Criticism and Analysis of the Political Statement of the George Jackson Brigade from the Anarchist Angle

POINT OF VEIW. - OURS.

Over the last decade a great amount of change has swept the country and the consequences of these changes are with us today. But the nature of change (The original concept of chaos) is such that we realise that the "concrete facts" today are only the dust motes of tomorrow.

As anarchists, we are concerned with all things that threaten the free will of all people. We are interested in the health of our children, the safety of our families, and the welfare of ourselves and our friends. We are the people who decide for themselves our destiny and accept no man or systen as our nastor.

In the following pages wo have attested to put into words our feelings in regards to revolution and concerning, specifically, the Political Statement of the George Jackson Brigade. (Nov. '77.)

We presume that there will be elements from all classes in society that disagree with something in our dissertation. It appears also that some points will be accepted and some rejected, possibly oven some ignored. This is entirely up to the reader. We do not ask you to accept our claims on face value alone. We expect that, like all intelligent and interested people, you will weigh the points printed here, research further the subjects contained, and reach reasonable conclusions on your own. After all, wether you are a revolutionary, an apolitical worker, or a member of the ruling class, the revolution, whether you admit it or not, concerns you. You are already involved.

Some of the areas of discussion will contain two or more slightly different outlooks. Since we, as anarchists, are very prone to safeguarding our individuality, we do indeed have differences of opinion. We have found, however, that these differences do not in any way shape or form get in the way of our working together or enjoying the gift of life. These differences enhance our work and lives each day.

Some of us are anarchists because we are political. Some of us are anarchists because we are not political. Some of us are religious, some are not. But if there was a God or force that wo could all acknowledge at once, it would be chaos, the ancient divinity governing the eternal law of change. Not the earth destroying soul soaring holocaust that some portray chaos to be, but the unending play of universal growth throughout the cosmos. A seed does not become a tree until it sheds its shell. Likewise a human being cannot hope to realise his full potential unless he is allowed to grow as these universal laws dictate. If one nan forces another into a mold that man is not meant to fill, the loss belongs to all of us.

IN THE BEGINNING.

We can see by this opening statement(aacepting the oulogy to Bruce Seidal as a dedication.) that the origins of the George Jackson Brigade lie in the theories of communism. From the start they operated on the principles and examples of this theory of a society "ruled by the working class." To prove their liberality they recite a roll call of activities and structure - * 5Qe women...at least half the women are lesbians...Leadership and decision making cones from the women...50% of the planning and participation ...women."

Who cares? Ar* v* fightlag a revolution or or accepting nononatione for "Man of the year* ? Does it natter what sex a fighter is? Does it natter what sexual preference ho or she enjoys? We are engaged in a revolution. Revolution is a fight to tho death for life, freedom, and recognition of our ooanon husanity. In a tino of revolution it natters very little whether you are anan or a wonan, what colour your skin is or who or what you go to bed with. These observations by tho Brigade are irrelevant, useless, detract from the nission of disseninating propaganda(as the Statement is said to be), and a cheap pat on their own backs. However, in all fairness, sone of us fool that this is not tho attitude or idea the Brigade is trying to express here. These people fool that the idea being presented hero is that all people have tho potential to be revolutionaries* but that this is overlooked by mazy others because of their own prejudices. If this is indeed the case, wo hope that further communications will be nore specific. A********** POOTS 0? UNITY. As a neans of cementing solidarity among it's nonpars, the 8 Points of Unity is not a bad grouping of ideas. Wo oannot find too nuoh fault with nost of the points. However, there is an area or two that oauses us to wonder just tho tiniest bit if naybe we are being fed a line of crap. Poni 4 claims that the foundation of class society is soxisn. There is no explanation given for such a line of reasoning. Try as we night, we couldn't find one either. Thore is no basis for such a slain. In the early days of social order the primary concern was survival. There was not enough roon in the group for idiooy such as sexism, racism, or anything also that would hamper the fight for survival. Society had a need to reach a higher level of developenent before this foolishness could spring forth. Soxisn is an offshoot of the old idea of wonen as chattels, (property.) As property has no individualism or importance outside of it's uses to tho owner, wonen wore simply "to be considered as neans to increase the wealth of the husband/owner. Homosexuality, since it does not increase tho property, in the guiso of children, has boon condemned by Church and State in nost civilisations used as examples in today's social studies classes. Onoe again the concept of ownership raises its head. Citi sens throughout history have been regarded by the State as property. Points 4 and 5 further claim that soxisn and racism are najot tools of ruling class oppression. Good point. The old devideand conquer rule still works in these days of nodern technology. Call us continental if you like, but thia brand of D and C shows that good old fashioned techniques can still work their old nagic today. . The only real problem here is the general accusation nade against each and every human being on the face of the Earth ..."(racism,soxisn) must bo smashed in each one of us." It would appear that tho Brigade feels that everyone is a bigot. Tho fault in this line of thinking is the attitude that frames the thought. It should be obvious to all of us that not everyone is suffering from those delusions. Sone of us are not sexist, sone are not racist. Thanks,but no thanks. Each person is free to pick and choose their own brand of guilt. Dont pedal your personal problems and rationalise them in this manner. We aint buying it. THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. This STATEMENT refers to "the dictatorship of tho proletariat" several times. It is defined as the belief in a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It revolves around the belief that it is the people who know what the people want. Thus far tho definition is true. Difficulty arises when tho terns "dictatorship" and "proletariat" are defined. Lets look at these words a moment. WEBSTER'S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY(Collins World, 1977) states that"proletariat" means: (1) the class of lowest status in ancient Roman society. (2) the class of lowest status in any society or community.(rare) (J) the working class{especially the industrial working classjthe current sense,as in Marxism.

We oan dispense with the first two as the Brigade claims Marxist tendencies. We will accept(once) their definition of thenselves. "Dictatorship is defined by the sane source, as :

1. the position or office of a dictator;

2. the term of dictator’s office; J. a dictatorial government ; a state ruled a dictator;

4. absolute power or authority. We oan again ignore definitions 1 and 2 since they deal with an office or length of tine. That leaves us with J or 4 - both of which are in harnony in modern social order. Therefore, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is simply: "A dictatorial government of absolute authority resting in the hands of the industrial working class." It appears that since not all people are ndustrial workers, this definition would result in one of two things. A new breed of oppressors or a new Monocracy" - the oppression of the minority. Oppression is oppression, no setter who is doing it. Why trade old chains for new? Albert Jay Nook, in OUR ENEMY THE STATE, shows the illogio of this social order. "A proletarian State would nerely, like the merchant-State shift the incident of exploitation, and there is no historical ground for thepresumption that a collectivist State would be in any essential respect unlike its predecessors; as wo are beginning to see, "the Russian experiment* has amounted to the erection of a highly-centralised bureacratic State upon the ruins of another, leaving the entire apparatus of exploitation intact and ready for use." On the other hand, if wo accept the idea that this would result in everyone being able to reap the benifits of a new social order without new chains, we are all for it. Surprise, surprise, the only system that operates on those terms is Anarchy. Isn't that what we all want - self rule? If we road the whole STATEMENT we find such gems as : "...many honest revolutionaries do not yet recognise their responsibility to support the armed struggle.” Responsibility is ACCEPTED by the individual; it cannot be forced upon him. Tot the M-L's would force it upon all. • ..their responsibilty to provide leadership..." Not only would they have you believe that responsibility oan be forced on those that dont want it, but they would also force the concept of leadership down our throats . Leaders are recognised by the people. That is the determination of leadership. If we must, as the communists claim, wait on the will of the peojblr, then we must wait untill the people decide who they will be led by. If we force them to accept a leadership they do not want, then we oeoome the enemy. One of the prime examples of a leader who was not accepted at the time he attorn ted to lead was Che Cuevarra. In his last campaign he was Anable to raise much support because the people would not accept him as a leader in a revolution they didn't accept. He was alone, out off from proper supply lines, and ultimately killed. Perhaps if he had waited for the people to ask for help he would be alive today. THE LEFT. We move on now to the attitudes of the loft as defined by the Brigade and we shall then see a great mass of contradiction, undeserved innuendo, and more commands given us by the Brigade. "Por the most part, the organised loft in Seattle has ignored us. Our experience with them has led us to become somewhat cynical about them , so their behaviour hasn't bothered us too much At the me ti-e> „ recognise the important contributions made by those few independant segments of the left, and the ordinary people, who have supported us " By approaching this statement from all angles and studying it in all it's aspects, it appears that they want to hear from you, you poor ordinary peo le, as long as you agree with them If you dont, you're shirking your responsibility. That makes you, the ordinary people, part of the problem* That makes you, the ordinary people, the enemy. That makes you, the ordinary people expendable. , It also displays an attitude of superiority felt by our gracious lords and leaders. If we, or anyone, are ordinary people

then there oust be somewhere some extraordinary people. Bead that "superior" people. WHO ARE THEY? Ask the communists. It should be apparent by this tine that they will gladly "recognise their responsibilities” and lead us on the path to true enlightenment. We can hoar the rattle of those chains again. After all this they would have you believe that they are interested in your ideas and opinions! They urge you to state your oritloisns so that they can improve their taotios and expand their goals. But if we "dont accept our responsibilities", er if wo are just "ordinary people", they dont want to hoar it. They sake their own decisions. They want to sake ours. At the sane tine it appears to ns contradictory to state that they want to hoar from you and oontinue to contend that you cannot be trusted! If there s no oontradiotion here, contradictions do not exist at all. WEATHER At the risk of sounding like ones who deal in oliohes, everyone talks about the weather, but nobody doos anything about it. Wo have all seen the rise and fall of our favourite group of "nad bombers" and the Woathor Underground Organisation has boon counted among them. Back when everyone else was talking about revolution, they ACTED. They scared hell out of the ruling . class long before it was"fashionablo"to do so. Wo fool that some of the criticise levelled against them is unfair. Dope dealing, for instance. (When wo speak of dope hero and later, let it be understood that we do not condone the sale or use of addictive drugs, but that wo are speaking of pleasure producing herbs with uses in medical, philosophical, aad/or religious areas) While it is true that dealing itself may not bo a revolutionary activity, it supports the wishes of a largo segment of the population and is therefore an act of rebellion. Tho money made by dealing can then bo used by the rebels to arm themselves and aquire other much needed supplies. * Since a person can got loss time in prison and mot take the same chances of capture as can be suffered in b nk robberies and/or kidnapping, it is also a safer activity to engage in. Since tho prevailing attitude among revolutionaries is that fitting and drugs dont mlx(and since the police know this), it can bo used as a cover by the revolutionary. A somewhat dubious cover to bo sure, but quite satisfactory under certain conditions. Additionally, wo must support the Brigade's stand on "turning yourself in to tho police as revolutionary tactics." While the theory of Jamming tho machinery of government with our bodies is sound but in actual fact tho sheer numbers needed to do this are unavailable. In addition, there is the consideration that we, by acting in this manner, are throwing ourselves on tho mercy of what we claim is a corrupt system. If we acknowledge that tho system is corrupt, how can wo trust it to deal fairly with us? If we acknowledge the impossibility Af fairness, why should we trust ourselves to beat - the system in its own legal network? As for the point raised about tho lack of quality loadership in the WTO, wo believe that that should be loft to the discretion of the WOO. If its member's fool that the current leadership is not doing its Job properly , then it is up to them to replace It with Ano they feel will do the Job. If we boliovo in the Kight of tho people to chooso their own destinies, then we must believe in their right to accept the leadership and organisation they see fit to represent thorn. - - ♦♦•♦♦.♦* . THE POLICE This brings us to a subject near and dear to the hearts of us all. Wo all have our own pet attitudes and stories about police oppression, and most of us feel tho world would bo a bettor place to live in without our over present police State. But as far as we know, the George Jackson Brigade is the first group to approach the problem in such depth. While it true that tho Black Panthers talked about tho situation,, their main solution was to keep them out of the neighborhood. The Brigade claims, however, that the”polioe have no objective interest in maintaining capitalism, and they are not the enemy" But tho police do profit directly from the system. They are, in the Brigade's own words, "...the most visabio and oppressive arm of the ruling classes...." Without the ruling olass •- police would be out of work. They draw their pay, and hence their means of survival, from

5. the lyitn. They Mood the same things that we need in order to survive. Therefore,without their pay they would be denied those nooossitios. So because they rely on the system for their pay, they suit be loyal to the system. As to the idea that they "...are themselves exploited workers..." , It should bo pointed out that the police are not drafted, nor are thoy forced to sign any binding papers contracting then to the State* They join of their own free will and they are able to quit and seek omplyment elsewhere at any tine. Wo nay conclude then, that if they are indeed exploited, it is because they wish to be. This destroys the concept of exploitation. WhU. it 1. tru. that Mfty of th. polio, turn to 4ru«., boo.., \„^ oth„ f0M of ,.u 4..truotion.„- it 1. dually tru. by all the laws of Modern psychology that these are sorely systems of a personality in conflict with itself. Those contradictions can be resolved however, and good mental health can be achieved, if the policeman himself faces the problems honestly. No one else can do it for him. If he becomes in solf destructive patterns of behaviour, then he has made that oholoo himself and must live and/or die by it. And it is true that the police must bo made to see the role thoy play in supporting the ruling class. But it must bo remembered while wo are "enlightening" them, that many are totally aware of the gravity of their position and support it wholeheartedly. We are dealing with a loaded gun pointed directly at our heads. It is extremely hard to argue logically and convincingly with that gun. We find then, that the Brigade has a preetty decent knowledge of the police except for one or two points. There is also tho additional point that while many of us theorise quite a bit, tho brigade has faced tho oneny on the streets and fought them. This speaks well for both them and the future of the revolution. ♦♦•♦♦*•♦** #•♦♦•♦♦♦♦•♦ TEBB0EI3M, "Terror is a tactic.....to strike fear in tho minds of their enemies...." That is tho Brigade's definition of it. Straight to tho point and roughly accurate. Somewhere along tho line a misconception camo up. Tho idea that "Terrorism results from the capitalistic sickness(os) of individualism ..." is false. Individualism 18 neither a sickness or a result of capitalism. The capitalists might talk big about tho right of a person to bo an individual, but in actual practise they deny this right to anyone but themselves. Even among themselves there are strict rules of behaviour that dictate just how far one may go in practising it. The only ones who actively pursue Individualism aro the Kgoists and other types of anarchists. The fundamental concepts of • anarchism aro Individualism and related ideas. In The IGO AND ITS OWN. Max Sterner presented tho idea. All other anatchist theories revolve around this basic concept, that the individual has the right to dictate his own life. The attack on terrorism that begins:"Terrorism is an extremely easy tactic to use...." gives the impression that a terrorist is some sort of irrational idiot who roams the world looking for places to play boogie man. Recent history shows us that the average run-of-the-mill terrorist^ ##11 equipped to handle various situations and his goals and tactics are effective in quite a number of oases. As for principles, we aro sure that many of the groups operating under a terrorist "jacket" have high ideals and unyeilding principles. They do hold themselves responsible for their actions and thoy regard themselves as responsible for their people. It seoms that the whole area of terrorism is condemned by the Brigade untill wo read the fine print at the bottom of this particular section. Then there appears to be a contradiction. If terrorism is wrong because of the reasons given, then this wrong is an absolute value and cannot be changed. Therefore the Palestinians, to use the Brigade’s example, would be

tong to employ thio teohnigue. On th. other hand, if survival 1# • rational, for using terrorism, than .ach individual is entitled to the sane right of use. It can further be claimed that the capitalists have the right ♦© M^age in the Sametactics since we, neuters of the revolution, threaten their existence. Ye believe that misdirected acts are a danger and a symptom(sometimes) f irresponsibility, but we recognise the right of all the people to use whatever weapons are available to then. Terror, properly used, is one of the best psychological weapons in any arsenal. Lot us not diaarn the people. Lastly, va feei that the definition given by the Brigade is somewhat innacurate. Further, it plays right into the hands pf the ruling class, propaganda nachine. This weakens our position and hurts us all. Ye hope that sinilar instances do not happen in the future. STRATEGY Ah, y.s. The neat of any revolution is the way we enploy ourselves. How oan wo hope to argue against these points brought up in th. George Jackson Brigade's STATEMENT ? Recognising reality as it appears to us, wo find there really isn't too much that oan bo said against the Brigade in this section. The problems they .noountered face all of us at one -> tiae or another and must be overcome. Those people seen to have aeooaplished quite a lot in the area of strategy and wo thank then for it. point 2. The ENLARGBMENT OP THE STRUGGLE. - brings up the point of various ferns of unity. On the face of it, both taotios are reasoabl. and quite effective. At the sane tine the problems of both are readily apparent. Rather than discussing them again at length and criticising then, wo offer the solution of doing both. By enlarging the six. of our groups wo increase the roach of our operations. Y. oan acoonplish nor. because of our greater strength. Our different areas of work (armed struggle, security , intelligence, etc.) become easier because our resources are increased . Ye are then liable to suffer from the handicaps of increased siSe . Security nust tighten up. Ye nust b. a^M^B* •♦“AM^gfl# with each other, yet remain invisable while doing it. But the tactic is good and nust bo accomplished if wo are to survive as a capable fighting force. point J. - Developement of a Rural Base - is self evident. Ye need a base with security that no "safe house" can provide. Ye need a |1m« for til before anJ after our actions. Many brothers and sisters have been lost because of the lack of this typo of environment. The only area of disagreement we find is: "Ye are anxious to work with/dovelope organisational ties with/talk with/whatever with - all these progressive people. Yhoovor oan agree with our oight points of unity." This sounds awefully close to the "fuck you - hurray for ne* syndrono. However, since we are not completely sure of the exact meaning of this particular section of the Statement , wo cannot offer Anything on this subject at this time. Thor. . maybe a thought we are missing or mis-roading, so we eagerly wait to be enlightened on this point. At bhis time wo would like to mention that many times it has appeared to us and our associates that the Loft has a comnunications problem. Ye urge all engaged in revolution to please state clearly everything you communicate. Our cloudiness will be used by Mr. Man to disrupt our functions and weaken our position. ••«• .*»•»»»*** TACTICS. Again, we find very little to criticise. These taotios have been around since the begining of time and will remain the sane no matter how many years pass or wars are fought. However, we fail to seo how the George Jackson Brigade oan take their stand that the masses must be followed as intepretod by the aboveground Left when they have already condemned them for being indifferent, passive, or antagonistic. On tactical principles ^ #eem to disagree again, but it is only a difference of opinion perhaps. Propaganda (which enoludos counter-propaganda.) is as important as work that has a solid, readily apparent material effect.

They are so interrelated that to place one above the other is ridiculous. What good are the actions if the people dent know about thoa or the reasons behinf then? Propaganda without a cause is useless, but the work without advertising is equally self-defeating. Both are needed to continue the fight. point 5 states that the Brigade will sake a positive effort to surrender if taken by surprise by a superior , force, and they rationalise this stand on the basis of the SLA nassaore and the absence of a need for acre crispy critturs in the revolution. Again, the difference is perhaps one of opinion. The oircunstanoes inherent to each situation and the attitudes of the various individuals involved dictate the course of action to be taken at any particular tine. To sake a flat statement such as this aeons to us to weaken the position of tho revolutionaries Baking it. By weakening our positions we weaken tho whole revolution. Point 6 is good except for subpoint "A" - that any contradiction between security and action suit be resolved in favour of action. Again, circumstances dictate the importance of the different concepts. Many of us in Anarchist Black Dragon Collective have been in the field covered in point 7 • Again, wo agree. It is shit - work and it is important. At times it can be as dangerous as armed work. A revolutionary io « revolutionary-no matter what job he does and is therefore as much an enemy of the State as any combatant. Tho State will handle him as such, too. Point 8 is a paradox we are sure is apparent to all. Tho area you know is the area that knows you. That is a danger that we all face from time to time. As of this moment , tho jury is still out about whether to operate in another group’s area and roly on their intelligence apparatus, or to do all your own work in your own backyard. Many of us feel that this is the instance when the concept of federation is strongest. Share tho work. Live in LA work in Phoenix, live in Albuquerque, work in Chicago etc. THE MAIN POINT IS TO GET TH? WORK DONE. «*£•******••«• CHRONOLOGY.

This section is certainly interesting. Considering tho onstaclos to overcome in some areas of the oases, and the supposed security in some of the areas of action, it shows a rough guideline on how to accomplish goals set by a fighting unit. However, tho one part that interests us most is September 18, 1975 - the bombing of tho Capitol Kill Safeway Store. To quote the George Jackson Brigade: "Our bomb caused minor injuries to several customers. This action was wrong because we brought violence and terror to a poor neigborhood, and we have thoroughly criti ised ourselves and changed our practise." While it is wonderful that or itioism was administered and accepted by them, the real issue has not been settled. At least it has not been mentioned hero in the STATEMETfr ; an error of oversight perhaps? Under tactics wo do find a statement of 4 main political principles, number 1 of which roads: "Take nothing from the people; destroy NOTHING belonging to the people - ’not so much as a thread'. In the event anyone other than the ruling class or its Sate loses anything as a result of a guerilla attack, they must bo reimbursed immediately and fully. Were these people reimbursed? The Statement loaves tho question unanswered. Perhaps they were and the record does not show this because of an oversight. In that case we can only remind the Brigade and all others involved in similar activities to PLEASE contain all information possible in their communiques. A "blank spot" such as this can be used by tho State for their propaganda with tho same ease as solid evidence of action. At times inaction can be as harmful as action. On the other hand, perhaps these injured people were not reimbursed. In that case criticism becomes an empty ritual - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." But tho record is silent. We are not told. MUST WE GUESS??? m*i*HHmvt*Hi«H« ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN. (Before w e go into the main pel ts of this part ofTET^ITSrENT, we would like to make one thing clear as possible. That 1. that .. do not know, by th. word, of thia ..otion, .hat 1. ..ant by th. t.m "Antl-authorltarlan-. inarohl.ta ar.

anti-authoritarian. Criminals ara anti-authoritarian. Some religious soots are anti-authoritarian, if you discount Theocracy). What are these members of the Brigade? It is obvious that they are NOT anarchists. Tho M-L's olein that the A-A's are anarchists, but tho A-As nover onoo uso the tores Anarchists, anarchy or anarchism. They never identify themselves politically.) Tho A-As speak of tho "transition period fron oapitalisa to oommunisa". Why? Most anarchists have either a blazing hatred or a very low tolerance for Coasuniss. Sven the Anarcho-Comaunists are more orientated to Anarchy than Coamunisa. Anarchists work for the implementation of Anarchy, not the Communist State* It is time that some feel we must pass through a Communist phase before we finally settle into a classless and free one, but the g< 1 still remains Anarchy NOT Communism. They quote from a section of the SLA coamtnique no. 5 that reads, in part: "...l6. To destroy all forms and institutions of.. Individualism..." Surely this speaks for itself. No seif respecting and well informed Anarchist would be against Individually the very foundation of Anarchist theory. As we stated earlier, there is a false "individualisa" practised by the ruling class, but it is so in name only and should not be confused with the real thing. Prim what we can see, these self-proclaimed anti-authoritarians are nothing more than communists trying to hide behind a facade of "liberality" in posing as Anarchists. They obviously do mot know anything about Anarchy and only enjoy the romantic glow connected with the movement. They should at least study their material. A conman is only as good as his con and his abilty to carry it off. #♦•••♦•♦••♦♦••••••♦•♦••♦ MARXIST-LENINIST. Wight from the top the M-L's claim to be working for a "classless, stateless society". Tet their intentions become almost immediately obvios as they further state: "...the State will continue to exist....And a revolution cannot immediately to away with class society, it can only replace one ruling class with another..." They speak again of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", but as we have seen, these words are either a contradiction or the promise of a stronger master. And when they claim they do not want members of the party to have any power in Governmer the contradiction is so apparent that it amazes us they would ernes attempt to ignore it. If the party is not to have the power, then how can they trust those that do have the power? They want a strong state, a centralist state, a power weilding State at the end of a revolution so they oan "guarantee" the "dictatorship of the proletariat". BULLSHIT mill! Was Lenin proletariat? Was Trotsky? Or Stalin? If the Communists are so interested in letting the people run the show, how come they never let the people do it? As to their contention that "Anarchism is grounded in the ideology of the Capitalists....", this only points out how little they know about anarchy. If this is true, then why are we imprisoned and killed by these same capitalists? Why are we fighting them if they are the same as us? If what they say was true, there would be no Anarchists in the revolution. They attack the isea of federation, laughing at us and calling it nothing. Later they seem to reconsider and say,"Ies, maybe we can use it for awhile. It is weak, but it could be useful." They olaiB it ia a nemessaxy evil. Let's look at the idea of federation for a minute or two. It is true that federations are weaker that a centralist organisation. That is one of the main reasons that Anarchists support them. The weaker the system is, of course, the easier it is to topple. But because of the non-centralist construction, only a peice of the whole structure falls. While it wi 1 not guarantee safety from a ooup, it would be better than a stronger, more powerful machine being run by the new masters. Albert Nook states in the first chapter of OUR INEMY THE STATE : "It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the powerit has is whatsociety gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which the State power can be drawn.

Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or leisure, leaves society with so such less power) there is

never , nor oan be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.”

Xt follows then, that the stronger the people are, the weaker the government will be. The weaker the government, the less ohanoe of the people Buffering froa it. Therefore the weaker the government is, the sore free the people are. freedom is safeguarded by the lack of authority and not by the overabundance of it. Ah, but the communists want a strong centralist government, according to their STATEMENT. They say that this is the only way to guarantee freedom. "We will protect you, we will make the laws for you, we will fight for you. All you have to do is work’ How wonderfully considerate they are! See how much they oare! They will do all these marvelous things for us and nil we have to do is work little fannies off to reverently serve their gallant efforts. By supporting them we are supporting the State that is going to do all these marvelous things for us. If the State does the fighting for us we dont need to fight. So we dont need guns. The State will keep them "for us". If any criminal has a gun to use against us(and by their laws, wy civilian with a gun is a criminal), they will see that he is removed untill he is "reeducated." ALL WE HAVE TO DC S SU PORT THEM i

This is begining to sound like we won the revolution only to replace one blodd-crazed lion with another. Is this why we fought the damn thing in the first place? Federation guards against this. Won-centralised autonomous groups are harder to overpower. Ono falls and the rest are alerted. In a strong centralist structure there is only one way to regroup once the peioes fall. Then they try to blind us with foolish questions. The examples of the Black Flag Tractor factory and the Red Star locomotive company point out the conniving minds of the communists. What they are saying is: "We won the revolution. Now we lost it. Boo-hoo. Now what?" Simple enough. FIGHT ANOTHER DAMNED REVOLUTION. Since these groups aro exploiting the people they have become the enemy. Our job is obvious, and since they are non-centralised, they are weaker than the former oppressors. Fight. Richardo Flores Magon, in his book LAND AND LIBERTY, states: "No one oan foretell the lengths to which the impending 5«valution's task of recovery will go; but, if we fighters undertake in good faith the helping it as far as possible along the road) if,when we pick up the Winchester, we go forth decided not to elevate to power another master but to reddens the proletariat's rights; if we take the field pledged to conquer that economic liberty which is the foundation on which all liberties rest, and the condition without which no leberties oan exist; if we make this our purpose, we shall start it on a road worthy of this epoch. But if we are carried away by the desire for easy triumph; if, seeking to make the struggle shorter, we desert our own radicalism and aims, so incompatible with those of the purely bourgeois and conservative parties then we shall have done only the work of the bandits and assassins; for the blood spilled will serve merely to increase the power of the bourgeoisie and the caste that today possesses wealth, and after the triumph, that caste will fasten anew on the proletariat's own blood, its own sacrifices, its own martyrdom, .which will have conquered power for the bourgeoisie The comment is made that Anakchism is not new. So what? Is "new" better? Does "old" mean bad? Think about it. The communists would also have you believe that the people do not know what they want. They say that each of us must strive to overcome our own personal feelings to "serve" the people. "The people" are individual units, each holding personal beliefs. If we all submerge our personal beliefs there will be no "will of the people". This is simply a ploy bj these manipulators of "the people". They further define their goals as a"classless, stateless society". If this is true, then why is there such a division in Communist countries and Communist organisations between "the people" and the power mongers? Why do they claim that a classics society cannot be achieved through revelution, and at the same time they urge us all to overthrow our present social order to acheive one.?

The (Mt question# can be asked about their attitudes to the Sate. The answers to both questions are the same and they are obvious as hell. They want the revel ution to succeed so that they way grab the reins of power (government) of a strong unit (centralist) and work for "the people(dictatorship.) They will do what they oan to help and uerve"the people" - as long as they are "the people" being served. How on to the final oontradiotion that we wish to cover in this critique. "Marxist-Leninism is a SCIENCE that analyses realityas it exists, and which CHANGES as historical reality changes. Marxlstn- Lfmlniam is the otMHfl analysis of concrete conditions, " There is such an obvious contradiction here that it is surprising it wasn't caught earlier. They first speak of change and then define change as a "concrete condition" governed by concrete laws - ND WAY. Change MIGHT be defined as a concrete condition if we accept the idea that the only condition of existence is change. Then, and only then, could it be so. Static is a aore correct term than concrete. History shows that changing societies continue, static ones die. W society changes constantly, we may assume that the laws governing society must also change constantly. Since by scientific analysis it would take some time to determine and implemet them, they would, or vexy well could be, obsolete. There are no "concrete conditions" that dictate change. Change, by its very nature, is a flaid condition and must be observed as such. Any concerted effortby a ImU ^M$ to guM# the human race along a single path is doomed to failure from the start. An exercise of this nature can only MODIFY existing conditions and result in either a greater or more violent change. ’Nuff said. This whole section of the STATEMENT by the Brigade, is contradictory and/or smothered in,sugar coated BULLSHIT. When one anlyses it, the sugar coating dissapears in the clear air of reason and the smelly concoction inside is revealed. People who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses. The communists, in the final analysis, show themselves in their true colours. They are nothing but a bunch of self-serving opportunists who wish only to replace the present bureaucratic structure with their own. They do not wish to replace or eliminate the police, military, or industrial machinery. They plan only to replace the old masters, and keep the existing structure intact. They will thus become the new masters. We are fighting a revelution now to rid ourselves of people who operate under the same corporate-type machinery as the communists. If we want the same type of structure after the revelution as we have now, why should we fight and die to replace it in the first place? Freedom is too presciouati five away once we have gained it. Why let those in power, new or old, set up newer and stronger chains than the ones we have just cast off? If the system is the same, it will suffer the same ills as the old one. The wosderful sounding phrases of the Communists are thus exposed to sham. These opportunist# will attempt to run the revelution at every opportunity. As long as they fight and die for the people they serve the people, but History shows us that they seise the reins of power immediately after the revelution by the same methods they employed to siexe the revolution end its fighting units. As long as they fight and diy, the people are sreved by them. But if they fight and live the revolution is only half completed. An enemy that is obvious is vulnerable . An enemy that succeeds in deluding us with fine sounding wo ds is - threat until it is recognised and defeated. It is a greater threat than the first because it stalks us decieves us as to it's intentions and is secretive as to it's full purpose. The communists are, therefore, a far greater threat to us than the present system. ONE LAST WORD. We may, as lovers of freedom, fight beside the communist from time to time, but we will never allow them behind us. *

Marxist-Leninist are Bolsheviks. Just after the Russian Revelution the Bolshevists changed their name to Communist usd accepted Marxism (as interpreted by Lenixfrotsky and Company.) as their theory. They have been attempting to practise it ever since. It is our opinion that Marxism-Leninism is a gross distortion of Marxist thought leading only to State Capitalism under Toatalatarian rule. That it is a higher form of Fascism disguised in revolutionary rhetoric playing with "We-iam".

11. The proof of thia lies in it’s own theory and praotiae, which History haa recorded well. In that History one will also find that the communists have imprisoned, exiled, and killed wore Anarchists than any Capitalist State has to date.,.,.,,. IN CONCLUSION.

We hope that this criticism and analysis of tho POLITICAL STATEMENT of the GEORGE JACKSON BRIGADE haa served to enlighten you on several points. These are:

1. That the Brigade haa served the people well in west instances.

2. They have taught us much we need to know; J, That all of us are merely human and thus prone to make mistakes;

4. That we must keep a watch on ourselves as well so that we do not lose the revolution before it's won.

We think that this analysis is precise and correct. We feel that there are some points that we did not cover, but we also feel that the ones covered are the main points to be considered. •••♦•.♦♦•♦•♦•#•♦•.•»♦♦♦•♦♦•♦♦»♦♦•♦»..

Please feel free to oomment on and criticise this statement. If we are proven wrong, we will be most happy to learn and correct our mistakes and miscoBoaptions. U.K. address: Kreinds of Doug Wakefield, 14,Warren Road, Leyton, London E 10. Those in Amerikkka can write through any Anarchist Blaok Dragon address.

In tho future we hope to oompile our own STATEMENT. This will be submitted to the people to explain our hopes, goals, and dreams. It will open to criticism by any and all. We hope that you, the people, will pay as much close attention to it as the RBI and local police do. If wo, the people, are the revolution, then we know two things. One, that revolution is not a spectator sport, but requires the combined efforts of everyone to succeed. Two, that if we all do not become involved, our efforts are nothing and the revolution will fail.

THE POWER OF MIR PEOPLE LIES IN THE PEOPLE, NOT IN THEIR SOCIAL STRUCTURES. love and rage, A.B.D. Collective. Walla Walla.