textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001165.txt

From: habermas@iserver.onyx-pharm.com

Dear (Dis)Connection Issue #2 staff  (especially Sprite):

	I read issue #1 a few days ago and thought it was REALLY REALLY good. 
Rarely do I read something cover to cover, but I read this one all the way
through.  I was glad to see a note up in the Infoshop saying the article
deadline had been extended until Oct. 20.  I was going to make a
submission.  But then I ended writing this whole long thing, and it doesn't
look like I'll have time to write anything.  Maybe I try to do a short
"scene report" about the Long Haul Infoshop at the end of this letter, in
case you don't have one from someone else in the collective.

	I noticed that there was nothing from "our" Infoshop in issue #1 (that is,
from the Long Haul/Infoshop in Berkeley.)  Maybe that is because we are all
too busy or whatever.  Only a few of us were able to go to the gathering. 
Reading the zine really made me want to travel around, see some of the
other projects and meet other folks.  Unfortunately, real life kind of has
me trapped with full time work and school (not to mention the Infoshop) for
a while.  I am hoping I can find some time to travel after I finish school
this next summer.  

	If Sprite is reading this, check out the article I wrote for Slingshot
issue #52 on page 8 called "What Now? Why we need a vision and a
contribution to the discussion."  I was really surprised that we seemed to
have a lot of similar ideas on "the problem" despite distance, different
scenes, experiences, etc.  If you ask me, this is the single most important
thing to talk about right now.  How many of us have been activists for
YEARS and have seen nothing really happen, and in fact have the sinking
feeling that nothing IS happening, expect things getting worse with the
rise of the right?  We can put in all the long hours we want, donate all
our time and energy, but if we don't have any idea of a plan or where we
are trying to go in a large, "Long Haul" sense, we are just moving for the
sense of motion.  

	Having said that, I have a few comments and constructive criticism of your
article going to overall tactics.

1.  On page 2, column 2 you state that we are in danger of being "put
alongside wishy washy leftists and liberals."  I agree that is the danger
and that neither group (especially the liberals) have any vision at all. 
(The leftists, at least some of the older ones and most of the ideological
ones, have a vision but it is some variant of a strict Marxist vision which
just isn't going anywhere.  Their problem is too much vision--they allow
their ideology to control how they interpret facts in the world, rather
than trying to always shape and reshape an idea of "what to do" based on
the facts in the world.)  

	The problem with this kind of statement and this kind of idea is that it
further limits and isolates us as a movement.  We need to somehow think of
ways to change liberals and leftists around to our way of seeing the world
(once we know what it is, of course) instead of seeing them as just more
people who are "part of the problem."  In order to do anything more than
political masturbation (and I'm not against masturbation as such) we
somehow need to build a movement beyond a few dozen people in each city,
into a movement that involves MILLIONS of people.  Some of those millions
might be white punkish 20 somethings; the rest are going to have to be
"normal folks" or anyone we can get.  We need to avoid the temptation to
create artificial divisions between us and other people in the society
unless such a division is absolutely necessary.  Most leftists and a lot of
liberals are a hell of a lot closer to holding the kind of ideas we might
hold, and being willing to put their lives on the line to move them
forward, than a lot of other people in the society I can think of.  I guess
I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I really think we need to be
positive, put forward our own plan that will be irresistible to leftists,
liberals and normal folks and that will clearly be way better than
capitalism/the status quo, etc.  If we have a good plan--a direction to
move in--a lot of folks will WANT to support it if we don't exclude them
from the get-go.

2.  I really like what you say about "thinking realistically."  I hear way
too much kind of idealistic talk that people should know is just slogans. 
We have all learned how hard it is to actually do even simple things (like
keeping an Infoshop open.)  And yet I still hear people talk casually about
"revolution" all the time.  This word does mean something but we are pretty
far from it.  We might not always be, but thinking realistically means
realizing you can't go from here to there just with language.  If we can
organize 20 Infoshops nationally, that is a pretty impressive start and
shows that when we work together and hard, we can actually DO something. 
Realism to me is starting from step one and going through all 100 steps
until you reach something of really drastic change, not just in frustration
skipping the steps because they are too big to comprehend.

3.  Counter-institutions IS the way to go, I think.  Both to keep ourselves
alive now, to provide a model for the future, to learn and sharpen our
ideas of how to actually run things, etc. 

4.  I really agree with the point made in the 3rd full paragraph on the
left column of page 24.  Our Infoshop, I think at least, has never really
discussed this stuff because of fear of internal conflict.  I LOVE and work
well with a lot of the other folks that make up our cluster of collectives,
but I know we have serious internal disagreements.  Just about the only
time I've ever seen debates actually come out into the open is during
Slingshot production, when we have to make really final decisions based on
ideas:  does it go in or not.  The Infoshop, by contrast, found we had a
hard enough time deciding what color to paint the room and what kind of
"look" we wanted.  We just couldn't deal with more division after these
early debates.  Those debates did touch people's vision and politics, I
thought at the time, but it was kind of safe.  

	The divisions are sometimes tied to lifestyle (paying rent vs. squatting,
having jobs vs. unemployment, personal rebellion vs. trying to appeal to
"normals.")  We have had debates about violence:  whether it is a good
tactic now, what it does, etc.  The emphasis to put on issues of race comes
up a lot and especially how we ought to deal with this whole issue.  
	
	The fact is, even though these discussions are "dangerous" and risk
splitting us up some, I think we really should have them.  Maybe it is good
that we have learned to work together, so that that will provide a "glue"
to keep us working together even when we discover that our politics differ.
 But even if it does cause a split, we need to have the discussions because
we can't really go forward unless we work something out and move in one
direction.

5.  I just re-read your specific thoughts on pages 24 and 25 and I pretty
much agree with them.  Actually I agree more than I expected to agree.  I
think the way you deal with the race question is ideal:  we network,
support, provide solidarity, try to work with and work on our own shit.  As
a practical matter, this seems a lot better than just complaining "oh,
there aren't any _____ people here at this meeting.  Oh boy, we're so
guilty."  We need to want to work with other people but if it doesn't
happen right away, that might just be because people of color are working
on developing alternatives in their own communities and for them,
revolution is NOT working with a bunch of white leftists.  This is one of
the hardest issues we have.  I personally think we need to try to work on
campaigns with self-organized colonized groups, and we should also continue
working on campaigns that seem important to us that may not apply to those
other activists, or at least not in obvious ways just at first.  We need to
avoid either/or guilt decisions.  A good start would be making sure we know
the non-white organizations that are doing radical work.

	Clearly Infoshops are just the most simple, preliminary type of
"counter-institution."  The real fun starts when we start "fulfilling
people's needs" in a dramatically different way.  There is a question of
how much we are going to get involved with the current society in order to
make these alternatives, and that is a crucial question.  For instance,
buying land in a way is the most traditional thing we can do, confirming
property relations and contributing our money to the oppressive machine
society.  On the other hand, if we really want to build an alternative that
lasts, squatting a factory, say, might not really be an effective strategy
over the "Long Haul."  These are the hard decisions and I hope we are able
to make them rather than running from them.  In my opinion, what may in the
short term seem "pure" may be unrealistic and self-defeating in terms of
really making alternatives work in the long term.  

	6.  If you want to add a good reading to your list of readings, add
"Getting By With a Little Help from our Friends" By Barbara and Al Haber. 
I think that is the title.  I haven't read if for a while but I remember
thinking it was highly relevant to some of these discussions.  It is also
good to have perspectives from past major activists.  

SEE ATTACHED MESSAGE #2 FOR THE SCENE REPORT--THEY WOULDN'T FIT IN 1 EMAIL
MESSAGE





from the cyberdecks of:
     * * *    
   *       *           AUTONOMOUS ZONE INFOSHOP
 *    /\     *         street: 2045 W. North Ave., CHILL 60647 U$A
*    /__\ Z   *        mail: Box 420, 1573 N. Milwaukee, CHILL 60622 U$A
 *  /    \   *         phone: 312-278-0775, fax: 312-252-8269
   *       *           matrix: thak@midway.uchicago.edu
     * * *            
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"