Log in

View Full Version : remembering the stakes



bcbm
10th January 2010, 12:47
One of the first actions I remember taking as a self-identified political radical was selling Marxist and anarchist literature at the age of 14. I would set up my little table on the high school campus at lunch-time or in the dim lobby of the Phoenix Theater at a punk show on Friday night. I’d sit there quietly, reading perhaps, waiting for a curious mind to wander over and engage me in conversation and leave with one of our titles (which we had picked up from AK Press, an anarchist book publisher based in Oakland). This was just after the 9/11 attacks, and while animosity towards radicals such as myself was on the increase (I routinely had books spit on, stolen, and thrown to the ground), young peoples’ interest in political ideas and history was also growing. As a result, I never had to make much of an effort to get folks to come over to the table; politics were already in the air.

To this day, radical political groups still use “tabling” as a tactic for gaining visibility for their group and raising consciousness by distributing political literature and other materials. Tabling is a great way to meet people, engage in dialogue and get revolutionary ideas into the hands of the general public, as is any form of face-to-face political outreach. However, over the last couple of years, I’ve noticed a stark unwillingness on the part of many self-described radicals to actively engage with the public, especially when tabling. Whether it’s at an Anarchist Book-fair in San Francisco, or a public concert in New York City, I’ve witnessed a complete lack of interest on the part of “revolutionary” and “anarchist” organizations to network, dialogue, and strategize with strangers, such as myself. I view this as a larger trend in radical communities which is utterly hostile to anything that requires talking to people outside of our cliques about our politics and our organizations.

I and many people I work closely with are just as guilty of this as the next person. Often when someone, who’s not a fellow activist, asks me “what’s new”, I typically do not respond with the details of how I’m working to stop police brutality, or enrolled in a political education program to help white activists analyze white supremacy and organize to build multi-racial movements for liberation. I generally answer with a shrug and a “you know…just really busy with work.” I’m more likely to tell them to go see a new movie that I just saw than to come to our next meeting and get involved. I’m more likely to spread some gossip than the latest news on the war. And I know I’m not the only one who does this. And every time we do, what we are losing is a great opportunity to engage with people about the work and the ideas that we think are so important: the fight for justice and democracy. I can barely remember how many times I have seen my comrades sit in their uncomfortable chair behind a table of obscure political theory, frowning and counting the seconds until they get to pack up and go home. Then at the next meeting, we all complain that there’s “nobody here.” How many times have we tried to organize an event and waited until the last minute to call people, or not called people at all? How many times have we just relied on a single email to get the word out and then acted shocked when no one attends our little movie night/forum/workshop/meeting/rally/etc.? Do we really think that someone is going to read one hastily-worded email and sacrifice two hours on a Wednesday night to come to some meeting of a group they know nothing about?

I say these things not to attack anyone in particular. As I said, I’m guilty of these things all of the time. And as I mentioned earlier, when I first started tabling, I could rely on the current political climate to help me engage with people; people were already interested. Today, things are a bit different. There is no demand for revolutionary ideas. Not in any significant quantity at least. We have to realize this, take responsibility for not stepping up to reach out to the community, and change direction if we are to survive as revolutionaries in an era where Tea Parties seem to rule the day.

For me, what helps is looking back to those who came before us and went down the very same path that we are now walking. The path to liberation of all of humanity. Understanding that we are part of a proud tradition of community organizers, activists, workers, peasants, and rebels from every inch of this planet can help us gain some perspective on the task before us. What did our comrades back then have to do in order to win? In the face of such terrifying opposition in the 1960’s, how did students in the South defeat four centuries of legal slavery and segregation? In the face of death squads, how did radical labor organizers in the early 20th century fight for and win some of the basic rights and benefits that we all take for granted today such as the minimum wage, the weekend, and the eight-hour work day? Did they do it by shyly sitting behind a book table or calling 10 people the day before a big rally?

In Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, he describes some of the revolutionary working class organizations of the early 1900’s. In the famous Lawrence textile strike, 10,000 workers walked out of their jobs. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) organized mass meetings, parades, and set up a 50 worker organizing committee. Through this they also set up soup kitchens which could feed 50,000 people. In New York, female socialist organizations were famous for their incredible political outreach. In one day at the climax of one of their campaigns, female socialists “distributed 110,000 leaflets, sold 4,000 books, put out 40,000 stickers, and held 110 meetings.”

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) continued this tradition of mass-based organizing in the 1960’s in order to defeat segregation in the South. Jean Wheeler Smith said that “Bob (Moses) and a band of ten or so organizers, all under 20, could go into a community in the morning…find their contacts, establish sleeping quarters and some means to eat, get a church and turn out the community for a mass meeting that same night.” And while SNCC wasn’t always able to turn out tens of thousands of people to their events, what they emphasized was building relationships and engaging in the day-to-day work that may seem tedious, but pays off in the long run and helps build mass movements. People claimed that SNCC organizers were often “people you could sit down and talk with.” Now compare that with today’s radicals, who often despise talking with the uncultivated masses and too often dismiss those who disagree with them as “reactionary” or worse yet, “liberal.” (meaning hopeless). We’re much more content sitting behind our tables, snubbing our noses at all of those who “just don’t get it.”

But imagine if every tiny anarchist or revolutionary group across the country (and there are many, though they are mostly small) took these lessons and incorporated them into their day-to-day work. Imagine small bands of revolutionary organizers who went door-to-door, talking to people, developing relationships, building the leadership of working people, listening to the struggles of the majority of residents in this country, handing out thousands of leaflets and selling hundreds of books and holding mass meetings. After a few years, we might not seem so marginal or friendless anymore. Out of all the activists I have met and continue to be friends with, almost all of them are brilliant in their own way. They are friendly, smart, funny, personable, creative and fierce people who can accomplish just about anything. For some reason, however, these traits are rarely reflected in their organizing. Either because of the fear of rejection, a lack of confidence in their own ability to communicate, or a subconscious elitism towards the “apolitical masses,” the intelligence and friendliness of the best among us is not seen by most who encounter our organizations. Instead, many in the community see us just another bunch of activists- whiny, privileged, petulant children, if they see us at all, which they rarely do, because we’re far too busy embroiled in some meaningless political squabbling, either in reality or on the internet.

Lest this late-night, flu-inspired rant come off as another overly negative, morale-killing diatribe (something our movements really don’t need at this moment), let this instead be a time to reflect and reconnect with our traditions, and remember what is at stake here. Why do you want to change the world? Why do you do what you do? Why do you call yourself a “revolutionary” or “radical” or “activist?” For me, it has always been, and always will be, deeply personal. Because the stakes are our lives. Because this is the only sensible way to spend our lives. Because capitalism makes slaves of all of us and there’s nothing more I could want than freedom. And if I’m not willing to talk to someone, to put a book in their hands, to put work into building a relationship with them, to help them through the doubts and fears they may have, to make phone calls, to knock on doors, to stand in front of grocery stores, to ask questions, to invite everyone I know to participate in the events I help organize, to have the hard conversations with the people I disagree with, then I am throwing away everything I have learned and I am abandoning the most beautiful thing that I have in this world and that is the struggle for my own liberation, which ultimately means the struggle for everybody’s liberation. When we are too afraid to talk to strangers, we are letting ourselves down. When we won’t make those extra phone calls because we’d rather watch a movie and get drunk, we are letting our friends, family, comrades, and ancestors down. Because our own lives are at stake. Everything that is good and beautiful is under attack and no one can stop it but you. And in that struggle you grow, you love, you learn to fight and you learn how to be free.


-Carl
IMPACT!
http://www.impactpetaluma.blogspot.com

KC
10th January 2010, 14:58
Edit

bcbm
10th January 2010, 16:07
well said, KC. i don't think there is a problem with trying to get away from society, however, but what most groups lack is a way to come back.

jake williams
11th January 2010, 07:29
well said, KC. i don't think there is a problem with trying to get away from society, however, but what most groups lack is a way to come back.
It's a bit messy. On one hand our society is so fucked up that it's probably necessary both on a personal level and on a collective level to have for ourselves some relatively liberated spaces. On the other hand this can prove far too much a temptation, as the article and as KC suggests. You gotta be really conscious of what you're doing, and it's difficult.

I don't want to speak too much about the politics behind the unwillingness to go out in public and leaflet, table etc. It's potentially a really ugly shit-flingy discussion that I don't (at the moment) want to wade into.

What I would like to comment on is the fact that personally I'm a pretty shy person, I don't often hang out with large groups even of close friends, while I'm hardly a recluse I really value my private time, etc. I know a few other good activists with good activists who are in a similar position. It's not really a sufficient excuse - there's too much to do that involves getting out and talking to people for it to be an excuse - but it's worth looking at as a causative factor for the problem highlighted in the OP. What I tend to find is that a lot of the people who are the loudest, biggest voices in meetings and informal groups of activists are not always necessarily the first folks out to do tabling, leafleting etc, and conversely those who are shyer are not the most reluctant to do so. There just isn't really a correlation.

I'd also like to say this though: we need to be fair to ourselves and acknowledge that talking to often hostile strangers isn't easy. We need to do so not to excuse ourselves and bathe in self-love about how hard we work. We need to do it partly because then when it's difficult we don't give up, we keep doing it. And generally it's good to be honest about things.

It can also be really productive to talk to friends, family, people you know in workplaces and so forth. It's a lot easier than talking to strangers and in a lot of ways it's more effective. Depending on where you are, it's really important to make connections with new people and new places. But focusing on "strangers", while it is oftentimes a really really useful thing to do, can also degenerate into a search aimed consciously away from home and at obscure half-hidden radicals.

KC
11th January 2010, 12:48
Edit

The Ungovernable Farce
11th January 2010, 15:15
Mixed feelings about this. Some of it's really good, but I think it does come across as a bit voluntaristic in places. Obv, structure/agency is a really fucking complicated one, but it does seem to come a bit too close to saying "if only we tried that little bit harder we'd be so much closer to communism by now." Like Jammoe says, talking to large numbers of hostile strangers isn't always easy - some people have limitless patience for it, others just do as much as they can without getting burnt out, and I don't think that making them feel guilty for not doing more is actually going to affect the consciousness of our class that much.
I don't want to sound too critical, cos as I said most of it's really sound, but I don't really agree with the "I’m more likely to tell them to go see a new movie that I just saw than to come to our next meeting and get involved. I’m more likely to spread some gossip than the latest news on the war. And I know I’m not the only one who does this" and "When we won’t make those extra phone calls because we’d rather watch a movie and get drunk, we are letting our friends, family, comrades, and ancestors down" bits. I've known people who don't talk about much other than politics, and I tend to avoid spending time with them because they're no fun. That's speaking as someone who's already a committed communist, so I doubt that relatively apathetic members of the public will be that much more attracted to their company. Of course, we should invite people to meetings and spread the news about the war and make those extra phone calls, but I don't think it's helpful to frame it in such an either/or way. If people get the impression that being a communist means you're not allowed to watch movies and get drunk, then most people won't want to get involved (and, of course, our recruitment will be limited to puritans with poor social skills, further contributing to the marginalisation the author complains about).

Wanted Man
11th January 2010, 22:39
I think this is a very good article. Of course, there's also the flip side of the coin, as some organisations are so steeped in voluntarism that they bash people over the head with communist literature as if they were bibles, and that any member who can't handle the pressure any longer gets burnt out and gets treated like a lazy bum by his own "comrades". I basically agree with what the Farce said above. Bear in mind that a lot of people are already being ordered around by their bosses 24-40 hours a week, or already have to read a lot for their studies, and they don't like having a boss or a study in their spare time as well. There are always limits to what people can do, and in any organisation, there should never be a boss giving orders while the other members simply listen to the boss.

However, the main point of the article rings very true. If you're going to take up a role in the movement where you have to organise people, get things started, and build something from nothing, you can't be satisfied too easily. About 2 years ago, I thought that if I sent out a meeting invitation to 5 inactive members and sympathisers in my area, and none of them responded, then there was nothing left to do. I had "tried" and "done my bit", but nobody could be arsed to send an e-mail back, so perhaps it wasn't really possible to start organising where I lived at the time. Getting rid of that mentality is an important process, and seeing everyone's work yield results can really help that process. In reality, a few phone calls, meeting some new people individually, and stuff like that, is all you need to get something going.

Everyone who is involved in organising will probably be presented with an "easy" and a "hard" route at times, but the difficult one can be the most challenging, fun, and rewarding. It's in the little things. When you're deliberating on what to do when you've just started a section in your area with 5 people, do you say, "The local authorities will never allow a communist stall on the market, and it's too expensive anyway", or do you say "If Johnny makes a phone call to get us a stall, I'll see if I can get us some material, and we'll all chip in to pay for it"?

When you set up shop, do you sit there all day with 2 people and pass the time, or do you try to mobilise as many members and sympathisers as possible, and make it a fun day, actively approach people, take opportunities, be proud of the way you present yourself (hopefully young, engaging, refreshing, etc.), and then celebrate with lots of booze (optional ;))? When the day is done, do you go into hibernation for the next few months, satisfied that you've at least done something, or do you evaluate and work out a way to build momentum, deliberating on actions in the very near future?

All of this basically reflects discussions that many organisations are having, or should be having (provided that none of them have a ready-made answer yet, which they clearly don't). Just thinking about this and working out a line on how to go about your business may not bring us "so much closer to communism", but it can bring out vast amounts of untapped potential in the bright young activists that are already there, and bring in many new ones so that revolutionary politics aren't limited to the same people who will grow old and jaded if no real progress is made.

Alaric
3rd April 2010, 19:47
Inspiring comrade!

As a sufferer of social anxiety disorder, this is a big problem for me.