Tips for Radicals

Abusers of the Left (TW misogyny)

Fri, 17 May 2013 18:01:17 +0100

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..."

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:01:21 +0100

“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?

Fri, 17 May 2013 13:01:59 +0100

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?

Thu, 16 May 2013 18:01:11 +0100

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

Thu, 16 May 2013 00:07:27 +0100

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

In a hilarious change of circumstances, the video of the...

Tue, 14 May 2013 18:01:32 +0100

In a hilarious change of circumstances, the video of the Chomsky/Foucault debate that’s now been well-subbed into English - pushed by ROAR last week - was taken down for intellectual copyright reasons. ROAR published a great rebuttal straight afterwards.

luckily, it’s the internet and that doesn’t mean shit to us. If this video’s already down by the time you find this post, just google and you’ll find another one.

'White backlash' revealed at Scotland Yard

Tue, 14 May 2013 15:01:50 +0100

'White backlash' revealed at Scotland Yard:

SCOTLAND Yard is experiencing a “white backlash” from its own officers who are furious at the time “wasted” on diversity issues, a shocking internal Met Police report has found.

A worrying complacency about race has seeped into all echelons of the Metropolitan Police, the report says, adding that the lessons from the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 risk being forgotten.

The Met’s Diversity Heath Check report found many officers believe “white, heterosexual males were being passed over for promotion” and that there is a “growing antagonism towards diversity” in the force.

In terrifying and unsurprising news…

sexselector: Wonder what the (red and black) star means in this...

Tue, 14 May 2013 07:24:00 +0100

sexselector:

Wonder what the (red and black) star means in this context. I like the weapon and text.

it’s for libertarian communism/anarchism :)

Photo

Tue, 14 May 2013 01:41:59 +0100

panpolymommy: somekindofbecca: tipsforradicals: While filming...

Mon, 13 May 2013 18:17:33 +0100

panpolymommy:

somekindofbecca:

tipsforradicals:

While filming her boyfriend being stopped and searched on the London Underground, Gemma found herself detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest.

This film tells the story of her fight with the police, and it’s well cute (and a product of what happens when privileged people start to get shat on by the police too).

This is brilliant.

It’s all well and good to say that people should just “stand up for themselves” but if you’re DEAD broke, and you can’t afford a lawyer, and the legal system is already stacked against you, and just by existing you appear to be a “criminal” trying to “stand up for yourself” could easily get you killed. Nice theory, pretty white girl. REALLY SHITTY way to say it should be implemented!

this is a better critique of the video than the one I didn’t even bother to write and barely alluded to. thank you!

class-struggle-anarchism: You all know I’m not a ‘market anarchist’. but I wish we could stop...

Sun, 12 May 2013 18:01:27 +0100

class-struggle-anarchism:

You all know I’m not a ‘market anarchist’. but I wish we could stop always automatically lumping them in with “anarcho”- capitalists, it’s not really fair. I know that some “anarcho” capitalists describe themselves as ‘market anarchists’ but there is also a perfectly reasonable and valid anarchist current which advocates a completely different type of market to the capitalist variety.

I think we unconsciously adopt the logic of capitalism when we see capitalistic social relations arising naturally out of any system of exchange, as if it’s some kind of latent force present in all human interactions just waiting to develop.

The development of capitalism was a long, painful process, determined by specific changes in the social relations of production, enforced by wars and massive state violence. The enclosure of all common land and the complete separation of the people from the means of production was no small feat, it faced massive resistance from day one, and only made it’s progress slowly, over generations.

Capitalism isn’t something natural and easy we will simply ‘lapse’ back into if we take our eye off the ball. It requires the constant vigilance of a massive, costly and highly organised system of international repression, armies, border controls, domestic surveillance, total domination of sea, land, air, space, information flows…and this infrastructure is the product of centuries of a certain kind of technological and scientific development, imperialist expansion, plunder of natural resources etc

Capitalism isn’t a mode of exchange, it’s a mode of production.It’s at the point of production where the social relations that define a society are created.Genuine market anarchists are advocating a revolution at the point of production, with an abolition of the property relation which alienates the producers from what is produced. Even if these products are traded in a marketplace, the difference in the social relations of production means it’s very far from anything resembling capitalism.The capitalist myth that there is only one possible type of market is just a part of their myth that there is only one possible kind of society, and we shouldn’t be buying into it.

iiiiiiinteresting one

"It was a very nice, a very humane moment when the last few workers who still had doubts about..."

Sat, 11 May 2013 18:01:26 +0100

“It was a very nice, a very humane moment when the last few workers who still had doubts about whether or not to proceed with self-management eventually decided to do so. It was when the Argentine worker came to share his experiences [of factory self-management], explaining and describing how this struggle goes beyond the recovery of the factory itself: it is a struggle that transforms people, it completely changes people and their environment.”

- Theodoros Karyotis, spokesman of the Vio.Me Solidarity Initiative.

from a great article about Vio.Me, their processes, and identification with the Recovered Factory Movement in Argentina.

'Tis not too late to seek a newer world…

Fri, 10 May 2013 21:02:35 +0100

unrulypolitics:

We live in interesting times. There are stories of gloom and pain: of families evicted from their homes in Muswell Hill. Of anxieties and struggles of those trying to live on less and less when the next round of cuts comes in on, and facing constant prejudice. But there are also stories of organisation and hope: of Friern Barnet residents organising to resist the closure of a library, even if they have to run it themselves.

I heard these stories and more discussed at a meeting of IOPS, Occupy and assorted others on Tuesday. The struggle is what to do with a movement like Occupy now. That night we all hoped for a turn back to the local, to people, our ordinary connections to each other, and communities organising against their specific battles. I have strong feelings about this – it’s been some of my own small part in this unfolding drama for 5 years now.

But there is a gulf. I thought at one point in that meeting, I bet community workers look as absurd to activists as activists do to community workers. Notions that make sense in one context would be nonsense in another, because that’s not how we organise. The idea that there are repertoires of performances that social actors use is a help to see our way out of this. The activist world is particularly strong on performance – the dances of the hands, the elaborate processes of meetings, the way people frame their words, all the way up to the occupation, protest, itself. But communities also have their own rhetoric and repertoire. Today’s thought for the day comes from Charles Tilly’s writings on Contentious Performances, folks – but read more of Tilly, Chatterjee and Scott to elaborate.

To cross this gulf we need to build small bridges of a common language, common ground, a starting point, a connection.

People have started to breach the gulf, like at Friern Barnet – and understand the challenges, where activists are used to being dragged out of buildings, but a residents are not. ‘We’re in different worlds, we don’t even know what is going on’ as one activist and anarchist said. So true, but does that mean we can’t talk? That we can’t draw inspiration from each other? That we can’t learn the best of each other, and in doing so, become better and stronger? Communities could learn repertoires of civil disobedience, activists could learn how to form grounded, rooted connections.

I’m an eternal optimist and I’d like to think if I can embody this connection, there is scope for so much more. Perhaps what we need are translators, mediators? I wouldn’t advocate a mass organisation – I know that organisations can be demonic. But networks, alliance, spaces for learning and potential for collaboration. Yes, and yes. If we’re expanding our repertoires, we need to learn from others who do it well.

One of the people I live with came back from Berlin today, from a congress of organisers, activists, philosophers and artists. There, people were struggling with the so-called failure of the Occupy movement in Europe and thinking, ‘where next?’ She was talking there with two women, one from Russia, one from Cyprus. Her Spanish friend is well linked into movements in Madrid, but is in London to reflect. If we’re sparking these conversations across Europe, what does this mean for the flashes of mutual understanding in London that are emerging?

I can’t but be hopeful: “Come, my friends. ‘Tis not to late to seek a newer world… Though much is taken, much abides… that which we are, we are”.

As we push on we must remember to broaden our own repertoires, seek unexpected connections, and remember that we might well need to learn from you.

- Posted by Candlelight

Dealing with difficult behaviours: a mega-post All of us...

Fri, 10 May 2013 18:01:37 +0100

Dealing with difficult behaviours: a mega-post

All of us encounter people whose behaviour we find difficult, and many of us are difficult ourselves, at least at times. Some people will sometimes act irrationally, or not nicely.

Why it’s a problem for radical groups

This is extra-hard for people working for social change. We have higher standards of our own groups than we do for the rest of society, and feel more let down when they fail to be egalitarian.

If we’re working in a local community, a diverse range of participants is often seen as an asset, but we often lack the tools to deal with substantial differences. For activity groups, consensus often fails as a tool if there’s a lack of good faith.

Action groups need to find a balance between action and support. People will burn out or be turned off if there is insufficient support. On the other hand, providing support doesn’t mean placating disruptive behavior.

How to tackle difficult behaviour

Luckily, we’re at a point nowadays where “group maintenance” is seen as a valid use of group energy (which is great) but we don’t always have a great range of tools at our disposal to tackle problems.

There is a wealth of information in the world about dealing with difficult behaviours, but only some of it is compatible with our self-managed and egalitarian goals.

Luckily, some hero called Brian Martin has trawled through loads of different resources, and has selected some of the advice that’s most compatible with an anti-authoritarian outlook:

The highlights of advice:

Difficult behaviors and difficult group dynamics exist - we have to acknowledge this! Sometimes it makes sense to focus on behaviours, sometimes on people themselves.
Not all difficult behaviors can be attributed to hierarchies and other damaging social structures (see post Aren’t all interpersonal problems caused by capitalism? Won’t everything be solved once we live under a different system?).
Equally, there are understandable reasons for some difficult behaviours. Sometimes, effort should be put to better understand and work through issues (see post Why should we work with difficult people? Aren’t they just disrespectful?).
An experimental approach is valuable. Try one type of response first, usually a mild one (e.g. standard facilitation, mediation and good communication), noting what happens. Adopt stronger responses as necessary. (see post I find a person in my radical organisation difficult to work with. What can I do?)
Some difficult behaviours can’t be solved with dialogue alone. Direct action against persistent or serious abusers can be effective, especially if done collectively. Extreme care is needed before resorting to direct action (see post How should we deal with sexual harassment in groups working for social change?).
Consensus and discussion can’t solve everything. Cutting out a person may be needed, though this avenue needs lots of evidence and lots of thought to be sure it will help (and not just drive them to attack from the outside).
Formal organisational procedures are often unhelpful in challenging oppressive and difficult actions. What is often more useful is developing a culture of mutual support and supportive calling-out of unhealthy behaviour, along with validation of healthy behaviour. This can involve working groups, roles for different individuals, and occasioanal time dedicated to group integrity. Try to “create a safe environment in which difficult people, who otherwise are exposed to a hostile social world, can change and find fulfillment”.
Learning how to respond to violence, as well as to nonviolent difficult behaviors, can be put on a group’s agenda. It can also go on individual agendas, since each of us needs to learn how to deal with internal conflict. See our post on verbal self-defence for some tips.
We each need to work on ourselves. We are all difficult in some ways in some circumstances. By learning about our own difficult aspects, we are better able to understand others (see post I’ve been having issues with a difficult person lately. Is the issue them, or me?).

Have you had any experience of dealing with difficult behaviours in your organisation? Case studies welcome! How did you deal with it?

Organise!

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:01:28 +0100

Organise!:

thesubversivesound:

Libcom’s organising toolkit - guides to organising at work, in your local area and more.

Workplace organising guide - Tips and advice guides for organising in your workplace.

Community organising guide - Information, guides and tips on organising around issues which affect you and other people living in your local area.

Housing guide - Advice on taking action to house yourself cheaply and know your rights

Demonstrations and law enforcement guide - advice on organising and participating in demonstrations and direct action safely and effectively, as well as dealing with law-enforcement agencies and possible imprisonment.

Media and publicity guide - How to get the word out about your group or campaign? There are two main approaches, which should both be used: using the mainstream and corporate media, and building your own independent media. This page contains advice on both.

General organising guide - Basic information on running a political or campaign group democratically.

Personal guides - Some advice on dealing with personal issues such as bailiffs, debt and crime.

Great list of resources!

An action map’s been made for the June 11 Carnival Against...

Fri, 10 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100

An action map’s been made for the June 11 Carnival Against Capitalism, linked to the UK hosting the G8!

100 locations in the West End.

There’s an online version being made with more info and addresses – check for latest progress at mappingthecorporations.org/ and select “Mapping Capitalist London” in the sector menu.

Read Stop G8’s blog for background on the map and capitalist London.

I find a person in my radical organisation difficult to work...

Thu, 09 May 2013 18:01:24 +0100

I find a person in my radical organisation difficult to work with. What can I do?

Different people behave differently.

An obvious point, but one that’s very necessary to emphasise! People don’t act along the lines of strict classifications like “extrovert” or “non-responsive”. One person may need support and sympathy, whereas another may respond best to honest blunt statements.

Understanding how best to interact with a person is a never-ending process. A good idea is to try lower-key responses first, only taking stronger stands if necessary. Three steps to follow:

Respond to good behavior with your own good behavior.
Respond to bad behavior with reasoned argument.
If reasoning doesn’t work a number of times, try escalating.

Escalating can take a number of forms, and you should test to see what works with each person at a given time. One idea could be echo feedback: if someone aggressively calls your work pathetic, respond “Pathetic?”. Others could be responding with “I” messaging (“When you say my work is pathetic, I feel demoralised”), documenting difficulties and reporting them back, responding to aggressive methods by being unhelpful, or going to the wider group for support.

from Activists and “difficult people” by Brian Martin. Check out similar posts in the difficult people tag.

Stop hindering and start helping: dealing with extra-difficult...

Thu, 09 May 2013 17:02:28 +0100

Stop hindering and start helping: dealing with extra-difficult personalities

Some people behave detrimentally to those around them, persisting despite the best efforts at intervention. People’s behaviours can’t always change.

This clashes with some common beliefs in radical circles: that we can create future societies where everyone will be mutually supportive; that consensus decision-making can be used to solve all problems.

The way you plan should take this into account e.g. how to deal with a person ignoring a consensed-upon decision.

from Activists and “difficult people” by Brian Martin. Check out similar posts in the difficult people tag.

I’ve been having issues with a difficult person lately. Is...

Wed, 08 May 2013 18:01:11 +0100

I’ve been having issues with a difficult person lately. Is the issue them, or me?

It can be really hard to know…

Are you deceiving yourself? It’s common for people to overexaggerate in themselves many attributes they find important: charm, intelligence, emotional stability. This often works by subtly encouraging others to lie to you e.g. by asking leading questions (“How did you like my comment at the meeting?”).

Are you the one being difficult? As just mentioned, people deceive themselves about their own issues. People also project parts of their own personalities onto others, taking no responsibility for their own role. This means it can be hard to know who is at fault.

A good way to find out can be asking the opinions of close friends and colleagues. Some tips:

Do it individually and confidentially, to alleviate the pressure to lie to you.
Add a self-deprecating edge (e.g. “I think I didn’t do X very well”) and invite comments.
Sound out how to approach future tasks or problems.
If necessary, directly ask for help about things you think you struggle with.

You may also want to get an independent person to collect these comments. Beware: it can be brutal!

from Activists and “difficult people” by Brian Martin. Check out similar posts in the difficult people tag.

Confronting the 1 percent directly | Waging Nonviolence

Wed, 08 May 2013 02:27:58 +0100

Confronting the 1 percent directly | Waging Nonviolence:

The Earth Quaker Action Team had twice before attended the PNC Bank’s annual shareholder meeting, and each time we had obeyed their rules, using the time allotted to speak truth about mountaintop-removal coal mining.

This time, we made two decisive shifts. First, we would create our own Quaker-style business meeting and conduct it at the same time and place as PNC was trying to pursue its agenda. Second, we showed that we would henceforth hold individual PNC board members accountable until they begin to “bank like Appalachia matters.”

A slightly different take on the classic tactic of disrupting shareholder meetings.

Seems odd asking which side the heads of a company are on though… because they’re on their own side. That’s sorta their point.