IRVINE - Protesters gathered outside the Taco Bell corporate headquarters earlier this afternoon to protest the exploitation of striking migrant farm workers who have fallen under the yoke of Taco Bell.
In support of their stuggle, Black Bloc Anarchists and other militant activists surrounded the building on two occasions, blocking the exits, playing drums and chanting "Taco Bell, go to hell". The Black Bloc tagged and pounded on the windows, and attempted to barricade the street with dumpsters (they were thwarted by a lone "militant peacenik" who pushed the dumpsters back, and later pushed an anarchist away from a trashcan which s/he was attempting to throw in a fountain.)
On the second march around the building, Anarchists attempted to storm the lobby while their comrads blocked off both main exits. There was a scuffle between the protesters and corporate executives/security, which ended shortly.
"This is just the beginning," said one masked freedom fighter, "Taco Bell will wither and decompose in the blood they've drained from their workers."
One police officer said "Where's a Del Taco? I'm not for your cause or anything, but Taco Bell tastes like shit."

Brought to you by
the Southern Kalifornia Anarchist Alliance

That is so awsome!!!!

I use to be into the green party and reformist politics and I found it to be a total dead end that would never accomplish anything! What you did here was real.


These Taco Bell CEO's are making millions and millions of dollars while the fast food and farm workers get paid next to nothing! I heard that they even have there own personal work-out gym at the Taco Bell building in Irvine. Probably a lot of the janitors and low wage workers at that building would even support you!

I've got food poisoning from them before too and it sucks working class people are forced to eat this shit cuz its the only cheap thing around.

What you did is inspiring to say the least- the only way Taco Bell and for that matter all multinational corporations will ever feel pain is in there pocket book!! Global Warming, sweatshops, Corporate Oligarchy will never be stopped by working within political parties. We need to confront those who would destroy our earth and kill/exploit our brothers and sisters around the world!!


If Anarchy means local communities taking back what is rightfully theres and living in an equal and fair world without the police state then count me in!!



keep it real !

IRVINE (2015) - after years of miniscule property damage from stinky black-clad middle-class brats, the once mighty Taco Bell corporation has gone bankrupt. The gleaming doors of thousands of franchises are closed, the yellow neon bells are dim. The vast armada of guacamole guns are now silent.

Del Taco CEO Kevin K. Moriarty gave a press conference today and said: "I'd like to thank my friends at SKAA for organizing boycotts and demonstrations of our once-powerful competitor. They even attacked their corporate headquarters, something I could NEVER get away with. I pay my workers even less than Taco Bell did, and the farm workers are still screwed. Now I'm richer than ever! Ha ha ha haha!"

Peet's Coffee CEO joined in with more praise. "We couldn't have organized a better campaign against Starbucks ourselves. Thankfully SKAA and their stinky friends all around the world spent many years tossing bricks through Starbucks windows. Who would have thought that nonsensical spray-painted slogans about 'arming desires' could do so much damage? Eventually, Starbucks just crumbled, and now Peet's is everywhere. I'm very rich and coffee farmers in Indonesia are still starving. Fortunately, no one ever thought to organize all workers everywhere to destroy capitalism."

Levi Strauss's CEO, whose competitor, the Gap, also recently went bankrupt, concurred. "Why, we might be living in a society where workers control their own destinies! Imagine if everyone decided democratically what to produce and consume? It would be Anarchy!!!"

the last post was done by someone overly sarcastic trying to promote his authoritarian reformist agenda..

These acts had a purpose and I must say good job at socking it to them..SKAA is standing in solidarity with the taco bell workers (way more then anything your doing) and they are sure as hell doing a lot more then your sarcastic internet posts would ever accomplish. Do you even know any of these young activists in SKAA?

Taco bell is only one mmultinational corporation and people are organizing against all of them (right now there is a campaign to support the tomatoe workers if you didn't notice) there is nothing wrong with them doing the street work and going after these corporate HQ's.

Capitalism won't be brought down with your political organizations and reformist political partiest (that only helps capitalism by co-opting the revolution).

your bullshit authoritarian liberal shit isn't fooling anyone anymore...

The individuals who brought Del Taco shit wanted idiots to respond by condemning and bashing the anarchists that showed up. We know that liberal capitalists look for anything to bash radical youth kids that want to achieve campaigns instead of blabbing about them in discussion groups. Obviously the bait worked in getting at least one idiot liberal capitalist to bash on us. Here is a message to all of you middle class / upper class liberal capitalists:

We refuse to acclimate ourselves to this insane order. We will not get used to more parking lots and concrete, less trees and less dirt. We won't go along with decisions handed down from above, plans made years ago, verdicts, ordinances, or orders. We will conspire, harbor fugitives, and make citizen unarrests. We love to bun flags and break windows. We smell, and are not ashamed to walk naked in the mall. We are the products of television controlled society, exploitation, failed movements, and the shitty fucking world we have inherited. We advocate burning things down, and we hate authority. We have no options left but to tear this shit down. We talk to ourselves, and we always do what the little voices tell us to do. We are hypocritical, and so are you. We are the youth. We are the future. Deal with it.

-Rampage and other anarchists who aren't haters

Capitalist Hegemony News - (Irvine, California, 2015)
REFORMIST SEEKS OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK ANARCHISTS
Today a reformist "liberal" welcomed the opportunity to attack anarchists that were doing something effective "I embrace this opportunity to focus on attacking people that are, according to my own rhetoric, struggling with me against the exploitation of workers everywhere", said "@" shortly after posting on Indymedia (a site frequented by activists when they take a break from marching in circles).
"@" issued an impassioned plea for "people everywhere" to embrace democratic Capitalism.
He further expounded on this point to admiring NGO friends as they sipped shade-grown, organic Trader Joe's coffee during a break from shuffling papers that were to be used in a campaign to appeal for Capitalism to reform itself, "Look, things aren't going to change just because people decide that they're going to get out there and do something about it! That's just crazy! It has to happen through a centralized bureaucracy that will negotiate with the powerful in our society. Those major-shareholders and CEO's are inevitably going to be moved by our powerful arguments and eye-catching marches of tens of thousands of activists behind our bannners at set times and places (worked out with the police who are really on our side)".
Here he paused to adjust his Birkenstocks and took a quick enquiry from one of the many journalists that was attempting to understand the upcoming hegemony smashing (but peaceful) demonstration. "Dude," he continued " the important thing to focus on is dissing the Black Bloc. They're the greatest threat to us. They refuse to work with the bosses and divert attention from our conciliatory tactics. It started in Seattle (20 or so years ago...these young kids don't remember but I was there!) and it's going to continue forever".
Unfortunately our interview ended there as he had to run off to assist a Police officer with arresting a 16 year old girl that was resisting being pepper sprayed.

I won't say anything about what tactics are appropriate
when, or which corporations to target. Those are
subjects worthy of a few books.

But it's usually pretty amusing when I hear someone
say that they've "tried" the Green Party and all
kinds of legal tactics, and concluded that it's
a "dead end"

How old are you? Tell me about the fifteen years
you spent trying to build a party from the ground
up. Tell me how you've run for city council or
school board, or how you've walked precincts for
school board members who want to get fast food out
of the schools.

How many Green Party meetings did you attend, exactly,
and how much initiative did you personally take to
get a good candidate elected to office?

As the saying goes:

"If you find fault with this orgaization, it's because
it needs your help."

Pure Person News (California, 2002)
In an angry riposte to a mild parody of a parody posted on Indymedia today (Jan 16th) an angry "GP" attacked the poster of the parody on the following grounds:
1. that the poster was too young
2. that the poster hadn't served enough time in the Green Party.

The response obtained by our correspondent in an exclusive interview is as follows:
My age and the age of anyone else has nothing to do with it. I don't care if you are senile or infant or anywhere in between. All I'm interested in is changing things. I will evaluate your ideas, not _you_, on their own merits.
You call for (albeit in an offensive manner) attempting the reformist tactics of the GP. You, yourself, can get a better idea than from your own experience if you examine the fate of reformist movements over history. You can look at recent history where Greens have been succesful: in Germany the Greens hold political power beyond the wildest dreams of any US activist. They have reneged on every election promise (such as removing nuclear power) and have compromised and diluted their principles so that they can remain in power to do good. You can look at the Labour Party in the UK. They too have shown that they are not interested or capable of upholding election promises, fundamental points of their platorm or their rhetoric (a good example is their reneging on a promise to control arms exports). You can look at the Clinton legacy of increased security appartus, decreased welfare safety net etc. all in contradiction of oft-stated good intentions.
You can look at more ancient history: Social Democratic governments elected across Europe with the stated aim of reforming Capitalism showed very little intent of doing so once they obtained power. Trades Union which sought electoral power and legislated reform (for instance in the British Fabians) were able to achieve some reforms as long as there was a fear of revolution. The Bolsheviks who actually stated that they wanted to smash Capitalist society by seizing power for the proletariat and instituting a reformed State Capitalism (centrally and scientifically managed) are an extreme example of reformism.
The whole point of this screed, dear GP, is that power corrupts. You cannot and should not "hold power" for other people. The only democracy is direct democracy. We have seen over the last century or two that reform only happens when the Bosses are afraid of something worse.
Let's give them something worse.
Meanwhile lay of the Black Bloc, the personal insults, the in-fighting. The Black Bloc are doing what they think is best. They are, if any personal epithets going to be thrown about, heroic.

GP even if you get fast food out of the school they'll just bring it back next year and theyll still be selling it in every other school and what about the kids getting a shitty education can you chagne that? what about rotc getting poor kids into the army... the green party has never done anything for the ghetto have they?? Is there any big inner city green party of people of color?
the green party hasn't done shit and its only leading possible revolutionaries down the path of reformist capitalist garble.. look at the green party in germany who has supported the war!! The american green party has refused to ask these people to step down because all the green party politicians are concerened about is themselves stayingin power . not stopping hte millions of deaths in 3rd world countries..

you believe your own lies which is ridiculous because you know you can't reform capitalism. its impossible. there is no such thing as humanitarian capitalism. capitalism exists to make a few rich and keep the majority poor. always needing new sweatshop markets to expand to.

We must go to all green party gatherings so that they can't brainwash young progressives. these kids should be organizing there local communities, feeding the homeless, wheatpasting, tagging all over the city, and going to protests!
going to green party meetings and stroking ralph nader that rich hypocritical bastard (that wouldnt even allow his own campaign workers to unionize!) is a waste of your time!

Real revolution means marching in the streets !

You're pretty desperate, Phuq Hed, to have to put so
many words in my mouth. My post was not an "attack"
for someone's age, but an observation that most people
who say that politics in the real world isn't worth
bothering with haven't been out of high school long
enough to even see it, much less bother with it.

I'll leave it to the original "John" to whom I was
replying to tell us whether this applies to him.

You've given us the same old list of reforms and
revolutions gone awry, the conclusion to which must
be that no progress is possible ever. Then let's
all just forget it, right?

No, I suppose you're proposing "direct democracy", whatever
you fantasize that to be, as a way of making real change.
Well, Greens have their own version of "direct democracy",
that we'd like to try. Maybe it's not yours, but don't
knock what you haven't tried. Your version, whatever it
is, hasn't been tried in any groups larger than... what?
how many dozen? And please don't bring up Barcelona. It
DIED, remember?

My original post wasn't an "attack" on anyone, but you
found excuses to portray it as such, and launch an attack
on me. Yes, lets all just tear each other apart. The bosses are laughing.

I won't talk about the Black Bloc. That was never my
intention, and I don't claim to know enough about it.
Calling them "heroic" is neither here nor there to me,
but if you want "heroic", it's definitely NOT taking
a physical risk for a moment and bragging about it
later. It's putting in year after year of grinding
labor, and wondering where your life went later, and
maybe having given a few other people some comfort
that they wouldn't have had without you. And being
vilified by people who think you should have done
more, as well as your enemies.


Now here's the best part of another reply I got:

"We must go to all green party gatherings so that they can't brainwash young progressives. these kids should be organizing there local communities, feeding the homeless, wheatpasting, tagging all over the city, and going to protests!"

"Real revolution means marching in the streets!"


So, rather than working with Greens, they should be:

(1) organizing local communities (exactly what Greens
are doing)

(2) feeding the homeless (exactly what some Greens are
doing, and all Greens want the government to do)

(3) wheatpasting (I assume this means posting flyers,
something many people of all persuasions do)

(3) tagging (Boy, that really accomplishes a lot!)

(4) going to protests (exactly what Greens do)

(5) marching in the streets (exactly what Greens, the
U.S. military, every high school band, and many others
do)

Dear GP,
John expressed his satisfaction with the BB action. As do I. You say that you were addressing John. I thought that you were addressing me. OK. Sorry. Perhaps you should adopt the customary "To X" at the head of your posts to avoid confusion. However, you take issue with me now and address my post.

I accused you of belittling someone and trying to invalidate their ideas because of their age. You deny it. Allow me to quote you:

"How old are you?"

And you then proceed to talk about how you are not willing to accept the argument that reformist Green Party electoral politics is a waste of time because the poster has not put in 15 years of hard time in the GP. How old do you have to be to realize that the reformist politics is a waste of time? Do you have to spend 15 years learning a lesson that others can learn in a year or a few months? Are you looking for respect because YOU chose to spend 15 years in a dead end? Does it change the argument if John writes back and says that he's 85?

Basically your argument is "Listen kid, I'm an old guy and I know a lot more than you so don't bother to have your own ideas." That's not a valid argument. Your experience while interesting is not sufficient. What exactly does it show us? That you have spent 15 years agitating against fast food in schools. Useful, but not exactly striking at the base of the problem. If you spent 15 years agitating for worker's rights then that would be a little more convincing and useful. Also it suggests a huge amount of ego that ignores other evidence which might be useful in a discussion of whether the BB actions are good or whether we should all be stuffing envelopes to get you elected to the school board. Because there is a lot of accumulated experience of others (called history) which suggests very strongly that if I put in 15 years and the Greens come to power then we'll get more of the same. I gave some specific pieces of evidence for that. I don't want that. I'm ready for a change.

Then you attack the idea of direct democracy and make a reference to Barcelona (presumably referring to the anarchist control of a lot more of Spain than Barcelona).

I'll address the suggestion that direct-democracy has not been shown to work. First, there's historical evidence: Spain (as you point out), Russia (worker's Soviets prior to their co-optation by the Bolsheviks), Chiapas under the Zapatistas. Then there's my personal experience, I've been organizing with my fellow-travellers for 7 years in a group that uses DD for all decisions. I've also taken part in actions organized on the basis of affinity groups of like-minded people with no prior personal links. (However these personal anecdotes mean less than the history except for my emotional satisfaction..which is important...to me!)

Second, even if one argues that Direct Democracy has not been shown to work because authoritarians have smashed it after each brief flowering then there's a problem with your logic. You are arguing that we should puruse reformist politics which has been shown definitively again and again NOT to work in preference to pursuing DD which _may_ work!

Yes, Spain 1936-38 showed that the people doing the work can organize it for themselves for their own ends. It showed that millions can co-ordinate production both in industrial settings and in agricultural settings. It also showed (as did Kronstadt) that anarchists have to watch their backs because the reformists will sell them out and the Stalinists will finish them off.

In short GP, you portray yourself as a victim after you attack someone on the basis of their age when they query the dead, stale path of trying to "get a good candidate elected to office" (sic). What's the point of getting a good candidate elected. What can they achieve? What have "good candidates" achieved in the past? Your vision ignores the fact that any major reforms of Capitalism occured under the threat of REVOLUTION. The wave of Communist and Anarchist led agitation at the start of this century in which there were General Strikes in many places (including entire nations such as Great Britain 1926), revolutions in entire countries(Ireland 1916, Spain 1936, Russia 1917) the deaths of many Wobblies and Communists in the US itself pushed Capitalists to grant an 8.5 hour workday, national health programs, unemployment insurance etc.

It came because of ACTION. It came because the threat was revolution. Some people rode on the backs of it and portrayed themselves as reformers. They were irrelevant. It was the people in the street. There are always the political parasites that try to ride the wave of popular sentiment and portray themselves as the prime movers instead of the exploiters and harnessers of the power of the people. You call them politicians. I call them sell-outs. They are unnecessary. They come AFTER the change.

I am tired of reading people attacking the Black Bloc. They are doing and they are effective. It was only because of the adoption of DIRECT ACTION that the Seattle protest was noticed and effective. Trade Unionists (acting on their own initiative and splitting away from their leaders) marched to join in BLOCKADING the bastards that are selling our world away. Environmentalists (whose most effective actions have always been DIRECT ACTION) joined them in sit-down and lock-down. Explicit Anti-Capitalists locked down with them, destroyed property and defend themselves and others from the police. I was personally un-arrested by three BB (but again that's just _personal_anecdote_).

The BB have NEVER attacked other protestors. They HAVE defended them. This is in sharp contrast to any of the so-called "peaceful" protestors that work with the police to prevent the BB from exercizing their own forms of protest.

There, that's enough for you.

The Black Bloc was there to protect us from LAPD intent on a terrorist attack of their own against protesters at the October 22 March Against Police Brutality and Criminalization of A Generationin downtown L.A.! I was there and one of those they helped to protect! Once again-props to the Black Bloc!!!

Phuq Hed,

My comments are below, set off with ----


"Dear GP,
John expressed his satisfaction with the BB action. As do I."


----
John also proclaimed that the Green Party is a "dead end"
and that working within political parties won't accomplish
anything. I haven't disparaged the BB. John has disparaged
the Green Party. That is what I was replying to.
----


"I accused you of belittling someone and trying to invalidate their ideas because of their age. You deny it. Allow me to quote you:

"How old are you?"


---
If asking someone's age is automatically "belittling",
it must be something that the person is very insecure
about to begin with. The question was an attack only
in your imagination. For me, it was a natural way to
lead into "how much have you tried?", since John was
saying that he had tried. Political reform is not
a short-term process.
---


"...there is a lot of accumulated experience of others (called history) which suggests very strongly that if I put in 15 years and the Greens come to power then we'll get more of the same. I gave some specific pieces of evidence for that. I don't want that. I'm ready for a change."


------
I could give you some examples of real change that
elected Greens have made, but I'm sure that whatever
I said, you would say it's not enough. You've chosen
the role of leftier-than-thou and won't be happy with
anything. (Also, the Green Party has only begun to
get rolling.)
------


"Yes, Spain 1936-38 showed that the people doing the work can organize it for themselves for their own ends. It showed that millions can co-ordinate production both in industrial settings and in agricultural settings. It also showed (as did Kronstadt) that anarchists have to watch their backs because the reformists will sell them out and the Stalinists will finish them off."


-----
If Barcelona showed anything, it showed that Anarchists
are not very effective in fighting organized authoritarian
force. Though their system might have lived longer
in peace time, the capitalists would have made war on
them sooner or later, and war is not a democratic process.
-----


"Your vision ignores the fact that any major reforms of Capitalism occured under the threat of REVOLUTION. The wave of Communist and Anarchist led agitation at the start of this century in which there were General Strikes in many places (including entire nations such as Great Britain 1926), revolutions in entire countries(Ireland 1916, Spain 1936, Russia 1917) the deaths of many Wobblies and Communists in the US itself pushed Capitalists to grant an 8.5 hour workday, national health programs, unemployment insurance etc."


-----
Ah! You've finally mentioned something that you think
was a real political improvement. Yes, there were
general strikes and threats of revolution, and I haven't
disparaged any of those tactics. Those concessions you
mention the capitalists finally making were enacted by PEOPLE WHO WERE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
-----


"I am tired of reading people attacking the Black Bloc."


----
As I said before, and should be obvious to everyone
but you, my posts don't attack the BB, but were
in response to an attack on the GP. The "either-or"
was someone else's creation, not mine.
----

GP,
I'm glad that you support the Black Bloc actions.

Some straight questions for you:

1. Do you acknowledge that choosing to support Direct Action in a BB can be a valid choice even if one is young and hasn't spent 15 years building a Green Party?

2. Do you acknowledge that change only happens with revolution and that reforms are only won with the threat of revolution?

3. Do you acknowledge that the German Green Pary has sold out entirely?

4. Do you acknowledge that Green Pary policies implemented in Europe have been anti-working class in that they impose double taxation on families in the form of "bin charges"?

Finally GP you claim that Spain'36-'38 shows that "anarchists are not very effective in fighting organized authoritarian force". Well, I draw a different conclusion: the militia columns were HIGHLY effective. The reason that they failed was because the authoritarian bureaucrats of the CNT-FAI did not hand out weapons to ordinary people. The revolution failed because of those reformist bureaucrats (read the statements of The Friends of Durutti for an evaluation of why it failed) and because of the Stalinists.
Well, I believe in learning from history. No more pacts with authoritarian Leninists. No more relying on reformists who believe that all we need is "good" leaders. As Eugene Debs said "the problem with a leader that can take the people out of the forest is that he can also take them back in" (paraphrased).
Anyway, you're wondering why the reaction. It's because you dismissed someone's evaluation and judgement on the basis of them being young (no matter how much you try and deny it). The logical outcome of accepting your argument is that I cannot accept the experience of someone like John unless he has spent 15 years working with the Green Party. You disclaim an intent to patronize. Perhaps so. It seemed damn like it to me.
Anyway, everyone else is probably really bored with this now so I'll shut up.

Phuq Hed,

My, that was a quick reply. Do you hang around on this
site all the time?


"Anyway, everyone else is probably really bored with this now"


-----
Agreed.
-----


"Finally GP you claim that Spain'36-'38 shows..."


-----
Notice that I said "If Barcelona shows anything..."
Notice the "If". I won't really assert that it does
show anything.

Pinning political theories on a two-year period
in a small corner of the world is the sort of thing
academics do. And if you want to see some REALLY
sterile, futile, lack of activity....

Oh yes, the straight questions:
-----


"GP,
I'm glad that you support the Black Bloc actions.

Some straight questions for you:

1. Do you acknowledge that choosing to support Direct Action in a BB can be a valid choice even if one is young and hasn't spent 15 years building a Green Party?"


----
Yes, though "valid" can mean a lot of different things,
and "direct action" can take many forms. What's a "valid"
action is the sort of thing I never intended to discuss.
We'd never have time to DO any action.
----


"2. Do you acknowledge that change only happens with revolution and that reforms are only won with the threat of revolution?"


----
It seems a reasonable proposition, but I wouldn't presume
to make it an absolute rule. As an old fart, I've learned
how little I know.
----


"3. Do you acknowledge that the German Green Pary has sold out entirely?"


----
Part of it apparently has, and has lost a lot of its best
members by doing so.
----


"4. Do you acknowledge that Green Pary policies implemented in Europe have been anti-working class in that they impose double taxation on families in the form of "bin charges"?"


----
No. If you want to debate the details of every policy in
which Greens have had a hand, you'll have to go elsewhere.
Are you prepared to defend everthing that everyone who
calls himself an anarchist has done?
----

I'm a middle aged person who was involved with the Green Party in its early days here in the United States, i.e. fifteen or so years ago. There are things about the Green Party that I like. There are some elements of the Green Party I agree with. But after all these years, my experience is that the Greens seem to have made a few small gains, but they are stuck in working within a capitalist system that offers us nothing. I'm sick of waiting to see real reforms. I'm glad the Greens are working to bring about reforms on a local level and all. But when it comes down to it, I'm sick of working for years on things that have ended up with us in this current repressive regime, more repressive than we've had in the past, and with little hope of really seeing change with a society that gets lost in day to day living within this failed shit. As I've grown older, my views have become more radical, and not more conservative, as most of those who grew up in the 60s have done. I'm ready for revolution and major social change now, and have the utmost respect for the black bloc's tactics, and for anarchists who are not just marching down the streets waving signs, but who are creating community spaces, publishing pamphlets, organizing teach-ins, feeding the homeless, helping the oppressed, and putting corporate scum on alert. That's the people I agree with, and that's the cooperative and non-hierarchical society I want to live in, and they are creating it here and now, and not waiting for people to get elected and change things. Age has nothing to do with it. I would consider most of the young anarchists much smarter than most of the stupid, apathetic people my age. And talk about common sense, if anyone has it, it's anarchists.

My considered judgment, after years of scrutiny of, and sometimes harrowing activity in the anarchist milieu, is that anarchists are a main reason - I suspect, a sufficient reason - why anarchy remains an epithet without a prayer of a chance to be realized. Most anarchists are, frankly, incapable of living in an autonomous cooperative manner. A lot of them aren't very bright. They tend to peruse their own classics and insider literature to the exclusion of broader knowledge of the world we live in. Essentially timid, they associate with others like themselves with the tacit understanding that nobody will measure anybody else's opinions and actions against any standard of practical critical intelligence; that no one by his or her individual achievements will rise too far above the prevalent level; and, above all, that nobody challenges the shibboleths of anarchist ideology.

Anarchism as a milieu is not so much a challenge to the existing order as it is one highly specialized form of accommodation to it. It is a way of life, or an adjunct of one, with its own particular mix of rewards and sacrifices. Poverty is obligatory, but for that very reason forecloses the question whether this or that anarchist could have been anything but a failure regardless of ideology. The history of anarchism is a history of unparalleled defeat and martyrdom, yet anarchists venerate their victimized forebears with a morbid devotion which occasions suspicion that the anarchists, like everybody else, think that the only good anarchist is a dead one. Revolution--defeated revolution--is glorious, but it belongs in books and pamphlets. In this century--Spain in 1936 and France in 1968 are especially clear cases--the revolutionary upsurge caught the official, organized anarchists flat-footed and initially non-supportive or worse. The reason is not far to seek. It's not that all these ideologues were hypocrites (some were). Rather, they had worked out a daily routine of anarchist militancy, one they unconsciously counted on to endure indefinitely since revolution isn't really imaginable in the here-and-now, and they reacted with fear and defensiveness when events outdistanced their rhetoric.

In other words, given a choice between anarchism and anarchy, most anarchists would go for the anarchism ideology and subculture rather than take a dangerous leap into the unknown, into a world of stateless liberty. But since anarchists are almost the only avowed critics of the state as such, these freedom-fearing folk would inevitably assume prominent or at least publicized places in any insurgency which was genuinely anti-statist. Themselves follower-types, they would find themselves the leaders of a revolution which threatened their settled status no less than that of the politicians and proprietors. The anarchists would sabotage the revolution, consciously or otherwise, which without them might have dispensed with the state without even pausing to replay the ancient Marx/Bakunin tussle.

In truth the anarchists who assume the name have done nothing to challenge the state, not with windy unread jargon-filled writings, but with the contagious example of another way to relate to other people. Anarchists as they conduct the anarchism business are the best refutation of anarchist pretensions. True, in North America at least the top-heavy "federations" of workerist organizers have collapsed in ennui and acrimony, and a good thing too, but the informal social structure of anarchism is still hierachic through and through. The anarchists placidly submit to what Bakunin called an "invisible government" which in their case consists of the editors (in fact if not in name) of a handful of the larger and longer-lasting anarchist publications.

These publications, despite seemingly profound ideological differences, have similar "father-knows-best" stances vis-a-vis their readers as well as a gentlemen's agreement not to permit attacks upon each other which would expose inconsistencies and otherwise undermine their common class interest in hegemony over the anarchist rank-and-file. Oddly enough, you can more readily criticize the Fifth Estate or Kick It Over in their own pages than you can there criticize, say, Processed World. Every organization has more in common with every other organization than it does with any of the unorganized. The anarchist critique of the state, if only the anarchists understood it, is but a special case of the critique of organization. And, at some level, even anarchist organizations sense this.

Anti-anarchists may well conclude that if there is to be hierachy and coercion, let it be out in the open, clearly labeled as such. Unlike these pundits (the right-wing "libertarians", the minarchists, for instance) I stubbornly persist in my opposition to the state. But not because, as anarchists so often thoughtlessly declaim, the state is not "necessary".  Ordinary people dismiss this anarchist assertion as ludicrous, and so they should. Obviously, in an industrialized class society like ours, the state is necessary. The point is that the state has created the conditions in which it is indeed necessary, by stripping individuals and face-to-face voluntary associations of their powers. More fundamentally, the state's underpinnings (work, moralism, industrial technology, hierarchic organizations) are not necessary but rather antithetical to the satisfactions of real needs and desires. Unfortunately, most brands of anarchism endorse all these premises yet balk at their logical conclusion: the state.

If there were no anarchists, the state would have had to invent them. We know that on several occasions it has done just that. We need anarchists unencumbered by anarchism. Then, and only then, we can begin to get serious about fomenting anarchy.

BB this is a great troll, it really shows that so many of the arguments against anarchism are founded on irrationality.

First your "years of harrowing activity" and "considered judgement" LOL!

The only way to achieve anarchy is not be anarchist. Have you ever heard the sound of one hand clapping? Ommmm!

Anarchists aren't too bright? (Crude, a mere insult. You could do better).

There is no criticism of anarchist ideology. LOL! If ever an ideology can be seen to have the "splitters" problem it is anarchism. We spend a lot of time infighting, some of it is self-started but some is from provocateurs like yourself. But it doesn't matter. If there is something about which people feel strongly and it can be seen to have major implications then it should be debated.

Semi-historical contextless generalizations are effective only if the trollee accepts you as an expert. Something most anarchists are loath to do.

Spain 1936 caught organized anarchists flat-footed: ah...that must be how they managed to seize control of so much of the country, organize production and defend it from fascists for so long.

1968: this was mainly dominated by left-wing communists that tried to reach an accomodation with trade-union bureaucrats.

All the stuff about invisible governments and hierarchical social structures and closed-minded journals sounds like you've had your own "windy" blatherings rejected due to lack of content.

Anyway, try to work up a better piece of bait next time. This one was pretty rancid.

why is your name opulent pig? Are you a cop?

Will you people PLEASE just shut the fuck up?

I am tired of activists/ex-activists/whatever you call yourselves talking about nothing. Do you think your ranting and raving is really doing shit? I mean, other than wasting your time, of course. Quit talking about it, and get out there AND DO SOMETHING! The only one who said anything worth reading was Rampage. I admire her/his passion for the movement. You all could learn a thing or two from her/him. Keep fucking shit up homies!

What are you doing posting here instead of fucking shit up? You go grrllll!

"sounds like you've had your own "windy" blatherings rejected due to lack of content."

The Bob Black essay "Anarchism And Other Impediments To Anarchy" can be found at the following online anarchist pages:
An Anarchist Reading List: http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-read.html
flag.blackened.net: http://flag.blackened.net/wwa/aw/aw.html
infoshop.org: http://www.infoshop.org/etext_kiosk.html

Seems to me Bob Black is capable of throwing bricks through even his own windows. Now that's an anarchist who can "fuck shit up"!

Look, I put a story up so it would hopefully inspire more people to get into organizing, struggling, and helping the farm workers out. I frankly don't give a fuck on how you want to do that, but at least that you are DOING. Unfortunatly, instead of DOING, people found it a perfect time to try and discredit the bloc, and in response bloc sympathizers are discrediting the discrediters. No one is convincing each other on changing their points of views. So instead of clicking on 'Respond to this article', go send a email to tbboycott@yahoo.com and ask how you can get involved, cos obviously if you have enough time to keep writing responses to each other, you have time to organize. You don't like what the bloc does, so what, go do something else. Stop crying for Taco Bell and start making them pay for what they have done to their workers.

-Rampage

Improved Wages will not break or bankrupt Taco Bell or any of these companies. And if it did good riddance! We dont need corporations, businesses like this in existence in America. These big corporations can afford to give a LIVING wage to all their workers. When you have happy productive workers, that have money to spend, they will not only spend it at your business but every other business in the region that will stimulate the economy on all levels. AND guess what the rich will get richer, but their too greedy too see this. The reason why there is a recession is not because of consumer spending, but because of corporate and business practices that are hurting the vast majority of workers. There are a lot more of us working poor out here. Try living on $8 an hr, just doesnt cut it. come here to SD 3rd world state, low wages, high cost of living, and a right to work state. We have no rights or protections or future. Except continued poverty...No thanks...We only have one life to live, and pushing a stone 10 hrs a day to go home tired, beat, with the continued stress of not enough money to live on, is not worth insuring the health of a corporation that has no basic regard for human decency. I think if we're smart rather than spending we would altogether stop shopping except for basic necessities. The corporations cannot be reasoned with, so as they starve us, they must be starved to be reasonable.

Aside from the annoying "history of anarchy" armchair generals, I see lots to like.

I'd like to take one little jab at the Greens - stop being such starf*ckers. Ralph Nader? Al Lewis (Grampa Munster)? What the hell happened to real candidates winning real elections at the local level to advance the progressive agenda?

I would just like to let SKAA any a few others of you know that most of the posts that were made attacking you are by ISO members who have a beef with the block. They are counter organizers and typical democrats, they will bash anything that they cannot control.

but how do you know its the ISO? I'd like to have some evidence before making up my mind..

I believe though thats very possibily it is the ISO since we all know there authoritarian tactics and what they pulled at the anti war conference.