“They Try to Pit Everybody Against Everybody”: Interview with a Member of the Student Labor Action Project

  • December 21, 2019 4:19 pm

from It’s Going Down

Interview from the Radical Education Department about the Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) in Philadelphia.

By Ivanna Berrios and Jason Koslowski

The 2019-2020 academic year is in full swing. And that means it’s time to think seriously about how we’ll build up radical campus struggles this year.

The following is Part 4 of the Campus Power Project, a series of interviews and writings about building radical, bottom-up class power on and across college campuses. For Part 1, see this; for Part 2, see this; for Part 3, see this.

INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERVIEW

In this interview, I spoke with Ivanna Berrios, a sophomore as well as an organizer with the Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

SLAP is an organization that aims to build student-worker power “for the transformation of our community and material conditions to create a better reality” at Penn.

Ivanna explores key issues like:

  • Ways to build radical solidarity between students and other kinds of campus workers
  • Ways of grappling with retention, since many students leave for the summer and some of the most seasoned organizers graduate after a few years
  • The tactics that college admins use to divide organizers against each other
  • And SLAP’s unique answer to the dilemma of university funding

Since this interview during the spring semester last academic year SLAP has continued to develop, with changes in leadership and a focus on researching the working and learning conditions on campus. But the piece offers a snapshot of that ongoing development and SLAP’s efforts to develop student-worker power on campus.

JK: The Student Labor Action Project, or SLAP, has a longer history at Penn. Where did this most recent revival come from? What issue sparked it?

IB: SLAP has been officially on Penn’s campus since 1999. And they’ve done a lot of really great things in the past. They helped the dining hall workers gain a union—that’d be Teamsters 929—and also really involved in the campaign calling for Penn to pay PILOT [payment in lieu of taxes]].

In the past couple of years, it was mainly spearheaded by upperclassman, so when those upperclassmen graduated, SLAP membership kind of atrophied. It never really disbanded officially, it just had different waves of resurgence.

And the most recent wave that I’ve been involved in really started a couple of months ago in February, because the director of Penn Dining stopped permitting the celebration of Black History Month. This was in response to controversy at U Chicago and other campuses, where the celebrations were considered stereotypical. That was their claimed reasons for not allowing the campus workers to celebrate, even though the workers themselves said that they did want to do things for Black History Month.

One of our core members of SLAP, Michelle, is very very close friends with some of the dining hall workers. She was hearing their grievances, so we organized a direct action on campus just to show solidarity to say that we saw how Penn Dining was disrespecting the wishes of the dining hall workers.

That was back in February, but that wasn’t officially SLAP. We did a rally on campus where the dining hall workers spoke about how Black History Month is important to them, and how they were upset that Penn wasn’t allowing them to celebrate it or acknowledge it. And that basically kick-started a conversation about how Penn doesn’t listen to the dining hall workers in general, about their disrespect in the workplace. We started learning more about subcontracted labor. Penn subcontracts through Bon Appetit for certain dining halls, and the Bon Appetit workers are not technically Penn employees. And those workers are underpaid. They’re disrespected. They don’t get health benefits and education benefits. And then we connected to Villanova USAS, United Students Against Sweatshops. They really helped us a lot in providing a blueprint for how to restart an organization. We had organizing workshops and we did flyering and outreach.

So the most recent resurgence of SLAP had was catalyzed by the Black History Month event, and then it was Villanova USAS that fanned the flames, and we became an independent collective of students who were trying to continue SLAP’s legacy of working in tandem with the workers.

JK: What do you see as SLAP’s basic goals, both short-term and long-term?

IB: This semester we’ve been focusing on relationship-building, direct actions, and education. A lot of students on campus don’t realize that [campus] workers are being exploited to the extent that they are. So it’s been a lot of flyering, a lot of getting direct quotes and numbers from the dining hall workers. That’s our plan for now for the summer, research and building a base of people who support us.

Next semester [in fall 2019], we’re hoping to launch a direct campaign of antagonizing the administration, to get Penn to apply pressure to Bon Appetit. Because Bon Appetit is headquartered in California, so it’s really hard to apply pressure directly. Among our long term goals is to end all subcontracted labor on campus. It’s not just Bon Appetit, Bon Appetit is just what we focused on. But there are other subcontracted workers, and they’re also facing similar issues: they don’t receive the same benefits that direct Penn employees do. And we also talked about eventually having a living wage campaign so that every worker on campus would have a living wage, including grad students, including cleaning services. A long term goal is definitely to branch out into all types of workers on campus.

JK: Sometimes it seems as though there’s a tendency for campus struggles to focus mostly, or only, on direct actions like sit-ins. But SLAP is taking a more careful and long-term approach. Why focus on the slower base-building instead of focusing mostly on flashier tactics like a sit-in?

IB: Because we were working in tandem with the workers. We always want to consider what they want and what they feel comfortable with and the timeline they foresee. Right now, if we were to escalate without having a base, and just go out and have our small group of people who really believe in the cause, then there really would be a chance of backlash on the workers.

And it’s because our goals are so long term, so big. Eventually we want to end all subcontracted labor. We’re trying to see how we can build to that, and not just assume we can get that off the bat. Because it is a little unrealistic to think that we could just show up to the president’s office and demand that they end subcontracted labor.

I remember talking to a former slap member, Devon. She said, “Don’t launch a campaign unless you know you’ll have a good probability of winning.” That really stuck with me.

JK: So do you think it’s important to organize mostly around one particular campaign on a campus?

IB: Well, a problem that has faced SLAP in the past is that it has always been very it’s been very specifically campaign-oriented like other campus groups. It’s been its strength in that it always has a forward-thinking vision and there’s always the next thing to move on to. But it also means that once a campaign is over, regardless of success, the group will lose its audience after the campaign, because that was what was driving the whole group.

So we’re trying to make sure that that doesn’t happen to us, by having campaign after campaign rather than just one long enduring campaign. We want to make sure that it’s a succession, so that people don’t lose the group once the first campaign ends like they have in the past.

JK: The SLAP revival came through a member’s connection to the dining hall workers. How did your comrade make that connection? It can be tough on a campus to connect students and campus staff, since they’re (intentionally, it seems) kept so isolated from each other.

IB: Actually, the relationship was very organic. This member’s name is Michelle and she is a senior right now. So she’s had a lot of time to get to know the dining hall workers. And she’s also very outgoing and very friendly. She just happened to frequent one of the dining halls that subcontracted workers—Hillel—a good amount. And then through that she befriended the dining hall workers. And it’s funny enough, a lot of students don’t know a lot about the conditions of the workers, though a lot of students do form those organic relationships, just because, especially as freshmen, they see the dining workers every day, and they ask “Hi, how are you?” I wouldn’t say the majority 04:04 of students do that, because a lot of students at Penn can be very elitist and dehumanizing, and just see them as invisible sources of labor that can feed them. But there are definitely another group of people.

What differentiated Michelle was that she is very politically radical. Um, and I would say most of Core is. And so through those organic conversations— “Hi, how was your day”—it would come up: “Oh, this is happening.” One of the dining hall workers’ son was shot by police. He’s OK now, he had to go through a lot of physical therapy. But it was a really large financial strain on the family, and Michelle started a Go Fund Me to raise money, not necessarily from an organizing standpoint.

Something SLAP has really been trying to work on is building those relationships, so that we don’t have just one point person who’s friends with the dining hall workers while the rest of us don’t really know them. So we’ve been pairing up core members with dining hall workers, having them text them, reminding them about events to come out to, reminding them about meetings. We had a pot luck recently which some of the dining hall workers came to. It wasn’t even a structured meeting, we just all brought food and hung out. We’re just trying to build up those relationships.

Actually, though, that dining hall worker had been involved with SLAP for a long time. He’s a big leader among the dining hall workers at Hillel. And so he goes to all our meetings, or most of our meetings and he knows former SLAP members, and he’s familiar with Teamsters 929, and so just being friends with him really opened the door for us.

JK: I know this was an organic, almost accidental connection with the dining hall workers. But I also see a method coming out of this connection: finding ways to help break break down the walls of separation between students and campus workers, in more informal ways (everyday conversation, potlucks) and more formal ways (shared meetings). And then helping develop those relationships in more political directions.

IB: Yeah, that was really important for us. There’s a power imbalance between the students and the workers, and we didn’t want it to say, “We are the Student Labor Action Project, we have come to save you!” and have the workers say, “Who the fuck are you?” So we really tried to focus on building those relationships,

It is a friendship, but it’s also a politicized friendship. Because we really needed them to trust us for them to tell us the details of what was happening in their working conditions. I don’t think we could’ve done that without that organic process. I think it was founded upon just seeing the humanity and not necessarily seeing them as political subjects that we have to radicalize. That I think can sometimes be a perspective that some organizers and leftists take, and it comes from a good place, but it can be dehumanizing.

We first built those relationships with the dining hall worker, who like I said is a natural leader, and with a shop steward, and they tell the other workers. So there’s also that other element, where they trust us because they trust their fellow workers and those workers trust us. Because we can’t get to every worker, realistically. But we can get to the leaders in the workplaces who other co-workers trust.

JK: One of the major tactics that admins use against campus organizers is to pit different kinds of campus workers against each other: students against campus staff, staff with more benefits against staff with less benefits, and so on. Can you say how SLAP is trying to bridge gaps between those kinds of workers?

IB: Yeah, they’ve even been trying to pit students against students. We were recently in a meeting with Pam, the director of dining hall operations at Penn, as well as one person from the united minority students council, one person from Lambda, which is the umbrella LGBTQ group, one person from the umbrella African American students’ group, and one person from the Latina coalition. The meeting was in regards to the Black History Month event. We spoke to the people from the other student groups before the meeting, luckily. And we were able to see that most of them were on our side.

Pam didn’t want to talk about labor, she wanted to talk about diversity, and how they could be more culturally sensitive in the future. And every time SLAP would bring up the general disrespect of the admin towards the workers, she would say, “Oh, I think you need to stop derailing the meeting. Let’s see what [the other student representatives] think.” And they were like, “We support them!” Basically, the admins are trying to pit our group, the radical wing, against the more moderate, “reasonable” student body representatives, and it didn’t work, luckily. Because we had spoken to them and had them on our side first. They try to pit everybody against everybody, in any possible way, just to make sure we’re not talking to each other and not antagonizing them.

JK: That highlights how crucial it is for organizers to be reaching out and connecting to different kinds of student groups before confronting the bosses, so that admins can’t weaponize the idea of “diversity” against campus workers.

IB: The administration will use it as a weapon against grievances in general. Because after the meeting, then, they can say, “Oh, we met with students, we got their insight,” even if students didn’t necessarily walk away from the meeting feeling listened to or felt like we made any progress. And that’s definitely been a trend in the past. Someone actually brought that up in the meeting. Someone from the Lambda Alliance brought that up as a concern, saying “I just want to make sure you [admins] don’t release a statement saying that you met with us and listened to our concerns. Because I don’t feel like we’re being listened to.”

JK: What’s been the most effective tactic for building up SLAP so far, for getting more people in?

IB: I think the most successful has been our worker/student meetings, where um the workers come to meetings and we talk about their conditions and talk about what they want changed. And I think those have been the most successful in getting people invested. Afterwards we try to follow up with people, especially new people after the meetings. For the most part, those meetings have been the ones where people say, “I didn’t realize the extent of the exploitation, and hearing it directly from the workers was really, it really changed things for me, and I really want to get involved.” We’re not trying to slip into a purely emotional plea. It’s more that, when you see the anger of the workers and the frustrations of the workers, and you see them face to face, and you ask them questions, and you learn more personally, it makes you feel a lot more connected to the struggle, not just seeing it on paper. I think that has been the most successful at broadening our base.

JK: Can you say a word about the problem of student retention? One of the things I’ve run into organizing on campuses is that students go away for the summer, and some of the most experienced people graduate each year. What are ways to deal with this issue?

IB: That’s the biggest pitfalls to organizing. It’s cyclical. And it’s just so hard to keep people. What we’ve been trying to do is make a lot of spreadsheets to keep information on people. I mean that sounds creepy, but we’re really trying to make sure we don’t lose people. So we’ve been keeping track of who’s going to stay over the summer, we’re focusing on them. we’ve been keeping track of freshmen and sophomores, and we’ve been focusing on them for the one on ones and the follow up texts.

And we also try to build connections among the students themselves, because a lot of times, a lot of groups on campus can feel really pre-professional or depersonalized or can feel you’re only in it to add to your resume. So we had a potluck just yesterday where we all just hang out. And we try to just hang out and be friends and keep ourselves accountable to each other in that way. Especially core [members]. We weren’t even friends before but now we’re all tight. We would almost force it at the beginning: we’d be like, “OK, we have to build community, let’s hang out.” So we’ve just been trying to make sure that people feel invested because there are hundreds of student groups you could join and people are always juggling them.

JK: And I would think that because of this issue of retention, it’s especially important to build long-lasting relationships with campus staff workers who live in Philly, since they’re going to be longer term than a four year student, and they are around in the summers, too.

IB: Yeah. That dining hall worker I mentioned has been an important and a really great resource. And like he’s been a great resource because he was involved with SLAP earlier and then when all the momentum from SLAP graduated, he was still there. And so when this new resurgence of SLAP happened, he was there to help us out, using his past experience of working with the students.

JK: Another issue for campus organizers is funding. Groups face a dilemma. They can be officially recognized, and so get funding from the college—but that comes with faculty oversight and can blunt a struggle’s more radical edge. Or they can refuse to be recognized, but give up college funding, which could have helped a group grow and develop. How has SLAP navigated the problem of funding?

IB: We’re acknolwdged by the university—-but we’re different from other student groups, in that we don’t get funding from the university. So we don’t necessarily have faculty advisers.

We don’t want to be tied up with that type of bureaucracy. But at the same time we do indirectly receive money, just because some groups really support our message. They’ll get funding and give to us, kind of secretly. They’ll get funding to buy food for an “event” they’re having, but the event they’re having is to have us. So we’re not necessarily “clean” from university money but we are trying to avoid those those complications.

“Power to disrupt: limits and possibilities of campus sit-ins” [Part 3 of the Campus Power Project] (JK)

  • November 6, 2019 7:39 pm

from Radical Education Department

By Jason Koslowski

Introduction to the Campus Power Project

This is Part 3 of the Campus Power Project: an ongoing series of interviews, articles, and podcasts.  (For Part 1 of the Campus Power Project, click here.  For Part 2, click here)

Campus struggles in the US have surged recently: at Johns Hopkins, at Yale, at Evergreen State, at the University of Pennsylvania, and well beyond.

This series aims to help take stock of our campus struggles for radical, bottom-up, antiauthoritarian power on college campuses, so that we can make those struggles more powerful in the coming years.  The focus is on concrete organizing lessons we can learn from comrades in revolt.

The media series is only one half of the Campus Power Project.  The other half aims to help build up—across Philadelphia and beyond—lines of communication and coordination among radical campus struggles.

If you are working with leftist campus organizations and want to get involved, please reach out to us!

College campuses are systems of capitalist domination: of workers, students and surrounding communities. But campus revolts have been on the rise in recent years. In the US, for instance, as the university system comes to rely more and more on cheap, precarious labor, teacher and graduate student union struggles have been on the rise.

As public funds for colleges are slashed, tuitions increase, and campuses become key sites for fascist recruitment among disillusioned youth, many students are pushing back in occupations, walk-outs, demonstrations and other actions.

In struggles for power on-campus, the sit-in is one of the most often-used tools — although the results are mixed. Sit-ins can be powerful weapons helping shift the balance of university power for the dominated class. But they can also become sinkholes of time and energy leading to reprisals from administrators, burn-out and infighting.

Now that a new school year has begun, what lessons can we learn from recent sit-ins about how and when to use them well? And what other, and more radical, possibilities can sit-ins point us towards? To answer these questions, I look at a few recent sit-ins that happened on very different kinds of campuses. Allowing for differences, we can mine those struggles for organizing lessons.

Screen Shot 2019-05-07 at 5.34.48 PM.png

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD

The 35-day Hopkins sit-in that began on April 3, 2019 exploded out of a longer struggle against the administration’s push for an armed, private police force on campus. Hopkins justifies that push for the sake of both public safety and keeping up with its “urban university peers” — relying on a method that has already had deadly results across the country. In the process the school strengthens its links to Baltimore’s violently racist police force.

For about a year beforehand, the fight at Hopkins focused on contacting the JHU admins for more information and asking for a reversal of the decision. The sit-in was organized by grad and undergrad groups like Students Against Private Police and Hopkins Coalition Against ICE, with the anti-ICE coalition spearheading campus tour disruptions to affect Hopkins’ bottom line. But organizers drew on a wider base than just students, connecting, for instance, with nurses in the process of unionizing at Johns Hopkins Hospital and coordinating closely with the “the West Wednesdays” weekly demos against police violence, which began to protest the police murder of Tyrone West in Baltimore.

Originally, organizers planned a single-day occupation of the lobby of the administration building that houses the university president’s office. Once the action began, though, the occupiers decided to escalate to an indefinite occupation until administrators met their demands: disband the private police force being prepared for Hopkins; end the medical school’s training of ICE agents; and push for justice for Tyrone West.

For most of its duration the occupation was symbolic. The building functioned much as it had before: admininstrators, staff and students could freely enter and leave. Throughout, a key focus of the struggle was an aggressive media campaign against Hopkins, with organizers winning high visibility for their struggle in national media outlets like the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education. The administration, however, refused to budge on the demands. And so on May 8, the sit-in escalated. Occupiers locked the doors and shut down all access to non-protesters.

The administration’s response was swift. That night, 100 armed police forcibly evicted the handful of remaning occupiers. Protesters primarily turned to social media to attack the university while continuing support for West Wednesdays.

Despite the highly publicized eviction, the results of the sit-in have been mixed. Admins only agreed to meet after the eviction — at the end of July, when many of the students had left campus. At the meeting they agreed only to a vague campus event about the private police force and ignored calls to end ICE collaboration and disband the private police force. The meeting ended with admins announcing investigations of students and possible retaliation against occupiers.

Yet at the start of the fall term administrators folded to one key demand: the medical school announced it would not renew its contract with ICE. While the struggle is now on a weaker footing after the eviction and with impending reprisals, there is a possibility of escalation by protesters this academic year — especially if solidarity with the nurses’ unionizing efforts develops into a more coordinated and active struggle.

Don’t Want to be Your “Second Pillar”: A Response to RED

  • January 16, 2019 7:36 pm

from It’s Going Down

What follows is another essay on the ongoing dialog on syndicalism in the 21st Century. This essay in particular is a response to the Radical Education Department from the author of “Crafty Ghosts.”

The Radical Education Department, in their response to Nothing to Syndicate, asserts that Occupy, anti-ICE struggles, and anti-racist struggles were “almost always expressing precisely working class concerns”. This is blatantly untrue. ICE detainees generally identify first as migrants. Occupiers rallied in public parks, not workplaces. The unemployment rates in Ferguson were three times higher than the national rates. “Worker” is not an identity these people in revolt took for themselves, it is one that class-reductionist leftists foisted unto them.

RED might think that by spending the first half of their article describing a dynamic interrelationship between class and other identities and oppressive systemss they’ve thrown off the old “class reductionist” millstone, but we can see them pivoting away from those arguments before the conclusion. All their intersectional rhetoric unravels with statements like: “the resurging fascism in the US and beyond is only another step in a dynamic that lies at the very heart of capitalism,” and “we should not see recent uprisings as alternatives to worker struggle, but as channels into which working class radicalism is flowing”.

Since the situationists threw up “never work” tags in May of 68, social uprisings have been increasingly disinterested in letting “working class radicalism” flow through them. Leftitsts, please try to recognize this; people are not your ventriloquist dummies. Many understand their oppression and exploitation in terms that are NOT primarily economic, that do NOT involve identifying as workers, and while their ire may be aimed at the same wealthy elites as you, their relationship with those elites is often NOT mediated by a boss or a workplace hierarchy. Today, people find ourselves relating to our oppressors through police, ICE agents, prison guards, politicians, and, yes, internet aps.

Recognizing that digitization (and more importantly financialisation and precariatization) change people’s relationship with the mode of production is not “repeating the fever-dreams of the ruling class”, it is calling for an updated praxis.

 

Build the Revolution: Anarcho-Syndicalism in the 21st Century

  • January 10, 2019 11:10 pm

from It’s Going Down

The Radical Education Department (RED) weighs in on the ongoing debate around syndicalism and organizing strategies, arguing that modern variations of syndicalism still offer powerful weapons for autonomous anti-capitalist struggles and movements.

Read and Print PDF HERE

Introduction

Anarchists are debating anarcho-syndicalism once again. If anarcho-syndicalism is a “ghost”—like some critics are claiming—it has proven extremely hard to exorcise. But it is something very different entirely.

The current debate was sparked by “Nothing to Syndicate,” which largely repeats standard criticisms of AS, some of the more recent of which can be seen here and here; see also the summaries here. Then came a critique of “Nothing” (“Aiming at Ghosts”), and then two replies defending the original piece (here and here). The debate has been fairly limited so far. The important first reply to “Nothing,” as well as the defenses that followed, have been wrestling over the details of the original piece. But what’s been missing is a comprehensive response to the original question. What does anarcho-syndicalism offer radicals in the 21st century US?

Some have given this kind of response to critics before, though often in more limited ways (like here). My goal is to go further and deeper. First, I give a systematic historical-materialist analysis of 21st century capitalism in the United States today: its basic drives, structures, and developments. Then I examine the profound limits facing anarchists and their revolutionary allies facing such conditions. (This section tacitly rejects the superficial analysis of the original article.)

And then I offer a vision of what anarcho-syndicalism has to offer. It is far from a ghost. It is a set of inherited, audacious, and sometimes conflicting experiments. Those experiments are still developing. (The ongoing evolution is obvious in more recent syndicalist praxis like green syndicalism and community syndicalism.)

I locate in AS explosive resources for our present—for moving past the fundamental limits of radical organizing today and building revolutionary power to strike at 21st century capital. Defending AS, I explore how its inner resources could be developed to meet the revolutionary needs of the moment.

Anarcho-syndicalism offers badly needed tools for building mass, durable, working-class autonomy inside and outside the workplace for the sake of the revolutionary overthrow of every institution of capitalist control. It is an idea whose time has come again.

Ten Lessons from the Yellow Vests

  • December 26, 2018 5:49 pm

from It’s Going Down

The Radical Education Department presents 10 lessons from the Yellow Vest movement which has exploded out of France in the last month.

by Étienne Dolet

As has happened so often in the history of social movements and revolutions, actually existing history has once again outstripped the ready-made concepts and theories that we have for understanding it. The “yellow vests movement,” which was sparked earlier this fall but clearly has much deeper roots, has left many bewildered by the lack of party or union alignments on the part of the participants, the combination of extreme left and extreme right elements, its remarkable resilience and growth since November, and its ongoing creativity and dynamism in the face of massive state repression. The anonymous collective of political activists who are involved in the movement have struck out to conquer new territory, beyond the well-trodden paths of recent social movements, while also taking inspiration from or reawakening the deep history of revolutionary struggles. This has included the use of blockades and days of action instead of major public occupations, the development of the practices of “savage” protests and active strikes, the mobilization of bait-and-switch techniques to confuse the repressive state apparatus, the targeted use of anti-state and anti-property violence, and the call for lasting structural changes in modes of governance rather than a set of circumscribed demands.

The lessons that follow are the result of the collective work undertaken by RED – Radical Education Department to learn from the movement, try and contribute to its growth as an anti-capitalist insurgency, and ideally help it develop as a global movement against the pseudo-democracies that serve as increasingly thin cover for top-down class warfare.

I. Learn and Participate—Don’t Admonish and Preach

All too often, when a “new” social movement emerges, activists and intellectuals on the sidelines watch it with a suspicious eye as they compare it to their operative theory of social transformation or their personal checklist for what a movement is supposed to be. Once they have categorized and judged it according to their pre-established principles, they then begin to preach to those around them about how the movement “isn’t X enough,” “should do Y,” and, in general, would be better served to follow the blueprint established by the person judging from the sidelines.

There is an entire media industry developed around this blueprint model of peremptory assessment, which stretches from prominent pundits and intellectuals weighing in on current events based on their rote theories to activist groups deciding once and for all that they are simply for or against a particular movement based on how it does or does not conform to their theories or checklists. In most cases, neither of these groups takes the all-important leap from a politics in the third person to a politics in the first person by getting directly involved in order to make the movement into what they think it ought to be.

What if we began the other way around? What if our reaction to social movements was to study and learn from them, to the point of having our mechanical reflexes and tried-and-true ideas called into question? What if our first question was: How can I contribute to the parts of these movements that connect to my own politics, while also learning from them and engaging with them? What are the multiple tendencies at play, and where might they develop beyond the present moment? What if we began, in short, from a radically materialist point of view instead of the rampant idealism of the mightier-than-thou bourgeois intelligentsia and the self-importance of activists who “know how it’s done”?

II. Social Movements Are Not Singular

Social movements are, by their very nature, plural phenomena. There are numerous agents and forces at work, which far surpass any simple calculations, or reductions to blanket statements such as “this movement is X.” In short, there is never simply “a movement.” Instead, there are competing contingents, a struggle of forces and multiple fronts. While it can be useful, as a form of pragmatic shorthand, to refer for instance to “the yellow vests movement,” we need to begin by recognizing that this expression is a placeholder for an extremely complex series of movements.

In the case of the yellow vests, this is particularly important because they do not share a single political agenda or come from a common political party or union. This has been used to vilify the movement because there are right-wing, including extreme right-wing, elements involved. Purists denigrate anyone who would dare to participate when there is such a mishmash of political positions. However, this is one of the complicated aspects of popular working-class movements like this one. While there is clearly a common enemy—the neoliberal state and its persistent decimation of the lives of working-class people—there is not a shared agenda regarding the precise model for a new political order.

Instead of being used as a facile moral justification for withdrawing in horror before the remarkable stupidity of the masses or the vile presence of fascists who are presented as moral monsters rather than subjects of the system in place, this should instead be seen as a real challenge and opportunity to mobilize the radical educational tools of the extreme Left to help teach people about the real material sources of their oppression. The anti-populism of the intellectual and political purists will lead nowhere but to the moral grandstanding of those intent on ostentatiously parading their theoretical and ethical superiority to the ignorant masses, while actually demonstrating, above all, their own profound ignorance regarding how collective education works under capitalism’s ideological state apparatuses. Given the nature of the propagandist system within which we live, it should come as absolutely no surprise that there are so many people who correctly identify the source of their problems in the elite ruling class but have been duped into embracing faulty solutions.

III. Some Advantages to Days of Action, “Savage” Protests and Blockades over Occupations

Parting ways with the now well-established model of occupying public spaces, the yellow vests have conserved their energy and momentum over time by instead focusing on regularly programmed days of actions. Every Saturday since November 17th, they have organized national protests that have flooded the streets, often giving birth to “savage” marches (manifestations sauvages) that do not follow programmed itineraries but overwhelm the state through multiple and disparate direct actions. Simultaneously, there have been ongoing flash blockades at undisclosed times that choke or liberate particular sites of passage within the transportation industry. These have included blocking major highways and round-points, but the movement has also taken over or burned down tollbooths to allow drivers through without paying, thereby cutting off funds to the state.

While occupations can be important for building sites of solidarity, creating coalitional networks, developing collective education, and fostering public visibility for a particular cause, they can also drain resources, allow for easy targeting and manipulation, and stagnate over time. Programmed days of action mixed with intermittent blockades and flash mobs can both confuse the state and conserve resources for a long-term battle. Unlike the Nuit debout movement in spring 2016, which established and maintained public occupations like so many recent social movements, the yellow vests have undertaken an important shift in tactics, and it is arguable that this has already paid off in certain ways.

IV. Active Strikes Multiply Political Agency

Some of the workers on strike have not simply refused to go to their job, but they have used their time off to actively coordinate direct actions against the state. Instead of a traditional strike, which is often coordinated in France with a large public march, an active strike is one in which workers participate in blockades, flash mobs, and other direct actions in order to multiply their political agency and maximize their impact.

In a certain sense, active strikes bring together two forms of radical struggle into a powerful concoction that surpasses the power of each of them independently. The traditional workplace action of a strike is fused with the standard tactics of social movements, such as protests and direct actions, thereby connecting two types of struggle and maximizing the power of both.

V. Media Has Power

Since the media is largely controlled by the corporatocracy and—at least in France—the state, the “history” of the yellow vests movement is largely being written by its enemies. In one of the more flagrant cases, the TV channel France 3 doctored a photograph of one of the protests to erase “dégage” from a sign reading “Macron dégage! (Macron Get Out!).” This is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg, but it clearly demonstrates the media apparatus’ profound complicity with the state and their corporate backers.

This points, moreover, to the dire need to continue to develop networks of alternative media that provide a bottom-up account of radical social movements. Sites like Révolution Permanente, Wikipedia, and Mediapart are providing some of the more reliable coverage in French, along with Enough Is Enough, CrimethInc., and IGD in English. But these platforms could have greater visibility and support, and be part of a larger network of resources to help educate and agitate for revolutionary social transformation. They are an essential part of the anti-capitalist toolkit, and we need to continue to build autonomous but federated activist media platforms that can inform the public by developing the counter-narratives necessary for the coordination of mass revolutionary movements.

VI. Demand Restructuring, Not Single Issues

There has recently been an increasing consensus around a central issue on the part of the yellow vests, which has been described as the demand including all other demands: the RIC (référendum d’initiative citoyenne) or the Citizen Initiated Referendum. Aimed at giving real political power to the people, it would inscribe within the constitution the possibility of public referenda that could establish or abolish laws, and remove elected officials from office. Instead of simply relying on piecemeal concessions from the government, such as the dismal increase in the minimum wage promised by Macron, the RIC would allow the movement to restructure the governmental power dynamic and—at least in principle—accomplish all of its popular demands over time.

There is the concern, of course, that such a demand, if the government were to concede—which seems extremely unlikely unless it secures ample protections against the voice of the people—would help shore up a reformist agenda within the confines of capitalist pseudo-democracy. While this threat is an important one, the RIC could also potentially help build confidence in people power, begin to shift the structural power dynamic, and eventually be a step toward a more revolutionary transformation.

VII. Build Power between Movements

The mass media narrative regarding social movements is rooted in the logic of “divide and conquer.” It separates them from their deep historical roots and cuts them off from their expansive geographic connections. The yellow vests movement is, however, only the latest act in an ongoing civil war between the elite ruling classes and the oppressed masses. It is a continuation of the movement referred to as Nuit debout and the massive uprisings and occupations on the 50th anniversary of May 68. While there are, of course, certain differences between each of these moments and their precise conjunctures, they are all largely responding to capitalism’s unrelenting war on workers.

This points to the crucial importance of building power between “movements” and developing organizations and cross-political alliances that are ready and able to step up and fill the void when things go down. Although the mass media tends to focus on the immediate “success” or “failure” of a circumscribed social movement, which it describes in the singular, we would be better served to recognize that whatever happens at a precise moment in time is rooted in a deep history of organizing. Everything that is done “between movements,” including the development of political organizations, movement infrastructure, revolutionary coalitions, and media platforms, is essential to what will happen when things kick off. It is this behind-the-scenes, long-term work that has the potential to have the most significant consequences in the long run.

VIII. Escalation through Political Imagination

Political imagination can play an important role in moving movements forward, and we should never be held back by what has been done or what seems possible. This has obviously been one of the key lessons from the yellow vests.

At this point in the conflict, we should ask: How could we imagine increasing the pressure put on the neoliberal state? What about seizing important sites of power, ranging from the Sorbonne to the National Assembly, and transforming them into popular assemblies for public displays of power, and then relinquishing them in the middle of the night to seize others and outstrip the resources of the riot police? Why not re-enact key moments of the French Revolution, for instance, by taking over the Jeu de Paume museum and re-performing the Tennis Court Oath (Serment du Jeu de Paume) and declaring the end of the neoliberal state? Why not take control of one or several of the major TV channels and announce the death of the Macron regime? Isn’t it time to organize councils and declare autonomous communes across France? Given that the state has recently decided on new “emergency measures,” it clearly feels that the people are closing in and that things like this could happen.

The internationalization of the movement is another key form of potential escalation, and it has already begun. What acts of solidarity and intensification might we be able to participate in that could help the movement grow and expand its attack on the foundations of capitalism?

IX. The State Will Stop at Nothing

As we know from history, the state will stop at absolutely nothing to maintain its power and secure the interests of the ruling class. It has unleashed an inordinate amount of violence on the citizenry, which it portrays in the media as justified, of course, and this will likely only intensify over time. This has included forming a black bloc of undercover cops to commit acts of violence that could then be blamed on the protestors. We can learn from these types of tactics—if we didn’t know it already—that our enemies have no moral compass and will indiscriminately harm or kill anyone in their way. We should never underestimate their ruthlessness.

X. The State Will Work the Calendar, but So Can We!

The state is very well versed in delay tactics and knows how to work the calendar. In the case of Nuit debout and the May 68 anniversary protests, it mixed together a powerful cocktail of brutal repression, stalling techniques, and cat-and-mouse games with an eye to the approaching summer vacations, when many of the protestors would be free from work or studies and—it was presumed—the occupations would dwindle. In the case of the Occupy movement in the United States, the approaching winter was fundamental to the timing of state repression and illegal evictions. In France right now, impeding vacations are combined with an approaching winter.

Will this, along with a few minor concessions, be sufficient to quell the most recent uprisings and usher in a peaceful new year for the corporate ruling class? Or will the common concerns of working-class people find new tactics and rejuvenate old ones in order to shift what some now consider to be the common course of history, according to which uprisings lead to peak moments and then dissipate? Could the tactic of targeted days of struggle by generalized to time flare ups in the coming weeks or months that will take the government to its knees, perhaps by reworking the calendar to the advantage of the activists, thereby surprising the state once again? Can movements abroad take up these tactics in a meaningful way and connect to the yellow vests movement in a global network of intermittent active strikes, blockades, and savage protests, thereby internationalizing them like the Occupy movement but with a new and evolving set of tactics? For those of us living outside of France, how can we connect to the movement and develop its momentum into an international force to be reckoned with?

No one can tell for sure, of course, where things are headed, and this is one more reason to learn from what is going on and struggle to find ways of contributing to the intensification of a global war against capitalism. Nothing is at stake but a world full of workers and a planet teetering on the edge.

Rebellion and Possibility: Voices in the Anti-ICE Struggle Vol. II

  • October 10, 2018 12:07 pm

from It’s Going Down

 

The Radical Education Department (RED) returns with another collection of texts from the Abolish ICE movement.

As ICE’s brutality continues to shatter lives, we continue to document the struggle to abolish the institution.

We’ve compiled more stories of radical struggle against ICE, the border patrol, and the police; documenting the different tactics, successes, and philosophies from around the country.

We would like to thank the all of the contributors for each article that we’ve compiled, and the websites that originally published those writings and from which they were borrowed.

Again, this volume, like the first, is only one very limited snapshot of the vast anti-ICE uprising, which developed powerful expressions in many more than the few cities represented here.

Volume 2 can be found here: https://radicaleducationdepartment.com/zines/

Gaining Ground, Not Losing It: Questions from a Revolutionary Anarchist

  • September 6, 2018 8:22 pm

from It’s Going Down

Building on their idea of ‘insurrectionary councilism,’ the Radical Education Department lays out an analysis about how to build and gain ground out of social struggles, rather than having it dissipate.

How do we turn revolt into revolution today?

Anticapitalist resistance is surging in the face of a stagnating capitalism and the ruling class’s desperate turn to fascism. But from Occupy and Ferguson to the anti-ICE movement, uprisings are dissipating rather than escalating into fundamental, widespread challenges to ruling class power. Radical movements have struggled to develop the mass organizations and shared revolutionary strategy needed to create such challenges. How can revolutionary anarchists help transform revolt into a crisis of class rule?

A central task for revolutionary anarchists today, I argue, is multiplying and connecting spaces for (a) combining disconnected but sympathetic radical struggles, and above all (b) hammering out shared ideas of mass organizing and planning.

Finally, I ask: how would we create a shared revolutionary program for organization and strategy? What kinds of questions would we need to answer? What specifically could revolutionary anarchism bring to such a program?  I end by sketching some of those questions.

The time to build revolutionary power is now.

Why a revolutionary program?

We have the chance to strike a powerful blow against a stumbling enemy.

Capitalism has been stagnating since the financial crisis 11 years ago. It is lurching towards another crisis.[1]  Segments of the ruling class are turning to fascism in desperation to crush working-class resistance and restore its profit margins.

Crisis, stagnation, and repression—these are sparking a massive upsurge of revolts like the anti-ICE movement, anti-racist struggles, and militant antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and communist organizing.

But the recent explosions are more widespread and more powerful than we know what to do with. We don’t have the tools we need to connect uprisings into a revolutionary challenge to ruling class power. For instance, the important “Occupy ICE” movement is being swept away without a clear, mass, coordinated plan to build on its gains. The prison strike now faces this danger. “Occupy Wall Street” confronted the same problem. We remain largely reactive to the latest outrage. We struggle to channel radical power in durable ways for definite, large-scale, revolutionary strategic goals.

Too often, radical struggles focus on tactics. We hope that a revolution will come eventually, the accumulation of small-scale victories. Ending capitalism requires more. A systemic problem calls for a systemic solution.

But we also seem to be overwhelmed with revolutionary plans.  Many anarchist, socialist, and communist groups have ready-made ideas about tactics, strategy, and organization.  Their answers are often disconnected from the concrete mass revolts we are witnessing.  Revolutionary programs tend to stay in the activist “silos” that have characterized radical organizing since the 1970s.

And to create a revolution, struggle must be on a mass scale. Capitalist firms exist only by extracting as much surplus as possible from the working class. At the same time, the ruling class pits groups of workers against each other—nation against nation, white workers against workers of color, men against women, cis-gendered people against non-binary people, the employed against the unemployed. White supremacy, patriarchy, transphobia, ableism—these help cement the racist, patriarchal bourgeoisie’s power. When workers fight each other, the ruling class can continue exploiting, dominating, colonizing, and waging imperial war. Radically challenging capitalism means widespread, intersectional class power that refuses to play capital’s games of domination.

The task ahead is combination, not isolation, of revolutionary efforts to help build the intersectional organizations we need. Combination here doesn’t mean an insipid “left unity.”  It means connecting the various antiauthoritarian (even if not explicitly anarchist) currents that often lie at the heart of the most powerful struggles against capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy today.  More broadly, it means coordinating, across far left ideological and community divides, the radical struggles that can work effectively together without endless bickering—and that often informally overlap anyway.

All of this means the most pressing questions for radicals today are about strategy and organization. One of the most important things revolutionary anarchists can do, I suggest, is help create, multiply, and federate experimental spaces to hammer out collaborative answers to those questions. (Some of us in RED have begun experimenting with such spaces; see this and this).

I don’t offer my own revolutionary program here. Members of RED have a few contributions on this front—see this, this, and this.  And for an interesting response and critique, see this.

My goal here is only to help spur the kind of shared, widespread discussions we need for building mass revolutionary plans.

RED Year I: What Is Done and to Be Done

  • September 2, 2018 10:29 pm

from Radical Education Department

RED was founded approximately one year ago, and it has developed in myriad unforeseeable and exciting ways, while also confronting obstacles and limitations along the way. By providing an overview of what I consider to be our successes, as well as an outline of goals for the coming year, it is my hope that I can contribute to the autonomous process of collective education that is crucially important to the revolutionary Left. Just as we have learned and continue to learn from so many of the radical groups at work around the world, I hope that others can take inspiration from our model, and also help us reach our goals for RED Year II!

Doing Something with Nothing

The basis for RED’s success to date is the recognition that you can make a significant political impact with limited resources and no monetary support. We have, since the very beginning, been a small group, and each person has contributed according the their abilities and what their time commitments allow. Everything has been extremely shoestring, but there is a common egalitarian energy and anti-capitalist drive that invigorates us to pick up the RED torch whenever we can find time. This means—and it was an important lesson for all of us to learn experientially—that any tiny group of a few people can dive in and get things moving. There is no need to wait around until the time is ripe, the revolution is on our doorstep or the Establishment pushes things too far. The time is now!

In the coming year, it would be great if we could find a few more dedicated torchbearers. At times, we have been spread too thin, and it is important for our group to maintain a stable core, as well as concentric circles of dedicated, as well as more or less intermittent, collaborators. Some of our early members have had to step back for numerous reasons, but others are also stepping up. We look forward to integrating them into RED and building up our concentric circles of collaboration in the coming year!

A Focused Organization Not a Political Party

We knew from the very beginning that we did not want to develop a mass organization, and we conceive of our role more as a radical groupuscule that can push the envelope, work more flexibly and intervene incisively, while simultaneously working with and across other groups. Our mode of organization is neither strictly hierarchical, nor is it purely horizontal, as we discussed here. In order to maximize the autonomy of our members, we decided that RED activities would be those supported by at least two members, which does not require group consensus or a single leader.

As we develop, we would like to shore up and clarify our modes of organization based on our experiences thus far, and also in order to fine-tune our decision-making process. It is a delicate operation to move beyond the extremes of verticalism and horizontalism, and many of us are convinced that this is an extremely important tactical shift that needs to be further theorized and put into practice. Given our past experiences in various political groups and in Occupy, we recognize the enormous strengths of this transversal mode of organization and would like to be able, through experiential knowledge, to be able to model it for other groups, while also continuing to learn more about all of the interesting organizational models that are already in practice.

A Thinking Tank

As a revolutionary leftist organization, one of our projects has been to function as a research collaborative that collectively produces informative and insightful articles on contemporary politics and organizing. We have successfully forged collaborations with some of the most important venues for the radical intelligentsia and general public (such as CounterPunch and Truthout) as well as for activist communities (such as It’s Going Down and Enough Is Enough), which has allowed our articles to circulate in much broader circles. The content that we have collectively produced has arguably had an impact in at least two ways. On the one hand, we have diagnosed and conceptually dismantled the standard liberal framework used to make sense of contemporary media debates on such things as violence, antifa, direct action and free speech. On the other hand, we have increasingly been invested in asking and providing responses to timely tactical questions of organizing, encouraging our readership to always be thinking about how we can move our actions to the next level (see our work on anti-ICE mobilization, radical struggle in Philadelphia, insurrectionary councilism, the insurrectionary campus, antifa on a conservative campus and popular-front antifa). It is very difficult to know how much of an impact these interventions have had, but they have at the very least been extremely helpful for our own political education, and they have led to a series of productive discussions and interviews (like this discussion of revolutionary strategy on IGD, or this one on violence and antifa on KPFA).

In the coming year, we would like to continue doing this kind of writing, while also adding additional fronts of struggle and connecting to new publication venues and audiences across the hard Left. Our recent launching of a zine project has successfully brought together significant voices on timely issues, and we would like to continue to develop our zines, which will include printing and distributing them free of charge. We have also begun discussing the possibility of launching RED press with short booklets, and many of us are invested in the long-term project of seizing the means of intellectual and cultural production. In this regard, we would also like to develop the aesthetic contributions to RED by collaborating more with artists and creative cultural producers, which will also allow us to reach different types of audiences

Revolutionary Coalition Building

RED is not committed to a single party line, and most of us would identify—or be identified—as anarchists, communists or revolutionary socialists (or some combination thereof). This has allowed us to work broadly with numerous other groups in order to avoid the siloing that has sometimes plagued the revolutionary Left. Some of our most successful public events—like this one on revolutionary coalitions or this one on antifascist education—have brought together people who work with various different groups in order to share their experiences and brainstorm about the most productive models for future collective work. We have also enjoyed the opportunity to serve as a platform for activists around the world, and we have developed ties over time with like-minded groups with which we have begun collaborating, such as Cutting Class.

P1070108

In RED Year II, we would like to see our project of revolutionary coalition building deepen and expand. Taking inspiration from Fred Hampton and other radical organizers, we would like to establish innovative but workable frameworks for coordinating between different radical groups in such a way that they can maintain their autonomy but maximize their impact by working with others. Much of this work will be local to the Philadelphia area, as we explore the options for creating umbrella structures, but it will also involve greater coordination with other groups around the country and the world for more expansive modes of solidarity and support.

Direct Action

RED emerged out of direct action and the joy of working together for a common cause when you have to put something on the line. It has continued to be important as an intermittent reference point for our struggles, but we have been less successful on this front largely due to time constraints and a concern for avoiding undue penalization.

Direct action is an area where we really need to develop our strengths by tapping back into some of our earlier work and finding the time to make incisive and important interventions that nonetheless keep our members safe. In the coming year, we would like to develop our abilities to immediately be present on the scene for important issues in our area, following the lead of our friends at the Philly Coalition for REAL Justice and others. We would also like to be more proactive in planning ahead for important moments and organizing significant contributions on the part of RED. This can range from participating in major marches or events like May Day to making contributions to the latest flashpoints of struggle, such as anti-ICE organizing or the prison strike. Finally, we plan on launching a guerilla education series that will bring radical education to the streets and corporate universities in and around the Philadelphia area. We are looking forward to blowing some minds!

cropped-37042533_1062694227222091_3544804309466087424_o1

Internationalism

RED has always recognized that the struggle against global capitalism needs to be international, and many of our group members work across various geographic regions. We have drawn on these experiences in myriad ways and made some important connections to groups abroad. However, this is also an area where this is ample room for growth.  

In developing our international connections, we would like to collaborate and coordinate more with other radical groups around the globe. We would also like to forge connections to some of the most important reference points for radical Left organizing in our conjuncture, such as the ZAD in France and the Zapatistas in Chiapas. This will allow us to learn more from their experiences and also help us spread their major work to even larger audiences.

En avant!

It is remarkable for us to be able to celebrate so many accomplishments by such a small organization with no financial resources, which speaks to the radical anti-capitalist spirit that animates us. There is, however, much work to be done, and RED Year II will require energy, commitment and creativity. We are excited to move forward!

– ED

IMG-0211

Rebellion and Possibility: Voices in the Anti-ICE Struggle

  • August 9, 2018 7:26 pm

from It’s Going Down

The following is the introduction to Vol. 1 of the new zine Rebellion and Possibility: Voices in the Anti-ICE Struggle. Vol. 1 of the zine can be found here. Vol. 2 will be released shortly.

Download Booklet HERE

“COMBINE, INTENSIFY, FEDERATE: Radical struggle and the anti-ICE movement”

By Redrick of the Radical Education Department

0. Overview

The nationwide rebellion against ICE is a pivotal moment in American radical struggle.  It burst forth as part of a historic, massive wave of revolt that has been shaking the US for the past year and a half.

But the anti-ICE rebellion is helping to radicalize that struggle.  In the face of the fascism that ICE embodies, the struggle combines some of the most radical currents of struggle in the US: antifascism, pro-immigrant and anti-xenophobia struggles, movements for police and prison abolition, and revolutionary socialism, communism, and anarchism.

Through that combination, radical struggle is intensifying.  It is developing a combative and militant stance against cops, prisons, the state, and the capitalist class war they all exist serve.  In their attacks on ICE facilities and beyond, they are spreading a recognition that ICE is a symptom of a systemic capitalist domination, and that the solution itself must be a new social order.  We must not forget, though, that the explosion of anti-ICE actions in May, June, and July is only the latest in inspiring struggles against xenophobia, deportation, and white supremacy, struggles that have been led by detainees, immigrant-rights groups, and the anti-police and anti-prison movements for many years.  Those uprisings have laid the foundations for this work and they continue to lead it in some of the most inspiring and powerful examples of solidarity.

But the anti-ICE movement is at a crossroads.  It has won important victories, like disrupting the operation of ICE in many cities.  Here in Philly a coalition has forced the mayor to end the city’s sharing of information with ICE as it hunts for undocumented workers.  At the same time, occupations are under constant, brutal attack.  They are being swept away, and the limits of occupation as a tactic are becoming painfully clear.

More importantly: the forces of revolt are running up against the limits of their too-narrow social relations.  In other words: the rebellion being unleashed by the combining of revolutionary currents is more radical and more powerful than the movement knows what to do with.  Its inner dynamics are pushing it further left: from legal marches and protests to illegal ones; from there to occupations, blockades, and clashes with pigs; from there to demands to transform structural elements of the police state.  Local uprisings have found themselves, time and again, facing the possibility of overtaking ICE offices, overwhelming police forces, and spreading the disruption of capital across cities and across the country.  But they usually stop short.  The piece “Portland, OR: Report Back from #FamiliesBelongTogether March” below puts it:

We had the numbers to overrun, in that moment, and re-barricade the building. The crowd seemed confused about suddenly finding themselves in a situation where they have more power then police. As the police moved their cars into the street and got in formation the crowd just kind of gently moved back. the moment was gone, the spear tip of praxis had dissipated.

What possibilities are opening up for deepening radical struggle?  How can the explosions of radicalism and militancy be developed and channeled into bigger, more powerful organizations?  What can we learn from each other’s struggles so far?  The first two volumes of this zine try to help ask and answer these questions.

First, Vol. 1 offers an introduction to the two volumes.  That piece—“Combine, intensify, federate: Radical struggle and the anti-ICE movement”—places the anti-ICE uprising in the context of capital’s regressive, fascistic, and uneven development over the last four decades.  It ultimately asks: what’s next?  How do we shift into the next phase of revolutionary struggle?

The introduction points to two major possibilities: (a) multiplying local “direct action committees” to coordinate the struggle beyond occupations, (b) and—above all—building a nationwide federation of anti-ICE struggles to deepen, broaden, and intensify the attack on ICE and further our revolutionary goals.

Then, Vols. 1 and 2 collect some of the writings generated by those involved in the anti-ICE movement over the last year.  The selection is explicitly from those expressing radical, and especially anti-authoritarian, perspectives.  Our aim is to help share some of the inspiring and essential ideas and lessons that radicals are generating.  The hope is that, more and more, we can move past this powerful but still fragmented phase into one in which our struggles are federated across the country.

This zine is radically incomplete. The anti-ICE struggle is producing an avalanche of powerful and important reflections—strategy, tactics, analysis—and this is barely a scraping. But I hope it contributes to developing the struggle.

With this in mind, the first two volumes of the zine are only a start.  I hope to continue this work of sharing the voices of this crucially important struggle. But the project was never “mine” to begin with. I rely on my comrades across the country and beyond, known and unknown to me, to produce more volumes that can help collect and connect the ideas cascading out of this movement.

The combination of radical struggles in the anti-ICE revolt is intensifying and broadening revolutionary power in this country.  Sharing the ideas, experiences, and strategies of the many disconnected parts of the movement will be essential if we are to transition from rebellion to a revolutionary movement.  These zines hope to contribute to that transition.

I. Context: Capitalism in Crisis

ICE is a symptom.  It is one of the most brutal arms of the emerging fascism in the United States that is driving towards a white ethnostate, escalating attacks on the working class, and increasing militarization and aggression of police forces so they can expand their attack, imprisonment, and murder of those deemed “threats”—all for the enrichment and preservation of the white supremacist, patriarchal ruling class.

But fascism is on the rise today only because capitalism is failing.  In the 1970s and 1980s the ruling class tried desperately to halt falling profits and slowing growth—and the radical struggles that were shaking capital’s foundations: the global, overlapping, radical struggles of people of color, women, LGBTQ communities, indigenous people, and workers.  The bourgeoisie used every economic and state weapon it could to restore profitability.  It murdered and imprisoned members of radical struggles and invented mass incarceration to pacify Black community struggle.  Over the next few decades, women, immigrants, and people of color were targeted for increasingly brutal control, rolling back the historic legal, political, and economic gains those groups had won through struggle.  The state, managers, and capitalists attacked strikes, moved manufacturing away from unionized workers (inside and outside the country), and shattered unions.  Bosses froze wages for the next forty years.  They automate to cut jobs, shorten breaks, increase hours, eliminate pensions and full-time positions, and push workers ever faster and harder to maximize profit.  And through a wave of deregulation, corporate and financial firms could unleash their blind, catastrophic drive to expand. It is no surprise that in the 1980s and 1990s profits jumped and the income and wealth of the ruling class skyrocketed while the working class languished.

This model—freeze wages, decimate unions and radical struggles, strengthen white supremacist and patriarchal social structures, deregulate capital—is called “neoliberalism.”  It means class war.  It is a program of regression.  The ruling class tries to destroy what radical struggles have won over the past hundred years and concentrate more and more power and wealth in the hands of the white supremacist patriarchal bourgeoisie.  This development was uneven.  Feminist, LGBTQ, worker, student, and anti-police and anti-prison movements have mounted important and powerful resistance—though often fitfully and often in a disconnected way.  All the while, the ruling class’ neoliberal project has continued to crush working people and the environment.  The radical left has been left shattered and weakened by the violent onslaught of recent decades.

But capitalism failed to solve its most basic problems.  The working class is the source of all profits.  Firms compete with each other by pushing workers harder, faster, and longer.  The goal is to increase productivity—automating production, cutting jobs, lowering labor costs.  But the more this happens, the more profit rates fall.  Capitalists turn to finance for salvation.  Extremely risky gambling by finance firms, predatory lending: all this was meant to overcome the falling profit rate and slowing of growth.  And this led to 2007: the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And the more that the working class, with all the dominated communities that comprise it, are being squeezed, the more they are connecting and fighting back.  Shattered by the 1980s, the working class has been slowly and unevenly developing its power to fight once again.  We see that power growing fitfully in the Global Justice Movement in the 1990s, in Occupy after the financial meltdown, in militant feminist and radical LGBTQ revolt, in the explosion of anti-white supremacy struggles in Ferguson, Baltimore and beyond, in the drive towards police and prison abolition, and in growing waves of wildcat worker revolt by teachers.  By trying to tame its exploited population, the ruling class is driving the working class to fight back.  In the GJM, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and well beyond, we see currents of struggle connecting and combining, developing the capacity for mass revolt.

Fascism comes from the failures of neoliberalism.  The goal of fascism is to divert the anger and discontent that capitalism creates in order to save capitalism from itself.  Trump’s push for a white ethnostate through ICE and anti-immigration policies are meant to rally white workers and small business owners, squeezed more and more by neoliberal capitalism, to support the ruling class that attacks them.  Immigrants, people of color, women, activists, other countries become scapegoats.  This sets Trump free to deregulate even more, and to offer historic tax cuts to the ruling class.  We shouldn’t be fooled by Trump’s spats with companies.  Fascism is good for business.

All this means that American fascism did not begin with Trump.  It is a fundamental reflex of capitalism itself.  The more its internal contradictions start tearing it apart, the more it tends to turn to fascism to save itself.  State fascism’s roots lie deep in the desperate neoliberal project of the 70s and 80s.  And it mobilizes a white supremacy and patriarchy that are certainly not new, and that have been a part of police and military attacks on people of color in this country and abroad for a very long time.  ICE’s attacks on immigrants are a result of this fundamental capitalist dynamic.  It is the most direct weapon—alongside the police and prison systems—of fascist capitalism.

But the revolt against ICE is a key development in US radical struggle.  It is an important step in the intensification of working class rebellion that has been developing unevenly for decades.

II. Anti-ICE as Intensification of Radical Struggle in the US

In the anti-ICE movement, radical struggle is intensifying in a few basic ways.

1. Connecting and combining the forces of revolt

If the radical left was shattered by the ruling class by the 1980s, the anti-ICE movement is helping to connect and combine currents of revolt against fascist capitalism. In the attacks on ICE, antifascism, pro-immigrant and anti-xenophobia groups, and movements for police and prison abolition are coordinating with socialist, communist, and anarchist struggles.  In the face of fascism’s attacks, the radical left is converging and combining its power. 

2. Revealing radical opportunities

In the revolt against ICE, widespread outrage is connecting to revolutionary challenges to state power.  Because the movement is so visible, it is helping to spread an awareness of the vulnerabilities of the state to mass struggle.  It is obvious that the state is struggling to respond to barricades, blockades, occupations, various forms of civil disobedience, and beyond.  The fractures in its power are becoming more and more obvious.  With that awareness comes the potential to push further—to experimentally develop our power to destabilize capitalist and state power.

3. Increasing militancy

This revolt is moreover a step in an unevenly growing militancy.  In Occupy and the Global Justice Movement, clashes with the police were generally marginal.  In Occupy Philly, for example, many thought cops were part of the working class that should be respected.  That is much less the case in the attacks on ICE.  The collaboration between pigs and ICE is clear; cops are attacking protesters to ensure the deportation machine continues to function.  And so cops are generally seen as the class weapon against workers, women, and people of color that they are.  As a result, the wave of revolt is overall a more aggressive one than in the past; overall the movement is much less willing to passively obey, and even willing to clash with pigs to keep ICE offices closed.

In fact, the growth of militancy is outstripping the movement itself.  In the piece “Portland, OR: Report Back from #FamiliesBelongTogether March,” the author points out that anti-ICE actions escalated more quickly and more powerfully than the movement itself was ready for.  Protestors suddenly faced the prospect that they could overrun the cops and take over an ICE facility—and balked at that power.  We see something similar in “Abolitionist Contingent Breaks Away from #FamiliesBelongTogether” and again and again in the movement: the struggle’s inner dynamics push it further and further left, making it more and more militant, but without a clear path for developing the new powers and orientation.

This contradiction—between exploding militancy and power and the retreat before it—is a sign of more radical things to come.  But it is also a signal: there is much work to be done to organize and express that power more fully and more radically.

Another important part of the growth of militancy is a potentially widespread disillusionment with “progressive” politics.  While radicals struggle on the ground for the safety of immigrants, the Democratic Party is wringing its hands in terror over whether the slogan “abolish ICE” will hurt its chances in the midterm elections.  All the while, cops in “progressive” cities with democratic mayors are beating activists.  The Democratic Party is more and more obviously bankrupt; it is increasingly clear that “progressive” politics is no solution to the problems of capitalism.  Does it make a difference whether the cops beating you over the head to protect white supremacists are sent by a democrat or a republican?  A popular outcry is giving rise to a growing sense of the need for a revolutionary challenge to the state and capital.

4. Revealing the systemic problem

Radicals are driving a popular realization about the systemic problem underlying ICE.  The movement is pushing popular outrage significantly to the left.  Calls to abolish ICE are being followed by popular discussions about the state’s long-standing white supremacy and about the corporations profiting off of ICE.  The Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee points out below that ICE is merely one branch of a “prison-industrial-slave complex” inseparable from capitalism.

In other words, we’re experiencing a crucially important moment in the growth of revolutionary power.  But where do we go from here? 

III. The Writings Collected Here

The anti-ICE movement itself is at a crossroads.  Occupations are under attack or have already been swept clear of the offices they were occupying.  Important victories have been won, but the movement is reeling, trying to discover a path forward in disrupting and ending ICE.  What have we learned and how do we make the struggle more radical, more powerful, and more effective?

This collection of writings aims to help spur the planning of the next stage of the movement.  The struggle against ICE, while powerful, has also been largely disconnected.  Occupations and other actions have developed locally and too often without formalized links of communication and resource-sharing across sites.  This fracturing limits us in important ways.  We tend to work in “silos” in which the vast and rich set of ideas from one site develops in separation from other sites.  We’re often left reinventing the wheel or missing insights that could help groups or actions survive and grow.

The goal of this zine, then, is to help forge the links between people and groups—to help connect ideas and experiences, formalize lines of communication, and build a more federated and coordinated struggle.  We provide links to each article, and where possible, to the names of authoring groups too.  Like in a nuclear reactor, huge amounts of power can be released when we build machines to combine fissile but disconnected materials.

This zine also tries to help connect the anti-ICE struggle with a broader history.  The collection below quickly makes obvious that the movement against ICE did not start in the summer of 2018.  It includes statements by and about radical immigration struggles in 2017—though the history of such struggle stretches back much further.  If we want to build the most powerful struggle against ICE possible, we need to learn from the vast storehouse of experiences, tactics, and strategies of groups that have been engaged in the fight against borders and xenophobia for decades.

With these zines, I don’t pretend to be “representing” the groups and individuals involved in the movement.  The zines overemphasize writings from Philadelphia, since that is where they were created; and they overrepresent struggles in the Pacific Northwest, given the leading role played by detainees and activists there in the recent struggle.  I also don’t pretend that these are even the most “important” that have been written.  Much more has to be done to collect and share the work radicals are doing and to correct the inevitable limits of this zine.  The pieces gathered here are only one possible selection, and many others can and should be made.

IV. Some Tentative Lessons and Possibilities

What have we learned?  Where do we go from here?

Here are a few tentative reflections.  They try to draw some lessons from the writings below, from my own experiences in the movement and in past movements, and from the movement generally.  But they are experimental and incomplete.  They await the additions and corrections of other comrades.

1. Increasing International Solidarity: Between Bars, Across Borders

In the fight against ICE, detainees, activists, and immigrant rights groups have led the way in creating possibilities for revolutionary international solidarity.  This solidarity has taken inventive tactical form.  Detainees are producing statements and exposés and engaging in hunger strikes on the inside, coordinating their efforts with political agitation on the outside.  The terror of the detention centers is clear from the threats against detainees for their hunger strikes.  (See the statement from detainees below in the piece “Tacoma, WA: At Least 170 Detainees Launch Hunger Strike Against Family Separations.”)

The solidarity between activists, detainees, and immigrant communities generally is one of the most crucial dimensions of the anti-ICE movement.  International solidarity is essential in the fight against fascism.  Fascist leaders like Trump need to appeal to white supremacy, nationalism, and the danger of foreign “hordes” so they can drum up support for the ruling class and weaken the working class’ ability to resist.  And the ruling class needs racial and national divisions so that it can hyper-exploit some sectors of the workforce—like immigrants and women—thereby driving down wages and working-conditions for all workers.

The anti-ICE movement contains the germ of an emerging and growing revolutionary internationalism. It opens up new paths beyond the occupations, opening the possibility for strengthening and multiplying links across borders and through detention center walls. How can we develop these links more?  How can we help create even more radical working class solidarity between immigrants and citizens?

2. Increasing the Combination of Struggles

Radicals are not just developing solidarity internationally.  As noted above, the anti-ICE struggle combines some of the most revolutionary currents of struggle in the United States.  The Anti-ICE movement opens the door to developing this kind of radical combination. And by creating physical spaces of radical combination, Occupy ICE is creating opportunities to experimentally build intersectional coalitions and organizations, moving us past the shattered state of the radical US left.

Can further experimental coalitions or coalition actions be formed in the coming months to deepen these connections and build the bonds between groups? For example: What can we do to coordinate anti-ICE struggles with the August 21st prison strike?

(One possibility is to create a coalitional and federated system of “direct action councils.”  See below—“Beyond Occupation: The Direct Action Committee”—for more.)

3. Seeing the Power and Limits of Occupation

The revolt against ICE in 2018 is using occupation as its central tactic.  In fact, occupation has been perhaps the most basic tactic of mass struggle in the radical US left for two decades (in the Global Justice Movement, in Occupy, in squatters’ struggles against gentrification, in the wave of student revolt in 2008, etc.).

Occupation can be a powerful tool.  When done right, it can focus mass attention on an issue and temporarily disrupt the flow of business as usual in an office, school, business, or town or city.  It can also result in real class gains. Students occupying of a cafeteria played a major role in saving a number of jobs at the New School; in Philly, the anti-ICE occupation of City Hall helped end the sharing of information between the city and ICE. And as a comrade pointed out to me recently, occupations can be important places for otherwise separate radicals and groups to mix, sparking new ideas and possibilities.  For these reasons and others the occupations should be supported.

But as the articles below plainly show, this is also an extremely limited tactic.

First, it is basically reactive rather than active.  After a group or coalition first overtakes a space, it then must defend it against an enemy that knows precisely where it is at all times.  For this reason alone it is very difficult to consistently convert occupation into a project that builds radical power.

Second, occupation increasingly drains a movement.  The first general law of occupation in the US is this: the longer it exists, the more resources and energy it will need to continue to function.  The publicity that may have drawn larger numbers to a camp fades rapidly, along with the energy of comrades.  All but the most committed tend to drift away.  Police repression will tend to gradually ramp up—through undercover agents, direct assaults, and so on.   And the collected writings below show the major problems that occupations bring with them.  Combining long-term in public spaces with strangers often brings sexual, gender, and racial violence that must be shut down.  The “prefigurative space” of the camp, for all its good intentions, is riven by these social forces.

Thus, a camp needs constantly increasing inputs of energy and resources to keep people there and to ensure their safety and well-being.  The general law of occupation leads to the following conclusion.  The longer an occupation exists, the more the purpose of that occupation will tend to become simply surviving in the space, rather than mounting revolutionary programs and actions.

An important lesson learned from the fight against ICE as well as from Occupy is occupation as a partial tactic to be seen developmentally: as a phase that should be paired with a plan with and beyond it for aggressive, active attacks on capital and the state.

4. Beyond Occupation: Direct Action Committees

One possibility of moving beyond the occupation phase is this: coalitional direct action committees (DACs) for the struggle against ICE.  Such committees would help combine the radical groups working together in a locale, but remain largely independent from maintaining or creating an occupation.  They might work to simply coordinate direct actions against a host of sites well beyond the occupation site—businesses and banks profiting from ICE, for instance.

Such committees likely already informally exist in many anti-ICE struggles.  This is certainly true in Philly.  Here, a shifting core of radicals bridge a number of groups, coordinating and connecting those groups and their resources.  This happens in a largely ad hoc and accidental way.  But there is a possibility to formalize one or more direct action council across a city or town.  Councils need not be large or ambitious; just enough to connect a couple of members from sympathetic groups willing to share information and coordinate disruptive actions.  Such committees could be highly unpredictable to and deeply destabilizing to the functions of ICE and the systems that support it.

Direct action councils also provide a base for the radical federation of struggles in ways not bogged down in the details of occupation.  (See below, “Federation, federation, federation.”)

5. The Tactical “Toolbox”

The writings below showcase a wide array of tactics: occupying and/or blockading ICE offices; bailing out the detained; publicly embarrassing public officials; projecting anti-prison and anti-ICE messages on a wall at night; and beyond.  Oftentimes, movements or sites will develop their own toolboxes in separation.

It is crucially important to share tactics with each other.  Some of these tactics work better than others within certain situations.  It can be extremely time-consuming to develop that toolbox for a group or location, and very costly to discover the limits of some tactics over others.  The anti-ICE struggles point out the need to share information with each other, so we can minimize the amount each of us is reinventing the wheel—again, something that direct action councils are ideally designed for.

6. Federation, federation, federation

The major lesson I draw from the anti-ICE movement is this: the need for radical national federation.  A national focus is essential since ICE itself is national, and because the broader enemy—capital and its state—coordinates itself not on a local but a national and international level. For example: a number of banks (like Wells Fargo) and corporations (like Comcast) profit from ICE.  Attacking the profits of these firms requires something more than actions at one locale.

Loose informal networks of connections already exist between a number of sites through email, phone calls, websites, statements, and so on.  These loose networks, though, are partial and fragile.  The anti-ICE movement has a major opportunity to move beyond a merely local focus.  Popular outrage is still high, though it is waning; the fight against ICE struggle is nationwide, though it is being swept out of a number of camps.  The moment is ripe to more fully connect and coordinate the struggle on a national level—for example, via weekly national phone calls; national calls for action; websites or zines to share ideas, tactics, and strategies nationally; etc.

National federation (via direct action councils, e.g.) would mean moving the struggle beyond the focus on occupations, and developing a strategy for nationwide disruption.

V. Conclusion

The fight against ICE represents a major moment in the development of revolutionary power in the US.  But it faces a turning point: attacked by the state and undergoing its own inner radicalization, the anti-ICE movement confronts the need to evolve.  I hope these reflections, and the collection of writings that follow, can help connect some of those in struggle and help build towards the second, deeper, and broader phase.

No ICE!  No cops!  No borders!  No prisons!  No capitalism!

Solidarity forever!

Anarchists, Communists, Socialists: Part 1 of Building a Revolutionary Coalition – RED & Comrades

  • July 13, 2018 6:11 pm

from Radical Education Department

“Anarchists, Communists, Socialists: Bridging the Divides in Philly”
Part 1 of RED’s series on “Building a Revolutionary Coalition in Philly”
With Activists from IWW, Philly Socialists, Food Not Bombs Solidarity, RED
Wooden Shoe Books, Philadelphia
July 11, 2018

Event Description:
In Philly, like in many other cities, radical groups often work separately. We come together for certain events, or anniversaries like May Day, but beyond these we can tend to stick to our own projects. How can we create more radical support for, and coordination with, each other? How can we build a radical, durable, and broad-based coalition in Philly?

This summer, the Radical Education Department (RED) is working with other radical groups in the city to coordinate a series of three discussions—building off of our Wooden Shoe discussion this past spring on “Antifascist Education.”

The overall theme for this summer series is “Building a Revolutionary Coalition in Philly.” The first talk, at the Wooden Shoe, will be around the theme “Anarchists, Communists, Socialists: Bridging the Divides in Philly.” One goal is to discuss ways to create more solidarity between groups in the city, exploring the deep history of radical coalitions—among anarchists, communists, and well beyond—along the way.

Download the flyer for the event here.

Building a Revolutionary Coalition in Philly

  • July 8, 2018 11:45 pm

from Facebook

Anarchists, Communists, Socialists: Bridging the Divides

Featuring a panel of individuals discussing their experiences from radical organizations, including:
*Philly Socialists
*Philly IWW
*Philly Food Not Bombs
*Radical Education Department

In Philly, like in many other cities, radical groups often work separately. We come together for certain events, or anniversaries like May Day, but beyond these we can tend to stick to our own projects. How can we create more radical support for, and coordination with, each other? How can we build a radical, durable, and broad-based coalition in Philly?

This summer, the Radical Education Department (RED) is working with other radical groups in the city to coordinate a series of three discussions—building off of our Wooden Shoe discussion this past spring on “Antifascist Education.” The overall theme for this summer series is “Building a Revolutionary Coalition in Philly.” The first talk, at the Wooden Shoe, will be around the theme “Anarchists, communists, socialists: Bridging the divides in Philly.” One goal is to discuss ways to create more solidarity between groups in the city, exploring the deep history of radical coalitions—among anarchists, communists, and well beyond—along the way.

https://radicaleducationdepartment.com

Dispatch from Occupy ICE Philly

  • July 4, 2018 11:25 am

from Radical Education Department

Arthur Burbridge

Intro

On July 2nd, a coalition of groups in Philadelphia occupied the local ICE office.  In what follows  I offer a few quick sketches of the occupation.  I was there at the opening of the march at City Hall at 5PM until I had to leave at 9, and then again the next day (July 3rd) at 9:30, leaving just after noon. Today, July 4th, the occupation enters its third day.  The account and ideas below are therefore cobbled together from my own experiences, from Unicorn Riot’s live feed, and from reports from comrades who were there when I couldn’t be.

These sketches are partial, and they need to be filled out and corrected as the struggle continues.  But I hope they can add to our reflections on the ongoing ICE occupations and help us to continue building and developing radical power.

image1

A loose timeline

The occupation was a planned escalation out of an anti-ICE rally at City Hall.  After the rally, about 500 of us took to the streets.  The cops were clearly expecting this to some degree—they had shut down a number of roads leading from City Hall to the ICE office—but they were also  unprepared.  We waded through traffic, turning suddenly and sending the police scrambling.  A section of bikers darted ahead to help find a path.  When we reached the ICE office at the corner of 8th and Cherry, we set up a two-part camp.  The first one was in front of ICE’s van garages on Cherry.  The second was on the 8th street side of the building in front of ICE’s main doors.

Tents popped up immediately and people threw down their gear to block the garages.  At the other entrances, a bike loaded with food and water blocked the doors.  Someone brought in a massive red van with a PA system, and parked it to block Cherry and keep out cop cars.  The van started blasting tunes, and  people started dancing.  Somehow a couch made its way in front of the fenced parking lot for ICE vehicles.  Banners swung across the streets

The cop presence was large and growing at this point.  I was with the 8th street crowd guarding the building doors.  I couldn’t see what was going on around the corner at the garage.  But dozens of bike cops were lined up across from us.  Within 15 or 20 minutes they rushed the crowd, swinging their bikes as weapons for maximum effect.  They broke through the occupiers to cut the 8th street crowd in half and secure the building entrances.  But the priority was obviously the van garages (we later learned there is an entrance into the building, shared by a women’s center, that ICE employees are exploiting).  The pigs backed off and left the 8th street doors to us.  Almost immediately the bike brigade stood wheel to wheel and people jumped into the street to cut the road off from the cops.

But police started massing forces to retake 8th.  There was a commotion around the corner (since then, I heard a cop just tripped and fell down).  The cops on our side panicked and tried to break through the bike line to get across.  But the bike crew and the other occupiers around them refused.  The line was two or three bikes deep across the street; bikes collided and people pushed back, forcing the cops to retreat.

By 9, there were over 50 cop cars lined up down the street, and rumors of riot gear being unloaded.  Over the next few hours, a cop or two started appearing wearing some heavy-duty gear (vest, helmet, gas mask, etc.) that was marked “Counterterrorism Unit.”  Around the corner from me—on Cherry—cops apparently tried to bum rush the crowd to break through.  They were forced back again and occupiers locked arms to prevent another attack.  Occupiers threw up barricades to separate the tents and occupiers from police on the north end of 8th and to create a barrier in front of the garages—wooden pallets, trash, other city debris.

As the night dragged on, more whiteshirts.  Ross, the police commissioner, Ross, appeared.  Cops demanded the removal of the barricades, the couch, and the banners stretched across the streets.  Occupiers allowed these to be carted away.  To get rid of the couch, though, the cops had to haul it up into a trash truck.  People were screaming at that the police were scabbing the municipal services.  By 1 the cops backed down and started trickling away.  The threat of an immediate raid lifted.  A number of people—maybe 50, I’m not sure—stayed the night.  The cops turned on the building floodlights to fuck with people trying to sleep.

But by 6 a.m., police forces were regrouping.  By 11, the camp was building its numbers, along with its cop presence.  Dozens of beach umbrellas are popping up. It looked like a beach.  Chants started up again in earnest.  People—many otherwise unconnected to the event—were unloading car after car of food, water, ice, coolers, food.

But the pigs were biding their time for a noon assault to secure the garages.  They marched out the mounted police and dozens of regular officers, along with about a dozen or two whiteshirts. Occupiers closed ranks and linked arms.  Bike cops charged, shoving people aside along the wall and garage.  A dense mass of occupiers refused to move.  There were apparently about two dozen arrests.  The pigs took control of the garages.  They put up and are guarding metal barracades to make sure ICE can keep on working as efficiently as possible.  It’s not clear what the future of the occupation will look like from here, but the site is still occupied without any plans to leave.

The event represents one more episode in the growing militancy and radicalism of hilly, and it offers some important lessons as radical struggles continue to grow.

The developing tactic of occupation in Philly

The actions around ICE are a reminder of the Occupy encampment a few blocks away.  But this action is different.  Occupy was flooded by liberals and libertarians alongside a number of radical individuals and groups.  More militant actions, like confrontations with the police, were infrequent and did not occur on a large, coordinated scale. And in Occupy, the strategic plan was extremely unclear.  In this vacuum, it seemed like the site was being held simply for the sake of occupying it, regardless of its tactical or strategic value.

Little of that applies here.  Militancy is built into the plan.  The bike squad was part of a design to keep cops away from the building and clashes between them were inevitable.  The strategic aims of the occupation are clear: disrupt as far as possible the operation of the ICE office; create official and unofficial refusal to cooperate with ICE.  These goals are paired with broader demands: stop deportations, end family detention in Berks Family Detention Center, and end Philly’s cooperation with ICE.

The militancy here seems to be building off of the growing energy and numbers of radical antiauthoritarian struggles over the past couple of years here, in the Summer of Rage Anarchist Crew, the actions around J20, in Antifa on the national and local level, etc.  I think the militancy of anarchists as well as police abolitionists have laid some of the important groundwork.  In other words, we’re witnessing a kind of accidental but powerful collaboration between groups that is building Philly’s radical power.

Is it possible for this kind of collaboration to be developed, going forward, in a more deliberate way? For anarchists and radical Socialists to deliberately coordinate successive militant actions, or actions that are different but complement each other—creating groundwork for each other, building on each other, even despite major differences?

The Cops

There is no question that the cops are working for and coordinating with ICE.  This isn’t just obvious from their violent protection of the building.  I’ve heard from a reliable source that on Tuesday morning, the cops helped clear occupiers out from in front of the parking lot to let in an employee car.

This opens up more space for developing local radical politics.  The police are very clearly aligning here with white supremacist and fascistic forces in the state.  This isn’t a shock to many of us.  But the radical left has here a chance to emphasize the links between the police, the state, capital, and colonial violence.  In this situation, it can become very clear why calls for police abolition, prison abolition, and radical anti-capitalist politics need to be connected.

To the barricades?

As far as I know, barricades have not been a particularly popular tactic in Philly in recent years.  On the very last night of Occupy Philly, in the face of overwhelming police power, occupiers threw up a hasty barricade without much result.  But barricades have played an important part in the occupation of the ICE office so far.

As police were gathering forces and preparing to invade last night, the barricades signaled a militant defense of the occupation that was unusual for the city.  The dumpster rolling down the street—that was the signal of an even higher level of struggle, it seems, the threat of a pitched battle.  All this seemed to spook the cops.  And so it played another unexpected role, too.  The cops were hesitating to raid the space.  The barricades became a point of negotiation.  It’s like pigs need to save face; all that hyper-masculine bullshit needs to convince itself it’s forced people to obey.  The cops took the couch and the barricades.  The people kept the office.

How do we up the ante and expand our use of barricades in the future?  Can we set them up in advance to fuck with the way police will try to guide marches?  Are there techniques we can learn to build them bigger, higher, stronger, more durable?  How could they tactically help us resist repression—maybe buying us time to stay at a location, or giving us a few minutes to fly to another one while cops are stumbling over trash?

Some tactical possibilities

It’s clear the police are blundering to try to deal with this tactic and its new level of aggression.  Cops were panicked and swarming us during the march, and within an hour or two at the ICE office there were easily 60-75 cop cars gathered up.  But cops made an enormous traffic jam.  We can use this confusing and this overwhelming show of force against cops in a two (or more) stage operation.

If a large crowd is moving towards occupying a key spot, like ICE, cops will swarm.  But if we plan things right, and have the numbers, this could be followed up by getting another, separate crowd mobilized blocks away to take another major target.  With so many of them tangled up at the first spot, the chance for embedding in that second location would be much higher.

And the more that we use two stage actions, the more paranoid the pigs will get.  They’d be extremely hesitant to launch a massive force against an occupation for fear of the next steps—and we could use that to our advantage. Or they’d try greater shows of strength (riot gear etc.).  That could be a problem, but it could be a real opportunity, too, in a city like Philly that claims to be progressive.  It’s clear this city wants to shed its well-earned image of police violence.

Coalition work

The occupation is also an important experiment in radical coalition-building.  The event emerged through the efforts of the following official endorsers (but many other groups were also present at the event and probably helped in various ways): Philly Socialists, Socialist Alternative, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Montgomery County Socialists, Liberation Project, Philly DSA, Reclaim Philadelphia, Green Party of Philadelphia, International Marxist Tendency, POWER, and IWW Philly.

The list shows that the event emerged out of the socialist scene here, connecting more radical groups with more reformist and traditional groups.  This kind of project isn’t unusual in Philly, but the scale and militancy seems to me to be a serious step up.

The occupation acts as a kind of “estuary” where currents from different traditions, especially the more radical anticapitalist kind, are combining, and where a space for new, less ideologically rigid projects and ideas to develop.  Even though the “official” planning of the event was largely socialist, many other far left groups and tendencies appeared, too: a strong police abolitionist presence as well as at least some anarchists.  This kind of combination crucial as the fascistic state in the US grows in power and audacity.  Developing and deepening connections among radical groups are essential today if we’re going to build an effective (and therefore, necessarily, mass) response to fascism in a still deeply fractured radical scene.

But the event also raises an important question for Philly anarchists and the other parts of the radical left beyond the socialist scene.  Is this event worth throwing support behind?  What about the major differences in ideology between anarchists and groups like the PSL or Philly Socialists?  The occupation is mounting a clear challenge to a key local branch of fascistic power in this country.  And it’s helping build radical militancy and connections among anticapitalists here.  For anarchists or other radical anticapitalists to sit this out would be an important missed opportunity.

We can’t just wish away major ideological differences.  They are real and create tensions that can’t be ignored.  But there are also levels of coalition, the lowest being merely tactical unity without strategic or ideological agreement.  This is highly limited.  But it is still important, even as a first step, particularly if we’re going to go on the attack against an increasingly audacious state.

And the occupation shows the importance of different kinds of coalitions.  A single Philly wide coalition right now for all anticapitalists would be too internally divided and weak.  If the differences are just too big between some groups, they are much smaller between others; we see this principle at work in Philly’s current occupation.  What would it look like to create more “nodes,” or sites where closer segments of the revolutionary left experimentally build together?  Philly’s occupation is a coalitional project driven mostly by socialists.  Something similar, maybe, could be developed across different but still close sectors of the radical scene in Philly—the most anarchic wing of socialist groups with sympathetic anarchists and prison abolitionists. 

And finally, the occupation is a reminder that building revolutionary power is a process and an experiment.  Connecting at least some of the revolutionary forces in a city will come step by step, by connecting some individuals across groups that share a liberatory anticapitalism, and building outward from there.  We’re laying the foundation for many more struggles after this one.

Radical Education Department

radicaleducationdepartment.com

radicaleducation@protonmail.com

Building Autonomous Power: Radical Struggle in Philadelphia

  • June 26, 2018 10:26 pm

from It’s Going Down

Both a history, analysis, and a proposal for building autonomous power in the city of Philadelphia, PA.

 “The Summer of Rage has begun! Get your sun screen on because it’s gonna be a hot one!”

Summer of Rage Anarchist Crew

by Art Burbridge

Radical struggle is on the rise in Philadelphia. Since at least 2016, anarchist actions—by the Summer of Rage Anarchist Crew, Antifa, and many others—have been intensifying and broadening in a city that already had a long history of antiauthoritarian struggles.  Other groups have been energized too, like prison and police abolitionists, socialists, and Marxists.  With anarchists, they are challenging gentrification, police brutality, mass incarceration, predatory landlords, and attacks on workers.  These far left forces are starting to converge and overlap—seen in reaction to the killing of a local activist, in the abortive 2016 anti-DNC protests in the city, or in actions against local white supremacy.  But the radical scene remains disconnected.   It is still struggling to develop on the mass scale that would be needed to challenge capital in a revolutionary way.

Anarchists and their allies confront a city in the middle of a profound neoliberal transition.  Since the collapse of much of the local industry, Philly has been undergoing a process of profound transformation by corporations like Comcast and the flood of bourgeois managers, lawyers, and others that corporations bring with them.  Internal colonization, displacement, police brutality, and a savage “gig” economy inevitably follow.  They deepen the already obscene racial and economic inequality here.  But Amazon is threatening to build a new headquarters in the city, a move that would accelerate and intensify Philly’s forces of displacement and domination.

Anarchists play an important role in radical organizing in Philly. They offer a set of ideas, practices, and experiences for building power beyond the state and capital—especially important as capital increasingly relies on an authoritarian, fascistic state to survive.  And they provide some of the most important spaces—the Wooden Shoe, A-Space, etc.—for far left groups to meet, hold events, and spread a revolutionary culture.

But what possibilities and obstacles exist here for building revolutionary, autonomous power?  To ask this question, I place far left struggles in Philly against the backdrop of its material context—neoliberal capital’s crisis-ridden development on the local, national, and international scene.  The point isn’t to give easy answers—there aren’t any—but to help chart some of the potential tasks ahead.  Ultimately, I ask: what would it take to make a revolution here?

This piece is part of a series from the Radical Education Department (RED)—see this and this—exploring possibilities for building a revolutionary mass movement today.  It emerges out of RED’s attempts—alongside many others—to build mass, revolutionary power in Philly.

Crews, Networks, and Federations: A Conversation

  • June 11, 2018 1:18 pm

from It’s Going Down

In this episode of the It’s Going Down podcast, we sat down with two members of the Radical Education Department or RED, based out of Philadelphia. In our discussion we talk exclusively about their new text published on IGD entitled, Insurrectionary Councilism, which proposes the creation of spaces that bring together various groups for the purpose of becoming better organized.

In our conversation, we cover a lot of ground, starting largely with a critique and conversation about Left Unity, as well as a look back on the “movement of movements” approach in the anti-globalization period as well as the horizontal structures of Occupy. We discuss some of the organizational needs of the current age, as well as what groups that exist now are already doing to put these ideas into practice.

While it would be impossible to say that this conversation arrived at any easy answers, this discussion in itself brought up some important tensions and questions. What forms do we need to take to be organized? How do we organize across our various groups? How do we relate, if at all, to Left groups like DSA? Are new organizational structures needed, like Federations, and what exactly would they do that current forms do not? 

We hope that this conversation sparks more, as well as experimentation over how we can better organize ourselves, and make our movement more powerful in the process.

More Info: Insurrectionary Councilism and Radical Education Department

[Listen Here]

Anarchism and Revolutionary Strategy: Insurrectionary Councilism

  • May 30, 2018 11:06 am

from It’s Going Down

This piece is a companion to another from the Radical Education Department, “The Insurrectionary Campus: A Strategy Proposal”, which originally ran on It’s Going Down. That article was a specific application of the wider theoretical and strategic framework developed here.

Download and Print Here

Intro

How can anarchists help mobilize mass revolutionary struggle in America?

Socio-political fascism is on the rise again, giving this question fresh urgency.  But that rise is the result of the basic structures of neoliberal capital.  Fascism is the ruling social class’ attempt to tame a basic contradiction.  Capitalism’s ruthless domination of human life and nature drives economic and ecological catastrophes and growing rebellion. To suppress widespread unrest, the establishment mobilizes the white supremacy, patriarchy, xenophobia, and militarism that have always been essential to capital, combining them in a more nakedly and aggressively authoritarian state. Trump is merely the puppet of this dynamic.  America is hardly unique. The dynamic plays itself out in different ways and in various degrees in India, Russia, Turkey, Europe, and beyond.

Anarchists are facing a historic opportunity.  We are witnessing an unprecedented outpouring of resistance in America, building on long-standing radical struggles. And in recent decades, anarchist ideas and practices have played an essential role in organizing radical resistance—from consensus-based decision-making to affinity groups, horizontal assemblies, and emphasis on decentralized direct action.  This influence was obvious in the Global Justice Movement, in Occupy, and in Antifa coalitions today.  Moreover, Trump’s brand of state fascism has sparked a crisis within the ruling class itself; it hasn’t fully established itself inside the state.

All of this means anarchists are poised to play a powerful role in helping organize a radical challenge to fascism’s rise and the oppressive society that requires fascism to function.  But radical struggle is deeply fractured and reactive. How are anarchists to respond? In recent years, anti-authoritarians have debated a number of organizing possibilities to channel radical energy into mass projects: using insurrectionary methods to assert our freedom and provoke the masses into action; building coalitions of multiple leftist groups, like in Antifa; emphasizing  “cadre politics”, entering existing mass movements to push them leftwards; creating and expanding specifically anarchist movements (“especifismo”); organizing workplace, neighborhood, or city councils (as in anarchosyndicalism or, in a different way, in Occupy); and beyond.

“For huge swaths of the radical left, the idea of building a new hierarchical party or group is justly discredited.  This is an important part of the growing appeal of anarchism for the radical left today.”

To this debate—and drawing in various ways on all these traditions and beyond—I propose an “insurrectionary councilism.”  This proposal is rooted in an analysis of the material conditions anarchists face today.  Capital is undergoing an uneven, combined regression into more savage and direct forms of domination.  At the same time, the radical left is beginning to congeal into a more radical form but remains deeply divided.  In this context, insurrectionary councilism does not focus on either entering existing mass struggles (like in cadre politics) or building a specifically anarchist movement (as in especifismo).  Following the lead of Antifa in Michigan and Charlottesville as well as the tradition of anarchosyndicalism, it calls for something else: creating radical, hybrid councils of delegates from the most radical anarchist and non-anarchist groups in a city for the sake of an experimental, federated, direct-action oriented system.

These are the aims of an insurrectionary councilism: to help tap into and share the rich and deep experience of groups too long separated from each other; to use those connections to build revolutionary solidarity and networks of coordinated radical action; and therefore to help congeal the revolutionary power of the radical left—to capitalize on this moment of crisis and danger.  The aim is a more vibrant, intersectional, and coordinated federation of revolutionary groups.

This proposal emerges out of my work with the Radical Education Department.  RED is a “pan-radical left,” rather than a strictly anarchist, organization. But it contains a strong anarchist current, and it is attempting to put many of these ideas into practice in Philadelphia. Ultimately, this proposal is self-consciously provisional. Arising out of RED’s experiments, it means above all to provoke non-dogmatic strategies, tactics, and ideas to help combine radicals and add to the creation of a powerful, broad, and revolutionary mass movement.  It will, of course, need to be challenged, revised, and rethought as these experiments continue.