A few years back I spent some time in
the San Franscisco Bay area and had the privilege of hanging out at
the Long Haul infoshop located in Berkeley, California. The infoshop
hosted discussions about various radical topics and had a large
library and meeting space where meals were occasionally served.
Zines, books, and novel t-shirts were sold there to help make ends
meet. And, of course, the Slingshot newspaper was published there
along with the Slingshot organizer (which is distributed broadly at
many other infoshops and independent bookstores). And, I'm sure,
many of the things I've described still take place there.
However, it should be noted that the
tone, tenor, and direction of the space (and particularly its
publication) has undoubtedly fluctuated somewhat over the years.
This is to be expected of such a public institution (as the prominent
issues of the day change and those involved with the space come and
go – bringing and taking various qualities or points of focus).
And, when the space was raided in 2008, that undoubtedly shook things
up. Since that incident... I imagine a certain hard-core has
probably stayed away from the infoshop while undercover operatives
have possibly filled the void or, at the very least, continued their presence.
In any case, a tamer crowd has probably comprised more of the
community since the raid.
With those things in mind, I'd like to
make at clear that it is not my intention here to outright condemn
the Long Haul. It may still be serving as very valuable resource
within the broader anarchist milieu. But I must express my general
disappointment with the latest issue of Slingshot (issue #111, Autumn 2012). And, with that disappointment, I must wonder who is hanging
out at the Long Haul and what the community surrounding the space is
like these days.
The first thing which drew my attention
in issue #111 was a critique of a recent Black Bloc which occurred in
San Francisco's Mission district. The piece, entitled “Black Bloc Breaks Windows, Fails To Make Impact,” written by Max Crosby,
begins with a general assessment of gentrification and then turns
into a general critique of insurrectionary vandalism. It gears up
with a specific critique of the recent Black Bloc action:
“The people who did the April 30th action made no subsequent effort to communicate their reasons for indulging in mass vandalism, thus robbing their efforts of all credibility. Evidently they said nothing because they had nothing to say. Their mass vandalism spree could have been a foot in the door for a larger message against the gentrification of the Mission in particular and against capitalist society in general, but nothing more was heard from them. With this lapse into characteristic complacency and silence, in their passivity and juvenile ineptitude the wannabe insurrectionary vandals handed a huge propaganda victory to both the Mission's bourgeois invaders and to the corporate news media, who were able to portray the event as an exercise in self-indulgent adolescent nihilism.”
There is so much wrong with this
assessment that I hardly even know where to begin.
First of all, there isn't always a need
for those engaged in such an activity to overtly “communicate their
reasons for indulging in mass vandalism” and any lack of a
spelled-out explanation does not at all necessarily “rob their
efforts of all credibility.” Some actions may speak better for
themselves than you realize. If anyone is terribly concerned about
the interpretation then they can do their personal best in trying to
clarify or explain the action. Vandalism for a radical or
revolutionary purpose deserves to be publicly discussed and those who
didn't personally participate in the action should feel free to
try and explain what they think it means. If Max Crosby does have an
inkling about what the recent action was about, as the prose about
gentrification suggests, then they can communicate their
interpretation without demeaning the participants of the action. This
is a task that above-ground radical writers should readily be willing
undertake.
It is unjust to describe the members of
a Black Bloc, who actively destroyed bourgeois symbols of repression,
as lapsing into “characteristic complacency and silence.” To
assess their action as a failure because they didn't issue a
communique and because the media called them names... is ridiculous.
Again... actions can speak louder than words and the Black Bloc
participants have potentially set an example and presented a chink in
the system's armor – and sympathetic radicals can still publicly
interpret the significance of their action. If polite society wants
to describe the Black Bloc participants as “self-indulgent radical
nihilists,” that's to be expected – and I'd say it's fair trade
for getting their shit smashed. But why are supposedly sympathetic
writers, in a supposedly sympathetic journal, describing them in these terms?
At points in the article the author
seems to favor militant actions (as long as they are followed by some kind of transparently clear public statement), and even
suggests other actions. But the general tone of the article, the
general condemnation, is the very same used by the bourgeois press
which is supposedly being criticized in this article. Take for
example when the author writes that “Black Bloc tactics are
solely for the fleeting entertainment of the people who take part in
them. They communicate nothing to the world at large. They lead
nowhere. They offer nothing to build on. Mainstream working people
aren't going to adopt Black Bloc tactics, or join the Black Bloc at
protest ghetto events.” This is the same line of the bourgeois
press and is not accurate. It's hollow condemnation and, basically,
a counter-revolutionary opinion. The author does not
seem to understand the motivation of Black Bloc participants, the message
that Black Bloc tactics can convey, or who may eventually be moved by
such tactics and join in. In the closing paragraph of the article
the author writes about the “lack of credibility,” the
lack of “commitment,” and the “failure of
imagination” associated with the Mission District Black Bloc.
In psychological terms... I'd call that projection.
Other articles in issue #111 of
Slingshot were more or less interesting or insightful. It was
interesting to learn about a ballot initiative in Berkeley to
institute fines of $75 for sitting or lying on the sidewalk. An
assessment of the recent uprising against police brutality in Ahaheim
was interesting – “What is striking is not necessarily the
police's preparedness for war, but rather their obvious neglect to
obscure their role as a counter-insurgency force. Thus, instead of
donning the traditional riot uniform and the baton, the police wear
military fatigues and are armed with rifles and less-than-lethal
weapons that closely resemble grenade launchers. The image conjured
is not South Central Los Angeles, 1992, but Afghanistan, 2012. Not
urban riot, but urban insurgency.” Other articles were about a
People's Library which has been started in Oakland, a Food Not Bombs
chapter in Missouri, a “bike swarm” activist group in Portland
which meets up along the lines of a Critical Mass at locations “where
social and political injustices can be found.” Issue #111 also
included zine reviews and infoshop updates from around the world.
These were all well and good.
One thing I noticed frequently
throughout issue #111 was quite a bit regarding essentialist identity
politics. At one level I think this could be a good thing. And I
think cultural sensitivity and respect for personal or societal
differences should generally be appreciated. However, in my recent
experiences with radical spaces, I've found that essentialist
identity politics are often used as a divisive distraction. For
example... if we are at a meeting about some corporation that is
dumping toxic waste upstream, I don't want the meeting to be derailed
in condemnation of someone who says, “That's really lame.” Then
when the person tries to apologize for their thoughtless words by saying, “Sorry,
dudes,” I don't want it all to start up again because one person
being addressed by such an apology will not tolerate being assigned a
gender like that. I'm not going to argue about the benign intentions
that either speaker may or may not have, but I feel that, sometimes,
essentialist identity politics are used in a domineering, disruptive,
and generally negative way. In a public forum people are not always
going to be up-to-speed on the most precise politically correct
speech. And those who aren't can sometimes still be otherwise valued
friends, comrades, and associates. So... during important
discussions when I see everything stop (and witch-hunts commence) at
the drop of an innocent word... I become leery about those who focus
heavily on essentialist identity politics.
As a general rule of thumb, I try to
avoid both those who take an extreme position in denying the historic
role of subjects like race or sexuality as well as those who try to
make such subjects the central core of everything that matters. This
isn't at all to say that racial slurs or overtly insensitive comments
should remain unaddressed, but sometimes a word like “dudes” is
gender neutral in the parlance of our day and, similarly, the word
“lame” sometimes doesn't have anything to do with people who
can't walk. Individuals, and the groups they are involved with, will
have to decide for themselves what kind of words they will tolerate – but the
strictest groups should remain somewhat private and public discussions
shouldn't be derailed by relatively harmless words or actions.
But I honestly don't know the
first-hand particulars of the situation at the Long Haul. So... this
isn't to say that the problems associated with essentialist identity
politics are, with definitive certainty, harming the Long Haul
infoshop. But I did see some things in the Slingshot which suggested
they might be. Without going into specifics about how essentialist
identity politics can be problematic, I'll simply suggest that
members of the Long Haul community may want to check out Lawrence
Jarach's essay, “Essentialism and the Problem of Identity Politics.”
Anyway... that's my assessment of the
recent issue of Slingshot (#111) distributed by the Long Haul
infoshop. And my title of this review wasn't so much about
condemnation as much as it expressed sincere personal curiosity about
what's happening at the Long Haul these days. I'd genuinely like a
response from people currently involved in that community and maybe
they'll use this prompt to give their thoughts on the subject. I
hope I haven't overstepped my bounds and I do have the best wishes
for the infoshop. It would be nice if more infoshops were as active
as the Long Haul and it would be nice to see more radical newspapers
pop up. I'm sure I'll get my 2013 Slingshot organizer in the coming
weeks and hope to continue getting that annual publication for years
down the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment