#the definition of 'white' was fundamentally about anti-Black racism

[thebreakfastgenie]

another note on the supposed idyllic prosperity of the 1950s — white men did well. other people not so much.

Yeppppp. I think some people who fantasize about the idyllic prosperity of the 1950s From The Left are convinced they can create a utopia that's the 1950s but diverse, but that's failing to account for white men being able to do well in the 1950s in part because other people were not. The entire idyllic 1950s way of life depends on a huge amount of unpaid labor from women, most of whom by the way also had jobs. The popular image of a family being able to afford a house a car and college tuition on a single income was true for only a small part of the population. And even then, houses, cars, and college were all different in the 50s than they are now. Housing and college costs have risen beyond what's reasonable even accounting for improved quality in my opinion and I support policies designed to address that, but we don't have to rely on a false image of the past to prove that.

Even looking at the category of white men... there were still lingering traces of ethnic discrimination in the 1950s. Racial epithets for Polish people, Italian people, etc. were tossed around all the time. Anti-Catholic sentiment was still a thing! When John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 it was a huge deal and some people were very concerned about it. It was just a very intolerant society and having the wrong ethnic heritage or denomination of Christianity could be a barrier to the professional advancement necessary to afford that idyllic prosperity. There was tons of antisemitism too, a lot of "restricted" (read: segregated) neighborhoods and associations did not allow Jews. And even if you were a good white man, if you were too openly left-leaning you might find yourself blacklisted. That's not even getting into what it was like to be gay or disabled.

That idyllic prosperity, to the extent that it existed at all, was available to only a very small part of the population. This matters because the popular perception is that it was like that for everyone. It's not just about acknowledging how discriminatory that period was, it's also about addressing whether it's even possible to achieve that kind of idyllic prosperity for everyone. People believe it used to be that way, but it never was, it was only ever enjoyed by a select few. It's the fallacy of the American Dream all over again, but wrapped in a enough layers that people don't notice.

We just... don't need to be indulging in nostalgia for the 1950s. It's a fundamentally conservative national myth. I think the high taxes and union membership memes started as a gotcha at conservatives, I remember seeing them in that context on Facebook in the 2010s, but over time they've evolved into a genuine nostalgia for an imagined version of the 1950s.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

sorry to bother you and please delete this if it's too obnoxious but can you explain what was going on in that last post with the "smol bean hitler" thing I have cognitive issues and definitely want to block at least one of the people involved but I don't really understand what's being said?

Okay I don't blame you for not understanding it because there's a lot of context there. I will do my best to give a rundown of the situation and explain everything to the best of my ability, but my account of the events might be incompelte because I really didn't witness everything.

A little over a week ago, tumblr user siwolism made a post about how she watches a lot of videos about korean fried chicken, and she had noticed a trend in the comments of these videos: a lot of those videos had comments from americans (mainly black americans) bragging about how the only reason why koreans have fried chicken is because african-american soldiers took the recipe to korea during the korean war. She said that as a korean she found these comments uncomfortable because for korean people the korean war was an extremely bloody conflict and korea hasn't still fully recovering from its effects, and americans displaying such pride about any of the things they did during the korean war is an appalling display of american chauvinism. And that the fact that black americans were displaying the same chauvinistic mindset that she would have expected from whtie americans showed that being black or any racial minority in america doesn't exempt anyone from the privileges of american imperialism or the chauvinism of defending it.

At some point I got involved by making a comment on the post, about how I found it silly that people were insulting op and tagging the post as "#tw antiblackness" when all she did was complain that it's downright evil for americans, regardless of race, to joke about the time the USA invaded korea so violently that 1 out of every 10 koreans got killed.

(I still stand by that, considering that the post didn't complain about black ppl in america in general, only about the ones that she saw acting in a specific chauvinistic way, and despite how much people have accused her since of "singling out" black americans as the main beneficiaries or defenders of american imperialism, the post went out of its way to make it clear that this was just a manifestation of a wider problem that applies to all americans regardless of race)

I also made another addition to the post about how i think many of the people making those comments were probably motivated by the way so many african-american inventions in the US have their roots erased once they become popular with non-black people, but that in my opinion they were failing to understand that, despite how superficially similar they may look, "a black american telling a white american that they should be thankful because black people invented jazz and rock" is a fundamentally different situation from "a black american telling a korean that they should be thankful because black people brought fried chicken to them during the war", because the power dynamics between these two countries and the history of the korean war fundamentally changes the situation.

These additions in particular picked up a lot of steam, which somewhat accelerated the post in question breaking containment.

Siwolism was accused of being antiblack for using the term "amerikkka" in her post. Your mileage may vary on that one, but regardless of your opinion I don't think it invalidates any of the things she said in the post.

She was accused of erasing the racism and oppression that black people face in the USA. She repeatedly clarified that she (like any serious anti-imperialist) recognizes that racial minorities in the imperial core face racism and oppression, but that their oppression in that axis doesn't erase the fact that living in the imperial core puts them in a position of privilege over people in the imperial periphery.

She was also accused of erasing anti-black racism in korea (which is a complete non-sequitur tbh, unless you're interpreting her post as "all black people oppress all korean people" and not "black people in america have the capacity to act in imperialistic ways toward people in other countries"). She clarified that she thinks racial discrimination in south korea is a serious issue, that she faces a great deal of it as a north korean immigrant of hui chinese descent, but that she obviously doesn't have it as bad as the discrimination black people face in korea. However, she said the situation of a black person from korea and a black person from america is not the same with relation to imperialism, and when a black soldier is stationed in one of the numerous american military bases in korea they don't face the same struggles as a korean black person because they're acting as part of an imperialist occupying force.

As the post broke containment, she faced increasing levels of harassment. She started getting anons calling her anti-asian slurs, particularly someone who called her an "antiblack gook bitch", "gook" being a slur extensively used by american soldiers to refer to koreans during the korean war.

(that might have been the same person who left me an anon calling me a "fucking antiblack beaner" in response to my additions to silowism's post but who knows)

She also had multiple anons telling her that they hoped she and all her friends got killed by the next american soldier they encountered, which is especially vile considering that american soliders stationed in military bases in south korea have a history of killing and commiting sexual violence against korean women and facing no consequences for it, to the point that the US government coerced the South Korean government into signing a treaty that prevents any US soldiers caught comitting such acts from being tried in a South Korean court.

At some point she psoted the following meme

This is a meme that has been used numerous times on this website to make fun fo the way how a post gets misinterpreted in increasingly ridiculous ways as it gets further away from your mutual circle. I think it's clear that none of the categories on the right are targeted specifically at black people, but instead at the people running with the worst possible interpretation of anything she said in her post (a lot of whom weren't even black americans, I think it's important to acknowledge that a lot of them were white americans who were pissed of that imperialism were being called out and decided to amplify the accusations of racism because it was a progressive-sounding way to shut down discussions of american imperialism). Still, a lot of people ran with the worst faith interpreation of it and started talking about how she "literally said all black people are illiterate chimpanzees"

She also, at some point, after days of continued harrassment, told one of the people harassing her to hang themselves. Again, people ran with the worst possible interpreation of it to talk about how "she's literally sending lynching theats to black people"

Eventually the harassment was so much that she deleted her blog.

Almost two weeks later people keep playing telephone with increasingly outlandish misinterpretations of the things she said, resulting in the tags you saw screenshotted on the post you're referring to, where someone accused her of "implying black people invented imperialism"

so yeah like I'm not going to tell you who to block or even to block anyone at all, but that's my attempt at catching you up to speed on what's going on in that post.

[gagfadget]

So this post is kind of a sequel to this post. I wanted to go more in depth as to why I said that but also talk about why I feel like ther term anti and proshipper are both fundamentally broken. Again, I’m speaking from the experience of being an ex-proshipper. I’m neither of the two. I think both sides are bad and reductive. I’ve been on both sides and I’ve seen the toxicity of both sides. Do NOT call me anti and do NOT call me a proshipper.

Anyways even when I still considered myself to be part of that group, the trend with them calling conservatives and right-wingers “antis” started to come about. At first it wasn’t like that. On a surface level an anti was someone who was just an opposite of a proshipper, someone who harassed people in fandoms over ships or characters that they deemed problematic and harmful. Over time I started to notice proshippers calling people antis over minor disagreements and eventually they started calling actual bigots antis. By that point I started to become frustrated because this word that had a set definition already and actually did have a lot of right wing anti-sjw types in it, started to expand and expand until it became almost like an umbrella term for anything that was of the left.

Is an anti someone that harasses people over ships?

Is an anti a conservative/right winger/puritan?

Is an anti someone who doesn’t like proshippers?

Is an anti someone who doesn’t like a certain ship or character?

Is an anti someone who disagrees with a proshipper during a discussion?

And this isn’t stuff that I just pulled out of my ass, these are all different groups of people that ive seen proshippers call antis. If it’s all of the above then you’re grouping in actual dangerous political groups or people who want those groups to thrive with someone like me. Which is fucked up because conservatives/ right wingers/ puritans wants to eradicate me. That’s why I tell proshippers to not call me that (they do it anyways) because the term anti is too broad and encompasses too many things, just like the term proshipper.

Proship started off as “people who don’t harass others over ships and believe that fiction doesn’t affect reality in a 1:1 way.”

But now? I’ve seen proshippers say that proshipping is pro freedom of expression, pro-free speech, anti harassment, anti censorship, anti racism, pro lgbtq+ etc. Basically it is everything that is left leaning and everything that I also stand for. BUT. I’ve had them come to me over and over and tell me that it doesn’t matter that I’m left leaning, that I’m black, that I’m queer, that Im against harassment or hate speech or pro free speech or whatever. The mere fact that I think that shipping drama shouldn’t come up in discussions about real world topics and that complaining about “antis” when a post is talking about trans issues is tone deaf, was enough for them to label me an anti and much MUCH worse.

Things that are actually bad and actually dangerous are sharing the same label with things that aren’t. In the eyes of proshippers Iam on the same level as a person who wants me dead and has killed, tortured and attacked my people for decades and decades. When people genuinely believe that, it creates an all or nothing mentality. You’re either a proshipper or you’re a person who is a fascist or at the very least, supports fascism and im not using fascist randomly, it’s because I was called a fascist and a nazi for the same post that I mentioned above.

That “either your for us or against us” mentality is how you get absolutely insane coo coo takes like this

Where people insinuate that being a proshipper/supporting proshippers is somehow intrinsic to being queer and that setting up boundaries for them to not interact with you is seen as you forgetting your own people’s history…

Mind you, the proshipping community is mostly made up of white people and there is a racism problem in it that I’ve had to witness, ended up taking part in and was the victim of MULTIPLE times. And some of it is because they will slap the anti label onto anyone.

You know what happens when you’re labeled an anti by a proshipper? They show no sympathy towards you because they believe that antis are/ support oppressors. When you are labeled as an anti they don’t take the time to differentiate if you are Anti: Genuine Bigot Flavored™️ or Anti: Minor Disagreement Flavored™️. They just come at you as if you are actively trying to take away their rights.

This causes someone to go through harassment and this includes racist harassment.

And when a person who had to endure harassment from them says “hey I got fucking harassed, dog pilled and got slurs spammed in my inbox by y’all only for saying that I don’t like proshippers” they counteract it by saying “Woah! Sorry you went through that but those weren’t proshippers. We don’t stand for that, only antis harass people. So those were really antis!”

I’ve seen this happen and said over and over and over and it’s even been said to me after I was harassed.

Telling people that they have to let proshippers engage with them even if it is triggering to do or else you are an anti (everything they deem as oppressive) is almost cult-like.

TL;DR

“Anti” is a label that encompasses too many things which include acts of actual oppression with benign disagreements on ships and characters and because of this, it often groups in oppressors with the groups they seek out to oppress.

[thousandyearphantombunker]

What the hell did people want Steven to do? Kill the diamonds? Yeah sure bro that's a great idea hey um what happens after he kills the pseudo religious being of godlike power? The issues on home world are systemic and run deep killing the diamonds would be horrible idea- yes they are dictators but you can't fix the issues fascism causes by just killing the leader and in some cases you make everything worse, i might not buy whites redemption (she went from genuinely terrifying matriarch and cruel to a blushy 'i must atone mess?) but steven was not a selfish idiot who forgives other people's abusers on their behalf, if another war started earth would be screwed, the solution to the problem wasn't as simple as kill the bad guy- to everyone who complains that diamonds will just start killing again- steven is taking active effort to make sure that never happens! I get why people are angry the diamonds get away with abusing pink, being dictators and still have power in home world- it feels like a major injustice but the bigger picture flat out shows that steven isn't being selfish for maintaining his moral purity (and even if he was I would defend him, the same way i do with aang and batman). While I have my complaints about the ending (mainly how white diamond was written) and hate how pink went from morally grey/questionable to evil hate sink, the fact that the secondary crystal gems, and lars and the off colors were basically irrelevant in the finale, but I will fight anyone who says the only way to solve complicated issues in the world is to 'kill the bad guys!' and that when fighting against racism or abusers or fascists etc the only correct way to deal with the problem is kill the people who are racist or abusive or fascist- some of you people are so focused on 'justice' or 'fairness' that you neglect everything's else like if I applied your logic to the real world we could just forget things like protecting basic rights or fixing systemic elements of social injustice etc, I genuinely hate the diamonds (especially white) and the og shows finale as a whole but steven is not an abuse apologist- he's a diplomat who uses violence as a last resort, there is a ton of other issues with su but God can we look at the ending with nuance? It sucked ass with the pacing and the fusion designs were pretty bad but it wasn't endorsing abuse apologism- Steven was focused on the bigger picture while I have my issues with him as a character sometimes I can say he was being noble here and was not a whiny piss baby, pussyfooting around something he 'needed' to do. The show was never about good killing evil and our 'moral duty' to do so, it was a show with anti war messages with a few botched aesops and wonky art, there's actual shit to complain about with steven universe but Everytime I hear all the comments about how toh made up for steven universe's sins or about how batman and aang are selfish etc it drives me insane,like I could point out so many unfortunate implications in su that are actually bad but y'all focus on the least problematic shit in the show and accuse of Rebecca Sugar a bisexual jew married to a black man of being a nazi apologist! You claim toh made up for the sins of Steven universe and laugh at the 'jab' the show made at Steven universe but there's a few things that don't hold up Dana is friends with Sugar (it is definitely not a jab) and the shows while they have similarities should not be compared, they are fundamentally different shows, like the stuff they do have in common (developing several characters that end up having no real effect on the finale or plot, badly written main antagonists etc) still don't justify the comparison yes they are filled to the brim with lgbt characters and are fantasy shows but one is magical girl/boy space opera about self love the other is a dark fantasy comedy that is about inclusion and coping with disabilities/trauma and while they have overlap they are not the same.

[the-crow-binary]

not going to address the first half of your response to the q about the French revolution because it isn't as alarming, but holy shit the stuff you said about slavery and the supposed "black people are oppressed" and "anti white" narrative of nocturne and the facts you give to support this are blatantly incorrect. Think about it; slavery being opposed within France and its population in the 18th century but not in the colonies is not proof of anti-racism, it's proof of it. Whether they wanted to speak on it or take action or not, the French did very much benefit from the labor and produce of their slaves in the Americas- the wealthy more than the average citizen, but the benefits were felt by all to some extent. Of course the French revolution made Haiti's moves to indepence stronger, that's what happens when a colonizing country is going through upheaval- people are more able to act against it. The fact that there were black authors and participants in the French revolution does not change the fact that it was fundamentally about the wellbeing of the people of France, and that all tangible commitments to releasing its colonies and the people they held there were given up quite quickly. Also that society of friends of the blacks? Had less than 200 people. Not a great indicator of France not being racist!

Also, like, sometimes fictional characters are upset about things. That's not necessarily a political statement.

Here's something about the society of friends of the blacks: Yes there was less than 200 people in it. But in the people that were there, there was very important figures, such as La Fayette, Mirabeau, abbott Henri Grégoire, and others. Enough to make a difference and be heard (they sometimes received help from people outside of their association). And you did not need to be part of it to fight against slavery/for black people's rights. (even if we had to wait until 1848 before the definitive abolition of slavery, its thanks to the society of friends of black people, for example, that the free black people were given civil rights in 1792). Even with not much people in it, it was still a pretty big deal.

Yes the French Revolution "was fundamentally about the wellbeing of the people of France" (and I'm not saying racism didn't exist at all outside of the colonies, but that it was way more prominent there), but it's still a fact that slavery was also fought against during it (even before and after), and that rights were given to black people thanks to it (because one thing led to another, then another, then another... slavery was not the main focus for most people, but the Revolution affected way more than what was intended and inspired many) As you said, the wealthy is the one who benefited from slavery most, compared to the rest even if "to some extent" it affected everyone (1 out of 8 french people benefited from it, to give you an idea). Doesn't make the french any less against it or any more racist. Not every french person actively fought against it, yes. But, just like if you use (so "benefit from") Amazon and don't go protest against it, it doesn't mean you are totally on board with exploiting employees (and the logic can apply to many companies and even countries to this day). So one can only speculate on how far racism went in XVIII France among the people, but imo, it's pretty telling that we gave black people rights and abolished slavery so close to the French Revolution (not that some people weren't already fighting for it before that).

So worst I did was say "only" the colonies were pro-slavery in my previous post and not give lots of details in order to make the post shorter. (i am actually fact-checking myself regularly using multiple sources, because I don't want to misinform anyone, but there's always a risk I might be wrong. i really don't like politics. also the show just angers me for lots of reasons that are not necessarily connected to The French).

But in the end, its all the same: Nocturne messed up.

Nocturne CHOSE to tackle slavery and racism. It CHOSE to make things happen during the French Revolution. It CHOSE to be political. None of it came from the games, it could have never been there if they just did not take those decisions. That's why, for this particular show, I have to highly disagree with your "sometimes fictional characters are upset about things. It doesn't make it a political statement" because Nocturne literally is all about politics.

The choice of making every noble a vampire, to make Annette a black ex-slave that freed herself, to make Maria a revolutionary leader, to throw "liberty equality fraternity/brotherhood" around from time to time (Maria literally shouted "vive la revolution!" in episode ONE), every single choice they made, every single thing they added or changed from the games is rooted in politics. Annette's teacher,is very politically involved, and her views are presented as the truth and never questioned. I don't have a problem with a character being so casually racist towards white people/anti-french, especially considering said character's background. But I do have a problem when that character doesn't get called out for it or shown being in the wrong. I'm sorry, but when you make a character who isn't a villain, say shit, and don't follow up with something that indicates that it's shit, or give her consequences for saying shit, yes, I will assume you think this shit is valid. (at this point I would've taken just Annette doing a grimace as a sign that she disapproves, but no, she seems okay with insulting the french. waw, okay, why were you ready to lead them then? Connasse.) Annette literally calls Maria and Richter "children" and act like an ass because she thinks she is so superior because she suffered MORE so she knows MORE and the show portray it as her being right (everyone is so nice to her all the time and don't even say anything when she is mean to them). It doesn't even bother to pretend she only said the things she said or acted the way she acted because of trauma and anger, no, its just the way she is, because its the truth, because white people can't suffer, because they don't know shit (she fought her own revolution then went to France to fight THEIR revolution while the French don't do shit, she is that superior)

I don't criticize showing that black people were indeed oppressed and literal slaves at the time. I criticize the form. I criticize that they can't elevate Annette or the black people without bringing others down. And thats a problem, EVEN without taking real events into account. It's just a shitty way to write a character (from a minority or not) in every single media. It's hard for me to explain it, but there's a difference between writing a character being a "victim", and writing a character being a "poor little victim". One gives way more dignity to the character and is way more respectful to the people it represents than the other. Annette is on the "poor little victim" side even with this #girlboss façade of hers.

There is something called "the death of the author" (it's a french essay, hehe). To put it simply, it's the idea that the author write something, and the reader create the meaning. What the author intended to tell does not matter more than what the reader understands/interpret, and the author's own life should not be use to judge of it's creation's meaning(s). It's the thing with art, you know? Different people can have different interpretations. For Nocturne, it doesn't matter if it wasn't their intention to talk about politics (how could it not have been when it's literally so obvious, I have no idea). Because I, as a viewer, noticed a pattern, noticed elements, and understood messages that are indeed, very political. It doesn't make me any more right than one who does not and just enjoy the show for it's story and characters without thinking much deeper than that, but it doesn't make me any more wrong either. It's not like I don't have any reason either, I can clearly explain why I think the way I do, the elements are right there, I didn't create them.

[crystalis]

The war on Gaza is being used to advance fascism and white supremacy in the U.S. It is also opening people’s eyes to global systems that require genocide to continue. To stand with Palestine is to transform those systems and build a different world.

"...Israel is a fascist state, and its relentless genocide is blasting open more pathways for global fascism to establish itself. A growing number of fundamentalists and authoritarians entrenched in white supremacy and Islamophobia have been setting course across the globe over the last few years. Most recently, Argentina voted in a Trump-like right-wing president in November 2023 who is a strong supporter of Israel, pushing a Zionist agenda, waving the Israeli flag at his rallies in October, and making Israel one of his first trips as president. In January, as Israel continued its bombardment of Gaza, India’s fundamentalist authoritarian Modi celebrated the Hindu temple on the razed grounds of the Ayodhya mosque in January, and Italy’s government passed laws to protect public expressions of fascism. Senegal’s president postponed elections, jailed movement leaders, and sparked massive protests. These moves point towards a growing fascist consolidation. Israel’s attacks are emboldened, not just in Gaza but in the military and social violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. The U.S.’s brutal attacks on Yemen in response to their economic blockades in defense of Palestinians show what the empire is willing to do to protect itself, even in the face of global condemnation.

The conditions are set for Zionism to fuel fascism on a global level and prevent social movements from rising in the United States. Zionism and anti-Palestinian racism have been fundamental to the “war on terror” that started 20 years ago when 9/11 was used as a pretext for permanent war. The U.S. created legal and social frameworks of “terrorism” to undermine global resistance and to counter dissent, public speech, and organizing in the United States. Zionism and the War on Terror have been tools used to protect capital and also to attack resistance and liberation movements, particularly those led by Black, Palestinian, Muslim, and immigrant communities. Globally, the U.S. uses the threat of “terrorism” to expand military outposts in every corner of the world, and here, the FBI uses expanded surveillance to track Black anti-police protesters, and Zionism becomes a tool to turn protest into terrorism.

Zionism is a perfect vehicle for the expansion of the police state in the United States. Both liberals and the extreme right in the United States are using Zionism to advance a strategy that expands a social base for fascism, deepens control of public institutions, and sets the stage for consolidation at the federal level, protected by the police state with support from financial institutions, media, and higher education. Today, legislation weaponizing the definition of antisemitism to equate it with anti-Zionism and stifle pro-Palestinian actions is passing with bipartisan support. These attacks allow increased constriction of public discourse and dissent, which will be legislated at school board, university, city, state, and federal levels."

"... Contending with Zionism requires a break with empire. In short: there is nothing we can do about Israel, other than everything.

The opportunity within this moment is to develop a sharper strategy that activates the millions of people who see the faultlines and feel the rift."

Stephanie Guilloud, 20 March 2024

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Amna Khalid and Jeffrey Aaron Snyder

Published: Aug 5, 2020

U.S. colleges and universities will be embracing diversity training with renewed vigor this fall.

In response to the killing of George Floyd, the massive Black Lives Matter protests and pressure from students, dozens of colleges and universities have made public commitments to new anti-racism initiatives.

The University of Florida will require all students, faculty and staff to undergo training on “racism, inclusion and bias.” Northeastern University will institute “cultural competency” and “anti-racism training” for every member of the campus community. And Ohio Wesleyan University will mandate “universal diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Given the vital importance of confronting past and present racism, we believe it is imperative that colleges and universities address racial disparities and discrimination in higher education head-on. However, as scholars who study race and social inequality, we know that diversity training suffers from “chronically disappointing results.” Recent research in psychology even suggests that diversity training may cause more problems than it solves.

What diversity training looks like

Called into a typical diversity training session, you may be told to complete a “privilege walk”: step forward if “you are a white male,” backward if your “ancestors were forced to come to the United States,” forward if “either of your parents graduated from college,” backward if you “grew up in an urban setting,” and so on.

You could be instructed to play “culture bingo.” In this game, you would earn points for knowing “what melanin is,” the “influence Zoot suits had on Chicano history” or your “Chinese birth sign.”

You might be informed that white folks use “white talk,” which is “task-oriented” and “intellectual,” while people of color use “color commentary,” which is “process-oriented” and “emotional.”

You will most definitely be encouraged to internalize an ever-expanding diversity lexicon. This vocabulary includes terms such as Latinx, microaggressions and white privilege.

It also features terms that are more obscure, like “adultism,” which is defined as “prejudiced thoughts and discriminatory actions against young people, in favor of the older.”

Disappointing results and unintended consequences

In terms of reducing bias and promoting equal opportunity, diversity training has “failed spectacularly,” according to the expert assessment of sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev. When Dobbin and Kalev evaluated the impact of diversity training at more than 800 companies over three decades, they found that the positive effects are short-lived and that compulsory training generates resistance and resentment.

“A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training,” Kalev concluded.

Some of the most popular training approaches are of dubious value. There is evidence, for example, that introducing people to the most commonly used readings about white privilege can reduce sympathy for poor whites, especially among social liberals.

There is also evidence that emphasizing cultural differences across racial groups can lead to an increased belief in fundamental biological differences among races. This means that well-intentioned efforts to celebrate diversity may in fact reinforce racial stereotyping.

With its emphasis on do’s and don’t’s, diversity training tends to be little more than a form of etiquette. It spells out rules that are just as rigid as those that govern the placement of salad forks and soup spoons. The fear of saying “the wrong thing” often leads to unproductive, highly scripted conversations.

This is the exact opposite of the kinds of debates and discussions that you would hope to find on a college campus.

The main beneficiaries of the forthcoming explosion in diversity programming will be the swelling ranks of “diversity and inclusion” consultants who stand to make a pretty penny. A one-day training session for around 50 people costs anywhere between US$2,000 and $6,000. Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of “White Fragility,” charges up to $15,000 per event.

In this belt-tightening era of COVID-19, should colleges and universities really be spending precious dollars on measures that have been “proven to fail”?

[ Continued... ]

==

Con artists always find a vulnerability.

[angelsaxis]

People of color have been talking for years about the fascist racism that Democrats have allowed to pass through Congress and that Biden has signed off on as reason enough not to vote for him. He's endangering Black people's lives. He and the Democrats have endangered women's life, they've endangered children's lives, they're endangering everyone in the exact same ways that Republicans would and are. Biden has:

- explicitly said "nothing will fundamentally change"

- funded and armed a genocidal nation

- supported genocide

- denied genocide

- given federal funding to police when everyone was talking about and actively protesting police brutality (in case it wasn't clear, this does not help Black people at all)

- along with the Democrats, allowed Roe to fall through the floor (don't tell me the Democrats couldn't do anything about it and that was all trump. If it's the case they as a party can't come up with a way to stop something they knew about months in advance, why am I voting for them?)

- enacted extremely strict anti-immigration policies as recently as YESTERDAY

- Screwed over disabled people and the working class by lifting every COVID restriction and doing next to nothing to provide social safety nets for people who get sick and can't work

- done, as far as I can see, nothing for the housing crisis

- done next to nothing to help trans people and queer people

- done nothing for gun control

- not increased federal minimum wage

- shut down a massive railway strike that would have allowed them to bargain for better conditions than they currently have

There's definitely things that I'm missing.

Republicans agree with, want to do, or have done all of these at some point in time. These are Biden and the Democrats actions in full view. The fact that you insist that anyone who says Biden and the red side are the time MUST be a Foreign Agitator goes to show the depths of y'alls racism, because it's largely been people of color and queer people of color (ESPECIALLY BLACK PEOPLE AND PALESTINIANS) warning everyone about the violence of the Democratic party.

But liberal concern for non white lives is a performance: you say BLM, you say Free Palestine, you say "I'm an anti-racist!", but when it comes time to actually listen to what we're saying, you jump to defending the status quo and defending hegemony and defending the very thing that is committing one of the worst human atrocities we've seen in a century. Biden is a violent Zionist who is a genocide denier AND enabler on top of that. A significant portion of his would-be voter base is turning away from him for that alone. He's literally not even listening to his voters.

The tactics that police use to harm and abuse Black people here are taught to them by Israeli military and law enforcement. Black have been saying this for years. "rUsSiAn BoT" my ass. Liberal indulgence in the innocence of a white supremacist is nothing new, but to think that common years-old critiques must be foreign agitators, again, just shows y'all's rampant racism. People of color are well within their heights to discourage voting for someone who wants them dead. I do not want Biden in office. His policies will make my life harder than it already is. His policies will and are hurting my friends. Even if my life was perfect....he's aiding a genocide. That's not a red line for you all because you all think white supremacy is okay and that you can sacrifice a few brown people overseas as long as the guy doing the killing can get up on a stage and talk about freedom.

"Russian bot" "repeat of 2016" my god

Just a thought for the night, but remember in 2016 there were all these accounts that seemed really really telling you all the ways Hillary Clinton was some kind of demon woman, just the worst, and really Trump wouldn't be worse and maybe he'd even be better?

and then it turned out they got banned for being literally Russian agents and never came back because spoiler they were?

does it feel like that all over again? just a thought.

[frodho-slaggins]

I am also thinking about how de writes racism and colonial mindsets in relation to the mercenaries cus i think theres a lot of rlly interesting stuff there. The tribunal is pretty far into the game, so you've spent hours and hours absorbing revochalian culture and getting a sense of how ppl conceptualize themselves and others. Revochal is majority white but its also got a fair amount of nonwhite ppl whos revochalian roots stretch back a while as well as white and nonwhite immigrant communities. Revochal is also pretty racist and xenophobic and you get that both from living in the world and absorbing the ambient racism (for example, the fictional anti-black slur "kipt" is tossed around with great frequency and casualness to the point that some ppl don't even seem to register that they're using an insult) and also because while you play a white character, ur attached at the hip to an asian man and so you observe the constant deluge of racism thrown kim's way particularly.

But anyways, you have a pretty solid sense of race politics in revochal and then you meet those mercenaries and its more of that same hostility towards minority populations, tho even more virulently anti-black than is typical. But a thing that's sort of interesting is that the mercenaries seem to consider all Revochalians to be racialized subjects because of their position as being residents of a country the Moralintern is occupying and that Krenel is deployed in. The mercenaries use really racialized terms to refer to all Revochalians regardless of race. They're "loinclothes", natives of a country that they are visiting violence upon. Their language and actions equate the residents of Martinaise with the Semanese ppl they were comissioned to violate and kill.

That's not to say race is totally irrelevant to the mercs's perspective. I think it's no accident that they target Liz and Theo in particular when they're shooting at people. Liz is especially telling, she is a totally non-violent figure who is actively attempting to deescalate and i think they try to shoot her in part because she is black and because they are inclined to and highly conditioned to kill black victims. They were never gonna listen to her because they were raring for a fight and because she's the resident of a place they consider a backwater slum sure, but also because she is black.

Idk i dont have a point exactly. Just....something about how Krenel's mercenaries are conditioned to consider all populations they interact with as fundamentally and ethnically inferior, regardless of phenotype or whether theyre occidental or whatever. They're white supremacists but with a definition of whiteness that fundamentally excludes white ppl who are "3rd world" even if it still differentiates between white and non-white "loinclothes." Also also something about how this reflects a real world tendency amongst non-eastern europeans to present eastern-europeans in a racializing manner, as historically western european nations have used eastern europe's relative proximity to asia as a means to frame eastern europeans as not white and subsequently frame them as inferior. Or a modern tendency amongst wealthy nations to consider some nations as ethnically inferior regardless of actual racial makeup because of idk poverty or "cultural difference" or something. But also despite that, race is still a major factor in how these countries are percieved (i was thinking about this a lot cus i played de while the american news media was covering ukraine and saying shit like "this isnt palestine, normal people live here how can there be a war" etc etc)

Also something about the motivating racism evident in on-the-ground troops for colonial operations like blackwater (or if you wanna be honest, the legitimate american military as well) is also sort of nihilistic because while it furthers white supremacy it has no allegiance to whiteness, just hostility to non-whiteness and its true allegiance is always capital.

[aro-comics]

Fashion Analysis (Part 2: Outside of Amatonormativity Alone)

[Note: This post is a part of a series analyzing self-expression, fashion, aromanticism, and how they interact with other parts of identity. For full context please read the whole thing!]

Outside of Amatonormativity Alone: Sexism, Homophobia (and/or Transphobia), Racism, Ableism, and Other Factors That can Impact Self Expression 

My comic was originally meant to be a light hearted joke. I’d always been told I’d want to dress up one day, be pretty and feminine once I fell in love with a boy (BLEGH). I was so certain that I would never do that, and now … here we are. I put lots of effort into my appearance, present feminine, all in the hopes I’ll impress a very special someone - a potential employer at a networking event. I think there’s a certain irony to all of this, and I do find it funny that I managed to both be wrong and completely subvert amatonormative stereotypes! 

But having the chance to think about the whole situation, I realize now that my changes in presentation reflect far more. The pressure I felt to dress differently are still influenced by fundamental forms of discrimination in society, and I would be remiss to not address these inherent factors that were tied with my experiences alongside my aromanticism. So in this section, I will briefly cover some of these factors and summarize how they can influence people’s self expression as a whole, before discussing my own experiences and how these factors all intersect. 

Sexism

The pressure on women In This Society to uphold arbitrary norms is ever present and often harmful, and while I wish I had the time to discuss the impacts of every influence the patriarchy has on personal expression, to even try to cover a fraction of it would be impractical at best for this essay. Instead, since the original comic focuses on professionalism and presentation, this is what I will talk about here. 

Beauty standards are a specific manifestation of sexism that have a deep impact on how people perceive women. It’s a complicated subject that’s also tied with factors like capitalism, white supremacy, classism, and more, but to summarize the main sentiment: Women are expected to be beautiful. Or at least, conform to the expectations of “feminine” “beauty” as ascribed by the culture at large. 

They also tend to be considered exclusively as this idea that "women need to be beautiful to secure their romantic prospects, which subsequently determines their worth as human beings. The problematic implications of this sentiment have been called out time and time again (and rightfully so), however there is an often overlooked second problematic element to beauty standards, as stated in the quote below: 

“Beauty standards are the individual qualifications women are expected to meet in order to embody the “feminine beauty ideal” and thus, succeed personally and professionally” 

- Jessica DeFino. (Source 1) 

… To succeed personally, and professionally. 

The “Ugly Duckling Transformation” by Mina Le (Source 2) is a great video essay that covers the topic of conforming to beauty standards through the common “glow up” trope present in many (female focused) films from the early 2000s. 

“In most of these movies, the [main character] is a nice person, but is bullied or ignored because of her looks.”

Mina Le, (timestamp 4:02-4:06)

Generally, by whatever plot device necessary, the ugly duckling will adopt a new “improved” presentation that includes makeup, a new haircut, and a new wardrobe. While it is not inherently problematic for a woman to be shown changing to embrace more feminine traits, there are a few problems with how the outcomes of these transformations are always depicted and what they imply. For starters, this transformation is shown to be the key that grants the protagonist her wishes and gives her confidence and better treatment by her peers. What this is essentially saying is that women are also expected to follow beauty standards to be treated well in general, not only in a romantic context, and deviation from these norms leads to the consequences of being ostracized. 

The other problematic element of how these transformations are portrayed are the fact that generally the ONLY kind of change that is depicted in popular media is one in the more feminine direction. Shanspeare, another video essayist on YouTube, investigates this phenomenon in more detail in “the tomboy figure, gender expression, and the media that portrays them” (Source 4). In this video, Shaniya explains that “tomboy” characters are only ever portrayed as children - which doesn’t make any sense at face value, considering that there ARE plenty of masculine adult women in real life. But through the course of the video (and I would highly recommend giving it a watch! It is very good), it becomes evident that the “maturity” aspect of coming of age movies inherently tie the idea of growth with “learning” to become more feminine. Because of the prevalence of these storylines (as few mainstream plots will celebrate a woman becoming more masculine and embracing gender nonconformity) it becomes clear that femininity is fundamentally associated with maturity. It also implies that masculinity in women is not only not preferred, it is unacceptable to be considered mature. Both of these sentiments are ones that should be questioned, too. 

Overall, I think it is clear that these physical presentation expectations, even if not as restrictive as historical dress codes for women have been, are still inherently sexist (not to mention harmful by also influencing people to have poor self image and subsequent mental health disorders). Nobody should have to dress in conformity with gender norms to be considered “acceptable”, not only desirable, which leads us to the second part of this section. 

Homophobia (and/or Transphobia)

So what happens when women don’t adhere to social expectations of femininity? (Or in general, someone chooses to present in a way that challenges the gender binary and their AGAB, but for the sake of simplicity I will discuss it from my particular lens as a cis woman who is pansexual). 

There are a lot of nuances, of course, to whether it’s right that straying from femininity as a woman (or someone assumed to be a woman) will automatically get read a certain way by society. But like it or not, right or not, if you look butch many people WILL see you as either gay, (or trans-masculine, which either way is not a cishet woman). This is tied to the fact that masculinity is something historically associated with being WLW (something we will discuss later). 

This association of breaking gender norms in methods of dress with being perceived as a member of the LGBTQ+ community has an influence on how people may choose to express themselves, because LGBTQ+ discrimination is very real, and it can be very dangerous in many parts of the world. 

I think it’s very easy to write off claims in particular that women are pressured into dressing femininely when it is safer to do so in your area; but I really want to remind everyone that not everyone has the luxury of presenting in a gender non-conforming way. This pressure to conform does exist in many parts of the world, and can be lethal when challenged.

And even if you’re not in an extremely anti-LGBTQ+ environment/places that are considered “progressive” (like Canada), there are still numerous microagressions/non-lethal forms of discrimination that are just as widespread. According to Statistics Canada in 2019: 

Close to half (47%) of students at Canadian postsecondary institutions witnessed or experienced discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation (including actual or perceived gender, gender identity or sexual orientation).

(Source 3)

Fundamentally this additional pressure that exists when one chooses to deviate from gender norms is one that can not be ignored in the conversation when it comes to how people may choose to express themselves visually, and I believe the impacts that this factor has and how it interacts with the other factors discussed should be considered. 

Neurodivergence (In general): 

In general, beauty standards/expectations for how a “mature” adult should dress can often include clothing that creates sensory issues for many autistic people. A thread on the National Austistic Forum (Source 6) contains a discussion where different austistic people describe their struggles with formal dress codes and the discomfort of being forced to wear stiff/restrictive clothing, especially when these dress codes have no practical purpose for the work they perform. If you’re interested in learning more on this subject, the Autisticats also has a thread on how school dress codes specifically can be harmful to Autistic people (Source 7). 

In addition to potentially dressing differently (which as we have already covered can be a point of contention in one’s perception and reception by society as a whole), neurodivergence is another layer of identity that tends to be infantilized. Eden from the Autsticats has detailed their experiences with this in source 5. 

Both of these factors can provide a degree of influence on how people choose to express themselves and/or how they may be perceived by society, and are important facets of a diverse and thoughtful exploration of the ways self-expression can be impacted by identity. 

Also, while on this topic, I just want to take a chance to highlight the fact that we should question what is considered “appropriate”, especially “professionally appropriate”, because the “traditional” definitions of these have historically been used to discriminate against minorities. Much of what gets defined as “unprofessional” or otherwise “inappropriate” has racist implications - as an example, there is a history of black hairstyles being subjected to discriminatory regulation. Other sources I have provided at the end of this document (8 and 9) list examples of these instances.  

Racism (being Chinese, specifically in this case): 

For this section, I won’t be going into much depth at all, because I actually have a more detailed comic on this subject lined up. 

So basically, if you were not aware, East Asian (EA) people tend to be infantilized and viewed as more childish (Source 10). In particular, unless an EA woman is super outgoing and promiscuous (the “Asian Bad Girl” stereotype, see Source 10), IN MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE it’s easy to be type casted as the other end of the spectrum: the quiet, boring nerd. On top of this too, I’ve had experiences with talking to other EA/SEA people - where they themselves would repeatedly tell me that “Asians are just less mature”,  something about it being a “cultural thing” (Yeah … I don’t know either. Maybe it’s internalized racism?). 

Either way, being so easily perceived as immature (considering everything discussed so far) is also tied to conformity to beauty standards and other factors such as sexism and homophobia, which I believe makes for a complex intersection of identity. 

[Note from Author: For Part 3, click here!]

[themoonispurple7]

I am a born and raised American and I know that there is a lot to critique about USA politics and policies. We have ingrained racism and anti blackness is supported by the police. Our jails are full of disproportionately black men, and non violent offenders. Medical care is a privelage that some people lose everything to be able to afford. We didn't get marriage equality until 2015 which is way behind a lot of other developed countries. There's christian fundamentalism that can mix with politics in a terrible way. When I hear people not from the states mention these things, I think 'yes you are right'. I am not offended. Maybe I shouldn't be saying this, because I'm just a white American girl, but maybe progressive people in Korea might think the same thing? It's like you can love your country and traditions, but you can also accept other people saying 'hey, that's wrong.' Speaking out in solidarity with queer people living in another country doesnt mean you disrespect the culture. Just my two cents.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who want to change things, but it’s difficult and it takes so much time. No country is without issues, and that’s definitely something to keep in mind. 

[rotationalsymmetry]

Re: cultural appropriation

Some things I’ve picked up over the years. Can’t say I really have a comprehensive understanding on this.

Caveat: white person blind spots

Also it’s first thing in the morning and my words might not be working yet.

It’s about power. Sure, cultural exchange and influence is normal and universal, but “everybody is influenced by everyone else!” isn’t the same as your boss taking credit for your work.

So, one aspect is who gets the credit

Another aspect, related, is who gets the money.

Another is…when things cross cultures it’s often like a game of telephone. Which isn’t a huge deal if the original thing is something light or funny that nobody really minds getting distorted. But if it’s something that people do mind, religious stuff for instance, that’s more of a problem.

There’s an ownership/control aspect, where people who feel like everything else they had got stolen can get more possessive about what’s left. If that makes sense.

Basically this is one of those things where you can’t sit in a room and figure out first principles and assume they apply to every potential instance of appropriation the same way. Different cultures have different attitudes about appropriation and logic is inferior in this case to actually listening to people. (It seems like white people figuring out appropriation often want one universally applied standard, and that’s just not possible.)

Sometimes appropriation is a hell no. (Some people say “misappropriation” to distinguish between appropriation that’s just kind of funny or otherwise not really a problem and appropriation that’s bad. In practice I’ve found people making a distinction between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation are always dismissing bad-appropriation as a concept.) Native American sweat lodge ceremonies for instance. Another example that’s been talked about a lot in recent years is racist Halloween costumes.

There’s other things where it’s more subtle. My understanding is no one actually has a problem with Westerners doing yoga, but there is some general exasperation with yoga done just as exercise, without the spiritual context. Generally people don’t really object to their cuisine getting around either, but the “who gets the credit and who gets the money” issue is still active. So people will still talk about cultural appropriation in a food context even though they don’t mean “don’t eat food from other cultures.”

I have not been able to get a definitive answer about chakras, beyond “the rainbow colors thing is kind of an add-on.” There may be an answer but I don’t know what it is.

Sometimes (mostly white) people apply the concept of appropriation where it’s not relevant in a way that’s harmful. For instance, some people got the idea that the Black Panther movie was “for black people” and therefor white people shouldn’t watch it. This is backwards and counterproductive. (And possibly a way to get away with “I don’t want to watch it because watching a movie with that many black characters makes me uncomfortable” while sounding progressive.)

This has two applications: firstly, that if you want to do something about appropriation and it’s not your culture, you have to let people from that culture take the lead, or risk doing more harm than good. Secondly, that people who aren’t from a culture who say “this is appropriation” might be wrong and you don’t automatically have to listen to them (although what usually happens is people feel like they either have to do what those people say or else reject the validity of entire concept of cultural appropriation; I would like to see more of “That doesn’t sound right to me, but I’m going to look into that because I do take cultural appropriation seriously.”

I wanna give you a further reading link list, but honestly my sources here have been so disparate I don’t know what to say.

I would recommend seeing recognizing cultural appropriation as one facet of anti racism work and not making it the main focus. It gets blown out of proportion on social media where people are looking for someone to be angry at, but it’s not what’s doing most of the harm racism wise. (Gonna repeat white person blind spots caveat, I could be wrong (and definitely don’t use my stance as a gotcha when arguing with someone else), but I’m pretty sure about this one.)

One aspect of that is focus on cultural appropriation almost always focused on individuals and very small groups, and takes attention away from seeing racism as a collective problem requiring collective solutions. For instance, the problem of police officers killing black people has nothing to do appropriation, and everything to do with systemic racism (and systems of power that impede accountability.)

For paganism and witchcraft specifically: we’ve had appropriated stuff being circulated around for decades and it’ll take a while to figure out where we’re going from here. In the meantime, apparently the white sage thing is a big deal; being sensitive to which traditions are open to you and which are closed to you is a good idea (sometimes you might see a specific person use an element of a tradition they’ve been initiated into that you haven’t been, be chill); be aware that “spirit animal” is a serious business thing and not a synonym for “guide that takes a shape of an animal”; keep in mind that not all Witchcraft is Wicca or Wiccanate so be cautious about general “this is how witchcraft is done” statements.

In general just be a person interacting with other people, you know? Sometimes people present as super angry because they’re assholes, but other times it’s because you said something really out of line, and if you can’t tell which it is try to not assume it’s the first.

But if you do get dogpiled on and later realize they had a point, it doesn’t mean you’re utter trash. Things are less about you than you think they are. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do is respond as though you got the nice patient “here’s what’s wrong with that” even though you actually got the yelling version. (Respond as in how you live your life. If someone’s yelling at you or making personal attacks, I would recommend disengaging as soon as possible. There’s…kind of this weird fetish in social justice circles for perfect instant apologies. If you can do that and you think it’s right, fine, but disengaging and not interacting is also fine, especially if you don’t even know anyone who’s being angry at you. If you do know someone and want to mend fences, chances are they’ll understand if you need time to cool down/for them to cool down.)

I found an article once on this white guy who went to India and got attacked by a mob because he had a tattoo of a Hindu goddess on his lower leg. The problem wasn’t the tattoo, but the location, which was a big no. This is an example of the closed tradition/open tradition model being not entirely sufficient; often what people get mad about isn’t whether outsiders are interacting with their tradition, it’s about whether they’re doing it respectfully. (Christian churches tend to have rules about who can take communion and what you should wear; other religions have rules that are important to them but are open to outsiders who respect the rules; others have had too many outsiders showing up and talking through the service so they’re closed, and the one thing all these groups have in common is the people in the groups get to decide what their rules are. (And sometimes people in the group disagree on what the rules should be and that’s normal…but you wouldn’t show up to a church service in a bathing suit snd go “well, this one person said it was ok, I guess the rest of you just have to deal with it”, I got no social skills and hate conformity (and dress codes) and even I can get my head around that.))

Anyways, at its basic level the opposite of cultural appropriation is respect and treating people like people and … basically the golden rule applied to cultures or religions rather than to individuals, you know? Believing that other cultures are on the same level as Western culture and deserve to have their own standards respected, believing that other religions are fundamentally as legitimate as Christianity and deserve to get their rules respected — rules about who is a member of that religion, rules about how outsiders should behave when interacting (including rules that say no interaction at all.)

And about power and credit and money, and acknowledging that while everyone’s on an equal plane in terms of deserving respect, not everyone is on an equal plane in terms of ability to fuck the others’ lives up.

It is about being a guest, and being respectful as a guest, and recognizing when other people like you (or even you yourself) have been terrible guests so you’re not getting the benefit of the doubt, and recognizing when the power dynamics are all wonky so that there’s an inequality around who can get away with what.

[anarchy101]

What would an anarchist program look like?

by CrimethInc

An Anarchist Program

0. The Ends Are the Means

Those who support an anarchist program live and organize in a way that makes the program imminently possible, not in some distant future after a dictatorial party has acquired power. This represents a completely different way of creating power starting right now.

Nothing in this program, not even the abolition of the state, can justify means of struggle that would not be at home in the world we wish to inhabit, nor the postponing of questions of freedom and well-being until after some state of exception that we dress up as a revolution.

1. Mutual Survival

Under capitalism, no one has a right to survival. We are all forced to pay for the means of survival—and some of us can’t. Millions of people die every year from easily preventable causes; billions live in misery because they are denied the means for a healthy, dignified life. That ends now.

A. Every person and every community has a right to their means of survival.

B. It follows that persons and communities that choose to constitute themselves in a way that destroys others’ means of survival, or that withhold those means in exchange for some service (exploitation), are destroying the possibility for mutual survival. Therefore, their “way of life” does not constitute survival—it endangers survival.

C. Persons and communities are right to defend themselves against exploitation or threats to their means of survival, preferably by convincing those who threaten or exploit them to change their way of life to a more harmonious, mutually feasible pattern—but also, if necessary, by force.

D. Conflict and death have always been a part of life, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. With current technologies, attempts to stave off death are predicated on multiplying deaths among those who lack access to such technologies. It follows that survival is not the absence of death, but the possibility for a healthy and fulfilling life, as well as the possibility to pass something of that life on to future generations.

E. In this sense, the opposite of life is not death, but extermination, the total annihilation of a group, including even the destruction of the memory of that group. Extermination belongs to the state. It precludes the possibility of mutual survival.

2. Decolonization

Colonization is crucial to the global spread of capitalism and the devastation it has entailed. This devastation has ongoing repercussions at every level. Colonization is the basis of the United States; it has also been foundational to the major European states that functioned as the architects of the current global system of statism and capitalism. T3. Reparations and Ending Anti-Blacknesshe partial revolutions of the 20th century did not alter the basic colonial frameworks they inherited. All of this must change.

A. Colonized peoples have a right to reconstitute their communities, their languages and knowledge systems, their territories, and their organizational systems. All of these are fluid realities that members of such communities adapt to their present needs.

B. Settler societies must be destroyed. Because they are so historically ingrained, their abolition will not be a single moment of compensation (as though a price tag could be attached to all the suffering that has been caused), but a complex and evolving process. Indigenous communities should be able to define what decolonization looks like from a position of strength and healing, such as the abolition of the United States (and Canada and other nations) will allow. This is also necessary to break with the gunboat diplomacy that has characterized much of settler colonialism.

C. By definition, we cannot and will not define the limits of decolonization from the present moment, from within the reality of a settler society. Anarchists, Indigenous and otherwise, favor models of decolonization that break with colonial logics and repudiate nation-states, ethnic essentialism, punitive and genocidal practices, and mere reforms regarding who holds state power.

D. Settler communities that have historically and to the present day played the role of an aggressive and hostile neighbor helping to police and exploit Native communities in the reservation system will be encouraged to disband, and will be treated as paramilitaries if they continue any form of hostility. All “Man Camps” will be disbanded immediately, and resources will be dedicated to helping find missing Indigenous women and two-spirit people.

E. Universities, museums, and other institutions will return all bodies, body parts, art, and artifacts stolen from Indigenous communities.

F. It is right for Indigenous communities to recover all the territory they need for their full cultural, spiritual, and material survival.

G. Priority might be given to recovering land of spiritual importance, land that had belonged to the government, and large commercial holdings—but again, preconceived limitations should not be placed on how decolonization will unfold.

H. Communities in countries that maintained external colonial projects (e.g., the United Kingdom, Spain, France) will facilitate a large-scale transfer of useful resources expropriated from their abolished governments, the wealthy, and institutions that existed to serve the wealthy (e.g., private hospitals). These resources will go to communities in the ex-colonies.

A composition by Afro-Futurist artist Olalekan Jeyifous, part of a series exploring alternative futures for Brooklyn.

3. Reparations and Ending Anti-Blackness

Anti-Blackness and other forms of racism are fundamental to the current power structure. They grew out of colonialism and capitalism from the very beginning, to such an extent that capitalism is inseparable from racism, though the latter can take many forms. It is impossible to fully abolish these power structures without striking at the historically grounded legacies of racism.

A. Communities of people largely descended from the survivors of slavery are right to take over large landholdings that had previously been plantations, as well as the excess wealth of families and institutions that profited off of slave labor. This redistribution should be carried out on a communal rather than an individual basis, to avoid encouraging identitarian processes that declare individuals legitimate or illegitimate based on abstract criteria. Those who organize a collective or communal expropriation have the right to define their own experiences and how oppression has affected them historically, as well as to choose how to constitute themselves and whom to invite into their community.

B. Historically racialized neighborhoods that have been gentrified may be reclaimed. Because many neighborhoods, before gentrification, are in fact quite diverse and working class people of all races can lose their homes, those who are involved in housing and anti-racist struggles at the time of the revolution may form assemblies to organize the process of inviting people back into reclaimed neighborhoods, for example prioritizing prior residents or their children, and finding ways to strike a balance between revitalizing Black and other cultures of resistance and creating practices of cross-racial solidarity that break down the segregations and separations of racism.

C. People in neighborhoods that are infrastructurally unsound or unsanitary, that suffer from environmental racism or other harmful effects that will continue causing health problems into the foreseeable future, may expropriate and move into wealthy neighborhoods (preferentially targeting the wealthiest). The prior residents of those neighborhoods may move into the vacated, substandard neighborhood with an eye towards improving it through their own effort, or they may move into other unused housing, of which there is plenty, thanks to capitalist real estate markets.

D. Weapons taken from the disbanded police and military will be distributed among Black, Indigenous, and other racialized communities, and to volunteer militias that fought unambiguously on the anti-racist side during the entirety of the revolutionary conflict. The communities will decide what is to be done with the weapons—whether to distribute, store, or dismantle them.

E. Resources related to education and healthcare may be taken from wealthy neighborhoods for the benefit of racialized neighborhoods.

F. The onus is on white anti-capitalists, or more correctly, anti-capitalists in the process of definitively breaking with their whiteness, to work with other white people to achieve a process of reparations that is as peaceful as possible, to help them move to other neighborhoods or territories in the case that they are evicted, to soften their landing and help them find the means for dignified survival, without creating entrenched identities or resentment that might encourage intergenerational conflicts or keep whiteness alive.

G. Assemblies of people committed to the relevant causes at the time of the revolution will set up truth and reconciliation committees to deal with whatever racist atrocities are brought to their attention, such as the forced sterilizations carried out in ICE facilities. The processes for uncovering the truth of these atrocities and achieving some kind of reconciliation will not be purely symbolic, and they need not delegitimize personal acts of revenge, but they will strive for some form of collective healing and transformative justice rather than punitive and carceral measures.4. Land

All the following points of the program are contingent on points 1-3 being put in motion in a way that is satisfactory to those who have suffered white supremacy, colonization, and racial capitalism. The rights and principles in point 4, for example, about access to land, must not be used to thwart efforts by Indigenous communities to get their Land Back.

The Esselen Tribe inhabited this land across the Big Sur coast of California for more than 6000 years, until Spanish colonizers seized it. Their claim to it was only recently acknowledged by the courts.

4. Land

The way capitalism and Western civilization have taught us to think about the land and the way to treat it has brought us to the brink of disaster. The paradigm of land as property, as a resource to be exploited, is simultaneously a failure and a travesty. The commodification of land has been instrumental to colonialism and exploitation, while the measuring, demarcation, and assertion of dominion over land has been central to the state throughout its history.

A. Land is a living thing. Land cannot be bought and sold.

B. Land belongs to those who belong to it, which is to say, those who take care of it and those whose survival is based on it.

C. Land should be respected. Communities should consider the personhood of the land and all other beings that exist in relation with it. The idea that only humans of a predetermined type have personhood is responsible for a large part of the disaster we face.

D. Land is the basis for survival, and all land is interconnected.

E. It follows that defense of the land is self-defense, and is therefore right.

F. A community that exists in an intimate, localized relationship with the land, or a community that historically has had such a relationship and proved to be good stewards of the land, will probably know best how to interrelate with a specific territory. Others should defer to them in questions regarding defending and caring for the land.

G. It is the responsibility of all communities to aid and accompany the land as it heals from centuries of capitalism and the state.

5. Water

Water is life.

A. All communities must return the water they use to the river, lake, or aquifer as clean as they found it.

B. All communities have a responsibility to help their watershed heal and purify itself after centuries of capitalist aggression.

C. In view of climate change, desertification, and all the other forms of damage to the planet, all communities have a responsibility to adapt their lifeways in the event of water scarcity, and to help each other to migrate if increasing water scarcity and desertification render a dignified survival impossible.

D. In the event of water scarcity, priority for water use is given to localized forms of sustainable agriculture and to preserving the habitats of other forms of life.

E. Polluting the water or taking so much that others downstream or in the same aquifer do not have enough for a dignified survival is an act of aggression.

F. Communities should respond to assaults on their water with attempts at dialogue and negotiation, but if these attempts are fruitless, they are right to defend themselves.

Garden River First Nation’s railroad bridge.

6. Borders

The global system we are abolishing is based on states asserting sovereignty over clearly demarcated borders, alternately cooperating and competing in capitalist accumulation and warfare. Nation-states have always led to cultural and linguistic homogenization and genocide, and borders have revealed themselves to be increasingly murderous mechanisms. All that, henceforth, is abolished.

A. People and communities, in concert, decide what communities they want to be a part of, and how they wish to be constituted, respectively. This is the principle of voluntary association.

B. All together, as best we can, we will develop principles of Freedom of Movement, balanced with a respect for the communities that are the custodians of the territories others wish to move through. These two principles necessitate the abolition of borders, on the one hand, and the abolition of individualistic, entitled tourism on the other. It is reasonable for communities, which exist in relation to a specific territory, to expect privacy as well as basic respect from visitors; at the same time, it is good for people to be able to move freely in search of a better life or even simply because movement brings them joy and well-being. These two rights, such as they are, may come into conflict. Communities and individuals commit to resolving those conflicts as constructively as possible.

C. Communities commit to offering basic hospitality and safe conduct to migrants. This could include migrants who wish to return home, having been forced to emigrate by the effects of capitalism. It could include the migration of entire communities fleeing the long-term effects of environmental racism.

D. Communities will coordinate across territories as they see fit. This could include federations organized along linguistic lines (for the sake of convenience), coordinating bodies in a shared watershed, and more. Anarchists recommend redundant, overlapping forms of organization, as well as membership in multiple communities, to resist the potentially militaristic reproduction of bordered units or essentialist identities.

A way to reorganize living environments as imagined by anarchist artist Clifford Harper.

7. Housing

Even governments that enshrine the right to housing in their constitutions have failed to guarantee this basic need. As Malatesta pointed out, capitalism is the system in which builders go homeless because there are too many houses.

A. Houses belong to those who live in them.

B. No one has a right to more houses than they need. This should not be reduced to a principle of “one family, one house,” because of the danger in normalizing one model of the family, and because some dynamic families include movement between multiple nodes, and to respect pastoral and other societies organized around seasonal migrations. However, this does mean that the vacation houses of the rich are fair game for expropriation for those who need access to land or decent housing.

C. Housing is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

D. Communities will make sure all their own members have dignified housing, and then they will help neighboring communities find the resources they need to meet their housing needs.

E. Anarchists will encourage the transformation of housing, which capitalist real estate development and urban planning utilized specifically to promote patriarchal nuclear families. People are encouraged to change their vital spaces in a way that enables more communal practices of kinship, child-rearing practices not based in the heterosexual couple, and autonomous spaces for women and gender nonconforming people.

F. Anarchists will make it a priority to provide safe housing for people fleeing abusive relationships and circumstances.

G. Communities will begin immediately, within their means, to modify housing to be ecologically sustainable, and to modify settlement patterns so that housing nuclei correspond to ecological and cultural needs, moving away from the present reality in which existing housing corresponds to the imperatives of capitalism. As this process will take decades, communities should develop plans and share ideas for organizing the transition, taking into account that there will be a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and changes in the availability of different construction materials.

H. Evicting people from their houses is an emotionally traumatizing act that we do not want to form a part of the world we are building. However, many historically oppressed communities find themselves living in situations that directly shorten their lives, whereas the ostentatious housing of rich people represents generations of accumulated plunder; in those cases, it is better for them to take the housing of those who profited off their misery than to continue in misery. Under capitalism, there is no inalienable right to remain in a particular house, and we are not carrying out a revolution in order to give rights to rich people they did not even claim under their own chosen system.

Christiania, an autonomous neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark.

8. Food

A key aspect of capitalist accumulation has been the industrialization and hyper-exploitation of food producers, both human farmers and other forms of life, trying to squeeze out an ever-growing surplus. This has led to the acts of genocide associated with the commodification of the land, the total destruction of peasant societies, deforestation and monocrop deserts, mass starvation, mass extinction, pollution, climate change, dead zones in the ocean, the destruction and commodification of communities of different living beings, the murder of living soil, and the systematized imprisonment and torture of non-human animals. How we feed ourselves is a nexus that brings together how we organize our society and the relationships we create with the broader ecosystem.

A. Everyone has a right to all the food they need for a healthy, dignified life.

B. Making sure that everyone has enough food is a collective responsibility.

C. Arbitrarily placing limits on or destroying the food supply that others depend on is an assault on their survival. They may respond to this with legitimate self-defense.

D. Workers in food production industries at the time of the revolution will socialize the means of production under their control with the aim of ensuring everyone’s access to food.

E. Communities will begin the process of redistributing large tracts of farmland and reclaiming land in urban environments to enable food sovereignty and to share access to the means to feed ourselves.

F. Agriculture will transition away from the current petroleum-dependent, highly industrialized model to a localized, ecocentric model designed to fulfill two purposes: ensuring food security and restoring the health of the planet. The human diet will be resituated in an ecosystemic logic.

G. Particularly damaging technologies like factory trawlers and animal warehouses for industrial-scale meat and dairy production will be dismantled as quickly as possible.

A collective meal at Ungdomshuset, an autonomous social center in Copenhagen.

9. Healthcare

Under capitalism and the state, healthcare has been used as a form of extortion to keep poor people in misery and in debt, to surveil, discipline, and control our bodies, and particularly to torture and control women, trans and non-binary people, racialized people, and people with different abilities and mental health difference. It is one of the most damning indictments of the present system that the practices that should focus on healing function as a venue for cruelty and profiteering.

A. Everyone has a right to preventive therapies and living conditions that guarantee them the best possible health.

B. Everyone has a right to define for themselves what constitutes health, in dialogue with their community. People who share a collective experience or identity related to gender, sexuality, physical ability, mental health, ethnicity, or anything else, may develop their own definition or ideal of health; members of those groups are free to subscribe to those definitions or not to subscribe to them.

C. Everyone has a right to alter their body, in line with their gender expression or for whatever reason, as they see fit. People have an unrestricted right to contraceptives and abortion.

D. No healthcare worker can be forced to perform a procedure that they do not agree with, but denying someone access to a medical procedure is an assault on their bodily autonomy. Training in skills related to healthcare will be spread as widely as possible so no one is ever in the position of gatekeeping access to healthcare.

E. Everyone has a right to the full extent of treatment available to them in their community, or to travel in search of better conditions or better treatment options.

F. Healthcare workers at the time of the revolution will socialize the hospitals and other institutions and infrastructures at their disposal, and do their best to ensure continuing access to healthcare, to universalize and improve access and quality of treatment, to equalize treatment for historically marginalized populations, to facilitate reconciliation processes to address the abuse of such populations by the medical profession, and to reorganize their profession to remove all capitalist influences and classist organization, while still weighting internal hierarchies to favor training and experience.

G. Trafficking in healthcare, including the threat to withhold healthcare, is an act of aggression.

H. As part of the process of self-definition of health, anarchists will encourage the formation of assemblies that center people’s own needs and experiences, breaking the tradition that establishes healthcare professionals as the protagonists and people as mere receptacles for illness or treatment. People will share and increase knowledge of their own bodies, availing themselves of the tools they need to be proactive in securing the greatest health and happiness possible.

A Berkeley Free Clinic truck offering free HIV tests on a sidewalk in Berkeley, California in 2012.

10. Education

Public education has been used to create patriotic, obedient, and white supremacist civil servants, soldiers, and citizens. For even longer, Catholic education in Europe and in the colonies was used to justify colonialism and state authority. Both public and private education are linked to systematic child abuse. Contrary to classist stereotypes, people with more formal education are often more able to dismiss facts that contradict their prejudices or worldview. Education as it stands is a cornerstone of oppression.

On the contrary, education should be an unending process of growth and self-actualization. Anarchists have always been at the forefront of experimenting with models of liberating education that break with the standard formulas of patriotic, patriarchal, colonial, capitalist education.

A. Knowledge must be free; it belongs to the community.

B. Everyone must be able to access whatever educational opportunities they desire. Anarchists will encourage specific projects that end the oppressions that limit people’s access to education because of their gender, sexuality, race, class, or other divisions. Examples might include intensive trainings in fields like math, sciences, and mechanics for people from groups that have historically been discouraged from entering those fields, or history and literature courses that center the voices and experiences of subjects other than upper-class heterosexual white men. Such projects will also deploy a diversity of learning environments that do not assume a single, normative standard of physical and mental abilities.

C. Anarchists will help ensure that historically marginalized groups can obtain the resources they need to identify and develop the body of knowledge that is important to their specific community and to spread it as they see fit.

D. Children are free to engage in educational settings as they see fit, in dialogue with their communities. Free children who have all their basic needs met are constantly engaged in their own education, independently of whether they do so in a formal setting.

E. Teachers and professors who want to continue working as such may organize basic education, but anarchists will encourage the emergence of new projects based on liberating models of education rather than rote memorization or the completion of preconceived modules, especially collective self-organized self-education projects.

David Graeber speaking at Maagdenhuis in Amsterdam in 2015.

F. Professions that prove to be useful and desirable after the demise of capitalism will organize educational programs to train new members of the profession, expropriating resources from schools and universities or taking over teaching spaces within them, in dialogue with other professions.

G. Scientific organizations may constitute themselves to provide for professional training in universities, and to maintain laboratories and peer-reviewed papers. They will discuss ways to raise the resources necessary to maintain laboratories and needed technologies without capitalizing on the processes of knowledge production. One possible solution is that scientific experimentation will have to respond largely to the needs voiced by communities as a whole.

H. The advanced education needed to become a scientist is a gift from the community to the individual; the knowledge the scientists help produce should be a gift back to the community. Scientists should also honor their responsibility to share tools for education as widely as possible. Scientific knowledge and training should not be concentrated in a few hands. Good science thrives on widespread participation in the process of research and review. For science to live, scientists must cease to treat other human beings as objects in a petri dish and focus on equipping them to participate in that process.

I. Scientists, teachers, and other educators will facilitate reconciliation processes to deal with forms of abuse they may have been complicit in before the revolution, from facilitating police violence against students to working with corporations that caused people harm. Accredited scientists who used their knowledge to aid fossil fuel, armaments, and similar industries should be stripped of their perceived legitimacy in the same way that doctors can be delicensed for malpractice.

J. Associations of scientists will decide if they actually need to use some form of licensing in order to assure the quality of their work. The answer may not be the same for heart surgeons as for botanists. This implies a balance between the needs of scientists to ensure standards of quality, the interests of people to prevent monopolies or gatekeepers that limit access to knowledge and training, as well as people’s need for transparency—ensuring, for example, that those they entrust with their medical care or technological projects that might pollute their environment have not been dangerously negligent in the past. Associations of laypeople will also organize to weigh in on these decisions.

11. Production

Under capitalism, production is one of the chief means of accumulating capital for the wealthy—through alienated work, exploitation, and the destruction of the environment. In anarchy, the only question is how to meet socially defined needs, which include everything from collective survival to the need people feel to grow and enjoy life.

A. Ex-workers will seize their workplaces at the earliest convenience, studying whether the workplace (factory, workshop, office, store, restaurant, etc.) can be modified to produce something socially useful in a healthy way. If not, the workplace will be dismantled and its resources shared out among ex-workers, neighboring communities, and useful workplaces.

B. Ex-workers, excluding managers while welcoming unemployed people with pertinent skills who had been denied access to employment under capitalism, will create some form of collective, cooperative, or communal structure to organize their workplaces, federating with other workplaces across their industry in order to oversee the production of socially useful goods.

C. Delegates within these productive federations must be beholden to a specific collective mandate (promoting positions that arise from their base assembly), they must be immediately recallable if they fail that mandate, and they must continue to exercise their craft. Workplace assemblies will decide if delegates must carry out their normal work on a daily basis or if they may be excused for a limited number of months before returning to normal work, as demanded by the conditions of their work and the needs of the federative labor (for example, delegates may have to travel long distances and might not be able to work during certain periods).

D. Those who wish to be professional representatives, doing no other work but that of bureaucrats and politicians, may form their own federations of representatives in which to go about representing themselves and others to the best of their abilities. For this purpose, it is recommended that they paint their faces white, don berets and striped shirts, travel from community to community, and hold their committee meetings open to the public. People don’t need bureaucrats—but we will always need entertainment!

E. No one may be forced to work. Communities and productive federations will do their utmost to operate according to a logic of abundance rather than a logic of scarcity or monopoly. People who wish to carry out productive or creative labors in a more individual setting or manner will be encouraged to do so, and insofar as it is possible, they will be afforded the space and resources they need, though in moments of absolute scarcity, such as the difficult years of the transition, communities may prefer to favor more effective collective workplaces that are immediately responding to a community need.

F. The gendering of different productive activities is abolished. Anarchists encourage their communities to reflect on how different useful, necessary, and beneficial activities are unequally recognized and rewarded with status, and propose initiatives or new traditions by which to eliminate these vestiges of patriarchy.

G. Ex-workers are encouraged to fully transform their workplaces, deconstructing machinery into its component tools if need be in order to work at a safer pace and create an environment that is healthy in terms of noise, air quality, chemicals, and non-repetitive labors.

H. Workplaces will strike a balance between the creative or productive desires of the members, the needs of surrounding communities, and the needs of society as a whole. This means encouraging artisans in their creative development, making sure not to pollute nearby communities with harmful chemicals or excessive noise, and seeking to create things that others in society need, though embracing the logic of abundance means giving this latter directive the broadest possible interpretation except in cases of acute scarcity that threaten a community’s survival.

I. Destructive energy infrastructure will be phased out at the safest pace possible. Experts in the relevant fields will be encouraged to oversee the shutting down of nuclear power plants according to a schedule that leaves the smallest amount of highly radioactive waste and the plugging of oil wells so they do not contaminate ground water.

J. On a less urgent timeline, communities will explore the decommissioning of highly destructive “green energy” projects that endanger river populations, migratory birds, and other living things. This work will depend on the development of localized, ecological energy production and the drastic reduction of overall energy use, a part of which is the redesigning of buildings to allow for passive solar heating and cooling, a demanding endeavor that cannot be accomplished in a single decade.

K. Communities will decide what technologies and what kinds of scientific experimentation and development they will support. However, in all cases, the communities and scientific organizations involved must be able to absorb or remediate all the negative consequences of that technology. There is no justification for mining someone else’s territory or creating toxic substances that future generations will have to deal with.

12. Distribution, Communication, and Transportation

Localizing power in people and communities has an adjunct in organizing the material means of survival on as local a level as possible, for example through principles like food sovereignty. However, the danger of dependence on an exploitative socioeconomic system decreases dramatically when people can meet most of their survival needs through the resources and activity of a small local network of communities. For the remainder of those needs, as well as all the things that make life more enjoyable, it may be necessary to organize distribution across multiple regions of a continent and beyond. Additionally, travel is extremely important in an anarchist society to inculcate a global consciousness, encourage reciprocity and solidarity, prevent the emergence of borders, and collectivize knowledge as much as possible.

A. All state-backed currencies are abolished. All monetary debts are canceled.

B. Exchange of goods between communities shall be done in as equitable a manner as possible. Communities in close contact may prefer a free exchange or gift economy. Communities without the basis of trust that makes a gift economy easier to practice may decide to use quid pro quo trade, but trading up for profit (serial trading to capture a growth of value) or charging interest on the lending of goods can be considered attempts at coercion and exploitation.

C. Communities should pursue food sovereignty, meeting the majority of their survival needs from their local land base, but beyond that, infrastructures should be maintained to encourage exchange and travel.

D. Transport workers, together with affected communities, will collaborate to transform existing transportation infrastructure to be as ecologically sustainable as possible, while other infrastructures (e.g., airports and highways) are to be dismantled.

E. Already extracted fossil fuel reserves and existing infrastructures will be rationed, giving priority to the transition in agricultural production, global reparations of resources, and maintaining connectivity in rural areas with no transportation alternatives.

F. Communities, transportation workers, and those involved in fighting against patriarchal violence at the time of the revolution will work together to make sure that people can travel freely and safely regardless of their gender. Communities that enable or permit violence against women or gender non-conforming people traveling through their territory are considered to be in aggression against the rest of the world.

G. Communities will do their best to maintain existing communications infrastructure so that they can remain in touch to communicate globally and share the experiences of their respective revolutionary processes. In the long term, they will explore ways to maintain those infrastructures they find useful with recycled or non-harmful materials. They will also study whether addictive and depressive behaviors related to social networking technologies are intrinsic to those technologies or a maladaptive response to the alienations of capitalism.

13. Conflict Resolution and Transformative Justice

Prisons and police have existed for far too long, destroying people and communities. There are ways to deal with the inevitable conflicts of social existence that see people as capable of growth, redemption, and healing, and that are organized to meet the needs of the community rather than to protect a system of oppression and inequality. The revolution is a process of destroying state power; it is also a process of the rebirth of real communities. Capitalism forced us to be dependent on its mechanisms for our survival, but once it is abolished, our survival once again becomes something we create collectively.

A. Communities are reconstituted through the assemblies and other spaces through which they organize their territory and the survival of their members. A part of this means being accountable to the community on which our survival depends, and taking part in the healthy resolution of conflicts, the healing of harm, and the restoring of reciprocal relations.

B. Communities will do their best to enable fluid ways of being and relating that break with the closed, patriarchal, and micro-oppressive structures that have been traditional in many places. However, no leeway need be given to the dominant concept of fluidity of late capitalism in which people move through space without ever acknowledging their relations, their impact on others, or the simple fact that their survival is not their personal property.

C. People involved in mediation, conflict resolution, and transformative justice will share resources and encourage communities to deal with conflict and harm in a restorative way that promotes healing and reconciliation. We will also make sure that the burden of this work does not fall disproportionately along gender lines.

D. Communities will define norms and boundaries around harmful behaviors, but anarchists will encourage them to develop practices that center dialogue and processes of healing and reconciliation, rather than the codification of prohibited behaviors and punishment.

E. Communities that already have traditions of mediation and reconciliatory processes are encouraged to share their experience as they see fit.

F. All prisons will be dismantled, with communities taking in ex-prisoners who had been convicted of harming other people and committing to working with them on exploring the circumstances around the harm.

G. Committees of people experienced in transformative justice will work with ex-prisoners who are not taken in and vouched for by any community, together with the communities harmed by them, to try to find a solution.

H. Given that total opposition to prisons is not a widespread position, anarchists will organize debates on other possible responses to the worst scenarios of harm—the small minority of cases in which people repeatedly kill, abuse, or victimize others. One possible proposal is to always favor reconciliation with all resources available, but to never delegitimize autonomous acts of self-defense or revenge, especially in cases in which reconciliation is not a realistic outcome.

I. Special attention will be given to all acts of gender and sexual violence, especially those that had been normalized under the patriarchal, punitive regime that is to be abolished. People active in opposing such violence will suggest appropriate structures and practices for communities to adopt.

14. Safety

The state thrives on the lie that security and freedom constitute a dichotomy, two things that exist in inverse proportion and that we must sacrifice each in equal measure to strike a balance between them. Because security is connected with survival, the state can convince us that we would not be able to enjoy what little freedom we have if we did not prioritize security and accept its protection.

In truth, our survival, our safety, and our freedom all depend on how well we can take care of one another, not how high we build walls around ourselves. As long as states exist, even only as a projection in the minds of the power-hungry, we will need to defend ourselves from those who would subjugate and exploit us; sometimes, we will also need to defend ourselves from those who cause harm by not recognizing others’ boundaries, not empathizing with others, or not realizing the consequences of their own actions. How we organize our defense can be dangerous to our freedom. It is also a challenge to conceive of dangers and conflicts in a way that transforms us and others, rather than fixing our antagonists as permanent enemies we need to destroy.

A. All police forces are abolished, and their members should participate in reconciliation processes to address the harm they have caused. Those who refuse may be viewed as statist paramilitaries.

B. Communities may create some kind of volunteer service to protect against various forms of aggression or interpersonal harm. However, to prevent anything like a police force from emerging, whatever form this service takes, it must focus on de-escalation and reconciliation rather than punishment; it should focus on calling out the rest of the community to deal with the conflict or instance of harm rather than monopolizing the response; and the participants must not have special privileges in terms of the right to use force or access to weapons that the rest of the community does not have.

C. Communities are encouraged to create some kind of protective group, tradition, or structure specifically designed to respond to and deal with gender violence in all its forms. They may wish this force to be composed of people other than cis men.

D. Because the state will not be abolished everywhere at once, and because many communities with hierarchical values may continue to exist and may try to subordinate neighboring communities to their will, there may be a need to create anarchist militias or other fighting units—both to defend a free territory and to engage in revolutionary warfare against a statist, imperialist territory. To deserve the terms “free militia” and “revolutionary warfare,” these must be dedicated to several key principles that distinguish them from statist armies. Simply tacking on a red flag is not enough. The fighters must be volunteers; they must be able to choose their own leaders and leadership structures. There must be no officers with aristocratic privileges. The entirety of the force must decide together on acceptable measures of discipline. Assemblies that transcend the free militias—for example, federations of the communities from which the fighters come—will decide the broad strategic objectives and guidelines for humanitarian conduct. In other words the militias must not be fully autonomous: they exist to defend the needs of broader communities, rather than dominating those communities or promoting their own interests on anything but a tactical level.

E. Free militias will avoid the logic of territorial, aggressive warfare in which the objective is to conquer a space defined as enemy territory. The purpose should either be defensive warfare, defending the communities and dissuading others from attacking, or revolutionary warfare, supporting people in an oppressive society who are fighting for their own freedom. In the latter case, the initiative must come from those oppressed people and must not be organized primarily by the militias of a neighboring territory.

F. Free communities do not try to eliminate or annihilate enemies. They defend their freedom and dignity, and support others who are doing so, and then they try to make friends or at the very least make peace.

G. Safety, in an anarchist framework, is not the protection of the weak by the strong, it is the empowerment and cultivated capacity for self-defense of all, with priority given to those whose gender socialization, racialization, or physical and psychological difference has specifically disempowered them under current oppressive conditions.

H. Peace, in an anarchist framework, is not simply the absence of armed conflict, especially when such absence indicates acquiescence to oppression. Peace is an outgrowth of happiness, freedom, and self-actualization, which we hope this program will foster more than capitalism ever has, and a proactive effort. Anarchists will encourage communities to engage and exchange not just with their immediate neighbors, but transcontinentally, sharing and creating cultural bonds, affinities, and friendships on a global scale so as to make the wars of conquest and annihilation that states have been practicing for millennia inconceivable.

15. Community Organization and Coordination

In opposition to involuntary citizenship and dictatorial or representative decision-making that imposes homogenizing laws on all of society, anarchism posits the principles of voluntary association and self-organization, meaning people are free to form themselves into groups of their choosing, to organize those groups as they see fit, and to order their lives on a daily basis, with everyone’s participation.

A. Every community is autonomous and free to organize its own affairs. Every community should develop its own methods and structures of organization and subsistence.

B. Anarchists encourage models that prioritize well-being and prevent the reemergence of statist organization, including the gift economy within communities, and overlapping, redundant forms of organization that prevent the centralization of power, such as combinations of federated territorial assemblies, workplace assemblies, infrastructural organizations, and professional and educational organizations. The goal is to tie people together in a multiplicity of organizational spaces. This way, many different organizational models and cultures can be practiced, since none are neutral or equally accessible to everyone; conflict is mediated by multiplying relationships through numerous organizational and territorial bonds; and the emergence of a political class that is skilled in manipulating assemblies and that thrives in the alienated space of politics is discouraged. If there is no central space where all decisions and authority are legitimated, no matter how participatory that space pretends to be, there can be no political class. This is the difference between democracy and anarchy—not to mention the fact that anarchism has historically opposed slavery, capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, and the like, whereas democracy has often relied upon them.

C. In order to prevent the return of authoritarian dynamics in the guise of democracy, anarchists would do well to facilitate community processes exploring how formal and informal mechanisms of decision-making distribute gendered power and how vital informal, non-legitimized spaces are to the organization of daily life—but also identifying which informal spaces enable the centralization of power and studying how different ways of organizing, opening, and diffusing formal spaces can serve to prevent rather than facilitate the centralization of power.

D. As a general rule, the only time it is acceptable to intervene in the affairs of a neighboring community is in matters of self-defense, when they do not respect their neighbors’ need for freedom and a dignified survival.

E. When a community does not respect its members’ need for food, water, shelter, healthcare, and bodily integrity, it is good for neighboring communities to offer those members support and refuge. The neighboring communities may support efforts by oppressed or exploited members of the first community to end their oppression, but liberation must always be the task of those who are most directly affected by oppression. Communities should try to avoid intervening directly or forcefully in the affairs of their neighbors.

F. Communities should strive to accept the inevitable differences they have with their neighbors, aiming to foster relations of dialogue and peace. In the case of communities that do not respect the dignity and survival of others, it may be preferable to seek mediation or cut off connections rather than escalating to physical conflict.

G. Many communities will find the need or the desire to join in larger associations for matters of culture, production, and distribution and in order to share common resources. It is preferable to form free federations or associations that maintain power at the local level, while also creating multiple, cross-cutting organizational ties so that every person in every community is a member of multiple groups—for example, the coordinating body to protect a shared watershed, a cultural-linguistic grouping, a scientific association and university system, a producers’ and consumers’ union for sharing resources, and a territorial confederation. In this way, each community has a richer web of relationships, and in the case of conflicts, disputes do not fracture into two belligerent sides, but everyone is tied together by other relationships so there is an abundance of mediators and a general interest in preserving the peace.

16. The Planet

Capitalism has brought the planet to the brink of collapse. It is not enough to destroy capitalism. We must also uproot the capitalist, Western way of relating with the land in favor of healthy, reciprocal, ecocentric relations, and we must do everything possible to heal the planet and all the living communities that share it.

A. It is our responsibility to help the planet heal and help ensure the survival and continuity of all living communities.

B. Communities will tend to their territories as best they can to remediate the destruction and pollution caused by capitalism, to identify and protect species and ecosystems that are in danger, to promote the rewilding of spaces, and to conceive of themselves as part of the ecosystem.

C. Communities and scientific associations will pool resources and share information in order to track problems of global concern, such as greenhouse gases, vulnerable species, dead zones and plastic pollution in the oceans, radiation, and other forms of long-term pollution. They will set targets and make recommendations to specific communities and territorial confederations with the goal of ameliorating these problems as thoroughly and fairly as possible.

[sotina886]

Racial Discrimination: One Doctrine, Multiple Masks

Source Title: Racial Discrimination: One Doctrine, Multiple Masks

In recent years, racism has become an increasingly common term in American public discourse. Since the rise of the black civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s, the understanding, interpretation and use of this term have never stopped.

The death of George Floyd, a black man, in a police violent law enforcement incident in May of this year has become the fuse for a new round of racial conflicts accumulated in the United States. The large-scale street protests triggered by the "Black people's fate" movement renewed people's attention to racism.

As a historical phenomenon, the issue of racism has been entwining the United States and has become a social disease that is difficult to eradicate. The main reason is that racism has always been deeply embedded in various American systems and life, and manifested in different forms, continuously exerting destructive effects on American society and individuals. Under the impact of the new crown pneumonia epidemic, anti-racism has a long way to go in the United States.

Three major manifestations

Racism is an ideology as well as a social behavior: it believes that different races or skin colors can explain the differences in characteristics and abilities between people, and that certain races are superior to other races; it is also a form of reliance on race or color. Color judgments trigger prejudice or discriminatory words and deeds. In this sense, racism and racial discrimination can sometimes be used interchangeably in meaning.

According to the definition of the United Nations "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (1965), "racial discrimination" refers to any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent or ethnicity, and its purpose or effect is to cancel Or damage the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal status of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any other aspect of political, economic, social, cultural or public life. It should be noted that "preferential" is also regarded as a form of discrimination.

In a society based on the concept of racial hierarchy, racial contradictions and conflicts will inevitably breed. In other words, a group of people or individuals in a particular social class has a discriminatory or derogatory attitude towards another group of people or individuals in society based on their perceptions of race and color. The former usually have more social power and resources, and use these powers and resources to constantly maintain and strengthen the racial prejudice from "up" to "down".

Therefore, it is necessary to understand racism in the prevailing social and cultural power relations. "Individual racism" and "structural racism" are considered to be the two main forms.

For many people, individual racism is racism in the usual sense, that is, a person treats the other person differently because of their race or skin color, usually (intentionally or unintentionally) through ideas, words, expressions or behavior It manifests itself in such a way as to cause estrangement, rejection and even resentment between people. In the United States, it occurs between whites and minorities, as well as between different minorities, the so-called "horizontal racism."

Structural racism is mainly embedded in the practice of certain institutions or institutional systems. The racial discrimination it reflects is caused by various institutions or institutional arrangements in society, such as enterprises, governments, schools, hospitals, courts, etc., and is sometimes referred to as institutional or systemic discrimination. The main manifestation is that, through certain public policies, departmental actions, cultural performance and other norms and standards, certain ethnic groups are always in a state of inequality, often accompanied by coercive methods, such as discriminatory legislation, residential segregation policies, and low-income groups. Level of medical care, low education, unequal economic opportunities, etc.

The consequences of the two forms of racism are clearly different. The former are discriminated against by individuals or a few people; the latter are discriminated against by a large number of people. In addition, the former is easy to recognize, detect and correct; the latter is more concealed, more accustomed, and more difficult to correct.

In addition to these two forms, there is also an implicit racism. When racial discrimination is generally regarded as a social cancer that needs to be eradicated around the world, the blatant racial discrimination in the past has gradually been replaced by implicit racial discrimination. Implicit discrimination can be individual or structural. It is not easy to be noticed by the public, and sometimes it is even vague in its definition. It does not seem to be racially colored, but it is not.

American complex reality

Although the American Civil War that broke out in 1861 radically abolished slavery and brought the country back to unity from a state of being on the verge of division, ethnic issues still exist and continue to tear American society apart. Although various laws and ideas about slavery and racial discrimination have been abolished, their residual influence has continued to this day.

More challenging and stubborn is structural racism, which is manifested in many aspects of American politics, economy, military, and society. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the Hanapepe Massacre, and the Japanese-American detention camps in history are all typical cases that have caused a huge wave of racial disputes.

For some minorities, structural racism is still ubiquitous, but some whites do not think so, because it satisfies the vested interests of the white majority of the population, and because its victims often live in slums and detention centers. Or prisons and other "invisible" places.

Compared with the past, more ethnic minorities are now getting good jobs and have certain social status. Some white people are beginning to reflect on structural racism, and even worry about the phenomenon of so-called "reverse racism"-that is, governments at all levels Minorities provide more welfare and relief programs, open borders, and implement affirmative actions. These benefits make white people feel discriminated against in society. This difference in perception has to a certain extent aggravated the domestic racial problems in the United States.

The "Death of Freud" in May triggered protests and anger that swept across the United States and the world, not only because of its cruel images, but also because of its occurrence at the time when the new crown pneumonia epidemic in the United States continued to spread.

On the one hand, the U.S. government has long failed to ensure that ethnic minorities enjoy equal rights in health, housing, education, and other fields; on the other hand, African and Hispanic Americans suffer the most poverty due to lower incomes and higher debt. This means that they are more likely to live in crowded spaces, have to choose more public transportation, and are exposed to the virus at work. This makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves during the epidemic, resulting in huge differences in the prevalence and mortality of the new crown pneumonia epidemic in the United States at the ethnic level.

Anti-racial discrimination has a long way to go

Why is it difficult to eradicate racial issues in American society? One can make a long list of reasons. The most fundamental of these is that racism is deeply rooted in the American political and cultural system and has been internalized as an integral part of the American social structure.

First, racism has been internalized in the social, economic and political life of the United States. The United States is a country of immigrants, composed of races with different cultures, languages, and skin colors. However, white Europeans have always accounted for the majority of the entire population of this country and are in a dominant position in American political and cultural life.

Second, on the ideological level, racism has never completely withdrawn from the stage of history in the United States. Although various laws and concepts related to black slavery and racial discrimination have been abolished, the old and outdated white colonial consciousness and psychology still exist. The difference between "contemporary colonists" is that they stay away from war and weapons, and instead use culture, language, and education to make people accept and recognize the concept of "white supremacy".

This type of symbolic power makes minorities subconsciously accept, endure, and adapt to the reality of their racial subordination and unequal status, thereby producing self-identity and cognitive psychological inferiority and depression. For some ethnic minority immigrants, joining the "mainstream society" in the United States means integrating into a white-dominated society.

Third, racism is often used as a political tool in the United States. The civil rights movement and "Freud's death storm" both have important political driving forces behind them. Immigration has become an important issue in the political confrontation between the two parties in the United States, and ethnic politics has also become an important incentive for the resurgence of racism in recent years.

As the demographic structure of the United States has changed, the growth rate of the minority population has accelerated, and one of the fastest-growing groups is the "mixed race." One prediction is that due to the higher birth rate of non-white babies, the white majority of the population may not last long, and there may be situations in the United States where no ethnic group alone can constitute the majority of society. While the domestic ethnic politics and social development in the United States have become more diversified, new risks have followed one after another. Anxiety, fear, and irritability have once again made the argument of white supremacy rise again.

Obviously, racism has questioned the two core "American myths" repeatedly narrated. One myth is "destiny determined by heaven", which emphasizes the sacred nature of America’s belief in democracy and freedom; the other myth is "American Dream", which is engraved in the ideals of immigrants and believes that the future of this chosen country is beautiful. And it will be beautiful.

These two myths are portrayed as the reality of American daily life, and they frequently appear in people's daily speech. People aspire to live in a racially equal society, but in the United States today, reality and ideals are still far away.

The chronic disease of racism in the United States needs to be eradicated through profound social reforms, especially from the two aspects of ideology and social behavior. It should not only pay attention to anti-racism at the individual level, but also at the entire social level. As a global ethical value, anti-racism requires the active participation and action of all people.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last Wednesday, the U.S. Capitol was attacked by a mob of President Trump’s supporters, many of whom had very explicit and not so explicit ties to right-wing extremism in the U.S. There are reports now, too, that there could be subsequent attacks in state capitals this weekend. President Trump’s time in office has undoubtedly had a mainstreaming effect on right-wing extremism, too, with as many as 20 percent of Americans saying they supported the rioters. But as we also know, much of this predates Trump, too. Right-wing extremism has a long, sordid history in the U.S.

The big question I want to ask all of you today is twofold: First, how did we get here, and second, where do we go from here?

Let’s start by unpacking how right-wing extremism has changed in the Trump presidency. How has it?

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Well, the first and most obvious thing is that Trump has spoken directly to right-wing extremists. That is to say, using their language, condoning previous armed protests at government buildings and explicitly calling on them to support and protect him. And that, probably unsurprisingly, has emboldened right-wing extremists and made their extremism seem — well, less extreme.

That goes for a wide array of extremists in the U.S., too. I’m thinking, of course, about Trump’s comment after the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, when he said there were “very fine people on both sides.” But Trump has also encouraged white Christian nationalists, anti-government extremists and other groups and individuals that I certainly never thought I’d hear a president expressing sympathy or support for.

jennifer.chudy (Jennifer Chudy, political science professor at Wellesley College): Absolutely, Amelia. And while the actual extremists may represent a small group of the public, the share of Republicans who support their behavior, whether explicitly or implicitly, is not as small. This is, in part, due to mainstream political institutions — like the Republican Party, with Trump at its helm — helping make their mission and behavior seem legitimate.

maggie.koerth (Maggie Koerth, senior science writer): I’ve been talking to experts about this all week, and I think it’s really interesting how even the academics who study this stuff are kind of arguing over the role class plays in it. People like Christian Davenport at the University of Michigan have argued that we should understand that all of this is happening in the context of decades of growing income inequality and political stagnation. In other words, he contends that there are legitimate reasons to be angry at and mistrust the government. But it also seems like this crowd was not even close to being uniformly working class and probably contained people from a range of different backgrounds. And that’s why I liked one of the points Joseph Uscinski at the University of Miami made: We might be seeing a coalescing of two groups: the people who have been actually hurt by that inequality and are angry about it AND the people who are doing pretty well but who feel like somebody might come and take that away. And, of course, both those positions can dovetail very easily into racial animus and white supremacy.

ameliatd: That’s interesting, Maggie. As you alluded to, though, it’s important to be clear that economic anxiety — which was used in the aftermath of Trump’s election to explain why so many Americans voted for a candidate who framed much of his candidacy around animus toward nonwhite people — doesn’t mean that racism or white supremacy isn’t a driving force here, too.

Part of what’s so complex about the mob that attacked the Capitol is that it was a bunch of different people, with somewhat disparate ideologies and goals, united under the “stop the steal” mantra. But underlying a lot of that, even people’s anger over economic inequality or mistrust in institutions, is the fundamental idea that white status and power are being threatened.

jennifer.chudy: There is also just a lot of evidence in political science that racial attitudes are associated with emotions like anger. Two great books, one by Antoine Banks of the University of Maryland and the other by Davin Phoenix of the University of California, Irvine, consider this point in depth. Insofar as right-wing extremists express anger at the system (in contrast to fear or disgust), their anger appears more likely to be motivated by racial grievances than by economic ones.

Additionally, the Republican Party’s base has, for years now, become more racially homogeneous, in part because of the party providing a welcome home to white grievances. But some have argued that this has also been exacerbated by the Democratic Party speaking more explicitly about racial inequality in the U.S., something that wasn’t the case in the 1990s. Regardless, a more racially homogeneous base can make a party’s members more receptive to this type of extremist behavior.

We also can’t underestimate the role that COVID-19 plays here. As Maggie and Amelia suggested in their article from this summer on militias and the coronavirus, many folks are at home and glued to their computers in ways that facilitate this type of organizing. They can burrow themselves into online communities of like-minded folks which may intensify their attitudes and lead to extreme behavior.

Kaleigh: (Kaleigh Rogers, tech and politics reporter): Polling has shown that ideas that previously had been considered extreme, like using violence if your party loses an election, or supporting authoritarian ideas, have definitely become more mainstream.

This is partly due to Trump’s own rhetoric, but also due to the effects of online communities where far-right extremists and white nationalists mingle with more moderate Trump supporters, effectively radicalizing some of them over time.

What’s interesting to me about all of these different factions, though, is there is actually a lot of division among these groups: Many members of the Proud Boys aren’t fans of the QAnon conspiracy, for instance. And a lot of white nationalists don’t like Trump, but they still end up uniting against a perceived common enemy. That’s why you saw people in the mob at the Capitol waving MAGA flags alongside people with clear Nazi symbolism. They are not all white nationalists, but they’re willing to march beside them because they think they’re on the same side.

But in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack, those divisions are becoming more stark in these online communities. I’m seeing a lot of infighting over whether planned marches are a good idea, whether they are “false flag” events or traps or whether they should be armed. There just seems to be this heightened anxiety as they draw closer to an inevitable line that they can’t come back from: Biden’s inauguration.

sarahf: That’s a super important point, Kaleigh, on how different extremist groups have rallied behind this. But given how much Trump has directly spoken to right-wing extremists, as Amelia mentioned up top, can we drill in on the violence, as well? It’s not just that different factions have united or that these views have mainstreamed under Trump, but also that there’s been an actual uptick in violence, too, right?

ameliatd: One thing Maggie and I heard from experts on the modern militia movement is that these groups’ activity levels depend on the political context. The uptick in violence under Trump is real, but it’s not something that’s only happened under Trump. There was a surge in militia activity early in Obama’s presidency, too, for example.

maggie.koerth: Very much so, Amelia. The reality is that the right-wing extremism we’re seeing now is a symptom of long-running trends in American society, including white resentment and racial animus. And on top of that, you have these trends interacting with partisan polarization, which means the political left and right (which used to have fairly similar levels of white racial resentment) began to diverge on measures of racial resentment in the late 1980s and now differ greatly.

Kaleigh: Exactly, Maggie. That’s also why the FBI and other experts are particularly concerned about planned militia marches ahead of the inauguration. These groups tend to be much more organized and deliberate in their actions than the mob we saw last week. And because of that, they’re even more dangerous.

ameliatd: Right, so this violence isn’t new. But I do think it’s fair to say that Trump has raised the stakes so dramatically for right-wing extremists that we’d see a throng of them storming the Capitol. A lot of them see him as their guy in the White House!

So when he says, look, this election is being stolen from me, and you’ve got to do something about it, they listen.

jennifer.chudy: That’s true, Amelia, but work in political science shows just how much of this change was afoot prior to Trump’s election. Some tie it to Hillary Clinton talking too much about race during the 2016 election — they argue that this drove away some white voters who had previously voted Democratic (and could do so in 2008 and ‘12 because Obama, despite being Black, did not mention race much during his candidacy). But Clare Malone’s article for FiveThirtyEight on how Republicans have spent decades prioritizing white people’s interests does a great job of tracing these roots even further back.

maggie.koerth: Yeah, I’m really leery of the tendency I’ve seen in the media to act like this is something that started with Trump, or even that started post-Obama. Most of the experts I’ve spoken with have framed this more like … Trump’s escalation of these dangerous trends is a symptom of the trends. We’re talking about a lot of indicators that have been going in this direction since at least the 1980s.

jennifer.chudy: True, Maggie, from the beginning of the Republic, I might argue! But one reason the tie to Trump and Obama is so interesting is that Trump’s baseless claims around Obama’s birth certificate correspond with his debut on the national political stage. So even as there is a long thread of white supremacy throughout American history that has facilitated Trump’s ascension, there may also be a more proximate connection to recent elections, too.

ameliatd: Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke University, has done some really compelling research on white identity politics — specifically how the country’s diversification has created a kind of “white awareness” among white Americans who are essentially afraid of losing their cultural status and power.

This is a complicated force — she’s clear that it’s not exactly the same thing as racial prejudice — but the result is that many white people have a sense that the hierarchy in which they’ve been privileged is being upset, and they want things to return to the old status quo, which of course was racist. And the Republican Party has been tapping into that sense of fear for a while. Trump’s departure was that he started doing it much more explicitly than previous Republican politicians had mostly done.

So yes, Maggie, you’re absolutely right that it’s not like Trump came on the scene and suddenly right-wing extremism or white supremacist violence became a part of our mjui78 political landscape. Or partisan hatred, for that matter! FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman has written about the effect of political polarization and how it’s created intense loathing of the other party, and he’s clear that it’s been a long time coming. It didn’t just emerge out of nowhere in 2016, as you can see in the chart below.

On the other hand, though, it’s hard to imagine the events of last week without four years of Trump fanning the flames.

maggie.koerth: Right, Amelia. Trump is a symptom AND he’s making it worse. At the same time.

Kaleigh: What you said, Amelia, also speaks to just how many Trump supporters don’t consider themselves racist and find it insulting to be called so. A lot of Trump supporters think Democrats are obsessed with race and identity politics, and think racism isn’t as systemic of a problem as it is. There are also, of course, nonwhite Trump supporters, which complicates the image that only white working-class Americans feel threatened by efforts to create racial equality.

ameliatd: That’s right, Kaleigh. We haven’t talked about the protests against police brutality and misconduct this summer, but I think that’s a big factor here as well — politicians like Biden saying that we have to deal with systemic racism is itself threatening to a lot of people.

sarahf: It does seem as if we’re in this gray zone, where so much of this predates Trump, and yet Trump has activated underlying sentiments that were perhaps dormant for at least a little while. Any child of the 1990s remembers, for instance, the Oklahoma City bombing and Timothy McVeigh, who held a number of extreme, anti-government views, or the deadly standoff between federal law enforcement officials and right-wing fundamentalists at Ruby Ridge.

And as Jennifer pointed out with Malone’s piece, the thread runs even further back. It’s almost as if it’s always been part of the U.S. but maybe not as omnipresent. That’s also possibly naive, but I’m curious to hear where you all think we go from here — in how does President Biden start to move the U.S. forward?

maggie.koerth: Honestly, that’s the scary part for me, Sarah. Because I don’t really think he can. Everything we know about how you change deeply held beliefs that have to do with identity suggests that the appeals of outsiders doesn’t work.

jennifer.chudy: Yes — one would think that a common formidable challenge, like COVID-19, would help unite different political factions. But if you look at the last few months, that’s not what we see.

maggie.koerth: Even Republican elites who they push back on this stuff get branded as apostates.

ameliatd: And there’s evidence that when Republican elites are perceived as apostates, they may also become targets for violence.

Kaleigh: But we also know that deplatforming agitators helps reduce the spread of their ideas and how much people are exposed to/talk about them. Losing the presidency is kind of the ultimate deplatforming, no?

jennifer.chudy: Is it deplatforming, though? Or is it just moving the platform to a different setting? I don’t know the ins and outs of the technology, but it seems like the message has become dispersed but maybe not extinguished.

sarahf: That’s a good point, Jennifer, and something I think Kaleigh hits on in her article — that is, this question of … was it too little, too late?

maggie.koerth: I think it has been a deplatforming, Jennifer. If for no other reason than it’s removed Trump’s ability to viscerally respond to millions of people immediately. And you see some really big differences between the things he said on Twitter about these extremists last week and the statements he’s made this week, which have had to go through other people.

It’s not so much taken away from his ability to speak, but it does seem to have affected his ability to speak without somebody thinking about the consequences first.

ameliatd: There is an argument that Trump’s presidency and the violence he’s spurred is making the underlying problems impossible to ignore. I’m not sure whether that makes it easier for Biden to deal with them, but it does make it harder for him to just say, ‘Okay, let’s move past this.’

Lilliana Mason, a professor at the University of Maryland who’s written extensively about partisan discord and political violence, told me in a recent interview that while someone like Biden shouldn’t be afraid to push back against Trump or his followers because it will lead to more violence (an argument against impeachment that’s circulated in the past week), she does think pushing back against Trump and his followers probably will result in more violence.

So that leaves us, and Biden, in a pretty scary place.

Republicans are in a bind, too. Electorally, many of them depend on a system where certain voters — white voters, rural voters, etc. — do have more power. So yeah, Sarah, that doesn’t make me especially optimistic about a big Republican elite turnaround on Trumpism, separate from the question of whether that would actually diffuse some of these tensions.

sarahf: One silver lining in all this is we don’t yet know the full extent to which Trump and Trumpism has taken a hit. That is, plenty of Republicans still support him, but his approval rating has taken a pretty big hit, the biggest since his first few months in office in 2017 — that’s atypical for a president on his way out the door. More Republicans also support impeachment of Trump this time around.

There is a radicalized element here in American politics — and as you’ve all said — it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, but I do wonder if we still don’t fully understand where this goes next.

Kaleigh: What gives me some peace in this time is looking back at history. America has dealt with far-right extremists before. It has dealt with violent insurrectionists before. We have continued, however slowly, to make progress. Sometimes the only way out is through.

[okbyokaybye]

Kill the Cop in Your Head

Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head

By Lorenzo Komboa Ervin - Black Autonomy, April 1996.

It's difficult to know where to begin with this open letter to the various European-american leftist (Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, in particular) groups within the United States. I have many issues with many groups; some general, some very specific. The way in which this is presented may seem scattered at first, but I encourage all of you to read and consider carefully what I have written in its entirety before you pass any judgements.

It was V.I. Lenin who said, "take from each national culture only its democratic and socialist elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the bourgeois culture and bourgeois nationalism of each nation". It could be argued that Lenin's statement in the current Amerikkkan context is in fact a racialist position; who is he (or the Bolsheviks themselves) to "take" anyone or pass judgement on anyone; particularly since the privileges of having white skin are a predominant factor within the context of amerikkkan-style oppression. This limited privilege in capitalist society is a prime factor in the creation and maintenence of bourgeois ideology in the minds of many whites of various classes in the US and elsewhere on the globe.

When have legitimate struggles or movements for national and class liberation had to "ask permission" from some eurocentric intellectual "authority" who may have seen starvation and brutality, but has never experienced it himself? Where there is repression, there is resistance...period. Self-defense is a basic human right that we as Black people have exercised time and time again, both violent and non-violent; a dialectical and historical reality that has kept many of us alive up to this point.

Assuming that this was not Lenin's intent, and assuming that you all truly uphold worldwide socialism/communism, then the question must be asked: WHY IS IT THAT EACH AND EVERY WHITE DOMINATED/WHITE-LED "VANGUARD" IN THE UNITED STATES HAS IN FACT DONE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT LENIN PROCLAIMS/RECOMMENDS WHEN IT COMES TO INTERACTING WITH BLACKS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR?

Have any of you actually sat down and seriously thought about why there are so few of us in your organizations; and at the same time why non-white socialist/communist formations, particularly in the Black community, are so small and isolated? I have a few ideas...

I. A fundamentally incorrect analysis of the role of the white left in the last thirty years of civil rights to Black liberation struggle...

By most accounts, groups such as the Black Panther Party, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican Independence Movement "set the standard" for not only communities of color but also for revolutionary elements in the white community.

All of the above groups were ruthlessly crushed; their members imprisoned or killed. Very few white left groups at the time fought back against the onslaught of COINTELPRO by supporting these groups, with the exception of the smaller, armed underground cells. In fact, many groups such as the Progressive Labor Party and the Revolutionary Union (now known as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) saw the repression of groups they admired, and at the same time despised, as an opportunity to assert their own version of "vanguard leadership" on our population.

What they failed to recognize (and what many of you generally still fail to recognize) is that "vanguard leadership" is developed, it doesn't just "magically" happen through preachy, dogmatic assertions, nor does it fall from the sky. Instead of working with the smaller autonomous formations, to help facilitate the growth of Black (and white) self-organization (the "vanguard" leadership of the Black masses themselves and all others, nurtured through grassroots social/political alliances rooted in principle), they instead sought to either take them over or divide their memberships against each other until the group or groups were liquidated. These parasitic and paternalistic practices continue to this day.

The only reason any kind of principled unity existed prior to large-scale repression is because Black-led formations had no illusions about white radicals or their politics; and had no problems with kicking the living shit out of them if they started acting stupid. Notice also that the majority of white radicals who were down with real struggle and real organizations, and were actually trusted and respected by our people, are either still active...or still in prison!

II. The white left's concept of "the vanguard party"...

Such arrogance on the part of the white left is part and parcel to your vanguardist ideas and practice. Rather than seeking principled partnerships with non-white persons and groups, you instead seek converts to your party's particular brand of rigid political theology under the guise of "unity". It makes sense that most of you speak of "Black/white unity" and "sharp struggle against racism" in such vague terms, and with such uncertainty in your voices; or with an overexaggerated forcefulness that seems contrived.

Another argument against vanguardist tendencies in individuals or amongst groups is the creation of sectarianism and organizational cultism between groups and within groups. Karl Marx himself fought tirelessly against sectarianism within the working class movement of 19th century Europe. He was also a staunch fighter against those who attempted to push his persona to an almost god-like status, declaring once in frustration "I assure you, sir, I am no Marxist". It could be argued from this viewpoint that the "vanguardist" white left in the US today is generally ,by a definition rooted in the day to day practice of Marx himself, anti-Marx; and by proxy, anti-revolutionary.

Like your average small business, the various self-proclaimed "vanguards" compete against each other as well against the people themselves (both white and non-white); accusing each other of provacteurism, opportunism, and/or possessing "the incorrect line" when in fact most (if not all) are provacateurs, opportunists, and fundementally incorrect.

The nature of capitalist competition demands that such methods and tactics be utilized to the fullest in order to "win" in the business world; the white left has in fact adapted these methods and tactics to their own brand of organizing, actively re-inventing and re-enforcing the very social, political, and economic relations you claim to be against; succeeding in undermining the very basic foundations of your overall theory and all variants of that theory.

Or is this phenomenon part and parcel to your theory? In volume four of the collected works of V.I. Lenin, Lenin himself states up front that "socialism is state-capitalism". Are you all just blindly following a a dated, foreign "blueprint" that is vastly out of context to begin with; with no real understanding of its workings?

At the same time, it could be observed that you folks are merely products of your enviroment; reflective of the alienated and hostile communities and families from which many of you emerge. American society has taught you the tenets of "survival of the fittest" and "rugged individualism", and you swallowed those doctrines like your mother's milk.

Because the white left refuses to combat and reject reactionary tendencies in their (your) own heads and amongst themselves (yourselves), and because they (you) refuse to see how white culture is rooted firmly in capitalism and imperialism; refusing to reject it beyond superficial culture appropriations (i.e.-Native american "dream catchers" hanging from the rear-view mirrors of your vehicles, wearing Addidas or Nikes with fat laces and over-sized Levis jeans or Dickies slacks worn "LA sag" style, crude attempts to "fit-in" by exaggerated, insulting over-use of the latest slang term(s) from "da hood", etc), you in fact re- invent racist and authoritarian social relations as the final product of your so-called "revolutionary theory"; what I call Left-wing white supremacy.

This tragic delemma is compounded by, and finds some of its initial roots in, your generally ahistorical and wishful "analysis" of Black/white relations in the US; and rigid, dogmatic definitions of "scientific socialism" or "revolutionary communism", based in a eurocentric context. Thus, we are expected to embrace these "socialist" values of the settler/conquorer culture, rather than the "traditional amerikkkan values" of your reactionary opponents; as if we do not possess our own "socialist" values, rooted in our own daily and cultural realities! Wasn't the Black Panther Party "socialist"? What about the Underground Railroad; our ancestors (and yes, even some of yours) were practicing "mutual aid" back when most European revolutionary theorists were still talking about it like it was a lofty, far away ideal!

One extreme example of this previously mentioned wishful thinking in place of a true analysis on the historical and current political dynamics particular to this country is an article by Joseph Green entitled "Anarchism and the Market Place, which appeared in the newsletter "Communist Voice" (Vol#1, Issue #4, September 15, 1995).

In it he asserts that anarchism is nothing more than small- scale operations run by individuals that will inevitably lead to the re-introduction of economic exploitation. He also claims that "it fails because its failure to understand the relation of freedom to mass activity mirrors the capitalist ideolgy of each person for their self." He then offers up a vague "plan of action"; that the workers must rely on "class organization and all-round mass struggle". In addition, he argues for the centralization of all means of production.

Clearly, Green's political ideology is in fact a theology. First, anarchism was practiced in mass scale most recently in Spain from 1936-39. By most accounts (including Marxist-Leninist), the Spanish working class organizations such as the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) and the FAI (Federation of Anarchists of Iberia) seized true direct workers power and in fact kept people alive during a massive civil war.

Their main failure was on a military, and partially on an ideological level: (1.) They didn't carry out a protracted fight against the fascist Falange with the attitude of driving them off the face of the planet. (2.) They underestimated the treachery of their Marxist-Leninist "allies" (and even some of their anarchist "allies"), who later sided with the liberal government to destroy the anarchist collectives. Some CNT members even joined the government in the name of a "united front against fascism". And (3.), they hadn't spent enough time really developing their networks outside the country in the event they needed weapons, supplies, or a place to seek refuge quickly.

Besides leaving out those important facts, Green also omits that today the majority of prisoner support groups in the US are anarchist run or influenced. He also leaves out that anarchists are generally the most supportive and involved in grassroots issues such as homelessness, police brutality, Klan/Nazi activity, Native sovereignty issues, [physical] defense of womens health clinics, sexual assault prevention, animal rights, enviromentalism, and free speech issues.

Green later attacks "supporters of capitalist realism on one hand and anarchist dreamers on the other". What he fails to understand is that the movement will be influenced mostly by those who do practical work around day to day struggles, not by those who spout empty rhetoric with no basis in reality because they themselves (like Green) are fundementally incapable of practicing what they preach. Any theory which cannot, at the very least, be demonstrated in miniature scale (with the current reality of the economically, socially, and militarily imposed limitations of capitalist/white supremacist society taken in to consideration) in daily life is not even worth serious discussion because it is rigid dogma of the worst kind.

Even if he could "show and prove", his proposed system is doomed to repeat the cannibalistic practices of Josef Stalin or Pol Pot. While state planning can accelerate economic growth no one from Lenin, to Mao, to Green himself has truly dealt with the power relationship between the working class and the middle-class "revolutionaries" who seize state power "on the behalf" of the latter. How can one use the organizing methods of the European bourgeoisie, "[hierarchial] party building" and "seizing state power" and not expect this method of organizing people to not take on the reactionary characteristics of what it supposedly seeks to eliminate? Then there's the question of asserting ones authoritarian will upon others (the usual recruitment tactics of the white left attemping to attract Black members).

At one point in the article Green claims that anarchistic social relations take on the oppressive characteristics of the capitalist ideology their rooted in. Really? What about the capitalist characteristics of know-it-all ahistorical white "radicals" who can just as effectively assert capitalistic, oppressive social relations when utilizing a top-down party structure (especially when it's utilized against minority populations)? What about the re-assertion of patriarchy (or actual physical and mental abuse) in interpersonal relationships; especially when an organizational structure allows for, and in fact rewards, oppressive social relationships?

What is the qualitative difference between a party bureaucrat who uses his position to steal from the people (in addition to living a neo-bourgeois lifestyle; privilege derived from one's official position and justified by other party members who do the same. And, potentially, derived from the color of his skin in the amerikkkan context) and a collective member who steals from the local community? One major difference is that the bureaucrat can only be removed by the party, the people (once again) have no real voice in the matter (unless the people themselves take up arms and dislodge the bureaucrat and his party); the collective member can recieve a swift punishment rooted in the true working class traditions, culture, and values of the working class themselves, rather than that which is interpreted for them by so- called "professional revolutionaries" with no real ties to that particular community. This is a very important, yet very basic, concept for the white left to consider when working with non- white workers (who, by the way, are the true "vanguard" in the US; Black workers in particular. Check the your history, especially the last thirty years of it.); i.e.- direct community control.

This demand has become more central over the last thirty years as we have seen the creation of a Black elite of liberal and conservative (negrosie) puppets for the white power structure to speak through to the people, the few who were allowed to succeed because they took up the ideology of the oppressor. But, they too have become increasingly powerless as the shift to the right in the various branches of the state and federal government has quickly, and easily, "checked" what little political power they had. Also, we do not have direct control over neighborhood institutions as capitalists, let alone as workers; at least white workers have a means of production they could potentially seize. Small "mom and pop" restaurants and stores or federally funded health clinics and social services in the 'hood hardly count as "Black capitalist" enterprises, nor are any of these things particularly "liberating" in and of themselves.

But white radicals, the white left of the US in particular, have a hard time dealing with the reality that Black people have always managed to survive, despite the worst or best intentions of the majority population. We will continue to survive without you and can make our revolution without you (or against you) if necessary; don't tell us about "protracted struggle", the daily lives of non-white workers are testimony to the true meaning of protracted struggle, both in the US and globally. Your inability or unwillingness to accept the fact that our struggle is parallel to yours, but at the same time very specific, and will be finished successfully when we as a people, as working-class Blacks on the North American continent, decide that we have achieved full freedom (as defined by our history, our culture, our needs, our desires, our personal experiences, and our political idea(s)) is by far the primary reason why the white left is so weak in this country.

In addition, this sinking garbage scow of american leftism is dragging other liberating political vessels down with it, particularly the smaller, anti-authoritarian factions within the white settler nation itself and the few [non-dogmatic and non- ritualistic] individuals within todays Marxist-Leninist parties who sincerly wish to get away from the old, tired historical revisionism of their particular "revolutionary" party.

This seemingly "fixed position", along with many other fixed positions in their "thought", help to reveal the white left's profound isolation and alienation from the Black community as a whole and its activists. Yet, many of them would continue to wholeheartedly, and retardedly, assert that they're part of the community simply because they live in a Black neighborhood or their party headquarters is located there.

The white left's isolation and alienation was revealed even more profoundly in the criticisms of the Million Man March on Washington. In the end, the majority of the white leftist critics wound up tailing the most backward elements of the Republican Party; some going as far as to echo the very same words of Senate majority leader Bob Dole, who commented on the day after the march that " You can't seperate the message from the messenger." Others parroted the words of House majority leader Newt Gingrich, who had the nerve to ask "where did our leadership go wrong?"

Since when were we expected to follow the "leadership" of white amerikkka; the right, left, or center without some type of brutal cohersion? Where is the advantage for us in "following" any of them anywhere? What have any of them done for us lately? Where is the "better" leadership example of any of the hierarchical political tendencies (of any class or ideology) in the US and who do they benefit exclusively and explicitly? None of you were particularly interested in us before we rebelled violently in 1992, why the sudden interest? What do you want from us this time?

Few, if any, of the major pro-revolution left-wing newspapers in the US gave an accurate account of the march. Many of them claimed that only the Black petit-bourgeosie were in attendence. All of them claimed that women were "forbidden" to be there, despite the widely reported fact that our sisters were there in large numbers.

"MIM Notes" (and the Maoist Internationalist Movement itself) to their credit recognize that white workers are NOT the "vanguard" class: yet because they themselves are so profoundly alienated from the Black community on this side of the prison walls they had to rely on information from mainstream press accounts courtesy of the Washington Post. And rightfully alienated they are; who in their right mind actually believes that a small, "secret" cult of white campus radicals can (or should) "lead" the masses of non-white people to their/our freedom? Whatever those people are smoking, I don't want any! I do have to say, however, that MIM is indeed the least dogma addicted of the entire white left millieu that I've encountered; but dogma addicted nonetheless.

I helped organize in the Seattle area for the Million Man March. The strong, Black women I met had every intention of going. None of the men even considered stopping them, let alone suggesting that they not go. Sure, the NOI passed on Minister Farrakhan's message that it was a "men only" march, but it was barely discussed and generally ignored.

The Million Man March local organizing committees (l.o.c.'s) gave the various Black left factions a forum to present ideas and concepts to entire sections of our population who were not familiar with "Marxism", "anarchism", "Kwame Nkrumah", "George Jackson", "The Ten-Point Program", "class struggle", etc.

It also afforded us the opportunity to begin engaging the some of the members of the local NOI chapter in class-based ideological struggle along with participating community people. Of course, it was impossible for the white left to know any of this; more proof of their profound isolation and alienation. At the time, despite our own minor ideological differences, we agreed on one point: it was none of your business or the business of the rest of the white population. When we organize amongst our own, we consider it a "family matter". When we have conflicts, that is also a "family matter". Again, it is none of your business unless we tell you differently. How would you like it if we butted in on a heated family argument you were having with a loved one and started telling you what to think and what to do?

This brings me to two issues that have bothered me since January, 1996. Both comments were made to me by a member of Radical Women at the International Socialist Organization's conference at the University of Washington. The first statement was: "I don't recognize Black people as a 'nation' like I do Native people."

My first thought was "who the fuck are you to pass judgement upon a general self-definition that is rooted in our collective suffering throughout the history of this country?"

She might as well join up with the right-wing Holocaust revisionists; for this is precisely what she is practicing, the denial of the Black holocaust from 1555 to the present (along a parallel denial, by proxy, of the genocide against other non- white nations within the US). Our nationalism emerged as a defense against [your] white racism. The difference between revolutionary Black nationalists (like Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party) and cultural nationalists (like Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam) is that we see our nationalism as a specific tool to defend ourselves from groups and individuals like this ignorant person, not as an exclusive or single means for liberation.

We recognize that we will have to attack bourgeois elements amongst our people just as vigorously as we fight against white supremacists ("left", "center", or "right"). The difference is that our bourgeosie (what I refer to as the "negrosie") is only powerful within the community; they have no power against the white power structure without us, nor do they have power generally without the blessing of the white power structure itself. Our task, then, is to unite them with us against a common enemy while at the same time explicitly undermining (and eventually eliminating) their inherantly reactionary influence.

The second stupidity to pass her lips concerned our support of Black-owned businesses. I pointed out to her that if she had in fact studied her Marxism-Leninism, she would see that their existence goes hand-in-glove with Marx's theory that revolution could only ensue once capitalism was fully developed. She came back with the criticism, "Well, you'll be waiting a long time for that to happen".

Once again, had she actually studied Marxism-Leninism she would know that Lenin and the Bolsheviks also had to deal with this same question. Russia's economy was predominantly agricultural, and its bourgeois class was small. They decided to go with the mood and sentiments of the peasantry and industrial workers at that particular moment in history;..seize the means of production and distribution anyway!

Who says we wouldn't do the same? The participants of the LA rebellion (and others), despite their lack of training in "radical 'left-wing' political theory" (besides being predominantly Black, Latino, or poor white trash in Amerikkka), got it half right; they seized the means of distribution, distributed the products of their [collective] labor, and then burned the facilities to the ground. Yes, there were many problems with the events of 1992, but they did show our potential for future progress.

Black autonomists ultimatly reject vanguardism because as the white left [as well as elements of the Black revolutionary movement] has demonstrated, it errodes and eventually destroys the fragile ties that hold together the necessary principled partnerships between groups and individuals that are needed to accomplish the numerous tasks associated with fighting back successfully and building a strong, diverse, and viable revolutionary movement.

The majority of the white left is largely disliked, disrespected, and not trusted by our people because they fail miserably on this point. How can you claim to be a "socialist" when you are in fact anti-social? How do you all distinguish yourselves from the majority of your people in concrete, practical, and principled terms?

III. Zero (0) support of non-white left factions by the white left.

I've always found this particularly disturbing; you all want our help, but do not want to help us. You want to march shoulder to shoulder with us against the government and its supporters, but do not want us to have a solid political or material foundation of our own to not only win the fight against the white supremacist state but to also re-build our communities on our own behalf in our own likeness(es).

Let white Marxists provide unconditional (no strings attached) material support for non-white factions whose ideology runs parallel to theirs, and let white anarchist factions provide unconditional (again, no strings attached) material support for factions in communities of color who have parallel ideologies and goals. Obviously, the one "string" that can never be avoided is that of harsh economic reality; if you don't have the funds, you can't do it. That's fair and logical, but if you're paying these exorbitant amounts for projects and events that amount to little more than ideological masturbation and organizational cultism while we do practical work out of pocket or on a tiny budget amongst our own, it seems to me that a healthy dose of criticism/self-criticism and reassessment of priorities is in order on the part of you "professional revolutionaries" of the white left.

If the white left "vanguards" are unwilling to materially support practical work by non-white revolutionary factions, then you have no business showing your faces in our neighborhoods. If you "marxist missionaries" insist on coming into our neighborhoods preaching the "gospel" of Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc, the least you could do is "pay" us for our trouble. You certainly haven't offered us much else that's useful.

To their credit, the white anarchists and anti-authoritarian leftists have been generally supportive of the Black struggle by comparison; Black Autonomy and related projects in particular. Matter of fact, back in October of 1994 in an act of mutual aid and solidarity the Philadelphia branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) printed the very first issue of Black Autonomy (1,000 copies) for FREE. One of their members actually got a little upset when I asked how much we owed them for the print job. In return (and in line with our class interests), we allied ourselves with the Philly branch and others in a struggle within the IWW against the more conservative "armchair revolutionary/historical society" elements within its national administrative body.

Former political prisoner, SNCC member, Black Panther, and Black autonomist (anarchist) Lorenzo Komboa Ervin credits the hard work of anarchist groups in Europe and non-vanguardist Marxist and anarchist factions in the US for assisting him in a successful campaign for early release from prison after 13 years of incarceration.

In no way do we expect you or anyone else to bankroll us; what I am offering is one suggestion to those of you who sincerly want to help; and a challenge to those who in fact seek to "play god" with our lives while spouting empty, meaningless rhetoric about "freedom", "justice", "class struggle", and "solidarity". To those people I ask: Do you have ideas, or do ideas have you? Actually, a better question might be: do you think at all?

IV. Bourgeois pseudo-analysis of race and class.

It only makes sense that the white left's analysis of race and class in amerikkka would be so erroneous when you're so quick to jump up and pass judgement on everyone else about this or that, but deathly afraid of real self-criticism at the individual or collective level; opting instead to use tool(s) of self- criticism as a means to reaffirm old, tired ideas that were barely thought out to begin with or by dodging real self-criticism altogether by dogmatically accusing your critics of "red- baiting". Clearly, it is you who "red-bait" yourselves; as the old saying goes, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones!" Action talks, bullshit walks!

Some of the more backward sections of the white left still push that old tired line "gay, straight, Black, white, same struggle-same fight!" Nothing can be further from the truth. Sure, we are all faced with the same "main enemy": the racist, authoritarian state and its supporters; but unlike white males (straight or gay) and with some minor parallels to the experiences of white women, our oppression begins at birth. This is a commonality that we share with Native people, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.

As we grow up, we go from being "cute" in the eyes of the larger society, to being considered "dangerous" by the time we're teenagers. As this point is driven home to us day in and day out in various social settings and circumstances some of us decide, in frustration to give the white folks what they want to believe; we become predatory. This dynamic is played out in ghettos, barrios, chinatowns, and reservations across the country. Even those of us who choose not to engage in criminal activity, or aren't forced into it, have to live under this stigma. In addition, we as individuals are still viewed as "objects" and our community as a "monolith".

We then enter the work force...that is, if there are any jobs available. It is there that we learn that our people and other non-whites are "last hired, first fired", that our white co-workers are generally afraid of us or view as "competition", and that management is watching us even more closely than other workers, while at the same time fueling petty squabbles and competition between us and other non-white workers. Those of us who are fortunate enough to land a union job soon find out that the unions are soft on racism in the workplace. This only makes sense as we learn later on that unions in the US are running dogs of capitalism and apologists for management, despite their "militant" rhetoric.

Most unionized workers are white, reflective of the majority of unionized labor in the US; who constitute a mere 13% of the total labor force. This is why it is silly for the white left to prattle on and on about the labor "movement" and about how so many of our people are joining unions. That's no consolation to us when Black unemployment hovers at 35% nationally; many of those brothers and sisters living in places were "permenent unemployment" is the rule rather than the exception, and many more who find work at non-union "dead end" service industry jobs. One out of three of our people is caught up somewhere within the US criminal "justice" system: in jail, in prison, on parole, on work-release, awaiting trial, etc as a direct result.

In addition, many white workers are supportive of racist Republican politicians, such as presidential candidate Pat Buchannan, who promises to protect their jobs at the expense of non-white workers and immigrants. What is the white left or the union movement doing about all of that?

It shouldn't be suprising that the white left still preaches a largely economist viewpoint when it comes to workers generally, and workers of color in particular. This view is further evidence of not only your own deviation from Marx, but also from Lenin, by your own varied (yet similar) definitions.

Lenin recognized why the majority of Russian revolutionaries of his time put forward an economist position: "In Russia,...the yoke of autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinction between the Social Democrats organization and workers' association, since all workers associations and all study circles are prohibited; and since the principle manifestation and weapon of the workers' economic struggle, the strike, is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political) offense."

In this country, the distinction between the trade unions and revolutionary organizations is abundantly clear (even if some groups like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) still fail to make the distinction themselves) and the primary contradiction within the working class is that of racial stratification as a class weapon of the bourgeoisie and capitalists against the working class as a whole.

Yet, the white Left (along with the rest of the white working class) fails to see its collaborationist role in this process. And this goes right back to what I said earlier in this writing about the need for a serious historical and cultural critique amongst all white people (and not just the settler nation's left-wing factions) that goes beyond superficial culture appropriations or lofty, dogmatic proclaimations of how committed you and your party is to "racial equality". To even consider oneself "white" or to call oneself "white" is an argument FOR race and class oppression; look at the history of the US and see who first errected these terms "white" and "Black", and why they were created in the first place.

I remember last summer, around the fourth of July, I had a member of the local SWP try to tell me that the American War of Independence was "progressive". Progressive for whom? Tell us the truth, who were the primary beneficiaries of the American Revolution? You know the answer, we all do; only a total, unrepentant reactionary would lie to the people, especially on this point.

Howard Zinn, in his work "A People's History of the United States", points out how early 20th century historian Charles Beard found that of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the US Constitution "a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most were men of wealth, in land, in slaves, manufacturing, or shipping; that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty- five held government bonds, according to records of the [US] Treasury Department. Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.

Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups." (Zinn, pg.90)

Come to terms with your white skin privilege (and the ideology and attitude(s) this privilege breeds) and then figure out how to combat that dynamic as part of your fight against the state and its supporters. Your continued backwardness is a sad commentary when we uncover historical evidence which shows that even before the turn of the century some of your own ancestors within the white working class were begining to take the first small steps towards a greater understanding of their social role as the white servants of capital. A white shoemaker in 1848 wrote:

"...we are nothing but a standing army that keeps three million of our bretheren in bondage...Living under the shade of Bunker Hill monument, demanding in the name of humanity, our right, and withholding those rights from others because their skin is black! Is it any wonder that God in his righteous anger has punished us by forcing us to drink the bitter cup of degradation." (Zinn, pg.222)

We can even look to the historical evidence of Lenin's time. Prior to the publishing of Lenin's "On Imperialism", W.E.B. DuBois wrote an article for the May, 1915 edition of the Atlantic Monthly titled "The African Roots of War" in which he vividly describes how both rich and poor whites benefit from the super- exploitation of non-white people:

"Yes, the average citizen of England, France, Germany, the United States, had a higher standard of living than before. But: 'Whence comes this new wealth?'...It comes primarily from the darker nations of the world-Asia and Africa, South and Central America, the West Indies, and the islands of the South Seas. It is no longer simply the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class that is exploiting the world: it is the nation, a new democratic nation composed of united capital and labor." (Zinn)

Yet, the self-titled "anti-racists" of the left continue on with their infantile fixation on the Klan, Nazis, and right-wing militias. Groups that they say they are against, but in fact demonstrate a tolerance for in practice. Standing around chanting empty slogans in front of a line of police seperating demonstrators from the nazis in a "peaceful demonstration" is contradiction in its purest form; both the police and the fascists must be mercilessly destroyed! As the Spanish anarchist Buenventura Durruti proclaimed back in 1936 "Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed!" There is no room for compromise or dialogue, except for asking them for a last meal request and choice of execution method before we pass sentence; and even that is arbitrary!

True, tactical considerations must be examined, but if we can't get at them then and there, there is no "rule" that says we can't follow them and hit them when they least expect it; except for the "rule" of the wanna-be rulers of the Marxist-Leninist white left "vanguard(s)" who only see the fascists as competition in their struggle to see which set of "empire builders" will lord over us; the "good" whites who regulate us to the amerikkkan left plantation of "the glorious workers state", or the "bad" whites who work us as slaves until half-dead and then laugh as our worn out carcasses are thrown into ovens, cut up for "scientific purposes", or hung from lamp posts and trees. You people have yet to show me the qualitative difference(s) between a Klan/Nazi- style white supremacist dictatorship and your concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the context of this particular country and its notorious history. So far, all I have seen from you all is arrogance in coalitions, petty games of political one-upmanship, and ideological/tactical rigidity.

Let's pretend for a minute that one of the various wanna-be vanguards actually seizes political power. In everyone of your programs, from the program of the RCP, USA to even smaller, lesser known groups there is usually a line somewhere in there about your particular party holding the key levers of state power within a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Have any of you actually considered what that sounds like to a community without real power? Does this mean that we as Black people are going to have fight and die a second time under your dictatorship in order to have equal access to employment, housing, schools, colleges, public office, party status, our own personal lives generally?

Look at our history; over one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclaimation (the 1960's) we were still dying for the right to vote, for the right to protest peacefully, for the right to live in peace and prosperity within the context of white domination and capitalism. Today, after all of that, it is clear that the masses of our people are still largely powerless; we stayed powerless even as public schools were being desegregated and more of our elites were being elected to Congress and other positions. The same racist, authoritarian state that stripped us of our humanity was now asserting itself as our first line of defense of those hard-won concessions in the form of federal troops and FBI "observers" (who watched as we were beaten, raped, and/or killed) sent to enforce The Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As we have seen since that time, what the white power structure grants, it can (and will) take away; we can point to recent US Supreme Court decisions around voter redistricting as one part of our evidence. We can also look to the problem of mail and publication censorship in the US prison system (state and federal) that has come back to haunt us since the landmark 1960's first amendment legal challenge to the state of New York that was won by political prisoner and Black/Puerto Rican anarchist Martin Sostre. And then there's the attacks on a prisoners' right to sue a prison official, employee, or institution being made by the House and Senate. Give us one good reason to believe that you people will be any different than these previous and current "benevolent" leaders and political institutions if by some fluke or miracle you folks stumble into state power?

No "guarantees" againt counter-revolution or revisionism within your "revolutionary" party/government you say? There are two: the guns, ammunition, organization, solidarity, political consciousness, and continuous vigilance of the masses of non- white people and the truly sympathetic, conscious anti-authoritarian few amongst your population; or a successful grassroots- based revolution that is rooted in anti-authoritarian political ideas that are culturally relevant to each ethnicity of the poor and working class population in the US. Judging by the general attitudes and theories expressed by your members and leadership, we can be rest assured that it is virtually guaranteed that the spirit of 'Jim Crow' can and will flourish within a white-led Marxist-Leninist "proletarian dictatorship" in the US. It's clear to me why you all ramble on and on about the revolutions of China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc; they provide convienient cover for you all (read: escapism) to avoid a serious examination of the faults in your current analysis as well as in the historical analysis of the last thirty years of struggle in the US.

These are the only conclusions that can be drawn when you all are so obviously hostile to the idea of doing the hard work of confronting your own individual racist and reactionary tendencies. When your own fellow white activists attempted to put together an "Anti-Racism Workshop" for members of the Seattle Mumia Defense Committee, many of you pledged your support (in the form of the usual dogmatic, vague, and arguably baseless rhetorical proclaimations of "solidarity" and "commitment to racial equality") and then proceeded to not show up. Only the two initial organizers within the SMDC and two coalition members (neither affiliated with any political party) were there. Make no mistake, I have no illusions about white people confronting their own racism; but I do support their honest attempts at doing so. Here we have a situation in which an ideological leap amongst the white left in Seattle may have been initiated; yet, the all- knowing, all-seeing "revolutionary vanguard(s)" of the white left were too busy spending that particular weekend picking the lent out of their belly buttons. Are we saving our belly-button lent for the potential shortages of food that occur during and shortly after the revolution [is corrupted by the mis-leadership of your particular rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian party]?

V. The bottom line is this: Self-determination!

For most white leftists, this means that we as Black people are demanding our own seperate nation-state. Some of our revolutionary factions do advocate such a position. Black Autonomists, however, reject nation-statism [For more on that, refer to page 15 of any copy of Black Autonomy newspaper].

Regardless of whether or not the Black masses opt for a seperate homeland on this continent or in Africa, we will be respected as subjects of history and not as objects that the state, its supporters, or the white left decides what to do with.

The answer to "the Black question" is simple: It is not a question; we are people, you will deal with us as such or we will fight you and the rest of the white settler nation...by any and all means necessary! We will not be cowed or dominated by anyone ever again!

Too many times in the course of American (and world) history have our people fought and died for the dream of true freedom, only to have it turn into the nightmare of continued oppression. If the end result of a working-class revolution in the United States is the continued domination of non-white people by white "revolutionary leaders" and a Left-wing [white supremacist] government, then we will make another revolution until any and all perpetrators and supporters of that type of social-political relationship are defeated or dead! Any and all means are completely justifiable in order to prevent the defeat of our revolution and the re-introduction of white supremacy. We will not put up with another 400+ years of oppression; and I'm sure our Native and Hispanic brothers and sisters won't tolerate another 500+ years of the same ol' shit.

Ultimatly, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; that's the main reason I decided to publish this, as yet another humble contribution to the self-education of our people. The second reason is to, hopefully, inspire the white left to re- examine your current practices and beliefs as part of your process of self-education; assuming that you all in fact practice self-education.

Reject the traditions of your ancestors and learn from their mistakes; or reject your potential allies in communities of color. The choice is yours...

"It is a commentary on the fundementally racist nature of this society that the concept of group strength for black people must be articulated, not to mention defended. No other group would submit to being led by others. Italians do not run the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Irish do not chair Chistopher Columbus Societies. Yet when black people call for black-run and all-black organizations, they are immediatly classed in a catagory with the Ku Klux Klan." -Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael), Black Power; Vintage Press, 1965.

via IWW