Autumn Sandeen pointed out the following on Pam’s House Blend.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/14246/thanksgiving-week-thankfulness-for-pam
As a left wing anarcha-feminist I tend to not spend much time in cultural feminist land as I really do not like hanging out where I am considered down by birth. Feminism, even Lesbian as in LGBT/T Feminism offers me enough space where my very humanity is not held up to abuse or the very legitimacy of my existence questioned.
I have barred certain people of the HBS political identity from posting here as they are abusive of people with transgenderism. Racists, homophobes, religious ideologues and right wingers are not welcome here. So if you are a follower of A Room of Our Own and think you will be able to turn this post into a forum for your bigotry… Think again..
My take on things may be a bit different than the sisters who run Questioning Transphobia as our experiences are different and so is our language. But, even if I put things differently from them or for that matter from Julia Serano, I’m fairly certain that we are seeing the same bigotry standing in opposition to it.
The piece of verbal diarrhea I am referring to may be found at:
http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/no-such-thing-as-a-transsexual/
It is by Margaret Jamison.
I have been out for over 40 years and an activist longer than that. I have watched the history of the movements from within those movements. I have seen their rise and fall, the internal wars that often destroyed them.
The loudest and most vicious forms of anti-transsexual bigotry have often been reflective of what I see as the worst tendencies within the various movements. Julia Serano titled her book “Whipping Girl” and put forth the proposition that transphobia is misogyny directed towards a convenient scapegoat.
Within the early feminist movement there was another tendency. Women who worked the hardest and were among the most dedicated as well as talented were seen as trying to rise above the other women. Some of us who were in the feminist/lesbian movements in those early days did what people with transsexualism have always done. We threw ourselves into that movement whole heartedly, working harder than anyone else. This was because we were raised thinking ourselves to be inferior and never good enough therefore we felt we had to prove our worth by working harder than anyone else.
Over compensation for poor self image. No matter how it gets directed. In one sister it might mean thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery, another constant schooling and the pursuit of the Ph.D. Or being the best feminist one could possibly be.
There was a sister named Beth Elliott, in the Bay Area. She was a member of Daughters of Bilitis. She had the honor of being the first sister I know of who was publicly trashed first in “It Ain’t Me Babe” and later by Robin Morgan.
I didn’t understand it at first. But over the years I learned how Cointelpro worked and sowed seeds of destruction within various progressive groups by attacking people who were dedicated hard workers. Take down one and destroy her or him and you have not only destroyed an individual but any who share a common trait with the person destroyed.
Turn the attacking and defending of the individual into a factional split and the organization is destroyed. It doesn’t matter if the individual was innocent of every charge, fictitious charges; lies told loudly enough in a practice called “bad jacketing” can tear an organization, indeed a movement apart.
I can’t say for sure that what happened to Beth was Cointelpro. It doesn’t matter because even if it wasn’t, the result was the same. One more element in the destruction of the first Lesbian Organization promoting lesbian liberation..
Oddly the charges leveled against Beth and outlined in her book Mirrors: Portrait of a Lesbian Transsexual became the script for every bit of filth that could be leveled at women of a transsexual history by self proclaimed radical feminists and lesbian feminists.
A few years later Sandy Stone, recording engineer for Olivia Records, a lesbian music collective was hit with similar if somewhat different charges setting off a back and forth war of words within the feminist and lesbian feminist press regarding the legitimacy of women of a transsexual history.
Then Janice Raymond dropped her bigoted polemic, The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male. Previous attacks had often been directed at those sisters who were closest to the socially acceptable feminine stereotypes or who were in touch with their sexiness and embraced their sexy female side leaving those of us who were good feminists in our jeans and movement t-shirts feeling safe. Raymond changed all that.
Now those of us who were good feminists, working doing leaflet layout and production, petition signature collecting and all the grunt work of the feminist movement were suddenly as bad as our sisters who were enjoying being sex positive heterosexual women during an era far less uptight than the present.
Things I wish we knew or thought about then that we know now. Raymond was a former Catholic nun and her mentor Mary Daly was originally a professor of theology who became involved in some pretty weird cult like magical thinking regarding theories of hidden matriarchal cultures.
The reactionary cultural feminism that had first stirred with Jane Alpert’s “Mother Right” and was embraced by Robin Morgan, who coincidentally led the lynch mob attack on Beth Elliott. (Morgan’s side of it can be found in Going too Far). Alpert laid out a form of binary gender essentialism that posited the same sort of black and white binary innateness one found in the traditional patriarchal bullshit that ordained the role of women as inferior to men.
It was seriously reactionary at a time when so much of feminism was based on the overlapping abilities and traits of men and women.
Long before GID and the million post-modern word games transsexual and transgender people play now people with transsexualism and transgenderism used that overlapping of traits to argue that maleness and femaleness were a continuum rather than a binary and that we were simply more predominately at the end not indicated by our at birth sex assignment.
But back to Daly and Raymond. Their Catholicism is the source of their ideology not feminism. I may blend anarchism and Marxist class consciousness with my feminism but they had to do an even bigger trick, that is to say they had to build their feminism on a foundation of misogyny.
Raymond’s position reflects that form of Christo-fascism that I first saw at 14 when the priest my mother sent me to for counseling basically told me that I would have to live my life in total denial of what I was or face an eternity in hell. That I couldn’t even think or fantasize about something so intrinsic to my being that I would discard family and risk a life of social ostracism to be. I was born with transsexualism. That was something I can not change.
Yet both the priests and the Ramondites would have me commit suicide either physically or by repression by denying me the legitimacy of my being. This is a denial of my humanity, a form of abuse so severe as to be unacceptable when directed at groups based on race or ethnicity or for that matter when directed at gays or lesbians.
It becomes far more egregious when a lesbian or gay man or for that matter someone claiming to be feminist starts attacking transsexual or transgender people. It is almost as though those doing the attacking are unaware of the real basis for those attacks and how it can be traced back to a chapter in the Bible that is filled with widely ignored rules.
I am speaking of Deuteronomy 22: 5 (King James Bible)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Now most gay and lesbian people as well as most feminists have questioned the manner in which these ancient books of mythology have been used as tools of oppression. One does not have to look very hard to see the Bible as the source of both homophobia and misogyny.

However, the label of abomination is particularly harsh and is followed if memory serves me correctly with the part about how our blood should be upon us suggesting that any manner of violence including murder is justified.

When one listens to the vile and often contradictory slander that is laid upon transsexual and transgender people by bigots like the woman at AROOO one has to ask exactly what TS/TG folks are supposed to do?

We are attacked if we manage to get an education and develop a career. We are attacked if our educational opportunities in childhood were destroyed and we only managed to do sex work.

We are attacked for getting breast implants even though they were not developed specifically for us and the majority of women getting them were assigned female at birth. The excuse for not attacking natal females is that they get them due to having a flawed body image since male dominated media regularly shows ample breasted women as sexy and glamorous.
Ahh, but that is different. Actually it is not. TS/TG people are immersed in the same cultural soup as normborns.

TS/TG people both T to F and T to M can be either straight or gay/lesbian. Some are bisexual yet it often seems that the only form of sex that is acceptable to the bigots is asexuality and even that is probably reason for condemnation. Even self pleasuring is suspect in spite of there being feminist run businesses merchandising sex toys for women including Smitten Kitten and Good Vibrations.

If we get SRS we are mutilated men (or women as the case may be). If not we are men in dresses of which there is no T to M equivalent.

One of the nastiest rejoinders is the one that directs us to remain as we were assigned no matter how miserable we are and to fight sexism and the gender binary from our originally assigned sex. Now I opposed the draft back in the 1960s and as an anarcha-feminist I find the very idea that someone else should be required to fight a war for someone else’s cause questionable at best.

At worst it is like demanding that gay and lesbian people have reparative therapy and live as straight working to end the tyranny of the patriarchal oppression of women in marriage by changing it in a way so that gays and lesbians will no longer have to be gay or lesbian to find relationships where they are equally respected partners. Oh and BTW erase homosexuality.
We have progressed far beyond that, besides Audre Lorde gave us the tagline about how the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
Anarchists do not demand others sacrifice their lives and pursuit of happiness to fight ill defined quixotic battles. Existentially that form of behavior is ethically questionable. It is more characteristic of hate groups than liberation movements.

I saw the purity purges on the left. In the 1970s I actually had someone tell me that in spite of her misogyny Phyllis Schlafly was her sister because of birth and in spite of my being a hard working feminist because of my birth I could never be. That for the same reasons the homophobic Anita Bryant was her sister but no matter how hard I worked at The Lesbian Tide, I was not.

It has always escaped me how people who demand autonomy for themselves when it comes to intimate matters on issues like abortion access and birth control can not see the contradiction in denying TS/TG folks the same self determination and autonomy regarding decisions they might make regarding their own bodies.
Perhaps it is time for those resurrecting the anti-transsexual/anti-transgender rhetoric to engage in what we in Weather called criticism/self-criticism because their bigoted politics suck and are in contradiction with both feminism and gay/lesbian liberation.

Perhaps the people exercising this anti-TS/TG bigotry would be happier among the right wing racist and homophobic hate groups that share the same sorts of bigoted language that show class hatred towards entire classes of people based on fictitious stereotype, even when some in that group may actually exhibit that stereotype.

No gods, No masters

We share with you this inspiring post submission:

A Recipe for Revolution

by Lady Liberty

These are exciting times! The opportunity for a peaceful (although not painless) revolution is upon us.  The masses are slowly coming to the realization that central planning does not work. Witness the failure of existing foreign policy, financial mismanagement, and currency debasement.

In Dr. Gary North’s recent article Digits and Revolution he shows that the revolution is already happening.  To help it along, the recipe is to create Free Market alternatives that put the governmental (central planning) systems out of business.

Many folks are already achieving more personal freedom by actively engaging in counter-economics like the Agorists.

Here are a few excerpts from Dr. North’s article with my comments below:

Years ago, my friend Robert Thoburn, the entrepreneur who developed Fairfax Christian School, was standing in line at the Post Office at Christmas time. The line was very long. He turned somebody next to him and said it would sure be better if the system were run by the government. He got an incredulous look; then that person smiled. Thirty years ago, that seemed like a fruitless observation. Yet, as it has turned out, we could lose the Post Office tomorrow and barely feel it. We don’t use first-class mail to communicate any longer. We use the Internet. We use Federal Express and UPS and other delivery systems to deliver anything really important that we have to send. The Post Office in effect has gone senile.

We don’t sense that it’s gone. Yet the reality is this: we have replaced something with things that are better. Therefore, at some point, we will see the Post Office either go out of business or become simply a forgotten memory. Yet the Post Office is part of the Constitutional system. The Post Office has always been a way for the government to control the flow of information. As Robert Nisbet said in an autobiographical essay, in the year he was born, 1913, the only contact that the average American had with the Federal government was the Post Office. How much contact do you have with the Postal Service today? It delivers mostly junk mail to you. We ought to think of the U.S. Postal Service not as snail mail but as junk mail. It is the junk mail service for the junk mail industry. Even this is subsidized. It gets cheaper rates.

We have seen the demise of the Post Office operationally over the last ten years, yet we have paid almost no attention to this. There has not been a revolution in our thinking about the Post Office. There has simply been a kind of forgetfulness. We haven’t paid much attention to the fact that we don’t need it anymore. This has not taken any kind of an organized political movement.

Dr. North goes on to say:

The Post Office is sacrosanct. It is untouchable. But now it is simply ignored. This is the best way to have a revolution. Create a free-market alternative to a particular government institution, and then refuse to use the boondoggle anymore. At some point, we can simply vote to de-fund it. We can privatize it. Nobody will care, because hardly anybody is using the system any longer.

Here is my slogan for political reform: Replacement, not capture; then de-funding.

Let us take this slogan and begin to apply it to all the government institutions that we deal with on a regular basis. Apply it especially to the Federal government.

We are seeing the creation of a new economy in which we really do not need the Federal government, except for welfare services for the aged. It is going to go bust because of these welfare services. So, the primary objective that we ought to have is to create alternatives to the welfare system. We don’t need to call for the shutting down of a particular government agency tomorrow, although in principle that would be the best way. But that would be an overnight political revolution, and I really don’t believe in overnight political revolutions.

Overnight political revolutions always centralize power. That is what Frederick Engels taught, and that is what I believe. What I believe is best for the country is a quiet social revolution, which is marked by a shift of reliance away from all government money toward free-market and charitable funding. We will simply walk away from the system. When enough people walk away from the system, and the rest of them lose their shirts when the system goes belly-up, we will be in a position to have a real revolution, one in favor of freedom.

This revolution will be one of decentralization and some form of operational secession. I don’t think states are actually going to break away from the union. I believe that the governors and mayors are not going to bother to get Federal grants, because the money is either not available or won’t buy anything. When we get to that stage, we will be prepared for a new period of liberty. That day is coming. The government has shot his wad, and the Federal Reserve, in shooting whatever wad it has left, is going to debase the currency.

The transformation is taking place right under our noses. As George Orwell said, it is a constant struggle to see what is happening under our noses.

How can you participate? If you vote, stop.  Recognize the immorality of voting as so eloquently articulated by Lysander Spooner in his essay No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority and in Ken Schoolland’s Philosophy of Liberty.  Realize that voting is what happens when two wolves and a sheep decide on what to have for dinner.  Simply start using Free Market alternatives to central planner programs.  Vote with your dollars.  Withdraw your support of central planners like the Voluntaryists.  If you are an entrepreneur you have the opportunity to profit by creating and offering alternative services at a lower cost.  If you work for a government agency start making plans to move into the private sector where you will be better recognized for your talents.

Will the central planners give in easily?  No, they will do whatever they can to maintain power.  They will continue to woo voters with the promises of  sharing in the stolen property they take by taxation and majority vote.  If man is to achieve freedom he must stop living off of the backs of others.  Education is the key to freedom.  The internet is helping to make this happen.

Man does not instinctively wish to be the slave of another.  It is against human nature.  Only in his ignorance does he continue to make choices that enslave him.  The innate desire to live is that same desire for liberty.  Without liberty you do not have a life that you can call your own.

Parasites cannot live without hosts.  We can starve the hosts and educate our fellowmen by sharing articles like this one.

Yes, these are exciting times!

Dr. Steven Best leading one of the first anti-vivisection demos in Moscow, Russia.

By Dr. Steven Best

11/28/09

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

We are thankful to all those who have shown keen interest in our recently published “Manifesto for Radical Abolitionism,”[1] and the corresponding Facebook group, Radical Abolition: Total Liberation By Any Means Necessary.[2]

We launched this group in the hope of revitalizing a vegan abolition movement mired in complacency, timidity, and dogmatic slumbers — a small but hegemonic approach paralyzed by pacifism and a cult-like following of an authoritarian leader.

We accurately identified this moribund manifestation as a bourgeois, elitist, single-issue, consumerist, apolitical, pseudo-abolitionism going nowhere fast.

We established that this insular, complacent, and pretentious lifestyle narcissism exacerbates the isolation of veganism and animal rights from other movements. It reinforces the dominant image of a movement of privileged white liberals indifferent to the social, political, and economic realities that devastate and destroy billions of people throughout the world.

We dispelled the disabling illusions of pathological pacifism and exposed the arrogance, aggression, and verbal violence hiding behind the mask of ahimsa and Jainism.

We redefined veganism and abolitionism as social in outlook, pluralist and contextualist in method, and radical in politics.

We said what had to be said.

We framed our approach not just as a critique and negation of lifestyle veganism, “culinary activism,” and bedroom bloggers blathering in cyberspace vacuums, but also as a positive alternative to its blasé bourgeois values and utter sterility. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to suggest new, creative, constructive, and concrete courses of action, such as can thrive only in alliance with a diversity of social movements and progressive political voices. Indeed since our debut on November 13, 2009, people from all over the world ? clearly yearning for new visions, politics, and possibilities – have expressed gratitude for our critiques and enthusiasm for our project, while eagerly requesting suggestions for promoting total liberation.

What follows then are thirteen initial suggestions for building the diversified and unified global movement that alone can dismantle the systems of oppression that have devastated biodiversity, triggered ecological collapse, and thwarted human potential for over ten thousand years ? which is quite long enough. We enjoin those interested in enlivening possibilities for change through a markedly different theory and politics to read, learn, think, grow, and expand their frames of reference until problems and potential solutions come into focus. In this evolutionary process, we mediate theory and practice, such that we learn not only by reading but also by doing; not in solitary confinement, but in dialogue with others.

As we exit the insular comfort zone of single-issue advocacy, and venture into the vast and complex global battlefield of power politics and resistance movements, it is necessary to cultivate the virtues of strength, fortitude, courage, and patience. Building a radical coalition ? one that is unprecedented in depth, scope, and inclusiveness ? is a formidable challenge. One runs into the same wall of dogmatic speciesism among the peace, justice, and ecology crowd of left-wing humanists and sundry ”progressives” that surrounds social consciousness in general and repels subversive ideas and anti-hierarchical politics.

We must approach others with respect and humility, keenly aware that while we have much to teach, we also have much to learn, and to unlearn.

For as we engage others about the monumental significance of the rise and potential fall of speciesism, people will also be challenged to recognize any latent racism, sexism, heterosexism, ablism, elitism, and classism. The project of radical alliance politics, moreover, will not be any easier with the backlash of corporate power and fascist police states, such as is already underway.

Yet with past publications, conferences, and alliance building projects in numerous countries, and with the current Manifesto and Radical Abolition Facebook group, we have initiated the process of dialogue and bridge-building indispensible for a mass, multidimensional movement with the potential for revolutionary change.[3] Our modest goal is to help break new ground and plant the seeds for global resistance and social reconstruction.

The politics of total liberation have yet to be invented, and we hardly pretend to understand all the questions, let alone have all the answers. But we know the animal rights “movement” is at a standstill and impasse, and that we need a new way. We know that the hegemonic model of vegan abolitionism was co-opted in conception; emerged dead-on-arrival; and was doomed to fail. It was, is, and always will be fatally flawed in its hermetic state of isolation; its religious conviction in the possession of Truth; its dogmatic censure of dissent; its mind-numbing denial of social and ecological crisis; and its collective hallucination of peaceful change.

This is the first of many drafts, and we seek your suggestions for further actions and your input on the politics of total liberation overall. We hope you will join us in the exciting, experimental process of building new communities and broader alliances by utilizing strategies such as we suggest below. Please share your experiences and ideas in our discussion forum and elsewhere. A global crisis and challenge such as humanity has never before faced is upon us. We have no time to waste. Apathy and complacency are more dangerous enemies than capitalism itself.

*********************************************

1) Begin with a thorough and ambitious reading project that provides grounding in history, social theory, political movements, and political economy (i.e., the critical analysis of the capitalist economy and the decisive influence it has on aspects of reality, society, experience, and thought). Such a project would involve immersion in Marxist, anarchist, feminist, anti-racist, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti/alter-globalization literature, along with general history.
Difficult? Yes. But who said revolution is easy?

2) While it is essential that you read the manifesto, understand its motivation, and absorb its philosophy, we encourage study of the following books and resources sure to broaden your understanding of total liberation politics:

• The total
  liberation resource page on either Thomas Paine’s Corner (TPC)[4] or Negotiation is Over (NIO)[5] blogs
• Explore total liberation sites such as The Vegan Ideal,[6] Humans, Earth, and Animals Living Together Harmoniously (HEALTH),[7] Superweed,[8] and the Canadian Animal Liberation Movement (CALM)[9]
• Terrorists
  or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (edited by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella II)
• Igniting
  a Revolution: Voices in Defense of The Earth (edited by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella II)[10]
• An
  Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying The Planet and Each Other (by Jim Mason)
• The
  Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery (by Marjorie Spiegel)
• Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust (by Charles Patterson)
• A
  Tale of Two Holocausts (by Karen Davis )
• Animal
  Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (by David Nibert)

3) Contact groups such as Vegan Outreach[11] and urge them to diversify their message in order to reach the struggling working classes, people of color, and financially depressed communities. They must show that good health, compassion toward other animals, and a sustainable environment are vital interests for all and they must acknowledge people who struggle just to survive. While you are at it, ask mainstream groups like Vegan Outreach to stop bashing protests and direct action and trying to squeeze everyone and all approaches into the same homogenized category.

4) Form alliances within your own area and community. Network with other individuals and groups fighting oppression, discrimination, hierarchy, violence, militarism, capitalism, imperialism, and so on (e.g., LGBT groups, racial equality movements, feminists, anti/alter-globalization networks, leftists, anarchists, and environmentalists). Explain to people who are skeptical of privileged white vegans and animal liberationists that our causes are crucially important for ending violence, eliminating oppression, and averting social and ecological crises, as you affirm the need for and validity of their cause. While recognizing positive differences that should prevail, strive to identify shared concerns over issues such as violence, discrimination, capitalist exploitation, and environmental degradation. Introduce veganism/animal rights as a social movement that seeks to eradicate violence and discrimination for all animals — human and nonhuman.

5) Move beyond trendy cafes, upscale malls, and uptown and suburban comfort zones, into areas completely neglected by the vegan and animal rights communities. Veganism needs to be demystified and made accessible to the entire socio-economic spectrum, not just the white privileged elite. It must be repackaged as a cost-effective diet, as well as the healthiest, most ethical, and best path toward ecological regeneration and sustainability. It’s time to engage the other 99% of the population that our communities have blatantly ignored. Teach, but don’t preach; talk, but listen; instruct, and be instructed; support, and you just might be supported in turn. The process of learning about and sensitizing oneself to other causes, histories, cultures, identities, and experiences with oppression not only is instrumental to alliance formation, it expands one’s intellectual and moral horizons. The hard work of alliance politics can then be seen as a process of growth and fulfillment rather than a monumental obstacle or burdensome task.

6) Organize a vegan food drive for the poor and underprivileged in your community. Or, feed people at the homeless shelter or hangout with large batches of vegan chili, cornbread, and ice tea. Send press releases about the event to local media and highlight the connections between poverty and class, various oppressions and speciesism, and the homelessness of human and nonhuman animals alike. Show the world that the dominant image of vegans and animal rights advocates as misanthropes unconcerned with human tragedy is untrue always true and never consistent with our principles and ethics. Demonstrate by example and concrete actions that our social and ethical framework addresses human and nonhuman exploitation alike, and that alliance politics and bridge-building are vital tools for the liberation of one and all.[12]

7) Outreach needs to happen on the Internet as well, so begin building bridges online, while never neglecting the streets. Pick a few individuals or groups on Facebook or MySpace and initiate a discussion about common concerns and potential alliances.[13] Engage them about veganism and animal rights as they address you about their concerns and struggles. Join forums advocating social revolution and find common ground with veteran freedom fighters such as the Black Panther Party.[14] Take the initiative by adding them to your pages or blogrolls and ask them to add you to their sites.

Examine your friends list and wall posts: do you find an overwhelming single-issue focus neglectful of human oppression and struggles with racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and state repression? If so, you might want to diversify your pages and politics. Quite usefully, both MySpace and Facebook allow you to organize your friends into category titles of your choice, such as “European animal liberation,” “feminism,” “anarchism,” and “anti-prison.”

8 ) Moving from the local to the global, research, publish, and educate on the profound changes unfolding in China and India, two crucial flashpoints of change. Indicative of their bourgeois mindset and complete withdrawal from ongoing global crisis for cookie baking in the kitchen, vegan abolitionists utterly fail to discuss the monumental social transformations in China and India (as the world’s most populous nations shift to a consumer and carnivorous society) and the biological and ecological breakdown of mass extinction and global climate change. Initiate the most urgent form of “vegan outreach” yet by locating and working with vegan groups in these countries.

9) Work with newly created total liberation groups, such as the Alliance for Progressive Science (APS),[15] which NIO, TPC, Steve Best, and the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO)[16] formed to combat “Pro-Test” vivisection activist groups in the UK and US.[17] APS urges the abolition of vivisection, it shows how a flawed research model kills nonhuman and human animals alike, and it reveals how the “research” and marketing of drugs is done not to advance science and cure disease but rather to maximize the profits of corporations such as Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

10) Creatively develop new tactics by engaging innovative models such as developed by the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP).[18] Wanting to break through the walls of public apathy and passivity in order to reach and inspire large numbers of people, ACT UP abandoned conventional protest models (which limit people to holding signs and chanting in conditions approved by police) in favor of festive demonstrations and civil disobedience tactics such as sit-ins, die-ins, and building blockades. Other contemporary examples of creative resistance include the “subversive” bicyclists of Critical Mass[19] and the rural women’s Chipko
(“treehugging”) movement in India.[20]

11) Join or start a support network for political prisoners from animal rights, environmental, or political movements. Support actions include disseminating information about their case, writing letters and mailing books and articles, personal visits, sending out flyers, organizing events, and fundraising to help pay for legal fees.[21]

12) Unlike pacifists, radical abolitionists support Animal Liberation Front tactics such as laboratory raids, mink liberations, and economic sabotage. In contradistinction to those who issue blanket condemnations of such actions as counter-productive and “violent,” we see them as legitimate, necessary, and effective ways of stopping the real violence which exploiters inflict on their nonhuman animal victims. We encourage those who do join the underground, however, to carefully research and plan their action. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time; there’s nothing worse than a scared snitch. For advice on working underground by working as an army of one or in a cell with a few trusted comrades see:
http://negotiationisover.com/?p=4033; and for a useful guide to legal and illegal direct action, see: http://negotiationisover.com/?p=1997.

13) Write and publish on NIO, TPC, and social networking sites about your research and experience with alliance politics and creative action. Share your thoughts, concerns, questions, and experiences on the Radical Abolition discussion forum.

*********************************************

We have four key objectives if we are to survive the ecological crisis bearing down on us: (1) abandon all prejudices, including speciesism; (2) educate ourselves and learn to think from a systemic standpoint; (3) dialogue and learn from one another; and (4) form strategic alliances and mutual support networks. There are alliances of domination, or commonalities of oppression (e.g., overlapping ideologies and structures of speciesism and sexism or capitalism and racism), and alliances of liberation, whereby combined forces can provide the battering ram to smash systems of oppression and knock open the door to an alternative future.

Politics as usual just won’t cut it anymore. We will always lose if we play by their rules rather than cast a pox on their house and invent new forms of struggle, new social movements, and new sensibilities. Causes require decisive and direct action: logging roads need to be blocked, driftnets need to be cut, and cages need to be emptied. But these are defensive actions; new movements must be built, ones that incorporate both social and ecological issues in multiracial and global alliances.
Such approaches have been taken by Judi Bari and Earth First!, the environmental justice movement, the international Green movement, the Zapatistas, and alter-globalization struggles against transnational capitalism.

A new revolutionary politics will build on the achievements of democratic, libertarian socialist, and anarchist traditions. It will incorporate radical green, feminist, and indigenous struggles. It will merge nonhuman animal, earth, and human animal standpoints in a total liberation struggle against global capitalism and its omnicidal grow-or-die logic. Radical politics must reverse the growing power of the state, mass media, and corporations to promote egalitarianism and participatory democratization at all levels of society – economic, political, and cultural. It dismantles all asymmetrical power relations and structures of hierarchy, including that of humans over other animals and the earth. It is impossible without the revitalization of citizenship and re-politicization of life, which begins with forms of education, communication, culture, and arts that anger, awaken, inspire, and empower people toward action and change.

The alliances needed for a politics of the 21^st century – the most crucial century in the history of humanity — will not be easy to form. It is difficult to build a single-issue movement, to organize a local group, and even to have a relationship with another person, let alone to build the complex alliances necessary to avert social and ecological catastrophe.

There is no guarantee humans can get it together to overcome apathy, complacency, egoism, fear, and social fragmentation, such that they live harmoniously with one another, other species, and the earth. The one certainty we have, however, is that single-issue reformist politics is a recipe for failure, disaster, and extinction.

[2] http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=309613730182.

[3] On three separate occasions, for instance, Steve Best did extensive lecture tours throughout South Africa, speaking about total liberation to community groups and university audiences, and doing radio, television, and newspaper interviews in Johannesburg and Cape Town. In one significant event, he helped organize and gave the keynote lecture to the first ever total liberation conference in South Africa. Before a diverse audience of 300 people, he debated a panel of activists and humanists on issues such as veganism, animal rights, and alliance politics. For full coverage of the event and the text of his keynote speech, see: http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/onestruggle/index.php; for a video clip of his speech and highlights from the ensuing debate,
see: http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/onestruggle/.

[4] http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/total-liberation/.

[5] http://negotiationisover.com/?page_id=1799

[6] http://veganideal.org/.

[7] http://eco-health.blogspot.com/.

[8] http://pattricejones.info/blog/

[9] http://calmaction.org/.

[10] Terrorist or Freedom Fighters and Igniting a Revolution not only talked about alliance politics, they put it into action. These stimulating anthologies brought together a rich diversity of voices exploring common interests – including activists, academics, poets, artists, political prisoners, feminists, queer theorists, freegans, Native Americans, black liberationists, animal liberationists, and earth liberationists – in conversation over common interests in defeating capitalism, ecocidal systems, violence, and hierarchical domination in all forms.

[11] http://www.veganoutreach.org/.

[12] For advice on a related project, how to start a local Food Not Bombs group, see: http://home.earthlink.net/~foodnotbombs/seven.html.

[13] Examples might include Vegans of Color (http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/),
the American Indian Movement (http://www.aimovement.org/), Earth First! (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2260520127),
Resisting Oppression – India (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112047929155),
and Violence Against Women (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=446738067754).

[14] http://www.blackpanther.org/.

[15] http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/twilight-of-an-idol-%e2%80%9cprogressive%e2%80%9d-science-vs-%e2%80%9cpro-test%e2%80%9d-reaction/

[16] http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/.

[17] http://negotiationisover.com/?page_id=3927

[18] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power.

Also see ACT UP’s “Civil Disobedience Index,” http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/CDindex.html.

[19] http://www.criticalmass.com/.

[20] http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80a03e/80A03E08.htm.

[21] See, for instance, Free All Political Prisoners (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=309613730182#/group.php?gid=75734019762),
Prison Abolitionist (http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com),
Anarchist Black Cross Federation (http://www.abcf.net/abcf.asp?page=warchest),
and Earth Liberation Prisoner Support Network (http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/addresses.html).

Dr. Steve Best is TPC’s Senior Editor of Total Liberation. Associate professor of philosophy at UTEP, award-winning writer, noted speaker, public intellectual, and seasoned activist, Steven Best engages the issues of the day such as animal rights, ecological crisis, biotechnology, liberation politics, terrorism, mass media, globalization, and capitalist domination. Best has published 10 books, over 100 articles and reviews, spoken in over a dozen countries, interviewed with media throughout the world, appeared in numerous documentaries, and was voted by VegNews as one of the nations “25 Most Fascinating Vegetarians.” He has come under fire for his uncompromising advocacy of “total liberation” (humans, animals, and the earth) and has been banned from the UK for the power of his thoughts. From the US to Norway, from Sweden to France, from Germany to South Africa, Best shows what philosophy means in a world in crisis.

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

11/27/09

The following essay is included in the book Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals (Lantern Books, New York, 2004), edited by Dr. Steven Best (Philosophy Professor at UTEP) and Anthony Nocella. To order the book, go to www.LanternBooks.com. To read more about Best, Nocella and the ALF go to www.drstevebest.org.

Simulposted with Negotiation is Over

By Anonymous

The following article, the first and second in a three-part series printed in No Compromise, is one person’s story of her involvement with the ALF. In Part I, she explains how she overcame her fear and excuses and started conducting solo ALF actions. In Part II, she describes how she found partners to help her with her actions and how they worked together as a team. These are useful statements of how and why individuals decide to go underground in order to fight for animal rights.

Part I: How I Came To Join the ALF

To begin, let me say that while associating with animal rights activists (something I try to avoid), I often hear people rhapsodizin6g about articles they’ve read in the press or seen on the news about animals being liberated, laboratories being trashed, lorries being torched, fast food restaurants being burned to the ground, etc. In the course of these conversations it is practically guaranteed that one or more persons will praise the action and wonder, “Gee, how do I hook up with these people?” or “Why don’t these lads contact me?” or “How do I get involved with that group?” This is how I found the answer to that question.

After reading stories about lab break-ins and fur stores being torched, I, too, desperately wanted to join this group. But how? There was really no place to start. All of my friends in the animal rights movement had less interest in illegal direct action than I did, and even those who showed some interest were completely clueless as to how to meet these people.

At one point, I wrote an animal rights group to let them know that I would be willing to help them raid a lab. Needless to say, that letter went unanswered. Finally I realized what I was doing—I was waiting for someone with a plan to drop in out of the blue and ask me to join in a lab raid. Now, stop and think about this. Would anyone who had put hundreds of hours into planning a covert, illegal direct action that could land them in prison for years risk asking a basic stranger for help simply because he or she was a vegetarian or belonged to the local animal rights chapter? NO! (At least not if they want to stay active and out of jail.)

So how did I, or a better question is, how do you, end up “joining” the Animal Liberation Front? That’s easy. Come up with your own plan! Really. It’s not as hard as you think. Let me repeat this important point: Come up with your own plan.

One of the reasons there is not a lot more illegal direct action happening is that there are only a few people willing to invest the time and energy necessary to choose a viable target, research the facts, re-con the place, and conduct any other work necessary to execute a successful direct action. There are always plenty of people who want to help in the actual execution of the plan—people are always willing to share in the “excitement,” but not in the actual work. Simply put, no one wants to help bake the bread, but everyone wants to eat it.

Overcome the Excuses

People dismiss the idea of planning a direct action for many reasons. Nearly all are mere excuses that could easily be overcome. Most commonly, people tell themselves they don’t know anyone who could help in the final execution of the plan. For example, they don’t know who could find homes for X number of animals; they don’t know whom they could trust as a lookout; they don’t know who could loan or rent them a vehicle to use, etc. I want to emphasize here that if you are faced with a problem like this, continue on!

There are many bridges that one can foresee that look uncrossable during the planning of an action. These problems seem irresolvable and often discourage people from continuing on with their plan. Again I must emphasize, continue. These problems either solve themselves or are more easily solved when you actually reach that point of the plan. And in some cases, the plan is aborted for some other reason long before the problem ever has to be confronted. It is important to add that you should expect about four out of five plans into which you’ve invested time and money to fall through. Again, this shouldn’t deter you. If you approach direct action with the knowledge that most of your plans may not work, then you should not be discouraged from battling on if some of your plans do fall through.

While it is not necessary, it is advisable before taking any direct action to read as much literature as possible on the topic. This is much easier to do now thanks to a “revival” in the grassroots animal rights/liberation movement. If possible, any literature pertaining to illegal activities should be mailed to a fake name at a post office box or private mailbox center. If this is not possible, perhaps a well-trusted friend (who could handle police/federal harassment and is not personally involved in illegal activities) would be willing to have it sent to his or her place. Another possibility would be to get this information off a Web site (from a library, campus, or cyber-coffee shop computer).

Though some of these security precautions may seem ridiculous, paranoid, and unnecessary, you will be thankful you followed them if you continue to increase the frequency, severity, and effectiveness of your actions, thus producing more intense local and federal investigations.

An Army of One

But, wait a minute! You still don’t know if there is anyone you can trust. This does not mean that you shouldn’t consider doing an action. When I realized that no one was going to drop in and ask me to help them with their plan—when I finally realized that I was the ALF—I decided to target a fast food restaurant that I had noticed as appearing vulnerable. Though I still didn’t know who could help me with this plan, I proceeded to scope it out the next few nights, still thinking I would find someone to help me.

Though I had no experience at “casing a joint,” it came very easily and naturally. Between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. (the time I decided would be safest to strike the place) I carefully scoped it out. Some nights, dressed head to toe in my jogging gear (now is not the time to be caught there in your balaclava), I jogged up and down the street past the restaurant. I was careful to look for possible activity inside the building, check on any employees’ cars in the parking lot, judge the amount of traffic and police presence, determine how well the parking lot and building were lit, scan for any drive-through or security cameras (to look out for and to sabotage!), etc.

Other nights I walked my boyfriend’s dog up and down the street looking for the same things. In no time at all I was very familiar with the activity of the area (and had walked two emergency escape routes I would take should I be interrupted). I was soon confident with this target. Unfortunately, I still didn’t know anyone I would trust enough to divulge my plans to. I knew what I wanted to do.

The day before I was going to execute my plan, I drove to a neighboring town and bought super glue, spray paint, and some garden gloves from three different stores, making sure to pay in cash at each store. That evening I went for a walk wearing my gloves and ended up picking up two large rocks and half of a brick that I determined was small enough to carry around and handle, yet big enough to smash through the thick plate glass windows of a fast food restaurant.

The First Action

Though I would have felt a bit more comfortable with a partner to look out for me, I was tired of waiting around for apathetic and unmotivated people. That night, dressed in black from head to toe, I went jogging. As I got near the restaurant I slowed to a walk. Seeing that there was no traffic around and facing a dark and empty-looking building, I approached the restaurant.

Walking briskly across the lot, I pulled my mask down over my face. At the rear of the building I quickly took off my black backpack and got out my supplies. I quickly filled the two back door locks with super glue and small pieces of paper clips that I had snipped especially for this occasion. I then proceeded to spray paint slogans over the entire back of the building and on the side with the drive-through window.

This done, I peeked around the building. Headlights were approaching from up the street, so I just remained calm and motionless. My stomach dropped when I saw it was a police car, but the cop drove by without slowing down or looking my way.

Delighted, I walked around to the front of the building and quickly tossed all three projectiles through three separate windows! I saved this part of the action for last because of the loud sound it would make. And, with the three explosions of glass, I quickly sprinted through one of my pre-arranged exits and into a residential area where I quickly vanished. I then removed my black turtleneck and balaclava, ditched them in an apartment complex dumpster, and went home.

My point here is that with enough planning, determination, and self-confidence, one person can pull off a successful action! Of course, the “bigger” or “more severe” the action, the better it may be to have a lookout with clear communications to you. Nevertheless, one person shouldn’t feel helpless and inactive because he or she doesn’t know others who are willing to take illegal direct action. Besides, taking action is your first step in feeling out potential comrades who share the same philosophy as you and are ready and willing to take action.

Part II: Looking for Partners

It is really very difficult to explain how to find close, trustworthy partners who are willing to take the same risks and are knowledgeable and strong enough to withstand heavy bouts of police interrogation, intimidation, and harassment. Though you never plan to be faced with this situation, it is a realistic risk, and you and anyone you work with should understand with a firm knowledge that if this situation arises, you and anyone you work with will not cooperate at all with any law enforcement agencies!

There is no cut and dried pattern or formula for choosing or finding partners. THIS IS GOOD. If there were a pattern or formula, it would open the door for infiltration of law enforcement and corporate agents.

However, executing the fast food action by myself led me to a second person whom I later hooked up with.

Friends and Comrades

Another member of our current cell really was not “chosen.“ We had merely known and trusted each other since high school, when we used to forge passes out of study hall so we could skip school and go swimming in the river.

We had both been vegetarians (and outcasts) in high school, and I taught him about animal rights as he shared with me his views of deep ecology. It wasn‘t long before we started working together. My point here is that there was no formula with which to evaluate my friend. I had spent years with him as a best friend and we pretty much knew each other inside and out.

These are the best kind of partners to have, since you already have an established relationship and friendship that no law enforcement agent would be able to break up. So I‘d like to emphasize that this is the best way of “finding“ a partner: working with someone you have a history with. And always trust your intuition. If someone doesn‘t feel right or you get “weird vibes“ from him or her, DON’T work with that person! The opposite is true here also, but I don‘t need to explain that, since when you find that true connection, the feeling is pretty much unmistakable.

The other partner I connected with after the fast food restaurant action had a long history in the environmental movement. I only shared my interest in illegal direct action with her after she had complained to me consistently about a billboard advertising animal products and how someone should correct the billboard so consumers would know exactly what suffering that product really hid.

After hearing repeated complaints from my friend (was she checking me out, too?), we went for a walk. Here I told her that the billboard she hated so much appeared to be easily accessible (I had already re-conned it) and that if she wanted to help redecorate it, that would be jolly.

Needless to say, she thought this was a grand idea, and, within a matter of days, the billboard had been corrected. Red paint bombs made from Christmas ornaments also gave the appearance of blood running down the advertisement.

Critiquing the Action

The day after the billboard action, my friend and I went on another walk (we NEVER talked in a house or car!) to discuss and critique our action. This may seem silly to some, but it is the best way to learn from your mistakes and make improvements for further actions.

Meetings like this—restricted to only those involved with the action—are great to learn from. Other than that they should never be discussed again. In this case, we realized that the system we had set up to warn of cops (a loud whistle) didn‘t work. I had been warned twice of police in the area by her whistle, but I was never sure when to resume work on the billboard. Also, the whistling merely attracted attention to my partner rather than to me.

Because of this, we ended up putting together our savings and buying a police scanner, frequency book, and a cheap pair of two-way radio headsets. Because of the headset‘s low price ($49.95 for the pair), I knew they would not be reliable for an action where the lookout is a long distance away. Nevertheless, they would suit our needs for more billboard, fast food restaurant, and fur shop actions.

Building Trust and Solidarity

These are the actions that should be done most often to build up confidence, unity, and comradeship. The more of these types of actions done, the more competent, confident, and experienced you and your cell will become, and you can soon “move up” to bigger and better actions (bigger and better being defined here as larger actions with more severe amounts of damage being done to the target. This, of course, includes arson attacks).

These actions will come in time if you and your partners stay active and build up a unity and confidence that becomes almost intuitive. Myself and the two individuals I currently work with have almost a psychic connection in which we usually know what the other two people are thinking. This will not happen overnight, and if you expect it to, you will be let down. That is why I must emphasize motivation and persistence.

It took me about two years of actions like this, and now I currently work regularly with two separate cells and a handful of other people who occasionally seek my assistance. Through persistence and perseverance you will build up a network of resources including tools, money, people, and experience.

If you tell yourself that there are no suitable targets to strike, you should stop and ask yourself if this is what you really want to be doing. If it is, just go to the nearest phone book and let your fingers do the walking. The yellow pages will give you the names, phone numbers, and addresses (and a map of the local area) of countless animal exploiters. This is an invaluable and easily accessible resource, available 24 hours a day in any city or town you may find yourself in.

In one instance, our cell drove two states away to “remodel“ an establishment profiting off of animals‘ deaths. Once there however, we realized this would not be possible. Instead of going home disappointed, we simply went to the nearest pay phone and let our fingers do the walking. Before we left that state, one animal abuse establishment had been completely destroyed!

Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com

For the latest updates on the animal liberation movement, visit NAALPO at http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

If you have a Facebook account, don’t forget to look up Thomas Paine’s Corner’s Facebook page via the “search” feature and become a fan.

And if you have a MySpace account, don’t forget to friend Thomas Paine’s Corner at www.myspace.com/anarchovegan

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth!

To support or undertake animal rights and liberation activism in the Kansas City area, visit Bite Club of KC at http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/.

Today, I spent the day with two friends shooting(photographing) at an abandoned military area. It’s filled with unused houses and lot’s of land left to rot.. It’s fenced in by huge fences and some places spikes on top of them. To keep this land protected so it can rot away in peace.

All of the houses is okay standard, they all have toilet and bath facilities fully usable. You would only need some clean up and fix up to live there. Even the electricity looks like you only need to put it back up.

But no we can’t do that can we? Because the fucking military owns it, and decideds it desitiney, which is rotting away.

It makes sense you know, because all those homeless people out there they don’t need any place to go do they?

We have so much money in this bloody nation, that we can let houses rot away, fenced in for no one to access. It makes me sick!!

Land, property, boarders, fences it’s all just bullshit!

Please squat this place, please use it, please please please. These houses want to be loved, they want to give people good memories, there is gardens waiting to be transformed in to beautiful places for you to spend your sunny days barefoot.. They want to be lived in, they want to be used.

But they are empty, all the memories are haunting the walls..

Land reform anyone ?

This guy is definitely highly educated and one smartarse.

I couldn’t possibly even go to UC Irvine, let alone write an argument like that.

So I don’t.

Oh… the angels serenade.

New Kind of Mind: The Difference Between Libertarianism and Anarchism:

I typically describe myself as a “libertarian anarchist.” People who don’t understand what either word means will essentially assume that I’m doubly insane. Libertarian is a more friendly word; anarchist is generally perceived to be hostile. Libertarians are usually considered fringe; anarchists are usually considered dangerous. Yet some people, especially people who are libertarian or anarchists, view the words as essentially the same thing. Analytically speaking, it seems there should be a distinction even if the situation likens itself in many cases to a square being a rectangle, but rectangle not necessarily being a square.

Libertarianism is an ethical doctrine. It is concerned with rights. Most commonly this right is referred to as the right to self ownership which includes the right to the product of your labor. For some (probably most) libertarians, this is essentially a faith based, though not necessarily theological, concept. It is taken on faith that men are imbued with this right through nature or that that these rights are implied by the nature of truth, knowledge, existence, reason, etc. What is ironic about this faith based libertarian concept is that it is widely accepted on face value by most participants in modern (classical) liberal societies. It is conservative (not as in American Conservatives, but as in historically organized society) culture that refutes the idea of self ownership by subjecting the behavior of the individual to the enforced law of the moral majority. However, the concept of self ownership is thoroughly ignored by most in society even while they champion it as the bedrock of their modern culture of tolerance. This is because most of society is conservative and Rightist as opposed to liberal and Leftist. This betrayal of self ownership is implied by the aggression of the government that is condoned by the populace. Even commonplace policy positions in support of a state single payer health care system or a central bank or drug prohibition demonstrate the contempt the populace shows to the individual who libertarians argue should hold sole dominion over his own life. The popular opinion demonstrates a fondness for collective ownership of individuals – a collective slavery, if you will – that the scope of control over humanity extends past one’s own fingertips to some degree.

The other form of libertarianism holds that libertarianism is a desirable ethical standard because it results in the most beneficial outcomes. Consequentialists do not operate on faithful assumptions about the nature and rights of men. Their considerations are directed towards a scientific standard that observes and deduces that greater degrees of self ownership and liberty result in a flourishing of society in terms of wealth and culture. While not completely comfortable throwing myself into either category (since I do believe in Divinely granted human rights to self ownership), I probably fit best in the consequentialist camp.

The libertarian principle of non-aggression simply is a means of asserting the premise of self ownership. The non-aggression principle states that one may/should not use coercive physical force to violate the self ownership of any other person. The principle clearly understood merely asserts that all actions should be voluntarily untaken. Likewise, toleration is a key characteristic of libertarian ethics. Libertarians are not required to approve of the actions of others, but, so long as those actions are non-coercive, persuasion is the only ethical outlet for change. The use of force is illegitimate for libertarians. Only the initiation of such force justifies the use of force and only as retaliation. What is clear is that libertarians oppose government. Government is any actor, individual, or collective that negates the liberty of self ownership – any entity that claims control over another person or persons. Libertarians generally concede the necessity of institutions that may seek to prevent violations of liberty in advance through the use of defensive tactics. The purest and most cogent form of libertarianism is anarchistic because the existence of a State requires the involuntary submission to pay for the monopoly services of that State, an obvious violation of liberty.

Anarchism has nothing to do with rights or ethics. The concept of “philosophical anarchism” may, but that is very similar if not the same as libertarianism. Anarchism is a political concept that promotes ideas hostile to the State. The State can essentially be viewed as a self enforcing monopoly with power over a specified although possibly indefinite region. Because governing institutions are most effective at depriving individuals of liberty, they are well equipped to claim dominion over and submission to itself, while aiming to protect itself from competition. The most effective tool at the disposal of a State or a government that wishes to obtain or maintain Statehood is propaganda which to reinforce its Laws through pop justification. Statist institutions maintain their monopoly through force and through the repeated demonization of competing government and defensive services. Usually, States will seek to expand their role from just that of a governing body to one of greater scope ie education, health care, postal services, etc. States are emblematic and self-reinforced by their governing AND governed classes. In monarchy, a single person is put in charge of the lawmaking process. In oligarchy, a few people decide the laws. In aristocracy, the wealthy decide the laws. In a democracy, the law is decided by the majority of people. Anarchism is opposition to all of this. Fundamentally, anarchism is a strain of political anti-authoritarianism that regards the authority of the State governing class as illegitimate. Anarchists seek the abolition of the political State and its resultant law in lieu of a new order of organic law.

The confusion between anarchy and chaos is fair to a degree. With the abolition of the State, the law would be the natural outcome of community, market, and physical dominance. However, this does not distinguish it from the State at all. The society that approves the will of the State determines the legitimate scope of the State. Furthermore, the rule of the State is enforced strictly through physical dominance. In an anarchist society, one could act “anti-socially” to any degree he pleases and can get away with, but it is unlikely in civil society that he would last very long. The fear that these people would run rampant is unwarranted. The benefits of cooperation discourage “anti-social” behavior. The cooperative aspects of society have been learned and evolved into to deal with “anti-social” behavior. So, any man exposing the world to tyranny would not likely have long before voluntary and contractual coalitions of people were to fight back. Even if this were not the case, the pro-State assumption that “anti-social,” and in this sense I mean both malevolent and incompetent, people will not infiltrate the State apparatus is false. In fact, the opposite is true. The State apparatus, not existing on a competitive level to help ensure quality and customer satisfaction, involves the gradual usurpation of power by the “anti-social” (of course assuming the originators of the State were not themselves “anti-social”). The cohesive force in anarchist society is contract and cooperation for mutual benefit. In other words, anarchist society promotes the thriving of the market by leveling the playing field, increasing transparency, and reflecting the demands of society over State.

An interesting way to view the anarchist struggle is to envision a society of political ladders of power. Statist leaders attempt to climb these ladders to gain power and oversight. Anarchists shake the ladders and expose as phony the pretense under which Statists argue they had a right to become lawmakers instead of market participants in the first place. As the evolution of Statism takes hold and the justifications for it become more broad, the privilege of Statism extends to a larger base of people, starting as monarchist and culminating in democratic. Anarchists are there the entire time to shake the ladders and challenge the idea there should be ladders at all.

In summation, libertarians promote voluntary human interactions as morally imperative or advantageous. Anarchists oppose others holding dominion over them. Libertarianism is the liberation of all individuals from the authority of society. Anarchism is the liberation of self from (political) authority. A (pure) libertarian is an anarchist, but an anarchist is not necessarily a libertarian.

Next Up: Why I Am First and Foremost an Anarchist and Less of a Libertarian

“Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.”
–Thomas Paine

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
–Barry Goldwater

#87 What are the forms of animal rights activism?
#88 Isn’t liberation just a token action because there is no way to give homes to all the animals?
#89 Isn’t AR activism terrorism because it harasses people, destroys property, and threatens humans with injury or death?
#90 Isn’t extreme activism involving breaking the law (e.g., destruction of property) wrong?
#91 Doesn’t extreme activism give the AR movement a bad name?

Additional topics: Media Portrayal Violence PETAs Role Mink Releases Grave-robbing Working for animal abusers Converting Carnivores Captive animals

#87 What are the forms of animal rights activism?
Let us first adopt a broad definition of activism as the process of acting in support of a cause, as opposed to privately lamenting and bemoaning the current state of affairs. Given that, AR activism spans a broad spectrum, with relatively simple and innocuous actions at one end, and difficult and politico-legally charged actions at the other. Each individual must make a personal decision about where to reside on the spectrum. For some, forceful or unlawful action is a moral imperative; others may condemn it, or it may be impractical (for example, a lawyer may serve animals better through the legislative process than by going on raids and possibly getting disbarred). Following is a brief sampling of AR activism, beginning at the low end of the spectrum.
The spectrum of action can be divided conveniently into four zones: personal actions, proselytizing, organizing, and civil disobedience. Consider first personal actions. Here are some of the personal actions you can take in support of AR:
Learning — Educate yourself about the issues involved.
Vegetarianism and Veganism — Become one.
Cruelty-Free Shopping — Avoid products involve testing on animals.
Cruelty-Free Fashion — Avoid leather and fur.
Investing with Conscience — Avoid companies that exploit animals.
Animal-Friendly Habits — Avoid pesticides, detergents, etc.
The Golden Rule — Apply it to all creatures and live by it.
Proselytizing is the process of “spreading the word”. Here are some of the ways that it can be done:
Tell your family and friends about your beliefs.
Write letters to lawmakers, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Write books and articles.
Create documentary films and videos.
Perform leafletting and “tabling”.
Give lectures at schools and other organizations.
Speak at stockholders’ meetings.
Join Animal Review Committees that oversee research on animals.
Picket, boycott, demonstrate, and protest.
Organizing is a form of meta-proselytizing–helping others to spread the word. Here are some of the ways to do it:
Join an AR-related organization.
Contribute time and money to an AR-related organization.
Found an AR organization.
Get involved in politics or law and act directly for AR.
The last category of action, civil disobedience, is the most contentious and the remaining questions in this section deal further with it. Some draw the line here; others do not. It is a personal decision. Here are some of the methods used to more forcefully assert the rights of animals:
Sit-ins and occupations.
Obstruction and harassment of people in their animal-exploitation activities (e.g., foxhunt sabotage). The idea is to make it more difficult and/or embarrassing for people to continue these activities.
Spying and infiltration of animal-exploitation industries and organizations. The information and evidence gathered can be a powerful weapon for AR activists.
Destruction of property related to exploitation and abuse of animals (laboratory equipment, meat and clothes in stores, etc.). The idea is to make it more costly and less profitable for these animal industries.
Sabotage of the animal-exploitation industries (e.g., destruction of vehicles and buildings). The idea is to make the activities impossible.
Raids on premises associated with animal exploitation (to gather evidence, to sabotage, to liberate animals). It can be seen from the foregoing material that AR activism spans a wide range of activities that includes both actions that would be conventionally regarded as law-abiding and non-threatening, and actions that are unlawful and threatening to the animal-exploitation industries. Most AR activism falls into the former category and, indeed, one can support these actions while condemning the latter category of actions. People who are thinking, with some trepidation, of going for the first time to a meeting of an AR group need have no fear of finding themselves involved with extremists, or of being coerced into extreme activism. They would find a group of exceedingly law-abiding computer programmers, teachers, artists, etc. (The extreme activists are essentially unorganized and cannot afford to meet in public groups due to the unwelcome attention of law-enforcement agencies.) –DG
“One person can make all the difference in the world…For the first time in recorded human history, we have the fate of the whole planet in our hands.” –Chrissie Hynde (musician)
“This is the true joy in life; being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, and being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod.” –George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)
“Nothing is more powerful than an individual acting out of his conscience, thus helping to bring the collective conscience to life.”–Norman Cousins (author)
SEE ALSO: #5, #88-#93, #95

#88 Isn’t liberation just a token action because there is no way to give homes to all the animals?
If one thinks of a liberation action solely in terms of liberation goals, there is some validity in viewing it as a token, or symbolic, action. It is true that liberation actions could not succeed applied en masse, because there aren’t enough homes for all the animals, and even if there were, distribution channels do not exist for relocating them. Having said this, however, one needs to remember that for the few animals that are liberated, the action is far from a token one. There is a world of difference between spending one’s life in a loving home or a sanctuary and spending it imprisoned in a cage waiting for a brutal end.
Liberation actions need to be viewed with a less literal mind set. As Peter Singer points out, raids are effective in obtaining evidence of animal abuse that could not otherwise have come to light. For example, a raid on Thomas Gennarelli’s laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania obtained videotapes that convinced the Secretary for Health and Human Services to stop his experiments.
One might also bear in mind that symbolic actions have been some of the most powerful ones seen throughout history. –DG
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke (statesman and author)
SEE ALSO: #89-#91

#89 Isn’t AR activism terrorism because it harasses people, destroys property, and threatens humans with injury or death?
The answer to question #87 should make it clear that most AR activism cannot be described as extreme and, furthermore, that not even all acts described as extreme could be thought of as “terrorism”. For example, a peaceful sit-in is highly unlikely to put others in a state of intense fear. Thus, it is not correct to characterize AR activism generally as terrorism.
One of the fundamental guidelines of the extreme activists is that great care must be taken not to inflict harm in carrying out the acts. This has been borne out in practice. On the very rare occasions when harm has occurred, the mainstream AR groups have condemned the acts. In some cases, the authors of the acts have been suspected to be those allied against the AR movement; their motives would not require deep thought to decipher.
The dictionary defines “terrorism” as the systematic use of violence or acts that instill intense fear to achieve an end. Certainly, harassment of fur wearers, or shouting “meat is murder” outside a butcher shop, could not be considered to be terrorism. Even destruction of property would not qualify under the definition if it is done without harming others. Certainly, the Boston Tea Party raiders did not consider themselves terrorists.
The real terrorists are the people and industries that inflict pain and suffering on millions of innocent animals for trivial purposes each and every day. –DG
“If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behavior.” –Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)
“I am in earnest–I will not equivocate–I will not excuse–I will not retreat a single inch and I will be heard.” –William Lloyd Garrison (author)
SEE ALSO: #87-#88, #90-#91

#90 Isn’t extreme activism involving breaking the law (e.g., destruction of property) wrong?
Great men and women have demonstrated throughout history that laws can be immoral, and that we can be justified in breaking them. Those who object to law-breaking under all circumstances would have to condemn:
The Tiananmen Square demonstrators.
The Boston Tea Party participants.
Mahatma Gandhi and his followers.
World War II resistance fighters.
The Polish Solidarity Movement.
Vietnam War draft card burners.
The list could be continued almost indefinitely.
Conversely, laws sometimes don’t reflect our moral beliefs. After World War II, the allies had to hastily write new laws to fully prosecute the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. Dave Foreman points out that there is a distinction to be made between morality and the statutes of a government in power.
It could be argued that the principle we are talking about does not apply. Specifically, the law against destruction of property is not immoral, and we therefore should not break it. However, a related principle can be asserted. If a law is invoked to defend immoral practices, or to attempt to limit or interfere with our ability to fight an immoral situation, then justification might be claimed for breaking that law.
In the final analysis, this is a personal decision for each person to make in consultation with their own conscience. –DG
“Certainly one of the highest duties of the citizen is a scrupulous obedience to the laws of the nation. But it is not the highest duty.”–Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. President)
“I say, break the law.” –Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)
SEE ALSO: #89, #91

#91 Doesn’t extreme activism give the AR movement a bad name?
This is a significant argument that must be thoughtfully considered. In essence, the argument says that if your actions can be characterized as extremist, then you are besmirching the actions of those who are moderate, and you are creating a backlash that can negate the advances made by more moderate voices.
The appeal to the “backlash” has historical precedent. Martin Luther King heard such warnings when he organized civil-disobedience protests against segregation. Had Dr. King yielded to this appeal, would the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts have been passed?
Dave Foreman, writing in “Confessions of an Eco-Warrior”, points out that radicals in the anti-Vietnam War movement were blamed for prolonging the war and for damaging the “respectable” opposition. Yet the fear of increasingly militant demonstrations kept President Nixon from escalating the war effort, and the stridency eventually wore down the pro-war establishment.
The backlash argument is a standard one that will always be trotted out by the opponents of a movement. Backlash can be expected whenever the status quo is challenged, regardless of whether extreme actions are employed. The real question to ask is: Does the added backlash outweigh the gains achieved through extreme action? The answer here is not clear and we’ll leave it to the informed reader to make a judgement. Two books that might help in assessing this are “Free the Animals” by Ingrid Newkirk, and “In Defense of Animals” by Peter Singer.
The following argument is paraphrased from Dave Foreman: Extreme action is a sophisticated political tactic that dramatizes issues and places them before the public when they otherwise would be ignored in the media, applies pressure to corporations and government agencies that otherwise are able to resist “legitimate” pressure from law-abiding organizations, and broadens the spectrum of activism so that lobbying by mainstream groups is not considered “extremist”. –DG
“My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt.” –Anna Sewell (author)
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” –Frederick Douglass (abolitionist)
SEE ALSO: #87-#90

SOURCE: http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Activist%20Tips/ARActivFAQs.htm

The Austrian Investor posted the following at his site:

Compassion vs. Compulsion
November 26, 2009 by Austrian Investor

Here is an excellent interview with Dr. Richard Ebeling where he is defending the free market and why it is the only moral choice.  Charity = Compassion whereas Redistribution = Compulsion and the Loss if Liberty.

Radio Interview

The only opinion I would add is that even seemingly “necessary” government services such as “the protection of property” and “national defense” can be better provided by the free market where there is competition for your dollars.  In a free market you have the ability to withdraw your support if you are not satisfied with the services being offered forcing the provider to earn your business (see Chaos Theory by Dr. Robert Murphy).    A little bit of compulsion is like being a little bit pregnant.  Limited government often grows to unlimited government.

Gold cannot be created like paper currencies.  It takes real resources and is in limited supply – that’s why it is a better form of money…

Black Market Signals Vietnam Dong Devaluation Is Just Beginning
By Beth Thomas

Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) — Vietnam, struggling to control accelerating inflation and a widening trade deficit, will keep weakening the dong after devaluing the currency for the first time since December, black-market rates and forwards show.

The central bank said yesterday it will permit the currency to decline a further 3 percent today, after it fell 5.4 percent in the past year. The unofficial rate offered at gold shops in Ho Chi Minh City is 9.7 percent weaker than yesterday’s spot- market price of 17,886 per dollar. Contracts based on the exchange rate in 12 months imply a 15.6 percent depreciation.

Inflation accelerated to a six-month high of 4.35 percent in November from a year earlier and the nation’s balance of payments worsened as exports dropped and rising commodity prices swelled the cost of imports. The dong has slumped 22 percent in the past decade and the government risks “damaged credibility” by allowing further losses, according to Standard Chartered Plc.

“Whenever you devalue a currency, there is general expectation for more,” said Thomas Harr, a foreign-exchange strategist in Singapore at Standard Chartered, which predicts a decline to 19,000 by the end of next year. “The key challenge is the widening trade deficit and slowing inflows from foreign direct investment, remittances and equity inflows.”

The State Bank of Vietnam decided to lower the reference rate 5 percent to 17,961 against the dollar, close to yesterday’s spot rate. That was the first such move since Dec. 25. The dong’s decline will be limited as policy makers also narrowed its trading range to 3 percent from the daily rate, from a 5 percent band adopted March 23.

More…

Hi friends and strangers!

This blog is set up to chronicle my research & activism, which are completely intertwined and related on almost every level.  (I use the word “my” up there to mean stuff I’m involved in–not to be possessive…as these are always collective processes involving inspiration from and the contributions of so many fantastic people.) The pages (top right) have information about me, and more importantly, contain my thesis (an anarchist ethnography) as it unfolds. Particularly what I’m interested in is transforming anthropological methods into something….more radical, less oppressive, more decolonizing (: And always practical & engaged.  I invite comments, questions, input, etc throughout this process, most especially from community members and friends who are involved in the project.  I especially want you all to hold me accountable, know where I’m at with, and have input into, theory, anthropology, and analysis, and to challenge me if I’m screwing stuff up!

Below the “pages”, on the…middle right, we have links!  A bunch of these lead to wicked Hamilton projects that myself and/or the people who’s voices you hear throughout the anarchist ethnography are involved in.  If you like what you see, there are tons of ways to get involved!  We love new faces, especially ones seeking social transformation!  Come be curious at FreeSkool, lend your little ones to the Womb Childcare Collective, and check out some of the awesome stuff going on with the Peace Cafe.  Also with the links are resources on racism & oppression.  Not created by us, but also amazing. Thanks strangers!

Below that on the right we have “Recent Posts” and “Categories”.  The blog posts are a bit more random.  They are…newsy, about ongoing activisms.  They’re also reflections about anthropology…or information about FreeSkool classes…or reflections on racism and discourse–in other words, reflections on how we tell the story shows how we see the world, and what that says about our implicit assumptions…  Things that don’t really fit elsewhere, but that I’ve been thinking about and just want to share.

Welcome!  Enjoy! Thanks for taking the time to browse through & have yourself a lovely day.

Peace, love, & solidarity,

~~Niki

Mikhail Bakunin 1866
Revolutionary Catechism
…

II. Replacing the cult of God by respect and love of humanity, we proclaim human reason as the only criterion of truth; human conscience as the basis of justice; individual and collective freedom as the only source of order in society.

III. Freedom is the absolute right of every adult man and woman to seek no other sanction for their acts than their own conscience and their own reason, being responsible first to themselves and then to the society which they have voluntarily accepted.

IV. It is not true that the freedom of one man is limited by that of other men. Man is really free to the extent that his freedom, fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellowmen, finds confirmation and expansion in their liberty. Man is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

V. The freedom of each is therefore realizable only in the equality of all. The realization of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.

VI. If there is one fundamental principle of human morality, it is freedom. To respect the freedom of your fellowman is duty; to love, help, and serve him is virtue.

VII. Absolute rejection of every authority including that which sacrifices freedom for the convenience of the state. Primitive society had no conception of freedom; and as society evolved, before the full awakening of human rationality and freedom, it passed through a stage controlled by human and divine authority. The political and economic structure of society must now be reorganized on the basis of freedom. Henceforth, order in society must result from the greatest possible realization of individual liberty, as well as of liberty on all levels of social organization.

VIII. The political and economic organization of social life must not, as at present, be directed from the summit to the base – the center to the circumference – imposing unity through forced centralization. On the contrary, it must be reorganized to issue from the base to the summit – from the circumference to the center – according to the principles of free association and federation.

IX. Political organization. It is impossible to determine a concrete, universal, and obligatory norm for the internal development and political organization of every nation. The life of each nation is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical. It would smother the richness and spontaneity of life which flourishes only in infinite diversity and, what is more, contradict the most fundamental principles of freedom. However, without certain absolutely essential conditions the practical realization of freedom will be forever impossible.

These conditions are:

A. The abolition of all state religions and all privileged churches, including those partially maintained or supported by state subsidies. Absolute liberty of every religion to build temples to their gods, and to pay and support their priests.

B. The churches considered as religious corporations must never enjoy the same political rights accorded to the productive associations; nor can they be entrusted with the education of children; for they exist merely to negate morality and liberty and to profit from the lucrative practice of witchcraft.

C. Abolition of monarchy; establishment of a commonwealth.

D. Abolition of classes, ranks, and privileges; absolute equality of political rights for all men and women; universal suffrage. [Not in the state, but in the units of the new society. Note by Max Nettlau]

E. Abolition, dissolution, and moral, political, and economic dismantling of the all-pervasive, regimented, centralized State, the alter ego of the Church, and as such, the permanent cause of the impoverishment, brutalization, and enslavement of the multitude. This naturally entails the following: Abolition of all state universities: public education must be administered only by the communes and free associations. Abolition of the State judiciary: all judges must be elected by the people. Abolition of all criminal, civil, and legal codes now administered in Europe: because the code of liberty can be created only by liberty itself. Abolition of banks and all other institutions of state credit. Abolition of all centralized administration, of the bureaucracy, of all permanent armies and state police.

F. Immediate direct election of all judicial and civil functionaries as well as representatives (national, provincial, and communal delegates) by the universal suffrage of both sexes.

G. The internal reorganization of each country on the basis of the absolute freedom of individuals, of the productive associations, and of the communes. Necessity of recognizing the right of secession: every individual, every association, every commune, every region, every nation has the absolute right to self-determination, to associate or not to associate, to ally themselves with whomever they wish and repudiate their alliances without regard to so-called historic rights [rights consecrated by legal precedent] or the convenience of their neighbors. Once the right to secede is established, secession will no longer be necessary. With the dissolution of a “unity” imposed by violence, the units of society will be drawn to unite by their powerful mutual attraction and by inherent necessities. Consecrated by liberty, these new federations of communes, provinces, regions, and nations will then be truly strong, productive, and indissoluble.’

H. Individual rights.

1. The right of every man and woman, from birth to adulthood, to complete upkeep, clothes, food, shelter, care, guidance, education (public schools, primary, secondary, higher education, artistic, industrial, and scientific), all at the expense of society.

2. The equal right of adolescents, while freely choosing their careers, to be helped and to the greatest possible extent supported by society. After this, society will exercise no authority or supervision over them except to respect, and if necessary defend, their freedom and their rights.

3. The freedom of adults of both sexes must be absolute and complete, freedom to come and go, to voice all opinions, to be lazy or active, moral or immoral, in short, to dispose of one’s person or possessions as one pleases, being accountable to no one. Freedom to live, be it honestly, by one’s own labor, even at the expense of individuals who voluntarily tolerate one’s exploitation.

4. Unlimited freedom of propaganda, speech, press, public or private assembly, with no other restraint than the natural salutary power of public opinion. Absolute freedom to organize associations even for allegedly immoral purposes including even those associations which advocate the undermining (or destruction) of individual and public freedom.

5. Freedom can and must be defended only by freedom: to advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion. As morality has no other source, no other object, no other stimulant than freedom, all restrictions of liberty in order to protect morality have always been to the detriment of the latter. Psychology, statistics, and all history prove that individual and social immorality are the inevitable consequences of a false private and public education, of the degeneration of public morality and the corruption of public opinion, and above all, of. the vicious organization of society. An eminent Belgian statistician [Qu�telet] points out that society opens the way for the crimes later committed by malefactors. It follows that all attempts to combat social immorality by rigorous legislation which violates individual freedom must fail. Experience, on the contrary, demonstrates that a repressive and authoritarian system, far from preventing, only increases crime; that public and private morality falls or rises to the extent that individual liberty is restricted or enlarged. It follows that in order to regenerate society, we must first completely uproot this political and social system founded on inequality, privilege, and contempt for humanity. After having reconstructed society on the basis of the most complete liberty, equality, and justice – not to mention work – for all and an enlightened education inspired by respect for man – public opinion will then reflect the new humanity and become a natural guardian of the most absolute liberty [and public order. Ed.].

6. Society cannot, however, leave itself completely defenseless against vicious and parasitic individuals. Work must be the basis of all political rights. The units of society, each within its own jurisdiction, can deprive all such antisocial adults of political rights (except the old, the sick, and those dependent on private or public subsidy) and will be obliged to restore their political rights as soon as they begin to live by their own labor.

7. The liberty of every human being is inalienable and society will never require any individual to surrender his liberty or to sign contracts with other individuals except on the basis of the most complete equality and reciprocity. Society cannot forcibly prevent any man or woman so devoid of personal dignity as to place him- or herself in voluntary servitude to another individual; but it can justly treat such persons as parasites, not entitled to the enjoyment of political liberty, though only for the duration of their servitude.

8. Persons losing their political rights will also lose custody of their children. Persons who violate voluntary agreements, steal, inflict bodily harm, or above all, violate the freedom of any individual, native or foreigner, will be penalized according to the laws of society.

…

10. Individuals condemned by the laws of any and every association (commune, province, region, or nation) reserve the right to escape punishment by declaring that they wish to resign from that association. But in this case, the association will have the equal right to expel him and declare him outside
its guarantee and protection.

I. Rights of association [federalism]. The cooperative workers’ associations are a new fact in history. At this time we can only speculate about, but not determine, the immense development that they will doubtlessly exhibit in the new political and social conditions of the future. It is possible and even very likely that they will some day transcend the limits of towns, provinces, and even states. They may entirely reconstitute society, dividing it not into nations but into different industrial groups, organized not according to the needs of politics but to those of production. But this is for the future. Be that as it may, we can already proclaim this fundamental principle: irrespective of their functions or aims, all associations, like all individuals, must enjoy absolute freedom. Neither society, nor any part of society – commune, province, or nation – has the right to prevent free individuals from associating freely for any purpose whatsoever: political, religious, scientific, artistic, or even for the exploitation or corruption of the naive or alcoholics, provided that they are not minors. To combat charlatans and pernicious associations is the special affair of public opinion. But society is obliged to refuse to guarantee civic rights of any association or collective body whose aims or rules violate the fundamental principles of human justice. Individuals shall not be penalized or deprived of their full political and social rights solely for belonging to such unrecognized societies. The difference between the recognized and unrecognized associations will be the following: the juridically recognized associations will have the right to the protection of the community against individuals or recognized groups who refuse to fulfill their voluntary obligations.’ The juridically unrecognized associations will not be entitled to such protection by the community and none of their agreements will be regarded as binding.

J. The division of a country into regions, provinces, districts, and communes, as in France, will naturally depend on the traditions, the specific circumstances, and the particular nature of each country. We can only point out here the two fundamental and indispensable principles which must be put into effect by any country seriously trying to organize a free society. First: all organizations must proceed by way of federation from the base to the summit, from the commune to the coordinating association of the country or nation. Second: there must be at least one autonomous intermediate body between the commune and the country, the department, the region, or the province. Without such an autonomous intermediate body, the commune (in the strict sense of the term) would be too isolated and too weak to be able to resist the despotic centralistic pressure of the State, which will inevitably (as happened twice in France) restore to power a despotic monarchical regime. Despotism has its source much more in the centralized organization of the State, than in the despotic nature of kings.

K. The basic unit of all political organization in each country must be the completely autonomous commune, constituted by the majority vote of all adults of both sexes. No one shall have either the power or the right to interfere in the internal life of the commune. The commune elects all functionaries, law-makers, and judges. It administers the communal property and finances. Every commune should have the incontestable right to create, without superior sanction, its own constitution and legislation. But in order to join and become an integral part of the provincial federation, the commune must conform its own particular charter to the fundamental principles of the provincial constitution and be accepted by the parliament of the province. The commune must also accept the judgments of the provincial tribunal and any measures ordered by the government of the province. (All measures of the provincial government must be ratified by the provincial parliament.) Communes refusing to accept the provincial laws will not be entitled to its benefits.

L. The province must be nothing but a free federation of autonomous communes. The provincial parliament could be composed either of a single chamber with representatives of each of the communes or of two chambers, the other representing the population of the province, independent of the communes. The provincial parliament, without interfering in any manner whatsoever in the internal decisions of the communes will formulate the provincial constitution (based on the principles of this catechism). This constitution must be accepted by all communes wishing to participate in the provincial parliament. The provincial parliament will enact legislation defining the rights and obligations of individuals, communes, and associations in relation to the provincial federation, and the penalties for violations of its laws. It will reserve, however, the right of the communes to diverge on secondary points, though not on fundamentals.
The provincial parliament, in strict accordance with the Charter of the Federation of Communes, will define the rights and obligations existing between the communes, the parliament, the judicial tribunal, and the provincial administration. It will enact all laws affecting the whole province, pass on resolutions or measures of the national parliament, without, however, violating the autonomy of the communes and the province. Without interfering in the internal administration of the communes, it will allot to each commune its share of the provincial or national income, which will be used by the commune as its members decide. The provincial parliament will ratify or reject all policies and measures of the provincial administration which will, of course, be elected by universal suffrage. The provincial tribunal (also elected by universal suffrage) will adjudicate, without appeal, all disputes between communes and individuals, communes and communes, and communes and the provincial administration or parliament. [These arrangements will thus] lead not to dull, lifeless uniformity, but to a real living unity, to the enrichment of communal life. A unity will be created which reflects the needs and aspirations of the communes; in short, we will have individual and collective freedom. This unity cannot be achieved by the compulsion or violence of provincial power, for even truth and justice when coercively imposed must lead to falsehood and iniquity.

M. The nation must be nothing but a federation of autonomous provinces. [The organizational relations between the provinces and the nation will, in general, be the same as those between the communes and the province – Nettlau]

N. Principles of the International Federation. The union of nations comprising the International Federation will be based on the principles outlined above. It is probable, and strongly desired as well, that when the hour of the People’s Revolution strikes again, every nation will unite in brotherly solidarity and forge an unbreakable alliance against the coalition of reactionary nations. This alliance will be the germ of the future Universal Federation of Peoples which will eventually embrace the entire world. The International Federation of revolutionary peoples, with a parliament, a tribunal, and an international executive committee, will naturally be based on the principles of the revolution. Applied to international polity these principles are:

1 . Every land, every nation, every people, large or small, weak or strong, every region, province, and commune has the absolute right to self-determination, to make alliances, unite or secede as it pleases, regardless of so-called historic rights and the political, commercial, or strategic ambitions of States. The unity of the elements of society, in order to be genuine, fruitful, and durable, must be absolutely free: it can emerge only from the internal needs and mutual attractions of the respective units of society….

2. Abolition of alleged historic right and the horrible right of conquest.

3. Absolute rejection of the politics of aggrandizement, of the power and the glory of the State. For this is a form of politics which locks each country into a self-made fortress, shutting out the rest of humanity, organizing itself into a closed world, independent of all human solidarity, finding its glory and prosperity in the evil it can do to other countries. A country bent on conquest is necessarily a country internally enslaved.

4. The glory and grandeur of a nation lie only in the development of its humanity. Its strength and inner vitality are measured by the degree of its liberty.

5. The well-being and the freedom of nations as well as individuals are inextricably interwoven. Therefore, there must be free commerce, exchange, and communication among all federated countries, and abolition of frontiers, passports, and customs duties [tariffs]. Every citizen of a federated country must enjoy the same civic rights and it must be easy for him to acquire citizenship and enjoy political rights in all other countries adhering to the same federation. If liberty is the starting point, it will necessarily lead to unity. But to go from unity to liberty is difficult, if not impossible; even if it were possible, it could be done only by destroying a spurious “unity” imposed by force….

…

7. No federated country shall maintain a permanent standing army or any institution separating the soldier from the civilian. Not only do permanent ,armies and professional soldiers breed internal disruption, brutalization, and financial ruin, they also menace the independence and well-being of other nations. All able-bodied citizens should, if necessary, take up arms to defend their homes and their freedom. Each country’s military defense and equipment should be organized locally by the commune, or provincially, somewhat like the militias in Switzerland or the United States of America [circa 1860-7].

8. The International Tribunal shall have no other function than to settle, without appeal, all disputes between nations and their respective provinces. Differences between two federated countries shall be adjudicated, without appeal, only by the International Parliament, which, in the name of the entire revolutionary federation, will also formulate common policy and make war, if unavoidable, against the reactionary coalition.

9. No federated nation shall make war against another federated country. If there is war and the International Tribunal has pronounced its decision, the aggressor must submit. If this doesn’t occur, the other federated nations will sever relations with it and, in case of attack by the aggressor, unite to repel invasion.

10. All members of the revolutionary federation must actively take part in approved wars against a nonfederated state. If a federated nation declares unjust war on an outside State against the advice of the International Tribunal, it will be notified in advance that it will have to do so alone.

11. It is hoped that the federated states will eventually give up the expensive luxury of separate diplomatic representatives to foreign states and arrange for representatives to speak in the name of all the federated States.

12. Only nations or peoples accepting the principles outlined in this catechism will be admitted to the federation.

X. Social Organization. Without political equality there can be no real political liberty, but political equality will be possible only when there is social and economic equality.

A. Equality does not imply the leveling of individual differences, nor that individuals should be made physically, morally, or mentally identical. Diversity in capacities and powers – those differences between races, nations, sexes, ages, and persons – far from being a social evil, constitutes, on the contrary, the abundance of humanity. Economic and social equality means the equalization of personal wealth, but not by restricting what a man may acquire by his own skill, productive energy, and thrift.

B. Equality and justice demand only a society so organized that every single human being will – from birth through adolescence and maturity – find therein equal means, first for maintenance and education, and later, for the exercise of all his natural capacities and aptitudes. This equality from birth that justice demands for everyone will be impossible as long as the right of inheritance continues to exist.

…

D. Abolition of the right of inheritance. Social inequality – inequality of classes, privileges, and wealth – not by right but in fact. will continue to exist until such time as the right of inheritance is abolished. It is an inherent social law that de facto inequality inexorably produces inequality of rights; social inequality leads to political inequality. And without political equality – in the true, universal, and libertarian sense in which we understand it – society will always remain divided into two unequal parts. The first. which comprises the great majority of mankind, the masses of the people, will be oppressed by the privileged, exploiting minority. The right of inheritance violates the principle of freedom and must be abolished.

…

G. When inequality resulting from the right of inheritance is abolished, there will still remain inequalities [of wealth] – due to the diverse amounts of energy and skill possessed by individuals. These inequalities will never entirely disappear, but will become more and more minimized under the influence of education and of an egalitarian social organization, and, above all, when the right of inheritance no longer burdens the coming generations.

H. Labor being the sole source of wealth, everyone is free to die of hunger, or to live in the deserts or the forests among savage beasts, but whoever wants to live in society must earn his living by his own labor, or be treated as a parasite who is living on the labor of others.

I. Labor is the foundation of human dignity and morality. For it was only by free and intelligent labor that man, overcoming his own bestiality, attained his humanity and sense of justice, changed his environment, and created the civilized world. The stigma which, in the ancient as well as the feudal world, was attached to labor, and which to a great extent still exists today, despite all the hypocritical phrases about the “dignity of labor” – this stupid prejudice against labor has two sources: the first is the conviction, so characteristic of the ancient world, that in order to give one part of society the opportunity and the means to humanize itself through science, the arts, philosophy. and the enjoyment of human rights, another part of society, naturally the most numerous, must be condemned to work as slaves. This fundamental institution of ancient civilization was the cause of its downfall.
The city, corrupted and disorganized on the one hand by the idleness of the privileged citizens, and undermined on the other by the imperceptible but relentless activity of the disinherited world of slaves who, despite their slavery, through common labor developed a sense of mutual aid and solidarity against oppression, collapsed under the blows of the barbarian peoples.

Christianity, the religion of the slaves, much later destroyed ancient forms of slavery only to create a new slavery. Privilege, based on inequality and the right of conquest and sanctified by divine grace, again separated society into two opposing camps: the “rabble” and the nobility, the serfs and the masters. To the latter was assigned the noble profession of arms and government; to the serfs, the curse of forced labor. The same causes are bound to produce the same effects; the nobility, weakened and demoralized by depraved idleness, fell in 1789 under the blows of the revolutionary serfs and workers. The [French] Revolution proclaimed the dignity of labor and enacted the rights of labor into law. But only in law, for in fact labor remained enslaved. The first source of the degradation of labor, namely, the dogma of the political inequality of men, was destroyed by the Great Revolution. The degradation must therefore be attributed to a second source, which is nothing but the separation which still exists between manual and intellectual labor, which reproduces in a new form the ancient inequality and divides the world into two camps: the privileged minority, privileged not by law but by capital, and the majority of workers, no longer captives of the law but of hunger.

The dignity of labor is today theoretically recognized, and public opinion considers it disgraceful to live without working. But this does not go to the heart of the question. Human labor, in general, is still divided into two exclusive categories: the first – solely intellectual and managerial – includes the scientists, artists, engineers, inventors, accountants, educators, governmental officials, and their subordinate elites who enforce labor discipline. The second group consists of the great mass of workers, people prevented from applying creative ideas or intelligence, who blindly and mechanically carry out the orders of the intellectual-managerial elite. This economic and social division of labor has disastrous consequences for members of the privileged classes, the masses of the people, and for the prosperity, as well as the moral and intellectual development, of society as a whole.

For the privileged classes a life of luxurious idleness gradually leads to moral and intellectual degeneration. It is perfectly true that a certain amount of leisure is absolutely necessary for the artistic, scientific, and mental development of man; creative leisure followed by the healthy exercise of daily labor, one that is well earned and is socially provided for all according to individual capacities and preferences. Human nature is so constituted that the propensity for evil is always intensified by external circumstances, and the morality of the individual depends much more on the conditions of his existence and the environment in which he lives than on his own will. In this respect, as in all others, the law of social solidarity is essential: there can be no other moralizer for society or the individual than freedom in absolute equality. Take the most sincere democrat and put him on the throne; if he does not step down promptly, he will surely become a scoundrel. A born aristocrat (if he should, by some happy chance, be ashamed of his aristocratic lineage and renounce privileges of birth) will yearn for past glories, be useless in the present, and passionately oppose future progress. The same goes for the bourgeois: this dear child of capital and idleness will waste his leisure in dishonesty, corruption, and debauchery, or serve as a brutal force to enslave the working class, who will eventually unleash against him a retribution even more horrible than that of 1793.

The evils that the worker is subjected to by the division of labor are much easier to determine: forced to work for others because he is born to poverty and misery, deprived of all rational upbringing and education, morally enslaved by religious influence. He is catapulted into life, defenseless, without initiative and without his own will. Driven to despair by misery, he sometimes revolts, but lacking that unity with his fellow workers and that enlightened thought upon which power depends, he is often betrayed and sold out by his leaders, and almost never realizes who or what is responsible for his sufferings. Exhausted by futile struggles, he falls back again into the old slavery.
This slavery will last until capitalism is overthrown by the collective action of the workers. They will be exploited as long as education (which in a free society will be equally available to all) is the exclusive birthright of the privileged class; as long as this minority monopolizes scientific and managerial work and the people – reduced to the status of machines or beasts of burden – are forced to perform the menial tasks assigned to them by their exploiters. This degradation of human labor is an immense evil, polluting the moral, intellectual, and political institutions of society. History shows that an uneducated multitude whose natural intelligence is suppressed and who are brutalized by the mechanical monotony of daily toil, who grope in vain for any enlightenment, constitutes a mindless mob whose blind turbulence threatens the very existence of society itself.

The artificial separation between manual and intellectual labor must give way to a new social synthesis. When the man of science performs manual labor and the man of work performs intellectual labor, free intelligent work will become the glory of mankind, the source of its dignity and its rights.

K. Intelligent and free labor will necessarily be collective labor. Each person will, of course, be free to work alone or collectively. But there is no doubt that (outside of work best performed individually) in industrial and even scientific or artistic enterprises, collective labor will be preferred by everyone. For association marvellously multiplies the productive capacity of each worker; hence, a cooperating member of a productive association will earn much more in much less time. When the free productive associations (which will include members of cooperatives and labor organizations) voluntarily organize according to their needs and special skills, they will then transcend all national boundaries and form an immense worldwide economic federation. This will include an industrial parliament, supplied by the associations with precise and detailed global-scale statistics; by harmonizing supply and demand the parliament will distribute and allocate world industrial production to the various nations. Commercial and industrial crises, stagnation (unemployment), waste of capital, etc., will no longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world.

L. The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone, but will be used only by those who cultivate it by their own labor. Without expropriation, only through the powerful pressure of the worker’s associations, capital and the tools of production will fall to those who produce wealth by their own labor. [Bakunin means that private ownership of production will be permitted only if the owners do the actual work and do not employ anyone. He believed that collective ownership would gradually supersede private ownership.]

M. Equal political, social, and economic rights, as well as equal obligations for women.

N. Abolition not of the natural family but of the legal family founded on law and property. Religious and civil marriage to be replaced by free marriage. Adult men and women have the right to unite and separate as they please, nor has society the right to hinder their union or to force them to maintain it. With the abolition of the right of inheritance and the education of children assured by society, all the legal reasons for the irrevocability of marriage will disappear. The union of a man and a woman must be free, for a free choice is the indispensable condition for moral sincerity. In marriage, man and woman must enjoy absolute liberty. Neither violence nor passion nor rights surrendered in the past can justify an invasion by one of the liberty of another, and every such invasion shall be considered a crime.

O. From the moment of pregnancy to birth, a woman and her children shall be subsidized by the communal organization. Women who wish to nurse and wean their children shall also be subsidized.

P. Parents shall have the right to care for and guide the education of their children, under the ultimate control of the commune which retains the right and the obligation to take children away from parents who, by example or by cruel and inhuman treatment, demoralize or otherwise hinder the physical and mental development of their children.

Q. Children belong neither to their parents nor to society. They belong to themselves and to their own future liberty. Until old enough to take care of themselves, children must be brought up under the guidance of their elders. It is true that parents are their natural tutors, but since the very future of the commune itself depends upon the intellectual and moral training it gives to children, the commune must be the tutor. The freedom of adults is possible only when the free society looks after the education of minors.

R. The secular school must replace the Church, with the difference that while religious indoctrination perpetuates superstition and divine authority, the sole purpose of secular public education is the gradual, progressive initiation of children into liberty by the triple development of their physical strength, their minds, and their will. Reason, truth, justice, respect for fellowmen, the sense of personal dignity which is inseparable from the dignity of others, love of personal freedom and the freedom of all others, the conviction that work is the base and condition for rights – these must be the fundamental principles of all public education. Above all, education must make men and inculcate human values first, and then train specialized workers. As the child grows older, authority will give way to more and more liberty, so that by adolescence he will be completely free and will forget how in childhood he had to submit unavoidably to authority. Respect for human worth, the germ of freedom, must be present even while children are being severely disciplined. The essence of all moral education is this: inculcate children with respect for humanity and you will make good men….

S. Having reached the age of adulthood, the adolescent will be proclaimed autonomous and free to act as he deems best. In exchange, society will expect him to fulfill only these three obligations: that he remain free, that he live by his own labor, and that he respect the freedom of others. And, as the crimes and vices infecting present society are due to the evil organization of society, it is certain that in a society based on reason, justice, and freedom, on respect for humanity and on complete equality, the good will prevail and the evil will be a morbid exception, which will diminish more and more under the pervasive influence of an enlightened and humanized public opinion.

T. The old, sick, and infirm will enjoy all political and social rights and be bountifully supported at the expense of society.

XI. Revolutionary policy. It is our deep-seated conviction that since the freedom of all nations is indivisible, national revolutions must become international in scope. just as the European and world reaction is unified, there should no longer be isolated revolutions, but a universal, worldwide revolution. Therefore, all the particular interests, the vanities, pretensions, jealousies, and hostilities between and among nations must now be transformed into the unified, common, and universal interest of the revolution, which alone can assure the freedom and independence of each nation by the solidarity of all. We believe also that the holy alliance of the world counterrevolution and the conspiracy of kings, clergy, nobility, and the bourgeoisie, based on enormous budgets, on permanent armies, on formidable bureaucracies, and equipped with all the monstrous apparatus of modern centralized states, constitutes an overwhelming force; indeed, that this formidable reactionary coalition can be destroyed only by the greater power of the simultaneous revolutionary alliance and action of all the people of the civilized world, that against this reaction the isolated revolution of a single people will never succeed. Such a revolution would be folly, a catastrophe for the isolated country and would, in effect, constitute a crime against all the other nations. It follows that the uprising of a single people must have in view not only itself, but the whole world. This demands a worldwide program, as large, as profound, as true, as human, in short, as all-embracing as the interests of the whole world. And in order to energize the passions of all the popular masses of Europe, regardless of nationality, this program can only be the program of the social and democratic revolution.
Briefly stated, the objectives of the social and democratic revolution are: Politically: the abolition of the historic rights of states, the rights of conquest, and diplomatic rights [statist international law. Tr.]. It aims at the full emancipation of individuals and associations from divine and human bondage; it seeks the absolute destruction of all compulsory unions, and all agglomerations of communes into provinces and conquered countries into the State. Finally, it requires the radical dissolution of the centralized, aggressive, authoritarian State, including its military, bureaucratic, governmental, administrative, judicial, and legislative institutions. ‘ne revolution, in short, has this aim: freedom for all, for individuals as well as collective bodies, associations, communes, provinces, regions, and nations, and the mutual guarantee of this freedom by federation.

Socially: it seeks the confirmation of political equality by economic equality. This is not the removal of natural individual differences, but equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor.
 
Bakunin Archive | M.I.A.

Mutualism: An interview with Kevin Carson

http://isocracy.org/node/25

Kevin Carson, an American political theorist and a contemporary leader
in discussions concerning mutualism and author of three extremely
important books on co-operation, mutualism and capitalism (Studies in
Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: A Libertarian
Perspective, and The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand). Describing
his politics as being “the outer fringes of both free market
libertarianism and socialism”, he certainly will find a welcoming
audience among our group – which is why he’s been asked several
difficult questions.

The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand is available in html format and
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: A
Libertarian Perspective are both available as PDF files.

Firstly, thank you Kevin for agreeing to this interview with The
Isocracy Network.

Thanks for inviting me.

Could you begin by giving a description of mutualism from the initial
definition offered by the anarchist Proudhon to contemporary examples
and your own involvement in this sort of analysis of political economy?

Well, first of all, it’s important to distinguish between mutualism as a
general form of praxis, and mutualism as a theory. Mutualist practices
(friendly societies and lodges, guilds, arrangements for mutual aid,
etc.) are probably old as the human race. Proudhon, Owen, Warren, et al
simply created a theoretical framework that emphasized such forms of
organization as a building block of society. It’s a bit like the
centipede trying to figure out how it’s been walking all this time, or
the man who was astonished to learn he’d been speaking in prose all
along and didn’t even know it.

For that matter, there have been important anarchist thinkers like
Kropotkin who emphasized mutual aid and other mutual organizations,
without in any strict sense being mutualists. Cooperatives and mutuals
have been central to the counterinstitution-building of much of the
decentralist Left in the U.S. since the 1960s, but their thought is not
explicitly mutualist either.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most of the important examples of
mutualist practice (the cooperative movement, the local currency and
alternative credit movements, etc.) are not explicitly or
self-consciously mutualist in ideology.

Having read Proudhon for some years, his thought is so complex and at
times even seemingly self-contradictory, that I still hesitate to
summarize it. But I’d venture to say, as an approximation, that his
programme centered on 1) abolishing artificial property rights in land
and artificial scarcity of credit, so that the working class could
secure cheap access to the prerequisites of production; and 2)
organizing the economy around associations of producers. Of course
Proudhon was an important founding thinker for anarchism as a whole as
well as for mutualism; so these ideas, in modified form, have heavily
influenced later collectivist, communist and syndicalist variants of
anarchism.

Mutualist praxis was central to the Owenite movement in the UK (e.g.
Owenite craft unions organized cooperative production and distribution
by strikers in their own shops), as well as such things as the Rochedale
cooperatives, the Chartists, and land colonization movements. Owenism,
by way of Christian socialism and guild socialism, probably had a
significant (if indirect) influence on distributism.

In the U.S. mutualism’s primary founder was the Owenite Josiah Warren.
Warrenism, cross-pollinated with J.K. Ingalls’ occupancy-and-use view of
land ownership and William Greene’s mutual banking theories, together
led to the plumbline individualism of Benjamin Tucker. Tucker focused
almost entirely on the abolition of artificial property rights and
privilege in land and credit, assuming that when the legal props to rent
and interest were removed and cheap land and credit were universally
available, the forms of organization would take care of themselves. He
displayed almost no interest whatever in cooperatives, associations for
mutual aid, etc., as such.

Dyer Lum, John Beverley Robinson, and Clarence Swartz, all heavily
influenced by Tucker, supplemented his focus on eliminating monopolies
with some positive speculation on cooperative forms of organization; in
so doing, they represented a partial fusion of Tucker’s version of
individualism with the older cooperativist tradition of Proudhon and
Owen. Lum, in particular, was also friendly to the radical labor
movement and had fairly close ties to the I.W.W.

Would a highly successful large worker’s cooperatives, like the John
Lewis Partnership in the UK, and the Mondragón Corporation in Spain
[centered in Basque Country] serve as evidence that mutualist economics
can and does work in the large scale? Are credit unions evidence that
mutualist economics can replace capitalist banking?

Although I’m quite friendly to both Mondragon and credit unions, and
consider their influence to be decidedly positive, I believe their form
is still distorted considerably by the capitalist milieu within which
they exist. I like Mondragon’s federated system of cooperative
producers, distributors and banks within a single umbrella organization.
But it’s much too centralized a system in my opinion, with worker
representation only effected at the level of the board of directors for
the system as a whole; below the level of the Mondragon system as a
whole, it’s a fairly top-down system of conventional management, with no
significant self-management at the level of individual departments or
factories.

I would greatly prefer local markets with lots of stand-alone
cooperative manufacturing shops on the Emilia-Romagna model, integrated
with cooperative banks in some sort of barter or local currency network
of the sort promoted by Tom Greco.

Most credit unions, unfortunately, have adopted the culture of the
conventional banking industry, and have almost no ideological affinity
for the larger cooperative or counter-economy movement. Of course they
are still greatly preferable to capitalist banks; being controlled by
many small, local depositors, they are far less prone to the excesses of
the capitalist banking system that we’ve seen in recent years.

Proudhon, although arguing that he opposed the idea of individuals
deriving an income through rent and investments, said that he never
wished “to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree” such activities. A
contemporary mainstream economist may argue that Proudhon’s position
here would be particularly utopian in those markets that have high
barriers to entry or other monopolistic features, that a worker’s
cooperative versus an entrenched capitalist enterprise in such a market
would require a miracle on the scale of David vs Goliath for success.

That sounds a bit like Tucker’s pessimistic view of things in his later
years, when he seemed resigned to the idea that the large industrial
trusts had grown to the point that their market power would persist even
after the Four Monopolies were removed.

I think such a view neglects the extent to which capital-intensiveness
is a source of high overhead cost and inefficiency, and is only made
artificially profitable by the state’s subsidies and protections. In
fact production as such has become far less capital-intensive over the
past three decades, with the old mass-production core outsourcing
increasing shares of total production to flexible manufacturing networks
and job-shops, and some of them retaining little more than control over
marketing and “intellectual property.” The development of cheap,
small-scale CNC tools in the 1970s meant that the capital outlays
required for manufacturing imploded by one or two orders of
magnitude. That was the beginning of a long shift from older
mass-production industry to Emilia-Romagna, the Toyota supplier network,
the job-shops of Shenzhen and Shanghai, etc.

The process continues even further in the same direction with the
desktop manufacturing revolution of recent years: cheap, homebrew CNC
machines scalable to the small shop and garage.

When physical capital costs are so low, most of the financial role of
the old industrial core is becoming redundant. And with small-scale
production driven by local orders on a lean, demand-pull, JIT basis,
marketing is similarly redundant.

“Intellectual property” is the main surviving buttress to the old
corporate walls, and it’s becoming increasingly unenforceable.

A follower of Henry George would argue in the realm of natural resources
it would be impossible for success and that land-rents should be
socialised. How would you respond to these claims?

I’m quite friendly to George, and think the lines between individualism
and Georgism are a lot less harsh than (say) Tucker would have believed.
But I believe a great deal of rent could be eliminated simply by
removing subsidies to economic centralization and positive externalties
created by taxpayers–not to mention by removing state enforcement of
title to vacant and unimproved land. If as much urban infrastructure as
possible were funded by user fees, and cities broken up into lots of
mixed-use neighborhoods in which residential areas had their own
miniature “downtown” cores, differential rent would be far less
significant. I think a majority of George’s aims could be achieved by
Tucker’s means, or even by a throughgoing application of Rothbard’s means.

With examples of worker’s self-management in the former Yugoslavia, and
modelling by economists such as Jaroslav Vanek and Benjamin Ward, it has
been shown in some cases (especially in critical infrastructure) it is
advantageous for labor-managed firms, in their objective of increasing
income per worker, to either lay-off workers or – like a monopolistic
capitalist firm – to reduce productivity and thus derive monopoly
profits. How would a contemporary version of mutualism prevent these
problems?

It’s been a long time since I read Vanek’s work on worker-managed
economies, but my immediate reaction is that there’s probably no
fool-proof set of governance rules. When the firm is controlled by
capital-owners, they’ll behave in such a way as to maximize returns on
capital; when it’s controlled by managers, as in most large Western
corporations, they’ll maximize benefits to management at the expense of
both labor and capital. At least in a worker-managed firm, the decisions
will reflect the interests of a bare majority, which can’t be said of
the other two mechanisms. Beyond that, I think the answer to the kind of
behavior you describe lies in exit as much as in voice: the lower the
capitalization requirements and the lower the barrier to entry for most
forms of production, and the lower the cost threshold for comfortable
subsistence, the less catastrophic changes in employment will be. I’d
like to see an economy where a much larger share of total consumption
needs are met through production for subsistence or barter in the
household/informal sector, and the average time spent in wage employment
is much less than at present.

That would mean a significantly larger share of the population would be
self-employed than at present, a very large share would work hours that
we would regard as “part-time,” household arrangements for pooling wages
and hoarding labor-time would be much more resilient, and even
wage-earners would tend to accept as normal prolonged periods of
unemployment during which they lived off subsistence resources while
waiting for a job to their liking.

Pro-capitalist neoliberals, such as George Reismann, Roderick T. Long
have criticised your advocacy of mutualism. Reisman and Long both argue
that you do not support John Locke’s ownership of landed property that
has been mixed with labour or, to use the peculiarly U.S. vernacular,
“homesteading”. It seems that both this critics have fundamentally
misunderstood Locke’s concept of land ownership, which recognises a
public cost for exclusion and use in addition to the right of added
value. How do you respond to these criticisms?

To be frank, I can’t say with any degree of confidence what Reisman
understands about anything. But I think Long acknowledged Locke’s
Proviso and explicitly characterized his own position as “non-Proviso
Lockeanism.” I’m not a Georgist myself, although I’d be well-disposed to
a local property rules system based on some form of common ownership and
community collection of rent. In any case, justifiably or not, when
answering Lockean critics I tend to tacitly work from the premise that
“Lockean” means “non-Proviso Lockean.” And for the most part, I think a
radical and consistent application of non-Proviso Lockean rules would go
most of the way toward achieving the aims of the Tucker-Ingalls land theory.

… all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds,
belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous
band of nature: … Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that
nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and
joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his
property… For this labour being the unquestionable property of the
labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to,
at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.
John Locke: Of Civil Government – Second Treatise

For that matter, over time I’ve come to see the bounderies between the
Tucker-Ingalls and non-Proviso Lockean systems as less distinct, and to
perceive some practical problems with the Tucker system (at least the
more radical variant–he seems to promote different versions of the
system at different times). At times Tucker himself seemed to concede
the existence of house-rent, but to argue that the nullification of
titles to vacant land would (through market competition) cause the
land-rent component of rent to disappear and overall rent to fall to the
value of rent on buildings. Now, to me, that seems to imply that Tucker
wasn’t necessarily (at least at times) dead-set against absentee
ownership in principle. That variant of his land theory, at least, seems
to imply that the important thing was to eliminate large-scale absentee
title to vacant and unimproved land.

In any case, I tend to think that doing so would go a long way to
eliminating landlord rent through market competition.

Another critic, Walter Block argues that you are actually some sort of
Marxist because you use the labour theory of value for deriving a theory
of exploitation. It would seem that (a) Block is unaware that Adam Smith
and David Ricardo also used the labour theory of value and (b) using it
to calculate a rate of exploitation is hardly the same as using it as an
anchor to exchange values.

I think the Austrians also, for the most part, exaggerate the extent to
which marginalism/subjectivism is a radical departure from classical
labor and cost theories. It’s closer to the truth to say that
marginalism provides a mechanism for explaining the tendency that
Ricardo et al described. The marginalist/subjectivist claim that
“utility determines value” is true in a technical sense, if you add the
qualification “at any point in time given the snapshot of supply and
demand in the spot market.” But it’s not true in the ordinary way we use
those words. If you allow changes in supply over time to enter the
picture, then supply alters until the utility of the marginal unit
reflects the cost of producing it–i.e., exactly what Ricardo said.

It makes far more sense to treat marginalism as a complement or
fulfillment to classical political economy, rather than as supplanting it.

Politically, where do you think mutualists should align themselves.
Should they spend their efforts in building cooperative organisations,
like Proudhon’s advocacy of dual power? Or is there some mileage to be
made in being involved in existing political organisations, such as the
Labour Party – Cooperative Party groups in the U.K.? What about in the
United States; is the Libertarian Party salvageable?

I think by far the most important, and the most interest, of our tasks
is actually building the kind of society we want, and doing so so far as
possible without regard to the state. But there’s something to be said
for putting external pressure on the state, and participating in
political coalitions to remove as much state interference with our
activities as possible. Of course the primary emphasis of such
coalition-building should be forming pressure groups, rather than
attempting to become part of a governing coalition.

A lot of this parallels Daniel DeLeon’s disputes with the anarchists in
the I.W.W. DeLeon argued that “building the structure of the new society
in the shell of the old” (i.e. building industrial unions to serve as
organs of self-management) would not be enough by itself. So long as the
capitalists controlled the state and its armed force, and the
significant minority of people whose class interest was tied up with it,
there was the danger of the “Iron Heel” being brought to bear against
counter-organizations. On the other hand, political victory alone wasn’t
sufficient; he gave the example of threats by Jay Gould to organize a
national capital strike and lockout if the socialists ever captured the
national government. Workers, DeLeon argued, should be focused on
building counter-institutions, but also be prepared to seize the
commanding heights of the state long enough to dismantle them and
prevent them from being used against themselves.

What we need is a primary focus on institution building, without
entirely neglecting the need for a political movement to run
interference for the counter-institutions.

What’s more, there’s the very real danger an authoritarian state might
make a concerted effort to stamp out the counter-economy through (for
example) the kinds of totalitarian surveillance Richard Stallman
described in “The Right to Read,” intensified licensing and zoning to
suppress low-capital producers, etc. It’s a waste of effort and probably
corrupting to seriously run our people for Congress or the White House.
But it’s perfectly sensible to carry out propaganda against legislation
like the DMCA, to support lobbying campaigns organized by groups like
the Electronic Frontier Foundation and NORML, etc.

Proudhon argued that through a society of contracts between individuals,
a federal structure could arise. This of course must presume that
individuals have the capacity to engage in uncoerced contractual
arrangements. What other political requirements do you think have a
particular priority in breaking down authoritarian elements in statist rule?

Well, it could be that the authoritarian elements of statist rule will
persist on paper right up to the point at which they become irrelevant.
But in my opinion it’s at least worth a shot to pressure the state from
outside, and form ad hoc alliances to pressure the state, in order to
minimize its interference and fend off attempts at intensified
interference. That includes local efforts against licensing and zoning
that impede household microenterprise and micromanufacturing, local
pressure to defend peaceful squatters and vagrants, pressure against the
regulatory suppression of self-organized mutual-aid efforts, pressure at
the national level against further expanding “intellectual property”
law, and so forth.

Kevin, thank you for your time and views

Tip: SMYGO: News &
Views for Anarchists & Activists

The Isocracy Network interviews Mr. Carson on the theory and practice of mutualism, worker self-management, anarchist thinkers and his critics.

3 Nov 09 | The Isocracy Network

Kevin Carson, an American political theorist and a contemporary leader in discussions concerning mutualism and author of three extremely important books on co-operation, mutualism and capitalism. Describing his politics as being “the outer fringes of both free market libertarianism and socialism”, he certainly will find a welcoming audience among our group—which is why he’s been asked several difficult questions.

“The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand” is available in HTML format and Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective are both available as PDF files.

Firstly, thank you Kevin for agreeing to this interview with The Isocracy Network.

Thanks for inviting me.

Could you begin by giving a description of mutualism from the initial definition offered by the anarchist, Proudhon, to contemporary examples and your own involvement in this sort of analysis of political economy?

Well, first of all, it’s important to distinguish between mutualism as a general form of praxis, and mutualism as a theory. Mutualist practices (friendly societies and lodges, guilds, arrangements for mutual aid, etc.) are probably old as the human race. Proudhon, Owen, Warren, et al simply created a theoretical framework that emphasized such forms of organization as a building block of society. It’s a bit like the centipede trying to figure out how it’s been walking all this time, or the man who was astonished to learn he’d been speaking in prose all along and didn’t even know it.

For that matter, there have been important anarchist thinkers like Kropotkin who emphasized mutual aid and other mutual organizations, without in any strict sense being mutualists. Cooperatives and mutuals have been central to the counterinstitution-building of much of the decentralist Left in the U.S. since the 1960s, but their thought is not explicitly mutualist either.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most of the important examples of mutualist practice (the cooperative movement, the local currency and alternative credit movements, etc.) are not explicitly or self-consciously mutualist in ideology.

Having read Proudhon for some years, his thought is so complex and at times even seemingly self-contradictory, that I still hesitate to summarize it. But I’d venture to say, as an approximation, that his programme centered on: 1) abolishing artificial property rights in land and artificial scarcity of credit, so that the working class could secure cheap access to the prerequisites of production; and 2) organizing the economy around associations of producers. Of course Proudhon was an important founding thinker for anarchism as a whole as well as for mutualism; so these ideas, in modified form, have heavily influenced later collectivist, communist and syndicalist variants of anarchism.

Mutualist praxis was central to the Owenite movement in the U.K. (e.g. Owenite craft unions organized cooperative production and distribution by strikers in their own shops), as well as such things as the Rochedale cooperatives, the Chartists, and land colonization movements. Owenism, by way of Christian socialism and guild socialism, probably had a significant (if indirect) influence on distributism.

In the U.S. mutualism’s primary founder was the Owenite Josiah Warren. Warrenism, cross-pollinated with J.K. Ingalls’ occupancy-and-use view of land ownership and William Greene’s mutual banking theories, together led to the plumbline individualism of Benjamin Tucker. Tucker focused almost entirely on the abolition of artificial property rights and privilege in land and credit, assuming that when the legal props to rent and interest were removed and cheap land and credit were universally available, the forms of organization would take care of themselves. He displayed almost no interest whatever in cooperatives, associations for mutual aid, etc., as such.

Dyer Lum, John Beverley Robinson, and Clarence Swartz, all heavily influenced by Tucker, supplemented his focus on eliminating monopolies with some positive speculation on cooperative forms of organization; in so doing, they represented a partial fusion of Tucker’s version of individualism with the older cooperativist tradition of Proudhon and Owen. Lum, in particular, was also friendly to the radical labor movement and had fairly close ties to the I.W.W.

Would a highly successful large worker’s cooperatives, like the John Lewis Partnership in the U.K., and the Mondragón Corporation in Spain [centered in Basque Country] serve as evidence that mutualist economics can and does work in the large scale? Are credit unions evidence that mutualist economics can replace capitalist banking?

Although I’m quite friendly to both Mondragon and credit unions, and consider their influence to be decidedly positive, I believe their form is still distorted considerably by the capitalist milieu within which they exist. I like Mondragon’s federated system of cooperative producers, distributors and banks within a single umbrella organization. But it’s much too centralized a system in my opinion, with worker representation only effected at the level of the board of directors for the system as a whole; below the level of the Mondragon system as a whole, it’s a fairly top-down system of conventional management, with no significant self-management at the level of individual departments or factories.

I would greatly prefer local markets with lots of stand-alone cooperative manufacturing shops on the Emilia-Romagna model, integrated with cooperative banks in some sort of barter or local currency network of the sort promoted by Tom Greco.

Most credit unions, unfortunately, have adopted the culture of the conventional banking industry, and have almost no ideological affinity for the larger cooperative or counter-economy movement. Of course they are still greatly preferable to capitalist banks; being controlled by many small, local depositors, they are far less prone to the excesses of the capitalist banking system that we’ve seen in recent years.

Proudhon, although arguing that he opposed the idea of individuals deriving an income through rent and investments, said that he never wished “to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree” such activities. A contemporary mainstream economist may argue that Proudhon’s position here would be particularly utopian in those markets that have high barriers to entry or other monopolistic features, that a worker’s cooperative versus an entrenched capitalist enterprise in such a market would require a miracle on the scale of David vs, Goliath for success.

That sounds a bit like Tucker’s pessimistic view of things in his later years, when he seemed resigned to the idea that the large industrial trusts had grown to the point that their market power would persist even after the Four Monopolies were removed.

I think such a view neglects the extent to which capital-intensiveness is a source of high overhead cost and inefficiency, and is only made artificially profitable by the state’s subsidies and protections. In fact production as such has become far less capital-intensive over the past three decades, with the old mass-production core outsourcing increasing shares of total production to flexible manufacturing networks and job-shops, and some of them retaining little more than control over marketing and “intellectual property.” The development of cheap, small-scale CNC tools in the 1970s meant that the capital outlays required for manufacturing imploded by one or two orders of magnitude. That was the beginning of a long shift from older mass-production industry to Emilia-Romagna, the Toyota supplier network, the job-shops of Shenzhen and Shanghai, etc.

The process continues even further in the same direction with the desktop manufacturing revolution of recent years: cheap, homebrew CNC machines scalable to the small shop and garage.

When physical capital costs are so low, most of the financial role of the old industrial core is becoming redundant. And with small-scale production driven by local orders on a lean, demand-pull, JIT basis, marketing is similarly redundant.

“Intellectual property” is the main surviving buttress to the old corporate walls, and it’s becoming increasingly unenforceable.

A follower of Henry George would argue in the realm of natural resources it would be impossible for success and that land-rents should be socialised. How would you respond to these claims?

I’m quite friendly to George, and think the lines between individualism and Georgism are a lot less harsh than (say) Tucker would have believed. But I believe a great deal of rent could be eliminated simply by removing subsidies to economic centralization and positive externalities created by taxpayers—not to mention by removing state enforcement of title to vacant and unimproved land. If as much urban infrastructure as possible were funded by user fees, and cities broken up into lots of mixed-use neighborhoods in which residential areas had their own miniature “downtown” cores, differential rent would be far less significant. I think a majority of George’s aims could be achieved by Tucker’s means, or even by a throughgoing application of Rothbard’s means.

With examples of worker’s self-management in the former Yugoslavia, and modelling by economists such as Jaroslav Vanek and Benjamin Ward, it has been shown in some cases (especially in critical infrastructure) it is advantageous for labor-managed firms, in their objective of increasing income per worker, to either lay-off workers or—like a monopolistic capitalist firm – to reduce productivity and thus derive monopoly profits. How would a contemporary version of mutualism prevent these problems?

It’s been a long time since I read Vanek’s work on worker-managed economies, but my immediate reaction is that there’s probably no fool-proof set of governance rules. When the firm is controlled by capital-owners, they’ll behave in such a way as to maximize returns on capital; when it’s controlled by managers, as in most large Western corporations, they’ll maximize benefits to management at the expense of both labor and capital. At least in a worker-managed firm, the decisions will reflect the interests of a bare majority, which can’t be said of the other two mechanisms. Beyond that, I think the answer to the kind of behavior you describe lies in exit as much as in voice: the lower the capitalization requirements and the lower the barrier to entry for most forms of production, and the lower the cost threshold for comfortable subsistence, the less catastrophic changes in employment will be. I’d like to see an economy where a much larger share of total consumption needs are met through production for subsistence or barter in the household/informal sector, and the average time spent in wage employment is much less than at present.

That would mean a significantly larger share of the population would be self-employed than at present, a very large share would work hours that we would regard as “part-time,” household arrangements for pooling wages and hoarding labor-time would be much more resilient, and even wage-earners would tend to accept as normal prolonged periods of unemployment during which they lived off subsistence resources while waiting for a job to their liking.

Pro-capitalist neoliberals, such as George Reismann, Roderick T. Long have criticised your advocacy of mutualism. Reisman and Long both argue that you do not support John Locke’s ownership of landed property that has been mixed with labour or, to use the peculiarly U.S. vernacular, “homesteading”. It seems that both this critics have fundamentally misunderstood Locke’s concept of land ownership, which recognises a public cost for exclusion and use in addition to the right of added value. How do you respond to these criticisms?

To be frank, I can’t say with any degree of confidence what Reisman understands about anything. But I think Long acknowledged Locke’s Proviso and explicitly characterized his own position as “non-Proviso Lockeanism.” I’m not a Georgist myself, although I’d be well-disposed to a local property rules system based on some form of common ownership and community collection of rent. In any case, justifiably or not, when answering Lockean critics I tend to tacitly work from the premise that “Lockean” means “non-Proviso Lockean.” And for the most part, I think a radical and consistent application of non-Proviso Lockean rules would go most of the way toward achieving the aims of the Tucker-Ingalls land theory.

… all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous band of nature: … Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property… For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

–John Locke, Of Civil Government – Second Treatise

For that matter, over time I’ve come to see the bounderies between the Tucker-Ingalls and non-Proviso Lockean systems as less distinct, and to perceive some practical problems with the Tucker system (at least the more radical variant–he seems to promote different versions of the system at different times). At times Tucker himself seemed to concede the existence of house-rent, but to argue that the nullification of titles to vacant land would (through market competition) cause the land-rent component of rent to disappear and overall rent to fall to the value of rent on buildings. Now, to me, that seems to imply that Tucker wasn’t necessarily (at least at times) dead-set against absentee ownership in principle. That variant of his land theory, at least, seems to imply that the important thing was to eliminate large-scale absentee title to vacant and unimproved land.

In any case, I tend to think that doing so would go a long way to eliminating landlord rent through market competition.

Another critic, Walter Block argues that you are actually some sort of Marxist because you use the labour theory of value for deriving a theory of exploitation. It would seem that (a) Block is unaware that Adam Smith and David Ricardo also used the labour theory of value and (b) using it to calculate a rate of exploitation is hardly the same as using it as an anchor to exchange values.

I think the Austrians also, for the most part, exaggerate the extent to which marginalism/subjectivism is a radical departure from classical labor and cost theories. It’s closer to the truth to say that marginalism provides a mechanism for explaining the tendency that Ricardo et al described. The marginalist/subjectivist claim that “utility determines value” is true in a technical sense, if you add the qualification “at any point in time given the snapshot of supply and demand in the spot market.” But it’s not true in the ordinary way we use those words. If you allow changes in supply over time to enter the picture, then supply alters until the utility of the marginal unit reflects the cost of producing it—i.e., exactly what Ricardo said.

It makes far more sense to treat marginalism as a complement or fulfillment to classical political economy, rather than as supplanting it.

Politically, where do you think mutualists should align themselves. Should they spend their efforts in building cooperative organisations, like Proudhon’s advocacy of dual power? Or is there some mileage to be made in being involved in existing political organisations, such as the Labour Party—Cooperative Party groups in the U.K.? What about in the United States; is the Libertarian Party salvageable?

I think by far the most important, and the most interest, of our tasks is actually building the kind of society we want, and doing so so far as possible without regard to the state. But there’s something to be said for putting external pressure on the state, and participating in political coalitions to remove as much state interference with our activities as possible. Of course the primary emphasis of such coalition-building should be forming pressure groups, rather than attempting to become part of a governing coalition.

A lot of this parallels Daniel DeLeon’s disputes with the anarchists in the I.W.W. DeLeon argued that “building the structure of the new society in the shell of the old” (i.e. building industrial unions to serve as organs of self-management) would not be enough by itself. So long as the capitalists controlled the state and its armed force, and the significant minority of people whose class interest was tied up with it, there was the danger of the “Iron Heel” being brought to bear against counter-organizations. On the other hand, political victory alone wasn’t sufficient; he gave the example of threats by Jay Gould to organize a national capital strike and lockout if the socialists ever captured the national government. Workers, DeLeon argued, should be focused on building counter-institutions, but also be prepared to seize the commanding heights of the state long enough to dismantle them and prevent them from being used against themselves.

What we need is a primary focus on institution building, without entirely neglecting the need for a political movement to run interference for the counter-institutions.

What’s more, there’s the very real danger an authoritarian state might make a concerted effort to stamp out the counter-economy through (for example) the kinds of totalitarian surveillance Richard Stallman described in “The Right to Read,” intensified licensing and zoning to suppress low-capital producers, etc. It’s a waste of effort and probably corrupting to seriously run our people for Congress or the White House. But it’s perfectly sensible to carry out propaganda against legislation like the DMCA, to support lobbying campaigns organized by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and NORML, etc.

Proudhon argued that through a society of contracts between individuals, a federal structure could arise. This of course must presume that individuals have the capacity to engage in uncoerced contractual arrangements. What other political requirements do you think have a particular priority in breaking down authoritarian elements in statist rule?

Well, it could be that the authoritarian elements of statist rule will persist on paper right up to the point at which they become irrelevant. But in my opinion it’s at least worth a shot to pressure the state from outside, and form ad hoc alliances to pressure the state, in order to minimize its interference and fend off attempts at intensified interference. That includes local efforts against licensing and zoning that impede household microenterprise and micromanufacturing, local pressure to defend peaceful squatters and vagrants, pressure against the regulatory suppression of self-organized mutual-aid efforts, pressure at the national level against further expanding “intellectual property” law, and so forth.

Kevin, thank you for your time and views.

Kevin Carson is a research associate at the Center for a Stateless Society, contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective. Mr. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.

Interview by fellow wobbly Diane Krauthamer. Originally posted at Znet.

DK: I would like to start this interview with a discussion of the economic crisis and how workers can deal with the issues which we face. In your recent piece titled “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours,” which was published in the Boston Review, you state that the “the financial crisis will presumably be patched up somehow, while leaving the institutions that created it pretty much in place.” Following on that, there has been a recent upsurge of militant industrial action in workplaces, primarily throughout Europe, and also in North America. As you know, the Republic Windows and Doors Factory in Chicago was the first factory occupation in the U.S. since the 1930s.

NC: No, not quite, because the 1979 strike against U.S. Steel in Youngstown, Ohio was an occupation—and actually, that’s a model that really should be pursued now. They went on from striking to trying to have the workforce and the communities take over the abandoned factories that U.S. Steel was dismantling. The legal effort that followed was led by the radical labor lawyer Staughton Lynd. They didn’t win in the courts, but they could have won, and they would have had enough support. It could have meant a lot.

DK: That leads me to my question about how workers are responding to mass layoffs. I feel what they are aiming for are parochial gains without thinking more long-term of how they can move towards workers’ self-management.

NC: That’s what the IWW should be doing: providing that spark. You’re right, it’s reactive. But the same was true of the sit-down strikes in the 1930s. I mean the reason the sit-down strikes struck such fear in the hearts of management was that they knew that a sit-down strike was just one step short of taking over the factory.

DK: I feel at the moment we’re gaining numbers and we’re gaining a lot of strength and power, but the rest of the American labor movement does not perceive that we are very serious. It is a very difficult feat to go from what we’re doing now to really being a part of the broader labor movement in the U.S., which is important if we are to provide that spark.

NC: The U.S. is different from Europe and other industrial countries in this respect. The U.S. is, to a very unusual extent, a business-run society. There are all kinds of reasons for that—it has no feudal background, so institutions that remained in place in Europe did not remain in place here. There are a lot of reasons. But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is run by an unusually class-conscious, dedicated business class that has a very violent labor history, much worse than in Europe. The attack on unions has been far more extreme here, and it has been much more successful. Also, the business propaganda has been far more successful. Anti-union propaganda has been considerably more successful here than in Europe, even among working people who would benefit [from] unions. In fact, a rather striking aspect of business propaganda in the United States is the demonization of government, starting after the Second World War.

The Second World War ended with a radicalization of the population in the United States and everywhere else, and called for all kinds of things like popular takeovers, government intervention, and worker takeovers of factories. Business propagated a tremendous propaganda offensive. The scale surprised me when I read the scholarship—it’s enormous, and it’s been very effective. There were two major targets: one is unions, the other is democracy. Well, [to them] democracy means getting people to regard government as an alien force that’s robbing them and oppressing them, not as their government. In a democracy it would be your government. For example, in a democracy the day when you pay your taxes, April 15, would be a day of celebration, because you’re getting together to provide resources for the programs you decided on. In the United States, it’s a day of mourning because this alien force—the government—is coming to rob you of your hard-earned money. That’s the general attitude, and it’s a tremendous victory for the opponents of democracy, and, of course, any privileged sector is going to hate democracy. You can see it in the healthcare debate.

The majority of the population thinks that if the government runs healthcare, they’re going to take away your freedom. At the same time, the public favors a national healthcare program. The contradiction is somehow unresolved. In the case of the business propaganda, it’s particularly ironic because while business wants the population to hate the government, they want the population to love the government. Namely, they’re in favor of a very powerful state which works in their interest. So you have to love that government, but hate the government that might work in your interest and that you could control. That’s an interesting propaganda task, but it’s been carried out very well. You can see it in the worship of Reagan, which portrays him as somebody who saved us from government. Actually he was an apostle of big government. Government grew under Reagan. He was the strongest opponent of free markets in the post-war history among presidents. But it doesn’t matter what the reality is; they concocted an image that you worship. It’s hard to achieve that, especially in a free society, but it’s been done, and that’s the kind of thing that activists in the IWW have to work against, right on the shop floor. It’s not so simple, but it’s been done before.

DK: You mentioned that business is very class conscious. Can you elaborate on that statement?

NC: Well, all you have to do is read the business literature. In the 1930s they were very frightened and they were concerned about how the rising power of the masses was hazardous to industrialists. They used straight Marxist rhetoric—just the values were changed. The literature is like that—they are constantly talking about the masses, the danger they pose, and how to control them. They understand what they’re doing, and they’re very class conscious. They press policies which work for their interests. For example, the insurance industries and the big banks are absolutely euphoric now—on the business pages they don’t even conceal it—because they’ve succeeded in coming out of the crisis even stronger than they were before, and in a better position to lay the basis for the next crisis. But they don’t care, because they’ll get bailed out again. That’s class consciousness with a vengeance.

DK: On the topic of how businesses use propaganda. I would say now they use propaganda more so for union-busting than they use the violent tactics. Would you agree?

NC: For a while, after the Second World War, when there was strong support for labor, this was done subtly. But since Reagan, it has been done openly. I mean Reagan bitterly hated unions and wanted them destroyed. This began with the air controllers’ strike and went on from there. The Reagan administration told the business world that they were not going to enforce the labor laws. The number of illegal firings tripled during the Reagan years. It was at that time that you started getting these companies that specialized in how to destroy unions. They don’t make it a secret, and they have all sorts of techniques for management to destroy unions. Well, when Clinton came along, it sort of moderated a little bit, but Clinton had a different device for breaking unions called NAFTA [North America Free Trade Agreement]. Because the government was entirely lawless, employers could exploit NAFTA to threaten union organizers with transfer. It’s illegal, but when you’ve got a lawless government, it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal. I think the number of union drives blocked increased by about 50 percent. Part of the NAFTA legislation required studies of labor practices, and there was quite a good study that came out by a labor historian on the use of NAFTA to undermine and destroy unions. Well, that was going on in the Clinton years, then, of course Bush…who we don’t need to even talk about. But starting with Regan it became quite open, the attack on unions. It wasn’t the Pinkertons anymore, but it was just not applying the laws.

DK: We’re seeing that very much in the IWW, especially in the Starbucks Workers Union, whereby Starbucks will put out all kinds of anti-union propaganda both internally, within the company, and externally. A lot of what they do is tell workers that they don’t need a union.

NC: They’re better off without it, that’s the Whole Foods line.

DK: Right, they use the line of Corporate Social Responsibility, and a lot of it is very effective.

NC: It is.

DK: So how could we, as a small, independent labor union, work to fight against that kind of propaganda?

NC: You’ve just got to get people organized and tell them the truth. There aren’t any magic tricks to it. You know, sometimes it’s pretty amazing. Actually, I mentioned a pretty striking case of this in “Crisis and Hope,” which was the Caterpillar case in the early 1990s. Caterpillar was quite important because that was the first manufacturing industry that used Reaganite strike-breaking techniques. They illegally called in scabs to break a major strike. It was reported pretty well in the Chicago Tribune, who pointed out something very interesting. They said that the workers got very little support in Peoria when scabs illegally broke the strike, and that was particularly striking because that whole community had been built up by the union—it was a union-based community. But when it came to the crunch, the community itself didn’t support the union. Now that’s kind of interesting about Obama, because Obama was supposedly a community organizer in Chicago at that time. Now I’m sure he read the Chicago Tribune, so he knew about it, but when he went to show his solidarity with the workforce, the first place he went was Caterpillar. I don’t think he’s forgotten, and the labor movement didn’t react. Even radical labor historians didn’t remember. It was only 15 years ago, after all, but that’s a real triumph of propaganda in many ways.

It’s a lot of work to reconstruct a strong labor offensive, but it’s happened before. I mean in the 1920s the labor movement was almost completely destroyed. Well, in the 1930s it really revived and became pretty radical. Things can happen, but not by themselves. I mean, then you had the Communist Party, who was right at the heart of civil rights activism and labor activism and so on, but something else has to provide it. You don’t want to have their Russia worship, but domestically they had a pretty good record. I can remember it pretty well from childhood, because my family was mostly union people.

DK: Your father was in the IWW, right?

NC: He was in the IWW… but do you want to know the truth? [laughs]

DK: Yes I do.

NC: He came over as an immigrant and didn’t know any English. He went to work at a sweat shop in Baltimore. He told me later that this guy was coming around, and the guy seemed to be for the workers, so he signed up. It turned out that guy was an IWW organizer [laughs]. My father didn’t regret signing up; he just really didn’t know what was going on.

DK: What industry was he in?

NC: I don’t even know if I ever knew [laughing]—some sweatshop in Baltimore. I knew with my other relatives—some of the women were in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and men were shop boys and things like that. I happened to be in Philadelphia, but the family was in New York. I could see what the union was doing for them. It really saved their lives. I had two spinster aunts who were seamstresses, and of course unemployed in the 1930s, but the union gave them a life. They had a couple of weeks in the country for a union installation and they had educational programs and all sorts of things. There was a life, you know, a real community. And they were members of the Communist Party—they didn’t care one way or another about Russia, they just cared about the United States.

DK: On that note, I’m also looking to think ahead with what’s in the future for the labor movement and the IWW. More generally, if you had one piece of advice to offer future generations of Wobblies—especially in light of the tough financial times that we are facing and will probably continue to face for a long time in the Western world—what would it be?

NC: Well, I get a lot of letters from people. When I go home tonight I’ll have 15 letters today from mostly young kids who don’t like what’s going on and want to do something about it, and [they ask me] if I can give them some advice as to what they should do, or can I tell them what to read or something. It doesn’t work like that. I mean, everything depends very much on who you are, what your values are, what your commitments are, what circumstances you live in and what options you’re willing to undertake, and that determines what you ought to be doing. There are some very general ideas that people can keep in mind; they’re kind of truisms. It’s only worth mentioning them because they’re always denied.

First of all, don’t believe anything you hear from power systems. So if Obama or the boss or the newspapers or anyone else tells you they’re doing this, that, or the other thing, dismiss it or assume the opposite is true, which it often is. You have to rely on yourself and your associates—gifts don’t come from above; you’re going to win them, or you won’t have them, and you win by struggle, and that requires understanding and serious analysis of the options and the circumstances, and then you can do a lot. So take right now, for example, there is a right-wing populist uprising. It’s very common, even on the left, to just ridicule them, but that’s not the right reaction. If you look at those people and listen to them on talk radio, these are people with real grievances. I listen to talk radio a lot and it’s kind of interesting. If you can sort of suspend your knowledge of the world and just enter into the world of the people who are calling in, you can understand them. I’ve never seen a study, but my sense is that these are people who feel really aggrieved. These people think, “I’ve done everything right all my life, I’m a god-fearing Christian, I’m white, I’m male, I’ve worked hard, and I carry a gun. I do everything I’m supposed to do. And I’m getting shafted.” And in fact they are getting shafted. For 30 years their wages have stagnated or declined, the social conditions have worsened, the children are going crazy, there are no schools, there’s nothing, so somebody must be doing something to them, and they want to know who it is. Well Rush Limbaugh has answered – it’s the rich liberals who own the banks and run the government, and of course run the media, and they don’t care about you—they just want to give everything away to illegal immigrants and gays and communists and so on.

Well, you know, the reaction we should be having to them is not ridicule, but rather self-criticism. Why aren’t we organizing them? I mean, we are the ones that ought to be organizing them, not Rush Limbaugh. There are historical analogs, which are not exact, of course, but are close enough to be worrisome. This is a whiff of early Nazi Germany. Hitler was appealing to groups with similar grievances, and giving them crazy answers, but at least they were answers; these groups weren’t getting them anywhere else. It was the Jews and the Bolsheviks [that were the problem].

I mean, the liberal democrats aren’t going to tell the average American, “Yeah, you’re being shafted because of the policies that we’ve established over the years that we’re maintaining now.” That’s not going to be an answer. And they’re not getting answers from the left. So, there’s an internal coherence and logic to what they get from Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these guys. And they sound very convincing, they’re very self-confident, and they have an answer to everything—a crazy answer, but it’s an answer. And it’s our fault if that goes on. So one thing to be done is don’t ridicule these people, join them, and talk about their real grievances and give them a sensible answer, like, “Take over your factories.”

There’s a certain debate going on over on Twitter between myself and @cdaae pertaining to the definition of anarchism. Assuming I’m understanding her correctly, she’s indicated she thinks anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive while I believe anarchism and socialism are mutually exclusive. Wacky, eh?

I pointed out the flash video you can watch by clicking on the link in the side bar (“Self-Ownership”). That’s really the best and most simple explanation of the foundation for my viewpoint on rights I can express. She’s suggested I read Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. etc. (the etc. etc. were actually hers). Perhaps I should do so just to be fair. I don’t know if I consider it fair, however, for me to point someone to a five-minute video and be expected to read books on socialistic philosophy in return, but I’m sure that wasn’t her intent.

Let me sum up the beginning of my argument here. The concept of Rights is just that: a concept. It stems from a moral position based on the assumption that humans are sentient and other things (such as rocks and birds) aren’t and therefore we humans have some level of self-determinism.

Assuming that one agrees that humans are, in fact, capable of self-determinism and assuming that one agrees with the moral standpoint that said self-determinism (ie. not being enslaved) is the preferable state, we can base our philosophical debate on that agreement.

From there, we have to acknowledge the difference between self-deterministic beings and non-self-deterministic objects/beings. Obviously, all inanimate objects are non-self-deterministic. Life forms without brains capable of advanced reasoning have to be assumed to be non-self-deterministic as well even if it’s only to simplify the debate. During this debate, I’m going to assume that humans count as self-deterministic, animals don’t. If, however, you think that other animals than human are self-deterministic then just assume I’m adding them into the term “people”. And if you have evidence, please let me know. I’d love to figure out how to have a philosophical discussion with a non-human. From now on, I’m going to refer to “people” or “person” and when I do I’ll mean any self-deterministic being.

Next we go on to logical steps. Each person is in their natural state of freedom when they are not being enslaved or murdered. That becomes definitional to personhood. As a definitional state, it can be considered a right. A right can never be taken away, given away, waived or removed. It can, however, be acted against. Enslavement and murder are the two most obvious ways to act against the rights of a person.

If we consider it unacceptable for a person to defend their own life or freedom, then we are by default saying that the person’s life and freedom are privileges which can be freely taken away from them as opposed to rights. Therefore we are saying each person has the right of self-defense.

Acting on the right of self-defense requires two simple things: a place to hide or run to, and the tools necessary to stop an attack. It doesn’t matter how good your hiding place is if you can’t defend it and it doesn’t matter how good your weapons are if you have no place to sleep. That which is not previously owned by another and we pick up and mold into a tool becomes part of our right of self-defense. That place which is not previously owned by another and we make safe for ourselves similarly becomes part of our right of self-defense. This is the foundation for the right to private property. Without that very simple right, we have no freedom and no life except which we are granted by another.

Notice that I stipulate “which is not previously owned”. This is the absolute limit to all rights. If I say my right of self-defense is more important than yours, then I’m saying yours is not a right but a privilege. If the self-defense is a privilege for one, it is for all and I lose my right to life and liberty just as do you. First claim places ownership.

That’s the source of Private Property Rights. From there we move on to Right of Transfer/Disposal. That right says I can transfer those tools that are rightfully mine into anyone elses hands through a consensual contract. I can’t force you to take my hammer, but if you want it I can give it to you. You can convince me I want to give it to you by telling me you’ll give me your saw if I give you my hammer. If I want a saw more than I want a hammer, then I’ll want to give you my hammer and we have a trade. That’s capitalism.

From Self-Determinism we get capitalism. Now lets remove the trappings of capitalism and see where that takes us.

Capitalism is the ability for people to make consensual contracts for whatever goods and/or services they own/perform. It’s the consensual exchange of wealth between self-deterministic beings. There are two requirements for capitalism to exist: ownership and consent. Nothing else goes into capitalism. If the debate is pertaining to something else, then it’s not about capitalism. For instance, if the debate is about landlords taking advantage of renters, then it’s actually about freedom of movement or about fraud or about taxation or any of a million things that are related to restricting free trade, not about capitalism.

The obvious choice for removing a trapping of capitalism is to remove private property. If no person owns anything, then there’s no capitalism. But then where does self-determinism come into play? If, as a self-deterministic being, I decide I want to lay claim to something who is to stop me? I pick up a hammer that belongs to nobody and I then claim it’s mine. Who is to argue? The only way that works is if there’s an outside force determining the use of said hammer. But the definition of ownership is claim of the right of transfer and disposal. Whoever claims that right obviously is the owner of the hammer. The hammer is then the private property of the claimant. That claimant is governing the public and is therefore the government, by definition. At this point we’ve determined that the tools of self-defense are now the property of the government. This causes everyone under the yoke of that government to be enslaved to that government in fact even if not in name.

If one removes the other characteristic of capitalism, consensual contract, then one is jumping ahead to the punchline and going straight to slavery.

So we cannot have anarchism without capitalism because the one thing that defines anarchy, self-ownership, is also the one thing that defines capitalism. They are, for all intents and purposes, synonymous. To the degree that one is modified, so to that degree is the other corrupted. Corruption of capitalism is socialism. Corruption of anarchy is tyranny.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you have any thoughts on the subject, and a little more time to post them, please do leave a comment.

marc on book yr own f’in life.
backing up in w’press.
bring the ruckus. dot org.
iww literature department.
infoshop library.
sumidiot’s phones post.

From: Freiheit, July 25, 1885

Action as Propaganda

by Johann Most

We have said a hundred times or more that when modern revolutionaries carry out actions, what is important is not solely these actions themselves but also the propagandistic effect they are able to achieve. Hence, we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda.

It is a phenomenally simple matter, yet over and over again we meet people, even people close to the center of our party, who either do not, or do not wish, to understand. We have recently had a clear enough illustration of this over the Lieske affair…

So our question is this: what is the purpose of the anarchists’ threats — an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth — if they are not followed up by action?

Or are perhaps the “law and order” rabble, all of them blackguards extraordinary, to be done away in a dark corner so that no one knows the why and the wherefore of what happened?

It would be a form of action, certainly, but not action as propaganda.

The great thing about anarchist vengeance is that is proclaims loud and clear for everyone to hear, that: this man or that man must die for this and this reason; and that at the first opportunity which presents itself for the realization of such a threat, the rascal in question is really and truly dispatched to the other world.

And this is indeed what happened with Alexander Romanov, with Messenzoff, with Sudeikin, with Bloch and Hlubeck, with Rumpff and others. Once such an action has been carried out, the important thing is that the world learns of it from the revolutionaries, so that everyone knows what the position is.

The overwhelming impression this makes is shown by how the reactionaries have repeatedly tried to hush up revolutionary actions that have taken place, or present them in a different light. This has often been possible in Russia, especially, because of the conditions governing the press there.

In order to achieve the desired success in the fullest measure, immediately after the action has been carried out, especially in the town where it took place, posters should be put up setting out the reasons for the action in such a way as to draw from them the best possible benefit.

And in those cases where this was not done, the reason was simply that it proved inadvisable to involve the number of participants that would have been required; or that there was a lack of money. It was all the more natural in these cases for the anarchist press to glorify and explicate the deeds at every opportunity. For it to have adopted an attitude of indifference toward such actions, or even to have denied them, would have been perfectly idiotic treachery.

‘Freiheit’ has always pursued this policy. It is nothing more than insipid, sallow envy which makes those demagogues who are continually mocking us with cries of “Carry on, then, carry on” condemn this aspect of our behavior, among others, whenever they can, as a crime.

This miserable tribe is well aware that no action carried out by anarchists can have its proper propagandist effect if those organs whose responsibility it is neither give suitable prominence to such actions, nor make it palatable to the people.

It is this, above all, which puts the reactionaries in a rage.

We owe it to ourselves to bite on our shackles even if it is that we die biting. Because we are nothing more then our own choices.

Panayiotis Masouras, Greek prisoner

The Zionism of the early kibbutz communards had never imagined a national revival taking the form of a state-building enterprise. For them, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, promising a “national home” for the Jews, meant an opportunity to establish a completely new form of society and a chance to put their dreams and visions into practice. Collective settlement was not seen simply as the most efficient way of colonizing the land in order to create a Jewish state and install a market-capitalist economy, as some have since argued. Though the later centrality of the movement to the creation and defence of Israel is clear, the notion that the pioneers resorted to collectivism simply in order to create suitable conditions for the institution of that state is largely a myth. Even the founders of Degania were strictly opposed to the notions of government and state, and by the time the Third Aliya groups arrived, the idea of building a stateless society on the back of the new social model they had created was one that was widely embraced. The idea held in common by many of the groups arriving in Palestine during the 1920s was to transform the Yishuv into a stateless commonwealth of autonomous communities that would include few, if any, non-collective alternatives.

= = =

from James Horrox, A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement (Oakland, CA & Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009), pp 57–58.

In the late 1990s open meetings called Riotous Assembly took place in the Yard Theatre in Homes for Change, a housing co-operative in Hulme, South Manchester. The meetings were intended to be spaces where people involved in radical, direct action, anarchist, ecological, autonomous and non-hierarchical organising could meet, celebrate their activities, network future events and actions and educate themselves about a wide range of issues.

This article consists of the edited transcript of a discussion between two individuals, one of whom was involved from the first days of Riotous Assembly and a second who became involved in helping to run the meetings in their later years. They’re not using their real names.

James: Riotous Assembly was born out of that time when the Manchester Earth First! (EF!) meetings were just too big, they were getting 20 or 30 people every fortnight. And some people just said, OK, there’s obviously a need for a networking forum but we don’t want that function to be taken on by the EF! meetings because we want to be getting on with organising ecological actions. So the decision was taken to set up an activist networking forum, and it was the first of that generation of them in this country. The Rebel Alliance in Brighton got a lot of cred and recognition – but we were first! And there had been similar things a decade or so earlier, there was something called Liberty Hall in Liverpool, but they’d fallen away for an activist generation.

Jane: Who picked the name?

James: I remember exactly who came up with the name [names an individual active in anarchist and direct action politics at the time]. Part of it was about the fact that Riotous Assembly was a criminal charge, which we thought was quite funny. But also that it was an assembly, riotous in the sense of both a riot tactic but also in the sense of riotous laughter, so not just a really full-on thing. But also the assembly was a real attempt to create something, the concept of an assembly – something that wasn’t a group in itself, something no one person or group could take control of.

The slightly fatter-than-bookmark fliers we created for it did say something about No Dogma, we were trying to think of ways that it wouldn’t just be a target for the SWP [Socialist Workers' Party] taking it over, and would be in form if not in name a truly anarchist way of organising. So if it’s an assembly, not a group, the idea was that there’s no power, there’s nothing to take control of, because any group can come along and say we want to organise next month’s meeting, but they’d only be doing the next month.

The format was quite regular in that there would be three parts. The later sections were a kind of review of what had been happening over the last month, actions and campaigns that people had been involved in, partly to update people but also as a small pat on the back, and to use that energy to move onto the final bit which was what was happening in the next month. That was mostly announcements, some of it was ‘this is happening but we need more people’ – so making ourselves accessible. And the first third could be around an issue of that group’s choice, and we tried to encourage people to do it in creative ways. So one time there was a little play and there might be a film but we’d make sure it wasn’t just a film where people became an audience but that there was active discussion afterwards. I think someone did a banner-making workshop and other creative things, or it could just be a speaker and discussion. But we were really hot on that section not squeezing the other two-thirds, because we really didn’t want it just becoming a talking shop.

Jane: What subjects do you remember being covered? I remember a genetics one, a Zapatista one, somebody wanting to talk about Palestine but it getting shouted down on the grounds that it was a nationalist struggle… but although I was involved in quite a lot of them from 1999 or 2000 – booking them and putting some of them on – I can’t remember many of the talks.

James: I think there was stuff about Strangeways and the prison riots there, there was stuff around racial discrimination, stuff on domestic violence, it depended on the group who organised it – the idea was always to publicise it well in advance and use different issues to pull people in… but I can’t remember all the other issues. Someone will have the fliers somewhere.

But I think I was saying before that the concept was really sound and could still work, although the practical issues meant it didn’t work at the time. I think it was partly around the process of creation, in that it came out of an Earth First! meeting and the ideas came out of that, but before it was actually launched there wasn’t another meeting to try and get more ownership from other groups that might want to get involved, and that was partly because we were naïve about it, we’d got an idea that the concept was sound and that that was enough.

We didn’t want this to turn into an SWP front or get taken over or turn into a talk shop, we want it to be there to promote discussion and action and a sense of movement-building, although that term wasn’t used, and connections between people because there were so many people doing stuff around Manchester but not necessarily in touch with each other. So the concept was sound but I don’t think we brought those other groups in early enough, and if we had done an early meeting to sort things out the danger might have been that it would have decided not to do something like that, so even if we’d done it better from a group work and community development angle we might not have ended up with the same result.

Jane: Do you think the venue was a problem? Because those Earth First! meetings were in the town centre, they were very accessible to a wide range of people, whereas being in Hulme cut it off from a lot of people. Obviously Hulme has been a hub for a lot of direct action and radical politics, but obviously for anyone not on the Chorlton bus routes, getting to Hulme means an extra bus journey on top of the one coming into the city centre, and Hulme itself, certainly then, was quite dark and isolated and scary feeling if you didn’t know it.

James: Yes, I remember a couple of the older people from Greater Manchester who would have to get a train in and then a bus out and then a bit of a walk, so they had to be very motivated, and students at that time certainly felt that it was kind of scary and off the student corridor and Oxford Road. But we still had 60 or 80 people turning up monthly, or maybe 30 or 40 later on…

Jane: Certainly my recollection is that by the time I was more involved, by 2000 or 2001, they were often down to a couple of dozen. But when do you think they actually started?

James: I’m not sure, but it was certainly the time that Earth First! meetings moved to the EF! Office in a flat on the Redbricks. Because we decided we’d got these open, accessible Riotous Assembly meetings and we’d got the squat cafes still, and what we needed was for EF! meetings to be about planning action, not fortnightly meetings where every time you’ve got new people coming along who feel a bit excluded because you’re using shorthand terms or hand signals. So they weren’t meant to be totally private, but a bit more private, so if someone specifically wanted to come to an EF! meeting they’d be collected from a pub or a bus stop and brought in, so people were more aware when there was a new person and could make that effort and explain things more clearly…

Jane: So what’s your take on why Riotous Assembly folded?

James: Well, maybe there are more reasons but my top one would be the old ‘beardies,’ by which I mean the old-style anarchists who weren’t all men and didn’t all have beards but largely were and did. They were people who’d spent decades in tiny meetings with each other, shouting across each other, not able to listen to each other, and never getting beyond little circles of Anarchist Federation, Solidarity Federation and little temporary groupings. They knew each other but still couldn’t communicate and were still trying to convince each other of things that they obviously weren’t going to shift each others’ opinions on. And suddenly, they had 60 people to play with and be their audience.

A lot of it was that they didn’t have the social skills to understand their impact. One of them accused EF! of running those Riotous Assemblies, and it often was people who’d done EF! who were putting most time into organising and facilitating them, but actually people from EF! were really aware that they weren’t an EF! forum, it shouldn’t be controlled or dominated by EF!, that EF! discussions didn’t discuss Riotous Assembly because we felt that was undemocratic. But for some of those older people it wasn’t just that they objected to Earth First!, it was that it was a new way of doing things that was actually more anarchist – not that I want to get into a ‘I’m more anarchist than you’ fight – but in terms of collective autonomy and groups being able to create and organise what they wanted, and take direct action together, rather than just talk about it. And using consensus decision making as well, and for some of them it was all a bit new and they had trouble adapting. They would try and block things and accuse people of doing things that they weren’t doing, so each time that happened it would drive some people away.

Equally, I have met people who said afterwards that it was really good that they’d heard these discussions and that there may only have been 6 people talking but they were ideas they’d not heard before and were interested in, so they didn’t mind that they didn’t get to talk. But I tend more to wanting people to participate…

Jane: My memory of some of the ‘beards’ is that not only did they not have some of the social skills, but also what a lot of them wanted to talk about was theory. They weren’t people who were actively doing direct action and largely what they wanted to hold forth on were points of theory, and I remember having the sense that there were 5 people there who had 3 anarchist reading groups between them because they just kept splintering off from each other over points of disagreement… and I think those people were a big problem and drained a lot of energy. But the counter-argument might be that if those meetings had been better facilitated and less hung up on feeling that you have to accommodate everybody, however dysfunctional, then you might have just told some of those people to shut up occasionally and they wouldn’t have been able to drain energy the way they ended up doing.

James: Absolutely, but I think that was partly about ownership, and those people who had the facilitation skills tended to be Earth Firsters who didn’t want to assert control over an assembly that no-one was meant to be asserting control over. So they were caught between a rock and a hard place, that we don’t want to rule these people out and tell them they were impacting on other people and that they should go and talk about it in room with themselves, or with the other 5 people you’ve been talking about it with for 15 years. But we didn’t want to exert that control, and it’s really hard because if one person, and it was just one person, is accusing something like EF! of exerting control, you do everything you can not to make that a reality, although you’re sure it’s not reality, you over-compensate. So you put yourself in a powerless position instead of saying, look, this is the original idea, it was working fine, now it’s not working fine because of some people’s lack of social skills and us not facilitating actively and strongly enough… well, it just imploded.

And it was difficult, because in amongst some of those beardies there were people who were really destructive, like the one who kept accusing EF! of running things, and others like X who was really cool and because of his links with other organisations like Solidarity Federation would turn up every so often with a hundred quid to give to ecological direct action. So there was that personal contact that was brought about through it. And we used to learn about lots of other stuff from some of the older activist generations who used to come to Riotous Assembly but wouldn’t have come to an Earth First! meeting and who had been involved in things like trade union struggles. And it was around the time of the Loombreaker [a local direct action/anarchist newspaper], so there meetings were a really good way of collecting information and finding out about other stuff that was going on…

So I can’t remember how Riotous Assembly actually ended, whether it just petered out or whether someone actually took a decision to end it, but for lots of reasons there just weren’t enough groups stepping up to facilitate the next one…

Jane: My memory of the last ones was that it was a very small group of us that dragged it along towards the end, feeling that we had to go out there and find a speaker and that one of us would have to facilitate it, rather than what it was supposed to be, with groups and campaigns taking one on and sorting out the content and facilitator and publicity and us just having to book the venue…

James: And then it had become something extra that Earth Firsters had had to do with a different hat on, but which then stopped them doing the campaigning that they actually wanted to be doing…

Article by Sarah Irving