WORKSHOPS
One of the best workshops I attended was the
one on"Punk & Anarchy." It wasn't on the original list for the conference,
but happened when a time and place for it were written on the bulletin
board. I unfortunately missed the beginning so can only report on part
of it.
It was really nice to see a roomful of people in their teens and early
twenties sitting in a circle discussing how to apply anarchy to their daily
lives, and what "punk" means to them. There was a sentiment that "Punk
is Dead--Long Live Punk," reflecting the need for a continual breaking
of new ground to keep it real and avoid being co-opted. People listened
to each other a lot more than usual, and the process whereby the person
talking chooses the next to speak worked pretty well. There was definitely
a feeling that isolation was being overcome; these folks had been doing
their thing in their hometowns, often with a lot of harassment from police,
parents and nazi-punks among others, and were clearly excited to be with
others who had been through the same shit. They have accomplished a lot,
having developed an extensive underground network of bands, zines, and
independent record labels. (One of the best magazines covering this is
Maximum Rock n' Roll, which has scene reports from many different areas,
pages and pages of very political letters, and lots of other good stuff.)
People at the workshop talked about the hassles of living communally--what
do you do when so & so never does any dishes, etc. They talked about
parents and hair, and whether it was better to drop out of school or to
stay and subvert it from within...sound familiar, anyone? But they also
seemed to have learned something from the mistakes of the sixties. (Having
several feminists there didn't hurt.) Having seen the pattern of rebellion-becoming-fashionable,
attracting poseurs, and finally becoming an item at Saks, they seemed determined
not to get stuck in a certain style, but to retain the spirit beneath it.
They may be far and few between now, but I have a sense that this anti-authoritarian
spirit is on the upswing among teenagers. High school principals may yet
tremble. Just when they thought it was safe to bring back the draft. We
shall see.
---Kathy
Having been somewhat of a skeptic about the ecology movement since
the 60's, the workshop on "Anarchism and Ecology" intrigued me. Feeling
that the ecology movement was dominated by college educated, white, middle-class
pacifists and extremely "well managed," I was convinced that the title,
"Anarchism and Ecology," was a contradiction in terms. I must admit, though,
I attended the workshop primarily because it was the first one offered.
Joining a circle of people from all over the U.S., some from Canada
and a woman from Australia, I was keenly aware that women were in a conspicuous
minority. The workshop was being facilitated by a person from Earth First!.
The discussion quickly took its own course and people were speaking
up without hesitation. The focus was in three areas: technology and ecology,
workers' control and ecology and waging campaigns against ecologically
disastrous practices.
The technology debate brought out two main issues about the intrinsic
nature of technology: whether technology was a neutral tool, free of any
value except that of the user, or that it embodies the values of those
who created it. Some even suggested that technology has created its own
value. The idea that technology was just a tool of the user was in a distinct
minority that kept encountering a vocal opposition at every suggestion.
This led into a discussion of workers' control over production. Some
IWW people insisted that once workers were in control there would be no
more ecological damage, since it would not be in workers' interests to
damage the environment. This position was immediately countered with the
view that the technology itself will put demands upon workers that are
ecologically dangerous since human values have become alienated from the
needs of the natural world. It was argued that laying hands on a technology
used to serve bourgeois interests was like the workers using the bourgeois
state (or any state) to get to a classless society. The present technological
infrastructure must be smashed in order to develop an ecological form of
technology. The values of the society are built into the technology and
are self-perpetuating regardless of who uses it. Production by a technological
society, even though controlled by workers, was not a guarantee of an ecological
society. It was pointed out that hierarchy and specialization were built
into technological systems and would, by necessity, create the need for
these values. The suggestion that technology would subvert workers' control
was not well received by the IWW.
The emphasis by many present about the need to make ecology relate
to workers' concerns, other than on-the-job health issues, led to many
people sharing their experiences in local ecological battles. Some discussion
ensued around ecotage/monkeywrenching, a modern Luddite movement, and it
struck a responsive chord, although the tech supporters obviously cringed
at the idea of their personal computers being permanently unplugged.
The problems of united fronts with people concerned simply for their
own safety and not having a deep ecological perspective was raised. Working
with right wing people around single issues without infusing a more radical
perspective was also a major point of concern. It was questioned whether
or not a false unity was important to win a specific battle or a long term
political development more important. The Earth First! person missed the
point and happily reported that a woman that worked with EF! on an issue
had gone on to a politically active life: fighting abortion. There was
a stunned silence before the storm broke. A general outcry led by women
and some of the men drove home the point; ecology, without a deeper social
perspective, is as bankrupt as anything else!
The workshop had a dramatic impact on my thinking, as I had been attempting
to put together changes I had been going through into a cohesive philosophical
outlook. I realized that a new radically different outlook fusing anarchism
and ecology was developing: a mutualist ecology between humans and the
natural world. This perspective had never before developed on a massive
level in the modern industrial experience and it may now be on the verge.
A philosophy that removes anarchism from an historical footnote and places
it in a modern revolutionary position could be developed. Eco-mutualism
will be a viable alternative to capitalism and Marxism with its technological
solutions.
---Craig
The first workshop, on anarchy and ecology, took place before most
people arrived and was attended by a fairly small group, so we sat in a
circle and had a discussion, which went well. We talked about things like
encouraging workers to take action if they know something is going on that
is bad for the ecology, monkeywrenching bulldozers, and whether technology
was necessarily bad.
In the afternoon we had a workshop on "Building the Anarchist Movement,"
which was much larger than the first one. This one did not go well. The
organizers of the workshop had prepared an outline and were going to give
a presentation on the subject, but someone thought that the outline didn't
fit the topic of the workshop and wanted to have a discussion more in keeping
with the subject. At first, most people seemed to want them to go ahead
with the workshop as planned, and have a discussion afterward. They started
to do this, but a few people objected to them not listening to the objections.
Then we got into a big debate on what we should do, if it was acceptable
to vote on this, if we should divide into groups, and other organizational
matters. In the end we had little time left for the presentation, which
was good although I don't remember very much of what it was about.
The next day, I went to the workshop on pornography. A woman who had
done a lot of work against pornography in California put together a slide
show on these things. She had organized protests against pornography and
related issues. It was encouraging to see how effective they were, more
so than the method I usually associate with anti-pornography people, which
is to try to get laws passed. Also, she was protesting more general issues
than what I normally would associate with pornography, such as the way
women are treated in society and in advertising, and sexist indecent exposure
laws.
---David
after a while, it started to get toward time for the banquet. a couple
of other people and i started off for the church, knowing that we'd be
able to catch the tail end of the workshop entitled "what is anarchism?"
nothing much was solved during this discussion, but some of the more glaring
problems were brought out: the needs and desires of the individual opposed
to the consensus of the majority, non-violent activism opposed to violent
confrontation, and problems of handling personal friction, this last problem
exemplified by heated argument between a local organizer named fred (i
believe) and the always controversial joffre. not much was accomplished,
but anybody who didn't fully appreciate the enormity of building a mass
anarchist movement could hardly avoid the realization at the end of that
discussion.
---Hal
Thursday, I attended 3 workshops. I was pleased with the fact that
a lot more time was allocated for each workshop (2-3 hours) than most workshops
I had attended in the past. Also, there were no leaders or facilitators,
and most workshops went quite smoothly, tho of course, some people spoke
a lot, and a number didn't speak at all (like me). The first workshop was
"technology vs. anti-technology." I thought it was interesting, but didn't
get far enough because so many things had to be defined and redefined and
argued out, like a stick used to pound something is technology but is ok
or good compared to a bomb or a computer. Then someone said that the stick
really was a tool, not a technology--made a distinction between tools,
which are "good", and technology, which is "bad." Like a hammer is a tool,
but you need technology to build the hammer. Then someone brought up the
example of solar energy being an appropriate technology because, unlike
furnaces or power plants, it doesn't use up oil or coal or whatever. But
when someone else pointed out that the solar panels and equipment still
had to be built and who would want to work in a mine and factory to build
them. Ok, that's great, but where do we go from there?
I also went to a workshop on @ and children, which was really good--how
do we raise children with "our" ideals of freedom, love, etc., without
brainwashing them? What happens if your kid wants to be a cop? Do you support
him/her and let them do what they want? What came out of it all was that
no matter what the children choose to do (how they "turn out"), we have
a responsibility to raise them in a loving atmosphere and not to restrict
them. There were 2 women there who had children, and it was interesting
to hear how they felt about certain issues and what their experiences had
been, tho I don't remember anything specific.
Then, gender politics--oh shit, that was a HOT one. Every time a man
said something, some women would immediately talk back. I felt really uncomfortable
because I too felt mad at "mankind" for all the shit women have gone thru/still
go thru, but I didn't like the aggressive attacks back at men. Men are
repressed too--and perhaps that's the difference, women (among others,
i.e. races, species, etc.) are oppressed while men are repressed (into
being oppressors). Then again, at times the outbursts felt like defenses
coming out of totally frustrated desperation. I dunno--I'm still confused
over this one. But that workshop basically ended up in an argument over
semantics--which may or may not be a start. We probably needed a whole
week on gender politics to really get anywhere. I wrote this part a couple
of days after returning to ottawa. Now, in rereading it, I feel I sound
very critical of women. I felt a great deal of solidarity between us because
human relationships are affected by the power structures imposed on us/around
us. I agree that feminism isn't a totally separate thing from anarchism--anarchism
represents freedom for all, not just men or women or whoever. And I'm sorry
to have to say this, but men just don't know what it's like to be a woman
and have to deal with certain pressures because of it. I'd like to see
us all sit down together and carefully analyze each relationship and element
in our lives and decide on how to live with each other as friends/equals
(but different) without getting really heated up about it. I think some
men have to learn to listen more or better. But then again, so do some
women. Oh well, I don't think this really cleared anything up--too bad,
it just reflects my own confusion.
---Nicole
The next workshop I took part in, "gender politics," was not as pleasant.
I milled around Crosscurrents for a while still high off the previous workshop
and ready for some serious discussion. The workshop began and what I found
was the familiar reiteration of the same old arguments and notions of wommynhood
and the spiritual place of wymmyn in this world. Someone in passing said
something about an anarchist perspective, but it was generally ignored.
It was stated by several sisters, that wymmyn, differing from men, don't
tend to gravitate towards hierarchical relationships and that wymmyn must
reclaim what is feminine in themselves and use it as a viable political
alternative. It was also stated that wymmyn needed to gain power as wymmyn,
not over men, of course, but in balance with them. This all sounded very
interesting, but it was offering nothing new. I soon began to have a problem
with the content of the discussion and as soon as I could, I stated my
point. I brought up the idea that the only things that were being said
here were the same old arguments that simply perpetuated the archaic labels
and definitions that have kept us, and will continue to keep us all, divided.
I proposed that we discuss a truly new perspective, an "anarchist perspective"
if you will, on gender politics. Since the discussion was mainly focusing
on the feminist aspect, I thought we could discuss a new viewpoint on feminism,
a way of thinking where wymmyn would not get trapped in the traditional
state of feminism whereby once they gain a recognition of themselves and
realize the problems that face them as wymmyn, they stagnate. This new
perspective would, indeed, involve realizing oneself (your wommynhood?)
and that there is a problem with the way wymmyn are viewed and treated
in this world. But it would then allow wymmyn to move on to a new state
of personhood, recognizing people as people first and not as wymmyn or
men first. This viewpoint comes from the opinion that when wymmyn take
the position of recognizing their wommynhood and then claim it as a distinct
entity, they take hold of a power and this recognized type of power that
is created can lead nowhere except to sexism, the very thing that we are
combatting. Power is power and can only do harm to others. I stated that
what is needed is education and a recognition of all people as absolute
equals, thus leading to our ultimate sense of "power," as a common humanity.
Now I understand that I am not completely purged of any sexist remnant
in my personality and I did not once make this claim. But I sincerely struggle
with this everyday to fight the biases and attitudes that society has ingrained
in me. I was ready and open to hear some respectful and helpful criticism
to my view, but all I got for standing up and baring my feelings was ridicule
and scornful criticism. When I made the fatal mistake of saying that we
should look beyond the simple difference of me having a prick and wymmyn
not, I wasn't politely questioned about my wording of the statement, but
was instead laughed and jeered at. I then shut my mouth, hurt at this childish
display of disrespect and resentful of the fact that my viewpoint, which
I feel is just as legitimate as any other, was dismissed without even a
response besides the guy hissing at me from behind. I saw something new
about these people at that moment. Something that angered me beyond words.
Anarchist is an easy claim to make, but so many of the people there were
just caught up in the same traps as most people. Caught up in the same
disrespect, close-mindedness, and hate that is so characteristic of the
world out there. I can't help wonder if it would have made a difference
if the things I said were stated by a wommyn? I was later approached by
people who said that they agreed with what I was saying. Why didn't you
speak up when I desperately needed the support? The workshop soon broke
up after that, so people could go and attend the traditional May Day Pilsen
march. I took part in this march as well and it was a fairly uneventful
liberal march except for the interaction with the dreary RCP and the very
uplifting sight of all those black flags waving in the streets.
So as I said this was a very unusual day. A strange mix of thoughts
ran through my head this evening as we sat around discussing the day's
events. I wasn't particularly interested in attending the plays tonight
so I guess I'll sign off. Much still to come.
May 4, 9:30 a.m.
More about yesterday's activity. Before the conflicts at the banquet
later on in the evening, myself and some friends decided to get together
a spontaneous workshop on "punk/youth cultures and anarchism." We felt
that maybe this would be a good idea since there seemed to be so many young
people at the conference, many with punk backgrounds. We were also inspired
to hold this workshop simply as an alternative to the ridiculous "what
is anarchy?" workshop going on at the same time in the main room of the
church. So we put up a sign and convened in the kitchen as it was the only
space available. Everyone discussed different aspects of their scenes and
the various problems that we all face with skinheads, RCP, and others.
This truly turned out to be incredible and definitely the highlight of
the weekend for me. For the first time during the whole conference, I felt
comfortable and at home talking openly about the way I felt. I am sure
that this had a lot to do with our familiar backgrounds and experiences
with punk and the fact that many of us were introduced to anarchism though
our music. This is the way that I envisioned people communicating at this
gathering. I only wish that we all could have been as honest and comfortable
with our feelings the whole weekend as we were in this small, rather unimportant
workshop of ours. But it did turn out to be quite important for many of
the punks who attended. Many people expressed my same sentiments as we
talked. As the workshop progressed, it seemed to become kind of popular.
As people floated in, disillusioned from the next room, still trying to
define anarchism, the kitchen began to get so crowded with interested listeners
that we were forced to move into larger rooms. As I said, this was a highlight
for me yesterday. It was the only thing that made the banquet bearable
as I sat and discussed things with some friends that I had made in the
workshop. I don't really know what it was, but I just seemed to be able
to relate to these people on a much more intimate level, overlooking a
lot of the crap that indeed had intimidated us at the other times during
the conference. Our honesty paid off as we were able to openly discuss
our lives and feelings. I learned a great deal.
---Tim
My first physical encounter with the Anarchist May Day/Haymarket Centennial
was a workshop on "anarchism and the resurgence of neo-fascist groups."
One might hope that such a workshop would present a realistic picture of
the political right and a range of strategies and tactics from the past
and present. The participants' images of neo-fascists tended to either
skinheads and suvivalists on one extreme to anyone with whom they didn't
agree, including Marxists, yuppies, and other anarchists, on the other.
Actual experiences seemed limited to shouting matches at demonstrations
and to fending off skinheads. The skinhead case involved about a dozen
skinheads who were harassing shopkeepers and rolling winos in a San Francisco
neighborhood. Their depredations were stopped by exposing them to public
ridicule on a local public access TV show. Their leaders were scared off
with your basic physical threat to their health. An interesting solution,
but hardly the stuff of revolutionary resistance.
A lot of discussion involved the merits of forming single-issue coalitions
with leftists, Greens, and even the right. Opinions varied from "never"
to "when advisable." The (defunct) Seattle Anti-Klan Network was mentioned
as an example of this type of organization, as was the Dworkin-rightwing
anti-porn crusade.
One ill-considered tactic was political assassination and systematic
violence against fascist groups. A participant argued against this with
a story from Denver's barrio: a group of adventurers set off a few homemade
bombs. Another group of seeming radicals picked up the challenge and adopted
the same method of operations. For their finale they planted a bomb in
the basement of one of the community's leading radical lawyers, blowing
him and his girlfriend to hell. To the public, it looked like a homemade
bomb gone awry. The police (the "seeming radicals") were thus able to use
the cover of radical violence to discredit and eliminate an effective voice
of the Chicano community. The moral: at this point we're no match for the
armed violence of the police.
The commonest view of reality was that the full apparatus of the state
and its socialist-lumpem collaborators is squarely aimed at the anarchist
movement and its threat of immediate elimination of all hierarchy. Darlings,
it just ain't so. We've got a lot of work to do before we're that big a
threat.
The next workshop was "Gender Roles and Anarchy," which quickly developed
into a sophomoric debate on whether anyone had said women are more anarchic/better
than men. At least most participants had the wit to admit that embracing
anarchy is not equal to ridding oneself of sexism. Moving on from there
we stepped in the mire of androgyny. The argument is that the only true
nonsexist is the pansexual who looks on the whole range of (human?) sexual
variation as appropriate for his/her couplings/triplings/etc. This is a
hell of an intolerant attitude for an anarchist to take, somewhat representative
of the hip-o-centrism evident there. This particular argument should be
examined in the light of Madison Avenue's emphasis on sexual experience
as the measure of individual success. Another participant rose to defend
the feminine virtues of sensitivity and nurturing. Actually all of these
attitudes have their validity, but the heat of debate revealed how little
tolerance there was among us. Obviously, everyone should select their personality
types from a wide range of options. Just as obviously, they're not all
going to get along perfectly, ever. The level of acrimony was as painful
as it was unnecessary. Fortunately it was interrupted by the Pilsen March.
---memo
Notes that I scribbled to myself in the workshops:
Workshops...TECH/ANTI-TECH--1) Technology that is appropriate to immediate
community...2)BUILDING THE MOVEMENT--Organize locally through mutual aid.
(This stuff is what I learned). SPAIN 1936--There was a difference between
the ideas of "Civil War" and "Revolution": many communists stopped using
the word, "revolution," and buried many of its ideas, because it scared
the large democracies from which they wanted support. The CNT "carried
the entire population, so far that it 'disappeared' as an authority or
leader." Anarchists were dying at the front, communists were writing at
the back. The Communist Party was not only out to eliminate the anarchists,
but all dissidents (Trotsky, etc.). WHAT IS ANARCHY!?--"We are the teachers
of the most advanced social idea on earth." "@ is not an invention, it's
a discovery." Diogenes was a classical anarchist. He administered the first
defeat of Alexander the Great. There was a point when the king went to
Diogenes' house and asked him if there was anything in the world that the
king could get him and Diogenes said, "Yes, get out of my sunlight." @
is a mysterious movement; it has survived repression a long time. There
is something in human nature that leans towards @. No two generations have
ever been alike. Different environments have arisen, and many governments
have risen and fallen. The church, the patriarchal family, etc. are voluntary
institutions that have survived all political systems. The man said this
to make the point that every society depends upon voluntary infrastructures..."Inside
every person is an anarchist." Each law makes you a prisoner of a political
system.
In this workshop, most people were bringing up their own ideas and
interpretations of anarchism, much of which appeared contradictory, causing
great frustration and discord within the group. At this point, I scribbled
the following note to myself: one recent change in my thinking has been
in anarchists diversity. I used to be frustrated by our inability to agree,
until I realized that what gives our idea such vibrance is the different
ways that we interpret and utilize @. It is one tool, to be used along
with many others, by individuals freeing themselves.
(Still in the same workshop.) I then brought up something that I thought
was important, which none of us were touching upon (the group's discussion
remained entirely upon the surface, e.g. political and technical while
avoiding more personal, visceral, artistic, "spiritual," or psychological
interpretations). So I asked if anyone identified with other aspects of
anarchism that are more "wordless," that which expresses itself in art
and music, that place which is often without the conditioned authority
of the words, ideologies, and fears that guide our minds and bodies. An
appreciative "m-hmmm" came from a few people and the discussion returned
to killing our bosses.
---Ivan
The morning was taken up almost entirely by the workshop on Censorship,
Pornography and Free Speech, which I thought was a pain in the ass. If
there were some way to separate the porn discussion from the discussion
on free speech and censorship, I think it would be worth doing. As it was,
the anti-porn agitators (led by someone who drove in from Wisconsin that
morning, and frankly I think she should have stayed there) monopolized
the floor, and to no real purpose. Those who already felt that porn was
exploiting them were perhaps pleased to find a sister, but speaking as
a male who has never exploited a woman in his life, I found the whole thing
pretty offensive. I also thought it didn't show a great deal of judgement
to project slides of graphic nudity while 8 year olds from the daycare
center were passing through to the water fountain.
---Mike
The workshops were encouraging and stimulating although there were
conflicts that arose because of differences of opinions. I guess one would
think it was inevitable when a large group of opinionated people sit down
to discuss such topics, and this might be true. But if nothing is learned
from these disagreements, then it was in vain--pointless.
If is wasn't for the demonstrations (overtaking of the Pilsen march;
the anarchist march through the city and the visiting of Emma Goldman's
grave), the sense of unity might have increasingly grown thin.
Yes, I believe that the workshops were left unfinished. It's possible
that initial workshops with directed themes were needed, but only as a
catalyst for the real heart of the matter. There was too much time spent
on semantics of the re-hashed and surface issues. It seems to me that what
took place was an attempt to formulate a dogmatic consensus. This is futile.
We did open up some new ground here and there, however, especially in the
anarcho-feminism workshop. It just wasn't enough. We, as anarchists, should
have been able to rise above our frustration and set aside our prescribed
doctrines to dig into the conflicts that were taking place. There we were,
discussing world views and how politics interfere with humanitarian logic,
and we couldn't see the very same political tendencies taking place within
our workshop. It's as if the systems of the past have roots that cling
deep to our hearts and minds. It is these roots that hold us back from
a future of freedom. We were raised by tyrants of the past and they are
a part of us, unless we dig deep within ourselves to the roots of the problems.
Otherwise, our efforts are in vain. Next time we gather, I would like to
form a workshop on "human nature," that sets out to prove it can be changed.
In conclusion, Haymarket '86 was a success and I am satisfied with
all I learned. Next time I wish to start where we left off. I hope we are
not forced to form the same type of discussions because our memories and
creativity fail us.
---Kermit
The Haymarket 1886 workshop was more of a seminar led by Paul Avrich,
anarchist historian and professor at Queens College, a well-informed, engaging
speaker. He talked about his current research, which leads him to believe
that the bomb-thrower on May 4,1886 was an anarchist named George Menge,
rather than an agent provocateur, as is widely speculated. Before we could
discuss the ramifications of this for anarchist history and anarchist activism
today, Avrich had to leave and the rest of us filled up a bus en route
to the traditional May Day march though Pilsen.
Another workshop I was interested in, the anarcho-feminism workshop,
was held during the aftermath of the "war chest" protest on May 2. The
workshop was held in the Wellington Church basement (anarchist central,
since it had a phone), which was one big room with a flimsy portable divider.
On the other side of the divider was a bunch of people, easily as many
as in the workshop, discussing the arrests after the war chest protest
and trying to keep communications open with those at the jail. Since I
didn't know if my traveling companion had been arrested or not, I paid
more attention to the rumors flying, announcements coming haphazardly from
the jail, and discussions among others concerned about the arrests. I would
have liked to sit in on the anarcho-feminism workshop, but I was too distracted.
The noise level between the workshop and arrests "committee" was pretty
distracting in itself. Each group frequently asked the other to quiet down,
often with impatience. Both groups obviously felt their agenda took precedence
over the other. I'm sure there would have been very little friction if
there had been two rooms available. But the two or three people who took
charge of the anarchist-central end of the arrests committee were quite
frustrated that so many would prefer to talk in a workshop without announcement
of the latest news, or passing the hat to raise bail money. To those who
worked nearly 14 hours nonstop to get the arrested out of jail, it seemed
that some who'd come to Chicago didn't care. I doubt that many people actually
felt that way, but the tension ran pretty high once in a while.
---Kris
Table of contents
Send comments to: brian_krueger@htomail.com
Updated: Nov 98