seattle indymedia center

One thing to keep in mind was that the meeting was held to connect local anarchists, not to discuss political theory and tactics. When ideas were proposed, it was more to have people sharing what they were comfortable with discussing in a completely open forum. One would want to get to know those at the meeting much better before discussing the merits of more radical and dangerous forms of struggle. On the note of you being the only non-anarchist at the meeting, that is because the meeting was advertised for anarchists. You were very welcome to be there, but please keep in mind that as a forum for anarchists, not activists, we can hope to keep the revolutionary potential alive and kicking, rather than smothered to death under layers of hierarchy and rigid control.

In response to your comment about anarchists being part of "our movement", I find it insulting for you to make a blanket decision for anyone identifying as an anarchist to suddently come under your sphere of influence. I also would watch what you say when you decide to write off all anarchists today as "largely ineffective" as many anarchists are involved in a variety of projects that are viewed as very effective.
I think critiques of organizations and actions can be very helpful, but a critique of a single meeting used as a critique of an entire movement comes across as self-absorbed and absurd.

> One thing to keep in mind was that the meeting
> was held to connect local anarchists, not to
> discuss political theory and tactics.

True. But political theory and tactics were discussed. And there is nothing wrong with discussing theory and tactics. My observation was that the weaknesses in many of the ideas which were discussed yesterday -- were a reflection of the weaknesses of widely accepted ideas in the society in which we live.

And this makes sense really -- because we are all connected to one another in countless ways.

I am not asserting that it would have been better to shout people down who were giving voice to mistaken ideas -- because we need an atmosphere where people can feel comfortable talking to one another.

> One would want to get to know those at the meeting
> much better before discussing the merits of more
> radical and dangerous forms of struggle.

The forms of struggle which are most effective are not particularly dangerous at this time here in the U.S.

Sometimes we may need to confront the police at mass actions -- and people may be arrested or injured by police attack -- but the overwhelming majority of effective political work is entirely legal. It is not state repression which holds us back -- it is our ignorance concerning the way forward. We can overcome our ignorance by talking to one another. That is why the meeting yesterday was useful and why I hope these meetings continue. And that is why I welcome your comments here.

> please keep in mind that as a forum for
> anarchists, not activists, we can hope to
> keep the revolutionary potential alive
> and kicking, rather than smothered to death
> under layers of hierarchy and rigid control.

I agree.

However the struggle to keep the revolutionary potential alive rather than smothered -- is not something with which only anarchists need be concerned.

It is a struggle for all of us.

We all live and work in the same society. We all breathe the same air. More to the point, we are all impacted by the same political events: the war in Iraq and the efforts by the Democratic Party and its many powerful political allies to co-opt, capture or hijack every particle of energy that is directed against the current imperialist war and the system of capitalist oppression and alienation.

And, in my view, the struggle is not only against hierarchy and rigid control -- but also against the kinds of illusions which persuade us to waste our time and energy in useless and demoralizing ways -- such as writing letters to "our" representatives -- or getting "progressive" Democrats elected.


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


These appear to be my comments to which you take offense:

> Of course it is not just the anarchist section
> of our movement that is in crisis right now
> and is largely ineffective. I would assert
> that _all_ sections of our movement suffer
> from a severe crisis of theory and a crisis
> of organization.

If we are serious about changing the world we must learn how to be brutally honest with ourselves concerning not only our strengths -- but also our weaknesses. The movement in society (roughly considered as including people who consider themselves to be politically active and who are working for a world without imperialist war and without capitalist oppression) is saturated with all kinds of ignorance and self-deception. This is a reality that we must confront, whether we like it or not.

> I think critiques of organizations and actions
> can be very helpful, but a critique of a single meeting
> used as a critique of an entire movement comes across
> as self-absorbed and absurd.

My assessment is not based on a single meeting. A number of participants at the meeting described an objective situation.

> I also would watch what you say when you decide to
> write off all anarchists today as "largely ineffective"
> as many anarchists are involved in a variety of projects
> that are viewed as very effective.

Viewed as very effective by whom? More importantly, very effective in comparison to what?

I assess the effectiveness of our movement in relation to what is possible. It is not that I want to discourage the existing motion and efforts to self-organize.

Viewed in comparison to the development of a movement of millions which is politically conscious and which is focused on a society which is not ruled by the bourgeoisie -- we have a long way to go. I consider such a movement to be both necessary and possible. That is the goal for which I work. My own work, unfortunately, is also largely ineffective -- at least in comparison to where I would like it to be.

And, guess what? -- the last person who told me to watch what I say was John Ashcroft ;-)

> In response to your comment about anarchists being
> part of "our movement", I find it insulting for you
> to make a blanket decision for anyone identifying
> as an anarchist to suddently come under your sphere
> of influence.

We all breathe the same air. I believe that I have the ability to learn from you. Whether or not you have the ability to learn from me is up to you.

I would hope that some readers here might find the time to also read my comments (above) about the Saturday meeting as well -- and the need for a revolutionary mass organization which is transparent.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

Isolated from one another we are easily defeated.
Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us
 http://MediaWeapon.com

i think ben's jealous because leninism is dead

no, no to socialism.

Your words here betray the fundamental flaw in socialism, communism, or whatever you wish to call your nuanced form. They are all totalitarian in their means. You are frustrated by the Democrats and so you look to activism and action to "force" your view of the world upon us. You blame a lack of understanding or awareness.

The only way you can get everyone to think the way you do is to recruit them, and those are few, or coerce them with propoganda, and only the weak minded will allow themselves to submit to the cult, or expunge them, and luckily we have more guns than you do - not the case with the Russians, or Iraqis, or Sudanese, or Rwandans, or Chinese, or Venezuelans or any other peoples of a totalitarian state founded on principles of collectivism.

It happens every time.

You guys are so 20th century!

There are probably at least 50 people in the Seattle area who consider themselves to be anarchists. There are probably a roughly equivalent number who consider themselves to be Leninists.

However within each group there are very large differences in how the individuals see society and the role of activists in the antiwar movement and the movement against capitalist oppression.

For example some anarchists, like Noam Chomsky and Seattle's own Geov Parish (ie: editor/publisher of "Eat the State"), joined the "anybody but Bush" bandwagon and promoted the influence of the imperialist Democratic Party. Other anarchists understand the need to build a movement that is independent of the Democratic Party and its allies -- and are skeptical whether people like Chomsky or Parish are true to the spirit of anarchism.

In a similar way -- some activists who consider themselves to be "Leninists" are at the core of the reformist antiwar coalitions which invite speakers on their stage to lull activsts to sleep with sweet lullabies about what a wonderful "democracy" we can supposedly return to -- if only we follow the demoralizing path of becoming election fodder -- and get all excited about electing the establishment flunky who will betray us next. Other activsts who consider themselves to be Leninists consider the first group to be people who have nothing to do with Leninism.

My view is that the real division in our movement -- is between those who want to ally themselves with the reformist political trends -- and those who see the need to oppose the influence of these reformist trends. This difference is larger and more significant than the differences that are based on ideology -- whether that ideology is anarchist, trotskyist, maoist, proletarist or anything else.

In other words -- what counts the most is not what philosophy you like -- but what you do in the world. Do you promote the influence of the imperialist Democratic Party -- or do you oppose it?

As the movement develops the more serious activsts will gradually learn to recognize one another and find ways to overcome existing sectarian barriers and to work with one another. As the happens, these activists will sort of the organziational forms which correspond to the material needs of the movement -- and will also confront the theoretical crisis related to how the working class will organize society after the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

I am not advocating complacency toward the important questions of organization and of theory. Rather I am asserting the solutions to these important questions will not be determined on the basis of clueless people reading books which they do not understand. The solutions will come instead from activists who are engaged in real struggle. These activists will, of course, read books -- but they will do so in a different way than those who are disengaged from the decisive struggles of our movement and our time.

For anyone who is interested, my own theoretical work is accessible from the "recommended reading" section of the  http://MediaWeapon.com website. I have worked hard to confront the most important theoretical questions without the usual evasion and useless jargon which clog up most current works of theory and which tend to give theoretical work a bad reputation.

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

Isolated from one another we are easily defeated.
Connected to one another no force on earth can stop us
 http://MediaWeapon.com

ok ben. look, your a leninist, so when you come to power you're going to take all us anarchists, line us up against a wall and have your newly formed "people's" army shoot us. So please don't pretend we're you're allies, as history has proven to us that dirty fucking commies only stab those they claim to represent in the back. you're not our comrade, you're just another powerhungry authoritarian waiting to take control.

well, ben, even though you decided to denegrate the ideas of anarchists who welcomed yo to their meeting even though you are clearly not of the same mindset, it appears the anarchists have a bit more going for them than the other "meeting" you reported on, which was attended almost exclusively by people who CALLED for the meeting. (haha). wow, that meeting sounded like i'd want to stab a screwdriver in my temple if i was there, too.

and you all decided on the HIGHLY EFFECTIVE AND REVOLUTIONARY tactic of a "feeder march" at that meeting..... as opposed to the supposedly "ineffective" anarchists who talked about how to help those being beaten down by capitalism in our communities, how to connect with other on a real, communalist basis, and how to have a space to share resources and ideas and connect with other who want to see radical anarchist changes in the way this society is run.... sorry there is no "organizational structure" to invite your creep-o friends from the other meeting to come to next time and try to hijack into the bullshit feeder march. you really suck, dude.

Hello. I've been following this exchange, and, after reading Louis Cipher's post, I felt the need to reply.

The definition of Totalitarian, according to Dictionary.com is:

"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

To me, being a soul-less, backstabbing asshole Commie, this definition applies to nearly all forms of government, INCLUDING Imperialism (Or a 'Democratically elected Republic' if your naive enough to believe it). I ask this, Louis; Do you have any voice in Government? Do you have the ability to counteract the Government's wishes? The obvious answer is a resounding no. You can politely ask Congress to stop killing innocent people around the world. You can politely ask for them to stop the wholesale destruction of Earth. You can ask them to stop forcing a particular religion down our throats. We are asking, and we are receiving computer replys and bullshit excuses. You cannot, however, physically stop them without breaking 'the law'.

Take the latest example of U.S. Imperialism, (Remember, I'm an asshole backstabbing Commie, so I believe we are an Imperialist society) the Iraq war. Was there any sort of Public opinion consulted on the matter (a vote, for example)? Of course not, the reason being because it would never fly. Or rather, more precisely, our Government doesn't need Public support to ratify the decision to go to war. So, the individual is subordinated to the decision of the state.

I would also ask you this; Is there any sort of Political opposition to our Imperialist regime? My answer is no, yours would (I'm making an educated guess here) be yes, on the basis of 'Democracy' and that anyone can run for office. This answer however, has no basis in reality. Is it possible for a person, without a signifigant bankroll, to be elected into office, especially if they're from a political party outside of the Democrats and Republicans? They'd be better off playing the lotto. Don't forget the need for them to be a white male, preferably Christian. Our political system very much fits the above description of a Totalitarian state.

Here's yet another example; When the latest Senate appropriations Bill was passed, which included an $80 billion package for continued war, again, the public was not addressed. This is despite the growing public opposition to the war (some 60%). This, for all you Democrat lovers out there, passed with a 99-0 vote record. So much for the Dem's being an Opposition party. Once again, the individual is subordinated to the state (that was your money they sent).

Sincerely,
Marik, the backstabbing asshole Commie (has a nice ring to it doesn't it?)

Well, contrary to what has been said, only 2 people organized the meeting and if Ben's low estimate of the number that showed up is correct, then that is a ration of 12:1, attendees to organizers.

Marik, my friend, I have no expectation of being consulted for any day to day decision of my government. I vote for representation to make those decisions for me. The whole system is setup to generate controversy and opposition, yet still allow action to occur. Like you I presume, I find myself much more knowledgable about current international events, than your average layperson. Unlike you, I fully support our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Libya, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Philippines. In fact I believe we are not doing enough to collapse these despotic and totalitarian regimes or the terror groups that thrive on the periphery of democratic states, but I am cognizant that we need to pace ourselves and engage in stringer diplomacy.

It is boring beyond belief to hear that we are acting imperially and that we are acting out of some crazed conspiracy theory. What we are doing is correcting 2 things: first, we are correcting the policy of the cold war which could be described as imperialistic, since we supported despotic regimes. No more. Second, we are correcting the misperception in the world that we will not act. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth - we will act.

In the meantime, in the ME, we are providing an alternative to the fascism of the secular state and the fascism of the religious state. How else can we beat the terrorists? It is unacceptable to ignore them further.

Why are you against us fighting to secure the political freedom of over 50 million people? Your ideology?

It is clear to me that your ideas about "opposing despotism" in all the places that you mention are based on lies, obvious lies. The proof of this is already apparent in what has been happening in Afghanistan and Iraq since the US conquered and assumed control of those countries. In Afghanistan we installed an unelected leader, Mr. Karzai, who is able to maintain power only by making agreements with local despots & warlords who are every bit as tyrannical as the Taliban and make a mockery of human rights in their own little regions. In Iraq we are now supporting a gang of religious reactionaries who are about to pass a constitution that tramples on the rights of women and effectively sets up a regime just like that in Iran, only with US approval. And we will be satisfied with these regimes because they are our despotisms, not the other guy's, whoever he is. That is why we anti-imperialists, we communists, say that the justifications for these wars are lies, because they end up with a change of tyrannies, nothing else. And to anticipate one of your pet gibes, I will state in advance that the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc, were also tyrannies, revisionist tyrannies based on a perversion of Marxism meant to conceal state-capitalist dictatorships that were in no way similar to the socialism or communism that we are in favor of. We are unalterably opposed to all tyrannies, all despotisms, all sorts of minority dictatorships, and we intend to fight for true freedom of expression as well as defending our own points of view in the process. If the masses make decisions which we view as wrong-headed, and they make these decisions by majority rule and intend to carry them out democratically, then we will support such decisions while reserving the right to agitate against them & show the masses where their mistakes are. And if we make mistakes, we would expect the same kind of open criticism and exchange of ideas to prove that as well. It is our view that mass demonstrations, marches, etc., are useful not as a way of making us feel good and playing games with the police, but are useful for meeting the masses and passing out agitation to them. This is a process anyone can use, and we urge anyone to use it, if they are right or wrong. Experience will show eventually what the correct tactics are. And experience should prove to the previous poster that his support for the imperialist policies of the United States is wrong-headed and based on a completely fictitious view of the world.

The U.S. is the good guys and everyone else (except with the possible exception of Israel and Great Britain) are the bad guys, right? People like Saddam Hussein should be wiped from the face of the Earth, and hell, while we're at it, let's just remove all arabs, it'd be so much easier!

It's kind of funny though, for how much the U.S. talks about Husseins horrible acts and tyrannical leaedership, we had been supporting him for the last two decades. Those chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds in Northen Iraq? They were american made weapons that we GAVE to him. When we stopped bombing after the first Iraq war (under Bush sr.) we continued to support Husseins regime. YOu may not have heard, but there was several independant uprisings trying to take Hussein out of power. These were ex Iraqi generals who we're trying to take their country back from a madman. Hussein responded by massacring thousands of people. The U.S. stood by, obviously not caring whether or not he stayed in power, and, in accordance with their actions, seemed to be hoping he would in fact stay in power. The U.S. was approached by the rebels and asked for captured Iraqi weapons (from the previous conflict). These claims were flatly denied by the U.S...but wait, I thought we wanted to remove him from power?? That's of course until 10 years or later, when he would be removed from power by "The war on terror". You know, something for the voting public back home. A platform. An excuse to launch further wars in the middle east. But you know, everything's just fucking peachy Loius.

And what was our reasoning for removing Hussein this time around? His ties to Al-qaeda, a group of unseen boogeyman lead by an unseen leader named Osama...Unfortunately, the U.S. forgot to research the fact that Osama hated Hussein with a passion, and in fact, on numerous occassions, wanted to invade Iraq from Saudi Arabia. But the U.S. media has portrayed them as partners in crime. It's a blanket statement that says "all arabs are potentially dangerous." And the U.S. uses it as an excuse to do what it will...whether it's curbing civil liberties in the name of security, or attacking resource rich countries under false pretenses.