Tips for Radicals

class-struggle-anarchism:

thepeoplesrecord:

Let’s explain what our various ‘isms’ mean before we call ourselves ‘whatever-ists’

…
My definition of working class is much closer to the Occupy concept of the 99%

So, everyone who’s not a billionaire?

but that’s also a loaded term so instead let’s use the phrase “working people”.

No.

It’s the same as the Marxist definition of “working class”

No it isn’t.

but with less connotations attached to it.

Hmmm, less connotations? Everything to do with radical politics has negative connotations - there are people who make it their business to make sure of that. “Working people” is meaningless - a person who works is not necessarily working class. Donald Trump is a working person. We are not a collection of working people we are a CLASS. So what if there are negative connotations, it doesn’t change the fact that the struggle against capitalism is a struggle between classes.

We need to make it clear that you can eat as much humous as you like, as long as you don’t own a large a chain of businesses then you’re the right class for Left Unity.

So if you own a small chain of businesses you’re alright?

Reformist/ Revolutionary
What is a revolution if it’s not a series of radical reforms?

The complete reorganisation of society from the bottom up, abolition of private property and wage labour

For me, this whole distinction is a way for “revolutionaries” to smear “reformists” by which they mean anyone who doesn’t already identify themselves with an explicitly revolutionary ideology like that of “Trotskyism”, “Leninism” or “Anarchism”.

…or anyone who believes that capitalism can be reformed without the violent expropriation of the bourgeoisie

This definition of revolutionary excludes the vast majority of actual revolutionaries. The Egyptians, Venezuelans and Cubans are all out as is Alexis Tsipiras and his Greek Syriza party.

Hahaha, do you like what he’s done here? Doesn’t want an exclusionary definition of “revolutionary”, goes on to list “actual revolutionaries”, thereby excluding everyone else. Stop pretending that your personal politics are “actually” correct as if there’s no debate you sneaky liberal

All these groups were inspired, not by the ideas of dead Russians, but by the desire to radically change (reform) their material conditions.

Because those are the only two possible sources of inspiration. Give me a break.

Trotskyist/Leninist/Bolshevik
This isn’t an attack on those ideologies themselves

yes it is

but what do people think of when they hear them? I know my friends think back to dimly-recalled GCSE Russian history lessons. Older people probably think of the Soviet Union they grew up hearing horror stories about. OK, so maybe people have got the wrong impression. Maybe we need to re-educate them and recover the good name of these glorious leaders

patronising crap, I don’t even subscribe to those ideologies but they describe actually existing revolutionary movements of the working class, how else should we refer to them? ‘lets-all-be-jolly-friends-ism’?

but it’s not going to happen.

says you

Are we a Russian history discussion club or a political party?

yet another false dichotomy

Do we want to debate the legacy of Lenin or transform modern Britain?

and another

Socialist
Socialism means different things to different people…

Which one depends on your personal definition of Socialism. At a Left Unity meeting we had a debate about the word socialist. It was said that we have to be honest with people but if I tell a stranger I’m a socialist, and they think that socialism is the same as supporting the Soviet Union, am I really being honest with them? One time I was chatting pleasantly away with a Czech woman in a café in Sheffield, I mentioned that I was a socialist and she stormed away saying the socialists had killed her grandparents. A friend of mine, knowing that I’m a socialist, said I should write a blog, sincerely adding “they’ll love it in China and Russia”. You only get one chance to make a first impression. Let’s explain what socialism is before we call ourselves socialist.

This is exactly what he did earlier. Socialism means many different things to different people, so what we need to do is first explain what socialism IS. He’s saying ‘Socialism has many different definitions, but I know the only correct one’ Therefore let’s not say the word until everyone accepts my definition of it.

Capitalist/Anti-Capitalist
I’ve heard people at meetings endlessly saying things like “I don’t want to be part of a party that tries to reform Capitalism”, “Capitalism’s rotten to the core, we need to get rid of Capitalism”.

Yes go on

What I’ve never heard is someone explain what Capitalism is and what getting rid of it would look like.

You’re going to the wrong meetings

For me, Capitalism is where businesses aren’t owned by their workers which is a ridiculous and undemocratic arrangement.

That’s not what capitalism is.

Does this make me an anti-capitalist?

No.

I would say it does, many would say it doesn’t.

They’d be right.

If we can’t define what Capitalism is then how can we decide what’s the point of even talking about whether we’re an anti-capitalist party, still less falling out over it.

You honestly can’t define what capitalism is? Karl Marx managed it in 1867.

Furthermore, the vast majority of British people don’t define themselves as anti-capitalist and so any leaflet from an “anti-capitalist” party will go straight in the bin.

where it belongs.

A party that says they want workers to control their workplaces on the other hand, re-build the welfare state and re-nationalize the railways and utilities on the other hand sounds good to everyone.

Not to the millions who vote tory it doesn’t. Or the millions who don’t give a fuck. Or me, even.

I’ve got a couple of points
I’ve found that when people say this at meetings it means they’ve got a speech prepared in which they’ll attempt to spell out what’s wrong with society and how to fix it. This’ll go on forever and will bore people away from Left Unity for good.

Yes, only ‘actual’ revolutionaries who know what socialism “is” should be allowed to bore everyone.

Keep it as short as possible, people have short attention spans and are impatient for change.

You hate the working class, don’t you? This whole piece is one big appeal to dumb down radical politics because people are too stupid to differentiate between Ken Loach and Stalin. It’s a liberal reformist agenda dressed up as ‘common sense’ in ‘plain language’. This is the exact same rhetoric and content that the ‘left wing’ of the Labour party have been dressing up in different ways for as long as I can remember. It’s about as new and exciting as Tony Benn’s pipe and slippers.

Thank you for writing this so I didn’t have to bother.

Great analysis of a shit Left Unity post!

In community politics, door knocking plays an essential role. From just getting to know your neighbours better, to carrying out a local survey or trying to sign people up to a local campaign or petition, talking to people at home is a valuable exercise. It’s hard to beat face-to-face chats.

However, it can be a daunting task, so we put together a set of tips to help you on your way, with pre-planning and then how to act on people’s doorsteps.

Before you go

Avoid going out if it’s raining (people are put off if you look like a drowned rat), if you’re ill or if you’re in a bad mood (people pick up on it)
Dress smartly; not necessarily suited, but ironed and clean. No-one’s going to open the door if you look like a burglar or a bailiff.
Dress sensibly; make sure your face is visible, not covered with a hood, hat or scarf.
The best time to go knocking is during daylight. Avoid: just after work (people need at least half an hour to relax), dinner-time, and after little kids have been put to bed.
If you’re leafleting for a ‘controversial’ issue (e.g. anti-fascist) then start at the top of a tower block, otherwise you may have to walk down past hostile people who might have been alerted by your leaflets.

If you’re knocking for your group

Take a clipboard, to carry:
- leaflets to give out (one type for people who are out/in but busy, one type for interested people). Try to keep one clearly visible on the front for residents to read.
- a list of houses you’ve visited, noting who was interested, disinterested, and who wasn’t in (so you can revisit those houses at the end)
- a sheet to note the contact details for interested people
Some people have put a card through the doors of the areas to be visited announcing the time they’ll be along - if people don’t want to talk they can just put the card in the window to indicate they’re not interested. While time-consuming, this can be worthwhile.
It’s best to start organising with your closer neighbours, so you have a basic trust already
Know your script, and answers to frequently asked questions, so you don’t fumble your words when asked.

At the door

Say the most important thing first. Avoid apologising for bothering them in the first sentence – people prefer you get to the point of why you’re calling.
The person opening the door won’t want to hear too much complicated stuff in the first minute or so leave aside complicated explanations in favour of making a good first impression
If you seem confident and relaxed, so will they; if you’re nervous and tense then they will also tend to react defensively.
Keep an open stance - avoid crossing your arms, or standing side on like you’re about to leave
Don’t be intimidating, and don’t approach people’s doors in groups.
Look people in the eye if possible.
Always be honest about what you know and don’t know - don’t flannel to sound more informed.
It sounds silly, but your knocking style is important. If you sound too official, people may not come to the door.
Behave from the moment you touch the gate - people often hear it and will check you through the curtains. Close the gate behind you, and don’t walk on the grass. Close the gate behind you when you leave as well.

Finally…

Don’t be nervous about knocking on people’s doors! Most people are lovely even if they’re not interested in what you have to say.

Remember: if what you’re working for the good of the local community, then you have an immediate advantage over most people who are door-knocking for other reasons.

Once you’ve knocked on a few doors and got some feedback, it’s usually plain sailing. Don’t be disappointed though if all the people who seemed enthusiastic don’t actually turn up to your event.

Last of all, enjoy it! It’s a great buzz when you get into it, and a great way to get to know people in your community.

Precarious Labor: A Feminist Viewpoint (by Silvia Federici) →

The concept of “affective labor” strips the feminist analysis of housework of all its demystifying power. In fact, it brings reproductive work back into the world of mystification, suggesting that reproducing people is just a matter of making producing “emotions,” “feelings,”.

The feminist analysis of the function of the sexual division of labor, the function of gender hierarchies, the analysis of the way capitalism has used the wage to mobilize women’s work in the reproduction of the labor force–all of this is lost under the label of “affective labor.”

Really love this piece by Federici - succint description of immaterial labour, and supports the need for focusing on “precarious labour” whilst also giving it a feminist injection.

Legend.

If you’re unemployed it’s not because there isn’t any work

Just look around: A housing shortage, crime, pollution; we need better schools and parks. Whatever our needs, they all require work. And as long as we have unsatisfied needs, there’s work to be done.

So ask yourself, what kind of world has work but no jobs. It’s a world where work is not related to satisfying our needs, a world where work is only related to satisfying the profit needs of business.

This country was not built by the huge corporations or government bureaucracies. It was built by people who work. And, it is working people who should control the work to be done. Yet, as long as employment is tied to somebody else’s profits, the work won’t get done.
- The New American Movement (NAM)

boudiccasrevenge:

“We want a feminism that stays up late at the kitchen table convincing us that we deserve better.”

View Post

Well stoked to read this book!

Abusers of the Left (TW misogyny) →

It’s a dirty little secret that misogyny and abuse run rampant in radical communities. From environmentalists, black block anarchists, queer radical groups misogyny and violence against women are covered up and ignored. Abusive men are protected while women are silenced or forced to leave because exposing these men would harm the main objective in the group. This gives the message that women are not worthy, they have no agency, their experiences are not valid. We will be silent no more.

Tell us your story Submit

Share your stories if you’ve been affected, with this new tumblr cataloguing sexism in the left.

It’s so rampant, we really need to cut that shit out.

There is a tension sometimes between journalistic and moral narratives. Although of course overall we may try to point out the bad so that the good can triumph, within that ambition there is also this: an event is more newsworthy if it is rare or strange. Other, worse, more important horrors are overlooked because they are common.

In the town of Baniyas on 2-3 May, there seems to be little doubt that a pro-regime militia swept through two Sunni neighbourhoods slaughtering large numbers of those they found, shooting and knifing many to death. There are photographs – you can find them online – of piles of corpses of little children, aged from two or three upwards. Altogether there seem to have been scores of them.

The nature of this crime cannot be fully revealed, because no newspaper, including this one, would publish such pictures. The media are happy to present a pixilated image of a heart-eater, however.

Why is cannibalism in Syria a bigger story than the routine slaughter of children? bcs of structural mainstream media bias towards unusual events, that’s why

When capitalism is global, how can we challenge globally?

Occupied Times: If the manifestation of today’s Empire is global, whilst most legal apparatus deal with sovereignty at a national level, are there currently any forms of institution that have a hope of holding this supranational Empire to account in any tangible or practicable way? If not, can they, or should they, be built?
Michael Hardt: I am all for working through existing supranational institutions to challenge violations of international law, aid the poor, help refugees, etc. Much good can come, for instance, from working through United Nations structures to aid Palestinian refugees in the West Bank or to challenge violations of human rights.
Michael Hardt: At the same time, though, one should not expect too much from such supranational institutions. They operate under rigid political and ideological limitations. Necessary too are various forms of autonomous and direct political action. My point is simply that it’s not a question of either/or.

Is laughing the mic check of 2013? →

Famous (but not infamous enough) for being the world’s richest man, Slim was at the library to speak about his interest and recent investment in the free online courses of the Kahn Academy, yet his voice was drowned out by waves of laughter for the first 30 minutes of the event.

I literally don’t understand the comparison in the title.

They’re two entirely different tactics, like, what even

In the Springtime of Youth: Fitch the Homeless is a Terrible Idea / Homeless People are not Your Gimmick →

eeriberry:

feministdisney:

iamayoungfeminist:

If you haven’t heard, some people are suggesting that in response to the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch explaining that he won’t make clothes for uncool people (aka fat women) we should start giving A&F clothes to the homeless. No really. People are really suggesting that.

Um

“Hey, A&F look at who is wearing your clothes now! Homeless people! Aka the worst of the worst! Aka the non-coolest people ever! Got you now!”

1. Homeless people ARE PEOPLE and should be treated LIKE PEOPLE not props.
2. YOU ARE STILL GIVING MONEY TO THE COMPANY. Yeah, like maybe indirectly indirectly if you are buying your clothes from Goodwill or donating things you already have. But how about we just stop supporting this fucked up company all together.
3. Just read this tweet, people. Just read it.

Okay, I can forgive one white dude for thinking this is a good idea (I GUESS) but SO MANY social justice advocates keep reposting the idea like it’s some genius form of social protest. IT’S NOT. It’s exploiting and dehumanizing and HOW EVEN ONE PERSON READ THIS AND THINK “yeah, that’s a swell idea” IS BEYOND ME.

I was going to write up a post, but then I saw this :) since I actually already wrote up my points, I’ll add them here to go along with what she pointed out.

Homeless people are not your tool to use, they are not your gimmick. They’re not your billboard. Issues I see with implementation:

it relies on everyone understanding that homeless people are “less than”. Whether or not we believe it ourselves, we feed into this mentality by agreeing that a big F U to a company is to have homeless people wear their brand. Woohoo, they’ll make the brand dirty by publicly wearing it, take that! yeah! It treats them as a joke punchline.

On the actual level of passing out these shirts, it’s manipulative. They are poor, they have less choice than you (probably) or I as to whether or not they accept a handout, because they often need them to survive. Whether or not they agree with the message of your campaign, they have to agree with it in order to receive charity. Or did this guy go around with an extra bag of not-Abercrombie shirts in order to give people a real choice? If your charity is only given out to people who agree with your corporate tactics, how charitable are you? Why are we all encouraged to choose to boycott Abercrombie, but it’s assumed acceptable that all the homeless people should, instead, wear the clothing brand we detest? Is it because we already consider homeless people “branded”?

Again on actual level, one of the problems that started the outcry is that Abercrombie refuses to make clothes for larger people. How does that work out when you’re doling out the shirts? Skip over the larger homeless people saying, “Sorry, you’re too large for what we had in mind for this corporate takedown, no charity for you?” Or again, are you bringing extra shirts along? Is it okay to exclude fat women so long as they’re homeless this time??

A lot of people will inevitably argue that it’s wrong to deny homeless people a shirt no matter what the circumstances. But this is the exact attitude that often maligns homeless people unnecessary and allows others to use charity for their own promotion regardless of how tastelessly it is done. “They should take anything we give them, and be grateful” is the social adage. They’re not dogs, they’re people in unfortunate circumstances. People with thoughts, feelings, and a desire for choices.

Giving out ten or so poorly manufactured tshirts is nothing, honestly. Most homeless people do not need tshirts as much as they need shelter, food, and proper medical care. There is a reason homeless people do not often own many outfits… they have few places to store them. Without proper medical care, they might not be capable of cleaning them, since mentally and physically disabled people are disproportionately homeless… and these are the people you are taking advantage of and using for your minute of fame.

This is not something we should feel good about…

I’m really glad people are talking about why this isn’t a good thing because the entire campaign made me super uncomfortable but I couldn’t articulate why

thank you thank you thank you

(via thatfeministdyke)