Tonight, I Met Some Anarchists

 

Imagine these guys, but tattooed.

Tonight, I meet some anarchists. I played with their dog. I sat on their couch. I drank a glass of water from their Sam Adams glass.

Tonight, I met some anarchists and discussed the isolation of growing up poor, but receiving an elite education. What it’s like to know that part of my success in life is due to my outside appearance as a non-threatening man of color. To grow up in an attic sharing a bed until you’re 13, and not realize how poor you really where until you were in your mid-20’s. To realize that I’ve had an easier time avoiding police suspicious because they think I’m white.

We described what it’s like to start a business or to work as a freelancer, with all the extra hidden taxes that come with it. How one can be punished for starting a business from scratch or being-self employed via hidden taxes and unfavorable code. But under wage slavery, deductions and tax code become simple. You’re still renting yourself out like property for low wages, but hey, at least you get most of the money back at the end of the year!

We discussed what it’s like to be cynical, scared and feel hopeless for our future. To live in cars, or to sleep on couches. To eat sandwiches being thrown out by my employer because I couldn’t afford groceries and didn’t want to go on food stamps.

Tonight, I met some anarchists and described how infuriating it is to be talked down to. How the liberals look at us as assets in their fight to divvy up the privileged pie of capitalism, but treat us like children or call us names when we question their priorities and tactics. How we’re accused of aiding and abetting our masters simply because we express our disenfranchisement.

Tonight, I met some anarchists. And they didn’t look at me like I was crazy. They didn’t judge me. They didn’t call me names. They didn’t call me divisive for using a term like wage slavery. They didn’t lecture me why I shouldn’t vote, even though one of them didn’t believe in voting. And I didn’t lecture them as to why they should vote.

Tonight, I made some friends. And for the first time in a very long time, I didn’t feel like I was alone in the belly of the beast.

Douche v. Turd Sandwich: We Need New Ideas. Fast.

I ruined my nice suit while watching the debate last night.

Last night, we witnessed a choreographed piece of political theatre designed to fool Americans into thinking we have a real choice this November. Moreover, aside from Willard’s swipe at Big Bird, the media and social media conversation has been focused on the question of “Who won?” If you’ve looked at facebook or twitter, the sentiments fall along the lines of “Mitt came from behind and out argued Obama!” or “Obama wasn’t himself tonight, but he’ll come back and win the next one!”

Jesus Christ people, this isn’t the fucking Yankees versus Red Sox. As I watched the CNN post-debate coverage, and listened to the predictable partisan ramblings of privilege, I saw how dead our democracy is. As I said in my previous post, our left-right, GOP-Democrat, liberal-conservative terminology has turned into sports teams and we find ourselves rooting for our favorite one like it’s the friggin’ Superbowl. But some people can’t afford another 4 years of bullshit. Some of us are asking for a real choice. Some of us are really hurting out there.

The voices we hear are not the millions of Americans who lost their homes in the last 4 years. We foreclose at least a million homes every year. That’s not one million people, that’s ONE MILLION FAMILIES every year! Neither candidate spoke to their issues.

Who will speak for them?

Obama and Romney went back and forth on jobs. Both claimed that they would or have already cut taxes. But how many jobs did the last few rounds of tax cuts create?

We have unemployment as high as 12 percent in some parts of the country. The national rate has hovered between 8 and 9 percent since 2008. Are we seriously not talking about a Jobs bill in congress? Our national infrastructure is falling apart, and even republican presidents like Eisenhower understood the returns of creating jobs in infrastructure. Better roads, better transportation, better technology all yield lower costs, more efficient commerce and a more competitive labor force!

I still maintain, the candidate who proposes a major Jobs bill: Boom, election done.

But who will speak for the massively unemployed?

And I don’t even have the energy right now to go into the student debt crisis. Too close to home…

It doesn’t matter who wins the election. Both are proposing some level of austerity. We have a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich yet again. Now, I have to admit that I’m hoping Obama will win, but only because I think he would be the most easily pressured into action. I believe Romney would be a hardliner, even if people took to the streets demanding a jobs bill, Romney would just call the riot police. Obama is a big fan of the police state, but I think his breaking point is much easier to reach.

We may not care about the same issues, but I guarantee anyone who was really paying attention last night was unimpressed with the visions provided. Anyone who is really paying attention understands that we’re fucked. Paulistas, Anarchists, Libertarians, even non-partisan Liberals and Conservatives understand something is wrong with the way our major party candidates focus their policy these days.

And while we’re at it, why didn’t we let Jill Stein or Gary Johnson debate? Right, because Obama and Romney don’t want anyone to spook them out with unexpected, innovative and bold ideas.

Until we reform campaign finance and demolish the lobbyist system, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our electoral system. I can’t afford my own lobbyist. Can you?

Not this shit again…

Straw-Man Tuesdays: Who Said Anything About Violence?

Alexandria, let’s have a chat:

I agree with Armenia4ever. Violence begets more violence and when a country is guilty of it, it leaves the worst unremovable stain on history. During the Martin Luther King era, the civil rights movement finally became peaceful because he advocated peaceful protest and revolution. And you know what? He accomplished it. Unfortunately, he was taken from us. He truly evoked change in the most powerful way. History has proven time and time again that violence moves no government. When a government is overtaken through violence there is usually a transfer of power from one dictator to another.

I appreciate your critique of violence, Alexandria, but I’m not sure anyone here is arguing for violence. I believed I made a case for why non-violent resistance is effective. In fact, the tactics of disobedience and allowing oneself to be arrested for disobedience were the main bread and butter of the SCLC. Rosa Parks and others were trained in non-violent resistance. More over, during his time, MLK was attacked and targeted by the F.B.I. for being a communist, challenged the state to the end of the Vietnam War and became more militant during his final years. Had he lived, it is arguable he would’ve gone the way of W.E.B. Du Bois and become an outright radical later in his life. But then again, we have no way of knowing that.

My examples were Egypt, not Libya. East Germany, not Cuba. And had I used this example, I would’ve discussed February 1917, not October 1917 and the subsequent purge of the liberals/nationalists/monarchists/libertarian left.

But if you feel that my words made an argument for violence, please let me know. I’d like to know what part of my statements seem to indicate that I’m advocating for anything other than disobedience.

Since you are an anchor baby it’s very important you know U.S. History from several sources, not just what you were taught in your liberal college.

One more thing: I know that we won’t agree on some things, but please be more respectful of my beliefs, opinions and education. I don’t see why my education is worth attacking, especially since you admit to not knowing my education. I’m not claiming to be anything other than a well read radical. I grew up working class, worked my butt off and got a great education far beyond what most first-generation immigrants from working class cities can dream of. My education is the reason I even have a chance to be anything but a serf in this economy.

But as I have sought to understand your perspective, I ask that you not discredit me for my perspective. Rather, why not to try to understand the why I have the perspective that I have. Had I the same background as you, I might not believe the things I believe now. There is no objective truth, and everything we interpret is subjective to our own background and experiences.

You know how liberals can be condescending towards others sometimes? Yeah, radicals don’t like it either. Regardless of whom it comes from. We have to all respect each other.

I’m not sure which American History book you learned from but I recommend you read some older editions. The newer ones are written from a leftist ideology.

I’m not interested in whether history texts are left, right or what have you. The only relevant questions are 1) what were the primary resources? 2) what are the opposing arguments? 3) was this research vetted and cross-referenced by other scholars? And 4) is this argument supported by solid evidence?

Anything else is just subjective. Right-left wing terminology is nothing but academic, poly-sci shorthand for complex oncepts that we’ve dumbed down into opposing sports teams. And I’ve never liked sports.

I look forward to your response post. And in fact, you’ve inspired me again. I’m pretty sure my next post will be about the proud tradition of libertarian socialism and how my background, experiences and reading of history have brought me to use that label.

You may not think it makes sense, but movements, organizations, and some societies have identified as or utilized the ideals of libertarian socialism/leftistism/communism for over a hundred years now. From the sailors of Kronstadt who rebelled against Lenin in 1921 to Spanish anarchists who rejected the Stalinists and Fascists and were repressed by both curing the civil war in the 30′s, to the contemporary indigenous movement of the Zapatistas in southern Mexico.

But more on that later.

Social Movements and the Future of Occupy

Wow.

I was not expecting the flood of responses to my previous post. Whenever I find myself in these situations, I always find the most engaging conversations I have are with the people who only partially agree with me. It’s always nice to know there are people out there on board with what I have to say, but Alexandria Sage really made me use my noggin’.

Of course, this is a huge topic so I’m going to specifically address the movement and it’s goals rather than the specifics of government policy. Alexandria, I’m sure we could go back and forth for ages on the specifics, but for now let’s start on the potential effectiveness and meaning of the occupy movement in the context of social movements. I’m using your comments as a springboard, but I may go off topic…

The movement quickly became uncivil, violent, and destructive. And there is never a place for that in America. Tax-payer dollars are paying for all the damage they did. And the crime became horrific.

…

Had they stayed civil and occupied Washington DC, maybe then I would have joined them, at least for one week, not protesting Wall Street but protesting my bloated government, who has exempted themselves from Obamacare, by the way. Sorry, but my job does not afford me extended time off for protesting. And I’m not willing to let go of my other week, which I really need for a vacation.

…

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for homeowners who purchased what they could not afford to begin with. Besides, there is nothing wrong with renting.

I would argue that the main flaw of our collective analysis of the Occupy movement is that we frame in the context of a political movement, such as The Tea Party or Reform Party movement, or even the Progressive movement of a century ago. In those cases, we had organized blocs of political activists and politicians working in an organized effort to win elections and pass certain kinds of laws. The Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party lasted for barely more than a 4 year cycle (as a national force), and the Tea Party movement within the GOP appears to have reached a plateau of electoral success.

It is fair to judge a political movement by its electoral influence and appeal to the mainstream. But social movements are an entirely different animal.

Social movements are less organized, more diverse and often times take decades to accomplish their goals. When people criticize the Occupy movement for being unfocused or having not changed policy in a fundamental way, you are criticizing an orange for tasting not tasting like an apple.

This isn’t to say that they are necessarily good or bad things. But when one exists, there will inevitably be mistakes and sins on the part of the collective. The civil rights movement of the 50′s and 60′s was dominated by sexism and, in some factions, homophobia (Stefan’s note: Google “Bayard Rustin”). And to take it even further back, the abolitionist movement had John Brown, a man whose tactics fit most people’s definition of terrorism. In the larger scheme of things, the petty crime of the early period of the Occupy movement does concern me. However, if you look at history, social movements are often organic and spontaneous. When the periods of great change come, the ones who participated are the ones who write the new rules of the system. More on that later.

Question: Would you consider the Civil Rights movement a political movement or a social movement? I would call it a hybrid of both, but I say its strength came from its power as a social movement. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference didn’t seek to elect officials in order to fight Jim Crow laws or ensure voting rights for blacks. Why not? Well, because our elected officials weren’t willing to take action. There was a lack of political will and for the federal government to intervene would’ve been political suicide. The Democrats knew that if they voted to end the southern practices of the late-19th and early 20th century segregation system, many of them would be out of a job.

Spoiler Alert: That’s exactly what happened. But I doubt any of you would say this was a bad thing.

So what can you do when you know Congress isn’t willing to do what’s right? The only thing left is direct action and civil disobedience. When something isn’t right, and the elected officials aren’t acting, don’t we have an obligation to disobey the law?

Why is it that we judge harshly the pepper sprayed student activist, but we honor and commemorate the hose sprayed and dog bitten African-Americans of the 50′s and 60′s? Full voting rights then, and the end of corporate influence on policy now. Are those not two noble goals?

We spend so much time talking about the government as the problem, but we don’t talk about how little we do to influence and control our government. I saw people in the comments talk of a third-party. We have third parties, but they always get accused of spoiling by the corporate owned media. Even the so-called liberal MSNBC is owned by General Electric, one of the most powerful and influential corporations in the nation. The Green Party and Libertarian Party offer, in theory, very different visions of government from their respective left and right-wing counterparts. However, neither can get significant media attention outside the spoiler narrative and neither has the money to effectively attack the airwaves.

Some people hope for a “moderate” party, but let’s be serious here. The major problems underneath everything else are campaign finance, corporate lobbying and the death of American democracy. This is not a left-right issue. Classical market liberalism, Keynesian economics, fiscal conservatism, none of these ideas really attack the elephant in the room. Our representatives don’t listen to us once the money comes flowing from lobbyists and big donors.

We often look at the government as the start of the problem. I would argue that the usual debate between big government and small government is irrelevant at the moment. Either way, in electoral politics we have a choice between big or big. Underneath it all, we have a common enemy. We have to take responsibility for ourselves and terrify the powerful. They’re comfortable because they know you will vote for one of them or not vote at all. Voting is becoming meaningless because we stopped engaging after the ballot is cast.

Both political parties are owned by corporate interests. The mainstream political discourse is no longer an argument between Keynesian market policies and supply side trickle down. We’re fooled into thinking we have a choice between these two visions, but what we have are warped versions of these ideas written according to corporate interests. The choice between corporate America’s left and right-wing factions is just that: Two corporate friendly visions of the 1%. Don’t believe me?

Follow the money. No, really. Whole lotta Rs and Ds in there…

Those were just the first three big corporate and banking industry donors I could think of. Try it, look up big business’s political and PAC contributions. It is staggering the amount of money they spend on state, local and federal campaigns. And the worst part is: all of this is legal. Any attempt to fix our major problems through the electoral process will be scuttled by unlimited moneyed interests. I will swear by that.

So, with this in mind, I come to my next point:

What use is the law when the law serves only the powerful? We can criticize the littering and destruction of property by some of the undisciplined, uncouth individuals who show up (and by the way, these people show up to everything) to these events. But, what are we doing to offer an alternative? The Occupy movement is the only movement right now really taking any direct action. And if we don’t like the tactics, why don’t we offer alternatives?

My biggest regret from last week is that I wasn’t brave enough to ask this question to the individuals I saw photographing an overweight police officer and mocking his body: Can’t you see that the success of this movement relies on the eventual disobedience of the security forces? What successful non-violent revolution or social movement didn’t have its major breaking point when the security forces stopped obeying? East Germany and Egypt would’ve ended in bloodbaths had the security forces not stood in solidarity with the protestors.

It was my first time at an occupy action and I was shy. I regret not saying anything, and I’m resolute not to make that mistake again. But that’s the thing, we have to start engaging in our own way. If we don’t like the social movement’s tactics, but something must be done, it’s our duty to engage and offer alternatives.

Social movements are much more susceptible to their ground troops than political movements. And as time goes on and the movement becomes more disciplined, it may factionalize, become more hierarchical and from then on the direction will be shaped by those who choose to engage rather than stay away. Moreover, like the Civil Rights movement, I believe we will see diverse organizations under new names rise up with more specific goals and differing tactics. SCLC, SNCC, The Black Panthers, and even groups like SDS, all arguably coming from the same origins but with different specifics. Occupy will do something similar, and I intend to steer the direction of those organizations with my actions and my words.

Now, Alexandria had an excellent point about not having the time to take to the streets. And I say: That’s okay. The foot soldiers are already there and will continue to grow. I hate to admit it, but I’m a classic old school revolutionary in many ways and I don’t believe the conditions are right for a major revolution in how our government operates. People are just too comfortable and on the passive side of discomfort. It’s hard for humans to revolt when they have things to lose. But in the meantime, we can all educate ourselves and try to learn about what’s going on.

Bypass the New York Times and MSNBC, so called liberal media. Watch the home eviction resistance on youtube. The Hernandez Family in California is bypassing the traditional media and using youtube/twitter to alert the world to the thug-like mafia tactics being used by Bank of America and the LAPD to remove them from their home.

Whether or not you have sympathy for people losing their homes, you have no choice but to feel the impact of mass homelessness of the working and middle class. Our economy can’t handle such shocks and the economic collapse had nothing to do with bloated government. Recessions are created by lack of demand, and if people are going homeless en masse after a bubble burst, then there’s going to be no demand.

Ack, there I go getting specific. I said I wouldn’t do that, but I’m sure we can tackle that another day.

Friends, the only thing that’s going to stop this movement is cynicism. Social movements are diverse and often include factions, as this one already does. You can’t stop history from progressing, so your choice is to engage or be left behind. If you’re too comfortable to act, at least educate yourself. We are living in a police and surveillance state where the traditional media is stifled and owned by the new ruling class. This is undeniable and when the next collapse happens, the citizens will write the new rules. Left or right, you don’t want to be left behind.

Okay. That’s all I can muster for now. Back to my real job!

Til next time, solidarity!

K

I Was Wrong About Occupy Wall St.

Well played…

It’s September 17^th, 2012. One year ago, the Occupy movement began its first action in Zuccotti Park. My initial response to the movement was that of skepticism. Having come of age during the anti-war protests of the early 2000’s, I felt certain the movement would devolve into nothing more than a couple of drum circles and masturbatorial street art exercises limited to the Berkeleys and Cambridges of the world. I used to say that while I agreed with the grievances expressed by the movement, I thought the tactics ineffective and doubted there would be any major policy changes as a result of such an unfocused mess.

I believed that the major social changes would not come until the next collapse, and assumed that our civilization was too complacent to sustain any real direct action.

One year later, I look back and find myself guilty of cynicism. In the past year, this social movement has stopped foreclosures, helped to provide legal assistance to the working class and brought the idea of democratic empowerment and participation back into our consciousness.

It’s so easy to write off the drum circles and dread-locked white chicks. The street artists and homeless. The young. We always look upon the young with suspicion. But what happens when the young are joined by the old? The poor with the middle class? We often forget that the pillars of the middle class were fought for and spearheaded by the undesirables of the previous generations. Anarchists, European immigrants, coal miners, etc.

These movements started small and disorganized. Poor Italian immigrants of the early 20^th century formed much of the American radical left. They weren’t political when they got here, but they got organized. They experimented, they starved, they disobeyed, they educated.

Minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws. All championed by the fringe, the unwashed, the same people who were accused of being lazy and entitled.

What I see today is the beginning of a new shift towards a redefining of democracy. As more and more Americans realize the slow and gradual coup d’etat that’s been occurring over the past decades, the current power structure will eventually fail. It won’t happen soon. But it will happen sooner than we think.

The more times the social contract of the working/middle class Americans is broken, the less we are inclined to obey.

The radicals, the poor, the “weirdos” are energized in a way we have not seen in decades. The next step is for the middle class and those who consider themselves part of the American mainstream to realize the only way they can have a stake in their future is to participate.

This is not a political movement. It is a social movement. We aren’t running Occupy candidates for Congress. Like the American middle, we no longer recognize their legitimacy. We want money out of politics and greater accountability from our government. The only way to achieve that goal is through engagement, direct action and disobedience.

It’s unlikely that we’ll have another Kent State. I still believe the social capital of American society is strong enough to avoid any major conflicts. So my question is: What are we so afraid of? People have fought against worse and won!

Occupy won’t go anywhere. I’m cautiously optimistic about the future, though I anticipate there will be failures. There will be bad press. There will be moments when we lose focus and perhaps even fight amongst ourselves. But we must remain focused and, most importantly, continue to listen to each other. Solidarity must exist for the working poor, the middle class and the wealthy who stand with our message.

Middle America, we want to get to know you better. Since the shrinking of the middle class, we’ve seen our numbers increase. But to those of you who are still doing okay: What are you waiting for? Don’t wait for the next crisis or collapse. The government will not bail you out. The 1% will not invest in your communities. And they will not create jobs, they will create a new serfdom.

Only we can create our own future. Not the government, not the financial institutions, only our own will and drive towards self-sufficiency.

We are the 99%.

Read Part II Here!