Seattle

After Portland, I think I ran into Seattle a little cocky. The event went so well in Portland that I didn't really prepare for many of the specifics that may come up in Seattle, didn't have some of the conversations about the local context that I had in other cities, and didn't really reflect on the anarchist history of those cities as I knew them. So, it doesn't surprise me that this talk didn't go quite as well. Well, that and it seems there were some people there with a preconceived notion of who I am and what I stand for.

The talk was organized by an old friend of mine who had been involved in Common Action and is now a member of the Seattle Solidarity Network. The talk was held at the Black Coffee Co-op and had about 30 people in attendance.

This more than any other talk was one that I was intimidated by the audience. Not because of the many people there that disagreed with my perspectives, but because of the presence of my friend Marie Trigona, whose writing and video work during a decade of involvement with the anarchist media project Grupo Alavio has informed much of my own understanding of the movements of Argentina.

One major conversation that was raised during the discussion was about the revolutionary potential of some of the major mainstream unions in the US versus the Industrial Workers of the World. In their current form I don't think either are likely to bring us closer to revolution. But, one statement of mine was certainly taken out of context there and spread around a bit. I had said that given their size that if there was a serious shift in internal ideology that the 2 million member Service Employees International Union would obviously have greater revolutionary potential given it's size. This was then quoted as "the SEIU is more revolutionary than the IWW."

Here is what I think we need: massive workers movements and their self-managed, self-directed, sustainable worker organizations that understands themselves as a tool of class struggle for all working people, including their members, and engage in militant industrial strategy (note: not simply workplace action). The SEIU is obviously a long ways off here. They've got sustainable. They've even got massive. Work self-directed? Not really. Engaged in class struggle? Not as the basis of their work and not militantly. Large scale industrial strategy? Inconsistently, although I'm more excited by the fast food organizing than my more purist friends.

What about the IWW? Worker self-managed? Maybe. They are certainly internally democratic. But so many of the members are activists disconnected from workplaces that it's hard to say it's worker self-managed. Massive? Clearly not. Has a class struggle orientation and readiness for militant organizing. Absolutely. Sustainable? Not really. In fact sometimes there are ideological stances taken to maintain a purity of revolutionary thought rather than allow for serious sustained growth. I'd rather see the IWW act as a union than an anarchist and socialist history club. The decisions that I see tell me that in some places that transition is happening and in most places, it remains a social club for revolutionaries.

So does this mean I give up on both of them? No, it means that I give up on neither of them. But they both have serious work to do if they intend to be organizations that move us towards a revolutionary tomorrow.

At the end of the day, this discussion has been had hundreds of times over. Rather than outing one another for strategic disagreements here, I think as anarchists we need to develop a strategy for developing labor organization and militancy that incorporates engagement in both mainstream unions and the IWW.

Beyond the talk though, Seattle was great to be able to reconnect with Marie and relax for a couple of days. Hanging out on a porch near the beach grilling food, drinking wine, and learning a ton in great conversation. That is exactly what vacation is about, and really should just be what life is.

Marie also pointed out a real problem with my presentation, which I made a point to incorporate into future talks. The analysis that I was offering about the build up to the factory occupations didn't include any mention of the piqueteros! Utter failure on my part. Go read up on the piqueteros! 

Portland

The stop in Portland was a huge success. Around 80 people were packed into the Red and Black Cafe for this talk. I feel like the presentation was stronger than it had been in other stops, and was received in great ways with a pretty large grouping of people interested in joining a nationwide anarchist organization and building a local group based on especifist thought.

It's not shocking how strong this event was. The Red and Black Cafe is a space that has a long history of great talks like this and serves as an important resource for Portland's anarchist community. The Institute for Anarchist Studies co-sponsored the event and had their board coming into town for a meeting in the next few days. Two former members of Rochester Red and Black live in Portland now and helped to do the on-the-ground organizing for this event. And there were three spots on KBOO local community radio helping to pump the event - one by me, one by another member of Rochester Red and Black, and another with Jeff Shantz about anarchist organizing. The strength of the local IWW was apparent with lots of their membership in the room and participating in the conversation. There was at least one former member of the past northwest regional anarchist federation, Common Action.

The conversation here seemed to focus very much on how the process of social insertion into broader movements can help to strengthen anarchist ideals and organizing skill. The notion of building depth of connection in communities was something that I raised a handful of times and that was echoed by others in the room.

I left Portland really excited for the remainder of the talk and the possibilities that the tour has for helping us to build a stronger nationwide anarchist organization in the US.

Eureka

Eureka California was a really rapid stop for me. The drive from San Jose is a long one, and I've got to be in Portland, Oregon the next day which is also a long drive.

The talk here was put on by the Humboldt Grassroots, a county-wide organization of Anarchists Communists. They're a local affiliate of the Anarkismo editorial board and have a warehouse space in Eureka with what they call the Rhizome Infoshop. They are also the key organizers of the Humboldt Anarchist Bookfair each year, which sounds like it makes some great connections in town.

The talk had around 10 people attending and was overall a very positive conversation. It seemed like an in-depth conversation on especifismo was something that few people there had attended before. But, there were a couple of Humboldt Grassroots folk that already had some understanding of the ideas and that have previously been in contact with the various Class Struggle Anarchist groups in the US. It seems like that connection has gotten a bit weaker in the time that the In Our Hearts Network has been undergoing it's rapprochment process.

Their upcoming Anarchist bookfair would be a great place to help revive this connection by sending some folks engaged in the rapprochment process to talk through what's been accomplished so far with them.

San Jose

The San Jose talk was the largest yet, with over 30 people in attendance. The talk was organized by the South Bay IWW and was held at the San Jose Peace and Justice Center. As is becoming a really common occurrence at these talks, there was another member of the Worker Solidarity Alliance present, Tom Wetzel. It's been exciting to have the WSA be a common element of many of the talks! There was also a recently confirmed member of Miami Autonomy and Solidarity in the room, which is great since this tour wasn't able to go all the way to Miami. That member of MAS is the author of the article "Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements and Revolutionary Organization in South America." That article has really been the basis of a large chunk of the presentation, and is one that I really wish I had brought printed versions with me to each stop around the country!

It was at this conversation that I finally began feeling like I had a pretty comfortable rap down for the presentation. The presentation has been changing slightly at each stop based on the different crowds and this one was no different.

This presentation had a larger portion of people that were there out of an interest in organizing worker cooperatives. It's probably silly that I was surprised by this, given that time I spent around cooperatives in Argentina is much of the premise of the talk. But, my reflection on the form of workplace cooperatives has been one that doesn't really prioritize the creation of cooperatives as the best way to challenge capitalism - or even to establish worker democracy internal to capitalist economies.

To me, cooperatives are a tool. Without a similar degree of class consciousness and without an orientation of the cooperative as a tool to further a broad class struggle in favor of worldwide worker and community self-management, I find cooperatives can often simply be small businesses with multiple owners rather than anti-capitalist counter-economies. So, I've increasingly found myself thinking of cooperatives as something I'm excited about only when they're created as part of a larger class struggle. I can think now of two forms in which cooperatives can be just that: 1) offensive expropriation of a workplace away from capitalist ownership and 2) as part of an survival program initiated by unemployed workers movements.

There were some really friendly people here building a very new IWW branch in San Jose. I think they'll be very successful based on their ability to be good with new folks in town! On to Eureka!

Los Angeles

It was only a few days before the Los Angeles stop, and there wasn't really any information yet on where exactly the stop would be or any publicity out. So, I was starting to get worried that this stop wouldn't happen at all. Luckily, a local member of the Worker Solidarity Alliance saved the day, got it set up, and got some folks out to take part in the conversation.

There were a couple of people there that have been working with the Institute for Anarchist Studies and who were also previously members of Amanecer in the Bay Area. Most of the people in the room belonged to a group called the Free Association of Anarchists. The folks in the FAA claimed after hearing this talk that they have been effectively been acting as an especifist organization without having the language to self-describe in this way. It seems to me that they seem relatively disconnected from the broader class struggle anarchist groupings in the country and that this has created some fairly significant differences with their aims and principles than would be seen today in many other class struggle anarchist organizations in the US. I hope that from this talk that we can keep in better touch with them and possibly begin some conversations about the different approaches to anarchist organization and especifismo that are manifesting around the country.

In this discussion, I again found myself in the increasingly familiar territory of being intimidated by the presence of more informed individuals than myself. But, I'm starting to get more comfortable with the idea that a speaking tour doesn't need to present me as an expert, but as someone brought in to provoke and organize a conversation around.

One of those great conversations that came up was about how similar or different platformism and especifismo are. My answer, as has been my answer in the past, is that in effect I find they are nearly synonymous. As I think about this answer more, I find that I certainly don't think that The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists is the same as the concepts of especifismo. But, that the practices of people that now call themselves platfomists essentially ends up being identical to especifismo.

In the Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro's recent release "Social Anarchism and Organization" says "The Platform advocates an anarchist organization, at the political level, that acts in the midst of social movements, a social level, and emphasizes the role of active minority of the anarchist organization." And further that "[the Platform] is an important document and has considerable influence in especifismo."

But they do also go on to say: "However, we do not believe that especifismo is the same thing as Platformism".

The details of the platform itself express a form of organization that I think very few platformists today would argue for - likely for many of the same reasons as the FARJ differentiates especifismo from the Platform. The Platform was specifically constructed from the experience of military action in a revolutionary period. Of course, I have met almost no platformists who argue that we should take on the draft organizational structure offered in the Platform as a way to organize. Instead, what I suppose we could call neo-platformists tend to water the ideas in the Platform down to the more essential components of the necessity of an explicitly anarchist organization built on a unity of theory and practice. Especifismo makes the important further arguments about the need for social insertion and the relationship between the revolutionary anarchist organization and the social movements while coming from a perspective of movement building in times that are not militarily revolutionary. All of these are elements that nearly every platformist I've met agrees with.

So, in my experience many of the people that call themselves platfomists are essentially especifista in their orientation while simultaneously being inspired and influenced by the Platform - just like the FARJ say in their experience. Functionally to me, this means that these traditions and terms in the context of the United States have such close similarities and unity that treating them as the same is helpful in an organizing context. However, in an internal process of theory developing and political education, I can certainly see the value in showing the distinctions to help us all have a more developed understanding of the terms that we use.

More than anything, at this stop in Los Angeles (with around 10 people in attendance), I was glad to have a conversation that challenged my admittedly introductory level understanding of especifismo. Most of the conversations at this point have remained at that introductory level, and this one went into conversations that I think any organization of anarchists should be having!

El Paso

In El Paso the talk was set up by Sarah, a comrade that I know from the Worker Solidarity Alliance, one of the other organizations involved in the formation of a nationwide anarchist organization. The talk was scheduled to be held at Maternidad de Luz, a midwifery school in El Paso where Sarah is working.

The first thing that was pretty apparent on arriving in El Paso was that this talk would certainly be better there if done in Spanish. From most of the places that I went, it seemed as though Spanish was the language people assumed you knew, and maybe you'd also speak English. While I have ok Spanish, I don't think that it's strong enough to give this presentation in Spanish.

The group that attended the talk was also a really great group of some people that had a strong understanding of anarchism and others that were there to learn more about the idea. From the talks I had with Sarah leading up to the presentation, it seemed like there was a pretty light presence of an organized radical left in El Paso. There were a couple of folks that showed up who had been involved in Occupy El Paso. There was also a couple that had been engaged in indigenous community organizing in Minnesota that were present, which led to some great conversation. Another member of the WSA was also there from St. Louis, which gave him an opportunity to see how the talk goes before we do the same thing in St. Louis later this month.

Maternidad de Luz was a great place for the presentation and really was the perfect size. A couple of new, and really valuable conversations came up at this presentation that weren't raised previously. First was really a question of the efficacy of consensus-based organizing. And, the further west I go, the more I expect this to be a major point of contention. So, I'm glad to start practicing how to talk more effectively about this now.

Second, and this conversation actually happened a lot more after the presentation than it did during the presentation, was about the importance of nationalism or anti-nationalism in anti-colonial and anti-occupation struggles. It was particularly relevant as it came to the question of indigenous autonomy struggles in North America.

To me, this presented much the same situation as working with other organizations of marginalized and oppressed folks in the United States and really points to the strength and flexibility of especifismo. When anarchists have their own organized group connected to struggles it helps us to engage in imminently important struggles that are far from perfect (from our perspectives) while still maintaining our own positions and not giving into a watered down revolutionary outlook. So, in the midst of anti-colonial struggles, it seems apparent to me that anarchists should certainly organize against the aspects of domination -- cultural, political, economic -- that all impose themselves on colonized people both as an immediate part of the anti-colonial struggle. But the key is to be in the position to point out the weaknesses of simple nationalism -- a propensity to empower an elite class within the previously dominated people, to enact many of the same styles of economic and political organization as the previous colonizers, and to avoid acknowledging important power differentials internal to the colonized peoples.

While I don't have a ton of information and understanding about anti-colonial struggles, I do have a pretty comfortable working knowledge of the Irish nationalist and republican movements. And, that history, I think very clearly points to the weaknesses of a purely nationalist strategy or even of a two-stage revolutionary process (nationalist then communist for instance). And to ignore the potentials for an anarcho-communist revolution during an anti-colonial struggle seems to me very similar to saying something like "We'll deal with patriarchy after the revolution."

Again though, I'll admit my own weakness on these questions and hope that this can help to spawn a conversation in discussion that we can further develop our analysis on this question.

Austin

In Austin, I spoke at MonkeyWrench Books, a long time anarchist bookstore that apparently was set up by a couple that have helped set up a number of anarchist bookstores across the country.

This talk was coordinated by Rogue, a long-time organizer in the class struggle anarchist crew. Most recently, I met her as a member of Common Action when she was still living in Seattle, WA. Not long before I came into Austin she had apparently given a talk in Austin that you can listen to here. She also co-edited Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire. As you can imagine, I was rolling into town a little intimidated. Rogue could likely give a better presentation on the topic of why anarchists should create their own organization than I could. Luckily when I arrived in town she took me to a nearby bar and we got a couple of drinks, which certainly helped me to loosen up before the presentation.

The talk here was also recorded by Allan Campbell and you can listen to it here. The crowd here was really mixed in terms of understanding of anarchism and involvement in local social movements. There were a couple of people there that didn't have much of a grasp of anarchism as itself and then others that had already incorporated these ideas some into their organizing within local movements. I didn't get a great chance to hear much about the organizing that many people were doing, although one of the people that helped to set up this stop spoke with me some about his organizing with a group called Grassroots Leadership, which seems similar in many ways to Chattanooga Organized for Change. 

One of the great points of conversation that came up near the end of the talk was about whether or not it was essential, valuable, or important to specifically connect our work to the word anarchism rather than simply incorporate many of the ideas and principles into our work on the day to day. There was certainly no great answer to this question, as it's obviously something that varies by situation. While in some cities, there have been very counter-productive anarchist strategies that have often further separated anarchist ideas from the communities most directly and heavily impacted by capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy. 

I do think however that it's important that someone, not necessarily everyone be involved in reclaiming the history of anarchist ideas, the inspiration of many of our heroes and movements, and the road-map of struggle that they've helped to lay out for us. To lose the word anarchism could very easily lose us the connection to many ideas, principles, and histories and allow the ideas of anarchism to slowly be watered down into a much weaker "radicalism". And, I think it's a term that needs to be re-captured by those that actually hold a connection to the long tradition of class struggle anarchism so that those ideas can't so easily be manipulated by opportunists. But, clearly the conversation about when and how to use the word anarchism is clearly important given the very mixed history that term has in different parts of the country today.