Chuck Munson, "webmaster" (emperor) of infoshop.org, is engaged in increasingly heavy handed censorship of opposing anarchist view points on infoshop.org as shown by his censorship of criticisms of the arcticle
Poor, White and Pissed. While the article probably does make some good points about classism within the American left, it also contains some racist & sexist comments.
The article states things like, "Middle class liberals, or affluent conservatives for that matter, are hard put to understand poor white working class culture. ... Consequently we find many books/studies focusing on ethnic minorities, but few credible ones about our defiant native homegrown poor." Poor whites aren't any more "native" than poor blacks. The real native poor are poor Native Americans. This statement is racist because it's essentially erasing the holocaust of Native Americans and pretending that Whites were here from the beginning, that there was no genocide. It is also racist towards blacks, pretending that Whites are more native them they are.
It also states, "To be poor and white is a paradox in America. Whites, especially white males, are supposed to have an advantage they exploit mercilessly. Yet most of the poor people in the United States are white (51%) outnumbering blacks two to one and all other minority poverty groups combined." Whites make up over 75% of the United States' population, yet (if his numbers are accurate) only 51% of poor people. That's a clear racial disparity favoring whites. If your'e white, your'e less likely to be poor than if your'e a person of color. The whole article is permeated with this racist whining "how come we whites don't get no attention or more priviledges."
The sexist aspect is a little less blatant, but is present in the first paragraph. It says, "If you are reading this it is very likely that you are a liberal, maybe even an outright screaming burn down the goddam country commie --in which case I say, “Come sit by me comrade! (Especially if you are a blonde.)" What does that "especially if you are a blonde" bit supposed to mean? It doesn't add anything to his article. It doesn't make his arguement stronger or make the article more interesting or entertaining. Is he objectifying women, desiring "blonde pussy" to be conquered? The answer to that is aparently, yes. Kirsten Anderberg, infoshop.org's most prolific writer, wrote to the author asking what this meant and he responded, "It means I like blonde pussy. Regards, Joe Bageant." This is sexist because it is objectifying women, viewing them as pussy to be conquered instead of people. Mr. Bageant decided to further prove that he's a sexist asshole by sending Kirsten sexist e-mails, basically harassing her in a sexist manner via e-mail.
Now, the article does make a good point that classism, espcially towards poor whites, is prevelant among the American left (especially the more moderate parts of the left). It's not uncommon for liberals to stereotype poor whites as "white trash" "hicks" or other classist nonsense. This is true despite the author's racism & sexism. The author apparently has other messed up views, like patriotism, which is stated in
this interview. Kirsten has also alleged that he isn't really poor, that he's a middle class person pretending to be poor to give his writings credibility and hijack poor peoples' voice. I haven't had a chance to investigate that, so I don't know if it's true.
What I think is more important than anything in the article is the way critics of it were treated on infoshop. Some people made posts in the comments area criticising its sexism & racism. Chuck responded by censoring those comments. The first, by Kirsten Anderberg, was removed and a note left stating it was removed for "politically correct" trollbaiting. "Political correctness" is what racists/sexists cry when someone calls them on their racism/sexism. Later posts, including mine, were simply erased without any kind of notice. They just disappeared. As critical comments kept getting made on the piece, Chuck banned all commenting on the article to insure no one could criticize it.
I posted a complaint about this to the infoshop forum but Chuck deleted it. I also send complaints to the infoshop sustainers list, but he refused to allow them to be posted and booted me from the list. Any criticism of Chuck or his moderation policies is not allowed in any infoshop-affiliated form, they are all censored. Kirsten has attempted to circumvent this censorship by sending out a series of
e-mails, through her own private e-mail list, criticizing Chuck's censorship.
Chuck0 has attempted to justify this by labelling the posts he censored "politically correct" and making personal attacks on Kirsten. He claims that, "Political correctness is a serious problem in activist circles, one that needs to be confronted and discouraged."
Deleting so-called "politically correct" posts isn't contronting them - it's a vain attempt to make them disapear without dealing with them. What it does is encourage anarchist infighting, create resentment and polarize us against each other. It doesn't make whatever your'e trying to suppress go away, it just factionalizes anarchists and insures there will be lots of infighting over it.
Calling something names, like "politically correct," doesn't show that idea to be wrong. There is no such thing as "political correctness" - that's a bullshit term racists/sexists cry whenever their racism/sexism is criticized. Chuck has repeatedly claimed that "political correctness is a serious problem in activist circles" but he's never presented any real proof of it. Sexism is a far worse problem in activist circles. Activist women have been raped by activist men. So-called "political correctness" hasn't caused a single anarchist to be raped or assaulted (which isn't surprising since it doesn't exist). Yet he campaigns against "political correctness" and uses it as an excuse to censor criticisms of an author's sexism. All this ranting about "political correctness" is just a way for him (and others) to rationalize white male priviledge.
Chuck's censorship contradicts infoshop.org's supposed commitment to ecumenical anarchism, of including all forms of anarchism and not promoting specific forms of anarchism over other forms. If your'e censoring "politically correct" anarchism then your'e promoting certain forms of anarchism (non-"politically correct" anarchism aka anarcho-sexism/anarcho-racism) over other forms. Ecumenical anarchism means allowing "politically correct" (ie. anti-racist/anti-sexist) anarchists to promote our views just as he allows anarcho-syndicalists, platformists, primitivists, post-leftists, etc. to promote theirs. It's pretty authoritarian for Chuck to declare what direction the anarchist movement will or will not go and then censor everything that doesn't go in that direction. Apparently the rest of us don't get any say in what direction the anarchist movement will go, Emperor Chuck will decide that for us and if we don't like it he'll censor our posts.
This heavyhanded censorship is authoritarian, sexist and completely unnacceptable. Please send him an e-mail
chuck@mutualaid.org criticizing him for this. If he recieves enough negative feedback from this he might change his mind. I'm also considering trying to organize a boycott of infoshop. It is in the middle of a fundraising drive.
Canada wisely choses not to participate in our Ballistic Missile Defense boondogle and how does our government react? By reducing their sovereignty.
U.S. says Canada relinquishing sovereignty with No to missile shield:
Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace. ... The warning was no slip of the tongue: Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had in effect handed over some of its sovereignty to the United States
Do what we say or we'll take over your airspace! Damn imperialists. Of course, if Canada can have its sovereignty reduced for not obeying the US then it didn't have much sovereignty in the first place.
As Milan Rai Shows in
Whoever You Vote For, Washington Wins the
Iraqi government is a
US puppet government, with or without
elections. Elections in the Soviet Union and its satellite states regularily had high turnout, which
Western media at the time regarded as evidence of
coercion. Yet when a US puppet government has
elections high turnout, and the mere existence of those elections, is regarded as proof of its legitimacy, in contrast to elections held by official enemies.
Racism = prejudice + power
People of Color (POC) making prejudiced remarks about whites are not racist because whites have power, not POC. When whites make prejudiced comments about POC it is racist because Whites have power and POC don't. It's all about your position in the hierarchy. The same applies to class, patriarchy, imperialism and other hierarchies. There's a big difference between a worker making prejudiced comments about the ruling class and the ruling class making prejudiced comments about workers, or between Iraqis making anti-American remarks and Americans making anti-Iraqi remarks. Those in lower levels of the hierarchy are oppressed and are threatened by upper-level bigotry. Not so for those on the top - Americans can invade and oppress Iraqis but not vice versa. Whites have power and POC do not. There's a big difference between the two due to this power difference. Forming POC-only groups is no different from having unions or other groups that only accept workers. Forming white-only groups is like forming boss-only groups.
US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s wasn't a mistake, it was done intentionally. The US government has never claimed it was a mistake or apologized or said they regretted doing it. The US supports lots of dictatorships and has for a long time. The US supports Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbeckistan and many other dictatorships. They have no problem with dictatorships, so long as they're obediant. Saddam just got too disobediant, which is why there was a seige and war to remove him.
Pro-draft is pro-war. Our goal should be to abolish the miltary, not force everyone to join. That will just make the military bigger and, if it lasts, stronger. In real life, the elite are always excluded from the draft even when they officially aren't and that will be the case with this draft (if it comes to pass), too. The idea that the existence of the draft will stop US wars of aggression is false. It didn't work for the gazillion wars the US waged prior to Vietnam, or all the many wars other countries with drafts have waged. The idea that colonial wars can't be fought by drafted armies is a myth. It is the elite that decides to go to war, not the general population.
Capitalist class (bourgeoisie) = in a capitalist society, those rich enough that they don't have to sell their labor to live (Rockefellers, Hiltons, Fords, Waltons, Bill Gates, etc.)
Working class (proletariat) = those who have to sell our labor to survive but whose jobs do not give them the power to hire or fire.
Techno-managerial class: Has power over workers (usually including the power to hire & fire) but they still have to sell their labor to live. Middle management & the like.
Lumpen-proletariat class = unemployed, homeless, etc.
Petty bourgeoisie (small capitalists) = small business owners
Slave class = those who are owned by other humans (masters)
Master class = those who own other humans
There were other classes in the past (like Nobles), but they no longer exist. Individuals who are dependant on someone else for survival (children, etc.) are part of that person's class. Class is economic hierarchy. Of course, class is a social relationship and so there are cases where someone won't fit perfectly into these categories and the boundary lines between classes can sometimes be blurry. In addition, there is usually stratification within each of the classes, some workers have better jobs then others, etc. but most members have similar socio-economic relations to other members and so the generalization is justified. Class is not primarily about education, although education does correlate with class (capitalists get "better" educations than workers, lumpens, etc.).
Most teachers are working class, especially K-12 teachers, but so are cops. The role of teachers is that of enforcer, much like cops. Cops are mostly following orders, too. Except teachers use ideology, instead of violence, and so personality distortions are very different and it's not as nasty a profession.
Site Feed