Economic Aspects of "Love"

[American Dream]

http://www.achilleseffect.com/2011/03/w ... ereotypes/

Word Cloud: How Toy Ad Vocabulary Reinforces Gender Stereotypes

I’ve always wanted to do a “mash-up” of the words used in commercials for so-called boys’ toys. I did a little bit of this in my book, but now, thanks to Wordle, I can present my findings in graphic form. This is not an exhaustive record; it’s really just a starting point, but the results certainly are interesting.

A few caveats:

I focused on television commercials alone (not web videos or website toy descriptions).

The companies represented here are the big ones who can afford TV advertising. I looked most closely at the kinds of toys I have seen advertised during prime cartoon blocks on TV. (For example, Teletoon in Canada runs an Action Force block of shows in the after-school time slot and a Superfan Friday on Friday evenings.)

I included toys targeted to boys aged 6 to 8.

If a word was repeated multiple times in one commercial, I included it multiple times to show how heavily these words are used.

I hyphenated words that were meant to stay together, like “special forces” and “killer boots.”

For the record, my boys’ list included 658 words from 27 commercials from the following toy lines: Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Kung Zhu, Nerf, Transformers, Beyblades, and Bakugan.

By way of comparison, I also looked at girls’ toys. The girls’ list had 432 words from 32 commercials. Toy lines on this list include: Zhu Zhu Pets, Zhu Zhu Babies, Bratz Dolls, Barbie, Moxie Girls, Easy Bake Ovens, Monster High Dolls, My Little Pony, Littlest Pet Shop, Polly Pocket, and FURREAL Friends. (I have a full list of references for both list, with links, if anyone would like to see it.)

The results, while not at all surprising, put the gender bias in toy advertising in stark relief. First, the boys’ list, available in full size at Wordle:




Now the girls’ list, also available in full size at Wordle:




No further comment needed.

[American Dream]

[American Dream]

http://anarchistnews.org/node/15286

The Widening of Class Difference, The Re-Trenchment of Identity-Based Oppression, and The Rise of Identity Politics

anon - Wed, 2011-08-31


Since the 1960s, the world capitalist system has been undergoing a transition to a less economically equal configuration. Looking at America, wages for the elites have skyrocketed since the early 1970s, while wages for the average worker have seen no increase.

This transition in the class make up of developed economies has seen, at the same time, battles over identity based oppressions: sexism, racism, homophobia. The oppressed members of certain groups, created by the categorization of difference, and used to maximize the extraction of value for Capital, have won gains in the past half century. They've gained more equal access to power as well as more equal treatment under the law. But at the same time, there has been a counter-veiling push for re-structuring from capitalism to ensure it maintains a continually increasing amount of surplus value it extracts to feed a system that relies on unending expansion. We have seen the explosion of prisons, housing mainly people of color. This was the first of these counter-revolutionary waves, it has been occurring since the 1970s. Another wave has been the push by conservatives for the end of legal abortion and other "family values" that aimed to force women out of paid labor positions and back into free labor positions engaging the the reproduction of the labor force.


Another wave: Capitalism first broke up communal ways of life, forcing the creation of extended nuclear family structures. Next, it broke those down to isolated nuclear families. Finally, we have seen the breaking apart of the nuclear family into isolated, atomized individuals. This pushing apart of people who would dare share with one another, give and receive help from one another freely, this is a central theme of capitalism's mission to maximize the extraction of wealth from every human being in every way possible.

The election of Barack Obama may signal to some a direction for the future continuation of this system that relies on it's creating a multi-cultural capitalist democracy, where all identities have equal access to selling their talents to this system to ensure it is operating with maximum efficiency. This is ultimately where capitalist exploitation is headed. But for now, there is a round of extraction, enclosure, hyper-exploitation occurring to gather the value necessary to ensure the transition to that multi-cultural capitalism that does not have to rely on identity-based exploitation and reward to squeeze out extra value from both sides of the oppressor/oppressed groups. A system of multi-cultural capitalism that will rely on the alienated individual, one completely devoid of any type of support networks that are not Wal-Marts or McDonalds or Macy's or Universities or Oil Companies.

To accomplish this transition, it needs a re-trenchment of the identity-based categories, in order to squeeze out that last bit of extra value. It needs groups pushed back out of the workforce and into the home, pushed back into prison-slavery, and back into the closet in order to pit those groups and the groups not subject to such atrocities against one another to get more surplus value out of both groups.

Our job as anarchists is to not allow the widening class gap that has been occurring for the last 40 years, and the identity-based oppression that such larger gaps demand be re-created in order to maintain the stability and growth of capitalism, to side-track us into merely fighting to defend against the identity-based attacks that have been coming and will continue to intensify in the near future. Our job is to not get sucked into trying to defend multi-culturalism when it is attacked, but to use the sexist, racist, and homophobic attacks as a launching pad to question the entire system that would give benefits more equally to oppressed groups when it needs them, and shove them back down again when it doesn't.

Capitalism is in a phase where it needs LESS paid workers. And through prison, pregnancy, family values, religion, science, or plain old bigotry, it will find ways to push people out of the paid workforce into positions that benefit capitalism but are un-paid. The easiest way it knows to do this is to rely on the exclusion of groups it can construct identities around and label. Once it labels such a group, making it somehow inferior or unworthy of inclusion in the equal benefits of capitalism is easy, because as anyone knows, it's much easier to hold a stereotype of a group than it is to maintain one when confronted with an individual.

What is occurring in this historical period is the transition between a capitalism which uses identities of inclusion/exclusion to extract the maximum surplus value from people, to a period where it uses the absolute atomization of everyone and the breakdown of all social bonds of solidarity to extract maximum surplus value. This is a progression that ebbs forward and backward, like waves lapping onto a shoreline during a rising tide. The period from the 1960s until today has generally felt like one where the wave was coming in, though there has been undercurrents from the wave before our pulling in the opposite direction, but now our wave has reached it's forward-most point up the beach, and will soon start pulling back down towards the waters of hatred and bigotry, pulled along by the anger that comes from the 40 years of yawning class divides.

May that anger not pull those with relatively privileged positions into trying desperately to maintain them by blaming the excluded (the Tea Party is a prime example of this), and may it not drag us in to the dead-end of identity-based demands for equality of inclusion. That wave will push in again on it's own. If people get tricked into another round of identity politics, that new wave coming in will feel like progress, like victory. But it will be a false victory. We must not fall victim to movements demanding inclusion, we must direct the rage of the excluded into a movement to destroy the system that creates inclusion and exclusion in the first place.

Beware the politics of anger, the politics of the white mid-western Reaganite, and the politics of identity, the politics of Hillary Clinton. In these times of increasing economic disparity, they are twin evils looking to rise again and distract us from true movements of destruction and liberation from the capitalism system once and for all.

[American Dream]

This article has attracted attention, some of it in disagreement. A critically supportive analysis will follow.

Whiteness and the 99%

By Joel Olson

Occupy Wall Street and the hundreds of occupations it has sparked nationwide are among the most inspiring events in the U.S. in the 21st century. The occupations have brought together people to talk, occupy, and organize in new and exciting ways. The convergence of so many people with so many concerns has naturally created tensions within the occupation movement. One of the most significant tensions has been over race. This is not unusual, given the racial history of the United States. But this tension is particularly dangerous, for unless it is confronted, we cannot build the 99%. The key obstacle to building the 99% is left colorblindness, and the key to overcoming it is to put the struggles of communities of color at the center of this movement. It is the difference between a free world and the continued dominance of the 1%.

Left colorblindess is the enemy

Left colorblindness is the belief that race is a “divisive” issue among the 99%, so we should instead focus on problems that “everyone” shares. According to this argument, the movement is for everyone, and people of color should join it rather than attack it.

Left colorblindness claims to be inclusive, but it is actually just another way to keep whites’ interests at the forefront. It tells people of color to join “our” struggle (who makes up this “our,” anyway?) but warns them not to bring their “special” concerns into it. It enables white people to decide which issues are for the 99% and which ones are “too narrow.” It’s another way for whites to expect and insist on favored treatment, even in a democratic movement.

As long as left colorblindness dominates our movement, there will be no 99%. There will instead be a handful of whites claiming to speak for everyone. When people of color have to enter a movement on white people’s terms rather than their own, that’s not the 99%. That’s white democracy.

Continues at: http://www.bringtheruckus.org/?q=node%2F146

[American Dream]

Some Thoughts on Whiteness and the 99%

October 25, 2011

By Justin Podur
Source: www.Killingtrain.com


I have some disagreements with Joel Olson's article, "Whiteness and the 99%", but I will start with some agreements.

I agree that "biologically speaking, there's no such thing as race."

I agree that the 99% should struggle against "school segregation, colonization, redlining, and anti-immigrant attacks." I agree that people should not be dismissive of demands for racial justice, consider police violence, and focus on behaviours of banks and governments that have disproportionally harmed Black and Latin American (and indigenous) communities.

In other words, I agree with the antiracist agenda that Olson advocates that the occupy movements should follow.

My disagreements are analytical, but they have some implications.

The history of racism that Olson outlines is not accurate: "Race was created in America in the late 1600s in order to preserve the land and power of the wealthy. Rich planters in Virginia feared what might happen if indigenous tribes, slaves, and indentured servants united and overthrew them."

Anti-semitism, thinking about purity of bloodlines, demonizing people as "barbarian tribes", and caste systems, all predate the 16th century and the United States, and go back to Europe. Other societies (India, for example) had their own caste systems, divisions between conqueror and conquered, and divisions between in- and out-groups. For the point Olson is making about the US antiracist struggle, the broad strokes he uses could be adequate, but particular antiracist struggles should be informed by more accurate history.

Olson is arguing, after all, that histories and legacies of racism create a real division within the 99% that cannot be wished away, but must instead be dealt with in an integrative way so that the 99% struggle simultaneously against the class divide and the race divide. But if, in fact, there is not one race divide but several, then Olson's argument applies within the "non-white" group as well (this is why I once argued that "people of color talk is cheap". Nonwhite immigrants who have citizenship status are in a very different position than those who lack such status, and potentially also in a privileged position relative to Black and indigenous people. This makes Olson's suggested slogan, "People of color at the center!", insufficient. Some people of color are privileged relative to others. Worse, if the slogan is "people of color at the center!", the "center" will likely be filled with the most privileged people in that category - the situation Olson wants to prevent happening between whites and nonwhites will happen within the nonwhite category.

The importance of not assuming away division applies even more to Olson's diagram about class and race (which isn't a good model for data visualization - see flowingdata for some good examples). In that diagram, there is virtually no nonwhite in the capitalist class. Globally, this is false - from Carlos Slim to the Ambanis, there are numerous nonwhite (ie., who would be considered nonwhite in the US) billionaires energetically plundering the globe. Dipping down below the billionaire level and into the 1%, you will still find plenty of nonwhites. Indeed, while Olson discusses the alliance between the white capitalist class and the white working class, which he calls "white democracy", today's imperialism involves alliances between whites and nonwhites in the wealthy countries against the poor in the poor countries. The interplay between racism, class hierarchy, and imperialism cannot be captured in Olson's diagram. At the very least, keeping Olson's diagram intact, a modification is in order to add some nonwhite to the capitalist class.



I agree that "left colorblindness" can be an enemy, though I don't think it is *the* enemy. Is it, for example, more of an enemy than saying that men and women are in the 99% together, and thereby ignoring gender? Or ability? Or queer identity? Or immigration status? The divide between indigenous and settler? Or the relationship between the US and the rest of the world? Racism is complex, and racism is not the only oppression. So, the call to put "people of color at the center" cannot be adopted without recognition of these complexities.

What is exciting about the occupy movements isn't that it is ignoring these divisions, but that it might, might, actually create something that is greater than the politics based on coalitions of coalitions that leftists in North America have been doing - for at least the 10 years that I have personal experience of - without much success. While the way forward is never to pretend oppressions don't exist, we are also not, and refuse to be, just what racism, sexism, capitalism, and imperialism have made us. It is true that "the only thing that can stop us is us." Adopting left colorblindness would be an error, but so would adopting what you might call people-of-color blindness. The 99% have a great deal to do, including developing new ways of waging anti-racism and new ideas of integrated struggle.


From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/some-tho ... stin-podur

[American Dream]

Guilt, Disempowerment, and Other Mistakes of an Anti-Oppression practice

Many folks who were learning how to be good anarchists between 2000-2005 on the East Coast were influenced by what I'm going to call an “anti-oppression practice.” The phenomenon is broader than this; I'm simply speaking from experience. The term is not precise, and I want to keep it that way, so no one feels pigeon-holed, and so everyone can consider whether these criticisms apply to them or not; and at the same time so no one can ignore these criticisms if they do not fit within the precisely defined target.

An anti-oppression practice posits a list of different forms of oppression at work in society on a macro and micro level, that reproduce themselves through socialization at the micro level and through continuing political and economic restructuration carried out by elite institutions at the macro level. This practice has cultivated a number of strengths in the anarchists who passed through it—an awareness of one's socialization, a sensitivity to situations and group power dynamics, the challenging of traditional identities, an abandonment of the monolithic politics of the now extinct revolutionary Left, which could not fathom forms of oppression that were not primarily economic.


But anti-oppression politics, though not homogenous, has a number of common weaknesses built into it thanks to the academic culture out of which it largely grew; the guilt, blame, and victimization that run especially intense in the Anglo-Saxon colonial society of the US; and the leftism and reformism of many formulators of this practice with whom anti-oppression anarchists uncritically allied themselves. I think the practice has blocked off its own path to revolution, and needs to be junked. A few key parts can be salvaged. The rest should be left to the desert.

Guilt

The second lesson new acolytes learn in an anti-oppression practice is that feeling guilty for privilege is also “fucked up.” The Calvinists couldn't have done it better. Guilt is intentionally built into anti-oppression politics, firmly rooted in its syllabus. Anyone who has a heart is going to feel guilty when they are assigned the label of “privileged,” when they are pressured to acknowledge that “all white people are racist” or “all men are sexist” (both of these statements are tenets of anti-oppression politics). Dogmatically insisting that guilt on the part of privileged people is unhelpful and burdensome for oppressed people only ensures that their guilt is permanent and self-perpetuating, because there are no tools in this toolbox for righting the wrongs that are the source of the guilt; only for acknowledging them. It is an original sin practitioners are powerless to change.

Quickly, a division becomes apparent in the mobilization of guilt within an anti-oppression practice. Because of the laundry list of oppressions that require equal consideration, nearly every individual is privileged in some way, and oppressed in others. However, anti-oppression activists refuse to use “privilege” and “oppress” as situational verbs, with the obvious connotation that these are things imposed by a larger social structure. Instead, the commonly upheld norm is to use these terms as labels that inhere to individuals and qualify who they are. This means that most individuals can choose what is, according to the theory, not something we have an ability to choose: which category we belong to. Theoretically this comes with an awareness of an intersectionality of different oppressions, but in practice people end up identifying and being identified with one camp or the other. Skin color tends to be the prime determinant in whether someone can get away with identifying as privileged or oppressed.

Because revolution or “social change” is reformulated as working against oppression, and because “those most directly affected by an oppression must lead their own struggle” (another common tenet), people in the oppressed category become the primary agents of social change. A system of rewards develops to encourage compliance with this practice. Privileged people gain power and legitimacy by being allies to oppressed people. It is conceded that privileged people are also negatively affected by the system, but the appropriate response to their privilege is to educate themselves and call one another out on all the ways they are tied to and benefit from the system at the expense of others. (A friend of mine aptly calls this a zero sum economy of power). Privileged people who forcefully struggle against oppressive institutions are frequently called back into line for trying to lead other people's struggles, or endangering those who are more oppressed. In other words, their major opportunity for struggle as something other than self-improvement is as an ally in the struggles of others.

Here we see another contradiction; tokenization and paternalism are on any list of “fucked up” behaviors in an anti-oppression practice, thus the practice protects itself from open complicity with the very problems it creates. Human agency is a fundamental component of freedom, perhaps the most important one; therefore if someone is denied agency in their own struggle because the most legit thing they can do is be an ally to someone else's struggle, it is inevitable that they will exercise their agency in the course of supporting a struggle they view as someone else's. To do so, they will either look for any oppressed person who supports a form of struggle they feel inclined towards, and use them as a legitimating façade, or they will try to participate fully and affect the course of a broader campaign or coalition in which they are pretending to be mere allies. In other words, by presenting privilege as a good thing, anti-oppression politics creates privileged people who have nothing to fight for and inevitably tokenize or paternalize those whose struggles are deemed (more) legitimate.

White men within the anti-oppression practice gain legitimacy and influence by appearing hyper-sensitive and self-flagellating, and by visibly acknowledging their privilege. Because this inevitably creates guilt, and guilt is a crippling emotion, those white men who will be most effective as anti-oppression activists will be those who are least affected by their shows of guilt, in other words, the least sincere. White women, or others who generally have to identify as privileged but also visibly belong to some oppressed category, remain effective by shifting guilt up the pyramid. A frequent formulation is to acknowledge white privilege, but consistently talk about “white men” as the creators of patriarchy and white supremacy, as though men of color or white women were powerless and uncompliant in these respective processes.

Continues at: http://anarchistnews.org/node/12230

.

[American Dream]

The politics of identity

SHARON SMITH argues that identity politics can't liberate the oppressed

FIGHTING AGAINST oppression is an urgent issue in U.S. society today. Racism, sexism, and homophobia have all reached appalling levels—that seem only to rise with each passing year. White students in Jena hang nooses, and Black students end up in prison.1 Squads of Minutemen vigilantes patrol the Mexican border with impunity, for the sole purpose of terrorizing migrant communities.2 College campuses across the U.S. commemorate “Islamo-fascism awareness week” as if it were just another legitimate student activity.3 Fred Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church congregation regularly picket outside funerals of gay soldiers killed in Iraq, proclaiming that they belong in hell.4

To be sure, the problem extends way beyond the extremist fringe. Media pundits barely comment on the outrages described above, while mainstream discourse regularly heaps contempt on those attempting to fight against oppression—including young women organizing against date rape (which is assumed to be a figment of their feminism-charged imaginations) and immigrants demanding basic legal rights (as if they are out to steal jobs from native-born workers). If the “playing field is level,” as so many in the mainstream media assume, those who object must therefore be seeking an unfair advantage.

It is no wonder, therefore, that so many people who experience oppression feel so embattled in the current political climate. Only a movement aimed at fighting oppression in all its forms can challenge the victim-blaming ideology that prevails today. The pressing need for such a movement is acknowledged here. Indeed, this article is intended to address the issue of how to most effectively fight back, since different political strategies lead to quite different conclusions about the kind of movement that is needed to challenge oppression. The bulk of this article is a critique of the theory behind what is known in academic and left circles as “identity politics”—the idea that only those experiencing a particular form of oppression can either define it or fight against it—counterposing to it a Marxist analysis. My central premise is that Marxism provides the theoretical tools for ending oppression, while identity politics does not.

Personal identity versus the politics of identity

It is important to make a clear distinction between personal identity and identity politics, since the two are often used interchangeably. But there is a substantial difference between these two concepts.

Possessing a personal “identity,” or awareness of oneself as a member of an oppressed group—and the anger associated with that awareness—is a legitimate response to experiencing oppression. Racism is, of course, experienced on a very personal level—whether it takes the form of institutional discrimination (racist hiring practices, police brutality) or social interaction (racist jokes, violence from an acknowledged racist). Personal experience, furthermore, helps to shape one’s political awareness of oppression. It makes perfect sense that experiencing sexism on a personal level precedes most women’s political consciousness of sexism as a form of oppression that degrades all women.

Indeed, no white person can ever understand what it is like to experience racism. No straight person can understand what it is like to experience homophobia. And even among people who are oppressed by racism, every type of experience is different. A Black person and a Native American person, for example, experience racism differently—as does a person from Mexico versus a person from Puerto Rico. A gay man and a lesbian have quite different experiences.

At the same time, personal experience is quite separate from the realm of politics, which involves strategies to affect society as a whole. Personal identity only becomes political when it moves beyond the realm of life experience and becomes a strategy for fighting against oppression. Every set of politics is based upon a theory—in this case, an analysis of the root causes of oppression. So the analysis of oppression informs the politics of social movements against oppression.

There are clear differences in strategy between Marxism and the theory of identity politics, which will be examined below. It is first necessary, however, to make clear which facts are not in dispute. Both theories are in agreement that all oppression is based on genuine inequality. Men and women are not treated as equals in society. Whites and African Americans are not treated at all equally. Oppression is not a matter of perception, but of concrete, material reality.

Nor is there any doubt that struggles against oppression should be led by the oppressed themselves—women themselves can and will lead the struggle for women’s liberation. This has always been the case historically, from the struggle for women’s suffrage to the fight for abortion rights. The same dynamic is true of the struggle for Black liberation. Former slaves and other African Americans led the battle for Reconstruction aimed at transforming Southern plantation society in the decades following the Civil War. African Americans led the mass civil rights movement that finally struck down Southern segregation in the 1950s and 1960s.

During the late 1960s, the powerful civil rights movement inspired the rise of movements for women’s and gay liberation, while the struggle for Black Power emerged from the civil rights movement itself. All of these new movements were, in turn, inspired by the armed struggle of the North Vietnamese resistance against the forces of U.S. imperialism. The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) chose its name as a formal identification with the National Liberation Front (NLF)—the Vietnamese resistance.

But it is also the case that women and African Americans were not alone in fighting against their oppression—thousands of men took part in the women’s movement in the 1960s, and many thousands of whites actively supported the civil rights movement. The gay liberation movement was the first of its kind—erupting in the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969, when New York City police raided a gay bar and touched off a riot among gays that lasted for three days. Although the gay movement won little support in its early stages, movement leaders soon convinced the Black Panther Party to formally endorse gay rights. In 1970, Black Panther leader Huey Newton announced his solidarity with the gay movement: “homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in this society. Maybe they might be the most oppressed people in the society,”5

Who’s the real enemy?

As the experience of the 1960s shows, it is not necessary to personally experience a form of oppression to become committed to opposing it. Yet the central premise of the theory of identity politics is based on precisely the opposite conclusion: Only those who actually experience a particular form of oppression are capable of fighting against it. Everyone else is considered to be part of the problem and cannot become part of the solution by joining the fight against oppression. The underlying assumption is that all men benefit from women’s oppression, all straight people benefit from the oppression of the LGBT6 community, and all whites benefit from racism.

The flip side of this assumption, of course, is the idea that each group that faces a particular form of oppression—racism, sexism, or homophobia—is united in its interest in ending it. The theory of identity politics locates the root of oppression not with a capitalist power structure but with a “white male power structure.” The existence of a white male power structure seems like basic common sense since, with rare exceptions, white men hold the reigns of the biggest corporations and the highest government posts.

Continues at: http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-identity.shtml

[American Dream]

Long Island, NY couple files trademark for "Occupy Wall St.," branded "hobo bags" are on the way

By Xeni Jardin Tuesday, Oct 25




A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) application shows that Robert and Diane Maresca of Long Island, New York, are seeking to trademark the phrase “Occupy Wall St.” so that they can place it on "a wide variety of goods, including bumper stickers, shirts, beach bags, footwear, umbrellas, and hobo bags."

Hobo bags!

[American Dream]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/steve ... nate-aapl/

10/24/2011

Steve Jobs’ college mentor was a drug dealer turned billionaire mining magnate


It was while Robert Friedland was having sex with his college girlfriend that he met Steve Jobs.

Jobs was looking to sell his typewriter and walked in on the otherwise occupied couple. Jobs left, apologetic, but Friedland urged him to stay and the two became fast friends.

Friedland had ended up at Reed College with Steve Jobs under wildly unusual circumstances. He was on parole from federal prison after he got caught with 24,000 hits of LSD worth $125,000.

In 1973, he traveled to India to study under the guru Neem Karoli Baba. His spiritual attitudes had a huge effect on young Steve Jobs.

“He turned me on to a different level of consciousness,” Jobs said.

Daniel Kottke was friends with both Jobs and Friedland at the time. He said, “Robert was very much an outgoing, charismatic guy, a real salesman. When I first met Steve he was shy and self-effacing, a very private guy. I think Robert taught him a lot about selling, about coming out of his shell, of opening up and taking charge of a situation.”

Friedland’s charisma was his most useful asset as he plied his business sense to become Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ivanhoe Mines. He developed mining interests all around the globe and become extremely wealthy — his personal fortune is estimated to be $2 billion by Forbes.

It comes at something of a cost, however. Friedland oversaw the Summit mine, the site of worst cyanide release in the US. In certain circles, he is known as “Toxic Bob” or “The Ugly Canadian.”

Looking back on his friendship with Friedland, Steve Jobs said, “It was a strange thing to have one of the spiritual people in your young life turn out to be, symbolically and in reality, a gold miner.”

[American Dream]

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/422

Making Anarchist Revolution Possible

By Arthur J. Miller


Introduction

This writing is not the product of any organization or philosophical tendency within anarchism. Though it is greatly influenced by organizations and different anarchist ideas, it is in fact only the viewpoint of one anarchist who seeks to answer the question of how an anarchist revolution could take place in our modern society.

Our world has grown far more complex than it was when the original texts of anarchism were written. The capitalist class has organized itself on an international level that seeks to bring under its control all lands upon the earth. The State as the protector of the capitalist class has grown stronger, with super States dominating weaker States by military and economic might. The people are being herded into cities of producers and localized self-sufficiency and indigenous sovereignty is slowly disappearing. The organizational form of this process can by viewed as the New World Order of Corporate Fascism.

It is becoming clear that the old ways of resistance are no longer able to adequately hold back the advances of the New World Order. The resistance to the New World Order is only able to react to some of the aspects of Corporate Fascism, and thus leaving many other aspects unchallenged. Since the resistance, at this time, cannot the challenge New World Order in its complete manifestation, it is also unable to create revolutionary change.

Reformism: The growth of the New World Order is accelerating at such a great speed that it is completely impossible to reform the present system into one that meets the needs of the people.

Social Democracy (electoral politics): Even if you could use the electoral system to make gains for the people, those small gains are not permanent because you must also engage in continuous struggle to protect those gains and that struggle alone creates road blocks to additional gains. First you must be able to have your gains enforced, then funded each year and protect your gains from being repelled. That makes it hard to produce further gains. The electoral process is dominated by the accumulation of political power. Political power once gained has as its first priority the continuation of its power. That means that it must struggle against all real or imaged threats to its power. Since political power is centralized power in the hands of a few in order to govern the many, the many must be controlled in order to govern them. Thus even the most progressive tendencies of political power become nothing more than a new ruling class.

Marxist-Leninism: The idea of a single vanguard party seizing control of the apparatus of the State and through a dictatorship creating a communist system has been one of the greatest historical mistakes ever made. It is the very nature of the State to centralize power within it and given that reality, no State will ever wither away its power, rather it will continue to seek to strengthen its centralized power. The State is the mechanism in which the few govern the many. And thus the direct interests of the governing few and the people who are governed have little in common and the interests of the many are a direct threat to the governing few. In order to protect itself from the threat of the many, the governing few, no matter who they are, must meet that threat by greater social control and suppression of the threat from the many. Thus, Marxist-Leninism can never evolve past its single party dictatorship.

One of the stated goals of Marxist-Leninism is to do away with capitalism and the capitalist class’s control of the State. But since Marxist-Leninism uses the institutions of the State it is unable to create permanent revolution because capitalism has the means of reestablishing itself by regaining control of the institutions of State power. This process has been seen clearly throughout the world, as one Marxist-Leninist controlled country after another one has fallen back into capitalism. Though Marx had the idea that socialism would evolve out of advanced capitalism, we are seeing throughout the world where Marxism advances the industrial devolvement of a country and rather than evolve into advanced socialism, it has evolved into advanced capitalism.

Given the realities of the New World Order and the failures of reformism, social democracy, and all forms of Marxism, we, in my view, must look in a different direction for solutions to the massive problems that we as a people and our planet earth face. Those solutions, I believe, will be found with the abolition of capitalism and the State, in other words they will be found in Anarchism.

Anarchism

The basic idea of Anarchism is that the people can live without capitalism and the State, through different forms of decentralized free association, self-management and mutual aid. Though Anarchists have been moved by a great sense of philosophical idealism, we cannot allow our idealism stand in our way of revolutionary process. For if we do our grand ideas become impossible to fulfill.

Idealism is important for it challenges us to struggle for greater things than now exist. But our idealism must be able to meet the revolutionary challenge of struggling against the New World Order, which does not function in our idealistic manner. The New World Order is an organized power that must be met by our organized power. When the organized power of the people is greater than the organized power of the ruling/capitalist class then by the means of our collective power we will be able to rid the world of the New World Order and replace it with an Anarchist society.

Idealism has been both Anarchists’ strength and weakness. Anarchist idealism has opened up our philosophy to many social possibilities without the drawbacks of rigid sectarian dogma. The weakness of Anarchist idealism lies within its ability to transform society when having to confront a ruling class that is so well-organized and entrenched.
When Anarchism is guided by its idealism alone by being a hodgepodge of ideas and based within the idea of autonomous localism it is unable muster the power that it takes to confront the well-organized New World Order in a revolutionary manner. What gains that are able to be make are lost to the forces of repression because it is unable to defend itself through the unity of action. In other words, Anarchists tend to go in so many different directions at the same time that it ends up going nowhere at all.

Our idealism must be flexible enough in order to develop in a practical manner in revolutionary struggle. On the other hand our practical application must be flexible enough so that our revolutionary struggle has the ability to give birth to an Anarchist society without it becoming just another form of social control by an elite few.

Some people say that we must not create a blueprint for revolution and our post-revolution society. To some degree that is correct, for both our revolution and our post-revolutionary society has to be flexible enough in order to adapt to the situations we find ourselves faced with. But with that said we also need unity of ideas and organization in order to progress to the point of making revolution possible. Also, if we have no means in place for the transformation of society and the fulfillment of needs, then even if we were able to defeat the ruling class, once the people’s needs go unfulfilled they will revert back under a new ruling class that has some means of fulfilling basic needs.

In my view, we should look upon building an Anarchist revolution as a building process. For the reasons stated above, that process, in my view, needs the following key elements:

1. Unity of ideas. We as a revolutionary movement need to be heading in the same direction or else we will dilute our ability to create revolutionary organization and direction.

2. Unity of tactics. If our revolutionary struggle is to have any real success, we need, in my view, to have a clear analysis of tactics. Our tactics need to be applied based upon what is effective in the situations in which we use them. One of the problems I have seen in the Anarchist movement is militancy of image over militancy of substance. Revolutionary militancy does not just act out an image of militancy, but rather it uses tactics that advances the process of building a revolution. Part of that involves day-to-day struggles, for revolutionary process is also a process of winning concessions from our enemies. Once the analysis of tactics makes clear which tactics will benefit the purpose they are being applied to, then we need to unite behind those tactics as a force of power. If we cannot do that then again we dilute our ability to succeed.

3. Unity of focus. It should be clear to us who the enemy is, capitalism, the State and such things as racism, sexism and all forms of domination, oppression and exploitation. Though it is natural for people to have disagreements over one thing or another, those disagreements should not be used to create struggles against each other. Our focus should be on the enemy and not on each other. In my view, the clearest statement of any side of a disagreement is made by whoever takes their ideas and makes them work. Factionalism only aids the enemy.

4. Proaction rather than reaction. Too often in our struggles folks just react to those things that they personally don’t like without a clear analysis of the effects of their actions on others, on our struggle and if their actions in fact serve the purposes that we are struggling for. Rather than just react to things, we need, in my view, to analyze the situation and act in a proactive manner that, not only deals with it based upon what can truly affect that situation in the way we wish, but also what will aid our purpose of building the revolutionary process. Often this will mean creating alternatives at the same time that we confront directly that which we feel we must confront.

5. Collective action. I am not speaking against individual action when it leads to collective action. One of the most famous examples of this was the individual action of Rosa Parks who was arrested for not giving up her seat to a white person on a bus. But what made her action so significant was that it led to the collective action of the bus boycott. But when individual action is not directly connected to the pulse of a collective group then it can lead to a reactionary backlash. This is often the case when people take actions with the thought that by making things worse for people that somehow they are going to react to that in a positive manner. In such a case, more often than not, the people will go along with the reactionary backlash and the struggle itself will suffer a set back. Our goal in the things that we do should be to provoke collective action for collective action is where the power to succeed exists.

6. Self and collective discipline. When I speak of discipline I am not speaking of a militaristic form of discipline that is forced from above onto those below. What I am speaking of is the self and collective discipline of doing that which needs to be done in any given situation. The struggle is very hard at times, that is why we call it a struggle. If we wish to succeed then we must be willing to have the discipline that it takes to do those things that are hard and sometimes even cause us to suffer. At times that even means personal struggle against burnout and depression. When it is hard, that is precisely the most important time to continue. If we are unwilling to do this then our work is a complete waste of time.
An Anarchist society will not come about just because we think it is a great idea. It will take a lot of hard work and personal and collective sacrifice. It will take a clear analysis of our enemy’s power and of the types of organization and tactics needed in order to develop greater power than our enemy, if we hope to succeed.

Direct Action

Anarchists believe that the best form of action is that taken by those directly affected by something and aimed directly at the cause of the problem, thus you have the term direct action. Even in the best of situations, forms of action in which people delegate to others to do that which they should do for themselves becomes ineffective in that process.

Direct action is not just a tactic; it is a way of life. It is the idea of social relations based upon those within the relations acting for themselves, which is the basic idea of Anarchism.

Direct action does not seek to reform the system, but rather seeks to win concessions from the system in day-to-day struggles as a means to building for a social revolution where the people directly seize the means of production and their communities and expropriate them from the capitalist system and the state.

Anarchist Federationism

There is a mistaken idea that anarchists do not believe in organization. Though it is true that some extreme individualists do reject organization, the majority of anarchists see the need of both organizations for the revolutionary process and for the post-anarchist society. The extreme individualist’s idea that somehow the people will rise up spontaneously, as individuals without organization, and do away with the State, is utterly absurd. This is a case of people’s fantasies overtaking all sense of reality. Some extreme individualists place their hopes for anarchy upon the idea that the State will collapse someday. While such a collapse may in time take place, but without anarchist alternatives in place the people would go through great suffering and out of such crisis a new authoritarian system would arise.

Most anarchists advocate a horizontal form of federation organization. This starts off with anarchist groups joining together in local federation, then regional federation and all the way to international federation. Each federation is based upon the common needs of those that make up the federation. This is not to say that such a form must be built in the beginning, for it maybe found that in some areas a regional federation is organized before the local federation because the local groups maybe spread out widely in a region and thus a regional federation is built first to give collective aid in order to build up the local areas in order to organize the local federation. Thus, anarchist federationism is flexible enough to be built upon needs rather than rigid ideology.

Anarchism will not come about just because we wish to dream it into existence. It will take deeper revolutionary acts of education, organization and action. Though most anarchists seek to organize around all human and environmental needs, the forms of those organizations would bring in people who are not specifically educated anarchists. Thus, anarchists have found the need to organize specific ideological anarchist federations in order to pursue anarchist strategies throughout the many social struggles. Also, in times of repression there is the need of collective defense of both anarchists and the general social struggle.

The anarchist federations, in my view, should not be a hodgepodge of anarchism. Rather, as I have already stated, it should be based upon unity of ideas, unity of tactics, and unity of collective action along with the discipline needed for effective organizing and action.

In times of repression the anarchist form of federationism makes it difficult for the anarchist movement to be suppressed because there is no center to target. Each area of federation can operate on its own if other areas of the federation are suppressed. And the reorganization process can begin even if a whole area of the federation is wiped out.

I believe that the local or regional federations should not be made up of just already organized anarchist groups. One of the problems with limiting a local or regional federation to just organized anarchist groups, is that it tends to isolate itself from outreach organizing. The anarchist local groups maybe affinity groups or collectives that don’t want to open themselves up to every anarchist that comes along for they may have purposes that don’t fit the needs of all anarchists. At times anarchists are good at getting out good educational material and showing themselves in other organizations and events. But once a person is convinced that anarchism is the way for them, it is hard for them to get started in anarchist activism if there is not some form of organization that is open for them to join. We should make being an active anarchist easy, not hard. Thus I believe that local and regional federations should have general recruiting groups that can be used for new anarchists and anarchists that don’t belong to any established anarchist group.

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Anarcho-Syndicalism originated out of the self-interest organization of workers into unions. But union organizing had its drawbacks, thus anarchists sought to change the direction of union organizing to include anarchist methods and goals.

Syndicalism is based upon the idea of organizing together those that are directly affected by something and instigating the self-management of those people, as in the organization of shop floor workers. It is a bit different than the idea of generalized organization where you have people not directly affected making decisions for those that are directly affected. In other words it is different from the idea of all people making the decisions for all people, thus creating a situation where a majority dominates minorities. And in some cases the minority could be those that are directly affected by the decision being made.

Syndicalism is the organization of syndicates (unions) of direct self-interest of those directly affected or having direct common concerns. The syndicates use the same federation form of organizing as do the anarchist federations. The group syndicate, the local syndicate, the regional syndicate and so on based upon the needs of those organized. Though syndicalism grew out of direct shop floor organizing, its methods can be applied to all forms of social relationships, needs, issues and common concerns. Thus by the general organization of syndicates we would be building our revolutionary power at the same time we are building our post-revolution society and still be able to fight the day to day struggles.

There are some anarchists that believe that syndicalism is fine for bringing about the revolution, but that once the revolution takes place the syndicates should dissolve themselves. I do not agree with this viewpoint. The transformation time after the revolution will mean the difference between a successful anarchist revolution or reverting back to authoritarian means. The first goal, in my view, of the transformation is fulfilling the needs of the people and not idealism. Once the needs of the people are fulfilled, then the syndicates should be flexible enough to evolve to the continuing needs of people and their desires. When a form of the syndicates are no longer needed they will no longer exist. That is based upon the fundamental function of the syndicates being based upon common needs and concerns through self-interest and self-managed organization, thus if there is no longer a need or if the need changes, or there is a desire for a different form of social organization, the syndicates would evolve.

Industrial Syndicalism

Industrial Syndicalism is based upon the idea that working people must organize their economic power in order to fight the day-to-day struggles against their bosses, while at the same time building their collective power in order to do away with the capitalist system.

The structural means of workplace syndicalism is rather simple. First it should be viewed as a horizontal form of organization, which begins with the shop floor of every organized workplace. The shop floor organization should include everyone in the workplace and not divide them up, as does the outdated trade unionism that organizes by trade rather than by job. The decisions affecting the shop floor need to be made on the shop floor.

Workplaces in the same industry, within a general location would organize together as a local industrial syndicate. And that same process would extend to regional industrial syndicates and continue out to international industrial syndicates.

All related industries would organize together into industrial syndicate departments. And these industrial syndicate departments would organize locally, regionally and internationally, as the need exists.

All local industrial syndicates would organize together into local industrial syndicate councils and then regional and international industrial syndicate councils.

Because the basic idea of the organization of the syndicates is the organization of needs, it maybe necessary for the industrial syndicates to take on additional forms of organization. The following are some examples:

1. Many workplaces are owned by large corporations. In the day-to-day struggles of workers it maybe needed to organize beyond just industrial syndicate forms of organization and to also organize together all workers that work for the same corporation. While still maintaining the industrial syndicates, the workers of a specific corporation would organize, let’s say IBM Workers Syndicate which again would be organized locally, regionally and internationally, so that in the time of a strike they could close down the complete corporation rather than just part of it.

2. Work area syndicates. It maybe found that an effective tactic in a business district maybe to form a syndicate, while still maintaining the industrial syndicates, of all the workers within that business district together into a syndicate. This way the whole business district could be struck at the same time. Also there is the case of ports where workers of different syndicates work, seafarers, longshoremen, truck drivers, railroad workers, those that provide services for the ships, and shipyard workers who repair the ships, would be organized together as a port syndicate. The area syndicate could be used to shut down the whole port as workers act together over all of their demands.

3. Trade syndicates. Though the most effective form of syndicates is industrial, still there are common concerns and needs of different trades. For example the trade of welders, they have in common such things as welding safety, the training of welders and in times of layoffs finding work in other industries that use welders.

4. Specific needs. This may be the needs of people in wheel chairs, or women or people of color wanting to open up industries that had denied them employment or whatever needs exist that workers have. Syndicalism is the organization of needs by those that have those needs; so specific needs syndicates should be an important part of the syndicalist structure.

5. Direct democracy. All decisions or election of officers are made by the directly agreed upon decision-making process of each syndicate. Each member of the syndicate should have an equal say in that process.

6. Officers. When anarchists elect officers it is the election of workers to do specific jobs and not an election of a political leadership. Within the syndicates the term of office is limited with the right of recall if necessary.

7. Assemblies. When two or more syndicates have a need to get together for one reason or another they call for an assembly. Some times assemblies run at predefined times, like once a year, or they maybe called for specific needs that have come up. Sometimes the assemblies are open to all members of the meeting syndicates, but other times that is not practical, so the syndicates elect delegates to assemblies.

8. Defense/solidarity committees. Each syndicate should have an organized defense/solidarity committee.

9. Industrial Environmental/Health/Safety Syndicates. The capitalist system has had an enormous negative impact on the environment and health and safety of workers. These issues cannot wait to be dealt with at some other time in the future. They must be viewed as an important component of all anarchism and syndicalist forms of organizing. Though there should be struggles outside of industry on these issues, the industrial syndicates have the role of struggling directly within industry to change industry in the direction of becoming earth, workplace and community safe and friendly. Thus, each syndicate should have an environmental. health/safety committee that are organized together as an Industrial Environmental/Health/Safety Syndicate, and again that syndicate needs to be organized locally, regionally and internationally.

How Could Industrial Syndicalism Work

Each shop floor industrial syndicate would draw up a list of their demands. Then a local assembly would be called and if needed, regional and international assemblies, depending upon the needs. These assemblies may be industrial, may be different syndicates of workers working for the same corporation, or area work syndicates or a combination of different forms of syndicates. At the assemblies the demands are combined together. The delegates at the assemblies are authorized to take a strike (or other such job actions) vote. If the vote is for a strike if the demands are not met, the syndicates go to the industrial syndicate councils to put a boycott on the shops that would be struck. Such a boycott would require that:

* No syndicalist workers would cross the picket lines.

* No syndicates would supply those shops with any
goods or services.

* No syndicates would do the work of striking workers,
even if the company moved the work to non-striking
shops.

* No syndicalist workers would ever handle scab goods.

* No syndicalist worker would even consume scab goods

The industrial syndicate councils would also organize support of the needs of the striking workers. Needs could include: food and rent money, defense if there is repression, picket line support, and direct action against the companies if needed.

Community Syndicalism


The working class does not just exist in workplaces, they also live in communities. And thus the organization of the working class needs to extend to their communities. It has also been found in the history of working class struggles that in day-to-day struggles and in revolution that well-organized industrial organizations and community organizations together add to the strength of the organized power of the working class.

Community Syndicalism would organize communities in the same way that Industrial Syndicalism organizes industry. That is, those that have a direct need organize together and continue that organization outwards as far as needed.

Unlike such things as cities councils or city government where you have people making decisions on things that they don’t have any direct interest in or experience with, community syndicalism organizes the direct democracy of those that have a direct interest or need.

How is a community defined? Those that live in a community do that. In a smaller town it could be the whole town. In cities it would be defined by neighborhoods.

What are some of the needs of a community? Housing, schools, roads, cultural centers, parks, food, sewage, power for heat and lights, physical needs like those people in wheelchairs, community mediation, medical, the environment, needs of people of color, needs of women, needs of youth, needs of older people and so on.

Sometimes the needs are temporary and sometimes they are permanent. Sometimes there could be permanent needs but the needs do not require a continuous functioning organization, and thus the syndicate of that need would only be functioning at times when necessary.

How long the need is organized would depend upon how long the need exists. When two or more community syndicates have a necessity to interact, an assembly would be called between the syndicates directly involved. When a need involves everyone in the community a general community assembly would be called.

The community syndicates would federate together within a city, region and internationally as the need exist. As there is a need, the federated syndicates would hold assemblies, or based on those in direct need of something, there could be a combination of syndicates meeting in assembly. If the need were of all, general assemblies would be held.

For example, lets say forces of the counter-revolutionaries are massing to march upon a liberated area, or some natural disaster has taken place. General assemblies of the syndicates maybe needed to deal with such problems.

How the community assemblies would function would be like the industrial assemblies. Some times they would be mass assemblies and sometimes they would be delegate assemblies.

How Community Syndicalism Could Work


In the day-to-day struggles before the revolution there would be complete solidarity within the syndicate. For example, if a landlord is unwilling to fix housing or is evicting tenants, a tenant rent strike could be called and all renters within the community would withhold their rent payments.

In some cases housing is owned by large corporations. Thus there could be a need for a pre-revolution housing or a tenants’ syndicate organized of all the tenants of that corporation for the purpose of collective direct action.

In the event of a direct action of any of the community syndicates, community syndicate assemblies would organize direct solidarity in action and helping with the needs of those in struggle.

When people are free of competition with each other and the bases of society is cooperation and the well-being of all, many conflicts within a community will be resolved by that alone. But given that there could be some conflicts between individuals, within syndicates, between syndicates, or between different communities, that cannot be resolved among the people directly involved, the dispute would be taken to the community mediation syndicate. First, those that may be directly involved in a dispute who are members of the community mediation syndicate would not partake in the work of that mediation, but would rather partake in the sides of the dispute. The purpose of the mediation is not to choose sides or determine winners or losers in a dispute, but rather to help direct a process in which a solution can be found that is fair to both sides, and to prevent the outburst of violent conflict where a dispute is settled by whomever has the greatest physical might.

Green Syndicalism

Though syndicates should be organized around all needs and issues, the organization around the environment has special importance. Capitalism and the State has had a devastating impact on our environment. In order to resist that continuing impact and to change society (industries and communities) to exist in balance with our environment and to clean-up messes and heal the wounds to our environment, we need an extended effort in that direction.

Already this writing has included environmental/health/safety committees with the Industrial Syndicates and environmental syndicates with community syndicalism, but the organization of environmental health, resistance and action, in my view, needs to be taken a step further. There needs to be a federation of environmental syndicalism. The component parts of the federation should include the organized syndicates of specific environmental needs, issues and action, which would specialize in the research of problems and the development of tactical action. For example there could be a Syndicate of Old Growth Forest Concerns, or a Syndicate of Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Wetlands Concerns.

How Green Syndicalism Could Work

The Federation of Environmental Syndicalism would be made of all syndicalist formations dealing with the environment. Lets say you have a specific environmental problem like water quality. An assembly would be held of the committees from industries, communities and the Syndicate of Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Wetlands Concerns. Together they would access the problem based upon the research, knowledge and concerns that would be combined from the different syndicates.

They may decide that further or ongoing research is needed and thus organize a committee of people from the different syndicates. They may decide that direct action is needed to confront and force the concessions of change in pre-revolution struggle. Such direct action then would be taken from within industry by the Industrial Syndicates, within communities by the Community Syndicates and from other needed places by the Environmental Syndicates. Since the impact of change could impact the workers in industries and communities, a part of the direct action process needs to include dealing with those impacts.


Social Syndicalism

Not all forms of oppression will be eliminated by a social revolution against capitalism and the State. Such things as sexism and racism, though their roots maybe found within capitalism and the State, have also become conditioned factors in society. Thus, just doing away with capitalism and the State will not in itself do away with all forms of oppression.

The idea of social syndicalism is to organize those people who are directly affected by different forms of oppression. For example, the social system of capitalism and the State groups people together by what they call race and oppresses them based on that grouping. Yes, class oppression is a part of that because those groupings based upon race are for the most part forced down to the lowest levels of class. And having a class of super-exploited people is a fundamental element of capitalism. So as the super-exploited class resists capitalism on an economic level, it must also organize and resist based upon the factor of race group oppression.

Part of the process of race group oppression is stripping those groups of any power over their lives, as individuals and as communities and by creating a bias (racism) against them within white classes. Like the organization of workers and communities, race oppression must be resisted and organized around by those directly affected by the means of self-determination and empowerment. Though I use the term social syndicalism, the form of self-organization should be determined by the oppressed themselves. Thus, there is the need of self-organization of the groupings of race oppression, their interconnections and allies within the general idea of all groupings of race oppression.

On top of the self-organization of these groups, there needs to be the dismantling of racism within the overall society. There is the economic racism within industry that the organization of oppressed groupings would struggle along side the industrial syndicates to overcome. There is the struggle within communities that should be handled in the same way.

Then there are some inherent problems. If you have a generalized community or city form of democracy, where all people decide upon all things, and if the people within the groupings of oppression by race, are a minority, then you have, in fact, people of color depending upon the goodwill of white people to see, understand and act upon their oppression, needs and concerns, and thus, you still have white supremacy. Hopefully over time and good revolutionary process society can eliminate the forms of oppression by race, but that can’t be done until the people of color have achieved their own empowerment first.

The above example should be applied to other social groupings of people who find the need to organize directly around their oppressions, needs and wants. Another example would be women organizing against sexism and patriarchy.

Social syndicalism advocates that social groups of people become empowered by organizing together in their own self-interest and use their organizations to interact with the other syndicates in order that their needs and concerns are addressed directly.

Sovereignty Syndicalism

Throughout the world there are groupings of people that are based upon traditional indigenous tribalism. As a matter of fact, all people have indigenous tribal roots. But the conquest by capitalism and the State, and the forms of conquest that capitalism evolved out of sought to destroy traditional indigenous tribalism, and in some cases did. Some forms of radical ideologies, even though they seek to change the system for themselves, do continue the process of oppression of traditional indigenous tribalism.

Since syndicalism is based upon the idea of people organizing in their direct self-interests, it recognizes the inherent right of the sovereignty of indigenous tribes. Rather than being another form of missionarism that seeks to impose its ways on others, syndicalism seeks to give solidarity support to the struggles, needs and wants of indigenous tribes, but only when requested. Interaction between the indigenous tribes and the different forms of syndicates would take place when needed and wanted, based upon common needs, cooperation and respect.

Synthesis of Syndicalism


One may look at all that I have written and think, isn’t that a bit much? How could we ever organize all that? And how could so many different syndicates function together?

First, the organization of the syndicates would take place upon what the people are willing to organize and are able to organize. As more people become directly involved in the syndicalist movement, more forms of syndicates could be organized. Since all the syndicates are connected, any form of syndicalist organizing directly advances the overall syndicalist movement.

How syndicates would work together depends on the need. In our day-to-day struggle with capitalism and the State it could look like this: Let’s say an industrial syndicates goes on strike. The other industrial syndicates would make sure that the striking workplace does not receive goods and services, that no goods from the striking workplace are handled and the work of the strikers are not done in another workplace. There could be an exception to the work of the strikers, for instance, if the workplace provides needed services to a community, the striking syndicate along with community syndicates may organize the continuation of those services in such a way as the capitalists do not profit from that work.

The industrial and community syndicates would work together to provide for the needs of the strikers. And all the syndicates would work together to give direct action support for the strikers. All this could be coordinated out of assemblies called for the purpose of providing the needs and direct action solidarity. This same means of functioning could be applied to community struggles, struggles around issues or in support of groupings of oppression or indigenous tribal struggles.

For example, let’s say that a multi-national mining corporation, with the help of the State, has gone on to tribal land for the purpose of energy development. The State has arrested some of the tribal people who have tried to resist and now they request the assistance of the syndicates. First, the defense/solidarity committees would give aid to those arrested and help build an offensive campaign to resist that oppression. That would be coordinated out of a defense/solidarity assembly. Next, an assembly could be called to coordinate direct resistance against the multi-national corporation and the State aiding it, and to provide for the needs of the resisters.

Out of that assembly a direct action plan would be created. The tribal organization may set up roadblocks on tribal land. The syndicates may set up roadblocks on the outside of the tribal land. The Industrial Syndicates may place a boycott on the multi-national corporation, so that no syndicalist workers are involved in the companies operation on tribal land, that no syndicalist workers provide any goods or services to that company, and that a consumer boycott is put into place. Then the syndicates could organization protests demonstrations as widely as possible.

In the functioning of providing needs the syndicates could function as follows. Let’s say the need is a road between communities. First, an assembly would be called between the two communities to define the need of a road. Then an assembly would be called of those that are directly affected by the road and building of the road. That would be the industrial syndicates of road builders, transportation workers who would use the road, and the community syndicates that have a need for the road. Let’s say that between the two communities there is tribal land, so the tribal organization would be included. Then if there were environmental concerns, (i.e. there are wetlands in that area). Perhaps there is a concern of bike riders; they would have their syndicate in the assembly, also. If the assembly should be open to all members of the syndicates involved or should be a delegate assembly would depend upon how large the draw of people would be.

Out of that assembly a basic plan that would address everyone’s needs and concerns would be drawn up. Then a council made up of representatives of the syndicates would work out a detailed plan and take that back to the assembly for approval, which may also include taking the detailed plan back to each syndicate before taking it to the assembly of syndicates.

This system of assemblies of syndicates would take place anytime there is an activity that deals with the needs or concerns of two or more syndicates. It could be something as simple as a syndicate of fiddlers who want to put on a fiddle festival. The fiddlers syndicate would meet with the syndicates in the community that they want it to take place in, the syndicate of the workers that maybe needed, the transportation workers syndicate for transportation needs, and so on, based upon what is needed. In such a case there maybe just a need for a delegate from each syndicate and not a mass assembly.

Revolutionary Process

Every struggle goes through a process, and the better we understand that process and give that process some direction the better off we will be, rather than just let the process direct us. History is not made up of individual isolated moments, but rather it is a continuously flowing evolution. Any moment in time is influenced to one degree or another by things that went on before that moment. Thus, the analysis of any struggle or event must take into consideration its influence on that which came after it.

Our revolutionary process, in my view, should be based on a flow of taking from the past that which we can learn from, advancing it in the present with new ideas and passing it along to the next generation for them to take it and advance as they can. This creates an evolution of revolutionary process.

Even what may seem to be a rather insignificant event may have influenced individuals or groups to go on to greater things. Even the most renowned activists had their starting points, and the same can be said of all activists. Base upon the experience gained in starting points, revolutionary activists then begin their individual revolutionary process. This makes the creation of starting points of activism essential to our movement.

In realizing this, the most important time of any event, is not the time before the event (the organizing of it), or the time of the event (a starting point for new activists), but rather the time after the event. That time is crucial for it is the follow-up of events that allows for the development of new activists into our movement. Without the follow-up of the starting points for new activists, we not only may lose people who could become activists, but also we could lose influencing the direction that new activists take.

The first most important factor in developing new activists is to make that beginning point easy for them to get involved in our movement. Sometimes anarchists tend to isolate themselves to the point that for a new person to get actively involved in the anarchist movement they must go through such a struggle that they burn out before they become committed to our movement.

Part of the reason for the high burnout of new activists is that many older activists expect everyone in the movement to be well educated on anarchism and issues, and at times they even get hostile when someone does not understand something and attack them as if their lack of understanding is an ideological point of view. We do not become knowledgeable anarchists at the point that we become interested in anarchism.

Education is a process.

Since our struggles are a resistance to oppression and exploitation, our educational process should not be of abstract theories alone. Our educational theoretical work needs to, in my view, relate directly to the experiences of oppression and exploitation of each activist. In order to do that activists need to be able to express their experiences.

The working class has come under the dominance of the intelligentsia. The books on the history of working class struggles and its ideas are almost exclusively written by the intelligentsia. This has created a situation where theory is held up on a pedestal and the direct experiences of our class, as explained by our class, has almost been driven into extinction. As such, the intelligentsia has become a ruling class over working class struggle. One of the first steps in our revolutionary process should be in seizing back the voice of the working class in its own education and the development of our ideas.

Our expressed experiences explain our needs and why we wish to build a better world and through that we create the ideas (theory) of how to proceed in dealing with our oppressions and creating a new world. With those ideas (theory) applied in practice, we then tap into the experience gained from that (what works and what does not work and how we can make it better in our process of change) and modify our ideas (theory), and that becomes our revolutionaryprocess.

That is why our experiences in being oppressed and the experiences with organizing around our oppression and balancing that with our ideas (theory) are so important. That is why busting out of the absolutist containment of theory alone, or blindly reacting to personal experience of oppressive conditions without the direction of ideas (theory) are both dead-end processes, but the balance of both leads us down the path of liberation.

Syndicalist Revolution

All the syndicates would have four main elements:

1. The organization of day-to-day struggles with oppression, capitalism, and the State.

2. The organized collective solidarity between the syndicates.

3. The organizational revolutionary power to do away with oppression, capitalism and the State.

4. The transformation of society from oppression, capitalism and the State to an anarchist society based upon the well-being of all.

When building our syndicates we are at the same time building all four elements.

Capitalism and the State are organized powers used to oppress and exploit us. Through syndicalist organizing we are organizing our collective power to defeat the organized power of the ruling class.

When the organized power of the people is greater than the organized power of the ruling class then our revolution would take place through a social general strike. That social general strike would be the complete refusal, in industries, communities and in all means, of cooperation with capitalism and the State, and of providing goods and services to capitalism and the State, along with the organized protection of our revolution. Capitalism and the State cannot exist without our cooperation with the ruling class. We feed them, we provide the services they need, our communities are controlled by our cooperation with them, we are everywhere, even in the homes of the ruling class. There is nowhere for them to run, we are everywhere, there is nowhere to hide, we are everywhere. We will starve the ruling class out of existence; let them eat their money and deeds of property.

Our revolution would not be centralized with an easy target to suppress; rather it will be spread out in all places.

Once we have seized our workplaces and communities we would then begin the transformation of society by dismantling forever the institutions of capitalism and the State, so that we will create permanent revolution for there will be nothing left for the ruling class or a new ruling class to ever seize control of. We would replace capitalism and the State with our anarcho-syndicalism organizations. This organization would have the flexibility to evolve down the road to more idealistic forms based upon a process of needs and desires.

In this way we are paving the road of our ideas through reality to our dreams.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/422

[stevie ray]

Interesting article. It pretty much proves that anarchy is a losing battle while trying to prove that anarchy is the right direction to go.

After all, it admits right off that bat that you can't counter a highly organized power structure without being organized.

[American Dream]

Interesting article. It pretty much proves that anarchy is a losing battle while trying to prove that anarchy is the right direction to go.

After all, it admits right off that bat that you can't counter a highly organized power structure without being organized.

This is a common misperception. Principles of Anarchism by no means exclude being organized.

Here is one article which I hope will help make this clear:



http://www.wsm.ie/c/thinking-about-anar ... ganisation

Thinking about Anarchism: Anarchist Organisation

Date: Fri, 1992-05-01


One of the greatest myths that has been fostered about anarchists is that they are disorganised. Since the anarchist movement first emerged in the International Working Mens' Association in the 1870's it has developed many trends. Each with its own method of organisation.

From the mass unions of the anarcho-syndicalists which today include important unions like the General Workers Confederation (CGT) and the National Confederation of Workers (CNT-AIT) in Spain and the Central Organisation of Swedish Workers (SAC) to the anarcho-communists in tighter, more closely knit organisations.

In Ireland, the Workers Solidarity Movement is an anarcho--communist organisation. The structure our organisation is based on the way we would like to see society structured, and the structure of any organisation reflects the politics that that organisation holds.

Firstly democracy. Any anarchist organisation must be based on the principle of true workers' democracy. The WSM is a platformist organisation.

WHAT IS THE "PLATFORM"?

The Platform or "The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" was written by famous anarchists Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov, Ida Mett and others in 1926, following their experiences in the Russian Revolution.

Despite the fact that there were over 10,000 active anarchists in Russia in 1917, they were quickly wiped out by the Bolshevik Red Terror. As early as April 1918 the anarchist centres in Moscow were attacked. 600 anarchists were arrested and dozens killed.

Not all anarchists were clear about what needed to be done. A few even went to the Bolsheviks but others fought on to defend the gains of the revolution against what they saw was a new developing ruling class. The Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine and the Kronstadt uprising were the last important battles. By 1921 the anti-authoritarian revolution was dead. This defeat has had deep and lasting effects on the international workers' movement.

It was the hope of the authors of the platform that such a disaster would not happen again. The platform looks at the lessons of the Russian anarchist movement, its failure to build up a presence within the working class movement big enough and effective enough to counteract the tendency of the Bolsheviks and other political groups to substitute themselves for the working class.

The Platform states for example that it is ludicrous to have an organisation which contains groups that have mutually antagonistic and contradictory definitions of anarchism. It also says that we need formal agreed structure covering written policies, the role of officers, the need for membership dues and so on; the sort of structures that allow for effective and at the same time large democratic organisation. And it says that we must have fully worked out and agreed policies that we can argue for as an organisation. We need to become a "leadership of ideas".

These views are in contrast to the anarcho-syndicalist view which is that all that is needed is one massive revolutionary union. The problem with this is that people with widely differing views are in the union and so when a crucial decision comes up there will be a split or at least confusion as to what way to go.

The best example of this is the action of the National Confederation of Workers (CNT) in the Spanish revolution who, while supporting the revolution of the working class of Spain had no plan of what to do. They ended up joining the government instead of smashing the state, and they did not have any worked out policy of how the workers could defend themselves from the backstabbing attacks of the Bolsheviks directed by Stalin.

We call any group that agrees with the basic outlines of the Platform a "Platformist" organisation.

Structure of an "anarchist organisation"

Following the ideas of the platform, we want to build an anarchist organisation. An "anarchist organisation" would be organised on a branch level. There would be a regional committee composed of delegates from the branches and there would be a national committee. The important thing about this structure is that control would come from the bottom up and not from the top down.

To join, an individual or group must agree with the policies and aims of the "organisation" but once inside all members would be encouraged in a free atmosphere to question and develop these policies.

The business of the organisation would be decided at regular conferences of all members. Perspectives on the future, long and short term, further policies and tactics would be decided and all members bound to them. The representatives of regions and national areas would also be elected and mandated to follow the conference decisions.

In an anarchist organisation all representatives would be mandated and recallable. This means that if they start doing their own thing as people in positions of responsibility tend to do, they can be removed from that position. And nobody would be allowed remain in an important position for more than a few years.

For us the position should never become a status symbol or a position reserved for 'senior' activists. It should better be seen as a temporary position that everyone could be expected to do at some time.

But the most crucial aspect of an organisation of anarchists is the internal life of the branch. In order for an organisation to be truly democratic, education and development of all members must be encouraged. People must develop the confidence to speak at packed public meetings. The ability to question someone else's ideas only comes if you know enough about the subject being talked about.

Books must be circulated and read, a library of left wing books used, articles and policies written by all. On the more physical side, all must be willing to do their fair share of the donkey work. Paper selling and postering, leafletting and picketing. The day to day running of the organisation must also be well organised; branch meetings must be attended, membership dues paid, etc.

The best way to avoid an informal elite is to get everyone stuck in and knowing what is going on. The situation where some people do the "intellectual" stuff like writing articles and others do the "manual" stuff like giving out leaflets and yet another section are burnt out and don't do anything, must never be allowed. If that does happen you can be fairly sure that there is something wrong, politically, with such an organisation.

As anarchists we do not believe that we are the PARTY with the TRUTH. We are quite happy to work with other anarchist groups as long as there is a basic level of agreement. So in the "organisation" of anarchists we expect that there would be many ideas, groups and factions, the only condition necessary would be agreement on the aims and policies of the organisation. Factions would have to support the majority position but would have full access to the internal bulletin and the organisation's journals to argue their ideas.

The alternatives no.1- parliament

No other political groups organise in this way. Any parliamentary party is run on a hierarchical structure. The higher you are the more control you have. Real decisions are made by the elected TD's over the heads of the members and the most important decision are made by the leader of the party and a couple of cronies.

Their way of organising reflects their politics of "leave it all to us" They encourage people to allow the bigger decisions that effect their lives to be made by the small elite of the ruling class. We are told to have faith in people who we are told know better than us.

The alternatives no.2 - Lenin

A similar method of organisation is used by Leninist organisations. Based on their failed tactic of "leading" the working class to socialism they develop a ruling elite within their organisations. Leninists do not believe that the working class can develop political ideas. So, instead a Leninist party must provide the leadership and the working class will follow. They see themselves as 'shepherds leading the sheep'.

Within a Leninist party the future leaders of the working class are bred. Central and Political Committees are elected who are then given the right to make decisions for the whole organisation. The ideas and orders therefore come from the top down.

Central control can go to absurd lengths. One Leninist organisation in Ireland is controlled from the USA. It has to have everything checked and agreed by the central committee across the Atlantic. This includes simple pamphlets which have to be printed in the states and mailed over.

This formal leadership does the "intellectual" side of the business while the majority are left to selling the paper and going to branch meetings for their weekly orders. In these organisations a leader can be a leader for life. Look at Lenin, Stalin or Gerry Healey (English Leninist leader) for example.

As far as education goes, most members are brought up on a diet of their own party literature which limits them to a low level of disinformation about other peoples ideas. Unless you are being trained for leadership there will be very little effort to develop debating or writing skills.

This ties in nicely with their elitist and cynical view of politics. Namely the gaining control of the working class sometime in the future!

Workers' control

As anarchists we are committed to our democratic ideals. We are members of the WSM because we want to win the battle of ideas and fight for the control and self-management of society by the working class. We are in an organisation because we agree on our politics, have more resources as an organisation, are better able to put across our views and can combine our forces in the struggle to build an anarchist society.

If you like our ideas we want you to find out more about us, and think seriously about joining us. We encourage everybody to find out more about anarchism, its ideas and its actions.

From Workers Solidarity No34, 1992

***

See also: Anarcho-syndicalism - an introduction | libcom.org

[American Dream]

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/ ... ds_of.html

Ohio Univ. Students to Classmates: ‘We’re a Culture, Not a Costume’


All images courtesy of Ohio University

by Jorge Rivas

An awful lot of people agree with the infamous words of “Mean Girls” character Cady:
“Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.” She could have gotten more agreement still by adding, “Halloween is the one night a year when people think it’s OK to dress in totally inappropriate and racist costumes.”

Ohio University student Sarah Williams says she was at a Halloween party last year when she snapped a picture of someone in black face. “It angers me and it’s unacceptable,” Williams said in an interview with Colorlines.com on Monday. So she and some fellow students decided to do something about it—and they’ve captured national attention in the process.



This is happening across the country. It’s not just here in Athens, Ohio,” says Williams, who is the president of a student group at Ohio University called Students Teaching About Racism in Society (STARS). The group, made up of 10 students, has created an educational campaign called “We’re a Culture, Not a Costume” that juxtaposes images like the one Williams saw last year with an actual African-American student. It adds a simple statement: “This is not who I am, and this is not okay.”

The posters have already taken social media by storm, going viral on Tumblr and Facebook pages around the country. As of Monday evening, they had been shared more than 50,000 times online, according to Williams.

The posters will be passed out throughout the dorms on Ohio University’s Athens campus. The group’s Facebook page reports other schools, including Columbia University, are interested in distributing the campaign on their campuses, too.

STARS says their group’s guiding principle is based on the African principle “Each One Teach One”. Their mission statement on their website reads: “The purpose of STARS is to educate and facilitate discussion about all ism’s (racism, sexism, classism, etc.), raise awareness about social justice, and promote racial harmony. Our job is to create a safe, non-threatening environment to allow participants to feel comfortable to express their feelings.”

STARS produced the campaign entirely on its own, with no funding from the school. But the campaign has made such a positive impression on students and faculty that the Division of Student Affairs stepped in to help pay for posters to get printed.

Controversy surrounding racially offensive Halloween costumes and theme parties have become a routine part of the holiday on college campuses. Last fall, one Northwestern University dean went so far as to send an advance email to the whole student body, urging them to think carefully before getting decked out. “Halloween is unfortunately a time when the normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most NU students can be forgotten and some poor decisions are made,” wrote Burgwell Howard. In 2009, Northwestern had drawn unwanted national attention when party pics of two varsity athletes dressed in graphic black face made social media rounds.

Of course, the trend stretches past college campuses. The black-face costume of choice last year was Antoine Dodson, the young, poor black man who became a troubling Internet sensation after his outburst to a local news reporter covering his sister’s sexual assault. Memes circulated all year, in which producers morphed his screaming words into songs and audio clips. It was no surprise when, come Oct. 31, his Facebook page filled with pictures of white people in black face, wearing afro wigs and bandanas and making gang gestures.

In 2009, Target made headlines by selling an “illegal alien” costume that featured an orange jumpsuit and an alien mask. Kohls previously sold a “Ghetto Fab Wig.” Colorlines.com rounded up these and other perennially popular racist costumes last year.

In short, costumes mocking people of color are an annual Halloween epidemic. Williams says STARS has a simple message for classmates planning to join the so-called fun again this year: “It’s not funny. STARS doesn’t believe that making a costume of a culture or race is funny. It only reinforces stereotypes.”

Williams, who’s black, plans on being Janelle Monae on Halloween.

[American Dream]

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/ ... tters.html

Urban Outfitters’ ‘Indian Chic’ Prompts Sadly Familiar Outrage



by Jamilah King
Friday, October 21 2011

It doesn’t take more than the ubiquitous Che Guevara t-shirt to know that corporate America loves to pimp other people’s culture for profits.

So it wasn’t all that surprising when Urban Outfitters released 21 products as part of its new “Navajo” fashion line. The new garments included the “Navajo Flask” and the “Navajo Hipster Panty.”



But the Navajo Nation, which owns the trademark to the name “Navajo,” didn’t make it easy for the company to sell its products. And in the complicated legal battle that’s ensued, the familiar theme of how and if companies should be able to profit off of the cultural symbols of communities of color has once again taken center stage.

Recently, the Navajo Nation sent Urban Outfitters a cease-and-desist letter in an effort to stop the company from using the trademarked name. “When products that have absolutely no connection to the Navajo Nation, its entities, its people, and their products are marketed and retailed under the guise that they are Navajo in origin, the Navajo Nation does not regard this as benign or trivial,” the tribe’s attorney Brian Lewis told the Washington Post last week.

Neither the Navajo Nation nor Urban Outfitters responded to requests for comments from Colorlines.com this week. But it seems that the Navajo Nation got its demands met. This week Jenna Sauers at Jezebel noticed that the company had simply re-named the products. For instance, the “Navajo Hipster Panty” is now just the “Printed Hipster Panty.”




But for some, there’s a larger ethical question of whether any mainstream company can and should profit off of Native culture.

Sasha Houston Brown is a 24-year-old Native American woman who lives in Minneapolis. On Columbus Day, she published a scathing open letter on Racialicious addressed directly to Glen T. Senk, CEO of Urban Outfitters, Inc. In it, she describes her visceral reaction to seeing the products at a local Urban Outfitters store. Brown described the collection as “distasteful and racially demeaning” and criticized the company for what she called its “perverted cultural appropriation.”

The letter apparently got the company’s attention. A user logged into the Disqus comment system as “Glenn T. Senk” responded, saying that the company is “deeply sorry this issue has triggered an offended reaction” and posting the company’s Philadelphia phone number to discuss the matter. Brown followed up, but has not yet received a response.

On Thursday afternoon, Brown spoke to Colorlines.com about why she wrote the letter. “My issue was never about a specific company,” Brown said by phone. “They shouldn’t have the right to profit off of our culture.”

She continued: “It’s not just about a pair of underwear or a flask, it’s about how we are viewed by corporate America and dominant society.”

Brown said she had become increasingly disturbed by what she called “Indian chic,” which she described as the recurring trend in mainstream fashion and jewelry to mimic Native prints. She noted that it was particularly disturbing because Native artists who create fashion and jewelry are seldom recognized for their work. “We’re in a culture where Native people are invisible in the mainstream,” she said. “It really plays into the culture. Here you have a dominant corporation interpreting what they believe to be Native fashion or art, ripping it off, and making a profit.”

So should mainstream fashion designers stay away from pieces that are inspired by indigenous art? Not exactly, according to Brown. “If it’s done in the appropriate manner, it could be a really great segue for designers to have real conversations with tribes about the art’s history and where it comes from.”

But, Brown warned, it’s a thin and often dangerous line to walk.

“There’s no real recognition of the history of this nation, in terms of how we were robbed of our land and culture,” she says. “We’ve fought so hard to protect what little we have today.”

[American Dream]

From last year's archive:

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/ ... avoid.html

Seven Racist Costumes to Avoid This Halloween



by Jorge Rivas
October 26 2010


In the memorable words from “Mean Girls”: “Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.” Apparently, the same holds true for costumes that mock, imitate and belittle certain racial groups. So, as we all get ready for the coming weekend’s parties, here’s my review of some of the most racist options being sold this year, along with some bad ideas that recur every Halloween. Share it with anybody you think might need the help.



Antoine Dodson
Really, this is one is just crazy, but if you go in blackface then you enter official racist territory. “Run and tell THAT!”

On Sunday, Antoine Dodson informed his Facebook followers there was a minor setback with his $24.99 “Bed Intruder Hero Costume.” “Y’all aint going to believe this: The wig machine broke down and had to be repaired because of all the orders for my costume.” His costume has sold out twice and they’re scrambling to produce even more before Halloween—so we’ll undoubtedly see many iterations of Antoine out there…including in dog form.




Illegal Alien
The “Illegal Alien Adult Costume,” manufactured by Forum novelties, includes an orange jumpsuit, similar to prison garb, with “Illegal Alien” stamped in black across the chest; a space alien mask; and a fake Green Card. “The costume is a sick sign of the times we are living in in this country where those who are not ‘people like us’ might as well be from another planet and are considered less than human,” one customer wrote on Target’s website before the retailer removed the costume. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles wrote a letter to retailers asking them to stop selling the costume, but a quick Google search reveals dozens of retailers, including Amazon.com and Buy.com, still selling the item.




Afro Wigs (or Anything with Other People’s Hair)
Kohl’s department store learned this lesson the hardway. Apparently someone in their marketing team equated “kinky” hair as ghetto fabulous. “Most often, the people I see wearing afro wigs—and dreadlock wigs, let’s not forget about those—are just looking to lampoon naturally textured black hair. And my hair isn’t a joke, a trend, a prop, or a costume. It’s real, it’s special, and it’s beautiful,” wrote beauty, hair and culture blogger extraordinaire Afrobella. And Kohl’s listened. The wig is no longer for sale on Kohl”s website.




“Rednecks” and “Hillbillies”
It works both ways, y’all. “Redneck” and “white trash” are racial slurs, actually, not to mention that they mock poor white southerners. It’s disrespectful. So just don’t.




“Mexican”
This one’s a perennial racism favorite. With all the controversy surrounding immigration and state laws like Arizona’s SB1070, dressing up as a Mexican guy—complete with a sombrero, exaggerated mustache and a donkey is—is probably something we can expect to see lots of this year.




Muslim Terrorist
This perpetuates hate against Arabs and Muslims, obviously, and you really don’t want to freak out Juan Williams.



Anything in Black Face
Somehow, people still think this is OK. “In my opinion, Black Face is just as offending as hanging nooses around trees,” writes Dee Peachz on a black face forum on Facebook.

Blackface costumes take the prize for most racist pretty much every year. For the record: Blackface has a deeply rooted racist history in the United States. It extends back to minstrel shows in which white actors would paint their faces black and lips red or white to mock the physical appearance African Americans and perform grotesque “comedy” based on the idea that black people aren’t human beings.

.