A Response to the Anarcho-Liberal Take Over of Bash Back!

Thursday, June 04 2009 @ 09:16 PM UTC

Contributed by: Anonymous

This a response to dynamics and altercations that occurred after what certain individuals are referring to as an "action" Saturday night of the convergence. This response was written by an autonomous cell of the Chicago Bash Back! chapter, and though it by no means represents the group as a whole, it addresses it as one, including ourselves and others whom consider themselves to be "members" and "organizers" of BB!.
This is a Repost from BB! News

First and foremost, Bash Back! is not an organization. BB! is a non-hierarchical group of autonomous individuals under the guise of a
common purpose. The only thing that really ties us together are the Points Of Unity, which is to say that there is no membership, no dues, no agenda, and no 501-C3 status. Those who want to come to consensus before taking action, who would rather undermine the autonomous nature of individuals "bashing back" should consider another group, or form their own. We are not the only radical queer group in existence, and we don't want to be.

To elaborate on what the "nature of bashing back" is, and what it means, we should start here. To "bash back" is to protect oneself and our community both in the moment, and preemptively, by any means necessary. To "bash back" is to stand in solidarity with those who are oppressed, in real solidarity, and not attempt to make decisions for them along the lines of what you consider to be acceptable behavior. To "bash back" is to take accountability for our own lives, to not be led, and not to lead. To "bash back" is to destroy what destroys us.

Sometimes privileged viewpoints can cloud the idea of what "bashing back" means. Playing into the activist mentality of constant mediation,
watered-down emotions, "consensus", and "equality" often leaves room for those with the most privilege to invalidate others' reactions to
oppressions and strides for liberation. We are not writing this to those who took the night into their own hands, or those who sat beside phones to make sure people they don't even know were safe, or those who slept outside the jail and cheered for not only the four radical queers as they were released, but for everyone whom was able to walk out of the concrete and steel cages that morning. We are writing this to those who claim that there was no consensus process, to those who pulled newspaper boxes back onto the sidewalk, and to those who stood by idlely watching. You are not in solidarity with us, our struggles, or our identities.

Because of your privilege, you may have never had to fight. The actions of certain individuals made it seem as it they were waiting to be led, or told what to do. If "bashing back" scares you, you are free to leave. If the way autonomous individuals decided to vocalize long-standing oppressions they've felt scares you, you are free to leave. You are autonomous. This was not an action. It wasn't a planned march, it wasn't a coordinated along a political agenda. Claiming that Bash Back! takes a stance of "non-violence", or that this so-called "action" was a "peaceful protest" is not only untrue, but infuriating. This was a spontaneous eruption of anger, joy, vengeance, and desire. More aptly referred to as "doing being totally out of control".

While we're speaking to commonly used radical phrases, another one comes to mind. Our Points Of Unity include "...Respect[ing] a diversity of tactics in the struggle for liberation. Do not solely condemn an action on the grounds that the State deems it to be illegal...". This does not only address your reactions to these tactics afterward, while reading and writing communiques. This addresses your interactions and reactions in everyday life, when confronted with situations where you can either choose to act or to stand in solidarity. Undermining struggles and necessary conflict, especially when the authorities are involved, is aiding them and tantamount to snitching. It IS treacherous. It IS breaking the Points Of Unity. Being that the Points Of Unity is the only thing that ties our group of radical autonomous individuals together, breaking them means you're NOT Bash Back!, you're NOT "bashing back", and you're NOT supporting our struggles.

Assuming you know what's best for a group is privileged and oppressive in and of itself. Assuming you know what's best for anyone else is not radical, it's authoritarian and fucked up. Of course you know what's best for yourself, and that's the point. Perhaps the actions of individuals that night should have reflected autonomy, not the idea that consensus in this situation could be reached, or that it should have been. Making claims about who participates in anything without concrete knowledge erases identities and experiences. It also shows a very obvious ignorance of the history of insurrection in oppressed communities, including those you claim to be speaking for. Basing your decision on whether something is acceptable or not on identities or assumed identities of those around or involved is the same as any fucked up -ism we claim to be against. Speaking for people with identities other than your own in a way that is
used to push your political or moral agenda is the same as an fucked up -ism we claim to be against.

The picture at the top of this news site does not consist of props, it is not an iconic image, it's very real. It is not something to be appropriated and transformed into a liberal agenda for the future bureaucrats of America. In the future, if you don't agree to our Points Of Unity, don't come to our convergences, don't start a fucking chapter, and don't clog up our meetings or inboxes. We might operate in the realm of semi-above ground activism, but we are not activists. We are people, and we are striving to break free from the chains of oppression-- all oppression. This is very real. These are our lives, and we're taking them back. We're BASHING BACK!

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=20090604211215180

More on the Bash Back! Convergence « Memoirs of a Genderqueer Femme Anarchist
[...] Entries Comments Meta Log in Valid xhtml Home About More on the Bash Back! ConvergenceA Response to the Anarcho-Liberal Takeover of Bash Back! and also here, with different comments. Goes into the bustedness of people moving barriers, [...] [read more]
Tracked on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 02:10 PM UTC

A Response to the Anarcho-Liberal Take Over of Bash Back! | 50 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Authored by: rebelmouse on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 08:32 AM UTC

State don't sleep, they have spies between anarchists. I am always suspicious when someone is strongly against militant and armed actions (pacifism is OK if it is not trying to become hegemonic method of fight, so hegemonic pacifists are for me possible spies). I am totally agreed that there should be diversity of methods of fight. Those who try to pacify whole movement, I don't believe them. Job of secret agency is not only to arrest people, their job is to control situation and to spread bad picture about those who are for violent actions against the state. Black Panthers and supporters of M.Luther King should write detailed history of Cointelpro, about methods of work of secret agency. Their methods are not changing.

Authored by: veranasi on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 08:58 AM UTC

"i think i love you.€"

Authored by: CaseyFord on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 10:01 AM UTC

I'm kinda bummed that this is the first report I've seen about that night (outside of scary phone calls and texts), but I'm glad it's out there. That's mind-blowing that people associated with BB! were putting newspaper boxes etc back up. Given what happened, that's super fucked up. When people are taking the streets, throwing objects into the streets can slow down the cops quite a bit, especially if they are using cars, which they were and my understanding is they were using them as weapons.

Authored by: lopez on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 01:18 PM UTC

hell yeah. anyone <i>ashamed</i> of acting queer (in the presence of "the poor" or "black people") or very literally bashing back at a bash back bash back should be blindfolded while we remove all their belongings from their homes and donate them to a homeless charity guuuuurrllll.

Authored by: pika_pik on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 04:20 PM UTC

Ante Up! Yap that fool!
Ante Up! Kidnap that fool!

Authored by: Dead End on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 01:35 PM UTC

Meh, sounds like a high and mighty I'm more radical than thou communique. Also, I've heard different accounts of what happened there, like the majority of people being tricked into thinking it was a dance party, when it was really a street action. I don't take that 'it was spontaneous' crap.

Authored by: flagbat on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 01:49 PM UTC

Is there anyone familiar with the anarchist subculture who is really surprised to hear that 'dance party' means 'street occupation'? Seriously?

Authored by: 052590 on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 02:12 PM UTC

No shit. Anytime I've ever heard the words "Dance Party" mentioned amongst a radical and/or militant milieu it typically means "occupy space, hold space, confront those who attempt to take said space away." A dance party is pretty much codeword for confrontational street action at this point, isn't it?

Also, no matter WHAT it is not cool to take down anybody's barricades. They were put up for a reason by whomever thought them necessary, and because there hasn't been a very detailed report of what went down (I've gathered that once the barricades were taken down, police rolled in their popomobiles and started making arrests) I can't make a great conclusion. If the barricades go up, get to defending them or get the fuck out of the area if you aren't down. That isn't some "insurrectionist machismo" or some other bullshit at all. Barricades give you a head start against "fascist pigs."

On the BB! News version of this post there is a pretty interesting comment claiming that people were using underwear and other people's clothes to mask up with. If that's true, it just tells me that even some people who weren't prepared for the action were ready to get down. BB! has always been anti-assimilation, so of course they're going to be more prone to use street fighting tactics than say, Prop 8 protesters. Anyone who didn't know that going into the convergence strikes me as somewhat shortsighted. This was a CONVERGENCE (and from what I have heard, a very successful one), and when radicals get together in large numbers, they usually try for some smashy smashy and drag some shit in the street. This communique addresses something that shouldn't even have to be argued: Respect for a diversity of tactics.

tl;dr: don't dismantle barricades and do the pigs' work for them.

Authored by: talia on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 11:10 AM UTC

That was my initial reaction - it's fucking Bash Back!, what the fuck did people expect?! - but then I talked to someone who was there who is newer to this stuff, who pointed out that a lot of people there were really new to everything (first convergence, first street action, etc.) and that it might not be reasonable to expect that all of them would know what they were getting into in advance. Fair enough, I think. It might be worth trying to figure out how to get noobs involved in this stuff without violating security culture or leaving them feeling like collateral damage.

It's possible that people coming to events with such wildly differing expectations is, in part, a marketing problem - we had similar issues with a recent consulta here. People can have very different definitions of words like "radical" or "anarchist" while still identifying as such; if you're putting out a general call but there are specific flavors of radicals or anarchists you're wanting to attract to an event more than others, the use of subtle codewords or certain kinds of language or presentation may not be enough for everyone to understand what you mean. Being more specific in your calls for "tight-pants-wearing cynics who want to throw down" or "earnest youth who want to discuss taking leadership from oppressed communities" or whatever may help to avoid such confusion in the future. Of course, you could have the same effect from just calling your friends - which could arguably call into question the effectiveness of general convergence models at this particular point in time, at least in the pursuance of certain ends.

Authored by: trendytrain on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 02:55 PM UTC

It seems sort of tragically humorous that this communique talks about the privelege of bash back's critics, since most of the people from low-income backgrounds and poc people in bash back chicago quit days after this event. perhaps the people still left in bash back chicago need to think about the privelege that they are enforcing on others.

also, most people don't realize this, but that march was intended to become escalated without letting most of the people there know. how do i know this? there was a secret meeting in chicago weeks ago of "insurrectionaries" where a plan was proposed to hijack a mass of people and turn a green action into a red action without informing people. and to get away when the cops came, leaving uninformed, unprepared peple to deal with the cops. I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to have taken down barricades, but I do think people were tricked here. also, it's sad for people to think that a barricade was going to really help when the group was walking north to the police station two blocks away! haha, funny, huh? Is an anarchist vanguard forming? If people were tricked like that, it seems to be the case, which is fucked. getting a little close to bolshevism, aren't we?

Authored by: attacknormalcy on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 03:47 PM UTC

"it seems sort of tragically humorous that this communique talks about the privelege of bash back's critics, since most of the people from low-income backgrounds and poc people in bash back chicago quit days after this event."

that's not true and a deliberate misrepresentation of bb!c's internal dynamics in order to push a fucking agenda, not to mention just a fucked up thing to do on a personal level to people who don't need the world to see all of the personal issues they're dealing with. this is especially fucked up considering that you're making assumptions about the people who wrote this and what kind of privilege they have, which you're in fact making incorrectly and without basis.

"also, most people don't realize this, but that march was intended to become escalated without letting most of the people there know. how do i know this? there was a secret meeting in chicago weeks ago of "insurrectionaries" where a plan was proposed to hijack a mass of people and turn a green action into a red action without informing people. and to get away when the cops came, leaving uninformed, unprepared peple to deal with the cops."

all i can say is that this is a lie, and on top of that conspiracy theory cointelpro bullshit intent upon levelling accusations against people whose politics you don't agree with. grow up.

"it's sad for people to think that a barricade was going to really help when the group was walking north to the police station two blocks away!"

when it was being put directly in front of a police car, yes. also, the same march happened directly in front of the boystown police department and there was no police violence.

i have nothing else to say about this other than the fact that people are being pretty and intent upon informant/police-baiting and destroying a network that we've worked hard to continue and grow.

Authored by: rabbit on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 03:52 PM UTC

Trendytrain is full of shit- assuming the writers of the communique come from a position of privilege, that a secret "insurrectionary" meeting discussed things in terms of "green and red" actions (have they seriously ever read an insurrectionary piece?), assuming that anything beyond the train was not spontaneous, or that anyone stupid enough to post a comment about how a street party was "intended" to become escalated would actually be invited to a meeting about such an action. What a fool. They need to get muffed.

Authored by: Dead End on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 03:41 PM UTC

When it comes down to it, Bash Back! is 'anarchist', in the Crimethinc-y way, which means you get a smorgasbord of different types of people at these things seemingly. This is reflected in the people who, with no concern for others, decided to escalate what was happening to arrestable street actions and in the people who pulled the 'barricades' (only in the US, are plastic newspaper bins, fucking 'barricades') back to where they were.

To me, both things are inexcusable. But, this response, with it's contradicting, judgmental, and Maoist-like more radical than thou posturing is ridiculous as well.

Authored by: homonymy on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 06:19 PM UTC

On the note of "more radical than you" posturing, I don't think you're incorrect. Is this article not addressing the idea of devolution into a mediated existence, not unlike that of the liberal agenda? If so, then the correct assumption would also be that the writers of the article do not see liberals as radicals.

I understand that it's hard to know what to do when you feel like something good has been co-opted, whether it's by the big, bad insurrectionists or the socially-acceptable anarcho-liberals. Sometimes you're hesitant to step away from something you put so much time into caring about.

But let's face it-- Bash Back! as we once knew it is dead. That's not to say queer radicalism is dead, it's just to say that like the anti-globalization movement, radical feminism, and even anti-racism, the face of that organizing has become full of guilt and deciding what's best for who. Maybe this is the real answer to the question the POC caucus asked: Why are radical spaces often exclusionary to oppressed peoples?

Fuck, though, what's contradictory about how someone feels? Calling them Maoist assumes that they've read enough theory to understand those ideas and come to be against them-- Such as you have. Or that they've had the time or resources to do this. Sometimes feeling comes from the heart, and not preformulated from books.

Authored by: pika_pik on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 04:54 PM UTC

Beyond the obvious frustrations we might have about the lack of bashing back, that not only did voluntary police expose themselves (throughout the weekend) and that a dance party failed to become a "DANCE PARTY" (or resemble any dignified qualities of a war-machine), what could we have expected from a convergence? What is there to exhume from this means other than the rituals of activist discourse? If we build it they will come, or there will be coming (but that's about it). What does it mean to be "transgressive", and blabber on about social war, etc if we can only think to make it within a cage? A big sack of "conflictual" identities.

Authored by: nostalgia on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 05:03 PM UTC

There is a rift in the anarchist struggle that has been deepening in the past few months. It seems that on one hand there are the activists associated with anarchism who seek to discredit struggle by invalidating actions based on the ratio of undocumented workers over queer people divided by women to the person of color power. This perspective is worrisome because it attempts to reduce the amount of people who can "legitimately" participate in a given action. These people can often be seen voting for Obama, crying about trashcans lying in the street, and generally being punk ass mutha fuckas.

On the other hand there are those who are often called "insurrectionaries" (I tend to prefer the term "friends"). The label "insurrectionary anarchist" can be problematic because it refers to an adherence to such a specific political theory, when in fact the views and actions associated with "insurrectionaries" are relatively popular in working class neighborhoods. This tendency is most easily defined by its affinity for conflict.

Recently, the latter outlook seems to be moving further away from politics as such, while the former is more tightly embracing self appointed community leaders and politicians. The anarcho-liberals will continue to say that our tactics alienate everyone, while conveniently ignoring the conflict that people engage in every day (or, if not ignoring, attempting to draw distinctions between the "adventuristic" and "privileged" actions of anarchists and the righteous outrage of those poor poor brown people who have no choice).

Also, it seems that so many of those interested in conflict are done with longwinded explanations, done with alliances with anarcho-liberals, and done with activism in general. Perhaps an increased awareness of the readiness of exploited people to fight back against the system without the permission of old ass community leaders has caused many of us to seek alliances with people outside of politics, with old friends, thieves, graffiti writers, homeless people, and family members.

The hoodlums of the anarchist struggle are more openly embracing their own subjectivity, being honest about fighting because of the way they are exploited by the system and because of the joy that the struggle brings them. The libero-punks are still talking about being in solidarity with the oppressed (which generally means doing whatever the oldest most boring "community leader" tells them to). They project incapacitating values onto oppressed demographics ("there were people of color there, why did you sing, that makes those beasts angry", or, "an immigrant could have been in the neighborhood at that time, why did you knock over that newspaper box")? We don't do dumb shit like this.

Anyway, fuck the liberals in Bash Back. Why the fuck would you be in some shit called Bash Back then get surprised when someone starts acting wild? This article brings up some good points about organization, namely that we don't always need to reach consensus with everyone. Sometimes people don't have any damn business working together on a specific action. If we are always going to be like "let's figure out what everyone wants and do that" then we might as well have voted for Obama (or Bush 4 years earlier).

Keep knocking over those newspaper boxes!

Authored by: Dignified on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 05:18 PM UTC

Nostalgia, I wanna date you

Authored by: homonymy on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 06:03 PM UTC

Me too. If you're alright with polyamory.

Authored by: laozi on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 09:35 PM UTC

i want to date all of you and i am down with polyamory seriously nostalgia that was the best shit said about this so far and a great analysis of the current anarcho-milieu i have heard in a while.

Authored by: 052590 on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 07:30 PM UTC

Agreed 100%!

Authored by: socraticpunk on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 07:33 PM UTC

The irony is the very, very small amount that "respecting a diversity of tactics" seems to be acknowledged. For instance, damning (on a pretty constant basis lately) "activism" and "anarcho-liberals" for their decisions is not respecting "diversity of tactics". I exclude people putting news boxes back on the sidewalks from this critique, that is kinda fucked.

How do you define activism, again? From a very basic definitive position it would seem that the word means "being active," thus the only way to not be an "activist" is to do nothing. It's a really obnoxious stance to suggest that Bash Back! isn't an activist group, because for all intents and purposes, it is. To me, it seems like two kids sitting on a play ground, bickering, where one's saying the other is immature, and the other is saying "nu-uh!" Is this trite crap of redefining the wheel really worth the time?

Pardon, but isn't some forethought in "Fight(ing) for liberation." somewhat beneficial? What is happening within Bash Back! to defend the queer community past street theater and self-congratulatory communiques? And for whom? Everyone or, I'm not sorry for the way I was born (hetero- and white), is it just for everyone else? How is that different than single-issue liberal groups to begin with? You can claim to be against capitalism and the state as much as you like, but until this claim is worked into everyday activity that actually DOES something (other than providing, personal warm tingles) it's lip-service. It's probably going to take a little more than being a loose-nit group to get fascist cops fired or violent assholes dealt with, maybe it's just me.

And nostalgia, did you pick up on the "don't speak for others part of the communique?" Do you know every POC neighborhood and what they want? Seems like you and your choir are boxing people into how you want to see them- as disorganized "autonomous" folks just waiting for "the insurrection."

And what the fuck is an anarcho-liberal? Social anarchists? Anarcho-syndicalists, etc? Anyone who reads about what the fuck anarchism is rather than just claiming it? I'm kinda sick of this crap, because anyone that doesn't fit the frame starts being called a fucking liberal like this is high school. Honestly, grow up. I like the references to Maoism, and please look at what happened to them in history... Here's a hint, they became irrelevant...

Authored by: arkyface on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 08:51 PM UTC

"How do you define activism, again? From a very basic definitive position it would seem that the word means "being active," thus the only way to not be an "activist" is to do nothing. It's a really obnoxious stance to suggest that Bash Back! isn't an activist group, because for all intents and purposes, it is. To me, it seems like two kids sitting on a play ground, bickering, where one's saying the other is immature, and the other is saying "nu-uh!" Is this trite crap of redefining the wheel really worth the time?"

Pretty much any self-identified activist I've seen or met separates themselves from social world and becomes a specialist in social change. The critique is mostly saying that to make oneself into an IST or ISM is another way of constraining our being. I am not interested in turning my hatred into an issue, a campaign, but an attack.

Authored by: veranasi on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 09:08 PM UTC

It becomes an ism when you label others. You realize the use of the word "liberal" denotes your desire to be the vanguard. You are claiming a sense of moral superiority that others can't understand. It has been used in reference to anarchists by two major sources of relevance: 1. Nietzsche- who points out that people who destroy things in anger (like Christians) for their own liberation (rev,ins,crash) are liberals. 2.Totalitarians- basically anyone who didn't agree specifically with their own beliefs.

It's a a sequestering of authority.

There are liberal groups: non-profits or NGO's. If that's what you are talking about then okay.

It really has nothing to do with ism. The ism is attached to the identity of the group or an identified liberation. So technically, the "anarcho-liberals" are against hardline BashBackism.

Authored by: veranasi on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 09:55 PM UTC

I should note: it's not that I wouldn't usually agree with you, I 'm just really sick and tired of the names. The people in question probably shouldn't have been there. bah. i need a break.

Authored by: CaseyFord on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 12:40 AM UTC

Technically, anarcho-liberal is an anarcho-capitalist (hell check out where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-liberalism goes). It's basically what right-libertarians used to be called until they took that word.

The use of the term (mostly as an ad hominem as vernasi pointed out) to mean "someone who fronts anarchism but is really a liberal" is a pretty recent thing (I've only heard it in the last year or two).

Authored by: Al Ligator on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 12:32 AM UTC

Word.

Authored by: adidas on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 12:47 AM UTC

for the purposes of this article, the following terms will be used. for insurrectionary anarchism: "normal ass people". for activist ass anarchists: "irrelevant purple dinosaurs that have no business being involved in social struggle wearing tight ass pants crying anytime someone throws a punch. also: SDS college kids"

but seriously, all i have to say about this is i was upset whenever they started the new star trek movie out by destroying Vulcan. that's pretty fucked up, even if its a reboot of the series. how can you have an entire star trek universe without the planet Vulcan? that's an important ass planet, not just some god damn Remus or something. Vulcan. come on man. you wouldn't just blow up alpha centauri and have zefram cochrane flying around in a helicopter, would you?

Authored by: lopez on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 12:32 PM UTC

two very real categories that correspond precisely to what nostalgia's talking about:

on the one hand:
take back the land
picture the homeless
city from below conference
in the middle of a whirlwind journal
community organizers
the liberal scum who got mad about oakland
the liberal scum who got mad about chicago
+crimethinc ouch!
etc.

on the other:
mayday 09
the new school
oakland on top of police cars
street parties that have dispensed with puppets and stilts
me and nostalgia and our friends who probably never think about "politics" but are just pissed, hate the world, hate the shit they've been forced to eat all their lives, steal, trash things and don't think twice about it or whom it might alienate.
those who see conflict as both desirable and as a means w/o end.
those who've dispensed with identity as a rule for organization and so have no organization by which they could be named in my list. ordinary ass people.

we've been saying it for a while now: the lines have been drawn, and it's no longer even worth a second of our time to complain or think about all those in the former category. however, they should know to be a bit worried because, as i think a lot of us are realizing as the lines get drawn more distinctly and as the latter category becomes more comfortable with itself, there is far more fucking joy in living our lives without separation from the antagonism we feel inside, without separation from those who feel like we do, and without haughty moral condemnation from the activists. this realization is the reason the latter category is actually growing in capacity and numbers right now.

Authored by: lastresort on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 03:38 PM UTC

Authored by: laozi on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM UTC

i agree take back the land is not really as activisty as they seem.

but what lopez said is right. there is definitely a line of sorts informally being drawn. i have even felt it in my town, because all of a sudden a lot of folks who used to be open minded from activist crowds just don't seem to want to talk to me, and i haven't even declared myself anything really. i am until further notice basically an anarchist without adjectives. but yeah folks obviously have made up their own minds about me and some of my friends.

i also think whirlwinds journal could so be put possibly on the other list.

Authored by: laozi on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 06:42 PM UTC

yeah i strongly believe the later are growing in capacity because they have actually found something that appeals to all different types of people and resonates with people in a exciting new way. in many ways i think oakland was way more important than the rnc/dnc in many many ways.

Authored by: JBizzle on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 06:29 PM UTC

right on

Authored by: arkyface on Friday, June 05 2009 @ 08:30 PM UTC

For those who are saying that those who were acting autonomously brought on the cops, you are mostly wrong.. The cops were aggressive from the get go. I personally saw people (unbloc-ed) getting bumped by the pig cars, before any shit was moved into the streets. Seriously....what do you expect when you party in the middle of a street in the one of the bigger bar and consumer districts of Chicago? They are pigs, they hate any kind of fun, and that's what they do, you know? Also, Have you ever heard of the name BASH BACK! ? it's pretty incendiary sounding..

And this has nothing to do with machismo. Please don't assume anything about those who took actions you didn't like.

Anarcho-liberals can have their spaces and everyone else can continue to ignore them and the endless consensus meetings. My understanding is that BB! is not has never been interested in this.

Authored by: alta fuoco on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 01:42 AM UTC

While I agree with the sentiment of this article, I also find aspects of it alien and confusing. I would have appreciated more bashing back in Chicago, for sure, but I'm not sure why anyone is invoking the principals of unity of BashBack! I had no part in constructing the principals of unity, I don't get organized statically under the moniker of BashBack, but I don't think that means I or others shouldn't have gone on the train/street party. That said, what I think is it stake in tactical disagreements is very political, and references to principals of unity--specifically the affirmation of a diversity of tactics--act to neutralize the potential political conflict. Those who moved newsbins back, those who perhaps would rather not a street party become a more wild affair, are politically different from those who want to block and destroy everything. While its certainly a bit funny to use identity politics against itself--and for the most part I feel a resonance of practices when the exploited get wild--I think it still works to capture BashBack's potentiality to frame this discourse in terms of identity politics. And by doing this, loses the potential fight by simply excluding one group or another. If BashBack and bodies with queer practices want to come out the other side identity politics, we have to face and soundly defeat the policing of our bodies.

I'm not sure how other experience the ways we do force. Someone on the BB! blog mentioned that they felt the force that was used was patriarchal. Otter says as Number 5 of their long critique:
“5. Macho: The action was so macho, and perpetuated, rather than questioned patriarchy. It was all about being more destructive and rowdy than the person next to oneself. Crowding, pushing one another, crowd surfing, and grabbing people nonconsensually were all manifestations of machismo. When I called someone out for doing something fucked up(chanting swine flu), the individual immediately retorted, “well, can we dance then?” I believe that the individual was so flippant (and nonsensical) about the point I was making because I’m a female-bodied genderqueer, and as such, my ideas and critiques can be assigned to the category of “woman”, and therefore, “worthless”.”

I’m interested in exploring this critique. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I relate to the powerlessness they felt. I take as a starting point that power is not my enemy, but rather my object; and I am power’s object. I begin also from a feeling that methods of becoming-powerful, such as violence, force and intimidation, are content rather than a form. I know that when I bash back, it feels good. I know that when I, among others, dominate a point of contact (say, a police officer) between this body and an enemy (say, policing) if feels marvelous. I also know that the sharing of pleasure is a practical gesture. This is a practice of an ethico-political position. Happiness is the object of this practice of ethics. Through pleasurable gestures of force, we deterritorialize the policing entity in our relationship with capital–that which neutralizes and depoliticizes every conflict before it can intensify.

Theoretically this all is very sensible to me. However, I’m still stuck, and I feel captured because my first reaction to having someone start shit with me, or having the power to start shit with others, is to perform an intimidating act that excludes my erect nipples from its footnotes. On the train, when there are 100-200 of us, and were rowdy and were a bit wild, I’m not sure anyone can feel our force acting on their bodies as anything other than “othering.” Yet, it is in fact this force that excludes and terrifies, that I don’t particularly mind queer bodies having access to, as a practical maneuver, and that I think may be unavoidable in such situations. What I find problematic is our lack of imagination and perhaps honesty in the matter. If it is power that we want; and it is force, that we will put to use, then how would we really like to do it? Furthermore how could it be done in such a way that exhibited by its means the difference between force that would enforce the norms of hetero-patriarchy, that would produce new norms and the mystical force that we desire oh-so-deeply, a force that can depose norms?

The only sentimental intelligence I can feel, and that I know is shared, is the resonance of sadistic and masochistic practices. Perhaps it is not with what works the best–with what is effective at opposing enemies that we ought be examining. Perhaps it is this exact framework that gives us a measuring stick that can only effect to analyze the banality of our functional self-defense. If what is stake in our ethico-politcal practice is happiness and different frequencies of pleasure, then perhaps it is a means of cruelty and suffering that we ought explore and with which we might experiment.

On the other hand, some see the practical dissolution of society by whatever means, as being analogous with the desire of swine flu.

Authored by: homonymy on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 10:26 AM UTC

I wonder if people would change how they felt if they knew the identities of those who wrote this?

For instance if they were two lower working class female-bodied genderqueers, one a person of color, the other of mixed racial background?

Can we reclaim things usually labeled masculine (even by the "anarchists") now?

Authored by: laozi on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 11:50 AM UTC

i second this. i really hate how being any bit confrontational automatically = macho and patriarchal

a lot of people need to read "burning the anarchist bible" over again.

Authored by: corporatecrimina on Saturday, June 06 2009 @ 09:28 PM UTC

I don’t know all the facts about the incident and for a number of reasons I don’t think online discussions like this are the best way to discuss specifics. So I’m just going to respond to this communiqué as it stands and address some of the issues I think it brings up.

If people were pulling newspaper boxes out of the street, then that is entirely fucked up. I can’t imagine any scenario where it’s acceptable or excusable to tear down a barricade people set up to prevent the police from advancing. I understand the harsh tone of this message if it’s directed at people who moved things back to the sidewalk and I think it’s completely appropriate to say that doing something like is not acting in solidarity.

However, to lump together people who may have done that with people who stood on the sidewalk or folks that raised concerns after the fact seems really problematic. Throughout this communiqué, the writer(s) discuss respecting a “diversity of tactics” and repeatedly refer to the “autonomy” of individuals. By utilizing those terms and adopting that perspective, you need to accept that sometimes people are going to “act autonomously” by utilizing different tactics than you do and not join in on what you’re doing. “Diversity of tactics” means just that, a variety of acts that are distinct from one another. To respect a “diversity of tactics” does not mean to only respect the most militant tactics and to denounce anyone who doesn’t participate in them as being “liberal.”

Regarding people being concerned about a lack of consensus, I think that in radical communities there should always be room for constructive criticism after events. While it’s unrealistic for there to be consensus about spontaneous acts, I do think it’s fair to ask whether everyone was on the same page beforehand. This isn’t coming from “watered-down” emotions or a hokey need for “constant mediation.” It’s based in the fact that confrontational tactics are straight-up more effective when people are expecting and are prepared for confrontational tactics.

I’m also confused by the hostility toward and rejection of consensus in this writing. By opposing the need to come to consensus, I see the possibility of certain individuals making decisions that endanger other people. This opens the door to authoritarians, provocateurs, opportunists and straight-up careless people taking actions that threaten other people in the name of “resistance.” Consensus-decision making is a safeguard to prevent this. Are the writer(s) of this message presenting an alternative to consensus that would still avoid these scenarios?

I would find this opposition to consensus to raise issues for any anarchist group, but I find it particularly problematic when it’s dealing with BB! BB! has taken pretty strong stances in support of consent between people. This contentious incident was part of a convergence that had a pretty extensive set of guidelines for “Creating Safer Space.” A few excerpts:

“Practicing active consent is essential for Safer Spaces. For the duration of the convergence, consent is defined as a clearly asked question followed by a clearly stated yes.”

“ Respect others’ physical, mental and emotional boundaries. • Always ask for explicit verbal consent before engaging or touching someone. Never assume consent”

“people must respect each other and actively look out for the well being of all those attending this convergence.”

Are we to assume that these guidelines only apply during workshops and fucking, but not street actions when cops are involved? That individuals shouldn’t have to consent to what happens to their bodies and emotions as long as other people are “vocalizing longstanding oppressions they’ve felt”? I see a contradiction between the guidelines set forth by BB! and the individual(s) who wrote this who speak with a rather definitive voice about who is or is not “Bash Back!”

Which brings me to my final point: Who/what is BB! and how does this “action” and this response to it fit in with that network? I recognize and embrace the de-centralized network of autonomous chapters BB! has set up and that there’s not a uniformity of opinion or any central decision-making body. However, this piece of writing first appeared on http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/ which has served as a centralized site of information about BB! And based on the reference to the photo at the top of that site one fairly assume that the individual(s) who wrote this knew it would appear as an announcement on that site. So either the person(s) who authored this response manage that centralized site or are close to the people who do. So people like myself who don’t know all the internal dynamics of BB! are left to wonder whether the position put forth in this response is representative of BB! as an organization.

Authored by: homonymy on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 12:32 PM UTC

DO NOT ASSUME WHO PEOPLE ARE, OR WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. THAT'S A REALLY BAD MOVE.

Authored by: corporatecrimina on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 01:46 PM UTC

I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to, but I'm guessing it's the question I raise in the last paragraph. So let me rephrase what I'm trying to ask without making any assumptions or insinuations about individuals.

What is the relationship between this statement and BB! as an organization. If the answer is that this is just a statement written by autonomous individuals and doesn't represent BB! in any way, then I would ask why it was featured on the BB! News, which acts as a centralized source of information about the group. Appearing there gives it a certain amount of weight, especially since there really haven't been any other announcements about this incident.

Really what I'm trying to figure out is BB!'s use of process. This communique rejects consensus at a few points. Is that true of BB! as an organization that they oppose coming to consensus? I don't think it's always necessary for national networks to come to conclusions about process, but I think it raises issues here where this "autnomous cell" within a chapter makes a public declaration that rather affirmatively claims who is or is not Bash Back! and tells people find another organization or not start chapters. What are the implications of that then if individuals can determine on their own whether or not other people are part of the group or whether people should start a chapter? If there's no process in place, it could be easy to see how the loudest, most extreme individuals will suddenly be in a position to say who should or should not be part of their group.

Authored by: rconrad on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 08:47 AM UTC

i dont want to weigh in on this too hard because it has become quite clear that bb! organizers can't deal with criticism/feedback/anyone even asking a question without turning into reactionary defensive jerks and are really poor communicators, so i don't expect much to come of it. all these assertions are based on my personal experience of organizing a workshop at the conference that we (Naught North!) canceled just days before because of how awful the communication was and how undervalued/disrespected we felt. we arent going to drive 20 hours, find child care, find house care, take time off work, take time off school, to go to present our work at some shit show of a gathering, which from what we hear from others there, it was, save some awesome workshops organized by diligent folks outside of bb!

and maybe that is my point? from the start, the communication coming from the folks that organized this gathering was inconsistent, untimely, curt, condescending (apparently they were all to busy making bad bruce labruce knock off porn to actually organize this gathering well) and when faced with the slightest degree of criticism, became hostile. this whole situation with the dance party turned action is predictable and disappointing.

is there any sort of organized jail support for the folks who got arrested? i see that this hasn't been a priority for bb! folks as it hasn't been post on the news site, just this awful diatribe that is pretty consistent with all other communication coming from this group that is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Authored by: homonymy on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 12:39 PM UTC

Actually, there was jail support, from people answering phone calls and making sure people were accounted for, to standing outside the jail for hours, to working with the arrestees afterwards and keeping in touch.

So many other parts of your post anger me, but you're really not worth the time addressing. You cancelled your workshop because in a flurry of hundreds of emails, BB! didn't get back to you within a day or two. That, to me, just seems like you're an impatient asshole.

Authored by: rconrad on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 01:16 PM UTC

hahahaha... the organizers never even emailed a schedule of workshops to presenters!

we had to email the organizers three times to get it just weeks before the conference and then we were redirected to the website (some of us don't have regular internet access and aren't invested in constantly checking facebook). we had emailed a phone number more than once hoping to actually have some direct contact, but that seemed too much to hope for. we had made clear requests about when we could come and present due to traveling 20 hours to get there and those requests were ignored. when we brought them up again after we found an impossible to do schedule on the website we were told to stop complaining and yall would get to when you had time cause yall were too busy dealing with subpoenas (then just days later that awful joke porno video was posted). yall wouldnt even tell presenters where the convergence was being held because of some over zealous security culture shenanigans... and we are just supposed to trust yall and show up in a city totally foreign to us after barely communicating any information to us? i dont think so......

should naughty north! just post all the emails (mostly unanswered) that went back and forth and time stamp them so folks can see what a shit show the organizing was and how awful the little communication we received was? perhaps then we could stop pointing fingers and making petty arguments and let the documents show (not that anyone from bb! signed any of the emails and therefore totally avoid any accountability under the guise of security culture)? it will be pretty obvious to anyone with half a wit that this convergence was a shit show and the presenters at workshop had to deal with so much annoying attitude... so much that we didnt find it worthwhile or productive to go.

Authored by: BB! News on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 02:57 PM UTC

BB! News has not posted specifics about the arrests because we have not received any emails or stories about the arrests. That could have to do with the fact that most people who contribute to BB! News directly are from the Midwest. The Midwesterners have been very busy dealing with multiple legal and civil cases on the ground. Something should be released in the next few days about the arrests, charges, and other happenings of the weekend.

Also, it should be known that people from Maine DID come to the convergence. RConrad did not. The BB! Convergence DID provided childcare, which parents expressed gratitude for and even went as far as to say it was the only Radical Queer Gathering they had been to that they felt was friendly to and safe for their children.
If RConrad really wants to be so fucking petty that they want to post emails on here...go ahead. Those emails prove nothing more than that You R. Conrad...whoever you may be... are an asshole.

Authored by: rconrad on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 04:24 PM UTC

The people from Maine who did come, were my roommates and friends of the collective house a handful of us live in. and trust me, they think the action was fucked, the convergence was fucked, and that the only good things to come out of it were workshops NOT organized by people from BB! go figure...

Matter of fact, the experiences of one Mainer who i live with was so fucked and traumatic that they have been processing about it with us all week and couldn't tell us how much he was thankful they didn't get hurt or arrested while there and how happy they were to be out of there. Thanks for providing the opportunity for such wonderful experiences, we need more trauma within our communities...

lastly, stop hiding behind the BB News! moniker, since most us know who it is. My name is RYAN CONRAD and I am not hiding or trying to shirk accountability. So stop posturing, and pony up, along with the rest of the BB crew. and stop deleting posts on the BB! site (at least on infoshop you cant keep doing that!), numerous naughty north folks have posted and things keep getting deleted.

Authored by: BB! News on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 03:31 PM UTC

It is our understanding that the reason why yall did not see the schedule until, "Weeks before," was because the schedule was not done until *WEEKS before the gathering. Many people waited until the last minute... about a month and a half before the convergence to submit their workshop proposals...and even more forgot about the deadline so did not submit their proposals until well after the deadline. Which only gave the organizers a few *WEEKS before the convergence to finalize the schedule and get it out to people.

Also, organizers of this convergence do and have responded to criticism in a way that has held some of them accountable for shit they need to work on. Some people have apologized and began working on a process There is a lot of internal working-out going on right now in Chicago in regards to the fuck ups. But you would not know this because you have not asked...and you have zero knowledge of who makes up BB! Chicago, and who those people are holding themselves accountable to. And the people who they are being held accountable to are not RConrad because RConrad is not apart of BB!, the Chicago radical community, the Midwest radical community, or the many communities of people who decided to attend the convergence.

*Weeks is emphasized because weeks is quite a long time and is typical for this type of gathering. For instance NCOR also announced the schedule WEEKS before hand.

Authored by: rconrad on Sunday, June 07 2009 @ 05:35 PM UTC

there is a reason NCOR stopped happening...
Perhaps BB! should stop having convergences too.

* * *

Maybe yall should look to other queer convergences that have actually gone well and where most attendees and presenters a like felt good about the process, the event, and the outcomes. the Sweaty South Radical Queer and Trans Convergence in north carolina a few years ago comes to mind. huge high fives to those people for making that shit work, and work well, and for making everyone involved feel respected and valued...

* * *

You should also be accountable to the presenters and attendees that had to put up with this shit show. It seems clear that that kind of accountability is impossible with BB! Too bad for the rest of us that have to deal with the fall out from this mess, even way out here in maine...

* * *

It seems like the best to hope for from these kinds of gatherings is the solidifying of networks: new/old friendships, new/old romances, cross pollinating on projects, lovingly challenging one another, etc. Seems like this convergence was in the business of drawing lines and making enemies. Maybe not intentionally, but the lack of planning, care, communication and general not-being-an-asshole-to-folks created this outcome. Like I said, maybe gatherings like this shouldn't happen if this is the way it is going to go down. At least not till more folks with the actual time, energy and skills to make something like this work are on board.

BB! - RIP

Authored by: um_okay on Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 10:00 PM UTC

so i just don't want ryan conrad to have the last say on this thread haha up tha punx, fuk everybody and trust no one!

Authored by: sweet tea on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 01:58 AM UTC

PS sweet tea here im sooooooooo glad i kwit kweeer organizing years ago. fucking christ people hatin on the prisons got their shit together so much more. damn yall jesus fucking christ. ok im done.

Authored by: JBizzle on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM UTC

there is no more solidarity. Congrats, everyone, you've all allowed cointelpro part 2 to begin.
fuck.

Authored by: JBizzle on Tuesday, June 16 2009 @ 09:06 PM UTC

I want to add:
there will be anarchists who will go to the g20 protests, and those who will not for a variety of reasons.
NEITHER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
there will be anarchists who smash property of the capitalist scum, and those who will organize at their workplace.
NEITHER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
there will be anarchists who grow community gardens, who do teach-ins and will be dedicated to infoshops, workshops, and convergences, and those who will actively seek to graffiti advertisements, demolish store fronts, police vehicles, and other aspects of the commodity spectacle that attempts to rule and exploit or very subjectiveness.
NEITHER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
and fact, in some cases, the two are interchangeable. In fact, in some cases, the organizer and the destroyer are the same, in fact, I think in many cases this is preferable.
you fucking idiots who spend all your time doing NOTHING by tearing down people who should be your comrades, are nothing more than authoritarians in disguise, or at least you're doing their work for them.
I have never been as pissed off as I have been in the past few months, watching those who should be united in solidarity against all forms of tyrrany and authoritarianism, bicker and piss all over each other AND FOR WHAT? How the fuck is it going to change anything?
The non-violent anarchists should let the insurrectionary anarchists do their thing, and vice-versa. All this infighting does one thing, and that's play into the plans of the state. We should have an advantage over them, decentralized, coming to consensus through true democracy, while protecting the individual, but instead, at a pivotal moment in linear time, when capitalism is collapsingm, far-right facists/reactionaries are beginning to gain some (though still fringe) militant supporters, and the state apparatus is spiraling into it's own form of totalitarian facism, we're sitting around complaining about comrades moving trash cans into the street, and then others moving them out of the street.
IT'S SO TRITE IT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU WANT TO VOMIT IN FEAR
give up! if this is anarchy for you, give up. We are all fucked.

Main Menu

Submit Articles and Events

Follow Infoshop on ...

User Functions

Recent I-News Features

Infoshop Hot Links

Independent Media

Blogroll

Other Infoshop News

Events

Poll

Older Stories

Sunday 07-Feb

Saturday 06-Feb

Friday 05-Feb

A Response to the Anarcho-Liberal Take Over of Bash Back!

What's Related

Story Options

Trackback