The most radical city in America

[Le Socialiste]

Sure, it's easy to dismiss much of what happened (and continues to happen) in Oakland, but there's more to it than "graduate students, tenured professors, professional revolutionaries," and "members of the Black Bloc."


The Anti-Capitalist Brigade started gathering early on May Day at Oakland’s Snow Park. There was free coffee, oatmeal, doughnuts, fliers with the day’s agenda and plenty of pot. A “street medic”—“I just finished a wilderness first-aid course,” he told me when I asked about his training — tended to his first case of the day, a man in his 20s whose leg had been beaten to a purple hue with a metal rod in an overnight fight in the park. Nearby, an organizer reminded protesters to take down the toll-free number for the National Lawyers Guild: “This is important. Do not put it in your cellphones, because if you get arrested, the cops will take those away. Write it on your bodies. In indelible ink. There are Sharpies on the table.”

No central action was planned. A coalition of labor unions had asked Occupy Oakland, with its proven ability to turn out large numbers of militant activists, to blockade the Golden Gate Bridge, but then withdrew the request at the last minute. Instead, thousands of Occupy protesters met at various “strike stations” and fanned out into the streets with shields and gas masks (or the homemade alternative: bandannas soaked in vinegar), transforming downtown Oakland into a roving carnival of keyed-up militants of every shape and size: graduate students, tenured professors, professional revolutionaries, members of the Black Bloc, dressed like ninjas, their faces obscured.

...

The Menace was loose again, as Hunter S. Thompson wrote about a different group of rabble-rousers, the Hell’s Angels. This riot had a soundtrack, too, a cacophony of chants—“Strike! Take Over!” and “Take Back Oakland! Kick Out the Yuppies!”—overlaid with beating snare drums and the rhythmic thump-thumping of the police and news helicopters hovering overhead.

Many businesses were closed, less in solidarity with May Day than out of fear of reprisal from protesters. The rumored targets weren’t just the big corporations, but smaller shops that were the quarry of the so-called antigentrification brigade. In an Occupy Oakland twist on the “Soul Brother” signs that shopkeepers used during the race riots of the 1960s, Awaken, an upscale cafe and art gallery, had plastered its windows with signs reading:

“We are Oakland. We are the 99%.” As the swarm made its way down Broadway, shouting, pounding on windows and throwing bottles at stores, two Asian immigrants hastily boarded up their small, sad-looking beauty-supply store. When I tried to talk to one of them, he shooed me away —“Too busy”— and reached for another board.

...

In Oakland, the revolutionary pilot light is always on. At the dawn of the 20th century, the Oakland writer and social activist Jack London said this to a group of wealthy New Yorkers: “A million years ago, the cave man, without tools, with small brain, and with nothing but the strength of his body, managed to feed his wife and children, so that through him the race survived. You on the other hand, armed with all the modern means of production, multiplying the productive capacity of the cave man a million times—you are incompetents and muddlers, you are unable to secure to millions even the paltry amount of bread that would sustain their physical life. You have mismanaged the world, and it shall be taken from you.”

It’s a dream that still exists in Oakland — that the world can be taken from the haves and delivered to the have-nots. Like all dreams that are on the brink of being extinguished, its keepers cling to it with a fierceness that is both moving and an extreme exercise in the denial of the reality that is at their door.

Last part in bold is mine. Whole article can be found here (http://news.yahoo.com/how-oakland-became-the-spiritual-capital-of-occupy-wall-street.html).

[The Burgundy Rose]

Sure, it's easy to dismiss much of what happened (and continues to happen) in Oakland, but there's more to it than "graduate students, tenured professors, professional revolutionaries," and "members of the Black Bloc."



Last part in bold is mine. Whole article can be found here (http://news.yahoo.com/how-oakland-became-the-spiritual-capital-of-occupy-wall-street.html).

wondering how long it will take before an incident like the kent state riots will spark up again... :(

[Spirit]

After the events of Occupy, Oakland has risen on my "to go to" list of cities if I ever come to the USA.

A nice text. Occupy Oakland will surely be dismissed by the more hardcore communists and anarchists who see Occupy as a passing trend, but in terms of raising a voice (which was my vision of what Occupy was about) and the ocassional radicalisation of the movement (which was inevitable), Oakland played a very important role.

[RedHammer]

Are there many openly radical leftists at these gatherings? If so, that is encouraging.

I don't want this to be hijacked by the DNC or liberals.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

After the events of Occupy, Oakland has risen on my "to go to" list of cities if I ever come to the USA.

A nice text. Occupy Oakland will surely be dismissed by the more hardcore communists and anarchists who see Occupy as a passing trend, but in terms of raising a voice (which was my vision of what Occupy was about) and the ocassional radicalisation of the movement (which was inevitable), Oakland played a very important role.
As a city Oakland doesn't have too much to see as a tourist destination. Unless you want to see a real city which is set up with the rich literally on the top(on the mountains) and the poor living below them. It's good for poverty tourism I guess. Maybe a good museum or library here and there, but not much to see otherwise. SF, which is a few minutes away is a far better tourist destination.

I don't think any "hardcore" communist or anarchist looks at what happened in Oakland and simply dismisses what happened as a passing trend, Oakland was the vanguard of the Occupy movement, it's most radical representative where thousands of people effectively shut down most of the city and the port with strike action. Oakland isn't a city that just gets ignored by the "hardcore" commies and anarchists, it is a city with so much history it's unbelievable anybody would even think this. But it's alright, you probably don't know as much about U.S. history as comrades that live in the U.S./near the bay area.


Are there many openly radical leftists at these gatherings? If so, that is encouraging.

I don't want this to be hijacked by the DNC or liberals. Oh yes, many, many, openly radical leftists at these protests. On May Day you have no idea how many red flags were waving around. I stood there and watched a march go by for 30+minutes and was almost in tears at the sight of so many socialists as I stood with our comrades in black(effectively making me the "black sheep" of the group *pun definitely intended*).

[Spirit]

As a city Oakland doesn't have too much to see as a tourist destination. Unless you want to see a real city which is set up with the rich literally on the top(on the mountains) and the poor living below them. It's good for poverty tourism I guess. Maybe a good museum or library here and there, but not much to see otherwise. SF, which is a few minutes away is a far better tourist destination.

I don't think any "hardcore" communist or anarchist looks at what happened in Oakland and simply dismisses what happened as a passing trend, Oakland was the vanguard of the Occupy movement, it's most radical representative where thousands of people effectively shut down most of the city and the port with strike action. Oakland isn't a city that just gets ignored by the "hardcore" commies and anarchists, it is a city with so much history it's unbelievable anybody would even think this. But it's alright, you probably don't know as much about U.S. history as comrades that live in the U.S./near the bay area.



Well, if I were to be around (let's say in SF), maybe I would come by just to hang out with some local activists. Also, if there is a good museum, I'd be all over it, I love museums :lol:

As for the history part, thanks. I didn't know that so I'll check it out.

[maskerade]

Would love to go to Oakland, though I mostly only know about it because of Oaksterdam. and of course the port stuff during Occupy...truly inspirational, never thought I'd see something like that happen in the states

[Ele'ill]

The PNW is just as radical.

[#FF0000]

The PNW is just as radical.

lil beirut all day every day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah my roommate showed me this article. Some nice quotes by Boots Riley, but yeah a lot of condescending crap and borderline racist myths of "dangerous Oakland" and a lot of confused liberal assumption. Even though other East Bay cities are just as depressed and have more streeet-violence, Oakland is "dangerous" in the eyes of many mostly because of the history of black radicalism here.

This article reminds me of what a prominent ISO member once said to me. It was after Glen Beck singled him out and people were joking with him about it and he said: "Oh yeah there've been a few of our members attacked in the media by people like Horowitz and O'Riley and other, it's what they do and should be expected. We'll really know we're effective when the NY Times is going out of their way to smear us and demonize us." Well this article is sort of like that (we've MADE IT Oakland and Occupy Oakland!:lol:) although since it's after the fact of the Occupy movement, it seems like more of an attempt to "explain away" the "aberration" of openly radical ideas and (at one point in the local Occupy movement) wide support for those ideas and actions in the US. So the whole article talks about a contemporary and dynamic city as if they are trying to explain a peasant revolt from 1000 years ago... well you know, things were different back then.

One thing that made me gag in the article was the idea that "liberal politicians get elected here only to become conservatives when 'faced by the harsh realities'". What fucking bullshit. Again, a way to explain away why a city with a solidly liberal leadership (there hasn't even been a Republican elected here since the General Strike after WWII) and until Jerry Brown, basically a liberal black city leadership, would be perusing the same racist neo-liberal tax-giveaways to the rich bullshit that any other city in the US has had.

Anyone looking for a materialist history of Oakland and the closest thing to a "people's history" of this area should check out "American Babylon".

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Would love to go to Oakland, though I mostly only know about it because of Oaksterdam. and of course the port stuff during Occupy...truly inspirational, never thought I'd see something like that happen in the states

Oaksterdam got raided by Feds :(

[freeeveryone!]

The PNW is just as radical.but it seems as though Oakland is more radical on a class basis whereas the PNW is more radical due to the presence of hipster and punk subcultures.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Anyway here's my attempt at a local history of the current situation in Oakland:

Oakland is the rich people in the hills, working class on the flats situation that the article describes, West Oakland was once thriving but is now a mini-Detroit as manufacturing has moved (often just to the suburbs around here or the valley).

It's been a pretty depressed city for a while with a city government staffed mostly with real estate developer-types or people trying to make careers. Cross a slumlord with the politician characters on the "Wire" any you'd probably be pretty close to what we have here. It's also where billions of dollars for the entire West Cost economy come through each day... the port... which is also governed by itself and not subject to city laws or voter mandates. Wall Street on the Waterfront.

I think things began changing in Oakland with the Immigrant Rights marches (what was that 2006?) which were the first big marches of thousands that I saw in Oakland. The first few marches were spontaneous, rooted in immigrant communities, and actually broke through some of the inter-class animosity which is common in California cities. I went to the first march here and expected MAYBE 200 people (because San Fran has always pulled the majority of any regional organizing over to that side of the bay in the past)... instead, marching past my apartment in East Oakland came probably 5,000 people. It was a march where when people chanted for gawking neighbors to come out of their apartments and join... THEY DID! It's just grew as the march traveled all the way from deep East Oakland through Fruitvale to downtown. At one point by the Fruitvale BART station a car pulled up to a stop, trying to cross international as the march went by, and started honking. I thought it was some asshole mad that his path was blocked by this march, but then 3 young black guys got out of the car and got up on the hood and began throwing up solidarity fists. A latino guy ran from the crowd and got up there too and hugged them shouting about how this was about building respect for all minorities and stopping attacks on all poor people. If it sounds cheesy and like I made it up, I wouldn't have believed it either and that was the moment I've been most moved and choked up by at a march or protest action.

So that started a few years of immigrant marches from Fruitvale BART to Downtown (where Occupy would later camp). The marches electrified the Latino immigrant community here (Oakland is pretty segregated and while there were Asians in the marches and movement and a small percentage of Asian immigrants in my neighborhood, the movement never seemed to be able to break through and become an all-immigrant movement) and especially children of immigrants. I was doing some regular propaganda work in the neighborhood at the time and at one point we sold 80 spanish-language socialist papers in an hour and probably gave out hundreds of fliers and pamphlets. But this was slowly pushed back down - there were a series of brazen moves by la mirgra - like parking their vehicles outside of schools causing a panic as students called their immigrant parents not to pick them up for fear of a raid. There was also a minutemen group that formed in an outlying suburb. And of course the political limitations of the movement itself also contributed to decline.

But then as the immigrant rights movement fell off at the grassroots level and the leadership of the movement focused on Obama, Oscar Grant was shot by BART cops in the early morning on New Years day 2009. So by some king of coincidence this happened at the same BART station where many of the immigrant rights marches had happened and so when a movement arose to challenge the Police after the murder, people took the same march route from Fruitvale to downtown. There are other places where you can look to hear the story of this movement, but I think the important thing to know is that the recent immigrant rights marches had opened a door in a certain way to legitimize actual working class protest with real connections to our communities and neighborhoods here - in a modest, but real way that hadn't happened for a long time. That organizing and the Oscar Grant organizing had a boost by spontaneity at first, but the later nitty-gritty was done through family and church and neighborhood connections.

So this movement also rose and fell but it had two other legacies which was that it's been much harder for the media and cops to sweep later shootings under the rug and so there has been some level of visible opposition to several other shootings since that time... so in a modest way the seeds for a potential anti-police violence movement have been planted. And Oscar Grant's relatives and friends have become regular organizers in Oakland and Oscar's god-father has been involved in every movement, including occupy and has become a sort of a model and organizer for other families of police brutality victims.

The second thing that the Oscar Grant protests did was also attract many of the white college protesters from the budget cuts movement. Both organizers as well as some "riot-tourists" that the media always likes to focus on. But a lot of the former UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley student-protesters later became the "non-leaders" of Occupy Oakland.

So Occupy happened and drew in many of these elements that had been brewing for a while. It also brought in wider-layers with "regular people liberals", some NGO-type liberals, rank and file unionists, and counter-culture kind of people. But on the political organizing side, Occupy, in the encampment phase, created a focal point where all the dispirse organizing that had been bubbling under the surface could actually come together. So the former student-radicals worked with Oscar Grant movement veterans and so on. I think this is why the movement may have been somewhat different here. There was a level of experience and ideology and understanding that may not have existed in other places. It was a moment of "synergy" for all the little movements to become greater than the sum of their parts.

This is also why I think the biggest flaw that we had in the movement is that some of the central people involved began to see the power of occupy oakland in it's radical ideas and tactics alone, not that the power was that this wide spectrum had been rallied around this movement that could do radical actions and where radical ideas could get a hearing and even lead. So by the second port shut-down attempt there was a sense that the actions and rhetoric of radicals themselves was what made things successful rather than (as I see it) the ability of radicals to rally non-radicals and the radicalizing to some radical actions. So there were people arguing that we could shut-down the port even without support of dockworkers, or shut down the airport by activists themselves and so on. I know some of this is ideological but personally I view it as basically an example of "professional revolutionaries" fighting on behalf of some conception of workers rather than organizing the class as part of the class and with the members of the class as it currently is. It was the opposite approach from what made Occupy Oakland strong in the first place IMO.

[#FF0000]

but it seems as though Oakland is more radical on a class basis whereas the PNW is more radical due to the presence of hipster and punk subcultures.

There's a lot of reactions I have to this so I'll just list them instead of trying to make one coherent post with all of my ideas in paragraph format

1) That's a good way to discredit and toss aside the excellent things radicals in the PNW do, as well as the PNW's long radical history, for no reason whatsoever
2) Being a 'hipster' or a 'punk' doesn't mean you can't be a worker
3) you say this as if oakland doesn't have it's fair share of hipsters
4) the ILWU

[Jimmie Higgins]

I forgot to mention that my long post above is also to counter some of the notion in the article that Occupy came out of nothing and to counter the way the media tends to present things in isolation. The local media never connects Oscar Grant and Immigrant Rights and Occupy even though by the time Occupy happened there was a lot of cross pollination or overlap... of course in the media one is a protest only for Latinos, one only for blacks (and "outside agitators" since obviously the white protesters involved weren't mad at the death of a black kid at the hands of the cops... how could they, they just wanted kicks:rolleyes:), and Occupy only for white hippies.

Segregation is a tool of the rulers and one we need to take seriously. Occupy's heart was in the right place and some of the organizing that happened was definately right-on as far as breaking down some of those barriers, but by and large I think people relied too much on "spontaneity" bridging those gaps - as if pro-black rhetoric itself would be enough to attract more black people to the movement of as if renaming it "de-colonize Oakland" would bring in Latinos and Native Americans, as if having a FTP march itself could organize an anti-police brutality movement. There are all fine as first attempts, bu the organizing of actually meeting with groups and coalitions, building trust and so on takes time and dedication and I had way too many discussions with people at the encampment where white activists would essentially say things to the effect: "Where are the black people, we called it Oscar Grant Plaza, but they aren't organizing here".

Not to say that Occupy was a big white-people festival downtown like the media painted it as, it was much more diverse than most recent movements have been. It's just to say that to break through just to working class communities - let alone oppressed communities within the class - it will take more than just pro-worker rhetoric and sentiment.

[freeeveryone!]

There's a lot of reactions I have to this so I'll just list them instead of trying to make one coherent post with all of my ideas in paragraph format

1) That's a good way to discredit and toss aside the excellent things radicals in the PNW do, as well as the PNW's long radical history, for no reason whatsoeverit's not an attempt to discredit anything. it's a thought that came to my mind that I think is a noteworthy distinction.


2) Being a 'hipster' or a 'punk' doesn't mean you can't be a workerobviously not. being a hippie didn't mean you couldn't be a worker either. But subcultures are subcultures and generally speaking radicalism within alienating subcultures are not an indication of radicalism in society as a whole. it doesn't make said radical illegitimate, but that doesn't mean these things shouldn't be thought of.


3) you say this as if oakland doesn't have it's fair share of hipstersI generally don't perceive East Oakland as being very full of alternative subcultural types because they are generally more present in affluent areas.


4) the ILWUfair point.


...and Occupy only for white hippies.hey don't discredit all the good work white hippies have done you talk as if white hippies can't be workers

[#FF0000]

it's not an attempt to discredit anything. it's a thought that came to my mind that I think is a noteworthy distinction.

Aight. But it's pretty off base. The PNW has had a long radical history long before portland was a 'hipster mecca'


I generally don't perceive East Oakland as being very full of alternative subcultural types because they are generally more present in affluent areas. Yeah but that's not necessarily true though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

hey don't discredit all the good work white hippies have done you talk as if white hippies can't be workersNo, I mean that's how the media initially painted Occupy Oakland just like they did with all the other occupies.

Initially in the encampment phase, there were a lot of lifestyles and counter-culture types and while I don't see these things as ultimately a way forward, they did a lot of work. One other thing about Occupy Oakland is the amount of just plain social-work that had to happen. That plaza is normally just where homeless people sleep and they remained during Occupy - aside from during the raids - and more came because they knew it would be a safe place which must have been a relief. So anyway, the life-style oriented people actually did a lot of good because while they couldn't "pre-figure" a new society like I think they wanted, they were able to reconfigure what Oakland with a social safety net might be like for a few hundred homeless. Anyway that kind of thing goes back to the panthers - there's so much need and while it was never really highlighted by the media or even some of the encampment people themselves, the fucking hypocrisy and irony of people feeding others right on the doorstep of city hall is not only just helpful to people but powerful propaganda. They city paid millions in overtime and brought in 14 police departments in order to stop essentially people who were giving homeless people food and a place to sleep - the political organizing space was also important, but shutting down the encampment didn't immediately stop that, it did stop the food and tents though.

Edit: one other thing, just in case people think I'm pessimistic for talking about this stuff in the past-tense. There was a rally for Alan Blueford on Tuesday in this plaza... only maybe 100 people or 150 people. But right after, two teenage black kids were walking down the street and cops drove up and arrested them. Some people just on the street and some people from the rally came up and asked why these really young kids were being arrested and the cops replied "they fit a description". So about 50 people surrounded to police car and argued with the cops who eventually had to uncuff and release the kids from the back of the cop car. There are usually tons of young people hanging out on those corners by the plaza just meeting people and joking around or selling a little weed or a less illegal hussle of some kind like selling homemade CDs and whatever. Anyway after seeing a mulit-racial but mostly black crowd stop the police from doing that they went from heckling the protesters by saying, "Man don't mess with those cops, you're going to get your ass beat" to saying "I've never seen that happen before, you should come out here and do that everyday!"

[Rafiq]

The United States has been competent in estinguishing these waves of protests. Occupy is dead. They underestimated the enemy, they thought this was the fucking 60's.

[A Marxist Historian]

Aight. But it's pretty off base. The PNW has had a long radical history long before portland was a 'hipster mecca'

Yeah but that's not necessarily true though.

Absolutely, you had the Seattle General Strike in 1919, where the city was briefly more or less run by a self-proclaimed "workers, soldiers and sailors council" after the Russian model.

But there is a big and basic difference between PNW and the Bay Area in general and California in particular.

Oregon is the state that, in its first state constitution, banned black people from living there. And it is still damn near the whitest state in America. That, um, kinda limits its radical potential.

Jimmie Higgins's postings on Oakland are interesting, but the problem with them--an understandable problem, he's writing Revleft postings not a book--is that it begins in 2006.

Oakland, as explained in American Babylon which he mentioned, was the home of the Black Panther Party, the city in which Bobby Seale running for mayor as the BPP candidate got about a third of the vote in 1973. And that radical tradition didn't just disappear in the '70s and '80s and '90s to be magically reborn in 2006. Oakland has been America's most left wing city for a very long time.

The Socialist Party in Oakland in the pre-WWI period was a "red socialist" branch, partially under Jack London's influence but even more after he left the California SP in disgust as it wouldn't go along with his anti-Asian white racism. And a successful one, coming fairly close to electing a "red socialist" mayor running on a pretty revolutionary platform in 1911 or thereabouts.

And the black community in Oakland did not come out of nowhere, as Oakland as the west coast final destination of the Transcontinental Railroad developed a black community very early on in West Oakland around the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, who organized the famous March on Washington Movement in 1941, the seedbed of the civil rights movement.

And on and on...

-M.H.-

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie Higgins's postings on Oakland are interesting, but the problem with them--an understandable problem, he's writing Revleft postings not a book--is that it begins in 2006. Yes I think long-standing legacy is in play with both the Pacific Northwest and the Bay Area - I merely meant to give my impressions on this most recent wave of organizing.

Legacies (when there is not concrete continuity like a party or whatnot) "set the stage" but aren't a guarantee of radicalism. Why do these areas tend to have a "radical" reputation in general? Why has the stage been set here? Well because the CP and the IWW helped workers win major battles in these places and had very strong organizations. In LA, the IWW was defeated in one of their major battles and the result was that it was much harder to organize in LA for a long time and it wasn't until the 1930s that some inroads were made - but still it's a rough place to organize because of geography and history.

In the Bay Area, the General Strike gave radicals enough local credibility that McCarthyism didn't have as much of an impact - there are still public buildings and a tunnel named after high-profile communist union leaders in San Francisco. This meant that reds were able to organize here with more continuity and this is also why it became a hot-spot in the 1960s when politics began to thaw more generally.

The Oakland General Strike turned a Republican-machine run town into a Democrat-machine town which obviously isn't really that much different, but it is evidence of a overall shift in politics due to worker struggle.

Annecdotally, while I met former Black Panthers when I lived in LA, it's not the same as the footprint left in the living memory of people in Oakland. This is definitely a factor and as a Socialist, the legacy of the BPP makes discussing socialism something much more graspable to regular people on the street because there's that example. Concretely, the radicalism still in the ILWU allowed a lot of Occupy's success here. So legacy really is important.

All that being said, I think there has been a bit of a discontinuity over the last 30 years of ruling class offensives. We have some benefits here as well as in the Pacific Northwest, but that just mean we're a couple meters ahead when the starting pistol goes off on struggle. My main disagreement with the NY Times article and my reason for stressing the "new" movement rather than the continuity (which is very true and I agree with everything you wrote) is that I think this is a "begining" of a wave, not the last anachronistic remenents of "radicalism" as the Times seeks to re-assure their liberal readers.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes I think long-standing legacy is in play with both the Pacific Northwest and the Bay Area - I merely meant to give my impressions on this most recent wave of organizing.

Legacies (when there is not concrete continuity like a party or whatnot) "set the stage" but aren't a guarantee of radicalism. Why do these areas tend to have a "radical" reputation in general? Why has the stage been set here? Well because the CP and the IWW helped workers win major battles in these places and had very strong organizations. In LA, the IWW was defeated in one of their major battles and the result was that it was much harder to organize in LA for a long time and it wasn't until the 1930s that some inroads were made - but still it's a rough place to organize because of geography and history.

In the Bay Area, the General Strike gave radicals enough local credibility that McCarthyism didn't have as much of an impact - there are still public buildings and a tunnel named after high-profile communist union leaders in San Francisco. This meant that reds were able to organize here with more continuity and this is also why it became a hot-spot in the 1960s when politics began to thaw more generally.

The Oakland General Strike turned a Republican-machine run town into a Democrat-machine town which obviously isn't really that much different, but it is evidence of a overall shift in politics due to worker struggle.

Annecdotally, while I met former Black Panthers when I lived in LA, it's not the same as the footprint left in the living memory of people in Oakland. This is definitely a factor and as a Socialist, the legacy of the BPP makes discussing socialism something much more graspable to regular people on the street because there's that example. Concretely, the radicalism still in the ILWU allowed a lot of Occupy's success here. So legacy really is important.

All that being said, I think there has been a bit of a discontinuity over the last 30 years of ruling class offensives. We have some benefits here as well as in the Pacific Northwest, but that just mean we're a couple meters ahead when the starting pistol goes off on struggle. My main disagreement with the NY Times article and my reason for stressing the "new" movement rather than the continuity (which is very true and I agree with everything you wrote) is that I think this is a "begining" of a wave, not the last anachronistic remenents of "radicalism" as the Times seeks to re-assure their liberal readers.

I have my disagreements with Jimmie, but that is all accurate and well put.

Just as a historian's note, it wasn't the IWW in either LA or the Bay Area that played much role. Main thing the IWW did in California, aside of course from the famous free speech fights, was try to organize farmworkers, most famously at the Durst Ranch in Marin County resulting in the Hopyard incident, but most successfully in the Central Valley.

In LA, you're probably thinking about the McNamara brothers trial, LA's true "trial of the century" not O.J. Simpson, and Job Harriman, the leader of moderate California Socialism, almost getting elected Mayor in 1911 on top of a wave of (literally!) explosive labor conflict, but losing in the runoff when Clarence Darrow talked the McNamara brothers into confessing.

In the Bay Area itself, the main radical organization again was the Socialist Party, which, though sharply divided, had a powerful left wing which was allied to (but wasn't) the IWW, led by famous labor martyr Tom Mooney.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Just saw the "Occupy the Bay" documentary at the Berkeley Unitarian Fellowship tonite. First rate job, including some good material (not quite enough, but this was just the first brief rough cut) on why Oakland is the most radical city in America.

Second screening in San Rafael on the 17th, followed by the full release and party on the 31st in Oakland itself. Then I hope it goes viral and will come soon to a theater near you... Meanwhile, here's the info and the page has a link for a fine trailer.

http://www.facebook.com/LongMemoryProductions

Four stars. AMH sez check it out.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

Well the Black Panthers are from Oakland, as were some of the first mixed race unions. Of course it's the most radical city. The bay area in general is more leftist than most of the U.S.