The Bogeyman Under Bush's Bed

For the better part of a decade, politicians of both parties have sounded the security alarm. "We must protect ourselves from terror! The Middle East must be subdued militarily! American citizens must sacrifice what liberties they have, for the sake of safety!"

In fact, the now-fabled attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001 have dovetailed so nicely with the plans of a Republican party known to be bent on foreign invasion and domestic repression, that a host of conspiracy theories have grown as a result. We of the Capital Terminus Collective do not indulge such theories. Nor, in the space provided here, will we address the question of precisely how much risk the typical U.S. citizen is really exposed to, with regard to a terror attack (except to note in passing that the threat has been hyped beyond all reality.)

Instead we will take this opportunity to pose the following question: who does President Bush fear most, Islamic terrorists, or an organized U.S. workforce? The answer to this question is more frightening than a CNN newscast.

The Anti-terror Bill

Again, for years we have been told in tones that range from shrill to foreboding, that subduing the Middle East and protecting "the homefront" from attacks by those who "hate our way of life", were the two most critical items on the nation's agenda. And on the domestic end, no priority was higher than securing the airports. After all, airplanes were the venue of choice in the most successful terrorist attack the U.S. mainland has ever experienced.

And yet, when offered a bill that (according to USA Today) would "improve aviation and rail security and terrorism prevention by enacting recommendations of" the President's very own 9/11 Commission, Bush threatened a veto.

Why? Because the bill would grant baggage screeners the right to form a union. Unionization, we are told, would hamper the efficient functioning of the airport security apparatus. (Perhaps the reader thought workers had an inalienable right to organize? Hardly. Jobs deemed necessary for security are only a single example of occupations in which workers are forbidden to from unions.) Republicans in Congress would deny baggage screeners this right, while certain Democrats would grant it to them . But should workers even need be granted such a "right" by the government? Or should workers organize in defense of their interests as a matter of course, anywhere and everywhere?

Before moving on with the specific case of the airport baggage screeners, then, let us pause to consider: are authorities so infallible, and workers so uniformly incompetent, that unionization invariably cripples efficient functioning? What has been your personal experience in this regard? Does the boss always know best, while the ideas of subordinates are petty and foolish?

In the case of the baggage screeners, Bush and his allies claim that being accountable to a workers organization would so hamper the executive's efforts at arranging for our safety, that they are prepared to scrap the anti-terror bill entirely, rather than grant workers permission to organize.

So, who is the bogeyman that causes rich politicians like George Bush to wake in the night, bathed in sweat, eyes wide with fright? Is it the specter of swarthy immigrants with bombs strapped to their sides (the very specter they encourage us to fear)? Or is it the notion that you and I, and all of our neighbors and fellow workers, might form organizational ties and began to demand our rightful share of the goods we produce and transport? The latter scenario, to President Bush, is apparently the more frightening one.

Randy Lowens
published in Anarchist Atlanta, November 2007

With much of the media's attention placed on the “War on Terror,” a clever name for neo-colonialism, the war at home rages on against the working class and poor with barely a mention. Much like the quest for control of global resources, the continued decline and shifting of public resources and institutions in the US into private sector hands plays right into the agenda of funneling more power and control into the usual suspects. While this sounds grand to the play-makers, their negligence of its own consumers and the environment in which they operate will only regress us farther into horrible working and living conditions, thus rendering all of this positioning useless in the end.

Atlanta, the growing and bustling metropolis it has become, is a prime example of neo-liberal policies at work. The public sector, specifically health care, education, transportation, and housing, are under siege by private interests and their profit-driven mindset. As libertarians, we can't stand idly by and have chosen to lend our analysis and energy to this struggle.

Gentrification. Urban renewal. Revitalization. These terms all mean the same thing: further displacement and marginalization of working class and poor people for almighty profit. Since the 1996 Olympics the Atlanta Housing Authority, partnered with the Atlanta City Council, have ravaged public housing in order to make way for more wealthy residents moving to the city. This does three things simultaneously: increases the tax base by raising property taxes, markets the downtown Atlanta area to Fortune 500 companies and crushes any opposition to the economic restructuring. Public housing residents tend to be more directly affected by all of this but the effects spread to anyone within the city who can't afford to live in these new communities. What happens to the current residents? They have to move due to higher rents (due to higher property taxes) to communities either unreceptive to their plight and/or unable to provide the public services that many who are more privileged or economically stable take for granted namely transportation and health care. This slash-and-burn tactic has to stop. If the city really wants to “revitalize” the communities, which make up the metro area, why must it result in tearing them down?

The next major issue is the management of the public resources and institutions that are still available to everyone. There is a continued trend of privatization of our utilities, education and health care systems, which isn't benefiting anyone but the private sector entities that are in control. This trend creates guaranteed money for a corporation whose focus is on providing water, gas, and electricity. These are resources, which most people need in order to live decently. The local government claims the reason for this practice is that these companies can provide better service and subsequently more savings to the consumer. But the real result is just the opposite. Ask any long-term resident of Atlanta and they'll tell you their bills have only gone up and the quality of service has remained stagnant, if not declined. Stories of embezzlement and mismanagement are constantly in the media. Grady Hospital, a major southeastern health care institution that not only provides essential and unique care, is also a major hub of education for doctors all over Georgia and the rest of the region. Of course, it suffers from a lack of funding by the region it services and mismanagement by its previous handlers. Now a private group wants to rescue the hospital from its financial woes and claims it's to be a non-profit entity yet no one on the proposed board is actually involved with the hospital's operations. Wouldn't it make sense that those directly involved with it would have better insight into keeping the hospital running? What services will be cut and who will be denied treatment in order to keep the costs in-line and still maintain non-profit status? These are serious questions for those most affected by it: the employees and working class/poor residents of Atlanta.

Politically speaking, Atlanta has remained dormant for far too long. It's time we step up the efforts to defend our city from corporate takeover and destruction of our basic human rights. Those most affected by these changes have to be informed of the consequences and allowed to have a say in that which affects their daily lives. This isn't the first Battle of Atlanta and it certainly won't be the last.

Joe
published in Anarchist Atlanta, November 2007

It is a glaring contradiction of realities to suggest democracy…that real and true democracy can ever co-exist within or alongside an economic system such as capitalism. The two are in fact at the very opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to human liberation while true democracy is the empowerment of the whole of society to act together with the shared equities and responsibilities of a mutual lateral power for the benefit of all. Capitalism however is the creation of totalitarian institutions, environments and consequences which serve to re-enforce inequalities upon us as though they are normal and necessary to an ordered society. It is the two which have been unnaturally forced into co-existence that have brought about the chaos of today's society. In the current human hierarchy we are separated by six primary points of division we are first and foremost separated by sex followed by race, education, class, age, and religion. Because of the topic at hand class division will primarily be discussed but it must be clearly stated and fully realized that class division has an overwhelming impact upon all other classified points of division.

To begin with capitalism as oppose to a true democratic lateral society puts the resources of the land into the hands of the few thus forcing man to submit to a wage servitude in order to obtain the basic needs of survival which are; food, shelter, adequate clothing, water, access to health and medical care as well as education or information. Thus capitalism to a very large extent dictates and controls where we live, what we eat, who our neighbors are, the quality of water we drink and the air we breathe, what fabrics are on our backs, who gets substandard health care and what "higher education" you will receive if any at all. Thus when the choices to sustain our lives and to pursue our happiness are limited based upon the financial resources we earn through our forced labors one can see the fallacy behind their so-called democracy. Their so-called democracy is the institutionalized enforcement of a slave class by projecting a never ending dependency on some one else to obtain the food we can easily grow ourselves, the clothes we can easily sew ourselves, the lessons we can learn through real life experience that will be our true teachers. Nor should we be dependent upon an economic system of docility for our square boxes when the resources of the land should be available to everyone to build as they wished limited only by common sense and imagination.

So as you can see within a capitalist economic structure democracy cannot exist. People do not choose to be poor they are poor because of the inherent flaws of capitalism that pits human against human for the necessities of man's basic survival. Hence the capitalist society burdens us with the unnecessary cancer of poverty and its benign symptoms of homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, high crime, high rate of people without proper medical and preventive health care and hunger. As capitalism further isolates the poor from the decision making process it enforces the division by class as wealth is distributed from top to bottom. In making this class division capitalism puts value on a person's ability to create or acquire wealth which further fuels sexism as it his man not woman who controls the distribution of the natural resources from which the wealth is created. Further fuels racism as the ruling races not subjugated or indigenous races makes the regulations of how those resources will be distributed. In everyday life these truths are evident in overabundance in every country that practices a form of capitalism without exception from its most liberal democratic to the most totalitarian dictatorship.

Until there is the complete abolition of wage enforced capitalist slavery there can be no true democracy because the wishes of the controlling or ruling classes will always be of priority over the voices of the workers even when the consequences such as the current war in Iraq are disastrous to the interest of the majority. We also see it everyday with the gentrification of neighborhoods, we see it with suburban sprawl, we see it with global warming and other environmental issues that directly effect the resources that we as humans need to survive, we see it with the lack of universal health care, we see it in the struggle for a living wage, we see it with the struggle for improved education and a free education. All around us we see where voices are not being heard and lives are being sacrificed to the capitalist machine because it is not in the interest of the bottom line and that is profit margin. The capitalist barons have their lobbyist and they have bought the politicians who have created laws not in the interest of creating a more democratic society based upon the wishes of the people they represent but in the interest creating more wealth for those who are already more wealthy than greater than 97% of the entire world's population. We do not live in a democratic society if we did you would see politicians making promises in homeless shelters.

Fini,
vodka
published in Anarchist Atlanta, November 2007

We discuss passively whom to blame for the world's problems. We do activism on the premise of "just wanting to help". We put our faith in systems such as the government, and think they will do our bidding if we vote. We discuss our theories on what needs to be done in the world's impoverished countries, but don't bother to ask the people in that country what they need. We end up getting burnt out or utterly disillusioned. Others just don't care and move on with their lives.

What we don't realize, however, is that we fucked up long ago. We don't understand what we're up against. We're up against the State, we're up against the most intricately designed economic system, we're up against the all the major and most heavily trained armies in the world, but mostly we're up against ourselves.

We are taught that we need support of the government, that groups working outside of the system, without state sanction, always fail. We are stuck thinking that we can do it, if only we try our hardest. The truth is that all we'll gain is a small victory, temporary contentment, while oppression continues. We are never taught to see the big picture. We are taught to see the big picture of the poverty that remains, but not who perpetuates it. If another group says the system itself perpetuates atrocities, they are demonized, or called "marginal". We are told we must rely on institutions, centers of authority where we can "get our voice heard" and use our state-granted power to "change the system". That is what we are taught.

Can we get anywhere? That is the first question. The answer is "Yes". But only in one sense. Forget all we have been told, all that we have been taught to put our trust in. Forget working with governments, with charity organizations, with power holding structures. By working with ourselves, our own communities, and our own organizations that reject the fundamental issue of hierarchy, we find a whole world of possibilities and a whole world of dangers. We must lose the privilege of "living comfortably". We lose the privileges of funding; we lose a degree of safety. But we see the world as it is, and the potential of changing things, and a possibility of a fight- perhaps on the distant future- that shall be won.

The big picture is basic. There is a world where a small minority holds power and a vast majority is kept separate through nationalities, religions, races, genders, and classes. Castes of people, superiority based on artificial divisions. These divisions really do not matter, and hold no purpose but to keep the masses from uniting in a common interest.

Then there is the American Myth, "Try hard enough and you can be at the top. You can get here. If you work by our ways, we will let you in." This is one of the cruelest inventions. A nation is created that "allows" dissent within the system by voting, peaceful protest or other moderate means that offer hope of small victories, to pacify us.

A nation that allows a fortunate few to go from "rags to riches", than champions them as evidence the system "works". Yet this nation is a country where Whites sit higher than Blacks, and citizens are more comfortable than immigrants. This nation contains the world's economic power. It has the ability to sustain a smaller nation, and the ability to crush it. It propagandizes its dream to the world, attracting the lust of starving people who hope to have some food in their bellies and a roof over their heads. It tells people, if you join our Free Trade pact, we shall help you out. It says, "If you join our wars, we shall help you out". If you disagree with this nation, it will call you "communists", "terrorists" or even worse "Anarchists"! This nation starves others to manufacture consent and agreement. And when people use all means to grasp the dream offered, they are arrested and deported as Illegal Aliens. If this nation needs a cause for war, they make it. Overtly or covertly a war is always going on, and always has been. For centuries, whole groups of people have known nothing more than an economic war that is waged on them. Through taxation, imprisonment, segregation, imperialism, slavery, and genocide, economic wars have been raging. With gentrification or the prison industrial complex, the outcome is the same. The benefit is for the upper classes. For the lower classes, death, hopelessness and poverty. With state communism the stratification remained. It has all been class war.

The Anarchists did not declare class war. No, the champions of the democratic system declared class war. The people who held authority over others, the fascists, the czars, the kings, and the Chairmen of the Party declared class war. We never asked for this war. We never wanted it. But it was forced on us. We saw it when white men from Europe committed genocide on the indigenous in the new world. We saw it when Africans were taken from their villages to slave ships, then worked for the gain of rich white men in Europe and America. We saw it when European Christians started being missionaries in Africa and Asia, only to plunder their resources and take their land, in exchange for Bibles. We saw it when colonies sprung up in Australia, Africa, the Middle East, and in South and Central America. We saw it when sharecropping was legalized in the USA, when whole immigrant and working class families worked in the mines and factories. We saw it when no one decided to help the second Spanish Republic in 1936 and when "democratic" nations supplied the Fascists with gasoline. We saw it when the Holocaust of Jews, homosexuals and communists happened in Germany. We saw it the segregated United States. We saw it as the U.S. supported and instated brutal dictators who allowed multinationals access to all national resources. We saw it when Wounded Knee II happened and Leonard Peltier was imprisoned. We saw it as we found Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Fred Hampton lying dead. We saw it as the CIA imported crack cocaine into the inner city. We saw it as apartheid reigned in South Africa. We saw it as 500,000 Iraqi children died due to sanctions put by America from 1991-2003. And we see it today, right now, as 650,000 Iraqis have died to keep American corporate power over the Middle East. We see Class War occur in our very own towns when gentrification occurs, when another inner city public school is under funded, when the victims of Hurricane Katrina have houses destroyed to pave the way for upper class homes. We see it as Third World countries are mired in debt due to IMF loans, that the impoverished remain while multinationals profit. This list could go on forever and go back for many centuries. To win the struggle for liberation, we must recognize that this war has been declared, and the same institutions we are told to work with, started the war.

But daring to struggle is suicidal to many. This system can kill and cover it up easily. This system can lay people off from work, deny proper education, and imprison them. It can starve families. It can deny any form of dignity. The class war becomes overt. We can say that it just takes an uprising, a mobilization of people, all we want. We can write it on paper all we want, but it does not fix the fact that people are desperate for money, respect, and food, and will buy into the system to meet those needs. Or if those needs are not completely met, at least a semi-stable way to keep their families alive. Survival matters most. Revolution will come second, maybe third. If we are calling people to struggle with us, we must find out what their needs are and how they can be met. We must find out how everyone may have dignity and respect. We must find a way to provide hope, and not a false one, but a real possibility of winning this struggle. We must find a way to provide education to children, medicine for the sick, and work for the unemployed. We must find housing for the homeless and food for the hungry. We must let them have a say and we must work according to their needs and abilities. And we must work to our needs and abilities as well. We must provide a way for enjoyment and play, and a place for serious discussion. There is so much we must do.

Education is what we have to have, in order to win. We have to be educated on the needs of the people, on the logistics, on how to farm, how to defend ourselves, and on how the current system works and runs. We must learn how to cooperate and break down mental barriers that have been consciously and unconsciously placed in our minds. We must learn how to work without an authority guiding us or telling us what to do. Education leads to organization. From organization comes emancipation.

It will be a long struggle. It has been, and will continue to be, a bloody one. We must be prepared to not see the final outcome. But we profit, in the currency of self-respect. Honor. And the acknowledgement of the fact that we have been fighting for liberation. We will know on our deathbed that we give our children and grandchildren more than was our birthright; that their generation's community will be another stage on the path to emancipation. But to waste our lives never seeing the truth and never knowing what it is to be truly free, is devastating. To join in the struggle is to sacrifice, and yet to gain.

There are no guarantees; there is no set destination. To gain self-respect, to create something for oneself and one's community, is the payoff. To have no doors opened by some leader, but to create in league with others the doorway to a new society: this is the struggle.

One can only free his mind. A community can free itself. A world can rebuild itself. Can we get anywhere? Yes. Yes, we will get somewhere, someday.

Written for anarkismo.net,
Jon

Class Struggle in the Mountains

Class antagonism takes a multiplicity of forms: Environmental struggles can also pit the impoverished against the profiteers. In the mountains of Appalachia, anger against Mountaintop Removal coal mining overshadows labor struggles, or even the war in Iraq, as the single issue that most arouses the passions of the common folk.

Class antagonism takes a multiplicity of forms: unionists on the picket line; youths burning draft cards, railing against the exemptions of the privileged; neighborhoods demanding a voice in local development. Environmental struggles can also pit the impoverished against the profiteers. In the mountains of Appalachia, anger against Mountaintop Removal coal mining overshadows labor struggles, or even the war in Iraq, as the single issue that most arouses the passions of the common folk.

In the following article, I will

First, what exactly is Mountaintop Removal coal mining? Mountaintop Removal (MTR) refers to the practice of employing explosives to blast the tops off of mountains in order to reveal the veins of coal underneath. The practice costs less than traditional mining techniques and, not coincidentally, provides fewer jobs for the surrounding communities. (What labor is employed is often imported, contributing to the exodus of impoverished locals from the land, in the process making more acreage available for MTR). In contrast to community struggles against more traditional forms of strip mining in decades past, the few, specialized number of workers required to set a charge and then bulldoze the debris back into place, robs the pro mining camp of a favorite argument, that support for mining is "pro jobs", and any opposition to it, implicitly anti-worker. [1]

For the revolutionary who seeks opportunities to intervene in the class struggle in rural Appalachia, few options present themselves. One could pine for the heyday of militant miner struggles, and attempt to resurrect them. One could resolve to start from scratch, and attempt to organize the local coffee shop barista's or other retail workers. Or one might appeal to the self interest of the locals, and patiently explain that inhabitants of the rural byways should oppose capitalist war, at least as fervently as do members of the urban enclaves. But, for good or ill and for all practical purposes, these struggles are not currently taking place. For the anarchist communist whose strategy is, not to create and then lead mass struggles, but rather to participate in and bring a libertarian, revolutionary sensibility to existing struggles, resistance to Mountaintop Removal is not merely a wise strategic choice, but practically the only game in town.

With a few notable exceptions (such as a pair of recent Latino farm worker victories in Florida and North Carolina), labor struggles in the rural South (including Appalachia) follow the national trend, declining in frequency and militancy. And whereas resentment towards the rich man's war in Iraq has the potential to serve as a flashpoint for class struggle elsewhere (and should certainly not be categorically dismissed anywhere), still, rural Appalachians tend towards a certain xenophobia, that limits the potential effectiveness of using the war to exploit the class divide. Only the hatred of Mountaintop Removal mining sparks an immediate fire in the eyes of locals down to the corner store, while simultaneously presenting a stark contrast between the interests of the wealthy (mostly absentee) corporate titans, and residents who grew up farming, hiking, hunting, and fishing the endangered mountaintops and nearby, similarly threatened bottoms and streams. Only Mountaintop Removal serves to immediately, passionately, unite the community against the oppressors.

The Current State of Resistance

Resistance to MTR generally take one of two forms, that may be categorized according to either tactics or ideology: the liberal community groups who prioritize fundraising and government lobbying, and the champions of direct action within Earth First!, who operate under the influence of Deep Ecology and primitivism. Though neither approach should be summarily dismissed, both offer obvious weaknesses. Ideologically, what the two spheres share is a certain conservatism, a desire to return to a former, presumably better state of existence, the liberals harking back to the ideals of the USA's Founding Fathers, the primitivists reaching considerably further back into the mists of history in their quest for a mythical Eden. What both schools of thought lack is a coherent vision of how to go forward, given the current morass. At any rate, let is look closer at each type of grouping.

The former probably bears little description, being the typical reformist groups that adhere to the ideals of liberal democracy, ranging from the huge, impotent Sierra Club down to a plethora of similar, but smaller organizations. Such groups are typically organized and dominated by middle class liberals, and prioritize fundraising and lobbying; but their membership (and also a large number of nonaligned, but sympathetic community members) includes a wide swath of the working class. (The very quantity of such organizations may bode well for the possibility of penetration by anti-hierarchical voices, implying as it does a decentralized, community oriented structure.)

At a glance, the latter type groups, the Earth First! groupings, might appear closest to the ideals of the historical anarchist project, championing as they do "direct action" in lieu of reformist strategies. (I do not refer to direct action in the classical syndicalist sense of strikes, boycotts, and sabotage, but instead militant actions taken by community members to halt construction projects, often in the form of chaining oneself to a piece of equipment. By way of full disclosure, the author of this article spent the better part of two years intimately involved in just such a group, and continues to count several such activists among his personal friends.)

Within these circles, the influence of primitivist thought ranges from conscious, self-described adherents of primitivist ideology, to latent, knee jerk reactions against anything that smacks of a technological development. (I was once privy to a hilarious discussion, in which someone argued passionately against constructing an e-mail list on technological grounds, offering in its stead… a phone tree!) The temptation is to dismiss such groups as primitivists, and thereby hostile to the principles of anarchism. The leaders and members of these groups, however, insist that primitivism is a form of anarchism. However vehemently an anarchist communist may disagree with this formulation, the fact remains that they, themselves, consider it true. As a result, many admirable traits and habits typical of anarchist collectives adhere to them, including earnest efforts to organize in a non-hierarchal fashion, and taking a respectful attitude towards local working class communities (about which more will be said).

Surprisingly, in my experience the differences in ideology between the prevailing sentiments of primitivism and Deep Ecology as opposed to a class struggle perspective, presented few immediate impediments to successful cooperation. Adherents of both schools of thought threw themselves wholeheartedly into producing and distributing literature within the community detailing the perils of MTR, organizing protests outside the local TVA office towers, and eventually planning and attempting the disruption of a mining site.

(The latter operation I only learned of after the fact, though I did not disapprove. Also, while this article focuses on MTR, our group was simultaneously opposing the construction of a proposed superstore, to be built on a wetland. There too, a combination of literature distribution, visible demonstrations, and direct action work stoppages was employed. Though involved in both campaigns, I was more deeply and directly involved in the campaign to stop the store. So to an extent, some of my conclusions are extrapolations from the superstore campaign, applied to the campaign against MTR).

Over time it became apparent to me, that our direct action scenarios were not building links with the community at large. This, in spite of the fact that a surprising degree of cooperation existed between the militants and reformists. The leadership of the two groups actually worked in close coordination, employing something of a good protestor, bad protestor strategy, playing on the authorities fears of widespread vandalism on the one hand, while offering a moderate voice to negotiate with, on the other. The strategy, though not wildly successful, may have been sound, given the circumstances. Ultimately however, I came to the conclusion that the use of dramatic lockdowns only served to widen, rather than narrow, the gap between the anti-authoritarian pole of the movement, and the mainstream environmentalists (as represented by the rank and file of the reformist community groups.) The image of the no holds barred, militant warrior, though arguably tactically useful, and certainly an image in which an activist might glory- I was guilty of such myself- became, I am convinced, ultimately alienating to the very folks whose timidity and passivity we lamented.

Paralleling theory to tactics, it is worth noting that the divide I refer to, that might be described as the distance between the "freaks" and "square" society, between the activist subculture and the citizenry, is celebrated somewhat on the pages of the more intelligent primitivist literature such as Fifth Estate magazine. (I can't comment on other primitivist publications, as I long ago stopped reading them). This dichotomy between the masses and the activists appears to be a conscious choice. [2]

Still, again, there is much to like in the functioning of the Earth First! groups. The Mountain Justice Summer campaign, an Earth First! led initiative, draws inspiration from the west coast's Redwood Summer (which in turn was inspired by yesteryear's Freedom Summer). It has proven to be an impressive organizational effort that has brought many of the various community groups opposing MTR together under a common umbrella to present a united front against the coal bosses. Furthermore, the campaign was launched with a "listening project", essentially canvassing door to door to learn directly from community members how they are affected by MTR, or how they fear they might in the future be affected. Finally, the Earth First! people, being activists coming in from outside the community, volunteered to forgo property destruction as a tactic (while refusing to condemn any community members who choose to do such. Even so, certain reformist groups disassociated themselves from the Justice Summer effort. [3] ) Such a respectful approach to working class communities is sorely lacking in political circles of all stripes.

So it would be a mistake to dismiss wholesale the work of these folks, on ideological grounds. Nevertheless, the fact that Earth First! activists work in cooperation with the community groups- but ultimately outside of them- separates their efforts from an anarchist communist approach. The content of the membership of the reformist community groups, makes them a more attractive terrain for the anarchist communist revolutionary. The community groups opposing MTR are the nearest thing in existence to the workers organized against capital, within modern, rural, Southern Appalachia. Defying the control of these groups by liberals (who defend the interests of a relatively privileged strata of the middle class) is the front line in the Appalachian class war.

At this juncture we can only speculate regarding the ways in which a community organization controlled by the local working class might differ from the status quo. Certainly the more impoverished residents, without the last resort option of selling some capital and relocating to another area, could be expected to be more militant and ultimately, more radical, in their opposition to Mountaintop Removal coal mining. A Strategy for Rural, Southern Appalachian Anarchists

I have described, in brief and to the best of my ability, the activist and social landscape of Southern Appalachia. I have argued that Mountaintop Removal mining, though perhaps not the ideal terrain for taking on the bosses- the lack of any leverage at the point of production is notably lacking- is, nevertheless, the best, perhaps the only option for a revolutionary anarchist seeking to intervene in the class struggle. During the previous century Malatesta argued that revolutionaries, rather than attempting to build the perfect union before inviting workers to join, should instead take their efforts inside the existing workers organizations. In a similar fashion, community organizations opposing MTR are where the workers of Southern Appalachia may be found, congregating in gymnasiums, schools, and yes, Baptist churches, to mount a united defense against the bosses of the coal mining corporations. These fellow workers are in dire need of a revolutionary voice countering the middle class, liberal orthodoxy, reminding that such rearguard actions as the struggle against MTR will remain an ongoing necessity, until the administration of the community's affairs is at last assumed by the community itself.

The job is enormous, the obstacles may appear overwhelming, and our numbers are likely miniscule, but this is the task before us. May this little article serve as an invitation to fellow class oriented anarchists around the region who labor fruitlessly in other struggles- or perhaps who are currently active in opposing Mountaintop Removal coal mining, but in isolation from fellow class struggle anarchists- to establish contact, set some common long-term goals, identify the immediate chores, and set to work. We have nothing to lose but our chains, and our homes in the mountains to regain.

Written for Anarkismo.net,
Randy Lowens - CTC supporter

This year's Veterans Day seemed to be like any other veterans day. As a veteran I am used to being bombarded with flag waving WWII clips that stream across our TV sets, giving only reactionary glory to instill patriotic emotion that seems to validate the decisions of our leaders who have never even served in combat. Would this year be any different?

Fortunately this year was special, this year at the newly organized Madratz Infoshop; you could hear the stories and voice of a true freedom fighter, Spanish Civil war veteran, George Sossenko.

George Sossenko, currently of Atlanta, Georgia, volunteered in the international brigade of the Spanish republic at the age of 16 in 1936. Along with an introduction from Mr. Sossenko which gave his assessment of current events, a movie Land and Freedom was presented. After the film George gave a touching description of his experiences in the War, "we went their wanting nothing in return, we went with our hearts and our ideals and gained Spain" George spoke, "to this day the people of Spain thank us for our contribution and sacrifice, all we can say is no we thank you the people and we thank Spain."

After WWI, many European countries were devastated and much of the working class was in complete despotisms. In Spain the King and the church owned 70% of all the land, many people were left to work in the factories with inhuman working conditions. During this time no employment/labor laws, healthcare and or set wages existed. After a few failed attempts, in 1931 a democratic election took place by the people to set up a democratic republic. Soon after the election the newly formed government put into place radical legislation reform that favored the peasants and anarcho-syndicalist trade unions. This set off the secession of Franco and the Spanish army, funded by the church and king, thus setting off a civil war which began in 1936 and lasted to 1939.

George Sossenko came from France to join in International Brigades, later to join the Durruti Column (CNT), Along with the International Brigades the anarcho-syndicalist trade union Conferacion Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) drew on working men and woman to fight setting up a armed front. Some other fronts that represented the seats in the Spanish parliament and trade unions were the AFI (joined with CNT) Poum (Workers Party) UGT (Marxist Trade Union) along with military aid from Mexico and Russia.

Many brave men and woman, like Mr. Sossenko came to the aid of the Spanish to fight for a free democratic Spain. With very little or no military training these men and woman fought valiantly and to the surprise of Hitler and Franco won many battles and were seemingly winning the war. "Many of us were only given five bullets and a quick lesson on how to shoot for our training" said Mr. Sessenko of the training they received. The West turned a blind eye to the please of he Spanish people. In Stalin's Russia playing both sides for political opportunism Russian aid slowly came to a stop, till the advent of the complete takeover by the Russian Popular Army the working class fighters could only hold out so long. The United States along with other Industrialized countries continued to give Franco oil and supplies and Russia withdrew giving aid to the front in fear that the anarchist would be successful, this with internal political problems (likely set off by the Stalin's Soviets) led to Franco's victory.

To this day the Spanish Civil war sets a burning fire for freedom in many hearts the world over. In 1998 the Spanish government along with the king made honorable citizens of all the foreign men and woman who fought in the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Many more monuments have been erected in their honor; the Lincoln Brigade monument in San Francisco to name a few.

On this Veterans Day we remember what it is to fight for true freedom in the words of Fellow Worker Sossenko: "We must fight we must never quit, they call us unpatriotic because we do not support a war for capitalist gain, I say we are the patriots who stand and fight for true freedom."

MB,
Published in Anarchist Atlanta, November 2006

To understand why there is no significant revolutionary movement in America a nation that is presently by all historical accounts steeped with the necessary criteria to ferment an environment suitable for political revolution one must examine the first and foremost motivating factor of the human psyche to do anything. And that is necessity not desire. Man desires many things but what he desires and what he feels necessary for his every day survival are two entirely different things. To give an example most people in the hospitality industry want or desire better employment for a variety of reasons those that enter this occupation as a means to pay for a higher education are the least likely to leave the field than those whom happened into the field. Those that work in the back of the house are least likely to remain in the field than those in the front of the house. A dishwasher of a restaurant is the least likely to stay in the field than a bartender. Largely it is because of financial incentives does one make either the change to leave the industry or to remain within the industry. And while the hospitality industry itself has the highest turnover rate of any field the greater percentage of that turn over recycles itself within the same industry. This recycling effect is as well true of other industries or occupational capacities. But my point is those that remain within the hospitality field for the better part of their working lives do not have or are not overwhelmed with an urgent necessity to do so. Hence manifesting a complacency to work within the means at hand.

This complacency or comfort zone can also be found in many other areas of our daily lives in which the actual necessity for change is not stronger than the desire for change in a situation. Or conflicts with another immediate need i.e. personal relationships. Take the case of the Battered Women Syndrome for instance where a women will stay in a very abusive relationship though the need to leave that relationship is quite apparent there may be at work another conflicting need that is stronger such as can the women support herself without her abusive partner? Can the woman break her mental dependence to be involved in a constant relationship even a bad one? So, against all better judgment a women will stay in a bad relationship because a more immediate need is met that squelches the desire to leave an abusive relationship. Further but not necessarily to the above mentioned extreme all bad relationships where it would be beneficial in the long term for one or both partners to simply walk away an immediate need of the human psyche or conditioning is met preventing desire to transgress into action. Thus, through complacent conditioning of the human psyche change becomes foreign, strange and impossible to achieve because of the manifestation of fear.

The human conditioning that makes up the human psyche of complacent fear of change is very evident within the American political structure as while an overwhelming number of Americans regard their political leaders with a great amount of skepticism the majority are conditioned to believe it is the best system to work with thus do no feel the urgent necessity to change the system when they have the freedom to change the leadership. Much like the worker bee that recycles into the same unsatisfying and unfulfilling industry with a new employer. And though most who have experienced the direct effects of an oppressive U.S. government and the inherent repressive social culture have become the most dependent on the U.S. government to implement reforms to better their lives much like the lover that believes they can change the bad qualities of their partner. And because while revolutionary concepts and ideas are foreign it is the easy accessibility to counter-revolutionary means to immediately placate their lives dissolving any urgent necessity for revolution for both the lover and the worker.

Further all systems of government from the most democratic to the most totalitarian are fueled by an economic system of some sort. And invariable the non-human resources for which those economies are ultimately driven are placed in the hands of a very few to control and with this control the people themselves become financially bound. Thus a revolution against the United States government or any government for that matter is a revolution against the very means that puts food on the table and a roof over ones head. So while most Americans know that for this reason they are not free they are however very comfortable with knowing that their immediate needs are met with the present system no matter how bad a lover Uncle Sam is at giving attention to all of our collective needs all desire for revolution is suppressed. So again revolutionary concepts of economic emancipation being foreign to most Americans and the ever present notions of Reformist bantering to change within the system further establishing a false legitimacy of the state and a misguided dependency upon the state that results in further compromise the best interest of Americans to act upon their desire to revolt. And as time marches on the youth pick up those bad tendencies to reform as habit.

And so as our parents of the 50s live in bad relationships whose examples they learned from their parents of the 20s and 30s and their parents before them a bad relationship has been passed down to us. Do we break free? Or do we pass our fears down? As stated in the first sentence the criteria for revolution has been met by all historical accounts. The desire for revolution burns like never before in American history but the people themselves trapped into an illusionary feeling of comfortable pain simply do not see the immediate need for revolution. We see the effects of an oppressive economic system and realities of a repressive and fraudulent system of Democracy but we have been so conditioned to believe this is how it is and it gets no better than this. Those who fail are labeled lazy underachievers too stupid to make a system in which anyone can make it work for them. So apathy sets into the human psyche the same psyche that will point to a woman who has been raped and says, Look how she's dressed. She deserved it. And so apathy to the class war continues until one finds themselves among the poverty stricken, the homeless and the unemployable unfortunately by then the state is able to summon from its legions of hell a scapegoat such as immigrants taking jobs at cheaper wages, minority violence and crime depressing economic conditions, drug use is hampering productivity, too many women in the workforce and not enough raising kids or even kids are not getting the education required for a global economy. So the raping of humanity goes unabated by simply distracting the masses in heavy media doses of hate. Hate builds mistrust and mistrust builds further divisions.

A nation divided with mistrust cannot muster a revolution. And the forces of Capitalism who created the United States Of America out of greed (it must be remembered that the spark to the American Revolution was based upon what was perceived as the unfair taxing of business. All the signatures of The Declaration Of Independence were in fact entrepreneurs they were not Indians, slaves, free blacks, women, middle class whites or even lower class whites and white indentured servants. The Constitution itself was and is merely a means of recruiting the working class then and now to the cause of Capitalism (sort of a 401K benefits package if you will. And we all know whats happening to your 401K plans) will go to great lengths to ensure that there is copious amount of division. From race, religion, color, ethnicity, political affiliation, gender, sex orientation, generation gap, regional accents, education and finally class all is to be exploited by the Capitalist to breed further mistrust and division because while you are divided and diverted by trivial pursuit the Capitalist is profiting. And from generation to generation we pass down these divisions of insecurity until they manifest themselves as false truths, traditions, cultural identity and complacent pain. It is the, So it is and will always be mentality that chains American society to her Capitalist masters.

But because though Capitalist may exploit a given situation for their benefit such as the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina they cannot control nor predict the outcome of these and other events. Nor can they control the needs and desires that manifest within the people and the means through which the people will seek to obtain what has become a necessity. So dont count America out just yet, see truth has a way of always rising to the surface. No matter how hard the attempt to hide or distort the truth it will always present itself. The moment when truth will present itself cannot be determined but the reactionary moment when the light of truth does rudely awaken the unknowingly oppressed will be the spark that fuels the next full-blown American Revolution. There is no unending wrath of a scorned lover who has been so long in denial of a bad relationship discovering they have been cheated upon, lied to and robbed and seeks revenge. To some extent revolution has already started in America what is impeding its progress are many things mostly talk of Reformist as mentioned or the insistence of impeachment of Bush and while both paths point out the problems and atrocities they do not demand Americans to act they demand government to act. The same government controlled by the Capitalists who are getting rich off the policies they dictate to government and government merely implements. If that's the best you got why bother? Because in the finally sum of human psyche that determines our need to do anything is what are the Joneses doing? Groups like World Cant Wait though while making enough of ruckus refuse to cure the disease only the symptoms. They invite a business as usual complacency because Americans will be voting for a new president in a little over two years.

Question is can you wait two years? You cannot predict the future any more than those in charge now can and predict the future. They did not see nor did they care that unnecessary meddling in world affairs for economic gain would lead us to our present situation. Second question is do you trust them with your future? You've allowed them to control everything with promises that are not materializing. Everything is being squandered from your 401K, your job security, veterans benefits, social security and education in the end it is your future. They have no ideas on how to change course only to erase your constitutional rights in the name of national security. Do you feel safe with people spying on your phone calls? With people reading your mail? With armed guards on subways? With color-coded alert systems? And still none of that will ever make you 100% terrorist safe. Not even close. Why, because a nation driven on Capitalism cannot give way to the inconveniences of protecting you from a possible terrorist strike no matter how great. So while top government officials, elite barons of Capitalism and a very select others have at their disposal vast resources of protection the average American is only offered duct tape. You are left to your own devices. So why not govern yourself?

If you are left alone to deal with the consequences of Hurricane Katrina why not govern yourselves and build your own levees? If you are left alone to die in coal mines because the government has failed or refused to demand safer working conditions because of the lobbying of mining companies why should they govern your life? You are better off taking control of the mines and implementing the safety conditions you require. You are required to pay taxes to a government that is not required to give Universal Health Care, a Living Wage, employment, a place to live or food to eat all of which you are required on your own to do and why? So you can be a Katrina victim, a Virginia coalmine victim or a victim of 911? The government is not protecting your lives now nor are they protecting your future. Thats up to you whether it is some one robbing your home, your pension plan or a terrorist conspiracy the U.S. government has said, You're on your own because it simply is not in the best interest of the Capitalist to protect you or provide for you the basic necessities of life and if a government cannot do that then why the hell are YOU allowing them to govern your LIFE? It makes no sense to continue a partnership with such an ill provider a divorce with Uncle Sam is the only recourse available. And since the wealth of the nation was built upon the backs of the working class Uncle Sam will be left with nothing. Were not taking half but we are taking it all. Face it the only thing that can save America now is a full-blown REVOLUTION! So get yourself educated, get your communities organized, begin collective workspaces and get ready to take control of the political, social and economic reigns. Just follow the brick baby its coming. Just follow the brick.

In personal capacity,
Vodka

George Sossenko - veteran of the Spanish Civil War and most esteemed member of the Capital Terminus Collective

The State leaves 100,000 to drown like rats, while people everywhere open their hearts and homes

As many as 20,000 people have been abandoned in the New Orleans Convention Center with no resources and no anticipated relief. Meanwhile, National Guard units with submachine guns and body armor prevent people from taking necessary food from places where it would otherwise go to waste, and call it "urban warfare." Under capitalism, there is no such thing as "natural" disasters; horrible and unavoidable events are exacerbated by the callous acts of the ruling class. Examples include: the Irish potato famine of the 19th century, and the Somalian of the 20th, where food was taken by imperialist countries, like Britain and the US, instead of being used to save the starving population; the more recent hurricane disasters in Haiti shortly after the U.S. ousted the only government which might have marshaled any aid to the Haitian people and replaced it with a military junta; the tsunami disaster, which was aggravated by years of IMF and World Bank domination in the region that resulted in severe underdevelopment; and the present situation in the Gulf Coast.

How did the ruling class contribute to this disaster? Having full knowledge that this would be a devistating hurricane season, they chose to sink the 79 million dollars designated to repair the antiquated levee system into the Iraq quagmire. Furthermore, although they knew ahead of time that the hurricane would be at least a category 4 hurricane, and that the levee system could withstand no more than a category 3, the ruling class did not invest any serious resources into evacuating the city of New Orleans and the surrounding area as the storm approached (and rich politicians have the gall to accuse working-class people of carelessly staying in the city)! As we mentioned, their first priority is to mobilize heavily-armed National Guard units who will shoot people that are merely trying to find food, rather than to bring the necessary aid to the estimated 20,000 starving people at the Convention Center who will die if nothing is done (not to mention other people in similar situations throughout the city). The politicians continue lying in a desparate attempt to save their careers, making it increasingly clear that they have no concern for the lives of the people they've abandoned.

In contrast, thousands of people have opened their homes to survivors in an amazing gesture of solidarity and compassion. Despite the State's citation of its ability to channel aid in times of need as a justification for its existance, it has again demonstrated how the constraints of capitalism interfere with its ability to provide any sort of assistance. The incredible display of mutual aid on the part of the people gives further support for the anarchist argument that people can indeed develop a stateless society based on the adage "from each according to ability, to each according to necessity." We hope to see that society become a reality someday, but for now we declare our solidarity with those who have been abandoned, and, in hopes that others will join us, we demand the following:

Solidarity with the victims of the Gulf Coast disaster! Solidarity with those who remain in precarious positions months after the tsunami disaster! Solidarity with those all across the globe who have lost family or remain in refugee camps due to the disasters which the ruling class magnifies or the wars which it engineers!

The Capital Terminus Collective (Later retracted as a Collective statement)

Like many frustrated Southerners in the aftermath of the hurricane named Katrina, I drove a small truck-and-trailer full of food and water to South Mississippi. I met some refugees at a camp site, during the trip down. They appeared to be poor whites. One, a native of Bay St. Louis, was snarling against the "looters", using racial epithets. When informed that I planned to take food straight to the hungry people in the streets, this man (who had already taken offense when I challenged his bigotry) snorted, "Good. You gone find out then. Great. You go right ahead." His words left me more determined than ever.

Later that night, one of the man's campmates approached me. He had been told of my plans. He was on the verge of tears. "Hey man, I'm not wanting to be all hateful, or racist, or anything. Really, I'm not. But please, please don't just drive down there, and open up your truck, and start giving stuff away. Please don't. You don't know these people. You don't know what it's like, down there."

He seemed sincere. His words accomplished what neither his friend's words, nor the news reports, had been able to. I hadn't been frightened before. But now I was scared.

The role of the good church people

We went to the rural town of Wiggens, but relief had arrived there earlier in the day. We went to Poplarsville, which was militarized to an alarming degree. Soldiers carrying submachine guns guarded the gas pumps. (As it turned out, President Bush was doing a photo op in Poplarsville that day.) A National Guardsmen with rank told us that aid was still desperately needed (ironically enough) in Bay St. Louis, sixty miles outside of New Orleans. So we took off. (We believed New Orleans itself to be unapproachable due to martial law.)

The sunlight was beginning to dim on the second day of our trip as we approached Bay St. Louis. Adding to my apprehension, was the otherworldly sight of automobiles upended in drainage ditches, and motorboats that had been tossed by the force of the wind into the tops of trees. Cars on the road became rare, consisting mostly of military vehicles. Power was out, and so of course no gasoline was available. Occasionally a man in a bucket truck with a chainsaw was in evidence. I decided against camping in the area. We would drop the food as close as we could get to the people who needed it, and then get the hell out before nightfall. I, for one, had a family to return to.

A man in front of a wrecked convenience store directed us towards a National Guard armory, as the nearest exchange point for relief aid. Was this what I had traveled so far to do, hand the supplies over to the U.S. government, who had already demonstrated their callous indifference to all but the richest people in the area? A knot in my stomach tightened as we advanced.

Then we came to the intersection of two main roads. In the parking lot of a darkened K-Mart, a large tent had been erected. People were busily unloading food and water from trucks, and carrying them into the tent. Smoke rose from a large grill out back of the tent. All around the tent, people sorted through piles of clothes, carrying away what they needed, without paying. Immediately upon approaching, we were offered a meal. In the short time we were there, we saw a pair of men in cheap jeans and mill-worker tee shirts approach, carrying canned goods wrapped in the stomach portion of their shirts. Presumably, instead of hoarding, they were bringing what little they had, and throwing it into the common pile with everyone else's. It was the polar opposite of all the looting, murder, and rape that we had been told to expect.

We begun to unload the truck. I was so relieved not to have to give up the goods to the government soldiers, I never thought to ask under whose authority (if anyone's) the operation was being carried out. As we stacked box after box, I was hardly surprised to note crosses around necks, and Christian messages on tee shirts. This was Deep Dixie, after all. I struck up a conversation. I learned that a circle of volunteers from a small Baptist church in southeast Alabama, near Mobile, had been instrumental in organizing the particular relief site we had stumbled up on. We had been saved from the clutches of the soldiers, by common folks who had organized themselves. And they had done so, by employing the mostly unofficial networks of their church contacts.

I was touched. I have long been antagonistic to the self-righteous evangelicals of my region. But here they were, in the vanguard of some fine, compassionate work. A new evaluation of their role in our society was surely in order.

In addition to my newfound appreciation for these kindhearted individuals, I was also moved to wonder, "Why does the government allow this?" It has long been apparent that the government and the corporations demand a monopoly on power. They either absorb, or infiltrate and destroy, unions, grassroots community organizations, food coops, anti-war groups, in short, any and everything that tries to operate outside the framework of the market place, and its corollary, the election booth. But churches are granted a remarkable, an incredible, amount of latitude. For example, everyone had been warned not to try to take food into New Orleans, because putting a stop to "looting" and "lawlessness" there was being given a higher priority than relief. "If you go near the soldiers guarding the stores, you might get shot", was the clear-if-implicit message. But here were these good, simple people from Alabama, sixty miles from New Orleans, actually being allowed to give food away- out in front of a store! For what reason, I wondered, were they granted this exemption? Did the government have a secret soft spot, reserved solely for born-again Christians? Or was there a darker underlying motive?

The role of the Deity

A man approached my traveling companion (who had recently had a finger surgically removed, due to disease.) The stranger took my friend's crippled hand in his, and petitioned "God, through our Savior Jesus Christ", to heal the illness that caused the deformity. This, I found more spooky than touching. To change the subject away from invisible Physicians in the Sky, I commented that it was some mighty fine, generous work that was being done in that parking lot.

The man replied, "It's the Lord's work, son. The Lord is doing it all. We're born into sin, and left to our own devices, we would rip each other up, just like you see on TV. Only the grace of God can heal your friend's hand, or make a sinner help his brother."

So I had my answer.

Here is how it works: the little country churches are granted an exemption from the restrictions that the government (working for the corporations) places on everyone else. For example, churches are allowed to give food away, at the same time that kids doling out chow under the banner of Food Not Bombs are prosecuted for vending without a business license. Heck, churches don't even have to pay taxes! In exchange for all this special treatment, the churches agree to promote the fiction that "charity", giving, helping, is something otherworldly, "spiritual", exceptional. Helping out a sister in need, they insist, runs counter to "human nature". Only the mystical "Lord" can make a person give.

It is all lies, of course. To begin with, science has long known that there is no such thing as "human nature". The behavior of the human animal varies so widely according to the surrounding conditions, that talk of the innate goodness of humanity, or its evil nature, is nonsensical.

We do, however, have instincts, that were honed by eons of evolution. The deepest instincts of women and men, after tending to their own survival and that of their children, runs to helping their fellows. Now, the bosses know this. The CEOs and politicians know that we have to be conditioned to be selfish and fear our neighbors, if the reign of the corporate marketplace is to continue. They know that when a disaster strikes, they can't stop us from helping each other, and in the process doing an end run around the structures of domination, the Wal-marts and gas stations and government offices. The U.S. government can barely subdue the Iraqi people right now; they don't have enough soldiers left, to put the entire South under martial law, and so prevent the free exchange of goods (as was done in New Orleans). Because they can't physically stop us, they have to find a way to limit the damage, to make sure that when the crisis is passed, we don't continue to give things to one another (and so undermine the buying and selling that they spend millions of dollars to promote, on television and elsewhere.) They have to, they must, have a means, in the months following a disaster in which communities have come together in sharing, to coax the good, common folks back into the old routines of acting selfishly.

Enter the churches. The churches assure us all that it is not possible to be giving and caring, all the time. We are born into sin. It is normal to live under the watchful eye of security cameras, to sleep with a loaded gun under one's pillow, to hoard one' goods, and gouge one's neighbor. "Let the buyer beware". It is just human nature, they claim, to lie and cheat and strive to dominate, to separate ourselves into bosses, and servants of the bosses. Twas ever thus. "There will be poor among us always." It can't be helped. And it is a rarity- no, it is a by-god miracle- when a storm wrecks havoc on a region, and the people come together to help each other.

And miracles, of course, though awesome, are brief. When the crisis and its attendant miracle are past, it will be time to go back to "reality", to hoarding and gouging and cheating and most of all, to turning a blind eye to the suffering of our sisters and brothers. We will return to blaming the victims, and insist that "if they were not so lazy, they would not be poor." By treating compassion as something alien to humanity, the churches dutifully play their role in this sorry state of affairs.

The mystery is solved. Now we know why the politicians and their commanders, the corporate bigwigs, grant the various churches access and permissions that are denied to so many. Because they can't trust anyone else with the job.

prole cat,
The Capital Terminus Collective (written in personal capacity)

The dichotomy of patriotism

I was making a banner with some fellow anarchists recently, and erroneously distinguished between “us” and the workers. I said something to the effect that “We support the workers”. I was taken to task for my wording, because “we” ARE the workers. What is the goal of anarchist revolution, after all, if not a workers’ revolution? That is to say, not a revolution “for” the workers, but revolution “by” the workers.

While my friend’s criticism was true enough in a theoretical sense, the fact remains that the typical U.S. worker has precious little in common with the typical anarchist activist (even while acknowledging that anarchists are not all young, white males with tats and spikes who live to break windows.) Leaving the accoutrements of fashion aside, there are some huge ideological gaps between the two camps.

I will frankly say that on some topics, anarchists are right and the bulk of the (white) workers are wrong. And they need to change, posthaste. Consider racism, for example. Denigrating the intelligence, abilities and/or ethics of blacks and Latinos is all too common in white working-class circles. Even those workers who do not indulge in such comments will usually laugh at racist jokes, or at least fail to take issue. In anarchist circles such behavior is, for the most part, not accepted. On the anarchist side, this is as it should be. This is an example of the anarchist “leadership of ideas”, of leadership by example.

But are all cases so cut-and-dried , in which anarchist norms deviate from those of the predominate working-class culture? Are we always so right, and they so utterly wrong? As my comrade’s comments (and the ensuing discussion) brought to light, any area in which we can bring worker culture and anarchist culture closer together, without a sacrifice of principle, is all to the good.

In the text that follows I will explore another great chasm between our cultures, our attitudes towards patriotism. Generally speaking most American workers, even hard-hat unionists with no love for cops and bosses, revere the flag, while anarchists scorn it. After racism, few topics are so fundamental to the gulf that separates us. Is there any common ground? Are our differences so simple as a gut reaction to a popular symbol, or is their an ideological basis for the disagreement? Is there any room for anarchists to move in our fellow workers’ direction? I will try to answer these questions in the following text.

It’s a grand old flag… when soaked with kerosene!

The American flag is the embodiment of patriotism. Ask an anarchist why she disdains the American flag, and she will tell you that it is a symbol for the U.S. government, and that she is convinced that people would do better without government. She may even say that this same government fronts for the corporate bosses, and began explaining the fallacies of market mythology.

In short, her criticism of the flag will be tied to her political analysis. She equates the flag with the state, and rejects it accordingly.

“My country tis of thee… (wave your flag, Johnny, the neighbors are watching)”

Ask a small business owner or middle manager about the flag decal on her SUV, and you may be met with a blank stare. A honest answer might be, “I sport the flag as a wartime fashion statement. Everybody does, so why on earth would you ask such a question?” But she is unlikely to be so blunt. Recovering, she will regurgitate some appropriate platitude about freedom and democracy, but any sense of conviction will be lacking. At best, she may honestly praise freedom in the sense of the free market, with its illusory choices.

Moving up yet another class, it would be hard to say what the flag and patriotism mean to the truly rich, the Bill Gates’ and Theresa Heinz’s of this world. Having no access to their conversations, the data is not available. Unless, that is, one uses the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal as a barometer. On that basis, we would say that the rich pay lip service to patriotic ideals, until they find it in their interests to do otherwise. For example, when profit calls, the rich will wave the flag with the best of patriots, and lobby to have working-class soldiers sent to kill and die to protect market share. But when convenient, they will turn on a dime and become internationalists, carrying the banner of “free trade unhindered by (nationalist) protectionism”. We can safely assume, then, that on a gut level patriotism means even less to the filthy rich, than to their middle income subjects.

My country, by god, right or wrong

Now ask a typical light-skinned, working class U.S. citizen why he loves the national flag. He will likely tell you some really personal story. Maybe he will tell you how his grandfather told him to be proud of who he was and where he was born, to never apologize for his heritage. Perhaps he will speak of the sense of belonging he finds in his community, and at his local church. He may speak of his affinity for “these hills” (or these plains, or this city).

Unless he is fairly old, perhaps a WWII vet, he is unlikely to repeat the hoary myths of “the sacrifices that were made, the blood that was shed so that we could remain free.” Workers have bosses; soon after grade school most cease to get all misty-eyed over the "American" ideals of freedom and democracy. Intuitively, they know they are neither free nor self-governing, and so shy away from celebrations of their supposed liberty. Most tellingly, the vast majority of these people, the workers, don’t even bother to vote! And yet they will wrap themselves in the flag quicker than anyone. Now, what’s that all about?

We ain’t all speaking the same language here

In order to understand this phenomena, we have to recognize that these people, the anarchists, the middle class, and the apolitical workers, are not talking about the same things. Not even close! To the anarchist, the flag represents the tyranny of government. To the middle class individual, the flag embodies the merits of conformity and submission, or at best refers to such bounded liberty as the market may have to offer. But to the typical worker the flag and patriotism represent all that is best about home, family and community. (And to the extent that she is part of these larger social structures, to insult the flag is to insult him personally.)

Again, the worker equates patriotism with home, while others associate it with government (for good or ill). Crucially, the rich, through their dominance of media and mass-produced cultural norms, as well as the more insidious forms of indoctrination such as religion, encourage the merger of these concepts of home and government, and then use the resultant stew for their own ends. The rockets’ red glare stands as a beacon above the amber waves of grain. Czar of Homeland Security, anyone? God and country? The red, white, and blue, apple pie and Chevrolet? Small wonder then, that anarchists and other workers are so far apart in their views of patriotism.

Unlike our harsh characterization of the racism of so many workers, their affection for the trappings of patriotism can in fact be a noble emotion. Taken in sum, patriotic affections do not resemble racism so much as morality, which intermingles elements of decency with religious superstition, leaving a brew that is impossible to endorse, yet difficult to denounce categorically. In fact, the specific patriotic sentiments of most workers resemble nothing so much as those same sentiments which lead an individual to seek mutual aid and solidarity. Few would criticize someone who speaks lovingly of his family, his neighbors, or of the geographic peculiarities of his locale… and this is what patriotism means to them. Furthermore, it is pointless to argue over what an abstraction like patriotism “really” means. Rather than trying to correct erroneous definitions of patriotism, perhaps we should seek to discern precisely how the love of land and friends has come to be merged with respect for authority, and how they may be separated again.

Can you burn just half a flag?

As a tactical matter, we anarchists would do well to recognize that when we impugn patriotism, such as mocking claims that “peace is patriotic”, we insult many fellow workers in ways that we do not intend. We are attacking symbols that have quite different meanings for them, and in ways that they take personally. We may decide, at times, that the value of directly challenging the myth of patriotism outweighs the danger of being misunderstood. But we should at least be aware of the cultural dynamics at work.

As is often the case, this analysis raises more questions than it answers. What are the historical origins of the merging of love for home with respect for authority? How long has this connection existed? Did it begin with the nation-state, or was a similar dynamic in play between home and church in the Middle Ages? Has it ever been successfully split, in the absence of a full-scale social revolution? How?

In the immediate context, one tactical dilemma stands out: how does one dissect “love of country”? How does one attack a generic formulation that merges home and state into an entity called nation, that blends an affinity for community with a respect for nationality and declares them one and the same… how does one extract the nation-fetish portion for criticism and ultimate rejection, without offending the better part? How do you burn half a flag?

Home, sweet home

A beginning might be to review our positions with respect to regionalism. Regionalism is the better (non-state) part of patriotism. In conjunction with race/ethnicity, it is duly considered when examining the Middle East or Third World liberation movements, but perhaps we fail to appreciate its importance within the heart of the empire.

In this vein, we should note that allegiance to a region as large as that bounded by the borders of the United States, is actually an unnatural, forced process. Given the choice, most people will hail from a zone more locally defined. It is really nonsensical to talk about “the ways thing are in the U.S.”, when Cleveland, Ohio bears so little resemblance to Cedar Creek, Alabama, culturally or otherwise.

As a white-skinned southerner, I am acutely aware of the power of geographic attachments, and also cognizant of the potential pitfalls. For example, many apologists for "Southern heritage" begin as avid nativists, and are only incidentally racist. Personally insecure, having great affection for their surroundings, and tired of apologizing for events they played no part in, they react unthinkingly. Rather than seeking out elements of Southern history in which they may justly take pride, such as the southern abolitionists movement of the early 19th century, they instead stubbornly announce themselves proud Confederates. Sadly, these misguided applications of what begin as reasonable sentiments, a love of home and a personal refusal to apologize for having been born, play straight into the hands of the virulently racist. And regionalism gets a bad name in the process.

The fact that regionalism has often been tied to reaction (as with U.S. patriotism and the defenders of southern heritage) is no reason to shun it, I think. There is nothing innately evil in pride of home and neighborhood, divorced from (pro-state) patriotism and other nationalist/racist sentiments. And I suspect that if such regionalist sentiments fail to find expression in progressive circles, they will continue to surface on the right instead, to our detriment.

In contrast to the example of Confederate heritage, there exist regionalisms worthy of celebration with little qualification. In the Appalachian mountain region, for instance, there is a long and proud history of worker and community militancy against corporate/state tyranny. Surely there are others of which this writer, with his southern perspective, remains largely ignorant.

The intersections of race and geography

Adding racial considerations to the mix multiplies the pool of available non-national allegiances, while complicating the prospects for removing the malignant portions (at least among those of European descent.) While it is largely beyond the scope of this article, any serious effort to develop a regionalist theory or strategy would have to take race into account.

Historically, it may be that European patriotism was a largely racial affair, and only incidentally regional. And in the U.S., there is no disputing the predominance of the white in the red, white and blue. While it would be premature in the extreme to pronounce American racism dead, or even in decline, still there are indications that factions exist within the ruling class who would like to move away from blatantly racial social divisions, and towards a more generic nationalism. For example, in the U.S we see appeals by demagogic politicians aimed at blacks, that encourage them to resent Latinos for taking “our” jobs. This is an example of one's "region", the area within U.S. borders, being played off against what should be a natural affinity between exploited communities. Internationally we see the European Union flirt with Turkey, an alliance that would be decidedly more geographic than racial or cultural. If these examples in fact constitute a conscious change on the part of the ruling class rather than aberrations, such a tack on their part may well call for a response on ours. If a clear trend towards a generic nationalism develops and continues (even as economic globalization continues to undermine the power of nationalism), might this offer a window to develop non-racist or even anti-racist regionalisms? That is, to bring the principles of mutual aid and respect that characterize our internationalism, a bit closer to home?

Rather than championing internationalism exclusively, in some cases a regionalist strategy might offer a principled alternative, one which might more readily find a receptive audience. Does an exclusively internationalist approach even make sense, for a movement that envisions a decentralized society of cooperating but autonomous communities? Imagine a pamphlet entitled “Why should rural Wisconsin (or Georgia, New Jersey, etc.) take orders from Wall Street bankers? Standing for Local Autonomy…” We already fan the flames of class contentions and racial animosities (opposing white supremacy and supporting the rebellions of oppressed workers). Why not encourage geographic fissures in the empire’s social structure as well?

Aim careful, comrades, the rulers are holding working class hostages

What conclusions may we draw from having examined patriotism, and finding it to be a mixed bag of love of home and authoritarian mystification, leavened with racism? Perhaps we will see fit to adopt regionalist strategies at some point. Perhaps not. But whatever the case, whether or not we choose to champion a given regionalism, or any regionalisms at all, we should at least remember to aim carefully when attacking the bastions of patriotism. We should strive to make clear that our target is the citadel of the privileged, and not the neighborhood stoops on which our fellow workers congregate.

prole cat,
CTC member, written in personal capacity