from Anathema
Volume 5 Issue 3 (PDF for reading 8.5 x 11)
Volume 5 Issue 3 (PDF for printing 11 x 17)
In this issue:
- Powerplant
- Racist Cops
- Sinkhole
- What Went Down
- Youth Migrant Jail
- Talking Repression
- A-Space Conflict
- Giannis Escapes!
- American Sonnet
The A-Space article has some gaps. Are the 40 or more folks who showed up at A-Space immediately after Tim Dunn had his door privileges revoked, somehow NOT part of the community the author considers relevant? What about those who showed up at the last public forum at Calvary? They actually generated a great deal of important information about what has been happening of late at A-Space. Where is the line supposed to be that writes these people off?
Also, what is being proposed here about what does actually constitute direct action? Why are the actions cited somehow outside the rubric we are supposed to accept here and what sort of acts would actually constitute legit direct action?
did we read different articles??? the article I read said “when [community] is based in a shared desire to help one another and be around one another, it makes sense to speak of community as something one can expect something from.” Like perhaps it makes sense for those 40 people to refer to themselves as a community but it wouldn’t make sense to anarchists to tell them they were part of it or accountable to it without choosing to be. Like no one expects me to be accountable to any random 40 people just bc they call themselves “the community” so it’s unclear why an anarchist collective would be.
As for why these tactics are not considered direct action, it literally stated the criteria “Direct action is the unmediated solving of problems by those affected; it is not about negotiation or convincing others.” If you are trying to convince the A-space collective to do something, by this criteria it’s not a direct action. They appear to be tactics meant to persuade or inform.
Anyway, maybe read the article again and a bit slower before you respond with “gaps.” It’s a short article and likely has gaps but these aren’t it.
“Direct action is the unmediated solving of problems by those affected; it is not about negotiation or convincing others.”
If NOT “trying to convince the A-space collective to do something”, then what sort of strategies and tactics would be included in this proposed definition of anarchist direct action?
“If you are trying to convince the A-space collective to do something, by this criteria it’s not a direct action.”
This unsupported claim sticks in the craw. Anybody who knows anything about the situation knows that “the Collective” refuses absolutely to discuss what they did to Tim Dunn and is generally opposed to being forthcoming about most things related to how they run things and how specifically new people can become part of that process.
There was compelling testimony delivered at the public forum- none of which has been covered here. We heard about the history of dishonorable behavior which led to the current makeup of the collective. One individual with an extensive background in harm reduction and interrupting abuse was extremely upset by the accounts we heard (none of which have been covered here as yet). That person broke it down real solid and said, roughly, “When someone is doing great harm like we’ve heard, you do not allow them to continue- we must stop this- I’m ready to go right now”. They had a point.
Instead of ignoring and obscuring the parts of the story which don’t fit your agenda, why not admit that the dissidents do have many valid points, that they are not going away, that their various definitions of the direct actions required are evolving over time and that their story should definitely be heard, even here?
Examples of direct action are theft, occupation, sabotage, blockades, attacks. Wikipedia has a good summary of what direct action is at the top of their article about it. If the claims in the article about direct action seem unsupported to you this first paragraph from wikipedia might help clear things up “Direct action originated as a political activist term for economical and political acts in which the actors use their (e. g. economic or physical) power to directly reach certain goals of interest, in contrast to those actions that appeal to others (e. g. authorities) by, for instance, revealing an existing problem, using physical violence, highlighting an alternative, or demonstrating a possible solution.” what’s happened around the a-space has been a combination of revealing a problem and demonstrating a possible solution, which are fine, but are not direct action.
the article in anathema doesn’t say that people are running the a-space perfectly or even well, or that the people upset about what’s up at the a-space don’t have a point, the article asks readers to consider what they mean when they use words like community and accountability and direct action in an anarchist context. the article doesn’t say that people shouldn’t be heard (even here) or that they are going away, i’m not sure where you got that from. the article says that the use of these terms (community, accountable) around the a-space is part of a larger trend of people using these words without an anarchist understanding of what they mean.
to me it seems that the gaps in the article people are upset about are that it isn’t in favor of their perspective that the a-space collective should do whatever, not that it questions their use of words, but that’s just my guess. anathema is an anarchist newspaper that takes submissions, so if people are interested in writing an article about this from an anarchist or anti-authoritarian perspective differently than what’s already out there they are welcome to send something in or publish it themselves.
So not knowing who said what specifically about any particular activity is that you feel was wrong, what sort of actions could the dissidents perform in this case that would actually pass the muster in your view?
“This unsupported claim sticks in the craw” I am not sure what you think is unsupported since you quoted me referring to the article’s criteria. Since I am referring directly to the article, the only possible supporting evidence is the criteria as stated in the article. Like how is that unsupported?
Maybe you are taking issue with the criteria? I realize that other ppl have different criteria, like some ppl call something a direct action based solely on tactics–a blockade, a sit-in, etc–even when the goal is to convince someone. In this case, the action would be direct not bc you’re reaching the goal yourself without mediation but bc you are applying force without relying solely on the symbolic demand you are making. I personally accept that this could be someone else’s criteria but it is not the author of this article’s criteria! And tbf the article’s criteria makes more sense for anarchism. I don’t see you offering any criteria for how the actions taken of late could be described as direct action and I can’t really imagine how they would. If holding assemblies or signs were direct action that would make it indistinguishable from any kind of action or protest, making the term direct action kind of useless imho
I think the above poster already did a good job of offering examples of direct action.
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by “your agenda.” Do you mean mine? or Anathema’s? or the author of this particular article? I mean, personally, I am literally engaging with you not ignoring you so… On the other hand, to me, much of what you have written hasn’t engaged with things I have said but just used it as a spring board for *your* agenda. I don’t really appreciate being a straw man but whatever–just to be clear, my actual agenda is anarchism. Is there an anarchist response to this situation from your side? From my pov, it all seems non-anarchist to me. Some even anti-anarchist in the animosity toward informality and collectives.
dissidents should do whatever they want, i’ll just be confused and annoyed if they call it direct action when it’s not.
I’ll just let it go at this: It seems like a fair reading of this A-Space article and the last one in Anathema as well to say that there was very little support for the dissident organizing- and a lot of criticism. One can only infer the position and agenda from what it is given but it does not read as supportive. Given that, “I’m a better anarchist than you” is a recurring motif in anti-authoritarian circles, it does not seem that solidarity with those dissatisfied with the Status Quo it does not seem like supporting that organizing effort is a goal. Quite the opposite.
The limitations of friend-group collectives:
I appreciate that people are talking about all of this. However the veering off into “what is direct action?” and all the quibbling about phrasing seems unnecessary. A way more interesting concept to bring into the conversation is “non-hierarchy”. This is the heart of anarchism, is it not?
Some people get lost, I propose, in thinking about and/or enacting “anti-hierachy” -which is always walking around looking for the authority to hate, to rebel against, to disagree with and to quibble with. And while there is plenty of authority in evidence these days, the question of “non-hierarchy” and how to implement it and with whom to share this blessed expectation is way more interesting to me. Because don’t we all, those who associate with the political theory of anarchism, pine for spaces and relationships where there is dedication to non-hierarchy -not always perfect enactment of.. but verbal and bodily commitment to non-hierarchy? In other words, commitment to a process towards non-hierarchy. I call this anarchist loneliness: the desire and need for spaces and relationships where there is commitment to non-hierarchy. In my estimation a large number of people in W. Philly feel this loneliness as a reality and associate A-space with this feeling, and with a hope to experience and fulfill that need and desire at 4722 Baltimore Ave. People move to W. Philly for that very reason, because there is a very progressive and activist community here, that includes an anarchist community space!
That being said, my estimation of what is happening with the A-space is that its being run by a friend-group collective who use some concepts connected with anarchism to enact autocratic control of the space, for perhaps good reasons at least in their own mind. But this friend-group collective refuses to even discuss openly what is happening with the space and how it is being run. And actually, I don’t even care if they do make an account, -but I would like to hear actual commitment to non-hierarchy in the future. Why can’t there be commitment to non-hierarchy clearly stated for all future operations of the collective?
Literally speaking, the A-space has been enacting autocratic rule since it started through a friend-group collective and it has worked fine until recently! I’m not against friend-group collectives, -perhaps all anti and non-hierarchical actions and cooperations start with friend-groups. But at a certain point of size of activities and number of people involved, friend-group collectives need to evolve into minimal organisations that enact trustable rules and traditions, and yes, transparency and accountability. Or face the loss of community. Its a very simple equation. Friend-group collectives have limitations. Can those who hold power over the A-space enact fairness for the larger community or do they want to limit the community to just their own friends?
I do have specific suggestions but would rather see if there is sincere interest in this discussion.
The post immediately above said:
“Literally speaking, the A-space has been enacting autocratic rule since it started through a friend-group collective and it has worked fine until recently!”
This is somewhat surprising, because while things there were always insular enough that some degree of friend-group dynamics were inevitable, “autocratic” would not be the word that most comes to mind to describe the pre-Francesca era at A-Space!
Ok, I see yr point. Yes, I’d have to call it a responsive friend-group collective. Probably one that always was reaching out to get more help with getting things done. But still, I guess I mean making decisions on their own without public meetings and just kind of winging it based on their own personal decision making processes.
What I’m trying to do is make a distinction between what I’m calling “friend group collectives” (important but limited) and accountable and purpose focused, larger, and hopefully longer lasting anarchist collectives. Can an anarrchist community center be accountable over the long run to the general public – the people – and create a commons open to all?
Here is a quote from Change the world without taking power by John Holloway which seems relevant to the A-Space situation:
Power, in the first place, is simply that: can-ness, capacity-to-do, the ability to do things. Doing implies power, power-to-do. In this sense we commonly use ‘power’ to refer to something good: I feel powerful, I feel good. The little train in the children’s story (Piper, 1978) that says ‘I think I can, I think I can’ as it tries to reach the top of the mountain, has a growing sense of its own power. We go to a good political meeting and come away with an enhanced sense of our own power. We read a good book and feel empowered. The women’s movement has given women a greater sense of their own power. Power in this sense can be referred to as ‘power-to’, power-to-do.
Power-to, it must be emphasised again, is always a social power, even though it may not appear to be so. The story of the little train presents power-to as a matter of individual determination, but in fact that is never the case. Our doing is always part of a social flow of doing, even where it appears to be an individual act. Our capacity to do is always an interlacing of our activity with the previous or present activity of others. Our capacity to do is always the result of the doing of others.
Power-to, therefore, is never individual: it is always social. It cannot be thought of as existing in some pure, unsullied state, for its existence will always be part of the way in which sociality is constituted, the way in which doing is organised. Doing (and power-to-do) is always part of a social flow, but that flow is constituted in different ways.
It is when the social flow of doing is fractured that power-to is transformed into its opposite, power-over.
The social flow is fractured when doing itself is broken. Doing-as-projection-beyond is broken when some people arrogate to themselves the projection-beyond (conception) of the doing and command others to execute what they have conceived. Doing is broken as the ‘powerful’ conceive but do not execute, while the others execute but do not conceive. Doing is broken as the ‘powerful’ separate the done from the doers and appropriate it to themselves. The social flow is broken as the ‘powerful’ present themselves as the individual doers, while the rest simply disappear from sight. If we think of ‘powerful’ men in history, for example, of Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, then power appears as the attribute of an individual. But of course their power to do things was not an ability to do them on their own, but an ability to command others to do what they wished them to do. The ‘we’ of doing appears as an ‘I’, or as a ‘he’ (more often a ‘he’ than a ‘she’): Caesar did this, Caesar did that. The ‘we’ is now an antagonistic ‘we’, divided between the rulers (the visible subjects) and the ruled (the invisible de-subjectified subjects). Power-to now becomes ‘power-over’, a relation of power over others. These others are powerless (or apparently powerless), deprived of the capacity to realise our own projects, if only because we spend our days realising the project of those who exercise power-over.
https://libcom.org/library/chapter-3-beyond-power