Log in

View Full Version : Yesterday, I was an anarchist.



Bilan
28th April 2008, 07:09
(This is not about me, but a blog I found, and I think is really interesting)

Yesterday, I was an anarchist.



"We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view."
—Mao Tse-Tung

I just turned thirty. Fifteen years on the Left—that's half my lifetime now and what it means to me has changed consistently over the years: from punk rock kid with a mohawk and tattoos on my ribs and shoulders to a union leader with a mortgage and kid and the responsibility of thousands of workers on my shoulders. I often find myself thinking back to when my politics were just forming and how simple those days and those politics were. Things were clear: America was bad, veganism was good, pacifism was good, hierarchy was bad, jobs were for suckers and school was for sellouts, squats were a pure form of existence and love was meant to be free. Anarchism was clear, it was simple and we knew how the world should be. We reached for that world by forming small collectives, putting out zines or records, doing punk concerts where we preached to our fellow punks and complained about the world. Being an anarchist meant living and thinking as an anarchist more than it meant making anarchism a reality.

Most of my time as a young anarcho-punk I had a job; I was an apprentice painter. I worked in the same place my dad worked. After years on the same job sites with him, I was only making about two bucks less than him an hour. He had a bad back from years on the job, and no way to ever even think about retiring. I never thought about doing anything to make that job better paying and safer or providing for my future; I was too busy picketing fur stores and running a record distro for punks.

This all changed when my daughter was born; it became far more important to me to make my life better for Lexy and myself. I organized a union.

At first I tried putting in place lessons I learned from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which was very little. Mostly they had great slogans, signs, chants, songs… heck they even had IWW yo-yos and bike lights. But as a Wobbly, I didn't know how to talk to my co-workers about fighting capitalism and making our jobs better. Five years as an anarchists prepared me for nothing when it came to the actual struggle. I never got another co-worker interested.

This was my first departure from being a straight-line American anarchist. I reached out to a mainstream union, the painters' union, in order to help organize my co-workers. I was taught very little by the Painters Union, but I was able to become a union member, with health insurance and a decent life. But more importantly I was part of the mainstream of the US Labor Movement. For roughly two years I straddled an odd line: I was still an anarchist—in many ways still an anarchist punk doing things like Food Not Bombs and Copwatch—but I was focusing more and more on getting workers to organize against their bosses.

After a few years of being in the Painters Union, while maintaining all of my ties to the Baltimore Anarchists Scene, I was offered training from another US union to learn how to really organize workers. I'll never forget that I was told, "you'd get a chance to organize like it was the 1920's again, because we don't care about the Labor Laws." I jumped at this chance and left the comfort of the Baltimore Anarchists I had been a part of for seven years. At the time, I really thought I was going to learn a lot and then come back to the IWW.

That wasn't to be the case. When I moved to Connecticut and later to California my ties were cut, and my ideology was no longer going to be formed by Angel who brought me into the anarcho-punk community or Flint Jones who brought me into the IWW. Those years shaped me, but it was my time in the wilderness, in the desert of southern California, where there were no leftists, that made me who I am.

It was the reality and the responsibility of organizing workers at tribal casinos that taught me that the black and white perspectives that are so common among anarchists are not simply based on ideological decisions, but rather decisions based on hopelessness or laziness. Ideology makes complex situations clear-cut, but the problem for me is this: the world we live in and organize in is not clear-cut. The simple days of Baltimore where just that, the simple days. The ideology of those days didn't fit with the reality of struggle.

For three years I lived in California and didn't see another anarchist, or, for that matter, another leftist. What I saw and lived with in California was a handful of non-ideological young union organizers. We were in a place where there was no history of the left, and no history of even liberalism or unions. We were left to make our own ideology and build our unions the way we thought made sense, from scratch, like it was the 1920's all over again. Half jokingly, we called ourselves the "red guard of the union," but the point was that in California, anarchism was no longer a vision I could use to move forward or view my life. I spent my days knocking on the doors of poor immigrants and working class white folks, talking to them about their lives. I saw that veganism didn't matter and I dropped it. I saw that the police were not the problems, they were the tools of the problem, and so I ignored Copwatch. I saw that Food Not Bombs didn't fix a problem, it was putting a band-aid on a hemophiliac and I ended my relationship with it. I saw that my punk tattoos hurt my relationships with workers rather than helped and I covered them up. I spent my nights with my fellow organizers/radicals/ revolutionaries/friends pushing ourselves by engaging in self-criticism. We sometimes called them "struggle sessions" because of how tough we were on each other. But it was this time that refined my vision of a new world and the way to get there.

In California, theory did not matter. In California, democracy and perfection did not matter. In California, three things mattered: 1. Did you push yourself? 2. Did you push your comrades? 3. Did you push workers?

Even in this, I continued to believe that I could make my new political insights merge with my version of anarchism: perhaps anarchism wasn't about freedom, but about winning power for workers. After 12 years on the left and three in the deserts of California, I was coming back to a major city with my mind set: I was an anarchist, who believed that my goal was to build working class power and to do that by building working class organizations.

For my first two years in Chicago, I continued on the same path I had in California. I built my union and thought of myself as an anarchist. I was wrong.

A few months ago I started getting involved with group called "Finding Our Roots: Midwest Anarchist Organizing." I sat through meetings with the folks that I thought would be on the same page as me. I heard proposals on "Tribal Sovereignty," "Race and Anarchism," "Bicycle Workshops," "Democracy vs. Consensus," there was nothing about organizing. To them anarchist organizing was about "us" as anarchists or it was about what "others" are or should be doing. They could only talk about the "others" in tribes or in races that weren't represented; they could only talk about the way anarchists govern themselves and about the culture of the left through bikes or recycling or gardening.

I had come to believe that anarchism was about working class power, but the political concerns of these anarchists made me question this belief. I spent years like Mao's frog at the bottom of a well. I stared up at the sky and saw something so small. I saw the world of the folks at "finding our roots." My life made me jump out and see the world around. Our struggle is so big. We are so small and we have so much to do. I felt all alone as the ideology of half my life faded away.

The world is not black and white; the world that I am in, that I organize in is full of shades of gray. After 15 years on the left, I have emerged from the bottom of my well, and not only am I able to look at the whole world, I am comfortable seeing the dirt and the grime that has to accumulate under my fingernails.

"This, therefore, is a faded dream of the time when I went down into the dust and noise of the Eastern market-place, and with my brain and muscles, with sweat and constant thinking, made others see my visions coming true. All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. I did." T.E. Lawrence.

I think this quote gets to the heart of what it means to be an organizer. It means to see the full capacity of your class, it means to have faith in yourself and those around you and lead them into a struggle. It means to place your heart and soul on the line. It means to work for the world that you want. It means to be dangerous and it means to have the responsibility of the world on your shoulders. Yesterday I was an anarchist; today I am an organizer. I am ready to lead the working class in a struggle and I am ok that the politics are less clear.

source (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=204395488&blogID=386525258&indicate=1)

Die Neue Zeit
28th April 2008, 07:53
^^^ What kind of politics does he hold now?

Os Cangaceiros
28th April 2008, 08:17
From what I gathered from that, it seems his politics have taken a backseat to "organizing".

Random Precision
28th April 2008, 08:35
Are you "Where the Sky meets the Sea"? I once wrote a poem with that exact title.

Anyway, good stuff. I think it's a sobering reminder of exactly where we are right now as a movement, in America at least.

Dean
28th April 2008, 08:46
Do you suffer from long term memory loss?

Devrim
28th April 2008, 08:49
From lifestyle hippy to union hack, not a particularly interesting journey.

Devrim

The Feral Underclass
28th April 2008, 09:37
Things were clear: America was bad, veganism was good, pacifism was good, hierarchy was bad, jobs were for suckers and school was for sellouts, squats were a pure form of existence and love was meant to be free. Anarchism was clear, it was simple and we knew how the world should be.

That's not anarchism.

The Feral Underclass
28th April 2008, 09:38
From lifestyle hippy to union hack, not a particularly interesting journey.

Devrim

Well put.

black magick hustla
28th April 2008, 10:32
man fuck american anarchism

black magick hustla
28th April 2008, 10:37
I remember seeing some anarchist-hippie having a banner of "war is ecoterrorism" in some anti-war march and I snapped and started raving.. Honestly, people oppose war because it POLLUTES THE AIR?

Also, the best exemplification of anarchism in my area was this. Basically, Nick griffin came and a bunch of kids were planning to disrupt the place. One of the anarchists, who was a pacifist, complained that the plan was stupid and we should defeat griffin intellectually. Anyway, needless to say, one of the anarchists accused the pacifist of being white and middle class. The pacifist replied to the other anarchist that she was also white. The white anarchist girl, stuttered a bit and said "but...but I am lesbian. So I am opressed!"

Oh my god my mind was blown away

Vi~
28th April 2008, 10:48
:lol:

Cheung Mo
29th April 2008, 04:36
Folks, meet the next Socialist International executive.

Dros
29th April 2008, 04:41
^^^ What kind of politics does he hold now?

Whatever they are, I know they're bourgeois as fuck! :lol::lol::lol:

Bilan
29th April 2008, 08:52
That's not anarchism.

I didn't say this was right or wrong, I think its interesting.

The Douche
29th April 2008, 16:06
Baltimore anarchists left me and my friend standed in DC while our car was in Baltimore one time. The same people are the NEFAC collective, the ARA crew, and the IWW GMB its all the same people, but thier ARA and NEFAC charters were temporarily suspended a while ago because of the irresponsibility.

Seeing what they have, it doesn't supprise me that these kind of people are what the Baltimore anarchist movement was years back.

Red October
29th April 2008, 16:34
He sounds like another lifestyleist who realized how dumb it was but found the wrong solution to those problems.

Os Cangaceiros
29th April 2008, 17:12
Still, "organizing" in and of itself obviously isn't enough. If it was, I'm sure that we would all be content to be in the AFL-CIO or any other debacle of a union. Theory provides a drive, and end goal; organization isn't a goal in and of itself. It's a means to an end. Theory is the shaft of the spear, and organization is the blade. I don't think that you can really have one without the other, assuming that you endorse radical leftist politics to begin with. I think that one should at least have a pretty good idea of where they stand politically.

But, of course, what he described wasn't anarchism to begin with.

Tower of Bebel
29th April 2008, 18:05
I like the article. I think it's a good step for this person to start organising workers instead of being such an individual rebel. Yet this person lacks the theory to become the revolutionary he could be.

Ultra-Violence
29th April 2008, 18:42
That's not anarchism.
^^^^
In America that is sadly the truth. Doesnt me that applys to everybody but yeah its the sad truth

Philosophical Materialist
29th April 2008, 19:09
He realised that sitting around theorising with comrades wasn't enough, and decided to go out into the real world and do what he could to organise workers. It does seem that he hasn't taken a revolutionary perspective in this, at least he's doing something progressive compared to the armchair activists that abound.

Red October
29th April 2008, 19:14
That's not anarchism.

It isn't, but that's what passes for Anarchism here in America. Honestly, I can't blame this guy for becoming frustrated with anarchism when most of the anarchists here are so bad. It's a shame he didn't solve these issues in a better way though. He should have gotten more theory instead of lifestyleism.

Forward Union
29th April 2008, 19:17
I stoped reading after...



Things were clear: America was bad, veganism was good, pacifism was good, hierarchy was bad, jobs were for suckers and school was for sellouts, squats were a pure form of existence and love was meant to be free. Anarchism was clear, it was simple and we knew how the world should be


should name the article "Yesterday I was an idiot"

Os Cangaceiros
29th April 2008, 22:10
Honestly, I can't blame this guy for becoming frustrated with anarchism when most of the anarchists here are so bad.

Is it much different in Europe?

Ultra-Violence
30th April 2008, 00:36
^^^
I wouldnt think so but i wouldnt know id like to here from some european commrades about anarchy over thier but shit the kids over here and thier listen to the same shit and preach the same shit

Devrim
30th April 2008, 06:21
Is it much different in Europe?

I'd say yes, very different.

Devrim

Zurdito
30th April 2008, 06:41
From lifestyle hippy to union hack, not a particularly interesting journey.

Devrim

lol, I'll 2nd the well-put.

like Mao, this guy seemed to have a real talent for expressing mundane concepts in over-complicated ways.

hekmatista
30th April 2008, 08:31
His journey's not over.

MarxSchmarx
30th April 2008, 09:01
Yet this person lacks the theory to become the revolutionary he could be.

IHmm....I wouldn't say the lack of theory, so much as the lack of vision.

It seems this person thought quite a bit about democracy, pacifism, working class politics, resistance, etc... It's just that they never quite put it together in a constructive fashion that could bring the worker's they're organizing to the next level.

Module
30th April 2008, 09:24
From lifestyle hippy to union hack, not a particularly interesting journey.

Devrim
So this guy made the transition from punk lifestylism to class struggle politics, but because he's not a communist, all you can do is call him a hack?

I'm sorry but that really is just condescending bullshit.

Clearly this guy has followed his own road, from, as a teenager, finding a place in what seemed to him to be an intellectually meaningful sub-culture, in response to what he saw was wrong with what was around him, to educating himself through his own experiences as part of the working class.
At what point is he obliged to seek out revolutionary theory, when he finds himself disillusioned with the revolutionary left's, in his case the 'Baltimore anarchist scene's, irrelevance to every day working class life?

Clearly he found himself as more use to the working class as a union organiser than he did as part of an apparently dysfunctional leftist movement. How can you insult him for distancing himself from something which he saw was itself distanced from the genuine class struggle?

The notion that members of the working class can only be respected if they're either an enlightened communist, or a worker yet to be convinced is patronising, and if you don't mind me saying, un-Marxist.
The very fact that this man is actively participating in the class struggle is a reason to respect him, and clearly a "union hack" like him does a lot more for the working class than a lot the 'comrades' that surround him.

Tower of Bebel
30th April 2008, 11:12
I support Desrumeaux. I think the fact alone that this person joined a union is the reason why Devrim made such a conclusion.

Devrim
30th April 2008, 14:37
So this guy made the transition from punk lifestylism to class struggle politics, but because he's not a communist, all you can do is call him a hack?

I'm sorry but that really is just condescending bullshit.


I support Desrumeaux. I think the fact alone that this person joined a union is the reason why Devrim made such a conclusion.

Actually, no, it isn't. I have a pretty good idea who this is, and I think that he is a union hack. At the moment (if he is who I think he is) you can find him on Libcom defending his unions attack on the Labour Notes conference.

I don't make that conclusion about workers who join unions, and I do draw a distinction between workers who are members of unions, and full time union organisers.

Devrim

Ultra-Violence
1st May 2008, 03:40
I'd say yes, very different.

Devrim


i dunno for some reason i dont belive u nothin personal but i dont think its very differnt.

black magick hustla
1st May 2008, 03:46
To be honest, I have a soft spot for the early 20th century Ilegalists like the Bonnot Gang. I mean, they were politically pretty worthless, but atleast they were hardcore enough to satisfy my romantic adolescent fantasies. The american lifestylist "illegalist" is just ... cute like a puppy.

Devrim
1st May 2008, 08:08
i dunno for some reason i dont belive u nothin personal but i dont think its very differnt.

So, I take it that you are familiar with the anarchist political organisations in Europe, groups such as AF, SolFed, and CWF, in the UK, WSM, and Organise! in Ireland to just consider the English speaking countries. If you look to France you have FA, two CNTs, CSR, UAS, AL, OCL, OLS, CGA.

The US meanwhile only has one national anarchist organisation, the WSA, and I don't think they have a very wide distribution. NEFAC should also get a mention despite being regional. Even though, it points to a bit of a difference.

All 'socialist' tendencies are weaker in the US, and generally have less relevance, or even orientation to the working class.

Devrim

Comrade-Z
1st May 2008, 11:26
So, I take it that you are familiar with the anarchist political organisations in Europe, groups such as CF, SolFed, and CWF, in the UK, WSM, and Organise! in Ireland to just consider the English speaking countries. If you look to France you have FA, two CNTs, CSR, UAS, AL, OCL, OLS, CGA.

The US meanwhile only has one national anarchist organisation, the WSA, and I don't think they have a very wide distribution. NEFAC should also get a mention despite being regional. Even though, it points to a bit of a difference.

All 'socialist' tendencies are weaker in the US, and generally have less relevance, or even orientation to the working class.

Devrim

I want to clarify, though, that all these anarchist organizations that you name off, they do have some numbers (500+ members?) and real presence, not just on paper or on internet pixels, right? I ask because that's how a lot of U.S. anarchist organizations are, unfortunately. You could probably find lots of supposed U.S. anarchist projects or grouplets or whatever, but either they are like 5 people, or they were a small group that put up a website or put out a 'zine, shortly thereafter fell apart, but have that website or 'zine still lingering around which gives the sense that there's a lot more anarchist activity in the U.S. than there really is.

There are about 2,150 people in the "Anarchists on Facebook" group, and the number has been steadily rising over the last year, which is good. But sadly, that number is probably within an order of magnitude of the true number of anarchists in the entire U.S. (not everyone uses facebook, of course, but still...) :confused:

Devrim
1st May 2008, 14:18
It depends what you classify as a presence. If we look at the UK anarchist groups, I would imagine that they all three have 100 or less members. They do, however, have continuity (AF about twenty years, CWF a little more, and SolFed (with name changes) since 1945.), and a regular press. I think that they are more serious than a few people who put out a zine, or got together a website. The WSM in Ireland I believe has about 50 members, and a similar continuity. This may sound small, but then again Ireland has a lower population than the city where I live.

It all depends what you mean by the word anarchist though. We include members, and sympathisers of what we consider to be anarchist groups, and people trying to form anarchist groups. This means that we probably wouldn't consider the majority of people on Revleft who call themselves anarchists to be so. Nor would we consider the 'anarchists on Facebook' to have much to do with anarchism.

Devrim

Ultra-Violence
1st May 2008, 18:58
U can have all of those groups and? are they supporting immigrants rights over thier? what are they doing? please elaborate

i still think its not really different for the simple fact that i know for a fact that thier a bunch of stupid as lifestylist over their in europe too its just not some american phenomana its a first world thing and privelged bougie ass people thing.

Devrim
1st May 2008, 20:00
U can have all of those groups and? are they supporting immigrants rights over thier? what are they doing? please elaborate

Why not contact them and find out?


i still think its not really different for the simple fact that i know for a fact that thier a bunch of stupid as lifestylist over their in europe too its just not some american phenomana its a first world thing and privelged bougie ass people thing.

I don't think that it is a 'first world thing'. There are 'lifestyle' anarchists in Europe too. I think that the ratios between them and real anarchists are very different though.

Devrim

Luís Henrique
1st May 2008, 21:20
First of all, there is a problem of credibility with the OP. Evidently it is a first-person account, and, as such, the natural self-endearment should be discounted. If everything was as we are told there, this guy would evidently be just growing up and understanding better what class struggle is. Given the fact that we should not take a first-person account too literally, and what we know about American trade-unionism, it is quite probable that something different - perhaps even radically different - is going on there.

But even if this guy is a total reformist goon - a union hack as devrim puts it - we should understand that a lot of the appeal reformism has for so many workers also has to do with weaknesses of the left. Some of our anarchist comrades here have decried that the OP's description of anarchism is invalid. It may well be so, and I'm even inclined to believe them. But, whether this is anarchism or not, whether it is leftism or not, we should recognise that this attitude:


from punk rock kid with a mohawk and tattoos on my ribs and shoulders to a union leader with a mortgage and kid and the responsibility of thousands of workers on my shoulders. I often find myself thinking back to when my politics were just forming and how simple those days and those politics were. Things were clear: America was bad, veganism was good, pacifism was good, hierarchy was bad, jobs were for suckers and school was for sellouts, squats were a pure form of existence and love was meant to be free. Anarchism was clear, it was simple and we knew how the world should be. We reached for that world by forming small collectives, putting out zines or records, doing punk concerts where we preached to our fellow punks and complained about the world. Being an anarchist meant living and thinking as an anarchist more than it meant making anarchism a reality.

is by no means far away from what passes as "leftism" in too many circles. Here in revleft even -


veganism was good,

We have more than the reasonable share of threads about vegetarianism and associated issues (animal rights, zoophiles' rights, etc); some of them even stickied. Evidently some people at least take it for granted that vegetarianism and leftism go hand in hand, and that animal rights are a natural or logical extension of human rights.

Now it is true that


pacifism was good

is a lot less common among us. We have our hippies here, of course, but they are a small and quite marginal minority. What is quite common, on the other hand, is its "opposite", or, perhaps, "enemy twin": the cult of violence in abstract, the glorification of death and sacrifice, which is perhaps even less leftist than sheer pacifism.

This is curious, because militarism requires hierarchy, and still


hierarchy was bad

is a quite common feeling here. Much more worrisome than any of these, however,


jobs were for suckers and school was for sellouts

is an attitude reflected by some in revleft; and it is certainly a completely petty-bourgeois mindset. Jobs certainly are for losers - and that is what we are, losers. The "winners" are our enemies, and the point of the left is turning this upside down, so that we, the losers, win over the bourgeois "winners".

This is also probably associated with


mohawk and tattoos on my ribs and shoulders

Evidently there are cultural differences between countries, but in Brazil at least you will find difficult to get a job if you dress in "contestatory" ways - and so, sporting such fashion items is usually a declaration of class: it means, "I am not a proletarian, I can dress in whatever way I wish, because I don't need a job to make a life".

Those attitudes and ideas, I would say, are even more distant from a revolutionary mindset than vulgar working class reformism is. They are certainly detrimental to the left and to the working class, and our "hero" is right about they being totally removed from the average working class guy's experiences, needs, and aspirations. He may be wrong in his alternative choice - but even if he is a reformist of the worst kind, he still expresses something we should at least give some thoughts about: the working class as a whole is in fact reformist these days. There are many reasons for that, of course, and it should never justify one's decision to become a reformist also. But one of those many reasons is the left's distance from the working class; and what passes for "leftism" among too many people is not better, and in many sences is even in fact worse than reformism.

Luís Henrique

Ultra-Violence
2nd May 2008, 18:48
Why not contact them and find out?



I don't think that it is a 'first world thing'. There are 'lifestyle' anarchists in Europe too. I think that the ratios between them and real anarchists are very different though.

Devrim


PM thier contact Info and ill be glad too your the one boasting about em


and i dunno the only anarhcist ive seen put it down on a consistant basis over thier in europe is the greek but then i again i probably dont know the details but eh

bcbm
2nd May 2008, 21:22
and i dunno the only anarhcist ive seen put it down on a consistant basis over thier in europe is the greek but then i again i probably dont know the details but eh

Being able to fight police and blow off lots of bombs does not necessarily indicate any connections with workers and their struggles, etc. Not to say those things do not exist in Greece, but I know only what I have heard and it seems organization on that front is lacking.

Outside of that, I think a lot of UK/Irish anarchist groups suffer from problems similar to the US, though not identical. At least that is what I gather from my time there and talking with anarchists from the area the past few days.

Outside of the English speaking countries, things are more complicated but there seems to be less of the lifestyle-and-nothing-else politics, though issues of how anarchists should be living in this society are actually more central.

Devrim
3rd May 2008, 02:25
PM thier contact Info and ill be glad too your the one boasting about em

I am not boasting about them. I am not an anarchist, nor do I live in Europe, so why on Earth would I be boasting about European anarchism?

I am merely stating my observations.

If you want to write to them you could start with the English, and Irish ones:

http://www.afed.org.uk/org/index.html
http://www.londonclasswar.org/
http://organiseireland.blogspot.com/
http://www.solfed.org.uk/
http://www.wsm.ie/

Devrim

Ultra-Violence
7th May 2008, 00:39
hey srry bout that u just made it sound like u were from europe
thanx for the contact info really intersing stuff

Devrim
7th May 2008, 08:03
u just made it sound like u were from europe


Location is in the right hand corner. I used to live in Europe, and have lived in three or four European countries.

Devrim

TheAnarchyKid
7th May 2008, 21:25
I like it, or at least most of it when he said food not bombs wasn’t worth his time, I think its worth everyone’s time it may not stop the problem but it takes the pain away just for a second it when that food hits your stomach you are human again.