Solidarity with the Turkish uprising!

Originally Posted onto Facebook

General Strike called for by the DISK and KISK union federations, Hava-Is continues strike against Turkish Airlines (THY) that began May 15.

Turkey, is largely considered the most “democratic” and “secular” nation in the middle east.

There are several reports that suggest the uprising “began” to escalate over a dispute as to whether a popular historic central park used by the working masses–should be made into a corporate shopping mall for the profit of the wealthy and their political stooges. And when there was a show of force of people to resist the demolition, the political and wealthy elite who rule society used their loyal servants–the police, to forcefully remove them. The police do not act independently as an institution and it incorrect to think so. How many thousands of times must we see such similar situations, in ten thousand trivial examples before we come to the realization that we workers and oppressed won’t have control over society until we confront the wealthy capitalists and their political stooges?

The uprising appears to represent more pro-worker, democratic and secular aspirations, as well as an opposition to the ultra-reactionary aspirations of radical Islamism and neo-liberal austerity. The degree of leverage the uprising will provide to groups and movements in the region and the world with similar aspirations will be heavily influenced by the degree of success of the Turkish popular uprising.

It is important to expose the faux democracy of ALL nations (Especially those where we live) which serve and are ruled by the wealthiest of society like Turkey, not merely the ultra-reactionary mission of a section of that wealthy elite. Only when the working masses take more control over their nations and society can they have a Genuine say in what is more useful to our society–a beautiful historic public park or a monolithic shopping mall; a media that serves the interests of the masses, or a media that serves the interests of the wealthy and police; healthcare available for all, or healthcare available for politicians and those who can afford it; a healthy environment for all, or a healthy environment for those who can afford to live away from pollution; democratic and civil rights available to all, or disparity of democratic and civil rights dependent on specific constituencies; the list goes on and on.

http://www.sendika.org/2013/06/sendiklardan-grev-cagrilari-basladi/

http://pastie.org/7999469

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-982272?ref=feeds%2Flatest

[TMO 3/6/2013 A]

An Open Letter to M

Report on Mayday activities in Seattle 2013

(Letter to comrade M)

Hi M,

I am writing this with some help from Ben, in the Cyclo Cafe on Broadway.

I arrived at the [immigrants rights] march a little late at the top of Jackson, after taking a bus-ride from Everett. The bus ride was interesting because I was able to make conversation with a former carpet layer about what the march today is about, and what are some of the problems and potential avenues for movement for working people today.

These are the primary themes of the May Day demonstrations:

On the one hand, we had the theme of problems facing workers: A large percentage of workers deemed "illegal" and therefore socially expendable without rights, a weakened trade union movement, and a bourgeois government that will not "listen."

On the other hand, we had the theme of solutions (or a potential theme) as demonstrated by the anti-capitalist march. These solutions include Anarchism and Marxism, or some kind of Social Democratic variation of one or the other.

The March for Immigrant Rights

The immigrant rights march was carefully managed and coordinated by the Democratic Party and its allies, reformist immigrant groups as well as the trade unions. Most radical activists were unfortunately put into a position to "tail" the march. My original intention at the march was to meet with the comrades at the Communist Voice Organization (CVO) and distribute their leaflet on Immigration Reform. I was going to present a cover letter describing why I was doing so, and that while I don't endorse recruitment for the CVO, I do find the leaflet to be helpful. Based on my lead-up to May Day, they and the Internationalist Group in Portland were the only groups to come up with effective analysis on May Day in regards to the reforms which the unions and mainstream immigrant groups promoted. It is important to expose the Social Democratic institutions as mouthpieces for the bourgeoisie and broken dreams to the broad masses, and it was because of this reason that I promoted the CVO's leaflet (None were distributed by me however due to bad coordination with their members. From what I gathered they had success).

The march grew from about 2 to 3-4k. I had an interesting conversation with Nico about the march, and partial demands, I hope that this conversation can continue with you and the rest of the Black Orchid Collective (BOC), as well as other activists. I later spoke with Frank of the CVO and secured his willingness to be a part of that. I did not see the end of the march since we broke for lunch.

After lunch I met Ben and Frank at the Seattle Central Community College (SCCC) campus. We continued the conversation for partial demands among ourselves. Ben corrected me in my analysis of the role of the trade unions--and how far they can even be trusted for trade unionist demands. At the high point of the struggle, the bureaucrats will generally do everything possible to railroad and sell out the workers.

The ONRA leaflets are more tailored to the idea of solutions with the conscious element as the target audience, the CVO writes for the masses. Both types of leaflets are useful, but writing both types are probably too much for one study group alone. I did distribute some of the leaflets from my discussion group with Ben, which gives his views on the strategic and class perspective of the working class.

The Anti-Capitalist March:

The march of roughly 400 began with a rally with perhaps some of the most amotivational and confusing speeches I have ever heard. The good news is that the speakers did not waste too much time making statements that made no sense. The march's greatest strength I think was its early restraint from doing stupid actions that would jeopardize the march, and taking a route down Broadway and through the backside of Cal Anderson Park. The residential path was good for exposure and safety. The march turned toward Westlake down Pike and over the freeway into downtown.  Both Ben and I think it would have been preferable to stay in residential neighborhoods.  There was a slight tension at Nike Town, where one activist threw a stick at a window, followed by a scuffle and one or more arrests at 4th and Pine.

I do not know the details of the scuffle, but there was a confrontation between one or two activists and a bourgeois reporter.  Ben noted that immediately prior to the incident, a group of activists appeared to be smoking marijuana; which may have attracted the attention of a nearby reporter with a video camera-- leading to a shoving match between the activists and reporter. This is mainly speculation by Ben, since a lot was going on in the area and it was hard to see. If this sort of scenario was what happened, I think it is a sign of a lack of professionalism which is capitalized on by the bourgeois press for public appeal. The escalation to a shoving match with the reporters was harmful. [Noted: Ben believes that smoking pot is symbolic action that amounts to nothing, and mainly symbolized the empty politics which revolve around the idea that nothing is more militant than "confronting the man".]

After the first arrest, the cops created a perimeter around the arrested comrade and the paddy wagon. The other anti-capitalist activists encircled the perimeter and followed it one block north on 4th. The cops at this time reconfigured their perimeter, moved the prisoner from one paddy wagon to another, and held position for several minutes. Tension was pretty high, and, at the front of the convoy, a flash-bang grenade was thrown to disperse the crowd. Activists cleared for a few moments, unsure of what was going on, then cheered and regrouped to block the convoy. The cops threw another grenade, but made no progress. I had a good vantage point from the flowerbed of a fancy restaurant--until an activist shattered the window next to me--leaving me to look like I had done it. The cop's attention was however on the convoy and its immobility. We soon heard a dispersal order and a dozen flash-bang grenades over 20 minutes, as the cops attempted to push through. I am not sure if anyone was arrested after the dispersal order.  The action continued for some time and we were both coughing from the tear gas as we left-[Note: While we both witnessed objects being thrown, we cannot verify the type, weight, or lethality of the objects].

Probably, at least fifty to a hundred of the activists there wanted this kind of confrontation with the cops, although Ben offered the opinion that it would probably have been better for the march to disperse at a time and place of its choosing rather than by the order of the police.

Conclusions

So what can we learn from this? The anti-capitalist movement has some sections that are more conscious than others. Some have experience from Occupy and other struggles; some are new and more immature. The immature tactics near the end of the action probably reflect several things:

(a) The lack of political ideas based on building a conscious movement capable of drawing millions into action, and

(b) the inability for the more conscious section to have greater command and control over the action once it had become clear that it would be necessary to keep moving rather than get bogged down in one place, face arrests, and lose momentum and (eventually) confidence.

Why is it that the most conscious section of the movement is unable to do more to win the movement to political ideas that aim for something higher than confrontations with the cops?

Why do we have groups that have such poor coordination and communication with one another? Why can't we have a centralized source of information that fairly represents the thoughts and theory of everyone, and allows us to better discuss and sum up the best and worst ideas and practices of the movement?  

Why, for that matter, would it not be possible for experienced and dedicated activists to talk about the strategic perspective of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat?

These are things we have to discuss if we are serious about creating an effective machine to defeat the bourgeoisie and replace capitalism.

Ben and I meet when we can at the Black Coffee on many Sundays and hope that, sooner or later, you or other members of the BOC will stop by and say hello.

 [SUT 2/5/2013] 

On Majority Rule

<Draft> Hi Hi Charles,

Last I checked this thread you asked me the question, “Art, without a majority rules principal how will the organization/party/government come to actionable decisions?”
This is a very good question. I have given some thought to this quite a bit over the past year, and I will likely continue to give thought to this for many years to come, but I will try to answer this humbly to give it the justice it deserves. I did not mean to imply to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I realize I should better clarify my position.

This is not just a question about majority rules, it is about democracy, democracy of party organization and democracy of state—both of which I view as needed to be separate. Many so called “socialists” view these as the same thing, a tradition that dates back decades and decades due to the embryonic workers rule of the early Soviet system (I don’t think it advanced beyond embryonic before degeneration).

First, what is “Majority Rules”?
“Majority Rules” usually implies a simple majority of 50%+1 votes of an organizational body to come to a decision. So, majority rules may be better described not as a principle but as an organizational device. Are there variations? Certainly, just as there are variations of consensus which implies 100% agreement or votes by an organizational body on a decision of which I also view as an organizational device.

What the fuck is Democracy?

Some people believe that “Majority Rules” is democracy, and some believe that consensus is democracy—others believe that rule by their specific organization or ideology is a democracy. Currently capitalist parliamentarian and representational systems with a constitution are widely called “Democracies”— but it is likely that no one with a deep level of class consciousness is willing to accept this definition. Democracy is a vague term with many, many definitions, so for the purpose of this response I don’t think this term is helpful or meaningful in any way. I will attempt to avoid it in order to discuss the concrete.

For the purposes of this write-up I will be using “Democratic” as synonymous with “Fairness” characterized by the principle of “political, economic and social equality for all.”

Primary Guiding Principle & Mission of ALL organizations that we create:
The organization we build must be an organization that fights for working class rule. That will be the life and death difference between our systems of organization, and the bourgeois systems of organization. All tactics, devices, means and methods must be scrutinized through the lens of our guiding principle.

Democratic Rights

Because working class rule is our guiding principle, we must also fight for democratic rights of freedom of speech and organization. Freedom of speech and organization must be protected because they are the democratic rights that will allow the masses to hold those in positions of power accountable. They are the rights that all other rights will rest upon. When I describe these rights as being protected, I mean in very concrete ways using various organizational and technical devices, not simply just jotted down on a paper (even if it is hemp paper).

Now one thing I’m not quite sure is if freedom of organization implies is protection of minorities, so for the hell of it I’ll put emphasis on this as well (would like thoughts on that). Protection of Minorities and minority rights are important because for years to come we will be the minority. Far too often have I seen radical groups shrug this important democratic trait off because the most radical and militant members held majority while reactionaries and idiots held minority—but unfortunately it is possible to flood an organization that recruits new members with idiots, reactionaries, social democrats and other fools who will actively subvert the primary mission. Some of the Anarchists have proposed the solution to this is to not recruit new cadre—but I say “Good luck building a mass movement for revolution, and have fun in your tree house.”

So by studying minority rights we can have a greater understanding of “Majority rule”:


1) Sometimes Majority Rule may be in the favor of the mission for workers rule

2) Sometimes Majority Rule will not be in the favor of the mission for workers rule
http://youtu.be/-Vw2CrY9Igs

Will this always be the case? No, I think it won’t always be the case, as revolutionists who advocate workers rule, majority rule will likely become more favored as those with a deep level of consciousness become a stable majority, however there will likely always be a need for minority rights and protections, as well as freedom of speech and organization!

Will all organizations we build be organized the same way? Will they use the same organizational devices?

No, they will not all be organized the same way, they will not all use the same organizational devices. These organizations will be built and organized to meet the present and future needs of their primary and secondary missions. A secondary mission might be for example, to study a book with the intention to learn from it and apply what we learned to our work. Or, a secondary mission might be to journalize exposures for propaganda. The former example may be done with a high degree of informality and lack of “policy,” but the second may require more formality and “policy” in order to be more effective.

Furthermore, the former may get by on majority rule for quick decisions,  such as how to organize the study group, or an action; but it may require broader consensus for decisions that require nearly unanimous support such as risky major actions or public statements. The second example may be set up in a way where articles require only to meet policies enacted through majority rule or consensus—but articles may be vetoed to be decided by majority rule if it is believed that they violate the primary mission (hypothetical example). In some cases it may be in everyone's interests to allow decisions to be made by a minority such as specialists under special or extreme circumstances.  When your house is on fire, the firefighters do not wait for those within the building to come up with a decision to leave or not--there is simply an immediate evacuation decision made by the firefighters.

In any case, I do not believe in a “one size fits all” cookie cutter system, but I think I have hit on some of the key points. I would appreciate feedback on these thoughts..

[TMO 3/6/2013 B]

Our New Forum

http://socialistrifleman.forumstopic.com/

This forum was created to combine our belief in the soundness of the Second Amendment of the Constitution and our commitment to socialism, whatever specific form we adhere to. Some of us favor Marxism, others Anarchism, still others are Social Democrats, or are just interested in social justice.
Formerly many of us were affiliated with the Liberal Gun Club but felt that our opposition to the Obama administration's half- hearted reforms and full- hearted warmongering was being greeted with more and more hostility, increasing in step with the fear mongering frenzy that has been unleashed by the upcoming presidential election.
The next step was obvious: form our own club.
Some of us still have ties with the LGC, and that is a good thing for both clubs fight the stereotypes manufactured by the immense right- wing propaganda machine that Liberals and Leftists do not own firearms and want to ban them. If you check out how many members the LGC has, you would change your mind about that in a hurry.
So we wish the LGC luck. Some of us left in anger, but we still have the same mission: protect the 2nd Amendment and promote firearm ownership among our fellow leftists.
BTW, Rude Reds has now switched back to its old title. Now that we got the forum up and running we will try to combine the two.
Solidarity!

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and race in America

Unless you have been living under a rock, you’re no doubt aware that something happened in Florida a while ago that has had far-reaching national implications. First, the facts:

On February 26, 2012, in Sanford Florida, an unarmed African-American male named Trayvon Martin was shot dead by an armed White or Hispanic American (his mother is from Peru, his father is a white man and a retired judge) named George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin had been walking home from a convenience store. George Zimmerman was in his car, called the non-emergency police dispatch line, and reported that there was a youth acting strangely and dressed suspiciously. He left his vehicle and followed Martin, despite the dispatcher telling him he shouldn’t. There was a fight, and Martin wound up dead. Zimmerman was taken into custody by police but not arrested. Police did not perform a background check at that time. No drug or alcohol screen was performed. The lead homicide investigator recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. Instead, Zimmerman was released.

Nothing more was going to be done about this until the family of Trayvon Martin, and their attorney, successfully brought national attention to the issue, through the use of a Change.org petition. I’ve heard from people that this entire thing was a media creation for bigger ratings and money. I find it hard to believe that, absent a public outcry, the media would have cared about just another dead black man. They certainly have not in the past. People die in horrible ways in this country all the time, the only time it becomes a major media issue is when it’s either a lot of people dying at the same time, or if it’s a missing angelic blond (or more rarely brunette) white girl.

Now sides are being taken, and that’s messed up. There are a lot of people who seem to think, and say things to this effect, that it’s okay that Trayvon Martin died, and that George Zimmerman killed him. Others aren’t willing to come right out and say it, so they blame the media for making this news, or for editing a tape to remove a meager bit of context, or for running old pictures of Martin. White supremacists are lining up around the block to support Zimmerman, and black supremacist groups are doing the same to oppose him. But I think they miss the group here that really dropped the ball. A lot of fault should lie with the Sanford police department.

Stand Your Ground laws have taken a lot of heat in this case because the police department used them as justification to let Zimmerman walk. If you get out of your vehicle and pursue somebody, you are no longer standing your ground. You’re acting like a cop. Zimmerman had completed a Sheriff’s department course in “citizen’s law enforcement”, and was captain of the neighborhood watch, it’s quite possible (but this is speculation) that he considered himself a sort of unpaid police officer. However, he was not, he was a private citizen who tried to be a cop and got somebody else killed; although it could just as easily have been Zimmerman who died, if Martin had actually been a criminal. The people who should have pointed out to Zimmerman that he was not a police officer but was instead a private citizen who got an unarmed youth killed were the police who arrested him.

Instead, the police kept him and questioned him for a few hours, but they ultimately let him go. And that was a mistake. No background check was run, or they may have found that Zimmerman had a history of domestic violence. That was a mistake. The investigator who recommended manslaughter charges was ignored. That was a mistake. If Zimmerman had been charged, and faced trial, then none of this would have gone as far as it has. But the police fucked up.

I’ve seen people holding up cases where African-Americans have beat up white people in the wake of Martin’s killing as… something. They claim that black community leaders would never speak up about it or the media make a big deal over it, but the reason there was such a big deal over the Martin killing was because nobody was charged. A person was dead and it looked like nobody would be held accountable for it in the eyes of the law. In all the cases so far I’ve seen where white people get beat up or mugged, the people responsible have been charged. There are people looking at jail time for it. Prior to very recently, that wasn’t the case in the Martin killing.

I think what is being missed in all the sides-taking over this incident is the core issue at stake here: In America, we have two different sets of law, two different faces to the police force, two different standards of criminal justice. There’s the standard for whites, and the standard for minorities. By way of example, John McNeil was a black man in Georgia who shot a white man who had come at him with a knife in his pocket, on McNeil’s property, and who was a man who had previously threatened McNeil repeatedly. John McNeil is now in jail on a life sentence.

As a white man, I have little to no fear of being stopped “randomly” by police for a variety of minor reasons. I have even less fear of winding up dead as a result of that traffic stop. If I’m ever caught with an illicit drug, I’m statistically significantly more likely to get probation than face jail time. These are the benefits of what Kurt Vonnegut described in his novel Hocus Pocus (an excellent read for familiarizing yourself with racial injustice in America) as the “uniform of the skin”. Meanwhile, for African-Americans in the US, it is harder for one without a criminal record to get a job than it is for a white with a criminal record.

If Zimmerman had been more clearly a minority, if Trayvon Martin had been a white kid named Steve Gustafson or something, and if Zimmerman’s father was not a judge, I have little doubt that the case would go differently. If the suspicious youth had been white and Zimmerman had been black, he would probably be facing the death penalty. Or perhaps already dead, shot by police after they arrived on the scene.

This is the heart of the problem. There are two separate sets of laws in this country, and there are plenty of people out there who think that’s just fine. That needs to change, but instead we look like we’re speeding towards a culture/race war, an unending cycle of action and reaction that can only be ultimately destructive.

Blogwatch: All Secure

I thought this article, "Fist-Swinging Photographers Miss the Point" is an interesting addition to our recent discussion around OWS and security. It makes me uneasy to see journalists being broad-brushed and The Police unequivocally supported. I don't know that general classifications of people should be handed our theoretical trust - it seems like that honor should be reserved for individuals.

Furthermore, compromising photos are going to get out. It's just a fact of the 21st century. Maybe you should be more concerned with reducing our dependence on such potentially lethal and vulnerable edifices and monuments to vertical power.

Instead of being ostentatious with our power and technology, it would be much less of a headache to simplify and ... I dunno, "deconventionalize"? Make less formal? Stop playing such high stakes games at home and around the world? Maybe then it would be easier to have a transparent society.

Or maybe not. But it's worth a try ...getting beat out of shape to maintain a poisonous status quo doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

"I can haz full comuninizm?"

A Quick Update on Hedges

“But there is a hostility towards civilization as it’s currently configured and it must be taken down. Their problem with those of us on the organized left is that we, in essence, are attempting to reform it rather than destroy it.” -Chris Hedges from his Truth-Out Interview

Despite Hedges obvious ignorance of Black Bloc tactics, as written about by David Graeber in a paternalistic way– Hedges understands the polarity of opinion regarding how we must change the present system.

In addition, Hedges said something that may help anti-capitalists to understand the thoughts of American reformists. It was something that I’ve heard before from other pseudo anti-capitalists.

Hedges states essentially that the internal national repression brought by capitalism is somehow disconnected from the external repression in other nations brought by capitalism. He basically argues that Americans are different from Egyptians and Greeks; that our struggle is disconnected. He is a proponent of the idea that their struggle is at a more advanced stage than our (American) struggle.This nationalist “not in my backyard” attitude destroys international solidarity between revolutionaries, and creates a false sense of safety through the artificial boundary drawn on a map.

Peter Gelderloos seems to agree that we as activists must overcome the nationalism that pollutes our movement: ”Around the world, people are fighting for their freedom and resisting the depredations of the rich and powerful. In the United States, there is plenty of cause to join this fight, but as long as people continue enact a fear-driven, Not-In-My-Backyard pacifism, and to pander to the corporate media as though they would ever show us in a positive light, the rich and the powerful will have nothing to worry about.”

Hedges, like many Americans, lives in a comfortable position, and I think that is why he is afraid. Rather than seeking to overthrow the horrific, unjust, disgusting system that we have, Hedges seeks its survival to maintain his present level of comfort. He believes that the transition would be “always tragic,” ignoring the tragedy that is presently occurring under the system of capitalism. “I don’t want to go there…I don’t want us to descent into that,” admits Hedges. This fear of confronting the terrifying system we live under is the same fear that the reformists have with regard to the media. The liberal collaborators would prefer to pander to the capitalist media out of fear that the capitalist media will show the movement in a negative light. This is irrational, as the media will always negatively portray the movement so long as the movement threatens the status-quo. That is the reason why the Tea Party despite all of its flaws was depicted by the capitalist media as a legitimate, patriotic, grassroots, american movement. The fears of change, the fear of transition and revolution, of venturing into the unknown must be overcome. We will never advance the struggle until we can overcome our fear, and help others to overcome their fears. We must be more afraid of ignorantly fighting for a perpetual continuation of oppression.

This article was originally posted on artfrancisco.wordpress.com 2/19/2012

[1]Followup interview with Hedges on truth-out: http://www.truth-out.org/interview-chris-hedges-about-black-bloc/1328799148

[2]Open Letter to Hedges regarding “The Cancer in Occupy” written by Anarchist David Graeber http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/concerning-the-violent-peace-police-an-open-letter-to-chris-hedges/

[3]A Response by Anarchist Peter Gelderloos: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/09/the-surgeons-of-occupy/

[4]Part 1 of Ben’s responses to the Liberal counter-offensive http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6731

[5]Part 2 of Ben’s responses to the Liberal counter-offensive http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6739

Russ Feingold is right about Obama's SuperPAC surrender

Why is Obama now supporting SuperPACs?

From the very beginning, Mr. Obama castigated the US Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United (read the court’s opinion, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) less than a week after it was handed down. In his January 2010 State of the Union message, Obama said thus:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

So fast-forward to late Monday night, when news broke that Obama, in the words of POLITICO, offered a “reluctant blessing” for his campaign to raise money for the main – but flagging – Democratic super PAC, "Priorities USA."

The Obama campaign retort to this is a statement on Obama's website saying We will not play by two sets of rules, which would have been an insufficient argument in WW2 and Vietnam, and is an insufficient argument now. To quote,

In 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to a new wave of so-called Super PACs—non-candidate political committees that can receive and spend unlimited money from special interests. For the first time, these committees could accept money from corporations, not just wealthy individuals.

The decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

Buuuut then we decided we like money also

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

Last week, filings showed that the Super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney's campaign raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money for this group, which is run by some of his closest allies.

That last paragraph there would be a great platform from which to launch attacks on Romney. It would be excellent moral high ground from which to highlight that Romney is the candidate of the wealthy and the 1%, and that he doesn't care about the working class. This would be especially powerful if the Obama campaign was to point out that, over 2008, Obama raised $778 million dollars, an unprecedented amount, overwhelmingly from individual donors making donations in the $5-$250 range.

Instead, that high ground was surrendered to the enemy, as the Obama Administration leapt down to try to fight Republicans at their own level. Many Democrat activists have lauded this, but one Progressive has dared to criticize, and that person is Russ Feingold:
The President Is Wrong -by Russ Feingold

The President is wrong to embrace the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United through the use of Super PACs – organizations that raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations and the richest individuals, sometimes in total secrecy. It’s not just bad policy; it’s also dumb strategy.
Democrats have tried this strategy before, when enormous amounts of soft money were raised by Democratic Leadership in the 1990s. The result was the enactment, with active Democratic support, of a corporate-dominated policy agenda that included trade policies that shipped millions of family-supporting jobs overseas, fiscally reckless tax laws that greatly increased our long-term debt, and the disastrous banking and financial deregulation that paved the way for the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Just as importantly, this corrupting tactic will gut a winning, progressive strategy. When Democrats play by Republican rules, people see our party as weak, and a false alternative to the power of rich individual and corporate interests that are increasingly dominating our government.

This is dancing with the devil. I know a lot of Democrats in D.C. don’t agree, and I understand the desire to do everything possible to win. But this decision will push Democrats to become corporate-lite, and will send us head-on into a battle we know we will lose, because Republicans like Mitt Romney and his friends have and will spend more money.

Two years ago, the President was right to chastise the Supreme Court for its lawless ruling in Citizens United. Now, he and his campaign need to live up to those principles and reject the support of any Super PACs.

"Politics" as practiced in America have become not about the issues, not about any objective sense of right or wrong, but about the Teams. When the Red Team uses lobbyists, it's wrong and an outrage. When the Blue Team uses lobbyists, it is an essential and expected part of the operation of government, and any pragmatist would tell you that it can't be changed. When the Red Team uses SuperPACs, it's the End of Democracy. When the Blue Team uses SuperPACs, it's essential and necessary; any pragmatist will tell you that we have to use the weapons of the enemy if we are to defeat that enemy. If we don't become the enemy, the enemy wins. You don't want that to happen, do you?

I remember in 2008 when I supported and donated to Obama, donating a paltry $250 (half of that was during the primary season), but I was among countless others who did so. Our small individual contributions helped Barack Obama break fundraising records. The Koch Brothers have committed $60 million (1/783rd of their combined fortune) to defeating Obama? Obama raised $778 million from individual contributions, and that was before he had the bully pulpit of the presidency from which to make his points. He could publicize the Koch Brothers donations to Romney. He could make a campaign ad highlighting it and further strengthen the existing media narrative that Romney is a wealthy elitist with the backing of the 1%. He did not, he abandoned this opportunity in order to do what Democrats always do: Try to be Republican Lite and then wonder why there are many people who don't see a difference.

As a supporter of Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson, and one of his volunteers working in Ohio to get him on the 2012 presidential ballot, this would be a great time for me to point out that Rocky Anderson refuses PAC money. And SuperPAC money. And any individual donation in excess of $100. Period.

Cross-posted to Liberally Geeky

Setting the Record Straight

From my blog It's a Socialist Life

There's a lot of talk about what Socialism is and is not, a lot of Socialists can't even really explain it or don't really know what exactly it is. Socialism by itself isn't bad, in fact it's something that everyone should be striving for, but unfortunately it makes certain people obsolete and that scares them. They will thus argue against it tooth and nail until they die and it no longer concerns them. It flips the Free Market currency based Capitalist economy on its head, eliminating the need for investors and the ability to accumulate wealth without having actually produced anything. Likewise the people who currently profit from the necessities of people by claiming ownership of natural resources would also become obsolete ending their tyranny over said resources.

So what is Socialism and why do certain people fear it? Socialism is the elimination of currency based capitalism through advancement in technology. Specifically it seeks to put research and development into machines which handle production of the necessities of life for people to survive making a fully automated system which negates the need to work to survive. This is what Communists and Capitalists fail to understand when Marx said Socialism is the death of Capitalism. It's not a sudden shock to the system, it's a gradual evolution between Capitalism and Communism, the latter of which can not happen without the success of Socialism as the several forced attempts in the Eastern World can attest to. The best example of the ultimate Socialist technology would be a replicator from Star Trek, a device which uses the most basic building blocks around it to create something of value, like food and water.

The Communists will say this isn't true, but it is, the problem for them is that they co-opted Socialism so long ago that they've forgotten the difference between Socialism and Communism which has only made it easier for the Capitalists to resist the evolution of our economy and society further blurring the line between the two and improperly defining what Socialism is. This ill conceived definition is then adopted by “Socialists” who really aren't, but are rather “Economic Tyrants” deciding what can and can't be done economically. Granted, their form of tyranny tends to be beneficial because it doesn't allow productive entities to conduct themselves in ways which harm the overall economy or the people. It basically takes Communist ideals and applies them to the Capitalist system with varying success. Generally this hybrid system ensures competition by not allowing monopolies to form and assisting the lower classes to elevate their station in life by artificially leveling the playing field.

Socialism is the actual leveling of the playing field eliminating the need to do so artificially. Socialism is a process, nothing more, it allows for the existence of Communism. Here are some examples of Socialism:

• Nano bots which perform micro surgery eliminating the need for doctors providing free healthcare.
• Fully automated hydroponic farms eliminating the need for farmers and providing free food.
• Fully automated water processing plants providing free water.
• Fully automated mines and pumps providing free resources to continue building as needed.
• Fully automated systems of renewable sources of energy.
• And of course the maintenance bots necessary to keep the system together.

Sounds like science fiction, but much of it is becoming science fact which is why many industries are fighting against the intrinsic evolution of technology. The oil industry for instance bought all of the patents for electric and solar based cars back in the 1970s and 1980s and sat on the technology to continue our dependence on their product. Also much like how the film studios and record labels are attempting to fight the digital evolution of media which eliminates the need for them to produce and distribute artists' creativity. Take a look at any business entity which profits from the labor of someone else and I guarantee they are chaired by those who fund the mouth pieces which scream about the evils of “Socialism” and a trail of litigation attempting to stop the systems which would provide their service for free or allowing individuals to by pass them entirely and distribute their production themselves.

That is Socialism, it is the Arbiter between Freedom and Tyranny, allowing the productive to reap wholly the rewards of their labor, and the unproductive and untalented to simply survive. If you don't like welfare, corporate or individual, then Socialism is for you.

A response to Chris Hedges

A response to Chris Hedges:

Today it was brought to my attention that Chris Hedges, a notable figure within the Occupy Movement, and celebrity liberal published an article in Truthdig titled “The Cancer in Occupy.” The article is essentially a hit-piece against “Black Block anarchists.” Don’t be fooled, as the black bloc does not only include anarchists, as it is simply a blob of black wearing anti-capitalists. This is an attack against the entire militant anti-capitalist left.

Some analysis of the article

Hedges opens his piece declaring these activists as “the cancer of the Occupy movement,” and continues, “The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state.”

Quite a strong accusation, can Hedges back this up?

“The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas”

Hedges here exposes his awareness that there are currently two opposing forces within the Occupy Movement: Capitalist “collaborators” and those who are fighting those collaborators. Hedges mention of worker’s movements, environmental activists, and the Zapatistas are nothing more than fluff to add weight to his claim that collaborators are not our enemies and therefore should be ignored. Hedges uses the immense credibility of the Zapatistas in his article to discredit those who take part in militant activity—essentially he uses the logic: If Anarchists would attack a movement as cool as the Zapatistas, then the anarchists are undeserving of any credibility. Here’s the flaw, Hedges quotes from an article written by an author named, “Venomous Butterfly” published in an anarcho-primitivist magazine called “Green Anarchy”. Hedges himself admits that the magazine is defunct, so is it really a representation of the various tendencies that make up any particular bloc?

“Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness.”

The black bloc in itself is a visual demonstration of organization. Is the ignorance in this quote even worth replying to? While there is a thread of anti-organizational thought within the Anarchist movement, it is clearly not demonstrated by the black bloc. Furthermore, of the tendencies that make up the black bloc, or the militant left for that matter, anti-organizational thought remains a tiny minority. Perhaps Hedges was attempting to touch on something other than organization in general, but rather centralized organization. If this were the case, by this logic Hedges would be arguing that those in the militant left are against centralized organization and are thus powerless—while those who are for centralized organization (capitalist collaborators, unions, progressives etc) are powerful. Is it a false sense of power that Hedges seeks? Does he seek the power that comes with collaboration with the ruling class?

Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale defined power together after much discourse as, “the ability to define phenomenon then in turn make it act in a desired manner." By that very definition, neither the black bloc, nor the forces that Hedges represents wield power. While some anti-capitalists may be well on their way to defining the phenomenon, no one has been able to make it act in a desired manner.

Hedges does make an important point about the rigidity and dogmatism of sects here:

The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.

The problem with this point is that it is directed at those who participate in a tactic, a temporal gathering of anti-capitalists and recreational rioters. This quote about absolutism can be applied to nearly all sects within Occupy including the pacifist and progressive sects.

While I think that there is a worthy critique to be made of silly actions that have been used by participants of black blocs, to suggest that the blocs are self-aware in any collective sense would be to imply organization--and while yes, there is some rudimentary organization, the blocs have not been in my experience, "self-aware."

It is important to understand that Hedges did not have to openly attack the black bloc. There wasn’t any reason for an attack or condemnation on this level. Rather than write a comradely critique with suggestions, Hedges wrote that “The Black Bloc Anarchists are a cancer of the Occupy movement.” He states in those words that they are an enemy that cannot be compromised with.

Why did Hedges pick now to attack militants?

I found the article to be a very weak analysis from Hedges which was surprising to me. Hedges while on the pseudo left, generally writes with a little more depth. Recently in Seattle, the militant anti-capitalists of the Marxist tendency found themselves on the receiving end of a hit piece written by Socialist Worker titled, “The Solidarity We Need for Longview”. I've written several activists about this.

To me, the piece by Hedges is an extension of that attack by the pseudo leftists against the militant anti-capitalists. The tip off was not that the Black Bloc was criticized, but rather in the way it was criticized--through well publicized libel and smear. There was an effort by Hedges to drive a wedge between militant anti-capitalists and “unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas” In a sense, Hedges like the Socialist Worker, joined the capitalist media’s campaign against militant anti-capitalists.

By publicly breaking with the black bloc; the tendency of reformism and capitalist collaboration that Hedges represents hopes to usurp the “undecided” proletariat within the occupy movement—that is, those persons who have not firmly sided with either the anti-capitalists or the reformists. The capitalist collaborators hope to take advantage of any weakness in theoretical understanding by the militant anti-capitalists, arrogantly pushing for a premature split. Unless anti-capitalists can learn to work together, create trust, open lines of discussion, comradely critique, and forge a unified alliance and network—we will be divided and conquered.

For more information on the ISO attack against the militant anti-capitalists please read the Black Orchid Collective’s response to the ISO’s SW article:

The quality of comments are well worth the time reading.

This repost was originally published at artfrancisco.wordpress.com 2/7/2012

Red Networking

One of the New Year's goals me and Dresden decided on was to get more writers to participate on this blog. We feel it is important to give people who lean towards the Left a voice outside of the official party newspapers and websites. We want a diversity of opinion ( within reason- hate speech and physical threats will not be tolerated )- a diversity that is too often squelched by rampant political correctness and the party line in " official" socialist media.
 Therefore, as part of the expansion of Rude Reds we are networking with other Reds who have their own individual websites. We are actively encouraging everybody to post their articles on this blog and we hope to return the compliment.
Do our comrades a solid- check out their sites. Read their posts. And feel free to leave a comment, especially if you disagree with them.
Solidarity!

Thanks For Burning The Flag, Dipshit.

Just a quick post on how absolutely fucking retarded this Occupy Oakland guy is. Here is a big reason why the Left never goes anywhere in the U.S.A. The New Left, founded in the 1960s by rich white college kids who decided they were more oppressed than the proletariat, has never been serious about revolutionary change. Quite the opposite, these little punks are far more interested in playing at revolution. To them being a radical is a game and the last thing they want is to have an actual revolution where they might have to do some real work or really put their ass on the line.
You can be goddamn sure that the yellow capitalist press in this country is going to run this image 24/7 over the next few days. This is the image that will go up on the television screen every time the story is about the #Occupy Movement.
The idiots in this image are clearly not thinking about the big picture. Hell, I really doubt that they give a shit about the big picture. Far from this act making some kind of statement all I see is a bunch of spoiled snot nosed shits playing a prank. And that's pretty much how every other working class person in America feels about it. Do the people of the Occupy Movement really expect us to follow clowns like this into revolution? Seriously?
The majority of #Occupy needs to denounce this act of vandalism. I don't give a damn if you think this is a 1st Amendment issue, despise the flag as a symbol of imperialism, or whatever. To the majority of American workers, burning our flag is the same as spitting in their face.
The elites of America have television, newspapers, radio, and all the other forms of media at their command. All we have is our good name. Like it or not, we are engaged in a propaganda war.
Guess who's winning?
Update: There was also a flag burnt by an Occupy Charlotte protestor. The Occupy Movement is committing political suicide before our very eyes.

Union alternatives

Outside of dedicated leftist groups like this one, every single person without exception that I talk to who is not in a union, and some of the people who are, say that unions are not needed anymore, that it's an idea whose time has come and gone, that there's this problem or that problem with unions, and the ones who have been in unions typically have no end of examples they can use to support this. When you point out that the Owners are worse, that they've taken more, ripped off more, and so on, it falls on deaf ears because the programming and indoctrination is simply that strong. I know someone who stays as a nurse at a hospital she hates with management she hates chiefly because the other nearby hospital network has unionized nurses. I know others who've worked in grocery and retail unions and has nothing good to say about them.

If you want unions to be accepted, you need one that will be a shining example, one that will get people to sign on to the idea of unions, one that isn't afraid to snub the political bosses and not be a pawn, one that treats its workers fairly, where anybody has a voice, and one that isn't afraid to fire shitty workers. Without that, give the fuck up now because it's never going to get any traction.

I think we'd get a lot further by encouraging more ownership of companies by the workers therein, like cooperatives, where it's more of a syndicate. Then you don't need a union to protect the workers from the owners because they are the owners of the company, and the workers are not chattel slaves. There are numerous examples of modern functioning cooperative companies, we need to be publicizing these and doing everything we can to support them and participate in them.

For companies too large for cooperative ownership to work (at which point I personally tend to think a company has gotten too large period), we need to fight for higher wages for workers and a cap on executive salaries. I think fighting for higher taxes is a red herring because the wealthy will always find ways out of paying higher taxes on their bracket, and if you pay the working class more, then they move up in brackets and they also spend more (so that's sales taxes as well), save more, and pay off more debts. Additionally, it's hard to argue for higher taxes for the wealthy simply because they use their media outlets to paint it as higher taxes for everyone; compare that to arguing for higher pay for the workers. Bring down the income disparity by bringing the bottom up.

The New Man, Capitalist Version

"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." George Orwell, 1984

One of the great jokes of the Cold War was the way the Stalinist state  of the Soviet Union portrayed its people versus the reality of their appearance. The Soviet citizen, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the October revolution, was portrayed as a proletarian superman, with bulging muscles clenching his work tools ( easily exchanged for a bayoneted rifle or submachinegun on a Red Army poster) and his chiseled chin jutting with confidence in the direction of the future. Oftentimes he was accompanied by his female helpmate, beautiful but chaste ( wearing the inevitable babushka), and wielding agricultural implements.
The reality was somewhat different. Civil Wars brought famine and the average Soviet citizen in the 1920s was malnourished and painfully thin. Even in the Great Patriotic War against Hitler's legions the Red Army rifleman was still usually shorter and lighter than his Western counterparts. The broad chested, seven foot tall warrior of the victory monuments simply did not exist. During the Cold War the combination of bureaucratic ineptitude, gross military spending, and the lasting damage of the war against fascism produced quite a different Soviet citizen than conceived in the propaganda of the Politburo. The Soviet citizen, after years of hardship and unkept promises, developed into a shrewd businessman who traded on the black market, a cynic who doubted the Party line, and a fatalist whose black humor was usually directed at those who claimed to be serving him.
Throw in rampant alcoholism and this guy was pretty fucking far from the square- jawed working class hero ready to exceed his quota of washers or catch a reactionary bullet in defense of the revolution.
The New Man was one of the cherished myths of  early 20th century socialist eggheads. These cranks envisioned a new version of humanity, one that would rise above petty emotional ties to possessions and family to serve the collective good, to sacrifice anything for progress, and to stride boldly into a future bright with Utopian promise ( this is the image that George Orwell mocked so effectively in his novels Animal Farm and 1984 ).
But before you supporters of capitalism pat yourselves on your backs, I can inform you that the elites you worship have made their version of the New Man. Only they were quite a bit more clever than their commie counterparts.
The capitalist ideal of the New Man is all together more intoxicating to the average asshole in the street because it is it is so easy to obtain. Think of how the common man is portrayed in the media, particularly television. Our working class hero looks like us. He is likely to be overweight, lacking in intellectual curiosity, and obsessed with the trivial ( sports, junk food, pornography, etc. ). In fact he is effectively an adolescent, his mind forever frozen in the 8th grade by a consumer culture fixated  with youth. The only significant break with reality is that this slob is usually married to an incredibly hot wife, but therein lies the genius of this marketing campaign- you can be a fat shiftless moron and still  shack up with an awesome babe.
For the Soviet elite, the purpose of their propaganda was to give their people something to aspire to, to spur them on to greater action. The capitalists who run the United States have a completely different agenda on their minds. The last thing they want is to have working people actively engaged in politics or working for a new future. Our ruling class is quite happy with the way things are now. Their goal is to create a complacent and apathetic class of consumers. The vast majority of the citizens of the U.S.A. do not participate politically in their supposed democracy, not even to get up off their big asses to vote for who will become the most powerful person in the world every four years. This could be excusable if this was the same type of cynicism displayed by the Soviet citizens of the last century but cynicism it is not. It is sheer laziness brought on by years of polluting the airwaves with mindless crap designed to appeal to the basest instincts a human being possesses. Unconscious and disengaged, The New Man of the American Century is not so much a conquering hero as a grazing cow.

Rotting Empire: Failure of Mass Parties

The Electoral College Motto: "No Good Can Come of This"

When I was involved with the American arm of the CWI, every other newspaper article that was published would end with some variation of "... and this is why we need to build a mass party in the interests of the working class."

It was the kind of thing people made jokes about, sounding like a goddamn broken record every issue. It was also the sort of thing that caused me endless writerly exasperation. I'm sure it eventually bored the few readers who were not already members.

But hey, on its own, a "mass party" sounds well and good, right? After all, as the activist group (rightly) points out: Wall Street has two parties of its own - Democrats and Republicans. Two variations of the same general practices. A center-right party and a conservative party. They keep America good and profitable. It sure would be nice if there was a great big party for working folks to defend their own interests, wouldn't it? Fight fire with fire?

No. Wrong.

Hence:

RULES FOR RESISTANCE, #1: NO ONE WHO USES THE WORD "MASS" OR "MASSES" IN A POSITIVE WAY IS YOUR ALLY.

People who don't use those words aren't necessarily your allies, either. But folks who use this kind of terminology tend, in my experience, to either be psychopathic schemers or the boot-licking lackeys for psychopathic schemers. They will also, at some point, refer to you as "unwashed."

"The masses." If people referred to me by my density, I wouldn't wash, either.

Let's face it: when you join a "mass party," ie, a party made up of lots of people united for a common interest, you're compromising your individual positions for a party platform. That has its uses, sure. Legalizing gay marriage. Legalizing hemp. Banning the death penalty. We live in a pretty big country and pretty big decisions "have" to get made.

But your voice gets drowned out. There's lots of people shrieking for the ears of just a few representatives. Having a new political party doesn't change that. And it's always the political people shrieking the loudest, the ones who think they know best for everybody else.

We don't need another party that whitewashes personal and regional differences.

Also big parties are targets for big interests. The Democrats are constantly co-opted by business, and they're constantly co-opting social movements in turn. Big institutions, whether it be corrupt labor bureaucracies or planet-poisoning industries or corrupt financial powerhouses, use big political parties to cover their asses. That's how the Republican party can house both working-class conservatives ("I don't want my money going to anyone else!") and rich conservatives ("I don't want my money going to anyone else!").

We can't get what we want out of national parties. We can't build a "mass party" that we won't eventually lose to other "mass" institutions. Look at the Labour Party in Britain!

It'd be much wiser to form smaller parties that we can hold on a short leash. Keep em accountable. Keep em close to the people they represent. It'd do us far more good in the long run to start paying more attention to our local political scene, instead of fixating on a cabal of a few hundred limp-dicked old fossils in Washington whose geriatric minds we will never change.

Political parties love their Dicks (this one is Cheney).

Mass parties emerged from mass communications: the telegraph, the radio, telephones and television. Look at where our technology is heading, what it's doing to our lives and our society, and ask yourself what it will and could do to the political parties of the future. And to you socialist activists, nostalgic for the myths of the mighty Bolsheviks, you need to get yourselves in shape. This is far, far away from the Russia of the first World War. This ... is reality. And the old models cannot engage it.

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!

It's the time of year where The Man pauses to pay tribute to its favorite appropriated revolutionary, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior. So it's a good for us to remember that he wasn't just an outspoken black man who stood up for civil rights, but a perpetrator of "direct action" and, in the eyes of the oppressive institutions of his time, a criminal.

It was criminal in the 1960s to defy racial segregation. It was criminal to have marches, boycotts, sit-ins, and strikes. Standing alongside the everyday men and women involved in the struggle for equality, MLK was repeatedly arrested - according to the King Center, 30 times.

Sort of flies in the face of what we think of as "criminal," doesn't it?

Like many great thinkers, some of his best words were written from prison. Good lord, that letter finds a whole new realm of relevance with the rise of Occupy Wall Street!

Don't let the LCD flag-waving media turn King into another talking head with a sound-bite dream. 150 years after slavery, racism is still alive and well in America; OWS has taught white and privileged Americans the truths of police brutality which the black community has known for decades. And not everyone the State would like to paint a criminal is in fact our enemy - some are trying to help us face the brutal force we accept all too easily.

The Urban Homestead

It was my fiancee's birthday recently, and as a gift to the home she bought The Urban Homestead. 65 pages deep, it's a wonderful book so far.

And sure, you can find reviews of it anywhere - and also tons of news about the legal debate over the book's title and the term "urban homesteading" (is there anything dumber than arguing over who "owns" words? guh). I'm not going to contribute to the wealth (clutter?) of that criticism. But I do want to use it to launch more refined points about politics, economics, and the failure of mass institutionality. By which I mean the slow collapse of mass culture and mass politics via their decomposing institutions.

I'm looking forward to that. Meanwhile, I suggest getting ahold of this book!

The Fowley, MN security debate

Two good Strib editorial pieces will fill you in here (contra) and here (pro).

I'm approaching from the perspective of a political radical, a heretical marxist, and a security officer when I consider this controversial issue. That's part of my disclaimer.

And part of how my marxism has deviated from all those endlessly arguing, worthless factions is that I don't think "The State" should control everything. And I don't think the market is perfect, either. So there's that.

Personally, I applaud experimentation. Fowley is brave in examining new models of public safety. The finance sector-sponsored recession is making unique demands on our traditional institutions and until we as communities can reclaim our losses (ha! right....), we've got an opportunity to find new ways to operate. I think that's great.

It bugs me when people put their ideology before the well-being of society. It's putting the cart before the horse. Some radical lefties might say, "Worker's patrols can secure the streets." Sure, they could, like they did in the early Soviet Union and Minneapolis 1933 and plenty of other revolutionary situations. But they don't just spring up out of the ground.

I like the security industry. Security professionals can do a lot of things the regular cops just don't have time to do. Why pull out the big guns before you know if a situation warrants it? Traffic stops, parking or curfew violations, barking dogs or loud radios ... let public security handle it, save your cops for the domestic abuses and armed robberies that they're qualified for.

Any number of OWS protesters would probably agree that they'd rather have been monitored by security folks than arbitrarily brutalized by the NYPD or other baton-happy riot goons. You don't need cops at a protest until things get hairy.

Using security officers for routine, low-hazard stuff adds a layer of finesse to civilian law. If it saves over-worked cops from having to work too much overtime, and saves the city from having to pay too much overtime, that's cool. I say, let the community decide what to do about safety and security. If they get some buy-in, they're more likely to view law enforcement as a partner than an oppressor, and that's the way a community ought to run.

Blogwatch: Socialism and/or Barbarism

Watch Evan Calder Williams' influential blog Socialism and/or Barbarism "mutate" over the coming months. Must-read stuff for people serious about "making sense" of the world. Or at least conceptions of the world. I look forward to what he has in mind.

Resolutions for Radicals

2012: the last year on earth, or at least the last year before a major paradigm change, if you believe the New-Agey whackos, like some of my friends in California. Quackery aside, it's a good opportunity to look at all your cookie-cutter, consumerist New Year's resolutions and think, what can I try something new?

You'd better make some damn good resolutions this year.

Let's face it: we can be really reactionary creatures. A lot of what we do and think is really just a response to our environment and we don't question many of the underlying reasons for what we do. A radical is just a person who digs a little deeper, examines a little closer, looks for innovative ways to approach a rather mundane life.

Many people take on the small potatoes for New Years. They want to lose weight, exercise, quit smoking, read more, take a nice vacation, spend more time with the kids, get a promotion. The problem is, these resolutions are largely the vows of consumers, people's whose mindsets are bogged down in the work-eat-sleep routine of goddamn farm animals.

When the fuck are you going to stop just reacting?

When are you going to stop bleating like a sheep about your little resolutions?

When the fuck are you going to make New Years revolutions?

CTHULHU DEMANDS BETTER FROM YOU.

Well, the problem for most folks, I imagine, and yes even for most wanna-be radicals who are usually too caught up in "activism" to actually ever be effective, is they don't know where to start. A lot of people don't consider themselves "political" - and the people who do are almost entirely all assholes. In America being "political" just means being a dishonest opportunist. We want to get away from that.

So I'm making a list we can start looking at and, shockingly, working with right away. We can, believe it or not, start using existing alternatives to undermine the global power structures and their oppressive narratives. We don't have to waste time "building a movement" from scratch or waiting for social conditions to be "right." Social conditions aren't wrong; our narratives are wrong.

These resolutions will require a lot of unpacking, so to speak, and as you can probably tell I haven't had much internet access lately. So there isn't a lot of reasoning or defense. Fuck it. Endless agonizing and arguing is what brings us to impasses anyway. Take a look and decide for yourself.

Join a credit union. On November 4th, somewhere between 200,000 and 700,000 people in the US switched from a bank to a credit union as part of OWS and Bank Transfer Day. Credit unions keep consumer profits out of irresponsible financial conglomerates and help the local economy. Plus they're more accountable to their members (as opposed to customers!) and we aren't at their mercy when it comes to sneaky fees and outrageous tolls. This site should help you find one near you.

Shop at a co-op. For newby radicals, try finding a grocery co-operative near you and checking out the yummy, locally and sustainably grown foods. Most grocery co-operatives (at least here in the Twin Cities) aren't necessarily worker's co-ops but consumer co-ops (transforming shoppers from consumers to members), which is a good model for holding the institution responsible. There are other kinds of co-ops, too, if you look around; bicycle co-ops are especially valuable to cyclists and will liberate you from a dependency on cookie-cutter sports stores. The knowledge and service found in a bicycle co-op will make you better engaged with your two-wheeled tool.

Join a co-op. The real benefits come to members: profit sharing, voting rights, sharing passions with other enthusiasts. Instead of mindlessly wandering the big-box stores like a zombie, buying all your "needs" off a list like you've been programmed, roll up your sleeves and get involved in how your community institutions run. This is a great introduction to local economics - the kind that actually matter to communities and individuals.

"Co-Op City" in New York. Housing cooperatives could be really helpful in this economy....

Start a co-op. For the truly radical. Identify a need in your community, even (or especially) one provided by big corporations. Get some friends and neighbors interested. Provide that good or service for one another and the community. All you'll need is a charter and some by-laws, maybe some start-up funds, and a lot of grit, determination, and willingness to learn. Find some resources here and here. It may seem ambitious, but co-operatives will need to form the backbone of future sustainable and democratic societies.

Start a garden. Go all-out. As a species, we've been digging in the dirt our entire history. Urban living has wrecked that for a lot of folks. Don't let it. Even if you live in the city, in an apartment or other shared living space, get your hands on some green. Herbs and other expensive meal components can be grown on a window-sill and the savings can add up. Even better, if you're really radical you can take up window-farming and make the most out whatever space you've got. Try container gardening, too. Sneak some potted plants into the common areas of your buildings - more green, living plants are proven to make more enjoyable living spaces, decreasing stress and making even the dumpiest shithole a more pleasing habitat. If you've got an actual yard, cultivate it. Share your bounty with neighbors and take the excesses to farmer's markets. Nothing undermines the greed of capitalism like sharing. Just ask Napster.

Compost. Goes hand-in-hand with gardening, and lessens your carbon footprint too. Don't rely on industrial fertilizers that wreck the global soil system. Read up on the best ways to recycle nature's materials. You might surprise yourself with how much of your waste is actually compostable and keep useful waste out of those god-awful landfills where they benefit no one and nothing.
Support a local political party. One important lesson of the Occupy movement that doesn't seem to get much discussion is how local politicians have tipped their hand. They're as in the pocket of global capital as much as our federal "representatives." Don't think third-parties and local elections are without consequence; in fact, it might just be the only way we can make some real fucking change around here. Take the local, and then state, offices in cities and important districts out of the hands of the mass parties and see how that changes the dialogue. It'll be important to have allies in office when OWS takes to the streets again next year. Plus the most influential economic policies actually happen on the state and local levels. Find someone sympathetic to your political beliefs locally, or there's always the Green Party, which could certainly use some energy and a swift kick in the pants.

This post inspired by some of the most radical thinkers in American history.

Yeah, localism. Yeah, individualism. Maybe middle-class aspirations. Or maybe working class aspirations, with the platform of historical inclusion in the middle-class. But it's movement and it's direction and that's what we need in 2012, not rebuilding the wheel or waiting for a Leninist Superman. Only dirty hands are worthy of the black and red!