New booklet published: Fighting For Our Lives

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 01:38 AM UTC

This stuff about personal vendetta and whatnot is bullshit. There is only statements of objectivity about who wrote the thing and why what they wrote has little to do with their lives.

To the queer womyn of color that is offended, as a qeer \"man\" of color, let me say i\'m offended by this literature. Your concerns are exactly what I\'m talking about. I\'m worried that a white man signs something, \"The Black Writer\'s Bloc.\" Just because you\'re a queer person of color, doesn\'t mean you have all the answers, or that your stuggles are being co-opted by me, because you dont know me. Well....now at least you know some of me...I\'m queer and of indigenous descent. I\'m an anarchist that knows some facts about the person that wrote it . His class, race, and male privilege worry me when he speaks for our struggles.

For the person that claims he has no trust fund. No, not literally speaking, but his parents make sure he\'s quite well off in his travels, expenses and such, and are quite upper-middle. He\'s also not ALL of Crimethinc, but he plays a major role in much of the analysis and production of major Crimethinc material.

I dont get paid by the government, I\'m not anti-anarchist, I\'m not out to get him, I\'m just making sure people understand that I dont feel comfortable with him speaking about the kinds of struggles I experience, like he knows it.

It\'s just the same as a European American guy writing about the struggle of say...the native peoples of Bolivia, and writing in a plural first person, like, \"Those of us who are struggling to resist Nationalism and European assimilation...blah blah blah\" If he\'s going to write about their struggles responsibly, he needs to ask them what they want written about them, and he needs to refer to them in their own context. So in FFOL, when he refers to \"our class war,\" he\'s not speaking for himself, and that\'s irresponsible!

Anarchism has historically been about Statism, Capitalism and Class Struggle ultimately. It also is appealing to Anti-Imperialist struggles, because if offers an excellant alternative to Nationalism. It claims to want to get rid of White Supremecy, Fascism, Patriarchy, Hetero-Sexism, yadda yadda yadda. The point being, this guy isn\'t rooted in these struggles except for the fact that he might feel oppressed by Statism. Maybe him being punk got him some run-ins with the cops. boohoo. I got runins with the cops because I was poor and on the street. So him talking about \"our class war\" leaves me FUMING.

His analysis and attempt at articulating what\'s good for me is dumpsterdiving doesn\'t help me to trust him or to value him as an ally in building an anarchist society.
And yes I am an anarchist, and have been for years. I\'ve been active in organizing for a while now. I\'m not out to destroy Crimethinc, but I get pissed off at Crimethinc literature often, because I thinking it\'s assuming, patronizing, tokenizing, and assimilating.

To you people defending him who are so paranoid that I\'m a fucking Fed, I have nothing to say to you but cops dont have the time to sit on infoshop and fuck with you. Even counterintelligence doesn\'t work that way. If they were coming after you, or trying to fuck with you, you\'d know it for sure. Infiltrating Infoshop.org is hardly productive in bringing this movement down.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 02:46 AM UTC

and yeah, let\'s not forget those racist middle-class poseurs in MOVE ... how dare they talk about communal living and vegetarianism and revolution, don\'t they know that\'s alienating to working parents with bills to pay and mouths to feed? etc., etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 04:37 AM UTC

you might as well be a cop.
and you might be. but i doubt it.
you might really be a person of color.
but i doubt that too, actually.

in fact, since so much of your critique is grounded in [you know who]\'s legitimacy as a true revolutionary, why don\'t you post your own characteristics?

come on... a/s/l
a name? a pic?

you bring your marbles, i\'ll bring mine.
and once again, \"black writers bloc\" has nothing to do with race. there are black blocs. there is writer\'s block. it\'s a pun, one that you might see if the blinders of ideology and your personal (yes, it\'s personal) vendetta against [what\'s his muthafuckin name?] hadn\'t rendered you completely incapable of a worthwhile critique.

like i said, you might as well be a cop. your responses have thusfar provided little more than cannon fodder for those who would rather see one of the most active voices in the anarchist movement (Crimethinc) painted irrelevent and contemptuous by other anarchists. class-baiting? race-baiting? ad hominem attacks?

and you say you\'re not a cop? well you\'re a bigger fool than i thought.
you\'re doing their work for them.
and for free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 10:00 AM UTC

this guy has just admitted to completely lying to us

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 01:40 PM UTC

This person isn\'t a cop, but is more likely some authoritarian leftist who knows how to speak activist jargon and is motivated by the desire to paint anarchists as being unconcerned about race and gender issues. Of course, we know this isn\'t true--one only needs to look at the pages of our magazines and the discussions we have on this website and on email lists.

Perhaps this person is just some self-righteous asshole who thinks that it is there job to pass judgement on somebody who is helping out Crimethinc. I\'ll bet that this self-righteous critic doesn\'t apply the same critique to other materials being written by radicals. He or she is attacking Crimething because they have engaged in politically incorrect doublespeak, in their opinion.

If you don\'t like what somebody has written, you don\'t have any obligation to read anything else they publish. And you have every right to publish your own booklet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 01:59 PM UTC

This is apparently no longer a forum for serious debate at all. I\'m not going to spend time defending myself and who I am to anyone that is so clear in their disregards for my and other folx concerns.

\"From stormclouds...,\" your doubts and assumptions about my background are rooted in nothing but speculations, while my critique of the FFOL\'s author is rooted in factual basis. That\'s great that people want my head for offering critiques to classism, and such...thanks for the solidarity, friends.

You people are scary, and I\'m glad that this is only a thread and not real life, because I would go crazy living around so called anarchists that dont take critiques seriously and focus rather on my \"style\" of critique and not the content itself. You\'re all so quick to assume that I\'m after Crimethinc. or you all or are out to destroy this forum. Please. I\'m only offering facts about the author\'s life that I\'m aware of, and how they aren\'t rooted in the struggles he claims he represents. Period.

I thought anarchism was about accountability and responsibility to each other. My critiques are an attempt at holding him accountable for writing from a perspective that is not entirely his to write from, while still respecting him enough to not reveal his identity.

I actually like SOME of his works, it\'s not all completely bad, there\'s just a lot of holes that are extremely offensive. I\'m sorry that a couple of you feel \"alienated\" or \"attacked\" by my critique.

Once again, a white middle class anarchist punk is defended by his friends when he his critiqued by a person of color. So much for the anarchist movement taking anti-racism seriously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 02:40 PM UTC

\"thanks for the solidarity, friends.\"

okay, cops aren\'t this funny. i laughed aloud at that.

simply because you claim to be a \"person of color\" it does not give your attacks and pseudo-critique any merit. likewise, that you were attacked is no indictment on anarchists for not \"taking anti-racism seriously.\" it\'s a sign that there are at least a few anarchists left who take anti-idiocy seriously.

you come here with a distateful, divisive agenda of lies, half-truths, and otherwise irrelevent character assassination and mudslinging... and now you speak of solidarity? solidarity for thee but not for he, i guess.

believe it or not, even if you are a person of color- and not just one of many leftist crackers who fetishize otherness- you don\'t represent all so-called \"people of color.\" in other words, one can be anti-racism and still anti-you.
i should know, because i am.
be gone!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 19 2002 @ 05:13 PM UTC

Hi, um, everyone. I did a fair bit of the writing in that pamphlet, it\'s true, though I did make sure to get input from people of varous backgrounds on the work I did. Some people think it\'s a good pamphlet, and tell me it\'s been useful in their attempts to draw people together, build community and momentum, etc.

Others feel alienated and angered by it. I don\'t think it\'s a good idea to accuse them of being federal agents OR rabid leftists. It is nice when they articulate their feelings in a way that facilitates constructive discussion, but I don\'t want to say that\'s their responsibility, exactly--should someone who\'s been made to feel alienated be responsible for not alienating, while the sting is still fresh? So I don\'t really appreciate people \'defending\' CrimethInc. any more than attacking it. Stating misrepresented facts is good, but let\'s do our best to avoid conflicts of ego, especially when others are trying to express that they feel disempowered.

I do my best to learn from the feedback others are kind enough to offer. If I\'m part of a project that makes some feel alienated, that\'s important to consider. If you do things, you sure can\'t please everyone, but you should at least keep up with and take responsibility for the way everyone feels about what you do.

I can represent my own experience and say that many people of diverse backgrounds participate in and support projects we (the \"we\" here refers to any of the affinity groups I\'ve been part of) have done. People of diverse backgrounds also feel alienated by it--some middle class white boys, among others. It\'s important here, then, that nobody try to represent a group\'s perspective on this pamphlet--we should each simply represent ourselves, and whoever might agree with our statements.

I\'m all ears to comments about how we could have done things better. Some I agree with, others I have to disagree with--not because I think \"we\'re right\" and others are \"wrong,\" but because I feel the compromises we did make (and one is always making compromises, whenever one chooses a course of action!) were the best ones in this particular case. I\'d like to be more specific, but at the moment I wouldn\'t know where to start, with all the different strands that have appeared here.

I\'ll hazard a beginning by trying to clear up a couple controversies here. First--no, I have no trust fund, and yes, I\'m from a middle class background. I have suffered some--who hasn\'t? Suffering can\'t be compared or quantified. Anyone who thinks my life has been a bed of roses is projecting. I\'m not going to tell stories about being sick or hungry or having it bad, that would be stupid and tedious. I understand that it\'s different for me to survive off garbage than it is for someone of a totally different background to do so--just as it is different for me to than it is for many others of my own background to!

Second--yes, a number of people contribute to CrimethInc. projects, it\'s not just me. I know many of my comrades who put their lives into such projects would be very angry to hear others denying their existence, or attributing a white, trust fund boy background to them when they are middle aged, queer, and/or homeless by social class rather than birth. Believe it or not, the \"real\" homeless people others often claim to represent in such discussions as this are not in lock-step behind attacks on our \"glorifications\" of dumpstering (which, in my opinion, have been dramatically exaggerated). I could cite friends of mine, real life middle-aged non-white homeless guys (oh my!), who thought the quote on the back of Evasion was right on, for example, probably more so than i do. But! Don\'t take my word for it--you\'d have to speak to them to get their perspective, and--once again--it\'s ridiculous for me to speak here on their behalf. I guess the point I\'m really trying to get at here is that it\'s not healthy or smart for any of us to try to represent others besides ourselves.

That\'s one of the chief problems people in this forum have with the FFOL pamphlet--that it pretends to represent others--and I can see where they\'re coming from. That disclaimer at the end should probably have been at the beginning, at the very least. As with all criticism, I\'ll try to learn from it, as I believe my comrades here will, and hopefully the next thing we do will be a little better for it. But nothing we do will ever be perfect. Nothing we do will ever fail to alienate someone--that\'s capitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy for you: it\'s practically impossible for any of us to act without infringing on the freedom of others. But we all can do better than we\'ve been raised to (whether U.S. middle class or Latin American!), and we are trying to.

I\'ve typed enough for now, and responded to very little of what has been raised here, but that\'s as much as i can handle for the moment--I\'m human too, you know, though people sometimes seem to forget this in the process of constructing a perfect adversary. I\'ll try to think some more and offer some more perspectives as soon as I have the chance. I don\'t want it to seem that I\'m just typing this to avoid criticism--I want it, and strive to be open to it: not to win anyone\'s forgiveness or whatever, but simply because we\'re not gonna succeed in this revolution unless we help each other improve our efforts. Next time I\'ll make an effort to address specific allegations and critiques.

I can\'t resist ending with a quote from a friend\'s writing: \"We are in absolute agreement with our critics that CrimethInc. must be ruthlessly and utterly destroyed. Unfortunately, for this to be possible, it is necessary that we overthrow capitalism and Western civilization in general.\"

With respect for all of you and all your efforts, and the sincerest desire to contribute positive things somehow to this struggle,

me (not nurturing any illusions that anonymity is really possible for myself or my comrades any more, but not seeing the sense in making us any MORE visible, since we are already visible enough to be accountable for our actions--and nothing would be more copunterproductive for us than to be famous name-recognition anarchists like Zerzan or Bookchin).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 12:46 AM UTC

Finally some real feedback that isn\'t in the form of paranoia. I\'m actually suprised at your ability to clearly state your opinions on the critiques I made earlier about your life. The folks who think I\'m out to get you can now rest, knowing that I have no personal vendetta against you. I still have the same critiques, but feel very accomplished in knowing that you responded to them in way that actually addressed the critiques, and not in the form of delusions of my identity.

Your \"defenders\" were rabid for not being personally critiqued themselves, whereas you showed comradely and geniuine respect in your dialogue. I personally apologize if you feel hurt by my comments at all, as I was only made mere observations with criticisms. Some of my comments may have been angry sounding, only because it really pisses me off when people offend me with their writing. They are knee-jerk reactions, and I try my best to edit them out before hitting the button. But sometimes that fails.

You\'re still not off the hook though, oh mighty CrimethInc one. The critiques stand, and come from an assortment of people. I see your last post as a great way to open discussion in many ways. I don\'t have too much time on my hands to actually write critiques for hours about Crimethinc on your critique board or whatever it is. (I do however use my shitting time to read Crimethinc literature as comedy relief, next to the Onion, and when I have writing utensils in the bathroom, I usually write little critique notes on Harbingers, in between the lines...it\'s fun)

I just want you to know that the people who are pissed at this literature, and others you\'ve written, aren\'t just a couple of silly hanger-ons, we\'re people that are active revolutionaries and are engaged in struggle everyday. We see some of the CrimethInc. material as being counter-revolutionary in many ways. I think you already know this, because you\'ve received much criticism in the past.

One thing I\'ll give you is that you\'re consistent in your efforts to keep CrimethInc going in the face of mounting opposition. That might be a bad thing, but I\'ll give you props for effort. Keep up the bad work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 08:58 AM UTC

Just remember, Author, you can\'t please everyone all of the time. Figure out what your goals are -- what you want to achieve with your writing -- and stick to them. There will always be critics both kind and brutal, but if you are making strides towards whatever it is you set out to accomplish, then ultimately that is what matters.

And, coming from the perspective of someone who finds anarchy interesting but unrealistic, and who thinks of anarchists as squabbling little ostriches competing to see who can stick their head furthest in the sand ... I have to say that it\'s pretty clear that you will never, ever gather all anarchists behind your banner (not that that\'s your goal, or should be), so that shouldn\'t even be a consideration. Your material (Fighting For Our Lives and a lot of the stuff on your web sites) strikes a chord in a way that a lot of the hate-filled rhetoric (\"kill the middle class scum\") and obscurantist jargon (\"proletariat bourgeoisie\" yadda yadda) absolutely does not.

Take what you can from these criticisms but keep your eyes on your goal. If (insert name of famous authors or literary movement) had tried to please all of their critics then there would be no great and daring literature.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 09:40 AM UTC

\"We see some of the CrimethInc. material as being counter-revolutionary in many ways.\"

This person has a lot of unresolved issues that they are projecting onto Crimethinc. This statement alone shows that the author isn\'t in touch with the average person as they like to pretend. When radicals of any kind start throwing around the word \"counter-revolutionary,\" this means that they have become completely dogmatic about their way of thinking. I point this out because last night I was reading this interview with an Asian-American activist who had been involved in communist groups in the U.S. during the 70s and 80s. He was looking back and criticizing how the groups became so inwardly focused and obsessed with how other groups were becoming \"counter-revolutionary\" that they ended up splintering and becoming smaller to the point where they just talked to each other.

Criticism of Crimethinc is OK, but the arrogance in the above statement shows that somebody is more concerned with enforcing ideological purity than they are in trading some criticisms and letting the Crimethinc people continue with their work. At least Crimethinc is trying to talk to non-anarchists, which is more than I can say about the current navel-gazing anarchist movement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 10:17 AM UTC

I\'m asking this out of curiosity, and not in a sarcastic \"fuck-you\" way: what sort of publication/activities/etc. are those people involved in who have strong class/race/etc. critiques of crimethinc.?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 11:24 AM UTC

I know folks involved in free education work, and children liberation. I know folks who work around anti-racism and anti-patriarchy issues. I know folks in synthesis groups that take on many issues in the general left. I know anarchists that are more specifically orientated in class struggle. I even know crusty punks with critiques of CrimethInc. I\'ve dialogued with folks who aren\'t very politically orientated but are curious, and are rooted in local community activities, that find CrimethInc to be silly at best and offensive at worst. Pretty much hundreds of people in my community that I\'ve spoken with in the last year or so have either hinted at finding the literature to be worthless, patronizing, or have called for CrimethInc to check itself in local newspapers and larger anarchist publications like Clamor. Most of the time CrimethInc is the butt of our funniest jokes, and we kid each other consistently by hinting that we were \"living the revolution now, and that there is no anarchism.\" hee hee.

I SINCERELY have NEVER met a person face to face that thinks CrimethInc literature is remotely a good thing, though I\'ve literally heard almost a hundred folks laugh it down.

Oh and Chuck, get off your high horse man. I do think their shit is counter-revolutionary, because when people read it that dont know what anarchism is, and then find out that \"there is no anarchism,\" then they don\'t want to become organized revolutionaries. In that sense they actually disturb a movement to bringing about revolution. Not by themselves alone, but by taking a bite out of it. or 250,000 bites.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 12:01 PM UTC

personally. defending crimethinc and [author] in this discussion has only been an incidental by-product of the critique of irresponsible discourse in the anarchist community. i, by no means, care to defend crimethinc for its own sake.
i continue to have a problem with the manner that this person has conducted himself throughout his discussion. the person started with a vicious mix of lies, damn lies, class-baiting, race-baiting, abused leftist rhetoric and a general disrespect for the readers of this forum. this person even desperately decried that people didn\'t fall over themselves in deference upon his claim to be a \"person of color.\" sorry, at least from me, you\'ll get only the respect you deserve. which, of course, is absolutely none.
critique ideas and hold people responsible. hell, even Call People Out On Their Shit (tm). but do it in a responsible and articulate manner if you want your so-called critiques to stand the weight of intelligent scrutiny.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 02:21 PM UTC

I\'ve waded through the dialogue above, and all I really have to say right now is I visited my parents and left it on a table there by accident and my stepmother loved it and said \"Now I finally understand what makes you like you are\" (meaning, always thinking about how to change this fucked up world) and she wanted to know if I agreed with everything in the pamphlet. So I said heck no -- I think a lot of it is exaggerated and some of it is sort of silly romanticization, but I do agree with a lot of it. So she was so into it that she wants to get a pile of copies and hand them out ot family and friends. So here we have the problem of people thinking that it represents \"anarchism\" or some kind of platform of beliefs. But on the other hand, at least it\'s a good starting point for conversation about anarchistic ideas, and as I\'ve seen, it\'s appealing to a wider audience than radical bookstore frequenters. (My stepmother is already a critiquer of civilization and likes Daniel Quinn\'s books.)

I have been thinking for a long time about how to promote anarchistic ideas and social strutures in this media-driven culture which demonizes \"anarchism\" and \"anarchists\" as bomb-throwing hooligans, etc... we all know that tune. I think this pamphlet hits a lot of really good chords -- things like \"Dear Aunt Joyce\" is what I am thinking of -- and the generalized history of force. I\'m glad it\'s free, and I am glad it\'s visually appealing. I give a lot of props to the people who put it together. I don\'t think it\'s \"counter revolutionary\" if it incites thought and inquiry and undemonizes the term \"anarchist\": if it leads someone to invesitgate anarchist thought beyond this pamphlet, they\'ll soon see that there\'s no generalized \"anarchist position\" but that there are many.

Still, I think it could be a lot better. Some small, specific things are the language -- \"genealogy\" (why get all Foucauldian on us?) The history of force -- doesn\'t it elide and simplify to the point of being sort of unbelievable, and doesn\'t it omit pre-statist oppressions that may have existed? Why bother with being blatantly anti-religious instead of more subtle about it -- why not discern more about the negative aspects of religion, its controlling aspects, and separate it from spirituality of a more life-affirming kind? Also, who mention the assassination of a president, if you\'re aiming to appeal to my grandfather and open his mind. Maybe in a few years he\'d think that\'s cool but not right now. I\'m serious about this -- talking with my grandfather recently, I saw how he\'s basically an anarchist underneath his thin beliefs in \'democracy\' and his current injured patriotic responses... he has the same distrust of authority and government as any observant person who\'s lived for a while. I\'d like to educate him rather than turn him off at the outset. I also feel some of the class, race, gender, sexuality limitations of the pamphlet -- in terms of what gets the focus and the romance of the text -- but it\'s really just instinctual and I don\'t feel able to comment on it. But for me, as one, it doesn\'t negate the positive aspects of the pamphlet. I\'d like to hear some substantial critiques in this vein.

What I find best about the pamphlet is twofold -- (1) the illustrations of what in current everyday life and struggles is anarchistic (basically, we wouldn\'t be killing each other if there weren\'t laws and cops saving us from each other, and most people are struggling for greater freedom) and (2) the glimpses of utopian visions here and there, a \"fellowship of friends and lovers\" and all that. The positive focuses of the pamphlet, and the parts where it\'s spoken in human language rather than student-of-the-Spanish-Civil-War language.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 02:34 PM UTC

I also think there could have been more focus on possilities of anarchist economies. Not to hover on the sticky topic, the mention of dumpster diving could have been left out -- what purpose does it serve in relating to most peoples\' lives, and what role would it have in a future, semi-utopian anarchist economy. Also, why be completely anti-money? Why not separate the function of money as a tool of exchange from its role in commodification and exploitation in capitalistic relations? Why not make some mention of current attempts at alternative economies like fair trade or local currencies? Maybe it\'s because that\'s your position, but I am thinking in terms of being received and taken seriously by a wide audience. Again, this is meant as constructive criticism, and I think the pamphlet is generally a good step in a productive direction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 03:07 PM UTC

sage,

i have been wading through all this stuff too, and i am so relieved to find at the end, your patient and thoughtful responses. gosh, maybe there is some hope for all us anarchists after all, we need more critiques like this and less like that other person who made of sport of lying and misrepresenting. i agree with some of your critiques, but at teh same time, i think the pamphlet is meat to serve exclusiovely as an introduction, as the hook

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 03:58 PM UTC

OK, my comrade--now that we have some dialogue going on, here\'s some stuff I\'d like to address, too. Before we get into the nitty-gritty of what\'s alienating and what\'s effective, we really have to talk about \"accountability,\" only--this will be shocking, I\'m afriad--yours.

Who are you? Everyone here who needs to know, knows who I am. I can be reached easily enough--and for those who don\'t know me, there are plenty of ways to get in touch with CrimethInc. kids who take equal responsibility for our activities, and who could pass any curious or outraged person along to me. It\'s very interesting to me that the angriest attacks on our use of anonymity come from anonymous people.

If you don\'t want to share, that\'s absolutely fine (I can relate!). But it might make you look a little more responsible, yourself, to be ready to take personal credit for your statements and allegations. I can\'t think of any cases lately in which I made personal, public attacks on others--but if I did so, speaking angrily and with faulty (if not willfully false) information about others private lives, don\'t you think the right thing would be to identify myself? Maybe you fear being the victim of a witch hunt if you were to do so. As the constant subject of such witch hunts over the past few years, I can relate (not that any such experiences are comparable--and having the privileges afforded by the position I was born into in this hierarchy--white, middle class, etc.--must make such experiences easier on me).

Second of all--let\'s talk about the angry personal attacks above. As I said, it\'s important not to expect someone who feels marginalized to do all the work to establish a calm dialogue.

But now that that dialogue exists, maybe somebody wants to take the credit for the statements which are falsehoods--for example, that I go back and forth between living with my parents and with a friend. Actually, I\'m currently paying rent (!!), and have been for some time, in between music and barnstorming tours. I haven\'t lived with my parents since July 1992--although I did stay with them for a month and a half back in mid-1993. Is that what you\'re so angry about? I have stayed with friends, couch-surfed, at various times, but you will never find accusations from any of my hosts that I was a parasite, and that\'s indicative of something, I think.

I\'ll lay it all out on the table, since my \"privilege\" is in question here. My parents have helped me deal with medical emergencies sometimes, since the lifestyle I\'ve had has involved some injuries and serious illnesses. My mother is a travel agent--that\'s bourgoeis for you!--and sometimes helps me get tickets to fly to see her. My grandfather--the one who installed garage doors his whole life, not the one who got his 50-year pin working in a Goodyear rubber factory--left me some money, with which I went to a state college. I\'ve had it a lot easier than a lot of my friends, that\'s true. I\'ve seen the same medical problems that I could have gotten assistance with destroy my closest friends, in some cases--anyone who actually knows anything about my personal life, knows some of these stories. I consider myself to have everything at stake in overthrowing the capitalist/patriarchal/racist system, so none of us will have to suffer these injustices again. I\'ve actually made a wreckage of my life putting everything I\'ve got to give into building up d.i.y./anticapitalist resources from Food Not Bombs to CrimethInc., instead of cashing in my privilege for a dependable income, social status, a roof over my head, etc. I try my hardest to be aware of what I have to give--whether it\'s time babysitting, or other resources--to others, and to be receptive to hearing other voices in my life. I\'m not perfect, not at all. No one should have to be perfect to participate in this struggle!

So that\'s my story. I\'m sure every one of the hundreds of folks involved with CrimethInc. activities--no, I\'m very far from the only one or the \"head honcho\"--have similarly complex and personal stories. Stereotyping us all is shortsighted and counterproductive at best.

If you\'ve met \"hundreds\" of people who think CrimethInc. projects are stupid and destructive, and none, ever, who think they have anything to offer, well--seriously--I\'m thrilled!! I wish I lived in an environment in which everyone was so enlightened that all the stuff we\'ve done was just pap and silliness to them. I\'m thrilled to hear that some people are totally beyond all that, and can see through the faults of our material without needing any of the good stuff in it. That\'s awesome, honestly. Unfortunately, that hasn\'t been my experience--material that my friends have done under the CrimethInc. name has been really important and inspirational and educational to me, for one, and--it seems--to others. I understand also that there are people who feel alienated by what we\'ve done. Learning how to address various demographics at once, as we are, without alienating anyone--that\'s tough, it\'s a long, slow process! It takes a long time to make the journey from one\'s own, single perspective, to being able to see what things look like through a wide spectrum of perspectives. I\'m making my own slow progress on this, trying to correct for the privileges I started out with, as i suppose we all are.

On another subject--has anybody picked up on the intense sex-negativity of some of the personal attacks on me here? Some of the stuff about \"getting my rocks off\", etc. was really over the top. Had the slurs been homophobic, instead of just referring to masturbation, the issue would have been clear: \"Why don\'t you go suck cock in a dumpster,\" etc. Is it cool for us to attack each other in such terms? I understand if whoever posted that was so angry that they relapsed into childish, dominating language (my implication here is not that children naturally tend to be dominating, but rather that in the schoolyard, brought up in a world of domination, most kids don\'t yet have the analysis to know better than to call each other \"faggot\")... but that\'s something the author, too, should take responsibility for, as I\'m willing to take it for my own mistakes.

The bottom line here is that I--and most or all of us who are involved in CrimethInc. projects, though I shouldn\'t speak for anyone but myself--really, really want this kind of critique, but it becomes painfully difficult to listen honestly when you\'re being screamed at, swore at, and lied about publicly. Please, for all of our benefits, when you are able to, speak about these subjects in a way that is conducive to calm discussion. In the moments when you\'re not able to, it\'s fine--but take responsibility for your end of that, too, as I\'ll take responsibility for mine.

Now perhaps we can discuss the issues, if you like. But one more thing I\'d like to mention first--you know, none of us (who are involved in CrimethInc. activities, etc.) go out of our way to undercut the projects others attempt, in other circles of the activist world. Sure, there was that \"your politics are boring\" piece, but anyone who was paying attention might have noticed that it was directed at a readership who would agree with the title enough to read the rest, and thus maybe get involved in politics despite their prejudices--that is, it was (in a roundabout way) an act of solidarity (!!!) with others attempting other tactics, in case theirs didn\'t work for some people, so we could be there to start dialogue with those! Anyway, barring examples like that, we\'re all pretty much excited that others are working at other tactics, building community and support networks and so on in the ways we don\'t have time to because of the specific tactics we\'re attempting. Point being--we\'re not trying to discredit anyone else, just to learn from others\' perspectives about us.

So it\'s not necessary in my eyes to prove that one approach (\"CrimethInc.\" versus \"identity politics,\" \"social anarchism,\" etc.) is better. It is necessary to discuss what could be better about our projects. Hey--if you ever want input about what you\'re doing, too, I\'ll be happy to take a little time to discuss it, in as supportive a manner as I\'m able, and trying to keep my own perspective\'s limitations in mind.

Looking back over this post I\'ve just written, it occurs to me that I may be making my critic(s?) look like a real jerk, and that\'s not what I intended. It\'s true that I\'m not the one who feels personally attacked and marginalized by the original text in question, so it\'s a simple matter for me to resist resorting to personal insults. Please, whoever reads this, remember that all of us look like senselessly vindictive jerks when we feel vulnerable--when we\'re afraid that a widely-distributed paper is going to lose us all the progress we\'ve made in our struggle, for example. That\'s serious stuff.

To the extent to which the FFOL piece makes other radicals feel this way, there really are problems with it. The question we all have to work out for the future is how to do what we did that is good in FFOL without doing what is bad and alienating about it. Let the discussion, hopefully constructive and goal-oriented, go on. Ultimately the worst thing about personal attacks like the ones earlier in this forum is that they obscure and interrupt such discussion.

sincerely working, as best I can, for the same basic stuff you are,

the counter-revolutionary trust-fund rich kid

P.S. I hope the work you\'re doing is going at least as well as the \"bad work\" we are--please keep it up, too. And let\'s make this anarchist community a civil enough environment that others will feel welcome here, working or playing, too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 07:09 PM UTC

I\'ve given FFOL to old teachers, friends, parens, relatives, people who are anarchists, non-anarchists, apolitical, etc. I have gotten more response out of this pamphlet (and other crimethinc. publications) than all of the other political things I have given out combined. People have been intrigued, interested, researched anarchism further, and almost everyone has decided to read one or more of the recommonded books from FFOL. This isn\'t to say that crimethinc. is the ulitmate in anarchism, or something silly like that, but I think that alot of the critiques here are superfluous. sure, it may not represent Anarchis(TM) preperly, but what can? sure, there are problems with it, but isn\'t there with everything? All I\'m saying is that in my personal experience, FFOL has struck a deeper chord with more people than anything else I can remember...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 09:03 PM UTC

well obviously all of these people are either idiots, or you just invented them, because every other human being who has ever read FFOL has hated it, was offended by it. it is without a doubt an objectively terrible publication, and anyone who says differently is either a moron or a fucking liar, period, end of discussion.

right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 20 2002 @ 09:37 PM UTC

You are a dogmatic coward hiding behind anonymous postings. The folks involved in Crimethinc are inspiring lots of people with their big attempt to talk to lots of people about anarchist ideas. Meanwhile, small-minded people like your self are sitting behind a computer screen, cutting them down with your self-righteous talk about how they are hurting the movement. This kind of talk is what is dangerous to people who are interested in anarchy. We don\'t have much time to change things in this world and many people right now are interested in our ideas.

If you are such a sourpuss about this stuff, why don\'t you go out and see Michael Moore\'s new movie. I think that will give you perspective on these things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 21 2002 @ 05:16 AM UTC

I accept your gratitude, but don\'t let that make you think I am the sane voice and the other critiques are not valid. I think there are problems with it, and problems that I can\'t see myself very easily, from my own position and life history, which would be obvious to others. Reading it more carefully last night (it\'s a lot to take in) I am having more trouble with some things, and less trouble with other things. For example, I take back most of what I said about religion, after reading under \"And every god an atheist\" the separation of the holy from organized religion. (But I wonder how most people will understand the subtitles \"All gods, all masters\" and \"...And every god an atheist\"... I also like the history of force, but I think it needs to be reworked somewhat and more nuanced. I can\'t say exactly how, but to compress human history into 2 pages leaves a lot out.

I feel the absence of class except for a few mentions (under \"Gross generalizations\" for one) -- I don\'t feel that the structural basis of class is really there in the pamphlet, the idea that poverty is more than a matter of identity, and that it is more than a general category that people identify with, but a structural thing that people are affected by without even being fully aware of it. Same holds for gender and race -- I sort of feel its absence in some ways.

I am trying to read as a member of the \"general public\" -- or as multiple stereotyped people who I can picture reading this. I guess it comes down to what you want the effect to be. You don\'t want to \"liberalize\" anarchism and make it appear to be some sort of trendy identity, I hope. But you also don\'t want to focus on the things which will immediately turn people off, because you have to realize that humans are emotional and programmed beings who get visceral reactions to things like killing presidents and steroetypes that they\'ve been fed about activists, anarchists, etc. Revolutionary violence, while a valid concept, is a hard pill for most people to swallow. You also want to avoid evangelizing and proclaiming \"We have the way, and you must follow us\"... (Which is one comment my stepmother made, that it looks like Jehovah\'s Witness literature from the cover.)

I think the most successful chord you have struck, from my perspective, is \"You may already be an anarchist, Aunt Joyce\". This is successful for anarchist outreach, I think, because anarchism is built on a fundamental human characteristic, the desire to be free and self-actualized, so most sturggles and actions which follow from this are inherently anarchistic, except when they get distorted by dogmatic thinking.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 21 2002 @ 12:24 PM UTC

Well, I think mabye an important thing to think about is: are we interesting these people in what they should be interested in? I mean, if you send a letter to Bill Gates that says, \"Anarchism is about liberation. Experience liberty-- anarchism is liberty...\" and then go on to make all these ridiculous misrepresentations, and Bill Gates says, wow, this is great, I love anarchism, that\'s really not a good thing. Now, I\'m not by any means saying that the pamphlet represents anarchism this much, but, something to think about...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 21 2002 @ 12:25 PM UTC

Whoops, that should have read \'misrepresents\'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 21 2002 @ 12:38 PM UTC

what do you mean \"are we interesting these people in what they SHOULD be interested in?\" This pamphlet is obviously some peoples attempts at getting their ideas out there...what do you want to do, have every anarchist come to consensus on how the \"general population\" is to be fucken recruited? sorry, I\'m not trying to sound harsh, I don\'t feel angry, I just feel frustrated that everyone, including myself, is so nit-picky. Perhaps FFOL isn\'t the greatest thing ever, but while thousands of other publications gather dust on the shelf, this is stirring things up a bit. If anything, at least it get\'s a dialogue about anarchist ideas going, and that\'s more than can be said for a lot of other booklets/pamphlets/etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 22 2002 @ 04:23 PM UTC

\"Some small, specific things are the language - \'genealogy\' (why get all Foucauldian on us?)\"

small point...i thought that \"a genealogy of force\" was actually something of a reference to nietzsche\'s \"on the genealogy of morals\". if it had been a \"history\" or \"archaeology\" of force it would be more foucaldian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 22 2002 @ 07:11 PM UTC

Hi, I\'m Marc Freedman, CFP, and I\'d like to address the misconceptions about trust funds.

I think some of you are confused as to the meaning of \"trust fund.\" Maybe some of you think that this just means saved-up money that one can spend at will, or perhaps some kind of account that generates spendable interest.

A trust is a legal document drafted to insure that specific wishes of the \"grantor\" (the person funding the trust) are met. The documents should be drafted by an attorney and meet the guidelines of the state in which you live.

Trust funds for children are often referred to as \"education trusts.\" This legal document generally appoints a trustee to manage the investment assets for a minor child. The document also states when the corpus of the trust will be released to the child. One major benefit for this document is that the remaining proceeds in the trust are not released in full to the child on the day they reach their age of maturity. Money in this trust can be dispersed in a manner that meets the wishes of the grantor. It will cost you between $700 and $1,500 to draft this document (depending on its complexity) and the trust will be required to file its own tax return, as well. Some mutual fund companies have designed \"trust funds\" which may meet your needs at a much lesser cost.

Often times, individuals waver between establishing an education trust or a custodial account. Money held in a custodial account must be released to the child on the day they reach maturity (age 21 in most states). That means that even if your intentions were to use the money to pay for \"Johnny\'s\" education, on his 21st birthday, he could cash in balance of his account, buy a motorcycle, and travel the world

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 23 2002 @ 06:57 AM UTC

Marc what does this have to do with the booklet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 23 2002 @ 03:01 PM UTC

Exactly!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 24 2002 @ 05:46 AM UTC

Maybe I am one of few, but I\'ve seen others, who think that Crimethinc stuff is inspiring in its spirit. I said that I think \"Dear Aunt Joyce\" and outlining what is anarchist about everyday life is what the pamphlet does best.

Well, I also think the basic spirit of \"I am not owned. Who am I living for?\" strikes a chord with a lot of people. Not everyone. Maybe it hits a certain demographic or type of person better than others. Maybe it strikes a chord in \"middle-class\" Amerikan young people who haven\'t seen this sort of rebellious writing before. It\'s infectious, catchy, to some people, while others don\'t care for it. But that\'s enough -- you can\'t appeal to everyone with one thing. This appeals to a lot of people.

But then where does it go with that? I don\'t think it really goes far enough, or leads in an understandable way to a better analysis of society. Once you have gotten people\'s attention and focus, that\'s a great thing. You can use it. The pamphlet could had more substance -- laid out more possibilities for an alternative way of living, for ways of resisting and building alternatives in today\'s world, etc. It does these things a little, but it could have been more coherent and done more. I\'ll give them out, put them in places free for the taking. I think it\'s a positive thing on the whole. Anything that incites anti-establishment thinking, even if it\'s not \"perfect\".

It\'s written mainly by one person, right? What if it had been written by a group and gotten criticism and submissions of new material before publishing? What if it were the result of a collective of people from various backgrounds and walks of life?

What if it were \"market tested\" to use a capitalist phrase, and then you could see what peoples\' reactions were to various passages? What they like, what repelled them, what they didn\'t understand, what they wanted more of? I\'m serious about this. You don\'t have to follow what they say, because theirs not the perspective you\'re trying to communicate -- but you could use their reactions as a guide to make the pamphlet better. You retain final decisions, and if something really repels a lot of people, but it\'s reallyt central to your thought, leave it in. If it\'s not so important, take it out, so that my grandfather might read it to the end and absorb the more important ideas.

I guess it comes down to what the final goal here is. I thought it was to appeal to a wide audience and \"spread the word\" in an informational and appealing way, to get people interested in anarchism as a way of thinking and acting in the world, to try to enlarge our army, so to speak, to get more people thinking along the lines of an anarchist vision and analysis as soon as possible. Not to water down anarchist ideas, but to expose people to them and get them interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 24 2002 @ 11:39 PM UTC

Just wanted to point out that people can leave comments about FFOL on Crimethinc\'s website:

http://www.crimethinc.info/shop/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=516ec1936c71cfe84c1c4f3a9ea2fd8a

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 24 2002 @ 11:51 PM UTC

Actually, the story about it being written by one person in isolation, not shared it with anyone else until its mass-production, is myth. It was passed around, critiqued, improved on... sections of that text were passed around in various versions, to various individuals, for over a year, in fact.

No paper or anything else is going to do everything on its own, as many of us have already commented here. The best thing that could happen next would be for us to start discussing what an appropriate follow-up would be after that paper, since it\'s already out there. Yes, more practical ideas! Yes, more next steps, more options. Imagine, the people doing the mailorder for that paper have already sent out hundreds of thousands... maybe others could do a similar paper, intended to pick up where those copies leave off. That way its limitations would just be opportunities.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 25 2002 @ 11:00 PM UTC

Hey! to all! please be informed that we\'ll be doing solidarity actions for those comrades out there. Consequently, us here in the Philippines are experiencing a sort of security-tight measures due to the unresolved bombings-here-there and everywhere, the presence of american soldiers in my country are furthermore intimidating which might gain the Phil. president the issuance of emergency powers that would obviously suppress/repress us here more.

By the way, if you folks have a couple of spare materials (books/pamphlets/fliers/modules/vhs/vcd) or any other similar educational/campaign materials please share it with us here in the Philippines coz\' the struggling young collectives here need to know more. We\'re sort of short when it comes to helpful materials that might be indeed necessary to sustain our hungry minds/thoughts to start a revolution. Please send materials to... Terry Gabotero No. 7 Dr. Tinio Subd. Guinayang San mateo Rizal, 1850 Philippines.

Please e-mail me to confirm.

The ACC-Philippines network is doing this coz\' we want to make those materials accessible to everybody and not ending up in the wrong hands of collectors.

yours in solidarity

Terry

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 08:05 AM UTC

Hey, anyone going down to this event from Seattle that\'d be willing to provide a ride to 1 or 2 people (I think I have another friend that would like to go). I\'m definitely willing to pitch in gas money.

Otherwise, I think we\'ll just hitch it. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 08:13 AM UTC

Things like Harbinger & such are really effective when people, unsatisfied with life as it\'s lived in the US & elsewhere, pick up a copy and go OMIGODS this was exactly what I was looking for!

It\'s a fantastic starting point, and I plan to put forth energy to support activities such as CrimethInc is running with.

Thank you thank you thank you for all your hard work, everyone!

Autumn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 08:41 AM UTC

I am poor. I\'ve been very poor for most of my life, and I probably will be for some time to come.

What CrimethInc does do is provide practical advice on how to go about doing something that I have no experience in (from cleaning clothes without having any soap, to learning how to dumpster-dive) and makes it easier for when things get bad enough that I need to do those things. It also helps give me perspective on the lives of the people I meet whose financial situation is actually worse than mine.

FFOL seems to be a point of entry into *some* of the perspectives of the anarchies of the writers. It does rather well at its stated purpose, IMNSHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 11:53 PM UTC

another 100 or so comments (good or bad) and this will be one of the most-read, most-commented stories on infoshop ever. get to it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 28 2002 @ 07:53 PM UTC

I finally got the chance to read the entire thing today. Needless to say it could have been MUCH better. Its simple overuse of metaphors were annoying. I couldn\'t even tell what the book was talking about half the time. It wasn\'t \'interesting\', as in if I were a regular citizen reading this paper, I would fall asleep. Yes it did have a few points here and there, but overall it is not a good educating tool. Best at all it could be is a good starting point for future educating tools. I think future writers of such info-papers should be more in tuned to the average American citizen, and not to be offensive, but more educated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 12:36 AM UTC

I think FFOL rocks! mad props to the people who did it and made an effort to do something instead of just writing critique all day long! more of that people! stop this bullshit fighting, life is too short for us fighting against each other when we should fight against how the world out there looks like. get a grip. get down to some action yourself instead of writing meters about how bad FFOL is.
that\'s my humble opinion.
love to y\'all!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 31 2002 @ 06:43 PM UTC

\"I couldn\'t even tell what the book was talking about half the time.\"

um, i read this thing and it is in fairly simple english, and i found it easy to follow. whether or not i disagree with all it says (and i do, both), i certainly think that anyone with a primary grasp of english could make send of every single paragraph with little effort.

my point i guess, is what the fuck is wrong with you if you \"I couldn\'t even tell what the book was talking about half the time.\" and why the fuck should your opinion matter to us if you can\'t even comprehand the pamphlet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 04:58 PM UTC

Crimethinc is a FBI plot to discredit anarchism......but then again with (so called) anarchists like chcuk o who needs the FBI

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 08:04 PM UTC

this is the best lie about Crimethinc yet! I\'m saving this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 04 2002 @ 08:36 PM UTC

Since that second post some time ago now, I\'ve wasted considerable time checking this board every day or so to see if the individual(s?) really wanted to have the dialogue they began... but there seems to be no sign of them. I don\'t intend any implications here--there are many good reasons not to use the internet, and many more to stay away from the discussion boards; hell, I don\'t like this medium myself at all, least of all for serious discussions like this one.

Though it\'s very important to me to hear feedback and criticism of our projects, and for that matter to address personal attacks on myself and marginalizations of my fellow CrimethInc. operatives as \"nonexistent,\" I\'m going to stop returning daily to this (now cooling or cold) discussion forum. I travel frequently, and can be reached through any of the various CrimethInc. addresses across the U.S. (some sooner, some later), so I suppose I\'ll take up this discussion again whenever I\'m approached.

That\'s all. I hope, all in all, that this little experiment of ours has been helpful to some in their struggles for transformation and community, and wish all of you the best of luck in your own.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 05 2002 @ 04:09 PM UTC

i would just like to say that name-branding anarchism is counter-productive and revolutionary. the silly pseudo-intellectual \"there is no anarchism because stuff like it has been around so long\" is silly... that\'s like bush saying \"there is no faschism, because stuff like it has been around for so long\". counter-productive. utterly.
things i like about crimethinc -
*it\'s out there (but so is marxism)
*its accessible (but so are those stupid socialist newspapers)

things i have a hard time reconciling-
*evasion
*brand-naming anarchism (why?)
*the collective (and i mean the main collective, the harbinger/daysofwarnightsoflove collective), ive heard, is a bunch of white guys who write as if they are women/people of color (im not sure, but id sure like to find out!!!)
*advocates decadence and consumption (steal and dumpster dive to your heart\'s desire. take things you dont want or need, etc. etc... that\'s materialism)
*almost all the people ive met from the crimethinc collective (people who identify themselves with Crimeth Inc) have taken zero responsibility for their own actions or decisions- exploiting friends, anarchists, acquaintances, strangers... justifying sexism and ageism with crappy crimethinc-isms, dodging criticism by saying weaselly things like \"we are All crimeth inc.\"
*there\'s probably more, but i dont remember it all. sorry.
_________________________________________________

i feel like the best thing to do with Crimeth Inc right now is to keep the template and go back to the drawing board. it is SO important to have stuff out there; i read somewhere that the only reason that most radical people identify with authoritarian socialism is because it is the easiest radical stuff to find (and unfortunately, often the hardest Not to find). but mass producing propaganda is a Huge undertaking, and as anarchists it would be unquestionably worth our time (our, \"because everyone is part of crimethinc\", right?) to go through and take out the capitalist consumerist apathetic undertones that im sure other people than me have noticed, and maybe put a little more emphasis on the difference between isolationism and revolution (for instance) (not that i disagree with either... they\'re just very different).

i dont know if anyone else reads this, i found it a little late...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 05 2002 @ 04:09 PM UTC

i would just like to say that name-branding anarchism is counter-productive and revolutionary. the silly pseudo-intellectual \"there is no anarchism because stuff like it has been around so long\" is silly... that\'s like bush saying \"there is no faschism, because stuff like it has been around for so long\". counter-productive. utterly.
things i like about crimethinc -
*it\'s out there (but so is marxism)
*its accessible (but so are those stupid socialist newspapers)

things i have a hard time reconciling-
*evasion
*brand-naming anarchism (why?)
*the collective (and i mean the main collective, the harbinger/daysofwarnightsoflove collective), ive heard, is a bunch of white guys who write as if they are women/people of color (im not sure, but id sure like to find out!!!)
*advocates decadence and consumption (steal and dumpster dive to your heart\'s desire. take things you dont want or need, etc. etc... that\'s materialism)
*almost all the people ive met from the crimethinc collective (people who identify themselves with Crimeth Inc) have taken zero responsibility for their own actions or decisions- exploiting friends, anarchists, acquaintances, strangers... justifying sexism and ageism with crappy crimethinc-isms, dodging criticism by saying weaselly things like \"we are All crimeth inc.\"
*there\'s probably more, but i dont remember it all. sorry.
_________________________________________________

i feel like the best thing to do with Crimeth Inc right now is to keep the template and go back to the drawing board. it is SO important to have stuff out there; i read somewhere that the only reason that most radical people identify with authoritarian socialism is because it is the easiest radical stuff to find (and unfortunately, often the hardest Not to find). but mass producing propaganda is a Huge undertaking, and as anarchists it would be unquestionably worth our time (our, \"because everyone is part of crimethinc\", right?) to go through and take out the capitalist consumerist apathetic undertones that im sure other people than me have noticed, and maybe put a little more emphasis on the difference between isolationism and revolution (for instance) (not that i disagree with either... they\'re just very different).

i dont know if anyone else reads this, i found it a little late...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 06 2002 @ 07:21 PM UTC

I agree. \"$17,000 to publish anarchist literature could be given to charity to feed poor Americans\". What? This is the richest country in the world, yet I turn on the TV at night and see \"Feed the Children\" commercials asking me to send them money to feed poor people in Appalachia. They go hungry while the government pays farmers to destroy and not grow crops. Charity is a fraud, and the fact that the Republicans are trying to push welfare off on charity is a good sign that that\'s true. There is plenty of food in stores around where those people live, the problem is if they try to walk out of the store with it without paying money they don\'t have, security guards and police will use violence to prevent them from doing so. That\'s why those people aren\'t eating, not because someone didn\'t send them $17k devoted to literature put up against the billions expended by the media to clog TV and radio (Bill O\'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity etc.) to try to get people to believe that it\'s their fault that they\'re poor, that they should \"take the risk\" to start their own business and be self-sufficient and all that bullshit. The left can never win against the right in terms of resources as the right owns almost all the capital, the only hope is that our literature can persuade people to \"see through the web of lies in which they\'re ensnared\" to use a Chomsky phrase, because what we\'re saying is the truth as we know it, while corporate television is just trying to be good consumers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 08 2002 @ 05:11 PM UTC

This is the biggest piece of shit. Just a lot a platitudes and slogans and no real analysis. Just because these turkeys have money does not mean anyone should listen to them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 09 2002 @ 11:32 AM UTC

Communo-Anarchism is the only good anarchism and all u socialists should die.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 09 2002 @ 11:41 AM UTC

where are all the anarchists from ct. preferably norwich because im getting sik of socialists and commies. the only other anarkists at my high school are posers. they stand for the pledge of allegiance evry morning while i get my head chewed off by the teacher and call her a fascist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 09 2002 @ 11:47 AM UTC

i hate how the lot of u thinc we shouldnt use violence 2 get anarky. the only way 2 get it right now is overthrowing the govt. i want anarky now and dont want 2 wait 4 it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 10 2002 @ 11:30 AM UTC

i think that pamphlet is a piece of shit.. i\'ve been a community organizer for 5 years and i wouldn\'t give that peice of shit to anyone i\'ev ver worked with. except maybe for toilet paper.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 14 2002 @ 10:32 PM UTC

yeah, lets get a couple thousand anarchist with rifles and handguns and, like, overthrow the governemt. laser guided bomds, stealth jets and heavy tanks be damned. we can do it. yee-haw.

idiot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 14 2002 @ 10:33 PM UTC

you sound like you would be a great community organizer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 15 2002 @ 12:30 AM UTC

I know, I was very put off by that first sentence in FFOL: \"We have money, therefore you should listen to us.\"

(sarcasm)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 15 2002 @ 08:23 PM UTC

I cannot really grasp this controversy. I think that the vagueness in the booklet is its main strength. The authors aren\'t trying to set themselves up as experts. They are incouraging people to set themselves up as experts. The book is encouraging non-hierachical relations amongst people. The booklet says that disobeying authority can be empowering. That there is no reason to believe that people can\'t come to terms with eachother without law enforcers. That we see the results of these in dying enviroment, mass warfare and general unhappiness. The book says to set the terms for your own battle. The book says that there are limitless possibilites for ways to make your life freer and unconstrained. These are pretty basic ideas. What is there here that has people so pissed? Yes its basic, yes its prosaic-its not suppose to be an action manual, it attmepting to inspire people to think of action on their own.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 18 2002 @ 05:25 PM UTC

Just ordered 600 pamphlets [hope you got
the order] for London. I\'ve read bits of it and
think it has really opened my mind in how
I visualised a popular manifestation of
anarchy. $17,000 well spent, plus you can\'t
eat paper so you might as well read it. Anyone
wanting a copy in the UK then send me an
email. Hoping to get a similar project started
in the UK. Anarchy for non-anarchists!
email:disobedience@riseup.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 19 2002 @ 09:26 AM UTC

Keep up the good work with reading and posting, everyone. Less than 20 more posts and this will be one of the most-read, most-commented stories ever on Infoshop News -- which means that more people will follow the link and order copies of FFOL! A warm thanks for helping us to promote this publication.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 21 2002 @ 03:23 AM UTC

Incidentally, since this is essentially a donation-funded project, the money making it happen is coming from a broad base of people who think it should happen, not from Ross Perot\'s pockets or something--right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 21 2002 @ 12:38 PM UTC

It upsets me that 600 copies of this shit is heading this way. Maybe I\'ll try and intercept it and use them as skins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 22 2002 @ 11:03 AM UTC

Probably not a community organizer, because activists who do this kind of work don\'t have the time to slag on people doing good projects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 26 2002 @ 07:23 AM UTC

On one big point that kept on nearly being made earlier in the discussion. There was this huge objection that FFOL misrepresented the anarchist movement. Beyond the disclaimer (which I thought did fine at the end), there\'s the fact that if every FFOL is read and passed around once (unlikely I think), then less than .2% of the people in this country will have read it (a huge number relative to the current anarchist movement). However, most of these people would never see any serious treatment of anarchism anyplace else (and probably even miss the 10 second blurb on Good Morning America about \"evil anarchists rioting in some far off place\").

A lot of what people are demanding here (and throughout the anarchist movement such as when attacking NEFAC) is what would be called an \"unfunded mandate\" if they were in the US congress. That\'s when Congress tells a state or department to carry out something, but doesn\'t provide any money to do it. Here, they\'re saying \"do this and that and then we\'ll get more free copies and judge you again.\" If you\'re going to be real vehement that somebody do something, offer to help too, even if you\'re really far away. That goes for this, or for pointing out racism, sexism, etc. It doesn\'t do anything to just say \"fuck off, pig,\" if anything happens at all, the bigot will most likely just take it elsewhere. Instead, especially if its on something as nonimmediate as these boards, say \"that\'s bs, and if you\'d like I can offer alternatives to saying \'cunt,\' and if you\'re not careful with controlling yourself, people here won\'t accept you.\" It might seem silly, but oh well. Mutual aid in all things.

\"Treat a person as though they are already the person that they would like to be- that way, you help them on their way.\"
Goethe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 26 2002 @ 07:45 AM UTC

One more thing: As an anarchist who has their sympathies all over the place, I would give FFOL a 6-7 on a 10 scale. It was good, it was sound planning, and it was far, far better than nothing. My main problem was with its possible audience. It went a long way towards being more widely appealing. However, it\'s still stuck at teenagers, teachers, new agers, coffe house denizens, activists, and the assorted bohemian. This hit me when I had this random (but hour long) interaction with a paid gardener. He was a man of color in advanced middle age. I was struck by the fact that as a professed high school drop-out, he was describing, without experience in anarchist theory or practice or the \"right words\", autonomy, hierarchy, imperialism, and his attempts to raise his children in a natural, nonauthoritarian way. When I had to leave, I pulled out a FFOL (I mainly use it to supplement this sort of conversation), but felt embarrassed to give it to him. I think, that despite your best attempts (and thank you, it has helped so much), it is still alienating and excessively intellectual. That\'s not to say that the content was neccessarily the problem. It\'s not like there\'s something \"working class\" about dogmatism or rigidity, it\'s just the way it was said.

I would like to see an effort similar to FFOL from NEFAC or the IWW (more NEFAC by far), and this is not a criticism of either Crimethinc or those groups. I\'d just like to see mass outreach from a different anarchist perspective. I suggested those because, while they organize quite differently, they\'re the most prominent and \"together\" conventional anarchist (or syndicalist, I guess) groupings. I wouldn\'t mind something put out by Race Traitor, though they\'d have to avoid the normal jargon, or anyother federation, network, or collective. I guess the Black Autonomy News Service did have something on a far smaller scale than FFOL, and at 50 cents, not free, but I can\'t find them anymore. Sorry I\'m rambling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 03 2002 @ 08:28 PM UTC

wow.

i wish i wasnt such a slow reader! i started at the top and made it all the way down to the COINTELPRO guy (remember, what they want to do is divide the movement, so they can be on the extreme pro-FFOL side as well, i think). then i decided that the argument was probably going in circles, so i skipped down to that neat trust fund guy with the picture. and yup sure enough it didnt appear as though the \"debate\" had progressed very far.

most of this stuff seems like completely non-constructive squabbling (who needs the govt after all). so im not going to attack anyone, although i have my suspicions about this \"Amber\" person-she just seems too innocent. \"Even my art teacher took one!\". Yeah right.

Just kidding, actually she sounds like a really nice girl, probably not one to be sucked into ridiculous discussions about who has a trust fund and the racist implications of forming a black writer\'s bloc (which i think would be very funny, and i hope the Anarchist People of Color start it!). But i betcha she really did hand em out to her friends, and probably donated her allowance to the schizo middle class dude with a trust fund that writes the Crimethinc stuff. and lordy, maybe her art teacher had her eyes opened! which would add up to a whole lot more anarchy than a lot of you sorry sods.

i thought that instead of attacking all the stupid posters here, oops, id just tell ya what i\'ve done and thought about FFOL, and maybe this can be the cigarette after the fuck? ya know, just some mellowed contemplation?

i\'ve ordered about two hundred copies of FFOL for my own extremely rural part of the country, and donated what i could in return. if i had been asked to write the thing, god knows my version would have been different (and better!).

for one thing, i wouldve said something like \"there are many different forms of anarchism/anarchy, but these are the things they have in common...\" then i wouldve gone on to lay down anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, anti-statism, the fight for liberty, socialism, people not profit, brotherly love, etc. ya know.

that is, i wouldve understood that by being responsible for the content of one of the largest anarchist propagandations ever, i oughta try to find more common ground with at least the more prominent \"anarchies\".

unity, knowhuttamean?

i think that\'s something reasonable that FFOL lacks, and it would be nice to see the second edition (which must be due soon, hmm?) include a paragraph addressing this concern. maybe they can just replace \"Anarchy, not Anarchism!\" which i find embarrasing. ive considered whiting out that stupid pianism metaphor also.

but hey, you know why i give c.t. respect? i requested a few hundred copies of a decent anarchist pamphlet which successfully targets the unconverted, and they sent those out to me, no questions asked, no bill, nuthin. so i said, \"hey you know what, these guys just did something really crazy, they sent me shit with no thought for themselves, and if everyone did this, capitalism would be replaced by an anarchist economy by six o clock.\" i responded with my free-will donation, which i will tell you wasnt anything to brag about, but definetely was more than if i had had to purchase them upfront.

and i will tell you, i am ashamed of the people who received copies of FFOL, enjoyed it, and did not help out in return with capital. ha ha.

as far as the distribution in my area, i include in every FFOL a short copied note further explaining some different strains of anarchism, and a little critique of the pamphlet-a foreword of sorts that balances out some of crimethinc\'s loonier ideas with more practical applications of anarchism.

here is my suggestion to those that follow such radically different strains of anarchism that all they can do is bitch about FFOL: why dont you respond to it with your own pamphlet? NOT ATTACKING OTHER STRAINS OR OTHERWISE DIVIDING THE MOVEMENT, but promoting your own anarcho-syndicalism, - communism, etc.

I think it would be a very nice time for the anarchist movement indeed if the english-speaking world was suddenly swamped by a million copies of high-quality publications!

And I think everyone has to admit, compared to most of what else the North American anarchist community has come up with recently, FFOL is quality stuff.

So get off your ass and out-do it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 08 2002 @ 07:31 AM UTC

i hate this. whenever i join in a conversation it dies immediately. was it something i said?, or perhaps i should take a shower.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 08 2002 @ 08:06 AM UTC

don\'t feel bad Stan. I think people are burned out on this topic. they\'re all off arguing about Anarchism and Organizationalism or whatever.

I thought your points were good, by the way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 14 2002 @ 07:41 AM UTC

It is a really good piece of written work, i distrubuted ALL of the ones they sent me, and they were well recieved by everyone. Professors, co-workers, friends,... CrimeThinc has been publishing some good material for a while, keep it coming.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 15 2002 @ 06:02 PM UTC

i really hope you\'re just kidding

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 16 2002 @ 09:06 AM UTC

This sounds like an idea, even though those in power would overlook it. I live is Salt Lake City, Utah, where there is a big divide between those that are mormon and those that arent (it was actually a poll they put out in the whole wasatch front area). Problem being that here the LDS CHURCH seems to run the governement in this city. And if there is any city in the US that needs to consider another form of government, its here. But just putting pamphlets everywhere you can (not to mention many places wouldnt allow such a thing, like high schools and especially Temple Square, since the LDS church doesnt want anything \"non-mormon\" there) wont have much affect, since the NON-LDS side of utah are the only ones that might take it into consideration. I think we\'re still affected by SLC Punk or something. We need an alternative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 18 2002 @ 08:13 PM UTC

I havent read the pamphlet. I stopped reading this string of comments about halfway. Somewhere around the where Autumn says s/he is poor. I have a couple of things to say. First of all, primitivism is ideological crap, in my opinion. Also, environmental extremism is a little far out too. Saving the rainforest is all fine and dandy, and should be fought for, but we gotta save ourselves first. When you come from an extreme position on such things as primitivism and animal rights, you alienate people. All this talk about the day to day lives of the working class(some of you don\'t seem to know what the difference between classes are, I\'ll address that later), yet you fail to realize that the bulk of the population will not give up such a readily available and nutritious food source as meat without some damn good reasons. I have yet to see anything but fleeting abstractions about the morality of killing. Everyone needs to be at least a little pragmatic. Come back to the real world. Secondly, the class issue. First, I will give those of you who don\'t seem to know what class means a little bit of info you could have gotten in any basic socialist economic text. Very simple, nothing erudite about it. It goes as follows: The distinction of class in capitalistic societies is not based on relative wealth. Wealth controlled by people of different classes changes with the times and economic health of a region. The lower classes of Uganda are certainly worse off than the lower classes of North America. Does this constitute a class distinction? Of course not. Rather, class distinctions occur where people play different overall roles in the greater picture of a society. For example, an assembly plant worker, a retail clerk, and an office worker. What do these occupations with differing pay and localized roles have in common? You may have guessed it, they are all \"worker\" roles. A vague definition of a member of the \"working class\" would be anyone who sells their labor-power for a wage, salary, or other compensation. Regardless of the size of the compensation. Middle class person include those who fill managerial roles, petty capitalists(shop owners, etc.), and professionals, such as engineers, doctors, and so on. Of course the upper classes, the capitalists, are composed of people who own capital. Generally, these are distinguished from petty capitalists in that they own larger amounts of capital, and tend to own more production-oriented capital than distribution-oriented capital. A member of the working class may become wealthy without having bumped up to a higher class, provided they don\'t begin to fill a managerial, professional, or capitalist role.

It is kind of ridiculous to me that a 16 year old punk kid from a lower middle class background has to explain this to some of you. But some comments made it apparent to me that the zeal for \"living anarchy\" and \"not wasting time on theory\" has left some LACKING a firm understanding of theory. Maybe while \"living anarchy\" you could spend a few moments to read something about it.

P.S.
Kropotkin and Bakunin were both born into the upper classes. Don\'t talk smack to people because they aren\'t \"working class\" enough. Don\'t try to discredit people because they are giving their critique of this pamphlet by saying that they must not be anarchists or they are racist or poser or what ever, simply because they don\'t agree with you. Their being anarchists is not on trial, the debate is about the pamphlet and its content. Too many of you are alienating people for speaking their appraisal of it. True, they have the right to ignore the pamphlet, and make their own. But they also have the right to speak some disapproval here, don\'t they? Swallow that Chuck0.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 11:11 AM UTC

I agree! Everyone has \"the right to speak some disapproval here! And so you better swallow that down, bad Chuck0.

Thanks, ToHellWithThePrimitivists, for explaining how the whole \"class\" thing works. And i think you are absolutely correct about how rich kids \"being anarchists is not on trial, the debate is about the pamphlet and its content\", and also about stupid animal rights people and tree huggers are full of \"ideological crap.\"

People should just argue about the pamphlet itself (especially when they themselves have never read it!), and also about meat eating vs. vegetarianism.

Remember, a person can probably be anti-capitalist and rich at the same time.

So swallow that down poser dummies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 19 2002 @ 11:22 AM UTC

So what\'s the idea for SLC? What you say about that whole stinkin state is right-on, and i know there\'s not much good pamphlets can do, or graffitti and stuff. I tagged a big \"FUCK THE SYSTEM\" on the big bowl at the St. George skatepark last Spring, and amazingly it was completely painted over less than four hours later. I dont know how they did that cuz i swear no one saw me.

Anyway i kinda gave up on that state, and for those of you out there that dont believe it, SLC Punk actually downplays the repression there. So what can a person do there to reach people?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 09 2003 @ 03:29 PM UTC

shit? boy you people are knee-slappin\' funny, i tell ya

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 25 2003 @ 01:02 AM UTC

well, im to tired to giv much more of a review of of FFOL than that i liked it from my humble utilitarian standpoint.

and to the last to posters, who evidently didn\'t read the pamphlet (as it does NOT mention animal rights [which i found stratigicly effective]) i hav a question. how you justify creating, through your economic support of amazingly appauling factory farms, vastly more sufforing than happiness in the world?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 25 2003 @ 12:15 PM UTC

The link to order pamphlets doesn\'t work. Can we get pamphlets anyway to distribute in Belgium and at the anarchist bookfair i!n Belgium in march?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 26 2003 @ 05:05 PM UTC

That was sarcasm. That whole last post of mine was making fun of the previous post. Humor?

[ Reply to This | # ]