The following is a letter addressing a problem that I have with parts of the anarchist movement. In a sense, I am trying to sort out some thoughts of my own by engaging in dialogue with you, because I respect your work and have read the paper sporadically for a few years.
The problem is this: The basic opposition of anarchists to Marxists and vice-versa. I am coming from years of activity within the Israeli Communist Party, most of that time without actually buying the whole program. In other words, I have remained on the CP path for what I consider to be pragmatic, logical reasons, and not because I am ready or able to defend every aspect of Stalinist history. I used to think that this made me a minority within the communist or revolutionary socialist tradition, but that may not be true anymore.
I find that I am more comfortable with organizations that have recognized leaders and hierarchies, because the kind of leaders that don't have official recognition can't be officially replaced either. I like to have a say by voting, without always having to agree with the majority, or forcing the minority to agree with me. As long as the group agrees to work together while tolerating disagreements, it is good, honest political practice. I also find that most anarchist groups have as many rules, explicit and implicit as the various left grouplets in this country. The uniforms may be different, but the lack of openness and tolerance feels the same. The Marxist left does seem to be more successful at retaining members past the time when they have children. Why do you think that is?
In a perfect world the boundaries between red and black would be permeable, with groups across the spectrum recognizing the possibility of change over time, and understanding that dogmatism and holier-than-thou attitudes tend to defeat the purpose. As a revolutionary, I am trying to change the world so that it suits me better. By convincing anarchists that ideological pedigrees are less important that practice, and labels least important of all, maybe I'll be able to find a home for myself, politically. I hope you have figured out that if I am approaching the Love and Rage Network, it is because I think you will be more receptive to such as myself than the left groups I am familiar with.
A few years ago, the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Israel, Meir Vilner, called for my expulsion from the CPI because, according to him, I was an anarchist. In fact, I had merely called for using the tactics of direct action while speaking at a congress of the Young Communist League. He did not succeed, thankfully. It amuses me to joke about the day when an anarchist group I belong to decides to expel me because I have suggested something akin to democratic centralism, a sure sign of Stalinism. As a whole, I suspect that anarchists would be far less tolerant of me than my CP is back in Israel. In the words of Rodney King, can't we all get along?
Respectfully yours,
Joe Cohen
Dear Love and Rage,
Noel Ignatiev's attempt to defend his claim that white women can expect "that the state will protect them from strangers" demands a response. Noel replies to the evidence of the experience of "white" women on the Love and Rage Production Group to the contrary by asserting that by their apparent refusal "to be the property of any man" they have placed themselves beyond the shield of whiteness.
The main problem with Noel's argument is really a simple matter of fact: women who in no way place themselves "beyond the shield of whiteness" cannot expect that the state will protect them from strangers unless by "strangers" Noel means Black men. In that case Noel is correct in noting that such protection is extended not out of concern for women but in order to protect the property of white men, but then it is white men and not white women who have an expectation of protection.
White women (like all women) can expect to be treated like the collective property of men (including strangers) without any expectation of protection by the state. Women are routinely menaced and harassed by strange men on the streets with impunity. And in a thousand ways (in conversations, in the mass media, in all manner of social customs) men assert their control over women. In the ultimate expression of male power, rape, women usually have no effective recourse through the state. In those instances in which the state does act a white woman who has been raped can expect that in the defense of the property rights of white men she will be put through a legal process that often reproduces much of the humiliation and degradation of the initial act of rape.
I think that it is the way that Noel conflates the defense of white women as the property of white men with a benefit to white women (the expectation of protection) that is so infuriating. Noel is right to say that patriarchy is decisively shaped by white supremacy, but he needs to also see how white supremacy is shaped by patriarchy. The power of contemporary white supremacy has its roots in the historical ownership of human beings by other human beings. The power of patriarchy is rooted in the continuing ownership of human beings by other human beings.
Clearly the state treats white women and black women differently and in many instances those differences constitute privileges for white women. But sexual violence as a central part of the apparatus of social control is not just about upholding whiteness. It is first and foremost about upholding the subordinate social position of women.
Noel claims that "statistics show that the safest thing to be in this country is a white woman." The crucial term here is "thing." White women are safe only if we exclude the vast majority of violence that is done to them by men who claim ownership over them (fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, bosses...). That violence of course is highly underrepresented in any statistics precisely because women know that they can't expect to be protected by the state. These statistics also exclude the millions of times women capitulate to men (to have sex, to do the dishes, to do what he wants) who have not even threatened violence because those women know that it lurks just beneath the surface of the situation.
Noel argues that by refusing male control rebellious women (like the women on the Production Group) are locating themselves outside of whiteness. By attempting to define acts of resistance to the patriarchy through the solitary lens of race treason Noel is effectively erasing the feminist content of those acts. The emerging theory and practice of race treason will be better served by a respectful analysis of the full range of resistance to the full range of forms of domination than by trying to drag every expression of revolt or refusal under the umbrella of treason to whiteness.
Love and Kisses,
Christopher Day
Please consider extending to me your helping hand of solidarity with a request for donations where you reside? If you do not have the time for such a project I understand. Maybe you could get out the word to various anarchist/revolutionary organizations, collectives, etc., in my behalf? Rather than having support letters or donations sent to Brooklyn ABC care of Dan Sabater, it would save time and an unnecessary duplication of mailing to have support letters sent to me directly at my prison address below with any donations of funds for my legal defense sent directly to the following address:
Harold H. Thompson Legal Defense FundSupport letters mailed to me:
Harold H. Thompson #93992Ms. Pippin has decided to list my name on her postal box for receipt of defense funds.
She has further indicated her willingness to maintain proper case of my legal defense funds and to perform all necessary tasks associated with locating/hiring a competently performing attorney to work to free me from my chains, free me from these unjust convictions that rightfully should never have taken place in the first place as they are based on sensationalist publicity-seeking by prosecutors for political reasons, not justice. 16 years inside prison is more than mere punishment.
Even though I actively aid other prisoners with their legal problems, my own cases are far different as the vindictive prosecution team was careful to follow procedures to try to ensure that I would die of old age in prison, condemned to prison designed to destroy me mentally or wreck my health completely, or with hope during my prison terms I would be murdered because of my open anarchist politics, my chosen politics clearly abrasive to prisoncratic authority over working class prisoners.
Harold H. Thompson, 1-18-95