Do You Want Revolution?

If you are serious about organizing like this you are going to need to publize this more.
People will come to this meeting and I think it is very valid that it happen but you need to get this as a feature or keep posting this as well as starting a phone tree or something.

img

NEFAC is the epitome of the white macho radical boy's clubs. They are really sexist, queerphobic, and hierarchical and dominate all events and protests they attend.
If FNAC is being modelled on this organization, it can only result in trouble.
Please resist the formation of a group that will only perpetuate white male control of our community.

Emma Goldman was an anarchist, not a communist.

In response to "volatile tranny", I would suggest that the best way to prevent this new federation from becoming a "sexist, queerphobic, and hierarchical" organization, or a "white macho radical boy's club" (which would indeed be tragic and detrimental to the revolution) would be to become directly involved with it.

In response to the "anarchist, but not a commie" who asserted that "Emma Goldman was an anarchist, not a communist":

I am currently reading Emma Goldman's autobiography, Living My Life, which I highly recommend everyone interested in anarchism and specifically anarcho-communism read. The jacket reads, "She was an alien, a practicing anarchist, a labor agitator, a pacifist in World War 1, an advocate of political violence, a feminist, a proponent of free love and birth control, a communist, a street-fighter for justice -- all of which she did with strong intellect and boundless passion." Of course simply because the jacket asserts that she was both an anarchist and a communist doesn't mean it's necessarily true, so I will provide quotes directly from Emma Goldman.

Emma Goldman was lifelong friends with Alexander Berkman, author of ABC of Communist Anarchism, whom she described as being "among the greatest revolutionary thinkers and fighters, utterly dedicated to his ideal." ( http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html) Later in the same essay, she writes:

"Leon Trotsky ridicules the demands of the sailors for Free Soviets. It was indeed naive of them to think that free Soviets can live side by side with a dictatorship. Actually the free Soviets had ceased to exist at an early stage in the Communist game, as the Trade Unions and the co-operatives. They had all been hitched to the chariot wheel of the Bolshevik State machine. I well remember Lenin telling me with great satisfaction, "Your Grand Old Man, Enrico Malatesta, is for our soviets." I hastened to say, "You mean free soviets, Comrade Lenin. I, too, am for them." Lenin turned our talk to something else. But I soon discovered why Free Soviets had ceased to exist in Russia."

Therefore we see that Emma Goldman was expressly for Free Soviets, that is, council communism ("soviet" is the Russian equivalent of "council"), which was libertarian in nature before the Bolshevik counter-revolution.

In Living My Life, she says of anarcho-syndicalism, a model of anarchist union organization to achieve anarcho-communism: "Observation and study at the very source of syndicalism convinced me that it represented the economic arena where Labour could match its strength against the organized forces of its capitalist foe." (page 407)

She also associated with Peter Kropotkin, author of Anarchist Communism, of whom she said: "Peter Kropotkin was a lineal descendant of the Ruriks and in the direct succession to the Russian throne. But he gave up his title and wealth for the cause of humanity. He did more: since becoming an anarchist he had forgone a brilliant scientific career to be better able to devote himself to the development and interpretation of anarchist philosophy. He became the most outstanding exponent of anarchist communism, its clearest thinker and theoretician. He was recognized by friend and foe as one of the greatest minds and most unique personalities of the nineteenth century." (Living My Life, page 168)

In her essay "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For" ( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html), she wrote:

"Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead.

"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey."

Even if Emma Goldman never expressly called herself an "anarchist communist" or "anarcho-communist" it is obvious from her writing where her sympathies lay.

If you're not an anarcho-communist or do not agree with the principles of anarcho-communism that is absolutely fine but there is little point in denying a well-documented historical reality. Emma Goldman was indeed an anarchist communist.

In response to "volatile tranny", I would suggest that the best way to prevent this new federation from becoming a "sexist, queerphobic, and hierarchical" organization, or a "white macho radical boy's club" (which would indeed be tragic and detrimental to the revolution) would be to become directly involved with it.

In response to the "anarchist, but not a commie" who asserted that "Emma Goldman was an anarchist, not a communist":

I am currently reading Emma Goldman's autobiography, Living My Life, which I highly recommend everyone interested in anarchism and specifically anarcho-communism read. The jacket reads, "She was an alien, a practicing anarchist, a labor agitator, a pacifist in World War 1, an advocate of political violence, a feminist, a proponent of free love and birth control, a communist, a street-fighter for justice -- all of which she did with strong intellect and boundless passion." Of course simply because the jacket asserts that she was both an anarchist and a communist doesn't mean it's necessarily true, so I will provide quotes directly from Emma Goldman.

Emma Goldman was lifelong friends with Alexander Berkman, author of ABC of Communist Anarchism, whom she described as being "among the greatest revolutionary thinkers and fighters, utterly dedicated to his ideal." ( http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/trotsky.html) Later in the same essay, she writes:

"Leon Trotsky ridicules the demands of the sailors for Free Soviets. It was indeed naive of them to think that free Soviets can live side by side with a dictatorship. Actually the free Soviets had ceased to exist at an early stage in the Communist game, as the Trade Unions and the co-operatives. They had all been hitched to the chariot wheel of the Bolshevik State machine. I well remember Lenin telling me with great satisfaction, "Your Grand Old Man, Enrico Malatesta, is for our soviets." I hastened to say, "You mean free soviets, Comrade Lenin. I, too, am for them." Lenin turned our talk to something else. But I soon discovered why Free Soviets had ceased to exist in Russia."

Therefore we see that Emma Goldman was expressly for Free Soviets, that is, council communism ("soviet" is the Russian equivalent of "council"), which was libertarian in nature before the Bolshevik counter-revolution.

In Living My Life, she says of anarcho-syndicalism, a model of anarchist union organization to achieve anarcho-communism: "Observation and study at the very source of syndicalism convinced me that it represented the economic arena where Labour could match its strength against the organized forces of its capitalist foe." (page 407)

She also associated with Peter Kropotkin, author of Anarchist Communism, of whom she said: "Peter Kropotkin was a lineal descendant of the Ruriks and in the direct succession to the Russian throne. But he gave up his title and wealth for the cause of humanity. He did more: since becoming an anarchist he had forgone a brilliant scientific career to be better able to devote himself to the development and interpretation of anarchist philosophy. He became the most outstanding exponent of anarchist communism, its clearest thinker and theoretician. He was recognized by friend and foe as one of the greatest minds and most unique personalities of the nineteenth century." (Living My Life, page 168)

In her essay "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For" ( http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html), she wrote:

"Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead.

"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey."

Even if Emma Goldman never expressly called herself an "anarchist communist" or "anarcho-communist" it is obvious from her writing where her sympathies lay.

If you're not an anarcho-communist or do not agree with the principles of anarcho-communism that is absolutely fine but there is little point in denying a well-documented historical reality. Emma Goldman was indeed an anarchist communist.

volatile tyranny makes some rather harsh accusations about NEFAC, but provides no examples of how the federation is "sexist, queerphobic, and hierarchical." It's easy enough to make accusations without proof. Fortunately for us (I'm going to be representing NEFAC on Thursday), NEFAC is fairly public both about our actions and philosophies. I guess I could address actual incidents (if there were any), but there is little to say about volatile tyranny's post. Anyone who wishes to see what NEFAC does can go to www.nefac.net and look at what we've said and done before judging us.

waiting for the backlash,
stas
sofia perovskaya collective,
anarcho-communist union of boston,
northeastern federation of anarcho-communists

Why We're Not Members of NEFAC

Some thoughts on Anarchist Organization


We would like to start this out by emphasizing that we have no desire to seek rivalry with the Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC). In fact, we sympathize with the intentions of many of its members. As anarchists, we share two fundamental aims: the abolition of capitalism and the state. Such agreement on certain principles, however, does not render anarchist ideologies and organizations (such as NEFAC) immune to critique.

NEFAC, as defined by Northeastern Anarchist: The Magazine of the Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists (see 'contacts' section of this zine), is an "organization of revolutionaries from the northeastern region of North America who identify with the communist tradition within anarchism. The federation is organized around the principles of theoretical coherence, tactical unity, collective responsibility, and federalism, and our activities include study and theoretical development, anarchist agitation and propaganda, and intervention within the class struggle." This consists of a theoretically non-hierarchical federation of collectives from throughout the Northeast who agree to adhere to a set of rules and principles outlined in the NEFAC constitution. According to their web-page, a collective interested in joining NEFAC must "send a letter of written request of adhesion to the coordinating committee." This step is followed by a series of bureaucratic and administrative procedures: voting, review, further correspondence, etc.

In researching this critique, we found the NEFAC organization to be even more bureaucratic, confusing, and seemingly incoherent than we originally expected. Reading through their federation's policies was almost as interesting as filing our yearly federal tax forms.

Our primary critique of NEFAC is their highly bureaucratic structure. We think anarchist organizations should be reflective of the society they are striving to actualize. Having grown up amidst the alienation of an already bureaucratic and impersonal society, we have no interest in maintaining bureaucratic structures once this society is destroyed. Therefore we find NEFAC's insistence on the use of heavily beurocratic organizational models to be incompatible with the society we wish to create.

NEFAC's organizational structure rests on an adherence to the ideology of "anarcho-communism." Without going into great detail (for such a topic could be the subject of a whole other essay) we wish to provide a brief critique of this ideology as it is presented by NEFAC.

Flipping through the pages of Northeastern Anarchist and other NEFAC literature, we found it difficult to figure out exactly what it is NEFAC stands for. Such publications seem to consist (as can be seen in the quote in the second paragraph of this essay) of rhetoric and played-out revolutionary clichés, with little content or actual critical analysis. NEFAC also tends to embrace the revolutionary theory of Peter Kropotkin and other anarchists from the late 1800s- early 1900s. While some of these writings maintain their relevance, they need to be updated to address the vast changes inflicted upon society by capitalism, industry, and the state over the past 100 years. By failing to do so, NEFAC remains clinging to the antiquated ideals of a bygone past.

Among NEFAC, several collectives are assigned roles such as "General Secretariat- English," "General Secretariat- Francophone," and "International Secretariat." We are bewildered as to what practical purpose these groups serve. They seem to create an unnecessary division of labor and a possible tendency towards hierarchies. It appears to us that the primary activities of NEFAC are concerned with perpetuating its federation, rather than encouraging and participating in actual autonomist class struggle.

Having said that we do not seek rivalry with NEFAC, we nonetheless encourage correspondence and reciprocation with groups and individuals interested in ideas similar to those presented in this publication. Thus we aren't proposing the establishment of another federation, but a series of relations and informal networks. We look forward to hearing from others and hope that this essay will encourage critical thought within the federation.

perhaps a good start in fighting the omnipresence of white male dominance would be for the key organizers to make an explicite, long-term and meaningful commitment to fighting such stuff in their day to day organizing. Telling people from the margins that they have to come, put up with bullshit, and do all the anti-oppression work or else they can't complain about the politics of an organization is just another way to act as an apologist for supremacy.

On Emma Goldman's being an anarcho-communist:
It is questionable. Having worker's councils, i.e. soviets, are not communes I might note. Anarcho-syndicalism is not necessarily a means of achieving communism. There have been lots of syndicalists who have had socialist or communistic visions of a post-revolutionary society but don't hold themselves to the central tenants of communist economics (to each according to need). One might also bring up that throughout history anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists have found themselves in competition and sometimes even war (mexican revolution). All the evidence you have given in your post is that Emma Goldman supports free worker's councils which is the governing principle of syndicalism (anarcho-communists obviously support worker's councils, but it doesn't hold that everyone who supports worker's councils is a communist. The situationists weren't communists [they might be called anti-communists in fact] but they supported worker's councils). So worker's councils and syndicalism doesn't equal anarcho-communism.

Also, I'd like to note that this organization seems to be going about this the wrong way. What many desire is a way for anti-authoritarian and libertarian leftists to come together, organize, and develop a coherent position. From the start FNAC looks (and in an email or two I received from them) to assert anarcho-communism at the expense of other left libertarians looking to organize. I think what your all doing is great, I just wish to leve a suggestion (or criticism if you like). If we seek to organize and bring people together, we shouldn't be falling into factionalism and dogmatism and competition about our own hyphenated anarcho-ism from the 19th century.

Personally I am not a communist, I don't believe in the central tenants of communist post-state economics, communes, and the communist program for revolution. I sympathize more with anarcho-syndicalism, participatory economics, some individualist anarchists, etc. As far as I can gather from emails and whatnot, there isn't much place for me in this organization if I don't come to see communism as the way.

I'd also like to note that this doesn't seem to be an organization organizing anti-authoritarians or anarchists, rather it is a anarcho-communist group under the auspices of NEFAC. The two motives are different, are they not?

The article, "Why We're Not Members of NEFAC," was written two years ago, shortly after the first issue of the Northeastern Anarchist was released. It was written by a collective based out of Maine who were more interested in lifestylist politics and obscure situationist philosophy than anarchist organization, and NEFAC responses to it were well publicized on infoshop.org and other sites. But, since it's easier to simply respond than to find these posts and threads, I'll address the concerns.

NEFAC is far from a bureaucratic organization. We do have a highly organized sructure, but it is an organization that is based on direct democracy, local organization and autonomy, and communication between collectives. Much of this is hidden from the view of our many critics because it is part of the internal workings of the organization which occur at conferences, over internal email lists, and through personal contact between members. However, it states fairly clearly in our constitution (which is simply a organizational structure which is constantly ammended, the one online is woefully old and being updated, and is not a document which is set in stone) that all federal decisions will be made by individual members attending a federation conference. Members who cannot attend are allowed to send proxy votes. Therefore, all decisions made by the fed are directly made by its members. How this creates bureaucracy or hierarchy is beyond me! To this date, the federation is based on the collective which has complete autonomy in its activities. Granted, collectives who wish to be a part of the federation should engage in activities that define the basic requirements for membership, but those are relatively minimal (and any collective that cannot abide by such minimal requirements is probably a collective in name only). Collectives should implement decisions made at conferences, how they implement these decisions is based on the collectives and is not mandated by the federation. To my knowledge, no collective has ever been forced to do something it did not wish to do. Finally, we enegage in virtually direct communication with one another, both in terms of interpersonal communication and communication with the federation. Fortunately, technology helps facilitate this as we have several internal email lists via which we can communicate with one another and with the fed as a whole. In addition, members have established personal relationships that allow us to communicate over telephone and in person, when possible. Far from alienating its members, NEFAC has facilitated greater communication and cohesion between like-minded anarchists in the northeast.

As for the role of the secretariats (and now treasurers), these are voluntary positions which have rotated among collectives in the fed over the last two years. The secretariats hold no power in the federation, they speak on behalf of the fed as mandated by the general membership at conferences. Often, we are made to vote on the policies of the secretariats in their communication with either potential members or other anarchist organizations with which we communicate. They answer to us, the general membership, rather than dictating to us how we should behave. Furthermore, the formation of the secretariats was intended to streamline communication between the fed and people outside the fed. Rather than having individual collectives maintaining a number of contacts with potential members and groups with whom we wish to have solidarity, we have secretariats to handle this job. This way, collectives in Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia don't end up communicating with the same group simultaneously. That does not preclude individual communication, but it gives people interested in communicating with NEFAC a contact that is guaranteed to respond and address their concerns. The membership application process has also been broadened since the original consitution and NEA #1. We believe in having a formal process for adhesion to the fed because it allows us to maintain the basic elements of tactical andf theoretical unity upon which the fed is founded. This also allows the federation to bring in committed anarchists rather than fly-by-night individuals and collectives. A broader adhesion process would have us constantly dealing with collectives coming and going and would have been a disaster for building the organization.

Finally, there is the vague and somewhat baseless accusations of NEFAC's sexism, homophobia, and racism. The members of the federation are committed revolutionaries who make an effort to address internalized systems of oppression within themselves and the fed. The average critic does not know about the break out sessions at NEFAC conferences where members break into groups based on gender and race and discuss the internal dynamics of such oppressions in the fed. Nor would the average critic know about the "women's caucus" within NEFAC and its role in empowering women in the fed. Most critics would miss our internal discussions on commitments to gender balance and the obvious problems of being an almost exclusively white organization. The reason is because these happen behind the closed doors of our conferences rather than on internet gossip forums. We are serious about building a revolutionary organization that is committed to challenging all forms of oppression and we challenge these within ourselves. We will make no apologies for not doing it in a public forum for the benefit of our critics.

If you are interested in the workings of NEFAC and the organization of federations, feel free to come to the General Organizing Group meeting this Thursday as mentioned above.

-stas
sofia perovskaya collective
anarcho-communist union of boston
northeastern federation of anarcho-communists

Do you think that revolution is necessary but you don't identify as communist? Then get incolved with ACAN, the anarchist community autonomy network, a network of non-heirarchical collectives organized here in portland working toward revolution through self-sufficiency and mutual aid. The network currently includes a cooking collective, a gardening and gleaning collective, a carpentry collective, and a brewing collective. To get involved subscribe to the lists at riseup.net, go to "lists" click on "anarchists and socialist" and select either PDCACBC (cooking and bakin) PDXACC (carpentry) PDXAGG (gardening and gleaning). Revolution, not beauracracy!

There are loads of organizations out there that do extremely revolutionary work, and receive even more repression than anarchists or communists. There are organizations and groups led by people of color and immigrants that can not outright identify themselves as revolutionary b/c they are already under more police repression just for being people of color. So, why do white radicals form their own revolutionary groups, espousing that they are working for all people, and yet only work with other white folks? Are they really only helping themselves?

In my earlier comment I sought to offer a suggestion based on a dangerous trend I see happen because this organization seems important if not critical to me. Concerning the other flippant comments about so-called white revolutionary organizations.


There is a contingent within activists that are theoretical nihilists. They make flippant and unsubstantiated criticisms directed not at whatever topic there on, but more to flex their moral muscles and bring up their favorite form of oppression. These people don't have anything productive to say, they have no clue about organizing. Instead they'd rather parallize and discourage others from solving these issues with their ice-cold reasoning. Now these people are trying to do something positive, so instead of spouting off whatever you read while sitting in laughing horse, try to gather some brain cells and come up with a clear alternative and a clear explication of how your issue is relevant to these particular people with their particular organization.

I was only bringing up something that is almost never brought up, and suggesting that white activists get involved in groups and projects that are organized by people of color. Isn't that the opposite of, "parallize and discourage others from solving these issues"?
It seems like you are afraid of your own racism and are taking out your frustrations at other people out on the comment that I made.

Also, saying that "these people" make "criticisms directed not at whatever topic there on," is really screwy. It seems to me as if you are basically bringing up the argument that issues such as race, class, gender, and sex oppression should only be brought up at specific times, and when discussing other things, like NEFAC, they aren't relevant. The truth is that these issues are always relevant.

For starters I would like to say that all of you white liberal guilt kids on here are coming off pretty fucked up. Here is a news flash, I am one of the main organizers in Portland for FNAC and the PDX GOG and I am a person of color. shock gasp. how could a person of color be involved with anarchist communist organizing and "bureaucracy"?! If you want to talk racism how about the fact that you are discounting people of color already involved with this work.

get off it, lets organize a fucking revolution already.

Why do we do this?
Why do we argue and attack each other befor there is even a group to debate?
If you are concerned about the group going in a bad direction then come to the meeting or work with some other group.
If you are concerned about the group being ineffective then make it effective.
And why the hell are we debating whether Emma was an anarchist or commie?
If you want to debate this start a thread at tearitalldown or infoshop and debate it-though I seriously question why we need to debate things like this when all it inflates is our ego and anger while the world tumbles into ashes of corporate control around us....
If you want a revolution drop your minor differences.
If you want a revolution work together.
If you want a revolution take a risk and do something without talking about it first.
If you want a revolution grow up.
We can do it.

Well, Angel, who appeared to be the head organizer of this meeting, was not a WASP, as far as I could tell. I could be wrong though.

I don't like their bloated beaurocracy, though I didn't look around enough to notice any bigotry.