On May 4th 2014, members of the Twin Cities IWW and supporters withstood a violent and deliberate attack on a picket of Sisters’ Camelot, whose canvass workers went on strike in March of 2013 and have endured vicious union-busting efforts from the organization ever since. After some twenty minutes of peaceful picketing, Sisters’ Camelot supporters organized an escalating series of attacks and attempts to break the picket line, eventually tackling an IWW member to the ground and beating him until other Wobblies pulled them away.

Earlier in 2014, a committee organizing the 80th anniversary of the 1934 Minneapolis Trucker’s Strike was asked to participate in the official Heart of the Beast Theatre May Day Parade. Many members of the committee, which includes many IWW members, were concerned about whether or not HOBT was working with a known union-busting firm. In April, a member of the Remember 1934 committee made a discreet inquiry to the artistic director of HOBT, and an assurance was made that by mutual agreement between HOBT and Sisters’ Camelot, Sisters’ would not be at the festival.

However, on Sunday, as marchers with the Remember 1934 committee arrived at the park, a union member and striking canvasser alerted us that the Sisters Camelot bus was parked on 35th St near 13th Ave, directly facing Powderhorn Park, where the festival was occurring. Acting in solidarity with the striking canvassers, a group of Wobblies and community allies began a peaceful picket on the sidewalk in front of the bus’s serving window.

Members of Sisters’ Camelot managed only disorganized attempts to disrupt the peaceful picket for the first twenty minutes, including trying to drown the picketers out, and screaming that the workers were greedy for trying to improve their working conditions. When that failed, they called in support--many of the same cadre who had been a part of drafting anti-union “community statements,” and acted as advisers to Sisters Camelot in their union-busting efforts--in order to, as one of these individuals later explicitly stated online, “Run [the IWW] out.”

In their efforts to achieve their stated goal of breaking a peaceful picket line, Sisters’ Camelot steadily escalated their violence against IWW members. First they physically blocked workers and their supporters--at one point a Sisters’ Camelot supporter physically pushed her small child into the picket line. IWW members responded by peacefully moving around individuals trying to block their way. Following this failure, attackers began shoving and physically attacking picketers. Each time, IWW members did their best to defend themselves and continue the picket line. Meanwhile Sisters’ Camelot supporters did nothing to intervene or remove those individuals, evidently happy to have them act as their goons and enforcers. Eventually, several members of this cadre organized a group of people to encircle the picket, take picket signs and personal material and destroy them, and forcefully prevent the picket from continuing. At this point, an IWW member was tackled to the ground, where he was scratched and beaten by a member of Sisters Camelot as well as several supporters. Once more, it was up to the IWW picketers and supporters to remove these individuals, while those who had mobilized the attack looked on approvingly.

Beyond the physical attack, there was a constant stream of classist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise problematic language from the assailants. Following the final assault, a member of Sisters’ Camelot mocked and belittled the beaten IWW member and another openly queer IWW member with homophobic and sexist slurs, in full view and earshot of many of the self-described anti-oppression activists who said and did nothing. Others mocked IWW members for having to work for a living, while still others were given the same tired anti-union line of “If you don’t like your job, get a new one.” Meanwhile, two IWW members overheard an individual walk up saying, “I’m looking forward to bashing in some IWW skulls.”

None of this is particularly surprising: while Sisters Camelot and their allies claim to be anti-oppression, they have repeatedly shown throughout the last 15 months that they are more than willing to ally themselves with openly anti-worker, anti-woman, and anti-queer individuals and institutions in order to get their way. When Sisters’ Camelot was brought to court over the illegal firing of a canvasser for union activities, they employed the services of John C. Hauge, a lawyer who boasts of defending corporations against sexual assault cases, OSHA claims, wrongful death lawsuits, and aiding companies in “union avoidance” efforts, among other contemptible practices. Laughably, they have repeatedly decried “aggression” from their striking workers and the IWW.

While their self-created image of rebellious attitude and anti-oppressive culture is well groomed, what lies beneath the surface is a condescending disregard for the wellbeing of anyone beyond their social circle. At one point, picketers overheard a SC Collective member state “I’m proud to be a scab!” while other key supporters laughed about the IWW member who was bleeding from his head, saying, “well, maybe he just sucks at fighting.”

To be perfectly clear, anyone who mobilizes their friends to assault a peaceful picket of workers and their supporters, who associates themselves with homophobes and sexists and then disclaims any responsibility for their actions, or who supports this type of activity, has no right to consider themselves a part of any progressive or radical community. To even consider otherwise is a slap in the face to everyone who fights for a better world.

We don’t take organized assaults on our members and friends lightly. After the assault on our picket line, we feel it is necessary to take further action against Sisters Camelot. The Twin Cities IWW calls for a complete economic, organizational, and charitable boycott of Sisters Camelot. If a scab canvasser comes to your door, turn them away empty handed. If they approach you about hosting a food share, tell them they are not welcome. Any individuals or organizations who continue to support Sisters Camelot will be associated with their shameful actions. There is no space within our communities for any organization that operates in this way.

We Never Sleep. We Never Forget.



this is tagged as "civil war"

If throwing leaflets can be considered social war, then this can be considered civil war. Game on!

why is it strange that this "picket" was violently attacked? The picket is RUN by the old boss who was stealing money from employees. Furthermore, all canvassers were offered that they could join the decisionmaking body of SoC (a collective) once they voiced concerns.

The "picketers" have been leveraging the state against a radical project.

Calling SoC a "firm" is laughable and disingenuous. Go home wobblys. You're wrong this time. You've been had.

A "project" which employs wage workers then fires them when they organize a uniin is radical. Go fuck a boss liberal.

Unions are radical?

Back to the 19th century wobbly.

"When Sisters’ Camelot was brought to court over the illegal firing of a canvasser for union activities"

so lemme get this straight: the IWW snitched?

and i'm not sister's Camelot flunky, not involved in the situation at all

they fired the canvasser because he'd already been kicked out of the collective for stealing money from canvassers. Then one of his friends hired him back as a canvasser, and he decided to bring down this whole shitstorm of a mess by organizing the canvassers against the (i believe) mostly-volunteer collective. So the collective, not taking him seriously because there is literally no reason to take him seriously because he is the one who was stealing from workers, fired him. Then they decided to forgo the usual volunteer-hour requirement for people to be a collective member by allowing canvassers to join the collective freely. The collective literally responded by allowing the "striking workers" to just be part of the "bosses."

I don't give a fuck about your stupid collective.

who took the SC to court. some worker and then IWW backed them or the iww themselves in representation of the worker/workers? I mean either way, but...

A worker taking a boss to court for an illegal firing is not snitching you fucking shitbag.

1) what is the relevance of your use of the term worker, in regards to the question of whether or not the situation is one of snitching

2) what is the relevance of your use of the term boss, in regards to the question of whether or not the situation is one of snitching

3) what is the relevance of your use of the term illegal, in regards to the question of whether or not the situation is one of snitching

4) would you be so kind to define snitching? and if the condition of someone being a worker or a boss or some action being illegal has relevance to whether someone is or is not snitching, would you explain how?

1) the term worker is a SPOOK

2) the term boss is a SPOOK

3) the term illegal is a SPOOK

4) Snitching is whatever I say it is whenever I say it is and whatever I say it is some other time and if I'm not available for comment then you basically don't exist because I am the only authority I recognize and object permanence is a fucking S-P-O-O-K.

Also words have no inherent meaning.


you're not considering the fact that the organization does have "management" of course they call it payed volunteers and collective members, but they do have a higher pay grade and the lower level workers have very little say in collective matters

except all the canvassers were invited to join the collective and have as much say as anyone else.

Also, to my understanding, they are majority UNPAID volunteers, although a few of the positions are paid. how much they are paid is determined by the collective. which the canvassers were invited to join.

They could only join the collective with the permission of the existing collective members, and anyone who chooses not to join the collective but to remain working would still be an employee.

is this problematic in some way? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

why would a collective invite some piece of shit they already kicked out for stealing from canvassers just because he's wrapped himself in the wobbly flag?

I definitely won't give Sister Camelot any more of my fucking money. My motherfucking powerful money. For real, people look at me when I walk down the street and they are like, either that genderqueer individual has fucking stuff fat pockets of money or huge balls! I'm like BOTH. Then I am like, why I am walking down the street, and I pay a butler to come pick me up in a limo and take me to a private pool full of strippers. But I won't be inviting Sister Camelot, no ma'am. Sister Camelot? More like Sister butt shaped poodle dog with hammer rings on their ears A LOT. Am I right? But in conclusion I am glad some wobblies got whammied because now you guys have the moral high ground. Get em! I'm going to go spend my fucking fat MONEY BAGS on something ethical like fair trade warming sleeves for my enormous rich persyn balls. Peace out, don't get punched in. The face. Thanks for your time.

Unions are sooo leftist. If these workers were truly radical they would have dropped a banner and thrown a smoke bomb into an intersection.

Class war = getting punched and writing about it
Social war = throwing leaflets and writing about it
Civil war = studying philosophy and writing about it and getting told you still don't get it

You decide.

listen. we dont wanna join your worker-feshist club. we just dont.
you dont have to be sad about it. we just dont like you like THAT. its ok.

One of these days scabs like you are gonna get it.

Can the IWW organize some factories like the good old days? I have no way of knowing separate from the situation who's right and wrong, because the stories surrounding this mostly seem like analyzing whose side you're on in a high-school/bookfair drama fest rather than a serious class clash. So whoever's right or wrong, I find myself not really caring either way and not seeing how this furthers any kind of struggle. I'm no apathetic, I just fail to see the significance of any of this particular situation.

I'm on the side of social antagonists so I'm gonna say that's the pummelers, not the sign holders. Usually the protagonist prevails but I'm hoping our novel is postmodernist.

It's funny how insurrecto-bros always complain that the IWW and other organizationalist anarchists need to focus more on precarious/lumpenized workers. Then when they do help organize a group of workers who follow under that category, some stupid fucking insurrecto-troll complains because they aren't focusing enough on factory workers. When workers at Sisters Camelot approached the IWW for help, what do you propose they have done? Should they have turned the SC workers away because they don't work in a factory? Should they have dropped a banner and thrown a smoke bomb into an intersection? Should they have blocked a google bus?

Oooo...I know the answer to this one. The IWW should've dissolved itself and bought weapons with the left over union dues, then went out to the homes of energy corporation CEOs and shot up their places and take hostages. The hostages can be used as bargaining chips to free political prisoners.

Should they have thrown a smoke bomb into an intersection, dropped a banner, and blocked a google bus? Well, I don't know if that would have helped anything, but hey, it probably wouldn't have hurt anything, either. So why not? Since it's the IWW I think the banner should say ORGANIZE or something like that, though, and maybe while you're blocking the google bus you should talking to the workers like "hey, have you ever thought about how the world should be run by the masses via a complex system of unions with immediately revokable representatives and neighborhood structures that also basically look like that, wouldn't that be really real democracy?" and they can't get away from you because their bus is blocked. And the smoke should be red and black, and actually maybe you should set it off on the sidewalk so no workers driving to work get impeded from getting to work, which is where workers work.

"Oooo...I know the answer to this one. The IWW should've dissolved itself and bought weapons with the left over union dues, then went out to the homes of energy corporation CEOs and shot up their places and take hostages. The hostages can be used as bargaining chips to free political prisoners."

You should get on that then...

Funny how gender essentialism is used by leftists without even the slightest hesitation just so they can dismiss anything they don't like.

Yeah, it should be obvious these people are pulling shit to come out on top by making others look bad. Who knows, maybe they have a point, but their ideological expressions and extremisms don't allow people to understand what is really going on. They think militancy towards (supposed? former?) allies is acceptable. I personally don't consider these people allies, so going to events prepared for physical combat seems like a necessity now.

Of course, defending people accused of rape apology and stuff is difficult to justify. Most people don't like getting muddy by standing up against taboo and those that manipulate taboo for their own agenda. "To Catch a Predator" opportunists, using someone's dubious moral character as a stepping stone to increasing your personal standing as well as the views of your group.

We've gone through these things from the 60s and I do think at this point they are either used to undermine resistance to the present order or used by agents of foreign countries attempting to manipulate the left towards backing their agenda against the policies of the United States...manipulating for leverage, in other words.

I tried to picture what the problem is here and then I got it. Try writing it like this:


I'm not sure what comes next but I'm also not sure it matters. That's a great headline.

Fuck You IWW. I'm so grossed out by your over use of the word peaceful. You make me want to vomit. peace peace peace peace. go fuck yourself pacifists!

You need to up your game noob.

Trendy lefty local outfit hires a bunch of kids for shit work and turn out to be really horrible employers. Stop me if you've heard this one before...

the crux of it, crystallized right here.

except no.

trendy local outfit hires a bunch of kids for shit work, realizes the boss of them is stealing from the kids. kicks the shitbag boss out. shitbag boss organizes a union and the IWW falls in line.

I think I see the problem here now. Liberal charity organizations are a sham that convince well-meaning idiots to do the work of the former welfare state so the proles don't burn the capitalists at the stake and so the money formerly spent on welfare state programs can go to corporate America instead.

I hope this whole embarrassing in-fighting between supposedly radical people (both sides of which are engaged in wholly liberal bullshit: union organizing/charity work) forces the closure of this charity and the true radicals from both sides can unite to start looting food and everything else from corporate America's stores.

And then the real radicals can fight the liberals who try to convince them to not do so, and the battle lines will make much more sense and not be such a FUCKING EMBARRASSMENT FOR ANARCHISTS EVERYWHERE!

Anarchists on both sides: do not allow the anarcho-liberals amongst you to convince you to play their stupid games any longer.

it's funny how there was an article posted shit talking snitches and then next article is about how iww snitched on some lame nonprofit - or at the least is supporting and running a campaign with workers that snitched.

is this something the IWW does often? I know other unions go before the national labor board and also sue companies in court, does the IWW do this/ does the IWW often support workers unions that go before the national labor board or workers that sue in court?

The worker filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. That is not snitching. Snitch jacketing workers in order to defend a union busting boss makes you a garbage human being.

yeah just like that time those other anarchists snitched on the cop that beat them up to get money
or like that time that time those migrant workers snitched on their managers for abusing them in the fields
taking members of management to court is not snitching quite often it means getting the goods
though i do like SeaSol's strategy more than the IWW's since SeaSol never goes to court, but gets the goods anyway, but sometime to get the goods one's gotta deal with some liberal bullshit

hmmm. interesting. what about bringing racist harrasers or groups to court, or other people who commit hate crimes?

also by court do you mean civil court or criminal? your first example sems to imply you are fine with both?

I mean I wouldn't bring anyone to court, but I think it's fine if a person sues a certain type of enemy like the cops or the klan or someone or group like that is basically what I'm saying. I really don't think SC should be sued or anything, but bringing them in front of the labor board is something that makes sense since the collective are managers.

so your fine with sueing a klan member, with means civil court, generally.

what about pressing charges against the klan or a cop, which means criminal court?

1) This worker was the only one who filed the labor complaint? And by this worker was the one who was fired right, we speak of the same person? Thank you for the information you've given me thus far.

2) Please, for dialogues sake, would you elaborate on what you consider snitching?

as much as you may not believe this, I am a fellow worker and not in support of any sort of boss, anywhere.

It should be noted that a labor complaint is not brought in front of a criminal court, but brought before a Department of Labor judge. This judge only has the ability to administer fines, back pay, back to work orders, etc to employers if it's determined that their actions were in violation of labor law. We can argue the nuances of what constitutes snitching, but it is preposterous to imply that filing a complaint to the Labor board is snitching.

If you think a union taking an employer to the labor board is "snitching" then you are, in fact, a supporter of bosses everywhere.

This website is "Anarchist News". Perhaps you were looking for this?

"And by this worker *you mean * the one who was fired right"

I've been a red card holder for 5 years, although I admit i havent been very invovled, although i do contribute resources of course. So tread careful with your words. Fuck bosses. i don't want to have to say this again. it is not the sign of a heathy and fair organization to immediatly attack those with controversial and oppossing opinions.

so lets talk about this democratically. is going through the civil court system not snitching to you in general, or is the labour board unique? are there some essays you can point me to that deal with this problem?

I mean the labor board is pretty reformist and has no enforcement. I mean one could consider it snitching, but it's just like snitching on a cop who harassed you, if you have a chance to win some prizes go for it. At the same time I think the Seattle Solidarity Network has a better strategy for this type of stuff. SeaSol doesn't go to court or rely on professionals of any sort and they win all the time. They just put pressure on the boss or landlord and the boss or landlord usually folds.

Apparently using the Reply button is snitching.

I am often called an "insurrectionist." Probably because I talk about insurrection and believe that we must begin acting right away in order to actualize a total break with capitalist society.

That being said, class conflict is a thing I can get excited about. For certain, the tension between human labor and it's private accumulation in the form of capitalist exploitation is one of the central defining relations of our civilization. Historically, and still today, conflict between the party of labor and the party of capital has been the greatest conflict to ever play itself out.

That being said, class conflict, today, occurs most frequently outside the site of production. That does not mean that the site of production is not important, nor that organizing at the site of production is not important. It is just a fact that the contemporary (post 70s) mode of class conflict typically occurs in the spaces of societal reproduction, especially public places, universities, and prisons. The methods used for these struggles is mostly the same as they were a hundred years ago in the factory: strikes, occupations, riots, assemblies.

Why are the streets, the plazas, the universities, the prisons becoming the preferred site of self-organization and how can these sites of conflict become contagious to all of the other areas of society (the factories, the ports, the warehouses, the airports etc.)

For me, this is precisely the questions we should be discussing. Anarcho-syndicalists, platformists and others of similar persuasions are well-equipped, theoretically, to discuss things of this sort.

If union membership everywhere has been collapsing, shouldn't the more work-focused comrades be using other means of cohering with people at their places of work? Think big! These are crazy times we live in. How will we get construction workers to put down the tools next time the streets fill with students? How will we ensure the clerical workers will allow insurgents in and out of the hospitals anonymously when the rubber bullets are flying?

We have to know that this civilization, this society, is built on untenable contadictions and to really get organized as if this were true. We have to know that what we do now has a serious effect on how events play out.

Smart comment. Good thing everyone is stupid tho

Anyone who was there knows that this is entirely full of lies. Yeah, somebody was shoving people and calling them sexist names--those IWW guys who were blocking the bus to try to prevent people from getting free food, which this conveniently neglects to mention.

The fact is that while there were SC supporters in that crowd, the majority of it was just people who were like "fuck this, enough of this shit." It's been over a year. GTFO with your drama, we are done with you.

somehow I don't believe this

There are plenty of videos of IWW people blocking the SC food serving window and being assholes. There are also videos of SC supporter shoving IWW people and behing. Assholes, assholes everywhere.

like this video for instance. Shows a Wobbly starting the first scuffle.


Dreads had his hands on Plaid. I'd take him down too. It's bad enough that he's a white guy in Minneapolis with dreadlocks.

I searched for said videos on youTube and dug up this hilarious video of a confused Noam Chomsky trying to weigh in on the debate...


lefty capitalists in practice saying, "I’m proud to be a scab!" I mean I don't think I've heard enough, but seriously it's about time people realized that small "collective" businesses can be exploiters and enemies too.

If the IWW had stuck to that point they would have won this a long time ago. Then they made a website with a bunch of contact info and photos of Sisters Camelot supporters, including several of the RNC 8, USING THEIR FUCKING MUGSHOTS. This press release continues this tradition by failing to mention the seemingly-important fact that it wasn't just a picket, but also a physical blockade of the food window as the bus was parked at the May Day fair. A pox on both houses.

oh my god
that's so fucking funny and awful

sure. collectives can be exploiters, I guess. This one isn't.

have any of you all canvassed before? it's where a non-profit gives you like half the money you manage to raise for them. it's shit work, but it's always there. anarchists have been doing it forever.

in this case, the collective responded to complaints from their temp employees in the proper anarchist way: rather than dealing with it in the courts, they invited the temp employees to be the ones making the decisions. wtf else could you ask of them?

The IWW workers from Barre VT are turning in their graves right now. Emma Goldman would call this atrocious. Y'all are seriously attacking a community organization that FEEDS FREE ORGANIC FOOD to the diverse community of people in Minneapolis? Seriously? This goes to show you actually have no interest in building your politics or supporting the communities around you. You don't have anything else better to do than protest people who are giving away free food at Mayday? You are the death of the IWW and everything it stands for. Drop your privileged bullshit and go volunteer with an organization that is actually promoting community.

SC raises money in part by hiring paid canvassers. Those people are workers. Therefore they should be organized, and that should be the end of the story. However, because they're "independent contractors" (the difference apparently being that they are called "independent contractors" rather than "workers") SC is rejecting their unionization. ENTER: SCENE DRAMA.

why should they be organized when they can be part of the decisionmaking body, which SC offered?

Why should they have to be part of the decision-making for all the food shit if all they're interested in doing is canvassing?

The structures end up being incompatible. Narrow IWW program can't grapple with how collective structures differ. They treat absolutely everything like its the same. For the canvass to be this separate union as envisioned you need the overall organization to become a more traditional boss-worker structure. It wasn't that even if power was distributed non-uniformly. Other workplaces don't just let workers join "management." The problem is the collective members don't want that more traditional structure as it pushes them into the exact thing they were trying to avoid by having a collective. I guess they could also have formed a traditional union and struck against the canvass, but that just highlights how fucking stupid this whole thing is. And to top it all off none of these assholes will admit the most "exploited" labor here is volunteers not the canvass. IWW just has no conception of how the liberal non-profit sector operates. If labor in these org's had good working conditions and were all paid 99% of these places would be out of business tomorrow. The canvass was ONLY able to be paid because of the massive unpaid charity labor done by volunteers to prop up the organization. If the volunteers had organized a union first you think the collective workers and canvass would take a 50% pay-cut? Hell no, they'd all just quit. My suggestion would be every volunteer who has labored thousands of hours over the last decades send a bill to both sides and then start stealing their shit to collect. Nothing like a new threat to bring everyone else together.

an awesome comment. Thank you! -former Sister's Camelot volunteer.

How do we know the structures are incompatible? The workers organized and then rather than talking to them the holy collective decided to stonewall. Then the held a collective meeting (minus one - he wasn't invited since supported the union) and fired a long time employee.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached if the collective actually talked to the union. They've never agreed to do that. It's been over a year.

They're trying to form a union in a business that has management(the collective) so they have some power over their working conditions.

Most of the people on strike think SC is a good thing, they just don't like the fact that they have very little power in it. The canvassers are on a lower pay scale than a lot of the paid collective members and they don't really have a say in collective issues. That sounds like there is a managerial class to me.
Many SCCU members just want some sort of way to exercise power and a lot of the SC collective members don't want that.
I don't care too much about shuge or whether or too much about whether or not shuge stole from a co-worker or not.
What I care about is that the SC collective do form a management class. They do have power over the worker's working conditions and they are unwilling to stop being bosses.
Fuck going to the labor board about this, I think that was a bad idea, everyone should know that the labor board is pretty much for show and only in certain circumstances renders desired results.
That being said forming a union and going and strike does seem like a good idea.
In response to the accusations of stopping people from getting free food. All you have to do is pretend to be "food not bombs" or someshit and I'm pretty sure they won't picket you and if you care so much about your business that your unwilling to change a name to get free food to people that's very telling.
And if people are like "but it's non-profit" I'd like to say that non-profits can be very very very profitable for management and the non-profits were part of cointelpro with the intent of gutting anti-capitalist grassroots movements.

Do you notice how all the Sisters' Camelot management supporters use unsubstantiated slander and not too many facts about working conditions when they're arguing against the union. I mean ShugE could be a POS sure, but what about the fact that the canvassers have very little power over their working conditions aside from concessions from the collective.
People are making money off of SC too, don't let them fool you.
It's also the case though that many of the strikers want to be apart of SC. They don't want to see it driven into the ground a lot of them just want to actually participate in SC.

Here is the story of what happened here. A group of poor radicals and countercultural folks in Minneapolis finds a way to collect food that is going to be thrown away and instead gives that food away to other poor people. This operation is funded rather informally by having some poor radicals and countercultural folks to go door to door asking people for money, and these people get a cut of the money that is collected. Over the course of time a guy named Rob and a guy named Shuge have a falling out with each other and go from being close friends to being fierce enemies. This animosity becomes contagious and one thing leads to another and eventually people all over the world are hating each other.

except you forget the fact that the collective then form a business wherein many of the collective members get paid more and have substantially more power over working conditions then the lower level non-collective member workers
fuck the drama I don't care

There were also a lot of people there who did a lot of the work who were volunteers. Those people had no control over their working conditions and got paid nothing. People often forget about them.

what's to forget? they are fucking VOLUNTEERS!!!!

Yes, like all workers since the Emancipation Proclamation are volunteers. The only thing that runs down the center of the road is a yellow line. Either you believe in workers rights or you don't, either you are a friend of labor or you're not. It is only the bourgeois liberals who only want to be involved in conflict as long as it doesn't cause them a inconvenience.

I do question what the heck is the IWW supporters problem when they complain about someone using unkind words towards them or someone getting physical with them. These are simply non-working class activist types who have never been involved in a real labor dispute. If you get in a fight don't expect that you wont get hit.

At least they usually got smoked up.

Here's the video of the initial assault, where two union snitches repeatedly shove an individual who was asking for free food.


This was not a "peaceful picket" -- it was a deliberate attempt to provoke violence, as the IWW has so often done in the past.

dude tried to shove through the picket
thanks for posting though it makes it pretty obvious

Do you really believe that? Look at the video. Two IWW snitches are standing in one place, physically preventing access to the SC bus. That's not a "picket" -- pickets *move*, idiot. They're blockading the bus, and when someone tries to go through the blockade, they use physical force against him. Anything that happened as a result of that is clearly the fault of violent IWW snitches, not anyone else.

This was clearly the IWW's intention, the second they saw the SC bus -- mix it up like the good little dude bros they are. Macho bullshit writ large.

umm in liberal labor maybe pickets just move, but in radical labor scabs are kept out

I love how you refer to people trying to eat free food as "scabs." If Sysco went on strike, would you refer to prisoners as scabs for eating?

Ha ha, yes, of course. In radical labor, one doesn't care about the law, one uses organized force to defend one's cause. But when you pick that fight and LOSE, it looks pretty funny when you scramble to write a PR statement that you were violent attacked. I'm not the person you are responding to, but it is fairly obvious that when someone picks a fight and loses, and then cries that they've been bullied, it's bullshit. Your strategy at this point should simply be emphasizing why you were right to pick this fight and make it physical. Then you could try to defend the claim that, despite losing this fight, you are still right, and people should support you. You really look like douchebags when your strategy is to just play up your victimhood.

Same comment here, just let me add before I get accused of being on SC's side here, let me say I have no stake in this conflict and I am generally inclined to side with workers in every conflict, whether the workers are being "fair" about things or not, because I don't give a fuck about bosses and their interests. But just looking at the video, it's painfully clear that:

- The wobblies decided to physically block the truck from serving food
- The began pushing and putting their hands on people trying to work around their blockade
- The SC supporters responding by blockading the blockade so the truck could function
- The wobblies (one in particular) responded to this by starting an actual fight
- The wobblies lost the actual fight
- The wobblies wrote a communique misconstruing the attack as entirely unprovoked

If you want to get physical, get physical. But these other guys just called your bluff and you lost.

These SCCU accounts make FOP releases look honest. Every single SCCU release reads like a liberal pr major just read 'The right way to provoke and play the victim 101: how to reinforce liberal constructions of violence and legality at every single fucking turn' You wanted to do a blockade but you don't want to own doing a blockade. Because direct action looks bad. All of anarchy gets it. Your finger is two inches away but is, truthfully, not ever touching them. You are so so peaceful. And every time the evil boss man sticks his violent finger close to your face and all hell breaks loose. And your big response to this latest atrocity is to call for the same fucking pointless boycott you were calling for beforehand.

The entire idea of a picket in a labor dispute is to discourage people from interacting with the struck entity. Labor adopted the technique of moving so they wouldn't be arrested by the Police for denying management from conducting business. This didn't stop them from getting arrested though. Their is no rule that says that labor must picket in a line, moving in a counter clockwise direction and that they should never be a bother to the sensibilities of the public.

Which is why I don't understand IWW people whining and crying about other workers picketing them at the park. Tall dude looked like he was about to wet himself at the injustice of people picketing around him. People were trying to block them off because they were blocking people off. Be a douche and people will treat you like one.

Yellow jacket guy clearly walked directly into beanie guy.

No, he clearly did not. He was trying to walk up to the counter, and the IWW snitch goon squad physically inserted themselves between him and his goal. What right doe the IWW have to tell anyone where they can and can't go? Those guys doing the shoving aren't canvass workers, they're just macho assholes who felt like starting a fight that day on the flimsiest of pretexts. If you believe their lies, you need to get deprogrammed, 'cause you're part of the cult too.

when did the IWW snitch? was that when they were trying to expose worker exploitation?
I mean yeah the IWW can be macho asshats, but it looks like you just don't get that the intention of picket is to keep people out of a business.

to be fair that whole labor board stuff was dumb
still down with the SCCU, but still that didn't help anyone

Including the SCCU, since according to NLRB rules they went off strike they started the NCFA. They'd rather keep that quiet and keep the drama going, though.

I'd love to see a source for the idea that starting the NCFA means they aren't on strike anymore. Someone much older and wiser than me said that is not the case.

First you say he didn't, then you give reasons why it's OK that he did. Which is it?
I'm not saying the IWW blockade was good (and the fact that they're not mentioning it anywhere is a good sign that even they know it wasn't), but the question was about who started the "initial assault".

Trying to reach over two people to grab food is not starting an assault. They clearly push the guy multiple times.

So workers in a business forming a radical union to get some power over their working conditions cool.
All the drama and shit, ugh.
A picket that is actually keeps people out instead of being a liberal protest cool.

SC also uses a lot of free labor and if your not a collective member you have pretty much no power in the org so you basically get paid nothing and have no voice.

The IWW is a bunch of self righteous assholes who use bullying tactics against small hippie nonprofits when they refuse to play along with their leftist historical reenactment games. Fuck those people, they are not anarchists and they should never be allowed to post on anarchist news!

Which team are the oogles on?

It honestly seems like everyone who is on a side who is not a wobbly is on the SC side. From bike punks to hippies...

That's true. Mostly because the Wobblies are insane and everyone who isn't in the cult knows it.

Not everyone is on a side, though.

most people in minneapolis find both sides an embarrassment

don't generalize, mmmmkay?

"eventually tackling an IWW member to the ground and beating him until other Wobblies pulled them away."

It's about time someone threw the first punch!

So just who appointed the IWW the official guardians of working class morality? Should the IWW be able to tell you who to talk to, where to spend money, where you can and can't work? Should they be able to tell you what food you can eat when you're hungry? Shit, sounds like the IWW wants to be the government now, but with a prettier flag. Fuck that noise. I'm an anarchist because I DON'T want a lot of self-righteous jerks telling me what to do all the time -- I get plenty of that in mainstream society, thanks. If the IWW really wants to help workers, why don't they quit telling them what to do all the damn time?

Yeah I'm so sick of women telling me to stop grabing their ass. I can grab your ass if I WANT to. Stop acting like the government! Anarchism means I can DO WHAT I WANT and no one can critisize me because I'm a man and if I want grab some chicks ass then I'm gonna. If I want to walk up to an elementary school and start jacking off in the parking lot, should they be able to tell me to stop? OH, HEEELL NO! I'll do what I WANT, because I'm an anarchist and that makes me feel special.

I'm sick of hearing victimization.

If some dude grabs some woman's ass and she hits him, the niggas that talk a lot of "women's victimization" wouldn't bat an eye. But if the reverse happens, whoops whoops. And hey what man wouldn't like that right.

And not just for "some woman", it might work for whatever "identities" victimization is spoken a lot of. Say, some black gay nigga grabs some whiteys ass and gets hit. Check your white supremacist privilege, ahahaha.

Yeah, what about men's rights? What about white rights? What about all the gay-on-straight violence? It's about time someone started talking about the real issues.

Who the fuck said anything about "rights"? Are you the same nigga that always brings up this strawnigga bullshit? Get fucked.

Yeah fuck mens rights. Real anarchists struggle for mens liberation and white liberation. Men's rights are totally liberal. Men's liberation is totally fine though because the word "liberation" is more anarchist sounding then the word "rights".

lame politician

Sure you are a self defined anarchist, or a neo anarchist who opposes the working class when they speak up, when labor doesn't do what you want them to and when you want them to do it.

In actuality you are nothing but another white suburban dick who is a management toad, a rat, and a scab.

historical re-enactment society vs. mediocre liberal non-profit? Break out the lawn-chairs and silly period costumes! Everybody wins when irrelevant idiots fight each other! It's like militant vegans punching fur-wearing primmies!

this is what happens when you have a niche' sub-culture that values drama more than strategy, class conflict, and common sense. Every one involved should be fucking embarrassed and if anything, it should be resolved with boot stompin' and swinging fists, so that this pathetic bullshit can be done and over with.

"common sense" is shit, idiot

"this is what happens when you have a niche' sub-culture that values drama more than strategy, class conflict,"

A more disturbing thing to consider is that the latter eventually causes the former

I was wondering - would this whole thing not even be happening if all the canvassers were simply never paid, just like all the many volunteers who have worked with Sisters Camelot over the years?

Obviously not. That is part of the problem. You can bet your bottom dollar the SCCU will not push for volunteers to start being paid. The competing organization they founded also does not pay volunteers. If its all just a business let it be a business. Class conflicts can then play out naturally. But stop pretending it is not a business when you extort the community to do charity work and then it suddenly becomes a business again when it comes time to split up the extracted loot.

When Sisters' Camelot first came to Minneapolis in 1997 (8?) it was a handful of people and they all canvassed to pay themselves enough to subsist and put gas in the bus. And some just volunteer canvassed to help. SC didn't even become a collective until 2006. Prior to collectivization it was run by a loose group of workers with the board president (and founder) having a final say on things. Everyone was an independent contractor paid in stipends.

hey yall
I'll be throwing some bows if I'm ever blocked from getting free food from Sisters Camelot .
Micah (ex SC canvasser)
p.s. the first time I've ever posted a comment on the internet

Ugggh, plenty of shitty places give out free stuff. Salvation Army homes and feeds people, but if the workers in the stores wanted to organize and the bosses solution was for them to join middle managment, id say, still, fuck those bosses. SC wants to get rough, do it.

What does it mean to "boycott" something that gives everything away for free?

I have something that I can give away for free.

*whips it out*

snitching and identity politics go together like peas and rice.

note the triple formation: 'the boss' 'illegally fired' the 'worker' (so going to the police and judges and hr departments is okay)

'the man' 'raped' the 'women'

the 'nazi' 'race-bashed' the 'black'

see also: moral highground and victim status (self defense)

Your comment is like snitching. Some people have nowhere to go, you should not discourage them from going to wherever they feel they might get help. As a realist, I know that a rape victim doesn't really stand much chance of getting help from the police, but as a matter of procedure it is a good idea to report it anyway if only in the hope that one day it may blowback as criminal negligence.

You are speaking in absolutist terms that are the equivalent of snitching (is what snitches do).

'some people have nowwhere to go'

see thats kind of the victim status thing we were talking about. dont worry. we'll work on that.

if you feel yourself about to snitch consider suicide. people do it all the time to avoidgiving info to the police/ other people.

leah lynn for example could have kiled themself.

oops i forgot theres no sense in arguing w mentally ill misogynists with no human feelings. my bad.

oh yes, leah lyn plant should have "killed herself" rather than ratting out a bunch of serious bros who had enough money and resources to vacation in canada until shit blew over. i feel the love, they really cared about her...

for any other relatively sane readers:

they took her clothes, her names and rings, i know this one. They took her time and sold it for meet; they will take you too.

And you will suffer under the law of "i know this one."

the wanted me so bad.
to sing to their idol
during all the lost days
when time was called special.

Im supposed to remember,
hung up, how they were
kind, and sing their gross
notes from this mouth.

But if they say what you did, that
isnt what you did.


In the court, you will simper
everyone does sucking up to the power
and this is where you must perform

"beneath you" alice notley

typo "meet is "MEAT"

Women don't no how to spell

its not a spelling error. meatball. its a typing error. "wome dont know how to type." good, then.

i hope you feel good about that decision. because it is absolutely permanent.

The term snitch is often used by the Ku Klux Klan, pretty much how you are using it now, devoid of any meaning or substance, as a means to silence people who resists hate and racism. In Texas recently, a black man was murdered and it is believed that local law enforcement was involved. A small hick town murder of a person of color, with police involvement, a black man married to a white woman no less. Do you know what they found at the crime scene? A couple of dimes. Leaving a dime at someone's residence or at a crime scene like that is code for snitch. Isn't that funny? A black man married to a white woman murdered by or while local law enforcement drag their heels and look the other way and the motive appears to be "snitching."

Now you tell me what exactly you mean by snitching? Never talk to the cops? Well that sure is convenient for rapists and racists isn't it (people who regularly talk to law and then accuse everyone else of snitching).

And I just noticed how you tried to tie snitching to identity politics. How quaint. Seems like you want victims of hate violence and rape to not avow themselves of being victims of hate violence and rape. You sound like a racist scumbag and a likely rapist too. Who else would benefit from silencing rape victims and hate victims with regard to what happened to them?

This won't fly over well when the shoe is on the other foot, just a little heads up.


i have to commend you on your pristine organisational abilities. you're like the martha stewart of ilie self-defense italian style turf building. which is actually how martha stewart had to go about to get 'anything' done...they put her in jail for a little while too....ha ha. its great being a woman.

So, if it were homeless folks or those who depend on food banks and stamps to get by, would the IWW feel justified in preventing access to free food? So far as I can tell there exists two, apparently juxtaposed, issues here. On the one hand, the notion of the exploited worker seeking retribution and on the other the function of providing access to free food. It seems to me to be but a malicious and pointless endeavour to put those who are willingly losing at the game called work over those who are effectively deemed superfluous by the entire labour apparatus itself. The centre of production as the point of primary importance, died with the relevance of Marxism and syndicalism in general decades ago. Instead of preventing access to food to spite, or rather fail to spite, those who one feels have spite them, one should be more inclined to expropriate directly from those deemed to be the problem. Historically, I feel the IWW served a relevant function when there existed a general consciousness of ones condition and codification within a broader social context. This no longer exists and thus the use value of the union is nil. Furthermore, stabilized labour, for which the IWW works, is no longer a relevant point of departure for general organizing and potential social conflict. The worker is not alienated from their labour here when they see in it's products their own self.....don't you Wobblies get that?

I work in a factory. Cli-Che says that the industrial proletariat no longer exists. So that must mean that I no longer exist. So if I don't exist, then how did this comment get here?

And precisely what an above commenter stated, how does one even boycott that which retains no capital for itself...or what is free? Again, it seems self-defeating to engage in such a task. Perhaps this is because it is through the retention of capital in the game of labour that the wobbly finds power and agency. That the food is free negates the input of capital into the value of labour and therefore undermines the game of exchange value itself. Nevertheless, fuck work and the industrial technology upon which it's most understood manifestations are predicated!

people crying about some charitybeing fucked with are such losers. wish someone would do this to food not bombs.

p.s altho not in an iww formation. they suck. but seriously the fact that they going after a charity demonstates a certain ruthlessly, cruelty, selfishness (to attack regardles of 'negative' effect on 'innocents) and extremity that i find appealing. one could almost call it anti-social ;)

I can't decide if this press release reads more like middle school or high school.

"The Twin Cities IWW calls for a complete economic, organizational, and charitable boycott of Sisters Camelot. If a scab canvasser comes to your door, turn them away empty handed. If they approach you about hosting a food share, tell them they are not welcome."

This is what the IWW has been calling for for the last year. Can't you escalate to something that you're not already doing?

They should escalate to dropping banners and throwing snoke bombs into an intersection.

first of all, this is completely metaphorically backwards... Secondly, no. third, the food in question is poison kool-aid, an no-one wants to share it anyway, except for some sadists and some very confused black ppl , who think this is a great communist experiment.

First this, then the leftist plague hit up the law and disorder conference to falsely attribute claims to kristian Williams for an article he wrote back in February....surprised I have yet to have seen anything about that up here.

I read this because I heard it had a video of Carrie Feldman beating everyone up. Isn't she the one who violently attacked them? I want to see the video!


Carrie's the best.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.