(10.22) Thoughts on Infoshops / Social Centers (1st draft)

[Don’t be too harsh on me, as I’ve just jotted this down in about 3 hours, which is not enough time to really think everything through, and as I’m not sure I totally agree with all these claims. It is up to you people to help me think about this stuff – if you think I’m wrong then tell me (but cite specifically what I’ve said, no generalities). Criticism with teeth!!

[These notes are written to clear my mind in preparation for an Infoshops meeting tonight. These notes are the most general, i.e. this is about infoshops and all of protest-culture. This is not necessarily about the specific case of my infoshop. That will come afterwards …. ]

Community Centers / Info-Shops can be wonderful / powerful. Based on my experiences in one (and research into others online), it seems that infoshops offer a beautiful axis from which a diverse group of excited, politically-aware, philosophically-passionate people can intermingle, bringing various chemicals that generate a kind of vivid abstract-painting in motion. Infoshops are a kind of long-term anchor for a broad range of anarchist tactics, and a center for staging what many consider a ‘micro-anarchist’ version of the larger project we seek (i.e. an existence free of domination, built on DIY) Such a space can bring in a local community, foot traffic and function as a meeting space for those within its regional parameters.
For the community, infoshops pose themselves as a kind of ‘outreach’ program for those confused, lonely, angry, frustrated and looking for others to rebel with. Many infoshops act as show venues: pulling in a broad range of cultures, scenes and potential-activist with music as the universal language of revolt. Infoshops can make the link of affinity between ‘conscious’ hip-hop / rock’n’roll / punk and activism. With free literature, cheap books, a library, a computer center, free food and drink, music recordings, videos and films, a calendar of events and a surplus of free stuff an infoshop can act as a center for the community.

Of course, there are always the problems: Most infoshops struggle with (or are plagued by) landlords, funding and city zoning permits / licenses every step of the way, yet such struggle (it is believed) is worth the effort. (You have to compromise, right?) It is often much more preferable to actually buy a place, and such an act will be great in the long term (as paying rent simply sucks ass). Keeping volunteers is often a problem too, as staying motivated can be hard. Gentrification is often a problem, and so many infoshops struggle with integrating themselves into the local community (that is, if they don’t fit immediately). Not merely gentrification, but ignorance of class-issues and racism can plague infoshops in particular areas – making it more difficult to work with the local community. This, through hard work and communication, can be tackled. After all that, after these hurdles, just dealing with day-to-day business can be both hard and exhausting (especially when the work falls on a few committed volunteers). This group – despite all of this – can triumph as an anarchist success story. I’ve heard rumors that it has happened …

This is a picture of an infoshop at its best (most infoshops function at a level lower). Such interaction is a ‘clear-pond in the desert’ for those suffocating from the dust of this dominant culture. Thus, infoshops are quite attractive to those who’ve been working in isolation most of their lives. The potential of real friendship is an effective marketing tool for infoshops. I think it does meet this.

Throughout all of this, the potential of real-change lingers near, around every corner, and everyone involved can smell it, taste it, and feel it yet know one can seem to grasp it fully. Even if friendships are formed, the unarticulated question persists: What is this change we’re seeking? What exactly are we trying to do? How do we know if it is working?

Better question: what is the difference between the goals of the info shop and our personal desires / goals?

Even better question: What are the limitations of each?

The former is constrained by its very nature, while the latter is apparently formless, endless, given the nature of the person dreaming and desiring … there is a vivid point lingering here.

Like bones recognizing the limits of flesh, there is a point when, as a member of an info-shop, you recognize the inherent limits of this kind of format, when you see the conflict between your personal desires and the capacities of an info shop as-it-is. What limits?

I propose 3 points that will elucidate this unarticulated persisting sensation. This is the oblique sensation many infoshop volunteers have: that although your doing what you think you should be doing (being with an infoshop) you are not really getting anywhere, not really experiencing what you expected, not really working towards your real desires in an effective and strategic manor .. (SOME MEMBERS DO FEEL THINGS ARE GOING FINE > THIS IS NOT FOR THEM).

I start with the (1) first premise [point] that dominant modes of political action are a general failure – both in leftism, technocratic Greenism, and in general anarchist practices (not all of course, but a lot). A few successes are taken into consideration, but such is (to use a cliché) polishing the brass on the Titanic. Again and again, I feel, we (myself included) fail to recognize the TOTALITY as the enemy (thereby recognizing the extent of work ahead of us). The enemy is not mere racism, capitalism or the state – it is an interdependent system that persists everywhere (and nowhere). To recognize the Totality means to recognize its magnitude / propensity, and the ways in which it is precisely that (a total-ity). This means to recognize the amount of work needed to bring it down. This also means recognizing the strategies that will work and won’t work. I think infoshops can be a general failure in approaching this Totality. This failure stems from the fact that much of current (especially American) anarchism has yet to differentiate itself (tear itself away) from the practices of the 60’s and 70’s: traditional protest, business-as-usual resistance, writing-letters-to-important people, and social-centers, i.e. the peace centers from the Vietnam era (who I think are given too much credit when ignoring the socio-economic / monetary reasons for the end of that invasion).

It is my belief that not only does the Totality not fear such practices as infoshops, protests, or even the occasional riot - the Totality recommends such practices: it keeps us predictable, in a cage, harmless, under surveillance, recuperated, weak, and removed from actually effect. The totality would like for us to act on the given terms for protest.
My belief that the reason for this failure is because such resistance is predicated wholly on the presupposition that those we are dealing with are basically rational (well-meaning and simply-confused in their values or beliefs) and that we can ‘change’ them through discussion or ‘intervention’ (i.e. the naïve Socrates helping a confused young boy, i.e. the profound Buddha helping misguided pedestrians to liberation, i.e. the Father helping the son, i.e. the Libertarian ‘informing us’ on the illegal initiation of the Fed).

In other words, the failure of the left, and of protest-culture as a whole, is the belief that our enemy can be talked to, can be changed or will be affected by our own conviction.

You cannot have a rational discussion with anyone who is motivated by irrational urges and desires. There are options, certainly, but discussion or communication is not one of them. For instance, try having a discussion with a full blown crack head …

Many people will say that it is not just a few people but a majority of people who are simply mistaken. These people, it is said, can be changed if the minority cannot be changed. Such a change would force the minor-elite to change their tactics. They have to right? We, in a sense, pay their bills and own them? It is often said that if we buy enough green-material or stop-buying anything at all we can effect this elite ruling class. The idea is that if things can be changed if we just get the word out there, just talk to them, just get this majority to empathize. This is the belief of a majority of my friends and comrades in real life and online. This is the default position of most protest tactics.

In short, to re-state my premise, it is that the failure of general protest culture stems from the belief that we are dealing with either a rational minority who can be changed (think of Ghandi sending a letter to Hitler asking him to change) – or – the belief that if this minority cannot be changed the rest of the majority can be changed, thereby forcing the minority to be changed (think of the silly beliefs of these arrogant Liberals who spend money on these ‘change the world’ campaigns).

Please keep in mind that I do know a lot of anarchists are causing an effect on their local communities, even if it is a minor one. These anarchists, however, are not disillusioned: they settle for this effect and I respect them for their clarity (and HARD work). Perhaps my infoshop had the same goal? This is certainly not implied by its actions. (and if so I’m not interested in it). This, however, is written for those big-dreaming anarchists who really want a large-scale effect as I do more than most anything … I’m interested in a group of people who are not interested in community-charity (guised as really really ‘free-market or whatever), and we are not interested in simply offering computers to community members (in exchange for what? Respect?), and are not interested in a mere show-venue (I do think such show-space could be powerful as it is the medium of the dominant culture as a whole, i.e. just waiting for the right creativity to turn it into something large).

My (2) second premise [point] is that anarchists have either underestimated the enemy (underestimated its intelligence and awareness / ability to recuperate) or have failed to see that we are dealing with irrational / psychopathic people – both the majority of people as well as these controlling minorities.

In other words, as Einstein said, we can’t keep repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. This risks oversimplification, but certainly gets to the marrow: we are not dealing with sane people or a sane culture. We are dealing with psychopaths and victims of traumatization. This means we’ve got to accept when we’ve failed and move on.

We are dealing with people whose identity, comfort and sense of well being is dependent on the very system we oppose. Thus, I think there are limitations to the idea that we can cause a community change either through an info shop or through any other appendage: food not bombs, really really free market et cetera.

The biggest reason I don’t think we’re going to convince the majority of people to change their way of living is not merely that their irrational – but they are not even willing to have the discussion. They are not even willing to ADMIT the problems that exist in the form that they exist (i.e. massive ecological destruction bordering on a complete collapse of the eco-system; i.e. massive social-alienation, class division and a general state of depression with 99% of people (or even the dominant racism that STILL exists just as much or perhaps more than in the early 20th century); i.e. potential world-war III and the potential death of most everyone). If we cannot have a discussion with these facts in mind how can we expect anyone to change?
My (3) third premise is a combination of the first, second and a conclusion that follows from it. This conclusion is my premise in moving forward as an anarchist in a potentially magnificent social-relationship with the rest of you. This premise is:
(3a) There must be a new dialogue / conversation amongst anarchists and this conversation must begin with the recognition of the failure of mainstream anarchist actions. This discussion must also recognize (3b) the state of the crisis our world is in without blinking or lying to ourselves; (3c) must see the extent to which the Totality has sunk its teeth into every aspect of our lives.

Our fight must begin on that level – not from some abstract realm or aloof naivety about ‘change.’
We must reconsider the situation as coldly and blankly as we can. (What is it that we want / must do?) We must know our enemy. (who is it exactly that we’re fighting?) We must not underestimate it or naively confuse it with a person gone astray whom we can ‘save.’ The enemy is a totality that lives on our suffering. We must not pretend that obsolete social-practices will have the effect we really desire. From this knowledge of the enemy (the Totality) we must reconstruct our actions.
This new premise in our conversation, I think, would force us out of our comfort zone. Infoshops, I think, allow one the illusion that they are having an effect on the social community surrounding them. Infoshops give the satisfaction of actually having something – at the expanse of not really doing anything.

We should, however, not ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’: I think we can still preserve what social relationships we have, that minor affinity glowing weakly in our hearts. We should hold onto our friendships and our optimism.

Tentative Conclusion:

Although they function well as a means of linking together otherwise disparate people within a region and cultural-code, acting as an axis for the desire to build affinity and potential resistance, the apparent ‘success’ of infoshops (and all protest-culture) should not be mistaken for being a genuine resistance against the Totality (let alone a real threat). The failure of infoshops does not arise from any kind of laziness or failure to organize (many members work VERY hard) – the failure arises from the very nature of infoshops themselves and the very nature of who/what were opposing.

One should not be dismayed or frustrated, but rather, one should be re-thinking and re-organizing their activities within a new paradigm, a new way of thinking about resistance itself.

This is, in short, a call to re-think and re-organize our activities so as to posit a general threat to the system.
Having an infoshop is not out of the question – it is the place of an infoshop within our actions that must be reconsidered.

There is nothing stopping us from using the infoshop as a “over-ground” venture that would somehow be linked with “underground” activities, whatever that might be ;-)


Of course, making dramatic claims forces me to make equally large claims about what I think we should/ought to do … that will be the subject of my next post …