Saturday, November 12, 2011
St. Paul Principles and Occupy Denver
Not only that, but repealing the St. Paul Principles without a plan for enforcement won't actually accomplish anything besides a further division within our movement. Even if we repeal the St. Paul Principles, people are still going to act in ways that some people define as violent. People will show up on Saturdays who have never been to a General Assembly and who know nothing about its decisions, or who have been to GA but don't care about its decisions, or who have been to GA and care about abiding by its decisions but, in the heat of the moment, out of fear or anger, do something in violation of GA policy—people within the movement will still act in contradiction to GA decisions whether you endorse the St. Paul Principles or not. On the other hand, if we're serious about enforcing non-violence—if we're serious about policing ourselves in respect to the principles of non-violence, then, one, we have to be a much more organized and more hierarchical and more centralized entity than we currently are, and, two, we'll have to use force, violence and/or the threat of violence, to guarantee that everyone acts in accordance with our principles. And we'll then no longer be a non-violent movement. If you mean to take Ghandi's and MLK's ideas seriously and literally, and if you mean to model a real democratic community and process, then you can't use violence in the name of non-violence and you can't advocate top-down enforcement of General Assembly decisions. The danger here is in re-shaping the concepts of non-violence and democracy into commodity fetishes that are completely void of significant moral and practical meaning.
In my view, the St. Paul Principles offer a way out of the ethical conundrum. The issue of enforcement doesn't have to be altogether avoided, because a top-down, coercive, and centralized program of enforcement isn't the only option. We can enforce the majority of our primary values democratically, through social interaction, which is mainly what we've been doing and precisely what the St. Paul Principles encourage, but no set of principles, be they democratic or non-violent, can be expected to account for every situation we might encounter and to rule over our every behavior. Neither the St. Paul Principles or the principles of non-violence or democracy should be looked upon as absolute and infallible moral commands. Obviously, if a fellow protestor attempts to rape or murder another fellow protestor, then the St. Paul Principles as well as the principles of non-violence and democracy need to be overlooked in order to end the abuse as abruptly and efficiently as possible. The St. Paul Principles, or any principles, shouldn't be seen as mandates for behavior, nor were they intended as such. The St. Paul Principles specifically mean to challenge top-down decision-making and organizing and to empower everyone involved to take direct action in the world around them. They DO NOT advocate violence. True, they allow affinity groups to choose their own courses of action, but not without some form of consensus or direct democracy to decide on goals and tactics. The St. Paul Principles aren't dictates; they are guidelines, however, for continuing the discussion, for existing in unity and camaraderie with each other in spite of our ideological differences, and for allowing those of us who prize non-violence to continue to practice and promote our values without moral contradiction and without demonizing comrades who think and act differently, which isn't just a more honest and committed non-violent practice but also a much more effective strategy for convincing others to share our values. We need the St. Paul Principles, that is, to prevent the precise kinds of divisions we've seen from recent efforts to have the principles repealed.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
....
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Message to Occupy Denver/Wallstreet
Today's economic problems weren't created by a few bad policy decisions. They weren't created by the repeal of the Glass-Seagal act or the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling or the Bush tax cuts for the rich. And changing policy, while it might temporarily alleviate the suffering of a few, won't solve our problems. If we really intend to take our country back from the ruling class, we have to fundamentally alter the hit-and-run economy the ruling class has constructed to keep us down; we have to overthrow Capitalism and create a sincere Democracy in its stead.
Let's not forget that the affluence experienced by the middle classes of the 50s and 60s came at the expense of the working and peasant classes in other parts of the world. Capitalism can't function without exploitation, most especially the exploitation of labor. The economic problems we are experiencing today are a direct result of internal conflicts within the Capitalist system itself, specifically the crisis of over-accumulation as income is consistently shifted from labor to capital. The problem isn't new, either. It's only new to a portion of the working classes of the First World who up to now have been benefiting from the monopoly control of corporations that reside in post-industrialized nations. The crisis of over-accumulation, however, is too severe at this point for the ruling class to allow First World workers to continue to share in the bounty. If the working classes of the First World want to get back their rights as human beings, not be forced to sell their labor at an ever decreasing price, they have to seek solidarity with the exploited of the Third World. What I mean to say is that the ninety nine percent has to include the non-ruling class members outside of the United States, and outside of Europe and Japan, as well. This has to be a world-wide movement or it's nothing.
That said, the movement also has to be more than a fashion statement, which is to say that it has to take seriously the idea that it might be effective and, as a result, draw down the wrath, disdain, and violence of the ruling class. It has to be prepared to do more than just chant slogans and sign petitions. It has to be ready to succeed, to become historically significant, which means it has to be prepared to break the rules of the system that created the problem and to effectively defend itself against the destructive powers that will inevitably coalesce once the movement becomes cohesive and proficient enough to be perceived as a genuine threat.
Limiting ourselves to legal strategies wont get us anywhere, nor will efforts to achieve solidarity with the police or military forces whose job it is to protect the ruling class from the people. There were plenty of men who donned SS uniforms who were great fathers, husbands, sons, and friends. But they were still SS men. Their job was to serve and protect the Nazi system. Make no mistake, police officers are the enemy. They do not represent the ninety nine percent. They are not on our side simply by dint of being workers. It is their job to resist us, to protect them from us. And failure to see them as antagonistic is to side with the elites against the people, to side with apathy and against action and creativity. For any movement to make a difference it has to take risks, and that means standing up to the violence of the dominant power structure; that means defying not navigating power's commands. If you are not yet prepared to take real risks, if you are not yet ready to insist on your rights as a complete human being, if you are not quite ready to honestly assert yourself—then you are not yet ready to occupy anything other than your couches and your patio furniture.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
"Grow Your Own Grassroots Defiance"

Sunday, February 20, 2011
Rally at the Capital
If anyone wants to go but needs help with transportation, let me (Shane) know!
Monday, February 7, 2011
Announcements
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
...and one more, long one
With Walker in Nicaragua
Translated from the Spanish
by Jonathan Cohen
[Reading by Edward Asner]
More Cardenal
Ernesto Cardenal's
L I G H T S
Translated from the Spanish
by Jonathan Cohen
That top-secret flight at night.
We might have been shot down. The night calm and clear.
The sky teeming, swarming with stars. The Milky Way
so bright behind the thick pane of the plane window,
a sparkling white mass in the black night
with its millions of evolutionary and revolutionary changes.
We were going over the water to avoid Somoza's air force,
but close to the coast.
The small plane flying low, and flying slow.
First the lights of Rivas, taken and retaken by Sandinistas,
now almost in Sandinista hands.
Then other lights: Granada, in the hands of the Guard
(it would be attacked that night).
Masaya, completely liberated. So many fell there.
Farther out a bright glow: Managua. Site of so many battles.
(The Bunker.) Still the stronghold of the Guard.
Diriamba, liberated. Jinotepe, fighting it out. So much heroism
glitters in those lights. Montelimar — the pilot shows us:
the tyrant's estate near the sea. Puerto Somoza, next to it.
The Milky Way above, and the lights of Nicaragua's revolution.
Out there, in the north, I think I see Sandino's campfire.
("That light is Sandino.")
The stars above us, and the smallness of this land
but also its importance, these
tiny lights of people. I think: everything is light.
The planet comes from the sun. It is light turned solid.
This plane's electricity is light. Its metal is light. The warmth of life
comes from the sun.
"Let there be light."
There's darkness too.
There are strange reflections — I don't know where they're from —
on the clear surface of the windows.
A red glow: the tail lights of the plane.
And reflections on the calm sea: they must be stars.
I look at the light from my cigarette — it also comes from the sun,
from a star.
And the outline of a great ship. The U.S. aircraft carrier
sent to patrol the Pacific coast?
A big light on our right startles us. A jet attacking?
No. The moon coming out, a half-moon, so peaceful, lit by the sun.
The danger of flying on such a clear night.
And suddenly the radio. Jumbled words filling the small plane.
The Guard? The pilot says: "It's our side."
They're on our wavelength.
Now we're close to León, the territory liberated.
A burning reddish-orange light, like the red-hot tip of a cigar: Corinto:
the powerful lights of the docks flickering on the sea.
And now at last the beach at Poneloya, and the plane coming in to land,
the string of foam along the coast gleaming in the moonlight.
The plane coming down. A smell of insecticide.
And Sergio tells me: "The smell of Nicaragua!"
It's the most dangerous moment, enemy aircraft
may be waiting for us over this airport.
And the airport lights at last.
We've landed. From out of the dark come olive-green-clad comrades
to greet us with hugs.
We feel their warm bodies — that also come from the sun,
that also are light.
This revolution is fighting the darkness.
It was daybreak on July 18th. And the beginning
of all that was about to come.
By Ernesto Cardenal, first Minister of Culture of Nicaragua
from Zero Hour
by Ernesto Cardenal
Ernesto CardenalTranslated by Donald D. Walsh
Thursday, December 9, 2010
last meeting
Last meeting we used the reading to brainstorm ideas about our manifesto and decided that we might construct it as a dialogue, with each person writing in response to what others have said. I like that idea. I thought the Coffee Manifesto was a great example of an anti-manifesto that also managed to give some historical context to the revolutionary art movement. We also discussed and planned the Derive, which we carried out this morning and will report on next meeting. The next meeting is planned for Sunday Jan. 9th at 11 am. We'll read and discuss the Zapatista Manifesto, which I've linked to below, and some Zapatista influenced poetry that Kate will send out later.
Zapatista manifesto:
www.journalofamericanhistory.org/projects/mexico/zapmanifest.html
Subcomandante Marcos writings:
www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/03/extract
http://books.google.com/books?id=R_X-WmHOZoEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=subcomandante+marcos+poetry&source=bl&ots=r74WXN0bVS&sig=QH_nAmePIXrLeLhSktgXypZYBN0&hl=en&ei=HEIBTeeoMoW4sQPg1dDAAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=subcomandante%20marcos%20poetry&f=false
Don't forget the Poetry Potluck next Thursday!!! See the blog for details.
As always, feel free to add anything you think I should have mentioned.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Poetry Potluck Poster and Play Info
Here is the information on the play I mentioned which addresses issues around growing up on a reservation. Many of the readers in the play are in fact indigenous.
Directed by Penny Walrath Cole
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Next Meeting
I haven't heard from many people about the Derive, so I think we should postpone that until after we've planned it out a bit more. For Sunday, I think we should discuss that and the readings the Kate sent out. Here's a link to the reading on the Derive: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/2.derive.htm and Kate emailed the other readings as PDF files. Let me know if you don't still have that email and I can forward it to you. I think we should also continue the discussion started last week about specific works of art that fit our present definitions of "revolutionary". So you might have something in mind. Other agenda items: Kate's Poetry Potluck, Serena's Literary Journal, Denver Free School and Elizabeth's Zine. Anything else you want to add, let me know!
See you soon!!!
Shane
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Poetry Potluck!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
I would love to say more, but I am consumed by preparations for the conference and my big move coming up this weekend. Thank you everyone, I look forward to sharing and learning with you.
More later, on our man Marcuse...
Monday, November 8, 2010
Revolutionary Art
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Last Meeting and Links
Here are the links for next month's reading:
Marcuse
situationistmanifesto
http://libcom.org/library/art-form-reality-herbert-marcuse
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/manifesto.html
Next meeting is Sunday, Nov. 7 at 11 am
My thoughts on the readings from last month and notes from our conversation (you can either email or post additional comments on the blog):
The SCUM manifesto, though full of some funny and often clever anti-male invective, fell short in my view as a guide for revolutionary struggle because of its overly narrow focus--i.e. its identity politics. Much of the criticism, though, if it were viewed as a criticism of modern society in general and not "just" men, would be spot on. And I liked that her ideas for female liberation focused on living outside of the system rather than, like too many other minority movements, about getting your fair share of the pie. That said, there is perhaps a real basis to a criticism of society that focuses on patriarchialism. You could make a good case that oppressive civilizations don't need racism or homophobia or xenophobia or religious zealotry, but they do need patriarchy (and of course classism)--that there is something fundamentally anti-female, or anti-female as the embodiment of wild nature, in the concept of hierarchical rule. I also think it's important that whatever we decide "revolutionary art" means, it should be informed of the feminist critiques of earlier revolutionary art movements.
The info. about the Kronsdadt revolt is especially interesting in light of what's happening today in Latin America. The "new" socialist revolution seems to have learned much from past mistakes: the Soviet model of top-down imposed hegemony seems to have been abandoned in favor of work collectives and grassroots bottom-up organizational methods. That's great, but the Kronsdadt revolution (not to mention some of the Maoist "experiments") reminds me that state power is always a potential monopolistic threat, even when it's in the hands of socialists who talk the talk of equality and freedom.

