Movement Notes

Revolutionary Orientation: Bringing it All Together

By m(A)tt

The CLASH collective has been in existence for almost two years now, and we’ve been Demanding the Impossible for almost one. Now that we’ve got some trace amounts of experience under our belts via various projects and coalition work, we feel some outlining of general revolutionary strategy is in order. One could call this a program, but we don’t like the connotation of finality the word holds. Like all programs, it’s open to change; but like few others, it probably will. This piece will not, unlike much of our statements, deal with critiquing other ideologies and organizations. We throw around words like revolution, anti-capitalism and direct democracy quite a bit, but we give very little idea about how on earth to approach such ideals, or even what on earth we mean by them. With this piece, we hope to give some general and specific ideas in that regard, and share our profound feeling that the new world we desire is much closer at any given moment than hardly anyone ever realizes.

Like in most eras in modern American history, and many other histories, there are three main fronts for any revolutionary. The Autonomy and Solidarity Network in Canada sums this up quite well: anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, and anti-oppression. In non-abstract terms, this means that we have to be fighting the capitalist institutions and policies here at home, the imperial ventures of the state, and finally, but at least as equally important to any of the above, we must be constantly battling our own internalized tendencies to oppress and dominate our comrades and fellow human beings, and the tendency to allow others to treat us in kind. These categories overlap in many ways, which helps us with the task of understanding and explaining how all domination is indeed intimately connected, and why we should connect all these struggles as one. And in each one of these battles, we should be constantly building up counter-institutions as cooperative, non-hierarchal forms of survival and societal benefit, and as long-term bases of resistance.

The most obvious task of any would-be rebel is to deal with bread and butter issues – things that effect everyone that gets the short end of the stick in this society, which 99% of the time is the vast majority; today is no exception. If we are to understand the importance of this front, we have to look at the whole world as the battlefield of the class war. The fight against capitalism is the home front in which we fight for all the things the Zapatistas demand. But in sum, it is the fight for the well-being, and control, of our lives. It is on this front that we shake the foundations of the empire, creating waves all around the planet, by utilizing the fact that we are the foundations. It is with our labor, our children, and our everyday consent that the empire perpetuates. We are the base of the pyramid; try as we may, we will never overcome the weight of supporting those above. Only by thrusting as one will we topple this obscene structure and enter into an era without this proverbial weight on our shoulders. 

To fight capitalism, we need to first organize and go on the defensive against the ever intensifying squeezing on poor and working class people and our environment. The cost of living goes up, while the wealth we receive for our labor goes down. As people grow more poor and desperate, social services diminish. And all the while, those who have get more. But we have the power to turn this trend back, and even go on the offensive by creating the new world today in the shell of the old. This must be done on a number of fronts, particularly in a target-rich environment such as the Hartford area. Labor is, as always, one key factor. We absolutely cannot, however, wait around for the mainstream Trade Unions to get their act together, as they have proven time and again that even when to do have their act together, they are incapable of revolutionary, or even militant action. They are inherently hierarchal, pro-capitalist, divisive, and are no more salvageable than the Democratic Party. We must build a labor insurgency, within and outside of the existing unions, at least along the principles of the Industrial Workers of the World, and preferably with the IWW. We need a labor movement that does not negotiate class peace with capitalists, that will go on strike at a moment’s notice, and will be in strong solidarity with all other poor, oppressed and working class people. These principles are antithetical to the mainstream labor movement, and while there may be some value in working within and along side them, for short-term goals and to win over more workers to the revolutionary cause, we cannot depend on them, or the efforts of the brave comrades who struggle to reform them.

Our strategy should be to organize the unorganized, which today is nearly everyone. In our modern economy, it makes most sense to organize the service and transportation industries, which are among the largest and most vital industries, respectively, with the least chance of “outsourcing.” Obviously, however, these should not be a new labor movement’s sole focus, as food, utilities and other industries not only play a pivotal role in today’s capitalist economy, but also will continue to be in tomorrow’s revolutionary economy. In creating a new labor movement, people can achieve greater economic and social stability in their day-to-day lives, and introduce democracy in an arena that for as long as anyone can remember has been a place of domination and obedience; the revolutionary value of this empowerment is reason in and of itself to pursue rebuilding the labor movement. But it is in the ability to bring these industries to a halt, and eventually harness their potential for the benefit of all human kind, where the true revolutionary potential of a labor movement lies.

To do so, we need to begin to introduce key concepts to working people, such as direct democracy, militancy, and a sense of entitlement to all that they produce. This can be begun by organizing in our own workplaces and industries, reaching out to people in other industries and giving them the tools to organize themselves, as opposed to someone organizing them for them, and by holding workshops and facilitating effective organizing we can be a resource to those workers who take their own initiative to fight back. Further, a number of counter-institutions can be built with the initiative of militant unionists, such as workers’ centers, daycare cooperatives, work-related education, and worker-run cooperative businesses. It must be stressed, however, that these are absolutely no substitute for revolutionary change, as they are generally absorbed into the system if they are not part of an active effort to subvert and smash it. They are merely stepping stones that can help us along the way. It is our hope that by organizing a Hartford/Connecticut IWW branch that we can begin the process of creating a new labor movement from the bottom-up.

Similarly, we must also recognize the modern reality of the neighborhood and its radical potential, perhaps best demonstrated by the Black Panther Party. As many Hartford residents are under- and un-employed, it makes a great deal of sense to focus on living conditions, rather than just working conditions. Some tasks are tenant organizing, Copwatch programs to expose and defend against state brutality, a wide array of cooperatives to fill in the gaps where capitalism misses, and community organizations to push anti-capitalist and cooperative agendas at the City- and regional-level. These are all vitally important when we consider just how far removed most people are from the decisions that affect them so brutally. And like the hypothetical labor movement described above, it provides a model for the organisms of democracy for tomorrow’s revolutionary society. In this sense, we find ourselves very much walking in the same theoretical footsteps of the early Students for a Democratic Society, in that we believe that we urgently require the rise of participatory democracy in this society. However, we part ways with SDS in that they believed that participatory democracy, with many of the same organisms we have described above, should merely complement America’s system of representative democracy, in the belief that this would lead to a more cooperativist and socialist society. We, on the other hand, believe they should entirely replace representative democracy, from the City government, all the way up to the US Senate and House of Representatives and so on, as these institutions are inherently biased toward the property-holding class, as ­­­­­­­­­­­­Jerry Fresia so well analyzes in Toward an American Revolution, and whereas democratic centralism in general, where an electorate votes by majority for someone to speak for them in a small, isolated elite group, makes for an inevitable divorce between the will of the electorate, and said representative. It is a system of the rich, by the rich, for the rich, just as it was intended to be. We believe in direct democracy, because everyone should have a direct, un-deferred say in all matters that concern them, period. All democratic structures must be subordinated to the accommodation of this principle. But regardless, whether or not you consider yourself a revolutionist, you simply cannot deny the fact that all left-leaning forces are completely and utterly lacking any real mass base of organized support. Before we can even begin to talk about reform versus revolution, we need to do what the conservatives have been doing the last twenty-five years: build a fucking movement! Is that such a radical concept? We know believing in representative democracy gives one a certain distaste for popular power, for fear that it could get out of hand and ruin your golf game. But trust us, it’s either that or we’re fucked.

Initiating community-based organization could be approached in much of the same way described above in regards to workplace organization.

There are also many other single issues to organize around to further the anti-capitalist agenda. Protecting the environment is one key factor. While groups like the Earth Liberation Front have had some obvious success in bringing to light some major issues, we believe that completely autonomous cell-based property destruction is very limited, and can at best be good propaganda. Mass direct action is a much more participatory, sustainable and effective model in the long run. However, we concede that earth defense is not our area of expertise, so we don’t have much to offer other than speculation. But we do recognize that it is a vital struggle that we have all benefited from in some way or another, and if we are to have any hope for revolution, basic human survival is obviously a priority.

Oppressed and working people have for generations recognized that they share a common enemy with those in other parts of the world, as the capitalists of this country are not content to dominate and exploit us alone. The US military has invaded and intervened in hundreds of different instances over the entire course of its history, in nearly every country on the planet, and today it continues that trend. It is most glaringly present in Iraq, but it is, or threatens to be, in any given place at any given time, from Venezuela to Haiti to the Philippines to Puerto Rico to Palestine. It is the world’s only remaining super power, but it is increasingly anxious about the rise of others. In a desperate attempt to legitimize its supremacy, it has attempted to make an example out of Iraq, and demonstrate to the world that it can and will strike any regime that steps out of line – particularly the ones with strategic location and resources. But in its frantic actions, the empire has miscalculated catastrophically, throwing all the lessons of Vietnam and beyond out the window! This is by no means an aberration – it is well precedented, very much in line with American history, as well documented by the likes of historian Howard Zinn and scholar Noam Chomsky. The difference between this instance and most others is that the US is not merely fighting to protect its immediate economic interests, as in most conflicts; it is fighting to maintain its entire system of control that has allowed it to accumulate such vast, historic wealth. If the US loses in Iraq, it will no longer be seen as an invincible super power in the eyes of the world. It fears what all those who have power fear: losing control.

It is for that reason exactly that no part of the establishment will ever seriously consider meaningful pullout from Iraq. It is likely that it will attempt to create a façade of withdrawal, either by confining the military to strategic bases around the country, or to just across the border in Kuwait. Regardless, the US will attempt to retain control of Iraq, and if it does, it will retain its global supremacy, and this cannot be allowed. The continuance of the occupation of Iraq is highly dangerous to maintaining the empire. We must, therefore, be mindful of the danger of aiding the empire by limiting our demands to an end to the direct US-led military occupation of Iraq, as anything less than full withdrawal of US influence in the Middle East will only save the empire. Our aim is to do away with it, one tentacle at a time.

As described in our piece, “Iraq: What’s at Stake, and the Tasks Before Us,” (see www.clash.8m.net) direct action is the only practical option for the antiwar movement, and it must be carried out in a directly democratic and anti-authoritarian way. The movement also needs to be completely restructured if the grassroots is to have any meaningful say as far as tactics and strategy go, rather than the usual big shots ordering us about from New York and DC, that have gotten us absolutely nowhere in the last four years.

As Thomas Good describes in his opinion piece, “UFPJ Diary: The Case for Participatory Democracy,” the new movement should be based on regional, periodically held general assemblies to maximize the number of people whose voices are heard and to decentralize the decision-making in order to keep political maneuvering and cooptation at a minimum. Anti-authoritarianism should be the principle in all democratic processes, any national administration should be rotating yearly, and all paid staff should be unionized with the IWW.

Whether or not United for Peace and Justice should be the future vehicle for the movement remains to be seen. It is still semi-democratic, though it requires thorough reform. The beginning of a new anti-war movement begins with the formation of regional spokescouncils (anywhere from neighborhood-wide to county-wide) across the country to carry out direct action against the war profiteers and the State. Spokescouncils are an impressive expression of modern direct democracy, which directly parallels the workers councils of the early 20^th century. Essentially, they are a clearing house for all war resisters to discuss strategy, action guidelines, coordination, ideas and support. They are empowering as well as effectively non-hierarchal, as they were utilized on a grand scale in the US anti-globalization/Global Justice movement at its height from 1999-2001, and continues to be used sporadically in this country and frequently elsewhere in the world. As we demonstrate our brand of resistance, we will influence the movement in a very positive way, and shift the consciousness of the grassroots. Whether we should use this hypothetical shift to reform UFPJ, or if we should simply start anew remains to be seen. This is, however, quite far down the road, and we must focus on the tasks at hand. However, the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if we do start a new organization or network, we should emphasize including genuine grassroots organizations, and adopt the Peoples Global Action hallmarks, as the CLASH collective has done (see inside cover). Including grassroots community and workplace organizations that are along the lines of what we have described above, whose main work is not necessarily opposing the war, will ensure a shift from an activist movement to a social movement based in real communities: neighborhoods, workplaces and cultures, rather than isolated individuals with no community giving support to their actions. Aligning with PGA would create a more internationalist, anti-imperialist spirit in the movement, and allow us to be more integrated into, and sensitive to, the global movements for peace and justice, and have a much more long-term vision.

Fortunately, anti-imperialism is probably a very easy sell right now, as support for the war is currently lower than any other US war in history, and very big sections of the grassroots of the present anti-war movement is open to new ideas and tactics. By allying ourselves with these sympathetic folks, most of whom are probably middle class whites, we can begin demonstrating our model for anti-imperialist action on a mass level. In doing so, we get some practice, and more importantly, we show the country and the world just what we are capable of, and what they would be joining should they join us in the streets (and more importantly, in the spokescouncil meetings). This gives us limitless possibilities for forcing the government’s hand in the Middle East and beyond, and to dream a little further, we can only imagine how the introduction to the excitement and empowerment of direct action through directly democratic processes could create a breeding ground for the revolutionary ideas described throughout this piece. As always, anti-imperialism is a trigger for broader revolutionary action.

Perhaps the most neglected of the criteria for revolutionary organization is fighting the various oppressions people face in regards to their race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, ability or age. But more shocking are the attitudes and behaviors rampant in activist circles of all orientations in regards to these same issues. Identity-based oppression is in a big way what holds this system together. If poor and working people were not so alienated from or hostile to people of different identities, the revolution would be rid of a great impediment.

Fighting these oppressions are not something that can wait until “after the revolution,” particularly for anarchists, who supposedly believe that revolution is a process, and not solely an event to plan for. A dream deferred is a dream denied. The struggle for dignity and respect in society are key forums for empowerment and learning how to assert oneself. Again, this struggle can and should overlap other struggles against such things as workplace discrimination, racist police, queer-bashing community members, and so on. The formation of identity-based organizations are important in addressing the issues that are unique to certain groups of people. Some examples include ACT UP, the militant queer organization that for decades has fought for the recognition and treatment for HIV/AIDS. Groups like the Black Panther Party, the Young Lords and the Brown Berets were key in pushing the limits of how far people were willing to go to fight racism, and instilled a long-lasting militancy in the collective consciousness of generations of people of color.

But perhaps even more important are the internal effects of organizations and projects such as these: inside the broader movement, and inside the mind of the individual. It was the extreme male chauvinism of many of the radical organizations of the 1960’s that forced many Movement Womyn to form their own groups, caucuses and agendas. This manifested in formal organizational splits, like the one within the Socialist Workers Party which produced the Freedom Socialist Party, and the widespread creation of “consciousness-raising groups,” which were small meetings of radical Womyn throughout the country who explored the depths of patriarchy, heterosexism, femininity, masculinity, and their intimate relationships to capitalism and the state. Identity-based organization is vital in allowing unique groups with unique issues to assert themselves within larger groups, coalitions, and movements, in addition to society. The Anarchist People of Color (APOC – www.illegalvoices.org) phenomenon (for lack of a better word) was a very healthy development for the whole revolutionary milieu, in that it brought some very ugly realities to the surface, and framed discussion in a new light that both educated non-POC activists, and created a new sense of strength and community for folks who did not always feel comfortable or respected within the largely non-POC activist scene. Furthermore, as a result APOC folks are also organizing more around the issues that affect them and their communities. It is by defining and organizing around our identities that we come to understand how we can relate to one another, and how we can come together on equal terms – this is of course the essence of revolution, without which we will forever be at war with one another. Furthermore, identity-based organization is not merely for those who are part of a group that faces oppression (keeping in mind of course that most people are both oppressor and oppressed). Non-POC can and should come to understand whiteness and how to fight it. Men can and should know what patriarchy means, and learn how to let go of it. Heterosexual people should find out that so-called “straight” people are actually in the minority, and figure out how to embrace that.

Now is an exciting time. Many people are coming to some of these same conclusions described above from many different directions. Any student of social upheavals throughout history will catch of whiff of revolution in the air. Now is not the time to be defeatist or to concede our efforts to those who seem more organized but do no share our basic ideas. Now is the time to be bold and not be afraid to make mistakes – the only thing to fear is not learning from them. Hardly anyone ever suspects a revolution until they’re either in the middle of it or knocked on their asses by it. The ones who see it coming are generally the only ones to tell the real story of what went down because they knew watch. But the fact is that this powder keg won’t spark itself any time soon – certainly not soon enough.