I’ve abandoned this blog for a long time because I had a busy life. A severe case of post-graduate anomie has driven me back. The beginnings of the newest recession have kept me unemployed and restless, and in my new setting I feel cut off from the aspects of society to which I care to relate. Introversion and cynicism doesn’t help in either regard. The plus side of the situation is now that I’m unsatisfied and bored, I have plenty of issues to rant about and copious amounts of time to review my books. So I might try to revive this dead blog and see if I stay interested long enough to nurse it back to health.

Ward Churchill Speaks, People Cheer

After every single sentence, in fact. Got annoying. But it was enjoyable to see him speak in person, finally, after having blown two chances to see him in San Francisco last spring. His speech pretty much covered the material that he is known for emphasizing, in the style he's known for using (very gruff and passionate).
The focus of the talk was on state repression (such as the green scare, a topic particularly pertinent in Eugene) and its links to academic repression. No surprise here. He went through some examples of such repression, talked about the denigration of nations and the predominance of states, gave a critique of civilization as an unnatural imposition that is naturally resisted on all levels, and talked about indigenous struggles. He believes we should look to indigenous struggles in our resistance because indigenous peoples know how to most "naturally" resist tyranny. I've come to realize that Churchill's brand of indigenism is almost identical to anarcho-primitivism, which explains the abundance of his books on Green Anarchy's reading list.
Overall, the talk was very rousing and entertaining. I enjoyed myself. Now I'm waiting to see tomorrow how the local newspapers twist the meaning of it and slander Churchill...

I should make another post, probably

Well, I have been very busy, stuff-happening. Natty and I have been slaving away to put out the next issue of the Student Insurgent, which is especially hard after the whole printing-offensive-cartoons-of-naked-jesus-fiasco; we (Natty and I) have had to deal with a lot of shit and we weren't even responsible for it. It was such a big deal that we were contacted for interviews by CNN, FOX, Bill O'Reilly for his radio show, random right-wing talk radio, and a bunch of local media outlets, as well as getting on the local news. All for a few naked drawings of jesus, drawings which I thought were a little irrelevant and juvenile (and I had no idea people would actually be outraged by them!) The whole thing is mundane. I don't even want to talk about it anymore...but the next issue will rock (by comparison). It will feature lots of (actually intelligent) stuff by my friends and I.

Moving on, I am writing a huge research paper on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 right now for history class, so all I will be reading for the next month are books related to that. I have fourteen of them lined up, I doubt I'll get through them all. I just finished reading A Testament of Revolution, which is an eyewitness account by Bela Liptak, who was a student participant in Budapest. It was a quick, engaging read: I would recommend it. I also read Hungary in the Cold War by Laszlo Borhi, which is a rather dry geopolitical analysis of the time leading up to the revolution. Soon I'll read Hungary '56 by Andy Anderson, which I had to get on loan from the Evergreen library. It is an analysis from a council communist perspective published by Black and Red (so I have wanted to read it for a while now). I'm excited.

Speaking of history class, I just read some of my professor's work in the "critical Marxist journal" Historical Materialism. I found it by accident in the UO library; it was a pleasant surprise. The topic was human nature and materialism. My prof (Fracchia) argues that it is too simplistic to pretend in the existence of a universal human essence or "human nature," and additionally rejects the extreme relativist notion that humanity is completely shaped by historical conditions. (This seems obvious to me, though.) Instead, he believes we should identify constants in human corporeal organization, rid ourselves of "human nature" terminology, and develop a taxonomic historical materialist theory. If one can understand the jargon, this all seems obvious as well- there are certain innate biological characteristics in all humans that change very slowly with time. He also appropriately quotes Marx multiple times saying that humans can change history, but not under conditions of their choosing. I don't really know what was so original about the piece, it all seemed obvious to me (though maybe some of it went over my head. The writing definitely bore the mark of academia). But it was cool getting to read some of his stuff, finally (I want to read his book about Marxism, Karl Korsch, materialism, etc, but it unfortunately is in German).

Um, that's all. Happy cinco de mayo; Karl Marx would be 188 today.

Vijay Prashad's Visit

I saw Vijay Prashad speak the other day. He basically presented his critique of liberal multiculturalism. He sees the whole emphasis on affirmative action as a debate that doesn't even question the basic framework which we should be critiquing: mainly, the fact that not everyone is priveleged enough to go to college so we must pick candidates by favoring some ethnic groups over others (in order to enhance campus diversity). His deal was that all education needs to be free so that we need not worry about things like affirmative action.

The next morning I went to a "student-activist workshop" with him and he talked about movements on campus and restructuring the unversity. I had to sit next to him and his foul-smelling cologne (well, I enjoyed it, actually). He hinted at self-management of the dorms and other such things, and talked about how active students need to focus their energies on constructive issues while at the same time recognizing that our problems are part of a totality. He also attacked the idea of coalition building as too much of a fragmented approach to activism, and suggested that students who just work to increase campus diversity are wasting their time and doing the administration's reformist job for them. Among other things. It was interesting, and he is a very funny man. I don't know how much I actually learned from him, though.

Good Books on African and Cuban Anarchism

I'm getting back into the flow of things after having the flu for a week and dealing with college finals, and in the past few days I've read a couple of good books, both put out by See Sharp Press. The first was African Anarchism by Sam Mbah and I.E. Igariwey, and the other was Cuban Anarchism by Frank Fernandez. The two were obviously very similar, given the titles and the fact that they were both put out by See Sharp (with Chaz Bufe editing and providing introductions to both). I enjoyed them, as they each dealt with rather obscure topics of interest to me, especially African Anarchism.

African Anarchism is less a history of the African anarchist movement (as the subtitle claims) than it is an analysis of Africa's colonial past, the failure of its nationalistic state socialism, and an assessment of the prospects for a future African anarchism (which is deemed a necessity). It begins with the obligatory introduction to anarchist ideas and thinkers so as to be more useful to common readers. This just makes it repetitious for radicals who are already well versed in the simple tenets of anarchism. The book then gets into briefly describing anarchistic precedents in communal african societies. The communalism that existed in many tribes was very anarchistic in that formal authority was lacking and everyone had access to the essentials of life. Of course, these societies often were highly religious and oppressed women as well, so they are not to be idealized. Some tribes that are dealt with in some depth are the Igbo, Tellensi, and Ijaws, but many specifics are lacking. It is disappointing, but the book deals briefly with traditional communal societies in Africa; there is only a short chapter on this issue.

The authors then move on to present an analysis of capitalist imperialism and colonialism in Africa, and critique the failures of state socialism, which was the most prominent reaction to the exploitation of global capital. These two chapters are interesting, yet also unoriginal. The critique of the failures of African socialism (especially Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and Julius Nyerere in Tanzania) is good when it focuses on specifics, but it tends to rely alot on a general critique of state structures and is not necessarily specific to Africa. But the point comes across: both state socialism and capitalism have pillaged Africa, and "given these problems, a return to the 'anarchic elements' in African communalism is virtually inevitable" (107). The authors conclude that the

process of anarchist transformation in Africa might prove comparatively easy, given that Africa lacks a strong capitalist foundation, well-developed class formations and relations of production, and a stable, entrenched state system. What is required for now is a long-term program of class consciousness building, relevant education, and increased individual particpation in social struggles. (108)

Cuban Anarchism is a bit different in that it is an actual history of an anarchist movement. It spans over a century of anarchist organization in Cuba, from the late 19th century debate over supporting the nationalistic independence (from Spain) movement, to the current resistance to the Castro regime. It mentions how the anarcho-syndicalists at the turn of the century were the most successful Cuban labor organizers (with around 100,000 union members) but their activity was often countered and/or subordinated to the PCC (Communist Party of Cuba). The anarchists are portrayed as the only consistent opponents of authoritarianism: be it the Machado, Batista, or Castro regime.

One story I found most fascinating was the abandonment of the Cuban anarchists in the 60s by an international anarchist scene that mostly supported the Castro regime and its sly, revolutionary rhetoric. As anarchists were deported, tortured, censored, murdered, and slandered by the government, many anarchists initially fell for the Cuban propaganda and left their comrades to suffer the consequences. The Movimiento Libertario Cubano en el Exilio in particular was slandered by anarchist publications as just another reactionary anti-communist group. These misconceptions abounded until 1976, when Sam Dolgoff published his widely distributed book The Cuban Revolution: A Critical Perspective.

The point is: good books.

In unrelated news, the Quest for Camatte has ended. In a bizarre twist, just when I had given up on the endeavor, Powell's happened to have a copy of the obscure autonomedia book This World We Must Leave waiting on its shelves for me, just in time for my spring break trip home to Portland. Excellent stroke of luck.

No Anarchist Bookfair for Me

I was really excited for this one, especially since, by travelling with the Student Insurgent, it would basically be an all expenses paid trip to San Fran. But the UO Student Senate rejected our request for funding for the trip. So, unless something crazy happens, no bookfair for me. I went last year with my family and Natty, which was awesome, but I feel like I have a greater sense of the sort of books I want to look for this time. Letdown. I guess my quest for Camatte will just continue indefinitely.

Direct Action Panel

Wow...uh...this panel was a tad embarassing for me. It featured four speakers, including former ELF spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh, and it was mostly just inflamed rhetoric. Especially what came out of Craig's mouth. I'll start with him. He basically extolled the idea of a self-sacrificing militant, saying that if one has priveledge within this system, they must renounce it and take any risks necessary to make change. He attempted to reject morality by saying we shouldn't be opposed to violence in some situations, which I agree with. But he in fact didn't reject morality, he turned it around on itself and merely created an anti-morality; his argument was that we have an imperative to do what's right, and that means having no regards for self. We have a moral imperative to be self-sacrifical for the greater good, is his view. He doesn't seem to even recognize the need to transcend this gloomy view. (He also had an emotional, inflammatory style, which I will refrain from making fun of.)

The other speakers were milder, and also had some good things to say, though really basic. Elaine Close, a lady concerned with animal rights issues, talked about how reformist solutions cannot help her cause one bit, and therefore all of her group's actions need to be direct, from making their own media (on indymedia) to actually confronting and stopping animal testing. Stu Sugerman, a lawyer who defends radical activists (and is currently defending Craig Rosebraugh,) talked a little about how the law is not meant to be fair, and had some good personal anecdotes. He's a funny guy. And last, Kim Marks from Cascadia Forrest Defense gave her emotional plea to confront logging and support political prisoners. She was filled with lots of rhetoric as well, but was light-hearted and humorous, too, which made up for it. The questions during Q&A all sucked, then I left.

On the way out of the Law school I stopped at the Green Anarchy table to see if Zerzan had brought some Camatte like he said. He wasn't there, and the lady behind the table said they still didn't have anything by the guy. But she also told me that they will have some stuff by him at their table during the Anarchist Bookfair in San Fran, which I will be going to. Will the Quest For Camatte finally end? We'll see in a couple of weeks...

P.S. The GA folk I have talked to, despite popular belief, are not complete assholes. They all seemed very friendly and open to me. But, of course, I only have brief, superficial experience with them. (Just thought I'd throw that out there.)