Results 1 to 20 of 38
Communiqué of action against rapist
i. communiqué
This is an unwavering political statement, a conscious effort to politicize an event without being apologetic or defensive. This statement is written by a collective of women who came together in the spring of 2010 based on shared experiences and concerns surrounding patriarchy and sexual violence within the radical scene and beyond. In our meetings and discussions, we learned that many of the women within our network have experienced some form of sexual violence. It is no coincidence that we have had this experience with power. Rape is not a personal misfortune but an experience with domination shared by many women. When more than two people have suffered the same oppression the problem is no longer personal but political – thus, rape is a political matter (New York Radical Feminists Manifesto, 1971).
Violence against women contributes to a system of power, organizing society into a complex set of relationships based on a sometimes invisible and internalized assumption of male supremacy. Rape is not the only form of control that male-bodied individuals can practice in romantic, friend, or comradely relationships. Physical as well as emotional abuse function as ways of maintaining involuntary hierarchies and control over women, female sexuality, and reproductive systems.
The silence and secrecy that often surrounds issues of power and domination should in no way to be taken as complicity, however, we as women and survivors will remain silent no longer.
Ideologically speaking, male-bodied anarchists and communists align with principles of egalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism, yet daily practices in this regard oftentimes fall short. We have repeatedly seen a chasm between theory and praxis in male-bodied treatment of women and other oppressed people. We have seen over and over again, male-gendered behaviors reproduce the very systems of domination that we are fighting to dismantle. We refuse to allow this to continue.
In the course of our meetings, we identified one male-bodied individual as a repeat perpetrator of sexual violence against female-bodied people: Jan Michael Dichter, also known as Maus. This particular individual, whose vocabulary consisted of anti-patriarchal jargon, had committed sexual violence before, and participated in survivor-defined accountability processes. Since he continued to transgress boundaries, raping and sexually assaulting women in Boston and Santa Cruz, we decided to confront him. We met him at his home and verbally confronted him. He refused to take responsibility and his words were manipulative and insulting. When he refused to shut up, we shut him up. The intent was to inflict pain, albeit it would only be a small portion of the amount of pain his victims have felt.
We did what had to be done out of sheer necessity. As radicals, we know the legal system is entrenched in bullshit – many laws and legal processes are racist, classist, heterosexist and misogynist. Alternative accountability processes, much like the traditional ones, often force the survivor to relive the trauma of the assault and force her to put her reputation – a problematic concept in itself – on the line as “proof” of her credibility. They end up being an ineffective recreation of the judicial process that leaves the perpetrator off the hook, while the survivor has to live through the memory of the assault for the rest of her life (Anonymous communiqué from NYC, 2009). The US legal system and the alternative community-based accountability processes are simply not good enough for survivors, and certainly not revolutionary.
Rape is entangled in a system of patriarchy and domination. It would serve us well to consider rape as part of class and race analysis. It is not only a crime committed by individuals against individuals; it is systemic and structural. It is our material interest as women that pushes us to stand up for ourselves. The material consequences of patriarchy and male supremacy push all women, regardless of how they define themselves ideologically, to fight against our oppression. In our work as a radical community, both female- and male-bodied, we must work to dismantle this form of oppression and domination. We find it an incomprehensible and unacceptable betrayal that our so-called male-bodied ‘friends’ would perpetrate this kind of subjugation of female-bodied comrades. Just because you can articulate feminist theory does not mean that you are to be trusted.
We also find tacit support of male-bodied perpetrators, as well as the hijacking of our collectively defined accountability process particularly offensive. Attempts by some self-identified "male allies" to take control of the action by confronting Maus themselves, pressuring women for inclusion and calling a public meeting without our permission undermined our practice of self-organization. Rather than demonstrating their support these men made it clear that they were unwilling to allow us to act on our own behalf without their involvement. The type of action we took as a group of female-bodied comrades aligns clearly with anti-hierarchical politics and goals of self-determination. If our male-bodied ‘comrades’ want to be considered as comrades, we’d like to see them behave that way.
This action sets a precedent, the beginning of a new kind of accountability process, one that leaves the perpetrator in pain and articulates our call for the dismantling of male supremacy in radical political communities and beyond. We know that Maus is not the only guilty one. We know there are more of you out there...
It would take a revolution to eliminate structural violence; thus an anti-rape agenda must be part of any revolutionary agenda. We demand this now.
http://radicalwomenskitchen.wordpress.com
References:
Anonymous communiqué from NYC (2010),
http://twincities.indymedia.org/2010...razy-*****es-2
New York Radical Feminists Manifesto (1971).
SOURCE: http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node%2F12011
As an addendum to this, I would like to say that this guy Jan Dichter was the sole inspiration for a 2003 essay on "anarcho-scenesters": http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/pr...-sceneism.html
Good riddance.
last night my friend was bawling all night because some anarcho dude fucked her and a few other anarchist girls and manipulated her. idk whats wrong with you anarchos
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
Even socialists and revolutionaries can abuse women, that's why feminism needs to be a part of class struggle and the revolutionary movement.
Well that's what might happen if one focuses on "positive freedom" too much. It just becomes a society which is like a wild jungle - everyone is "free" in the sense that "anything goes", and people have to fend for themselves. It's like the "wild west".
If that's "socialism", then I'm not a "socialist".
My idea of socialism is a system with comprehensive public welfare and where reactionary and harmful elements are removed so they don't cause people problems, not a damn "wild jungle".
This is why it is important to argue this point: socialism is primarily about equality, not freedom. If it's the other way around than it's liberalism, not socialism.
In a socialist society, some "freedoms" would be more restricted than under capitalism - e.g. reactionary and harmful elements will be purged.
Even socialists can be sexist, of course. Just like even socialists can be homophobic, racist and transphobic. Haven't we all seen it before?
On this Mao is indeed correct, revolution is a continuous process, not an one-off event after which we can all put our feet up forever. Even after a successful global revolution, discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc would not automatically go away.
Male domination in radical communities is always problematic. Sexual assault is another manifestation of male domination. I've been a victim of sexual assault and I would never want someone else to go through that experience.
I dreamt of a flower that was so beautiful that when it whithered away and died a tear left my eye. I saw our births, our lives and our deaths. I felt fire paint me with pain and I felt a kiss on my lips with a knife in my neck. Love to heartbreak to self-destruction to birth and to finally learning to frolic back into the same trap with a warm smile.
O|O
My blog: The Riot Slut Rage
This anouncement is dissapointing. Its high on phrasemongering and theory and low on examples. These women go to some radical leftie feminist guy and lord over him some dose of abuse just because of some unclear rumour of some unclear type of rape he supposedly committed at sometime. As if that is a given, and even a correct strategy. So much for taking things by their root, as these women seem to advocate!
I agree that the leftist scene certainly is not free of derogatory attitudes, and that certainly is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, as a guy, I find the tone of this text to be mildly offensive. Especially the first few paragraphs kinda make it sound as if all males were intentionally abusing women. I don't think demonizing men will help the feminist cause at all.
You don't really seem to understand positive freedom. Positive freedom means that everyone is free to fulfill their own potential, to develop themselves, to grow as persons as they wish, to do what they enjoy doing, to learn what they want to learn, etc.
Positive freedom does not mean that there are no responsibilities, duties, morals or rules. In fact, the absence of those would constitute negative freedom. Where there is negative freedom, there can be no positive freedom. The two are mutually exclusive.
Seriously now, I don't mean to insult you, but ... Did you get that definition from Fox News?
Equality and positive freedom go hand in hand. One can not exist without the other. As long as racism, class, sexism, etc. are not abandoned, ergo as long as some parts of society are oppressed, there can be no real positive freedom. Positive freedom entails the right and possibility to equal participation in society. Therefore, you cannot have an equal society that is not free. It either is both or neither.
Keep your Gulags to yourself.
uhhhhhhhhhhh yeah, no.
this guy is a scumbag and got what was coming to him. just because the specific allegations against him are not detailed in this communique does not mean that they were not very specific and out in the open, or that there wasn't a lengthy consensus-based process on how to deal with him.
I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with Iseul's definition unless there's a failure to distinguish Socialism from its goal of Communism.Originally Posted by United Nations
Dann steigt aus den Trümmern der alten Gesellschaft, Die Sozialistische Weltrepublik!
The Soul of Man under Socialism
Any statement that limits posits freedom and equality as a binary, oversimplifies both.
Since when has the idea of the welfare state being excluded from the definition of socialism?
Actually, your definition of "freedom" is not complete. "Freedom" in the socialist sense is not just "freedom of development", which is basically just capitalist freedom, the so-called "equality of opportunity". Socialist freedom should also eliminate much of economic competition as Marx said and is based not just on "freedom of opportunity", but "freedom of need". The freedom to acquire basic needs should be unconditional and not dependent on contribution or ability. In this sense socialism is a dialectical negation of social darwinism.
For instance, during the Iron Rice Bowl era in China's Maoist days, workers are guaranteed a salary even if they did little or no work. That's what I mean by a socialist welfare state, which should include a basic wage to every citizen unconditionally. People should not be forced to work in any compulsive sense under socialism if they do not wish to.
A concrete example: suppose hypothetically that I am really disabled, and objectively I am indeed inferior in capability compared with the majority of people. Does this mean I should not be treated equally and with respect? I really don't think so.
But if you just focus on the "equality of opportunity" and not the "equality of needs" then you might say that since I am literally incapable of taking any opportunity that comes my way, I don't deserve to be treated equally, no?
Do we mean the same thing by "equality"? Socialism believes in "equality at the receiving end", not just "equality of opportunity", which given the fundamental inequality in ability, would inevitability lead to economic inequality. Lenin explicitly said that the highest and lowest wage levels in a socialist society should not exceed 4 times, even if someone does 100 times more work than another. Socialism doesn't just stop at the level of "equality of opportunity".
So you think the re-education and rehabilitation of criminal elements that interfere with other people's "positive freedoms" are wrong? You think the suppression of fascistic elements, such as Lenin's suppression of the fascistic Black Hundreds party, are wrong? You think counter-revolutionary capitalist elements in society should just be allowed to freely operate?
To over-protect the rights of the criminal is equivalent to neglecting the rights of the victim, just as to defend the rights of the capitalist is equivalent to ignoring the rights of the workers. You can't have both.
Are you talking about a temporary welfare state ("socialism" in the sense of a transition phase between capitalism and communism) or about a welfare state as the endgoal? Because from your post it more sounds like the latter.
"Positive Freedom" is not the same as "equality of opportunity" by any means. It is "freedom of development", yes, but in the sense that you are not only allowed to develop yourself ("freedom of opportunity"), but also enabledto do so ("freedom of need").
I don't think re-education and rehabilitation are wrong, where do you get that? I don't think suppressing reactionary elements, to defend the revolution during the shaky period after it has happened, is wrong, either. To be fair though, you were saying that "reactionary and harmful elements will be purged", which sounds a lot like murder to me. And yes, I believe that massmurdering "reactionary elements" is wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "end goal". Communism is certainly much more than just a "welfare state", but the "welfare state" is an element that should be included in communism.
The meaning of the term "purge" has been greatly distorted. The original meaning of this term is just to remove certain reactionary elements from the party, not to kill them. It might include elements of re-education and rehabilitation, but it certainly doesn't mean "mass murder".
There are "freedoms" that have to be curbed for the good of the working class and oppressed people, I mean would you say it's okay to have the EDL marching through a predominantly arab neighborhood? It fits under the banner of "freedom", but in my opinion the residents have every right to keep them out and bar them from practicing their "freedom of speech".
Though I agree it's a bad idea to just go around banning minor things that are seen as bad for society as opposed to changing their core. Some people are far too quick to think something should just be downright banned.
By "end goal" I mean what society should look like after the transitional phase (immediately after revolution, until things are settled) is over. I'm yet to hear of a communist that wants a state in "communism" (meaning the final phase), as "communism" is a classless society, and states are, by their very definition (MLs usually define it as an instrument of class rule), not.
Some may agree that a "welfare state" should be put into place during "socialism" (meaning the transitional phase), though.
I don't believe in uniform party politics, but okay.
I'm putting the term "welfare state" in inverted commas. It doesn't have to literally involve a "state". All I'm saying is that there should be elements of public welfare in communism, perhaps provided by the commune rather than the "state", but much of this is just semantics.
Then say that >_>. The term "welfare state" has massive negative connotations, as does the word "purge", seeing as how actual welfare states have in most cases been inherently counter-revolutionary, e.g. one of the first ones, the German welfare state under Bismarck, was put into place after a few uprisings to satisfy the populace and prevent further revolting.
