PLANNING
Planning got underway with a May Day
1984 planning meeting called by Impossible Books (and endorsed by several
groups around the country), held at Chicago's Autonomy Center, and drawing
maybe 2 dozen anarchists from throughout the midwest. It was a disjointed
meeting that suffered badly from its lack of organization--a problem that
was to continue, albeit not in quite so extreme a fashion--and structure.
Chicago anarchists wanted a mass anarchist manifestation--where demonstrations
would show that the movement was still alive, and where there would be
many opportunities for folks to get together and talk/socialize. Fifth
Estate argued for an orgiastic celebration of life--I was never quite sure
what they meant, but it seemed to revolve around guerrilla street theater.
Some people argued for an anarchist conference. A few of us Wobs were present,
and we argued for a series of events including demonstrations, cultural
events, etc. and a Revolutionary Labor Conference drawing in unions and
workers' groups from around the world that stand in the tradition of Haymarket
to discuss ways of rekindling a mass revolutionary labor movement including
fighting for the four hour day.
Eventually, the meeting wound down without any real consensus, except
that people generally supported the concept of doing something in Chicago
to mark the Haymarket centennial, and that Impossible Books was to coordinate
discussions. It was also clear that most people found the labor conference,
the idea of shorter hours, and the working class in general quite boring,
but that we Wobs were going to try to pursue it independently.
Fifth Estate published an account of the meeting (others may have,
too, I don't really know), but no real discussions or plans were made in
the following months and Impossible Books pretty much stopped responding
to Haymarket mail while it went through a slow process of losing members
and the Autonomy Center. (The IWW, meanwhile, went about the process of
contacting AIT/IWA sections and others about the Labor Conference. Most
of us who worked on organizing the Labor Conference also participated in
building anarchist events for Haymarket.)
In early l985, plans got underway again with a handful of Chicago anarchists
beginning to meet and sending out letters to anarchist groups they were
close to and/or had endorsed the May '84 meeting. A Shimo supporter attended
a couple of these meetings, arguing that instead of organizing specifically
anarchist events, the scope of Haymarket should be broader including groups
such as NBAU. The Chicago group was clear from the start, however, that
we wanted to organize an anarchist commemoration (though others would be
welcome to attend). At the same time I, and a few others, were attending
meetings of the so-called Haymarket Centennial Committee in an attempt
to persuade them to tell the truth about Haymarket (and failing that, to
find out what they were up to). The HCC, with the support of Chicago's
Mayor, sky pilots, social democrats and liberals, CP hacks and similar
scum, was committed to presenting the Haymarket Martyrs as liberal reformers
and to treating the New Deal and the workers' states (I was never able
to find out where these could be found) as part of their heritage. Conflict
with this group continued throughout the Haymarket events. I prepared an
open letter to the Committee which received wide circulation. We picketed
and leafleted various of their events. HCC goons attacked us physically
on one occassion, and we challenged them to a debate on the eve of the
Haymarket commemoration which they originally accepted, but then backed
down on.
The HCC`s lies and slanders against the Haymarket Martyrs and the anarchist
movement were clear from early on. Unfortunately, a handful of self-proclaimed
anarchists and "anti-authoritarians" chose to work with this group, lending
credibility (to the uninformed) to their efforts. Utah Phillips, Carlos
Cortez and Franklin and Penelope Rosemont deserve to be singled out in
this regard. The HCC--with its official character and its massive resources--proved
adept at securing media coverage in the weeks leading up to the Haymarket
centennial, though they were never able to mobilize the kind of support
they had hoped for and were forced to drop many of their planned events.
By Spring, Chicago anarchists had received a number of endorsements
for a November planning conference and for Haymarket `86, although many
of the larger and more active groups and publications had not yet responded.
(The latter was to prove a continuing problem, while Fifth Estate, Emancipation
and several smaller and regional publications helped spread the word, Open
Road and Bayou La Rose gave only brief mentions at the last minute, and
Strike never gave any information about anarchist Haymarket plans at all.)
We then prepared a mass mailing to North American anarchist groups known
to us or listed in Blacklist (which is sadly dated), and to selected other
groups around the world inviting people to a November planning conference,
and asking for ideas for commemorating Haymarket.
The November '85 planning conference pulled in people from a number
of groups, and came to fairly quick agreement to do a Conference, some
demos, and some cultural activities. Unfortunately, it proved impossible
to move on to the specifics of many of these--especially how the Conference
workshops were to be structured. This was partly due to lack of time and
preparation, partly due to the fact that people kept arriving for hours
after the meeting started (including many who had been in town the night
before) forcing us to cover the same ground over again, and largely due
to a misguided belief in spontaneity. The November conference did adopt
a clear policy of non-collaboration with non-anarchist groups, excluding
Shimo from participating in the planning conference on this basis. (By
this time, Shimo was putting forward plans for cultural terrorism in the
streets of Chicago, reminiscent of the disastrous Days of Rage; soon afterwards
their paper was to seek to confuse the Haymarket '86 Anarchist Gathering
with Shimo's plans.) People went home knowing something was going to happen,
though somewhat fuzzy on the details.
In the weeks preceding and following the November conference, conflicts
arose within the Chicago group. These essentially revolved around the structure
of the Chicago group: a few people (myself included) felt that the amorphous,
ill-defined way the organizing committee worked made democratic process
and accountability impossible. Decisions would be made, but no provisions
to implement them. A handful of people picked up the slack, and others
felt frozen out. There was no way for new people to plug into the work,
because so much of it was done by 2 or 3 people a few minutes here, a few
minutes there. The problem came to a head over the question of mail. One
person had a key to the mailbox, and would bring copies of those letters
he found important to meetings or would mention what had come in over the
phone. The majority of the organizing committee never saw most of the correspondence
and had no real idea of the type of response (or volume) we were getting.
A few people found our proposals for tighter organization and structure
bureaucratic and stifling, and the rest didn't want to deal with the issue.
As a result, we never really did come to grips with it.
This was reflected in mailings that went out late and without being
looked over by the group, chaotic workshops (we never really did decide
how the workshops were to be set up: were they discussion groups or presentations
followed by discussion?; who would coordinate/facilitate?), failure to
prepare sufficient leaflets for the demonstrations, and inadequate preparations
for the demos (we needed more bullhorns, a method for dealing with provocateurs,
and understood system for making decisions and communicating while the
demos were underway).
Haymarket planning was also rendered extremely difficult by disorganization
throughout North America. Until days before the events, we had no way of
knowing whether we would have 100 people or 500. This made it extremely
difficult to book halls, arrange crash space, as did the absence of money.
Ultimately sufficient funds did come in to cover all anticipated expenses.
But these funds did not come in until the very last moment, when it was
already too late to put down deposits on the most desirable halls, etc.
(and we didn't have enough free cash among us to front more than several
hundred dollars).
The banquet problem was reflective, also, of this disorganization.
Because of inadequate information and funds, we couldn't book a hall until
the last minute (when most were booked). The only vegetarian caterer we
could find in the city was already booked, though we did manage to find
a caterer who could handle veggie lasagna. The people who agreed to handle
the vegan food didn't get around to it, and didn't tell the rest of us
(though there was some vegan food in the fridge that had been prepared
during the day and apparently forgotten).
In short, things only came off as well as they did because a handful
of people--many from out-of-town--worked themselves to the bone in the
few days immediately preceding and during the gathering. With proper organization,
I believe this burden could have been more equitably distributed and many
of the problems avoided.
---Jon
The Shimo controversy was as much a conflict with them as it was among
ourselves. That is to say, there didn't seem to be a problem with the decision
itself, but the process of making a decision was as problematic as anything.
It was a lesson in group decision making (and group identity?).
---Anonymous
Friends of Anarchy,
The following pages represent a brief summary of the November 29-30
Haymarket Conference, in the hopes of giving those who were not able to
attend a good idea of what actually happened.
After a quick tour of Haymarket Square and Waldheim Cemetery, a party
on Friday night, we got down to business Saturday morning at 11:00 a.m.
During the course of the day, there were about 40-50 people present. Things
started off with introductions by comrades from Toronto, Boston, Hartford,
New York, San Francisco, Atlanta, Harrisburg, Minneapolis, Kalamazoo, Santa
Cruz, Ann Arbor, Willimantic, Champaign, and Chicago. One comrade was turned
back at the Canadian border, but he did make it at another crossing.
The first hours dealt mainly with a discussion of the general philosophy
of the May 1-4, 1986 events. Fairly quickly, it became apparent that the
general feeling in the group was that May was to be an anarchist-planned
gathering. People saw this as a time to celebrate and explore our historical
anarchist roots, as well as the present and future of anarchy.
Two proposals were then submitted for discussion. The Atlanta collective
brought a resolution stating that although the attendance at the gathering
should be left open to all, the planning and organization would be done
by anarchists. It expressed their concern that committed Marxist-Leninists,
Maoists, Trots, Stalinists, and other authoritarian organizations not be
allowed to take control of the events. This resolution specifically named
the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), and the discussion centered on
peoples' negative experiences with this organization and what appears to
be one of their national "secular" front groups, No Business As Usual (NBAU).
There was unanimous agreement that all planning and organization be restricted
specifically to anarchists, while attendance be left open to all.
Talk then turned to the Shimo Underground, whom many felt to be RCP
collaborators. People said that this organization and its chairperson had
stated both in print and in conversations that they did not consider themselves
anarchists, and that they had given their unqualified support and endorsement
to both the RCP and NBAU. A resolution, brought by a San Francisco comrade
and expressing the opinions of comrades from San Francisco, San Diego,
and Seattle, was then adopted. It was similar to the previous resolution,
but it grouped Shimo with RCP.
Around 1:30 p.m., during a break, a number of new people arrived, including
two representatives from Shimo, and a review of the days events were given.
At this point, Shimo was asked whether they were anarchists. They said
that they were not, but that they did consider themselves anti-authoritarians
and revolutionaries. They also denied that they were an RCP front. Some
comrades then gave explanations to refute Shimo's assertions and a letter
was read, signed by the Shimo chairperson, and printed in the October 28,
1985 edition of the Revolutionary Worker, an official organ of the RCP.
This letter gave their unqualified support for and admiration of the RCP.
When asked, Shimo affirmed that the letter accurately reflected their position
and that there was nothing they would add or change. A motion was then
approved that denied Shimo decision-making privileges, since they were
not anarchists, but allowed them to stay as observers. This was adopted.
Shimo then walked out.
---Excerpt from Haymarket '86 Bulletin: #1 November l985 Conference
Summary
NOVEMBER CONFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Atlanta Resolution:
While we wish to include the broadest participation by anarchists and
progressive libertarian groups in the Haymarket activities, I should say
groups and individuals, we are in favor of banning the RCP and any other
Marxist-Leninist centralist parties and their members from all organization
and/or planning efforts for the Haymarket centennial. (This was passed
by consensus in the Atlanta area, and by all those present at the November
planning conference.)
San Francisco Resolution:
Many Bay Area anarchists plan to celebrate the centennial of the Haymarket
Affair next May in Chicago. We understand that other people and organizations
will be present and will seek to promote their own distorted analyses of
the affair. We fully expect that the RCP and their cronies will be there.
Our various experiences and those of our comrades in San Diego, Seattle,
and Atlanta, with the RCP over the last year with activities surrounding
"No Business As Usual" have made it abundantly clear, that the RCP, and
those who collaborate with them, are no friends to anarchists. Among the
RCP's collaborators is the Shimo Undergound, who have written a celebration
of the RCP`s role in "No Business As Usual." (See their article on NBAU
in "Notes for a New Underground"). With these facts in mind, we urge Chicago
area anarchists to exclude RCP members and their sympathizers, and all
others known to be hostile to anarchism from participating in the planning,
coordinating, and exercising of anarchist activities. (This was passed
by consensus by an estimated 55 Bay Area anarchists and by a vote of 23
for, 1 against, 1 abstention, at the November planning conference.)
From Revolutionary Worker, October 28, 1985:
Revolutionary Communist Party,
Greetings and congratulations on this, your 10th anniversary of
the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Unfortunately, we are
unable to contribute to your 10th anniversary fund drive. The financial
demands that our own work place on us make it impossible, the expense of
publishing two bi-monthly papers and distributing them nationwide are great.
That and the other organizing we are involved in, right now primarily we
are working on the "SHUT DOWN THE ARSENAL" demonstration, October 21, at
the Rock Island Arsenal--the largest manufacturing arsenal in the U.S.--and
we are also heavily involved in the building struggle for a Revolutionary
Haymarket Centennial, April 28-May 4, 1986 in Chicago. These efforts take
up all of our organization's funds, as well as much of our personal available
money.
We do want to, however, lend our voice to the many who would say that
the ten years of the RCP's existence have made a major difference in the
internationalist revolutionary movement. The volume, depth and integrity
of your analysis of the world situation, as well as many specifics within
it, have been a great contribution to the Science of Revolution and to
people's understanding of it. We ourselves, individually, have greatly
valued the work we have done in various struggles and projects that you
have initiated, including building for and taking part in, Revolutionary
May Day 1980, the campaign to keep Bob Avakian and the Mao Defendants free--culminating
in the November 1979 demonstrations in D.C.--through the debate at Columbia
on the nature of the Soviet Union, and NBAU. The Revolutionary Communist
Party has consistently been in the forefront of the struggle to build the
Working Class and oppressed peoples Revolutionary movement toward the goal
of World Revolution.
Though there are some differences that we have with the RCP in terms
of historical analysis and political philosophy, the SHIMO Underground
Network has benefitted greatly in terms of our own political analysis,
from the work that you have done and continue to do. Keep up the good work,
stay out there on the leading edge. Once again, our heartfelt congratulation
and support in the dangerous, bold, and decisive struggle we face and responsibility
that we have. THANK YOU!!! NO MORE ELECTIONS!!! SMASH THE STATE IN '88!!!
REVOLUTION IN THE '80S GO FOR IT!!!
Sincerely,
Jim, chair
SHIMO Underground
---Documents enclosed with Haymarket Bulletin: #1
The only thing that the people from N.Y. wanted me to mention, was
that they hoped it would be an "anarchist" event--and that meant no RCP
involvement with the organizing. Well, I found out in Chicago that several
groups wrote up resolutions asking for the same thing. This concern caused
the biggest debate at the conference when a group of probable RCP co-conspirators
showed up. This regression meant that we only really had time to talk about
an agenda and how many people were expected to show. The 40 or so of us
estimated at least 400 people would come.
---Chartreuse Colada
I am an individualist anarchist and participated in both the planning
conference in November, 1985 and the anarchist gathering in May, 1986.
I was glad I attended both events, but each time I came away with my cynicism
about anarchists and the possibility of ever realizing a free society reinforced
by the behavior of many of the people who participated.
In November, I drove out to Chicago with some friends from Boston and
Connecticut. I got to the planning conference several hours late and found
people discussing the Shimo people and whether they should be allowed to
participate in the conference if they came. People had obviously been discussing
this issue for quite a while and most people seemed willing to exclude
them. A couple of people from Shimo arrived shortly after I did and people
asked them questions directly about their relationship with RCP and they
defended their position of wanting to work with both anarchists and leninists.
I saw no need to exclude them from the meeting, especially as my differences
with many of the anarchists in the room were as fundamental as my differences
with Shimo, and many of the people who spoke out against Shimo seemed as
authoritarian as leninists I've met. Eventually, people decided to come
to a decision on the issue by trying to agree on a resolution to let Shimo
stay as observers, but not as participants, in the meeting. Since I blocked
consensus on this resolution, there was a vote, and I was the only one
who opposed the resolution. After the vote, the Shimo people decided to
leave the meeting instead of staying as observers.
I got so angry about what had happened that I left the meeting shortly
after this, and drifted in and out at different times later in the day,
but didn't participate at all. It really pissed me off to see supposed
anarchists using the usual tired lefty jargon and behaving in the usual
authoritarian lefty way. After the meeting, I wasn't even sure I would
come back for the events in May. The best part of the conference for me
was the parties before and after the planning meeting itself, where I met
a few nice people and had fun socializing. On the way home to Boston, I
discussed the events of the weekend and decided I would go to the Haymarket
gathering in May, despite my negative feelings about many of the people
I met at the planning conference.
---Joe
an open letter regarding the Shimo Underground/RCP/Haymarket Centennial
controversy
as far as i can recall, i 1st encountered the Shimo Underground
via issue #5 of Popular Reality. i inquired as to what it was in a letter
to "crowbar" (PR's editor) & received a reply describing it somewhat
as a moderately widespread political conglomerate--with mention of Autonomen
street fighting--unfortunately, it's too difficult for me to find his letter
at the moment & i can't therefore quote him accurately. since, as a
response to my public eccentricity, i've been threatened with almost daily
constancy (with recent respite due to my current grayness) for the majority
of my life by rednecks, jocks, racist blacks, racist whites, & repressive
conformists in general (be they arm boys &/or "punks"), etc. (hopefully,
evolutionarily doomed species) & since i'd recently undergone a particularly
harsh spate of such hatred (see my letter in PopReal #8), my ire was of
the sort that i felt inclined to ally myself with yet another non-party-line
etc. group. when i ally myself with something i prefer to attempt to accomplish
a concrete step toward furthering it's aims--thus i offered to publish
a Shimo Underground Ant(holy)Gee & my offer has been printed in condensed
form in every PopReal since. as a result of this offer i've received some,
but not much, material. most of it has been from "crowbar" & Yael in
california. i've only received 1 issue of the Notes for a New Underground
& 1 letter from Jim. at worst, i consider "crowbar"'s interest in the
proposed anthology to be in self-glorification & his (so far somewhat
unsubstantial) claims as to who are Shimo affiliates to be wishful thinking--i
don't consider either of these things to be substantially objectionable--i
could be accused of both (but i don't feel compelled to defend myself at
this time).
i hate correct line politics--they impede the flow of pleasure &
the ability to perceive things freshly & clearly without the stereotyping
blinders of dogma. as such, i hate stalin, reagan, lenin, mao, trotsky,
marx, freud, capitalism, communism, the RCP, etc. nonetheless, as a non-correct-liner,
i pick & choose things that i appreciate from each. i cohabitate with
an RCP supporter--i'm generally frustrated as a response to him & i
frequently berate him for his almost total lack of sense--in short i give
him hell for his acceptance of dogma from the likes of Bob Avakian &
simultaneously admire his dedication to a vision of a revolutionarily changed
world & his dogged (albeit often awkward) attempts to bring this about
through persistent activism--i even like his tactics sometimes. i appreciate
the Revolutionary Worker's being bilingual & rapidly responsive to
issues--i appreciate that they supported MOVE when the Philadelphia shits
bombed them--who else did? & yet, i'm not an RCP supporter because
i neither support communism (just another system that takes too few variables
into consideration) or their particular brand of militance.
so now i come to the various claims that the Shimo Underground is an
RCP front. maybe "chairman" (he's not my chairman--nor is anyone else!)
Jim is an RCP supporter, maybe NBAU has been overly controlled by the RCP
in some cities (it wasn't in BalTimOre), maybe in the free flow of things
PopReal has picked & chosen some RCP material as supportive of its
general drift--but as for the accusation that the Shimo Underground in
general is an RCP front: i think that's ridiculous! & symptomatic of
the very type of correct line tunnel vision on the part of the "anarchist"
accusers that i dislike in the RCP!--in other words, i think the "anarchists"
are guilty of the same type of reductionist rhetoric that their enemies
are by reducing a polyglot (well represented in Popular Reality's cultural
mix of punk, SubGenius, perverse Neoist, Left-out wing, etc.--which is
why i like to contribute to it) to 1 big bad boogie-man! at the height
of the idiocy (or, at least, near the peak of it) the Stalinists-Leninists
are called fascist--they certainly have their similarities but let's not
oversimplify to the point that we cease to perceive their differences as
well. i am not any more likely to be controlled by the RCP because of my
affiliation with Shimo than i'm likely to be controlled by capitalism because
i use money (in fact less so)--i twist everything to my own playfully perverted
ends. i get the impression that "crowbar" is the same way (& since
he's 1 of 2 co-founders of the egocentrically named ShiMos i think he represents
them as well as anyone else connected)--i may be off the deep end here
but i think that he and Jim work together not because they agree but because
they respect each other's energy & friendship enough to cooperate--that
seems to be why there are 2 Shimo mags--1 edited by Jim & 1 edited
by "crowbar". if these 2 mags represent 2 factions then i am more allied
with the PopReal orientation.
& then there's the Haymarket Centennial that all this brouhaha
stems from. some chicago anarchists notified me of their plans to hold
a conference in chicago in november to plan for May Day commemorative activities
(i'd already read mention of this in PopReal--so let's at least give the
mag some credit for getting the word out )--this impressed me as all well
& good insofar as when i call myself anything political (in the established
vocabulary) it's most often an anarchist (although in what i might call
a John Cagean sense, to perhaps poorly paraphrase him, by saying that what
i like about zen, anarchy, & dada is that they are undefined--&,
therefore, open-minded--a political party hearty of dissenting individuals
who know when to cooperate without having to govern) & insofar as i
have a great deal of respect for the Haymarket martyrs. however, the mailing
that i got from these chicagoans smacked of dullness & lack of imagination.
oh no, i shuddered, more of these stultifying banal retentives sending
their leadeness to make May Day Gray(ve) Day instead of Gay Day! hence,
i wrote back saying i probably wouldn't make it there. since then, i've
changed my mind & decided to attend (hopefully) anyway--i want to check
it out in person & meet these anarchists to find out what we have as
common ground for getting somewhere together--i'm curious. i think the
critique of the proposed Haymarket Centennial from Jon of the IWW as printed
in PopReal #10 (pp 6&7) hits home the most accurately of anything that
i've read so far--unfortunately, i can't claim to be a good enough political
historian to be able to pick up on whatever self-serving revisionism there
may be in his version of Haymarket history, but, he seems to have it down
as far as i can tell. anyway, the point he made to me is that the Haymarket
anarchists were serious revolutionaries at the vanguard of many thousands
of people desperate for action against their horrendous working/living
conditions. i respect them for that. what, however, do the anarchists of
the november conference represent? apparently not thousands of workers/players.
while they may respect the Haymarket avant guard for the same reasons that
i do & may agree whole-heartedly with Jon's critique of the shallow
revisionist co-opting of anarchist history for cheap facade politico &
labor union bosses' uses i wonder if they also think much about the differences
between the conditions of 1886 which enabled the anarchists to so successfully
organize so many people & the conditions of 1986 that lead to the authoritarian
exclusion of Shimoites from organizing & to the well known in-squabbling
that oh so boringly characterizes so much of the Left-out wing's interaction?
i'll never support the homogeneous masses, but i will throw the chips
on my shoulder in the creative, pleasure-seeking hedonists of the free-flowing
polyglot over the dogmatic doltdrums of the so-called "anarchists" any
day. (or will i?)
your comrade in imperfect letter writing,
tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE
Way back last fall, I had a shit fit when I got Notes from the New
Underground. There was "Chairman" Jim calling for a rehashed repeat of
the '69 Days of Rage for the same time the Haymarket gathering was to take
place; that, combined with his enamored reportage of No Business As Usual
on April 29th, his rapturous support of the RCP and his vague, militant,
quasi-leftoid anti-authoritarian Stalinism caused my toes to curl. Out
here in the Bay Area, we had nasty run-ins with the RCP and their take-over
of NBAU as a new recruiting tool, and I had heard the same from other anarchists
around the country. All I could think was, great, the RCP are trying to
take over Haymarket, and so I sounded the alarm.
It just happens I just had begun writing Crowbar from Popular Reality
about his coverage of NBAU (reprinted from the RCP newspaper, the Revolutionary
Worker). I had written a critical letter to him, basically saying, hey,
what's the deal here? He had written back with his response (that he thought
the RCP was fucked, but, hey, there were probably a few naive souls with
good intentions in it), and so began our correspondence. So after I read
Notes from..., I wrote Crowbar asking for an explanation of Shimo/Notes
from.../PopReal connections; according to Crowbar, Shimo was started in
the early '70s by some high school students (he and Jim and others--the
word Shimo is a combination of Jim's and a friend's name) that attracted
the police's and FBI's attention with militant antics. Shimo was loosely
organized along the same lines as the Yippies were which meant that anyone
who wanted to affiliate with them could.
Shimo went into hibernation until Crowbar began PopReal (at least that's
the way I understood it); as people became interested in PopReal, they
also began to affiliate again. According to Crowbar, Shimo can be anything
to anyone, that it doesn't really mean anything to be a Shimo. Therefore,
if Jim pompously wanted to call himself Chairman and start writing in the
royal we, then he could; it meant nothing. No one else considered Jim the
chairman of Shimo.
This is where things get all tangled up, and people all over overreacted.
Without any understanding of what Shimo was, or its relationship to PopReal
(and seemingly not wanting to understand), Fred started a campaign to purge
all of Shimo from the Haymarket gathering, and sent out a paranoid mailing
about PopReal--Shimo. The letters flew hot and heavy from all over, and
I'm sure they'll be finding their way into this collection. Jim and Pete
contributed to the paranoia by issuing official proclamations and rebuttal
letters to Fred, all the while referring to themselves as "we" and implying
masses of militant "youth" would be arriving in Chicago and how much organizing
they had to do. (In the long run, all pipe dreams.) And Crowbar made more
of a mess of things by publicizing the whole brouhaha in PopReal and going
out of his way to do things to irritate Fred.
You know, Fred and Jim and Pete and Crowbar, I think you're all really
fucked about this whole Shimo/Haymarket affair. Things were blown all out
of proportion (and I admit in the beginning before I knew the whole story,
I did my share of blowing), and the amount of time and energy and paper
wasted over this makes me want to cry. Did anyone really come to Chicago
because of what Jim wrote in Notes from the New Underground? Did the RCP
try to take over Haymarket--as if they really cared? The only thing that
came close to possible anticipated "Days of Rage" was the "anti-capitalism"
demonstration and that was set up by the Chicago organizers.
---Freddie
Table of contents
Send comments to: brian_krueger@htomail.com
Updated: Nov 98