Saying extreme crap in the bay area

I'm writing this to contribute to the discussion surrounding Lawrence's comments at an anarchist assembly in Oakland, and in order to put to the rest a particular trajectory of this debate about race. I'm deploying my so-called authoritative voice, my performance of authorship and patriarchy, as “Liam Sionnach,” the fact that I was “there,” and sided with my friend (because I am taken by friendship), in order to speak with more weight than others, and—like many of the anarchists playing at being writers—for the excuse to practice writing, and essentially hear my own voice. In reality, none of us have anymore sense in our language than others regarding the real questions of racial power and its organization in the US. We can argue about the difference of our real experiences and positionalities. However the fact is that since the '70s, no movement has emerged—especially from the radical political milieus—that is in-tune with the contemporary and complex racial nightmare that is the hell we live in the US. If there was such a movement, we would concern ourselves with far more interesting challenges than a squabble within a tiny part of an equally tiny scene. We all inhabit the same catastrophe.

The anarchists—even we in our later ages—still suffer from a certain infantilism of political imagination and thought. Lawrence's comment “...even the black churches” reveal this. Like the nihilists and egoists of times past, in searching for an ethical position, principles or values by which to align our practices and lives, anarchists assume an even stricter morality of anti-authoritarian principles than those ladies in their Sunday bests. In such comments, we hear the a rebellious child's “fuck you dad,” or the liberal gesture of free speech. However, saying extreme crap—affirming and welcoming this freedom—has no bearing on the arrival of anarchy, much less the development of the thought and practices of a sad, isolated, and weak milieu. “...Even the black churches” is hyperbole at best, and, as revealed by our southern friend with a cool 5 panel hat, ignorance at worst. Transgressive hyperbole is the language of the avant garde. Sure it looks cool as art objects, their noise shows can be a moment of ecstasy, and can it shock normal people or whatever, but we all know the way that ends: in a very sad and lonely basement. If Lawrence, and those charming internet commenters were to slow down, think, and for once breathe from their noses, they would realize this is not a meaningful fight to defend anti-authoritarian principles. We are not in Spain, this is not 1936; the Church doesn't wield the same power it once did. And, we live in world where “No Gods! No Masters!” has actually already been realized.

For the construct of the time and space called the West, hierarchy as a paradigm of governance is an epoch that has past—quite a long time ago, actually. And, “god,” as a transcendental authority is arguably absent from the world, and clearly from the real work of government. Even for the anarchists obsessed with making the police its enemy, it must be clear that there is no divinity hiding in the policeman's bullet, the application of the law, or the judgement of a jury of our peers. God is a remnant in law, and sovereign power has its origins in god, sure, but there is no redemption in the contemporary techniques of government. Ask anyone who's been in the system since they've been 17, its the management of hell.

Someone said “One of the most important components of the revolutionary movement must be its tactfulness.” While I'm not sure what is gained by Lawrence and CAL Press's continued contributions, much less what is gained by the reproduction of an anarchist milieu, I think if Lawrence wished to be a decent person, and to be done with his infantile allegiance to “critique,” he too would stop, think, and realize that a world is not constructed out of critical value systems competing for the space of the most enlightened principle. Which is to say, he would realize his comments were foolish, and possible only from an existential distance from this thing called the South where the image of burned black churches is irreducibly linked to a history of racial power and terror. He would also realize that his comments aren't really worth defending because they have no bearing on the arrival of anarchy, and perhaps given such an intelligence, he would apologize and help bring to a close this theater of anarchist morality and critique. Either that, or the theater may bring to a close the anarchist milieu. Given our stupid negationist penchant, I know it's difficult for anarchists to understand, but actually, humility and serenity go hand in hand.

To those who are looking for a way out of this hell, let's use this as an opportunity to be done with critique, negation, and all the remnants of the political history of the west in our thought.

We cannot pursue this thought any further here.




Dude says "And, we live in world where 'No Gods! No Masters!' has actually already been realized" and I'm like, even though I'm still a slave at the end of the day, WHEW what a relief.

good analysis really true, luv good quality sarcasm

In the last year of his studies, top-notch student, good cheekbones, peerless sarcasm.

god is dead. do you know what that means? It means the church of anarchy can rise up and establish dominion over the wasteland. And the wasteland grows.

We should instead exploit this event to rally against the *growing* power of the church and its influence on the state. Even black churches are contributing to the domination of the world along with its continued destruction. Even black churches pacify their own people, preventing rebellion, calling for "cooler heads" and "responsible behavior" when taking to the streets over yet another murder in the community by the police. Even black churches aid in the gentrification process when their power is aided by the wealth of a black middle class forcing out a black poverty class, empowered by a black mayor. Even black churches are the enemy.

I mean it's really easy to be like fuck this institution and all, but has everyone forgotten abt the historical significance of "burning black churches" in this country? Or the fact that regular ass people go to church and are not the enemy inherently because of their beliefs? Or how about how racist shit on a global scale is often hand in hand with a hatred of particular religions? So many fuckin ideological purists and racists are crawling around right now, it's fucking disgusting and pathetic

What's pathetic is your defense of religion.

No you're not a bad person if you go to church, you're a bad anarchist if you think there's a problem with taking away their ability to go to their church by burning it. And no one is burning black churches from any political position today or has proposed it in a focused sense so the point is very moot.

God who caaaaares abt being a bad anarchist, seriously lamest subculture ever

If we can take away anything from 2000 years of Christianity I don't believe destroying a building would cause people to stop worshiping how they please. Religion is simply a part of being human, like getting fucked up.

Just to be fair I think we should burn the white churches too, don't want anyone to think your racist.

Interesting how both concepts were targeted for being destructive to the human condition yet you only seem to care about aboloshing one.


This and we need to realize the position we critique from. The Black Church needs to be and IS criticized by Black atheists and apostates, anarchistic and non. They have the right (in terms of social etiquette and ethics, and the first and last tactical say) to lead the charge in this country.

in context, criticism of Black social institutions by white ppl - especially institutions seen as gathering places for relief from pressures of constant white supremacy, ideology and surveillance- WILL come across as racial domination or an attempt at it. so for non Black, especially for white anarchists to do so is so tactically pointless and self defeating that it borders on traitorous and WE should also consider whether we want the critic in our midst IMHO. the criticism, especially if framed in terms of what Spanish anarchists did in a very different cultural context (without going so far as to say there are no longer gods or masters) will sound like an aggressive attack on Black community safety where they just want to be left alone. It's absolutely not going to be received as intended, so don't send it like that. only makes sense if you're TRYING to hurt Black people in general and other anarchists.

also, ATM, whether you personally reject "identity politics" or not, in the culture the most privileged/hegemonic member of a group or subculture becomes the most visible; so if you speak on the Black Church as a white anarchist it will be given disproportionate attention, when in fact it is Black anarchists whose critique should receive attention. if you insist on speaking on the matter without caring how your tactics affect the movement, you're a liability at best.

BTW, I usually can't stand the flip-the-script-on-atheists rhetorical trick but in this case we seem so rigid it becomes warranted. What use is anarchist critique of the priests and books if we become priests of our books of the Spanish Revolution, insisting that revolution happen in a certain manner to be blessed by dead largely-white people? we need to know and care how those tactics were applied, not just mindlessly ape them. they "burned upward" together at the church that collectively ruled them. the Black Church does not wield the same direct power over cis het white men that the main US Xian institutions do. This is using a threat to an ethnic gathering place and minority religious site in rhetoric; it is domineering, hegemonic and white supremacist, whether that is the intent or otherwise. I wonder why it wasn't "even the synagogues"? when you can answer that, you might know why this rhetoric is ass-backwards. do you think the Spanish Revolution started with anarchists rehashing the Inquisition?

why does fucking everyone need to kick at Black people and then cup their hands over their ears when it's time for accountability, context or history? one moment no stone is to be left unturned in the struggle for justice, the next it's LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU about issues Black people have been writing and talking about openly in no small numbers for decades.

how many white anarchist men even realize that the Black church is sustained financially by Black women and what other expectations are placed on their income? some of y'all want to destroy one of the few things they can lay claim to as such. there's a reason white terrorist gangs have done the exact same thing to their churches: it traumatizes those communities. I mean, if Trots burned down your social center for perpetuating "structureless tyranny" after you all scraped together the last of your paychecks to cover the rent for decades, SF anarchists would be crying all over every publication with a star on it, and that situation would not be as oppressive (many of the anarchists would be white ppl with wealth and family support that has statistically and historically been kept away from Black people in this country).


"an opportunity to be done with critique"

"this is not a meaningful fight to defend anti-authoritarian principles. [...] And, we live in world where “No Gods! No Masters!” has actually already been realized."

wow, i wanted to think this was going to be a well-reasoned, thoughtful critique of the situation and its aftermath. apparently not.

this situation, like most, is very complicated and surely not as black-and-white as most want to paint it. i don't defend or condemn lawrence, as i was not there. but i do know him well enough to know that: a) his perspective on institutional authority is one i (and many anarchists) share, and b) his perspective is more consistent than most (his "jewish" identity notwithstanding). because of that, i assume his comments were indeed taken out of context, and his expression of "death to all churches!" seems quite appropriate in any anarchist context. being racially baited (if that is in fact what happened) seems typical of the current @ environment in the us, and perhaps he could have handled that better, i don't know.

but this posting reeks of woo-woo, "can't we all just get along", "critique has its place, but not when shit gets heavy", etc...

is the poster actually serious with this: "we live in world where “No Gods! No Masters!” has actually already been realized"? seriously?

maybe i have misread the post entirely.

As usual, trite.

"We are not in Spain, this is not 1936; the Church doesn't wield the same power it once did. And, we live in world where “No Gods! No Masters!” has actually already been realized."

What does this mean? Where have god and master gone? Saying they are diffuse is not the same thing as saying they no longer exist. Your understanding of law and christianity is weak, much like your grasp on post-war continental philosophy. You write "God is a remnant in law, and sovereign power has its origins in god, sure, but there is no redemption in the contemporary techniques of government." Of course there is no redemption here, redemption has always been absent from this world in all but the most fringe radical christian theology. Redemption is reserved for the next world. Judgement happens here as the bridge between the two.

"Transgressive hyperbole is the language of the avant garde. Sure it looks cool as art objects, their noise shows can be a moment of ecstasy, and can it shock normal people or whatever, but we all know the way that ends: in a very sad and lonely basement."

The history and continuing existence of Zen and many other schools of thought would stand as refutations of this particular point. The work of Artaud in influencing your beloved situationists also refutes this idea.

I agree wholeheartedly with your point about humility. Anarchists must be anarchists, and if the people who attacked Lawrence would like to be welcomed by any of their peers (a practical concern more than a moral one) perhaps they should accept his invitation for mediation rather than acting like petulant children taking the most "extreme" position; menacing confrontation rather than dialogue.

humble scowls,
a nyc anarchist

Since when are tactfulness and critique opposed? Why must one be put down for the other to be adopted? Many of us have tried to employ both over the years, even when you didn't see the need to.

You have pointed to all the changes that have taken place in the form that power takes now. Why, given that, should a certain set of assumptions regarding the role and symbolism of the black church not need to be unpacked and argued out? To be clear, I substantially agree with you - I can't imagine an insurrectional moment in which it might be appropriate for white anarchists to destroy black churches and thus it seems gratuitous to pose it hyperbolically. But the idea that the symbolic power of the black church is so fixed, obvious, and unquestionable that the response among comrades should be assumedly be violence and not mutual critique is bizarre to me.

"critique has its place, but not when shit gets heavy"
No, it proposes to be done with critique. Critique has always been a loyal opposition function. it's garbage. Let's move on.

You did miss the post entirely.

the situation: Horizontal and molecular techniques of government, no revolutionary movement, weakness, and cynicism.

What does more "sharp" critique do in the time of Katrina, Fukushima, Google, and Drones?

What does hating god, authority, and mommy and daddy do in the time when nothing occupies the space of transcendental authority that governs this civilization?

"You did miss the post entirely. "

and obviously you missed the bo@t entirely. fail.

critique helps us from falling into the dominant narratives of resistance, as well as makes sure our efforts are aiming at relevancy. Am I missing something?

hell yeah, believe in god and do magic.

The easy refutation for this is that the people who have a problem with Jarach have their critiques as well. They just happen to be bad ones that are based on power dynamics(privilege, supremacy by an authored group) that do not have a concrete existence. Overlaying this is a structural Marxist assumption of power.

And yes in times of emergency you don't get to wordy, however is Dupont rightfully points out there comes a time in a revolutionary transformative upswing that people begin proposing things. In this context a healthy anarchic framework is one that negates more then affirms(re-opening production and economy for example). And when reified currency is in use anarchists should always be there to deface it.

I think this is an appeal to a supranational Empire along the lines of negri. However, I have to say I only partly agree. The argument seems to be against argument, the appeal to doing away with critique and negation are in fact appealing to a fundamental negation of negation to critiquing critique (isn't it obvious). But I feel here like a jazz musician who has been riding the root too long so I think I'll leave it at that.

The point is that all arguments whether principled or relativist can be twisted and misused. So we have to learn to look elsewhere, not just away from "the argument" but it's negation and also any thing non reductionist to dialectic. Haha.

Anarchist parochialism rears its ugly head in the privileged wake of Californian conquest!
Forever destined irreversibly to be identified as neo-colonialist apologists, this explains the obsession with race into the 2nd decade of the 21st!

huh institute for experimental freedom really are secret catholics...

they used to write god as g*d didn't they...? I know "letter to chris Klaus did", don't think that was put out by them, maybe it was, not sure, but I swear I've seen g*d in their stupid bullshit too

I think writing 'G-d' is associated with Judaism not Catholicism.

While I'm of the opinion that this was a completely manufactured drama created by folks who see themselves as perpetual victims, it isn't unreasonable for it to be discussed and hashed out if some people feel differently. What is unreasonable and absolutely deplorable is approaching the person who made the comments at a public event, destroying their literature, and using physical intimidation in front of their child, in order to score political points. This article is just a bunch of opaque rhetoric that seeks to confuse matters and shift blame.

What's been left out of this narrative is that the child was not present when J was being called out at his table. The mother brought the kid over. That was her choice. And now she's using her child to garner sympathy/victim points. Which is nauseating.

The mother came over because her partner was being yelled at and threatened. Which is perfectly understandable. You some kind of child-hater?

No, but the mother clearly is, if she's bringing her kid into the fray literally and figuratively. Please.

Liers! The mother was there before the fray started then immediately left once it began. The responsibility for endangering the child sits squarely on those doing the auction.

Was this child actually endangered? 'Cause that keeps getting repeated, but it sounds like the kid was more "present during an argument" than anything else.

Nah, mother showed up later, sans kid, and threw her body in front of the books to like, protect them, or something. Like books can break by falling on the ground.

Anyhow, the kid made an appearance later. Why? Who knows, that's on mom.

Also, the kid was never in any danger. Also, the kid wasn't really crying, so much as looked sort of bored, tired, and confused.

I'm sorry guys this is just not the solid talking point you want it to be.

1) You were yelling at her partner.

2) No one with history in the scene would have expected yall to keep at it and escalate the way you did. AJODA's a longstanding and influential institution and while a lot of people may not particularly like Lawrence, he's seen as having proved his bonafides as part of the A Team. There's a longstanding implicit assumption that we start physical shit with Marxists and DGR, not with one another, no matter how much we hate each other.

Yeah; in anarchyland, when you are making a powergrab you start the march before all folks from the frenemy camp have arrived and get beat with the poles of your own banners.

This isn't a talking point at all. This is some person using their kid in a fucked up way to draw attention away from the fact that their friend/partner/whoever (no idea who these individuals are in relation to one another) said something incredibly out of pocket, and was directly called out for it when they showed up again in West Oakland, a place they do not belong. Especially after spouting that loaded drivel.

And "escalate"? What a pampered child you must be.Loudly proclaiming someone to be a douche in a room full of people is exactly that. An escalation would have been a swift punch in the face. White people, I swear, ya'll live in some fantasy bubble.

"a place they do not belong."

This is why people should not donate to this social center and the bookfair should not be held in the area. Weird fuckers on powertrips who want to police everyone.

she came alone to the confrontation then left and then came back with her child into the confrontation area.

I mean if this is true, these are tell tale signs of fascistic tactics. Ever wonder why islamic terrorists target civilians. Clue: they don't.

"the confrontation area"

Why didn't you just ask this guy to a fight if you were so fucking offended by his answer to a question? Why roll up on him with your little poser gang?

Anyone who isn't an asshole would have handled this situation by telling Lawrence they thought his comment was bullshit. Maybe you would talk more. Maybe you would not. Maybe you would leave thinking he was a piece of shit. Maybe you would not want to carry his books or invite him to speak. Instead you do this little PR stunt to get the spotlight. Are you ever going to stop playing the little weak victim traumatized by everyones mean words?

the real question is when are white anarchists going to stop making it profitable for these people to throw a big hissyfit every time they "feel" a mental boo-boo.

This exactly. Every fucking this shit comes up I make it a point to reject these politics as a "POC" but when that happens I find myself alone because my white comrades are to chicken shit to repeat the things they've said to me in private for fear of being called a racist or misogynist publicly.

That fear and guilt mongering allows these people to manipulate whole scenes.

The worse of all though is responding to this shit online when even my disagreement with these essentializing victim politics gets erased and silenced by ID politicians who reduce me to the male gender or assuming my race. I've been called "white man" so many times for disagreeing with ID politicians when I'm neither white nor male.

Maybe we need a "confrontation zone". Someone could put up a chain link fenced area surrounded by bleachers so everyone could watch if they wanted and the differing sides could battle it out.

I bet funds could be raised from the event because what part of the public wouldn't pay to see anarchist fight each other.

most "radicals" be they anarchists or lefty whateverthefucks, are usually bookworms who got picked on in highschool and don't know how to fight. It wouldn't be that entertaining watching them try to fight eachother

Whatever, apparently you don't know about the Bash Back tendency which is into extreme ultraviolence. I'm not sure what ultraviolence is but I think it's like gouging eyes, carving up guts, lighting up cars fully automatic style,beating people into puddles baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire, know, ultraviolence. I'm sure those people have experience with that kind of stuff, otherwise why call their book that?

Oh, don't forget decapitations. I'm sure the pepper spray thing is just a prelude to decapitation, and that's why it's ultraviolent. Right?

If some group of identity politician/police did that shit to me I'd try to fight them. Then we'd see if the gang of 12 or whoever would hang up on me and beat me and expose themselves as the pigs they are or if they'd back up realizing their little high school power tripping 1960s LARPing game was fucking annoying to grown ups who have real lives.
God I would love that.
Lawrence missed his chance.

yeah, the only reason we're having this conversation is because some young 'revolutionary' jokers posing as anarchists want to impose their presence in the bay. who cares whether lawrence gets agitated and says something that's easily taken out of context and willfully misunderstood? if i or the people around me reacted like these idiots every time someone said such a thing, well, we'd probably all hate each other.

i think it's clear that lawrence isn't a racist. it's also evident that destroying issues of ajoda will do nothing to fight racism - but it certainly has given the maoists far more attention and power than they deserve.

A selection of his (dull) writings would actually indicate otherwise.

The hinge point of this whole fiasco is in the first sentence; "I'm writing this to contribute to the discussion surrounding Lawrence's comments at an anarchist assembly in Oakland", an anarchist assembly. In a room of anarchists Lawrence's comment, while ill advised, hyperbolic, stupid and out of place in a 2014 american context, is not un-understandable. Any anarchist would get the provenience of such a statement.

Extra credit for using "provenience"!

Agreed. Sadly we are apparently no longer capable of discussing how it was "ill advised, hyperbolic, stupid and out of place in a 2014 american context" as both sides of this have made it more about drawing lines and feeling righteous.

you are no longer capable of "discussing how it it was ill advised, hyperbolic, stupid and out of place in a 2014 american context" because in fact it wasn't. unless you are a maoist, or a liberal who think saying obama sucks means you're a racist. the black church has a long history of enslaving their people - who are directed to suffer until 'the promised land' - death. fuck the black church. fuck all churches. there are higher powers.

It was ill advised etc. not because it was racist per se, but because 2014 america is not 1936 Spain. I think the legacy of racist church burnings has bearing on extant politics here and now. Which is not to say, of course, the church, Black or otherwise, should not also be seen as anything other than an enemy.

Basically Lawrence's big mistake was taking it in good faith that the people at an anarchist meeting were actually anarchists.


"Basically Lawrence's big mistake was taking it in good faith that the people at an anarchist meeting were actually anarchists."

yep, that.

There is a lot of context missing from what people may know hear and I defer to the folks at AJODA as to weather they want to fill in the blanks. They were the ones traumatized by this so I think we ought to respect that. Not all of it should be up for public consumption, especially since those that did the action have yet to make any more public statements about it. So much for their credibility, perhaps the majority of them were duped.

So what I'm hearing is: we live in an AI maintained undying networked web of domination not by gods or masters but by the system of private ownership and exchange those forms of authority built.
And that in that context don't burn black churches because the AI is already running on its own at this point, so whatever whatever.
And this little infighting WWE royal rumble spectacle is all a bunch of silliness because were not even looking at the real power: the undying self-replicating self-building self-proliferating AI that is the meme of capitalism.
And we can't really destroy that because we don't even know how to talk about what to do.
So what I'm hearing is we should do cocaine and masturbate in the streets wildly because nothing matters and nothing can be done.
There is no neo. There is no red pill. There is no outside of the matrix. There are no black churches.

Burning churches: cool.
Raised voices and poured water: completely fucking unacceptable.

Seems legit...

how many churches burned in cali in the last year?

A quick Google search shows at least six, but all in San Diego and Los Angeles. Hope J has some good alibis.

The commenter now accuses Jarach of burning churches. Clearly it's time to remove Jarach as there simply isn't any telling what he may do next. Down with freedom of expression and thought, up with collective guilt and censorship, the true neo-anarchist ideal.

nobody poured water. People are lumping together past events that took place in the bay area with this one. Just shut the fuck up if you weren't there and don't know what the hell you're talking about.

just shut the fuck up if, as an anon, you cannot prove you were there or are even telling the truth about anything.

What a disappointment. So you entirely focus on Lawrence's comment and not on the much more extreme response from much more extreme politics? As you imply who really cares what he said and who cares about the nuance of how you say you're against the church? Is t it much more troubling that there's a tendency growing in the bay which is actively conflictual and taking space that has an incredibly confused third worldist anti-anarchist politics that flirts with fundamentalist Islam? Thanks for not addressing and almost siding with this tendency. You had the same reaction to the feminist purges in New York which greatly affected friends of yours: you stared blankly, totally missing the point and asking as there is horror all around you: "what's the problem?" Wait till you're the target, then you'll see a problem.

Yes, this is the real issue. LJ is a long time participant in the community and those that ejected him need to make a public statement as to why they did what they did.

"community"? Who's community?

Does every city subdivision or neighborhood need have an identity marker? Isn't that what makes someone nationalist? Territories determined by skin color or other ethnic identifiers are all part of the nationalist ideology that anarchists appose. Yes we have a history with the black churches in the south, and yes they assist members of our "community", but in Oakland they sided against the Oscar Grant riots and are probably collaborating with cops that are killing kids in the "community".

don't forget Santa Cruz

dont forget what about santa cruz?

that its mascot is a giant slug

I guess what is being said is that it is OK to have ideas but don't articulate those ideas verbally or there will be consequences for your thoughts. Can some entity put together a list of proper thoughts and ideas we are not free to explore? I truly do not believe that CalPress was promoting the action of racially motivated violence against black families due to the fact they reject anarchist ideas.Is it permissible to get in a roll with a Black, Latino, Asian, Indigenous American,Irish, etc police officer or government official given the centuries of oppression they have experienced? Given the number of oppressed minorities employed by public agencies is it correct to attack public institutions as their fall will cause further harm to oppressed people? Is it OK to say lets burn Armenian churches?

This simply comes down to one issue and that is censorship. Censorship requires one party dominating over another and the establishment of some type of governing body and leader. I guess that brings up the broader question which is can we agree what the word "anarchist" truly is in 2014.

I personally believe the only way to control what people think is with a gun.

Please don't generalize.

That previous comment may be generalizing, but it's still a good observation non the less.

Again, with the thought control. Who are you to tell anyone what they can say or think or write. I wasn't aware of some secret pecking order within the anarchist community that we should all defer to before having a thought. Can you please tell me how this system of regulated ideas is navigated. Maybe rules of ideas should be stapled to the door of every anarchist event?

given the fact that people were attacked simply for thinking out load says much, the fact that others blindly jumped in due to white privilege coupled with white guilt also says a lot. Where were those standing up for freedom of thought, freedom to articulate those ideas? If you want to know what totalitarian authority looks like just hold up a mirror.

what are you a generalizing liberal?

You some kind a red fascist?

Liam, we've known for a long time that your penchant for moral grandeur very often puts you in step with authoritarian leftists, identity politicians and other cops.

This is unfortunately true. I knew it years ago when he released that feminist dictatorship text or whatever it was called that explicitly made the argument that even if a sexual act is completely consensual, you still can't be really sure if it was truly consensual or some confusing bullshit. The basic argument was that men are never off the hook for a sexual encounter and can be accused of rape at any time and that's fine and dandy. I'd like to see how Liam has practiced this in his encounters since then.

That's the default radical feminist perspective across left and anarchist scenes. Liam is a hipster who moves in these scenes so he's into whatever they're into, since his whole schtick is producing and marketing intellectual content. A few years ago he was hawking tiqqun when that was the cool new thing. He obviously didn't take to heart their critique of identity or commodity metaphysics, since he seems to be about his own 'brand' more than anything.

bitch please, the IEF gave you tiqqun.

The IEF gave us the really bad interpretation of Tiqqun and their philosophical influences that unfortunately permeated the American milieu for a few years.

tiqqunista was totally better, huh? not really sure anyone in 07-09 had a good interpretation, but its possible that IEF in '07 was on par with the theory of tiqqun '99-'01--itself reaching certain limits. That trajectory in Europe experienced a lot of different events (france '05-'06, the failed summits, greece '08, UK '10-'11) that reoriented their analysis and practice; whereas in the US it took until occupy in '10 for anyone to really be taken outside their milieus by an event. Anyways, can't really blame the messenger.

Uh, excuse me? You can't "blame the messenger?" Tiqqun's own stuff has its limits but have you SEEN Politics is Not a Banana issue 1 or 2? It's high style no content silly garbage with embarrassing continental philosophy jargon misuse left and right revealing that the authors were imitating something they did not understand or study closely. The recent small book IEF put out is much better but is still obviously a very boring attempt to write the next Call or Coming Insurrection for the post-occupy milieu, and it falls flat. IEF did not "bring" anyone Tiqqun or continental philosophy for that matter, they brought a pale imitation like countless others--and don't get me wrong, I don't worship Tiqqun in the least. I just find this kind of self-aggrandizement in the milieu nauseating.

Tiqqunista, by the way, just brought us poor translations, not poor imitations. IEF's stuff was written in English but reads like a poor translation anyway.

oh they understood the jargon alright. and now have a very intimate and deep reading of tiqqun...

we could fight about "bad" 'translation' until the cows come home. par for the course. tiqqun itself was written in bad translation of its own language (one of its charms, if you ask me)

yeah its sort of a mishmash repository of all "bad" french thought. always the reason i liked it. but i'm an historian and linguist, so maybe i wasnt so much reading it the way others or you an actual handbook or

also, as an historian, its important to me to keep the dates straight

yeah, but tiqqun is totally "out" now, esp after they wrote that book about how all women are capitalism, which was translated with lots of neat koo-koo 'avant-garde' fonts and a candy pink cover for the consumption of women who are academics, so they can hate it (but buy it!) and hate themselves for being the total embodiement of capitalism.

bulimia was suggested by the translator as the proper self-punishment response when reading it to the humiliation of being the embodyment of capitalism

yeah, it seems dumb to fight over the copy of a copy, esp when the second copy has a vital and relevant political twist

That second paragraph... Not just accusations of morality, but... Reverse free-speech? Crazy.

Buddha says: "Do not flatter your benefactor!" Repeat this saying in a Christian church: right away it clears the air of everything Christian.

Who the fuck burns a christian church thinking it will emancipate all christians? That's your rationalization of how they're burned.

They're burned because fuck christianity and its fucking churches.

Now, `how they please', how they `free will'. There's no fucking `religion' as such. See >>41472

Wait, so what the hell should have J done? He was ASKED the question by a person in the audience. Are you suggesting he should have either taken a non anarchist position or been nicer?

The former is ridiculous and the latter is fine but it certainly wouldn't necessitate what happened. Why still obfuscate the facts here? What is in it for the author to not be totally honest?

A date with bobba vakian

White people!

No but fuck black churches and I dare any of you white kids to tell me otherwise

A southern "POC"

Many black church leaders are prosperity gospel poverty pumps, homophobic, sexist parasites and total pigs.

It's rough to talk about as a white dude cause you end up looking like an asshole but damn, look at that shit about Jesse Jackson that came out yesterday. Not to mention the obvious other serious political issues with the black churches. Even reading Letter From A Birmingham Jail gives one an indication that there may be a serious problem.

its rough as a white person against as an exploitative, murderous white church. look what happened to sinead o connors career when she burned the photo of the pope

They held her down and shaved her head?

see, white people are still mad (about a white iconoclast against a white church.) it was probably one of the most anarchist gestures a pop star has made in recent memory. and i dont think she was jumping any bandwagon. that came from the heart.

I'm Black. I'm an atheist, but I realize that the hypothetical burning of churches is substitute for the hypothetical working with and organizing of the working class to make them realize their power to over throw the ruling class.

I also realize that some of these churches, mosques and whatnot are advising people to take up arms. Why do I realize this? Because I talk to people who are not anarchists and I don't get my views of the not-yet-radical working class from tv, news reports, and rumors.

Someone who wants to burn Black churches doesn't want to organize the millions who love their church. They want to chalk them up as enemies. That's who would become your enemy. An anarchist who would "burn Black churches" actually would be an enemy to all anarchists, as it would make anarchists organizing almost impossible. You'd have to worry about the many people who'd want to beat you down and would never associate with anarchism from that point on. You'd have to invent a new word. get new symbols, etc.

Let us be clear, an attack on Black churches- or any churches, would be an attack on something that the working class feels is THEIRS- not the ruling class's. This would not only be horrendous, but it would blur the class line. Surely your goal isn't to have it be harder for the working class to develop a functional class analysis.

When Marx said that religion was the opiate of the people- if you read the full quote- he was giving religion a compliment. He was saying that the rich can afford opium. But the poor would go crazy without hope. He wasn't saying they'd make a revolution without religion. That's like the fallacy that repression breeds rebellion.

Nothing breeds rebellion except organizing.

I'm someone who many of you know or know of but am being anonymous because I don't want to bring publicity to this stupidity.

if they are arming themselves, mired in false consciousness, unable to develop 'a functional class analysis' because they are fed dumpstered ideas by one of the octopus arms of the state, all the more reason to burn them down, really. (though i think lawrence was being hyperbolic , and making an intellectual point, and demonstrating resistance, if not also the 'willingness' to actually burn down these places if need to do so becomes great...

No one was seriously advocating burning churches down, black or white, as a real strategy. Goddamnit, how can people be so dense? It was a rhetorical device, to indicate a strong disagreement with organized religion, a disagreement that makes perfect sense from an anarchist perspective given the historical role of the Church. This should be clear to anyone who isn't trying to cynically twist the argument into something that can be used to defame and discredit a well known and respected anarchist for their own self serving reasons.

No one is actually defending churches.

Its when a white man in a room full of mostly white people in a neighborhood that, up until the onslaught of gentrification in the past 5-7 years or so, was mostly black - where churches are traditionally centers of community, family and organizing of the working class in such geographic locations - agrees that we should burn black churches.

That he was asked a question by another person in the room is a non-essential detail. He was not tricked - if he was, he's certainly a lot dumber than folks here are giving him credit for. Someone underscored something critical, and a white man flippantly advocates that yes, we (a.k.a. this room full of mostly white people), should burn them.

Not organize with them, not share ideas with them, not build with them.

No, burn them.

If you mean organize with many of the people who attend church this is a given. These incidents always highlight that the real problem is so many anarchists lack of willingness to engage with diverse people around them. So they end up in no-win situations where opposition to mediating institutions can be presented as opposition to individual participants. Makes us easy pickings for identity politicians to insert themselves. What are the q. idiots if not another mediating gatekeeper institution looking to profit from policing the disconnect between white anarchists and this homogenous mass of Oakland POC?

But of course you mean supporting the "the church." You are the same tired argument used against anarchists all the time for why we need to support unions, ngos, progressive politicians, and alternative corporations. It is the same race-baiting argument used for why we needed to at the least tacitcly support the Obama campaign. Because POC, or church members, or union members, are just not sophisticated enough to work with anyone who is also against something they are a part of. Why are you an anarchist if you don't already differentiate between the individuals who participate in institutions and the institutions themselves?

Meant the former, not the latter.

But the internet affords a bubble in which we can all communicate haphazardly and be ruthless assholes, so I suppose its perfectly fine, and I won;t hold it against you.

Churches are dumb/violent institutions, historically. That does not mean the individuals who attend them inherently are. If building against a common enemy (the state, etc.) with folks who do not attend a particular church leads people to decide they want to burn down their own church, excellent! But that's not up to the folks building with them to light the match, or to even suggest lighting the match - this is not their place.

Then this doesn't make sense and I don't understand why you are arguing with yourself. Do you actually have an issue with what the guy said? You seem to be projecting all of these additional assumptioms because of your generalized view of how white anarchists organize. That problem is with you universalizing. It is really displaced to project those legitimate frustrations onto comment someone makes as if he is saying all these additional unspokens. Reminds me of people siting in a GA time-keeping how long a man talks for then calling him out. Dudes talk too much. Dudes need checked. Doesn't mean the act of talking for a long time means a guy is a sexist asshole.

It makes sense because if you actually plan to work with people who attend church and see that institution as something they built for themselves- then you can't advocate burning their church, because that does not develop them into a more radical stance. It makes them take the logical stance- further defending THEIR church against you- the foreign invader.

I mean, damn, in anarchist groupings you can almost make enemies for life by simply CRITICIZING someone's friend. How could you then not understand that someone would hate you and everything you stand for because you come and burn their church.

The question is related to how human beings work and think. Do you really want to get people to work with you? You can't do it by simply shitting on the things they love. That just makes enemies. You have to get them to recognize a common goal first, and use the recognition of that common goal to help them see what works and what doesn't work in order to get to that goal.

Anything else is not related to the need to actually organize a revolution by the working class, it's simply an ineffective "punk" aesthetic- "Fuck You" dressed up to seem thoughtful.

Umm, then I guess we just disagree. I am upfront with people I try to build long-term relationships with. There is no use hiding our politics. Yes, this means saying you oppose the unions they are part of and explain why. Yes, this means saying why you think churches do need burned if you get in a conversation about the church. Again, context is everything. But lots of anarchists take the road you seem to be about. And they aren't exactly building mass working class organizations or power... You see this guys statement and are throwing all this stuff onto it. I see it and agree with the sentiment. People you don't give a shit about who don't care for you will take offense at the mildest thing. People who see time and time again that you are in the long haul to struggle aside them will be ok with you despite the craziest differences. I don't understand looking at the problems anarchists are facing and seeing the issue as one of styles of speaking or tastes in culture. The problem isn't what anarchists wear or being a little too direct about our desires.

They're Black.

You sound like an expert on how to engineer a revolution. In astronomy revolution means ending up right back were you started. Thus the wisdom of Marx reveals the long sought after query of how how the masses are to go in circles? By the way I can't wait to see all these TV shows that teach anarchism, maybe the revolutions are turning faster than I had realized. Not sure if organ-izing a revolution is more like a gang bang or being in the middle of a spinning circle jerk, but I could well imagine how that would make one rather dizzy. Maybe a better goal would be to individually take back the subjective agency denied by "the working class", "the people", as well as the patronizing assumption that they all need to be "organized" at all. But then again there are no experts on how to make a lasting and definitive breach from this miserable global tyranny, only on how the people should go in circles.

You may not be an expert in revolution, but you sure as hell are an expert in semantics! Tell me more about how there's no real way for the working class to strategize together and overthrow the system. Your "anti-authoritarianism" is so warm and cozy, must be nice to stay there forever.

"the working class", reduces individuals to a demographic calculation devoid of subjective agency. There are "real ways" to strategize the overthrow, but oversimplified categories are not one of them.

"Organizing" people into the "working class" sounds too much like what the system already does to sustain itself. It's not hard to see through that bullshit.

There is a big difference between that and what was said before; "organizing of the working class" verses "strategize together". The idea of 'organizing the working class' implies that workers passively and collectively accept the dominant role of labor organizers. Meet the new bass same as the old boss. It also reinforces the rigid roles wage slavery that workers aspire break free from. Also who are you quoting? "anti-authoritarianism" was your words. So any and all "working class" people disagreeing with you must be living "so warm and cozy." You're fucking oblivious

Okay, can somebody give a 3 sentence summary of this, because what I see is a lot of words to wade through and not much substance...also seemingly inapplicable or indecipherable phrases like "none of us have anymore sense in our language than others" WTF does that mean?

And what is this pretencious nonsensical crap "I'm deploying my so-called authoritative voice, my performance of authorship and patriarchy, as “Liam Sionnach,” the fact that I was “there,” and sided with my friend (because I am taken by friendship), in order to speak with more weight than others.."

My performance of authorship and patriarchy as "Liam Sionnach"?

Taken by friendship?

WTF? Is this some weird dialect of English or something?

Is the problem that I never went to graduate school or read post-structuralism?

Does everything "anarchists" right after 2008 or so have to be posturing that its a bad translation of some rip off of a French philosopher?


Really, you thought the language in this was difficult?

I mean, it was bad. Really bad. But it wasn't hard to read.

What do you read like kids books?

well, that was disappointing.

Can any one actually explain where and when and what was the context of the asserted statement about burning black churches? Did anyone see this except "Liam" and the Qilombos? Did this even happen?

I was there, this whole thing did not even happen that way. Qilombos did argue with Lawrence. Lawrence apologized, politely reiterated what he meant; the others explained that he said it in a fucked up way that, and i quote, "kinda hurt, bro." LJ apologized again, offered them a snack. They hugged it out. I even saw LJ at the bike workshop at Qilombo this past week, helping some kid put on a new tire. I have no idea what all this internet vitrol is about.

I've been a good friend of Lawrence's for years and he's definitely an ass sometimes. This whole thing has gone way out of proportion. LJ even volunteers for an adult literacy program in Oakland. It's actually in the back of an AME church, I think the pastor invited Lawrence and others to help out a couple years ago. I think LJ is just a little embarrassed that he volunteers with a church, but he's really doing some good work.

LJ sometimes works in their soup kitchen thing too, and even takes left overs to the FNB. We were at the park once and LJ showed up with a ton of bread that the church had gotten somehow, and we were able to distro it to all the FNB peeps that come out to eat. The next week our crew all went to the church and helped them cook; they didn't even mind that we were all veg, they made the meal veg and everyone seemed to like it.

Lawrence was asked to be on the NAACP board b/c the president pro tem at the time was this old Panther sellout dude that Lawrence hung out with. LJ of course said no thanks, but he was really humble about it and said some pretty righteous stuff about how working with black community organizations was super important and he wished anarchos wouldn't be so ignorant about shit.

So yeah yall, whatever. LJ is an ok dude and this whole thing is made up internet nonsense. Just go say hey to LJ and tell em Errol Widdershin Moonshine sent ya, we go way back. I just wanna make things right for my old friend.

This directly contradicts the statement that Lawrence himself put out. If they hugged it out and resolved whatever the misunderstanding was, then why was there a need to publish an open letter that claimed they were threatened and that their literature was trashed, and which called for mediation? Given how big this whole controversy has blown up, I wish there was more transparency from all involved regarding what exactly happened.

Really, you can't infer that apparently some were still mad at LJ. It's not like there is only one grand narrative, there were multiple individuals involved and some were apparently still mad at him. The events described in the open letter and in the comment above are not mutually exclusive. As to the lack of transparency, well the Qilombos, or rather those that confronted LJ, still have yet to make any public statements explaining their action.

this is the first post i've seen that talks about what actually happened. it would be nice if more people who were there did that, because all these arguments could really use more context.

i believe that post is entirely fictional.
your point stands, however.

the parts that are not fiction:

"he's definitely an ass sometimes. This whole thing has gone way out of proportion."

"LJ is an ok dude and this whole thing is made up internet nonsense."

It isn't out of proportion
I've been hearing about the intense racial tension in the anarchist scene in the bay since i left
I imagine other people want to know whats going on there as well

The statement the holdout organizers supplied the rumors with this:
they're stepping down
to relieve the pain they caused by being white-supremecists

I didn't really read it like that, just made me think they're scared of black people
LJ's statement didn't give any info on what went down but at least he didn't lament and seek pity

I wanna know what's happening, from different sides. Anews comments are great but even the trolls don't wanna mention
"Certain events"

Are you suggesting this had something to do with the Holdout getting robbed? Looking at this drama as blacks and whites being separated at gunpoint and the whites robbed and humiliated and giving up the space, ect, is a bad analogy at best and a racist assumption at worst. These events are connected only in that they prove WE, the people, are pissed at white anarchists in OUR city.

well WE have been here as long as the jefferson airplane. my grandfather is ROBERT DUNCAN. we dont live in a college campus bubble....we started unions, and busted unions. ...and we built this city. WE built this city on rock and roll.

Authority hath spoken! Everything that disagrees with it is racist now, even acknowledging the shady and seemingly hostile take over of the Holdout. Even all the harassment of local anarchist seeming to stem from the Q-hole. Creeping cops using "We the people" and other such objectifying cliches to mobilize their Maoist migration and ...colonization...(oh no! oops!) are extending capitalism beyond the workplace. With evictions starting first with the Holdout then the BA book fair. What will be next? Witness now the ongoing denial of any and all nuanced analysis attempting to rewrite anarchist ideas into polarizing black and wight perspectives. As if any of this shit will ever stop long enough to allow for time to end the dominant tyranny, rather than merely transforming it into Mao's wet dream, an new cultural dictatorship in north America.

As more information trickles out, this is sounding worse and worse. So the Holdout was robbed at gunpoint and shortly thereafter the space was taken over by people with nationalist/Maoist tendencies? Could someone for the love of god please put out a public statement about all of this so it isn't left to Internet gossip and innuendo.

are any racial group, ethnic group or subculture a homogenous thing? no.
are there libertarian currents within most religions? yes.
are they the most common ones? no.
are religious leaders some of the first people police and city officials go to and are willing to publicly try and calm people down in moments of social tension? yes.
as long as there are repressive ideologies forced on children will there always be rebellious teenagers? yes.








this took me a few minutes to find. i'm sure if i spent longer on it i could find dozens if not hundreds of stories.

It's not about whether burning a church is "wrong", it's about who's burning the church. A bunch of white kids and intellectuals going into a black community and burning down a church has some utterly horrible associations that go way beyond the obvious Klan comparisons. It's not up to white people to police appropriate spiritual beliefs amongst people of colour, no matter what we personally think about those beliefs. If you disagree, feel free to ship off to Afghanistan. That's not an "anarchist" position, it's just the same old colonialist bullshit that's been going on for five centuries - how do you think the church got all this influence, anyway?

If people from the community feel the church should be burned I'm all for it - that goes for suburban white kids burning down suburban white churches, black kids burning down black churches or Iranian kids toarching a mosque. Oppressed people liberating themselves - that's anarchy. Privileged people forcing it on them is vanguardism.

And no, I don't think anybody was actually planning on burning any churches, which kinda brings us back to the point about ill advised, overly-militant. hyperbolic bullshit. But I guess that's just what we've all come to expect from the Bay Area...

i agree with what you said, but i take lawrence's side all the way. because he did not say "I, an old white dude, will burn black churches." he said they should be burned (presumably in the manner you stated).
then a bunch of victim mongering oppression olympians decided to make a name for themselves by shitting on him for it because they are whiny fucking pricks and would rather fight anarchists than any actual capitalists or fascists because they are cowards who want to feel tough and powerful.

How can you not grasp that what you say seems to be exactly what the dude said? The guy did not call for white people to run into some area they don't live and start burning black churches. Dude got asked a question and answered that yes, his militiant opposition extends to even the black Church.

This is the most pathetic made up racism. Can't wait as this same fucking shit starts up for Hillary '16.

Destroy all states.

No one is a fucking idiot proposing people randomly go into other communities and act like an asshole regardless of how much it fucks things up for the people who live there. No one who says "I am for the destruction of Hamas" is saying I think a random American should travel alone to Gaza and destroy Hamas feed distro to snatch food out of dying Palestinians mouth. You fuckers are crazy. Telling it like it is just means being an anarchist.

'And no, I don't think anybody was actually planning on burning any churches' but I'm going to pretend for the sake of argument that I did to make an obvious point that absolutely no one would disagree with. Winning!

'It's not about whether burning a church is "wrong", it's about who's burning the church'

And what does this have to do with the statement "all churches should be burned....yes including black ones'?
In the former we see one inferring that a set of individuals are setting to task the literal burning of a specific institution, a church, and in the latter we have someone stating that they believe, presumably to work towards the goal of total anarchy, all churches should be expunged from the social terrain.

There is a glaring distinction between stating that one wills to commit themselves to x (burning churches)and that they believe that x should be taking place. The latter could easily refer to people within a respective community carrying out the action, so much as it could mean the imposition of a universal standard by one set of beings over another.

but but Black. and guy was White. next you claim a white guy should answer that he is also against bosses. even ones who look the other that employee is undocumented.

glad the anarchy is still going strong revelling in its complete impotence. fucking hell

I agree with LJ.

Black churches? Ugh, that's just tacky. Churches look better in a nice sky blue or mauve... Maybe even a desert tan with an off white trim.

I don't know if burning them down might be a tad severe but a black church could use a make over.

Comment of the week!

***talks about ignorance, then promotes ignorance by denouncing critique***

Are you sure Lawrence didn't mean to say Bob Black churches?

Those would be part of the Church of the Immaculate Pig, in case you are interested.

-- Bob Black (Pig ffffucker and copy to be submitted with State returns, if any)

The Judean scapegoat ironically becomes the Christian scapepig, like Bob becoming the scapepig of some hateful anarchist malcontents!

"To those who are looking for a way out of this hell, let's use this as an opportunity to be done with critique, negation, and all the remnants of the political history of the west in our thought."

I'm sorry, but this is obfuscating bullshit. What does it mean?

stop assuming shit `means' something you queer

White anarchists calling black and brown anarchists Maoists is just another example of dehumanization... "Oh they're Maoists so even though we are colonizing gentrifiying and displacing them it doesn't matter how they feel or how they struggle because they are evil Maoists" and what qualifies them as Maoists... I haven't seen much in the way of actually making that connection... How many of them read or discuss Mao... How many of them are even part of any organizations... Anyway my main point is this... White people are not the norm nor are they objective in any way... It is entirely within a white supremacist colonialist narrative to ascribe a name and identity to people you don't know or have any understanding of and this is not what I would expect from self-proclaimed anarchists

IGTM 0/10

uh, but it seems to be lots of poc calling you all maoists. strange you make these comments but duhamnize anyone who calls you a maoist as white...

That IS one of the ways Maoists struggle for their cause, via identity politics, and cultural conflict. Anyone that understands the terms "Maoists" and "anarchist" knows the ideology of the latter is incompatible with the perspective of the former. Oakland is not a colonial territory. It is a city state with a capitalist economy that displaces anyone powerless enough to withstand displacement. Not only does it "dehumanize" to always refer to racial markers of those you want to blame for "colonizing gentrifiying and displacing" but also ignoring the complicity of POC's occupying positions within the the police, government, and corporate management totally fails to confront reality as it is. Since Maoists sects use a lot of front groups to hide there authoritarian command structure, there ideas get put out into society without a broad awareness of the where it all comes from (it's all over social media now too). So anyone can be influenced by these ideas (or even manipulated by the organizations themselves) without even knowing it. Again "white supremacist colonialist narrative" seems completely out of touch with reality of the situation within the American empire. Empires integrate the social power of any and all ethnic and racial groups to add to it's superstructure, and present day Oakland is no exception.

I'm a POC and I'm calling those idiots Maoists. It's got nothing to do with reading the red book and everything to do with the latent structuralist Marxist analysis that goes into nonsense like white privilege/supremacy.

I understand to a degree why POCs have such latent Maoism in their midst, they became radicalized when Marxist ideological models were the dominant game in town and anarchism was just recovering. But let's call a spade a spade and recognize the problem here.

you can't just claim precious POC status; you have to take the paper bag test in the presence of trusted allies who can witness that you haven't been hitting the tanning salon.

What is meant by Maoist tendencies? I ask only because where I live the Maoists are the only communists I know of who haven't done all that is being assigned to them. In fact, self proclaimed 'anarchists' up here are more guilty of the nonsense that these fools who flipped the table and fucked up the literature are responsible for.

Of course Mao is garbage and there are clear flaws with following any particular individual to the ultimate degree, however in my experience the Maoists tend to do the opposite thing and completely disregard anything that is outside the bounds of class.

And assigning the label gentrifier to all white folk is incredibly stupid and can only be perpetuated by people who are so far removed from the reality that poor white folk who are actively removed from poor ghettos alongside black and brown counter-parts (albeit in smaller numbers) by wealthier white and neo-colonized power hungry black and brown folk.

One could reasonably argue that by virtue of being white, one is portrayed as a symbolic manifestation/representation of colonial domination, however materially speaking that is oversimplistic and not at all true in of itself.

Within the context of state-capitalism, as Oakland very much is, the entrepreneurial sect is saturated with yuppy racialized folk who bought their way into what was historically relegated to whites and many whites have been relegated to the status which was historically accorded to black and brown folk. Whether or not the latter realizes their similarities to racialized peeps is another argument in of itself.

And of course, the validity of the working class as a unified whole is severely lacking given how the majority of them within the US and Canada have been bought out.

Not trying to be an asshole, but educate yourself dawg

in the first few paragraphs you'll quickly understand why these nutcases are labeled maoists by anarchists.

IEF have heavy maoist tendencies, just like their idols IC and tiqqun, regardless of the "anti-identity" rhetoric that popped up here and there, (one could even say it reinforced it, in it's own way) so this comes as no great surprise.

why attack cops when we could just beat these people up at less risk

Contained within the first few paragraphs, it seems to me, are not rejections of Maoist tendencies by anarchists, in that the revisionist proposition brought forth is that of the peasantry leading the war against the state and capital rather than the proles. In this sense, Maoism shares a unity with anarcho-primitivism. The peasant signifies a rejection of techno-capitalist advancement, although they do not signify an all out rejection of civilization as being characterized by the onset of agriculture.

"Although Maoism is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialization as a prerequisite to expand economic development and socialist reorganization to the countryside, with the goal being the achievement of rural industrialization that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside."

This seems to me to be oxymoronic, in that one cannot will towards 'industrialization', yet maintain a peasant lifestyle. It is in line with Mao's project however, in that it denotes his propensity towards competition with the industrialized west and the hyper-exploitation of the agrarian individual with the hopes of seeking out an advanced technocratic society in line with advanced state-capitalism in the west, as China now exhibits.

I get where you're coming from with reference to where I might be able to find answers to my inquiries within the first few paragraphs as indicated in the part that states that Maoists tend towards the support of national liberation struggles or insurgencies, however this points towards a divergence between fools like the fucks who flipped the tables and claim to speak on behalf of others somewhere else, and the people they think they are flipping tables on behalf of.
There are two tendencies within the Maoist current: the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and the third worldists. With the former, the name signifies the problem. Marx was wrong about the future of state capitalism and because he didn't need to concern himself with the individual, his attention paid towards the social was clearly contradicted in the 20th century and Lenin was but a mere opportunist who exploited the ignorance of the many in order to retain power and social control. Not to mention, his conception of the effects of colonial domination were severely lacking. And of course, there is the understanding of what the regime did to anarchists of the time where destruction of individual freedom is concerned.
The problem with the latter is that the claim is that there exists no exploited subject within the dominant states, nor hyper-exploited subject and this is categorically false. Another issue is with the idea that we must all place our energies in 'supporting' the struggle 'out there', 'outside of our current situation', and completely negate the now and here in which we find ourselves contextualized. I cannot truly support an other somewhere else if I am not actively acting against the machinery which I perceive to be oppressing this nameless and faceless other. If I fail to actualize my desire to tend towards the destruction of the repressive techno-capitalist machinery which manifests the artificiality of machinery at the expense of concrete subjectivity, I fail to manifest anarchy and therefore propagate the very logic which I claim to will against.

Maoists are fucked strictly because of the historicity of Mao's position and the imposition of authority onto the various communes which attempted to actualize a resistance to state-capitalism.
Civilization is another issue altogether.

Liam did you forget this thing you wrote about the Mormon church:

"Chuck, if you don't see how these attacks can be connected I don't think you're feeling the sensibility of civil war, and what what is at stake in the struggles against the state-form and capitalism.

The desire that produces bodies to burn everything that can only hold memories of suicide and the desire that produces bodies to scribe meaning onto the walls of temples that are monuments to the false seperation of human desire and the divine, originates in the same sphere of potentiality. It is a desire that has endured and aclimated to banal horrors, and is pushing against their very logos by becoming non-functional. To be more clear, queer forms of sexuality, locate for us a practice not an identity, of non-functional forms of pleasure. The desire being exposed by comrades in Greece is similarily a non-functional form of sodomy. People can spread insurrection becuase it has been exposed as being pleasurable through the gestures of its constant practice of interuption."

We will have to find a good quote to use for the front of the new LBC book: "UltraBoringConference'Violence': An LJ Anthology"

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.
7 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Subscribe to Comments for "Saying extreme crap in the bay area"