Some things of note from the last week

To the left of this article you can see our Reddit feed, which we update regularly with items, mostly articles and news, that we find interesting. That feed gets continually added to, usually several times a day, as we encounter ideas and information that we think are worth considering. If you sign up for Reddit, you can comment and discuss them.

But because of the volume of news that gets posted to the feed, sometimes things can get missed that I think deserve a closer look, so from time to time I like to highlight some of the more important things that showed up on our feed during the week.

(1) The first item I want to point out is Rowland Keshena's piece "J. Sakai and the Struggle for Onkwehonwe Liberation". I first ran into Sakai's ideas in early 2001 with his interview/pamphlet "When Race Burns Class", a deep critique of the revolutionary potentiality of the white working class (and whites generally). This essay, which takes what can only be said to be a deeply pessimistic view of whites' ability to engage in liberatory activity, led me to Sakai's book, "Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat" and then on to Red Rover and Butch Lee's "Night-Vision: Illuminating War & Class on the Neo-Colonial Terrain" and "The Military Strategy of Women and Children".

These works are interesting in their almost nihilistic assertion that the white proletariat represents a bought off labor aristocracy which, even when it appears to be defending larger libertarian goals, is in fact defending its privileged status within American imperialism, a deal it enjoys at the expense of the rest of the class. This stands in stark contrast to race traitor thought, for example, which recognizes the contradictory position of whites in society without writing them off entirely. Indeed, following the Settler logic, one inevitably comes to the same conclusions that Weather did in the 70's: if the white working class is reactionary by nature -- and unredeemable -- then what else can one do but "fight the people".

This is problematic for a variety of reasons, including, as the author points out, the obscuring of class differences within whites by painting them instead with a broad brush. But it also denies the agency of whites in their own liberation and the liberation of others. I find this particularly wrong-headed not least of all because US history provides plenty of examples of whites struggling against white supremacy and the cross-class alliance that it represents. Consider the Abolitionists, to use an example that PCWC is fond of. How does Sakai explain them? To him, they are exceptions, plain and simple. Keshena does a good job of taking on Sakai's arguments and showing their weaknesses.

One thing in particular that I think is worth considering that Sakai misses entirely is the power of the negative example of whiteness. Whiteness, constructed as it from the top and at the same time from below (as Sakai probably correctly points out), while not liberatory, is still a sign of the ability of the white working class to act politically. That is, whiteness is a political relationship to power (by the way, that's a main reason why the "national anarchists" are not anarchists at all, since they defend that relationship) and as such it shows that whites are capable of thinking and acting politically, however wrongly at times.

Indeed whiteness itself is precisely constructed to limit the political imagination of whites -- to ensure that their struggles reinforce rather than challenge power -- and this is in part why some of the most imaginative and transformative periods in American history have been times when whiteness was in crisis. However, this, combined with the examples of whites acting against white supremacy gives us direction where Sakai fails: it allows us to approach the problem of whites and politics from the perspective of tacking how we can change the basic facts and assumptions that lie beneath their choices, how we can frame a politics that doesn't revert back to the short-sighted politics of white supremacy.

In PCWC's opinion, this has always meant fighting to foster the crisis in whiteness. Or, as the race traitors say, to create situations where whiteness cannot be counted on to resolve in the favor of the powers that be. When that crisis happens, dramatic change becomes possible.

(2) The second piece I want to single out is the article "Leninist front-groups and the problems of 'tail-ending' the Left", posted at PropetyIsTheft. As was pointed out at our most recent Beer & Revolution featuring Lawrence Jarach, I think a lot of us here in Phoenix have had a refresher course this summer in the failures, opportunism, obstructionism and parasitism of the left, delivered free of charge by out of town organizations like the so-called Revolutionary Communist Party and local leftists, Puente and Tonatierra.

Time and time again groups like these have proven their unfailing ability to head off militant and radical action, to collaborate with the police in attacks on anarchists, to co-opt grassroots struggle and to divert actions into useless and ineffective petition drives and inane marches. Nothing epitomizes this more than the idiotic attempt by Left party apparatchiks to divert the migrant struggle away from broadly democratic and empowering tactics like general strike and into voting and boycotts. Voting, for instance, is a silly waste of time in any movement, but in this one, composed as it is of such a high percentage of non-citizens who by definition cannot vote, reaches heights of absurdity not seen around these parts in quite some time.

This feature of anarchist history (indeed, general history) -- that tendency to be sold out and attacked by our supposed "comrades" on the Left -- remains a difficult lesson for anarchists to learn, it appears, because the tension reoccurs in every movement. In my organizing experience over the last decade and more, it has been a constant feature of the anti-globalization movement, the anti-war movement and the migrant struggles of today. Such problems have bedeviled anarchists since time immemorial, from the splits of the First International to the Spanish Civil War to the various uprisings in Eastern Europe against communist domination and on through the French May Days of 1968 into the present day. Indeed, I just read John W. F. Dulles' "Anarchists and Communists in Brazil, 1900-1935", and the same thing went on then. It turns out that anarchists and communists don't really want the same thing at all. Who knew?

This simple fact, as obvious as it may seem, still remains very hard for many anarchists to grasp. Post-leftism within anarchy, as I understand it, is an attempt to struggle to recognize this basic truth and to consider ways of relating, supporting and opposing various tendencies and organizations in society as we struggle to overthrow the state and capitalism. Primarily, what post-leftism does is bring into question these generally accepted but also undiscussed quiet alliances, maintained for a variety of reasons (habit seeming prominent among them), between anarchists and the Left that often work not just to our detriment as anarchists, but also to anyone who seeks out genuine self-organization as opposed to that imposed by bureaucratic socialists and capitalists.

"Leninist front-groups and the problems of 'tail-ending' the Left" doesn't identify as post-Left, but it is essentially grappling with the same issues, the problems that come from orienting oneself and the movement towards the Left, especially the authoritarian Left. Finding one's way through disentangling the various biases and reflexive relationships of support and opposition that come with an uncritical relationship with the Left is hard. It requires considering one's moves carefully because one doesn't want to risk, by unshackling oneself from the Left, the danger of adhering somewhere even worse, like the Right, as has obviously happened with the racist unanarchist "National Anarchists".

With PCWC, we have opted to engage critically in all directions. We have reached out to libertarians on the right, and received some criticism for it within the anarchist and Left milieu -- criticism that essentially boils down to the knee-jerk opposition to all elements on the Right that comes with the default affiliation with the Left. This even though our appeals and interactions with the libertarians have been exclusively around anti-racism, anti-fascism and the defense of free movement. And despite our deeply critical and open discussion of what we view as the flaws in the Right libertarian movement in Arizona. The Leftist is concerned primarily with contagion, as if one can engage with authoritarians on the Left without fear but that any association with libertarian elements on the Right is inherently dangerous.

Likewise, when we have stood up in solid opposition to movement hacks and outside authoritarian communist groups, we have been similarly attacked for the Leftist sin of sectarianism, as if remarking on the fact that a group wants a society that is distinctly un-anarchists is a crime against the movement. But which movement? As is pointed out in the piece, maybe it all comes down to how you look at it.

Are anarchists merely a minority wing of a movement that we concede to the more authoritarian, manipulative sections? Or, instead, are we a movement unto ourselves, tireless defenders of self-organization, and participants in a broader struggle that we refuse to allow to be dominated by authoritarian factions. A movement that overlaps various other groups and individuals, but which has its own distinct aims and objectives? Answering this question is at the heart of the way forward, I think, if anarchists are to be anything but the alternating conscience and punching bag of whatever movement happens to be in vogue at whatever time.

(3) Lastly, I want to share an excellent little film (about an hour long), entitled "The Betrayal by Technology" about French theorist and technology critic, Jacques Ellul. Despite the long description of our group in the sidebar, PCWC has always sought to remain un-ideological about our anarchy. We may have a very specific kind of anarchy, with regards to the general anarchist milieu, but we try to avoid getting ourselves too wedded to a particular set of ideas. That's why you see a wide variety of perspectives at our Beer & Revolution night: not because we are big tent anarchists, but because we want to promote ideas that we find valuable and useful, even if we don't agree with the entirety of the rest of the presenter's politics. We've tended, I think, to take what's worth taking and ditch the rest from various strains of anarchism.

And, more often than not, we've likewise tried to use anarchist ideas as critiques rather than reifying them as holy writ. For instance, PCWC is deeply critical of technology, but we approach it from a variety of angles. Our range of influences with regard to technology start first and foremost with our own lived experience, but are also informed by technology critics as varied as labor historian David F. Noble, who focuses on technology as a class war attack on workers and our ability to self-organize our own lives; by technology critics like Kirkpatrick Sale and his analysis of the early resistors to industrialism; and by primitivists like John Zerzan and his deeper questioning of the nature of technological society and the inherent alienation that derives from it.

We do not necessarily identify as primitivist explicitly, although I do think that PCWC falls within the anti-civilization current in a lot of ways, or at least we are not in opposition to it. However, what we do appreciate is the criticisms that primitivism makes possible, both of society and history, but also of movements and the often unstated goals and assumptions that frequently underlie movements, such as ideas about work, resource extraction and the faith in progress. By merely using primitivism as a tool rather than an ideology, we are free to consider the questions it raises, but at the same time to free ourselves from the burden of defending it as a part of our identity. We recognize that there are various ways of looking at technology, even from within the anti-tech current (hell, even from within the labor movement), and each offers something useful when it comes to understanding our relationship to capitalism, the state and technology.

In this film, Ellul makes a point that really resounded with me. Discussing a friend of his, a surgeon, who was confronted with a person amazed at the wonderful advances in transplants made possible by modern medicine, the doctor replies that all those wonderful transplants must be done with healthy, young organs, which means that people with those organs -- young people, naturally -- must die. And most of those young people die in auto accidents. In that sense, as the safety of car travel improves, the availability of organs and the miracles of modern science, diminishes. At the very least, there is a hidden relationship between the two which, if not interrogated, remains obscured largely because of the blind ideology of progress hides it.

At several points in the film Ellul expounds on his general thesis that, despite any sentiments to the contrary, in reality technology is at odds with freedom, a point he drives home most clearly in his analysis of the automobile, that most revered symbol of modern capitalist, industrial freedom. A car on fire at a demonstration is shocking, he says, because it is an attack on the central symbol our modern religion, a technology that purports to deliver us to freedom, but instead drives us to the surgeon's table to be parted out under the knife.

Summing up, I'd like to invite people interested in the ideas PCWC puts out there to join our Reddit feed. There discussion can be had about various issues, political and otherwise. We've considered various other ways to engage with people, including a message board, but until then hopefully the Reddit can be one more way that those of us interested in these kinds of politics can find each other and debate, and hopefully move the anarchist movement out of the activist ghettos and university classrooms, beyond the cliques and scenes and towards something approaching relevant to people and movements outside ourselves, where we can deliver an updated, meaningful anti-authoritarianism as a viable option to the boring, limited movements and ideologies of the present day.

Beer and Revolution is back this Sunday! Featuring Lawrence Jarach on Anarchism with(out) the Left

Beer and Revolution returns for the eighth installment this Sunday after taking a lengthy hiatus since we hosted our Greek comrades from the VOID Network back in March. We're pleased to have Lawrence Jarach, a long-time anarchist and a regular contributor to and co-editor of the magazine Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. He'll be giving a talk on one of the more influential anarchist critiques of the left-wing, something Lawrence has described as along the lines of "What's this Post-Left Anarchy Thing I Keep Hearing About?"

Lawrence has written pretty extensively on the historical roots at the base of the modern conflict between authoritarian socialists and libertarian socialists, beginning with the split in the First International over the question of the state. This conflict is summarized in his essay Anarchists, Don't let the Left(overs) Ruin your Appetite:

The initial place where the rivalry between leftists and anarchists occurred was the First International (1864-76). Besides the well-known personal animosity between Marx and Bakunin, conflicts arose between the libertarian socialists and the authoritarian socialists over the ostensible goal of the International: how best to work for the emancipation of the working class. Using parliamentary procedures (voting for representatives) within a framework that accepted the existence of the state was the main tactic supported by the authoritarians. In the non-electoral arena, but remaining firmly within a statist agenda, was the demand of the right of workers to form legal trade unions. In contrast, direct action (any activity that takes place without the permission, aid, or support of politicians or other elected officials) was promoted by the libertarians. Strikes and workplace occupations are the best examples of this method. The leftists preferred persuasion and the petitioning of the ruling class while the anarchists, recognizing the futility of this approach, preferred to take matters into their own hands: peacefully if possible, more insistently if necessary.

The question of the state was just the beginning of a long and contentious relationship between anarchists and the Left, as there have been notable disagreements over other potential "deal breakers" for any anarchist-left unity, specifically over questions on nationalism, self-organization, or political representation. We've seen our ideological differences play out in the battlefields and barricades of a number of revolutions and civil wars in Russia, Spain, Mexico, and Cuba to name a few, as anarchists were attacked, betrayed, and murdered by our "comrades" on the left.

For valley anarchists, we've seen the Left groups dissolve and absorb the popular responses that broke out to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more recently with the immigrant movement, into the electoral process. My buddy Phoenix Insurgent took note of this on his old blog on a few occasions, and regular readers of this blog have probably come across our criticisms of the leadership of the immigrant movement, specifically their ongoing working relationship with the Phoenix PD, who, it should come as no surprise is no friend to immigrants. As throughout history, we have seen in our own struggles and movement those anarchists who continue to defend, and even justify the actions of left-wing groups whose ideas and actions run counter productive to an anarchist or anti-authoritarian vision. So, needless to say I have great interest to see what Lawrence will have to say when it comes to the possibility of an anarchist movement sans the Left.

Come and join us this Sunday for some beer (if beer's not your thing, perhaps some iced tea or water) and politics. I believe this latest installment of B&R promises to be another challenging and engaging discussion for freedom minded people!

Beer and Revolution will be held at Boulders on Broadway, a restaurant and bar located on the NE corner of Roosevelt and Broadway in Tempe. We have the upstairs section reserved, and this is an all ages event. We'll be there at 8:30 and things will kick off soon afterward, hope to see you there!


***
I also want to give a shout out to our friends up north at the Taala Hooghan Infoshop in Flagstaff, the inaugural Root Beer & Revolution is happening this month, a sober take on our own night of suds and politics. Their first installment will see folks from Black Mesa Indigenous Support speaking, it all goes down at 6 pm on Tuesday, October 26. $3 gets you in the door, along with a glass of root beer, as I hear it additional root beer and root beer floats will be for sale as well.

I've always been a Groucho Marxist anyway...

The "Revolution" we really, really DON'T Need...

A constant for those of us in Arizona who have been in the streets since the passage of SB 1070, has been the troubling presence of political opportunists, or "the hacks" as we're now accustomed to calling them. A "31 Flavors" of Left-wing political groups, most of them looking to jump on the anti-SB 1070 band wagon as a means to get their name out there, recruit new members, and/or using the human rights disaster we face to raise funds to build their presence.

For months now, the Trotskyist sect, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), have shown up at pro-immigrant/anti-Arpaio demonstrations hawking their paper, "The Militant," and setting up a table to sell their books. Meanwhile, the ANSWER "coalition" has appeared overnight and called for a demonstration the day before the law goes into effect. As it's been documented over the years, ANSWER is a front for the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Leninist group that broke away from the Stalinist line of the Workers World Party a few years back. From where we stand, these groups, who parachute in with their own agenda, offer no answer from any of their party building, paper selling militants, or disingenuous front organizations for the crisis in Arizona.

With the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), there are plenty of opportunities for a well meaning person to get caught up in their web of front groups. Whether you're looking to fight police brutality, stop the U.S. military occupations abroad, free political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal, or (perhaps their most bizarre attempt at recruiting through fronts) join the international supporters of the murderous Shining Path guerrillas in Peru, the RCP has it covered. The last time the RCP poked around the valley it was during the heyday of the anti-war movement and the birth of the immigrant rights movement, and they didn't stick around for long. A small group would attend demonstrations, in their World Can't Wait attire at anti-war marches, and as the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade at an immigrant rally, but were told off each time they surfaced by valley anarchists. As they were unable to intervene, or uninterested in the political situation in Phoenix four years ago, the RCP has returned to the valley, sans front group...sort of.

Paying homage to the 1964 Mississippi civil rights campaign, groups from across the state have called for a Freedom Summer in Arizona, a campaign of activism and awareness, most prominently reflected in the campaign organized by No More Deaths and Tierra Y Libertad down in Tucson. The Freedom Summer name has also been put into use by the aforementioned Workers World Party's Stalinist youth group "F.I.S.T.," who are calling for more of the same, a united front to combat the far right-wing, while their Maoist competitors at the RCP have their own ideas on what this summer should look like.

The RCP's "Arizona Freedom Summer" is a particularly unique brand of left intervention, because unlike the other Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist tendencies, the RCP's activists are building their organizing around one objective, promotion of their leader, Chairman Bob Avakian. In the call for "Arizona Freedom Summer" the authors(s) state:

Arizona Freedom Summer is about radically changing this whole dynamic, defying this whole direction, and setting new terms. "The days when this system can just keep on doing what it does to people, here and all over the world… when people are not inspired and organized to stand up against these outrages and to build up the strength to put an end to this madness… those days must be GONE. And they CAN be." (from "The Revolution We Need… The Leadership We Have," A Message and A Call from the RCP, USA)

Their "Freedom Summer" project is being treated as another opportunity to roll out the latest mass line from Avakian, this being one of two paragraphs in the article that outlines the type of organizing the RCP wants to bring to the table, the other is once again an opportunity to promote Avakian as the leadership the RCP thinks we all need. A selection from the second paragraph (below) embeds more of the Avakian worship within their otherwise banal political rhetoric:

There needs to be a broad and defiant resistance that refuses to comply with this law, and there need to be many thousands of people in the course of building this resistance finding out about the revolution we need and the leadership we have, coming to see that it is this system and the rulers of this country that are totally illegitimate and that another world is possible. (Emphasis added)

Let's not forget their fundraising either, one of the RCP organizers, who has moved into town, let it be known that they are planning on printing up one million copies of their new poster. What poster could be so important that they need one million copies? It's the latest bilingual statement from Avakian "The Revolution We Need...The Leadership We Have." Unbelievable. The grassroots groups on the ground have very little money, as in virtually none. We have comrades who are struggling to stay out of the clutches of the state, neighborhood projects that are entirely self-funded, community spaces for youth and indigenous people that struggle to keep the lights on, and indigenous initiatives against the border and destruction of traditional lands here in occupied O'odham land. It's outrageous that they can spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars on their latest piece of propaganda, while the projects I've listed, and many more, are fighting for survival.

The cult-like devotion to Avakian, should be of major concern to anyone swept up into one of the RCP's front groups, and it's a worthwhile exercise to call this out, but we at PCWC aren't interested in correcting their errors. As anarchists we're naturally opposed to their centralized leadership and promotion of the "mass line" of the Maoist organization, but this alone is not where we break with many of the Marxist, Leninist, and/or Maoist persuasion.

We believe that the radical possibilities of total liberation from authority are far more transformative and intoxicating than any steps to a revolution as prescribed by any so-called revolutionary chairman. Take their stance on Arizona as an example, one of their demands "No more troops! Demilitarize the border!", this is not only a conservative stance amongst revolutionaries, but it shows that once again the people are ahead of their revolutionary "leaders." The RCP, like many on the left, are afraid to state the obvious, that millions of people have already disregarded the legitimacy of the border line, they have to move across it every day, regardless of the law. Further more, by solely opposing the militarization of the borderlands they join in a colonial tradition that attacks the indigenous people of these occupied lands, as tribes are indeed separated by the border wall. By holding the legitimacy of the state over those of the individuals and communities struggling to preserve their ways of life, the RCP become de facto ideological enforcers of the border.

Their other slogan for their Arizona Freedom Summer is "We don't gotta show no stinkin' papers!", this slogan, if in fact reflective of their actual political stance, is similar to their call for a demilitarization of the border in that they do not call for an end to these movement controls. As anarchists, we do not hesitate to call for the complete abolition of all borders and identification papers, these are tools the authorities use to repress, genocide, and maintain power over people. We want to leave no ideological room for the defense of the state, something the RCP is unwilling to do, because in the end, like all statists, they recognize that they too will make use of the same apparatus of control. A world with out borders is a stateless world, one in which the walls of the rich and powerful have fallen, thus signaling an end to the movement of people for the extraction of the surplus value from their labor. So why is the RCP reluctant to advocate for such a vision, here and now?

As anti-capitalists and anti-authoritarians we say there is no better time than now!

We in PCWC believe in the potential of a revolution, one that can transform our day to day social affairs, as well as our relationships to power, and what that power means for all of us. The Revolutionary Communist Party, like all authoritarian left formations, offers none of these things, but more of the same: lifetimes of work, misery, and obedience (to the state, the party, the chairman, etc).


*For some interesting history on their inability to build a revolutionary communist movement, check out dissident former RCP member Mike Ely's "9 Letters to Our Comrades" a critical analysis of the failures in their mass line, the cult of Avakian, and their inability to draw any level of consistent mass participation in their Maoist outfit.

*Finally, for the second installment of our week of anti-RCP posts, I'd like to turn to an older piece written by our own Phoenix Insurgent on his old blog. Although the piece is five years old, it's a good refresher on the RCP, specifically when it comes to their long history of using front groups to manipulate and recruit.

Understanding World Can't Wait and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)by Phoenix Insurgent

The rise of the most recent RCP front group, The World Can't Wait, provides a good opportunity for me to offer some links to criticisms of the RCP, its strategies and leader, Bob Avakian. In the past, the RCP has attempted to utilize front groups like Not In Our Name and the October 22nd Organization (O22).

Its strategy is similar to that of another Stalinist sect, the Workers World Party, which for several years has operated through its front group International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism). Both groups hope to use their fronts in order to manipulate folks who honestly oppose the policies of the Bush regime and the war. In the case of World Can't Wait, the steering committee - apparently self-appointed - is stacked with RCP members, disproportionate to their numbers and influence in the anti-war movement as a whole.

People who care about the future of the anti-war and other movements are right to start looking for alternatives to the stale, boring local scene, dominated as it is by Democratic electoralism and liberal candle-holding. But World Can't Wait brings us nothing that we can't do for ourselves. And it brings several disadvantages we can ill afford.

Four things we can do instead: (1) Break out of the vigil, anti-Bush rut - let's start picking meaningful targets that get to the root of the problem; (2) Focus on militant direct action aimed at targets that have a real impact on the war and its supporters; (3) Link up and support local struggles, especially those of the poor and people of color; (4)

Ditch the political parties - our demands are clear and can be articulated and accomplished without the mediation of a third party.

For some good reading on the RCP and its history, consider the following articles:

This October 22, the RCP follows the anarchists
This short piece, from the Anarchist People of Color website, looks at some of the current changes in the RCP and why they may have made them. It also cautions anarchists and others to be skeptical of coalition work with them.

Mythology of the White-Led "Vanguard": A Critical Look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
This is a classic piece, though it focuses on the RCP as it was a few years ago. It's is worth reading to see where the RCP came from. Highlighted are its homophobic roots, amongst others. Though the RCP has reorganized some since this came out, most of the criticisms are still very valid. In an interview here, the author updates his criticism.

The Maoist cultism of the RCP is anti-Marxist
This is a pretty good analysis, though it comes from another authoritarian communist group. Not all of it's criticisms are valid, especially the more sectarian ones. However, the points about the cultish nature of the RCP and its pro-middle class orientation are worth reading.

These are three good places to start. In the end, though, the RCP is a deceptive, centralized and authoritarian organization. If we want to bring the war to an end and, eventually, bring about revolution in this country, we need to stick to decentralized and democratic forms of organizing because those reflect the world we want to replace the current one. And we need to keep our eyes on the real cause of the war, which goes beyond particular politicians or particular business interests. It's time to start talking about capitalism, the State, white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchy and the other systems that have brought us this and every other war. To stop them, we need a new direction in Phoenix, but we don't need World Can't Wait or the RCP.

There's an old anarchist saying, "If you want to know what a communist is saying, look at his hands." That means, the rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. Forget the words, look at what they are doing if you want to know what they really mean. We need to keep an eye on the RCP and WCW.

***

For the book readers out there, check out Daniel Cohn-Bendit's "Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative" for a good treatment of communist parties as they operate in modern technological societies on the verge of revolution. Cohn-Bendit was a major player in the May Days of 1968 in Paris and had plenty to say after the communists sold the revolutionary movement out in France.

http://phoenixinsurgent.blogspot.com/

That's the sound of history repeating: the poll tax riots and the January 16th migrant march

Watching the short video (posted below) of the storied Poll Tax rebellion in the UK got me thinking about the current political climate we face in the wake of the police attack on the DOA contingent a couple of weeks back. As I viewed the video, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the attacks that they faced there, and what we've seen here from movement leaders, politicians, the authorities, the alternative press, and the mainstream press. While there are many differences between the attack at the Anti-Arpaio march, and the massive movement against the Poll Tax, which culminated in the popular insurrection in London, it is worth noting how the many voices of power find harmony when attacking those who make demands beyond reform.

It's worth watching the video, which is a compilation of footage and interviews following the London riot, the parallels are striking, most notable are the denunciations that come from the media and liberals. Indeed, about a minute in there is a wonderful interview with a spokesperson from Class War, who really sums up exactly the position that so many people here have been struggling to articulate following the hub bub on the 16th.



Continuing on that note, John from the Haymarket Squares (who have provided the movement with so many great anthems) has posted up a great new song breaking down what happened and calling out the leadership of the migrant movement for tossing the anarchists aside the moment things got the least bit uncomfortable for them. In his song he has a great line which really summarizes the crux of the contradiction, especially given how much work and support the anarchists have given the migrant movement in a time when allies and solidarity from people -- especially white people -- outside that community have been limited, to say the least.

"Cheers for marching with us in solidarity, havin the guts to hold your ground against wreckless authority
Oh, we won't stand up to the P.P.D., but we needed a scapegoat, thanks for the help, now it's under the bus you go."

He follows this up later with another great bit of analysis:

We're gunna turn our backs, when you're under the horses hoofs
With the pepper spray still blinding you, we're gunna feed you to the wolves
Even though those cops have never been friends to us,
thanks for the help, now we're throwing you under the bus

Solid analysis and just the kind of thing movements need. Word up to John for hitting the nail on the head.



The thing to realize about both situations, the reaction to the January 16th police attack and the history of the Poll Tax riots, is that such things are not random. They do not result because of bad personalities, bad cops or bad politicians. The come from the fact that anarchists and the left want different things, even when we may share some short term goals, such as defending migrants from attack by the state or abolishing a regressive, unfair tax. That as much as liberals and others on the left will pretend that we're on the same side, deep down that is only true to a limited degree.

Indeed, perhaps the most common refrain from the mouths of liberals and leftists is that "we're all on the same side" or, "we all want the same thing". As I said, this may be true to some limited extent with short term goals. But these kinds of crises reveal a contradiction that always lies beneath the surface whenever the left and anarchists interact, especially when leaders are involved. This contradiction is that we demand changes far beyond what they are willing to ask for (or can even conceive), and that our demands (and those of the base of their own movement, generally) necessarily force them to reveal themselves as the managers of movements.

Consider the point raised in the Poll Tax video. The spokesperson for Class War points to a fundamental difference between themselves and the so-called organizers of the poll tax protest. It's central to anarchist organizing that we don't believe that movements need leaders in the strict sense. Our class can organize itself and decide for itself what to do. That puts us at least potentially at odds with every movement politician, whoever they are, and in whatever movement. Not at all times, but the groundwork is there for it to emerge at any time.

The more this tension is understood going into and participating in movements, the better off we will be, because we will be able to anticipate such reactions. Those of us who participated in the anti-war movement, or the anti-globalization movement, for instance, saw the same dynamic play out. Anarchists are often welcomed at various times because there is a need for dedicated people, but with time, the political aspirations of movement politicians, or the political pressure to moderate demands or to appear responsible, puts pressure on this relationship. And, when you're dealing with liberals, while they expect you to moderate your views, they can never enter into a true relationship of solidarity with you -- after all, they cannot make their views more radical in exchange. This is a lesson worth learning from history and these two examples serve perfectly to illustrate it in my view.

Indeed, there is another lesson for us in particular that comes out of our role in the January march, which is that, beyond our general politics as anarchists, the composition of our contingent was a threat as well to various elements in the movement. The alliance between Native youth and anarchists was a stick of dynamite, not just for the police, but also for the leadership.

This is important to remember, and the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective recently put out a statement calling on the migrant movement not to use the police attack as an excuse to ignore the demands made by the bloc. Those demands are legitimate and deserve a response. Addressing these concerns will only make the movement stronger. The question is whether the movement, in particular the leadership, is capable of addressing them. Let's hope so.

As for the continuing fallout from the march, there's some good news to share as well, two of the arrested, Garyn and Claire, have both had their charges "scrapped." Garyn had been charged with "aggravated assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct," Claire was facing "resisting arrest and disorderly conduct." The clearing of these charges makes us glad, however there are still three others facing aggravated assault charges, there should be more information soon on how you can help support them. The five arrested had their names dragged through the mud by the press, now that some charges have been dropped can we count on them to put forth as much effort in clearing their names? I think we know the answer.

Anarchists, students, and pissed off people come out swinging at Arpaio's ASU appearance

A handful of us from PCWC and O'odham Solidarity Across Borders, along with a couple anarchist pals, decided to hit up the protests planned against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's appearance at the downtown ASU Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. The counter-protest was against the "First Amendment Forum," billed as a discussion with esteemed journalists and scholars. Arpaio was already milking it, taking another opportunity to give his usual generic "The law is the law" spiel (and all of the variations on that theme).

For everyone other than the distinguished panelists, the only free speech taking place was on stage, as there was no scheduled Q&A with the audience, and, as if to further screen dissenting views, the forum was for ASU students only. In an attempt to placate non-students the university set up a large video screen and sound system in the plaza outside of the journalism school, the screen streamed a live feed, this effort went largely unnoticed.

Admittedly our expectations for the protest were low, we arrived a little late and a small crowd of 50 surrounded a line of Phoenix police, who in turn were lined around a tiny group of anti-immigrant and pro-Arpaio demonstrators. Security was posted at the door, and organizers had given verbal commitments to respect Arpaio's freedom of speech and not disrupt the event. As one rally organizer stated in an interview with the Downtown Devil:

“We’re not going to roll out the red carpet and allow him to walk on our campus like he does in our communities,” she said.

The protesters plan to rally throughout the event but not to disrupt the conversation, Castro added.

“We are having the utmost respect as educated college students for him,” she said.

Face off! Freedom lovers argue with anti-immigrant Arpaio supporters

We were ready to abandon ship and head over to a nearby bar for some beers with comrades when it became clear that, aside from a plan some friends had to break out in song during the forum, we were trapped in another ritualized Phoenix protest. Unless... One of us took notice of open lobby and decided that if ASU would shut out those of us who were not students, or like others there who were students at one of the community colleges, or were too old, too young, or too poor, that we ought to just invite ourselves into the journalism lobby and take the damn thing over.

Anarchists taking the initiative.

We got a small crew together and entered the lobby, defying the orders of the university police, others soon followed and five bodies became thirty and then fifty, an intoxicating rush of energy followed as we screamed, clapped, and chanted "no borders, no nations, no police stations!" The lobby was packed, police officers formed a line defending the elevators and the hall to the first amendment forum, while some of the protest organizers stayed outside, but most eventually abandoned the former demonstration and came in to participate.


Inside anarchists initiated a speak out, asking anyone in the crowd with a story of racial profiling with any police agencies to come forward and share them, ten people did, including Yaqui and O'odham indigenous people. As the stories went on, a different scene played out in the First Amendment Forum, Latino student activists released a banner calling the MCSO out on racial profiling, and a group of anarchists prepared to intervene in an entirely different manner.

The lyrics sheet to Immigration Rhapsody

Back in the lobby, musicians from the The Haymarket Squares, the three piece radical bluegrass troupe, set up in the middle of the occupation and played a few songs, dancing and sing-a-longs followed.




While we partied downstairs, an affinity group put their plans into action and interrupted the Forum with their modified version of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, prompting Arpaio to leave the stage. The group behind the singing has also put out a statement this week explaining their actions after there was some criticism over their use of "freedom of speech" silencing the Sheriff's voice. We at PCWC have had a good laugh at this hand wringing from these journalists, and we are so very proud of our comrades for shutting Arpaio down, we hope these escalations are a sign to come for those in the valley fighting for the freedom of movement for all.

Check out the video below from ASU's student news service, it's one of the few media outlets to acknowledge the lobby take over.

Protesters against Arpaio at the Cronkite School from Downtown Devil on Vimeo.

A Venue of Vultures: Where Now For Anarchists and the Immigrant Movement?

By Phoenix Insurgent

Last Saturday’s anti-Sheriff Joe march was truly a very exciting moment in recent Arizona and anarchist history. Especially given the statewide anarchist meeting that happened the following day, which was attended by fifty or so people by my count. There was a real feeling of excitement that I haven’t felt in some time and it was good to see a lot of new and familiar faces in attendance. Further, I think the discussion about tactics and politics was productive and interesting. It showed a broad and sophisticated understanding of both our politics and the political situation –tactical and strategic – in which we find ourselves these days. In that spirit, I think a few things are worth noting about the march and recent political events.

For one, this was one of the first occasions in some time when a relatively large group of Arizona anarchists came together in the street. Indeed, the march moved into the street not because of sheer numbers or because the organizers planned it that way (as was claimed after the fact – despite the obvious discomfort our actions caused them at the time). The throng moved into the street because anarchists actively pushed into the street and held it until enough other people (who obviously likewise wanted to defy the organizers’ silly and humiliating sidewalk march) joined us. The police backed down and we took the street, opening it up for everyone else.

Eventually nearly everyone was on the street and Central Avenue was shut down for a couple hours. Had we not been there, given the omnipresent though perhaps somewhat well-meaning internal protest police actively working to contain the protest (paralleling the efforts of the cops to do the same thing), the odds are that the march would have continued along the sidewalk for four pathetic miles. How sad! This is important to note, I think, not leastwise because it reveals the gulf between the organizers’ conservatism and the much more radical desires of the base. This is a space that can be occupied by anarchists. I’ll come back to this later.

The Movement Vampires Rise Again!

Second, it’s also worth noting that the celebrity of this event drew all sorts of folks, including many people I haven’t seen out in some time, like families and older people. Unfortunately, it also drew the vultures, eager, as they are, to feed on the corpse of a movement for their own petty benefit.

For instance, ANSWER, weakened from the recent death of its previous host, the anti-war movement, and which anarchists here have driven out of town every time they tried to set up shop here returned for the march and were handing out their silly literature. Anarchists confronted them and they seemed a pathetic bunch indeed. The chapter in attendance was obviously from LA and I can remember breathing a sigh of relief that we don’t have to deal with the alphabet soup of leftist cults that other big cities have to.

On that note, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) was also spotted in attendance near the ANSWER banner, hoping no doubt to bore yet another movement to death with its leftist machinations and cult of Che. Also, some people from Bring the Ruckus (BTR) were out as well, hoping to attract the unsuspecting and earnest to their front group the Repeal Coalition (and then to secretly recruit from within that pool). As usual, though, they brought no actual “ruckus” with them and they were largely invisible both in terms of effect and presence.

To the extent that these opportunistic groups remain marginalized, the hope for self-organization remains alive. Anarchists would do well to maintain the marginal status of these groups and, if possible, to shut them down before they can get their skeletal hands on what’s left of the movement. Surely if the leftist parasites have their way the small break we forced last weekend will be the last and things will quickly return to boring, ineffective business as usual.

The Dead Shall Walk the Earth!

The real problem is, however, that the immigrant movement is dead. It had a chance but the dead weight of its own tepid, middle class leadership and the forces of reaction suffocated it practically at birth. The leadership seems to have gotten scared after the first series of really big events here in town and quickly acted to contain things. After the vigorous explosions of the first couple megamarchas, it’s almost as if the bosses of the movement were more comfortable with a smaller, more manageable movement. So they downsized and ran from their base. But this had the unfortunate effect of opening them up to attack. Since that sad retreat anti-immigrant ballot initiatives have passed with overwhelming majorities (over 70 percent in almost all cases), essentially criminalizing all undocumented people in the state. So, while some may be tempted to hail Saturday’s march as a rebirth, in fact it was a wake.

And as I said, a corpse attracts vultures and the movement is dead. What we see now is an attempt to defend the last vestiges of dignity and to draw a line in the sand, perhaps too late, beyond which we all hope the reactionaries will not cross. Said another way, the immigrant movement has lost the initiative and has become a rearguard action. While I don’t think it’s impossible that the movement could revive, in a hopefully more militant, radical and truly democratic form, in order for that to happen the failed leadership must be toppled and replaced by more creative people from the base.

As far-fetched as that may seem, it’s not impossible. It’d be hard to imagine a situation in which the bankruptcy of the leadership could be any more obvious. After all, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been deported or have “deported themselves” from this state in the last couple years as the hammer and anvil of state and reaction came down ever harder on them. This sent politicians scrambling to appease the demands from large segments of the white working and middle classes for action on their cross-class alliance with the ruling class. No political force proved up to the task of challenging the attack, not even the Federal government, and as a result the ideas of the extreme reaction to immigrants now dominate the debate in Arizona. That sounds like total failure to me. Meanwhile, the leadership has in many ways carved out for itself a cozy position as chief mediator of the movement with regard to the rest of Arizona society. Certainly there is ample cause to challenge the current leadership as well as good cause to abandon the legislative tactic.

Circle A’s in the Air!

However, returning to the march, I’m proud that Arizona anarchists pushed the tactics a little bit. Anarchists from the Phoenix Anarchist Coalition (PAC), Central Arizona Radicals Opposing Borders (CAROB), Phoenix Class War Council (PCWC) and various affinity groups have been involved locally in the immigrant movement here for many years and it was good to see business as usual downtown disrupted on Saturday. Such reactionary policies must have consequences after all – and the marches even a couple years or so ago took the street quite regularly, even if it was permitted (unlike this most recent march – a new tradition that should be defended). To have stayed on the sidewalk would have been to accept another in a long string of retreats for the movement and would have stood some distance from the heady days of the huelga and megamarchas of 2006. Further, pushing the march into the street put the conservative leadership of the march into an awkward position, which was perhaps revelatory to many participants. I certainly heard many positive comments from non-anarchists once police finally conceded the streets to us.

Perhaps where Arizona anarchists fell off was in the literature department. Our position on the border is in reality the position of the base of the movement, which by definition has rejected that arbitrary line between Mexico and the US, and flyers explaining would have been useful. I had some, but with a march that big, they go fast. Indeed, our position is an easy enough one to defend given that the immigration issue itself centers on the rejection of the border by so many people. This should be the starting point for all our arguments. It’s likewise a good argument for ferreting out the conservative positions of the movement’s leadership.

It’s a sad commentary on the leadership of the immigration movement that they have actively distanced themselves from this obvious fact. Given the congruity between the base and our position on movement and the border, anarchists would do well here to make our politics more prominent, especially if we are going to continue to push the envelope in the street. Lacking that, we do at some point risk being labeled as hooligans or worse, especially since our actions necessarily challenge the leadership of the movement. One of our goals should be to keep the pressure on and hope it opens space for new leaders and tactics to emerge by adhering to this obviously true but, within this context, fanatical position: free people need free movement.

Further, there are opportunities for us given the anti-fascist nature of the campaign against Joe. Indeed, ‘anti-fascist’ in the singular sense, since it seems very narrowly oriented towards Arpaio alone. For instance, when Mesa PD chief Gascón was butting heads with Arpaio, much of the leadership of the movement rushed to his side, despite the fact that he was using anti-gang task force to round up and harass people leaving anti-Arpaio rallies in his jurisdiction.

As anarchists, we can critique this narrow view and make both pragmatic demands as well as provide a revolutionary framework. We can demand that there be firm standards for whoever takes Joe’s job once he’s out (if that ever happens, which is in question given his broad support in Maricopa County). We can demand the closing of the camps, the end of segregation, a return to three meals a day and the termination of the everyday project of humiliation and murder that Joe pushes in his jails. At the same time, we can point out that no matter who comes in after Arpaio, that person will still be a sheriff and he or she will still be prosecuting a war against the poor and working class. We can say that no one will be free until those prison doors open and the demolition crews knock down the last wall. And the immigrant camps are a great example to advance the anti-prison argument. After all, if we can get people to see that immigrants are unjustly held then perhaps we can make similar analogies about the status of other prisoners.

Keep an eye on the right!

Turning to our adversaries on the right wing, there is a real contradiction between the acceptance of camps for immigrants and the fear of them being used by FEMA during the declaration of martial law or some other, perhaps false flag, emergency. These are legitimate fears. An argument that camps for one type of person – especially when they are run under Homeland Security – can just as easily serve as camps for gun owners resisting confiscation or ‘patriots’ resisting Wall Street bailouts can go a long way towards undermining the right wing’s faith in the ICE and affiliated detentions.

Many right-wingers, especially the Alex Jones/Ron Paul set, already recognize the dual and duplicitous nature of the many drills being run by the government across the country, and are deeply suspicious of the creation of proto-martial law formations like NorthCom and the deployment of military forces for domestic operations. This is true even while they may at the same time support such forces acting on the border. Likewise, if foreclosures continue to mount, as they surely will, it will also put the sheriff in a politically uncomfortable position. In addition, rumblings against freeway and other cameras open up other potential linkages to ideas surrounding control over movement. These are all potential fault lines in whiteness that might be exploitable by anarchists who are astute and in tune with the characteristics of that movement and can be bold enough to assert them.

All said, there are plenty of opportunities within what is left of the immigrant movement for anarchists. The question has become, what forces are at play within it and what forces are coming to bear on it? Will the vultures get their hands on it? Will the movement leadership hang onto its position despite (or perhaps because of) its failure? What will the economy mean for the movement? Is it too late? Has the struggle moved out of Arizona to greener pastures?

Time and struggle will reveal the answers to these questions.