no effort towards the building of a member-controlled riders’ union.
Comments to: tomwetzel [at] riseup.net
Another account of the actual fare strike:
*** DAY ONE ***
On the first day of the fare strike, Thursday, September 1, Muni mobilized squads of security guards, fare inspectors, administrators and police to combat fare strikers. Some transit locations expected to be hot spots for the fare strike were under virtual occupation by these Muni security teams --particularly in low-income neighborhoods like the Mission where support for the fare strike has been and remains strong.
Yet fare strike organizers continued to agitate at transit hubs like 16th and Mission, 24th and Mission, Geneva and Mission, and the Balboa BART station, right under the nose of the Muni counter-insurgency squads. Often riders getting on or off the bus were virtually surrounded by
Muni security, seeking to prevent fare strike organizers even from handing them a leaflet. But when the Muni squads missed surrounding a particular bus, or backed off a bit, many fare strikers found their way aboard.
Despite Muni's show of force and intimidation tactics, hundreds of fare strikers boarded Muni at these occupied transit hubs during the course of the day. There were a few tickets handed out, but most of those have already been referred to our legal team. More than once, fare
inspectors let several fare strikers get on, then picked off the last one to ticket as an example.
Most significantly, everywhere fare strike organizers went during the course of the day, out-of-sight of the occupied transit hubs, we found riders willing and eager to participate in the fare strike, and found few drivers interested in being the fare police. Reports are still being collected, but it is clear that many, many riders actively participated in Day One of the fare strike, in many different parts of town. The corporate media has so far concentrated its reports on the occupied transit hubs, and has done little to investigate conditions elsewhere in town.
In the late afternoon, the action shifted downtown. fare strike organizers again went head-to-head with a large Muni security squad at 4th and Market, and again we found many riders eager to hear our message. Other organizers spread out around other parts of downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, where the Muni security presence was nil, and found a great deal of support. Again, we are still collecting reports of the action downtown in the afternoon.
What became obvious during the course of the day was that the Muni security squads were actually making converts for the movement for transit justice, as many riders were angered to find themselves surrounded by these squads, blocking their way and slowing down the busses.
In one egregious example, Muni administrators, worried about a crowd of riders waiting to get on through the back doors of an articulated bus at 16th and Mission, ordered the driver to keep the back doors closed, even though there were dozens of riders trying to get out. Instead, Muni
administrators ordered the driver to force riders to get out the front door, which caused a long delay, virtually holding people in the bus hostage for several minutes.
The fare strike continues...
*** THUGS FOR MUNI? ***
The most serious incident we have heard yet started when one of the Muni security people grabbed a man by his pants at 16th and Mission who had entered a bus through the rear door, and dragged him back out into the street. This illegal and improper action naturally led to an
altercation, with several Muni security people getting involved, who ended up chasing the guy up the street, and roughing him up before the police finally intervened and detained him. It appears that our extra quarters are now being used to hire security squads to rough up riders for trying
to ride the bus.
*** MUNI fare strike LEGAL TEAM ***
Despite all the press about $113 to $500 tickets for fare evasion, the Muni fare inspectors on the street yesterday were passing out "sample tickets" that stated that the maximum fine is $75. This confirms what we have been saying -- namely that the first ticket is $35, the second ticket is $55, and the third and following tickets $75. As previously reported, our Muni fare strike Legal Team, working together with the National Lawyers Guild, is up and running. Our lawyers, will defend anyone who gets a ticket or has other legal problems as a result of the fare strike. If you get a ticket, call our legal team at 285-1011, and let us defend you.
*** DAY ONE ***
On the first day of the fare strike, Thursday, September 1, Muni mobilized squads of security guards, fare inspectors, administrators and police to combat fare strikers. Some transit locations expected to be hot spots for the fare strike were under virtual occupation by these Muni security teams --particularly in low-income neighborhoods like the Mission where support for the fare strike has been and remains strong.
Yet fare strike organizers continued to agitate at transit hubs like 16th and Mission, 24th and Mission, Geneva and Mission, and the Balboa BART station, right under the nose of the Muni counter-insurgency squads. Often riders getting on or off the bus were virtually surrounded by
Muni security, seeking to prevent fare strike organizers even from handing them a leaflet. But when the Muni squads missed surrounding a particular bus, or backed off a bit, many fare strikers found their way aboard.
Despite Muni's show of force and intimidation tactics, hundreds of fare strikers boarded Muni at these occupied transit hubs during the course of the day. There were a few tickets handed out, but most of those have already been referred to our legal team. More than once, fare
inspectors let several fare strikers get on, then picked off the last one to ticket as an example.
Most significantly, everywhere fare strike organizers went during the course of the day, out-of-sight of the occupied transit hubs, we found riders willing and eager to participate in the fare strike, and found few drivers interested in being the fare police. Reports are still being collected, but it is clear that many, many riders actively participated in Day One of the fare strike, in many different parts of town. The corporate media has so far concentrated its reports on the occupied transit hubs, and has done little to investigate conditions elsewhere in town.
In the late afternoon, the action shifted downtown. fare strike organizers again went head-to-head with a large Muni security squad at 4th and Market, and again we found many riders eager to hear our message. Other organizers spread out around other parts of downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, where the Muni security presence was nil, and found a great deal of support. Again, we are still collecting reports of the action downtown in the afternoon.
What became obvious during the course of the day was that the Muni security squads were actually making converts for the movement for transit justice, as many riders were angered to find themselves surrounded by these squads, blocking their way and slowing down the busses.
In one egregious example, Muni administrators, worried about a crowd of riders waiting to get on through the back doors of an articulated bus at 16th and Mission, ordered the driver to keep the back doors closed, even though there were dozens of riders trying to get out. Instead, Muni
administrators ordered the driver to force riders to get out the front door, which caused a long delay, virtually holding people in the bus hostage for several minutes.
The fare strike continues...
*** THUGS FOR MUNI? ***
The most serious incident we have heard yet started when one of the Muni security people grabbed a man by his pants at 16th and Mission who had entered a bus through the rear door, and dragged him back out into the street. This illegal and improper action naturally led to an
altercation, with several Muni security people getting involved, who ended up chasing the guy up the street, and roughing him up before the police finally intervened and detained him. It appears that our extra quarters are now being used to hire security squads to rough up riders for trying
to ride the bus.
*** MUNI fare strike LEGAL TEAM ***
Despite all the press about $113 to $500 tickets for fare evasion, the Muni fare inspectors on the street yesterday were passing out "sample tickets" that stated that the maximum fine is $75. This confirms what we have been saying -- namely that the first ticket is $35, the second ticket is $55, and the third and following tickets $75. As previously reported, our Muni fare strike Legal Team, working together with the National Lawyers Guild, is up and running. Our lawyers, will defend anyone who gets a ticket or has other legal problems as a result of the fare strike. If you get a ticket, call our legal team at 285-1011, and let us defend you.
Another account:
This was written by a comrade, reporting on his experiences on the first day of the fare strike:
I was greeted by 4 motorcycle cops at 7:00 in the morning occupying the site where we held the press conference on the northeast corner. They were accompanied by a trio of really eager muni goons trying to shout me down.
Instead of hanging the banners and placards, I set my stuff down inside the bus stop and started handing out flyers. My strategy was to get up right at the door when the bus arrived, greet the drivers and remind them of the strike while i attempted to escort people onto the bus for free.
Out of about 8 full bus loads that I approached early on, I would say that more than half of the people without fast passes were getting on for free.
This came to an abrupt end when two paddywagons of pigs showed up with an entire team of muni suits. The cops pulled me away from my post at the door of the bus saying i was obstructing something-or-other while the goons and suits took over the front of the line to enforce fare payment with a stick.
XXX and some press from SF State arrived at about this time as more cops arrived and the whole thing became an absurd police state. We continued flyering as more people from social strike and other friends began to show up.
With XX from Social strike I began giving out transfers which became a quick success. People were coming up to me from all sides trying to get the mock transfers and using them to ride. The cops quickly zoomed in on the this and tried to accost XX and take his transfers. XX defended himself honorably claiming that it was not counterfeit or illegal in any way.He challenged them to try to stop him and they were left dumbfounded.
Within moments they moved toward me, telling me I was detained and to give them my information. They created a ring of about 7 or 8 cops around me while I created a ruckus with a hundred or so folks milling around and waiting for the bus. They eventually gave me a verbal warning after talking to headquarters for a while.
This is a bit of a ramble, i'll hit the highlights.
An entire group of riders heading up 24th was totally receptive to the fare strike. While talking with people and flyering, two older latina women started talking and yelling things against the fare hike. One thing they started to say was, "no fare increase, we need a wage increase". 9 out of 10 people were getting really riled up and the buses were coming really late. The bus arrived while the suits were off somewhere in a huddle. People started to get on and the driver, who was a huge man, got pissed off, stood up and told people to come back. We started talking him down with numerous riders while everyone just filed in and took their seats for free. The driver was mainly scared and perplexed. His tensions from the morning had hit a boiling point, the drivers were all on center stage. Though we had made every effort to talk with as many drivers as possible before and during strike day 1, many felt the strain of being trapped between angry riders and the heavy management and police surveillance.
On the flip side, another driver on Mission coming from 16th St. stopped at the light, honked his horn, yelled out and then for all to see (including pigs and suits) held up a piece of paper with the New fare $1.50 logo and ripped it to shreds.
Two women and one of their sons began to flyer and motivate others not to pay. They played really pivotal roles in setting the tenor for the entire morning. They drew numerous people in and gave a whole new feel to our efforts.
One of these women assisted another woman who boarded without paying. The driver stopped the bus and said he wouldn't move until she payed. She finally got up and payed "everything she had" and went back. Since she couldn't make the new fare the driver remained planted while numerous people talked and pleaded with him. She eventually got off the bus, but not before attracting numerous people to idea of not paying. At this time i handed her and everyone els a mock transfer and they successfully got boarded the next bus.
Another woman with two kids got on the bus without paying and stayed put until a hidden fare inspector came out of the darkness and took them off the bus and cited them. The press swooned in on this one and the brave woman adamantly stated that she had no plans to pay the fare increase.
Ok, enough for now.
This was written by a comrade, reporting on his experiences on the first day of the fare strike:
I was greeted by 4 motorcycle cops at 7:00 in the morning occupying the site where we held the press conference on the northeast corner. They were accompanied by a trio of really eager muni goons trying to shout me down.
Instead of hanging the banners and placards, I set my stuff down inside the bus stop and started handing out flyers. My strategy was to get up right at the door when the bus arrived, greet the drivers and remind them of the strike while i attempted to escort people onto the bus for free.
Out of about 8 full bus loads that I approached early on, I would say that more than half of the people without fast passes were getting on for free.
This came to an abrupt end when two paddywagons of pigs showed up with an entire team of muni suits. The cops pulled me away from my post at the door of the bus saying i was obstructing something-or-other while the goons and suits took over the front of the line to enforce fare payment with a stick.
XXX and some press from SF State arrived at about this time as more cops arrived and the whole thing became an absurd police state. We continued flyering as more people from social strike and other friends began to show up.
With XX from Social strike I began giving out transfers which became a quick success. People were coming up to me from all sides trying to get the mock transfers and using them to ride. The cops quickly zoomed in on the this and tried to accost XX and take his transfers. XX defended himself honorably claiming that it was not counterfeit or illegal in any way.He challenged them to try to stop him and they were left dumbfounded.
Within moments they moved toward me, telling me I was detained and to give them my information. They created a ring of about 7 or 8 cops around me while I created a ruckus with a hundred or so folks milling around and waiting for the bus. They eventually gave me a verbal warning after talking to headquarters for a while.
This is a bit of a ramble, i'll hit the highlights.
An entire group of riders heading up 24th was totally receptive to the fare strike. While talking with people and flyering, two older latina women started talking and yelling things against the fare hike. One thing they started to say was, "no fare increase, we need a wage increase". 9 out of 10 people were getting really riled up and the buses were coming really late. The bus arrived while the suits were off somewhere in a huddle. People started to get on and the driver, who was a huge man, got pissed off, stood up and told people to come back. We started talking him down with numerous riders while everyone just filed in and took their seats for free. The driver was mainly scared and perplexed. His tensions from the morning had hit a boiling point, the drivers were all on center stage. Though we had made every effort to talk with as many drivers as possible before and during strike day 1, many felt the strain of being trapped between angry riders and the heavy management and police surveillance.
On the flip side, another driver on Mission coming from 16th St. stopped at the light, honked his horn, yelled out and then for all to see (including pigs and suits) held up a piece of paper with the New fare $1.50 logo and ripped it to shreds.
Two women and one of their sons began to flyer and motivate others not to pay. They played really pivotal roles in setting the tenor for the entire morning. They drew numerous people in and gave a whole new feel to our efforts.
One of these women assisted another woman who boarded without paying. The driver stopped the bus and said he wouldn't move until she payed. She finally got up and payed "everything she had" and went back. Since she couldn't make the new fare the driver remained planted while numerous people talked and pleaded with him. She eventually got off the bus, but not before attracting numerous people to idea of not paying. At this time i handed her and everyone els a mock transfer and they successfully got boarded the next bus.
Another woman with two kids got on the bus without paying and stayed put until a hidden fare inspector came out of the darkness and took them off the bus and cited them. The press swooned in on this one and the brave woman adamantly stated that she had no plans to pay the fare increase.
Ok, enough for now.
And a last, final, account of what actually happened in the fare strike:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following is a report from one of the fare strike organizing teams on Day One of the fare strike. Their experiences are very instructive, and show the evolution over the course of the day from a team working at one fixed location, to a mobile organizing team spreading the word about the fare strike by example throughout the city."
On the first day of the fare strike, our team of six (including one Chinese, one Korean and one Spanish speaker) went to our post at Divisadero and Geary at 7:30 AM, where we had a steady flow of 38-Geary buses, the busiest line in the City, as well as a less frequent cross flow of the 24-Divisadero. We had one large banner that simply said fare strike Starting Sept. 1, and lots of smaller posters that we either carried as picket signs or taped up to the bus shelters in all four directions.
We started handing out leaflets to riders and drivers. There was no muni security around at this point. Two of us flyered the fairly frequent 38-Geary buses going outbound and even put English, Chinese and Spanish fare strike stickers over the muni stickers on the glass of the back doors warning riders not to enter using the back door. One driver stopped, got out of the bus motioned me forward and asked me to put stickers on the front door. I was surprised and elated. (In the late afternoon I saw the same bus downtown, and the English and Chinese fare strike stickers were still on the front door.)
Muni light duty employees -- the first guy said he was a driver on disability -- started arriving after 8:00 AM. They did not interfere with us, but were handing out photocopied sample citations and a muni brochure about the fare increase. We had initially concentrated all our efforts on the southwest corner to the 38-Geary buses inbound to downtown. When more muni employees arrived, we spread out to all four bus stops.
Many riders noticed our large fare strike banner and could see us with our picket signs. We got a lot of thumbs-up. One man slid the narrow window open and motioned with his hand for me to give him some flyers. I handed him a bunch and they instantly got distributed to everyone sitting near him. Obviously others wanted to see what the flyer said, so I gave him another larger pile and they quickly went both ways up and down the long, articulated bus. When the bus drove off I could see people eagerly reading the flyer at both the front and the rear of the bus. We got several thumbs-up from that bus.
Around 9:00 AM more muni fare enforcement folks showed up, one even appeared to be some kind of a bureaucrat, and it was crowding us out of the narrow sidewalk of the southwest corner stop for the 38-Geary. We were nearly out of flyers anyway, so we decided to see if we could re-supply ourselves at 16th & Mission and start getting on the buses.
Mission and 16th had a huge cop presence when we got there just after 10:00 AM. So, after checking in with the organizers there, a couple of us hit the buses by walking down Mission a block to the next bus stop. The first time was pretty easy. Just a word or two about being on 'fare strike' and not paying and whoosh, we were on -- with the people at the front of the bus having seen what we had just done and we started flyering them. Then to the end of the bus and off, having flyered everyone, and then across the street, on again in the opposite direction and we did it again... and again... and again.
We took a break for lunch, lost a couple comrades from our early morning team of six, and four of us spent the rest of the afternoon surfing buses up and down Mission and to downtown. In that stretch, we must have ridden around fifteen buses, flyered nearly everyone on board and several times we had forums at the back of the bus with pissed off folks who were totally angry and 100% behind participating in a fare strike themselves, many still fired up and talking among themselves when we jumped off and got on another bus.
In all that time only ONE driver said 'No, you can't enter my bus without paying the fare.' (All day I rode over twenty buses and he was the only one.)
About 4:30 PM we went to 4th & Market. It was the biggest muni enforcement circus we had seen all day. So our team, now down to two people, headed down the block to Market and Kearny, which did not really build up crowds like at 4th and Market. We just started surfing buses and flyering on them from there into Chinatown. We had patched two signs together to read fare strike in English, NO muni fare TODAY in Spanish and RIDERS DON'T PAY -- DRIVERS DON'T COLLECT in Chinese. At the bus stops it became a powerful magnet for enthusiastically supportive Chinese people. We got on and off the bus going in the same direction several times and then walked up from Columbus to Stockton.
It was totally amazing, wherever we went with the sign, people came up and thanked us and asked for a copy from the pile of flyers in our hands. We got stopped in front of a fruit and vegetable grocery and could not leave because so many people were coming up to us. Finally, after giving out what seemed like a hundred flyers in a matter of minutes, we got on the buses again. We went a block, got off and it happened all over again. And then did it again... and again.
At another crowded bus stop, a pleasant middle-aged Chinese woman of moderate English ability kept saying that it sounded like a good idea to fare strike, but the driver wouldn't let us do it. We assured her that she could, but she and the crowd of others hanging on our every word didn't believe us. So, we got to the front of people piling onto the bus and got on and told the driver we were on fare strike and then just kept walking down the aisle. The middle-aged woman followed, with some high school girls in tow, and all of them were beside themselves with delight, completely giddy with satisfaction of having got on for free. We got off soon after and as we were leaving asked them to show others how to do it. It was a magical experience of seeing people empower themselves.
By then we were going through the Stockton Tunnel and got out before Union Square. Still, people would see the sign and ask for a flyer and then thank us.
We ended up back at 4th & Market as it was getting dark, things were winding down and soon after we called it a night. All-in-all, I would have to say that it was a very successful day, especially after we realized that the best way to foment the fare strike was riding for free -- and encouraging others to do likewise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following is a report from one of the fare strike organizing teams on Day One of the fare strike. Their experiences are very instructive, and show the evolution over the course of the day from a team working at one fixed location, to a mobile organizing team spreading the word about the fare strike by example throughout the city."
On the first day of the fare strike, our team of six (including one Chinese, one Korean and one Spanish speaker) went to our post at Divisadero and Geary at 7:30 AM, where we had a steady flow of 38-Geary buses, the busiest line in the City, as well as a less frequent cross flow of the 24-Divisadero. We had one large banner that simply said fare strike Starting Sept. 1, and lots of smaller posters that we either carried as picket signs or taped up to the bus shelters in all four directions.
We started handing out leaflets to riders and drivers. There was no muni security around at this point. Two of us flyered the fairly frequent 38-Geary buses going outbound and even put English, Chinese and Spanish fare strike stickers over the muni stickers on the glass of the back doors warning riders not to enter using the back door. One driver stopped, got out of the bus motioned me forward and asked me to put stickers on the front door. I was surprised and elated. (In the late afternoon I saw the same bus downtown, and the English and Chinese fare strike stickers were still on the front door.)
Muni light duty employees -- the first guy said he was a driver on disability -- started arriving after 8:00 AM. They did not interfere with us, but were handing out photocopied sample citations and a muni brochure about the fare increase. We had initially concentrated all our efforts on the southwest corner to the 38-Geary buses inbound to downtown. When more muni employees arrived, we spread out to all four bus stops.
Many riders noticed our large fare strike banner and could see us with our picket signs. We got a lot of thumbs-up. One man slid the narrow window open and motioned with his hand for me to give him some flyers. I handed him a bunch and they instantly got distributed to everyone sitting near him. Obviously others wanted to see what the flyer said, so I gave him another larger pile and they quickly went both ways up and down the long, articulated bus. When the bus drove off I could see people eagerly reading the flyer at both the front and the rear of the bus. We got several thumbs-up from that bus.
Around 9:00 AM more muni fare enforcement folks showed up, one even appeared to be some kind of a bureaucrat, and it was crowding us out of the narrow sidewalk of the southwest corner stop for the 38-Geary. We were nearly out of flyers anyway, so we decided to see if we could re-supply ourselves at 16th & Mission and start getting on the buses.
Mission and 16th had a huge cop presence when we got there just after 10:00 AM. So, after checking in with the organizers there, a couple of us hit the buses by walking down Mission a block to the next bus stop. The first time was pretty easy. Just a word or two about being on 'fare strike' and not paying and whoosh, we were on -- with the people at the front of the bus having seen what we had just done and we started flyering them. Then to the end of the bus and off, having flyered everyone, and then across the street, on again in the opposite direction and we did it again... and again... and again.
We took a break for lunch, lost a couple comrades from our early morning team of six, and four of us spent the rest of the afternoon surfing buses up and down Mission and to downtown. In that stretch, we must have ridden around fifteen buses, flyered nearly everyone on board and several times we had forums at the back of the bus with pissed off folks who were totally angry and 100% behind participating in a fare strike themselves, many still fired up and talking among themselves when we jumped off and got on another bus.
In all that time only ONE driver said 'No, you can't enter my bus without paying the fare.' (All day I rode over twenty buses and he was the only one.)
About 4:30 PM we went to 4th & Market. It was the biggest muni enforcement circus we had seen all day. So our team, now down to two people, headed down the block to Market and Kearny, which did not really build up crowds like at 4th and Market. We just started surfing buses and flyering on them from there into Chinatown. We had patched two signs together to read fare strike in English, NO muni fare TODAY in Spanish and RIDERS DON'T PAY -- DRIVERS DON'T COLLECT in Chinese. At the bus stops it became a powerful magnet for enthusiastically supportive Chinese people. We got on and off the bus going in the same direction several times and then walked up from Columbus to Stockton.
It was totally amazing, wherever we went with the sign, people came up and thanked us and asked for a copy from the pile of flyers in our hands. We got stopped in front of a fruit and vegetable grocery and could not leave because so many people were coming up to us. Finally, after giving out what seemed like a hundred flyers in a matter of minutes, we got on the buses again. We went a block, got off and it happened all over again. And then did it again... and again.
At another crowded bus stop, a pleasant middle-aged Chinese woman of moderate English ability kept saying that it sounded like a good idea to fare strike, but the driver wouldn't let us do it. We assured her that she could, but she and the crowd of others hanging on our every word didn't believe us. So, we got to the front of people piling onto the bus and got on and told the driver we were on fare strike and then just kept walking down the aisle. The middle-aged woman followed, with some high school girls in tow, and all of them were beside themselves with delight, completely giddy with satisfaction of having got on for free. We got off soon after and as we were leaving asked them to show others how to do it. It was a magical experience of seeing people empower themselves.
By then we were going through the Stockton Tunnel and got out before Union Square. Still, people would see the sign and ask for a flyer and then thank us.
We ended up back at 4th & Market as it was getting dark, things were winding down and soon after we called it a night. All-in-all, I would have to say that it was a very successful day, especially after we realized that the best way to foment the fare strike was riding for free -- and encouraging others to do likewise.
Bunky:
It harmed the cause to have Kevin participate.It IS that simple.Difficult to accept, because you like(d) the guy and feel sorry for him.Well join the fucking club.
It harmed the cause to have Kevin participate.It IS that simple.Difficult to accept, because you like(d) the guy and feel sorry for him.Well join the fucking club.
And at the end of the second week of the fare strike, it continued to be effective with some:
September 12: I ride the Line 5 from Divisidero and McAllister into work downtown, which worked pretty well before the fare hike. Now it takes maybe 1/2 an hour for a bus to come, even if two, three, even four buses pass going in the opposite direction! Monday morning I finally cracked. Why should we have to pay more money for less service? So I told the ten or so people waiting that I didn't plan on paying, it's just not right, and if they shared my feelings then we could support one another. When the bus came, I said good morning to the driver and walked onto the standing-room only bus. The driver called after me, "Miss! Miss!" and I said, sorry but I'm not paying, I'm on FARE STRIKE!" He didn't say anything else, and several people walked on after me without paying without him saying anything to them either. When I finally got to the back of the bus, I saw several more people had jumped through the back. Amazingly, some people paid! I can't decide if that's funny or sad.
September 12: I ride the Line 5 from Divisidero and McAllister into work downtown, which worked pretty well before the fare hike. Now it takes maybe 1/2 an hour for a bus to come, even if two, three, even four buses pass going in the opposite direction! Monday morning I finally cracked. Why should we have to pay more money for less service? So I told the ten or so people waiting that I didn't plan on paying, it's just not right, and if they shared my feelings then we could support one another. When the bus came, I said good morning to the driver and walked onto the standing-room only bus. The driver called after me, "Miss! Miss!" and I said, sorry but I'm not paying, I'm on FARE STRIKE!" He didn't say anything else, and several people walked on after me without paying without him saying anything to them either. When I finally got to the back of the bus, I saw several more people had jumped through the back. Amazingly, some people paid! I can't decide if that's funny or sad.
An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.
> Neither one able to comprehend why the masses do not line up behind their perfect visions of the revolution.
What, you're a mind reader now?
Please get back to the topic. Personal attacks are not only irrelevant, they're in the way. I have asked a number of valid questions. Not one has been answered. Why not? Don't you *have* answers?
>While all of you are debating the merits of allowing a wrecker to go around denouncing people with ad hominems,
That's a straw man. No such thing is happening. What is actually happening is that Kevin criticized the politics of the self reduction movement. Rather than respond to those criticisms, people attacked him personally. Then I called them on it.
Please, no more straw men. They are counter productive.
> It harmed the cause to have Kevin participate.
Wrong. It harmed the cause to have people in it who care so much that Kevin is in it that they would rather see it fail than do what it takes to make it succeed. This is typical, even emblematic, of what's wrong with radical culture in this part of the world. A lot of people around here put me in mind of children who, when they don't get chosen to be the pitcher, take their ball and bat and go home. That's not radical. That's bourgeois self indulgence. If you're only going to actively resist when you can do it completely on your own terms, you will never accomplish anything, unlike myself, who compromises every day, and has accomplished quite a lot as the result. No, I haven't accomplished everything I set out to do, but so what? We get some of what we try for and none of what we don't try for. The self reduction movement in this part of the world is trying for the wrong things. They are trying to create a social scene composed only of people they like. Better they should try to spread the ideology and the skills of self reduction on a grass roots level. Then they would accomplish more.
> Neither one able to comprehend why the masses do not line up behind their perfect visions of the revolution.
What, you're a mind reader now?
Please get back to the topic. Personal attacks are not only irrelevant, they're in the way. I have asked a number of valid questions. Not one has been answered. Why not? Don't you *have* answers?
>While all of you are debating the merits of allowing a wrecker to go around denouncing people with ad hominems,
That's a straw man. No such thing is happening. What is actually happening is that Kevin criticized the politics of the self reduction movement. Rather than respond to those criticisms, people attacked him personally. Then I called them on it.
Please, no more straw men. They are counter productive.
> It harmed the cause to have Kevin participate.
Wrong. It harmed the cause to have people in it who care so much that Kevin is in it that they would rather see it fail than do what it takes to make it succeed. This is typical, even emblematic, of what's wrong with radical culture in this part of the world. A lot of people around here put me in mind of children who, when they don't get chosen to be the pitcher, take their ball and bat and go home. That's not radical. That's bourgeois self indulgence. If you're only going to actively resist when you can do it completely on your own terms, you will never accomplish anything, unlike myself, who compromises every day, and has accomplished quite a lot as the result. No, I haven't accomplished everything I set out to do, but so what? We get some of what we try for and none of what we don't try for. The self reduction movement in this part of the world is trying for the wrong things. They are trying to create a social scene composed only of people they like. Better they should try to spread the ideology and the skills of self reduction on a grass roots level. Then they would accomplish more.
... is twn happened on Day 1. Neither Kevin with his more radical than thou attitudes, nor the Fair Strike people with thier lowest common deenomiator politIcs, nor the social strike anarchists who are mainly new, naive and young, nor myself had any concrete plans to sutaina stirke in acity hwre most people buy fast passes. Many people still do not pay --probably more than in any other city in the U.S. except for maybe New York or Chicago, buit it doesn't feel like an orgnaized strike that has clout to get the demsnds it wants. So if anybody has any suggestions on how to go forward make them and stop worrying about Kevin. He will dissolve in own ideological goo if we genrally just ignore him.
There is an analysis of the fare strike that should be discussed and then there is KK's delusional retelling of history with himself as the tireless visionary. Does he think no one else gave a shit about muni before him? or that he had some proprietary right to resisting the cuts and hike, and that any other group is a threat to his central position? KK is pathetic and unbearable, but that is not a reason why another group formed. It had already been forming, but it was clear that KK would not be involved.
Sad that so much radical energy in this town has to dodge around one shmuck that is so disliked. His tirades take on more of an inverse relation to reality as time passes. When he calls someone a Leninist, its important to remember that virtyually nobody will do anything with the guy, save for a new recruit once in a while, who, upon hearing all of the routines numerous times, moves out of hearing range for good. When KK says he broke off ties with anyone, the opposite is always true.
I know there is no analysis here but the implicit truth here is that muni fare strike was comprised of a bunch of people that worked hard to talk to as many riders and drivers as possible. The nature of these talks may not have always been about abolishing wage labor, true. However it was about direct action, solidarity with drivers, and a larger critique of "ownership" of common resources and the struggle to make SF more livable, affordable, etc. The act of engaging in a fare strike is in itself, many of us thought, would have a radicalizing effect on people involved, in the sense of making people realize the bullshit of the rules of society, private property, and so on. Unfortunately, KK has an extremely poor opinion of the vast majority of humanity, thinking them incapable of spontaneously reaching these conclusions themselves through their experience rather than through a messiah like himself.
All this crap about muni fare strike being pro-wage labor, or Leninist, or whatever, is offensive but also laughable. To think that we tried to hijack the pure efforts of social strike is self-obsessed delusion. We worked with social strike people and although our efforts to coordinate could have been better on both sides, there was not animosity between the Fare strike group and anyone else in social strike. Just you know who.
Blaming the weaknesses of the strike on MFS shows how out of touch this guy is with what really happened. Too busy talking shit and putting up the magic flyer that unleashes the revolutionary potential of the working class to consider how to get people to actively take part. On which more later.
Sad that so much radical energy in this town has to dodge around one shmuck that is so disliked. His tirades take on more of an inverse relation to reality as time passes. When he calls someone a Leninist, its important to remember that virtyually nobody will do anything with the guy, save for a new recruit once in a while, who, upon hearing all of the routines numerous times, moves out of hearing range for good. When KK says he broke off ties with anyone, the opposite is always true.
I know there is no analysis here but the implicit truth here is that muni fare strike was comprised of a bunch of people that worked hard to talk to as many riders and drivers as possible. The nature of these talks may not have always been about abolishing wage labor, true. However it was about direct action, solidarity with drivers, and a larger critique of "ownership" of common resources and the struggle to make SF more livable, affordable, etc. The act of engaging in a fare strike is in itself, many of us thought, would have a radicalizing effect on people involved, in the sense of making people realize the bullshit of the rules of society, private property, and so on. Unfortunately, KK has an extremely poor opinion of the vast majority of humanity, thinking them incapable of spontaneously reaching these conclusions themselves through their experience rather than through a messiah like himself.
All this crap about muni fare strike being pro-wage labor, or Leninist, or whatever, is offensive but also laughable. To think that we tried to hijack the pure efforts of social strike is self-obsessed delusion. We worked with social strike people and although our efforts to coordinate could have been better on both sides, there was not animosity between the Fare strike group and anyone else in social strike. Just you know who.
Blaming the weaknesses of the strike on MFS shows how out of touch this guy is with what really happened. Too busy talking shit and putting up the magic flyer that unleashes the revolutionary potential of the working class to consider how to get people to actively take part. On which more later.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network